Joe
Biden & Kerry in the limelight & under the microscope
5.0 out of 5 stars
Joe
Biden & Kerry in the limelight & under the microscope
Reviewed in the United States on March 21, 2018
Verified Purchase
So disappointed to read about Joe Biden's ( previously always depicted as appealing
"average Joe" with lots of human compassion ) complicity via his son Hunter's mega global enrichment
And shame on Kerry! He had already married the Ketchup heiress & did NOT need to increase his greed via off spring
All so troubling!
I simply could NOT finish reading the book. The content is so devastating revealing the greed, the unbelievable abuse of
our trust in our elected officials & hard earned tax dollars.
We almost need a revolution to clean out the filth!
>
5.0 out of 5 stars
HUGELY
important book!
Reviewed in the United States on March 20, 2018
This was my most anticipated book of the year, so I bought the audio version at the
earliest possible moment and listened to it eagerly. It completely delivers on its promise, exposing potential new
political self-dealing scandals.
Previously, Schweizer's "Clinton Cash" book contributed to Hillary Clinton's election loss. This new book could be the
death knell for Joe Biden's presidential hopes, as it reveals how his son, Hunter Biden, benefited from the former Vice
President's dealings with foreign countries. Schweizer is evenhanded, though, targeting politicians from both parties.
Mitch McConnell could easily become the target of an ethics investigation based on this book's suggestion that McConnell
has taken official acts that benefit his Chinese in-laws financially.
The book reveals a kind of self-dealing that I had not considered before by suggesting that Obama (1) used regulations
in the education and energy sectors to depress the prices of certain stocks (e.g., the University of Phoenix and fossil
fuel companies), at which time friends of Barack, including George Soros, bought the stocks and then (2) eased pressure,
allowing the stocks to rebound and enriching anyone who invested at the stocks' low points.
For any reader who worries about the mainstream media's failure to investigate the financial dealings of Obama and other
politicians, this book is a partial remedy. Highly recommended!
>
5.0 out of 5 stars
Follow
the money!
Reviewed in the United States on March 20, 2018
Verified Purchase
I don't understand why none of the "offshore corruption" described in this book is
EVER covered in ANY news, and this includes some historical corruption and convictions mentioned in the book that I
somehow never heard about. The author is fair and covers corruption on both sides of the aisle. Before reading this
book, I couldn't understand why folks suspect President Trump of nefarious financial swindling, but now I do because it
seems to be EVERYWHERE in our government. President Trump didn't come in broke and steal money, and I don't suspect him,
but the author warns of booby traps he must avoid. By the way, Schweitzer's previous book, CLINTON CASH, opened my eyes
and I wish it was required reading.
Systemic corruption and the implosion of the social contract have consequences: It's called
collapse.
Social and economic decay is so glacial that only those few who remember an earlier
set-point are equipped to even notice the decline. That's the position we find ourselves in
today.
Many Americans will discount the systemic corruption that characterizes the American way of
life because they've known nothing but systemic corruption. They've habituated to it because
they have no memory of a time when looting wasn't legalized and maximizing self-enrichment by
any means available wasn't the unwritten law of the land.
If you don't yet see America as little more than an intertwined collection of skims, scams,
frauds, embezzlements, lies, gaming-the-system, obfuscation of risk and exploitation of the
masses by insiders, please read
How Corruption is Becoming America's Operating System . (nakedcapitalism.com, via Cheryl
A.)
Simply put, corruption is cost-free in America because most of it is legal. And whatever is
still illegal is never applied to the elites and insiders, except (as per Communist regime
corruption) for a rare show trial where an example is made of an egregious fall-guy (think
Bernie Madoff: whistleblowers' repeated attempts to expose the fraud to regulators were blown
off for years. It was only when Madoff ripped off wealthy and powerful insiders did he go
down.)
There are three primary sources for the complete systemic corruption of America. One is the
transition from civic responsibility for the social contract and the national interest to
winner-take-most legalized looting .
This transition is visible in the history of empires in the final stage of collapse. The
assumption underlying the social order slides from a shared duty to the nation and fellow
citizens to an obsession with evading civic duties: military service, taxes, and following the
rules are all avoided by insiders and elites, and this moral/social rot then corrupts the
entire social order as elites and insiders lean ever more heavily on the remaining productive
class to pay the taxes and provide the military muscle to defend their wealth.
That corruption is now everywhere in America is obvious to all but those adamantly blinded
by denial. The JP Morgans pay fines as a cost of doing corrupt business , while "public
servants" game the system to maximize their pensions with a variety of tricks: colluding to
boost the overtime of the retiring insider; finding a quack physican to sign off on a fake
"heart murmur" so the insider pays no taxes on their "disability" check, and so on in an
endless parade of lies, scams, skims and insider tricks .
The excuse is always the same: everybody does it. This is of course the collapse not just of
the social contract but of morality in general: anything goes and winners take most . Insiders
look the other way lest their own skims and scams be contested, and elites and insiders view
those who aren't skimming and scamming as chumps to be pitied.
The second dynamic is that financialization has completely corrupted the American economy,
and that corruption has now spread to the political and social orders. Once the financial
sector conquered the real economy, it began siphoning 95% of the economy's wealth to the top
.01% and their toadies, lackeys, apologists, enforcers and technocrats.
As they hollowed out the real economy, distorted incentives and made moral hazard the
guiding principle of the American way of life, the recipients of financialization's domination
gained the wealth to buy political power from the pathetically corruptible political class.
The corruption that we call financialization corrupted democracy and undermined the social
contract by eviscerating the value of labor and creating a pay-to-play political order that's a
mockery of democracy .
The third factor is the decay of America's institutions into fronts for personal gain .
While Higher Education insiders are masters of self-serving PR, the truth is they're not
concerned about their debt-serf "customers" (students) learning the essential skills needed in
the tumultuous decades ahead--they're worried that the revenues needed to pay their enormous
salaries and benefits might dry up.
"Education" is nothing but a front for the corruption of self-enrichment by the elites and
insiders at the top.
The same is true of "healthcare." The concern of insiders isn't the declining health of
America's populace, it's the decline in revenues as fewer "customers" come in for the financial
scalping of emergency care.
"Healthcare" is nothing but a front for the corruption of self-enrichment by the elites and
insiders at the top.
Thanks to the Federal Reserve's endless free money for financiers and endless federal
borrow-and-blow deficits, the unstated belief is since there's endless "money", my petty frauds
and skims won't even dent the feeding trough --there's always another trillion or three to skim
and scam, and there will never be any limit to the feeding trough.
There is no limit until the system implodes. Then the collapse becomes limitless
Ironic, isn't it? The oh-so convenient belief that America's wealth and power are eternal
and godlike in their glory fosters the crass corruption that has weakened America to the point
of no return: systemic fragility and brittleness.
American Exceptionalism has been turned on its head: America is now as perniciously corrupt
as any developing-world nation we smugly felt so superior to, and with extremes of wealth and
income inequality that surpass even the most rapacious kleptocracies. This destabilizing
"exceptionalism" is now the defining characteristic of the American economy, society and
political order.
Systemic corruption and the implosion of the social contract have consequences: It's called
collapse, baby, and the rot is now too deep to reverse.
* * *
My recent books:
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
As Putin has said, the US is no longer agreement capable. As b. outlines. the US
elites no longer follow the rule of law. This is even true within the US. The US inherited
the role formerly played by the British Empire after WW2.
The national security apparatus of both the US and the Soviet Union kept the Cold War
going. Notice how soon after JFK was assassinated Khrushchev was deposed. Gorbachev rightly
stopped the Soviets superpower regime. As Dmitri Orlov points out - Empire hollowed out the
Soviet Union and he sees it doing the same to the US.
Instead of bringing Russia into the Western liberal democracies (with the threat of
major nuclear war now drastically reduced) the now Anglo-Zionist Empire just looted it.
The life expectancy of Russians fell 7 years in a decade until rescued by Putin.
It can now be seen that the Nixon-Kissinger opening up to China was not to gain access to
its large market potential but to gain access to hundreds of millions of cheap, disciplined,
and educated workers. The elites starting in the 70s became greedier. Jet travel,electronic
communication, and computers allowed the outsourcing of manufacture.
The spread of air conditioning allowed even the too hot south to be a location. First in
the US as the factories began their march through the non union southern states onto Mexico.
Management from the north could now live in air conditioned houses, drive air conditioned
cars and work in air conditioned offices.
The 70s oil inflation led to stagnation as the unionized labor were powerful enough to get
cost of living raises. With the globalization of labor union power in the US has been
destroyed. As Eric X Li points out China's one party rule actually changes policies easier
than the Western democracies.
So China's government hasn't joined in with the West in just creating wealth for the top
1% and debt for the real economy.
As b. pointed out, the Anglo Zionist policies created the mutual benefit partnership of
Russia and China. The Chinese belt and road initiative appears to be intent on creating a
large trading zone that could benefit those involved. The US is just using sanctions and the
military to turn sovereign functioning countries that don't go along with it into failed
states and their infrastructure turned to rubble
US Attorney John Durham is investigating how the FBI handled their investigation of bribery
and pay-to-play allegations against the Clinton Foundation .
Notably, former FBI Director James Comey's family
supported Clinton in the 2016 US election, while the wife of his #2, Andrew McCabe,
received roughly
$700,000 from Clinton allies in her failed bid for Virginia state office - all while the
FBI was handling the Clinton Foundation investigation.
In a Thursday report by the New
York Times that mounts a robust, editorialized defense of Clintonworld ('Durham's probe is
politically charged' - 'Durham is chasing down conspiracy theories,' etc) - we learn that
Durham has sought documents and interviews about how the FBI handled allegations of political
corruption at the Clinton Foundation .
Recall that nothing ever came of revelations that the Hillary Clinton-led State Department
authorized $151 billion in Pentagon-brokered deals to 16 countries that donated to the Clinton
Foundation - a 145% increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame
during the Bush administration, according to
IBTimes .
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton
was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking
engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion
worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department
between 2009 and 2012. -
IBTimes
Then there was that $1 million check Qatar reportedly gave
Bill Clinton for his birthday in 2012, which the charity confirmed it
accepted . Coincidentally, we're sure, Qatar was one of the countries which gained State
Department clearance to buy US weapons while Clinton was Secretary of State, "even as the
department signaled them out of a range of alleged ills," according to IBTimes.
Then there was $145 million donated to
the Foundation from parties linked to the Uranium One deal prior to its approval through a
rubber-stamp committee .
"The committee almost never met, and when it deliberated it was usually at a fairly low
bureaucratic level," Richard Perle said. Perle, who has worked for the Reagan, Clinton and
both Bush administrations added, " I think it's a bit of a joke. " –
CBS
The Clinton Foundation, meanwhile, told the NY Times that it "has regularly been subjected
to baseless, politically motivated allegations, and time after time these allegations have been
proven false."
Oddly, however, donations to the foundation plummeted
90% after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election - which would be odd if it wasn't a
pay-for-play enterprise.
The Clinton Foundation operated as a foreign agent 'early in its life' and 'throughout it's
existence' and did not operate as a 501c3 charitable foundation as required, and is not
entitled to its status as a nonprofit, alleged two highly qualified forensic investigators,
accompanied by three other investigators, said in explosive testimony Thursday to the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
...
Doyle and Moynihan have amassed 6,000 documents in their nearly two-year investigation
through their private firm MDA Analytics LLC. The documents were turned over more than a year
and a half ago to the IRS, according to John Solomon, who first published the report last week
in
The Hill.
" The investigation clearly demonstrates that the foundation was not a charitable
organization per se, but in point of fact was a closely held family partnership ," said
Doyle, who formerly worked on Wall Street and has been involved with finance for the last ten
years conducting investigations.
"As such it was governed in a fashion in which it sought in large measure to advance the
personal interests of its principals as detailed within the financial analysis of this
submission and further confirmed within the supporting documentation and evidence
section."
Will Durham's inquiry into the FBI's handling of the Clinton Foundation result in anything?
If recent history is any indicator, don't hold your breath.
A very good article. A better title would be "How neoliberalism collapsed" Any religious doctrine sonner or later collased
under the weight of corruption of its prisets and unrealistic assumptions about the society. Neoliberalism in no expection as in
heart it is secular religion based on deification of markets.
He does not discuss the role of Harvard Mafiosi in destruction of Russian (and other xUSSR republics) economy in 1990th, mass
looting, empowerment of people (with pensioners experiencing WWII level of starvation) and creation of mafia capitalism on post
Soviet state. But the point he made about the process are right. Yeltsin mafia, like Yeltsin himself, were the product of USA and
GB machinations
Notable quotes:
"... If the US (and the UK, if as usual we tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world. ..."
"... One of the most malign effects of western victory in 1989-91 was to drown out or marginalise criticism of what was already a deeply flawed western social and economic model. In the competition with the USSR, it was above all the visible superiority of the western model that eventually destroyed Soviet communism from within. ..."
"... These beliefs interacted to produce a dominant atmosphere of "there is no alternative," which made it impossible and often in effect forbidden to conduct a proper public debate on the merits of the big western presumptions, policies or plans of the era ..."
"... This was a sentiment I encountered again and again (if not often so frankly expressed) in western establishment institutions in that era: in economic journals if it was suggested that rapid privatisation in the former USSR would lead to massive corruption, social resentment and political reaction; in security circles, if anyone dared to question the logic of Nato expansion ..."
"... Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history. This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media ..."
"... By claiming for the US the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world and denying other major powers a greater role in their regions, this strategy essentially extended the Monroe Doctrine (which effectively defined the "western hemisphere" as the US sphere of influence) to the entire planet: an ambition greater than that of any previous power. The British Empire at its height knew that it could never intervene unilaterally on the continent of Europe or in Central America. The most megalomaniac of European rulers understood that other great powers with influence in their own areas of the world would always exist. ..."
"... "A stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values" ..."
"... Many liberals gave the impression of complete indifference to the resulting immiseration of the Russian population in these years. At a meeting of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington that I attended later, former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar boasted to an applauding US audience of how he had destroyed the Russian military industrial complex. The fact that this also destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians was not mentioned. ..."
"... This attitude was fed by contempt on the part of the educated classes of Moscow and St Petersburg for ordinary Russians, who were dubbed Homo Sovieticus and treated as an inferior species whose loathsome culture was preventing the liberal elites from taking their rightful place among the "civilised" nations of the west. This frame of mind was reminiscent of the traditional attitude of white elites in Latin America towards the Indio and Mestizo majorities in their countries. ..."
"... I vividly remember one Russian liberal journalist state his desire to fire machine guns into crowds of elderly Russians who joined Communist demonstrations to protest about the collapse of their pensions. The response of the western journalists present was that this was perhaps a little bit excessive, but to be excused since the basic sentiment was correct. ..."
"... If the post-Cold War world order was a form of US imperialism, it now looks like an empire in which rot in the over-extended periphery has spread to the core. The economic and social patterns of 1990s Russia and Ukraine have come back to haunt the west, though so far thank God in milder form. The massive looting of Russian state property and the systematic evasion of taxes by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs was only possible with the help of western banks, which transferred the proceeds to the west and the Caribbean. This crime was euphemised in the western discourse (naturally including the Economist ) as "capital flight." ..."
"... The indifference of Russian elites to the suffering of the Russian population has found a milder echo in the neglect of former industrial regions across Britain, Western Europe and the US that did so much to produce the votes for Brexit, for Trump and for populist nationalist parties in Europe. The catastrophic plunge in Russian male life expectancy in the 1990s has found its echo in the unprecedented decline in white working-class male life expectancy in the US. ..."
"... Perhaps the greatest lesson of the period after the last Cold War is that in the end, a stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values. ..."
"... Those analysing the connection between Russia and Trump's administration have looked in the wrong place. The explanation of Trump's success is not that Putin somehow mesmerised American voters in 2016. It is that populations abandoned by their elites are liable to extreme political responses; and that societies whose economic elites have turned ethics into a joke should not be surprised if their political leaders too become scoundrels. ..."
A s the US prepares to plunge into a new cold war with China in which its chances do not
look good, it's an appropriate time to examine how we went so badly wrong after "victory" in
the last Cold War. Looking back 30 years from the grim perspective of 2020, it is a challenge
even for those who were adults at the time to remember just how triumphant the west appeared in
the wake of the collapse of Soviet communism and the break-up of the USSR itself.
Today, of the rich fruits promised by that great victory, only wretched fragments remain.
The much-vaunted "peace dividend," savings from military spending, was squandered. The
opportunity to use the resources freed up to spread prosperity and deal with urgent social
problems was wasted, and -- even worse -- the US military budget is today higher than ever.
Attempts to mitigate the apocalyptic threat of climate change have fallen far short of what the
scientific consensus deems to be urgently necessary. The chance to solve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and stabilise the Middle East was thrown away even before 9/11 and
the disastrous US response. The lauded "new world order" of international harmony and
co-operation -- heralded by the elder George Bush after the first Gulf War -- is a tragic joke.
Britain's European dream has been destroyed, and geopolitical stability on the European
continent has been lost due chiefly to new and mostly unnecessary tension with Moscow. The one
previously solid-seeming achievement, the democratisation of Eastern Europe, is looking
questionable, as Poland and Hungary (see Samira Shackle, p20) sink into semi-authoritarian
nationalism.
Russia after the Cold War was a shambles and today it remains a weak economy with a limited
role on the world stage, concerned mainly with retaining some of its traditional areas of
influence. China is a vastly more formidable competitor. If the US (and the UK, if as usual we
tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of
arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which
western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and
endangering the world.
One of the most malign effects of western victory in 1989-91 was to drown out or marginalise
criticism of what was already a deeply flawed western social and economic model. In the
competition with the USSR, it was above all the visible superiority of the western model that
eventually destroyed Soviet communism from within. Today, the superiority of the western model
to the Chinese model is not nearly so evident to most of the world's population; and it is on
successful western domestic reform that victory in the competition with China will depend.
Hubris
Western triumph and western failure were deeply intertwined. The very completeness of the
western victory both obscured its nature and legitimised all the western policies of the day,
including ones that had nothing to do with the victory over the USSR, and some that proved
utterly disastrous.
As Alexander Zevin has written of the house journal of Anglo-American elites, the
revolutions in Eastern Europe "turbocharged the neoliberal dynamic at the Economist ,
and seemed to stamp it with an almost providential seal." In retrospect, the magazine's 1990s
covers have a tragicomic appearance, reflecting a degree of faith in the rightness and
righteousness of neoliberal capitalism more appropriate to a religious cult.
These beliefs interacted to produce a dominant atmosphere of "there is no alternative,"
which made it impossible and often in effect forbidden to conduct a proper public debate on the
merits of the big western presumptions, policies or plans of the era. As a German official told
me when I expressed some doubt about the wisdom of rapid EU enlargement, "In my ministry we are
not even allowed to think about that."
This was a sentiment I encountered again and again (if not often so frankly expressed) in
western establishment institutions in that era: in economic journals if it was suggested that
rapid privatisation in the former USSR would lead to massive corruption, social resentment and
political reaction; in security circles, if anyone dared to question the logic of Nato
expansion; and almost anywhere if it was pointed out that the looting of former Soviet
republics was being assiduously encouraged and profited from by western banks, and regarded
with benign indifference by western governments.
The atmosphere of the time is (nowadays notoriously) summed up in Francis Fukuyama's The
End of History , which essentially predicted that western liberal capitalist democracy
would now be the only valid and successful economic and political model for all time. In fact,
what victory in the Cold War ended was not history but the study of history by western
elites.
"The US claiming the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world was an
ambition greater than that of any previous power"
A curious feature of 1990s capitalist utopian thought was that it misunderstood the
essential nature of capitalism, as revealed by its real (as opposed to faith-based) history.
One is tempted to say that Fukuyama should have paid more attention to Karl Marx and a famous
passage in The Communist Manifesto :
"The bourgeoisie [ie capitalism] cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the
instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole
relations of society All fixed, fast-frozen relations with their train of ancient and venerable
prejudices and opinions, are swept away; all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can
ossify the bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market drawn from under the
feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old established national industries
have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed "
Then again, Marx himself made exactly the same mistake in his portrayal of a permanent
socialist utopia after the overthrow of capitalism. The point is that utopias, being perfect,
are unchanging, whereas continuous and radical change, driven by technological development, is
at the heart of capitalism -- and, according to Marx, of the whole course of human history. Of
course, those who believed in a permanently successful US "Goldilocks economy" -- not too hot,
and not too cold -- also managed to forget 300 years of periodic capitalist economic
crises.
Though much mocked at the time, Fukuyama's vision came to dominate western thinking. This
was summed up in the universally employed but absurd phrases "Getting to Denmark" (as if Russia
and China were ever going to resemble Denmark) and "The path to democracy and the free
market" (my italics), which became the mantra of the new and lucrative academic-bureaucratic
field of "transitionology." Absurd, because the merest glance at modern history reveals
multiple different "paths" to -- and away from -- democracy and capitalism, not to mention
myriad routes that have veered towards one at the same time as swerving away from the
other.
Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American
geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history.
This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in
April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media. Its central message was:
"The US must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds
the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or
pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests We must maintain the
mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global
role "
By claiming for the US the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world and
denying other major powers a greater role in their regions, this strategy essentially extended
the Monroe Doctrine (which effectively defined the "western hemisphere" as the US sphere of
influence) to the entire planet: an ambition greater than that of any previous power. The
British Empire at its height knew that it could never intervene unilaterally on the continent
of Europe or in Central America. The most megalomaniac of European rulers understood that other
great powers with influence in their own areas of the world would always exist.
While that 1992 Washington paper spoke of the "legitimate interests" of other states, it
clearly implied that it would be Washington that would define what interests were legitimate,
and how they could be pursued. And once again, though never formally adopted, this "doctrine"
became in effect the standard operating procedure of subsequent administrations. In the early
2000s, when its influence reached its most dangerous height, military and security elites would
couch it in the terms of "full spectrum dominance." As the younger President Bush declared in
his State of the Union address in January 2002, which put the US on the road to the invasion of
Iraq: "By the grace of God, America won the Cold War A world once divided into two armed camps
now recognises one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of America."
Nemesis
Triumphalism led US policymakers, and their transatlantic followers, to forget one cardinal
truth about geopolitical and military power: that in the end it is not global and absolute, but
local and relative. It is the amount of force or influence a state wants to bring to bear in a
particular place and on a -particular issue, relative to the power that a rival state is
willing and able to bring to bear. The truth of this has been shown repeatedly over the past
generation. For all America's overwhelming superiority on paper, it has turned out that many
countries have greater strength than the US in particular places: Russia in Georgia and
Ukraine, Russia and Iran in Syria, China in the South China Sea, and even Pakistan in southern
Afghanistan.
American over-confidence, accepted by many Europeans and many Britons especially, left the
US in a severely weakened condition to conduct what should have been clear as far back as the
1990s to be the great competition of the future -- that between Washington and Beijing.
On the one hand, American moves to extend Nato to the Baltics and then (abortively) on to
Ukraine and Georgia, and to abolish Russian influence and destroy Russian allies in the Middle
East, inevitably produced a fierce and largely successful Russian nationalist reaction. Within
Russia, the US threat to its national interests helped to consolidate and legitimise Putin's
control. Internationally, it ensured that Russia would swallow its deep-seated fears of China
and become a valuable partner of Beijing.
On the other hand, the benign and neglectful way in which Washington regarded the rise of
China in the generation after the Cold War (for example, the blithe decision to allow China to
join the World Trade Organisation) was also rooted in ideological arrogance. Western
triumphalism meant that most of the US elites were convinced that as a result of economic
growth, the Chinese Communist state would either democratise or be overthrown; and that China
would eventually have to adopt the western version of economics or fail economically. This was
coupled with the belief that good relations with China could be predicated on China accepting a
so-called "rules-based" international order in which the US set the rules while also being free
to break them whenever it wished; something that nobody with the slightest knowledge of Chinese
history should
have believed.
Throughout, the US establishment discourse (Democrat as much as Republican) has sought to
legitimise American global hegemony by invoking the promotion of liberal democracy. At the same
time, the supposedly intrinsic connection between economic change, democracy and peace was
rationalised by cheerleaders such as the New York Times 's indefatigable Thomas
Friedman, who advanced the (always absurd, and now flatly and repeatedly falsified) "Golden
Arches theory of Conflict
Prevention." This vulgarised version of Democratic Peace Theory pointed out that two countries
with McDonald's franchises had never been to war. The humble and greasy American burger was
turned into a world-historical symbol of the buoyant modern middle classes with too much to
lose to countenance war.
Various equally hollow theories postulated cast-iron connections between free markets and
guaranteed property rights on the one hand, and universal political rights and freedoms on the
other, despite the fact that even within the west, much of political history can be
characterised as the fraught and complex brokering of accommodations between these two sets of
things.
And indeed, since the 1990s democracy has not advanced in the world as a whole, and belief
in the US promotion of democracy has been discredited by US patronage of the authoritarian and
semi-authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, India and elsewhere. Of the predominantly
Middle Eastern and South Asian students whom I teach at Georgetown University in Qatar, not one
-- even among the liberals -- believes that the US is sincerely committed to spreading
democracy; and, given their own regions' recent history, there is absolutely no reason why they
should believe this.
The one great triumph of democratisation coupled with free market reform was -- or appeared
to be -- in the former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe, and this success was
endlessly cited as the model for political and economic reform across
the globe.
But the portrayal of East European reform in the west failed to recognise the central role
of local nationalism. Once again, to talk of this at the time was to find oneself in effect
excluded from polite society, because to do so called into question the self-evident
superiority and universal appeal of liberal reform. The overwhelming belief of western
establishments was that nationalism was a superstition that was fast losing its hold on people
who, given the choice, could everywhere be relied on to act like rational consumers, rather
than citizens rooted in one particular land.
The more excitable technocrats imagined that nation state itself (except the US of course)
was destined to wither away. This was also the picture reflected back to western observers and
analysts by liberal reformers across the region, who whether or not they were genuinely
convinced of this, knew what their western sponsors wanted to hear. Western economic and
cultural hegemony produced a sort of mirror game, a copulation of illusions in which local
informants provided false images to the west, which then reflected them back to the east, and
so on.
Always the nation
Yet one did not have to travel far outside the centres of Eastern European cities to find
large parts of populations outraged by the moral and cultural changes ordained by the EU, the
collapse of social services, and the (western-indulged) seizure of public property by former
communist elites. So why did Eastern Europeans swallow the whole western liberal package of the
time? They did so precisely because of their nationalism, which persuaded them that if they did
not pay the cultural and economic price of entry into the EU and Nato, they would sooner or
later fall back under the dreaded hegemony of Moscow. For them, unwanted reform was the price
that the nation had to pay for US protection. Not surprisingly, once membership of these
institutions was secured, a powerful populist and nationalist backlash set in.
Western blindness to the power of nationalism has had several bad consequences for western
policy, and the cohesion of "the west." In Eastern Europe, it would in time lead to the
politically almost insane decision of the EU to try to order the local peoples, with their
deeply-rooted ethnic nationalism and bitter memories of outside dictation, to accept large
numbers of Muslim refugees. The backlash then became conjoined with the populist reactions in
Western Europe, which led to Brexit and the sharp decline of centrist parties across the
EU.
More widely, this blindness to the power of nationalism led the US grossly to underestimate
the power of nationalist sentiment in Russia, China and Iran, and contributed to the US attempt
to use "democratisation" as a means to overthrow their regimes. All that this has succeeded in
doing is to help the regimes concerned turn nationalist sentiment against local liberals, by
accusing them of being US stooges.
"A stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on
some minimal moral values"
Russian liberals in the 1990s were mostly not really US agents as such, but the collapse of
Communism led some to a blind adulation of everything western and to identify unconditionally
with US policies. In terms of public image, this made them look like western lackeys; in terms
of policy, it led to the adoption of the economic "shock therapy" policies advocated by the
west. Combined with monstrous corruption and the horribly disruptive collapse of the Soviet
single market, this had a shattering effect on Russian industry and the living standards of
ordinary Russians.
Many liberals gave the impression of complete indifference to the resulting immiseration of
the Russian population in these years. At a meeting of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington
that I attended later, former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar boasted to an applauding US audience
of how he had destroyed the Russian military industrial complex. The fact that this also
destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians was not mentioned.
This attitude was fed by contempt on the part of the educated classes of Moscow and St
Petersburg for ordinary Russians, who were dubbed Homo Sovieticus and treated as an
inferior species whose loathsome culture was preventing the liberal elites from taking their
rightful place among the "civilised" nations of the west. This frame of mind was reminiscent of
the traditional attitude of white elites in Latin America towards the Indio and Mestizo
majorities in their countries.
I vividly remember one Russian liberal journalist state his desire to fire machine guns into
crowds of elderly Russians who joined Communist demonstrations to protest about the collapse of
their pensions. The response of the western journalists present was that this was perhaps a
little bit excessive, but to be excused since the basic sentiment was correct.
The Russian liberals of the 1990s were crazy to reveal this contempt to the people whose
votes they needed to win. So too was Hillary Clinton, with her disdain for the "basket of
deplorables" in the 2016 election, much of the Remain camp in the years leading up to Brexit,
and indeed the European elites in the way they rammed through the Maastricht Treaty and the
euro in the 1990s.
If the post-Cold War world order was a form of US imperialism, it now looks like an empire
in which rot in the over-extended periphery has spread to the core. The economic and social
patterns of 1990s Russia and Ukraine have come back to haunt the west, though so far thank God
in milder form. The massive looting of Russian state property and the systematic evasion of
taxes by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs was only possible with the help of western banks,
which transferred the proceeds to the west and the Caribbean. This crime was euphemised in the
western discourse (naturally including the Economist ) as "capital flight."
Peter Mandelson qualified his famous remark that the Blair government was "intensely relaxed
about people becoming filthy rich" with the words "as long as they pay their taxes." The whole
point, however, about the filthy Russian, Ukrainian, Nigerian, Pakistani and other money that
flowed to and through London was not just that so much of it was stolen, but that it was
escaping taxation, thereby harming the populations at home twice over. The infamous euphemism
"light-touch regulation" was in effect a charter
for this.
In a bitter form of poetic justice, however, "light-touch regulation" paved the way for the
2008 economic crisis in the west itself, and western economic elites too (especially in the US)
would also seize this opportunity to move their money into tax havens. This has done serious
damage to state revenues, and to the fundamental faith of ordinary people in the west that the
rich are truly subject to the same laws as them.
The indifference of Russian elites to the suffering of the Russian population has found a
milder echo in the neglect of former industrial regions across Britain, Western Europe and the
US that did so much to produce the votes for Brexit, for Trump and for populist nationalist
parties in Europe. The catastrophic plunge in Russian male life expectancy in the 1990s has
found its echo in the unprecedented decline in white working-class male life expectancy in the
US.
Perhaps the greatest lesson of the period after the last Cold War is that in the end, a
stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values. To say this
to western economists, businessmen and financial journalists in the 1990s was to receive the
kindly contempt usually accorded to religious cranks. The only value recognised was shareholder
value, a currency in which the crimes of the Russian oligarchs could be excused because their
stolen companies had "added value." Any concern about duty to the Russian people as a whole, or
the fact that tolerance of these crimes would make it grotesque to demand honesty of policemen
or civil servants, were dismissed as irrelevant sentimentality.
Bringing it all back home
We in the west are living with the consequences of a generation of such attitudes. Western
financial elites have mostly not engaged in outright illegality; but then again, they usually
haven't needed to, since governments have made it easy for them to abide by the letter of the
law while tearing its spirit to pieces. We are belatedly recognising that, as Franklin Foer
wrote in the Atlantic last year: "New York, Los Angeles and Miami have joined London as
the world's most desired destinations for laundered money. This boom has enriched the American
elites who have enabled it -- and it has degraded the nation's political and social mores in
the process. While everyone else was heralding an emergent globalist world that would take on
the best values of America, [Richard] Palmer [a former CIA station chief in Moscow] had
glimpsed the dire risk of the opposite: that the values of the kleptocrats would become
America's own. This grim vision is now nearing fruition."
Those analysing the connection between Russia and Trump's administration have looked in the
wrong place. The explanation of Trump's success is not that Putin somehow mesmerised American
voters in 2016. It is that populations abandoned by their elites are liable to extreme
political responses; and that societies whose economic elites have turned ethics into a joke
should not be surprised if their political leaders too become scoundrels.
The 238-page document, written by the majority staff of the House Transportation
Committee, calls into question whether the plane maker or the Federal Aviation Administration
has fully incorporated essential safety lessons, despite a global grounding of the MAX fleet
since March 2019.
After an 18-month investigation, the report, released Wednesday, concludes that Boeing's
travails stemmed partly from a reluctance to admit mistakes and "point to a company culture
that is in serious need of a safety reset."
The report provides more specifics, in sometimes-blistering language, backing up
preliminary
findings the panel's Democrats released six months ago , which laid out a pattern of
mistakes and missed opportunities to correct them.
In one section, the Democrats' report faults Boeing for what it calls "inconceivable and
inexcusable" actions to withhold crucial information from airlines about one cockpit-warning
system, related to but not part of MCAS, that didn't operate as required on 80% of MAX jets.
Other portions highlight instances when Boeing officials, acting in their capacity as
designated FAA representatives, part of a widely used system of delegating oversight
authority to company employees,
failed to alert agency managers about various safety matters .
Boeing concealed from regulators internal test data showing that if a pilot took longer
than 10 seconds to recognise that the system had kicked in erroneously, the consequences
would be "catastrophic" .
The report also detailed how an alert, which would have warned pilots of a potential
problem with one of their anti-stall sensors, was not working on the vast majority of the Max
fleet . It found that the company deliberately concealed this fact from both pilots and
regulators as it continued to roll out the new aircraft around the world.
In Bed With the Regulators
Boeing's defense is the FAA signed off on the reviews. Lovely. Boeing coerced or bribed the FAA to sign off on the reviews now tries to hide behind
the FAA.
There is only one way to stop executive criminals like those at Boeing. Charge them with manslaughter, convict them, send them to prison for life, then take all of
their stock and options and hand the money out for restitution.
adr , 1 hour ago
Remember, Boeing spent enough on stock buybacks in the past ten years to fund the
development of at least seven new airframes.
Instead of developing a new and better plane, they strapped engines that didn't belong on
the 737 and called it safe.
SDShack , 21 minutes ago
What is really sad is they already had a perfectly functional and safe 737Max. It was the
757. Look at the specs between the 2 planes. Almost same size, capacity, range, etc. Only
difference was the 757 requires longer runways, but I would think they could have adjusted
the design to improve that and make it very similar to the 737Max without starting from
scratch. Instead Boeing bean counters killed the 757 and gave the world this flying coffin.
Now the world bean counters will kill Boeing.
Tristan Ludlow , 1 hour ago
Boeing is a critical defense contractor. They will not be held accountable and they will
be rewarded with additional bailouts and contract awards.
MFL5591 , 1 hour ago
Can you imagine a congress of Criminals Like Schiff, Pelosi and Schumer prosecuting
someone else for fraud? What a joke. Next up will be Bill Clinton testifying against a person
on trial for Pedophilia!
RagaMuffin , 1 hour ago
Mish is half right. The FAA should join Boeing in jail. If they are not held responsible
for their role, why have an FAA?
Manthong , 1 hour ago
"There is only one way to stop executive criminals like those at Boeing.
Charge them with manslaughter, convict them, send them to prison for life, then take all
of their stock and options and hand the money out for restitution."
Correction:
There is only one way to stop regulator criminals like those in government.
Charge them with manslaughter, convict them, send them to prison for life, then take all
of their pensions and ill gotten wealth a nd hand the money out for restitution.
Elliott Eldrich , 43 minutes ago
"There is only one way to stop executive criminals like those at Boeing.
Charge them with manslaughter, convict them, send them to prison for life, then take all
of their stock and options and hand the money out for restitution."
Ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HA! Silly rabbit, jail is for poors...
Birdbob , 1 hour ago
Accountability of Elite Perps ended under Oblaba's reign of "Wall Street and Technocracy
Architects" .White collar criminals were granted immunity from prosecution. This was put into
play by Attorney Genital Eric Holder. This was the beginning of having an orificial Attorney
Genital that facilitated the District of Criminals organized crime empire ending the 3 letter
agencies' interference. https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/8310187817727287761/1843903631072834621
Dash8 , 1 hour ago
You don't seem to understand the basic principle of aircraft design...it must not require
an extraordinary response for a KNOWN problem.
Think of it this way; Ford builds a car that works great most of the time, but
occasionally a wheel will fall off at highway speeds...no problem, right? ....you just guide
the car to the shoulder on the 3 remaining wheels and all good.
Now, put your wife and kids in that car, after a day at work and the kids screaming in the
back.
Still feel good about your opinion?
canaanav , 1 hour ago
I wrote software on the 787. You are right. This was not a known problem and the Trim
Runaway procedure was already established. The issue was that the MAX needed a larger
horizontal stab and MCAS would have never been needed. The FAA doesnt have the knowledge to
regulate things like this. Boeing lost talent too, and gets bailouts and tax breaks to the
extent that they dont care.
Dash8 , 1 hour ago
But it was a known problem, Boeing admits this.
Argon1 , 41 minutes ago
LGBT & Ethnicity was a more important hiring criteria than Engineering talant.
gutta percha , 1 hour ago
Why is it so difficult to design and maintain reliable Angle Of Attack sensors? The
engineers put in layers and layers of complicated tech to sense and react to AOA sensor
failures. Why not make the sensors _themselves_ more reliable? They aren't nearly as complex
as all the layers of tech BS on top of them.
Dash8 , 1 hour ago
It's not, but it costs $$....and there you have it.
Argon1 , 37 minutes ago
Its the Shuttle Rocketdyne problem, the upper management phones down to the safety
committee and complains about the cost of the delay, take off your engineer hat and put on
your management hat. All of a sudden your project launches on schedule and the board claps
and cheers at their ability to defy physics and save $ millions by just shouting at someone
for about 60 seconds..
canaanav , 1 hour ago
Each AOA sensor is already redundant internally. They have multiple channels. I believe
they were hit with a maintenance stand and jammed. That said, AOA has never been a control
system component. It just runs the low-speed cue on the EFIS and the stick shaker. It's an
advisory-level system. Boeing tied it to Flight Controls thru MCAS. The FAA likely dictated
to Boeing how they wanted the System Safety Analysis (SSA) to look, Boeing wrote it that way,
the FAA bought off on it.
Winston Churchill , 43 minutes ago
More fundamental is why an aerodynamically stable aircraft wasn't designed in the first
place,love of money.
HardlyZero , 13 minutes ago
Yes. In reality the changed CG (Center of Gravity) due to the larger fan engine really did
setup as a "new" design, so the MAX should have been treated as "new" and completely
evaluated and completely tested as a completly new design. As a new design it would probably
double the development and test cost and schedule...so be it.
DisorderlyConduct , 1 hour ago
"Lovely. Boeing coerced or bribed the FAA to sign off on the reviews now tries to hide
behind the FAA."
No - what a shoddy analysis.
The FAA conceded many of their oversight responsibilities to Boeing - who was basically
given the green light to self-monitor. The FAA is the one that is in the wrong here.
Well, how the **** else was that supposed to end up? This is like the IRS letting people
self-audit...
Astroboy , 1 hour ago
Just as the Boeing saga is unfolding, we should expect by the end of the year other
similar situations, related to drug companies, pandemia and the rest.
8. The internet was invented by the US government, not Silicon Valley
Many people think that the US is ahead in the frontier technology sectors as a result of
private sector entrepreneurship. It's not. The US federal government created all these
sectors.
The Pentagon financed the development of the computer in the early days and the Internet
came out of a Pentagon research project. The semiconductor - the foundation of the
information economy - was initially developed with the funding of the US Navy. The US
aircraft industry would not have become what it is today had the US Air Force not massively
subsidized it indirectly by paying huge prices for its military aircraft, the profit of which
was channeled into developing civilian aircraft.
People believe that corporate executives are immune from prosecution and protected by the
fact that they are within the corporation. This is false security. If true purposeful and
intended criminal activities are conducted by any corporate executive, the courts can do what
is called "Piercing The Corporate Veil" . It is looking beyond the corporation as a virtual
person and looking at the actual individuals making and conducting the criminal
activities.
Just as the Boeing saga is unfolding, we should expect by the end of the year other
similar situations, related to drug companies, pandemia and the rest.
hough it was quickly overshadowed by the big-ticket appearances of Barack Obama and Kamala
Harris, Elizabeth Warren's Tuesday address to the Democratic National Convention deserves some
consideration.
A probable VP nominee before the events of the summer made race the deciding factor, Warren
is an able representative of what might be called the "non-socialist populist" branch of the
Democratic Party. Her economic populism -- though it does have an unmistakably left-wing flavor
-- has caught the eye of Tucker Carlson, who offered glowing praise of her 2003 book The
Two-Income Trap ; her call for "economic nationalism" during the primary campaign earned
mockery from some corners of the Left and a bit of hesitant sympathy from the Right. A few days
ago in Crisis , Michael Warren Davis referred to her (tongue at least somewhat in cheek)
as " reactionary senator Elizabeth
Warren ."
There is some good reason for all of this.
As I watched the first half of Warren's speech (before she descended into the week's
secondary theme of blaming the virus on Donald Trump) I couldn't help but think that it
belonged at the Republican National Convention. Or, rather, that a GOP convention that
drove home the themes addressed by Senator Warren on Tuesday would be immensely more effective
than the
circus I'm expecting to see next week.
Amid a weeklong hurricane of identity politics sure to drive off a good number of moderates
and independents, Warren offered her party an electoral lifeline: a policy-heavy pitch
gift-wrapped as the solution to a multitude of troubles facing average Americans, especially
families.
It was rhetorically effective in a way that few other moments in the convention have been.
Part of this is due to the format: a teleconferenced convention left most speakers looking
either like bargain-bin
Orwell bogeymen or like
Pat Sajak presenting a tropical vacation as a prize on Wheel of Fortune. But Warren, for
one reason or another, looks entirely at home in a pre-school classroom.
The content, however, is crucial too. Warren grounded her comments in experiences that have
been widely shared by millions of Americans these last few months: the loss of work, the loss
of vital services like childcare, the stress and anxiety that dominate pandemic-era life. She
makes a straightforward case for Biden: his policies will make everyday life better for the
vast majority of American families. She focuses on the example of childcare, which Biden
promises to make freely available to Americans who need it. This, she claims, will give
families a better go of things and make struggling parents' lives a whole lot easier.
It's hard not to be taken in. It's certainly a more compelling sales pitch than, "You're all
racist. Make up for it by voting for this old white guy." It's the kind of thing that a smart
campaign would spend the next three months broadcasting and repeating every chance they get.
(The jury is still out as to whether Biden's campaign is a smart one.) This -- convincing
common people that you're going to do right by them -- is the kind of thing that wins
elections.
But there's more than a little mistruth in the pitch. Warren shares a touching story from
her own experience as a young parent, half a century ago:
When I had babies and was juggling my first big teaching job down in Texas, it was hard.
But I could do hard. The thing that almost sank me? Child care.
One night my Aunt Bee called to check in. I thought I was fine, but then I just broke down
and started to cry. I had tried holding it all together, but without reliable childcare,
working was nearly impossible. And when I told Aunt Bee I was going to quit my job, I thought
my heart would break.
Then she said the words that changed my life: "I can't get there tomorrow, but I'll come
on Thursday." She arrived with seven suitcases and a Pekingese named Buddy and stayed for 16
years. I get to be here tonight because of my Aunt Bee.
I learned a fundamental truth: nobody makes it on their own. And yet, two generations of
working parents later, if you have a baby and don't have an Aunt Bee, you're on your own.
Are we not supposed to ask about the fundamental difference between Elizabeth Warren's
experience decades ago and the experience of struggling parents now? Hint: she had a strong
extended family to support her, and her kids had a broad family network to help raise them. Not
too long ago, any number of people would have been involved in the raising of a single child.
("It takes a village," but not in the looney Clinton way.) Now, an American kid is lucky to
have just two people helping him along the way. As we've all been reminded a hundred
times, the chances that he'll be raised by only one increase astronomically in poor or black
communities.
Shouldn't we be talking about that? Shouldn't we be talking about the policies that
contributed to the shift? It's a complex crisis, and we can't pin it down to any one cause. But
a slew of left-wing programs are certainly caught up in it. An enormous and fairly lax welfare
state has reduced the necessity of family ties in day-to-day life to almost nil. Diverse
economic pressures have made stay-at-home parents a near-extinct breed, and left even
two-income households struggling to make ends meet. (Warren literally wrote the book on
it.) Not to mention that the Democrats remain the party more forcefully supportive of abortion
and more ferociously opposed to the institution of marriage (though more than a few Republicans
are trying real hard to catch up).
Progressive social engineering has ravaged the American family for decades, and this
proposal only offers more of the same. It's trying to outsource childcare to
government-bankrolled professionals without asking the important question: Whatever happened to
Aunt Bee?
Republicans need an answer. We need to be carefully considering what government has done to
accelerate the decline of the family -- and what it can do to reverse it. Some of the reformers
and realigners in the party have already begun this project in earnest. But it needs to be
taken more seriously. It needs to be a central effort of the party's mainstream, and a constant
element of the party's message. Grand, nationalistic narratives about Making America Great
Again mean nothing if that revival isn't actually felt by people in their lives and in their
homes.
If we're confident in our family policy -- and while it needs a good deal of work, it's
certainly better than the Democrats' -- we shouldn't be afraid to take the fight to them. We
should be pointing out, for instance, that Warren's claim that Biden will afford greater
bankruptcy protections to common people is hardly borne out by the facts: Biden spent a great
deal of time and effort in his legislative career doing exactly the opposite. We should be
pointing out that dozens of Democratic policies have been hurting American families for
decades, and will continue to do so if we let them. We should sell ourselves as the better
choice for American families -- and be able to mean it when we say it.
If we let the Democrats keep branding themselves as the pro-family party -- a marketing ploy
that has virtually no grounding in reality -- we're going to lose in November. And we're going
to keep losing for a long, long time.
When I lived in Europe it seemed like all the post offices had banks which offered basic
services like checking and savings. They should do that here.
seryanhoj , 2 hours ago
They have a simple ' people's ' banking system for people that don't feel up to going to
to one if the majors, and probably deal in small smounts.
The same system handles distributions from the various social schemes. Also they give low
or no cost access to buy government securities, and savings schemes. It sound a bit 'Big
Brover' , but in practice it feels good.
Demeter55 , 46 minutes ago
You are threatening the banksters! They need every last penny!
" in 2015, the Post Office Inspector General issued a
blistering report about CBRE , the company that had served as sole real estate broker to
the U.S.P.S. from 2011 on. The report found that CBRE had been selling and/or leasing post
office properties at below-market prices, often to clients of CBRE – a company
chaired by Richard Blum , the husband of California Senator Dianne Feinstein. "
now, exactly how was blum punsihed for this fraud? let me guess. his wife headed off any
corruption charges via a quick phone call to her chinese buddies, who then instructed the fbi
to pull their head in.
ponyboy99 , 3 hours ago
Feinstein's husband had the contract to rebuild Iraq's power grid. Look it up. Her home in
SF cost $17 Mil fifteen years ago.
STP , 2 hours ago
CBRE also did the property transactions for the failed California High Speed Rail project
as well. What a nice bunch of juicy contracts that just happened to drop into Diane's
husband's lap! It's a coincidence!
Pair Of Dimes Shift , 2 hours ago
Richard Blum-Feinstein also took in some sweet Commiefornia Train to Nowhere money as
well.
Do you imagine that I am ignorantly using overly broad terminology when I say that the
CIA's "Mighty Wurlitzer" encompasses the whole of the capitalist mass media ?
Only juveniles would think the CIA limit their influence efforts to just CNN, FOX News, and
MSNBC. Country music, like hiphop music and pop music, is part of capitalist mass media. The
entertainment industry is an even more important vector for programming of media consumers
than is the infotainment industry.
"In reality, the IS intel agencies recruit primarily from certain Ivy
League all US universities."
Fixed that for you.
Or perhaps you mean strictly recruitment of only salaried CIA personnel with federal
employee identification numbers? I would have hoped that a poster here at MoA should know
that there is a clear distinction between an intelligence "operator" and an
intelligence "agent" . It seems it should be obvious that non-employee intelligence
assets require recruitment of one form or another as well.
I think it would be wise to assume that all of the top 5% students at all major
universities have been evaluated and scouted by CIA "recruiters" . Any student who
looks like they might go any place where they have any influence, either through talent or
connections, will have a CIA "recruiter" sniffing their ass.
Naturally, nobody should assume that the CIA "recruiter" will approach their target
and announce, "Hi! I'm your friendly neighborhood CIA recruiter!" Most recruits will
be unlikely to ever even realize that they have been recruited.
Ex: CIA scum: "Hey, you told me you want to do investigative journalism after you
graduate, right? I know someone over at Buzzfeed who says they're looking for someone right
now. I could put in a good word for you!"
Now, the "recruit" could probably get a position at Buzzfeed after graduation
anyway, but when she gets a call for an interview it seems too good to be true, so she puts
her education on hold and takes the job. Meanwhile her "friend" introduces her to
another "friend" with inside government info (the CIA controller hands off the asset
to another controller). Our cub presstitute is grateful and indebted to both, now. When they
approach her later requesting favors, she will gladly deliver, but at no point will she ever
realize that she is in fact a CIA agent... an off-budget asset.
The thing with Faustian bargains is that they seem like a super good deal at the time, and
the CIA shame the devil with their Faustian bargaining.
The above is, of course, just one of many approaches used by the CIA for recruitment. They
are good at blackmail also, of course. As well, this is no extreme accusation. If you've
spent any significant amount of time on a university campus with your eyes open (most people
on university campuses are deeply engrossed in their own immediate situations) then you will
have noticed these recruiters, and if you are recruitment material then you will have been
approached by one or more of them. If you were engrossed in your own university trials and
tribulations like most students then you could have been "befriended" by one without
ever even knowing it.
In any case, Clinton absolutely worked with the CIA at Oxford. Even The
Atlantic admits it, but tries to downplay it, which is exactly what you would expect from
one of the parts of the "Mighty Wurlitzer" . They give a little bit of the truth to
make the lie easier to swallow. Due to the Clintons' later involvement in the CIA's drug
running schemes, it has become important in the official narrative for the Clintons'
association with the CIA to be minimized.
Do bear in mind, though, that one can never retire from being an intelligence agent so
long as the agency one was managed by continues to exist, in the same way and for the same
reasons that one can never retire from being a goon for the mob. Clinton was a CIA agent from
his time in Oxford to the present, and at all point in between. This requires no proof beyond
the admission that Clinton was once a CIA agent. For processes that have no end, all you need
to know about is their starting point.
Plunder, me hearties! Plunder! Yo Ho Ho and a barrel of oil!
"President Trump wants it known that -- despite his recent decision to pull back the U.S.
militarily back from previously Kurdish-held territory in Syria -- he plans on "
keeping the oil " in Syria and using American troops to do it.
If he follows through, he'll set a dangerous precedent -- and might commit a war crime.
Keeping Syria's oil could well constitute pillage -- theft during war -- which is banned in
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Laws and
Customs of War on Land, which states, "The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by
assault, is prohibited." The prohibition has a solid grounding in the laws of war and
international criminal justice , and the U.S. federal code , including as a
sanction for the illegal exploitation of natural resources such as oil from war zones.'
washpo
"Trump's more grave rationale is his conception of oil as remuneration for U.S. military
investment in the Middle East. In a speech Oct. 29, he said: "We want to keep the oil. $45
million a month? Keep the oil." It mirrors a sentiment he expressed to ABC News in 2011 about
Iraqi oil, saying
, "You win the war and you take it. You're not stealing anything. We're taking back $1.5
trillion to reimburse ourselves. " That argument goes well beyond the notion of securing the
oil -- it suggests trying to profit from it -- and therefore risks triggering responsibility
for pillage. Contrary to Trump's characterization, pillage is a form of stealing.
None of this is a new line of thinking for Trump: As a private citizen in 2011, in an
interview with the Wall Street Journal, commenting on U.S. military involvement in Libya,
he said : "I'm only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I'm
not interested." Regarding Iraq, he
said : "I always heard that when we went into Iraq, we went in for the oil. I said, 'Ah,
that sounds smart.' " Indeed, he sounded disappointed during his televised announcement last
week of the killing of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, when he returned to the
subject of oil and
lamented : "I always used to say 'If they're going into Iraq, keep the oil.' They never
did. They never did."" washpo "Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said during the committee
hearing that SDF General Commander Mazloum Abdi informed him that a deal had been signed with
an American company to "modernize the oil fields in northeastern Syria", and asked Pompeo
whether the administration was supportive of it.
"We are," Pompeo responded during the hearing streamed live by PBS. "The deal took a little
longer ... than we had hoped, and now we're in implementation."" Reuters -------------- Barry
McCaffery has commented on Twitter that if we do this we are becoming pirates. As he says, the
oil belongs to Syria. I agree. pl
We're watching civil war unfold in the US and these pompous asses are busy trying to
sponge up Syrian oil, the trivial amount of stuff that is land-locked hundreds of miles from
any territory we control or is friendly to the US? God help us who is advising the tweeter in
chief? Can't Trump read an oil price chart any better than Fauci can read a Covid infection
rate? Did his son-in-law tell him what a great idea that would be? Are the warrior generals
who wouldn't defend this nation's capital against antifa, with the tacit consent at sedition
by Esper, in agreement with this line of strategic wisdom too? Maybe Senator Graham, who just
yesterday finally cornered Sally Yates into admitting under oath that the FISA warrant on
Carter Page was a fraud, is covering his bases in case the left's "resistance" to the
November election results in antifa marching into D.C. to bring Biden's secret choice as V.P.
into power? We have less reason to be in Syria than we do to still be defending Germany and
the rest of Europe from the USSR.
Well, with avarice as the guiding principle of the Trump administration's foreign policy,
at least there's no hypocrisy. Just pure, unadulterated greed. The honesty is almost
admirable. But I don't know how our Iranian policy fits into the avarice doctrine.
As far as Trump's pirate name goes, I do like the sound of "Bonespurs." I can see the flag
flying from the mainmast... a skeleton foot of or on a field of sable.
As an army of occupation the US military could requisition the oil, but according to the
Hague Regulations it can do so only for its own needs. It can not do so for the fun and
profits of the foreign state that sent that army in.
If you really, really, really squint hard then perhaps there is wriggle room under Article
55 i.e. Trump can claim that he is the usufructuary of the territory, and therefore can
benefit from the pumping.
But arguing that would be a hopeless brief.
So, yeah, Trump as a medieval warlord. Perhaps he'll also reintroduce the practice of
prima nocta.
I would accept the idea of Trump's inability to distinguish between government and
business, but people like Jeffries and the Pomp are neocon ideologues through and through.
Nothing more.
I put these comments on the open thread about the same time b started this one
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1289724554982629377
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to
US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Trump a few months back "We've kept the oil". Well, he hasn't had a problem hanging onto
it and getting an American company involved.
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil
to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2
Very likely the Kurds were under pressure from Trump, and the act wasn't voluntary. It's
not even the Kurds' oil to sign a deal on (except one well). We'll see whether the
operation actually succeeds. At the moment, everybody is waiting to see whether Trump is
re-elected in November. Signing a piece of paper now is of no significance.
"... The U.S. has spent a century or more trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences. ..."
"... The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal, nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. ..."
"... To the point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so? ..."
"... Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business. ..."
"... Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers, including former Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin, Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world. ..."
"... Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the ' Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to have played a role in the murder of Che Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered. ..."
"... To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,' adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind. ..."
"... Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War. ..."
"... the U.S. had indicated its intention to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be taken in good faith. ..."
"... Following the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them. In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former Baltic states were brought under NATO's control . ..."
"... The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC) in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here . The economic and military annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2 . The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis on its payroll in 1948. ..."
"... That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges ..."
"... Its near instantaneous adoption by bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?' ..."
"... Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this move. ..."
The political success of Russiagate lies in the vanishing of American history in favor of a
façade of liberal virtue. Posed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a
straight line can be drawn from efforts to undermine the decommissioning of the American war
economy in 1946 to the CIA's alliance with Ukrainian fascists in 2014. In 1945 the NSC
(National Security Council) issued a series of directives that gave logic and direction to the
CIA's actions during the Cold War. That these persist despite the 'fall of communism' suggests
that it was always just a placeholder in the pursuit of other objectives.
The first Cold War was an imperial business enterprise to keep the Generals, bureaucrats,
and war materiel suppliers in power and their bank accounts flush after WWII. Likewise, the
American side of the nuclear arms race left former
Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA to put their paranoid fantasies forward as
assessments of Russian military capabilities. Why, of all people, would former Nazi officers be
put in charge military intelligence if accurate assessments were the goal? The Nazis hated the
Soviets more than the Americans did.
The ideological binaries of Russiagate -- for or against Donald Trump, for or against
neoliberal, petrostate Russia, define the boundaries of acceptable discourse to the benefit of
deeply nefarious interests. The U.S. has spent a century or more
trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR
in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to
loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed
NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a
negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a
reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences.
The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria
Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal,
nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have
used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists
subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. Furthermore, Steinem's
aggressive ignorance of the actual history of the CIA illustrates the liberal propensity to
conflate bourgeois dress and attitude with an imagined
gentility . To the
point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not
employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so?
On the American left, Russiagate is treated as a case of bad reporting, of official outlets
for government propaganda serially reporting facts and events that were subsequently disproved.
However, some fair portion of the American bourgeois, the PMC that acts in supporting roles for
capital, believes every word of it. Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American
fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time
that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the
Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly
fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business.
Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers,
including former
Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human
beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin,
Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the
Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's
overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear
weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated
into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world.
By the time that (Senator) John F. Kennedy claimed a U.S. 'missile gap' with the Soviets in
1958, the CIA was providing estimates of Soviet ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles),
that were
wildly inflated -- most likely provided to it by the Gehlen Organization. Once satellite
and U2 reconnaissance estimates became available, the CIA lowered its own to 120 Soviet ICBMs
when the actual number
was four . On the one hand, the Soviets really did have a nuclear weapons program. On the
other, it was a tiny fraction of what was being claimed. Bad reporting, unerringly on the side
of larger military budgets, appears to be the constant.
Under the
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially
disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the '
Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to
labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in
political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to
have played a role in the murder of Che
Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi
concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered.
The historical sequence in the U.S. was WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, to an economy that
was heavily dependent on war production. The threatened decommissioning of the war economy in
1946 was first met with an
honest assessment of Soviet intentions -- the Soviets were moving infrastructure back into
Soviet territory as quickly as was practicable, then to the military budget-friendly claim that
they were putting resources in place to invade Europe. The result of the shift was that the
American Generals kept their power and the war industry kept producing materiel and weapons. By
1948 these weapons had come to include atomic bombs.
To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward
the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly
traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and
are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,'
adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear
arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons
non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind.
What ties the Gehlen Organization to CIA estimates of Soviet nuclear weapons from 1948
– 1958 is 1) the Gehlen Organization was central to the CIA's intelligence operations
vis-à-vis the Soviets, 2) the CIA had limited alternatives to gather information on the
Soviets outside of the Gehlen Organization and 3) the senior leadership of the U.S. military
had
long demonstrated that it approved of exaggerating foreign threats when doing so enhanced
their power and added to their budgets. Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former
Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive
Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War.
Where this gets interesting is that American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was working for the Rand
Corporation in the late 1950s and early 1960s when estimates of Soviet ICBMs were being put
forward. JFK had run (in 1960) on a platform that included closing the Soviet – U.S. '
missile
gap .' The USAF (U.S. Air Force), charged with delivering nuclear missiles to their
targets, was estimating that the Soviets had 1,000 ICBMs. Mr. Ellsberg, who had limited
security clearance through his employment at Rand, was leaked the known number of Soviet ICBMs.
The Air Force was saying 1,000 Soviet ICBMs when the number confirmed by reconnaissance
satellites was four.
By 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CIA had shifted nominal control of the
Gehlen Organization to the BND, for whom Gehlen continued to work. Based on ongoing satellite
reconnaissance data, the CIA was busy lowering its estimates of Soviet nuclear capabilities.
Benjamin Schwarz, writing
for The Atlantic in 2013, provided an account, apparently informed by the CIA's lowered
estimates, where he placed the whole of the Soviet nuclear weapons program (in 1962) at roughly
one-ninth the size of the U.S. effort. However, given Ellsberg's known count of four Soviet
ICBMs at the time of the missile crisis, even Schwarz's ratio of 1:9 seems to overstate Soviet
capabilities.
Further per Schwarz's reporting, the Jupiter nuclear missiles that the U.S. had placed in
Italy prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis only made sense as first-strike weapons. This
interpretation is corroborated by Daniel Ellsberg , who argues
that the American plan was always to initiate the use of nuclear weapons (first strike). This
made JFK's posture of equally matched contestants in a geopolitical game of nuclear chicken
utterly unhinged. Should this be less than clear, because the U.S. had indicated its intention
to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing
Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be
taken in good faith.
The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was met with a promised reduction in U.S. military
spending and an end to the Cold War, neither of which ultimately materialized. Following the
election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was
repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them.
In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging
the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then
unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former
Baltic
states were brought under NATO's control .
The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of
fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically
elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing
the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC)
in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here .
The economic and military
annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2
. The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan
to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace
the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated
former Nazis on its payroll in 1948.
That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security
Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks
volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges.
Its near instantaneous adoption by
bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That
liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by
unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of
historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers
employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?'
The Nazi War
Crimes Disclosure Act came about in part because Nazi hunters kept coming across Nazi war
criminals living in the U.S. who told them they had been brought here and given employment by
the CIA, CIC, or some other division of the Federal government. If the people in these agencies
thought that doing so was justified, why the secrecy? And if it wasn't justified, why was it
done? Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical
ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the
upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this
move.Cue the Sex
Pistols .
Which was not a wild decade: this is was the decade of the brutal economic rape of the West
under the disguise of "shock therapy" and will help and active participation of "Harvard mafia."
A special breed of ruthless economic hitmen decended on Russia with the full support of Western
intelligence services. A classic example here is Mr. Browder.
By securing victory in a
national vote on constitutional changes , Vladimir Putin could now remain president of
Russia until 2036 if he chooses to stand again. After 20 years in power, the narrative of
Russia's chaotic 1990s remains core to Putin's legitimacy as the leader who
restored stability .
Although the decade still
divides public opinion , what's not in doubt is that it was a dangerous and
exciting period. The ambiguity of the 90s is summed up by the then-popular Russian word,
bespredel , the title of a 1989 prison drama meaning anarchic freedom and
unaccountable authority.
... ... ...
