The OWS movement is not a distraction from--but serves as an alternative to--the disingenuous theatrics staged by the political hacks of this faux republic. Conversely, movement members have grasped that it is the hollow grandstanding--the modus operandi of the present U.S. political system itself--that serves as distraction from the realities of the day.

Those drawn to the OWS movement realize this: Vast sums of money are required to get the attention of and gain influence over the entrenched class of self-serving political insiders who hustle their wares in Washington, D.C.

Year after year, election cycle after election cycle, Washington's political class has revealed whose interests it serves. Accordingly, let the 1% and their political operatives continue on their present myopic, self-serving, society-decimating course: By doing so, they will just bring more outraged people into the streets and hasten their own undoing.

Yet, because arrogant power, girded by duplicity and ruthlessly maintained, does not yield without a fight, we should expect more of the following:

Stories are circulating that Clark, Lytle, Geduldig & Cranford, a well-connected Washington lobbying firm, with ties to the financial industry, have floated a $850,000 plan to pillory Occupy Wall Street. This should not come as a surprise. Living in a society dominated by the power of massive corporations, and the inequitable wealth these self-perpetuating organizations have at their disposal, we will be relentlessly subjected to the narratives they generate.

"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." -- Steve Biko

Since birth, most of us have been enveloped by the consumer state's commercial hologram. Almost every daily act we perform and attitude we evince is in some measure determined by the dictates, demands and the incessant, commercial come-ons (the defacto propaganda) of the corporate state e.g. from what time you rise in the morning, to the food you eat, to what you clothe yourself in, to how you spend your days, to what time you go to sleep at night, to what stories you are audience to--the cultural myths you have internalized--by means of mass media saturation, to the manner you celebrate festivals and holidays, to how your illnesses and of those around you will play-out, even the circumstances of how you will approach and succumb to your death.

Because these are the waters in which we swim, most will accept societal and cultural circumstances as a given...believing, for example, that when they posit a political utterance that the opinion expressed has been formed exclusively of their own mind, by the exercise of free will.

Accordingly, a large percent of the populace of the U.S. believes consumerism is a form of freedom...that the exercise thereof mainly involves being at liberty to trundle to a mall and be in possession of the right to choose between a big-ass cookie or a giant Cinnabon...that freedom of choice is expressed by over-priced running shoes--or security can be found in a massive SUV.

In this manner, the propaganda campaigns of the corporate/national security state have proven effective at promoting and perpetuating the inequitable status quo in place at the present time. Do not underestimate the well-rewarded, professional con men employed in the criminal enterprise known as "public relations." Remember, these masters of deceit sell wars, fought by the poor, in which, the underclass kill and die for the profits of a ruthless few. War is a money train for the rich and connected but a death wagon for the rest of humankind.

Ready yourself to be buffeted by a barrage of virtual reality blunderbuss--volley after volley of mainstream media launched Big Lies--and the ground fire of social media small distortions. Don't walk unarmed into the line of fire.

Remember this: Most likely, the corporate state has, to some degree, colonized your mind, as it is well on its way to destroying the ecosystem of the entire planet.

Conversely, let your soul occupy you. While there might be an ongoing effort to scour Liberty Park of liberty, they cannot do likewise to your heart without your consent. Turn the tables on them: Evict the corporate occupiers from the public realm within--as all the while, you challenge propaganda whenever it crosses your path...on the streets, at your workplace, at family gatherings, and on social media-- because a lie left unchallenged begins to be accepted as truth. And worse, invades, colonizes and exploits (and often kills) a portion of the soul of the world.

Importantly, do not underestimate the ruthless nature of calcified power.

Regarding the subject: On Thursday, Nov. 17, near Foley Square, there was blood on Broadway. At the scene, I witnessed thuggish, NYPD motorcycle cops driving directly into groups of peaceful demonstrators, with the intent of antagonizing those gathered, and when people stood their ground and refused to be bullied--then phalanxes of blue shirt bastards, swinging nightsticks, waded into the crowd.

Even with my wife, tugging at the back of my jacket, attempting to tow, as we say down south, my narrow ass away from the direction of injury or jail, I could not contain my outrage; I growled at a smirking cop, gloating over the carnage, "just keep it up, you mindless thug, when you get folks angry enough, the boot just might be on the other neck...namely yours."

In hindsight, in my own defense: Being on scene and witnessing peaceful people attacked and brutalized, one is apt to become seized by rage.

But what is the mayor of New York City and his Police Commissioner's excuse?

Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelley and the ranks of NYPD have proven themselves willing to barricade and checkpoint the city into chaos...as opposed to enduring ongoing moments of freedom of assembly and free expression.

And this is why we must not retreat. Their tactics of repression are very expensive to the city budget, and money is the only thing they love.

Hence, they have, in turn, provided us with a tactic we can use; we can hit them where they feel it. (Conversely, they can take blow after blow to their dignity--because they are devoid of that character trait.)

The ground is shifting below our feet and this phenomenon involves more than the echoing footfalls of marchers and the trudging of militarized formations of riot cops on city streets worldwide.

The first vibrations, closer to tremors, transpired because the ground below us has been fracked of dreams...the void engendered seismological activity. Now, from Cairo, Egypt's Tahrir Square to Syntagma Square in Athens, Greece to Liberty Park, in New York, New York to Oscar Grant Park, in Oakland, California, we have become like tuning forks, in sympatico with the resonances of the tormented earth.

Subsequently, the walls of the neoliberal prison are cracking...We are no longer isolated, enclosed in our alienation, imprisoned by a concretized sense of powerlessness; daylight is beginning to pierce the darkness of our desolate cells.

"The state can't give you freedom, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free." ~ Utah Phillips

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: [email protected] Visit Phil's website: http://philrockstroh.com/ or at FaceBook.

Collapse

The IAEA Iranian nuclear program report stirred a hornet's nest of inflammatory commentary, no matter the agency's fabricated contents. Previous US intelligence assessments refuted them, including most recently in March 2011.

Nonetheless, IAEA allegations proved red meat for America's media. Commentaries from three major broadsheets are typical.

The Wall Street Journal

On November 8, deputy Journal editorial page editor Bret Stephens headlined, "Now For a Real Iran Debate," saying:

"There's no scarcity of reliable information about Iran's nuclear programs, licit and illicit." At issue only is how Washington and Western allies act "to check them."

In September, IAEA said "Iran had enriched 4.5 tons of low-enriched uranium - sufficient, with further enrichment, for three or four bombs - and that a third of the uranium had been enriched in the last year alone."

It also said "Iran had begun more advanced centrifuges, capable of enriching uranium at a significantly faster rate than" earlier ones. "So much for the success of sanctions in shutting down Iran's underground network of nuclear-parts suppliers."

Fact check

Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and nonmilitary. No credible evidence suggests otherwise. Its operations follow standard procedures. Other nations follow them. None are vilified. Nothing done is illegal. Beating up on Iran bogusly discredits anyone doing it.

"So much for the enabling fiction that was the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged 'with high confidence' that Iran 'halted its nuclear weapons program' in the fall of 2003."

So much for a Journal editor accepting fabricated IAEA information, refuted by US intelligence as recently as March 2011 in its America's Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community.

He continued saying pursuing diplomacy or more "sanctions guarantees failure, signals weakness, and emboldens the hardest of Iranian hardliners."

Time's "no longer on the West's side....(F)urther delay only increases the complexity and uncertainties of any strike."

Short of supporting war, Stephen railed against Iran, saying Western leaders should "hasten the regime's demise." How he didn't say or explain that every nation's sovereignty is inviolable, whether or not he approves.

The New York Times

A Times editorial headlined, "The Truth About Iran," saying:

Despite using fabricated, discredited, old information with no credibility, The Times called IAEA's document "chillingly comprehensive....What gives the report particular credibility is its meticulous sourcing."

Russia, China and other nations "have been shielding Iran." Security Council members must "quickly impose a new round of even tougher sanctions...."

Fact check

For years, Times writers and commentators beat up mercilessly on Iran. In June 2009, Iran's presidential election was more democratic than America's rigged process.

Nonetheless, a Times editorial headlined, "Iran's Nonrepublic," claiming "government authorities bulldozed the results" so incumbent Ahmadinejad's victory was "bogus."

Instead of journalistic integrity, The Times claimed Ahmadinejad stole the election with no evidence whatever proving it. Rhetoric substituted for reasoned commentary in typical Times style.

In contrast, when the Supreme Court reversed America's 2000 popular vote (and electoral one learned months later) to install its own favorite, a Times editorial supported Bush's illegitimacy and his "unusual" post-election "gracious(ness)."

No matter that Al Gore won and they knew it. No matter what's now known about a rogue administration terrorizing humanity.

Stopping short of supporting war, The Times said striking Iran's nuclear facilities "would not set (it) back for very long. It would rally Iranians around their illegitimate government....The last round of sanctions was approved 17 months ago."

Russia and China oppose more. "So long as that enabling continues, Iran will keep pushing its nuclear program forward."

Fact check

In April 2010, Ron Paul addressed HR 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, saying:

"I rise in strong opposition," including against its Senate version. Debate replicated lies, misinformation and distortions preceding Iraq 2003. "Propaganda (is) speed(ing) us to war against Iran for the benefit of special interests."

"A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war against Iran." In other words, he called sanctions an act of war.

In 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine called economic sanctions "a war against public health." Sanctions constitute war by other means. Manipulated money power in private hands used irresponsibly is financial war.

Delegitimizing Iran's legal nuclear program shows which side Times editors support. They're the same anti-populist power and wealth ones they always back on all vital issues.

The Washington Post

A WP editorial headlined, "Running out of time to stop Iran's nuclear program," saying:

Fact check

Substituting bombast for truth, Post editorializing got another black eye. Throughout the piece, accuracy was nowhere in sight.

Like The Times, Journal, and others like them, however, what else can be expected from establishment broadsheets. They stop short of doing what readers expect - their job.

"The IAEA's evidence....ought to end serious debate about whether Tehran's program is for peaceful purposes. That's why Russia and China tried to block the report."

Never mind that IAEA's "evidence" lacks credibility. It was fabricated, discredited and out of date. Independent analysts refuted it. All countries should denounce its nefarious purpose, potentially leading to war.

Short of supporting it, the Post said Obama's got time to act. He repeatedly said "Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable - and the IAEA report makes clear that the danger is growing, not diminishing."

Most dangerous are:

• IAEA heads publishing baseless allegations;



• America, Israel, and Western nations supporting them; and



• disreputable major media opinion writers marching in lockstep instead of doing their jobs responsibly.

Sadly, that's what passes for corporate-controlled news, commentary and opinion in America.

It's why more readers go elsewhere for real information and analysis. Hopefully one day they all will!

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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.

Collapse

As a fan of the TV show Lie To Me where the experts can detect minute physical signs of lying or micro-expressions, I felt that the politicians had developed the talent and skill to lie without giving any sign of it.

Here is what Americans should learn: All elected Democrats and Republicans have succeeded because they are excellent liars and, therefore, not one of them can ever be trusted to be telling the truth.

When you vote for any of these two-party politicians all you are saying is: LIE TO ME.

And when they get elected that is exactly what they will do, and not just about their personal behavior. The larger lesson is that American politicians will also lie effortlessly about public policy and just about everything they have anything to do with.

Make no mistake, President Obama has lied about many things just as presidents before him also have.

Can you have an effective representative democracy when elected officials can never be trusted to tell the truth to citizens? No.

Elected officials no long feel they have a profound responsibility to tell the truth. It appears to be behavior that has become automatic, not something they agonize over. Lying has become normal behavior whether it is done in Internet communications, on TV, in speeches or during campaigning for office. Lying may have become so commonplace that politicians no longer spend time justifying it to themselves or their closest staff or supporters. Sure, when they get caught, they easily apologize and accept responsibility in some glib and usually tearful way. But their moral decrepitude should not be forgiven. Dishonest politicians are chronically ill, selfish, egoistic betrayers of public trust. Severe punishment of them is necessary, starting with legally required removal from office and loss of all pension and health insurance benefits.
In the US political system public trust of elected officials is passé, or should be.

This is not a matter of cynicism; it is just prudent and logical to mistrust just about everything said by elected officials. Of course, if you think that a particular politician lies supports your views, then it may not bother you, but it should.

Forget about the rationalization that politicians merely misspeak or that they are just fallible human beings like the rest of us. My point is that an essential skill and regular behavior of politicians is lying without any hint of it. The only thing that politicians now fear is losing control and inadvertently telling the truth!

Has it always been this way? Have American politicians always been ubiquitous liars? I don't think so. What was once aberrant behavior has become normal behavior. It is yet another sign of just how much the US has sunk. It is not just that the country is on the wrong track; it is off the track, falling into an abyss.

When it is rational to always be suspicious of everything politicians say, then why keep listening? Why keep voting for them? Why keep believing that the US is still a functioning democracy? Why believe lies about reforming government? Why think that the overpowering corruption of government by corporate interests will change?

The biggest insanity of all is that when politicians get caught lying about sexual behavior they pay a high price, but not when they get caught lying about the economy, how they have voted on issues, how they have implemented their campaign promises, what they have taken from corporate supporters, and other substantive issues. They get away with it. In large measure because the media do not make a big deal of ordinary lying. Lying is the new normal. Expectations of honesty are gone.

The US political system is broken. That is the truth. You can trust me.

Take a little satisfaction knowing that the biggest lies politicians tell are probably to themselves.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Collapse

Schultz's employment of tortured logic, misdirection and arrant nonsense is all that seems liberal about this piece; it's enough to make a body suspect that Schultz's breathless opposition to the Bush Administration's foreign policy was borne not of policy principle but partisan hackery. 

The deficiencies are manifold and obvious.

Schultz's confidence in the mission is primarily inspired by the President's claim that "this won't be a long-term operation. Matter of days, not a matter of weeks. Not even months." Perhaps Mr. Schultz would have been kind enough to cite a single example of an American military action that was only as long as its executing President advertised at first. We've still got troops in Germany and Korea, and of course our nation-building adventures in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia began as internationally implemented no-fly zones the U.S. supported. Indeed, the President himself has already admitted to having punked Schultz, confessing that this will be a longer engagement than previously announced.

Schultz's support for the mission is additionally bolstered by its alleged early success. Writes Schultz, "Since we started this mission, Gaddafi hasn't been killing civilians, his own people." How he squares this assertion with reports like Reuters' that "Gaddafi tanks move in again on besieged Libyan city," his readers are left to wonder. One possibility is that Schultz hasn't encountered such reports, which implicates him in lousy journalism and irresponsible writing. Another is that he has but won't say so, which implicates him in conscious mendacity and irresponsible writing. 

On the mendacity question, Schultz contends that his support for the war is animated by President Obama's consistent honesty. "There have been no lies told, no fear games played on the American people by President Obama and his administration." To Schultz, Obama's description of 50,000 troops engaging in counter-terror and security missions as the end of combat missions in Iraq indicates a commitment to openness and honesty. Equally forthright was his campaign-era admiration for whistle-blowers (Their "acts of courage and patriotism" should be "encouraged, rather than stifled") in light of his administration's treatment of Bradley Manning. Or is it the President's rabid escalation of the war in Afghanistan (and its expansion over the eastern border into Pakistan, where civilians are routinely killed by secret and illegal drone attacks) that gives Shultz the impression that the Obama foreign policy team is upstanding and trustworthy?

Rather than presenting a case for the invasion, Schultz takes the opportunity to ridicule the Republicans' critique of it. "Why?" he invites us to ask, "Because he didn't do it their way? He didn't go far enough? He actually had a coalition?" It should be said from the outset that, even if the Republicans' complaints were the stupidest imaginable, that still would not constitute an argument for the wisdom and righteousness of the policy. As it happens, however, they are anything but.

Speaker Boehner, in his letter to the President (PDF), echoes Schultz' sentiments about the moral defensibility of the action, writing, "The United States has long stood with those who seek freedom from oppression through self-government and an underlying structure of basic human rights." But among his concerns, Boehner cites his anxiety that "military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America's role is in achieving that mission."

Now, perhaps Schultz knows whether Obama wants regime change, a properly observed ceasefire, a partition of the country or merely a change in the Libyan revolution's momentum in favor of the revolutionaries, but I don't, and I don't see how Mr. Boehner's concern is illegitimate. He asks Obama to detail the mission, the command structure, the policy goals, the length of America's engagement in the coalition, the projected cost, etc. Which of these does Schultz find Boehner - and the rest of us - unworthy of knowing? That these are the words of an obvious hypocrite (who cares not a whit for these answers in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan) does not make them wrong or not worth addressing.

No more does the fact that there is a more fulsome coalition attending to the Libyan intervention than did the Iraq one testify to the policy's rectitude, and as Schultz surely knows being in the minority of many issues, appeals to consensus almost always conceal a sloppy analysis. What but a sloppy analysis would allow Schultz to criticize the GOP, apparently unironically, for having "steamrolled America into two wars" in the same breath as he defends the president who has steamrolled America into a third - readers with a keen memory may recall that the first war was unanimously approved by both congressional houses apart from Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) and the second one on an only slightly less bipartisan basis. So much for a steamroll. By contrast, there hasn't even been a vote on the Libya matter. Not even a debate.

Schultz already concedes too much by affirming the right of the U.S. to make war in a sovereign nation, claiming humanitarian grounds. Empires always cloak themselves in noble language when moving to attack other countries - the invasion is for civilization or freedom or democracy or human rights. If Schultz can be suckered into supporting a war by the empty promises of a deceitful president, what can't he be made to do?

The answer seems like it's: agree with Republicans. Even when they're right.

J.A. Myerson, Executive Editor, is the Artistic Director of Full of Noises and a teaching artist with Urban Arts Partnership. He writes primarily on American Politics and Human Rights. Follow him on Twitter. Collapse

On April 13, Times writer Peter Baker headlined, "Obama Puts His Own Mark on Foreign Policy Issues," saying:

"If there is an Obama doctrine emerging, it is one much more realpolitik than his predecessor's, focused on relations with traditional great powers and relegating issues like human rights and democracy to second-tier concerns." In fact, no US president in recent memory gave a damn about either or anything humanitarian.

Unmentioned was Obama's belligerent lawlessness, waging four imperial wars and numerous proxy ones, spending record amounts on militarism while homeland needs go begging. In fact, former White House chief of staff (now Chicago mayor) Rahm Emanuel calls it being "cold-blooded about the self-interests of your nation," no matter the death, destruction, and misery toll taken to achieve them.

They, not major media boilerplate, define his doctrine, an out-of-control agenda for American dominance, using missiles, bombs, ground troops, and assassination squads to indiscriminately slaughter civilians, including women, children, and elderly, virtually anyone in raging wars he opposed as a candidate.

In addition, he endorses torture and extraordinary renditions as official US policies, as well as backing the world's worst despots, ones not fit to be in polite or any other company.

Notably they include the odious Saudi monarchy and Bahrain's Al Khalifa one, committing daily atrocities against nonviolent protesters, doctors and nurses treating them when injured, and anyone potentially threatening their despotic chokehold on people wanting to be free.

On June 7, The New York Times and Washington Post didn't report Bahrain's Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa's White House meeting with Obama, the equivalent of welcoming a serial killer.

AFP, however, said Obama "reaffirmed the strong US commitment to Bahrain and welcomed King Hamad's plan to end a 'state of national safety,' " its martial law that, in fact, hasn't stopped raging daily atrocities.

After the meeting, a shameless statement "expressed strong support for the crown prince's ongoing efforts to initiate the national dialogue and said that both the opposition and the government must compromise to forge a just future for all Bahrainis."

In fact, since mid-February, when nonviolent protests began, Obama and America's media largely stayed silent about daily human rights abuses, including murder, torture, mass arrests, bogus accusations, and show trials, convicting innocent civilian men and women for courageously wanting democratic rights in a nation without them.

On June 8, Amnesty International (AI) discussed one of many abused, a Bahraini student/poet, 20-year old Ayat al-Qarmezi, arrested in March for publicly reading her critical poem at a Manama rally.

As a result, she was charged with "incitement to hatred of the regime" and reportedly was tortured in detention. Addressing numerous individuals abused, AI said her case "represents an appalling and sinister attack on free speech," demanding her immediate release and charges dropped. Conviction, however, is virtually certain as are years in prison "for peacefully expressing her views."

On June 7, White House discussions excluded her case and others, focused solely on US regional interests, backing one of its most ruthless despotic regimes.

Bahrain14Feb.Revolution activists distribute daily alerts on its atrocities, a June 9 one saying:

"The Bahrain army, Saudi Arabia, (and) UAE want to murder and exterminate defenseless people, just because (they) demanded freedom and reforms."

They explained the regime's ban on a planned seminar discussing lawless abuses against the main Shia opposition group, the Islamic National Accord Association (Al-Wefaq). Earlier, 18 Al-Wefaq MPs resigned from parliament, protesting regime brutality against peaceful protesters.

The alert ended saying:

"PLEASE HELP THE BAHRAINI PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR TERROR GOVERNMENT"

It went unnoticed in Washington, preoccupied with terror bombing Libya daily, murdering civilians ruthlessly, perhaps planning other regional wars, a topic for a follow-up article.

Washington's Imperial War on Libya

On June 7, reporting from Tripoli, former Congresswoman/Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney said at least 29 bombs struck the capital from about 11AM to 1:10PM, as NATO intensifies efforts to inflict mass casualties, claiming its being done to save lives.

In response, America's media mock the carnage, calling Gaddafi's reports propaganda. Notably on June 6, New York Times writer John Burns sounded more like a Pentagon press agent than reporter headlining, "Libya Stokes Its Machine Generating Propaganda," saying:

"The Libyan government has a growing record of improbable statements and carefully manipulated news events, but (after four months of conflict, it's) showing signs of desperation and disorganization. The loyalist locker seems increasingly bare."

In fact, McKinney and independent journalists say sustained bombings don't hit empty spaces. They kill innocent civilians daily, Washington slaughtering them for another imperial conquest and its spoils once hostilities end, something Burns and other corporate types airbrush from reports, effectively endorsing their crimes. As a result, McKinney asked:

"What were you doing" on June 7? "The people of Tripoli endure the trauma of repeated bombings in their immediate environment." Many don't survive, nor are they immune from large areas contaminated with toxic depleted uranium because NATO bombs, missiles and and shells proliferate it daily.

In fact, in the 24-hour period alone from June 7 - 8, over 60 sorties struck Tripoli night and day, terrorizing and contaminating wide areas. At least 31 were killed, dozens wounded, targeting homes, hospitals, schools, government buildings and Gaddafi's compound again or close to it.

Yet according to AP, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen asked member states for more help, saying they haven't participated to their full potential. He wants those who've contributed least to use "assets at their disposal" to inflict greater punishment than so far caused, no matter how lawless and indefensible, perhaps aiming to turn all targeted areas into rubble, including the capital, no matter the body count to achieve it.

Bogus Humanitarian Intervention

Orchestrated and controlled by Washington, innocent Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and now Libyans are being slaughtered under the bogus "humanitarian intervention (HI)" doctrine.

Claiming it, in fact, violates UN Charter provisions, including Article 2(4) stating:

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Moreover, claiming HI conceals illegitimate war-making reasons, the usual self-interest ones for power and profit, never for humanity, democratic values, moral principles, or rule of law justice.

In addition, international law prohibits interfering in other nations' internal affairs for any reason except self-defense, and even then, only until the Security Council acts.

Further, selective intervention exposes hypocritically doing it against some states but not others, including far more serious instances where doing so can save lives.

For example, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Libya threatened no other state, including neighboring ones, America or Israel. Yet Washington attacked them all, citing bogus reasons for doing so.

In contrast, Israel illegally occupies Palestine, committing regular crimes or war and against humanity, including mass arrests, torture, extrajudicial assassinations, land theft, and ruthless persecution of people not Jewish, including their own citizens.

Nonetheless, Western moral outrage is absent, Washington, in fact, supplying generous monetary, military and other support. Most recently, moreover, it ignored the latest Nakba and Naska Day slaughter of dozens of civilians, protesting for rights mandated under numerous international laws and UN resolutions.

For decades, Israel ignored them, literally getting away with murder, yet world leaders turn a blind eye to their worst abuses, including collectively punishing and economically strangling an entire people for not being Jewish, besides committing an ever greater crime - violating the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Historian Ilan Pappe and international law expert Francis Boyle, among others, accused Israel of committing this greatest of all crimes, Pappe in 2006 in his article article titled, "Genocide in Gaza," saying:

"A genocide is taking place in Gaza....An average of eight Palestinians die daily in Israeli attacks on the Strip. Most of them are children. Hundreds are maimed, wounded and paralyzed. (It's become) a daily" ritual, virtually ignored in Western capitals and major media reports, expressing outrage only about rare Jewish deaths and injuries at the hands of Palestinians retaliating in self-defense, their right under international law.

In December 2000, Francis Boyle discussed Palestinian genocide, saying:

"I would like to propose publicly here in Gaza, Palestine - where the Intifada began ten years ago at this time - that the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine and its President institute legal proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague....for violating the" Genocide Convention.

"I am sure we can all agree that Israel has indeed perpetrated the international crime of genocide against the Palestinian people," so far with impunity. In a proper tribunal, Boyle wants it "prove(d) to the entire world" the way Nazis were held accountable decades earlier.

In 2009, Boyle wrote:

"The world has not yet heard even one word uttered by the United States and its NATO allies in favor of 'humanitarian intervention' against Israel" to protect Palestinian rights, "let alone a 'responsibility to protect' " them from Israeli genocide. These world powers won't even "dispatch a UN Charter Chapter 6 monitoring force" for protection, "let alone (use) UN Charter Chapter 7 enforcement actions against Israel."

In contrast, "humanitarian intervention" is duplicitously argued when Western interests are at stake, not when one of their allies commits grievous abuses, including crimes of war, against humanity, and/or genocide. The hypocritical double standard is obvious, outrageous, ruthless, and lawless.

Israel, in fact, is a serial offender. Even the UN Human Rights Commission said it repeatedly violates nearly all 149 Fourth Geneva articles, as well as crimes against humanity as defined under the 1945 Nuremberg Charter.

However, no matter now grave its abuses, Western moral outrage is absent, let alone legitimate actions to deter what no state should tolerate against another, especially for decades.

Instead, imperial aggression targets nonbelligerent states, including Libya to exploit its resources, other material wealth and people under US control, not help them for humanitarian reasons Washington never gave a damn about and doesn't now.

Saying so is one of many Big Lies, ones major media reports regurgitate but never explain, providing managed news instead of truths too disturbing to reveal.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

He lived a peaceful life in Tanzania, O'Neal explained, adding:

"He's my hero. He was and will continue to be. Geronimo was a symbol of steadfast resistance against all (he) considered wrong and improper. His whole life was dedicated to standing opposition to oppression and exploitation....He gave all that he had and his life, I believe, struggling, trying to help people lift themselves up."

His lawyer and longtime friend, Stuart Hanlon, who spent years working for his release, also announced his death, saying:

"What happened to him is the horror story of the United States. This became a microcosm of when the government decides what's politically right or wrong. The COINTELPRO program was awful. He became a symbol for what they did."

He had southern, rural roots, and hardworking parents who sent all their kids to college. "He (went) to the military, (fought) and (was awarded two Bronze Stars, a Silver Star, and two Purple Hearts) in Vietnam, (came) home, (and became) a football star in college. That would be an American hero. It was different because he was black and he became a Panther and then the road went the wrong way."

Calling Pratt one of his closest friends, Hanlon said his case "defined me as a lawyer."

David Hilliard helped recruit Pratt to provide leadership for the Los Angeles Panther chapter. "He symbolized the best human spirit," he said. "His spirit of endurance, his strength, his service to his people. He (was) very positive and a real example for young people who want to look into the direction of Che Guevara, Malcolm X and the leader of our party, Huey P. NewtonHe (was) one of the true heros of our era. He dedicated his life to (serve) his people. There is nothing more honorable than that."

On June 3, Los Angeles Times writer Robert Lopez headlined, "Former Black Panther whose murder conviction was overturned dies at 63," saying:

He became "a symbol of racial injustices during the turbulent 1960s....a cause celebre for a range of supporters, including elected officials, activists, Amnesty International, clergy and celebrities, who believed he was framed by Los Angeles police and the FBI" because he was Black and a Panther member.

In fact, he was under FBI surveillance in Oakland when the murder he was convicted of happened in Santa Monica, hundreds of miles south. Nonetheless, he was unjustly framed and served 27 years until freed.

In 1970, he was arrested and falsely charged with Caroline Olsen's murder, a Los Angeles teacher. In 1968, she and her husband Kenneth were attacked on a Santa Monica tennis court by two Black men. Three years later, Kenneth said Pratt was one of the assailants, pressured to name him after first identifying three other suspects from LAPD photos. In 1972, he was falsely convicted.

In fact, Pratt was framed, victimized by LAPD authorities working with the FBI's illegal COINTELPRO counterintelligence program against political dissidents, including communists; anti-war, human and civil rights activists; the American Indian Movement; and Black Panther Party members, among others.

In their book "Agents of Repression," Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall said:

"(T)he term came to signify the whole context of clandestine (mostly illegal) political repression activities, (including) a massive surveillance (program via) wiretaps, surreptitious entries and burglaries, electronic devices, live 'tails' and....bogus mail" (to induce paranoia and) foster 'splits' within or between organizations."

Other tactics included black propaganda, disinformation or gray propaganda, rumor spreading, manufactured evidence, harassment arrests on bogus charges, and assassinations, notably against Fred Hampton and Mark Clark on December 4, 1969 by Chicago police while they slept.

In Pratt's case, Julius Butler was the prosecution's main witness, an FBI/LAPD informant, expelled from the Panthers by Pratt for advocating violence. At trial, he falsely claimed Pratt confessed to the killing.

Later, when Butler was outed as an informer, paid to lie, LA authorities denied Pratt a retrial, keeping him imprisoned wrongfully for another 20 years.

Moreover, according to former FBI agent Wesley Swearingen, Los Angeles Panther headquaters wiretap information showed Pratt was in Oakland when it happened, also confirmed by agency surveillance evidence there. Pratt's defense wasn't told. In addition, in both cities, tapes and other evidence were destroyed to keep an innocent man wrongfully imprisoned for 27 years, eight in solitary confinement, as well as parole denied 16 times.

Delayed Justice Finally Achieved

On May 29, 1997, Judge Everett W. Dickey (an Orange County Reagan appointee), in a sharply worded opinion, reversed Pratt's conviction, ruling prosecutors suppressed evidence to unjustly imprison him in ordering a new trial. At the time, he was America's longest held political prisoner, yet to be fully exonerated.

Over 30 years later in February 1999, it came in a four paragraph Los Angeles County District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, statement, saying:

"We accept the decision of the court of appeals. The murder at issue in this case occurred over 30 years ago. Most of the witnesses to the case are deceased. It would be virtually impossible to retry this case. In our professional judgment, there would be no reasonable likelihood of conviction."

Omitted was any admission of FBI, LAPD, or prosecutorial wrongdoing. In fact, Hanlon at the time said Garcetti fought him and fellow Pratt attorney Johnnie Cochran, Jr. "every step of the way," trying to keep him wrongfully imprisoned.

In May 2000, in a civil rights lawsuit, a federal judge awarded Pratt $4.5 million for false imprisonment, but couldn't return his 27 lost years, or undo the toll it took even on someone with his inner strength.

Journalist and author Jack Olsen wrote about Pratt's ordeal in his book titled, "Last Man Standing: The Tragedy and Triumph of Geronimo Pratt," recounting his southern roots, loving parents, self-reliance and dedication to right over wrong

At UCLA, in fact, his awareness of police brutality and racial injustice inspired him to join the Panthers at a time FBI and local police harassed the organization nationally to undermine its solidarity by neutralizing its leaders. As a result, Pratt became a prime target, culminating in his arrest and wrongful conviction, nearly keeping him imprisoned for life.

While there, Olsen explained, he spent years in solitary confinement, his only toilet a hole in the floor that routinely backed up. In addition, he got only three hours of daylight a week, and was routinely harassed, beaten, drugged, moved from one "dungeon" to another, targeted for assassination at times, and falsely accused of other offenses, including attempted murder of guards, inciting riots, planning mass escapes, and masterminding Patty Hearst's kidnapping.

Only his inner strength saved him, using meditation, chanting, astral projection and yoga, along with studying law and other self-help practices to survive despite everything prison authorities threw at him to destroy him. They couldn't, but at age 63 he passed, a major loss to those who loved him, but not his spirit inspiring others to fight the good fight against injustice affecting anyone.

A Final Comment

In October 1966, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. It was progressive, activist, militantly for ethnic justice, racial emancipation, and real economic, social, and political equality across gender and color lines. Radical ideas then and now, the party's ten-point program stood for:

(1) freedom and "power to determine the destiny of our black community;"

(2) full employment for Black people and everyone;

(3) "an end to the robbery by the capitalists of our Black community;"

(4) decent housing;

(5) education to expose "the true nature of this decadent American society (and teach) us our true history and our role in the present-day society;"

(6) for "all Black men to be exempt from military service" at a time they were drafted for foreign wars;

(7) "an immediate end to police brutality and murder of Black people;"

(8) "freedom for all Black men held in federal, state, county and city prisons and jails;"

(9) for Black people in court "to be tried....by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black communities;" and

(10) "land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace."

They also added words from the Declaration of Independence, saying:

-- "all men are created equal";

-- "to secure (their) rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;"

-- "that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute a new government;"

-- "to throw off (despotism), and to provide new guards for (peoples') future security."

They believed in rule of law principles, published a newspaper with 250,000 readers, and articulated fundamental wants and needs. They also practiced what they preached with:

-- nutritious breakfasts for poor children;

-- food for needy families;

-- free clinics for medical care;

-- a free ambulance service;

-- help for the homeless;

-- free legal aids and bussing to prisons;

-- after-school and summer classes teaching Black history; and

-- Black voter registration drives.

They helped elect Oakland's first Black mayor, Lionel Wilson, in the city where the Panthers were founded.

They were young and idealistic, willing to put their lives on the line for their beliefs and activism. Their goal - to make the world a better place for Black people and everyone.

They were revolutionaries for justice, hostile to repression. In Huey Newton's words, they were "never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the 'white establishment.' "

The Party, in fact, advocated love for Black people, not hate for Whites. They fought for change from over 30 branches throughout the country with over 2,000 members at their peak.

They wanted redress of longstanding grievances, including slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, neglect and abuse. Practicing what Jefferson preached, they were targeted viciously and illegally for destruction, an agenda still ongoing against other activists and dissident groups to make America safe for wealth and power at the expense of beneficial social change, what heroic Panthers and others like them fought and died for and still do. What better reason to do it for than that.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

According to his work colleagues, the worker, identified only as Kang, had gone to lie down at 9 a.m., after complaining of dizziness. He did not return and was eventually found dead on the floor. Kang is one of 15 former Ssangyong workers and members of their immediate families who have tragically died from suicide or stress-related health issues since the betrayal of the 2009 occupation by the Korean trade unions.

The occupation ended when more than 4,000 riot police and police commandos, mobilised by the Grand National Party government of President Lee Myung-bak, stormed the plant, together with an army of company thugs. The auto workers were brutally beaten with batons and had liquid tear gas and chemicals sprayed on them from helicopters.

The defeat of the Ssangyong workers was a direct product of the betrayal carried out by the Korean Metal Workers Union and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, which isolated the struggle and then imposed a settlement accepting the job cuts (See: "South Korea: The political lessons of the Ssangyong occupation").

Under the company-union deal, the majority of targeted workers were sacked outright and others were forced into "voluntary" retirement or unpaid leave, under the pretext that they would be rehired when the company's financial situation improved.

The resultant hardship suffered by the sacked workers and their families has taken a deadly toll. According to a recent survey of 193 former Ssangyong workers by South Korea's Green Hospital, 52.3 percent were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and 80 percent showed signs of severe depression, which required psychological counselling, higher than the 71.1 percent recorded soon after the occupation was broken up.

Almost all of those surveyed (95.9 percent) reported that their marriages had deteriorated. Their average monthly income was 822,800 won ($US760) a month, a 74 percent reduction from their previous salaries.

Four of the 15 deaths since August 2009 were suicides, with others stress-related and attributed to, or at least exacerbated by, the dire economic circumstances created by the sackings.

In February this year, 44-year-old Lim died of a heart attack in his room. His wife, dismayed by her husband's dismissal from Ssangyong and the consequent difficulties, had taken her own life in April 2010. Lim had battled depression made worse by his wife's death and was struggling to support his two children. At the time of his death he had just 40,000 won or about $37 in the bank and was 1.5 million won in debt.

Two days later, 37-year-old Chou was found dead in his locked car in Busan. He asphyxiated after burning a charcoal briquette in the enclosed space. Chou, who left Ssangyong in March 2009, after accepting so-called "voluntary" retirement, was one of the hundreds forced out prior to the occupation. A casual shipyard worker since June 2010, he was experiencing severe financial stress according to colleagues. He was survived by his wife, his three-year-old daughter and a one-year-old son.

Commenting on the tragic death, Ssangyong union director Kim Cheon-wook told the media: "Voluntary retirement is a different name for murder." That depiction is accurate. Hundreds of former Ssangyong workers have been attempting to survive as casual or low-paid day workers or they remain unemployed, blacklisted for their militant stand.

If the resultant deaths amount to "murder", however, as claimed by Kim Cheon-wook, then the unions, which collaborated with the company and the government at every point to strangle and defeat the occupation, are accomplices.

One of the victims, Lim, for example, was one of about 460 workers forced onto unpaid leave under the union-brokered deal that stipulated they would be rehired within a year once sales had recovered. Sales more than doubled from 35,000 vehicles in 2009 to over 80,000 in 2010. More than 10,000 vehicles were sold in March and April this year. Nonetheless, the India-based Mahindra group, which purchased Ssangyong last year, still refuses to reinstate them.

This has gone unchallenged by the unions, which have held a limited sit-down protest outside the factory gates and made various pathetic appeals to the government, even as the Lee Myung-bak regime pursues legal action, together with Ssangyong and its insurer, for damages against the auto workers and the unions. The government is suing them for 2.2 billion won, the company 10 billion and its insurer 11 billion.

The Ssangyong occupation was the first major struggle by a section of the Korean working class since the global financial crisis erupted in 2008. It erupted as auto producers internationally carried through major downsizings and restructurings to slash costs.

Crushing the occupation was viewed by South Korea's corporate elite and international investors as a test case for President Lee's government to urgently make good its promise to crack down on labour disputes, suppress wages and deliver greater labour market "flexibility"--the right to sack at will. The Ssangyong defeat opened the way for a new round of attacks on the jobs and living standards of Korean workers and auto workers globally.

The unions have policed this assault. At Ssangyong the union accepted a two-year wage freeze in 2009 and oversaw massive increases in productivity. As Ssangyong CEO Lee Yoo-il told a recent conference: "Management and the labour union have become one, focusing only on how to revive the company."

A company statement to the media this month boasted that the "first assembly line of the plant that manufactures Ssangyong's flagship sports utility vehicle, the Korando C, is operating at full speed." It noted that workers, clearly under pressure to maintain production, did not even take scheduled rest breaks.

In 2010, unions at four of the country's largest auto makers--Kia, Hyundai, Renault Samsung and GM Daewoo--agreed to accept any pay offer made by management. In January, the Hyundai Oilbank union signed a no-strike agreement, abandoned annual wage negotiations and gave management the full right to decide salaries.

Employers have launched massive legal claims against workers taking industrial action. Under Korea's Penal Code 314, companies can file criminal charges and lawsuits for "obstruction of business." Last November, a 25-day occupation by contract workers demanding permanency at Hyundai Motor in Ulsan ended after it was attacked by heavily armed police and company goons. Scores of workers were arrested and the company filed multi-billion won criminal and civil lawsuits against the strikers.

The Hankyoreh newspaper reported in April that more than 900 workers and union officials were currently being sued in South Korea over "illegal" industrial action. The damages claims total 75 billion won or about $69 million. The corporations include Kumho Tyre and Hanjin Heavy Industries, where workers walked out in protest this year over the destruction of hundreds of jobs. Hanjin Heavy Industries worker, Kim Jin-suk, is currently being sued for 100 million won for occupying a crane.

Even more violent attacks on jobs, working conditions and basic rights are in the pipeline, as companies globally continue to drive up productivity and cut costs. On Monday, President Lee announced in a national radio address that his government would crack down even harder on labour unrest, after dispatching 2,500 riot police last week to break up a strike at auto parts maker Yoosung that had threatened to cut supplies of piston rings to Hyundai and Kia.

Inevitably workers in Korea will resist the government and company offensive, leading to further confrontations. As the bitter experience of Ssangyong demonstrates, however, these struggles, no matter how militant, will be defeated it they remain under the control of the unions, which function as nothing but agents of the employers and the government.

The turn must be to the construction of new independent organisations to unite all sections of the working class in the fight for a workers' government to implement socialist policies, including the nationalisation of the auto industry under the democratic control of the working class, as part of the struggle for world socialism. Such a struggle requires, above all, the building of a new revolutionary leadership in South Korea--a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world Trotskyist movement.

Collapse

As a result, a free and open society is at risk because fiction substitutes for fact. News is carefully managed. Dissent is marginalized, and supporting wealth and power interests replace full disclosure and accurate reporting. No wonder imperial wars are called liberating one. Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good, and patriotism means going along with lawless governments. America's under both parties certainly qualifies.

A previous article explained that for many decades, The Times has been America's closest equivalent to an official ministry of information and propaganda, masquerading as real news, commentary, analysis and opinion.

Its long history reveals a record of suppressing truth, supporting powerful interests, backing corporate predators, and endorsing imperial wars, no matter how much killing, destruction, and human misery they cause, let alone why they're waged.

In Times logic, America's are legitimate, liberating and just when, in fact, they're lawless, brutal, exploitive wealth and power grabs, intolerant of democratic values, including at home.

As a result, an April 7 editorial headlined, "Keeping Ahead of Qaddafi" doesn't surprise, saying:

America should use A-10 Warthogs to attack tanks and armor and AC-130 gunships to escalate killing on the ground, explaining they "can fly slow enough and low enough" to destroy targets better than "highflying supersonic French and British jets." American ones as well still participating.

In fact, AFRICOM's General Carter Ham, commanding the Libyan war, not NATO, said these and other strike aircraft are deployed and available to provide close air-ground support. Recent bad weather and threats from Gaddafi's mobile surface-to-air missiles restricted their use so far, he explained.

Claiming this will avoid civilian casualties, Times reasoning ignores the historic record that democratic and authoritarian governments willfully kill large numbers of civilians strategically to win wars at all cost, especially imperial ones to colonize conquered foes, control their resources, and exploit their people ruthlessly for profit.

During and since WW II alone, America killed millions of mostly civilian Japanese, Germans, Italians, Koreans, Southeast Asians, Central Americans, Africans, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and now Libyans.

In fact, its rules of engagement (ROE) stress one strategy only - win without restraint. All targets are fair game to defeat adversaries. In other words, civilian lives are of no consequence, and at times become strategic targets.

"Wars are messy business," said The Times, a disdainful comment mindless of the cost as long as not to Americans, at least not enough to make headlines.

To remove Gaddafi and control the entire Mediterranean Basin, expect a future Times editorial to endorse ground troops, suggested by General Ham before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Asked if deploying them was planned, he said:

"I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."

Unmentioned was UN Resolution 1973 prohibiting their use, besides Obama and Defense Secretary Gates repeatedly saying no ground forces will be used. Nonetheless, credible information revealed that US and UK Special forces, as well as CIA and MI 6 intelligence operatives have been there for weeks or months as well as Egyptian commandos, arming and training so-called rebels.

They include elements of popular resistance, Gaddafi defectors (perhaps bribed and/or intimidated to switch sides), and violent Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) insurgents, the same or latter day ones who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and Americans in Iraq, ideologically allied with Al Qaeda (in fact, a CIA creation).

In December 2004, the US State Department designated LIFG a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), accusing its members of being allied with "Usama bin Ladin and believed to be part of al-Qaida's leadership and structure or active in the international terrorist network."

In August 2007, the State Department said "Libyans associated with the LIFG are part of the broader international terrorist movement. The LIFG is one of the groups believed to have planned the Casablanca suicide bombings in May 2003....The LIFG constitutes a serious threat to US interests and personnel."

The State Department also said they were responsible for a 1996 failed Gaddafi assassination attempt, and during the 1990s clashed with Libyan security forces.

They're not people readers would invite to dinner or want in their neighborhood, let alone running their country. Quite the opposite.

In three decades, they shifted from US allies to enemies to again allies, and perhaps enemies ahead when their usefulness ends, and they're abandoned or used short-term repressively to solidify control. Not freedom fighters or democrats, they're, in fact, cutthroat killers used by America exploitively to win at all costs for imperial, not liberating reasons.

New York Times Downplays Fukushima's Threat

Numerous previous articles explained the grave danger from Japan's nuclear disaster, accessed in chronological order at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Nonetheless, since the March 11 earthquake/tsunami caused it, Times reports and editorials supported the notion that damage is contained and Americans face no threat when, in fact, quite the opposite is true.

Its April 8 editorial continued the subterfuge headlined, "How Much of a Threat? saying:

"People in Japan and in this country are rightly concerned. But, as of now, potential health risks appear to be limited in Japan and virtually nonexistent in the United States."

False and Times management knows it, willfully lying to readers to support a dangerous technology and nuclear proliferation previous articles called ticking time bombs, assuring inevitable new Fukushimas or worse.

Japan's disaster will persist for months or years. Two distinguished nuclear experts, Marion Fulk and Chris Busby, publicly said northern Japan (one-third of the country) is uninhabitable and should be evacuated.

Moreover, Europe and North America are affected. Sampled San Francisco rainwater showed Iodine-131 readings 181 times normal. Measures up to that level also showed up in Idaho, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. It's also showing up in milk, but not in Times reports, suppressing vital information everyone needs to know.

Instead, The Times said:

"Top officials from American health agencies said this week that Americans are in no danger from trace amounts of radiation being detected in this country's air, water or food supplies."

According to Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC - one of many US corporate controlled agencies):

"There is no threat to health in the US from radiation from Japan," when, in fact, the threat is real and increasing the longer the crisis persists.

A Final Comment

Times reporters and management represent wealth and power, willfully lying to suppress vital information detrimental to their interests, no matter the harm to readers who rely on journalism for truth.

Unfailingly, the "paper of record" won't provide it, nor does the entire corporate media establishment and other sources, co-opted by dubious funding to buy their cooperation, selling their souls and honor for a buck.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

Each Fukushima spent fuel pool holds about 100 metric tons, he says, while each US pool holds from 500-700 metric tons. A single pool fire would release catastrophic amounts of radioactivity, rendering 17-22,000 square miles of area uninhabitable. That's about the size of New Hampshire and Vermont - from one pool fire.

In a March 25^th interview, physician and nuclear activist Dr Helen Caldicott explains that "there's far more radiation in each of the cooling pools than there is in each reactor itself.... Now the very short-lived isotopes have decayed away to nothing. But the long-lived ones, the very dangerous ones, Cesium, Strontium, Uranium, Plutonium, Americium, Curium, Neptunium, I mean really dangerous ones, the long-lived ones - that's what the fuel pools hold."

As a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, Alvarez was part of a multidisciplinary international team that looked at possible terror attacks on nuclear facilities, focusing on the spent fuel storage pools. In 2003, they released a report, Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power-Reactor Fuel in the United States, which calls for transferring the spent fuel from the pools into dry-cask storage. (Summary here.)

The report recommends that 75% of the spent rods be removed from each of the pools and stored in ultra-thick concrete bunkers capable of withstanding aerial impact. The project would take about ten years and would "reduce the average inventory of 137Cs (radioactive cesium) in U.S. spent-fuel pools by about a factor of four."

The NRC attempted to suppress the IPC report, Alvarez says. "The response by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and nuclear industry was hostile." But the National Academy of Sciences agreed that a fire in an overloaded fuel pool would be catastrophic. The NRC attempted to block the Academy's report, as well.

The NRC serves industry, not the public, and by controlling the purse strings, Congress has forced the NRC to "greatly curtail its regulatory programs," says Alvarez.

Engineer Keith Harmon Snow couldn't agree more. He recently lambasted the NRC and mainstream media for downplaying the ongoing catastrophe in Japan. He notes that, "The atomic bomb that exploded at Hiroshima created about 2000 curies of radioactivity. The spent fuel pools at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant (U.S.) are said to hold about 75 million curies." [emphasis added]

And that's just one US nuclear plant, out of 104, not to ignore the undisclosed number of research sites. Then consider that several nuclear plants sit on geologic faults, as this image by Public Integrity reveals:

Also see this global map of earthquake activity and nuclear power plant locations.

Nuclear waste is a serious, deadly and growing problem that the industry refuses to address, preferring to externalize disposal costs onto the public (even suing the US government to clean up its mess for them, under a 1998 law it no doubt favored).

Unless the radioactive waste is laser-launched toward the sun, we're stuck with waste that will contaminate the biosphere for thousands of years, for the measly prize of 25-30 years of electricity, as nuclear activist and mathematician Gordon Edwards so eloquently explained. The risk far outweighs the benefit; this energy choice exemplifies the insanity of the nuclear industry and its government protectors.

Further Sources:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, by Alexey V. Yablokov and Vassily B. Nesterenko and Alexey V. Nesterenko (English publication: 2009), recently reviewed by toxicologist Janette Sherman on BlipTV, and also reviewed last year by Professor Karl Grossman at Global Research.

Nuclear Reactors in Earthquake Zones around the Globe (TreeHugger, compiling various sources)

US Radiation Monitoring Map in Real Time (Radiation Network)

Video Maps Spread of Radioactivity in Real Time (Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Austria)

 

Collapse

Shortly thereafter, you insisted that: Dreams were as dead as dust -- and proclaimed animals are machines, neither worthy of  names nor worth consideration, other than for commodification.

Instead, can we collaborate on a dream in which we create an legacy in lasting air so that we might chronicle the world before us...its ceaseless proliferation and its ceaseless culling -- its ever-present laugh of triumph and elegy without end?

Amid this: René, we are, like you, so baffled by who we are in relationship to the world, it is difficult to meet life head on...verities buffeted, we are blown, this way, then that...upended, directionless in a landscape of veritable regret and fleeting revelry...regardless, we trudge on.

Did wielding the cutlery of glinting certitude banish trepidation, as you cut down opaque existence and evanescent identity to manageable bits?

Yet ensnared in the algorithms of the machine mind, days are denuded...night is banished.

The bee-loud grasses have been rendered mute as the buzz of Predator Drones rises.

Dualist mind, enchanted by your mastery of things you deem dead, you have bred seething clouds of black flies infesting Cartesian slaughterhouse holding pens and bequeathed to us dying oceans and endless wars waged from vast distances by bloodless technocrats within cubicles.

Because you averred that the only way to know ourselves is to mince the living and the dead into tiny bits, I was trained to rip myself asunder and serve my lifeless heart to my betters.

You -- frenzied maenads turned wine-to-blood, reductionist clinicians -- that is my head in your hands -- worse, that is the dream body of the world you have torn to tatters.

Yet  the ashes of your charnel house aspirations hang in air like musical notes...and, like all night music, will dissolve into earth at dawn.

Thus you and I must keep reminding ourselves to weep for the things of this world that suffer; otherwise, we mistake the earth's impersonal dreaming for our own.

Adjust your body back to the left, René, face forward, meet the world's gaze at eye level, and more might be revealed.

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: [email protected] Visit Phil's website http://philrockstroh.com
Collapse

Notably, deep Medicare cuts were made. Much more is planned, including slashing Medicaid. Now federal pensions are being targeted. Civilian federal employees receive benefits under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), consisting of three components:

-- a FERS annuity defined benefit plan;

-- mandatory Social Security participation; however most Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees aren't part of Social Security unless they qualify separately from additional private sector employment; and

-- the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a 401(k) type defined contribution plan.

On March 19, Senators Tom Coburn (R. OK) and Richard Burr (R. NC) introduced S. 644: Public-Private Employee Retirement Parity Act to prohibit federal annuities for employees hired after 2012. In other words, beginning January 1, 2013, they want defined pensions for newly hired federal workers ended, eventually eliminating unfunded ones altogether.

Although the other two FERS components are maintained, S. 644 is another step toward halting all federal obligations to working Americans to provide more funds for imperial wars, corporate handouts, and greater tax benefits for America's super-rich. But don't expect Congress, Obama, or major media reports to explain.

Coburn justified S. 644, claiming federal workers earn over 20% more than private sector ones. In fact, according to a National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) study titled, "Out of Balance? Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation Over 20 Years:"

Wages and benefits for public workers are lower than for private sector ones with comparable earnings determinants, such as education and work experience. Moreover, the pay gap widened over the last 15 years. Other studies agree, saying public workers can earn more by using their skills in private sector jobs.

As a result, the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) called S. 644 unfair. For example, a federal employee earning on average $50,000 in his or her three highest earning years, with 30 years of service, gets a $15,000 annual pension, hardly a generous amount.

NFFE also said FERS pensions are less than under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), the one FERS replaced in 1986 for new hires.

Coburn and Burr claim defined benefit federal pensions are going broke. Last September, in fact, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) denied insolvency problems, saying FERS and CSRS (for eligible employees) will be able to meet their obligations "in perpetuity." Moreover, CRS expects their assets to grow for decades, reaching $15.3 trillion in 2080, far exceeding outlays.

Nonetheless, congressional Republicans, known as "You Cutters," plan other slash and burn efforts to:

-- cut federal pay;

-- freeze hiring;

-- end early retirement benefits;

-- eliminate the time the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has to defend federal employee rights; and

-- calculate pensions based on the highest five (instead of 3) working years, among other proposed draconian anti-worker measures, including stealing pension funds by borrowing them to fund government operations.

On May 16, Washington Post writer Zachary Goldfarb headlined, "Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government," saying:

Federal retirement funds will be tapped to help fund government operations after the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling was reached as Congress keeps wrangling over raising it. In fact, "the Obama administration has shown growing interest in altering (pension) programs to curb the debt in the long run (by) raising the amount that federal employees contribute to their pensions."

Both parties agree on social spending cuts overall, disagreeing largely on timing ahead of the 2012 election, besides posturing for political advantage. In fact, Obama already committed to cut trillions of dollars over the next decade, mainly essential entitlements, education, healthcare for working households, and aid for America's poor. In addition, federal workers pay was frozen last November for two years. Moreover, as explained at the time, cuts from his April 8 budget deal included:

-- $3.5 billion from Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding;

-- $2.2 billion from nonprofit health insurance cooperatives;

-- $600 million from community healthcare centers;

-- $1 billion from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and other disease prevention programs;

-- $1.6 billion from EPA's clean/safe drinking water and other projects;

-- $950 million from community development grants;

-- $504 million from nutrition aid for poor Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);

-- $500 million from education programs;

-- $390 million from home heating subsidies to the poor, as well as $2.5 billion for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) announced in February;

-- $350 million from labor programs, including grants for community service jobs for seniors;

-- other social service cuts;

-- $786 million from FEMA first-responder funding;

-- $407 million from energy efficiency and renewable energy programs;

-- $260 million from National Institutes of Health (NIH) medical research;

-- $127 million from the National Park Service; and

-- billions less for public infrastructure and transportation spending, while increasing war appropriations by multiples more, including for conquering and controlling Libya.

Moreover, Obama agreed to more draconian FY 2012 cuts and corporate tax breaks as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling. It's still being debated at least until August 2 while Congress loots federal pensions to keep government operations running

Overall, bipartisan support endorses ending safety net protections, especially healthcare for retirees and working households, Social Security, and public pensions, forcing Americans to pay more and get less if anything at all.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/

Collapse

Never mind that security apparatchiks have carried out multiyear, illegal driftnet surveillance operations against the American people, or that the broad outlines of these illicit programs have been known for almost six years when they were first reported by The New York Times. Despite these inconvenient truths, our "transparency" president's minions are now asserting the right to erase well-known facts from the public record to win a conviction in a high-profile case.

And with a federal Grand Jury now meeting in Alexandria, Virginia to criminally investigate the WikiLeaks organization and its founder, Julian Assange, to determine whether they can be charged with violations of the draconian Espionage Act, the administration is pulling out all the stops by targeting individuals who expose government crimes and corruption.

Accused of leaking information that uncovered high-level corruption at the Pentagon's electronic intelligence satrapy, Drake is charged with serving as a source for a series of articles published by The Baltimore Sun that provided rich details on cosy relations between NSA officials and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

According to investigative journalist Siobhan Gorman, three years and $1.2 billion after choosing SAIC as the primary contractor for a failed digital communications project called Trailblazer, "SAIC did not provide computer experts with the technical or management skills to complete the project."

In subsequent reporting, the Sun revealed that "six years after it was launched, the Trailblazer program consists of little more than blueprints on a wall."

Drake's revelations of high-level cronyism at the agency which cost taxpayers billions of dollars were further amplified by other reporters. Writing for CorpWatch, investigative journalist Tim Shorrock disclosed that NSA "is the company's largest single customer, and SAIC is the NSA's largest contractor."

Shorrock tells us that "the company's penchant for hiring former intelligence officials played an important role in its advancement."

According to CorpWatch, "the story of William Black, Jr." is emblematic of the clubby, good-old-boy networks that constellate the National Security State. "In 1997," Shorrock writes, "the 40-year NSA veteran was hired as an SAIC vice president 'for the sole purpose of soliciting NSA business,' according to a published account. Three years later, after NSA initially funded Trailblazer, Black went back to the agency to manage the program; within a year, SAIC won the master contract for the program."

Hardly surprising, given the fact that the so-called revolving door ushering former top intelligence officials into corporate board rooms is a tale oft-told, as the curriculum vitae of former NSA- and Director of National Intelligence, John Michael "Mike" McConnell, readily attests. After his two-year stint as President Bush's DNI (2007-2009), McConnell returned to his perch at the ultra-spooky Booz Allen Hamilton security firm as Senior Vice President where he currently manages that firm's cybersecurity portfolio.

Peddling his expertise as an intelligence insider, McConnell is one of the chief tricksters hawking the so-called "cyber threat," the latest front to have emerged from the highly-profitable "War on Terror."

Last year, in a widely-cited Washington Post op-ed, McConnell claimed that the United States needs "to reengineer the Internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment--who did it, from where, why and what was the result--more manageable."

What should interest readers here, is the fact that while the Obama administration wages war on whistleblowers like Thomas Drake, Bradley Manning and others, who expose waste, fraud, abuse and war crimes, the architects and perpetrators of those offenses, high-level corporate and government officials, escape justice and continue to operate with impunity.

In the Drake case, Secrecy News analyst Steven Aftergood writes, "The NSA Act ... has never been used to exclude information in a criminal case."

That the administration has chosen to do so with Drake serves as an unmistakable warning that the federal government will crush anyone who challenges crimes perpetrated by the secret state.

Aftergood told NPR last week that the Obama regime's surge of whistleblower prosecutions is "a worrisome development."

"Leaks serve a very valuable function as a kind of safety valve," he said. "They help us to get out the information that otherwise would be stuck."

And with Congress, spearheaded by right-wing Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, seeking to go even further to persecute whistleblowers, the government is poised to choke-off what little remains of democratic oversight, thus ensuring that information remains "stuck."

As FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds points out, "every time when I think things couldn't possibly get any worse, I'm proven wrong and they actually do get worse."

"Our so called representatives," Edmonds writes, "are planning to increase the federal government's unchecked powers by giving them the right to strip national security whistleblowers of their pensions."

According to the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC), under Section 403 of the Intelligence Authorization Act, "the head of an employee's agency can simply accuse a whistleblower of leaking classified information and that whistleblower can automatically be stripped of their federal pension, even after they retire."

So draconian is this proposal that once stripped of their pensions, whistleblowers would be barred from accessing the federal courts to challenge their administrative punishment.

"Instead," NWC avers, "they will be forced to use the DNI's administrative procedures to try to defend themselves. In other words, the DNI will be the prosecutor, the judge and the jury to strip pensions from public servants."

Shielding Telecoms ... from their Customers

Meanwhile across the Potomac, the ACLU reported last week that in response to their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the repulsive FISA Amendments Act and their Freedom of Information Act request "to learn more about the government's interpretation and implementation" of FAA, "the government released a few hundred pages of heavily redacted documents."

As readers recall, the FAA was a piece of legislative detritus passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress in 2008 that authorized the secret state's driftnet surveillance of American's communications while providing retroactive immunity to NSA's private partners in the telecommunications' industry.

Just so we understand what it is Congress shielded, AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein described how the firm and the NSA physically split and then copied global communications traffic flowing into their offices and then passed it along to the Agency. In his self-published book, Klein wrote:

What screams out at you when examining this physical arrangement is that the NSA was vacuuming up everything flowing in the Internet stream: e-mail, web browsing, Voice-Over-Internet phone calls, pictures, streaming video, you name it. The splitter has no intelligence at all, it just makes a blind copy. There could not possibly be a legal warrant for this, since according to the 4th Amendment warrants have to be specific, "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ...

This was a massive blind copying of the communications of millions of people, foreign and domestic, randomly mixed together. From a legal standpoint, it does not matter what they claim to throw away later in the their secret rooms, the violation has already occurred at the splitter. (Mark Klein, Wiring Up the Big Brother Machine... And Fighting It, Charleston, South Carolina: BookSurge, 2009, pp. 38-39.)

"Two weeks ago," ACLU National Security Project staffer Alexander Abdo wrote, "as part of our FOIA lawsuit over those documents, the government gave us several declarations attempting to justify the redaction of the documents."

In the course of examining the documents, ACLU researchers "came across this unexpectedly honest explanation from the FBI of why the government doesn't want us to know which 'electronic communication service providers' participate in its dragnet surveillance program." On page 32 we are enlightened by the following nugget:

In this case, the FBI withheld the identities of the electronic communication service providers that have provided information, or are listed as potentially required to provide information, to the FBI as part of its national security and criminal investigations under authority granted by Section 702 of the FAA. Exemption (b)(4)-1, cited in conjunction with (b)(7)(D)-1, has been asserted because disclosure of the identities of electronic communication service providers would cause substantial harm to their competitive position. Specifically, these businesses would be substantially harmed if their customers knew that they were furnishing information to the FBI. The stigma of working with the FBI would cause customers to cancel the companies' services and file civil actions to prevent further disclosure of subscriber information. Therefore, the FBI has properly withheld this information pursuant to Exemption (b)(4), in conjunction with (b)(7)(D)-1. (Declaration of David M. Hardy, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in American Civil Liberties Union, et al v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, et al, Civil Action No. 10-CV-4419 (RJS), April 25, 2011)

Got that?

While the federal government illegally spies on us, those who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect our rights are engaged in a massive swindle designed by Congress to shield private lawbreakers whose "competitive position" might be compromised should their filthy corporate practices be exposed.

Public harm, private profit; it doesn't get any clearer than this!

(Image courtesy of JoshuaDysart.com).

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano's Journal Today. His articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.

Collapse

Nuclear expert Karl Grossman calls it the ultimate nuclear nightmare, a real time China Syndrome, portrayed fictionally in the 1979 film by the same name.

