Archive
Our Imperial Vote
by: William J. Astore | The Huffington Post | Op-Ed
(Photo: debeer.jonathan / Flickr)
Yesterday, we went to the polls and cast our votes. The act of voting reassures us that we still live in a democracy. This is true in name only. For we are not a democracy; not even a republic. We are an empire.
The imperial reality is there to see. Bloated government bureaucracies. A “defense” establishment that continues to grow like topsy. Multinational corporations that we celebrate and empower as our First Citizens. Poisoned political rhetoric that dissuades people from voting. An undereducated populace consumed by real cares and distracted by phony entertainment.
We’re offered a simulacrum of “choice” (Democrats vs. Republicans), where in reality both parties are in thrall to elite interests (partly because politicians themselves are either in the elite, or they want to be in the elite). “Choice” yesterday often devolved to whether we wanted to drink Budweiser (the Republican brew) or Bud Lite (the Obama brew). Tired of the watered down, “Lite” version, this time many voters opted for the Republican brew.
A few people saw beyond the simulacrum and voted for what amounts to political micro-brews (Green, Libertarian, what have you). But the two major parties have a lock on the marketplace – they dominate commercial advertising and state propaganda, the levers of governmental power, the entire electoral process – so they continue to promote a product that most of us are more or less willing to buy (it’s easier, after all, than making your own home brew).
How do we restore true choice? Put differently, how do we return to the (imperfect) republic that we once were, instead of continuing down the imperial road that we’re on? How do we pivot before we plummet off of the precipice?
For make no mistake: We are on an imperial road. Whichever major party controls Congress, we act globally to protect selfish needs and to advance selfish agendas. As a nation, we’ve allowed our citizen-soldier militias to morph into professional legions and private mercenary forces that fight wars on our imperial periphery. Meanwhile, we’re distracted from war’s costs and results by “bread and circuses” reminiscent of Imperial Rome, our version being fast food and even faster (and more forgettable) entertainment.
A nation that fails to provide affordable health care and adequate education to all, even as it throws away trillions of dollars on unwinnable wars, is a nation on a road to irrelevance. On some level, I think we know this. Maybe that’s why we need so much patriotic pageantry – so many huge flags spread across baseball fields, so many renditions of “God Bless America” echoing in our coliseums – as compensation for our sense of unease.
So, what’s in our future? A revolution by the people in the name of greater liberty, equality, and fraternity? Not bloody likely, given our collective passivity. A fascist takeover? Also not likely, because it’s not necessary: The elites are already in control.
What we need are radical critiques followed by radical change. But we won’t get there with a president and with Progressives adrift, hopelessly triangulating toward the center, in the spirit of “cooperation” and “bipartisanship” with a newly Republican House.
So here’s my message: We need the courage of our convictions. Feeble accommodation and feckless triangulation toward the Center-Right will only empower greater extremism – and even more debilitating versions of imperialism.
And that’s not what I voted for yesterday.
Professor Astore writes regularly for TomDispatch.com and can be reached at wjastore@gmail.com.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Michael Moore: Why Republicans Are Always Worried About Their Pet Corporations Facing Any Real Free Market Competition
Cover of Fahrenheit 9/11
By Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com
Posted on October 21, 2010, Printed on October 21, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148567/
I have a rule of thumb that’s served me well my whole life: whenever corporate executives begin talking about how they support “free markets” and “competition,” check to see if you still have your wallet.
That’s because no one — not Karl Marx, not Fidel Castro, not your niece who owns the only lemonade stand on the block — hates competition more than corporations. The whole goal of a corporation is to crush all the competition. When corporate executives start pushing for “free market policies,” what they mean is a government that lets them become a monopoly.
Don’t believe me? Well, count how many corporate CEOs (and Republican politicians) stand up and cheer for the Obama administration this week:
The Justice Department sued Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan on Monday, asserting that the company, the state’s dominant health insurer, had violated antitrust laws and secured a huge competitive advantage by forcing hospitals to charge higher prices to Blue Cross’s rivals.
The civil case appears to have broad implications because many local insurance markets, like those in Michigan, are highly concentrated, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans often have the largest shares of those markets. […]
Blue Cross and Blue Shield, like most insurers, contracts with hospitals, doctors, labs and other providers for services. The lawsuit took direct aim at contract clauses stipulating that no insurance companies could obtain better rates from the providers than Blue Cross. Some of these contract provisions, known as “most favored nation” clauses, require hospitals to charge other insurers a specified percentage more than they charge Blue Cross — in some cases, 30 to 40 percent more, the lawsuit said.
As the New York Times reports, Blue Cross Blue Shield insures 60% of Michiganders — including me and everyone in my office. They have nine times more customers than the state’s next largest insurer.
And they’re just doing what businesses do, even non-profits like Blue Shield: use all their power to eliminate the competition. In fact, if Daniel J. Loepp, Blue Cross’s CEO, didn’t do that, he’d be kicked out and someone who did would replace him. (I’d hate to see that happen — he always seems like a real gentlemen when he writes every year to tell us they’re hiking our premiums 27%.)
So this is the future we face with health care in the U.S., even with Obama’s new bill: endless battles between the federal government and health insurance corporations as the companies use all their ingenuity to give us fewer choices and higher prices…at least until we get President Palin, who’ll stop fighting the biggest insurance companies and start helping them kill their competition. Which she’ll do while giving tons of speeches about the need for competition and free markets.
Is there any solution for Michigan? Yes, and it’s just across the river in Canada: they have single-payer health insurance. Of course, at this point we pretty much do too. The difference is that our single-payer is run by a corporation. Theirs is run by the government — or to put it another way, democratically.
P.S. Blue Cross Blue Shield is fantastic at making secret agreements with hospitals, but not so great at actually getting people health care: the U.S. is now ranked 49th worldwide in life expectancy. Look out, French Polynesia, we’re coming for you next!
Michael Moore is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker and author. He directed and produced Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. He has also written seven books, most recently, Mike’s Election Guide 2008
© 2010 MichaelMoore.com All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148567/
Shocker! Over 90% of Americans Choose Sweden’s Socialism
Image by craigCloutier via Flickr
By Grant Lawrence
Nearly every American in a survey chose Sweden‘s Socialist wealth distribution over America’s Capitalist system. Over 90% of Americans when presented Sweden’s Socialism chose that system.
More interesting than that, the report says, is that the respondents (a randomly selected 5,522-person sample, reflecting the country’s ideological, economic and gender demographics, surveyed in December 2005) believed the top 20 percent should own only 32 percent of the wealth. Respondents with incomes over $100,000 per year had similar answers to those making less than $50,000. (The report has helpful, multi-colored charts.)
The respondents were presented with unlabeled pie charts representing the wealth distributions of the U.S., where the richest 20 percent controlled about 84 percent of wealth, and Sweden, where the top 20 percent only controlled 36 percent of wealth. Without knowing which country they were picking, 92 percent of respondents said they’d rather live in a country with Sweden’s wealth distribution…..(america blog)
It is clear Americans don’t know what Socialism is. The corporate media has Americans thinking fascism is socialism. But it is clear that Americans could make sound economic judgments on the governing of the economy if they weren’t scared into thinking only in a constrained, indoctrinated way.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Top 5 Myths about Socialism (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
- I Am Tired of Socialism Getting A Bad Rap (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
- A Socialist Explains Socialism–Warning You May Like It (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
- Why Capitalism Fails (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
- Darrell B. Nelson’s Shut up Stupid Sunday: Whiny Rich People (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
How corporate interests and Republican insiders built the Tea Party monster
Image via Wikipedia
By Matt Taibbi
Sep 28, 2010 7:01 AM EDT
This is an article from the October 15, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone.
It’s taken three trips to Kentucky, but I’m finally getting my Tea Party epiphany exactly where you’d expect: at a Sarah Palin rally. The red-hot mama of American exceptionalism has flown in to speak at something called the National Quartet Convention in Louisville, a gospel-music hoedown in a giant convention center filled with thousands of elderly white Southerners. Palin — who earlier this morning held a closed-door fundraiser for Rand Paul, the Tea Party champion running for the U.S. Senate — is railing against a GOP establishment that has just seen Tea Partiers oust entrenched Republican hacks in Delaware and New York. The dingbat revolution, it seems, is nigh.
“We’re shaking up the good ol’ boys,” Palin chortles, to the best applause her aging crowd can muster. She then issues an oft-repeated warning (her speeches are usually a tired succession of half-coherent one-liners dumped on ravenous audiences like chum to sharks) to Republican insiders who underestimated the power of the Tea Party Death Star. “Buck up,” she says, “or stay in the truck.”
Stay in what truck? I wonder. What the hell does that even mean?
Scanning the thousands of hopped-up faces in the crowd, I am immediately struck by two things. One is that there isn’t a single black person here. The other is the truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — “Government’s not the solution! Government’s the problem!” — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.
Related Obama in Command: The Rolling Stone Interview — In an Oval Office interview, the president discusses the Tea Party, the war, the economy and what’s at stake this November.
“The scooters are because of Medicare,” he whispers helpfully. “They have these commercials down here: ‘You won’t even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!’ Practically everyone in Kentucky has one.”
A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can’t imagine it.
After Palin wraps up, I race to the parking lot in search of departing Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives. I come upon an elderly couple, Janice and David Wheelock, who are fairly itching to share their views.
Related Get your dose of political muckraking from Matt Taibbi on the Taibblog.
“I’m anti-spending and anti-government,” crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. “The welfare state is out of control.”
“OK,” I say. “And what do you do for a living?”
“Me?” he says proudly. “Oh, I’m a property appraiser. Have been my whole life.”
I frown. “Are either of you on Medicare?”
Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!
“Let me get this straight,” I say to David. “You’ve been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?”
“Well,” he says, “there’s a lot of people on welfare who don’t deserve it. Too many people are living off the government.”
“But,” I protest, “you live off the government. And have been your whole life!”
“Yeah,” he says, “but I don’t make very much.” Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it’s going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I’ve concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They’re full of shit. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry’s medals and Barack Obama‘s Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about — and nowhere do we see that dynamic as clearly as here in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is barreling toward the Senate with the aid of conservative icons like Palin.
Related Get more political coverage from Rolling Stone.
Early in his campaign, Dr. Paul, the son of the uncompromising libertarian hero Ron Paul, denounced Medicare as “socialized medicine.” But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. “Physicians,” he said, “should be allowed to make a comfortable living.”
Those of us who might have expected Paul’s purist followers to abandon him in droves have been disappointed; Paul is now the clear favorite to win in November. Ha, ha, you thought we actually gave a shit about spending, joke’s on you. That’s because the Tea Party doesn’t really care about issues — it’s about something deep down and psychological, something that can’t be answered by political compromise or fundamental changes in policy. At root, the Tea Party is nothing more than a them-versus-us thing. They know who they are, and they know who we are (“radical leftists” is the term they prefer), and they’re coming for us on Election Day, no matter what we do — and, it would seem, no matter what their own leaders like Rand Paul do.
In the Tea Party narrative, victory at the polls means a new American revolution, one that will “take our country back” from everyone they disapprove of. But what they don’t realize is, there’s a catch: This is America, and we have an entrenched oligarchical system in place that insulates us all from any meaningful political change. The Tea Party today is being pitched in the media as this great threat to the GOP; in reality, the Tea Party is the GOP. What few elements of the movement aren’t yet under the control of the Republican Party soon will be, and even if a few genuine Tea Party candidates sneak through, it’s only a matter of time before the uprising as a whole gets castrated, just like every grass-roots movement does in this country. Its leaders will be bought off and sucked into the two-party bureaucracy, where its platform will be whittled down until the only things left are those that the GOP’s campaign contributors want anyway: top-bracket tax breaks, free trade and financial deregulation.
The rest of it — the sweeping cuts to federal spending, the clampdown on bailouts, the rollback of Roe v. Wade — will die on the vine as one Tea Party leader after another gets seduced by the Republican Party and retrained for the revolutionary cause of voting down taxes for Goldman Sachs executives. It’s all on display here in Kentucky, the unofficial capital of the Tea Party movement, where, ha, ha, the joke turns out to be on them: Rand Paul, their hero, is a fake.
The original Tea Party was launched by a real opponent of the political establishment — Rand Paul’s father, Ron, whose grass-roots rallies for his 2008 presidential run were called by that name. The elder Paul will object to this characterization, but what he represents is something of a sacred role in American culture: the principled crackpot. He’s a libertarian, but he means it. Sure, he takes typical, if exaggerated, Republican stances against taxes and regulation, but he also opposes federal drug laws (“The War on Drugs is totally out of control” and “All drugs should be decriminalized”), Bush’s interventionist wars in the Middle East (“We cannot spread our greatness and our goodness through the barrel of a gun”) and the Patriot Act; he even called for legalized prostitution and online gambling.
Paul had a surprisingly good showing as a fringe candidate in 2008, and he may run again, but he’ll never get any further than the million primary votes he got last time for one simple reason, which happens to be the same reason many campaign-trail reporters like me liked him: He’s honest. An anti- war, pro-legalization Republican won’t ever play in Peoria, which is why in 2008 Paul’s supporters were literally outside the tent at most GOP events, their candidate pissed on by a party hierarchy that preferred Wall Street-friendly phonies like Mitt Romney and John McCain. Paul returned the favor, blasting both parties as indistinguishable “Republicrats” in his presciently titled book, The Revolution. The pre-Obama “Tea Parties” were therefore peopled by young anti-war types and libertarian intellectuals who were as turned off by George W. Bush and Karl Rove as they were by liberals and Democrats.
The failure of the Republican Party to invite the elder Paul into the tent of power did not mean, however, that it didn’t see the utility of borrowing his insurgent rhetoric and parts of his platform for Tea Party 2.0. This second-generation Tea Party came into being a month after Barack Obama moved into the Oval Office, when CNBC windbag Rick Santelli went on the air to denounce one of Obama’s bailout programs and called for “tea parties” to protest. The impetus for Santelli’s rant wasn’t the billions in taxpayer money being spent to prop up the bad mortgage debts and unsecured derivatives losses of irresponsible investors like Goldman Sachs and AIG — massive government bailouts supported, incidentally, by Sarah Palin and many other prominent Republicans. No, what had Santelli all worked up was Obama’s “Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan,” a $75 billion program less than a hundredth the size of all the bank bailouts. This was one of the few bailout programs designed to directly benefit individual victims of the financial crisis; the money went to homeowners, many of whom were minorities, who were close to foreclosure. While the big bank bailouts may have been incomprehensible to ordinary voters, here was something that Middle America had no problem grasping: The financial crisis was caused by those lazy minorities next door who bought houses they couldn’t afford — and now the government was going to bail them out.
“How many of you people want to pay your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills? Raise your hand!” Santelli roared in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. Why, he later asked, doesn’t America reward people who “carry the water instead of drink the water?”
Suddenly, tens of thousands of Republicans who had been conspicuously silent during George Bush’s gargantuan spending on behalf of defense contractors and hedge-fund gazillionaires showed up at Tea Party rallies across the nation, declaring themselves fed up with wasteful government spending. From the outset, the events were organized and financed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party, which was quietly working to co-opt the new movement and deploy it to the GOP’s advantage. Taking the lead was former House majority leader Dick Armey, who as chair of a group called FreedomWorks helped coordinate Tea Party rallies across the country. A succession of Republican Party insiders and money guys make up the guts of FreedomWorks: Its key members include billionaire turd Steve Forbes and former Republican National Committee senior economist Matt Kibbe.
Prior to the Tea Party phenomenon, FreedomWorks was basically just an AstroTurfing-lobbying outfit whose earlier work included taking money from Verizon to oppose telecommunications regulation. Now the organization’s sights were set much higher: In the wake of a monstrous economic crash caused by grotesque abuses in unregulated areas of the financial-services industry, FreedomWorks — which took money from companies like mortgage lender MetLife — had the opportunity to persuade millions of ordinary Americans to take up arms against, among other things, Wall Street reform.
Joining them in the fight was another group, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the billionaire David Koch, whose Koch Industries is the second-largest privately held company in America. In addition to dealing in plastics, chemicals and petroleum, Koch has direct interests in commodities trading and financial services. He also has a major stake in pushing for deregulation, as his companies have been fined multiple times by the government, including a 1999 case in which Koch Industries was held to have stolen oil from federal lands, lying about oil purchases some 24,000 times.
So how does a group of billionaire businessmen and corporations get a bunch of broke Middle American white people to lobby for lower taxes for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street? That turns out to be easy. Beneath the surface, the Tea Party is little more than a weird and disorderly mob, a federation of distinct and often competing strains of conservatism that have been unable to coalesce around a leader of their own choosing. Its rallies include not only hardcore libertarians left over from the original Ron Paul “Tea Parties,” but gun-rights advocates, fundamentalist Christians, pseudomilitia types like the Oath Keepers (a group of law- enforcement and military professionals who have vowed to disobey “unconstitutional” orders) and mainstream Republicans who have simply lost faith in their party. It’s a mistake to cast the Tea Party as anything like a unified, cohesive movement — which makes them easy prey for the very people they should be aiming their pitchforks at. A loose definition of the Tea Party might be millions of pissed-off white people sent chasing after Mexicans on Medicaid by the handful of banks and investment firms who advertise on Fox and CNBC.
The individuals in the Tea Party may come from very different walks of life, but most of them have a few things in common. After nearly a year of talking with Tea Party members from Nevada to New Jersey, I can count on one hand the key elements I expect to hear in nearly every interview. One: Every single one of them was that exceptional Republican who did protest the spending in the Bush years, and not one of them is the hypocrite who only took to the streets when a black Democratic president launched an emergency stimulus program. (“Not me — I was protesting!” is a common exclamation.) Two: Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution or watched Schoolhouse Rock. (Here they have guidance from Armey, who explains that the problem with “people who do not cherish America the way we do” is that “they did not read the Federalist Papers.”) Three: They are all furious at the implication that race is a factor in their political views — despite the fact that they blame the financial crisis on poor black homeowners, spend months on end engrossed by reports about how the New Black Panthers want to kill “cracker babies,” support politicians who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power, tried to enact South African-style immigration laws in Arizona and obsess over Charlie Rangel, ACORN and Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Four: In fact, some of their best friends are black! (Reporters in Kentucky invented a game called “White Male Liberty Patriot Bingo,” checking off a box every time a Tea Partier mentions a black friend.) And five: Everyone who disagrees with them is a radical leftist who hates America.
It would be inaccurate to say the Tea Partiers are racists. What they are, in truth, are narcissists. They’re completely blind to how offensive the very nature of their rhetoric is to the rest of the country. I’m an ordinary middle-aged guy who pays taxes and lives in the suburbs with his wife and dog — and I’m a radical communist? I don’t love my country? I’m a redcoat? Fuck you! These are the kinds of thoughts that go through your head as you listen to Tea Partiers expound at awesome length upon their cultural victimhood, surrounded as they are by America-haters like you and me or, in the case of foreign-born president Barack Obama, people who are literally not Americans in the way they are.
It’s not like the Tea Partiers hate black people. It’s just that they’re shockingly willing to believe the appalling horseshit fantasy about how white people in the age of Obama are some kind of oppressed minority. That may not be racism, but it is incredibly, earth-shatteringly stupid. I hear this theme over and over — as I do on a recent trip to northern Kentucky, where I decide to stick on a Rand Paul button and sit in on a Tea Party event at a local amusement park. Before long, a group of about a half-dozen Tea Partiers begin speculating about how Obamacare will force emergency-room doctors to consult “death panels” that will evaluate your worth as a human being before deciding to treat you.
“They’re going to look at your age, your vocation in life, your health, your income. . . .” says a guy active in the Northern Kentucky Tea Party.
“Your race?” I ask.
“Probably,” he says.
“White males need not apply,” says another Tea Partier.
“Like everything else, the best thing you can do is be an illegal alien,” says a third. “Then they won’t ask you any questions.”
An amazing number of Tea Partiers actually believe this stuff, and in the past year or so a host of little-known politicians have scored electoral upsets riding this kind of yahoo paranoia. Some are career Republican politicians like Sharron Angle, the former Nevada assemblywoman who seized on the Tea Party to win the GOP nomination to challenge Harry Reid this fall. Others are opportunistic incumbents like Jan Brewer, the Arizona governor who reversed a dip in the polls by greenlighting laws to allow police to stop anyone in a Cypress Hill T-shirt. And a few are newcomers like Joe Miller, the Alaska lawyer and Sarah Palin favorite who whipped Republican lifer Lisa Murkowski in the state’s Senate primary. But the champion of champions has always been Rand Paul, who as the son of the movement’s would-be ideological founder was poised to become the George W. Bush figure in the Tea Party narrative, the inheritor of the divine calling.
Since Paul won the GOP Primary in Kentucky, the Tea Party has entered a whole new phase of self-deception. Now that a few of these so-called “outsider” politicians have ridden voter anger to victories over entrenched incumbents, they are being courted and turned by the very party insiders they once campaigned against. It hasn’t happened everywhere yet, and in some states it may not happen at all; a few rogue politicians, like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, might still squeak into office over the protests of the Republican establishment. But in Kentucky, home of the Chosen One, the sellout came fast and hard.
Paul was transformed from insurgent outsider to establishment stooge in the space of almost exactly one year, making a journey that with eerie cinematic precision began and ended in the same place: The Rachel Maddow Show. When he first appeared on the air with the MSNBC leading lady and noted Bible Belt Antichrist to announce his Senate candidacy in May 2009, Paul came out blazing with an inclusive narrative that seemingly offered a realistic alternative for political malcontents on both sides of the aisle. He talked with pride about how his father’s anti-war stance attracted young voters (mentioning one Paul supporter in New Hampshire who had “long hair and a lip ring”). Even the choice of Maddow as a forum was clearly intended to signal that his campaign was an anti-establishment, crossover effort. “Bringing our message to those who do not yet align themselves as Republicans is precisely how we grow as a party,” Paul said, explaining the choice.
In the early days of his campaign, by virtually all accounts, Paul was the real thing — expansive, willing to talk openly to anyone and everyone, and totally unapologetic about his political views, which ranged from bold and nuanced to flat-out batshit crazy. But he wasn’t going to change for anyone: For young Dr. Paul, as for his father, this was more about message than victory; actually winning wasn’t even on his radar. “He used to talk about how he’d be lucky if he got 10 percent,” recalls Josh Koch, a former campaign volunteer for Paul who has broken with the candidate.
Before he entered the campaign, Paul had an extensive record of loony comments, often made at his father’s rallies, which, to put it generously, were a haven for people gifted at the art of mining the Internet for alternate theories of reality. In a faint echo of the racially charged anti-immigrant paranoia that has become a trademark of the Tea Party, both Paul and his father preached about the apocalyptic arrival of a “10-lane colossus” NAFTA superhighway between the U.S. and Mexico, which the elder Paul said would be the width of several football fields and come complete with fiber-optic cable, railroads, and oil and gas pipelines, all with the goal of forging a single American-Mexican state. Young Paul stood with Dad on that one — after all, he had seen Mexico’s former president on YouTube talking about the Amero, a proposed North American currency. “I guarantee you,” he warned, “it’s one of their long-term goals to have one sort of borderless, mass continent.” And Paul’s anti-interventionist, anti-war stance was so far out, it made MoveOn look like a detachment of the Third Marines. “Our national security,” he declared in 2007, “is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon.”
With views like these, Paul spent the early days of his campaign looking for publicity anywhere he could get it. One of his early appearances was on the online talk show of noted 9/11 Truth buffoon and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. The two men spent the broadcast exchanging lunatic fantasies about shadowy government forces, with Paul at one point insisting that should Obama’s climate bill pass, “we will have an army of armed EPA agents — thousands of them” who would raid private homes to enforce energy-efficiency standards. Paul presented himself as an ally to Jones in the fringe crusade against establishment forces at the top of society, saying the leaders of the two parties “don’t believe in anything” and “get pushed around by the New World Order types.”
Unsurprisingly, the GOP froze Paul out, attempting to exclude him from key party gatherings in Kentucky like the Fayette County Republican Party Picnic and the Boone County Republican Party Christmas Gala. “We had the entire Republican establishment of the state and the nation against us,” says David Adams, who mobilized the first Tea Party meetings in Kentucky before serving as Paul’s campaign manager during the primaries.
The state’s Republican establishment, it must be said, is among the most odious in the nation. Its two senators — party kingmaker and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and mentally disappearing ex-jock Jim Bunning — collectively represent everything that most sane people despise about the modern GOP. McConnell is the ultimate D.C. insider, the kind of Republican even Republicans should wonder about, a man who ranks among the top 10 senators when it comes to loading up on pork spending. With his needle nose, pursed lips and prim reading glasses, he’s a proud wearer of the “I’m an intellectual, but I’m also a narrow-minded prick” look made famous by George Will; politically his great passion is whoring for Wall Street, his most recent triumph coming when he convinced Republican voters that a proposed $50 billion fund to be collected from big banks was actually a bailout of those same banks. Bunning, meanwhile, goes with the “dumb and unashamed” style; in more than a decade of service, his sole newsworthy accomplishment came when he said his Italian-American opponent looked like one of Saddam’s sons.
Paul’s animus toward the state’s Republican overlords never seemed greater than in August 2009, when McConnell decided to throw a fancy fundraiser in Washington for the national GOP’s preferred candidate, Trey Grayson. Attended by 17 Republican senators who voted for the TARP bailout, the event was dubbed the “Bailout Ball” by Paul’s people. Paul went a step further, pledging not to accept contributions from any senator who voted to hand taxpayer money over to Wall Street. “A primary focus of my campaign is that we need Republicans in office who will have the courage to say no to federal bailouts of big business,” he declared.
The anti-establishment rhetoric was a big hit. Excluded from local campaign events by the GOP, Paul took his act to the airwaves, doing national TV appearances that sent his campaign soaring with Tea Party voters. “We were being shut out of a lot of opportunities in the state, so you go with what is available to you,” says Adams. “And what was available was television.”
In the primary almost a year later, Paul stomped Grayson, sending shock waves through the national party. The Republican candidate backed by the party’s Senate minority leader had just received an ass-whipping by a Tea Party kook, a man who tried to excuse BP’s greed-crazed fuck-up in the Gulf on the grounds that “sometimes accidents happen.” Paul celebrated his big win by going back to where he’d begun his campaign, The Rachel Maddow Show, where he made a big show of joyously tearing off his pseudolibertarian underpants for the whole world to see — and that’s where everything changed for him.
In their first interview, Maddow had softballed Paul and played nice, treating him like what he was at the time — an interesting fringe candidate with the potential to put a burr in Mitch McConnell’s ass. But now, Paul was a real threat to seize a seat in the U.S. Senate, so Maddow took the gloves off and forced him to explain some of his nuttier positions. Most memorably, she hounded him about his belief that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power. The money exchange:
Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?
Paul: Yeah. I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. But what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?
Paul was pilloried as a racist in the national press. Within a day he was completely reversing himself, telling CNN, “I think that there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention in the Sixties.” Meanwhile, he was sticking his foot in his mouth on other issues, blasting the Americans With Disabilities Act and denouncing Barack Obama’s criticism of British disaster merchant BP as “un-American.”
Paul’s libertarian coming-out party was such a catastrophe — the three gaffes came within days of each other — that he immediately jumped into the protective arms of Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party. “I think he’s said quite enough for the time being in terms of national press coverage,” McConnell said, explaining why Paul had been prevailed upon by the party to cancel an appearance on Meet the Press. Some news outlets reported that Paul canceled the appearance after a call from Karl Rove to Adams, who concedes that he did speak with Rove around that time.
Soon after, McConnell threw yet another “Bailout Ball” fundraiser in Washington — only this time it was for Rand Paul. The candidate who just a year before had pledged not to accept money from TARP supporters was now romping in bed with those same politicians. When pressed for an explanation of Paul’s about-face on the bailouts, Adams offers an incredibly frank admission. “When he said he would not take money from people who voted for the bank bailout, he also said, in the same breath, that our first phone call after the primary would be to Senator Mitch McConnell,” says Adams. “Making fun of the Bailout Ball was just for the primary.”
With all the “just for the primary” stuff out of the way, Paul’s platform began to rapidly “evolve.” Previously opposed to erecting a fence on the Mexican border, Paul suddenly came out in favor of one. He had been flatly opposed to all farm subsidies; faced with having to win a general election in a state that receives more than $265 million a year in subsidies, Paul reversed himself and explained that he was only against subsidies to “dead farmers” and those earning more than $2 million. Paul also went on the air with Fox News reptile Sean Hannity and insisted that he differed significantly from the Libertarian Party, now speaking more favorably about, among other things, judicious troop deployments overseas.
Beyond that, Paul just flat-out stopped talking about his views — particularly the ones that don’t jibe with right-wing and Christian crowds, like curtailing the federal prohibition on drugs. Who knows if that had anything to do with hawkish Christian icon Sarah Palin agreeing to headline fundraisers for Paul, but a huge chunk of the candidate’s libertarian ideals have taken a long vacation.
“When he was pulling no punches, when he was reciting his best stuff, I felt like I knew him,” says Koch, the former campaign volunteer who now works with the Libertarian Party in Kentucky. “But now, with Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove calling the shots, I feel like I don’t know him anymore.”
Hardcore young libertarians like Koch — the kind of people who were outside the tent during the elder Paul’s presidential run in 2008 — cared enough about the issues to jump off the younger Paul’s bandwagon when he cozied up to the Republican Party establishment. But it isn’t young intellectuals like Koch who will usher Paul into the U.S. Senate in the general election; it’s those huge crowds of pissed-off old people who dig Sarah Palin and Fox News and call themselves Tea Partiers. And those people really don’t pay attention to specifics too much. Like dogs, they listen to tone of voice and emotional attitude.
Outside the Palin rally in September, I ask an elderly Rand supporter named Blanche Phelps if she’s concerned that her candidate is now sucking up to the same Republican Party hacks he once campaigned against. Is she bothered that he has changed his mind on bailouts and abortion and American interventionism and a host of other issues?
Blanche shrugs. “Maybe,” she suggests helpfully, “he got saved.”
Buried deep in the anus of the Bible Belt, in a little place called Petersburg, Kentucky, is one of the world’s most extraordinary tourist attractions: the Creation Museum, a kind of natural-history museum for people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. When you visit this impressively massive monument to fundamentalist Christian thought, you get a mind-blowing glimpse into the modern conservative worldview. One exhibit depicts a half-naked Adam and Eve sitting in the bush, cheerfully keeping house next to dinosaurs — which, according to creationist myth, not only lived alongside humans but were peaceful vegetarians until Adam partook of the forbidden fruit. It’s hard to imagine a more telling demonstration of this particular demographic’s unmatched ability to believe just about anything.
Even more disturbing is an exhibit designed to show how the world has changed since the Scopes trial eradicated religion from popular culture. Visitors to the museum enter a darkened urban scene full of graffiti and garbage, and through a series of windows view video scenes of families in a state of collapse. A teenager, rolling a giant doobie as his God-fearing little brother looks on in horror, surfs porn on the Web instead of reading the Bible. (“A Wide World of Women!” the older brother chuckles.) A girl stares at her home pregnancy test and says into the telephone, “My parents are not going to know!” As you go farther into the exhibit, you find a wooden door, into which an eerie inscription has been carved: “The World’s Not Safe Anymore.”
Staff members tell me Rand Paul recently visited the museum after-hours. This means nothing in itself, of course, but it serves as an interesting metaphor to explain Paul’s success in Kentucky. The Tea Party is many things at once, but one way or another, it almost always comes back to a campaign against that unsafe urban hellscape of godless liberalism we call our modern world. Paul’s platform is ultimately about turning back the clock, returning America to the moment of her constitutional creation, when the federal bureaucracy was nonexistent and men were free to roam the Midwestern plains strip-mining coal and erecting office buildings without wheelchair access. Some people pick on Paul for his humorously extreme back-to-Hobbesian-nature platform (a Louisville teachers’ union worker named Bill Allison follows Paul around in a “NeanderPaul” cave-man costume shouting things like “Abolish all laws!” and “BP just made mistakes!”), but it’s clear when you talk to Paul supporters that what they dig most is his implicit promise to turn back time, an idea that in Kentucky has some fairly obvious implications.
At a Paul fundraiser in northern Kentucky, I strike up a conversation with one Lloyd Rogers, a retired judge in his 70s who is introducing the candidate at the event. The old man is dressed in a baseball cap and shirtsleeves. Personalitywise, he’s what you might call a pistol; one of the first things he says to me is that people are always telling him to keep his mouth shut, but he just can’t. I ask him what he thinks about Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act.
“Well, hell, if it’s your restaurant, you’re putting up the money, you should be able to do what you want,” says Rogers. “I tell you, every time he says something like that, in Kentucky he goes up 20 points in the polls. With Kentucky voters, it’s not a problem.”
In Lexington, I pose the same question to Mica Sims, a local Tea Party organizer. “You as a private-property owner have the right to refuse service for whatever reason you feel will better your business,” she says, comparing the Civil Rights Act to onerous anti-smoking laws. “If you’re for small government, you’re for small government.”
You look into the eyes of these people when you talk to them and they genuinely don’t see what the problem is. It’s no use explaining that while nobody likes the idea of having to get the government to tell restaurant owners how to act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the tool Americans were forced to use to end a monstrous system of apartheid that for 100 years was the shame of the entire Western world. But all that history is not real to Tea Partiers; what’s real to them is the implication in your question that they’re racists, and to them that is the outrage, and it’s an outrage that binds them together. They want desperately to believe in the one-size-fits-all, no-government theology of Rand Paul because it’s so easy to understand. At times, their desire to withdraw from the brutally complex global economic system that is an irrevocable fact of our modern life and get back to a simpler world that no longer exists is so intense, it breaks your heart.
At a restaurant in Lexington, I sit down with a Tea Party activist named Frank Harris, with the aim of asking him what he thinks of Wall Street reform. Harris is a bit of an unusual Tea Partier; he’s a pro-hemp, anti-war activist who supported Dennis Kucinich. Though he admits he doesn’t know very much about the causes of the crash, he insists that financial reform isn’t necessary because people like him can always choose not to use banks, take out mortgages, have pensions or even consume everyday products like gas and oil, whose prices are set by the market.
“Really?” I ask. “You can choose not to use gas and oil?” My awesomely fattening cheese-and-turkey dish called a “Hot Brown” is beginning to congeal.
“You can if you want to,” Harris says. “And you don’t have to take out loans. You can save money and pay for things in cash.”
“So instead of regulating banks,” I ask, “your solution is saving money in cash?”
He shrugs. “I’m trying to avoid banks at every turn.”
My head is starting to hurt. Arguments with Tea Partiers always end up like football games in the year 1900 — everything on the ground, one yard at a time.
My problem, Frank explains, is that I think I can prevent crime by making things illegal. “You want a policeman standing over here so someone doesn’t come in here and mug you?” he says. “Because you’re going to have to pay for that policeman!”
“But,” I say, confused, “we do pay for police.”
“You’re trying to make every situation 100 percent safe!” he shouts.
This, then, is the future of the Republican Party: Angry white voters hovering over their cash-stuffed mattresses with their kerosene lanterns, peering through the blinds at the oncoming hordes of suburban soccer moms they’ve mistaken for death-panel bureaucrats bent on exterminating anyone who isn’t an illegal alien or a Kenyan anti-colonialist.
The world is changing all around the Tea Party. The country is becoming more black and more Hispanic by the day. The economy is becoming more and more complex, access to capital for ordinary individuals more and more remote, the ability to live simply and own a business without worrying about Chinese labor or the depreciating dollar vanished more or less for good. They want to pick up their ball and go home, but they can’t; thus, the difficulties and the rancor with those of us who are resigned to life on this planet.
Of course, the fact that we’re even sitting here two years after Bush talking about a GOP comeback is a profound testament to two things: One, the American voter’s unmatched ability to forget what happened to him 10 seconds ago, and two, the Republican Party’s incredible recuperative skill and bureaucratic ingenuity. This is a party that in 2008 was not just beaten but obliterated, with nearly every one of its recognizable leaders reduced to historical-footnote status and pinned with blame for some ghastly political catastrophe. There were literally no healthy bodies left on the bench, but the Republicans managed to get back in the game anyway by plucking an assortment of nativist freaks, village idiots and Internet Hitlers out of thin air and training them into a giant ball of incoherent resentment just in time for the 2010 midterms. They returned to prominence by outdoing Barack Obama at his own game: turning out masses of energized and disciplined supporters on the streets and overwhelming the ballot box with sheer enthusiasm.
The bad news is that the Tea Party’s political outrage is being appropriated, with thanks, by the Goldmans and the BPs of the world. The good news, if you want to look at it that way, is that those interests mostly have us by the balls anyway, no matter who wins on Election Day. That’s the reality; the rest of this is just noise. It’s just that it’s a lot of noise, and there’s no telling when it’s ever going to end.
This was an article from the October 15, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone, available on newsstands on October 1, 2010.
JUST IN: EPA reveals high levels of cancer-causing heavy metal near area of massive fishkill —
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CONCERNS
The Environmental Protection Agency collected sediment samples on September 3, 2010 in coastal Louisiana and “three samples found nickel in exceedance of chronic aquatic benchmarks, and one sample found both nickel and vanadium in exceedance of chronic aquatic benchmarks.” (See update at bottom)
Near Grand Isle on 09/03/2010: Nickel @ 22.7 mg/kg [ppm1] in sediment:
View Larger Map
Near Bay Chaland on 09/03/2010: Nickel @ 19.3 mg/kg [ppm1] in sediment (Massive fishkill occurred at Bayou Chaland):
View Larger Map
Pass A Loutre on 09/03/2010: Nickel @ 31.7 mg/kg [ppm1] and Vanadium @ 50.5 mg/kg [ppm1] in sediment:
View Larger Map
Why is Vanadium a problem? According to Food Quality News:
The UK Food Standard Agency’s Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals (EVM) reached a similar opinion in 2003, determining overexposure to vanadium could cause cramps, loosened stools, ‘green tongue‘ as well as fatigue and lethargy.
In vivo studies indicate vanadium could adversely affect male and female reproduction as well as infant development.
Why is nickel a problem? According to the Centers for Disease Control:
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that nickel metal may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen and that nickel compounds are known human carcinogens.
The CDC also said:
A lot of nickel released into the environment ends up in soil or sediment where it strongly attaches to particles containing iron or manganese. Under acidic conditions, nickel is more mobile in soil and might seep into groundwater.
Metal Concentrations in Soils and Sediments in Southwest Louisiana, James N. Beck; Joseph Sneddon, Analytical Letters, Volume 33, Issue 10 2000:
Abstract: The coastal zone of Louisiana provides a “living laboratory” to investigate the mechanisms of transport, deposition, and dissolution of trace metals into this fragile environment. Common trace metals determined and their range of concentrations in soil and sediments are… iron (0.6-2.1 %) [6,000-21,000 ppm], manganese (200-600 ppm).
Is this amount of Fe and Mn along the coast considered higher than other areas? According to the Louisiana State AgCenter, Iron levels above 4.5 ppm and Manganese levels above 4.0 ppm are considered high. The iron levels along the coast are over 1,000 times higher than what LSU considers high.
The report continued:
Manganese- Manganese deficiencies are uncommon in Louisiana. Where they occur, they resemble iron deficiencies. Manganese toxicity is a common problem in the state. It is caused by low soil pH (highly acidic soil). It can be corrected by liming the soil to a pH of 5.5 or higher.
Such high levels of manganese and iron in the soil, combined with highly acidic ph levels, indicate that the high nickel content observed by the EPA will be “more mobile in soil and might seep into groundwater.”
Update: While compiling information for this report, the EPA website has changed. It now says “two samples with nickel in exceedance of chronic aquatic benchmarks” instead of “three samples found nickel in exceedance of chronic aquatic benchmarks, and one sample found both nickel and vanadium in exceedance of chronic aquatic benchmarks.”
Backlash begins against the world landgrab
The neo-colonial rush for global farmland has gone exponential since the food scare of 2007-2008. by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
| Last week’s long-delayed report by the World Bank suggests that purchases in developing countries rose to 45m hectares in 2009, a ten-fold jump from levels of the last decade. Two thirds have been in Africa, where institutions offer weak defence.
As is by now well-known, sovereign wealth funds from the Mid-East, as well as state-entities from China, the Pacific Rim, and even India are trying to lock up chunks of the world’s future food supply. Western agribusiness is trying to beat them to it. Western funds – many listed on London’s AIM exchange – are in turn trying to beat them. The NGO GRAIN, and farmlandgrab.com, have both documented the stampede in detail. Hedge funds that struck rich ‘shorting’ US sub-prime have rotated into the next great play of our era: ‘long’ soil. “Productive agricultural land with water on site, will be very valuable in the future. And I’ve put a good amount of money into that,” said Michael Burry, star of ‘The Big Short’. Needless to say, this has set off a fierce backlash. Brazil has passed a decree limiting acreage held by foreign-owned companies, the latest evidence that our half-century era of globalisation may be drawing to a close. Authorities are probing whether firms are using local fronts to disguise investment in Mato Grosso and Amazonia. “Brazilian land must stay in the hands of Brazilians,” said the farm development minister, Guilherme Cassel. It is starting to feel like the early 1970s when the military regime more or less froze out foreign buyers. Where will this leave the plans of SinoLatin Capital, Goldman Sachs, Harvest Capital, or Berkshire Hathaway? Warren Buffett, wisely, is exploring his $400m venture in soya and sugar with a Brazilian partner. Argentina is drawing up its own law, pressed by the country’s bishops. More than 7pc of national territory is owned by foreigners. The Benetton brothers have 900,000 hectares of Patagonia, some on disputed Mapuche tribal land. George Soros has holdings, so does CNN’s Ted Turner, and currency trader Joe Lewis, who made himself a public enemy by blocking public access to the majestic Hidden Lake. “There are many foreigners who don’t buy to produce, but rather to position themselves in places with water, mineral resources and hydrocarbons,” said Pablo Orsolini, a sponsor of the legislation. In Madasgascar, a deal with Korea’s Daiwoo Logistics to plant corn on territory half the size of Belgium led to the downfall of the government in 2008. The lease was revoked. “Madagascar’s land is neither for sale nor for rent,” said the new president. Even Australia’s senate has called for an audit of foreign-owned land and water projects. The allure of global land is obvious. The World Bank says industrial and “transition” countries are losing 2.9m hectares of cultivated farmland each year. China is paving over its fertile belt on the Eastern seabord, and depleting the water basin of the North China Plain for crop irrigation. Cheng Siwei, head of China’s green energy drive, told me last week that eco-damage of 13.5pc of GDP each year outstrips China’s growth rate of 10pc. National wealth is contracting. “We have an intangible environmental debt that we are leaving to our children,” he said. So does India. Much of the globe is stealing food from the future. The World Bank said we must lift production 70pc by 2050 to meet a triad of converging demands: extra mouths; rising use of animal feed from grains as Asia moves up the affluence ladder to meat-based diets; and the biofuel drive. This will not be easy. The great leap forward in crop yields is fading. The Bank said rises in wheat and soya yields have declined from 2pc a year to zero since the 1970s in the West. Yield growth for rice and soya in emerging economies has fallen from 3pc to 1pc. “With few break-through technologies on the horizon, the scope for yield gains seems lower than in the past. Irrigation has contributed to past growth in crop yields, but water scarcity in many regions is now a major constraint,” it said. The Green Revolution is “exhausted”. There is plenty of land in the former Soviet Union, where crop planting has fallen by 30m hectares since the sovkhoz collectives of the Khruschev era. Yields are still barely half Western levels on many Russian farms. Untapped hinterlands lie in Africa (Congo and Sudan) and Latin America. Developing countries are freeing up 5.5m hectares a year. There is a theoretical reservoir of 445m hectares of unforested cropland in the world, on top of the 1.5bn hectares in production. Rich countries do not face a Malthusian crisis. They face a shift in the terms of trade between country and city, a reversal of urban dominance since the industrial revolution. We are on a thinner margin of food security, just as we are on a thinner margin of oil security. But those who live in poor countries that rely on food imports most certainly did have a Malthusian moment in 2008 when bread riots swept Egypt, Indonesia, and a string of states in Africa. Last week, 10 people died in riots in Mozambique, set off by Russia’s grain export ban. Wheat prices have doubled since June. The World Bank said the number of people who go to bed hungry each night has risen from 830m to more than 1bn over the past three years. The morality of the global land rush is finely balanced. Good projects are exactly what we need to solve the food crisis. They bring investment, know-how, and transport links. They create jobs. Peru’s auction scheme on the Pacific Coast has been a success. Yet the World Bank appears deeply torn. While the report endorses the Bank’s open-door globalisation agenda, the sub-text dissents on every page. “Large land acquisitions come at a high cost. The veil of secrecy that often surrounds these deals must be lifted,” it said. It warns of a “resource curse” that may enrich a small elite, leaving wreckage behind. Proposals are not properly screened. Peasants are forcibly displaced. Communal grazing lands are closed off. Some investors manipulate opinion with a media blitz of false promises. Nothing has been produced so far on almost 80pc of the land purchased. Benefits are often minimal, “even non-existent”. In Africa, the land rush is diverting effort from the core task of helping small farmers raise yields. The Bank implicitly questions whether it is wise to divert half of the world’s increased output of maize and wheat over the next decade into biofuels to meet government “mandates”. It will be another decade before the stalks and other inedible parts of plants can be used in bulk. Personally, I am coming to the conclusion that the biofuel drive is misguided, given that mass solar power and throrium-based nuclear reactors – coupled with electric cars – could step into the energy breach with less destructive effects. All it takes is global leadership. As Friends of the Earth reproaches us, every time we make a frivolous journey in an over-powered car we are hurting somebody. Land is not a commodity. It has an atavistic pull in most cultures, and is semi-sacred everywhere. Absentee landlords who amass chunks of the earth – however well-intentioned – will be expropriated. Politics always prevails. |
||
http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/
Masterminds, Mosques and Mass Insanity: “War on Terrorism” Propaganda Ratcheted up Ahead of War Escalation
Exemplified by the furor over the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” in New York, and rumors of a new Al-Qaeda “mastermind”, 9/11 “war on terrorism” propaganda has been ramped up to deafening levels by various political factions.
Nearly a decade since Bush/Cheney’s 9/11 false flag deception, a fearful, self-destructive American mass public remains fully brainwashed by “war on terrorism” deception— ignorant of history, and militantly oblivious to facts.
“Ground Zero mosque”: the art of missing the point
The ludicrous uproar over plans to build a Muslim community center in New York, the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” has dominated mainstream corporate news headlines. Political players from all sides, including President Barack Obama have joined the fray, attempting to prove themselves the superior “anti-terrorist”, or the better “commemorator of 9/11, when 3,000 people were killed by Muslim terrorists”. The right-wing is going berserk, gleefully.
Heated arguments have exploded around religion, tolerance, democracy, etc.—everything except the only fact that matters: 9/11 was a false flag operation, courtesy of the Bush-Cheney administration, carried out by an elite consensus, in order to justify the “war on terrorism”, and everything that came with it. Mass murder. Unending resource conquest. A police state within US borders. Open criminality.
The perpetual threat posed by a fabricated outside enemy, and a militarized, fearful populace, remain the centerpieces of elite policy, and they have been consistently maintained by both Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations. The demonization of Muslims continues to facilitate pillage.
While violent hatred continues to be directed at Muslims (and all “foreigners”), the criminals who truly massacred 3,000 people in the World Trade Center continue to enjoy power, wealth, and high positions of world “leadership” and remain in control of virtually every aspect of society. Those who perpetuate the cover-up (including the Obama administration) still “run the world”, to mass public enthusiasm.
As the “Ground Zero mosque” mushrooms into a full-blown election year battle cry by one faction or another, not whisper of truth appears in any corporate media coverage. Meanwhile, the exhaustive and available information thoroughly exposing and destroying the official “war on terrorism” narrative is unknown to a minority of people whose critical faculties remain intact.
Mike Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon exposed why and how 9/11 was likely carried out by Bush/Cheney. Michel Chossudovsky’s America’s “War on Terrorism” thoroughly exposed the 9/11 deception, as well as the fact that 1) the “war on terrorism” is a fabrication that serves as the eternal pretext for global war, and that 2) “Al-Qaeda” and other “Islamic jihad” front are military-intelligence assets that have been continuously supported, managed and “run” by the CIA and affiliates such as Pakistan’s ISI on behalf of Anglo-American geostrategic interests (notably oil) going back to the Cold War. A vast number of researchers (all derided as “9/11 truthers”) such David Ray Griffin continue to detail various aspects of the case including physical evidence.
Oblivious to the availability of this mountain of “conspiracy fact”, the vast majority of the population chooses to embrace the Big Lie.
New “Al-Qaeda” mastermind named
In recent weeks, mainstream corporate news headlines have exploded with the “revelation” that “Al-Qaeda” has a new leader of global operations “in charge of planning future attacks”: Adnan Shukrijumah
According to Miami-based FBI counterterrorism agent Greg LeBlanc, whose Associated Press interview in early August is the single source for the new spate of repeated headlines, Shukrijumah is alleged to be a 15-year resident of the US “intimately familiar with American society”, and is the son of a Muslim cleric trained in Saudi Arabia. He have lived in Miramar, Florida before joining terror training camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s, in order to fight the persecution of Muslims in Bosnia, Chechnya and elsewhere.
Tagged by LeBlanc as the successor to his former boss Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), and taking orders directly from Osama bin Laden. A clip of Shukrijumah posted by the FBI is gibberish.
There is nothing new about the Shukrijumah narrative. It is an intelligence “legend” years in the making.
Chaim Kupferberg, whose classic analysis of post-9/11 “terror” propaganda (Part 1 and Part Two) are definitive, offered the following thoughts on Shukrijumah in 2004 in a piece titled The “Official” Operative Clique for the Next 9/11.
To quote Kupferberg at length [my emphasis in bold]:
“I’m sure many of you out there are noticing a unified narrative taking shape in advance of the next expected attack. In calibrated drips and dollops, the mainstream media, in partnership with the 9/11 panel, are laying the evidentiary trail pointing to the next “Atta” and his insular cell, which apparently already seems to be “in place” stateside.
“Having no access at all to any insider reports, one can almost foretell the Official Legend that will follow in the wake of this clique’s first big explosion into the public consciousness – just by reading the mainstream news.
“Certainly, three of these major operatives – Adnan Shukrijumah, Abderrouf Jdey, and Aafia Siddiqui – are already being linked together. But Shukrijumah and Jdey are the ones to watch, for they are being intimately seeded into the Padilla/dirty bomb and Ahmed Ressam/Canadian clique/West Coast threads of 9/11.
“Recently, Shukrijumah was mentioned as the guy likely doing surveillance of the New York buildings in the latest terror alert. But that was supposed to be old information. Yet Shukrijumah has been showing up all over the radar in the past year alongside Jdey and Siddiqui.
“When Abu Musab Zarqawi was publicly unveiled by Colin Powell before the UN in February 2003, he had yet to make his very public splash as the next Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But in the opening months of 2004 – as I surmised back in October 2003 – Zarqawi would lay his own foundation in the public mind (particularly by way of the Daniel Pearl-like Berg killing) as the guy tagged to head up the next ‘big one’.
“If the Ressam-connected Canadian clique is involved, the likely target is the U.S. West Coast. I suspect this is the case due to three items: the bulletin last May that alerted the public to Shukrijumah, Jdey, Siddiqui, Gahdan, el-Maati, and others; a reported sighting the next day of Shukrijumah and Jdey at a Denny’s in Colorado (they stated that they were “from Iran” and were en route to the West Coast from New York); the release, two weeks later, of the official 9/11 staff report that now placed Jdey (in cahoots with Moussaoui) as an original member of an aborted 9/11 “second wave” attack on the West Coast; and a reported sighting of Shukrijumah at a nuclear research facility in Ontario (while el-Maati had previously been reported casing nuclear facilities near Ottawa).
“…Shukrijumah (aka “the next Atta”) apparently seems to be threaded into the 1993 bomb plots by way of his father’s connection to Clement Hampton-El. But more strangely, it seems that Shukrijumah will make his way into the Oklahoma City Bomb thread by way of his Florida connection with “dirty bomb” guy Jose Padilla. To shore up the Oklahoma thread, we also have the Zarqawi/Moussaoui/ Nick Berg connection.
“But let’s step back and take a stab at guessing at what is happening here. The new legends will be used to strengthen the foundations of the old ones. In parallel to the official account, however, the existing counter-legends will also be beefed up. In short, the narratives are getting all too muddled with the growing interlinking chains. The growing complexity of these new interlinking legends will operate to turn off a good portion of those who might be seriously interested in examining the truth behind 9/11.
“And what of the rest of us? Will we be locked in a never-ending cycle of polarized argument – with each of us picking his favorite conspiracy thread? How many of us will look at Shukrijumah and see the fingerprints of Iran? How many of us will look at the Canadian clique and sense the hand of Syria behind it all? And if they find that the next operation was pulled off with forged New Zealand passports, how many of us will dig up the newspaper account of the Mossad/ New Zealand passport scandal and go ‘Aha! Once again the Israelis!’
And what about the anthrax thread? In recent months, a writer by the name of Ross Getman has been posting accounts that read like excerpts from a future Official 9/11 Sequel Report. Going by Getman’s writings, it would appear that a possible Boston connection would involve anthrax by way of Aafia Siddiqui’s connection to Brandeis University and its anthrax facility. Also note that a first sighting of Shukrijumah and Jdey a year ago occurred in Maine, where they were spotted driving with a Massachusetts license plate.
So, to sum up: Shukrijumah seems to be part of a “dirty bomb” or radiological thread, while Siddiqui seems to be part of an anthrax thread. Perhaps the Shukrijumah/Jdey/Siddiqui clique is planning a bi-coastal attack involving radiological materials (or perhaps an attack on a nuclear facility) and a simultaneous attack involving anthrax. Shukrijumah has been marketed as an “Atta-level” pilot.
“Whatever the case, a definite evidentiary trail seems to be clearly laid so as to give the impression of the dots connecting up. Shukrijumah was also spotted recently in the Honduras, but I wouldn’t give that one much credence. The Denny’s item seems the most likely to be resurrected post-facto as an example of institutional incompetence and blindess. Perhaps the Honduras item was meant to give the impression that Shukrijumah was not yet in the U.S.
“…In the aftermath of this next one, there will be those who will point to new instances of incompetence and blindness – who will say that the dots couldn’t be connected. Hopefully, perhaps none of the above will ever come to pass. Perhaps Shukrijumah, Jdey, and Siddiqui will never make their “historical” mark – and we’ve all been treated to nothing more than a cunningly orchestrated campaign of fear-mongering by the government.
“Whatever the case, it seems that a very clear narrative – with accompanying threads – is being built up for potential use. In the event this particular chapter of the narrative ever goes “operational” … well, at least you’ll all know that the mainstream media had put the dots in place beforehand.”
In the years since Kupferberg’s dead-on prediction, Shukrijumah has indeed “emerged” gradually. Attorney General John Ashcroft labeled Shukrijumah a “clear and present danger” in 2004. In 2009, authorities named Shukrijumah as a co-conspirator in the highly questionable New York subway bomb plot.
Shukrijumah has over the years been picked up as a cause célèbre by right-wing hacks such as Michelle Malkin, and the infamous Gerald Posner, who has built an entire malodorous career helping cover-up government crimes as a favored “anti-conspiracy” media shill.
There are many reasons for Shukrijumah to explode to official prominence now. President Barack Obama has declared an end to “combat operations in Iraq”, while maintaining the permanent US military presence in the country and a continuous “anti-terror” operation against “Al-Qaeda” in Iraq. The administration shift forces to Afghanistan, and continue to ramping up its long-promised goal of escalating the “war on terrorism” throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., With this in the works, along with congressional mid-term elections looming in the fall, all of Washington, from the White House and the FBI to the congressional nominees are refreshing the “terrorism” pretext.
It should be noted that no analysis was done by the various media organs to corroborate the details of LeBlanc’s story before it was repeated verbatim across the media. LeBlanc has also not been vetted as a credible, unbiased source.
Whether Shukrijumah is a intelligence “legend”, a low-level intelligence asset, or the “mastermind” that FBI agent LeBlanc claims, the discussion still collapses when viewed against the backdrop of known historical and post-9/11 fact. “Terrorism” is still a red herring.
As amply documented over the years by Michel Chossudovsky and others, “Islamic terrorism”, including “Al-Qaeda”, the Taliban, etc. are assets of the CIA a myth designed to obscure a vast covert operation and war plan. The “Militant Islamic Network” was created by the CIA, and has continued to operate on behalf of Anglo-American military-intelligence interests. “Terrorists” were key Washington CIA assets during the wars in Kosovo, Chechnya, etc.. Shukrijumah’s boss, Osama bin Laden is a product of the CIA, is a military-intelligence asset who may be dead, or a myth.
Covert Action Quarterly featured the following summation box in many of its post-9/11 issues:
“9/11 cover-up continues:
*Carter administration=CIA-Islamists of Afghanistan
*Carter administration=CIA=Islamists of Iran
*al-Qaeda=Saudi=CIA-=Reagan administration collaborations in Afghanistan and Sudan
*al-Qaeda=CIA=Clinton administration collaborations in Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq, Libya, Sudan”
We can now add to this:
*Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations=CIA=Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan
Put succinctly by Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon:
“Given the degree of documented intelligence penetration of al Qaeda; the fact that Osama bin Laden had been a CIA asset during the first Afghan conflict against the Soviets; the fact that a number of the so-called hijackers and/or al Qaeda members had been trained in CIA training camps in Chechnya; had fought in CIA/US-sponsored guerrilla conflicts (e.g. in Kosovo with the KLA in 2000), or had received military training at US installations; given all that, it is reasonable to assume that one or more top al Qaeda officials were in fact double or triple agents. They worked to further an agenda originating out of Washington, strongly influenced by Tel Aviv, rather than out of some ill-defined Muslim hatred of the US. In this class I would include people like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (KSM), Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Mohammad Atta.”
“…In covert operations, the best kind of an asset is one that has no idea who is really “running” him. That is not to say that I don’t believe there are terrorists out there who would do any kind of damage they possibly could to the United States. Even if there weren’t any before 9/11 (and there were), the US has gone out of its way to create animosity against this country that is in full flower all over the globe. What is clear is that the government’s assertions that 19 hijackers, funded from caves in Afghanistan, were able to excecute what happened on September 11th is beyond ludicrous. It is also that case that the government has never proven to anybody by any standard other than that used by Randolph Hearst.”
What about Shukrijumah’s link to the New York subway bomb plot? That incident has been linked to Jaish-e-Muhammad, a CIA front. Therefore, any Shukrijumah connection to this event also points to way to the CIA.
It is amusing that a USA Today article about Shukrijumah notes how the hunt for “Al-Qaeda” always comes back to Florida. If the writer of this piece had truly dug into Florida’s long history of covert operations, dirty politics (the Bushes), narcotrafficking, etc. the writer would not have to ask why.
Investigative journalist Dan Hopsicker exposed the Florida links to the so-called 9/11 hijackers, including their military training, and connections to Floridians with military-intelligence and the Bush family, in a series of articles, and in the video Mohammad Atta and the Venice Flying Circus. From a propaganda perspective, placing Shukrijumah into this same framework simply makes sense, as Kupferberg notes.
According to Shukrijumah’s mother, her son is “not a mastermind, but a nice boy” who last contacted her right after 9/11, allegedly from Afghanistan. If Shukrijumah’s radicalization was triggered by 9/11 itself, one could argue that (assuming that he is a real terrorist) he is yet another by-product of Bush/Cheney’s violence.
The Big Lie redux
Both the “Ground Zero mosque” and Shukrijumah stories have gone “viral”. The noise surrounding both is certain to be even more deafening, even more outrageous, as election season intensifies, and Obama ramps up its war. Another anniversary of 9/11 approaches, complete with tear-soaked howling over the official lies.
The “terror” threat—perpetual fear of a fabricated outside enemy— is central to Anglo-American geostrategy. It is being strenuously nurtured. Insanity continues to prevail.
“Al-Qaeda” the eternal covert operation and propaganda apparatus, is being given yet another new boogeyman’s face. All issues surrounding the 9/11 still set off paroxysms of fear, rage, hatred, and violence, nearly a decade later.
The militant public embrace of “war on terrorism” lies underscores how that the 9/11 false flag operation has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the Anglo-American war criminals who orchestrated it.
The American populace supports the most pernicious 9/11 myths. It is being played like a fiddle. It is being “run” as effectively as any military-intelligence asset.
Larry Chin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Larry Chin
Founder
Margot B News
NinetteOur Store
Margot B. News 
Study: Americans Still Puritanical About Sex
A fair Puritan
By Tom Jacobs, Miller-McCune.com
Printed on November 10, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148769/
A cursory look at contemporary American culture suggests our ancestors’ Puritan values have been definitively discarded. Given the quick-money ethos of Wall Street, the hook-up culture of college students and the vast pornography industry, it seems clear that the colonists’ strict moral code — pro-hard-work, anti-promiscuous-sex — is, for better or worse, behind us.
Well, hold onto your bonnets: The Puritans’ value system remains lodged deep in our psyches, shaping our emotions, judgments and behaviors. And its effects can be seen regardless of one’s political orientation or religious affiliation.
That’s the conclusion of a group of researchers led by Eric Luis Uhlmann of the HEC Paris School of Management. Writing in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, the scholars — including Yale University psychologist John Bargh — present evidence of “an overarching American ethos” binding work, sex and salvation.
They describe a series of studies backing up this notion, including one that compares our implicit attitudes with those of our northern neighbors. It was conducted by questioning people passing through public parks in the state of New York and the Canadian province of Ontario.
Participants (108 Americans and 207 Canadians) began the experiment by unscrambling a sentence. For half of those in each nation, the sentence was heavily weighted with salvation-related words such as “heaven,” “redeem” and “righteous.”
All then performed an anagram task, in which they were asked to make as many four or more letter words as they could out of four different words. Previous research has found this assignment is a good measure of one’s willingness to work; the more mental effort you put into the task, the more words you come up with.
The results: “American participants, but not Canadian participants, worked harder when they were primed with salvation,” the researchers report. Americans who had unscrambled the sentences containing religion-related terms “solved more anagrams than did participants in the neutral prime condition. In contrast, no priming effect was found for Canadian participants.”
Importantly, Uhlmann and his colleagues found the participants’ affiliation with any specific religion did not significantly impact the results. The mental link between salvation and hard work appears to be transmitted through the culture rather than any particular church or denomination.
A second study featured 101 ethnic Asians who were born in an Asian country but had lived in the U.S. for a considerable length of time (14 years on average). First, they completed a “consumer survey” designed to highlight either their Asian or American cultural identity. Half were asked to list their favorite Asian food, movie, song and holiday; the other half listed their favorite American food, movie, song and holiday.
They then unscrambled a series of sentences. For half the participants, most of the sentences included work-related words such as “job,” “employed” and “labor.”
Finally, the participants read two vignettes. In one, a school principal canceled a prom due to an excess of sexually charged dancing; in the second, a school instituted a conservative dress policy prohibiting revealing clothing. They then listed on a one-to-nine scale whether they agreed with the actions taken by the principal and school.
The results: “Implicitly priming the ethic of hard work led bicultural Asian-American participants to condemn revealing clothing and sexually charged dancing, but only when their American cultural identity had been made salient,” the researchers write.
In other words, for those Asian Americans thinking about their American identity, the concept of hard work seemed to trigger conservative beliefs about sexuality — an effect not found in those thinking about their Asian identity. “This provides direct evidence that American work and sex values are linked (at least in part) by virtue of their mutual association with American cultural identity,” Uhlmann and his colleagues conclude.
In both experiments (and a third involving deliberation vs. instant-reaction moralizing), the impact of implicit Puritanism could be felt even when Protestants — the people presumably most likely to be schooled in this traditional value system — were removed from the samples.
“Non-Protestant Americans condemn a promiscuous woman significantly less when primed to deliberate, perform significantly better on a work task when primed with salvation, and are significantly more likely to endorse restrictive sexual norms when primed with hard work,” the researchers write. “Such effects testify to the power of history and culture to shape the feelings, judgments, and behaviors of individual members of that culture.”
So, it appears Puritan beliefs aren’t confined to Evangelical churches, or classic novels. That famous scarlet A, and the value system it represents, may be branded on Americans’ brains.
Tom Jacobs is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience at daily newspapers. He has served as a staff writer for the Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Barbara News-Press. His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Ventura County Star.
© 2010 Miller-McCune.com All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148769/
BACK to margotbworldnews.com