Archive | September 3rd, 2014

Right-wing anti-women campaign failing challenge after challenge


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr


Credit: Steve Rhodes (Creative Commons license)

Women organizing is the key to the fight for reproductive rights. Today, 16 more abortion clinics in Texas were supposed to have been shut down by Texas’ very own reactionary TRAP law undermining women’s reproductive rights. Remember when Wendy Davis stood and spoke for 11 hours while thousands of women descended on the capitol to stop the legislation? That day was a victory for women’s rights for sure. But reactionary politicians have all sorts of tricks up their sleeves. Gov. Rick Perry then called a special session to pass the law despite the clearly popular opposition.

This year, that law closed half of the abortion clinics in Texas. But a U.S. district judge ruled Friday against additional key parts of the law in a legal challenge brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights. Only six abortion clinics in Texas would have been left open after today if he had not. The right-wing, state-by-state campaign to undo the rights won by the 1973 Roe v Wade decision has stalled in the face of resistance.

Since 2010, anti-choice reactionaries have introduced legislation in states across the country. They chose states where they thought a win was likely—Mississippi, Texas, North Carolina and so on—without much resistance. They even tried to ban abortion in the CITY of Albuquerque last November, and lost. TRAP stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers and describes a set of laws that effectively ban abortion while not fully banning abortion. Trap is an apt name for these anti-women laws.

TRAP laws include requirements for ultrasounds (transvaginal in some cases), waiting periods, mandatory inaccurate counseling, local admitting privileges for doctors, and costly and unnecessary upgrades for abortion clinics. The laws have also included outright bans on late-term abortions and restrictions on medical abortions. These laws effectively deny abortions to women in the states where they are enacted.

The women most affected by the laws are poor women. Clinics and centers that comply with the unnecessary upgrades have to raise the cost of abortions so as to become prohibitive. Women must take days off work and drive hundreds of miles to clinics for multiple visits and bogus required counseling visits. Five states in the country now have only ONE abortion clinic (Arkansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming)!

Women in these states are turning more and more to self-induced abortions. Abortion clinics provide a safe, simple medical procedure that is part and parcel of women’s health care—like birth control, mammograms and the like. Self-induced abortions are a serious danger to women’s health-often done incorrectly and more frequently resulting in injury and death.

The right-wing campaign hit its peak in 2011 and 2012 but resistance started building even then. Women took to the streets and to the internet to protest and decry the building attacks on reproductive rights. Mainstream women’s organizations have taken up legal challenges to the state legislation that are showing results. On Friday Aug. 29, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled against the Texas law, saying it created “an impermissible obstacle” to access to abortion for women in Texas. On Sunday Aug. 31, Federal Judge John deGravelles temporarily blocked Lousiana’s TRAP law and set a hearing in one month for a permanent ruling. Various elements of the reactionary laws have been successfully challenged in Kansas, Wisconsin, Arizona, Alabama and Mississippi too.

Women in the United States have shown that we will not sit idly by while the Supreme Court gives Hobby Lobby personhood rights so it can deny us access to birth control. We will not sit idly by as capitalist politicians try to deny young women birth control access—as the Obama administration did. We will not sit idly by while anti-women, anti-choice reactionaries try to deny our right to women’s healthcare, including abortion. It is up to us to organize ourselves to make sure we continue to challenge the right-wing onslaught. Victories in the courts and the legislature are only made possible when we demand them with our voices and our presence. It is up to us to organize ourselves to win our right to full reproductive rights.

Posted in USAComments Off on Right-wing anti-women campaign failing challenge after challenge

Libya in ruins: The legacy of NATO intervention


Conditions for the people of Libya have gone from bad to worse. Fighting on a large scale has been ongoing between rival militias, in particular in the capital Tripoli and in Benghazi. Due to insecurity and the lack of a functioning state, many ministries and government institutions, including the central bank, are dysfunctional, with workers having to stay home. The governor of the central bank has fled the country for Malta. Thousands of people have left Tripoli in search of safety. Libya is suffering a deep economic crisis and prices have gone up rapidly. Many warehouses have been looted. Consumer goods are difficult to come by as supermarket shelves are largely empty. The country is dealing with a 70% budget deficit, a historic high.

On Aug. 27, Libya’s UN Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi warned of the possibility of an impending civil war. He said that up to now he thought that a civil war was not possible, “but the situation has changed.” Foreign countries are directly interfering in the power struggle between rival militias. Arch reactionary United Arab Emirates and the military government of Egypt have carried out bombing attacks inside Libya. The U.N. secretary general’s special representative to Libya, Tarek Mitri, has expressed concerns over Libya’s further disintegration


and warned that no military solution was possible.

Since the NATO overthrow of the nationalist government of Moammar Gaddafi in 2011, Libya has had a weak, and barely functional, government. In effect, rival militias have been running the country. The militias have been competing and fighting since the beginning, as indicated by periodic fights over the control of the airport. But in recent months, two distinct alliances have emerged. On one side there are the Islamist oriented groups, ranging from the Libyan chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood to Al Qaeda-aligned groups like Ansar al-Sharia. These forces are currently unified under the umbrella group Libya Dawn. The old General National Congress, dominated by Libya Dawn, has recently reconvened in Tripoli.

Rivaling the National Congress is a new legislative body, the new House of Representatives. This body has now left for Tobruk, a city in the east. The House of Representatives is supported by General Khalifa Heftar. Heftar is a renegade general who has declared war on the Islamist forces.

Neither side of the conflict has wide scale popular support, nor is either side progressive. These are forces that were catapulted into power by NATO after the 7-month-long bombing in 2011. Imperialist governments and their compliant media outlets propagate the usual racist narrative that the Libyan people are only accustomed to dictatorship; they have to learn the delicate art of democratic governance and need assistance in nation-building. NATO’s active destruction of the nation and the overthrow of the state in 2011 is rarely mentioned, or is portrayed as a positive contribution that just may not have been enough to bring about a functioning democracy. But the current state of chaos is the direct result of the destruction of Libya by Western imperialism.

Libya’s post-colonial development

Libya is a large but sparsely populated North African country of over 6 million people. It was once colonized by Italy but after the defeat of Italy in World War II, British and U.S. imperialism took control.

In 1969, a group of young nationalist officers overthrew the rule of the corrupt King Idriss in a coup. Under the leadership of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Libyan society underwent a revolutionary transformation.  The nationalist government shut down the U.S. Wheelus Air base and took an independent path of development. It implemented a wide scale program of literacy and education. It made healthcare and housing accessible to large parts of the population. Instead of profiting international oil giants, the country’s considerable oil wealth was used for the benefit of the people. Up until 2011, Libyans enjoyed Africa’s highest living standards. Gaddafi was a strong champion of forming a unity among African nations, a cause to which he devoted significant financial resources.

For these reasons, Libya was long on the Pentagon’s hit list. In 1986, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Tripoli in an attempt to assassinate Gaddafi. He survived, but his infant daughter and more than 300 others were killed.

Although the Libyan state appealed to the popular masses in its political program, over time and under relentless imperialist pressure, in the 2000s Libya’s government shifted to the right. Although the state still remained independent, it ushered in neoliberal reforms that limited social programs and subsidies for the poor.

The resulting dissatisfaction among parts of the population, long-running regional conflicts, and the rise of the Islamists particularly in the east of the country, gave rise to large demonstrations in early 2011. Although the demonstrations were attended by many unaffiliated individuals with legitimate grievances, the political leadership was with openly pro-imperialist elements, primarily pro-Western and neoliberal former elements of the state.

Ignoring the complex and multi-faceted character of the demonstrations, Western media immediately labeled the protests as pro-democracy, adopting the narrative of the people vs. the dictator. Unfortunately, liberal anti-war forces in the U.S. followed suit.

In their drive to overthrow the state, the armed rebels scored some early victories, gaining control of Benghazi and briefly expanding their reign. But with the state regaining its footing and managing to organize its base of support, the rebels suffered successive defeats to the point that they were on the verge of losing Benghazi, the last area remaining under its control. This was the main motivation for the United States to frantically push for the rapid passing of Resolution 1973 through the United Nations Security Council, passed on March 17, 2011. The resolution authorized the imposition of a “No Fly Zone,” under the pretense of protecting civilians from the state.

Once the resolution passed, the United States, France, Britain and other imperialist countries launched an intense bombing of the country. NATO did not simply enforce a “No Fly Zone.” It directly intervened in the civil war in support of the rebels. The armed militias worked as NATO’s ground forces, working under the effective command of U.S. and French special operations forces. NATO carried out over 10,000 bombings and sorties over the course of seven months. It targeted pro-Gaddafi forces and the country’s infrastructure to ensure the overthrow of the state. Eventually, the Libyan state collapsed, Gaddafi was murdered and the pro-imperialist rebels took over.

Since 2011, supporters of the former state have been severely repressed. The Libyan people are living under the tyranny of two groupings of rebels; rebels whose path to power was paved by NATO bombs. The overthrow of the state has elevated corrupt elements more than willing to give away the country’s resources to oil giants and multinational corporations. The overthrow of the state has also unleashed reactionary Islamist forces which are taking advantage of the defeat of the former nationalist state to try to implement their reactionary social policies.

The Libyan people face a great deal of hardship and a long path to forming a progressive political movement to eventually sweep aside the Islamist reactionaries and the client seculars. But, just as they overcame colonialism in 1969, so too will they reclaim their independence.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Libya in ruins: The legacy of NATO intervention

Does the U.S. government have a strategy in Iraq and Syria?

ISIS forces marching

ISIS forces march in Syria near Turkish border, in January of this year.

On Aug. 29, referring to the U.S. approach toward the Islamic State, President Obama said: “We don’t have a strategy yet.” Obama went on: “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are.”

The next day, British Prime Minister David Cameron also made comments on ISIS. Interestingly, Cameron brought up the real roots of the problem if only to dismiss them: “This threat cannot be solved simply by dealing with the perceived grievances over Western foreign policy, nor can it be dealt with by addressing poverty, dictatorship or instability in the region, as important as these things are.” Similar to Obama’s, Cameron’s comments revealed the lack of a cohesive strategy on the part of Western imperialist governments.

Obama should be taken at his word. He does not have a strategy. It is not just Obama. The U.S. foreign policy establishment has not developed a strategy. It is particularly challenging for them to develop a new strategy considering that U.S. strategy in Iraq and Syria has been an abysmal failure.

Of course, for the targeted countries, U.S. military interventions always have catastrophic consequences. Over a million Iraqi deaths as a result of the eight-year occupation of Iraq leaves little doubt about the depth of the tragedy.

Members of the newly established Shiite militia 'Peace Brigades' parade in Baghdad's Sadr city, Iraq, 21 June 2014. Hundreds of thousands of Shiites paraded in Baghdad and several other Shiites cities in Iraq, in a show of force to display their readiness to fight Sunni extremists who have taken control of key areas in northern and western Iraq. he jihadist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) seized the northern city of Mosul in a blitz last week and then moved on to capture a string of towns stretching south towards Baghdad.  EPA/ALI ABBAS

Shiite Peace Brigades march in Sadr City, Iraq in June, to show readiness to fight ISIS.

But leaving aside the cost in Iraqi lives and U.S. troops, as do Washington strategists, U.S. strategy in the region has totally failed in reaching its goals. Imperialists strategize in hopes of achieving concrete goals. Iraq was supposed to be the first phase of “redrawing the map of the Middle East.” After overthrowing the independent, albeit inconsistent, state led by Saddam Hussein, the U.S. was hoping to turn Iraq into a stable client state; one that would be a proxy in regional conflicts, one that would give Iraq’s oil away to big oil, one that would provide exclusive investment opportunities to U.S. corporations and shut out Chinese and other competitors.

None of these goals have been accomplished in Iraq.

The occupation did not turn out to be the cake walk that the State Department and Pentagon strategists had hoped for. Resistance to the occupation was so strong that, three years into the occupation, illusions of an easy victory gave way to a desperate effort to avoid outright defeat. By promoting sectarian conflict, the U.S. and the British prevented Iraq’s unity against the occupation. But Washington ended up settling for an Iraqi state run by Shiite forces closely allied with Iran. Then, again to avoid outright defeat, the U.S. also ended up reaching a deal with many forces up to then fighting the occupation. Hence the Awakening Councils were put on the U.S. payroll and integrated into Iraq’s army.

By the time the U.S. occupation ended, Iraq had a weak, divided government. The prevailing force in that divided government was not a U.S. client but the Shiite alliance led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

To the chagrin of Washington, Iraq’s government signed many major contracts, including oil contracts, with China. The “coalition of the willing,” Iraq’s occupiers, did not get exclusive rights to Iraq’s markets and resources as they were hoping to.

In Syria, since the early days of anti-government protests in 2011, the United States developed a strategy of overthrowing the state. Of course, Washington had always wanted regime change in Syria, as in any other country with an independent state. But the protests and the emerging rebels made possible the development of a concrete strategy.  The plan was to organize those who had taken up arms against the state into the so-called Free Syrian Army. Then the U.S. would form a “respectable” coalition from Syrian academics and intellectuals in the Diaspora and call them the Syrian National Council. The Free Syrian Army would serve as the ground force of this “democratic” coalition. Once Assad was overthrown, political power would be handed to the SNC, which would have no choice but serve the interests of its benefactors in Washington.

But things did not go as planned. For one thing, despite U.S. efforts, the Syrian National Council, and the Syrian National Coalition that it morphed into, never really gained any legitimacy among the Syrian population. Especially damaging were statements coming from the Free Syrian Army that indicated a total lack of trust in the SNC.

The other problem was on the military front. With time, rebel groups not affiliated or allied with the FSA gained much more strength. Buoyed by recruits from all over the world, the jihadist forces proved to be better fighting forces, and much more capable of recruiting and replenishing their ranks.

Since the Jabhat al Nusrah (Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria), other Jihadist groups and ISIS were fighting against the Syrian state, the U.S. welcomed their existence. The U.S. had no problems with client states Jordan and Turkey providing the jihadist groups with free passage over the borders and training grounds. Nor did the U.S. have any problems with generous funding of the jihadists by arch-reactionary Gulf monarchies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Once Assad was overthrown, U.S. strategists assumed, the “good” rebels, the FSA, would have the upper hand and the new “democratic” state, the SNC, would deal with the jihadists.

But this strategy has completely failed. Today, the FSA is a marginal player. At best, the FSA is the third strongest force among the rebels, after ISIS and the Nusrah. What territory the FSA hasn’t lost to the state, it has ceded to ISIS. The Syrian National Coalition is a joke. The only real fighting on the SNC’s record is against each other, as evident from leadership changes every few months. Hardly anyone outside of Washington considers the SNC a major player.

Obama’s Republican detractors have tried to score political points on his admission of lacking a strategy. But the fact is that, for the long-term interests of U.S. banks, oil giants and other corporations, there are no good strategic options. In Iraq, while the U.S. wants ISIS to be defeated, it does not want the central government of Haider al-Abadi to be significantly strengthened. Abadi is from the same exact party—Da’wa—as Maliki is and is nowhere near what Washington might consider its man.

The strengthening of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq has its own set of problems for Washington. The Kurdish leadership has proven to be no threat for U.S. strategies otherwise, but Kurdish independence in Iraq would pose a serious threat to Turkey, a NATO member and client the U.S. has to rely on.

Today, ISIS controls approximately one-third the area of Iraq and one-third the area of Syria. Currently, there is no border between the two countries, with ISIS controlling both sides of what used to be the border. There is talk of the U.S. targeting ISIS within Syria. Of course, violating the territory of a sovereign nation has never been a problem for U.S. strategists. But how would the United States effectively target ISIS from the air? On Aug. 31, journalists Isabel Coles and Peter Apps reported that the Islamic State had adjusted its tactics to make its forces harder to target by U.S. and Iraqi aircraft. They are no longer mounting machine guns on the backs of pickup trucks. They are no longer prominently displaying their large black flags that would make them an easy target. They are consciously making an effort to blend in with the population of the areas they control.

In Syria, in the absence of coordination with Damascus, without information from the ground, how would the U.S. know exactly where to target? And with ISIS being by far the strongest rebel force in Syria, how would the U.S. bombing of ISIS not strengthen the position of Damascus, an independent state whose overthrow has been U.S. strategy for the last three years? How would the U.S. ensure that the FSA, now only a marginal force, can capitalize on the defeat of ISIS?

It is important to recognize that U.S. foreign policy is not determined by the ideas or personalities of this or that president, politician or general. Strategies are implemented in the conscious pursuit of the long-term interests of U.S. banks and corporations. They aim to crush socialist and workers states as well as nationalist and independent ones, secular or sectarian.

In this, U.S. foreign policy has been consistent for decades, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Failure to recognize this fact leads individuals and forces to fall for U.S. propaganda, believing that this time the U.S. might be on the right side. Recent examples of this are Libya and Syria, where many liberals took up the defense of the “revolution.”

It is equally important to recognize that U.S. strategy does not always generate the desired outcome for its planners. While U.S. strategists are clear about the goals they are pursuing, their strategies often fall short of reaching those goals. Whether it is Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, it is obvious that U.S. strategy at times suffers catastrophic defeats. Failure to recognize this fact prompts some to think that everything that occurs is based on a blueprint, a master plan, that the U.S. has had in place.

Along this line, some have incorrectly suggested that the rise of ISIS is in accordance with a U.S. plan.

From the perspective of the U.S. foreign establishment, the rise of ISIS is an unintended consequence of its failed strategies in Iraq and Syria. It is not their desired outcome. Not only does the strength of ISIS serve no useful purpose for Washington, it causes a litany of problems that put Washington in a precarious position.

The false premise that everything that occurs is in accordance to a secret U.S. plan is a disempowering, disabling, demoralizing assumption. It leaves no room for the role of struggle in determining the future. It discourages workers and oppressed peoples from fighting. What’s the point of fighting if everything will go exactly as planned by the imperialist ruling class? And, above all, the premise that all is going as Washington planned does not conform to reality.

Will the Obama administration expand its military intervention in the Middle East? That is a real danger as the U.S. has already been bombing ISIS on a daily basis. Progressives and anti-war activists should take every opportunity to protest further U.S. bombings in the region. The crimes that ISIS has committed, and they have committed plenty, pale in comparison to the crimes of the U.S. in Iraq through 13 years of sanctions and eight years of occupation.

The ultimate solution is for the Iraqi people to regroup and reunify, re-establish their independent state and overcome the danger of ISIS and another U.S. military intervention. This will not be easy given the legacy of the U.S. occupation, but it is the only path forward for the independence of Iraq. Objectively, the U.S. military has killed many more Iraqis than ISIS ever will. The butcher of the Iraqi people, the U.S. government, cannot now become their savior.

Posted in USA, Iraq, SyriaComments Off on Does the U.S. government have a strategy in Iraq and Syria?

Detroit march demands ‘End the Nazi siege of Gaza now!’



On the Sunday of Labor Day weekend, hundreds rallied and marched through the streets of Detroit demanding an end to the siege of Gaza.

They came in response to a Call to Action issued by a broad coalition of anti-war, Muslim and Arab-American groups, who joined together to organize a response to the ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed by Israel in Gaza with U.S. support and funding.

The demonstration was announced following the march of tens of thousands that took place on Aug. 2 in Washington, D.C.

Sponsors of the march included the ANSWER Coalition, American Muslims for Palestine, National Lawyers Guild, American Muslim Alliance, Muslim American Society, Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Al-Awda: Palestine Right to Return Coalition – USA; the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and many others.

The group gathered in front of the Cobo Center in downtown Detroit, with participants coming from various cities in Michigan, and from Ohio, Indiana and other neighboring states, as well as some from Washington, D.C. Under the blazing sun, the march weaved throughout the downtown area, stopping in front of the offices of the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, and the Federal Building, before returning for a closing rally at the Cobo Center while many people looked on.

View a slideshow below of photos from the demonstration

The rally was chaired by Hasan Newash of the Palestine Cultural Office in Dearborn, Mich. Speakers at the rally included Mahdi Bray of the American Muslim Alliance; Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations; Abbas Hamideh from Al-Awda – Cleveland; a representative from American Muslims for Palestine; local organizers from Detroit and more.

At the rally, Sarah Sloan spoke on behalf of the ANSWER Coalition, delivering the following message:

“We are here today as part of a global movement of solidarity with the people of Gaza and with the just struggle of the Palestinian people.

“We are here to demand that the United States government end all aid to Israel. U.S. taxpayers’ money to the tune of $4 billion each year goes to Israel. Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. aid. That money goes to buy missiles, bombs, tanks, fighter planes and attack helicopters. That U.S. money was used in the last month to kill 2,000 people – mostly civilians, including hundreds and hundreds of children and babies.

“U.S. taxpayers’ money was used to destroy 10,000 homes. It was used to make more than 100,000 people in Gaza homeless. In short, U.S. taxpayers’ money was used to finance war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“We are here today to demand a complete and immediate end to the siege of Gaza, an end all U.S. aid to Israel, and the indictment and prosecution of Benjamin Netanyahu at the Hague for war crimes.

“The ANSWER Coalition has launched a letter-writing campaign to demand that Netanyahu be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court for genocide and war crimes. You can send a letter to the ICC Secretariat through our website,

“We the people of the world must do what we did 25 years ago when the global movement helped the oppressed people of South Africa end apartheid. Until it came to an end, the United States was the biggest backer of South Africa. It was the intensifying grassroots movement that shifted the balance. That’s why we are marching in Detroit. That’s why tens of thousands of people marched in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 2.

“The Israeli war machine thought they could smash the resistance in Palestine. They failed in this strategic objective. They succeeded in creating an ocean of human suffering in Gaza, but it is the Israeli regime and their backers in Washington who have suffered a strategic defeat.

“The Palestinian people are strong. They are an inspiration. And their struggle has ignited a global movement of international solidarity that will help turn the tide.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, GazaComments Off on Detroit march demands ‘End the Nazi siege of Gaza now!’

America’s Monetary Crisis: Even the Council on Foreign Relations Is Saying It: Time to Rain Money on Main Street


Global Research

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after theyve tried everything else.” Winston Churchill

When an article appears in Foreign Affairs, the mouthpiece of the policy-setting Council on Foreign Relations, recommending that the Federal Reserve do a money drop directly on the 99%, you know the central bank must be down to its last bullet.

The September/October issue of Foreign Affairs features an article by Mark Blyth and Eric Lonergan titled Print Less But Transfer More: Why Central Banks Should Give Money Directly To The People. Its the sort of thing normally heard only from money reformers and Social Credit enthusiasts far from the mainstream. Whats going on?

The Fed, it seems, has finally run out of other ammo. It has to taper its quantitative easing program, which is eating up the Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities needed as collateral for the repo market that is the engine of the bankers shell game. The Feds Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) has also done serious collateral damage. The banks that get the money just put it in interest-bearing Federal Reserve accounts or buy foreign debt or speculate with it; and the profits go back to the 1%, who park it offshore to avoid taxes. Worse, any increase in the money supply from increased borrowing increases the overall debt burden and compounding finance costs, which are already a major constraint on economic growth.

Meanwhile, the economy continues to teeter on the edge of deflation. The Fed needs to pump up the money supply and stimulate demand in some other way. All else having failed, it is reduced to trying what money reformers have been advocating for decades get money into the pockets of the people who actually spend it on goods and services.

A Helicopter Drop on Main Street

Blyth and Lonergan write:

[L]ow inflation . . . occurs when people and businesses are too hesitant to spend their money, which keeps unemployment high and wage growth low. In the eurozone, inflation has recently dropped perilously close to zero. . . . At best, the current policies are not working; at worst, they will lead to further instability and prolonged stagnation.

Governments must do better. Rather than trying to spur private-sector spending through asset purchases or interest-rate changes, central banks, such as the Fed, should hand consumers cash directly. In practice, this policy could take the form of giving central banks the ability to hand their countries tax-paying households a certain amount of money. The government could distribute cash equally to all households or, even better, aim for the bottom 80 percent of households in terms of income. Targeting those who earn the least would have two primary benefits. For one thing, lower-income households are more prone to consume, so they would provide a greater boost to spending. For another, the policy would offset rising income inequality. [Emphasis added.]

A money drop directly on consumers is not a new idea for the Fed. Ben Bernanke recommended it in his notorious 2002 helicopter speech to the Japanese who were caught in a similar deflation trap. But the Japanese ignored the advice. According to Blyth and Lonergan:

Bernanke argued that the Bank of Japan needed to act more aggressively and suggested it consider an unconventional approach: give Japanese households cash directly. Consumers could use the new windfalls to spend their way out of the recession, driving up demand and raising prices.

. . . The conservative economist Milton Friedman also saw the appeal of direct money transfers, which he likened to dropping cash out of a helicopter. Japan never tried using them, however, and the countrys economy has never fully recovered. Between 1993 and 2003, Japans annual growth rates averaged less than one percent.

Today most of the global economy is drowning in debt, and central banks have played all their other cards. Blyth and Lonergan write:

Its well past time, then, for U.S. policymakers as well as their counterparts in other developed countries to consider a version of Friedmans helicopter drops. In the short term, such cash transfers could jump-start the economy. Over the long term, they could reduce dependence on the banking system for growth and reverse the trend of rising inequality. The transfers wouldnt cause damaging inflation, and few doubt that they would work. The only real question is why no government has tried them.

The Hyperinflation Bugaboo

The main reason governments have not tried this approach, say the authors, is the widespread belief that it will trigger hyperinflation. But will it? In a Forbes article titled Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation!, John Harvey argues that the rule as taught in economics class is based on some invalid assumptions. The formula is:

MV = Py

When the velocity of money (V) and the quantity of goods sold (y) are constant, adding money (M) must drive up prices (P). But, says Harvey, V and y are not constant. The more money people have to spend (M), the more money that will change hands (V), and the more goods and services that will get sold (y). Only when V and y reach their limits only when demand is saturated and productivity is at full capacity will consumer prices be driven up. And they are nowhere near their limits yet.

The US output gap the difference between actual output (y) and potential output is currently estimated at about $1 trillion annually. That means the money supply could be increased by at least $1 trillion without driving up prices.

As for V, the relevant figure for the lower 80% (the target population of Blyth and Lonergan) is the velocity of M1 coins, dollar bills, and checkbook money. Fully 76% of Americans now live paycheck to paycheck. When they get money, they spend it. They dont trade in the forms of investment called near money and near, near money that make up the bulk of M2 and M3.

The velocity of M1 in 2012 was 7 (down from a high of 10 in 2007). That means M1 changed hands seven times during 2012 from housewife to grocer to farmer, etc. Since each recipient owes taxes on this money, increasing GDP by one dollar increases the tax base by seven dollars.

Total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in 2012 was 24.3%. Extrapolating from those figures, one dollar spent seven times over on goods and services could increase tax revenue to the government by 7 x 24.3% = $1.7. The government could actually get more back in taxes than it paid out! Even with some leakage in those figures, the entire dividend paid out by the Fed might be taxed back to the government, so that the money supply would not increase at all.

Assume a $1 trillion dividend issued in the form of debit cards that could be used only for goods and services. A back-of-the-envelope estimate is that if $1 trillion were shared by all US adults making under $35,000 annually, they could each get about $600 per month. If the total dividend were $2 trillion, they could get $1,200 per month. And in either case it could, at least in theory, all come back in taxes to the government without any net increase in the money supply.

There are also other ways to get money back into the Treasury so that there is no net increase in the money supply. They include closing tax loopholes, taxing the $21 trillion or more hidden in offshore tax havens, raising tax rates on the rich to levels like those seen in the boom years after World War II, and setting up a system of public banks that would return the interest on loans to the government. If bank credit were made a public utility, nearly $1 trillion could be returned annually to the Treasury just in bank profits and savings on interest on the federal debt. Interest collected by U.S. banks in 2011 was $507 billion (down from $725 billion in 2007), and total interest paid on the federal debt was $454 billion.

Thus there are many ways to return the money issued in a national dividend to the government. The same money could be spent and collected back year after year, without creating price inflation or hyperinflating the money supply.

Why Its the Job of the Fed

Why not just stimulate employment through the congressional funding of infrastructure projects, as politicians usually advocate? Blyth and Lonergan write:

The problem with these proposals is that infrastructure spending takes too long to revive an ailing economy. . . . Governments should . . . continue to invest in infrastructure and research, but when facing insufficient demand, they should tackle the spending problem quickly and directly.

Still, getting money into the pockets of the people sounds more like fiscal policy (the business of Congress) than monetary policy (the business of the Fed). But monetary policy means managing the money supply, and that is the point of a dividend. The antidote to deflation a shrinking supply of money is to add more. The Fed tried adding money to bank balance sheets through its quantitative easing program, but the result was simply to drive up the profits of the 1%. The alternative that hasnt yet been tried is to bypass the profit-siphoning 1% and get the money directly to the consumers who create consumer demand.

There is another reason for handing the job to the Fed. Congress has been eviscerated by a political system that keeps legislators in open battle, deadlocked in inaction. The Fed, however, is independent. At least, it is independent of government. It marches to the drum of Wall Street, but it does not need to ask permission from voters or legislators before it acts. It is basically a dictatorship. The Fed did not ask permission before it advanced $85 billion to buy an 80% equity stake in an insurance company (AIG), or issued over $24 trillion in very-low-interest credit to bail out the banks, or issued trillions of dollars in those glorified open market operations called quantitative easing. As noted in an opinion piece in the Atlantic titled How Dare the Fed Buy AIG:

Its probable that they dont actually have the legal right to do anything like this. Their authority is this: whos going to stop them? No one wants to take on responsibility for this mess themselves.

There is a third reason for handing the job to the Fed. It is actually in the interest of the banks the Feds real constituency to issue a national dividend to the laboring masses. Interest and fees cannot be squeezed from people who are bankrupt. Creditor and debtor are in a symbiotic relationship. Like parasites and cancers, compound interest grows exponentially, doubling and doubling again until the host is consumed; and we are now at the end stage of that cycle. To keep the host alive, the creditors must restock their food source. Dropping money on Main Street is thus not only the Feds last bullet but is a critical play for keeping the game going.

Posted in USAComments Off on America’s Monetary Crisis: Even the Council on Foreign Relations Is Saying It: Time to Rain Money on Main Street

A Distant Relative Responds To Alvin H. Rosenfeld’s Trash Job on the Letter by Holocaust Survivors and Their Families Criticizing the Brutal and Disproportionate I$raHell War on The People of Gaza.

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr

By Danny Schechter

Dear Cousin Alvin,

When I grew up in a Workman’s Circle family in the Bronx, my father always spoke of you as our “Chicago cousin,” as “the” learned Jewish intellectual in the family who they respected.