OnMay 12, Hiroshima Peace Institute Professor Robert Jacobs told Russia Today TV that plant conditions "are much more serious than we were told earlier."

In fact, confirming a coverup, he explained:

"We were not told that for a long time....I have a rule of thumb, which is that anything that is publicly stated is probably around 10 to 20% of what's true. It will take us years to know the extent of the contamination and the extent of the fuel melting. The best case scenario in this situation is that it will take months to begin to stop leaking radiation from the reactors."

As a result, plant conditions are extremely serious, perhaps out of control, but don't expect government or media reports to admit it. Short of that, on May 12, TEPCO said low water levels fully exposed Fukushima's Unit No. 1, grudgingly confirming a meltdown of nuclear fuel rods.

According to Junichi Matsumoto, TEPCO's general manager:

"The water level is one meter below the base of the fuel assembly....Melted fuel has dropped to the bottom of the pressure vessel and is still being cooled...(Entombment) plans need to be revised. We can't deny the possibility that a hole in the pressure vessel caused water to leak."

Moreover, other fuel rods are also affected, AP saying:

"other fuel (melted) to the bottom of the pressure vessel and is thought (but not confirmed) to be covered in water....The findings also indicate a greater-than-expected leak in that vessel."

At issue is one or more core nuclear meltdowns, a worse case scenario. On May 12, London Telegraph writer Julian Ryall headlined, "Nuclear meltdown at Fukushima plant," saying:

Visual evidence confirms that "(one Fukushima reactor) did suffer a nuclear meltdown. (TEPCO admitted that) the top five feet or so of (Unit No. 1′s) core 13ft-long fuel rods had been exposed to the air and melted down. Now (it appears likely) that the molten pool of radioactive fuel may have burned a hole through the bottom of the containment, causing" large amounts of contaminated water to leak, posing an extremely serious health hazard to many countries besides Japan.

Moreover, conditions appear to be worsening, not improving. According to Friends of the Earth spokesman Tom Clements:

"TEPCO seems to be going backwards in getting the situation under control and things may well be slowly eroding with all (six) units having problems. At this point, TEPCO still finds itself in unchartered waters and is not able to carry out any plan to get the situation under control."

US nuclear expert Gene Corley said:

If fuel, in fact, melted through the reactor, "then the most likely solution is to encapsulate the entire unit. This may include constructing a concrete wall around the unit and building a protective cover over it. Because of the high radiation that would be present if this has happened, the construction will take many months and may stretch into years."

Major Media Coverage

Throughout the crisis, they've regurgitated official lies,  suppressing what's vital to know about history's worst ever environmental disaster. Despite the significance of TEPCO's May 12 announcement, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune ignored it, while New York Times writers Hiroko Tabuchi and Matthew Wald downplayed it, headlining, "Japanese Reactor Damage Is Worse Than Expected," saying:

New developments will likely "delay efforts to bring" Fukushima's crippled reactor "under control, the plant's operator said Thursday, (admitting) much more damage than originally thought...."

Avoiding the word "meltdown," Tabuchi and Wald said "exposed fuel has probably melted and slumped to the bottom of the vessel in little pellets....Still the worst fears did not materialize....a nuclear chain reaction (causing) a full meltdown and a catastrophic release of radioactive material."

In fact, that's precisely what likely happened, but coverup and denial won't confirm it, exacerbating an already catastrophic situation, affecting residents as far away as California, Boston, Iceland, Sweden and numerous other countries in the form of contaminated air, water, soil, food, and nuclear rain.

On May 3, New York Times writer William Broad wrote a disgraceful article headlined, "Drumbeat of Nuclear Fallout Feat Doesn't Resound With Experts," saying:

"The fear is unwarranted, experts say," quoting paid to lie ones, suppressing shocking truths too important to conceal, especially in feature Times reports.

Nonetheless, Broad said outside proximity to Fukushima, the risk of illness "is tiny, compared with numerous other sources of radiation, past and present."

He lied, ignoring what reputable experts affirm, especially about something this grave.

Though Wall Street Journal writers Mitsuru Obe, Phred Dvorak, and Rebecca Smith used the forbidden word "meltdown," it hardly mattered in their article headlined, "At Reactor, Damage Worse Than Feared," saying:

Fukushima's Unit No. 1 "likely suffered a substantial meltdown of its core....offering a fresh assessment," suggesting conditions are much worse than earlier reported short of "a catastrophic meltdown."

"The findings raise a host of questions," including perhaps "that radioactive water leaked into the reactor's basement in greater than believed quantities, likely dealing additional delays to the stricken plant's cleanup."

The best America's industry-controlled Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) could add was that conditions are "not exactly stable," according staff official R. William Borchardt, a contemptible comment about a global disaster showing no signs of abating.

New Problems Reported

On May 12, AFP headlined, "New water leaks at Japan's nuclear plant," saying:

TEPCO also reported a new water leak "and another spill of contaminated water into the ocean." Dousing operations "created massive amounts of highly contaminated runoff water."

As a result, seawater samples "taken near the plant contained cesium-134 at a concentration 18,000 times the permitted level...." Chief government spokesman Yukio Edano called the situation "deplorable.

On May 12, Greenpeace reported radiation levels in seaweed samples far above legal limits, based on tests conducted up to 40 miles out to sea.

Beginning later in May, fishermen will begin harvesting seaweed for public consumption, posing significant risks to those eating it, according to Greenpeace expert Ike Teuling, warning:

"(R)adioactive contamination is accumulating in the marine ecosystem that provides Japan with a quarter of its seafood, yet the authorities are still doing very little to protect public health."

Greenpeace is also evaluating seawater, fish and shellfish, and is expected to release full results next week. However, according to executive director Junichi Sato:

"(A)s the government has limited our research to the area outside of territorial waters, we could not achieve what we originally set out to do."

Since the March 11 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster, TEPCO and government officials deliberately suppressed full disclosure of an out-of-control crisis.

In her April 25 article titled, "Fukushima and Chernobyl - the Diabolical Nuclear Duo and the Alternative," environmental expert Dr. Ilya Perlingieri explained the connection between them, including:

- "the unmitigated and heart-wrenching scale of these catastrophes," Helen Caldicott saying in March.

Twenty-five years later, "(f)orty per cent of Europe is still radioactive. (For) farms in Britain, their lambs are so full of cesium they can't sell them. Don't eat European food. But that's nothing compared to what's happening now," a disaster multiple times worse than Chernobyl.

- "the devastation to all living creatures;

- the poisoning  of our entire food chain;

- the continued cover-up by corrupt governments" and industry officials, still withholding what's likely the worst of what's now known; and

- "the reality of how extremely dangerous nuclear energy continues to be," so much so, it should be banned, all functioning reactors decommissioned, and for sure no new ones built.

For now, however, "Fukushima's epic calamity continues to pose a major threat to the Japanese population (and) the rest of our planet."

Massive amounts of radiation keep leaking. "The magnitude of Fukushima's radiation is now off the scale," but its amount is deliberately suppressed - from up to six, not one, reactors.

On May 6, nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen called Fukushima's groundwater contamination the "worst in nuclear history" because thousands of tons of irradiated water are being dumped into the sea, a daily process because of so far uncontained reactor leaks.

As a result, Gundersen expects long-term trouble, exacerbated by groundwater moving inland. One town, he said, reported radioactive sewage sludge from groundwater and/or rain.

Worse still, potentially all six Fukushima reactors are at risk, though information about them is being carefully controlled to assure the worst of what's known is suppressed.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

Collapse

Never mind that the administration is engaged in an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, or is systematically targeting antiwar and solidarity activists with trumped-up charges connected to the "material support of terrorism," as last Fall's multi-state raids on anarchists and socialists in Chicago and Minneapolis attest.

In order to do their best to "keep us safe," Team Obama is busily building upon the criminal legacy bequeathed to the administration by the Bush regime and even asserts the right to assassinate American citizens "without a whiff of due process," as Salon's Glenn Greenwald points out.

According to a new Justice Department report submitted to Congress we learn that "during calendar year 2010, the Government made 1,579 applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (hereinafter 'FISC') for authority to conduct electronic surveillance and/or physical searches" on what U.S. security agencies allege are "for foreign intelligence purposes."

The April 29 missive, released under the Freedom of Information Act, documents the persistence of our internal security apparat's targeting of domestic political opponents, under color of rooting out "terrorists."

Secrecy News analyst Steven Aftergood comments that "this compares to a reported 1,376 applications in 2009. (In 2008, however, the reported figure--2,082--was quite a bit higher.)"

"In 2010," Aftergood writes, "the government made 96 applications for access to business records (and 'tangible things') for foreign intelligence purposes, up from 21 applications in 2009."

Also last year, America's premier domestic intelligence agency, the FBI, "made 24,287 'national security letter' requests for information pertaining to 14,212 different U.S. persons, a substantial increase from the 2009 level of 14,788 NSL requests concerning 6,114 U.S. persons. (In 2008, the number of NSL requests was 24,744, pertaining to 7,225 persons.)"

As I have pointed out many times, national security letters are onerous lettres de cachet, secretive administrative subpoenas with built-in gag orders used by the Bureau to seize records from third-parties such as banks, libraries and telecommunications providers without any judicial process whatsoever, not to mention the expenditure of scarce tax dollars to spy on the American people.

"Money for Nothing..."

With U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's February announcement that the Department of Justice will seek $28.2 billion from Congress in Fiscal Year 2012, a 1.7% increase, the FBI is slated to reap an $8.1 billion windfall.

We're told that the "administration supports critical national security programs within the department, including the FBI and the National Security Division (NSD)."

"The requested national security resources include $122.5 million in program increases for the FBI," including "$48.9 million for the FBI to expand national security related surveillance and enhance its Data Integration and Visualization System, as well as "$18.6 million for the FBI's Computer Intrusion Initiative to increase coverage in detecting cyber intrusions."

Rather ironic, considering that ThreatPost reported last month that a U.S. Department of Justice audit found that the FBI's ability to "investigate cyber intrusions" was less than adequate. The report disclosed that "fully 36% [of field agents] were found to be ill-equipped."

To make matters worse, "FBI field offices do not have sufficient analytical and forensic capabilities to support large scale investigations, the audit revealed." All the more reason then to shower even more money on the Bureau!

And with the FBI demanding new authority to peer into our lives, on- and offline, the FY 2012 budget would "address the growing technological gap between law enforcement's electronic surveillance capabilities and the number and variety of communications devices available to the public, $17.0 million in program increases are being requested to bolster the department's electronic surveillance capabilities."

One sure sign that things haven't changed under Obama is the FBI's quest for additional funds for what it is now calling it's Data Integration and Visualization System (DIVS). According to April congressional testimony by FBI Director Robert Mueller, DIVS will "prioritize and integrate disparate datasets across the Bureau."

Another in a long line of taxpayer-funded boondoggles, it appears that DIVS is the latest iteration of various failed "case management" and "data integration" programs stood up by the Bureau.

As I reported last year, previous failed efforts by the FBI have included the Bureau's Virtual Case File (VCF) project. Overseen by the spooky Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), VCF cost taxpayers some $170 million dollars before it crashed and burned in 2006.

And when defense and security giant Lockheed Martin took over the case management brief, VCF, now rechristened Sentinel, also enjoyed a similarly expensive and waste-filled fate. A 2009 report by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that despite some $450 million dollars showered on Lockheed Martin and assorted subcontractors, the Sentinel system "encountered significant challenges."

According to a notice quietly posted in August in the Federal Register, "DIVS contains replications and extractions of information maintained by the FBI in other databases. This information is replicated or extracted into DIVS in order to provide an enhanced and integrated view of that information."

Wait a minute! Isn't that what VCF and Sentinel were supposed to do? We're told that the "purpose of DIVS is to strengthen and improve the methods by which the FBI searches for and analyzes information in support of its multifaceted mission responsibilities to protect the nation against terrorism and espionage and investigate criminal matters."

(Dirty) Business as Usual

While the FBI and the Justice Department have failed to prosecute corporate criminals responsible for the greatest theft and upward transfer of wealth in history, not to mention the virtual get-out-of-jail-free cards handed out to top executives of the drug-money laundering Wachovia Bank, they're rather adept at trampling the rights of the American people.

As the San Francisco Bay Guardian recently reported, while corporate lawbreakers get a free pass, "San Francisco cops assigned to the FBI's terrorism task force can ignore local police orders and California privacy laws to spy on people without any evidence of a crime."

According to a Memorandum of Understanding obtained by the ACLU, "it effectively puts local officers under the control of the FBI," investigative journalist Sarah Phelan disclosed.

Civil rights attorney Veena Dubal told the Bay Guardian that during "the waning months of the Bush administration" the FBI "changed its policies to allow federal authorities to collect intelligence on a person even if the subject is not suspected of a crime. The FBI is now allowed to spy on Americans who have done nothing wrong--and who may be engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment."

"It's the latest sign of a dangerous trend: San Francisco cops are working closely with the feds, often in ways that run counter to city policy," Phelan writes. "And it raises a far-reaching question: With a district attorney who used to be police chief, a civilian commission that isn't getting a straight story from the cops, and a climate of secrecy over San Francisco's intimate relations with outside agencies, who is watching the cops?"

Apparently, no one; and in such a repressive climate the federal government has encouraged the FBI to target anyone deemed a threat to the new corporate order.

Earlier this year, an Electronic Frontier Foundation report revealed that the Bureau continues to systematically violate the constitutional guarantees of American citizens and legal residents, and does so with complete impunity.

As I wrote at the time, this was rather ironic considering the free passes handed out by U.S. securocrats to actual terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, as both WikiLeaks and FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds disclosed.

According to EFF, more than 2,500 documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that:

* From 2001 to 2008, the FBI reported to the IOB approximately 800 violations of laws, Executive Orders, or other regulations governing intelligence investigations, although this number likely significantly under-represents the number of violations that actually occurred.
* From 2001 to 2008, the FBI investigated, at minimum, 7000 potential violations of laws, Executive Orders, or other regulations governing intelligence investigations.
* Based on the proportion of violations reported to the IOB and the FBI's own statements regarding the number of NSL violations that occurred, the actual number of violations that may have occurred from 2001 to 2008 could approach 40,000 possible violations of law, Executive Order, or other regulations governing intelligence investigations. (Electronic Frontier Foundation, Patterns of Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001-2008, January 30, 2011)

But FBI lawbreaking didn't stop there. Citing internal documents, EFF revealed that the Bureau also "engaged in a number of flagrant legal violations" that included, "submitting false or inaccurate declarations to courts," "using improper evidence to obtain federal grand jury subpoenas" and "accessing password protected documents without a warrant."

And just last week the civil liberties' watchdogs reported that "the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has revealed the FBI lied to the court about the existence of records requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), taking the position that FOIA allows it to withhold information from the court whenever it thinks this is in the interest of national security."

The court sharply disagreed and asserted that "the Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the Court."

The Court held, following settled case law that goes all the way back to Marbury v. Madison (1803) that "Numerous statutes, rules, and cases reflect the understanding that the Judiciary cannot carry out its essential function if lawyers, parties, or witnesses obscure the facts."

Skewering the FBI, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney wrote that while "The Government contends that the FOIA permits it to provide the Court with the same misinformation it provided to Plaintiffs regarding the existence of other responsive information or else the Government would compromise national security ... that argument is indefensible."

Nevertheless, that court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals still held that despite the Bureau's obvious attempt to bamboozle the federal judiciary, thus subverting the separation of powers amongst the three co-equal branches of government as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution (Article III), "disclosing the number and nature of the documents the Government possesses could reasonably be expected to compromise national security." (see: Islamic Shura Council of S. California v. FBI.)

In other words, while the Bureau was chastised for withholding relevant documents from the court that might demonstrate their illegal surveillance of organizations and individuals who have never been indicted, or even charged, with so-called "terrorism offenses," the "national security" card trumps everything.

Electronic Surveillance

Late last month, EFF staff attorney Jennifer Lynch reported the group had "recently received documents from the FBI that reveal details about the depth of the agency's electronic surveillance capabilities and call into question the FBI's controversial effort to push Congress to expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) for greater access to communications data."

The documents were obtained under a FOIA request by EFF after a 2007 report published by Wired disclosed that the FBI had deployed "secret spyware" to track domestic targets.

According to Wired, "FBI agent Norman Sanders describes the software as a 'computer and internet protocol address verifier,' or CIPAV."

In a follow-up piece, investigative journalist Ryan Singel revealed that the FBI "has quietly built a sophisticated, point-and-click surveillance system that performs instant wiretaps on almost any communications device."

That surveillance system known as DCSNet, or Digital Collection System Network, formerly known as Carnivore, "connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and cellular companies," Wired reported.

"It is far more intricately woven into the nation's telecom infrastructure than observers suspected," Singel wrote at the time, a point underscored a year later when whistleblower Babak Pasdar blew the lid off the close relations amongst America's telecoms and the Bureau's illegal surveillance programs.

As Antifascist Calling reported at the time, a telecom carrier Pasdar worked for as a security consultant, subsequently named as Verizon by The Washington Post, said the company maintained a high-speed DS-3 digital line that allowed the Bureau and other security agencies "unfettered" access to the carrier's wireless network, including billing records and customer data "transmitted wirelessly."

While Verizon denied the report that the FBI has open access to its network, their mendacious claims were demolished when the secrecy-shredding web site Cryptome published the firm's "Law Enforcement Legal Compliance Guide" in 2010.

Amongst the "helpful hints" provided to law enforcement by the carrier, Verizon urges state spies to "be specific."

"Do not include wording such as 'any and all records'", we read. "The courts have traditionally ruled that this wording is considered overly broad and burdensome. Request only what is required." On and on it goes...

According to documents obtained by EFF, the technologies discussed by Bureau snoops, when installed on a target's computer, allows the FBI to collect the following:

* IP Address
* Media Access Control (MAC) address
* "Browser environment variables"
* Open communication ports
* List of the programs running
* Operating system type, version, and serial number
* Browser type and version
* Language encoding
* The URL that the target computer was previously connected to
* Registered computer name
* Registered company name
* Currently logged in user name
* Other information that would assist with "identifying computer users, computer software installed, [and] computer hardware installed" (Electronic Frontier Foundation, New FBI Documents Provide Details on Government's Surveillance Spyware, April 29, 2011)

According to initial reporting by Wired, the FBI may have infiltrated the malicious program onto a target's computer by "pointing to code that would install the spyware by exploiting a vulnerability in the user's browser."

Lynch comments that "although the documents discuss some problems with installing the tool in some cases, other documents note that the agency's Crypto Unit only needs 24-48 hours to prepare deployment."

Once the tool is installed, Bureau snoops aver "it stay[s] persistent on the compromised computer and ... every time the computer connects to the Internet, [FBI] will capture the information associated with the PRTT [Pen Register/Trap & Trace Order]."

The privacy watchdogs write that the Bureau "has been using the tool in domestic criminal investigations as well as in FISA cases, and the FISA Court appears to have questioned the propriety of the tool."

This is particularly relevant, and troubling, considering that the FBI and other secret state agencies such as the CIA and NSA already possess formidable surveillance tools in their arsenals and that private security outfits such as HBGary and Palantir--as well as hundreds of other firms--are busily concocting ever-more intrusive spyware for their state and private partners, as the massive disclosure of internal HBGary emails and documents by the cyber-guerrilla group Anonymous revealed.

With all the hot air from Washington surrounding claims by the FBI and other secret state satrapies that they'll "go dark" unless Congress grants them authority to build secret backdoors into America's communications networks, EFF revealed that documents "show the FBI already has numerous tools available to surveil suspects directly, rather than through each of their communications service providers."

"One heavily redacted email notes that the FBI has other tools that 'provide the functionality of the CIPAV [text redacted] as well as provide other useful info that could help further the case'."

What is clear from the latest document release is that it isn't the FBI that's "going dark" but the right of the American people to free speech and political organizing without the threat that government-sanctioned malware which remains "persistent" on a "compromised computer" becomes one more tool for building "national security" dossiers on dissidents.

***************

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano's Journal Today. His articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.
Collapse

America's decade from September 11, 2001 to May 1, 2011 was punctuated by the (big) lie of our time and (big) lie of the moment.

Put another way, the official stories are falsified, myths, widely believed fantasies contrary to reality.

In his exhaustive research and writings, David Ray Griffin provided convincing evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and that bin Laden died of natural causes in mid-December 2001.

The former spawned a decade of overt and covert "war on terror" lawlessness at home and abroad. Policies and events following the second have yet to unfold, but expect little at best to be positive.

Past US false flags provided pretexts for militarism, wars, occupations, domestic repression, and national security state extremism, antithetical to democratically free and open societies. Allegedly removing America's "Enemy Number One," in fact, may intensify, not diminish, Washington's scheme for unchallengeable global dominance. More on him below.

With or without bin Laden, bogymen threats are plentiful. Since WW II alone, America's had numerous ones, including communists, Al Qaeda, WMDs, the Taliban, Gaddafi, and a host others yet unnamed, as well as numerous "foiled" domestic ones.

Among others, they include:

-- 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; and

-- others to enlist public support for the fake war on terror and very real ones it spawned.

America, Pakistan, Bin Laden, Official Lies, and Misreporting

On May 5, New York Times writer Elisabeth Bumiller headlined, "Pentagon Breaks Silence on Pakistani Role," saying:

A "top Pentagon official said....Pakistan would have to work hard to rebuild relations with the United States Congress," including a commitment "to fighting terrorism...."

It suggests what some analysts suspect: namely, planned destabilization, confrontation, and balkanization for greater Eurasian control, as well as future terrorist false flags.

On May 5, Times writers Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane headlined, "Data Show Bin Laden Plots; CIA Hid Near Raided House," saying:

Alleged "computer files and documents seized at the compound where Osama bin Laden was killed," reveal "considered attacks on American railroads, (but) there was no evidence of a specific plot."

Perhaps no files and documents either. For sure, no bin Laden.

Nonetheless, "(s)ince Sunday night, counterterrorism officials have been alert to (possible) new attacks from Al Qaeda to avenge its leader's death," especially at airports, rail facilities, and other strategic locations. "American officials and terrorism experts have warned that this is not the end of Al Qaeda," not, of course, if they're blamed for planned false flags to intensify US imperial wars.

Another May 5 Bumiller Times report ran cover for shifting official accounts about what really happened on May 1 headlined, "Raid Account, Hastily Told, Proves Fluid," saying:

"(I)t was a classic collision of a White House desire to promote a stunning national security triumph - and feed a ravenous media - while collecting facts from a chaotic military operation on the other side of the world. At the same time, White House officials worked hard to use the facts of the raid to diminish Bin Laden's legacy."

She continued, quoting an unnamed Pentagon official claiming no "intent to deceive or dramatize," adding that "Everything we put out we really believed to be true at the time." She also quoted Victoria Clarke, Bush Pentagon spokeswoman, saying, "First reports are always wrong. It's a fundamental truth in military affairs."

In other words, it was OK first to claim a fierce firefight in which no US forces were killed or hurt, then 24 hours later call the battle one-sided, Navy Seals quickly dispatching bin Laden's guards and "Enemy Number One," shooting him unarmed in the head.

Notably, however, there's no body, no photos, no video, no evidence, and no truth, just the media regurgitated big lie.

In fact, more lies compounded it, including about:

-- Pakistan's alleged knowledge of his presence;

-- claimed evidence confirming it and assault specifics; and

-- fabricated bad theater, explained in a slapdash, keystone cops manner.

High Level Skepticism

Appearing on CNN May 5, former Pakistani intelligence chief, Hamid Gul, told "In the Arena's" host Eliot Spitzer that bin Laden died years earlier, saying:

"Yes, I think he died - he perished some years ago, and I think this was a story which was created (because) nobody would want to believe this version....I (don't believe) the story which was given out by the American media and by the American administration."

Whoever was killed May 1 "was probably somebody else....(American authorities) must have known that he died some years ago....were keeping this story on the ice and they were looking for an appropriate moment" to announce it.

"(P)eople simply not in Pakistan alone but around the world....don't believe the stories that have been put out."

In other words, the entire account was fabricated, the event staged, Western media, including The New York Times, running cover for the big lie. Gul politely called it "a huge intelligence failure."

Notable American and Other False Flags

Discussed in earlier writing, numerous ones stand out, including:

-- In 1898, Spain was falsely accused of blowing up the USS Maine in Havana, Cuba harbor. The Spanish-American war followed.

-- On May 7, 1915, a German U-boat was accused of torpedoing the RMS Lusitania, killing 128 US citizens. It helped precipitate America's April 4, 1917 WW I entry, a war Woodrow Wilson wanted and got through a propaganda campaign, turning pacifist Americans into German haters. It was later learned that on board munitions, not a torpedo, exploded, sinking the ship.

-- In 1933 Germany, a week before general elections, the strategically timed Reichstag fire (home of the German parliament) was blamed on communists. President Paul von Hindenburg's emergency decree followed. Civil liberties were suspended. Weimar Republic democracy ended, and Hitler assumed fascist powers after enough Nazis were elected to assure it.

-- On August 31, 1939, Nazis impersonating Polish terrorists attacked the Gleiwitz radio station on the border between the two countries, starting WW II.

-- On December 7, 1941, Roosevelt manipulated Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, giving him the war he wanted from the early 1930s, but had to convince a pacifist public of the threat. The fleet was also tracked across the Pacific, but Admiral HE Kimmel wasn't warned or given known intelligence to assure enough mass casualties for congressional and public support.

-- Complicit with Washington, numerous 1949/1950 South Korean incursions north precipitated Pyongyang's retaliation in June 1950, giving Truman the war he wanted.

-- In 1962, a US Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed false flag never happened because Kennedy rejected it. Called Operation Northwoods (a part of Operation Mongoose), it included sinking US ships, shooting down US commercial airliners, blowing up buildings in US cities, attacking America's Guantanamo base, other incidents, and blaming it on Cuba as a reason for war.

-- The fake August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident initiated full-scale retaliation against North Vietnam after Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing war without declaring it.

-- In October 1983, after ousting Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, US forces invaded Grenada, allegedly to rescue American medical students threatened by nonbelligerent Cubans building infrastructure.

-- In December 1989, manufactured incidents precipitated America's Panama invasion, deposing Manuel Noriega, one-time ally turned enemy because he forgot who's boss.

-- in August 1990, Washington colluded with the al- Sabah monarchy, entrapping Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. In January 1991, it launched the Gulf War, followed by over two decades of sanctions, more war occupation, and destruction of the "cradle of civilization."

-- The September 11, 2001 false flag operation launched a decade of imperial wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Palestine allied with Israel, perhaps others to come, as well as proxy wars in Somalia, Yemen, Bahrain, Central Africa, Haiti, Honduras, Colombia, and at home against Muslims, Latino immigrants, and working Americas.

On February 16, 2010, a Washington's blog web site (georgewashington2.blogspot.com) article titled, "Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror" listed examples, including:

-- The CIA admitted its 1950s role in toppling Iran's democratically government in 1953.

-- Israel acknowledged a 1954 attack in Egypt, including planting bombs in US diplomatic facilities, leaving "evidence" of Arab involvement.

-- Indonesia's former president, Abdurrahman Wahid, said the nation's police or military most likely were involved in the 2002 Bali bombing, killing over 200 people.

-- A former Italian prime minister, judge, and military counterintelligence head, General Gianadelio Maletti, said America's CIA instigated and abetted right wing terrorist groups in the 1970s and earlier, including bombing a Milan bank in 1969 to rally popular anti-communist support in Italy and other European countries.

-- Many others, including former Carter administration National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, telling a Senate committee that a false flag terror attack on US soil might occur to blame Iran and justify war.

In his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives," he said:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat," the kind 9/11 created - predicted, planned, orchestrated, and carried out to further new world order global dominance.

Other False Flag Examples

-- The March 2004 Madrid train bombings occurred three days before Spain's general elections. With no supportive evidence, they were blamed on Al Qaeda, yet they stoked public fear of threats against other Western cities, including American ones.

-- The July 7, 2005 London underground bombings (called 7/7) were a series of attacks on the city's public transport system during the morning rush hour for maximum disruption and casualties. At precisely the same time, an anti-terror drill occurred, simulating real attacks. It was no coincidence, others in America and Britain came on the same day.

-- On 9/11 morning, the CIA ran a "pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building." Held at the Agency's Chantilly, Virginia Reconnaissance Office, AP reported (on August 22, 2002) that it simulated "a small corporate jet (hitting) one of the four towers....after experiencing a mechanical failure."

Unmentioned at the time was a later revealed (but unreported) Homeland Security conference announcement a year later to commemorate the 9/11 event. Held under the auspices of the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute, one of its speakers was John Fulton, CIA Chief of the Strategic War Gaming Division of the National Reconnaissance office in charge of the operation. Another coincidence, or was something more sinister afoot?

In October 2000, the Pentagon simulated a commercial plane striking the Pentagon, coordinated by its Command Emergency Response Team and the Defense Protective Services Police. This and the 9/11 exercises are more than coincidental, given what's now known and the fallout.

-- On June 30, 2007, a Jeep Cherokee with propane canisters crashed into Glasgow International Airport's glass doors, the BBC reporting that it "was in the middle of the doorway burning....The car didn't actually explode. There were a few pops and bangs which presumably was the petrol."

The usual suspects were falsely blamed, Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists.

In Miami, on January 11, 2010 (one day before Haiti's earthquake), the Pentagon's US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) simulated a hurricane striking the island in preparation for subsequent measures to be implemented. A carefully prepared military operation, they included occupying, controlling, and plundering the island.

Also, Deputy SOUTHCOM head, General PK Keen, was in Haiti when the quake struck, ready to assume command when it did and use a communication tool called the Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation project (TISC), linking other nations and NGOs with the Pentagon and US government to facilitate measures to be implemented. None were to help Haitians

A Final Comment

Exposed as bad theater, New York Times writer Elizabeth Harris further discredited the broadsheet, headlining:

"Al Qaeda Confirms Bin Laden's Death," citing an unconfirmed statement, warning of new attacks to come. It also said an audio recording days before his death will soon be released. In fact, past video and audio ones were exposed as fakes.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

Bloomberg.com's Timothy Homan said:

At 244,000, "American employers in April added more jobs than forecast....indicating the world's largest economy is weathering the impact of higher fuel prices."

Wall Street Journal writer Sara Murray wrote:

"Job engine shifts to higher gear (as) companies cranked up hiring in April to the fastest pace in five years...."

In fact, labor force participation held steady at 64.2% for the fourth consecutive month, down from 66% in 2006. Moreover, economist Jack Rasmus estimates 25 million unemployed, a number showing downturn, not growth. He also explained that considerably more workers left the labor force than entered it, saying:

A recovering jobs market "does not experience that kind of massive number of discouraged workers leaving the labor force. Quite the opposite. A truly recovering labor market is characterized by large numbers of discouraged workers re-entering the labor force. Something else is going on here."

In addition, about one-third of new hires are temporary or part-time, jobs paying two-thirds or less than normal pay with few or no benefits. Moreover, another one-fourth are temp agency hires, meaning around one-half of all jobs created are "low pay, no benefit" ones, showing a sick, not healthy economy.

At the same time, initial jobless claims hit an eight-month high, rising to 474,000 for the week ending April 30, the third increase in the last four weeks and a clear sign of job losses, not gains, so what to make of the Labor Department's report. More on phantom jobs creation below.

Other reports also look dire. New Department of Agriculture data show 14.3% of Americans receiving food stamps, a record 44.2 million and rising. Moreover, US Census figures show over 47 million Americans in poverty, more than one in seven but way underestimated.

Even the Census Bureau admits that official thresholds were developed over 40 years ago. As a result, they omit:

-- true rising inflation levels, notably food and energy currently;

-- other expenses like child care, transportation, high tuition and medical expenses; and

-- stagnant or falling incomes in recent years, as well as eroding benefits.

In addition, cost of living levels vary greatly around the country - among regions, between large and small cities, and between urban and rural areas.

For a family of four, the official poverty threshold is an annual $22,350 income, a figure far below reality. For example, a family of four in Peoria, IL needs $42,900 to be above poverty. In Chicago, it's $49,000 and in New York $72,000.

The Bureau also excludes 2.4 million prisoners, elderly residents in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities, as well as students living at school, undocumented immigrants, itinerants, and families or individuals forced to double up for economic reasons. They're, in fact, counted as a single higher-income household.

Last fall, according to David Johnson, the Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division head:

"If the poverty status of related subfamilies were determined by only their own income, their poverty would be 44.2%. When their poverty is determined based on the resources of all related household members, it is about 17%."

Income and poverty estimates are also pre-tax, excluding non-cash benefits, partly employer-provided, but diminishing as they shift the cost burden to employees. However, disposable personal income, after income, payroll, sales, property, and other taxes reveals a far higher poverty level than Bureau figures, and a much graver crisis for growing millions sinking below the real poverty threshold.

Moreover, Blacks and Latinos fare nearly three times worse than whites, a shocking underreported reality as well as America's eroding middle class. At the same time, a Deloitte Center for Financial Services report estimates the proportion of US millionaire households will reach 9% in 2011, a scandalous indictment of decades of wealth transfers to America's super-rich already with too much.

Other disturbing data show record homelessness numbers, estimates ranging from 2.3 - 3.5 million Americans on any given night, needing refuge wherever they can find it or face life on city streets.

In addition, experts predict record numbers of home foreclosures in 2011 with about five million owners two or more months behind on mortgage payments. According to RealtyTrac's Rick Sharga, one in every 45 households got foreclosure notices in 2010 when a record one million homes were lost. He estimates 1.2 million repossessed this year, another important sign of economic weakness.

Labor Department (BLS) Phantom Job Creation

Monthly BLS reports mask the weak job picture, including by saying:

"The confidence level for the monthly change in total employment is on the order of plus or minus 430,000 jobs."

In other words, in good times, data may accurately or understate employment growth, but during today's hard times (a Main Street depression), it's mirror opposite.

Moreover, manipulation characterizes BLS calculations, including the so-called "birth-death model" estimate of net non-reported jobs from new businesses minus losses from others no longer operating. During expansions, the model works because start-ups exceed shut-downs. It doesn't in recessions. Yet the BLS assumes employees from non-operating companies are still there. In addition, BLS adds 30,000 jobs monthly whether or not new companies exist.

Economist John Williams reverse engineers monthly employment numbers based on how calculated in 1980. He estimates the "death" side at about 200,000 per month and calls the "birth side" stillborn. As a result, BLS overstates monthly employment figures by 230,000, what later benchmark revisions show, a recent one erasing two million phantom jobs.

Moreover, as calculated, the U-3 headline number omits many people without jobs wanting work, including many long-term unemployed ones who stopped looking after fruitless months of trying. In addition, part-time workers wanting full-time jobs aren't included. As a result, BLS produces meaningless headline numbers, concealing the true employment picture deliberately, especially in hard times to hide reality.

The more accurate U-6 figure is broader, including:

(1) "Marginally attached workers: people wanting jobs but not actively looking in the past 30 days, but have looked unsuccessfully in the last year." This category also includes "discouraged workers" who completely gave up in frustration within, but not exceeding, the past 12 months.

(2) People looking for full-time work but forced to take part-time or temporary jobs to be employed.

John Williams provides the most reliable monthly data on his Shadowstats.com web site. He reports current U-3 unemployment at 9.0% and U-6 15.9%. He calculates the true figure at 22.3%, what he calls his "Official SGS Alternative Unemployment Rate" by adding uncounted long-term (one year or more) discouraged workers to BLS U-6 figures.

Like Williams, economist Jim Fitzgibbon calls the U-3 calculation "worthless," adding, "the entire (BLS) report is seasonally adjusted to be positive, while the non-adjusted data is just awful." That's why BLS conceals it.

In fact, the latest jobs report showed virtually no gain and earlier in the year positive numbers concealed losses. At best, job creation is stillborn, not positive but don't expect official Washington or media pundits to explain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

Whether for pure profit, or some larger plan to pull the progressive movement into heel I do not now, but I fear that is the effect. Hence, we have The Nation which has at least been newsworthy sucked increasingly into the neuter stew - while on the other end AOL swallowed up the Huffington Post.

Patrice Greanville of The Greanville Post is capturing this phenomena in his "Stenographers to power" series. I highly recommend them.

1- Why you can't (and shouldn't) trust liberals -> ED SCHULTZ.

2- Why you can't (and shouldn't) trust liberals -> ED SCHULTZ: "Dems tough"

3- Why you can't (and shouldn't) trust liberals ->Lawrence O'Donnell

4 - Why you can't (and shouldn't) trust liberals->Chris Matthews

Collapse

Since 9/11/2001, due to the lust for revenge of the people of the U.S., hundreds of thousands of innocent Islamic people are dead. These human beings were killed in our name. Be very careful when you proclaim: "I'm glad 'we' got bin Laden. He deserved it." Be very grateful most of us don't get what we deserve.

To appropriate a classical understanding of the situation: Aeschylus, in his Oresteia trilogy, dramatized that civilization begins when (in fact, civilization is not even possible until) retribution yields to justice i.e., The Furies, goddesses adorned with serpent-seething headdresses and an abiding passion for retribution, must be transformed into the Eumenides (the kindly ones). They must cease their seeking of revenge (which engenders endless revenge cycles, inflicting a trauma-wrought callowness on the people of a culture) and become the enemies of those who bear false witness and stand against the democratic process.

In contrast, in the U.S., a state policy of genocide against its native inhabitants determined the geographical dimensions of the nation itself, and, in many ways, determined the inner dimensions of its collective mindscape, which created and maintains the death cult calculus of U.S. militarist imperium. (The U.S. military still envisages its enemies as "Red Indian savages." Witness: Osama bin Laden having been given the moniker, "Geronimo.")

Hence the isolated, alienated U.S. populace (its males in particular) clutch, to the point of fetishizing, their guns, because they feel powerless before the depravations of an exploitive system rigged to benefit a small class of privileged insiders. Much damage is done by this compensatory fantasy: Vulnerable children and teens are bullied by their troubled peers to the point of clinical depression and suicide; in domestic situations, crimes of passion take deadly turns; and episodes of mass shootings erupt across the landscape of exploitation, alienation and anomie.

The collective mode of mind of the corporate consumer/militarist empire leaves both the hoi polloi and the privileged unable to even approach the problem of their alienation...thick walls of self-protection must be breached...In the U.S., individuals have become so withdrawn into themselves, it seems as if Home Depot outlets sell ready-to-assemble, prefab bubbles of self-enclosure, with optional mounted gun turrets.

How is it possible for troubled individuals to live in a culture in which the response of their government (mirrored in its movies, television programs, and video games) to almost every problem abroad involves military force and imperialist coercion -- and not have these death-leveling policies leave their mark on the psyches of the populace?

All too frequently, in the increasingly desperate and denial-ridden nation, deranged chickens come home and reap havoc in the roost (also known as The Law Of Perpetual Poultry Return). As above with its government, so below with its populace: With troubling frequency, in shooting rampages, unhinged individuals stage freelance, military-style commando raids, defending (in the tormented perception of their besieged minds) their internal homeland.

The rigid hierarchical structure of U.S. corporate oligarchy (but veiled by the internalization of its upward class mobility hagiography) imposes a type of domination and control compulsion (and attendant low-level hysteria) in the psyches of the nation's males. Hence, the need for disproportionate amounts of control to displace their own sense of being dominated by brutal power (e. g., they feel so deeply diminished by their own submissive position in the economic order that the men and boys of the nation are driven to taunt other males by bandying demeaning invectives, such as, "You're my bitch.")

What they are expressing is the displaced anger, engendered by their helplessness before the dictates of the corporate state. An insidious order that determines the course of their day: At what hour, they will rise (at the insistence of an alarm clock) to meet the day; what they will eat (generally, processed or fast food); the roads and routes they will travel (stranded in the grinding limbo of commuter traffic); who they will be in contact with during the day (the dharma-decimating exigencies of the workspaces of the neo-liberal economic order). In short, how their day unfolds (exploited for the benefit of the oligarchs of the corporate state) and how their day ends (on edge, enervated, muck-brained, in hyper-attenuated communion with some form of the mass media hologram).

The inimical effect of this mode of being has come to be known as "the American way of life." Therein, individuals, reduced to mere assets of the economic elite, grow bereft of the means and motivation for personal transformation. Moreover, the culture -- always an organic, collaborative effort between individuals and the collective mind of an age -- withers into an economic, as well as, psychic wasteland, because the means of social engagement have been denuded due to the full-spectrum domination of both cultural real estate and individual mindscape by the corporate state.

Corporate domination of everyday life has left the soul with a scant amount of wiggle room. But it has not always been so, even in the Deep South, in the belligerent ignorance and staggering naivety, of my youth.

Homer counseled that we should straddle time with our backs to the future, our faces to the past. Thus this digression:

In the year, 1970, in the summer I turned fourteen, in Piedmont Park, in Atlanta, Georgia, the Allman Brothers, among other bands, would perform free, impromptu concerts for a tie-dye clad, reefer reeking, bell bottoms-caressing-the-Georgia-red-dirt gatherings of "freaks," -- which was the preferred tribalist term, as opposed to the media-created, socially pejorative -- hippies...which, when bandied among counterculture insiders, was generally applied ironically.

Although the park was located only a few miles from my family's home, undertaking the trip presented a degree of peril. To make ones way to the park included traversing a tough, in-town, white working class neighborhood (now a gentrified into soul-sucking blandness, yuppie enclave) where, from the perspective of its denizens, their world, and all they held in reverence and reference, was under siege. And, although inchoate, their animus was instantly distilled, simply upon a glimpse of the untamed tresses of a singular, thin of wrist, dirty hippie, commie faggot -- whose mere presence was considered an affront to their pomade-crowned, muscle car-thundering parcel of redneck paradise.

Accordingly, the locals were pledged to do their part to fight the scourge...by increasing their intake of PBRs and Jack Daniels, and, upon sight of said dirty hippie interlopers, bestowing ass-stompings -- and for no-extra-charge -- involuntary haircuts upon errant longhairs caught in their midst.

Yet as the era progressed, the savage dance between hippie freak and redneck belligerent changed in tone and tempo, an extemporaneous type of metaphysical jiujitsu occurred, in which the predator was subdued and seduced by the prey...as if by cultural contact buzz, redneck fury yielded to counterculture insouciance.

"When the individual feels, the community reels" ... Aldous Huxley

Briefly, this was the anatomy of the seduction: In their pursuit of fleeing freaks into the park, the young males of the cracker tribe happened upon a few of the things of this vast and vivid world even more compelling than the possibility of ass-kicking...in the form of attractive young women.

Yet to the young men, the hippie sphinxes, sirens, waifs, and gypsy queens were baffling, unapproachable; these women were less than taken by their greasy, pompadoured forelocks and aggressive bearing. In short, and to appropriate the parlance of the era, the hippie chicks didn't get off on their "bad vibes...it, like, really harshed their high."

But these great, great grandsons of the Lost Cause proved much more malleable in countenance than the ossified in memory, now enshrined in marble statuary, of their confederate forefathers.

Consequently, a kind of cracker Lysistrata started to unfold. The pomade lacquer faded from stiff pompadours, yielding to lank, draping locks of hippie plumage. The habit of rebel bellicosity was sublimated into an avidity to "boogie." The zealots of ass-kicking became the acolytes of acid and devotees of the gospels of kicking back and getting down.

As time passed, on weekends, as the Allman Brothers preached Sunday sermons vis-a-vis guitar and drum solos, these newly minted freaks could be found in positions of repose and reflection upon the grassy hills of the park, eating Orange Sunshine and drawling, "aw mahn, Dwayne's guitar is shootin' sparks into mah brain..."

Or as Marcel Proust put it, "The real act of discovery consists not in finding new lands but in seeing with new eyes."

Yet, in our time, the fervor of the 1960s seems, in the words of a Latin proverb: "Parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus" -- The mountains have labor pains and a ridiculous little mouse is brought forth."

As the psychedelic nimbus of the early nineteen seventies transmogrified into a Nixonian shit-storm, and the long, silent war waged by Disaster Capitalists on the US working class dissipated their hopes and buffeted their sense of wellbeing, a familiar class system wrought aura of misery and meanness began to reassert itself.

The Dixieland Woodstock Nation increasingly began to resemble a southern-fried Weimar Republic, as the Corporate State Altamont grew increasingly pervasive, punitive, and imposed more and more demeaning demands upon the lives of working class Americans.

Yet the present paradigm and its dependence upon a corporate consumer/militarist mindset persists because: "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."--Thomas Paine.

Osama bin Laden was taken out by a rival gang of terrorists: And, across the land, the parade of death-reveling fools prattles onward. Hence, the desperate, diminished souls of the empire are driven to contort themselves, collectively, into all manner of positions of casuistry, in a vain attempt to rationalize being complicit in the crimes of the state. Thus, in the compulsion to see ourselves as good and decent folk, we mistake the involuted course of our own dim and brutal thoughts for the darkness and evil of others.

Therefore: This is why self-knowledge is crucial: "When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate."- Carl Jung.

Over the last few days, witnessing the blood-dimmed spectacle of witless celebrants frothing in glee at the news of the revenge killing of Osama bin Laden, I feel as though I'm having the dubious privilege of peering into an alternative universe where annoyances such as common decency whither into extinction, as all the while, vile, lurid delusions bloom like hot house flowers.

The noxious redolence of these fleur du mal can have an enervating effect on one's will to resist and fight back.

But resist one must. And remember to savor the glorious failure of even a hopeless cause. The most naive and banal response would be to propagate the tired canard of the vacuous, crackpot realist mindset that: "That's just the way it is...that's just how things work...that's the way it is, always was, and always will be."

Dead ass wrong: That is the way a particular system is being operated at a particular time. Moreover, no system operates in stasis therefore are open to systemic change and random fluxes, by a host of variables, known and unknown. Although outcomes, for better or worse, and all combinations therein, are uncertain, thus the world before us remains an extraordinary thing to behold.

"Resistance to the organized mass can be effected only by the man who is as well organized in his individuality as the mass itself." - Carl Jung

Even though the earthly remains of Osama bin Laden are now entombed in the sea, the U.S. empire will continue to founder, its people have been made no safer nor have we been placed in an enhanced position to prosper. What would prove helpful would be to cease engaging in this constant, tedious dance with our homicidal shadow self, because every written-in-blood name, listed on every dance card at the Empire's Ball, bears one's own name.

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: [email protected] Visit Phil's website http://philrockstroh.com/ And at FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000711907499"

Collapse

What terrible threat does Serbia pose? One wonders. It seems that Serbia' very existence is a threat to the New World Order. You just never know what those rebellious Southern Slavs will do next. Untamed, all they think about is enjoying life. Dancing and drinking, the Belgrade slogan. Belgrade, voted the world's Number One Party City. Endless bars and cafés, its great rivers, the Danube and the Sava. Its blasting brass bands. Joyous Serbs, living the present, but not forgetting its recent brutal past.

Bulgaria to Serbia's southeast is subjugated, NATO and U.S. military bases marking its landscape. The huge city-like bases in Germany for 100,000 troops are no longer necessary. America is "reconfiguring its footprint"--that is, reviewing global deployment of troops in order to be capable of applying military force anywhere rather than just sitting in place. More mobile bases. Lily pads, they are called in military jargon, bases from which troops hop from one to another.

Like frogs hopping from water lily to the other, U.S and NATO soldiers and mercenaries are jumping on demand (JOD) from one to another of a growing number of the empire's foreign bases. Frogs equal battle-ready troops. Saudi Arabian restrictions on the use of U.S. bases there resulted in the construction of the Qatar lily pad. The air war against Serbia and the theft of its historic territory of Kosovo made possible the creation of a giant lily pad-state there. (Cf Camp Bondsteel) Lily pads-military bases now dot Bulgaria, Romania and the Czech Republic, northwards to the Baltic States, across the Black Sea to Georgia, another lily pad-state, to lily giant pad-state Iraq, and on to Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan. The circumference of the Earth is the only limit today to U.S. military expansion but the moon and Mars are not excluded from military Strangelove ambitions and dreams.

Imperial visit: Joe Biden, a well-known hawk, speaking to Camp Bondsteel troops.

According to NATO strategy these joyous Serbs need a lesson in realism. "We of NATO want to help them learn to live democratically and in true freedom." Even if temporary chains are required to educate them. A good shock is needed to shake them out of their lethargy. These unruly and lazy peoples are lacking in ambition. They don't even attempt to exploit the oil and minerals lying under the surface of their lands.

NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen admits that "for understandable historical reasons there might be some skepticism in Serbia regarding a relationship with NATO. Might be some skepticism, he says! "My mission is to see all countries in the Balkans integrated in the Euro-Atlantic structures of NATO and the EU." NATO insists that since Serbia is a European nation, its future can only lie within the European community ... that is, in warlike NATO. All the other Balkan countries are already normalized and integrated. Or the process is underway.

However, there is that small matter of the NATO 98-day air war against Serbia in 1999, a little over a decade ago, to be absorbed. NATO bombing of a major European capital city. Feature that! And then also the minor matter of the U.S. theft of the key Serbian province of Kosovo, declaring its independence, then recognizing it diplomatically and transforming it into a NATO military-intelligence, lily pad stronghold.

Serbs do not forget. War by the West against Serbia, by the way, is not new. Nazi Germany destroyed Belgrade in World War II. Italian Fascism treated Communist Yugoslavia viciously both during WWII and in its aftermath. In the 1950s the city of Belgrade still lay in ruins just as did the cities of defeated Germany. The West at the time then partially boycotted Tito's Communist Yugoslavia even after it broke with the USSR. The Italian extreme right still today holds powerful grudges and prejudices against Serbia as the heartland of Yugoslav Communism.

Public opinion in Serbia hasn't forgotten NATO's unilateral decision to wage war against it. Despite Belgrade's partially pro-Western government, surveys show that two-thirds of Serbians oppose NATO membership. Chiefly because planes of the NATO alliance departing from air bases in Italy bombed worker-managed factories in Serbia allegedly in order to put a stop to President Milosevic-led Serbians' cruel crackdown on ethnic Albanian rebels in breakaway Kosovo. NATO-USA bombed what remained of Socialism in East Europe to make way for the multinationals.

That NATO's intentions were humanitarian, Serbs are convinced, is bullshit.

Since then relations with NATO have improved somewhat, even though Belgrade--which has close ties to Russia--adopted a policy of military neutrality in 2007.

Twelve years have passed since NATO sent its bombers of death over Belgrade and Nish. Serbs have not forgotten. Opposition parties organize manifestations in their maltreated though joyous capital city. Nationalists oppose contacts with NATO and the very idea of a scheduled NATO summit right in the capital of Belgrade. "Shame for the country and the nation." The ruins that NATO left behind are still there. A reminder of the real nature of NATO.

"Never in NATO," says former Serbian Premier Kostunica, recalling the NATO bombing as does every Serb. Today nationalists point out the similarities between the bombardment of Tripoli and those of Belgrade in 1999. The Serbian Foreign Affairs Minister, Vuk Jeremic, says that "citizens of Serbia are not indifferent to the bombing in Libya. We have seen the sufferings of civilians in the attacks on us. Therefore we feel solidarity with Libyans."

Any actions of the pro-western government in Belgrade alarm Moscow. Premier Putin on a recent visit to Belgrade stressed that Moscow does not want Serbia in NATO. "If NATO installs its missiles in Serbia," he said, "Russia will be obligated to direct its nuclear potential against Serbia."

One asks why Russia should stand up for Serbia? One recalls the long historical affinity between the two countries. Russia has long seen itself as the great protector of the Serbian people, traditionally due to their common Slavic background. Russia is the most powerful Slavic country and feels its duty is to protect struggling Serbia under attack from the West.

Russians, Serbs and other Slavic countries once shared a common belief called Pan Slavism. Pan Slavism meant that all Slavic countries shared a common heritage, as well as common language affinities. Russia long headed this movement. When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia in WWI, Russia entered the war also to protect their cousins.

Serbia once stood as the bulwark in southern Europe of Eastern Orthodoxy, which after the fall of Constantinople had its greatest champion in the 'Third Rome', Moscow. The Catholic Hapsburg Empire lay just to the west, as close as Croatia, while the Muslim Ottoman Empire occupied Serbia for centuries. In Serbia's defense, the Russian Orthodox Church demonstrated the strong religious ties between the two countries when it inserted itself into the debate about Kosovo's independence: "That act has unilaterally upset the balance in the world."

The real reasons for Russia's position on Serbia today are more pragmatic. Historically, everyone in the Balkans loves a good conspiracy theory. Today, especially the one that involves energy pipelines and military bases is not theory, but fact. According to NATO and its many intelligence agencies, Russians are plotting to create a thinly-disguised military base in Serbia. If true, that would be the Kremlin's first new European base since the end of the Warsaw Pact, a natural response to NATO's expansion in the region. For the reality is that every country around Serbia is either in NATO or wants to be.

The story of the Russian base started when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited Belgrade last October. A new joint center for emergency co-ordination was to be created in the Serbian city of Nish. The site was to be on an all-but-unused airport there. Serbia's Russian partner would be a powerful semi-military outfit whose activities include disaster relief, but allegedly with close ties with Russia's security services.

Speculation mounted that the Nish facilities could be used for spying or military purposes. Nish is close to the point where Russia's planned gas pipeline, South Stream, is to cross Serbian territory. The pipeline is a joint venture between Russia's gas giant, Gazprom, and Italy's energy company, Eni. The route crosses the Black Sea, enabling Russia to bypass Ukraine, seen as a troublesome transit country, and is to deliver gas direct to the Balkans, central Europe and Italy.

Serbia denies that Russia is opening a military facility. Officially Nish will not be a military base. Some eleven countries from the region were invited to a conference in Belgrade to discuss their part in the establishment of the logistics and training facility in Nish.

At the same time many observers now believe that oil, not worries about Serbian brutality or genocide in Kosovo, lay behind NATO's bombing of Serbia in 1999, just as today in Libya. It's the oil. Always the oil. After the war Americans built in Kosovo the huge military base, Camp Bondsteel. It appeared evident that the real purpose of the base was to safeguard the U.S. promoted AMBO oil pipeline that aimed to pump Russian and Caspian oil across the Black Sea, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania to Europe.

Militarization in Serbia is a valid consideration. This time however by Russia as a response to NATO occupation of the Balkans and East Europe. Serbia is a major buyer of Russian arms. Belgrade stands to receive from Russia a 10 billion USD loan, 3 billion of which to be spent on Russian arms to upgrade outdated Serbian defensive weapons. Russia also offers Serbia sorely needed fourth-generation jet aircraft.

Russian S-300 mobile launcher.

The Serbian missile defense system which was practically destroyed during the war in 1999 showed that it was impossible to repulse NATO aggression with missile complexes developed during the 1960s and the 1970s. Serbia may now purchase two divisions of Russia's renowned S-300 surface-to-air systems or an export variant of S-400.

Practically all radar stations in Serbia were also destroyed during the 1999 war. The country was deprived of the opportunity to control its own air space. There is every reason to believe that Belgrade will purchase Russian radar stations as well.

However, three billion dollars is not enough to modernize the air force, to rebuild the missile defense system and re-equip radar troops. Two divisions of Russian surface-to-air missile systems is not enough. What can two divisions do if the alliance can use hundreds of its fighter jets as it did in 1999? Nonetheless, Serbia is determined to rearm. Serbian rearmament is the result of NATO's war on Serbia and the theft of Kosovo.

According to the Independent Military Survey newspaper, NATO would not impede Serbia's initiative to rearm its armed forces with Russian arms. Even though part of the Belgrade administration wants to join NATO, the possession of Russian hardware was not an obstacle for other countries of Europe in obtaining NATO membership. Greece, for example, a member of NATO, buys S-300 systems from Russia.

The brutal reality however is that the EU and the USA would not welcome such a deal. Not for Serbia. NATO does not conceal its plans to separate Serbia from Russia. For the great secret across the world is America's maniacal fear of Russia. Now, today, appear many such signs of a Russian renaissance in the troubled Balkans

On the other hand Serbs believe that their problems have not been solved. After the collapse of Socialist Yugoslavia, many conflict areas remained in Serbia. There's every reason to believe that the NATO shield would not defend Serbia in the future in cases of serious conflicts. For the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) took the side of the Albanians in Kosovo and detached it, that is, stole it, from Serbia.

And lest anyone forget, bloody World War I began when the Serbian nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, assassinated the Hapsburg Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, in Sarajevo. In Yugoslavia. In the Balkans. So, an eye on the Balkans, NATO-USA occupied. Except for lonely Serbia.

(*Thanks to Sergei Balmasov for his article in Pravda about Russia and Serbia.)

Our senior editor Gaither Stewart serves as European Correspondent, with base in Rome. His latest book is The Trojan Spy. The book can be acquired through Amazon and other sellers.

To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.

Collapse

It explained bipartisan support for incrementally ending Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, no matter that:

-- Medicaid provides essential healthcare for low-income beneficiaries, jointly funded by the states and Washington, managed at the state level.

-- In contrast, Social Security and Medicare are insurance programs, funded by worker-employer payroll tax deductions. They're contractual federal obligations to eligible recipients who qualify.

However, you'd never know it the way both programs are publicly discussed, explaining everything but the truth, including about S & P conspiring with Washington and Wall Street to end them as they're now structured to create greater profit opportunities for financial vultures, while, at the same time, shutting out growing millions losing what they can't afford.

On April 18, Standard & Poor (S & P) showed its hand, downgrading its rating on America to negative, saying:

S & P "affirmed its 'AAA' long-term and 'A-1+' short-term sovereign credit ratings on the US. (It also) revised its outlook on the long-term rating of the US sovereign to negative from stable....(W)e now believe (US strengths may) not fully offset the credit risks over the next two years at the 'AAA' level...."

"More than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, US policymakers have still not agreed on how to reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures."

S & P analyst Nikola Swann added that from 2003 - 2008, US debt ranged from 2 - 5% of GDP. However, it ballooned to over 11% in 2009 "and has yet to recover."

Moreover, as annual deficits soar, no matter what Congress does, that percentage will keep rising exponentially because decades of reckless policies aren't easily fixed, never short or even intermediate-term, especially when excesses exceed cuts.

Swann also warned of "a one in three chance that the US could lose its AAA rating in two years because of its mounting debt."

S & P's entire statement can be accessed through the following link:

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245302886884

In November 2010, China's Dagong Global Credit Rating Company (one of the nation's three largest) downgraded America to A+ from AA and its debt to negative because of burgeoning levels. It added that Fed QE is eroding the dollar's value, harming creditors like China, America's largest with over $1.1 trillion reported last October. So far in 2011, Beijing has been a net US Treasuries seller, signaling its lack of confidence.

S & P and other major credit agencies partnered with Wall Street speculation and grand theft because they're paid by the companies they rate. In fact, Washington, too-big-to-fail banks, other FIRE industry (finance, insurance and real estate) giants, and major rating agencies were complicit in fueling the bubble economy and crash by design, not chance.

What Franklin Roosevelt once said about politics applies to easily manipulated markets and other Wall Street shenanigans that "(n)othing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

It's because there's so much money in it for all of them, including corrupted politicians to the highest levels on the take, getting huge campaign contributions for going along plus unreported special favors.

Now, an April 13 Senate Investigations Subcommittee report on the "key causes of the financial crisis (catalogued) conflicts of interest, heedless risk-taking and failures of federal oversight (resulting in) the deepest recession since the Great Depression."

Chairman Carl Levin specifically cited "high-risk lending, regulatory failures, inflated credit ratings, and Wall Street firms engaging in massive conflicts of interest" by advising clients one way, then betting against them covertly. In other words, committing massive, brazen fraud to earn billions of dollars in dirty money.

Using thousands of internal industry, government and regulatory agency documents, emails, memos and other materials, "the report discloses how financial firms deliberately took advantage of their clients and investors, how rating agencies assigned AAA ratings to (junk), and how regulators sat on their hands instead of" doing their job honestly above board. "Rampant conflicts of interest are the threads that run through every chapter of this sordid story."

Naming S & P and Moody's specifically, the report said it wasn't in their "short-term economic interest....to provide accurate credit ratings for high-risk (junk debt instruments) because doing so would have hurt their own revenues," so they conspired with Wall Street crooks for greater profits.

The full report can be accessed through the following link: http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2011/PSI_WallStreetCrisis_041311.pdf

Though the Senate report documented massive fraud, expect no prosecutorial actions against top industry officials, nor legislative or regulatory changes to prevent repetitions of the grandest of grand thefts. In fact, the entire dirty game continues daily. Obama, Senator Levin, and most others in Congress know it, but do nothing to stop it - a topic previous articles addressed and for future ones to discuss.

In response to S & P's downgrade, Austan Goolsbee, chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said the president proposed fiscal responsibility by cutting trillions of dollars in spending over the next 12 years, and will work with Republicans to assure it.

On April 19, Financial Times contributor, Economics Professor Brad DeLong headlined, "S & P to whip Congress into debt action," saying:

S & P's downgrade was "a political move." Congress "only moves when hit with a whip....Over the next few months we will see if" S & P's announcement did the trick.

He's right as Dave Lindorff wrote asking if "S & P (is) Running Interference for the Right to Help Crush Social Security and Medicare," pressuring politicians to do it by creating debt and default hysteria.

It won't happen as financial writer Ellen Brown explained in an earlier article saying:

America never defaulted and won't now. Washington pays for its debt in dollars, borrowing all it needs to do so unlike Euroland countries unable to print their own money.

The US doesn't have "a sovereign debt crisis because it has no sovereign debt," the term referring to bonds and short maturities issued in foreign currencies. In contrast, America issues "government bonds" in its own with no constraint on how much, no matter how irresponsible in amounts or for what purposes.

However, out-of-control debt creates enormous burdens for future taxpayers, as well as likely cuts or elimination of essential social services and entitlements to devote national resources to militarism, Wall Street and other corporate favorites.

It's Washington's decade's long reverse Robin Hood scheme, fleecing working Americans to reward the rich, Obama continuing the same dirty game as Republicans, masked in deceitful rhetoric.

As a result, bipartisan support is capitalizing on crisis for greater wealth transfers to super-rich beneficiaries already with too much. At the same time, America's middle class is being destroyed, forcing millions into poverty with low-paying jobs and no futures for those lucky enough to have them.

A Final Comment

In his April 15 article headlined, "Budget Battles: Sound, Fury and Fakery," Professor Richard D. Wolff discussed years of Capitol Hill shenanigans running up deficits that matter "because they divert tax revenues away from serving most taxpayers to enriching Washington's creditors instead."

They also matter when" politicians exploit high deficit and debt levels "as excuses to cut government programs they oppose." It's a sort of bait and switch con to convince people to sacrifice entitlements and other essentials for their own good, not realizing they were swindled until it's too late.

On April 18, financial expert/investor safety advocate Martin Weiss explained another problem, what he calls a deficit and debt crisis catch-22, saying:

If enough remedial action is taken, "whether with spending cuts or tax hikes, it will plunge the economy into a double-dip recession and take us right back to where we were in 2008....But if they don't do enough," deficit and debt levels will balloon. Massive borrowing will be needed to finance it, leaving lawmakers two choices - either borrow from less willing creditors or "grab the funds from the Fed's money printing press."

