Steve Lendman
Capture the False Flag
Off the keyboard of Steve Lendman
Published on the Steve Lendman Blog on May 3, 2013
Discuss this article at the Epicurean Delights Smorgasbord inside the Diner
- a fake shoe bomber;
- fake underwear bomber;
- fake Times Square bomber;
- an earlier one there;
- fake shampoo bombers;
- fake Al Qaeda woman planning fake mass casualty attacks on New York landmarks;
- fake Oregon bomber;
- fake armed forces recruiting station bomber;
- fake synagogue bombers;
- fake Chicago Sears Tower bombers;
- fake FBI and other building bombers;
- fake National Guard, Fort Dix and Quantico marine base attackers;
- fake 9/11 bombers;
- fake Boston bombers; and
- numerous others.
Big Brother has ARRIVED!
Off the keyboard of Steve Lendman
Published on the Steven Lendman Blog on May 1, 2013
Discuss this article at the Epicurean Delights Smorgasbord inside the Diner
Big Brother no longer is fiction. It hasn’t been for some time. It’s official US policy. According to ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program director Barry Steinhardt:
“Given the capabilities of today’s technology, the only thing protecting us from a full-fledged surveillance society are the legal and political institutions we have inherited as Americans.”
“Unfortunately, the September 11 attacks have led some to embrace the fallacy that weakening the Constitution will strengthen America.”
Manufactured national security threats matter more than fundamental freedoms. Domestic spying is institutionalized.
Anyone can be monitored for any reason or none at all. Privacy rights are lost. Patriot Act legislation authorized unchecked government surveillance powers.
Financial, medical and other personal information can be accessed freely. So-called “sneak and peak” searches may be conducted through “delayed notice” warrants, roving wiretaps, email tracking, and Internet and cell phone use.
The FBI, CIA, NSA, and Pentagon spy domestically. So do state and local agencies. Spies “R” us defines US policy. America is a total surveillance society. It’s unsafe to live in. Everyone is suspect unless proved otherwise.
The 2012 FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act renewed warrantless spying. It passed with little debate. On Sunday, December 30, 2012 Obama signed it into law. Doing so largely went unnoticed.
These type disturbing measures usually slip below the radar. Weekends and holiday period enactments conceal blows to freedom. Warrantless spying became law for another five years.
Phone calls, emails, and other communications may be monitored secretly without court authorization. Probable cause isn’t needed. So-called “foreign intelligence information” is sought. Virtually anything qualifies. Vague language is all-embracing.
Months after 9/11, Bush secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans lawlessly. Sweeping surveillance followed without court-approved warrants.
Doing so violates core constitutional protections. Major US telecommunications companies are involved. They have been since 9/11. Things now are worse than then.
On April 29, Russia Today (RT) headlined “Spy, or pay up: FBI-backed bill would fine US firms for refusing wiretaps.” A day earlier Washington Post article was cited.
It headlined “Panel seeks to fine tech companies for noncompliance with wiretap orders,” saying:
“A government task force is preparing legislation that would pressure companies such as Facebook and Google to enable law enforcement officials to intercept online communications as they occur, according to current and former US officials familiar with the effort.”
At issue is alleged FBI concerns about “Internet communications of terrorists and other criminals.”
FBI spying is longstanding. So are other lawless practices. Throughout its history, the agency operated within and outside the law.
J. Edgar Hoover ran it from 1924 – 1972. He waged war on communists, anti-war, human and civil rights activists, the American Indian Movement, Black Panther Party, and other groups challenging rogue state policies.
He ordered agents to infiltrate, disrupt, sabotage, and destroy them. Anyone advocating ethnic justice and racial emancipation, as well as economic, social, and political equality across gender and color lines became vulnerable.
Post-9/11, FBI abuses escalated. Intrusive surveillance tools now target ordinary Americans. Unchecked authority and other abusive practices are widespread. America’s war on terror matters most.
Disturbing tactics include greater physical surveillance, commercial database data retrieval, paid informants infiltrating groups (or targeting individuals) on false pretenses, and letting covert unidentified agents conduct “pretext” interviews for information.
Muslims are America’s target of choice. So are anti-war and social justice activists. A gloves off, no-holds barred approach is followed. Virtually anything is fair game. Innocent people are vulnerable.
The Patriot Act authorized so-called National Security Letters (NSLs). FBI agents take full advantage. They do so by demanding personal customer records from ISPs, financial institutions, credit companies, and other sources without prior court approval.
The FBI wants more. According to the Washington Post, it wants companies failing to heed wiretap orders penalized.
In February 2011, then FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni told House Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee members about a “Going Dark” problem.
She explained the agency’s inability to access comprehensive “communications and related data.” She claimed a “public safety” threat when critical information is missed.
In March 2013, current FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann addressed an American Bar Association discussion. He did so on legal challenges new technologies pose, saying:
“We don’t have the ability to go to court and say, ‘We need a court order to effectuate the intercept.’ Other countries have that. Most people assume that’s what you’re getting when you go to a court.”
Under current law, Internet communications companies can refuse to comply with court-ordered wiretaps. They can claim no practical way to do so.
Proposed legislation would change things. It would force companies to rebuild their capability to allow government monitoring.
Weissmann calls doing so a “top priority.” Proposed legislation is being drafted. It’s an extension of the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).
It grants federal authorities sweeping surveillance powers. Doing so lets them spy on Americans more intrusively.
CALEA originally applied only to digital telephone networks. It forced telephone companies to redesign their network architectures to make wiretapping easier.
In 2005, online communications were added. Broadband providers had to rebuild their networks accordingly.
At issue was permitting access to Internet “phone calls” through VOIP applications, as well as online “conversations” by instant messaging programs.
Law enforcement wiretapping is longstanding. Existing laws permit tapping phone or online communications regardless of what programs or protocols are used.
Industry largely cooperates. Digital age surveillance is easier than authorities claim. They want greater ease than currently permitted. Expanding CALEA is overkill. Doing so enhances police state powers.
The FBI cites its “tappability principle.” It does so to justify its demands. It claims whatever is legally searchable sometimes should be physically searchable all times.
Applied to phone and Internet communications, it would require designing phones and computers with built-in bugs. Doing so would elevate surveillance powers. Everyone could be spied on at all times. Private communications no longer would exist.
Expanding CALEA is the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps software companies are next. Enhanced legislative authority may force them to create surveillance-ready programs. Doing so may compromise innovation.
Applying phone system rules to software development and online communications assures trouble. What’s longstanding policy for one compromises innovation for the others. It also more greatly undermines freedom.
Police state powers are enhanced. Companies are forced to comply. Under draft legislation, courts could levy fines. Judicial inquiries could impose additional ones. After 90 days, unpaid amounts would double daily.
According to Center for Democracy and Technology senior counsel Greg Nojeim:
“This proposal is a non-starter that would drive innovators overseas and cost American jobs. They might as well call it the Cyber Insecurity and Anti-Employment Act.”
Former federal prosecutor Michael Sussman added:
“Today, if you’re a tech company that’s created a new and popular way to communicate, it’s only a matter of time before the FBI shows up with a court order to read or hear some conversation.”
“If the data can help solve crimes, the government will be interested.”
In 2010, after its networks were hacked, Google began emails and text messages end-to-end encryption. Facebook followed suit.
Doing so compromises FBI monitoring. Agency officials want enhanced CALEA authorization permitting it.
They claim doing so only extends current law to new technologies. It requires phone and online companies to allow wiretapping.
It’s much more than that. It elevates mass surveillance to a dangerously higher level. It’s another step toward full-blown tyranny.
On April 29, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) headlined “Feds Push for Backdoor Wiretap Capabilities.”
According to CDT Senior Staff Technologist Joe Hall:
“A wiretapping mandate is a vulnerability mandate. The unintended consequences of this proposal are profound.”
“At the very time when the nation is concerned about cybersecurity, the FBI proposal has the potential to make our communications less secure.”
“Once you build a wiretap capability into products and services, the bad guys will find a way to use it.”
CDT President Leslie Harris added:
“What the FBI is proposing sounds benign, but it comes with such onerous penalties that it would force developers to seek pre-approval from the FBI.”
“No one is going to want to face fines that double every day, so they will go to the FBI and work it out in advance, diverting resources, slowing innovation, and resulting in less secure products.”
“The sad irony,” said Hall, “is that this is likely to be ineffective. Building a communications tool today is a homework project for undergraduates.”
“So much is based on open source and can be readily customized. Criminals and other bad actors will simply use homemade communication services based offshore, making them even harder to monitor.”
Media scholar/critic/activist Robert McChesney told Progressive Radio News Hour listeners how Internet freedom has been compromised.
His important new book “Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy” explains what should concern everyone.
“The corporate media sector (did) everything in its immense power to limit (its) openness and egalitarianism…., he said.”
“….corporate and state surreptitious monitoring of Internet users” compromises fundamental freedoms.
Doing so is “inimical to much of the democratic potential of digital communication.”
Internet freedom depends on “arrest(ing) the forces that promote inequality, monopoly, hypercommercialism, corruption, depoliticization, and stagnation.”
It requires ending mass surveillance powers. It’s about restoring lost democratic principles. America’s heading the wrong way. It’s perilously close to ending freedom altogether.
Amerika is Detroit
Off the keyboard of Steve Lendman
Published on the Steve Lendman Blog on March 16, 2013
Detroit Packard Plant. The largest abandoned factory plant in the World.
Discuss this article at the Epicurean Delights Smorgasbord inside the Diner
America’s economy is sick. It’s getting sicker. Coverup and denial conceal reality. Census data say record numbers of US counties are dying. It’s over one in three.
Impeach Obama: A National Imperative
Off the keyboard of Steve Lendman
Published on the Steve Lendman Blog on February 11, 2013
Discuss this article at the Epicurean Delights Smorgasbord inside the Diner
Do it now before it’s too late!
- specifically allowed under Article 51;
- authorized by the Security Council; and
- permitted by constitutional and US statute law provisions.
- the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty;
- the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and
- the 1974 Definition of Aggression.
Whistleblowers & Wall Street’s “Good Hands”
Off the keyboard of Steve Lendman
Published originally on the Steve Lendman Blog
Discuss this article at the Epicurean Delights Smorgasbord inside the Diner
Obama’s War on Whistleblowers
On January 24, Obama nominated Mary Jo White as SEC head. “You don’t want to mess with Mary Jo,” he said. Others have different views. More about her below.- turns a blind eye to fraud and abuse;
- protects Wall Street, not investors;
- neutered its enforcement staff’s authority;
- adopted voluntary regulation; and
- lets investment banks hold less reserve capital, as well as freely use leverage speculatively.
Aaron Swartz: Suicide or Murder?
Off the keyboard of Steve Lendman
Published on the Steve Lendman Blog on January 17, 2013
Discuss this article at the Heros of the Revolution table inside the Diner
Grand Bargain Betrayal Coming
Off the keyboard of Steve Lendman
Published on Steve Lendman Blog on November 10, 2012
Discuss this article at the Epicurean Delights Smorgasbord inside the Diner
Obama’s economic record includes nearly 25 million unemployed, around 23% of working age Americans without jobs, poverty, homelessness, and hunger at record levels or close to it, and the greatest wealth disparity in US history.- economic decline;
- job cuts and greater unemployment;
- increased deficits and debt; and
- destruction of safety net protections.
Nobel Hypocrisy Wins Again
Off the keyboard of Steve Lendman
Published on Steve Lendman’s Blog on October 12, 2012
Discuss this article at the Epicurean Delights Smorgasbord inside the Diner
- three to four million Southeast Asian Vietnam War deaths;
- the bloody overthrow of Chile’s Salvador Allende; Augusto Pinochet’s reign of terror;
- support for some of the worst global despots;
- Indonesia’s Surharto was one; Kissinger backed his bloody West Papua takeover; he also encouraged his East Timor genocide;
- support for Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge, its rise to power and reign of terror;
- backing of Pakistan’s overthrow of Bangladesh’s democratically elected government; a half million deaths followed;
- his 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) advocated genocide; he called it forced world population control; he wanted worthless eaters removed; he recommended eliminating 500 million people by 2000 and millions more annually; and
- numerous other global crimes against humanity were committed during his tenure as Nixon and Ford’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. He served as administration Svengali.
Weekly Steve Lendman-10/11/2012
Off the keyboard of Steve Lendman
Published on the Steve Lendman Blog
Discuss these articles at the Epicurean Delights Smorgasboar inside the Diner
War or No War on Iran
by Stephen Lendman
In Shakespearean terms, indeed that’s the question. Longstanding regime change plans are known. Means to achieve them have been ongoing for years.