The social impact was immense. Life expectancy fell, with up to five million excess adult deaths in
Russia in 1991-2001, birth rates
collapsed and both of these trends were compounded by widespread crime and
trafficking . These negative effects were concentrated in periods of economic crisis in
1991-94 and 1998-99.
Sharply rising inequality and the emergence of a new wealthy class, including some leading
reformers, meant that the term "democrat" had become a term
of abuse as early as 1992 .
Jonathan Guyer, managing editor of The American Prospect, has an unbelievably
well-reported piece on
the making of a Washington national security consultancy, starring two high placed Obama-era
officials and one of the Imperial City's more successful denizens -- Michele Flournoy.
Flournoy may not be a household name anywhere but the Beltway, but when she met Sergio
Aguirre and Nitin Chadda (Chiefs of staff to UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Secretary of
Defense Ash Carter respectively) she was already trading lucratively on her stints in two
Democratic administrations. In fact, according to Guyer, by 2017 she was pulling nearly a half
a million dollars a year a year wearing a number of hats: senior advisor for Boston Consulting
Group (where she helped increase their defense contracts to $32 million by 2016), founder and
CEO of the Democratic leaning Center for a New American Security, senior fellow at Harvard's
Belfer Center, and a member of various corporate boards.
Hungry to get their own consulting business going after Hillary Clinton's stunning loss in
2016, according to Guyer, Aguirre and Chadda approached Flournoy for her starpower inside the
Blob. Flournoy did not want "to have a firm with her name on it alone," so they sought and
added Tony Blinken, former Under Secretary of State and "right hand man" to Joe Biden for 20
years. WestExec Advisors, named after the street alongside the West Wing of the White House,
was born. "The name WestExec Advisors trades on its founders' recent knowledge of the highest
echelons of decision-making," writes Guyer. "It also suggests they'll be walking down WestExec
toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue someday soon."
Soon the firm was raking in corporate contracts and the high sums that go with it. They
weren't lobbying per se (wink, wink) but their names and connections provided the grease on the
skids their clients needed to make things happen in Washington. They shrewdly partnered with a
private equity group and a Google affiliate. Before long, Guyer says, they did not need to
market: CEO's were telling other CEO's to give them a call. More:
The founders told executives they would share their "passion" for helping new companies
navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning Pentagon contracts. They told giant defense
contractors how to explain cutting-edge technologies to visitors from Congress. Their
approach worked, and clients began to sign up.
One was an airline, another a global transportation company, a third a company that
makes drones that can almost instantly scan an entire building's interior. WestExec would
only divulge that it began working with "Fortune 100 types," including large U.S. tech;
financial services, including global-asset managers; aerospace and defense; emerging U.S.
tech; and nonprofits.
The Prospect can confirm that one of those clients is the Israeli
artificial-intelligence company Windward.
To say that the Flournoy helped WestExec establish itself as one of the most successful of
the Beltway's defense and national security consultancies is an understatement. For sure,
Flournoy has often been underestimated -- she is not flamboyant, nor glamorous, and is
absolutely unrecognizable outside of the Washington market because she doesn't do media (though
she is popular on
the think tank conference circuit ). She's a technocrat -- smart and efficient and highly
bred for Washington's finely tuned managerial class. She is a courtier for sure, but she is no
sop. She has staying power, quietly forging relationships with the right people and not trying
too hard to make a name or express ideas that might conflict with doctrine. She no doubt
learned much in two stints in the Pentagon, which typically chews up the less capable,
greedier, more narcissistic neophytes (not to mention idealists). She's not exactly known as a
visionary, however, and one has to wonder which hat she is wearing when she expounds on current
defense threats, like
this piece about beefing up the Pentagon budget to confront China .
But what does it all mean? Flournoy has been at the forefront of strategy and policy in two
administrations marked by overseas interventions (Clinton from 1993 to 2000) and Obama (2009 to
2012). All of her aforementioned qualities have helped her to personally succeed and profit --
especially now, no doubt helping weapons contractors get deals on the Hill, as Guyer susses out
in his piece, not to mention how well-placed she would be for an incoming Biden Administration.
But has it been in the best interest of the country? I think not. For this, she is queen of the
Blob.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.394.0_en.html#goog_87831358 00:12 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
But elite is as elite does. She went from Beverly Hills High School to Harvard to Oxford,
and then back to Harvard, before landing a political appointment in the Clinton Administration.
In between government perches, she did consulting and started CNAS in hopes of creating a
shadow national security council for Hillary Clinton. When Clinton didn't get the nomination,
Flournoy and her colleagues supported Obama and helped populate his administration,
supporting the military surge in Afghanistan and prolonging the war. She was called the
"mastermind"
behind Obama's Afghan strategy, which we now know was a failure, an effort at futility and
prolonging the inevitable. In fact, we know now that most of the war establishment was
lying through its teeth . But that hasn't stopped her from getting clients. They pay for
her influence, not her ability to win wars.
Queen of the Blob, Queen of Business as Usual -- a business, as we well know from Guyer's
excellent reporting, that pays off bigtime. But it has never paid off for the rest of America.
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC since 2007, focusing on
national security, foreign policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15
years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP News in Washington from
2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a
beat reporter at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security
Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native Nutmegger, she got her start
in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
I wish that you would cover this equally in both parties; the near entire senior level of
the political apparatus (apart from the few individuals truly invested in the best for all
Americans) has become corrupted informing the policies, or lack thereof; whether implemented,
ignored, or written into law.
We really need to get these "Blob" people out of our government. Electing Trump didn't fix
the problem, and judging by this article, electing Biden won't either. Half of them people
aren't even recognizably American. They're global elites, and they'll continue to use
Americans and what's left of America to further their globalist agenda. With someone like
Flournoy, selling powerful US technology to known spies and thieves like the Israelis, who
take our tech, copy it, and sell it to enemies like China, only scratches the surface of
what's going on. She should be in prison after all the damage she's done to America, not
looking forward to yet another national security role in which she can get more Americans
killed, wreck more foreign countries, and waste and steal more billions of taxpayer
money.
Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid. Do you think that Mr. Fluornoy that those who work for her would
have had anything overturned at the Supreme Court because they were too lazy to complete the
paperwork?
"Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid."
I have to agree that Trump's administration is devoid of competent people, but don't
forget that it was incompetents like Flournoy that got Trump elected.
If you want to ID the individual most likely for President Trump winning, look up Joel
Benenson. He was Hilary Clinton's chief of strategy and was convinced that Trump could not
win any of the blue wall states. Ms. Fluornoy had nothing to do with that. Mr. Fluornoy would
have been the Secretary of Defense in a Hillary Clinton Administration and probably would
have been more competent that the current Secretary of Defense.
You would have done better just to critique her article in Foreign Affairs. As it is, you
sound like you're mad at Michele because she makes more money than you do (presumably).
I think that it is a bit unfair, given the fact that the odds are stack the way they are.
Ms. Vlahos has dedicated many years (they are so many she only whispers the number) on issues
related with foreign policy. The path she has chosen is the harder path, the ethical, and
moral one, which was never going to pay. If Ms. Vlahos is incensed, I bet that it is not
because of the money, but because she sees that in Washington DC, only crime and wanton
murder pays. She is accusing Ms Flournoy that she is a sellout to the crime syndicate, like a
cop that has started herself supporting the drug trafficking.
You should know that people believe in more things than only making money. Ms. Flournoy it
seems, has decided that she wants a piece of the cake and to hell with this absurd idea of
"arms to plowshares"....
Ms. Valhos can speak for herself. No one should project onto others their values. But it
does seem that Valhos does make a point that Flournoy does not have any guiding philosophy .
Except to be in a position to make a fine living from her contacts.
Could be that Flournoy is more greedy than not. She sure has the resume that would get her
into any job which she wanted to interview for. And she paid her dues also.
When one looks at Valhos's resume it likewise is impressive. She too it seems to be proud
of her connection to the elites. We should not condem either. We all want our children to
excell. Unless Flournoy is an unindicted co conspirator, this article is just a piece of
fluff. Too much time on Valhos's hands perhaps?
While I don't have anything else to do, I had hoped to read some good dirt. Alas all I got
was one high achieving person carping bout another person of similar achievement. Bless them
both.
The dirt presented is facilitating arms contracts. By peddling the need of strong military
and war. Being a merchant of death, which Ms. Vlahos doesn't seem to be, disqualifies Ms.
Flournoy entirely. of anything.
Not sure what you mean " poorly for it". I tend not to get wrapped around the axle . But
like it when someone comments on me personally. Lost perspective in old age. Would like to
know more what you mean. Unless you just want to be mean
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
That's a bit harsh don't you think? I remember that time on September 11, 2001, I was in
the New York area when it happened, I even had a close acquaintance who died in the Twin
Towers. I remember when America was united in its blood lust, it its ravenous quest for
revenge, ... revenge on anything and anyone. When America's vengeful eye was set on the
Taliban government of Afghanistan, it was off to the races. Left and Right, liberal and
conservative, Democrat and Republican, ... all were united in avenging 9/11 on the evil
Taliban and Afghan tribal peoples for harboring OBL. And I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and
Miss Flournoy were united as well in wanting someone to pay ... am I right? So don't give me
this BS about 'us' and 'them' okay? America is a democracy, the American people get the
government they vote for, they get the President, Senators and Members of Congress they vote
for, that means they also get the flunkies, hangers on and entourages of think tankers and
careerists they vote for. Understand? You get what you deserve, you don't get to whine and
complain when you're leaders are incompetent and corrupt okay? So don't give me this 'us and
them' nonsense and absolve yourself of the blood lust you once had all those years ago on
September 11, 2001.
No, liberals were not for taking it out on the Afghan tribal peoples. We were for getting
those responsible, and sorry no, we didn't include the Afghan tribal people in on that too,
despite any sympathies some of them may have had for AQ.
We had no 'blood lust' and we don't believe in collective punishment.
Did you just say liberals "don't believe in collective punishment"? I'm gonna give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not lock-step in support of the #BLM and Critical Race
Theory...
But your other point about liberals being anti-war is also flawed. Just connect the
foreign intervention (not just wars, but also funding to foreign opposition groups) with some
humanitarian urgency (think of those Afghan women!) and liberals have always advocated for
the same foreign policies than neoconservatives.
"...I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and Miss Flournoy..."
It's been decades since I've seen the word "Miss" used in print - except when I write to
my granddaughter. In my profession, I write to women all the time, and although it used to be
that unmarried ones were quite accepting of - and indeed expecting to receive - missives from
me addressing them as such, I would be embarrassed to use that appellation when addressing
adult women today in a professional or unacquainted capacity. Now, I only use it for women
who wish it - old women, unmarried Catholic women and irascible old-school lesbians.
Ah, yes. Highly educated, multiple degrees, cultivated....and extremely dangerous. All of
that wonderful education dedicated to wanton killing and influence peddling. These people,
the hidden professionals of pull, are the most difficult to fight because unlike a politician
or a bureaucrat they are nearly invisible. She can only be effective if she is not seen. To
her, public exposure is toxic. So expose away! Make her name known to everyone.
So former tank repairman decided again managed to make a make a mark in world diplomacy
:-).
Notable quotes:
"... Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1: ..."
"... The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation. ..."
"... Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India: ..."
"... This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo. ..."
"... The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law. ..."
Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his
attempt to
gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the
old P5+1:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Tuesday for an arms embargo on Iran to be
extended indefinitely, but his appeal fell flat at the United Nations Security Council, where
Russia and China rejected it outright and close allies of the United States were
ambivalent.
The Trump administration is more isolated than ever in its Iran obsession. The ridiculous
effort to invoke the so-called "snapback" provision of the JCPOA more than two years after
reneging on the agreement met with failure, just as most observers predicted months
ago when it was first floated as a possibility. As I said at the time, "The
administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There
is nothing "intricate" about this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the
JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it." It was never going to work because all of the other
parties to the agreement want nothing to do with the administration's punitive approach, and
U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA meant that it forfeited any rights it had when it was still part
of the deal.
Opposition from Russia and China was a given, but the striking thing about the scene at the
U.N. this week was that major U.S. allies
joined them in rebuking the administration's obvious bad faith maneuver:
The pointedly critical tone of the debate saw Germany accusing Washington of violating
international law by withdrawing from the nuclear pact, while Berlin aligned itself with
China's claim that the United States has no right to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran.
The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to
destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S.
stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran
and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of
its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation.
Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's
alarmist
warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters
that it would use to threaten Europe and India:
If you fail to act, Iran will be free to purchase Russian-made fighter jets that can
strike up to a 3,000 kilometer radius, putting cities like Riyadh, New Delhi, Rome, and
Warsaw in Iranian crosshairs.
This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last
thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how
deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to
launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed
these capabilities while under the current embargo.
It has no need for expensive fighters, and
it is not at all certain that their government would even be interested in acquiring them. Pompeo's presentation was a weak attempt to exaggerate the potential threat from a state that
has very limited power projection, and he found no support because his serial fabrications
about Iran have rendered everything he says to be worthless.
The same administration that wants to keep an arms embargo on Iran forever has no problem
flooding the region with U.S.-made weapons and providing them to some of the worst governments
in the world. It is these client states that are doing the most to destabilize other countries
in the region right now. If the U.N. should be putting arms embargoes on any country, it should
consider imposing them on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to limit their ability to wreak havoc on
Yemen and Libya.
The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to
reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt
to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law.
We've embedded an SEC Risk Alert on private equity abuses at the end of this post.
1
What is
remarkable about this document is that it contains a far longer and more detailed list of private abuses
than the SEC flagged in its initial round of examinations of private equity firms in 2014 and 2015. Those
examinations occurred in parallel with groundbreaking exposes by Gretchen Morgenson at the New York Times
and Mark Maremont in the Wall Street Journal. At least some of the SEC enforcement actions in that era look
to have been triggered by the press effectively getting ahead of the SEC. And the SEC even admitted the
misconduct was more common at the most prominent firms.
Yet despite front-page articles on private equity
abuses, the SEC engaged in wet noodle lashings. Its pattern was to file only one major enforcement action
over a particular abuse. Even then, the SEC went to some lengths to spread the filings out among the biggest
firms. That meant it was pointedly engaging in selective enforcement, punishing only "poster child" examples
and letting other firms who'd engaged in precisely the same abuses get off scot free.
The very fact of this Risk Alert is an admission of failure by the SEC. It indicates that the misconduct
it highlighted five years ago continues and if anything is even more pervasive than in the 2014-2015 era. It
also confirms that its oft-stated premise then, that the abuses it found then had somehow been made by firms
with integrity that would of course clean up their acts, and that now-better-informed investors would also
be more vigilant and would crack down on misconduct, was laughably false.
In particular, the second section of the Risk Alert, on Fees and Expenses (starting on page 4) describes
how fund managers are charging inflated or unwarranted fees and expenses. In any other line of work, this
would be called theft. Yet all the SEC is willing to do is publish a Risk Alert, rather than impose fines as
well as require disgorgements?
The SEC's Abject Failure
In the Risk Alert below, the itemization of various forms of abuses, such as the many ways private equity
firms parcel out interests in the businesses they buy among various funds and insiders to their, as opposed
to investors' benefit, alone should give pause. And the lengthy discussion of these conflicts does suggest
the SEC has learned something over the years. Experts who dealt with the agency in its early years of
examining private equity firms found the examiners allergic to considering, much the less pursuing, complex
abuses.
Undermining legislative intent of new supervisory authority
. The SEC never embraced its
new responsibilities to ride herd on private equity and hedge funds.
The SEC has long maintained a division between the retail investors and so-called "accredited investors"
who by virtue of having higher net worths and investment portfolios, are treated by the agency as able to
afford to lose more money. The justification is that richer means more sophisticated. But as anyone who is a
manager for a top sports professional or entertainer, that is often not the case. And as we've seen, that
goes double for public pension funds.
Starting with the era of Clinton appointee Arthur Levitt, the agency has taken the view that it is in the
business of defending presumed-to-be-hapless retail investors and has left "accredited investor" and most of
all, institutional investors, on their own. This was a policy decision by the agency when deregulation was
venerated; there was no statutory basis for this change in priorities.
Congress tasked the SEC with supervising the fund management activities of private equity funds with over
$150 million in assets under management. All of their investors are accredited investors. In other words,
Congress mandated the SEC to make sure these firms complied with relevant laws as well as making adequate
disclosures of what they were going to do with the money entrusted to them. Saying one thing in the investor
contracts and doing another is a vastly worse breach than misrepresentations in marketing materials, yet the
SEC acted as if slap-on-the-wrist-level enforcement was adequate.
We made fun when thirteen prominent public pension fund trustees wrote the SEC asking for them to force
greater transparency of private equity fees and costs. The agency's position effectively was "You are
grownups. No one is holding a gun to your head to make these investments. If you don't like the terms, walk
away." They might have done better if they could have positioned their demand as consistent with the new
Dodd Frank oversight requirements.
Actively covering up for bad conduct
. In 2014, the SEC started working at giving
malfeasance a free pass. Specifically, the SEC told private equity firms that they could continue their
abuses if they 'fessed up in their annual disclosure filings, the so-called Form ADV. The term of art is
"enhanced disclosure". Since when are contracts like confession, that if you admit to a breach, all is
forgiven? Only in the topsy-turvy world of SEC enforcement.
The agency is operating in such a cozy manner with private equity firms that as one investor described
it:
It's like FBI sitting down with the Mafia to tell them each year, "Don't cross these lines because
that's what we are focusing on."
Specifically, as we indicated, the SEC was giving advanced warning of the issues it would focus on in its
upcoming exams, in order to give investment managers the time to get their stories together and purge files.
And rather than view its periodic exams as being designed to make sure private equity firms comply with the
law and their representations, the agency views them as "cooperative" exercises! Misconduct is assumed to be
the result of misunderstanding and error, and not design.
It's pretty hard to see conduct like this, from the SEC's Risk Alert, as being an accident:
Advisers charged private fund clients for expenses that were not permitted by the relevant fund
operating agreements, such as adviser-related expenses like salaries of adviser personnel, compliance,
regulatory filings, and office expenses, thereby causing investors to overpay expenses
The staff observed private fund advisers that did not value client assets in accordance with their
valuation processes or in accordance with disclosures to clients (such as that the assets would be valued
in accordance with GAAP). In some cases, the staff observed that this failure to value a private fund's
holdings in accordance with the disclosed valuation process led to overcharging management fees and
carried interest because such fees were based on inappropriately overvalued holdings .
Advisers failed to apply or calculate management fee offsets in accordance with disclosures and
therefore caused investors to overpay management fees.
We're highlighting this skimming simply because it is easier for laypeople to understand than some of the
other types of cheating the SEC described. Even so, industry insiders and investors complained that the
description of the misconduct in this Risk Alert was too general to give them enough of a roadmap to look
for it at particular funds.
Ignoring how investors continue to be fleeced
. The SEC's list includes every abuse it
sanctioned or mentioned in the 2014 to 2015 period, including undisclosed termination of monitoring fees,
failure to disclose that investors were paying for "senior advisers/operating partners," fraudulent charges,
overcharging for services provided by affiliated companies, plus lots of types of bad-faith conduct on fund
restructurings and allocations of fees and expenses on transactions allocated across funds.
The SEC assumed institutional investors would insist on better conduct once they were informed that
they'd been had. In reality, not only did private equity investors fail to demand better, they accepted new
fund agreements that described the sort of objectionable behavior they'd been engaging in. Remember, the big
requirement in SEC land is disclosure. So if a fund manager says he might do Bad Things and then proceeds
accordingly, the investor can't complain about not having been warned.
Moreover, the SEC's very long list of bad acts says the industry is continuing to misbehave even after it
has defined deviancy down via more permissive limited partnership agreements!
Why This Risk Alert Now?
Keep in mind what a Risk Alert is and isn't. The best way to conceptualize it is as a press release from
the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations. It does not have any legal or regulatory force.
Risk Alerts are not even considered to be SEC official views. They are strictly the product of OCIE staff.
On the first page of this Risk Alert, the OCIE blandly states that:
This Risk Alert is intended to assist private fund advisers in reviewing and enhancing their
compliance programs, and also to provide investors with information concerning private fund adviser
deficiencies.
Cutely, footnotes point out that not everyone examined got a deficiency letter (!!!), that the SEC has
taken enforcement actions on "many" of the abuses described in the Risk Alert, yet "OCIE continues to
observe some of these practices during examinations."
Several of our contacts who met in person with the SEC to discuss private equity grifting back in
2014-2015 pressed the agency to issue a Risk Alert as a way of underscoring the seriousness of the issues it
was unearthing. The staffers demurred then.
In fairness, the SEC may have regarded a Risk Alert as having the potential to undermine its
not-completed enforcement actions. But why not publish one afterwards, particularly since the intent then
had clearly been to single out prominent examples of particular types of misconduct, rather than tackle it
systematically?
2
So why is the OCIE stepping out a bit now? The most likely reason is as an effort to compensate for the
lack of enforcement actions. Recall that all the OCIE can do is refer a case to the Enforcement Division;
it's their call as to whether or not to take it up.
The SEC looks to have institutionalized the practice of borrowing lawyers from prominent firms. Mary Jo
White of Debevoise brought Andrew Ceresney with her from Debeviose to be her head of enforcement. Both
returned to Debevoise.
Current SEC chairman Jay Clayton came from Sullivan & Cromwell, bringing with him Steven Peikin as
co-head of enforcement. And the Clayton SEC looks to have accomplished the impressive task of being even
weaker on enforcement than Mary Jo White. Clayton made clear his focus was on "mom and pop" investors,
meaning he chose to overlook much more consequential abuses by private equity firms and hedgies. The New
York Times determined that the average amount of SEC fines against corporate perps fell markedly in 2018
compared to the final 20 months of the Obama Administration. The SEC since then levied $1 billion fine
against the Woodbridge Group of Companies and its one-time owner for running a Ponzi scheme that fleeced
over 8,400, so that would bring the average penalty up a bit. But it still confirms that Clayton is
concerned about small fry, and not deeper but just as pickable pockets.
David Sirota argues
that the OCIE was out to embarrass Clayton and sabotage what Sirota depicted as an
SEC initiative to let retail investors invest in private equity. Sirota appears to have missed that that
horse has left the barn and is in the next county, and the SEC had squat to do with it.
The overwhelming majority of retail funds is not in discretionary accounts but in retirement accounts,
overwhelmingly 401(k)s. And it is the Department of Labor, which regulates ERISA plans, and not the SEC,
that decides what those go and no go zones are. The DoL has already green-lighted allowing large swathes of
401(k) funds to include private equity holdings.
From a post earlier this month
:
Until now, regulations have kept private equity out of the retail market by prohibiting managers from
accepting capital from individuals who lack significant net worth.
Moreover, even though Sirota pointed out that Clayton had spoken out in favor of allowing retail
investors more access to private equity investments, the proposed regulation on the definition of accredited
investors in fact not only does not lower income or net worth requirements (save for allowing spouses to
combine their holdings) it in fact solicited comments on the idea of raising the limits.
From a K&L Gates write up
:
Previously, the Concept Release requested comment on whether the SEC should revise the current
individual income ($200,000) and net worth ($1,000,000) thresholds. In the Proposing Release, the SEC
further considered these thresholds, noting that the figures have not been adjusted since 1982. The SEC
concluded that it does not believe modifications to the thresholds are necessary at this time, but it has
requested comments on whether the final should instead make a one-time increase to the thresholds in the
account for inflation, or whether the final rule should reflect a figure that is indexed to inflation on
a going-forward basis.
It is not clear how many people would be picked up by the proposed change, which was being fleshed out,
that of letting some presumed sophisticated but not rich individuals, like junior hedge fund professionals
and holders of securities licenses, be treated as accredited investors. In other words, despite Clayton's
talk about wanting ordinary investors to have more access to private equity funds, the agency's proposed
rule change falls short of that.
Moreover, if the OCIE staff had wanted to undermine even the limited liberalization of the definition of
accredited investor so as to stymie more private equity investment, the time to do so would have been
immediately before or while the comments period was open.
It ended March
16
.
So again, why now? One possibility is that the timing is purely a coincidence. For instance, the SEC
staffers might have been waiting until Covid-19 news overload died down a bit so their work might get a
hearing (and Covid-19 remote work complications may also have delayed its release).
The second possibility is that OCIE is indeed very frustrated with the enforcement chief Peikin's
inaction on private equity. The fact that Peikin's boss and protector Clayton has made himself a lame duck
meant a salvo against Peikin was now a much lower risk. If any readers have better insight into the internal
workings of the SEC these days, please pipe up.
______
1
Formally, as you can see, this Risk Alert addresses both private equity and hedge fund
misconduct, but on reading the details, the citing of both types of funds reflects the degree to which hedge
funds have been engaging in the buying and selling of stakes in private companies. For instance, Chatham
Asset Management, which has become notorious through its ownership of American Media, which in turn owns the
National Enquirer, calls itself a hedge fund. Moreover, when the SEC started examining both private equity
and hedge funds under new authority granted by Dodd Frank, it described the sort of misconduct described in
this Risk Alert as coming out of exams of private equity firms, and its limited round of enforcement actions
then were against brand name private equity firms like KKR, Blackstone, Apollo, and TPG. Thus for
convenience as well as historical reasons, we refer only to private equity firms as perps.
2
Media stories at the time, including some of our posts, provided substantial evidence that
particular abuses, such as undisclosed termination of monitoring fees and failure to disclose that "senior
advisers" presented as general partner "team members" were in fact consultants being separately billed to
fund investments, were common practices. Yet the SEC chose to lodge only marquee enforcement actions against
one prominent firm for each abuse, as if token enforcement would serve as an adequate deterrent. The message
was the reverse, that the overwhelming majority of the abuses were able to keep their ill-gotten gains and
not even face public embarrassment.
TBH, in the view of Calpers ignoring its advisors, I do have a little understanding of the SEC's point
"you're grown ups" (the worse problem is that the advisors who leach themselves to the various accredited
investors are often not worth the money.
On the same side though, fraud is a criminal offence, and it's SEC's duty to prosecute. And I believe
that a lot of what PE engage in would happily fall under fraud, if SEC really wanted.
Yes, the SEC conveniently claims a conflicted authority – 1. to regulate compliance but without an
"enforcement authority", and 2. report egregious behavior to their "enforcement authority". So the SEC is
less than a permissive nanny. Sort of like "access" to enforcement authority. Sounds like health care to
me.
No, this is false. The SEC has an examination division and an enforcement division. The SEC can and
does take enforcement actions that result in fines and disgorgements, see the $1 billion fine
mentioned in the post. So the exam division can recommend enforcement to the enforcement division.
That does not mean it will get done. Some enforcement actions originate from within the enforcement
division, like insider trading cases, and the SEC long has had a tendency to prioritize insider
trading cases.
The SEC cannot prosecute. It has to refer cases that it thinks are criminal to the DoJ and try to
get them to saddle up.
Crimogenic: Producing or tending to produce crime or criminality. An additional factor is that, in the
main, the criminals do not take their money and leave the gaming tables but pour it back in and the crime
metastasizes.
AKA, Kleptocracy.
Thus in 2008 and thereafter the criminal damage required 2-3 trillion, now 7-10 trillion.
Any economic expert who does not recognize crime as the number one problem in the criminogenic US economy
I disregard. Why read all that analysis when, at the end of the run, it all just boils down to bailing out
the criminals and trying to reset the criminogenic system?
You might add that the threat of consequences for these crimes makes the criminals extremely motivated
to elect officials who will not prosecute them (e.g. Obama). They're not running for office, they're
avoiding incarceration.
The SEC has been captured for years now. It was not that long ago that SEC Examination chief Andrew
Bowden made a grovelling speech to these players and even asked them to give his son a job which was so
wrong-
But there is no point in reforming the SEC as it was the politicians, at the beck and call of these
players, that de-fanged the SEC – and it was a bipartisan effort! So it becomes a chicken-or-the-egg problem
in the matter of reform. Who do you reform first?
Can't leave this comment without mentioning something about a private equity company. One of the two
major internal airlines in Oz went broke due to the virus and a private equity buyer has been found to buy
it. A union rep said that they will be good for jobs and that they are a good company. Their name? Bain
Capital!
We broke the story about Andrew Bowden! Give credit where credit is due!!!! Even though Taibbi points
to us in his first line, linking to Rolling Stone says to those who don't bother clicking through that it
was their story.
Of course I remember that story. I was going to mention it but thought to let people see it in
virtually the opening line of that story where he gives you credit. More of a jolt of recognition
seeing it rather than being told about it first.
Of the three branches of government which ones are not captured by big business? If two out of three were
to captured then does it matter what the third does?
Is the executive working for the common good or for the interests of big business?
Is the legislature working for the common good or for the interests of big business?
Is the judiciary working for the common good or for the interests of big business?
In my opinion too much power has been centralised, too much of the productivity gains of the past 40
years have been monetised and therefore made possible to hoard and centralise.
SEC should (in my opinion) try to enforce more but without more support then I do not believe (it is my
opinion, nothing more and nothing less) that they can accomplish much.
The SEC is a mysterious agency which (?) must fall under the jurisdiction of the Treasury because it
is a monetary regulatory agency in the business of regulating securities and exchanges. But it has no
authority to do much of anything. The Treasury itself falls under the executive administration but as we
have recently seen, Mnuchin himself managed to get a nice skim for his banking pals from the money
Congress legislated. That's because Congress doesn't know how to effectuate a damn thing – they legislate
stuff that morphs before our very eyes and goes to the grifters without a hitch. So why don't we demand
that consumer protection be made into hard law with no wiggle room; that since investing is complex in
this world of embedded funds and glossy prospectuses, we the consumer should not have to wade through all
the nonsense to make decisions – that everything be on the table. And if PE can't manage to do that and
still steal its billions then PE should be declared to be flat-out illegal.
Please stop spreading disinformation. This is the second time on this post.
The SEC has nada to do with the Treasury. It is an independent regulatory agency.
It however is the only financial regulator that does not keep what it kills (its own fees and
fines) but is instead subject to Congressional appropriations. Andrew Levitt, for instance, complained
bitterly that Joe Lieberman would regularly threaten to cut the SEC's budget for allegedly being too
aggressive about enforcement. Lieberman was the Senator from Hedgistan.
It should be noted that out here in the countryside of northern Michigan that embezzlement (a winter
sport here while the men are out ice fishing), theft and fraud are still considered punishable felonies.
Perhaps that is simply a quaint holdover from a bygone time. Dudley set the tone for the C of C with his
Green Book on bank deregulation. One of the subsequent heads of C of C was reported as seeing his position
as "being the spiritual resource for banks". If bank regulation is treated in a farcical fashion why should
be the SEC be any different?
I was shocked to just now learn that ERISA/the Dept of Labor is in regulatory control of allowing pension
funds to buy PE fund of funds and "balanced PE funds". What VERBIAGE. Are "PE Fund of Balanced Funds" an
actual category? And what distinguishes them from good old straightforward Index Funds? And also too – what
is happening before our very glazed-over eyes is that PE is high grading not just the stock market but the
US Treasury itself. Ordinary investors should be buying US Treasuries directly and retirement funds should
too. It will be a big bite but if it knocks PE out of business it would be worth it. PE is in the business
of cooking its books, ravaging struggling corporations, and boldly privatizing the goddamned Treasury. WTF?
What about the wanton destruction of the purchased companies? If this
solely
about the harm done
to the poor investors? If so, that is seriously wrong.
If, you know, the neoliberal "because markets" is the ruling paradigm then of course there is no harm
done. The questions then become: is "because markets" a sensible paradigm? What is it a sensible paradigm
of? Is "because markets" even sensible for the long term?
an aside: farewell, Olympus camera. A sad day. Farewell, OM-1 and OM-2. Film photography is really not
replicated by digital photography but the larger market has gone to digital. Speed and cost vs quality.
Because markets. Now the vulture swoop.
Where is the SEC when Bain Capital (Romney) wipes out Toys-R-Us and Dianne Feinstein's husband Richard
Blum wipes out Payless Shoes. They gain control of the companies, pile on massive debt and take the proceeds
of the loan, and they know the company cannot service the loan and a BK is around the corner. Thousands lose
their jobs. And this is legal? And we also lost Glass-Steagal and legalized stock buy-backs.The Elite are
screwing the people. It's Socialism for the Rich, the Politicians and Govt Employees and Feudalism for the
rest of us.
divideand conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful,
so that they cannot unite in opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity. ..."
"... If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump. ..."
I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that are around at the moment.
In its most
general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that
members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different
things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal,
but I'm hoping I can say something new.
You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy of soft neoliberals.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important to politics. But neoliberalism's
radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into
identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires uniting
through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political community gets fragmented. It becomes
harder for people to see each other as part of that same shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism,
which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and
marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for
a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies.
As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary
neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that
some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they
then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies
of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals
claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better
than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan
for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in
Iraq lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi
government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy
but instead civil war and instability, with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups.
On the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those motivated to expand
human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers
largely assumed that all good things would go together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening
China to trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would become liberal
through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political
system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump
had nothing to do with them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members,
who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it was correct for first decade or so
of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with
Brexit) and that where identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics as the political strategy of the
"soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of nationalism.
The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable
to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups,
such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals,
etc)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most problems are relatively minor and
can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal
ideology. And they can't be solved within this framework.
Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who
pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to
war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an
environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is
applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran
and Venezuela?
In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian
necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the
sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a
ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian
population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes
that it condemned publicly in court.
Gangster politicians like to think that they are slick. They talk slang and curse a lot,
grab a girl's ass (or worse), insist that they never read a book, thumb their noses at
intellectual elites, boast about their high IQs, and proclaim their "street smarts." They also
view themselves both as victims of their critics' malice and "great men" alone capable of
curing the nation's ills.
They make their base feel the same: they are despised and yet the real Americans!
Their belief in the boss is unwavering. Only he can make America great again.
Those who oppose his policies are traitors and the threats they pose are serious -- and, if
they are not serious, then they must be made serious. History teaches what might become
necessary in order to teach them a lesson. The Reichstag Fire of 1933 and the (staged)
assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934 were the dramatic events that led Hitler and Stalin to
justify attacks on enemies, renegades, and supposed traitors to the state. Gangster politicians
under internal pressure pray for a crisis, or what Trump once forecast as a "major event," in
order to rally the troops and clean house.
Gangster politics requires no ideology. Lack of principle itself becomes a principle.
The great man must do what must be done: if that means lying, reneging on deals, shifting
gears, rejecting transparency, and whatever else, then so be it. That he can employ the double
standard is a given.
Big talk takes the place of diplomacy and, if the bluster doesn't work then America alone --
or, better, the boss alone -- can rely on "fire and fury" whenever and wherever he likes.
Traditionalists employed jingoistic rhetoric and wrapped themselves in the flag. The
gangster politician talks like a schoolyard bully and salutes himself.
Gangster politicians of times past had subordinates swear an oath of loyalty not to the
state but to them. Yesterday's "America! Love it or leave it!" has today turned into: "Trump!
Love him -- or shut up!"
"... Contemporary films and television shows constantly depict the CIA, corrupt politicians and greedy corporate interests as interwoven. But these usually appear as either the work of rogue individuals (who must be brought into line) or an always vague and unalterable "system" that demands utter cynicism as the only appropriate response. ..."
In The Communist Manifesto , Marx and Engels referred to the state as "the executive
committee of the ruling class." Reflecting the collective capitalist interest in maintaining
its accumulation process, capable of forging compromises among competing sectors of its own and
other classes, this committee was also meant to enforce legal norms, contracts, and other rules
of the game.
If necessary, indeed, it would even subordinate individual capitalist interests to the
collective interests of the class. The executive committee might foster imperialist ambitions
and declare war. But it might also call for redistributive legislation to foster demand even
though no individual capitalist would want to pay higher taxes to cover the cost. Recalcitrant
elements of the ruling class and protestors from below require punishment. Fascist states
easily get carried away in that regard. Banana republics usually exhibit bureaucratic gangster
tendencies. In a capitalist democracy, however, things are supposedly different: its executive
committee should jail Al Capone and marginalize corruption. The lines between legal and illegal
business transactions are blurring and the term "political mafia" is taking on a whole new
meaning. [1]
Gangster politics has little in common with the interests of petty criminals, white collar
crooks, 'Crips and 'Bloods, and the like. Vast sums are at stake: so, for example, roughly
82.8% of benefits from the 2017 tax bill are being funneled into the portfolios of the top 1%,
[2] and
the corporate tax rate is being dropped from 35% to 21%. The boss knows where his bread is
buttered. That the godfather should get his cut goes without saying: Trump's family will make
upwards of "tens of millions of dollars" from his tax legislation. [3] And with the "ca-ching!"
(that sweet sound of the cash register) comes the "bling" (the payoffs, the hush-money, and the
gifts) along with the "glitz" of the porno stars, the third-rate actresses, the models, and the
rest.
Gangster politics hovers between the authoritarian and the democratic. The boss and his
posse receive their perks for a reason. Gangster politics immunizes capitalist society from
class contradictions that have become too acute or demands from below that have grown too
onerous. Its representatives are not exactly fascists. They don't rely on paramilitary forces,
concentration camps, official censorship, or explicit ideals of a racially pure society. Sleaze
is the ethos of gangster politics. Its style and tone insinuate themselves into existing
institutions such as the town meeting, the mass rally, media, electoral debates, and the use of
legislative tricks, and legal minutiae. Gangster politicians know how to "game" the system.
Their populist rhetoric is window dressing. The old "bicycle mentality" of the petty
bourgeoisie holds sway, namely, push up and kick down.
Gangsters have long been identified with capitalists, cops, and state officials. Balzac
noted that every great fortune hides a great crime. Upton Sinclair and Frank Norris made the
connection as did Ibsen. But, perhaps most notoriously, Bert Brecht saw the gangster ethos
uniting capitalists, imperialists, and militarists in a host of plays beginning with The
Three Penny Opera . Contemporary films and television shows constantly depict the CIA,
corrupt politicians and greedy corporate interests as interwoven. But these usually appear as
either the work of rogue individuals (who must be brought into line) or an always vague and
unalterable "system" that demands utter cynicism as the only appropriate response.
Gangster politics is not a structured institutional formation, as often argued, [4] but rather
a semi-legal adaptation to legal forms of governance. It arises when the gangster's clients
sense danger. Memories still linger concerning the economic crisis of 2008. [5] Banks are still
over-extending unfavorable loans, stocks have been erratic, insider trading is the rule of the
day and the "average guy" is panicking as capital becomes centralized in ever fewer hands.
Production requires an ever smaller yet more educated working class; consumption is
inordinately skewed to the wealthy; and the class question increasingly turns on how best to
disempower working people, those living below the poverty line, women, citizens of color, and
immigrants
Enforcing gerrymandering, curtailing voting rights, privatizing the prison system, access
peddling, and accruing unlimited donations for electoral campaigns are effective tactics that
border on the illegal. Right-wing control over an increasingly centralized media helps deflect
criticisms and divide the disenfranchised and exploited. The audience has been primed. The
boss' mass base detests his critics. Environmentalists, immigrants, people of color, uppity
women, decadent gays and the transgendered infuriate the "good citizens" of America clinging to
outworn traditions in small towns as well as evangelicals and retrograde (white) sectors of the
industrial working class. They despair over loss of jobs, government "waste" and "welfare
chiselers," moral decline, and (above all) the loss of their cultural privileges. They look
back to a time when "men were men," "America was great!" and "happy days" followed one another
non-stop.
Elites nod approvingly, though they have different priorities: de-regulation, lower taxes,
fewer welfare policies, and cuts in the "costs of doing business." Oligarchic tendencies are
built into capitalism and, as they expand, their exploitative impact on workers and the urban
poor become more intense. That is where gangster politics enters the mainstream. Corporate
elites require protection from progressive forces. [6] Their leaders must often
choose between authoritarianism with profits as against democracy with costs. Thy always assume
that they can control their enforcer. Once in office, however, the parvenu begins exercising
power in his own interest. Donald Trump turned on mainstream Republicans, who pandered to the
Tea Party early in the Obama presidency, just as Hitler turned on his former patron, Fritz von
Papen, and his "cabinet of the barons" in 1933. It was the same with General Pinochet who was
installed by the traditional conservative Eduard Frei following the fall of Salvador Allende's
democratic regime in Chile in 1973. Other examples are available.
Gangster politics has its own logic. Traditionalists like to believe that the conflict is
between "them and us." For the political gangster, however, the struggle is between "them and
me." The only fixed rule is -- don't cross the boss! And, if only for this reason, he chooses
to be feared rather than loved. He taunts his subordinates, publicly humiliates them, throws
them under the bus, and perhaps even fires them a few days before their retirement. Cabinet
officials and agency directors require no expertise or security clearance, [7] all that counts is
loyalty to the boss. But, then, loyalty is a one-way street. Internal security advisers, press
secretaries, cabinet secretaries, chiefs of staff, assistants, agency directors, White House
attorneys, and deputies of all stripes come and go. Trump's administration has already had a
turnover rate of 34%, more than triple that of the Obama presidency. [8] Confusion and chaos
proliferate. There is a sense in which the goal of gangster politics is what Franz Neumann
termed "the stateless state." It serves a concrete purpose: everyone knows who is in charge of
everything.
Gangster politicians like to think that they are slick. They talk slang and curse a lot,
grab a girl's ass (or worse), insist that they never read a book, thumb their noses at
intellectual elites, boast about their high IQs, and proclaim their "street smarts." They also
view themselves both as victims of their critics' malice and "great men" alone capable of
curing the nation's ills. They make their base feel the same: they are despised and yet the
real Americans! Their belief in the boss is unwavering. Only he can make America great
again. Those who oppose his policies are traitors and the threats they pose are serious -- and,
if they are not serious, then they must be made serious. History teaches what might become
necessary in order to teach them a lesson. The Reichstag Fire of 1933 and the (staged)
assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934 were the dramatic events that led Hitler and Stalin to
justify attacks on enemies, renegades, and supposed traitors to the state. Gangster politicians
under internal pressure pray for a crisis, or what Trump once forecast as a "major event," in
order to rally the troops and clean house.
Gangster politics requires no ideology. Lack of principle itself becomes a principle.
The great man must do what must be done: if that means lying, reneging on deals, shifting
gears, rejecting transparency, and whatever else, then so be it. That he can employ the double
standard is a given. Big talk takes the place of diplomacy and, if the bluster doesn't work
then America alone – or, better, the boss alone – can rely on "fire and fury"
whenever and wherever he likes. Traditionalists employed jingoistic rhetoric and wrapped
themselves in the flag. The gangster politician talks like a schoolyard bully and salutes
himself. Gangster politicians of times past had subordinates swear an oath of loyalty not to
the state but to them. Yesterday's "America! Love it or leave it!" has today turned into:
"Trump! Love him –or shut up!"
... ,,, ,,
References
[1]
Herbert Marcuse, 1974 Paris Lectures at Vincennes University eds. Peter-Erwin Jansen and
Charles Reitz (Published by the Marcuse Archives).
[2]
Dylan Matthews, "The Republican tax bill got worse: now the top 1% gets 83% of the gains,"VOX,
December 18, 2017,
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center
[3]
Louis Jacobson, "How much does the Trump family have to gain from GOP tax bills?"PolitiFact,
November 27,
2017,http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/27/lloyd-doggett/how-much-does-trump-family-have-gain-gop-tax-bills/
[4]
The term "gangster state" has been used often, and there are a number of different
interpretations of the phenomenon ie. Katherine Hirschfeld, Gangster States: Organized Crime,
Kleptocracy and Political Collapse (New York: Palgrave, 2015); Charles Tilly, "State Formation
as Organized Crime" in eds. Peter Evans et. al (Bringing the State Back In (New York: Cambridge
University press, 1985); Michael Hirsh, "Gangster States" in
http://www.newsweek.com/gangster-state-166356Paul Craig Roberts, "Gangster State America: Where
is America's Democracy?"
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/05/06/gangster-state-america-paul-craig-roberts-2/;
[5]
Gretchen Morgenstern and Joshua Rosner, Reckles$ Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed,
and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon (New York: Henry Holt, 2011).
[6]
Note the discussion in Stephen Eric Bronner, The Bitter Taste of Hope: Ideals, Ideologies
and Interests in the Age of Obama (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2017), 1ff.
[7]
Max Greenwood, "At least 30 White House officials, Trump appointees lack full clearances:
report," The Hill, February 9,
2018http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/373220-at-least-30-white-house-officials-trump-appointees-lack-full#.Wn7-uVrZvb8.facebook
[9]
Nicholas Confessore and Karen Yourish, "$2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump,"
New York Times , March 15,
2016https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html
Stephen Eric Bronner is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Political Science and
Director of Global Relations for the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights at
Rutgers University. His most recent work is The Bitter Taste of Hope: Ideals, Ideologies
and Interests in the Age of Obama.
Selling political influence through family members is THE legal form of corruption. Hunter
Biden and Christopher Heinz' BHR Capital, with no experience in China or any track record
of success, quickly raised up to $1.5 billion from the Bank of China shortly after Hunter
Biden's trip aboard Air Force 2 to China with his father. While this isn't a case of
outsourcing U.S. manufacturing, it is a present-day reminder of how the political and
economic elites in both China and the U.S. collude together for their own financial gains.
Sure but then, why ignore the much more recent examples like the Trump girl being granted
trademarks by China after her father became President? After.
My point is that the author only detracts from an somewhat informative article by
showing his partisan biases.
The idea that one political party in the U.S. has been less deferential to China than
the other is laughable. When there is a buck to be made, that buck will be made.
Burr, who is best known to Americans in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Intel
Committee, reportedly turned over his phone to agents after they executed a search warrant on
his home in the Washington area.
The seizure is a sign of a "significant escalation" in the investigation, the paper
said.
The seizure represents a significant escalation in the investigation into whether Burr
violated a law preventing members of Congress from trading on insider information they have
gleaned from their official work.
To obtain a search warrant, federal agents and prosecutors must persuade a judge they have
probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The law enforcement official said the
Justice Department is examining Burr's communications with his broker.
Such a warrant being served on a sitting U.S. senator would require approval from the
highest ranks of the Justice Department and is a step that would not be taken lightly. Kerri
Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment.
A second law enforcement official said FBI agents served a warrant in recent days on Apple
to obtain information from Burr's iCloud account and said agents used data obtained from the
California-based company as part of the evidence used to obtain the warrant for the senator's
phone.
Notably, the leak - which reads like something the NYT or WaPo would ordinarily publish -
follows a federal judge's decision to try and stop the DoJ from dismissing the charges against
former Trump NSA Michael Flynn.
Was this 'leak' really intended to show the public that the DoJ remains non-partisan in the
Trump era? We wouldn't be surprised. But the fact remains: If these senators broke the law,
they will almost certainly face charges.
Of course, Burr wasn't the only lawmaker to get caught up in the scandal:
Others who have come under fire for stock sales include Rep Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) and
James Inhofe (R-Okla.) as well as - what's this? - powerful California Democrat Dianne
Feinstein.
"The level of corruption inherent in the current setup (first adopted in Soviet NEP --
New Economic Policy) is tremendous, as the party has absolute political power and controls
the major economic and financial areas while the entrepreneurs try to bribe state officials
to get the leverage and/or enrich themselves at the state expense or bypass the
bureaucratic limitations/inefficiencies imposed by the state, or offload some costs. So
mafia style relationship between party officials and entrepreneurs is not an aberration, it
is a norm. And periodic "purges" of corrupt Party officials do not solve the problem.
Ecological problems in China are just one side effect of this."
As many noted, corruption in USA is in some sense smaller, because a lot of corrupted
activities are legalized. Sorry for pasting a large quote from NYT
"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," Ms. Kelly, an aide to Mr. Christie, wrote in
an email to officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the
bridge.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, called the communication "an admirably concise
email."
She went on to write that "the evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing --
deception, corruption, abuse of power."
"But the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct," she wrote.
"Under settled precedent, the officials could violate those laws only if an object of their
dishonesty was to obtain the Port Authority's money or property."
And, she wrote, "the realignment of the toll lanes was an exercise of regulatory power --
something this court has already held fails to meet the statutes' property requirement."
It is not the first time that the justices have shown their skepticism of public
corruption cases. In 2016, it unanimously overturned the conviction of Bob McDonnell, a
former governor of Virginia who was accused of accepting luxury products, loans and vacations
from a business executive in return for arranging meetings and urging underlings to consider
the executive's requests.
--------------------
A quarter of American GDP goes for defense and health care. Both areas are a veritable swamp
of greed, rapacious overpricing, peddling unneeded products etc. And it is not like the
remaining 75% is an oasis of honesty. An average terminal cancer patient has a better
percentage of healthy cells.
The OPCW is claimed to be an independent agency but we know that it suppressed the results of
its own engineers when it reported that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged
chemical attack in Douma. The former head of the agency has publicly asserted that when John
Bolton demanded that he step down, he added, "We know where your children live." The US has a
history of corruption and intimidation. Any investigation would result in finding China
responsible just as Russia was found to be responsible for the airliner that was shot down
over Ukraine.
"American collusion with kleptocracy comes at a terrible
cost for the rest of the world. All of the stolen money, all of those evaded tax dollars sunk
into Central Park penthouses and Nevada shell companies, might otherwise fund health care and
infrastructure. (A report from the anti-poverty group One has argued that 3.6 million deaths
each year can be attributed to this sort of resource siphoning.)
Thievery tramples the possibilities of workable markets and credible democracy. It fuels
suspicions that the whole idea of liberal capitalism is a hypocritical sham: While the world is
plundered, self-righteous Americans get rich off their complicity with the crooks.
The Founders were concerned that venality would become standard procedure, and it has. Long
before suspicion mounted about the loyalties of Donald Trump, large swaths of the American
elite -- lawyers, lobbyists, real-estate brokers, politicians in state capitals who enabled the
creation of shell companies -- had already proved themselves to be reliable servants of a
rapacious global plutocracy.
"Richard Palmer was right: The looting elites of the former Soviet Union were far from rogue
profiteers. They augured a kleptocratic habit that would soon become widespread.
One bitter truth about the Russia scandal is that by the time Vladimir Putin attempted to
influence the shape of our country, it was already bending in the direction of his."
Posted by b on April 8, 2020 at 7:43 UTC | Permalink
The Jpost article that b links to says that a million masks from China (donated by the US
Department of Defense) arrived in Tel Aviv on Tuesday night. But Israel should have already
had two million masks if this report from last weekend is correct: The shipment will include two million masks, landing in Israel on Monday morning, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-april-4-2020/
So that appears to be three million masks from China, plus those seized from American
hospitals. Or are they fiddling the figures and pretending that those seized masks were
legally purchased in China?
It appears that Mossad and others have recently acquired about two surgical masks per
Israeli:
"5 April 2020,
(...)Last week, the Health Ministry said that security services and government ministries had
managed to obtain 27 ventilators and a hoard of other medical equipment from abroad.
Hebrew media reported that the Mossad intelligence service, which has been tasked with
securing medical equipment from abroad from unspecified countries amid worldwide shortages,
helped obtain 25,000 N95 respiratory masks , 20,000 virus test kits, 10 million
surgical masks , and 700 overalls for ambulance workers who usually carry out the initial
testing for the virus.
One million masks for the IDF.
Eat your heart out US Theodore Roosevelt and Guam.
US sailors right at the bottom of the Pentagon's priorities, thats for sure.
American military?.
Have one duty - die as required for Israel.
Including death by coronavirus by looks of things.....
More fool them.
Bloody hell. The Pentagon procures a million masks from China, then gives them to Israel -
when US doctors are running low in almost every city - not to mention that the military
itself has soaring coronavirus cases it can't handle.
You gotta know some rich Jewish corporate billionaire was behind that crap and Kushner was
just the conduit to get Trump to agree to it - probably in exchange for a big donation to
Trump's campaign.
If there was ever a country that deserved to be on the end of a US bombing campaign - it's
Israel - a racist, fanatical. colonialist, fascist, illegal terrorist state. Zionists - the
biggest scumbags on the planet. But instead the US bombs everyone else Israel doesn't
like.
But cheer up. Israel is a doomed nation. There is no way they can continue their path
forever, historically speaking. I suspect they won't exist within another fifty years.
They'll either be annihilated by their own nuclear weapons, or transformed into a bi-national
state that is no longer primarily Jewish. And I don't particularly care which.
The U.S. government's efforts to clean up Cold War-era waste from nuclear research and bomb
making at federal sites around the country has lumbered along for decades, often at a pace
that watchdogs and other critics say threatens public health and the environment.
Now, fallout from the global coronavirus pandemic is resulting in more challenges as the
nation's only underground repository for nuclear waste finished ramping down operations
Wednesday to keep workers safe.
Over more than 20 years, tons of waste have been stashed deep in the salt caverns that
make up the southern New Mexico site. Until recently, several shipments a week of special
boxes and barrels packed with lab coats, rubber gloves, tools and debris contaminated with
plutonium and other radioactive elements were being trucked to the remote facility from South
Carolina, Idaho and other spots.
That's all but grinding to a halt.
Shipments to the desert outpost will be limited for the foreseeable future while work at
the country's national laboratories and defense sites shift to only those operations
considered "mission critical."
Officials at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant warned state regulators in a letter Tuesday
that more time would be needed for inspections and audits and that work would be curtailed or
shifts would be staggered to ensure workers keep their distance from one another.
BTW, the Al Quds Post (aka Jerusalem Post to Zionists) has changed the headline on that
article to "Israel brings 1 million masks from China for IDF soldiers" Looks like the "New
York Purchasing and Logistics Division" is part of the Israeli Ministry Of War All The Time.
So the original was a nice story but fake news. Since there was no correction attached to the
new version, it could be that Washington/Tel Aviv reckoned that this was a step to far even
for Trump and the new version is the fake news.
- This news simply confirms again that the US, under Trump, has become more corrupt. But this
is a development that already started years, decades ago before Trump became president.
I think the possibility should be considered that Trump just made preexisting corruption
more visible rather than adding significantly to it. There are elaborate protocols and
circuitous speech that professional politicians learn to use to obfuscate the corruption and
make their own participation in that corruption seem not only acceptable but necessary or
even in the public interest. Trump is either ignorant of these protocols or he just doesn't
care.
Even with all this help (of which most go to the military sector), the Isreali economy can
barely keep itself afloat:
[...] inequality of income and wealth is huge in Israel, the second worst in the 36 nation
OECD group. The relative poverty rate for Haredim and Arabs (25% of the population) is near
50%, and even for other Israelis, it is higher than the OECD average. The gap in median
wage levels from skilled to unskilled; from Haredim/Arabs to others is huge - and yet the
former will constitute 50% of the population by 2060.
And this mask fiasco is the lesser problem for the American working class right now. A
significant portion of its people
is going hungry . That magic USD 1,200 check is not coming soon:
"the checks are not in the mail."
And the problem isn't just in the USA. The periphery of Western Civilization is also going
to suffer:
Germany's economy will shrink almost 10 per cent in the three months to June, according to
the country's top economic research institutes, the sharpest decline since quarterly
national accounts began in 1970 and double the size of the biggest drop in the 2008
financial crisis.
The shutdown of vast swaths of economic activity to contain the spread of the pandemic
is knocking 1.5 percentage points off French growth for every two weeks that it continues,
the Banque de France warned on Wednesday.
After more than three weeks in lockdown, French economic output is expected to have
fallen by the sharpest rate since the second world war, the central bank said, forecasting
that gross domestic product contracted 6 per cent in the first three months of the
year.
Get everyone you know to read "Against Our Better Judgment" by Alison Weir. Absolutely the
best short, supereasy read to open eyes of those who are unaware that they are unaware, I
promise. If you can afford to, buy copies to give away.
Very brief, "b", but one of your best posts. This is an unmitigated outrage. The arrogance of
the ruling class knows no bounds, and they are acting with impunity. Seems the ruling class
doesn't even care anymore how widely known it is that the US has little sovereignty.
The stock market became completely parathitic semi-criminal way to redistribute the wealth up.
Important fact: "SEC research found that many corporate executives
sell significant amounts of their own shares after their companies announce stock
buybacks, Yahoo Finance reports." ...And who gets the privilege to PAY for those bailouts – YOU. The U.S.
Taxpayer.
Notable quotes:
"... "The explosion of corporate debt in recent years will become problematic during the next bear market. As the deterioration in asset prices increases, many companies will be unable to refinance their debt, or worse, forced to liquidate. With the current debt-to-GDP ratio at historic highs, it is unlikely this will end mildly." ..."
"... while earnings per share have risen by over 270% since the beginning of 2009; revenue growth has barely eclipsed 60%." ..."
"... the real beneficiaries of share purchases are insiders where changes in compensation structures have become heavily dependent on stock-based compensation. Insiders regularly liquidate shares that were "given" to them as part of their overall compensation structure to convert them into actual wealth. ..."
"... "Corporate executives give several reasons for stock buybacks but none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay and in the short-term buybacks drive up stock prices." ..."
"... SEC research found that many corporate executives sell significant amounts of their own shares after their companies announce stock buybacks, Yahoo Finance reports. ..."
"... The misuse, and abuse, of share buybacks to manipulate earnings and reward insiders clearly became problematic . ..."
"... Furthermore, share repurchases are the "least best" use of company's liquid cash . Instead of using cash to expand production, increase sales, acquire competitors, make capital expenditures, or buy into new products or services, which could provide a long-term benefit. Instead, the cash was used for a one-time boost to earnings on a per-share basis. ..."
"... "Perhaps no other industry illustrates the awkward position that corporate America finds itself in more than airlines. Major airlines spent $19 billion repurchasing their own shares over the last three years. Now, with the coronavirus virtually paralyzing the global travel industry, these companies are in deep financial trouble and looking to the federal government to bail them out ." – The New York Times ..."
"... Corporate buybacks have been the largest source of demand the last few years. 75% of announced buyback programs have been cancelled. So who is the incremental buyer with Boomers retiring in droves who hold the majority of wealth? ..."
"... Without that $4 trillion in stock buybacks, not to mention the $4 trillion in liquidity from the Federal Reserve, the stock market would not have been able to rise as much as it did over the last decade. ..."
Since the passage of "tax cuts," in late 2017, the surge in corporate share buybacks has
become a point of much debate. I previously wrote that
stock buybacks were setting records over the past couple of years. Jeffery Marcus of TP Analytics, recently
confirmed the same:
"U.S. firms have been the biggest incremental buyer of stocks in each of the past four
years, with their net purchases exceeding $2 trillion – Federal Reserve data on fund
flows compiled by Goldman Sachs showed."
"For much of the last decade, companies buying their own shares have accounted for all net
purchases. The total amount of stock bought back by companies since the 2008 crisis even
exceeds the Federal Reserve's spending on buying bonds over the same period as part of
quantitative easing. Both pushed up asset prices."
In other words, between the Federal Reserve injecting a massive amount of liquidity into the
financial markets, and corporations buying back their own shares, there have been effectively
no other real buyers in the market.
Of course, as a corporation, you can't spend all of your cash buying back shares, so with
near-zero interest rates, debt became the most logical option. As shown below, much of the debt
taken on by corporations was not used for mergers, acquisitions, or capital expenditures, but
the funding of share repurchases and dividend issuance.
Unsurprisingly, when you are issuing that much debt for share repurchases, there is a
correlation with asset prices. Interestingly, we
warned previously:
"The explosion of corporate debt in recent years will become problematic during the next
bear market. As the deterioration in asset prices increases, many companies will be unable to
refinance their debt, or worse, forced to liquidate. With the current debt-to-GDP ratio at
historic highs, it is unlikely this will end mildly."
While that warning fell mostly on "dear ears," the debt is now being bailed out by the Fed
through every possible monetary program imaginable.
No, Buybacks Are Not Shareholder
Friendly
Let's clear something up. Buybacks are NOT shareholder-friendly. The reason that companies spent billions on buybacks is to increase bottom-line earnings per
share, which provides the "illusion" of increasing profitability to support higher share
prices. Since revenue growth has remained extremely weak since the financial crisis, companies
have become dependent on inflating earnings on a "per share" basis by reducing
the denominator.
"As the chart below shows, while earnings per share have risen by over 270% since the
beginning of 2009; revenue growth has barely eclipsed 60%."
Yes, share purchases can be good for current shareholders if the stock price rises. Still,
the real beneficiaries of share purchases are insiders where changes in compensation structures
have become heavily dependent on stock-based compensation. Insiders regularly liquidate shares
that were "given" to them as part of their overall compensation structure to convert them into
actual wealth. Via the Financial Times:
"Corporate executives give several reasons for stock buybacks but none of them has close
to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority
of their pay and in the short-term buybacks drive up stock prices."
That statement was supported by a study from the Securities & Exchange Commission which
found the same issues:
SEC research found that many corporate executives
sell significant amounts of their own shares after their companies announce stock
buybacks, Yahoo Finance reports.
Not surprisingly, as corporate share buybacks are hitting record highs, so was corporate
insider selling. The misuse, and abuse, of share buybacks to manipulate earnings and reward insiders clearly
became problematic .
Furthermore, share repurchases are the "least best" use of company's liquid cash . Instead
of using cash to expand production, increase sales, acquire competitors, make capital
expenditures, or buy into new products or services, which could provide a long-term benefit.
Instead, the cash was used for a one-time boost to earnings on a per-share basis.
Now, all the companies that spent years issuing debt, and burning their cash, to buy back
debt are now begging the Government for a bailout.
"Perhaps no other industry illustrates the awkward position that corporate America finds
itself in more than airlines. Major airlines spent $19 billion repurchasing their own shares
over the last three years. Now, with the coronavirus virtually paralyzing the global travel
industry, these companies are in deep financial trouble and looking to the federal government
to bail them out ." – The New York Times
And who gets the privilege to PAY for those bailouts – YOU. The U.S.
Taxpayer.
Loss Of Support
As we warned previously, when CEO's become concerned about their business, the first thing
they will do is begin to cut back, or eliminate, stock buyback programs. To wit:
"CEO's make decisions on how they use their cash. If concerns of a recession persist, it
is likely to push companies to become more conservative on the use of their cash, rather than
continuing to repurchase shares. If that source of market liquidity fades, the market will
have a much tougher time maintaining current levels, or going higher."
Yes, companies are indeed reacting to the "coronavirus" pandemic currently. However, they
were already in the process of cutting back on repurchases in 2019. As noted recently by
Jeffery Marcus:
"Birinyi Associates, the leading firm that does research on buybacks, shows below that
announced buybacks have declined significantly in 2019 ' it's the biggest drop to start a
year since 2009.'"
This is also because cash balances fell sharply, as corporations loaded-up on debt.
As the impact of the "economic shutdown" deepens, corporations are scrambling to protect
their coffers. As noted on Friday, 75% of announced buyback programs have been cancelled.
