RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Migration Is Not a Crime Print
Wednesday, 06 January 2016 14:50

Barahona writes: "While attention is focused on the thousands fleeing Syria, Libya, and Iraq, the United Nations refugee agency has warned that a new refugee crisis is taking shape in Central America. The UN reports a nearly fivefold increase, since 2008, in asylum-seekers arriving to the United States from the Northern Triangle region of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, which has the world's highest murder rates."

Clementina Murcia González, from Honduras, holds up the pictures of her two missing sons, Jorge Orlando Funes Murcia and Mauro Orlando Funes. (photo: Federico Barahona)
Clementina Murcia González, from Honduras, holds up the pictures of her two missing sons, Jorge Orlando Funes Murcia and Mauro Orlando Funes. (photo: Federico Barahona)


ALSO SEE: A Right to Stay Home, a Right to Move, a Right to the World

ALSO SEE: First US Mass Deportation of 2016 Sees 131 Guatemalans Sent Home

A new refugee crisis takes shape in Mexico and Central America.

Migration Is Not a Crime

By Federico Barahona, NACLA

06 January 16

 

he first one left at 17, with her blessing. The second didn’t ask if he could go, he just went.

Both went missing, lost in transit, somewhere in Mexico, as they made their way to the United States from Honduras.

On a cold December morning, Clementina Murcia González walked the streets of Coatzacoalcos, a port city in the southern part of the Mexican state of Veracruz, searching for her two sons, Jorge and Mauro, their pictures on her chest, her hands trembling.

“We are worth nothing,” she said. “For many people, we are worth nothing.”

She was one of some 40 Central American mothers that took part in a caravan travelling through southern Mexico, visiting prisons, shelters, as well as other spots along the migrant route, looking for missing sons and daughters.

Priscila Rodríguez Cartagena, a grandmother from Honduras, searched for her daughter, Yesenia Marleni, who disappeared in 2008, when she was 19.

“She lives in my heart,” she told me. “If she can hear me, I want her to know that I love her, that I miss her, that I will not have peace until I find her. When I look after my family, I think of her. I wonder, is she eating, or not eating? Is she alive?”

While attention is focused on the thousands fleeing Syria, Libya, and Iraq, the United Nations refugee agency has warned that a new refugee crisis is taking shape in Central America. The UN reports a nearly fivefold increase, since 2008, in asylum-seekers arriving to the United States from the Northern Triangle region of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, which has the world’s highest murder rates.

The forcibly displaced are part of a global trend — by the summer of 2015, more than 60 million people had been forced from their homes as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, or human rights violations, according to the UN refugee agency. More than 700,000 of the displaced were in the Americas.

The plight of Central Americans is particularly dire. Although no official figures exist, it is thought that at least 70,000 migrants and refugees have gone missing in Mexico since 2006. And yet, it is a cumbersome task assessing exactly how many have perished, because no one is counting, or identifying the dead, according to Rubén Figueroa of Movimiento Migrante Mesaomericano, the organization behind the mothers’ caravan.

“There are graves all along the migrant route,” Figueroa told me. “There are no data bases, no information banks. For the families, these people have disappeared. No one knows what happened to them, because there is no official count, no official procedure to have them identified — this is a policy of not counting, of not wanting to know what is happening to the people on the migrant route. It’s very hard to understand, but it’s a reality.”

One sunny morning, “La 72” — a migrant shelter in Tenosique, Tabasco, on the border with Guatemala — was brimming with families, small children and babies, desperate women and men trying to figure out what to do next, how to hop on the cargo train they call ‘The Beast,’ how to evade the multiple checkpoints, how to head north. I spoke to a man who said he had been bound and robbed after crossing the border. Three women had been raped on a dirt road, just a few minutes from the shelter.

The typical person making the trek has changed drastically in the last few years, explained Ramón Márquez, who coordinates “La 72.”

“They are escaping death, they are what we call refugees,” he said. “These are entire families, mothers with children, young women who are pregnant, unaccompanied children and teenagers; we’re even seeing senior citizens.”

One of the children at “La 72” was Brian Jair, a nine-year-old who fled Honduras with his mother after receiving death threats from a gang demanding a “war tax.” His father and two older brothers were hiding in Honduras, he said. They had returned to their corn field one morning, and found it cut with machetes.

“They said that if we didn’t pay them they would kill us,” the boy said. “They had tattoos, like dragons, with snakes coming out of their mouths, they had guns.”

The number of women with children, escaping violence in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala is rising, the UN reports. In 2014, more than 66,000 families travelled to the United States from Mexico and the Northern Triangle region.

As a result, these stories are becoming increasingly common. Nearing the end of 2015, the migrant shelter in Tenosique had received 8,500 migrants, including 720 children. To illustrate this reality, Márquez recalled a mother and two children who arrived at the shelter, in the middle of the night. They had been threatened by a gang, and their house had been burned to the ground.

“From one day to the next, they had to flee,” he said.

A week later, relatives of the same family arrived at the shelter, after the gangs extended the threat to the entire family network.

“The whole nucleus of the family arrived, with children, with babies. One of the ladies that arrived had a baby that was just weeks old,” Márquez told me. “Try to imagine that, it’s like a tentacle, this criminal network, it expands, and it’s not just that I’m going to threaten you, but I’m going to threaten your entire family. These are really painful cases.”

An Undeclared War

Many leave because they are being extorted; others are being threatened. They have no other choice. If they are to save their lives, they have to migrate, Rodríguez Cartagena explained.

“But there is no salvation, anywhere,” she said. “If they leave their countries, looking for a better life, they come through Mexico, and here they find death.”

As the world focuses on the wars in Syria, Libya and Iraq, Figueroa said those fleeing Central America deserve protection as well.

“The context of violence is similar,” he told me. “In our continent, the dead are in the thousands. We may not have bombs going off, but blood is shed all the same. This is a context of undeclared war.”

In fact, it is government policy that has turned migrants into prey for criminal gangs, activists say, citing Mexico’s Frontera Sur program as a prime example. Aiming to stem the flow of Central Americans entering the United States, President Enrique Peña Nieto introduced the initiative in July 2014. Under the program, Mexico increased checkpoints, tightened border controls, and used troops to actively discourage migrants from riding ‘The Beast.’

In 2015, Mexico deported 178,254 people, most of them Central Americans on their way to the United States, the highest total since 2006, according to official figures. Mexico estimates that some 300,000 migrants pass through its territory yearly, with nearly 200,000 detained in transit during 2015.

Unable to get on the train, or ride the highways, now sprinkled with checkpoints, migrants have been forced to travel along alternate routes, making them more vulnerable to kidnappings, rapes, extortion demands, and murder.

“This is a policy of persecution,” Figueroa said. “It hides migrants, it forces them to flee into the hills, it makes them invisible, and it makes them vulnerable to organized crime.”

The number of Central Americans reaching the United States did fall, but complaints of abuse at the hands of Mexican officials shot up around 40 per cent, according to data obtained by Reuters.

“So long as the migrants are forced to disperse and pursue other means, they are left unprotected, exposed to whatever they find on the road,” said Marta Sanchez Soler, who leads Movimiento Migrante Measoamericano.

The exodus is particularly trying on women, according to Ana Claribel Mendoza, whose son, Marvin Alberto Guerra Gomez, went missing in Mexico in 2013.

“It is women who suffer the most,” she told me. “When someone leaves, they leave a mother, a grandmother, or a wife, with the kids, and we’re the ones who have to struggle alone. I tell you that this pain turns into anger when we have to look for the ones that have gone missing.”

Mendoza believes that, in the end, migrants and refugees are a source of income, and as long as the flow of remittances to the home countries isn’t disturbed, nothing is going to change.

“Our governments only see the remittances,” Mendoza said, adding that the task of finding missing migrants should be something governments do, not aging mothers.

Remittances to Latin America reached an all-time high in 2014, a whopping $65.38 billion, with Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras accounting for more than half of the total, according to the Inter-American Bank Development Bank, which provides development financing in the region.

The reality is that the migrant body, in the form of the forcibly displaced, constitutes a new type of human merchandise, added Figueroa.

“Migrants are merchandise for government and organized crime,” he told me. “From the moment they leave their home countries, they are victims of human traffic, victims of kidnappings, all of which generate revenues. And if they do make it to the United States, they work and they send remittances and someone generates revenue from their labor, whether it’s in taxes or transfer charges.”

“The American Dream is Death”

Despite the odds and the creeping danger, many migrants say they have no choice but to attempt to reach the United States. At a shelter in Palenque, in the Mexican state of Chiapas, Dina del Carmen Ramos wept as she described the murder of her husband and child during a robbery in Puerto San José, Guatemala.

“The truth is that this road is hard,” she told me. “The American dream is death.”

Standing outside the shelter, in Palenque, Jorge Eduardo Molina Mancia, 16, said he was travelling unaccompanied with his sister. Death was around the corner, he conceded, but he, too, was chasing his own American dream.

“I do think the American dream is death,” he said. “But I also think that there is a God that takes care of me, and He is my best guide, and if He doesn’t want anything to happen to me, then nothing is going to happen to me.”

During a visit to a penitentiary in Tabasco, Murcia González met a Honduran migrant who had been imprisoned for six years, unable to reach his family the entire time.

“I know the area where he’s from,” she said, waving her hands. “I have the name of his mother, and I’m personally going to visit that family. Think about it: what is that mother thinking? My son is dead, and thank God he’s in a prison, because at least he’s alive, because that’s more than enough, finding them alive.”

With two children missing, Murcia González said she couldn’t tell today’s migrants not to attempt the trip.

“Even if I told them, as a mother, not to do it, they have to make the trip,” she said, clutching the photos of her two missing sons. “I will tell you one thing, to the people in the United States: For them it’s a crime that people migrate, but for us it isn’t.

“So I say to those who find the courage to make this trip, I say to them, pray to God, and go on your way, because to migrate is not a crime.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Koch Brothers Sneak Anti-Wind Op-Ed Past New York Times Print
Wednesday, 06 January 2016 14:37

Negin writes: "Fortunately, the Koch campaign to break wind was foiled this time around by some last-minute horse trading on Capitol Hill. End-of-year negotiations over the omnibus governmentspending bill extended the wind production tax credit through 2019. That's good news for the wind industry."

Charles Koch, shown in his office at Koch Industries in Wichita, Kan., in 2012. (photo: Bo Rader/AP)
Charles Koch, shown in his office at Koch Industries in Wichita, Kan., in 2012. (photo: Bo Rader/AP)


Koch Brothers Sneak Anti-Wind Op-Ed Past New York Times

By Elliott Negin, EcoWatch

06 January 16

 

n the run-up to the perennial debate in Congress over whether to extend a tax credit for the wind industry, The New York Times ran a provocatively headlined—and misleading—op-ed column denouncing it as corporate welfare.

Giving Billions to the Rich was a broadside against Congress’ end-of-the-year tax extenders package, which renews temporary corporate tax breaks, and it singled out the wind production tax credit as one of the most egregious.

The Nov. 23, 2015 column was written by Marc Short and Andy Koenig, both from an organization called Freedom Partners. They pointed out that the package the U.S. Senate was considering at the time would revive a tax credit for new wind energy facilities during their first 10 years of operation, which would cost the U.S. Treasury an estimated $10.5 billion over the next decade. Congress had let the tax break expire at the end of 2014.

“The supporters of this 23-year-old credit initially argued that it was necessary to kick-start a nascent industry,” they wrote. “Yet Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and others say wind power is cost-competitive with other energy sources. So why are taxpayers still forced to subsidize it?”

Besides the fact that a tax credit does not force taxpayers to “subsidize,” i.e. give money to, the wind industry, Short and Koenig shrewdly confined their argument to temporary tax breaks. By doing so, they were able to avoid mentioning the fact that the wind industry’s more-established competitors—particularly fossil fuels, the primary cause of climate change—enjoy permanent tax breaks and subsidies that are significantly larger.

The oil and gas industry, for example, has been receiving an average of $4.86 billion in annual tax breaks and subsidies in today’s dollars since 1918, according to an analysis by DBL Investors, a venture capital firm. On top of that, Congress exempted natural gas developers from key provisions of at least seven major environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. That amounts to a substantial subsidy, too, by passing along any cleanup bill to taxpayers.

Renewable energy technologies, by contrast, averaged only $370 million a year in tax breaks between 1994 and 2009, according to DBL. The 2009 stimulus package did provide $21 billion for wind, solar and other renewables, but that support barely began to balance the scales that have tilted toward oil and gas for nearly 100 years and coal for more than two centuries.

The Koch Brothers’ Bank

So who are Marc Short and Andy Koenig? The Times identified them only as “the president and senior policy adviser, respectively, at Freedom Partners, which advocates for free-market policies.”

What the Times neglected to explain is that Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce (its full name) is a major pass-through funding arm of billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch—owners of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries—and Short and Koenig’s Times op-ed is just a small part of a Koch brothers-financed campaign targeting wind and other renewable energy technologies.

Founded in November 2011, Freedom Partners functions as the Kochs’ de facto bank, disbursing contributions from wealthy conservatives to a network of nonprofit “free-market” groups whose goals include rolling back public health, environmental and workplace protections. Unlike a foundation or a political action committee (PAC), Freedom Partners is classified as a trade association, enabling it to raise money without disclosing the names of its donor members, although the amounts and recipients of its grants are public. In June 2014, the organization expanded its arsenal by launching a Super PAC, Freedom Partners Action Fund, which can raise unlimited sums of money and run ads advocating for or against candidates, but it has to divulge its donors.

Freedom Partners Action Fund, whose top donors include the Koch brothers and hedge fund mogul Robert Mercer, raised $29 million and spent $24 million during the 2014 election cycle in support of Republican candidates. But that’s chump change compared to Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce’s war chest. Between 2012 and 2014, it raised $418 million from its more than 200 anonymous members and distributed more than $387 million of it to dozens of organizations. Much of that money paid for television attack ads, but a chunk of it went to climate science denier groups, including the American Energy Alliance, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Club for Growth, Heritage Action for America (the Heritage Foundation’s political arm), and the 60 Plus Association. Those groups—along with Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation grantees Competitive Enterprise Institute and Frontiers of Freedom—were signatories on a July 27 letter to House members urging them to support a bill that would kill the wind production tax credit (PTC).

The letter claimed the proposed legislation “protects Americans from the large costs of an out-of-control subsidy.” Since the PTC was created, the letter went on to disingenuously assert, “taxpayers have sent billions of dollars to large multinational corporations in the wind industry.”

The bill referenced in the letter, “The PTC Elimination Act,” was sponsored by Mike Pompeo of Wichita, Kansas—home of Koch Industries—and Kenny Marchant of Texas. Pompeo is Congress’ top recipient of Koch campaign money, and ever since he took office in 2011 he has been introducing bills to scuttle the tax credit because, as he says, the wind industry should “compete on its own.” As of November 17, the bill had 53 co-sponsors. Forty-six of them, including Marchant, received contributions from Koch Industries over the last five years.

Of course, no one would expect the Times to explain all of that, but the paper should have at least mentioned Freedom Partners’ Koch connection. Beyond that, the paper also should have fact-checked its debatable description of the organization. Freedom Partners and other Koch-funded groups all claim to promote “free-market” policies, but they don’t complain about the massive subsidies fossil fuel companies receive. For the Koch network, the wind production tax credit is a “wasteful handout,” but eliminating tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas industry, as Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform once put it, would constitute “a massive tax hike on a vital sector of American industry.”

That hardly qualifies as a consistent free-market position.

The Times’ Opaque Transparency Policy

Coincidentally, a debate over how the Times identifies op-ed contributors was sparked four years ago by a column attacking the wind industry. In June 2011, the newspaper ran a column by Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Robert Bryce that made a case for natural gas by misstating facts about renewables, and the Times failed to mention in Bryce’s bio that Manhattan Institute funders ExxonMobil and the Kochs are in the natural gas business. A few months later, the Checks and Balances Project, a government and industry watchdog group, sent a letter to the Times criticizing the paper for failing to report op-ed writers’ funding sources, citing Bryce’s column as a prime example. Signed by more than 50 journalists and educators, the letter called on the paper to “set the nation’s standard by disclosing financial conflicts of interest that their op-ed contributors may have at the time the piece is published.”

The paper’s public editor at the time, Arthur S. Brisbane, responded in a column, The Times Gives Them Space, but Who Pays Them? “[T]he issue of authorial transparency is an important one,” Brisbane wrote, “albeit one that isn’t always simple.” He then turned to editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal to explain the complexities.

Op-ed writers have to sign an agreement that states: “You agree to disclose to the Times any financial interest you may have in the subject matter of the article,” Rosenthal said. Besides that, “story editors ask each writer if there is any real or perceived material or financial interest we should know about.” Finally, Rosenthal said, author bios are written for “clarity, transparency and brevity.”

Brisbane recommended that the Times do more. “So, while I recognize that the Times has limited space in print to provide more disclosure, I believe it should do more to help readers learn about outside op-ed contributors,” he wrote. “In print, besides noting prominent past achievements, author [bios] should include the writer’s current paid role. … On NYTimes.com, the Times should include links to [an author’s] organizational ties so readers can investigate, if they wish. Finally, it would be useful if the Times required contributors to provide a document listing all current paid positions, and publish a link to the document.”

Did the Times take Brisbane’s advice? Apparently not.

Wind Wins This Round, But More Transparency Needed

Fortunately, the Koch campaign to break wind was foiled this time around by some last-minute horse trading on Capitol Hill. End-of-year negotiations over the omnibus government spending bill extended the wind production tax credit through 2019 in exchange for lifting the 40-year-old federal ban on oil exports. That’s good news for the wind industry.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the production tax credit has helped quadruple wind-powered electricity since 2008, from 16,700 megawatts to more than 70,000 MW at the end of last year, enough to power more than 19 million homes. The tax break also has helped drive down the cost of wind power by 66 percent over the last six years, and Iowa, South Dakota and Kansas—Mike Pompeo’s state—now get more than 20 percent of their electricity from wind. Nine other states get more than 10 percent of their electricity from wind, and a recent Department of Energy report concluded that the U.S. should be able to generate 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030.

The omnibus deal was also good news for Koch Industries, because lifting the ban on oil exports likely will boost its business. After all, it owns 4,000 miles of pipelines as well as refineries in Minnesota and Texas that, according to the company, together can process more than 600,000 barrels of crude oil a day.

The bad news is that, even after the debate prompted by an anti-wind op-ed back in 2011, The New York Times continues to provide a platform for special interest mouthpieces and fails to disclose their benefactors. To be sure, the Times is hardly alone. But it’s especially puzzling when it comes to the Times, whose editorial board routinely rails against “the scourge of dark money” in the U.S. political system and calls for greater transparency.

The Times should hold itself to the same standard. If its editorial page editors insist on publishing special interest propaganda, they should let their readers know who is paying for it. In this case, an op-ed with the headline Giving Billions to the Rich is indeed remiss if it doesn’t mention the fact that the covert sponsors of the column, the Koch brothers, are among those benefiting the most from government largesse.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Economy in 2016: On the Edge of Recession Print
Wednesday, 06 January 2016 11:22

Reich writes: "American consumers account for almost 70 percent of economic activity, but they won't have enough purchasing power in 2016 to keep the economy going on more than two cylinders. Blame widening inequality."

Robert Reich. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Robert Reich. (photo: Perian Flaherty)


The Economy in 2016: On the Edge of Recession

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

06 January 16

 

conomic forecasters exist to make astrologers look good, but I’ll hazard a guess. I expect the U.S. economy to sputter in 2016. That’s because the economy faces a deep structural problem: not enough demand for all the goods and services it’s capable of producing.

American consumers account for almost 70 percent of economic activity, but they won’t have enough purchasing power in 2016 to keep the economy going on more than two cylinders. Blame widening inequality.

Consider: The median wage is 4 percent below what it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation. The median wage of young people, even those with college degrees, is also dropping, adjusted for inflation. That means a continued slowdown in the rate of family formation—more young people living at home and deferring marriage and children – and less demand for goods and services.

At the same time, the labor participation rate—the percentage of Americans of working age who have jobs—remains near a 40-year low.

The giant boomer generation won’t and can’t take up the slack. Boomers haven’t saved nearly enough for retirement, so they’re being forced to cut back expenditures.

Exports won’t make up for this deficiency in demand. To the contrary, Europe remains in or close to recession, China’s growth is slowing dramatically, Japan is still on its back, and most developing countries are in the doldrums.

Business investment won’t save the day, either. Without enough customers, businesses won’t step up investment. Add in uncertainties about the future—including who will become president, the makeup of the next Congress, the Middle East, and even the possibilities of domestic terrorism—and I wouldn’t be surprised if business investment declined in 2016.

I’d feel more optimistic if I thought government was ready to spring into action to stimulate demand, but the opposite is true. The Federal Reserve has started to raise interest rates—spooked by an inflationary ghost that shows no sign of appearing. And Congress, notwithstanding its end-of-year tax-cutting binge, is still in the thralls of austerity economics.

Chances are, therefore, the next president will inherit an economy teetering on the edge of recession.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
As Wars Around the World Rage, Both Republicans and Democrats Speak of Muscle, Power, and Violence Print
Wednesday, 06 January 2016 09:40

Stone writes: "In this dangerous election cycle, Republicans and Democrats continue to talk loudly – of muscle, power, and the exercise thereof. But since Vietnam, it’s equally clear we’re scared of putting boots on the ground in any significant way, as casualties are anathema to the electorate, who prefer the Empire’s use of proxy armies, covert operations, and soft power."

Oliver Stone. (photo: Art Streiber/Sunday Magazine)
Oliver Stone. (photo: Art Streiber/Sunday Magazine)


As Wars Around the World Rage, Both Republicans and Democrats Speak of Muscle, Power, and Violence

By Oliver Stone, Oliver Stone's Facebook Page

06 January 16

 

s the wars of the world rage on into 2016, the powder keg now appears to be ‘Syraq’ and not Ukraine. One day, perhaps too late, we as a country will recognize that some of our ‘friends’ are our ‘enemies,’ and some of our ‘enemies’ are really our allies. But as long as we pursue the politics of Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies, we’re squandering our life force in the creation of more and more chaos.

In this dangerous election cycle, Republicans and Democrats continue to talk loudly -- of muscle, power, and the exercise thereof. But since Vietnam, it’s equally clear we’re scared of putting boots on the ground in any significant way (500,000 went to Vietnam), as casualties are anathema to the electorate, who prefer the Empire’s use of proxy armies, and covert/soft power.

But as long as Russia continues to maintain and refine its nuclear capabilities (at about 1/5th our cost), those who actually think must understand we can’t force them into submission where their national interests are concerned, i.e., Eastern Ukraine, their borders with Europe, and terrorism against Russia, etc. Without that nuclear capacity, there is no doubt Russia would’ve rendered Edward Snowden to the United States long ago.

Having suffered through two Chechen wars, the mass execution of schoolchildren at Beslan, the Moscow theatre attack, etc., and with the largest Muslim population in Europe, terrorism is a huge issue to Russia. How much closer is ‘Syraq’ to their borders than ours? Russia well knows the US has been supporting several of these terrorist groups against them, starting with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan back in the 1980s, and that we’re now supporting Turkey and Saudi Arabia and their proxy groups, including ISIS, as well as several other organizations. Throw in mercenary Chechens in several countries, fascist groups in Ukraine; as well as NATO-aided, right-wing groups in Poland, the Baltic Republics, etc. While we continue to play Red Riding Hood’s grandma-in-wolf’s-clothing, our media consistently denies we’re the Big Bad Wolf in this affair -- ‘who me?’ In response, Russia, despite sanctions against it and a withering propaganda onslaught, has only hardened its muscle back to 1941 levels. They’re ready for the worst. This is so dangerous. Why?

Below are 5 excellent analyses showing us the details of a US strategy that allows us to understand the frightening stakes of USA/EU/NATO against Russia/Iran/Syria, reaching a tipping point in a gigantic battle for energy resources -- the 21st century Mid-East resembling the 1914 Balkans; this could bloom, like a Ponzi scheme, into a war that ultimately engulfs the rest of the world.

The most unstable particle in this fury is this damned 2016 circus of an American election. Emotions are most easily excited, dumb things about our weaknesses and strengths are said and believed by the electorate. Nor has our media really given us insight into what the Russian point of view really is, although Putin has stated it on several occasions. We keep insisting it’s the restoration of the Cold War Russian Empire -- which Putin has repeatedly condemned, saying it didn’t work THEN and it won’t work NOW. He’s deplored the fallacy of Communism. Meanwhile, we don’t seem to understand or empathize with the true size of the terrorist threat against Russia.

We should be remembering in a time of possible all-out war, when most people seem to have forgotten what war is like, that it’s not Russia, the EU, the Mid-East, or Ukraine which have the most to lose. It’s the USA -- us. Most of us would lose our lives, and we’d certainly lose our economy, and generally a way of life that’s spoiled us since WW2. I keep wondering WHY do we keep pushing for “regime change” and dominion over other lands? We never back down, it seems. There’s no end to the zombie hunger for more control. Nothing changes in our system of ill will towards any resisters, going back to the Philippines in the early 1900s.

But am I naïve to think, as bad as our rhetoric and propaganda have gotten, that the military-industrial complex in our country is not so NUTS as to set off a real hot war -- when we have the most to lose? Remember the senselessness of World War I. Will we be asking ourselves the same question about ‘Syraq’ one day? How did this start? Why?

In closing, I pray that I turn out to be as wrong as I was about Ukraine at the end of 2014, and that we’ll all still be communicating at this time next year. Let's hope so... Let's hope sanity prevails in 2016.

Pepe Escobar, “You Want War? Russia is Ready for War,” Counterpunch. http://bit.ly/1TAiOAb

Pepe Escobar, “NATO’s got a brand-new (Syrian) bag,” RT. http://bit.ly/1JpXgFX

Mike Whitney, “Putin Throws Down the Gauntlet,” Counterpunch. http://bit.ly/225osQw

Robert Parry, “A Blind Eye Toward Turkey’s Crimes,” Consortium News. http://bit.ly/1Ypk5jR

Ira Chernus, “Six Mistakes on the Road to Permanent War,” TomDispatch. http://bit.ly/1Ur5LB3

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
This Is Not Democracy. This Is Oligarchy. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15102"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 05 January 2016 15:32

Sanders writes: "The Koch brothers are the second-wealthiest family in America worth $82 billion. For the Koch brothers, $82 billion in wealth apparently is not good enough. Owning the second-largest private company in America is apparently not good enough. It doesn't appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process."

Bernie Sanders. (photo: Arun Chaudhary)
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Arun Chaudhary)


This Is Not Democracy. This Is Oligarchy.

By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News

05 January 16

 

“I like to give on a scale where I can see impact...” - David Koch

arlier this year, a number of Republicans flew to California to make fundraising pitches to more than four hundred wealthy conservative donors attending a private conference hosted by the Koch brothers.

It’s worth taking a moment to ask the question, who are the Koch brothers, and what do they want?

The Koch brothers are the second-wealthiest family in America worth $82 billion. For the Koch brothers, $82 billion in wealth apparently is not good enough. Owning the second-largest private company in America is apparently not good enough. It doesn’t appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process.

This issue isn't personal for me. I don't know the Koch brothers, but I do know this. They have advocated for destroying the federal programs that are critical to the financial and personal health of middle class Americans.

Now, most Americans know that the Koch brothers are the primary source of funding for the Tea Party, and that’s fine. They know that they favor the outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and that’s their opinion. It’s wrong, but that’s fine as well.

But it is not widely known that David Koch once ran for Vice President of the United States of America on the Libertarian Party ticket because he believed Ronald Reagan was much too liberal. And he ran on a platform that included the following:

  • “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.”

  • “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

  • “We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws…”

  • “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

In 1980, David Koch’s presidential ticket received one percent of the vote from the American people. And rightly so. His views were so extreme they were rejected completely out of hand by the American people.

But fast forward almost thirty-six years, and one of the most significant realities of modern politics is just how successful David Koch and the like-minded billionaires attending his retreat have been at moving the Republican Party to the extreme right. The ideas above that were dismissed as downright crazy in 1980 are now part of today’s mainstream Republican thinking.

The Koch brothers, and billionaires like them, have bought up the private sector and now they’re buying up the government. It’s up to us to put a stop to them, but it will require all of us standing together with one voice on this issue.

Your donation to our campaign today is a contribution towards the dismantling of a corrupt system of campaign finance held in place by the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends:

Here’s the truth: The economic and political systems of this country are stacked against ordinary Americans. The rich get richer and use their wealth to buy elections, and I believe that we cannot change this corrupt system by taking its money. If we’re serious about creating jobs, health care for all, climate change, and the needs of our children and the elderly, we must be serious about campaign finance reform.

So far in this election, less than four hundred families have contributed the majority of all the money raised by all the candidates and super PACs combined. According to media reports, one family will spend more money in this election than either the Democratic or Republican Parties.

This is not democracy. This is oligarchy.

Our job is not to think small in this moment. The current system of campaign finance in this country is utterly corrupt. That is one of the reasons I am so proud of how we have funded our campaign — over 2.5 million contributions from working Americans giving less than $30 at a time. But our campaign is unique.

We must pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and I will not nominate any justice to the Supreme Court who does not make it abundantly clear that she or he will overturn that decision. We need legislation that requires wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign contributions to disclose where their money is going. And more importantly, I believe we need to move towards the public funding of elections.

Our vision for American democracy should be a nation in which all people, regardless of their income, can participate in the political process, can run for office without begging for contributions from the wealthy and the powerful.

Tomorrow afternoon I’ll be in New York City to deliver a major speech about our need to create a financial system that works for all Americans, not just the few. I’ll be in touch shortly after. I hope that you’ll keep an eye on your inbox for my message.

We must dismantle the corrupt system of campaign finance held in place by the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends. Contribute to our campaign today.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 Next > End >>

Page 2195 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN