Jeb Bush, James Baker, and the Pro-I$raHell Mega-Donors


Posted by Stephen Sniegoski

What is the issue, that gets little attention in the mainstream, is that the presidential candidates find it necessary to pay obeisance to ultra-powerful individuals who represent the interests of Israel, not the United States.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush waits backstage before speaking at the Iowa Agriculture Summit, Saturday, March 7, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush waits backstage before speaking at the Iowa Agriculture Summit, Saturday, March 7, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

The Making of the Republicans’ Middle East Policy

by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski


Addressing leading Manhattan financiers at a private meeting in the Metropolitan Republican Club on May 5, Jeb Bush (who is doing everything possible to act like a presidential candidate without yet officially making such an announcement) stated that former President George W. Bush (his brother) is his major advisor on Israel and the Middle East.

[1]The mainstream media has been focusing on a related utterance—Jeb’s initial claim that he would have done the same thing as his brother in attacking Iraq, a claim that he has been in the process of qualifying and requalifying. But it is the broader claim that deserves more analysis. It is equally outrageous just on its face, but there is much more to it.For while the mainstream media is analyzing in microscopic detail Jeb’s stumbling over his Iraq war response, it naturally ignores that third rail in contemporary American politics, the power of the Israel lobby.

Now anyone who would admit relying on foreign policy advice from Dubya should be automatically excluded from any position of authority, and most certainly from the presidency. Upon entering the White House, George W. Bush admitted he did not know much about the Middle East and most of what he would claim to be true has been thoroughly disproven. More than this, however, there is no evidence that George W. had much knowledge of anything. The late political commentator Christopher Hitchens described George W. in 2000 as

“unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things.”[2]

To understand the meaning here it is necessary to understand the context in which Jeb Bush was acting. The event was organized by GOP mega-donor Paul Singer,whom antiwar commentator Justin Raimondo aptly describes as

“one of the richest men in the world, whose financial interests and devotion to Israel combine to produce what can only be characterized as a singular obsession. ”[3]

Paul Singer’s billions are feeding America a diet of lies -- Justin Raimonda, Chief Editor,

Paul Singer’s billions are feeding America a diet of lies — Justin Raimondo, Chief Editor,

The following is an abbreviated litany of Singer’s neocon-Israel lobby credentials: member of the board of directors of Commentary magazine and the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former member of the board of directors of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs; and major funder of the Middle East Media Research Institute, Center for Security Policy, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Moreover, his foundation, the Paul E. Singer Foundation, has funded the American Enterprise Institute (which has been called “neocon central”) and The Israel Project.[4]

It is apparent that the rather intelligent (compared to George W.) Jeb is not going to rely on his know-nothing older brother for advice, but rather wanted to signal that he would follow his brother’s policies towards Israel and the Middle East and rely on advisors who were very similar, if not the same: namely the neocons.[5] The special reason Jeb considered it necessary to identify with his brother was to fend off fears on the part of the Israel lobby arising from the fact that James Baker had been included on a long list of possible political consultants released by the Jeb Bush team in February. Baker is a very close friend of the Bush family, and as secretary of state under the elder Bush, he had pursued policies diametrically opposed to the wishes of Israel and its American lobby.

I am sometimes asked if I have any regrets about publishing our book. As of today, my only regret is that it is not being published now. After the humiliations that Obama has endured at the hands of the Israel Lobby and the Hagel circus, we would sell even more copies and we would not face nearly as much ill-informed criticism. — Stephen Walt, co-author of the book.

I am sometimes asked if I have any regrets about publishing our book. As of today, my only regret is that it is not being published now. After the humiliations that Obama has endured at the hands of the Israel Lobby and the Hagel circus, we would sell even more copies and we would not face nearly as much ill-informed criticism. — Stephen Walt, co-author of the book.

The Israel lobby’s animosity to Baker had been rekindled in March when the former secretary of state, in a speech at a J Street (a liberal Zionist organization) meeting, castigated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of a two-state solution and his policy of expanding Jewish settlements on the West Bank, which would be a vital part of any viable Palestinian state.

Faced with the outrage of wealthy pro-Likud Republicans, Bush quickly authorized a spokeswoman to state that Bush disagreed with Baker’s speech and that the unannounced candidate was actually giving “unwavering” support for both Israel and Netanyahu.[6]

Peter Baker in the New York Times wrote that “[a]lthough Bush had authorized his spokeswoman to publicly differ . . . Mr. Adelson and other pro-Israel donors are said to remain incensed at Mr. Bush for not stopping the speech or dumping Mr. Baker.”[7] Baker intensified the problem for Jeb Bush when on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN program Global Public Square(televised on April 5), he stated that he was “going to be working hard for Jeb Bush” to become president.[8]

To understand what makes Baker such a demonic figure to hardline members of the Israel Lobby, a quick flash back to Bush the Elder’s administration is needed.

George H. W. Bush, who entered office in 1989, continued the Reagan administration’s policy of providing military hardware and advanced technology to Iraq, which it had begun during the Iran-Iraq war, in the belief that this would cause Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein to support the status quo. With the end of that war, however, tensions between Israel and Iraq worsened. Israel, which perceived Iraq as its greatest enemy, had covertly aided Iran in the aforementioned war.

American Media Barons

US Media Barons

The U.S. media, especially the pro-Israel media, was reporting that Iraq was rapidly producing nuclear materials, chemical weapons, and guided missiles. For example, U.S. News and World Report, a major news magazine at the time, owned by the pro-Israel Mortimer Zuckerman, titled its June 4, 1990 cover story about Saddam Hussein, “The World’s Most Dangerous Man.”[9]

The Bush administration, however, firmly resisted efforts to alter its relatively benign policy towards Iraq until the latter’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 when it quickly performed a complete volte-face. Even then pro-Israel war hawks saw Baker as trying to temper American policy, first in terms of allowing Saddam a way to avoid being attacked by the U.S.and then, once the actual fighting started in January 1991, in refusing to go all out and remove Saddam and destroy Iraq’s military capacity, which reflected Israel’s goal of removing a regional rival.[10]In his 1995 memoirs, James Baker explained why the United States did not pursue such a hardline position, maintaining that the administration’s “overriding strategic concern in the [first] Gulf war was to avoid what we often referred to as the Lebanonization of Iraq, which we believed would create a geopolitical nightmare.”[11]

Obviously, this “political nightmare” was brought about by the George W. Bush administration, led by the pro-Israel neocons, and was exactly what the Israeli Likudniks sought in their goal of weakening all of their country’s enemies—one person’s nightmare is another person’s dream.

Zionist Architects of Iraq war

Zionist Architects of Iraq war

Problems between Israel and the United States also intensified over Israel’s housing expansion on the West Bank, which was undermining Baker’s effort to bring about a solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict. In line with most members of the traditional foreign policy establishment, Baker saw the solution of this conflict as essential to establishing stability in the entire Middle East region since it was the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians that created a major Arab grievance exploited by radical anti-American elements.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a hardline Likudnik, had insisted on January 14, 1990, that the influx of Soviet Jews necessitated Israel’s retention of the West Bank. On March 1, 1990, Baker stipulated that American loan guarantees to Israel for new housing for the Soviet immigrants hinged on the cessation of settlements in the occupied territories. And on March 3, President Bush adamantly declared that there should be no more settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem.[12]

Jimmy Carter  Peace Not Apartheid  490 x 284

Jimmy Carter unveils truth about Israel on Hardball

Shamir, however, rejected the Bush administration’s entire effort to bring about a solution to the Palestinian problem. And Israel’s American supporters, especially of the right, were thoroughly on the side of the Israeli prime minister.[13]New York Times pro-Israel columnist William Safire complained that

“George Bush is less sympathetic to Israel’s concerns than any U.S. President in the four decades since that nation’s birth.”

Safire continued:

“Mr. Bush has long resisted America’s special relationship with Israel. His Secretary of State, James Baker, delights in sticking it to the Israeli right. His national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and chief of staff, John Sununu, abet that mind-set.”[14]

While American pressure on Israel had abated during the move to war with Iraq, with the end of that conflict the Bush administration returned with vigor to its pre-war effort of trying to curb Israeli housing expansion in the occupied territories. It focused on a demand that Israel stop constructing new settlements in the occupied territories as a condition for receiving $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for the resettlement of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union.

Growing Israeli Settlements in Occupied Palestine

Growing Israeli Settlements in Occupied Palestine

Despite Washington’s objections, Israel had launched a building boom in the occupied territories, intended by Shamir’s rightist government to ensure permanent Israeli control there. The plan would boost the Jewish settler population by 50 percent in two years. Asked in early April 1991 how Israel would respond to a U.S. request to freeze Jewish settlement activity, Ariel Sharon, then the housing minister, adamantly stated that “Israel has always built, is building and will in future build in Judea, Samaria [biblical names for the West Bank] and the Gaza Strip.”[15]

Settlements in West Bank (Photo : Dudi Vaknin)

Settlements in West Bank (Photo : Dudi Vaknin)

In May 1991, Secretary Baker harshly condemned the Jewish settlements in testimony before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, asserting that “I don’t think that there is any bigger obstacle to peace.”[16]

Shamir’s Likud government and Israel’s American supporters strongly resisted the Bush administration’s efforts. In his September 12, 1991 news conference, Bush went before the television cameras to ask Congress to delay consideration of the $10 billion in loan guarantees being sought by Shamir. Bush dared to speak directly of the pro-Israel pressure on this measure, saying that

“I’m up against some powerful political forces, but I owe it to the American people to tell them how strongly I feel about the deferral. . . . I heard today there was something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill working the other side of the question. We’ve got one lonely little guy down here doing it.”[17]

Since the lobbyists were obviously lobbying for Israel and the “lonely little guy” was the president of the United States, George H. W. Bush was essentially saying that the Israel lobby in the United States was more powerful than the president, at least on issues dealing with Israel, which was something that no mainstream person had ever dared to state in public.

Jewish-Americans of almost all persuasions, not just hardline Zionists, were enraged by the President’s statement, assuming that Bush was tapping into latent anti-Semitism,[18]though he was only referring to the lobby for a foreign country.

A poll showing that 86 percent of the American people supported the president on the housing issue might have made some members of the Bush administration, including James Baker, overly complacent about Bush’s ability to withstand an all-out onslaught by the Israel lobby.

When, in a private conversation, the danger of alienating Jewish Americans was broached to Secretary of State Baker, he was alleged to have uttered that most taboo-shattering of profanities: “F*ck the Jews. They didn’t vote for us.”[19] Obviously, the publication of this alleged statement greatly intensified the opposition of Jewish Americans to the Bush administration, and especially towards Baker. As an interesting side note that would seem to militate against any charge of anti-Semitism, J. J. Goldberg in Jewish Power: Inside the Jewish Establishment pointed out:

“In 1991, at the height of the Bush administration’s confrontation with Israel, no fewer than seven of the nineteen assistant secretaries in the State Department were Jews.”[20]

Bush’s popularity, however, turned out to be far less than solid. And as the 1992 presidential election approached, the Bush administration, seeing its popularity melt away, would try to mend fences with its pro-Israel critics. In July, Bush announced that the U.S. would provide the loan guarantees after all. His concession won him no pro-Israel support. Bush, of course, went down to defeat in his quest for a second term to Bill Clinton, who was backed by AIPAC with even some neocons defecting to him, and those who remained loyal to Bush did so in a lukewarm fashion. One of Bush’s remaining neocon backers, Daniel Pipes, acknowledged the difficulties in supporting the president.

“If there’s a lot of agreement on anything this election year,” Pipes wrote, “it’s that friends of Israel should not vote to re-elect George Bush. The mere mention of his name in Jewish circles evinces strong disappointment, even anger.”[21]

Jewish anger toward George H. W. Bush, however, paled compared to that directed toward James Baker.[22]

Now to return to the present. At the May 5, 2015, meeting, Jeb Bush said that he respected Baker but maintained that he was not part of his foreign-policy team and that the list of figures made public in February, which included Baker, was not indicative of the people he consults when he considers issues related to Israel. Jeb Bush also publicly embraced Israel’s Middle East policy, writing a piece in the National Journal condemning Obama’s talks with Iran as “risky” and saying that White House comments on Israeli leaders are “no way to treat an ally.”[23]



However, it is not simply Jeb Bush but all Republican candidates who are paying obeisance not simply to Israel but also to Netanyahu’s policies.  An article in the New York Times by Peter Baker was appropriately labeled,

“For G.O.P., Support for Israel Becomes New Litmus Test.”[24]

In a reference to the New York Times article, neocon luminary Bill Kristol tweeted on March 25, in one of his infrequent strays into the domain of truth, that “Bibi would probably win the Republican nomination if it were legal.”[25]

What has caused the Republican Party to be so infatuated with Likudnik Israel?   The cause usually given in the mainstream media, when this issue is addressed at all, is the Christian evangelicals.

Political commentator Jim Lobe, however, depicts the role of the big money pro-Israel donors as paramount in shaping the Middle East positions of Republican presidential aspirants. “Now, it may be,” Lobe opines, “that Bush feels he has to say such things in order to appeal to the Republican base constituencies, including ardent Christian Zionists who are most likely to vote in the party’s presidential primaries.

But I sense that this is more about campaign finance and wooing [Sheldon] Adelson and very wealthy colleagues, such as Paul Singer, in the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Readers of this blog, of course, remember last year’s so-called ‘Sheldon Primary’ at Adelson’s Venetian casino resort in Las Vegas where a sizable number of presidential hopefuls ‘kissed the ring’ of a man who probably contributed more money to defeating Obama in 2012 than any other.

It was also where Chris Christie, that tough guy from New Jersey, felt obliged to personally apologize to Adelson for referring to the West Bank as ‘occupied territories.’”[26]

For Adelson, Koch brothers, buying a politician is good business.

For Adelson, Koch brothers, buying a politician is good business.

The actions of Jeb Bush would seem to confirm Lobe’s view that support for Israel has more to do with the pro-Zionist mega-donors than the Christian evangelicals. For Bush simply does not kowtow to the Christian evangelicals to the same degree that he does to the Israel lobby magnates. For instance, in regard to same sex marriage, the opposition to which is a key issue for conservative evangelicals, Bush has two public supporters of that issue, David Kuchel and Tim Miller, on his team. And it has been reported that when Bush announces his presidential run, Kochel is slotted to lead his national campaign and Miller would be the communications director. However, despite strong criticism about these two individuals from evangelicals, Bush has resisted removing them even though they are far closer to holding positions where they could influence his policies than would have been Baker, whose name was merely on a list that included numerous individuals.[27]

In sum, it would seem that Bush and other Republican candidates face a difficult but not insurmountable task in trying to win over the hardline pro-Zionist mega-donors without alienating a significant number of the Republican primary voters opposed to unnecessary wars. The unexpected Baker brouhaha caught Bush and his team unprepared. Baker obviously carries weight in the mainstream, being selected by Congress to head the Iraq Study Group in 2006. Moreover, as a close friend of the Bush family, it would seem quite reasonable for him to be listed as one of the foreign policy experts behind Bush—and it might even raise questions if he were omitted.

James Baker III served as Secretary of State in the George H. W. Bush administration.

James Baker III served as Secretary of State in the George H. W. Bush administration.

It was the outright fear of being rejected by the mega-donors that caused Bush and his team to focus on the immediate problem and have him make some unqualified statements that have caused political trouble.

But backtracking, qualifying previous statements, and holding outright contrary positions at the same time is quite common for political candidates. And successful presidential candidates tend to be those who best manage to bridge over seemingly contrary positions. Since it is still very early in the 2016 campaign, there is no reason to think that the Jeb Bush team would not be able to do this.

In short, what has been made a major issue by the mainstream media is really a non-issue.

What is the issue, that gets little attention in the mainstream, is that the presidential candidates find it necessary to pay obeisance to ultra-powerful individuals who represent the interests of Israel, not the United States.

George Washington in his Farewell Address wrote of the grave danger posed by Americans who had such a “passionate attachment” to a foreign country; what exists now is a “passionate attachment”on steroids that undercuts American security.


For G.O.P., Support for Israel Becomes New Litmus Test


[1] Robert Costa and Matea Gold, “One of Jeb Bush’s top advisers on Israel: George W. Bush,” May 7, 2015,

[2] Molly Driskoll, “10 of the more memorable quotes from journalist and author Christopher Hitchens,” Christian Science Monitor

[3] Justin Raimondo, “Follow the Money,”, May 11, 2015,

[4]“Paul Singer,” Right Web, Last updated May 15, 2015,

[5]Ed O’Keefe, “The world according to Jeb Bush,” Washington Post, April 16, 2015,

[6] Jim Lobe, “Another Likud Republican: Jeb Bush Pledges ‘Unwavering’ Support for Bibi,” March 24, 2015, LobeLog,

[7]Peter Baker, “For G.O.P., Support for Israel Becomes New Litmus Test,” New York Times, March 27, 2015,

[8] Kevin Bohn, “James Baker’s Netanyahu comments cause headaches for Jeb Bush,” CNN, April 6, 2015,

[9] “The World’s Most Dangerous Man,” U.S. News and World Report, May 16, 2008 (story originally appeared in the June 4, 1990, issue of U.S.News & World Report),

[10] Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001), pp. 473-74, 483-84.

[11] James A. Baker III, with Thomas M. DeFrank, The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War, and Peace, 1989–1992(New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1995), p. 435.

[12]Steven Hurst, The Foreign Policy of the Bush Administration (London: Cassell, 1999), pp. 29-34, 72-76.


[14] William Safire, “Bush versus Israel,” New York Times, March 26, 1990, p. A-17.

[15]Tom Diaz, “Israelis aren’t making Baker’s job any easier,” Washington Times, April 8, 1991, p. A-9.

[16] Warren Strobel, “Baker condemns Israeli settlement policy,” Washington Times, May 23, 1991, p. A-8.

[17] George H. W. Bush, The President’s News Conference, September 12th, 1991, Public Papers of George Bush: 1989-1993, The American Presidency Project,; Warren Strobel, “Bush won’t back loan to Jewish state,” Washington Times, March 18, 1992, p. A-7; Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 218-23.

[18] J. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the Jewish Establishment (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1996), pp. xxii.

[19] Warren Strobel, “Bush won’t back loan to Jewish state,” Washington Times, March 18, 1992, p. A-7; Michael Hedge, “Israeli lobby president resigns over promises,” Washington Times, November 4, 1992, p. A-3; “Loan Guarantees for Israel,” Washington Times, September 11, 1992, p. F-2; Frank Gaffney, Jr., “Neocon job that begs for answers,” Washington Times, October 13, 1992, p. F-1; Andrew Borrowed, “Group counters Bush on Israel,”Washington Times, February 27, 1992, p. A-1; Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 218-23; Baker quoted in John Herman, The Rise of Neo-conservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs, 1945-1994 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), p. 197 

[20]J. J. Goldberg, p, 234.

[21] Daniel Pipes, “Bush, Clinton, and the Jews: A Debate,” Commentary, October, 1992,

[22]Saul Jay Singer, “George Bush, James Baker, and the Jews,” Jewish Press, March 12, 2015,

[23]Philip Weiss, “Jeb Bush bashes Iran talks as ‘foolish’ and hails Israeli settlements as ‘new apartment buildings in Jerusalem,’” Mondoweiss, March 25, 2015,

[24] Peter Baker, “For G.O.P., Support for Israel Becomes New Litmus Test,” March 27, 2015,

[25]Bill Kristol, “Bibi would probably win the Republican nomination if it were legal,” Twitter, March 28, 2015,

[26]Lobe, “Another Likud Republican: Jeb Bush Pledges ‘Unwavering’ Support for Bibi,” March 24, 2015,

[27] Ralph Halliwell, “Jeb Bush misfires with evangelicals over gay marriage supporters in inner circle,” Washington Times, May 5, 2015,;Jennifer Jacobs,“Iowa’s David Kochel goes all in for Jeb Bush,” Des Moines Register, January 29, 2015,

Posted in USA0 Comments

They say “PEACE” but it is really WAR


Posted by Andre Vltchek

In order to change the world, we have to first redefine all basic terms and meanings: freedom, democracy, and peace!

In Incheon, Republic of Korea, Secretary-General Ban opens the World Education Forum. Education minister Hwang Woo-yea (left) and UNESCO's Irina Bokova look on. UN Photo/Evan Schneider In Incheon, Republic of Korea, Secretary-General Ban opens the World Education Forum. Education minister Hwang Woo-yea (left) and UNESCO’s Irina Bokova look on. UN Photo/Evan Schneider

by Andre Vltchek 

They say “may peace prevail on earth”, but every night, there are fires burning in the terrible slums of Nairobi, Jakarta, Guatemala City and Mumbai.

The World Education Forum is now taking place in Seoul, South Korea. UNESCO and Korea organized this colorful event. Everyone is talking, others are singing, and a few are dancing.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, is talking peace, and the head of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, is talking peace.

Peace, peace, peace! It has been turned into one of those cliché words that are repeated in every political speech, words like “freedom” and “democracy”.

The military top brass claims it exists to defend peace. Leaders, who are giving orders to destroy entire nations, killing millions, demand peace.


Neocon economists, financing war and profiting from it, demand peace. It seems like, these days, whoever murders, bombs, mutilates and robs is obsessed with, peace.

Fed Gallery.

Fed Gallery.

So what is peace, really? Is it a state of existence in which there are no missiles flying and no bombs exploding? Is it only that?

In 2014, I worked on my documentary film for the Latin American television network, TeleSUR. I ended up filming in some of the toughest slums on earth, in Matare and Kibela, both located in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi. One of my “guides” had the nickname “Fire”.

Fire used to be a gangster. He had no other choice. He didn’t know any better when he was a child and everyone around him was a gangster, too. They had to be.

Nairobi - ready to kill. Photo credit: Andre Vltchek

Nairobi – ready to kill. Photo credit: Andre Vltchek

At one point, tired, he sat down at the curb. His calves were exposed. There were several scars from bullets, clearly visible.

“I feel old”, he said. He was only slightly over 30. “I used to have many friends here. Now I am alone. All my friends are dead.”

Officially, there is peace in Kenya.

For decades, Kenya functioned as a client state of the West, implementing a savage market regime, hosting foreign military bases. Billions of dollars were made here. But almost nowhere on earth is the misery more brutal than here.

Enormous Kibera slum. Photo credit: Andre Vltchek

Enormous Kibela slum. Photo credit: Andre Vltchek

Two years earlier, while filming my “Tumaini” near Kisumu city and the Uganda border, I saw entire hamlets standing empty like ghosts. The people had vanished, died – from AIDS and hunger. But it was still called peace.

Peace it was when the US military medics were operating under the open sky, on desperately poor and sick Haitians, in the notorious slum of Cité Soleil.

I saw and photographed a woman, laid on a makeshift table, having her tumor removed using only local anesthetics.

US medics, Haiti. Photo credit: Andre Vltchek

US medics, Haiti. Photo credit: Andre Vltchek

I asked the North American doctors, why is it like this? I knew there was a top-notch military facility two minutes away.

“This is as close as we get to real combat situation”, one doctor replied, frankly. “For us, this is great training.” 

Haiti woman being operated on by US military medics. Photo credit: Andre Vltchek

Haiti woman being operated on by US military medics. Photo credit: Andre Vltchek

After the surgery was over, the woman got up, and supported by her frightened husband, walked away towards the bus stop.

Back to peace…

It is not peace if a woman gets raped in the middle of the street, and while she is screaming for help, her neighbors are scared to even open their doors.

Haiti. Photo credit: Andre Vltchek

Haiti. Photo credit: Andre Vltchek

It is not peace when old people are dying, abandoned and surrounded by suddenly useless memories, totally alone.

It is not peace when the murder rate in some city or neighborhood reaches that of a war zone. It is not peace when life expectancy is hanging somewhere around 40 years.

It is not peace when people live in constant fear of losing their house, their job, and all basic necessities.

It is not peace when members of minorities are treated like animals, killed by police, discriminated against at every strep of their lives.

If someone asks me to define war, allowing me to use only one word, without even thinking I would reply “fear”.

It is not peace when society is petrified!

Peace, Mr. Ban Ki Moon, is that serene surface of the lake lost deep in the forest, so brilliantly depicted by your traditional artists.

Peace is when a mother sings a lullaby to her child, unhurriedly, offering her entire heart.

Peace is when people know that if they become ill there will be doctors ready to fight for their lives, free of charge, no matter what effort it takes, no matter what equipment it requires and what cost it incurs.

Peace is when human life matters more than anything else, much more than power and profits.

Peace is when every citizen knows that knowledge is free, and that it constitutes a basic human right. Peace is when knowledge is valued and respected and admired.

Peace is when women can leave their houses freely, without being terrified.

Peace is knowledge that somewhere there, in that big government building, in which sit decent human beings, not perfect, but decent, working hard to improve the welfare of the people.

Peace is faith that life is improving, that humanity is marching forward.

Peace is kindness. It is compassion and solidarity.

Compassion and Solidarity -  87-year-old former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (left) put volunteers half his age to shame by chipping in, alongside wife Rosalynn (right), to help build a series of one-room houses on the earthquake hit island of Haiti

Compassion and Solidarity – 87-year-old former U.S. President Jimmy Carter (left) put volunteers half his age to shame by chipping in, alongside wife Rosalynn (right), to help build a series of one-room houses on the earthquake hit island of Haiti

Peace is certainty that there are several basic certainties, and that there will be more of them with each coming year.

Peace is when the entire body relaxes, the mind opens and the heart begins beating regularly.

Peace is that smile which appears on our faces, when we know that something pleasant is ahead of us, or when we see the beautiful colors of pristine nature.

Peace is in beauty and in reciprocated love.

But above all, Peace is lack of fear.

Sometimes it is necessary to fight for peace. Sometimes many brave men and women have to die for peace because peace is also true freedom, and it is integrity. And freedom and integrity have their price: no despot wants to give them away for free.

The World Education Forum is a good venue to ask some pointed questions, and to straighten up the lexicon.

Education? Yes, of course, but what education, and education for whom? Education based on what ideals?

UNESCO is a great organization, with a brave, and proud past. It should not be allowed to sink to the level of other and servile UN agencies.

Ban Ki-moon should be challenged publicly! And so should be Jim Yong Kim, for taking dictates from the most violent and aggressive nations on earth. There is no time for politeness, anymore. Millions are dying. Peace, true peace, is being violated. Fake peace is promoted. Fake peace is what we are told to desire. 

Philosophy is not for dusty library shells. All of us are now obliged to analyze, to rethink essential concepts. In order to change the world, we have to first redefine all basic terms and meanings: freedom, democracy, and peace!

I want to live in peace, Mr. Ban Ki-moon! But not in the peace that you are promoting: not in the peace for those chosen few, not in a peace, which is sacrificing millions.

ICC BiBI graphics

There is one beautiful, truly stunning sister of Peace. She is often restrained, most of the time she has to hide. But without her, Peace will never be able to succeed. Her name is Justice!


Posted in USA0 Comments

U.S. Hosts Arms Bazaar at White House Arab Summit

Global Research
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry meet with GCC delegation at Camp David. (Photo: AP)

When the United States sells billions of dollars in sophisticated arms to Arab nations, they are conditioned on two key factors: no weapons with a qualitative military edge over Israel will ever be sold to the Arabs, nor will they receive any weapons that are not an integral part of the U.S. arsenal.

But against the backdrop of a White House summit meeting of Arab leaders at Camp David this week, the administration of President Barack Obama confessed it has dispensed with rule number two.

According to Colin Kahl, national security advisor to Vice-President Joe Biden, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) flies the most advanced U.S.-made F-16 fighter planes in the world.

“They’re more advanced than the ones our Air Force flies,” he told reporters at a U.S. State Department briefing early this week, without going into specifics.

The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia – which participated in the summit were, not surprisingly, promised more weapons, increased military training and a pledge to defend them against missile strikes, maritime threats and cyberattacks from Iran.

An equally important reason for beefing up security in the region is to thwart any attacks on GCC countries by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“I am reaffirming our ironclad commitment to the security of our Gulf partners,” President Obama told reporters at a news conference, following the summit Thursday.

But he left the GCC leaders disappointed primarily because the United States was not willing to sign any mutual defence treaties with the six Arab nations – modeled on the lines of similar treaties U.S. has signed with Japan and South Korea.

Still, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Kuwait (along with Pakistan) are designated “major non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) allies.”

Kahl told reporters: “This administration has worked extraordinarily closely with the Gulf states to make sure they had access to state-of-the-art armaments.”

He said that although the U.S. has not entertained requests for F-35s, described as the most advanced fighter plane with the U.S. Air Force, “but keep in mind under this administration we moved forward on a package for the Saudis that will provide them the most advanced F-15 aircraft in the region.”

Taken as a whole, Kahl said, the GCC last year spent nearly 135 billion dollars on their defence, and the Saudis alone spent more than 80 billion dollars.

In comparison, the Iranians spent something like 15 billion dollars on their defence, said Kahl, trying to allay the fears of GCC countries, which have expressed strong reservations about an impending nuclear deal the U.S. and other big powers are negotiating with Iran.

Still, arms suppliers such as France and Britain have been feverishly competing with the United States for a share of the rising arms market in the Middle East, with continued turmoil in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen.

Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher, Arms and Military Expenditure Programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), told IPS that GCC countries have long procured weapons from both the U.S. and several European countries.

Qatar is probably the one country in the GCC where U.S. military equipment makes up a low share of its military equipment and instead it has been more dependent on French, British and other European arms, he pointed out.

Last year, Qatar ordered a large amount of new arms from suppliers in Europe, the U.S. and Turkey, in which U.S. equipment was significantly more important than it had been in the decades before in Qatari arms procurement.

“None of the GCC countries has been mainly dependent on a single arms supplier in the past four to five decades. The U.S., UK and France have long been the main suppliers to the GCC, competing against each other,” he added.

In an article last week on the GCC summit, William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and a senior advisor to the Security Assistance Monitor, described it as “an arms fair, not diplomacy.”

He said the Obama administration, in its first five years in office, entered into formal agreements to transfer over 64 billion dollars in arms and defence services to GCC member states, with about three-quarters of that total going to Saudi Arabia.

He said items on offer to GCC states have included fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, radar planes, refueling aircraft, air-to-air missiles, armored vehicles, artillery, small arms and ammunition, cluster bombs, and missile defence systems.

On any given day, Kahl said, the United States has about 35,000 U.S. forces in the Gulf region.

“As I speak, the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group is there. The USS Normandy Guided Missile Cruiser, the USS Milius Aegis ballistic missile defense destroyer, and a number of other naval assets are in the region,” he said.

“And we have 10 Patriot batteries deployed to the Gulf region and Jordan, as well as AN/TPY-2 radar, which is an extraordinarily powerful radar to be able to track missiles fired basically from anywhere in the region.”

The mission of all of these forces, he said, ”is to defend our partners, to deter aggression, to maintain freedom of navigation, and to combat terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.”

Still, in the spreading Middle East arms market, it is business as usual both to the French and the British.

Wezeman told IPS Qatar has acquired the Rafale to replace its Mirage-2000 aircraft which France supplied about 20 years ago.

The UAE has been considering the purchase of Rafale to replace Mirage-2000 aircraft procured about 10 years ago from France.

Similarly Saudi Arabia has in the past decade ordered British Typhoon combat aircraft and U.S. F-15SAs, just like it ordered British Tornado combat aircraft and U.S. F-15Cs in the 1980s and 1990s.

Oman has recently ordered U.S. F-16s and British Typhoon aircraft to replace older U.S. F-16s and replace UK supplied Jaguar aircraft.

“The same arms acquisition patterns can be seen for land and naval military equipment. It would be a real change if the GCC countries would start large-scale procurement of arms from Russia and China. This has, however, not yet happened,” said Wezeman, who scrupulously tracks weapons sales to the Middle East.

He said access to certain technology has occasionally been one of several reasons for the GCC countries turning to Europe, as the United States tried to maintain a so-called ‘Qualitative Military Edge’ for Israel, in which it refused to supply certain military technology to Arab states which was considered particularly threatening to Israel.

He said for a while the U.S. was not willing to supply air launched cruise missiles with ranges of about 300 km to Arab states. Instead Saudi Arabia and the UAE turned to the UK and France for such weapons and the aircraft to integrate them on.

However, the U.S. has now become less restrictive in this regard and has agreed to supply certain types of cruise missiles to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Finally, what is particularly interesting is that U.S. officials once again emphasise the military imbalance in the Gulf region when mentioning that GCC states’ military spending is an estimated nine times higher than that of Iran (figures which are roughly confirmed by SIPRI data).

“This raises some major questions about the seeming lack of arms control in the region and the potential risks of further one-sided procurement of advanced weapons by GCC states,” he added.

Posted in Bahrain, Kuwait, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, USA0 Comments

New Military Spending Bill Expands Empire But Forbids Debate on War

Global Research
More than 50% of US Government Spending Goes to the Military

On Friday the House passed a massive National Defense Authorization for 2016 that will guarantee US involvement in more wars and overseas interventions for years to come. The Republican majority resorted to trickery to evade the meager spending limitations imposed by the 2011 budget control act – limitations that did not, as often reported, cut military spending but only slowed its growth.

But not even slower growth is enough when you have an empire to maintain worldwide, so the House majority slipped into the military spending bill an extra $89 billion for an emergency war fund. Such “emergency” spending is not addressed in the growth caps placed on the military under the 2011 budget control act. It is a loophole filled by Congress with Fed-printed money.

Ironically, a good deal of this “emergency” money will go to President Obama’s war on ISIS even though neither the House nor the Senate has debated – let alone authorized – that war! Although House leadership allowed 135 amendments to the defense bill – with many on minor issues like regulations on fire hoses – an effort by a small group of Representatives to introduce an amendment to debate the current US war in Iraq and Syria was rejected.

While squashing debate on ongoing but unauthorized wars, the bill also pushed the administration toward new conflicts. Despite the president’s unwise decision to send hundreds of US military trainers to Ukraine, a move that threatens the current shaky ceasefire, Congress wants even more US involvement in Ukraine’s internal affairs. The military spending bill included $300 million to directly arm the Ukrainian government even as Ukrainian leaders threaten to again attack the breakaway regions in the east. Does Congress really think US-supplied weapons killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine is a good idea?

The defense authorization bill also seeks to send yet more weapons into Iraq. This time the House wants to send weapons directly to the Kurds in northern Iraq without the approval of the Iraqi government. Although these weapons are supposed to be used to fight ISIS, we know from too many prior examples that they often find their way into the hands of the very people we are fighting. Also, arming an ethnic group seeking to break away from Baghdad and form a new state is an unwise infringement of the sovereignty of Iraq. It is one thing to endorse the idea of secession as a way to reduce the possibility of violence, but it is quite something else to arm one side and implicitly back its demands.

While the neocons keep pushing the lie that the military budget is shrinking under the Obama Administration, the opposite is true. As the CATO Institute pointed out recently, President George W. Bush’s average defense budget was $601 billion, while during the Obama administration the average has been $687 billion. This bill is just another example of this unhealthy trend.

Next year’s military spending plan keeps the US on track toward destruction of its economy at home while provoking new resentment over US interventionism overseas. It is a recipe for disaster. Let’s hope for either a presidential veto, or that on final passage Congress rejects this bad bill.

Posted in USA0 Comments

U.S. Secretary of State Kerry v. His Subordinate Nuland


Regarding Ukraine



U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, on May 12th, responding to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s assertions that Ukraine will retake Crimea and will conquer Donbass:

“I have not had a chance – I have not read the speech. I haven’t seen any context. I have simply heard about it in the course of today. But if indeed President Poroshenko is advocating an engagement in a forceful effort at this time, we would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be.”

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European & Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, as communicated by the U.S. State Department’s Press Office on May 15th, reiterating Poroshenko’s view:

“Assistant Secretary Nuland’s ongoing visit to Kyiv and her discussions with Prime Minister [Arseniy] Yatseniuk and President [Petro] Poroshenko reaffirm the United States’ full and unbreakable support for Ukraine’s government, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. We continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine and reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea, and all the other regions of Ukraine.”

Will John Kerry reprimand his subordinate for her contradicting what he, her boss, had said three days earlier? If not, then will President Barack Obama fire his Secretary of State John Kerry? If not, then will Victoria Nuland be fired? If not, then who is to trust anything that comes from the U.S. State Department, when the Secretary of State can be contradicted three days later by his subordinate, and both remain in their respective jobs?

Republicans are already preparing to weaken Kerry over this. The far-right news-site Frontpage Mag headlined on May 21st, John Kerry’s Seven Hours of Weakness in Russia, and condemned the “attempt by Kerry to re-set the ‘re-set’ button [on U.S. policy toward Russia] first pushed by his predecessor, Hillary Clinton.” The special subject of their ire: “The promise of ‘rolling back’ the mild sanctions regime the West imposed on Russia on account of Putin’s annexation of Crimea and support of separatist rebels was bandied about, if only Russia would behave in the future.” But winning changes in behavior is what international diplomacy is supposed to be all about — otherwise the State Department wouldn’t even be needed, and only the Pentagon would handle America’s foreign relations.

If Victoria Nuland stays in her job, then John Kerry will be neutered even if he’s not fired.

The only person with the power to fire Nuland is actually U.S. President Barack Obama. Perhaps the request for him to do that is already on his desk. If it’s not, then Kerry’s job is in jeopardy, because his diplomatic efforts can be obliterated by a subordinate and that subordinate will suffer no penalty for doing this. Nobody then would respect anything that the U.S. Secretary of State says, because it wouldn’t necessarily represent the President’s policies. If the Secretary of State isn’t backed up by the President, then the Secretary of State has no real power at all.

Posted in Ukraine, USA0 Comments

Meet the Real I$raHell Defense Force: the US Congress


I$raHell Gears


It started as a rather melancholy Friday afternoon in the West Bank. Nothing unusual. Just another funeral for a promising young man who died much too young. Under the implacable shadow of the Wall and in the rifle sights of Israeli soldiers, more than 200 mourners walked down the cobbled street toward the old cemetery in the village of Beit Ummar. Some shouted angrily at the soldiers, condemning Israel for yet another senseless death.

The funeral was for a college student, Jafaar Awad, who slipped into a coma and died only two months after being released from an Israeli prison, where his serious illness had festered untreated for months. Awad was only 22 when he died, as have so many other Palestinian prisoners, from medical neglect at the hands of Israeli jailers.

As his family huddled around his grave, the IDF launched a dozen tear gas canisters toward the mourners, scattering the stunned grouping. Then automatic weapons fire strafed the crowd, bullets hitting more than a dozen people, including Jafaar’s cousin Ziad Awad. Ziad was struck in the back, the bullet piercing his spine. He was rushed to the Al Ahli Hospital in Hebron, where he died of his wounds. KillingTrayvons1Ziad was only 28

A few hours after Ziad’s murder at the hands of Israeli snipers, the IDF issued a terse statement saying that Israeli soldiers fired on the crowd of mourners after people where seen throwing stones.

I’m surprised the IDF even felt compelled to issue a justification for a kind of killing that has become routine: kids were throwing stones, skipping rocks, jumping rope, blowing bubbles, tossing dirt on an open grave. They had no option but to shoot.

The Palestinians have no redress for these daily acts of butchery: no court to go to judge the legitimacy of shootings, no venue to seek compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering or lost work days, no avenue to find a measure of justice for the slain. How much loss, misery and humiliation are one people expected to endure?

The Israeli state has never been more violent, the blood toll of Palestinian civilians never so high. In 2014, the Israeli military and security forces killed more than 2,300 Palestinians and wounded another 17,000. That’s the worst carnage since 1967, when the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza intensified in the wake of the Six Day War. During the height of the last Israeli rampage in Gaza last summer, more than 500,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes. And, according to a recent UN Report titled Fractured Lives, more than 100,000 of them remain homeless. Detentions of Palestinians inside Israeli prisons are also on the rise. As of the end of February of this year, more than 6,600 Palestinians were being held in Israeli prisons and IDF detention centers, the most in five years. So the gears of the killing machine grind on with impunity, each slaughter only serving to embolden more killing.

Who will stop them? Certainly not the Israeli state’s principle financial investor. For the most vigorous Israeli Defense Force, unblinking in its vigilance, unfaltering in its loyalty, is the U.S. Congress. There is a savage synchronicity to an alliance between one nation that drone strikes weddings and another that shoots ups funerals.

Each year Congress drops a cool $3 billion on Israel. Even in chambers ruled by fiscal tightwads the only real debate is whether this lavish dispensation, which accounts for more than half of all U.S. military aid worldwide, is enough to satiate Israel’s thirst for new weaponry. Even as Israel repeatedly sabotages U.S. policy across the region, Obama has described the U.S. aid package as “sacrosanct.”

In this light, the annual subornment of Israel, which totals about a third of the nation’s arms budget, by the U.S. begins to look less like a subsidy to a client state than protection money paid to a gangster organization.

It should come as no surprise that two of Benjamin Netanyahu’s most fervid American disciples, Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, both graduated from Harvard Law, where they incubated in the Zionist hothouse of Alan Dershowitz. Yet, Cruz and Cotton aren’t outliers. Indeed, there is scarcely a micron of daylight between the positions of Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren, the Athena (to HRC’s Medea, I suppose) of the progressives, when it comes to defending the scandalous behavior of Israel. Indeed Warren, like many other liberals, seems to work overtime to demonstrate her unrivaled fealty to the Jewish state.

The vaunted Israel Lobby scarcely even needs a lobbyist anymore. These days the new members of congress arrived pre-conditioned to demonstrate their devotion to the Israeli cause. They don’t need to be bribed with PAC money, courted with hookers or blackmailed with indiscrete cell-phone photos. When Israel assassinates an Iranian scientist, uses chemical weapons in Gaza, tortures prisoners, murders a young American peace activist, enfilades a burial party or is caught spying on the American president, the congress will leap in unison to its defense–no questions asked, no questions answered–and dispatch another check to Tel Aviv.

In the face of the world’s longest running war crime, the American capital stands inert, an ethical void, its halls packed with the political equivalent of GMOs. Pass the Round-Up.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Opinion: Is I$raHell Americas Friend?


Is I$raHell Americas Friend? Or America’s Enemy?

Global Research
Image result for US-ISRAEL FLAG

Israels Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has selected as his Minister of Justice a woman who hasexpressed hatred against all Palestinians, and he has appointed as his negotiator with the Palestians a man who said, and who has always followed though with, We are all against a Palestinian state, there is no question about it.

These policies are direct rejections of the U.S.-overseen 1978 Camp David Accords, and of consistent U.S. policy since. The Camp David Accords were so bad for the Palestinians that the signatory on their behalf, Egypts leader Anwar Sadat, was despised by virtually all Muslims and was assassinated for having done this. But Egypt abided by the Accords, while Israel for decades since has been constantly hemming and hawing about when they will some day fulfill their obligations under them; and, now, we finally have been given the answer: Its never. They signed an agreement that was so bad for Palestinians it was rejected by them and by the U.N., but now its finally clear: to Israel, its not bad enough to Palestinians. So: Israel insists upon continued (and now upon never-ending) military occupation.

Netanyahu has proven by actions, not mere words, that Israel is Americas enemy, refusing to do even what Israel had signed an American-sponsored accord in 1978 promising to do and, now, at last, installing a government that is deeply committed to never complying with it.

In 2011, someone posted to facebook an article, “List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship, and gave no links to sources but merely his own untrustworthy allegations, that the following U.S. Government officials possess dual U.S. and Israeli citizenships:

Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Stuart Bernstein, Brad Blakeman, Lincoln Bloomfield, Samuel Bodman, John Bolton, Joshua Bolten, Nancy Brinker, Michael Chertoff, Bonnie Cohen, Eliot Cohen, Ruth Davis, Douglas Feith, Ari Fleischer, Lawrence Franklin, David Frum, Christopher Gersten, Joseph Gildenhorn, Adam Goldman, Steve Goldsmith, Marc Grossman, Richard Haass, Henry Kissinger, Daniel Kurtzer, Frank Lavin, Jay Lefkowitz, I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Edward Luttwak, Ken Melman, Michael Mukasey, Richard Perle, Robert Satloff, James Schlesinger, Mel Sembler, Martin Silverstein, Cliff Sobel, Mark Weinberger, Ron Weiser, Paul Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, Dov Zakheim, Robert Zoellick.

Subsequently, other (and some even lengthier) lists with equally undisclosed souces, were published.

Such lists circulate mainly in right-wing circles, like Joseph R. McCarthys lists of communists in the State Department did in the 1950s. Yet most of the names on these alleged dual-citizenship lists are themselves right-wing and far-right, not left-of-center.

The very idea of dual-citizenship, for a government official, is repugnant in any real democracy. Certainly, there ought to be a requirement for all individuals who are employed by the U.S. Government or by any U.S. Government contractor, to publicly renounce any other citizenship before being hired. Thats just basic.

But, in any case, now that we know that Israel is an outright enemy of the United States, the public should be demanding the U.S. President and Congress to side with the Palestinians against Israel.

Countries throughout history have changed from allies to enemies and back again. Nothing is permanent in history. Israel is now an enemy, and apparently has been for a long time, and should be treated as such. Theyve been given more than enough time to cease being an apartheid State like South Africa used to be. Whereas South Africa evolved to a democracy, Israel remains racist. Unless the United States wishes to return to the era of Reagan and before the era of accepting racism as State policy in an allied country the U.S. has no moral choice but to switch to supporting, openly, the Palestinians. The Palestinians have every right to reject, and rebel against, Israels racism. Israels clear determination to continue the military occupation over them gives the Palestinians the right to do what they must to establish their own state, even to take over all of Israel if thats the only option that the military occupiers offer as an alternative to permanent military occupation and oppression.

Even if it were the case that this would not be the best thing for Jews who live in Israel, the U.S. is obliged only for the welfare and decency of Americans. We are not responsible for the welfare or decency of the people of any other country. This doesnt mean that we cant be concerned about that; were concerned about a lot of things that arent our basic national obligations to be concerned about. But Israel is now clearly an enemy country, and should be treated as such.

There should be such consequences for any country that has lied to the United States for so long a time, and finally shown that they intend to remain permanently non-compliant with a U.S. treaty or U.S.-sponsored treaty. Thats like a declaration of war against the U.S. Its a declaration by means of action, not by means of mere words. Israels mere words, to the United States, are now clearly shown to have been lies, for decades. Actions are what matter. Actions are what show authentic intentions. Israels authentic intentions are now clear and extremely hostile.

Israel has declared itself an enemy not only of the Palestinians, but of the Americans. If there are any dual-citizenship U.S. Government officials, they should be fired, even if they cannot be prosecuted. And, if any of those dual-citizenships are with Israel, then theyve been foreign agents all long and are now agents of an enemy nation.

Or, is the United States instead itself occupied by Israel? Lets hope that thats not the case. Well soon know if it is, and has been.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

US & I$raHell inequality champions of developed world – OECD


Image result for ISRAEL-USA FLAG


Inequality in the developed world is the sharpest in 30 years, a recent OECD research reveals. Yet even in this context, two countries stand out in the disparity between rich and poor: the USA and Israel.

“In most countries, the gap between rich and poor is at its highest level since 30 years. Today, in OECD countries, the richest 10 percent of the population earn 9.6 times the income of the poorest 10 percent,” said the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in a report released Thursday. “In the 1980s this ratio stood at 7:1 rising to 8:1 in the 1990s and 9:1 in the 2000s.”

Compare the average 9.6 index with the US, where the richest 10 percent of the population earn 16.5 times as much as the poorest 10 percent. The poorest citizens of Israel scrape by on one-fifteenth of the earnings of the richest 10 percent.

The US also has the widest gap between the income of the richest and the average households. The top 5 percent of US households own practically 91 times the wealth of the average.

The OECD report, covering the situation in 18 member nations, says half of total wealth resides in the hands of just 10 percent of population, while the next 50 percent hold almost all of the second half, leaving the remaining 40 percent with the scraps – just over 3 percent of the wealth.

The record level of inequality is explained partly by a wider gap in education between the richest and poorest social groups, leading to lower quality and productivity in the workforce.

Another factor that OECD considers responsible for growing inequality is the growth in what it calls non-standard work, which includes temporary contracts and self-employment.

Since the mid-’90s more than half of all new jobs created in OECD countries fell into this category, according to the report. Families that rely on this type of employment are much more likely to be poor, exacerbating overall inequality.

OECD experts warn that the rising level of inequality is hampering world economic growth.

“High and often growing inequality raises major economic concerns, not just for the low earners themselves, but for the wider health and sustainability of our economies,” the report says. “Put simply: rising inequality is bad for long-term growth.”

The report also cites increasingly less progressive tax systems and social benefits losing ground to inflation as reasons why income redistribution schemes have become less effective as of late. Instead, the study advocates a more direct system of taxation and transfer.

“Redistribution via taxes and transfers is a powerful instrument to contribute to more equality and more growth,” the report says.

It also mentions the increasing number of working women as one of the factors contributing to the growth in inequality. Women earn 15 per cent less than men, according to the report, which says ensuring equal pay for men and women could be one way to reduce the wealth gap.

Latin America is one of the few regions where inequality hasn’t been growing in the last 30 years, despite the social gap there being initially higher, the OECD said.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI0 Comments

Neocon mouthpiece Ayaan Hirsi Ali exposed as mythomaniac



By Brandon Martinez | Non-Aligned Media 

The vulgar Neocon-Zionist agent Ayaan Hirsi Ali, darling of Zionist media venues for her anti-Muslim invective and genocidal calls for a “war on Islam,” is exposed thoroughly in this Dutch documentary as a mythomaniac who fabricated entire parts of her past to gain fame and fortune in the West.

The documentary shows that she opportunistically married a Somali-Canadian man in Kenya and then used him to pay her way to Europe where she promptly ditched him and demanded a divorce. Ali invented a story about being a civil war refugee from Somalia when she in fact lived out her childhood peacefully in Kenya. She did this so that she’d meet the requirements to gain residency in the Netherlands. She further invented a fable about fleeing a ‘forced marriage,’ an outright lie she told to a slew of media outlets which has earned her fame and book deals. All of her sanctimonious fibbing eventually paid off when she became an MP in Holland in 2003.

Despite all of her past lies and debauchery, American neocons and Zionist-controlled media outlets (Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, FOX News’The Megan FileAEIThe Guardian, Comedy Central’s The Colbert ReportThe Daily CallerThe Richard Dawkins FoundationThe Wall Street JournalThe Washington Times, and The Economist) have promoted her as a legitimate commentator. She is nothing more than an extremely mercenary opportunistic megalomaniac who will say anything to get attention. She is a willing tool of the neocon, Zionist warmongers and their agenda for world domination.

Posted in USA0 Comments

Four Banks Guilty of Currency Manipulation


But, as Usual, No One’s Going to Jail

Image result for Barclays, BANK LOGO

By Steve Straehley and Noel Brinkerhoff |

Four major banks—Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, and the Royal Bank of Scotland—have agreed to plead guilty in a Connecticut federal court to conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros exchanged in the foreign currency market. But instead of sending those responsible for the crimes to prison, various government entities are fining the institutions a total of about $5.5 billion, the cost of which the banks will pass on to shareholders.

“For more than five years, traders in ‘The Cartel’ used a private electronic chat room to manipulate the spot market’s exchange rate between euros and dollars using coded language to conceal their collusion,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in announcing the settlements Wednesday morning.

In one of the chatroom conversations, a Barclays employee said: “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.”

Lynch said the currency manipulation “inflated the banks’ profits while harming countless consumers, investors and institutions around the globe — from pension funds to major corporations, and including the banks’ own customers.”

The Justice Department also announced that a fifth bank, Switzerland’s UBS, pleaded guilty to manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and will pay a total of $545 million in fines, according to USA Today.

Legally, guilty pleas such as these would mean the banks would be restricted from conducting certain kinds of business, according to ThinkProgress. However the banks, as they have consistently in the past in other cases, received waivers from the Securities and Exchange Commission to continue business as usual.

The settlement by Lynch’s Justice Department follows the pattern of her predecessor, Eric Holder, who was criticized for not punishing Wall Street enough for its greedy and reckless behavior that caused the 2008 financial crisis.

To Learn More:

Banks to Pay Billions to Settle Charges (by Lorraine Bailey and Dan McCue, Courthouse News Service )

5 Banks Guilty of Rate-Rigging, Pay More than $5B (by Kevin McCoy and Kevin Johnson, USA Today )

Rigging of Foreign Exchange Market Makes Felons of Top Banks (by Michael Corkery and Ben Protess, New York Times )

Megabanks Fined $2 Billion For Criminal Activity, Will Be Able To Continue Business As Usual (by Alan Pyke, ThinkProgress )

Five Major Banks Agree to Parent-Level Guilty Pleas (U.S. Department of Justice)

Big Banks Fined Billions in Foreign Currency Scandal (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov )

World’s Biggest Banks in Fresh Crosshairs of U.S. Justice Department…But Will Anyone Go to Jail? (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov )

Posted in USA0 Comments


Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field
May 2015
« Apr