Sympathy for the Devils...
Re: Sympathy for the Devils...
Biden joins Trump in appointing war criminal involved in genocide: Meet Elliott Abrams, coup expert
29,137 views Jul 6, 2023
US President Joe Biden appointed notorious neoconservative war criminal Elliott Abrams as an advisor for "public diplomacy". Abrams previously served under Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan, and he oversaw genocide in Guatemala, massacres in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and coup attempts in Venezuela.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2MUS0xRCTo
So tell me about the 'lesser evil'......As Joe dodders on even the 'optics' ain't that much better. Poll after poll indicate that the rank and file Dems don't want him, but the party bosses will shove him down their throats anyway. Because they really don't have anyone else, they answer to 'higher authorities' and Joe will do as he is told.(Just make sure he doesn't forget five minutes later.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Sympathy for the Devils...
Senator releases FBI file alleging Bidens received Ukraine payoff
China Daily Global | Updated: 2023-07-21 10:28
US President Joe Biden speaks about his economic plan "Bidenomics" at the Philly Shipyard, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 20, 2023. [Photo/Agencies]
US Senator Chuck Grassley on Thursday made public a file from an FBI informant that quotes a Ukrainian oligarch who said he was "coerced" into paying President Joe Biden and his son Hunter a total of $10 million while the elder Biden was vice-president.
Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of natural gas company Burisma Holdings, told the FBI informant (identified as "CHS" for confidential human source) in 2016 while meeting at a coffee shop in Vienna that "it cost 5 [million] to pay one Biden, and 5 [million] to another Biden", according to the redacted FD-1023 form. The CHS noted at the time that it was unclear if the payments were made.
"While the FBI sought to obfuscate and redact, the American people can now read this document for themselves, without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats, thanks to brave and heroic whistleblowers," said Grassley, an Iowa Republican who acquired the document via legally protected disclosures by Justice Department whistleblowers.
The source's claims have not been investigated further. The FBI has told members of Congress that the bribery allegation was referred to the office of Delaware US Attorney David Weiss for further investigation, although it is unclear what has been done since to determine its accuracy.
The FBI on Thursday criticized the release of the form, which was prepared in June 2020.
"We have repeatedly explained to Congress, in correspondence and in briefings, how critical it is to keep this source information confidential," the FBI said in a statement.
Ian Sams, White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations, said in a statement: "It's clear that congressional Republicans are dead-set on playing shameless, dishonest politics and refuse to let truth get in the way. It is well past time for news organizations to hold them to basic levels of factual accountability for their repeated and increasingly desperate efforts to mislead both the public and the press."
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, however, said that the form supports his committee's investigation of the Biden family's business dealings.
"In the FBI's record, the Burisma executive claims that he didn't pay the ‘big guy' directly but that he used several bank accounts to conceal the money. That sounds an awful lot like how the Bidens conduct business: using multiple bank accounts to hide the source and total amount of the money," Comer said in a statement.
The paid federal informant, said by the FBI to be highly credible, detailed four conversations with Zlochevsky, starting with a meeting near Kyiv in late 2015 or early 2016 and up through a 2019 phone call.
The purpose of the CHS' first meeting "was to discuss Burisma's interest in purchasing a US oil or gas business, for purposes of merging it with Burisma for purposes of conducting an IPO in the US. Burisma was willing to purchase a US-based entity for $20-$30 million," the form says.
The CHS had questioned whether it would make more sense to hire "some normal US oil and gas advisors" because the Bidens weren't experienced in the energy sector.
Zlochevsky said he appreciated the source's advice but that it was "too late" to change his decision.
Zlochevsky allegedly claimed to have 17 recordings of conversations with the Bidens — two of which allegedly involved Joe Biden — as well as numerous text messages and two documents that the informant "understood to be" financial records of "payment(s) to the Bidens".
The source said that Zlochevsky was convinced the recordings and other evidence showed he was "somehow coerced into paying the Bidens to ensure Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was fired".
In a January 2018 talk at the Council on Foreign Relations, Joe Biden recounted a trip to Ukraine three years prior and how a $1 billion loan guarantee intended for the country would be withheld if Shokin weren't fired.
The US, along with the EU and the IMF, however, had accused Shokin of not investigating corruption in the country before Biden's comments. Shokin was removed as prosecutor in March 2016.
Zlochevsky said he "did not send any funds directly to the ‘Big Guy' (which CHS understood was a reference to Joe Biden). CHS asked Zlochevsky how many companies/bank accounts Zlochevsky controls; Zlochevsky responded it would take them (Investigators) 10 years to find the records (i.e. illicit payments to Joe Biden)," the FBI form says.
Zlochevsky, at the Vienna meeting in 2016, said Hunter Biden would function as a conduit to his father when asked about Shokin's investigation of Burisma.
"Zlochevsky replied something to the effect of, ‘Don't worry Hunter will take care of all of those issues through his dad.' [The informant] did not ask any further questions about what that specifically meant," the file said.
Gary Shapley, an IRS supervisory agent who testified to the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, said that federal tax agents weren't told of the alleged payments during their five-year investigation of Hunter Biden for tax fraud.
"Information like this would have been really helpful to have," Shapley said. "The team, to the best of my knowledge, never saw that [FD-1023] document."
Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board in April 2014, as Joe Biden was put in charge of the Obama administration's Ukraine policy. Hunter Biden was paid up to $1 million per year by Burisma through 2019.
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20230 ... 17b6e.html
******
“Bidenomics” Has No Answer for Eviction Crisis – Or Much Else
Posted on July 21, 2023 by Conor Gallagher
The Biden administration continues to insist that the economy is strong and its efforts are improving the situation. So, what is in its most recent efforts announced on Wednesday? From the White House:
Today, the President will outline several new, concrete steps in the Administration’s effort to crack down on rental junk fees and lower costs for renters, including:
*New commitments from major rental housing platforms—Zillow, Apartments.com, and AffordableHousing.com—who have answered the President’s call for transparency and will provide consumers with total, upfront cost information on rental properties, which can be hundreds of dollars on top of the advertised rent;
*New research from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which provides a blueprint for a nationwide effort to address rental housing junk fees; and
*Legislative action in states across the country—from Connecticut to California—who are joining the Administration in its effort to crack down on rental housing fees and protect consumers.
Importantly, while these commitments from rental housing platforms will make renters better informed about the total cost, they do nothing to make housing more affordable. Here is what the platforms are doing:
*Zillow is today launching a Cost of Renting Summary on its active apartment listings, empowering the 28 million unique monthly users on its rental platform with clear information on the cost of renting. This new tool will enable renters to easily find out the total cost of renting an apartment from the outset, including all monthly costs and one-time costs, like security deposits and application fees.
*Apartments.com is announcing that this year it will launch a new calculator on its platform that will help renters determine the all-in price of a desired unit. This will include all up-front costs as well as recurring monthly rents and fees. The Apartments.com Network currently lists almost 1.5 million active availabilities across more than 385,000 properties.
*AffordableHousing.com, the nation’s largest online platform dedicated solely to affordable housing, will require owners to disclose all refundable and non-refundable fees and charges upfront in their listings. It will launch a new “Trusted Owner” badge that protects renters from being charged junk fees by identifying owners who have a history of adhering to best practices, including commitment to reasonable fee limits, no junk fees, and full fee disclosure.
So a search could now look something more like this:
More from the White House release:
Today’s announcements build on the Biden-Harris Administration’s ongoing efforts to support renters, including through the release of a first-of-its-kind Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights and a Housing Supply Action Plan, focused on boosting the supply of affordable housing—including rental housing. Reducing housing costs is central to Bidenomics, and recent data show that inflation in rental housing is abating. Moreover, experts predict that roughly 1 million new apartments will be built this year, increasing supply that will further increase affordability. The actions announced today will help renters understand these fees and the full price they can expect to pay, and create additional competition housing providers to reduce reliance on hidden fees.
The problem with these efforts to support renters is that they do nothing to stop the eviction and homelessness crisis now. The Housing Supply Action Plan could maybe help with affordability at some distant date, and a blueprint is just that. Why can other places figure this out, but the US can’t? For example, Ross Barkan writes about Austria:
Americans are usually shocked to learn that a vast majority of Viennese qualify to live in deeply affordable, high-quality housing. There is no downside to renting there because the rents will always be a small fraction of your annual income. Forty-three percent of all housing is insulated from the market and the government subsidizes affordable units for a wide range of incomes. Decades ago, a great amount of housing supply was built, and unlike in the United States, Vienna never abandoned the cause of public housing.
It’s obvious to any tenant reading about Vienna that life there, from a standpoint of sheer economics, is better than life in any major American city. Rents, always high in New York and California, surged across the country during the pandemic, fueling a homelessness crisis that will not abate. For those who have housing, existence is only stress-free as long as the job is well-paying. One wrong turn and eviction is around the corner. Certain localities have stronger tenant protections than others. Either way, rent is something many Americans—those who don’t own property, and are nowhere close to buying anything—must think about constantly. It is an economic and psychological burden. To be liberated from it, like the Viennese, would be to enter a utopic state.
Instead of anything resembling such policies, the Biden administration has been relentlessly hyping the junk fee efforts as a key part of its economic policy. From USA Today:
The White House is also convinced it’s good politics, particularly as Biden tries to improve his standing with the public on the economy as the U.S. rebounds from 40-year high inflation.
“Often policy is a way of showing character,” said Celinda Lake, a 2020 Biden campaign pollster who conducts regular focus groups with voters. “When you’re a longtime politician and you’re in office, people think you get out of touch with their lives, you don’t have any commonsense. This shows, ‘Hey, I am in touch. I do have commonsense.'”
But does it? With the announcement of the administration’s latest efforts, it seems like that plan is running on fumes. With rent increasingly unaffordable for many, will it really make a difference if fees are more transparent? Announcing such voluntary commitments from rental housing platforms without any additional measures to do anything about costs seems like a strange way to go politically, especially as rents continue to rise.
Evictions are also rising. From Quartz:
Eviction filings are on the rise in some US cities, according to datacollected by the Eviction Lab at Princeton University. The lab published the first dataset on eviction filings in the US going back to 2000, which is based on (pdf) tens of millions of public state and county records. Rising costs of living are affecting Americans across the US, while stock of affordable real estate remains low.
…Landlords in many US cities have completed at least half of their eviction filings since 2020 in the past year.
New research in California – which has roughly a third of the country’s 582,000 homeless population – shows that the main driver behind homelessness there is simply that Californians were priced out of housing. The study from UCSF’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative is one of the deepest dives into the state’s crisis, and it shows how the homeless population is getting older and is often the result of just one bad break. According to the study, “in the six months prior to homelessness, the median monthly household income was $960. A high proportion had been rent burdened.”
In a recent YouGov survey, more than 50 percent of Americans thought limits on price increases would probably or definitely be an effective policy, and 61 percent blamed large corporations seeking maximum profit for inflation – the highest recipient of blame in the poll. Americans want more action. From Newsweek:
Poverty remains a huge issue in the U.S., much more so than in other countries with similar levels of distributed wealth, and it is a cause of concern for a majority of Americans, as shown by the Newsweek/Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll. The poll, conducted among a sample of 1,500 eligible voters in the U.S. on May 31, found that some 53 percent of Americans are “very” concerned about the level of poverty in the country.
Among Democrats—identified as people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020—the number went up to 58 percent, while among Republicans—identified as people who voted for Donald Trump in 2020—48 percent said they were “very” concerned about poverty in the U.S. Some 21 percent of Americans responding to the poll don’t earn enough money from their primary job to pay bills or maintain their family’s standard of living, while 52 percent are working multiple jobs to tackle the daily cost of living.
The Biden Administration is betting its junk fee efforts, which have also included concert ticket vendors and others, along with softening inflation will be enough to overcome all the other bad news. So far, it’s not looking very promising. At this point in his term Biden is the second-most-unpopular president in modern U.S. history. Wednesday’s announcement might be part of the reason why as it represents the woefully inadequate response to the economic situation faced by so many.
Just consider some more of the recent news:
*With inflation biting, credit card debt in the US has been rising at one of the fastest rates in history and is at record highs.
*Increasing precariousness has homelessness rising across the country, including up 40 percent in Los Angeles County over the past five years. It’s jumped18 percent this year in New York City.
Here’s the Federal Reserve Board’s Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022 report:
The report indicates that self-reported financial well-being declined in 2022, in part reflecting ongoing concerns about higher prices. In the fourth quarter of 2022, 73 percent of adults reported either doing okay or living comfortably financially, down 5 percentage points from the previous year and among the lowest levels observed since 2016.
