HOW SAD WE ONLY HAVE ONE BERNIE SANDERS

The American People Are Angry

By Bernie Sanders/ OpEdNews.com/ June 28, 2012

The American people are angry.  They are angry that they are being forced to live through the worst recession in our lifetimes — with sky-high unemployment, with millions of people losing their homes and their life savings.  They are angry that they will not have a decent retirement, that they can’t afford to send their children to college, that they can’t afford health insurance and that, in some cases, they can’t even buy the food they need to adequately feed their families. 

They are angry because they know that this recession was not caused by the middle class and working families of this country. It was not caused by the teachers, firefighters and police officers and their unions who are under attack all over the country. It was not caused by c onstruction workers, factory workers, nurses or childcare workers.

This recession was caused by the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street.  And, what makes people furious is that Wall Street still has not learned its lessons.  Instead of investing in the job-creating productive economy providing affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses, the CEOs of the largest financial institutions in this country have created the largest gambling casino in the history of the world.

Four years ago, after spending billions of dollars to successfully fight for the deregulation of Wall Street, the CEOs of the big banks — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and the others — went on a losing streak.  The enormous bets they made on worthless, complex, and exotic financial instruments went bad, and they stuck the American people with the bill.

Wall Street received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world.  But it was not just the $700 billion that Congress approved through the TARP program.  As a result of an independent audit that I requested in the Dodd-Frank bill by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided a jaw-dropping $16 trillion in virtually zero-interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, large corporations, foreign central banks throughout the world, and some of the wealthiest people in this country.

And, instead of using this money to provide affordable loans to small businesses, instead of putting this money back into the job-creating productive economy, what have they done?  They have gone back to their days of running the largest gambling casino in the world.  In other words, they have learned nothing.

The American people are angry because they see the great middle class of this country collapsing, poverty increasing and the gap between the very rich and everyone else grow wider.  They are angry because they see this great country, which so many of our veterans fought for and died for, becoming an oligarchy — a nation where our economic and political life are controlled by a handful of billionaire families.

In the United States today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income since the 1920s.  Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America – 150 million people.

Today, the six heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune own more wealth than the bottom 30 percent.

Today, the top 1 percent own 40 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 60 percent owns less than 2 percent.  Incredibly, the bottom 40 percent of all Americans own just 0.3 percent of the wealth of the country.

According to a new study from the Federal Reserve, median net worth for middle class families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007 to 2010.  That’s the equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for the average middle class family.

The distribution of income is even worse.  If you can believe it, the last study on this subject showed that in 2010, 93 percent of all new income created from the previous year went to the top one percent, while the bottom 99 percent of people had the privilege of enjoying the remaining 7 percent. In other words, the rich are getting much richer while almost everyone else is falling behind.

Not only is this inequality of wealth and income morally grotesque, it is bad economic policy.  If working families are deeply in debt, and have little or no income to spend on goods and services, how can we expand the economy and create the millions of jobs we desperately need?  There is a limit as to how many yachts, mansions, limos and fancy jewelry the super-rich can buy.  We need to put income into the hands of working families.      (Continued Here)

Bernie Sanders is the Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont.

Some Boldface added by BPR Editor
Posted in Democratic Party, Economics, economy, elections, employment, government, inequality, labor, politics, poverty, protest, Republican Party, taxes, Wall Street | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nothing Here, Move On….

Posted in humor, media | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Human Rights: It’s So Last Decade

In a NY Times Op-Ed, Jimmy Carter calls out the U.S. government (while carefully omitting President Obama’s name) for it’s worsening human rights record. The former American president and Nobel Peace Prize winner, clearly unafraid to speak his mind (Carter has criticized every one of his successors at one time or another) condemns the many violations of the U.S. Constitution and international treaties by the Bush and Obama administrations since September 11, 2001. We need many more fearless critics like Carter. — The BPR Editor

A Cruel and Unusual Record

By Jimmy Carter/ New York Times / June 24. 2012

THE United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.

Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.

While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.