Corporate buybacks have been the largest source of demand the last few years. 75% of
announced buyback programs have been cancelled. So who is the incremental buyer with Boomers
retiring in droves who hold the majority of wealth?pic.twitter.com/1IlRrruxDX
Greg's tweet has a complete table, but here is the relevant chart. There is a tremendous
amount of support being extracted.
Do not dismiss the data lightly.
The chart below is the S&P 500 Buyback Index versus the Total Return index. Following
the financial crisis, as companies began to lever up their balance sheets to increase stock
buybacks. There was a marked outperformance by those companies leading up to the crisis.
However, while corporate buybacks have accounted for the majority of net purchases of
equities in the market, the benefit of pushing asset prices higher, outside of the brief moment
in 2018 when tax cuts were implemented, allowing for repatriation of cash, performance has
waned. Now, those companies which engaged in leveraging up their balance sheet to engage in
repurchases shares are significantly underperforming the total return index.
Without that $4 trillion in stock buybacks, not to mention the $4 trillion in liquidity from
the Federal Reserve, the stock market would not have been able to rise as much as it did over
the last decade.
Conclusion
As I stated, CEO's make decisions on how they use their cash. With the economy shut down,
layoffs in the millions, and no clear visibility about the economic recovery post-pandemic,
companies are going to become vastly more conservative on the use of their cash.
Given that source of market liquidity is now gone, the market will have a much tougher time
maintaining current levels, much less going higher. As noted by the Financial Times:
"The rebound in equities has sparked optimism that we may be past the worst. However, we
still believe it is too early to the call the bottom. From a positioning perspective we still
believe there hasn't been a full capitulation.
Hedge funds and risk-parity funds have reduced their equity exposure considerably. But
institutional active funds and passive products have room for further outflows. The fiscal
bill passed by the US government also allows individuals to withdraw up to $100k from their
401k, without penalty. We believe this could result in over $50bn of further outflows from
the retail community. As well, over 50 companies in the S&P 500 have already suspended
their share repurchase programs, which accounted for over 25% of buybacks in 2019. We believe
the slowdown in buybacks could result in $300bn of lost inflows in the next two quarters."
–
HSBC
Be careful.
The bear market isn't over yet... not by a long shot.
As we noted just a few weeks ago, two Senators -- Kelly Loeffler from Georgia and Richard
Burr from North Carolina, both of whom were publicly trying to play down the risks associated
with COVID-19 -- were quietly
engaging in stock trades that suggested they had a different viewpoint (while five
different Senators sold stock during this period, only Loeffler's and Burr's look particularly
suspicious). Burr's stock sell-off was revealed first, and got the most attention, in part
because he's also the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and was getting classified
briefings about COVID-19. The latest news on that front is that
the Justice Department has supposedly opened an investigation :
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr sold off a large amount of stocks
before the coronavirus market crash, and now the Justice Department is looking into his
statements around this time period, NPR can report.
Others have reported that the FBI has
been in contact with Burr. That doesn't mean much for now, and the investigation may turn
up nothing. But it's worth noting that it's happening.
The other Senator, Kelly Loeffler, has some more bad news, as
new reports suggest even more stock trading that at least looks suspicious. As was noted in
the original report, Loeffler had sold off a bunch of retail stock, and bought into a company
that does videoconferencing. The original reports suggest that she sold off somewhere between
$1.3 million and $3.1 million in stock right before the US economy went south. Turns out it was
way more. The new report shows that she
also sold off nearly $19 million in stock of Intercontinental Exchange, the company
that owns the New York Stock Exchange. It is worth noting that Loeffler's husband is the chair
and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, and the sales took place between February 26th and March
11th. That means at least some of those sales were happening while she was insisting that
the US had
everything under control .
Perhaps even more damning, though? Beyond buying into a videoconferencing software company,
Loeffler and her husband, Jeff Sprecher, also purchased a bunch of stock in DuPont, a major
supplier of the personal protective gear that hospitals are all now desperate for:
Sprecher bought $206,774 in chemical giant DuPont de Nemours in four transactions in
late February and early March. DuPont has performed poorly on Wall Street lately, but the
company is a major supplier of desperately needed personal protective gear as the global
pandemic strains hospital and first responders.
So, to recap: they sold somewhere in the range of $20 million worth of mostly stock market
and retail companies -- and bought into videoconferencing and protective health gear. All while
telling the public that the government she's a part of has everything under control.
"... The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be . ..."
There are few things in this life that make me more sick to my stomach than watching
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking. He truly is one of the evilest men I've ever had the
displeasure of covering.
Into the insanity of the over-reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, Pompeo wasted no time
ramping up sanctions on firms doing any business with Iran, one of the countries worse-hit by
this virus to date.
It's a seemingly endless refrain, everyday,
more sanctions on Chinese, Swiss and South African firms for having the temerity in these
deflating times to buy oil from someone Pompeo and his gang of heartless psychopaths disapprove
of.
This goes far beyond just the oil industry. Even though I'm well aware that Russia's
crashing the price of oil was itself a hybrid war attack on US capital markets. One that has
had, to date, devastating effect.
While Pompeo mouths the words publicly that humanitarian aid is exempted from sanctions on
Iran, the US is pursuing immense
pressure on companies to not do so anyway while the State Dept. bureaucracy takes its sweet
time processing waiver applications.
Pompeo and his ilk only think in terms of civilizational warfare. They have become so
subsumed by their big war for the moral high ground to prove American exceptionalism that they
have lost any shred of humanity they may have ever had.
Because for Pompeo in times like these to stick to his talking points and for his office to
continue excising Iran from the global economy when we're supposed to be coming together to
fight a global pandemic is the height of soullessness.
And it speaks to the much bigger problem that infects all of our political thinking. There
comes a moment when politics and gaining political advantage have to take a back seat to doing
the right thing.
I've actually seen moments of that impulse from the Democratic leadership in the US Will
wonders never cease?!
Thinking only in Manichean terms of good vs. evil and dehumanizing your opponents is
actually costlier than reversing course right now. Because honey is always better at attracting
flies than vinegar.
But, unfortunately, that is not the character of the Trump administration.
It can only think in terms of direct leverage and opportunity to hold onto what they think
they've achieved. So, until President Trump is no longer consumed with coordinating efforts to
control COVID-19 Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper are in charge of foreign policy.
They will continue the playbook that has been well established.
Maximum pressure on Iran, hurt China any way they can, hold onto what they have in Syria,
stay in Iraq.
To that end Iraqi President Barham Salei nominated Pompeo's best choice to replace Prime
Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi to throw Iraq's future into complete turmoil. According to Elijah
Magnier,
Adnan al-Zarfi is a US asset through and through .
And this looks like Pompeo's Hail Mary to retain US legal presence in Iraq after the Iraqi
parliament adopted a measure to demand withdrawal of US troops from the country. Airstrikes
against US bases in Iraq continue on a near daily basis and there have been reports of US base
closures and redeployments at the same time.
This move looks like desperation by Pompeo et.al. to finally separate the Hashd al-Shaabi
from Iraq's official military. So that airstrikes against them can be carried out under the
definition of 'fighting Iranian terrorism.'
As Magnier points out in the article above if al-Zarfi puts a government together the war in
Iraq will expand just as the US is losing further control in Syria after Turkish President
Erdogan's disastrous attempt to remake the front in Idlib. That ended with his effective
surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It is sad that, to me, I see no reason to doubt Pompeo and his ilk in the US government
wouldn't do something like that to spark political and social upheaval in those places most
targeted by US hybrid war tactics.
But, at the same time, I can see the other side of it, a vicious strike back by China
against its tormentors. And China's government does itself, in my mind, no favors threatening
to withhold drug precursors and having officials run their mouths giving Americans the excuse
they need to validate Trump and Pompeo's divisive rhetoric.
Remaining on the fence about this issue isn't my normal style. But everyone is dirty here
and the reality may well be this is a natural event terrible people on both sides are
exploiting.
And I can only go by what people do rather than what they say to assess the situation. Trump
tries to buy exclusive right to a potential COVID-19 vaccine from a German firm and his
administration slow-walks aid to Iran.
China sends aid to Iran and Italy by the container full. Is that to salve their conscience
over its initial suppression of information about the virus? Good question. But no one covers
themselves in glory by using the confusion and distraction to attempt further regime change and
step up war-footing during a public health crisis, manufactured or otherwise.
While Pompeo unctuously talks the talk of compassion and charity, he cannot bring himself to
actually walk the walk. Because he is a despicable, bile-filled man of uncommon depravity. His
prosecuting a hybrid war during a public health crisis speaks to no other conclusion about
him.
It's clear to me that nothing has changed at the top of Trump's administration. I expect
COVID-19 will not be a disaster for Trump and the US. It can handle this. But the lack of
humanity shown by its diplomatic corps ensures that in the long run the US will be left to fend
for itself when the next crisis hits.
"... "Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending coronavirus epidemic should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading," ..."
"... "Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks." ..."
"... "stomach churning," ..."
"... "For a public servant it's pretty hard to imagine many things more immoral than doing this," ..."
"... "Richard Burr had critical information that might have helped the people he is sworn to protect. But he hid that information and helped only himself." ..."
"... "If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest," ..."
"... "calling for immediate investigations" ..."
"... "for possible violations of the STOCK Act and insider trading laws." ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
In a rare moment of bipartisanship, commenters from all sides have demanded swift punishment for US
senators who dumped stock after classified Covid-19 briefings. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has called
for criminal prosecution.
As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) has received daily
briefings on the threat posed by Covid-19 since January. Burr insisted to the public that America was
ready to handle the virus, but sold up to $1.5 million in stocks on February 13, less than a week
before the stock market nosedived, according to Senate
filings
. Immediately before the sale, Burr wrote an
op-ed
assuring Americans that their government is
"better prepared than ever
" to handle
the virus.
After the sale, NPR
reported
that he told a closed-door meeting of North Carolina business leaders that the virus
actually posed a threat
"akin to the 1918 pandemic."
Burr does not dispute the NPR report.
In a tweet on Saturday, former 2020 presidential candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called for
criminal investigations.
"Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending
coronavirus epidemic should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading,"
she wrote.
"Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks."
Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending
coronavirus epidemic should be investigated & prosecuted for insider trading (the STOCK Act). It
is illegal & abuse of power. Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks.
https://t.co/rbVfJxrk3r
Burr was not the only lawmaker on Capitol Hill to take precautions, it was reported. Fellow
Intelligence Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and her husband sold off more than a
million dollars of shares in a biotech company five days later, while Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe (R) made a
smaller sale around the same time. Both say their sales were routine.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Georgia) attended a Senate Health Committee briefing on the outbreak on
January 24. The very same day, she began offloading stock, dropping between $1.2 and $3.1 million in
shares over the following weeks. The companies whose stock she sold included airlines, retail outlets,
and Chinese tech firm Tencent.
She did, however, invest in cloud technology company Oracle, and Citrix, a teleworking company
whose value has increased by nearly a third last week, as social distancing measures forced more and
more Americans to work from home. All of Loeffler's transactions were made with her husband, Jeff
Sprecher, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange.
Meanwhile, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York) and Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) have joined the clamor of
voices demanding punishment. Ocasio-Cortez
described
the sales as
"stomach churning,"
while Omar reached across the aisle to side
with Fox News' Tucker Carlson in calling for Burr's resignation.
"For a public servant it's pretty hard to imagine many things more immoral than doing this,"
Carlson said during a Friday night monolog.
"Richard Burr had critical information that might have
helped the people he is sworn to protect. But he hid that information and helped only himself."
As of Saturday, there are nearly 25,000 cases of Covid-19 in the US, with the death toll heading
towards 300. Now both sides of the political aisle seem united in disgust at the apparent profiteering
of Burr, Loeffler, and Feinstein.
Right-wing news outlet Breitbart
savaged
Burr for voting against the STOCK Act in 2012, a piece of legislation that would have
barred members of Congress from using non-public information to profit on the stock market. At the
same time, a host of Democratic figures - including former presidential candidates
Andrew Yang
and
Kirsten Gillibrand
- weighed in with their own criticism too.
"If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your
stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest,"
Yang
tweeted on Friday.
If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move
is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public
interest.
Watchdog group Common Cause has filed complaints with the Justice Department, the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee
"calling for immediate investigations"
of
Burr, Loeffler, Feinstein and Inhofe
"for possible violations of the STOCK Act and insider trading
laws."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
who make profits as well. I cannot remember exactly when insider trading for
them became legal but it should be no surprise to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention
that they're ALL doing it. That is one reason, at least in my semi-educated opinion, they did
not go after Trump for emoluments during Shampeachment, because THEY ALL DO IT.
That goes all the way to the White House, no doubt.
A group of economists and policy experts on Wednesday called on President Donald Trump to
immediately lift the United States' crippling sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and
other countries, warning that the economic warfare -- in addition to being cruel in itself --
is "feeding the coronavirus epidemic" by hampering nations' capacity to respond.
"This policy is unconscionable and flagrantly against international law. It is imperative
that the U.S. lift these immoral and illegal sanctions to enable Iran and Venezuela to
confront the epidemic as effectively and rapidly as possible," Columbia University professor
Jeffrey Sachs said in a statement just hours after the Trump administration intensified
sanctions against Iran, which has been devastated by COVID-19.
Promising to "smash" Venezuela's government during a "maximum pressure March," Trump has
imposed crushing sanctions that force Venezuela to spend three times as much as
non-sanctioned countries on coronavirus testing kits.
The 2008 crisis put in the spotlight the psychopathic level of greed, vice, apathy and
short-sightedness from those who wanted to play into the City of London and Wall Street casino
houses. Get rich quick and don't care who you screw in the process, after all, at the end of
the day you're either a winner or a loser.
Since the general public tends to consist of decent people, there is a widespread difficulty
in comprehending how entire economies of countries have been hijacked by these piranhas. That
we have hit such a level of crime that even people's hard earned pensions, education,
health-care, housing etc. are all being gambled away LEGALLY.
Looking upon investment bankers today, one is reminded of those sad addicts in the casino
who are ruined and lose everything, except the difference is, they are given the option to sell
their neighbour's family into slavery to pay off their debt.
It is no secret that much of the "finance" that goes through the City of London and Wall
Street is dirty and yet despite this recognition, there appears to be an inability to address
it and that at this point we are told that if we tried to address it by breaking up and
regulating the "Too Big to Fail" banks, then the whole economy would come tumbling down.
That is, the world is so evidently run by criminal activity that at this point we have
become dependent on its dirty money to keep afloat the world economy.
Faced with the onrushing collapse of the financial system, the greatest Ivy League trained
minds of the world have run into a dead end: the bailouts into the banking system that began
this past September have prevented a chain reaction meltdown for a few months, but as the
liquidity runs out so too will the ideas on where the money justifying bank bailouts will come
from.
With these dead ends, we have seen the lightbulb go off in the minds of a large strata of
economists who have been making the case in recent years that valuable revenue can yet be
generated from one more untapped stream: the decriminalisation and legalisation of vice.
Hell, the major banks have already been doing this covertly as a matter of practice for
generations so why not just come out of the closet and make it official? This is where the
money is at. This is where the job market is at. So let us not "bite the hand that feeds
us"!
But is this truly the case? Is there really no qualitative difference how the
money is generated and how it is spent as long as there is an adequate money flow?
Well it is never a good sign when beside the richest you can also find the poorest just a
stone's throw away. And right beside the largest financial center in the world, the City of
London, there lies the poorest borough in all of London: Tower Hamlets with a 39% poverty
rate and anaverage family income amounting to less than£ 13,
000/year .
A City within a City
" Hell is a city much like London "
– Percy Bysshe Shelley
Although Wall Street has contributed greatly to this sad situation, this banking hub of
America is best understood as the spawn of the City of London.
The City of London is over 800 years old, it is arguably older than England herself, a nd
for over 400 years it has been the financial center of the world.
During the medieval period the City of London, otherwise known as the Square Mile or simply
the City, was divided into 25 ancient wards headed each by an alderman. This continues
today . In addition, there existed the ominously titled City of London Corporation, or
simply the Corporation, which is the municipal governing body of the City. This also still
continues today .
Though the Corporation's origins cannot be specifically dated, since there was never a
"surviving" charter found establishing its "legal" basis, it has kept its functions to this day
based on the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta is a charter of rights agreed to by King John in
1215, which states that " the City of London shall have/enjoy its ancient liberties ".
In other words, the legal function of the Corporation has never been questioned, reviewed,
re-evaluated EVER but rather it has been left to legally function as in accordance with their
"ancient liberties", which is a very grey description of function if you ask me. In other
words, they are free to do as they deem fit.
And it gets worst. The Corporation is not actually under the jurisdiction of the British
government. That is, the British government presently does not have the authority to undermine
how the Corporation of the City chooses to govern the largest financial center in the
world . The City has a separate voting system that allows for, well, corporations to vote
in how their separate "government" should run. It also has its own private police force and
system of private courts.
The Corporation is not just limited to functioning within the City. The City Remembrancer,
which sounds more like a warped version of the ghost of Christmas past, has the role of acting
as a channel of communication between the Corporation and the Sovereign (the Queen), the Royal
Household and Parliament. The Remembrancer thus acts as a "reminder", some would even say
"enforcer", of the will of the Corporation. This position has been held by Paul Double since
2003, it is not clear who bestows this non-elected position.
Mr. Double has the right to act as an official lobbyist in the House of Commons, and sits to
the right of the Speaker's chair, with the purpose of scrutinising and influencing any
legislation he deems affects the interests of the Corporation. He also appears to have the
right to review any piece of legislation as it is being drafted and can even comment on it
affecting its final outcome. He is the only non-elected person allowed into the House of
Commons.
"The City is the only area in the country in which the number of workers significantly
outnumbers the residents and therefore, to be truly representative of its population, offers a
vote to City organisations so they can have their say on the way the City is run."
However, the workers have absolutely no say. The City's organisations they work for have
a certain size vote based on the number of workers they employ, but they do not consult these
workers, and many of them are not even aware that such elections take place.
If you feel like you have just walked through Alice's Looking Glass, you're not alone,
but what appears to be an absurd level of madness is what has been running the largest
financial center in the world since the 1600s, under the machinations of the British
Empire.
Therefore the question is, if the City of London has kept its "ancient liberties" and has
upheld its global financial power, is the British Empire truly gone?
Offshore Banking: Adam Smith's Invisible Hand?
Contrary to popular naïve belief, the empire on which the sun never sets (some say "
because God wouldn't trust them in the dark ")
never went away .
After WWII, colonisation was meant to be done away with, and many thought, so too with the
British Empire. Countries were reclaiming their sovereignty, governments were being set up by
the people, the system of looting and pillaging had come to an end.
It is a nice story, but could not be further from the truth.
In the 1950s, to "adapt" to the changing global financial climate, the City of London set up
what are called "secrecy jurisdictions". These were to operate within the last remnants of
Britain's small territories/colonies. Of Britain's 14 oversea territories, 7 are bona fide tax
havens or "secrecy jurisdictions". A separate international financial market was also created
to facilitate the flow of this offshore money, the Eurodollar market. Since this market has its
banks outside of the UK and U.S., they are not under the jurisdiction of either country.
By 1997, nearly 90% of all international loans were made through this market.
What is often misunderstood is that the City of London's offshore finances are not contained
in a system of banking secrecy but rather of trusts. The difference being that a trust
ultimately plays with the concept of ownership. The idea is that you hand over your assets to a
trustee and at that point, legally those assets are no longer yours anymore and you are not
responsible for accounting for them. Your connection to said assets is completely hidden.
In addition, within Britain's offshore jurisdictions, there is no qualification required for
who can become a trustee: anyone can set up a trust and anyone can become a trustee. There is
also no registry of trusts in these territories. Thus, the only ones who know about this
arrangement are the trustee and the settler.
John Christensen, an investigative economist, estimates that this capital that legally
belongs to nobody could amount to as high as $50 trillion within these British territories.
Not only is this not being taxed, but a significant portion of it has been stolen from sectors
of the real economy.
So how does this affect "formerly" colonised countries?
There lies the rub for most developing nations. According to John Christensen, the combined
external debts of Sub-Saharan African countries was $177 billion in 2008. However, the wealth
that these countries' elites moved offshore, between 1970-2008, is estimated at $944 billion,
5X their foreign debt. This is not only dirty money, this is also STOLEN money from the
resources and productivity of these economies. Thus, as Christensen states, "Far from being a
net debtor to the world, Sub-Saharan Africa is a net creditor" to offshore finance.
Put in this context, the so-called "backwardness" of Africa is not due to its incapability
to produce, but rather that it has been experiencing uninterrupted looting since these regions
were first colonised.
These African countries then need to borrow money, which is happily given to them at high
interest rates, and accrues a level of debt that could never be repaid. These countries are
thus looted twice over, leaving no money left to invest in their future, let alone to
put food on the table.
Offshore havens are what make this sort of activity "legal" and rampant.
And it doesn't stop there. Worldwide, it is estimated that developing countries lose $1
trillion every year in capital flight and tax evasion. Most of this wealth goes back into the
UK and U.S. through these offshore havens, and allows their currencies to stay strong whilst
developing nations' currencies are kept weak.
However, developing nations are not the only ones to have suffered from this system of
looting. The very economies of the UK and U.S. have also been gutted. In the 1960s and onward,
the UK and U.S., to compensate for the increase in money flow out of their countries decided
that it was a good idea to open their domestic markets to the trillions of dollars passing
through its offshore havens.
However, such banks are not interested in putting their money into industry and
manufacturing, they put their money into real estate speculation, financial speculation and
foreign currency trade. And thus the financialization of British and American economies
resulted, and the real jobs coming from the real economy decreased or disappeared.
Although many economists try to claim differently, the desperation has boiled over and
movements like the yellow vests are reflections of the true consequences of these economic
policies.
We have reached a point now where every western first world country is struggling with a
much higher unemployment rate and a lower standard of living than 40 years ago. Along with
increased poverty has followed increased drug use, increased suicide and increased crime.
A Stable Economy based on Freedom or Slavery?
According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) report in
2017 , the UK has by far the highest rate of drug overdose in all of Europe at 31% followed
by Germany at 15%. That is, the UK consists of 1/3 drug overdoses that occur in all of
Europe.
The average family income in the UK is presently £28, 400. The poverty rate within the
UK is ~20%.
The average family income of what was once the epicentre of world industrialisation,
Detroit, has an average family income of $26, 249. The poverty rate of Detroit is ~34.5%.
What is the solution?
Reverse Margaret Thatcher's 1986 Big Bang deregulation of the banking system that destroyed
the separation of commercial banking, investment banking, trusts and insurance for starters. A
similar restoration of Glass-Steagall in the USA should follow suit, not only to break up the
"Too Big to Fail" banking system but to restore the authority of nation states over private
finance once more. IF these emergency measures were done before the markets collapse (and they
will collapse), then the industrial-infrastructure revival throughout trans-Atlantic nations
can still occur.
Let us end here by hearkening to the words of Clement Attlee, UK Prime Minister from
1945-1951:
" Over and over again we have seen that there is another power than that which has its
seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial
interests, is able to assert itself against the government of the country. Those who control
money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which is being decided by the
people. "
"... How is it that Warren pulling out of the race is a victory for patriarchy and sexism, but Amy Klobuchar pulling out of the race is not causing grief and angst? We Midwesterners just don't get enough respect–and melodrama. ..."
"... She and her dead-end supporters are giving a good run at being the most pathetic story in a primary that includes Zombie Joe Biden ..."
"Why Elizabeth Warren lost" [Ryan Cooper, The Week].
In a press conference discussing her campaign's end, Warren said that she had not
decided yet whether to endorse anyone. "I need some space around this," she said.
Astonishing and amazing that Warren, claiming to be a "progressive", did not immediately
endorse Sanders, especially when the alternative is the hapless "Senator from MBNA", Joe
Biden. Warren also repeatedly refused to endorse Bernie in 2016, a time when the early and
enthusiastic support of a prominent woman with progressive credentials would have really
helped and perhaps been decisive in the race against Hillary Clinton.
Sanders is the best shot at a progressive US president we have seen in a century, yet
Warren apparently needs time to cogitate on the matter for some reason. I hope whatever she
ultimately gets for herself is worth it.
Bernie held out on endorsing Hillary until she signed on to his free college plan. What
concession will Warren demand? Something for the people or something for herself? Force
Bernie to make his taxes more regressive? She's a joke.
Let's suppose that the one unchangeable goal of the Democratic Party establishment is that
Bernie Sanders must not be the party's 2020 nominee. Any other realistic candidate will do,
but it must not be Bernie. Let's also suppose that by the time of the party's convention Vice
President Bden's weaknesses and unfitness have become so evident that the party simply can't
put him forward as its nominee.
Suppose that Senator Warren sees that and thinks of herself as a realistic choice for the
party to replace Biden. A veneer of leftishness, but no real threat to Wall Street. I suspect
that her entertaining that hope may explain why since suspending her campaign Senator Warren
has criticized the idea of Vice President Biden being the party's nominee, but has had
nothing favorable to say about Senator Sanders.
"You cried yesterday because you can't be POTUS then went on CNN and trashed Bernie AGAIN
(when has he ever trashed you?) by way of his supporters. BOO-HOO. You should have focused
your attention on the factory floor (working women) not the glass ceiling.
Politics is a nasty game which you have proven to be expert at. You have earned every
criticism in whatever form it comes, frankly. But because you can't be POTUS this time, you
will take your ball and go home, so there! with the emotional maturity of a 5 year old.
How is it that Warren pulling out of the race is a victory for patriarchy and sexism,
but Amy Klobuchar pulling out of the race is not causing grief and angst? We Midwesterners
just don't get enough respect–and melodrama.
Do we truly have to hear that Warren scared people because she is too competent?
(Shades of Most Qualified Hillary.) Lying about being a Native American has a whiff of
incompetence, but I'm just persnickety.
And should we collectively be pointing out that Political Sainthood, once reserved for
John McCain, now has been bestowed on Elizabeth Warren, who is starting to be inebriated with
her own scent of sanctity? In short: McCain, Warren, all maverick-y all the time.
On a positive note, is it possible that focusing on what white upper-middle-class
people want, which is the status quo, kale salads, and more brunches, is somehow not a viable
path to the presidency? As mentioned above, Warren started to slide when she announced Plans
that involved means-testing health care and means-testing day care. At least she refrained
from issuing leaf-blowers to all of us.
She and her dead-end supporters are giving a good run at being the most pathetic story in
a primary that includes Zombie Joe Biden.
Just mind-bogglingly entitled upper and upper
middle class trash. I regret ever thinking of voting for her, I regret ever hearing her name,
and I look forward to the day she endorses someone so I never have to think about her
again.
The person who read her Twitter mentions for her was on Twitter begging for Venmo
donations for, I guess, her emotional trauma. Christ I hate these people.
In 1995, Gloria Steinem, spoke of making @BernieSanders an "honorary woman" because his
advocacy for women was so strong then, and has continued strong over the decades.
exactly. Look at the prime examples of how Biden treats women in the public sphere:
treating Anita Hill like crap and nuzzling random women. And N.O.W. wants Warren to endorse
Biden? Sheesh.
And Warren wonders why she didn't get the votes. Does Warren think being a women per se
means only she is capable of going something for women. How childish.
Because when Sanders jawboned Amazon into raising wages, none of the workers who got the
raised were women.
That's because to the PMC feminists of NOW -- another NGO to euthanize given how poorly
they have performed as measured by their stated goals -- only PMC women are truly
women. The working class is an undifferentiated mass without individual identities. That is,
in fact, what the Bernie Bro " meme conveys. No female supporter of Sanders can
possibly be a real woman, and even more revealing, Sanders supporters are coded male by
default, a patriarchal semiotic that would drive NOW and its ilk, er, bananas in any other
context.
So sellout by Clinton of the Democratic Party to Wall Street proved to be durable and
sustainable...
Bernie again behaves like a sheep dog with no intention to win... "Let's be friends" is not a
viable strategy...
Notable quotes:
"... the same character traits that make him an honorable politician also make him fundamentally unsuited for the difficult task of waging a successful outsider campaign for the nomination of a major political party. ..."
"... Why hasn't Sara Nelson, head of the Flight Attendants' Union, endorsed Bernie? (Personally I have always thought she'd be a good VP.) ..."
"... Robinson is dreaming if he thinks Non-Profit Industrial Complex entities like EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood will lift a finger to help Sanders, or busines unionists like Randi Weingarten. To his credit, though, Ady Barkan switched immediately. External support, though is correct: IIRC, there are plenty of union locals to be had; the Culinary Workers should be only the first. ..."
"... "Corporate Lobbyists Control the Rules at the DNC" [ ReadSludge ]. "Among the 447 total voting DNC members, who make up the majority of 771 superdelegates, there are scores of corporate lobbyists and consultants -- including many of the 75 at-large DNC members, who were not individually elected . ..."
"... The 32-member DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee contains the following 20 individuals: a health insurance board member co-chair, three surrogates for presidential campaigns (two for Bloomberg, one for Biden), four current corporate lobbyists, two former corporate lobbyists, six corporate consultants, and four corporate lawyers." ..."
"... "Joe Biden is a friend of mine" is the 2020-updated version of "enough about the damn e-mails, already". No amount of ground-level organizing can make up for a candidate willing to publicly overlook what should be high-office-disqualifying fundamental character traits in his opponents out of "niceness". ..."
"... It's easy to do a post Super Tuesday defeat analysis of Sanders but remember, everything seems to work before SC where I think the Democrats fixed the election and the same holds for Super Tuesday. ..."
Sanders (D)(1): "Bernie Sanders needs to find the killer instinct" [Matthew Walther,
The Week ].
I've heard Useful Idiots, Dead Pundits, and the inimitable Jimmy Dore all make the same point,
but Walther's prose makes the point most forcefully (as prose often does). The situation:
There is no greater contrast imaginable than the one between the popular (and frequently
exaggerated) image of so-called "Bernie bros" and the almost painfully conciliatory instincts
of the man they support.
This was fully in evidence on Wednesday afternoon when Sanders responded to arguably the
worst defeat of his political career by chatting with journalists about how " disgusted "
he is at unspecified online comments directed at Elizabeth Warren and her supporters and what
a " decent
guy " Joe Biden is.
He did this despite the fact that Warren, with the connivance of debate moderators,
recently called him a sexist in front of an audience of millions, effectively announcing that
she had no interest in making even a tacit alliance with the only other progressive candidate
in the race and, one imagines, despite thinking that the former vice president's record on
virtually everything -- finance, health care, race relations, the environment, foreign policy
-- should render him ineligible for office.
It should go without saying that offering these pleasantries will do Sanders few if any
favors.
Lambert here: This is a Presidential primary, not the Senate floor. There is no comity.
Walther then gives a list of possible scorched earth tactics to use against Biden; we could all
make such a list. But then:
Sanders's benevolent disposition does him credit. But the same character traits that
make him an honorable politician also make him fundamentally unsuited for the difficult task
of waging a successful outsider campaign for the nomination of a major political
party.
Corbyn had the same problem...
Sanders really must not let Biden and the Democrat Establishment off the hook. He seems to
have poor judgment about his friends. Warren was no "friend." And neither is Joe Biden.
He should forget those false friends, go into the next debate, and slice Joe Biden off at
the knees. Trump would. And will, if Sander loses.
His canvassers and more importantly his millions of small donors deserve no less. The race
and the debate is now between two people, and only one can emerge the winner. Sanders needs to
decide if he wants to be that person, and then do
what it takes . (If the outcome of the Sanders campaign is a left that is a permanently
institutionalized force, distinct from liberal Democrats, I would regard that as a net
positive. If that is Sanders' ultimate goal, then fine. He's not going to achieve that goal by
being nice to Joe Biden. Quite the reverse.)
UPDATE Sanders (D)(2): "Time To Fight Harder Than We've Ever Fought Before" [Nathan J.
Robinson, Current
Affairs ].
"Biden now has some formidable advantages going forward: Democrats who no longer see him as
a failed or risky bet will finally endorse and campaign for him. He will find it easier to
raise money. He will have "momentum." Bloomberg's exit will bring him new voters.
Sanders may find upcoming states even harder to win than the Super Tuesday contests. But the
one thing that would guarantee a Sanders loss is giving up and going home, which is exactly
what Joe Biden hopes we will now do."
Here follows a laundry list of tactics. Then: "The real thing Bernie needs in order to win,
though, is external support. Labor unions, activists, lawmakers, anyone with a public platform:
We need to be pressuring them to endorse Bernie.
Why hasn't Sara Nelson, head of the Flight Attendants' Union, endorsed Bernie?
(Personally I have always thought she'd be a good VP.)
Now that Elizabeth Warren is clearly not going to win, will organizations like the Working
Families Party and EMILY's List and people like AFT president Randi Weingarten and Medicare For
All advocate Ady Barkan switch and endorse Sanders?
Where is the Sierra Club, SEIU (Bernie, after all, was one of the first national figures to
push Fight for $15), the UAW, Planned Parenthood? Many progressive organizations have been
sitting out the race because Warren was in it."
Good ideas in general, but Robinson is dreaming if he thinks Non-Profit Industrial
Complex entities like EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood will lift a finger to help Sanders,
or busines unionists like Randi Weingarten. To his credit, though, Ady Barkan switched
immediately. External support, though is correct: IIRC, there are plenty of union locals to be
had; the Culinary Workers should be only the first.
Warren (D)(1): "Why Elizabeth Warren lost" [Ryan Cooper, The Week ]. "Starting in
November, however, she started a long decline that continued through January, when she started
losing primaries . So what happened in November?
It is hard to pin down exactly what is happening in such a chaotic race, but Warren's
campaign certainly made a number of strategic errors. One important factor was surely that
Warren started backing away from Medicare-for-all, selling instead a bizarre two-step plan.
The idea supposedly was to pass universal Medicare with two different bills, one in her
first year as president and one in the third year. Given how difficult it is to pass anything
through Congress, and that there could easily be fewer Democrats in 2023 than in 2021, it was a
baffling decision. Worse, Warren then released a plan for financing Medicare-for-all that was
simply terrible.
Rather than levying a new progressive tax, she would turn existing employer contributions to
private health insurance plans into a tax on employers, which would gradually converge to an
average for all businesses but the smallest. The clear objective here was to claim that she
would pay for it without levying any new taxes on the middle or working classes. But because
those employer payments are still part of labor compensation, it is ultimately workers who pay
them -- making Warren's plan a horribly regressive head tax (that is, an equal dollar tax on
almost all workers regardless of income).
All that infuriated the left, and struck directly at Warren's branding as the candidate of
technical competence. It suggested her commitment to universal Medicare was not as strong as
she claimed, and that she would push classic centrist-style Rube Goldberg policies rather than
clean, fair ones. (Her child care plan, with its complicated means-testing system, had a
similar defect).
Claiming her plan was the only one not to raise taxes on the middle class was simply
dishonest. In sum, this was a classic failed straddle that alienated the left but gained no
support among anti-universal health care voters. More speculatively, this kind of hesitation
and backtracking may have turned off many voters." • On #MedicareForAll, called it here on
"pay for" ; and here on "transition." Warren's plans should not have been well-received,
and they were not. I'm only amazed that these really technical arguments penetrated the media
(let along the voters).
Warren (D)(2): "Warren Urged by National Organization for Women Not to Endorse Sanders: He
Has 'Done Next to Nothing for Women'" [
Newsweek ]. • Establishment really pulling out all the stops.
* * *
"Why Southern Democrats Saved Biden" [Mara Gay, New York
Times ]. (Gay was the lone member of the Times Editorial Board to endorse Sanders
.) "Through Southern eyes, this election is not about policy or personality. It's about
something much darker. Not long ago, these Americans lived under violent, anti-democratic
governments. Now, many there say they see in President Trump and his supporters the same
hostility and zeal for authoritarianism that marked life under Jim Crow .
They were deeply skeptical that a democratic socialist like Mr. Sanders could unseat Mr.
Trump. They liked Ms. Warren, but, burned by Hillary Clinton's loss, were worried that too many
of their fellow Americans wouldn't vote for a woman."
Well worth a read. At the same time, it's not clear why the Democrat Establishment hands
control over the nomination to the political establishment in states they will never win in the
general; the "firewall" in 2016 didn't work out all that well, after all. As for Jim Crow, we
might do well to remember that Obama destroyed a generation of Black wealth his miserably
inadequate response to the foreclosure crisis, and his pathetic stimulus package kept Black
unemployment high for years longer than it should have been. And sowed the dragon's teeth of
authoritarian reaction as well.
"Corporate Lobbyists Control the Rules at the DNC" [ ReadSludge
]. "Among the 447 total voting DNC members, who make up the majority of 771 superdelegates,
there are scores of corporate lobbyists and consultants -- including many of the 75 at-large
DNC members, who were not individually elected .
The 32-member DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee contains the following 20 individuals: a
health insurance board member co-chair, three surrogates for presidential campaigns (two for
Bloomberg, one for Biden), four current corporate lobbyists, two former corporate lobbyists,
six corporate consultants, and four corporate lawyers."
"Joe Biden is a friend of mine" is the 2020-updated version of "enough about the damn
e-mails, already". No amount of ground-level organizing can make up for a candidate willing to
publicly overlook what should be high-office-disqualifying fundamental character traits in his
opponents out of "niceness".
That's fine, but if his organization is then put at the disposal of Joe Biden, I don't see
how the organization survives. (That's why the DNC cheating meme* is important; it provides the
moral cover to get out of that loyalty oath (which the Sanders campaign certainly should have
had its lawyers take a look at)).
NOTE * Iowa, Texas, and California have all had major voting screw-ups, all of which
impacted Sanders voters disproportionately. The campaign should sue. They have the money.)
I once met an union organizer and he said he could go back to any site he had worked and be
on friendly terms with everyone. Bernie is thinking like an organizer. I think that making this
about Social Security is his best bet. It demolishes Biden in a way that makes the election
about the American people.
he needs to go after biden on the issues in a much more forceful manner than he typically
does, with lots and lots of specifics. did i mention lots of specifics? and lots of pointed
references to biden's past positions, and a focus on pinning him down on his position now. he
needs to ask questions biden will not be prepared for with easy scripted responses.
Perhaps if Sanders can keep successfully baiting Biden with hooks baited with Biden's own
past statements over and over and over again, that Sanders can then go on to practice some very
well disguised passive-aggressive pointing/not-pointing to Biden's mental condition by asking
Biden at every opportunity: " don't you remember that, Joe? You remember saying that, don't you
Joe? Don't you remember when you said that, Joe?"
Except 70% of Women according to Stanford finding these kind of confrontations distressing
to very distressing. Tricky. One changes emotions by using emotions so the trick here is
"allowing" Biden to act deranged and expressing sorrow over it. For 70% of guys they won't get
the emotional content, but will understand the logic of the questions and lack of answers. It
can be done, Bill Clinton and Obama were very good at this. Look you want to be president you
got to play the game at the highest level. Good practice for dealing with trump.
Timing was right for both Obama and Clinton. After the GFC voters would have gone for any
Democrat because Republicans were toxic. Similarly, it was fortuitous for Clinton because Perot
was running and he quit the race a couple of months before the election.
Obama got loads and loads of money from Wall Street. Neither of these guys would stand a
chance in an election year when the economy was doing well.
It's easy to do a post Super Tuesday defeat analysis of Sanders but remember, everything
seems to work before SC where I think the Democrats fixed the election and the same holds for
Super Tuesday.
I didn't see anyone pointing out that Bernie had to be confrontational when he seems to be
winning.
Wait. How many days ago was the field of candidates wide open?
If Bernard does not roast Biden on Social Security I will be disappointed. If Smokin' Joe
doesn't lash out with his typical aplomb, I'll be disappointed. I'm saving myself up
for bigger disappointments.
I'll be happy with the Vermont interpretation of Huey Long. I'm glad that people are finally
noticing we have one Socialist Senator.
Idea for an 'own the slur' bumper sticker: "I'm tickled pink by Bernie" -- Although I don't
know how the post-dial-up-modem crowd might misinterpret that?
I support Bernie because Bernie supports the polices I think we need to save the country:
M4A, GND,$15/hr min, free college, etc. To me, being an FDR Dem like Bernie is the moderate
position, we've done it before, we know it works. Biden's support of neoliberal polices that
have wrecked America is the extreme position.
But the DNC does not support FDR's Democracy. They have ended up to the right of Ronald
Reagan. Pelosi could have pushed a M4A bill but did not. Pelosi could have pushed any number of
polices to show how Trump is failing the working and middle class, but she did not.
So if Bernie is not picked for the general, I no longer have a reason to support the Dems,
and will stay home. Actually, I will probably not stay home, I will work to get Dems out of
office, and in general, work to burn the party to the ground. Why? Because it is in the way,
and does not support the working class or the middle class.
The Dem party has to decide – do they really support the working and middle class or
not. Because only Bernie supports those polices, and the rest of the Dems running for President
do not.
. In the spirit of charity, we should give credit where it's due: Warren really did become
the "
unity candidate " that she always proclaimed herself to be. She displayed an astounding
capacity to bring together a polarized country around their shared distaste for her
candidacy.
Compiling a complete discography of Warren's detractors would be an impossible feat, but for
the sake of partisan schadenfreude, we should briefly revisit the greatest hits. These include
the Native American tribal leaders who weren't particularly fond of a wealthy white Harvard
professor claiming their ethnicity for personal gain (even co-authoring a cooking guide titled
The Pow Wow Chow Native American Cookbook ), the Bernie Sanders supporters infuriated
by Warren's cynical attempts to paint their candidate as a woman-hating misogynist,
police unions offended by Warren's
open dishonesty about violence in law enforcement, religious conservatives who found her
contemptuous dismissal of anyone with traditionalist views of sexual morality to be in
profoundly bad taste, and pro-lifers (who still comprise
34 percent of the Democratic electorate ) for whom Warren's
radically pro-abortion policy objectives were unconscionable.
It's worth noting, of course, that this is just a small slice of the groups that found
Warren enormously unlikeable. The senator's casual-at-best relationship with the truth (
listing herself as as "woman of color" in Harvard's faculty listing,
claiming that she was fired from a teaching position for being pregnant,
refusing to admit that her various spending plans would require raising taxes on the middle
class, and so on) probably didn't help. And shockingly, her painfully contrived attempts at
catering to the woke activist base (vocal
support for reparations,
pledging to let a transgender child pick her secretary of education,
endorsing affirmative action for non-binary people) paired with her technocratically
manicured professorial wonkiness -- she's got a plan for that! -- never caught fire in the
blue-collar neighborhoods in the Midwest and South.
... ... ...
Senator Warren, we hardly knew ye.
Nate Hochman is an undergraduate student at Colorado College and a Young Voices
contributor. You can follow him at Twitter
@njhochman .
@Wally by not
dropping out and endorsing him b/f ST, after poor showing in the first 3 contests made it
clear she had no substantial and broad enough base.
My sense this morning is that Bernie might need her to get the nomination, and Biden might
need her as VP to win the election.
"... If you are holding out hope that Bernie can slay the dragon of the existing system at its belladonna roots, then be my guest. I see too many people spending their hope on Elizabeth Warren, which will only serve to suck power away from Bernie, who is the ONLY Democratic candidate movie that has the potential to actually INSPIRE voters, just as Trump does. Bernie deserves credit too for actually CHANGING the nature of the campaign conversation and who just MIGHT even begin to change it at the national level, assuming that time, tide and tyranny allow him four years safe passage to reach his pending retirement. ..."
"... In any case, after a year of endless media barrage, it is rather late now for the gods to intervene. All I would hope is that a few more of us can open our eyes to see past the silly "lesser of two evils" and "#votebluenomatterwho" memes, to the reality of how every one of these candidates serve as puppets to SOME specific mix of master control forces and thus make our choice in THAT more realistic light, rather than thinking that any of them offer "real" independent solutions or that any of their "heroic" feet are NOT already embedded knee, waist or neck-deep in the Big Muddy river of our dissolute illusions of Democracy. ..."
As people march off to the polls today to pick their
favorite political actor of the year, I hear precious few voices openly asking what seem to me
to be obvious questions, like WHO produced the movie that is their candidacy? Who directed it?
Who wrote the script? Who are the investors that will be expecting to see returns on their
investment, if their movie and their best actor should somehow win? And how far do the networks
of wealth, influence and control extend beyond those public faces inside the campaign? None of
these questions strike me as tangential; rather they are all essential.
Let's imagine for a moment that one of these actors can somehow out-thespian Trump once on
stage which is HIGHLY unlikely – even for folksy Bernie – UNLESS he can somehow win
himself 100% DNC buy-in and 24/7 mainstream "BLUE" media support. But assuming that he (or some
"brokered" candidate) wins, it will still be their production teams (along with their extended
networks) who will be making their presence felt on Day One of any new presidency. These are
the people who will be calling in the favors and calling the shots.
I recall how moved I was by Obama's 2008 election. I was buoyed with hope, because I did not
understand then what I understand now – that NO candidate can exist as an independent
entity, disconnected from the apparatus and networks that support and produce the narratives
that advance them and their agendas. I also recall the day that Obama entered the White House
and instantly handed the keys to the economy (and the recovery) back to Geithner, Summers and
Rubin – the same trio that had helped destroy it just a year earlier. And he did this at
the same moment he was filling his cabinet with the very people "suggested" in that famous
leaked letter from the CEO of Citibank. My hope departed in genie smoke at that moment, to be
followed by eight years of spineless smooth talk and wobbly action, except where the agendas of
Wall Street and pompous Empire were concerned.
Do you see how this works? The game is essentially rigged from the start by virtue of who is
allowed to enter the race, what can and what can't be said by them and by who the media is told
to shine their light on, and who to avoid. Candidates can, of course, say pretty much anything
they want (short of "Building 7, WTF!!" of course) in hopes it will spark a reaction that the
media can seize upon.
But just based on words, we know that NONE of these happy belief clowns will forcefully
oppose existing "Regime Change" plans for Venezuela, Bolivia and Syria. We know that NONE of
them will stand up to Israel – or to a Congress that is, almost to a person, in the
pocket of Israel. We know too that NONE of them will bring more than an angry flyswatter to the
battle with Wall Street or the corporations. We further know that NONE of them will do more
than make modest cuts to military spending or god forbid, call out the secret state's fiscally
unaccountable black budget operations, which by now reach into at least the 30 trillions.
Personally, I'm not FOR any candidate simply because I cannot UNSEE what it has taken me 12
years to get into focus; namely, how everyone of them are compromised by a SYSTEM that talks a
lot about FIXING what's broken, but which is simply INCAPABLE of delivering anything other than
what has been pre-ordained and decreed by the global order of oligarchs, which exists as the
"ghost in the machine" that ultimately controls every part of the political "STATE" – at
high, middle, low and especially at DEEP levels.
I will say in defense of Bernie that his production team early-on made the very unique
decision to crowd-source the campaign's costs. That was a PROFOUND decision, which has paid off
for him and which may well buy him a certain level of lubricated control over what is to come,
even though the significance of that decision is not well appreciated because the DNC and the
MSM simply refuse to discuss it in any depth.
Warren was TRYING to play the populist "people's campaign" game too, until last week when
she must have been startled awake by the "Ghost of Reagan's Past" and decided to take the money
and run as a Hillary proxy which (big surprise) was what she was all along anyway.
Let me just say this about Joe Biden. From his initial announcement, I never felt he was in
his right mind. He seems rather to be teetering on the edge of senility and fast on his way
into dementia. Also, the man has openly sold his soul so many times in his career that we
shouldn't at this point expect any unbought (or even lucid) thought to ever again escape his
remarkably loose lips. Joe might have run with the old skool Dems when he was a big deal on the
Delaware streets, but now, like Bloomberg and Romney, he's just another Republican in a pricey
blue suit.
I understand how people are feeling stressed, obsessed and desperate to get rid of Donald
Trump. It's just that until we take a collective step back and see things at the level from
which they actually operate and NOT at the level from which we are TOLD they operate, then we
will never be successful in turning our public discourse around or in beginning to identify and
eliminate the fascist and anti-human agendas that we associate with Trump, but which actually
lie behind the subservient to power policies and preferences of BOTH parties.
If you are holding out hope that Bernie can slay the dragon of the existing system at
its belladonna roots, then be my guest. I see too many people spending their hope on Elizabeth
Warren, which will only serve to suck power away from Bernie, who is the ONLY Democratic
candidate movie that has the potential to actually INSPIRE voters, just as Trump does. Bernie
deserves credit too for actually CHANGING the nature of the campaign conversation and who just
MIGHT even begin to change it at the national level, assuming that time, tide and tyranny allow
him four years safe passage to reach his pending retirement.
In any case, after a year of endless media barrage, it is rather late now for the gods
to intervene. All I would hope is that a few more of us can open our eyes to see past the silly
"lesser of two evils" and "#votebluenomatterwho" memes, to the reality of how every one of
these candidates serve as puppets to SOME specific mix of master control forces and thus make
our choice in THAT more realistic light, rather than thinking that any of them offer "real"
independent solutions or that any of their "heroic" feet are NOT already embedded knee, waist
or neck-deep in the Big Muddy river of our dissolute illusions of Democracy.
– Yet Another Useful Idiot.
Mark Petrakis is a long-time theater, event and media producer based in San Francisco. He first
broke molds with his Cobra Lounge vaudeville shows of the 90's, hosted by his alter-ego,
Spoonman. Concurrently, he took to tech when the scent was still utopian, building the first
official websites for Burning Man, the Residents and multiple other local arts groups of the
era. He worked as a consultant to a variety of corps and orgs, including 10 years with the
Institute for the Future. He is co-founder of both long-running Anon Salon monthly gatherings
and Sea of Dream NYE spectacles. Read other articles by Mark .
Former DNC chairman who gave Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance during the 2016
election, exclaimed on Fox News that Biden's victory was "the most impressive 72 hours
I've ever seen in U.S. politics," and told another analyst to "
go to hell " for suggesting that the Democratic establishment was once again working to
manipulate a nominee into frontrunner status.
The Democrats are in chaos and melting down on live TV.
Donna Brazile just told the @GOPChairwoman to "go to hell"
when asked about the chaos.
... Although it cannot be assumed that all her voters would have gravitated to Sanders,
certainly some would have, and with an extra ten points Bernie would have won some states he
lost. If she departs after coming in third in her home state, that will help Sanders going
forward.
Sanders performed well below the polling. Polls had him competitive in Virginia, where he
was crushed by Biden. Polls showed him winning Texas, whereas that turned into a close
race.
I knew Elizabeth Warren when I was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. She was a
right-wing Reaganite. And the University of Pennsylvania had the most progressive law
school curriculum in the country. And this is Elizabeth Warren.
And I taught a first year class called income security. Elizabeth Warren said "there is
no more ridiculous idea than national healthcare". That's the Elizabeth Warren I knew. She
was in her 30s at this time.
She was the henchwoman of the right-wing takeover to destroy the left-wing curriculum. I
taught Worker's Rights, I taught the National Labor Rights Act, which doesn't exist
anymore, for the most part, it's not taught in any law school in the United States, I
taught Income Security, and I taught Jurisprudence. Elizabeth was against all those things.
I don't really know Elizabeth Warren personally, I just know her as a right-wing
Republican. And somehow or another, God came out of the heavens and turned her into a
Democrat, probably at the very moment that Derrick Bell stepped down from Harvard because
he would not work anymore until they hired an African-American woman.
Now she couldn't pretend she was Black, so she pretended she was African. She was Native
American. That's not what we call people who are Native Americans, because they're First
Nations people. Apaches and Cherokees were nations. There's no such thing as a Native
American. Elizabeth checked that box just as Derrick Bell was stepping down. She goes to
Massachusetts and she becomes a Democrat.
There is no more [of a] relentless, ruthless, nihilist that I have ever met in my entire
life. Not Elizabeth Warren. She's right up there with Donald Trump. So I can't really
support her. She did succeed in destroying that progressive curriculum. And that
progressive curriculum is, you know, it's one of those life things that you hold onto,
right? So I don't trust Elizabeth Warren as far as I can throw her.
She has no policy, she doesn't understand imperialism, and she has said she's a
capitalist. What she really is is a technocrat who clawed her way to Harvard. I mean,
that's where you want to end up, right? If you're a law professor, you want to be at
Harvard. Ok, she did that. She succeeded.
But as President of the United States I wouldn't even dream of supporting her. Because
Bernie Sanders, whatever you think of him, like me, was chaining himself to schools to
[de]segregate them. Was protesting against the Vietnam war. There are people who have held
onto values for a lifetime, and those, Slavoj, are the people I trust.
Presumably Sanders always has known about Warren's record (it's never been obscure for
anyone who took a few minutes to look; years ago when I focused on Wall Street and
participated at the econoblogs I always knew she was a fraud), yet he's always helped
propagate the fraud that she's some kind of "progressive". Same as he's always lied about
Russiagate (he certainly knows it's a lie).
So according to the party line, Sanders wanted Warren to run in 2016 and only ran himself
after she demurred. This can only mean he preferred for her to act as the sheepdog for
Hillary, since he certainly knew she was no "progressive".
The Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders, AGAIN! Even the fact
that Elizabeth Warren stayed in the race was devastating to Bernie and allowed Sleepy Joe to
unthinkably win Massachusetts. It was a perfect storm, with many good states remaining for
Joe!
20 minutes later, Trump tweeted that it was " So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the
race ," as she has "Zero chance of even coming close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly."
"So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will he ever speak to her again? She cost him
Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn't!"
So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the race. She has Zero chance of even coming
close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly. So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will
he ever speak to her again? She cost him Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn't!
Three hours later, Trump tweeted: " Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn't in the race, Bernie
Sanders would have EASILY won Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas , not to mention various other
states. Our modern day Pocahontas won't go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go
down as the all time great SPOILER! "
Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn't in the race, Bernie Sanders would have EASILY won
Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas, not to mention various other states. Our modern day
Pocahontas won't go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go down as the all time
great SPOILER!
Warren is a Reagan Republican. She was a Republican until she was 47 years old, which
means she lived through the Reagan years thinking 'this is fine'. She only switched in the
middle of the 1990s when the GOP had gone so far off the deep end that Clinton's center-right
New Democrats better represented her Reaganite views. She claims it was because of abuse by
banks, which doesn't make sense, since by that point it was the Democrats leading the charge
on bank deregulation.
She isn't a leftist, by any definition.
She built a reputation because of the very narrow range of finance issues she's
actually good on (the CFPB is the cornerstone of her entire progressive reputation). And in
this election she hasn't been a candidate of the left. She's run on the veneer that she is,
but like a snake she's been shedding that pretense over time, backing away from any and every
progressive policy position. Her base is white suburbanite professionals, especially women
who want to see one of their own be president.
The Warren-Sanders divide perfectly illustrates everything Marx ever wrote about the
dangers of Liberals. They aren't the Left's friend. When the revolution comes, they'll be the
first to be shot.
Benjamin: Ronald Reagan famously used to be a Democrat, lots of people forget that. He went
Republican in 1962.
Lots of people also don't know or realize how extremely likeable Reagan was as a person
when he was young, much more so for most people than Kennedy ever was or could ever be (the
Kennedy family was/is as nasty as any).
I got this link a few US election ago, Reagan was still a Democrat at this point in time:
"What's My Line -
Ronald Reagan (1953)" , it's only three and a half minutes long.
Elizabeth Warren really hurt Sanders tonight and she's getting no delegates cause her
percentages are under 15% (except in her own state that she's losing IN 3RD PLACE)! If she
had gotten out of the race Bernie would be sweeping everything for Progressives!
It's like Warren took a sledgehammer to the Progressive Movement and said: If I can't lead
it to the White House, then neither will YOU Bernie Sanders!
That's how selfish she was this week.
Thank goodness Sanders might still be able to get a majority, because BIDEN IS THE
TITANIC. Biden cannot be the Nominee, he's a walking disaster and Trump will crush him!
Thats a good one. The anunaki wouldn't even shit on Warren. The ancient south American
Indians would have found a fitting sacrifice for her type of lying, sleaze.
I have seen that
video and watch most of his posts as he has a sharp enquiring mind. Most importantly he is
comfortable to be challenged.
I discovered Robert Temple and the science of geopolymers
through one of his references.
I just can't be sympathetic with Bernie and his voters tonight. Remember how Bernie came out
to support Tulsi Gabbard when she was having such a hard time with the establishment? Neither
do I. Remember how Bernie's supporters made sure Bernie would speak the truth about
russiagate, or they weren't going to support him? Neither do I. Remember how Bernie made it
clear in every debate and every interview that the choice is endless war or medicare for all?
He didn't. Watching someone with a few leftist atoms in him being defeated in State after
State by a warmongering sociopath who belongs in a hospice with bars on the windows, is like
watching what he deserves.
People who casually tell you that Bernie is for the Empire--and not for the repair of
society-- are people trafficking in lies.
I encourage everyone to look at Bernie with a critical eye and decide for yourself.
Bernie has a history of deference to the Democratic Party and Democratic Party leaders.
All of whom are 100% pro-Empire.
'Nice guy' Bernie doesn't do anything that threatens the establishment. HE promises
revolutionary change - but that has NEVER come just from establishment Parties via the
ballot box. It has come from independent Movements.
When Bernie talks about Empire matters, he generally obfuscates or reinforces
pro-Empire narratives (like Russiagate's McCarthyism).
Anyone in political life for any length of time (like Bernie) must know that USA
is EMPIRE-FIRST. Empire priorities (military and intelligence focus; 'weaponized' liberalism;
neoliberal graft; dollar hegemony; Jihadis as a proxy army; etc.) dictate the limits of
domestic politics.
Bernie's quixotic insurgency was doomed to fail unless Bernie attacked the Democratic
Party's connection to Empire and use of identity politics to divide and conquer. Oh, and
Bernie would have to threaten to leave the Democratic Party -- but then would become the
independent Movement that Bernie and the Democratic Party have tried so hard to prevent!
"... US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that, outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak stomach fall in behind him. ..."
"... But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump. ..."
"... So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that? ..."
"... Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and gambling (overseas adventurism) ..."
The setup: US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal
enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences
of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that,
outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak
stomach fall in behind him.
The Crips are bloated and in decline. A bunch of naïve, starry eyed nobodies mount a
campaign to take the Crips legit. The old Crips are irritated that they have to take time out
from grifting so as to squash the upstart pests.
That is where I see us today. But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as
pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was
supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to
hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing
organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump.
So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and
succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that?
Yes, exactly – all the Trump die-hards, and 'tribal' gang bangers would object. It
could get really nasty.
And so far, I have not seen any evidence that any of the characters that would be willing
to play such a gambit have any inclination to give a shit for the consequences for us little
people.
Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection
racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and
gambling (overseas adventurism)...
The Tammany Society emerged as the center for Democratic-Republican Party politics in
the city in the early 19th century. After 1854, the Society expanded its political control
even further by earning the loyalty of the city's rapidly expanding immigrant community,
which functioned as its base of political capital. The business community appreciated its
readiness, at moderate cost, to cut through red tape and legislative mazes to facilitate
rapid economic growth... Tammany Hall also served as an engine for graft and political
corruption, perhaps most infamously under William M. "Boss" Tweed in the mid-19th
century....
[Tweed's biographer wrote:]
It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system ... The Tweed ring at its
height was an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key
power points: the courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds
had a grandeur of scale and an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing
and organization.
trailertrash @6 --- Americans have been railroaded into endless squabbling about voting and
democracy instead of demanding good governance. How does choosing between two similarly
corrupt parties deliver good governance?
Voting in the lesser evil is still choosing evil.
What does it profit a nation to have voting every 4 years when excrement covers her
sidewalks? and vets suicide themselves daily? and soldiers get raped daily by fellow
soldiers?
For everyone puzzling over Warren's actions and intentions, this should help -- a lot.
Woke Wonk Elizabeth Warren's Foreign Policy Team is Stacked With Pro-War Swamp
Creatures
Alexander Rubinstein and Max Blumenthal – 2-26-20
"With her new list of foreign policy advisors, Warren unveiled a cast of pro-war think
tankers, Cold Warriors and corporate careerists united in support of the Beltway consensus.
So much for 'big, structural change'."
"... Biden and Warren are both enthusiastic supporters of neocon foreign policy which is in line with their phony support for the working class. What happened to Warren's glittering M4A plan? It turned back into a pumpkin didn't it? It was all smoke and mirrors. No surprise if you know her history. ..."
"... Imperial Borg Assimilation ..."
"... The Foreign Policy Establishment ..."
"... Warren is an establishment social climber. She took off the mask and her true colors shone through when she viciously attacked Bernie Sanders as a misogynist. Yet still many people surrounding the Sander's campaign support Warren. Why is that? Big money on the left supports her, that's why. That big money also pays a lot of salaries in the liberal political job market. Have you heard of the The Democracy Alliance ? ..."
"... Why do so many liberals or even progressives dislike Tulsi and are so eager to see her gone? Propaganda from the media. The media for a year has relentlessly promoted Red Baiting towards Tulsi because Tulsi challenges the "Washington Consensus" (unfettered elite rule over America and the world with an iron fist). ..."
"... Everyone in the pro-Israel lobby (myself included) is already talking about how to make sure that Tulsi Gabbard's campaign is over before it even gets off the ground -- If you're going to bet on a Dem candidate, look elsewhere. ..."
"... There are many reasons behind that. The main reason though is Tulsi trying to stop war. The Neocons and Saudis have been pushing American politicians, celebrities, media owners, think tanks, foundations and so on for years -- to destroy Syria. Supposedly because Syria is close allies with Iran. ..."
As I was checking the news earlier today
I noticed that the coronavirus had killed another top government official in Iran, bringing the total to 3. Or at
least the 3 they have released info on. There's a chance it's worse among the Iranian leadership but they don't
want to cause a panic. I checked the Twitterverse after that for my daily dose of madness and surprisingly kept
seeing people ask rhetorically:
Why is Tulsi Gabbard still in the
primary race?
Turns out that Amy "She Hulk" Klobuchar
had dropped out of the primary race apparently to suck up to Joe Biden for a VP slot. And so had Pete "Honestly
I'm Not Annoying" Buttigigieididisjjd. This of course should surprise no one since the threat of Bernie Sanders to
the financial criminal syndicates greasing the palms of practically all politicians and media to do their bidding
have seen the writing on the wall. They realize they need candidates to drop out in order to coalesce centrist
votes around one or two to stop what they perceive to be a huge problem for them in Bernie Sanders.
... ... ...
Biden and Warren are both enthusiastic
supporters of neocon foreign policy which is in line with their phony support for the working class. What happened
to Warren's glittering M4A plan? It turned back into a pumpkin didn't it? It was all smoke and mirrors. No
surprise if you know her history.
Did you see her on Pod Save America regaling us with how much she believes in
crippling countries by sanctions if they dare to resist the racist
Imperial Borg Assimilation
Machine
aka
The Foreign Policy Establishment
?
That doesn't sound woke to me Miss Thang
.
Warren is an establishment social
climber. She took off the mask and her true colors shone through when she viciously attacked Bernie Sanders as a
misogynist. Yet still many people surrounding the Sander's campaign support Warren. Why is that? Big money on the
left supports her, that's why. That big money also pays a lot of salaries in the liberal political job market.
Have you heard of the
The Democracy Alliance
?
The Democracy Alliance is a
semi-anonymous donor network funded primarily by none other than Democratic mega-donor George Soros. Since its
inception in 2005, it is estimated the Alliance has injected over $500 million to Democratic causes. While it
isn't typical that they would endorse a candidate outright, they focus more on formulating a catalog of
organizations and PACs that they recommend the network of about 100 or so millionaires and billionaires invest
in. Democracy Alliance almost literally have their hands in every major left-leaning institution you have (and
haven't) heard of -- John Podesta and Neera Tanden's Center for American Progress, David Brock's Media Matters,
Center for Popular Democracy, Demos (we'll come back to this one), and the Working Families Party. All of these
organizations are listed on the Alliance's website as recommended investments for it's members; and invest they
do. Here's the rub: Democracy Alliance's membership isn't made entirely public -- but we know enough that alot
of the people that have sat in the highest levels of that organization have an affinity for Elizabeth Warren.
... ... ...
Why do so many liberals or even
progressives dislike Tulsi and are so eager to see her gone? Propaganda from the media. The media for a year has
relentlessly promoted Red Baiting towards Tulsi because Tulsi challenges the "Washington Consensus" (unfettered
elite rule over America and the world with an iron fist).
That is why we got this from Jacob Wohl
after Tulsi declared her candidacy last year:
Everyone in the pro-Israel lobby
(myself included) is already talking about how to make sure that Tulsi Gabbard's campaign is over before it
even gets off the ground -- If you're going to bet on a Dem candidate, look elsewhere.
There are many reasons behind that. The
main reason though is Tulsi trying to stop war. The Neocons and Saudis have been pushing American politicians,
celebrities, media owners, think tanks, foundations and so on for years -- to destroy Syria. Supposedly because
Syria is close allies with Iran.
But they are not the only ones who want
Syria destroyed. Other reasons may have to do with massive profits at stake. A natural gas survey team from Norway
some years ago discovered that Syria has the largest
untapped deposits of natural gas in the world
. After that secret discovery became known by various powerful
people
plans were drawn up to split
up the profits after the destruction of the Syrian government. But after Syria
asked Russia for help that changed their plans.
She is not having our country
become a plaything for rich a-holes who use the lives and limbs of service members for their greedy
scams. Because of that the idle rich sociopaths ruling America with their political and media henchmen
went after Tulsi with a full barrage of lies
, media blackouts, and massive amounts of propaganda --
all to stop her message from getting out so they can create a false image of her in people's minds.
Everything and anything they can throw at her, they do.
There are two politicians whom
they fear. Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Which is why Bernie Sanders has unsurprisingly been trying
to stay out of the foreign policy debate, or he even goes along with the establishment for the most part.
He saw what they unleashed against Tulsi. He knows from long experience that propaganda works on a lot of
people. The financial elites are not naive though, they probably believe he is going along with their
ridiculous foreign policy as a political strategy -- until he gains more power. They fear that if he gains
that power he will, like Tulsi, not go along with their imperial stormtrooper agenda.
No matter who comes away with the nomination, it has to be asked "was any of this process
legitimate?". We know from a plethora of examples that US elections are not fair. They border
on meaningless most of the time. The DNC's doubly so, having argued in court they have no duty
to be fair.
Any result, then, you could safely assume was contrived, for one reason or another.
If the Buttigieg-Klobuchar-Biden gambit works, we end up with Trump vs. Biden. And,
realistically, that means a second Trump term.
Biden is possibly senile and definitely creepy . Watching him shuffle and stutter
through a Presidential campaign would be almost cruel.
Politically, he has all of Hillary's weaknesses, being a big-time establishment type with a
pro-war record, without even the "I have a vagina" card to play.
He'll get massacred.
Is that the plan?
There's more than enough signs that Trump has abandoned all the policies that made him any
kind of threat to the political establishment. Four years on: no wars ended, no walls built, no
swamp drained. Just more of the same. He's an idiot who talked big and got co-opted. It
happens.
The Senate and other institutions might talk about Trump being a criminal or an idiot or a
"Nazi", but the reality is he's barely perceptibly different from any other POTUS this side of
JFK.
#TheResistance was a puppet show. A weak game played for toy money. When it really counts,
they're all in it together. Biden getting on the ticket would be a public admittance of that.
It would mean the DNC is effectively throwing the fight. Trump is a son of a bitch, but he's
their son of a bitch. And that's much better than even the idea of President
Bernie.
Does it really matter?
Empire of kaos will never move one inch to change the status quo.
The quaisi fascist state that most western /antlantacist nations have become it will make no
difference
Gianbattista Vico"Their will always be an elite class" Punto e basta.
Name me one politico that made any difference to we the sheeple in the modern era.
If someone were to mention FDR I will scream.
Aldo Moro got murdered by the deep state for only suggesting to make a pact with Berlinguer
the head of Il Partito Communista Italiano.
re ... Your house foreclosed upon by shady bank: naked capitalism, .0001% paid on interest
savings: naked capitalism, poor wages: naked capitalism, dangerous workplace: naked
capitalism, etc. ...
"naked capitalism" is not a clear description. Consider using "predatory capitalism",
which clearly describes what it is.
Here's the Wiki dictionary definition:
Predatory--
1. relating to or denoting an animal or animals preying naturally on others.
synonyms: predacious, carnivorous, hunting, raptorial, ravening;
Example: "predatory birds".
2. seeking to exploit or oppress others.
synonyms: exploitative, wolfish, rapacious, greedy, acquisitive, avaricious
Example: "I could see a predatory gleam in his eyes"
Note where the word comes from:
The Latin "praedator", in English meaning "plunderer".
And "plunderer" helps the reader understand and perhaps recognize what is happening.
It is an illusion to talk of "the Left" and "the Right" anymore, because the USA have become
outright criminal: A Mafia-system ruled by some syndicates.
Think of this enormous sum of 23 (I believe) trillion Dollars missing in the Pentagon. And
the House even decided to not research where this money went! To this see
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1407-mark-skidmore-on-the-pentagons-missing-trillions/
Or think of the Ukraine and Joe and Hunter Biden (and other corrupt persons from the EU).
Author Bill Martin mentions this above with :"dirty business in Ukraine".
But its not only about corruption. Now it's also about a murder-attempt -- as every Mafia
would never hesitate to execute. And Western media doesn't report this.
This has happened: Because of Joe Biden's quid-pro-quo demand to former Ukrainian
president Poroshenko (no billions of Dollars from the US, if Shokin was not fired) state
prosecutor Shokin was then fired. But some months ago there had now also been a poison-attack
on Shokin.
And now Shokin goes after Joe Biden -- and he must, if he wants to survive!: To this on
the site https://youtube.com/channel/UCdeMVChrumySxV9N1w0Au-w
There click the video "JOE BIDEN, UKRAINE AND VIKTOR SHOKIN MERCURY POISONING".
Savorywill Yes, I agree completely (though I would have to study the materials more
carefully to fully understand it all). It is mentioned that one accomplishment of Trump was his
take-down of the Bush dynasty for the lies spun justifying the Iraq war. It was in S. Caroline
that Trump did this, in a debate of Republican candidates at the start of the election campaign
in 2016. I knew nothing about Trump at the time, having lived in Japan and Australia for many
years, never saw the Apprentice or even heard of him. So, when he started snipping at Jeb
saying that Jeb's brother George, led America in the biggest mistake in US history by starting
the war on Iraq, and the audience started booing, to which Trump replied, 'oh, those are just
paid for lobbyists – I don't need them as my campaign is self-funded', it was absolutely
astonishing and I could hardly believe my ears, or eyes. Yet, there it was on TV, one of the
first debates of the Republican party for their candidate. I then saw that Trump was, indeed,
something very different from what we had ever seen in American politics.
I was rapt when he defeated Hillary, and completely surprised as it was so unexpected. It
did give me faith in America again, to some degree. Here is the woman who orchestrated the
criminal destruction of Libya, and then laughed about the horrific murder of Gaddafi, who was
only trying to provide a decent society for Libyan citizens and deal with the madness of the
forces around him. What happened to him, and to Libya, was just so heartbreaking, and she
thought it was a big joke and tried to do the same in Syria. So, I was thrilled when she got
beaten. Not that everything Trump has done since then has met with my approval, but he seems to
be winding down the wars as he promised and I don't mind listening to his speeches at the
rallies, which I sometimes do watch. I particularly like when he went to a farming area in
California and signed a bill enabling local farmers to access water, something they were unable
to do because of various regulations. I never heard of any other presidents so hands-on with
their involvement with such things and I thought his speech in India, recently, was incredible.
I couldn't stand listening to Hillary for any more than a few minutes. Even Obama never really
rang true to me. He would say things like 'change we can believe in', or 'hope for more hope',
vague platitudes like that that didn't really have many specifics. I can understand Clint
Eastwood's speech talking to the empty chair (representing Obama) at the Republican convention
in 2012, actually. Obama seems like a media projection, or something. Hard to identify or see
him as an actual person.
sharon marlowe ,
"Not that everything Trump has done since then has met with my approval, but he seems to be
winding down the wars as he promised"
What is "winding down the wars"? Do mean that you stopped paying attention?
Savorywill ,
Seems like they are winding down, don't you think? Just today I read the the Taliban just
signed an agreement to that effect, to finally finish that war going on for nearly 20 years,
no closer to success since the start. The US is not overtly involved in the Syrian conflict
as well as it seems to be trying to get out of Iraq.
Had Hillary won, she would have gone full bore into Syria and probably would have made
matters much, much worse. She is a thorough warmonger, her track record clearly demonstrated
that.
sharon marlowe ,
First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then
Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then
Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed
Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was
launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that
he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields.
trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request
of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the
request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He
expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an
investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has
bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm
aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you
can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when
he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.
"winding down the wars" makes no sense.
Antonym ,
Trump just signed a peace pact with the Taliban. As they are basically CIA -ISI irregulars he
got the green light from Langley.
He needs this gesture for his re-election campaign.
Savorywill ,
Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the
attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that
the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties.
When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when
advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than
the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and
that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs
that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in
Iraq in the first place.
I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he
has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at
least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something
Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US
economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation
as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.
There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.
Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't
get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.
People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even
mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump
has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in
such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st
century's most horrible leaders on earth.
Dungroanin ,
Sharon,
Who has done the shit under the Trump Regime (lol Regime! You lot)
Trump – not.
Regime – yes.
Dungroanin ,
Sharon,
Magically? No.
Factually yes.
If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be
having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.
The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed
by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.
Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad
🤣
sharon marlowe ,
Are you seven years old? There's no such thing as omnipotent rulers. I said Trump was the
leader of the U.S. regime. That's how it's said in the real world;)
Dungroanin ,
Right – and the regime of which he is the leader of has been trying to usurp him from
day one, correct?
So in your world view Trump has been trying to overthrow himself?
That all the Russiagate, Ukrainegate – coupgates in short are all Trump doing it to
himself!!!
Who is being childish by conflating all of that?
Koba ,
He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he strayed several coups in Latin America and
was game for taking on the dprk until they got nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!
Dungroanin ,
Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a
wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and
Dungroanin ,
Savory,
In 2016 Trumps role (whether he fully realised it or not) was to get rid of all the
existing Republican candidates that may have stopped Hillary getting her crown.
He and the Clinton family were old friends in NY and he played golf with Bill
regularly.
What you haven't identified in what you saw in 2016 is the choreographed pantomime
villainy of The Donald during the debates with Hillary.
It was designed for him to lose appeal and keep GOP voters at home.
The reason Hillary lost :
The stitch up of Bernie and his supporters as revealed by the DNC email leaks which kept
them from voting for her;
Her failure to campaign effectively being a cold hearted murdering bitch that couldn't
empathise with a kitten;
A load of ordinary poorish Americans who got a bit pissed at being labelled 'deplorable'
by her.
Simple as that.
Donald was as suprised as anyone to have actually won that night – he had to go chat
to the Clintons and say "what the fuck am I supposed to do now? I have a whole load of
Apprentice episodes lined up to film, and Hotels & Golf courses to build!"
Obviously he couldn't say it must be a mistake and his friends the Clintons should be
allowed back into the White House as planned – that wouldn't have washed – so he
ended up in the Oval Office.
As potus he would have to make decisions which no one including the Clintons could force
him to do anything HE ultimately didn't want to do. No matter how many of the stooges imposed
upon him tried to get away with murder.
He quickly realised there was some nasty goings on that he was supposed to rubberstamp and
he rebelled against it at his inauguration speech which gave the establishment a slap across
the face as Pres George W Bush quipped to his dad PresGeorge Bush
"That was some weird shit"
And all else followed the yellow brick road to right here, right now.
Good innit?
Antonym ,
The Left has fallen into reactionary insanity
The other main proof for the above: they support Islamism just because the "alt-right"
opposes it.
Islamism kicks all the Left's causes in the teeth: equality only for Muslims, as all the
others are despicable kaffirs; misogyny to the power of 2; LGTB rights below zero; nothing
against shark capitalism in the Koran.
The Iranian Left was massacred in 1988 by
the Iranian Islamists.
Dungroanin ,
Antzy the Bush's from Grandaddy Prescot to the CIA JFK killers and Pres George Senior to Pres
Dubya to all current scions are bestties with the most extreme form of islamists in hostory
the Wahhabists who enable the Saudis to control Saudi Arabia and it's wealth – they
have even been referred to as the most Likudist state outside of Israel by Nuttyyahoo!
So there.
Koba ,
The Jew defender has spoken! Show me this support for Islamism! Im yet to find even a
mainstream or fringe left wing party support that at all! Good goy a shekel has been
deposited into your account
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot
for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his
narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars.
Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business.
Trump is not an asset.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Okay, I'll admit that he is a Russian Federation asset in so far as he is Putin's &
Russian Federation Intelligence asset fodder that Putin can utilize at will whenever he
desires but aside from being the biggest dumb arse in the Western Empire he is really an
ignorant ignoramus when you drill right down to it.
I support the USA Deep State conspiracy to rid the good people of the United States of
America of the Orange Oaf conundrum. The global business community would rather restore
business fundamentals IMHO.
As MOU my perspective is absolute, sorry.
Like Josef Stalin I too have a reputation to uphold.
MOU
Joerg ,
It is an illusion to talk of "the Left" and "the Right" anymore, because the USA have become
outright criminal: A Mafia-system ruled by some syndicates.
Think of this enormous sum of 23 (I believe) trillion Dollars missing in the Pentagon. And
the House even decided to not research where this money went! To this see
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1407-mark-skidmore-on-the-pentagons-missing-trillions/
Or think of the Ukraine and Joe and Hunter Biden (and other corrupt persons from the EU).
Author Bill Martin mentions this above with :"dirty business in Ukraine".
But its not only about corruption. Now it's also about a murder-attempt – as every
Mafia would never hesitate to execute. And Western media doesn't report this.
This has happened: Because of Joe Biden's quid-pro-quo demand to former Ukrainian president
Poroshenko (no billions of Dollars from the US, if Shokin was not fired) state prosecutor
Shokin was then fired. But some months ago there had now also been a poison-attack on Shokin.
And now Shokin goes after Joe Biden – and he must, if he wants to survive!: To this on
the site https://youtube.com/channel/UCdeMVChrumySxV9N1w0Au-w
There click the video "JOE BIDEN, UKRAINE AND VIKTOR SHOKIN MERCURY POISONING".
paul ,
Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction.
Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the
system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be
diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.
The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat
in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political
candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be
outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.
Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were,
lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to
the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from
behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid
criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the
world to see. This cannot be undone.
For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump
has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by
now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and
rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this. They
realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their
stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and
may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests.
And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.
paul ,
Sanders was shafted in 2016 by the corrupt DNC machine, and he is being shafted again.
He will probably be sidelined in favour of some third rate hack like Buttplug, or some other
synthetic, manufactured nonentity.
If he isn't, and by some miracle does secure the nomination, they will fail to support him
and just allow him to be defeated by Trump. It doesn't matter.
There are millions of decent people who have long been persuaded to play the game of Lesser
Evils. They will be as disenchanted as was Trump's Base by a transparently corrupt, rigged
system, and finally withdraw their support.
This has to be seen as a positive development.
They can no longer paper over the cracks.
paul ,
Likewise, there are more than a few crumbs of comfort to be drawn from the smearing and
destruction of Corbyn.
As in America, it forced the Deep State to step out from behind the curtain and take direct
control. The Zionist wire pullers had to step out into the spotlight and reveal the true
extent of their domination.
The endless treachery and backstabbing of the Blairites have shown the Labour Party to be a
lost cause, a dead end, a waste of time, effort and energy, and a waste of a man's rations,
making way for something more worthwhile. This is another positive development.
Koba ,
Paul the people playing the lesser of two evils game aren't good people. They pretend they
are. That's it. In a nutshell.
Dungroanin ,
Well Bill you make great points especially around the Impeachment minutiae – Eric the
Schiffleur, Paul, a genuine legal expert, Schiffs shape changing and snakeeyed mesmerising ,
the levitation of Bolton into a Saviour? Holly shit!! Yanks eat some nasty foods no wonder
there is great obesity (gratuitous I know).
BUT Bill, you will insist on working the old long con – the Left/Right imaginary one
dimensional divide.
WHY?
There is only a 3-D Top-Bottom construct in the world in a roughly Pyramidal 'con' shape
which shifts its peaks and size in time (4D).
It is the super rich oligarch owning Pathocracy in the hidden heights and their visible
representative Kings and plutocrats at the top and their circles of diminishing powers and
affluence down to the majority of humans below – kept in the dirt and slavery through
indenture where they can't by shear violence of slave masters and dog soldiers.
There is only that top – bottom, squashed by bought priests and philosophers and
'economists' into first a 2-D triangle and then squashed into a 1-D line that people are told
is left and right. The great owners of everything having disappeared of that scale but
represented by their ciphers:-
Clintons / Obama are Left – Bush's / Trump are right.
Crap – they are just pawns in the top down 4D game trying to claw up the peaks
– no wonder Donald named his son Baron – it may be his way of giving the finger
to the glass ceiling he aims to shatter.
Bernie is a threat to that pyramid as Jeremy was here in the UK.
They had to stop Jeremy at any cost and the Judaeo-phobic smear was massive, added to the
terrorist smear in the 2017 election. Along with the he was both a Brexiteer and anti
Brexiteer smear and a Commie!
It was still not quite certain so the US openly interfered in rhe UK election with
Pompeo's Gauntlet to stop Corbyn – where the fuck is the concerned democratic purveyors
of the US on that election interference by the Sec of State and a pressure group upon a
another sovereign country ?
Where are the judges? The IG's ? The glitterati? The Intellectuals ?
YOU Bill?
They FIXED the postal ballots to make sure – even after making sure a unprecedented
winter, December, short daylight, prexmas date to minimise turnout.
Yes they did.
Sanders looks like he is going to get the gauntlet but being Jewish to start with –
it will be harder to throw the Judaeophobe mud at him – so the shit thrown is,
COMMUNIST ! It has already started, but to make sure the election will also be rigged,
whether via the delegates or by the 'hanging chard de nous jour'.
Only a massive turnout and careful independent international election inspectors would
ever get near that – though they didn't stop the Bolivian coup by the CIA did they?
Anyway Trump has a trump card he will play anyday soon – a NEW YALTA – which
will turn him into a giant statesman of the world stage and he'll stomp home for his second
term – for these above in the Pyramid better the devil they know and give Baron a
baronial peak of his own snd Donald his pound if flesh!
George Mc ,
Haven't you just agreed with him here?
He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to
identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists.
People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a
confused mess, that's my whole point;)
If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which
they are) then the left are indeed dead – at least as far as political representation
goes. Although to be sure, that makes his point confused to say the least. He seems to be
attempting to drum up support for Sanders who, by his own logic, isn't going to make a damn
bit of difference (any more than Corbyn would have made had HE been elected in the UK).
George Mc ,
Truth be told, I usually tend to glaze over when I see articles about Trump's impeachment. Or
indeed articles about American politics in general. And I see the Corbyn fiasco as the
ultimate indication that UK politics is just another rigged show. The ultimate irony being,
as I've said, that Corbyn would not have made a difference even if elected anyway. The fact
that the media went so ruthlessly after him is an indication that even the appearance of
socialism is too much for them. But I feel that, in the spirit of "What else can we write
about?", we will continue to have articles on the minutiae of shenanigans between Boris and
Patel etc. It seems to me that the only hope we now have is from events outside the political
system which threaten to burst the charade apart.
George Mc ,
I think that if Corbyn had been elected, there would have been a severe limit as to what he
could have achieved. (While of course, the media would be going into meltdown about plans for
a new Auschwitz on the M1 etc.) However – I grant that the very election of such an
"extreme" figure would cause a similar meltdown behind the scenes as it would lead to the
deadliest thing of all: hope! It would have been a signal that an extensive part – even
the majority – of the British public were sick of this neoliberal cancer. Thus, while
the practical effect of a Corbyn victory would have been limited, the psychological effect
(the damage done to the showbiz façade) would have been profound.
sharon marlowe ,
"Truth be told, I usually tend to glaze over when I see articles about Trump's impeachment.
Or indeed articles about American politics in general."
lol So do I:)
It definitely irked me that such an article appeared here. It looked like a
U.S.-TV-political-pundit-monologue thing.
"... not only did Warren botch the rollout, her plans were bad, and were seen as bad. ..."
"... "Elizabeth Warren cries and tries to regain ground with voters" [Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe ]. The deck: "Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders, her ideological soulmate, rolls along, tears-free." Ouch. ..."
"... IMO it was her later waffling, insincerity, and backtracking on M4A that caused progressives to realize not only that she was not committed to solving the most important issue identified by Dem voters, but that she may not have a fire in her belly to address the nation's other urgent crises and would likely accommodate to powerful interests in Obama-esque fashion. ..."
"... Trump as the not-Democrat has such an edge among the disaffected who are still angry enough to vote ..."
"... I think that I can answer that. Jimmy Dore put out a 5-minute video showing her in action. A protestor heckled her in front of a meeting and she went into deer-in-spotlight mode and shut down. In the end she had to be rescued by Ayanna Pressley and I was thinking – "She really wants to debate Trump? Will she shut down then too?". (Some language) ..."
Warren (D)(1): "What is happening with Elizabeth Warren?" [Chris Cilizza,
CNN ].
"Less than two months ago, it looked as though Elizabeth Warren might just run away with the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination
. Then that Warren wave hit a wall. Starting right around mid-October, Warren's numbers not only stopped moving upward but also
began trending down
Add it all up and there's plenty of reason to believe that Warren's full-fledged support for Medicare for All -- coupled with
her less-than-successful attempts to defend that position in the last two debates -- led to her current reduced status in the
race."
If this were true, Sanders should drop as well. I think Cilizza should give consideration to the idea that not only did Warren
botch the rollout, her plans were bad, and were seen as bad.
"Elizabeth Warren cries and tries to regain ground with voters" [Joan Vennochi,
Boston Globe ]. The deck: "Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders, her ideological soulmate, rolls along, tears-free." Ouch.
More: "According to the Des Moines Register, "after a long pause and with tears in her eyes, the senator from Massachusetts said
'yeah,' before telling the story of the divorce from her first husband," and how painful it was to tell her mother that her marriage
was over.
To showcase the significance of the encounter, Warren tweeted out a clip."
Dead Lord. You don't tweet out your own tears to show sincerity. Have somebody else do it! Isn't anybody on her staff protecting
her?
I think Cilizza should give consideration to the idea that not only did Warren botch the rollout, her plans were bad,
and were seen as bad.
The establishment is trying mightily to salvage something useful from Warren's surprisingly rapid decline in the polls, constantly
pushing the refrain that M4A was somehow the kiss of death for her.
In fact, she rose to prominence by riding on Sanders policies like Medicare for All, canceling student debt, and free
college. "I'm with Bernie" was her frequent reply on several policy issues, and she co-sponsored Sanders' Medicare for All Senate
bill to great effect on her own "progressive" cred.
IMO it was her later waffling, insincerity, and backtracking on M4A that caused progressives to realize not only that she
was not committed to solving the most important issue identified by Dem voters, but that she may not have a fire in her belly
to address the nation's other urgent crises and would likely accommodate to powerful interests in Obama-esque fashion.
Six years wait for the ACA to piss almost everyone off.
Trump as the not-Democrat has such an edge among the disaffected who are still angry enough to vote. Especially since
the whole and only DNC message will be 'you can't possibly vote for Trump!!!'
I think that I can answer that. Jimmy Dore put out a 5-minute video showing her in action. A protestor heckled her in front
of a meeting and she went into deer-in-spotlight mode and shut down. In the end she had to be rescued by Ayanna Pressley and I
was thinking – "She really wants to debate Trump? Will she shut down then too?". (Some language)
Even when critical of US actions, media commentary on recent US bombings and
assassinations in the Middle East is premised on the assumption that the US has the right
to use violence (or the threat of it) to assert its will, anytime, anywhere. Conversely,
corporate media coverage suggests that any countermeasure -- such as resistance to the US
presence in Iraq -- is inherently illegitimate, criminal and/or terroristic.
Iranian
puppeteers
One step in this dance is depicting US military forces in Iraq as innocent bystanders under
attack by sadistic Iranian puppetmasters. Media analysis of the US murder of Iranian Gen.
Qassem Soleimani consistently asserted that he was "an architect of international terrorism
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans" ( New York Times , 1/3/20
) or "a terrorist with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands" ( Washington
Post ,
1/7/20 ). According to Leon Panetta ( Washington Post ,
1/7/20 ), a former Defense secretary and CIA director,
The death of Soleimani should not be mourned, given his responsibility for the killing of
thousands of innocent people and hundreds of US military personnel over the years.
There is little evidence for this contention that Iran in general or Soleimani personally is
responsible for killing hundreds of Americans. When the State Department
claimed last April that Iran was responsible for the deaths of 608 American servicemembers
in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, investigative journalist Gareth Porter ( Truthout ,
7/9/19 ) asked Navy Commander Sean Robertson for evidence, and Robertson "acknowledged that
the Pentagon doesn't have any study, documentation or data to provide journalists that would
support such a figure."
Porter showed that the US attribution of deaths in Iraq to Iran is an unsubstantiated
government talking point from the Cheney era, one that was exposed at the time when Lt. Gen.
Ray Odierno admitted that, though the US had attributed Iraqi resistance fighters' weapons to
Iran, US troops found many sites in Iraq at which such weapons were being
manufactured.
Gareth Porter reported in Truthout (
7/9/19 ) that "the myth that Tehran is responsible for killing over 600 US troops in the
Iraq War is merely a new variant of a propaganda line that former Vice President Dick Cheney
used to attempt to justify a war against Iran more than a decade ago."
Scholar Stephen Zunes ( Progressive ,
1/7/20 ) similarly demonstrated the lack of evidence for the idea that Iran is behind the
killing of US forces in Iraq. Zunes noted that the National Intelligence
Estimate on Iraq , compiled by America's 16 intelligence agencies, downplayed Iran's role
in Iraq's violence at roughly the same time that the Bush administration was saying that Iran
was culpable.
As Porter pointed out, there was a much simpler explanation for American deaths in the
period: The US targeted Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Mahdi Army fought back, imposing
more casualties on US troops.
That the pundits dusted off 13-year-old propaganda to rationalize killing Soleimani is a
clear indication that they were desperately grasping for any imperialist apologia within reach.
If the American public is led to believe that Soleimani killed hundreds of Americans, large
swathes of it are likely to regard his assassination as justified, necessary, or at worst a
feature of the tit-for-tat ugliness inherent to war.
The narrative also ideologically shores up the US war on Iran in
the American popular consciousness by presenting Iranians as primordially violent savages out
to spill the blood of Americans, notably those in the military who are in the Middle East,
presumably doing nothing but minding their own business. Presenting Iran as the reason for
attacks on US forces in Iraq also implies that Iraqis had little objection to the US invasion,
legitimizing the US's ongoing military presence in the country. The most obvious point about
the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq is that they wouldn't happen if US soldiers weren't in
Iraq.
When violence isn't violence
Another media dance move is to condemn anti-imperial violence while naturalizing imperialist
violence. An editorial in the New York Times ( 1/3/20 ) said that
Soleimani
no doubt had a role in the campaign of provocations by Shiite militias against American
forces in Iraq that recently led to the death of an American defense contractor and a
retaliatory American airstrike against the militia responsible for the attack.
Having US troops in Iraq, a country in which the US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
thousands , is not a "provocation," in the Times ' perspective; opposition to their
presence is the provocation.
The December 27 attack
that killed the US contractor did not occur in a vacuum. In 2018, the US was suspected of
bombing affiliates of Kataib Hezbollah, the group the US blames for killing the contractor.
Israel is suspected of carrying out a string of deadly bombings of the Iraqi Popular
Mobilization Forces, of which Kataib Hezbollah is a key component, between July and September,
a scenario at which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted
.
The US reportedly confirmed
that Israel was behind at least one of the bombings, and said it supports Israel's actions
while denying direct participation. In any case, the US's
lavish military support for Israel means that the former is effectively a party to the
latter's bombing. Thus, the Kataib Hezbollah attack that killed the contractor can be seen as "
retaliatory ," which
complicates the notion that the subsequent US attack was as well.
Another Times editorial ( 1/4/20
) describes Soleimani as "one of the region's most powerful and, yes, blood-soaked military
commanders." At no point is Trump or any other US leader described as "blood-soaked" or
anything comparable -- here, or in any of the mainstream media coverage I can find -- even as
he and his predecessors are sopping with that of
Afghans ,
Iraqis ,
Libyans and
Syrians , to cite only a few recent cases. Evidently imperial violence is so righteous it
leaves no trace behind.
Stephen Hadley, national security adviser in the George W Bush administration, wrote in the
Washington Post (
1/5/20 ):
What is clear is that one of the PMFs, Kataib Hezbollah, has been behind the
escalating violence over the past
several months as part of a campaign (assuredly with Iranian approval) to force out US
troops. The campaign culminated in the December 31 attack on the
US Embassy in Baghdad. (The head of Kataib Hezbollah, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was
killed
with Soleimani.)
By expelling US forces, the Iraqi government would be falling into Kataib Hezbollah's trap:
rewarding the militia's violent campaign, strengthening the Iranian-backed PMFs, weakening the
Iraqi government and state sovereignty, and jeopardizing the fight against the Islamic
State.
Kataib Hezbollah's actions are called "violence" twice in these three sentences, with their
apex apparently being "the December 31 attack on the
US Embassy in Baghdad." Remarkably, the author makes no mention of the December 29 US
airstrikes on five sites in Iraq and Syria that the US says belong to Kataib Hezbollah,
bombings that reportedly killed 25 and injured 55 . Those, it
would seem, do not constitute "violence." Iraqis damaging the embassy of the country whose
economic sanctions killed half a million Iraqi
children is "violence," but the US's lethal air raids are not. And expelling foreign armies
weakens state sovereignty!
"No one in Baghdad was fooled" by anti-US protests in Iraq, which were "almost certainly
a Soleimani-staged operation to make it look as if Iraqis wanted America out," declared Thomas
Friedman ( New York Times ,
1/3/20 ). (In a 2016
poll , 93% of young Iraqis said that they perceived the US as an "enemy.")
Thomas Friedman's Times article (
1/3/20 ) on Soleimani's murder was bad even by Thomas Friedman standards. He dismissed the
protests at the US embassy:
The whole "protest" against the United States Embassy compound in Baghdad last week was
almost certainly a Soleimani-staged operation to make it look as if Iraqis wanted America out
when in fact it was the other way around. The protesters were paid pro-Iranian militiamen. No
one in Baghdad was fooled by this.
In a way, it's what got Soleimani killed. He so wanted to cover his failures in Iraq he
decided to start provoking the Americans there by shelling their forces, hoping they would
overreact, kill Iraqis and turn them against the United States. Trump, rather than taking the
bait, killed Soleimani instead.
That there were thousands of protesters at the US embassy and that the Iraqi security forces
stood aside to allow them to demonstrate suggests that what happened at the embassy cannot
be reduced to a hoax stage-managed and paid for by Iran. Furthermore, the US did kill Iraqis
two days before the protests, and that's what ignited them (to say nothing of the longer term
record of the US
devastating Iraq ). Like Hadley, however, Friedman pretends that the US's December 27
bombings didn't happen.
In the imperial imagination, the US has the right to violently pursue its objectives
wherever it wants, and any resistance is illegitimate.
And yet their are 'fact checkers' out out the pro-Iran /
anti-American media juggernaut, someone went to Tehran and reported on Soleimani's funeral,
gasp, she must be denounced as a useful idiot because that was staged. All events we don't
like are staged. Did Iran let people out of school or advertise the time and place of the
procession? Most likely but so was JFK's funeral. In any case, who actually bothered to
find out if the Iranians forced or paid people to attend Soleimani's funeral.
I do feel violated being subjected to Friedman's self-proclaimed expertise. He does not
feel any need to actually validate his statements other than to say, 'no one was fooled'
and voila it is so. Great work if you can get it. Reply
What's FAIR
FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias,
spin and misinformation. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater
diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest,
minority and dissenting viewpoints. We expose neglected news stories and defend working
journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is
ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public
broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information. Contact Fairness
& Accuracy In Reporting
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001
So the person who saves Syria from occupation by IGIL is a terrorist ? Just a few years ago, CNN praised #Iran 's Qassem #Soleimani for defeating
ISIS.
Just a few years ago, CNN was praising Qassem
#Soleimani for being
the driving force behind the defeat of ISIS. Today they call him a "terrorist" and expect
you to believe them.
Iran hawks never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it.
Notable quotes:
"... And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that "new deal" and demanding more? ..."
Daniel
Larison Two Iran hawks from the Senate, Bob Menendez and Lindse Graham, are
proposing a "new deal" that is guaranteed to be a non-starter with Iran:
Essentially, their idea is that the United States would offer a new nuclear deal to both
Iran and the gulf states at the same time. The first part would be an agreement to ensure
that Iran and the gulf states have access to nuclear fuel for civilian energy purposes,
guaranteed by the international community in perpetuity. In exchange, both Iran and the gulf
states would swear off nuclear fuel enrichment inside their own countries forever.
Iran is never going to accept any agreement that requires them to give up domestic
enrichment. As far as they are concerned, they are entitled to this under the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and they regard it as a matter of their national rights that they keep it. Insisting on
"zero enrichment" is what made it impossible to reach an agreement with Iran for the better
part of a decade, and it was only when the Obama administration understood this and compromised
to allow Iran to enrich under tight restrictions that the negotiations could move forward.
Demanding "zero enrichment" today in 2020 amounts to rejecting that compromise and returning to
a bankrupt approach that drove Iran to build tens of thousands of centrifuges. As a proposal
for negotiations, it is dead on arrival, and Menendez and Graham must know that. Iran hawks
never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it. They want to make a bogus offer in
the hopes that it will be rejected so that they can use the rejection to justify more
aggressive measures.
The identity of the authors of the plan is a giveaway that the offer is not a serious
diplomatic proposal. Graham is one of the most incorrigible hard-liners on Iran, and Menendez
is probably the most hawkish Democratic senator in office today. Among other things, Menendez
has been a
booster of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), the deranged cult of Iranian exiles
that has been buying the support of American politicians and officials for years. Graham has
never seen a diplomatic agreement that he didn't want to destroy. When hard-liners talk about
making a "deal," they always mean that they want to demand the other side's surrender.
Another giveaway that this is not a serious proposal is the fact that they want this
imaginary agreement submitted as a treaty:
That final deal would be designated as a treaty, ratified by the U.S. Senate, to give Iran
confidence that a new president won't just pull out (like President Trump did on President
Barack Obama's nuclear deal).
This is silly for many reasons. The Senate doesn't ratify treaties nowadays, so any "new
deal" submitted as a treaty would never be ratified. As the current president has shown, it
doesn't matter if a treaty has been ratified by the Senate. Presidents can and do withdraw from
ratified treaties if they want to, and the fact that it is a ratified treaty doesn't prevent
them from doing this. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty, which was ratified
88-2 in 1972. Trump withdrew from the INF Treaty just last year. The INF Treaty had been
ratified with a
93-5 vote. The hawkish complaint that the JCPOA wasn't submitted as a treaty was, as usual,
made in bad faith. There was no chance that the JCPOA would have been ratified, and even if it
had been that ratification would not have protected it from being tossed aside by Trump.
Insisting on making any new agreement a treaty is just another way of announcing that they have
no interest in a diplomatic solution.
Menendez and Graham want to make the obstacles to diplomacy so great that negotiations
between the U.S. and Iran can't resume. It isn't a serious proposal, and it shouldn't be taken
seriously.
And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied
scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that
"new deal" and demanding more?
Don't think America is going to Vote in Someone who Defrauded Others with Claims of being
Part Native American.
Maybe Bloomberg may have been Out of Line a few times. A "Horse Faced Lesbian" - what if
it were an accurate description? A "Fat Drunkard" - to someone who is correctly described -
is it really that offensive?
If it were said in an inappropriate context - say for job interviews - we can see the
error; but reading about Warren calling an Male Actor as "Eye Candy" puts her brand of Sexist
Comments in the same Boat.
What was Fauxahontas' Native American Name, anyway?
"Doesn't like Horses"?
Bloomberg is revealed as having said in public that all the disposable income of the poor
should be taxed away so that they will not have funds with which to do mischief like buying
fast food or sugary drinks.
Bloomberg described Sanders as a Communist who cannot be elected. In this he was
correct.
Bloomberg was described by Warren as a cold-hearted and insulting man who openly scorns
women, gays and minorities.
Mayor Pete mocked Klobuchar for her inability to remember the name of the president of
Mexico. She asked if he was calling her "stupid."
These six dwarves will probably persist in their quest for the brass ring all the way to the
convention. In the mayhem there, the "winner" will probably have to choose one of the "losers"
to be his VP running mate.
The media is cheering wildly for Warren and saying that she won the debate, but I found her
to be utterly repugnant. She comes across, to me, as even more shrill, harsh, angry and
unlikeable than Clinton did at her worst.
Hill.TV host Krystal
Ball said Sen. Elizabeth Warren 's (D-Mass.) "campaign was
lost long before this election cycle."
Ball pointed to Warren's "decision not to run in 2016 - she sat out the most critical
election of our lifetime even though she knew better than I did the flaws of Hillary Clinton " Ball then slammed
Warren's decision to not endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2016 noting "when her
supposed friend and ally Bernie Sanders, who allegedly shares her politics and was fighting for
the same values she had staked her career on got into the race and started sky-rocketing in the
polls challenging Hillary for the lead, rather than making the movement choice and backing the
progressive, she sat it out."
Ball claims Warren's "attempts to co-opt revolutionary rhetoric in service of an
establishment campaign, like Disney doing socialism, satisfied no one and left her unable to
win more than 1 county and Iowa and an embarrassing distant fourth behind Klobuchar in New
Hampshire."
Click on the video above to catch Ball's full remarks.
The 2020 presidential race was always going to be an uphill battle for Elizabeth
Warren.
Almost from the get-go, political pundits fretted about Warren's electability, setting in
motion a self-fulfilling prophecy now reflected in the
New Hampshire primary results . Warren's disappointing showing on Tuesday comes on the
heels of a stirring debate performance and a strong third place finish in the Iowa caucuses
-- two wins largely ignored by mainstream media commentators, who focused almost entirely on
Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg, with a spare thought for Amy Klobuchar's rise and Joe
Biden's descent.
Defeating Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election is priority number one for the
Democratic establishment, and a moderate candidate with the potential to sway swing voters
and Republican defectors has long been billed as the wisest course. But by constructing a
dichotomy between the self-described revolutionary leader Sanders and the aggressively
non-threatening trifecta of moderate candidates (not to mention Bloomberg, who is suddenly
the darling of cable news), the networks and pundits with the greatest persuasive power have
ignored and undercut Warren's unique potential to unite the progressive left and hesitant
center.
Warren seems to have unfairly inherited some of the hallmarks of Hillary Clinton's
reputation. Clinton's devastating 2016 upset sparked practical questions as to whether a
woman could win the presidency at all. And Warren's false claim to Native American heritage
sealed a reputation for untrustworthiness that has stuck long after that conversation faded
away. If Clinton, with all of her name recognition and experience, couldn't win against
Trump, what hope could there be for the woman widely considered her successor?
Warren's progressive policies and folksy demeanor also framed her for many as a sort of
second-tier Sanders, not far enough left for the progressives and too far left for gun-shy
moderates. But it is precisely this position that makes her the most electable
candidate.
Warren and Sanders are mostly aligned on their signature issues, but how they present
these issues is entirely different, as are their proposed paths to achieve them. Sanders does
not shy away from the word "socialist." He declares outright that his Medicare-for-All plan
will raise taxes. He says billionaires should not exist. These declarations and convictions
are brave and they are admirable. But they also inspire commentators like
Chris Matthews to worry on-air that a Sanders administration will begin executing the
wealthy in Central Park, French revolution style.
Warren takes a more measured approach in selling her policies, focusing on how she'll
achieve them rather than the eventual outcome. She doesn't say billionaires should not exist,
she proposes a wealth tax. Warren doesn't say "socialist," choosing instead to present the
economic and social advantages to her plans without the label. The other key difference
between Sanders and Warren is that, while Sanders has identified as far left for his entire
political career,
Warren was a committed Republican long before she became a progressive Democrat. As other
commentators have noted , this
history might not earn her many points with committed leftists, but it does put her in a
unique position to appeal to the moderates and Republicans that candidates like Buttigieg and
Klobuchar are trying to court. After all, she used to be one of them. And perhaps most
importantly,
polls continue to show Warren performing just as well as those candidates, if not better,
in hypothetical general election matchups against Trump.
Yet the mainstream media seems determined to undermine her viability.
Sanders and Buttigieg finished neck and neck in the Iowa Caucuses (whose dubious import is
a conversation for another day), with Warren close behind in third. As the dust around the
disastrous vote-counting began to settle, the media centered the conversation on Sanders,
Buttigieg, and Biden. For example, this headline from The Washington Post reads: "Buttigieg and Sanders take lead, Biden fades in
partial results from marred Iowa caucuses," ignoring Warren's close third place finish
entirely in favor of Biden's fourth.
During Friday's Democratic debate, many critics noted the
relatively short speaking time given to Warren in comparison with her white male
competitors. Afterwards, coverage again focused on Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden, and Sanders,
despite Warren having the highlight of the night, when she responded to
Buttigieg's embarrassing stumble on a question about race.
Pft 85 < The Constitution of the United States of America is a corporate charter. in
form and substance, it redirected the distribution of profits from shareholders to feudal
lords.
What it has been doing since Lincoln was shot is to develop lordships (called monopoly
possessing corporations) and making sure those lordships were vested by rule of law, war in
foreign land, and other measures as needed, to make sure the feudal lords and their
corporations were always profitable no matter what and to be sure that any need or want the
feudal lords had need for, the USA corporation would extract from those (called Americans)
that it governs. ..
When the feudal lords fail, the government is made to give the feudal lord the money it
needs to keep going. until the failed feudal lord can realize by its bull shit existence to
be profitable again.
Comment les Etats-Unis ont demandé à la communauté internationale de
soutenir leur plan israélo-palestinien.or look for lefigaro.fr then international,then
moyen orient.
Posted by: willie | Feb 13 2020 0:48 utc | 94
Interesting willie. Yes the best about Trump is that it makes the US system so visibly
transparent: The king and his servants (acolytes) looking for personal advantage ...
Hillarious. Don't you second-rate allies/acolytes use the wrong words. We better give you
talking points.
"Those who accept the policies of the Trump administration, cancellation of the JCPOA with
Iran, seizing oil fields in Syria, endless sanctions on nation after nation, Europe
blackmailed, endless threats emanating almost hourly from Trump's iPhone as "national policy"
or even criminally deranged is simply not paying attention."
Excellent come back for the Qanon fantasy, which, IMO, ranks right up there with Ayn
Rand's fevered dreams...
Ran across this quote which is more true than not.
There is no America. Everything is just one vast corporation, an association of
corporations. There's no Britain. There's no America. There's no Holland. There's no China.
There's no Russia. It's one conglomerate of corporations. Money runs the thing."
-- Peter Finch as character Howard Beale, in the movie "Network
Its true when you consider the interlocking ownership of the elites in the major
corporations and industries, which also capture governments political parties and regulatory
agencies, and in China of course these local global elites make up parts of the party elite.
While money is an important attribute of power, I think its a means and not an end to them.
Their motivations is an ideology based on Platos Republic where they are pholisopher kings
ruling the rest, and a religious idea that they, as elites may evolve to become like God and
recover what was lost after the fall - as man was originally made in Gods image. Another name
for it is Transhumanism which actually is idea that came from gnostic Judeo-Christian
beliefs. Religion like Eugenics has not disappeared, both have just been renamed and
repurposed. The Elites are Gods chosen people and the rest exist to serve.
Exactly Penelope, that is precisely what the Trump and establishment oligarchy want. Red
herrings to mesmerise and nimble fingers to pick pockets and all backed by their 'rule of
law', their thugs, their assault on humanity.
Benign neglect of the safety of citizens as part of this strategy of creating high level
terror (be it actual violence or a coronavirus)is called out in
this excellent analysis .
"... In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now. ..."
"... Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia. ..."
"... Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come. ..."
"... Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif sent out a message whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a critical blow. ..."
"... Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world. In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully. ..."
"... Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets" See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article. ..."
"... To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others and has not for centuries. ..."
"... SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat. Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about. Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war. ..."
"... Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful. "We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days ..."
"... Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. ..."
"... Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html ..."
"... This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the future are punished in the present. ..."
Of all the preposterous assertions made since the drone assassination of Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on Jan. 3, the prize for
bottomless ignorance must go to the bottomlessly ignorant Mike Pompeo.
Speaking after the influential Iranian general's death, our frightening secretary of state declaimed on
CBS's Face the Nation
, "There was sound and just and legal reason for the actions the President took, and the world is safer as a result." In
appearances on
five
news programs on the same Sunday morning, the evangelical paranoid who now runs American foreign policy was a singer with a one-note
tune. "It's very clear the world's a safer place today," Pompeo said on ABC's Jan. 5 edition of This
Week.
In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's
foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now.
We are not safer now that Soleimani, a revered figure across much of the Middle East, has been murdered. The planet has just become
significantly more dangerous, especially but not only for Americans, and this is so for one simple reason: The Trump administration,
Pompeo bearing the standard, has just tipped American conduct abroad into a zone of probably unprecedented lawlessness, Pompeo's
nonsensical claim to legality notwithstanding .
This is a very consequential line to cross.
Hardly does it hold that Washington's foreign policy cliques customarily keep international law uppermost in their minds and that
recent events are aberrations. Nothing suggests policy planners even consider legalities except when it makes useful propaganda to
charge others with violating international statutes and conventions.
Neither can the Soleimani assassination be understood in isolation: This was only the most reckless of numerous policy decisions
recently taken in the Middle East. Since late last year, to consider merely the immediate past, the Trump administration has acted
ever more flagrantly in violation of all international legal authorities and documents -- the UN Charter, the International Criminal
Court, and the International Court of Justice in the Hague chief among them.
Washington is into full-frontal lawlessness now.
'Keeping the Oil'
Shortly after Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria last October, the president reversed course --
probably under Pentagon and State Department pressure -- and said some troops would remain to protect Syria's oilfields. "We want
to keep the oil," Trump declared in
the course of a Twitter storm. It soon emerged that the administration's true intent was to prevent the Assad government in Damascus
from reasserting sovereign control over Syrian oilfields.
The Russians had the honesty to call this for what it was. "Washington's attempt to put oilfields there under [its] control is
illegal,"
Sergei Lavrov said at the time. "In fact, it's tantamount to robbery," the Russian foreign minister added. (John Kiriakou, writing
for Consortium News, pointed out
that it is a violation of the 1907 Hague Convention. It is call pillage.)
Few outside the Trump administration, and possibly no one, has argued that Soleimani's murder was legitimate under international
law. Not only was the Iranian general from a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which means the crime is murder; the drone
attack was also a clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty, as has been widely reported.
In response to Baghdad's subsequent demand that all foreign troops withdraw from Iraqi soil,
Pompeo flatly refused even to discuss
the matter with Iraqi officials -- yet another openly contemptuous violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
It gets worse. In his own response to Baghdad's decision to evict foreign troops,
Trump threatened sanctions -- "sanctions like they've never seen before" -- and said Iraq would have to pay the U.S. the cost
of the bases the Pentagon has built there despite binding agreements that all fixed installations the U.S. has built in Iraq are
Iraqi government-owned.
At Baghdad's Throat
Trump, who seems to have oil eternally on his mind, has been at Baghdad's throat for some time. Twice since taking office three
years ago, he has
tried
to intimidate the Iraqis into "repaying" the U.S. for its 2003 invasion with access to Iraqi oil. "We did a lot, we did a lot
over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking about the oil," he said on the second of these occasions.
Baghdad rebuffed Trump both times, but he has been at it since, according to Adil Abdul–Mahdi, Iraq's interim prime minister.
Last year the U.S. administration
asked Baghdad for 50 percent of the nation's oil output -- in total roughly 4.5 million barrels daily -- in exchange for various
promised reconstruction projects.
Rejecting the offer, Abdul–Mahdi
signed an "oil
for reconstruction" agreement with China last autumn -- whereupon Trump threatened to instigate widespread demonstrations in
Baghdad if Abdul–Mahdi did not cancel the China deal. (He did not do so and, coincidentally or otherwise, civil unrest ensued.)
U.S. Army forces operating in southern Iraq, April. 2, 2003. (U.S. Navy)
Blueprints for Reprisal
If American lawlessness is nothing new, the brazenly imperious character of all the events noted in this brief résumé has nonetheless
pushed U.S. foreign policy beyond a tipping point.
No American -- and certainly no American official or military personnel -- can any longer travel in the Middle East with an assurance
of safety. All American diplomats, all military officers, and all embassies and bases in the region are now vulnerable to reprisals.
The Associated Press reported after the Jan. 3 drone strike that
Iran has developed 13 blueprints for reprisals
against the U.S.
Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech
at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise
other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia.
Here is a snippet from Pompeo's remarks:
"In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits.
It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose
costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so . In all cases we have to do this."
Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously
incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given
response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come.
Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif
sent out a message
whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These
few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a
critical blow.
24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq.
Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their response across their soil.
Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions
such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world.
In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This
was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist,
essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him
on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Well, there's two relevant bits here. Bullshit walks and money talks. Our money stopped talking $23T ago.
What goes around, comes around. Whenever, however it comes down, it's gonna hurt.
Antiwar7 , January 21, 2020 at 13:46
Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets"
See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article.
rosemerry , January 21, 2020 at 13:28
To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of
Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience
to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others
and has not for centuries.
Even if the USA hates Iran, it has already done inestimable damage to the Islamic Republic before this disgraceful action. Cruelty
to 80 million people who have never harmed, even really threatened, the mighty USA, by tossing out a working JCPOA and installing
economic "sanctions", should not be accepted by the rest of the world-giving in to blackmail encourages worse behavior, as we
have already seen.
"It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. " This is exactly what should be rejected by us all. These "leaders" will
not change their behavior without solidarity among "allies" like the European Union, which has already caved in and blamed Iran
for the changes -Iran has explained clearly why it made- to the JCPOA which the USA has left.
Abby , January 21, 2020 at 20:15
The only difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump doesn't hide the US naked aggression as well as Obama did. So far
Trump hasn't started any new wars. By this time in Obama's tenure we had started bombing more countries and accepted one coup.
dfnslblty , January 21, 2020 at 12:43
SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat.
Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about.
Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war.
Cheyenne , January 21, 2020 at 11:49
The above comment shows exactly why bellicose adventurism for oil etc. is so stupid and dangerous. If we continually prance
around robbing people, they're gonna unite to slap us down.
Hardly seems like anyone should need that pointed out but if anybody mentioned it to Trump or any other gung ho warhawk, he
must not have been listening.
Trump and Pompeo seem to have entered the Wild West stage of recent American history. I think they watch too many western movies,
without understanding the underrlying plot of 100% of them. It is the bad guys take over a town, where they impose their will
on the population, terrorizing everyone into obediance. They steal everything in sight and any who oppose them are summarily killed
off. In the end a good guy ( In American parlance, " a good guy with a gun" shows up . The town`s people approach him and beg
him to oppose the bad guys. He then proceeds to kill off the bad guys after the general population joins him in his crusade. it
looks as though we are at the stage in the movie where the general population is ready to take up arms against the bad guys.
The moral of the story the bad guys, the bullies, Pompeo and Trump, are either killed or chased out of town. But perhaps the
problem is that this plot is too difficult for Trump and Pompeo to understand. So they don`t quite get the peril that there gunmen
and killers are now in. They don`t see the writing on the wall.
Caveman , January 21, 2020 at 11:30
It seems the only US considerations in the assassination were – will it weaken Iran, will it strengthen the American position?
On that perspective, the answer is probably yes on both counts. Legal considerations do not seem to have carried any weight. In
the UK we recently saw a chilling interview with Brian Hook, U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It was clear that he saw the assassination as another nail in the coffin of the Iranian regime,
simply furthering a policy objective.
Vera Gottlieb , January 21, 2020 at 11:19
What is even sadder is the world's lack of gonads to stand up to this bully nation – that has caused so much grief and still
does.
Michael McNulty , January 21, 2020 at 11:01
The US government became a crime syndicate. Today its bootleg liquor is oil, the boys they send round to steal it are armies
and their drive-by shootings are Warthog strafings using DU ammunition. Their drug rackets in the back streets are high-grade
reefer, heroin and amphetamines, with pharmaceutical-grade chemicals on Main Street. They still print banknotes just as before;
but this time it's legal but still doesn't make them enough, so to make up the shortfalls they've taken armed robbery abroad.
paul easton , January 21, 2020 at 12:55
The US Government is running a protection racket, literally. In return for US protection of their sources of oil, the NATO
countries provide international support for US war crimes. But now that the (figurative) Don is visibly out of his mind, they
are likely to turn to other protectors.
One need not step back very far in order to look at the bigger longer range picture. What immediately comes into focus is that
this is simply the current moment in what is now 500 plus years of Western colonialism/neocolonialism. When has the law EVER had
anything to do with any of this?
ML , January 21, 2020 at 10:31
Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful.
"We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days. I hope he plans more overseas trips
for himself. He is a vile person, a psychopath proud of his psychopathy. He alone would make anyone considering conversion to
Christianity, his brand of it, run screaming into the night. Repulsive man.
Michael Crockett , January 21, 2020 at 09:40
Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. That said, IMO, the axis of resistance
has the military capability and the resolve to fight back and win. Combining China and Russia into a greater axis of resistance
could further shrink the Outlaw US Empire presence in West Asia. Thank you Patrick for your keen insight and observations. The
Empires days are numbered.
Sally Snyder , January 21, 2020 at 07:28
Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone
who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html
This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might
pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the
future are punished in the present.
Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg seemed perfect, a man who defended the
principle of wine-based fundraisers with military effrontery. New York magazine made his case
in a cover story the magazine's Twitter account summarized as:
"Perhaps all the Democrats need to win the presidency is a Rust Belt millennial who's gay
and speaks Norwegian."
(The "Here's something random the Democrats need to beat Trump" story became an important
literary genre in 2019-2020, the high point being Politico's "Can the "F-bomb save Beto?").
Buttigieg had momentum. The flameout of Biden was expected to help the ex-McKinsey
consultant with "moderates." Reporters dug Pete; he's been willing to be photographed holding a
beer and wearing a bomber jacket, and in Iowa demonstrated what pundits call a "killer
instinct," i.e. a willingness to do anything to win.
Days before the caucus, a Buttigieg supporter claimed Pete's name had not been read out in a
Des Moines Register poll, leading to the pulling of what NBC called the "gold standard" survey.
The irony of such a relatively minor potential error holding up a headline would soon be laid
bare.
However, Pete's numbers with black voters (he polls at zero in many states) led to multiple
news stories in the last weekend before the caucus about "concern" that Buttigieg would not be
able to win.
Who, then? Elizabeth Warren was cratering in polls and seemed to be shifting strategy on a
daily basis. In Iowa, she attacked "billionaires" in one stop, emphasized "unity" in the next,
and stressed identity at other times (she came onstage variously that weekend to Dolly Parton's
"9 to 5" or to chants of "It's time for a woman in the White House"). Was she an outsider or an
insider? A screwer, or a screwee? Whose side was she on?
A late controversy involving a story that Sanders had told Warren a woman couldn't win
didn't help. Jaimee Warbasse planned to caucus with Warren, but the Warren/Sanders "hot mic"
story of the two candidates arguing after a January debate was a bridge too far. She spoke of
being frustrated, along with friends, at the inability to find anyone she could to trust to
take on Trump.
"It's like we all have PTSD from 2016," she said. "There has to be somebody."
... ... ...
What happened over the five days after the caucus was a mind-boggling display of
fecklessness and ineptitude. Delay after inexplicable delay halted the process, to the point
where it began to feel like the caucus had not really taken place. Results were released in
chunks, turning what should have been a single news story into many, often with Buttigieg "in
the lead."
The delays and errors cut in many directions, not just against Sanders. Buttigieg,
objectively, performed above poll expectations, and might have gotten more momentum even with a
close, clear loss, but because of the fiasco he ended up hashtagged as #MayorCheat and lumped
in headlines tied to what the Daily Beast called a "Clusterfuck."
Though Sanders won the popular vote by a fair margin, both in terms of initial preference
(6,000 votes) and final preference (2,000), Mayor Pete's lead for most of the week with "state
delegate equivalents" -- the number used to calculate how many national delegates are sent to
the Democratic convention -- made him the technical winner in the eyes of most. By the end of
the week, however, Sanders had regained so much ground, to within 1.5 state delegate
equivalents, that news organizations like the AP were despairing at calling a winner.
This wasn't necessarily incorrect. The awarding of delegates in a state like Iowa is
inherently somewhat random. If there's a tie in votes in a district awarding five delegates, a
preposterous system of coin flips is used to break the odd number. The geographical calculation
for state delegate equivalents is also uneven, weighted toward the rural. A wide popular-vote
winner can surely lose.
But the storylines of caucus week sure looked terrible for the people who ran the vote. The
results released early favored Buttigieg, while Sanders-heavy districts came out later. There
were massive, obvious errors. Over 2,000 votes that should have gone to Sanders and Warren went
to Deval Patrick and Tom Steyer in one case the Iowa Democrats termed a "minor error." In
multiple other districts (Des Moines 14 for example), the "delegate equivalents" appeared to be
calculated incorrectly, in ways that punished all the candidates, not just Sanders. By the end
of the week, even the New York Times was saying the caucus was plagued with "inconsistencies
and errors."
Emily Connor, a Sanders precinct captain in Boone County, spent much of the week checking
results, waiting for her Bernie-heavy district to be recorded. It took a while. By the end of
the week, she was fatalistic.
"If you're a millennial, you basically grew up in an era where popular votes are stolen,"
she said.
"The system is riddled with loopholes."
Others felt the party was in denial about how bad the caucus night looked.
"They're kind of brainwashed," said Joe Grabinski, who caucused in West Des Moines.
"They think they're on the side of the right they'll do anything to save their
careers.
An example of how screwed up the process was from the start involved a new twist on the
process, the so-called "Presidential Preference Cards."
In 2020, caucus-goers were handed index cards that seemed simple enough. On side one, marked
with a big "1," caucus-goers were asked to write in their initial preference. Side 2, with a
"2," was meant to be where you wrote in who you ended up supporting, if your first choice was
not viable.
The "PPCs" were supposedly there to "ensure a recount is possible," as the Polk County
Democrats put it. But caucus-goers didn't understand the cards.
Morgan Baethke, who volunteered at Indianola 4, watched as older caucus-goers struggled.
Some began filling out both sides as soon as they were given them.
Therefore, Baethke says, if they do a recount, "the first preference should be accurate."
However, "the second preference will be impossible to recreate with any certainty."
This is a problem, because by the end of the week, DNC chair Tom Perez -- a triple-talking
neurotic who is fast becoming the poster child for everything progressives hate about modern
Dems -- called for an "immediate recanvass." He changed his mind after ten hours and said he
only wanted "surgical" reanalysis of problematic districts.
No matter what result emerges, it's likely many individual voters will not trust it. Between
comical videos of apparently gamed coin-flips and the pooh-poohing reaction of party officials
and pundits (a common theme was that "toxic conspiracy theories" about Iowa were the work of
the Trumpian right and/or Russian bots), the overall impression was a clown show performance by
a political establishment too bored to worry about the appearance of impartiality.
"Is it incompetence or corruption? That's the big question," asked Storey.
Globalism requires rapacious capitalism. Globalism is billionaires and multi-millionaires
getting richer while the middle classes of the entire Western world get squeezed and then
squeezed more, with once stable working classes ruined.
Liberal voters fall for it because the Globalists swear they are helping all the blacks
and browns of the world. Liberal academics, journalists, artists, and 'ordinary rich' people
back it because they invariably despise both the white working class and the non-Liberal
white middle class. Neocons (WASPs as well as Jews) practice rapacious capitalism religiously
because they worship Mammon.
Hausmeister and I discussed rule by fear, "deimocracy".
That was off topic, and belongs more properly here.
And to that discussion I wish to proffer an interesting related essay>
@ steelcityscribblings.(uk)"Talking WW3 Blues" "...For me the scariest thing is not that
the world is ruled by gangsters – a criminal elite with the US ruling class its top
mafia family. It is that this particular family, and the lesser criminals who ride its
coat-tails, are justifiably worried...."
They too are ruled by fear. Not logos, not knowledge, fear, and panic.
What can go wrong with that?
They conjure up these, the lesser gods of the wars they've made since ...you name a
date... And thus themselves are ruled, as they rule the people, by war and fear and
panic.
For the former tank commander, murder -- not simply double-tapping the target with a
firearm, but blowing him into meaty chunks with a Hellfire missile -- is "real
deterrence."
Pompeo
said during a speech at Stanford University's Hoover Institute "there was 'a bigger
strategy' behind the killing of Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force, Iran's elite
foreign espionage and paramilitary force.
The USG Mafia Hit Strategy on steroids is not confined to threatening Iran, however. Pompeo
eluded to Russia and China's leaders being assassinated.