Consistent with these changes in overall financial well-being, fewer adults reported having money left over after paying their expenses. Fifty-four percent of adults said that their budgets had been affected “a lot” by price increases.
According to a new survey from Bankrate, Americans said they would need to earn, on average, $233,000 a year to feel financially secure. The median earnings for a full-time, year-round worker in 2021 was $56,473, according to the US Census Bureau. Despite all that, the Biden administration continues to express confusion as to why voters aren’t happier with the economy.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/07 ... ement.html
China Daily Global | Updated: 2023-07-21 10:28
US President Joe Biden speaks about his economic plan "Bidenomics" at the Philly Shipyard, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 20, 2023. [Photo/Agencies]
US Senator Chuck Grassley on Thursday made public a file from an FBI informant that quotes a Ukrainian oligarch who said he was "coerced" into paying President Joe Biden and his son Hunter a total of $10 million while the elder Biden was vice-president.
Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of natural gas company Burisma Holdings, told the FBI informant (identified as "CHS" for confidential human source) in 2016 while meeting at a coffee shop in Vienna that "it cost 5 [million] to pay one Biden, and 5 [million] to another Biden", according to the redacted FD-1023 form. The CHS noted at the time that it was unclear if the payments were made.
"While the FBI sought to obfuscate and redact, the American people can now read this document for themselves, without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats, thanks to brave and heroic whistleblowers," said Grassley, an Iowa Republican who acquired the document via legally protected disclosures by Justice Department whistleblowers.
The source's claims have not been investigated further. The FBI has told members of Congress that the bribery allegation was referred to the office of Delaware US Attorney David Weiss for further investigation, although it is unclear what has been done since to determine its accuracy.
The FBI on Thursday criticized the release of the form, which was prepared in June 2020.
"We have repeatedly explained to Congress, in correspondence and in briefings, how critical it is to keep this source information confidential," the FBI said in a statement.
Ian Sams, White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations, said in a statement: "It's clear that congressional Republicans are dead-set on playing shameless, dishonest politics and refuse to let truth get in the way. It is well past time for news organizations to hold them to basic levels of factual accountability for their repeated and increasingly desperate efforts to mislead both the public and the press."
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, however, said that the form supports his committee's investigation of the Biden family's business dealings.
"In the FBI's record, the Burisma executive claims that he didn't pay the ‘big guy' directly but that he used several bank accounts to conceal the money. That sounds an awful lot like how the Bidens conduct business: using multiple bank accounts to hide the source and total amount of the money," Comer said in a statement.
The paid federal informant, said by the FBI to be highly credible, detailed four conversations with Zlochevsky, starting with a meeting near Kyiv in late 2015 or early 2016 and up through a 2019 phone call.
The purpose of the CHS' first meeting "was to discuss Burisma's interest in purchasing a US oil or gas business, for purposes of merging it with Burisma for purposes of conducting an IPO in the US. Burisma was willing to purchase a US-based entity for $20-$30 million," the form says.
The CHS had questioned whether it would make more sense to hire "some normal US oil and gas advisors" because the Bidens weren't experienced in the energy sector.
Zlochevsky said he appreciated the source's advice but that it was "too late" to change his decision.
Zlochevsky allegedly claimed to have 17 recordings of conversations with the Bidens — two of which allegedly involved Joe Biden — as well as numerous text messages and two documents that the informant "understood to be" financial records of "payment(s) to the Bidens".
The source said that Zlochevsky was convinced the recordings and other evidence showed he was "somehow coerced into paying the Bidens to ensure Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was fired".
In a January 2018 talk at the Council on Foreign Relations, Joe Biden recounted a trip to Ukraine three years prior and how a $1 billion loan guarantee intended for the country would be withheld if Shokin weren't fired.
The US, along with the EU and the IMF, however, had accused Shokin of not investigating corruption in the country before Biden's comments. Shokin was removed as prosecutor in March 2016.
Zlochevsky said he "did not send any funds directly to the ‘Big Guy' (which CHS understood was a reference to Joe Biden). CHS asked Zlochevsky how many companies/bank accounts Zlochevsky controls; Zlochevsky responded it would take them (Investigators) 10 years to find the records (i.e. illicit payments to Joe Biden)," the FBI form says.
Zlochevsky, at the Vienna meeting in 2016, said Hunter Biden would function as a conduit to his father when asked about Shokin's investigation of Burisma.
"Zlochevsky replied something to the effect of, ‘Don't worry Hunter will take care of all of those issues through his dad.' [The informant] did not ask any further questions about what that specifically meant," the file said.
Gary Shapley, an IRS supervisory agent who testified to the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, said that federal tax agents weren't told of the alleged payments during their five-year investigation of Hunter Biden for tax fraud.
"Information like this would have been really helpful to have," Shapley said. "The team, to the best of my knowledge, never saw that [FD-1023] document."
Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board in April 2014, as Joe Biden was put in charge of the Obama administration's Ukraine policy. Hunter Biden was paid up to $1 million per year by Burisma through 2019.
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20230 ... 17b6e.html
******
“Bidenomics” Has No Answer for Eviction Crisis – Or Much Else
Posted on July 21, 2023 by Conor Gallagher
The Biden administration continues to insist that the economy is strong and its efforts are improving the situation. So, what is in its most recent efforts announced on Wednesday? From the White House:
Today, the President will outline several new, concrete steps in the Administration’s effort to crack down on rental junk fees and lower costs for renters, including:
*New commitments from major rental housing platforms—Zillow, Apartments.com, and AffordableHousing.com—who have answered the President’s call for transparency and will provide consumers with total, upfront cost information on rental properties, which can be hundreds of dollars on top of the advertised rent;
*New research from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which provides a blueprint for a nationwide effort to address rental housing junk fees; and
*Legislative action in states across the country—from Connecticut to California—who are joining the Administration in its effort to crack down on rental housing fees and protect consumers.
Importantly, while these commitments from rental housing platforms will make renters better informed about the total cost, they do nothing to make housing more affordable. Here is what the platforms are doing:
*Zillow is today launching a Cost of Renting Summary on its active apartment listings, empowering the 28 million unique monthly users on its rental platform with clear information on the cost of renting. This new tool will enable renters to easily find out the total cost of renting an apartment from the outset, including all monthly costs and one-time costs, like security deposits and application fees.
*Apartments.com is announcing that this year it will launch a new calculator on its platform that will help renters determine the all-in price of a desired unit. This will include all up-front costs as well as recurring monthly rents and fees. The Apartments.com Network currently lists almost 1.5 million active availabilities across more than 385,000 properties.
*AffordableHousing.com, the nation’s largest online platform dedicated solely to affordable housing, will require owners to disclose all refundable and non-refundable fees and charges upfront in their listings. It will launch a new “Trusted Owner” badge that protects renters from being charged junk fees by identifying owners who have a history of adhering to best practices, including commitment to reasonable fee limits, no junk fees, and full fee disclosure.
So a search could now look something more like this:
More from the White House release:
Today’s announcements build on the Biden-Harris Administration’s ongoing efforts to support renters, including through the release of a first-of-its-kind Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights and a Housing Supply Action Plan, focused on boosting the supply of affordable housing—including rental housing. Reducing housing costs is central to Bidenomics, and recent data show that inflation in rental housing is abating. Moreover, experts predict that roughly 1 million new apartments will be built this year, increasing supply that will further increase affordability. The actions announced today will help renters understand these fees and the full price they can expect to pay, and create additional competition housing providers to reduce reliance on hidden fees.
The problem with these efforts to support renters is that they do nothing to stop the eviction and homelessness crisis now. The Housing Supply Action Plan could maybe help with affordability at some distant date, and a blueprint is just that. Why can other places figure this out, but the US can’t? For example, Ross Barkan writes about Austria:
Americans are usually shocked to learn that a vast majority of Viennese qualify to live in deeply affordable, high-quality housing. There is no downside to renting there because the rents will always be a small fraction of your annual income. Forty-three percent of all housing is insulated from the market and the government subsidizes affordable units for a wide range of incomes. Decades ago, a great amount of housing supply was built, and unlike in the United States, Vienna never abandoned the cause of public housing.
It’s obvious to any tenant reading about Vienna that life there, from a standpoint of sheer economics, is better than life in any major American city. Rents, always high in New York and California, surged across the country during the pandemic, fueling a homelessness crisis that will not abate. For those who have housing, existence is only stress-free as long as the job is well-paying. One wrong turn and eviction is around the corner. Certain localities have stronger tenant protections than others. Either way, rent is something many Americans—those who don’t own property, and are nowhere close to buying anything—must think about constantly. It is an economic and psychological burden. To be liberated from it, like the Viennese, would be to enter a utopic state.
Instead of anything resembling such policies, the Biden administration has been relentlessly hyping the junk fee efforts as a key part of its economic policy. From USA Today:
The White House is also convinced it’s good politics, particularly as Biden tries to improve his standing with the public on the economy as the U.S. rebounds from 40-year high inflation.
“Often policy is a way of showing character,” said Celinda Lake, a 2020 Biden campaign pollster who conducts regular focus groups with voters. “When you’re a longtime politician and you’re in office, people think you get out of touch with their lives, you don’t have any commonsense. This shows, ‘Hey, I am in touch. I do have commonsense.'”
But does it? With the announcement of the administration’s latest efforts, it seems like that plan is running on fumes. With rent increasingly unaffordable for many, will it really make a difference if fees are more transparent? Announcing such voluntary commitments from rental housing platforms without any additional measures to do anything about costs seems like a strange way to go politically, especially as rents continue to rise.
Evictions are also rising. From Quartz:
Eviction filings are on the rise in some US cities, according to datacollected by the Eviction Lab at Princeton University. The lab published the first dataset on eviction filings in the US going back to 2000, which is based on (pdf) tens of millions of public state and county records. Rising costs of living are affecting Americans across the US, while stock of affordable real estate remains low.
…Landlords in many US cities have completed at least half of their eviction filings since 2020 in the past year.
New research in California – which has roughly a third of the country’s 582,000 homeless population – shows that the main driver behind homelessness there is simply that Californians were priced out of housing. The study from UCSF’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative is one of the deepest dives into the state’s crisis, and it shows how the homeless population is getting older and is often the result of just one bad break. According to the study, “in the six months prior to homelessness, the median monthly household income was $960. A high proportion had been rent burdened.”
In a recent YouGov survey, more than 50 percent of Americans thought limits on price increases would probably or definitely be an effective policy, and 61 percent blamed large corporations seeking maximum profit for inflation – the highest recipient of blame in the poll. Americans want more action. From Newsweek:
Poverty remains a huge issue in the U.S., much more so than in other countries with similar levels of distributed wealth, and it is a cause of concern for a majority of Americans, as shown by the Newsweek/Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll. The poll, conducted among a sample of 1,500 eligible voters in the U.S. on May 31, found that some 53 percent of Americans are “very” concerned about the level of poverty in the country.
Among Democrats—identified as people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020—the number went up to 58 percent, while among Republicans—identified as people who voted for Donald Trump in 2020—48 percent said they were “very” concerned about poverty in the U.S. Some 21 percent of Americans responding to the poll don’t earn enough money from their primary job to pay bills or maintain their family’s standard of living, while 52 percent are working multiple jobs to tackle the daily cost of living.
The Biden Administration is betting its junk fee efforts, which have also included concert ticket vendors and others, along with softening inflation will be enough to overcome all the other bad news. So far, it’s not looking very promising. At this point in his term Biden is the second-most-unpopular president in modern U.S. history. Wednesday’s announcement might be part of the reason why as it represents the woefully inadequate response to the economic situation faced by so many.
Just consider some more of the recent news:
*With inflation biting, credit card debt in the US has been rising at one of the fastest rates in history and is at record highs.
*Increasing precariousness has homelessness rising across the country, including up 40 percent in Los Angeles County over the past five years. It’s jumped18 percent this year in New York City.
Here’s the Federal Reserve Board’s Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2022 report:
The report indicates that self-reported financial well-being declined in 2022, in part reflecting ongoing concerns about higher prices. In the fourth quarter of 2022, 73 percent of adults reported either doing okay or living comfortably financially, down 5 percentage points from the previous year and among the lowest levels observed since 2016.
Consistent with these changes in overall financial well-being, fewer adults reported having money left over after paying their expenses. Fifty-four percent of adults said that their budgets had been affected “a lot” by price increases.
According to a new survey from Bankrate, Americans said they would need to earn, on average, $233,000 a year to feel financially secure. The median earnings for a full-time, year-round worker in 2021 was $56,473, according to the US Census Bureau. Despite all that, the Biden administration continues to express confusion as to why voters aren’t happier with the economy.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/07 ... ement.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Sympathy for the Devils...
More Warmongers Elevated In The Biden Administration
The Biden administration looks set to become even more warlike than it already was if you can imagine, with virulent Russia hawk Victoria Nuland and virulent China hawk Charles Q Brown now being elevated to lofty positions by the White House.
Caitlin Johnstone
The Biden administration looks set to become even more warlike than it already was if you can imagine, with virulent Russia hawk Victoria Nuland and virulent China hawk Charles Q Brown now being elevated to lofty positions by the White House.
Nuland, the wife of alpha neocon Robert Kagan, has been named acting deputy secretary of state by President Biden, at least until a new deputy secretary has been named. This places her at second in command within the State Department, second only to Tony Blinken.
In an article about Nuland’s unique role in souring relations between the US and Russia during her previous tenure in the State Department under Obama, Responsible Statecraft’s Connor Echols writes the following of the latest news:
Nuland’s appointment will be a boon for Russia hawks who want to turn up the heat on the Kremlin. But, for those who favor a negotiated end to the conflict in Ukraine, a promotion for the notoriously “undiplomatic diplomat” will be a bitter pill.
A few quick reminders are in order. When Nuland was serving in the Obama administration, she had a now-infamous leaked call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. As the Maidan Uprising roiled the country, the pair of American diplomats discussed conversations with opposition leaders, and Nuland expressed support for putting Arseniy Yatseniuk into power. (Yatseniuk would become prime minister later that month, after Russia-friendly former President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country.) At one memorable point in the call, Nuland said “Fu–k the EU” in response to Europe’s softer stance on the protests.
The controversy surrounding the call — and larger implications of U.S. involvement in the ouster of Yanukovych — kicked up tensions with Russia and contributed to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to seize Crimea and support an insurgency in eastern Ukraine. Her handing out food to demonstrators on the ground in Kyiv probably didn’t help either. Nuland, along with State Department sanctions czar Daniel Fried, then led the effort to punish Putin through sanctions. Another official at State reportedly asked Fried if “the Russians realize that the two hardest-line people in the entire U.S. government are now in a position to go after them?”
In a 2015 Consortium News article titled “The Mess That Nuland Made,” the late Robert Parry singled out Nuland as the primary architect of the 2014 regime change operation in Ukraine, which, as Aaron Maté explained last year, paved the way to the war we’re seeing there today. Hopefully her position winds up being temporary.
In other news, the Senate Arms Services Committee has voted to confirm Biden’s selection of General Charles Q Brown Jr as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, replacing Mark Milley. A full senate vote will now take place on whether to confirm Brown — currently the Air Force Chief of Staff — for the nation’s highest military office.
Brown is unambiguous about his belief that the US must hasten to militarize against China in the so-called Indo-Pacific to prepare for confrontation between the two powers, calling for more US bases in the region and increased efforts to arm Taiwan during his hearing before the Senate Arms Services Committee earlier this month.
Back in May, Moon of Alabama flagged Brown’s nomination in an article which also noted that several advocates of military restraint had been resigning from their positions within the administration, including Wendy Sherman, the deputy secretary of state who Nuland has taken over for.
It’s too soon to draw any firm conclusions, but to see voices of restraint stepping down and proponents of escalation stepping up could be a bad portent of things to come.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2023/07 ... istration/
The Biden administration looks set to become even more warlike than it already was if you can imagine, with virulent Russia hawk Victoria Nuland and virulent China hawk Charles Q Brown now being elevated to lofty positions by the White House.
Caitlin Johnstone
The Biden administration looks set to become even more warlike than it already was if you can imagine, with virulent Russia hawk Victoria Nuland and virulent China hawk Charles Q Brown now being elevated to lofty positions by the White House.
Nuland, the wife of alpha neocon Robert Kagan, has been named acting deputy secretary of state by President Biden, at least until a new deputy secretary has been named. This places her at second in command within the State Department, second only to Tony Blinken.
In an article about Nuland’s unique role in souring relations between the US and Russia during her previous tenure in the State Department under Obama, Responsible Statecraft’s Connor Echols writes the following of the latest news:
Nuland’s appointment will be a boon for Russia hawks who want to turn up the heat on the Kremlin. But, for those who favor a negotiated end to the conflict in Ukraine, a promotion for the notoriously “undiplomatic diplomat” will be a bitter pill.
A few quick reminders are in order. When Nuland was serving in the Obama administration, she had a now-infamous leaked call with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. As the Maidan Uprising roiled the country, the pair of American diplomats discussed conversations with opposition leaders, and Nuland expressed support for putting Arseniy Yatseniuk into power. (Yatseniuk would become prime minister later that month, after Russia-friendly former President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country.) At one memorable point in the call, Nuland said “Fu–k the EU” in response to Europe’s softer stance on the protests.
The controversy surrounding the call — and larger implications of U.S. involvement in the ouster of Yanukovych — kicked up tensions with Russia and contributed to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to seize Crimea and support an insurgency in eastern Ukraine. Her handing out food to demonstrators on the ground in Kyiv probably didn’t help either. Nuland, along with State Department sanctions czar Daniel Fried, then led the effort to punish Putin through sanctions. Another official at State reportedly asked Fried if “the Russians realize that the two hardest-line people in the entire U.S. government are now in a position to go after them?”
In a 2015 Consortium News article titled “The Mess That Nuland Made,” the late Robert Parry singled out Nuland as the primary architect of the 2014 regime change operation in Ukraine, which, as Aaron Maté explained last year, paved the way to the war we’re seeing there today. Hopefully her position winds up being temporary.
In other news, the Senate Arms Services Committee has voted to confirm Biden’s selection of General Charles Q Brown Jr as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, replacing Mark Milley. A full senate vote will now take place on whether to confirm Brown — currently the Air Force Chief of Staff — for the nation’s highest military office.
Brown is unambiguous about his belief that the US must hasten to militarize against China in the so-called Indo-Pacific to prepare for confrontation between the two powers, calling for more US bases in the region and increased efforts to arm Taiwan during his hearing before the Senate Arms Services Committee earlier this month.
Back in May, Moon of Alabama flagged Brown’s nomination in an article which also noted that several advocates of military restraint had been resigning from their positions within the administration, including Wendy Sherman, the deputy secretary of state who Nuland has taken over for.
It’s too soon to draw any firm conclusions, but to see voices of restraint stepping down and proponents of escalation stepping up could be a bad portent of things to come.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2023/07 ... istration/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Sympathy for the Devils...
In speech on extreme heat, Biden makes no mention of what’s driving it: Fossil fuels
By Julia Conley (Posted Jul 30, 2023)
Originally published: Common Dreams on July 27, 2023 (more by Common Dreams) |
My fellow Americans, we are facing a climate emergency. This summer, we have seen record-shattering heat waves sweep across our nation… If we do not act urgently to curb fossil fuel pollution, these deadly heat waves will only grow worse in frequency and severity.
That was how Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn suggested U.S. President Joe Biden address the public on Thursday as he announced new measures to address the record-breaking heat that spread across the country from the Southwest to the Midwest and Northeast, placing more than half the U.S. population under heat advisories.
The climate campaigner was among those urging the president to make a clear connection between the extreme heat—which was expected to push temperatures to 105°F in Minneapolis and 107° in New York as Phoenix saw its 27th consecutive day with a heat index of at least 110°—and the climate crisis.
Instead, Biden did not utter the words “fossil fuels,” “oil,” or “gas” throughout his remarks, despite the fact that World Weather Attribution reported this week that the extreme heat seen in the U.S. and other countries would have been “virtually impossible” without the climate crisis and continued fossil fuel extraction.
The president spoke two days after Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) led a vigil and thirst strike on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, calling for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to establish a new federal standard to prevent heat-related work injuries, illnesses, and deaths.
In his remarks, Biden said the Department of Labor will issue its first-ever hazard alert for extreme heat and strengthen enforcement to protect workers, increasing safety inspections in industries such as construction and agriculture.
The hazard alert “clarifies that workers have federal heat-related protections,” said Biden.
We should be protecting workers from hazardous conditions, and we will. And those states where they do not, I’m going to be calling them out, where they refuse to protect these workers in this awful heat.
The speech also highlighted investments made under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to expand water storage in drought-affected states and improve the nation’s weather forecasts.
Juley Fulcher, worker health and safety advocate for Public Citizen, noted that Biden made his speech on the same day that the World Meteorological Organization announced that this month is likely to be the hottest month ever recorded on Earth and said the hazard alert falls short of the demand for a federal workplace heat safety standard.
“While OSHA is able to educate employers and inspect workplaces for heat hazards, it is a Band-Aid for a problem that won’t be solved until employers are required to protect workers,” said Fulcher.
OSHA has limited options to hold employers accountable for failing to implement basic safety protocols to protect workers from extreme heat. Only a workplace heat standard will give OSHA the tools to fully protect workers.
Jean Su, energy justice director for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the steps Biden announced “embarrassing” and lamented his refusal to declare a climate emergency.
https://mronline.org/2023/07/30/in-spee ... sil-fuels/Jean Su 蘇安君
@ajeansu
This list of actions is embarassing. People & workers are cooking in the streets.
Real relief won’t come until Biden confronts the culprit of deadly oil & gas. We're urging
@POTUS
to declare a #ClimateEmergency to #EndFossilFuels.
whitehouse.gov
FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Protect Workers and Communities from Extreme...
President Biden Asks the Department of Labor to Issue First-Ever Hazard Alert for Heat and Announces New Investments to Protect Communities Millions of ....
Fat fucking chance, Jean. It'll take a revolution for that. And not the sheepdog Sanders sort neither.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Sympathy for the Devils...
Election Fever: A Fever Dream?
With nearly sixteen months to go, we are well into the silly season. The campaigning, fund raising, maneuvering, plotting, and mud-slinging have already reached a fever-pitch. We are told that the 2024 Presidential election-- like every Presidential election in my lifetime-- holds the fate of the country in its grip.
Maybe it does.
But it is almost impossible to see how the existing political machinery-- the two-party system, fueled by vast sums of money, and lubricated with the influence of a toadying, sensationalist media-- can generate any real answers to these challenges.
The system’s apologists like to write and speak of “our democracy” -- in supposed contrast to the shifty authoritarians. But what kind of democracy requires a billion-dollar-or-more war chest to gain access to the state’s highest executive position? Under those terms, only a handful of rich and powerful people could realistically become President of the US by convincing other rich and powerful people to support and sustain their effort. Isn’t this akin to the “democracy” of the Roman Senate?
Of course, on the lower rungs of the political hierarchy, there are elected officials who are able to fund their campaigns for far less-- entry level costs are much lower. It is possible to parlay social activism, media exposure, and a popular base into a modest fund-raising apparatus that propels some representative faces into government. But they are quickly seduced and obsessed into building an even greater fund-raising machine and locating themselves in the narrowly defined political space occupied by the two parties. The weight of the system and its conventions soon drains their independence.
It is hard to find optimism under these circumstances.
Faced with a Democratic Party that has inexorably moved to the right from its New Deal roots, many argue for nonetheless uniting behind the Democratic Party to halt the Republican Party’s inexorable movement to the right. It is a strange strategy.
Odd as it may be, it is sold to the left as building a buttress-- a united front-- against fascism.
It is the word “fascism” that conjures up the notion of a united front across class, across identity, and across political loyalty. For those with some minimal knowledge of twentieth-century history, fascism triggers memories of powerful nationalist movements that arose in response to a potent anti-capitalist workers’ movement and a crisis of capitalist rule, even a challenge to the very existence of capitalism. These were alone or together sufficient conditions for the rise, the threat, or the political success of historical fascism.
The post-World War One economic crisis and the rise of a militant industrial class in Italy and intense class struggle in the Italian countryside gave birth to the first self-described fascist movement in Europe. The Italian ruling class awarded it power when it accepted Mussolini as the decisive barricade against intensifying class struggle.
Similarly, of the many nationalist movements that sprung up in Germany, the Nazi Party was the one best equipped to address the rise of a growing, powerful Communist Party during the economic collapse of the Great Depression. German industrialists showered the Nazis with money, and their representatives expeditiously turned over power to Adolf Hitler.
We may extend the term “fascism” to other 1930s regimes in Europe-- Mannerheim, Pilsudski, Antonescu, Admiral Horthy, Franco, Salazar, Petain, etc.-- because they were puppets of Naziism or shared the same anti-Communist zeal which was sparked by intense class conflict within their respective countries.
Whether one prefers to confer the terms “quasi-fascist” or “semi-fascist” instead of “fascist” on the military coups-- Greece, Chile, Indonesia, etc.-- arising from political instability and left insurgency since World War II is a matter of little import. Nonetheless, they all share-- perhaps with some nationally specific differences-- the conditions that gave rise to fascism in the 1930s. Significantly, they also all established an “open, terroristic dictatorship” as defined by the Seventh Congress of the Communist International in 1935-- a political edifice built on the ashes of the previous structure.
It would take an enormous stretch of the imagination to suggest that the US ruling class is under siege from a revolutionary workers’ movement, that US politics has reached a stage of lethal instability, that the US economy is on the verge of collapse, or that there is a force empowered and dedicated to the elimination of bourgeois democracy.
Confronted with these historical anomalies, it is hard to see the danger of fascism as anything imminent in the US. Certainly, there are fascists in the US, even fascist organizations. Moreover, there are many fascist-minded people and people with fascistic ideas, even in positions of power. But fascism is neither around the corner nor on the near horizon.
Yet the unjustified threat of fascism is a useful tool in uniting the left behind a soulless, gutless Democratic Party-- a shell organization built around fundraising and fright-mongering. If there were no fascist bogeyman, or Communist bogeyman, or Russian bogeyman, today’s Democratic Party would have little on which to base a campaign.
That is not to deny that the people in the US are in crisis. It is certainly true that there is growing dissatisfaction in the US, as in Europe and other advanced capitalist countries. Opinion polls show a broad, deep distrust in long-established institutions. From the courts to the political parties, citizens have lost confidence in the old ways of doing things (for example, in a Quinnipiac University poll, 47% of respondents indicated that they would vote for a third party in the US, should there be one).
Nor should this argument be taken to mean that there is no threat from the right. In response to the mass dissatisfaction, movements and parties have sprung up, exploiting the thirst for the new, speaking to the neglect of various economic, class, and regional interests, and promising to voice the concerns of the majority against the arrogance of elites. Quoted in The Wall Street Journal, Professor Thomas Greven of the Free University of Berlin noted that “A right-wing populist backlash… was inevitable.” A scholar of right-wing populism in the US and Europe, the professor then points to the key reason: “For me, it goes back to the failure of center-left, social democratic parties to manage, in a socially acceptable way, increased global competition.”
The breadth of dissatisfaction is shown by the rise of right-populism in many countries. And, as Professor Greven argues, it is the failure of the center, especially the left center, that allows right-populism to grow. Today, as in the 1930s, the cravenness of social democracy creates a political vacuum. The opportunist right has only to fill it. In the case of the 1930s, the ruling classes saw stark choices between revolutionary socialism and fascism. They too often picked fascism and nursed it into power.
Today, there are no stark choices. In Europe, faddish, rebranded social democratic parties like Podemos, Syriza, The Five Star Movement, or The Greens fall as quickly as they arise. In the US and the UK, Labour and the Democrats don’t bother to rebrand, they simply put “New” in front of “Labour” and “Democrats,” offering their services as the acquaintance that you know as opposed to the other that you should fear.
So, if we are to understand Professor Greven, then it would make no sense to embrace social democracy-- including the Democratic Party in the US and Labour in the UK-- when the rise of right-wing populism is itself a response to social democracy’s failings! How can clinging to the Democratic Party-- the party that betrayed the cause of working people-- be the answer to the rise in popularity of its right-wing movement posing as an alternative? Surely, this is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
But once again, as in so many election cycles, leaders of labor, civil rights organizations, environmental groups, and other worthy causes are lining up to support the Democratic Party-- regardless of its betrayal of working people.
Those wise enough to recognize the Democratic Party’s many decades of spinelessness propose that the left conspire to infiltrate or take over the party, to operate both outside and inside the Democrat apparatus.
But to what effect?
In its long history, the Democratic Party only embraced working-class interests when pressed by independent forces outside of the Democratic Party who directly threatened the party’s most urgent agenda-- to retain or gain power. That is the story of the Democrats’ moments of glory: the New Deal and the Great Society. In both cases, the social movements led and the Democrats followed. Today’s urgency to rally behind the Democrats is foolish-- counterproductive foolishness.
Plenty of charlatans and hucksters join with the misinformed and delusional to pressure the left to steer clear of third-party movements and back the Democrats for one more round. Like the serial abuser, they ask the victims to give them one more chance.
Another apologist grants the need for separation, but suggests something called a “dirty break” instead of a divorce. Citing the long, tortured break with the UK Liberal Party that spawned the Labour Party in 1906, he recommends supporting the Democrats until the pain is so great that working people will flee the Democrats and form their own party, a process that may need several decades to ferment. Of course, that is the same Labour Party that recently ambushed its progressive wing and banished its left agenda back to the margin of UK politics.
The same author urged the same patience with the Democrats in 2017, then based on the long transitional “dirty break” that the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party made with the Democrats. The Farmer-Labor Party is long gone, but we will probably hear of the “dirty break” again in 2027.
It is a striking fact that most of our self-described left does not want to have a discussion of a third-party campaign. The mere thought of an alternative to the Democrats is seen as an assault on Enlightenment values, endangering the chances of defeating whatever candidate the Republicans turn up! It is inconceivable to them that pressure from the left might even strengthen their candidates in the distant election. It’s too risky…
For the rest of us, there is no way to begin to break the fatal chokehold that the Democrats have on the left other than supporting an outsider, an independent voice. It must be understood that the process will be long, tortured, and with many setbacks. Yet there will never be a better time when it will not be long, tortured, and with many setbacks.
It is not so important that we have the best standard-bearer or that we agree with every position he or she holds. But a good candidate does exist with good positions on the most important questions: Cornel West!
For a strong case for a third party and Cornel West’s candidacy, I recommend Chris Hedges' article: Cornel West and the Campaign to End Political Apartheid.
Greg Godels
zzsblogml@gmail.com
http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/2023/07/ele ... dream.html
Italics added for emphasis.
John Parker should be considered along with West, his work in Donbass makes me a partisan. But Hedges ain't no ringing endorsement...
With nearly sixteen months to go, we are well into the silly season. The campaigning, fund raising, maneuvering, plotting, and mud-slinging have already reached a fever-pitch. We are told that the 2024 Presidential election-- like every Presidential election in my lifetime-- holds the fate of the country in its grip.
Maybe it does.
But it is almost impossible to see how the existing political machinery-- the two-party system, fueled by vast sums of money, and lubricated with the influence of a toadying, sensationalist media-- can generate any real answers to these challenges.
The system’s apologists like to write and speak of “our democracy” -- in supposed contrast to the shifty authoritarians. But what kind of democracy requires a billion-dollar-or-more war chest to gain access to the state’s highest executive position? Under those terms, only a handful of rich and powerful people could realistically become President of the US by convincing other rich and powerful people to support and sustain their effort. Isn’t this akin to the “democracy” of the Roman Senate?
Of course, on the lower rungs of the political hierarchy, there are elected officials who are able to fund their campaigns for far less-- entry level costs are much lower. It is possible to parlay social activism, media exposure, and a popular base into a modest fund-raising apparatus that propels some representative faces into government. But they are quickly seduced and obsessed into building an even greater fund-raising machine and locating themselves in the narrowly defined political space occupied by the two parties. The weight of the system and its conventions soon drains their independence.
It is hard to find optimism under these circumstances.
Faced with a Democratic Party that has inexorably moved to the right from its New Deal roots, many argue for nonetheless uniting behind the Democratic Party to halt the Republican Party’s inexorable movement to the right. It is a strange strategy.
Odd as it may be, it is sold to the left as building a buttress-- a united front-- against fascism.
It is the word “fascism” that conjures up the notion of a united front across class, across identity, and across political loyalty. For those with some minimal knowledge of twentieth-century history, fascism triggers memories of powerful nationalist movements that arose in response to a potent anti-capitalist workers’ movement and a crisis of capitalist rule, even a challenge to the very existence of capitalism. These were alone or together sufficient conditions for the rise, the threat, or the political success of historical fascism.
The post-World War One economic crisis and the rise of a militant industrial class in Italy and intense class struggle in the Italian countryside gave birth to the first self-described fascist movement in Europe. The Italian ruling class awarded it power when it accepted Mussolini as the decisive barricade against intensifying class struggle.
Similarly, of the many nationalist movements that sprung up in Germany, the Nazi Party was the one best equipped to address the rise of a growing, powerful Communist Party during the economic collapse of the Great Depression. German industrialists showered the Nazis with money, and their representatives expeditiously turned over power to Adolf Hitler.
We may extend the term “fascism” to other 1930s regimes in Europe-- Mannerheim, Pilsudski, Antonescu, Admiral Horthy, Franco, Salazar, Petain, etc.-- because they were puppets of Naziism or shared the same anti-Communist zeal which was sparked by intense class conflict within their respective countries.
Whether one prefers to confer the terms “quasi-fascist” or “semi-fascist” instead of “fascist” on the military coups-- Greece, Chile, Indonesia, etc.-- arising from political instability and left insurgency since World War II is a matter of little import. Nonetheless, they all share-- perhaps with some nationally specific differences-- the conditions that gave rise to fascism in the 1930s. Significantly, they also all established an “open, terroristic dictatorship” as defined by the Seventh Congress of the Communist International in 1935-- a political edifice built on the ashes of the previous structure.
It would take an enormous stretch of the imagination to suggest that the US ruling class is under siege from a revolutionary workers’ movement, that US politics has reached a stage of lethal instability, that the US economy is on the verge of collapse, or that there is a force empowered and dedicated to the elimination of bourgeois democracy.
Confronted with these historical anomalies, it is hard to see the danger of fascism as anything imminent in the US. Certainly, there are fascists in the US, even fascist organizations. Moreover, there are many fascist-minded people and people with fascistic ideas, even in positions of power. But fascism is neither around the corner nor on the near horizon.
Yet the unjustified threat of fascism is a useful tool in uniting the left behind a soulless, gutless Democratic Party-- a shell organization built around fundraising and fright-mongering. If there were no fascist bogeyman, or Communist bogeyman, or Russian bogeyman, today’s Democratic Party would have little on which to base a campaign.
That is not to deny that the people in the US are in crisis. It is certainly true that there is growing dissatisfaction in the US, as in Europe and other advanced capitalist countries. Opinion polls show a broad, deep distrust in long-established institutions. From the courts to the political parties, citizens have lost confidence in the old ways of doing things (for example, in a Quinnipiac University poll, 47% of respondents indicated that they would vote for a third party in the US, should there be one).
Nor should this argument be taken to mean that there is no threat from the right. In response to the mass dissatisfaction, movements and parties have sprung up, exploiting the thirst for the new, speaking to the neglect of various economic, class, and regional interests, and promising to voice the concerns of the majority against the arrogance of elites. Quoted in The Wall Street Journal, Professor Thomas Greven of the Free University of Berlin noted that “A right-wing populist backlash… was inevitable.” A scholar of right-wing populism in the US and Europe, the professor then points to the key reason: “For me, it goes back to the failure of center-left, social democratic parties to manage, in a socially acceptable way, increased global competition.”
The breadth of dissatisfaction is shown by the rise of right-populism in many countries. And, as Professor Greven argues, it is the failure of the center, especially the left center, that allows right-populism to grow. Today, as in the 1930s, the cravenness of social democracy creates a political vacuum. The opportunist right has only to fill it. In the case of the 1930s, the ruling classes saw stark choices between revolutionary socialism and fascism. They too often picked fascism and nursed it into power.
Today, there are no stark choices. In Europe, faddish, rebranded social democratic parties like Podemos, Syriza, The Five Star Movement, or The Greens fall as quickly as they arise. In the US and the UK, Labour and the Democrats don’t bother to rebrand, they simply put “New” in front of “Labour” and “Democrats,” offering their services as the acquaintance that you know as opposed to the other that you should fear.
So, if we are to understand Professor Greven, then it would make no sense to embrace social democracy-- including the Democratic Party in the US and Labour in the UK-- when the rise of right-wing populism is itself a response to social democracy’s failings! How can clinging to the Democratic Party-- the party that betrayed the cause of working people-- be the answer to the rise in popularity of its right-wing movement posing as an alternative? Surely, this is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
But once again, as in so many election cycles, leaders of labor, civil rights organizations, environmental groups, and other worthy causes are lining up to support the Democratic Party-- regardless of its betrayal of working people.
Those wise enough to recognize the Democratic Party’s many decades of spinelessness propose that the left conspire to infiltrate or take over the party, to operate both outside and inside the Democrat apparatus.
But to what effect?
In its long history, the Democratic Party only embraced working-class interests when pressed by independent forces outside of the Democratic Party who directly threatened the party’s most urgent agenda-- to retain or gain power. That is the story of the Democrats’ moments of glory: the New Deal and the Great Society. In both cases, the social movements led and the Democrats followed. Today’s urgency to rally behind the Democrats is foolish-- counterproductive foolishness.
Plenty of charlatans and hucksters join with the misinformed and delusional to pressure the left to steer clear of third-party movements and back the Democrats for one more round. Like the serial abuser, they ask the victims to give them one more chance.
Another apologist grants the need for separation, but suggests something called a “dirty break” instead of a divorce. Citing the long, tortured break with the UK Liberal Party that spawned the Labour Party in 1906, he recommends supporting the Democrats until the pain is so great that working people will flee the Democrats and form their own party, a process that may need several decades to ferment. Of course, that is the same Labour Party that recently ambushed its progressive wing and banished its left agenda back to the margin of UK politics.
The same author urged the same patience with the Democrats in 2017, then based on the long transitional “dirty break” that the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party made with the Democrats. The Farmer-Labor Party is long gone, but we will probably hear of the “dirty break” again in 2027.
It is a striking fact that most of our self-described left does not want to have a discussion of a third-party campaign. The mere thought of an alternative to the Democrats is seen as an assault on Enlightenment values, endangering the chances of defeating whatever candidate the Republicans turn up! It is inconceivable to them that pressure from the left might even strengthen their candidates in the distant election. It’s too risky…
For the rest of us, there is no way to begin to break the fatal chokehold that the Democrats have on the left other than supporting an outsider, an independent voice. It must be understood that the process will be long, tortured, and with many setbacks. Yet there will never be a better time when it will not be long, tortured, and with many setbacks.
It is not so important that we have the best standard-bearer or that we agree with every position he or she holds. But a good candidate does exist with good positions on the most important questions: Cornel West!
For a strong case for a third party and Cornel West’s candidacy, I recommend Chris Hedges' article: Cornel West and the Campaign to End Political Apartheid.
Greg Godels
zzsblogml@gmail.com
http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/2023/07/ele ... dream.html
Italics added for emphasis.
John Parker should be considered along with West, his work in Donbass makes me a partisan. But Hedges ain't no ringing endorsement...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Sympathy for the Devils...
Biden’s Ukraine proxy war has been a great economic crime against workers, Black workers especially
BY RAINER SHEA
AUGUST 8, 2023
From the perspective of someone whose priority is to free those who being exploited by U.S. capital, rather than to advance imperialism, the reality that Biden’s Ukraine proxy war is especially hurting Black workers can provide a powerful argument for voting Cornel West. West is a Black voice who’s speaking against the Ukraine psyop, and therefore he has great potential to attract the most conscious elements of the workers; those being the elements which are aware that the Ukraine aid effort lacks justification, and that our government is condemning the workers to an inflation crisis that’s been greatly worsened by this needless war.
Democratic Party elites don’t recognize this reality, probably because they believe their own absurd propaganda about how we’re fight for freedom in Ukraine; therefore, they aren’t able to empathize with the perspectives of the millions of workers, many of them being among the Black voter base, who are increasingly feeling the war’s economic impacts. Biden’s advisors are reassuring him and his campaign team by claiming these voters aren’t likely to turn to West due to decreasing Black unemployment rates. The context they leave out, and perhaps don’t even see as relevant, is that Biden’s imperialist project is causing tremendous harm to these workers.
The corporate media isn’t going so far as to refuse to talk about the ways the inflation is harming the Black community, but it’s never going to help lead us towards making the connection between this problem and the war machine. CNN did a report last summer about how African diaspora families are being disproportionately impacted by the rise in food, gas, and rent prices, yet due to the false neutrality which media outlets like it operate according to, it didn’t look for any place to apply blame for the problem.
When it comes to issues that don’t pertain to whether U.S. imperialism should continue, such as the pandemic, these outlets are willing to point out how presidents are responsible for disastrous outcomes; a few years ago, CNN was ridiculing Trump for spreading misinformation about the pandemic, and for otherwise mismanaging the crisis. When Biden portrays the situation in Ukraine out of context to make Russia’s actions appear unprovoked; to the effect that this prolongs a war which is worsening inflation; these outlets act like the inflation crisis is simply happening on its own.
Whether or not the corporate outlets are being directly assigned to advance the DNC’s interests, which is something that’s happened in recent history, their pretending like the war shouldn’t be blamed for the inflation is having the effect of enabling the Biden campaign’s misleading narratives. Its narratives about the present conditions of Black America, and of the working class more broadly, being far better than they actually are. The Democratic Party is trying to point to how many Black Americans are now technically working (regardless of how well they can live off the jobs which are available to them), and say the recent slowdown of inflation represents an adequate reason for staying loyal to the Democrats. Should West’s campaign and the other counter-hegemonic political forces prove successful, though, the Democrats will find that they can’t expect to keep working class voters simply by trying to slow down the progression of our economic crisis. The damage to the lives of the workers has already been done; making that damage start to happen slower, or getting more jobs for people who are still subject to these high new prices, can’t stop living standards from continuing to fall.
As Conor Gallagher wrote this week in Naked Capitalism, the families that are finding housing to be less and less in reach have been continuing to have that experience, however much the Democrats say the economy is improving:
More than 30 U.S. economists have signed a letter expressing support for strong federal tenant protections and rent control as housing costs remain sky-high, even amid broadly cooling inflation. The economists note in their letter, released Thursday, that the median rent in the U.S. “has surpassed $2,000 for the first time, and there is not a single state where a worker earning a full-time minimum wage salary can afford a modest two-bedroom apartment.”…Tara Raghuveer, director of the Homes Guarantee campaign at People’s Action, said in a statement Thursday that “tenants are coming for rent regulations, and everyone from senators to economists agree: tenant protections are common sense.”…“The system as we know it today has failed everyday people, many of whom make impossible choices between rent and food, their homes or their medications,” said Raghuveer.
The situation is the same in regard to food. Culinary writer Sam Stone observed this spring how food companies have been using the inflation crisis as an excuse to artificially inflate grocery prices:
Producers and sellers of food claim that increased costs from inflation and factors like higher wages are driving up prices, but in reality wages are not keeping pace with inflation. Though higher wages might be responsible for a slightly higher price for consumers, the increase in retail cost for items is often rising higher than employee wages. In fact, many food producers have been accused of raising costs simply because they can. “Corporations have used inflation, the pandemic, and supply chain challenges as an excuse to exaggerate their own costs and then nickel-and-dime consumers,” Kyle Herrig, president of watchdog organization Accountable.us, alleged to The New York Times. In 2022, the average price of potato chips was $5.26 in January. By December of that year that number had increased to $6.28. Meanwhile, the Times reported, PepsiCo, the owner of Frito-Lay, increased profits by 20% in its third quarter alone.
This week, Democratic Party-adjacent Paul Krugman of the New York Times reaffirmed this reality that food remains overwhelmingly expensive for working people, even as the speed of inflation goes down. But we’re never going to hear from voices like him a proper systemic critique about this issue; one that exposes how our government has been using lies to justify waging the Ukraine proxy war, which made the people’s conditions as bad as they now are. It was Biden’s proxy war that not only raised prices via inflation, but gave the corporations an opportunity to then make these living necessities even more expensive.
Gas, the third big factor in how the war has made workers feel economic harm, is continuing to be subject to disproportionately inflated prices; prices that remain excessively high, even when the Democrats try to partly alleviate gasoline price gouging. In San Diego, gas prices have been continuing to go up, regardless of how California Democrats passed a measure this summer to end gouging. Even if inflation is no longer as rapid as it used to be, and if the ban on gouging is genuinely effective (which we don’t know it is), that inflation and gouging have been happening has placed workers in a situation which keeps worsening. The biggest victims are the same Black workers who the Democrats assume they can depend on to give them popular support during this election cycle.
The Democratic Party’s decision to assume the role of the new cold war’s primary driver has, in the long term, destroyed its ability to maintain its old role as the absorber of radical sentiments. It can’t successfully present as the best option for the working class, and especially for the types of workers who are subject to racial capitalism, at the same time that it wages wars which drive these workers into economic desperation. These are contradictory goals, yet the Democrats don’t want to choose one; they want to try to do both by attacking challengers like West, hoping this will get their traditional base not to abandon them. The reality is that to win elections, the Democratic Party will increasingly have to embrace the strategy of appealing towards petty-bourgeois and labor aristocrat Republicans; a strategy which Chuck Schumer described in 2016 as being the party’s new way of operating.
Given how heavily this country’s electoral system is rigged against workers (especially Black workers), the Democrats could survive electorally after coming to solely want to get votes from an economically comfortable minority. But the real purpose of the Democratic Party isn’t to win elections; it’s to divert the political organizing efforts of Black workers, and of other people with revolutionary potential, towards reformist projects. By becoming the new primary source of neocon politics, the Democrats have brought workers revolution closer.
https://newswiththeory.com/bidens-ukrai ... specially/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Sympathy for the Devils...
Biden asks for $20b more in Ukraine aid
By HENG WEILI in New York | chinadaily.com.cn | Updated: 2023-08-11 10:28
This photo taken on Dec 8, 2022 shows the US Capitol building in Washington, DC, the United States. [Photo/Xinhua]
The United States' flow of military and economic aid to Ukraine will rise by more than $20 billion if Congress approves a request that the White House made on Thursday.
The $20.3 billion — part of a larger $40 billion request — includes $13 billion in military aid for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and $7.3 billion in economic and humanitarian assistance. It also includes $3.3 billion for infrastructure projects in regional countries impacted by the war.
Since the start of the conflict in February 2022, Congress has authorized $113 billion in overall funding related to Ukraine. If the new package is approved, that total will reach about $137 billion.
The wider bill also includes money to counter China's Belt and Road initiative; about $12 billion for natural disaster recovery in the US; and billions of dollars more to protect the US southern border, along with funds to stem drug trafficking.
The White House reportedly was expected to include aid to Taiwan to the bill, but that was not included.
The $40 billion in funding will be in the form of an "emergency" supplemental package, a type of spending not limited by the debt-ceiling deal reached between the White House and House Republicans in June.
Shalanda Young, director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, in a letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, urged swift action on the US "commitment to the Ukrainian peoples' defense of their homeland and to democracy around the world".
"We don't know how much longer this war is going to go on, or how much more assistance we might need to support Ukraine. We won't be bashful about going back to Congress beyond the first quarter of next year if we feel like we need to do that," a senior administration official told CNN.
The Biden administration's request came after a poll from CNN found that 55 percent of Americans are against more spending on the conflict in Ukraine. Also in the CNN poll, 51 percent said the US already has done enough to help the Eastern European nation, which is not a member of NATO.
Partisan cracks are emerging over the continuing funding to Ukraine, with support dropping among Republicans. The aid request sets up a potential battle with Republicans in Congress, some of whom have been skeptical over providing Ukraine any more money.
McCarthy has said he doesn't support a "blank check" for Ukraine. After the debt-ceiling deal passed, he said he wasn't prepared to support additional funding for Ukraine, arguing that it would be a violation of the deal.
"Working [on] a supplemental right now is only blowing up the agreement. That's all about spending more money," McCarthy said. "So, no, I do not support a supplemental."
Seventy House Republicans voted in July on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to strip Ukraine of all America military aid. The measure failed, but revealed substantial opposition.
"This should be a non-starter for the @HouseGOP. It's time to stand up for Americans and against the uniparty," Representative Chip Roy of Texas, a member of the House Freedom Caucus that has often clashed with McCarthy, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday.
There is a difference of opinion between House and Senate leadership on Ukraine funding.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell both support continuing aid to Ukraine.
McConnell, speaking Wednesday in Louisville, Kentucky, said: "People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn't be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven't lost a single American in this war.
"Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it's actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead."
Mick Wallace, a member of the European Parliament from Ireland, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, in response Thursday to McConnell's comments: "A lot of Politicians and Mainstream Media are happy to continue supporting and fueling the #US #NATO Proxy War in Ukraine - these are not the people dying in this stupid War. How much do these people really care about the Working Class Ukrainians who are dying..?
Canadian journalist Aaron Mate wrote on X: "Biden admin encouraged Ukraine to integrate into NATO & assault Donbas. It refused to seriously address Russia's Dec. 2021 proposals. After the invasion, it blocked a peace deal. It then pushed Ukraine into a counteroffensive it knew had no chance. Then it told Ukraine it won't join NATO anyway. Now it wants another $20.6 billion to prolong the war it provoked."
Warren Davidson, a former Army Ranger, wrote on X: "Again, without a defined mission how can we ever say 'mission accomplished'? We can't keep sending aid without clear rationale for its intended purpose. And no, 'as long as it takes' is NOT a sufficient answer."
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20230 ... 1b882.html
********
THE GUIDED-MISSILE DESTROYER USS MCFAUL (DDG 74) CONDUCTS A PHOTO EXERCISE WITH A U.S. NAVY P-8 POSEIDON AND FOUR U.S. AIR FORCE A-10 THUNDERBOLT II’S IN THE ARABIAN GULF, AUG. 4, 2023. (PHOTO: MASS COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST 2ND CLASS JUEL FOSTER VIA WWW.NAVY.MIL)
Biden is risking war with Iran—and the media is ignoring the danger
Originally published: Mondoweiss on August 9, 2023 by James North (more by Mondoweiss) | (Posted Aug 11, 2023)
The Biden administration is provocatively risking a military clash with Iran in the Persian Gulf that could even lead to a wider war. Most of the mainstream U.S. press is paying no attention at all. The Washington Post did report the news, but distorted it so badly that if fighting does break out it will look like Iran is entirely to blame. And Israel’s role in the potential crisis is, once again, whitewashed.
Here’s what is happening. The Post reported last week that the U.S. is considering stationing U.S. Marines on board commercial (not necessarily American) ships in the Persian Gulf region to stop Iran from seizing them. A month earlier, the Post had briefly reported that the U.S. Navy had stopped an Iranian effort to seize two commercial oil tankers–neither of them registered in the U.S.–off the coast of Oman. Left out of that article was any explanation for Iran’s actions. And Israel was nowhere mentioned.
You have to look elsewhere, such as the valuable Responsible Statecraft, to learn the larger truth. Trita Parsi, a respected Iranian-American scholar, pointed out that the U.S. has in fact already been confiscating Iranian oil on the high seas. “Predictably,” Parsi writes, “Iran has responded by targeting oil supplies of countries that collaborated with Biden on this matter.” He notes:
This has then prompted Biden to beef up U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf to prevent Iranian actions that only began as a result of Biden’s own policies.
Paul Pillar, another sensible expert, also noted, “The last time the United States placed armament and military personnel, ready to fight, on ocean-going commercial vessels was during the world wars of the 20th Century.” He points out, “It was the United States, not Iran, that began the latest round of going after another nation’s tankers and seizing its oil.” And he calmly adds:
With different U.S. policies, this situation could have been avoided. Iran has not intercepted shipping because Iranians have some genetic malice that compels them to do such things. As with many other Iranian policies and actions, this practice is reactive.
Also completely ignored in the minimal mainstream reporting is Israel’s violent years-long campaign against Iran, including attacks on the high seas and extensive sabotage efforts inside Iran, even including the murder of an Iranian nuclear scientist.
Israel’s aim all along has been to provoke the U.S. into an armed clash with Iran, in large part as an effort to set back or destroy Tehran’s nuclear program. Less than two months ago, optimism for a U.S./Iran agreement was growing as Iran edged toward pausing its nuclear enrichment program in return for some relief from U.S.-imposed economic sanctions. Now that U.S. Marines may be stationed on oil tankers and shooting at Iranians, that de facto deal looks like it may be off.
The mainstream U.S. media failure is truly hard to believe. The media’s anti-Iran bias is no surprise. The erasure of Israel’s role, including its violent campaign against Tehran, is similarly to be expected. But the fact that so far only a single newspaper has even published a report about the dangerous U.S. escalation is a real jaw-dropper.
Sina Toossi is another respected Iranian-American scholar (who, like Parsi, is no supporter of the present regime in Tehran). He didn’t hide his disappointment with the U.S. administration:
Biden’s Iran policy is a betrayal of his campaign promises. He is escalating the economic war on 85 million Iranians & provoking a military confrontation in the Persian Gulf. He promised a foreign policy for the middle class, not for the war hawks in Washington.
https://mronline.org/2023/08/11/biden-i ... he-danger/
Yep, Joe's 'balls to the wall' for 'muscular diplomacy' and would sooner see us all dead than surrender US hegemony. Decent people gotta walk away, run away, from the party that is doing that no matter what they claim they are. The designated (and only allowable) alternative ain't no better. Trump might drag his feet on Russia but he'll still 'go there' regardless of campaign rhetoric, he enjoys a bald faced lie. He certainly don't have the huevos for cutting the Pentagon budget and besides has a real hard-on for Iran. Support Cornel West or John Parker just to hell with that lesser evil crap, they ain't.
By HENG WEILI in New York | chinadaily.com.cn | Updated: 2023-08-11 10:28
This photo taken on Dec 8, 2022 shows the US Capitol building in Washington, DC, the United States. [Photo/Xinhua]
The United States' flow of military and economic aid to Ukraine will rise by more than $20 billion if Congress approves a request that the White House made on Thursday.
The $20.3 billion — part of a larger $40 billion request — includes $13 billion in military aid for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and $7.3 billion in economic and humanitarian assistance. It also includes $3.3 billion for infrastructure projects in regional countries impacted by the war.
Since the start of the conflict in February 2022, Congress has authorized $113 billion in overall funding related to Ukraine. If the new package is approved, that total will reach about $137 billion.
The wider bill also includes money to counter China's Belt and Road initiative; about $12 billion for natural disaster recovery in the US; and billions of dollars more to protect the US southern border, along with funds to stem drug trafficking.
The White House reportedly was expected to include aid to Taiwan to the bill, but that was not included.
The $40 billion in funding will be in the form of an "emergency" supplemental package, a type of spending not limited by the debt-ceiling deal reached between the White House and House Republicans in June.
Shalanda Young, director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, in a letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, urged swift action on the US "commitment to the Ukrainian peoples' defense of their homeland and to democracy around the world".
"We don't know how much longer this war is going to go on, or how much more assistance we might need to support Ukraine. We won't be bashful about going back to Congress beyond the first quarter of next year if we feel like we need to do that," a senior administration official told CNN.
The Biden administration's request came after a poll from CNN found that 55 percent of Americans are against more spending on the conflict in Ukraine. Also in the CNN poll, 51 percent said the US already has done enough to help the Eastern European nation, which is not a member of NATO.
Partisan cracks are emerging over the continuing funding to Ukraine, with support dropping among Republicans. The aid request sets up a potential battle with Republicans in Congress, some of whom have been skeptical over providing Ukraine any more money.
McCarthy has said he doesn't support a "blank check" for Ukraine. After the debt-ceiling deal passed, he said he wasn't prepared to support additional funding for Ukraine, arguing that it would be a violation of the deal.
"Working [on] a supplemental right now is only blowing up the agreement. That's all about spending more money," McCarthy said. "So, no, I do not support a supplemental."
Seventy House Republicans voted in July on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to strip Ukraine of all America military aid. The measure failed, but revealed substantial opposition.
"This should be a non-starter for the @HouseGOP. It's time to stand up for Americans and against the uniparty," Representative Chip Roy of Texas, a member of the House Freedom Caucus that has often clashed with McCarthy, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday.
There is a difference of opinion between House and Senate leadership on Ukraine funding.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell both support continuing aid to Ukraine.
McConnell, speaking Wednesday in Louisville, Kentucky, said: "People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn't be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven't lost a single American in this war.
"Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it's actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead."
Mick Wallace, a member of the European Parliament from Ireland, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, in response Thursday to McConnell's comments: "A lot of Politicians and Mainstream Media are happy to continue supporting and fueling the #US #NATO Proxy War in Ukraine - these are not the people dying in this stupid War. How much do these people really care about the Working Class Ukrainians who are dying..?
Canadian journalist Aaron Mate wrote on X: "Biden admin encouraged Ukraine to integrate into NATO & assault Donbas. It refused to seriously address Russia's Dec. 2021 proposals. After the invasion, it blocked a peace deal. It then pushed Ukraine into a counteroffensive it knew had no chance. Then it told Ukraine it won't join NATO anyway. Now it wants another $20.6 billion to prolong the war it provoked."
Warren Davidson, a former Army Ranger, wrote on X: "Again, without a defined mission how can we ever say 'mission accomplished'? We can't keep sending aid without clear rationale for its intended purpose. And no, 'as long as it takes' is NOT a sufficient answer."
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20230 ... 1b882.html
********
THE GUIDED-MISSILE DESTROYER USS MCFAUL (DDG 74) CONDUCTS A PHOTO EXERCISE WITH A U.S. NAVY P-8 POSEIDON AND FOUR U.S. AIR FORCE A-10 THUNDERBOLT II’S IN THE ARABIAN GULF, AUG. 4, 2023. (PHOTO: MASS COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST 2ND CLASS JUEL FOSTER VIA WWW.NAVY.MIL)
Biden is risking war with Iran—and the media is ignoring the danger
Originally published: Mondoweiss on August 9, 2023 by James North (more by Mondoweiss) | (Posted Aug 11, 2023)
The Biden administration is provocatively risking a military clash with Iran in the Persian Gulf that could even lead to a wider war. Most of the mainstream U.S. press is paying no attention at all. The Washington Post did report the news, but distorted it so badly that if fighting does break out it will look like Iran is entirely to blame. And Israel’s role in the potential crisis is, once again, whitewashed.
Here’s what is happening. The Post reported last week that the U.S. is considering stationing U.S. Marines on board commercial (not necessarily American) ships in the Persian Gulf region to stop Iran from seizing them. A month earlier, the Post had briefly reported that the U.S. Navy had stopped an Iranian effort to seize two commercial oil tankers–neither of them registered in the U.S.–off the coast of Oman. Left out of that article was any explanation for Iran’s actions. And Israel was nowhere mentioned.
You have to look elsewhere, such as the valuable Responsible Statecraft, to learn the larger truth. Trita Parsi, a respected Iranian-American scholar, pointed out that the U.S. has in fact already been confiscating Iranian oil on the high seas. “Predictably,” Parsi writes, “Iran has responded by targeting oil supplies of countries that collaborated with Biden on this matter.” He notes:
This has then prompted Biden to beef up U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf to prevent Iranian actions that only began as a result of Biden’s own policies.
Paul Pillar, another sensible expert, also noted, “The last time the United States placed armament and military personnel, ready to fight, on ocean-going commercial vessels was during the world wars of the 20th Century.” He points out, “It was the United States, not Iran, that began the latest round of going after another nation’s tankers and seizing its oil.” And he calmly adds:
With different U.S. policies, this situation could have been avoided. Iran has not intercepted shipping because Iranians have some genetic malice that compels them to do such things. As with many other Iranian policies and actions, this practice is reactive.
Also completely ignored in the minimal mainstream reporting is Israel’s violent years-long campaign against Iran, including attacks on the high seas and extensive sabotage efforts inside Iran, even including the murder of an Iranian nuclear scientist.
Israel’s aim all along has been to provoke the U.S. into an armed clash with Iran, in large part as an effort to set back or destroy Tehran’s nuclear program. Less than two months ago, optimism for a U.S./Iran agreement was growing as Iran edged toward pausing its nuclear enrichment program in return for some relief from U.S.-imposed economic sanctions. Now that U.S. Marines may be stationed on oil tankers and shooting at Iranians, that de facto deal looks like it may be off.
The mainstream U.S. media failure is truly hard to believe. The media’s anti-Iran bias is no surprise. The erasure of Israel’s role, including its violent campaign against Tehran, is similarly to be expected. But the fact that so far only a single newspaper has even published a report about the dangerous U.S. escalation is a real jaw-dropper.
Sina Toossi is another respected Iranian-American scholar (who, like Parsi, is no supporter of the present regime in Tehran). He didn’t hide his disappointment with the U.S. administration:
Biden’s Iran policy is a betrayal of his campaign promises. He is escalating the economic war on 85 million Iranians & provoking a military confrontation in the Persian Gulf. He promised a foreign policy for the middle class, not for the war hawks in Washington.
https://mronline.org/2023/08/11/biden-i ... he-danger/
Yep, Joe's 'balls to the wall' for 'muscular diplomacy' and would sooner see us all dead than surrender US hegemony. Decent people gotta walk away, run away, from the party that is doing that no matter what they claim they are. The designated (and only allowable) alternative ain't no better. Trump might drag his feet on Russia but he'll still 'go there' regardless of campaign rhetoric, he enjoys a bald faced lie. He certainly don't have the huevos for cutting the Pentagon budget and besides has a real hard-on for Iran. Support Cornel West or John Parker just to hell with that lesser evil crap, they ain't.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Sympathy for the Devils...
Their Similarities Matter More Than Their Differences: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix
If people really understood just how much suffering and destruction is unleashed by US foreign policy, they’d stop making such a big deal about the minor differences between two political parties who always come together to support the most destructive US foreign policy decisions.
Caitlin Johnstone
August 13, 2023
As a result of The New York Times’ McCarthyite hit piece on antiwar leftist groups last week:
A US senator has called for government investigations of American leftist groups.
A leftist news site has been banned from Twitter.
Neville Roy Singham’s Wikipedia page is now a mirror of the NYT piece.
None of this was accidental. This was a blatant imperial narrative management operation. There will be more. The New York Times is a shitty militarist propaganda rag that somehow wound up setting the news agenda for the entire western world.
❖
It’s still forbidden to say the US empire knowingly provoked the war in Ukraine, even though there are mountains of evidence the US knowingly provoked the war in Ukraine, and even though US officials constantly talk about how much the war in Ukraine benefits the US:
If people really understood just how much suffering and destruction is unleashed by US foreign policy, they’d stop making such a big deal about the minor differences between two political parties who always come together to support the most destructive US foreign policy decisions.
The human suffering caused by the minor differences in domestic policy between Democrats and Republicans is dwarfed by the suffering caused by foreign policy bipartisanship by orders of magnitude. The ways they are the same are vastly more significant than the ways in which they differ.
The main misconception about US presidents is that they are proactive leaders when they’re really reactive facilitators. They’re not proactively leading the government in accordance with their vision and ideology, they’re responding to and facilitating the various needs of the empire from year to year. That’s what the empire managers in their administrations are doing with their daily intelligence and national security briefings: explaining to them what the needs of the empire are on that day and what must be done to facilitate those needs, using whatever language will make a given president receptive.
The main difference between US presidents often comes down to the narratives that the empire managers who they surround themselves with will use to explain why they need to advance the interests of the empire. Progressive president? You need to kill Syrians to advance human rights. Conservative president? You need to kill Syrians to protect national security. Presidents who are unfamiliar with the workings of the empire surround themselves with empire managers who understand how to keep the gears of the imperial machine turning, and those empire managers explain what needs to be done in ways that the president will listen to.
This is a big part of what keeps the empire moving the same way from administration to administration. Every president is being “advised” (read: directed) by DC swamp monsters who all went to the same universities and moved through the same revolving door employment circles of government agencies and think tanks and party politics and military-industrial complex advising/lobbying and media punditry, who all understand what’s required of the US president to facilitate the perpetuation of US unipolar planetary hegemony.
These swamp monsters are part of the permanent government structure that stays in place regardless of the comings and goings of electoral politics, and they’re always balls deep in literally every presidential administration, no matter how rebellious or anti-establishment that president pretends to be. That permanent government structure is why the large-scale movements of the empire don’t change when a president is replaced by a new president of an opposing ideology; America’s official elected government may have changed, but its real government did not.
NATO leftists are like “I STRONGLY oppose the US empire and its warmongering, BUT we need to completely 100% support the US empire’s nuclear brinkmanship in Ukraine and scream at anyone who talks about everything the US empire did to provoke and prolong this war.”
❖
All major international conflicts and negotiations ultimately boil down to the US working to stop the rise of China and China working to circumvent those efforts. Middle east policy, Russia policy, Africa policy, Australia policy, Latin America policy; it all ultimately comes back to China.
That’s why it’s silly when right wing “populists” act like antiwar heroes for saying the US should stop warmongering with Russia and the middle east in order to focus on China — it’s all about China. It’s all the same agenda. They’re not on different sides from the Democrats.
This was all set in motion decades ago when the US established a policy of ensuring that no other rival superpowers emerge after the fall of the Soviet Union.
None of which would necessarily be a problem if the US was a force for good in the world, or even just a force for good in the world relative to China. But that plainly is not the case.
So now we’re rapidly accelerating toward a horrific global conflict, all to ensure the continued domination of a power structure that demonstrably makes the world a much worse place than it would be if powerful governments just got along with each other.
The hope seems to be that China just taps out before it comes to hot war — that it just lets itself be absorbed into the US-centralized power structure like empire managers have been hoping it would for decades. But China doesn’t look ready to tap. It seems intent on retaining its national self-sovereignty.
(More, but not relevant to thread,)
https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2023/08 ... ve-matrix/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Sympathy for the Devils...
RFK, Jr. Exposes His Right-Wing Tendencies Again, This Time On Abortion
Jacqueline Luqman 16 Aug 2023
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the interview with NBC reporter Ali Vitali expressing support for an abortion ban. (Photo: NBC news)
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.' made and then tried to walk-back comments which supported banning abortion in some circumstances. But he's stuck with his own words and the supposedly anti-establishment presidential candidate is again taking positions that are decidedly right wing.
I hate to be all “I told you so,” but didn’t I tell you that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was problematic? Now when I said that, I was talking specifically about his peddling this cockamamie theory that COVID-19 was engineered to attack certain ethnic groups, which I outlined in pretty good detail in my last article.
So I almost hate to have to point out once again that RFK, Jr. has shown his allegiance with right-wing quackery-bordering-on-fascism in saying that he would support a national ban on abortion after the first three months of pregnancy if elected, and I gotta ask when is the section of the left that’s enamored with this dude going to abandon him.
At first, a spokesman for Kennedy said that he “misunderstood a question posed to him by an NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair,” and said the candidate’s stance on abortion as “always” being the woman’s right to choose. Kennedy "does not support legislation banning abortion.” But video of the exchange shows Kennedy answering a series of questions from an NBC news reporter and clearly stating , “I believe a decision to abort a child should be up to the women during the first three months of life.” When he was pressed on whether that meant signing a federal ban for abortions at 15 or 21 weeks, Kennedy said, “Once a child is viable, outside the womb, I think then the state has an interest in protecting the child, I’m for medical freedom. Individuals are able to make their own choices.”
It doesn’t seem to me like Kennedy misunderstood the questions, several of them, at all. But it does seem as though he doesn’t understand what “medical freedom” means, since he’s for medical freedom when it comes to vaccines, but not when it comes to what women do with their bodies after 21 weeks of pregnancy. Furthermore, it’s clear that RFK, Jr. doesn’t know much about abortion, so once again, let’s clear up yet another topic RFK, Jr. obviously knows nothing about.
Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon and represent 1% of all abortions in the US. According to KFF.com , formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation, these procedures are prohibitively expensive for most working-class and poor people, and this excludes the cost of travel and lost wages. The cost alone limits access to these procedures for most women.
RFK, Jr used the term “viable” to describe a fetus that is able to live outside of the womb. But the problem is that there is no standard accepted determination for fetal viability. Once again, KFF.com says that viability depends on many factors, including gestational age, fetal weight and sex, and medical interventions available, not simply the number of weeks of pregnancy.
A fetus isn’t viable outside of the womb simply because it has reached the magical 21-week mark.
Add to that the fact that external/social/systemic factors impact fetal viability, and the whole “21-weeks equals viable fetus” formula goes out the window. Location of the hospital where the mother gets prenatal care or will deliver the baby factors into the viability of the fetus. Why? Because infants born in resource-rich settings have a higher likelihood of survival than those born in resource-poor settings. Resource-rich regions have medical facilities that are more likely to have adequate neonatologists and maternal-fetal-medicine doctors than hospitals in poorer regions. And hospitals in resource-rich areas usually have policies that provide comprehensive treatment for infants born at 22 weeks while hospitals in poor areas may have some treatment policies for premature-born infants but not 100% coverage, and some hospitals have no policies or capacity to respond to those cases at all. And, for those hospitals that do not have adequate policies or staff to meet these needs, the pregnant person may be transferred to a hospital with better neonatal crisis services, but that is also not always possible. Then, on top of that, the patient’s health insurance coverage and reimbursement for transfers in care varies by state and insurance plan.
All this means that a fetus isn’t viable just because it’s reached the 21 weeks milestone, but where the pregnant person is getting care, the quality of that care, and the ability to access a better facility should the kind of care needed not be available at the nearest hospital all factor into whether a fetus is viable outside of the womb at 21 weeks or at any time because capitalism literally decides who lives or dies and when in this country, and that is true from the cradle to the grave. And can we be real and add that white supremacy and racial bias in the delivery of medicine that results in higher maternal deaths among Black, American Indian and Alaska Native women in this country also equate to lower outcomes for fetal survival at 21 weeks and any other time during the pregnancy, and also impacts the mortality of babies born to those women? So how is a federal ban on abortions at 21 weeks going to save those women’s babies when the racism they receive throughout their pregnancies and during childbirth is a threat to their lives and their babies?
And speaking of capitalism, let’s talk about the cost of abortion, shall we? Almost half of the individuals polled in the Turnaway Study out of the University of California San Francisco from 2008-2010 who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks did so because 1) they did not know they were pregnant until later in pregnancy, 2) they didn’t know where to access an abortion, 3) they had difficulties securing transportation to facilities to obtain an abortion, and most importantly 4) they lacked insurance coverage or money to pay for the procedure. Because, you see, there isn’t an abortion clinic on every corner like liquor stores and churches in this country, and that’s true even in the poorest neighborhoods, and according to this study, this was true in 2010, so no abortion isn’t the new Black genocide as some have opined in recent years in giving a Black face to the white evangelical assault on bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.
But let’s be real here, abortions are expensive. In 2012 the median cost of a surgical abortion at 10 weeks was $495, jumping to $1,350 at 20 weeks (range $750-$5,000) excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. In 2021 the cost of abortion was $625 for a first-trimester procedural abortion, $775 for a second-semester procedural abortion and higher for later termed abortions which, again, are rare. Today an abortion can cost between $800 - over $1,200 for a procedure in the first or second trimester.
So if 40% of U.S. adults don’t have enough money saved for a $400 emergency, who does RFK, Jr. think is having all these later-term abortions that they need to be stopped with a federal ban? Working-class and poor people in this country don’t have enough money saved to get the brakes fixed on their car (if they have one) let alone pay for an unplanned and very expensive medical procedure!
All of these factors contribute to the fact that abortions at or after 21 weeks are RARE in the US, so there isn’t an onslaught of late-term abortions that a federal ban needs to be put in place to protect “children” from.
But if RFK, Jr really believes the state needs to step in and protect the child, then the state needs to step in and provide housing, education, employment and HEALTHCARE for their parents rather than cooking up more laws to ban things that people aren’t really doing in the name of protecting children.
Of course, he’s walked back his comments again. But it really ought to be obvious by now that this man has no idea what he’s talking about, which should signal to people that he’s not a serious challenge to anyone, especially since he’s running against Biden as a Democrat in a party that will not let him on a debate stage. But if his obvious right-wing tendencies like unconditional support for Israel and now his support of a federal abortion ban in any context isn’t enough to turn the Latte Left off from this guy, I honestly don’t know what will.
https://www.blackagendareport.com/rfk-j ... e-abortion
Israel, Covid and now abortion, whose side is this guy on? On all three points he's more or less on Joe Biden's side. So what else ya need to know? He's an environmental lawyer and a little soft on the NATO/Russian war. Those lawyers lose against capital almost every time, they fight on the wrong field, one the enemy owns. And his stance on that war shows that he really doesn't understand it's origins and the historic depth of US involvement.
The problem is looking for a solution to the Democratic Party in the Democratic Party. Time for something completely different.
Jacqueline Luqman 16 Aug 2023
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the interview with NBC reporter Ali Vitali expressing support for an abortion ban. (Photo: NBC news)
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.' made and then tried to walk-back comments which supported banning abortion in some circumstances. But he's stuck with his own words and the supposedly anti-establishment presidential candidate is again taking positions that are decidedly right wing.
