Grand Theft America

Grand Theft America - by Stephen Lendman

The crime of the century. The greatest one ever. Author Danny Schechter calls it "Plunder." The title of his important new book on the subprime and overall financial crisis. Economist Michael Hudson and others refer to a kleptocracy. A Ponzi scheme writ large. Maybe an out-of-control Andromeda Strain. An economic one. Deadly. Unrecallable. Science fiction now real life. Potentially catastrophic. World governments trying to contain it. Trying everything but not sure what can work. Maybe only able to paper it over for short-term relief. Buy time but in the end vindicate the maxim that things that can't go on forever, won't.

The world as we know it is changing. Industrial capitalism. The entire global economic system. Interconnected. What affects one nation touches others. If the troubled country is America it reaches everywhere, and if the crisis is great enough, the disease may be fatal and human wreckage catastrophic. Precisely the current dilemma that world leaders and financial experts are scrambling to figure out. Desperate to contain, and not sure what, if anything, can work. How did this happen and why?

The result of unfettered capitalism's fatal flaw - unbridled greed in a rigged system that rewards the few at the expense of most others. First an explanation of how it works. Free-wheeling, "free market" Chicago School fundamentalism the way economist Milton Friedman championed it in his 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" and taught it to students for decades. He believed that government's sole function is "to protect our freedom both from (outside) enemies....and from our fellow-citizens." Preserve law and order. Enforce private contracts. Protect private property and "foster competitive (unregulated) markets." Everything else in public hands is "socialism....blasphemy." Not to be tolerated.

He said "free markets" work best. Unfettered by rules, regulations, onerous taxes or any at all, trade barriers, entrenched interests, and human interference. That anything government does, business does better, so let it. That the best government is one that governs least. That public wealth should be in private hands. The accumulation of profits unrestrained. Corporate taxes abolished. Social services also, and that "economic freedom is an end to itself....and an indispensable means toward (achieving) political freedom."

He called most all government interference a restriction of freedom. Opposed foreign aid. Subsidies. Import quotas and tariffs, and illicit drug laws for being a subsidy to organized crime, but he found no fault with major banks laundering their profits. He believed business should be unrestrained in maximizing them, even the illegal kind apparently.

He opposed the minimum wage and right of unions to bargain collectively on equal terms with management. He believed high wages and benefits harm everyone. They raise prices, and in the end, hurt workers as well as management. He called Social Security "The Biggest Ponzi Scheme on Earth," even though it's been the most effective poverty reduction program ever for millions of seniors who'd be desperate without it. Especially today given a deepening economic crisis. The nation's social safety net disappearing, and heading everyone toward managing on his or her own. Dependent on their ingenuity, resources, and good fortune. Milton Friedman's ideal world. For those who can't make it, it's their own fault. It's everyone for him or herself in his judgment, and let the devil take the hindmost.

As for today's largest ever unraveling Ponzi scheme, it's just the workings of the "free market." Creative destruction. "Freedom to choose." The best of all possible worlds, and unfettered capitalism will figure out the right solutions. Provided government gets out of the way and gives it free reign. Free money also to wreck world economies and human lives even more than what's already done.

The Chickens Are Home to Roost

Are they ever, and here's what we've got. A global asset bubble. A predictable crisis allowed to build and mushroom. Begun after Chicago School economics took hold under Ronald Reagan. Continued under GHW Bush. Became religion under Bill Clinton, and ultimately fundamentalism under GW Bush.

The result - a "slow motion train wreck" gaining speed. Banks and other financial institutions failing globally. On September 25, the largest bank failure in US history with Washington Mutual's collapse. Earlier it was giant insurer AIG. Before that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch a forced liquidation to Bank of America.

Others are now teetering on the edge. Strapped by toxic debt. The result of out-of-control greed for easy profits. Massive fraud to get them. Thinking they're the best and brightest, and only mere mortals mess up. Knowing Fed moral hazard will cushion them if they do. True for some. Not for others, and learning that the Federal Reserve (the world's key central bank) failed in its primary job. To protect the country's financial system from insolvency. By contributing to a financial crisis and one of confidence. By creating near-limitless amounts of capital. Fueling a housing bubble. Outsized consumer debt, and irresponsible investments free from government oversight. Fraudulent ones involving multi-trillions of dollars.

Partnering with government to make it easy. Risking a global economic meltdown as a result. Scrambling to find solutions. Unsure if there are any. The present crisis is unparalled. Maybe it can be fixed, and maybe not. The problem is multi-fold. A perfect storm involving:

-- residential housing;

-- commercial real estate;

-- consumer over-indebtedness;

-- unknown amounts of toxic debt (in the multi-trillions);

-- affecting world finance and economies;

-- causing bankruptcies;

-- many more will follow;

-- selected ones bailed out;

-- the entire system endangered;

-- consumer money market, bank accounts and private pension funds as well; government backing is needed to protect them; there's not enough money to do it; and

-- the contagion is spreading; threatening world economies and people everywhere.

This time is really different. A $700 billion bailout (called the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - EESA) is just a down payment. Trillions will be needed in the end. Other nations contributing to help. The problems are deeper and more intractable than anyone expected. Before this ends, unimaginable amounts of capital will be written off. Too much to even contemplate. Bad investments contaminating good ones. Threatening world financial structures with paralysis. Severe economic damage to their economies as a result.

Eroding industrial capitalism as we know it. At best managing a short-term fix and delaying a final denouement for a later time. Under new management with the current and past ones claiming no responsibility. And unmindful of millions of homeowners facing foreclosure and bankruptcy. One in ten currently behind in their payments. Others losing their jobs and way of life. They're the most vulnerable. Least able to cope, and for some their ability to survive.

According to The New York Times, here's how the Paulson scheme helps them: "it requires the government to use its new role as owner of distressed mortgage-backed securities to make 'more aggressive' efforts to prevent home foreclosures." Weasel words. No specifics. No assurances, and nothing apparently for homeowners already in foreclosure.

On September 22, ahead of the announced agreement, American Research Group (ASG) published its latest public sentiment poll results, and they were stunning. At 19%, George Bush scored lowest ever for a US president, surpassing Harry Truman at the depth of the Korean War and Richard Nixon during Watergate. It came at a time ASG's results showed 82% of Americans believe the economy is getting worse, and only 17% approve of how Bush is handling it. Among registered voters, the number is 18% at a time no one surveyed (zero percent) said the economy is improving and 68% say it's in recession. True or false, it's how they feel. How the crisis affects them, and that's what counts most.

Yet on September 24, the president addressed the nation audaciously. Callously dismissing public pain and anger. Deceitfully stating outright lies. A typical performance. Demanded that Congress give the treasury secretary carte blanche authority over $700 billion to address "a serious financial crisis." Asked taxpayers to pay for corporate fraud. Reward criminals and ignore their crimes. Said nothing about the root cause. The effect on ordinary people, or how Paulson's scheme will help them. Ignored growing public opposition. Large numbers of credible observers believing the proposed solution is worse than the problem. The most honest of them saying it will enrich fraudsters and offer no help for homeowners.

Yet Bush concluded that "democratic capitalism (is the) best system the world has ever devised" in spite of clear evidence that it's broken and corrupted. Exploits people for profit. Enriches the few at the expense of the many. Rewards criminals for their crimes. Protects the rich from beneficial social change.

Ahead of the president's address on September 24, The New York Times showed a rare display of candor in a critical Timothy Egan opinion piece. About "nearly nationalizing the banking system and giving the treasury secretary more power than a king....whose decisions may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." He asked readers to remember "where the biggest heist took place, and how Wall Street dragged down the rest of the country once before," referring to the Great Depression but leaving out everything in between.

He stressed, however, "how Wall Street brought down main street," and things have now come full circle. Deregulation unleashed casino capitalism, and bankers made a killing. Now they're in trouble and Bush demands "the biggest bailout in American history....or the world will crumble. He said the a similar thing in the run-up to war" so who can believe him now. Egan quotes a dirt farmer asking why not the same "concerns (for) average Americans." Because "we the people" Bush speaks for are them, not us.

As for Paulson's plan, here's what the Financial Times writer Martin Wolf said on September 23. He called it "not a true solution to the crisis." It doesn't address the "fundamental problem." It's "neither a necessary nor an efficient solution. It is not necessary because the (Fed can) manage illiquidity through its many lender-of-last resort operations. It is not efficient because it can only deal with insolvency by buying bad assets (overpriced junk) at far above their true value, thereby guaranteeing big losses for taxpayers and providing an open-ended bail-out to the most irresponsible investors."

Wolf also objects to Paulson getting unchecked powers. Providing little or no help to the poor and "ill-informed" (read duped) borrowers, and lists other operational suggestions "essential for the long-run health of any financial system" without needing "a penny of public money." Among them, forcing creditors to take losses and not taxpayers.

Unmentioned in his article is the underlying fraud behind the crisis and a lack of regulatory oversight that made it easy. Also, omitted was what's covered in the section below.

The 1937 Housing Act's Empowering Section 8 Authority

One Section 8 sentence provided the basis for the treasury secretary's empowerment. It reads:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administration agency."

In other words, unchallengeable czarist powers. In contrast to the 1930s Reconstruction Finance Corporation's (RFC) closely supervised operations. That era's Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) that refinanced homes to prevent foreclosures. And the 1980s Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) mandate to liquidate assets from failed S & Ls. Not dispense free money for bad investments unchecked. The above authorities subject to judicial review. Not governed by a financial boss to run as he pleased.

The Announced "Bailout" Deal - The Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008 (ESA)

According to The New York Times, EESA calls for "strict oversight of the program by a Congressional panel and conflict-of-interest rules for firms hired by the Treasury to help run the program." Also "a change in the bankruptcy laws sought by some Democrats to give judges the authority to modify the terms of first mortgages."

Given the bipartisan blame for today's crisis. The post-9/11 willingness to give the administration near-carte blanche authority across the board. Eight years of indifference to social needs and public welfare. Who now believes that policy going forward will change and that the agreed-on scheme will protect people or curb the secretary's authority. On his own initiative, George Bush usurped supreme power post-9/11 while few in Congress blanched. None in leadership positions. Little today has changed.

Disclaimers notwithstanding from both sides of the aisle, Wall Street is pleased. Paulson got what he wanted. The plan's fine print will assure it. Public money. Far more, if needed, than $700 billion. The power to dispense it freely. With weak at best oversight and judicial review, and the ability to conceal fraud and malfeasance. In short, the between-the-lines meaning of Paulson saying: "We have made great progress toward a deal, which will work and be effective in the marketplace."

The same one that fleeced the nation and betrayed the public trust. Now empowered to take more with the full faith and blessing of the government from both sides of the aisle. Belying George Bush's insult that "The rescue effort....is not aimed at Wall Street; it is aimed at your street." And Nancy Pelosi's hypocrisy that: "All of this was done in a way to insulate Main Street and everyday Americans from the crisis on Wall Street....I want to congratulate all of the negotiators for the great work they have done." Who in banker boardrooms would disagree.

Some Relevant Facts

Clearly the present crisis is unprecedented. As stated above, maybe it can be fixed and maybe not. No one is sure because no one understands it fully. Where all the problems lie. To what degree can they be contained. How great their fallout may be. Their full effect on world economies. How bad things may get before they stabilize and improve, and the way the world will look like when they do.

Whatever's coming, industrial capitalism is eroding. A kleptocracy replaced it. If the system is saved, it will be temporary, and an even greater one will emerge. Why this article is called Grand Theft America. A criminal class runs it, and they're rewarded for their crimes. Backed by the full faith and credit of the government with taxpayer money. A near-limitless amount created and borrowed. Who said crime doesn't pay!

For over 30 years, an unimaginable wealth transfer to the rich has been ongoing. To the top 1% and corporate America from most others. It proves the failure of a system that rewards the few at the expense of the many. Licenses greed and creates this kind of global financial crisis so far uncontained. It begs the questions: what caused it and what's the fallout:

-- the ruinous effects of militarization; insane amounts of spending on it; "military Keynesianism;" believing capitalism thrives on foreign wars; "Global Wars on Terrorism" currently; their costs are unsustainable and are heading the nation toward bankruptcy;

-- the drain on an already weakened economy;

-- maxed out consumers now debt slaves;

-- so is government from unrepayable obligations in the tens of trillions; not the fictitious "official" reported numbers;

-- the possibility of future default; hyperinflation; national bankruptcy, and the demise of the republic;

-- human default as well: mass bankruptcies; home foreclosures; rising unemployment; increased poverty; and growing numbers of families unable to survive;

-- the subprime crisis is just part of it; seven million mortgages sold to the unwary; the idea was to criminally defraud them; offer two-year teaser rates; then reset them higher semi-annually based on an interest rate benchmark; payments soared as much as 30% and became unaffordable; the scheme was to cash in at the expense of mortgage holders, and five million risk losing their homes and life savings;

-- an "economic Pearl Harbor" for Warren Buffett; for Senator Chris Dodd a "50-state Katrina;" a "house of cards (built on) reckless finance" for author Kevin Phillips; Frankenstein finance; casino capitalism; for most Americans, a human catastrophe;

-- the demise of our manufacturing base; letting malls replace factories as the economy's engine;

-- permitting the financialization of the economy; speculative finance writ large; replacing productive investment; totally deregulated; run by fraudsters; free from government oversight; letting investment banks game the system at up to 40 to 1 leverage; until 2004, 12 to 1 was the maximum;

-- a government - business conspiracy for global dominance and the single-minded pursuit of profit; unfettered amounts of it through cleverly manipulated schemes; transferring multi-trillions of dollars from workers to the most wealthy; doing it without people even noticing;

-- creative destruction to let giant businesses grow larger by removing and devouring smaller ones; even large ones;

-- permitting and/or ignoring massive fraud; involving multi-trillions of dollars; the largest ever Ponzi scheme; a calculated crime with media complicity through silence; not reporting a growing problem as it emerged; waiting until it mushroomed and still not explaining it accurately and honestly; and

-- wondering won if the best and brightest can fix things or if no amount of money or ingenuity can do it.

The Plan's Architect - Henry Paulson

From a Nixon administration staff assistant to the assistant secretary of defense. To assistant to key Watergate official John Erlichman. To Goldman Sachs in 1974. To a partnership in the firm in 1982. Then Chief Operation Officer (COO) in 1994 and CEO in 1998 by a palace coup against co-chairman and now New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, according to New York Times columnist Floyd Norris.

Even before the current crisis, Goldman was the preeminent Wall Street firm. A survivor. The largest, and along with Morgan Stanley, the remaining two Street giants left standing. But no longer as investment banks after the Federal Reserve's September 21 announcement that both companies will become bank holding companies after a mandatory five-day waiting period, now over.

In theory, they'll be under stricter Fed oversight but will get Fed help to complete their transition and thereafter. As a well-connected financial powerhouse, whatever Goldman wants, Goldman gets. Always in the past by recycling top executives into Democrat and Republican administrations, and now more than ever given Henry Paulson's extraordinary financial czar powers.

Before his $700 billion giveaway plan, the 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act gave him authority to fleece taxpayers by rescuing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as raise the national debt by over $5 trillion dollars. He also orchestrated the demise of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual. The forced sale of Merrill Lynch, and arranged the government takeover of AIG.

He has near-open checkbook authority to reward close allies with loans and free money and let them acquire troubled assets on the cheap. This from a man with much responsibility for today's crisis. A June 12, 2006 Business Week cover story titled "Mr. Risk Goes to Washington" called him "one of the key architects of a more daring Wall Street, where securities firms are taking greater and greater chances in their pursuit of profits." Such as assuming huge amounts of debt and "placing big bets (with their own money) on all sorts of exotic derivatives and other securities." Advising clients to do the same. Casino capitalism at up to 40 to one leverage. Hugely profitable in up markets. Disastrous in down ones.

Paulson earned millions and now has an estimated $700 million + net worth. For 2007 overall, according to Bloomberg.com, "Wall Street's five biggest firms (paid out) a record $39 billion in bonuses (and did it in) a year when three of the companies suffered the worst quarterly losses in their history and shareholders lost more than $80 billion."

Speculative finance pays well, even in down years, and it even raised Bloomberg's ire in a Michael Lewis September 24 commentary titled "America Must Rescue the Bonuses at Goldman Sachs." It reflected on a possible global financial collapse but sacrificing Goldman bonuses is another matter. If firm "employees (take) pay cut(s), it will be (tantamount to failure and) our country may never recover." How will the company induce new talent to come aboard. Goldman is well-positioned to get maximum gain from its former CEO's $700 billion handout.

Why else would Warren Buffett bet $5 billion on the firm! For preferred shares paying an annual 10% dividend. Warrants as well to buy $5 billion in common stock at a $115 a share strike price. Well off its $251 peak and below the latest September 26 $138 a share.

Joseph Stiglitz on the Economy

Stiglitz was formerly part of the system he now criticizes. Free market fundamentalism in its most extreme form. For many months, he warned about a worsening global economy and growing financial crisis that's as bad or worse than the Great Depression.

He sees similar problems now as then:

-- outsized speculation through excessive leverage;

-- pyramid schemes;

-- multiple bubbles through so-called Wall Street innovations; and

-- a lack of transparency and government oversight.

Combined they created a crisis "so great that no one knows exactly the magnitude of the risk they face. It is particularly bad because our financial institutions are based on trust. You put money in the bank and you trust that you can get (it) out, so trust is absolutely essential for the functioning of our financial markets and economy."

The problem is exacerbated by those providing the news. The dominant media and frequent spokespeople. Industry representatives like Lehman Brothers CEO saying last April that "we turned the corner, and the economy is on the uptick." Also from the president, treasury secretary and others in government as things keep worsening.

Stiglitz calls this a "top down crisis." The "$3 trillion cost" of foreign wars a key. Creating huge deficits and consuming vital resources needed for growth. "This is the first war in American history that has been totally financed on the credit card. For the last five years....we have been a debt economy." Not since the Revolutionary War have "we have had to turn to foreigners," so now "40% of our national debt is financed by (them). Even as we went (to war) we had a big deficit, and yet the president called for tax cuts for upper middle class Americans." Insane but we did it.

Another factor is other countries trusting that our economy is working well, and when the president says it is he's believable. "This administration burned that trust....no wonder everybody around the world is losing confidence." Even worse is that the administration isn't dealing responsibly with these problems, mostly because they're of our own making.

Stiglitz worries about the "real economy:" home prices dropping; owners forced into foreclosure; more financial firms in crisis; and a good many won't survive. He sees a weakening financial system unable or unwilling "to provide credit (the lifeblood of the economy for) loans, mortgages," and that means lower home prices, contracting businesses, rising unemployment, and a "downward vicious cycle. You have to be in fantasy land to say that everything is fine (or even) that we have turned the corner." He sees at least another 18 months of pain. Maybe longer. Who can know or how much.

For sure, real economic stimulus is needed. Productive investment. Not the phony "bailout" kind proposed. Aiding state and local governments. Better unemployment insurance and more for infrastructure. Providing a basis for long-term growth. Not feeding markets and starving the hungry, as one writer put it. Not believing markets on their own will fix things.

Understanding that government must intervene. Responsibly. Facilitate job creation. End casino capitalism. Provide incentives for real economic growth. Let foreclosed and threatened homeowners stay in their homes. Work out an equitable way to do it. "We learned a painful lesson in the 1930s and today: The invisible hand often seems invisible because it's not there." It led to the kind of predicament now confronting the country. The solutions proposed will just compound it.

Ones that Can Fix It

Good ones not considered. From figures like Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Others as well with solid advice to:

-- make fraudsters eat the bulk of their losses;

-- use public funds only "to sustain the orderly operation of the financial system;"

-- minimize speculative finance; the root of the current problem;

-- "minimize moral hazard" - the Paulson (and Bernanke) "put" picking up where Greenspan left off;

-- let delinquent homeowners stay in their homes and pay rent;

-- curtail executive compensation for companies getting government aid;

-- make a key Fed responsibility the prevention of asset bubbles; reinstitute regulations to do it; Glass-Steagall for starters that prohibited commercial and investment banks and insurance companies from combining;

-- impose a modest financial transactions tax to curb excesses and raise revenue;

-- trade assets, like credit default swaps, openly on exchanges to establish fair value for them;

-- impose strict limits on leverage;

-- keep Fannie and Freddie public institutions; their status before being privatized in 1968; and

-- restructure the Fed democratically; a far better solution is abolish it and let government control its own money; use it responsibly for all Americans, not just the privileged few.

Other recommendations recognize no quick or easy solutions to problems this great. Economist James Galbraith says borrowers need collateral. A new Home Owners Loan Corporation to rewrite mortgages. Manage rental conversions, and decide what degraded properties should be demolished. Which ones to save and refurbish. Set it up in communities under federal guidelines and do it quickly. Help state and local governments strapped for cash. Reestablish federal revenue sharing. A National Infrastructure Bank making capital available for infrastructure. Put people to work building it. Protect seniors and near-retirees from wealth loss. Extra Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid revenue will help. Get money in the hands of people who'll spend it.

Address other crucial issues like energy conservation, reconstruction and renewable power. Infrastructure overall. Tuition help for students. Another GI bill. Credit card and mortgage interest rate caps. Rescind anti-consumist laws like the misnamed 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. A boon for credit card companies and other businesses. Unfairly burdensome to the public.

A whole range of other projects and ideas to redirect the economy away from speculative finance and militarism and toward high-return public investment. Do it before it's too late. Recognize that the present course is unsustainable. Imagine a government working for everyone and not just the privileged few. Imagine it not tolerating fraud and malfeasance.

Instead, Congress agreed to a "bailout" and passed a record $634 billion omnibus spending bill (to run the government through March 6, 2009) to include a record Pentagon budget; $25 billion in low-interest auto industry loans; maybe with no provision for repayment; lifting a quarter-century ban on Atlantic and Pacific off-shore drilling; billions more in earmarked pork; and likely more coming later for the airlines and other endangered companies. Taxpayers for Common Sense criticized the bill at the same time it noted that government "bailout" appropriations will reach about $1.2 trillion with the $700 billion Paulson scheme. Others put the total above $1.5 trillion, and many say it's only for starters.

Paying "hold-to-maturity" prices compounds the fraud. For securitized assets worth a fraction of full value. Much of it pennies on the dollar, if anything. Trillions of dollars of toxic ones. All sorts of them. Newly invented ones. Structured finance and insurance. Asset-backed securities. Repackaged into marketable pools. Sold to investors. It's been done for decades but only recently so out of hand. Greed and deregulation created an alphabet soup of levered-up, high-risk securitized assets. Financial alchemy. Largely outright fraud, including:

-- collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), including auto loans, credit and corporate debt;

-- collateralized (asset-backed home) mortgage obligations (CMOs);

-- commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS);

-- mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and levered loans;

-- structured investment vehicles (SIVs);

-- special purpose vehicles (SPVs);

-- pass-through securities;

-- credit and interest rate default swaps;

-- commercial paper and more;

-- repackaged arcane stuff most people don't understand; even investors who bought them; like eating a stew with no idea what's in it; a recipe with no list of ingredients; learning too late it's toxic and you're in trouble;

Credit card companies as well from growing amounts of unrepayable credit card debt. The auto industry already assured of a low-interest $25 billion loan (or maybe handout) for starters. Airlines coming next. Select homebuilders and troubled companies called too big to fail. If they're too big to fail, says one observer, they're too big to exist.

EESA will give the treasury secretary near-carte blanche powers to conceal fraud and help the fraudsters, including his former company, Goldman Sachs, now in trouble. Pick and choose among others. Which will survive, and what less favored ones will go on the block at fire sale prices or disappear. Today there are 9000 banks in the country. In a decade, half or more of them may be gone.

Economist Michael Hudson calls EESA "cash for trash" and a "giveaway," not a bailout. A "transfer of wealth to insiders." A financial coup d'etat. The "largest and most inequitable (kind) since the (19th century) land giveaways to the railroad barons."

In this case, socializing losses to let fraudsters "sell out all their bad bets." Junk of all sorts: a stew of securitized assets, bad mortgages, car loans, credit card loans, student loans, anything for insiders stuck with too much of them.