Pompeo didn't come out and say Trump's government will steer Hellfire missiles specifically
at Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or even Kim Jung-un . The message, however, is inescapable,
especially for folks opposed to neoliberal crony capitalist domination of their national
economies, industries, public services, and natural resources
Iran wants a nuke to prevent an attack by the USG in collaboration with the Zionist
government in Israel. Ditto, North Korea. It remembers when the USG bombed virtually every
city, town, and hamlet in the country and killed a third of the population. No doubt the
mullahs in Tehran vividly recall Muammar Gaddafi's fate. They also remember how the CIA
colluded with the Brits to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and
installed a monarchial tyrant.
It is entirely rational to seek the most effective deterrent to foreign invasion and mass
murder campaigns waged relentlessly by the crony capitalist neolib USG and its little vicious
client, Israel, the racist state where only Jews are considered first-class citizens and Arabs
are tortured and killed -- or at best maimed (during anti-occupation protests, Israel snipers
are instructed to aim for
the eyes ).
For neocons, Trumpsters, and Fox News teleprompter readers, "taking out" Soleimani in Mafia
hit fashion "was a brilliant move."
Yes, of course, murdering leaders of recalcitrant nations is considered a "brilliant move"
by psychopaths. The Italian-Jewish Mafia killed opponents one-by-one or in small groups while
the USG kills opponents in the thousands, even the millions. The Gambino family and Kosher
Nostra founded by Arnold Rothstein (who was himself assassinated) would have loved to take out
their opponents with Reaper drones and Hellfire missiles, courtesy of witless US taxpayers and
debt-serfs.
State Department officials involved in U.S. embassy security were not made aware of
imminent threats to four specific U.S. embassies, two State Department officials said,
further undermining Trump's claims that Soleimani posed an imminent threat. https://t.co/sG9ZXyxOa3
USG embassies were not and are not under threat by Iran. In Iraq, the people protesting
outside the embassy are Iraqis. They want the USG and its contractors out of their country
which is still reeling from Bush the Lesser's invasion, a follow-up on more than a decade of
child-killing (over 500,000) sanctions and a previous invasion by Junior's father, the former
CIA boss who would become president.
Corporate war propaganda media is pushing the narrative that Trump impulsively decided to
slaughter Soleimani, as if it simply came to him out of the blue.
. @douglaslondon5 , who retired
from CIA at the end of 2018, writes that he and his team "often struggled in persuading the
president to recognize the most important threats" because of Trump's "focus on celebrity,
headlines, and immediate gratification." https://t.co/1SlVDNb44l
Hardly. This is simply another anti-Trump gimmick. If you look beyond this one-dimensional
pre-election circus, you'll see Trump's orthodox Jewish son-in-law, Sheldon Adelson, and a cast
of Zionist characters steering the president into war with Israel's enemies. Indeed, Trump is
driven by a pathological need for attention and this has been successfully exploited by neocons
in the service of a tiny nation based on racial and religious superiority.
The basic method Trump used to kill Soleimani was developed by the Israelis >30 years
ago. Here's a screen shot from "Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted
Assassinations," by Israeli author Ronen Bergman, here describing Israeli developments in
late 1980s pic.twitter.com/MWKifPPjPF
The neolib USG with its Israel-first neocon faction is the largest and most deadly Mafia
organization in the world.
The US government has killed millions since the end of FDR's war under false pretense and
has overthrown countries far and wide. It trains and enables sadistic paramilitaries, has armed
crazed Wahhabi jihadists, and is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon against
innocent civilians.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this articl e was
originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
December 3, 1993 The CIA Drug ConnectionIs as Old as the Agency
LONDON -- The Justice Department is investigating allegations that officers of a special
Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine into
the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials – despite protests by the Drug
Enforcement Administration, the organization responsible for enforcing U.S. drug laws.
Bush older was the first president from CIA. He was already a senior CIA official at the time
of JFK assassination and might participate in the plot to kill JFK. At least he was in Dallas at
the day of assassination. .
That Iraq is to say the least unstable is attributable to the ill-advised U.S. invasion
of 2003.
Nothing to do with 9 years of sanctions on Iraq that killed a million Iraqis, "half of
them children," and US control of Iraqi air space, after having killed Iraqi military in a
turkey-shoot, for no really good reason other than George H W Bush seized the "unipolar
moment" to become king of the world?
Maybe it's just stubbornness: I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot,"
in the Persian Gulf war aka Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17,
1991.
According to Jeffrey Engel, Bush's biographer and director of the Bush library at Southern
Methodist University, Gorbachev harassed Bush with phone calls, pleading with him not to go
to war over Kuwait
(It's worth noting that Dennis Ross was relatively new in his role on Jim Baker's staff
when Baker, Brent Skowcroft, Larry Eagleburger & like minded urged Bush to take the
Imperial Pivot.)
According to Vernon Loeb, who completed the writing of King's Counsel after Jack
O'Connell died, Jordan's King Hussein, in consultation with retired CIA station chief
O'Connell, parlayed with Arab leaders to resolve the conflict on their own, i.e. Arab-to-Arab
terms, and also pleaded with Bush to stay out, and to let the Arabs solve their own problems.
Bush refused. https://www.c-span.org/video/?301361-6/kings-counsel
See above: Bush was determined to "seize the unipolar moment."
Once again insist on entering into the record: George H Bush was present at the creation
of the Global War on Terror, July 4, 1979, the Jerusalem Conference hosted by Benzion and
Benjamin Netanyahu and heavily populated with Trotskyites – neocons.
I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot," in the Persian Gulf war aka
Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17, 1991.
Yes I remember it well. I came back from a long trip & memorable vacation, alas I was
a young man, to the television drama that was unfolding with Arthur Kent 'The Scud
Stud' and others reporting from the safety of their hotel balconies filming aircaft and
cruise missiles. It was surreal.
You are correct of course.
I've heard and read about a claim that Trump actually called PM Abdul Mahdi and demanded that
Iraq hand over 50 percent of their proceeds from selling their oil to the USA, and then
threatened Mahdi that he would unleash false flag attacks against the Iraqi government and
its people if he did not submit to this act of Mafia-like criminal extortion. Mahdi told
Trump to kiss his buttocks and that he wasn't going to turn over half of the profits from oil
sales.
This makes Trump sound exactly like a criminal mob boss, especially in light of the fact
that the USA is now the world's #1 exporter of oil – a fact that the arrogant Orange
Man has even boasted about in recent months. Can anyone confirm that this claim is accurate?
If so, then the more I learn about Trump the more sleazy and gangster like he becomes.
I mean, think about it. Bush and Cheney and mostly jewish neocons LIED us into Iraq based
on bald faced lies, fabricated evidence, and exaggerated threats that they KNEW did not
exist. We destroyed that country, captured and killed it's leader – who used to be a
big buddy of the USA when we had a use for him – and Bush's crime gang killed close to
2 million innocent Iraqis and wrecked their economy and destroyed their infrastructure. And,
now, after all that death, destruction and carnage – which Trump claimed in 2016 he did
not approve of – but, now that Trump is sitting on the throne in the Oval office
– he has the audacity and the gall to demand that Iraq owes the USA 50 percent of their
oil profits? And, that he won't honor and respect their demand to pull our troops out of
their sovereign nation unless they PAY US back for the gigantic waste of tax payers money
that was spent building permanent bases inside their country?
Not one Iraqi politician voted for the appropriations bill that financed the construction
of those military bases; that was our mistake, the mistake of our US congress whichever POTUS
signed off on it.
...Trump learned the power of the purse on the streets of NYC, he survived by playing ball
with the Jewish and Italian Mafia. Now he has become the ultimate Godfather, and the world
must listen to his commands. Watch and listen as the powerful and mighty crumble under US
Hegemony.
Right TG, traditionally, as you said up there first, and legally too, under the supreme law
of the land. Economic sanctions are subject to the same UNSC supervision as forcible
coercion.
UN Charter Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio,
and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
US "sanctions" require UNSC authorization. Unilateral sanctions are nothing but illegal
coercive intervention, as the non-intervention principle is customary international law,
which is US federal common law.
The G-192, that is, the entire world, has affirmed this law. That's why the US is trying
to defund UNCTAD as redundant with the WTO (UNCTAD is the G-192's primary forum.) In any
case, now that the SCO is in a position to enforce this law at gunpoint with its
overwhelmingly superior missile technology, the US is going to get stomped and tased until it
complies and stops resisting.
In 2018 total US petroleum production was under 18 million barrels per day, total
consumption north of 20 mmb/d. What does it matter if the US exports a bunch of super light
fracked product the US itself can't refine if it turns around and imports it all back in
again and then some.
The myths we tell ourselves, like a roaring economy that nevertheless generates a $1
trillion annual deficit, will someday come back to bite us. Denying reality is not a winning
game plan for the long run.
I long tought that US foreign policies were mainly zionist agenda – driven, but the
Venezuelan affair and the statements of Trump himself about the syrian oil (ta be "kept"
(stolen)) make you think twice.
Oil seems to be at least very important even if it's not the main cause of middle east
problems
So maybe it's the cause of illegal and cruel sanctions against Iran : Get rid of
competitor to sell shale oil everywhere ?( think also of Norstream 2 here)
Watch out US of A. in the end there is something sometimes referred to as the oil's
curse . some poor black Nigerians call oil "the shit of the devil", because it's such a
problem – related asset Have you heard of it ? You get your revenues from oil easily,
so you don't have to make effort by yourself. And in the end you don't keep pace with China
on 5G ? Education fails ? Hmm
Becommig a primary sector extraction nation sad destiny indeed, like africans growing cafe,
bananas and cacao for others. Not to mention environmental problems
What has happened to the superb Nation that send the first man on the moon and invented
modern computers ?
Disapointment
Money for space or money for war following the Zio. Choose Uncle Sam !
Difficult to have both
Everyone seems to forget how we avoided war with Syria all those years ago It was when John
Kerry of all people gaffed, and said "if Assad gives up all his chemical weapons." That was
in response to a reporter who asked "is there anything that can stop the war?" A intrepid
Russian ambassador chimed in loud enough for the press core to hear his "OK" and history was
averted. Thinking restricting the power of the President will stop brown children from dying
at the hands of insane US foreign policy is a cope. "Bi-partisanship" voted to keep troops in
Syria, that was only a few months ago, have you already forgotten? Dubya started the drone
program, and the magical African everyone fawns over, literally doubled the remote controlled
death. We are way past pretending any elected official from either side is actually against
more ME war, or even that one side is worse than the other.
The problem with the supporters Trump has left is they so desperately want to believe in
something bigger than themselves. They have been fed propaganda for their whole lives, and as
a result can only see the world in either "this is good" or "this is bad." The problem with
the opposition is that they are insane. and will say or do anything regardless of the truth.
Trump could be impeached for assassinating Sulimani, yet they keep proceeding with fake and
retarded nonsense. Just like keeping troops in Syria, even the most insane rabid leftoids are
just fine with US imperialism, so long as it's promoting Starbucks, Marvel and homosex, just
like we see with support for HK. That is foreign meddling no matter how you try to justify
it, and it's not even any different messaging than the hoax "bring
democracyhumanrightsfreedom TM to the poor Arabs" justification that was used in Iraq. They
don't even have to come up with a new play to run, it's really quite incredible.
@OverCommenter
A lot of right-wingers also see military action in the Middle East as a way for America to
flex its muscles and bomb some Arabs. It also serves to justify the insane defence budget
that could be used to build a wall and increase funding to ICE.
US politics has become incredibly bi-partisan, criticising Trump will get you branded a
'Leftist' in many circles. This extreme bipartisanship started with the Obama birth
certificate nonsense which was being peddled by Jews like Orly Taitz, Philip J. Berg, Robert
L. Shulz, Larry Klayman and Breitbart news – most likely because Obama was pursuing the
JCPOA and not going hard enough on Iran – and continued with the Trump Russian agent
angle.
Now many Americans cannot really think critically, they stick to their side like a fan
sticks to their sports team.
The first person I ever heard say sanctions are acts of war was Ron Paul. The repulsive
Madeleine Albright infamously said the deaths of 500,000 Iranian children due to US sanctions
was worth it. She ought to be tried as a war criminal. Ron Paul ought to be Secretary of
State.
"... Trump's threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate foreign policy is, notes WaPo's diplomatic correspondent John Hudson. ..."
"... Interestingly, in Wednesday's joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington's so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. "Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran," they said . ..."
"... The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism "to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA" and in the words of one official quoted in The Guardian to prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians "learn something that it is not possible for them to unlearn" . ..."
A bombshell revelation from The Washington Post a day after France, Britain and Germany took unprecedented action against Iran
by
formally triggering the dispute resolution mechanism regulating conformity to the deal, seen as the harshest measure taken by
the European signatories thus far. The European powers officially see Iran as in breach of the deal which means UN and EU punitive
sanctions are now on the table.
But according to The Post , how things quickly escalated
to this point is real story : " Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose
25% tariff on European autos if they didn't," says the report.
This came as a "shock" to all three countries, with one top European official
calling it essentially "extortion" and a new level of hardball tactics from the Trump administration.
After the US leveraged the new tariffs threat according to the report, European capitals moved quick to trigger the mechanism,
which involved the individual European states formally notifying the agreement's guarantor, the European Union, that Iran is in breach
of the nuclear deal.
This followed the Jan.6 declaration of Tehran's leadership to no longer be beholden to uranium enrichment limits. And that's where
things got interesting as Washington's pressure campaign dramatically turned up the heat on Europe.
"Within days, the three countries would formally accuse Iran of violating the deal, triggering a recourse provision that could
reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran and unravel the last remaining vestiges of the Obama-era agreement," the report
continues .
However, the report notes France, the UK, and Germany were already in deep discussion on moving forward with triggering the mechanism.
"We didn't want to look weak, so we agreed to keep the existence of the threat a secret," a European official cited by WaPo claims.
Trump's threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate
foreign policy is, notes WaPo's diplomatic correspondent John Hudson.
Interestingly, in Wednesday's joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington's
so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. "Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran,"
they said .
The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism "to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments
under the JCPOA" and in the words of one official quoted in
The Guardian to prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians "learn something that it is not possible for them
to unlearn" .
Now that the mechanism has been enacted, the clock starts on 65 days of intensive negotiations before UN sanctions would be reimposed
if no resolution is reached. Specifically a blanket arms embargo would be imposed among other measures, and certainly it would mark
the deal's final demise, given the Europeans are Iran's last hope for being equal partners in the deal.
Also interesting is that in the hours before The Washington Post report was published, Iranian FM Zarif charged that the EU investigation
into Iran's alleged non-compliance meant Europe is allowing itself to be bulled by the United States .
Indeed the new revelation of the secret threats attempting to dictate Europe's course appear to confirm precisely Zarif's words
to reporters
earlier on Wednesday : "They say 'We are not responsible for what the United States did.' OK, but you are independent" he began.
And then added a stinging rebuke: "Europe, EU, is the largest global economy. So why do you allow the United States to bully you
around?"
elley Vlahos
comments on the president's willingness to send more U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia:
It is time to claw back from this toxic relationship, and the first place to start is to transform our current mission of paternalistic
"power projection" to one of "national defense." Who cares what the House of Saud wants to buy -- it's not what the American taxpayer
pays for, and amen to Amash for putting it in such bald terms.
Trump's statement that he will send more troops to Saudi Arabia in exchange for payment sums up his foreign policy worldview quite
well. He has no objection to sending U.S. troops to other countries, and he doesn't mind putting them in harm's way, as long as he
thinks someone will pay for it. Trump is not interested in whether a particular mission makes the U.S. more secure, and he certainly
doesn't think strategically about what the U.S. should be trying to accomplish. He just wants to get someone to fork over some cash.
The absurd thing is that the cash is never forthcoming, but Trump keeps sending the troops to these places anyway.
We saw the same mercenary attitude during the campaign when he
talked about
setting up a "big, beautiful safe zone" in Syria, which he
assured
us would be paid for by Arab client states. We have seen it several times when he talks about "taking the oil" from this or that
country to compensate the U.S. for our military interventions. As long as the Saudis and Emiratis are paying customers for weapons
that they use to kill Yemenis, Trump will happily put their preferences and interests first.
Oddly enough for a self-proclaimed nationalist, the president has no notion of the national interest, but sees everything in narrow
terms of wealth that can be extracted from others. This is why he talks about NATO as if it were a protection racket and shakes down
South Korea for more money, and it is why he thinks it is acceptable to keep U.S. forces in Syria illegally so that they can control
Syrian oil fields. It is why he insists that Iraq pay us for the cost of the installations that the U.S. built during the occupation
of their country. It is also one reason why he relies so heavily on economic warfare in his attempt to coerce other states to do
what he wants, because he seems to think that everyone is just as preoccupied with getting money as he is.
Contrary to the common assumption that Trump espouses some sort of "Jacksonian" foreign policy, this is an approach that ignores
national honor and interest and focuses solely on lucre. Trump resembles nothing so much as a minor German prince from the 17th or
18th century who hires out his soldiers to fight the wars of other countries. This is what a mercenary foreign policy looks like,
and it has nothing to do with making the U.S. more secure
Even granted that Trump doesn't meet the low bar of Jacksonianism in foreign policy, I'm weary of even that much - all the talk
of national honour seems to amount to little more than doing incredibly stupid and wicked things, and then persisting in them,
because to do otherwise would cause a loss of face or credibility.
True believers will not be suaded by mere "facts". (When "fact" has become a synonym for "fake news".) Nor even if their little
noses are rubbed in the Trumpoo. Not even when Trump's daily circus empowers the Left and discourages the old conservatives.
We are begging for a national trauma and we will get it.
The old English and American republicans were exactly right about the dangers of a "standing army" (that is, the professionionalization
of the military). I'm for reinstating the draft not as a means of bolstering our ranks but as a means of mobilizing a permanent
antiwar movement.
I've never liked applying the term "Jacksonian" to foreign policy because the Jackson presidency didn't have much of a foreign
policy (unlike, say, his protégé
James K. Polk ). Most of what gets passed off as "Jacksonian" in terms of foreign policy is really just Gen. Jackson's military
policy during the Creek War, the War of 1812, and the annexation of Spanish Florida. In other words, "Jacksonian foreign policy"
is just another for "militarized foreign policy."
Indeed, I can only imagine how outraged Jackson would be with the imperialism that "conservative" pundits are justifying in
his name. Jackson was fiercely loyal to the ideal of the citizen-soldier/militiaman - and to the men themselves - and would have
been furious if foreign influence in the government turned them into mercenaries. Knowing Jackson, the men responsible for such
treachery might not have lived for very much longer.
To the extent that Jackson even addressed foreign policy, he
(like John Quincy Adams) echoed the wisdom of the Founding Fathers:
If we turn to our relations with foreign powers, we find our condition equally gratifying. Actuated by the sincere desire
to do justice to every nation and to preserve the blessings of peace, our intercourse with them has been conducted on the part
of this Government in the spirit of frankness; and I take pleasure in saying that it has generally been met in a corresponding
temper. Difficulties of old standing have been surmounted by friendly discussion and the mutual desire to be just, and the
claims of our citizens, which had been long withheld, have at length been acknowledged and adjusted and satisfactory arrangements
made for their final payment; and with a limited, and I trust a temporary, exception, our relations with every foreign power
are now of the most friendly character, our commerce continually expanding, and our flag respected in every quarter of the
world.
While I am thus endeavoring to press upon your attention the principles which I deem of vital importance in the domestic
concerns of the country, I ought not to pass over without notice the important considerations which should govern your policy
toward foreign powers. It is unquestionably our true interest to cultivate the most friendly understanding with every nation
and to avoid by every honorable means the calamities of war, and we shall best attain this object by frankness and sincerity
in our foreign intercourse, by the prompt and faithful execution of treaties, and by justice and impartiality in our conduct
to all. But no nation, however desirous of peace, can hope to escape occasional collisions with other powers, and the soundest
dictates of policy require that we should place ourselves in a condition to assert our rights if a resort to force should ever
become necessary. Our local situation, our long line of seacoast, indented by numerous bays, with deep rivers opening into
the interior, as well as our extended and still increasing commerce, point to the Navy as our natural means of defense. It
will in the end be found to be the cheapest and most effectual, and now is the time, in a season of peace and with an overflowing
revenue, that we can year after year add to its strength without increasing the burdens of the people. It is your true policy,
for your Navy will not only protect your rich and flourishing commerce in distant seas, but will enable you to reach and annoy
the enemy and will give to defense its greatest efficiency by meeting danger at a distance from home. It is impossible by any
line of fortifications to guard every point from attack against a hostile force advancing from the ocean and selecting its
object, but they are indispensable to protect cities from bombardment, dockyards and naval arsenals from destruction, to give
shelter to merchant vessels in time of war and to single ships or weaker squadrons when pressed by superior force. Fortifications
of this description can not be too soon completed and armed and placed in a condition of the most perfect preparation. The
abundant means we now possess can not be applied in any manner more useful to the country, and when this is done and our naval
force sufficiently strengthened and our militia armed we need not fear that any nation will wantonly insult us or needlessly
provoke hostilities. We shall more certainly preserve peace when it is well understood that we are prepared for War.
To the extent that Jackson is even endorsing war rather than peace and trade, it is in the context of national defense - literally
defending our national borders from attack, not defending our military bases on/within the borders of foreign countries from attack.
To add to the many outrages of the day coming out of this admin, now sending the troops as mercenaries for hire to saudi takes
it down to a new low, these lows being set almost every week.
The murder of Iranian general must put a new low on the military as well as the drone operators are now in a place not good,
assassins of someone outside of a war and/or combat. It hearkens back to obama's killing program and its probable continuation
by trump.
Not good programs to be affiliated with for the US military for anyone with a conscience.
Looks like the end of Full Spectrum Dominance the the USA enjoyed since 1991. Alliance of Iran, Russia and China (with Turkey
and Pakistan as two possible members) is serious military competitor and while the USA has its set of trump cards, the military
victory against such an alliance no longer guaranteed.
Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is
coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani's
assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi
Arabia and China as well the US dollar's role as the global reserve currency .
The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with
Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani's assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament.
He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him
and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in
false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the
situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in
2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.
Here is the reconstruction of the story:
[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary
session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had
learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent
Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and
then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together
with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being
recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast:
Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused
to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil
revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated)
words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:
This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the
construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement.
When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my
premiership.
Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that
if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings
target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.
I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us
rescinding our deal with the Chinese.
After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting
both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I
received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we
kept on talking about this "third party".
Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult
for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist
attack.
I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to
deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from
the Saudis.
We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia's reaction , that some kind of
negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:
The Kingdom's statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom's view of the
importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the
risks of any escalation.
Above all, the Saudi
Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the
US operation:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the US strike. In light of the
rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard
against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.
And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman
sent a delegation to the United States.
Liz Sly , the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:
Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf
of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: 'Please spare us the pain of going through
another war'.
What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to
do with the intelligence gathering of the US or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that
Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq's efforts to
mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.
It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a
regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh's reaction to the American strike
evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many
issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior
government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey
and
Egypt , when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.
This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran's retaliation. Qatar, the
country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone's throw away from
Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran's
regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi
royal family.
When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy
agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate US lashing
out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar
about which
I have long written .
The US, now considering itself a net energy exporter as a result of the shale-oil revolution
(on which the jury is still out), no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East. However,
this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the US
dollar.
The petrodollar is what ensures that the US dollar retains its status as the global reserve
currency, granting the US a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from
playing the role of regional hegemon.
This privileged position of holding the global reserve currency also ensures that the US can
easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its
treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air. To threaten this comfortable
arrangement is to threaten Washington's global power.
Even so, the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order,
with China increasingly playing a leading role, especially in the Middle East and South
America.
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia together make up the overwhelming
majority of oil and gas reserves in the world. The first three have an elevated relationship
with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp, something that China and Russia are keen
to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent
without war and conflict.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp
both militarily and in terms of energy. The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks
to Washington's numerous strategic errors in the region starting from Iraq in 2003, Libya in
2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years.
The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the
Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road
Initiative.
While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement,
Beijing's economic power is such that, with its win-win approach, there is room for
everyone.
Saudi Arabia provides China with most of its oil and Qatar, together with the Russian
Federation, supply China with most of its LNG needs, which lines up with Xi Jinping's 2030
vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions.
The US is absent in this picture, with little ability to influence events or offer any
appealing economic alternatives.
Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and
destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The US cannot contemplate
the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a
desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.
The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving
multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the
world's oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and
dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid
squarely at Trump's feet, ending his chances for re-election.
To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and
unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike.
Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the US can do without the Middle East,
that it can do without allies in the region, and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any
other currency than the US dollar.
Soleimani's death is the result of a convergence of US and Israeli interests. With no other
way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by
targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While
Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the
importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump's electoral success would have influenced his decision,
all the more so in an election year .
Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents,
winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani's assassination to Osama bin Laden's),
and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.
The assassination of Soleimani is the US lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the
region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been
scuppered by the US and Israel's determination to prevent peace in the region and instead
increase chaos and instability.
Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm
dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.
Washington's friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the
countermeasures necessary to contain the madness.
Very good article, straight to the point. In fact its much worse. I know is hard to
swallow for my US american brother and sisters.
But as sooner you wake up and see the reality as it is, as better chances the US has to
survive with honor. Stop the wars around the globe and do not look for excuses. Isnt it
already obvious what is going on with the US war machine? How many more examples some people
need to wake up?
Not all said in video above is accurate but the recent events in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
Africa are all related to prevent China from overtaking the zionist hegemonic world and to
recolonize China (at least the parasite is trying to hop to China as new host).
Trade war, Huawei, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet ..... the concerted efforts from all zionist
controlled media (ZeroHedge included) to slander, smearing, fake news against China should
tell you what the Zionists agenda are :)
The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly
with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators
and the security men:
Abdul Mahdi continued:
"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed,
the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of
non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines snipers) would
target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest structures and
the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China
agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist
to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense minister said that who
kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically
threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party."
.........
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found George W. Bush guilty of war crimes in absentia
for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers
Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in
absentia in Malaysia.
Unfortunately, this article makes a lot of sense. The US is losing influence and lashing
out carelessly. I hope the rest of the world realizes how detached majority of the citizens
within the states are from the federal government. The Federal government brings no good to
our nation. None. From the mis management of our once tax revenues to the corrupt Congress
who accepts bribes from the highest bidder, it's a rats best that is not only harmful to its
own people, but the world at large. USD won't go down without a fight it seems... All empires
end with a bang. Be ready
On January 5th, the Iraqi parliament voted on a resolution to expel US troops from the
country. In attendance was, caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who, according to
reports provided insight into why specifically Iraq was in this situation, and predominantly
spoke about threats that came his way from US President Donald Trump and the US policy
towards the country.
The following is the summary of reports regarding Abdul-Mehdi's comments during the
January 5 vote of the Iraqi Parliament. These reports have been nor officially confirmed nor
denied by the Prime Minister office.
Abdul-Mehdi adressed the US hostile actions against the country. For example, the
politician reportedly said that the US refused to complete the infrastructure and electricity
grid projects unless it is promised 50% of oil revenues. The Prime Minister refused to make
the concession.
Then, when the Prime Minister visited China and reached an important agreement to
undertake construction of the projects instead of the US, President Donald Trump allegedly
called him, telling him to rescind the agreement with China, otherwise there would be massive
demonstrations against him, that would force him out of his seat.
HINT : A 50-person Iraqi delegation visited China in 2019 and that protests began on
October 1st, observed a religious holiday, and then ramped up once again on October 25th.
The flames of the protests were further fanned by mainstream media outlets.
Then, when massive demonstrations materialized against Adel Abdul-Mahdi, Trump once again
allegedly called him. The US President allegedly threatened to position US marine snipers
"atop the highest buildings," who will target and kill protesters and security forces alike
in an attempt to pressure the Prime Minister.
Instead of complying, Adel Abdul-Mahdi refused and handed in his resignation and the US
still attempt to pressure him in cancelling the supposed deal with China.
Later on, when the Iraqi Minister of Defense publicly said that a third side was targeting
both protesters and security forces alike, Abdul-Mahdi allegedly received a new call from
Trump who threatened to kill both him and the Minister of Defense if they kept talking about
this "third side".
Assad said that he finds Trumps brutal honesty refreshing. Instead of hiding behind nicely
worded threats Trump just comes out and tells people what he means. up 19 users have voted.
--
America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity
of her own people.
- strife delivery
This is how a MAFIA BOSS operates. Trump made an offer Abdul Mahdi couldn't refuse. Trump is
a GODFATHER and his clique is literally a gangster MAFIA using extortion and OPERATING A
PROTECTION RACKET.
Trump had already
asked Iraqi Prime Ministers -twice- if the U.S. could get Iraq's oil as reward for
invading and destroying their country. The requests were rejected. Now we learn that Trump
also uses
gangster methods (ar) to get the oil of Iraq. The talk by the Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul
Mahdi happened during the recent parliament session in Iraq (machine translation):
Al-Halbousi, Speaker of the Iraqi Council of Representatives, blocked the speech of Mr.
Abdul Mahdi in the scheduled session to discuss the decision to remove American forces from
Iraq.
At the beginning of the session, Al-Halbousi left the presidential seat and sat next to
Mr. Abdul-Mahdi, after his request to cut off the live broadcast of the session, a public
conversation took place between the two parties. The voice of Adel Abdul Mahdi was
raised.
Mr. Abdul Mahdi spoke with an angry tone, saying:
"The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They are
those who refuse to complete building the electrical system and infrastructure projects.
They have bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for giving up 50% of Iraqi
oil imports, so I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and
strategic agreement with it, and today Trump is trying to cancel this important
agreement."
The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly
with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators
and the security men:
Abdul Mahdi continued:
"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me.
Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the
event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines
snipers) would target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest
structures and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and
cancel the China agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the
Americans still insist to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense
minister said that who kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me
immediately and physically threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about
the third party."
The reliable Based Cat in Iraq seems to confirm the timeline:
TØM CΛT @TomtheBasedCat - 4:00 UTC · Jan 7,
2020
Yes a 50-person delegation visited China in 2019 and then the protests started on October
1st until the Arbaeen dates, then picked up again on Oct 25th. I'm skeptical about the 3rd
party but the timing itself was interesting. The flames were fanned by Gulf media and
Al-Hurra.
A scandal is developing as one consequence of Trump's evil deed after Iraq's Prime Minister
Adel Abdul Mahdi revealed the gangster methods U.S. President Trump used in his attempts to
steal Iraq's oil.
Well well well, looks like Trump has been studying Cheney's map lately now that he is not
fixated on Kim and accusations of being Putin's Puddle.
What is described by the PM is typical behavior of a gangster threatening a weaker
opponent. Trump had better get some LSD to get him back in touch with Reality.
MoA has done great reporting but this report is astounding.
It is stunning.
But it is the standard operating procedure of US elites. Trump is nothing unusual except
for his persona. He gives away the game. Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump, they are all power mad,
vindictive, and vile. The elites that run the two major parties are together in pushing
forward to war behind their political posturing.
The very same night Elizabeth Warren's big message is "I don't take billionaires' money!"
Liz has the political instincts of Hilary Clinton. Trump will crush her. pic.twitter.com/cM85kcPYUn
The very same night Elizabeth Warren's big message is "I don't take billionaires'
money!" Liz has the political instincts of Hilary Clinton. Trump will crush her. pic.twitter.com/cM85kcPYUn
"... Sanders and Warren have set themselves apart from the field in having the most credible foreign policy visions and the strongest commitments to bringing our many unnecessary wars to an end. Biden remains wedded to too many outdated and unworkable policies, and just on foreign policy alone Bloomberg is running in the wrong party's primary. Buttigieg is the least formally qualified top presidential candidate on the Democratic side, and his inability or unwillingness to answer most of these questions shows that. If the moderators bother to ask them about foreign policy, the candidates will have another opportunity to address these issues in the debate tonight, and Buttigieg won't be able to get away with saying nothing. ..."
Most of the candidates' responses were predictable. Biden's North Korea policy would be
every bit as unrealistic as Trump's, but he shows even less willingness to negotiate.
Bloomberg's positions were unsurprisingly the most hawkish of the bunch. If there was an option
for using force, he was for it. All of the candidates were unfortunately in agreement with
defining Russia as an enemy.
One of the weirder questions asked the candidates whether they would consider using force to
"preempt" a nuclear or missile test by either Iran or North Korea. Only Yang and Warren said
no. It isn't clear how many of them were serious and how many were just making fun of the
absurdity of the question, but it is disturbing that most of the candidates asked about this
would entertain taking military action against another country because of a test. Maybe it
doesn't need to be said because it is so obvious, but using force to stop a nuclear or missile
test is not "preemption" in any sense of the term. A test is not an attack to be preempted, and
taking military action to prevent a test would be nothing less than an unprovoked, illegal act
of aggression. To her credit, Warren recognizes
how dangerous such an attack would be:
No. Using force against a nuclear power or high-risk adversary carries immense risk for
broader conflict. Using force when not necessary can be dangerously counterproductive. Again,
I will only use force if there is a vital national security interest at risk, a strategy with
clear and achievable objectives, and an understanding and acceptance of the long-term
costs.
In general, Warren's answers were the most substantive and careful. She not only answered
the questions that were put to her, but she gave some explanation of why she took that position
and why it was the appropriate thing to do. She correctly rejected Trump's regime change policy
in Venezuela, and acknowledged that "Trump's reckless actions have only further worsened the
suffering of the Venezuelan people." On North Korea, she remained open to continuing direct
talks with Kim Jong-un, but qualified that by saying, "I would be willing to meet with Kim if
it advances substantive negotiations, but not as a vanity project." Her negotiating position
was similarly reasonable: "A pragmatic approach to diplomacy requires give and take on both
sides, not demands that one side unilaterally disarm first." Both Warren and Sanders correctly
criticized Trump for the illegal assassination of Soleimani, and they recognized that the
president's escalation had put Americans at greater risk. When asked about taking military
action against Iran, Warren rejected the idea of a war with Iran and said the following:
I want to end America's wars in the Middle East, not start a new one with Iran. The litmus
test I will use for any military action against Iran is the same that I will use as I
consider any military action anywhere in the world. I will not send our troops into harm's
way unless there is a vital national security interest at risk, a strategy with clear and
achievable objectives, and an understanding and acceptance of the long-term costs. We will
hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that
Congress play a primary role in deciding to engage militarily.
The most revealing set of responses came from Pete Buttigieg in that he gave very few
responses and had remarkably little to say about his plans. He failed
to answer most of the questions he was asked. Of the 36 individual questions included in
the 11 sections, he answered only 17 by my count, and many of those were recycled clips from
previous speeches, interviews, and debate statements. Despite leaning heavily on his military
service in Afghanistan in his campaigning, he failed to answer all of the questions asked about
Afghanistan and the U.S. war there. Buttigieg's failure to respond to most of these questions
underscores the former mayor's lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge, and it shows
that after almost a year his campaign still doesn't have their foreign policy worked out.
Sanders and Warren have set themselves apart from the field in having the most credible
foreign policy visions and the strongest commitments to bringing our many unnecessary wars to
an end. Biden remains wedded to too many outdated and unworkable policies, and just on foreign
policy alone Bloomberg is running in the wrong party's primary. Buttigieg is the least formally
qualified top presidential candidate on the Democratic side, and his inability or unwillingness
to answer most of these questions shows that. If the moderators bother to ask them about
foreign policy, the candidates will have another opportunity to address these issues in the
debate tonight, and Buttigieg won't be able to get away with saying nothing.
I don't trust Warren on this, her flimsiness and pandering and propensity to outright lie
remind me too much of Romney (who speak of the devil got a backbone for once this week!).
Bernie is definitely the best bet for a softer foreign policy.
Warren is one of the most honest politicians. Check her Politifact file, she does far
better than even Bernie. Of course neither compares to Trump, his Politifact file is a
Pants on Fire dumpster fire.
The one thing, and it's only one thing, that causes you to say this is the controversy
over her ancestry. But I don't believe she lied, she was raised with the family lore that
she had native ancestry and she believed that family lore.
If I had a dollar for every white midwesterner who told me that they had Native ancenstry,
I wouldn't be typing comments on disqus, that's for sure. My personal internet comment
typer would be doing the typing for me as I dictated from my throne of mammon.
Im not even really disagreeing. Even if she was wrong, I find it wild that these attacks on
her are playing well in Trumpville, since white midwesterners (my people) falsely claiming
Native heritage is a most common genre.
My guess is that after South Carolina it will be Sanders vs. Bloomberg vs. one of the other
more mainstream Dems, either Mayor Pete, Warren (she's been tacking to the mainstream,
right on economics and "left" on wokeness) or Biden, in that order. A fall-off in funding
will knock everyone else out of the race (or a failure to move the voting needle if Steyer
is self-funding).
... Biden's fundraising has fallen off, and it is unlikely major donors are going to send
cash to a candidate who just ran fourth in Iowa and could run fourth or fifth in New
Hampshire.
...Klobuchar is now in the second tier in New Hampshire, behind Sanders and Buttigieg, but
right alongside Biden and Warren. A third-, fourth- or fifth-place finish would be near-fatal
for them all.
...As for Warren, in her battle with Sanders to emerge as the champion of the progressive
wing of the party, her third-place finish in Iowa, and her expected third-place finish in New
Hampshire, at best, would seem to settle that issue for this election.
Uncle Joe's presidential road show may be a bore and a bust, but the upcoming expose of Biden
& Son International, Inc. should provide a dumpster-load of drama and comedy all summer
long. I wonder how many special guest appearances there will be by the Kerrys, the Clintons,
the Obamas and other nice folks Joe knows from DC.
@anon
IMHO, Bloomberg is ... just one year younger than Bernie, so this is his final rodeo too.
...After the Iowa deep state operation, (it was NOT incompetence), it is clear that the
PTB will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to ensure that Socialist Sanders is not the
nominee. Remember, he already has a heart condition. Just sayin'.
The very part-time mayor of South Bend will soon be yesterday's news after South Carolina.
Unlike suburban whites, blacks have too much common sense to vote for a homosexual.
@follyofwar
If it ends up Bloomberg vs Trump what we've got in this country will have transmogrified
further from an oligarchy to a full blown aristocracy–certainly a
plutocracy–where only billionaires can afford to play king. That race won't be Dems vs
GOPers, as both gentlemen have posed as one before switching to the other for simple
expedience. Who will be the veep candidates? A Rockefeller and a Rothschild?
Bootyjudge is just a short, gay and white version of Obama. But he typifies a government
bureaucrat in that he's politically left wing, sexually deviant and hates normal, everyday
Americans especially if their skin is white.
The DNC knows that if Biden were to win the nomination he'll commit so many gaffes, like
burbling about corn pop, his hairy legs and enjoying kids sitting on his lap, among other
things, that Trump would have a field day on Twitter and easily win a second term.
So it's shaping up to be a contest between orange Jebulus vs. anal Pete. By the time the
presidential debates arrive both candidates will be vowing to crush white nationalism and
improve the lives of black and brown people. White people need not apply.
Nevertheless, Trump's cult like almost all white base will cheer madly for a man who
claims to represent them in words only, but almost never in deeds.
Last month, American military forces
physically blocked Russian troops from proceeding down a road near the town of Rmelan,
Syria. U.S. troops were acting on orders of President Trump, who said back in October that
Washington would be
"protecting" oil fields currently under control of the anti-Assad, Kurdish Syrian Defense
Forces.
Meanwhile, the Russians are acting on behalf of Syrian president Bashar Assad, who says the
state is ultimately in control of those fields. While no shots were fired in this case, the
next time Moscow's forces might not go so quietly.
U.S. officials offered few details about the January stand-off, but General Alexus
Grynkewich, deputy commander of the anti-ISIS campaign, said: "We've had a number of different
engagements with the Russians on the ground." Late last month the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights reported: "Tensions have continued to increase significantly in recent days between U.S.
and Russian forces in the northeastern regions of Syria."
Stationed in Syria illegally, with neither domestic nor international legal authority,
American personnel risked life and limb to occupy another nation's territory and steal its
resources. What is the Trump administration doing?
American policy in Syria has long been stunningly foolish, dishonest, and counterproductive.
When the Arab Spring erupted in 2011, Washington first defended Assad. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton even called him a "reformer." Then she decided that he should be ousted and
demanded that the rest of the world follow Washington's new policy.
It should be clear on what the fight is really about in the US. It's about stopping the rise
of socialism. Regardless of party affiliation, the elites know what the populace wants and
are desperately trying to stop it. I refuse to accept that the Democrats have no idea what
they're doing.
I honestly can't see Sanders getting the nomination with all the corruption openly being
displayed. I would be pleasantly surprised if Sanders did manage to get it, but he still have
to deal with the ELECTORAL COLLEGE (EC). The Electors have the final say. Yes, one can point
out that some States have laws forcing Electors to vote what the populace wants, but that is
being challenged in court. The debate on whether such laws are unconstitutional or not,
remains to be seen. It's too late now to deal with the EC for this election, but people need
to be more active in politics at the State level as that's where Electors are (s)elected.
IF Sanders is genuine then he should prepare to run as an independent just to get the EC
attention.
RR @ 14;
Everything in the U$A today, is driven by the unofficial Party of $, and it's reach
transcends both Dems & repubs. It's cadre is the majority of the D.C. "rule makers", so
we get what they want, not what "we the people" want or need.
They own the banks, MSM media, and even our voting systems.
IMO, to assume one party is to blame for conditions in the U$A is a bit naive.
Question is, can anything the masses do, change the system? Or is rank and file America
just along for the ride?
I'm assuming us peons will get what the party of $ wants this November also.
P.S. If any blame is given, it needs to go to the American public, because " you get the
kind of Gov. you deserve" through your inactions...
It's a lot like living, death is certain, but until that occurs, I'll move forward trying
to mitigate current paradigms.
There is a real danger for gangstrism mode of forign policy -- policimakers live in a bubble,
an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are based on faulty inputs...
Diplomacy, accommodation, compromise, mutuality, the perspectives of others: It is already
clear these are among the defining features of 21 st century statecraft. Jealous of
its dissipating preeminence, the U.S. proves indifferent to all such considerations. There is
no longer even the pretense of deriving authority by way of example, so radical is Washington's
preference for coercive might alone. The paradox is not difficult to grasp: In displays of
unadorned power we also find the limits of power. The Trump administration's conduct of foreign
policy -- primarily but not only in the Mideast -- makes failure and an American comeuppance
inevitable.
... ... ...
Many years ago, during the first term of George W. Bush, Karl Rove gave
an interview in which he asserted that the U.S. was no longer bound by "discernible
reality," as the White House aide put it. "That's not the way the world really works anymore,"
Rove explained. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while
you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."
Rove Warning Overlooked
This singularly arrogant remark was much noted at the time but was thought to reflect only
the kookier extremes of the Bush II administration. What a misinterpretation that has proven to
be. Rove was effectively warning us that the U.S. had already begun its fundamental shift
toward sheer power as the instrument of its foreign policies. This is plain in hindsight.
... These policies share two features. They rest on power alone -- in this they are Karl
Rove's dream made flesh -- and they are bound to fail, if they are not already failing.
It is evident now that the European allies will
defy U.S. efforts to sabotage NordStream 2 and keep Huawei out of 5–G.
London announced last week that it will allow Huawei to participate in its 5–G
development program. Germany made
a similar decision last autumn.
In the Middle East, it is equally clear that Iran has no intention of buckling under U.S.
sanctions and military threats. U.S. influence in the region has already begun to decline since
the drone assassination of a top Iranian general on Iraqi soil early last month. The Pentagon
now faces popular
Iraqi demands to withdraw its troops.
And now the Mideast -- Israel and Palestine. The Trump administration sacrificed all claim
to "honest broker" status when it recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December 2017 --
a unilateral move that prompted the Palestinians to stop talking to the U.S. about the plan
Jared Kushner was by then developing. Of all that is wrong with the new Trump–Kushner
plan, the absence of Palestinian input more or less assures that it will prove dead on
arrival.
Power alone is power blind. Power blind is certain to fail, for it cannot see its way.
There is a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those
they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs. Needless to say it's even worse when they believe they can
create their own reality and invent outcomes out of whole cloth.
Things seldom go as planned in these circumstances.
President Trump was sold a bill of goods on the assassination of Iran's
revered military leader, Qassim Soleimani, likely by a cabal around Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo and the
long-discredited neocon David Wurmser. A former Netanyahu advisor and Iraq war
propagandist, Wurmser reportedly sent memos to his mentor, John Bolton, while Bolton was
Trump's National Security Advisor (now, of course, he's the hero of the #resistance for having
turned on his former boss) promising that killing Soleimani would be a cost-free operation that
would catalyze the Iranian people against their government and bring about the long-awaited
regime change in that country. The murder of Soleimani – the architect of the defeat of
ISIS – would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them
upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival," wrote Wurmser.
As is most often the case with neocons, he was dead wrong.
The operation was not cost-free. On the contrary. Assassinating Soleimani on Iraqi soil
resulted in the Iraqi parliament – itself the product of our "bringing democracy" to the
country – voting to expel US forces even as the vote by the people's representatives was
roundly rejected by the people who brought the people the people's representatives. In a manner
of speaking.
Trump's move had an effect opposite to the one promised by neocons. It did not bring
Iranians out to the street to overthrow their government – it catalyzed opposition across
Iraq's various political and religious factions to the continued US military presence and
further tightened Iraq's relationship with Iran. And short of what would be a catastrophic war
initiated by the US (with little or no support from allies), there is not a thing Trump can do
about it.
Iran's retaliatory attack on two US bases in Iraq was initially sold by President Trump as
merely a pin-prick. No harm, no foul, no injuries. This despite the fact that he must have
known about US personnel injured in the attack. The reason for the lie was that Trump likely
understands how devastating it would be to his presidency to escalate with Iran. So the truth
began to trickle out slowly – 11 US military members were injured, but it was just "like
a headache." Now we know that 50 US troops were treated for traumatic brain injury after the
attack. This may not be the last of it – but don't count on the mainstream media to do
any reporting.
The Iranian FARS news agency reported at the time of the attack that US personnel had been
injured and the response by the US government was to completely take that media outlet off the
Internet
by order of the US Treasury !
Last week the US House
voted to cancel the 2002 authorization for war on Iraq and to prohibit the use of funds for
war on Iran without Congressional authorization. It is a significant, if largely symbolic, move
to rein in the oft-used excuse of the Iraq war authorization for blatantly unrelated actions
like the assassination of Soleimani and Obama's
thousands of airstrikes on Syria and Iraq .
President Trump has argued that prohibiting funds for military action against Iran actually
makes war more likely, as he would be restricted from the kinds of
military-strikes-short-of-war like his attack on Syria after the alleged chemical attack in
Douma in 2018 (claims which have recently
fallen apart ). The logic is faulty and reflects again the danger of believing one's own
propaganda. As we have seen from the Iranian military response to the Soleimani assassination,
Trump's military-strikes-short-of-war are having a ratchet-like effect rather than a
pressure-release or deterrent effect.
As the financial and current events analysis site ZeroHedge
put it recently:
[S]ince last summer's "tanker wars", Trump has painted himself into a corner on Iran,
jumping from escalation to escalation (to this latest "point of no return big one" in the
form of the ordered Soleimani assassination) -- yet all the while hoping to avoid a major
direct war. The situation reached a climax where there were "no outs" (Trump was left with
two 'bad options' of either back down or go to war).
The Iranians have little to lose at this point and America's European allies are, even if
impotent, fed up with the US obsession with Saudi Arabia and Israel as a basis for its Middle
East policy.
So why open this essay with a photo of Trump celebrating his dead-on-arrival "Deal of The
Century" for Israel and Palestine? Because this is once again a gullible and weak President
Trump being led by the nose into the coming Middle East conflagration. Left without even a
semblance of US sympathy for their plight, the Palestinians after the roll-out of this "peace"
plan will again see that they have no friends outside Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. As Israel
continues to flirt with the idea of simply annexing large parts of the West Bank, it is
clear that the brakes are off of any Israeli reticence to push for maximum control over
Palestinian territory. So what is there to lose?
Trump believes he's advancing peace in the Middle East, while the excellent Mondoweiss
website rightly
observes that a main architect of the "peace plan," Trump's own son-in-law Jared Kushner,
"taunts Palestinians because he wants them to reject his 'peace plan.'" Rejection of the plan
is a green light to a war of annihilation on the Palestinians.
It appears that the center may not hold, that the self-referential echo chamber that passes
for Beltway "expert" analysis will again be caught off guard in the consequence-free profession
that is neocon foreign policy analysis. "Gosh we didn't see that coming!" But the next day they
are back on the teevee stations as great experts.
It is hard to believe that Trump has any confidence in Jared Kushner. Yet, he does enough
to go public with a one-sided plan developed without Palestinian input.
a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they
serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs.
The same is true of the economists and financial analysts who live in the bubble of the
NSYE and the echo chamber of Manhattan. All of their conclusions are based on faulty
inputs.
If Trump continues to be 'dumb' enough to consistently hire these people and
consistently listen to them, and if his supporters continue to be dumb enough to
consistently believe all the lies and excuses, then Trump and his supporters are 100%
involved in the neoCON.
Furthermore, first generation immigrants don't want to replicate their culture, they want
the American dream. Their grandchildren might want to "identify" as hispanic, etc., but not
their parents or grandparents. Identity politics only plays in the white middle classes.
DNC In Disarray After Chairman's Secret Golden Parachute Revealed by Tyler Durden Thu, 01/30/2020 -
17:20 0 SHARES The
perpetually broke ,
deck-stacking DNC has been thrown into disarray just days before the Iowa caucus after
Buzzfeed
revealed that a cadre of top officials at the Democratic National Committee approved, then
concealed a 'generous exit package for the party chair, Tom Perez, and two top lieutenants,'
which has left Democrats 'confounded over the weekend by the optics and timing of the decision
on the eve of the presidential primary."
The proposal, put forward as an official DNC resolution during a meeting of the party's
budget and finance committee last Friday, would have arranged for Perez and two of his top
deputies, CEO Seema Nanda and deputy CEO Sam Cornale, to each receive a lump-sum bonus
equaling four months' salary within two weeks of the time they eventually leave their roles
.
Senior DNC officers, including members of Perez's own executive committee, learned of the
compensation package after its approval, through the rumor mill, setting off a furious
exchange of emails and texts over the weekend to determine what had been proposed, and by
whom . - Buzzfeed
And while four-months salary might be more of a 'bronze parachute', Perez rejected the
"extra compensation" package for himself and his two lieutenants in an email to officials .
Perez says he will serve through the end of the 2020 election, while all three officials
have denied having any prior knowledge of, or involvement in the pay package resolution .
"One-hundred percent of our resources are going towards beating Donald Trump," said DNC
communications director Xochitl Hinojosa, who added "DNC leadership will not accept any extra
compensation recommended by the budget committee, which didn't operate at the direction of DNC
leadership. The resolution was crafted by the budget committee and did not involve the Chair,
CEO, or Deputy CEO."
Taking the fall for the resolution are two members of the DNC's budget and finance committee
- Daniel Halpern and Chris Korge, who described it as the first step in a "smooth transition"
for Perez.
Halperin, an
anti-minimum wage lobbyist , was appointed by Perez in 2017. He previously chaired Atlanta
Mayor Kasim Reed's 2009 moyoral campaign, and was a trustee for Barack Obama's 2008 inaugural
committee.
Chris Korge is a Florida
attorney hired in May of 2019. He was one of the top fundraisers for Andrew Gillum, Hillary
Clinton, Bill Clinton, and served as the co-chairman for the Kerry Edwards campaign in
2004.
For years, the 64-year-old attorney, developer and one-time county hall lobbyist has been
an important fundraiser for Democrats. He has raised millions for both Hillary and Bill
Clinton, served as national co-chairman for Kerry Edwards Victory in 2004 and this year was
co-chairman of Miami's unsuccessful bid to bring the Democratic convention to South Florida
next summer. - Miami
Herald
According to Buzzfeed , Halpern and Korge both said the resolution was above-board
and a common business practice.
The resolution, which only applies to the 2021 transition, states that the outgoing chair,
CEO, and deputy CEO will help facilitate donor and "stakeholder" relations, and convey
"institutional knowledge" to the next chair, but is less specific about the requirements of
the transition than the details of the compensation package: a lump sum of four months' pay,
paid within two weeks, unless either Perez, Nanda, or Cornale is terminated for "gross
misconduct."
On Tuesday, Halpern said the resolution was meant to serve only as a "nonbinding" starting
point to ensure "continuity" between Perez's tenure and the next party chair . - Buzzfeed
Top Democrats within the DNC's leadership speaking on condition of anonymity said that they
were shocked to learn of the compensation package on the eve of a presidential primary , amid a
massive fundraising defecit .
"I think it is completely short-sighted and really stupid," said one senior official.
The package would have paid Perez around $69,000, Nanda around $61,000, and Cornale
$39,000.
The infighting is indicative of the ongoing DNC implosion. These parties, like the entire
world's governments, were terminated long ago. NOBODY wants or needs the fake drama bullsh*t.
If it's not on one side or the other it's on both to distract everybody. Like the ongoing
fake impeachment fraud. Chump was finished day one on the job. And even if not certainly the
public conspiring with both parties to commit sedition and treason after Parkland ensured
it.
Tom Perez - member of the Obama Transition Project's Agency Review Working Group
responsible for the justice, health and human services, veterans affairs, and housing and
urban development agencies. He is Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing
and Regulation under Governor Martin O'Malley.
He worked in a variety of civil rights positions at the Department of Justice, including
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Attorney General Janet Reno.
He also served as Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services under Secretary Donna Shalala, and as Special Counsel to Senator Edward
Kennedy. From 2001 until 2007, he was Assistant Professor of Law at the University of
Maryland School of Law, and is an adjunct faculty member at the George Washington School of
Public Health.
lizabeth Warren wrote an
article
outlining in general terms how she would bring America's current foreign wars to an end. Perhaps the most significant part of the
article is her commitment to respect Congress' constitutional role in matters of war:
We will hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that Congress play a primary
role in deciding to engage militarily. The United States should not fight and cannot win wars without deep public support.
Successive administrations and Congresses have taken the easy way out by choosing military action without proper authorizations
or transparency with the American people. The failure to debate these military missions in public is one of the reasons
they have been allowed to continue without real prospect of success [bold mine-DL].
On my watch, that will end. I am committed to seeking congressional authorization if the use of force is required. Seeking
constrained authorizations with limited time frames will force the executive branch to be open with the American people and
Congress about our objectives, how the operation is progressing, how much it is costing, and whether it should continue.
Warren's commitment on this point is welcome, and it is what Americans should expect and demand from their presidential
candidates. It should be the bare minimum requirement for anyone seeking to be president, and any candidate who won't commit to
respecting the Constitution should never be allowed to have the powers of that office. The president is not permitted to launch
attacks and start wars alone, but Congress and the public have allowed several presidents to do just that without any consequences.
It is time to put a stop to illegal presidential wars, and it is also time to put a stop to open-ended authorizations of military
force. Warren's point about asking for "constrained authorizations with limited time frames" is important, and it is something that
we should insist on in any future debate over the use of force. The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are still on the books and have been abused
and stretched beyond recognition to apply to groups that didn't exist when they were passed so that the U.S. can fight wars in
countries that don't threaten our security. Those need to be repealed as soon as possible to eliminate the opening that they have
provided the executive to make war at will.
Michael Brendan Dougherty is
unimpressed with Warren's rhetoric:
But what has Warren offered to do differently, or better? She's made no notable break with the class of experts who run our
failing foreign policy. Unlike Bernie Sanders, and like Trump or Obama, she hasn't hired a foreign-policy staff committed to a
different vision. And so her promise to turn war powers back to Congress should be considered as empty as Obama's promise to do
the same. Her promise to bring troops home would turn out to be as meaningless as a Trump tweet saying the same.
We shouldn't discount Warren's statements so easily. When a candidate makes specific commitments about ending U.S. wars during a
campaign, that is different from making vague statements about having a "humble" foreign policy. Bush ran on a conventional hawkish
foreign policy platform, and there were also no ongoing wars for him to campaign against, so we can't say that he ever ran as a
"dove." Obama campaigned against the Iraq war and ran on ending the U.S. military presence there, and before his first term was
finished almost all U.S. troops were out of Iraq. It is important to remember that he did not campaign against the war in
Afghanistan, and instead argued in support of it. His subsequent decision to commit many more troops there was a mistake, but it was
entirely consistent with what he campaigned on. In other words, he withdrew from the country he promised to withdraw from, and
escalated in the country where he said the U.S. should be fighting. Trump didn't actually campaign on ending any wars, but he did
talk about "bombing the hell" out of ISIS, and after he was elected he escalated the war on ISIS. His anti-Iranian obsession was out
in the open from the start if anyone cared to pay attention to it. In short, what candidates commit to doing during a campaign does
matter and it usually gives you a good idea of what a candidate will do once elected.
If Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates are committing to ending U.S. wars, we shouldn't assume that they won't
follow through on those commitments because previous presidents proved to be the hawks that they admitted to being all along.
Presidential candidates often tell us exactly what they mean to do, but we have to be paying attention to everything they say and
not just one catchphrase that they said a few times. If voters want a more peaceful foreign policy, they should vote for candidates
that actually campaign against ongoing wars instead of rewarding the ones that promise and then deliver escalation. But just voting
for the candidates that promise an end to wars is not enough if Americans want Congress to start doing its job by reining in the
executive. If we don't want presidents to run amok on war powers, there have to be political consequences for the ones that have
done that and there needs to be steady pressure on Congress to take back their role in matters of war. Voters should select
genuinely antiwar candidates, but then they also have to hold those candidates accountable once they're in office.
There is a huge difference between extremely bright students and medicate ones. Bright students are the future of the society and
need to be nurtures and helped in any way possible for the range of specialties that are important (STEM is one example)
There is difference between the degree in computer science and the degree in some obscure nationality studies (let's say Eastern
European studies; few people that are needed can be paid by intelligence agencies ;-) Obscure areas should be generally available only
to well to do students, who can pay for their education.
Like is the case with alcoholism, some student debt is the result of bad personal choices.
Notable quotes:
"... Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times, ..."
"... "My daughter's getting out of school, I saved all my money, so she doesn't have any student debt. Am I going to get my money back?" ..."
"... So, we end up paying for people who didn't save any money, then those who did the right thing get screwed, ..."
"... "We did the right thing and we get screwed," ..."
"... "Look, we build a future going forward by making it better. By that same logic what would we have done? Not started Social Security because we didn't start it last week for you or last month for you," ..."
"... "We don't build an America by saddling our kids with debt. We build an America by saying we're going to open up those opportunities for kids to be able to get an education without getting crushed by student loan debt." ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) campaigns in Des Moines, Iowa on Jan. 19, 2020. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images) ..."
"... "I'll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans consistent with my plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers (about 42 million people)," ..."
"... A scholarship system awarding free tuition to the top 5% of college applicants (NOT biased by race, gender, etc) who apply to the U.S.'s best STEM programs, hell yes! Free tuition for future Democrat voters, f^%k that! ..."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) defended her plan to pay off college loans after being confronted by a father in Iowa in an exchange
that went viral.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is confronted by a father who worked double shifts to pay for his daughters education and wants to
know if he will get his money back. pic.twitter.com/t2GGbAnG08
The father approached Warren, a leading Democratic presidential contender, after a campaign event in Grimes.
"My daughter's getting out of school, I saved all my money, so she doesn't have any student debt. Am I going to get my
money back?" the man asked Warren.
"Of course not," Warren replied.
" So, we end up paying for people who didn't save any money, then those who did the right thing get screwed, " the
father told her.
He then described a friend who makes more money but didn't save up while he worked double shifts to save up to pay for his daughter's
college.
The father became upset, accusing Warren of laughing.
"We did the right thing and we get screwed," he added before walking off.
In an appearance on "CBS This Morning" on Friday, Warren was asked about the exchange.
Last night, a father who saved for his daughter's college education approached
@SenWarren and challenged her proposed student
loan forgiveness plan. @TonyDokoupil asks the
senator for her response: pic.twitter.com/jLUXPqChC6
"Look, we build a future going forward by making it better. By that same logic what would we have done? Not started Social
Security because we didn't start it last week for you or last month for you," Warren said.
Pressed on whether she was saying "tough luck" to people like the father, she said "No." She then recounted how she got to go
to college despite coming from a poor family.
"There was a $50 a semester option for me. I was able to go to college and become a public school teacher because America had
invested in a $50 a semester option for me. Today that's not available," she said.
"We don't build an America by saddling our kids with debt. We build an America by saying we're going to open up those opportunities
for kids to be able to get an education without getting crushed by student loan debt."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) campaigns in Des Moines, Iowa on Jan. 19, 2020. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
One of Warren's plans is to cancel student loans. According to
her website , on her first day as president
she would cancel student loan debt as well as give free tuition to public colleges and technical schools and ban for-profit colleges
from getting aid from the federal government.
"I'll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans
consistent with my plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers (about 42 million people)," Warren
wrote.
"I'll also direct the Secretary of Education to use every existing authority available to rein in the for-profit college industry,
crack down on predatory student lending, and combat the racial disparities in our higher education system."
Sounds an awful lot like the dad above is right those that did the "right thing" are gonna get "screwed."
Warren you bitch, I paid back my student loans responsibly by working my *** off (140k) and now you want to give others a free
ride? I sure hope that I get a refund for all that money I paid back.
Obama did this kinds thing with housing. I got outbid by 100k on a house. The other bidder who got it didn't make his house
payments so Obama restructured his loan knocking off 100k from his loan and giving him a 1% interest rate on it. He again didn't
make his payments and got it restructured again but I didn't hear the terms of that one.
If student loan debt is such a crisis, force every university to use their precious endowment funds to underwrite those loans
AND let those loans get discharged in bankruptcy. Maybe then those schools would start to question whether having a dozen
"Diversity Deans" each being paid $100k+ salaries is really worth the expense (among other things).
A scholarship system awarding free tuition to the top 5% of college applicants (NOT biased by race, gender, etc) who apply
to the U.S.'s best STEM programs, hell yes! Free tuition for future Democrat voters, f^%k that!
The pissed off dad in this story has only one person to be pissed off at: himself, for being stupid. Understand something about
college degrees: 90% of them, including majors like accounting, are not worth the paper they are printed on. Anyone who works
double shifts to pay for anyone's college degree, even their own, is stupid. Look at why college costs so much: go to any state,
and you'll see that 70% or more of the highest paid state employees are employed by public colleges and universities. You need
to play these sons of bitches at their game, use their funny money to pay for the degree, and walk away. If you play the way these
sons of bitches tell you to play, you get what you deserve.
I used their funny money to get a degree that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on and walked away. I don't give a ****
if the sons of bitches grab my tax refund. Why? Because I have my withholdings set up so they get next to nothing in April. It
costs the sons of bitches more to print up the garnishment letter and send it to me than what they're stealing from me. Guess
what I use for an address? P.O. Box (can't serve a summons to a ghost).
If you're going to do what stupid, pissed off dad did, and work double shifts, you need to be trading out of all that funny
money you're being paid for those double shifts, and trading into personal economic leverage (gold first, then silver). Instead
of having bedrock to build multi-generational wealth, he has a daughter with a degree in pouring coffee, and nothing else to show
for it. He only has himself to blame for drinking the Kool Aid. I can grab overtime every Saturday at my job if I want it, and
every last penny of that OT is traded out of funny money and into gold ASAP.
Understand the US real estate market: the only reason it did not die five years ago was because we welcomed rich foreigners
to come in and buy real estate to protect their wealth. We've stopped doing that, we have an over-abundance of domestic sellers
and a severe shortage of domestic buyers. It's also where history says you need to be if you want to build multi-generational
wealth. Warren actually needs to go further than what she's proposing. Not only does she need to discharge 100% of those balances
by EO, she also needs to refund all those tax refunds stolen under false pretenses. Anything less, and we are guaranteed, for
the next 40 years, to have a real estate market and economy which resembles Japan since 1989.
Why do I buy gold? So I can play people like Warren at their game. I'll take whatever loan discharge she gives me, and have
lots of leverage in reserve to take advantage of what will be a once in a lifetime real estate fire sale.
Make those who want to be bailed out have to pay the bailout back by working every non-holiday Saturday (at the minimum wage
rate) for the government and citizens (e.g who need work done around the house, take care of the elderly - in the bathroom) until
the debt is paid back. AND let those who have not taken the debt relief supervise them - getting paid by the government at the
same rate, minimum wage. 🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞
For a decent college it's between 35-70k a year.... Why? 300k a year library professors, if it weren't for tenure the problem
would largely he self correcting as rntrillments drop...
My how times have changed. My son was a college grad circa 1996. He did the JUCO thing for 1 1/2 years , worked a part time
job for the duration, and picked up an A S while making the President's list. I aid, out of pocket all educational expenses while
he lived at home and provided for a nice lifestyle while he was in school. As promised, he finished his education, out of state,
which I paid for all along the way. 2 more years, he graduated, on the Pres list, and picked up his B S. No student debt, in his
words, was one of the the greatest gifts. Today he is debt free, (so am I ), and he is a very happy , financially secure ( until
the world goes upside down) mature adult. Hey Lizzie, send me a check.
They are all ignoring the real problem...the Federal mandated system of the guaranteed student loan program. Anyone with a
pulse can get a guaranteed student loan, thus creating a massive rise in college admissions. The colleges are guaranteed the money
for these loans, while the lender (the US gov't) is not guaranteed to be paid back by the students receiving these loans,. this
created a fool proof, risk free ability for colleges and universities across the country to jack up their tuition costs at over
a 5:1 ratio of income growth over the last 25 years. The problem is the program itself, students need to earn their ability to
enroll in college through hard work and good grades. Currently, any moron with a high school diploma can go to college on a guaranteed
student loan program and the colleges are more than willing to take on any idiot that wants to go to school despite their aspirations,
work ethics, intelligence, achievements, etc. The universities have been given a blank check to expand their campuses, drastically
inflate the salaries and pensions of professors and administrators of these schools all at the expense of this guaranteed "free"
money from the government that only achieved an immense amount of the population going to overpriced schools in order to get a
diploma in useless pursuits like african american studies, philosophy, creative writing, music, criminal justice, arts, basket
weaving, etc.. The skyrocketing costs of colleges and student debt is the direct result of this miserably failed system of the
guaranteed student loan. The majority of which have no business going to higher education because they don't have the aptitude,
work ethic and intelligence necessary to actually receive a degree in anything that benefits the economy and themselves going
forward. 30 years ago the average state college admission was roughly $4k a year for a good state school, today it is roughly
$20k or far more. Meanwhile, the average income has gone up a meaningless amount. Get rid of the guaranteed student loan program
and make the colleges responsible for accepting the responsibility of the loans for their students. I guarantee enrollment will
decrease and costs will decline making it much more affordable for the truly responsible and aspiring student to achieve their
dreams of a degree without a $250k loan needed for completion nor the lifelong strain of debt on their future incomes. The colleges
are raping the system the same as all these shoestring companies take advantage of the medicaid system and give hovarounds and
walking canes, and hearing aids for free because the gov't reimburses them at wildly inflated prices under some federally passed
mandate. The system is the problem, eliminating the debt will only exacerbate it and cost taxpayers trillions more each and every
year as "free" college will now entice every moron with a heartbeat the ability to go to outrageously priced schools with no skin
in the game on the taxpayer's dime. Elizabeth Warren is an idiot....someone needs to have a sit down with her and discuss this
rationale in her luxurious, state of the art TeePee.
While you are correct corrupting academics with huge payoffs is how you secure their votes and the votes of most of the 'students'
for decades to come.
Any group or industry can be paid off and you might think of the system as a set of interlocking payoffs until you get out
to the margins and the fringes where the cash and benefits are a lot thinner.
Everyone who continues to pay taxes to these neo-Bolsheviks is going to get screwed. The only alternative is to stop funding
these criminals completely.
What a sorry presidential canditate! She flat out LIED about being native american to get FREE college. And now this. Where
has America gone????????? Socialism sems to be what most want nowadays. It has NEVER EVER worked anywhere in the world at any
time! If yoou think therwise, just name ONE countryn it has worked in ! What a lying bunch the democrats are..........................
So all if us have to pay for it. Why did I have to pay for University and College in the 1970's if I wanted to further my education
and now that I am older I have to foot the bill for the young people of today? Pay DOUBLE? (just to buy votes for traitors?)
I think NOT! Take your theft from the people, to buy votes of everyone from young people to illegal criminals to outright criminals
in prison to dead people and resign before we decide to arrest you.
Democrats, HANG IT UP! We are NOT paying for YOUR illegitimate votes.
Notice too how all their "we're going to wipe out your debt!" promises never seem to include the big "endowments" of these
fascist colleges that jacked up tuition 1000% over what it used to cost.
No, those creepy commie profs and their freaky administrators get to keep their big TAX FREE endowments AND their big salaries.
Big Gov by Sanders/Warren don't seem to think that's obscene.
You are absolutely correct. 45 years ago you could almost work part time and actually PAY your way through college. Today you
almost need a physicians salary to pay for these OVERPRICED sewers filled with leftist propaganda.
It's obvious that Warren doesn't teach economics or even math. They weren't smart enough when they took out the loans and they
are not good with paying their bills so move the goal posts to bail them out. Has anyone given the thought that maybe they shouldn't
have gone to college at all. Sounds like they will all work for the government anyways.
This blabbing about authoritarian Russia and China greatly diminishes the value of this
article. The author is Warren foreign policy advisor. Probably she should find a better
advisor.
Compare this blabbing with Putin stance about strengthening of the role of the UN.
Notable quotes:
"... Fourth, the new progressive foreign policy is highly skeptical of military interventions, and opposed to democracy promotion by force. This does not mean that progressives are unwilling or would be unable to use force when it is necessary. But after 17 years of war in the Middle East, they do not share the aggressive posture that has characterized the post-Cold War era. Some are skeptical because they think interventions cannot succeed. Others emphasize the potential for backlash and making the situation worse. Still others hold that stable, sustainable democracy cannot be imposed from abroad but must emerge organically. ..."
"... Fifth, the new progressive foreign policy seeks to reshape the military budget by both cutting the budget overall and reallocating military spending. This should not be surprising. The skepticism of intervention suggests military budgets do not need to be as big as they have been in an era when the goal was to be able to fight two regional wars simultaneously. The centrality of economics to a progressive foreign policy further explains this position; military spending should partly be reallocated to cyber and other technologies that are deeply integrated with the economy and likely to be crucial in future conflicts. ..."
end of history " and
America's " unipolar moment ." And
both camps have undergone a serious reckoning after the Afghanistan, Iraq, and forever wars, as
well as the global financial crisis calling into question neoliberal
economic policies -- namely, deregulation, liberalization, privatization, and austerity.
Prominent foreign policy advocates have quite publicly engaged in
soul-searching as they confronted these changes, and debates about the future of foreign
policy abound.
The emergence of a distinctively progressive approach to foreign policy is perhaps the most
interesting -- and most misunderstood -- development in these debates. In speeches and
articles, politicians like Sen.
Elizabeth Warren and Sen.
Bernie Sanders have outlined an approach to foreign policy that does not fall along the
traditional fault-lines of realist versus idealist or neoconservative versus liberal
internationalist (disclosure: I have been a longtime advisor to Sen. Warren). Their speeches
come alongside an
increasing number of
articles exploring the
contours of a
progressive foreign policy. Even those who might not consider themselves
progressive are
sounding similar themes .
From this body of work, it is now possible to sketch out the framework of a distinctively
progressive approach to foreign policy. While its advocates, like those in other foreign policy
camps, discuss a wide range of issues -- from climate change to reforming international
institutions -- at the moment, five themes mark this emerging approach as a specific framework
for foreign policy.
First, progressive foreign policy breaks the
silos between domestic and foreign policy and between international economic policy and
foreign policy. It places far greater emphasis on how foreign policy impacts the United States
at home -- and particularly on how foreign policy (including international economic policy) has
impacted the domestic economy. To be sure, there have always been analysts and commentators who
recognized these interrelationships. But progressive foreign policy places this at the center
of its analysis rather than seeing it as peripheral. The new progressive foreign policy takes
the substance of both domestic and international economic policies seriously, and its adherents
will not support economic policies on foreign policy grounds if they exacerbate economic
inequality at home. For example, the argument that trade deals must be ratified on national
security grounds even though they have problematic distributional consequences does not carry
much weight for progressives who believe that an equitable domestic economy is the foundation
of national power.
Second, progressive foreign policy holds that one of the important threats to American
democracy at home is nationalist
oligarchy (or, alternatively, authoritarian
capitalism ) abroad. Countries like Russia and China are not simply authoritarian
governments, and neither can their resurgence and assertion of power be interpreted as merely
great power competition. The reason is that their economic systems integrate economic and
political power. Crony/state capitalism is not a bug, it is the central feature. In a global
society, economic interrelationships
weaponize economic power into political power .
China, for example, already uses its economic power as leverage in political disputes with
other Asian countries. Its growing share of global GDP is one of the most consequential facts
of the 21st century. As a result of these dynamics, progressives are also highly skeptical of a
foreign policy based on the premise that the countries of the world will all become neoliberal
democracies. Instead, they take seriously the risks that come from economic integration with
nationalist oligarchies.
Third, the new progressive foreign policy values America's alliances and international
agreements, but not because it thinks that such alliances and rules can convert nationalist
oligarchies into liberal democracies. Rather, alliances should be based on
common values or common goals, and, going forward, they will be critical to balancing and
countering the challenges from nationalist oligarchies. Progressives are thus far more
skeptical of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia and far more interested in reinforcing
and deepening ties with allies like Japan -- and are concerned about the erosion of alliances
like NATO from within.
This shouldn't have been too much of a surprise, as neoliberal policies had already wreaked
havoc around the world. Looking back at the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the economist Joseph
Stiglitz
comments that "excessively rapid financial and capital market liberalization was probably
the single most important cause of the crisis"; he also notes that after the crisis, the
International Monetary Fund's policies "exacerbated the downturns."
Neoliberals pushed swift privatization in Russia after the Cold War, alongside a restrictive
monetary policy. The result was a growing barter economy, low exports, and asset-stripping, as
burgeoning oligarchs bought up state enterprises and then moved their money out of the
country.
... ... ...
Rising economic inequality and the creation of monopolistic megacorporations also threaten
democracy. In study after study, political scientists have shown that the U.S. government is
highly responsive to the policy preferences of the wealthiest people, corporations, and trade
associations -- and that it is largely unresponsive to the views of ordinary people. The
wealthiest people, corporations, and their interest groups participate more in politics, spend
more on politics, and lobby governments more. Leading political scientists have declared that
the U.S. is no longer best characterized as a democracy or a republic but as an oligarchy -- a
government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
The neoliberal embrace of individualism and opposition to "the collective society," as
Margaret Thatcher put it, also had perverse consequences for social and political life. Humans
are social animals. But neoliberalism rejects both the medieval approach of having fixed social
classes based on wealth and power and the modern approach of having a single, shared civic
identity based on participation in a democratic community. The problem is that amid
neoliberalism's individualistic rat race, people still need to find meaning somewhere in their
lives. And so there has been a retreat to tribalism and identity groups, with civic
associations replaced by religious, ethnic, or other cultural affiliations.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been
important to politics. But neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two
interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups
can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity.
Self-government requires uniting through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared
future. When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the
political community gets fragmented. It becomes harder for people to see each other as part of
that same shared future. Demagogues rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and
religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's
war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, thus
indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for a
free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield
to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class
politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which
individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means
is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus
claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in
politics and the economy. Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it
gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization,
liberalization, and austerity. Of course, the result is to leave in place political and
economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals claim to
support.
The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't
fared much better than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition
partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan for 18 years and counting. Neither
Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in Iraq
lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better.
Instead, power in Iraq has shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi
government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi government -- and more than
100,000 Iraqis are dead. Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The
result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy but instead civil war and instability,
with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups. On
the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And
for those motivated to expand human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars
as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
So what happened following the dissolution of the Soviet Union?
The United States dispatched a cabal of cutthroat economists to Moscow to assist in the
"shock therapy" campaign that collapsed the social safety net, savaged pensions, increased
unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and alcoholism by many orders of magnitude,
accelerated the slide to privatization that fueled a generation of voracious oligarchs, and
sent the real economy plunging into an excruciating long-term depression.
Basically the NWO mafia saw that there was an opportunity to loot the place and they did
it – gaining ownership – and stripping everything of value out of the place.
If the US public had the sense to realize it, it's the same as is currently happening to
them.
At the same time Washington's agents were busy looting Moscow, NATO was moving its
troops, armored divisions and missile sites closer to Russia's border in clear violation of
promises that were made to Mikhail Gorbachev not to move its military "one inch east".
Yeah, yeah . . . This reminds me of that line from Animal House: "Face it Kent, you fucked
up. You trusted us."
This was small beer in term's of betrayals the Russians have endured. What I've always
liked about them is that they aren't bellyachers, like the Iranians are at the moment.
Ignore Western Media on Putin. He remains The Indispensable Man for Russia so he isn't
going anywhere for the moment. I'm sure he'd love to become the Russian version of Deng but
that's going to take a lot of preparatory work for him to get there.
@Huxley Very true and this idea that man sets himself at the top of the creation is
exactly the philosophy of "Human Rights", the Masonic model imposed through the UN to the
whole world.
This ideology was launched by Freemasonry during the "Enlightenment", in the 18th century. It
produced the Masonic French Revolution, the Masonic US republic and later the concept of
"democracy".
Published in 1899 by Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany: Liberalism is a sin. This is from a Catholic
priest, but we all share the same enemy. http://www.liberalismisasin.com/
@9/11 Inside job What cult of personality? There isn't one. People mostly like the
decisions he makes, not because he makes them, but because they agree with them.
As to Chabad Lubavitch, Putin is a politician – he mingles with Christians, Jews and
Muslims. As evil as Chabad Lubavitch is, Putin also mingles with the Saudi Barbarians. It's
hardly proof they control him.
Go find something real, you are making a fool of yourself spreading baseless propaganda.
Next you will tell us about the $583 trillion he has stashed away, so he can use it,
secretly, after he retires from his life-long dictatorship.
While I agree that the removal of Trump might be slightly beneficial (Pence-Pompeo duo initially will run scared), this Kabuki
theater with Schiff in a major role is outright silly.
Adam Schiff physically resembles a typical prosperity theology preacher -- a classic modern American snake oil salesman. And
with his baseless accusations and the fear to touch real issues , he is even worse than that -- he looks outright silly even for
the most brainwashed part of the USA electorate ;-)
As he supported the Iraq war, he has no right to occupy any elected office. He probably should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
Realistically Schiff should be viewed as yet another intelligence agency stooge, a neocon who is funded by military contractors
such as Northrop Grumman, which sells missiles to Ukraine.
The claim that Trump is influenced by Russia is a lie. His actions indicate that he is an agent of influence for Israel, not
so much for Russia. Several of his actions were more reckless and more hostile to Russia than the actions of the Obama administration.
Anyway, his policies toward Russia are not that different from Hillary's policies. Actually, Pompeo, in many ways, continues Hillary's
policies.
The claim that the withdrawal of military aid from Ukraine somehow influences the balance of power in the region was a State
department concocted scam from the very beginning. How sniper rifles and anti-tank missiles change the balance of power on the
border with the major nuclear power, who has probably second or third military in the world.? They do not.
They (especially sniper rifles) will definitely increase casualties of Ukrainian separatists (and will provoke Russian reaction
to compensate for this change of balance and thus increase casualties of the Ukrainian army provoking the escalation spiral ),
but that's about it. So more people will die in the conflict while Northrop Grumman rakes the profits.
They also increase the danger of the larger-scale conflict in the region, which is what the USA neocons badly wants to impose
really crushing sanctions on Russia. The danger of WWIII and the cost of support of the crumbling neoliberal empire with its outsize
military expenditures (which now is more difficult to compensate with loot) somehow escapes the US neocon calculations. But they
are completely detached from reality in any case.
I think Russia can cut Ukraine into Western and Eastern parts anytime with relative ease and not much resistance. Putin has
an opportunity to do this in 2014 (risking larger sanctions) as he could establish government in exile out of Yanukovich officials
and based on this restore the legitimate government in Eastern and southern region with the capital in Kharkiv, leaving Ukrainian
Taliban to rot in their own brand of far-right nationalism where the Ukraine identity is defined negatively via rabid Russophobia.
His calculation probably was that sanctions would slow down the Russia recovery from Western plunder during Yeltsin years and,
as such, it is not worth showing Western Ukrainian nationalists what level of support in Southern and Eastern regions that they
actually enjoy.
My impression is that they are passionately hated by over 50% of the population of this region. And viewed as an occupying
force, which is trying to colonize the space (which is a completely true assessment). They are viewed as American stooges, who
they are (the country is controlled from the USA embassy in any case).
And Putin's assessment might be wrong, as sanctions were imposed anyways, and now Ukraine does represent a threat to Russia
and, as such, is a huge source of instability in the region, which was the key idea of "Nulandgate" as the main task was weakening
Russia. In this sense, Euromaidan coup d'état was the major success of the Obama administration, which was a neocon controlled
administration from top to bottom.
Also unclear what Dems are trying to achieve. If Pelosi gambit, cynically speaking, was about repeating Mueller witch hunt
success in the 2018 election, that is typical wishful thinking. Mobilization of the base works both ways.
So what is the game plan for DemoRats (aka "neoliberal democrats" or "corporate democrats" -- the dominant Clinton faction
of the Democratic Party) is completely unclear.
I doubt that they will gain anything from impeachment Kabuki theater, where both sides are afraid to discuss real issues like
Douma false flag and other real Trump crimes.
Most Democratic candidates such as Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar will lose from this impeachment theater. Candidates who can
gain, such as Major Pete and Bloomberg does not matter that much.
It's amazing all the money in the State Department and other intelligence agencies should be
attracting the best minds. Yet a bunch of us sitting here watching this from our boring
office jobs realize how genuinely stupid US foreign policy has been.
A separate Sunni state in West Iraq would be doomed. We need to leave these people alone,
we've made enough foolish mistakes and this will get a lot of people killed. That's along
with US troops being put in harms way for ridiculous reasons like stealing Syrian oil and now
occupying Iraq against their parliaments wishes.
Back in the day you told someone you were American and they wanted to shake your hand and
ask you about this place or that. Now they want to spit in our faces
The deep state clearly is running the show (with some people unexpected imput -- see Trump
;-)
Elections now serve mainly for the legitimizing of the deep state rule; election of a
particular individual can change little, although there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch. If the individual stray too much form the elite "forign policy consensus" he
ether will be JFKed or Russiagated (with the Special Prosecutor as the fist act and impeachment
as the second act of the same Russiagate drama)
But a talented (or reckless) individual can speed up some process that are already under way.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process of destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal
empire considerably. Especially by launching the trade war with China. He also managed to
discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to believe A politician will/can change anything and give your consent to
war criminals and traitors?
NO person(s) WILL EVER get to the top in imperial/vassal state politics without being on the
rentier class side, the cognitive dissonans in voting for known liars, war criminals and
traitors would kill me or fry my brain. TINA is a lie and "she" is a real bitch that deserves
to be thrown on the dump off history, YOUR vote is YOUR consent to murder, theft and
treason.
DONT be a rentier class enabler STOP voting and start making your local communities better
and independent instead.
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me. <-
Norway
Of course, There Is Another Way, for example, kvetching. We can boldly show that we are
upset, and pessimistic. One upset pessimists reach critical mass we will think about some
actions.
But being upset and pessimistic does fully justify inactivity. In particular, given the
nature of social interaction networks, with spokes and hubs, dominating the network requires
the control of relatively few nodes. The nature of democracy always allows for leverage
takeover, starting from dominating within small to the entire nation in few steps. As it was
nicely explained by Prof. Overton, there is a window of positions that the vast majority
regards as reasonable, non-radical etc. One reason that powers to be invest so much energy
vilifying dissenters, Russian assets of late, is to keep them outside the Overton window.
Having a candidate elected that the curators of Overton window hate definitely shakes the
situation with the potential of shifting the window. There were some positive symptoms after
Trump was elected, but negatives prevail. "Why not we just kill him" idea entered the window,
together with "we took their oil because we have guts and common sense".
From that point of view, visibility of Tulsi and election of Sanders will solve some
problems but most of all, it will make big changes in Overton window.
Elections now serve mainly the legitimizing of the deep state rule function; election of a
partuclar induvudual can change little, althouth there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process od destruction of the USA-centered
neoliberal empire considerably. Especially by lauching the trade war with China. He also
managed to discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush
II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
In a day like yesterday....US merits to remain in Iraq getting 50% oil revenues while
contributing zero to rebuilt the country they previosuly destroyed and funding and spreading
chaos, unrest and terrorism...
On this day in 1991, the US bombed an infant formula production plant in Iraq as part of
Operation Desert Storm. The US lied, calling it a biological weapons facility, but in
actuality, "it was the only source of infant formula food for children one year and younger
in Iraq."
Another unforced error. What a politically naive (or evil) twat, this Elithabeth Warren
is
"I can't think of more devastating news if you're running one of these campaigns for
president than the news that your candidate is going to be bound to a desk in Washington, day
after day, in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses." ~Obama's former campaign manager David
Axelrod
Sanders and Warren have the most to lose from a Senate impeachment trial. Iowa is Feb 3 and
New Hampshire is Feb 11. As McConnell told reporters "A number of Democratic senators are running
for president. I'm sure they're gonna be excited to be here in their chairs not being able to say
anything during the pndency of this trial. So hopefully we'll work our way through it and finish
it in not too lengthy a process,"
Clinton trial ran from Jan. 7 until Feb. 12, approximately five weeks. So if McConnell is
shrewd, he will ensure that Sanders and Warren were absent from both Iowa is Feb 3 and Feb
11.
This, however, is an outright lie. If Democrats truly valued America over their own partisan
interests, they wouldn't have forced a hoax impeachment through government, despite the
overwhelming opposition against it. Moreover, if "country over party" mattered to Democrats,
then they wouldn't have commenced talks about impeachment since before the inception of Trump's
presidency.
A new year and new decade may be upon us, but this doesn't mean that Democrats are any less
terrified of seeing their impeachment sham die in the Senate.
As a matter of fact, 2020 Democrat and Sen. Elizabeth Warren spent New Year's Eve raging
against her Republican colleagues and making baseless accusations against Trump, per reports
from Washington Examiner.
Reviewing Warren's Tirade Against Senate Republicans The 2020 socialist's remarks about
Republican members of the Senate came during her New Year's Eve address in Boston,
Massachusetts. Warren lamented over the reality that Democrats will not be able to bully or
intimidate Republicans into voting for a partisan-driven, unfounded sham. This blows Warren's
far-left, unwell mind, so she opted to blast GOP senators as " fawning, spineless defenders" of
President Trump's supposed "crimes."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks in Boston: "[President Trump] has tried to squeeze foreign
governments to advance his own political fortunes. Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress
have turned into fawning spineless defenders of his crimes." pic.twitter.com/sGyLqsA8C7
Shortly thereafter, Warren followed up with the lie that ramming the weakest and thinnest
impeachment through government "brought no joy" to House Democrats. This, of course, just isn't
accurate; House Rep. Rashida Tlaib posted a gleeful livestream prior to the "impeachment" where
she bragged about being "on [her] way to the United States House floor" in order to "impeach
President Trump."
Finally, Warren declared that conservative senators need to "choose truth over politics" or
else President Trump will attempt to "cheat his way" via the 2020 election.
Misplaced Outrage As per usual with Democrats, the outrage is misplaced and misguided. If
Warren is so eager for a trial, then she should be directed this animosity towards House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi who continues to hoard the impeachment articles.
f left-wing Congress members truly believed they had a solid case against the president,
they'd be more than eager for the Senate to receive the articles and begin conducting a trial;
instead, however, raging at President Trump and Senate Republicans is easier than acknowledge
the true reality here.
Democrats forced the weakest, thinnest, and fastest impeachment through the House. The
president did absolutely nothing wrong and will be acquitted either when the Senate holds a
trial or by default if Pelosi keeps hoarding the articles.
She is now trapped and has no space for maneuvering. She now needs to share the path to the
cliff with Pelosi gang to the very end. Not a good position to be in.
Analysis: The Massachusetts senator's forceful call to begin the process of removing Trump
set her apart from the crowded primary field.
While most fellow 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls ducked and dived to find safe ground
-- and party elders solemnly warned against over-reach -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren stepped boldly
out into the open late Friday and called on the House to begin an impeachment process against
President Donald Trump based on special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
The Massachusetts senator and 2020 Democratic presidential contender slammed Trump for
having "welcomed" the help of a "hostile" foreign government and having obstructed the probe
into an attack on an American election.
"To ignore a President's repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal
behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country," Warren tweeted. "The severity
of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political
considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate
impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States."
It was a rare moment in a crowded and unsettled primary: A seized opportunity for a
candidate to cut through the campaign trail cacophony and define the terms of a debate that
will rage throughout the contest.
CNN and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Democrat from Massachusetts, with powerful establishment
support, combined to stage a provocation this week aimed at slowing down or derailing the
campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party presidential
nomination.
Through CNN, the Massachusetts senator's camp first alleged that Sanders told her in
December 2018 a woman could not win a presidential election, an allegation Sanders strenuously
refuted. At the Democratic debate on Tuesday night, CNN's moderator acted as though the claim
was an indisputable reality, leading to a post-debate encounter between Warren and Sanders,
which the network just happened to record and circulate widely.
This is a political stink bomb, borrowed from the #MeToo playbook, typical of American
politics in its putrefaction. Unsubstantiated allegations are turned into "facts," these
"facts" become the basis for blackening reputations and damaging careers and shifting politics
continuously to the right. Anyone who denies the allegations is a "sexist" who refuses "to
believe women."
The Democratic establishment is fearful of Sanders, not so much for his
nationalist-reformist program and populist demagogy, but for what his confused but growing
support portends: the movement to the left by wide layers of the American population. The US
ruling elite seems convinced, like some wretched, self-deluded potentate of old, that if it can
simply stamp out the unpleasant "noise," the rising tide of disaffection will dissipate.
CNN's operation began Monday when it posted a "bombshell" article by M.J. Lee with the
headline, "Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can't win,
sources say."
The article animatedly begins, "The stakes were high when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
Warren met at Warren's apartment in Washington, DC, one evening in December 2018." Among other
things, the CNN piece reported, the pair "discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump,
and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could
make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders
responded that he did not believe a woman could win."
Lee continues, "The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two
people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the
meeting." In reality, the story is based on the account of one individual with a
considerable interest in cutting into Sanders' support, i.e., Elizabeth Warren. As the New
York Times primly noted, "Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders were the only people in the
room."
The absurd CNN article goes on, "After publication of this story, Warren herself backed up
this account of the meeting, saying in part in a statement Monday, 'I thought a woman could
win; he disagreed.'" In other words, Warren "backed up" what could only have been her own
account insofar as she was the only person there besides Sanders!
After a pro forma insertion of Sanders' categorical denial that he ever made such a
statement, in which he reasonably observed, "Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course!
After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016," Lee plowed right
ahead as though his comments were not worth responding to. She carries on, "The conversation
also illustrates the skepticism among not only American voters but also senior Democratic
officials that the country is ready to elect a woman as president" and, further, "The
revelation that Sanders expressed skepticism that Warren could win the presidency because she
is a woman is particularly noteworthy now, given that Warren is the lone female candidate at
the top of the Democratic field."
This is one of the ways in which the sexual misconduct witch-hunt has poisoned American
politics, although by no means the only one. Warren's claims about a private encounter simply
"must be believed."
During the Democratic candidates' debate itself Tuesday night, moderator Abby Phillips
addressed Sanders in the following manner: "Let's now turn to an issue that's come up in the
last 48 hours [because Warren and CNN generated it]. Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday that
-- and Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you
did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that? " (emphasis
added). Sanders denied once again that he had said any such thing. Phillips persisted, "Sen.
Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you're saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman
could not win the election?" Sanders confirmed that. Insultingly, Phillips immediately turned
to Warren and continued, "Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman
could not win the election?" This was all clearly prepared ahead of time, a deliberate effort
to embarrass Sanders and portray him as a liar and a male chauvinist.
Following the debate, Warren had the audacity to confront the Vermont senator, refuse to
shake his hand and assert, "I think you called me a liar on national TV." When Sanders seemed
startled by her remark, she repeated it. CNN managed to capture the sound and preserve it for
widespread distribution.
The WSWS gives no support to Sanders, a phony "socialist" whose efforts are aimed at
channeling working-class anger at social inequality, poverty and war back into the big business
Democratic Party. He is only the latest in a long line of figures in American political history
devoted to maintaining the Democrats' stranglehold over popular opposition and blocking the
development of a broad-based socialist movement.
Nonetheless, the CNN-Warren "dirty tricks" operation is an obvious hatchet job and an attack
from the right. Accordingly, the New York Times and other major outlets have been
gloating and attempting to make something out of it since Tuesday night. The obvious purpose is
to "raise serious questions" about Sanders and dampen support for him, among women especially.
It should be recalled that in 2016 Sanders led Hillary Clinton among young women by 30
percentage points.
Michelle Cottle, a member of the Times editorial board (in "Why Questions on Women
Candidates Strike a Nerve," January 15), asserted that the issue raised by the Warren-Sanders
clash was "not about Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren. Not really. And Ms. Warren was right to try to
shift the focus to the bigger picture -- even if some critics will sneer that she's playing
'the gender card.'"
Cottle's "bigger picture," it turned out, primarily involved smearing Sanders. The present
controversy, she went on, "has resurfaced some of Mr. Sanders's past women troubles. His 2016
campaign faced multiple accusations of sexual harassment, pay inequities and other gender-based
mistreatment. Asked early last year if he knew about the complaints, Mr. Sanders's reaction was
both defensive and dismissive: 'I was a little bit busy running around the country'."
After Cottle attempted to convince her readers, on the basis of dubious numbers, that
Americans were perhaps too backward to elect a female president, she continued, again, taking
as good coin Warren's allegations, "This less-than-inspiring data -- along with from-the-trail
anecdotes about the gender-based voter anxiety that Ms. Warren and Ms. [Amy] Klobuchar have
been facing -- help explain why Mr. Sanders's alleged remarks struck such a nerve. Women
candidates and their supporters aren't simply outraged that he could be so wrong. They're
worried that he might be right." The remarks he denies making have nonetheless "outraged"
Cottle and others.
The Times more and more openly expresses fears about a possible Sanders'
nomination. Op-ed columnist David Leonhardt headlined his January 14 piece, "President Bernie
Sanders," and commented, "Sanders has a real shot of winning the Democratic nomination. Only a
couple of months after he suffered a mild heart attack, that counts as a surprise." Leonhardt
downplays Sanders' socialist credentials, observing that "while he [Sanders] would probably
fail to accomplish his grandest goals (again, like Medicare for all), he would also move the
country in a positive direction. He might even move it to closer to a center-left ideal than a
more moderate candidate like Biden would."
On Thursday, right-wing Times columnist David Brooks argued pathetically against
the existence of "class war" in "The Bernie Sanders Fallacy." He ridiculed what he described as
"Bernie Sanders's class-war Theyism: The billionaires have rigged the economy to benefit
themselves and impoverish everyone else." According to Brooks, Sanders is a Bolshevik who
believes that "Capitalism is a system of exploitation in which capitalist power completely
dominates worker power." Accusing Sanders of embracing such an ABC socialist proposition is all
nonsense, but it reveals something about what keeps pundits like Brooks up at night.
The Times is determined, as the WSWS has noted more than once, to exclude anything
from the 2020 election campaign that might arouse or encourage the outrage of workers and young
people. The past year of global mass protest has only deepened and strengthened that
determination.
The Times , CNN and other elements of the media and political establishment, and
behind them powerful financial-corporate interests, don't want Sanders and they don't
necessarily want Warren either, who engaged in certain loose talk about taxing the
billionaires, before retreating in fright. They want a campaign dominated by race, gender and
sexual orientation -- not class and not social inequality. The #MeToo-style attack on Sanders
reflects both the "style" and the right-wing concerns of these social layers.
One of two things is wrong with America: Either the entire system is broken or is on the
verge of breaking, and we need someone to bring about radical, structural change, or -- we
don't need that at all! Which is it? Who can say? Certainly not me, and that is why I am
telling you now which candidate to vote for.
"... The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil imports. So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. ..."
"... After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I also refused, and he threatened [that there would be] massive demonstrations to topple me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement." ..."
"... It could also explain why President Trump is so concerned about China's growing foothold in Iraq, since it risks causing not only the end of the U.S. military hegemony in the country but could also lead to major trouble for the petrodollar system and the U.S.' position as a global financial power. Trump's policy aimed at stopping China and Iraq's growing ties is clearly having the opposite effect, showing that this administration's "gangster diplomacy" only serves to make the alternatives offered by countries like China and Russia all the more attractive. ..."
After the feed was cut, MPs who were present wrote down Abdul-Mahdi's remarks, which were
then given to the Arabic news outlet Ida'at .
Per that transcript , Abdul-Mahdi stated that:
The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They
have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have
bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil imports.
So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement
with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. "
Abdul-Mahdi continued his remarks, noting that pressure from the Trump administration over
his negotiations and subsequent dealings with China grew substantially over time, even
resulting in death threats to himself and his defense minister:
After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened [that there would be] massive demonstrations to topple me.
Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the
event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be
mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and
kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and
submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement."
"I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist to this day
on canceling the China agreement. When the defense minister said that those killing the
demonstrators was a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically threatened myself
and the defense minister in the event that there was more talk about this third party."
Very few English language outlets
reported on Abdul-Mahdi's comments. Tom Luongo, a Florida-based Independent Analyst and publisher of The Gold
Goats 'n Guns Newsletter, told MintPress that the likely reasons for the "surprising"
media silence over Abdul-Mahdi's claims were because "It never really made it out into official
channels " due to the cutting of the video feed during Iraq's Parliamentary session and due to
the fact that "it's very inconvenient and the media -- since Trump is doing what they want him
to do, be belligerent with Iran, protected Israel's interests there."
"They aren't going to contradict him on that if he's playing ball," Luongo added, before
continuing that the media would nonetheless "hold onto it for future reference .If this comes
out for real, they'll use it against him later if he tries to leave Iraq." "Everything in
Washington is used as leverage," he added.
Given the lack of media coverage and the cutting of the video feed of Abdul-Mahdi's full
remarks, it is worth pointing out that the narrative he laid out in his censored speech not
only fits with the timeline of recent events he discusses but also the tactics known to have
been employed behind closed doors by the Trump administration, particularly after Mike Pompeo
left the CIA to become Secretary of State.
For instance, Abdul-Mahdi's delegation to China ended on September 24, with the protests
against his government that Trump reportedly threatened to start on October 1. Reports of a
"third side" firing on Iraqi protesters were picked up by major media outlets at the time, such
as in this
BBC report which stated:
Reports say the security forces opened fire, but another account says unknown gunmen
were responsible .a source in Karbala told the BBC that one of the dead was a guard at a
nearby Shia shrine who happened to be passing by. The source also said the origin of the
gunfire was unknown and it had targeted both the protesters and security forces .
(emphasis added)"
U.S.-backed protests in other countries, such as in Ukraine in 2014, also saw evidence of a
"
third side " shooting both protesters and security forces alike.
After six weeks of intense protests , Abdul-Mahdi
submitted
his resignation on November 29, just a few days after Iraq's
Foreign Minister praised the new deals, including the "oil for reconstruction" deal, that had
been signed with China. Abdul-Mahdi has since stayed on as Prime Minister in a caretaker role
until Parliament decides on his replacement.
Abdul-Mahdi's claims of the covert pressure by the Trump administration are buttressed by
the use of similar tactics against Ecuador, where, in July 2018, a U.S. delegation at the
United Nations
threatened the nation with punitive trade measures and the withdrawal of military aid if
Ecuador moved forward with the introduction of a UN resolution to "protect, promote and support
breastfeeding."
The New York Times reported at the time that the U.S. delegation was seeking to
promote the interests of infant formula manufacturers. If the U.S. delegation is willing to use
such pressure on nations for promoting breastfeeding over infant formula, it goes without
saying that such behind-closed-doors pressure would be significantly more intense if a much
more lucrative resource, e.g. oil, were involved.
Regarding Abdul-Mahdi's claims, Luongo told MintPress that it is also worth
considering that it could have been anyone in the Trump administration making threats to
Abdul-Mahdi, not necessarily Trump himself. "What I won't say directly is that I don't know it
was Trump at the other end of the phone calls. Mahdi, it is to his best advantage politically
to blame everything on Trump. It could have been Mike Pompeo or Gina Haspel talking to
Abdul-Mahdi It could have been anyone, it most likely would be someone with plausible
deniability .This [Mahdi's claims] sounds credible I firmly believe Trump is capable of making
these threats but I don't think Trump would make those threats directly like that, but it would
absolutely be consistent with U.S. policy."
Luongo also argued that the current tensions between U.S. and Iraqi leadership preceded the
oil deal between Iraq and China by several weeks, "All of this starts with Prime Minister Mahdi
starting the process of opening up the Iraq-Syria border crossing and that was announced in
August. Then, the Israeli air attacks happened in September to try and stop that from
happening, attacks on PMU forces on the border crossing along with the ammo dump attacks near
Baghdad This drew the Iraqis' ire Mahdi then tried to close the air space over Iraq, but how
much of that he can enforce is a big question."
As to why it would be to Mahdi's advantage to blame Trump, Luongo stated that Mahdi "can
make edicts all day long, but, in reality, how much can he actually restrain the U.S. or the
Israelis from doing anything? Except for shame, diplomatic shame To me, it [Mahdi's claims]
seems perfectly credible because, during all of this, Trump is probably or someone else is
shaking him [Mahdi] down for the reconstruction of the oil fields [in Iraq] Trump has
explicitly stated "we want the oil."'
As Luongo noted, Trump's interest in the U.S. obtaining a significant share of Iraqi oil
revenue is hardly a secret. Just last March, Trump
asked Abdul-Mahdi "How about the oil?" at the end of a meeting at the White House,
prompting Abdul-Mahdi to ask "What do you mean?" To which Trump responded "Well, we did a lot,
we did a lot over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking
about the oil," which was widely interpreted as Trump asking for part of Iraq's oil revenue in
exchange for the steep costs of the U.S.' continuing its now unwelcome military presence in
Iraq.
With Abdul-Mahdi having rejected Trump's "oil for reconstruction" proposal in favor of
China's, it seems likely that the Trump administration would default to so-called "gangster
diplomacy" tactics to pressure Iraq's government into accepting Trump's deal, especially given
the fact that China's deal was a much better offer. While Trump demanded half of Iraq's oil
revenue in exchange for completing reconstruction projects (according to Abdul-Mahdi), the deal
that was signed between Iraq and China would see around
20 percen t of Iraq's oil revenue go to China in exchange for reconstruction. Aside from
the potential loss in Iraq's oil revenue, there are many reasons for the Trump administration
to feel threatened by China's recent dealings in Iraq.
The Iraq-China oil deal – a prelude to something more?
When Abdul-Mahdi's delegation traveled to Beijing last September, the "oil for
reconstruction" deal was only
one of eight total agreements that were established. These agreements cover a range of
areas, including financial, commercial, security, reconstruction, communication, culture,
education and foreign affairs in addition to oil. Yet, the oil deal is by far the most
significant.
Per the agreement, Chinese firms will work on various reconstruction projects in exchange
for roughly 20 percent of Iraq's oil exports, approximately 100,00 barrels per day, for a
period of 20 years. According to Al-Monitor
, Abdul-Mahdi had the following to say about the deal: "We agreed [with Beijing] to set up a
joint investment fund, which the oil money will finance," adding that the agreement prohibits
China from monopolizing projects inside Iraq, forcing Bejing to work in cooperation with
international firms.
The agreement is similar to one negotiated
between Iraq and China in 2015 when Abdul-Mahdi was serving as Iraq's oil minister. That
year, Iraq joined China's Belt and Road Initiative in a deal that also involved exchanging oil
for investment, development and construction projects and saw China awarded several projects as
a result. In a notable similarity to recent events, that deal was put on hold due to "political
and security tensions" caused by unrest and the surge of ISIS in Iraq, that is until
Abdul-Mahdi saw Iraq rejoin the
initiative again late last year through the agreements his government signed with China
last September.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, center left, meet with Iraqi Prime Minister
Adil Abdul-Mahdi, center right, in Beijing, Sept. 23, 2019. Lintao Zhang | AP
Notably, after recent tensions between the U.S. and Iraq over the assassination of Soleimani
and the U.S.' subsequent refusal to remove its troops from Iraq despite parliament's demands,
Iraq quietly announced that it would dramatically increase its oil exports to China to
triple the
amount established in the deal signed in September. Given Abdul-Mahdi's recent claims about
the true forces behind Iraq's recent protests and Trump's threats against him being directly
related to his dealings with China, the move appears to be a not-so-veiled signal from
Abdul-Mahdi to Washington that he plans to deepen Iraq's partnership with China, at least for
as long as he remains in his caretaker role.
Iraq's decision to dramatically increase its oil exports to China came just one day after
the U.S. government
threatened to cut off Iraq's access to its central bank account, currently held at the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, an account that
currently holds $35 billion in Iraqi oil revenue. The account was
set up after the U.S. invaded and began occupying Iraq in 2003 and Iraq currently removes
between $1-2 billion per month to cover essential government expenses. Losing access to its oil
revenue stored in that account would lead to the "
collapse " of Iraq's government, according to Iraqi government officials who spoke to
AFP .
Though Trump publicly promised to rebuke Iraq for the expulsion of U.S. troops via
sanctions, the threat to cut off Iraq's access to its account at the NY Federal Reserve Bank
was delivered privately and directly to the Prime Minister, adding further credibility to
Abdul-Mahdi's claims that Trump's most aggressive attempts at pressuring Iraq's government are
made in private and directed towards the country's Prime Minister.
Though Trump's push this time was about preventing the expulsion of U.S. troops from Iraq,
his reasons for doing so may also be related to concerns about China's growing foothold in the
region. Indeed, while Trump has now lost his desired share of Iraqi oil revenue (50 percent) to
China's counteroffer of 20 percent, the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq may see American
troops replaced with their Chinese counterparts as well, according to Tom Luongo.
"All of this is about the U.S. maintaining the fiction that it needs to stay in Iraq So,
China moving in there is the moment where they get their toe hold for the Belt and Road
[Initiative]," Luongo argued. "That helps to strengthen the economic relationship between Iraq,
Iran and China and obviating the need for the Americans to stay there. At some point, China
will have assets on the ground that they are going to want to defend militarily in the event of
any major crisis. This brings us to the next thing we know, that Mahdi and the Chinese
ambassador discussed that very thing in the wake of the Soleimani killing."
Indeed, according to news reports, Zhang Yao -- China's ambassador to Iraq -- " conveyed
Beijing's readiness to provide military assistance" should Iraq's government request it
soon after Soleimani's assassination. Yao made the offer a day after Iraq's parliament voted to
expel American troops from the country. Though it is currently unknown how Abdul-Mahdi
responded to the offer, the timing likely caused no shortage of concern among the Trump
administration about its rapidly waning influence in Iraq. "You can see what's coming here,"
Luongo told MintPress of the recent Chinese offer to Iraq, "China, Russia and Iran are
trying to cleave Iraq away from the United States and the U.S. is feeling very threatened by
this."
Russia is also playing a role in the current scenario as Iraq initiated talks with Moscow
regarding the
possible purchase of one of its air defense systems last September, the same month that
Iraq signed eight deals, including the oil deal with China. Then, in the wake of Soleimani's
death, Russia
again offered the air defense systems to Iraq to allow them to better defend their air
space. In the past, the U.S.
has threatened allied countries with sanctions and other measures if they purchase Russian
air defense systems as opposed to those manufactured by U.S. companies.
The U.S.' efforts to curb China's growing influence and presence in Iraq amid these new
strategic partnerships and agreements are limited, however, as the U.S. is increasingly relying on China
as part of its Iran policy, specifically in its goal of reducing Iranian oil export to zero.
China remains Iran's main crude oil and condensate importer, even after it reduced its imports
of Iranian oil significantly following U.S. pressure last year. Yet, the U.S. is now attempting to
pressure China to stop buying Iranian oil completely or face sanctions while also
attempting to privately sabotage the China-Iraq oil deal. It is highly unlikely China will
concede to the U.S. on both, if any, of those fronts, meaning the U.S. may be forced to choose
which policy front (Iran "containment" vs. Iraq's oil dealings with China) it values more in
the coming weeks and months.
Furthermore, the recent signing of the "phase one" trade deal with China revealed another
potential facet of the U.S.' increasingly complicated relationship with Iraq's oil sector given
that the trade deal
involves selling U.S. oil and gas to China at very low cost , suggesting that the Trump
administration may also see the Iraq-China oil deal result in Iraq emerging as a potential
competitor for the U.S. in selling cheap oil to China, the world's top oil importer.
The Petrodollar and the Phantom of the Petroyuan
In his televised statements last week following Iran's military response to the U.S.
assassination of General Soleimani, Trump insisted that the U.S.' Middle East policy is no
longer being directed by America's vast oil requirements. He
stated specifically that:
Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before
and America has achieved energy independence. These historic accomplishments changed our
strategic priorities. These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible. And
options in the Middle East became available. We are now the number-one producer of oil and
natural gas anywhere in the world. We are independent, and we do not need Middle East
oil . (emphasis added)"
Yet, given the centrality of the recent Iraq-China oil deal in guiding some of the Trump
administration's recent Middle East policy moves, this appears not to be the case. The
distinction may lie in the fact that, while the U.S. may now be less dependent on oil imports
from the Middle East, it still very much needs to continue to dominate how oil is traded and
sold on international markets in order to maintain its status as both a global military
and financial superpower.
Indeed, even if the U.S. is importing less Middle Eastern oil, the petrodollar system --
first forged in the 1970s -- requires that the U.S. maintains enough control over the global
oil trade so that the world's largest oil exporters, Iraq among them, continue to sell their
oil in dollars. Were Iraq to sell oil in another currency, or trade oil for services, as it
plans to do with China per the recently inked deal, a significant portion of Iraqi oil would
cease to generate a demand for dollars, violating the key tenet of the petrodollar
system.
Chinese representatives speak to defense personnel during a weapons expo organized
by the Iraqi defense ministry in Baghdad, March, 2017. Karim Kadim | AP
The takeaway from the petrodollar phenomenon is that as long as countries need oil, they
will need the dollar. As long as countries demand dollars, the U.S. can continue to go into
massive amounts of debt to fund its network of global military bases, Wall Street bailouts,
nuclear missiles, and tax cuts for the rich."
Thus, the use of the petrodollar has created a system whereby U.S. control of oil sales of
the largest oil exporters is necessary, not just to buttress the dollar, but also to support
its global military presence. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the issue of the U.S. troop
presence in Iraq and the issue of Iraq's push for oil independence against U.S. wishes have
become intertwined. Notably, one of the architects of the petrodollar system and the man who
infamously described U.S. soldiers as "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign
policy", former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has been advising
Trump and informing his China policy since 2016.
This take was also expressed by economist Michael Hudson,
who recently noted that U.S. access to oil, dollarization and U.S. military strategy are
intricately interwoven and that Trump's recent Iraq policy is intended "to escalate America's
presence in Iraq to keep control of the region's oil reserves," and, as Hudson says, "to back
Saudi Arabia's Wahabi troops (ISIS, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are
actually America's foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of
the U.S. dollar."
Hudson further asserts that it was Qassem Soleimani's efforts to promote Iraq's oil
independence at the expense of U.S. imperial ambitions that served one of the key motives
behind his assassination.
America opposed General Suleimani above all because he was fighting against ISIS and other
U.S.-backed terrorists in their attempt to break up Syria and replace Assad's regime with a
set of U.S.-compliant local leaders – the old British "divide and conquer" ploy. On
occasion, Suleimani had cooperated with U.S. troops in fighting ISIS groups that got "out of
line" meaning the U.S. party line. But every indication is that he was in Iraq to work
with that government seeking to regain control of the oil fields that President Trump has
bragged so loudly about grabbing. (emphasis added)"
Hudson adds that " U.S. neocons feared Suleimani's plan to help Iraq assert control of its
oil and withstand the terrorist attacks supported by U.S. and Saudi's on Iraq. That is what
made his assassination an immediate drive."
While other factors -- such as pressure
from U.S. allies such as Israel -- also played a factor in the decision to kill Soleimani,
the decision to assassinate him on Iraqi soil just hours before he was set to meet with
Abdul-Mahdi in a diplomatic role suggests that the underlying tensions caused by Iraq's push
for oil independence and its oil deal with China did play a factor in the timing of his
assassination. It also served as a threat to Abdul-Mahdi, who has claimed that the U.S.
threatened to kill both him and his defense minister just weeks prior over tensions directly
related to the push for independence of Iraq's oil sector from the U.S.
It appears that the ever-present role of the petrodollar in guiding U.S. policy in the
Middle East remains unchanged. The petrodollar has long been a driving factor behind the U.S.'
policy towards Iraq specifically, as one of the key triggers for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was
Saddam Hussein's decision to sell Iraqi oil in Euros opposed to dollars beginning in the year
2000. Just weeks before the invasion began, Hussein boasted that Iraq's Euro-based oil revenue
account was earning a higher interest rate than
it would have been if it had continued to sell its oil in dollars, an apparent signal to other
oil exporters that the petrodollar system was only really benefiting the United States at their
own expense.
Beyond current efforts to stave off Iraq's oil independence and keep its oil trade aligned
with the U.S., the fact that the U.S. is now seeking to limit China's ever-growing role in
Iraq's oil sector is also directly related to China's publicly known efforts to create its own
direct competitor to the petrodollar, the petroyuan.
Since 2017, China has made its plans for the petroyuan -- a direct competitor to the
petrodollar -- no secret, particularly after China eclipsed the U.S. as the world's largest
importer of oil.
The new strategy is to enlist the energy markets' help: Beijing may introduce a new way to
price oil in coming months -- but unlike the contracts based on the U.S. dollar that currently dominate global
markets, this benchmark would use China's own currency. If there's widespread adoption, as the
Chinese hope, then that will mark a step toward challenging the greenback's status as the
world's most powerful currency .The plan is to price oil in yuan using a gold-backed futures contract in
Shanghai, but the road will be long and arduous."
If the U.S. continues on its current path and pushes Iraq further into the arms of China and
other U.S. rival states, it goes without saying that Iraq -- now a part of China's Belt and Road
Initiative -- may soon favor a petroyuan system over a petrodollar system, particularly as the
current U.S. administration threatens to hold Iraq's central bank account hostage for pursuing
policies Washington finds unfavorable.
It could also explain why President Trump is so concerned about China's growing foothold
in Iraq, since it risks causing not only the end of the U.S. military hegemony in the country but
could also lead to major trouble for the petrodollar system and the U.S.' position as a global
financial power. Trump's policy aimed at stopping China and Iraq's growing ties is clearly having
the opposite effect, showing that this administration's "gangster diplomacy" only serves to make
the alternatives offered by countries like China and Russia all the more attractive.
One can see how all these recent wars and military actions have a financial motive at their
core. Yet the mass of gullible Americans actually believe the reasons given, to "spread
democracy" and other wonderful things. Only a small number can see things for what they really
are. It's very frustrating to deal with the stupidity of the average person on a daily basis.
This is not Trump's policy, it is American policy and the variation is in how he implements
it. Any other person would have fallen in line with it as well. US policy has it's own inner
momentum that can't change course. The US depends upon continuation of the dollar as the
world's reserve currency. Were that to be lost the US likely would descend into chaos without
end. When the USSR came apart it was eventually able to downsize into the Russian state. We
don't have that here; there is no core ethnicity with it's own territory left anymore, it's
just a jumble. For the US it's a matter of survival.
There were brutal sanctions against Iraq in the 90s. After that the country was devastated by
the invasion of 2003. Hostility against Iran has been continuous. It's no suprise that things
are not going well in the region and that American politics failed. But this was to be
expected.
Good relations with Iran were possible. Even recently Iran thought that the nuclear
agreement could lead to better relations with the West. Iran should be our best ally in the
region because the middle classes there feel close to the West and are very friendly with
Westerners who visit the country. We could have had better results if we had tryed a more
reasonable politics. But it seems that there were other forces that wanted conflict with Iran
and the destruction of Iraq independently of the interests of the US which would have gained
from a more reasonable position. We can say the same about Russia.
After wars and sanctions the only way to hold everything together is through military
means. There was as doctrine which promoted unbridled militarism and the use of force (wasn't
there a saying that "Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus"?). Everybody who didn't
submit to our rules and interests was viewed as an enemy, military force was seen as the
solution to everything.
This is not functioning well. Americans have been decieved by this militaristic doctrine,
this is not going to work. Russia has challenged this, a part of Europe isn't very happy, in
South America you can only run the system ressorting to radical politicians like Bolsonaro
who destroy the environment and create more poverty, in other places this politics created
instability and enemies. I think it should be the time for the American elites to discuss
seriously the ways that the country has been following simply because there are better ways
to have better results.
@anonymous Yes, for the American Empire to exist (and expand) it needs the Petro-dollar,
because only if it is widely used in the world can its collapse be prevented. But why is the
dollar so shaky? Because it is no real money, based on real value, but created out of thin
air as debt and it can only function in an ever expanding pyramid scheme.
The origin of this fraud is the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. And yes that
was mainly a Jewish creation. Nobody, not even Ron Paul, dares to mention that.
Iraq's decision to dramatically increase its oil exports to China came just one day
after the U.S. government threatened to cut off Iraq's access to its central bank account,
currently held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, an account that currently holds $35
billion in Iraqi oil revenue. The account was set up after the U.S. invaded and began
occupying Iraq in 2003 and Iraq currently removes between $1-2 billion per month to cover
essential government expenses. Losing access to its oil revenue stored in that account
would lead to the "collapse" of Iraq's government, according to Iraqi government officials
who spoke to AFP.
A very revealing article.
It doesn't make sense for any country to hold reserves in the US. The Zio-Glob CIA
gangsters are ready to defraud or smash up any country that challenges their petrodollar
system. Witness Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Iran and their hostility to Russia and China.
You don't need to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out why Trump whacked
–the Mafia term–Soleimani.
Jared the Snake's Tel Aviv masters told him they wanted Zion Don to pull the trigger and
their will was done.
I voted for a President Trump and instead, got President Shecky, beholden to Jew and
Israeli interests who has bent over backwards to please the Israeli terrorists, but who will
now go back to his old shtick; pretending to be MAGA or KAG until he gets re-elected, then it
will be gloves off and most likely, another War for Israel and Wall Street in 2021.
Having an Israeli-Firster in the WH isn't unusual, but when you have a vain simpleton who
doesn't understand foreign policy or is so damned lazy, he lets a slumlord take care of it is
a prescription for a major disaster.
"... In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for all the good it did. ..."
"... The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing" -- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property, and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake news "alternative fact." ..."
In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its
ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for
all the good it did.
A few days later, Trump killed a high level Iranian military leader and I have decided a
post is in order, never mind that a round of tiddlywinks will have about the same influence as
a post here. The wars just keep on coming, no matter what we do.
Let's turn to social media where dimwits, neocon partisans, and clueless Democrats are
running wild after corporate Mafia boss and numero uno Israeli cheerleader Donald Trump ordered
a hit on Gen. Qasem Soleimani and others near Baghdad's international airport on Thursday.
Let's begin with this teleprompter reader and "presenter" from Al Jazeera:
"This is what happens when you put a narcissistic, megalomaniacal, former reality TV star
with a thin skin and a very large temper in charge of the world's most powerful military You
know who else attacks cultural sites? ISIS. The Taliban." – me on Trump/Iran on MSNBC
today: pic.twitter.com/YCRARB2anv
It is interesting how the memory of such people only goes back to the election of Donald
Trump.
The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing"
-- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property,
and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the
nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international
terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake
news "alternative fact."
Here's another idiot. He was the boss of the DNC for a while and unsuccessfully ran for
president.
Nice job trump and Pompeo you dimwits. You've completed the neocon move to have Iraq
become a satellite of Iran. You have to be the dumbest people ever to run the US government.
You can add that to being the most corrupt. Get these guys out of here. https://t.co/gQHhHSeiJQ
Once again, history is lost in a tangle of lies and omission. Centuries before John Dean
thought it might be a good idea to run for president, Persians and Shias in what is now Iraq
and Iran were crossing the border -- later drawn up by invading Brits and French -- in
pilgrimages to the shrines of Imam Husayn and Abbas in Karbala. We can't expect an arrogant
sociopath like Mr. Dean to know about Ashura, Shia pilgrimages, the Remembrance of Muharram,
and events dating back to 680 AD.
Shias from Iran pilgrimage to other Iraqi cities as well, including An-Najaf, Samarra,
Mashhad, and Baghdad (although the latter is more important to Sunnis).
Corporate fake news teleprompter reader Stephanopoulos said the Geneva Conventions
(including United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347) outlaw the targeting of cultural
sites, which Trump said he will bomb.
Trump said there are 52 different sites; the number is not arbitrary, it is based on the 52
hostages, many of them CIA officers, taken hostage during Iran's revolution against the
US-installed Shah and his brutal secret police sadists.
Pompeo said Trump won't destroy Iran's cultural and heritage sites. Pompeo, as a dedicated
Zionist operative, knows damn well the US will destroy EVERYTHING of value in Iran, same as it
did in Iraq and later Libya and Syria. This includes not only cultural sites, but civilian
infrastructure -- hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, and mosques.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The Geneva Conventions outlaws attacks on cultural objects & places of
worship. Why is Trump threatening Iran w/ war crimes?
POMPEO: We'll behave lawfully
S: So to be clear, Trump's threat wasn't accurate?
Although I believe Jill Stein is living in a Marxian fantasy world, I agree with her tweet
in regard to the Zionist hit on Soleimani:
Now THIS is grounds for #impeachment
– treachery unleashing the unthinkable for Americans & people the world over: Trump
asked Iraqi prime minister to mediate with #Iran then
assassinated Soleimani – on a mediation mission. https://t.co/f0F9FEMALD
Trump should be impeached -- tried and imprisoned -- not in response to some dreamed-up and
ludicrous Russian plot or even concern about the opportunist Hunter Biden using his father's
position to make millions in uber-corrupt Ukraine, but because he is a war criminal responsible
for killing women and children.
As for the planned forever military occupation of Iraq,
USA Today reports:
Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told lawmakers that a timetable for the withdrawal
of all foreign troops, including U.S. ones, was required "for the sake of our national
sovereignty." About 5,000 American troops are in various parts of Iraq.
The latest:
-- Iraqi lawmakers voted to oust U.S. troops
-- U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS has paused operations
-- Hundreds of thousands mourned General Suleimani in Iran
-- President Trump said the U.S. has 52 possible targets in Iran in case of retaliation
https://t.co/pmUuAQdKlc
No way in hell will Sec. State Pompeo and his Zionist neocon handlers allow this to happen
without a fight. However, it shouldn't be too difficult for the Iraqis to expel 5,000
brainwashed American soldiers from the country, bombed to smithereens almost twenty years ago
by Bush the Neocon Idiot Savant.
Never mind Schumer's pretend concern about another war. This friend of Israel from New York
didn't go on national television and excoriate Obama and his cutthroat Sec. of State Hillary
Clinton for killing 30,000 Libyans.
I'm concerned President Trump's impulsive foreign policy is dragging America into another
endless war in the Middle East that will make us less safe.
Meanwhile, it looks like social media is burning the midnight oil in order to prevent their
platforms being used to argue against Trump's latest Zionist-directed insanity.
It is absolutely crazy that Twitter is auto-locking the accounts of anyone who posts this
"No war on Iran" image, and forcing them to delete the anti-war tweet in order to unlock
their account.
This is complete and utter bullshit, but I'm sure the American people will gobble it down
without question. Trump's advisers are neocons and they are seriously experienced in the art of
promoting and engineering assassination, cyber-attacks, invasions, and mass murder.
Newsmax scribbler John Cardillo thinks he has it all figure out.
"In mid-October Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and
other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using
sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran "
Imagine this, however improbable and ludicrous: Iran invades America and assassinates
General Hyten or General McConville, both top members of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now
imagine the response by the "exceptional nation."
We can't leave out the Christian Zionist from Indiana, Mike Pence. Mike wants you to believe
Iran was responsible for 9/11, thus stirring up the appropriate animosity and consensus for
mass murder.
Neither Iran nor Soleimani were linked to the terror attack in the "9/11 Commission
Report." Pence didn't even get the number of hijackers right. https://t.co/QtQZm2Yyh9
Finally, here is the crown jewel of propaganda -- in part responsible for the death of well
over a million Iraqis -- The New York Times showing off its rampant hypocrisy.
In Opinion
The editorial board writes, "It is crucial that influential Republican senators like
Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind President Trump of his promise to keep
America out of foreign quagmires" https://t.co/2swusvBWbg
Never mind Judith Miller, the Queen of NYT pro-war propaganda back in the day, spreading
neocon fabricated lies about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. America -- or
rather the United States (the government) -- is addicted to quagmires and never-ending war.
This is simply more anti-Trump bullshit by the NYT editorial board. The newspaper loves war
waged in the name of Israel, but only if jumpstarted by Democrats.
Trump the fool, the fact-free reality TV president will eventually unleash the dogs of war
against Iran, much to the satisfaction of Israel, its racist Zionists, Israel-first neocons in
America, and the chattering pro-war class of "journalists," and "foreign policy experts" (most
former Pentagon employees).
Expect more nonsense like that dispensed by the robot Mike Pence, the former tank commander
now serving as Sec. of State, and any number of neocon fellow travelers, many with coveted blue
checkmarks on Twitter while the truth-tellers are expelled from the conversation and exiled to
the political wilderness.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this
article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
"... I have no confidence in Elizabeth Warren "doing the right thing"; she might be susceptible to the pressure and to the ignominy attached to doing the disastrously wrong thing. ..."
"... *Donald Trump, for his part, is reportedly " privately obsessed " with Sanders, not, it seems, with Biden. ..."
"... From a recent episode of the Jimmy Dore Show, it's the cringe-worthy Warren "Selfie" Gimmick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5JWIiVMj6g If this doesn't scream "political novice," I don't know what will. ..."
" if she does anything less than help elect the last and only progressive with a chance,
she damages them both to Biden's benefit "
If Elizabeth Warren's candidacy becomes unviable, the pressure on her to combine her
delegates with those of Sanders -- from those supporting Bernie Sanders and those
legitimately concerned with Joe Biden's chances against Trump* -- will be enormous .
And, if , instead, Warren helps nominate Biden and Biden then goes on to lose to
Donald Trump -- as I'm all but certain he will -- it will be all too clear just who
played a pivotal role in helping to make that match-up even possible.
I have no confidence in Elizabeth Warren "doing the right thing"; she might be
susceptible to the pressure and to the ignominy attached to doing the disastrously wrong
thing.
*Donald Trump, for his part, is reportedly "
privately obsessed " with Sanders, not, it seems, with Biden.
In Sanders' case, his surge in the polls coincided with his emergence as the chief
apologist for the Iranian regime. We needed to point out that he would be dangerous as
president since he made clear he would appease terrorists and terror-sponsoring
nations.
If this is really representative of a line of attack that the Trump campaign plans to use
on him, that would be great. I can't imagine anything that would resonate less with voters.
But I was a bit surprised to see this in a Bernie fundraising mail:
The wise course would have been to stick with that nuclear agreement, enforce its
provisions, and use that diplomatic channel with Iran to address our other concerns with
Iran, including their support of terrorism.
What groups are they referring to when they say this? Hezbollah, which is part of
Parliament in Lebanon? Iraqi PMF that are loosely integrated with the Iraqi army?
Yep, Warren is a political novice, and she's extremely naive. That Massachusetts senate
seat was practically handed to her on a silver platter. She has no idea that she was played
in '16 and she's being played now.
From a recent episode of the Jimmy Dore Show, it's the cringe-worthy Warren "Selfie"
Gimmick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5JWIiVMj6g
If this doesn't scream "political novice," I don't know what will.
She endorced Hillary in 2016. That tells a lot about her... Now she backstabbed Bernie. What's next?
Notable quotes:
"... Warren has a track record of lying: lied about her dad being a janitor, hers kids going to public school, getting fired for being pregnant, and obviously the Native American heritage. ..."
"... My gut is she is going to endorse Joe Biden and prob got a tease of VP or some other role and all she had to do was kamikaze into Bernie with this. It's backfiring but at this rate and given she's too deep into it now when she drops out she'll prob back Biden as she hasn't shown the integrity to back a guy like Berni. ..."
"... She's toxic now. No one will want her has VP. Sanders supporters despise her, she comes from a small, Democratic state and she's loaded with baggage. She brings nothing to a ticket. She torpedoed any hopes or plans she might have had in that regard. ..."
"... Bernie is labeled as a socialist. Actually he is a real Roosevelt democrat. ..."
"... The most impressive thing I have witnessed about Bernie is that he can extemporaneously recall and explain exactly why he voted as he did on every piece of legislation that he has cast a vote on. in. his. life. It is a remarkable talent. ..."
"... The outcome of the upcoming Iowa Caucus is too hard to predict. All the candidates are very close. Sanders needs to turnout young and working class voters to win. ..."
"... My impression is her supporters are mostly older, mostly female, and mostly centrist. Many want to elect a female pres before they die. Prior to the she said event her supporters second choice were split fairly evenly between Bernie and Biden but the latest fracas is driving her most progressive supporters to Bernie. ..."
Warren has a track record of lying: lied about her dad being a janitor, hers kids going to
public school, getting fired for being pregnant, and obviously the Native American
heritage.
As pointed here on NC she's great at grandstanding when bank CEOs are in front of her and
doing nothing following that.
My gut is she is going to endorse Joe Biden and prob got a tease of VP or some other role
and all she had to do was kamikaze into Bernie with this. It's backfiring but at this rate
and given she's too deep into it now when she drops out she'll prob back Biden as she hasn't
shown the integrity to back a guy like Berni.
I don't see how she is anyone's VP. She is too old. You want someone under 60, better 50,
particularly for an old presidential candidate. Treasury Secretary is a more powerful
position. The big appeal of being VP is maybe it positions you later to be President but that
last worked out for Bush the Senior.
She's toxic now. No one will want her has VP. Sanders supporters despise her, she comes
from a small, Democratic state and she's loaded with baggage. She brings nothing to a ticket.
She torpedoed any hopes or plans she might have had in that regard.
I've watched Bernie for years. Even long before he decided to run for president. He is the
same today as he was then. Bernie isn't afraid to advocate for something , even though he
will get a lot of backlash. I also believe he is sincere in his convictions. If he says
something he believes in it.Something you can't say for the other candidates. Bernie is by
far my first choice.
After that it would be Warren. Bernie is labeled as a socialist.
Actually he is a real Roosevelt democrat. As a life long democrat, I can't support or vote
for a Wall Street candidate. Unlike one of the other commenters, I will never vote for Trump
but instead wold vote for a third party candidate. Unfortunate the DNC will do anything to
prevent Bernie from being candidate. Progressive democrats need to get out and support a
progressive or the nomination will again be stolen by a what I call a light republican.
What is great about Bernie is that he is so sure-footed. It was visible in the hot-mic
trap Warren set for him where she got nothing, it actually hurt her.
The most impressive thing I have witnessed about Bernie is that he can extemporaneously
recall and explain exactly why he voted as he did on every piece of legislation that he has
cast a vote on. in. his. life. It is a remarkable talent.
The outcome of the upcoming Iowa Caucus is too hard to predict. All the candidates are
very close. Sanders needs to turnout young and working class voters to win. By many reports,
Warren has an excellent ground game in IA and The NY Times endorsement has given a path for
her to pick up Klobuchar voters after round one of the caucus.
Biden is a mystery to me. How
the heck is he even running. Obama pleaded with him not to. That being said, it wouldn't
surprise me if he finishes in the top two. Buttigieg is the wild card. I think the
"electability" argument will hurt him as he can't win after NH.
According to a recent poll, Elizabeth Warren is one of the most unpopular senators with
voters in her own state as measured against approval rates of all other senators in their
states. I find this very surprising for someone with a national profile. What do voters in
Massachusetts not like about her?
As for me, I find it more and more difficult to trust Warren because she takes the bait
and yields to pressure during a primary when the pressure to back down, moderate, and abandon
once championed policy positions and principles is a great deal less than it is during the
general election. Warren has gone from Medicare4All to a public option to, in the recent
debate, tweaks to the ACA. Despite her roll-out of an ambitious $10 trillion Green New Deal
plan, Warren is now to the right of Chuck "Wall Street" Schumer as evidenced by her support
of NAFTA 2.0 which utterly fails to address climate change. WTF! Where will she be during a
general election?
And her political instincts are awful as recently demonstrated by her woke, badly executed
girl power attack against a candidate who has been a committed feminist for his entire
political career.
She also has horrible constituent service. I had an issue with a federal student loan a
few years ago (I believe it was the servicer depositing money but not crediting my account
and charging me interest and late fees). After getting nowhere with the company, I tried
calling her office, figuring that as this was one of her core issues, I would get some
response, either help or at least someone who would want to record what happened to her
actual constituent. I didn't hear back for about a month, by which time I had resolved the
issue – no fees or additional interest through multiple phone calls and emails.
In other words, Elizabeth Warren's constituent service is worse than Sallie Mae's.
The stupid Ponds cold cream lie is the worst. Unless she teed up the "how do you look so
young!" question , the corrected answer is to point out the nonsense of talking about a
candidates looks and addressing actual sexism.
Instead she has a goofball answer about only using Ponds cold cream which lead to Derm
pointing out her alleged method was not good advice and also pointing out that she appears to
have used botex and fillers, which I don't think people were talking about before then, in
public.
The most generous explanation is she was caught flat-footed and, once again, showed she
has terrible instincts.
If Bernie Sanders can get it through the thick noggin of the nation that he stands for and
will implement the principles, policies, and values of the New Deal–the attitude that
got us through the Great Depression and Wotld War II–he has every chance of being
elected the next President of the United States.
Trust me. By the time it comes around you won't care who gets sworn in as you will just be
glad that all the vicious, wretched skullduggery of this year's elections will finally be
over.
And hoping you get one day of rest before the vicious, wretched skullduggery of
undermining the desires of the American people gets started. Obviously Sanders will make the
Trump years look a cake walk. Anyone else (Democrat or Trump) we will see lots of 'working
for' and 'resistance' type memes while largely doing nothing of the sort, but a whole lot of
'bipartisan' passage of terrible things.
It sounds like Sanders, in the famous 2018 conversation, may have been trying to politely
encourage EW to not run in 2020. Her moment was 2016 and she declined to run then when a
Progressive candidate was needed. Her run in 2020 to some extent divides the Progressive
vote. EW interpreted, perhaps intentionally, Sanders' words to imply that he thinks "no woman
can win in 2020", and then weaponized them against him.
The very fact that she is running at all suggests to me that she is not at heart a
Progressive and in fact does not want a Progressive candidate to win. If she had run in 2016,
Sanders would not have run in order to not divide the Progressive vote. EW knew that Sanders
would run in 2020 and planned to run anyway. It is hard for me to not interpret this to be an
intentional bid for some of the Progressive vote, in order to hold Sanders down.
I agree. She decides to do things based on her own self-interest, and uses progressives as
pawns to work her way up in DC. My guess is that Warren chickened out in 2016 and didn't run
because maybe she didn't think she had a chance against the Clintons. When Warren saw how
well Sanders did against Clinton, how close he was at winning, I think only then she decided
that 2020 was a good chance for a progressive, or someone running as a progressive candidate,
to win the nomination.
She saw how Sanders had fired up loyal progressive support in the Democratic Party. She
chickened out back then when she could have endorsed Bernie in '16, but chose not to,
probably hoping not to burn bridges with Clinton in order to get a plum role in her
administration. Her non-endorsement in '16 worries me because it shows once again that Warren
makes decisions largely based on what is good for her career, not what she thinks is better
for the country (if she really is the progressive she claims to be).
Knowing that there was now a strong progressive base ready to vote for a candidate left of
Democratic candidates like Biden and Clinton, Warren saw her entry into having a good chance
at winning the presidency. Rather than thinking about the implications for Bernie and the
possibility of dividing left-wing voters, her desire to become president was more important.
Remember, this is exactly what Bernie did not do in 2016 when he urged Warren to run, and was
willing to step aside, if she had agreed to do so.
If I had been in Sanders position, I probably would have sat down and talked to Warren
about the serious implications of the both of them running in 2020. How he had hoped to build
on the momentum from his last campaign and the sexism that was used against Clinton in 2016.
Hey, if I had been Sanders, I probably would have told Warren not to run. Not because she's a
woman, but because it would have been obvious to Bernie that with Warren running alongside
him, they would both end up splitting the progressive vote.
What is happening now between the two of them should have been no surprise to either
Bernie or Warren. They are both popular among Democrats who identify as progressive or
left-of-center. Democrats will always find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. And I agree
that when it becomes evident that one of them cannot win, either Bernie or Warren must step
aside for the good of the country and fully back the other. There is no other option if
either of them truly wants the other to win the nomination rather than Biden. I'm hoping that
Warren will do so since it is becoming more clear that Sanders is the stronger progressive
and the stronger candidate who has a better chance at beating both Biden and Trump.
If sheepdog St. Bernard Sanders begins to look like the presumptive nominee, look for a
new candidate to throw her hat into the ring. Her name: Michelle Obama.
I'm so sick of that sheepdog meme (originated by, much as a respect BAR, by a GP activist
bitter, I would say, over many years of GP ineffectuality). The elites seem to be pretty
nervous about a sheepdog.
And now we have Sanders apologizing for an op-ed in the Guardian by Zephyr Teachout
accusing Biden of corruption.
The op-ed simply says what Sanders has said all along, the system is corrupted by big
donors. Then she explicitly states the obvious, which Sanders won't at this point say but
that Trump certainly will: Biden is a prime example of serving his donors' interests to the
detriment of most of the rest of us. Sanders subsequently apologizes for Teachout's baldly
true assertion, stating that he doesn't believe that Biden is corrupt.
I guess we're meant to draw a clear distinction between legalized and illegal corruption.
I don't know. They both look like ducks to me.
I have read that Sanders is the #2 choice of many Iowans who favor JB; it makes a lot of
sense for him to not "go negative" on JB in the run-up to the caucuses.
There will be time for plainer speaking. Sanders has been clear about his views on the
corrupting influence of corporate money in politics. JB is exhibit #1 within the D primary
field and there will be plenty of opportunity to note that.
I suspect that there is a great deal of "method" in what may look to us like "madness" in
the Senator's civility.
To put it another way, I doubt very much that Sanders believes that JB's legislative
agendas were not significantly influenced by the sources of his campaign funds. And I'm sure
that attention will be drawn to this at the right time.
One can charitably affirm that one believes that JB is not a consciously corrupt ,
pay-for-play, kind of person, while also affirming that of course he has been
influenced by the powerful interests that have funded his career, and that this has not
served the interests of the American people. All in due course.
The thing is Warren would make the right argument here: that it's the system that is
corrupted, and make it well. Too bad she has shown so completely that can't be trusted as a
person, because she often looks good on paper
I think Warren misses the key point that the reason why the system is corrupted is because
the players in it are corrupted. They can be bought and sold. That is why they have no
shame.
> The thing is Warren would make the right argument here: that it's the system that is
corrupted
That's not the right answer at all. The climate crisis, for example, is not caused by a
lack of transparency in the oil industry. It is caused by capital allocation decisions by the
billionaire class and their servicers in subaltern classes.
"The real game changer around here, though, might be Iowa State University's decision,
after years of pressure, to issue new student IDs, enabling 35,000 students to vote, even
under Iowa's restrictive new voter-ID law. That's a progressive victory, and in a different
media universe, it would be a story even juicier than a handshake." Iowa is not the
Twittersphere – Laura Flanders
Thanks for giving this the attention it needs, analysis of the primary has been too light
on estimation of delegate numbers and strategy.
Prior to Warren's apparent turn to some new direction, the setup for a 3way DNC with a
progressive "coalition" was not only conceivable, but actually expected from the polls.
We are on pace for Sanders+Warren's combined delegate total to exceed Biden by a healthy
amount (say 4:3) with all others falling below 15% state by state and getting few or no
delegates. Obviously subject to snowballing in either direction, but that's the polls now and
for most of the past year.
Warren's attack on Sanders, and NYT endorsement, say the national party doesn't expect any
such coalition. Therefore Warren has made her choice. That's that.
The path to winning the Dem primary is a little narrower for Sanders, and also for Biden,
since he seems to lack the confidence of his the top strata. The DNC screws a lot up but they
know how to read polls. I'm pretty sure that running Warren in the General is not their plan
A.
Voters in Iowa and the early states (incl. TX and CA) look like they will be deciding it
all this year. The tremendous enthusiasm of Sanders followers gives him, IMO, the best ground
game of the three. Will be an interesting 6 weeks.
I do not even trust Warren to hand any delegates she gets to Sanders at this point.
Because her campaign staff is so full of Clintonites and neoliberals, she might give them to
Biden instead.
She seems to have gone full establishment at this point.
> I do not even trust Warren to hand any delegates she gets to Sanders at this point.
Because her campaign staff is so full of Clintonites and neoliberals, she might give them to
Biden instead.
The youngish rehab therapist, a woman, said this morning that of the women running, she
likes Klobuchar. "If only her voice wasn't so screechy. And I'm saying this as a woman." She
was seriously disturbed by Clinton's attack on Sanders.
Several neighbors are leaning towards Yang.
My impression is her supporters are mostly older, mostly female, and mostly centrist. Many
want to elect a female pres before they die. Prior to the she said event her supporters
second choice were split fairly evenly between Bernie and Biden but the latest fracas is
driving her most progressive supporters to Bernie.
This means most of those remaining will probably migrate to Biden if when she drops out
even if she recommends Bernie. (If 1/3 of her supporters that had Bernie as their second
choice switch to Bernie, then 60% of her remaining supporters have Biden as their second
choice.)
2016 was different, Clinton already had the older females. But there was a period where
just a little support might have tipped the scale in what was a very tight race.
Anyway, I see going forward she will be mostly holding supporters whose second choice is
Biden even as she maybe doesn't reach the 15% barrier
and same with Amy. So I hope they both stay in at least until super tue.
And While I previously thought she was a reasonable choice for veep, I now realize she'd
be an awful choice. Maybe treasury if she does endorse which she will do if Bernie looks a
winner.
How can anyone be surprised at the lack of trustworthiness from a politician who chose to
endorse Clinton in 2016 rather than Bernie? Warren has been playing the DNC game for a long
time now, which ideologically is in line with her lifelong Republican stance before changing
to the more demographically favorable party when she was 47. She's not progressive now, and
never has been or will be.
Both campaigns are backing away from greater public conflict. Whether that holds true in the
long run is anyone's guess, but my guess is that it will. Still, the following is clear:
Warren has been damaged, perhaps permanently, in the eyes of many Sanders supporters who have
considered her a good, and perhaps equivalent, second choice. Her favorability has gone way
down in their eyes and may never recover.
Warren's charge of sexism has inflamed the existing anger of many Democratic and
liberal-leaning women and relit the fire that coursed through the Sanders-Clinton primary and
beyond.
>
Rightly or wrongly, Warren's polling numbers among voters have fallen, while Sanders' polling
has held steady or improved. It's yet to be seen if the incident alters long-term
fund-raising for either candidate, but it might. For his part, Sanders has seen a post-debate
surge in funding .
So far, in other words, most of the damage has been borne by Warren as a result of the
incident. She may recover, but this could also end her candidacy by accelerating a decline
that started with public reaction to her recent stand on Medicare For All. None of this is
certain to continue, but these are the trends.
... ... ...
But if Warren's candidacy becomes unviable, as it seems it might -- and if the goal of
both camps is truly to defeat Joe Biden -- it's incumbent on Warren to drop out and
endorse her "friend and ally" Bernie Sanders as soon as it's clear she can no longer win .
(The same is true if Sanders becomes unviable, though that seems much less likely.)
Ms. Warren can do whatever she wants, certainly. But if she does anything less than help
elect the last and only progressive with a chance, she damages them both to Biden's benefit,
and frankly, helps nominate Biden. She has the right to do that, but not to claim at the same
time that she's working to further the progressive movement.
Bottom line: the corporate press has gone all-in on Warren. She simply MUST be a whore, like Obama, or Hilary/Bill
Clinton. If Warren were a real progressive, the big money would never go for her like this.
I will vote for Bernie Sanders. But I will vote for Trump over Warren. Better the moron
and agent of chaos that you know, than the calculating vicious backstabber that you
don't.
She's got the Clinton's and now Obama folks behind her.
I doubt they are thrilled with her, but probably view as someone they can work with and
the other options are worse or too low in the poll numbers. I assume Buttigieg is fine with
them, but his numbers are stuck.
Personally I cannot consider voting for a drone murderer like Trump, who cozies up to the
Saudis and has tried to cut SS and Medicare. He's shown what he is, just as Warren has. We'll
never get M4A from either one of them.
If it's not Bernie I'm voting Green. I live in a blue state that almost went for Trump
last time – my vote potentially matters and will serve as a signal. Voting for the
lesser murderous corporatist scum is what got us into this mess. I'm over it. I will not vote
for evil.
In 2016 I might just have voted for Trump, as a middle finger to the Dem establishment
that crowned HRH HRC, since at that time he had not committed any war crimes. But now, no
way. One of my unshakeable principles is that I will not vote for a war criminal. Green ,
write-in, or leave the Pres slot blank. But I hope and pray (and I'm an atheist!) that it
doesn't come to this. We really don't have another 4 years to waste on this, the earth can't
wait.
It's very unfortunate that it has come to this, but I've always been uneasy about Warren.
This incident and her accusations against Bernie solidified my suspicions about her. Her
being a Republican until her late 40s, her lies about sending her child to public school, her
lies about her father being a janitor, her plagiarized cookbook recipes, and claiming to be
Native American. It's all so bizarre to me and for a while I had believed her to have a
personality disorder that caused compulsive lying. I wanted to feel good about my vote for
Warren, but now? If she wins the nomination I'll hold my nose and vote for her, but I don't
trust her to not sell out to the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. I also don't trust
her to endorse Bernie if she drops out before the convention. She didn't endorse him in '16,
so what makes progressives think she'll do so this time. It would not surprise me in the
least if she endorsed Biden or agrees to be his running mate.
Warren is not agreement-capable. Much as it pains me to say this, the Obama administration
was correct to hold her at arm's length.
Adding, that doesn't mean that Sanders can't negotiate with her, if that must be done (to
defeat Trump). But any such negotiations cannot proceed on a basis of trust.
The most generous interpretation i can come up with is that i's possible she told the
story to several of her clintonite staffers in confidence. Those staffers went to CNN and
forced her to stand by her story, even if she didn't want to go public, because she was
threatened with staffers calling her a liar.
She might have been mad at Bernie for not bailing her out.
This version, which i don't believe, but consider it possible (not plausible) would be
arguably as bad because her staffers got the upper hand and pushed her around.
The problem is the country has become so irrational and susceptible to soundbites and
twitter shame and etc. that you can't even say "electing a women president would be
difficult" which might be true, or it becomes like Hillary's deplorable remark, we all know
it's true some Trump supporters fit the description, but it gets taken way out of context and
exaggerated beyond all recognition.
She didn't even have to deny it. Should could have just been "That was a private
conversation, I will not go into what was said in private. Bernie is a good friend of mine,
who has supported women candidates on many occasions".
"... "It looks like "Middle Class" Joe has perfected the art of taking big contributions, then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class Americans. Converting campaign contributions into legislative favors and policy positions isn't being "moderate". It is the kind of transactional politics Americans have come to loathe. ..."
"It looks like "Middle Class" Joe has perfected the art of taking big contributions,
then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class Americans.
Converting campaign contributions into legislative favors and policy positions isn't being
"moderate". It is the kind of transactional politics Americans have come to loathe.
She made a blunder. That's for sure. but still Warren is a better candidate then Trump.
The shell game between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders has transmogrified. The brutal,
post-debate exchange between the duo has the progressive left fearing repeat business from '04:
it happened at just the wrong time, only weeks ahead of the first primaries.
sounds very much like it, in a kind of
ham-fisted, virtue-signaling way -- "Sometimes I fear the American people are still too bigoted
to vote for a woman," or something like that. Yet every Clinton staffer was muttering the same
thing under her breath at 3 a.m. on November 9, 2016.
What's more, Mrs. Warren never denied that Mr. Sanders only ran in the last election cycle
because she declined to do so. Nor can anyone forget how vigorously he campaigned for Mrs.
Clinton, even after she and the DNC rigged the primary against him. If Mrs. Warren and her
surrogates at CNN are claiming that Bernie meant that a person with two X chromosomes is
biologically incapable of serving as president, they're lying through their teeth.
This is how Liz treats her "friend" Bernie -- and when he denies that absurd smear, she
refuses to shake his hand and accuses him of calling her a liar on national television. Then,
of course, the #MeToo brigades line up to castigate him for having the temerity to defend
himself -- further evidence, of course, of his sexism. I mean, like, Bernie is, like,
literally Weinstein.
Then there's the "Latinx" thing, which is the absolute summit of progressive elites'
disconnect with ordinary Americans. In case you didn't know, Mrs. Warren has been roundly
panned for referring to Hispanics by this weird neologism, which was invented by her comrades
in the ivory tower as a gender-neutral alternative to Latino or Latina . The
thing is, Spanish is a gendered language. What's more, a poll by the left-wing market research
group Think Now found that just 2 percent of Hispanics call themselves "Latinx." (In fact, most
prefer the conventional "Hispanic," which is now verboten on the Left because it hearkens back
to Christopher Columbus's discovery of La Española .)
So here comes Professor Warren -- white as Wonder Bread, the mattress in her Cambridge
townhouse stuffed with 12 million big ones -- trying to rewrite the Spanish language because
she thinks it's sexist. How she's made it this far in the primary is absolutely mind-boggling.
She doesn't care about Hispanics, much less their culture. Like every employee of the modern
education system, she's only interested in processing American citizens into gluten-free offal
tubes of political correctness.
Of course, if one of her primary opponents or a cable news "Democratic strategist" (whatever
that is) dared to say as much, they'd be hung, drawn, and quartered. Partisan Democrats have
trained themselves not to think in such terms. That might not matter much if Mrs. Warren was
facing Mitt Romney or John McCain in the general. But she's not. If she wins the primary,
she'll be up against Donald Trump. And if you don't think he'll say all of this -- and a
whole lot more -- you should apply for a job at CNN.
... running against Mrs. Warren would be a walk in the park
Your imaginary Trump anti-Warren schtick might have worked in 2016, but boy does it come
off as unfunny and stale in 2020. He's done too much damage. Not funny anymore. I voted for
Trump. After all his betrayals, Warren could rip him to pieces just by standing next to him
without saying a word. Her WASP reserve and Okie roots might even seem refreshing after our
four-year long cesspool shower with this New York City creep.
Didn't vote for Trump, or Clinton for that matter, cast a protest Libertarian vote. In my
red state it hardly matters, but the electoral college is another story. But observed long
ago that indeed Warren is just what the author says, a too politically correct north east
liberal who would be demolished in the presidential election against Trump. Only Biden or
Klobuchar has a chance to unseat the orange man, or maybe better yet a Biden - Klobuchar
ticket.
I've sometimes voted red and sometimes blue, but a Trump Vs Biden contest might well make
me bored and disappointed enough to join you going libertarian.
If the Dems want to lose, Biden and Klobuchar would be a quick ticket to doing so. Warren
would get the job done not much slower, unless she pivoted away from social issues.
To quote Phyllis Schlafly's advice to conservatives and the GOP, what the Dems need is
"A choice, not an echo." Sanders is the closest the Dems have of offering the voters a real
choice, and is the best option to defeat Trump. The D establishment will still pull out all
the stops to try to block him, of course, because even they and their big donors would
prefer a second Trump term over a New Deal liberal with a socialist gloss, but they may not
succeed this time.
Bernie and Tulsi are the most honest and interesting of the Democratic field, even though
their politics generally aren't mine. Nonetheless, I wish them well, because they appear to
say what they actually think, as opposed to whatever their operatives have focus-group
tested.
Biden's corruption will come out in the general. We could write up articles of impeachment
now. After all, Biden, did actually bribe the Ukraine. He said so himself. On video.
I think Trump's unfortunately stronger now than he was in 2016. Clinton's attacks on him
were painting him as an apocalyptic candidate who would bring America crashing down. By
serving as president for 4 years with a mostly booming economy, Trump's proven them wrong.
The corporate media will continue their hysterical attacks on him though, and that will
boost his support. I think Hillary Clinton was more dislikeable back then than Warren is
now, but Warren is probably even more out of touch. The others might also lose, but she
really as a terrible candidate.
What damage has Trump done, as opposed to the damage the media/Dems/deepstate's RESPONSE to
Trump has done?
Trump has reduced illegal immigration with the expected subsequent increases in employment
and wages, saved taxpayer 1 TRILLION dollars by withdrawing from the Paris accord, killed 2
leading terrorists (finally showing Iran that we aren't their bakshi boys), cut taxes,
stood up for gun rights, reduced harmful governmental regulation, and appointed judges that
will follow the law instead of feelings and popular culture.
He is also exposing the deep underbelly of the corrupt government in Washington, especially
the coup organized between Obama, Hillary, the DNC, Brennan, Comey, Clapper and the
hyperpartisan acts of the FBI, CIA, DOJ, IRS and now the GAO (unless you believe that the
"non-partisan" GAO released their report which claimed Trump violated the law by holding up
Ukranian funds for a few months within the same fiscal year on the same day Nancy
forwarded the articles of impeachment by some amazing coincidence).
The problem isn't Trump. The problem is the liars opposing the existential threat Trump
poses to the elitists who despise America.
"For all my reservations about Mr. Trump -- his lagging commitment to
protectionism, his shafting of Amy Coney Barrett, his deportation of
Iraqi Christians, his burgeoning hawkishness, his total lack of
decorum -- he's infinitely preferable to anyone the Democrats could
nominate."
You gloss over a few dozen other failures, most of them bigger than anything you mention
here (immigration, infrastructure, more mass surveillance and privacy violations by govt
and corporations than even Obama).
You realize that the progress Trump has made on immigration is why unemployment is down and
wages are up, right?
Most Americans think that's a good thing.
Democrats, not so much.
I think I disliked the last thing I saw by Davis. Whatever. This one is better. Not perfect
-- some of it is out of touch -- but he makes a case. And, sad to say,
I concur with his prediction for the election, with or without Warren.
I'm starting to like her. I thought she handled herself well at the last debate.
"Presidential". It's been quite a while since we had a real president. Too long.
Forgive me, but Democratic voters put way too much store in presidents being Presidential.
And they spent way too much time talking about Bush's verbal gaffes and Trump's disgusting
personality to get Gore, Kerry or H. Clinton elected.
As the author wrote, it was invented by academics. One problem with the Democrat Party is
that it is teeming with Professor Kingsfield types who are as much connected with the rest
of the population as I am with aborigines.
Finally someone said what most people think. Love the imagined Trump comments to
Warren..."Relax. Put on a nice sweater, have a cup of tea, grade some papers." As i read
those I heard Trump's unique way of speech and was laughing out loud. BTW...Tulsi Gabbard
is such an attractive candidate...heard her interviewed on Tucker Carlson and I think could
present a real challenge to Trump if she ever rose up to face him in a debate. It's curious
someone like Warren shoots to the top, while she remains in the back of the line.
The media deliberately shut her down, just like they are shutting down Bernie. The DNC also
doesn't like her (possibly because she resigned as cochair and is critical of Hillary) and
seems to have chosen their debate criteria -which surveys they accept-in order to shut her
out. I liked her up until she objected to taking out Soleimani-a known terrorist in the
middle of a war zone planning attacks on US assets.
Sorry, Trump was spot on in this attack. Tulsi was completely wrong. However, she is
honest, experienced, knowledgeable and not psychotic, a refreshing change from the other
Dem Presidential candidates. If you haven't figured out yet that CNN is basically the media
arm of Warren's campaign, you haven't been paying attention. That is how Warren continues
to poll reasonably well.
These arguments amaze me. "Since your candidate is too school marmy, or elitist, or (insert
usual democrat insult here), you're giving the electorate no choice but to vote for the
most corrupt, openly racist, sexist, psychologically lying, dangerously mentally deranged
imbecile in the country".
Because rather than an educated person who maybe comes off as an elitist, we'd rather
have a disgusting deplorable who no sane parent would allow in the same room with their
daughter.
Lol, and yet writers like this don't even realize the insanity of what they're saying,
which is basically "that bagel is 2 days old, so I have choice but to eat this steaming
pile of dog crap instead".
"Because rather than an educated person who maybe comes off as an elitist, we'd rather have
a disgusting deplorable who no sane parent would allow in the same room with their
daughter."
No need for the ad hominem, you are overstating your case. Remember, Trump is "educated"
too. And a card-carrying member of the elite. Leave us not kid ourselves, they're all
"elites" of one stripe or another. It only matters which stripe we prefer, meaning of
course whether they are saying what we want to hear. Of all of the candidates, the only one
who does not come off as an "elite" is Tulsi Gabbard, an intelligent woman who is arguably
the most interesting of all the candidates--in part because of her active military service.
I'd even throw in Andrew Yang, a friendly, engaging person who didn't seem to have an ax to
grind. It matters not. Yang is out of the picture and Gabbard has as much of a crack at the
Democratic nomination in 2020 as Rand Paul had at the Republican nomination in
2016--essentially zero.
Lol trump is educated too? You've lose all credibility with such comical false
equivalencies.
Trump is an absolute imbecile who has failed up his entire life thanks to daddy's
endless fortune. If he we born Donald Smith he'd be pumping gas in Jersey, or in jail as a
low life con man.
While I find myself shocked to be found defending anything Trumpean, in all fairness, he is
a college grad-u-ate (shades of Lily Tomlin). The value, depth, or scope of his degree may
be in question, but he does possess a sheep-skin, and hence must be considered "educated".
If one wants to demean his "education" because of his personality, one must also demean a
rather broad segment of college grad-u-ates as well.
He graduated from Penn's Wharton School of Business, ergo he is educated. Because a person
doesn't hold the same political beliefs as another doesn't mean they can't be "educated."
Liz Warren may not hold the same political beliefs as I, but I cannot argue that she isn't
educated.
Lol wow, well I'd say it's hilarious that anyone can be so naive to actually think a
compete imbecile like trump, who so clearly has never read a book in his life, actually
earned his way into college; let alone actually studied and earned a degree.....but then I
remember this country is obviously filled with people this remarkable gullible and stupid,
as this walking SNL sketch is actually President.
I actually think you are spot on in your assessment of what Trump would have become if he
wasn't born to money, but you really are behaving like exactly that kind of Democratic
voter who gets more exorcised by Trump's personal faults than by his policy ones, the kind
of Democrats who couldn't get Al Gore, John Kerry and Hilary Clinton elected.
Really. You think someone that managed to become President of the United States with no
political or military experience would have failed at life if he hadn't had a wealthy
father. You really believe that. You don't think any of Trump's success and accomplishments
are due to his ambition, drive, energy, determination, executive skills, ruthlessness or
media savvy. It was all due to his having a rich father.
Fascinating.
Trump has had no success. He's failed at everything he's ever done. You obviously just know
nothing about his actual life, and believe the made up reality TV bullshit.
The only thing he's good at is playing a rich successful man on TV to really, really,
stupid, unread, unworldly, naive people....well that and giving racists white nationalists,
the billionaire owner class, sexists, bigots, and deplorables, a political home.
I think Trump is and would have been, sans his father's wealth, one hell of a con man. And
I hope to God that he would have ended up in jail for it rather than running a private
equity fund, but the latter would have been just as likely.
However, I should have made that distinction in my original comment. No, I do not think
that Trump would have ended up a gas station attendant.
It's very hard for me to understand how anyone could be so, shall we say sheltered, that
they couldn't see him coming a mile away and laugh their ass off.
He's so bad, so transparent with his obvious lies and self aggrandizing, so clearly
ignorant and unread and trying to fake it, he's literally like a cartoon's funny over the
top version of an idiot con man. I'll never understand how anyone could ever be fooled by
it.
In fact sometimes I think 90% of his base isn't fooled, they know he's a joke, but they
just don't care. He gives them the white nationalist hate and rhetoric they want, makes
"liberals cry", and that all they care about.
It's a lot easier for me to believe THAT then so many people can actually be so stupid
and gullible.
Say what? What policies? The trillion dollar hand out to the richest corporations in the
world, double the deficit? His mind blowing disastrous foreign policy decisions that have
done nothing but empowered Russia, Iran and North Korea while destabilizing western
alliances? The trade wars that have cost fairness and others billions (forcing taxpayers to
bail them out with tens of millions of dollars)? The xenophobia, separating and caging
children? Stoking violence and hate and anger among his white nationalist base? His attacks
on women reproductive rights? His attacks on all of our democratic institutions, from our
free press to our intelligence agencies and congressional oversights?
A pathologically lying racist sexist self serving criminal is enough to disqualify this
miscreant from being dog catcher, let alone president. But his policies are even worse.
You don't seem to know that the University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy League school, or what
the Wharton School of Business actually is. Imbeciles do not graduate from the Wharton
School.
Lol, trump is an imbecile, that's not even debatable. What amazes the rest of the entire
civilized world outside of the batshit fringe 20% of Americans who make up the Republican
voting base is how anyone could possible be conned by such a cartoonish idiot wanna be con
man.
It's truly something sane people can't even begin to wrap their heads around.
The Dowager Countess (Downton Abbey, for the un-initiated) nailed her type. In referring to
her do-gooder cousin Mrs. Isobel Crawley, she said: "Some people run on greed, lust, even
love. She runs on indignation." That sums up Warren perfectly.
I'll take it one step further. I bought one of her books, on the 'two-income trap' and how
middle-class families go to the wall to get into good school districts for their children.
She and her co-author make some valid points, but the book is replete with cliches about
men abandoning their families and similar leftist tropes. If that's the best Harvard Law
Warren has to offer, she's not as sharp as she thinks she is, and a bully like Trump will
school her fast.
Evidently Mr Davis dislikes Warren because of her personal style - but all of Trump's
substantive (or even, substance...) issues are acceptable. How shallow of him.
I can't say the two of us exactly line up on everything. But, like Wow: "gluten-free offal
tubes of political correctness." Now that's funny! Wish I'd thought of it.
I liked Warren until this attempt to stab Bernie in the back plus that childish refusal to
shake his hand on national TV. I still don't dislike her, but that was embarrassing. She
definitely has character flaws.
But this piece goes over the top. It's Trumpian. Warren certainly has flaws but if you
are going to judge a politician by their character, in what universe would Trump come out
on top?
Better than Warren.
The problem with affirmative action is when you abuse it, as Warren did, you actually rob a
genuine minority from a genuine disadvantaged background of their chance.
Warren deliberately misrepresented herself as a Native American, solely for career
advancement, and then abandoned her fake identity once she got tenure at Harvard. There was
another woman who was an actual minority that had a teaching appointment at Harvard, but
Warren beat her out, using her false claims of minority heritage to overcome her
competition's actual minority status.
Trump competes on his own.
There what's funny about these arguments. They're basically saying, "your candidate has
some flaws, she's very school marmy, and thinks she knows everything."
"Therefore, OBVIOUSLY people have no choice but to instead vote for the raging imbecile,
the pathologically lying, corrupt to his core, racist, morally bankrupt, sexist imbecile
with the literal temperament of of an emotionally troubled 10 year old."
What unpleasant memories Mister Davis has elicited - - - i once had a schoolmarm like that.
(Shudder)
It is, however, disturbing that Davis has almost captured the style of Trumptweets. The
give-away is a shade more literacy and better grammar in Davis' offerings.
But what of the possibility, as suggested above, that Trump loses to Biden or (Generic
Democratic candidate)?
As I tell my liberal friends, the country survived eight years of Priapic Bill, eight
years of Dubya and Dubyaer, eight years of BHO, and after four years of Trump is yet
standing, however drunkenly.
I think, contra many alarmists, the Republic is much stronger than the average pundit or
combox warrior gives it credit.
And, who knows? Maybe the outrage pornography we get from Tweeting birdies will grow
stale and passe, and people will yearn for more civil discourse? (Not likely, but one never
knows.)
I refuse to use "Bay Stater" for the same reason I dislike being called "Mike": nicknames
are irritating, unless they're outlandish, like "Beanie" or "Boko" or "Buttigieg."
Massachusetts is a beautiful name -- slow and smooth, like the Merrimack.
"Massachusettsian" adds a little skip at the end, as the river crashes into the Atlantic at
Newburyport. It's the perfect demonym.
Speaking of, I was born and spent the first 18 years of my life in Massachusetts --
about 10 minutes outside Newburyport, where my great-great-something grandparents lived
when the Revolution broke out. I don't know how much further back the family tree goes in
Mass., but probably further than yours.
Good luck with that utter nonsense word, then. Bay Stater is not a nickname - it's the
longstanding term (and, for some reason, the Massachusetts General Court also blessed it
legislatively), from long before my folk lived in New England since the mid-19th century
(Connecticut and Massachusetts - hence my reference to Nutmeggers, as my parents made quite
clear to us that there were no such things as Connecticutters or Massachusetters or the
like and not to go around sounding like fools using the like.)
Of course, I'd like to recover the old usage of the Eastern States to refer to New
England. Right now, its sole prominent residue is the Big E in Springfield....
Its chosen candidates are: Elizabeth Warren, the Republican-turned-progressive who for years posed as a Native American to game
America's system of affirmative action - and Amy Klobuchar, the midwestern senator from the great state of Minneapolis with a reputation
for being an unhinged dragon-lady boss.
That the NYT selected the two remaining women among the top tier of contenders is hardly a surprise: This is, after all, the same
newspaper that kicked off #MeToo by dropping the first expose about Harvey Weinstein's history of abusing, harassing and assaulting
women just days before the New Yorker followed up with the first piece from Ronan Farrow.
...After all, if the editors went ahead with their true No. 1 choice, Klobuchar, a candidate who has very little chance of actually
capturing the nomination, they would look foolish.
Warren is a much better candidate than Biden is in my view.
Warren seems to get into trouble sometimes for all kinds of reasons like most people do, but the problems are usually trivial,
more silly than dangerous. There is tendency in her to stick to her guns even when she does not know what she is doing.
When i run into something unexpected or something that seems to be something i don't understand, i usually backtrack and look
at the problem from some distance to see what happened and why before trying to correct or fix the problem, rather than just doing
something.
Its not a perfect plan, but it seems to work most of the time.
NYT remains a joke. Their endorsement is straight up virtue-signalling.
Here's some reality: Warren's latest antics have cemented her image as dishonest and high-strung. Knoblocker has no charisma
and remains practically unknown.
I've personally sat down and talked with Klobuchar. Not a lot of depth of intelligence in her, that's for sure, easily manipulated
by lobbyists. Warren, at least, knows what the problem is, although she might have swallowed the proverbial Democratic party "kool
aid".
Warren is the deep state establishment pick. If you must vote Dem, pick someone that isn't, or one the establishment seems
to work against. Better yet, vote Trump, safe bet on gun rights, freedoms.
Is Warren Warren the Jussie Smollet of politics. I wonder if she claims Bernie attacked her
while wearing a red hat and screaming, "A woman can't win! This is MAGA country!"
Being one of Liz' constituents and familiar with her career and her base (consisting of
people like me,) I think she faces so little consequence for her "embellishments" at least in
part because "we" (her base) inhabit an environment in which, with ease, we adjust facts and
perceptions to conform to whatever our self-serving narrative of the moment may be.
We know that Liz will say anything she imagines will be to her advantage and it's okay
with "us" that she does. In a way, she's our ideal candidate and media darling because she
reflects and affirms our plastic values.
"... Furthermore, if you don't agree with Sen. Warren's version of events, or if you mention her history of "embellishing," you are a sexist and a misogynist just like Sanders. So fall in line with the establishment narrative, quick. ..."
"... In a statement to CNN, Sanders said before the debate that's not what happened at all. ..."
"... "It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," said Sanders, chalking up the story to "staff who weren't in the room lying about what happened." ..."
"... Warren's staff knows she is prone to "embellish" things ..."
"... No wonder Sanders was complaining about liberals' obsession with identity politics . As an elderly, Jewish socialist, he might be an endangered species, but he's one minority group that intersectional politics has no use for. ..."
The media cannot forgive Bernie Sanders for refusing to "bend the knee" to Elizabeth Warren
regarding her recounting of a now infamous December 2018 meeting between the two, in which the
Vermont senator allegedly said a woman could not be elected president.
Furthermore, if you don't agree with Sen. Warren's version of events, or if you
mention her history of "embellishing," you are a sexist and a misogynist just like Sanders. So
fall in line with the establishment narrative, quick.
That is the clear takeaway after the media took off its fig leaf of journalistic
impartiality at the seventh Democrat presidential debate in Iowa Tuesday.
During the debate, CNN moderator Abby Phillips had this exchange:
Phillips: You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman couldn't win
the election?
Bernie: Correct.
Phillips: Senator Warren, what did you think when Sanders said a woman couldn't win the
election?
Warren: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with
Bernie.
This is "when did you stop beating your wife" level debate questioning from CNN. The
question is premised around an
anonymously-sourced story CNN reported Monday describing a meeting between Sanders and
Warren in December 2018, where the two agreed to a non-aggression pact of sorts. For the sake
of the progressive movement, they reportedly agreed they would not attack each other during the
campaign:
They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two
main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument
about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders responded that he did
not believe a woman could win.
In a statement to CNN, Sanders said before the debate that's not what happened at
all.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she
was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," said Sanders,
chalking up the story to "staff who weren't in the room lying about what happened."
"I thought a woman could win; he disagreed," said Warren in a statement.
Cue CNN's gladiatorial presidential debates.
Eager to strike all the right girl-power notes for the night, Phillips followed up by asking
Sen. Amy Klobuchar the substantive policy question, "what do you say to people who say that a
woman can't win this election?" and Warren earned cheers for a line about women successfully
winning elections.
"Look at the men on this stage," Warren said. "Collectively, they have lost 10 elections.
The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the
women: Amy (Klobuchar) and me."
After the debate, media commentators roundly declared Warren the winner, and pundits
attacked the very idea of questioning the veracity of Warren's account.
Here's CNN, just after the debate:
Chris Cillizza, CNN politics reporter: Sanders, look, a lot of it is personal
preference. I didn't think his answer vis-a-vis Elizabeth Warren and what was said in that
conversation was particularly good. He was largely dismissive. "Well, I didn't say it.
Everyone knows I didn't say it, we don't need to talk about it."
Jess McIntosh, CNN political commentator: And I think what Bernie forgot was that this
isn't a he-said-she-said story. This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking.
So to have him just flat out say "no," I think, wasn't nearly enough to address that for the
women watching.
Joe Lockhart, CNN political commentator: And I can't imagine any woman watching last
night and saying, I believe Bernie. I think people believe Elizabeth.
Van Jones, CNN political commentator: This was Elizabeth Warren's night. She needed to
do something and there was a banana peel sitting out there for Bernie to step on when it came
to his comments about women. I think Bernie stepped on it and slid around. She knocked that
moment out of the park.
But isn't this story the literal definition of a he-said, she-said story?
The accusation may have appeared in a "reported-out story," but these are its sources:
"The description of that meeting [between Sanders and Warren in December 2018] is based
on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the
encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting."
Is it sexist to question why this story would come out on the eve of the debate -- after
months of the two candidates getting along as they had promised to do, when
Sanders pulls ahead of Warren in polling ?
In addition to Warren's tenuous relationship with the truth, there also happens to be video
from the 1980s where Sanders says a woman could be president:
1988, @BernieSanders , backing
Jackson:"The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man
*in my view, a woman could be elected POTUS* The real issue is are you on the side of workers
& poor ppl, or are you on the side of big money &corporations?" pic.twitter.com/VHmfzvyJdy
-- Every nimble plane is a policy failure. (@KindAndUnblind) January
13, 2020
Yet, you wouldn't know any of that, listening to the coverage of the debate, where
commentators waxed poetic about Warren's "win" and how any attacks on her predilection for
lying were misogyny itself.
Over on Sirius XM POTUS channel Tuesday, an executive producer on Chris Cuomo's show (Chris
Cillizza filling in) said that the suggestion from Sanders surrogates that Warren's staff
knows she is prone to "embellish" things
is "a misogynistic thing to put out there like, 'oh well, look at the quaint housewife, she is
prone to embellishment.'"
The New York Times also embraced the questionable sexism premise, writing that in"a
conflict heavily focused on which candidate is telling the truth, Ms. Warren faces a real risk:
Several studies have
shown that voters punish women more harshly than men for real or perceived dishonesty If
voters conclude that Ms. Warren is lying, it is most likely to hurt her more than it will hurt
Mr. Sanders if voters conclude that he is lying."
Over at Vox:
The over-the-top language -- likening criticism of an opponent to aknife in the back-- was familiar. When powerful men have been accused of
sexual misconduct in recent years, they and othershave
often complainedthat they've been "killed" or that their "lives are over" The
situation between Warren and Sanders is very different from those that have arisen as part of
the Me Too movement. But the exaggerated language around a woman's decision to speak out is
strikingly similar.
This sort of language is an insult to all women who have had to deal with sexism and
misogyny, both in the workplace and in society, and this need to glom on to any aggrieved
group, no matter how ill-fitting, is getting really stale.
Meanwhile, former Hillary Clinton and Obama Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri
tweeted, "I just rewatched the footage from last night and found it odd that Sanders never says
'a woman could beat Trump.' His formulation is he believes a 'woman could be president.' It's
only when he speaks about his own abilities that he talks about what it takes to 'beat
Trump.'"
This is the old sexist standby: "I'd vote for a woman, just not that woman."
What is it that these people want, for Sanders to endorse his opponent, simply because she
is female? Isn't that the very definition of sexism? By virtue of the fact that Sanders is
still in this race, he obviously thinks he can do a better job as president than Warren. There
isn't going to be another presidential race against Trump, but Palmieri still essentially wants
Sanders to say, in a five-way race three weeks before the Iowa caucus, "Warren can beat Trump
in November."
The question here should be whether this is a person that we can trust, not whether the
candidate is male or female. Does this person have a history of being honest, or do they have a
history of lying?
No wonder Sanders was complaining about
liberals' obsession with identity politics . As an elderly, Jewish socialist, he might be
an endangered species, but he's one minority group that intersectional politics has no use
for.
What are you talking about? If you want to know what Sanders says on this issue, rad his
interview with the NYT which was conducted before this cynical hit job occurred. He says
many voters are misogynistic, but not that a woman can't win.
I think both were telling the truth in that Warren probably took it to mean a woman
can't win, but her campaign cynically released thi story over a year later because she was
slipping in tge pollls behind Bernie.
That's ridiculously generous of you, at least towards Warren. She knows perfectly well his
position on the possibility of a woman president, and women running for office generally.
she knows he campaigned vigorously for HRC after the nomination, and she knows that Sanders
knows that HRC took the popular vote by over 3 million votes, so he obviously knows that it
is highly possible for a woman to win the presidency. This is simply a bald-faced lie on
Warren's part, but she has gained nothing electorally for this desperate smear. Sanders not
only had a record fundraising day after this surfaced, but at least one poll has him up 2
points in Iowa, where he was already in the lead, with Warren stuck at 12%.
Six corporations own something like 90% of the media now.
And CNN is part of the corporate-media-complex.
So not too much of a surprise that they are going after Sanders.
The billionaires are worried he might win, so in a way, this is a good
sign.
The 24 hour news channels depend on Trump to bring in the outrage required to keep up their
viewing figures. So it makes sense that they should help give him a democrat opponent he
can't lose against, like Elizabeth Warren.
While it should be fairly obvious to most that Bernie Sanders political rivals are trying
everything they can to get ahead of him, it's also true that the DNC and the Main Stream
Media, are also trying to trash Bernie in an attempt to take him out as a candidate. The
DNC and the MSM did the same thing the last time he attempted to win the nomination, and it
appears they are doing so now.
The corporate MSM machine should be careful. Another candidate they trashed during the
last election cycle, and ever since, became the President. It seems some voters have tied
the corporate MSM together with the D.C. establishment, and voters that want an outsider to
lead them may just see the MSM's attempts to denigrate a candidate as a ringing endorsement
for the outsider.
As a side note, I find it humorous that the MSM attempts to diminish Bernie's supporters
as zealots and too extreme to be taken seriously... I thought that political candidates
actually worked to gain the support of enthusiastic and motivated supporters? Or, is that
just for the candidates that are acceptable to the Main Stream Media and the political
Parties?
Voted for Trump in great part because Hillary Clinton was such a liar. Now he turned out to
be an even bigger liar than she was. It sure would be nice to have a candidate who didn't
lie so much, but now I don't know whether that would be Sanders or Warren.
Strictly speaking, socialism was an abject failure which ended with the fall of the Iron
Curtain, There is an unfortunate tendency to conflate "socialism" with what is called the
"welfare state." The United States is a welfare state but can hardly be mistaken for a
socialist state.
I think I see it mostly the same way you do, but with semantic differences. I would argue
that communism - the totalitarian version of socialism - was the abject failure. Any first
world modern state is a blend of market-based economies and socialism. The question is
always which exchanges are best left to market forces and which are best managed from
above. And then, how much management to provide. I caution against seeing socialism vs
capitalism as some binary switch to flip.
And the fact is that many of these welfare states were implemented by self-declared
socialists, including many parties that were members of the Socialist, or Second,
International.
Unfortunately, many of these socialist and labor parties hopped on the neo-liberal train
in the 1980's, and are today deathly afraid of their own Bernie Sanders (see Corbyn,
Jeremy), and even more afraid of scaring off international finance and the German Central
Bank.
Point taken. Perhaps "radical socialism" would have been more accurate. Your description of
the modern state as a "blend" is spot-on. An economics professor I once had called ours a
"mixed economy", which was a phrase that has always stuck in my mind.
Social democratic and labor parties around the world turned neo-liberal in the 1980's,
including the Scandinavian ones. They've been helping to rip up the "social contract"
between Capital and Labor, and the social welfare state, ever since, as well as reversing
previous nationalizations and launching privatization. This phenomenon has included
Scandinavia, which is why the parties there are so sensitive to all this talk in the U.S.
about them being models of "socialism."
Fact is, all non-Marxist "socialist" countries are market based, and are in fact capitalist
at the economic base. When did any Scandinavian "socialist" country ever expropriate any
major corporations?
You might actually want to do a bit of research on that point. Going back 60, 70 or 80
years, there might be some nationalizations of railroads, utilities, energy companies and
other major industries not involved in the actual manufacturing of goods in Scandinavia.
Great Britain certainly saw such nationalizations, although revolutionary leftists
sometimes dismissed them as "lemon socialism" because the capitalist class was fobbing off
money-losing or capital-intensive sectors of the economy on the government, in order to
concentrate on more profitable enterprises.
"... Of course, Biden in 2019 said "I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else -- even distant family -- about their business interests. Period." ..."
"... James Biden : Joe's younger brother James has been deeply involved in the lawmaker's rise since the early days - serving as the finance chair of his 1972 Senate campaign. And when Joe became VP, James was a frequent guest at the White House - scoring invites to important state functions which often "dovetailed with his overseas business dealings," writes Schweizer. ..."
"... According to Fox Business 's Charlie Gasparino in 2012, HillStone's Iraq project was expected to "generate $1.5 billion in revenues over the next three years," more than tripling their revenue. According to the report, James Biden split roughly $735 million with a group of minority partners . ..."
"... David Richter - the son of HillStone's parent company's founder - allegedly told investors at a private meeting; it really helps to have "the brother of the vice president as a partner." ..."
Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer is out with a new book, "
Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite," in which he reveals
that five members of the Biden family, including Hunter, got rich using former Vice President
Joe Biden's "largesse, favorable access and powerful position."
While we know of Hunter's profitable exploits in Ukraine and China - largely in part thanks
to Schweizer, Joe's brothers James and Frank, his sister Valerie, and his son-in-law Howard all
used the former VP's status to enrich themselves.
Of course, Biden in 2019 said "I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else --
even distant family -- about their business interests. Period."
As Schweizer puts writes in the
New York Post ; "we shall see."
James Biden : Joe's younger brother James has been deeply involved in the lawmaker's rise since the early days - serving
as the finance chair of his 1972 Senate campaign. And when
Joe became VP, James was a frequent guest at the White House - scoring invites to important
state functions which often "dovetailed with his overseas business dealings," writes Schweizer.
Consider the case of
HillStone International , a subsidiary of the huge construction management firm, Hill
International. The president of HillStone International was Kevin Justice, who grew up in
Delaware and was a longtime Biden family friend. On November 4, 2010, according to White
House visitors' logs, Justice visited the White House and met with Biden adviser Michele
Smith in the Office of the Vice President .
Less than three weeks later, HillStone announced that James Biden would be joining the
firm as an executive vice president . James appeared to have little or no background in
housing construction, but that did not seem to matter to HillStone. His bio on the company's
website noted his "40 years of experience dealing with principals in business, political,
legal and financial circles across the nation and internationally "
James Biden was joining HillStone just as the firm was starting negotiations to win a
massive contract in war-torn Iraq. Six months later, the firm announced a contract to build
100,000 homes. It was part of a $35 billion, 500,000-unit project deal won by TRAC
Development , a South Korean company. HillStone also received a $22 million U.S. federal
government contract to manage a construction project for the State Department. -
Peter Schweizer, via NY Post
According to Fox Business 's Charlie Gasparino in 2012, HillStone's Iraq project was
expected to "generate $1.5 billion in revenues over the next three years," more than tripling
their revenue. According to the report, James Biden split roughly $735 million with a group of
minority partners .
David Richter - the son of HillStone's parent company's founder - allegedly told investors
at a private meeting; it really helps to have "the brother of the vice president as a
partner."
Unfortunately for James, HillStone had to back out of the major contract in 2013 over a
series of problems, including a lack of experience - but the company maintained "significant
contract work in the embattled country" of Iraq, including a six-year contract with the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
In the ensuing years, James Biden profited off of Hill's lucrative contracts for dozens of
projects in the US, Puerto Rico, Mozambique and elsewhere.
Frank Biden , another one of Joe's brothers (who said the Pennsylvania Bidens
voted for Trump over Hillary), profited handsomely on real estate, casinos, and solar power
projects after Joe was picked as Obma's point man in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Months after Joe visited Costa Rica, Frank partnered with developer Craig Williamson and the
Guanacaste Country Club on a deal which appears to be ongoing.
In real terms, Frank's dream was to build in the jungles of Costa Rica thousands of homes,
a world-class golf course, casinos, and an anti-aging center. The Costa Rican government was
eager to cooperate with the vice president's brother.
As it happened, Joe Biden had been asked by President Obama to act as the Administration's
point man in Latin America and the Caribbean .
Frank's vision for a country club in Costa Rica received support from the highest levels
of the Costa Rican government -- despite his lack of experience in building such
developments. He met with the Costa Rican ministers of education and energy and environment,
as well as the president of the country. -
NY Post
And in 2016, the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Education inked a deal with Frank's Company,
Sun Fund Americas to install solar power facilities across the country - a project the Obama
administration's OPIC authorized $6.5 million in taxpayer funds to support.
This went hand-in-hand with a solar initiative Joe Biden announced two years earlier, in
which "American taxpayer dollars were dedicated to facilitating deals that matched U.S.
government financing with local energy projects in Caribbean countries, including Jamaica,"
known as the Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI).
Frank Biden's Sun Fund Americas announced later that it had signed a power purchase
agreement (PPA) to build a 20-megawatt solar facility in Jamaica.
Valerie Biden-Owens , Joe's sister, has run all of her brother's Senate campaigns - as well
as his 1988 and 2008 presidential runs.
She was also a senior partner in political messaging firm Joe Slade White & Company ,
where she and Slade White were listed as the only two executives at the time.
According to Schweizer, " The firm received large fees from the Biden campaigns that Valerie
was running . Two and a half million dollars in consulting fees flowed to her firm from
Citizens for Biden and Biden For President Inc. during the 2008 presidential bid alone."
Dr. Howard Krein - Joe Biden's son-in-law, is the chief medical officer of StartUp Health -
a medical investment consultancy that was barely up and running when, in June 2011, two of the
company's execs met with Joe Biden and former President Obama in the Oval Office .
The next day, the company was included in a prestigious health care tech conference run by
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - while StartUp Health executives became
regular White House visitors between 2011 and 2015 .
StartUp Health offers to provide new companies technical and relationship advice in
exchange for a stake in the business. Demonstrating and highlighting the fact that you can
score a meeting with the president of the United States certainly helps prove a strategic
company asset: high-level contacts. -
NY Post
Speaking of his homie hookup, Krein described how his company gained access to the highest
levels of power in D.C.:
"I happened to be talking to my father-in-law that day and I mentioned Steve and Unity were
down there [in Washington, D.C.]," recalled Howard Krein. "He knew about StartUp Health and was
a big fan of it. He asked for Steve's number and said, 'I have to get them up here to talk with
Barack.' The Secret Service came and got Steve and Unity and brought them to the Oval
Office."
And then, of course, there's Hunter Biden - who was paid millions of dollars to sit on the
board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma while his father was Obama's point man in the
country.
But it goes far beyond that for the young crack enthusiast.
With the election of his father as vice president, Hunter Biden launched businesses fused
to his father's power that led him to lucrative deals with a rogue's gallery of governments
and oligarchs around the world . Sometimes he would hitch a prominent ride with his father
aboard Air Force Two to visit a country where he was courting business. Other times, the
deals would be done more discreetly. Always they involved foreign entities that appeared to
be seeking something from his father.
There was, for example, Hunter's involvement with an entity called Burnham Financial Group
, where his business partner Devon Archer -- who'd been at Yale with Hunter -- sat on the
board of directors. Burnham became the vehicle for a number of murky deals abroad, involving
connected oligarchs in Kazakhstan and state-owned businesses in China.
But one of the most troubling Burnham ventures was here in the United States, in which
Burnham became the center of a federal investigation involving a $60 million fraud scheme
against one of the poorest Indian tribes in America , the Oglala Sioux.
Devon Archer was arrested in New York in May 2016 and
charged with "orchestrating a scheme to defraud investors and a Native American tribal
entity of tens of millions of dollars." Other victims of the fraud included several public
and union pension plans. Although Hunter Biden was not charged in the case, his fingerprints
were all over Burnham . The "legitimacy" that his name and political status as the vice
president's son lent to the plan was brought up repeatedly in the trial. -
NY Post
She may, especially if Bernie Sanders falters, win the nomination in Milwaukee next
July.
But here's something you might consider:
Once upon a time, there was a liberal Democratic Senator from Massachusetts who won the Iowa
caucuses and New Hampshire primary easily, and then swept to the nomination.
His opponent was a largely unpopular Republican president who had deeply divided the
country. Democrats thought they could smell victory. On Election Day, their candidate did sweep
the northeast and the Pacific west. But except for a few states around Chicago, he lost
everything else -- and the presidential election.
His name was John Kerry, and that was 2004.
Once upon another time, there was a Democratic candidate from Massachusetts who made a
better-than-expected showing in Iowa, swept New Hampshire, and breezed to the nomination.
By summer, he was 17 points ahead in the polls, and the race looked about over. But then the
Republican spin doctors went to work on his record, and his campaign went into a tailspin. In
the end, he lost 40 states. His name was Michael Dukakis, and that was 1988.
Advertisement
Now, it is a new century, and one of the front-running candidates for the Democratic
nomination is Ms. Warren, another liberal senator from, yes, Massachusetts who is leading in
some polls in early key states. Every election is different, of course.
