Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Do Presidential Elections Actually Have Anything To Do With How the Rest of Us Live? Lies Galore! Jobs Report Lies! Does the Government Tell Anything But Crowd-Calming Lies? (And Why Would They Anyway?) The 25 Most Vicious War Profiteers



(Please consider making even a small contribution to the Welcome to  Pottersville2 Quarterly Fundraiser happening now ($5.00 is suggested for those on a tight budget) or at least sending a link to your friends if you think the subjects discussed here are worth publicizing. Thank you for your support. We are in a real tight spot financially right now and would sincerely appreciate any type of contribution. Anything you can do will make a huge difference in this blog's ability to survive in these difficult economic times.)




Poppy Bush (Remember how he got his nickname? No kidding!)

Don't you just adore the "new" American journalistic courtesy that is so polite and thoughtful that it allocates the wealthy a different set of rules than everyone else has to abide by?

And that they are never asked rude questions by the so-serious (fawning) "journalists?"

(Or else?)

Russ Baker at WhoWhatWhy knows all about this reigning paradigm as he's documented the lives of these special people for decades. (Please read Family of Secrets for further edification about the tidbit below (and Abby Huntsmen's tell-all about how her Dad, Jon, was ostracized by the Rethugs after he told a little bit of the truth).)

Did you know it’s Celebrate Poppy month? A couple of weeks ago was the 88th birthday of former president George H.W. “Poppy” Bush (the “good” George Bush — sorta kinda.) And the media has been partying with a host of distinctly non-journalistic tributes.

HBO ran what Salon described as a “flattering documentary” — which, since documentaries are supposed to be about the truth, meant no documentary at all.

“41,” a new documentary about George H.W. Bush…is a political film that isn’t very political. It’s the story of the former president’s life, told only in his words, without much context and with no critical commentary.

Whoo-hoo! Good for HBO, continuing to push the bounds of the possible. Besides the cable giant, the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, weighed in with more cotton candy.

. . . . That’s why we love the New York Times. It can find something cheery in the ways in which powerful men catering to rich people can get along irrespective of nominal party differences.

The problem, which neither HBO nor The Times will mention, is that Poppy Bush is only a “gracious” man in his public manners, not in his (largely deniable) actions — the most odious of which have never been reported to the American people by either the establishment media or the so-called “alternative” (liberal) media.

I spent years researching the elder Bush for my book, Family of Secrets What I learned fascinated and astounded me. It began to explain my gnawing sense that presidential elections generally have almost nothing to do with the rest of us.

The story of a handful of wealthy people perpetuating their own advantages through a broad range of legal, illegal, and even deadly acts — that’s the real story of George HW Bush, of his sons, his father, and the small army of lawyers, consultants, and soldiers who help them brutally game the system.

First, though, a bit more of the Times’s peculiar rendition of journalism, courtesy of Dowd, who usually writes with jocularity and irony but here plays her role nauseatingly straight:

[A]s he turns 88 this week with a birthday clambake in Kennebunkport and a screening of an admiring HBO documentary, “41,” we are in the midst of what his biographer [former Newsweek editor] Jon Meacham, calls “Poppy chic.”

A new CNN/ORC International poll found that Bush the senior is far more respected than Bush the junior, who is the least popular among the living ex-presidents.

Because you can read them for yourself (with footnotes galore), I won’t bother you here with the mind-boggling particulars that you won’t get from the vaunted fearless media, such as the back story that explains why Poppy can’t remember where he was when he heard that JFK had been shot (hint: 1976 was not the first time he was in the CIA).

Or the nature of the elder Bush’s activities at the time Richard Nixon, a one-time Bush family retainer who as President struck an independent path, was taken down in the Watergate scandal. Or the three different stories Poppy told about how his fellow crew members perished while he survived after bailing out of the World War II plane he was piloting. Then there’s the nice little situation Poppy and his Texas friends struck up decades ago with the Saudi royal family that benefited both circles and explains American policy in the region ever since.

You’d think this would make damned good storytelling for an outfit like The Times or HBO. But you’d be wrong. Because the establishment in this country only tells one type of story: fairy tales.

Lies, lies and more lies coming at us from above. But no worries, not many people are even aware of them.

Friday’s Jobs Report: More Lies From “Our” Big Brother



In his report on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest jobs and unemployment report, statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) writes: “The July employment and unemployment numbers published today, August 3rd, were worthless and likely misleading. . . . Suspecting at one time that the jobs numbers were being rigged against him by his own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), President Richard M. Nixon proposed a new approach to reporting the numbers. Although the proposed changes never were implemented, several decades later the BLS adopted reporting methods that were somewhat parallel to the late president’s thinking.”


I will spare the readers an explanation of Williams’ account of the manipulation that is occurring as it is too arcane for the general reader.

Instead, Let’s just apply common sense. According to the BLS, there were 163,000 new nonfarm payroll jobs created in July. This figure is about 13,000 more jobs than is needed to keep pace with population growth. Therefore, the unemployment rate should have declined fractionally. Instead, the unemployment rate (U3) rose from 8.2% to 8.3%.

In case you missed the point, new jobs, a net figure, rose and so did the unemployment rate!

Moreover, the alternative, but much less reported, jobs report from the Household Survey found that the economy lost 195,000 jobs in July.


The government that lies to you about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, about Iraq’s al Qaeda connections, about the Taliban in Afghanistan, about Osama bin Laden, about Libya and Gadhafi, about Iranian nukes, about Syria, about Pakistan, about Yemen and Somalia, about Bradley Manning, about Julian Assange and Wikileaks, indeed about everything under the sun, also lies to you about jobs, unemployment, economic recovery, GDP growth, 9/11, the “terrorist threat,” everything. Try to find anything that the government has said over the past 6 presidential terms that is not a lie.

Other than some minor insignificant detail, “your” government has been consistently lying to you about everything of importance.

“Your” government lies to you, because “your” government has an agenda that it most certainly will not tell you about, because if you knew what it is, you would revolt. Putting down the revolt would divert the government from its agenda. It would also alert the rest of the world to the fact that the US government has an undeclared agenda of world domination, despite the costs to the American people and every other people. World War III looms.

Nuclear annihilation is the necessary outcome of the neoconservatives’ drive for US world hegemony. Syria can fall, and Iran can fall, but Russia and China are unlikely to accept their reduction to puppet state status. As both are nuclear armed and as the crazed criminals in charge of the US government are wallowing in hubris, nuclear war seems inevitable.

The world’s most mortal enemy is Washington. If Washington prevails, the world will be dead or in slavery to Washington, including all American subjects, whether Democrats or Republicans.

Don’t let it ever be said that your enemy, whatever your country, has not been identified.

Posted by Ryan

July 22, 2008


The Iraq war is many things to different people. It is called a strategic blunder and a monstrous injustice and sometimes even a patriotic mission, much to the chagrin of rational human beings. For many big companies, however, the war is something far different:   a lucrative cash-cow.

The years-long, ongoing military effort has resurrected fears of the so-called “military-industrial complex.” Media pundits are outraged at private companies scooping up huge, no-questions-asked contracts to manufacture weapons, rebuild infrastructure, or anything else the government deems necessary to win (or plant its flag in Iraq). No matter what your stance on the war, it pays to know where your tax dollars are being spent.

Following is a detailed rundown of the 25 companies squeezing the most profit from this controversial conflict.

1. Halliburton

Iraq-Halliburton [1]

The first name that comes to everyone’s mind here is Halliburton. According to MSN Money [2], Halliburton’s KBR, Inc. division bilked government agencies to the tune of $17.2 billion in Iraq war-related revenue from 2003-2006 alone. This is estimated to comprise a whopping one-fifth of KBR’s total revenue for the 2006 fiscal year. The massive payoff is said to have financed the construction and maintenance of military bases, oil field repairs, and various infrastructure rebuilding projects across the war-torn nation. This is just the latest in a long string of military/KBR wartime partnerships, thanks in no small part to Dick Cheney’s former role with the parent company.

2. Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp

mainpic_01.jpg [3]

At first blush, a private equity fund (and not, say, Exxon-Mobil) being the number 2 profiteer in the Iraq war might sound strange. However, the cleverly run fund has raked in $1.44 billion through its DynCorp subsidiary. The primary service DynCorp has provided to the war efforts is the training of new Iraqi police forces. Often described as a ‘state within a state [4]‘, the sizable company is headed by Dwight M. Williams, former Chief Security Officer of the upstart U.S. Department of Homeland Security. With this and other close ties to defense agencies, Veritas Capital Fund and DynCorp are well-positioned to capitalize on Iraq even more.

3. Washington Group International

Iraq-WGI [5]

The Washington Group International [6] has parlayed its expertise the repair, restore, and maintenance of high-output oil fields into $931 million in Iraq-related revenue from 2003-2006. The publicly traded 25,000 employee company’s other specialties include the building and maintenance of schools, military bases, and municipal utilities, such as watering systems. Some have complained that Washington Group’s hefty government payoffs have served primarily to raise its trading price on the New York Stock Exchange. One thing is for sure – with oil prices continuing to rise, there will be no shortage of demand for the oil protection services Washington Group International brings to bear.

4. Environmental Chemical

Iraq-EC [7]

All war zones eventually becomes cluttered with spent ammunition and broken/abandoned weapons, creating a lucrative niche for any company willing to clean it all up. In Iraq, this duty has fallen into the hands of Environmental Chemical [8]. The privately held Burlingame, California company has stockpiled $878 million by the end of fiscal 2006 for munitions disposal, calling upon its “decade of experience planning and conducting UXO removal, investigation, and certification activities.” The company has close ties to several defense agencies and is staffed by graduates of the U.S. Navy’s Explosive Ordinance Schools, as well as the U.S. Army’s Chemical Schools at Anniston.

5. Aegis

Iraq-Aegis [9]

Aegis has done the United Kingdom proud after reeling in a contract to coordinate all of Iraq’s private security operations [10]. The Pentagon contract is good for $430 million (incredibly lucrative by any standard) but it has landed Aegis in some hot public relations water. The company’s decision to contribute to Iraq war efforts has lead to a rejected membership application from the International Peace Operations Association. According to The Independent, the influential trade organization does not consider Aegis worthy of inclusion in the “peace and stability industry.” It remains to be seen whether Aegis will continue to be ostracized for participating in the training of Iraqi security forces.

