In Dollars and Cents, How Much Is Your Life Worth?

Trey Smith

With the crisis in Syria averted -- for now -- the Obama administration and Congress have turned their attention once again to "furthering their plans to attack the social programs on which tens of millions of working people in the United States depend on for their health and livelihood." We have proposals to cut Food Stamps, postpone the implementation of Obamacare for one year, extend the sequester and, of course, to take another run at privatizing Social Security.

All of these proposed cuts and so many more have got me to thinking about the economic value of the average American life. How much in dollars and cents, does the government spend on each American? I don't have the answer to that question, but I'm fairly certain it is not worth nearly as much al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan!

As reported by Paul Craig Roberts,

At the Marine Corps War College, Jim Lacey calculated that the annual cost of the Afghan war was $1.5 billion for each al-Qaeda member in Afghanistan.

Do you think that the federal government spends an average of $1.5 billion on our puny lives? Me either!

Why is it that our government leaders are more than willing to spend egregious amounts of money on ending life, while spending so little on promoting life?

One "Tough" Hombre

Trey Smith

A foolish President Obama and moronic Secretary of State Kerry have handed the United States government its worst diplomatic defeat in history and destroyed the credibility of the Office of the President, the Department of State, and the entire executive branch. All are exposed as a collection of third-rate liars.

Intoxicated with hubris from past successful lies and deceptions used to destroy Iraq and Libya, Obama thought the US “superpower,” the “exceptional” and “indispensable” country, could pull it off again, this time in Syria.

But the rest of the world has learned to avoid Washington’s rush to war when there is no evidence. A foolish Obama was pushed far out on the limb by an incompetent and untrustworthy National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the pack of neoconservatives that support her, and the British Parliament cut the limb off.

What kind of fool would put himself in that vulnerable position?

Now Obama stands alone, isolated, trying to back away from his threat to attack without authorization from anyone – not from the UN, not from NATO, not from Congress who he ignored – a sovereign country. Under the Nuremberg Standard military aggression is a war crime. Washington has until now got away with its war crimes by cloaking them in UN or NATO approval. Despite these “approvals,” they remain war crimes.

But his National Security Advisor and the neocon warmongers are telling him that he must prove that he is a Real Man who can stand alone and commit war crimes all by himself without orchestrated cover from the UN or NATO or a cowardly US Congress. It is up to Obama, they insist, to establish for all time that the President of the United States is above all law. He, and he alone is the “decider,” the Caesar, who determines what is permissible. The Caesar of the “sole superpower” must now assert his authority over all law or Washington’s hegemony over the world is lost.
~ from America Totally Discredited by Paul Craig Roberts ~

For all the times in recent memory when Barack Obama has bragged that the US is different from other nations because we believe in the rule of law, how ironic will it be that he decides that we shall violate international law YET AGAIN by attacking Syria? He is acting like a bully who beats on a misbehaving smaller child just because he can. That saddest part is that no one can seem to stop him.

As a pacifistic, I have been against every military action my country has committed during my lifetime. More often than not, I have been in the small minority of my countrymen since far too many accept the morally dubious concept of American Exceptionalism. The blood of innocents has stained my hands against my will.

In the current case, however, the vast majority of Americans (as well as most of the rest of the world) are not in favor of punitive strikes by the US against Syria, but our loud opinion doesn't seem to factor into anything.  It is looking more and more like all of us will have innocent blood on our hands reluctantly. 

Even IF we Americans got together to decide to punish Obama for forcing this nation to commit a glaring war crime -- something that would never happen -- how do lowly citizens punish a lame duck President?

RT - Diplomats Outraged by Obama "Selling" Ambassadorships to Political Donors

Another Day, Another War

Trey Smith

When Gerald Celente branded the American media “presstitutes,” he got it right. The US print and TV media (and NPR) whore for Washington and the corporations. Reporting the real news is their last concern. The presstitutes are a Ministry of Propaganda and Coverup. This is true of the entire Western media, a collection of bought-and-paid-for whores.

It seems that every day I witness a dozen or more examples. Take May 31 for example.

The presstitutes report that US Secretary of State John Kerry and his German counterpart are working on Russia to convince that country to be a “party to peace” in Syria by not supplying the Syrian government, whose country has been invaded, with arms. Kerry and the Israelis especially do not want Russia to deliver the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria.

This was the extent of the presstitutes’ report. The presstitutes made no mention of the fact that the invasion of Syria by al-Qaeda affiliated radical Muslims was organized and equipped by Washington via its proxies in the region, such as Saudia Arabia and the oil emirates. Americans sufficiently stupid to rely on the presstitute media do not know that it is not Syrians who want to overthrow their government, but Washington, Israel, and radical Islamists who object to Syria’s secular non-confrontational government.

One might think that the US media would wonder why Washington prefers to have al-Qaeda governing Syria than a non-confrontational secular government. But such a question is off-limits for the US media.
~ from America’s Greatest Affliction: The Presstitute Media by Paul Craig Roberts ~

Sadly, as the US public tired of the war in Afghanistan, US leaders needed a new enemy to focus on. While many politicos wanted to attack Iran, the unrest in Syria -- unrest that some believe we helped to create -- served itself up on a silver platter. So now, we have a new reason to continue the perpetual war on terror.

As Conor Friedersdorf pointed out recently, if we go through with our proposed "no-fly zone", that in and of itself IS an act of war. So, despite the fact that the mainstream media will report that the US merely sits on the periphery of this civil war, we actually will be orchestrating it!

With all the domestic problems we are facing right now, the drumbeat of war always seems to carry the day. Instead of tackling unemployment or climate change, we will pour billions of taxpayer dollars into another war. When this one has run its course, then the elite will focus on Iran, Yemen or somewhere else in the Middle East or Africa.

Whatever Big Brother Says

Trey Smith

Have you ever wondered how the government’s misinformation gains traction?

What I have noticed is that whenever a stunning episode occurs, such as 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing, most everyone whether on the right or left goes along with the government’s explanation, because they can hook their agenda to the government’s account.

The leftwing likes the official stories of Muslims creating terrorist mayhem in America, because it proves their blowback theory and satisfies them that the dispossessed and oppressed can fight back against imperialism.

The patriotic rightwing likes the official story, because it proves America is attacked for its goodness or because terrorists were allowed in by immigration authorities and nurtured by welfare, or because the government, which can’t do anything right, ignored plentiful warnings.

Whatever the government says, no matter how problematical, the official story gets its traction from its compatibility with existing predispositions and agendas.

In such a country, truth has no relevance. Only agendas are important.
~ from Why Disinformation Works by Paul Craig Roberts ~

I both agree and disagree with Roberts' thesis. While I think much of American political discourse IS agenda-driven, how could it not be? Each one of us -- Roberts included -- has a perspective and we view life through this perspective. Put another way, objectivity is difficult to attain in a subjective world.

That said, I do agree that Americans, by and large, too readily accept government pronouncements. If a government official stated the sky is purple, a good majority of the people would run around saying the sky is purple without bothering to take a look at it for themselves! Being a natural born skeptic as well as a student of American history, I tend to take the opposite view. If the government declares the sky is purple, I immediately presume that it is anything but!

Of course, that too is a perspective (or agenda). ;-D

It All Seems So Topsy-Turvy

Trey Smith

Having listened to the propaganda line pumped out by Washington and its Ministry of Propaganda for eleven years, imagine my astonishment when I saw two juxtaposed headlines: “Al-Nusra pledges allegiance to al-Qaeda” (BBC) and “Move to Widen Help for Syrian Rebels Gains Speed in West” (NY Times). Al-Nusra is the main military component of the “Syrian rebels,” and it has allied itself with our mortal enemy – Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda.

Wait a minute! Our government told us for eleven years that we blew trillions of dollars on wars to protect Americans from al-Qaeda, endangering Social Security, Medicare, the social safety net, the dollar’s exchange value, the credit rating of the US Treasury, and our civil liberties in order to save America from al-Qaeda terrorists. So why is Washington now supporting al-Qaeda’s overthrow of the secular, non-Islamist government in Syria which has never ever done anything whatsoever to Americans!?

The New York Times presstitutes, Michael R. Gordon and Mark Landler, elevated the terrorist al-Qaeda organization to the status of “the Syrian opposition.” At a lunch meeting hosted by Washington’s puppet, British Foreign Secretary William Hague, and US Secretary of State John Kerry, “the Syrian opposition,” aka al-Qaeda, requested antiaircraft and antitank weapons. A senior Washington official said: “Our assistance has been on an upward trajectory, and the president (Obama) has directed his national security team to identify additional measures so that we can increase assistance.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry announced a $123 million “defense aid package” to “the Syrian opposition” that now includes al-Qaeda. Washington had already sent $117 million in “food and medical supplies” to “the Syrian opposition,” and ordered its Middle Eastern puppets to send arms. Note the Orwellian language: support for an outside terrorist force seeking to destroy a government and a people is called a “defense aid package.”