Either way at some point, maybe soon, "interest rates will spike higher, hurting financial institutions and the economy." Locked in a debt trap, there's no easy escape, but the longer irresponsible policies continue, the sooner an inevitable tipping point is reached, including the possibility that creditors will dump dollars and shun US debt. Weiss calls it the "panic factor," potentially surfacing any time unexpectedly.

In fact, it's already happening "in phases." At issue is possibly reaching "critical mass" as it did in 1980 when 30-year Treasuries topped 12% yields heading for 15%.

As a result, expect policy makers to strike anti-populist deals harming working Americans, Obama's hyperbolic "shared sacrifice," omitting who shares and who sacrifices.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

Haaretz reported that Netanyahu privately said he doesn't take the possibility "lightly, but we should also not exaggerate its" importance....Perhaps the Palestinians will have a majority in the UN, but what matters is not only the quantity but also the quality," adding "no one can impose a solution on Israel," suggesting non-compliance or hostile action will follow.

According to sources close to his government, he won't negotiate on 1967 borders, but may face the reality of a Palestinian state within them, whether or not he concurs. However, his response is another matter, as well as subsequent international actions.

Also at issue is the power of Washington, supportive Western nations, and Israel to demand subservience from any leader or risk removal by coups, wars, or other means.

Nonetheless, independence establishes important new diplomatic and political dynamics, including the status of Israel's occupation of a sovereign state, possibly incurring international sanctions if not ended, as well as regular cross border Gaza raids and incursions into West Bank and East Jerusalem communities. Also, the confiscation of Palestinian land, persecution of its people, and status of Jews-only settlements in a sovereign country.

These issues indeed can't be taken lightly, no matter the power of Israel and its Washington paymaster/partner, complicit in all its crimes of war, against humanity, and brutal occupation that must end.

Nonetheless, on March 29, Haaretz headlined, "Israel threatens unilateral steps if UN recognizes Palestinian state," saying:

"Israel informed (all) Security Council (members), as well as several other prominent European Union countries (30 in all), that....(it) would (initiate) a series of unilateral steps" in response to UN recognition, without further explanation.

Claiming doing so violates Oslo, Israel said violence and other actions could follow. However, one unnamed European official said in light of deadlocked peace talks, Palestinian statehood appeared certain in September. Israel might then annex West Bank settlements and all East Jerusalem, as well as refuse recognition, and the UN mandate to end its illegal 44 year occupation, essential if Palestine is independent.

Supporting the worst of Israeli lawlessness, Congress, last December 15, by voice vote, passed HR 1765: "Supporting a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and condemning unilateral measures to declare or recognize a Palestinian state, and for other purposes."

The resolution ended by calling on the Obama administration to:

"affirm that the United States would deny recognition to any unilaterally declared Palestinian state and veto any (Security Council resolution) to establish or recognize (one) outside of an agreement by the two parties."

However, former PLO legal advisor Law Professor Francis Boyle explained earlier that Washington provisionally recognized Palestine as an independent nation. According to UN Charter Article 80(1), it can't reverse its position by vetoing a Security Council (SC) resolution calling for Palestine's UN admission. Any veto is illegal, subject to further SC action under the Charter's Chapter VI. Ultimately, the SC only recommends admissions. The General Assembly affirms them by a two-thirds majority.

With this in mind perhaps, the PLO Executive Committee denounced HR 1765, calling it "blunt and completely biased in favor of Israel and occupation," adding that Congress is "misinformed as to the facts."

"The Palestinian right to freedom and self-determination is not contingent on (a congressional resolution or) the approval of the State of Israel" that's illegally occupied and colonized Palestine since 1967 "in violation of international law and the policies of the United States and the international community."

Moreover, Israel's 1948 creation was "unilateral," a radical move at the time. Today, its refusal to accept Palestinian independence is further proof of its moral bankruptcy, calling into question its right to UN membership, as well as the legitimacy of world leaders, including America, if they ignore its depravity and deny recognition. Their moment of truth approaches.

In July 2000, as a Senate candidate, Hillary Clinton said:

"It must be clear that any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would be entirely unacceptable and should be met with a cutoff of United States assistance."

As Secretary of State, she repeatedly said only negotiations with Israel can lead to a Palestinian state.

Her private view is perhaps more inflexible, even though in September 2010, Obama told General Assembly members he supported an independent Palestinian state in one year, saying:

"(W)e should reach for what's best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations - an independent sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel."

His comments were warmly received.

Nonetheless, congressional members now warn that a unilateral declaration of statehood may end US funding.

Then chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman, said:

"Pursuing a non-negotiated path to statehood is a fool's errand. Palestinians want a state, not a declaration. Their only way to achieve that is through direct negotiations with Israel. If they try to circumvent negotiation, they'll lose the support of a lot of people like me, and it will jeopardize their foreign aid as well."

Nearly the entire House and Senate concur, vowing diplomatic, economic, and other measures against Palestinian statehood without Israeli recognition. Of course, establishing it that way is impossible, except in isolated bantustan form on worthless scrubland, what no legitimate nation would accept.

Congressional Threat to Withhold UN Funding

On April 12, HR 1501 (with 32 co-sponsors) was introduced: "To withhold United States contributions to the United Nations until (it) formally retracts the final report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict."

The measure was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs for further consideration.

It claims "evidence (meaning Richard Goldstone's April 1 Washington Post op-ed) is available that undoubtedly nullifies the most controversial aspects of the Goldstone Report, (so the UN) should formally retract" it.

Ignored was a London Guardian response by the other three Commission members, saying:

Recent articles and comments on the mission's work "have misrepresented facts in an attempt to delegitimize the findings of (its) report and to cast doubts on its credibility."

In fact, determinations were "made after diligent, independent and objective consideration of the information," carefully obtained. The Commission endorses "its reliability and credibility. We firmly stand by these conclusions." No evidence disputes them.

The Commission dismisses "calls to reconsider or even retract the report, as well as attempts (to misrepresent) its nature and purpose, (saying they) disregard the right of victims....to truth and justice." This "would be doing a serious injustice to the hundreds of innocent civilians killed during the Gaza conflict, the thousands injured, and the hundreds of thousands whose lives continue to be deeply affected by the conflict and the blockade."

Nonetheless, Res. 1501 instructs the Secretary of State to "withhold contributions to the regularly assessed biennial budget of the United Nations until such time as (it) formally retracts the final report...."

Repeated House and Senate actions under Democrat and Republican leadership redefine chutzpah and irresponsible governance, revealing their own illegitimacy in the process.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

But as with all things Obama, the joke is on us.

Reporter Abby Phillip revealed that during a "secret presentation" which had been "inexplicably postponed" two weeks earlier, His Changeness received high marks from "Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org."

Let it be said, these organizations do yeoman's work uncovering official waste, fraud and abuse and have done much to expose state crimes (past and present) committed by the U.S. government.

Nevertheless, in callous disregard for his supporters (which should be an object lesson for those who believe the secret state can be "reformed" from the inside), the White House failed to post the meeting on the president's public schedule and barred photographers and print journalists from recording the august event.

OMB Watch's Gary Bass found it "baffling" that the president wouldn't want to trumpet his award; after all, hadn't Obama promised his would be the most "open" administration in history?

For her part, OpenTheGovernment.org's Patrice McDermott expressed "disappointment" that the meeting was held in camera and "surprise" when they learned the event was "not on the President's daily calendar."

Caught off-guard by the White House McDermott averred, "Why they decided to close the meeting to the press is not something we understand."

Scarcely a week later, we learned that the administration will soon seek legislation from Congress that would "punish leaks of classified information" and authorize "intelligence agencies to seize the pension benefits of current or former employees who are believed to have committed an unauthorized disclosure of classified information," Secrecy News revealed.

Given the embarrassing fact that the award was bestowed "in honor of President Obama's commitment to transparency," even as his administration hounds and prosecutes whistleblowers with a ferocity not seen since the darkest days of Watergate, the question is: why is there still such a profound disconnect between the harsh realities of White House policy and its perception management amongst those who should know better?

Digital Privacy? Forgetaboutit!

What other ironies are hiding in plain sight in well-appointed Washington hearing rooms and dark corridors?

CNET News reported that the Justice Department "offered what amounts to a frontal attack on proposals to amend federal law to better protect Americans' privacy."

During hearings last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is rewriting portions of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Associate Attorney General James A. Baker warned the panel that granting "cloud computing users more privacy protections and to require court approval before tracking Americans' cell phones would hinder police investigations."

Baker told the committee "that requiring a search warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an 'adverse impact' on criminal investigations," CNET reported. And making location information only available with a search warrant, he said, would hinder "the government's ability to obtain important information in investigations of serious crimes."

"As we engage in that discussion," Baker averred, "what we must not do--either intentionally or unintentionally--is unnecessarily hinder the government's ability to effectively and efficiently enforce the criminal law and protect national security."

How obtaining a search warrant to legally investigate crime while protecting the rights of suspects would hinder "the government's ability to access, review, analyze, and act promptly upon the communications of criminals that we acquire lawfully," was side-stepped by the Justice Department.

Coming on the heels of new administration rules that "allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning," as The Wall Street Journal reported, while "significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades," weakening already anemic digital privacy rights would grant even more power to those building a National Surveillance State.

Indeed, short of obtaining a search warrant as stipulated in the Fourth Amendment, any and all electronic communications trolled by the secret state, whether or not they are part of an ongoing criminal or national security investigation have not been acquired "lawfully."

On this point, the law is clear: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

But as Antifascist Calling reported in February, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) released an explosive report that documented the lawless, constitution-free zone that already exists in "new normal" America.

According to EFF, their review of nearly 2,500 pages of previously classified documents pried from the FBI through Freedom of Information Act litigation, revealed that Bureau "intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed."

In fact, "almost one-fifth involved an FBI violation of the Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or other laws governing criminal investigations or intelligence gathering activities."

"From 2001 to 2008," the civil liberties' watchdogs uncovered evidence that "the FBI engaged in a number of flagrant legal violations." Amongst the more egregious abuses of democratic norms, EFF revealed that FBI investigators could be criminally charged with "submitting false or inaccurate declarations to courts, using improper evidence to obtain federal grand jury subpoenas" and "accessing password protected documents without a warrant."

Keep in mind these transgressions occurred in but one of 16 agencies which comprise the so-called "Intelligence Community." It's anyone's guess what dirty work is being hatched in darkness by opaque Pentagon satrapies such as the National Security Agency or U.S. Cyber Command, let alone that institutional black hole of crime and corruption, the CIA.

Never one to miss a beat, or offer ever more insidious snooping privileges to the Executive Branch, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) said "it's crucial to ensure we don't limit (law enforcement's) ability to obtain information necessary to catch criminals and terrorists who use electronic communication."

Grassley also suggested that requiring warrants, a thoroughly novel and radical approach to policing in a society that presumably champions the rule of law and the rights of the accused, would lead to "increased burdens on the court system."

We wouldn't want that would we? Heavens no! Considering how tiresome it must already be for our "overburdened" federal court system and Justice Department busily and conscientiously investigating and prosecuting Bush, now Obama, administration officials for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Launch a preemptive war against a nation that hasn't attacked us, say Libya, without consulting Congress whom the Constitution alone has granted the power to declare war? Well, there's an app for that too!, the White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which recently declared "that the President had the constitutional authority to direct the use of force in Libya because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest."

Memo to Congress: sit down, shut up and continue doing what you do best--taking blood money from the corporate merchants of death who profit from the enterprise.

Pentagon Stonewalls Corporate Spy Probe

Violating the digital privacy and political rights of Americans isn't the exclusive purview of the secret state.

As fallout from the HBGary/Palantir/Berico/Team Themis hack by Anonymous continues to spread like a radioactive cloud, The Tech Herald, which first broke the story of Bank of America's sleazy project to bring down WikiLeaks by targeting journalists and supporters, reported that the Defense Department is stonewalling Rep. Hank Johnson's (D-GA) request "to review contracts signed with Team Themis."

"Last week," investigative journalist Steve Ragan disclosed, "Rep. Johnson sent a letter to the DOD, as well as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), asking that any information regarding contracts signed with Team Themis be returned to his office within 10 business days."

Ragan writes that "Johnson is seeking 'in their entirety,' all past and present contracts held by Team Themis, in addition to a written explanation of what safeguards are in place to restrain federal contractors from using technologies for official use against American citizens. Moreover, he asked for a written explanation of who owns and controls the tools developed by contractors for the government."

"This last request," The Tech Herald avers, "is important when you consider that the persona management software developed for the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), also known as MetalGear, isn't owned by the government, it's owned by developer Ntrepid."

Such contracts are worth millions and niche security outfits like Team Themis are viewed by the Pentagon as key players in the development of surveillance tools in Washington's endless "War on Terror."

Last week, the secrecy-shredding web site Public Intelligence published two additional HBGary documents that provided new details on the close, and profitable, conjunction amongst opaque corporate entities and the Pentagon.

The first is the HBGary SRA International 'Memory Grabber' Forensics Tool White Paper, which describes a system for obtaining "memory access to a running and password protected laptop through the use of a small PC Card inserted into the PCMCIA slot of the laptop."

We're told that "law enforcement agents and Special Operations personnel need a tool that provides memory access to a running laptop in the field enabling the timely capture of volatile information."

Such a device would be of particular interest to Border Patrol agents who might seize the laptop of a dissident returning from an overseas peace conference, or a journalist who may have had the temerity to probe too deeply into state-sanctioned crimes.

Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that "authorities may seize laptops, cameras and other digital devices at the U.S. border without a warrant, and scour through them for days hundreds of miles away," Wired reported.

Unsurprisingly, "under the Obama administration, law enforcement agents have aggressively used this power to search travelers' laptops, sometimes copying the hard drive before returning the computer to its owner."

The second document, HBGary DARPA Cyber Insider Threat (CINDER) Proposal, details a bid by the dodgy firm to secure a piece of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's "Insider Threat" pie.

"Like a lie detector detects physical changes in the body based on sensitivities to specific questions," HBGary avers, "we believe there are physical changes in the body that are represented in observable behavioral changes when committing actions someone knows is wrong."

"Our solution," disgraced former HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr wrote, "is to develop a paranoia-meter to measure these observables."

Before being run to ground by Anonymous, Barr and HBGary CEO Greg Hoglund claimed they had developed a system, a "full functional rootkit on every host or on targeted hosts that can have complete control over the operating environment."

We're told that "the rootkit loads as a stealth kernel-mode base implant," and "will collect select file access, process execution with parameters, email communications, keyboard activity with a time/date stamp, network/TDI activity (and the actual network data if appropriate), and IM traffic. If detailed surveillance is required, it can be enabled to capture screenshots and construct a video stream. All traces of the rootkit installation will be removed after the initial deployment (event log, etc)."

But as we have seen, projects such as this can just as easily migrate into the private sector and be deployed by corporations to spy on employees who might have an unfavorable view of shady practices, such as robo-signing tens of thousands of fraudulent foreclosure notices to cash-strapped homeowners, and then do something about it.

Johnson, in his letter to ODNI Director James Clapper is determined to discover whether Team Themis "violated the law and/or their federal contracts by conspiring to use technologies developed for U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism purposes against American citizens and organizations on behalf of private actors."

In the best traditions of DOD stonewalling and cover-up, the Department's CIO Teri Takai and deputy CMO Elizabeth McGrath both said they were not familiar with "that company" [HBGary] but, as Ragan reported, Takai said "she would have her office look into things and make sure that 'we get back to you...'"

When hell freezes over!

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano's Journal Today. His articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.
Collapse

t is difficult for any one of us to have first hand evidence that unemployment nationally is really much higher than what the government says, even though most of us know people who are out of work or taking part time work out of sheer necessity. But when it comes to rising prices hitting our pockets, credit cards and checkbooks we have a much clearer sense of what is really happening. Gasoline prices have jumped more than 10 percent in recent weeks and for most of us is about a dollar more a gallon than a year ago or so. Some experts are predicting that $4 gas will soon hit most of the nation and, even worse, that $5 gas may hit us this summer.

Food prices are also jumping like a frog on crack cocaine. Many of them are masked by smaller weight packaging. Health care costs, especially insurance premiums and drugs, have also hit many Americans substantially and painfully. High inflation especially hits hard those people who have seen their incomes decline. Those on Social Security receiving no cost-of-living increase have every right to be angry.

The federal government is manipulating statistics to intentionally get a low number for inflation as well as unemployment in order to mask just how awful and unfair the economy really is. Political leaders in both major parties use this propaganda strategy, as if there are simply too few intelligent Americans to see through the lies. Sadly, they seem to be correct. And the mass media push the propaganda strategy by continually hyping and spreading the intentionally false data.

"We have inflation now. If you go to the shop, whether it's groceries, or education or insurance or health care, prices are going up for everything. The government lies about it in the US," said Jim Rogers back in June, 2010. It has only gotten worse

At this time John Williams has correctly described economic reality: "Near-term circumstances generally have continued to deteriorate. Though not yet commonly recognized, there is both an intensifying double-dip recession and a rapidly escalating inflation problem." Wow! How does that compare to all the glib recovery talk by President Obama and just about everyone else in government?

In addition to banks and financial companies too big to fail that benefit the rich, when it comes to the economy plutocrats think it is too bad to tell the truth.

Who is falling for the economic propaganda? Gallup measures optimism about the economy as a function of age, income and political party affiliation. Worst of all are Democrats and the young.

Meanwhile the Federal Reserve keeps printing money to cope with the budget deficit and national debt problems, which is a major reason for the sharp increases in gasoline prices.

None of any of this, of course, matters much to the rich and powerful Upper Class that is doing just fine and buying more luxury things. And the fat cats on Wall Street and in the financial sector are giving themselves huge bonuses and salaries. Dr. Phil of television fame is selling his $15 million mansion estate so he can buy an even bigger one for $30 million.

Over at Ford, the chief exec recently received $56.5 million in stock and last year pulled down an additional $26.5 million in annual compensation. The latter amounts to 910 times the annual pay of entry-level Ford workers.

In 2011, Americans who make over $1 million will pay just 23.1 percent of their incomes in federal income tax. In 1961, the Institute for Policy Studies notes in its newly released annual Tax Day report, Americans who made over $1 million -- in our current dollars -- paid 43.1 percent of their incomes to the IRS. That was when the middle class was prospering.

If congressional Republicans get their way, the middle class will feel considerable pain from program-cutting tactics to curb the national debt, while the rich Upper Class gets more tax breaks and keeps sapping the wealth of the nation as Democrats lack the courage to fight hard for increasing their taxes. With rising economic inequality the US is rapidly becoming a two-class society: 20 percent rich and 80 percent poor.

Meanwhile, whenever I listen to Obama and congressional leaders it is like watching a skit on Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show. They are that absurd.

How many more millions of Americans must experience more pain and suffering, go hungry, lose their homes, lose their jobs, postpone retirement, and go without decent health care before the public snaps out of their stupor? Not that there is very much optimism among Americans. In a University of Michigan March survey just 11 percent expect inflation-adjusted income gains during the year ahead, barely above the all-time low of 8 percent in 1980, and only 21 percent expect the economy to improve over the coming year. But where is the loud political outrage? Loud enough to scare the hell out of politicians and the rich.

When will Americans rise up as those in Tunisia and Egypt did and before that in former Soviet-bloc nations and tear down their corrupt and dysfunctional government?

Unemployment at 20 percent, inflation at 10 percent, a multi-trillion dollar national debt, and nothing but lies from politicians. Have you had enough? Do you still believe that voting in different Republicans or Democrats will fix things?

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Collapse

I arrived in Georgia by route of the US interstate system.

Traveling US interstate highways one suffers a confluence of so much contemporary madness and tragedy extant in the land ... so much suppressed fear and aggression. Yet, through it all, the heart still yearns to see what lies over the next horizon.
Although, lamentably, what is revealed, all to often, proves to be as sterile, inhospitable, ugly, and inhuman as what was beheld at the last.

"Who has twisted us around like this, so that no matter what we do, we are in the posture of someone going away?" Rainer Maria Rilke

Any situation, as is the case with interstate highway travel, in which to momentarily stop or even to slow down, one risks death should be regarded as an affront (if not anathema) to common sense and the longings of the heart. When the landscape we pass through has been reduced to a meaningless blur, our lives grow indistinct as well.

The apologists of the present system tell us ad nauseam, and have convinced most, that a similar disastrous fate will befall the nation if the engines of global capitalism were to slow down even a bit. Interstate travel is emblematic of the manner a system based on ceaseless production and manic consumption degrades the senses and inflicts a dehumanizing assault upon the psyche.

When stopped at an anonymous interstate service island or some off-the-exit-ramp retail strip -- those inhospitable nether regions evincing a paradoxical mix of sterility and toxicity -- the permeating odor of exhaust fumes and processed food makes us woozy. These places, only distinct for their ugliness, reek of how soul-numbing and joyless travel has become . . . now a task nearly devoid of any sense of the mystery, the option of exploration, or the possibility of serendipity travel once offered.

Travel has been reduced to a tedious ordeal, whereby our inchoate longings to escape the quotidian prison of our economically circumscribed existence are mangled and suppressed, only to rise as the hollow appetite of reflexive consumerism and the ineffable sense of unease, so evident in the troubled American psyche.

Enclosed in our vehicles, we hurdle from one sterile, impersonal location to the next sterile, impersonal location, and then on to the next. As forbiddingly huge trucks, loaded with the cargo of extinction, bear down on us, we grip the steering wheel -- we know to stop is to risk death therefore we continue onward, believing we must drive and consume and drive and consume in order to survive. Yet the knowledge nettles, just below the surface of our harried minds, that to continue down this road will, in turn, cause the world to die.

Even the landscape itself of the US is stretched to the breaking point: Cluttered upon it are gigantic islands of garish light that torment the night ...scouring away the stars. As, all the while, SUVs and oversized pickup trucks -- the overgrown clown cars of the demented circus of decaying empire trundle past -- the extravagant size of the vehicles vainly compensating for how diminished and powerless those within feel in relationship to the course of their fates.

The corporate empire is imprinted in us. If one listens one can hear arias of decay -- a death-swoon operatic in scale. Manifested before us, it is as visible as the noxious vapors of pollutants veiling the horizon line at sunset; it shimmers like heat spires above traffic-stalled interstates; it reeks like the endless archipelagos of overflowing landfills spanning the length of the land. Yet, as mortifying as it is, the vales and vistas of the US spread before us ... are as horrible and beautiful as a great cry of grief.

Manifested en mass, as our collective way of existing in the world -- the flickering of our tiny desires have set the vast world aflame ... There is needless suffering and death that history will affix to own names ... We are destroying our planet and her exquisite, irreplaceable creatures, as well as, our own sanity.

Feeling the full implications of this, how does one make it through the day and sleep throughout the night?

Following their defeat at the Battle of Shiloh, the shattered Confederate ranks fled for their lives. General A.S. Johnston, desperate to restore order and rally his men to return to battle, commanded a fleeing soldier to stop, demanding, "Private, why are you running?" The soldier replied, "General, I'm running 'cause I can't fly."

The act of being in perpetual flight (even the somnambulant variety) from consequences requires a great amount of energy; one must have the endurance of a marathoner sleepwalker to keep ahead of the sound of the fast approaching footfalls of reality at one's rear.

Depression is what catches us.

I have been accused being a poet ... I know I am a wanderer through the landscape of the heart. I navigate by narrative, by words and feelings: It occurs to me: the term depression is a misnomer for feelings of despair brought on by powerlessness i.e., disconsolation over the death of an internal verity -- or having our will thwarted by inexorable, outer forces. Grief is a living prayer of our vulnerable hearts.

The salesmen of the eternal, big happy ... are just that -- salesmen ... One is required to respond to the intoxication of the sales pitch and is not to question the condition of their heart ... The commercial come-ons insist that the heart's grief and a lost soul's emptiness and panic can be fixed by some new bright and shiny: a new appliance, therapy, "hope and change". By the incessant promotion of the gospels of the hyper-capitalist sects of Happiness Uber Alles, the implicit message imparted is ... suffering is a character flaw that can be mitigated, elevated -- even redeemed by consumerism, antidepressants, acquiring a positive attitude -- all the uttered homilies and donned vestments of the consumer state.

"The foundation of all mental illness is the unwillingness to experience legitimate suffering."--Carl Jung.

What kind of miserable malcontent would resist changing this social milieu and personal mode of being: Sitting stuck in commuter traffic; eating high fat, low quality food from a drive-thru window; languishing in a cubical ... stranded in a low benefits, little chance of advancement job -- until, of course, the job is outsourced; waddling around the mall ... clad in off-the-rack, sweatshop sown clothing; dozing off in front of the TEEVEE with Cheetos crumbs stippled in the folds of one's jowls. Aint that the life -- or what? By any means possible, we preserve the death-styles of empire.

This mode of being is far removed from the norms of nature and the revelries and attendant sublimations necessary to engage in civic life ... Here, ruthlessness and rationalization banish reason; ambition trumps merit; expediency pushes aside wisdom; and empty sensation masquerades as experience.

Like interstate travel, the collective mind of the consumer state propels us forward to the next empty agenda, the next perfunctory task, the next meaningless purchase ... But depression slows us down, inducing us to feel the grief inherent in our alienation ... to cease the incessant, habitual hurdling forward and striving upward ... to stop and investigate the mysteries of our hearts ... to feel the sadness of the suffering earth ...

"I can't go on. I'll go on."
--Samuel Beckett

But we must slow down: We are destroying our planet and her exquisite, irreplaceable creatures, as well as our own sanity.

Two weeks before the Deepwater Horizon, Macondo Well "spill" (what a dishonest word for that noxious, bleeding gash) into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, I dreamed of a badly injured fish who had had half his face torn off by some brutal method employed by the practitioners of industrial scale fishing operations to exploit the world's oceans ... The fish had worked himself upon a rock on a craggy shoreline; holding an eternity of suffering in his one remaining eye, the fish turned to face me ... Ever since, this dream image has lived within me ... I carry the fish's suffering and I bear his dark rage regarding what our species has done to his/our home -- this complex, mysterious, beguiling, dangerous, sublime, monstrous, and magnificent world we were cast into ... My sense of sorrow, at times, seems unbearable; my rage ... bottomless ... Who will speak for the voiceless -- who will make amends for their suffering?

In childhood, I loved this body of water ... loved it as one can love any living thing (which it is). I swam in it, collected jewel-like shells on its beaches of bleached sand, and went deep sea fishing with my father in its azure waters ... Wherein, I was in awe of its (seemingly endless) bounty and abundance. Its winds and waves intimated to me the nature of eternity and the Gulf's living things drew me into the beauty and terrors of the living moment.

Approximately, ninety percent of the large fish (Tuna, Mackerel) in the world's oceans are gone due to overfishing. Oceanographers predict in 50 years time the oceans and seas the earth over will be dead. (And these are conservative estimates.)

Much like the denizens of late Cretaceous looking dumbly at the sky and barely giving a second thought to that bright, shining thingy that appeared above, this is a calamity so large in scale and so all-encompassing in its implications that we human beings just can't wrap our minds around it ... In fact, by our elevation of willful ignorance and mindless consumerism to a cultural imperative, we human beings, acting collectively, are the equivalent the planet-decimating Cretaceous comet.

I try to resist losing myself to misanthropic rage when I read statistics such as this one. Yet I am enraged at the waste -- the sheer stupidity, mendacity, and hubris of it all. I want to grab the human race by the lapels and shout, "Stop it. God damn it. Just stop it. How could you destroy something so beautiful and then just continue to go through your sub-cretinous day? What the hell is wrong with you? Didn't anyone ever teach you the meaning of decency?

This is not a political debate. This is a choice between sanity and mass suffering; perhaps, even the survival of our species and a mass die off.

But listening to the pronouncements of Washington's political class and the mainstream media's ceaselessly shallow, miss-the-point narratives is like eavesdropping on the palaver from a petri dish.

Excuse my sense of fatalism: At this point, the system is too far-gone to be redeemed; it is in the process of systemic breakdown. Although, this is not as awful as it sounds, for one must let the old go and let a natural process of decay take over. When the rot is this advanced, at best, what you have is culture as a compost heap. Yet that doesn't mean in times of decay, there cannot be meaning and beauty, because life itself becomes vivid and alive in contrast to the extant ugliness.

Without decay, there is no change. The world would be as pointless as paradise. If you wish to find the future forest, look to the humus upon its floor. The future is decay; and decay is the future. The old ego must sing, even within the compost heap of its own putrefied concepts.

And, as it does, it must sing of its suffering and the sorrows of the earth ... singing like the severed head of Orpheus floating to Lesbos.

Arias of compost sing of new understandings but you cannot skip the singing school of grief.

Frank O'Hara suggests: "In times of crisis we must all decide again and again whom we love."

Things are going to work out -- but not in ways we can predict.

There is a mournful beauty, even a providential utility, attendant to living through at time of putrefaction: Compost (the anti-Astroturf) nourishes fledgling life and novel forms. A new paradigm will morph from the remnants of the old, putrefied system.

If Confederate ghosts could shout through the prison of their enshrinement -- they would call out to us, "Don't believe it. Having seen the meaningless waste of war, we know now that we would have chosen to live out our lives, breathing in the humid, Georgia air, having our troubles softened by the sight of dappled light filtered through pine needles, and being lulled to sleep at night by the song of crickets and cicada.

Don't you believe the lie, as we did, that dying in a rich man's war is a virtue; don't buy into the fraud that working all your life for a greedy few is a sound way to proceed through the fleeting and finite years of your time upon this earth."

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: [email protected] Visit Phil's website http://philrockstroh.com/ And at FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000711907499

Angela Tyler-Rockstroh is a Broadcast Designer/Animator who has worked with major Networks such as Cartoon Network, Disney Channel, HBO Family, PBS, as well as, with Michael Moore on his documentaries, "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko."

Collapse

Recklessly promoting nuclear proliferation, America's NRC is notorious for coverup and denial of its harmful effects. As a result, their rare admission virtually confirms a full core meltdown in one or more reactors, meaning vast amounts of radiation are being uncontrollably released into the atmosphere, water and soil, spreading over a vast area. It's the ultimate nightmare scenario now unfolding, but don't expect major media reports or government officials to explain.

Nonetheless, on April 6, New York Times writers Matthew Wald and Andrew Pollack headlined, "Core of Stricken Reactor Probably Leaked, US Says," stating:

America's NRC "said Wednesday that some of the core of a stricken Japanese reactor had probably leaked from its steel pressure vessel into the bottom of the containment structure, implying that the damage was even worse than previously thought."

Far worse, in fact, because molten core material then burns uncontrollably through the concrete foundation, meaning all bets are off.

On April 5, Times writers James Glanz and William Broad headlined, "US Sees Array of New Threats at Japan's Nuclear Plant," saying:

American engineers warned "that the troubled nuclear plant....is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential" NRC assessment.

Identified threats include:

-- Possible further explosions because of hydrogen and oxygen from seawater used to cool the reactors that may have done more harm than good. According to former GE reactor designer Margaret Harding:

"If I were in the Japanese's shoes, I'd be very reluctant to have tons and tons of water sitting in a containment whose structural integrity hasn't been checked since the earthquake," and very likely is seriously damaged.

-- Because of concern about severe reactor core damage, NRC recommended boron be added to cooling water as a moderator to absorb neutrons.

-- Exposed/unprotected spent fuel rods in Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 pose extreme dangers. Moreover, explosions blew nuclear material "up to one mile from the units" into the atmosphere, indicating much greater damage than previously disclosed.

As a result, David Lochbaum from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) believes:

"This paints a very different picture, and suggests that things are a lot worse. They could still have more damage in a big way if some of these things don't work out for them....They've got a lot of nasty things to (handle), and one missed step could make the situation much, much worse."

Other experts believe criticality was reached, posing far greater dangers than revealed.

Yet government and Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) officials still claim "no immediate risk of a hydrogen explosion occurring" or serious harm to human health. In fact, danger levels now are extreme. More on that below.

Even the NRC admitted that salt water "severely restricted" and likely blocked circulation pathways. Moreover, inside the core, "there is likely no water level (so it's) difficult to determine how much cooling is getting to the fuel." Perhaps none, and three or more reactors are affected, one or more in meltdown.

Independent Expert Opinions

On April 4, geoscientist/international radiation expert Leuren Moret told interviewer Alfred Lambremont Webre that Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper are concealing the effects of tectonic nuclear war on North America from Fukushima's fallout. In fact, Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) radiation maps confirm contamination on America's West Coast, Midwest, and Western Canada, in some areas as high as Japan's.

Radioactive Iodine-131 in rainwater sampled near San Francisco was found to be over 18,000 times above federal drinking water standards. Idaho, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts rainwater samples showed Iodine-131 up to 181 times above normal, expected to rise. It's also showing up in milk.

As a result, mobile measures in parts of America and Canada were suspended until further notice to conceal the disaster's gravity.

Moret cited two distinguished nuclear scientists who've publicly said northern Japan (one-third of the country) is uninhabitable and should be evacuated. Marion Fulk is one, a Manhattan Project scientist who helped develop the hydrogen bomb. He also was America's atmospheric fallout expert when above-ground tests were conducted.

Dr. Chris Busby is the other, an ionizing radiation expert. On March 30, he told Russia Today television that Fukushima contamination will cause at least 417,000 new cancers.

Moret called Fukushima a false flag operation to weaken an economic rival, harm its economy, agriculture and fisheries, and compromise its detente with China. Compared to Chernobyl, Fukushima's releasing multiple times more radiation, perhaps amounts too enormous to imagine with potentially catastrophic global effects.

In response, Japan, America and Canada are in denial. Permissible radiation exposure levels have been raised. Legitimate reporting was halted. US and Canadian atmospheric testing was suspended. State authorities told California physicians not to give iodine to concerned patients. Measuring radiation in milk was also stopped.

Contamination is spreading from the Arctic to the Equator. Long-lived radioactive isotopes will cause environmental and human health havoc for generations. Moret said life forms developed over billions of years are being destroyed in a century.

On March 29, Chris Busby's Rense.com article headlined, "Deconstructing Nuclear Experts," saying:

"What these people have in common is ignorance. (Most) who appear (in the major media) and pontificate have not actually done any research on the issue of radiation and health. Or if they have, they....missed all the key studies and references. (Others are) real baddies" who say Fukushima is nothing to worry about, nothing like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island (TMI).

In fact, Fukushima already way exceeds both and will get increasingly worse ahead as radiation releases continue and spread. Busby quoted Joseph Conrad saying, "after all the shouting is over, the grim silence of facts remain."

"I believe that (the array of) phony experts," said Busby, "are criminally irresponsible, since their advice will lead to millions of deaths....I hope they are sent to jail where they can have plenty of time to read the scientific proofs (showing) their advice was based on the mathematical analysis of thin air."

He cited the late Professor John Gofman, a senior US Atomic Energy Commission expert who resigned, saying:

"(T)he nuclear industry is waging a war against humanity."

So far, in fact, it's winning. It's entered an endgame that will decide whether or not humanity will survive. "Not from sudden nuclear war," said Busby. "But from the ongoing and incremental nuclear war which began with the releases to the biosphere in the 60s of all the atmospheric test fallout, and which continued inexorably since (to this day), accompanied by parallel increases in cancer rates and fertility loss to the human race."

Busby calls it "the greatest public health scandal in human history...." Who can disagree.

A Final Comment

In a personal email, environmental researcher Dr. Ilya Perlingieri explained the dangers of Japan dumping thousands of tons of radioactive water in the Pacific, saying:

"We are all in grave danger! This was insanity! This radioactive water will come here (to America). There is no question about that. The currents will bring it to the west coast and contaminate the entire area: beaches and all sealife between the coast and Japan. What evaporates naturally will then come on the air currents around the rest of the US and then the rest of the planet!"

"This is epic, and it was not an accident."

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

The visit follows the announcement Monday in Rome that the Italian government has recognized the council in Benghazi as the sole legitimate government of Libya. Italy is only the third nation to take this step, following recognition of the TNC by France and Qatar, the oil-rich Persian Gulf emirate.

In announcing the recognition, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini also stated that Paolo Scaroni, the chief executive of the Italian oil and gas company, ENI, had visited Benghazi two days earlier for talks with the TNC. The foreign ministry subsequently corrected his remarks, saying that he had held a telephone conference with the leadership of the Benghazi council.

The oil executive, Frattini said, "had contacts with the Libyan National Transitional Council to restart cooperation in the energy sector and get going again the collaboration with Italy in the oil sector."

Last month, on the eve of the US, France and Britain launching their missile and bombing attacks on Libya, Scaroni had derided economic sanctions against the Gaddafi regime as "shooting ourselves in the foot" and stressed ENI's desire to resume operations in the North African country "whatever political system there is in the future." The company, which has been active in Libya since 1955, is the top foreign oil operator and the country's largest foreign investor, having reached a $28 billion deal with the Libyan government in 2007 to extend its contracts for oil production until 2042.

ENI is extremely close to the Italian government. Its turn to the "rebels" may merely be a matter of the company hedging its bets. On the other hand, it could reflect insider knowledge as to US-NATO plans either to escalate the war or to effectively partition Libya, with eastern oil fields and facilities under the nominal control of the TNC.

The Italian recognition and ENI's forging of ties to the Benghazi council came just a day before a Liberian-registered oil tanker, owned by a Greek shipping conglomerate, docked at the Libyan crude export terminal of Marsa el-Hariga, near Tobruk.

The tanker, the Equator, is capable of carrying 1 million barrels of crude, which would sell for over $100 million on the world market. Its shipment will represent the first export of oil from Libya since the country was plunged into civil war six weeks ago. The Greek shipping company carrying the oil has refused to say who is paying for it or where it is going.

There are reportedly three million barrels of crude stored at the terminal, which belongs to the Arab Gulf Oil Corporation (AGOCO), a subsidiary of Libya's National Oil Corporation. The Transitional National Council has claimed that AGOCO's fields in the east are producing up to 120,000 barrels a day, roughly one third of the output before the civil war broke out. Libya as a whole was producing 1.6 million barrels a day and exporting 1.3 million before the fighting.

Energy analysts are highly skeptical of these claims. As the business information company IHS noted, "the exodus of foreign skilled workers as well as most Libyan workers, who abandoned the country's often remote desert oilfields in order not to either be caught out by fighting or left stranded as water and food supply chains broke down, this meant that production in AGOCO fields, as at all other fields in Libya, has fallen to almost zero."

Nonetheless, the Benghazi council has announced its intention to sell what oil it has to fund its operations and to buy arms, with Qatar acting as a middleman in getting the oil onto the world market.

Asked about Qatar's role, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Libya's energy minister, Shukri Ghanem commented bitterly, "Rather than calling for unity and reconciliation, everyone would like to participate in the loot."

Ghanem insisted that the priority should be a cease-fire and warned that continuation of the fighting could lead to the "strangling" of Libya's oil industry.

Last week, the European Union's foreign affairs representative, Catherine Ashton, stressed that "there is an oil embargo against the whole of Libya" which applied equally to areas held by the Gaddafi regime and those under control of the armed opposition.

Washington took the opposite position, insisting that so long as the money for the oil exports was not funneled into the state-owned National Oil Corporation, the exports from eastern Libya would be allowed.

The United Nations special envoy for Libya, Abdul Ilah al-Khatib, delivered a report to the Security Council April 4 in which he said that the council in Benghazi had "raised concerns about the lack of funds, as well as issues relating to the marketing and sale of oil and gas in Libya." He also said that the council wanted to begin securing "loans guaranteed against oil and gas sales and [Libya's] frozen overseas assets."

By Tuesday, the EU reversed its position on the Libyan sanctions, with a foreign affairs spokesman insisting, "The oil and gas embargo is specifically targeted against the Gaddafi regime" and so long as revenues did not go to the government in Tripoli, "we have no issues with oil and gas commercial practices."

The abrupt turnaround, combined with the discussions between the Italian oil giant ENI and the "rebels," suggests that a scramble by the major Western powers and energy conglomerates for control of Libyan oil is well under way.

It is in this context that the visit to Benghazi by the US delegations--and by French and British ambassadors before it--is taking place. The US envoy, Chris Stevens, the former number-two official at the now-closed embassy in Tripoli, is to discuss, among other matters, "the financial needs of the council" and "how the international community can assist," an administration official told the Associated Press. No doubt, such "assistance" will be tied to lucrative contracts for the American branch of Big Oil.

Washington, Paris and London had expected to secure unfettered control over Libyan oil by means of regime change, forcing the downfall of the Gaddafi regime. However, this task has proven more difficult and protracted than anticipated.

The "rebels" have been incapable of mobilizing forces able to defeat the military units loyal to Gaddafi. On Wednesday, they were once again driven out of Brega, site of an oil refinery and Mediterranean port, despite NATO air strikes early in the day that demolished vehicles used by the Gaddafi forces. The panicked retreat by the opposition forces took them at least 15 miles east toward Ajdabiya.

The new setbacks led to a protest by one of the commanders of the armed opposition that NATO was not supplying sufficient air cover. Abdel Fattah Younes, who was previously Gaddafi's interior minister, condemned NATO for acting too slowly in delivering bombardments and warned, "Either NATO does its work properly or I will ask the national council to raise the matter with the Security Council."

NATO rejected the complaint, insisting that it has maintained the same pace of operations since assuming nominal command of the Libyan intervention. "The pace of operations since NATO took over has not abated," said a spokesman for the US-led alliance. "We have conducted 851 sorties in the past six days ... we are fulfilling our mandate."

Meanwhile, Brigadier General Mark van Uhm, a senior NATO staff officer, said in Brussels, "The assessment is that we have taken out 30 percent of the military capacity of Gaddafi."

Washington and NATO have claimed to be operating under the mandate of a UN Security Council resolution authorizing "all necessary measures" to protect civilians. But the obvious implication of van Uhm's statement is that continuous bombardments have been carried out with the aim of obliterating Libya's military and defending the so-called rebels.

This air war, however, has proven insufficient, given the US and NATO-backed opposition's disorganization and lack of forces.

A report from Libya by Al Jazeera reveals that covert measures are being taken in an attempt to change this situation. Citing the testimony of a member of the armed opposition, the network reported that oppositionists are being trained at a secret facility in eastern Libya by both US and Egyptian special forces units.

The "rebel" also said that weapons are being funneled in across the Egyptian border, in violation of a UN arms embargo, including "state-of-the-art" heat-seeking missiles.

The report further exposes the lies told by the Obama administration. The US president has publicly assured the American people that there will be no "boots on the ground" in Libya, and that arming the "rebels" is something that has neither been ruled in or out. It is now evident that both have already taken place as Washington escalates the predatory war.

A poll released Tuesday pointed to rising popular opposition within the United States to the war launched by the Obama administration against Libya. Only 25 percent believed that the intervention is worth the nearly $600 million spent thus far on the US military action, according to the poll, conducted for The Hill. The same poll indicated only 19 percent support for arming the so-called rebels. A separate Quinnipiac University survey found that 47 percent of registered voters are against the war compared to 41 per cent who support it.

Collapse

The official government unemployment figure has been carefully crafted to intentionally underestimate actual unemployment.  The way the data are collected through a survey of homes intentionally ignores a number of unemployed and underemployed Americans.  The latter includes those who have stopped looking for a job because it has become crystal clear to them that there are no jobs for them, as well as those working part-time when what they really want is a good full time job.

 

Similarly, Gallup polling which takes into account these other factors found the total number for March up slightly to 20.3 percent of the US workforce.

 

As if this sham game is not bad enough, what the government also does not reveal with hard information is that most new jobs being created now are low wage ones often without any good benefits.  Another reason to see how delusional the economic recovery is.

 

To get back to a low unemployment level characteristic of a good economy could take up to ten years.  The federal lie includes 13.5 million unemployed workers but the real number is more like 28.2 million.  That means a lot more hardship and suffering in the fictional recovery than the government wants the public to know about.  The number of real unemployed workers has increased by 11.5 million since the start of the Great Recession, and just since December 2008 by 3.7 million.

 

The economy must add 13 million private sector jobs over the next three years-360,000 each month-to bring unemployment down to 6 percent.  There is no possible or imaginable way for this to happen.  So real unemployment will remain terrible.

 

All this plus the fact that real wages have stagnated for many years means that the middle class in the US is in dire shape.  The most important implication of this is that there is no good reason to think that the deeply depressed housing market stands any chance of recovery for many years.  There are not enough people with enough money and financial security to buy even low priced houses.  There simply are too many empty houses and even more coming from millions more foreclosures.  Without a healthy housing market it is inconceivable that a true economic recovery and meaningful growth are possible. 

 

In other words, contrary to all the blabber from politicians and pundits, the current recovery is largely delusional as far as the vast majority of Americans are concerned.  Of course, the rich Upper Class is doing just fine.  In 2009, the richest 5 percent claimed 63.5 percent of the nation's wealth. The richest 20 percent of Americans own 84 percent of all wealth.  The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively hold just 12.8 percent.  As the Economic Policy Institute has reported, the richest 10 percent of Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007, the most recent extended period of economic expansion.

Odds are that you, dear reader, are in the bottom 80 percent, which means you should have the good sense to see how delusional the current economic recovery is and that you should have little hope for doing well in the future.  Remember also that state and local governments facing budget shortfalls will surely layoff many more people and those congressional attempts to address the horrendous national debt and deficit will surely mean cuts in many government programs that many in the bottom 80 percent depend on.

 

Companies will continue to make huge profits, pay little in taxes and continue to manipulate government policies through lobbying and campaign contributions so that they keep getting away with murder of the middle class.  Corporate bigwigs and Wall Street fat cats will continue to grab incredible amounts of money.  And hardly any of the corporate crooks that have screwed most of us will get prosecuted or jailed, as they should.  Nor will there be any true, badly needed reforms of the financial sector.  Banks will continue to financially rape Americans.

 

Lies will keep coming from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress as well as President Obama.  Do you want to believe them?  Or can you accept the painful truth about our bleak national condition and stop voting for lying politicians that keep the corporate dictatorship in power?

 

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Collapse

According to Tokyo Electric (TEPCO), radioactive iodine-131 in samples collected measured 200,000 becquerels per cubic centimeter, or five million times above normal. Cesium-137's elevated level was 1.1 million times. No information on uranium and plutonium concentrations were given. Clearly, however, growing dangers are worrisome, yet official reports downplay them. Coverup and denial persist. According to TEPCO, radiation levels have "no immediate impact" on the environment or human health. In fact, it's catastrophic. More on that below.

Moreover, thousands of tons of radioactive water are being dumped into the Pacific, likely to continue daily to make room for more runoff despite the great risk to sea life and humans. No amount of radiation is safe. Even dispersed in water, it poses grave dangers, and the more dumped, the greater the hazard.

Official reports, however, claim radiation dissipates quickly in the Pacific. They also say long-term effects of seawater radiation contamination are unclear, especially if dumping continues daily. In fact, they're very clear, posing serious future health risks, being downplayed by so-called experts, perhaps well-paid for their comments.

The Times added:

"The pumping effort is not expected to halt or alter a leak from a large crack in a six-foot-deep concrete pit next to the seawater intake pipes near" Unit 2. "The leak has been spewing an estimated seven tons of highly radioactive water an hour directly into the ocean."

In addition, other leaks "have flooded areas of the plant, complicating" efforts to contain the disaster. According to a Kyodo report, 60,000 tons of radioactive water are flooding the basement of Fukushima's reactor buildings and underground tunnels. So far, nothing done has stopped it.

On April 4, Washington Post writer Andrew Higgins headlined, "Peace of Mind, livelihood gone as Japanese city withers in shadow of nuclear plant," saying:

"The danger may or may not be grave, but one thing is certain: Confusing and often contradictory announcements by jittery officials in Tokyo and shifty obfuscation by (TEPCO) executives have already stripped (residents) of their livelihood, their peace of mind, and the fruits of decades of labor."

As radiation levels spread, however, Northern Japan (one-third of the country) is threatened, and if containment efforts fail, all bets are off.

EPA to Raise "Safe" Radiation Levels

On April 5, Natural News writer Mike Adams headlined, "EPA to raise limits for radiation exposure while Canada turns off fallout detectors," saying:

lanetary radiation contamination is increasing, exacerbated by dumping thousands of tons of radioactive water into the Pacific. On April 4, "2.4 million gallons of planetary poison" went in, calling it harmless. Potentially, it may continue for years, "making Fukushima the worst nuclear disaster in the history of the world." In fact, it's that and more.

America's Gulf was contaminated and destroyed by last April's disaster, making nothing in it safe to eat. Potentially, Fukushima may match it in the Pacific if no containment efforts work.

"So what to do," asked Adams. "If you're the (EPA)," one option remains: "Declare radiation to be safe!" As a result, its Protective Action Guides (PAGs) are being revised "to radically increase the allowable levels of iodine-131 (a radioactive isotope) to anywhere from 3,000 to 100,000 times the currently allowable levels."

In fact, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) learned of it through a FOIA request. Its April 5 press release headlined, "RADIATION EXPOSURE DEBATE RAGES INSIDE EPA," saying:

Its plan awaiting approval will "dramatically increase permissible radioactive releases in drinking water, food and soil after 'radiological incidents' is drawing vigorous objections from agency experts...."

EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) plans to update its 1992 PAG, "governing radiation protection decisions for both short (and) long-term cleanup standards." However, agency experts object, including Stuart Walker of the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, saying:

"It appears that drinking water at the PAG concentrations....may lead to subchronic (acute) effects following exposures of a day or a week. In a population, one should see some express acute effects....that is, vomiting, fever, etc."

Moreover, proposed limits would also apply to food and soil, so when Fukushima rains hit US cities, announcements, if made, will claim they're "below accepted limits." In fact, though standards and data can be manipulated, human health effects cannot. If Obama's EPA gets away with it, millions of lives will be at risk.

Currently, debate continues behind closed doors. PEER wants everything discussed made public. Internal documents it obtained showed a single glass of water "could give a lifetime's permissible exposure. In addition, it would allow long-term cleanup limits thousands of times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These new limits would cause a cancer in as much as every fourth person exposed," a likely conservative estimate.

Contaminating Planet Earth

One of Project Censored's (PC) top 2007 stories was Mother Jones writer Julia Whitty's article titled, "Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger," saying:

"Oceanic problems once found on a local scale are now pandemic." Evidence shows "seas are changing in ominous ways....According to oceanographers, the oceans are one, with currents linking the seas and regulating climate."

Yet, thousands of contaminants are "poison(ing) marine creatures and devastat(ing) propagation." Before last April's BP/Deepwater Horizon disaster, America's Gulf had "the highest mercury levels ever recorded...." It also had a dead zone measuring nearly 8,000 square miles in 2001.

Moreover, since 2000, "the global wild fish harvest has begun a sharp decline despite (new) technologies and intensified fishing." (If) the maelstrom of human assault on the seas continues, (they'll soon) reach a point of no return."

Fukushima accelerated the process, besides lots of other contributors daily because governments powerful enough to stop it let it to continue unabated.

Rosalie Bertell (now in her 80s) is a longtime distinguished environmental/nuclear expert. Two of her important books include "No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth" (1985) and "Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War (2000)."

In "Planet Earth," she discussed how the space program and electromagnetic weapons destabilized the ecosystem, causing widespread environmental, economic and social devastation. In "No Immediate Danger," she exposed the dangers of radiation, saying:

"Should the public discover the true health cost(s) of nuclear pollution, a cry would rise from all parts of the world and people would refuse to cooperate passively with their own death."

"On a clear day, the Earth looks wonderful," she said, so it's "hard to believe the warnings that we have seriously compromised its health," en route to destroying it entirely. The dangers from unbridled militarism alone are doing it, compounded by the madness of sacrificing environmental safety for profit.

In 1991, her article titled, "Radioactivity: No Immediate Danger?" coined a new word to describe the ultimate human rejection of life - "omnicide," what she called "difficult to comprehend," but it's happening. Nuclear industries are killing us by ionizing radiation exposure - cumulative, unforgiving amounts over time.

On the one hand are risks to life and health, including dying of cancer or having a deformed child. "The benefit side is to make money or gain political power. The bad news is that the people who make these trade-offs for us are the same" ones who profit.

She called industrial radioactive pollution "cumulatively greater than from Chernobyl....We are now in a no-win situation with radioactive materials, where (it's) acceptable to have cancer deaths, deformed children, and miscarriages."

Moreover, industry propaganda claims nuclear power is clean and green, when, in fact, the nuclear fuel cycle discharges significant amounts of greenhouse gases, as well as hundreds of thousands of curies of deadly radioactive gases and elements into the environment every year. "Claiming nuclear production of energy is 'clean,' " said Bertell, "is like dieting but stuffing yourself with food between meals."

Planetary survival depends on ending all forms of nuclear proliferation. It's "imperative, because we now find ourselves in a strange situation, where the military strategy to save industrialized countries is not only destroying the environment and the gene pool in (them), but also destroying the biosphere, as radioactive material is circulated in the air, water, and food - whether or not (there's) a nuclear accident or war."

Gene pool mutations "create a next generation that is physically less able to cope with hazardous material," a degenerating process over time, affecting physical and mental well-being. Moreover, "(w)hen chromosomes are damaged and then damaged a second time before (having) a chance to repair," bizarre problems occur. For example, "a child developed from damaged chromosomes may have a broad spectrum of defects."

All toxic hazards are serious, nuclear pollution worst of all because "all human life is threatened....Our present path is headed toward species death - whether fast, with nuclear war or technological disaster, or slow, by poison."

Our present path is suicide. Bertell said so in 1985 and again in 1991. Continued nuclear proliferation and Fukushima accelerated it. What will it take to convince policy makers and profiteers to end this madness? Nothing so far has worked.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

The horror of all wars aside, waged solely for wealth and power, never humanity, Japan deserves regular top billing, given its global implications and potential millions of lives affected. Ignoring it is scandalous, yet it's practically disappeared from television where most people get news, unaware only managed reports are aired omitting vital truths.

Over three weeks and counting, Japan's crisis keeps worsens. Radiation levels in Fukushima's underground tunnel water reached 10,000 times above normal and rising. In nearby seawater, they're 4,385 times too high. Heavy rainfall exacerbates the problem. Food, water, air and soil contamination is spreading.

On March 31, New York Times writer Henry Fountain headlined, "Cleanup Questions as Radiation Spreads," saying:

At issue is "how to clean up areas that have been heavily contaminated by radioactivity," stopping short of suggesting they're dead zones that may affect all northern Japan, an area comparable to Pennsylvania, potentially making it uninhabitable.

On March 31, the IAEA (the industry's global promoter) "said a soil sample from Iitate, a village of 7,000 about 25 miles northwest of the plant, showed very high concentrations of cesium-137," a harmful gamma ray-producing isotope, contaminating air, water and soil for decades.

Levels found are "double" those in Chernobyl's dead zone, raising concerns about extending Japan's evacuation, not done so far. Moreover, they're rising daily and will continue for months, perhaps years, creating permanent contamination combined with uranium, plutonium, and other hazardous toxins.

On April 1, Al Jazeera headlined, "Japan nuclear evacuation will be 'long term,' " saying:

"Residents of evacuated areas....have been warned that they may not be able to return to their homes for months," if ever, given increasing hazardous contamination levels. Cleanup will take decades and fall far short of making areas toxin-free.

Experts call conditions "unchartered territory," wondering what, if anything can be done. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. The imponderables are huge, and potential implications staggering.

On March 25, Helen Caldicott highlighted "a medical problem of vast dimensions," saying "the situation has grown increasingly grave." A week later, it's worse with no end of crisis in sight, Caldicott calling nuclear power's harm "the greatest public health hazard the world will ever see."

On March 31, physicist Michio Kaku said "three (Fukushima) raging meltdowns" plus one or more (melting) spent fuel ponds opened to the air are ongoing, adding:

"This is huge," involving "uncontrolled radiation releases into the environment," including plutonium, the most toxic substance known. "A speck of plutonium, a millionth of a gram, can cause cancer if ingested." Moreover, if the plant site is abandoned, "we could be in free fall." Before it ends, Kaku believes it may far exceed Chernobyl. Perhaps it already has, though no one's admitting it or knows for sure.

Every Radiation Dose Is an Overdose

Experts like Harvey Wasserman agree. On March 27, he headlined, " 'Safe' Radiation is a Lethal TMI Lie," saying:

-- No amount of radiation is safe; they're harmful, cumulative, permanent and unforgiving;

-- It's why pregnant women aren't x-rayed;

-- "Any detectable fallout can kill;"

-- Fukushima's "serious danger" requires everyone to "prepare for the worst;"

-- "Fukusima is deadly to Americans;"

-- Minimally, "it threatens countless embryos and fetuses in utero, the infants, the elderly, the unborn who will come to future mothers now being exposed;"

-- There's "no defense against even the tiniest radioactive assault;"

-- "Science has never found such a 'safe' threshold, and never will;"

-- "All doses, 'insignificant' or otherwise, can harm the human organism;"

-- Three Mile Island (TMI) victims experienced "cancer, leukemia, birth defects, stillbirths, sterility, malformations, open lesions, hair loss, a metallic taste and much more....;"

-- Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture also documented the farm and wild animal death and mutation rate;

-- TMI was minor compared to Fukushima; its radiation is "pouring into the air and water;" operators reported levels "a million times normal, then retracted the estimate to a 'mere' 100,000;"

-- Most frightening is what's unrevealed; coverup after TMI and Chernobyl was scandalous;

-- All North America and Europe are affected, especially by rain, increasing soil and water contamination;

-- "Fukushima's worst may be yet to come," by far the worst ever environmental and human disaster;

-- "The response of the Obama Administration has been beyond derelict," claiming Americans face no threat; he lied and now remains silent;

-- " 'Impossible' accidents continue to happen, one after the other, each of them successively worse."

What will it take to stop this monster? Because of enormous industry profits, perhaps it will take ending human life to convince skeptics.

Candidate v. President Obama

In 2008, candidate Obama was skeptical about nuclear power, telling NBC Meet the Press host Tim Russert on January 15, 2008:

Unless a "safe way to produce (and store) nuclear energy (is found), then absolutely we shouldn't build more plants."

At a January 13, 2008 town hall meeting, he said:

"Nuclear is bad because we don't know how to store it. And it poses security hazards."

On December 30, 2007, he said:

"....(N)uclear energy is not optimal so I am not a nuclear energy proponent....I am much more interested in solar and wind and bio-diesel (to produce) clean energy and (new) jobs....I have not ruled out nuclear (but) only so far is it is clean and safe."

Earlier he said:
-- "Nuclear power is not working for us right now;"

-- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is "a moribund agency that needs to be revamped, and it's become captive of the industries that it regulates and I think that's a problem."

He also called storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain "a bad idea." Nuclear power "has a host of problems that have not been solved," and "I don't think there's anything that we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. We just dislike the fact that it might blow up....and irradiate us....and kill us. That's the problem."

Even candidate Obama was less than candid. On July 4, 2007, CounterPunch co-editor Jeff St. Clair and contributor Joshua Frank called him "another automaton of the atomic lobby" in their article headlined, "Barack Obama's Nuclear Ambitions," saying:

During the 1990s, "the atom lobby....had a stranglehold on the Clinton administration and now they seem to have the same suffocating grip around (Obama's) neck, (the Democrat's) brightest star...."

It showed (and still does) in generous industry contributions. As of late March 2007, he "accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power plant operator." They previously funded his 2004 Senate campaign, contributing $74,350.

In return, he helped kill an amendment to stop large industry loan guarantees "for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will also risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default."

In 2005, Nuclear News praised him for "keeping an open mind" on nuclear power. In other words, for supporting it despite the unforgiving hazards. "The atom lobby must certainly be pleased." Why else would they help elect him president.

A previous article explained Obama's longstanding industry ties, including with Chicago-based Exelon. Its web site says it operates 17 reactors at 10 stations in Illinois, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, providing 20% of US nuclear capacity.

In addition, Obama's former top political aide, David Axelrod, once lobbied for Exelon, and Rahm Emanuel, his former White House chief of staff (now Chicago's mayor-elect), profited handsomely as an investment banker, arranging mergers that created the company.

In his proposed budget, Obama includes $36 billion in industry loan guarantees for new facilities - free money. He's committed to jump-start new construction, halted since Three Mile Island in 1979. Already takers are lining up, 20 or more applications pending before the NRC.

In fact, he and Energy Secretary Steven Chu downplay Fukushima, ignoring industry hazards, including 23 US nuclear plants at 16 locations using the same failed GE-designed Mark 1 containment vessels. Earlier, the NRC called them susceptible to explosions and failure because of cost-cutting design features.

Its 1985 study warned that failure within the first few hours after a core meltdown was very likely. Its top safety official at the time said it had a 90% probability of failing if an accident caused overheating and melting. When reactor cooling is compromised, the containment vessel is the last line of defense. However, GE's design is hazardous and unsafe.

Today, Obama supports the NRC, the same agency Karl Grossman calls "an unabashed promoter of nuclear power," the one candidate Obama called "moribund, (a) captive of the industries it regulates." The one with a perfect record - never having denied applicants new plant licenses. The one now dangerously extending operating lives of aging, poorly maintained plants with deplorable safety records to 80 years, assuring multiple likelihoods of trouble.

It now says no new regulation or oversight is needed. No moratorium on new construction or old plants will be instituted, and, in fact, Vermont's trouble-plagued Yankee plant (using the same type Fukushima reactor) got a 20-year extension instead of being shut down.

That in spite of recent reports highlighting serious industry "near misses," safety violations, failures to reveal legally-required information regarding defective equipment, electrical supply system inadequacies, and other examples of industry mismanagement and criminality, risking an American Fukushima disaster.

According to nuclear technician Tom Saporito:

"The administration, including the president of the United States, is recklessly endangering the population by promoting the construction of nuclear plants and by not taking affirmative action to deal with known safety problems."

In fact, shutting the industry down is crucial, especially as Grossman, a longtime industry expert, says:

"Safe, clean, renewable energy technologies fully implemented can provide all the power we need - and energy that we can live with" safely, unlike the hazardous nuclear roulette played each day these ticking time bombs operate.

As president, however, Obama fronts for Wall Street, war profiteers, Big Oil, Big Pharma, other corporate favorites, and his nuclear industry friends, risking a major disaster to assure generous 2012 campaign contributions for another four years to complete wrecking America and other nations globally. That's his "change we can believe in" plan, not the one sold to constituents.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

On March 28, New Times writer Helene Cooper headlined, "Obama Cites Limits of US Role in Libya," saying:

Obama "defended the American-led military assault in Libya on Monday, saying it was in the national interest of the United States to stop a potential massacre that would have 'stained the conscience of the world,' " even though no threat existed until:

-- Washington showed up with co-belligerents France and Britain;

-- beginning in 2010, armed and funded so-called "rebels" who, in fact, are cutthroat killers, rapists and marauders, terrorizing every area they control, including their Benghazi stronghold; and

-- support them with daily "shock and awe" terror attacks, causing increasing numbers of deaths and injuries, as well as destruction and contamination of all areas struck by depleted uranium bombs, missiles and shells, spreading radiation over wide areas.