6. International American Products

Iraq-IAP [11]

Even with all of the blinding innovation and trailblazing advances in military technology, none of it would be very useful without electricity. Running electrical wiring in hostile war zones is dicey business, but International American Products [12] has stuck their neck out and collected a cool $759 million in just 3 years for its efforts. While avoiding enemy fire, their work has become increasingly dangerous – and yet, critically necessary – as Coalition forces struggle rebuild cities, put down warring forces, and stabilize the chaotic nation. Schools, oils wells, and other public infrastructure have relied on IAP for the electricity needed to operate. With Iraq slowly beginning to stabilize, International American Products is holding out hope that its job will eventually become less treacherous.

7. Erinys

Iraq-Erinys [13]

London-based Erinys has so far scored $136 million for its effort in securing Iraq’s precious oil reserves [14]. Riding the coattails of its considerable mining, petroleum, and construction expertise, the company has already made considerable headway toward this critically important goal. In the space of just 16 months, Erinys successfully trained, equipped, and mobilized an all-Iraqi guard force of nearly 20,000 to protect the nation’s oil pipeline from terrorist attack or sabotage. With crude oil prices skyrocketing and no end in sight, Erinys looks to have its hands full for years to come.

8. Fluor

Iraq-Fluor [15]
Fluor scored a monster $1.1 billion contract [16] in 2004 to build, service, and manage water/sewage systems in Iraq. The deal is actually a joint venture between Fluor (a 44,800 employee company based on Aliso Viejo) and London’s AMEC, PLC and actually encompasses two separate contracts. The first – worth $600 million – obligates Fluor to build a water distribution infrastructure and cleaning system for Iraq’s major cities. A second $500 million deal will have the lucrative joint venture performing similar tasks in other, less hostile regions of the country.

9. Perini

Iraq-Perini [17]
Perini (controlled by financier Richard Blum) is one of the more controversial companies [18] to have scored big-time Iraq war money. That’s because Blum’s wife, Senator Dianne Feinstein, appears to have used her seat on the Military Construction Appropriations subcomittee to steer the $650 million environmental cleanup deal in his favor. This has lead to outrage and cries for conflict of interest investigations among those in the media, as well as Feinstein’s peers in Congress. Feinstein has also neglected to comment on this potential conflict of interest. This has lead to what Metroactive.com calls an “omission [that] has called her ethical standards into question.”

10. URS Corporation

Iraq-URS [19]

Another widely disparaged, Blum-controlled company that has profited from Iraq is URS Corporation [18]. Long known as one of the nation’s major defense contractors, San Francisco-based URS has collected $792 million in environmental cleanup fees in Iraq war zones. As with Perini, both Blum and Feinstein have come under intense scrutiny to answer questions about the apparent conflict of interest inherent in Feinstein helping to secure such an exorbitant government contract for her investment banker husband. Both Blum and Feinstein have refused to produce copies of the ethics commitee’s rulings on Perini and URS, leading to considerable suspicion.

11. Parsons

Iraq-Parsons [20]

Few Iraq contractors have come under fire as much as Parsons [21], who reportedly mismanaged the construction a police academy so poorly that human waste dripped from its ceilings. Far from being an isolated incident, reports from federal government auditors revealed lackluster work on 13 of the 14 Iraq projects entrusted to Parsons. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the Pasedena-based firm from making off with $540 million in U.S. government funds for the poorly executed reconstruction projects at Iraq’s healthcare centers and fire stations. For obvious resaons, Parsons’ work in Iraq has generally been considered an embarassment.

“This is the lens through which Iraqis will now see America,” lamented Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said. “Incompetence. Profiteering. Arrogance. And human waste oozing out of ceilings as a result.”

12. First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting

Iraq-FKGTC [22]
First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting [23] is another example of the apparent cronyism that has gone into the process of awarding Iraq war contracts. It now seems that the company has succeeded on the strength of its ties to Bush Administration officials [24] than its business merits. Rival companies have been extremely vocal in their displeasure at First Kuwaiti being awarded $500 million to build a United States Embassy in Baghdad.

“First Kuwaiti was not the lowest bidder”, complained Framco senior vice-president Gilles Kacha.

13. Armor Holdings

Iraq-AH [25]

Armor Holdings (now a subsidiary of publicly traded BAE Systems [26]) is one company whose opinion of the Iraq war can’t be all that negative. Since combat commenced in 2001, the company’s revenue has skyrocketed by a mind-blowing 2,247%, up to $634 million. Armor Holdings’ specialty is providing state-of-the-art armor for military vehicles and important personell as they traverse dangerous Iraqi war zones. The civil war between opposing Sunni and Shia and general unrest throughout the country have greatly increased the demand for the company’s products.

14. L3 Communications

Iraq-L3 [27]

L3 Communications has carved out a neat $359 million slice of Iraq’s security screening [28] needs as of fiscal 2006. The New York-based company has been charged with overseeing the screening and training of law enforcement personell for the growing all-Iraqi security force, as well as replacing equipment in the field. Linguistics is another one of L3′s specialties, one that is heavily relied upon to interface with native speaking Sunni and Shia forces.

L3 Communications has also purchased Titan, a corporate intelligence company with a $1 billion Iraq contract. Prior to being acquired by L3, Titan plead guilty to international bribery charges [29] (a felony) and paid a record-breaking $28.5 million under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

15. AM General

Iraq-AMG [30]

AM General (a subsidiary of Renco) is another company that has seen its revenue sail toward the heavens since the beginning of combat in Iraq. The renowned maker of extra-wide all terrain vehicles (shown below) has seen its Pentagon revenues soar by 92% [31], a phenomenal leap for any business. This placed Renco sixth in a 2005 analysis of the fastest growing contractors by dollar amount, and sixth in an analysis of fastest growing contractors by percentage. Growing hostilities prior to the Bush Administration’s “surge” strategy in 2007 helped fuel the sudden demand for AM’s heavy duty combat vehicles.

16. HSBC Bank

Iraq-HSBC [32]
Already the third largest financial institution on the planet, HSBC has seen its fortunes brighten beyond its wildest dreams [33] since the start of combat. It has purchased a controlling stake (70%) of the newly created Iraqi national bank, Dar es Salaam Investment Bank, which, though small, has already amassed assets of $91 million. HSBC’s chief executive of Middle East operations, David Hodgkinson, was quoted as saying HSBC intends to “develop the bank’s services by investing in computerised payment systems and cash machines.’

HSBC’s stake in the fledgling Iraqi bank could turn out to be a significant strategic foothold in the developing country. According to a BBC report, the bank already has 14 operating branches across Iraq and a modest but growing staff of 450. It is also the first private bank in Iraq since the toppling of Saddam Hussein, as the late dictator did not allow them during his rule.

17. Cummins

Iraq-Cummins [34]

Cummins has staked its claim to $45 million in Iraq war-related revenue with its robust line of diesel engines [35] and power stations. According to a press release [36], United Kingdom-based Cummins”signed a distribution agreement with HMBS in Iraq for all Cummins brand products and equipment.” Antonio Leitao, Cummins’ General Manager of the commercial power generation business in Europe, spoke approvingly of the deal.

“Cummins Power Generation is proud to be the first generator set manufacturer to establish a distributorship in Iraq that covers the whole country.”

Cummins and power-generating companies like them will be instrumental over the coming years, as the world learns whether Iraq truly has a future as a rebuilt, independent nation.

18. MerchantBridge

Merchant Bridge [37]

MerchantBridge got its “in” to the growing money pot of Iraq’s fledgling financial sector [38] by casting a wide net. The investment banking group has ambitiously targeted marketshare in Iraq’s developing construction, telecommunications, financial services, real estate, hotels, and information technology industries, all of which have been made easier by being the “lead advisor” to Iraq’s Ministry of Industry. The inside partnership has paved the way for MerchantBridge’s factory lease program, the opening of Mansour Bank, and an overall capitalization of $61 million.

Furthermore, 90% of MerchantBridge’s initial operating capital in Iraq has been supplied by Iraqi investors.

19. GlobalRisk Strategies

Iraq-GRS [39]

Risk management is a lucrative business the world over, and the stakes are nowhere higher than the high-pressure war zones of a foreign nation. GlobalRisk Strategies has capitalized on the bewildering uncertainty [10] to the tune of $24.5 million, which it has primarily earned by advising U.S. and Coalition forces on the risks of various counter-terrorism strategies. Some of the more noteable risks the company’s 2,000 employees have managed include distributing fresh currency to the locals and guarding the heavily fortified Baghdad airport during 2004.

Alternatively, GlobalRisk has also assisted with reconstruction and delivering humanitarian aid in the banking, aviation, oil and infrastructure sectors throughout Iraq.

20. ControlRisks

Iraq-CR [40]

ControlRisks is another risk management company that has successfully hopped on the Iraq bandwagon. The UK-based firm has extracted roughly $37 million in war-related profits by providing discreet armed security and logistics support to troops on the ground and in the air. With a presence of 250 employees in Iraq, ControlRisks has provided security for the disastrous Parsons Usaid buildings (prior to the revelation of the embarassing shoddy work scandal) and has also been tasked with protecting Iraq’s active duty UK forces. While Iraq has recently begun to cool down in terms of insurgent violence and infighting, the region should provide opportunities for companies like ControlRisks to profit for years or even decades to come.

21. CACI

Iraq-CACI [41]

CACI was called upon by the U.S. government to provide 36 interrogators to Iraq, 10 of which were assigned to Abu Grhraib. While all the details have not yet come to light, it looks like CACI profited from Iraq in the worst possible way. One website notes that a leaked Army investigation [29] implicated CACI employee Stephen Stefanowicz in the abuse of prisoners.” Furthermore, the allegations have led the Center for Constitutional Rights to agitate for trying CACI and its affiliates in U.S. courts.

Susan Burke, an attorney working on the case on CCR’s behalf, was quoted as saying “We believe that CACI and Titan engaged in a conspiracy to torture and abuse detainees, and did so to make more money.”

22. Bechtel

Iraq-Bechtel [42]

Bechtel [43] is yet another Iraq contractor who seems to have benefited from close ties to the Bush Admistration. How else would a company recommended by the man who oversaw the Big Dig disaster possibly be awarded a $2.4 billion, no-bid reconstruction contract for Iraq’s infrastructure? Journalists and competitors are scratching their heads at why the Bush Administration trusted the choice of USAID chief Andrew Natsios after his woefully ineffective tenure at the head of the Massachussetts Turnpike Authority. While in that capacity, the Big Dig’s operating costs ballooned from an initial $2.6 billion to $14.6 billion, and the job still took years to complete!

In line with Natsios’ track record of recommendations, this one turned out to be a flop. Bechtel proceeded to lose its contract for the Basra Children’s Hospital Project after falling a year and a half behind schedule and $70-$90 million over budget.

23. Custer Battles

Iraq-CB [44]
Custer Battles [45] has the dubious distinction of being the first Iraq war contractor to be found guilty of fraud. In March 2006, a jury ordered Custer to pay damages in excess of $10 million for 37 counts of fraud, including what the judge called “false and fraudulently inflated invoices.” While Custer wriggled out of serious penalties on a technicality (the Coalition Provisional Authority is not part of the U.S. Government and therefore crimes against it cannot be tried under U.S. law), the whole ordeal has muddied the company’s reputation greatly, possibly beyond repair. It also seems to have opened the floodgates for similar cases of contractor fraud. As of fall 2006, a backlog of 70 fraud cases were pending against Iraq contractors doing all manner of work.

During the trial, a retired Army general testified that the inflated invoice scandal stood out to him as “probably the worst I’ve ever seen in my 30 years in the Army.”

24. Nour USA

Iraq-Noura [46]
Of all the companies on this list, Nour USA might be the only one who actually did not exist until the Iraq war got underway. Since its opportunistic opening, the company has recieved $400 million in Iraq-related contracts, including a gigantic $80 million deal to secure the nation’s oil pipelines. Some critics allege the contract was pushed through by Ahmed Chalabi (whom one website calls “Iraq’s No. 1 Opportunist [47].”) While Chalabi has denied this allegation, several other bidders on the pipeline contract point out how awfully strange it is for a company with no prior experience to be awarded such a large contract.

Of course, it probably didn’t hurt Nour to have William Cohen (former Defense Secretary under Bill Clinton) on board as a company consultant, but that’s another story.

25. General Dynamics

Iraq-GD [48]

According to a Washington Post report in July of 2006, General Dynamics is one of the big-name defense contractors that has gotten the biggest monetary boost from the Iraq war. The key to General’s war profiteering strategy has been a broad focus on virtually everything the government needs to wage war, including tank shells, bullets for small arms, and even Stryker vehicles, which were first put to use during the initial 2003 invasion to remove Saddam.

All of this has lifted the company to tripled profitability since 9/11, and critics are speculating that ties to top Defense Agencies helped grease the wheels. According to the Project on Government Oversight, General Dynamics formally announced that it was hiring a former top aide to the Army Chief of Staff in November 1999 – conveniently, just a month after the aide announced a grand new vision to introduce wheeled, light armored vehicles like the Stryker into regular use.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Next Downturn Is Imminent: Charts You Will Not Like



I quote the conservative John Mauldin infrequently, but mainly when he makes unpleasant points about the economy backed up by lots of data. The reason for this is that he is known for being a voice of calculated optimism (for the upper classes mostly), but today his optimism has almost evaporated (and, of course, it's right before the Primaries so "suck on that," Tom Friedman).

Orders and Production: No Time for Complacency

John Mauldin
Aug 06, 2012

Source: Federal Reserve Banks of New York, Philadelphia, Richmond, Kansas City and Dallas, Institute for Supply Management, ISM Chicago, U.S. Department of Commerce and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

Comparing This Recovery to Past Cycles



The recovery, which began in July 2009, is clearly losing momentum. U.S. economic growth slowed from a 4.0 percent rate in the fourth quarter of 2011 to a tepid 1.5 percent annual growth rate in the second quarter (Figure 2). Some parts of the economy continue to eek out modest gains, while other sectors have slipped into outright declines.


Source: Federal Reserve Banks of New York, Philadelphia, Richmond, Kansas City and Dallas, Institute for Supply Management, ISM Chicago, U.S. Department of Commerce and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

Since 1954, there have been six recoveries that have lasted at least 36 months. We compared the current recovery, which has now hit the 36-month mark, to those past six recoveries. To evaluate where we are in the cycle, we consider the four primary coincident indicators used by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) when it determines whether or not the economy is officially in recession. These indicators are: employment, real income growth, real wholesale sales and industrial production. We indexed these indicators to the trough of each respective business cycle, an idea first explored by the St. Louis Federal Reserve. This method allows us to measure each of these various vital signs for the economy and consider the position of each in this cycle relative to past cycles.

Employment: Another “Jobless Recovery”?

Strictly speaking, the U.S. economy has technically transitioned from recovery to expansion. Total real GDP at present is 1.7 percent larger than its prerecession peak. However, many parts of the economy are struggling to get back to previous highs. Perhaps nowhere is this deficiency more evident than in the labor market. The U.S. economy lost 8.8 million jobs in the recession but has only recouped roughly 3.8 million of those lost jobs (Figure 3). That leaves an “employment deficit” of roughly five million jobs. Try telling one of these five million people that the economy has transitioned from recovery to expansion.


Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

In Figure 4, we reveal the first of our charts comparing this cycle relative to the past six recoveries that have lasted at least this long in duration. Since we will repeat this chart for each of the four NBER coincident cyclical indicators, it is worth taking a second here to describe what is depicted in the chart. Each series is indexed to 100 at the trough of the cycle. The lighter solid line indicates the current expansion. The darker solid line indicates the average of the previous six expansions that have lasted at least 36 months. The two dashed lines report the best and worst values across these previous expansions. The legend in each graph identifies the date for which cycle was the “best” or “worst” expansion. Taking employment in the chart below as an example: the best jobs recovery was following the 1975 recession, the worst was following the 2001 recession and the current cycle is well below average and only slightly better than the 2001 cycle.



Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

Real Income: Well Below Average

In an environment where employers have been reticent to add new workers, it comes as little surprise that income growth has been rather muted as well. Transfer payments, such as social security, unemployment insurance and food stamps, have been a key driver of income growth in this economic cycle as opposed to wages and salaries. In fact, between the prerecession peak for income in the second quarter of 2008 and June 2012, transfer payments increased 18.9 percent while over the same time period wages and salaries increased only 4.2 percent.

After subtracting transfer payments and adjusting for inflation, income growth in this cycle has been close to the weakest recovery in our study. From the absolute trough of the economic cycle in June 2009, personal income less transfer payments is up just 6.6 percent. The average expansion would have posted an 11 percent recovery by this stage of the recovery.

Just as employment is still a far cry from it prerecession peak, personal income ex-transfer payments is also a shadow of its former self, still 3.4 percent smaller than its high in March 2008 (Figure 5). The weakest real income recovery in our study was the 2001 cycle, though if one looks carefully at Figure 6, one will note a spike in income about three years into that expansion. Recall that the one-time special dividend payout to shareholders of Microsoft occurred in 2004 and is the best explanation for the pop in income during that cycle. Barring a similar surge in real income in the next few months, this cycle is about to become the worst on record with respect to income growth.


Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Labor and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC



Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Labor and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

Real Wholesale Sales Holding Up, but What Will Happen as Retail Sales Fade?

Real manufacturing and wholesale-retail trade sales is the next of our four NBER coincident indicators. Here, again, we find that, although the economy as a whole is now larger than it was before the recession, this category of sales is still clawing its way out of the hole (Figure 7). Despite having rallied 12.6 percent from its level at the depth of the recession, wholesale sales are at present 3.9 percent lower than they were before the recession began.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC


It comes as little surprise to learn that, in terms of how this cycle stacks up with regard to wholesale sales, the current period is below average. Yet, the current recovery in real wholesale sales compares more favorably to previous trends than the recoveries in the job market and real income. Indeed, on a threeâmonth annualized basis, this series is growing at a 4.1 percent rate through June.

This rate of growth hardly seems sustainable given the rapid deterioration in U.S. consumer spending. Retail sales have fallen for three consecutive months. Granted, the component we are focused on in this section is real manufacturing and trade sales, so retail sales will not perfectly lead this series, but a three-month backward slide for retail sales does not bode well for sales at the wholesale level. A move into negative territory in the orders component of various purchasing manager surveys suggests little support for the manufacturing portion of orders.

Industrial Production: The Only Component Firing on all Cylinders

Industrial production has been the strongest — or at least the least weak — of the four NBER business cycle indicators during this recovery. Although output has increased 16.7 percent from its recession low, it remains 3.3 percent off its prerecession peak (Figure 9). None of the four business cycle indicators have yet crested above their respective prerecession high water marks, but industrial production is the closest of the four. In terms of how it stacks up relative to previous cycles, the current run is almost a perfect retracement of the average of the other six recoveries in our study (Figure 10). Industrial production has been critical to the recovery so far.



Source: Federal Reserve Board and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC



Source: Federal Reserve Board and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC


Output at the nation’s factories, utilities and mines turned positive at precisely the same time as the broader economy in the summer of 2009. It may seem somewhat unexpected that industrial production has retraced most of its recession losses while there has been little improvement in terms of manufacturing payrolls (Figure 11). Unfortunately for manufacturing workers, this was not unlike the previous recovery following the 2001 recession or several other cycles before that. In fact, the total number of workers on manufacturing payrolls peaked in 1979; this helps explain why payrolls can be so weak even as industrial production comes back in a relatively typical way. Having said that, Figure 12 shows how industrial production gains have been hit and miss, falling twice in the past four months.


Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Federal Reserve Board and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Federal Reserve Board and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

Where Are We Now?



For two of these indicators, employment and income growth, this cycle has been extraordinarily weak. Given the stubbornly high unemployment rate, this probably comes as little surprise. However, for the other two indicators, industrial production and real manufacturing and trade sales, the current cycle has been fairly typical, at least until retail sales started to come unglued in April. The last remaining stalwart of growth in this cycle, at least among these four components, is industrial production. Perhaps more than at any time in the past several years, the outlook for industrial production is critical to the outlook for the overall economy. Among the key factors to consider to get a sense of what the future holds for output is what purchasing managers are saying about their orders.

The major regional and national PMI surveys include a sub-index on new orders, which provide an early look at the strength of future production. A monthly decline in the new orders component in one series may not in and of itself signal a future decline in production, but when multiple new orders indexes slip into contraction territory, it can signal broad-based weakness in the manufacturing sector and a potential decline in total economic output.

Of seven major manufacturing surveys, five signaled a decline in new orders in July. Given that these surveys cover different geographies and are based on the sentiment of respondents, orders rarely contract simultaneously in each survey on a monthly basis. Indeed, the only time all seven surveys have been in contraction territory was during a five-month period that began in October 2008. By that point, the economy was already 10 months into the recession. As a result, there is limited value in waiting for all seven indicators to go negative at the same time. What if we look instead at other periods when five or more of these new orders series—the same number currently showing a decline—first slipped into negative territory? We find a more valuable warning signal. The last time five of these orders components first went negative was February 2008, 10 months before the NBER announced that the recession began in December 2007. For the 2001 recession, the new orders indexes signaled broad weakness ahead for the economy. The new orders index for the four PMIs available at the time showed concurrent declines as early as January 2001, although the recession did not officially start until March of that year.

While the number of purchasing managers’ indexes currently signaling a decline in new orders is concerning, it is important to note that a simultaneous decline in these surveys has not always meant the onset of a recession. Looking at the four PMIs with history through the 1990s, a majority signaled declining orders in the mid-cycle slowdown of the 1990s, which did not result in a recession. Our outlook of sluggish growth reflects the softness seen in orders in many of the major PMIs, but we do not believe the economy is currently in recession.

Conclusion: Avoiding Complacency



In a world of uncertainty, it is important not to ignore the shots across the bow. As human beings, we are limited by a confirmation bias—the tendency to favor information that validates our beliefs or world view. We have been repeating our call of “slow growth, no double dip” since the outset of this recovery three years ago, and so far this has been the right call. However, we must guard against confirmation bias in our analysis. In this essay, we make the point that, because of the critical role industrial production has played in this recovery, we cannot afford to ignore evidence that orders are falling. The unraveling in orders may lead to a broader weakening in the outlook for industrial production and overall economic growth.


Monday, August 6, 2012

Religious Right Still Triumphing In Backward USA, Media Deceptions About Tax Cuts/Social Security Instability, and Harry's Inside Game (Tributes To One of My Favorites Authors of All Time - Gore Vidal LIVES!!!!)



No. No matter how it reads, the righties are not awakening from a bad (rage-inspired) theocrat-centric dream and willing to redo the last 30 years of religious American Talibanism to reclaim their integrity.

They just want their party back now that they've achieved their goals of domination of the political sphere.

Oh, and I'll say it again. If you think Rmoney is only in trouble (this week) for his obvious idiocy during his recent foreign tour remember that he was just the best of the worst of the Primary circus clown show and was undoubtedly a stalking horse(!) for whomever the GOP inside money boys have decided to thrust upon US at the upcoming Republican Convention. So stay tuned as it won't be long now before the great unveiling. (Oh, and one more aside - since the Clinton-chasing fest in the 90's, I've never thought of the ilk of Candy Crowley (or most of the other so-called traditional MSM lasciviously-excited questioners) as journalists, and cannot fathom how they can continue to appear on national news without guffaws emanating continuously from the camera crew. I also decided this morning to run this whole essay because it's important and most people will not click on the link to the source because they believe they know all the ramifications of this situation already. I think they don't (I know I didn't know all the background to it), and that it's important not to overlook this seemingly obvious nefarious pathway to sure political victory by the "demonologists.")

GOP Insider: Religion Destroyed My Party


A veteran Republican says the religious right has taken over, and turned his party into anti-intellectual nuts



GOP insider: Religion destroyed my party

(This article is an excerpt from the book "The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless and the Middle Class Got Shafted," available from Viking.)

Having observed politics up close and personal for most of my adult lifetime, I have come to the conclusion that the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism may have been the key ingredient in the transformation of the Republican Party. Politicized religion provides a substrate of beliefs that rationalizes — at least in the minds of its followers — all three of the GOP’s main tenets: wealth worship, war worship, and the permanent culture war.

Religious cranks ceased to be a minor public nuisance in this country beginning in the 1970s and grew into a major element of the Republican rank and file. Pat Robertson’s strong showing in the 1988 Iowa presidential caucus signaled the gradual merger of politics and religion in the party. Unfortunately, at the time I mostly underestimated the implications of what I was seeing.

It did strike me as oddly humorous that a fundamentalist staff member in my congressional office was going to take time off to convert the heathen in Greece, a country that had been overwhelmingly Christian for almost two thousand years.
I recall another point, in the early 1990s, when a different fundamentalist GOP staffer said that dinosaur fossils were a hoax. As a mere legislative mechanic toiling away in what I held to be a civil rather than ecclesiastical calling, I did not yet see that ideological impulses far different from mine were poised to capture the party of Lincoln.

The results of this takeover are all around us: If the American people poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution, scriptural inerrancy, the presence of angels and demons, and so forth, it is due to the rise of the religious right, its insertion into the public sphere by the Republican Party, and the consequent normalizing of formerly reactionary beliefs. All around us now is a prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science. Politicized religion is the sheet anchor of the dreary forty-year-old culture wars.

The Constitution notwithstanding, there is now a de facto religious test for the presidency: Major candidates are encouraged (or coerced) to share their feelings about their faith in a revelatory speech, or a televangelist like Rick Warren will dragoon the candidates (as he did with Obama and McCain in 2008) to debate the finer points of Christology, offering himself as the final arbiter. Half a century after John F. Kennedy put to rest the question of whether a candidate of a minority denomination could be president, the Republican Party has reignited the kinds of seventeenth-century religious controversies that advanced democracies are supposed to have outgrown. And some in the media seem to have internalized the GOP’s premise that the religion of a candidate is a matter for public debate.

Throughout the 2012 Republican presidential campaign, Mitt Romney was dogged with questions about his religion. The spark was a hitherto obscure fundamentalist preacher from Texas, Robert Jeffress, who attacked Romney’s Mormonism by doubting whether he could really be considered a Christian. The media promptly set aside the issues that should have been paramount — Romney’s views on economic and foreign policy — in order to spend a week giving respectful consideration to an attention-grabbing rabble-rouser. They then proceeded to pester the other candidates with the loaded question of whether they thought Romney was a Christian. CNN’s Candy Crowley was particularly egregious in this respect, pressing Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann for a response and becoming indignant when they refused to answer.

The question did not deserve an answer, because Crowley had set it up to legitimate a false premise: that Romney’s religious belief was a legitimate issue of public debate.
This is a perfect example of how the media reinforce an informal but increasingly binding religious test for public office that the Constitution formally bans. Like the British constitution, the test is no less powerful for being unwritten.

The religious right’s professed insistence upon “family values” might appear at first blush to be at odds with the anything but saintly personal behavior of many of its leading proponents. Some of this may be due to the general inability of human beings to reflect on conflicting information: I have never ceased to be amazed at how facts manage to bounce off people’s consciousness like pebbles off armor plate. But there is another, uniquely religious aspect that also comes into play: the predilection of fundamentalist denominations to believe in practice, even if not entirely in theory, in the doctrine of “cheap grace,” a derisive term coined by the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. By that he meant the inclination of some religious adherents to believe that once they had been “saved,” not only would all past sins be wiped away, but future ones, too — so one could pretty much behave as before.

Cheap grace is a divine get-out-of-jail-free card. Hence the tendency of the religious base of the Republican Party to cut some slack for the peccadilloes of candidates who claim to have been washed in the blood of the Lamb and reborn to a new and more Christian life. The religious right is willing to overlook a politician’s individual foibles, no matter how poor an example he or she may make, if they publicly identify with fundamentalist values.
In 2011 the Family Research Council, the fundamentalist lobbying organization, gave Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois an award for “unwavering support of the family.” Representative Walsh’s ex-wife might beg to differ, as she claims he owes her over one hundred thousand dollars in unpaid child support, a charge he denies.

Of course, the proper rituals must be observed before an erring politician can obtain absolution. In November 2011, at a forum sponsored by religious conservatives in Iowa, all of the GOP presidential candidates struck the expected notes of contrition and humility as they laid bare their souls before the assembled congregation (the event was held in a church). Most of them, including Cain, who was then still riding high, choked up when discussing some bleak midnight of their lives (he chose not to address the fresh sexual harassment charges against him, which surely would have qualified as a trying personal experience preying on his mind). Even the old reprobate Gingrich misted up over some contrived misdeed intended to distract attention from his well-known adventures in serial matrimony.

All of these gloomy obsequies of repentance having been observed, Gingrich gave a stirring example of why he is hands-down the best extemporaneous demagogue in contemporary America. Having purged his soul of all guilty transgressions, he turned his attention to the far graver sins bedeviling the American nation.

If we look at history from the mid-1960s, we’ve gone from a request for toleration to an imposition of intolerance. We’ve gone from a request to understand others to a determination to close down those who hold traditional values. I think that we need to be very aggressive and very direct. The degree to which the left is prepared to impose intolerance and to drive out of existence traditional religion is a mortal threat to our civilization and deserves to be taken head-on and described as what it is, which is the use of government to repress the American people against their own values.
That is as good an example as any of cheap grace as practiced by seasoned statesmen like Gingrich — a bid for redemption turned on its head to provide a forum for one of the Republican Party’s favorite pastimes: taking opportunistic swipes at the dreaded liberal bogeyman. How quickly one forgets one’s own moral lapses when one can consider the manifold harms inflicted on our nation by godless leftists!
- – - – - – - – - -

Some liberal writers have opined that the socioeconomic gulf separating the business wing of the GOP and the religious right make it an unstable coalition that could crack. I am not so sure. There is no basic disagreement on which direction the two factions want to take the country, merely how far it should go. The plutocrats would drag us back to the Gilded Age; the theocrats to the Salem witch trials. If anything, the two groups are increasingly beginning to resemble each other. Many televangelists have espoused what has come to be known as the prosperity gospel — the health-and-wealth/name-it-and-claim-it gospel of economic entitlement. If you are wealthy, it is a sign of God’s favor. If not, too bad! This rationale may explain why some poor voters will defend the prerogatives of billionaires. In any case, at the beginning of the 2012 presidential cycle, those consummate plutocrats the Koch brothers pumped money into Bachmann’s campaign, so one should probably not make too much of a potential plutocrat-theocrat split.

