Archive | January 4th, 2016




    By: Robert Reich

    According to an investigation by the New York Times, half of all the money contributed so far to Democratic and Republican presidential candidates—$176 million—has come from just 158 families, along with the companies they own or control.

    Who are these people?  They’re almost entirely white, rich, older and male—even though America is becoming increasingly black and brown, young, female, and with declining household incomes.

    According to the report, most of these big contributors live in exclusive neighborhoods where they have private security guards instead of public police officers, private health facilities rather than public parks and pools.

    Most send their kids and grand kids to elite private schools rather than public schools. They fly in private jets and get driven in private limousines rather than rely on public transportation.

    They don’t have to worry about whether Social Security or Medicare will be there for them in their retirement because they’ve put away huge fortunes. They don’t have to worry about climate change because they don’t live in flimsy homes that might collapse in a hurricane, or where water is scarce, or food supplies endangered.

    It’s doubtful that most of these 158 are contributing to these campaigns out of the goodness of their hearts or a sense of public responsibility. They’re largely making investments, just the way they make other investments.

    And the success of these investments depends on whether their candidates get elected, and will lower their taxes even further, expand tax loopholes, shred health and safety and environmental regulations so their companies can make even more money, and cut Social Security and Medicare and programs for the poor—and thereby allow these 158 and others like them to secede even more from the rest of our society.

    These people are, after all, are living in their own separate society, and they want to elect people who will represent them, not the rest of us.

    How much more evidence do we need that our system is in crisis? How long before we make it work for all of us instead of a handful at the top? We must not let them buy our democracy. We must get big money out of politics. Publicly-finance political campaigns, disclose all sources of campaign funds, and reverse “Citizens United.”


There would have been “something wrong” if the US had not bugged Naziyahu

Israeli occupied Congress

By Alan Hart

When Republican Representative Devin Nunes informed the media that the House Intelligence Committee of which he is chairman will look into the Wall Street Journal report that the US spied on (bugged) Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the discussions and negotiations for a nuclear agreement with Iran, he said: “We’re going to play this right down the middle and determine whether or not somebody did something wrong.”

The case for the assertion proclaimed by my headline is as follows.

Though the White House declined as it always does to comment on specific intelligence activities carried out by the National Security Agency (NSA), a spokesman for it did say this: “The US doesn’t spy overseas unless there’s a specific, validated national security reason to do so.” And this principle, the spokesman also emphasised, “applies both to world leaders and regular citizens.”

False flags and traitors

The truth is that the Obama administration’s decision to bug Netanyahu’s private conversations, including those he had with members of the US Congress, was driven by genuine national security concerns.

The plain fact of the matter is that a nuclear agreement with Iran was in the real and best interests of all: America and the other members of the P5+1 and all the nations and peoples of the whole world, including (although most of them are too brainwashed by Zionist propaganda to understand why) Israel’s Jews; and Netanyahu was plotting with the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress to prevent President Obama concluding an agreement.

 Netanyahu was plotting with the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress to prevent President Obama concluding an agreement [with Iran].

That alone was enough to justify bugging Netanyahu’s private conversations but some in the Obama administration, including no doubt the president himself, had additional security concerns. They could not and did not rule out the possibility that a desperate Netanyahu might organise a false flag operation – an Israeli attack on American interests somewhere which, with the assistance of fabricated and planted evidence, would be blamed on Iran.

Devin has asked the director of national intelligence and the head of the NSA to come to Capitol Hill next week to be questioned about the bugging.

It’s more than likely that some of Obama’s enemies in Congress will then go into battle with the argument that even if the president had a lawful and legitimate reason or reasons to bug Israel’s prime minister, the bugging should not have included listening to the conversations of members of Congress. That, some may assert, would be unconstitutional, an abuse of presidential power and raises the question of whether or not Obama should be impeached.

But such an argument could easily be dismissed for the nonsense it is.

Another plain fact is that those in Congress, mainly Republicans, who were conspiring with Netanyahu to prevent Obama reaching an agreement with Iran were putting Israel’s interests (Netanyahu’s conception of them) before America’s. In other words they were traitors.

“An alliance with a dark heart of cynicism”

That being so, the Obama administration would have been complicit by default in their treachery if it had not bugged the conversations members of Congress had with Netanyahu.

As Eamon Murphy commented in an article published by Mondoweiss, the picture that emerges of America’s special relationship with Israel is of “an alliance with a dark heart of cynicism, which has implications far beyond the concluded talks with Tehran”.

I agree but it has always been so. As I document through the three volumes of the American edition of my book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, another plain fact is that no American president has ever trusted Israel’s leaders.

Remember USS Liberty

And the best of many examples of why not is what happened on 8 June 1967, the fourth day of the Six Days war of that year (a war of Israeli aggression, not self-defence.)

The Johnson administration gave Israel the green light to attack Egypt and only Egypt. The understanding conveyed to Israel was that it was not to grab the Jordanian West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights. At least some in the Johnson administration were aware that doing so was the intention of Israel’s one-eyed war lord of the time, Defence Minister Moshe Dayan.

It was mainly because some in the Johnson administration did not trust him that it stationed the American spy ship, the USS Liberty, off the Gaza Strip and Israel’s coast to listen Israeli military communications. The American assumption was that if Dayan ordered a redeployment of Israeli forces that indicated he was intending to take the West Bank (and after that the Golan Heights), the USS Liberty would send a warning message to prompt Johnson to telephone Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol and say to him something like: “Don’t do it! Order your defence minister order to stop!”

Dayan was aware of that possible scenario and that’s why he ordered Israeli forces to attack the USS Liberty, killing 34 of its crew and wounding 171 as well as taking out its listening and communicating facilities. He needed the Johnson administration to be deaf and blind to what he intended before it was too late for it to stop him.

I have often written and said that with enemies like the Arabs (regimes and elites) Israel doesn’t need friends.

I think it can also be said that with friends like the leaders of the Zionist (not Jewish) state of Israel, America doesn’t need enemies.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on There would have been “something wrong” if the US had not bugged Naziyahu

What to Do About Disloyal Corporations


Image result for Disloyal Corporations PHOTO

Photo by

By: Robert Reich

Just like that, Pfizer has decided it’s no longer American. It plans to link up with Ireland’s Allergan and move its corporate headquarters from New York to Ireland.

That way it will pay less tax. Ireland’s tax rate is less than half that of United States. Ian Read, Pfizer’s chief executive, told the Wall Street Journal the higher tax rate in the United States caused Pfizer to compete “with one hand tied behind our back.”

Read said he’d tried to lobby Congress to reduce the corporate tax rate (now 35 percent) but failed, so Pfizer is leaving.

Such corporate desertions from the United States (technically called “tax inversions”) will cost the rest of us taxpayers some $19.5 billion over the next decade, estimates Congress’s joint committee on taxation.

Which is fueling demands from Republicans to lower the corporate tax rate.

Donald Trump wants it to be 15 percent.

Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz want to eliminate the corporate tax altogether. (Why this would save the Treasury more money than further corporate tax inversions is unclear.)

Rather than lower corporate tax rates, an easier fix would be to take away the benefits of corporate citizenship from any company that deserts America.

One big benefit is the U.S. patent system that grants companies like Pfizer longer patent protection and easier ways to extend it than most other advanced economies.

In 2013, Pfizer raked in nearly $4 billion on sales of the Prevnar 13 vaccine, which prevents diseases caused by pneumococcal bacteria, from ear infections to pneumonia – for which Pfizer is the only manufacturer.

Other countries wouldn’t allow their patent systems to justify such huge charges.

Neither should we – especially when Pfizer stops being an American company.

The U.S. government also protects the assets of American corporations all over the world.

In the early 2000s, after a Chinese company replicated Pfizer’s formula for Viagra, the U.S. Trade Representative put China on a “priority watch list” and charged China with “inadequate enforcement” against such piracy.

Soon thereafter the Chinese backed down. Now China is one of Pfizer’s major sources of revenue.

But when Pfizer is no longer American, the United States should stop protecting its foreign assets.

Nor should Pfizer reap the benefits when the United States goes to bat for American corporations in trade deals.

In the Pacific Partnership and the upcoming deal with the European Union, the interests of American pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer – gaining more patent protection abroad, limiting foreign release of drug data, and preventing other governments controlling drug prices – have been central points of contention.

And Pfizer has been one of the biggest beneficiaries. From now on, it shouldn’t be.

U.S. pharmaceutical companies rake in about $12 billion a year because Medicare isn’t allowed to use its huge bargaining power to get lower drug prices.

But a non-American company like Pfizer shouldn’t get any of this windfall. From now on, Medicare should squeeze every penny it can out of Pfizer.

American drug companies also get a free ride off of basic research done by the National Institutes of Health.

Last year the NIH began a collaboration with Pfizer’s Centers for Therapeutic Innovation  – subsidizing Pfizer’s appropriation of early scientific discoveries for new medications.

In the future, Pfizer shouldn’t qualify for this subsidy, either.

Finally, non-American corporations face restrictions on what they can donate to U.S. candidates for public office, and how they can lobby the U.S. government.

Yet Pfizer has been among America’s biggest campaign donors and lobbyists.

In 2014, it ponied up $2,217,066 to candidates (by contrast, its major competitor Johnson & Johnson spent $755,000). And Pfizer spent $9,493,000 on lobbyists.

So far in the 2016 election cycle, it’s been one of the top ten corporate donors.

Pfizer’s political generosity has paid off – preventing Congress from attaching a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, or from making it easier for generics to enter the market, or from using Medicare’s bargaining power to reduce drug prices.

And the company has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the candidacies of state attorneys general in order to get favorable settlements in cases brought against it.

But by deserting America, Pfizer relinquishes its right to influence American politics.

If Pfizer or any other American corporation wants to leave America to avoid U.S. taxes, that’s their business.

But they should no longer get any of the benefits of American citizenship – because they’ve stopped paying for them.

Posted in USAComments Off on What to Do About Disloyal Corporations

Why Hate Speech by Presidential Candidates is Despicable


Image result for ben carson cartoon

”Racist Nigger Ben Carson”

By: Robert Reich

On Wednesday, 14 people were killed at a social services agency in San Bernardino, California. The gunman apparently was Muslim and was influenced by ISIS.

In light of this, and of the Paris bombings, the FBI reports a sharp upturn in threats on mosques and to Muslims in the U.S.

In Connecticut, police are investigating reports of multiple gunshots fired at a local mosque. Two Tampa Bay-area mosques in Florida received threatening phone messages. One of the calls threatened a firebombing.

In an Austin suburb, leaders of the Islamic Center of Pflugerville discovered feces and torn pages of the Qur’an.

The hatefulness and hateful responses extend beyond the tragedies in Paris and San Bernardino.

Two weeks ago, a gunman killed three at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado. Later, in explaining his motive to the police, he said “no more baby parts” – a reference to videos that wrongly claimed that Planned Parenthood was selling body parts of fetuses.

It’s a lie that Carly Fiorinia continues to restate.

A week before the shooting at Planned Parenthood, gunmen opened fire on Black Lives Matter protesters in Minneapolis who were demanding action against two white Minneapolis police officers involved in the fatal shooting of Jamar Clark, 24, an unarmed black man, on Nov. 15.

Evidence shows the accused shooters were linked to white supremacist organizations operating online.

Hate crimes will never be eliminated entirely. A small number of angry, deranged people inevitably will vent their rage at groups they find threatening. Some will do so violently.

But such hatefulness is being encouraged by Republican politicians.

Perpetrators of hate crimes often take their cues from what they hear in the media. And the recent inclination of some politicians to use inflammatory rhetoric is contributing to a climate of hate and fear.

Some candidates are fomenting animus toward Muslims.

Huckabee says he’d “like for Barack Obama to resign if he’s not going to protect America and instead protect the image of Islam.”

Ben Carson says allowing Syrian refugees into the United States is analogous to exposing a neighborhood to a “rabid dog.” Last September Carson said he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.”

Trump has advocated registering all Muslims in the United States and putting American mosques under surveillance.

He’s also claimed that Muslim-Americans in New Jersey celebrated by the “thousands” when the World Trade Center was destroyed on September 11, 2001, although there’s no evidence to back that claim.

Indeed, much of Trump’s campaign is built on hatefulness. And Trump not only fails to condemn violence he provokes but finds excuses for it.

After a handful of white supporters recently punched and attempted to choke a Black Lives Matter protester at one of his campaign rallies, Trump said “maybe he should have been roughed up.”

Trump began his campaign last June by falsely alleging Mexican immigrants are “bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

Weeks later in Boston, two brothers beat with a metal poll and urinated on a 58-year-old homeless Mexican national. They subsequently told the police “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.“

Instead of condemning that brutality, Trump excused it by saying“people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again.”

I’m not suggesting any presidential candidate is directly to blame for hate crimes erupting across America.

But by virtue of their standing as presidential candidates, their words carry particular weight. They have a responsibility to calm people with the truth rather than stir them up with lies.

In suggesting that the staff of Planned Parenthood, Muslims, Black Lives Matter protesters, and Mexican immigrants are guilty of venal acts, these candidates are fanning the flames of hate.

Posted in USAComments Off on Why Hate Speech by Presidential Candidates is Despicable

Zionist Sisi sends ambassador to the Nazi regime


Image result for president SISI cartoons

Zionist puppet SISI

Egypt has sent a new ambassador to the Nazi regime after a three-year lapse in diplomatic presence in the occupied territories.

Nazi foreign ministry said on Sunday that Egyptian ambassador Hazem Khairat arrived on Friday.

Nazi Prime Minister Benjamin Naziyahu welcomed Khairat’s arrival at his cabinet meeting on Sunday and said this would enable both sides to further “strengthen relations.”

Khairat previously served as Egypt’s ambassador to Chile and the Arab country’s envoy to the Arab League. He was appointed as the ambassador to the Nazi regime by  Zionist puppet Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in June, but was deployed on Friday.

Khairat is the first residing Egyptian ambassador in Tel Aviv since former president Mohammed Morsi recalled Cairo’s last ambassador in November 2012 in protest to the Nazi regime’s aggression against Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip.

Relations between Egypt and the Nazi regime have been growing since Zionist puppet Sisi took power in the north African country in 2014 after orchestrating a military coup against Morsi, Egypt’s first democratically elected president, a year earlier.

Nazi regime appointed Haim Koren as its envoy to Cairo in 2014 and opened its embassy in September 2015 after a four-year closure due to security concerns.

The embassy was closed on September 9, 2011, after thousands of protesters stormed the compound following the killing of six Egyptian policemen in August the same year by Nazi forces during cross-border operations on Egyptian soil in the Sinai Peninsula.

Last summer, Zionist puppet Sisi launched a project to flood the area along its border with Gaza Strip to destroy the underground lifeline tunnels linking Egypt to the Palestinian territory.

In mid-June 2015, the Zionist puppet Sisi military said it had demolished nearly 1,430 underground tunnels in 18 months.

The Egyptian army claimed that the tunnels were “used by terrorists and criminals” to smuggle weapons to militants in the Sinai Peninsula. The World Food Program (WFP), however, said in a report in February 2014 that the tunnels have represented “the main supply and commercial trade route for goods into Gaza” since 2007.

Dozens of people, mostly Palestinians, have lost their lives during the destruction of tunnels, which has intensified since the 2013 ouster of Egypt’s first democratically-elected President Mohamed Morsi.

Gaza has been under the Nazi air, sea and land blockade since 2007, causing a decline in living standards, unemployment and unrelenting poverty.

The Rafah border crossing, the sole crossing point between Egypt and Gaza, has also largely been shut since the 2013 coup in the African country.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, EgyptComments Off on Zionist Sisi sends ambassador to the Nazi regime

‘Saudis seek Muslim division by Nimr execution’

Image result for Nimr Baqir al-Nimr PHOTO
Press TV

Press TV has conducted an interview with political analyst Ibrahim Mousavi to talk about the Al Saud regime in Saudi Arabia’s execution of Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr.

Below is a rough transcription of that interview:

Press TV: Let’s start with one of the main points of [secretary general of Lebanon’s resistance movement Hezbollah] Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah’s speech which basically he is talking about how all Muslims should be diligent and not to basically play the game that the Saudis have initiated, trying to ignite division in the Muslim community and that everyone must remain united.

Mousavi: Indeed this is a very important message at this juncture of history and this sensitive moment when Seyyed Nasrallah talks we hear the voice of reason, we hear the voice of wisdom, we hear the voice of responsibility. Those who are responsible for the Ummah, for the nation, for the people, they should be very aware of what they say, when they say it, and to who they say. The message that should be sent is that this unjust ruling of the Saudi dynasty, those supporters of Takfiri groups, the oppression against the Saudis whether Shia Muslims or non-Shia Muslims—and we know very well that when we talk about the Saudis who are outside the country—you go to Europe, you see how many have applied for political asylum. So we are talking here about a national crisis that is taking place when the Saudi rulers are oppressing their own people.

They are trying at the same time to say that this is a conflict between the Shias and the Sunnis. The execution of Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr and the execution of every single Yemeni individual regardless of his age, regardless of his belonging on the factional and conventional level, tells you that this is a kind of attack against humanity.

That’s why it is very important to highlight the direction of the message. The message that we should not be misled by what they are trying to do. They are trying to sow the seeds of discord and sedition among the people, among the Arabs, among the Muslims. We should not be in any way under the pressure or under the impact of the Saudi propaganda.

Press TV: And Mr. Mousavi, another point, basically that Seyed Hasan Nasrallah also talked about the desperation of the Saudi regime and that with the spilling of the blood of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr and other innocent people, it is the beginning of the end of the Saudi regime. Your perspective on that point sir.

Mousavi: This is again, a very clear point and a very evident point. We know very well that when you are strong enough you can handle your problems and go through. When a kingdom, when a dynasty that has tens and hundreds of billions of dollars that they spend in order to annihilate Yemen and the civilization in Yemen and the Yemeni people. When they have all these F-16s that are being supplied to them by the Americans. Why would they go and execute Sheikh Nimr if they are afraid of the voice of one man when they wage wars against their neighbors? When they go and invade Bahrain against the will of the Bahraini people, trying to support the regime of Al Khalifa? When they go and send booby-trapped cars to Iraq? When they interfere in here and there. When they try to topple the authorized and legitimate government in Syria by supporting Takfiri groups?

This all tells you that when they go to these wars and try to execute a man who had always been preaching for change, for political rights, via peaceful means, via political means, this tells you that they are very weak. And yes indeed this is a very important indicative, this is very important and evident reason that proves that they are very weak and they are accumulating more and more mistakes that is going to bring their end in a more hasty way than expected.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on ‘Saudis seek Muslim division by Nimr execution’

Shoah’s pages