Despite Pentagon denials, conservative estimates put civilian deaths at over 100, besides combatants killed and unknown numbers murdered by rebel allies. Since March 19 air attacks began, nearly 1,500 sorties have been flown, that number to rise exponentially as daily strikes continue under US command, running all NATO operations under AFRICOM's General Carter Ham. Alleged new commander, Canada's Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, is his subordinate, a Pentagon figurehead.

The alleged handover is fabricated. NATO is code language for America/the Pentagon. Obama lied announcing otherwise, saying Washington's role will be limited to stop potential "slaughter and mass graves" in Benghazi. In fact, he supports and/or ignores rebel terror killings against defenseless civilians, making him complicit in their crimes, besides widespread ones caused by NATO, America's missile. US attacks, in fact, will continue throughout the campaign, perhaps lasting months at an enormous cost, besides hundreds of billions annually in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Making an indefensible case, Obama said:

"For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant - Muammar Gaddafi," ignoring the numerous regional and global ones America supports, including rogue Israeli regimes, lawlessly terrorizing Palestinians for over six decades with generous US support and funding.

Addressing the issue, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, Denis McDonough, said:

"I think it's very important that we see each of these instances....in the region as unique. We don't get very hung up on the question of precedent....because we don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent. We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region."

Precisely true on the last point. However, policy decisions are very consistent. Allies are supported whether despots or democrats. Outliers are opposed, even benign ones posing no threat to America or neighbors. The rule of law is a non-starter. So are democratic values, "principles of justice and human dignity."

Only imperial aims matter, especially resource and human exploitation adventurism for money and power. For generations, they've guided US policies, notably since WW II, at home and abroad.

Yet pseudo-left apologists back Obama's Libya war, its faux "humanitarian intervention" to save lives, including darling of the left Rachel Maddow, defending the indefensible, pretending Obama's different from Bush when, in fact, he's worse, waging four, not two wars.

He also:

-- supports others in Palestine, Yemen and Somalia;

-- operates US Special Forces in at least 75 countries globally;

-- backs killing US citizens abroad lawlessly;

-- endorses holding detainees indefinitely without charge;

-- practices torture as official US policy; and

-- backs the worst of despotic states, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt under a military junta, Algeria under a military dictatorship (Abdelaziz Bouteflika more figurehead than president), other GCC states, besides others in Africa, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Yet Maddow and other faux liberals call Obama a peace president. No matter how great the body count, she's firm saying "he appears to be walking more of that walk as well as talking that talk."

He indeed talks plenty while letting imperial forces reign death and destruction on non-belligerent nations, spends hundreds of billions of dollars, then claims we're too broke to address vital homeland needs, especially social ones and crumbling infrastructure.

Cheerleading Print Media Support

For decades, The York Times endorsed all US imperial wars, the tradition maintained on March 28 in an editorial headlined, "President Obama and Libya," saying:

Obama "made the right, albeit belated, decision to join with allies to try to stop (Gaddafi) from slaughtering thousands of Libyans," despite clear evidence that Washington, France, Britain and rebel killers initiated attacks. Love or hate him, Gaddafi justifiably responded in self defense.

However, despite Obama's willful deception and lies, The Times claimed he "made a strong case for why America needed to intervene in this fight - and why that did not always mean it should intervene in others," notably against subservient despots, no matter how much "violence on a horrific scale" they cause.

"Most important," said The Times, Obama "vowed that there would be no American ground troops in this fight." A previous article explained otherwise, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-led-libyan-ground-assault-planned.html

Numerous reports, in fact, suggest a ground assault is planned for late April-early May if air and rebel attacks don't oust Gaddafi, what most experts believe unlikely.

On March 28, New York Times writers Kareem Fahim and David Kirkpatrick suggested as much, headlining "Rebel Advance Halted Outside Qaddafi's Hometown," saying:

"....the American military warned on Monday that the insurgents' rapid advances could quickly be reversed without continued coalition air support," quoting General Ham saying more, in fact, may be needed, stopping short of suggesting ground forces deployed offshore will invade.

Whatever lies ahead, no matter how bloody and destructive, The Times insisted Obama "made the right choice to act."

So did the Washington Post, its editorial opinion headlined, "Mr. Obama and Libya: Where's the strategy to preserve success?" saying:

Obama "was right to act, and he deserves the credit that he claimed....He was right" saying "we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles of freedom and nonviolence," ones, in fact, America spurns at home and abroad, especially during direct or proxy imperial wars.

On March 29, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined, "Obama, Libya and the GOP," saying:

Obama "made a substantial case for his Libya intervention, (and) we welcome the effort....The credibility of US power is essential to maintaining our influence in a Middle East that is erupting in popular revolt against decades of injustice," much, in fact, America caused.

US media opinions mostly expressed support. The Los Angeles Times said "no one can complain that he didn't make a thoughtful, compelling case for his decision to intervene." The Philadelphia Daily News endorsed "the Obama Doctrine....a rationale for the use of US force, (his Monday speech perhaps) the beginning of a saner foreign policy."

The Chicago Tribune wondered whether a "humanitarian mission (set) a precedent that will be used to demand American involvement in other places." The Boston Globe endorsed his "swift Libyan intervention (wrongly calling it) the first time Obama has ordered US troops into a new conflict, (then saying it's) a key test of his presidency and a moment that allowed him to delineate his most comprehensive vision yet for America's role in the world and the role of the military abroad."

According to the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) Stephen Flanagan, Obama "laid the beginnings of an Obama doctrine. He said that there are instances where our safety is not immediately threatened but our interests and values are, and in those cases....we will act, particularly when we can act with a broad international coalition" of willing co-belligerents plus others bullied and/or bribed to join or endorse imperial aggression against another targeted country.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) on "Public TV's Libya Limits"

America's Public Television (PBS) and National Public Radio rely heavily on government and corporate funds. As a result, they provide managed news like major media networks, suppressing hard truths on vital issues.

PBS' Libya reporting is instructive, FAIR saying:

"Over the past two weeks, the (flagship) NewsHour has featured an array of current and former military and government officials in discussion segments - leaving little room for antiwar voices, US foreign policy critics and legal experts."

NPR and PBS are similar, supporting state and corporate policies throughout their histories, depriving listeners and viewers of real news, information and opinions on vital issues.

The 1967 Carnegie Commission report (creating PBS) envisioned a "forum for debate and controversy (to) provide a voice for groups in the community that may be otherwise unheard." NPR's founding mandate was similar, yet both operations represent power, money and privilege, not popular interests they were established to serve.

A Final Comment

In his book "The Next Decade," Stratfor Global Intelligence founder George Friedman "consider(s) the relation of the American empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic('s)" survival, given its addiction to war and abandonment of the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 provision letting Congress alone declare it. It was last done on December 8, 1941 against Japan.

As a result, seven US decades of wars have been lawless. Moreover, no nation may attack another except in self-defense or until the Security Council acts - lawfully according to the UN Charter. In authorizing a no-fly zone (an act of war), SC members acted illegally, brazenly violating international law, letting America and co-belligerents France and Britain wage imperial war against a nation posing no threat to them or neighboring states.

Friedman stressed the importance of congressional declarations of war, "requir(ing) meticulous attention to the law and proprieties." However, he stopped short of addressing international law or explaining the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Under it, every treaty America ratifies automatically becomes US law, the UN Charter, of course, included. No congressional or presidential act may contravene it, what, in fact, happens regularly, especially on matters of war.

As a result, in a recent interview, University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle was blunt, calling Obama's war on Libya "plunder and aggression, (the) first major outright power grab by the United States and the major colonial, imperial powers against Africa in the 21st century." For sure, it's not the last.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

This measure was 1,000 times above water readings in Units 1 and 3. Emissions happen during nuclear fission. Tokyo University Professor Naoto Sekimura said the leak came from Unit 2's damaged suppression chamber, designed to contain radioactive substance overflows. French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety's Olivier Isnard believes high readings are "proof that the reactor core (at least) partially melted." Others suggest a likely full meltdown, covered up and downplayed.

A later March 27 Mari Yamaguchi and Yuri Kageyama AP report headlined, "More obstacles impede crews in Japan nuke crisis," saying:

"Mounting problems, including badly miscalculated radiation figures and inadequate storage tanks for huge amounts of contaminated water, stymied emergency workers Sunday as they struggled to" step back from the brink of uncontrollable disaster.

After initial Sunday reports had Unit 2 radiation levels 10 million times normal, Tokyo Electric's Vice President Sakae Muto said a later test found them at 100,000 times, either way too dangerously high. In addition, nearby sea readings are 1,850 times normal. Combined, they're the highest measures since the March 11 earthquake/tsunami, showing conditions are deteriorating, not improving despite government and company reassurances.

Later, TEPCO said surface water outside the reactor contained over 1,000 millisieverts of radiation per hour. According to the EPA, a single dose that high can cause hemorrhaging. In fact, 100 millisieverts causes radiation sickness.

Besides TEPCO's notoriously poor safety record, also at issue is its penchant for coverup and denial. As a result, perhaps true readings are much higher than reported. UCLA Professor Najmdin Meshkati, in fact, believes "the situation is (likely) much more serious than we (are) led to believe."

Others agree, but fading news reports don't explain, especially television ones, their short attention span diverted to cheerleading for imperial war, bogusly called "humanitarian."

Another company official said many months or years are needed to correct the situation, stopping short of whether anything, in fact, can work. Independent experts express great concerns about dangerously high radiation, especially since containment efforts have failed despite nearly three weeks of trying. According to Greenpeace's Rianne Teule:

"It's very worrying. (T)here is something seriously wrong (at Unit 2)." Perhaps also at other units.

In addition, low radiation readings expected to spike are showing up across America, Canada, Iceland and Europe.

Meanwhile, electricity to restart cooling isn't possible since "cables had to be laid through turbine buildings flooded with contaminated water." In fact, no one can reach the turbine houses requiring electrical work. Possibly the idea will be abandoned.

In the face of growing disaster, TEPCO still claims conditions have partially stabilized when evidence shows them more out of control. Miroru Ogoda of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said:

"We have somewhat prevented the situation from turning worse. But the prospects are not improving in a straight line and we've expected twists and turns. The contaminated water is one of them and we'll continue to repair the damage."

Skeptical Japanese have grave concerns, fearing the worst despite mixed reassuring statements, intended more to deny reality than reveal it.

On March 27, New York Times writers Hiroko Tabuchi and Keith Bradsher headlined, "Higher Levels of Radiation Found at Japan Reactor Plant," saying:

"Japan's troubled effort to contain the nuclear contamination crisis at its stricken (plant) suffered a setback on Sunday when alarmingly high radiation levels were discovered....raising new questions about how and when recovery workers could resume their tasks," besides whether anything, in fact, can work.

In fact, high radiation readings mean fission likely restarted, "present(ing) the alarming possibility of an out-of-control reactor."

On March 28, Reuters headlined, "Japan finds plutonium at stricken nuclear plant," saying:

On March 11, after the earthquake/tsunami struck, traces of plutonium 238, 239 and 240 were found "in soil at five locations at the complex...."

According to TEPCO vice president Sakae Muto:

"It's not at the level that's harmful to human health."

He lied.

NISA reported samples ranging from 0.18 - 0.54 becquerels per kg. Agency official Hidehiko Nishiyama said:

"While it's not the level harmful to human health, I am not optimistic. This means the containment mechanism is being breached so I think the situation is worrisome."

In fact, it's catastrophic and extremely hazardous to human health at any level, environmental scientist Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri explaining in her article headlined, "Fukushima Catastrophe: Radiation Exposure, Lies and Cover-up, saying:"

"The half-life of many radioactive elements is thousands of years. There is no safe level of exposure! (Claiming otherwise is) media hype and corporate lies. The plutonium fuel used at Fukushima Unit 3 reactor uses MOX (mixed oxide), a plutonium-uranium fuel mixture. A single milligram of MOX is 2-million times more deadly than enriched uranium....Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years; and (for) Uranium-235 (it's) 700-million years."

She quoted distinguished nuclear power/environmental health expert Dr. Rosalie Bertell from her noted 1985 book titled, "No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth," saying:

"Should the public discover the true health cost(s) of nuclear pollution, a cry would rise from all parts of the world and people would refuse to cooperate passively with their own death."

Political Fallout Outside Japan

Taiwan's opposition DPP party said it wants nuclear power phased out by 2025. However, the island state's vulnerability to quakes and tsunamis begs the question of a potential disaster affecting the entire nation if abandoning the technology isn't expedited.

In Germany, an estimated 200,000 anti-nuclear protesters rallied on March 26 under the slogan, "Fushushima Warns: Pull the Plug on all Nuclear Power Plants." Days earlier, Chancellor Angela Merkel ordered seven older plants shut for safety checks.

In 2001, Germany planned to end all nuclear energy by 2021, a policy Merkel reversed besides extending the plant life for 12 years. About 25% dependent on nuclear power makes the country extremely vulnerable to disasters.

A Sunday Baden-Wuerttemberg election result expressed popular angst where anti-nuclear Greens got 24% of the vote. Combined with center-left Social Democrats, it was enough for a new coalition government for the first time against conservative Christian Democrats there since 1953. Experts agreed, calling it a referendum on future nuclear power use, voters rejecting its inherent dangers.

Perhaps also longstanding incestuous ties between industry officials and regulators, a March 28 Wall Street Journal Yuka Hayashi article headlining, "Nuclear Regulator Tied to Industry," saying:

"Japan's nuclear regulator has amassed power while growing closer to the industry it regulates, according to former regulators and industry critics who blame" scandalous laxity for Fukushima's disaster. However, it's also true in America and elsewhere, assuring inevitable future ones ahead, perhaps worse.

Hayashi said Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) "has two distinct and often competing roles regulating the nuclear power industry, and promoting Japanese nuclear technology at home and abroad." In fact, according to former nuclear industry engineer Tetsuya Lida, "(t)he regulators are so friendly with power companies that they don't hold them responsible for so many things."

In other words, proliferation and promotion supersede regulation, similar to America where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notoriously conspires with industry, including on matters of safety. As a result, a new Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report documented 14 "near-misses" at US plants in 2010 alone - more than one a month.

Discovered problems included leaking roofs, floods near safety equipment, rusty pipes, faulty pumps, fires and unreported shutdowns. In fact, while plant operators willfully disregarded protocol, NRC inspectors ignored hazardous violations as well as false reports and delayed repairs.

Affected plants were in California, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Kansas at facilities owned by Entergy, Exelon, Constellation Energy, Duke Energy, FirstEnergy, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern Nuclear, Omaha Public Power District, Dominion Generation, and Wolf Creek Nuclear.

At issue, cutting corners for greater profits takes precedence over safety. According to UCS, "(m)any of the significant events (it documented) occurred because reactor owners, and often the NRC, tolerated known safety problems."

In 2007, candidate Obama called NRC members "captives of the industry they regulate," running mate Biden saying he had no confidence in them. According to Public Citizen's Tyson Slocum, the industry "embedded itself in the political establishment (through) reliable friends from George Bush to Barack Obama (so that government) has really become cheerleaders for the industry."

Moreover, revolving door instances are common, Jeffrey Merrifield one of many examples. An NRC official from 1997 - 2008, he left for an executive position with The Shaw Group that operates an NRC regulated nuclear division.

In Japan, it's called amakudari (descent from heaven), meaning regulators transition young to industry, so while in government, they don't bite future hands who'll feed them.

Japan's METI is especially egregious. Ten of its 22 March 2010 retiring officials took energy and power related jobs. According to Liberal Democratic Party member Taro Kono:

"METI has unabashedly sent retired officials to the power industry (including TEPCO), and politicians have received campaign funds (from these companies). In exchange, power companies were allowed to hold on to their regional monopolies" and avoid regulatory oversight.

America, of course, operates the same way, placing bottom line priorities ahead of safety, public welfare, and environmental considerations because regulation across all industry groups is a mere figure of speech.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

The report also failed to apply the same humanitarian law standard for defining a civilian to its reporting on SOF raids that it applied to its accounting for Taliban assassinations.

The Mar. 9 report, produced by the Human Rights unit of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) jointly with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), said a total of 80 civilians were killed in "search and seizure operations" by "Pro-Government Forces" in 2010.

But AIHRC Commissioner Nader Nadery told IPS the figure represented only the number of civilian deaths in night raids in the 13 incidents involving SOF units that the Commission had been able to investigate thoroughly.

Nadery said the AIHRC had received complaints from local people alleging civilian casualties in 60 additional incidents involving raids and other activities by Special Forces. "We did not include them in the report, because we were unable to collect the exact figures for casualties, which takes time," Nadery said.

The AIHRC is continuing to investigate those 60 events, according to Nadery, and will report on the results in the future.

The Mar. 9 report refers to "60 incidents of night raids that caused civilian casualties", but does not inform the reader that only a fraction of the total casualties alleged in those incidents were counted in the total.

At least one of the 13 incidents investigated by the AIHRC was an air strike called by an SOF unit. The 80 deaths from at most 12 incidents or less would suggest an average of at least seven civilians killed per incident.

If the sample of night raids investigated is representative of the total of 60 incidents of SOF night raids about which civilian casualty complaints were generated, the total number of civilians killed would be around 420.

The UNAMA-AIHRC report shows a total 406 killings of civilians by "Anti-Government Elements" reported for 2010.

But the UNAMA-AIHRC report uses a strict humanitarian law definition of "civilian" in regard to victims of assassination by "Anti-Government Elements" which was not applied to victims of U.S. night raids.

"If Afghan soldiers travelling from one place to another, on holiday, with no weapon and no uniform, are killed, we count them as civilians, and the same with policemen," Nadery told IPS.

Mayors and district chiefs, who participate in military planning with NATO military commanders, were also considered civilian victims of assassination, according to Nadery.

A large proportion of those killed as "Taliban" in SOF night raids, however, would also qualify as civilians under this definition.

Matthew Hoh, formerly the senior U.S. foreign service officer in Zabul province before his 2009 resignation, was familiar with the target list for SOF kill or capture raids. He told IPS the list included Afghans holding every kind of non-combat function in the Taliban network, including propagandists and workers who make Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).

UNAMA team leader Denise Lifton conceded that the report had made no effort to ascertain what positions had been occupied by those who had been killed in U.S. raids. "We have not looked at the functions, per se, of those [who are] accused of being Taliban and are killed," she said in an e-mail to IPS.

Night raids generally kill Taliban personnel in their own homes, and thus outside the context of a military operation.

If the same humanitarian law criterion used in counting victims of Taliban assassinations were applied to the alleged Taliban targeted in SOF night raids, the victims of killings during those raids would have to be considered civilian casualties.

U.S. Special Operations Forces acknowledge only 38 civilian casualties, including killed and wounded, as a result of night raids, as reported by Reuters Feb. 24.

Sunset Belinsky, a spokesperson for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), insisted in an e-mail to IPS that such raids are "intelligence driven", and that "there is a rigorous process involved in identifying targets".

But although Belinsky acknowledged to IPS last September that the total of 1,355 insurgents "captured" in the raids from May through July 2010 included "suspected insurgents," she was unable to provide any figures on how many of those 1,355 had later been released.

Belinsky did not respond directly to a request from IPS this week for the information on what proportion of insurgents captured in 2010 had turned out not to be insurgents.

The continued refusal of ISAF, under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, to release that information suggests that it would reveal a very high proportion of the several thousand Afghans killed last year as "Taliban" were simply civilian supporters or victims of misidentification or a malicious intelligence tip.

The remarkably sharp rise in the number of night raids carried out by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, ISAF commander until June 2010 - and the even more spectacular increase in the raids under Petraeus - in 2010 raises serious questions about how the U.S. military could avoid a massive increase in the killing of individuals with non-military functions in the Taliban as well as people with only tangential or no connection to the insurgency.

According to a document from the Afghanistan war logs released by Wikileaks last July, in October 2009, the target list for SOF night raids, called the Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL), included 2,058 names. That list provided the intelligence basis for a pace of some 90 raids per month in late 2009 - a huge increase from the 20 per month just six months earlier.

Significantly, at that moment, Gen. Petraeus was warning the White House against a strategy of relying on more SOF raids and a smaller conventional force footprint. "There's just a limit to how many precise targets you have at any one time...," Petraeus said, according to the account in Bob Woodward's book "Obama's Wars".

But from May through July 2010, according to ISAF figures, SOF units launched 3,000 night raids - a 50-fold increase over the rate of only a year earlier - in which they reported killing nearly 1,100 Taliban "leaders" and "rank and file".

A 10-fold increase in raids, which implied a similar increase in the size of the target list, could not have been carried out without a dramatic relaxation of the already very loose criteria for including someone on the JPEL, according to Matthew Hoh.

"Commanders are under pressure to find targets for these raids, because it has become a metric of success," Hoh told IPS. He likened that broadening of the targeting criteria to the CIA's getting much greater latitude on targeting of drone strikes in Northwest Pakistan in early 2008, expanding the target list from a handful of al Qaeda leaders to virtually anyone tangentially associated with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Hoh said one result of the frantic effort to expand the target list is bound to be an increased use of intelligence tips from individuals or tribal enemies.

That appears to have been a factor in the killing of President Hamid Karzai's cousin, Yar Mohammad Karzai, in a night raid in the Karzai ancestral home in Kandahar province, Mar. 9. The raiders also took his son away with a black bag over his head.

Yar Mohmmad Karzai had told relatives repeatedly over the years that he feared that another cousin of the president's, Hashmat Karzai, who had headed a large security firm for years and then ran unsuccessfully for parliament, would seek to arrange for a U.S. attack against him by planting false information with the Americans.

Shah Noori reported from Kabul. Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Collapse

I've also written about them all, discussed them on the Progressive Radio News Hour, and am committed to help achieve justice so far denied them.

This article concerns Abu-Baker, after Rafil Dhafir emailed me the following from Terre Haute, IN federal prison Communications Management Unit's (CMU) segregation section where Muslims receive excessively punitive treatment:

"Last night Shukri Baker, here in CMU, got a call from his family that his daughter Sanabil is dying in the hospital. She has cystic fibrosis, Thalassemia major and diabetes. She is not eligible for lung transplant. She is only 24 who has only 2 months left to finish college.

He is distraught. With tears in his eyes he kept asking:

'What did I do to this country to deny me enough time to talk to my dying daughter by phone? Why am I not allowed to hug my baby in her last days of her life? Who is going to council my young daughters and their mother in this hour of grief and uncertainty?'

He asked for extra phone calls to straighten things out. He was given the run around. The Chaplain claimed that he is new and does not know the procedure for approval. Those who can be talked to are no where to be found. It was late Friday when he learned of his daughter's condition.

It broke my heart to see this great man who helped save the lives of millions in places far away from here, who never hurt anyone intentionally, and who dedicated his life to saving and relieving children and needy people be denied the right of a human being to see his dying daughter off and to help his own children.

It is cruel to imprison one for providing relief but it is far worse in cruelty to deny such person the comfort of talking to his dying child. Would one then wonder why these calamities befall the world all over?"

Dr. Rafil Dhafir's Wrongful Conviction for His "Crime of Compassion"

Activist Katherine Hughes explained Dhafir's case in her 2006 article by that title. A Muslim American of Iraqi descent, he practiced oncology until wrongfully convicted for violating Iraqi Sanctions Regulations (IEEPA), using his own funds and what his Help the Needy charity raised to bring desperately needed aid to Iraqis in the 1990s.

Yet, he was convicted on 59 of 60 bogus charges, including tax fraud, money laundering, mail and wire fraud, imprisoning him for 22 years. Like Shukri Baker and other Muslims, he's incarcerated at Terre Haute's infamous CMU. More on it below.

Shukri Abu-Baker: President and CEO of the Holy Foundation (HLF) Charity

A previous article explained his case, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2008/12/criminal-injustice-against-holy-land.html

A later article followed the sentencing of HLF's five principles. Abu-Baker and Chairman Ghassan Elashi each got 65 years for providing:

-- financial aid to needy and impoverished families;

-- a sponsorship program for orphaned children;

-- various social services;

-- educational services;

-- medical and other emergency work; and

-- community development, including help to rebuild Palestinian homes on their own land in their own country that Israel lawlessly destroyed.

They, in fact, described their work as follows, saying - "We gave:

-- books, not bombs;

-- bread, not bullets;

-- smiles, not scars;

-- toys, not tanks;

-- peace, not terror;

-- liberty, not poverty;

-- hope, not despair;

-- love, not hate; (and)

-- life, not death.

So we ask: If (over six decades of occupation) obviously shatters lives, while charity builds them and charity feeds children, while occupation kills them, why is a charity organization - not occupation - paying the price?"

They, in fact, broke no laws, committee no crimes, but were targeted for their faith, ethnicity, prominence, activism and charity, the two main principles getting a de facto life sentence for being Muslims at the wrong time in America, like many others wrongfully imprisoned.

They provided essential relief to Palestinian refugees in Occupied Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan, as well as to needy recipients in Bosnia, Albania, Chechnya, Turkey and America.

Three other principles, included:

-- volunteer Mufid Abdulqader - 20 years;

-- New Jersey office director Abdulrahman Odeh - 15 years, and

-- California office director Mohammad El-Mezain - 15 years.

They were convicted on most or all 108 counts, including supporting a terrorist organization, money laundering and tax fraud. They also incurred a $12.4 million fine, impossible to pay nor should they.

Communications Management Unit (CMU) Imprisonment

A previous article explained its lawlessness, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2009/03/treatment-of-imprisoned-muslims-at.html

It's for so-called "high-security risk" Muslim and Middle Eastern prisoners in violation of federal law, prohibiting severely limiting or cutting them off entirely from other inmates, as well as outside contacts and communications.

Segregating prisoners by race, national origin, or language violates the Supreme Court's February 2005 Johnson v. California decision, affirming 14th Amendment protection against racial discrimination. Specifically, the Court:

"rejected the notion that separate can ever be equal-or 'neutral' - 50 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education" repudiated it. This court "refuses to resurrect it today."

US Prison Bureau regulations also stipulate that "staff shall not discriminate against inmates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or political belief (including) administrative decisions (involving) access to work, housing and programs."

Nonetheless, the Bush administration instituted these practices. Under Obama, they continue unabated at Terre Haute, IN and Marion, IL federal prison Communications Management Units (CMU). Perhaps additional federal and state facilities will follow for other wrongfully persecuted Muslims.

They're to assure they get fewer rights and privileges than other prisoners, including allowable communications. Also:

-- poorer food quality, amount, or that conforms to a strict Muslim diet;

-- proper medical care; and

-- virtually everything else, prison authorities given much latitude to do as they please, including violating Bureau of Prisons regulations and US law.

As a result, emergency medical care takes days or longer to receive. Essential care can take weeks, months or be denied. Other mistreatment includes harassment, intimidation, food rationing, the serving of forbidden-to-eat kinds, frequent "shake-downs," and removal or theft of personal possessions. Also rejection of simple requests, delay or denial of mail and other communications, as well as restricting them altogether.

In other words, Muslims are fair game to be treated any way prison authorities wish. They take full advantage against glorious men like Dhafir, Abu-Baker, and many others deserving honor, not prison.

Instead, they're out of sight and mind, wrongfully denied justice by a lawless nation, withholding it from innocent victims targeted at home and abroad.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

As a result, managed news jeopardizes free and open societies by substituting fiction for facts, carefully filtered reports for truth, and cheerleading propaganda for real journalism. As a result, wars of aggression are called liberating ones. Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good, and patriotism means going along with lawless governments, reigning death and destruction on defenseless nations for imperial, not noble, reasons.

Media support backs them, notably in America where dominant electronic and print reporting marches in lockstep with government policy, right or wrong.

As a result, dominant information sources (the major media) are in crisis as leading media scholar/critic/activist Robert McChesney once observed, saying:

"Going to war is arguably the single most important decision any society can make. The track record of the US news media in the twentieth century is that they often went along with fraudulent efforts to get the nation into one war or another" from WW I to today.

Each time with no exceptions, "administration(s) in power believed that (truth wouldn't enlist) support (for) war. So they lied. The Pentagon Papers (exposed it about Southeast Asia) in shocking detail."

Post-9/11 through Obama's war on Libya, "the very debate over whether to go to war" is absent. Obama decides. The media salute, and public opinion is manipulated to say amen. Never discussed are justifiable reasons, choosing diplomacy over militarism, America acting as judge, jury and executioner, and cui bono fruits of war. Without them, they'd be none.

Said another way, absent the power and profit benefits, who'd wage them, especially capitalist America, generously enriching war profiteers that fund politicians for bottom line friendly policies.

As a result, government is unaccountable to the electorate. Democracy is the best money can buy, and wars are always imperial, not liberating ones, especially ones America wages.

Today, round the clock media coverage supports them. Long before television, media critic AJ Liebling said, "People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." Today it's mostly TV, the dominant managed news source, supporting power, not truth, functioning as a propaganda system for elitist interests, especially on matters of war and peace.

Cheerleading 101

A March 21 New York Times editorial headlined, "At War in Libya" highlights it, saying:

"Col Muammar el-Qaddafi has long been a thug and a murderer who has never paid for his many crimes, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103." Thug and murderer, yes. Downing Pan Am Flight 103 proved false. He had nothing to do with it, clear evidence The Times suppresses to willfully lie to readers.

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was bogusly convicted for the December 21, 1988 bombing, then released last August because of terminal cancer and sent home to Libya. In fact, Scottish judges who convicted him knew he was innocent, saying so in their final opinion. In addition, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's investigation uncovered multiple reasons for believing his conviction was a gross miscarriage of justice, including no credible evidence of his involvement.

No witnesses, video, documentation, fingerprints or other corroboration linked him to the bomb inside a suitcase downing the plane. Even the court admitted:

"The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 (Air Malta to Frankfort) is a major difficulty'" in the case.

Further, misreporting claimed Gaddafi admitted fault. In fact, he said Libya would take responsibility for the crime, solely to have international sanctions against him lifted.

The dominant media know it, including The Times, but never reported it. Instead, they distort, exaggerate, lie, and, and suppress uncomfortable truths to support state and corporate interests, even at the cost of innocent lives.

As a result, The Times editorial praised Obama's decision to bomb, never questioning why, whether alternatives should have been considered, or rule of law considerations. Instead, it admitted:

-- "no perfect formula for military intervention;"

-- the importance of "us(ing) it sparingly;" and

-- abstaining in Bahrain, Yemen, other regional uprisings, and Occupied Palestine is justified.

In contrast, it called Libya "a specific case," saying Gaddafi "is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism," ignoring other worse regional despots than him, notably Israeli leaders armed with nuclear weapons, other sophisticated ones, no shyness about using them, regularly attacking Palestinians, besieging Gazans, and waging lawless wars on Lebanon and Gaza with impunity.

In fact, Times and other major media reporters, op-ed, and editorial writers wholeheartedly support them, a chilling example of hypocrisy and biased journalism.

On March 23 Washington Post editorial headlined, "Confused in Libya," saying:

"The only solution to Libya's crisis....is the removal of Mr. Gaddafi from power. (Obama) still seems to lack a coherent strategy for accomplishing that aim." He needs to "(e)xercise US leadership....many (unnamed) Arabs have been puzzled and even outraged by (his) manifest reluctance to support a revolution (in fact, a US/UK-instigated insurrection), aimed at overthrowing one of the region's most vile dictatorships," ignoring other worse regional ones.

On March 20, a Wall Street Journal op-ed headlined, "GOP on Libya: What's Obama's Goal?" saying:

"Republican lawmakers are glad (Obama) is intervening in Libya, but they're not happy with how (he's) carry(ing) out (his) decision to do so." The same day, House Speaker John Boehner said:

Obama "has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people," what's, in fact, absent throughout the region, yet unmentioned in media commentaries or official statements.

Fox News contributor Bill Kristol wants ground troops in Libya as well as bombing. Ahead of hostilities, convicted Iran-Contra felon Elliot Abrams called Obama's response "feeble....a non-response," promoting war based on false information he cited. Bill O'Reilly headlined a commentary, "Getting Gaddafi," wanting him ousted for the wrong reasons. Other figures on the left and right agree, supporting a lawless agenda to do it.

Peter Dale Scott expressed other concerns, comparing Libya to Iraq, saying:

"Both countries had a monstrous dictator. Both were subjected to no-fly zones. (They) don't deter the dictator. In due course, this evolves into a massive intervention in which the government is overthrown and the opposition goes into an internal civil war while simultaneously attacking the invaders."

Diana Johnstone asked "Is This Kosovo All Over Again?" saying:

Despite enormous differences, disturbing similarities include:

-- right or wrong, vilifying a leader;

-- "the 'we must do something' chorus;"

-- evoking "crimes against humanity (and) genocide;"

-- "leftist (narrow vision) idiocy," mindlessly cheerleading for war;

-- "refugees," using over-the-top unexplained exaggeration;

-- resurrecting bin Laden, despite compelling evidence he's dead; and

-- spurning negotiations, mediation, and diplomacy to pursue war, Washington's favorite pastime.

As a result, expect protracted hostilities ahead, perhaps killing thousands, injuring and disabling many more, and causing widespread destruction and contamination from toxic munitions.

Once ended, Gaddafi may be gone, either dead or tried like Saddam then killed, and Libyans left no better off than Iraqis and Afghans, suffering horrifically under imperial occupation, a fate no one deserves.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

Beginning March 19, it was visible. However, months of planning preceded it, including US and UK special forces and intelligence operatives on the ground enlisting, inciting, funding, arming and supporting violent insurrection to oust Gaddafi and replace him with a Washington-controlled puppet like in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The script is familiar, playing out now in Libya - full-scale "imperial barbarism," a term James Petras used in a September 2010 article titled, "Imperialism and Imperial Barbarism," saying:

"The organizing principle of imperial barbarism is the idea of total war," including:

-- use of mass destruction weapons, unleashed on Libya as explained below;

-- targeting the entire country and society; and

-- dismantling "the entire civil and military apparatus of the state," replacing it with "colonial officials, paid mercenaries and unscrupulous and corrupt satraps" - puppets, figures As'ad AbuKhalil calls "useful idiots."

Moreover, as Petras explains:

"The entire modern professional class is targeted (and) replaced by retrograde religious-ethnic clans and gangs, susceptible to bribes and booty-shares. All existing modern civil society organizations are pulverized and replaced by crony-plunderers linked to the colonial regime. The entire economy is" disrupted by "shock and awe" bombings and ground attacks, affecting essential civilian infrastructure on the pretext of destroying military and "dual use" targets.

As a result, mass casualties follow, many post-conflict from disease, homelessness, starvation, deprivation, and environmental contamination. All wars are ugly, especially modern ones Washington wages, unleashing full force human and overall destruction, mostly affecting noncombatant men, women and children - imperialism's hidden victims.

Already, unknown hundreds of Libyans have been killed, wounded, or disabled, besides countless numbers affected overall. Expect much worse ahead, including violent, US-backed proxy insurgence, perhaps later joined by Pentagon troops if current air and ground attacks don't accomplish "Operation Odyssey Dawn's" objectives.

UN Resolution 1973

Claiming authority under the UN Charter's Article VII, it, in fact, violates Article 51, stating:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Effectively, UN Resolution 1973 authorized war, not peace. Moreover, it denied a sitting government, despotic or otherwise, the right of self-defense. A Western-backed insurgency initiated attacks, permitting a head of state to respond.

Further, the UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion are justified. None exist in Libya.

In addition, Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes, not "shock and awe" attacks. Article 2(4), in fact, prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.

Further, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council - that may not violate its own Charter. In fact, Washington bullied enough members to do so, planning naked aggression in response.

Ostensibly to protect civilians, Resolution 1973's paragraph 4 authorized Member States "to take all necessary measures...." As a result, a giant interventionist loophole was created they knew Washington would exploit.

Under paragraph 6, moreover, "establish(ing) a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians," in fact, harms them by US "shock and awe" attacks.

Further, paragraph 7's authorization for "flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian" denies them because Pentagon-controlled airspace will destroy any encountered Libyan aircraft, claiming it hostile, not delivering food, medical or other essential supplies or personnel.

In addition, supplying insurgents with weapons and munitions violates paragraph 13, "Call(ing) upon Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from" Libya.

In fact, besides covertly supplying its own weapons, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps other regional and/or NATO countries are arming insurgents, at the behest of Washington - violating Resolution 1973.

As a result, Libyans are at the mercy of US imperial aggression, disdaining all international laws, principles and standards. At war, Washington causes mass casualties and destruction. Now begun, expect much more ahead.

In addition, "coalition" participation is fig leaf cover for US aggression. AFRICOM's General Carter Ham has full command authority, directing UK, French and other belligerent partners, besides America's full air, sea and ground might.

Expect protracted conflict, perhaps "boots on the ground," putting a lie to Obama's promise for "humanitarian intervention" to end in "a matter of days, not weeks." Already, insurgency has been ongoing for weeks, perhaps months covertly, the worst yet to come, but already conditions are bad. They always are when Washington arrives.

Weapons of Mass Destruction Used

Since the 1991 Gulf War, Washington used nuclear weapons covertly - in depleted uranium (DU) form. Contaminating exposure is deadly. All US missiles, bombs, and shells have solid DU projectiles or warheads in them. Even bullets because in all forms, DU-tipped munitions easily penetrate armor, irradiating air, ground and water when used. DU, in fact, painfully kills from later contracted illnesses and diseases, including cancer and many others.

When weaponized DU strikes, it penetrates deeply, aerosolizing into a fine spray which then contaminates wide areas. Moreover, its residue is permanent. Its microscopic/submicroscopic particles remain suspended in air or swept into it from contaminated soil.

Atmospheric winds then carry it far distances as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, falling indiscriminately to earth and water. Virtually every known illness and disease may result from severe headaches, muscle pain and general fatigue, to major birth defects, infection, depression, cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer and brain tumors. As a result, permanent disability or death may follow.

Moreover, DU use is illegal under international law. Although no specific convention or treaty bans radioactive weapons, including DU, they're, in fact, illegal de facto and de jure under the Hague Convention of 1907, prohibiting use of any "poison or poisoned weapons."

In all forms, DU is radioactive and chemically toxic, thus fitting the definition of poisonous weapons Hague banned. America is a signatory. As a result, DU weapons use for any purpose violates international law. Moreover, all DU weapons meet the U.S. federal code WMD definition in 2 out of 3 categories:

The US CODE, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40, SECTION 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as follows:

"The term 'weapon of mass destruction' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or radioactivity."

As a result, commanders up the chain of command, including civilian ones to the highest level, authorizing DU weapons use for any purpose are war criminals.

Moreover, under various UN Conventions and Covenants, weapons causing post-battle environmental or human harm are banned. Nonetheless, Washington uses them indiscriminately, including DU. As a result, millions of Iraqi, Serbian/Kosovar, and Afghan nationals, as well as belligerent US troops have been gravely harmed, yet Pentagon and administration authorities deny all responsibility.

Libyans will now be victimized by DU poisoning. Wherever it strikes and spreads, it's unforgiving, disabling and deadly. If enough is used, a future cancer epidemic will follow, too late to help those harmed.

Helen Caldicott calls radiation a "Destroyer of Worlds," doing it by killing people silently, painfully, illegally, and at times genocidally.

In 2005, before his death, no wonder Nobel laureate Harold Pinter condemned US aggression saying:

"(T)he United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious......It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant."

Under Bush, Obama or anyone else, it does what it pleases - the law, human welfare, and environmental considerations be damned.

A Final Comment

On March 21, Reuters said missile and air attacks on Libya continue. The New York Times headlined, "Allies Target Qaddafi's Ground Forces, but Resistance Continues (unconfirmed) Reports Say." The Washington Post said, "Libyan rebels launch offensive; coalition pounds Gaddafi forces," that may be observing a ceasefire. Al Jazeera reported "Rejoicing in Libya's Benghazi," continuing its biased war reporting, siding with anti-Gaddafi forces.

In contrast, independent web sites, analysts, and on-air programming offer detailed, truthful information, including the Progressive Radio News Hour this writer hosts on the Progressive Radio Network.com, featuring distinguished guests, dominant media sources spurn.

Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is one of many reliable sources. On March 20, his Global Research.ca article headlined, "BREAKING NEWS: Libyan Sources Report Italian POWs Captured. Additional Coalition Jets Downed. Qatar has joined the War," saying:

-- unconfirmed "(i)nternal Libyan sources reported....the capture of an Italian vessel and military personnel, who were detained;"

-- Gaddafi's government "started supplying (Libyans) with food rations, medicine, and weapons to defend themselves;"

-- unconfirmed "Libyan sources reported" downing two more "coalition" jets, "identified as Qatari military planes;" and

-- unconfirmed Libyan sources claim five "coalition" jets downed, three attacking Tripoli, two others over Sirt.

March 22 marks day four of a protracted conflict. It's certain to cause widespread deaths, injuries, disabilities and destruction. It's assured when America arrives - on cruise missiles, bombs and shells, not white horses promoting peace and democratic values, what all US administrations disdain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

But what will Obama plead? The Administration, just months ago, asked Congress to provide a $4 billion loan guarantee for two new nuclear reactors to be built and operated on the Gulf Coast of Texas -- by Tokyo Electric Power and local partners. As if the Gulf hasn't suffered enough.

Here are the facts about Tokyo Electric and the industry you haven't heard on CNN:

The failure of emergency systems at Japan's nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us who have worked in the field.

Nuclear plants the world over must be certified for what is called "SQ" or "Seismic Qualification." That is, the owners swear that all components are designed for the maximum conceivable shaking event, be it from an earthquake or an exploding Christmas card from Al Qaeda.

The most inexpensive way to meet your SQ is to lie. The industry does it all the time. The government team I worked with caught them once, in 1988, at the Shoreham plant in New York. Correcting the SQ problem at Shoreham would have cost a cool billion, so engineers were told to change the tests from 'failed' to 'passed.'

The company that put in the false safety report? Stone & Webster, now the nuclear unit of Shaw Construction which will work with Tokyo Electric to build the Texas plant, Lord help us.

There's more.

Last night I heard CNN reporters repeat the official line that the tsunami disabled the pumps needed to cool the reactors, implying that water unexpectedly got into the diesel generators that run the pumps.

These safety back-up systems are the 'EDGs' in nuke-speak: Emergency Diesel Generators. That they didn't work in an emergency is like a fire department telling us they couldn't save a building because "it was on fire."

What dim bulbs designed this system? One of the reactors dancing with death at Fukushima Station 1 was built by Toshiba. Toshiba was also an architect of the emergency diesel system.

Now be afraid. Obama's $4 billion bail-out-in-the-making is called the South Texas Project. It's been sold as a red-white-and-blue way to make power domestically with a reactor from Westinghouse, a great American brand. However, the reactor will be made substantially in Japan by the company that bought the US brand name, Westinghouse -- Toshiba.

I once had a Toshiba computer. I only had to send it in once for warranty work. However, it's kind of hard to mail back a reactor with the warranty slip inside the box if the fuel rods are melted and sinking halfway to the earth's core.

TEPCO and Toshiba don't know what my son learned in 8th grade science class: tsunamis follow Pacific Rim earthquakes. So these companies are real stupid, eh? Maybe. More likely is that the diesels and related systems wouldn't have worked on a fine, dry afternoon.

Back in the day, when we checked the emergency back-up diesels in America, a mind-blowing number flunked. At the New York nuke, for example, the builders swore under oath that their three diesel engines were ready for an emergency. They'd been tested. The tests were faked, the diesels run for just a short time at low speed. When the diesels were put through a real test under emergency-like conditions, the crankshaft on the first one snapped in about an hour, then the second and third. We nicknamed the diesels, "Snap, Crackle and Pop."

(Note: Moments after I wrote that sentence, word came that two of three diesels failed at the Tokai Station as well.)

In the US, we supposedly fixed our diesels after much complaining by the industry. But in Japan, no one tells Tokyo Electric to do anything the Emperor of Electricity doesn't want to do.

I get lots of confidential notes from nuclear industry insiders. One engineer, a big name in the field, is especially concerned that Obama waved the come-hither check to Toshiba and Tokyo Electric to lure them to America. The US has a long history of whistleblowers willing to put themselves on the line to save the public. In our racketeering case in New York, the government only found out about the seismic test fraud because two courageous engineers, Gordon Dick and John Daly, gave our team the documentary evidence.

In Japan, it's simply not done. The culture does not allow the salary-men, who work all their their lives for one company, to drop the dime.

Not that US law is a wondrous shield: both engineers in the New York case were fired and blacklisted by the industry. Nevertheless, the government (local, state, federal) brought civil racketeering charges against the builders. The jury didn't buy the corporation's excuses and, in the end, the plant was, thankfully, dismantled.

Am I on some kind of xenophobic anti-Nippon crusade? No. In fact, I'm far more frightened by the American operators in the South Texas nuclear project, especially Shaw. Stone & Webster, now the Shaw nuclear division, was also the firm that conspired to fake the EDG tests in New York. (The company's other exploits have been exposed by their former consultant, John Perkins, in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.)

If the planet wants to shiver, consider this: Toshiba and Shaw have recently signed a deal to become world-wide partners in the construction of nuclear stations.

The other characters involved at the South Texas Plant that Obama is backing should also give you the willies. But as I'm in the middle of investigating the American partners, I'll save that for another day.

So, if we turned to America's own nuclear contractors, would we be safe? Well, two of the melting Japanese reactors, including the one whose building blew sky high, were built by General Electric of the Good Old US of A.

After Texas, you're next. The Obama Administration is planning a total of $56 billion in loans for nuclear reactors all over America.

And now, the homicides:

CNN is only interested in body counts, how many workers burnt by radiation, swept away or lost in the explosion. These plants are now releasing radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Be skeptical about the statements that the "levels are not dangerous." These are the same people who said these meltdowns could never happen. Over years, not days, there may be a thousand people, two thousand, ten thousand who will suffer from cancers induced by this radiation.

In my New York investigation, I had the unhappy job of totaling up post-meltdown "morbidity" rates for the county government. It would be irresponsible for me to estimate the number of cancer deaths that will occur from these releases without further information; but it is just plain criminal for the Tokyo Electric shoguns to say that these releases are not dangerous. Indeed, the fact that residents near the Japanese nuclear plants were not issued iodine pills to keep at the ready shows TEPCO doesn't care who lives and who dies whether in Japan or the USA. The carcinogenic isotopes that are released at Fukushima are already floating to Seattle with effects we simply cannot measure.

Heaven help us. Because Obama won't.

***

Greg Palast is the co-author of Democracy and Regulation, the United Nations ILO guide for public service regulators, with Jerrold Oppenheim and Theo MacGregor. Palast has advised regulators in 26 states and in 12 nations on the regulation of the utility industry.

Palast, whose reports can be seen on BBC Television Newsnight, is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow for investigative reporting.

Collapse

Point of fact: Besides its catastrophic quake, tsunami, destructive aftershocks, and resulting humanitarian crisis, Japan is experiencing a developing nuclear catastrophe, the full extent not known until independent sources reveal it.

On March 12, a huge explosion rocked Fukushima's Unit 1 reactor. Reports said its containment chamber was intact. Independent experts are skeptical, believing at least some damage occurred, perhaps a major breach now covered up. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) blamed a core meltdown for the explosion, releasing hazardous atmospheric radioactive cesium-137 and iodine-131.

Greenpeace said:

"This proves once and for all that nuclear power cannot ever be safe. Japan's nuclear plants were built....to withstand natural disasters, yet we still face potential meltdown" disaster.

Nuclear expert Helen Caldicott said atmospheric cesium-137 and iodine 131 releases pose grave human health risks. "All of these substances can cause cancer and genetic diseases either in the near or long term." Why are "we mad enough to introduce this disastrous form of energy into our lives," knowing major catastrophes are inevitable, especially in earthquake prone areas like Japan, California, and other vulnerable locations, many throughout the world.

Caldicott added in an email to this writer that the situation is "beyond terrifying!!!" Moreover, downplaying the potential severity is outrageous, irresponsible and criminal. Literally, millions of lives potentially are at risk. Further, nothing short of shutting down and dismantling all nuclear facilities is crucial. They're all ticking time bombs waiting to explode, especially ones in seismically active areas.

On March 12, nuclear expert Karl Grossman's CounterPunch article headlined, "Don't Worry, It's Just a Little Radiation," saying:

Lies always follow major events like Fukushima. Saying modest atmospheric radiation levels won't have long-term environmental and human health effects is deceitfully false. Grossman quoted the US Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI - the industry trade group) stating:

"The Japanese prime minister and the industry safety agency say all plants in the country are safe and that there has been no radiation release from any reactors," when, in fact, NISA confirmed it with few details.

On March 13, NEI said there's no danger of a Chernobyl-like event, when, in fact, the threat potential far exceeds it. "Japanese nuclear facilities are designed to withstand powerful seismic events," it said. In fact, substantial damage occurred, its full extent not revealed.

Like Japan's prime minister and other government officials, NEI is paid to lie to protect powerful member interests like General Electric. Its Nuclear Energy division is a major producer of "advanced reactor technologies" and related services.

Moreover, claiming failsafe systems prevent nuclear disasters is patently false, Grossman saying:

"In fact, like any machinery, nuclear plants can - and regularly do - undergo accidents. The big difference with atomic energy: the malfunctions can end up killing large numbers of people and impact other life as well."

At worst, however, entire countries, regions or planet earth may be catastrophically harmed. Potentially, Japan's meltdown triggered that type event. Full scale damage control is concealing it, or at least the possibility that it's happening.

Chernobyl's disaster, in fact, affected the entire Northern Hemisphere, killing almost a million people. Multiple Japanese reactor meltdowns may far exceed it, Grossman saying:

"Nuclear power plants are, in fact, life-threatening wherever they are - they represent the most dangerous way to boil water ever devised." Readily available "(w)ind, solar and geothermal energy and other forms of safe, clean power would" prevent the deadly fallout from Japan's catastrophe, threatening the entire Pacific rim and beyond, but using them would be bad for business. Companies like GE have plenty of clout to prevent it, placing bottom line priorities above humanity's survival.

Second Nuclear Explosion Rocks Japan

On March 14, Reuters headlined, "Japan grapples with nuclear crisis," saying:

A second explosion blew off a containment facility's roof. A third reactor's cooling system failed. Officials claimed no reactor's been harmed. As explained above, independent experts are skeptical, believing powerful explosions damage or destroy everything nearby, what official reports won't reveal.

As a result, "Japan scrambled to avert (multiple) meltdown(s) at a stricken nuclear reactor on Monday."

Live NHK video showed the reactor facility's skeletal remains, thick smoke rising and spreading. Multiple injuries were reported. Workers inside were exposed to extremely high radiation levels endangering their lives.

Thousands of quake/tsunami-related deaths are confirmed. Tens of thousands are missing and unaccounted for. In Otsuchi, ICRC's Patrick Fuller described "a scene from hell, absolutely nightmarish." As many as 10,000 people, half the town's population, may have perished, besides many others in Northern Japan.

Spreading Atmospheric Radiation

Massive atmospheric radiation is feared, frantic Fukushima engineers trying to contain it. Multiple reactors are affected. Full scale official and media damage control efforts are suppressing bad news. The IAEA said Japan added a third troubled plant, Onagawa, to others under a state of emergency because of failed cooling systems and radiation releases. Later reports suggested Onagawa experienced no leaks, whether or not true. Be skeptical.

On March 13, New York Times writers David Sanger and Matthew Wald headlined, "Radioactive Releases in Japan Could Last Months, Experts Say," stating:

Flooding two stricken reactors with corrosive seawater (rendering them henceforth inoperable) is "a desperate step to avoid a much bigger problem: a full meltdown," perhaps ongoing but concealed. Japanese officials and media reports call it "partial." Radioactive steam is being released to relieve pressure, spreading atmospheric poison.

A widening area is being contaminated. Tens of thousands evacuated "may not be able to return to their homes for a considerable period," perhaps never, depending on contamination levels. "More steam releases also mean (spreading contamination) across the Pacific...." Discount America's Nuclear Regulatory Commission saying:

"Hawaii, Alaska, the US Territories, and the US West Coast are not expected to experience any harmful levels of radioactivity."

False! Atmospheric winds and rain potentially may contaminate planet earth, some areas more than others. A worried unnamed official said, "under the best scenarios, this isn't going to end anytime soon," or perhaps well.

Another concern affects some Japanese reactors plus others in France and Germany. They use mox (mixed oxide) fuel, containing reclaimed plutonium - the most hazardous known substance. When ingested, a tiny spec can kill. Larger inhaled atmospheric amounts could devastate whole cities. Two damaged Fukushima units use it, Nos. 2 and 3.

Sanger and Wald added:

"Inside the plant....there was deep concern that spent nuclear fuel that was kept in a 'cooling pond' (began) letting off potentially deadly gamma radiation. Then water levels inside the reactor cores began to fall. (An estimated) top four to nine feet of nuclear fuel in the core and control rods appear to have been exposed to the air - a condition that" caused melting, potentially a "full meltdown" that may, in fact, be happening.

Using corrosive seawater may, in fact, not work. Because of high containment vessel pressure, forcing it inside is like "trying to pour water into an inflated balloon," according to one unnamed source. It's not clear how much water is getting in and whether cores are covered. Damaged gauges make knowing it impossible, so doing it is seat-of-the-pants, a "Hail Mary" attempt at best.

Operating 55 nuclear facilities, Japan relies heavily on them for electricity, at present 30%, a figure expected to reach 50% by 2030 if planned additions are completed.

Tokyo Electric Power's (TEPCO) Shoddy Maintenance and Safety Record

On March 12, Los Angeles Times writers Mark Magnier and Barbara Demick headlined, "Japanese fearful as nuclear crisis builds," saying:

"(M)any Japanese don't trust (what) authorities (tell) them" anymore. Moreover, they "have an uncomfortable relationship with nuclear power" and TEPCO, Fukushima's operator.

"As many people (know, it) has a history of not being forthcoming about nuclear safety issues, particularly those surrounding earthquake-related dangers."

In 2003, its 17 nuclear plants were temporarily shut for falsifying safety inspection reports. In 2006, it was learned that its coolant-water data at two plants were falsified in the 1980s. Critics have long expressed deep concern about safety at many of Japan's nuclear facilities," some dating from the 1970s and 1980s.

Fukushima especially "has long been on critics' radar, but so has the Hamaoka plant," 100 miles southwest of Toyko on an active fault line. In fact, Kobe University Professor Emeritus Katsuhiko Ishibashi said:

"I have been warning about Japan's possibility of a genpatsu shinsai - a nuclear disaster," explaining that many nuclear facilities are hazardously located in seismically unsafe locations. No one listened.

On March 13, Kyodo News said another cooling system failed at Tokai's No. 2 facility, 120 km from Tokyo. Emergency measures were taken. Unreliable reports say a backup pump and cooling system are operating. Fukushima's No. 1 and 3 reactors experienced meltdowns. Kyodo called its No. 2 "troubled," raising fears of the worst there, besides what's happening at Tokai No. 2 and perhaps other quake/tsunami affected reactors.

Third Reactor Explosion Rocks Japan

On March 14, New York Times writers Hiroko Tabuchi, David Sanger and Keith Bradsher headlined, "Japan Faces Potential Nuclear Disaster as Radiation Levels Rise," saying:

"Japan's nuclear crisis verged toward catastrophe" after a third explosion rocked another Fukushima reactor, "damag(ing) the vessel containing the nuclear core (spewing) large amounts of radioactive material into the air, according to the statements of Japanese government and industry officials."

Even top officials who lie admitted "a very high risk" exists. In fact, it's well beyond "risk." It's reality, affecting all Japan, the Pacific rim, and beyond. Clearly, a major catastrophe is unfolding.

What more is needed to demand an immediate shutdown and replacement of all nuclear facilities worldwide. Their continued use threatens all humanity.

A Final Comment

Of any magnitude, meltdowns aren't minor, and no structures are earthquake or tsunami-proof. When most intense, Mother Nature prevails. Images of affected Japanese areas and damaged reactor facilities offer proof, besides the potentially massive, widespread human toll.

Sunday, March 13, on the Progressive Radio News Hour, Karl Grossman explained Japan's "nuclear emergency," discussed in detail on his blog site, accessed through the following link:

http://karlgrossman.blogspot.com/2011/03/japan-nuclear-emergency.html

Nuclear plants use radioactive material for heat to generate electricity. Huge amounts are needed. To prevent overheating, "vast amounts of coolant are required, up to a million gallons of water a minute." Without it, meltdowns occur, because "in less than a minute," temperatures can reach 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit - hot enough to "burn through the cement bottom of the nuclear plant" to earth beneath.

Nuclear scientists call it the "China syndrome," meaning "it descends to the water table underlying a plant. Then, in a violent reaction, molten core and cold water combine, creating steam explosions and releasing a plume of radioactive poisons."

Where it spreads depends on wind velocity, direction, and rain. Nuclear reactors are vulnerable, life-threatening, and "the most dangerous way to boil water ever devised." Deactivating them is essential, especially when safe alternatives exist, so far spurned to pad bottom lines for companies like GE, concerned about profits, not human safety.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected] Also 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/.

Collapse

The 20-page ruling, issued in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, upheld government demands that it be allowed to seize the Twitter accounts of WikiLeaks supporters Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a leftist member of the Icelandic parliament, computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum and Rop Gonggrijp, the cofounder of the Dutch ISP XS4All.

Jónsdóttir was specifically targeted for her role in helping WikiLeaks release the Collateral Murder video last year that exposed the wanton slaughter of a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad, including two Reuters photojournalists, by a U.S. military Apache helicopter crew. Two children were also seriously wounded in the unprovoked attack.

The ruling also grants access to the Twitter accounts of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the imprisoned and tortured Army private indicted for "aiding the enemy" over his alleged leak of incriminating documents that disclosed state crimes, charges which carry a potential death penalty.

Meanwhile, the cyber-guerrilla collective Anonymous, responsible for the HBGary hack that revealed plans by the Bank of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to target WikiLeaks and Chamber opponents, "has promised to avenge Manning, and wage a media war with the U.S. military," The Tech Herald reports.

Buchanan's ruling ordered that the micro-blogging site cough-up information to the government about what internet and email addresses are associated with the whistleblowers, as part of an "ongoing investigation" by a federal grand jury believed to be seeking criminal charges against WikiLeaks supporters.

The judge rejected arguments by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and private attorneys representing the account holders, dismissing claims that there were First Amendment issues involved because the activists "have already made their Twitter posts and associations publicly available."

In dismissing privacy concerns, Buchanan also ruled that the account holders had "no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in their IP addresses," and that federal privacy law did not apply because prosecutors were not seeking the contents of the communications themselves, a spurious argument.

Denouncing the ruling, EFF noted in a press release that "secret government demands for information about the subscribers' communications came to light only because Twitter took steps to ensure their customers were notified and had the opportunity to respond."

The ACLU and EFF are also seeking from the court similar orders issued by the Obama administration to other companies, widely reported to include Google and Facebook.

When the story first broke, WikiLeaks demanded that Google and Facebook reveal the contents of subpoenas they may have received from the government. However both multibillion firms, chock-a-block with contracts from the secret state as disclosed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) have refused all comment, leading critics to assume they have already complied with orders to hand over the data.

The ACLU's Aden Fine, a staff attorney with the group's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project said that Buchanan's ruling "gives the government the ability to secretly amass private information related to individuals' Internet communications." Decrying the judge's order, Fine commented: "If this ruling stands, our client may be prevented from challenging the government's requests to other companies because she might never know if and how many other companies have been ordered to turn over information about her."

EFF's Legal Director Cindy Cohn added, "with so much of our digital private information being held by third parties--whether in the cloud or on social networking sites like Twitter--the government can track your every move and statement without you ever having a chance to protect yourself."

Underscoring Cohn's point, EFF revealed back in August that "a number of documents from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) highlighted the government's ability to scour not only social networks, but record each and every corner of the Internet."

Both privacy watchdog groups plan to appeal the ruling.

As Antifascist Calling reported last month, the secret state began a criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange last July after the secret-spilling web site began releasing a mountain of classified files on the imperialist Empire's criminal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That probe was accelerated after WikiLeaks Cablegate revelations began last November and the group threatened to release compromising files on a "major American bank," believed to be the Bank of America.

While WikiLeaks hasn't followed up, Zero Hedge reported Friday that Anonymous "is claiming to be have emails and documents which prove 'fraud' was committed by Bank of America employees, and the group says it'll release them on Monday."

CNET News noted that "Buchanan's order isn't a traditional subpoena. Rather, it's what's known as a 2703(d) order, which allows police to obtain certain records from a Web site or Internet provider if they are 'relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation'."

Investigative journalist Declan McCullagh reports that a 2703(d) order "is broad" and covers "connection records, or records of session times and durations," and "records of user activity for any connections made to or from the account," including internet addresses used.

In other words, the order covers "all records" and "correspondence" relating to the accounts and is also "broad enough to sweep in the content of messages such as direct messages sent through Twitter or tweets from a nonpublic account."

According to EFF's Cindy Cohn, the Justice Department narrowed their request "to avoid asking for content" so as to avoid a federal appeals court decision that a "a 2703(d) order is insufficient for content data and a search warrant is necessary." Cohn told CNET "it sure seemed like the order sought" to sweep up message content as well.

Cohn told Bloomberg News even though Buchanan's order didn't involve content, "the judge downplayed what can be learned from non-content information that we give to third-parties all the time."

In February, San Francisco-based attorney John Keker who represents Jacob Appelbaum, argued in court that "it is incredibly powerful to know who the opposition is and who they're working with," and that turning over such information to a grand jury would violate Fourth Amendment guarantees against warrantless searches and seizures by the national security state.

For their part, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Davis argued in court that the government's request was "routine."

Davis told the court, "this is a standard--as this court knows well--investigative measure used in criminal investigations every day of the year all over the country."

As the Obama administration's war on whistleblowers escalates, prosecutions and threats of the same have focused journalists and corporate watchdogs in their gunsights.

Secrecy News disclosed last week that former National Security Agency official Thomas A. Drake, charged last year "with unauthorized retention of classified information about controversial NSA programs, should not be allowed to argue in court that overclassification is widespread or that he was engaged in whistleblowing in the public interest."

According to federal prosecutors, while "the defendant may claim that the current classification system is ineffectual or illegal and prevents his ability to air allegations of waste, fraud and abuse to the attention of the public," the secret state is arguing that such concerns are "irrelevant." Illegal or not, the defendant's "obligation" was to "protect classified information."

This from an administration that claimed one of its "top priorities" would be to "Protect Whistleblowers"!

As Salon's Glenn Greenwald pointed out last year: "Most of what our Government does of any real significance happens in the dark."

"Whistleblowers are one of the very few avenues we have left for learning about any of that," Greenwald wrote. "And politicians eager to preserve their own power and ability to operate in secret--such as Barack Obama--see whistleblowers as their Top Enemy."

"Hence," the Salon columnist informed us, "we have a series of aggressive prosecutions from the Obama administration of Bush era exposures of abuse and illegality--acts that flagrantly violate Obama's Look Forward, Not Backward decree used to protect high-level Bush administration criminals." And, I might add, "high-level criminals" within his own administration.

As the World Socialist Web Site pointed out last month, "the aim" of the Obama administration "is not only to extract revenge for WikiLeaks having published thousands of US Embassy cables detailing Washington's involvement in spying, torture and assassinations. It is also intended as a warning to any individual or group that tries to expose the dirty reality of imperialist diplomacy."

With any semblance of public accountability, let alone justice, closed off by America's capitalist elites, in and outside of government, whistleblowing web sites like WikiLeaks, Public Intelligence, Cryptome and Anonymous, may very well be the last line of defense we have for exposing state crimes against what little remains of our democracy.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano's Journal Today. His articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.

Collapse

Iran which was dubbed a part of the Axis of Evil by the former U.S. President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, is now under the merciless spates of psychological attack by the world's mainstream media over its controversial nuclear program.

To the Western mainstream media, Iran can only be defined in the framework of its contentious nuclear program and a number of stereotypes which seem to be inseparable from the West's depiction and portrayal of Iran.

What we usually encounter while pursuing Iran's coverage in the Western media is the claim that the Iranian people are religiously extremist, fundamentalist, terrorist, anti-American and intolerant. I've personally encountered several cases in which the American people have conflated Iran with Iraq and called Iran an Arab country. Many others have told me that they're simply unable to locate Iran's position on the world map and the only thing which they know about this country is that it wants to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe Israel off the world map.

It's true that over the past years, Iran's position in the international community was downgraded due to some uncompromising anti-Western policies which the government has adopted, and this in turn demonstrates that only those remains loyal to the Western superpowers can enjoy popularity and esteem; however, what the people of the world, specially those who participated in the BBC World Service's survey have forgotten is that the realities of Iran are far beyond what the media conglomerates, mostly run by affluent and well-off Jews and ardent Zionist, pretend.

I'm really sorry that the people of the world and the international community have forgotten the fact that Iran, once called the Greater Persian Empire, is home to one of the world's ancient and sophisticated civilizations. Don't you really remember that the Cyrus Cylinder, the world's first declaration of human right which was inscribed in 539 BC, belongs to the people of Iran?

Don't you remember that Rumi, the immortal mystic and poet who composed one of the most elaborate collections of spiritual verses of the world belongs to Iran?

Don't you remember that Persepolis, the masterpiece of architecture and craftsmanship which was once the ceremonial capital of Persian Empire's rulers belongs to Iran?

Don't you remember that the incontestable polymath, scientist, astronomer, mathematician and philosopher Hakim Omar Khayyam whose Rubayyiats you certainly know through Edward Fitzgerald's priceless translation belongs to Iran?

Don't you remember that Iran is the homeland of poetry, mysticism and love?

Don't you remember that the world's most valuable and pure saffron is cultivated in Iran?

Don't you remember that the Iranian carpet is an unequivocal manifestation of the Persian artistry, creativity and dexterity?

There are hundreds of such questions which I, as an ordinary Iranian citizen who loves and adores his country's civilization and culture would like to ask from you, who are reading my insignificant words. I admit that my government's treatment and demeanor with the international community over the past years has not been decent and justifiable. At the same time, I assert that the treatment of international community with my country hasn't been fair and righteous, as well. While Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads, as confirmed by the Federation of American Scientists, nobody has the courage to even question it, let alone investigate it; however, my country is being lethally attacked for pursuing a peaceful nuclear program. I know that there are a small group of extremists within certain layers of Iran's decision-making circle who impede the way of Iran's integration with the international community and pursue adventurous policies for the sake of their own interests. At the same time, I assert that there are extremist people within the top layers of Western governments who favor confrontation with an independent nation such as Iran. Unquestionably, there are people who distort the real image of Iran with their uncalculated and baseless statements and behaviors; however, what you should never forget is that the Iranian nation, regardless of who rules them, is a respectable and reputed nation. You cannot deny the contributions of Iranians to sciences, arts and society throughout the history.

Governments come and go; rulers get elected and then end disappear. What remains on the ground is truth and honesty, the features which the Iranian people have always been renowned for.

I'm not here to change your ideas and opinions with regards to Iran, because if it's your ideology that Iran is a rogue state and an incompatible and uncompromising role-player in the international community, I cannot influence you. I'm simply here to ask you to contemplate and think for a few moments. Are the Iranian people really deserved to be called the most unpopular nation of the world? Statistics show that there are roughly 200,000 Iranians living in the United States. You have surely encountered some of them and have had relations with them. Can you neglect and overlook the services which they have done to the American public? Is it really just and fair to consider Iranian people terrorists? I don't know the answer, but you, the people of conscience, certainly have responses to the questions which I've posed. Be fair and judge; who are the Iranian people? A part of the Axis of Evil?

Collapse

Two such examples of conventional wisdom that are almost universally unquestioned by corporate news recently came to our attention. Bear with us as we stray into domestic policy before returning to foreign affairs. 

At Tax.com, David Cay Johnston, one-time The New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner, writes:

Among the reports that failed to scrutinize [Wisconsin Gov. Scott] Walker's assertions about state workers' contributions and thus got it wrong is one by A.G. Sulzberger, the presumed future publisher of The New York Times, who is now a national correspondent. He wrote that the Governor "would raise the amount government workers pay into their pension to 5.8 percent of their pay, from less than 1 percent now."

Wrong. The workers currently pay 100 percent from their compensation package, but a portion of it is deducted from their paychecks and a portion of it goes directly to the pension plan. [In other words] Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin's pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

Meanwhile, at Salon, Michael Lind, Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation and as valuable a commentator as Johnston on affairs of the wallet, debunks a myth about China. (My initial impulse was to italicize some of his statements to emphasize them. But the extent to which it's all surprising is added testimony to the slovenly -- or deceitful -- job that the MSM is doing.)

We've heard it a thousand times, from American CEOs, pundits and politicians. . . . The U.S., we are told, is losing its manufacturing industries to competitors like China because America is falling behind in innovation and education.

But

It's not true. . . . Innovation and education are red herrings, tossed out to distract the American public from the real problem. . . .

American multinationals are not shutting factories in the U.S. and transferring production to China because of China's superior innovation culture or superior educational achievements. Nor are low Chinese wages the major factor. For the most part, multinationals are pressured or bribed by the Chinese dictatorship into producing in China. In some cases, U.S. multinationals are told they must produce inside China in order to have access to China's large and growing consumer market. In other cases, multinationals are bribed to relocate production to China by enormous subsidies from the Chinese government. . . .

How many American CEOs boast about how their companies have been bribed or pressured by the Chinese government into producing inside China's borders, hiring Chinese workers and transferring American intellectual property to Chinese corporations?

Probably about the same number as have any shame about it. Alas, another story the mainstream media sidesteps.

Collapse

The lesson is clear, and soldiers take note: You're better off committing a war crime than exposing one.

An Army intelligence officer stationed in Kuwait, the 23-year-old Manning - outraged at what he saw - allegedly leaked tens of thousands of State Department cables to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. These cables show U.S. officials covering up everything from U.S. tax dollars funding child rape in Afghanistan to illegal, unauthorized bombings in Yemen. Manning is also accused of leaking video evidence of U.S. pilots gunning down more than a dozen Iraqis in Baghdad, including two journalists for Reuters, and then killing a father of two who stopped to help them. The father's two young children were also severely wounded.

"Well, it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle," a not-terribly-remorseful U.S. pilot can be heard remarking in the July 2007 "Collateral Murder" video.

None of the soldiers who carried out that war crime have been punished, nor have any of the high-ranking officials who authorized it. Indeed, committing war crimes is more likely to get a solider a medal than a prison term. And authorizing them? Well, that'll get you a book deal and a six-digit speaking fee. Just ask George W. Bush. Or Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice. Or the inexplicably "respectable" Colin Powell.

In fact, the record indicates Manning would be far better off today - possibly on the lecture circuit rather than in solitary confinement - if he'd killed those men in Baghdad himself.

Hyperbole? Consider what happened to the U.S. soldiers who, over a period of hours - not minutes - went house to house in the Iraqi town of Haditha and executed 24 men, women and children in retaliation for a roadside bombing.

"I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head," said one of the two surviving eyewitnesses to the massacre, nine-year-old Eman Waleed. "Then they killed my granny." Almost five years later, not one of the men involved in the incident is behind bars. And despite an Army investigation revealing that statements made by the chain of command "suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives," with the murder of brown-skinned innocents considered "just the cost of doing business," none of their superiors are behind bars either.

Now consider the treatment of Bradley Manning. On March 1, the military charged Manning with 22 additional offenses - on top of the original charges of improperly leaking classified information, disobeying an order and general misconduct. One of the new charges, "aiding the enemy," is punishable by death. That means Manning faces the prospect of being executed or spending his life in prison for exposing the ugly truth about the U.S. empire.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has decided to make Manning's pre-trial existence as torturous as possible, holding him in solitary confinement 23 hours a day since his arrest 10 months ago - treatment that the group Psychologists for Social Responsibility notes is, "at the very least, a form of cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment in violation of U.S. law."

Collapse

Economists had predicted that the earlier GDP figure would be upwardly revised to 3.3 percent. All of these growth rates are well below what is needed to significantly lower the current official jobless rate of 9 percent. The same applies to the 2011 rate of 3.4 to 3.9 percent forecast last week by the Federal Reserve Board.

That forecast appears unduly optimistic in light of Friday's dismal fourth quarter report and the likely recessionary impact of skyrocketing oil prices.

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis attributed the slower growth to sharply lower state and local government spending than had been previously estimated, reflecting the effect of sweeping cuts in social spending as state and local governments move to impose the burden of budget deficits on the working class. Commerce had originally reported a drop of 0.9 percent, but revised this to a fall of 2.4 percent.

The other major factor in the downward revision was a smaller rise in consumer spending than previously reported. That component was downwardly revised from a growth rate of 4.4 percent to 4.1 percent.

Major European economies reported even more dismal growth rates for the fourth quarter than the US. Britain on Friday revised its previously reported drop of 0.5 percent to minus 0.6 percent. Germany expanded by only 0.4 percent and France by 0.3 percent.

These figures are all the more ominous under conditions of an oil price panic resulting from the disruption in Libyan supplies and the ongoing wave of social upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East. In the last week crude prices have risen more than 10 percent and breached $100 a barrel. Since February 15, crude oil prices have soared 18 percent.

Experts are predicting that gasoline prices in the US will jump by another 25 to 50 cents over the next several weeks and some are warning that prices at the pump could hit $5 a barrel by this summer's peak driving season. The impact of such a price shock on tens of millions struggling to pay their bills under conditions of mass unemployment and a relentless attack on wages and benefits will be devastating.

The surge in oil prices will, moreover, accelerate the already galloping rise in the price of food and other basic commodities. The inevitable effect will be a further contraction in consumer spending, more bankruptcies and foreclosures, and greater social protest.

The Obama administration has absolutely no policies to provide relief for growing social distress or create jobs for the millions who are clamoring for work. On the contrary, it is committed to intensifying the attacks on social programs, wages and benefits at the federal as well as the state and local levels.

The budget Obama released this month calls for $700 billion in social spending reductions over the next decade and he is currently negotiating with the Republicans to make even deeper cuts. This is meant to be a prelude to an attack on basic entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

At the same time, the US policy of effectively printing hundreds of billions of dollars as a trade and currency war measure against its international rivals (and a means of supplying US corporations and speculators with virtually free credit) adds further fuel to the commodity price bubble.

On the implications of the oil price surge, David Kotok, chairman and chief investment officer at Cumberland Advisers, wrote in a note to clients Thursday that "the risk of recession in the US and European economies is rising daily."

World food prices have already surpassed their 2008 peak, and the US Department of Agriculture on Thursday forecast record farm-gate prices for corn, wheat and soybeans in the crop year that begins with the 2011 harvests. The USDA added that food inflation would surge in the second half of this year as wholesale prices filtered through the supply chain and impacted retail prices.

Several other reports released this week pointed to the lack of any genuine recovery in the basic US economy. The Commerce Department reported Thursday that sales of new homes declined 12.6 percent in January from December. The sharp drop brought the seasonally adjusted rate to 284,000, not far from the record low of 274,000 set last August.

Earlier in the week, the S&P Case/Shiller home price index was released, showing a 1.0 percent decline in home prices in December from the previous month. Case/Shiller also reported that home prices nationally had fallen back nearly to their post-crash low point of early 2009.

In a conference call, Robert Shiller, the Yale University economist who co-founded the index, said there was a "substantial risk" of home prices falling another 10 to 25 percent.

Also on Thursday, the Commerce Department reported that durable goods orders in January other than for aircraft fell 3.6 percent. Because of a sharp increase in the volatile aircraft sector, the overall figure rose 2.7 percent. But a key measure used by economists to gauge business spending on new equipment--non-defense capital goods excluding aircraft--fell 6.9 percent.

Collapse

Individual income taxes came to just $2,900 per capita in 2010, down 36 percent from more than $4,500 in 2000. Total income taxes and income taxes per capita declined even though the economy grew 16 percent overall and 6 percent per capita from 2000 through 2010.

Corporate income tax receipts fell 27 percent and declined 34 percent per capita, even though profits boomed, rising 60 percent.

Payroll taxes increased slightly overall, but slipped per capita because the nation's population grew five times faster than the number of people with any work. The average wage also declined slightly.

You read it here first. Lowered tax rates did not result in increased tax revenues as promised by politician after pundit after professional economist. And even though this harsh truth has been obvious from the official data for some time, the same politicians and pundits keep prevaricating. Some of them even say it is irrelevant that as a share of GDP, income tax revenues are at their lowest level since 1951, when Harry S. Truman was president.

No matter how many times advocates of lower tax rates said it, tax rate cuts did not pay for themselves, did not spur economic growth, did not increase jobs, and did not make America better off.

Now that the news has been broken, let's see how many political leaders start speaking facts instead of fairy tales. And let's also watch to see how many Washington reporters, news anchors, talk show guests, and syndicated columnists use the actual figures. It's called holding politicians accountable, and it used to be a mainstay of journalism, where the first rule is to check it out and the second is to cross-check until you know what is going on and can give context.

The tables accompanying this column should be easy enough to read and turn into graphics for television, newspapers, and magazines, not to mention all those blogs and digital journals.

So how soon will we see Washington journalists holding politicians accountable for what they say about taxes, tax rates, revenues, economic growth, and jobs?

Here's some advice: Don't hold your breath. Washington has become a city of ideological marketing, where those who would note that the emperors have no facts are unwelcome in their own newsrooms. It is a city where access matters most and those who ask tough questions don't get access.

Just as real Mad Men persuaded millions of men to put that greasy Brylcreem™ in their hair and convinced many more that cigarettes make you healthier, pure nonsense about tax cuts spurring growth and paying for themselves gets repeated and replayed and regurgitated as if it had some basis in reality. But Washington is the marketplace of ideas and governance, not the marketplace of products. Lies about taxes sold by people with no regard for facts are at least as dangerous to our society as cigarettes are to smokers.

Consider this nonsense from the syndicated column by Thomas Sowell, who holds the Rose and Milton Friedman chair at the Hoover Institution. Sowell at least hedged a bit when he applied the word "often," writing in December:

High tax rates on paper, that many people avoid, often does not bring in as much tax revenue as lower tax rates that more people actually pay, after it is safe to come out of tax shelters and earn higher rates of taxable income.¹

But two months later, this former UCLA economics professor seems to have made up his facts, writing in his February column that "in each case, going back to the '20s, the reduced tax rates have led to increased tax revenues for the government."²
On the radio and television, I hear this sort of falsehood posing as fact all the time, sometimes by people who cite Sowell. It was true in the century past, and for limited times, that tax rate cuts were followed by more economic growth and increased revenues.

But that has not been true in this century. And some tax increases have been followed by economic growth, a fact Sowell neglected to mention. Over time, as the facts have mounted, the leaders of the "tax cuts good, taxes bad" school have started moving from the unsupportable to the cleverly worded. Consider this quite typical 2003 report from Daniel J. Mitchell, then at the Heritage Foundation and now at the Cato Institute:

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden -- a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to "soak the rich," the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.³

One of the best measures of who is worth listening to is whether their ideas stand the test of time. Reality has not been kind to Mitchell's views, making hash of his words in just a few years. Yet instead of recognizing reality, Mitchell has gone even further into fantasyland. Recently he mused favorably in The Philadelphia Inquirer about a federal budget of $450 billion, nearly 90 percent smaller than now. The figure he cited favorably is far less than current spending just on defense (all in, more than $1 trillion annually), Medicare and Medicaid (almost $850 billion), or Social Security (more than $725 billion).⁴

I agree with Mitchell that we could do a lot to cut federal spending, but what Mitchell argues for is the equivalent of cutting off the body because it offends, and imagining that the head could survive the assault and go on to think with greater clarity once all those unnecessary parts had been shed.

Mitchell's tax ideas are great if you want a government with no money to track al-Qaida's money or under which our food-borne illness rate (now 21 times that of France) would make death by salmonella rank with cancer and heart disease in the mortality statistics. In Mitchell's ideal America, we would not have a cent for scientific research, a foundation of wealth creation in the future, as the governments of China, India, Korea, and most of the rest of the civilized world understand.

In 2007 and in the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., repeatedly stressed: "The fact is, the tax cuts have dramatically increased revenues."

No, senator, they have not. The question is how can you not know that?

But sadly, McCain's statements are just tired illustrations of a serious problem. In Washington the principles of advertising -- make it simple, make it attractive, and say it over and over again until the jingle is embedded in millions of minds -- have supplanted the rhetoric and reasoned compromises of the Framers. War is peace. French fries are healthy. Lower tax rates mean more revenue.

Right after the midterm elections, when false claims that lower tax rates increased revenues helped win votes, Fox News captured the lockstep approach perfectly in a piece on its website about how Republican leaders were "on message."⁵

Notice these almost identical quotes from the Sunday morning talk shows five days after the midterms:

We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

Washington does not have a revenue problem. It's got a spending problem.

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.

I think it's not a revenue problem; it's a spending problem.

As framed, these advertising lines are matters of opinion, but how many Americans recognize them for what they are -- opinions, not facts?

Senate Finance Committee ranking minority member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, did not quite make things up when he took to the Senate floor on Valentine's Day. Hatch's words are a sublime example of being accurate and untruthful at the same time, straight out of the sins-of-omission playbook:

Deficits continue to grow in spite of increased revenues. By CBO estimates, federal revenues in 2011 will be $123 billion (or 6 percent) more than total revenues recorded two years ago, in 2009. This increase in federal revenues for 2011 includes the net effect from a one-year across-the-board reduction in payroll taxes. The important fact here is that revenues have increased over the past two years, and the deficit has still increased. Our deficit and debt problems are not being driven by tax relief.

Revenues go up when the economy recovers from a recession, like the Great Recession that gave us the worst economic performance since the end of the Coolidge and Hoover years.

What Hatch did not say is that the Congressional Budget Office estimates real economic growth averaging just 2.5 percent annually for 2010 and 2011, not the kind of above-average performance that we usually experience after a downturn. The two-year growth rate is almost one-third below the 3.6 percent average annual real growth rate for the half-century from 1950 to 2000, but it is better than the measly 1.6 percent growth rate from 2001 to 2009.

To get an idea of what a disaster the falling-tax-rates decade known as the aughts was, imagine if the disastrous economic growth of that decade had been the actual record since 1950.

The 2010 GDP of almost $14.7 trillion would have come in at less than $6.5 trillion, or 56 percent lower. Our per capita income would be $21,000, not $47,500. That would have moved us down from 10th in the world to 34th, sandwiched between Equatorial Guinea and Portugal, according to the latest CIA World Factbook.

Yet nonsense about taxes and revenues is increasing, not decreasing. So let me nominate for revenue whopper of the year a statement by Rep. Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican. Scalise wants to let oil companies get free oil because Clinton administration bureaucrats failed to properly prepare contracts for Gulf Coast oil leases. Those contract mistakes shock the conscience.

The contract error will cost our government about $53 billion, a mighty windfall for ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and BP.

Scalise took to the House floor on February 18 trying to make sure the oil companies get their oil without paying for it, saying that "the second largest source of federal revenue next to income taxes is royalties that are paid by oil companies."⁶

False, Congressman. Patently, ridiculously, shamefully false.

Oil royalties are such a small source of federal revenue that they do not even show up in the basic federal revenue data. Oil and gas royalties come to about $1 billion a month, a fraction of 1 percent of annual federal revenues, a fact that Scalise may not have noticed as he relied on oil and gas companies for the largest share of his reelection campaign funds.

When members of Congress will fight to protect a $53 billion mistake that benefits one industry, giving away our commonwealth for free, it is not just unconscionable. It is part of a pattern of wrecking our government and our economy for short-term political gain. And in this one, the oil companies won the day in the House.

There is a simple, factual way to describe what is happening to our government: We have a revenue problem.

Your thoughts? E-mail me at [email protected]

¹ See http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/dec/02/benefits-of-low-tax-rates-in-plain-sight-for-all/.

² See http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/rocky-and-republicans.html.

³ See http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates.

⁴ See http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12160.

⁵ See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/07/gop-message-revenue-problem-spending/#ixzz1ERnpGTNA.

⁶ See http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseSession4012 at 7:16:43.

END OF FOOTNOTES

RELATED CONTENT FROM DEMOCRACY NOW

In relationship to the ongoing protests in Wisconsin, David Cay Johnston appeared on Democracy Now. Below is that interview.

"Really Bad Reporting in Wisconsin": Media Parroting Walker's False Claims of Taxpayer "Subsidies" for Workers' Pensions, March 3, 2011.



Collapse

Anticipating a potential popular uprising in the occupied territories - which could result in a major revamping of the current power, to the disadvantage of Abbas - the PA is now taking preventive measures.

First, there was the resignation of the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Ereka on February 12. Erekat was clearly implicated in negotiating, if not squandering, Palestinian rights in successive meetings with Israeli and American officials. This was revealed through nearly 1,600 leaked documents, which Aljazeera and the Guardian termed the 'Palestine Papers'.

Erekat was hardly representing himself, as he readily gave away much territory, including most of Jerusalem. He also agreed to a symbolic return of Palestinian refugees to their land, now part of today's Israel. By keeping his post, the entire PA 'peace process' apparatus would have remained ineffective at best, and at worst entirely self-seeking, showing no regard whatsoever for Palestinian rights.

With Erekat's exit, the PA hopes to retain a margin of credibility among Palestinians.

Erekat, who made his entrance to the world of 'peace process' at the Madrid peace conference in 1991, opted out in a way that conceded no guilt. He claimed to have left merely because the leak happened through his office. The PA expects us to believe that, unlike other Arab governments, it functions in a transparent and self-correcting manner. Erekat wants to be seen as an "example of accountability", according to the Washington Post (February 16). He claimed: "I'm making myself pay the price for the mistake I committed, my negligence. These are the ethics and the standards. Palestinian officials need to start putting them in their minds."

The message is neatly coined, although it belittles the real issue at stake. This has caused much outrage in Palestinian intellectual, political and public circles. Negligence is one thing, and relinquishing a people's rights is another entirely.

Two days after Erekat's departure, the PA cabinet in the West Bank also suddenly resigned. The cabinet had met earlier that day, and its Prime Minister Salam Fayyad then submitted his resignation to President Abbas. The latter, in turn, accepted the resignation and immediately reappointed Fayyad to form a new government. An exercise in futility? Of course, but for a good reason.

The resignation was merely tactical. It aimed at quelling the current popular discontent and preventing it from spilling over into street protests. But it was also tactless, for it reintroduced the very man who formed the old government to assemble a new one. If indeed Fayyad's political performance was lacking - and thus deserving of rebuke and mass resignation - then what is the point of putting the same man in charge of yet another phase of inefficiency and ineffectiveness?

The dramatic move was meant to show the people that the PA did not need a popular uprising to initiate reforms and change. Fayyad was reappointed because he is valuable to the current political structure of the PA, and he's also the most trusted Palestinian official as far as the US is concerned.

Then, on top of all this, the PA cleverly set September as a deadline for elections in the occupied territories. This date acquired a compounded value when Western officials began assigning other great expectations to September as well. One such call was made by EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, who expressed her hopes - along with those of the 'international community' - that a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians would be reached by September.

Based on the current political reality - a rejectionist Israeli front, a Palestinian front that is polarized and largely self-seeking, and a US-led Western front that is incapable of doing much more than pressing the Palestinians for more concessions - we know only too well that no peace will come in September.

Abbas, a pragmatic man by his own admission, knows this as well. The September deadline is largely aimed at creating further distraction. If all eyes are focused on that date, there will be no need to worry about the here and now.

But September is also not too far off, a reality that calls for some early steps. Hamas expectedly rejected the call for elections without a platform of political and territorial unity. Why should Hamas get involved in another election if any unfavorable outcome will only bring further punishment to the Palestinian people? A sound concern, of course, but that rejection allowed Abbas, on February 17, to condition the elections based on Hamas' participation. In other words, Hamas is once more positioned as the hurdle that stands between the Palestinians and unity, political normalcy and democracy. Now Hamas will be continually derided for delaying the 'Palestinian national project', until September leisurely arrives and disappears, leaving behind no mark of meaningful change.

Abbas and his trusted men already know the outcome of this endeavor. In their defense, the strategy also has little to do with September, elections or Hamas' position. It is aimed at deepening the divide among Palestinians, and distract from the main problem, which is the fact that the PA serves no purpose other than managing the administrative side of the Israeli military occupation. The PA is devoid of any national value to the Palestinian people, and only serves the interests of those involved in subjugating them. The Palestinians are now required to move past this dismal political moment and seek an alternative - an all-inclusive, representative and truly democratic institution to lead the next stage in their fight for freedom.

The PA wants to stall until September. But will Palestinians wait that long?

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Collapse

There is no doubt about who Walker serves - and those interests want the unions dead. This is the Republican plan for America. Wisconsin is just part of the attack as it is occurring in states across the country.

Part one of the interview (Koch Whore: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker)

Part two of the interview (Koch Whore: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, part 2 )

Thom Hartmann also had an interesting discussion regarding the Murphy interview

Push back. Spread the word.
There are rallies being scheduled across the country on Saturday. Find a Rally near you.

Collapse

Scarcely batting an eyelash, Madame Clinton told her audience at George Washington University that "the goal is not to tell people how to use the internet any more than we ought to tell people how to use any public square, whether it's Tahrir Square or Times Square."

Rich with rhetorical flourishes that should have evoked gales of laughter but didn't (this is America, after all), Clinton averred that "together, the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online comprise what I've called the freedom to connect. The United States supports this freedom for people everywhere, and we have called on other nations to do the same."

Really?

Has the honorable Secretary attended a demonstration of late, or found herself on the receiving end of a police baton, a rubber bullet, a jolt from a taser or ear-piercing blast from a "nonlethal" sonic weapon?

Or perhaps Madame Clinton has been served with a National Security Letter that arrives with its own built-in, permanent gag order, had her organization infiltrated by provocateurs, been the focus of "spear phishing" attacks by a secret state agency, say the FBI or one of their private contractors, who've implanted surveillance software on her laptop or smart phone, or summoned by subpoena to appear before a Star Chamber-like grand jury?

I didn't think so.

The Secretary's hypocrisy and mendacity would be amusing if the American people hadn't already lived through a decade where the cheapening of constitutional rights, particularly First and Fourth Amendment guarantees, hadn't been eroded to the point of savage annihilation by all branches of government and by both capitalist parties.

After all, in the filthy Washington trough where money rules, "liberal" Democrats and "conservative" Republicans alike are joined at the hip and outdo one another in paying obeisance to the National Security State.

Indeed, just a hop, skip and a jump across the icy Potomac, an Alexandria courthouse witnessed the "change" regime's Justice Department move to seize the contents of private Twitter accounts, including those of left-wing Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir, and other WikiLeaks supporters.

While Mrs. Clinton hypocritically praised the role of social networking sites in helping to bring down torture-friendly, corrupt regimes in Egypt and Tunisia (close U.S. allies in the multibillion dollar kabuki dance known as the "War on Terror"), a grand jury was investigating whether there are grounds for filing criminal charges against WikiLeaks, its founder Julian Assange, and the heroic Bradley Manning, the incarcerated Army private suspected of leaking compromising files to the organization.

Outraged by revelations of American war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Apache helicopter gunship murder of a dozen people, including two Reuters journalists, as well as the release of thousands of diplomatic cables, the secret state is bringing the full weight of its formidable machinery down upon anyone, anywhere who have the temerity to challenge the lies of our militarist masters.

Denouncing the Obama regime's latest assault, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argued that forcing Twitter to turn over users' data to the government would hand the state a veritable road map of people connected to WikiLeaks, including journalists who may have communicated with the group, and would seriously chill free speech.

EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn pointed out that "Twitter is a publication and communication service, so the information sought by the government relates to what these individuals said and where they were when they said it. This raises serious First and Fourth Amendment concerns. It is especially troubling since the request seeks information about all statements made by these people, regardless of whether their speech relates to WikiLeaks."

Public knowledge of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's criminal probe recently surfaced when U.S. Magistrate Theresa Carroll Buchanan, granted a motion by three Twitter clients that partially unsealed some government filings in the case.

Plaintiffs' attorneys argued that Buchanan should overturn her earlier ruling ordering Twitter "to disclose its clients' data, as well as unseal documents in the case, including requests from prosecutors to get information from other technology companies," the The Washington Post reported.

When news of the federal government's fishing expedition first broke in January, The New York Times reported that what made the case unusual weren't de rigueur secret state subpoenas, but the fact that Twitter challenged the Justice Department's gag order "and won the right to inform the people whose records the government was seeking."

The Times noted that "WikiLeaks says it suspects that other large sites like Google and Facebook have received similar requests and simply went along with the government."

Such demands, and long-suspected capitulation by internet behemoths Google and Facebook, are at the heart of current debates over data retention.

As security analyst and surveillance critic Christopher Soghoian pointed out last month, "The hypocrisy of the government's push for such data retention is clear when compared to the extreme efforts that government agencies go to in order to shield their own communications, documents and other records from the American people."

Particularly when lawbreaking by favored contractors are cloaked by bogus claims of "national security."

Shielding a "War on Terror" Fraudster

One sordid example among hundreds of similar cases which have come to light was recently uncovered The New York Times.

Investigative journalists Eric Lichtblau and James Risen disclosed that for "eight years, government officials turned to Dennis Montgomery, a California computer programmer, for eye-popping technology that he said could catch terrorists."

Montgomery's "eye-popping technology" was a fraud, a multimillion grift that bamboozled the Pentagon's Special Operations Command and other secret state agencies and almost resulted in the 2003 shoot-down of passenger planes heading towards the U.S.

Hardly the "smartest guy in the room," Montgomery is awaiting trial in Nevada on charges "of trying to pass $1.8 million in bad checks at casinos." However, "he has not been charged with wrongdoing in the federal contracts, nor has the government tried to get back any of the money it paid."

In the last few months Obama's Justice Department, Lichtblau and Risen inform us, have "gotten protective orders from two federal judges keeping details of the technology out of court," and "says it is guarding state secrets that would threaten national security if disclosed."

According to the Times, the software suite Montgomery sold the Pentagon was chock-a-block with snake-oil claims that it "could find terrorist plots hidden in broadcasts of the Arab network Al Jazeera; identify terrorists from Predator drone videos; and detect noise from hostile submarines."

These claims "prompted an international false alarm that led President George W. Bush to order airliners to turn around over the Atlantic Ocean in 2003."

In a famous incident of Bush administration fear mongering that coincided with the Christmas holidays for maximum effect, and hyped of course by the media as the latest in a series of "grave threats" to the heimat, Montgomery reported the alarming news to his CIA contacts.

But as Global Research analyst Michel Chossudovsky pointed out at the time, the Bush administration had "chosen the Christmas holiday to wage a campaign of fear and intimidation. Its ultimate objective consists in manipulating Americans into accepting a de facto military government, as a means to 'protect their civil liberties'."

Chossudovsky averred, and facts that came to light years later proved beyond all reasonable doubt that "the terrorist alert was fabricated by the CIA." A cynical deceit facilitated by "War on Terror" fraudster Montgomery.

According to the Times, Montgomery had claimed that "hidden in the crawl bars broadcast by Al Jazeera, someone had planted information about specific American-bound flights from Britain, France and Mexico that were hijacking targets."

CIA officials then "rushed the information to Mr. Bush, who ordered those flights to be turned around or grounded before they could enter American airspace."

"Senior administration officials," the Times revealed, "even talked about shooting down planes identified as targets because they feared that supposed hijackers would use the planes to attack the United States, according to a former senior intelligence official who was at a meeting where the idea was discussed."

While the anonymous official later called the idea "crazy," nevertheless snake-oil salesman Montgomery had convinced intelligence officials that the fabricated threat was "real and credible."

Despite the fact the United States was a hair's breath from blasting commercial airliners from the skies and killing hundreds of innocent people, the CIA "never did an assessment to determine how a ruse had turned into a full-blown international incident, officials said, nor was anyone held accountable."

"In fact," the Times reports, "agency officials who oversaw the technology directorate--including Donald Kerr, who helped persuade George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the software was credible--were promoted, former officials said."

""Nobody was blamed," a former CIA official told the Times. "They acted like it never happened."

Kerr, a long-time fixture in the national security establishment, was formerly an executive vice president with the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). After serving as the CIA's Deputy Director for Science of Technology, he was rewarded for his role in the "planes incident" fiasco with an appointment by Bush as the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the top secret Pentagon satrapy that flies America's fleet of intelligence satellites. And since being well-connected means never having to say your sorry, Kerr is currently the Deputy Director of U.S. National Intelligence where he continues to labor mightily to "keep us safe."

Despite serious misgivings about Montgomery's firm, eTreppid Technologies, the secret state was eager to buy his company's dodgy software. Why? As it turns out, Montgomery was, as they say, juiced.

Along with partner Warren Trepp, described as a former "top trader for the junk-bond king [and convicted fraudster] Michael Milken," Montgomery's company "with the help of Representative Jim Gibbons, a Republican who would become Nevada's governor and was a longtime friend of Mr. Trepp's, the company won the attention of intelligence officials in Washington."

Some of Montgomery's "friends" also included "Edra Blixseth, a onetime billionaire who with her former husband had run the Yellowstone Club in Montana."

Back in October, the Associated Press reported that the FBI had opened a criminal probe and was investigating the former co-owner of the swank Yellowstone Club, whose members include Bill Gates and former Vice President Dan Quayle, over charges that she bilked creditors at the time of her messy divorce.

A well-connected Republican insider, according to AP, investigators are probing "a massive real estate scheme fueled by greed, fraud and hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-advised loans."

"The current federal inquiry into Edra Blixseth," AP informed us, "involves a series of multimillion dollar loans she took out or guaranteed around the time of her divorce, according to an attorney familiar with the matter."

"Court records show," according to AP, that "she claimed to be worth $782 million at the time of another loan, for $950,000. Within months, she filed for personal bankruptcy owing creditors at least $157 million."

Like her pal Montgomery, Blixseth claims she did "nothing wrong." What's that old saw about birds of a feather?

"Hoping to win more government money," the Times reported, "Ms. Blixseth turned to some influential friends, like Jack Kemp, the former New York congressman and Republican vice-presidential nominee, and Conrad Burns, then a Republican senator from Montana. They became minority stakeholders in the venture, called Blxware."

Burns told the Times he was "impressed" by a video presentation Montgomery gave to an unnamed "cable company." The former senator told Lichtblau and Risen that the security grifter "talked a hell of a game."

For his part, Kemp leveraged his connections with war criminal and then-Vice President Dick Cheney, "to set up a meeting in 2006 at which Mr. Kemp, Mr. Montgomery and Ms. Blixseth met with a top Cheney adviser, Samantha Ravich, to talk about expanding the government's use of the Blxware software."

When Ravich didn't jump fast enough and hand over more taxpayer boodle, Montgomery's former attorney Michael Flynn "sent an angry letter to Mr. Cheney in May 2007" and "accused the White House of abandoning a tool shown to 'save lives'," the Times reported.

But Montgomery and Blixseth still had a card to play and had some powerful friends in the Air Force who helped play them.

Lichtblau and Risen disclosed that "an Air Force contracting officer, Joseph Liberatore," who described himself as a "believer," despite skepticism from other secret state agencies including the CIA, was concerned by "problems with the no-bid contract."

According to an email obtained by the Times, Liberatore wrote that if other agencies examined the deal "we are all toast."

"In 2009," Lichtblau and Risen inform us, "the Air Force approved a $3 million deal for his technology, even though a contracting officer acknowledged that other agencies were skeptical about the software."

As Montgomery's firm crashed and burned, the Bush and now, the Obama administration, sought to cover their ass-ets and "declared that some classified details about the use of Mr. Montgomery's software were a 'state secret' that could cause grave harm if disclosed in court."

"The secrecy was so great that at a deposition Mr. Montgomery gave in November," Lichtblau and Risen report, that "two government officials showed up to monitor the questioning but refused to give their full names or the agencies they worked for."

Bottom line: while the U.S. government affirms that the private communications of American citizens are fair game to be trolled by secret state snoops, fraud and serious crimes carried out under the dark banner of an endless "War on Terror" are treated, like evidence of torture and other crimes against humanity, as if they "never happened."

Criminalizing Whistleblowing

The National Security State's assault on our right to privacy comes hard on the heels on moves in Congress, spearheaded by troglodytic Republicans (with "liberal" Democrats running a close second) to criminalize whistleblowing altogether.

Last week, the Muslim-hating Rep. Peter King (R-NY) introduced the SHIELD Act in the House, a pernicious piece of legislative flotsam that would amend the Espionage Act and make publishing classified information, and investigative journalism, a criminal offense.

Also last week, legislation was introduced in the Senate that "would broadly criminalize leaks of classified information," Secrecy News reported.

Sponsored by Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), the bill (S. 355) "would make it a felony for a government employee or contractor who has authorized access to classified information to disclose such information to an unauthorized person in violation of his or her nondisclosure agreement," Secrecy News disclosed.

In an Orwellian twist, Cardin, who received some $385,000 in campaign swag from free speech advocates such as Constellation Energy, Goldman Sachs and Patton Boggs (Mubarak's chief lobbyist in Washington) according to OpenSecrets.org, said that the bill would "promote Federal whistleblower protection statutes and regulations"!

As Secrecy News points out, the bill "does not provide for a 'public interest' defense, i.e. an argument that any damage to national security was outweighed by a benefit to the nation." In other words, you don't need to know about government high crimes and misdemeanors. Why? Because we say so.

In November, shortly after WikiLeaks began publishing Cablegate files, King fired off a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that WikiLeaks be declared a "foreign terrorist organization" and the group's founder declared a "terrorist ringleader."

We know the fate reserved for "terrorists," don't we?

As the United States sinks ever-deeper into a lawless abyss where the corporate state is lowering the boom on democracy altogether, is the day far off when Madam Clinton's avowal that we ought not "tell people how to use any public square, whether it's Tahrir Square or Times Square," come back with a vengeance to haunt America's venal ruling class?

Tom Burghardt is a Contributing Editor for Cyrano's Journal Today.  He is researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal,  and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press.
Collapse

American dictatorship and tyranny is masked by an electoral system that no longer functions with integrity, fairness or efficiency and, therefore, acts to sustain the more hidden and ignored corporate dictatorship inflicting enormous harm on vast numbers of Americans. In many ways the uniquely American form of dictatorship is far more sinister, indiscernible and powerful than classic dictatorships where one recognized person, military junta or family rules ruthlessly.

The corporate ruling class has often been exposed but still maintains its power. The recent excellent article "Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?" presents yet another fine analysis, for example, of how corporate rulers have escaped prosecution and punishment. It showed that "a veritable mountain of evidence indicates that when it comes to Wall Street, the justice system not only sucks at punishing financial criminals, it has actually evolved into a highly effective mechanism for protecting financial criminals. This institutional reality has absolutely nothing to do with politics or ideology -- it takes place no matter who's in office or which party's in power."

Another article exposed the plutonomy and noted that the top 20 percent received nearly half of all income generated in the US -- 49.4 percent -- and the ratio of the income of the top 10 percent of Americans to the poor has risen from 7.69-to-1 in 1968 to 14.5-to-1 in 2010. Just as conventional dictators steal from their nations, America's corporate rulers rob US wealth and get away with it because they have succeeded in controlling government and public policy. This explains why a noted New York Times columnist discussed the "corporate stranglehold on American democracy." A dictatorship is all about control.

To say this differently, a sophisticated and powerful plutocracy has hijacked an electoral democracy and behaves just like a dictatorship in critical ways, despite a citizenry that believes it has freedom and liberty secured through the US Constitution. The middle class is being destroyed and the general population no longer has any realistic expectations of rising affluence. Economic oppression should be the chief driver of revolution.

In other words, just as in many dictatorships, like the Mubarak regime in Egypt, there can be elections, various freedoms, and many media enterprises. But the American plutocracy hides in plain sight a false or phantom democracy based on the widespread delusional belief that reforms of government and politics can still be achieved through elections and the equally delusional belief that there is legitimate representative democracy serving public interests. In sum, Americans have a delusional democracy. Various corporate interests, especially banks and other financial entities control and manipulate the American system, especially the economy, making its dictatorship far more difficult to discern, oppose and overturn. Most Americans seem to want to cling to the fiction that they still have a great democracy, which only reveals their stupidity and inability to think critically. Only continuing widespread economic hardship is likely to pierce the psychological defenses against seeing the ugly truth of American tyranny.

The path to achieving true and deep reforms of the US political and government system must be reframed in terms of Sharp's methodology rather than through pursuing different candidates and platforms within the two-party plutocracy, where each major party is controlled by corporate and other special interests that make voting and elections the means by which the corporate dictatorship is sustained.

Presidents, administrations and Congresses change, but the mostly invisible elite, corporate powers through smart use of money maintain control to serve their own economic interests. Power stability is maintained even though there is the appearance of political change. Unlike places like Egypt and Libya where there are highly visible dictators, in the US there is no such glaringly visible target for revolutions to overthrow. This makes dissidents and dissatisfied citizens stuck victims that keep trying fruitlessly to get reforms through the dysfunctional political system even when they wage reform campaigns such as the Tea Party movement. The other tool of the dictatorship is massive distraction perpetrated through myriad entertainment, sports and gambling options, as well as political campaigns, for example.

All this means that nonviolent revolution in the US is probably even more difficult than in traditional dictatorships. But that does not mean impossible. It is instructive, however, to keep in mind that during the still painful Great Recession probably a third of the US population has suffered incredibly as indicated by huge numbers of unemployed, underemployed, hungry, foreclosed, homeless, working poor and people without decent health insurance. Meanwhile, as in countries with traditional dictatorships, in the US there is an upper class that does not suffer. Corporate elites, in fact, have continued their successful rape of the US economy. What is different is that even though most of this large wealthy upper class, probably 50 million or more Americans, does not directly participate in the corporate dictatorship, it benefits from it. Note that just 5 percent of earners account for 35 percent of all consumer spending. Another large fraction of the population works in all levels of government and also benefits from the corrupt status quo political system. Both groups stabilize the corporate dictatorship and the two-party plutocracy it uses to maintain the illusion of a functioning democracy.

What all this means is that Sharp's tools for overthrowing a dictatorship has a small fraction of the population that might use them to achieve success through nonviolent revolution. But generally those active in overthrowing a dictatorship are a small fraction of the population. This means there are more than enough Americans to overturn the corpocracy.

In other words, what starkly differentiates the US from traditional dictatorships is that the fraction of the population most impacted by a corrupt system does not even think or dream in terms of revolution or rebellion. While suffering people in a number of Mideast countries clearly are ready for revolution, Americans have been unready for revolution despite being citizens of a country founded on revolution.

What is most ironic about this American shame is the incredibly high level of gun ownership among Americans, including those most victimized by the corrupt system. They seem to be mentally prepared for a more open form of tyranny against which they would use their guns, but are unready to mount a revolt without guns within the current system. Of course, as Sharp says: "If you fight with violence, you are fighting with your enemy's best weapon, and you may be a brave but dead hero." Gun ownership in a perverse way makes nonviolent revolution which Sharp correctly concludes is the best route to successful revolution even more difficult in the US. That is, widespread gun ownership is itself a form of distraction and delusion that perversely sustains the corporate dictatorship. Americans can keep their guns, while the rich elites keep most of the money and wealth of the nation. Greed outsmarts guns.

Those Americans who like me thirst for reforms that restore American democracy should download the free Sharp handbook and study its findings. Sharp has said "If people are not afraid of the dictatorship, that dictatorship is in big trouble." Add this: If people are not aware of the dictatorship, that dictatorship is in great shape.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn at delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Collapse

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled state legislature are moving to slash wages, gut health benefits and undermine pensions, while at the same time imposing a legal straitjacket on public employees, stripping them of collective bargaining rights over anything but wages, and requiring any wage rise above the rate of inflation to be approved by a statewide referendum vote.

No such controls are proposed, of course, for the gargantuan salaries of corporate CEOs or the windfall profits of the banks and big business. Nor will there be any limits imposed on the financial institutions that handle the issuing of state bonds--headed by Citigroup, the lead underwriter. The "sacrifices" decreed by the governor apply only to working people: Walker has actually increased the state deficit to provide tax cuts for Wisconsin-based corporations.

Tens of thousands of workers throughout Wisconsin have already gone into action against this assault on fundamental social and democratic rights. They have marched through the city of Madison on a daily basis, packed into the halls of the State Capitol, and staged protests and walkouts throughout the state.

Wisconsin state employees, school teachers, firefighters and other local government workers have been joined by private sector workers, university and high school students, and thousands of other working people who correctly recognize that the destruction of living standards and basic rights for public employees will have devastating consequences for the entire working class.

This class mobilization must be intensified and extended on the broadest possible basis, through the organization of a general strike of all workers in Wisconsin to put a stop to the attack on public employees. To wage such a struggle requires the building of new organizations, rank and file action committees of workers and students to unite public sector and private sector workers as well as youth in the workplaces, schools and neighborhoods.

The working class cannot allow this struggle to be channeled behind the perspective advanced by the state AFL-CIO and the teachers union WEAC, of putting pressure on Democratic and Republican state legislators to delay or block the legislation. Workers should oppose and denounce the position taken by the union leaders, that cuts in pay and benefits are acceptable provided that the unions themselves are involved in negotiating them.

There is a vast social gulf between the instinctive and heartfelt opposition to the cuts on the part of rank-and-file workers, and the posturing and demagogy by the union officials, who support the cuts so long as their own role and income from dues checkoff, and the salaries and the perks of the privileged bureaucracy, are maintained.

Thus Marty Beil, head of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, said yesterday: "We are prepared to implement the financial concessions proposed to help bring our state's budget into balance, but ... we will not--I repeat we will not--be denied our rights to collectively bargain." This only begs the question, however: what is there to bargain over if one starts by agreeing to all the concessions?

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka declared at Friday's rally in Madison that the unions recognize and accept the economic reasons for cuts in state government. Who gave them that right? Trumka does not speak for workers struggling to get by on their existing salaries, under conditions of accelerating inflation, or facing the gutting of healthcare and pension plans. He speaks for the fifth column of highly paid officials who have transformed the unions into the enforcers of corporate and government demands for austerity and wage cutting.

The main goal of Trumka & Co. in Wisconsin is to prevent an uncontrollable explosion in which the working class actually demonstrates its enormous social power and exposes the weakness and isolation of the ultra-right politicians like Governor Walker. There is no question that the vast majority of the population of Wisconsin sympathizes with the state workers and will support them in a serious and sustained struggle. The AFL-CIO regards such an offensive by the working class as a disaster to be prevented at all costs.

The AFL-CIO aims to divert workers away from an all-out struggle against the Walker administration by boosting illusions in the Democratic Party, hailing the protest stunt by Democratic state legislators who have temporarily blocked the legislation by leaving the state and preventing a quorum. It will seek to shut down the growing strike movement in favor of appeals to the courts, the Obama administration and, ultimately, a campaign for the Democrats in the 2012 elections.

The truth is, however, that the Democratic Party is conducting identical attacks on workers at the local, state and federal level. The brutal attacks on Wisconsin workers are not unique to their state, but are taking place in every region of the country. Democratic governors in New York, North Carolina, Illinois and California are demanding similar cuts in wages and pensions, slashing jobs and attacking democratic rights such as the right to strike.

As for Obama, he has already demonstrated his class solidarity with Governor Walker by imposing a two-year freeze on federal workers and targeting public school teachers for attacks on seniority and job security. The Obama administration is now proposing a budget that demands working people pay, through cuts in domestic social spending, for the deficits produced by the bailout of Wall Street, tax cuts for the wealthy, and imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only difference between the two parties is that the Democrats make use of the unions as an instrument for enforcing the cuts, while the Republicans propose to dispense with the unions altogether. This difference is of utmost importance to the union officials--their incomes and privileges are at stake--but the end result for the workers is the same.

Workers in Wisconsin and those who support them nationwide must recognize that the first requirement of a real struggle against the destruction of jobs, wages, benefits and democratic rights is a political break with both the parties of big business, the Democrats as well as the Republicans. The working class must mobilize all the oppressed--workers, youth, the unemployed, the elderly--in the building of a new mass political party based on a socialist program.

Many of the workers demonstrating in Wisconsin have carried signs comparing Walker to ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, and expressing the desire to carry out a rebellion that is as powerful and liberating as that conducted by Egyptian workers over the last month. There is a profound objective truth expressed in this instinctive identification with the struggles of the international working class.

Like the workers in Egypt, the workers in Wisconsin are being propelled into struggle by the crisis and breakdown of the world capitalist system. Like them, they are as yet without the organizations, leadership and political program that are necessary for victory. Only the Socialist Equality Party and the World Socialist Web Site are working on an international basis to build the revolutionary alternative that is required.

Collapse

Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the President has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives.
Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility--acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government should not do public service. The market has service industries for that. Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care, education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on. The very idea of these things is at odds with the conservative moral system. No one should be paying for anyone else. It is individual responsibility in all arenas. Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and giving it to people who don't deserve it. Taxation cannot be seen as providing the necessities of life, a civilized society, and as necessary for business to prosper.

In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word.

Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should NOT have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil's own means can be used against conservatism's immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's doctors.

Freedom is defined as being your own strict father -- with individual not social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of course need a gun.

This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.

What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them.

Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific "cuts" is working within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial assets is un-American -- the top one percent has more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent. Middle class wages have been flat for 30 years, while the wealth has floated to the top. This fits the conservative way of life, but not the American way of life.
Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud over and over that it was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of regulation and a greed-is-good ethic.

Democrats also help conservatives by what a friend has called Democratic Communication Disorder. Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media, and booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on tv are conservatives. Talk matters because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths.

And Democrats help conservatives when they function as policy wonks -- talking policy without communicating the moral values behind the policies. They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout. Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the people who have earned them.

Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like "entitlements" instead of "earnings" and speak of government as providing "services" instead of "necessities."

Is there hope?

I see it in Wisconsin, where tens of thousands citizens see through the conservative frames and are willing to flood the streets of their capital to stand up for their rights. They understand that democracy is about citizens uniting to take care of each other, about social responsibility as well as individual responsibility, and about work -- not just for your own profit, but to help create a civilized society. They appreciate their teachers, nurses, firemen, police, and other public servants. They are flooding the streets to demand real democracy -- the democracy of caring, of social responsibility, and of excellence, where prosperity is to be shared by those who work and those who serve.

Collapse

World-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky discusses several domestic issues in the United States, including the protests in defense of public sector employees and unions in Wisconsin, how the U.S. deification of former President Ronald Reagan resembles North Korea, and the crackdown on political activists with anti-terror laws and FBI raids.

AMY GOODMAN: This month is the 15th anniversary of Democracy Now! on the air, and it's a real privilege to have MIT professor, analyst, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, Noam Chomsky with us. I'm Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzalez, and we've been together for this whole 15 years, Juan. It's really been quite an amazing journey.

As we talk about this revolution that's rolling across the Middle East, we put out to our listeners and viewers on Facebook last night that, Noam, you were going to be in. And so, people were sending in their comments and questions. We asked, on Facebook and Twitter, to send us questions. Here is one of the questions.

RYAN ADSERIAS: Hello, Professor Chomsky. My name is Ryan Adserias, and I'm a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and also the child of a long line of working-class union folks. I don't know if you've been noticing, but we've been holding a lot of protests and rallies here in our capital to protest Governor Scott Walker's attempt to break collective bargaining rights that Wisconsin workers worked hard for over 50 years ago and have enjoyed ever since. We closed all the schools around here for tomorrow--today and tomorrow, actually. The teaching assistants here at the university are staging teach-outs. The undergraduates are walking out of class to show solidarity. And all of this is because our governor and governors all around the country are proposing legislation that's going to end collective bargaining and really break the unions. I've also been noticing that there's not a whole lot of national representation of our struggle and our movement, and it's really been troubling me. So my question to you is, how exactly is it that we can get the attention of our national Democratic and progressive leaders to speak out against these measures and to help end union busting here in the United States?

AMY GOODMAN: That was a question from Ryan Adserias in Madison, Wisconsin, where more than 10,000--some say tens of thousands of people, teachers, students, are protesting in the Capitol building, schools closed, as Ryan said. So, from Manama to Madison, from Manama, Bahrain, to Madison, Wisconsin, Noam Chomsky?

NOAM CHOMSKY: It's very interesting. The reason why you can't get Democratic leaders to join is because they agree. They are also trying to destroy the unions. In fact, if you take a look at--take, say, the lame-duck session. The great achievement in the lame-duck session for which Obama is greatly praised by Democratic Party leaders is that they achieved bipartisan agreement on several measures. The most important one was the tax cut. And the issue in the tax cut--there was only one issue--should there be a tax cut for the very rich? The population was overwhelmingly against it, I think about two to one. There wasn't even a discussion of it, they just gave it away. And the very same time, the less noticed was that Obama declared a tax increase for federal workers. Now, it wasn't called a "tax increase"; it's called a "freeze." But if you think for 30 seconds, a freeze on pay for a federal workers is fiscally identical to a tax increase for federal workers. And when you extend it for five years, as he said later, that means a decrease, because of population growth, inflation and so on. So he basically declared an increase in taxes for federal workers at the same time that there's a tax decrease for the very rich.

And there's been a wave of propaganda over the last couple of months, which is pretty impressive to watch, trying to deflect attention away from those who actually created the economic crisis, like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, their associates in the government who--Federal Reserve and others--let all this go on and helped it. There's a--to switch attention away from them to the people really responsible for the crisis--teachers, police, firefighters, sanitation workers, their huge pensions, their incredible healthcare benefits, Cadillac healthcare benefits, and their unions, who are the real villains, the ones who are robbing the taxpayer by making sure that policemen may not starve when they retire. And this is pretty amazing, like right in the middle of the Madison affair, which is critical.

The CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, got a $12.5 million bonus, and his base pay was more than tripled. Well, that means he--the rules of corporate governments have been modified in the last 30 years by the U.S. government to allow the chief executive officer to pretty much set their own salaries. There's various ways in which this has been done, but it's government policy. And one of the effects of it is--people talk about inequality, but what's a little less recognized is that although there is extreme inequality, it's mostly because of the top tiny fraction of the population, so like a fraction of one percent of the population, their wealth has just shot through the stratosphere. You go down to the--you know, the next 10 percent are doing pretty well, but it's not off the spectrum. And this is by design.

AMY GOODMAN: The New York Times coverage of Madison?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, that was very interesting. In fact, I urge people to take a look at the February 12th issue of the New York Times, the big front-page headline, you know, banner headline, "Mubarak Leaves," its kind of subheadings say, "Army Takes Over." They're about 60 years late on that; it took over in 1952, but--and it has held power ever since.

But then if you go to an inside page--I don't know what page it is--there's an article on the Governor of Wisconsin. And he's pretty clear about what he wants to do. I mean, certainly he is aware of and senses this attack on public workers, on unions and so on, and he wants to be upfront, so he announced a sharp attack on public service workers and unions, as the questioner said, to ban collective bargaining, take away their pensions. And he also said that he'd call out the National Guard if there was any disruption about this. Now, that's happening now to Wisconsin. In Egypt, public protests have driven out the president. There's a lot of problems about what will happen next, but an overwhelming reaction there.

And I was--it was heartening to see that there are tens of thousands of people protesting in Madison day after day, in fact. I mean, that's the beginning, maybe, of what we really need here: a democracy uprising. Democracy has almost been eviscerated. Take a look at the front-page headlines today, this morning, Financial Times at least. They predict--the big headline, the big story--that the next election is going to break all campaign spending records, and they predict $2 billion of campaign spending. Well, you know, a couple of weeks ago, the Obama administration selected somebody to be in charge of what they call "jobs." "Jobs" is a funny word in the English language. It's the way of pronouncing an unpronounceable word. I'll spell it: P-R-O-F-I-T-S. You're not allowed to say that word, so the way you pronounce that is "jobs." The person he selected to be in charge of creating jobs is Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, which has more than half their workforce overseas. And, you know, I'm sure he's deeply interested in jobs in the United States. But what he has is deep pockets, and also, not just him, but connections to the tiny sector of the ultra-rich corporate elite, which is going to provide that billion or billion-and-a-half dollars for the campaign. Well, that's what's going on.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I'd like to ask you about this whole issue of the assault on unions. Clearly, it has arisen in the last few months in a coordinated way. Here in New York State, all the major business people have gotten together, raised $10 million to begin an ad campaign, and they're being supported by both the Democratic new governor, Andrew Cuomo, and as well as the Republican-Independent Mayor Bloomberg. But they seem to be going after the public sector unions after having essentially destroyed most of the private sector union movement in the United States. They realize that the public sector unions are still the only vibrant section of the American labor movement, so now they're really going after them in particular. Yet, you've got these labor leaders who helped get Obama elected and who helped get Andy Cuomo elected, and they're not yet making the stand in a strong enough way to mobilize people against these policies.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, you're absolutely right. There has been a huge attack against private sector unions. Actually, that's been going on since the Second World War. After the Second World War, business was terrified about the radicalization of the country during the Depression and then the war, and it started right off--Taft-Hartley was 1947--huge propaganda campaigns to demonize unions. It really--and it continued until you get to the Reagan administration.

Reagan was extreme. Beginning of his administration, one of the first things was to call in scabs--hadn't been done for a long time, and it's illegal in most countries--in the air controller strike. Reagan essentially--by "Reagan," I mean his administration; I don't know what he knew--but they basically told the business world that they're not going to apply the labor laws. So, that means you can break unions any way you like. And in fact, the number of firing of union organizers, illegal firing, I think probably tripled during the Reagan years.

Then, in fact, by the early '90s, Caterpillar Corporation, first major industrial corporation, called in scabs to break a strike of industrial workers, UAW. That's--I think the only country that allowed that was South Africa. And then it spread.

When Clinton came along, he had another way of destroying unions. It's called NAFTA. One of the predicted consequences of NAFTA, which in fact worked out, was it would be used as a way to undermine unions--illegally, of course. But when you have a criminal state, it doesn't matter. So, there was actually a study, under NAFTA rules, that investigated illegal strike breaking organizing efforts by threats, illegal threats, to transfer to Mexico. So, if union organizers are trying to organize, you put up a sign saying, you know, "Transfer operation Mexico." In other words, you shut up, or you're going to lose your jobs. That's illegal. But again, if you have a criminal state, it doesn't matter.

Well, by measures like this, private sector unions have been reduced to, I think, maybe seven percent of the workforce. Now, it's not that workers don't want to join unions. In fact, many studies of this, there's a huge pool of workers who want to join unions, but they can't. And they're getting no support from the political system. And part of the reason, not all of it, is these $2 billion campaigns. Now, this really took off in the late '70s and the '80s. You want to run for office, then you're going to have to dig into very deep pockets. And as the income distribution gets more and more skewed, that means you're going to have to go after Jeffrey Immelt and Lloyd Blankfein, and so on and so forth, if you want to even be in office. Take a look at the 2008 campaign spending. Obama way outspent McCain. He was funded--his main source of funding was the financial institutions.

AMY GOODMAN: Now they're saying he's going to raise, Obama is going to raise $1 billion for the next campaign.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, and it'll probably be more than that, because they're predicting $2 billion for the whole campaign, and the incumbent usually has advantages.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we have to break. We're going to come right back.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, world-renowned political dissident. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour is Noam Chomsky. He has authored over a hundred books; his latest, Hopes and Prospects, among others.

Professor Chomsky, I want to ask you about former President Ronald Reagan. A very big deal is made of him now on the hundredth anniversary of his birth. Last year President Obama signed legislation establishing a commission to mark the centennial.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: President Reagan helped, as much as any president, to restore a sense of optimism in our country, a spirit that transcended politics, that transcended even the most heated arguments of the day.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, your response?

NOAM CHOMSKY: This deification of Reagan is extremely interesting and a very--it's scandalous, but it tells a lot about the country. I mean, when Reagan left office, he was the most unpopular living president, apart from Nixon, even below Carter. If you look at his years in office, he was not particularly popular. He was more or less average. He severely harmed the American economy. When he came into office, the United States was the world's leading creditor. By the time he left, it was the world's leading debtor. He was fiscally totally irresponsible--wild spending, no fiscal responsibility. Government actually grew during the Reagan years.

He was also a passionate opponent of the free market. I mean, the way he's being presented is astonishing. He was the most protectionist president in post-war American history. He essentially virtually doubled protective barriers to try to preserve incompetent U.S. management, which was being driven out by superior Japanese production.

During his years, we had the first major fiscal crises. During the '50s, '60s and '70s, the New Deal regulations were still in effect, and that prevented financial crises. The financialization of the economy began to take off in the '70s, but with the deregulation, of course you start getting crises. Reagan left office with the biggest financial crisis since the Depression: the home savings and loan.

I won't even talk about his international behavior. I mean, it was just abominable. I mean, if we gained our optimism by killing hundreds of thousands of people in Central America and destroying any hope for democracy and freedom and supporting South Africa while it killed about a million-and-a-half people in neighboring countries, and on and on, if that's the way we get back our optimism, we're in bad trouble.

Well, what happened after Reagan left office is that there was the beginnings of an effort to carry out a kind of--this Reagan legacy, you know, to try to create from this really quite miserable creature some kind of deity. And amazingly, it succeeded. I mean, Kim Il-sung would have been impressed. The events that took place when Reagan died, you know, the Reagan legacy, this Obama business, you don't get that in free societies. It would be ridiculed. What you get it is in totalitarian states. And I'm waiting to see what comes next. This morning, North Korea announced that on the birthday of the current god, a halo appeared over his birthplace. That will probably happen tomorrow over Reagan's birthplace. But when we go in--I mean, this is connected with what we were talking about before. If you want to control a population, keep them passive, keep beating them over the head and let them look somewhere else, one way to do it is to give them a god to worship.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam, you've written about, over the years, COINTELPRO, FBI raids. We're seeing that today. There's almost no attention given to what we have focused on a good deal on Democracy Now!, from Minneapolis to Chicago, the FBI raids, activists being subpoenaed to speak about in various cases.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, that's a pretty--it's not just--the raids are serious enough, but what's more significant is what lies behind them. These are the first actions taken under new rulings by the Supreme Court. A very important case was six or eight months ago, I guess, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. It was initiated by the Obama administration. It was argued by Elena Kagan, Obama's new court appointment. And they won, with the support of the far-right justices. The case is extremely significant. It's the worst attack on freedom of speech since the Smith Act 70 years ago. The case determined that any material support to organizations that the government lists on the terrorist list is criminalized, but they interpreted "material support"--in fact, the issue at stake was speech. Humanitarian Law Project was giving advice--speech--to a group on that's on the terrorist list, Turkish PKK. And they were also advising them on legal advice and also advising them to move towards nonviolence. That means if you and I, let's say, talk to Hamas leaders and say, "Look, you ought to move towards nonviolent resistance," we're giving material support to a group on the terrorist list.