Most of the religious enthusiasts I observed during my tenure on the Hill seemed to have little reluctance to mix God and Mammon. Rick Santorum did not blink at legislative schemes to pay off his campaign contributors: In 2005 he introduced a bill to forbid the National Weather Service from providing weather forecasts for free that commercial forecasters — like AccuWeather, a Pennsylvania-based company which had contributed to his campaign — wanted to charge for. Tom DeLay’s purported concern about the dignity and sanctity of human life, touchingly on display during the controversy over whether Terri Schiavo’s husband had the right to tell doctors to remove her feeding tube after seeing her comatose for fifteen years, could always be qualified by strategic infusions of campaign cash. DeLay’s quashing of bills to prohibit serious labor abuses demonstrates that even religious virtue can be flexible when there are campaign donations involved.

One might imagine that the religious right’s agenda would be incompatible with the concerns for privacy and individual autonomy by those who consider themselves to belong to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party — the “don’t tread on me,” “live free or die” crowd that Grover Norquist once called the “leave me alone” conservatives. Given their profound distaste for an oppressive and intrusive federal government, one would think they might have trepidations about a religious movement determined to impose statutory controls on private behavior that libertarians nominally hold to be nobody’s business, and particularly not the government’s business.

Some more libertarian-leaning Republicans have in fact pushed back against the religious right. Former House majority leader Dick Armey expressed his profound distaste for the tactics of the religious right in 2006 — from the safety of the sidelines — by blasting its leadership in unequivocal terms:

[James] Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid. There’s a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn’t work unless it’s dumb, shallow as water on a plate. These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic. These issues become bigger than life, largely because they’re easy. There ain’t no thinking.
Armey had previously been an economics professor at several cow colleges in Texas, and when he came to Congress in 1985, libertarian economics was his forte. I do not recall religious issues motivating his political ideology; instead, economics was what gripped him, particularly the flat tax, which he tirelessly promoted.

I believe his departure from Congress was impelled not only by the fact that he was not on the inside track to become Speaker, but also because of his disillusionment with the culture wars, as his passionate denunciation of Dobson suggests. But later, Barack Obama’s election and the rise of the Tea Party induced a miraculous change of heart in Armey, as no doubt did the need to raise money for his lobbying organization, known as FreedomWorks.

By 2009, Armey had become a significant voice of the Tea Party. As such, he attempted to declare a truce between fiscal and social conservatives, who would thenceforth bury their squabbles and concentrate on dethroning the Kenyan usurper in the Oval Office. That meant soft-pedaling social issues that might alarm fiscally conservative but socially moderate voters, particularly women, who lived in the wealthier suburbs.

In September 2010 Armey took one step further in his reconciliation with the people he had called thugs and bullies when he announced that a GOP majority in Congress would again take up the abortion fight, which was only right and proper for those who held such a sincere moral conviction. When the Republicans duly won the House two months later, they did precisely that. State legislatures across the country followed suit: Ohio, Texas, and Virginia enacted the most severe abortion restrictions in any legislative session in memory. Suddenly Armey didn’t seem to have any problem with social issues preempting his economic agenda.

The Tea Party, which initially described itself as wholly concerned with debt, deficit, and federal overreach, gradually unmasked itself as being almost as theocratic as the activists from the religious right that Armey had denounced only a few years before.
If anything, they were even slightly more disposed than the rest of the Republican Party to inject religious issues into the political realm.

According to an academic study of the Tea Party, “[T]hey seek ‘deeply religious’ elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates.” The Tea Party faithful are not so much libertarian as authoritarian, the furthest thing from a “live free or die” constitutionalist.

Within the GOP libertarianism is a throwaway doctrine that is rhetorically useful in certain situations but often interferes with their core, more authoritarian, beliefs. When the two precepts collide, the authoritarian reflex prevails. In 2009 it was politically useful for the GOP to present the Tea Party as independent-leaning libertarians, when in reality the group was overwhelmingly Republican, with a high quotient of GOP activists and adherents of views common among the religious right.

According to a 2010 Gallup poll, eight in ten Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans. Another study found that over half identified as members of the religious right and 55 percent of Tea Partiers agree that “America has always been and is currently a Christian nation” — 6 points more than even the percentage of self-described Christian conservatives who would agree to that.

This religious orientation should have been evident from the brouhaha that erupted in mid-2009 over the charge that the Obama administration’s new healthcare reform plan would set up “death panels.” While there was plenty to criticize about the health-care bill, the completely bogus charge garnered disproportionate attention. Republican political consultants immediately recognized that they had found a classic emotional issue that would resonate with the same people on the religious right who had been stirred up over the Terri Schiavo case.

The Tea Party, a supposedly independent group of fiscal conservatives outraged by Obama’s profligate spending plans, fell prey to the hysteria Republican Party operatives whipped up over end-of-life counseling. This self-unmasking of the Tea Party may help explain why, after three years in existence, public support for the organization has been dropping precipitously.

Ayn Rand, an occasional darling of the Tea Party, has become a cult figure within the GOP in recent years. It is easy enough to see how her tough-guy, every-man-for-himself posturing would be a natural fit with the Wall Street bankers and the right-wing politicians they fund — notwithstanding the bankers’ fondness for government bailouts. But Rand’s philosophy found most of its adherents in the libertarian wing of the party, a group that overlaps with, but is certainly not identical to, the “business conservatives” who fund the bulk of the GOP’s activities.

There has always been a strong strain of rugged individualism in America, and the GOP has cleverly managed to co-opt that spirit to its advantage. The problem is that Rand proclaimed at every opportunity that she was a militant atheist who felt nothing but contempt for Christianity as a religion of weaklings possessing a slave mentality. So how do Republican candidates manage to bamboozle what is perhaps the largest single bloc in their voting base, the religious fundamentalists, about this?

Certainly the ignorance of many fundamentalist values voters about the wider world and the life of the mind goes some distance toward explaining the paradox: GOP candidates who enthuse over Rand at the same time as they thump their Bibles never have to explain this stark contradiction because most of their audience is blissfully unaware of who Ayn Rand was and what she advocated. But voters can to some extent be forgiven their ignorance, because politicians have grown so skillful at misdirecting them about their intentions.

This camouflaging of intentions is as much a strategy of the religious right and its leaders — James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson, and the rest — as it is of the GOP’s more secular political leaders in Washington. After the debacle of the Schiavo case and the electoral loss in 2008, the religious right pulled back and regrouped. They knew that the full-bore, “theoconservative” agenda would not sell with a majority of voters.

This strategy accounts for Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition (who famously said that God sent a hurricane to New Orleans to punish the sodomites), stating the following in October 2011:

“Those people in the Republican primary have got to lay off of this stuff. They’re forcing their leaders, the front-runners, into positions that will mean they lose the general election.”

I doubt he thought the candidates held positions that were too extreme, merely that they should keep quiet about those positions until they had won the election. Max Blumenthal, author of Republican Gomorrah, argues that this is a “lying for Jesus” strategy that fundamentalists often adopt when dealing with the snares of a wicked and Godless world. Since Satan is the father of lies, one can be forgiven for fighting lies with lies.

Hence the policies pursued for at least two decades by the religious right on the federal, state, and local levels. It usually starts at the school board, after some contrived uproar over sex education or liberal indoctrination. The stealthily fundamentalist school board candidates pledge to clean up the mess and “get back to basics.” After a few years they capture a majority on the board, and suddenly “Catcher in the Rye” is heaved out of the curriculum and science teachers are under pressure to teach the (imaginary) controversy about evolutionary biology.

This was the path to greater glory of Michele Bachmann: Her first run for public office, barely a dozen years ago, was for a seat on the school board in Stillwater, Minnesota. Up until then she had drawn a taxpayer-funded salary for five years working as an attorney for the Internal Revenue Service, not, of course, because she was one of those lazy, good-for-nothing government bureaucrats that Republican candidates routinely denounce. She was secretly studying the ways of the government beast so as to defeat it later on.

Bachmann, Rick Perry, and numerous other serving representatives and senators have all had ties to Christian Dominionism, a doctrine proclaiming that Christians are destined to dominate American politics and establish a new imperium resembling theocratic government. According to one profile of Perry, adherents of Dominionism “believe Christians — certain Christians — are destined to not just take ‘dominion’ over government, but stealthily climb to the commanding heights of what they term the ‘Seven Mountains’ of society, including the media and the arts and entertainment world.” Note the qualifier: “stealthily.”

At the same religious forum where the GOP candidates confessed their sins, Bachmann went so far as to suggest that organized religion should keep its traditional legal privilege of tax exemption while being permitted to endorse political candidates from the pulpit. The fact that government prohibits express political advocacy is in her imagination muzzling preachers rather than just being a quid pro quo for tax-exempt status equivalent to that imposed on any 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. But for Bachmann and others of like mind, this is persecution of a kind that fuels their sense of victimhood and righteous indignation.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Major Media Admit Presence of Foreign Militants in Syria
Phone hacking: Met chiefs given £300,000 payoffs after resigning

Harry’s (Also a Mormon) Inside Game

Child Sexual Abuse in the World of Romney's Top LDS Donors

Prince Bandar: A Timely Death Just Before US Justice Department Reopens Bribery Investigations?


Sirota on Media Deceptions About Tax Cuts
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Yes, I've been a devoted fan of Gore Vidal, who just passed away last week, since I read his novel Julian. There are constellations of stellar tributes to his almost one-of-a-kind perceptive writer's sensibility available. Here are a few memorable ones. Chris Floyd's is always a fine place to look first when seeking out a fellow litterateur's turn of phrase.


Listen to the Lion: The Enduring Legacy of Gore Vidal





Chris Floyd   
Wednesday, 01 August 2012




If the Republic still existed, if it was even a shadow of what it was meant to be (and never was), then bells would be tolling across the land and flags would be flying at half-mast, in sorrowful honor for one of its true sons. Gore Vidal is dead.

The loss is great. His was a unique sensibility: artistic, caustic, unsentimental, casting a Yeatsian cold eye on the human comedy, and in this way -- with no false pieties, no dogma, no ideological crutches -- revealing, with inescapable clarity, the rank injustices and murderous hypocrisies of power, and the ludicrous pretenses of power's sycophants.

It was the artist in Vidal -- largely overlooked, especially now, in death, as pages and pixels fill up with quick ricochets of his Wildean bon mots and Twitter-ready soundbites -- that gave his work a special force.

As with Tolstoy, Vidal's fiction -- the insight that it showed into the complexities of human nature and human society, and the accomplishment and subtlety with which this was put across -- deepened and enriched his political and literary essays, gave them more credibility. And as with Tolstoy, you might not agree with every conclusion (although in matters of politics, society and culture, I very rarely disagreed with Vidal), but the art showed a mind, a spirit, that deserved to be taken seriously.

Vidal obviously relished his outsized, gadfly role in American politics and media: his self-appointed (and entirely credible) persona as the Alternative President to whatever poltroon happened to be occupying the White House at any given moment -- even down to the issuing of his own "State of the Union" essays from time to time, always devastating in their corrosive wit and blistering truths about American society.

The vast body of his non-fiction is captured best in the massive 1992 compendium, United States: 1,271 pages long -- and not a boring passage in the entire book. (This is in itself a near-miraculous achievement of the art of prose; even Montaigne nods, but not Vidal.) Its three sections -- State of the Art, State of the Union, and State of Being -- comprise a kind of marvelous postgraduate education in life and learning -- worth more, and far more useful, than a PhD from Harvard or an Oxford PPE.

It is here we see not only Vidal the thinker and media figure, but Vidal the man: steeped in history -- like few others of his time and almost no one of our day -- yet also riding on the sharp, cool edge of modernity as it sliced its way through the 20th century.

He seemed to radiate a sense of liberation, in many forms: political, sexual, cultural. He was also a consummate detector of bullshit, and a ruthless dismantler of its celebrated dispensers. (His evisceration of John Updike -- "Rabbit's Own Burrow" -- is a splenetic wonder, on a par with Mark Twain's takedown of Fennimore Cooper or Robert Graves' demolition of Ezra Pound, leaving the reader incapable of taking the victim seriously again.)

But again, I come back to the fiction. I think this is where Vidal's true greatness lies. Perhaps so much in the "experimental" novels, the surreal affairs like Myra Breckenridge, Duluth, and Live From Golgotha. As enjoyable and insightful as these are, they seem to me more like extensions of his political writings: send-ups, or mash-ups, of American society, in broad strokes, a species of commentary.

Of course, this might just be a matter of personal taste. But for me, his accomplishment reaches its height in several of his other novels, most of them in historical settings, which are brought to uncanny life through the sharply-realized consciousness of individual human beings. Though the novels are set in the past, these characters are always in their present, in the eternal now where we all live, making our way through the chaos of the moment to the forever-unknowable future.

Lincoln
is generally considered the best of the novels, with good reason. It is a remarkably effective -- and remarkably subtle -- example of the "polyphonic novel," as pioneered by Dostoevsky and championed by Bakhtin. Through a kaleidoscope of consciousnesses, Vidal reanimates the crucible of the American experience -- the Civil War -- and the man whom Vidal called our "most mysterious of presidents."

Lincoln was part of what Vidal came to see as a series of related novels, a family chronicle -- and a national epic of America's peculiar history: "Narratives of a Golden Age," beginning with the presidency of Thomas Jefferson and ending at the dawn of the 1960s (with an epilogue in the new millennium). While Lincoln may hold pride of place in the Narratives, several others in the series are also outstanding works, particularly Burr, 1876 and Empire.

The Narratives caught a perfect pitch of the faint but persistent idealism -- the humanism -- wafting through the always-overpowering, and always-triumphant, corruptions of power in the miasmic swamps of Washington and beyond, as the Republic slouched bloodily toward its current monstrosity of empire. But Vidal, of all people, was no American Exceptionalist, and neither was his best work confined to America's mores and madness.

In fact, I believe that his finest novel, his finest work of art, was Julian: an astonishing recreation of the life and mind of the Classical world during its final, fatal flowering during the short reign of "Julian the Apostate," the Roman emperor who tried to reverse the Empire's conversion to Christianity, initiated a half-century earlier by Constantine I. The book is steeped in a rigorous historical learning that is worn so slightly, is so thoroughly worked into the very human story of a very human man, that it is scarcely noticeable at all. Julian's world simply lives, and the reader lives in it -- yet at the end, emerges with a new understanding of this absolutely crucial period of history.

In the same vein is Creation, which once again immerses us in the human realities of a crucial era in the life of humanity: the "Axial Age," which saw the rise and development of new religions and new thinking across the world, an era when Buddha, Socrates, Confucius, Jeremiah, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu, early Greek philosophers like Heraclitus and other pivotal figures were walking the earth and revolutionizing ancient structures of thought and belief. But again, the learning is carried lightly, in the ironic person of Cyrus Spitama, a witty, aging Persian diplomat in Athens whose main claim to fame is that he is Zoroaster's grandson. He narrates the tale of his long life -- his youth in the Persian court of Darius and Xerxes, his sojourns in India and China, and the machinations and corruptions of the rising Greek city-states.

This is not the time or place for an exhaustive look at Vidal's literary achievements. (For more on this theme, see Critical Malfunction: Misreading Gore Vidal.) But in the media onslaught of obituaries and appraisals, most of which seem, perhaps understandably, to focus on the gadfly persona noted above, I thought it was important to recall this vital element of Vidal's legacy: his fiction, which at its best has richly enhanced our awareness of what it is to be a living human being -- mortal, troubled, confused, alone -- caught up in the maelstrom of historical forces we can scarcely understand and cannot control.

It is no small thing to have left such a mark. It is a legacy well worth celebrating, and one that will outlast even the wittiest and most telling of his aperçus.

***

On a personal note, it would be hard for me to overestimate Vidal's influence on how I see the world, in so many different areas. His death is like losing a spiritual father. (If I can be forgiven for using such an outrageous term for a man so entirely worldly!) His work schooled me and sharpened me and, in the words of Henry Miller (another writer he once wittily skewered, albeit with more affection than bile), "inoculated me with disillusionment" -- a task which Miller called the highest purpose of an artist.

Vidal made me see the world -- and myself -- with new eyes, and taught me how to keep on seeing in this way:  relentlessly, fearlessly, unsentimentally casting "a cold eye, on life, on death." I've fallen short of this teaching -- woefully, continually -- at nearly every turn, but it is still there, a lodestar in a night sky that is now a bit more lonely, more harrowing than it was.


Tolstoy and Vidal: A Follow-Up





Chris Floyd   
03 August 2012


A passage from my piece on Gore Vidal yesterday ("As with Tolstoy, Vidal's fiction -- the insight that it showed into the complexities of human nature and human society, and the accomplishment and subtlety with which this was put across -- deepened and enriched his political and literary essays, gave them more credibility") brought this response from a reader:
The comparison with Tolstoy fails completely, to the detriment of Gore Vidal. In his thought Tolstoy was a religious crank  who thought in crude black and white. None of the genius he brought to his fiction carried across to his later religious and moralistic writings.


The plain fact is, having read both some of Gore Vidal's  fiction and heard him speak on video etc, he is more consistent than Tolstoy and thus immeasurably superior.


To which, this brief reply:


Opinions on these matters are all subjective, of course; one man's "crank" (an epithet applied not infrequently to Vidal himself by those eager to dismiss his discomforting views) is another man's exemplar. But, with respect, I must say I find it hard to believe that you have actually read any of Tolstoy's non-fiction writings on politics and power and war (as opposed to any of the "religious crankery" you might have run across.) And I seriously doubt that Vidal would have shared your opinion of these anti-war, anti-elite, anti-establishment pieces. (Such as those collected in Letters From Tula, for example.)

Certainly Vidal would have found much of Tolstoy's religious writings to be risible -- though I doubt he would have found them 'crude,' as he would have recognized the complex learning that lay behind them, and their logical, iconoclastic rigour (while, again, rejecting their religious premises). But beyond Tolstoy's typically 19th century hang-ups about sex, his "religious crankery" focused mainly on ending war, ending coercion and corruption by powerful elites and institutions (including all religions), and establishing social, political and economic justice. There's very little there that Vidal would have found entirely uncongenial, I think.

He might also have delighted in the fact that Tolstoy's religious beliefs shook one of the world's most powerful and repressive religious institutions  -- the Russian Orthodox Church -- to its foundations, and led multitudes of people out of its stultifying grip. At the core of Tolstoy's beliefs was a fierce commitment to intellectual liberty, to freedom of thought and conscience, even for those who disagreed with whatever particular notion he happened to hold at any particular time. And I imagine Vidal might well have enjoyed Tolstoy's "inconsistency" -- especially the randy Russian's inability to quell his rampant sexuality. After all, 'consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,' and Vidal probably would have admired the restlessness of Tolstoy's rather large mind, as it groped through the darkness that surrounds us all, chasing flickers of light here and there, never quite satisfied with any final conclusion, but pushed always by doubt, by inner turmoil, and by the desire to know more.

No one would argue that Tolstoy's non-fiction has the power and genius of his greatest novels and stories. That was my point: that the true greatness of both writers lay in their artistic achievement, which lent greater depth and credibility to their non-fiction -- whether or not one agrees with every single judgment or opinion they rendered.


And last but hardly least.

Gore Vidal: The Last Jeffersonian



His enemies knew why they hated him



August 03, 2012

The obituaries are coming in, and as usual they are filled with the trite things Americans are obsessed with: Gore Vidal’s sexuality, his "coldness," his feuds, his quips.
Andrew Sullivan is typical – and isn’t that typical – in ascribing what he views as Vidal’s flaws to his lack of support for gay marriage and his "anti-American" utterances.

Commentary magazine celebrated the great man’s death by posting Norman Podhoretz’s interminable rant, first published in 1986, accusing Vidal of … yes, you guessed it: anti-Semitism. The evidence? Describing Podhoretz and his wife Midge as "Israeli fifth columnists," a charge that, in retrospect, seems more like an undeserved compliment: after all, a "fifth columnist" is something like a spy, a profession that hinges on the clandestine, but Poddy’s big mouth – which he opens at every opportunity – has hardly made a secret of his allegiances.