I am not clear if we ever met, but I knew of you for decades, from a distance, as a member not just “of the Tribe” but of my own extended family.

I am horrified by your latest vicious attack on critics of Israeli policies in the name of fighting antisemitism.

If there is a moral emptiness here, Cousin Alvin, I am afraid it is your own. Note also how the New York Times published their letter in the least read Saturday edition, at the bottom of the page, towards the back of the first section—not exactly prominent pplacement and all too representative of the disgraceful media coverage of this savage war. 

I am writing on this Labor Day, an occasion the old Forward would have marked as an outlet that stood in solidarity with the Yiddish speaking working class. My dad, Jerry, and Grandfather Max, were members of the old ILGWU, a cutter and presser respectively, who taught me the principles of labor solidarity and empathy with oppressed people, not just “my own kind.” They introduced me to the Forward in its glory days.

They also supported my work in the civil rights movement, and later in the fight to end apartheid in South Africa. I wrote a biography of Nelson Mandela, whom I covered in several films.

As you know, however inexact the parallels, over a hundred thousand South Africans marched there led by Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu in solidarity with Gaza, even if the official line of the message-point driven Zionist command which you serve so loyally, and with whom one must never disagree, is that there is no parallel. (Noam Chomsky, as you may know, also sees no direct parallel either, believing that Israel and South Africa are notthe same because Israel is worse!)

I can’t tell you how upsetting it was to find you, Cousin Alvin., getting up on a high moral horse in Hoosier country and lecturing holocaust survivors and their families about betraying our people by daring to question the policies of an extreme right-wing government in Israel who destroyed a modern city and punished its population, collectively.

It is also significant that you show no concern about the violence that Israel’s acts have caused in Israel itself with an emboldening fascist response to all critics—see the article aboutt Israel Prize winner, the renowned scholar Zeev Sternhell in Ha’aretz, who fears the collapse of Israeli democracy, and compares the current atmosphere there with that of 1940’s France.

“The time we have left to reverse this frightening trend is running out,” he warns.

Say nothing about the insights of peace activist and former Israeli independence hero, Avi Avnery, who says the War on Gaza accomplished nothing. Zero. Zip.

And, then,  say nothing, Cousin Alvin, to how this violence has spread to the streets of London where Israel critic and MP George Galloway was brutally  assaulted in a hate crime and sent to the hospital by the kind of fanatic your writing inspires. It is headed here!

The whole world could see clearly how Israel lost what’s left of its moral compass in a brutal military campaign, campaign justified as self-defense that claimed the lives of over 500 children and mostly civilians.

Q: Why aren’t you leading a campaign to rebuild Gaza? A: Because they are the wrong victims in your universe!

Now, to add insult to injury, we learn that the government of the bullies who act in the name of a frightened and debased Zionism,  have announced over 700 new Palestinian arrests and the seizure of another 1000 hectares of Palestinian land on the West bank. Even the United States Government that slavishly kowtowed, funded and rearmed Israel’s military campaign says this is an example of overreach by gloating victors.

Isn’t it embarrassing to you that l00 members of the 100 member Senate were browbeaten to give Israel a black check in an institution that can’t get a majority for air conditioning on a hot day? Sounds like the unanimity the old Soviet politburo!

What world are you living in, Cousin Alvin? Why you so embedded in such a self-righteous bubble of knee-jerk defense of policies that violate human lives and rights? Are you a scholar or a hatchet man for the lobby who now specializes in criticizing critics, liberals and progressives?

Soon, you will win the David Horowitz Neo-con award for service to empire.

Do your credentials as a specialist in antisemitism give you the right to tell others how to think and what to feel and to define “moral emptiness” while a city lies in ruins and morgues overflow with bodies of people who happen to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Is Elie Wiesel who supports settler groups in Jerusalem above political criticism? Is he some celebrity God whose suffering and testimony taught so many of us about the suffering of the holocaust, but who now affiliates with the right- wing politics of the AIAPAC zealots and propagandists. Does that exempt him from challenge?

Sadly, I fear Elie stopped being a moral leader for universal human rights for all a long time ago, and I say this as someone who produced a TV show with him on the World of Elie Wiesel for New York’s Channel 13 and admired him. Jesse Jackson was on that show! (Somehow you managed to work in contempt for Jesse and Al Sharpton in your diatribe, just to signal the US right what side you are. There was not an ounce of compassion for the slain Michael Brown of Ferguson, in a community whose militarized police were, we are told, advised by unnamed Israeli security companies.

I grew up in a community that celebrated the resistance of the Warsaw Ghetto every April 19th. We stood with the victims, not the killers. We knew crimes when we saw them, There were Zionists among us but of different varieties, not just one politically correct branch now dominated by an unelected “Security Cabinet” of Generals and militarists (with unlimited budgets supplied by doting American politicians) who order around a subsidized Air Force run by settlers and fueled by Bibi-esque broadsides demanding “quiet.”

What arrogance, but ultimately that’s what you want too, Cousin Alvin, quiet on the western front, silence from critics who you demand get along by going along.

As one of the American taxpayers who is paying for today’s aggression, I have a right to speak without having my own leanings derided.

Open your eyes, Cousin Alvin, and put down your polemics and hatreds of those who fight for justice for all including Palestinians whose rights are conspicuous by their absence in your bitter scolds.

This is the ultimate shonda, Cousin Alvin, designed to delegitimize and vilify Jews who find Israel’s conduct beyond the pale of the pale.

I admired your early work, especially on the humanities and Blake’s poetry—my mother Ruth Lisa Schechter was a poet—and I know that as a friend and promoter of Elie Wiesel, you felt compelled to rush to his defense.

But, surely, you are also aware of the saying that “there is no business like Shoah Business.” I know you are one of the guiding official scholars at the Holocaust Museum with a Presidential appointment, no less. You are lucky to be among the officially funded Lobby mandarins on the subject who is undoubtedly well supported and encouraged to go for the jugular.

What is striking that in your bio you seem to delight in being thought of a “controversial,” by which you mean not self-reflective or independent of the Lobby.  but as a  scholarly “attack dog” to use your credentials as Professor of English to impugn others as you have in the past with your putdowns of Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, the late historian Tony Judt, the poet Adrienne Rich and the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen among others.

You have used the cover of the American Jewish Committee to stir up debate (and hate)  that puts you at the visible center of high profile and emotional tirades. Sorry, Cousin Alvin, isn’t this a tad self-promotional?  No fear, Fox News will soon be here.

Happily, you have critics who noted that you are smearing critics of the Iraq War and trying to censor, not just put down people of much greater accomplishment. The Forward for which I wrote a piece years back has been a reliable outlet for your ravings.

Significantly, Theodore Mann, a former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, blasted you for labeling progressives and implying that they are all somehow antiSemites.

” Throughout his essay, Alvin Rosenfeld seeks to make the label ‘progressive’ a derogatory term, just as three decades ago neoconservatives made ‘liberal’ a derogatory term. Yet today, isn’t it obvious that if there is any subset of Jews that has caused an increase in antisemitism in the United States, it is the neocons who served in the Bush administration and who, rightly or wrongly, are regarded by countless Americans as largely responsible for dragging America into an unwinnable war in Iraq?”

Others will respond more forcefully than I. I am just a semite, Cousin Alvin, as are most Arabs. We need to learn to live together in peace. Your work is undermining  that cause, as you know,  and has moved from academic analysis to polemic and propaganda.

Where is the humility, tolerance and compassion?

Yours, in hope that this unexpected family feud can lead eventually to some common ground, not more bitterness and hostility on the graves of so many on all sides who continue to die.


your Cousin Danny,

Danny Schechter
New York, New York

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USAComments Off on A Distant Relative Responds To Alvin H. Rosenfeld’s Trash Job on the Letter by Holocaust Survivors and Their Families Criticizing the Brutal and Disproportionate I$raHell War on The People of Gaza.

What if a UK politician had been attacked by a pro-Palestinian fanatic?


Writing in the Daily Telegraph’s blog, Peter Oborne, the Telegraph’s chief political commentator, says:

Last Friday evening [29 August] a British MP suffered a vicious assault on a London street. George Galloway, a 61-year-old, six-times-elected politician was beaten up for three minutes by a brutal and determined assailant in broad daylight, and was admitted to hospital as a result.

There are grounds for assuming that the motive was political, and the assault occurred due to Galloway’s criticism of Israeli actions in the Middle East. The assailant was reportedly shouting comparing Galloway to Hitler, and shouting about the holocaust.

There is something very disturbing about the response to this event by the mainstream British political establishment. Mr Galloway has received no public message of sympathy from a single MP from any party – nothing from Speaker Bercow, from the prime minister, or from any of the other elected political leader.

I know that Mr Galloway is a very controversial figure and that many people, for honourable reasons, disagree very strongly with his views. Yet that is irrelevant. The attack on Mr Galloway is beyond doubt an attack on British democracy itself.

It is a basic principle of our political culture that men and women must be able to speak up for the causes they believe in without threats or violent reappraisal…

Had an MP been attacked by some pro-Palestinian fanatic for his support of Israel, I guess there would have been a national outcry and rightly so. Why then the silence from the mainstream establishment following this latest outrageous assault on a British politician?

But it’s not just the British politicians who, through their silence over the attack on Galloway, are complicit in the destruction of British democracy on behalf of Israel.

The media, and in particular Britain’s state-owned public broadcaster, the BBC, are just as guilty. As the journalist Jonathan Cook says on his Facebook page:

British MP George Galloway was seriously assaulted on a London street a few days ago by a fanatical supporter of Israel and its army. The British media and political class have evinced almost zero interest in this incident, despite its being a rare and worrying attack on the very foundations of a democratic polity. Perversely, we have to turn to [the Russian English-language TV channel] RT to learn from Galloway what happened. This is an interview that should have been on the BBC or Channel 4.

Posted in UKComments Off on What if a UK politician had been attacked by a pro-Palestinian fanatic?

U.S. Army Plans to Battle Anti-Government Dissidents in “Megacities”

Future operations will neutralize groups which ‘undermine the authority of the state’

 Paul Joseph Watson
Propaganda Matrix

The U.S. Army is preparing to fight political dissidents who challenge the power of the state as “megacities” become the battleground of the future, according to a new report in the Army Times.

The article details how the Army’s Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) worked with US Army Special Operations Command, the chief of staff’s Strategic Studies Group and the UK’s Ministry of Defence earlier this year to wargame the future of armed combat, which will revolve around the neutralization of groups “who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state,” a chillingly vague description which could easily be applied to political dissidents.

The plan foresees an unprecedented realignment of U.S. military strategy focused around putting “boots on the ground” in megacities to deal with “politically dispossessed” populations while relying on “more lethal and more autonomous” methods.

“It is inevitable that at some point the United States Army will be asked to operate in a megacity and currently the Army is ill-prepared to do so,” asserted a report by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno’s Strategic Studies Group, while Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster warned that the Army will increasingly have to expand its presence to battle an enemy which operates in “other contested spaces like organized crime and politics.”

The report also notes how the Army will utilize directed energy weapons which “would allow U.S. to have direct-fire capabilities with significant logistics reduction, and to counter enemy long-range missile capability.”

The article also cites a recent report by the Australian Army which identifies the fact that “these cities represent the battlefields of the future.”

Confirmation that the U.S. Army is preparing to fight disaffected groups and individuals who attempt to ‘undermine the authority of the state’, which could apply to a whole host of perfectly legal political activities, is particularly concerning given the recent militarized police response to unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.

A 2012 study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland which was funded by the Department of Homeland Security lists Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty” and “suspicious of centralized federal authority” alongside violent terrorist groups.

Will citizens who ‘undermine the authority of the state’ by espousing these beliefs also be a future target for the U.S. Army under this new doctrine?

Earlier this year we also highlighted how the U.S. Army built a 300 acre ‘fake city’ in Virginia complete with a sports stadium, bank, school, and an underground subway in order to train for unspecified future combat scenarios. The city included a Christian chapel and subway signs in English, suggesting it was intended to double as a domestic town in addition to an overseas location.

The Army Times report is also disconcerting in light of a recently uncovered U.S. Army training document which detailed preparations for “full scale riots” within the United States during which troops may be forced to engage in a “lethal response” to deal with crowds of demonstrators.

As with previous examples, the manual made it clear that such operations were being planned not just for foreign occupations but for inside the “continental United States (CONUS)” in the event of “unruly and violent crowds” where it is “necessary to quell riots and restore public order.”