On April 11 the establishment French newspaper, Le Monde, reported that the al-Nosra organization affiliated with al-Qaeda is the dominant force in “the Syrian opposition,” not democratic revolutionaries. Despite this fact, Washington’s puppets, France and Britain, are pushing the European Union to send arms to the al-Qaeda affiliated “Syrian opposition.” And Senator John McCain wants US airstrikes on Syrian government forces with whom the US is not at war, in order to provide air cover for al-Qaeda’s takeover of Syria.

Meanwhile, the Islamist Shiites, whom the Americans left in control of Iraq, have announced that they have joined the battle against the American-supported al-Qaeda forces seeking to radicalize Syria.
~ from If You Want to Go to Heaven, You Had Better Get Busy Overthrowing Syria by Paul Craig Roberts ~

I drew your attention to this strange turn of events one week ago in a post about the arrest of an American citizen. That citizen was charged with the intent of aiding al-Qaeda -- the very same thing that our government is undertaking.

What does this story tell us? First and foremost, it tells us that US foreign policy is completely amoral. Our leaders are more than willing to deal with the devil -- often a devil of their own making -- if it suits the purposes of our elites. Remember that, at one time, both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were in the fold. They were "our" buds...until they weren't.

The other thing this situation should tell us is that al-Qaeda is little more than a phantom enemy. Our leaders resurrect al-Qaeda as a threat, when need be -- like when the elite want our money or to compromise our constitutional rights. But if al-Qaeda can serve the purposes of our elite's interests, no such threat exists. Our leaders will gladly give them what they ask for and they will keep arming and supporting them until...they need them to become the menacing threat again.

Somebody Should Write A Song About That

Trey Smith

In the United States everything is polluted.

Democracy is polluted with special interests and corrupt politicians.

Accountability is polluted with executive branch exemptions from law and the Constitution and with special legal privileges for corporations, such as the Supreme Court given right to corporations to purchase American elections.

The Constitution is polluted with corrupt legal interpretations from the Bush and Obama regimes that have turned constitutional prohibitions into executive branch rights, transforming law from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of government.

Waters are polluted with toxic waste spills, oil spills, chemical fertilizer run-off with resulting red tides and dead zones, acid discharges from mining with resulting destructive algae such as prymnesium parvum, from toxic chemicals used in fracking and with methane that fracking releases into wells and aquifers, resulting in warnings to homeowners near to fracking operations to open their windows when showering.

The soil’s fertility is damaged, and crops require large quantities of chemical fertilizers. The soil is polluted with an endless array of toxic substances and now with glyphosate, the main element in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide with which GMO crops are sprayed. Glyphosate now shows up in wells, streams and in rain.

Air is polluted with a variety of substances, and there are many large cities in which there are days when the young, the elderly, and those suffering with asthma are warned to remain indoors.

All of these costs are costs imposed on society and ordinary people by corporations that banked profits by not having to take the costs into account. This is the way in which unregulated capitalism works.
~ from Polluted America by Paul Craig Roberts ~

Oops, I forget. Tom Lehrer already did!

I addressed this same topic in a post on March 3. The only point with which I quibble with Roberts is on the qualification. It doesn't really matter if capitalism is unregulated or regulated -- externalization of costs still occurs. It is just that in unregulated capitalism, those costs are far higher.

In the more regulated form, big business spends much of its time figuring out how to skirt the rules as well as lobbying to weaken those rules. Some industries spend so much time and money trying to get around the rules that they actually might have saved some money by following them! But the nature of capitalism is to maximize short-term profit at all costs and if that means sacrificing the health and well-being of the unwashed masses, so be it.

AWOL: Economic Recovery

Trey Smith

Officially, since June 2009 the US economy has been undergoing an economic recovery from the December 2007 recession. But where is this recovery? I cannot find it, and neither can millions of unemployed Americans.

The recovery exists only in the official measure of real GDP, which is deflated by an understated measure of inflation, and in the U.3 measure of the unemployment rate, which is declining because it does not count discouraged job seekers who have given up looking for a job.

No other data series indicates an economic recovery. Neither real retail sales nor housing starts, consumer confidence, payroll employment, or average weekly earnings indicate economic recovery.
~ from The Missing Recovery by Paul Craig Roberts ~

Yesterday, President Obama said that the "sequestration" would slow the nation's economic recovery. To that I ask: What recovery?

Though I don't do it as often now, I still hang out a bit at my friend's mini mart. His customers represent a fair cross-section of folks from this general area and, sometimes, beyond. The topic of the economy often comes up in conversation and I know of NO ONE around here who has seen much of any evidence for this supposed economic recovery.

Poor people are just as poor. The middle class folks continue to struggle. Fellow business owners grouse about the poor economic climate. Several truckers have said that, if things don't get better soon, they may have to park their trucks. And the people employed at this part of the counties two major employers -- Coast Seafood and Weyerhauser -- are worried that, due to the continued economic downturn, one or both may shutter their doors! If that were to happen, the exodus from North Pacific County would be dramatic and the area would soon resemble a virtual ghost town.

As Roberts suggests above, I believe that much of the vaunted economic recovery is being done with smoke and mirrors. It is a charade to keep the common folk from taking to the streets and demanding justice. It serves as a diversion so that most people don't notice that Wall Street continues to bleed us dry.

I certainly agree with Roberts' closing refrain:

This situation is untenable. Sooner or later something will pop these bubbles, and the consequences will be horrendous.

A Different Sort of "Obesity" Problem

Trey Smith

Prosecutors always expand laws far beyond their intent. Attorneys in civil cases do the same. For example, the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was passed in order to make it easier for the government to convict members of the Mafia. However, the law, despite its intent, was quickly expanded by prosecutors and attorneys and used in cases against pro-life activists, Catholic bishops, corporations accused of hiring illegal immigrants, and in divorce cases. “Junk bond king” Michael Milken, a person with no ties to organized crime, was threatened with indictment under the RICO Act. Prosecutors have found that the asset freeze provision in the Act is a convenient way to prevent a defendant from being able to pay attorneys and, therefore, makes it easier for prosecutors to coerce innocent defendants into a guilty plea.

We are now witnessing the expansion of Obama’s Kill List. The list began under the Bush regime as a rationale for murdering suspect citizens of countries with which the US was not at war. The Obama regime expanded the scope of the list to include the execution, without due process of law, of US citizens accused, without evidence presented in court, of association with terrorism. The list quickly expanded to include the American teen-age son of a cleric accused of preaching jihad against the West. The son’s “association” with terrorism apparently was his blood relationship to his father.

As Glenn Greenwald recently wrote, the power of government to imprison and to murder its citizens without due process of law is the certain mark of dictatorship. Dictatorship is government unconstrained by law. On February 10 the Wall Street Journal revealed that the Obama dictatorship now intends to expand the Kill List to include those accused of acting against foreign governments.
~ from Obama's Ever Expanding Kill List by Paul Craig Roberts ~

For all of you out there who think that the President's secret kill list is a-okay because it will be used solely to whack off swarthy terrorist, you need to read this column by Dr. Roberts. As he aptly points out, law expands. It often starts out with a very narrow focus only to become a giant net that swoops up the guilty, marginally guilty and the innocent.

It's really not that much unlike the huge drift nets that commercial trawlers utilize to catch fish out on the high seas. While the folks deploying these nets generally are targeting one kind or species of fish, almost any life form that happens to move into the net is entrapped as well.

Think about that the next you applaud the President for assembling a list of people to kill. Who knows what other "fish" will get caught in the snare!

It Ain't a Pretty Picture

If you're one of those people who hailed the passage of what is known as Obamacare, I urge you to read this article from Paul Craig Robert's website. It may change your mind!

What Would Your Administration Look Like?

Trey Smith

When a person is elected President of the United States, one clear way to know how they plan to govern is by examining their appointments to the cabinet. For example, while 2008 candidate Barack Obama talked about holding Wall Street accountable, once elected, he appointed wolves (e.g., Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers) to guard the henhouse. His appointments belied his words.

In response to readers, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts put together his own list of who he would appoint if he was ever elected President (not that this would EVER happen). See what you think of it and then ask yourself, if you were elected President, who would you appoint to these key posts.

Nomi Prins would be Secretary of the Treasury, and Pam Martens would be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.

Lew Rockwell would be the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Michael Hudson would be chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Harvey Silverglate would be Attorney General.

Glenn Greenwald would be Deputy Attorney General.

Dean Booth and Larry Stratton would be White House legal counsels.

Willie Nelson would be Secretary of Agriculture.

Jeffrey St. Clair would be head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Elizabeth Warren would have whatever post she wants.

Cynthia McKinney would be Secretary of State.

The CIA would be headed by Ray McGovern and Philip Giraldi.

The FBI would be headed by Sibel Edmonds.

Homeland Security would be abolished.

David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage would head the 9/11 investigation.

Bradley Manning would be in charge of closing down the torture prisons.

Julian Assange and John Pilger would be heads of the Public Broadcasting Corporation.

Gerald Celente would be White House Press Secretary.

John Williams (shadowstats.com) would be in charge of federal statistics.

Key members of the Bush and Obama regimes from the president down, and every neoconservative would be handed over to the war crimes tribunal for trial.

The Republicans on the Supreme Court would be impeached and removed from office.

Brooksley Born would be in charge of all federal financial regulatory agencies.

Major General Antonio Mario Taguba would be Secretary of Defense.

Andrew Bacevich would be National Security Advisor

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson would be Deputy Secretary of State.

Ron Unz would be chief of staff of the White House.

Norman Finkelstein would be US Ambassador to Israel.

Noam Chomsky would be US Ambassador to the UN.

David M. Walker would be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The Israel Lobby would have to register as a foreign agent.

(Note: I added the name links for those of whom I could ascertain their identity.)

Will We Really Know Who "Won"?

Trey Smith

“He who casts a vote decides nothing. He who counts the vote decides everything.”
- Joseph Stalin

Whether or not he said it, Stalin’s quote has entered into folklore. For a vote to mean anything, those counting the ballots must have a greater respect for the integrity of democracy than they have lust for power.

Since Stalin’s time, the technology has changed. With electronic voting machines, which leave no paper trail and are programmed with proprietary software, the count can be decided before the vote. Those who control the electronics can simply program voting machines to elect the candidate they want to win. Electronic voting is not transparent. When you vote electronically, you do not know for whom you are voting. Only the machine knows.

According to most polls, the race for the White House is too-close-to-call. History has shown that when an election is close and there’s no expectation for a clear winner, these are the easiest ones to steal. Even more important, the divergence between exit polls, perhaps indicating the real winner, and the stolen result, if not overdone, can be very small. Those who stole the election can easily put on TV enough experts to explain that the divergence between the exit polls and the vote count is not statistically significant or is because women or racial minorities or members of one party were disproportionately questioned in exit polls.

There have been recent reports that, because of costs, exit polls in the 2012 presidential election will no longer be conducted on the usual comprehensive basis in order to save money. If the reports are correct, no check remains on election theft.
~ from U.S. Elections: Will the Dead Vote and Voting Machines be Hacked? by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts ~

On the various progressive news websites I frequent, there has been a lot of discussion in recent years about the connection between the Republican Party and the makers of the various electronic voting machines. If Mitt Romney is declared the winner of the presidential race, a lot of progressive-minded folks will suspect that the vote was rigged.

On the other side of the aisle, if Barack Obama wins reelection, many Tea Party supporters and conservative Republicans will say the secretive Obama administration has done the very same thing: stolen the election.

The truth of the matter is that either side is capable of doing this. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if both corporate parties are trying to steal the election. Maybe all we will learn when the results are released is which team tried harder!

This is the chief problem with a voting system that offers no checks-and-balances. With no paper trail or receipts handed out, no one can be sure that the votes are tabulated accurately or as a reflection of each voter's will. Basically, we have to take government's and the corporate party's words on it.

Does that make you feel confident that they will get it right?

Lesser or Greater

Trey Smith

As Gerald Celente says in the Autumn Issue of the Trends Journal, when confronted with the choice between two evils, you don’t vote for the lessor evil. You boycott the election and do not vote. “Lesser or greater, evil is evil.”

If Americans had any sense, no one would vote in the November election. Whoever wins the November election, it will be a defeat for the American people.

~ from Don't Vote for Evil by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts ~

This seems like such an easy concept to grasp for me, but it's one that has been lost on liberals for generations. Yes, there may have been a time in our distant past when the Democrats were demonstratively better than the GOP, but those days are long gone. A quick perusal of Obama's record on issue after issue makes this point abundantly clear.

And yet, voting for the "lesser evil" is still rampant among progressives. While a good majority of Obama's base have been sorely disappointed by his administration, this continues to be one of their rallying cries this year. "Hey, ya gotta vote Obama because he ain't as bad as Romney!"

Both of them are bad news. We already KNOW how bad Obama has been and we have a good inkling of how bad Romney would be. Because they both come from the same mold, I refuse to vote for either one of them. If more people would join me in refusing to vote for either of these corporate hacks, that would send a strong message to Washington DC.

Habitual Meddlers

Trey Smith

Back during the George W. Bush neocon regime, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in his UN speech summed up George W. Bush for the world. I am quoting Chavez from memory, not verbatim. “Yesterday standing at this same podium was Satan himself, speaking as if he owned the world. You can still smell the sulfur.”

Chavez is one of the American right-wing’s favorite bogyman, because Chavez helps the people instead of bleeding them for the rich, which is Washington’s way. While Washington has driven all but the one percent into the ground, Chavez cut poverty in half, doubled university enrollment, and provided health care and old age pensions to millions of Venezuelans for the first time.

Little wonder he was elected to a fourth term as president despite the many millions of dollars Washington poured into the election campaign of Chavez’s opponent.

While Washington and the EU preach neoliberalism – the supremacy of capital over labor–South American politicians who reject Washington’s way are being elected and reelected in Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Bolivia.

~ from Don’t Vote for Evil by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts ~

One of the quintessential elements of American Exceptionalism is that we can meddle in the democratic process of other nations, but they are not allowed to mess with ours!

Can you imagine the uproar it would cause if Venezuela, China or Egypt tried to manipulate the result of the current US presidential election? Both Democrats and Republicans would be outraged. The American people would be just as incensed. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the majority of my countrymen supported a full-scale military attack against such an intrusion.

Our sovereignty is not to be violated!!!!

And yet, our leaders have no compunction whatsoever in intruding in the electoral affairs of nations we don't like (i.e., the ones that don't do what we say or give us what we want). In the recent Venezuelan election, our government and corporate honchos steered millions of dollars to the opponent of popular President Hugo Chavez because we want to get this renegade out of office in the worst way possible.

It didn't work -- a strong majority of the people reelected Chavez -- but that's not the point. No, the point is that we tried very hard to alter the outcome of the election. We simply don't think too much about the sovereignty of other countries.

A Strange American Dichotomy

Trey Smith

The morons who rule the American sheeple are not only dumb and blind, they are deaf as well. The ears of the American “superpower” only work when the Israeli prime minister, the crazed Netanyahu, speaks. Then Washington hears everything and rushes to comply.

Israel is a tiny insignificant state, created by the careless British and the stupid Americans. It has no power except what its American protector provides. Yet, despite Israel’s insignificance, it rules Washington.

When a resolution introduced by the Israel Lobby is delivered to Congress, it passes unanimously. If Israel wants war, Israel gets its wish. When Israel commits war crimes against Palestinians and Lebanon and is damned by the hundred plus UN resolutions passed against Israel’s criminal actions, the US bails Israel out of trouble with its veto.

The power that tiny Israel exercises over the “world’s only superpower” is unique in history. Tens of millions of “Christians” bow down to this power, reinforcing it, moved by the exhortations of their “Christian” ministers.
~ from Is Washington Deaf As Well as Criminal? by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts ~

In all honesty, this reverence of Israel has always perplexed me. Led by Christian leaders of all stripes (as well as conservative Jews), Israel can do no wrong in the eyes of the American government.

The part that really befuddles me is the Christian angle. From the standpoint of Christendom, it was the Jews who murdered Jesus. Yes, the crucifixion was carried out by the Roman authorities, but according to the stories in the Bible, this was done at the behest of Jewish leaders. Throughout history Christians have held this interpreted sequence of events against the followers of Judaism and yet these same Christians today bow down at the feet of their chief religious adversary.

Because the Jews have been held responsible for the death of the "Christ," Jews have been discriminated against and worse ever since. The annals of history record that Jews were thrown out of country after country. In those nations in which they were allowed to stay, they often lived under oppressive restrictions. Not only were the Jews tortured and murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, but they suffered this same fate at the hands of other regimes as well.

I know of a lot of Christians who don't trust Jewish people as far as they can throw them. They paint them as greedy and power hungry. They look down on their religious practices and, of course, they still hold much animus against them for being Jesus killers.

Despite all this negativity toward Jews, fundamentalist Christians are some of the biggest cheerleaders for all things Israel. If Israel wants to attack Egypt or Iran, these people are all for it. If Israel wants to abuse the Palestinians, these people give them a big thumbs up.

What I simply do not understand is how a conservative Christian can hate Jews so much, but love Israel. Has anyone ever pointed out to them that Israel is the homeland OF the Jews?

No Coup Needed

Trey Smith

The real issues can nowhere be found in the campaigns or in the media. There is no mention of the Bush/Obama destruction of the US Constitution and its legal protections of citizens from arbitrary government power. Due process no longer exists for anyone who the executive branch suspects of being connected in any way to Washington’s chosen enemies. US citizens can be thrown into dungeons for life on suspicion alone without any evidence ever being presented to a court, and they can be executed any place on earth, along with whoever happens to be with them at the time, on suspicion alone.

Last May federal district court judge Katherine Forrest ruled that indefinite detention of US citizens is unconstitutional and issued an injunction against the Obama regime using this police state measure in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Obama regime gave the federal judge the finger. During the week of August 6-10 the Justice (sic) Department’s Brownshirt lawyers refused to tell Judge Forrest if the Obama regime is complying with the injunction. The position of the Obama regime is: “we are above the law and do not answer to federal courts.” One would think that Romney would be all over this, but he isn’t because he wants the power himself. (http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-injunction-tangerine-detention-376/print/)

The Obama police state will shop around and find a federal appeals court dominated by Republican Brownshirt judges and get Judge Forrest’s ruling overturned. All those Republican federal judges we had to have to save us from liberal Democrats will now complete our deliverance to a total police state where all power rests in an unaccountable executive branch. This is what the Republican Federalist Society has wanted for years, and they are on the verge of obtaining it.
~ from The Next Election: High Stake Outcomes Based on Non-issues by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts ~

It just blows my mind that most people can't see or they don't understand what is going on in this country. The purported political adversaries -- the Democrats and Republicans -- are working hand-in-hand to demolish the ideals of this national experiment in democracy!

I'm not naive. I didn't just fall off of a turnip truck. I'm painfully aware that the rhetoric surrounding American democracy always has far outstripped it's actual implementation, but what we have now is an almost complete coup d'état right under our noses and yet hardly anyone has noticed.

And so, we will lumber through the next two months listening to Democrats and Republicans each emotionally declaring that the other side is monstrous and that only THEIR side can save the American Dream. After the drama has ended and one side or the other claims victory, both teams will head back to Washington to put the finishing touches on their bipartisan takeover.

The sad part is that most Americans won't notice it until it is far, far too late.

An Invisible Bomb?

Trey Smith

Living in America is becoming very difficult for anyone with a moral conscience, a sense of justice, or a lick of intelligence. Consider:

We have had a second fake underwear bomb plot, a much more fantastic one than the first hoax. The second underwear bomber was a CIA operative or informant allegedly recruited by al-Qaeda, an organization that US authorities have recently claimed to be defeated, in disarray, and no longer significant.

This defeated and insignificant organization, which lacks any science and technology labs, has invented an “invisible bomb” that is not detected by the porno-scanners. A “senior law enforcement source” told the New York Times that “the scary part” is that “if they buil[t] one, they probably built more.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that “the plot itself indicates that the terrorists keep trying to devise more and more perverse and terrible ways to kill innocent people.” Hillary said this while headlines proclaimed that the US continues to murder women and children with high-tech drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Africa. The foiled fake plot, Hillary alleged, serves as “a reminder as to why we have to remain vigilant at home and abroad in protecting our nation and in protecting friendly nations and peoples like India and others.”

FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that the fake plot proves the need for warrantless surveillance in order to detect – what, fake plots? In Congress Republican Pete King and Democrat Charles Ruppersberger denounced media for revealing that the plot was a CIA operation, claiming that the truth threatened the war effort and soldiers’ lives.

Even alternative news media initially fell for this fake plot. Apparently, no one stops to wonder how al-Qaeda, which has become so disorganized and helpless that it is on the run and left its revered leader, Osama bin Laden, in a Pakistan village alone and unguarded to be murdered by US Navy Seals, could catch the CIA off guard with an “undetectable” bomb, to use the description provided by Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Dianne Feinstein, who was briefed on the device by US intelligence personnel.
~ from Does The West Have A Future? by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts ~

It really boggles the mind, doesn't it? We keep hearing how we've disabled al-Qaeda and yet, in the next breath, we're told how they continue to be the world's greatest menace. How can both of these assertions be truth since the first contradicts the second?

We Have Come a Long Way Since Watergate

Trey Smith

The other day Chuck Colson, one of the Nixon officials imprisoned for Watergate crimes, died. This gave NPR the opportunity to relive the Nixon horror.

What precisely was the Nixon horror? Essentially, there was no such thing. Watergate was about President Nixon lying about when he learned about the Watergate burglary.

...Looking back from our time during which Bush and Obama have deep-sixed the US Constitution, violated numerous US and international laws, and behaved as if they were caesars unconstrained by any law or any morality, Nixon’s “crimes” appear so trivial as to be unremarkable. Yet, Nixon was driven from office and is regarded as a criminal.
~ from Disinformation On Every Front by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts ~

It really is stupefying, if you think about it. Richard Nixon was run from office because of his paranoia! Approximately 30 years later, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a sexual affair with an intern (though he later was acquitted). I'm not suggesting that either of these "crimes" amounts to nothing, but they pale in comparison to the lawlessness of Bush and Obama.

What is it about America that we have a propensity for throwing the book at those involved in minor stuff, but we shield those who commit major affronts to truth and decency?

Just look at the state of the nation today. Our prisons are bursting at the seams because ever more everyday citizens are locked up for possession of pot, victimless offenses and a growing list of what use to be petty crimes. At the same time, not one captain of Wall Street has been convicted -- let alone charged -- for bringing the world economy to the brink of total collapse! Not only do these corporate criminals never see the inside of a courtroom or jail cell, but they pay each other fat bonuses with taxpayer dollars!

