As April’s green endures; or will endure
--WALLACE STEVENS
A Letter From Iowa: Plutocracy replacing democracy
Deregulation and lower taxes at the top have created a new class of corporate plutocrats. They spend hundreds of millions to tilt elections. They want to control government by starving it. They want to shift their taxes onto everyone else. They want to send more to the top, less to the bottom, and squeeze the middle-class.
People they elected gave us a devalued dollar, budget and trade deficits, foreclosures, unemployment, a shrinking middle class, a depression, the biggest transfer of wealth in history, torture, rendition, secret tribunals, invasion under false pretenses, spying on citizens, suspending civil rights, and the war that never ends. Must we wait for genocide to call this what it is?
Fascism is not a mustachioed man shouting with his arm out. Fascism is when capital controls government. Fascism is the idea that big business should do whatever it wants.
This idea gnaws at America like a viperous worm. The more it eats, the hungrier it gets. It kills unions, jobs, the economy and the middle class. No democracy has come into existence or long-endured in the absence of a strong middle class.
When plutocracy replaces democracy, oligarchy and dictatorship follow. Plutocrats such as Gustav Krupp brought Adolf Hitler to power, thinking they could profit. The Koch brothers and their ilk are making the same mistake—they’re unleashing hate they can’t control.
It happened to Italy and Germany, and it’s happening here. Fascism.The most dangerous snake is the one we don’t see.
Dr. James Sutton, The Daily Iowan, November 14, 2011
24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
Matthew 27:24
22When you harvest your grain, always leave some of it standing around the edges of your fields and don't pick up what falls on the ground. Leave it for the poor and for those foreigners who live among you. I am the LORD your God!
Leviticus 23:22
Déjà vu All Over Again: Republicans Wooing the Jews 2012
A panel discussion hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition Chicago Chapter on June 23, 2011 featuring Richard Baehr, chief political correspondent for the American Thinker, Matthew RJ Brodsky, director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center and the editor of inFOCUS Quarterly, and Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law and an expert in constitutional and international law.
BBC WORLD SERVICE
JERUSALEM) � A Palestinian protester hit in the face by a projectile fired by Israeli forces died of his wounds Saturday, activists said. Witnesses…
JERUSALEM � A Palestinian protester hit in the face by a projectile fired by Israeli forces died of his wounds Saturday, activists said. Witnesses…
A Palestinian protester hit in the face by a projectile fired by Israeli forces died of his wounds Saturday, said an activist and a member of…
James Moore, Karl Rove, and Wayne Slater
James Moore and Wayne Slater in The Architect: Karl Rove and The Master Plan for Absolute Power (2006) write that Karl Rove’s plan for winning the White House for George W. Bush and asserting overwhelming Republican control of American democracy involved acquiring significant Jewish support. He intended to do that by tilting his candidate and the GOP toward Israel, thereby attracting both Jewish voters and conservative evangelicals who’re convinced that the nation of Israel is vital to the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. (50-1)
Rove had to fashion an improble coalition of Jews and Christians, if he were to cause long-term damage to the Democratic Party and get Bush elected president in 2000. To overcome the distance betwwn Jews and Christians was a problem for Karl Rove. Crucial to the success of his effort to build an enduring Republican political machine was the ability to manage the support of Christian conservatives while making entreaties to the Jewish vote.
Marrying conservative Christians and Jews in a politcal alliance was a critical element in Rove’s long-range planning. And the key to that alliance was a mutual interest in the security of Israel. For Christian evangelicals, the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was hugely significant, since it was viewed as a manifestation of biblical prophesies. The relationship between American evangelicals and Israel deepened considerably with the success of popular broadcast ministries that preached an “end-times” the theology and prompted conservative Protestant leaders to take a newfound interest in Middle East politics.
Jewish voters accounted for only about 2 percent of the U.S. population but were an important source of campaign money to Democrats—funds Rove envisioned diverting to the GOP. (59)
Bush In Office Loyal to Zionism and to Israel
Bush knew the role Jewish money had played in getting him elected, and as a result of Rove’s ministrations and relationships with Jewish political leaders in the United States, he’d also grown to see Israel’s destiny as inevitably connected to America’s. His Bible, he believed, also told him as much. The attacks of 9/11 seemed to confirm for Bush that he’d chosen the right side in a ancient conflict [since 1948]. (60)
George W. Bush as a president who’d famously bragged that he didn’t read newspapers or deeply study policy had surrounded himself with advisers whose interest in Israel’s soverignty and safety might have outweighed their concern for the the United Sates. The president and the the vice president took daily briefings, anylysis, and advice from senior staffers and think-tank analysists whose perspective had long been influenced by assumptions about Israel’s importance.
Many of these adminstration counselors had been involved in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a proposal drafted by neoconservatives who’d been arguing for more than a decade for a U.S. miltary presence in the Middle East and an invsion of Iraq. The White House sought little input from those articulating the Arab point of view. The vice president’s office acquired even less.
The default position for all of President Bush’s Middle East decisions was always to favor Israel. This was what Karl Rove had planned. He wanted the president to be aggressively pro-Israel to prompt money and votes to flow from American Jewish voters and to show his solidarity with the beliefs of the Christian Right. This fit nicely with the broader policies outlined by the PNAC to project American force into the Mideast with the unspoken goal of protecting Israel while also promoting democracies [the Arab Spring while flattening Israel’s enemies: Lebanon, Libya, Syria, and Iran] in the Arab world. It was a dangerous, provocative approach to shoring up domestic politcal suppport for the president.
And it was to lead to a crisis that threatened the very existence of the Bush administration (61)
Bush the Promise Keeper
George W. Bush kept his promise to Israel, and Jews in the United States responded with an increase in votes and Republican campaign contributions. Private White House dinners with Karl Rove and about twenty of the country’s prominent Jewish leaders prior to the reelection campaign secured a deep commitment to Israel by Bush. The president had already fill his administration with appointees whose political convictions regarding Israel were so strong that they were, as a minimum, accused of having “dual loyalties” and, in the worst case, were described as “Israel-firsters.”
The most influential of the Bush choices were Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith, while Vice President Dick Cheney turned to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, John Hannah, and David Wurmser, all of whom had exhibited a predisposition to favor Israel in policy and decision-making processes. (194)
During the course of their careers in government lobbying, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle had all been suspected of various actions taken to benefit Isreal. Wolfowitz was once investigated for passing classified information to an Israeli official through the lobbying group AIPAC.
The Usual Suspects as Traitors and Double Agents
Nearly every one of the people we would identify as neo-cons has had problems with their security clearances,” said seventeen-year Mideast CIA vetran Philip Giraldi, “because they’ve been giving information to Israel or they are suspected thereof.”
In addition to their unflagging commitment to Israel, most of the neoconservativse promoting the Iraq invasion had a common connection to Michael Ledeen. A founding member of the board of advisers for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) (Vice president Dick Cheney was also an adviser before taking office) in Washington and the creator of the Center for Democracy in Iran (CDI), Ledeen has been considered by the CIA and the Italian government to be “an agent of influence for Israel.” Ledeen insists he has never done any politcal work for Israel, “nor any other kind of work.” (195)
WAR AND US BANKRUPTCY~READING THE RUENS
Martin Jacques in When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order (2009) makes the connection between Neocons (the Republican Jewish Coalition), the so-called War on Terror and the present financial crisis. He writes that following 9/11, the United States not only saw itself as the sole superpower but attempted to establish a new global role which reflected that pre-eminence.
The neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century, established in 1997 by, amongst others, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz [with William Kristol as Chairman], adopted a statement of principles which articulated the new doctrine and helped prepare the ground for the Bush administration:
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievments of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
In 2004 the influential neo-conservative Charles Krauthammer wrote:
On December 26, 1991, the Soviet Union died and something new was born, something utterly new—a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower unchecked by any rival and with decisive reach in every corner of the globe. This is a stagering development in history, not seen since the fall of Rome.
Jacques writes that the new century dawned with the world deeply aware of and preoccupied by the prospect of what appeared to be overwhelming American power. The neo-conservatives chose to interpret the world through the prism of the defeat of the Soviet Union and the overwhelming military superiority enjoyed by the United State, rather than in terms of the underlying trend toward economic multipolarity, which was downplayed.
The new doctrine placed a premium on the importance of the United States maintaining a huge military lead over other countries in order to deter potential rivals, and on the US pursuing its own interest rather than being constrained either by its allies or international agreements.
Best Laid Plans of PNAC
In the post-Cold War era, US military expediture was almost as great as that of all the other nations of the world combined: never in the history of the human race has the military inequality between one nation and all others been so great. The Bush II presidency’s foreign policy marked an important shift compared with that of previous administrations: the war on terror became the new imperative, America’s relations with Western Europe were accorded reduced signicance, the principle of natioanal sovereignty was denigrated and that of regime-change affirmed, culminating in the invasion of Iraq. Far from the United States presiding over a reshaping of global affairs, however, it rapidly found itself beleaguered in Iraq and enjoying less golbal support than at any time since 1945.
The exercise of overwhelming military power proved of little effect in Iraq but served to squander the reserves of soft power—in Joseph S. Nye’s words, ‘the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals and policies’—that the United States had accumulated since 1945.
Failing to comprehend the significance of deeper economic trends, as well as misreading the situation in Iraq, the Bush administration overestimated American power and thereby overplayed its hand, with the consequence that its policies had exactly the opposite effect to that which had been intended: instead of enhancing the US’s position in the world, Bush’s foreign policy seriously weakened it. The neo-conservative position represented a catastrophic misread of history. (5)
Military and political power rest on economic strength. America’s present superpower status is a product of its rapid economic growth between 1870 and 1950 [owing much to the Marshall Plan] and the fact that during the second half of the twentieth century it was the world’s largest and often most dynamic economy, [both Europe and Japan were in ruin]. This economic strength underpinned and made possible its astonishing political, cultural and military power from 1945 onwards.
The precondition for being a hegemonic power, including the ability or otherwise to preside over a formal or informal empire, is economic strength. In the long run at least, it is a merciless measure. Notwithstanding this, imperial powers in decline are almost invaribly in denial of the fact.
That was the case with Britain from 1918 onwards and, to judge by the behavior of the Bush administration (though perhaps not Obama’s--which failed to read the runes, preferring to believe that the US was about to rule the world in a new American century when the country was actually in decline and on the eve of a world in which it would find its authority considerably diminished—the US may well make the same mistake, perhaps on a much grander scale.
The financial meltdown in 2008 belatedly persuaded a growing number of American commentators that the United States might after all be in decline, but was still a far cry from general recognition of the extent and irresversiblity of that decline and how it might dimish American power and influence in the future [all at the behest of Neocons advisers blinded by their loyalty to Isreal]. (6)
Jacques further examines the cost of the invasion of Iraq. He write that it has been estimated that the total budgetary and economic cost to the United States of the Iraq war will turn out to be around $3 trillion. Even this level of expenditure, the armed forces have come under huge strain as a result of the war. Deployments have got steadily longer and redeployments more frequent, retention rates and recruitment standards have fallen, while the army has lost many of its brightest and best, with remorseless rise in the number of officers choosing to leave at the earliest opportunity.
U.S. Moves On, But Can't Leave Iraq Behind
December 11, 2011
Nearly nine years after the Iraq war began, the U.S. is winding down its involvement there. Host Audie Cornish speaks with Stuart Bowen, the special inspector for Iraq reconstruction, about lessons learned and challenges ahead. http://www.npr.org/2011/12/11/143532101/u-s-moves-on-but-cant-leave-iraq-behind
Such has been the inordinate cost of the Iraqi occupation that, regardless of politcal considerations, the financial burden of any similar proposed invasion of Iran—in practice likely to be much higher—would always have been too large: for miltary as well as polical reasons [much to the consternation of the Neocons], the Bush administration was unable to seriously contemplete similar military action against Iran and North Korea, the other two members of its ‘axis of evil.’
The United States is, thus, already beginning to face the classic problems of imperial overeach. The burden of maintaining a huge global military presence, with over 800 American bases dotted around the world, has been one of the causes of the US’s enormous current deficit, which in 2006 accounted for 6.5 percent of US GDP.
HAND WASHING
Lawrence Grossman and David Singer, Editors of American Jewish Yearbook 2004
Editors Lawerence Grossman and David Singer believe the accusations about the implication of the American Zionists within the Bush administration promoting the Iraq War is “American anti-Semitism.” They posit in the American Jewish Year Book 2004 that the debate in 2003 over going to war in Iraq was another “conflict situation” with a potential for anti-Semitic fallout, as charges circulated about an undue and inappropriate level of Jewish involvement in the formulation of American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.
At antiwar rallies held on February 15, support for the Palestinians was clearly in evidence, although the focus was on opposition to the impending war and anti-Jewish organizations carefully avoided voicing support for war before it began. Many of the critics of the war, it should be noted, including some of the most vociferous—such as MIT liguist Norm chomsky—were Jews.
There was considerable speculation among the pundits about the influence of Israel and American Jews on the White House’s Iraq policy. Of particular interest was the role played by several Jewish “hawks” in the administration, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and others.
Often, the word “Jew” was eschewed so as to avoid any imputation of anti-Semitism, the loaded epithet replaced by the euphemism “neoconservative” [the naming of which Irving Kristol himself took credit for as godfather of neoconservatism]. Yet another strategy to hint at a Jewish role without explicitedly saying so was provided by James Atlas in the New York Times (May 4), who documented the record of “Straussians” (alleged followers of the late University of chicago politcal philospher Leo Strauss)—most of whom were Jews—in the administration. Former Senator Gary Hart, speaking at Stanford University on February 10, was the first mainstream figure to suggest that certain Americans “can’t separate their layalty to their original homeland” from loyalty to America. Hart later maintained that he was not referring to any specific group, [thus, blunting the truth to avoid the charge of anti-Semitism].
Grossman and Singer write that it is fringe groups and extremists, as expected, were vocal in their criticism of alledged Jewish involvement in formenting war. “Israel’s war” and “a war for the Jews” were common themes in the anti-Semitic media all through the year. (80-1)
INVITED CANDIDATES PLEDGE THEIR LOYALTY TO ISRAEL
Favorite Son
In 1995, Time magazine named Newt Gingrich "Man of the Year" for his role in ending the four-decades-long Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.
Gingrich's Path From 'Flameout' To D.C. Entrepreneur
December 8, 2011
A new poll released Wednesday by Time magazine and CNN finds Newt Gingrich staying ahead of Mitt Romney in three out of the four states with January primaries or caucuses. http://www.npr.org/2011/12/08/143281791/gingrichs-path-from-flameout-to-d-c-entrepreneur
Disfavored Son
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul spoke at a town hall meeting at the Ericson Public Library in Boone, Iowa, on Thursday before a university rally.
Ron Paul's Young Fans Flock To Him In Iowa
by Brian Naylor
December 9, 2011
At first glance, it's not easy to figure why Ron Paul is so popular with young people. At 76, he's old enough to be their grandfather, something he alluded to at a packed rally at Iowa State University in Ames on Thursday night. http://www.npr.org/2011/12/09/143429353/ron-pauls-young-fans-flock-to-him-in-iowa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00jszjv
The future for the American Dream
Media :
Availability:
Available to listen.
Last broadcast on Fri, 2 Sep 2011, 12:32 on BBC World Service (see all broadcasts).
Synopsis
Business Daily is in rural New Jersey, in the USA - to look at how the economic troubles of the last decade have squeezed the middle classes.
Lesley Curwen talks to a young couple, Christina and Steve, who graduated from school in 2001. They tell her about the financial hardships of the last decade.
The former governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine warns of the danger that young Americans WON'T be able to better themselves. Is the American Dream really dead or just sleeping?
However, Lesley also hears from Christina's brother, Devon, who graduated this year. He has a stock market portfolio and is sure he will be able to make his way successfully in the world.
Corzine Claims No Knowledge Of MF Global's Missing Money
by Yuki Noguchi
December 9, 2011
Former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine testified on Capitol Hill on Thursday day. The former New Jersey Senator and governor was subpoenaed by a congressional panel that wanted to hear how MF Global wound up in bankruptcy. Corzine apologized repeatedly but denied knowingly breaking any rules. http://www.npr.org/2011/12/09/143429355/corzine-claims-no-knowledge-of-mf-globals-missing-money
Tell Any Truth But That
Why was Ron Paul disrespected by the Jewish Republicans? It is not because he is an anti-Semitic, but because he tells an American truth that is not allowed even to be whispered in American society: Israel does not need the United States for its protection, nor for it foreign aid. This is documented in George Friedman’s The Next Decade: Where We’ve Been . . . and Where We’re Going (2011); and Avraham Burg’s The Holocaust Is Over, We Must Rise From It’s Ashes (2008).
George Friedman writes that Israel of today is strategically secure. It has become the dominant power among the bordering states by creating a regional balance of power among its neighbors that is based on mutual hostility as well as dependence by some of them on Israel [despite the so-called Arab Spring].
BBC World Service
Tunisia strikes out towards democracy, while Egypt's protesters take to the streets once more. Libya shakes off its ruler but finds national consensus…
Friedman posits that for Israel, foreign aid means far less than close ties with U.S. hedge funds do. Israel is quite capable of handling itself financially. What foreign aid signifies to Israel, which has no formal treaty with the United States, is a public commitment by the United States to Israel. Israel uses that as a card both in the region and to comfort Israeli public opinion.
What the United States once got in return for that aid was a stable partner in the region, which could not manage without the money. Now the United States has a partner regardless of the aid. On the negative side of the ledger, the aid provides grounds for Islamicist arguments that the United States is the source of all their problems, including ruthless behavior on the part of the Israelis. Given that the aid is marginal in importance, that price is too high. Giving up this commitment to aid would actually help Israel by eliminating a prime argument of the anti-Israeli lobby in the United State. (103)
Avraham Burg, a former member is the Israel Knesset, writes that in Israel and in America, the guilt complex over the Shoah (Jewish Holocaust) created a national obsession of exaggerated securitism, the longing for power that often morphs into primitive belligerence. In America, the collective feeling of guilt that more could have been done if the U.S. government was prodded to act sooner is ever present [instead of emphasizing the fact that Jews worldwide were not considered to be members of the White Race and that it was Western Cultural Racism that helped the holocaust to progress].
I [Burg] do not know the details of the Jewish American experience, but I know the leadership pretty well. The Jewish masses are diverse and have a much more sophisticated agenda than presented and expressed by their leadership. The destruction of the Shoah seems to have been burned into the leaders’ minds. One result is that Jewish American leaders tend to justify their government’s wars and support the most right-wing foreign policies, especially vis-à-vis Israel and the Middle East.
They are against everybody, including Germany, Russia, and the Arab countries. Furthermore, the official organized Jewish voice is a power to reckon with in every election campaign. It is very difficult to be elected to high office in America against the wishes of the Jewish lobby. Financial and organizational resources, public support, legitimacy—and not least, the damage the Jewish lobby can cause to unwanted candidates—turn Jewish involvement in American politics into a factor with strategic international consequences. (40)
Jewish influence sometimes causes American political candidates to sound like Shoah victims. “Never again” speeches, Auschwitz themes, and black skullcaps during memorial ceremonies, complete with God full of Mercy prayers, are frequent. The inevitable outcome of this attitude is a feeling of power, and the further erosion of the Jewish idea of revival that was the basis for American Jewish autonomy. American Jews, like Israelis, are stuck in Auschwitz, raising the Shoah banner high to the sky and exploiting it politically. (40-1)
'Newt-Romney' Dominates Iowa Debate
by Don Gonyea
December 11, 2011
Six GOP presidential hopefuls met in a two-hour-long debate in Des Moines, Iowa, Saturday night, and this time the gloves came off. http://www.npr.org/2011/12/11/143521611/newt-romney-takes-iowa-debates-center-stage
RELIGION AND POLITICS~STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
Newt Gingrich has caught a wave of support these last few weeks, much of it from religious conservatives, a group that has significant influence in many state primaries. Host Scott Simon talks with Bob Vander Plaats, a leading social conservative who heads the Family Leader advocacy group, about the role of religious conservatives in the Iowa caucuses.
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/10/143497220/how-religious-conservatives-shape-the-gop-race
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
David Biddle
jmac1949
Snowden
libbyliberalnyc
skypixie0
Jimmy Zuma
Salon.com
Comments
In retrospect, Rove's strategy was like shooting fish in a barrel. All he had to do was yell "liberal" and find a candidate who appealed to the establishment and the fundies, who are mostly illiterate and follow their leaders.
Even though, of course, historically, it was liberals who supported Israel after WWII and conservatives wanted nothing to do with "them." I still personally believe it is only a marriage of convenience and eventually the traditional paranoia of the sects and tribal allegiances and xenophobia of the american right will win out.
Meanwhile, we have to suffer these miserable dwebs calling those of us against the Israeli right wing "anti-Semites." It's disgusting, but until liberals in Israel have had enough I'm afraid we're stuck with it.