A previous article put it this way:
Red lines, timelines, deadlines, sanctions, sabotage, subversion, cyber attacks, assassinations, saber rattling, falsified IAEA hype, ad nauseam warmongering, Netanyahu/Barak bluster, spurious accusations, manipulated to fail P5+1 talks, and inflammatory headlines up the stakes for war.
Washington also uses color revolutions. Some work. Others don’t. Iran’s so-called “green” one was made in America.
After Iran’s June 12, 2009 election, days of street protests and clashes with security forces followed. Washington stirred the pot and caused them. They replicated previous efforts elsewhere. Regime change is the common thread.
Spurious Western media reports claimed electoral fraud. A new vote was demanded. Events replicated Georgia’s “rose revolution” and Ukraine’s “orange” one. Both worked.
The Iranian scheme failed. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won fair and square. He became the Islamic Republic of Iran’s sixth and current president. What Iranian voters chose, Washington wasn’t able to put asunder. It hasn’t stopped trying.
One scheme follows others. Iran’s so-called nuclear/existential threat makes headlines. They repeat ad nauseam. The power of repetition gets most people to believe them.
Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time….” Too many people are always fooled on issues mattering most.
What’s more important than war and peace. Public ignorance lets America get away with murder. It happens repeatedly against one targeted country after another.
Will Washington attack Iran? Will it be done jointly with Israel? More on that below. The Islamic Republic poses no threat. It hasn’t attacked another country in two or three centuries. It threatens none now. It’s nuclear program is peaceful.
Netanyahu is menacing. He’s toxic, belligerent and dangerous. He’s a world class thug. He’s Israel’s worst ever leader. He threatens Jews as well as Muslims.
Most Israelis are fooled. They may, in fact, reelect him. On October 9, he announced early elections. He said coalition partners can’t agree on budget priorities. Scheduled fall 2013 elections now shift to early next year.
Iran will be issue one. On October 10, Haaretz headlined “Nuclear Iran will star in Netanyahu’s bid for re-election, not Israel’s economy,” saying:
Fear trumps human need. “Netanyahu will highlight the approaching nuclear danger and portray himself as the only Israeli leader realistic enough – and tough enough – to deal with it.”
He repeats the Big Lie ad nauseam. He promises action against a bogus “Iranian threat.”
“Netanyahu prefers to focus on Iran rather than the economy, since Israeli elections are usually decided on the people’s anxiety about their security. And the economic horizon beyond the election looks grim indeed.”
From now through election, expect scurrilous anti-Iranian propaganda. It’ll probably get him reelected. Fear works that way. What’s coming post-election bears close watching.
David Rothkopf serves as Foreign Policy (FP) magazine’s CEO and Editor-at-Large. Formerly, he and former Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake co-founded Intellibridge Corporation.
Sourcewatch said in launching Intellibridge, Rothkopf had help from “several former government officials and spooks, including Anthony Lake and former CIA director John Deutch….” Former Clinton administration officials hold top posts.
Intellibridge provides “open-source intelligence, customized content,and analysis to the military and corporations.”
Earlier, Rothkopf was Kissinger Associates managing director and US Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Policy.
He and FP support Washington’s imperial agenda. On October 8, he headlined “A Truly Credible Military Threat to Iran,” saying:
America and Israeli may surgically strike Iran. Washington will do most heavy lifting. Israel will ride shotgun. Netanyahu won’t go it alone. He needs US approval and support.
Romney’s been baiting Obama on Iran. In an October 8 Virginia Military Institute speech, he claimed:
“Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability. It has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us.”
“The President has failed to lead in Syria….Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.”
“It is time to change course in the Middle East….I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.”
“(W)e must make clear to Iran through actions – not just words – that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.” He barely stopped short of urging war.
He’s in campaign mode. Whether he’ll follow through if elected isn’t known. The possibility very much is real.
He claimed Obama hasn’t slowed Iran’s “pursuit” of nuclear weapons. Rothkopf called the issue a “centerpiece of the Romney campaign’s argument that Obama has not been tough enough on Iran….”
He hasn’t “offered a credible military threat” to deter what, in fact, doesn’t exist.
Rothkopf said unnamed Obama advisors told him privately that “they wonder about his commitment and that of the US military to taking action against Iran.”
Up to now, he’s been “dragging his feet,” but no longer. White House and Israeli officials are “closer together in their views in recent days.”
While no precise red line exists, Netanyahu’s preferred military option “is considerably more limited and lower risk” than full-scale war.
Saying so greatly understates the threat and potential catastrophic consequences. Attacking Iran is madness. Tehran’s response will be swift and strong. It’ll be far more robust than anything Israel previously experienced.
Bombing nuclear facilities in both countries assures widespread irradiation. Immediate casualties will be huge in both countries. Longer-term ones will be catastrophically high.
War on Iran assures all sides lose. Regional countries will be affected. US facilities and ships will be attacked.
Economic consequences will be severe. Sharply higher oil prices will follow. Global recession will deepen. Israel and America will be more hated than ever. War may happen anyway.
Understating what’s at stake is irresponsible. Is Rothkopf urging war? Claiming low risk consequences suggests it. According to his unnamed source, “(t)he strike might take only ‘a couple of hours’ in the best case and only would involve a ‘day or two’ overall.”
It “would be conducted by air, using primarily bombers and drone support.” It’s “politically palatable.” It’ll set back Iran’s nuclear program “many years….without civilian casualties – it would have regional benefits.”
Yellow journalism is bad enough. Practically endorsing catastrophic war is unconscionable and madness.
He quoted an unnamed warmonger claiming a “transformative outcome: saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come.”
Transformative indeed in all the wrong ways.
It’s well known, or should be, that Israel can’t go it alone. Its capability isn’t up to destroying Iran’s Fordo facility. It’s built deep underground within a mountain for protection.
Powerful bunker busters (possibly mini-nukes) are needed. Using them won’t assure success. At the same time, Israeli aircraft on their own may be unable to deliver a potential knockout punch.
The Wilson Center’s Iran Project assessed benefits and costs. Its conclusions didn’t please warmongers. Iran can retaliate with “conventionally armed ballistic missiles capable of striking most of the region, including Israel,” it said.
War could last years. Military and economic costs will be high. A New American Foundation study said attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities assures disaster.
Another by Harvard’s Olin Institute for Strategic Studies said Iranian mines and missiles can block the Strait of Hormuz, halt or greatly curtail oil shipments, and “it could take many weeks, even months, to restore the full flow of commerce, and more time still for the oil markets to be convinced that stability has returned.”
A 2008 Washington Institute for the Near East Policy (WINEP) study said two decades after the Iran/Iraq war, the Islamic Republic’s naval capabilities now excel. They’re able to wage effective asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) is highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed. It’s a formidable force. It controls the Strait of Hormuz choke point.
WINEP added that if Washington and/or Israel attacks Iran, its response will be proportional to damage it sustains.
It bears repeating. Attacking Iran is madness for good reason. Claiming otherwise is unconscionable. It also avoids explaining serious international law violations.
Preemptive aggressive wars are illegal. Hot or cold warriors don’t seem to care.
Cooked or Accurate US Employment Numbers
by Stephen Lendman
For over a decade, US job prospects have been dismal. Since crisis conditions erupted in 2008, they’ve been dire for millions wanting work.
Since Obama took office in January 2009, job creation has been pathetic. Numbers reported during the weakest US recovery on record largely failed to compensate for others lost.
Monthly Labor Department (BLS) data report inaccurately. America’s broken jobs engine isn’t explained. The latest 7.8% unemployment rate is blarney. Based on the 1980s calculation model, real unemployment approaches 23%.
You’d never know it from irrational exuberance following the October 5 BLS report. “Better News on Jobs” headlined a New York Times editorial, saying:
The report “was stronger than expected.” It’s also true that more needs to be done “to maintain and create jobs,” The Times admitted. It also called the unemployment rate drop from 8.1% to 7.8% “partly due to a statistical fluke and partly to more part-time employment.”
It has nothing to do with the latter. It has everything to do with huge numbers of workers dropping out of the labor force monthly for lack of jobs. Healthy economies have them for virtually anyone wanting work. No longer.
Moreover, most jobs created are poor temporary or part-time low wage/low or no benefit ones. People take them to eat and avoid having to sleep on city streets.
The Times left unexplained what’s most important to know. A Washington Post editorial was worse. It headlined “Jobs report shows an economy on the move,” saying:
Before taking office in January 2009, Obama told Post editors that job creation was his “number-one priority.” Grade him F for not delivering or trying.
Not according to the Post, saying: “Friday’s employment report gave Mr. Obama a reason to crow.”
“Unemployment probably would have been worse but for some of (his) policies….”
False! Obama helped Wall Street, not Main Street. His so-called fiscal stimulus went mostly for corporate tax cuts and others to rich elites. Ordinary people got austerity, not help. Current dire conditions show it.
An October 9 NYT editorial claimed otherwise. Headlined “Conspiracy World,” it covered more than unemployment. It said many Republicans see Obama “as the center of a broad and malevolent liberal conspiracy to upend the truth.”
Both parties and supportive media scoundrels wage relentless war on it.
The latest unemployment numbers “make the administration look good.” They’re, in fact, dismal, but Republicans take issue with anything appearing to help Obama, even if untrue.
Some called the latest BLS numbers “cooked.” The Times berated anyone “mistrust(ing) the most basic functions of government.”
They should be exposed and denounced for what they are.
BLS and other federal bureaucrats resist “political pressure and manipulation,” claimed The Times. Conspiracists claim otherwise. Sometimes they’re right. Insiders don’t go public and admit it.
Instead of giving Obama undeserved credit, the Post, Times and other supportive media should explain how badly he failed.
Economist Paul Craig Roberts excels in doing it. On October 5, he headlined “Another Phony US Employment Report: Spiraling Number of Involuntary Part-Time Workers,” saying:
BLS reported jobs created fell way short of population growth. Healthy US economies would be producing nearly three times the reported number monthly.
BLS said 2.5 million “persons were marginally attached to the labor force.” Orwell couldn’t have said it better. They want work but can’t find it. BLS made them non-persons. Millions of others bump dangerously close to the same status.
America’s economy is sick. Roberts explains it often. He omits ambiguity. He says what people need to know. Dire US employment prospects show up monthly in huge involuntary part-time worker increases. Similar full-time dropouts also reflect it.
High-paying/good benefit full-time manufacturing, high-tech, and other professional jobs are disappearing. They’re now offshore in low-wage countries.
Growing numbers of Americans must settle for part-time Walmart, bartending, waitressing, ditch-digging, and other rotten service jobs they don’t want but have no choice.
America’s “New Economy” is as phony as Iraq’s WMDs. Reality falls way short of rhetoric.
Economist Jack Rasmus appears regularly on the Progressive Radio News Hour. He reports accurately on economic and financial conditions. Like Roberts, he explains what’s most important to know. He’s world’s different from tout-TV analysts and business press headlines.
He questioned the accuracy of BLS jobs reports. They’re not falsified, but something very much is wrong and has been previously.
For the last three years, an unexplained phenomenon repeated. Rasmus is one of few economists explaining it. It’s significant and needs highlighting. It suggests something out of whack, besides much else about suspect and inaccurate BLS reporting.
Each fall and winter, well above trend job gains are reported. In contrast, every spring/early summer gains “collapse. There is indeed something going on with the jobs numbers, though it’s not falsification,” says Rasmus.
Last month’s Household Survey mysteriously showed outsized gains. Given current conditions, they made no sense. They reflect one or two phenomena, believes Rasmus.
Employers are either replacing full-time workers with part-time/temp ones, or they’re hiring for the latter two categories because economic prospects aren’t encouraging.
In calculating its headline U-3 unemployment rate, part-time workers count the same as full-time ones. Hiring them in place of permanent employees reflects “very weak labor market” conditions.
Fictitious new business formations also help explain inordinately high part-time hiring. Estimates are suspect. Media scoundrels report them like gospel.
Something is very wrong with BLS reports. Problems are more extensive than one month’s numbers. When divergence is so great between the Establishment (Payroll) and Household (Population) Surveys, something indeed is amiss.
As or more important is the extraordinary seasonal divergence. One year’s aberration wouldn’t matter. Three consecutive years shows something else entirely. “Something is wrong.”
America’s economy is sick. Labor market reality reflects it. It’s not “rapidly mending.” Over 23 million remain jobless. Trillions of dollar of tax cuts, banker bailouts, corporate subsidies, and other handouts did nothing to mend things.
Nor did QE ad infinitum. The most radical ever monetary/fiscal experiment failed.
In the first so-called presidential debate, neither candidate discussed “anything remotely representing a jobs program.”
Obama and Romney don’t care. They want more for bankers, war profiteers, and other corporate favorites. People needs don’t matter. Bipartisanship reflects let-em-eat-cake indifference, government of, by, and for them alone, force-fed austerity, unfair “free” trade deals, permanent wars, and harsh crackdowns on non-believers.
Nothing ahead next year looks promising. Both parties are in lockstep. People needs aren’t addressed. America’s military alone actively recruits. Join the army. See the world. Lose a limb or two or three.
Lose your emotional stability and future prospects. Nothing abroad justifies fighting for. Nothing good domestically awaits returning vets. Hot wars target America’s enemies. Financial ones affect ordinary people back home. Both have deadly consequences.
A new IMF report signaled trouble. “The recovery has suffered new setbacks, and uncertainty weighs on the outlook,” it said. “Downside risks have increased and are considerable.”
Worldwide growth will match 2009 recession levels. Global recession may follow. Out-of-control government debt is pandemic. Expect higher interest rates, lower profits, and weak financial markets.
US 2013 fiscal cliff austerity assures harder times ahead. Similar cuts across Europe smother the continent. Employment gains are fake, a mirage. Business and consumer confidence are “exceptionally” fragile. Market rallies are head-fake traps.
Dismal prospects loom. Companies cut staff in hard times. Expect them in 2013. Rasmus predicts nasty recession conditions. Past forecasts he made proved accurate. Stay tuned. He, Roberts, and others reporting accurately will update their outlooks ahead.
posted by Steve Lendman @ 11:50 PM
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Venezuelan Electoral Postmortems
by Stephen Lendman
Chavistas celebrated Sunday’s victory. Bolivarianism triumphed over exploitive neoliberal harshness. In open, free, and fair elections, Venezuelans got to choose. It’s constitutionally mandated. Every vote counts equally.
Americans don’t have that right. On November 6, choice won’t be the ballot. Column A matches Column B. Money power chooses candidates and winners. Some election! No wonder half the electorate ops out.
On October 7, Venezuelans turned out in record numbers. Over 80% of registered voters showed up. Turnout was so great, many waited hours to exercise their franchise.
It’s important because what they say matters. They wanted Chavez for another six years and got him. They want Bolivarianism sustained and deepened.
Chavez pledged he’ll do it. He keeps promises. Vows US leaders make aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Obama broke every major one he made.
It shouldn’t surprise. It’s the American way. Bolivarianism chooses another. Its good example shames Western faux democracies. Today they’re more hypocrisy than ever.
Prioritizing wealth, power and imperial interests means depriving most people of vital social services. No wonder unemployment, poverty, homelessness, hunger, and overall human misery keep growing.
Venezuela is mirror opposite. Beneficial social change is prioritized. It shows. Poor people are helped generously. Child mortality fell from 20 per 1,000 to 13. Unemployment dropped from 14.5% to 7.6%. Income inequality is Latin America’s lowest. Poverty was cut in half. Extreme poverty fell from 23.4% to 8.5%.
According to Census figures, half of US households are impoverished or bordering on it. Real unemployment approaches 23%. Most jobs are temporary or part-time low pay/poor or no benefit ones. They’re rotten. With no other choice, people take them. It’s either that or starve and sleep on city streets.
America’s industrial base is a shadow of its former self. It’s located offshore in low wage countries. US workers are left high and dry. Conditions keep worsening, not improving.
Venezuela’s far from perfect. Violent crime, corruption, high inflation, infrastructure needs, and a menacing northern neighbor are worrisome. Chavez’s health is uncertain. His cancer’s in remission. If it returns and he can’t serve, who’ll succeed him isn’t clear.
Venezuela’s poor love him for good reason. They turned Sunday evening into New Year’s eve. Victory was sweet, and they celebrated.
Sour grapes showed up prominently elsewhere. It’s standard practice after every Bolivarian triumph. More on that below.
Venezuela is comprised of 23 states, a Capital District (Caracas), and offshore Federal Dependencies. Chavez carried 21 states and Caracas. Lead opponent Capriles took Zulia and Carabobo states.
Venezuela’s state-of-the-art electoral process shames America’s. It’s far less susceptible to fraud and identity theft than elsewhere.
Postal and proxy votes are excluded. Fingerprints identify voters electronically. Paper receipts verify ballots cast. They’re recorded and available for recounts if needed.
Every candidate was identified by name and full color photo. It helps assure votes are cast as intended. Observers monitored fairness. Opposition supporters turned out in force. They agreed. Voting was open, free and fair.
The Union of South American Nations praised what went on. Mission head Carlos Alvarez said:
“Venezuela has given an exemplary demonstration of what the functioning of democracy is and has taught a lesson to the world.”
“Venezuela strengthened democracy in the nation and the region.”
Alvarez also praised Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE). He called its work “extraordinary.” It’s a model to help “achieve the construction of a South American electoral system.”
Throughout Sunday, everything proceeded smoothly. No major disturbances occurred. Opposition strategists hoped otherwise. They planned to highlight fraud and other irregularities but couldn’t find any.
Capriles had no recourse but to concede defeat. He left unsaid why most Venezuelans spurned them. They need no explanations. Triumphant Chavismo is all that matters.
On January 10, Chavez begins his fourth term. He told supporters he’s not waiting. “(F)or me,” he said, “the new cycle begins today. We’re obligated to be better every day, more efficient, obligated to respond with greater efficiency to the needs of people.”
He promised “to be the best president that I have been in these years.” Take him at his word. He’ll try because he cares. Imagine if US and other Western leaders felt this way and showed it. Perhaps another time in a new era, but not now. Other priorities take precedence.
Beating up on Bolivarianism
If you can’t beat ‘em, beat up on ‘em. Sour grapes postmortems made headlines. Scoundrel media editorials and op-eds featured them.
The Wall Street Journal’s Mary O’Grady is ideologically to the right of many neocons. Her style reflects character assassination. Her rhetoric drips with vitriol. She wins awards for genuflecting to power and suppressing vital truths for power brokers who pay her.
Her electoral postmortem was typical. She headlined “Chavismo Wins, Venezuela Loses,” saying:
“Control of the media and the voting polls, plus some old-fashioned fear, have won Hugo Chávez six more years.”
False, false and false! Corporations control virtually all Venezuelan major broadcast and print media. They unanimously endorsed Capriles. Venezuela’s electoral process is called the world’s best for good reason. Voters turned out en masse because it matters. Neoliberal extremists alone stoke fear.
O’Grady lied saying internal Capriles polling showed he’d “win by three to four percentage points.” Days before October 7, opposition insiders privately conceded. They knew they had no chance to win and said so.
Chavez “seized control of television and radio stations and used them during the campaign…” Those same stations opposed him. They promoted Capriles. They featured him on air.
“Mr. Capriles tried to tap into (Venezuelan) misery by presenting himself as a social democrat….” He’s a wealthy neoliberal hard-liner. He deplores beneficial social change. If elected he’d return Venezuela to its bad old days. Voters wanted none of him and his extremism.
O’Grady’s litany of canards infested her piece. Ones included sound like America, not Venezuela. She never misses a chance to beat up on Chavez. She was true to form calling him a “dictator,” a “world-class demagogue.”
He “mortgaged Venezuela to help him buy another six years in power….(N)o one believes that the final vote spread reflects the public’s opinion of the winner.”
“With China underwriting his populism and Cuba manning his intelligence and security apparatus, his near-term comfort in Miraflores palace is practically guaranteed.”
O’Grady reflects the worst of US opinion journalism. Yellow can’t begin to describe it.
WSJ writers Jose de Cordoba and Sara Schaefer Munoz had their say. They were dishonest in less strident form than O’Grady. They headlined “Victory Tightens Chavez Grip on Power,” saying:
“Another decisive electoral victory for Hugo Chávez has convinced many Venezuelans in the opposition that his only vulnerabilities are a turn for the worse in the ailing president’s health or a sharp drop in oil prices.”
“The win allows Mr. Chávez to press ahead with his Socialist revolution, deepening government intervention in the economy, including price controls and nationalizations.”
“Observers see him as likely to continue his role as the leading voice against U.S. interests in the region, enhancing alliances with everyone from Tehran to Beijing.”
What else would a Murdoch publication say. They have marching orders, salute and obey. So does Carnegie Endowment for International Peace analyst Moises Naim. The Journal writers quoted him saying:
“You have the head of a petrostate with authoritarian propensities who controls the legislative branch, the supreme court, the electoral tribunal and the oil industry which generates 98% of the country’s wealth, without any checks and balances.”
The entire article wreaked with misinformation. Corporate media scoundrels offer nothing else.
Bloomberg headlined “Chavez Election Victory Signals Accelerated Socialist Revolution,” saying:
Since taking office in 1999, “he nationalized more than 1,000 companies or their assets…” Nationalizations were far fewer. He paid fair compensation every time. No one was cheated.
“With voters giving the former paratrooper another six-year term, he’ll probably push policies, such as currency controls and takeovers, that have driven away investors….”
Chavez combines populism with business friendly practices. Level playing field politics perhaps best describes it. Before crisis conditions erupted in 2008, banker profits were so high they said they were “having a party.”
During today’s hard times, Venezuela’s growth is impressive. Q II 2012 advanced 5.4%. In contrast, Europe’s in recession. America is close. Economist Jack Rasmus predicts it in 2013. He calls overall conditions dire.
In a section devoted to Chavez, The New York Times said the “fiery socialist defeated a youthful, more moderate challenger….”
“He is an ailing and politically weakened winner facing an emboldened opposition that grew stronger and more confident as the voting neared, and at times seemed to have an upset victory within reach.”
The Times spent the last dozen years or longer beating up on him mercilessly. It can’t bear admitting social democracy works. It supports wealth and power. It spurns ordinary people. It calls fascist America democratic. It calls the real thing in Venezuela autocratic. Truth was never The Times’ long suit.
The Dallas Morning News was no better. Its editorial headlined “Venezuela’s sad electoral statement,” saying:
“Score another lamentable election victory for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. The fiery, anti-U.S. revolutionary now has another six-year term to continue with the plans he launched after his first election in 1998 to dismantle Venezuela’s free-market economy and pursue his anachronistic socialist agenda.”
Washington has “national security” concerns to worry about for another six years. Chavez “rankled US leaders” by friendly relations with governments America opposes.
His “so-called Bolivarian revolution has proved hollow. Revolutionary socialism is almost impossible to sustain….Chavez should increasingly be dismissed for what he is – a toothless tiger.”
Media scoundrels call success failure. Their arguments don’t wash. Rhetoric substitutes for hard truths. Too bad so many people believe them. Venezuelans aren’t fooled. They support what works and showed it.
Pre-election, the London Guardian headlined “Hugo Chavez: a strongman’s last stand,” saying:
“No one ever accused Hugo Chávez of thinking small. He casts politics as an existential contest between good and evil, the oppressed and the oppressor.”
The election will decide “the comandante(‘s)” fate “and his revolution. (It) hangs by a thread….Chávez surrounded himself mostly with mediocrities, valuing loyalty over competence.”
“His legacy will be debated for decades….Many outsiders made up their minds long ago. There was Chávez the dictator who jailed opponents, sponsored terrorists and left his people hungry.”
“Chavez….is a hybrid: a democrat and autocrat, a progressive and a bully.” The Guardian also called him “a caudillo (strongman)” running a “dysfunction(al)” economy.
It’s hard imagining any broadsheet letting this trash end up in print. Inconvenient truths are ignored. Admitting them would discredit everything else said.
Shameless editorials and op-eds hounded Chavez for years. In its November/December 2005 Extra edition, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) headlined “The Op-Ed Assassination of Hugo Chavez,” saying:
Pat Robertson literally wanted him killed. Even so-called “moderate” columnists beat up on him mercilessly. The usual characterizations call him a strongman, autocrat, dictator, another Hitler.
“In studying the opinion pages of the top 25 circulation newspapers in the United States during the first six months of 2005, Extra! found that 95 percent of the nearly 100 press commentaries that examined Venezuelan politics expressed clear hostility to the country’s democratically elected president.”
It was no different earlier and perhaps worse today. The longer Chavez survives and gets majority Venezuelan support, the more media scoundrels beat up on him.
It’s nearly impossible finding major media commentaries portraying him accurately. Doing so would be out of character. Contributors would be out of work. Party line opinion only is tolerated. Truth and full disclosure are prohibited. It’s the American way.
posted by Steve Lendman @ 11:53 PM
NATO Edges Closer to War on Syria
by Stephen Lendman
Waging war is easy. Instigate provocative incidents. Blame them on targeted countries. False flags work as planned. So do Big Lies repeated enough times to get most people to believe them.
