NEW YORK (WND) – Amid rumblings of another Mitt Romney run for the White House, author and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan is advising the GOP to avoid nominating the first two-time loser since Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson lost to Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and again in 1956.
In a wide-ranging interview on his new book, “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from the Dead to Create the New Majority,” Buchanan expressed doubt that Romney could make the kind of historic comeback Nixon accomplished in 1968.
Buchanan, a WND columnist, believes Romney would beat Barack Obama if the presidential election of 2012 were held today. But he contends Romney would lose in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, the Democrats most likely choice.
Buchanan bases his analysis on his nearly 50 years of top-level election experience. In December 1965, he left his job writing editorials for the St. Louis Globe Democrat and was hired by the Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander, and Mitchell law firm in New York City. A year later, Nixon’s campaign hired him as its first adviser.
Buchanan believes, however, that Clinton will need to work skillfully to distance herself sufficiently from Barack Obama while reassuring Democrats she still advocates the progressive values of the party’s base.
“In 1968, the GOP was seen as an acceptable alternative to the Democratic Party,” Buchanan said.
“Today, while the country is ready to reject Obama, it is not ready to accept the Republican Party as an alternative. Among the reasons are the huge demographic changes in an electorate that is now approaching 30 percent from Third World countries that vote 70 to 90 percent for Democrats. These figures are not moving in the GOP’s direction, they are moving in the other way.”
Hillary running against Obama
Hillary’s problem right now, Buchanan stressed, is that she is running against the growing perception of being part of the Obama administration.
“The American people now are wondering if they want four years of Hillary after the two years of Obama since 2012,” he said.
Buchanan said it’s much like the problem President Lyndon Johnson had in 1968 after winning in a landslide four years earlier.
“By 1968, the American people were saying, ‘We’re not sure we want any more of this guy,’” he said.
“This is the problem the Democrats are having today and the reason Hillary is receding from her high point of something like 70 percent approval when she left her job as secretary of state.”
Buchanan made clear that despite Hillary’s recent decline in popularity, she remains the front-runner.
“It’s very hard to see if Hillary runs who will beat her,” he stressed. “I don’t see Elizabeth Warren beating her. I tell people that if I were a 45-year-old Democratic senator, I would run, and I would challenge Hillary on issues, so if I lost I would have gained the opportunity to introduce myself to the American people and hope lightening strikes.”
Mindful of Bill Clinton’s support of Hillary’s candidacy, he added, “But I doubt any Democrat wants to take the risk of running against Hillary, since it means going after the king, and failing to get the job done might just have disastrous consequences.”
Comparing Romney’s comeback probabilities to Nixon’s, Buchanan said there’s nobody in the GOP like Nixon.
“Before I was 10 years old, Nixon was a world figure that had taken down Alger Hiss and was a famous American congressman who had wiped out Helen Gahagan Douglas by the largest majority in California history (for a U.S. Senate seat),” he said. “Then he was the second youngest vice president. He was a huge figure in the GOP, and there is nobody in the GOP with that stature today.”
Buchanan conceded the nation has changed since Nixon was on the political landscape.
“I can see back in 1965 how the GOP could be stitched together, and you might have trouble holding the liberals,” he said. “But if you commanded the center and the right, you see how we could trade our liberals, the Rockefeller Republicans, to pull away from the Democrats’ huge segments of FDR’s socially conservative supporters, including the ethnics who voted Democratic, southern Protestants and Catholics, in a trade where the GOP came out on top.”
Where are the conservative Democrats?
Buchanan believes the GOP is in a much more difficult position today to turn such a trade into a winning presidential coalition.
“It’s hard to see today where the GOP can find enough conservative Democrats to pull away,” he said. “It used to be there were a lot of conservative Democrats. Today, there aren’t that many.”
Buchanan pointed out the Democrats begin presidential campaigns with a large electoral vote advantage.
“In the last six elections, the Democrats have won the same 18 states plus the District of Columbia all six times, and among those states are California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York – four of the big seven. Two of the other big seven are now swing states – Ohio and Florida. Texas is the only reliable state of the big seven that the Republicans have left. So if the GOP loses those 18 states plus the District of Columbia, adding up to about 242 electoral votes, the Democrats need to pick one or two tricks and it’s over.”
Buchanan said he found it difficult to believe any GOP contender could break the Democratic Party hold on the presidential electorate.
“It’s hard for me to see what Republican cracks that base that is increasingly solid Democratic – first because of demography and second because of the welfare state that now embraces scores of millions of people who look upon anyone wanting to cut government as somebody who’s going to take my food stamps away, or cut my education, or my health care, or my housing subsidy, or my income subsidy.”
Buchanan pointed out that in 1968, Nixon’s only real contender for the GOP presidential nomination was Michigan Gov. George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, but before the New Hampshire primary, Nixon was ahead among GOP voters by a margin of 4 to 1.
“The real problem for me in 1968 would have been had then-governor of California Ronald Reagan stepped in and torn the conservative vote away from Nixon. As it was, Nixon basically scared any other GOP contender off from going strong into the primaries.”
Hard to see a clear GOP winner
But this year, Buchanan sees no GOP candidate who can command the kind of lead Nixon had in 1968 ahead of the primaries.
“Going into the GOP presidential primaries next year, it is hard to see a clear winner,” he said.
“Rand Paul will have a following, especially among young voters, and Ted Cruz ignites enough voters to have a strong following,” he said.
Among establishment GOP candidates, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie “is having a hard time recovering the support he lost and he’s now running behind Hillary even in New Jersey.”
“I would be surprised if Jeb Bush ran,” Buchanan said. “Florida Senator Marco Rubio damaged himself early on with the immigration issue.”
GOP can’t win without tea party
Buchanan advised that if Romney wants to run again in 2016, he should be out on the campaign trail supporting GOP candidates, much as Nixon did in 1966.
“Romney should today be working this fall not only for establishment GOP candidates but for tea party folks,” he said.
“The GOP cannot win without the tea party’s energy and enthusiasm. You need those folks, just like in 1968 Richard Nixon needed the Goldwater supporters and the Reagan supporters to win.”
Buchanan argued the voter coalition Nixon put together in 1968 was the greatest of the 20th century, with the possible exception of the FDR New Deal coalition that led to four presidential election victories in a row.
“People forget that after LBJ’s landslide victory in 1964, the GOP was half the size of the Democratic Party at the time,” he said.
Buchanan doubted Romney has the ability to pull together the type of historic voter coalition needed to beat the Democrats in 2016.
“Because Obama is so unpopular now and is likely to be increasingly unpopular in the next two years, and his foreign policy is going to antagonize the interventionist wing of the Democratic Party, Hillary will continue to take a harder line than Obama takes on foreign policy,” Buchanan said.
“Hillary will increasingly distance herself from Obama’s record so she is not seen by 2016 as the successor to Barack Obama, but as someone different, much more realistic and tough-minded, especially in foreign policy – more of a Bill Clinton than a Barack Obama,” he said.
“Where she is right now, she is winning the nomination. But the liberal wing of the Democratic Party will assert itself in 2016, and Hillary wants to make sure Democratic voters know she continues to hold the basic beliefs of the Democratic Party, especially on domestic issues.”
He concluded by emphasizing that Obama could not be elected president again, even if it were constitutionally possible for him to run for a third term.
“By the time of the 2016 presidential election, Hillary will be positioned as a non-Obama, because Obama could not win again. If Obama were to top the ticket as of right now, Republicans could break the 18-state hold the Democrats have on the presidential electorate.”