The declaration has been invoked by human rights activists and the international community to replace most of the world’s dictatorships with democracies and to promote the rule of law in domestic and global affairs. It is disturbing that, instead of strengthening these principles, our government’s counterterrorism policies are now clearly violating at least 10 of the declaration’s 30 articles, including the prohibition against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Recent legislation has made legal the president’s right to detain a person indefinitely on suspicion of affiliation with terrorist organizations or “associated forces,” a broad, vague power that can be abused without meaningful oversight from the courts or Congress (the law is currently being blocked by a federal judge). This law violates the right to freedom of expression and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, two other rights enshrined in the declaration.

In addition to American citizens’ being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications. Popular state laws permit detaining individuals because of their appearance, where they worship or with whom they associate.

Despite an arbitrary rule that any man killed by drones is declared an enemy terrorist, the death of nearby innocent women and children is accepted as inevitable. After more than 30 airstrikes on civilian homes this year in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has demanded that such attacks end, but the practice continues in areas of Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don’t know how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington. This would have been unthinkable in previous times.

These policies clearly affect American foreign policy. Top intelligence and military officials, as well as rights defenders in targeted areas, affirm that the great escalation in drone attacks has turned aggrieved families toward terrorist organizations, aroused civilian populations against us and permitted repressive governments to cite such actions to justify their own despotic behavior.

Meanwhile, the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, now houses 169 prisoners. About half have been cleared for release, yet have little prospect of ever obtaining their freedom. American authorities have revealed that, in order to obtain confessions, some of the few being tried (only in military courts) have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers. Astoundingly, these facts cannot be used as a defense by the accused, because the government claims they occurred under the cover of “national security.” Most of the other prisoners have no prospect of ever being charged or tried either.

At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.

As concerned citizens, we must persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership according to international human rights norms that we had officially adopted as our own and cherished throughout the years.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

 Boldface added by BPR Editor

Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, civil liberties, foreign policy, government, Justice, law, Pakistan, Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Morally Corrupt But Brilliant Secret Strategy of the Military/Industrial/Homeland Security Complex

by Arlen Grossman/ The Big Picture Report

“War is a racket… easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious… It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives….It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

Major General Smedley Butler, U.S. Marines,  from his book War Is a Racket, (1935) 

The Washington Post ran a story recently with this headline:  “In Yemen, U.S. Airstrikes Breed Anger, and Sympathy For Al-Qaeda.” The story told how “an escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes” have driven tribesmen in Yemen over to the side of  al-Qaeda-linked militants. Such blowback shouldn’t be a surprise–some say we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. If true, then why are we waging drone warfare more often and in more places than ever before?

The answer may be found in Naomi Klein’s 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,  in which she provides numerous examples of free-market fundamentalists swooping in on disaster areas all over the world, from Chile to Iraq to New Orleans and transforming tragic situations to their  ideological and financial advantage. Ground Zero in New York City provides another instructive example.

politifake.org

Powerful and influential segments of American society have profited immensely from the “War on Terror” since September 11, 2001. Trillions of dollars and millions of jobs in defense and homeland security have spun off from this never-ending “war.”  The news media is another beneficiary, enjoying a spike in ratings whenever it covers stories of terror threats, real or imagined, as well as armed conflict around the world. Right-wing politicians also benefit, intimidating opponents and winning votes with hawkish rhetoric and scare stories.

The fight against “terrorism” has boosted job security and profits big-time for the military-industrial-national security complex. The government can’t spend enough on weapons and homeland security, never having to fear opposition from either the Republican or Democratic parties.

A very few daring souls have suggested the threat of terrorism might be an exaggeration, a scam, or even a hoax. A case can be made that 9/11 was a well-planned aberration cleverly crafted by a relatively weak third-world organization without backup plans. The George W. Bush Administration used the terrorist trauma to start two wars and shred important parts of our Constitution. The First Ten Amendments might now be properly called “The Bill of Limited Rights.”

Is the “War on Terrorism” a scam? Sounds far-fetched, but not unprecedented. Just look back on our own history: “Remember the Maine!” (Spanish-American War)…The Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam)…WMDs (Iraq)…all false or questionable scenarios leading to unnecessary and costly wars.