A doomed scheme that will raise the debt level instead of lowering it. Enrich fraudsters with taxpayer funds. Stick the public with toxic junk. Maybe buy time before more people and markets catch on, but, in the end, cripple the economy and erode industrial capitalism with it.

Hudson is justifiably angry given the amount of fraud and deceit. The government-concocted scheme to whitewash it. Reward criminals. Harm most others, and wreck the country at the same time. He says a "kleptocratic class has taken over the economy to replace industrial capitalism....'banksers' " for FDR and earlier condemned by Jefferson with this stinging comment:

"I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

A half century later Lincoln said:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country....corporations (including bankers) have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Lincoln refused to pay bankers usurious rates to finance the Civil War and got Congress to pass the 1862 Legal Tender Act. It empowered the US Treasury to issue "greenbacks" that were interest-free because government printed its own money. When Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, the "Greenback Law" was rescinded. A new national banking act was passed, and the government once again had to pay interest to bankers.

On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy issued executive order (EO) 11110 giving the president authority to issue currency. He ordered the treasury to begin printing "United States (Treasury) Notes" to replace "Federal Reserve Notes." He began a process to let government control its own money and no longer private bankers under the guise of the Federal Reserve. Months later, Kennedy was assassinated. Once Lyndon Johnson took office, he rescinded EO 11110 and reestablished the current system. More on that below.

The Two Greatest Ever Financial Crimes - Today's Fraud and the 1913 Federal Reserve Act's Privatization of Money Creation

Most people think the Federal Reserve is a government agency, subject to its control. It's sometimes mistakenly called a quasi-governmental decentralized central bank to disguise its real identity and purpose. Its Eccles building headquarters compounds the subterfuge. Below it's stripped away.

The Federal Reserve is a private for-profit banking cartel. Owned and run by major banks and Wall Street in each of its 12 Districts. It was created and operates in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that states that Congress alone shall have the power to create money and regulate its value. In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot constitutionally delegate this power to another authority, but, in fact it did.

On December 22, 1913, between 1:30 - 4:30 AM, the Federal Reserve Act was shepherded through a special Congressional Conference Committee. Then voted on and passed the next day. Two days before Christmas with many members gone and most others with no time to read or consider this momentous document.

By enacting this law, Congress and President Woodrow Wilson defrauded the public. Wilson later said (when it was too late to matter) he made a mistake and "unwittingly ruined my country." This from a man who was an intellect. Trained in the law. A PhD in political science and president of Princeton University in his earlier years.

The Federal Reserve Act gives private bankers the most important of all powers. The one most of all that governments should never relinquish. The authority to print money. Control its supply. Its price through the Fed Funds rate and how it influences the whole yield curve. Loan it out for profit, and charge government interest on its own money. It's later returned minus operating expenses and a guaranteed 6% profit. Taxpayers foot the bill. An early and continuing example of wealth transfer from the public to powerful bankers. Illegally sanctioned by Congress and the president.

The Fed literally creates money out of nothing. Expands or contracts its supply as it wishes - with no government oversight or control. Gold once backed it until Nixon closed the gold window in August 1971. Suspended dollar convertibility into the metal, and ended compliance with the Bretton Woods core provision. The US dollar became fiat currency. Mere paper. Backed by nothing except the faith of the issuing authority.

Given today's crisis, that faith is fast eroding and is to blame for dollar weakness. Mostly because of profligate policies by private bankers running the country's monetary policy for their own gain. The grandest of grand thefts along with today's all-consuming fraud. Backed by the full faith and credit of the government, and up to now at least, with most people none the wiser.

A Growing Public Response to the Crisis

For how long is the question given growing public anger and people expressing it publicly. It has administration officials worried enough to order what Michel Chossudovsky wrote in his September 26 article titled "Pre-election Militarization of the North American Homeland."

He cites an Army Times article saying that the 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team is coming home (in October) from Iraq as (according to the Times) "an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks." Perhaps with a manufactured incident as pretext. To defend the homeland against ourselves. Be deployed against dissent. Erupting public anger. On city streets like in Denver and St. Paul. Displaying civil disobedience. Defiance against fraud, deceit, illegal foreign wars, and nearly eight intolerable years under George Bush and a complicit Congress. Capped by the current financial crisis touching everyone while government rewards crime and hangs its victims out to dry.

Chossudovsky is blunt about the possibilities. The 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade is for combat. It's not the National Guard or local police. It's trained for war. "Equipped to kill people" with potent weapons, and a last hurrah scheme may be planned to divert public attention from the financial crisis. A "terrorist" attack with "chemical, biological" or other dangerous weapons. A possible pretext for martial law at a time the administration and Congress are vulnerable. When people are angry about Washington protecting the privileged. Partnering with them in crime. Defrauding the public and stifling dissent. Moving one step closer to tyranny and away from silly notions about democracy. Proving crime indeed does pay and awfully well on Wall Street. "It's the economy, stupid." Theirs, not ours.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10360

New Coup D'Etat Rumblings in Venezuela

New Coup D'Etat Rumblings in Venezuela - by Stephen Lendman

Since taking office in January 2001, the Bush administration targeted Hugo Chavez for removal. It tried and failed three previous times:

-- in April 2002 for two days; aborted by mass street protests and support from many in Venezuela's military, especially from its middle-ranking officer corp;

-- the 2002 - 2003 general strike and oil management lockout causing severe economic disruption; and

-- the August 2004 national recall referendum in which Chavez resoundingly prevailed with a 59% majority.

Other disruptions have occurred since and now may again be ongoing. US intervention is innovative and determined to regain control of Venezuela and its vast hydrocarbon resources, the largest by far in the hemisphere after Canada. Perhaps the world with the US Department of Energy's estimate of 1.36 trillion extra-heavy oil barrels included besides its proved 80 billion barrels of light sweet reserves, ranking it seventh overall behind the five largest Middle East producers and Canada.

Throughout most of his tenure and since the Bush administration took over, CIA and various misnamed US quasi-governmental agencies have been active in Venezuela. Ones like the National Endowment of Democracy (NED). The International Republican Institute (IRI) with John McCain as its chairman and its ties to extremist Republican party elements, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). All are imperial instruments. Undemocratic and for rule by the power of money.

They fund opposition groups and coup supporters. Arrange (staged for media) anti-Chavez marches and street protests. Spend millions to subvert democracy to return the country to its past. Oligarchs who once controlled it. Washington and Big Oil that control them.

They plot assassination attempts, according to Chavez to remove him. To reverse Bolivarianism and its socially beneficial gains in health care, education, housing, feeding the hungry, lifting millions out of poverty, and enfranchising all Venezuelans in the country's participatory democracy. Strengthening it at the grassroots.

Recent Disturbing Events

On September 10, Venezolana de Television's (VTV) La Hojilla program disclosed a recording (from an undisclosed source) of a planned military coup against Chavez - by active and retired plotters. Participants named were Vice Admiral and National Guard Forces Inspector General Carlos Alberto Millan Millan. National Guard General Wilfredo Barroso Herrera, and retired Air Force General Eduardo Baez Torrealba (involved in the April 2002 aborted coup). Unknown is who else is behind this and how deep the suspected plot runs.

Conversations recorded were about "tak(ing) the Miraflores (presidential) Palace (government headquarters and) the TV installations....that is all effort towards where (Chavez) is. If he's in Miraflores, the effort goes toward there." Talk also was about seizing the "command headquarters (with) the troops inside" and about Maracay, Aragua state's Air Base Libertador where Venezuela's F-16s and other planes are based.

Baez Torrealba was heard saying: "We are divided into four zones....east, west, and two in the centre" and have an F-16 pilot. He mentions either attacking Chavez's plane or capturing it. Possibly the presidential palace the way the CIA engineered it in Chile for Augusto Pinochet against Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 - with bombs, rockets and tank fire. Open warfare on Santiago's streets. Whether planned for Caracas is anyone's guess but it certainly is possible.

Chavez knows the history as well as past conspiracies against himself. He said on-air that his government "infiltrated the most radical and fascist movements (and have) known for a long time that they are looking for land and air rockets and sophisticated equipment to blow up the presidential plane" and that past plans were to bomb the Miraflores. He also knows that CIA is behind them and said if there's a coup, "the counter-coup would be overwhelming" - meaning a mass popular uprising to reverse it with military support, similar to 2002.

Chavez then confirmed the detentions of several suspected coop plotters and said others fled the country. He also expelled US ambassador, Patrick Duddy. Gave him 72 hours to leave, and recalled his Washington envoy, Bernardo Alvarez, in sympathy with Bolivia's Evo Morales. On September 10, he declared US ambassador, Philip Goldberg, persona non grata. Accused him of supporting eastern Bolivian fascist elements and working with them to plan a coup against his presidency.

On September 20, another incident occurred, so far unexplained. In west Caracas, a grenade was thrown from a residential building, killing two and injuring 19 others. A 23-year old man was identified as the perpetrator, who then, it was claimed, jumped to his death from the building's eighth floor. No further information is available at this time but authorities are investigating.

Then around the same time in London, Samuel Moncada, Venezuela's UK ambassador, attended a fringe Labour Party meeting and expressed "fear(s) that the next few weeks will be very dangerous for us." He believes that the Bush administration may try to oust Chavez in its remaining months. Others in Venezuela also think something is going on to destabilize the country. Possibly a plot to assassinate their president and bring down his government.

Disturbing Latin American stirrings in the final Bush administration months along with all else on their plate and planned in the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere. Plus the November presidential and congressional elections and a hugely calamitous financial crisis commanding daily headlines and top-level meetings as first order of business because of its seriousness.

Nonetheless, the Bush administration expelled Venezuela's Washington ambassador after he'd been recalled following Chavez saying "When there is a new government in the United States, we'll send an ambassador." Given the campaign rhetoric by both US presidential candidates, he may have a change of heart. Both promise permanent wars. New fronts to wage them on, and an uncompromising pro-corporate agenda. Not good news for independent democrats like Chavez, especially ones in oil-rich countries like Venezuela.

Separately on September 12, the Bush administration went further with US Treasury officials announcing sanctions and the freezing of assets against Hugo Carvajal Barrios and Henry Rangel Silva, both Venezuelan intelligence chiefs. Also named was Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, the country's former Justice and Interior Minister. Serious and unwarranted accusations against high government officials for supporting drugs trafficking and supplying arms to Colombia's FARC-EP resistance.

On September 17, Washington also blacklisted Venezuela (for the fourth time) and Bolivia (for the first time) for not cooperating in the "war on drugs" and designated both countries and Burma as "hav(ing) failed demonstrably during the previous 12 months to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements," in a statement released by the White House. The State Department listed 20 countries as illicit major drugs producers or transit sites.

It omitted what scholar/researcher Peter Dale Scott calls "Deep Events (or "deep politics" that governments try to suppress) and the CIA's Global Drug Connection" in his article by that title. The "complex geography or network of banks, financial agents of influence and the 'alternative' or 'shadow' CIA" and its possible involvement in major "deep events" like the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. A "global financial complex of hot money uniting prominent business, financial and government (elements) as well as underworld figures." An "indirect empire (between) CIA, organized crime, and their mutual interest in drug-trafficking."

For the enormous profits that CIA uses for its operations and helps it plot coups against countries like Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Venezuela (2002) and maybe again in 2008 along with Bolivia and the current Iranian government. For state terrorism like Operation Condor (in Latin America in the 1970s). Iranian and Pakistani incursions currently. All its other nefarious activities, including "strengthening drug networks....in Laos, Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, Columbia," Thailand and Afghanistan - the world's largest by far opium producer after Washington replaced the Taliban and allowed regional "warlords" to ramp up replantings.

Also its involvement in a possible plot against Chavez. At the least, the latest Bush administration efforts to tarnish and disrupt his democratic government with considerable media support for its accusations and much more.

The Corporate Media on the Attack

A New York Times September 18 Simon Romero article is headlined: "Alleging Coup Plot, Chavez Ousts US Envoy." In it he suggests the accuracy of a Human Rights Watch's (HRW) biased 2008 Venezuela report discussed below. That "into its 10th year (Chavez's) government has consolidated power by eliminating the independence of the judiciary, punish(ed) critical news organizations, and engag(ed) in wide-ranging acts of political discrimination against opponents." Leaving mentioned the Chavez government's views to suggest his own and HRW's.

Do it in spite of its tainted state. An example is how it "condemn(es) human rights abuses in Colombia." Not the repressive government. The most fascist in the region, but the FARC-EP and ELN resistance against it. More on HRW below.

A Miami Herald op-ed piece is headlined: "Expulsions Underscore Chavez's Intolerance for Dissent" and states that expelling "two respected human rights monitors from Venezuela is the latest evidence that President Hugo Chavez is determined to muzzle dissenting views....Mr. Chavez never misses an opportunity to rail against the United States, but his real enemies are those who dare to take issue with his politics. His anti-democratic agenda has restricted legitimate political activity by his opponents for years, and his arbitrary behavior is getting worse." The most far right US elements couldn't say it better or be more mirror opposite the facts.

A Los Angeles Times August 9 editorial accused Chavez of a "power grab (and) attack(ing) democracy." The Washinton Post calls him a Venezuelan caudillo or strongman. So does the Wall Street Journal repeatedly. Reckless commentaries accuse him of rigging elections. Excluding his most formidable opponents. Violating Venezuelan law, and now engaging in drugs trafficking, terrorism, and delivering a suitcase with $800,000 in slush money to Argentina's Cristina Kirchner for her 2007 presidential campaign. The Inter-American Dialogue's Peter Hakim has "no doubt" this latter charge (playing out in a Miami courtroom) is politically motivated and "is coming from the US government." So are all the others.

The Journal's Mary O'Grady wages constant war against Chavez, and her latest September 15 op-ed refers to his "Russian Dalliance." His holding joint exercises with Moscow's "flotilla." Russia "evoking memories of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis by playing war games with another would-be Latin strongman." Chavez "only too happy to be used." Suggesting he and Evo Morales are communists and all the negatives that implies. That Chavez is a "dictator." That his "economy (is) in shambles" when, in fact, it's had 19 consecutive impressive quarters of growth and grew at 7.1% in the second quarter - compared to America's unprecedented economic crisis and contraction. That Chavez is so worried about a "serious challenge to (his) chavismo (that he) trotted out the Uncle Sam boogeyman, called in the Russians, and (sent) Washington's ambassador packing."

Human Rights Watch on the Attack

Too often, Human Rights Watch (HRW) fails to practice its stated mandate - that it's "dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world....stand(ing) with victims and activists....upholding political freedom (and) bring(ing) offenders to justice." Instead it functions the way James Petras characterizes similar NGOs as the "executing agents of US imperialism."

Its support for the oppressed is dubious at best. Tainted at worst, and its latest September 18 Venezuela report is disturbing, biased, and inaccurate. It's not dissimilar to how it covers the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Distorting it to downplay Israeli violence. Playing up to the Israeli Lobby, and operating more by a political agenda than as a credible human rights organization. Clearly with its funding sources in mind that must be placated and never offended. HRW does it skillfully.

From its 1978 beginnings as the US Helsinki Watch Committee (or Helsinki Watch), HRW advanced America's interests as a propaganda instrument against Soviet Russia. Despite occasional good work, too often it's "serv(ed) as a virtual public relations arm of the (US) foreign policy establishment," according to Edward Herman, David Peterson and George Szamuely in their 2007 report titled: "Human Rights Watch in Service to the War Party."

Exhibits A and B: against Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam at a time "the United States and Britain were clearly planning an assault on Iraq with a 'shock and awe' bombing campaign and ground invasion in violation of the UN Charter." HRW ignored the impending onslaught. The "supreme international crime," and focused on Saddam's much lesser ones. A "valuable public relations gift to US and British leaders" instead of denouncing them.

When the Pentagon-led NATO countries bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, HRW attacked the victim and absolved the aggressor. It supported regime change "either through (Milosevic's) indictment or a US war (for) the same outcome." It blamed him for the conflict America began and waged throughout the 1990s with its NATO allies. It ignored Washington's imperial aim to dismantle Yugoslavia. Its outrageous war crimes in doing it, and instead cited Serbia's "vicious wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo." It demanded responsible Serbs be held to account before the kangaroo International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTW). Run by made-in-Washington rules to avoid any prosecution of its own role.

It showed HRW's commitment to human rights is hollow and hypercritical. Its analysis opposite of the truth. Its disdain for the rule of law, and its judgment fully supportive of its funding sources. Organizations like:

-- the Ford Foundation;

-- the Rockefeller Foundation;

-- the Carnegie Corporation of New York; and

-- Time Warner.

Individuals like:

-- Edgar Bronfman, Jr., corporate CEO and member of one of Canada's most wealthy and influential Jewish families;

-- Katherine Graham (now deceased) of the Washington Post Corporation with her son and current chairman, Donald Graham, likely continuing her support;

-- and George Soros who was active in founding HRW jointly with the US State Department.

Some of its Americas Advisory Board members are also closely linked to the National Endowment of Democracy (NED) and its anti-democratic agenda. Figures like George Soros and Robert Pastor, Jimmy Carter's Latin American National Security Advisor and Senior Fellow at the Carter Center on Latin America and the Caribbean.

HRW failed to denounce CIA's 2002 coup attempt against Chavez or the 2004 one against Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The thousands of Lavalas supporters murdered in its aftermath. The continuing daily human rights abuses committed by so-called UN Peacekeepers, police and other security forces. The unconscionable human misery in the coup's aftermath.

It said nothing about Venezuelan dominant media's advance knowledge about and support for the 2002 coup. The air time they gave plotters. Their virulent propaganda and calls for people to take to the streets "for freedom and democracy" by ousting Chavez. Their suppressing all pro-government reports and opinions. Their falsely reporting that Chavez resigned when, in fact, he was forcibly removed and was being held against his will. They knew because they were briefed in advance and were part of the scheme.

When hundreds of thousands of Chavez supporters were on the streets demanding his reinstatement, they ignored them and aired old movies and cartoons. Even when the coup was aborted, they maintained strict censorship in a further act of defiance. Yet, when Chavez refused to renew RCTV's VHF license (a mere slap on the wrist for an act of sedition), HRW vehemently complained and denounced the act as censorship. It continues to criticize Chavez, most noticeably in its 230 page 2008 report titled, "A Decade Under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela."

The report is unfairly one-sided and biased by criticizing the "government's willful disregard for the institutional guarantees and fundamental rights that make democratic participation possible." In response, the government expelled two HRW employees - America's Director, Jose Miguel Vivanco, and his Deputy, Daniel Wilkinson. A Foreign Relations Ministry press release stated: Vivanco and Wilkerson "have done violence to the constitution (and) assaulted (Venezuela's) institutions (by) meddling illegally in (its) internal affairs."

The statement added that HRW is linked to America's "unacceptable strategy of aggression" and expelling them was done to defend "the people against aggressions by international factors." Not accidently was the report released two months before Venezuela's November 23 regional and local elections for governors and mayors. HRW did the same thing previously to sway voters away from Chavez candidates and issues and toward ones embracing a pro-Washington agenda. In October 2007, ahead of the December constitutional reform referendum, it criticized the measures and warned about the loss of freedoms if the vote was positive. Its latest report also comes at a time of increased tension between Washington and Caracas ahead of elections in both countries.

The Washington-based Venezuela Information Office (VIO) released an analysis of HRW's report titled: "The Truth Suffers in Human Rights Watch on Venezuela." It's summarized below and can be read in full along with other current Venezuela information on: rethinkvenezuela.org.

VIO is blunt and accurate in calling HRW down on its blatantly biased account. Not surprising given its history as explained above. It exaggerates and lies about human rights deficiencies, and at the same time, ignores Venezuela's impressive social and other advances under Chavez. Unparalled in the country's history. Nothing comparable in America where human rights and social gains are vanishing under both parties. Along with democracy that's pure fantasy. Facts that HRW is loath to point out nor would it dare at the risk of offending its funding sources.

VIO deconstructs the HRW report by stating "myths," and "facts".

HRW myth: political discrimination defines the Chavez presidency.

VIO fact: HRW mischaracterizes Chavez's condemnation of the aborted 2002 coup as "political discrimination" against the plotters. An absurdity on its face, but not to HRW.

HRW: Chavez disdains the separation of powers and an independent judiciary.

VIO: Chavez inherited a government for the rich. Mass poverty, and (according to an earlier HRW report) a judiciary plagued by "influence-peddling, political interference, and, above all, corruption....In terms of public credibility, the system was bankrupt." Since 1999, Chavez made great strides in cleaning it up. He still has a long way to go, but he's heading in the right direction.

HRW: Chavez "shifted....the mass media in the government's favor."

VIO: In print and electronically, Venezuela's corporate media are dominant. The five leading private TV channels control 90% of the market and most viewers. They operate freely with no government censorship. Are unrestrained in their one-sided anti-goverment reporting, including "calling for the overthrow of elected leaders" as they did in 2002. All major newspapers are corporate-owned. TVes (Venezuela's first public broadcaster) and TeleSur (the regional, multi-nation supported operation) reach much smaller audiences.

HRW: Chavez "has sought to remake the country's labor movement in ways that violate basic principles of freedom of movement."

VIO: In fact, Chavez is actively pro-labor. Supports unions and collective bargaining on equal terms with management. In 2003, pro-government workers founded the National Workers Union (UNT). Chavez is responsive to its rights and equitable demands.

HRW: Chavez has been "aggressively adversarial....to local rights advocates and civil society organizations."

VIO: Chavez is responsive to local leaders. Promotes the creation of community councils to address their own needs and find solutions free from federal government control and influence. The idea is democracy at the grassroots, and it works.

VIO concludes that HRW systematically mischaracterizes the Chavez government. Wrongly accuses it of political discrimination and targeting opponents. The truth is mirror opposite even to the extent of pardoning coup plotters and promoting open dialogue.

In addition, Venezuela has a vibrant and improving participatory democracy, anchored at the grassroots. Each government branch provides "strong checks and balances" against the others. The nation is a free and open society. The Bolivarian Constitution respects and guarantees human and labor rights for all Venezuelans equally. Social ones also, including healthcare, education, food, housing, jobs, security and more.

In its biased and inaccurate account, HRW reports none of this and all other impressive achievements under Chavez. Doing so would offend its corporate and other backers. They want Chavez ousted. Bolivarianism ended, and Venezuela returned to its past. HRW is an imperial agent. On board to make it happen.

Targeting Latin American Democracy

Subversion in Venezuela and possible civil war in Bolivia threaten Latin America's democracy. Fascists never rest and now control five of Bolivia's richest states, according to long-time regional expert, James Petras. They "forcefully oust(ed) all national officials, murder(ed), injur(ed) and assaulted leaders, activists and voters who have backed the (Morales) national government - with total impunity."

Why so? Because, in nearly three years in office, Evo Morales tried to bargain with the far right. Be conciliatory and compromising. Back down from even "the mildest social reforms." Favor business over progressive social change in spite of winning a nearly 70% majority in an August 10 recall election. Allowed the opposition to be "aggressive(ly) violent." Seize power in Santa Cruz, Pando, Beni, Tarija and Chuquisaca. Rule by thuggery and intimidation. Head the country toward fascism. Erase the few social reforms achieved in the past three years. Hand the country back to oligarchs and their Washington bosses.

Threaten to take the model to Venezuela. End the region's most impressive participatory democracy. Its social gains, and a leader who's committed to improving them. Stand up against the same dark forces targeting Bolivia. Refuses to surrender the way Morales has done. Share power with the fascist right. Give in to their demands. Back their neoliberal agenda. Betray the people who elected him overwhelmingly. And face the possibility of what Michel Chossudovsky calls the "Kosovo Option."

Break up Bolivia by the Yugoslav model. Use extreme violence to do it. It made Kosovo an independent state. Planning the same scheme for Bolivia's resource-rich states. Perhaps the same fate for Venezuela and extinguishing all Latin American democracy.

A very disquieting option. Unthinkable but possible under the current US administration and which ever new one succeeds it. More conceivable given a shaky world economy and how that distracts away from politics. Even the most destructive kind. Allowing democracy to be lost without even noticing.

Unlikely? Who back in summer 2007 imagined the kind of financial crisis that emerged. A potential economic armageddon. An unprecedented situation with no rules around to address. The possibility that nothing can stop a meltdown. And if it happens that democracy may go with it.

Preventing a similar Latin America outcome is crucial. Confronting the region's dark forces to stop them. Understanding, as Petras states, that "you cannot 'make deals' with fascists." You don't defeat them "through elections and concessions to their big property-owning paymasters." You confront them head on. Forcefully. Expose and denounce them. Ally with a democratic constituency and beat down their threat that's real, menacing and must be stopped or its heading everywhere. Maybe sooner than anyone imagines.

Some hopeful signs, however, are present, and maybe more will follow. In mid-September, nine South American presidents held a crisis summit in Santiago, Chile and expressed "their full and firm support for the constitutional government of President Evo Morales (and) reject(ed) and will not recognize any situation that attempts a civil coup (or) rupture of (Bolivia's) territorial integrity." Let's hope they mean what they say and will back their words with resoluteness. Except for Chavez away on foreign tour, they met again on September 24 at the UN in New York to continue discussions.

In addition, on September 17, the National Coalition for Change (CONALCAM indigenous, campesino and urban movements) signed a pact with the Bolivian Workers Central (COB) to "defend the unity of the homeland that is being threatened by a civil coup lead by terrorists and fascists" directed out of Washington.

Events are fast-moving. They affect Venezuela and the region, and Roger Burbach, Director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA), reports that 20,000 miners, peasants and coca growers marched on Santa Cruz. The "bastion of the right wing rebellion" against Morales. He calls it a "popular upheaval" sweeping the country. But it's too soon to predict an outcome, and much to worry about given Morales' weak-kneed approach and reluctance to be as resolute as his supporters. Burbach calls it "restraint." For Petras, it's capitulation, surrender, and a doomed strategy.

But not if mass protests can help it with Joel Guarachi, head of the National Confederation of Peasant Workers, saying 600,000 protesters are located throughout the 16 Santa Cruz provinces alone. Venezuelans share a common interest and may react the same way if Bolivarianism and their president are threatened.

Let's hope so. With a few months left in office, the Bush administration may be unleashing its last hurrah in Latin America. A "hail Mary" effort to reclaim the region. Remove its weak democracies in countries like Bolivia and strong ones in Venezuela. And do it in the face of overwhelming domestic problems at home and lost wars abroad. Will it work? Not if Bolivians and Venezuelans have anything to say about it, and they're saying plenty. Stay tuned.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on Republic Broadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10270

Remembering Edward Said Five Years On

Remembering Edward Said Five Years On - by Stephen Lendman

Born in West Jerusalem in 1935. Exiled in December 1947. Said was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 1991, a malignant cancer of the bone marrow and blood. At 6:45AM on September 25, 2003, he succumbed (at age 67) after a painful courageous 12 year struggle. Tributes followed and resumed a year later. In a testimony to his teacher, Professor Moustafa Bayoumi called him "indefatigable, incorruptible, a humanist and devastatingly charming....leav(ing behind) legions of followers and fans in every corner of the world. I am lost without him....I miss him so."

Chomsky called his death an "incalculable loss." A year later, Ilan Pappe said "his absence seems to me still incomprehensible. What would have happened if we still had Edward with us in this last year....another terrible (one) for the values (he) represented and causes he defended." Tariq Ali referred to his "indomitable spirit as a fighter, his will to live, (my) long-standing friend and comrade," and described his ordeal:

"Over the last eleven years one had become so used to his illness - the regular hospital stays, the willingness to undergo trials with the latest drugs, the refusal to accept defeat - that (we thought) him indestructible." Leukemia kills, and in response to Ali's questions, his doctor said there was "no medical explanation for (his) survival." No doubt Dr. Kanti Rai made a difference. Said spoke of him reverentially - of his "redoubtable medical expertise and remarkable humanity" that kept him going during his darkest times, and there were many. He later described months in and out of the hospital, "painful treatments, blood transfusions, endless tests, hours and hours of unproductive time spent staring at the ceiling, draining fatigue and infection, inability to do normal work, and thinking, thinking, thinking."

Yet, as Ali recounted, in the end the "monster (overpowered him), devouring his insides (but when) the cursed cancer finally took him the shock was intense." Palestinians had lost their "most articulate (and powerful) voice....(he's) irreplaceable."

Veteran Palestinian-American journalist Ramzy Baroud agrees. He called 2003 a bad time for Palestinians to lose one their iconic best and described him like many others: He "stood for everything that is virtuous. His moral stance was even more powerful than (his) essays, books and music (as critic, scholar and consummate artist)....He was an extraordinary intellectual, thoughtful....inimitable" and never silent or compromising in his beliefs or virtue. No "wonder he....was adored by (his) people (and) detested by the" forces he opposed.

Phyllis Bennis called him "one of the great internationalist intellectuals of our time....a hero of the Palestinian people (and) the global peace and justice movement as well....(my) great mentor, a challenging collaborator, a remarkable friend....his passion, vision, wit (and fury against injustice) will be terribly missed."

Daniel Barenboim called him a "fighter and a compassionate defender. A man of logic and passion. An artist and a critic....a visionary (who) fought for Palestinian rights while understanding Jewish suffering." In 1999, they jointly founded the West-East Divan - an orchestra for young Arabs and Jews who collaboratively "understood that before Beethoven we all stand as equals....Palestinians have lost a formidable defender, the Israelis a no less formidable adversary, and I a soulmate."

Rashid Khalidi is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia where Said taught for nearly 40 years as a Professor of English and Comparative Literature. He called him "a man of vast erudition and learning, of extraordinary versatility and remarkable (interdisciplinary) expertise." We've lost "one of the most profound, original and influential thinkers of the past half-century (and) a fearless independent voice speaking truth to the entrenched powers that dominate the Middle East."

On September 30, 2003, Columbia University paid tribute as well. It mourned the passing of its "beloved and esteemed university professor." Called him one of the world's most influential scholars, and said "the world has lost a brilliant and beautiful mind, a big heart, and a courageous fighter."

When he learned of his illness and its seriousness, Said decided to write (from memory) a biographical account of his childhood, upbringing and early years in Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt. Titled "Out of Place, A Memoir," he called it "a record of an essentially lost or forgotten world....a subjective account of (his life) in the Arab world" of his birth and formative years. Then in America where he attended boarding school, Princeton for his bachelor's and master's degrees, and Harvard for his doctorate.

He began "Out of Place" in 1994 while recovering from three early rounds of chemotherapy and continued to completion with the help and "unstinting kindness and patience" of the "superb nurses" who spent months caring for him as well as his family and friends whose support helped him finish.

He recounted a young man's coming of age. Of coming to terms with being displaced. An American. A Christian. A Palestinian. An outsider, and ultimately the genesis of an intellectual giant. An uncompromising opponent of imperialism and oppression, and an advocate for his peoples' struggle for justice and self-determination. No one made the case more powerfully or with greater clarity than he did - in his books, articles, opinion pieces, and wherever he spoke around the world. He made hundreds of appearances and became a target of pro-Israeli extremists. They threatened him and his family. Once burned his Columbia University office, but never silenced him or ever could. Nor did the FBI in spite of over 30 years of surveillance the way it monitors all prominent outspoken activists and intellectuals and many of lesser stature.

Said's great writings include Orientalism (1978) in which he explained a pattern of western misinterpretation of the East, particularly the Middle East. In Culture and Imperialism (1993), he broadened Orientalism's core argument to show the complex relationships between East and West. Colonizers and the colonized, "the familiar (Europe, West, us) and the strange (the Orient, East, them)."

His writings showed the breath of his scholarship, interests and activism - on comparative literature, literary criticism, culture, music and his many works on Israeli-Palestinian history and conflict - combining scholarship, passion and advocacy for his people in contrast to the West's one-sided view of Arabs and Islam. He championed equity and justice. Denounced imperialism, and believed Israel has a right to exist but not exclusively for Jews at the expense of indigenous Palestinians.

The 1967 war and illegal occupation changed everything for him. It radicalized him. Set the course of his intellectual career and activism, and made him the Palestinians' leading spokesperson for the next 37 years until his death. He advocated a one-state solution and wrote in 1999: "The beginning is to develop something entirely missing from both Israeli and Palestinian realities today: the idea and practice of citizenship, not of ethnic or racial community, as the main vehicle of coexistence."

In a lengthy January 1999 New York Times op-ed he elaborated: "Palestinian self-determination in a separate state is unworkable (after years earlier believing otherwise). The question (now isn't separation) but to see whether it is possible for (Jews and Palestinians) to live together (in the same land) as fairly and peacefully as possible. What exists now is a disheartening...bloody impasse. There is no way for Israel to get rid of Palestinians or for Palestinians to wish Israelis away....I see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly democratic way, with equal rights for each citizen."

This diminishes life and aspirations for neither side. It affirms self-determination for them both together in the same land where they once lived peacefully. But it doesn't mean "special status for one people at the expense of the other." For millennia, Palestine was the homeland for many peoples, predating the Ottomans and Romans. It's "multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious." There's no "historical justification for homogeneity" or for "notions of national or ethnic and religious purity....The alternatives (today) are unpleasantly simple: either the war continues (with its unacceptable costs)" or an equitable way out is found, obstacles notwithstanding.

Oslo wasn't the answer, and Said denounced it in its run-up and weeks later in a London Review of Books piece titled "The Morning After." In stinging language, he referred to "the fashion-show vulgarities of the White House ceremony, the degrading spectacle of Yasser Arafat thanking everyone for the suspension of most of his people's rights, and the fatuous solemnity of Bill Clinton's performance, like a 20th century Roman emperor shepherding two vassal kings through rituals of reconciliation and obeisance (and) the truly astonishing proportions of the Palestinian capitulation."

For him, Oslo was plainly and simply "an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles," and worst of all is that a better deal could have been had without so many "unilateral concessions to Israel." The same goes for the 1978 Camp David Accords and every "peace" negotiation to the present except the "permanent status" 2000 Camp David "generous" and "unprecedented" offer that Arafat turned down and was unfairly pilloried for spurning peace for conflict.

Said was on top of everything to the end as reflected in "The Last Interview" - a documentary film less than a year before his death. After a decade of illness, he agreed to a final film interview at a time he was drained, weakened and dying, yet found it "very difficult to turn (himself) off." It was a casual conversation between himself and journalist Charles Glass reflecting on his childhood, upbringing, writing, scholarship, involvement with Yasser Arafat, and strong opinions and activism on Palestinian issues.

It was in all his writings and outspokenness - so powerful, passionate, virtuous and a testimony to his uncompromising principles. He described "Sharonian evil." His blind destructiveness. His terrorism in ordering the massacring of children, then congratulating one pilot for his great success. The patently dishonest media. Its one-sided support for Israel. Its suppressing other views. Its turning a blind eye to the grossest crimes against humanity, day after day after day. Of relegating public discourse to repetitive official propaganda. Of subverting truth in support of power and privilege.

Of turning Palestine into an isolated prison. Suffocating an entire people of their existence. Of impoverishing, starving and slaughtering them. Of attacking defenseless civilians with tanks and F-16s. Of blaming victims for their own terror. Of creating a vast wasteland of destruction and human misery. Of sanctioning torture and targeted assassinations as official policy. Of committing every imaginable human indignity and degradation against people whose only crime is their faith, ethnicity, and presence. Whose only defense is their will and redoubtable spirit. Of enlisting world support for the most unspeakable, unrelenting campaign of terror and genocide.

Of pursuing an endless "cycle of violence" and consigning Palestinians to a "slow death" in defense of imperial interests and the national security state. Of pursuing peace as a scheme for "pacification." Of placing the onus for it "squarely on Palestinian shoulders." Of "putting an end to the (Palestinian) problem." Of placing huge demands on Palestinians and making no concessions in return. Of calling resistance "terrorism" while ignoring oppressive occupation as the fundamental problem. Of seeing Palestinians endure and survive in spite of every imaginable assault, affront and indignity. Of piling on even more and seeing an even greater will to survive and prevail.

Said was passionate on all this and more. He was uncompromisingly anti-war and denounced America's "war on terror." The country "hijacked by a small cabal of individuals....unelected and unresponsive to public pressure." The Democrats supporting them "in a gutless display of false patriotism." The entire power structure characterizing Muslims as enemies. Passing repressive laws. Creating the obscenity of Guantanamo and other prisons like it.

Their self-righteous sophistry of so-called "just wars" and evil of Islam. The near omnipotence of the Zionist Lobby, Christian fascists, and military-industrial complex. Their hostility to Arabs and claim to be "on the side of the angels." Their inexorable pursuit of war and power. The media in lockstep supporting "hypocritical lies" masquerading as "absolute truth." The silencing of dissent. Of mocking and betraying democracy. Of making a total sham of decency, humanity and justice. Of letting a few extremists create their own "fantasy world" to run the country for their own corrupted self-interest.

Said said it all, and ended one opinion piece as follows: "Jonathan Swift, thou shouldst be living at this hour." But even he might have blanched in disbelief considering the current state and potential horror of its consequences. Said understood. He's sorely missed when we need him most.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10270

Reviewing Danny Schechter's "Plunder"

Reviewing Danny Schechter's "Plunder: Investigating Our Economic Calamity and the Subprime Scandal" - by Stephen Lendman

Danny Schechter is a media activist, critic, independent filmmaker, TV producer as well as an author of 10 books and lecturer on media issues. Some call him "The News Dissector," and that's the name of his popular blog on media issues. He's also co-founder of Media Channel.org. It covers the "political, cultural and social impacts of the media," and provides information unavailable in the mainstream.

Schechter's books include Media Wars; Embedded - weapons of Mass Deception; The Death of Media; The More You Watch The Less You Know; and his newest and subject of this review, Plunder. Subtitled: Investigating Our Economic Calamity and the Subprime Scandal, Schechter examines the fallout from the current economic and financial crisis. What the mainstream media (MSM) suppresses:

-- decades of wealth transfers to the rich;

-- the economy in recession;

-- the result of multiple imploding bubbles: housing, mortgage finance, and an alphabet soup of SDOs, SIVs, SPVs, and a whole menu of levered-up, high-risk securitized assets amounting to financial alchemy; largely outright fraud;

-- the risk things may worsen;

-- from drowning in debt and speculative excess;

-- bankrupt by some measures;

-- huge amounts of corruption;

-- government hiding how bad it is; complicit in it as well;

-- over one million homeowners foreclosed since summer 2007;

-- another million are 90 days past due on payments; foreclosures about to go out on them;

-- three million more potentially in coming months with up to five million total at risk over the next few years in the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression and too little government help provided too late;

-- rising unemployment;

-- failing banks;

-- rising inflation; and

-- consumers maxed out on credit and strapped by indebtedness the way Schechter portrayed them in his 2006 film titled "In Debt We Trust."

Schechter's book is timely, important, and frightening. He does a masterful job deconstructing a complicated subject. One covered up in the mainstream. Its dark side papered over suppressed.

Schechter explains it fully and clearly for lay readers to understand. It's essential they do it because it touches everyone. No one knows how bad it may get, but the current crisis has legs. The worst of it may be ahead, and before it ends millions may feel it painfully. "Plunder" provides ammunition. A blueprint of what's unfolding. Explaining that government help won't be forthcoming, so we're responsible for making the best of a very bad situation.

It begins with understanding the scandalous dilemma unfolding. The complicity of government and Wall Street behind it. The dominant media promoting it. What author Kevin Phillips calls the "rise of big finance" and "global crisis of American capitalism;" "Frankenstein finance;" and a problem so potentially grave that "there may no longer be a plausible way out."

Schechter calls it "financialization" to describe "the kind of control (a Credit and Loan Complex) exert(s) over society every bit as insidious as the Military-Industrial Complex." Made up of Wall Street; big banks; an array of finance, credit card and related companies preying on middle-America and the poor and transferring enormous wealth to the rich. A regulatory environment allowing it. Creating an open field for fraud. Taking full advantage because so-called "watchdogs" are part of the problem. The administration and Federal Reserve as well. The entire power structure allied against working people. A shameful and potentially disastrous situation as a result.

Schechter envisions a different future and dedicates his book to one "free of debt and a world where markets serve the public interest." Light years from what "Credit Card Nation" author Robert Manning writes in the Preface:

-- industrial employment ravaged by neoliberal "free trade" and corporate outsourcing;

-- malls replacing factories as the economy's engine;

-- declining wages in the face of soaring expenses;

-- most families dependent on credit to survive;

-- the calamitous effects of banking deregulation;

-- a corrupted "symbiotic financial-industrial complex" called "financialization;"

-- a new Gilded Age exalting greed;

-- turning consumers into debt slaves; and

-- making the country "perilously dependent" on foreign capital sources for economic security.

Schechter continues in his prologue:

-- sinking markets from a "full-blown credit/debt crisis;"

-- "waves of layoffs," bankruptcies and foreclosures;

-- distorted media coverage on causes and solutions;

-- fear that the worst is ahead;

-- the infectious effect of the spreading "subprime crisis;"

-- trillions of dollars being lost;

-- millions of homeowners at risk; millions of working people also;

-- a Ponzi scheme writ large; the bigger they are, the harder they implode; what PIMCO's Managing Director and economist Paul McCulley calls a "Minsky Moment" that derives from economist Hyman Minsky's analysis; the unwinding of excess exuberance; deflating euphoria; proving market bubbles always burst, and their downward momentum is far more severe and faster than their upside; and

-- a "calculated crime" putting America and the global economy at risk; Schechter says "This is an angry book (because) so many of us are in denial or unaware of the importance of economic forces in shaping our future;" he also rails at his colleagues who've done "such a poor job reporting on the run-up to this disaster."

Schechter chronicles what happened. The threat of depression. Alerting people to the possibility. Highlighting concern about the victims. Challenging the media and chastising their ignoring and distorting the story. Telling us that "democracy must have an economic underpinning and a commitment to fairness." Offering ways to achieve it. Explain how debt restructured the economy and created "a burden that many will never crawl out of." Exposing "shameless profiteers" and calling for an investigation of their crimes and prosecution. Asking for debt relief for Americans. "Urging citizens to get involved and (demand) politicians respond." Getting upset and aroused enough to act.

"It's the Economy Stupid," according to Schechter in his introduction, and, of course, it always is but especially when times are hard. What Senator Chris Dodd calls "a 50-state Katrina," but these waters are rising and uncertainty remains on whether something far more calamitous is coming.

Corruption is pervasive. The public uneasy but largely uninformed. The worst of what's going on is hidden. A vast shady network of "interconnected institutions working through highly legalized and poorly understood systems." Moving unimaginable sums around the world in seconds. Seducing people into the most outrageous schemes involving unrepayable debt. Then having to borrow more to service amounts already unaffordable. Heading for what money manager Jeremy Grantham calls a "slow motion trainwreck"- the inevitability that bubbles always burst. His advice in the current environment. What he calls the "first truly global bubble:" hunker down and "take as little risk as possible" because "I for one am officially scared."

The Origins of the Scandal

When it began, "subprime lending" wasn't a term in common usage, let alone understood outside financial circles. One of its late 1990s originators was Obama campaign finance chairperson Penny Pritzker when she served on the Board of the failed family-owned Hinsdale, IL Superior Bank. It cost the FDIC $700 million and depositors another $65 million, while Pritzker made millions on predatory lending now called "subprime" mortgage schemes. One definition is as follows: "the practice of making loans to borrowers who do not qualify for the best market interest rates because of their deficient credit history." Another in the recent environment was to force-feed them to the largest number of homebuying prospects possible.

There's lots of them, and predatory lenders took full advantage until things erupted into scandal, and the economy headed south. Only then did regulators take notice and decide to investigate - into how "banks, credit rating firms, and lenders value and disclose complex mortgage-backed securities." Three areas specifically, according to Reuters: "the securitization process, the origination process and the retail area." Also insider trading, a common illegal practice that's rarely caught or even looked for. However, the scope of the investigation would be narrow, and its aim was "deterrence." Of what, asked Schechter, now that the horse is out of the barn, and investors and mortgage holders are left holding the bag?

When it's too late to matter, they agree, along with critics, that "inadequate disclosure (or lack of transparency) was at the root of the problem." According to a Senate report, it began in 1997 when house prices began appreciating and registered a 124% gain by 2006. Housing was driving the economy with seven million subprime mortgage loans. Business boomed. Underwriting standards deteriorated, while banks and other lenders invented new ways to make money - "fast" and easy.

In the 1980s, state usury rate ceilings were lifted, creating a whole new market for people who previously couldn't qualify. At higher interest rates, fees, and other add-ons they did. Most borrowers got so-called "2/28" and "3/27" hybrid adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). They originated with low fixed "teaser" rates, good for a two-year period. Afterwards, they're reset semi-annually based on an interest-rate benchmark, or the current going rate. For many holders, payments soared 30% and became unaffordable, and by 2004, 90% of subprime loans were these type ARMs. It was well-known in the industry that "these borrowers (are) most likely to default or become delinquent (and) face foreclosure." The idea was to cash in and let holders take the pain.

Here's how the scheme worked. "So-called 'intermediaries,' unregulated and often unscrupulous mortgage brokers, hustled their way into the housing market" and took over. Using a range of tactics, including "deceptive advertising to block-to-block solicitations to get people to buy and sell, always promising more than they (could) deliver."

So-called "birddogs" were used to get prospects, and all kinds of practices were employed - "abusive, illegal and predatory." They pushed, "enticed...seduced (even) threatened." According to the Joint Economic Report, "For 2006, Inside Mortgage Finance estimates that 63.3% of all subprime originations came through brokers....19.4% through retail channels (and) 17.4% through correspondent lenders....broker share increas(ed steadily) from 2003 through 2006." These companies aren't regulated and pretty much operate freely. By 2005, the percent of securitized subprime mortgages reached "a peak value of more than 81%...."

Housing sales were on a roll, and so was Wall Street, quick to see a lucrative new income stream and ready to cash in. "Now they could make fees originating loans and even more money selling the paper into (the) secondary market, where mortgages could be securitized and sold again for even more money as investments."

The Finmanac financial blog explained its origination:

-- when Solomon Brothers launched Mortgage-Based Securities (MBS) in the 1980s - "bonds with bundles of mortgages, bought from bank lenders, as collateral;"

-- they used a "special purpose vehicle known as Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO);"

-- monthly installments were used to pay interest; and

-- others were quick to cash in on the scheme.

The secondary market became a marriage between "the most reputable financial organizations and the sleaziest grass-roots operators. As is often the case, sleaze moved upwards" because the potential profits were huge but so are the risks.

"Since anyone can originate a loan and sell it to the Investment Banks (to package and sell as MBS), it tempts originators (to write) risky loans (without) worry(ing) about payback(s):"

-- slicing MBS into tranches by risk profile handles the problem;

-- so does having different maturity dates;

-- they're rated by S & P, Fitch and other agencies for legitimacy;

-- hedge and some pension funds bought the most risky paper;

-- risks were discounted because the potential returns were huge as long as economic conditions stayed sound and/or markets continued to rise; and

-- it always helps to have friendly Fed chairmen like Alan Greenspan fueling bubbles.

At the height of the 2000 one he said: "Lofty equity prices have reduced the cost of capital. The result has been a veritable explosion of (high-tech) spending (and) I see nothing to suggest that these opportunities will peter out anytime soon." A week later the Nasdaq peaked. Dropped 78% to its bottom. The S & P 500 49%, and retail investors lost out while Greenspan was busy engineering another bubble now unwinding at the cost of trillions of dollars, millions of people hurt, and the "Maestro" assuming none of the blame.

Economist Anna Schwartz said otherwise and called the Federal Reserve the main cause of today's trouble. She told The Sunday Telegraph: "There never would have been a sub-prime mortgage crisis if the Fed had been alert. This is something Alan Greenspan must answer for." The US Treasury also as one of its senior officials warned subprime lenders about it but was ignored. Even worse, despite state efforts to ban predatory practices, the Bush administration blocked attempts to curtail them and bears major responsibility.

Schechter refers to "an unholy trinity of private players, Wall street firms, and non-regulating regulators" who saw a way to profit hugely. Do it with shady practices, and thus partner in a "criminal conspiracy" to rip off millions of working Americans. "It was the largest robbery in history - not a bank heist but a heist by banks."

The Real Capital of America (and the World)

Wall Street, of course - a city with "a history of causing disasters from its earliest days." Succeeding ones keep getting bigger, but unaffected most often are the powerful banks and investment houses. "Masters of the universe," according to author Tom Wolfe. Well insulated in their luxury board rooms with power, incomes and privileges afforded royalty. Treated like them also in a culture that "rewards clever and devious strategies" within or outside the law. No one is guilty unless caught. Rarely ever does it happen, and when it does the penalties are inconsequential compared to enormous ill-gotten gains. Incentive enough for players to invent new schemes, and they do.

This time, however, they may have been too smart by half. They overreached and are themselves hurt by the fallout. Some won't survive. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers already. Others barely hanging on. Merrill Lynch forced to sell out cheap to Bank of America. The Fed bailing out AIG, and it's anyone's guess who or what's next or if the worst is yet to come. When trouble first surfaced, "only a handful of writers and analysts" understood what was going on - chickens coming home to roost, "a crime in progress, a white collar crime wave" involving trillions of dollars, from working people to the rich. The Wall Street crowd. Mortgage brokers, banks and investment houses, rating agencies and appraisers who overvalued homes for higher fees. Well-designed schemes to let the devil take the hindmost, and they are but so are the perpetrators. Schechter is right calling this "a big story - one of the biggest" and from which "consumers and citizens" have to learn how to cope. It won't be easy.

The Unspoken Context

Crime writ large, and in early 2008 the FBI announced 14 unnamed mortgage companies were being investigated. Ones engaged in predatory lending. That may have deliberately steered customers to more expensive loans and concealed hidden payments and fees. In some cases unfairly jacked up for even higher profits. Targeting the most vulnerable. A 2008 Inner City Press/Fair Finance Watch study confirmed these practices. It called mortgage brokers "the wild, wild west of Capitalism."

Shadowy operators using aggressive, unethical marketing in ghetto and low-income neighborhoods. Making phone solicitations. Door-to-door canvassing. Posing as debt consolidation experts with home improvement schemes and foreclosure "rescue" services. Merchants of sleaze cornering victims and entrapping them in unrepayable debt. Criminal fraud involving respectable bankers as well. Willing to engage in dirty practices because the profits were so tempting and the market so huge. Too big to pass up so it wasn't.

From 2004 to 2006, Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) mushroomed from $157 billion to $559 billion, and 10 investment banks underwrote 70% of $486 billion in 2006 securitizations. Players made millions and top executives far more. A gravy train, and collectively in 2006, at the cycle's peak, the big banks earned $130 billion. It looked like more ahead, and their schemes were perfectly legal in an unregulated environment permitting them. They still are short of future regulatory reform that may or may not come but never will be close to what's needed. Not when both parties embrace a pro-corporate agenda and won't allow it.

The Charleston Observer published a flow chart on how predatory lending typically works:

-- low income, minority and the elderly are targets;

-- loan originators contact and high-pressure them to sign up;

-- brokers arrange loans between targets and lenders;

-- appraisers inflate property values for higher fees and new business;

-- lenders may "bundle" new loans to sell off to other institutions; and

-- Wall Street sits atop this enormous pyramid; in the "catbird seat;" orchestrating the process; and redistributing millions of loan bundles into pools to back up investments worldwide.

Borrowers have no idea how they're being used and set up to be scammed by future mortgage resets. Unaffordable so that millions will lose everything in foreclosure. "Where are the prosecutors," asks Schechter? A Congressional probe. Indictments to go after the guilty. Faint hope along with any chance for redress for victims. No chance either for most people to understand an "opaque and unregulated global financial system" with obscure terminology, according to economist Nouriel Roubini. A highly levered "financial monster that eventually leads to uncertainty, panic, market seizure, liquidity crunch, systemic risk and economic hard landing."

In spring 2006, over a year before things began unravelling, Schechter wrote about inadequate and deceptive media coverage in an article titled "Investigating the Nation's Exploding Credit Squeeze." He examined losers and winners and suggested concrete approaches for responsible reporting:

-- doing it regularly and truthfully about a serious growing problem;

-- identifying the key corporate institutions involved;

-- spotlighting how special interests and lobbyists influence Congress for favorable policies and deregulation;

-- credit card companies also and how their ad dollars affect media coverage of their practices;

-- predatory lending methods in poor neighborhoods; crimes committed against vulnerable working people;

-- what people can do to fight back; and

-- getting people involved at state and local levels; enlisting attorney generals to file class action lawsuits; and pressuring key legislators.

Strong material but the response was "tepid" as well as to a follow-up email campaign with tens of thousands of requests for more media coverage of a vital national issue - well before the crisis hit and a public spotlight might have cooled it. Big Media prefer a sanitized world of market "ups and downs" and one-sided Wall Street and Washington views - unrelated to the real world, what affects most people, and it got Schechter to ask: "where's the outrage?"

Chronicling the Implosion, 2007

In his blogs, newsletters, and articles, Schechter "tracked the evolution of the crisis by week" - a story still evolving about "an economy that is....still unraveling," It began in July 2007 when Dusseldorf-based IKB surprised markets with a profit warning. It set off sharp falls in other German bank shares, and ended up with IKB needing $11.8 billion in bailout aid to survive. Cracks also began showing up in the multi-trillion dollar US securitization markets. They created a crisis for two Bear Stearns (BS) hedge funds. Like IKB, they were heavily into subprime mortgages, highly levered, and it forced BS to sell out to JP Morgan Chase for pennies on the dollar.

Things then began spreading, and it was soon apparent the trouble was systemic, growing, and could touch down wherever outsized risks were taken. According to Business Week, what began as subprime now affected other kinds of debt as well and far more seriously than originally thought. Involving "real money" and danger, "the kind that terrifies bankers and the elite."

The Dow Average topped out in early October and headed down while government jawboning and Fed interest rate cuts and huge liquidity injections didn't help. They still haven't as markets remain volatile, and no one for sure knows what's coming. So jitters remain high and with good reason. The economy is far from healthy. Contagion is spreading offshore. Unemployment is rising. So are foreclosures. Inflation also, and hundreds of billions of bailout dollars haven't helped.

None of this should have happened, and warning signs should have been heeded early on. Schechter chronicled it daily as events unfolded and explained that things were pretty bad and getting worse. Bankers were debating how to handle record losses. Desperation and even panic began surfacing. And America's debt crunch became a personal crisis for millions.

His book reviewed events as they unfolded:

-- jawboning after Wall Street and bankers began reacting and "blaming everybody but themselves;"

-- pundits then "calling for higher standards of transparency;"

-- bailouts involving real money in the hundreds of billions; first the Fed, then major central banks around the world;

-- the result: very little; continued panic; more lending companies imploded; 247 up to April 2008;

-- then interest rate cuts and still no relief; mortgage rates rose as banks are reluctant to lend and want higher returns when they do; after the government's Fannie and Freddie takeover, 30-year fixed-rates fell from 6.26% to 5.88%, but with the economy weak and consumers strapped it's not clear how much this will help, at least in the short term;

-- multi-billions in writedowns continue, likely more coming ahead, and "bear in mind," Schechter observes: "the banks created these problems by lowering their standards and working in collusion with the alchemists at the rating agencies that turned their junk into gold." And government regulators looked the other way and let it happen.

Throughout the crisis, real analysis and understanding was missing - like the 50 million "Missing Americans" Bill Moyers profiled on PBS. The ones Michael Harrington called "The Other America" in which he documented the country's poverty and influenced policy debate in Washington as a result. Today's victims are largely above the poverty line but just barely with two wage-earners and one or both having multiple (low-paying) jobs. They became predatory lending targets, but practically nothing is being done to help them. Billions for the perpetrators. Lip service only for the vulnerable.

What Happens Now?

Crucial to understand is that the current economic crisis "is an outgrowth of the very corporatist policies that will haunt this country for decades." Plus our costly wars. "Obscenely high levels of corruption," and many other characteristics of a nation off its moorings and in trouble. This one in "the quicksand of debt and delusion." Proving unfettered capitalism doesn't work. At a time Business Week magazine suggested "an irresistible force (is) meet(ing) an immovable object." The force is the economy and object an unrepayable wall of debt.

Despite billions of Fed-injected liquidity, the crisis persists and may be worsening. No one knows for sure or how or when it will end. Trillions have been lost. More still to come. Serious talk about a depression. The middle class is shrinking. People are entrapped by debt. Worldwide respect for the country plummeted, and 81% of the public believes things are headed in the wrong direction. Banks are failing. Real estate hit the wall, and in February the Economist magazine wrote that "The world had a weekend to save it from collapsing."

Contagion is spreading everywhere affecting Wall Street, large and smaller banks, investment firms, insurance companies, hedge funds, non-bank lenders, and the greater economy dependent on them. Experts believe fixing things could take years and would require a vast overhaul of a clearly failed system. Establishing workable regulation. Reinstating Glass-Steagall to separate commercial from investment banks. Curbing speculation, and ending the whole range of predatory lending practices. Under a two-party duopoly, chances for that are practically nil.

Debt As A Global Issue

For better or worse, a global economic system interlocks nations and markets. When the US catches cold, pneumonia threatens the world, and it shows in what the Vigilant Investor website reported: that in one week months back the Fed, ECB, and Japanese and Australian central banks injected $458 billion into the markets "to allow the big players to avoid selling off otherwise healthy assets to cover for heavy losses related to the unfolding housing debacle in the US, led over the cliff by subprimes." And in America, the combination of credit card and other debt remains a ticking time bomb some see as another eventual bubble to burst.

They're worried about what author Kevin Phillips calls "a house of cards" built on "reckless finance." And longtime Wall Street economist Henry Kaufman blames years of irresponsible federal banking for "allowing the expansion of credit in huge magnitudes" and calling today's crisis a "global calamity." Former Fed director of monetary affairs and its policy-making panel secretary, Vincent Reinhart, compares today to "the great contraction" of the 1930s and "the great inflation of the 1970s."

Little of this gets media attention or is addressed in political discourse. Never mind huge structural problems, an economy in crisis, millions in duress, and barely a sign of remedial help coming for the vulnerable. As conditions worsen "when will the American people realize how badly they have been had and turn on the plunderers," asks Schechter? The politicians and regulators also who allowed it.

How did it happen:

-- "warnings were ignored;" for example from Bruce Marks, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA) CEO; in 2000, he testified before Congress and warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac engaging in predatory subprime lending; all for naught;

-- "the (Alan Greenspan) Fed encourag(ing) the securitization of mortgages calling it 'financial innovation;' " and

-- "Wall Street firms ignor(ing) worries (from) their own risk managers (and engaging in) shadowy underground banking....They made a fortune - until they didn't."

Hundreds of small players have been indicted but only a few symbolic "truly fat cats" and none of the fattest. The way it always is.

Last Words

Capitalism is characterized by economic ups and downs, speculative frenzies, and panics. But, as Schechter observes, "Few have posed such a serious threat to the entire financial system, (yet most media) coverage has been relegated to not widely read business sections (and) the fortunes of CEOs and business enterprises, not citizens, consumers and most of all homeowners" who've lost or may lose their homes and livelihoods.

Even worse, "many newspapers and TV outlets were complicit." They got huge amounts of ad revenue (often deceptive) from "shady mortgage lenders and credit card companies that encouraged readers and viewers to accept more debt. Some major newspapers are connected with local real estate syndicates and get kickbacks from sales tied to their extensive advertising of homes for sale." Worse still is that coverage (once it began) "may have missed the truly criminal aspects of this crisis" even though there's plenty of evidence around and the FBI is currently investigating 14 mortgage companies.

Overall reporting largely supports business and hesitates being critical. It builds confidence instead, stays upbeat, generates more heat than light, and engages in what Schechter calls "Investotainment" as their specialty. Well layered with deception and boosterism as well.

They ignored victims dating back to the 1990s and even warnings from people like David Walker, the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Government Accounting Office (GEO) head. For years, he was a voice in the wilderness about our growing debt burden that could lead to a sudden collapse and threaten national security. The National Association of Business Economists as well saying: "The combined threat of subprime loan defaults and excessive indebtedness has supplanted terrorism and the Middle East as the biggest short-term threat to the US economy."

And John Kenneth Galbraith in his 1961 classic, "The Great Crash 1929," now prophetic: "The fact was that American enterprise in the twenties had opened its hospitable arms to an exceptional number of promoters, grafters, swindlers, impostors, and frauds. This, in the long history of such activities, was a kind of flood tide of corporate larceny."

Writer Mike Whitney updates it in one of his commentaries saying: "The financial system has been handed over to scam-artists and fraudsters who've created a multi-trillion dollar inverted pyramid of shaky, hyper-inflated, subprime slop that they've sold around the world, with the tacit support of the ratings agencies and the US political establishment."

The story has legs. Banks are in serious trouble. By mid-summer, seven had failed, others since, and many dozens more are at risk. Worldwide as well as contagion spreads everywhere. Huge write-downs have been taken. Unknown amounts more may follow. The Fed has injected over $900 billion to stabilize things with little idea if it will. Then add in lost homes, lender foreclosure costs, falling property prices, equity losses, multiple deflating bubbles, and hundreds of billions for wars and debt service, and the picture is grim, frightening, and according to some experts in the early innings.

Consider a recent "truly stunning but not widely reported" Bank of America study on current "Credit Crisis" losses - $7.7 trillion dollars in equity value globally since the October market peak. Affecting nations everywhere, B of A called it "one of the most vicious (crises) in financial history." Investor George Soros calls it a "systemic crisis," the result of "easy credit, financial innovation and contagion." And economist Ludwig von Misses once said: "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought on by credit expansion. The question is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

Schechter concludes by adding: "Bubbles are rarely foreseen (or want to be seen), as investors scramble into opportunities delivering high returns....self-interest and money-making are the real drivers in the world of finance." They also drive politics, and now at a time of crisis, it's "hard to believe that as the house of cards comes tumbling down, there seems to be a trifecta of failure. The government is unwilling to act decisively. The Congress prevaricates. And the media (engages in) boosterism" and keeps the public uninformed "at the very time when exposure might have stopped these practices before they became too deep and/or expensive to 'fix.' "

Little wonder 81% of the public believes the country is headed in the wrong direction. George Bush's approval rating fluctuates from the low to high 20s. And the July Rasmussen Reports gave Congress its lowest ever rating at 9% with only 2% of respondents calling its performance excellent. Imagine future poll numbers if the economy crashes, millions more become unemployed, lose their homes, and hundreds of billions keep being spent on fruitless wars by whomever becomes president and whichever party controls Washington. Imagine also how people affected will respond or should.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10183

Subverting Democracy Through Electoral Fraud

Subverting Democracy Through Electoral Fraud - by Stephen Lendman

In America and elsewhere, electoral fraud isn't new nor should anyone be surprised it occurs. But as technology improves, so are better ways found to pre-arrange outcomes. It's easier than ever today so more time, effort, money and other resources are earmarked for it. The result:

-- elections and their run-up are mere kabuki theater; the major media and PR industry play the lead role; everything is pre-scripted;

-- secrecy and back room deals substitute for a free, fair and open process;

-- candidates are pre-selected;

-- big money owns them;

-- key outcomes are predetermined;

-- both major parties share fault;

-- partisan politics serve the privileged;

-- they get the best democracy money can buy;

-- elections give them cover;

-- independents are shut out;

-- the media ignore them;

-- issues are unaddressed; horse race journalism and trivia substitute;

-- voter disenfranchisement is rife; many are peremptorily stricken from the rolls; others are intimidated not to vote or are detered by various illegal practices;

-- a little known one is called "vote caging;" it's to suppress minority voters by delisting them if they fail to answer "do not forward" registered mail sent to homes they're not living at - because they're at school, in the military, or away for other reasons;

-- 4.5 million or more Americans can't vote because of past criminal records, or they're currently part of the largest prison population in the world at 2.3 million; mostly black and Latino; and increasing by around 1000 a week;

-- half of eligible voters opt out because their interests go unaddressed;

-- elections are privatized; touchscreen electronic machines do our voting; 80% of all 2004 votes were cast and counted on corporate-owned, programmed, and operated ones with no receipts for verification and no vetting of their "trade secret" software; computer professionals knows these machines are notoriously easy to manipulate - to erase votes, make ones for one candidate show up for another, go dead and be inoperable, or control an entire computer network through one machine and be able to change, add or erase votes easily;

-- Stephen Spoonamore is a self-described "life-long Republican" and one of the world's leading cyber crime experts; from a just released October 2006 interview, he explains how the "structures" of Diebold's machines are inherently flawed and what he considers "IT junk;" regarding the 2000 and 2004 elections, he says: "There is a very strong argument (that they were) electronically stolen, the hanging chads were just a distraction....I think (Diebold machines) are brilliantly designed....to steal elections;" so

-- losers are declared winners, and not just for president; as a result, the electoral process assures people lose out, or put another way - operatively, democracy in America is pure fantasy.

Calling it corrupted and needing repair barely explains things. We have a two-party duopoly. Democrats are interchangeable with Republicans. Differences between them are minor. Not a dime's worth to matter. Both sides support corporate interests, imperial designs, aggressive wars, and the divine right of capital to exploit workers, gain new markets, control the world's resources, and rule it without challenge. Unconsidered - beneficial social change and real electoral democracy with every US citizen 18 or older eligible to vote as the Twenty Sixth Amendment allows.

Constitutionally Flawed by Design

Ferdinand Lundberg separated myth from reality in his critically important book titled "Cracks in the Constitution." It masterfully deconstructs what he called "no masterpiece of political architecture," no "Rock of Ages," and "the great totempole of American society" that, in fact, is deeply flawed. Duplicitous "wheeler-dealer" politicians and their cronies (what today we call "a Wall Street crowd") created it for their own self-interest with no consideration whatever for the greater good. "We the people" were nowhere in sight even in the Bill of Rights that was enacted through compromise and solely to benefit wealthy property owners who wanted its protections.

From the beginning, privilege counted most in America, and it's codified in our most sacred document. It was designed (in Michael Parenti's words to) "resist the pressure of popular tides (and protect) a rising bourgeoisie's (freedom to) invest, speculate, trade, and accumulate wealth" the same way things work today. It was so the country could be run the way politician, jurist and first Chief Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said it should be - for and by "The people who own" it for their self-interest. And to appear nominally democratic "for the defense of the rich against the poor," according to Adam Smith.

Consider voting rights alone that are reviewed below in detail. The Constitution granted our most fundamental right - what Tom Paine called "the primary right by which all other rights are protected" - to privileged adult white male property owners only - around 15% of the population at the time. Native Americans were being exterminated. Blacks were commodities. Women were just childbearing and homemaking appendages of their husbands, and common ordinary folks were to have no say about how the country should be run.

Over time, constitutional and legislative changes as well as High Court rulings opened the process to everyone 18 or older and allowed states the right to enfranchise younger voters at their discretion. Yet today the system is deeply flawed. Large numbers of eligible voters opt out or are excluded, and a host of ways shut out poor minorities most likely to vote the "wrong" way if they're enfranchised - so they're not.

Even though the Constitution, Amendments, other laws and High Court rulings prohibit voting discrimination, violations, in fact, are common and abusive. In addition, no law ensures the universal right to vote under one uniform standard the way it is in most countries. States instead can set their own procedures and norms as long as they set don't conflict with federal laws, but this created a patchwork of 50 different systems no democracy should tolerate.

Proportional Representation v. Winner-Take-All

Most democracies have proportionally representative (PR) government unlike America's winner-take-all system. PR fairly represents all voters and all political parties or groups proportionally to their electoral strength. Thus if candidates from one party win 30% of the votes, they get 30% of legislative seats so that government represents all segments of society, not a privileged minority the way it works under winner-take-all. It awards 100% of power to a 50.1% majority. Effectively shuts out the other 49.9%, and ends up woefully undemocratic. Combined with a two party duopoly, the power of money, privatized electronic voting, purged unwanted voters, and various other schemes it becomes a process only despots would love and envy because they have no equivalently matching system.

The Electoral College

It's another systemic flaw, but the term isn't in the Constitution. And until the early 1800s, it wasn't in common usage to describe the way presidents and vice-presidents are elected. However, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states:

"Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 then explained the original way electors chose presidents and vice-presidents: "The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President....after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President." Today, of course, there's no separation between the two.

The Framers considered several options in choosing the current one, but clearly their own self-interest came first. One idea was for Congress to choose the president. Another was for state legislatures to do it, and a third was to let the people decide by popular vote. The Founders chose a fourth way - an indirect election by each state's-appointed Number of Electors. Nearly always they support voter wishes, but they're free to vote independently if they choose. In the nation's history, 157 electors did so and went against the will of the majority.

Critics cite many concerns about the Electoral College:

-- it's fundamentally undemocratic in cases where popular vote totals exceed the Electoral College count; case in point - Bush v. Gore in 2000, but there were other examples earlier in 1888, 1876 and 1824 as explained below. In 1800 as well before the 12th Amendment required electors to cast two separate votes - one for president and the other for vice-president, but the idea today is to do it for members of the same party;

-- also at issue is whether large or small states gain advantage from the current system; small ones do in having a proportionally large number of electors for their populations; however, large states, by their size, have more electoral votes and thus more influence; it takes lots of small states to equal one California, New York or Texas;

-- if no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, the House chooses the president, the Senate the vice-president, and the public is left out entirely;

-- the Electoral College system reinforces a two-party duopoly and shuts out independent opposition; they get unequal exposure, and most voters won't support candidates who can't win; and

-- 16 times since the Electoral College's founding (2000 being the most recent), winning presidential candidates won a minority of votes; under a winner-take-all no runoff system, there's no way to know if the public's favorite was elected, especially in close races; even worse, when half the electorate opts out, a majority win can be with as little as 25.1% of eligible voters.

Earlier Examples of Electoral Fraud

Much analysis went into showing how the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were stolen. More on them below, but first some earlier examples.

One was the 1824 election known as the "Corrupt Bargain." Four major candidates were involved - all from the same Democratic-Republican party, today's Democrats:

-- Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford - President James Monroe's favorite;

-- Speaker of the House Henry Clay;

-- Andrew Jackson - a former general and Tennessee senator later elected the nation's seventh president in 1828; and

-- John Quincy Adams - son of John Adams, the nation's second president.

When votes of the 24 states were tallied, no winner emerged. Jackson led with 42%. Adams trailed with 32%, and Clay and Crawford had 13% each. In the electoral count, Jackson had 99, 32 short of a majority. Adams trailed with 84, Crawford 41 and Clay 37. Under the 12th Amendment, it fell to the House to choose a winner from the top three, so in the run-up to the March inauguration day, lobbying and back room bargaining were furious. In the process, Clay won over western states for Adams even though they voted solidly for Jackson. He even got his own Kentucky home state's votes where Adams was entirely shut out.

On February 9, 1825, the House met to vote, and after a month of hard-bargaining, Adams took 13 states or the exact minimum he needed to win. Jackson got 7 and Crawford 4. The House galleries were outraged and with good reason. Deal-makers won out, not voters, and three days later Adams rewarded Clay by nominating him for Secretary of State. Jackson supporters were furious, and Clay was dogged for the rest of his life with charges of having struck a "corrupt bargain."

The 1876 election was even worse because of its fallout. Democrat Samuel Tilden got today's equivalent of two million more votes than Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. But in all presidential elections, electoral college votes are decisive. With 20 disputed votes uncounted, Tilden led 184 to 165 so a House committee got to decide. It secretly struck a deal, called the "bargain of 1877," to abandon Reconstruction and sell out freed blacks:

-- Democrats controlled the House;

-- they agreed not to obstruct Hayes' election even though he lost;

-- Hayes, in turn, agreed to recognize Democrat control of the disputed southern states;

-- railroad interests got federal aid; and

-- former slaves were to be guaranteed their rights, but southern Democrats reneged; the era of Jim Crow, segregation, lynchings, and disenfranchisement began and didn't end until the 1960s civil rights legislation - but not entirely, and today Voting Rights Act provisions no longer protect.

Another example was Lyndon Johnson's 1948 senatorial primary win - the most blatant example of electoral theft in US history according to some observers. Historian Robert Caro is one of them. He documented it in the second of his planned four-volume study of our 36th President. He noted that ballot fraud was common in parts of Texas at the time, then went into great detail to show how Johnson miraculously overcame a 20,000 vote deficit to pull out an 87 vote victory. In Caro's words: it wasn't "the only election....ever stolen, but there was never such brazen thievery." The Texas Democrat Party's executive committee upheld the win by a 29 to 28 vote, and Johnson went on to defeat his Republican rival in the general election.

But there was more. The primary result was so disputed that a Federal District Court ordered Johnson's name off the ballot pending an investigation. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, however, voided the order on a petition from Johnson's chief lawyer, Abe Fortas. In 1965 as President, Johnson rewarded Fortas by appointing him to the High Court where he served for four years, then resigned under pressure for having accepted a secret $20,000 a year retainer from a Wall Street financier in return for unspecified advice. No mention was made of how he helped launch Johnson's senatorial career that made him Majority Leader, Vice-President and then President.

Another example involved partisan gerrymandering, not outright fraud, but in the end little different. The process is a form of redistricting that goes back to Elbridge Gerry (one of the Founding Fathers) who as Massachusetts governor in 1812 signed a bill into law that redistricted the state to benefit his Democratic-Republican party, today's Democrats.

States may redistrict legislative district boundaries to reflect decennial census population changes. But individual ones have latitude under their own standards provided they comply with federal requirements. In addition, municipal governments elected on a district basis, as opposed to at large, go through the same process. Criteria may allow for compact, contiguous districts, keeping political units and communities within a single one, and not drawing boundaries for partisan advantage or incumbent protection. All too often, however, one-party dominated legislatures abuse the process, and in 2003 it happened notoriously in Texas under Tom DeLay's leadership.

As Republican Majority Leader, he engineered a virtual coup d'etat against Democrats in his home state - one of the most outlandish examples of gerrymandering ever. It gave Republicans more control. They elected additional members to Congress, and thus got a greater majority in Washington.

The essential rules are to redistrict every decade, but DeLay took advantage of Texas law that contains no prohibition against doing it mid-decade. Democrats challenged his action. Took it to the Supreme Court, and on June 28, 2006 the High Court upheld most of what he designed. It rejected Democrat's contention that the Texas plan was unconstitutional because the legislature redistricted three years after the 2000 census solely to advantage Republicans when they had a voting majority to do it.

Ahead of the Court ruling, Columbia Law School Professor Samuel Issacharoff referred to "a sense of embarrassment about what happened in American politics. The rules of decorum have fallen apart. Voters no longer choose members of the House; the people who draw the lines do," and when they rig the process democracy becomes fantasy.

That characterized the South post-Reconstruction when Jim Crow laws stripped blacks of their voting rights and gave regional Democrats decades of one-party rule. Then recall the 1960 presidential election that Kennedy won over Nixon in spite of charges of fraud and vote buying. The race was close with Kennedy getting 113,000 more votes than Nixon, and his 303 - 219 electoral vote margin masked the fact that key states like Texas, Illinois and others could have gone either way.

As mayor, Richard J. Daley controlled Chicago politics, and it was widely believed that he turned an election eve Nixon lead into a Kennedy win by holding back a large number of precinct results that coincidentally reported later at the same time for Kennedy. After his inauguration, the DOJ conducted an "inconclusive" investigation. As Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy was in charge at the time.

A Brief History of US Voting Rights

-- the 1787 Constitution and 1791 Bill of Rights gave only adult white male property owners (around 15% of the population) the franchise in most states; excluded were men with no property, women, slaves, some free black men, Native Americans, apprentices, laborers, felons and persons considered incompetent for whatever reasons;

-- in 1810, the last religious prerequisite was eliminated;

-- in 1850, property ownership and tax requirements no longer applied;

-- in 1855, Connecticut adopted the first literacy test for voting; Massachusetts followed in 1857; Mississippi and other southern states did as well;

-- in 1870, the 15th Amendment gave freed slaves and adult males of all races the right to vote;

-- in 1889, Florida adopted a poll tax; 10 other southern states followed;

-- in 1913, the 17th Amendment allowed voters to elect senators; previously, state legislatures did it;

-- in Guinn v. United (1915), the Supreme Court ruled that grandfather clause exemptions to literacy tests violated the 15th Amendment and were unconstitutional;

-- in 1920, the 19th Amendment gave women the franchise;

-- in 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act granted all Native Americans citizenship, including the right to vote in federal elections;

-- in Smith v. Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court ruled that all white primaries were unconstitutional;

-- in 1957, the first voting rights bill since Reconstruction passed - the Civil Rights Act of 1957; because of Democrat opposition, it was largely ineffective;

-- in Gormillion v. Lightfoot (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that a gerrymandered Alabama district unconstitutionally disenfranchised blacks;

-- in 1961, the 23rd Amendment let District of Columbia voters participate in presidential elections; it didn't grant statehood or allow representation in Congress;

-- in 1964, the 24th Amendment banned poll taxes in federal elections;

-- in 1965, the Voting Rights Act protected minority voter rights and banned literacy test requirements;

-- in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the Supreme Court banned poll taxes in all elections; the same year, it upheld the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach;

-- in 1970, the Voting Rights Act renewal banned literacy requirements for five years; at the time, 18 states still had them; in Oregon v. Mitchell, the Court upheld the ban, made permanent in 1975;

-- in 1971, the 26th Amendment standardized the minimum voting age at 18 but let states enfranchise younger voters;

-- in Dunn v. Blumstein (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that lengthy residence requirements of over 30 - 50 days prior to state and local elections were unconstitutional;

-- in 1995, federal "motor voter laws" let prospective voters register when they obtain or renew a driver's license; and

-- in 2003, the Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act required states to streamline registration, voting, and other election procedures.

Bush v. Gore in Election 2000

On December 12, the Supreme Court hijacked Election 2000 by deciding for George Bush after three days earlier halting the Florida recount on the spurious grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. It was the first time ever in US history that the High Court reversed a popular vote (5 - 4) to install its own preferred candidate - and the public has paid dearly ever since.

The High Court settled an election that was deeply flawed and rigged to elect George Bush. The Supreme Court then affirmed it by cutting off debate - most visibly in Florida. For its part, the media cheerled the process and wholeheartedly approved. They, too, got their man in Washington and rallied around him ever since. More on that below.

Election 2000 was rife with fraud, but its outcome hinged on how Florida went. Investigative journalist Greg Palast (and others) uncovered gross irregularities. He documented them in running reports, and published a full account in his 2002 book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." He got hold of two CD-ROM disks "right out of the computer offices of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris" with an evidentiary database of electoral fraud.

In the run-up to November 2000, Harris, "in coordination with Governor Jeb Bush," ordered 57,700 mostly poor African Americans and Latinos (likely to vote Democratic) removed from voter registries for having been "identified" as ex-felons and thus ineligible to vote under state law. Palast called it as "The Great Florida Ex-Con Game" and cited the use of "scrub lists." Two of them comprised nearly 1% of Florida's electorate and almost 3% of its black voters. They were compiled by the DBT Online subsidiary of Atlanta-based Choicepoint, a company with close Republican ties - much the way Diebold is with electronic voting machines.

On close examination, extensive inaccuracies were found in its work:

-- Floridians were purged (without verification) because their names, gender, birthplace and race matched countless ex-felons who show up multiple times in state phone directories - like "David Butler" with 77 listings;

-- alleged crimes were listed as committed in future years; and

-- ex-felons of other states were removed whose voting rights were restored.

Choicepoint vice-president Martin Fagan later admitted that at least 8000 names were incorrectly listed and removed from voter rolls prior to the election. He also said accuracy checks weren't conducted. That's for users, like the state of Florida, to do.

On April 17, 2000, at a special Atlanta congressional hearing, Choicepoint vice-president James Lee testified that Florida officials told DBT to purge names matching 80% of ones believed to be ineligible. Acceptable procedure allowed dropping middle initials and suffixes and adding nicknames and aliases. In addition, names could be reversed so Thomas Lee could be removed instead of Lee Thomas.

On February 16, 2001, before the US Civil Rights Commission, Choicepoint senior vice-president George Bruder testified that the company misinformed Florida Supervisors of Elections officials on the issue of race in compiling purge lists. It got Palast to conclude that "An African-American felon named John Doe might wipe out the registration of an innocent African-American Will Whiting, but not the rights of an innocent Caucasian Will Whiting."

Under orders from Jeb Bush, various other obstructive practices took place before and on election day:

-- ballot boxes in African-American districts were missing and uncounted;

-- in black precincts, state troopers (near polling sites) intimidated and delayed voters for hours by searching cars and setting up roadblocks;

-- some precincts asked for two photo IDs; Florida law requires only one;

-- African-American students at schools like Florida A&M signed up in force as first-time voters but faced obstructions at polling stations; they were turned away because they couldn't show a registration card or drivers license; but Florida law lets eligible residents sign an affidavit (not provided) and swear they hadn't voted;

-- other practices were also revealed - solely in minority districts: voters were turned away and directed to vote elsewhere; they were never mailed registration cards; and they were told they showed up too late and polls were closed;

-- in minority districts, requested absentee ballots were never received; and

-- alleged forged absentee ballots voted for George Bush.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act bans discriminatory practices that for decades disenfranchised blacks and other minorities. It prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure (that may) deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." It established various federal oversight procedures for enforcement, but for Election 2000 it hardly mattered. In Florida, abuses were brazen, but Democrats ducked the issue. They ceded the state and election to George Bush even though their candidate Gore won, and by a comfortable margin.

On January 6, 2001, a joint session of Congress convened to count the Electoral College votes. In a final humiliation and despite 20 Democrat congressmen objecting, no party senator joined their colleagues to adjourn the session and have it reconvene for separate House and Senate votes as required by an 1887 law. With the Senate divided 50 - 50, Democrats controlled the body since Vice-President Gore had the deciding vote. Even he refused to intervene, but it wasn't surprising. On December 13, 2000, he conceded the election, the day after the Supreme Court awarded it to George Bush.

Bush v. Kerry in Election 2004

As bad as 2000 was, Election 2004 was worse because technology smoothed the way with electronic ease. Following the 2000 election, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) passed in 2002 as the first ever comprehensive electoral law designed to facilitate fraud. Hailed as a major advance, it, in fact, corrupts the process because of how it's abused. It ushered in the age of privatized voting - on touchtone electronic machines owned, programmed, operated and controlled by giant corporations with close Republican ties. Today, over 80% of all votes are cast and counted this way. Most states require no verifiable paper receipts, so it's easy to manipulate pre-arranged outcomes, and not just for president.

A record 16.8 million new voters registered for Election 2004 - most according to surveys for Kerry making him a heavy favorite when George Bush's approval rating hovered around 40%, and most voters believed the country was headed in the wrong direction. At the time, Zogby International reported that no president since Harry Truman won a second term with a below-50% rating. Yet (officially) Bush got 11.6 million more votes than in 2000 and beat Kerry by a comfortable three million margin. It was much closer in the Electoral College (286 - 251), and again Florida (and Ohio) made the difference.

As in 2000, extensive fraud explained things with Greg Palast again doing first-rate investigative work. So did activist, media critic and Professor of Media Ecology Mark Crispin Miller in his superb book "Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform." In 2007, it came out in paperback with 100 new pages for added insight into our electoral problems:

-- it exposed denial in the progressive media - publications like The Nation, Mother Jones, TomPaine.com and Salon that saw "no evidence" of electoral fraud when the work of Miller, Palast and others exposed loads of it;

-- it showed the 2006 elections were just as fraudulent at a time independent surveys indicated a huge Democrat sweep; yet they only gained 31 House seats for a majority and five in the Senate for a 49 - 49 tie along with two independents - Bernie Sanders allied with Democrats and Joe Lieberman with Republicans plus Vice-President Cheney as tie-breaker if needed;

-- it documented how Ohio was stolen much like Florida in 2000 and again in 2004 with electronic voting machine ease plus an array of other practices that betray a rigged process - and that's Miller's purpose for his book: a plea for reform with practical ideas like banning electronic voting, returning to verifiable paper ballots, and placing civil servants in charge of elections, not partisan politicians or self-serving corporations. Short of that, future elections will be predictable. "The election of 2008 will be (like) 2004 - and a preview of 2012, 2016, 2020 and every 'presidential race' thereafter," according to Miller. Who can disagree based on clear evidence since 2000 alone.

Post-election, Kerry told Miller he knew that Republicans stole the election and denied him the presidency. He then claimed he never said it, putting him strongly in the business as usual camp with electoral and other progressive reforms off the table. Miller called his response "an irrational refusal to confront, or even to perceive, a clear and present danger to American democracy." Like Gore in 2000, he quit without a fight but didn't wait as long to do it. He conceded on November 3, less than 24 hours after the previous day's election.

Sourcewatch.org documented a sampling of some "deeply troubling" 2004 practices:

-- the major media blackout (and too much of it from progressive sources);

-- nearly half the six million American voters living or expected to be abroad never received requested absentee ballots, or got them too late; military personnel, likely to vote Republican, had no such problems;

-- the Republican National Committee hired consulting firm Sproul & Associates to register voters in six battleground states; they reportedly refused to register Democrats;

-- malfunctioning New Mexico voting machines wiped out 20,000 votes to let Bush carry the state by a 5988 margin;

-- faulty voting equipment spoiled one million or more ballots; Greg Palast reported "over three million votes cast but never counted" broken down as follows:

(1) rejected provisional ballots (for registered voters unlisted on rolls) - 1,090,729;

(2) rejected spoiled ballots (ones malfunctioning machines didn't count) - 1,389,231;

(3) uncounted absentee ballots (for minor technical reasons) - 526,420; and

(4) registered voters barred from voting (alleged ex-felons, blacks, Latinos, and others in Democrat counties) - no precise number known nationwide but it was easily in the hundreds of thousands.

Palast also reported that a US Census voter turnout announcement (seven months after the election) confirmed (in a footnote) that 3.4 million fewer votes were cast than the "official" Clerk of the House of Representatives tally - telling evidence of voter disenfranchisement.

Sourcewatch.org further reported:

-- exit polls in 30 states deviated from final results by amounts far beyond margins of error; in all but four states, discrepancies favored Bush; it's widely acknowledged that exit polling is the most reliable predictor of final results; not in 2004 with Ohio Exhibit A:

-- tens of thousands of eligible voters were illegally purged from the rolls;

-- Democrat registration cards weren't processed;

-- 357,000 voters, overwhelmingly Democrat, were prevented form voting or their votes weren't counted; Bush's Ohio "victory" margin was 118,599 - clear proof he lost and Kerry carried the state and the election;

-- there were too few Democrat precincts, and they got fewer voting machines than Republican ones;

-- as a result, people waited up to 12 hours to vote; some gave up and went home; others were denied and told they were at the wrong precinct;

-- evidence that over 80,000 Kerry votes went for Bush, and most disturbing of all that

-- one in every four Ohio registrants showing up to vote discovered they weren't listed on the rolls because of Republican Secretary of State and co-chair of Bush's re-election committee Kenneth Blackwell's purging.

These and other practices were rampant in Ohio, Florida and around the country in key battleground and other states:

-- the Republican National Committee's Voter Outreach of America collected thousands of Nevada voter registration forms; Republican ones were turned in to public officials; those for Democrats were destroyed;

-- too few voting machines were in Democrat precincts, and many of them malfunctioned or broke down; in Republican precincts, voting went smoothly;

-- some Democrat precinct polling stations never opened; others opened late and closed early;

-- Republican-funded agitators were deployed in key Democrat precincts; they intimidated voters with unfounded threats of imminent arrest for failure to pay child support, unpaid parking tickets, and other false accusations;

-- key Republican counties recorded impossibly high turnouts - up to 98% and in some cases higher than the number of registered voters; in Democrat ones, the reverse was true - as low as 7%;

It showed democracy in America is pure fantasy, but you'd never know it from major media reports and too many others from sources that should know better.

How the Media Cover Presidential Politics

On all vital topics, major media sources produce a daily flow of disinformation masquerading as real news. It's their role as "Guardians of Power" the way Davids Cromwell and Edwards explained in their powerful critique of professional journalism. They and others show that the media are in crisis, and a free and open society is at risk. Trivia substitutes for substance and fiction for fact. News is carefully filtered, dissent suppressed, and supporting the powerful undermines the public interest.

As a result, wars of aggression are called liberating ones. Civil liberties are denied for our own good. Patriotism means supporting lawless governments, and electoral politics are just kabuki theater and horse race journalism. It shows up noticeably in presidential years as spectacle when saturation coverage goes round the clock. Horse race trivia substitutes for real information, and undisguised partisanship favors Republicans over Democrats mostly getting short shrift or attacked. No wonder the public is uninformed and half of eligible voters opt out. Why bother when their issues go addressed. Cases in point: Elections 2000 and 2004.

In the run-up to Election 2000, it was painful following the one-sided coverage for George Bush - especially on television and right-wing talk radio. But that paled compared to the unprecedented post-election partisanship to halt the Florida recount, ignore the popular will, support an electoral power grab, and back the illegitimacy of an unelected president. Working journalists became tools of power, apologists for their actions, and co-conspiratorially responsible for the outcome.

They cheerled the dismantling of democracy. Supported George Bush's illegitimacy, and editorialized like The New Times about his "unusual gracious(ness)" post-election, his "hopeful (offer) of conciliation (and) Despite the bitterness of the last five weeks, and indeed the last year, Americans are ready to turn the page. George Walker Bush....must lead the way." The Washington Post noted that "Mr. Bush achieved his narrow victory in part by putting a softer face on his party - by his promise to be a uniter....We congratulate him on his 'victory.' "

Post-election, a consortium of large US news organizations (including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and others) enlisted the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago to conduct a Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review of all machine-uncounted ballots in Florida, including "undervotes" and "overvotes (175,000 in total)." The former were ballots initially registering no vote while the latter were marked ballots for Bush or Gore with the candidate's name also written in or circled.

On November 12, 2001 (10 months after Bush took office), they released NORC's results in an attempt to suppress the truth and boost the administration's legitimacy. Unsurprisingly, they showed that Bush would have won (Florida) by 493 votes even without the High Court's intervention. They also claimed he'd have had a 225 vote margin if recounts in four disputed counties had been completed. The New York Times hailed the result as proof that the "Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," and the other consortium members went along. But it was false, and they knew it.

Their own study showed that if all Florida "undervotes" and "overvotes" had been counted and added to the final tally, Gore would have won. This was so explosive that a New York Times journalist on the project reportedly told a colleague they'll be "major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets out." But it didn't because consortium member managements quashed it under heavy Bush administration pressure.

Yet not entirely. The NYT went both ways on November 12, but buried the bad news on a back page most readers never saw. Reporters Ford Fessenden and John Broder wrote: "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount....to go forward." Then further down they said: examination of all rejected ballots "found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount." The Times also reported that Bush netted about 290 votes from illegally cast absentee ballots, and the consortium estimated that various disparities cost Gore tens of thousands of Florida votes compared to Bush's narrow 537 victory margin. Nonetheless, they acquiesced to his power grab and share major responsibility for its fallout.

And it continued during the 2004 campaign, most notably in collaboration with the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Despite their unfounded accusations about John Kerry, the media jumped on them. They left military records and eyewitness accounts unexamined that would have exposed them, and took the lead in spreading spurious disinformation a little checking would have debunked.

Back in 2000 as well as 2004, they also downplayed Bush's Air National Guard record. His admission of abusing alcohol until age 40. Allegations of drug abuse. His explosive temper, and his unimpressive Yale and Harvard Business School records.

Also his dismal business performance, yet he made a fortune nonetheless. Oil exploration company Arbusto lost money but got millions from family-connected investors to keep it afloat. Then Spectrum 7 Energy bought Arbusto in 1984. In 1986, it was failing when oil prices collapsed. Harken Energy bought out Bush's equity in exchange for company stock. A 1991 SEC document suggested he violated federal securities law at least four times by selling Harken stock while serving as a director. But GHW Bush was president. The case was quietly dropped, and the media never bothered to expose the kind of shenanigans they'd have jumped on against Democrats.

Nor in 2004 to highlight Bush's early administration years that coincided with the biggest corporate scandals and bankruptcies since Teapot Dome in the 1920s. It's no wonder that author Kevin Phillips expressed fears in his new book, "Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism." He's worried that we may be on the edge of the abyss because of "three profligate decades," an orgy of excess under GW Bush, and though he's not prone to predicting, he leans heavily on an unpleasant outcome. But you'd never know it from the way media touts protect Republicans, including the worst of the current incumbent's record.

Well into Election 2008, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting notes that the same 2000/2004 script is in play in its May/June and July/August issues. They feature stories about "The Press Corps' Unshakeable Crush on McCain" and "Obama's Elitism." Here's a sampling of what Professor Henry Higgins called "(quotes) that would make (an honest observer) blush."

On McCain:

-- MSNBC host Chris Mathews - "The press loves (him). We're his base."

-- Newsweek's Howard Fineman - "McCain('s) as joyously combative as Popeye and as earnestly confessional as Oprah."

-- Charles Lane in the New Republic - "I'm falling for John McCain."

-- CBS 60 Minutes host Mike Wallace - so enamored with McCain that "I'm thinking I may quit my job if he gets the nomination."

-- CBS host Bob Schieffer - (McCain's the) most famous maverick of the last half of the 20th century,"

-- the Washington Post's Dana Milbank - "He's the bravest candidate in the presidential race. While his rivals pander to primary constituencies, the former prisoner of war gives audiences a piece of his mind."

-- Time magazine Michael Scherer - McCain's nomination will transform the GOP and "shift its priorities on key domestic issues ranging from global warming to the cheap importation of prescription drugs. Does this sound too good to be true?" Not according to Scherer.

-- The New York Times David Brooks - McCain is allergic to blind party discipline and builds radically different coalitions depending on his views on each issue."

-- The New York Times "liberal" columnist Frank Rich - "Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain," in reference to their comments on McCain saying it's "fine with me" if US troops stay in Iraq for 100 years.

-- The Washington Post's David Broder (on Meet the Press) after the Caucasus crisis erupted: this was "particularly a moment where John McCain can claim to have been prescient, because....he draws a very sharp line when it comes to Russia." In contrast, "Obama's basic message on foreign policy is it's better to talk to our enemies than to get ready to fight them. And here's a case where, clearly, talking did not dissuade Russia from this act of violence," and

-- the major media response to McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate; pundits and reporters hailed it as proof of his "maverick" nature; reclaiming it; asserting it; recapturing it; a reference to a "maverick" choosing a "maverick;" and McCain returning "to the original John McCain.;" not a hint that it was done to placate the most extremists Republican elements.

On Obama:

At the start of his campaign, "whispers about his religious beliefs," questions about his patriotism, and "Is he one of us" came up. Then there were days of controversy over Rev. Wright and whether Obama still belonged to his church. Back in 2000, it was Gore the exaggerator v. Bush the uniter and compassionate conservative. In 2004, it was Kerry's "flip-flops," his "distorted" war record, stiffness, unlikability and inability to "connect" with voters.

Now it's Obama the elitist or snob with AP reporter Ron Fournier warning that he had "better watch his step (since he's) bordering on arrogance (and) can be a little too cocky for his own good." He and his wife "ooze entitlement."

-- MSNBC's Chris Mathews (again) in an obvious racial slur - "the fact that's he's good at basketball doesn't surprise anybody, but the fact that he's terrible at bowling does make you wonder." He also questioned Obama's choice of beverage at an Indiana campaign stop; orange juice over coffee he called "weird."

-- the New York Times Maureen Dowd contrasted her just-plain folks upbringing with Obama's "detached egghead quality." She also characterizes him the way she went at Gore and Kerry by calling them "girlie men" and equating Democrats with "desperate housewives perceived as the party in skirts."

-- the New York Times David Brooks (again) - does Obama "really get the way we live? Voters want a president who shares their values and life experiences," implying Obama doesn't so why vote for him.

-- numerous media outlets attacked Michelle Obama on not being patriotic, and CNN and others characterized her husband the same way and accused him of having a "cultish following."

Slate's John Dickerson has had enough of Obama's euphoria - "Isn't there a natural limit to our enthusiasm for this kind of sweeping phenomenon."

-- the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan called the Obamas self-centered "snobs" who can't relate to "normal Americans."

-- The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol echoed the theme.

-- Time.com's Ana Marie Cox played up the liberal media bias by reporting that McCain's camp is complaining that the media are being too easy on Obama.

-- The National Review's Lisa Schiffren argued that Obama's mixed-race parents had communist leanings because back then that's the only reason blacks and whites married.

-- Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid - "Obama admitted (a) relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA."

-- CNN's Carol Costello suggesting that an audience at an Obama rally was "a scene some increasingly find not inspirational, but creepy," while the on-screen graphics read: "OBAMA-MANIA BACKLASH (and) PASSION CULT-LIKE TO SOME," and

-- commentators, reporters and pundits ranging from ABC's Charles Gibson, MSNBC's Chris Mathews, PBS News Hour's Mark Shields, NPR's Scott Simon, the Washington Post's David Broder and others misrepresenting Obama's pledge to take public financing when, in fact, they knew he made no such unconditional promise.

Sum it up and there's no surprise about the media's one-sided loyalty. Their bias for Republicans over Democrats, and their willingness to shape stories for their own self-interest. Regardless of the campaign's outcome, reporting is deplorable because of today's professional journalism. Media giants are dominant. Bottom-line considerations are primary, and what passes for news, information and campaign coverage is shaped by commercial considerations. Republicans are seen as more accommodative so full-court press coverage backs them. But if elections aren't legitimate and working journalists aren't for truth, what good are they? As "Guardians of Power" not much.

Electoral Reform - Reviving Democracy Depends on It

Democracy in America is pure fantasy. Electoral fraud is Exhibit A. Reviving the republic starts off with reforming how we elect public officials. Short of that, darker days are ahead. Lots of ideas are around, and here's a few:

-- enfranchise all US citizens automatically at birth (like in Venezuela) under one uniform national law for all elections - federal, state and local; do it by constitutional amendment if necessary;

-- affirm one national minimum voting age; under the 26th Amendment it's 18, but states have latitude to lower it;

-- remove all prohibitions against voting, including for ex-felons and current inmates, most of whom are imprisoned for non-violent offenses such as illicit drug possession; the US is the only democracy that denies ex-felons the right to vote; overall it's in the bottom rankings of world electoral democracy and with good reason;

-- de-privatize elections; let only (federal, state and local) unelected civil servants run them under a nonpartisan election commission; keep politicians and business interests out of them;

-- repeal the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and expose its scheme to let private corporations run elections using easily rigged touchscreen electronic voting machines;

-- prohibit electronic voting; mandate hand-counted (and easily verifiable) paper ballots for all elections - federal, state and local; by constitutional amendment if necessary to encompass other reform provisions;

-- end the Electoral College for presidential elections - again by constitutional amendment; democracy means rule by the people; elections should be solely by popular vote;

-- adopt proportionally representative governance in place of winner-take-all;

--move to instant runoff voting (IRV) under which voters rank candidates by order of preference; as many or as few as they wish with lower ranking ones not counting against higher ones; then count first choices; candidates with a majority of them win; otherwise, candidates with the fewest first choices are eliminated; votes for them then go for voters' second choices; the process continues until one candidate gets a majority and wins, and there's no need for expensive and time-consuming second rounds when they're held;

-- publicly fund elections and prohibit all private contributions; democracy can't work based on one dollar equals one vote;

-- prohibit paid political advertising; require all broadcasters to allocate enough free time to all candidates ahead of elections as a requirement for using the public airwaves; begin weeks, not months, ahead of election day;

-- prohibit computerized voter registries to eliminate the possibility of mysterious purging;

-- prohibit gerrymandering practices; allow only decennial redistricting to account for population changes, not to work for partisan advantage or to favor incumbents;

-- publicly fund independent exit polling and keep commercial interests out of it; allow no results to be released until all polling stations are closed nationwide;

-- let international and independent observers monitor polling sites;

-- make election day a federal holiday and require employers to allow enough time to vote with no docking of pay to do it.

These and other reforms will go a long way toward fixing a broken system. Rigged for the powerful, and returning the most fundamental of all democratic rights to the people - where it belongs. Short of that, darker times are ahead, as if they're not bad enough already.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10183

Vying To Be Toughest

Vying to Be Toughest - by Stephen Lendman

Ignoring public sentiment, both party nominees stress "national security" and face off on who's toughest on "terrorism." For 2009, expect more of the same. A continued right wing agenda. Bigger budgets for militarism. Police state repression for enforcement. Little attention to public needs. No end to wars and occupation. Possible new ones against Iran, Pakistan, elsewhere in Eurasia, and a resurgent confrontation with Russia.

Welcome to the future. Securing it for capital. More of the same after eight years under Bush. New policies the same as failed ones. Hopes again raised and then dashed. Repeating November 2006. Everything changed but stayed the same. New faces, same agenda. All parts interchangeable. A two party duopoly assures it. Get prepared. The new incumbent will disappoint, and if it's John McCain consider Chalmers Johnson's advice about a Vancouver condo for safety.

No guessing about a man who even scares some in the Pentagon. Extremists on the right advise him. He's comfortable with a 100 year Iraq occupation. Militarism as a way of life. American boots on the ground everywhere. An enlarged military to achieve it - 150,000 more troops for starters. Endless wars. For their own rewards. Imperialism for its own sake. Colonizing everything. Committed to the most extremist Israeli - Christian Right agenda. Unilateralism. Nationalism. Patriotism's dark side. Americanism as expansionism. Unlimited federal power. Civil liberties sacrificed for security. One-sided support for privilege. A future most Americans oppose. A man to make Cheney look like Gandhi, according to Pat Buchanan. A de facto third Bush term or worse. GW on steroids some believe. Absolute executive power. Rock hard-line. A neo-con's neocon. Unparalleled dangers under him. No different than most dictators. No one to trust with the presidency. Think it can't happen here. Think again.

The Obama Alternative

Many see him as change. The "Obama Moment" for The Nation magazine. "Electric" when he was nominated. A "historic candidacy." A "new generation (with) new possibilities." A "sea-change election." A "stark ideological contrast." A clear "change of course." Progressive-driven reform. The "end of the Reagan era" if he wins. "An end of the occupation of Iraq." Committed to "affordable healthcare for all....holding corporations and banks more accountable...empowering labor....challenging our trade policies....a social liberal." He'll tax the wealthy, avoid right wing judicial nominees, and launch a whole new direction for America under his leadership.

A shameful Nation magazine display that turns reality on its head and echoes its 19th century roots. It was once unapologetic about slavery. Later failed to advocate for black and other minority rights, labor, women's suffrage and more. It championed 19th century laissez faire. Attacked the Grangers, Populists, trade unions and socialists.

In 1999, it called the US-led NATO Serbia-Kosovo aggression "humanitarian intervention." After 9/11, it backed the official explanation in spite of huge amounts of evidence debunking it. Initially supported the Afghan war. The Iraq war early on. "No evidence" the 2004 election was stolen. Attacks Hugo Chavez. In January 2006, ran a repugnant full-page anti-Muslim ad titled "Arabian Fables" claiming Palestinians are prone to violence and deception. Then in March 2006, ran an article titled "The Fight for Haiti" in which it attacked Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Called him "feared and despised," and blamed Haitians for their occupation and Washington-inflicted misery.

No surprise their editorial position would endorse a candidate and party supporting privilege over beneficial social change and ending foreign wars and occupation. They're gatekeepers and hide the truth about Democrats. Misrepresent them as offering change. Betray their readers and deceive them about a party and their multi-millionaire machine politician favorite - no populist, liberal, or for real progressive change. Just business as usual for his establishment backers picking him to lead his party because he's "safe."

Still he's called different. Less risky. Progressive. Hopeful change. A new direction. A man of the people. Anyone but Bush. The alternative to McCain. A pragmatist. A realist. Non-ideological or less so. Middle-of-the-road. A Kennedy type figure. His natural heir. Inheriting the "torch." Measured, not impulsive. Thoughtful. A good communicator. Think again. Maybe another opportunist like Kennedy was viewed and about whom his biographer, Robert Dallek, wrote: "He never said a word of importance in the Senate," and according to some never did much there either.

Even so, he shunned aggressive wars and opposed a Vietnam escalation. But 1960 was different than today's new millennium world with McCain in the wings to extend it. Would Obama be as bad or worse? Likely not. Just the lesser of two evils or what Ralph Nader calls the "evil of two lessers." No choice to settle for in his judgment. Especially when both candidates support global militarism, backing Israel and the Christian Right against Iran, unilaterally attacking Pakistan, staying in Iraq for the duration, upping the ante in Afghanistan, and risking a dangerous Eurasian confrontation with Russia.

Both conventions are over. It's Obama v. McCain, and expect the winner to disappoint like always and on what voters say matter most - ending aggressive wars and addressing long-neglected social needs, made all the worse given capitalism's global crisis and both parties' commitment to privilege.

After the Democrat convention ended, author, media activist, critic, and independent filmmaker Danny Schechter wrote: "You won't hear a call for a national crackdown on the corporate crime, fraud, and abuse that, in just the last few years, have robbed trillions of dollars from workers, investors, pension holders, taxpayers and consumers....Democrats will not shout for a payback of ill-gotten gains, to rein in executive pay, ending corporate personhood, or to demand corporate sunshine laws."

Instead of embracing change, Obama has a rogue's gallery for advisors. He's largely dismissive. Assures business as usual, and wants to prove he's toughest on national security. He's for expanding the military - for starters, 65,000 more Army troops and 27,000 more Marines along with bigger supportive budgets. He also wants more counter-insurgency and intelligence resources and funding for language and cultural skills.

His new running mate, Joe Biden, advocates larger special operations forces and a new civilian corps to respond to post-conflict emergencies worldwide. He favors "universal national service" that sounds very much like conscription, but he won't say. He's also a six-term senator and:

-- longtime defender of privilege;

-- backer of military adventurism;

-- Bush's foreign wars;

-- partitioning Iraq into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish areas;

-- now critical of failure in Iraq, not the war he supports; just the way it's run; "a deep hole" in his own words;

-- eliminating "fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan;"

-- confronting Russia and China;

-- enlarging NATO;

-- supporting Georgia over Russia;

-- securing US dominance in Eurasia; and

-- recommending the Saakashvili government get $1 billion in emergency aid - for weapons and munitions, but he won't say.

He also supports:

-- a tightened Cuba embargo;

-- US intervention in Darfur;

-- repressive laws like the USA Patriot Act;

-- tough RICO ones; and

-- big business interests foremost at the expense of beneficial social change.

In the 1990s, he backed Clinton's Balkans aggression. In a 2007 (American Jewish cable) Shalom TV interview he called Israel "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East" and said: "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist." AIPAC responded with praise and called him "a strong supporter of the US-Israel relationship....and the pro-Israeli community."

He also supported anti-consumerist laws like the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, now hurting homeowners in trouble and facing foreclosure. Others including the 1996 Telecommunications Act. It was grand theft media. A colossal giveaway. The loosening of ownership rules for further consolidation, and the problem of today's journalism compounded - all propaganda all the time, carefully filtered news, hundreds of irrelevant cable channels, and the reason a free and open society isn't possible. Reason also why both party candidates support it.

Reason as well why media pundits hail Obama's choice, according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). USA Today called him "pragmatic." His foreign policy depth makes up for what Obama lacks. The Washington Post agreed that Biden "shores up Obama's inexperience on national security issues." The New York Times, AP, ABC News and others echo the same theme with some adding that the choice highlights Obama's weakness, and ABC's George Will saying: "When you pick a running mate to correct a defect in your resume....you underscore the defect. Now the thinness of Mr. Obama's resume is as clear as putty."

What about McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin - Alaska's (population 684,000) governor since December 4, 2006, former two-term mayor of (Anchorage suburb) Wasilla (population 9800), and before that on its City Council for four years and PTA. Another Dan Quayle - Geraldine Ferraro moment. Maybe a Tom Eagleton one. A woman only notable for having been chosen. Clearly with no qualifications for the job. Done to appease the Christian Right. A thumb-in-the-eye to other Americans.

The New York Times said her selection "astonished the political world....a little-known governor of Alaska and self-described "hockey mom" with almost no foreign policy experience." Putting a brave face on a surprise pick, The Times called her "a kindred spirit to Mr. McCain (who) play(s) especially well among evangelicals and other social conservatives, who have always viewed (McCain) warily and who have been jittery in recent weeks because of reports that (he) was considering naming a running mate who favors abortion rights."

The Times added that "Many conservatives (believe Palin) would energize them," and according to former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed, "They're beyond ecstatic." The AP was less enthusiastic saying "In two short years (Palin) moved from small-town mayor....to the governor's office and now....the first female running mate on a Republican presidential ticket. She has more experience catching fish than dealing with foreign policy or national affairs."

No problem for the Wall Street Journal that called Palin "a surprise stroke aimed at attracting Hillary Clinton supporters (with) solid conservative positions (and a) reputation as a reformer." Its editorial page referred to "A Reform Ticket" responding to the "public want(ing) change (and that shows) Mr. McCain is serious about changing his party."

As for experience, the Journal says "Palin's credentials as an agent of reform exceed Barak Obama's....(a man who) rose through the Chicago Democratic machine without a peep of push-back....Obama slid past the kind of forces that Mrs. Palin took head on." She represents "a new generation of leaders....Mr. McCain (aims) to offer himself to voters as a reformer." With a "genuine" one in Palin, he "may have found the right idea and the right person to make his run."

More neutral observers have different views:

-- about a Republican party in crisis; more than ever being run by its most extremist elements;

-- a questionable vice-presidential choice;

-- a woman allied with Big Oil; favoring drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; opposing the Interior Secretary's decision to list polar bears as endangered species as it might anger the state's oil interests;

-- opposes government-funded healthcare;

-- up to her nomination had no stated positions on war and peace; foreign policy; the economy; "free" trade; immigration; and various other world and national issues; nor ones of public concern; now, of course, she's for permanent war, a homeland police state, ending social services, "work(ing) to expand and deepen the strategic (US - Israeli) partnership," and placing corporate interests above all others;

-- supports red meat Christian Right issues - pro-life, creationism, and against gay rights and same-sex marriage;

-- also an enlarged military, the death penalty, school vouchers, tough drug laws, and for churches to provide welfare services, not government;

-- her lifetime NRA membership and right to bear arms;

-- her ethics problem over her controversial firing of Alaska's public safety commissioner; also her attempt to remove Wasilla's librarian for refusing to ban books with views she opposes;

-- her lightweight political credentials;

-- her past membership (with her husband) in Alaska's Independence Party (AIP) - a right wing advocacy group favoring secession from the US in contrast with McCain's campaign slogan: "Country First;" also AIP's affiliation with the far-right Constitution Party and its extremist theocratic fascist agenda;

-- in her 2006 gubernatorial campaign, supported Alaska's controversial "bridge to nowhere;" for spending hundreds of millions of dollars connecting mainland Ketchikan with its Gravina Island airport - a scheme John McCain opposed in the Senate and ridiculed in his campaign;

-- the disturbing media makeover of an extremist political lightweight; giving her star treatment on TV and major magazines; highlighting post-convention rallies with crowds chanting "Sa-rah! Pa-lin;!" turning her into an instant celebrity and "main attraction for many voters "at joint campaign stops with McCain, according to AP; suggesting "McCain-Palin (may) becom(e) Palin-McCain;" and if Republicans win

-- she'll be a heartbeat away from the presidency under a man, now 72, and in questionable health;

As for McCain, there's:

-- a "passion gap" among conservatives for his candidacy;

-- his unpredictable temperament;

-- explosive temper;

-- unimpressive intellect;

-- questionable health;

-- a lack of a coherent message and strategy;

-- up and down standing in the polls;

-- being noticeably uninspiring, mean-spirited, and bumbling on the stump, and

-- a genius for making enemies among the faithful he needs for support.

National Security and Permanent Wars to Secure It

Defying public sentiment, both parties (and their standard-bearers) support "Global Wars on Terrorism." But it's unknown if either backs a draft at a time the Pentagon struggles to fill its ranks and only manages through tour extensions, high-pressure tactics, lowered standards, ignoring past criminal records, recruiting non-citizens, offering attractive reinlistment bonuses, and relying on paramilitaries to make up for shortfalls. It's clear a "back door" one exists and that under "emergency" conditions Congress will support conscription. So will a new president.

Obama is noncommittal and about-faced on his earlier pledge for a 16 month Iraq combat troop withdrawal. He claims he "always said (he'd) listen to the commanders on the ground....that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain security." He also wants 10,000 more forces for Afghanistan (two additional combat brigades) to bolster our 36,000 in place. In a New York Times July 14 op-ed, he pushed for our "long-term success in Iraq" and a need to confront "Al Queda and the Taliban" in Afghanistan. "(O)ur first priority" he told the Veterans of Foreign Wars (on August 20) as he vies with McCain on toughness. He suggested that he's not opposed to aggressive wars so long as they're winnable and "strategic errors" are avoided.

In commenting on his piece, The Times cited Democrat criticism for his "shift to the political center on a variety of issues, including the Iraq war." Others see populism on the rocks. A lurch to the right as well as war, militarism and homeland repression. It particularly turns off young voters and those comprising his base. They fear this type presidency. Its support for the status quo. Continued "Global Wars on Terrorism." Outsized budgets to fund them - over $1 trillion annually with everything factored in. Multi-billions more in secret add-ons. The DLC agenda. The forces of wealth and power. Wall Street and the bankers. Imperialism abroad. Selling out American workers. Neglected social needs. Rhetoric over substance, and special privilege over beneficial social change.

Then there's redeploying from Iraq. First his about-facing on a 16 month timetable. Adding he wants many troops to remain. Permanent he won't say, but it's clear he's for it. He wants "a residual (tens of thousands) force to target remnants of Al Qaeda, to protect our service members and diplomats, and to train Iraq's Security Forces if the Iraqis make political progress." He's for other troops freed up to pursue American militarism globally. To advance US strategic interests everywhere. To assert our dominance in Eurasia. To "support the people of Georgia." To respect its "territorial integrity." To back its NATO membership. To ignore how that angers Russia. To say Russian "aggression" has "consequences." To sound as belligerent as McCain, and, if fact, go all out to outdo him.

The Democrat convention was scripted for him. To highlight his toughness. His embrace of aggressive wars and militarism. Allegiance to the Israeli Lobby. Homeland repression for enforcement. Supporting Wall Street and the right. Telling CNBC "I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market." Selling out his base and supporters. Assuring once again he'll disappoint. Using false promises, deceptive rhetoric, and bread and circuses for cover.

Presenting an illusion of democracy. Convincing some progressives to buy the charade. Suggesting elections give Americans choice. Selling Democrats as offering "change you can believe in." Making them look toughest on "security" and Obama the right man at the right time. The new JFK.

His acceptance speech theme was quite opposite and ominous in its implications. High-sounding rhetoric for change. Hollow and empty at its core. People issues to go unaddressed. Business as usual instead. "Securing America's Future" most of all. Wars without end. Controlling Eurasia. Confronting Russia and China. Risking armageddon for imperial gain. Militarizing America to quash dissent. Making it a de facto police state. Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul streets heading everywhere.

Militarizing Denver and Minneapolis - A Metaphor for America and Beyond and Exposing A Two-Party Duopoly's Dark Side

Silencing dissent. Pummelling protesters. Institutionalizing violence. It's now de rigueur against the right to assemble, free expression, and to petition for redress of grievances. Even address them peacefully on Denver and Minneapolis-St.Paul streets. Police responded harshly.

Denver's Rocky Mountain News writer Daniel Chacon called it "Cop and Awe" with "hundreds of heavily armed officers, (from 52 police agencies) some clad in riot gear or hanging off SUVs (saturating) Denver's streets in unprecedented numbers; on foot, horseback, bicycles and motorcycles; armed with black batons and pepperball guns that resemble assault rifles."

They moved quickly to isolate protesters. Formed what he called "cop sandwiches." Targeted the Unconventional Denver protest coordinating center. Seized equipment. Destroyed materials. Made arrests. Contrived charges for justification. Arrested an ABC producer filming the "wrong" things. Working on a "Money Trail" series on influence peddling and how corporate lobbyists work. Stopped a 5000 "Iraq Veterans Against the War" march. Allowed right wing counter-demonstrators free reign on city streets.

On August 25, about 300 peaceful protesters were assaulted about a mile from Denver's Pepsi Center. Pepper spray and balls, truncheons, and rubber bullets were used. About 100 were arrested. More followed Tuesday through Thursday. Charged with failing to disperse, obstructing public streets and areas, and throwing rocks and other projectiles. Totally false, according to independent People's Law Project and National Lawyers Guild observers. They disputed the claims and said police instigated confrontation. Assaulted protesters with SWAT teams. Blocked and surrounded them. Brought in reinforcements and two armored vehicles. Held them in place for 90 minutes, then began making arrests. Kept them in detention. Brought them to special "kangaroo courts." Denied them access to counsel. Kept the press away. Turned the DNC and DHS into Gestapo. Made the nominating process a sham. Showed America to be a police state, and had powerful video images for evidence.

Working alongside police were National Guard, US Secret Service, FBI, other federal agencies, and the Pentagon:

-- the US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM);

-- North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD);

-- US Customs and Border Protection (CBP);

-- the Transportation Security Administration (TSA);

-- Coast Guard; and

-- various intelligence agencies operating covertly.

This for a designated DHS "National Special Security Event." In Minneapolis as well. Intimidating. Lawless. A show of power. Overkill. Denver under siege. Minneapolis-St. Paul also. Police distributing provocative warning pamphlets. Like Chicago '68. Planned a year in advance. Multi-millions budgeted. Big corporate funding as well. Spoiling for a fight at the least sign of disruption, peaceful or otherwise. Justified in the name of "national security." Monitored with high-tech surveillance from secret Multi-Agency Command Centers (MACCs). Police State America - upfront and belligerent from a two-party duopoly.

Denying ACLU and various advocacy group protests, US (Colorado) District Judge Marcia Krieger (as expected) ruled that federal and Denver security plans could proceed, in spite of clear First Amendment infringements. They include denying protesters proximity to the Pepsi Center. Invesco Field for Obama's acceptance speech. Restricting them to a so-called "free speech" zone. Making it an isolated parking lot surrounded by two black steel security fence rings. Diverting parade routes from it, and arranging for what one writer called a "Gitmo on the Platte" - referring to central Denver's river and an empty warehouse converted to holding cells ("cages"), topped with razor wire as backup for city jails. Inside are signs warning prisoners of stun-gun use.

Absent are bathrooms, phones to call families and lawyers, or any attentiveness to detainee needs. A replay of 2000 and 2004 and the subsequent lawsuits. Similar to global justice crackdowns in Seattle, Washington, Miami, Montreal, Genoa, Prague and elsewhere. Heavy use of violence and mass arrests. All to support business as usual. Betraying the public trust. The latest in Denver and Minneapolis-St.Paul. Selling out the country to the highest bidders. Corporations buying favors. Donating millions to get them. A display of organized bribery and influence-peddling. Democrats on the take like Republicans. Each outdoing the other's promises. Too many willing to buy them. Preparing to be fooled again in 2008. A repeat of 2000 and 2004.

Orchestrated Minneapolis-St.Paul Repression

National Lawyers Guild President Marjorie Cohn explained that it was planned months ago. That "the FBI-led Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force actively recruited people to infiltrate vegan groups and other leftist organizations and report back about their activities." Even ran a Minneapolis City Pages piece called "Moles Wanted." This is how Police State America works. Now on Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul streets and neighborhoods. Heading everywhere across the country to quash dissent. Mocking the political process, a democratic America, the rule of law, and justice.

Preemptively on August 29, around the (late 9PM) dinner hour and with no warrants or bogus ones, police (in masks and black swat gear) broke down doors and raided the St. Paul Convergence Center with guns drawn. It's a public gathering place and where activists' meetings are preparing protests. Claiming to be looking for "bomb-making" materials, they ordered everyone on the floor, face down - around 50 people. They then photographed and handcuffed them. Seized laptops, hard drives, journals and political pamphlets. Held them against their will. Released them around midnight, and shut down the space due to "fire code" violations. According to City Council member Dave Thune, only Fire Department officials have that authority.

Coincidentally, raids were conducted on houses where activists are staying - bursting in the same way without cause, again with no warrants or bogus ones, and making arrests. Issuing false charges as well of "probable cause conspiracy to riot, conspiracy to commit civil disorder, and conspiracy to damage property." Claiming items seized included "assorted edged weapons, including a machete, hatchet and several 'throwing' knives." Plus a gas mask, empty glass bottles, rags, flammable liquids, an army helmet, and even "weaponized urine."

In an August 30 statement, Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher said raids targeted the RNC Welcoming Committee - a group he called "a criminal enterprise made up of 35 self-described anarchists....intent on committing criminal acts before and during the Republican National Convention." Specifically: "to blockade and disable delegate buses, breach venue security and injure police officers."

Activists denied any criminal intent and called the actions "terrorism" and state-directed "violence" - a hint they said of what's planned throughout the convention week. They were right.

Minnesota National Lawyers Guild President Bruce Nestor represents several of those arrested. He described the raids as "anticipatory" and designed to frighten people planning to be on the streets protesting. One group calls itself the "RNC Welcoming Committee." Others are "Food Not Bombs" and "I-Witness Video," there to videotape police violence.

They were on the streets Monday, September 1, and met by "police in riot gear (battling) hundreds of protesters with pepper spray and smoke bombs," according to Reuters. Rubber bullets, water cannons, concussion grenades, and squad cars driving into crowds to disperse them as well. Tear gas also, according to a brief New York Times account that featured reports of "breaking windows and blocking traffic" over real issues and peaceful protests.

Over 160 were arrested, according to AP, (independent reports said around 300) and charged with street violence, vandalizing police cars, punching an officer, and trespassing. Among them, Democracy Now (DN) host Amy Goodman (charged with "obstruction" and released) and two DN producers (on felony riot charges and also released). AP photographer Matt Rourke as well (briefly and then released) for photographing police violence against protesters.

Thousands marched on the "heavily barricaded Xcel Center" demanding an end to the Iraq war and other issues like immigrant rights and the country's need for change. It was only day one, and Gustav commanded the spotlight. St. Paul resembled an armed camp "to intimidate demonstrators and silence dissent," according to one independent report.

New York's WNBC reported "Violence Follows Second Day of RNC Protests." Police targeted anti-protest marchers "outside the Republican National Convention in St. Paul." They used flash grenades, smoke bombs and tear gas to disperse the crowd. Made arrests. Sustained violence to force thousands from the downtown area. The Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign organized the march. Its leader, Cheri Honkala, told protesters she would "march to the steps of the Xcel (Energy) Center to serve Republicans with a citizen's arrest." Inside, business as usual proceeded, with delegates insulated from mass public opposition to their agenda. Dismissive as well with one calling protesters "goons" and Republicans "acting like adults."

Day three saw continued repression with more arrests and dozens charged and detained for offenses like "conspiracy to commit riot." Independent reporters covered it and explained that convictions may mean prison terms of up to seven and a half years. Others arrested the previous weekend face charges of plotting to kidnap delegates, assaulting police officers, and airport attacks. False, an abuse of the criminal justice system and intimidation, according to Bruce Nestor who represents them. He called the charges "an effort to equate publicly stated plans to blockade traffic and disrupt the RNC" with terrorism.

The dominant media was largely silent, except for editorials like the September 2 Minneapolis Star Tribune one praising "an appropriate show of police force (against) rogue protesters who traveled to the Twin Cities for no other reason than to damage property, abuse the police and disrupt the business of the Republican National Convention."

Inside the Exel Center, business went on as usual. Accepting her nomination, "Palin Assail(ed) Critics and "Electrifie(d) the Party," according to The New York Times.

A final day on Thursday featured more street protests, police violence, arrests (200 according to AP and over 800 for the week), and a large late afternoon Capitol Mall anti-war rally. Twin Cities Indymedia reported that police interrupted rally speakers and "tried to provoke the audience into a confrontation. At one point the cops stormed into the center of the crowd (and) continued to intimidate the protest by surrounding the back of the stage...."

Following the rally and without a permit, protesters marched toward the Exel Center, but police stopped them violently - for over three hours with concussion grenades, smoke bombs, pepper spray, and tear gas.

Inside the Center, protesters interrupted McCain's acceptance speech that The New York Times described as "seem(ing) low on energy, and the crowd responded less enthusiastically (than) for Mrs. Palin." The Chicago Tribune called it "one of the quietest acceptance speeches in presidential campaign history - quiet crowd, quiet candidate, quiet rebukes of the opponent he has bombarded for months." But the Tribune hailed it anyway. Called it "much like the candidate: calm, forceful and blunt; (highlighted) a roaring arena's response to his call to 'stand up, stand up, stand up and fight,' " and gave most of its front page to that headline, including a near-half page McCain-Palin photo after he concluded.

"Political preseason is over. Let the games begin (CNN)"

Dateline September 5. Two months to November 4. Putting it in focus after Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul. Proving Lincoln right that "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time," but enough of them every time it counts most. November 4. Obama v. McCain. One interchangeable with the other. Differences between them are minor. Not a dime's worth to matter. A two-party duopoly assures it. Whoever wins, the outcome is certain. Voters again will lose out. Their interests will go unaddressed. Democracy will again prove fantasy. Big money runs things, so everything will change yet stay the same. The way it always works.

Democracy in America. The best that money can buy. Real change awaits a new order. One wanting America the Beautiful for everyone and not just the privileged few alone.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10045

Katrina Redux

Katrina Redux - by Stephen Lendman

Renamed and back, but first a personal note. Post-Katrina, writing about "The New Orleans Aftermath and (its) Ugly Glimpse of the Future" turned this retiree into a writer and radio host.

Now three years later, Gustav threatened and, on August 30, got New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to hype the risk, scare the public, and order a dusk-to-dawn curfew and evacuation of the city's 239,000 residents ahead of what he called "the mother of all storms." Many hundreds of thousands more along the Gulf coast. "Nearly two million people from Texas to Alabama," according to an August 31 New York Times report. Thankfully without cause as "the storm of the century" made landfall as a Category 2, weakened to a tropical depression on September 2, and Louisianans were spared the worst of their fears.

According to The New York Times, New Orleans' levees "were tested by a heavy storm surge but held, even though the repair and reconstruction work from Hurricane Katrina, is far from finished....waves pounded against a floodwall on the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, considered a particularly weak link. Though water lapped over the wall for hours, (it) was only ankle-to-knee deep....on the edge of the (Katrina-hit) Ninth Ward." Overall, no serious flooding or major damage occurred, and the Army Corps of Engineers expected no levee breaks. No thanks to its shoddy work as discussed below.

Over the weekend, nonetheless, Mayor Nagin was insistent and suspiciously over-eager to evacuate the city. Those staying behind, he said, were making "one of the biggest mistakes" of their lives because no emergency services were offered and no "last resort" shelters arranged like for Katrina - inadequate though they were. Case in point - residents weren't allowed near the heavily guarded Superdome and Convention Center.

Then on Monday night with the threat passed, Nagin refused to say when residents would be allowed back. Now he'll allow it on September 4 but kept a dusk-to-dawn curfew in place, and warned about power outages and lack of sanitation. Earlier, Governor Bobby Jindal stated that return would be delayed until roads and bridges were inspected and debris cleared. A worrisome sign that something's up. Just like post-Katrina. Many evacuees may be denied reentry. One-fourth of them had no transportation and were bussed out. New Orleans poorest and mostly black. How they'll get back isn't clear. And the fact that DHS chief Michael Chertoff was in town is another reason to be suspicious.

As well as thousands of National Guard forces and USNORTHCOM contingents from across the country. Militarizing the city along with local police and other security forces. Mobilized in place to crack down. DHS and FEMA also and reports about Blackwater Worldwide and other paramilitaries.

Very likely reliable as post-Katrina, Blackwater mercenaries were deployed on New Orleans streets and in neighborhoods. Protected by immunity, they came in full battle gear right after the storm hit and spread out into the city's chaos. Their cover was to provide hurricane relief, but they functioned as vigilantes. Empowered by federal, state and local authorities. Terrorizing local residents. Removing them from choice areas for development. Assuring they couldn't return. A part of America's "war on terrorism" that's heading for citiies everywhere.

They patrolled the Cresent City like Gestapo. Threatening in SUVs with tinted windows and their logos on the back. Others in unmarked cars with no license plates. Menacing in full battle gear. Wearing flak jackets. Carrying automatic weapons with extra guns strapped to their legs. Licensed to use them and kill. Their role as "the world's most powerful mercenary army (employing) some of the most feared professional killers in the world accustomed to operating without worry of legal consequences (and) largely off the congressional radar," according to author Jeremy Scahill in his book on the company. Part of a scheme to militarize America with New Orleans the first test case. Making its streets resemble Baghdad and perhaps back now for an encore.

Earlier the National Hurricane Center (NHC) called Gustav "extremely dangerous" but remained cautious about the threat. Powerful nonetheless at Category 2 (with winds around 110 mph) when it made landfall on September 1 - downgraded from its expected Category 4 strength the preceding weekend. NHC said it struck land at Cocodrie, LA, about 70 miles southwest of New Orleans, so the city was spared a direct hit. Nonetheless, rainfall was intense, flooding occurred, and along with it damage to add to Katrina's fallout.

It was more powerful with winds up to 130 mph and a storm surge topping 27 feet, far above Gustav's eight foot level with some forecasts that it could reach 14 feet. Katrina also made a direct hit on the Mississippi coast while Gustav skirted along Louisiana's shoreline at "a more gentle angle," according to the National Weather Service. Nonetheless, widespread power outages and flooding were reported from Texas to Mississippi, and earlier the storm killed up to 100 people in the Caribbean as it roared across Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, and Western Cuba.

Reports from Kingston cited 11 deaths and "massive damage to roads, bridges and utility lines as a result of mudslides and flooding." The Dominican Republic at least eight more. Haiti, however, fared worst - 66 or more dead, at least 10 reported missing, dozens hurt, and many thousands displaced and their homes destroyed. Schools and other buildings also. Roads cut. Bridges submerged and villages inundated in the most vulnerable country in the Hemisphere.

Cuba was best prepared the way it always is with tens of thousands evacuated in time. No deaths were reported (nor in the Caymans), but widespread damage from wind and flooding in the western part of the island near Havana. Guantanamo is far to the East and was out of the storm's path.

Remembering Katrina

On August 29, 2005, it hit the Gulf coast and flooded New Orleans. A city below sea level. Shaped like a bowl, and woefully unprotected in areas housing poor blacks. Targeted for removal through forced ethnic cleansing to let developers swoop in and take over. Federal, state and local authorities complicit with corporate predators and ready. The city militarized with police, National Guard, and Blackwater mercenaries. Licensed to kill and they did. Making New Orleans safe for capital. Ready now for an encore. What some observers call "disaster capitalism." Exploiting security threats, "terror" attacks, economic meltdowns, competing ideologies, and national disasters like Katrina and Gustav.

New Orleans is a metaphor for capitalism's most savage form - outside of war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. In summer 2005, Katrina wiped out public housing. Erased communities, and let developers replace them with upscale condos and other high-profit projects on choice city real estate. Gentrification writ large. Disneyfication of one of the country's most desirable tourist destinations. Removing poor blacks to make it possible. Assuring most would never return. Remaking New Orleans for profit. Long planned and awaiting a storm to do it. Taking full advantage when it hit.

The Bush administration was heartless with other things on its mind abroad and busy cutting social services budgets at home. It refused emergency funds for public sector salaries so 3000 city workers were fired. Charity Hospital had to close and remains shut. Public transit was gutted and lost half its workers. Most public housing was targeted for removal. Some sits on prime land close to the French Quarter. Developers want it for luxury properties. Katrina (and now Gustav) remade New Orleans to make it possible. It's a window on America's future and business as usual no matter who wins in November. Hopeful optimists be prepared. Disappointment is the operative word for 2009. "Fooled Again," according to Mark Crispin Miller. Democracy here is for the privileged. The rest are to be exploited by neglect and abandonment, then forgotten.

Rules are being hardened. New Orleans is a domestic version of what Iraq pioneered. Creating an open field for capital. Giving administration favorites like Halliburton and Bechtel big contracts. Providing nothing to the poor, disadvantaged and displaced. Importing cheap undocumented labor instead of local workers. Suspending Davis-Bacon Act law that assures prevailing wage rates must be paid on all federally funded or assisted construction projects. Letting developers pay poverty scale instead and deny benefits. Suspending environmental regulations, and dispensing with unwanted people in the way. Assuring the inevitable by leaving New Orleans unprotected, and ignoring FEMA's early 2001 prediction of the three most likely US disasters:

-- a terrorist attack on New York;

-- a major San Francisco earthquake; and the one considered most likely and catastrophic

-- a hurricane and flood in New Orleans.

Experts cited a city below sea level. Vulnerable on the nation's Gulf coast. With inadequate evacuation routes. Poor levy protection. A deteriorating ecosystem from overdevelopment. A catastrophe waiting to happen. Little recollection of when Betsy (in 1965) buried New Orleans under eight feet of water. It at Category 4 entering the Gulf, then downgraded to Category 3 when it struck the city. A future Category 5 one will be disastrous and sure eventually to come.

The city is a bowl ringed by levees, protecting it from the Mississippi to its south and Lake Pontchartrain in the north. At its bottom depth, it lies 14 feet below sea level. Pumping out routine rainfall draws water from the ground. That dries and sinks it deeper. A problem called "subsidence." The city continues to sink. When big storms hit, the bowl fills, and there's no place for water to drain.

Louisiana loses 25 square miles of land a year through erosion. Wetlands are disappearing. Solutions involve huge remediating efforts so far not made. Rebuilding the protective delta. An adequate levee system replacing poorly designed floodwalls not built to standard. Totally overhauling years of planned neglect. Waiting for a chance like Katrina and now Gustav to change the face of New Orleans forever, displace its majority black population, and make the city whiter.

Three years post-Katrina, nearly three-fifths of them aren't back. Most never will be with developers remaking the city into a tourist playground. Housing the wealthy in luxury condos. Keeping out poor blacks in the way. Upgrading New Orleans for profit. "Revitalization" according to city authorities.

Low-cost housing is being phased out. Public transportation as well along with public schools and health facilities that low-income people depend on. FEMA is now exploiting a tragedy and making it worse. Kicking people without homes out of trailers and stranding them on their own.

Bill Quigley is a law professor and Director of the Law Clinic and Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University in New Orleans. He's also been an activist public service lawyer for 30 years - for numerous social issues, including post-Katrina justice.

In an August 26 article, he wrote about the "Katrina Pain Index: New Orleans Three Years Later" and explained the way the city looks today. Some of his data and more are covered below.

-- No Louisiana renters are getting financial aid under the Louisiana Recovery Authority's (LRA) handling of the $10 billion post-Katrina federal Road Home Community Development Block Grant; it's directed to 116,708 homeowners instead and excludes most blacks.

-- No rebuilding plans are in place for the 963 St. Bernard Housing Development units demolished.

-- No data is available to evaluate privatized charter schools; Katrina destroyed half the city's public school buildings; scattered tens of thousands of students and teachers across the country; federal and local authorities jumped on the chance; millions in federal funding went to convert public schools to charter for-profit ones with no debate, input or even knowledge of parents and teachers; all unionized city school employees were fired; then selectively rehired at less pay and fewer or no benefits; New Orleans schools were handed to business; the remaining poor, mostly black population, was disenfranchised; consigned to under-funded schools and denied the education they deserve; 40% fewer special education students (needing extra help) now attend charter schools compared to underfunded public ones; most city schools today are for-profit; plans are for all of them to be.

-- Virtually no rental homes were repaired - 82 out of a projected 10,000 in need.

-- New Orleans ranks first in the nation in percentage of vacant or ruined housing units.

-- Four of the 13 city Planning Districts are as much at flood risk as before Katrina.

-- Only 11% of hard-hit Lower Ninth Ward families have returned; pre-Katrina, it was one of the country's richest cultural communities; one community leader said it had an "atmosphere of engagement;" in dialogue, music, words and history; a Make It Right Stakeholders Coalition promotes rebuilding and helps residents return to the neighborhood; federal and city authorities are committed to obstructing them.

-- Experts estimate it will take 20 to 25 years to rebuild New Orleans at the current pace of reconstruction.

-- There are 25% fewer hospitals in the metro area than pre-Katrina; 38% fewer hospital beds.

-- One-third of city neighborhoods have less than half their pre-Katrina households; ones where poor black people live.

-- Rents have risen 46% making housing unaffordable for poor and low income people.

-- 81% of city homeowners got insufficient funding to repair their homes.

-- post-Katrina, 10,000 homes were demolished.

-- thousands are still in temporary trailers; FEMA is slowly displacing them.

-- the homeless population doubled post-Katrina.

-- 32,000 children never returned to public schools; their population is half the pre-Katrina total.

-- 39,000 Louisiana homeowners applying for federal repair and rebuilding aid never got it.

-- 46,000 fewer black voters were eligible in 2007 than 2003.

-- there are nearly 72,000 vacant, ruined or unoccupied city houses.

-- the city's population was reduced by 214,000 and is now 239,000, according to the latest US Census Bureau estimate; and

-- billions of FEMA damage and repair funding has yet to be made available to city and state residents; it likely never will be.

Meanwhile, three years post-Katrina, $15 billion in New Orleans hurricane protection construction has barely started even though the US Army Corps of Engineers says 20% of it is completed. All of it is supposed to be by 2011, and the Corps claims New Orleans "now has the best flood protection in its history."

Point of fact - it's woefully inadequate. The city remains vulnerable, especially in its eastern poorer areas. Too little is being done to prevent another Katrina disaster that's inevitable from a powerful future storm. If a Category 5, it'll be disastrous, and a shocking April 24 WWL-TV report provides evidence.

It's headlined: "4 Investigates: Floodwalls stuffed with newspaper?" "It blows my mind," according to St. Bernard parish president Craig Taffaro showing videotape evidence on-air. An indictment of a US Army Corps of Engineers hired contractor. A resident said two years ago he witnessed the expansion joint opening between floodwalls being stuffed with newspapers. "The whole length" of it. And when he confronted the contractor he was told "when Congress sends down the money, it would be repaired the proper way."

It wasn't as Gustav approached, and WWL asked a local American Society of Civil Engineers member to investigate. A man ASCE named Louisiana's outstanding civil engineer in 2003 - Subhash Kulkarni. He said: "I cannot even comprehend that somebody would stuff some newspaper in there." Floodwall expansion joints have three lines of defense:

-- an elastic strip to help keep out water;

-- waterstops in the middle that's most important; the St. Bernard floodwall has them; and

-- rubber joints in between to keep out foreign objects; St. Bernard floodwalls lack them; newspaper was used instead; Kulkarni called it "very serious; it doesn't take a lot of stress to cause the failure of these floodwalls; we don't know after two or three years how the main joint will perform; this is the first line of defense."

For its part, the Corps of Engineers defended the work and denied any of it was shoddy, but a Corps emailer disagreed. He told WWL that "sponge rubber" is required next to waterstops - the same areas where newspaper was used instead. Ecron Corporation did the work. Contractually it was obliged to do it right. The company president didn't respond to WWL's "repeated requests for a comment," and the station discovered that his company "is not even licensed by the state's board for contractors." Apparently not a problem with the Corps of Engineers. Or with the Bush administration and its corporate allies who crave another chance to make New Orleans even whiter and free up more choice real estate for high-profit development.

A total city makeover with billions in federal and local funding to assist. Welcome to America's future. Upscale tourist destinations. Luxury accommodations for the privileged. Gated communities for the wealthy. Every amenity imaginable. For most others and the nation's poor - exploitation by neglect and abandonment. Growing numbers on society's fringes ignored and forgotten. A two-party duopoly assuring it. Militarizing the country for enforcement. Planning an unfriendly future by making America into a police state. Replicating the model everywhere. New Orleans and Iraq are incubators. Not the kind of country for young people to inherit. High time that enough of us realize it's our job to prevent it.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10016

Stoking Tensions, Risking Confrontation: A High Stakes US Gamble with Russia

Stoking Tensions, Risking Confrontation: A High Stakes US Gamble with Russia - by Stephen Lendman

Prior to entering WW II, US strategists had a clear aim in mind at its conclusion - to hold unchallengeable power in a new post-war global system: military, economic and political in a "Grand Area" encompassing the West and Far East. Essentially most parts outside the communist bloc and exploiting it under disarming rhetoric like being "selfless advocates of freedom for colonial peoples (and an) enemy of imperialism." Championing "world peace (also) through multinational control."

Today, the facade is gone, and no pretense remains about much "grander" plans - over an "Area" comprising planet earth with "full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any potential challengers with all weapons in our arsenal, including nuclear and others of mass destruction.

One nation above others is an obstacle - Russia. It's powerful and can't be intimidated like most others. It's also dominant where Washington wants control - the Eurasian vastness with its huge oil, gas and other resources. For years, American sought dominance over it. Saw an opening when the Soviet Union dissolved. And one way or other seeks to get it. Russia has other plans, so therein lies the root of the current conflict using Georgia as a US proxy to instigate it.

Beating up on Russia is now fair game. Moscow, for its part, won't back off, so clear lines are drawn for protracted confrontation in a very high risk gamble for both sides. Russia prefers diplomacy to conflict and seeks alliances with the West and its neighbors. America wants conquest, and look at the stakes. An area from roughly Germany in the West to the Pacific rim. Encompassing Russia, China, the Middle East, and Asian sub-continent. Including about three-fourths of the world's population and an equal amount of its energy resources. Most of its physical wealth overall and its GDP. No small prize, and America intends to secure it. Russia stands in the way. It controls its own part and influences much of the rest. Welcome to the new Cold War and new Great Game.

It's only round one, but its roots go back to earlier US efforts to ally with former Soviet Republics. Encircle Russia with military bases and station offensive missiles and advanced tracking radar on its borders. Then Georgia attacked South Ossetia on August 7. Washington orchestrated the aggression. Russia counterattacked after artillery fire killed 15 or more of its peacekeepers, and partially destroyed their headquarters. The entire Tskhinvali capital as well, a civilian target of no military consequence. Border villages were burnt to the ground. Atrocities committed. Malicious attacks against non-combatants. Western media portrayed the aggressor as victim. The same game it always plays - so far with faint letup, save for the heavy Democrat and Republican conventions coverage getting top billing.

The Caucacus (hot) conflict has now ebbed. Russia controls things on the ground. In full compliance with the Sarkozy-brokered peace, according to Foreign Minister Lavrov. All six points of its original version. They include:

-- renouncing the use of force;

-- halting all military action;

-- providing free access for humanitarian aid;

-- the return of Georgian forces to their bases;

-- Russian forces to their pre-conflict positions; and

-- engaging in international discussions on South Ossetian and Abkhazian future status to ensure their security.

Afterwards, Georgian president Saakashvili reneged by unilaterally amending the original agreement. It bears no relation to what Moscow signed. A deliberately confrontational act. Surely directed from Washington. Sharp western criticism followed and ignited the old Cold War blame the Russians game that both surprised and angered the Kremlin.

Its leadership isn't about to roll over. On August 26, it backed South Ossetian and Abkazian independence and their protection from further Georgian aggression. The populations of both provinces overwhelmingly approve. On August 27, Georgia, in response, withdrew all but two lower level officials from Moscow. On August 29, its parliament supported a resolution to sever diplomatic relations and cancel agreements allowing Russian peacekeepers to remain in both provinces. Russian State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee Head, Konstantin Kosachev, called the action "regrettable" but said its impact on Russia won't be negative. Until August 29, Russia retained its full Tbilisi staff and said maintaining ties are vital.

According to The New York Times on August 29, that's now changed after Georgia made it official - breaking diplomatic ties with Russia and Moscow responding in kind. Both countries will retain their consular offices but further political relations will be handled by intermediaries. The move doesn't prevent both countries' officials from meeting in neutral territory.

On August 30, RIA Novesti reported two other developments as well. According to Georgia's reintegration minister, Temur Yakobashvili, that Tbilisi "was formally pulling out of a (May 14) 1994 UN-approved (Abkhazia and Georgia) agreement....on a ceasefire and separation of forces." It followed Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. Earlier on August 12, Georgian president Saakashvili announced that his country was withdrawing from the Russian-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States, a loose alliance of former Soviet republics.

RIA Novesti's other report was a slap in the face to Georgia. That the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has evidence about "numerous wrong decisions" Georgian leaders made leading up to the Caucasus crisis - according to the German magazine Der Spiegel. It cited "detailed (Georgian) planning to move into South Ossetia" and backed Russian claims that "the Georgian offensive was already in full swing by the time Russian troops and armored vehicles entered the Roksky Tunnel (bordering Russia and South Ossetia) to protect its peacekeepers and the civilian population." OSCE's report went further as well citing "suspected war crimes committed by Georgians, who ordered attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians."

On August 29, Russia Today reported that South Ossetia's acting parliament chairman, Tarzan Kokoity, announced a deal to host Russian military bases as early as September 2. In addition, two others may be reactivated on their former Abkhazian sites. However, on the same date, the online service also said that Russian Foreign Ministry officials denied such a deal. Only that Russia is "currently working on a cooperation (arrangement) with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but it's too early to assess where this may lead." An agreement is expected to be signed on September 2.

Diplomatic jousting continues as EU leaders weigh further responses and their relations with Russia going forward. For its part, Russia is in no mood to stand idle and is surely mindful of Barak Obama's convention speech threat to "curb Russian aggression."

Heated Rhetoric Instead of Hot Conflict

A war of words replaced hot conflict on the ground. Unfair condemnation and heated rhetoric. Western nations on board with Washington. Some like the UK more than others. The corporate media trumpeting approval. Spewing venom and agitprop. Their specialty and what they're good at. Keeping their audiences uninformed. Their accustomed role. No longer even pretending to report legitimately.

For his part, President Medvedev stood firm and said: "We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a new Cold War, but we don't want one, and in this situation everything depends on the positions of our partners."

In New York Times and UK Financial Times August 26 op-eds, he explained his decision to sign Decrees to recognize South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence and "call(ed) on other states to follow (his) example." Seeing early warning signs, he tried to dissuade Georgia from using force. He called Georgian president Saakashvili a "madman" for "tak(ing) such a gamble." He explained that Russia had no other option than to respond. To save lives "not in a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory."

Russia struck bases from which attacks were "launched and then left. We restored the peace but could not calm the fears and aspirations of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples." To aid them and the requests of their presidents, "I signed a decree" to recognize their independence." He also referred to Russia's "historic friendship and sympathy" for Georgians and said he hopes "one day (they will) have leaders they deserve, who care about their country and who develop mutually respectful relations with all the peoples in the Caucasus. Russia is ready to support the achievement of such a goal."

On August 31, Itar Tass reported that Medvedev "spell(ed) out five principles of Russian foreign policy in a televised interview:

-- the supremacy of international legal fundamentals that define relations between civilized nations;

-- the importance of a multi-polar world - not one in which one nation decides for all others;

-- confrontation with no other country, and Russia will work toward "friendly relations with Europe, the United States and other countries of the world;"

-- an "absolute priority" of protecting life and dignity of Russian citizens "no matter where they live....aggression will be deterred; and

-- like other countries, "Russia has areas of privileged interests....countries to which we are linked with friendly ties," and not only with neighboring states.

Medvedev added that diplomatic relations going forward would depend not just on Russia but also "on our friends, partners and the international community at large. They have a choice."

On August 28, Prime Minister Putin had his say. Was outspoken in a CNN interview, and accused the Bush administration of failing to keep Georgia from attacking South Ossetia. This, he said, damaged bilateral relations. He suggested a possible darker motive as well: "....that someone in the United States created this conflict on purpose to stir up the situation and create an advantage for one of the (presidential) candidates. They needed a small victorious war" - a clear reference to John McCain although he didn't say.

He also said "not only (did the administration fail) to restrain the Georgian leadership from this criminal action, but the American side in fact trained and equipped the Georgian army....We (also) have serious reasons to believe that directly in the combat zone citizens of the United States were present. If the facts are confirmed....that means only one thing - that they could be there on the direct instruction of their leadership....following a direct order from their leader, and not on their own initiative." Col. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, Russia's deputy chief of general staff, said Russian forces had a US passport for Michael Lee White of Texas in a ruined building near Tskhinvali and showed what was found.

Putin stressed that Russia would respond to the killing of its citizens and peacekeepers and wouldn't let possible G-8 membership expulsion or threatened EU actions deter it.

With this going on, heavily armed US and other NATO warships entered the Black Sea on the pretext of delivering humanitarian aid. Nogovitsyn called it a task for merchant ships. Suggested it further heightens tensions and said: "I don't think such a buildup will foster the stabilization of the atmosphere in the region." Other Russian military officials called the intrusion provocative and accused Washington of shipping new arms supplies.

On August 27, Reuters reported US General and NATO commander John Craddock's comments on a recent Tbilisi visit. He said Washington will likely provide military aid, and an anonymous US official confirmed that a US - Georgia dialogue is ongoing about replenishing the country's losses. Possibly also sending sophisticated weapons like Stinger antiaircraft missiles and portable antitank ones called Javelins. Training as well.

On August 27, the Jerusalem-based DEBKAfile reported that Captain Igor Dygalo, Russian Navy's deputy commander, said the Moskva missile cruiser would carry out a Black Sea naval exercise in response - a clear sign that Moscow intends to assert control and may interfere with 10 more encroaching Western vessels. According to Nogovitsyn: two American, four Turkish, and the others German, Polish and Spanish.

He also said NATO exhausted its Black Sea complement under international agreements and warned against sending more. DEBKAfile sources say 16 to 18 are planned, including the USS Mount Whitney, "one of the most advanced warships in the world." If true, this will heighten tensions further.

On August 29, DEBKAfile cited a Moscow media quote from former Russian Black Sea Fleet commander, Admiral Eduard Baltin, saying: "Despite the apparent strength of the NATO naval group in the Black Sea....a single salvo from the Moskva missile cruiser and two or three missile boats would be enough to annihilate the entire group. Within 20 minutes, the waters would be clear." He added that Russia "will not strike first...."

At the same time, Russian president Medvedev warned Moldova not to repeat Georgia's mistake by using force against Transdniestria. Russian peacekeepers have been on the ground there since 1990 after separatists broke away and established an independent republic. Under international law, it's more justifiable than Kosovo, but thus far with no outside recognition. Moldova is strategically located on the Black Sea's Western shore - close to the Crimean Peninsula and Russia's large Sevastopol, Ukraine naval headquarters.

On August 27, Ukraine upped the stakes and demanded Russia renegotiate its lease - good until 2017. A higher rental payment was asked, and (according to Russia Today) a new law was passed demanding 72 hours notice each time Russia's fleet leaves the base. It covers air traffic as well and asks for personnel involved, time of departure, and destination. Russia says the law violates its 1997 Moscow - Kiev agreement, so it's unclear if Ukraine will back down. Russia is in no mood to with Georgia on its mind and watching Washington behind the scenes orchestrating mischief.

Earlier on August 24, Russia's Navy chief, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, said its Black Sea Fleet now commands its Mediterranean ships as well. It came as the US carrier Iwo Jima (six-vessel) Expeditionary Strike Group heads for the region to link up with other US vessels, and Russia announced it will search all cargo transiting Georgia's Poti port that it controls. Thus far, Washington avoided confrontation by redirecting its warships to Georgian-controlled Batumi. An event duly noted in Moscow that responded by anchoring three missile boats and the Moskva missile cruiser at the Black Sea Sukhumi port.

The cat and mouse game continues, and it's not eased if South Ossetian reports are true. They claim Georgia is deploying military forces on its border, and (late last week) overnight firing on villages was heard. Georgia says Russia wants to annex its territory. Moscow asserts its right to protect South Ossetian and Abkhazian residents from made-in-Washington aggression - many of whom hold Russian passports. Tensions continue to escalate causing some analysts to say war is inevitable, and under a US neocon administration might involve a "proactive" nuclear strike.

An August 28 DEBKAfile report suggested that Russia takes this threat seriously. It headlined: "Russia successfully tests ICBM designed to beat anti-missile systems," according to Alexander Vovk, spokesman for Russia's strategic nuclear forces. He referred to the Topol RS-12M to be used against ground-based missiles and capable of "beating" any US "missile shield." The test followed Russia warning NATO against sending additional ships to the Black Sea that will only heighten tensions.

On August 28, RIA Novosti reported an escalation, a sign still more will follow - South Ossetian Interior Minister Mikhail Mindzayev stating that an unmanned Georgian reconnaissance plane was shot down over the capital, Tskhinvali at 20.10 GMT. He also said "several illegal armed groups were operating near the capital under orders from Georgian authorities to conduct subversive activities and terrorist acts." South Ossetian security forces formed "counter-terrorist units" to respond. On August 27, Col. General Nogovitsyn said a Georgian reconnaissance drone overflew South Ossetia at 11.15 GMT - spying in violation of existing agreements. A frequent practice prior to Georgia's August 7 aggression so it happening again is worrisome.

In an August 28 Russian newspaper, Vremya Novostei, interview, Russia's NATO ambassador, Dmitry Rogozin, warned that any Organization Caucasus attack would "mean a declaration of war on Russia." On August 27, The New York Times called him "a finger-wagging nationalist who hung a poster of Stalin in his new ambassadorial office...."

Rogozin named two world-changing dates of concern: "September 11, 2001 and August 8, 2008....basically identical in terms of significance" and that today heightens Russia's fears about being surrounded by NATO. He calls the current crisis much more than "an ethnic spat between Georgia and South Ossetia." Russians understand that Washington targets them, and a recent poll showed 74% of them believe "Georgia was a pawn of the United States." Only 5% blamed Russia.

This at a time other reports hint at NATO divisions despite its outward appearance of toughness. The US, UK and most Eastern European states support harsh measures. In contrast, France, Germany, Portugal, Turkey and Italy are reluctant to break off Russian ties with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner telling The New York Times that "Russia is a great nation. Look how we have been treating it. We need firmness, not threats" that won't work "because everyone knows we are not going to war."

In another report, however, RIA Novesti indicated that "EU leaders (are) considering sanctions against Russia" after earlier averring they weren't on the agenda. Russia heard nothing about them, and so far details aren't forthcoming. Maybe no sanctions either and just verbal threats. Kouchner later confirmed that EU leaders will weigh them at an emergency September 1 summit. Convening in Brussels, they'll discuss Western relations with Russia, Georgia, and providing aid to the former Soviet republic.

Precisely what Russia fears because it will come in the form of more arms and munitions. On September 1, RIA Novesti reported that "Russia wants (an) arms embargo on Georgia and quoted Foreign Minister Lavrov saying he wants one in place until Georgia has a new leader. One Russia can trust and not the current Washington tool.

In his remarks Lavrov said: "To guarantee the region is protected against new outbreaks of violence, Russia will continue to take measures to make sure the (Saakashvili) regime is unable to commit evil deeds ever again. It would be appropriate to impose an embargo on arms supplies on that regime until different leaders have turned Georgia into a normal country." He then blamed Washington for its role in the conflict and added that he hoped EU leaders in Brussels would make "the right choice" at their summit.

Possibly so according to the August 30 - 31 Wall Street Journal's weekend edition. It reported that "the EU isn't expected to impose sanctions on Russia," and the previous day suggested that "Russia mocked talk" about them. The Journal stressed how divided EU nations are but admitted they have "few tools to deter Moscow." It quoted Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb saying: "My preference is to go carefully on concrete actions but to be sufficiently tough on the language. Whether or not we like it, Russia and Europe are mutually interdependent." And it's likely other foreign ministers and EU leaders share that view.

Yet on August 27, BBC reported that UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband (in a Kiev, Ukraine speech) called on the EU and NATO to initiate "hard-headed engagement (and the) widest possible coalition" against Russia over Georgia along with other inflammatory comments. On August 31, UK prime minister Gordon Brown threatened a "root and branch" review of relations with Russia and accused Moscow of "aggression."

So did Barak Obama, the official Democrat nominee, and also lashed out at Medvedev's decree. He "condemn(ed) Russia's decision and call(ed) upon all countries of the world not to accord (it) any legitimacy...." Said America should "further isolate Russia." Provide Georgia $1 billion in aid. Admit it to NATO. Deny Russia WTO membership. Disband the NATO - Russia Council, and even end Russia's Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) membership.

In contrast, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member states of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed Russia's action. Its role in restoring peace, and expressed "support for (Russia's) active role in assisting peace and cooperation in the region." However, they stopped short of endorsing South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence in their closing statement that "express(ed) their deep concern over the recent tensions surrounding the South Ossetia question and call(ed) for the sides to peacefully resolve existing problems through dialogue."

That got the corporate media to distort their closing statement and like Reuters say "Medvedev failed to win crucial support from his Asian allies (for) Moscow's confrontation with the West over war in Georgia." The New York Times as well claimed that "China and four other (Asian) countries meeting with Russia for the annual (SCO) summit declined to back Russia's military action in a joint communique."

The Wall Street Journal echoed the same theme and then ranted about "strains" and "unease" in Russian - Chinese relations. Even hinted that Russia might be "isolated" because of its Georgian "aggression." A word it only attributes to Russia in very hostile daily op-eds. More Journal commentary below, but first an alternative Russian view.

The Post-Communist PRAVDA On-Line

Established in January 1999, it's editor is longtime Western journalist, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, who says "at this moment in time, I'm proud, very proud, to be writing for a Russian newspaper." On August 29, 2008, his opinion piece titled "Abkhazia, Georgia, Kosovo, South Ossetia and something called international law" presented a different view from the dominant US media's daily anti-Russian agitprop.

Straightaway aiming at George Bush and Secretary Rice he stated: They "follow the norm that laws are made to be disregarded, disrespected, ignored, manipulated or simply broken, which is patently obvious through the sheer hypocrisy of Washington's position on the territorial integrity of Georgia." From a "legal perspective," Georgia was a signatory to Soviet Russia's Constitution and bound by its provisions. One of them was "the voluntary dissolution of the Union and clause which states that minority groups (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) in other Republics (Georgia) had the statutory and constitutional right" to a (free and fair) referendum for independence.

Post-1991, Georgia broke the law by not holding them, "so just this fact makes a valid case for these two republics to decide for themselves" to be or not be part of Georgia. In addition, Moscow spent 17 years negotiating peace that aimed to satisfy Tbilisi and both breakaway provinces. Georgia's response: "manipulation, insults, insolence" and the recent slaughter of Tskhinvali civilians. By its actions, "Georgia....blew out the candles lighting any path towards its territorial integrity."

The right of South Ossestians and Abkhazians to independence is also fully justified under the UN Charter and customary international laws and norms - in contrast to Kosovo, an "integral part" of Serbia. "The question of Kosovo follows all the norms of international law regarding inviolability of frontiers whereas Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not. They have the legal right to independence. Kosovo never has, does not, and never will."

But not according to George Bush's idea "to draw lines on maps and screw up entire nations....in a civilised world, laws are made to be followed." Modern states have no right to "base their diplomacy on illegality, boorishness, cajoling and bullying without one iota of legal fabric in their arguments....future generations (should) read these lines and judge for themselves who was right and who was wrong at this fundamental moment in the determination of the future of Mankind."

Bashing Russia - A Different View from The Wall Street Journal on the Warpath

An August 28 Melik Kaylan op-ed is typical - headlined: "How the Georgian Conflict 'Really' Started." His version (from Tbilisi) is that "Anybody who thinks that Moscow didn't plan this invasion, that we in Georgia caused it gratuitously, is severely mistaken." He heard it "personally" from president Saakasvili "in a late night (presidential palace) chat." In contrast, "Russia's version of events doesn't jibe with the facts." On the ground in Gori, he learned "how Russia has deployed a highly deliberate propaganda strategy. (They) made a big show of moving out in force (but) left behind a resonating threat (that) they could return at any moment. (They) flatten(ed) civilian streets in order to sow fear, drive out innocents and create massive refugee outflows."

He gets his information right from Saakashvili and Georgia's defense minister, so he knows it's "accurate." Direct quotes about Russia "planning an invasion for weeks, even months ahead of time." Was able to once Putin "consolidate(d) power." With the Beijing Olympics and US elections as distractions and before Georgia's winter. A rather amateurish account and not up to the Journal's agitprop standards.

On August 25, Max Boot did a better job in a piece headlined: "Eastern Europe Can Defend Itself." He's way to the right of most others, a senior Council on Foreign Relations fellow, and frequent Journal contributor.

He claims "Eastern Europeans are rightly alarmed about the brazenness and success of the Russian blitzkrieg into Georgia." Worsened by Russian threats "to rain nuclear annihilation on Ukraine and Poland if they refuse to toe the Kremlin's line." Even NATO states "can take scant comfort." Boot's solution: "Russia's neighbors should spend more on defense. We should supply them with more antiaircraft weapons." No mention of how defense contractors will benefit or the importance of that side of NATO membership.

Boot sees big potential if Eastern European states spend more of their GDP on weapons. Georgia (as a US vassal) is doing it, but not its neighbors. He cites an International Institute of Strategic Studies report that only one regional state spends more than 2% of its GDP on defense - Bulgaria at 2.2%. Nor do they maintain large standing forces, yet they have millions of military aged men to draw on. Russia is the only exception with "more than a million soldiers under arms" and a growing post-Soviet defense budget - 2.5% of GDP or 8% of total spending according to an August 28 RIA Novesti report that says it's heading much higher.

Eastern European states should react, according to Boot - to "deter Russians from threatening them in the first place....They should double their military spending (and) the US can help." They should have "large reserves ready for fast call-up and plenty of 'defensive' weapons." Clearly Boot has key things in mind - tightening the screws on Russia. Surrounding it with adversarial states. Giving America a greater edge than is possible without them, and letting US defense contractors cash in on new business.

Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham have that and more in mind in their August 26 Journal op-ed and begin with an inflammatory headline: "Russia's Aggression Is a Challenge to World Order." They both visited the region, met with the leaders of Georgia, Ukraine and Poland, and say that "Supporting Georgia is only the 'first' step toward safeguarding freedom in Europe."

They claim America strove for 60 years for "a Europe that is whole, free and at peace." One of "the greatest achievements of the 20th century." By their reasoning, "Russia's 'invasion' of Georgia represents the most serious challenge to this political order since Slobodan Milosevic unleashed the demons of ethnic nationalism in the Balkans."

Never mind their outlandish reversal of truth - about a US-led NATO aggression. Blaming Serbs for their own actions. Dismembering Yugoslavia, and falsely accusing Milosevic (in a Washington Post editorial, for example) of being "personally responsible for the most destructive conflict and most terrible atrocities recorded in Europe since World War II. Without Mr. Milosevic the Yugoslav wars wouldn't have happened."

At the time, Graham, a congressman, and Lieberman, a senator, both agreed. Now they claim "disturbing evidence (shows) Russia is already laying the groundwork to apply the same arguments used to justify its intervention in Georgia to other parts of its near abroad - most ominously in the Crimea." America's first priority is "to prevent the Kremlin from achieving its strategic objectives in Georgia....Also needed, immediately, is a joint commitment by the US and the European Union to fund large-scale, comprehensive reconstruction....in consultation with the World Bank, IMF, and other international authorities....and for the US Congress to support" it.

Rebuilding Georgia's security forces is part of it with heavy emphasis on "antiaircraft and antiarmor systems necessary to deter any renewed Russian aggression." Both senators want a "reinvigorated NATO" meaning an enlarged one and more heavily armed. "Missile defense (and) a new trans-Atlantic energy alliance" to counter Russia's "willing(ness) to use its oil and gas resources as a weapon...."

US v. Russia by their calculus. Western solidarity must stand firm. Teach the Kremlin a lesson that "forced fealty to Moscow will fail (and it's only a) question (of) how long until Russia's leaders rediscover this lesson from their own history." With a strong undertone that if Moscow won't come around on its own, a US-led alliance will force it.

Perhaps the (August 27) US Navy-announced five-day US - UK naval exercises in the Gulf hints to Russia as well as Iran. Called "Exercise Goalkeeper" in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf, it's "to train across the spectrum of Maritime Security Operations (MSO)," according to the US Fifth Fleet press release. It began on August 24 and was scheduled for completion on August 31.

It focused on "command and control in locating and tracking specific vessels deemed to pose a threat to Coalition nations in the Gulf region. The exercise also allows Coalition teams to board the vessel and practice the procedures for handing them over to Coast Guard ships."

Counterterrorism and security measures are also mentioned - "to disrupt violent extremists' use of the maritime environment as a venue for attack or to transport personnel or weapons." Clearly Iran is the focus. It follows "Operation Brimstone" in the North Atlantic. Can also apply to Russia, and may be repeated at a future time in the Black Sea - "to increase the security and prosperity of the region by working together for a better future," according to US Naval Forces Central Command. Quite a different way than Iran and Russia see it.

But not Arthur Herman in an August 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled: "Russia and the New Axis of Evil." He claims "Russian tanks (are) now presiding over the dismemberment of....Georgia" and asks can the Bush administration "rise to the challenge Russia has chosen to pose to the Free World?" He refers to "democratic governments" in Iraq and Georgia "sandwiched between Iran and Russia, two of the most authoritarian governments in the world" and for good measure adds "Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez" that Russia is "arming" along with Iran.

He calls Iran "the principal threat to peace in Iraq (and) Mr. Chavez's links to the terrorist group FARC (threatening) neighboring Colombia." Iran, Georgia and Colombia "are battlegrounds in a new kind of international conflict that will define our geopolitical future. (It) pits the US and the West against an emerging axis of oil-rich dictatorships....working together to push back against the liberalizing trends of globalization (with) their prime objective (of) toppling or undermining neighboring, pro-Western democracies."

Russia is number one in his sights and allied with "Tehran's mullahs clearly aim to control access to every major source of fossil energy from the western end of the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea." Then add Chavez "hop(ing) for an oil and natural gas monopoly over (his) neighbors like pro-Chavez satellites Bolivia and Ecuador."

Herman puts this kind of material in books and here says "The West has to confront the oil-rich dictatorships, flush with cash, and bent on regional domination." What can the US and a new president do, he asks? He proposes a "broad strategy of targeted economic sanctions and multilateral diplomacy, backed by US military power...." Most important is "to secure democracy's vital new flanks (in) Iraq, Georgia and Colombia (to send) a clear signal that liberty, not tyranny, is the wave of the globalizing future." And for readers who believe that, consider moving to (or even visiting) one of his three favored countries.

Herman is typical of writers getting Wall Street Journal and other hard right op-ed space. He taught history at George Mason University. Also Georgetown and Catholic University and contributes to right wing publications like National Review and Commentary. As well as the Wall Street Journal. He also wrote a revisionist history of Joe McCarthy entitled: "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator." In it he claims that given the "communist threat" he got a bum rap even though he vilified innocent people, was a pathological liar, a consummate demagogue, and, according to David Halberstam knew how "to humiliate vulnerable, scared people (and) in the end produced little beyond fear and headlines."

Precisely what Herman and other hawkish writers now do to Russia, Iran, Venezuela and other independent countries unwilling to roll over for Washington. Even at the risk of a catastrophic global conflict no side can win and that all sides will end up paying for dearly.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10016