People who expose the misdeeds of government -- whistleblowers -- are being prosecuted by the Obama administration to the hilt, but the potential criminals they expose are not even investigated. They get to walk free with the knowledge that the government itself has their back.

I remember as a high school student that my mom and I sat riveted to the television as the Watergate hearings unfolded. It was during this time that I felt especially proud to be an American. Those hearings showcased that no one -- not even the fricking President of the United States -- was above the law!

Here we are about 40 years later to find that our "great nation" has gone backwards over these 4 decades. Nixon was pummeled by the government, the media and popular sentiment for being so secretive. Today President Obama is being lauded and celebrated for the same thing!

Nixon didn't put out a hit on an American citizen, but Obama has. Yet, Nixon was run from office, while Obama gets to run for a second term.

My, oh my, how times have changed...and not for the better!

The Beauty of It

Trey Smith

It is extraordinary that “liberals,” “progressives,” “Democrats,” whatever they are, are defending a “health program” [ObamaCare] that uses public monies to pay private insurance companies and that raises the cost of health care.

Americans have been brainwashed that “a single-payer system is unaffordable” because it is “socialized medicine.” Despite this propaganda, accepted by many Americans, European countries manage to afford single-payer systems. Health care is not a stress, a trauma, an unaffordable expense for European populations. Among the Western Civilized Nations, only the richest, the US, has no universal health care.

The American health care system is the most expensive of all on earth. The reason for the extraordinary expense is the multiple of entities that must make profits. The private doctors must make profits. The private testing centers must make profits.The private specialists who receive the referrals from general practitioners must make profits. The private hospitals must make profits. The private insurance companies must make profits. The profits are a huge cost of health care.

On top of these profits come the costs of preventing and combatting fraud. Because private insurance companies resist paying and Medicare pays a small fraction of the medical charges, private health care providers charge as much as they possibly can, knowing that the payments will be cut to the bone. But a billing mistake of even $300 can bankrupt a health care provider from legal expenses defending him/her self from fraud accusations.

The beauty of a single-payer system is that it takes the profits out of the system. No one has to make profits. Wall Street cannot threaten insurance companies and private health care companies with being taken over because their profits are too low. No health-provider in a single-payer system has to worry about being displaced in a takeover organized by Wall Street because the profits are too low.

Because a single-payer system eliminates the profits that drive up the costs, Wall Street, Insurance companies, and “free market economists” hate a “socialized” medical care system. They prefer a socialized “private” health care system in which public monies flow into private insurance companies.
~ from What Is ObamaCare? by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts ~

I am one of those lefties who hopes the conservative US Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare. I don't buy the argument by liberal pundits that it's better than nothing. Yes, it is nice that a provision was enacted not to discriminate against "consumers" for preexisting conditions, but the negatives of this poorly-written law far outstrip the few positives.

The biggest negative is that ObamaCare does NOTHING to rein in costs. The health insurance industry can continue to gouge the American public at will. What's even worse, you have to accept being gouged or you will be fined! How is that a progressive step forward?

I agree with Dr. Roberts that profit has no place in a healthcare system...unless the profit is in the form of healthier lives.

How Is the Job Market in Your Neck of the Woods?

Trey Smith

Last Friday the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the first month of this new year 243,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate (U.3) fell to 8.3 percent. This good news is a mirage. It is due to faulty seasonal adjustments and to the BLS birth/death model. In a prolonged downturn, seasonal adjustments and the birth/death model produce nonexistent employment.

The unadjusted data show a rise in the unemployment rate.
~ from The January Jobs Are Statistical Artifacts by Paul Craig Roberts ~

For the past several months, Roberts and statistician John Williams have disputed the glowing reports coming from Obama's Labor Department. While we've been told there is a slow, but steady, decline in the official unemployment rate, Roberts and Williams say it just ain't so.

Some may suggest that these two simply are naysayers. There are always a few individuals who are never happy no matter what the government does or does not do. Maybe the employment picture truly is looking up and these two steadfastly refuse to accept it.

Since I have quoted these two several times in the past few months, I tend to think THEIR information is on the up-and-up; it's the government that is blowing smoke! I know that in my region of the country, there is no evidence whatsoever that unemployment is decreasing. In fact, in my county, it's going up.

But I also know that simply looking at one small area is myopic. My home county has experienced employment woes for decades, so our continued woes don't really tell me all that much. I'd like to hear from readers who hail from different parts of the US. How does the employment picture look in your locale? Do you think it's getting better, worse or about the same?