Buchanan summarized his assessment: “In a contest Romney vs. Obama next week, Romney wins. In a contest Romney vs. Hillary in 2016, Hillary wins, despite Hillary having to spend the remainder of this year and the next two years making her way through choppy waters.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/pat-buchanan-hillary-would-beat-romney-in-2016/#rjyuydApC1xDg5jY.99
Dr. Cornel West speech at the Answer Coalition rally in support of Gaza behind the White House, August 2, 2014.
Noam Chomsky says that Israel is now much worse than the former apartheid regime in South Africa and the attacks on Gaza constitute major war crimes.
Former US lawmaker Cynthia McKinney says every candidate for Congress has to sign a pledge to vote for supporting the military superiority of Israel, and 3 rd parties are absorbed by “Special Interests”, and how THE ADL helped to unseat her in GA etc..
“Every candidate for Congress at that time had a pledge. They were given a pledge to sign … that had Jerusalem as the capital city,” McKinney said in an interview with Press TV on Sunday.
“You make a commitment that you would vote to support the military superiority of Israel that the economic assistant that Israel wants that you would vote to provide that,” she added.
McKinney said that if a candidate does not sign the pledge or perform accordingly, “then you do not get money to run your campaign.”
The former Congresswoman said that after she made the pledge issue public “the tactic changed.”
“But this is what is done for 535 members of the United States Congress, 100 senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives have to now write a paragraph which basically says the same thing.”
Her comments came as US President Barack Obama vowed to sustain Israel’s military superiority over its neighbors at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual gathering on Sunday.
“We (the US) will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge”… “We have increased military financing to record levels,” Obama said.
Former Congressman Ron Paul said the US knows ‘more than it is telling’ about the Malaysian aircraft that crashed in eastern Ukraine last month, killing 298 people on board and seriously damaging US-Russian relations in the process.
In an effort to inject some balance of opinion, not to mention pure sanity, into the ongoing debate over what happened to Malaysian Flight MH17, Ron Paul is convinced the US government is withholding information on the catastrophe.
“The US government has grown strangely quiet on the accusation that it was Russia or her allies that brought down the Malaysian airliner with a Buk anti-aircraft missile,” Paul said on his news website on Thursday.
Paul’s comments are in sharp contrast to the echo chamber of one-sided opinion inside Western mainstream media, which has almost unanimously blamed anti-Kiev militia for bringing down the commercial airline. Incredibly, in many cases Washington had nothing to show as evidence to incriminate pro-Russian rebels aside from tenuous references to social media.
“We’ve seen that there were heavy weapons moved from Russia to Ukraine, that they have moved into the hands of separatist leaders,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. “And according to social media reports, those weapons include the SA-11 [Buk missile] system.”
In another instance, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters “the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions.” When veteran AP reporter Matthew Lee asked for proof, he was to be disappointed.
“I can’t get into the sources and methods behind it,” Harf responded. “I can’t tell you what the information is based on.” Lee said the allegations made by the State Department on Ukraine have fallen far short of“definitive proof.”
Just days after US intelligence officials admitted they had no conclusive evidence to prove Russia was behind the downing of the airliner, Kiev published satellite images as ‘proof’ it didn’t deploy anti-aircraft batteries around the MH17 crash site. However, these images have altered time-stamps and are from the days after the MH17 tragedy, the Russian Defense Ministry revealed, fully discrediting the Ukrainian claims.
In yet another inexplicable occurrence, Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet approaching the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. No acceptable explanation has ever been given by Kiev as to why this fighter aircraft was so close to the doomed passenger jet moments before it was brought down.
“[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” Russian Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov demanded days after the crash.
Paul has slammed the Obama administration, despite its arsenal of surveillance technologies at its disposal, for its failure to provide a single grain of evidence to solve the mystery of the Malaysian airliner.
“It’s hard to believe that the US, with all of its spy satellites available for monitoring everything in Ukraine, that precise proof of who did what and when is not available,” the two-time presidential candidate said.
“Too bad we can’t count on our government to just tell us the truth and show us the evidence,” Paul added. “I’m convinced that it knows a lot more than it’s telling us.”
Although no sufficient evidence has been presented to prove that the anti-Kiev militia was responsible for the downing of the international flight, such an inconvenient oversight has not stopped the United States and Europe from slapping economic sanctions and travel bans against Russia.
Moscow hit back, saying it would place a ban on agricultural imports from the United States and the European Union. Russia’s tit-for-tat ban will certainly be felt, as food and agricultural imports from the US amounted to $1.3 billion last year, according to the US Department of Agriculture. In 2013, meanwhile, the EU’s agricultural exports to Russia totaled 11.8 billion euros ($15.8 billion).
After the crash, Ron Paul was one of a few voices calling for calm as US officials were pointing fingers without a shred of evidence to support their claims. Paul has not been afraid to say the painfully obvious things the US media, for any number of reasons, cannot find the courage to articulate.
“They will not report that the crisis in Ukraine started late last year, when EU and US-supported protesters plotted the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych,” Paul said.“Without US-sponsored ‘regime change,’ it is unlikely that hundreds would have been killed in the unrest that followed. Nor would the Malaysian Airlines crash have happened.”
Paul also found it outrageous that Western media, parroting the government line, has reported that the Malaysian flight must have been downed by “Russian-backed separatists,” because the BUK missile that reportedly brought down the aircraft was Russian made.
“They will not report that the Ukrainian government also uses the exact same Russian-made weapons,”he emphasized.
Antiwar.com (blog)-Aug 9, 2014
InSerbia News-Aug 9, 2014
Highly Cited-The Hill-Aug 10, 2014
In-Depth-MSNBC-Aug 9, 2014
Asia’s dependency on rice cultivation for both subsidence and income is intuitively understood. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates the agricultural population of lowland rice cultivation in Asia to be over 470 million – larger than the entire population of the United States. Improvements in rice cultivation would stand to lift hundreds of millions from debt and poverty. Conversely, the disruption of rice cultivation would threaten to mire hundreds of millions in deeper debt, inescapable destitution, and all of the negative socioeconomic implications that follow.
Asia’s rice farmers produce between 1-2 harvests a year depending on the climb and climate of any given region. They do so to sell their rice, generally to mills who in turn sell the final product to exporters or for domestic consumption. Out of each harvest, rice farmers keep a portion for their own consumption, but the vast majority of what they grow is for income.
The UK-based Rice Association claims there are up to 40,000 species of rice, with a wide variety of characteristics suitable for different markets and uses. Rice farmers grow those which local, national and regional markets are best suited to move. In nations where subsidies are offered for rice crops, cheap, easy to grow varieties are chosen. More desirable or exotic species are grown by independent farmers who have developed their own cooperative with millers, marketers and exporters. The rice Asians eat depends on both economic and market realities. The impoverished eat what is cheapest and most easily available, but not necessarily that which is healthiest.
Enter GMO: Problem, Reaction, Solution
Poor diet leads to vitamin deficiencies, a persistent problem among the impoverished. A lack of basic healthcare and education allows the otherwise easily rectified problem to continue unresolved. The World Health Organization (WHO) states on their website, “an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight.” This statistic is global, not regionally specific to Asia, but Southeast Asia in particular suffers from such deficiencies.
WHO prescribes cheap vitamin supplements and the promotion of local gardens to produce a variety of fruits and vegetables that can easily solve not only vitamin A deficiency, but other deficiencies as well. WHO states, “for vulnerable rural families, for instance in Africa and South-East Asia, growing fruits and vegetables in home gardens complements dietary diversification and fortification and contributes to better lifelong health.”
Surely then, one would expect both regional governments and international organizations to focus on these recommendations. However, there is a vocal and growing cry to solve this problem with another, more radical solution, the implementation of genetically modified (GM) rice containing beta-carotene to target specifically vitamin A deficiency in Asia. Promoted by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), directly funded by agricultural giants Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and others, along with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) which is also partnered with big-business agriculture, genetically modified “Golden Rice” containing beta-carotene is promoted as the solution to saving “millions of children.”
Golden Rice: Scourge of Asia
In reality Golden Rice will do nothing of the sort. The promotion of Golden Rice is not unlike any given commercial endeavor. IRRI’s website links to articles like, “A senseless fight,” which asks, “how could anyone in good conscience seek to thwart technology that has even a remote chance of tackling the problem of vitamin A blindness?” The appeal to emotions and sickly children diverts from the real threat Golden Rice poses to the very people it claims to be helping. People who grow rice, grow it to sell to markets. These markets are well-developed, based on indigenous agricultural technology and tradition, and linked to export markets with stringent requirements (many of which restrict or outright ban GMO). The introduction of GM rice for any reason, would threaten or potentially destroy the livelihood of hundreds of millions of people.
Proponents of Golden Rice suggest rice farmers replace their profitable crops with genetically modified rice that will treat only one of many vitamin and mineral deficiencies they may or may not potentially suffer from, deficiencies that could be easily solved through other methods. Clearly illogical in terms of “helping” the malnourished, Golden Rice must serve another purpose.
The author of IRRI’s featured article, “A senseless fight,” suggests that “Golden Rice is being developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which is a not-for-profit institute, and the seeds will be distributed to farmers who can resow them as they wish. In these cases, the argument [against Golden Rice] switches to “Golden Rice is a Trojan horse”. In other words, by sneaking below the barriers of suspicion, it will open the floodgates to GMO technology and from then on to a slippery slope and the takeover of the world’s seed supply.”
The author, in their attempt to defend Golden Rice, reveals the true agenda behind the otherwise useless crop. Governments, international organizations and the private sector (i.e. Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer) will flood Asia with Golden Rice, where it will intermingle and contaminate rice species that have been in use for centuries and form the foundation of Asia’s historical and modern agricultural industry. The livelihoods of some 470 million people who depend on rice farming in Asia (not to mention those that import and consume Asian rice beyond Asia’s borders) would be jeopardized by the proliferation of Golden Rice disseminated under the dubious guise of humanitarian concerns.
The marketing machine behind Golden Rice doesn’t ever seem to address this critical fact. That Golden Rice seeds will be kept and sown each year by prospective cultivators only increases the dangers of cross-contamination with other, economically and culturally valuable species. It is in all regards a flagrant attempt to infiltrate, corrupt and overtake rice production at its very geographical and socioeconomic heart. It is akin to a plague openly being designed, tested and prepared to be unleashed on a population. The spread of Golden Rice too is a plague that will compound exponentially the challenges already facing millions of farmers across Asia.
When all it takes to solve vitamin A deficiency is what WHO claims is “supplementation” that costs “a couple of cents a dose,” and the growing of gardens that solve not only vitamin A deficiencies Golden Rice claims to target, but a whole host of other deficiencies Golden Rice most certainly does not address, the fact that Golden Rice is not what it is promoted to be is obvious. It is, as IRRI coined it, a “Trojan horse,” that will not only fail to stop malnutrition, but will expand the very destitution, poverty, and helplessness that causes malnutrition in the first place.
Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
ALSO SEE: When the Son of Hamas Spied for Israel AND…
(Great to have ya back Stephen – GET WELL!)
Note: This article was written before my two month illness. It remained unsubmitted on my desktop.
It’s appropriate now given Abbas’ less than wholehearted condemnation of Israeli mass murder and destruction in Gaza.
It continues as this article is posted on my blog site and sent to web editors.
Abbas is a longtime Israeli co-conspirator and collaborator against his own people. He shames the office Israel arranged for him to hold. He governs illegitimately.
Israel rigged his 2005 election. It was payback for enforcer services rendered. For betraying his own people.
He profited greatly. He serves illegitimately. His term expired in January 2009. He refuses to call new elections.
He shames the office he holds. Why Palestinians put up with him, they’ll have to explain.
He admitted collaborating with the enemy. Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah explained. More on this below.
Deep-seated corruption and other crimes against his own people continue on his watch.
Large-scale Palestinian resistance is badly needed. Submissiveness is self-defeating. A third Intifada is long overdue. Not on Abbas’ watch.
“We will not go back to terrorism and violence,” he said. Israel wrote his lines.
He dutifully regurgitated them as ordered. “We will only operate through diplomacy and through peaceful means,” he said.
He permits occupation harshness, passivity and acquiescence alone. Freedom isn’t in his vocabulary.
Liberation struggles aren’t tolerated. Israeli rogues couldn’t say it better. Abbas serves them. He’s a convenient stooge.
Months earlier, Israeli President Shimon Peres praised him, saying:
He “condemned terror and has pledged that under his leadership there will not be a third intifada.”
“He understands very well that the solution to the Palestinian refugee problem cannot be within Israeli territory, so as not to change the demographic character of Israel.”
“But he has put out a hand to Israel to renew the peace process.”
Israel values collaborationist Palestinians. Abbas sold out long ago. He’s more double agent than legitimate leader.
The late Edward Said (1935 – 2003) met him in March 1977. At a Cairo National Council meeting.
It launched secret PLO/Israeli meetings. It “made Oslo possible,” Said said. It didn’t matter.
Israelis came prepared. They “fielded an array of experts supported by maps, documents, statistics, and at least 17 prior drafts (before) Palestinians” accepted what demanded rejection, Said explained.
“Three PLO men” alone were allowed to negotiate. “(N)ot one of whom knew English or had a background in international (or any other kind of) law,” said Said.
“The outcome was predictable, a one-sided agreement for Israel. Palestinians getting nothing besides anointment as ‘Israel’s sheriff,’ ” Said explained.
In his 1995 memoir, “Through Secret Channels: The Road to Oslo,” Abbas took unfair credit.
He anointed himself Oslo’s architect. He never left Tunis. “Arafat pull(ed) all the strings,” said Said.
He arranged his own capitulation. “No wonder then that the Oslo negotiations made the overall situation of the Palestinians a good deal worse.”
Said called Abbas “colorless, moderately corrupt, and without any clear ideas of his own, except that he wants to please the white man.”
His “authenticity (was) lacking in the path” he chose to follow. He was a tailor-made stooge. Hugely corrupt later on.
Concerned solely for his own welfare. Mindless of Palestinian rights. He represents Quisling leadership.
He’s against Palestine’s liberating struggle. He knew about Cast Lead in advance. A previous article explained.
On November 30, 2010, Reuters headlined “Israel says Abbas, Egypt warned on Gaza war – leaks,” saying:
Ahead of Cast Lead, Israel “conferred with the Western-backed Palestinian leadership and with Egypt…”
Leaked US diplomatic cables quoted a senior Israeli official confirming it. Haaretz reported the same thing. Mubarak and Abbas were briefed in advance.
Haaretz said “Israel tried to coordinate the Gaza war with the Palestinian authority.” WikiLeaks released US diplomatic cables confirming it.
In June 2009, months before Cast Lead, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with US congressional members.
He “consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead.” He asked “if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas.”
He “received negative answers from both.” Previous leaked information reported the same thing. WikiLeaks provided “the first documented proof.”
Abbas denied getting advance word. He lied. Mubarak said nothing either way.
Reuters said Abbas “urged Israel to crush Hamas during the war.”
Avigdor Lieberman held ministerial positions under Sharon and Ehud Olmert. In April 2009, he became Netanyahu’s Foreign Minister.
He explained Abbas’ involvement, saying:
“Over the past year, I witnessed (Abbas) at his best. In Operation Cast Lead, (he) called us personally, applied pressure, and demanded that we topple Hamas and remove it from power.”
Throughout Cast Lead, a senior Olmert official called his comments “essentially accurate.”
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said this information “reaffirms the fact that Mahmoud Abbas is no longer fit to represent our people, who conspired against his people during a war.”
Abbas was never fit to serve. That’s why Israel and Washington chose him.
WikiLeaks disclosed that Hamas spokesman Salah Al-Bardaweel said:
“We have not ruled out that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority could have contributed in one way or another in the war against Gaza for political reasons such as bringing down the Hamas movement and regaining control.”
Washington’s Tel Aviv embassy said Fatah officials asked Israel to attack Hamas.
Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin said “demoralized” Fatah officials wanted help to destroy Hamas.
“They are approaching a zero-sum situation,” he said. “(Y)et they ask us to attack Hamas. They are desperate. This is a new development. We have never seen this before.”
“Fatah is in a very bad shape in Gaza. We have received requests to train their forces in Egypt and Yemen.”
“We would like them to get the training they need, and to be more powerful, but they do not have anyone to lead them.”
Shin Bet has a “very good working relationship” with Abbas. His internal security service collaborates with Israel.
He understands “Israel’s security is central to (his) survival in the struggle with Hamas…”
At the time, Fatah collaborated with Washington to oust Hamas. An abortive coup failed. More information surfaced.
WikiLeaks published a June 12, 2007 cable. It said Israeli military intelligence head Amos Yadlin told US embassy officials that Hamas retaining power in Gaza was advantageous.
“Although not necessarily representing a GOI (government of Israel) consensus view,” said Yadlin,
“Israel would be ‘happy’ if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with (it) as a hostile state.”
Israel needs manufactured enemies. Having them facilitates violence and instability. They help justify small and larger-scale wars.
Cast Lead and Pillar of Cloud were planned months in advance. Their aim was advancing Israel’s imperium.
Doing so involves controlling all valued parts of Judea and Samaria, depopulating much of Palestine, and confining remaining population elements to canonized worthless scrubland.
Both conflicts were more about weakening Hamas than destroying it. They involved waging war on noncombatant men, women, children, infants and the elderly.
It’s official Israeli policy. Abbas and other Fatah officials knew about Cast Lead and Pillar of Cloud in advance. They urged them.
Abbas did nothing to help beleaguered Gazans. He approved Israeli slaughter and mass destruction.
It bears repeating. Abbas is a longtime Israeli collaborator.
According to Abunimah , he “told Israeli journalists and business people that his collaboration with Israeli occupation forces is ‘sacred’ and would continue even if the PA forms a ‘government’ backed by the Palestinian military resistance organization Hamas.”
“The security relationship…and I say it on air, security coordination is sacred, is sacred,” Abbas stressed.
“And we’ll continue it whether we disagree or agree over policy.”
“US-financed PA intelligence and security forces work closely with Israeli occupation forces and Shin Bet secret police to suppress any Palestinian resistance to occupation,” said Abunimah.
Abbas showed which side he’s on numerous times before.
“In 2012, he pleaded with a visiting Israel lobby delegation to help him secure weapons from Israel to stop resistance,” Abunimah explained.
“If they help me to get weapons, I’m helping them because I’m promoting security,” Abbas said.
He praised Oslo at the same time. He did so disgracefully. It was unilateral surrender. A Palestinian Versailles.
A vaguely defined negotiating process was agreed on. No fixed timeline or outcome were specified.
Israeli officials obstructed and delayed. They refused to make concessions. They kept stealing Palestinian land. They never stopped.
Colonization is policy. Occupation harshness enforces it. Negotiating with Israel is fruitless.
Palestinians got nothing for renouncing armed struggle, recognizing Israel’s right to exist, and agreeing to leave major unresolved issues for later final status talks. They’re still waiting.
Major issues include Palestinian self-determination. Free from occupation. Inside 1967 borders. The right of return.
Settlements. Clearly defined borders. Water and other resource rights. Air and coastal water rights. East Jerusalem as Palestine’s exclusive capital.
Abbas feigns support. Privately he backs Israeli delay and deny tactics. He openly declared opposition to boycotting Israel.
He wants diaspora Palestinians denied their right of return. He said so publicly. It bears repeating.
He’s a longtime Israeli collaborator. He’s a world class traitor. He’s a scoundrel writ large. He betrayed his own people.
He did so for special benefits he derives. He’s more Zionist than Palestinian. Liberation is impossible with him in charge.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached email@example.com.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com .
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
Stephen Silva, the latest Tsarnaev friend caught in the bombing probe
By James Henry on Aug 7, 2014 / Who What Why
Yet another friend of accused Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his dead brother, Tamerlan, is caught in the seemingly unending expansion of the federal investigation.
Stephen Silva, 21, of Cambridge pleaded not guilty to charges of heroin dealing and possession of a firearm with defaced serial number.
The gun in question is a P95 Ruger 9mm pistol, similar to the one allegedly used by the Tsarnaev brothers in the murder of Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer Sean Collier and the subsequent shootout with police in Watertown, Mass.
The 16-page indictment against Silva makes no mention of either the Boston Marathon bombing or the shooting of Sean Collier. The U.S. attorney’s office in Boston, which brought the charges, declined to say if the arrest of Silva was related to the Boston Marathon bombing investigation.
And according to the Boston Globe: “Details of the gun case remain unknown, and law enforcement officials would not comment.”
On the record, that is.
Off the record, the gun in Silva’s case is the weapon used to murder Officer Collier and engage police in the Watertown gunfight, according to anonymous law enforcement officials quoted in reports from major media organizations including ABC News and The Associated Press .
Why law enforcement is publicly hushed about an alleged bombing connection while simultaneously telling major news outlets there is indeed a link is unclear. However, a direct quote from a “high-ranking” official published by ABC News is telling:
“The defense is trying to paint Tamerlan as the mastermind, but they were working in concert and we have evidence that Dzhokhar secured the weapon,” the official said.
Tsarnaev’s defense for months has complained about the incessant stream of leaks from the law enforcement side, saying the comments are prejudicing potential jurors. Trying to get a change of venue for the trial, they conducted a poll which showed the majority of Bostonians believe he’s guilty. The quantity of leaks has grown so much the defense asked the judge to put a stop to them, lest anyone else become prejudiced.
Good luck with that.
Read MORE at Who What Why
Evidence Seems Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17 (It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile)
We’ll go considerably farther than has yet been revealed by the professional intelligence community, to provide the actual evidence that conclusively shows that (and how) the Ukrainian Government shot down the Malaysian airliner, MH-17, on July 17th.
The latest report from the intelligence community was headlined on August 3rd by Robert Parry, “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts,” and he revealed there that,
“Contrary to the Obama administration’s public claims blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings. This judgment — at odds with what President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed publicly — is based largely on the absence of U.S. government evidence that Russia supplied the rebels with a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.”
It’s actually based on lots more than that; it’s based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
The reader-comments to my July 31st article, “First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukraine Government Shot that Plane Down,” provided links and leads to independent additional confirmatory evidence backing up that account, of retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of this event, to such an extent that, after exploring the matter further, I now feel confident enough to say that the evidence on this matter is, indeed, “conclusive,” that Haisenko is right.
Here is all of that evidence, which collectively convinces me that Haisenko’s conclusion there, is, indeed, the only one that can even possibly explain this wreckage:
“There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine-gun fire, very very strong machine-gun fire.”
This remarkable statement comes not from Haisenko, but from one of the first OSCE investigators who arrived at the scene of the disaster.
Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze9BNGDyk4 and you will see it.
That youtube snippet in an interview with Michael Bociurkiw, comes from a man who is
“a Ukrainian-Canadian monitor with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), [who] has seen up close … the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Bociurkiw and one other colleague were the first international monitors to reach the wreckage after the jet was shot down over a rebel-held region of eastern Ukraine July 17.”
That description of him is from the lead-in to the full interview with him, at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article, “Malaysia Airlines MH17: Michael Bociurkiw talks about being first at the crash site.” The far briefer youtube clip shows only what’s presented on 6:10-6:24 of this CBC interview with Bociurkiw. The CBC reporter in the video precedes the interview by announcing, “The wreckage was still smoldering when a small team from the OSCE got there.” So: he had to have been there really fast. “No other officials arrived for days,” she said.
So: one of the two first international monitors on-site saw conclusive evidence that the Malaysian plane had been hit by “very very strong machine-gun fire,” not by ground-based missile-fire.
Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of the downing of that airliner, was here being essentially confirmed on-site by one of the two first OSCE international monitors to arrive on-site, while the wreckage was still smoldering. That’s as close to virgin, untouched evidence and testimony as we’ll ever get. Unlike a black-box interpretation-analysis long afterward by the Russian Government, or by the British Government, or by the Ukrainian Government, each of which governments has a horse in this race, this testimony from Bociurkiw is raw, independent, and comes from one of the two earliest witnesses to the physical evidence. That’s powerfully authoritative testimony, and it happens to confirm pilot Peter Haisenko’s theory of what happened. Bociurkiw arrived there fast because he negotiated with the locals for the rest of the OSCE team, who were organizing to come later: Bociurkiw speaks the local languages there — Ukrainian and Russian.
Furthermore, this is hardly testimony from someone who is supportive of the anti-Government rebels. Earlier, there had been this, http://pressimus.com/Interpreter_Mag/press/3492 , which transcribed the BBC’s interview with Bociurkiw on July 22nd. He said then: “We’re observing that major pieces, and I’m looking at the tail fin as I said, and then there’s also the rear cone section of the aircraft, they do look different than when we first saw them, … two days ago.” So, he had arrived on-scene July 20th at the latest. (Neither the BBC nor the CBC, both of which interviewed him, were sufficiently professional to have reported the specific date at which Bociurkiw had actually arrived on-scene, but, from this, it couldn’t have been after July 20th. The downing had occurred July 17th. If some of the debris was still “smoldering” as the CBC journalist said, then maybe he had arrived there even earlier.)
The youtube snippet of Bociurkiw came to me via a reader-comment to my article, from Bill Johnson, after which I web-searched the youtube clip for its source and arrived then at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article and its accompanying video.
Further, there’s this crucial 21 July photo-reconstruction of that cockpit-fragment positioned into place on the aircraft as it had originally been in that intact-airliner: https://twitter.com/EzraBraam . (Sometimes that doesn’t work, so here’s another screen of it from someone who copied it .) Looking at that photo-reconstruction, one can easily tell that the SU-25 or other fighter-jet that was firing into the cockpit from the pilot’s left side didn’t just riddle the area surrounding the pilot with bullets, but that it then targeted-in specifically onto the pilot himself, producing at his location a huge gaping hole in the side of the plane precisely at the place where the pilot was seated. Furthermore, this gaping hole was produced by shooting into the plane, precisely at the pilot, from below and to the pilot’s left, which is where that fighter-jet was located — not from above the airliner, and not from beside it, and also not from below it.
In other words: this was precise and closely-targeted firing against the pilot himself, not a blast directed broadly against, and aiming to hit, the plane anywhere, to bring it down.
Haisenko explained how this penetration of the plane, though it was targeted specifically at the pilot, caused immediately a breaking-apart of the entire aircraft.
Other readers have responded to my news-report about Haisenko’s article , by saying that shrapnel from a Buk missile could similarly have caused those holes into the side of the cockpit. However, that objection ignores another key feature of Haisenko’s analysis. Haisenko said there: “You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that … these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent — outwardly!”
What this means is that in order to have some of those holes frayed inwardly and the other holes frayed outwardly, there had to have been a second fighter-jet firing into the cockpit from the airliner’s right-hand side.
That’s critically important, because no ground-based missile (or shrapnel therefrom) hitting the airliner could possibly have produced firing into the cockpit from both sides of the plane. It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides, that brought the plane down, in that circumstance. This is Haisenko’s main discovery, by his pointing that out. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions — into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions. Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile.
Peter Haisenko posted an extremely high-resolution image from that photo which he used, and it shows unequivocally that some of the bullet-holes were inbound while others of them were outbound: Here it is, viewed very close-up .
Although the fighter jets that were said to have been escorting the Malaysian plane into the war-zone were alleged to be SU-25 planes, a different type might have been used. SU-25s are designed to be flown up to 23,000 feet without an oxygen-mask, but can go much higher if the pilot does wear that mask, which was probably the case here. Of course, an airliner itself is fully pressurized. That pressurization inside the airliner is, moreover, a key part of Haisenko’s reconstruction of this airliner’s downing. Basically, Haisenko reconstructs the airliner’s breaking apart as soon as that hail of bullets opened and released the plane’s pressurization.
The specific photo of that cockpit-fragment, which Haisenko had downloaded immediately after the disaster, was removed from the Internet, but other photos of this fragment were posted elsewhere, such as at the British publication (which, like the rest of the Western “news” media is slanted pro-Obama, anti-Putin), on July 21st, headlining their anti-Putin missile-theory bias, “MH17 crash: FT photo shows signs of damage from missile strike.” Their “reporters” opened with their blatant anti-Russian prejudice:
“The first apparent hard evidence that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was brought down by a surface-to-air missile is emerging from the crash site in eastern Ukraine, after experts confirmed on Monday there were signs of shrapnel damage to the aircraft.”
Although they didn’t say in their opener that the “surface-to-air missile” was from the rebels, they made clear their pro-Ukrainian-Government anti-Russian bias by saying, “Over the weekend, western intelligence agencies pointed to mounting evidence that backs Ukraine’s claim that the aircraft with 298 people on board was shot down by mistake by pro-Russian separatists and Russian military personnel with an SA-11 missile launched from a Buk-M1 SAM battery.” Their stenographers (or as they would say “reporters”) stenographed (“reported”) that, “Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the photographic evidence ‘was consistent with the kind of damage you would expect to see from the detonation of a high explosive fragmentation warhead of the type commonly used in a SAM system’.” No analyst from the pro-Putin camp was interviewed by their “reporters.” For example, Russia’s Interfax News Service headlined on July 29th, the same day as the FT’s article, “Boeing’s downing by Buk missile system unlikely — military expert,” and they stenographed their “expert,” as follows:
Chief of the Russian Land Forces’ tactical air defense troops Maj. Gen. Mikhail Krush said he doubts that the Malaysian passenger liner was brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile system. “No one observed a Buk engaging targets in that region on that day, which provides 95 percent proof that Buk systems were not used in this concrete case,” the general said in an interview with the Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kuryer military weekly to be published on Wednesday [July 30th]. ”This is no more than a theory for now. However, a guided missile launched by a Buk missile system leaves behind a specific smoke trail as it flies, like a comet. In daylight this trail can be clearly seen within a radius of 20-25 kilometers from the missile system. It cannot remain unnoticed. There are no eyewitnesses to confirm there was any. No one reported a launch. This is one thing,” he said. “Second. The holes left by the strike elements on the Boeing’s outer skin indicate that the warhead blew up from below and sideways. A Buk missile strikes the target from above,” he said. “The damage done to the plane suggests that a different missile was used. Our guidance method is a zoom, when the missile strikes the target from above covering it with a thick cloud of fragments” the general said. “I cannot state categorically, guided by this data, but I can suggest, using my experience, that it was not a Buk missile that hit the Boeing,” the expert said.
General Krush’s statement can fit with Haisenko’s and with Bociurkiw’s, but not with FT’s or the rest of the “reporters” (just consider them as rank propagandists) in the West.
U.S. President Barack Obama has been saying all along that Russia – against which he is actually systematically building toward war – and not Ukraine (which he’s using as his chief vehicle to do that ), is to blame for this airliner-downing. Previously, he had said that the snipers who in February had killed many people at the Maidan demonstrations against the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych came from Yanukovych’s State Security Service and not from the far-right political parties that were trying to bring Yanukovych down and that Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland selected to run the new Ukrainian government. But that too was an Obama lie . He lies a lot, and it’s just about the only type of statement he ever makes about Russia, and about Ukraine: lies.
If someone wants to verify how rabidly the U.S. Government lies, and has lied since at least the time of George W. Bush’s Presidency, just look at this video, by starting at 16:00 on it and going to 42:00 on it , and you will be shocked. (It pertains to lies by Bush that are still being covered up by Obama.) And when you further consider the many obvious questions it points out, which U.S. “news” media refused to ask and still refuse to ask about the matter, you’ll recognize that we are being lied to systematically and with utter contempt of the public, and with no respect for the public’s right to know the truth, even regarding massive history like that. It’s really brutal.
Ignorant “reporters” sometimes slip-up and include, in their stenography, facts that actually support the opposite side’s narrative of events and that discredit their own story-line. Such has been the case, for example, in the Financial Times piece, which included the statement that, “Anti-aircraft missiles are not designed to score a direct hit as they are targeted to destroy fast, agile fighter jets. Instead, they are designed to explode within about 20m of their target, sending out a cloud of red hot metal to increase the chances of inflicting as much damage as possible.”
But rather than merely “a cloud of red hot metal,” what actually brought down this plane was what Haisenko has said brought it down: magazines-full of carefully targeted rapid-fire machine-gun bullets pouring forth from below the plane, at both its left and right.
This was a Ukrainian Government job. It was close-in . (No missile fired from the distance more than 30,000 feet down to the ground could have been that precise to target the pilot rather than the far larger target of the plane’s entire body.) It came from the Government that Obama installed there in February and that’s now carrying out an ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents in Ukraine’s southeast , the places where Yanukovych’s voters live (to the extent that they still can and do live ).Compare that picture with the following one, which I take from a propaganda-site for the U.S. regime , and so which is intended instead to support the Administration’s line on this, certainly not Haisenko’s explanation of how the airliner was downed, though it actually supports Haisenko’s case:
As you can see there, a plane that’s hit by a ground-fired missile, instead of by bullets fired from an attack-plane only a few yards away, has the damage spread rather widely over its body, not concentrated into a tiny area, such as to where the plane’s pilot is seated. Certainly, the contrast between that photo and this one is enormous.
Furthermore, note also that the shrapnel damage to that plane comes from above it, which is where missiles usually hit a plane from, releasing their shrapnel from above, down onto the plane. By contrast, the hail of bullets to the Malaysian plane’s pilot came from below the plane, aiming upward at the cockpit, from both sides of the cockpit.
As regards whether there were actually two fighter jets firing into the Malaysian airliner or only one, a proponent of the single-jet hypothesis, Bill Johnson, posted as a reader-comment to my article on August 4th , a series of extreme close-ups of the side-panel, in which he inferred that the explanation of the apparent left-side (pilot-side) bullets was probably the shape of the bullets. I then asked him why he declined to accept the possible existence of two jets. He said,
“from what I could find Russian military radar detected only one Ukrainian fighter jet, not two. I have looked and looked for any type of radar confirmation of a second fighter jet and can not find it.”
However, the most virginal, earliest, online evidence concerning the matter was on July 17th, within moments of the downing, headlined in the subsequent English translation, “Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing #MH17,” and it included, “@spainbuca’s TWITTER FEED,” which included his observation, only minutes after the downing, “2 jet fighters flew very close” to the plane. Furthermore, immediately before that, he had tweeted, “The B777 plane flew escorted by Ukraine jet fighter until 2 minutes before disappearing from the radar.” So, perhaps the second jet appeared distinct to him only immediately prior to the downing.
The accompanying news-report, also on July 17th, said:
“This Kiev air traffic controller is a citizen of Spain and was working in the Ukraine. He was taken off duty as a civil air-traffic controller along with other foreigners immediately after a Malaysia Airlines passenger aircraft was shot down over the Eastern Ukraine killing 295 passengers and crew on board. The air traffic controller suggested in a private evaluation and basing it on military sources in Kiev, that the Ukrainian military was behind this shoot down. Radar records were immediately confiscated after it became clear a passenger jet was shot down.” If this is true, then the radar-records upon the basis of which those tweets had been sent were “confiscated.”
The best evidence is consistent that those bullet-holes came from two directions not from one. What is virtually certain, however, is that at least one jet fighter was close up and shot down the Malaysian plane. The rest of the tweets from @spainbucca, there, described the immediate hostility of the Kiev authorities toward him on the occasion, and his speculations as to who was behind it all.
And the European Union has been playing along with this hoax . (If you still have any further doubts that it’s a hoax, just click onto that link and look.) And the mass of suckers in the West believe that hoax : it’s succeeding to stir a fever for war, instead of a fever to get rid of our own leaders who are lying us into a war that will benefit only the West’s aristocrats, while it inflicts massive physical and economic harms against everyone else – as if it were the invasion of Iraq except multiplied in this case a thousand-fold, especially with nuclear weapons possibly at the end of it.
If we had a free press, the news media would be ceaselessly asking President Obama why he doesn’t demand accountability against the Ukrainian Government for their massacre perpetrated on May 2nd inside the Trade Unions Building in Odessa , where that newly Obama-installed regime’s peaceful opponents were systematically trapped and then burned alive, which the Obama-installed Ukrainian Government has refused to investigate (much less to prosecute). Basically: Obama had sponsored the massacre . So, our “news” media ignore it, even though it started this civil war on Russia’s doorstep , and thereby re-started the Cold War, as Obama had intended that massacre (his massacre, and his subsequent ethnic cleansing) to do. (Similarly, the “news” media, though all of them receive my articles by email, virtually all refuse to publish them, because I won’t let them control what I find and report.)
And while Obama leads this Republican policy , and Vice President Dick Cheney’s top foreign-policy advisor Victoria Nuland actually runs it for Obama, congressional Democrats are just silent about it, and do not introduce impeachment of this fake “Democratic” hyper-George W. Bush neo-conservative President , who’s a “Democrat” in rhetoric only – and though Obama’s policy in this key matter threatens the entire world .
A reader-comment to an earlier version of this news report and analysis objected to my identifying Obama as a Republican-in-”Democratic”-sheep’s clothing, and said:
“They may be rethug policies in origin but they are decidedly BI-PARTISAN to anyone who wants to admit FACTS. The democratic party you all think still exists is DEAD and only exists in your brain (the part that doesn’t accept reality).”
However, U.S. Senate bill 2277, which invites Obama to provide direct U.S. military support to the Obama-installed Ukrainian regime, has 26 sponsors, and all of them are Republican U.S. Senators. Democratic Senators, by contrast, are just silent on Obama’s turn toward nazism (or racist — in this case anti-ethnic-Russian racist – fascism); the Senate’s Democrats aren’t seeking for it to be stepped up.
This is a Republican policy, which congressional Democrats are simply afraid to oppose. Any realistic person knows that however far right Obama turns, the overt Republican Party will turn even farther to the right, because they have to be to his right in order for them to be able to win Republican primaries and retain their own Party’s nomination. Just because Obama’s game of moving the American political center as far to the right as he can move it is succeeding, doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party itself should end. It instead means that progressives need to take the Democratic Party over, just like conservatives took the Republican Party over with Reagan. There is no other hope.
If a Democrat in the U.S. House will simply introduce an impeachment resolution against Barack Obama, then the right-wing takeover of the Democratic Party might finally end, and the world might yet be saved, because the Democratic Party itself could then reject Obama as being a fake “Democrat,” a Democrat-in-rhetoric-only. It could transform American politics — and American politics needs such a transformation, which would move the Democratic Party back to progressivism, more like the FDR Democratic Party was, so that Republican politicians would no longer need to be so fascist as they now have become (and as they now need to be in order to be able to win their own Party’s nomination). If Democrats fail to renounce the conservatism of Obama and of the Clintons, then the Party will end, and needs to be replaced, just like the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party immediately before the Civil War. Nazism has become today’s slavery-type issue – it’s beyond the pale, and Obama’s installation and endorsement of it in Ukraine is like James Buchanan’s endorsement of slavery was during the 1850s: either the Democratic Party will become the progressive party, or else the Democratic Party is over.
But that’s just my own theory of how Obama’s frauds might yet be able to be overcome and defeated, if they still can be; it’s not part of my presentation of the explanation of what brought down the Malaysian airliner, which has been an open case since July 17th, and which is now a closed case. This is past history, not future.
The present news story is being circulated free of charge or copyright to all “news” media in the English-speaking world, in the perhaps vain hope that the cover-ups of our leaders’ constant lies will cease soon enough to avoid a World War III, even though communism is long since gone from Russia and so the ideological excuse wouldn’t make any sense here.
This insanity is actually all about aristocratic conquest, like World War I was. It’s not for the benefit of the public anywhere. Silence about it (by “Democrats,” and the “news” media) is a scandal, which needs to stop. The real Democratic Party (the Party of FDR, who loathed and despised nazis — and even mere fascists — yet today Obama installs nazis into Power in Ukraine) must be restored, and a real news media needs to become established in America. Even Republicans need it, because the very idea of “victory” in a nuclear war is a vicious fantasy . It is a dangerous lie , though there are some people who find it a very profitable one . And time might be short — let’s hope not already too short.
After all, Obama’s hoax of having won from Europe the stepped-up economic sanctions against Russia after the government that Obama had installed in Ukraine downed the Malaysian plane and successfully blamed it on “Russian aggression,” is very encouraging to him. And European leaders know that Obama’s entire operation is a very bloody fraud (read the phone-transcript there — it’s a stunner). So, they certainly won’t save the world from it. It’s up to us.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .
READ MORE at the Center for Research on Globalization
Pigs at the Trough profiting from lies and misery, and using YOUR money to do so….
By JP Sottile on Aug 3, 2014
Who What Why
Remember the sub-prime economy?
It’s back, but it’s different this time. Well, sorta different. And you may be affected by it in all kinds of ways.
The new sub-prime economy is a direct result of the catastrophic financial ruin caused by the old sub-prime mortgage crisis. Wall Street’s biggest money has figured out how to profit off of people deep in debt and unable to climb out because of the still-limping economy.
So, after pushing people to the margins with exotic financial instruments, Wall Street is now profiting off the increasingly marginal existence of many Americans. With more and more people renting their homes, the median household now 20% poorer today than it was in 1984, and almost half of all Americans now living paycheck to paycheck, the sub-prime economy has shifted away from big-ticket mortgages to profiting off the banalities of everyday life.
The numbers don’t lie: 35% of Americans—roughly 77 million people—have an outstanding debt currently being pursued by a collection agency, according to a new study by the Urban Institute. Although the individual amounts of delinquent debt range from as little as $25 to over $125,000, the national average is a staggering $5,178.
That’s a lot of bad debt in the system, and there are rich pickings in all of it.
If Sisyphus had bills …
Maybe that’s why the study was funded by Encore Capital Group—the country’s largest publicly-traded buyer of defaulted debt—and co-authored by its very own think-tank, the Consumer Credit Research Institute. The latter, founded in 2011, describes its work as a “ground-breaking effort to develop new knowledge about low- and moderate-income consumers” using techniques borrowed from economics, statistics and psychology.
The first go-round on the subprime roulette wheel was fueled primarily by the post-9/11 “go-go” housing boom. The middlemen of Manhattan systematically used predatory lending to ensnare hundreds of thousands of hopeful American Dreamers into an adjustable-rate, no-money-down, balloon-payment nightmare. So they made money handing out subprime mortgages like Halloween candy, bundled that risky, unsustainable debt into exotic financial instruments, and profited again by betting they’d fail.
But that was then, and things are supposed to be different now, right?
Now the financial system is supposed to be chastened. It is, according to its staunchest critics, wholly and restrictively regulated by Dodd-Frank. In fact, Dodd-Frank is so restrictive, they say, that it has impeded the “recovery” and needs to be loosened. That’s despite the fact that many key rules still haven’t been written and despite the omnipresence of corporate banking interests atevery step of the rulemaking process.
Things are different now. This new sub-prime bubble is not being inflated by predatory lenders targeting would-be homeowners. Even though the real estate market is improving in places like San Francisco, New York and Washington, D.C., homeownership is at a 19-year low, with more people opting to rent because of tighter finances.
Hedge Funds, Hedge Hogs
Well-positioned hedge funds gobbled up tens of thousands of homes left vacant by the bursting mortgage bubble. Sometimes entire neighborhoods were purchased by those firms, who—unlike Lehman Brothers—were not broken by the crash. Like JP Morgan hoarding the devalued financial assets of its failed competitors, hedge funds saw the sudden surge in low-cost real estate as a buying opportunity.
And that’s where bad debt is accumulating—in the day-to-day struggle to make ends meet.
To wit, the Urban Institute’s study focused on collections of non-mortgage bills. These include credit card bills, medical bills, and utility bills that are “more than 180 days past due and have been placed in collections.”
A good example of the financial jeopardy many face is in Detroit. That’s where the median household income is less than half the national average—and where tens of thousands couldn’t afford to pay their water bills.
Detroit Goes Dry
The bankrupted city decided to do something about chronic delinquencies—they began shutting off people’s water. As the pace of the shut-offs sped up, the city paid $6 million to a private contractor to make sure the taps ran dry. So far, some 100,000 have been without water at times.
This is exactly the sort of compromised position many find themselves in with this new economy. And it’s where predatory lending is taking its toll, targeting the desperate with high-risk, high-interest and, therefore, high-reward loans that epitomize Wall Street’s unending “search for yield.”
Bad Credit? We Can Help You Make It Worse
And what a yield lending to subprime customers earns. The “Payday Loan” industry still gets away with interest rates as high as 700 percent, a story WhoWhatWhy reported in March. That kind of loan puts many people into a modern form of sharecropping, accruing debt faster than they can pay it off.
The $3 billion-a-year industry is finally being scrutinized by federal regulators at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Even so, the underlying business model is being profitably recycled.
Take, for example, the entry of banks and private equity firms into the used car business.
They identify distressed and marginal candidates for risky, high-interest loans on cars that all too often end up being lemons, according to the New York Times. After searching for potential customers with low credit scores, banks like Capital One and Wells Fargo work with dealers who send them “certificates” redeemable for a “no credit, no problem” loan. That traps the less financially savvy customers into long-term loans that eventually triple or quadruple the cost of the car—or worse.
New victim targeted: rank and file of the U.S. Military
A little-known company called USA Discounters has opened another front of the high-interest assault, targeting the rank and file of the U.S. military.
READ THE REST at Who What Why
It’s vogue, trendy, and appropriate to look to dystopian literature as a harbinger of what we’re experiencing at the hands of the government
By John W. Whitehead / The Rutherford Institute
July 08, 2014
“The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself…Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.”—H.L. Mencken, American journalist
It’s vogue, trendy and appropriate to look to dystopian literature as a harbinger of what we’re experiencing at the hands of the government. Certainly, George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm have much to say about government tyranny, corruption, and control, as does Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Philip K. Dick’s Minority Report. Yet there are also older, simpler, more timeless stories—folk tales and fairy tales—that speak just as powerfully to the follies and foibles in our nature as citizens and rulers alike that give rise to tyrants and dictatorships.
One such tale, Hans Christian Andersen’s fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes, is a perfect paradigm of life today in the fiefdom that is the American police state, only instead of an imperial president spending money wantonly on lavish vacations, entertainment, and questionable government programs aimed at amassing greater power, Andersen presents us with a vain and thoughtless emperor, concerned only with satisfying his own needs at the expense of his people, even when it means taxing them unmercifully, bankrupting his kingdom, and harshly punishing his people for daring to challenge his edicts.
For those unfamiliar with the tale, the Emperor, a vain peacock of a man, is conned into buying a prohibitively expensive suit of clothes that is supposedly visible only to those who are smart, competent and well-suited to their positions. Surrounded by yes men, professional flatterers and career politicians who fawn, simper and genuflect, the Emperor—arrogant, pompous and oblivious to his nudity—prances through the town in his new suit of clothes until a child dares to voice what everyone else has been thinking but too afraid to say lest they be thought stupid or incompetent: “He isn’t wearing anything at all!”
Much like the people of the Emperor’s kingdom, we, too, have been conned into believing that if we say what we fear, if we dare to suggest that something is indeed “rotten in the state of Denmark,” we will be branded idiots and fools by the bureaucrats, corporate heads, governmental elites and media hotshots who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo—or who at least are determined to maintain the façade that is the status quo. Yet the truth is staring us in the face just as surely as the fact that the Emperor was wearing no clothes.
Truth #1: The U.S. is on the brink of bankruptcy, as many economists have been warning for some time now, with more than $16 trillion in debts owned by foreign nationals and corporations. As one financial news site reports: “Internationally, the world is fed up with The Fed and the U.S. government’s unabashed debt growth. China, Russia, Iran, India and a host of other countries are establishing trade relationships that are bypassing the U.S. dollar altogether, a move that will soon see the world’s reserve currency lose purchasing power and status. In anticipation of this imminent collapse gold is being hoarded by private and public entities from Berlin to Beijing in an effort to preserve wealth before the Tsunami hits.”
Truth #2: We no longer have a government that is “of the people, for the people and by the people.” What we have now is a feudal monarchy, run by wealthy overlords and financed with the blood, sweat and labor of the underclasses who are kept in check by the increasingly militarized police. This sorry state of affairs is reinforced by a study which found that average citizens have “little or no independent influence” on the policy-making process. A similar study published by the Political Research Quarterly revealed that members of the U.S. Senate represent their wealthiest constituents while ignoring those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
Truth #3: Far from being a benevolent entity concerned with the well-being of its citizens, whether in matters of health, safety or security, the government is concerned with three things only: power, control and money. As an often quoted adage says, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Unfortunately, the master-servant relationship that once had the government answering to “we the people” has been reversed. Government agents now act as if they are the masters and we are the servants. Nowhere is this more evident than in the transformation of police officers from benevolent keepers of the peace to inflexible extensions of the military hyped up on the power of their badge.
Truth #4: Our primary use to the government is as consumers, worker bees and bits of data to be collected, catalogued, controlled, mined for information, and sold to the highest bidder. Working in cahoots with corporations, the government has given itself carte blanche access to our phone calls, emails, bank transactions, physical movements, even our travels on foot or in our cars. Cybersecurity expert Richard Clarke envisions a future where data about every aspect of our lives will be collected and analyzed. Thus, no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court might have said to the contrary, the government no longer needs a warrant to spy on your cell phone activity or anything else for that matter. As the Washington Post recently revealed, 9 out of 10 people caught up in the NSA’s surveillance net had done nothing wrong to justify such intrusions on their privacy. Clearly, the government now operates relatively autonomously, answering only to itself and unbridled by the courts, Congress, the will of the people or the Constitution.
Truth #5: Whatever problems we are grappling with in regards to illegal immigrants flooding over the borders has little to do with the fact that the borders are porous and everything to do with the government’s own questionable agenda. How is it that a government capable of locking down roads, open seas, and air routes is unable to prevent tens of thousands of women and children from crossing into the U.S. illegally? Conveniently, the Obama administration is asking Congress for $3.8 billion in emergency funding to send more immigration judges to the southern border, build additional detention facilities and add border patrol agents. The funds would be managed by the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, State and Health and Human Services, the very same agencies responsible for bringing about a rapid shift into a police state.
Truth #6: The U.S. government is preparing for massive domestic unrest, arising most likely from an economic meltdown. The government has repeatedly made clear its intentions, through its U.S. Army War College report alerting the military to prepare for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” through its ongoing military drills in cities across the country, through its profiling of potential homegrown “dissidents” or extremists, and through the proliferation of detention centers being built across the country.
Truth #7: As Gerald Ford warned, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” Too often, Americans have fallen prey to the temptation to let the government take care of whatever ails them, whether it be financial concerns, health needs, childcare. As a result, we now find ourselves caught in a Catch-22 situation wherein the government’s so-called solutions to our problems have led to even graver problems. In this way, zero tolerance policies intended to outlaw drugs and weapons in schools result in young children being arrested and kicked out of school for childish behavior such as drawing pictures of soldiers and crying too much; truancy laws intended to keep students in school have resulted in parents being arrested and fined excessively; and zoning laws intended to protect homeowners have been used to prosecute residents who attempt to live off the grid.
Truth #8: The U.S. is following the Nazi blueprint to a “t,” whether through its storm trooper-like police in the form of heavily armed government agents, to its erection of an electronic concentration camp that not only threatens to engulf America but the rest of the world as well via NSA surveillance programs such as Five Eyes. Most damning of all is the Department of Homeland Security’s self-appointed role as a national police force, a.k.a. standing army, the fundamental and final building block for every totalitarian regime that has ever wreaked havoc on humanity. Indeed, just about every nefarious deed, tactic or thuggish policy advanced by the government today can be traced back to the DHS, its police state mindset, and the billions of dollars it distributes to police agencies in the form of grants.
Truth #9: Not only does the U.S. government perpetrate organized, systematic violence on its own citizens, especially those who challenge its authority nonviolently, in the form of SWAT team raids, militarized police, and roaming VIPR checkpoints, but it gets away with these clear violations of the Fourth Amendment because the courts grant them immunity from wrongdoing. Expanding its reach, the U.S. also exports its violence wholesale to other countries through armaments sales and the use of its military as a global police force. Yet no matter how well trained, well equipped and well financed, America cannot police the world. As history shows, military empires, once over extended, inevitably collapse into chaos.
Truth #10: As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the United States of America has become the new battlefield. In fact, the only real war being fought by the U.S. government today is the war on the American people, and it is being waged with deadly weapons, militarized police, surveillance technology, laws that criminalize otherwise lawful behavior, private prisons that operate on quota systems, and government officials who are no longer accountable to the rule of law.
So there you have it: facts rather than fiction, so naked that a child could call it for what it is, and yet so politically inconvenient, incorrect and uncomfortable that few dare to speak of them.
Even so, despite the fact that no one wants to be labeled dimwitted, or conspiratorial, or a right wing nut job, most Americans, if they were truly paying attention to what’s been going on in this country over the past few decades and willing to be truthful, at least to themselves, would have to admit that the outlook is decidedly grim. Indeed, unless something changes drastically for the good in the near future, it looks like this fairytale will not have a happy ending.
MORE – The Rutherford Institute