Look how our country has changed since 2001. Where once we had the CIA (foreign) and the FBI (domestic), there are now, at last glance, 17 intelligence agencies. A 2010 Washington Post investigation reported “some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States…An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.”

Clearly, a lot of powerful and influential people are heavily invested in the national defense and homeland security gravy train. We are assured “The War on Terror” will end when the threat of terror is eliminated–which, when you think about it, translates to “never.”

 

bilderberg.org

Which brings me to the Morally Corrupt But Brilliant (and Extremely Lucrative) Secret Strategy of the Military/Industrial/National Security Complex:

(1) Send American soldiers, secret agents and/or unmanned drones, to target suspected militants. Inevitably we will sometimes kill the wrong people. We call it collateral damage, the rest of the world calls it killing innocent civilians.

(2) These terrorist acts on our part anger the citizens of these countries, and drive some of them into the arms of al-Qaeda and their wannabe affiliates. We end up helping recruit potential terrorists. Like the bumper sticker says: “We Are Creating Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them.”

(3) To combat the “increased threat” from these  amateur “terrorists,”  the U.S. funnels billions of dollars to government agencies and private contractors to devise bigger and newer ways to kill militants and spy on everybody (American citizens included).  In the process, more enemies are produced, leading to an inevitable  expansion of the “War on Terror.” (back to #1)

There you have it: a brilliant, morally corrupt, and profitable plan to inspire potential terrorists, churn out new military/national security jobs and weaponry, and maximize the obscene wealth of the well-connected corporations providing them.

When it all shakes out, we are left with the unfortunate victims of this duplicitous plan: innocent civilians killed and maimed abroad and, right here at home, Americans  struggling to stay above water in a failing and unforgiving economy.

ALSO PUBLISHED IN OPEDNEWS.COM June 28, 2012
Posted in civil liberties, Economics, economy, foreign policy, government, military, politics, Terrorism, war | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Faith: A No-Brainer

BPR Quote of the Day

“Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquesting faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying.”

Kurt Vonnegut

Posted in philosophy, Quotations, religion | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

MAYBE THE REVOLUTION ISN’T OVER

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of the death of the Occupy movement are greatly exaggerated. Chris Hedges makes the case that Occupy is lying dormant, ready to return in an as yet unknown form, to continue what it started. Hedges does not see the answer for what ails us coming through electoral politics. Because of the money and power of the One Percent, I believe his assessment is correct. Hedges and others believe the solution lies in a mass global movement. The seeds were planted here by Occupy Wall Street. Before it’s too late, we need Occupy to regenerate, in whatever form it needs to survive and grow, to continue the fight to recapture what the ruling elite has stolen.  –The BPR Editor

Occupy Will Be Back

By Chris Hedges/ Truthdig/ June 18, 2012

Photo by Paul Weiksel, Rights reserved

In every conflict, insurgency, uprising and revolution I have covered as a foreign correspondent, the power elite used periods of dormancy, lulls and setbacks to write off the opposition. This is why obituaries for the Occupy movement are in vogue. And this is why the next groundswell of popular protest—and there will be one—will be labeled as “unexpected,” a “shock” and a “surprise.” The television pundits and talking heads, the columnists and academics who declare the movement dead are as out of touch with reality now as they were on Sept. 17 when New York City’s Zuccotti Parkwas occupied. Nothing this movement does will ever be seen by them as a success. Nothing it does will ever be good enough. Nothing, short of its dissolution and the funneling of its energy back into the political system, will be considered beneficial.

Those who have the largest megaphones in our corporate state serve the very systems of power we are seeking to topple. They encourage us, whether on Fox or MSNBC, to debate inanities, trivia, gossip or the personal narratives of candidates. They seek to channel legitimate outrage and direct it into the black hole of corporate politics. They spin these silly, useless stories from the “left” or the “right” while ignoring the egregious assault by corporate power on the citizenry, an assault enabled by the Democrats and the Republicans. Don’t waste time watching or listening. They exist to confuse and demoralize you.

The engine of all protest movements rests, finally, not in the hands of the protesters but the ruling class. If the ruling class responds rationally to the grievances and injustices that drive people into the streets, as it did during the New Deal, if it institutes jobs programs for the poor and the young, a prolongation of unemployment benefits (which hundreds of thousands of Americans have just lost), improved Medicare for all, infrastructure projects, a moratorium on foreclosures and bank repossessions, and a forgiveness of student debt, then a mass movement can be diluted. Under a rational ruling class, one that responds to the demands of the citizenry, the energy in the street can be channeled back into the mainstream. But once the system calcifies as a servant of the interests of the corporate elites, as has happened in the United States, formal political power thwarts justice rather than advances it.

Our dying corporate class, corrupt, engorged on obscene profits and indifferent to human suffering, is the guarantee that the mass movement will expand and flourish. No one knows when. No one knows how. The future movement may not resemble Occupy. It may not even bear the name Occupy. But it will come. I have seen this before. And we should use this time to prepare, to educate ourselves about the best ways to fight back, to learn from our mistakes, as many Occupiers are doing in New York, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and other cities. There are dark and turbulent days ahead. There are powerful and frightening forces of hate, backed by corporate money, that will seek to hijack public rage and frustration to create a culture of fear. It is not certain we will win. But it is certain this is not over.

“We had a very powerful first six months,” Kevin Zeese, one of the original organizers of the Occupy encampment in Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., said when I reached him by phone. “We impacted the debate. We impacted policy. We showed people they are not alone. We exposed the unfair economy and our dysfunctional government. We showed people they could have an impact. We showed people they could have power. We let the genie out of the bottle. No one will put it back in.”

The physical eradication of the encampments and efforts by the corporate state to disrupt the movement through surveillance, entrapment, intimidation and infiltration have knocked many off balance. That was the intent. But there continue to be important pockets of resistance. These enclaves will provide fertile ground and direction once mass protests return. It is imperative that, no matter how dispirited we may become, we resist being lured into the dead game of electoral politics.

“The recent election in Wisconsin shows why Occupy should stay out of the elections,” Zeese said. “Many of the people who organized the Wisconsin occupation of the Capitol building became involved in the recall. First, they spent a lot of time and money collecting more than 1 million signatures. Second, they got involved in the primary where the Democrats picked someone who was not very supportive of union rights and who lost to [Gov. Scott] Walker just a couple of years ago. Third, the general election effort was corrupted by billionaire dollars. They lost. Occupy got involved in politics. What did they get? What would they have gotten if they won? They would have gotten a weak, corporate Democrat who in a couple of years would be hated. That would have undermined their credibility and demobilized their movement. Now, they have to restart their resistance movement.

“Would it not have been better if those who organized the occupation of the Capitol continued to organize an independent, mass resistance movement?” Zeese asked. “They already had strong organization in Madison, and in Dane County as well as nearby counties. They could have developed a Montreal-like movementof mass protest that stopped the function of government and built people power. Every time Walker pushed something extreme they could have been out in the streets and in the Legislature disrupting it. They could have organized general and targeted strikes. They would have built their strength. And by the time Walker faced re-election he would have been easily defeated.

“Elections are something that Occupy needs to continue to avoid,” Zeese said. “The Obama-Romney debate is not a discussion of the concerns of the American people. Obama sometimes uses Occupy language, but he puts forth virtually no job creation, nothing to end the wealth divide and no real tax reform. On tax reform, the Buffett rule—that the secretary should pay the same tax rate as the boss—is totally insufficient. We should be debating whether to go back to the Eisenhower tax rates of 91 percent, the Nixon tax rate of 70 percent or the Reagan tax rate of 50 percent for the top income earners—not whether secretaries and CEOs should be taxed at the same rate!”

The Occupy movement is not finally about occupying. It is, as Zeese points out, about shifting power from the 1 percent to the 99 percent. It is a tactic. And tactics evolve and change. The freedom rides, the sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, the marches in Birmingham and the Montgomery bus boycott were tactics used in the civil rights movement. And just as the civil rights movement often borrowed tactics used by the old Communist Party, which long foughtsegregation in the South, the Occupy movement, as Zeese points out, draws on earlier protests against global trade agreements and the worldwide protests over the invasion of Iraq. Each was, like the Occupy movement, a global response. And this is a global movement.  (Continued Here)

Boldface added by BPR Editor
Posted in elections, Occupy, Occupy Wall Street, politics, protest, protests | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Indentured Students

Posted in economy, Education, finance, politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama Molests Children?

BPR Quote of the Day

“Emperor Obama obviously could not care less about helping the Latino population. When Democrats had control of both houses of Congress he did absolutely nothing for them.   Now he’s doing to Latinos what Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky allegedly did to the children of Pennsylvania — using and abusing them.“

Michael Reagan, in his June 21 column, “It’s Nice to be Emperor.”

Posted in Barack Obama, Quotations | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Republican Fantasy

Posted in elections, humor, Republican Party | Tagged , | Leave a comment

DRONES: THE NEW TERRORISM

I have three major problems with drone warfare: (1) Assassinating real people in a video-game format with no risk to the killer strikes me as immoral. (2) Drone warfare makes war too simple to wage. We can send drones so effortlessly and without risk to American troops, thereby encouraging our government to use them more often and in more countries. And since we’re not sending soldiers, we can claim we’re not violating international law. (3) By using drones in civilian areas, and inevitably killing innocent people, we are creating enemies and future terrorists faster than we are killing them. —BPR Editor

Drone Strikes Threaten 50 Years of International Law, Says UN Rapporteur

US policy of using drone strikes to carry out targeted killings ‘may encourage other states to flout international law’

By Owen Bowcott/ The Guardian/ June 21, 2012

Predator Drone

In his strongest critique of drone strikes yet, Christof Heynes said some may constitute war crimes. Photograph: Getty Images

The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.

Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama’s attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.

In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute “war crimes”. His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Addressing the conference, which was organised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a second UN rapporteur, Ben Emmerson QC, who monitors counter-terrorism, announced he would be prioritising inquiries into drone strikes.

The London-based barrister said the issue was moving rapidly up the international agenda after China and Russia this week jointly issued a statement at the UN Human Rights Council, backed by other countries, condemning drone attacks.

If the US or any other states responsible for attacks outside recognised war zones did not establish independent investigations into each killing, Emmerson emphasised, then “the UN itself should consider establishing an investigatory body”.

Also present was Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Zamir Akram, who called for international legal action to halt the “totally counterproductive attacks” by the US in his country.

Heyns, a South African law professor, told the meeting: “Are we to accept major changes to the international legal system which has been in existence since world war two and survived nuclear threats?”

Some states, he added, “find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it’s recognised as being an armed conflict.”

If it is true, he said, that “there have been secondary drone strikes on rescuers who are helping (the injured) after an initial drone attack, those further attacks are a war crime”.

Heyns ridiculed the US suggestion that targeted UAV strikes on al-Qaida or allied groups were a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. “It’s difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to [events] in 2001,” he said. “Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.

“The targeting is often operated by intelligence agencies which fall outside the scope of accountability. The term ‘targeted killing’ is wrong because it suggests little violence has occurred. The collateral damage may be less than aerial bombardment, but because they eliminate the risk to soldiers they can be used more often.”

Heyns told the Guardian later that his future inquiries are likely to include the question of whether other countries, such as the UK, share intelligence with the US that could be used for selecting individuals as targets. A legal case has already been lodged in London over the UK’s alleged role in the deaths of British citizens and others as a consequence of US drone strikes in Pakistan.

Emmerson said that protection of the right to life required countries to establish independent inquiries into each drone killing. “That needs to be applied in the context of targeted killings,” he said. “It’s possible for a state to establish an independent ombudsman to inquire into every attack and there needs to be a report to justify [the killing].”

Alternatively, he said, it was “for the UN itself to consider establishing an investigatory body. Drones attacks by the US raise fundamental questions which are a direct consequence of my mandate… If they don’t [investigate] themselves, we will do it for them.”

It is time, he added, to end the “conspiracy of silence” over drone attacks and “shine the light of independent investigation” into the process. The attacks, he noted, were not only on those who had been killed but on the system of “international law itself”.   (Continued Here)

Boldface added by BPR Editor
Posted in Afghanistan, foreign policy, Iraq, military, Pakistan, Terrorism, war | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment