|
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America |
 |
|
Friday, 05 February 2016 15:07 |
|
Leech writes: "In contrast to most candidates that run for president, Ted Cruz has a clear vision for the future of the country. The problem for many Americans is that it is a terrifying vision. It is a vision that is imperialist, racist, sexist, classist and homophobic."
Senator Ted Cruz. (photo: Reuters)
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
By Garry Leech, CounterPunch
05 February 16
 erhaps nothing captures the imperialist arrogance of Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz more succinctly than his campaign’s statement declaring, “What is best for America is best for the world.” In addition to the obvious fact that billions of people around the world might disagree with Cruz on this point is the fact that it is not at all clear that the Republican presidential candidate’s proposed policies are even best for most Americans. But given his victory this past week in the Iowa caucus, Cruz’s ultra-conservative views can no longer be ignored while mainstream and progressive pundits busy themselves dissecting the bombastic rhetoric of the far less scary Donald Trump.
In contrast to most candidates that run for president, Ted Cruz has a clear vision for the future of the country. The problem for many Americans is that it is a terrifying vision. It is a vision that is imperialist, racist, sexist, classist and homophobic. For instance, Cruz proposes building a giant wall across the US-Mexico border in addition to using high-tech measures to keep out “illegal” immigrants while allowing corporate labor needs to dictate the flow of “legal” immigrants into the country. In addition to strengthening the military to ensure US hegemony around the globe, he also vows to boost US military support for Israel and to withhold funding from the United Nations if it “continues its anti-Israel bias.”
On the domestic front, Cruz is calling for a flat tax that will benefit the rich and gut government social spending. He has also vowed to curtail women’s rights by stating that he will order the attorney general to investigate Planned Parenthood on his first day as president. And he opposes same-sex marriage, declaring that “marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman.” Finally, Cruz would not only fail to address climate change, which he views as a hoax, he would promote expanded oil and gas production. Given that these policy proposals make Cruz one of the most conservative presidential contenders in decades, it would behoove us to take a closer at them.
The new Republican frontrunner has proposed a border wall be built along the US-Mexico border to keep out so-called illegal immigrants. To this end he also intends to triple the size of the Border Patrol and put in place a biometric entry-exit system. Additionally, Cruz will scrap Obama’s amnesty and seek a five-year minimum prison sentence for those who illegally re-enter the United States. As for legal immigration, foreigners will only be allowed to enter the United States when Corporate America is running short of workers, an approach that is a far cry from the compassionate and humanitarian refrain, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.” Ultimately, such a repressive approach is not sustainable because it addresses the symptoms and not the cause of “illegal” immigration. One of the principal causes of immigration—and terrorism—is the global free market economic model, and the Republican candidate has vowed to address this cause by strengthening the US military in order to defend this model.
According to Cruz, he will have the right as president to dictate to the rest of the world how they should live because, as his campaign states, “The United States of America is the exceptional nation, the nation other countries aspire to be like. We should stand as a shining beacon of what free people enjoying a free market and system of government can achieve.” And if the “free people” of other nations should decide that they don’t want to live in a free market under a US-style liberal democratic government then we will just have to force them to because they simply don’t know what’s best for them. In actuality, Cruz doesn’t really care about their freedom anyway. Upon assuming office he intends to “prioritize American national security interests in every instance” by strengthening the military to ensure the continuation of US imperialism throughout the globe.
He also advocates boosting US military ties with Israel, which already receives approximately a quarter of all US foreign aid. According to Cruz, “America’s security is significantly enhanced by a strong Israel.” It is unclear how a strong Israel enhances the security of the United States given that US support for Israel is one of the principal grievances of not only terrorist groups in the Middle East but of an overwhelming majority of the people in that part of the world. In addition to militarily supporting Israel, Cruz intends to back the Jewish state politically by withholding funding from the United Nations if it continues to condemn Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. He has also pledged to cut federal funding to any US universities that join the global campaign to boycott the Jewish state because of its repeated violations of international law. It is likely his promise to increase military support for Israel is linked to his pledge to throw out Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran as soon as he reaches the Oval Office, which would leave him few options besides the military one for dealing with that country.
Meanwhile, domestically, Cruz aims to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by implementing a flat 10 percent income tax. While the IRS is not a loved institution by any means, such a policy would not only eliminate it, but also many social programs. The primary beneficiaries of a flat tax would be wealthy Americans who’d see their income tax rate plummet from the current 40 percent to 10 percent. Meanwhile, the average American worker’s tax rate would only drop by five percent.
The resulting loss in government revenues from a flat tax would inevitably lead to cuts in government programs and, given that Cruz intends to increase funding for the military, it would mean that social programs that benefit lower-income Americans would have to be gutted. The first social program that Cruz intends to eliminate is Obamacare. But unlike Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who wants to replace Obamacare with a more comprehensive universal healthcare plan, Cruz simply wants to scrap it and rely on a market-based system that has left fifty million Americans without affordable health coverage. Clearly, Cruz has not learned from the mistake made by Britain’s former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who was ousted from power after she tried to introduce a flat tax.
With regard to the economy, Cruz seeks to “unleash economic prosperity” in the United States through the “Great American Energy Renaissance.” This renaissance has nothing to do with shifting the country towards renewable energy sources; rather it seeks to reinvigorate the fossil fuel industry by promoting oil and natural gas exploration and production. To this end, Cruz vows to approve the Keystone Pipeline and “remove federal impediments to energy exploration.” Cruz isn’t concerned about the consequences of his energy policies for the environment because he doesn’t believe that human activity contributes to climate change. The conservative Southern Baptist claims that “global warming alarmists” act with a religious fervor that shows how “climate change is not science. It’s religion.”
And speaking of religion, it is a driving force of Cruz’s policy agenda. He uses his religious views to justify targeting both women and queers. “Marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman, it has strengthened societies for millennia, and we must uphold the truth of marriage,” his campaign literature states. It goes on to declare, “Extreme leftists … are trying to extinguish these most fundamental, God-given rights.” Cruz believes that these “God-given rights” mean that only heterosexual couples can “value authentic companionship and intimate connection” and that homosexuality is a “choice.” Accordingly, he has fought against the right of federal judges to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
The Republican frontrunner has also repeatedly sought to restrict women’s access to abortion through legislation and through attempts to cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood. In fact, he vows that, if elected, one of the first things he will do on his first day in office is order the attorney general to investigate Planned Parenthood. Cruz’s religious fervor is also evident in his campaign’s declaration that “Our rights do not come from government. They come from God.” Accordingly, Cruz was instrumental in ensuring that the Supreme Court did not remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Cruz is also an opponent of gun control and a staunch defender of his interpretation of the Second Amendment. In reference to his defense of our right to bear arms, Cruz’s campaign states, “When citizens cease to have the right to defend ourselves, we cease to be free. And now, more than ever, as radical Islamic terrorists seek to attack Americans on our own soil, Americans’ right to protect our families and communities is all the more critical to our safety and freedom.” If Cruz is seriously concerned with the safety of US citizens then it is Americans and not foreign terrorists that he should be worried about. After all, the number of Americans killed on US soil by radical Islamic terrorists is miniscule in comparison to the more than 10,000 Americans who are killed by their gun-wielding fellow Americans every year.
A Cruz victory in November would result in a serious shift to the right for the United States with regard to both domestic and foreign policies. The Republican candidate’s policy proposals should terrify not only Americans, but people around the world who do not believe that the United States is an “exceptional nation” that knows what’s best for everyone. Such an imperialist approach over the past half-century by Washington has bestowed on us a chaotic world marked by terrorism, refugee crises, human trafficking, growing inequality and ecological destruction. A Cruz administration would only intensify this tragic reality. Contrary to what Cruz believes, what is best for America is not best for the world, as evidenced by recent polls that show the United States is seen around the globe as the greatest threat to world peace. A Cruz presidency would further validate that perception.
 |
|
Trayvon Martin Should Be Celebrating His 21st Birthday Today - but Like Too Many Others, His Life Was Unjustly Cut Short |
|
|
Friday, 05 February 2016 15:04 |
|
King writes: "Today, Trayvon Martin should be celebrating his 21st birthday. 'Should' is the operative word."
Trayvon Martin. (photo: AP)
Trayvon Martin Should Be Celebrating His 21st Birthday Today - but Like Too Many Others, His Life Was Unjustly Cut Short
By Shaun King, New York Daily News
05 February 16
 oday, Trayvon Martin should be celebrating his 21st birthday.
Should is the operative word.
Walking home from the convenience store should've been a routine thing.
George Zimmerman, a man who has been arrested over and over and over and over again for violent encounters, should've listened to the police dispatch and remained in his car that evening.
Children should be able to stroll in their neighborhood without being confronted by armed vigilantes.
Florida's Stand Your Ground Law should've protected Trayvon, who was frightened by the armed stranger.
A real part of being black in America, though, is being constantly aware of what should've been but never was.
Twelve-year-old Tamir Rice should've been allowed to play at his neighborhood park without the fear of being shot and killed by police because of a toy gun. Ohio is, after all, an open carry state.
Young black girls in McKinney, Texas, should be able to swim in bathing suits without fear of police yanking them to the ground, mounting them and pointing their gun at boys trying to help.
Teenager Jordan Davis should've been allowed to listen to loud music with his buddies without the fear of being shot by a stranger who was irritated by it.
Sixteen-year-old Gynnya McMillen should've woken up after her first night in jail in January, but black girls and law enforcement don't quite work that way.
First aid should've been immediately administered to Akai Gurley and Eric Garner and Cedrick Chatman and Eric Harris when police unnecessarily used lethal force against them.
A teenage girl at Spring Valley High School in South Carolina should've had a letter sent home to her parents instead of being pulled violently from her desk by a police officer and tossed across the room like a rag doll.
Sandra Bland should've been given a warning or a ticket instead of being assaulted and arrested.
And young Trayvon should have been blowing out birthday candles with his mom and dad.
America should be so much better.
|
|
|
Greece's Refugee Ringfence Will Be Europe's Noose |
|
|
Friday, 05 February 2016 15:02 |
|
Roos writes: "In a desperate bid to halt the influx of refugees from the shores of the Aegean to the heartland of the European continent, EU leaders are considering plans to help Macedonia shut its southern border to new arrivals. If it goes through, the move will effectively ringfence Greece and trap hundreds of thousands of refugees in one of the EU's most fragile member states."
Syrian and Iraqi refugees walk along rail tracks on their way to cross Greece's border with Macedonia, near the Greek village of Idomeni, September 7, 2015. (photo: Yannis Behrakis/Reuters)
Greece's Refugee Ringfence Will Be Europe's Noose
By Jerome Roos, ROAR Magazine
05 February 16
Far from stemming the flow of refugees, ringfencing Greece and excluding it from the Schengen area will spell the end of the EU as we know it.
 n a desperate bid to halt the influx of refugees from the shores of the Aegean to the heartland of the European continent, EU leaders are considering plans to help Macedonia shut its southern border to new arrivals. If it goes through, the move will effectively ringfence Greece and trap hundreds of thousands of refugees in one of the EU’s most fragile member states.
With the backing of Brussels and Berlin, this double exclusion — of refugees and of Greece — would finally formalize what many have been observing for years now: the fact that the process of European integration, once considered irreversible, has already gone into a headlong retreat.
Ever since last summer, the Schengen area of border-free travel — long coveted alongside the monetary union as one of the two flagships of the EU’s integration process — has been buckling under the weight of the largest movement of displaced people since the end of World War II. Several EU countries have already reintroduced border controls over the past half year, while others have put up enormous fences to keep out those fleeing war, poverty and persecution.
Last week, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte — whose government currently holds the rotating EU presidency — warned that European leaders have just six to eight weeks to save the Schengen system, before the coming of spring eases the weather and the mass migration of last summer undoubtedly resumes.
Excluding peripheral and “troublesome” Greece from Schengen is seen by many as a last-ditch attempt on the part of EU leaders to defend the freedom of travel between the countries of the core. The truth, however, is that ringfencing Greece — while doing nothing to resolve the real causes of the ongoing exodus from Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East — will sacrifice the very principles upon which the EU was supposed to be founded, suffocating any sense of solidarity still remaining at the heart of the European project.
While the EU was once conceived to stand for “union in diversity”, its first major confrontation with actual diversity is now threatening to unravel the union at the seams. Where borders were supposed to fade, new walls are being erected; where liberal values were supposed to triumph, the most elementary human right to asylum is being trampled; where nations were supposed to be united in brotherhood, they are increasingly being torn apart and pitched against one another in mutual recrimination.
In the process, the expansive and inclusionary aura that once surrounded the European project is revealed for the ideological smokescreen it was all along. It is now clear that EU’s supposedly progressive transnational inclinations were always a thinly veiled disguise for the continent’s deeply ingrained attachment to national identity and its jealous defense of economic privilege.
Fanned by the social insecurity wrought by three decades of neoliberal reform and seven years of capitalist crisis, long-standing reactionary sentiments are resurfacing with a vengeance, exemplified in the rise of the Islamophobic right and the resurgence of proto- and neo-fascist movements across the continent, including Pegida in Germany, Jobbik in Hungary, Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Golden Dawn in Greece.
Needless to say, the refugees themselves did not cause this political paralysis; the arrival of large numbers of displaced people merely revealed the deep-seated rot at the heart of the union. If anything or anyone has brought the EU to this breaking point, it has been the utter incapacity of the Brussels bureaucracy and the sheer unwillingness of national political elites to provide moral leadership and confront the crisis in a humane and politically responsible way.
While ringfencing Greece will undoubtedly please hardliners like Wolfgang Schäuble, the powerful German finance minister who has long pushed for Greece’s exclusion from the monetary union in the hope of building a much more closely knit Kerneuropa, any decision to re-erect national borders is likely to backfire in the not-too-distant future, for the very simple reason that it fails to address the underlying causes of the refugee crisis, on the one hand, and systemic roots of the EU’s steady disintegration on the other.
In reality, cutting Greece loose will further dissolve the very glue that once held the ideal of a unified Europe together: the notion (or rather the illusion) of international solidarity and popular support for the integration process. No amount of rules or exclusions can replace the fragile international peace and social consensus for the European project that Schäuble and his fellow hardliners are now helping to destroy with their reactionary response to the EU’s most existential crisis to date. The European Union already alienated the nationalist right years ago; now it is thoroughly alienating its last-remaining social constituency: progressives and internationalists.
Only meaningful solidarity with refugees and the periphery can save the worthwhile ideal of a unified and open Europe. If it is allowed to stand, Greece’s ringfence will prove to be the rope with which the union finally hangs itself.
|
|
FOCUS: Who Hatched Rubio? |
|
|
Friday, 05 February 2016 14:06 |
|
Palast writes: "I called my bookie in London. The betting professionals were not surprised at Marco Rubio's big Iowa showing. The smart money has been on Rubio since October 31 - despite the fact that Rubio was polling at just 9%. Here's why."
Senator Marco Rubio. (photo: NBC)
Who Hatched Rubio?
By Greg Palast, Greg Palast's Website
05 February 16
The big boys are confident that Sen. Marco Rubio has locked up the Republican nomination. But who’s locked up Rubio?
called my bookie in London. The betting professionals were not surprised at Marco Rubio’s big Iowa showing. The smart money has been on Rubio since October 31--despite the fact that Rubio was polling at just 9%.
Paul Krishnamurty, politics odds analyst at Betfair.com, told me that, among professional betters, over just two days, Rubio soared from zero to odds-on favorite to win the GOP nomination.
Why would the guys who bet the rent money place it all on Rubio—and what suddenly changed on October 31?
Because, despite the fact that 9 of 10 Republicans rejected him, on Halloween, Rubio won the only vote that counts: The Vulture’s.
It was page one news in the New York Times: Paul Singer, Influential Billionaire, Throws Support to Marco Rubio for President.
I’ve been hunting Singer, AKA The Vulture, for nine years across four continents. And now the carrion-chewing billionaire has decided who will be your next President.
The Vulture, not the Kochs, has become the Number One funder of the Republican Party. The Vulture’s blessing signals to the other billionaires where to place their bets.
Singer doesn’t “donate” to candidates. He invests in them. And he expects a big, dripping return on his money.
But why Rubio? Because Singer’s little hatchling is doing The Vulture’s bidding already. Singer has launched a murderous financial “vulture” attack on Argentina. Singer is shaking down the gaucho nation for $3 billion.
Here’s the story. Decades ago, Argentina’s military dictatorship issued bonds that sucked the nation dry. When democracy returned, 97% of the banks that had funded the dictatorship agreed to take a low payment for these bonds.
Then down swooped The Vulture. Singer and his partners bought up the “hold-out” 3% for $50 million – and now Singer demands that Argentina pay him $3 billion, a 6,000% return on his “investment”—or he’ll bring Argentina to its knees.
That’s why he’s called The Vulture – because Singer has used this same junk-bond ransom trick to swipe aid funds meant for cholera clinics in the Congo. (When I uncovered that scheme for BBC Television, Britain’s Parliament banned Singer’s vulture fund from British courts. His operations are outlawed throughout most of the civilized world.)
But The Vulture has a problem: Hillary Clinton. As Secretary of State, Clinton went to court on Argentina’s side and body-blocked every ugly attempt by The Vulture to savage Argentina.
Singer is screeching. A President Hillary would cost Singer billions. (As would a President Sanders, a stalwart foe of vulture financiers.) To counter Hillary, The Vulture hatched a Senator: one Marco Rubio. Senator Rubio has made several ethically dubious attempts to bully the Treasury and State Departments on Singer’s behalf.
That failed, so Singer has decided to put the anti-gay martinet Rubio into the White House. (Singer’s son is married to a man—but hey, to Singer, a feast of billions means more to him than family.)
Yet Singer knows you can’t put a Rubio in the Oval Office by winning the most votes. No way. Changing demographics doom almost any GOP candidacy.
The only way to take the White House is to block the vote of millions of voters of color.
And that’s why Singer has become donor Numero Uno to Karl Rove’s operation Crossroads.
I’ve been on the trail of racist vote suppression tactics since 2000 when Katherine Harris was Purge’n General. And behind so many of the moves to disenfranchise voters, all too successful, is the Rove operation.
Now I’m on the hunt again. I’m in the middle of ripping the lid off the biggest, most secretive vote suppression operation since Jim Crow was law.
I’m in the thick of making the movie, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: A Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits, about the coming attempt to swipe the 2016 election through ugly—but unbelievably sophisticated—vote suppression trickery.
For BBC Television, The Guardian and Rolling Stone, I’ve been on the beat of ballot bandits – and the billionaires behind them for 16 years. This film – and a related series of articles, web videos, and a book – which we must release in Spring 2016 – has one aim: to save The House I Live In, the America of Martin Luther King and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
This is not about whether Rubio or Clinton or Sanders or any other candidate should win. This is about making sure that the ballots, not the billionaires, determine the election.
I’m asking you to help me complete this documentary.
And we’ll be covering The Vulture and his hatchling.
Singer’s knuckle-draggers muscled me out of his Rubio fundraiser last month—when my disguise fell off. No kidding. So I have to try again.
While The Best Democracy Money Can Buy movie will have heavyweight, real, undercover, no-BS investigative reporting, it will present the eye-popping truth in an eye-popping manner, with all the humor and heart you expect from a Palast team film.
Watch this sneak peek.
I am asking you, to add your name as a Producer or co-Producer of this film (for a tax-deductible donation of $1,000 or $500 respectively) and you will receive a movie producer credit and an invite to join me at our opening in Hollywood. (You can, of course, choose to remain anonymous.)
For a $100 donation, you’ll be listed in the film credits as a supporter – and receive the signed DVD of the film.
Or support the film for any amount you can, no matter how small or large.
Please make this donation to our foundation right now.
I can’t thank you enough for your support—not just financial, but your vote of confidence in me and my team’s work over the years.
It’s what keeps us going.
* Paul "The Vulture" Singer by Rob Bischoff from the film, 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy' ©Palast Investigative Fund
|
|