Incidentally, the terrorist list is totally illegitimate. That shouldn't exist in a free society. Terrorist list is an arbitrary list established by the executive with no basis whatsoever, by whim, for example, but no supervision. And if you take a look at the record of the terrorist list, it's almost comical. So, take Reagan again. In 1982, the Reagan administration decided it wanted to aid their friend Saddam Hussein. He had been--Iraq had been on the terrorist list. They took it off the terrorist list. They had a gap. They had to put someone in.

AMY GOODMAN: South Africa, ANC.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Put in Cuba. They put in Cuba, and I suppose in honor of the fact that, in preceding several years Cuba had been the target of more international terrorism than the rest of the world combined. So, Saddam Hussein goes off, Cuba goes on, no review, no comment. And now, with the new Obama principle, giving--advising groups that are arbitrarily put on this group is criminal. And that was the background for those raids.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, we're going to continue this conversation online and play it on the show again. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Collapse

The US of A 'loves' him to the extent that no less than the President of United States wants him released, and pronto too. The lesser minions of America, of course, blow hot and cold threatening to cut off all aid and bring to an abrupt halt the so called 'strategic alliance' that the two countries have. They 'love' him so much in fact that all drone attacks in FATA have been ceased lest a single hair on Raymond's well-fed body is harmed in retaliation.

The Punjab Government, in whose domain the crimes took place and who now hold Raymond, 'loves' him because he gives them a handle with which to embarrass deeply, and irreparably if it so chooses, the central government -their political opponent. They want the country's 'law' to take its course and the criminal duly prosecuted.

The religious parties 'love' him because they have at last found a cause with which to rally the naive masses around. They will now beat their chests in sympathy with the heirs of the victims, organize mass protests, foam at their mouths at the spinelessness that the Pakistani Government shows in every confrontation with the 'Great Satan', invoke Islam at every mass gathering and remind people that their version of Islam is the only solution to all evils plaguing the country.

The sacked Foreign Minister of Pakistan, a Makhdoom whose principle vocation is to sell charms and amulets to simple villagers, 'loves' Raymond because it was due to him that the Makhdoom has overnight turned into a hero. He has supposedly withstood the pressure of the great US of A by not agreeing to a diplomatic immunity for Raymond, getting fired from his job instead.

All the opposition political parties 'love' him because Raymond gives a lease of life to their flagging existence. They can now create further chaos in a nation already deeply splintered along ethnic, sectarian and political fault lines. They see a chance of quietly slipping into corridors of power in the ensuing bedlam. They 'love' him for giving them a case that has the rare potential of solidifying the Pakistani nation into a single, unified front against 'brazen American recklessness'.

The gullible Pakistanis 'love' Raymond not only because they have been told to do so but also because his issue all of a sudden reminds them of their 'love' for the rule of law. They 'love' him to the extent that they are willing to forget and rally around the same leaders who have historically held the rule of law in Pakistan in utmost contempt. It makes them conveniently overlook that the very Pakistani leaders calling Americans to respect Pakistan's laws are the same people who organized mob attacks on the Supreme Court and even had the Chief Justice of Pakistan manhandled by lowly police constables.

And that bunch of lovelies, the Pakistani Taliban, 'love' him for a very simple and straightforward reason. They want him released into their custody so that they could do another Daniel Pearl on him. Call it love for love's sake.

While all this love wingding goes on, let us have a quick look at the controversy itself.

America's stand point is simple: one of its diplomats in one of the 'most dangerous' countries in the world was threatened by two men with guns, and the diplomat shot and killed them in self-defense. He sits in jail, "illegally detained," because he enjoys diplomatic immunity.

Their Pakistani counterparts, however, tell an entirely different story.

They say that not only Raymond Davis does not enjoy diplomatic immunity, the matter is far murkier than what meets the eye. Talking with ABC News on the condition of anonymity, four Pakistani officials have claimed that the two men who Raymond Davis killed in Lahore last month were working for Pakistan's premiere intelligence service, the ISI. They were following Davis because he was spying. According to these officials, the ISI believed he had crossed "a red line" and needed to be followed.

Between these two diametrically opposing views, journalists, bloggers, media pundits and Charlie's aunt continue to paint theories with varying shades. While some saner elements want to wait for the smoke to clear away before taking a stance on the issue, most have already announced America's grand alliance with the Pakistani Taliban/Al-Qaeda with the sole aim of destabilizing the country. They don't, of course, explain why the US would continue to pump billions of dollars into the country's treasury on the one hand while conspiring to sink her on the other.

Be that as it may, while everyone else's sudden rush of love for Raymond is understandable, America's feverish urgency in their demands for the release of their new found love, a low level operative really, is not.

It is not understandable why seasoned American diplomats would suddenly drop all decorum of hushed and enduring diplomacy. Why would normally dignified US officials suddenly become bulls in a china shop, all muscles, horns and hind quarters, threatening to bring down the whole painstakingly erected edifice if their man is not released. Pray, what sensitivities are involved that have forced the weathered US envoys to replace tact and discretion with threat and bombast? And even if Raymond had diplomatic immunity, why can't it be waived for the sake of 60 years old partnership? The Americans are, after all, convinced that their man is innocent. No one knows at this point.

So yes, everybody loves Raymond. But the mother of everybody in Pakistan, the Pakistan Army, watches the fracas quietly from the sidelines. For now at least.

Collapse

Of course, the dictatorship in Egypt is far different than what the vast majority of Americans face. Despite liberty and freedom, our tyranny exists within an electoral, constitutional republic. But with a two-party plutocracy thoroughly corrupted by corporate and wealthy interests most Americans are victims of a dysfunctional, inefficient and unfair democracy. How ironic that in the nation with monumental gun ownership among its citizens there is no hint of people giving up on meaningless elections and taking to the streets in massive numbers to protest their corrupt government.

Just this week a new report documented this: Nearly a year and a half into the economic recovery, some 43.6 million Americans continued to rely on food stamps in November, 2010. That amounts to more than 14 percent of the population that relied on food stamps to purchase groceries, just another result of stubborn high unemployment and low incomes among the employed. According to the new report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, compared to a year ago the number of people receiving food stamps was up 14.2 percent. Many other Americans are getting food at various kinds of charities and food banks. Add to this real unemployment approaching 20 percent in most areas and huge numbers of Americans going homeless and facing home foreclosure. Does this sound like the best country on Earth that politicians like to jabber about? Of course not.

The US is in terrible shape, but President Obama lied in his recent state of the union address. It was not his first time, nor will it be his last time. But it was one of the biggest possible lies. The state of union is absolutely not strong. Anyone with a smidgen of intelligence and critical thinking capability knows that in almost every conceivable way the US is in awful shape for a large fraction of its citizens.

Imagine if the President of the USA stood up in front of Congress, the whole nation and the world with the courage to tell the truth: the state of the union is terrible, about the worst in over 100 years. And that is why Americans have to wake up, pay attention, sacrifice and join together in rebellion to make things much, much better and the hell with conventional politics driven by the worst special interests and the rich.

By telling the lie that the state of the union is strong, Obama removed the necessary motivation for Americans to get their distracted and delusional minds oriented in the right direction. The nation needs to shift into revolution mode. Watching the Superbowl will not improve our government.

What Americans must face is the ugly truth that China and other nations are beating the crap out of the US and nothing the US is currently doing has the ability to change this situation and win the global competition. In just about every objective way that nations can be judged the US is losing the present. Our educational system for children is a joke; data keep showing that American children are far behind those in many other countries. Our industrial sector has lost an incredible amount of manufacturing and most large companies now make more money from foreign operations and invest money abroad for that reason. That explains a huge loss of jobs with no reversal possible. Our financial sector is awash with corruption, greed and dishonesty. Our health care system no longer produces healthy citizens, compared to many other nations, despite costing much, much more. Our physical infrastructure is a disgrace, crumbling and threatening public health and safety. Upward mobility has largely disappeared and the middle class continues to sink into a lower class. Economic inequality has skyrocketed with the rich becoming richer and everyone else suffering more and more. The large number of homeless, hungry, poor and imprisoned Americans defines a nation that has lost its glory.

Just as Americans have watched once great companies disappear (Remember Polaroid?), they need to wake up to the downfall of their own country. All the talk about jobs is just another monumental deception, because there is no way that millions of new, good paying jobs will be created for many years. Even more and more Americans face hunger and homelessness as well as joining the working poor.

In stark contrast to the empty rhetoric of Obama, at about the same time a remarkably honest report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that provides incredibly honest criticisms and explanation of exactly what caused the economic meltdown that millions of Americans are still suffering from. If President Obama respected its findings, he would use them as the basis for detailing his actions against the entities responsible for the Great Recession. Here is a sample of the report's important views:

"The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire. The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble."

The financial industry has gotten away with murder and ended up profiting enormously. No mystery because it and groups affiliated with it spent more than $3.7 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions from 1999 to 2008.

And imagine if the President would have had the guts to talk openly about the incredibly awful financial predicament of most states! Many more people will lose their jobs as governments cut spending.

Nothing defines our delusional democracy more than a president providing delusional thinking to mostly delusional citizens. Make no mistake; this is an epidemic of bipartisan delusion. This is what makes America exceptional. A once great nation is sliding down the toilet and most everyone, especially politicians, are lying endlessly as it does, as if the nation's decay should be ignored rather than honestly combated by its citizens.

Obama said "We do big things." Once, the country did big things, but not now. The best is behind us, the worst is now with us. The US is stuck in a quicksand of corrupt politics that has been killing the middle class as the elite and rich upper class gets more and more wealth and power. Republicans like to talk about US exceptionalism; it is a farce. There is no longer anything exceptional in a positive sense. That is a terribly bitter and painful truth to acknowledge, but if we do not do so, then how can we possibly fix the many things that are broken? We cannot. We are in a massive national state of delusion, hanging on to the fantasy that the nation is still great. Yes, we need to do big things to restore greatness to the nation, but for that to happen we must first admit the ugly truth and fight American tyranny.

Winning the future, the hot new slogan from Obama, only has meaning if he acknowledges that the nation is losing the present. Yet Americans remain unready to revolt. And the Tea Party movement puts its faith in Republicans! What a disgrace, especially for a nation built on revolution.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Collapse

Both of these strands of course support the desire of the U.S. to have a stable political status quo in the area in order that their over all imperial intentions can continue while the puppet governments and their oppressed people 'dialogue' for no change at all.
U.S. principles are clearly defined by their actions. U.S. "principles" are violent and repressive, and have been throughout their encounters since the beginning: towards the indigenous population of North America; towards the Latin populations throughout Central and South America; towards the people of Asia; towards the people of Africa; and today we can see the violence towards the people of the Middle East and South Asia where U.S. military forces are occupying two countries and coercing others through their subservient elites into complying with U.S. imperial wishes.

The main principle expressed throughout U.S. history, in spite of
the hubris and arrogance of their lofty verbal principles, is to control as much of the rest of the world as possible, ultimately by violence. Compliance is also achieved through soft coercion of the elites, by manipulating the financial status of nations through the institutions of the Washington consensus, by supporting any group that will overthrow any government that opposes U.S. interests, and through the more obvious direct unilateral military action.

While I do not like violence, as no intelligent and reasonable person would, most of the positives of the world have not come about because people were complacent and governments generous. Human rights of all genres - for children, women, ethnic minorities, workers - have all had to fight in some form or another to achieve their rights. Oppression of these rights in a violent manner - remembering the use of private security officers and the army in repressing the workers movements in the U.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s - often leads to violent reactions.

To see Egypt protest against its own government, in a manner which is essentially non violent, becoming violent in reaction to the hostility of the police, including under cover plains clothes police, can in certain respects be directly attributed to U.S. support of the Egyptian government. From that I was disgusted in listening to both Hilary Clinton and Frank Wisner proclaiming their love of dialogue and principles.

We have seen how the latter has worked out in Palestine/Israel. We have seen how that has worked out in the broader Middle East extending into South Asia. We have seen how that has worked out for the border fence with Mexico and the new drug war expansion in that country. It is visible within the U.S. as more and more restrictive legislation is passed, while the Pentagon budget, the war budgets, and the security budgets go relatively untouched. U.S. violence is pervasive, from within its own society to its grab for the resources and markets of other societies.

The U.S. has no interest in democracy in the Middle East as that would create governments hostile to its intents and purposes as the electoral success of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shi'ites in Iraq, and Hamas in Palestine testify. It is too late for "dialogue", too late for "principles" to work their wonders. Now is the time for action and reaction - with the end results unknown. If the U.S. truly wants "diplomatic dialogue" and enforcement of its principles, its first and absolutely necessary tasks will be to remove its military from the region and stop funding of oppressive regimes.

I wish the Egyptian people every success in establishing a government independent of U.S. influence, of any influence other than their own. No one at this conjuncture knows how the situation will settle out or what the long term ramifications are if Mubarak is overthrown. Mubarak operates (operated?) a violent and oppressive government with the clear financial and political support of the U.S. The people want change, and violent oppression may create violent reaction, as the burning police vehicles and the burning of the government party's offices demonstrate.

And a final note, thank you al-Jazeera for your continued live coverage of the events. Your eyes on the world reveal much of what U.S. media ignores in their support of U.S. military and corporate intentions in the Middle East and around the world.

Collapse

Coming on the heels of a retrial later this year of KLA commander and former Prime Minister, Ramush Haradinaj, by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, an enormous can of worms is about to burst open.

Last month, Antifascist Calling reported that Hashim Thaçi, the current Prime Minister of the breakaway Serb province, and other members of the self-styled Drenica Group, were accused by Council of Europe investigators of running a virtual mafia state.

According to Swiss parliamentarian Dick Marty, the Council's Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Thaçi, Dr. Shaip Muja, and other leading members of the government directed--and profited from--an international criminal enterprise whose tentacles spread across Europe into Israel, Turkey and South Africa.

For his part, Thaçi has repudiated the allegations and has threatened to sue Marty for libel. Sali Berisha, Albania's current Prime Minister and Thaçi's close ally, dismissed the investigation as a "completely racist and defamatory report," according to The New York Times.

That's rather rich coming from a politician who held office during the systematic looting of Albania's impoverished people during the "economic liberalization" of the 1990s.

At the time, Berisha's Democratic Party government urged Albanians to invest in dodgy pyramid funds, massive Ponzi schemes that were little more than fronts for drug money laundering and arms trafficking.

More than a decade ago, Global Research analyst Michel Chossudovsky documented how the largest fund, "VEFA Holdings had been set up by the Guegue 'families' of Northern Albania with the support of Western banking interests," even though the fund "was under investigation in Italy in 1997 for its ties to the Mafia which allegedly used VEFA to launder large amounts of dirty money."

By 1997, two-thirds of the Albanian population who believed fairy tales of capitalist prosperity spun by their kleptocratic leaders and the IMF, lost some $1.2 billion to the well-connected fraudsters. When the full extent of the crisis reached critical mass, it sparked an armed revolt that was only suppressed after the UN Security Council deployed some 7,000 NATO troops that occupied the country; more than 2,000 people were killed.

Today the Berisha regime, like their junior partners in Pristina, face a new legitimacy crisis.

As the World Socialist Web Site reported, mass protests broke out in Tirana last week, with more than 20,000 demonstrators taking to the streets, after a nationally broadcast report showed a Deputy Prime Minister from Berisha's party "in secretly taped talks, openly negotiating the level of bribes to back the construction of a new hydroelectric power station."

As is the wont of gangster states everywhere, "police responded with extreme violence against the demonstrators; three people died and dozens were injured."

While the charges against Thaçi and his confederates are shocking, evidence that these horrific crimes have been known for years, and suppressed, both by the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) and by top American and German officials--the political mandarins pulling Balkan strings--lend weight to suspicions that a protective wall was built around their protégés; facts borne out by subsequent NATO investigations, also suppressed.

Leaked Military Intelligence Reports

On Monday, a series of NATO reports were leaked to The Guardian. Military intelligence officials, according to investigative journalist Paul Lewis, identified Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaçi as one of the "'biggest fish' in organised crime in his country."

Marked "Secret" by NATO spooks, Lewis disclosed that the 2004 reports also "indicate that the US and other western powers backing Kosovo's government have had extensive knowledge of its criminal connections for several years."

According to The Guardian, the files, tagged "'USA KFOR' ... provide detailed information about organised criminal networks in Kosovo based on reports by western intelligence agencies and informants," and also "identify another senior ruling politician in Kosovo as having links to the Albanian mafia, stating that he exerts considerable control over Thaçi, a former guerrilla leader."

As noted above, with the Council of Europe demanding a formal investigation into charges that Thaçi's criminal enterprise presided over a grisly traffic in human organs and exerted "violent control" over the heroin trade, it appears that the American and German-backed narco statelet is in for a very rough ride.

In the NATO reports, The Guardian revealed that Thaçi "is identified as one of a triumvirate of 'biggest fish' in organised criminal circles."

"So too," Lewis writes, "is Xhavit Haliti, a former head of logistics for the KLA who is now a close ally of the prime minister and a senior parliamentarian in his ruling PDK party."

The reports suggest "that behind his role as a prominent politician, Haliti is also a senior organised criminal who carries a Czech 9mm pistol and holds considerable sway over the prime minister."

Described as "'the power behind Hashim Thaçi', one report states that Haliti has strong ties with the Albanian mafia and Kosovo's secret service, known as KShiK."

The former KLA logistics specialist, according to The Guardian, suggest that Haliti "'more or less ran' a fund for the Kosovo war in the late 1990s, profiting from the fund personally before the money dried up. 'As a result, Haliti turned to organised crime on a grand scale,' the reports state'."

Such information was long known in Western intelligence and political circles, especially amongst secret state agencies such as the American CIA, DEA and FBI, Germany's Bundesnachrichtendienst, or BND, Britain's MI6 and Italy's military-intelligence service, SISMI, as Marty disclosed last month.

In 1994 for example, The New York Times reported that the Observatoire Géopolitique des Drogues released a report documenting that "Albanian groups in Macedonia and Kosovo Province in Serbia are trading heroin for large quantities of weapons for use in a brewing conflict in Kosovo."

According to the Times, "Albanian traffickers were supplied with heroin and weapons by mafia-like groups in Georgia and Armenia. The Albanians then pay for the supplies by reselling the heroin in the West."

A year later, Jane's Intelligence Review reported that "if left unchecked ... Albanian narco-terrorism could lead to a Colombian syndrome in the southern Balkans, or the emergence of a situation in which the Albanian mafia becomes powerful enough to control one or more states in the region."

Following NATO's 1999 bombing campaign that completed the sought-after break-up of Yugoslavia, that situation came to pass; Kosovo has since metastasized into a key link in the international narcotics supply chain.

NATO spooks averred that Haliti is "highly involved in prostitution, weapons and drugs smuggling" and that he serves as Thaçi's chief "political and financial adviser," and, according to the documents, he is arguably "the real boss" in the relationship.

Like Haradinaj, Haliti "is linked to the alleged intimidation of political opponents in Kosovo and two suspected murders dating back to the late 1990s, when KLA infighting is said to have resulted in numerous killings," Lewis reports.

In 2008, Haradinaj and Idriz Balaj were acquitted by the U.S.-sponsored ICTY "victors tribunal" of charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Lahi Brahimaj, Haradinaj's uncle, was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for the torture of two people at KLA headquarters.

A retrial was ordered last summer after evidence emerged that Haradinaj, long-suspected of running a parallel organized crime ring to Thaçi's that also trafficked arms, drugs and sexual slaves across Europe, a fact long-known--and similarly suppressed--by the mafia state's closest allies, Germany and the United States, may have intimidated witnesses who had agreed to testify against his faction of the KLA leadership.

A former nightclub bouncer who morphed into a "freedom fighter" during the 1990s, Haradinaj has been accused by prosecutors of crimes committed between March and September 1998 in the Dukagjin area of western Kosovo.

According to The Guardian, "Haradinaj was a commander of the KLA in Dukagjin, Balaj was the commander of the Black Eagles unit within the KLA, and Brahimaj a KLA member stationed in the force's headquarters in the town of Jablanica."

The appeals court ruled that "in the context of the serious witness intimidation that formed the context of the trial, it was clear that the trial chamber seriously erred in failing to take adequate measures to secure the testimony of certain witnesses."

The indictment charges that the KLA "persecuted and abducted civilians thought to be collaborating with Serbian forces in the Dukagjin area and that Haradinaj, Balaj, and Brahimaj were responsible for abduction, murder, torture and ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Roma and fellow Albanians through a joint criminal enterprise, including the murder of 39 people whose bodies were retrieved from a lake," The Guardian disclosed.

But in a case that demonstrates the cosy relations amongst KLA leaders and their Western puppetmasters despite, or possibly because of their links to organized crime, German Foreign Policy revealed that "high ranking UN officials helped intimidate witnesses due to testify in The Hague against Haradinaj."

This charge was echoed by Special Rapporteur Dick Marty. He told Center for Investigative Reporting journalists Michael Montgomery and Altin Raxhimi, who broke the Kosovo organ trafficking story two years ago, that his investigation "could be hindered by witness safety and other security concerns."

"If, as a witness, you do not have complete assurance that your statements will be kept confidential, and that as a witness you are truly protected, clearly you won't talk to these institutions," Marty said.

Such problems are compounded when the leading lights overseeing Kosovo's administration, Germany and the United States, have every reason to scuttle any credible investigation into the crimes of their clients, particularly when a serious probe would reveal their own complicity.

Eyes Wide Shut

The Haradinaj cover-up is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

According to German Foreign Policy, "the structures of organized crime in Kosovo, in which Haradinaj is said to play an important role, extend all the way to Germany. It is being reported that German government authorities prevented investigations of Kosovo Albanians residing in Germany."

Investigative journalist Boris Kanzleiter told the left-leaning online magazine that the UN administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) and its newest iteration, the European Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) "maintains very close ties to Haradinaj."

The former head of UNMIK, Sören Jessen-Petersen, referred to him as a "close partner and friend." Kanzleiter said that "Jessen-Petersen's successor, the German diplomat, Joachim Ruecker, also has a close relationship to him."

Kanzleiter told the journal, "accusations were made that high-ranking UNMIK functionaries were directly involved in the intimidation of witnesses."

These reports should be taken seriously, especially in light of allegations that even before Haradinaj's first trial, a witness against the former Prime Minister was killed in what was then described as "an unsolved auto accident."

"Back in 2002," German Foreign Policy reported, "three witnesses and two investigating officials were assassinated in the context of the trial against Haradinaj's clan."

Similar to the modus operandi of Thaçi's enterprise, the newsmagazine reported that the BND had concluded that Haradinaj's "network of [drugs and arms] smugglers were operating 'throughout the Balkans', extending 'into Greece, Italy, Switzerland and all the way to Germany'."

Not that any of this mattered to Germany or the United States. German Foreign Policy also reported that despite overwhelming evidence of KLA links to the global drugs trade, political circles in Berlin vetoed official investigations into KLA narcotics trafficking.

In 2005 "the State Offices of Criminal Investigation of Bavaria and Lower Saxony tried to convince the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation to open a centralized investigation concerning the known [Kosovo-Albanian] clans and individuals in Germany" because "many criminal culprits from the entourage of the KLA have settled in Germany."

The author noted "this demand was refused." Indeed, "even though the Austrian Federal Office of Investigation and the Italian police strongly insisted that their German colleagues finally initiate these investigations, the rejection ... according to a confidential source in the Austrian Federal Office of Criminal Investigation, came straight from the Interior Ministry in Berlin."

As we have since learned, Haliti and other top KLA officials have also been linked to organized crime in Marty's report. The human rights Rapporteur accused Haliti, like Haradinaj, of having ordered "assassinations, detentions, beatings and interrogations" of those who ran afoul of Thaçi's underworld associates.

In 2009, German Foreign Policy reported yet another "new scandal" threatened to upset the apple cart. "A former agent of the Kosovo intelligence service explained that a close associate of Kosovo's incumbent Prime Minister, Hashim Thaçi, had commissioned the assassinations of political opponents."

"The newest mafia scandal involving Pristina's secessionist regime was set in motion by the former secret agent Nazim Bllaca," the magazine disclosed.

According to the publication, "Bllaca alleges that he had been in the employ of the secret service, SHIK, since the end of the war waged against Yugoslavia in 1999 by NATO and the troops of Kosovo's terrorist UCK [KLA] militia."

The former secret state agent claimed "he had personally committed 17 crimes in the course of his SHIK activities, including extortion, assassination, assaults, torture and serving as a contract killer."

Marty told the Center for Investigative Reporting that "Bllaca's experience did not bode well for other insiders who are considering cooperating with the authorities." EULEX officials only placed Bllaca under protective custody a week after he went public with his allegations, in what could only be described as an open-ended invitation for an assassin's bullet.

Despite such revelations, diplomatic cables unearthed by WikiLeaks show that the U.S. Embassy views their Frankenstein creations in an entirely favorable light.

A Cablegate file dated 02-17-10, "Kosovo Celebrates Second Anniversary with Successes and Challenges," 10PRISTINA84, informs us that "two years have seen political stability that has allowed the country to create legitimate new institutions," but that the narco state "must use its string of economic reforms and privatizations as a springboard to motivate private-sector growth."

Such as auctioning-off the Trepca mining complex at fire-sale prices. As The New York Times reported back in 1998, the Trepca mines are "the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans, worth at least $5 billion."

Summing up the reasons for NATO's war, one mine director told Times' reporter Chris Hedges: "The war in Kosovo is about the mines, nothing else. This is Serbia's Kuwait--the heart of Kosovo. We export to France, Switzerland, Greece, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Russia and Belgium.

"We export to a firm in New York, but I would prefer not to name it. And in addition to all this Kosovo has 17 billion tons of coal reserves. Naturally, the Albanians want all this for themselves."

Judging by the flood of heroin reaching European and North American "markets," one can only conclude that if fleets of armored Mercedes and BMWs prowling Pristina streets are a growth metric then by all means, America and Germany's "nation building" enterprise has been a real achievement!

In light of reports of widespread criminality that would make a Wall Street hedge fund manager blush, we're told by the U.S. Embassy that the Thaçi government "must prioritize the rule of law and the fight against corruption."

Laying it on thick, despite damning intelligence reports by their own secret services, the Embassy avers that "Kosovo's independence has been a success story." Indeed, "the international community and the Kosovars, themselves, can feel good about the positive steps that have occurred over the past two years."

That is, if one closes one's eyes when stepping over the corpses. Collapse

Although it is arguable that the 9/11 attacks played in the hands of the United States and its European cronies to spread an all-encompassing wave of Islamophobic sentiments in the world and introduce the Muslims as the number one threat to the global peace and security, one should bear in mind that Muslims have been conventionally considered as the villains of the fables of the Western governments and despite their unquestionable and treasured services to the world, they never received a fair, justifiable and humane treatment by the superpowers, either from the deceitful, fraudulent and warmonger Russia that massacred some 50,000 innocent Muslims in Chechnya, or from the arrogant, bullying United States that incarcerated scores of innocent Muslims in its illegal, underground detention centers in Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib following the 9/11 attacks.

Corporate mainstream media have been the most effectual and trenchant wing of the Western governments in their crusade against the Muslims and the Islamic world. When it was needed to conceal the most conspicuous realities which would attest to the righteousness of the Muslims, the mainstream media did their best: Marwa El-Sherbini was flagrantly murdered in a courtroom in Germany, and the Western media outlets unanimously kept silent, turning a blind eye against one of the most heartrending instances of the violation of human rights before the eyes of a judge and his colleagues. When it was needed to sabotage the reality, the Western media showed off perfectly: the Freedom Flotilla was brutally attacked by the commandos of Israel Defense Forces and 9 of its passengers were massacred viciously; the massacre was justified as an act of self defense. Nobody asked the Western media that how it would be possible to justify the killing of defenseless civilians as an act of self defense while they even lacked a knife to defend their lives against the rifles of the Israeli commandos. When it was needed to downgrade the depth of the truth, the mainstream media scored the best goal: 3,500 guiltless Gazans were massacred in a short period of less than 3 weeks, and the Western media acted so indifferently that one might have felt as if nothing had really taken place!

Western media have demonstrated their unequivocal and unambiguous animosity with the Muslims. Their antagonism emanates from the hostility of the Western governments with Muslims. But what's behind this hostility? What drives the Western governments to adopt such inhumane and unfair policies against the Muslims that constitute one forth of the world population and have always lived a peaceful and friendly life with the followers of other religions all around the world? What takes the Western governments, and consequently the Western media to enmity with the Muslims?

The answers can be different. One simple answer might be that the empowerment of Muslims may potentially endanger the interests of the Western world. There are 57 Islamic countries in the world and if these countries turn from impoverished, underprivileged and underdeveloped nations into major superpowers, then who may take care of the Western hegemony? The first example which pops into mind is Turkey; a developing, flourishing and promising Muslim nation that is traversing the path of progress and improvement in all fields of science, technology, culture and economy. They don't give Turkey accession to EU because they know that the addition of a Muslim nation to the non-Muslim members of European Union may punctuate the commencement of an Islamic upheaval which has already indicated signs of dynamicity in European nations such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Albania.

There can be alternative answers to this question; however, the overall conclusion is that the West doesn't tolerate the progress and achievement of the Muslim world. A simple instance is the obstacles which it puts on the way of Iran's nuclear program. Although the European and American politicians and statesmen have undisputedly admitted that Israel is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, they have never made any effort to investigate Israel's nuclear arsenal which contains up to 200 atomic warheads; however, they have lethally put an ever-increasing pressure on Iran to relinquish its nuclear rights and put an end to its nuclear program which the International Atomic Energy Agency has affirmed as peaceful and unthreatening.

In line with their antagonistic policies with regards to the Islamic world, the Western governments push their affiliated media to portray a lopsided and biased image of Islam and propagate this fallacious belief that Muslims are dangerous creatures which pose a serious danger to the peace and security of the Europeans and Americans.

They intentionally introduce Muslims as terrorists and try to institutionalize the belief that Muslims are always inclined to carry out extreme actions such as killing the other people or persecuting the followers of other religions and forcing them to convert to Islam. They misuse some pillars and principals of Islam to portray their desired image of this religion and its followers and hence spread fear and awe among the Europeans and Americans.

The Western media outlets never show the real image of Islam to their audiences and tell them that the essence of this religion is based on mutual respect, benevolence, peace, love and human dignity. They never allude to the fact that the Prophet of Islam Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) was one of the pioneers of human rights in his time and emphasized on preserving and respecting the human dignity immensely. They never reveal the verses of Holy Quran in which it is declared that killing one person is tantamount to killing all of the persons in the view of Islam. They never tell their audiences that in the view of Prophet Muhammad, it was even unlawful to kill a sparrow for the sake of entertainment.

Unfortunately, the public opinion in the West is unaware of the realities of Islam and Muslims. It's my responsibility to invite you to take a deeper look into the realities of Islam, and if you want to figure out the realities, it's your responsibility to research and devote your time to a quest of truth.

Collapse

Monday marked the 50 year anniversary of Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation.

Remarkably, this former General took the opportunity of his farewell address to the nation to warn the country about the threat of a growing military-industrial complex:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Here is the link to the full farewell speech.

Brain Williams' paraphrasing of "hospitals and schools" is front and center as the Republicans (and Eisenhower was a Republican) start attempting to chop away at health care reform. While the legislation is far from what many of us hoped, it does help. So the money to continue to feed war and "security" from the party that says only it can keep us "safe" will indeed be taken from areas critical to the welfare of the country and the people - just as Eisenhower warned.

It is said that Eisenhower actually had planned to use the term "military-industrial-congressional complex," but chose not to. According to wkipedia:

In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, and thus indicated the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word congressional in order to placate members of the legislative branch of the federal government.

We have moved far indeed. Now the "industry" includes actual fighting forces, and huge chunks of our national security apparatus. (as a side note, the 1/17/2011 Frontline segment Are We Safer? is an eye opener in this regard.

In this segment of Frontline they discuss the huge scope of the new security bureaucracy and that it is so big that no one knows how large it actually is. Since this monster has invisibly sunk its tendrils so deep that most think we couldn't stop it if we wanted to in less than ten years, how about a "complex" that has had 50 years to sink its roots?

As we wring our hands over the federal budget, how much discussion will be given to these two money-hungry behemoths (military and national security), or to the wars and military "actions" that are happening across the globe? My guess is not one word and the argument will be over destroying social programs and social security; eliminating health care reform; and selling off whatever is in government hands that is worth selling (our ports, our highways, water sources and systems, etc).

Collapse

Faced with an unprecedented economic crisis that has destroyed the lives of tens of millions our fellow citizens, not to mention aggressive wars which have cratered entire societies and murdered hundreds of thousands of people who have done us no harm, when, pray tell, will the "conversation" turn to the unprecedented annihilation of democratic institutions and the rule of law which exonerates, even celebrates, those who murder, maim and torture on an industrial scale?

Just last week, the Obama administration announced plans to roll-out an "identity ecosystem" for the internet. Although passed over in silence by major media, at the risk of being accused of "incivility," particularly when it comes to the "hope" fraudster and war criminal in the Oval Office, Americans need to focus--sharply--on the militarists, political bag men and corporate gangsters working to bring George Orwell's dystopian world one step closer to reality.

Earlier this month, CNET disclosed that the administration "is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans."

White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said that the secret state's latest move to lower the boom on privacy and free speech will embed the surveillance op at the Commerce Department. Schmidt, speaking at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research said Commerce is "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize these efforts.

According to CNET, the move "effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates, including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security."

Really? I don't think so.

NSA Clearly in the Frame

Last week, Government Computer News reported that the secretive Pentagon spy shop broke ground on a "massive new National Security Agency cyber intelligence center in Utah."

The multibillion dollar facility (cost overruns not included) "will have 100,000 square feet of raised-floor data center space and more than 900,000 square feet of technical support and administrative space" that "will support the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative."

In September, NextGov reported that then Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Collection, Glenn Gaffney, said the new data center "would support the intelligence community in providing foreign intelligence about cybersecurity threats and protect Defense Department networks."

Back in 2009, investigative journalist James Bamford wrote in The New York Review of Books that "the mammoth $2 billion structure will be one-third larger than the US Capitol and will use the same amount of energy as every house in Salt Lake City combined."

While corporate media tell us that the center will "enhance" the nation's capacity to thwart "cyber threats" the fact is, Bamford wrote, the complex will "house trillions of phone calls, e-mail messages, and data trails: Web searches, parking receipts, bookstore visits, and other digital 'pocket litter'." In other words, the vast data repository will serve as "spy central" for our digital minders.

"Just how much information will be stored in these windowless cybertemples?" Bamford wondered. According to a report prepared for the Pentagon by the ultra-spooky MITRE Corporation, "as the sensors associated with the various surveillance missions improve, the data volumes are increasing with a projection that sensor data volume could potentially increase to the level of Yottabytes (10 to the 24 Bytes) by 2015."

This is "roughly equal to about a septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text, numbers beyond Yottabytes haven't yet been named," Bamford avers.

Leaving aside disinformational pyrotechnics by media cheerleaders that the NSA's data equivalent of a Wal-Mart supercenter will primarily exist for "cybersecurity," "foreign intelligence" and protecting "Defense Department networks," Bamford counters that "once vacuumed up and and stored in these near-infinite 'libraries,' the data are then analyzed by powerful infoweapons, supercomputers running complex algorithmic programs, to determine who among us may be--or may one day become--a terrorist."

"In the NSA's world of automated surveillance on steroids" Bamford avers, "every bit has a history and every keystroke tells a story."

Or as Cryptohippie puts it far less delicately, every keystroke or cellphone ping is "criminal evidence, ready for use in a trial."

Just what are they up to? Even Congress, always willing to give the Executive Branch a free pass when it comes to blanket surveillance, doesn't know. Last week the Associated Press reported that "the Pentagon failed to disclose clandestine cyber activities in a classified report on secret military actions that goes to Congress."

Citing "gaps" in reporting requirements on clandestine operations, "emerging high-tech operations are not specifically listed in the law," AP averred. After all, "cyber oversight is still a murky work in progress for the Obama administration."

Perhaps AP and other media outlets should look more closely at what's hidden inside that "murky work" and where its authority comes from. "Oversight" is certainly not part of the equation.

Cybersecurity's Brave New World

As Antifascist Calling previously reported, the operational nuts-and-bolts of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) is a closely-held state secret that derives authority from classified annexes of the National Security Presidential Directive 54, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 (NSPD 54/HSPD 23) issued by our former "decider."

Those 2008 orders are so contentious that both the Bush and Obama administrations have refused to release details to Congress, prompting a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) demanding the full text of the underlying legal authority governing "cybersecurity" be made public.

Details on the "trusted identity" scheme are scarce, but back in July Antifascist Calling reported that the secret state had deployed New York Times reporter John Markoff as a conduit for administration scaremongering.

Schmidt told the "Gray Lady" that administration plans involved "a 'voluntary trusted identity' system that would be the high-tech equivalent of a physical key, a fingerprint and a photo ID card, all rolled into one."

According to the Times, "the system might use a smart identity card, or a digital credential linked to a specific computer, and would authenticate users at a range of online services."

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke was quick to downplay the more sinister implications of the hustle saying, "We are not talking about a national ID card."

CNET reported Locke's claim that "we are not talking about a government-controlled system. What we are talking about is enhancing online security and privacy, and reducing and perhaps even eliminating the need to memorize a dozen passwords, through creation and use of more trusted digital identities."

Why bother with privacy when surrendering your rights is so convenient!

Touted as a warm and fuzzy "identity ecosystem," Government Computer News reported that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has even launched a dedicated website hawking the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC).

According to NIST, "NSTIC envisions a cyber world--the Identity Ecosystem--that improves upon the passwords currently used to login online."

We're informed that the "Identity Ecosystem will provide people with a variety of more secure and privacy-enhancing ways to access online services. The Identity Ecosystem enables people to validate their identities securely when they're doing sensitive transactions (like banking) and lets them stay anonymous when they're not (like blogging). The Identity Ecosystem will enhance individuals' privacy by minimizing the information they must disclose to authenticate themselves."

Government Computer News tells us that the "identity ecosystem" isn't envisaged as a "national Internet ID to track online activities." The devil's in the details and what little we do know should set alarm bells ringing.

The program office will "support and coordinate interagency collaboration" and "promote pilot projects and other implementations." Which agencies are we talking about here? What pilot projects and "other implementations" are being alluding to? We don't know.

We do know however, that the National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security have forged a Memorandum of Agreement which will increase Pentagon control over America's telecommunications and electronic infrastructure.

In fact, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation disclosed in October, DHS has been tracking people online and that the agency even established a "Social Networking Monitoring Center" to explicitly do so.

Documents obtained by the civil liberties watchdog group revealed that the agency has been vacuuming-up "items of interest," systematically monitoring "citizenship petitioners" and analyzing "online public communication."

Wouldn't an "identity ecosystem" greatly facilitate online spying, despite administration claims to the contrary?

While the system is "voluntary" and individuals will not be compelled to sign up, the secret state is lusting after a sure fire means to identify the billions of computers, smart phones and other digital devices that plague us.

And even if you choose not to "opt in," well, plans are already afoot by advertising pimps and their partners in the national security state "to collect the digital equivalent of fingerprints from every computer, cellphone and TV set-top box in the world," The Wall Street Journal recently disclosed.

As with all other aspects of the "War on Terror" threatscape, the closer one looks at the Obama regime's "identity ecosystem" the less warm and fuzzy it becomes.


Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, Rowan's Avenger, and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press.


Collapse

During the sixties, the Cold War was being fought mightily. The Soviet Union's news agencies, TASS and Pravda, were continually attacked by the American "free press" as untrustworthy. A common claim was that a controlled press could never be trusted while a free press could, and my three colleagues on the panel supported that view. I did too, but only partially.

A controlled press, I argued, most certainly could not be trusted when reporting on governmental actions or policies, but I pointed out that much news is not affected by government, and I saw no reason to be suspicious of a controlled press' reporting on such matters. But I also argued that there was good reason to distrust the so called free press no matter what was being reported.

My argument rested upon the observation that a controlled press, being funded by its controlling government, had no need to attract readers while the so called free press had to rely on readers to remain economically viable. The free press had to market its wares in the same way that any retail company must, and one way to do that was to slant the news in ways that made it attractive to the news organization's target groups which, in a sense, biased all the stories the free press reported. And although the free press claimed to maintain objectivity by balancing the presentation, using two people of divergent political views, I pointed out that it was easy to select the two people in ways that made it seem that one side always prevails, the result being that the media divided itself into ideological groups, not even to mention that large segment of the press openly termed sensational-tabloid.

Although this symposium took place approximately half a century ago, my argument is easier to make today than it was then. The media in America today often openly declare their various points of view, from conservative Fox News to liberal MSNBC.

Distinguished from these "all news" outlets are the more traditional networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC. These can be likened to department stores, in which various products are sold throughout each day, so called news being only one of them. These networks have their departments--the game show department, the reality show department, the sports department, the business department, the celebrity department, and, of course, the "news" department.

What either type of medium does, however, is similar. Just as Macy's sells products of various kinds, the news sells stories, and each outlet distinguishes itself from the others by the slant in which each frames their products. Just as McDonalds distinguishes its burgers from those sold by BurgerKing, ABC distinguishes its stories from those told by NBC. In short, in the free press, the news is sold by slanting it in ways that make it appealing to the target audiences, and the slanting often takes up more time than telling the story does. An anchor often tells a story and then so called experts are used to embellish it by providing the slant. Unfortunately, the "experts" used often know nothing more about the issues discussed than the average viewer/listener does. The news, which many believe should consist of facts, becomes mere opinion.

Everyone must remember that there is no Hippocratic Oath for journalists; a person does not have to swear to report events truthfully to be a journalist. In fact, less is required of a journalist than of the plumber you call to unstop your toilet. In short, today's American journalist can be likened to the teenager on roller skates who brings the hot dog you ordered to your car at Sonic or the clerk behind the counter at Macy's. So anyone who criticizes the mainstream press for not being truthful, neutral, or objective is misguided. That's not what the mainstream press sells and criticizing it is as unreasonable as criticizing McDonalds for not selling lamb chops.

That the media need to differentiate products from those of competitors also limits the kinds of stories that can be reported. If adding a bias to a story is difficult because of the story's nature, the "free" press tends to ignore it. For instance, when the Iranian opposition engaged in anti-governmental demonstrations after the last election, the American press made much of it because the story could easily be presented as an oppressive government's suppression of dissent. But the demonstrations against austerity policies taking place in Iceland, Ireland, Great Britain, France, and Greece have gone unreported because those demonstrations cannot be presented as demonstrations against oppressive governments. Similarly, the killing of Christians in Iraq and Egypt have gone unreported because they cannot be slanted to make them seem justified. If slanted any other way, they would provide anti-war Americans with another reason to argue against the wars. Furthermore, it is difficult to sensationalize stories about foreigners Americans know nothing of. So, for instance, stories about the antics of Italy's Berlusconi would have little attraction to American viewers/listeners. Ever since it joined Mrs. Merkel's German government, the fortunes of the pro-business Free Democrats have been dramatically changed from a party that won 15 percent during the federal elections of September 2009 to below 5 percent today, because of an increasing negative attitude of Germans for business since the current economic collapse began, a story that cannot easily be told to Americans because of American pro-business attitudes.

Snardfarker.ning.com claims that there are five reasons that the mainstream media is worthless. (1) Self-Censorship by journalists who are afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. "There's the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources. . . . There's the fear of being labeled partisan if one's bullshit-calling isn't meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum." (2) Censorship by higher-ups. "If journalists do want to speak out about an issue, they also are subject to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story." (3) To drum support for war. "Why has the American press consistently served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war? One of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC . . . was owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors in the world -- which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos)." (4) Access. "For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post . . . offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to 'those powerful few' Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and -- at first -- even the paper's own reporters and editors." And (5) Censorship by the Government. "the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail if they've been too critical." These reasons are true to some extent, but the ultimate reason is merely the need to grow the bottom line, to make money which is, after all, the reason the media exists in America.

The consequence of all of this is that Americans have become mentally isolated. The world beyond America's borders is an amorphous, unknown land. As Zbigniew Brzezinski has recently said, "most Americans are close to total ignorance about the world. They are ignorant." What people don't realize is how much of this ignorance is the result of the American "free" press' need to slant its reporting. Brzezinski finds this "unhealthy," and he is right, since America's "foreign policy has to be endorsed by the people if it is to be pursued." And this ignorance makes it easy for the government to convince the people that some disastrous policy is appropriate.

Americans who are critical of the mainstream press have an idealized notion of what the press is. They indict the press for not being what the press should be but is not and never has been. The press' need to sell its products makes it impossible to be what it should be.

Unfortunately, the alternative press has adopted many of the mainstream press' models. There are sites devoted exclusively to ideological stories--conservative, liberal, libertarian, pro and anti war, global warming, carbon taxation, and more--all in an attempt to attract readers. So the truth doesn't emerge there either. How then can we find it?

There was once a small segment of the "free" press called investigative journalism which has now become almost entirely extinct. Perhaps this has happened because of the difficulty of prying information out of governmental agencies and corporate entities. About the only way to get that hidden information is to have it leaked by some whistleblower to some site that can protect the anonymity of the leaker. WikiLeaks is a start, but many such sites are needed if all the lies and disinformation is to be revealed. And, yes, it is likely that governments and even corporations will create pseudo-leaking sites to try to obfuscate the truth revealed by any leaker. But if the sites can, as WikiLeaks does, disseminate actual source documents that any reader can judge the authenticity of for her/himself, much more of the truth will emerge than can emerge now.

Slanted journalism must, of course, be debunked. Many alternative journalists already do this quite well, but sites like WikiLeaks are also necessary to combat the increasing secrecy that even the "free" press must contend with. Slanted reporting must be debunked, and leaking and whistleblowing must be encouraged and protected if the truth is ever to get a change of emerging from the darkness of insidious secrecy.

America's journalists are not "newshounds." Although I suspect that each and every one of them will consider this an insult, they are nothing more than salesclerks, hocking the products their employers want to sell. The pretty faces--well at least not ugly--that now function as most news anchors are no different than the pretty models used to sell other products. The American "free" press is comprised of nothing more than a number of retail outlets which sell stories slanted to please their target audiences. As such, they exist merely to sell snake oil.

John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site's homepage.

Collapse

For a while, things had gone according to plan, and the future seemed promising. Tripathi was told to prepare for his graduation by his supervisor, Dr. Stephen Burman, Dean of the School of Humanities.

Tripathi is an accomplished researcher and a prolific writer. He had every reason to believe his research, which began in 2002, would lead to earning his PhD from the university's American Studies Program. His findings, which partly relied on the Cold War International History Archive material of the Smithsonian Institute, were praised by such intellectuals as Walter LaFeber, Howard Zinn and Johan Galtung.

Moreover, Tripathi already had an impressive and well-respected background in the field. His career at BBC News (1977-2000) would have gone on longer, were it not for him falling seriously ill with heart disease. Some of his noteworthy achievements have included setting up the BBC Bureau in Kabul in the early 1990s, covering conflict in India and Sir Lanka, and contributing to public understanding of many matters involving this part of the world. His previous book, Overcoming the Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan (Potomac Books, March 2010) helped many to decipher the power rivalries in South and West Asia, and specially US foreign policy regarding these regions.

Tripathi's latest work, Breeding Ground was initially slated as his doctoral dissertation. That work was already well-received in many circles and yet failed to meet the examiners' expectations suggests to Tripathi that biased political agendas were involved.

Despite the triumphant release of his book, the author feels it is important to revisit the academic ordeal, as both issues are intrinsically linked.

The "Viva", or the oral examination of a doctoral thesis, usually takes an hour. In Tripathi's case, it involved nearly two hours of "sheer hostility". "Viva was not an oral examination, but an-hour-and-fifty-minutes of sustained interrogation during which the external examiner shouted throughout, not allowing me to answer, while objecting to matters of trivial importance." All of this seemed to negate not only the feedback of Tripathi's supervisor, but also the rules of the university.

Tripathi further alleges that the internal examiner didn't read the thesis, as "no markings or signs of handling were found on any of pages." As for the external examiner, he seems to have read only a third of what took years for Tripathi to studiously research and write. This was evident by the "angry notes on about a third of the pages, then nothing."

Tripathi speculates that what has taken place has less to do with his research or writing skills, but more on his take on the subject matter and the affiliation of the examiners.

The internal examiner was newly appointed Pro-Vice Chancellor, whose academic interests include the Northern Ireland conflict. She has co-authored a book on the subject of policing, and has ties with security establishments in Britain and the United States, where she became an advisor to the Homeland Security Management Institute, University of Long Island, New York. She also regularly ran training courses for the British military.

When contacted regarding this matter, the internal examiner, who had since then left her post at the University of Sussex, declined to comment - possibly because of academic confidentiality associated with such cases.

The external examiner, a career military officer, specialized in British military doctrines, the application of force and counterinsurgency. He had joined the Northern Ireland security service at the height of the conflict in the 1970s. Upon retiring from the British military in 2003, he was immediately appointed Professor of Politics and International Law and Head of the Department at Royal Holloway.

The external examiner too declined to comment "on the basis of confidentiality as between the University and the candidate." He is also no longer affiliated with the university.

Tripathi's thesis was submitted in early December 2006, with his supervisor's blessings. However, Dr. Stephen Burman was absent from the viva, where Tripathi found himself defending his ideas to "two academics with strong ties to the military". Considering Tripathi's approach, which shows little enthusiasm for military solutions to convoluted conflicts, he felt that his research stood little chance. "It was more of an assault, than a discussion," he said. "It was as if I was accused of some wrong-doing and had to defend myself." Even the Cold War International History Archive material of the Smithsonian Institute was deemed "unacceptable" by his examiners, according to Tripathi.

To rectify the problem, Tripathi was told by the external examiner that he "would have to rewrite the thesis in a year, without the Cold War History Archive that gave (him) access to the Russian and East German archives, and resubmit only for MPhil." Even then, Tripathi would still need to endure another viva.

Tripathi feels betrayed. For a man who has spent most of his adult life helping many understand the nature of conflict in areas where the US, Britain and other major powers have played a seminal role, the rejection - and the style in which it was expressed- has come as a major shock.

For Tripathi, there is no question that he was punished for daring to chart a course deemed unfavorable from the viewpoint of academics with links to the military. In some countries, government interference in academic matters is hardly shocking. But in this case - especially if Tripathi's assertions are indicative of a larger phenomenon - the matter is of immense urgency.

For Tripathi's readers, the story may still have a happy ending. Although the author is yet to receive his academic degree, the book is now widely available for all to read.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Collapse

The explanation of the events of January 8 that now predominates is that Jared Lee Loughner opened fire on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, severely wounding her and killing six other people, because he was a deranged lunatic, and that there was no political motivation involved.

Loughner is undoubtedly disturbed, but he was calm and responsive Monday afternoon at his arraignment in a Tucson federal court, where he was charged with murdering federal judge John Roll and congressional aide Gabe Zimmermann, and attempting to murder Giffords. He will also face state murder charges for the killing of four other victims of the shooting spree.

The mental state of the shooter in no way exhausts the analysis of Saturday's atrocity. It is merely the starting point, and a rather obvious one, since only a deranged individual would be capable of opening fire on a group of innocent people, including, among the dead, a nine-year-old girl and three elderly people in their 70s.

Loughner's actions raise questions about what medical treatment is available for the mentally ill―virtual none, even in a case like this where college classmates were fearful that he might turn to violence―and about the widespread availability of weapons like the Glock 19, whose sole purpose is mass, indiscriminate mayhem through the firing of dozens of rounds in a few seconds.

But the most important issue is what led Loughner to target a Democratic congresswoman. Understanding this necessarily requires an examination of the political circumstances that shaped the gunman's actions.

Here the central role was played by the ultra-right media campaign mounted by Fox News, talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, including one Republican Senate candidate who called for a "Second Amendment solution" to political issues―i.e., the use of firearms.

As the World Socialist Web Site explained yesterday (See "Arizona assassination spree tied to political right"), the political conceptions in Loughner's Internet postings are expressed in the vocabulary of the ultra-right media and the Tea Party, including his references to gold and silver backing for US currency, the predominance of the English language, and attacks on sections of the US Constitution, like the 14th Amendment, targeted by the ultra-right. He also reportedly remarked that a young woman who had an abortion was a "terrorist for killing the baby."

Moreover, both Fox News and the New York Times have reported, citing law enforcement sources, that Loughner may have links to a white supremacist publication called American Renaissance. Ongoing investigation may well develop more evidence of connections to the extreme right―a prospect that makes the "deranged individual" explanation even less credible.

Those media outlets that are the most directly implicated in creating the political climate for the January 8 attack are the most strident in self-justification. In their programs Monday, both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh heaped scorn on efforts to link the attack to their right-wing hate campaigns.

The Wall Street Journal, in its editorial Monday headlined "Murder in Tucson," wrote: "Jared Lee Loughner is a mentally disturbed man who targeted Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and anyone near her in Tucson on Saturday because she was prominent and they were tragically accessible... Whatever confused political motives he expressed seem merely to be part of the maelstrom of his mental sickness."

After denouncing suggestions that there was a political motivation to the attack, the Journal, part of the Murdoch media empire along with Fox News, essentially demanded that President Obama provide the right wing with a political amnesty. He should "lift the level of public discourse by explaining the reality of Mr. Loughner's illness and calling out those on the right and left who want to blame the other side for murder."

A companion column by pundit Glenn Reynolds compared the charge of right-wing moral responsibility for the Tucson massacre to the anti-Semitic "blood libel" of the Nazis.

The Washington Post published an editorial warning against "the temptation ... to infuse the terrible attack with broader political meaning―to blame the actions of the alleged 22-year-old gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, on a vitriolic political culture laced with violent metaphors and ugly attacks on opponents."

The Post published two columns by right-wing pundits, one headlined "Stop Blaming the Tea Party For the Arizona Tragedy," the other declaring it "noxious to associate Saturday's shooting with conservative campaign rhetoric, even that which is over the top." The Post's liberal columnist E.J. Dionne tut-tutted over violent rhetoric from the far right but joined in the consensus: "The point is not to 'blame' American conservatism for the actions of a possibly deranged man, especially since the views of Jared Lee Loughner seem so thoroughly confused."

The New York Times, typically, tried to have it both ways, editorializing, "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge."

The last assertion is a deliberate cover-up of the real source of the "gale of anger" building in America, which is the economic collapse that has devastated the lives of tens of millions of people, and for which no faction of the capitalist political establishment, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, has any solution.

A long news analysis in the Times provides valuable details on the ideological connections between Loughner and several of the more bizarre factions of the far right, but it nonetheless declares that the assassin's political motivation cannot be known with certainty: "Investigators will have to wrestle with the difficult question of whether Mr. Loughner's parroting the views of extremist groups was somehow more a cause of the shootings or simply a symptom of a troubled life."

This is, if anything, even more insidious than the flat denial of responsibility by the Wall Street Journal. The Times shows how close Loughner's connections were to the ultra-right―"parroting the views of extremist groups"―and then asserts that no conclusion can be drawn.

Does anyone believe that if the attacker had been a Muslim who used the language of Al Qaeda in his Internet postings the American media would condemn as a "rush to judgment" the conclusion that this was an instance of "Islamic terrorism"?

As part of the push-back by the right wing, there have been public denunciations of the sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, who heads the local investigation into the Tucson massacre. At his first press conference, Dupnik made a forthright denunciation of "the vitriol and rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from the people in the radio business and some people in the TV business," which he said contributed to the crime. Referring to a series of measures against immigrants, he said that the state of Arizona has "become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona denounced these comments in an appearance Sunday on the CBS interview program "Face the Nation." "I didn't really think that that had any part in a law enforcement briefing," Kyl said. "It was speculation, and I don't think we should rush to speculate."

A Tucson talk-radio host, Jon Justice, called for Dupnik's resignation, accusing him of him of "inciting through pure rhetoric."

By Monday, much of the media, including liberal and Democratic Party spokesmen, had repudiated Dupnik's comments. James Carville, a longtime Democratic campaign operative and media pundit, said on CNN, "It's unfair to smear an entire state," adding, "There's no evidence that links the Tea Party to this."

Carville's remark typifies the political cowardice of the entire Democratic Party and liberal media establishment. They want to avoid any comprehensive exposure of a process that has been under way for more than three decades in American politics: the integration of the Republican Party with elements of an ultra-right and semi-fascist character, steeped in racism, anticommunism and hostility to democratic rights.

These right-wing elements exercise a degree of influence in American political life out of all proportion to their actual support in the population, because it serves the interests of the financial oligarchy to build them up as a means of shifting politics ever more to the right and creating the rudiments of a fascist movement to be thrown against the working class.

The Democratic Party is complicit in this process, even when the latest phase in this process―the media promotion of the Tea Party―culminates in direct violence against a Democratic Party officeholder.

Collapse

Talk about a convenient turn of events!

"Nothing can be done until the medical aspect is cleared up," Hittner told defense lawyers and prosecutors during an all-day hearing that examined Stanford's mental competence to stand trial, Bloomberg News reported.

The banker's court-appointed defense team is seeking a two-year delay, citing the mountain of evidence, some two million pages at last count, they must review before the trial can proceed. Stanford's apparent inability to participate in his own defense would certainly complicate matters.

With a net worth once estimated at $2 billion, the accused fraudster was declared indigent last fall after his assets were seized and (known) accounts frozen following his 2009 arrest and indictment.

In October, U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas ruled that Stanford and codefendants Laura Pendergest-Holt, Gilberto Lopez, Mark Kuhurt and Leroy King, the former chief regulator of the Bank of Antigua, cannot tap a $100 million Lloyds of London insurance policy to pay attorney fees.

According to the ruling, "lawyers for Lloyds had proven at a trial in August that it was likely that Stanford had committed money laundering." The court declared "that the policy's money laundering exclusion applies to justify underwriters' denial of insurance coverage at this time," Reuters reported.

Indicted eighteen months ago on 21 civil and criminal counts, including mail, wire, securities fraud and money laundering, Stanford is also suspected of running another in a long line of "full service banks" for American secret state agencies, including the CIA.

Interestingly enough, one of Stanford's early defense teams was led by none other than Robert S. Bennett, the high-powered attorney who successfully fought off prosecution for his client, Jose A. Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA's clandestine division, accused of destroying 92 torture videotapes of prisoners held at Agency "black sites."

This latest twist in the sleazy affair raise uncomfortable questions for prosecutors: just how does one become drug addicted while in federal custody?

According to Bloomberg, "three psychiatrists, one working for the government and two working for the defense, testified that Stanford's dependency on prescription anti-anxiety medication and the after-effects of a head injury he sustained in a jailhouse beating left him unfit for the trial" which was slated to begin later this month.

Victor Scarano, a defense psychiatrist testified that the banker's dependency on the anti-anxiety drug clonazepam, along with the powerful anti-depressant mirtazapine, was the result of "overmedication" by his jailers.

Scarano testified that for more than a year Stanford "has been taking 3 milligrams a day of the anti-anxiety drug clonazepam, and that a normal dose is up to 1 milligram a day for no longer than two weeks," the Houston Chronicle disclosed.

The psychiatrist told the court that "he is unable to work effectively and rationally with his attorneys in his defense against the charges."

"He is unable to focus, he's unable to keep a train of thought," Scarano testified.

A second psychiatrist, Steven Rosenblatt, hired by the government, "testified that Stanford is suffering from delirium, likely brought on by the medication."

During Thursday's hearing, Stanford's attorney Ali Fazel, told the court that his client had been assaulted while in federal custody, severely beaten and that it was prison physicians who prescribed the medications to which the accused swindler is now addicted. "It's the government that caused the problem," Fazel said.

The Independent averred this will raise "fresh and disturbing questions about the deterioration of Stanford's mental and physical health in the 18 months he has already spent behind bars."

Among the questions likely to be raised is why, for some unknown and still unexplained reason prison doctors dispensed triple the normal dose of a suite of drugs known to produce untoward side effects.

According to Wikipedia, clonazepam is used to treat epilepsy, anxiety disorder and panic disorder, and in combination with lithium and haloperidol, it is also used for the initial treatment of mania or acute psychosis.

This is certainly a curious choice for long-term treatment of a concussion. While Stanford may be a notorious huckster who believed he could do no wrong, even as he allegedly robbed investors blind, there is no evidence he suffered a psychotic break with reality. In fact, the evidence suggests quite the opposite.

Clonazepam is characterized by its "fast onset of action and high effectiveness rate and low toxicity in overdose but has drawbacks due to adverse reactions including paradoxical effects, drowsiness, and cognitive impairment."

According to scholarly literature cited by Wikipedia, "cognitive impairments can persist for at least 6 months after withdrawal of clonazepam; it is unclear whether full recovery of memory functions occurs. Other long-term effects of benzodiazepines include tolerance, a benzodiazepine dependence as well as a benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome occurs in a third of people treated with clonazepam for longer than 4 weeks."

Common side effects include drowsiness, interference with cognitive and motor performance, irritability and aggression, psychomotor agitation, lack of motivation, loss of libido, hallucinations, short-term memory loss, and what are described as "anterograde amnesia (common with higher doses)" or, the "loss of the ability to create new memories ... leading to a partial or complete inability to recall the recent past."

The second drug dispensed to Stanford, the anti-depressant mirtazapine, is used in the treatment of depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorders and is said to "exacerbate some patients' depression or anxiety or cause suicidal ideation," Wikipedia informs us.

While "the potential for dangerous drug interactions with mirtazapine is considered to be very low," the drug may "increase the effects of ... benzodiazepines," e.g. clonazepam, the apparent drug of choice deployed by Stanford's jailers as part of his "treatment."

Attorneys and psychiatrists told the court that the accused swindler was treated for more than a year with triple the "normal dose" of a drug known for producing "paradoxical effects" including "a partial or complete inability to recall the recent past."

The question is why?

While Stanford's "overmedication" may have an innocent explanation, we cannot dismiss the possibility that someone or some entity perhaps, say an intelligence agency with decades of pharmacological knowledge derived from illicit human experiments might be interested in inducing permanent "cognitive impairment" in the dodgy banker.

A simpler explanation however, such as gross negligence on the part of his jailers cannot be ruled out. It is even quite possible, as assistant U.S. attorney Gregg Costa asserted, that Stanford "could have been faking the delirium in order to be let out of jail before facing trial" as The New York Times reported.

And given the wretched conditions that exist in American gulags, where control of prison populations through overmedication is the norm not the exception, this could also be a mitigating factor in Stanford's case. As Human Rights Watch points out, prisoners adjudged mentally ill often receive "inappropriate kinds or amounts of psychotropic medication that further impairs their ability to function."