Aside from Vidal’s disdain for the kind of identity politics that gives a nonentity a hook on which to hang his bonnet, Sullivan is appalled by what is perhaps Vidal’s most interesting book. The Golden Age dramatizes the fascinating historical research published in Thomas E. Mahl’s Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44.

Mahl’s 1998 book is based on declassified documents that tell some of the story of how British intelligence agents permeated the political and social elites in Washington and New York, pushed a reluctant "isolationist" America into war – and put us on the road to empire. Sullivan, still the loyal subject of Her Majesty the Queen, is horrified by this, but it’s not just the British angle that sets Andy’s skirts aflame – it’s the very idea that anyone in their right mind would question the official history of our entry into World War II. In Sullivan’s world, this makes him a "Pearl Harbor truther."

To the historian, however, who isn’t just a court historian – and to the serious person, as opposed to court jesters of Sullivan’s ilk – this makes him that most exotic of creatures: a truth-seeker. Rarer than unicorns in our media-driven propaganda-drenched Twitterverse, the loss of this one marks a turning point in American intellectual history – a downturn, to be sure.

As I put it in my 2001 review of The Golden Age: "Gore Vidal is a member of what seems to be a nearly extinct fraternity: the American novelists of ideas. When he goes, who is left – and what hope is there that someone will breach the walls of political correctness meant to keep his kind out forever?" His enemies understood him, which is why they hated him – and couldn’t help admiring him.

The neocons hated him because he was a formidable opponent of their imperial project: they never forgave him when he called them out for their treasonous tribalism. The liberals, who thought he was one of them, were made increasingly uneasy by his public utterances, as detailed in this very perceptive account of Vidal’s career by Michael Lind, who describes his attendance at a speech by Vidal given at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the late 1990s:

"Soon I found myself as uncomfortable as the other members of the auditorium audience, when, during his speech, Vidal launched into what sounded like a defense of Timothy McVeigh, the far-right would-be revolutionary whose bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 was the most devastating terrorist attack on American soil before the al-Qaeda attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. While not exactly condoning McVeigh, Vidal told us that a violent reaction was inevitable, given the way that the federal government was oppressing American farmers. "I could sense that others in the audience shared my disquiet. The farmers? What the hell is he talking about?"

To the Washingtonian patricians who grace such events, farmers and other ordinary Americans are alien creatures whose fate is of little if any concern. The farmers? Who the f*ck cares about them? To statist ideologues and other creatures of Washington’s black lagoon, the very idea of individual farmers is "reactionary," to use one of Lind’s favorite epithets.

Yet to be as fair to Lind as he is to Vidal, he is quite correct when, in a eureka moment, he divines that "Gore Vidal has turned into his grandfather." "Vidal," writes Lind, "had always insisted that to understand him it was helpful to understand his grandfather, Thomas Gore (1870-1949).

Blind from an early age, Thomas Gore served as Democratic senator from Oklahoma twice, from 1907-1921 and again from 1931-1937. A populist in the tradition of Jefferson and Jackson, Sen. Gore was a maverick who did not hesitate to take on his own party. He voted against President Woodrow Wilson’s call for U.S. entry into World War I and he voted against President Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration. In the light of Jeffersonian ideology, each of these votes made sense as efforts to preserve the American republic from the evils of empire and the welfare state."

Unfortunately, Lind insists on mounting his ideological hobbyhorse, and brings in a totally irrelevant comparison to Ignatius Donnelly, and none other than William Hope Harvey, whose didactic and excruciatingly boring "novels" on monetary theory were a late nineteenth century populist phenomenon. Donnelly was a minor Populist party politician of the same era, whose most notable work is Atlantis: the Antediluvian World.

Lind’s condescending tone throughout the review is typical of what one might overhear at a Georgetown cocktail party: he isn’t quite sure Vidal’s fiction output is really all that "literary," or if it’s really literature at all but rather a series of didactic manifestos in the style of Coin’s Financial School.

Once he dismounts his various hobbyhorses, however, Lind can be penetratingly perceptive: "The academic literati do not hold either Vidal or Solzhenitsyn in high esteem — but neither wrote to be read by what Vidal described as ‘the scholar-squirrels.’ If you think that the political and journalistic establishments are corrupt and that fiction provides you with a way to bring your message directly to the public, you are going to write your didactic fiction in a traditional, accessible style that ordinary citizens can understand, not in an avant-garde style that only graduate students in literature can decipher.

Other
Nation columnists wrote about the masses. Gore Vidal wrote for them. "And they loved him for it. Growing up in Texas, I marveled at the way that suburban conservatives who would not read any other fiction would buy the latest Gore Vidal novel. But if you think of Vidal as a populist, it makes sense. He was giving them the inside scoop about American history, the scandalous true story, not the patriotic pablum they were taught in school. The fact that he had grown up as a member of the Washington establishment (as he never ceased reminding his readers and viewers) gave him credibility as he carried out his revisionist project of exposing the secret history of the United States.

What Ayn Rand’s
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are to libertarians, Vidal’s historical novels have been to middlebrow Middle America." Us poor middlebrows, doomed to live in the Great Middle of the country amid the fast-disintegrating middle class: will we never disabuse ourselves of our middlebrowed prejudices against neo-royalist empire-builders who don’t believe in the existence of farmers and think they can rule the world?

Against all the strictures of patrician good taste and political correctness, we read Gore Vidal and keep our "reactionary" faith in the Jeffersonian vision Lind deplores. As a novelist, Vidal’s great achievement was his "Narratives of Empire" series, which dramatizes what Lind calls a "revisionist" view of American history and I would simply describe as clear-eyed.

The overarching theme of this heptalogy is the long, slow degeneration of what had been the world’s freest republic into a vast and corrupted empire. His portraits of historical figures – the grasping, manipulative FDR, the bullying Churchill, the syphilitic Lincoln – constitute a veritable shooting gallery of the Vital Center’s pantheon of heroes. This earned him the enmity of both left and right.

Unlike Lind, I don’t marvel at the way us "middlebrows" snatched up the latest Gore Vidal novel, and I won’t be surprised to see his posthumously published works shoot to the top of the bestseller list. That’s because the power of what Vidal represented – not the "ranting" of a Southern populist, as Lind would have it, but the sharp dissent of an American original and a literary giant, whose oeuvre will be remembered – and read – long after the journalistic twitterings of his critics are justly forgotten.


Sunday, August 5, 2012

Feat Never Fail! (And the Fat Man (Metaphorically) Was Back With the Blues)



What a joy it was to see Billy Payne (one of my favorite piano men), Paul Barrere and Little Feat last night at the Cat's Cradle in Carrboro.

The crowd was beyond adoring and enthusiastic, and although the hair had that "touch of gray," you would have never guessed the median age of the audience if you hadn't been facing it.

And when Craig Fuller, co-founder of Pure Prairie League and a past Feat member, emerged from the back of the stage to lead the group in a magical rendition of Falling In and Out of Love With You/Amie, well, it was the 1970's again. I'm sorry to say that I don't have a video of the performance to share, but it looked and sounded a whole lot like this:



Yes, Craig lives outside Chapel Hill and has a son attending UNC.

And then I got to speak with both Bill and Craig after the show.

Heaven.








Friday, August 3, 2012

They Have All the Money You Don't Have Anymore (And Look What They're Doing With It), Their Big Lies About Liberals (And Why Little People Shouldn't Be Trusted To Have Money), and Those Brilliant NeoCons: "A Concentration of Evil" (Congratulations, Jerry!)



Child sexual abuse in the world of Romney's top LDS donors

Old Man Fight: Cheney vs McCain

Should the tolerant tolerate intolerance?


Was this a major blow to the Saudis? The black ops are being exposed, and it can't be good for the country that supplied the 9/11 "hijackers."

So, we heard earlier that Bandar Bush (Barb's adopted son and Dubya's best buddy) had been killed in a CIA operation gone wrong(?), but didn't know the details. Here's some inside information from the very knowledgeable Pepe Escobar. His info is so inside that most of us are totally unaware of what he considers logical reasoning and the known participants.

Saudi Spy Chief Prince Bandar Assassinated: Report


Pepe Escobar

August 02, 2012


Asia Times

Was Prince Bandar "Bush", 63, son of Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz (perennial Saudi Defense Minister,1963-2001), semi-perennial ambassador to Washington (1983-2005), and secretive jihad financier, killed by a Syrian intelligence death squad?

Thunderous silence prevails on Syrian, Iranian and Arab media (most of it controlled by the Saudis). The same applies for al-Jazeera.
This is DEBKA's somewhat fanciful take.

Dates are crucial. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud may have pulled off operation "Damascus Volcano" on July 18. He was definitely promoted to head of Saudi intelligence on July 19. And he might have been killed in a bomb attack on the Saudi General Intelligence HQ in Riyadh on July 22.

One Syrian rumor mill version rules that "Damascus Volcano" came from Saudi intel - with logistics provided by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This is highly unlikely; the CIA is clueless on how to penetrate Assad's inner sanctum. The predominant version circulating in the Syrian capital is this was a white coup.

"Damascus Volcano", by the way, was a flop; the swarm of mercenaries - infiltrated via Jordan - who were supposed to take over the capital had to retreat up north. Now the news cycle is fixated on another faux game-changer - the "Battle of Aleppo".

There are serious problems with all the spin around "Damascus Volcano". None of the Assad regime's four heads of military intelligence were killed - they are actually running the (ghastly) show in Aleppo.

There are also problems with a Syrian death squad being able to strike Riyadh's inner sanctum. But Iranian intelligence could certainly pull this off. As for Debka's assumption that Tehran may have hired al-Qaeda jihadis for an inside job against the House of Saud, that is rubbish.

The bottom line; no one knows, because no one is talking.

What is certain is that Bandar as head of Saudi intelligence was part of King Abdullah's hardcore response to the Arab Spring.

In Syria, the House of Saud strategy boils down to regime change - and a fragile, fragmented, Sunni government in Damascus not aligned with Tehran.

Internally, the strategy is to viciously smash any peaceful Shi'ite-majority protest in the eastern provinces. Essentially, there's no Arab Spring in Saudi Arabia because the House of Saud either bribes or intimidates its subjects.

The overall strategy of choice is "blame it on Iran"; as this logic goes, Saudi Shi'ites are Iranian puppets as much as Bahraini Shi'ites. The Obama administration blindly subscribes to this fallacy - totally missing the point; the House of Saud hates any semblance of Western parliamentary democracy as much as it hates Shi'ites - Iranian and otherwise.

So what happened in Riyadh? A graphic Tehran message to the House of Saud? A rogue suicide bomber? An internal Saudi war? The House of Saud is not talking. And Bandar is not moving.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His most recent book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.


Lies about Liberals? Really? Would that be the real liberals? Or the ones who proclaim the title proudly while voting with the neoCons? You've got to be careful these days in your interpretation of mainstream media (MSM) "news" as they obviously have no idea who a liberal would actually be.

Libelous Big Lies About Liberals

Thomas Magstadt, Op-Ed: “Democrats have allowed the Republican Party to brand liberals and liberalism as a radical ideology rather than a mainstream alternative to the extreme right-wing ideology that now passes for conservatism in this country. The Republican definition of what it means to be a liberal is false and fictitious but has now become so infused into the political vernacular and fixed in the public mind that simply setting the record state requires a Herculean effort.”  READ MORE


I just love the way Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, possessor of all important inside information, has no qualms about sharing it. Don't you think if he hadn't been a Reagan deregulator he would have made a perfect spy chief? No? Just listen.
Paul Craig Roberts

August 01, 2012
The State Department has an office that hunts German war criminals. Bureaucracies being what they are, the office will exist into next century when any surviving German prison guards will be 200 years old. From time to time the State Department claims to have found a lowly German soldier who was assigned as a prison camp guard. The ancient personage, who had lived in the US for the past 50 or 60 years without doing harm to anyone, is then merciless persecuted, usually on the basis of hearsay. I have never understood what the State Department thinks the alleged prison guard was supposed to have done – freed the prisoners, resign his position? – when Prussian aristocrats, high-ranking German Army generals and Field Marshall and national hero Erwin Rommel were murdered for trying to overthrow Hitler.

What the State Department needs is an office that rounds up American war criminals.
They are in abundance and not hard to find. Indeed, recently 56 of them made themselves public by signing a letter to President Obama demanding that he send in the US Army to complete the destruction of Syria and its people that Washington has begun

At the Nuremberg Trials of the defeated Germans after World War II, the US government established the principle that naked aggression – the American way in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen – is a war crime. Therefore, there is a very strong precedent for the State Department to round up those neoconservatives who are fomenting more war crimes

But don’t expect it to happen. Today, war criminals run the State Department and the entire US Government. They are elected to the presidency, the House, and the Senate, and appointed to the federal courts as judges. American soldiers, such as Bradley Manning, who behave as the State Department expects German soldiers to have behaved, are not honored, but are thrown into dungeons and tortured while a court marshall case is concocted against them

Hypocrisy is Washington’s hallmark, and all but the most delusional are now accustomed to their rulers speaking one way and behaving in the opposite. It is now part of the American character to regard ourselves as members of the “virtuous nation,” “the indispensable people,” while our rulers commit war crimes around the globe.

Whereas we have all been made complicit in war crimes by “our” government, it still behooves us to know who are the active war criminals in our midst who have burdened us with our war criminal reputation.

You can learn the identity of many of those who are driving the world into World War Three, while their policies result in the murder of large numbers of Arabs and Muslims in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon, by perusing the signatures to the contrived letter to Obama from the neoconsevatives calling on Obama to invade Syria in order to “rescue” the Syrian people from their government.

According the the letter signed by 56 neoconservatives, only the Syrian government is responsible for deaths in Syria. The Washington sponsored and armed “rebels” are merely protecting the Syrian people from the Assad government. According to the letter signers, the only way the Syrian people can be saved is if Washington overthrows the Syrian government and installs a puppet state attentive to the needs of Israel and Washington.

Among the 56 signatures are a few names from the Syrian National Congress, believed to be a CIA front, and a few names from dupes among the goyim. The rest of the signatures are those of Jewish neoconservatives tightly allied with Israel, some of whom are apparently dual-Israeli citizens who participate in the formation of US foreign policy. The names on this list comprise a concentration of evil, the goal of which is not only to bring armageddon to the Syrian people but also to the world.

The letter to Obama is part of the propaganda operation to demonize the Syrian government with lies in order to get rid of a government that supports Hizbollah, the Muslims in southern Lebanon who have twice driven the vaunted, but cowardly, Israeli army out of Lebanon, thus preventing the Israeli government from achieving its aim of stealing the water resources of southern Lebanon.

Not a single sentence in the letter is correct. Listen to this one for example: “The Assad regime poses a grave threat to national security interests of the United States.” What utter total absurdity, and the morons who signed the letter pretend to be “security experts.”

How do we evaluate the fact that 56 people have no shame whatsoever and will lie to the President of the United States, telling him to his face the most absurd and obvious false things in order to advance their personal agenda at the expense of not merely the lives of Syrians but, by leading to wider war, of life on earth?

This same neocon architects of armageddon are also working against Iran, Russia, the former Soviet central Asian countries, Ukraine, Belarus, and China. It seems that they can’t wait to start a nuclear war.

You can find the names of some of humanity’s worst enemies here.

(Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.)

Congratulations on your 70th Birthday, Jerry!




Thursday, August 2, 2012

They Are Cheating US (Running Circles Around Us) Faster Than We Can Race To Expose Their Gambits (Bandar Bush Disappeared?)



Bush Clothing Line Fails to Find Market



The Role of CIA-Pampered Saudi Spymaster in Syria


Ismail Salami

August 01, 2012

An enigmatic personality who has periodically vanished from the scene of politics in different junctures in time, Prince Bandar bin Sultan was appointed as the Director General of Saudi Arabia’s main intelligence agency on July 19, an appointment which took place at a critical time, namely when the unrest in Syria was growing gravely worrisome thanks to the influx of the Saudi-funded rebels infiltrating the Syrian soil.

Known as ‘Bandar Bush’ on account of his close ties with former US President George Bush, the prince-cum-spymaster is widely considered as a linchpin in CIA-Mossad dastardly subterfuges in Syria and Iran and his appointment to such a sensitive position is from an intelligence point of view regarded a strategic step to contribute to the materialization of these sinister plans.


On July 18, a blast rocked the headquarters of the National Security Bureau (NSB) in Damascus and killed President Bashar Assad’s brother-in-law and Deputy Defense Minister Gen Assef Shawkat, Defense Minister Gen Daoud Rajiha, former Defense Minister Hassan Turkomani and NSB chief Hisham Ikhtiar.

The role of CIA and Mossad in Syria unrest is highlighted in an article dated July 18 by David Ignatius who is well-connected to intelligence sources, “The CIA has been working with the Syrian opposition for several weeks under a non-lethal directive that allows the United States to evaluate groups and assist them with command and control. Scores of Israeli intelligence officers are also operating along Syria’s border, though they are keeping a low profile.”

In view of the complicated nature of the terrorist attack, one cannot easily rule out the possibility of the CIA-Mossad joint operations. A Wikileaks cable dated May 2, 2007 details how Mossad is contributing covert assistance to Saudi intelligence.

MOSSAD is using Nicosia, Cyprus as a primary transit hub into Riyadh, to assist the Saudi intelligence services with intelligence collection and advice on Iran. Sources advised the Saudis are playing both sides of the fence — with the jihadists and the Israelis — for fear that the US does not have a handle on either. Several enterprising MOSSAD officers, both past and present, are making a bundle selling the Saudis everything from security equipment, intelligence and consultation
As a main game player in Syria crisis, the regime of Riyadh is reportedly exerting pressure on Jordan to create a buffer zone for the armed gangs and groups fighting to overthrow the anti-Israeli government of President Bashar Assad. According to a report in the al-Quds al-Arabi daily, the Saudi monarchy is persuading Amman to join the anti-Syria war by cutting off its financial aid to the country. The Saudi spymaster Bandar Bin Sultan is tasked with forcing Jordanian kingdom to agree to host the Free Syrian Army on its soil in return for the aid. In line with this development, Bandar bin Sultan has secretly met with top Jordanian security and military officials along with Saudi Crown Prince Salman Abdul Aziz over the issue.

Saudi Arabia has long been working on a plan to overthrow the regime in Syria and sabotage the Islamic Republic through Bandar bin Sultan who served as the Saudi ambassador to the US from 1983 to 2005. In 2006, Bandar visited Washington a couple of times and discussed the Bush administration’s plan for a new strategy in the Middle East with former Vice president Dick Cheney and Bush’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy Elliott Abrams.

The two neocons together with the prince had wrought out a fiendishly meticulous plan to bring about changes to the satisfaction of the US government and the Saudi kingdom. Part of their grand scheme was to bring about regime changes in Syria and Iran and impose a rotten American version of democracy in the two countries. For his part, Bandar had given them assurances that the Saudi monarchy would wholeheartedly favor this plot. To this end, the Saudi Kingdom has since then spent a deluge of dollars on carrying out covert operations in Iran and Syria with the assistance of CIA. (See The King’s Messenger: Prince Bandar bin Sultan and America’s Tangled Relationship With Saudi Arabia by David B. Ottaway and David B Ottaway, p. 257.)

With the flourish of Arab Spring in North Africa and the Middle East, Saudi Arabia found quite a good excuse to foment unrest in Syria with the help of the al-Qaeda elements who were readily at its disposal, innocuously attribute it to another popular uprising in the region and pave the ground for a regime change in Syria. Bandar bin Sultan, who is the secret architect of this crisis, reappeared in his new capacity as the Saudi superspy to accomplish this long-entertained plot. In this unholy cause they started championing, they saw fit to factor in other intelligence agencies such as Mossad and CIA in order to make sure their modus operandi would raise no suspicious whatsoever.

As time passes and the situation in Syria unravels, the satanic role of Prince Bandar bin Sultan in stoking up chaos in the crisis-ravaged country under the aegis of the Saudi monarchy becomes more crystallized and the thickening plot to overthrow the Syrian regime under the banner of a popular uprising starts to surface.

(Dr. Ismail Salami is an Iranian journalist, political analyst and chief editor of Press TV website.)