Stoking fear is a common thread. So is claiming good v. evil. Mix well with misinformation and duplicity. Sun Tzu was right saying wars depend on deception. It’s been that way since antiquity. Modern technology makes it easier.
Churchill said lies get halfway around the world before truths get their pants on. Global communication today is instant. Sending hawkish information everywhere is as simple as ready, aim, fire.
Washington and NATO partners are involved in multiple direct and proxy wars. More are planned. Word hasn’t gotten out but it’s coming.
Obama and Romney want war. So does NATO Secretary-General Fogh Rasmussen. He’s a consummate liar. Numerous times he said NATO won’t intervene in Syria. It’s been planned all along.
It’s ongoing. America, Britain, France and Turkey are lead belligerents. They’ve been involved since winter last year. Much goes on covertly.
If NATO didn’t want war, its key countries would be supporting peace. Death squad armies wouldn’t have been recruited. Training, funding, arming, and directing them wouldn’t have been ongoing since conflict erupted in March 2011.
Nor would terrorists be given safe haven in Turkey on Syria’s border. Provocations throw fuel on the fire. Last June, two Turkish warplanes lawlessly entered Syrian airspace low and fast. Doing so showed hostile intent.
One escaped unharmed. Syrian anti-aircraft fire downed the other in its own waters. Assad was blamed for Turkey’s provocation. War could have erupted but didn’t at the time.
The latest cross-border incident makes it more likely. Inflammatory rhetoric increases the possibility. Turkey’s been shelling Syrian territory for six days.
Assad had nothing to do with mortar fire on Turkish territory. Free Syrian Army (FSA) militants are responsible. It doesn’t matter. Only who’s blamed counts. Fingers always point the wrong way. Media scoundrels spread Big Lies. They’re repeated ad nauseam.
Warmongering officials advance the ball for war. Turkish ones play with fire. As one of 28 NATO countries, it’s obligated in ways it wouldn’t be if independent. It also borders Syrian territory.
Prime Minister Erdogan has been hawkish for months. President Abdullah Gul marches with him in lockstep.
“The worst-case scenario is happening in Syria at the moment. Syrian people are suffering and the developments there affect Turkey. We have citizens who have lost their lives,” he said.
“In such a moment, we are always in consultations with our government and chief of General Staff. Whatever necessary is being done, as you know. And it will continue to be done.”
“Sooner or later, a transition will occur. But our wish is (for it to happen) before more blood is shed and before Syria is ruined. I am of the opinion that the international community should actively be involved.”
Did he ask NATO to declare war? What else can international intervention mean? It’s been involved all along short of launching Libya 2.0. Turkey’s role is lead belligerent. Whatever its preference, it’s acquiescent.
Except perhaps for EU admission, it’s hard imagining what it hopes to gain. War on its southern neighbor assures spillover in its own territory. Heavy casualties and destruction will follow.
Most Turks and key opposition parties oppose war. Erdogan and Gul risk their futures for going against the tide. They’re in lockstep with Washington’s agenda. The will of their own people is spurned.
Politically it’s a bad strategy. Maybe they have other aims in mind. Maybe they’re biting off more than they can chew. Maybe they’ll get burned or worse in the process.
They’ve already got enough blood on their hands. So does NATO’s Rasmussen. He’s a war criminal multiple times over. How many more corpses will he tolerate on his conscience?
Ahead of an earlier October Brussels meeting, he said:
“I would add to that that obviously Turkey can rely on NATO solidarity, we have all necessary plans in place to protect and defend Turkey if necessary.”
He did little to cool tensions, adding:
“We hope that all parties involved will show restraint, and avoid an escalation of the crisis. I do believe that the right way forward in Syria is political solution.”
If he believed it, he’d work with other NATO members and to call off their dogs. Since conflict erupted last year, belligerence was prioritized. Alleged humanitarian concerns and fake peace plans were subterfuge for what’s planned.
On October 9, Rasmussen’s rhetoric grew sharper. “We have all necessary plans in place to protect and defend Turkey if necessary,” he said.
Damascus needs defending, not Ankara. Rasmussen commended Turkey for its restraint. Shelling Syrian territory for six days hardly shows it. Clearly it makes war more likely.
“Obviously Turkey has a right to defend herself within international law,” claimed Rasmussen. “I would add….that Turkey can rely on NATO solidarity.”
Rasmussen and Erdogen both sound Orwellian. The NATO chief commends Turkish shelling as restraint. Erdogan practically says the best way to achieve peace is wage war.
Perhaps he also believes freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Maybe Turks will get fed up enough to remove him and likeminded warmongers before their country get embroiled over its head.
On condition of anonymity, NATO officials said plans in place are longstanding. In response to Washington’s regime change agenda, perhaps they were readied in the 1990s.
Turkey is a willing client state. It risks its own well-being. Partnering with America’s imperium has consequences. The price of imperial arrogance may be too much to pay.
Syrians paid dearly for months. Thousands died. Dozens more die daily. On October 9, twin blasts rocked a military base near Damascus. Suicide bombers perhaps were involved.
Dozens were reported killed. Many others were wounded. It’s the latest in a series of major attacks. The Al Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front took credit. It claimed it was avenging Muslims “oppressed or killed” by Assad.
On October 9, Voice of Russia headlined “NATO invasion of Syria: coming soon, rated X,” saying:
Growing signs suggest it. It’s likely baked in the cake. Perhaps one spark too many will ignite it. They’re easy to create. They’re ongoing now cross-border. Erdogen already got parliamentary approval. Shelling may get more intense.
If Syria responds in kind, all bets are off. Turkey suggests it’s spoiling for war. It moved tanks and other heavy weapons to its southern border. It has 25 F-16s and other aircraft positioned in Diyarbakir. It’s in the country’s Kurdish region.
They attacked four alleged PKK sites in Iraq. It followed a near parliamentary declaration of war on Syria. It barely stopped short. After an earlier in October NATO meeting, the following statement was issued:
“In view of the Syrian regime’s recent aggressive acts at NATO’s southeastern border, which are a flagrant breach of international law and a clear and present danger to the security of one of its Allies, the North Atlantic Council met today, within the framework of Article 4 of the Washington Treaty….”
“In the spirit of indivisibility of security and solidarity deriving from the Washington Treaty, the Alliance continues to stand by Turkey and demands the immediate cessation of such aggressive acts against an Ally.”
At the behest of any member, Articles 4 or 5 can be invoked.
Article 4 calls for members to “consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any” is threatened.
Article 5 considers an armed attack (real or otherwise) against one or more members, an attack against all, and calls for collective self-defense.
Will NATO invoke it next? Will full-scale war follow? Heightened tensions increase the likelihood. If it’s planned, it’s virtually certain. Perhaps another pretext will launch it. As explained above, it’s as simple as ready, aim, fire. Heaven help regional countries if it’s ordered.
A Final Comment
Mossad-connected DEBKAfile’s (DF) October 9 headline added another possible wrinkle of its own. “US, Israel plan October Surprise. Others: Israel can do it alone,” it said.
DF said an Israeli/Iranian war already is ongoing. It cited the UAV Israel downed over its territory days earlier. DF blamed Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.
This writer called it a likely false flag. No regional country has anything to gain. For Israel, it’s a convenient casus belli. If one scheme doesn’t work, new ones are easy to invent. Israel does it often. So does Washington.
DF points fingers at Iran for practically everything it claims harms Israel. Tehran, of course, is victim, not perpetrator. So are Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Palestinian resistance groups.
The idea that Israel can go it alone is nonsense. Its capability isn’t up to the challenge. It won’t dare attack Iran without Washington’s approval and support. DF knows it but claims otherwise.
Perhaps it’s playing stalking horse for something else big planned. Full-scale war on Syria seems most likely. If it comes, it won’t be pre-announced. Nor will war on Iran or on any other countries. Targets aren’t given advance notice to prepare.
posted by Steve Lendman @ 11:52 PM
Monday, October 08, 2012
Chavez Win Strengthens Bolivarianism
by Stephen Lendman
Several previous articles said Venezuelans won’t tolerate going back to their ugly past. On Sunday, they proved it. They voted in record numbers.
Long lines queued hours before dawn. Polls stayed open well into the night so everyone coming out could vote.
Turnout was nearly 81% of Venezuela’s 19,119,809 registered voters. US elections usually get around 50%. Off-year congressional races average under 40%.
From 1960 – 2010, the highest percentage participation was 63.1%. It was in 1960 when Kennedy defeated Nixon. The lowest turnout was 49.1% in 1996 when Clinton bested Bob Dole.
In the off-year 2010 congressional election, a meager 37.8% participated. America’s electoral process lacks credibility. Duopoly power permits no choice. Big Money always wins.
Venezuelans get the real thing. Their electoral process is the best in the world. It’s independently judged open, free and fair. Every vote counts. They’re tabulated fully and honestly.
US elections are rigged. Politics in America reflect more hypocrisy than democracy.
Overnight Sunday into Monday pre-dawn, Venezuelans celebrated. Fireworks went off in Caracas. People honked horns, waved flags, and cheered. Thousands massed outside the Miraflores presidential palace. Chavez rallied them.
From a balcony overlooking the crowd, he raised a sword once belonging to 19th century independence hero Simon Bolivar. “The revolution has triumphed,” he said! Venezuelans “voted for socialism.”
“Viva Venezuela! Viva the fatherland! The battle was perfect and the victory was perfect!”
“Today we’ve shown that Venezuela’s democracy is one of the best democracies in the world, and we will continue to show it.”
“Venezuela will never return to neoliberalism and continue in the transition to socialism of the 21st century.”
“I want to make a recognition to the whole Venezuelan people, the whole Venezuelan nation. Today the country of Bolivar was reborn.”
In response, supporters chanted, “Viva Le Patria. “Ooh Aah, Chavez won’t go!”
Speaking for others perhaps a Vargas fisherman said, “I’m crying with joy. In the next six years, we will deepen the revolution.”
A construction worker said, “I can’t describe the relief and happiness I feel right now.”
A teacher said, “Chavez is my joy. He will continue protecting the poor and defenseless.”
After his victory was announced, Chavez tweeted:
“Thank you, my God. Thanks to everyone. Thanks my beloved people!!! Viva Venezuela!!! Viva Bolivar!!!”
An email sent this writer showed an image of him displaying a Chicago Daily Tribune headline saying, “CAPRILES DEFEATS CHAVEZ.”
It replicated Harry Truman holding up the notorious Chicago Daily Tribune (now the Chicago Tribune) early November 3, 1948 front page headlining “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.”
The broadsheet to this day hasn’t erased the memory it would like everyone to forget.
Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez tweeted congratulations, saying:
“Your victory is our victory! And the victory of South America and the Caribbean!”
Bolivian President Evo Morales replicated her tweet, saying:
“Your victory is also ours. It is of South America and the Caribbean. Congratulations President Chavez!”
Cuban President Raul Castro was one of the first leaders to send congratulations. Chavizmo was triumphant. Sunday was celebratory time. Monday it’s back to business.
Chavez said that he’ll deepen socialism in the next six years. Many problems need addressing. He promised to continue working to alleviate them.
It’s not easy turning around a money power run country run for generations. Since taking office in February 1999, Chavez did plenty. Venezuelans rewarded him with six more years. He deserved it. On January 10, he’ll be inaugurated to deepen Bolivarianism as he promised.
Around 10PM Sunday night, with 90% of votes counted, National Electoral Council (CNE) president Tibisay Lucena announced electoral results.
Chavez led Capriles by 54.42% to 44.97%. He was ahead by around 1.3 million votes. It was more than enough to assure victory. With 98% of votes counted, Chavez upped his victory margin to 1.5 million votes. He won 55 – 44%. Other candidates got 1% combined.
Lucena said, “Once again we’ve had a calm electoral process without problems, with the joy of this people who decided to vote massively today.”
Corporate media scoundrels stopped just short of sour grapes. For over a decade, they pilloried him mercilessly. They can’t bear having a hemispheric good example shame how America is run. The difference between both countries is stark. Previous articles explained it.
The New York Times has been one of his lead antagonists. On October 7, it headlined “Chavez Wins New Term in Venezuela, Holding Off Surge by Opposition.”
“Surge?” On Sunday it failed to show up except in a fake Spanish ABC newspaper mid-afternoon exit poll. It didn’t surprise. It was published in Miami, Colombia, Chile and Venezuela.
It claimed opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski won. The corporate run Varianzas agency released it. It said he defeated Chavez by 51.3% to 48.06%.
Perhaps it tried to deter Chavez supporters from voting later in the day. Not a chance. They wanted another six years and got them.
Venezuelan Solidarity Campaign (VSC) secretary Francisco Dominguez said:
“Fake exit polls are one way in which opponents of the current government have previously tried to discredit the results of elections where Hugo Chavez has won clear majorities.”
“This is part of a political game – a dirty war played by the Venezuela right-wing.”
“Journalists who have reported these polls believing them to be credible have later been embarrassed to have found themselves exploited for political motives.”
“Given that polling is not permitted on election day in Venezuela, any such polls should be treated skeptically.”
“There is the very real risk that this is part of a propaganda war by sections of the right-wing opposition with the aim of creating destabilization and unrest.”
“It would be irresponsible of journalists to give this poll any credence. To use it risks inadvertently supporting a campaign from the more extreme sections of the Venezuelan opposition to try to claim that any defeat at today’s election is simply the result of fraud.”
“As both campaigns said earlier today, people should await the official results from that will be released in the next few hours.”
The Times called Chavez a longtime “fiery foe of Washington.” He’s opposes neoliberal injustice and imperial ravaging. Times editorial policy supports them.
The article claimed Chavez is “an ailing and politically weakened winner facing an emboldened opposition that grew stronger and more confident as the voting neared, and held out hope that an upset victory was within reach.”
In fact, opposition insiders knew they had no chance and said so. Capriles was too far behind to win. Days before October 7, cohesion among them began disintegrating. A previous article discussed it. Corporate media scoundrels said nothing.
They pretended that Capriles had a good chance to win. It was laughable on its face. The Times said “Chavez spent much of the year insulting and trying to provoke Mr. Capriles and his followers.”
He gave them hell for good reason. He explained what they are and the danger they pose. Venezuelans remember the bad old days and want none of it repeating.
Instead of explaining beneficial social change under Chavez, The Times said “Venezuela is mired in problems, including out-of-control violent crime, crumbling roads and bridges, and power blackouts…”
True enough. These problems and others need addressing. Chavez promised to do more. America has these and many more unaddressed festering problems harming most people nationwide.
The Times failed to notice. It also downplayed the sharp drop in poverty and unemployment under Chavez. He’s waged war on inequality and human need. These and other vital issues go begging in America. Instead of fixing them, they’re getting worse.
On October 6, a scurrilous Washington Post editorial headlined “Venezuela eyes change,” saying:
“IF HUGO CHAVEZ is an autocrat, how could he be in danger of losing the Venezuelan presidency in an election on Sunday?”
“Polls show a race to the wire between the caudillo and challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski. An opposition victory would mean an epochal change of political direction in one of the world’s largest oil producers….”
Fact check
Independent democrats Washington dislikes are called autocrats and much worse. A close race? It never was close throughout the campaign except in fake polls claiming it.
Indeed an opposition win would be “epochal” for all the wrong reasons. Venezuelans wanted none of it. They had final say.
Many Post editorials are scandalous and disreputable. This one was no different. It claimed Chavez “feels obliged to stage elections (but) in an environment that heavily favors the regime.”
“Mr. Chavez controls Venezuela’s courts, election commission and most television channels, which bombard the population with propaganda.”
All of the above explains America, not Venezuela. Claiming otherwise is vicious and patently untrue.
Venezuelan voters are “intimidated,” claimed the Post. Chavez “is in danger of losing (because of) the havoc he has wreaked in what was once Latin America’s richest country.”
In fact, he turned a cesspool into a model social democracy. That notion is verboten in America. Money power won’t tolerate it. Neither do media scoundrels.
The editorial went on to pillory Chavez with one canard after another. Like all members of America’s corporate media establishment, the Post adheres to its strict code of suppressing truth and full disclosure.
Its notion of freedom and social democracy is none at all. It claimed Chavez’s “days as Venezuela’s leader are numbered.” It suggested a possible electoral loss.
It urged “Venezuela’s neighbors, and the Obama administration, should be ready to react if he attempts to remain in power by force.” It barely stopped short of recommending coup d’etat authority to oust him. Perhaps a future editorial will go further.
The Financial Times was more measured. It headlined “Chavez wins new term in Venezuela.” It covered his electoral win in 10 concise paragraphs. Pejoratives were omitted.
It said he “frustrat(ed) the opposition’s best chance of beating him after 14 years in power and reconfirming him as one of Latin America’s most commanding political figures.”
Indeed so for good reason. As long as he’s healthy, wants to keep serving, and keeps doing the right things, he’ll likely to remain so. Venezuelans won’t tolerate the alternative.
On October 8, Russia Today (rt.com) headlined “Here to stay: Chavez wins Venezuelan presidency,” saying:
He won a fourth term convincingly. There never was any doubt. Only the turnout and margin of victory remained to be determined. With nearly all ballots counted, now we know.
Crowds were jubilant for good reason. Six more years. Viva Chavez. Viva the kind of social democracy Americans can’t even imagine.
The Weekly Steven Lendman 9/24/2012
Off the keyboard of Steven Lendman
Published on Stephen Lendman’s Blog
Discuss this Column at the Epicurean Delights Smorgasbord inside the Diner
Friday, September 21, 2012
Score One for Hedges v. Obama
by Stephen Lendman
On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong called his Apollo 11 landing “one step for man, a giant leap for mankind.”
Hedges v. Obama perhaps reflects a baby step, if temporary, for justice.
On September 12, Southern District of New York federal Judge Katherine B. Forrest blocked Obama’s indefinite detention law.
In her 112-page ruling, she called it “facially unconstitutional: it impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protections to meet the requirements of due process.”
She added that:
“If, following issuance of this permanent injunctive relief, the government detains individuals under theories of ‘substantially or directly supporting’ associated forces, as set forth in” the National Defense Authorization Act, “and a contempt action is brought before this court, the government will bear a heavy burden indeed.”
At issue is section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It states in part:
“Congress affirms that the authority of the president to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.”
“Covered persons” are defined as:
Anyone “who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
Plaintiffs argued that broad, ambiguous language like “substantially supported,” “associated forces” and “directly supported” leaves them and others vulnerable to lawless indefinite detention.
For example, meeting someone rightly or wrongly designated a terrorist, staying in their homes, inviting them to speak at conferences or in panel discussions, perhaps interviewing them, or socializing with them can be called dealing with the enemy.
So can writing anti-imperial articles, exposing and/or discussing US crimes of war and against humanity, and participating in anti-war protests.
Hedges and others also said concerns arose from NDAA’s passage. It grants unconstitutional presidential authority. It exceeds the September 2001 congressional approval for Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”
On January 16, 2012, Hedges wrote “Why I’m Suing Barack Obama,” saying:
He and others challenged AUMF’s legality “as embedded in the (2012 NDAA) signed by (Obama) on Dec. 31.” He picked New Year’s eve. Perhaps he thought no one would notice.
It created a firestorm but not in the media. They reported virtually nothing on enacted tyranny.
Hedges said NDAA “authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled ‘Counter-Terrorism,’ for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing.”
“With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism.”
“And suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore penal colony in Guantanamo Bay and kept there until ‘the end of hostilities.’ It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.”
As a journalist, he spent many years abroad. He “met regularly with leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.”
He also met Arafat and other PLO leaders when they were called terrorists. He “spent time with the Revolutionary Guard in Iran and was in northern Iraq and southeastern Turkey with fighters from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party.”
They were all called terrorists. So are others journalists meet with regularly and will again. It’s their job.
Hedges said he “suspect(s) the real purpose of this bill is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state. The definition of a terrorist is already so amorphous under the Patriot Act that there are probably a few million Americans who qualify to be investigated if not locked up.”
Washington’s war on terror is ill-defined and vague. It reflects totalitarian state harshness. It equates dissent with treason. It fosters “mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe.” It destroys fundamental constitutional rights.
Obama lets CIA torturers, Wall Street crooks, other corporate criminals, lawless war profiteers, and other venal high-level civilian or government officials off scot-free.
In contrast, he usurped unconstitutional diktat authority. At issue is freely targeting US citizens anywhere in the world, indefinitely detaining them, and killing them if he wishes on his say so alone.
Freedom in America is fast disappearing. On December 14, the House passed the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). On December 15, the Senate followed suit. Ironically it was Bill of Rights Day.
Obama signed it into law. The measure ends constitutional protections for everyone, including US citizens. Specifically it targets due process and law enforcement powers.
With or without evidence, on issues of alleged terrorist connections posing national security threats, the Pentagon now supplants civilian authorities. It’s well beyond its mandate.
Militaries exist to protect nations from foreign threats. America’s Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) applies solely to its own personnel as authorized under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8. It states:
“The Congress shall have Power….To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.”
In America, state and local police, the Justice Department, and FBI are responsible for criminal investigations and prosecutions. No longer on matters relating to alleged national security concerns.
Enactment means America’s military may arrest anyone anywhere, including US citizens. They can be indefinitely held without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, baseless allegations, or none at all.
No reasonable proof is required, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. Henceforth, indefinite detentions can follow mere membership (past or present) or support for suspect organizations or individuals.
Constitutional, statute and international laws don’t apply. Presidential diktats replaced them. No one anywhere is safe.
Presidents have unchecked power. They can unjustifiably accuse anyone of posing a threat. They may order arrests and imprisonment for life without charge or trial. Abuse of power replaced rule of law protections. It’s happening in real time.
Ahead of their holiday break, leaders from both Houses met secretly to resolve final language differences before sending NDAA to Obama to sign.
Senate bill sponsor Carl Levin said administration officials, in fact, lobbied against language excluding US citizens from indefinite military detentions without trials or due process. According to Levin:
“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved….and the administration asked us to remove (it) which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”
“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee. (W)e removed it at the request of the administration….It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language, the absence of which is now objected to.”
In other words, Obama wants US citizens indefinitely detained in military prisons whether or not charged. He fully supports police state repression. Only his disingenuous rhetoric says otherwise.
His earlier Executive Order authorized indefinite detentions of anyone designated national security threats. Specifically intended for Guantanamo detainees, it’s now for everyone, including US citizens at home or abroad.
Moreover, CIA operatives and Special Forces death squads got presidential authorization to kill targeted US citizens abroad. As a result, they can be hunted down and murdered in cold blood for any reason or none at all.
Inviolable rights are dead. Protesting imperial lawlessness, social injustice, corporate crime, government corruption, or political Washington run of, by and for rich elites can be criminalized.
So can free speech, assembly, religion, or anything challenging America’s right to kill, destroy and pillage with impunity. Tyranny arrived in America. The nation’s unsafe to live in. There’s no place to hide. Anyone challenging injustice can be arrested, charged with supporting terrorism, and indefinitely imprisoned forever.
In response to Judge Forrest’s ruling, administration officials appealed. They claimed she exceeded enjoining NDAA’s section 1021. In a 38-page filing, they said her ruling:
“threatens irreparable harm to national security and the public interest by injecting added burdens and dangerous confusion into the conduct of military operations abroad during an active armed conflict.”
Forrest questioned how AUMF is interpreted. The 2001 authorization and NDAA’s section 1021 aren’t the same, she said. “They are not co-extensive. Military detention based on allegations of ‘substantially supporting’ or ‘directly supporting” the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or associated forces, is not encompassed within the AUMF and is enjoined by this order regarding” NDAA.
Washington uses AUMF and other twisted legal interpretations to wage war on humanity. At issue also is giving Obama diktat authority to indefinitely detain or kill anyone he wishes with or without charges or trials.
Habeas and due process rights are null and void. So are all other constitutional rights. Obama effectively granted himself dictatorial powers.
His minions overstepped by saying Forrest took “it upon (herself) to disagree with an interpretation of the military’s detention authority that had previously been endorsed by all three branches of government.”
“What is more, (she) expressly invites actions for contempt sanctions if the military exercises detention authority in a manner inconsistent with the court’s deeply flawed understanding of that authority.”
In June, she issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing the statute she questions. While appealing her ruling, Obama officials didn’t block it.
After making her injection permanent, they asked for an emergency stay. They claimed she made an “unprecedented” ruling affecting wartime matters.
On September 17, Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Raymond Lohier issued a one-page order. It stayed Forrest’s decision until a three-judge panel rules. On September 28, it’ll hear pro and con arguments.
If it upholds her injunction, expect the Supreme Court to decide.
Bruce Afran is one of several attorneys representing plaintiffs. He called the government’s concern unfounded. Forest’s injunction doesn’t touch its separate AUMF powers. “The general thrust of (its) argument seems to be that the president and Congress are immune from judicial review.”
No matter which way the Second Circuit or perhaps Supreme Court rules, this issue is far from resolved. At the behest of Obama or Romney if he’s elected, Congress can pass new overriding legislation. It happened several times during the Bush administration.
If so, we’re back to square one. Repression will continue unchecked. With or without NDAA, it’s largely that way now. America isn’t fit to live in. A new dark age dawned no matter which party wins in November.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
posted by Steve Lendman @ 11:53 PM
Long Knives Target Iran
Long Knives Target Iran
by Stephen Lendman
Some background:
February 11, 2012 marked the 33rd anniversary of Iran’s 1979 revolution. It ended a generation of repressive rule under Washington’s installed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.
In 1953, CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt’s grandson and Franklin’s cousin, engineered the Agency’s first coup. Democratically elected Mohammad Mossadeq was ousted. The New York Times called him Iran’s “most popular politician.”
As late as 1977, Jimmy Carter declared Iran an “oasis of stability.” He ignored years of brutal Shah repression. In January 1979, he fled the country. Ayatollah Khomeini returned. He proclaimed the Islamic Republic with overwhelming public support.
US officials thought they could control him. They thought wrong. Iran was free from Western dominance and didn’t look back. Tensions escalated. Washington planned regime change. It remains US policy.
In 1975, Iran and Iraq negotiated the Algiers Agreement. It settled border disputes between the two countries. In March 1980, Saddam Hussein unilaterally abrogated it. Carter officials encouraged him.
Journalist/historian Dilip Hiro noted:
“According to the Iranian president, Bani-Sadr, in early August 1980 his government had purchased secret documents containing a detailed account of the conversations in France between several deposed Iranian generals and politicians, Iraqi representatives, and American and Israeli military experts.”
“If so, the administration of President James Carter had an inkling of Iraqi plans. By supplying secret information, which exaggerated Iran’s military weakness, to Saudi Arabia for onward transmission to Baghdad, Washington encouraged Iraq to attack Iran.”
Saddam was supported by CIA-sponsored Iranian military officers given refuge in Iraq. Soviet Russia feared revolutionary Islam spreading to central Asia.
Saddam saw his chance to wage war and win. He hoped to defeat a regional rival, annex parts of Iran, and strengthen his regional position.
Washington wanted its own regional influence enhanced. The Carter Doctrine pledged Middle East military intervention if US interests were threatened.
According to columnist Jack Anderson, he considered invading Iran, seizing its oil fields, and boosting his electoral prospects, he hoped. Soviet Russia threatened intervention if he followed through.
Carter abandoned his plans. At the same time, his administration remained hostile to Ayatollah Khomeini’s government.
Reagan escalated Carter policies short of committing US forces in combat. Saddam got US backing. America pretended neutrality. It proves repeatedly it can’t be trusted.
Support for the Shah was a key element of US regional policy. Iran’s 1979 revolution changed things. Saddam became Washington’s weapon to defeat a government it opposed.
On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. Border clashes preceded all-out conflict. Nearly eight years of war followed. Over a million died, including civilians. America and other Western countries call it the Iran/Iraq war.
Saddam hoped it would be a “whirlwind war.” He renamed it Qadisiyyad Saddam. It was an emotive reference to Arabs defeating Persians in 636. Tehran calls it the “Sacred Defense” or “imposed war.”
On September 21, Press TV headlined “Iran marks (32nd) anniversary of Iraq imposed war with military parades,” saying:
Ceremonies opened “Sacred Defense Week.” They began symbolically at Ayatollah Khomeini’s Tehran mausoleum. Planned events include parades, commemorative concerts, and photo exhibits.
Commemorating the occasion, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a nationally televised address, saying:
“Our sacred defense was not defending a territory, a nation or a school of thought alone. It was well beyond that. It was defending human dignity, the rights of all nations and those of the oppressed people of the world.”
Iran will “stand and defend its rights,” he asserted. He called the blasphemous anti-Muslim film inciting violence an Israeli plot “to divide (Muslims) and spark sectarian conflict.”
He and Ayatollah Khamenei days earlier noted Western hypocrisy. Condemn Washington, other NATO allies, or Israeli crimes and be denounced. At the same time, insulting Islam is called free expression.
He criticized nations backing Saddam’s invasion. They revealed their imperial regional aims. They’re also fake human rights advocates. They say one thing and do another. Scoundrels operate that way.
Iranian officials turned out in force. High-ranking military ones were present. Iran’s latest military hardware was showcased. On display was its new domestically made air defense system.
Called Raad, or Thunder, it’s more advanced than its Russian predecessor. It’s designed to confront jet aircraft, cruise missiles, smart bombs, helicopters, and drones.
Its capability ranges up to 30 miles. It can strike targets high as 75,000 feet. It’s a formidable defense against attack.
“Sacred Defense Week” commemorates Iran’s commitment to deter aggressors and remain free.
Western and Israeli long knives remain threatening. Tensions are especially high. Netanyahu’s bluster aside, longstanding Washington plans call for regime change.
Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is red herring cover used as pretext. If not that, something else would substitute. Excuses are easy to fabricate. Western media scoundrels regurgitate them ad nauseam.
Fear is generated. Other false charges follow. America is hell bent for war. It has a willing partner in Israel provided Washington plays the lead role.
Potentially catastrophic consequences are ignored. Apparently, so is opposition expressed by current and past high-ranking military and government officials in both countries. Updated war plans are ready to be implemented unless cooler heads go all out to prevent it.
Iran is falsely called an existential threat. Netanyahu and Israeli hardliners claim it constantly. Washington does it on and off. It’s wearing thin but take it seriously. One day crying wolf won’t be bluster or bluffing.
On September 20, Haaretz reported the latest outburst. It headlined “US warns Iran: Time is running out on diplomacy over nuclear program.”
This time UN envoy Susan Rice issued the warning. She gives diplomacy a bad name. She’s one of America’s worst ever ambassadors. Her style is belligerent, arrogant, and offensive.
Addressing the Security Council, she said:
“We believe there is still time and space for diplomacy,” but not much.
“(T)he onus is on Iran to respond constructively.” She added that Washington seeks a “clear, united resolution” regarding Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program.
Her comments were a clear warning. At the same time, she and other US officials know Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful. So do others in Israel, European nations and elsewhere.
Nonetheless, warnings persist. This one comes as Washington, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and other US allies stage large-scale Gulf naval drills. Doing so is provocative. It heightens tensions. Make no mistake. Provocation is Washington policy.
This one is codenamed IMCMEX-12. It involves minesweeping and other measures to keep the Strait of Hormuz open if Iran blocks it defensively. It warned about doing it if attacked.
In September, Tehran plans its own drills. It knows the risks and stands ready to confront them.
So do Israelis wanting no part of war. A mid-August Haaretz article headlined “We’ll all pay on doomsday,” saying:
Attacking Iran is madness. It means sharply higher oil prices, deeper global recession, and Israel becoming “even less popular in Europe and the United States than we already are.”
The Bank of Israel and Finance Ministry predict attacking Iran will cause “serious economic damage.” They’re concerned about bankruptcies, mass layoffs, potential panic, and other protracted effects.
World condemnation will follow. Countries, companies, labor organizations, and consumer groups already boycott Israel for good reason. Attacking Iran will intensify their ire.
When “rockets fall on Tel Aviv,” expect investors to flee. Financial assets will suffer. Tax revenues will drop. Deficits will rise.
Iran’s response will be far more robust than anything Israel previously experienced. “You can’t live a normal life under a daily threat like that.”
Israelis will be fearful. They’ll hunker down. Normal activities will be curtailed. Business will suffer. Tourists won’t come. International airlines will cancel flights. Ports will be “paralyzed.”
The shekel will drop sharply. Inflation will rise. Goods will become scarce. The only good news is that unaffordable housing prices will fall. Who’ll buy property vulnerable to destruction?
Haaretz omitted what’s most important. How many millions of Iranian and Israeli lives will be lost? Bombing nuclear facilities in both countries assures widespread irradiation.
Immediate casualties will be huge in both countries. Longer-term ones will be catastrophically high. War on Iran assures all sides lose. Regional countries will be affected. So will most others from economic fallout.
Haaretz is right saying “We’ll all pay on doomsday.” Assuring it doesn’t happen is the only sensible policy. It’s not rocket science. It’s common sense.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
posted by Steve Lendman @ 11:49 PM
Thursday, September 20, 2012
US Media War on Islam
US Media War on Islam
by Stephen Lendman
America never treated Muslims respectfully. US media and Hollywood play lead roles. Jack Shaheen’s book “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People” documented how American filmmakers slander them.
For decades, they’ve been fair game. From silent to more recent films, prejudicial attitudes were fostered. They still are regularly. They disparage Islam in contrast to manufactured notions of Western values, high-mindedness, and moral superiority.
Islamic tenets are ignored. The Koran teaches love, not hate; peace, not violence; charity, not selfishness; and tolerance, not terrorism.
Its five pillars include profession of faith, prayer five times daily, fasting during Ramadan, charity, and performing the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime for those able to afford it.
Nonetheless, Muslims are stereotypically portrayed as dangerous gun-toting terrorists. Hate messages repeat regularly. Fear is stoked. Imperial wars of aggression are called justifiable ones.
At home, Muslims are vilified and persecuted for their faith, ethnicity, and at times prominence, activism and charity.
They’re lawlessly targeted. They’re hunted down, rounded up, held in detention, kept in isolation, denied bail, restricted in their right to counsel, tried on secret evidence, convicted on bogus charges, and given long sentences.
For extra harsh treatment, they incarcerated as political prisoners. They’re segregated in Communication Management Units (CMUs).
Doing so violates US Prison Bureau regulations. They strictly prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or political beliefs.
In February 2005, the Supreme Court’s Johnson v. California decision affirmed 14th Amendment protection against racial discrimination. It “rejected the notion that separate can ever be equal or neutral.”
Bush administration officials violated rule of law provisions regularly. So do Obama’s. Innocent victims suffer grievously. It happens abroad and at home.
Guantanamo and other torture prisons exist globally. Muslims fill them. Post-9/11, they became public enemy number one.
Many in America are consigned to CMU prison hell. Treatment is ruthless and demeaning. Extra punishment may be ordered for any reason or none at all.
They get fewer rights than other prisoners. Their dietary requirements are compromised or denied. So is proper medical care when needed. Emergency treatment takes days to get. It’s not delivered properly when gotten.
Rotten, inedible food quality is commonplace. Tap water is inferior. Privacy is denied. The entire CMU is monitored round the clock with cameras and listening devices. Policy assures mistreatment and disrespect. Prisoner complaints go unanswered.
Virtually every imprisoned Muslim is innocent. They’re war on terror victims. They’re locked up for praying to the wrong God. They’re alive, but for those getting inordinately long sentences, they’re among the living dead.
Their families suffer with them. It’s the wrong time to be Muslim in America and in nations abroad Washington targets.
Major media scoundrels back the worst of US crimes. When Bush administration officials declared war on Islam, they marched in lockstep. They still do. They’re reliable imperial cheerleaders.
They headline inflammatory accounts of innocent Muslims charged domestically. They play the same blame game. Targeted victims are considered guilty by accusation. Before indictment and prosecution, they’re convicted in the court of public opinion.
Their coverage of anti-Muslim hate film violence is appalling. They ignore what’s really going on. On the one hand, it reflects rage over imperial wars on Islamic countries. People don’t burn buildings or harm others over blasphemous materials alone.
The film sparked what followed. It ignited violence. Promoting it on social media spread it. Something else could have done it as easily. People take abuse only so long before reacting. Once begun, it replicates elsewhere.
In the 1960s, racial segregation, related police violence, other denied civil rights, and economic depravation ignited violence across America. Neighborhoods in northern US cities were set ablaze. It can happen again and likely will. Provocative incidents spark it. It can happen anywhere.
Other factors also lie behind the anti-Muslim film. Dark forces produced it. Killing a US ambassador reinforced it. Israeli fingerprints are all over it. Jewish donors funded it. They got what they wanted.
Justifiable rage across the Middle East, North Africa, Central and South Asia, as well as elsewhere lets them portray Muslims as violent terrorist threats. US and other Western headlines reflect it. More on that below.
Also at issue is America’s November election. Netanyahu and Obama dislike each other. It’s no secret that the Israeli leader favors Romney. He thinks he’ll be quicker to attack Iran.
He’s angry about Obama’s reluctance to show rock solid support. He wants him Carterized. He picked a very public fight to get his way.
Perhaps he’s directly responsible for the blasphemous film. If not, very likely extremists around him. It has all the earmarks of a Mossad false flag. At issue is weakening him politically and fomenting war.
San Francisco anti-Muslim bus ads stoke it. They’re planned for New York and perhaps elsewhere. They read:
“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” Concluding words say “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
Pam Geller’s running them. She’s a notorious hatemonger. US media scoundrels publish her writing. She’s interviewed on television. CBS’ 60 Minutes ran a full feature profile.
She and Robert Spencer co-founded the Freedom Defense Initiative and Stop Islamization of America. It’s legal to be bigoted in America. It’s appalling that media scoundrels support what they should condemn.
The French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo fanned its own flames. It ran blasphemous caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed. Some showed him naked in pornographic poses.
Editor in chief Gerard Biard claimed he did it to satirize the anti-Muslim video. He called its violent reaction absurd. Editorial director Stephane Charbonnier said “We have the right to express ourselves.”
Biard added the Charlie Hebdo is “a newspaper against religions as soon as they enter into the political and public realm.” He claims Muslim religious leaders manipulate French followers for political reasons. “You’re not meant to identify yourself through a religion, in any case not in a secular state,” he claims.
Christians and Jews do it freely in France, America, and other Western countries without incident. Only Muslims are targeted for their faith unfairly.
Who speaks for their rights? No one in high places or with media influence able to reach large audiences in America and across Europe daily.
White House spokesman Jay Carney stopped short of denouncing Charlie Hebdo editors, saying:
“We don’t question the right of something like this to be published. We just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it.”
Call it a back door endorsement. French officials also backed their hate speech rights.
Try denouncing the holocaust in France and see what happens. Try wearing a hijab, other head covering, or head to toe burqah and find out.
Try denouncing Israeli crimes on US television or in mainstream publications, and see how long you keep your job. Try supporting right over wrong and fair no better.
Major media in America and other Western countries suppress truth and full disclosure. Imperial wars are cheerled. Friendly dictators are supported. Independent governments are called terrorist ones. News, information, and analysis get turned on their head.
On September 19, a New York Times editorial was typical. It headlined “The United States and the Muslim world.”
It invoked “Arab Spring” terminology. It’s a Western, not Middle East, term. Since regional protests erupted in winter 2011, nothing changed. In countries like Egypt, things are worse.
The Times inverts reality. It calls regional states run by despots “liberated” ones. They’ve “become battlegrounds for Islamic extremists, moderates and secularists, all contending for power and influence over the direction of democratic change.”
Except for confessional-style Lebanese democracy, no Arab state tolerates it. Neither does Israel, America and hardcore NATO allies.
The Times blames regional violence on extremist elements beyond US control. They’re “eager to exploit unrest for their own purposes.”
Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah is a powerful force against Western and Israeli imperialism. The Times calls him a “particularly destructive force.” It denounced his ability to get tens of thousands of anti-US/Israeli protesters onto Beirut streets and elsewhere across Lebanon.
It pilloried his support for Assad. It condemned Anti-American regional protesters. It claimed they “reinforced the worst fears of those who see Muslims” as violent extremists.
“In 2009, (Obama) wisely sought rapprochement with Muslims.” His Cairo speech “endorsed an approach of mutual respect and promised, that….America never would be at war with Islam.”
From day one, Obama waged multiple direct and proxy wars against Muslim countries. Iraq remains occupied. Tens of thousands of US combat troops never left. Daily violence harms innocent civilians.
Afghan war rages. It’s America’s longest conflict. No end in sight looks near. Obama destroyed Libya. He killed tens of thousands of civilians. Violence continues daily across the country. No one’s sure who’ll live or die.
He supports the worst of Bahraini despotism, its war on people wanting democratic freedoms, and its persecution of activists supporting it.
He’s waging proxy wars against Somalia, Yemen, and indirectly against Palestine with billions of dollars of Israeli aid and strong support for occupation harshness.
He bears direct responsibility for ravaging Syria. He plans eventual war on Iran. Since January 1991, America killed millions of Middle East, North African, and Central Asians Muslims. Most were non-combatant civilians. Many were children.
How many more millions will die before The New York Times and other media scoundrels acknowledge decades of US mass murder?
Instead, The Times praised Obama’s commitment to Middle East democracy. It urged America “to stay engaged in whatever ways it can.”
Millions across the region feel otherwise. They want Washington out for good reason. It’s a scourge. It menaces people wanting peace and freedom, not war, occupation, genocide and destruction. Don’t expect The Times or other media scoundrels to explain.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
posted by Steve Lendman @ 11:43 PM
Bailout Fraud and Unaccountability
Bailout Fraud and Unaccountability
by Stephen Lendman
On December 8, 2008, the Senate confirmed Neil Barofsky’s nomination as Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) watchdog. He assumed the post of SIGTARP (Special Inspector General for TARP).
On July 20, 2009, he estimated the $700 billion bailout fund could balloon to $23.7 trillion. Obama administration secrecy conceals what’s essential to reveal. Over $9 trillion is known. Some analysts think true figures may be three times that amount. Only crooked bankers and corrupt bureaucrats know for sure.
In February 2009, Barofsky submitted an initial report to Congress. In the past two months, he said, Washington handed out hundreds of billions of dollars (like confetti) to troubled financial institutions.
Where did the money go, he asked? What assurances exist that it’s not stolen or wasted?
TARP didn’t require recipients to report or internally track funds used. Accountability wasn’t mandated. Banks took full advantage. Instead of loans to stimulate recovery, they hoarded cash, acquired other financial institutions, paid off debt, speculated, and knew then and now there’s plenty more help for the asking.
Fraud prevention standards weren’t imposed. Barofsky doubts the program’s longterm success.
On March 29, 2011, he headlined a New York Times op-ed “Where the Bailout Went Wrong,” saying:
Two and a half years after legislation passed, Obama officials declared mission accomplished. “On my last day as the special inspector general….I regret to say that I strongly disagree.”
TARP and what followed struck out. It “failed to meet some of its most important goals.” Main Street was sacrificed for Wall Street.
Congress was told TARP funds would buy up to $700 billion of mortgages. Authorizing legislation (the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – EESA) emphasized preserving homeownership.
Treasury officials promised help. EESA mandated it. Struggling homeowners got none. Legislative provisions were violated. Treasury changed the rules. Money went to banks with no accountability or mandate to extend credit.
“There were no strings attached: no requirement or even incentive to increase lending to home buyers, and against our strong recommendation, not even a request that banks report how they used TARP funds.”
Instead of increased lending, it declined. As inspector general, Barofsky had no enforcement power. He could only recommend. Suggested policies fell on deaf ears. Treasury and Wall Street conspired to commit grand theft. Ordinary people were hung out to dry and scammed.
Helping homeowners was shelved. The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was introduced. Obama promised four million families help. The program was “a colossal failure.”
It was designed to fail. Its provisions included no accountability. Guidelines only were provided. Banks and other mortgage services ignored them. Foreclosures mounted. Millions of homeowners were defrauded. Nothing changed to this day.
One of HAMP’s most pernicious abuses was letting servicers “direct borrowers who were current on their mortgages to start skipping payments, telling them that that would allow them to qualify for a HAMP modification,” said Barofsky.
“Homeowners who might have been able to ride out the crisis instead ended up in long trial modifications, after which servicers would deny them a permanent modification and send them an enormous ‘deficiency’ bill.”
“Borrowers who might otherwise never have missed a payment found themselves hit with whopping bills that they couldn’t pay and now faced foreclosure. It was a disaster.”
Geithner bears full responsibility. Understating problems, he admitted solutions “won’t come close” to expectations. He refused to address glaring shortfalls. He abandoned Main Street for Wall Street. He’s complicit in grand theft. He and banker cronies belong in prison.
Banks know they can steal with impunity. They’re larger and more powerful now than when crisis conditions erupted. They can speculate recklessly. They’ll be bailed whenever they get in trouble.
Treasury “ignore(d) rather than support(ed) real” reforms. Its “broken promises” turned TARP and other programs into a giant Wall Street “giveaway.”
Its “mismanagement” and criminal complicity “damaged the credibility of the government….” Conditions are so out of control that future policy makers may be unable “to save the system the next time a crisis arises.”
Perhaps that’s TARP’s “most lasting, and unfortunate, legacy.”
Barofsky’s new book “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street” explains.
Writer/Roosevelt Institute fellow Matthew Stoller calls it “a very important” account of the financial crisis aftermath. In April 2010, Barofsky met a key adversary.
Herbert Allison formerly headed Merrill Lynch, TIAA-CREF and Fannie Mae. He came out of retirement to oversee TARP. He became Assistant Treasury Secretary for Financial Stability.
“Have you thought at all about what you’ll be doing next,” he asked. “Out there in the market, there are consequences for some of the things you’re saying and the way you’re saying them.”
Barofsky knew he was being threatened “with lifelong unemployment.” Going along instead of bucking the system assures revolving door plum positions. “It was gold or the lead,” he explained.
Cooperate and get rich. Don’t and lose out. At first, he “had no idea that the US government had been captured by” bankers. He was “shocked (at) how much control” they have over policy on their own terms. Treasury goes along deferentially. Republicans or Democrats agree on core issues.
He was hijacked and hamstrung. Too big to fail constitutes near omnipotence. Whatever Wall Street wants it gets. Contesting its power is futile.
Stoller calls “Bailout” an account of “the importance of Congressional oversight in reigning in corruption, and the problems of our imperial Presidency.”
Barofsky hoped for press and congressional attention. “Our message was simple,” he said. “Treasury’s desperate attempt to bail out Wall Street was setting the country up for potentially catastrophic losses.”
Throughout his tenure, he was obstructed. He faced road blocks, ambushes, trench warfare, and threats in trying to do his job.
On arrival at Treasury, he saw ornate large offices given top officials. He got a small, foul-smelling basement one with barred windows. He spent most of the next three years there. He wasn’t welcome unless he played ball. It’s not his style and he refused.
He explained what he saw graphically. Homeowners were abandoned and scammed. A tsunami of evictions, foreclosures, fraud, mortgage document robo-signings, blighted neighborhoods, and homelessness continues without relief.
Taxpayers got the bill. Bankers got benefits. So did lobbyists and go-along politicians. The combination of Treasury criminality, White House complicity, congressional laxity, and regulatory failure keeps the dirty game going.
Since crisis conditions erupted five years ago, ordinary people were sold out and lied to. Obama exceeded the worst Bush administration policies. Political corruption is rampant.
Barofsky’s best efforts failed. Attempts to achieve accountability, transparency, controls, and consumer protections proved no match for entrenched bureaucratic power, privilege and complicity with Wall Street.
He issued numerous reports. Geithner and other Obama officials buried them. Media scoundrels largely ignored them.
Barofsky believes Geithner, complicit officials, and Wall Street crooks should be fired and prosecuted. Don’t expect it as long as criminals run America.
Five years after crisis conditions erupted, no top Wall Street or government official faced charges. Unaccountability is institutionalized. An eventual greater crisis looms. Unresolved problems assure it. When is anyone’s guess.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
posted by Steve Lendman @ 11:42 PM
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Hypocrisy not Democracy in America
Hypocrisy Not Democracy in America
by Stephen Lendman
US elections are farcical. Obama and Romney represent two sides of the same coin. Neither offers choice. Democracy never existed and doesn’t now. Rhetoric substitutes for reality.
Republicans and Democrats offer the worst of all possible worlds. Ordinary people are entirely shut out. Growing numbers reject both parties for good reason. Money power owns them.
“Are you better off” than four years ago, asked The New York Times? “There is really no reason for any hesitancy. The country is unquestionably better off than it was in 2008.”
Fact check
True to form, The Times offered a litany of lies. Bankers, other corporate favorites, and war profiteers fared handsomely. They still do. America’s 99% got stiff-armed. Most US households were thrown under the bus.
Virtually no jobs were created. Full-time/good pay and benefit ones are disappearing. Real unemployment approaches 23%. In the Great Depression, it reached 25%. Serious efforts were made then to reduce it. Virtually nothing is done now.
US Census figures confirm half or more of US households living in poverty or bordering on it. Record numbers need food stamps to survive. Congress plans cuts when they’re more than ever needed.
Feeding America says over 50 million Americans face hunger. One in six people are affected, including over one in five children. Political Washington ignores food insecurity. Serving corporate interests and imperial warmongers alone matter.
Duplicitous political convention rhetoric was enough to make a brash brigand blush. Banality took center stage. Demagogic deception hid reactionary extremism.
Convention delegates and ordinary people inhabit worlds apart. Pre-scripted yammering was predictable. Republicans showed contempt for human needs. Phony populism hid a similar Democrat agenda.
Privilege alone matters. Ordinary folks increasingly are on their own sink or swim. Obama’s first term reflected it. Betrayal and failure defined it. Another four years assures more of the same and then some.
The man promising hope and change broke every major pledge made. Four demagogic years did Lincoln one better. He fooled most people enough to matter. He’s beholden to big money. He never cared about ordinary people and doesn’t now.
“Yes we can” conceals his dark side. No pun intended. He’s a consummate con man. It’s easy to know when he’s lying, just watch his lips move.
Throughout his political career, he’s been pro-corporate, pro-war, pro-Israel, anti-populist, anti-civil and human rights, and anti all values real democrats support.
He put Wall Street crooks in charge of looting the nation’s wealth. He furthered the greatest wealth transfer in history. Rules, regulations, legal restraints with teeth, and taxes were slashed to help them. Plans are on track to make America resemble Guatemala.
Full-time/high pay/good benefit jobs are disappearing. So are social services. They’re on the chopping block for elimination. The nation’s middle class is targeted for destruction. A huge underclass is replacing it. America’s more than ever militarized to control it.
Police state laws threaten freedom. Big Brother spying is policy. Privacy is a figure of speech. First Amendment rights and dissent are endangered. Tyranny, torture, corporate empowerment, and permanent wars define Obama’s agenda.
He exceeded the worst of George Bush’s harshness, lawlessness, and belligerency. Imagine what he plans if reelected. He waged war on Islam, Latino immigrants, animal and environmental rights activists, whistleblowers, people of color, the poor, anyone challenging state power, and civil rights lawyers who defend them too vigorously.
In Obama’s America, only the privileged matter. Growing numbers of others are on their own hungry, homeless, and jobless.
He looted the nation’s wealth, wrecked the economy, ravaged one nation after another, and continues waging war on humanity.
He executed two Latin American coups. Honduras’ democratically elected president was ousted. So was Paraguay’s. He militarized Haiti, opened the country for business, occupied it for plunder, rigged its election, installed a pro-Western stooge, and increased the growing burden of impoverished Haitians who deserve better.
He supports the world’s worst despots. He sucks up shamelessly to Israel. He spurns long denied Palestinian rights. He plans war on Syria and Iran. Neither nation threatens anyone. America and Israel menace humanity.
He presides over a bogus democracy under a repressive police state apparatus. Habeas rights, due process, judicial fairness, and other civil liberty protections are quaint artifacts increasingly discarded.
Torture is official policy. So is Murder, Inc. Death squads operate in over 120 countries. Special forces and CIA operatives are licensed to kill. US citizens may be targeted at home or abroad. No one anywhere is safe.
Summary judgment means no arrests. No Miranda rights. No due process. No trial. Just a bullet, bomb or slit throat. It’s official Obama policy. Diktat authority affords justice to no one ordered killed.
It also lets Obama order US citizens arrested and indefinitely held without charge or trial. No proof is needed, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. Constitutional protections no longer apply.
US military personnel may arrest and indefinitely detain anyone globally. No one anywhere is safe. Tyranny is policy. Obama seized virtual dictatorial powers. Anyone designated a potential enemy of the state, true or false, is targeted.
Political prisoners fill America’s gulag. It’s the world’s largest by far and one of the worst. Muslims and people of color are most at risk. America’s super-rich and corporate crooks are free to do what they please. Bad as things are now, expect worse.
War rages against labor. Budget-strapped states get little help. Welfare is being cut. So are Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the needy, and other New Deal/Great Society programs.
Public education is being commodified. Plans call for making it another business profit center and ending government’s responsibility. Health care is being rationed. Only those who can afford it will get help when they need it.
Food and drug safety don’t matter. Nor do clean clean air or water. Small farms and businesses are being destroyed. Large ones are bigger and more dominant than ever.
Wall Street ones are up to one-fourth larger today than four years ago. They’re double their size a decade ago relative to the economy. Ordinary Americans are much poorer and more deprived.
Financial reform was fraudulent. Institutionalized grand theft is policy. Business as usual lets Wall Street run the country. Consumer protections don’t exist.
The worst of bad practices continue. Rules either don’t exist or are made to be broken. Bankers get what they want. Ordinary people get scammed.
Obama promised “change you can believe in.” He delivered betrayal instead. He’s anti-progressive, hard-right, reactionary, belligerent, pro-corporate, and anti-populist. He’s heartless, merciless, morally corrupt, and soulless.
Austerity is policy when help is needed. Draconian cuts were enacted. Many more are planned. Eliminating trillions of dollars in social service spending is policy. Democrats are in lock step with Republicans.
Corporate handouts, tax cuts for the rich, and Pentagon spending remain virtually untouched. Bad as things are now, imagine America in four years under either party.
Obama plans more of the same and then some. Romney is a religious extremist/corporate crook/socially destructive/imperial rogue.
He and Ryan plan exceeding the worst of Obama. Both are unapologetic. They’re indifferent to human need and welfare. They represent everything wrong with a broken system. It’s too corrupted, dysfunctional, and rotten to fix.
They’re frontmen for financialized America, super-rich privilege, and imperial lawlessness. They guarantee worse wide awake nightmares than Obama.
America’s choice in November is none. Bad as things are now expect worse. Bipartisan complicity assures it.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
posted by Steve Lendman @ 11:54 PM
Unconditional Surrender in Chicago
Unconditional Surrender in Chicago
by Stephen Lendman
September 18, 2012 will be remembered in Chicago as a day of infamy. Corrupt city officials and union bosses won. Teachers, parents, and kids lost.
On September 10, teachers walked out. Core issues were at stake. Most important is saving public education. An American tradition is disappearing.
It’s being commodified. Corporate predators are gaining control. Contract terms agreed on do nothing to stop them.
On Tuesday, Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) House of Delegates voted to suspend strike action and resume classes. By 9:00AM Wednesday morning, they reopened across the city.
Primary and secondary education in Chicago and across America is a shadow of its former self. An article written two years ago next month compared earlier America with today. Rewritten parts are below, saying:
A personal note. I grew up in Boston from the mid-1930s – mid-1950s through college. Post-graduate work followed military service.
Times were different, good and bad. Eisenhower was still president. Unemployment was low. Anyone wanting work found it. Financialization hadn’t taken hold. Industrial America was strong. Most jobs were high pay/good benefit/full-time ones.
Most years the economy grew during a post-WW II expansion. Inflation was low. The average new car cost $1,500. A typical home was under $10,000. College was affordable.
Harvard’s 1952 full year tuition was $600. Four years later it was $1,000 – for a full, two-semester year. Anyone could attend evenings for $5 a course and get a Harvard degree for about $175.
My mother did it that way. On June 14, 1956, we graduated together in the same class. We were Harvard’s first ever mother and son to do it. Perhaps no parent and child did it since.
America was unchallenged economically. Its manufacturing base was solid. It offered high paying/good benefits jobs. No longer.
Union representation was high. Today it’s a shadow of its former self. Southern and northern US cities were segregated. They still are.
All 1960s civil rights gains plus most good jobs and benefits are gone. Alaska and Hawaii additions grew America to 50 states. The Korean War left an unsettled armistice. Six decades later, things haven’t changed.
Cold War politics settled in. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) prevented WW III. Censure ruined Joe McCarthy. By May 1957, he was dead at age 48. He’s not missed or mourned.
The CIA’s first coup deposed Iran’s democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh. A generation of terror followed. A year later, America toppled Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. Decades of genocide followed. Indigenous Guatemalans suffered horrifically. They still do.
Throughout the decade, few followed Vietnam events, France’s defeat, and America’s growing involvement. Palestine wasn’t occupied. Israel was mostly out of sight and mind.
Times indeed changed, and not for the better, including in education.
June 14, 1956 reflected a different time. Thousands filled Harvard’s yard that day. Dignitaries showed up. Jack Kennedy delivered the commencement address. Senator JFK. It was 1956.
He was thoughtful and scholarly. Politicians don’t talk that way today. He said political parties and politicians only think of winning. Truth and honor are sacrificed for political advantage.
His entire address was full of scholarly references. He quoted Lowell, Milton, Bismark, Goethe, Macauley, and others. He had intellect and showed it.
He reminded listeners that long ago books were politicians’ tools, not their enemies. Locke, Milton, Sydney, Montesquieu, Coke, Bollingbroke and others were widely read and quoted in political pamphlets.
“Our political leaders traded in the free commerce of ideas with lasting results” long ago. He named Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, Adams, his son John Quincy Adams, and Daniel Webster among others.
He said when freedom is endangered, politicians and intellectuals “should be natural allies, working more closely together for the common cause against the common enemy.”
He ended saying “if more politicians knew poetry and more poets knew politics, I am convinced the world would be a little better place in which to live on this commencement day of 1956.”
He also said one of his contemporaries spoke of Jefferson as a man for all seasons. He called him “A gentleman of 32, who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the violin.”
He was also a statesman, third US president, and supporter of public and university education. He said “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
“….whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.”
He called education fundamental for democracy. He believed ignorance and sound government can’t co-exist. He said government must provide education.
Only popular government can safeguard democracy. “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree….”
“Democracy cannot long exist without enlightenment….it cannot function without wise and honest officials.”
In free societies, everyone “should be educated regardless of wealth, birth or other accidental conditions….Children of the poor must be educated at common expense.”
On December 2, 1806, in his State of the Union Address, he urged Congress pass a constitutional amendment mandating federal support for education. He said:
“An amendment to our constitution must here come in aid of the public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people.”
He never got what he wanted. It’s our loss today. He believed primary and secondary education were vital. He wanted them kept public. He had six objectives. He hoped they’d create a more productive, informed electorate. They included:
(1) “To give every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business;
(2) To enable him to calculate for himself, and to express and preserve his ideas, his contracts, and accounts, in writing;
(3) To improve, by reading, his morals and faculties;
(4) To understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either;
(5) To know his rights; to exercise with order and justice those he retains; to choose with discretion the fiduciary of those he delegates; and to notice their conduct with diligence, with candor, and judgment;
(6) And, in general, to observe with intelligence and faithfulness all the social relations under which he shall be placed.”
Hopefully he meant “she” as well as “he.”
He devoted his later years to education. He wanted to create an “academic village.” In 1819, he founded the University of Virginia. He envisioned a new kind of university. He wanted emphasis placed on practical affairs and public service.
It was America’s first nonsectarian institution of higher learning. It was the first to adopt an elective course system. He called founding the university one of his greatest achievements.
He did it late in life. He planned its curriculum, recruited its first faculty, and designed its “academic village.” In 1825, classes began with eight teachers and 68 students.
Kennedy also believed in the importance of education. He said “Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. The human mind is our fundamental resource.”
“Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation.”
“A child miseducated is a child lost.”
He supported keeping primary and secondary education public. He proposed aiding them with federal grants. He stressed investing in our youth from grade school through post-graduate studies. Imagine what he, Jefferson, and like-minded leaders would say today.
On September 19, the Chicago Tribune headlined “Teachers, students return to Chicago public schools,” saying:
On Tuesday, Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) House of Delegates members voted to end strike action and return to classes.
Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) president Karen Lewis pressured them to accede. She should be hung in effigy, fired and replaced. Instead she practically gloated saying:
“We feel very positive about moving forward. We feel grateful that we have a united union, and that when a union moves together, amazing things happen.”
Sugar-coating sellout doesn’t wash.
Mayor Emanuel was no better. He called the deal “an honest compromise.”
It was sellout. Money and power won. Teachers, parents and kids lost. At issue is how long will it take before they know? Then, what’ll they do about it?
Short-term, it’s too late. Across America, ordinary people are losing out consistently. Human, civil and worker rights are being lost. A previous article said Occupy Wall Street is right. The only solution is world revolution. Nothing less will work.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Romney/Ryanism in Tampa
Off the Keyboard of Steve Lendman
The Weekly Steve Lendman Column #2
Off the Keyboard of Steve Lendman
Published the week of August 20th, 2012 on the Steve Lendman Blog
Discuss this Column at the Epicurean Delights Smorgaspord inside the Diner
Saving a Failed System
The Weekly Steve Lendman Column #1
Off the Keyboard of Steve Lendman
Originally published on the SJLendman Blog
Discuss this article at the Epicurean Delights Smorgasbord inside the Diner
Note from RE: Steve has joined the Diner as a Cross Posting Blogger. His regular articles from the SJLendman Blog will appear here on a regular basis. Some may appear individually titled by Article, others as Compilations in the Steve Lendman Column. All the articles can also be found on Steve’s Blog. In addition to his Blog, Steve also Hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour where you can listen to Podcasts with many notable Talking Heads on Geopolitical, Economic and Social Issues.
RE
Lawless National Security Letters