On the other hand, Allen Stanford's high-profile, his close proximity to drug-fueled intelligence operations, decades of hastily-closed investigations into alleged security frauds and a "stand down" by the SEC "at the request of another federal agency" as The New York Times disclosed, coupled with drugs investigations that "lie buried in the paperwork" gathered by the SEC as the Houston Chronicle averred, however one cares to slice it, a drug addiction acquired in federal custody does open a new, and highly suspicious, chapter in the Stanford drama.

The maddeningly complex character of Allen Stanford's operations as the Financial Times revealed, and what role other giant banks including Bank Julius Baer, Credit Suisse and HSBC, which acted as SIB's correspondent bank for all European deposits played in the affair, may never be unraveled if he cannot stand trial.

In this respect, a permanent "inability to recall the recent past" induced by federal prison authorities may be just what the doctor ordered.


Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, Rowan's Avenger, and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press.
Collapse

The political horizon presents us with a squalid prospect: essentially more of the same, but worse. This means more endless wars, more nonstop highhanded lies, more gargantuan thefts, more repression, and probably more anger and despair among the uncomprehending victims--in the billions--of this malevolent behemoth which goes, among other euphemistic labels, by the name of "free enterprise system".

Today, well into the 21st century, we are facing a struggle of a magnitude never seen before, a true global confrontation between the forces defending a bankrupt, dying status quo, a conclusively failed model of social organization based solely on commercial calculus, and those pushing for a new beginning based on constructive not destructive values, and compassion and generosity where only short-term thinking and selfseeking have prevailed. In this political struggle, which eventually may involve every human being on earth, and in which being a bystander, an "apolitical", is technically and morally impossible, the very fate of the planet will be decided. By commission or omission, by action or inaction, people cast their votes every day for or against a new system. There's no place to run. Indifference or even hostility toward "politics" is in itself a political act with consequences. (In addition to being a clear sign of ignorance about what constitutes real politics.) In this complex struggle each person will discover his or her own measure of endurance, shortcomings and strengths to stay the course, and, equally important, the ability to make intelligent personal and political choices.

In politics picking the "right" horse is not so easy or instinctive as some would think. Obvious "enemies" or "wrong paths" may be a cinch to detect for some, but distinguishing between real and false friends--with many degrees in between--is far trickier. What complicates this process is that in a fluid historical process, with plenty of shifting ground, in many cases the "falsehood" of some allies is also a moving target. Thus mature political analysis requires a cool head to identify and sort out--contextually--the value and dependability of various individuals, leaders, parties, groups and movements. The problem becomes even more complicated when we factor in the deliberate lies and manipulations injected into the information stream by powerful vested interests.

Betrayals left and right

While the real left gets continually betrayed by the "faux left" (we'll get to that in a moment), the masses that follow the Right's clarion also get betrayed in their most fundamental interests. In both cases it takes a neat and shameless trick to pull it off, but it's done routinely and with great effect by the master manipulators at the top. Recently, books have been written about it. What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004) is one such book by American journalist and historian Thomas Frank. Frank's volume explores the rise of conservative populism in the United States, centering on the example of Kansas. In the late 19th century, Kansas was known as a hotbed of the left-wing Populist movement, but in recent decades, it has become overwhelmingly conservative. How has the Right accomplished this sleight-of-hand? Generally by hiding the economic poison contained in their programs behind a hypocritical curtain of social conservative preoccupations, the so-called "wedge issues" technique. (Sadly, the "left" also responds to "wedge issue" manipulation.)

The squandering of the population's political focus into issues that trump "class-driven politics" has been a boon for the fortunes of the right, which rides on both character / personal traits (i.e., authoritarian, ignorant, chauvinistic, religious, racist, etc.) and huge dollops of misinformation. The Right's game is to mess up the nation's proper priorities, and this it does with aplomb. Fact is, the entire message of the right is a huge imposture because ANY message calculated to benefit a puny, ludicrously small minority of privileged, highly exploitative folks at the apex of the social pyramid while pretending to benefit the vast majority is a gargantuan lie.

Divided by income, the mass of average Americans (and their counterparts around the world), whether working stiffs or petty business owners and professionals, has long been cynically used by the right through appeal to one or two major issues which command the passion of specific demographics. The radical right, for example, where religious reactionaries predominate, can be reeled in by fostering rebellion around the gay marriage issue or the fight to ban abortion. A much wider segment loyally responds to racist innuendos. Others can be mobilized through appeals to fear (hence the eternal "war on terror", which is also highly convenient and profitable) and "patriotism" (the tribal instinct). Still others can be rallied against any progress favoring women. The so-called arsenal of "wedge issues" wielded by the Right is indeed a catalog of the filthiest and most repugnant tricks in the annals of deception, all usually grounded in massive abetted ignorance.

We all know why the Right does this. As suggested earlier, if the Right revealed its true political agenda--one ultimately designed to cement and expand the economic privileges of a criminal plutocracy--few would follow it. Unless terminally confused, people don't normally shoot themselves in the foot when seeking relief via politics.

Deluding the "unformulated" left

The right fools its own but it also fools the masses that seek and clamor for social change. Like the false duality between Republicans and Democrats, two faces of a single corporate party, for those who pursue progressive goals the Right is ready with faux leftists and false programs. In this regard, the American establishment, broadly defined as all those who consciously work to maintain the current status quo and who benefit mightily from it, is helped by a longstanding and very "American" confusion, one that posits mainstream liberals as "leftists." It should be understood at the outset that mainstream liberalism and rightwing policies are often virtually indistinguishable, for at bottom the main issue is allegiance to capitalism and its essential purposes, including the sanctity of private enterprise, unlimited property accumulation, and similar features. In that regard, when push comes to shove, both centrist liberals and rightwingers are in the same trench, fighting serious shifts toward egalitarianism and democracy tooth and claw. Indeed, the success of the Right--comprising the Crazy right (the paranoid arch-reactionaries) and the Machiavellian Right (liberals)--has been facilitated by the amputation of the real left from the national political spectrum. Compounding the problem, historically the label "left" has been used rather loosely and sloppily in America, admitting of a dizzying variety of adulterations.

Which brings us to the "faux left"-- a slippery and often contradictory category, as we'll examine presently.

What is exactly the "faux left"? A useful definition might go like this: The faux left in America is a political formation chiefly comprised of mainstream liberals and a sprinkling of social democrats, both faithful servants of capitalism, and capable or willing of only tinkering on the periphery of the monster, never with its raison d'etre or core dynamic. Class politics and analysis are anathema to the faux left, and consequently, as is so typical of most liberals, they're perennially whining about the horrors of the system--which they can dissect eloquently--but suggesting aspirins to treat the cancers. Their ranks entertain a visceral dislike, fear, or suspicion of anything related to socialism, or serious redistributions of power, let alone communism or Marxism, which, without the benefit of any serious study, they tend to consider incarnations of pure evil. A distinguishing trait of the FL is their tendency, at the first shove, to protest loyalty to the status quo presided by the powers that be, lest their "patriotism" be questioned. Being regarded as "loyal Americans" (loyal to what we may ask?) is mighty important to this crowd. Left liberals in the mold of Chris Hedges are a far tougher breed, harder to classify since they present many good points and not much love for capitalism, but their inbred anticommunism and bourgeois worldview often cripple the integrity of their analysis and overall vision.

Many people on the faux left's rank and file tend to be unaware of the grave shortcomings of their position. These are the folks who were thrilled to death by the candidacy and election of Obama, who still talk about the Clintons with reverence, who gave substance to the term "Obamaniac", and who continue to regard membership in the Democratic party and electoral politics as the main tool for a transformation of society. The Daily Kos is one of their chief hangouts, where until recently any criticism of Barack Obama was rebuffed with a vicious and narrow-minded volley of invective worthy of rightwingers. Still, idiots aside, these are mostly well-meaning and often dedicated people, but in the end patsies of formal democracy.

Abstract definitions can go only so far, and the definition of who is left or merely a liberal gets blurry pretty quick when the Right's propaganda machine brands a centrist or conservative as a dangerous radical or worse. In that case we have a curious situation: a politician whose own shifty identity is centrist/conservative (i.e., Bill Clinton or Barack Obama) but who the masses begin to regard as a leftist as a result of Fox News disinformation, for example. The final dimension of confusion and cynicism is reached when this same politician struts around as a genuine progressive in front of people yearning for change and as a loyal capitalist servant within the councils of plutocratic power. Again, both Clinton and Obama easily qualify for this dubious honor, but the label can be applied to most of the current Democratic party leadership, which indeed helped to create this mess. As the Wiki reminds us:

Given the sorry if not downright shameful record of Barack Obama (and Bill Clinton, for that matter), what does that tell us about the faux left?  So far in my view the only good thing to come out of Obama's tenure is that he may have unwittingly put a big dent on the Lesser Evil myth.

Faux Left media assets

  Just like we can recognize the faux left pols by their treachery and pseudo-solutions, so can we recognize the faux left in its media incarnations. This is a lot easier than spotting phony politicians. The first giveaway--logical enough-- is that such media figures almost uniformly support faux left politicians. From the high perch of the New York Times and the Washington Post, bastions like NPR, and cable stations like MSNBC plus the leading weeklies, many apologists constantly muddy the waters about the true meaning and aims of liberaloid politicians. Despite this, the role played by faux left journalists is mixed: some of it is tolerably good and some of it is bad, sometimes awfully bad. Still, judgment must be tempered with caution, for most people, including mediacrats like ABC's George Stephanopoulos, PBS's Gwen Ifill and Bill Lehrer, CNN's Fareed Zakaria and most of the MSNBC hosts--Ed Schultz, Cenk Uygur, Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews (but not Keith Olbermann, who seems to be in transit between left liberalism and something else, perhaps a bit more daring), are themselves victims of bourgeois consciousness. Thus the question of whether they're witting deceivers of the masses falls into a rabbit hole. Some probably are, and putting career above honesty they just stick to their deformed duties for the duration. Others may think they're doing a smashing good job. Going as far as left liberalism will allow, they fall woefully short of the mark and end up reinforcing the rules of a rigged game.

The troublesome case of Rachel Maddow

Few contemporary media figures embody better the promise and deficits of faux leftism than MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, a woman whose career since 2008 has been nothing short of meteoric. During the Bush tenure Maddow had little trouble with her political compass; her reports and critical commentary--often impressively didactic--were consistently aimed at Republicans, from the White House mafia on down. This has continued to date with the GOP, Tea Party and other crazies and operatives of the right, perhaps at a higher and more strident pitch (no problem there, they totally deserve it), but of late Maddow has also become something of an embarrassment, a shrill apologist for the Democratic party and especially Barack Obama. In this Maddow is not significantly different than others at the MSNBC corral, especially Matthews, Schultz and O'Donnell, not to mention countless other liberals on and off the media beat. What makes her case worthy of mention is her extraordinary potential, which is now being wasted on systemic apologetics. So why single Maddow out when uneven and biased performance is almost the rule with corporate journalists? For one simple reason: she presents us with a clear and most eloquent example of the limits and dependability of liberals in the media, and an object lesson on how to distinguish not only foe from friend but also friend from false friend.

We were not terribly happy with Maddow's shilling for Obama and the Democrats. And we didn't much enjoy her tacit endorsement of US imperialism's wars and gushing about the US military (Maddow is fascinated with military hardware). But on two dealbreaker issues of maximum importance for the true left in the United States, she failed the test ignominiously. (It doesn't help that others also failed one of these issues.) The two dealbreaker issues were:

• denunciation of FBI/Homeland security raids against antiwar and other radical anticorporate activists
• assault on wikileaks

It's disgraceful enough that Maddow, along with others in the "left" media community failed to alert the public and make a big stink when antiwar / anticorporate activists across five states were raided by the FBI in September of 2010 in flagrant violation of free speech and political association guarantees. (WBAI's Amy Goodman didn't fail. See FBI raids on antiwar activists: A frontal assault on democratic rights). Publicity about such abuses is just about the only protection activists have to shield them against all sorts of risks and retaliations from the government and other parties interested in snuffing them out. Dropping the ball on an issue like this is unforgivable.

Unfortunately, for Maddow that wasn't all. Recently, during one of her "before a live audience" specials at the NYC 92 st YMCA, she went over the edge by doing a disgusting hatchet job on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, its most visible incarnation. This is serious because Wikileaks is by far the best gift progressives have received in a very long time, nothing short of a formidable weapon with all the requisites in scope and efficiency to put the empire on the defensive (see this excellent Swedish TV documentary on WikiLeaks to get a really good idea about the resiliency and potential of this organization).

In any case, judge for yourselves. We recommend you watch and read these posts more or less in the order suggested below. Then draw your conclusions.

• CRITIQUE FROM THE LEFT: Maddow vs. Assange--the limits of mainstream liberals

[Maddow attacks WikiLeaks]

• "WTMS--Rachel Maddow: Obama's new media courtier?"

[Maddow cheerleading for Obama]

• MSNBC's Cenk Uygur interviews Julian Assange (VIDEO) √

[ Julian Assange in an unusually cogent interview. MUST]

• WikiLeaks: the rise of the IT guerrillas

Collapse

As Antifascist Calling reported last summer, Stanford International Bank (SIB) and Stanford Financial Group (SFG), once conservatively valued at $50 billion, were no more legitimate than penny stock frauds or advance fee scams on the internet. To make matters worse, for years federal regulators turned a blind eye towards the bank's reckless practices.

As it turns out, so too did the U.S. Embassy.

Cablegate file 06BRIDGETOWN755, "Cricket Breakfast Serves Up First Encounter with Allen Stanford," dated 03 May 2006, revealed that "Ambassador Kramer met controversial Texan billionaire Allen Stanford for the first time at an April 21 'Legends of Cricket' breakfast in Barbados."

The confidential embassy cable reported that "Stanford bent the Ambassador's ear concerning his significant new tourism and property investments in Antigua and plans for his Caribbean Star and Caribbean Sun airlines."

The occasion for the meeting, an inadvertent encounter if the embassy's account is to be believed, was an April 21, 2006 breakfast at the Barbados Hilton.

Stanford, who went on to donate some $20 million to the England and Wales Cricket Board, attended the lavish affair in the company of Barbados Prime Minister Owen Arthur, U.S. Ambassador Mary E. Kramer, assorted sports stars and local luminaries.

The cable averred that "Allen Stanford is a controversial Texan billionaire who has made significant investments in offshore finance, aviation, and property development in Antigua and throughout the region. His companies are rumored to engage in bribery, money laundering, and political manipulation."

Rumored by whom, one might reasonably ask? An important point since this was certainly not general knowledge at the time, particularly amongst those who were being fleeced.

But rather than blowing the whistle when it could have mattered most to investors and Antiguan citizens, the Bush-appointed official took cover. "Embassy officers do not reach out to Stanford" we read, "because of the allegations of bribery and money laundering. The Ambassador managed to stay out of any one-on-one photos with Stanford during the breakfast."

Why would Kramer have done otherwise? After all, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton piously intoned last month denouncing WikiLeaks, "this is the role our diplomats play in serving America."

A "Unique Investment Strategy"

When "Sir Allen" was arrested in 2009, the federal indictment charged that the high-flying Texan had sold more than $7 billion in fraudulent certificates of deposit and some $1.2 billion in mutual funds.

The centerpiece of SIB's "unique investment strategy" were financial instruments that were claimed to be safe, liquid and redeemable at a moment's notice.

According to a blurb on the "Sir Allen Stanford" web site, the Stanford Financial Group "provides private and institutional investors with global expertise in asset allocation strategies, investment advisory services, equity research, international private banking and trust administration, commercial banking, investment banking, merchant banking, institutional sales and trading, real estate investment and insurance."

The reality was far different, however. In fact, the majority of Group "assets" were in very illiquid real estate holdings and private accounts managed by just two individuals, Allen Stanford and his college roommate, James M. Davis, the bank's chief financial officer.

According to federal prosecutors, accounts were divided into three tiers, I, II and III with Tier III accounts representing "more than 80% of the purported total value of SIBL's investments."

"STANFORD and DAVIS" the charge sheet reads, "directed, managed, and monitored ... the Tier III investments. According to internal SIBL documents, as of June 30, 2008, these Tier III investments comprised the majority of the purported value of SIBL's investment portfolio. Approximately 50% of the purported value of Tier III (approximately $3.2 billion) included investments in artificially valued real estate and approximately 30% of the purported value of Tier III (approximately $1.6 billion) included notes on personal loans to STANFORD. STANFORD, DAVIS and others did not disclose to, and actively concealed from, investors, SGC and SIBL employees, and others the fact that approximately $4.8 billion in purported Tier III investments consisted of such artificially valued real estate and notes on personal loans to STANFORD."

A sweet deal if you're in on the fix.

Lured by "high rates that exceed those available through true certificates of deposits offered by traditional banks," thousands of investors were indelicately relieved of their life savings. Of the more than $8 billion hoovered up by the banker and his cronies, only about $500 million has been recovered.

This raises the question: where did all that money go? Did it just simply vanish into thin air, secret Stanford accounts, or perhaps, was it diverted elsewhere by the banker's silent partners in a certain three-lettered agency?

When asked during a 2009 interview by CNBC's Scott Cohn whether he had been "helpful" to U.S. authorities in Latin America, Stanford replied, "Are you talking about the CIA?" Cohn: "Well, you tell me?" Stanford: "I'm just not going to talk about that."

Stanford's reticence to discuss possible Agency connections are certainly understandable.

We do know however, that like many dubious banking ventures before it, Stanford Financial Group had powerful friends in high places, in the White House, Congress, amongst regulatory agencies and, plausibly, the CIA; all of whom tripped over themselves furnishing Stanford's "family" of companies with a watertight "roof."

The More Things "Change"

According to available evidence, why would the banker have believed his shady empire was on the brink of collapse in 2009, or that well-connected friends wouldn't come to the rescue? After all, it happened before.

Last year The New York Times disclosed that Stephen J. Korotash, an associate regional director of enforcement at the Ft. Worth, Texas office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said the regulatory agency "stood down" their investigation "at the request of another federal agency, which he declined to name."

A curious admission all the more damning for regulators considering that suspicions, and hastily-closed investigations, have dogged the bank for the better part of two decades.

Damning perhaps, but not surprising.

Nearly a quarter century before charges were laid against Allen Stanford, the late investigative reporter Penny Lernoux recounted in her still-timely book, In Banks We Trust, a fraudulent scheme by Citibank (now Citigroup) to evade paying taxes while cooking the books and dodging "legal requirements on bank reserves, liquidity, and lending limits." And, similar to the Stanford grift, the SEC did worse than nothing.

Lernoux averred that even after a whistleblower and former bank vice president proved "conclusively" that Citibank had "systematically" violated the law, "the SEC's enforcement staff refused to take any action against the bank on the ground that its pursuit of unlawful profits accorded with 'reasonable and standard business judgement'."

Here's the kicker. Lernoux wrote that the "SEC also concluded that Citibank's management had no duty to disclose improper actions since the bank had never claimed its top officers possessed 'honesty and integrity'." Sound familiar?

Fast forward to the era of the Bush crime family and we learn that in 2006, BusinessWeek revealed that the president "bestowed on his intelligence czar ... broad authority, in the name of national security" to excuse companies from "their normal accounting and securities-disclosure obligations" if they revealed "certain top-secret defense projects."

Would such "broad authority" also cover financial institutions accused of laundering drug money for select "War on Terror" allies?

Interestingly enough, Bush's "intelligence czar" at the time, John D. Negroponte, was U.S. Ambassador in Honduras during the 1980s at the height of the Reagan administration's anticommunist jihad in Central America.

In addition to covering for the CIA as the Agency stood-up death squads in Honduras, Negroponte, as The Baltimore Sun revealed in 1995, turned a blind eye as America's "freedom fighters," the Nicaraguan Contras, financed their terrorist insurgency against the leftist Sandinista government by importing billions of dollars of cocaine into the United States with a major assist from their ideological soul-mates, the Medellín and Cali drug cartels.

Recall that during this period of intensified U.S. covert operations, the Reagan Justice Department signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the CIA. That 1982 memo, brokered between U.S. Attorney General William French Smith and CIA Director William Casey, absolved the Agency from reporting drug smuggling by their assets, the Nicaraguan Contras and Afghan mujahideen.

Leveraging their anticommunist bona fides to import massive quantities of drugs into the United States, and laundering the proceeds through a spider's web of U.S. and offshore banks including, as several investigative reports have alleged, a Stanford bank, one can only wonder whether similar cosy arrangements are in force today.

Recall also that illegal activities by institutions as diverse as Paul Helliwell's Castle Bank and Trust in the Bahamas, Frank Nugan and Michael Hand's Nugan Hand Bank in Sydney, Saudi Arabia and the Cayman Islands, or the far-flung, crooked empire of Agha Hasan Abedi's Bank of Credit and Commerce International, were all financial black holes where organized crime, drug-fueled intelligence operations and geopolitical intrigue freely intermixed.

Separated in time and geography, what all three banks had in common was their close proximity to international drug trafficking networks and the CIA, particularly in areas of acute interest to U.S. policy planners. Did Stanford International Bank have an analogous relationship with the Agency?

After all the Stanford bank, like Castle, Nugan Hand and BCCI before it had been focal points of unseemly financial practices for years. Indeed, nearly thirty years ago investigative journalist Nancy Grodin reported in CovertAction (Number 16, March 1982), that like SIB, Nugan Hand enticed prospective investors "with offers of private banking services, high interest rates (higher than anywhere else in the region), tax-free deposits and complete secrecy."

Across the decades, investigations revealed that leading figures in Castle, Nugan Hand and BCCI had actively conspired with drug traffickers to import narcotics into the United States.

Top bank officials Helliwell, Nugan, Hand and Abedi worked alongside organized crime figures and former intelligence and Pentagon officials, including a past director of the CIA. And when the chips were down, all managed to evade being held to account for the most serious charges: drug trafficking, money laundering, arms smuggling, murder, terrorism, even nuclear proliferation, precisely because such exposure would have revealed "sensitive intelligence operations."

While some might argue that in the broad scheme of things considering the depth of capitalism's economic meltdown, Stanford's alleged grift was mere chump change compared to the trillions of dollars plundered by even bigger fish.

From a parapolitical perspective however, the multiple obfuscations, smokescreens and outright falsehoods surrounding the scandal indicate this is no simple case of greed or another tawdry example of "elite deviance."

Rather, as researcher Peter Dale Scott has assiduously documented over the years, the vicissitudes of "L'affaire Stanford" may be emblematic of "continuous U.S. involvement in the global drug connection," a "global financial complex of hot money uniting prominent business ... and government as well as underworld figures" for purposes of "achieving and maintaining global American dominance."

Drug Links Covered-Up

While Ambassador Kramer may have avoided having her photo snapped with the accused fraudster, her rather pedestrian concerns pale in comparison to the fact that Stanford has been the subject of multiple drugs investigations over a 20-year period that have all been scrupulously covered-up.

Indeed, years before the federal government ran SIB to ground, earlier probes, including those investigating drug-money laundering during the Iran-Contra period were killed.

Stanford's Montserrat-based Guardian International Bank, a suspected conduit for Contra drug funds, short-circuited investigators when it pulled-up stakes, surrendered its banking license and left the island.

By 1986, evidence emerged that top Contra officials and the Agency enjoyed cosy ties with both Pablo Escobar and the Orejuela brothers, respective kingpins of the Medellín and Cali drug cartels.

Under pressure from the Reagan administration however, Congress and corporate media buried the drug angle to the investigation, as Consortium News journalist Robert Parry has documented in a series of groundbreaking reports.

After his departure from Montserrat under a cloud, the banker trained his sights on Antigua and Barbuda where he developed a close relationship with former prime minister Lester Bird.

The Independent reported that during the course of a joint Scotland Yard-FBI investigation, the bank "was suspected of laundering drug money from the notorious Medellin and Cali drug cartels run by Pablo Escobar and the Orejuela brothers."

"Under the Bird family leadership" The Independent disclosed, "the island was widely regarded as one of the most corrupt in the Caribbean, with well-documented links to arms and drug smuggling and money laundering."

The former FBI agent who led the Guardian probe, Ross Gaffney, told The Independent "we suspected that Stanford's bank was involved in money laundering." Gaffney said that even after Guardian closed, the FBI "continued to take an interest in Stanford and set up a second inquiry into that bank after receiving intelligence that it continued to launder money for the Medellin and Cali cartels."

The former federal agent said, "We had hard intelligence about what he was doing and we began to develop it" but that investigation died or more likely, was deep-sixed, by officials higher-up the food chain.

According to The Observer, a second FBI source "confirmed the agency was looking at links to international drug gangs as part of the huge investigation into Stanford's banking activities."

Other sources "in the US Drug Enforcement Administration" The Observer reported, "also confirmed that while the investigations into Stanford's affairs were 'with the FBI and Securities Exchange Commission, there may well have been a trail connecting his Mexican affairs to narco-trafficking interests'."

But even after the stench of Iran-Contra faded from the headlines, drug probes targeting the bank continued well into the 1990s. The Houston Chronicle reported that according to court documents "operatives of the Juarez cartel began opening accounts at Stanford's Antigua-based bank in an effort to launder money amassed under one of Mexico's most vicious drug lords, Amado Carrillo Fuentes."

"Together," the Chronicle disclosed, "they used Stanford International Bank to open 10 accounts and deposit $3 million--a small sliver of the cartel's fortunes but enough to pique authorities' interest."

Despite long-running investigations, federal sources told the Chronicle, "any alleged Stanford connection to drug cartels and their money could lie buried in the paperwork gathered for the Security and Exchange Commission's civil inquiry."

Federal officials claimed, despite probes that resulted in stiff fines for illicit practices by other U.S. banks including, most recently, Wachovia, as Bloomberg Markets magazine reported, that tracing drug profits laundered through offshore banks like Stanford's "is difficult to document."

That is, acutely "difficult" if investigators are ordered to look away, and evidence suggests they were. How else would one interpret the statement by The Observer's DEA source who told the British newspaper, "I think we'll find that any possible drug-related trail and SEC priorities are not all in the same frame."

When the scandal broke, Cablegate file 09BRIDGETOWN114, 18 February 2009, "Antigua: Upheaval on the Eve of Elections," informs us that the 17 February announcement of new parliamentary elections "was almost immediately overshadowed by an announcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission of action being taken against U.S.-Antiguan citizen Sir Allen Stanford for 'massive, on-going fraud'."

The Embassy informed the State Department that "local fears over Stanford indictment have led to a run on the Stanford Financial Group's subsidiary the Bank of Antigua, with depositors lining up for an hour or more to withdrawal their money."

As reported above, through a series of maneuvers and what were alleged to be illicit payments to former Antiguan Prime Minister Lester Bird, Stanford set up shop on the Caribbean island in 1990, and gobbled up prime real estate, acquired dual citizenship and a knighthood, and eventually took control of the Bank of Antigua in a highly-dubious "reorganization."

The ripples from the indictment spread like a rogue wave across Antigua and the Eastern Caribbean. Antiguan officials, and the U.S. Embassy, were concerned that once the depth of the fraud sank in, "unrest" would follow in its wake.

Shortly after that 2009 embassy cable, The Guardian, reported that an investigation by the Antiguan government uncovered "large payments ... in Isle of Man bank accounts controlled by Antiguan politicians."

According "to documents seen by The Guardian, HSBC bank, in the Isle of Man, accepted $3.2m (£2.3m) on behalf of Asot Michael, once chief of staff to the former Antigua prime minister Lester Bird."

"The cash under investigation" the British newspaper disclosed, "came via an Israeli businessman, Bruce Rappaport, who is alleged to have diverted Antiguan funds into his own pocket while making payments to local politicians."

HSBC denied all wrongdoing and "would publicly neither confirm nor deny information about individual Manx accounts," saying the bank "has robust anti-money laundering policies and clearly defined policies and procedures concerning politically exposed persons."

"It is unclear" the Embassy averred, "if either party will try hard to use the Stanford indictment as an election issue--Stanford amassed his fortune under an ALP [Antiguan Labor Party] government, and was knighted by a UPP [United Progressive Party] government, so all hands are likely equally dirty."

"Many worry that these issues [crime, fraud and violence] could not only spell disaster for the UPP, but for the country's economy as a whole, leading to a severe economic depression and intolerable unemployment creating more violence and a cycle of less tourism, more unemployment and more crime."

Curiously, while corporate media have focused on Stanford's lavish lifestyle, girlfriends and upscale island properties, nary a word has been whispered about the banker's alleged links to notorious drug cartels or to some of the CIA's dirtiest operations.

Even at this late date, it appears that the dodgy banker has well-connected friends who want to bury this angle of a scandal that has defrauded thousands and wrecked entire economies.

The question is, why?

Follow the Money, but Where?

Investors in the Stanford Ponzi scheme have lost their shirts, and its likely they'll never recover even a fraction of their losses.

"In the past two years" the Houston Chronicle reported, "Stanford himself has ceased to be the story. The most amazing aspect of the Stanford saga is how little money has been recovered. As the court-appointed receiver has chased assets around the globe, he's found Stanford's accounts stunningly empty."

During the investigation that led to the indictments, auditors learned that that funds were moved through Stanford-controlled accounts to offshore banks, including HSBC London; Bank Julius Baer, Zurich; Credit Suisse, United Kingdom; SG Private Banking, Geneva; Banque Franck Galland & Cie S.A., Geneva; RBS Coutts, Zurich; Coutts Bank Von Ernst, Geneva and Toronto Dominion Bank, Canada; banks which have figured in past money laundering or tax-avoidance scandals. In all, 28 numbered accounts were listed by prosecutors, veritable black holes that escaped regulatory scrutiny.

Nearly a decade ago, investigative journalist Stephen Bender wrote in Z Magazine that "an understanding of the drug trade's machinations is incomplete without an analysis of the crucial role transnational banks play in the laundering of drug proceeds."

The House Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported back in 2000: "Despite increasing international attention and stronger anti-money laundering controls, some current estimates are that $500 billion to $1 trillion in criminal proceeds are laundered through banks worldwide each year, with about half of that amount moved through United States banks."

Recall that at the height of capitalism's current global economic meltdown, Antonio Maria Costa, the director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime told The Observer that "drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis."

Costa told the British newspaper he saw substantial evidence that that proceeds from the illicit trade were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year and that "a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result."

The UN drugs chief said that in "many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital." And with markets tanking and major bank failures a near daily occurrence, "liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor."

If only a tiny portion of these illegal proceeds were siphoned-off by secret state agencies, including the CIA, funds available for covert operations and other dubious purposes, such as suborning treason amongst foreign officials to spy on their own governments, as WikiLeaks diplomatic cables revealed, the amounts would be staggering.

Bender informed us that one conduit for laundering drug profits is the private banking system.

"U.S.-based private banks" Bender wrote, "operate in a regulatory twilight zone enabling the laundering of drug profits as confirmed by the GAO. Private banks are 'not subject to the Bank Secrecy Act,' thus exempting banks from complying with 'specific anti-money-laundering provisions...such as the one requiring that suspicious transactions be reported to U.S. authorities'."

And with "international private banking" a prominent selling-point of the Stanford firm's dark web, one might reasonably surmise that drug traffickers would also view this regulatory black hole in the most favourable light.

Indeed, this "twilight zone" was precisely where Allen Stanford operated. As The Miami Herald reported, state and federal regulators allowed SIB to move "vast amounts of money offshore--without reporting a penny to regulators."

SIB's arrangements with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation were so lax that the company "was allowed to sell hundreds of millions in bank notes without allowing regulators to check for fraud." Indeed, Florida regulators granted Stanford's bank "sweeping powers never given to a private company."

But what if that "private company" were handed an exemption from "their normal accounting and securities-disclosure obligations" as BusinessWeek reported, on grounds of "national security," and investigations into that firm were squashed "at the request of another federal agency," wouldn't this also suggest that Stanford's Ponzi scheme may have also been a cover for ongoing U.S. intelligence operations?

And once the scope of the fraud became too large to ignore, it wouldn't be a stretch to conclude that the Agency decided to cut their losses and "move on"?

As investigative reporters Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne uncovered in their stunning exposé, The Outlaw Bank, it wouldn't be the first time.

For years the CIA had concealed their close involvement with the crooked Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), tied to everything from drug trafficking to money laundering and from nuclear proliferation to the financing of terrorist groups, including those that morphed into Al-Qaeda.

And when they "came clean" to Treasury Department officials in a report that remains classified to this day, "suddenly, and for no apparent reason," Beaty and Gwynne wrote, Treasury "lost all interest in BCCI."

Perhaps for similar reasons too, in the years ahead we'll find that "any alleged Stanford connection to drug cartels and their money could lie buried in the paperwork gathered for the Security and Exchange Commission's civil inquiry," where its likely to stay buried.


Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, Rowan's Avenger, and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press.
Collapse

Psychiatrists in Iran have prescribed several drugs for my friend and he has been taking them over the past years; however, when I met him a few weeks ago, he informed me of a shocking, unanticipated incident which I'm still unable to believe. My friend told me that the Canadian and Italian manufacturers of his medicines have ceased exporting their products to Iran following the imposition of United Nations Security Council's fourth round of sanctions against Iran and it's possible that they refuse to export their other pharmaceutical products to the country as a result of the sanctions, as well. He told me that his psychiatrists are not able to prescribe the high-quality, original medicines for him anymore and this may seriously jeopardize his mental health and even put his family life into risk.

My instinctive reaction to what my friend told me was nothing but perplexity and confusion. I couldn't understand the relationship between a set of sanctions which are aimed at what is claimed to be Iran's "controversial" nuclear program and the mental health of thousands of patients who are suffering from different kinds of psychoses all around the country.

At the first glance, what should be noted is that the four rounds of sanctions which were imposed on Iran by the UNSC so far are entirely illegal, unfounded and baseless as the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly pointed out in its reports that Iran has never diverted toward enriching uranium to the extent that is utilizable in the atomic weapons;. The reports of intelligence services in the United States also confirm that Iran has never had the intention of producing nuclear weapons and thus should not be penalized with sanctions and other punitive measures. The National Intelligence Estimate report of the November 2007 has clearly expressed that Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal and is not moving towards producing nuclear weapons; therefore, bringing up Iran's nuclear dossier in Security Council and imposing several rounds of crippling sanctions against its people has been merely politicizing Iran's case which should have been investigated from a legal and scientific viewpoint, not a political one.

However, what is of high importance is the hypocritical and inhuman approach of the United States and its allies concerning Iran's nuclear program which is turned into an opportunity to confront with the Iranian nation and curb its scientific and political developments.

We have been witness to the fact that, under the pretext of abiding by the UNSC sanctions, several countries in Europe, Asia and Northern America have adopted a counterproductive stance toward Iran and ceased their ordinary financial transactions with Tehran.

Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and EU member states are among the countries which imposed unilateral, extra-resolution sanctions against Iran and caused several problems for the Iranian nation. Refusing to refuel the Iranian planes in the European airports, suspending the accounts of Iranians in foreign banks and financial institutions, delaying the issuance of visas for the Iranians who want to travel abroad, banning the Iranian students from studying certain fields in the foreign universities and ceasing the exportation of vital goods including foodstuff, medical facilities, fruits and medicines to Iran are among the belligerent policies which these countries have adopted against the people of Iran.

With this unconstructive approach, however, the belligerent countries who have stood against the nation of Iran demonstrated their dishonesty and proved that are not worthy of being trusted. First and foremost, they showed that their claims of being a friend of Iranian nation are entirely futile and pointless. They demonstrated that their "Nowrouz" greeting messages and stretched hands are fake and deceitful. They can not come to terms with the Iranian nation and are fated to be the enemies of Iran, because it's in their interests to spread animosity and hostility to retain their influence and power.

Secondly, these countries have clearly demonstrated that they have the least respect for human rights and what they claim to be their exclusive realm. A country that deprives the mental patients of another country, which is in dire need of high-quality medication to meet its pharmaceutical needs, of its medical products cannot be called a defender of human rights. Thousands of innocent civilians are suffering here in Iran, and they should be punished by the supercilious, arrogant powers simply because these powers favor being at odds with the independent and self-determining nations.

Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon regularly lashes out at other countries for what he claims to be their abuses of human rights; however, his own country, with a long period of abusing the rights of its ethnic minorities, refuses to export medicines to Iran because it wants to "abide by the UNSC resolutions". It might be interesting to know Mr. Cannon's viewpoints regarding human rights and the way his country glorifies the humankind. Thousands of mental patients are suffering in a remote country and those who promote themselves as the harbingers of human rights, deprive these "humans" from their most essential right which is a proper medication. How is it possible to justify the Canadian style of respecting the human rights, we don't know!

This was only a simple instance of how the pioneers of human rights fail to respect and venerate what they consider to be their first and foremost social value. Who knows about the real, on-the-ground abuses of human rights by them?

Collapse

For most of us, the Iraqi people's resolve cannot be witnessed, but rather deduced. Eight years of military strikes, raids, imprisonments, torture, humiliation and unimaginable suffering were still not enough to force the Iraqis into accepting injustice as a status quo.

In August 2010, the United States declared the end of its combat mission in Iraq, promising complete withdrawal by the end of 2011. However, US military action has continued, only under different designations. The occupation of Iraq carries on, despite the tactical shifts of commands and the rebranding effort.

However, were it not for the tenacity of the Iraqi people, who manage to cross-sectarian, political and ideological divides, there would be no talk of withdrawals or deadlines. There would be nothing but cheap oil, which could have ushered in a new golden age of imperialism - not in Iraq, but throughout the so-called Third World. The Iraqi people have managed to stop what could have become a dangerous trend.

2010 was another year where Iraqis held strong, and civil societies throughout the world stood with them in solidarity, a solidarity that will continue until full sovereignty is attained.

Palestine provides another example of international solidarity, one that is unsurpassed in modern times. Civil society has finally crossed the line between words and sentiments of solidarity into actual and direct action. The Israeli siege on Gaza, which was supported by the United States and few other Western powers, resembled more than a humanitarian crisis. It was a moral crisis as well, especially as the besieged population of Gaza was subjected to a most brutal war at the end of 2008, followed by successive lethal military strikes. The four year long siege has devastated a population whose main crime was exercising its democratic right to vote, and refusing to submit to the military and political diktats of Israel.

Gaza remains a shining example of human strength in our time. This is a fact the Israeli government refuses to accept. Israeli and other media reported that the Israeli army will be deploying new tanks to quell the resistance of the strip, with the justification that Palestinians fighters managed to penetrate the supposedly impenetrable Israeli Merkava tank. Israeli military chief Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi, who made the revelation in a recent parliamentary session, may never comprehend that neither a Mekava (or whatever new model he will be shipping to Gaza soon) nor the best military hardware anywhere could penetrate the will of the unwavering Palestinians.

Gaza is not alone. Civil society leaders representing every religion, nationality and ideology have tirelessly led a campaign of solidarity with the Palestinian people. The breadth and magnitude of this solidarity has been unmatched in recent times, at least since the anti-fascist International Brigades units resolutely defended the Second Spanish Republic between 1936-1939.

The solidarity has come at a cost. Many activists from Turkey and various other countries were killed in the high seas as they attempted to extend a hand of camaraderie to the people of Gaza and Palestine. Now, knowing the dangers that await them, many activists the world over are still hoping to set sail to Gaza in 2011.

Indeed, 2010 was a year that human will proved more effective than military hardware. It was the year human solidarity crossed over like never before into new realms, bringing with it much hope and many new possibilities.

But the celebration of hope doesn't end in Palestine and Iraq. It merely begins there. Champions of human rights come from every color and creed. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar, The Most Rev. Dr. Desmond Tutu of South Africa, former US President Jimmy Carter and other luminaries and civil society heroes and heroines from across the world will continue their mission of peace and justice, as they have for many years.

These well-known names are only part of the story. There are literary millions of unsung heroes that make the hardship of the years more tolerable, and who will continue to guide us through new years and unknown challenges.

Haiti was one country that was hit hardest in 2010. The small nation was greeted on January 12, 2010 with a most catastrophic earthquake, followed by 52 aftershocks. Over half a million people were estimated killed and injured, and many more became homeless. The year ended on a similarly devastating note, as over 2,000 people died and 105,000 fell ill (according to estimates by the Pan American Health Organization) after a cholera outbreak ravished an already overwhelmed country.

It is rather strange how leading powers can be so immaculate and efficient in their preparations for war, and yet so scandalously slow in their responses to human need when there is no political or economic price to be exacted. But this discrepancy will hardly deter doctors and nurses at the St. Nicholas Hospital in Haiti, who, despite the dangerous lack of resources, managed to save 90 percent of their patients

Our hearts go out to Haiti and its people during these hard times. But Haiti needs more than good wishes and solemn prayers. It also needs courageous stances by civil society to offset the half-hearted commitments made by some governments and publicity-seeking leaders.

It must be said that hope is not a random word aimed at summoning a fuzzy, temporary feeling of positive expectations for the future. To achieve its intended meaning, it must be predicated on real, foreseeable values. It must be followed by action. Civil society needs to continue to step up and fill the gaps created or left wide open by self-seeking world powers.

Words don't end wars, confront greed or slow down the devastation caused by natural disasters. People do. Let 2011 be a year of action, hope, and the uninterrupted triumph of civil society.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Collapse

Anyone drawn to the Transition or Permaculture models is likely to stand in awe of Alexander's work and his capacity for envisioning the revolutionary potential in both models. Enchantment with Alexander's discoveries and his writings about them is inevitable the more one grasps their profundity, but often overlooked is what Alexander calls the "luminous ground" on which the pattern language theory is built. 

Vermont author, Karen Speerstra, has researched Alexander's luminous ground concept which is described in depth in Book Four of his Nature of Order series. When one grasps the implications of Alexander's understanding of luminous ground, one must also acknowledge that at its core, pattern language is a theory based on profoundly spiritual principles. In her article "Our Luminous Common Ground," commissioned by the Fetzer Institute, Speerstra extracts from The Nature of Order a number of statements from Alexander indicative of the place the sacred holds in his world view. 

The "ground" to which Alexander incessantly refers is, in his words, "The I which lies behind or inside all matter...an underlying substance, or 'original substance' [it] partially reunites us, part of the way, not all the way, towards a world of spirit. It does not make a separation between spirit and matter." 

This "I", according to Alexander, resides within us and is eternal. In fact, he asserts that it "does contain all that is in us; it gives primacy to the fact that this void is already in us; that it is a part of the human being which exists already, and is available to us...It is that which makes it powerful, which makes it useful." 

But Alexander takes this further: "To really make living structures, it seems almost as though somehow, we are charged, for our time, with finding a new form of God, a new way of understanding the deepest origins of our experience, of the matter in the universe so that we, too, when lucky, with devotion might find it possible to reveal this 'something' and its blinding light." 

In creating something beautiful, he says, we are not only deeply nourished, but we come alive and are filled with inner light. We are most nurtured and feel healed and whole when we are joining with others in creating living structures. In fact, "When we are in touch with our inner landscape, 'the ground,' we become a more 'rounded, more satisfied, more satisfactory being.'" 

Alexander sees no duality between the "inner ground" and our outer human-ness: "When you really put your humanness into the things you make, then you genuinely reach the wholeness we are striving for in the external structure we call order...it is at that moment that we reach the ground." 

Christopher Alexander has been called an architect, a builder, a mathematician, and a scientist, but throughout the passages from The Nature of Order cited by Speerstra, not out of context but very much in context, what we are hearing is nothing less than the musings of a mystic. Alexander is telling us that each of us has an "I" that goes beyond what we normally see and that it is connected with all other "I's." Moreover, "Each of us is connected to the world." In his mind and heart, the ultimate goal is wholeness--connectedness with ourselves, other "I's", and "a genuine desire for all things to be one...." In fact, he says, "Any trace of a desire for separateness will destroy completely my ability to hear the one, whispering through...." We might summarize all of his mysticism in just this one sentence offered by Speerstra: "Everything is filled with its living spirit." 

Why is a closer examination of Alexander's world view important, particularly in relation to Transition? In recent months, a healthy and heated debate regarding the place of the sacred or what some call spirituality in the Transition model has been occurring alongside much fascination with pattern language and its application to Transition. Surely, if those who embrace the Transition model find themselves resonating with Alexander's perspective on pattern language, then it seems imperative to understand the foundation on which it is built which happens to be unequivocally grounded in the sacred. 

At the end of her article, Speerstra suggests a number of questions about our ways of being together and our work in groups which emerge directly from a pattern language perspective and which are exceedingly relevant to the functioning of Transition initiatives and projects:

• What is the "felt reality" of the gathered people?
• When we meet other people, to what degree do we feel connected to them?
• Can groups model an improved "world picture"--one of already existing wholeness?
• How can a group of people be led to appreciate remarkable new results that embrace and foster unexpected and complex behaviors?
• How can each person in the group be more like their "eternal selves"?
• Are mental events connected with physical phenomena?
• How do we experience the unfolding of our centers?
• How can each person feel more "related" to the gathering place and to each other?
• What is the spiritual depth of what is achieved in "the work"?

What are we to make of mysterious terms like "an 'I'", "the something", "the luminous ground", "the eternal self", and oh dear, the word "God"? Above all, how do we relate such esoteric expressions to the nuts and bolts of the Transition model and other efforts to create sustainable communities? I would answer by saying that Alexander is showing us what the sacred looks like and that it is a thousand miles removed from organized religion, ideology, or some sort of New Age "grow, flow, and be" cultism. Furthermore, he is demonstrating that as we implement the Transition model, we stand together on luminous (sacred) ground and that knowing that in our bones may facilitate our capacity to experience unprecedented personal and collective transformation. 

What is more, it appears that Alexander's work serves to create not only sustainable communities, but sustainable people--individuals and groups that literally thrive on connectedness with each other and the earth community, for indeed, as he says, what really matters is "the degree of connectedness a given place, or thing or event has with the ground." 

In summary, we cannot consider pattern language and its application to any structure or group unless we are willing to open-mindedly engage with and integrate its sacred origins. Otherwise, we perpetuate a binary perspective which our species may soon discover is the root cause of the rise of an endless growth model and its current demise.  The history of modern humanity has been a sorrowful saga of abdicating the sacred because we were unable to appreciate its presence in the material world. The current collapse and transition is and will be an onerous, but perhaps ultimately joyful journey, in rediscovering and re-embracing our luminous ground. Out of this return to the mysteries of which Alexander speaks, an opportunity for unprecedented patterns of wholeness and relationship offers itself to human egos weary of pretending that disconnected matter, people, and places are humanity's final frontier.

Collapse

US Government Is Two-Faced Over WikiLeaks

The US government has twisted itself into knots over WikiLeaks. It routinely disregards the privacy of citizens while, at the same time, trying to avoid transparency for itself.

The US claims broad authority to secretly snoop on the lives of individuals inside and outside of the US. It also works tirelessly to prevent citizens from knowing what is going on by expansively naming basic government information "state secrets." The government says it has to have the right to keep things secret in order to prevent crime.

But when it comes to revealing evidence of illegal acts by the US government it seeks the most severe sanctions against any transparency.

The most glaring example of the twisted logic is on display within the US Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ is searching for creative ways to criminally sanction WikiLeaks for publishing US secrets. But the same DOJ solemnly decided it should not prosecute the government officials who brazenly destroyed dozens of tapes of waterboarding and torture by US officials. So, DOJ, destruction of evidence of crimes is O.K. and revealing the evidence of crimes is bad?

Holiday Sampler From WikiLeaks

Here is a holiday sampler of what WikiLeaks has published revealing the US role in cover-ups, drones and coups.

Cover-Ups

Spain

The US worked with high-ranking officials in Spain to try to derail legal accountability for torture by US officials.

Spain has opened two judicial inquiries into torture allegations against US officials at Guantanamo.

A series of cables details secret meetings and communications among officials of the two countries. An April 1, 2009, cable (Reference ID 09MADRID347) describes a meeting between the main Spanish prosecutor and US officials. The prosecutor promises to proceed slowly and to try to make sure the case is not assigned to the most pro-human rights judge in Spain, Judge Garzon. An April 19, 2009, cable (Reference 09MADRID392) tells of numerous meetings between US officials and Spanish officials, including the attorney general of Spain, who promises not to support the case. A cable dated May 5, 2009, (Reference ID 09MADRID440) describes further meetings between US officials and the prosecutor, who promises to "embarrass" the judge into dropping the case.

It is noteworthy that the pro-human rights judge, Baltasar Garzon, was later indicted in April 2010 for probing into Spanish civil war atrocities in a way that Spanish government said was an abuse of power.

UK

The UK promised to protect US interests in the UK review of the Iraq war. In a September 22, 2009, cable (Reference ID 09LONDON2198) UK officials "promised that the UK had put measures into place to protect your interest during the inquiry into the causes of the Iraq war. He noted that Iraq no longer seems to be a major issue in the US, but he said it would become a big issue - a feeding frenzy - in the UK when the inquiry takes off."

Drones and Cover-Ups

Amnesty International (AI) released pictures of a US manufactured cruise missile that carried cluster bombs used in a December 17, 2009, attack on a community in Abyan, Yemen, which killed 14 alleged members of al-Qaeda and 41 local residents - including 14 women and 21 children. At the time of the AI report, June 6, 2010, Yemeni officials said that its forces had carried out that attack. AI asked the US to explain its role, but the US did not. After the WikiLeaks disclosures, it is clear that the US carried out the attack, and both countries were lying.

A January 4, 2010, cable (ID Reference 10SANAA4) noted Yemen officials expressed concerns about the killings of civilians in Yemen by US drone attacks. The US has been bombing Yemen with drones and other missiles for over a year, often trying to assassinate US citizen and accused al-Qaeda leader Anwar Awlaki and others. In this cable, US officials said, "the only civilians killed were the wife and children an [al-Qaeda] operative at the site." Yemen officials complained that US cruise missiles are "not very accurate," and reportedly welcomed the use of aircraft-deployed, precision-guided bombs instead. "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," said the Yemen leader, prompting a deputy minister to joke that he had just "lied" by telling the Yemen Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan and Shebwa were American-made, but deployed by the Yemen military.

Coups and Cover-Ups

When is a coup not a coup?

WikiLeaks documents show the US knew in advance about the 2006 military coup in Thailand, and changed its definition of the 2009 coup in Honduras within a 30 day period.

In a September 19, 2006, cable (ID Reference 06BANGKOK5811) written just after a military coup deposed the elected government in Thailand while the premier was at the UN, the US reminded Thai military coup leaders of an earlier conversation that promised US aid would be cut off if there was a coup. The cable makes it clear that the US knew of the planning for the coup in advance. The cable goes on to observe that "a coup is a coup is a coup ..."

In a July 23, 2009, cable (ID Reference 09TEGUCIGALPA645) written after "the June 28 forced removal of President Manuel 'Mel' Zelaya" from Honduras, "the Embassy perspective is that there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and national congress conspired on June 28 in what constitutes an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch, while accepting there may be a prima facie case that Zelaya may have committed illegalities and may have even violated the constitution. There is equally no doubt from our perspective that Roberto Micheletti's assumption of power was illegitimate."

Yet, a month later, in August 25, 2009, a special briefing by the US State Department included this exchange with journalist Sergio Davila.

Davila: "If this is a coup - the State Department considers this a coup, what's the next step? And I mean, there is a legal framework on the U.S. laws dealing with countries that are under coup d'état? I mean, what's holding you guys to take other measures according - the law?"

The State Department official responded: "I think what you're referring to, Mr. Davila, is whether or not this is - has been determined to be a military coup. And you're correct that there are provisions in our law that have to be applied if it is determined that this is a military coup. And frankly, our lawyers are looking at that exact question. And when we get the answer to that, you are right, there will be things that - if it is determined that this was a military coup, there will be things that will kick in. As you know, on the ground, there's a lot of discussion about who did what to whom and what things were constitutional or not, which is why our lawyers are really looking at the event as we understand them in order to come out with the accurate determination."

The US backpedaling on the coup in Honduras continues to this day.

WikiLeaks has revealed evidence of US human rights abuses around the world. Now the question is what are human rights activists going to do with this informatio

Full Disclosure: The Center for Constitutional Rights is representing detainees in Guantanamo, is supporting the investigation into US human rights abuses conducted by Spain, is looking into the coup in Honduras, is challenging the use of drones in Yemen to target and kill US citizen Anwar Awlaki and has repeatedly condemned the US war in Iraq.

Collapse

Certainly, Obama cannot solely be blamed for all the factors that have stifled his country's chances of recovery from the failures of the Bush era. But the man who promised the moon has now extended the abhorrent and morally unjustifiable tax cuts for America's wealthiest class. The "sweeping" $858 billion tax bill was signed into law on December 17. It includes an $801 billion package of tax cuts, extending Bush's tax break for the rich for two more years - at a time when the majority of Americans are reeling under the weight of a failing economy and persistently high unemployment.

Still, the tax bill was presented by the self-assured president as "real money that's going to make a real difference in people's lives." The cuts will help stimulate an ailing economy, he claims, despite it being the rich who gambled with American wealth to increase their own, stimulating a market crash that led to millions losing their small investments and savings. All we know for sure is that the cuts will add a gigantic chunk to an already impossible deficit of $1.3 trillion, another Obama battle that is likely to be lost to the Republicans early next year.

But this concession, and its presentation as a victory for America's middle classes says more about Obama's style than the weakening of the Democrats since the midterm elections. Even in his foreign policy management, Obama's approach seems to teeter between giving face-lifts to ugly realities and postponing urgently needed action. The agent of change has become the quintessential American politician, who is more consumed with his chances of reelection than with bringing about the kind of long-term change that can really benefit his country, and the world at large.

Obama's handling of the shortly-lived peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel's rightwing government is another example of a striking failure followed by whitewash. Although he adamantly demanded a halt to Israel's construction of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Obama soon began capitulating before an obstinate Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli leader, supported by much of the US Congress and backed by a strong Israel lobby in Washington, finally forced Obama into a humiliating retreat. Even a generous bribe to win a limited Israeli moratorium on settlement construction failed. Obama administration officials finally declared that the US would abandon its efforts to halt Israeli settlement expansion, effectively signaling an American exit from the 'peace process.'

Instead of laying the blame squarely on Israel, the Obama administration delved into the same long-discredited rhetoric that only Palestinians and Israelis are capable of accomplishing peace without any outside intervention. That was the core message of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued that it was up to Israel and the Palestinian leadership to "settle their conflict". It signaled a complete shift in US foreign policy, which Israel has naturally welcomed, for the US-financed military occupier prefers to be left to its own devices in this very unbalanced conflict.

Afghanistan is another example. The eagerly anticipated strategy assessment of the war in Afghanistan was released on December 16, with illusory talk of "gains" and warnings of al-Qaeda threats. It suggests that the US will continue to fight a pointless war for years to come, with no clear goals or end in sight.

"The unclassified version of the secret review said U.S. military operations have disrupted the Pakistan-based al-Qaida terrorist network over the last year and halted the momentum of the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan," reported the Kansas City Star.

What the review and much of the media fail to report is that the war on Afghanistan hardly concerns al-Qaeda, which is more widespread and mobile than ever. Its future operation does not hinge on the ongoing battles in Afghanistan either. One must also remain skeptical of the "gains" reportedly made in the south. Taliban is known for avoiding open warfare, a style they have mastered after nine years of practice. The recoil - if that is even the case - of the Taliban is probably temporary, and a spring resurgence is assured by past experiences. But what is most important to note is that the action of NATO and US soldiers, government corruption and the brutality of local militias have allowed the Taliban to extend its presence to northern provinces, including Kunduz and Takhar, which were, until recently, uncharted territories for the strong and resourceful Pashtun fighters.

According to an editorial in the Lebanese Daily Star, "Obama's long-awaited Afghanistan strategy review amounts to little more than a whitewash of the seemingly intractable problems that have trapped the mighty American military in a quagmire." Worse, this crisis is likely to be compounded. "The failures of General Stanley McChrystal, who resigned in June, and Richard Holbrooke, who died suddenly this week, are symbolic of the crumbling of the twin pillars, both military and civilian, of Barack Obama's counterinsurgency strategy. The US has now...entered a violent stalemate," wrote James Denselow in the British Guardian.

Obama's response was yet another attempt to distance himself from the looming, if not ongoing failure. US priority, he said, is "not to defeat every last threat to the security of Afghanistan, because, ultimately, it is Afghans who must secure their country. And it's not nation-building, because it is Afghans who must build their nation."

One would agree with the president were it not for the fact that the US invasion was what has impeded the security of Afghanistan, destroyed any chance of nation-building and installed a corrupt government. But Obama will not accept responsibility. His cautious assessments are emblematic of his overall political style: avoiding or perpetuating the problem, and distancing himself from it once failure is assured. This is as true of his domestic policy as of his foreign policy.

It is easy to see why Obama's popularity has plummeted among those who once believed in his ability to bring change to a scarred and traumatized country. And his irresolute leadership has also empowered his political opponents, who will not cease to demand more from a feeble and ever-willing president.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Collapse

That remains to be proven, but it is indisputable that in the cause of a quick exit for President Bill Clinton from the Balkan imbroglio, Dayton granted the ethnic cleansers of the Republika Srpska territory they had soaked in other people's blood. It enshrined an unworkable, confessionally based, almost Apartheid-motivated Rube Goldberg state whose institutions made the Holy Roman Empire seem like a lean mean governmental machine.

Technically Holbrooke was indeed a superbly effective diplomat. There is a fuzzy sort of do-gooding diplomacy, especially prevalent around the UN, that thinks that as long as people are talking, all is well. Netanyahu and Milosevic are just outstanding examples of conjuror-style diplomacy in which, as long as you keep talking, no one notices what mayhem your hands commit.

Richard Holbrooke knew that. He was neither fuzzy, nor much in the way of a do-gooder. Nor was he one of those whose machinations would be exposed in WikiLeaks, since his deals were based on a firm handshake -- accompanied by a firmer grip around his opponent's scrotum. He leaked to the press in a way that makes Julian Assange look like an bumbling amateur -- but was of course selective and self-glorifying in his selection of information.

He was a most undiplomatic diplomat, as shown with his relations with Afghan President Ahmed Karzai. It is not usually effective to treat heads of state whom your government is trying to boost as independent national leaders as if they were underlings to be bullied. We can be sure that whatever failings he ascribed to Karzai's administration, it was no sense of abstract moral outrage that motivated him, rather the effect of such behavior on American war aims.

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who tempered idealism with reality, famously said that foreign policy should have a "moral dimension." He resigned over the Iraq War. Holbrooke showed an amoral enthusiasm for doing his government's bidding.

The classic definition of a diplomat is someone who goes abroad to lie for his country and Holbrooke spent a vigorous career living down to the quip. He cut his teeth on the Vietnam War, and as State Department desk officer did Washington's bidding in Indonesia during the the invasion and mass murders in East Timor. On the realpolitik front he could make Henry Kissinger seem like a hand-wringing Liberal.

To be fair, he was genuinely appalled by the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, but he unsentimentally never lost sight of the main aim -- which was to extricate his President, Bill Clinton, from a predicament in which he had promised Americans not to involve US troops but needed force to get a settlement.

In those days before the Internet took off, it is unlikely that even WikiLeaks would ever extract and publicize whatever deal Holbrooke cooked up with Milosevic, nor even unravel the choreography of Operation Storm in which with the Serbian President's tacit complicity Bosnian and Croatian forces rolled over the Krajina and Bosnian Serbs.

When they were too successful -- and went past the agreed 51/49% division of spoils, reportedly NATO stopped enforcing the no-fly zone that had kept Serbia's superior air force and helicopters out of play.

Milosevic was keen for Holbrooke to testify in his defense that many of these events were choreographed, but his lawyers would not have been able to find any paper trail to back up events. Certainly, some in the Balkans, like former Bosnian FM Muhamed Sacirbey, suspects that Holbrooke had winked at the fall of the enclaves, such as Srebrenica, although even Sacirbey does not think the subsequent massacre was part of the deal.

Later, when Sacirbey was held awaiting extradition under charges inspired and perpetuated by the US State Department and embassy in Sarajevo, I asked Holbrooke if he could help. It was somewhat tongue-in-cheek since there was more than a suspicion that his influence was behind the spurious charges, but he was adamant, "You've heard what he said about me?" he said defensively. "Yes," I said, "but what does that have to do with his innocence and imprisonment?" In fact, Sacirbey was also one of the most cogent critics of the Dayton deal that has now come back to haunt the Balkans.

Some people occasionally wondered what would happen if Hobrooke's rebarbative talents were unleashed on the great prevaricators in the Middle East. In fact, Netanyahu would have been safe -- in a speech in Jerusalem Holbrooke made it plain that he considered UNSC resolution 242 as firstly, non-binding, despite most legal opinion that consequent resolution 338 made it so, and that it essentially allowed Israel to keep hold of territory.

Looking back, what is striking about Holbrooke's career is how it illustrates the essential continuity of American foreign policy over every administration during his lifetime. He was more vigorous and unalloyed in his espousal of perceived American interests than most, and he certainly chafed at Bill Clinton's refusal to let him wave a big stick -- and at European reluctance to be deployed as Sepoys to do the work the White House did not dare do itself for fear of GOP attacks.

His deathbed words on Afghanistan will be subject to exegesis for some time to come, but an invocation to get out of Afghanistan is certainly in line with his realistic assessment of American interests. Looking back, what is striking about Holbrooke's career is how it illustrates the essential continuity of American foreign policy over every administration during his lifetime.

Collapse

But the U.S. government has ignored this problem for at least two self-serving reasons. The first involves the fact that the U.S. FED can print hard currency, money treated in the same manner as gold in the past, to replace those dollars lost to overseas traders. And the U.S. FED has no responsibility to convert the foreign dollar funds into gold (or anything else for that matter.) They will just give you two fives for a ten. The second is that U.S. multinationals will be making tons of money as long as the U.S. government continues to ignore the trade problem. A good deal of the manufactured goods coming from China are made there by U.S. multinationals and shipped back to the states. I believe that 90 percent of manufactured goods exported by China are made by foreign-controlled firms. Tim's problem is that at this late date there is little he can do to alleviate these trade balances by way of exchange rate adjustment. This article explains why he will fail and proposes a solution which could be quickly implemented and could preserve the "free trade" regime so many of the financial elites are so enamored of (but it wouldn't be so much fun because it would involve paying all workers of the world fairly).

Although current account imbalances were becoming a problem in the 60s, it wasn't until President Nixon was forced to do something about them early in the 70s. With capital controls still in affect during the 60s, the U.S Federal Reserve was the sole entity who could effectively pay off our overseas trade imbalances, but the remedy involved a decrease in the money supply resulting from payments in gold. By resolving these deficits by gold transfers, foreigner dollar holders were happy but the resulting decrease in the money supply in the U.S. (which at that time was limited by the gold held by the FED and U.S. treasury) resulted in recession. So in 1971 Nixon discontinued the payment of trade imbalances with gold. The dollar was devaluated in 1973 in order to shore up the money supply and floated, presumably to allow a devalued dollar to alleviate the trade imbalances (in theory a floating dollar would have resolved the imbalances, but of course the big boys didn't really allow it to float.) Capital controls were lifted and foreign dollar holders could buy U.S. assets to likewise offset these imbalances, thereby taking pressure off the dollar on the foreign exchange market. Foreigner dollar holders, the beneficiaries of these trade imbalances, have been buying up the country ever since. I estimate that in 20 years they will own approximately 75 percent of the all major U.S. assets (i.e., real estate, stocks, bonds, and money market funds.) There's no amount of mischief foreign asset owners will not be capable of when that occurs. Shut down major operations in a corporation competing with their own firms overseas? Why not? Source all component parts with foreign suppliers? Of course. Bring in foreigner workers to fill prime positions in the corporations? Outsource even more of the work U.S. citizens are currently engaged in to companies in their home countries? They wouldn't do that, would they? Damn right they would. So now those geniuses running our government have finally woken up to the dangers. Had they been vigilant, they would have strictly put their foot down in 1994 when the major damage occurred.

The real damaging currency manipulation occurred when China devalued the Yuan starting in 1990 and ending in 1994 when the Yuan was pegged to the dollar (at about 12 cents). It was devalued by 33 percent in 1993 alone and about 45 percent over this 4 year period. The wage differential between Chinese workers and comparable U.S. workers was about 20 to one, say, wage rates of 75 cents to 15 bucks after this devaluation. By pegging the exchange rate at this ratio, whatever happened to the dollar's exchange value would not affect this wage imbalance between American and Chinese workers. Lacking any significant other event, Chinese workers would be getting almost all manufacturing work from U.S. multinationals indefinitely.

One way that wage rates could possibly converge, allowing U.S. workers a fair chance at obtaining manufacturing jobs, would be if local wage rates in China were to go up quite a bit, perhaps by as much as a factor of 10, or wages in the states to decrease by a factor of ten. Unbelievably, the powers that be in the U.S. have actually been trying for the past 20 years to drive wages down by means of recessions engineered by the FED, apparently hoping thereby to make up this tremendous wage differential. Of course this did not work because no one stateside can work for 1 buck/hour in the U.S. But these tricksters tried, and tried again, creating recession after recession with ever-higher unemployment rates which they coyly palmed off on the public as "normal". I suppose 10 percent unemployment will be the next "normal" unemployment rate (because even more people have recently "quit their jobs" to a) look for higher paying ones, or b) have chosen leisure over work (the 2 most common "stories" created by establishment economist to explain away the ever-higher unemployment rates.)) For Chinese wages to increase by an amount significant enough to resolve these trade problems, the Chinese government would have to allow an inflation which would increase local wages of an order of an unbelievable 1000 percent. Fat chance! China has proved that they have one of the best-managed economies in the world, coming out smelling like roses even after the latest U.S. banking fiasco had devastated most of the western world. China is committed to a low-inflation expansion, which they have been eminently successful at and which they would be foolish to change.

With neither of these prospective solutions having the least chance of success, U.S. government officials have tried (finally) to force the Chinese to adjust the exchange value of the Yuan. It will have to appreciate more than 500 percent to make it possible for U.S. wage earners any chance to compete. That will prove to be impossible, and Mr. Geithner will fail. Maybe he will get 5 percent appreciation and undoubtedly claim success. That will be like spitting in the ocean when it comes to U.S. trade imbalances. South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia will most-probably benefit some, but increasing wage rates to even 2 dollars for Chinese workers when American workers are still making, say, about 12 bucks will not cause an avalanche of outsourced jobs back to the U.S. (nor prevent even more outsourcing).

So I am proposing the only solution, short of all-out protection, to reverse these trade imbalances and restore work to American wage earners. If workers engaged in the manufacture of internationally-traded goods were to be compensated under a single international fair wage regime, workers around the world would be competing on an equal basis, and work would undoubtedly find its way back to the U.S. At the very least, there should be a single international minimum wage, say of 7 or 8 dollars/hour. The ILO, the labor relations organization of the U.N., has established fair minimum wages for all workers on ships engaged in international commerce (about 8 bucks currently), and there is no reason that the workers making the goods they are transporting should not be treated the same. Certainly corporations in low-wage countries, making out like bandits under the present regime, will not be anxious to do this. So, a concurrent trade rule, unilaterally applied if necessary, should be the imposition of tariffs equalizing the wage differentials involved on goods coming from these non-complying countries. This should quickly result in absolute compliance because the country imposing the tariff would be receiving the money which the non-compliers were withholding from their own workers. In other words, it would be crazy for any country not to comply. And it would be even crazier to simply cut off trade with the tariff-imposing country. China and half of Southeast Asia would fold in a day if America were forced to resort to this.

To emphasize the damage that the Chinese did by manipulating their currency during 1990-1994 on countries not having the special privilege the U.S. had of making up their trade losses by printing more money, the following resulted:

Mexican industry, formerly having a special advantage in manufacturing for U.S. multinationals, was hollowed out when these firms moved their production from Mexico's "high wage" manufacturing sector (a whopping' $3/hour), to China, where they could hire workers at 1 buck/hour (a subsistence (exploitative) wage there no matter what anyone tells you). This led to the Mexican Peso Crisis of 1994-1995 and consequent devaluation. The IMF promptly forced on the Mexicans its U.S.-inspired "Washington Consensus" assuring most workers a pathetic living standard for the foreseeable future.

Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea all had to devalue their currencies in 1997, converting already low-pay workers into ultra-low-pay workers, in order to compete with the newly-engineered low wages in China. In the process, these countries also experienced a ruination of their economies, setting back progress in their living standard for years and wiping out scarce capital accumulated over decades of endeavor. The IMF quickly moved in to Thailand and Indonesia, causing extra damage to those country's economies. South Korea and Malaysia fortunately saved themselves by opting out of IMF "assistance".

All in all, thanks to China's currency manipulation in the early 90s, wages worldwide began "a race to the bottom", uncontrolled by the governments involved, and exploited by western multinational. The biggest losers were, of course, skilled workers from affluent western countries, but others throughout the world had to be contented with even more-exploitative wages. These practices will continue as long as the western governments fail to protect their own workers and allow their corporations to exploit workers in less-developed countries. Governments in these countries have failed to demand that foreign employers provide their workers with fair "living wages", an excusable omission considering that if they did so, these corporations would simply move elsewhere. It is the responsibility of the western nations, who have the wherewithal and power, to correct these injustices. Simply by forcing a single standard international minimum wage of, say, 7 bucks would be a great beginning.

The author of this article, Richard Backus, is a journalist writing on politics and political economy. He currently resides in the Philippine Islands.

Collapse

Naturally, there is a fine discussion of hacktivism at Wikipedia. There we learn that it has been around far longer than the current attention to the WikiLeaks situation.

Hacking has come to mostly mean illegal breaking into computer systems, while activism has always been either violent or nonviolent. Hacktivism is clearly now seen as an alternative to convention activism, civil disobedience and, increasingly, participation in democratic, electoral processes.

The combination of computer programming skills, critical thinking, anger and disgust with prevailing corporate and government institutions can and probably should drive better focused hacktivism. It could become an effective strategy for achieving major political reforms.

Cyberterrorism along with cyber crime, Internet fraud and everyday spamming are to be feared and fought, while hacktivism merits considerable respect and public support as a philosophic and political tactic responding to contemporary political and social issues and needs. At least, as long as it does not do harm to individuals.

Those with the expertise to implement hacktivism are a new breed of radicals, revolutionaries, and power brokers that is unsurprisingly an inevitable consequence of the whole computer, networking and Internet world that has been overly embraced. As with all technologies, there are always generally unseen and unintended negative impacts that catch people, governments, companies and just about everyone else by surprise. If there is any real surprise it is that the world has not seen far more widespread hacktivism.

In a fine 2004 article Hacktivism and How It Got Here, Michelle Delio pointed out: Hacktivism, as defined by the Cult of the Dead Cow, the group of hackers and artists who coined the phrase, was intended to refer to the development and use of technology to foster human rights and the open exchange of information.

We should see hacktivism as a dimension to cyber or digital democracy. It may first appear as more deadly than violent street protests against government actions that are seen frequently, particularly in Europe, but should it not be seen as just a more technological form of protest appropriate for our time? Indeed, just as WikiLeaks is seen as a more potent, technological form of whistle blowing, is not hacktivism its logical complement?

There is a wonderful, detailed history of hacktivism on the Wikipedia site, including a citation to a 2006 published paper by the now infamous Julian Assange titled The Curious Origins of Political Hacktivism.

Listen to the thinking of a 22-year-old London software engineer known only as Coldblood, who controls the servers the group Anonymous uses to implement its hacktivist actions. "I decided to speak as I'm passionate about how government shouldn't censor the internet. We suggest sites to attack, and if enough people think it's good, it will generally happen. It's a community thing. By making it harder for these companies to operate online we show them a message that it's not just governments they need to keep happy, it's the users as well. If their website is offline, then people can't use their services and it affects them. It's like an idealistic democracy. But everyone is aware that the attacks are illegal. Nobody is pressured into taking part. A lot just watch. But if they arrest one person, the attacks won't stop."

To see hacktivism positively today may require having a positive attitude towards WikiLeaks as the defender and protector of the public's right to know what governments, corporations and international organizations are really doing, even when secrecy is used to thwart transparency. In so many respects, WikiLeaks is more trustworthy than the groups it exposes. It is performing a duty that newspapers could once be counted on to do, but with corporate ownership and censorship of media WikiLeaks offers more independence. However, the relationship between WikiLeaks and several mainstream newspapers in its release of US State Department documents has been seriously questioned by Michel Chossudovsky: "how can this battle against media disinformation be waged with the participation and collaboration of the corporate architects of media disinformation? Wikileaks has enlisted the architects of media disinformation to fight media disinformation: An incongruous and self-defeating procedure." Still, working with corporate media may have been a tactic to protect WikiLeaks.

This much seems certain about the future: The more that electoral politics in western democracies appears increasingly ineffective in fighting political and corporate corruption, economic inequality, restraints on the Internet, environmental problems, suffering in developing countries, and unnecessary wars, the more we can expect to witness hacktivism. The most interesting question is whether the American and global plutocracy that has so successfully advanced the greedy interests of the rich and powerful will learn to live with hacktivism or whether it mounts a far more aggressive attack on it, including severe criminal penalties. Hacktivism is not so much the problem as a symptom of a far more serious, deeper set of problems.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Collapse

In a stunning rebuke of U.S. policies the February 2010 memo, "Chancellor Merkel Angered by Lack of German MEP Support for TFTP," 10BERLIN180 provided new evidence that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (also known as Swift) is viewed skeptically by the European public and their representatives.

Distrust of the Swift program runs deep and its "War on Terror" pedigree is considered little more than a pretext for American spies to carry out economic espionage on behalf of U.S. multinationals.

Alarmed over privacy breaches by American firms and criminal acts, such as the illegal U.S. transfer of prisoners on CIA "black flights," aided and abetted by European intelligence agencies, outraged public opinion forced the hand of parliamentarians, who voted overwhelming to suspend the program.

German opposition to Swift "was particularly damaging" The New York Times reported, "because the country was among a handful of allies that, according to a 2006 cable, made up a 'coalition of the constructive' organized to ensure that the Swift operation was not 'ruined by privacy experts'."

Launched shortly after the 9/11 provocation by the Bush administration, the secret program handed American officials unprecedented access to global financial information on bank transactions routed through a vast database administered by the Swift consortium in Brussels.

Access to such unique data would be particularly valuable to U.S. corporations. In light of evidence published in a 2001 European Parliament report that the National Security Agency's ECHELON program was a cover for economic espionage, such fears are not unfounded.

Since the program's disclosure in 2006 by The New York Times, criticism over its operations have mounted steadily.

CIA and Treasury Department officials secretly poured over records of some $6 trillion dollars in daily financial transactions flowing through global banks and brokerage houses.

"European Union regulators," the ACLU reported, "found that the mass financial prying was not legally authorized, was conducted without proper checks and balances, and violated several important rules established to protect the privacy of Europeans."

Increasing the "creep factor" amongst EU officials, the ACLU disclosed that the ultra-spooky Booz Allen Hamilton corporation had been hired to "oversee" the program by the federal government.

Concluding that the firm was not an "independent check" on Swift surveillance, the civil liberties' watchdogs wrote that "Booz Allen is one of the largest U.S. Government contractors, with hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. Government contracts awarded each year. Booz Allen has a history of working closely with U.S. Government agencies on electronic surveillance, including the Total Information Awareness program."

Initial misgivings amongst the public and privacy advocates have since blossomed into outright hostility, thus setting the stage for last summer's vote.

Cynical Maneuvers

Noting that the American-led "War on Terror" coalition is fraying at the seams, U.S. Ambassador to Berlin Philip Murphy, wrote that "Merkel is particularly irritated with German MEPs from her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and sister Christian Social Union (CSU) parties, most of whom reportedly voted against the agreement despite previously indicating they would support it."

The ambassador claimed that "public German reactions" to the European Parliament's vote "have come exclusively from TFTP detractors who portrayed the veto as a sign that the European Parliament has won a victory over an arrogant Commission/Council, as well as delivering a rebuke to U.S. counterterrorism policies that undervalue data privacy."

Free Democratic Party (FDP) Federal Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, a member of Merkel's coalition, was derided by Murphy as "a strong proponent of data privacy rights," who had welcomed the vote saying that "'the citizens of Europe have won a victory today that strengthened not just data protection, but democracy in all of Europe."

That's certainly a "diplomatic" way of saying they don't trust their American allies!

Undeterred however, Murphy recommended that the U.S. crank up the "Mighty Wurlitzer" disinformation machine a decibel or two.

"These events," the ambassador wrote, "suggest the need to intensify our engagement with German government interlocutors, Bundestag and European parliamentarians, and opinion makers to demonstrate that the U.S. has strong data privacy measures in place."

Murphy said this "debate was not just about TFTP;" the ambassador averred that "paranoia runs deep especially about U.S. intelligence agencies."

Those quaint denizens of "old Europe," where do they ever get such fanciful ideas!

U.S. Embassies: Global Spy Nets

In the Cablegate file, "Reporting and Collection Needs: The United Nations," 09STATEE80163, dated July 31, 2009 and classified SECRET/NOFORN ("no foreign distribution") we learned last week that under America's revised National HUMINT Collection Directive (NCHD) U.S. diplomats and State Department employees under CIA cover are directed to spy on key UN personnel, including Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

State Department documents revealed that diplomats have been ordered to gather "as much of the following information as possible when they have information relating to persons linked to: office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cell phones, pagers and faxes; compendia of contact information, such as telephone directories (in compact disc or electronic format if available) and e-mail listings; internet and intranet 'handles', internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent flyer account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information."

U.S. overlords demanded that their diplomat-spies collect relevant data on "about current and future use of communications systems and technologies by officials or organizations, including cellular phone networks, mobile satellite phones, very small aperture terminals (VSAT), trunked and mobile radios, pagers, prepaid calling cards, firewalls, encryption, international connectivity, use of electronic data interchange, Voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP), Worldwide interoperability for microwave access (Wi-Max), and cable and fiber networks."

Documents released so far have revealed that similar "diplomatic" spying operations are underway globally and target Bulgaria; Romania; Slovenia; Hungary; Venezuela; Paraguay; Palestine; African Great Lakes; and West Africa.

Denouncing WikiLeaks for the embarrassing disclosures, not for U.S. duplicity and deceit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who authorized the surreptitious collection programs, said last week that covert action by its foreign service "is the role our diplomats play in serving America."

A "Well-Placed Source"

Despite full knowledge, "we were astonished to learn" ambassador Murphy wrote, "how quickly rumors about alleged U.S. economic espionage--at first associated with the new U.S. air passenger registration system (ESTA), then with TFTP--gained currency among German parliamentarians in the run-up to the February 11 vote in Strasbourg."

Are there legitimate reasons perhaps, why "paranoia" would "run deep" among the public, or the German government for that matter, considering the track record of "U.S. intelligence agencies"?

Last Friday, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle's chief of staff, Helmut Metzner, was sacked after he confessed he was the "young, up-and-coming party loyalist" who served as an American asset inside the Free Democratic Party, a coalition partner of Chancellor Angela Merkel's right-wing government.

Der Spiegel reported that Metzner was the "top-level national party employee responsible for passing secret information on to US diplomats during the negotiations to form the current German government in 2009."

According to the 2009 Cablegate file 09BERLIN1271, "Westerwelle Firm on Removal of Nuclear Weapons," Metzner is described therein as "a well-placed FDP source."

From his perch, Metzner was privy to sensitive information that he passed on to his American handlers; in fact the go-getter was "the head of international relations for the national party." Rather conveniently, one might say!

Indeed, the strategist-spy "shared with Emboffs and visiting Senior Germany Desk Officer October 7 information on issues discussed during the first two days of these negotiations as well as the negotiations schedule and working group make-up. Source serves as his party's notetaker for the negotiations and has been a long-standing close Embassy contact."

"It's now clear," Der Spiegel reported, "why the US ambassador appeared so pleased in his cables back to Washington--after all, his mole had the ear of the head of the party and was part of the inner circle of party leadership."

Eventually, ambassador Murphy's call to "intensify our engagement with German government interlocutors, Bundestag and European parliamentarians, and opinion makers" over the Swift program paid off.

In July, "after mobilizing top administration officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.," the Obama administration was able to reverse the vote in the European Parliament, "after the United States made modest concessions that promised greater European oversight," The New York Times reported.

"Concessions" that will accelerate the erosion of privacy rights while enhancing U.S. efforts to steal economic secrets from their capitalist rivals.

Tuesday's arrest of Julian Assange in Britain on a dubious Swedish warrant, and the court's refusal to grant the activist/journalist bail, will not stop the leaks. Despite intense pressure from the Pentagon, the State Department and lickspittle American politicians, more than 500 web sites currently mirror WikiLeaks.

The steady drip, drip, drip of dark secrets will continue, as will further revelations of U.S. crimes.


Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, Rowan's Avenger, and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press.
Collapse

This of course is no revelation to the millions of people worldwide who have seen first-hand the effects of U.S. colonialism and imperialism. Nor is it a surprise to the millions inside the United States who have protested against the multitude of U.S. wars and interventions in the last 50 years.

The Wikileaks project as a whole has raised the question of what the public deserves to know, and whether decision-makers have the right to talk behind the backs of the people. For the U.S. ruling class, this is an inalienable and self-evident right. Their rule is based on a system where a tiny few rule over the vast majority. On an international scale, they are intent on preserving the position of the United States as the unchallenged superpower against all potential competitors. Both tasks--preserving their rule internally and projecting it externally--require that the U.S. government be in full control of its own image and reputation.

Socialists have long stood on the principle of opposing "secret diplomacy." The disastrous consequences of such diplomacy were showcased in World War I, when millions of workers and peasants were sent to their death because of the capitalist governments' sinister deal making. Immediately after the victorious 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks opened the vaults and published all the secret treaties signed by the Tsar. (One treaty, the Sykes-Picot agreement, was especially significant because it showed how the European powers intended to carve up the Middle East.)

The Bolsheviks' supremely democratic act--not replicated in any other government--undoubtedly pressured Woodrow Wilson in his Fourteen Points to call for "Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind." Indeed, the U.S. Constitution calls for Congressional ratification of all war declarations and peace treaties precisely to make the government accountable for such major foreign policy decisions.

But they don't follow their own rules. Wilson himself ordered six military interventions in the Western hemisphere. On at least 125 occasions U.S. Presidents have acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.

These days, the same politicians who are sending U.S. troops to kill and be killed in endless wars of aggression now say that the Wikileaks website "puts American lives at risk." Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Bill Kristol have called for the execution of Julian Assange and Spc. Bradley Manning, who stands accused of the leak. Undoubtedly, the Pentagon and CIA have already taken such ideas into consideration.

Which brings us to the one point that few others have mentioned: the State Department provides only a limited window into what the U.S. government is really thinking and doing. The Pentagon is often the chief decision-maker and has far more power than the State Department. There are a whole host of political and economic considerations that never make it to diplomatic personnel. For that reason, historians long ago realized that State Department archives are limited sources to reconstruct U.S. foreign policy.

Note the leaked State Department cable on the Honduras coup, which the U.S. Embassy declared an "open and shut" violation of the constitution. Despite this information, the United States continued to give military and unofficial diplomatic support to the coup government. Quite clearly, the State Department cable was overruled or simply ignored.

A revolutionary change in the United States would require opening up many more vaults, and exposing many more imperial secrets. But we applaud those in Wikileaks who have gotten this process started early.

Hands off Julian Assange and free Bradley Manning! Tear down the walls of secrecy!

Collapse

Days after the damning disclosures, while surfing the net, the scribe stumbled upon excerpts from a guidebook called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM. It is a comprehensive handbook published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides a classification of mental disorders. It is used around the world.

Allow me to explain.

In our general discussions we refer to each other as the American, the Brit, the French, the Pakistani etc. But when pre-qualifiers like the loud American, the frugal French, the Pakistani way are added, whether with prejudice or otherwise, these point to a predisposition towards certain typical behavioral patterns. Why else would the airport security staff the world over give us Pakistanis a thorough shake down the moment they see our green passports? Such nomenclature is quite indicative of the fact that a citizen of a particular nation tends to, or is expected to, exhibit traits peculiar to that nation in general. That in turn implies that nations tend to have personalities. And if they have personalities, they must have personality disorders as natural accompaniments.

After studying some portions of the DSM, one becomes increasingly convinced that nations do indeed suffer from personality disorders. Broad classifications of personality disorders in the DSM range from antisocial personality, borderline personality, histrionic personality, narcissistic personality, avoidant personality, dependent personality, obsessive-compulsive personality, depressive personality to passive-aggressive personality. Think of a nation, go here for quick references and see what disorder a certain nation suffers from in your opinion.

But then just like in United Nations where all nations are supposedly 'equal' in status but there are the 'permanent five', there are some nations that are more equal than the rest. In a 2005 research, psychologists Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon at the University of Surrey, UK, found out that three out of the several personality disorders were actually more common in high executives than in the disturbed criminals. Read these and see if a particular nation's name comes to mind. These are;

Histrionic personality disorder: including phony charm, dishonesty, self-interest and manipulation.

Narcissistic personality disorder: including grandiosity, self-focused lack of empathy for others, exploitativeness and independence.

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder: including perfectionism, excessive devotion to work, rigidity, stubbornness and dictatorial tendencies.

If the three words in the country's name begin with alphabets U, S and A, and in that order, you are thinking the same as the scribe.

Perhaps there is an immediate need for the United Nations to publish an International DSM. The state reps would at least know what they are dealing with when interacting with each other.

American government's absurd condemnation of the Wikileaks confirms what President Muffley(Peter Sellers) said in the 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove or...,"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!" But who was it that said, "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts"?

Well done Julian Assange! They may forget your disclosures but they will never forget how you made them look.

Collapse

And so begins the tale. It led to the Atul Gawande piece in the New Yorker [The cost conundrum, June 1, 2009], which President Barack Obama so admired, and that led the president to Grand Junction, which he admired even more. Speaking there as health care reform was being debated in Congress, Obama said,

"Hello, Grand Junction! It's great to be back in Southwest Colorado. Here in Grand Junction, you know that lowering costs is possible if you put in place smarter incentives; if you think about how to treat people, not just illnesses; if you look at problems facing not just one hospital or physician, but the many system-wide problems that are shared. That's what the medical community in this city did; now you are getting better results while wasting less money."

The tale ends, at least for now, in a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine last month, in which Tom Bodenheimer and David West proclaimed Grand Junction's family practice-dominated health care as the model for the nation, concluding with a reminder best summed up as "pay us more."

The sad part of this tale is that there is a very important reason that some areas of the nation spend less on health care than others, and they have nothing to do with primary care or any care. They have to do with poverty. Folks who are poor are generally sicker, and while the Dartmouth Doubletalk machine would have you believe otherwise, patients who are sicker and poorer use more medical care. So the real message from Grand Junction is that if your community is white and middle class, health care costs will be low, but if many of your neighbors are poor and disadvantaged, be prepared to pay more.

Geography and Demography: Grand Junction is the gateway to a broad swath of America that I call the Rural Upper Midwest-West (RUMW), which extends from Washington and Oregon to the western shore of Lake Michigan, skirting around urban areas that lie at its periphery, such as Seattle, Denver, Omaha, Minneapolis and Milwaukee. It covers 30 percent of the land mass of the US but has only 7 percent of the Medicare enrollees and 6 percent of the total population. It also has very few ethnic minorities: 0.5 percent are African-American, compared with 14 percent elsewhere, and 10 percent are Latino, compared with 18 percent elsewhere. And while poverty exists in the RUMW, it exists at a much lower rate and not in poverty ghettos.

Utilization and outcomes in the RUMW. On average, Medicare patients in the RUMW use 25-30 percent fewer services. On a per capita basis, hospital bed capacity and nursing supply are similar to elsewhere in the nation, but there are 4 percent fewer physicians, more of whom are primary care physicians, especially family physicians. When gauged against health outcomes, this appears to be more circumstantial than causative. As assessed by the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, the RUMW has a more favorable panel of "health factors" (socioeconomic, behavioral, environmental and health system-related) and better measures of "health outcomes" (morbidity and mortality), and these two metrics correlate strongly with each other.

Health care in the Grand Junction HRR. The RUMW includes 43 of the 306 Hospital Referral Regions (HRRs) that make up the Dartmouth Atlas, as shown in the accompanying map. The Grand Junction HRR (population = 238,000) includes all or part of 10 counties, one of which is Mesa County (population = 146,000), which includes the city of Grand Junction (population = 58,000). The various descriptions of Grand Junction freely draw on these various units of analysis.

The Grand Junction HRR is very similar to the rest of the RUMW. By Dartmouth's measure, it is near the middle, with lower spending in 17 and higher in 25. Grand Junction's Medicare spending in is 98.5 percent of the RUMW average.

Most HRRs with lower spending are also within the RUMW. Indeed, only five are beyond its borders--Honolulu, Binghamton, New York, Lynchburg and Newport News, Virginia, and Albany, Georgia, but Albany is among these only because it fails to provide needed care; its mortality rate is 25 percent higher that average. Even those HRRs with slightly higher spending than Grand Junction's are mostly in the RUMW. This includes 10 of the 19 HRRs where spending is no more than 5 percent higher. Clearly, there is something special about the RUMW, and one need only look at the demographics to figure out what that is.

Primary care. Much of the focus on the RUMW has to do with primary care. Overall, it isn't much different than in the rest of the country. On a per capita basis, it has 4 percent fewer physicians and 4 percent more primary care physicians. But there is one big difference. More than 50 percent of the primary care physicians in the RUMW are family physicians, whereas, on average, there are fewer than 40 percent elsewhere in the US.

This is Family Practice Land. It's where family practice succeeded in establishing training programs in the 1970s, while hospitals in the Northeast fended it off. It's how Barbara Starfield was able to find an association between lower mortality and more "primary care," but only family practice, not internal medicine or pediatrics. And it's what led the Family Practice Academy to tout Grand Junction, where 60 percent of primary care physicians are family physicians. Although some parts of the RUMW have even more, like Appleton, Wisconsin, with 65 percent and both Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Casper, Wyoming, with 70 percent, Grand Junction became the poster child for family practice.

Grand Junction. So what do we know about Grand Junction? We know that it is family practice-dominated, that its demographics favor low health care spending, and that Medicare spending is low. In these ways, it resembles the rest of the RUMW. But there are several differences.

One is that, unlike the norm throughout the RUMW, Grand Junction does not have fewer physicians; it has more--18 percent more primary care physicians and 18 percent more specialists.

Second, Grand Junction has fewer long hospital stays and more hospice care, three times as much as elsewhere in the RUMW, although total utilization for out-of-hospital care, including skilled nursing and home care, is actually 10 percent greater than in the rest of the RUMW.

And finally, Grand Junction is rapidly growing. For the past 20 years, it has grown about 4 percent per year (four times the national average), which makes it one of the nation's most rapidly growing communities in the RUMW and the nation. It also has a disproportionate supply of retirement communities, about half of which are for "active" retirees, which contributes to the fact that 15 percent of its population is Medicare-eligible, compared to 10 percent in Colorado and 9 percent nationally.

Grand Junction's risks and outcomes. Mesa County's mortality rate is 72 percent of the national average. Its health status is superior to other counties in the US in 15 of 19 measures, and it is similarly superior to a group of 26 counties that the US Department of Health and Human Services has identified as Mesa County's "peers," based on population, age distribution, poverty and frontier status.

According to the University of Wisconsin's county ranking system, the "health factors" and "health outcomes" rankings in Mesa County are equivalent, indicating that outcomes reflect risk, and similar equivalency between rankings exists for all of the Grand Junction HRR. And while Medicare expenditures in the counties that comprise the Grand Junction HRR are in the lowest two quintiles when unadjusted, they are in the third and fourth quintiles when adjusted for various risk factors by researchers at Texas A&M.

Taken together, these findings indicate that Grand Junction's better outcomes reflect its better health status, and its costs, although lower because risk is lower, are somewhat higher than would be expected for the demographic and health status risks that it has. In all, it is rather average.

This conclusion stands in stark contrast to the conclusion in the September 2010 issue of Health Affairs that Grand Junction has "a superior health system." In support, Marsha Thorson and her colleagues in Grand Junction presented their comparison of mortality and readmission after hospitalization for heart failure, pneumonia or myocardial infarction at Grand Junction's only hospital and 20 comparison hospitals. They found that Medicare patients in Grand Junction had fewer hospitalizations, shorter hospitalizations and lower mortality rates than patients in the comparison hospitals.

The accompanying graphics were rather convincing. But one important detail was omitted. What were the comparison hospitals? It was odd that such information was not provided. But the paper did note that these hospitals were in Colorado, New Mexico and New Jersey, and with some much appreciated help from the authors, I was able to determine that these 20 comparison hospitals were located in four clusters of 10 counties. Some of the details, along with those for Mesa County, are in the accompanying table.

Two hospitals were in northwest New Mexico, where 50 percent of the population is Native American and the poverty rate is higher than 20 percent. A second group was in the Denver region, with its large Latino population. The third was in the Newark area, with its large African-American population and dense poverty. And the fourth was in two wealthy counties along the New Jersey shore.

When all 20 of these comparison hospitals were averaged, the good outcomes among affluent patients on the Jersey Shore were overwhelmed by the poor outcomes among ethnic minorities in Newark, Denver and northwest New Mexico, which made Mesa (Grand Junction) look exceptional. As they say, figures don't lie....

There may be merit to the way physicians practice in Grand Junction, but there is no evidence that they achieve superior outcomes or lower costs than the rest of the RUMW. Nor are their outcomes better than expected on the basis of health factors. But there's one thing I have not touched upon. The folks in Grand Junction are satisfied. They are proud of their system. And for good reason. Grand Junction has the luxury of an abundant supply of physicians. Indeed, to make that same supply available everywhere in the US would require 80,000 additional physicians. And that's using Grand Junction, a low-risk community, as the standard. To bring all communities to Grand Junction's level on a risk-adjusted basis would take twice that number, or more.

So I'm happy that Grand Junction is happy. I just wish they would stop misrepresenting what goes on there and allow the rest of the nation to confront its terrible problems of too much poverty and too few resources.

See: http://buzcooper.com/2010/11/06/the-grand-deception/

Collapse

True, the situation in Iraq was difficult prior to the war. Having visited the country in 1999, I can testify to this. But the hardship suffered by many Iraqis, especially political dissidents, was in some way typical characteristic of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes. Iraq could, at that time, be easily contrasted with other countries living under similar hardships. But what has happened since the war can barely be compared to any other country or any other wars since World War II. Even putting aside the devastating death toll, the sheer scale of internal displacement and forced emigration is terrifying. This is a nation that had more or less maintained a consistent level of demographic cohesion for many generations. It was this cohesion that made Iraq what it was.

Iraqi Christians communities had co-existed alongside their Muslim neighbors for hundreds of years. The churches of the two main Christian groups, the Assyrians and Chaldeans are dated back to the years A.D. 33 and 34 respectively. A recent editorial in an Arab newspaper was entitled "Arab Christians should feel at home." As moving as the article was, the fact is, the fact remains that Arab Christians should not have to feel at home - they already are at home. Their roots dates back to the days of Jesus Christ, and since then they have maintained a unique identity and proud history under the most difficult of circumstances.

I recall a group of Iraqi children from a Chaldeans school dressed up in beautiful dark blue uniforms performing the morning nashids (songs) before going to class. They were so innocent and full of life. Their eyes spoke of promise and excitement about the future. I dread to imagine how many of these children were killed, wounded or forcefully displaced with their families, like millions of other Iraqis from all ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Today merely half of Iraq's Christians are still living in the country, when compared to the 1987 census which listed 1.4 million Iraqi Christians. The number, following the most recent killings which resulted from Iraqi forces storming the church and exchanging fire with the kidnappers, is dwindling rapidly. The plight of Iraqi Christians seems very similar to that of Palestinian Christians, whose numbers have plummeted and continue to fall following the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. The Palestinian Christian Diaspora was a direct outcome of the Israeli occupation and the original takeover of historic Palestine in 1948. The Israeli government sees no difference between a Palestinian Christian and a Muslim.

But none of this was deemed worthy of discussion in much of the Western media, perhaps because it risked hurting the sensibility of the Israeli occupier. The troubling news coming from Iraq can now be manipulated by presenting the suffering of Christians as an offshoot of a larger conflict between Islamic militants and Christians communities in Iraq.

The fact is that Iraqi society has long been known for its tolerance and acceptance of minorities. There were days when no one used such references as Shai, Sunni and Christians; there one Iraq and one Iraqi people. This has completely changed, for part of the strategy following the invasion of Iraq was to emphasize and manipulate the ethnic and religious demarcation of the country, creating insurmountable divides. Without a centralized power to guide and channel the collective responses of the Iraqi people, all hell broke loose. Masked men with convenient militant names but no identities disappeared as quickly as they popped up to wreak havoc in the country. The communal trust that held together the fabric of the Iraqi society during the hardest of times dissolved. Utter chaos and mistrust took over, and the rest is history.

There is no question regarding the brutality and sheer wickedness of those who caused the recent murder of 52 Iraqi Christians, including a priest, in Baghdad's main Roman Catholic church. But to confuse the issue as one between Muslims and Christians, or as a UPI report misleadingly put it - "Iraq's Christians caught between majority Shiite and minority Sunni Muslims" - is a major injustice. It is also dangerous, for when such notions become acceptable, it enable foreign powers to justify their continued presence in Iraq on the premise that they are there to protect those 'caught' in the middle. In fact, for hundreds of years, every colonial power in the Middle East has used such logic to rationalize their violence and exploitation.

Indeed, there are many who are ready to use such tragedies to serve their political interests or to retrospectively validate their wanton action in Iraq. This arrogant mentality compelled Republican strategist Jack Burkman in an Aljazeera English program last May to describe the people of the Middle East as "a bunch of barbarians in the desert."

Such hubris is further strengthened by such killings as the one that targeted Iraqi Christians. A US solider in Iraq, quoted on a recent Democracy Now program referred to Iraqi culture as a "culture of violence", boasting that his country was trying to do something about this.

Where is the soul-searching and reflection that might ask what brought this 'culture of violence' to the surface? What will it take to see the "bunch of barbarians" as simply human beings who, like any other, are trying to survive, fend for their families and maintain an element of normality and dignity in their lives?

As for "Iraq's Christians", I must disagree with that depiction which is used widely in the media. They are not Iraq's Christians, but Iraqi Christians. Their roots are as deep as the history of Mesopotamia, their history as rich as the fertile soil of Tigris and Euphrates. No matter how far their numbers may dwindle, like the rest of Iraqis of all backgrounds, they will remain Iraqis. And their return to their country is only a matter of time.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Collapse

There is truth in the one-liner that Democrats bandy: Anyone from the working or middle class who votes Republican is suffering from Battered Wife Syndrome. Although one is tempted to retort, anyone who votes for either one of the corporate/National Security State parties is closer to a half-senile spinster who still believes her prince will come.
For decades, middle and laboring class conservatives have been hoarding their resentments against phantom enemies, foreign and domestic, as the time-yellowed, eroded social contract, once, offering a better life for themselves and for their children, has crumbled to dust in their hands. By the financial machinations of elitist kleptocrats and the Pentagon's multi-billion dollar money pit, they have been endowed with little else but this stash of toxic baubles they store against reality.

"The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens." -- Leo Tolstoy

Amid the casual brutalities and nettling banalities of the US's perpetual militarism and its entrenched culture of corporate oligarchy, two pernicious modes of being, seemingly unrelated, arise, converge and cross-pollinate: the collective compulsion to displace fear and rage intertwined with an aura of personal dislocation and collective anomie.

This has been the legacy wrought by the nation's collective will to beat its civic plowshares into the Pentagon's war machine (as well as those much needed accouterments of the commonweal such as the fleets of the tax-exempt, Gulf-Stream jets appropriated by corporate oligarchs).

As the people of a fading empire, our self-absorbed victim-swoon is only exceeded by our paranoia: We cower from phantoms and rage at realms of invisibles: Within this empire of Paxil, Palin and paranoia, collective fear of all the wrong things has made the US and her people analogous to a car alarm that issues a shrill, electronic warning to an empty parking lot. In reality, no intruder has attempted to invade its envelope of steel, aluminum, and glass. A sudden gust of wind was the culprit. Yet it disturbs all within earshot, announcing the presence of imaginary marauders.

Attempting to cope with the degradations of a violence-prone, exploitive system and its attendant degraded social milieu, an individual can become susceptible to demagogic narratives that serve to displace overwhelming feelings of rage, shame, and mortification. Thus, around the clock, right-wing media haters -- human, hair-trigger car alarms -- admonish empty air.

Overextended empires, and the distracted and harried individuals within, will stand, bristling in a paranoid posture, with feet planted in stubborn defiance of changing circumstances, snarling at invisible threats and imagined affronts, as life moves on with indifferent grace.

A nebulous sense of anger, co-existing with free-floating ennui, has become normalized, leveling a sense of desolation and inflicting a hyper-attenuation of the will to freedom upon the psyches of U.S. conservatives of modest economic means. What remains: brittle pride, paranoia, belligerence, and empty braggadocio -- each serving to occlude from their conscious awareness the reality of the nation's plummeting quality of life.

By any metric, other than military spending and armament production, the US is nowhere close to occupying the top dog position it once held among nations ... maybe global junkyard dog. In the US, it is astonishing to hear middle and laboring class conservatives defend their degradation by the present corporate order i.e., how they refer to the leash, held by their corporate masters around their necks, as their wings of freedom.

Thus corporatism, by its diffuse nature, avoids direct critique, as, all the while, it atomizes community. The money generated doesn't remain in neighborhoods; instead, profits flow back to corporate headquarters. These practices of the corporate state (that go nearly unquestioned) have rendered US culture bland and inflicted alienation in their wake.

The culture has been reduced to a center-devoid archipelago disconnected to community commerce and communal engagement. This is revealed, in microcosm, in the nature of the bland, uniform food proffered at corporate chain restaurants which is produced for quick profits in order to provisionally assuage the disproportionally large appetites of the denizens of the consumer state.

Hopes and dreams have been crowded out and marginalized by oversized, empty cravings ... My heart is bereft -- but I can fill my belly with giant burgers and endless varieties of donuts ... Buddhists term this state of being: existing as a hungry ghost.

As corporate chains conquer every block, waistlines expand and civic engagement shrinks ... Shuffling, bereft, through the consumer state's soul-denuded architecture of anonymity, we, in turn, have internalized the illusory image-scape of the mass media hologram. The human being as consumer is not only clad in corporate chain clothes but wears its labels within.

Due to the banality, blandness and flat out ugliness of the strip mall/big box store/fast food outlet, prefab nothingvilles of the US landscape, life under corporatism is as seductive as the glare of florescent tube lighting in a convenience store. Our suburban architecture looks as though Socialist Realist architects of the old Soviet Union grew bored of the worker's paradise of Hell, rose to earth, and went into the prefab structure design business.

The difference between the Soviet Union during its last few decades and the US Empire in its death swoon is the people of the Soviet Union knew it was all a fraud. In contrast, our corporate masters are too wily to display their corrupt carcasses on the reviewing stand on May Day as the fraudulent parade trundles past.

At present, the only reason voting is still permitted is to provide a wall of camouflage for corporate oligarchs. Their power remains hidden ... provided the public believes, by voting, they are afforded any significant degree of mastery regarding the condition of their lives and the trajectory of their fates.

Extreme totalitarian policies such as Stalin's engineered famines aren't required under the hidden (loose knit) authoritarianism of the present system: Our corporate commissars have more cunning, albeit less dramatic, methods of keeping people in their place: keep the workforce off balance with downsizing, arbitrary staff reductions, and outsourcing; inflict a famine of the mind by means of a class-stratified system of education, in combination with a constant and enveloping bombardment of inane mass media content; and provide food, plentiful amounts of it, but manufacture food products as high caloric, high fat, high sugar, growth hormone-injected, antibiotic-sodden, empty calorie delivery systems e.g., corporate chain death burgers and donuts of doom.

Although, in a traditional sense, the swag the privileged class mountebanks have made off with isn't actually money; in reality, they are in possession of a cache of weightless pixels funneling through a matrix of computer systems. There is simply the illusion of money in the vaults of the nation's colossal banking entities. The only thing the financial elite didn't steal for themselves was any sense of self-awareness, because if there was ever an honest audit of their ill-gotten assets the illusion would be exposed and the house of electronic cards would fly asunder.

And that time is approaching. Soon enough, the next black swan will glide into the picture. And this presents peril: Prolonged hopelessness breeds rage. When that rage is unloosed, the fabric of civilization unravels and is soon cobbled together as a death shroud.

Accordingly, right-wing hatred is a many-headed hydra that feeds on fear and desperation. It cannot be fought by attacking its spindling heads, each of its hissing mouths dripping black poison. Instead, one must thrust at the noxious heart of the raging beast. But one cannot know where the heart of an external monster beats without gazing upon one's own ugliness. One's ugliness, with apologies to Emily Dickinson, must be public like a frog.

Apropos: How can it be, on a level of collective awareness, the populace of the US can persist in avoiding blundering in to this steaming pile of the obvious: How can we have a modicum of empathy for the people of Iraq when we refuse to even glimpse our own degraded condition and our complicity therein? What does it speak of a people who can be indifferent, inured, or ignorant regarding the following?

‎"The Battalion commander walked into the weight room where 3rd platoon was at, yelled out 'Listen up, new battalion SOP (standard operating procedure) from now on: Anytime your convoy gets hit by an IED, I want 360 degree rotational fire. You kill every motherfucker in the street'" -- former US soldier, who served in Iraq, Ethan McCord.

The Military Industrial Complex/National Security State serves no one but the God of Death, munitions manufacturers and those politicians they bribe. War is a money train for the rich and connected and a death wagon for everyone else.

Regardless, the people of the United States owe the Iraqi people an amends. If we demure, we will remain caged by our ignorance. That will be our punishment: our fates, analogous to a mistreated dog that licks the hand of his cruel master and exists, restless and vicious, behind a fence, snarling at the passing world.

There are many worlds, many heavens and many hells -- and they are all in this one. Without a public accounting of, as well as, restitution made for our crimes, we, in the US, will remain in our own tiny, fenced-in hell, straining against the tether of our tiny view of the world ... barking and snapping at empty air in futile rage.

Because our sense of entitlement here in the US engenders so much death and suffering overseas, at times, I feel like shouting in frustration: "I don't give the hind quarters of a small rodent about the beliefs, feelings, consumer preferences nor fates of the somnambulant herds of big box store waddling, overgrown adult infants of this empire of the arrogant and the empty. Millions have been murdered worldwide so that these entitlement-maddened monsters can keep their SUVs topped-off with gas, and their fat brats' greedy gobs stuffed with Hot Pockets & Juicy Juice."

Yet as Hannah Arendt observed: "Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing."

Years ago, I had a friend, a struggling artist, who purchased an old, dilapidated, Victorian era house. Upon moving in, he discovered the place was infested with cockroaches. Worse, the house sat close to railroad tracks and when trains trundled by, shaking the structure, its floors, walls, and ceilings would seethe with agitated cockroaches.

Since no amount of bug spray could lessen the infestation, he began zapping individual insects with glow-in-the-dark spray paint. After many months of this endeavor, when friends dropped by after dark, and, subsequently, a train rumbled down the tracks adjacent to the house, he would switch off the lights and all present were dazzled by his creation -- a moving, organic mobile of scuttling, multi-colored, living art.

At present, this is where we find ourselves as a people: powerless before the ugliness of the age. Therefore, we have little choice other than to light up the ugliness and turn the objects of our revulsion (personal and collective) into something resembling the truth of art.

Darkness must and will descend upon us. The absence of light must grow so unbearable that we're willing to ask how is it we arrived in this place and begin to illuminate the darkness by revealing the scuttling, creepy crawlers of empire.

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: [email protected] Visit Phil's website http://philrockstroh.com/ And at FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000711907499

Collapse

It also seems inconceivable that the trillion dollar cell phone industry and governments worldwide could have pushed this technology without ever having solid research results proving the safety of cell phones. If true that would be deadly frightening. But that is exactly the reality.

Is this a bizarre slip up or an intentional conspiracy between corporate and government interests? The more you learn the more you fear. Nightmarishly, cell phone technology has become too big to fail, no matter its deadly risks. Government won't protect you, so you have to protect yourself.

Let me note that I rarely use my cell phone. Very few people have my number and I rarely turn it on, except when I need to make a call. As a former professor of engineering I have always seen technology as offering risks, not just heavily commercialized benefits. The risks are often dismissed, poorly studied or just plain ignored.

And by now everyone should be concerned that neither government regulations nor corporate responsibility protect us very well from harmful foods, prescription drugs and manufactured products.

Facing the truth is often painful, but if you care about protecting your health and the health of people you love, then this is a book you definitely want to read and get others to read. Make no mistake, what you learn will upset you, but beyond getting angry at companies and the government for not adequately protecting against a man made public health disaster, you will be motivated to change your behavior. The subtitle sums up the theme: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.

Here are some of the eye-popping facts and insights I picked up from reading of this book.

Tests show young men who keep their phones in a pants pocket have reduced sperm counts.

Some scientists have, for decades, known about the adverse effects that radiofrequency causes in the brain. For example, radiofrequency allows chemicals and toxins from the blood, which are normally kept away from the nervous system, to enter the brain and cause disease.

The work of Dr. Lennart Hardell in Sweden should make cell phone users reconsider their practices. Swedes who have used cell phones the most and for the longest times have more malignant brain tumors than others. After a decade of use the risk of brain tumors is doubled. Similar results were found by scientists in Israel, Finland, Russia and England. Hardell has also found that teenagers using cell phones end up after a decade with four times more brain cancers.

The book highlights what the distinguished research scientist Dariusz Leszczynski said: "we clearly showed that radiation from a phone had a biological impact. After this work, which in fact repeated that of many others...the world could no longer pretend that the only problems with cell phones occurred after you could measure a change in temperature. This view was always mistaken, of course, and our work showed that." In other words, much lower power than in microwave ovens does not mean the absence of effects on our bodies.

Davis makes the inescapable point at the end of the book that "we need to invest in cell phones' safety as we do with other modern technologies." But it is not clear whether that is proceeding as it should. Do you think industry and government will do the right thing and risk getting research results that could devastate cell phone usage? With corporate interests corrupting Congress it is highly unlikely that what is needed in terms of research and regulation will happen.

What should cell phone users do? They and children in particular should not be using cell phones without "ear buds." They should not keep cell phones that are turned on in their clothing next to their body. Use the speaker option. Recognize that texting and other phone functions can be less dangerous than holding a phone next to your head to hear. Remember that cordless phones also pose similar radiation hazards, so minimize their use at home.

I wonder whether the richest and most powerful people in society, like President Obama (and his children), have been strongly advised to not hold cell phones next to the head.

Bottom line: Your addiction to cell phone use just might be your downfall. How much risk do you want to take? Smart phones are the rage. Now we need a lot more smart people. Disconnect. The more you use your cell phone, the more trapped you are.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Collapse

Bahrain was the latest Arab country to hold free and fair elections. It managed a reasonable voter turnout of 67 percent. The opposition also did very well, winning 45 percent of the seats. In terms of fairness and transparency, the Bahraini elections could serve as an excellent example of how 'things are changing' in the Middle East. More, they might provide Western leaders, such as US President Barack Obama an opportunity to commend the contribution of American guidance to 'progress' in the region.

In actual fact, nothing is changing - except for the insistence by some that it is. Arab governments have made two important discoveries in the last decade.

The first discovery is that US interests cannot peacefully co-exist with true democracies in the region. Egypt had a rude awaking in 2005, when Muslim Brotherhood candidates won fifth of the votes, if not more. This was followed by the unmatched democratic revolution in Palestine when Hamas won the majority of the vote. The aftermath of both of these events was enough to remind both Arabs and the US of the folly of their so-called democracy project.

The second realization is that Arabs are not judged by the genuineness of their democracy; rather, the success of their democratic experiences is judged on the basis of how well they can serve and protect US interests. Since the democracy radar is measured by Washington, Arab countries deemed lacking in democratic reforms are often cited as promising and fledgling democracies in Congressional reports or White House statements. Countries deemed hostile to US economic and political interests are remorselessly shunned, as if their experiments with democracy could never yield anything of worth or consideration.

These two realizations led to a superficial change of course, forming a new trend that Shadi Hamid, writing in Foreign Policy, refers to as "free but unfair -- and rather meaningless -- election."

Free elections are known to be the cornerstone of true democracy. Thus by giving the impression of freedom, automatically one tends to conclude fairness. But fairness is nowhere to be found, for if it truly exists then change becomes possible and is likely to follow. Those who have followed the new democratic experiences of some Arab countries will have observed that they have also been defined by the same political stagnation of the pre-democracy years.

American journalist, Sydney J. Harris once wrote, "Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be." If Harris is correct, then whatever is underway in the Middle East is anything but democracy. Although new parliamentarians are elected, new faces flash on television, and an increasing number of women are paraded along with their male colleagues following each election, the powers that be remain unchanged, unhinged and truly unchallenged.

Most polls, whether conducted by Arab or non-Arab pollsters, indicate that the vast majority of Arab people view democracy in very positive terms. But the plot has truly thickened in recent years, when on the one hand democracy has become a household name in much of the Middle East, and not one ruler or government contests its virtues. Yet, no true democracy has in fact actualized in any shape or form.

Have Middle Eastern ruling elites figured out the democracy trick, the great con of our time? Have they realized that democracy in the Middle East is only what the White House says it can be?

Israel has mastered this very trick since the day of its inception. This is what Hasan Afif El-Hasan argues in his new and very instructive book, Is the Two-State Solution Already Dead? "The identity of the Israelis in their legal documents and ID cards is expressed in terms of their group religious affiliation as 'Jewish,' 'Muslim,' 'Christian', 'Bahai,' 'Durzi,' etc., where all privileges are conferred by the state on the Jews by virtue of being Jews, thus making Israel an religio-ethnocracy rather than a liberal democracy."

Israel's unique democracy is in fact getting more unique, as non-Jewish citizens of Israel are subjected to increasing levels of legal harassment and are constantly asked to jump through all sorts of political hoops to prove their loyalty to the Jewish state. Still, clever and persistent Israel has managed to present itself to the world at large, Arabs included, as being a model democracy.

This was and continues to be the original democracy con in the Middle East. It took some Arab governments decades to catch up and also present themselves as democratic, whatever the reality on the ground. This is not your everyday democracy scheme. It is particularly devious because it can boast of being free, fair and transparent - and the numbers would actually attest to that - but the political structure would still be construed in such a way that the freely elected parliaments are blocked from legislating effectively to challenge the powers that be. If any legislation is allowed to pass, through, say, unelected upper houses, and approved by the ultimate ruler (both usually serving as an insurance system against elected parliaments), it tends to be unimportant and largely decorative.

Since democracy is always a work in progress, for no country can claim to be perfectly democratic, then Middle East governments can always use this idea to justify their own shortcomings. Expectedly, the US tends to honor that, bestowing praise on their friends, and condemning their enemies - the former for courageously taking on democratic initiatives and the latter for failing the democracy test.

The great democracy con would not succeed, were it not for the fact that many players, including the US, are so invested in its success. As for the ordinary people, who are eager to see their rights respected, freedoms honored, and political horizons expanded, well, they can always vote - even if only their vote actually counts for nothing, and only further validates the very system they are trying to change.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Collapse

For one, the media has paid the talks little attention, aside from the ceremonial coverage of the first round of talks in Washington on September 2. It barely noticed the following round in the Middle East nearly two weeks later. What did capture the media's attention was US President Barack Obama's attempt to minimize the damage he invited upon himself for merely pressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to issue a partial moratorium on settlement building (about 11 months ago), and then to extend the settlement freeze.

The President of the United States has, expectedly, failed to persuade Israeli leaders to uphold such a basic prerequisite to ensuring a smooth sailing peace process. Its resumption signaled the return of American diplomacy to the Middle East. Its current problems and expected failure, unlike previous rounds of talks, could very much usher the end of American political adventurism in the region. If a president like Obama - who once enjoyed such a massive national and international mandate - could weaken before a rightwing Israeli prime minister, then why should others even try?

To save face - and postpone failure - Obama has reportedly promised Israel broad security and diplomatic guarantees. All he has asked for in return is the mere extension of the settlement moratorium of 60 days - enough to push his party through the November elections.

According to an article by David Makovsky, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the leaked letter from Obama to Netanyahu positions US foreign policy as a hostage to Israeli diktats, whereby the US makes no such future requests of settlement freeze, guarantees a US veto of any UN Security Council Resolution related to the peace talks for a year, agrees to increase pressure on Iran as per Israeli demands, and so on. Among the many disturbing pledges made by the Obama administration, one seems particularly generous. According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the US will "'accept the legitimacy' of Israel's security needs as defined by the Netanyahu government, referring apparently to the Israeli leader's demand for a long-term Israeli military presence in the eastern West Bank, along the border with Jordan".

For Obama to lease his country's political influence to a foreign state for cheap political gain is bad enough. To achieve personal and party political goals at the expense of the national interest of the country is equally disturbing. But to promise a lasting military presence of an occupying power in another people's land for a mere 60-day settlement freeze is completely unethical and illogical. Furthermore, it violates international law. This letter will someday be analyzed in the same category as the Balfour Declaration of 1917, when a Jewish Homeland was promised by Britain to a group of European Zionists in historic Palestine - even when neither group had ownership rights or any political mandate.

Obama's passionate speech in Cairo, in June 2009, was entitled 'A New Beginning'. But a year and few months later, Obama has learned the limits of the political overreach of his country when it comes to Israel - as much as the Iraq war has demonstrated the limits of military power.

With this new wisdom, Obama and his advisors are acting like desperate salesmen before a conceited, dispassionate tourist. All Obama needs is a bit of time and Netanyahu is haggling over every detail to ensure maximum value for his dollar before November 2 arrives. Then, Israel will find other ways to use whatever leverage it has to advance its interests.

Because Israeli leaders also understand that in times like this Washington is absolutely mute and meek, Tel Aviv is sparing no efforts to exploit the situation. At home, Netanyahu is flexing his muscles to impress his influential rightwing constituency by approving hundreds of new housing units in illegally occupied Arab East Jerusalem. Netanyahu has humbled the president of the Free World, and is enjoying every moment of it.

More, racist new laws are either passing or are scheduled for vote at the Israeli Knesset. One of these demands allegiance to Israel as "a Jewish and democratic state." Many will have to take that oath or lose their citizenry rights in the country. It is an undemocratic law by every account, and is aimed largely at the Palestinian Christian and Muslim population, the natives of that land. The timings of these legislations are also meant to underscore Israel's determination to do whatever it deems necessary. This will serve the rightwing parties in Israel very well in future elections.

As for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, there is little to be said. He has no political power, leverage or influence. He can only do as he is told. He might send out the occasional threat of quitting political life, but frankly few are paying attention or worried about that possibility.

However, Abbas has, perhaps inadvertently, helped Netanyahu by providing him with a political platform whereby the Israeli leader can claim to be engaged in a legitimate peace process with a Palestinian partner. This alone was enough to bring Netanyahu and his country from back political oblivion into the center stage of international diplomacy. The bloodbath that Israel unleashed on Gaza from 2008 to 2009, the ongoing siege, the killing of activists abroad the Freedom Flotilla have all been cast aside for now. Instead we listen to Netanyahu speak of peace, prosperity and security for all, amid hearty clapping and standing ovations.

Hundreds of Israeli speakers, politicians, diplomats and scholars have been circling the globe in recent months, talking about Israel's undying commitment to peace. While this goes on, Israeli bulldozers are back in full gear, tearing down homes, businesses and olive groves. Israel continues to expand settlements and build what is rightly termed the Apartheid Wall, all with little, if any criticism from the US, the self-declared honest peace broker. Worse, as much as the political theater is organized and financed by US dollars, the full-scale destruction taking place in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is also courtesy of US coffers. Such is the self-defeating policy of the United States. Such is the peace process.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.

Collapse

Bill O'Reilly starts the lineup presenting a "no spin" version of events according to how he perceives them, selectively presenting versions differing from his views, that is, until the other guy starts getting the truth out, at which time he is referred to as a "pinhead" or "bloviator". Everyone at Fox should be very familiar with "bloviators". They have and all-star lineup of them featuring Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Bimbaugh, ops!, I meant Limbaugh, and pinch-hitter Newt Gingrich, by far the finest group of "bloviators" money could buy. But still many viewers (too many) fall for the "no spin" "fair and balanced" reporting Bill O'Reilly claims for Fox's team, and are passed on to Sean, preconditioned for further gulling. Sean shifts the attack to a middle level of pretence, managing to throw the concept of "socialism" into the mix, and, now that the elections are fast approaching, slip in the word "Marxism". Wow! One can only wonder who is still hanging in there after this blatant mischaracterization of reality. Frighteningly, there appears to be many still hanging in there and begging to be gulled.

So you end this set with Glenn Beck, a buffoon of the highest caliber, whose act would make P.T. Barnum green with envy. His homey, down-to-earth presentation of outlandish claims and insults are designed to put an exclamation point on the wild (but slick) assertions of Sean. If you keep telling the same lies over and over again, sooner or later they will be received as gospel truths.

After Glenn's grotesque burlesque of reality is finished, those viewers who have had the stomach to make it that far will be treated to an assortment of blond talking heads. Don't those guys at Fox know any brunettes, or did some wild peroxide salesman find himself trapped at the Fox News site? But of course it's just more of the "playing to the gullible" that is Fox's trademark. Blonds, beer, and big boobs are what attract the general guy-in-the-street, and that's the crowd to which the whole performance is directed. Sean, as part of his act, throws a small football around just to look like one-of-the-regular-guys. Sorry guys, he's goes to bed with a suit on and real football would certainly mess his expensively-coiffed hair. I'm just hoping they don't throw in boob jobs for those blonds, to complete the seduction of the public.

The last ploy they use is just plain "I'm just one of you down-home guys" when they hire the most popular current entertainers to put on free shows for the public. It costs big bucks I'm sure but when you are buying an election, money is no consideration. Everyone who puts up the dough will be quickly (and quietly) paid off many-times-over as soon as those whose offices have been purchased get down to business.

What is missing from this whole scheme is any attempt to deal with news of any substance, or a discussion of what can be done to correct the current mess previous administrations got us into. The main thrust seems to be to convince a gullible public that after 28 years of "conservative" government misrule and screw-ups, 20 of which were under Republican administrations, and the last 8 years under a clueless Republican president, that any administration can turn things around in little over 22 months. After the last great depression it took 4 years to even come close to solving the problems caused by the 12 year rule of similarly-incompetent Republican presidencies. And the programs implemented then were responsible for social benefits we all share and can be justly proud of, like social security, welfare for the disadvantaged and unfortunate, and freedom from fear of poverty in old-age or due to unanticipated disabilities. FDR's programs were popular and successful, saving capitalism from its excesses during a similar period of capitalist-inspired greed, but it took money, and lots of it. The current mess involved far more serious financial problems and the Fox crowd would have you believe that it won't take a lot more money to be corrected.

What they don't discuss is how and why we got into this mess in the first place and what can be done to avoid similar problems in the future (and just how much money would be appropriate to remedy our current mess). It suspiciously occurred when the rich were becoming filthy rich, and the working and middle classes were just getting by. Could it be because of globalization? Fox appears to be unaware of even the term "globalization". I have never even heard it mentioned by Fox "reporters". Uncontrolled capital flows? Laws that made it easy to move production overseas? Laws that gave legal status to foreign workers taking over American jobs (and sending the proceeds back home)? Practices which allowed foreign corporations, setting up operations in the U.S., to evade their fair share of taxes? Or even laws that allowed U.S. corporations to similarly evade taxes? Or failure to establish rules to prevent or penalize U.S. corporations from moving their headquarters overseas simply to avoid U.S. taxes? Tax cuts for the superrich even when we were running mammoth fiscal deficit? These are the issues which any honest news organization should be investigating because they are the real issues. Budget deficits are simply the result of the give-aways (well paid for) that Republican administrations have been granting for years and that are the direct cause of our current problems, problems that won't go away until they are addressed. The Republicans created them, have no intention of correcting them, and which, to hear them talk, they apparently believe will correct themselves, costing nothing! These are the questions sadly missing from the Fox News reportage.

The author of this article, Richard Backus, is a journalist writing on politics and political economy. He currently resides in the Philippine Islands.

Collapse

The constant push has been to drive down workers wages. One of those techniques is the all out warfare declared on unions. State workers (who are unionized) have been demonized repeatedly as sucking the state coffers dry, while pulling further away from private sector "comparative" wages.

The issue is how the private sector has sucked the life blood of wages and benefits out of worker's pockets, while demanding more and more of them. We have seen downsizing, "right" sizing, turning to temporary workers, bringing in "guest" workers, utilization of a global workforces via outsourcing and offshoring. We have seen a shrinking of the number of employers as mergers narrow the range of competitors. It is not at all unusual for workers to be laid off and hired back into the new employer's business doing the same thing at a lower wage, fewer benefits, and a loss of all seniority.

We have seen wage freezes and employee "give backs" of existing benefits. We have seen employers shifting increasing costs of insurance to workers. This is the same thing as a wage cut for workers as they accept more and more employer costs.

Meanwhile, remaining workers find workloads higher than ever, compensation shrinking, and a growing fear to say anything about it because it is an employer's market - meaning that there are lots of deseperate people willing to work for next to nothing just to get some kind of income.

Yet what do we hear? "Are state workers overpaid?" No, we are not. We too have gotten hit by pay freezes, outsourcing, hiring freezes and increasing workload - many of the same pressures of the overall workforce. We have also been the repeated scapegoat of the corporate media for the budget problems in Salem.

Why aren't we hearing about how much income the state of Oregon has lost by tying corporate taxes to federal corporate taxes? (I imagine this is in the multi-billions of dollars on a biennium basis).

The correct question is "Why have we let workers wages and benefits evaporate while corporate coffers have exploded?"

Start asking questions from the people's perspective instead of the corporate perspective and you may get a whole different set of analyses and solutions.

Collapse