The political landscape isn't the same as it was in 1988 or even 2004. But it would be hard
to blame any Democrat who looks at this and asks themselves – haven't we seen this show
before?
Doesn't it have an unhappy ending?
This analysis could be faulty. No two campaigns are the same, and most people are still not
paying a lot of attention.
To be sure, nobody like Donald Trump has ever been in the White House, and given his
negative approval ratings and other obvious weaknesses, an economic downturn could possibly
doom his reelection no matter who the Democrats run.
David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist, is no fan of Warren's
– but thinks she may win because by that time, the nation will realize they have to get
rid of Trump, no matter what.
Incidentally, he also thinks it would be the duty of any thinking American to support her if
she and Trump are the nominees.
But a New York Times /Siena College poll released Nov. 5 indicates that nominating
Elizabeth Warren could be the biggest gift the Democrats could give President Trump. Their
survey showed former Vice President Joe Biden beating Trump in virtually every swing state,
except for North Carolina.
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont led the President narrowly in the three states that
decided the last election, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. But Warren trailed in every
swing state except Arizona.
Polls are notoriously unreliable, especially this early in any election cycle, and a
Washington Post-ABC News poll the same day showed Warren with a 55 to 40 percent lead over
Trump.
But even that poll showed the more moderate Biden doing better. The New York Times survey
found that many voters just plain did not like Warren, some because they did not like her
"Medicare for all," health insurance plan; others because they disliked her personality or
speaking style.
Some said they felt like she was lecturing them; others, like Elysha Savarese, a 26-year-old
Floridian, said "I just don't feel like she's a genuine candidate. I find her body language to
be very off-putting. She's very cold basically a Hillary Clinton clone."
That may be unfair, and it is clear from Warren rallies that many women and men adore
her.
There are also a few older Democrats who note that John F. Kennedy was a Democratic senator
from Massachusetts, and he was elected. That is true – but it was also six decades
ago.
Kennedy, who was perceived as a middle-of-the-road moderate, could count on states like
Louisiana and Arkansas and Georgia that no Democrat – certainly not one on the left
– has much if any hope of winning today. Additionally, the playing field is
different.
Voting strength and electoral votes have shifted dramatically from the Northeast, which was
and is JFK and Warren's base, to the South and West. New York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts
had a combined 93 electoral votes in 1960. They have a mere 60 today.
Florida, which President Kennedy, (like Hillary Clinton) narrowly lost, had 10 electoral
votes in 1960; it has 29 today. Geography has become less favorable to a Massachusetts
Democrat. The day after Paul Tsongas won the 1992 Democratic primary, the legendary Texas Gov.
Ann Richards, a often irreverent Democrat, dryly told a friend of mine, "So they want to give
us another liberal from Massachusetts, and this one has a lisp."
Democrats did not, however, nominate Tsongas, but instead chose Bill Clinton, the governor
of Arkansas who was perceived as a moderate. That fall, he won.
History does not always repeat itself. But it does, sometimes, provide signposts for the
future.
(Editor's Note: A version of this column also appeared in the Toledo Blade.)
@psychedelicatessen #117
You are making a number of assumptions which I don't necessarily agree with.
1) That Sanders and Warren are on the same "side" and are viewed the same by the
"establishment". They clearly are not. Warren is the fallback should Sanders not be beaten by
Biden. Warren is not a real progressive.
2) Trump vs. Sanders - again, depends on which part of the deep state. It is an error to
assume the deep state is any more monolithic than anything else. The most credible breakdown
I've seen is that the "deep state" is really 3 parts: the corporates who are happy with
Trump, the intel agencies who are not, and the military which was unhappy originally but is
now ok since they've come out ahead of the intel agencies and still have representation at
the highest levels.
Looking at these same 3 with Sanders: the corporates would/are not happy. The intel agencies
are fine with Sanders and so is the military (F35, baby!). So it isn't clear at all the "deep
state" overall cares about/hates one more than the other - the constituent groups simply have
different goals.
3) Control over petro-dollar dominance. Frankly, I don't see how Trump or Sanders matters
there. The tactical plays are very clear: keep the Saudis happy so they won't accede to China
wanting to buy Saudi oil in RMB, because the Saudis don't have any other reason to stipulate
dollar payments any more.
4) Economic collapse: I am curious as to how you think this will happen. Specifically what is
the driver?
If it is de-dollarization - that is going to take decades, unless the US has a debt crisis
before then. And frankly, I don't see it coming soon because there is simply too much
international trade dollar cushion for the US debt accumulation to be a visible problem for
quite some time.
If it is domestic collapse not due to de-dollarization - what is the driver? The economy is
already no longer a major manufacturing, etc - with helicopter money going to the 1%. As much
as the neoliberals hate it, the reality is that the pain Trump inflicts via the trade war
ultimately is net positive for domestic production. It takes a while to make an impact, but
the trade war and the anti-China machinations have already caused Chinese manufacturers to
move production abroad - and to increase in-US production.
Plus there are ways to extend the runway: health care in particular. That's a big, deep and
very popular pot of gold which could be attacked, should Trump desire to do so. As far as I
can see, he doesn't have any particular fondness or historical partnerships with the health
care/pharma industry.
In 2016, HRC received $32.6M from health care (#1 overall) vs. Trump's $4.9M (#5
overall). source
Compare with defense: Trump and Clinton were about equal (tied for #1 but only $1M or
so).
Trump has also pushed through some laws which definitely aren't liked by the health care
folks, like the hospital bill transparency law.
"... Warren is that person you can never rely on–the one that has no defining characteristic other than self-elevation. Over the years, if it benefited her, she backed a few seemingly decent causes, but it was never about doing the right thing. It was all political expediency and shape shifting. She was a Republican during so many tumultuous years -- even during the Reagan era that propelled us towards what we are going through now hell, she was a Republican until her late 40s. But now she has reinvented herself as a populist, but won't even talk out against Biden, the man from Creditcardlandia. She's a promiscuous virgin, a carnivorous vegan. ..."
"... The treachery of Warren towards Sanders is most likely from some back room deal with Biden. ..."
To say Elizabeth Warren is a political opportunist is not giving
her enough credit. She has taken the struggles, as well as the identities of others (women,
school teachers, Native Americans, public school supporters, people who are able to tweet with
humor, actual humans) and has weaponized these categories until the meaning of it all is lost.
Her tweet about leaving your ghosting boyfriend and getting a dog despite your roommate's
objections should have placed her in the pandering hall of fame, and with that should have
included a one way trip to some kind of holding cell for the criminally trite.
Her obvious lies (she's not even good at them, shaking and being sketchy with a
tweaker-looking-body-vibe-thing when she tries to pull them off) -- well that bit regarding
Bernie Sanders has electrified her twitter feed with images of snakes and has even managed to
get #RefundWarren trending. At this rate, maybe she can pull in a negative donation for this
quarter. What an achievement. The first female candidate to pull that off! Grrrrl Power! Her
political instincts are as feeble as her lies -- to have her tell it, she was a selfless public
servant most of her career (more like a teacher long enough to mention it, and a corporate
lawyer as the subsequent defining profession). Her kids only went to public schools (umm no),
she is of native heritage (shouldn't she have helped a bit at Standing Rock with that
1/16600600606006 ancestry that she is so proud of?) . Oh yes, her father was a janitor (again,
what? No). She is but a champion for the veracity challenged. That's true at least.
Warren is that person you can never rely on–the one that has no defining
characteristic other than self-elevation. Over the years, if it benefited her, she backed a few
seemingly decent causes, but it was never about doing the right thing. It was all political
expediency and shape shifting. She was a Republican during so many tumultuous years -- even
during the Reagan era that propelled us towards what we are going through now hell, she was a
Republican until her late 40s. But now she has reinvented herself as a populist, but won't even
talk out against Biden, the man from Creditcardlandia. She's a promiscuous virgin, a
carnivorous vegan.
This current trend to take on the struggles of others as your own has been powerful of late.
Cops pretend to have coffee cups served to them with pig slurs and Warren puts forth that the
very individual who actually urged her to run for president in 2016, changed course and told
her women can't win (despite ample evidence that Sanders has a track record that is decidedly
feminist). I think she said Bernie offered her a cup of coffee in their meeting that had
written on it something like "Women can't win, you're a bitch, how's menopause treating you,
and also your hair is dry and brittle." (It was a Starbucks Trenta cup so he could go full on
misogynist because there was a lotta space to write on–thanks Starbucks, first a war on
Christmas, now a war on Women).
So I'd say this is weaponizing a status and taking the struggles of others to pretend they
are your own. Stolen valor, really.
For many of us Sanders is a compromise. The changes needed are massive, but he's the closest
thing we've got at this point. The hulking size of our nation and the lack of immediacy to
those in power over us lends a situation of creating an infantalized population. This is where
we are at now. There should be direct accountability and of course we have nothing of the sort.
I suspect far in the future, if humans are to survive in any manner, it will go back to some
sort of mutual aid, and direct accountability from those making life and death decisions over
others, in short, more of a tribal situation. But right now, in our lifetimes, we are tasked
with attempting to keep the planet below 150 degrees, to not bake our children before next
week.
We have utter nonsense pouring in from the Warren corporate shills and it is wasting our
precious time. The recent CNN debate should render that channel irrelevant at best, a direct
threat at the worst. Fox comes in with obvious bias, but the CNNs and MSNBCs slip in behaving
as if they are reasonable and neutral, assaulting those of us unlucky enough to have to watch
them as captives at dental offices. They most certainly help the Warrens and other corporate
shills by providing red herring distractions and pleas for incrementalism. This is akin to only
turning up your boiling water that you bath in a degree or two every 5 minutes rather than
trying to stop the boil. They care about immediate profits and in truth are terribly stupid.
Many of us have been raised to be polite and not utter this about others, especially those in
power. We look for reasons and conditions for their behavior and choices, but the stark fact is
that a lot of these people are ignorant as fuck and want to remain that way -- little or no
intellectual curiosity and full of base greed. And this will kill us all.
The treachery of Warren towards Sanders is most likely from some back room deal with Biden.
He probably told her that he needs help against Corn Pop and while sniffing her hair and
unwashed face, (I'm not being snarky without reason, she shared her beauty routine with the
media since that's so pressing in these days of turmoil) well Biden decided that she would be
the one to stroke his leg hairs in the oval office as VP.
They are the golden hairs of a golden
white man, he says. This is the way of Washington–lots of white men thinking their leg
hair is the best, but her instincts were shit to have taken a deal like this. No way in hell is
Biden going to win, even if the DNC does manage to prop him up as their candidate.
Trump will
have a field day with him (Biden of the reasonable Republican fable) and if they do debate, the
entire country might have a collective intracranial bleed from the batshittery that will be
spoken.
Trump will be there, all eyes dilated, snorting and speaking gibberish; Biden will be
there, all blood eyed and smarmy, talking about how poor kids can be smart too (the more you
know). I cry in a corner even considering such a spectacle. I'd rather see Topsy electrocuted
than watch that.
Anyway, it's not unlikely that Warren will get a challenger for her senate seat due to this
Judas move. The Bernie supporters will be generous with political donations if that individual
materializes, I'm sure. But I'm guessing she will try something again in terms of reinvention
and she will refer to herself as the politician formally known as Elizabeth Warren and try to
get a judge show on antennae tv. I won't watch it even if she hits the gavel and says to leave
the ghosting boyfriend and get a dog in the event of a sassy landlord tenant dispute brought
before her court.
I plan on ghosting Elizabeth Warren and her lying ass.
Warren is no "progressive," as her beating a retreat from Medicare for All demonstrates. She
now has shown herself to be a bald-faced liar as well as a political phony.
Warren is the Jussie Smollet of politics. I wonder if she claims Bernie attacked her while
wearing a red hat and screaming, "A woman can't win! This is MAGA country!"
It's hillarious that even after the shafting they got in 2016 by CNN there are still some
Bernie supporters who are finally catching on to what Trump supporters have been saying the
whole time, the MSM are a bunch of lying propagandists. I wonder who these people are who
think Bernie is going to fight against the Establishment when he can't even stand up for
himself against CNN, Warren, Hillary, the DNC,.... or anyone.
I'm with you, Me. I expected to see Bernie come out swinging after that exchange with Senator
Warren if he was to have any chance against Trump. Sucking it up for "the team" is loser
talk. Warren accused him of blatantly lying on national TV, and he's okay with that?
This manufactured 'controversy' has absolutely no relevance to electoral chances of
either, outside of the campus/media bubble - whose battle lines are already entrenched.
Then CNN turned to a story that it had reported on just prior to the debate, alleging that
Sanders had told Senator Elizabeth Warren that he did not believe a woman could be elected U.S.
president. The CNN moderator ignored Sanders' assertions that he had a public record going back
decades of stating that a woman could be elected president, that he had stayed out of the race
in 2015 until Warren decided not to run, and that in fact he had told Warren no such thing.
Then came this exchange: CNN: So Senator Sanders -- Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you're saying that
you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?
SANDERS: That is correct.
CNN: Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not
win the election? You don't have to know that you'd be better off with free
college and Medicare for All than with yet another war to recognize the bias here.
Many viewers recognized the slant. Many even began to notice the strange double standard in
never mentioning the cost of any of the wars, but pounding away on the misleading assertions
that healthcare and other human needs cost too much. Here's a question asked by CNN on
Tuesday:
" Vice President Biden, does Senator Sanders owe voters a price tag on his health care
plan? "
There was even time for this old stand-by bit of name-calling: " Senator Sanders, you
call yourself a Democratic Socialist. But more than two-thirds of voters say they are not
enthusiastic about voting for a socialist. Doesn't that put your chances of beating Donald
Trump at risk? "
The audio from the moment where Elizabeth Warren refused to shake Bernie Sanders' hand has
been released.
The #DemDebate
scuffle came after Warren accused Bernie Sanders of saying, a woman can't win, a claim that
contradicts his public comments over decades and one he denies. pic.twitter.com/yVTRkyCb2d
-- BERNforBernie2020RegisterToVote(@BernForBernie20) January
16, 2020
Yep that woman is full of it. You can decide what 'it' is.
Aaron Mate:
Joy Reid should invite this body language expert back, tell the story about the time when
a computer hacker inserted homophobic statements into her old blog posts, and ask the expert to
analyze whether she's lying.
More from Aaron.
Did this Orwell quote inspire you in the present to make the false claim that a computer
hacker wrote your homophobic posts in the past? https://t.co/HsMUGrJj9S
This campaign is owed an apology.
What are they going to do next, phrenology?
This is why no one trusts the media. These people are digging their own professional
graves.
People aren't buying what Joy is selling.
joy reid brings on a phrenologist to prove that liz warren's cheekbones make her native
and dna test was wrong
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) once told a fellow left-wing activist that the Democratic
Party was too "intellectually bankrupt" to allow the progressive movement to flourish within
it.
In a 1985 letter newly obtained by HuffPost in which Sanders debated running for governor,
he wrote: "Whether I run for governor or not is really not important. What would be a
tragedy, however, is for people with a radical vision to fall into the pathetic camp of the
intellectually bankrupt Democratic Party."
----
Sanders' three-paragraph missive was addressed to Marty Jezer, an author and progressive
activist in the state. Then-Mayor Sanders was writing in response to an August letter from
Jezer in which he apologized that a memo he wrote to Sanders had leaked to the press. While
the exact contents of the memo are unclear, Jezer's letter indicates that it encouraged
Sanders to run for Congress instead of challenging Kunin.
"1986 is the wrong time for such a race," Jezer, who died in 2005, wrote. "I hope you will
listen to the voices of the committed activists around the state. We sink or swim with this
together."
Sanders ultimately reached a different conclusion: He ran against Kunin as an independent.
But the decision was not without dissent. An editorial from the socialist magazine In These
Times criticized Sanders for dividing the left.
"In choosing to create a three-way race, Sanders is dividing the left and making more
likely the defeat of an incumbent liberal woman governor by a more conservative Republican,"
In These Times wrote. (At the time, Kunin was one of only two female governors in the
country.)
The editorial prompted Sanders to reply: "I believe that the real changes that are needed
in this country are not going to be brought about by working within the Democratic Party or
the Republican Party."
----
The Vermont senator's critiques of the Democratic Party are well documented, as CNN reported
last July. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, he was adamant that a progressive movement could
not be built within the party and was highly critical of the moderate "New Democrats" who
argued that the party's progressivism in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s had alienated
voters.
"I think that nationally, the party has on issue after issue sold out so many times that
if you go before the people and say, 'Hey, I'm a Democrat,' you don't usually generate a lot
of enthusiasm," Sanders said in 1991 about the idea of a progressive trying to work within
the party.
Commenting on civil rights activist Jesse Jackson's Democratic presidential runs in the
1980s, Sanders said he did not agree with Jackson's decision to work "within the Democratic
Party." (Sanders endorsed Jackson's candidacy.) His skepticism of the party continued in
subsequent decades. In 2011, he said Democrats could be called "Republican-lite" for
considering cuts to Social Security and Medicare in order to lessen the deficit. And his
first presidential campaign in 2016 didn't shy away from blasting the party apparatus.
Sanders' willingness to criticize the Democratic Party speaks to the progressive bona
fides highlighted by his supporters. His campaign often relies on decades-old videos of
Sanders warning against the Iraq war, multinational trade deals and the climate crisis using
the same rhetoric he still uses today.
But the senator's view of the party -- and the role of progressive politics within it --
has evolved. He's since refined his critiques to focus on the "corporate wing of the
Democratic Party," which is composed of the same centrists, including organizations like
Third Way, that pushed the party to the right during the 1980s and '90s.
----
That hasn't been enough for many of his critics, who accuse him of only half-heartedly
campaigning for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016 after dragging out the
primary, and question whether he would be willing to support down-ballot Democratic
candidates who don't share his progressive ideology.
I recently watched Jimmy's show where he played a clip of Rachel praising Bernie for
campaigning so hard for Her. Her wrote him a letter telling him thanks for working so hard to
get her elected.
Bernie did 37 rallies for her in 14 days. Hillary only did 8 for Obama. Let's talk about
this, Hillary! You worthless ^*#%^! - strife delivery
It turns out media sources might have leaked to one another about Warren-Sanders dispute
& that didn't come from @ewarren campaign. Anyone still
denying national media has hostility toward @BernieSanders campaign is
being purposely obtuse. No one hates progressives more than MSM.
Anyone who thinks impeachment will succeed needs to exit the Russiagate/DNC/CNN black
hole.
And while I do believe Sanders could beat Trump, I have little faith the Clinton controlled
DNC will allow that to happen.
Warren has showed her true colors
Biden is a less competent male HRC and the rest of the field ranges from billionaires to
Intel agency drones.
Sure, Trump could lose "if". What matters is the candidate, though and none of the
candidates besides Sanders can energize enough people to beat Trump.
@Daniel (13). You hit the nail on the head, brother. Trump bears responsibility for all of
the shit he has pulled, which includes hiring the worst possible people to advise him and run
his administration. Throwing blame on the jackasses around him only proves that he is the
biggest jackass of all.
And for the record, U.S. elections rarely turn on foreign policy issues. As Bill Clinton
(another jackass, though much smarter) famously said: "It's the economy, stupid."
"... "They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that, as a Senator, he sit through the Impeachment Hoax Trial," ..."
"... "Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to Sleepy Joe Biden, and Bernie is shut out again. Very unfair, but that's the way the Democrats play the game. Anyway, it's a lot of fun to watch." ..."
"... Trump's theory isn't plucked entirely out of thin air. With the impeachment trial set to begin on Tuesday, Sanders will have to disrupt his campaign activity in Iowa and return to Washington DC to sit in the Senate, two weeks ahead of the Iowa caucuses. Crucially for Sanders, the trial begins as he edges Biden out of the lead in the polls. ..."
"... Friday's tweet isn't the first time Trump has accused the Democrats of stacking the cards against Sanders. Last April, he suggested that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was "again working its magic in its quest to destroy Crazy Bernie Sanders for the more traditional, but not very bright, Sleepy Joe Biden." ..."
"... whether the impeachment trial is an intentional move to muscle Sanders out of contention or not, The Democratic Party looks in danger of repeating the mistakes that cost it the White House in 2016. ..."
The
impeachment trial against Donald Trump is not just a "witch hunt," but a ploy to "rig" the
Democratic nomination against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Joe Biden, the US president has
claimed. "They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like last time,
only even more obviously," Trump tweeted on Friday.
They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like last time, only even
more obviously. They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that, as a Senator,
he sit through the Impeachment Hoax Trial. Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to
Sleepy...
"They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that, as a Senator, he sit
through the Impeachment Hoax Trial," he continued. "Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong
edge to Sleepy Joe Biden, and Bernie is shut out again. Very unfair, but that's the way the
Democrats play the game. Anyway, it's a lot of fun to watch."
Trump's theory isn't plucked entirely out of thin air. With the impeachment trial set to
begin on Tuesday, Sanders will have to disrupt his campaign activity in Iowa and return to
Washington DC to sit in the Senate, two weeks ahead of the Iowa caucuses. Crucially for
Sanders, the trial begins as he edges Biden out of the lead in the polls.
The caucuses are the first major contest in the presidential primary season, and eight out
of the last 12 caucus winners went on to win the Democratic party's nomination.
Sanders' fellow 2020 frontrunner Elizabeth Warren will also return to DC to hear the case
against Trump, while Biden, the former Vice President, will be free to stump for support with
impunity.
Trump has savaged the case against him from multiple angles, alternately calling it
"presidential harassment," a "partisan hoax," and a "witch hunt" led by
the "Do Nothing Democrats." Lately, however, the president has taken to stoking division
among his opponents, talking up "Crazy Bernie Sanders" surge in the polls and amplifying
a brewing feud between Sanders and Warren – two candidates representing the leftist,
progressive wing of the Democratic party.
Bernie Sander's volunteers are trashing Elizabeth "Pocahontus" Warren. Everybody knows her
campaign is dead and want her potential voters. Mini Mike B is also trying, but getting tiny
crowds which are all leaving fast. Elizabeth is very angry at Bernie. Do I see a feud
brewing?
Friday's tweet isn't the first time Trump has accused the Democrats of stacking the cards
against Sanders. Last April, he suggested that the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) was "again working its magic in its quest to destroy
Crazy Bernie Sanders for the more traditional, but not very bright, Sleepy Joe Biden."
The Democratic establishment is widely believed to have "rigged" the 2016 primaries
in favor of Hillary Clinton, with an email leak from within the DNC revealing the extent of the
bias
. Clinton was notified of debate questions in advance, her foundation was allowed to staff and
fund the DNC, and Sanders' campaign strategy was secretly passed to the Clinton camp.
The rest is history, and whether the impeachment trial is an intentional move to muscle
Sanders out of contention or not, The Democratic Party looks in danger of repeating the
mistakes that cost it the White House in 2016.
"... Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute, ..."
"... "Washington is treating the EU as an adversary. It is dealing the same way with Mexico, Canada, and with allies in Asia. This policy will provoke counter-reactions across the world." ..."
"... The National Interest ..."
"... Treasury's War: The Unleashing of a New Era of Financial Warfare ..."
"... "We must increase Europe's autonomy and sovereignty in trade, economic and financial policies ... It will not be easy, but we have already begun to do it." ..."
When the US places financial sanctions one one country, it de facto sanctions many
other countries as well -- including many of its allies.
This is because not all countries and firms are interested in participating in the US
sanctions-based foreign policy.
Sanctions, after all, have become a favorite go-to strategy for American policymakers who
seek to isolate or punish foreign states that don't cooperate with US international policy
goals.
In recent years, the US has been most active in imposing new sanctions on Russia and Iran,
with many consequences for US allies who are still open to doing business with both of those
countries.
The US can retaliate against organizations that violate US sanctions in a variety of ways.
In the past, the US has sued firms such as the Netherlands' ING Groep and Switzerland Credit
Suisse. Both firms have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines in the past. The US has
been known to
go after individuals .
US bureaucrats like to remind firms that penalties await them, should then not buckle under
US sanctions plan. In November 2018, for example, US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo
announced :
I promise you that doing business in Iran in defiance of our sanctions will ultimately be
a much more painful business decision than pulling out of Iran.
Fear of sanctions has caused some firms to stop work mid project, such as
when Swiss pipe-laying company Allseas Group abandoned a $10 billion pipeline that was
nearing completion.
Not surprisingly, these firms -- who employ people, pay taxes, and contribute to economic
growth -- have put pressure on their governments to protest the mounting interference from the
US into private trade.
As a result, some European politicians are increasingly looking for ways
to get around US sanctions . In a tweet last week, Germany's deputy foreign minister Niels
Annen wrote "Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend itself from licentious
extraterritorial sanctions."
Another "senior German government official" concluded, "Washington is treating the EU as
an adversary. It is dealing the same way with Mexico, Canada, and with allies in Asia. This
policy will provoke counter-reactions across the world."
But how is the US so easily able to sanction so much of the world, including companies in
huge and influential countries like Germany?
The answer lies in the fact the US dollar and the US economy remain at the center of the
international trade system.
SWIFT: How the US Sanctions the World
By the waning days of the Cold War, the US dollar had become the dominant currency in the
non-communist world, thanks to the Bretton Woods agreement, the petrodollar, and the sheer size
of the US economy.
Once the Communist Bloc collapsed, the dollar was poised to grow even more in importance,
and the world's financial institutions searched for a way to make global trade and investing
even faster and easier.
Henry Farrell at The National Interestdescribes
what came next:
Financial institutions wanted to communicate with other financial institutions so that
they could send and receive money. This led them to abandon inefficient
institution-to-institution communications and to converge on a common solution: the financial
messaging system maintained by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication (SWIFT) consortium, based in Belgium. Similarly, banks wanted to make
transactions in the globally dominant currency, the U.S. dollar. ... In practice, the
physical infrastructure, for a variety of efficiency reasons, tended to channel global flows
through a small number of central data cables and switch points.
At the time, Europe was still years away from creating the euro, and it only seemed natural
that a centralized dollar-transfer system be developed for all the world.
SWIFT personnel have always maintained their organization is apolitical, neutral, and only
interested in providing a service. But geopolitical realities have long intervened. Farrell
continues:
The centralizing tendencies meant that the new infrastructure of global networks was
asymmetric: some nodes and connections were far more important than others. ... What this
meant was that a few states -- most prominently the United States -- had the latent ability
to transform the global economic infrastructures ... into an architecture of global power and
information gathering.
By 2001, the power of this centralized system had become apparent. And in the wake of 9/11,
the US used the "War on Terror" and an opportunity to turn SWIFT into an enormous international
tool for surveillance and financial power.
In his book Treasury's War: The Unleashing of a New Era of Financial Warfare Juan Zarate shows
how the US Treasury officials pressured SWIFT and its personnel to provide the US government
with the means to use this international financial "plumbing" to deprive the US's enemies of
access to markets.
This started out slow, and SWIFT officials were concerned it would become widely known that
SWIFT was becoming politicized and largely a tool of the US and US allies. Nevertheless, the
American regime pressed its advantage, and by 2012 "for the first time ever, SWIFT unplugged
designated Iranian banks from its system, in accordance with a European directive and under the
threat of possible US legislation."
This only strengthened worries among both world regimes and the world's financial
institutions that the basic technical infrastructure of the international financial system was
really a political tool.
The World Searches for Alternatives
Naturally, Russia and China have been highly motivated to find alternatives to SWIFT. But
even perennial US allies have grown far more wary of leaving the financial system in a place
where it can be so easily dominated by the US regime. If Iranian banks can be "unplugged" so
easily from the global system, what's to stop the US from taking similar steps against German
banks, French banks, or Italian banks?
This, of course, is an implied threat behind US demands that European companies not try to
work around US sanctions or face "punishment." From the US perspective, if Germans refuse to
kowtow to US policy, then there's an easy solution: simply cut the Germans off from the
international banking system.
Consequently, Germany's Foreign Minister Heiko Maas announced
in 2008
"We must increase Europe's autonomy and sovereignty in trade, economic and financial
policies ... It will not be easy, but we have already begun to do it."
By late 2019, the UK, France, and Germany had put together a workaround called "INSTEX"
designed to facilitate continued trade with Iran without using the dollar and the SWIFT system
built upon it. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have joined the
system as well.
As of January 2020, however, the cumbersome system remains unused. But we remain in the very
early stages of European efforts to get a divorce from the dollar-dominated financial system.
The INSTEX system has been devised, for now, for a limited purpose. But there is no reason it
cannot be expanded in the future. The short-term prospects for a functional system are low.
Longer-term, however, things are different. The motivation for a long-term workaround is
growing. The Trump administration has embraced showmanship that looks good in a short-term news
cycle, but which encourages US allies to pull away. Farrell continues:
Unlike Obama, Donald Trump did not use careful diplomacy to build international support
for [new sanctions] against Iran. Instead, he imposed them by fiat, to the consternation of
European allies, who remained committed to the [Iran agreement put in place under Obama]. The
United States now threatened to impose draconian penalties on its allies' firms if they
continued to work inside the terms of an international agreement that the United States
itself had negotiated. The EU invoked a blocking statute, which effectively made it illegal
for European firms to comply with U.S. sanctions, but without any significant consequences.
SWIFT, for example, avoided the statute by never formally stating that it was complying with
U.S. sanctions; instead explaining that it was regrettably suspending relations with Iranian
banks "in the interest of the stability and integrity of the wider global financial
system."
All of this is viewed with alarm by not only Europe, but by China and Russia as well. The
near-constant stream of threats by the US administration to impose ever harsher limits and
sanctions on both China and Europe has pushed the rest of the world to accelerate plans to get
around US sanctions. After all, as of mid-2019, the US
had nearly 8,000 sanctions in place against various states and organizations and
individuals. The term now being used in reference to American sanctions is "
overuse ." It was one thing when the US imposed sanctions in some extreme cases. But now
the US appears increasingly fond of using and threatening sanctions regularly, without
consulting allies.
This makes continued US dominance in this regard less likely as allies the world pour more
and more resources into ending the US-SWIFT control of the system. In a 2018 report, "Towards a
Stronger International Role of the Euro," the European Commission described U.S. sanctions as "
wake-up call regarding Europe's economic and monetary sovereignty. "
The effort still has a long way to go, but perhaps not as far as many think.
The dollar remains far ahead of the euro in terms of the dollar's use as a reserve currency,
but the dollar and the euro are move evenly matched
when it comes to international payment transactions.
If the rest of the world remains sufficiently motivated, more can certainly be done to rein
in dollar-based sanctions. Indeed, in 2019, former US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew
admitted :
the plumbing is being built and tested to work around the United States. Over time as
those tools are perfected, if the United States stays on a path where it is seen as going it
alone there will increasingly be alternatives that will chip away at the centrality of the
United States.
If the US finds itself not longer at the center of the global financial system, this will
bring significant disadvantages for the US regime and US residents. A decline in demand for the
dollar would also lead to less demand for US debt. This would put upward pressure on interest
rates and thus bring higher debt-payment obligations for the US regime. This would constrain
defense spending and the ability of the US to project its power to every corner of the globe.
At the same time, central bank efforts to drive interest rates back down would bring a greater
need to monetize the debt. The resulting price inflation in either consumer goods or assets
would be significant.
The fact none of this will become obvious next week or next month
doesn't mean it will never happen . But the US's enthusiasm for sanctions means the world
is already learning the price of doing business with the United States and with the dollar.
Took three months to pass the legislation to seize control of the Gold supply even though
they knew the U.S defaulted on the War debt of first world war and America was only partially
involved.
Better move fast. U.S has not declared War for real since Pearl Harbour.
Best way to avert it is to look at the economic calculations being made and slow what they
need for this extended and probably apocalyptic war to start.
They need man power for what is planned but I have a suspicion this time they are planning
for megadeath on all sides.
Nothing will be destroyed. Situations like this are about chipping away and crumbling.
Rome was not built in a day. People sit in wait to find a weak spot of the hegemon and if you
think that the US is a perfect and perpetual hegemon than you are as delusional as Obama.
He bragged in 2015 that he/they twisted arms of countries when they did not do what he
'needed' them to do. (See y-tube). Every country, every person who had arms twisted is
sitting in wait to hit back. Chisel away, apply needlepricks, obedience can be forced; desire
for revenge never dies.
You need to treat people well on your way up because you are meeting them all again on
your way down.
Will The US Obsession With Sanctions Destroy The Dollar?
Hopefully it will destroy the US BULLY TOO...
This saga of Sanctions all started with the Black Jesus Obama and Russia. It was a
disaster then, harmful to Russian women and children and never affect the oligarchs. It is
Stalingrad stuff.
Then along comes the pile of **** known as the Orange Jesus. Considering Trump's pretend
hatred of Obama, he sure loved the community organizers weaponizing of the Dollar Reserve...
So much so the orange ******* now has 40% of the world population under Dollar Reserve
Sanctions. More Stalingrad ****. And the world hates it.
So there is no question that nations will find ways around sanctions and the mother fking
pencil necked poodles that support this mfkirng ****. They can't comprehend that if TRUMP
does this to some country, he can do it to them.
The Dollar Reserve was intended to be apolitical a means of global commerce. At Bretton
Woods, Maynard Keynes addressed the Reserve Currency to avoid this. He recommended a
synthetic reserve currency composed of five of the world's leading currencies called the
BANCOR. He was voted down by the US delegation that only would accept the Dollar over the
Pound. Britain was too weak after the war to oppose the US. So that set up the Dollar Reserve
by intimidation and bullying. What else is new.
Now the US uses their 800 military bases to enforce their Sanctions and Dollar reserve
weaponizing.
This will come to an end. Europe is a larger economy than the US and Asia is larger than
the US and Europe Combined. So this dollar reserve weaponizing crap will end.
Interesting isn't it that the two most economically illiterate presidents in history, love
sanctions. I promise, the Dollar reserve as the primary currency of exchange is THE DEAD MAN
WALKING.... They are also the most RACIST presidents in US History.
Goldamn did a white paper on this... If the US loses the Dollar Reserve the GDP would tank
30%. So yeah... welcome to the the stone age and fighting in the streets. But to neutralize
the dollar Reserve damage only requires competition to the US Dollar.
So far the Yuan is not printed in enough quantity to compete in a big way. The Euro has
never shown the inclination to be anything but a poodle.
WWII has never ended. Look at NATO... who are they opposing... RUSSIA. Give it a rest.
Russia is not going to attack Europe. So this NATO military facade is about to crumble. Trump
attempting to get NATO to attack Iran and enter the Middle east is laughable and won't
happen. Only the British Poodles are stupid enough for that.
And why is Britain fking with anybody... Doesn't the Queen have enough RYSIST issues now
that Harry and Megan have called her a RYSIST? Love to see Britain go it alone but they are
real pussies and have filled the world with hatred so there will be consequences.
Sanctions use the same philosophy of the the Mafia and having to use it means the days of
the dollar hegemony are gradually ending. What goes around comes around. yin-yang.
YES but for the first time they are present. The Euro is a Reserve Currency but Europe has
never asserted its status. Likely due to Germany. Germany destroys Europe in so many way.
Merkel is pathetic.
Now the Yuan as of 2016 is a reserve currency and they are trading Iron ore from Australia
and Brazil in Yuan. Also China has a 24 Trillion dollar internal commodities market that
trades in Yuan. So the mechanics of massive Trade are already set in place in China and
Asia.
Traditionally the largest trading nation had the reserve currency. The US is no longer the
largest trading nation. They are the largest debtor nation however.
This only Bretton woods post World War II rules. Back in the old days gold was trusted
because people who had it actually hd to produce or trade for it. War economy is always pure
fiat even if it means killing your own soldiers and robbing their families.
If it gets dirty everyone is going to have to play the game. Why do you think they are
still dealing with Afghanistan like its the centre of the universe for the last 20 years.
PTSD and ******** propaganda on young men is enough to push them over the edge. Same thing
for the nasty **** that happens to women.
All these currencies are pure fiat floating against perceived demand and ********
technocrats. People want to die in these situations they are going to monetize human misery.
The opiate epidemics in the 60s pushed the U.S of the Gold standard. Where do you think the
French got all those U.S dollars from straight after the war.
Ever heard of this little thing called cryptocurrency? It can't be weaponized like a CB
currency because there is no centralized authority and no need for a trusted third party. It
can cross international borders at the speed of light and cheaply to boot. It's quite clever.
I imagine it will become all the rage in the next couple years.
I dont think you understand the concept of war. They napalmed kids to heard their parents
into concentration camps. That was the Pentagon. Theyre not going to spare your internet
service provider in the name of free trade and libertarian finance.
Bit coin can be used the same way as the military script just by switching off your
computer and forcing you to adopt another currency. They did it every few months in Vietnam.
IBM ran the analytics with a super computer and they still didnt beat the Tet Offensive which
was just people letting of steam for lunar new year by killing anyone who worked with the
Americans.
Hedge. Iodine for fallout. Water purification tablets. Toilet Paper and Sanitary wipes and
shoes. Batteries. You wont be allowed to grow food when it starts.
Economic sanctions, sanctions of any kind, are like pepper: use cautiously, sparingly, and
only when the recipe calls for it. Don't inhale, either. Massive sneeze attacks can follow
and the dish can be ruined.
signed by Trump in 2017 means we have essentially entered into a world where the American
regime is weaponizing sanctions to dominate the planet.
Of course, karma is a law, which cannot be avoided, and this article is right. It is only a
matter of time. Moreover, he is right in that when we lose this status our ability to wage
endless wars throughout the planet will stop. I hope to see that day.
It is my feeling that the primary reason we are not in a major war at this moment is that
our "adversaries" have noted our decline, as well have many astute and not so astute ZH
members have, and are waiting us out. The other is that our military is not as good as we
claim and some of us know it.
GOLD should be trading currently at least at 4,800 and SILVER should be trading today
at triple digits -- The Federal Reserve and PPT like to manipulate the precious metals, stop
manipulating the PM morons.
Let's take a look at the SILVER chart:
SILVER -- TF = Daily -- SILVER --time frame is daily-- has developed a very well known
technical pattern CUP and HANDLE -- SILVER STRONG BUY -- https://invst.ly/pie5l
"Donny Appleseed" send$ his tiding$ to the American lemming... counting all those "0"s
that are only gettin bigger with each sweep of the EST "second hand".
Still allowed to be "alive" after all that damage and all these years!
I just attended a China - US conference. The chinese fund managers who spoke there said
that China's economy is at a standstill and now is the time for "VULTURE" funds to be active
acquiring heavily discounted firms which are over-leveraged. Not the sounds of a ready for
prime time currency. And the market know as less than 2% of global reserves are Yuan as in
the chart and Chinese dollar reserves are 30% of what they were years ago.
Germany's deputy foreign minister Niels Annen wrote "Europe needs new instruments to be
able to defend itself from licentious extraterritorial sanctions."
The BIG problem with the US dollar is not only the data but it is also the staggering
amounts of printing, printing, printing and QE4ever that totally destroy the purchasing power
of the US Dollar. Only GOLD and SILVER are the real 'store of value'.
Let's take a look at the US Dollar chart:
US DOLLAR Index -- TF = 4H -- ROUNDED TOP suggesting much lower levels ahead -- US DOLLAR
STRONG SELL -- https://invst.ly/pj042
Like how in the 80's everybody assumed flying cars were "near future", people who think
the dollar will lose (or already lost) reserve status are delusional.
It will take a long long time to ween the world off of the entire banking complex,
literally made by and through the dollar.
Multiple reasons, primarily:
1) US gov still a strong presence around the world militarily and financially
2) US dollar still the #1 currency used in transactions between major firms
3) US banking system has, in its pockets, about 80% of the worlds billionaire class, which
conversely, makes most of the major decisions around the world
4) SWIFT system and World Bank both huge institutions that literally hold most 3rd world
countries economics (see Venezuela for examples of a 3rd world country trying to NOT do what
the US wants)
In a static geopolitical environment, your points are valid. After all, it's been this way
for a very long time. You would - and perhaps will be however, amazed at just how fast the
dynamics of your 4 points can change when two near equally (and in some cases superior)
military and economic world powers are geopolitically pushed to a limit they will no longer
accept. And guess what? That's coming a whole lot sooner than most think.
EVERY ******* in Washington needs to go and be replace with people who have an interest in
the well being of the country rather than their personal power plays. The world HATES the
Washington assholes almost as much as the US citizens hate the bastards.
Sanctions are used to force another nation into compliance.
Bombs are used to force another nation into compliance.
Anyone still think the treasury and Fed aren't the biggest warmongers around? They have to
be, otherwise the US dollar would be toast, as there is nothing but a military holding it up.
A nation with 5% of the global population, full of fat walmart shoppers, does not have the
productive means to force their will without the war machine. Ironically, that same war
machine is fully funded by the foreigners the bankers bomb, as using the USD means you must
hold dollar reserves. It is a grand racket.
The Russia and Ukraine scandals leading to impeachment are nonsense but Trump should be
impeached for hastening the demise of our reserve currency. Weaponizing the dollar was the
dumbest strategy he ever came up with. Russia and China are gaining friends and influence
every day while the U.S. is becoming an outcast. They are using the Carrot while all Trump
knows is the Stick.
The US UK Israel petrodollar system collapsed overnight with the US military having no
credible response to having its base bombed. A credible response is for the US to have dealt
death from the skies, destroying and severely deteriorating Iran's ballistic launch
capabilities or at the least a strike on its major oil refineries. That did not happen.
Why?
The US & UK airforce are outdated....in fact any conventional air force that relies on
drones or stealth jets to deliver bomb payloads are outdated!
The purpose of an air-force is to bomb targets from the sky. Iranians have shown you can
do it with ultra-cheap short medium range ballistic missiles which are nothing more than crap
aluminum tubes filled with propellant, a low cost cell phone GPS guidance system and a big
payload. You can make millions for the cost of one stealth jet!
IRAN has all US, Israel and Saudi targets mapped and gave a demo of what they can do. By
the time the shitty F35s start their engines on a runway of a worthless aircraft carrier,
thousands of these missiles will be launched by Iran destroying all targets within minutes of
declaration of TOTAL WAR!
THE PURPOSE OF STEALTH has been defeated. There is no deterrence against ballistic
missiles which are faster then aircraft! So by the time the first wave of stupid burger
planes reach IRAN, all BURGER bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel and aircraft carriers will
have been destroyed! So the USA cant protect anything without losing everything!
TOTAL WAR even with a weak power like Iran means TOTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE WAR in which case
everybody's base gets destroyed and who ever pushes the button fastest gets to destroy the
targets fastest and everything is over in less than an hour! Since burgers dont have magic
hollywood space lasers, just piece of **** F35s and outdated carriers....burgers cant defend
anything! Burgers have no deterrence for TOTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE WARFARE. There is no time to
start your engines and take off on a runway, the missiles are already on their way and will
hit bases and aircraft carriers within 10 to 20 minutes of declaration of TOTAL WAR.
Trump killed a rook (solemani) in the game of geopolitical chess (which the Persians
invented) and the mullahs in Tehran checkmated the USA and Israel by making redundant the
view that only very very expensive stealth jets can accurately deliver bombs with precision!
No brainer right there...a plane requires life support, complex systems just to support the
idiot who is flying it to the target...a missile requires no stealth technology, its fast,
accurate and deadly with no deterrent! In one stroke the mullahs revealed that the entire US
air-force is obsolete against TOTAL short/ medium range ballistic missile war!
We should have had ballistic missile carriers but we dont because greedy defense
contractor boomers think they are the smartest defense planners when in fact they just loved
to build planes instead of realizing short range ballistic GPS guided precision missiles can
do the same thing! But not much profit in that of course..
US air-force outdated = US ground troops outdated because they rely on US air-force for
back up. So you have to withdraw = NO PETRODOLLAR.
As of today the US cannot defend its bases in Iraq, Israel or Saudi Arabia....
US/UK/Israel/Saudis combined cannot protect anything without losing everything!
That is called check-mate my friends. The petrodollar age has ended and the AGE OF THE
PETROYUAN has begun. China copies everything the US does, they wanted their Saudi Arabia and
they got all of IRAN and IRAQ.
Now Trump has to sign trade deal after trade deal because the world holds a massive amount
of US securities and we have to supply real goods and services...opening up oil fields for
export, everything. Burgers have to become a land of farmers and oil workers to satisfy all
the US dollar holdings out there because TRUMP LOST THE PETRODOLLAR by DESTROYING US CREDIBLE
MILITARY DETERRENCE for the whole world to see...the ability to provide 'SEGURIDY' AS HENRY
KISSINGER would say.
Everybody now knows the US is just another power only burgers have their head up their
asses. A big crash is coming our way and this time we DO NOT HAVE THE PETRODOLLAR FOR
RECOVERY LIKE WE HAD IN 2008!
TRUMP LOST THE WESTERN PETRODOLLAR HEGEMON....HE LITERALLY LOST THE WEST!
THE PETRODOLLAR AGE OF PROSPERITY HAS ENDED! BECAUSE DRUMPF, KUSHNER AND NETANYAHU!
The EVANGELICAL BIBLICAL APOCALYPSE has come and gone! The GREAT SATAN as the mullahs
would call them have been revealed to have no power to price oil in the middle east anymore!
The military humiliation and withdrawal comes next...its a Greek tragedy in modern
times...
Paraphrasing Thucydides
"A society that divides its warriors and scholars will have its wars planned by cowards
and fought by fools"
Trump knocked out a rook and a couple bishops, and ignored opportunities on several pawns.
By not taking the bait, escalations fall onto Iran's shoulders and will be increasingly hard
to justify.
Eventually their retaliation actions blur into the smoke of their terrorist proxies. Then
they fulfill the role thst Trump claims they occupy. Then action on them will be easily
justified. Even now Iran is shredding the JCPOA, that document that they acted like was so
dear to them - thus giving the rest of the world the finger. Hey, you couldn't play their
part worse if you tried...
There is no deterrence against ballistic missiles which are faster then aircraft! So by
the time the first wave of stupid burger planes reach IRAN, all BURGER bases in Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, Israel and aircraft carriers will have been destroyed! So the USA cant
protect anything without losing everything!
That's what Hitler thought, Saddam tried it as well, the theory proved to be wrong.
The purpose of an air-force is to bomb targets from the sky. Iranians have shown you can
do it with ultra-cheap short medium range ballistic missiles which are nothing more than
crap aluminum tubes filled with propellant, a low cost cell phone GPS guidance system and a
big payload. You can make millions for the cost of one stealth jet!
This was particularly hilarious. If that were the case the USA and its allies would be
doing that. Do you not realize the US has had rocket artillery for the past 70 years? The
larger the rocket, and the longer its range, the larger and heavier the transport TEL vehicle
and support base and storage must be. The industrial and technical support base as well. And
the crews to man and employ them get larger as well, as does their training equipping and
paying of them.
That's in fact very expensive, and you run out of rockets real fast.
But stealth jets come back every day, for months, or years, and drop big-*** bombs on your
missile factories, and its industrial support base, it's electricity supply, its fuel supply,
its chemical factories, its bases, bunkers, sensors comms, personnel, ports and the entire
industrial economic infrastructure of the entire country.
then why didnt you boomer? Because Iran's missiles will hit your base anyway..stealth or
no stealth that is the point! The US was supposed to wage such a death match war against
China or Russia...not a 4th rate shithole like IRAN. You boomers literally have your head up
your asses. The 90s is over boomers! The boomer run US armed forces is totally obsolete
because we have been humiliated and the boomers are so shameless they are behaving like
'colored peoples of poor upbringing'.
Hold me back or ill......hold me back or ill.... you will do what? Nothing! No one held
burger boy trump back. Burger boy held himself back because he and his son in law and the
prime brains behind losing the petrodollar, Netanyahu would lose Israel also along with Saudi
Arabia and all burger bases!
oh so I must be a muslim if I said Israel lost the petrodollar because the joke is on you
clowns. Lose the petrodollar boomers lose their 401k and Israel has to negotiate with Iran to
exist...win win if you ask me...cant wait to watch you flip burgers in your 80s.
The fact that you want us to use WWII Japan as comparison completely nullifies your rant.
Furthermore, revisionism and hyped up ability does no good in the real world. We don't need
to ask Hitler or Saddam. Had Saddam moved in on Saudi Arabia rather than allowing forces to
amass it's been a different story. Regarding Hitler, you cinta had little to no hand in the
matter. Case in point.
In this sense only Sanders, Warren and Tulsi are authentic democrats... Major Pete is
definitely a wolf in sheep clothing.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that fate. ..."
"... A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in existence. And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would conspire with the Republicans to destroy them all. ..."
Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to
destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime
Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that
fate.
A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in
existence. And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would
conspire with the Republicans to destroy them all.
The ClintoBama Pelosicrats have no standing on which to pretend to support some very
popular social programs and hope to be believed any longer. Maybe that is why they feel there
is no point in even pretending any more.
Bearing in mind the fact that the DemParty would prefer a Trump re-election over a Sanders
election, I don't think anyone will be giving Trump any heave ho. The only potential nominee to
even have a chance to defeat Trump would be Sanders. And if Sanders doesn't win on ballot
number one, Sanders will not be permitted the nomination by an evil Trumpogenic DemParty
elite.
Even if Sanders wins the nomination, the evil Trumpogenic Demparty leadership and the
millions of Jonestown Clintobamas in the field will conspire against Sanders every way they
feel they can get away with. The Clintobamas would prefer Trump Term Two over Sanders Term One.
They know it, and the rest of us need to admit it.
If Sanders is nominated, he will begin the election campaign with a permanent deficit of
10-30 million Clintobama voters who will Never! Ever! vote for Sanders. Sanders will have to
attract enough New Voters to drown out and wash away the 10-30 million Never Bernie
clintobamas.
Now that Warren has been exposed as the charlatan ( The Damned Debates ) many of
us knew she was all along, the media is all freaked out that her plan to attack Bernie
Sanders is backfiring and that she is losing support rather than gaining it.
It looks to many like she made a deal with the Wall St. crowd funding the DNC who support
Biden to attack Bernie for them in exchange for a VP spot.
They are obviously very worried about Biden though because the Trump-GOP attack on Biden
over Burisma is coming, and they know they have nothing to stop it. That is what the
impeachment is all about (
Impeachment For Dummies: or How progressives were conned into supporting Joe Biden for
President ), and what the recent claim of Russia hacking to harm Biden is all about. It
is all about trying to protect Biden from the upcoming Trump-GOP Burisma related attack on
Biden. So with Biden in trouble and Warren stumbling, expect Hillary to save the day?
LOL.
They are worried, but unless Bernie is far ahead when it matters then the superdelegates
will save them. But if they do that then they fear many people will go 3rd party next
election cycle, meaning the DNC has no chance to beat the GOP in the future if that
happens.
What will they do? Right now they are full on trying to threaten their way to keep their
new world order as it crumbles around them ( Pax
Americana: Between Iraq and A Hard Place ). Times they are a changin.
But what was actually good in Soleimani killing? He was an Iranian official and only the fact
that the USA is 300 pound gorilla save us from the war for this extra-judicial killing. Because
it was essentially a declaration of the war.
Is some weaker state tried the same the result would be complete devastation of both this
state and Iran in a protracted war. Israel hides in such cases over Uncle Sam (in other version
uncle Schmuel ;-) back so it essentially is allowed the same privileges in extrajudicial killings
as the USA, but that will last only as long as the USA dominance in world affairs. After that
bill with came due for Isreal and it will not be pretty.
Talking about centrists following strictly Trump's playbook, another good example is
Warren's take on Soleimani's killing.
If she believes that she has any chance of defeating Trump as a strong defender of the US
against terrorism, she must be drinking some new kind of kool-aid.
Fortunately, in this sense, Sanders is being much more clever than Warren. I see Sanders
as the only and last opportunity to avoid the worst.
I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe
beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian
actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests. You can at least understand
(even if you critique) a US preoccupation with Cuba over the years, or drug cartels in
central America, or economic refugees in Mexico because they are close by and have a more
less direct effect on the stability of the US. But they have no authority beyond that other
than the ability to project violence and force. That's just simple imperialism. But now the
US have whacked a made guy without any real reason (i.e. looking at you the wrong way is not
a reason). Any mafia hood knows that, especially a New Yorker like Trump. So the climax of
The Godfather comes to mind. It is staggeringly naive and frankly moronic to think
that this is about good and evil. I bet Soleimani was no angel, but he wasn't whacked because
he was a bad guy, but because he was extraordinarily effective military organizer. Star Wars
has a lot to answer for in stunting the historical sensibilities of entire generations, but
its underlying narrative is the only MSM playbook now. Even more staggering is the stupendous
arrogance of the US belief in its 'rights' (based on thuggery and avarice), as though it were
the only power in the world capable of establishing a moral order. The lesson in humility to
come will be both long-awaited and go unheeded. Even the mob understand there has to be
rules.
After reading Crooke and Federicci's articles, there is only one way to stop this madness
blowing into a global conflict. Russia and China need to get involved whether they like it or
not. Diplomacy and sideline analysis has run its course. This is their time to stamp their
influence in the region and finish off the empire once and for all. Maybe that way, The
Europeans will grow some minerals and become sovereign again.
Otherwise, China can kiss its Belt and Road goodbye and go into a recession with the loss
of their investments up to this point and become slaves to the Americans again.
And Russia, the enemy du jour of Europe and US will be next and be crushed under economic
sanctions and isolation.
This is the moment that stars are aligned . Russia and China should park their battle
carriers off the Gulf and gives direct warning to Israel and US that any nuclear threat ,
tactical or otherwise, against anyone in the region is a non-starter.
I read so much about these two countries and that they will get involved. I have recited
those lines myself. But after these events and how things are escalating, I cannot see how
they cannot be involved. US is its most vulnerable and weakest with respect to economic,
diplomatic and military conditions.
The time of condemnations, letters of objection to the UN and veto votes in UNSC is over.
There is only one way to deal with a rogue nation and that is by force.
Just a few years ago, CNN was praising Qassem #Soleimani for being
the driving force behind the defeat of ISIS. Today they call him a "terrorist" and expect
you to believe them.
"We have learned today from #Iraq Prime Minister AdilAbdl Mahdi how @realDonaldTrump uses
diplomacy:
#US asked #Iraq to mediate with #Iran. Iraq PM asks #QassemSoleimani to come and talk to him
and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport."
Whether he is eating ice cream or not, Trump appears to be on a rampage to recreate the
end of The Godfather.
Less than 24 hours after a US drone shockingly killed the top Iranian military leader,
Qasem Soleimani, resulting in equity markets groaning around the globe in fear over Iranian
reprisals (and potentially, World War III), the US has gone for round two with Reuters and
various other social media sources reporting that US air strikes targeting Iraq's Popular
Mobilization Units umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi'ite militias near camp Taji north
of Baghdad, have killed six people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source said
late on Friday.
Now would be the perfect time for the Mossad to do its false flag shtick. They wouldn't even
have to try very hard to pin it on Iran. I'll bet that when the news came out that the
Iranian guy had been killed, every neocon on the planet popped a boner that will last for
days. Michael Ledeen is probably mazel tov-ing his ass off.
I don't care about the dead Muslim who got killed, since that's the only kind of "good
Muslim" you're ever going to find, but I would still prefer for the U.S. to get out of the
Middle East altogether. Let those two warring anti-Christ peoples kill each other to their
hearts' content.
On Sunday's broadcast of CNN's "State of the Union," 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) questioned
if President Donald Trump's reasons for the Qasem Soleimani assassination was to distract from impeachment.
Warren said, "I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago, and why not a month from now?
And the answer from the administration seems to be that they can't keep their story straight on this. They pointed in all different
directions. And you know, the last time that we watched them do this was the summer over Ukraine. As soon as people started asking
about the conversations between Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine and why aid had been held up to Ukraine, the administration
did the same thing. They pointed in all directions of what was going on. And of course, what emerged then is that this is Donald
Trump just trying to advance Donald Trump's own political agenda. Not the agenda of the United States of America. So what happens
right now? Next week, the president of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. We know that he is deeply
upset about that. I think that people are reasonably asking why this moment? Why does he pick now to take this highly inflammatory,
highly dangerous action that moves us closer to war? We have been at war for 20 years in the Middle East, and we need to stop the
war this the Middle East and not expand it."
Tapper asked, "Are you suggesting that President Trump pulled the trigger and had Qasem Soleimani killed as a distraction from
impeachment?"
Warren said, "Look, I think that people are reasonably asking about the timing and why it is that the administration seems to
have all kinds of different answers. In the first 48 hours after this attack, what did we hear? Well, we heard it was for an imminent
attack, and then we heard, no, no, it is to prevent any future attack, and then we heard that it is from the vice president himself
and no, it is related to 9/11, and then we heard from president reports of people in the intelligence community saying that the whole,
that the threat was overblown. You know, when the administration doesn't seem to have a coherent answer for taking a step like this.
They have taken a step that moves us closer to war, a step that puts everyone at risk, and step that puts the military at risk and
puts the diplomats in the region at risk. And we have already paid a huge price for this war. Thousands of American lives lost, and
a cost that we have paid domestically and around the world. At the same time, look at what it has done in the Middle East, millions
of people who have been killed, who have been injured, who have been displaced. So this is not a moment when the president should
be escalating tensions and moving us to war. The job of the president is to keep us safe, and that means move back from the edge."
Tapper pressed, "Do you believe that President Trump pulled the trigger on this operation as a way to distract from impeachment?
Is that what you think?"
Warren said, "I think it is a reasonable question to ask, particularly when the administration immediately after having taken
this decision offers a bunch of contradictory explanations for what is going on."
She continued, "I think it is the right question to ask. We will get more information as we go forward but look at the timing
on this. Look at what Donald Trump has said afterward and his administration. They have pointed in multiple directions. There is
a reason that he chose this moment, not a month ago and not a month from now, not a less aggressive and less dangerous response.
He had a whole range of responses that were presented to him. He didn't pick one of the other ones. He picked the most aggressive
and the one that moves us closer to war. So what does everybody talk about today? Are we going to war? Are we going to have another
five years, tens, ten years of war in the Middle East, and dragged in once again. Are we bringing another generation of young people
into war? That is every bit of the conversation right now. Donald Trump has taken an extraordinarily reckless step, and we have seen
it before, he is using foreign policy and uses whatever he can to advance the interests of Donald Trump."
I had hoped to welcome 2020 with a optimistic post.
Alas, the current news cycle has thrown up little cause for optimism.
Instead, what has caught my eye today: 2019 closes with release of a new study showing the FDA's failure to police opioids manufacturers
fueled the opioids crisis.
This is yet another example of a familiar theme: inadequate regulation kills people: e.g. think Boeing. Or, on a longer term,
less immediate scale, consider the failure of the Environmental Protection Agency, in so many realms, including the failure to curb
emissions so as to slow the pace of climate change.
In the opioids case, we're talking about thousands and thousands of people.
On Monday, Jama
Internal Medicine published research concerning the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) program to reduce opioids abuse.
The FDA launched its risk evaluation and mitigation strategy – REMS – in 2012. Researchers examined nearly 10,000 documents, released
in response to a Freedom of Information ACT (FOA) request, to generate the conclusions published by JAMA.
In 2011, the F.D.A. began asking the makers of OxyContin and other addictive long-acting opioids to pay for safety training
for more than half the physicians prescribing the drugs, and to track the effectiveness of the training and other measures in
reducing addiction, overdoses and deaths.
But the F.D.A. was never able to determine whether the program worked, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health found in a new review, because the manufacturers did not gather the right kind of data. Although the agency's approval
of OxyContin in 1995 has long come under fire, its efforts to ensure the safe use of opioids since then have not been scrutinized
nearly as much.
The documents show that even when deficiencies in these efforts became obvious through the F.D.A.'s own review process, the
agency never insisted on improvements to the program, [called a REMS]. . .
The FDA's regulatory failure had serious public health consequences, according to critics of US opioids policy, as reported by
the NYT:
Dr. Andrew Kolodny, the co-director of opioid policy research at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis,
said the safety program was a missed opportunity. He is a leader of
a group of physicians who had encouraged the F.D.A.
to adopt stronger controls, and a frequent critic of the government's response to the epidemic.
Dr. Kolodny, who was not involved in the study, called the program "a really good example of the way F.D.A. has failed to regulate
opioid manufacturers. If F.D.A. had really been doing its job properly, I don't believe we'd have an opioid crisis today."
Now, as readers frequently emphasize in comments: pain management is a considerable problem – one I am all too well aware of,
as I watched my father succumb to cancer. He ultimately passed away at my parents' home.
Although these drugs "can be clinically useful among appropriately selected patients, they have also been widely oversupplied,
are commonly used nonmedically, and account for a disproportionate number of fatal overdoses," the authors write.
The FDA was unable, more than 5 years after it had instituted its study of the opioids program's effectiveness, to determine whether
it had met its objectives, and this may have been because prior assessments were not objective, according to CNN:
Prior analyses had largely been funded by drug companies, and a 2016 FDA advisory committee "noted methodological concerns
regarding these studies," according to the authors. An inspector general report also concluded in 2013 that the agency "lacks
comprehensive data to determine whether risk evaluation and mitigation strategies improve drug safety."
In addition to failing to evaluate the effective of the limited steps it had taken, the FDA neglected to take more aggressive
steps that were within the ambit of its regulatory authority. According to CNN:
"FDA has tools that could mitigate opioid risks more effectively if the agency would be more assertive in using its power to
control opioid prescribing, manufacturing, and distribution," said retired FDA senior executive William K. Hubbard in an
editorial that accompanied the study. "Instead of bold, effective action, the FDA has implemented the Risk Evaluation and
Mitigation Strategy programs that do not even meet the limited criteria set out by the FDA."
One measure the FDA could have taken, according to Hubbard: putting restrictions on opioid distribution.
"Restricting opioid distribution would be a major decision for the FDA, but it is also likely to be the most effective policy
for reducing the harm of opioids," said Hubbard, who spent more than three decades at the agency and oversaw initiatives in areas
such as regulation, policy and economic evaluation.
Perhaps the Johns Hopkins study will spark moves to reform the broken FDA, so that it can once again serve as an effective regulator.
This could perhaps be something we can look forward to achieving in 2020 (although I won't hold my breath).
Or, perhaps if enacting comprehensive reform is too overwhelming, especially with a divided government, as a starting point: can
we agree to stop allowing self-interested industries to finance studies meant to assess the effectiveness of programs to regulate
that very same industry? Please?
I think some my still hold out the hope or expectation that the DOJ will get to the bottom
of national-security state malfeasance, beginning with FBI.
Kim Strassel of the WSJ quite pointedly asks why there was so little interest at the FIS
court in the Nunez memo, which the IG report now bears out. Covering for malfeasance might
just be the FISC's job one.
Now, a similarly gimlet-eyed view of the FBI, as arguably beyond saving ...
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
(@DrJillStein) January 5, 2020
Daily Caller Jan 07, 2020 Search results
Sarah Abdallah @ sahouraxo 16h 16 hours ago More