The document also describes the deployment of a “lethal response” directed against “unarmed civilians,” including “sniper response” and “small arms direct fire,” while making reference to domestic political upheavals such as the 1999 demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle.

While the U.S. border remains wide open amidst reports of ISIS insurgents planning attacks, the fact that the security apparatus of the United States is more concerned with taking on political dissidents inside megacities is likely to prompt fresh outrage.

Posted in USAComments Off on U.S. Army Plans to Battle Anti-Government Dissidents in “Megacities”

ISIS is America’s New Terror Brand: Endless Propaganda Fuels “War on Terror”


Global Research

In the wake of World War I, erstwhile propagandist and political scientist Harold Lasswell famously defined propaganda as the management of collective attitudes and the control over opinion through the manipulation of significant symbols.[1] The extent to which this tradition is enthusiastically upheld in the West and the United States in particular is remarkable.

The American public is consistently propagandized by its government and corporate news media on the most vital of contemporary issues and events.

Deception on such a scale would be of little consequence if the US were not the most powerful economic and military force on earth


[Image Credit: Vice News]

A case in point is the hysteria Western news media are attempting to create concerning the threat posed by the mercenary-terrorist army now being promoted as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, or ISIS.

As was the case with the US intelligence asset and bogey publicized as Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda’s Syrian adjunct, “Al Nusra,” such entities areapparently by designinadequately investigated and defined by major news media. Absent meaningful historical context they usefully serve as another raison dểtre for Americas terminal War on Terror.

A seemingly obvious feature of such terrorist forces left unexamined by corporate media is that they are observably comprised of the same or comparable personnel unleashed elsewhere throughout the Middle East as part of a strategy proposed during the George W. Bush administration in 2007.[2]

With the above observations in mind, ISIS is well-financed, militarily proficient, and equipped with modern vehicles and weaponry. It also exhibits an uncanny degree of media savvy in terms of propagating its message in professional-looking videos and on platforms such as YouTube and Twitter. “Western intelligence services,” the New York Times reports, claim to be “worried about their extraordinary command of seemingly less lethal weapons: state-of-the-art videos, ground images shot from drones, and multilingual Twitter messages.”[3]

Along these lines, ISIS even received a largely sympathetic portrayal in a five-part series produced and aired by the Rupert Murdoch-backed Vice News.[4] Indeed, Vice News’ “The Spread of the Caliphate” is reminiscent of the public relations-style reportage produced via the “embedding” of corporate news media personnel with US and allied forces during the 2003 conquest of Iraq.


The overt support of ISIS, combined with the fact that it is battling the same Syrian government the Obama administration overtly sought to wage war against just one year ago, strongly suggest the organizations sponsorship by Western intelligence and military interests.

ISISs curious features are readily apparent to non-Western news outlets and citizenries. For example, Irans PressTV recently asked its readership, Why does the ISIL have such easy access to Twitter, Youtube and other social media to propagate its ideologies? The answer choices are, 1) Because the ISIL has very capable technicians who can best use social media, or 2) Because the US and Britain have provided the ISIL with unrestricted social media platform[s]. Note that the first choice is the overarching assumption of Western media outlets. Yet perhaps unsurprisingly, 90 percent of PressTV readers selected choice two.[5]

No such queries are so much as alluded to by major corporate media, all of which are united in the notion that ISIS is an essentially indigenous phenomenon. Yet as coverage of the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent state-sponsored terrorism indicates, such media are essentially a component of the national security state, their reports and broadcast scripts all but overtly written by intelligence and military organizations.

In the wake of 9/11 US news media seldom asked about the origins of Al Qaedaparticularly how it was a product of US intelligence agencies. With the history of Al Qaeda omitted, the Bush administration was permitted to wage war on Afghanistan almost immediately following those staged attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Yet as is much the case with today’s manufactured ISIS phenomenon, that history was readily available, and its careful public examination might have implicated the United States intelligence community in the 9/11 attacks. During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath, Michel Chossudovsky observes,

the CIAusing Pakistans military intelligence apparatus as a go betweenplayed a key role in training the Mujhadeen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have consistently supported the Militant Islamic Base, including Osama bin Ladens Al Qaeda, as part of their foreign policy agenda. The links between Osama bin Laden and the Clinton administration in Bosnia and Kosovo are well documented by congressional records.[6]

As the United States and world approach the thirteenth anniversary of the most momentous false flag in modern history, the American public would be well-served to remind itself that ISIS is the new Al Qaedain other words, the new pretext that will in all likelihood be used by to take police state measures at home and military aggression abroad to new, perhaps unprecedented, levels.

With the above in mind, it is telling that one of the US governments greatest fears isnt ISIS at all. The FBIs most recent threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats, the Washington Free Beacon reports, despite last years Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shootingboth carried out by radical Muslim Americans.

Instead, the nations foremost law enforcement agency is preoccupied with what it deems domestic extremism exhibited by its own subjects.[7] A primary manifestation of such extremism is possessing the curiosity to discern and seek out truths and information amidst the barrage of manipulated symbols the government and corporate-controlled media use to undermine a potentially informed public.


[1] Harold Lasswell, Propaganda Technique in the World War, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1927/1971.

[2] Seymour Hersh, The Redirection: Is the Administrations New Policy Benefitting Our Enemies in the War on Terrorism? New Yorker, March 5, 2007; Tony Cartalucci, Extremists Ravaging Syria Created by US in 2007, Land Destroyer Report, May 11, 2012.

[3] Scott Shane and Ben Hubbard, ISIS Displaying a Deft Command of Varied Media,” New York Times, August 30, 2014.

[4] Joe Bercovici, Thanks to Rupert Murdoch, Vice is Worth $1.4 Billion. Could it be in Play Soon? Forbes, August 19, 2014; Medyan Dairieh, The Spread of the Caliphate: The Islamic State, Vice News, August 13, 2014.

[5] PressTV Poll,, retrieved on August 30, 2014.

[6] Michel Chossudovsky, Americas War on Terrorism Second Edition, Montreal CA: Global Research, 2005, 4.

[7] Bill Gertz, FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism, Washington Free Beacon, August 29, 2014.

Posted in USAComments Off on ISIS is America’s New Terror Brand: Endless Propaganda Fuels “War on Terror”

Shoah’s pages


September 2014
« Aug   Oct »