I hate to be all “I told you so,” but didn’t I tell you that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was problematic? Now when I said that, I was talking specifically about his peddling this cockamamie theory that COVID-19 was engineered to attack certain ethnic groups, which I outlined in pretty good detail in my last article.
So I almost hate to have to point out once again that RFK, Jr. has shown his allegiance with right-wing quackery-bordering-on-fascism in saying that he would support a national ban on abortion after the first three months of pregnancy if elected, and I gotta ask when is the section of the left that’s enamored with this dude going to abandon him.
At first, a spokesman for Kennedy said that he “misunderstood a question posed to him by an NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair,” and said the candidate’s stance on abortion as “always” being the woman’s right to choose. Kennedy "does not support legislation banning abortion.” But video of the exchange shows Kennedy answering a series of questions from an NBC news reporter and clearly stating , “I believe a decision to abort a child should be up to the women during the first three months of life.” When he was pressed on whether that meant signing a federal ban for abortions at 15 or 21 weeks, Kennedy said, “Once a child is viable, outside the womb, I think then the state has an interest in protecting the child, I’m for medical freedom. Individuals are able to make their own choices.”
It doesn’t seem to me like Kennedy misunderstood the questions, several of them, at all. But it does seem as though he doesn’t understand what “medical freedom” means, since he’s for medical freedom when it comes to vaccines, but not when it comes to what women do with their bodies after 21 weeks of pregnancy. Furthermore, it’s clear that RFK, Jr. doesn’t know much about abortion, so once again, let’s clear up yet another topic RFK, Jr. obviously knows nothing about.
Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon and represent 1% of all abortions in the US. According to KFF.com , formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation, these procedures are prohibitively expensive for most working-class and poor people, and this excludes the cost of travel and lost wages. The cost alone limits access to these procedures for most women.
RFK, Jr used the term “viable” to describe a fetus that is able to live outside of the womb. But the problem is that there is no standard accepted determination for fetal viability. Once again, KFF.com says that viability depends on many factors, including gestational age, fetal weight and sex, and medical interventions available, not simply the number of weeks of pregnancy.
A fetus isn’t viable outside of the womb simply because it has reached the magical 21-week mark.
Add to that the fact that external/social/systemic factors impact fetal viability, and the whole “21-weeks equals viable fetus” formula goes out the window. Location of the hospital where the mother gets prenatal care or will deliver the baby factors into the viability of the fetus. Why? Because infants born in resource-rich settings have a higher likelihood of survival than those born in resource-poor settings. Resource-rich regions have medical facilities that are more likely to have adequate neonatologists and maternal-fetal-medicine doctors than hospitals in poorer regions. And hospitals in resource-rich areas usually have policies that provide comprehensive treatment for infants born at 22 weeks while hospitals in poor areas may have some treatment policies for premature-born infants but not 100% coverage, and some hospitals have no policies or capacity to respond to those cases at all. And, for those hospitals that do not have adequate policies or staff to meet these needs, the pregnant person may be transferred to a hospital with better neonatal crisis services, but that is also not always possible. Then, on top of that, the patient’s health insurance coverage and reimbursement for transfers in care varies by state and insurance plan.
All this means that a fetus isn’t viable just because it’s reached the 21 weeks milestone, but where the pregnant person is getting care, the quality of that care, and the ability to access a better facility should the kind of care needed not be available at the nearest hospital all factor into whether a fetus is viable outside of the womb at 21 weeks or at any time because capitalism literally decides who lives or dies and when in this country, and that is true from the cradle to the grave. And can we be real and add that white supremacy and racial bias in the delivery of medicine that results in higher maternal deaths among Black, American Indian and Alaska Native women in this country also equate to lower outcomes for fetal survival at 21 weeks and any other time during the pregnancy, and also impacts the mortality of babies born to those women? So how is a federal ban on abortions at 21 weeks going to save those women’s babies when the racism they receive throughout their pregnancies and during childbirth is a threat to their lives and their babies?
And speaking of capitalism, let’s talk about the cost of abortion, shall we? Almost half of the individuals polled in the Turnaway Study out of the University of California San Francisco from 2008-2010 who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks did so because 1) they did not know they were pregnant until later in pregnancy, 2) they didn’t know where to access an abortion, 3) they had difficulties securing transportation to facilities to obtain an abortion, and most importantly 4) they lacked insurance coverage or money to pay for the procedure. Because, you see, there isn’t an abortion clinic on every corner like liquor stores and churches in this country, and that’s true even in the poorest neighborhoods, and according to this study, this was true in 2010, so no abortion isn’t the new Black genocide as some have opined in recent years in giving a Black face to the white evangelical assault on bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.
But let’s be real here, abortions are expensive. In 2012 the median cost of a surgical abortion at 10 weeks was $495, jumping to $1,350 at 20 weeks (range $750-$5,000) excluding the cost of travel and lost wages. In 2021 the cost of abortion was $625 for a first-trimester procedural abortion, $775 for a second-semester procedural abortion and higher for later termed abortions which, again, are rare. Today an abortion can cost between $800 - over $1,200 for a procedure in the first or second trimester.
So if 40% of U.S. adults don’t have enough money saved for a $400 emergency, who does RFK, Jr. think is having all these later-term abortions that they need to be stopped with a federal ban? Working-class and poor people in this country don’t have enough money saved to get the brakes fixed on their car (if they have one) let alone pay for an unplanned and very expensive medical procedure!
All of these factors contribute to the fact that abortions at or after 21 weeks are RARE in the US, so there isn’t an onslaught of late-term abortions that a federal ban needs to be put in place to protect “children” from.
But if RFK, Jr really believes the state needs to step in and protect the child, then the state needs to step in and provide housing, education, employment and HEALTHCARE for their parents rather than cooking up more laws to ban things that people aren’t really doing in the name of protecting children.
Of course, he’s walked back his comments again. But it really ought to be obvious by now that this man has no idea what he’s talking about, which should signal to people that he’s not a serious challenge to anyone, especially since he’s running against Biden as a Democrat in a party that will not let him on a debate stage. But if his obvious right-wing tendencies like unconditional support for Israel and now his support of a federal abortion ban in any context isn’t enough to turn the Latte Left off from this guy, I honestly don’t know what will.
https://www.blackagendareport.com/rfk-j ... e-abortion
Israel, Covid and now abortion, whose side is this guy on? On all three points he's more or less on Joe Biden's side. So what else ya need to know? He's an environmental lawyer and a little soft on the NATO/Russian war. Those lawyers lose against capital almost every time, they fight on the wrong field, one the enemy owns. And his stance on that war shows that he really doesn't understand it's origins and the historic depth of US involvement.
The problem is looking for a solution to the Democratic Party in the Democratic Party. Time for something completely different.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
Re: Sympathy for the Devils...
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., at the “Common Sense” Town Hall, an event sponsored by the political group No Labels on July 17, 2023, at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. Photo: John Tully for The Washington Post via Getty Images
FOX EXECUTIVES ARE POURING CASH INTO JOE MANCHIN’S CAMPAIGN
The West Virginia senator has appeared repeatedly on Fox News to chastise his Democratic colleagues as he considers a presidential run.
Daniel Boguslaw
August 14 2023, 6:00 a.m.
SINCE THE 2020 presidential election, when Democrats emerged with a razor-thin majority in the Senate, Joe Manchin has been no stranger to his Republican colleagues: schmoozing with them on his houseboat, meeting to discuss concerns about President Joe Biden’s massive spending packages, and proving a consistent ally in derailing the aspirations of both Blue Dog Democrats and left-wing progressives.
As the Democrats’ critical 51st vote, the West Virginia senator has repeatedly taken to Fox News to warn his Democratic colleagues about the federal deficit and to air his grievances to the network’s conservative viewership. Manchin’s most recent financial disclosures suggest that those appearances are falling on receptive ears.
The senator received tens of thousands of dollars from Fox executives and lawyers from April to June, according to his campaign’s July filing with the Federal Election Commission. Prior to that, Manchin had not received a donation from a Fox employee since 2018, when James Murdoch, son of media mogul and Fox Corporation Chair Rupert Murdoch, donated to Manchin. Fox’s political action committee also chipped in to the senator’s campaign in the spring. The donations follow an influx of cash from fossil fuel behemoths and the centrist political organization No Labels.
With over a decade in the Senate, Manchin has made clear he represents the most conservative wing of the Democratic Party, and donors have taken note. “A lot of donations are part of the buddy network. The world of extremely rich and influential people in the United States is kind of small,” Stan Oklobdzija, a political science professor at Tulane University, told The Intercept. “Manchin has been around on the Hill for a long time, he’s a known commodity. These donors probably come across Manchin, they like him, they see him as reliable, and want to keep him in office.”
Manchin’s office and campaign did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment. Fox did not directly respond to a question about its employees’ political giving and network coverage of Manchin. “FOXPAC supports candidates on both sides of the aisle,” Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti wrote in an email, pointing The Intercept to the company’s political activities policy.
Manchin, who has not said whether he will run for reelection in 2024, has made increasingly bold overtures that he is considering a run for president as a third-party candidate. He has repeatedly said he won’t rule out a bid to place a moderate in the general election, a claim bolstered by his close affiliation with No Labels.
Appearing at a No Labels event in Manchester, New Hampshire, last month, Manchin took the stage with Jon Huntsman Jr., Utah’s former Republican governor, to lay out the group’s plan for 2024. According to Manchin and No Labels, they will only run a candidate if they believe Biden has not significantly moderated his political positions to their conservative liking in the months leading up to the election.
“I’ve never been in any race I’ve ever spoiled.” Manchin said at the event. “I’ve been in races to win. And if I get in a race, I’m going to win,”
Despite that promise, liberal activist groups have harshly condemned the No Labels plan, pointing to polling that shows that a third-party run would unequivocally benefit Donald Trump’s reelection chances.
In a testament to his dissatisfaction with the current administration, Manchin often takes to Fox News to lash out at Biden, including in June when he attacked him over his initiatives to spur green energy investments. “You cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner environment,” Manchin told Fox News Digital. “It’s not going to work. It’s not feasible. It won’t be done. The rest of the world won’t follow and Asia is going to produce about 90% of all pollution in the next 10 years. It’s where all the pollution is coming from. Innovation is the only way to go. If you want a clean environment, then you have to do it through technology and innovation.”
THE DONATIONS TO Manchin came from across the Fox corporate umbrella. Among the executives slinging cash to the senior senator from West Virginia are Jack Abernethy, CEO of Fox Television Stations, who donated $3,300 in May, alongside Stephen Brown, another Fox TV executive who gave the same amount. Michael Mulvihill, a Fox Sports president of insights and analytics, gave $1,500, while Fernando Szew, the CEO of Fox Entertainment Global, gave $1,000. Fox senior vice president for digital policy and strategy Adrian Farley donated $6,600, as did Jamie Gillespie, Fox Corporation’s executive vice president of government relations.
A number of attorneys for Fox Corporation gave a combined $11,350 to Manchin: Elizabeth Casey, executive vice president and deputy general counsel; Joe Di Scipio, senior vice president, FCC legal and business affairs, and assistant general counsel; Viet Dinh, chief legal and policy officer; Tim Lykowski, head of labor and employment; and Adam Reiss, executive vice president and deputy general counsel. Chris Reed, executive vice president of legal affairs at Fox Television Stations, also chipped in $1,000.
The Fox Corporation political action committee, meanwhile, gave Manchin $8,500, bringing the total donations to $43,150. In 2022, the Fox committee’s largest contributions went to the Republican and Democratic senatorial campaign committees, at $20,000 a piece.
While Manchin has painted himself as a middle-of-the-road politician who can appeal to sensible centrists on both sides of the aisle, his polling numbers in West Virginia suggest otherwise. A May poll shows Manchin trailing his likely Republican challenger for Senate, Gov. Jim Justice, by 22 percentage points. Meanwhile, national polling consistently ranks Manchin as the second most unpopular senator, one rung below Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
In June, David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, said Manchin was “a dead man walking” in West Virginia. Manchin didn’t let the comment slide.
“This is a funny comment about polls since the same smart pollsters said Barack Obama’s poll numbers proved he had no chance against Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump could never win the first election, and Republicans would win huge in 2022,” a Manchin spokesperson said in response. “Senator Manchin’s focus is on doing the best job for West Virginia and the American people. The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.”
He made those remarks to Fox News.
https://theintercept.com/2023/08/14/joe ... Newsletter
One might reasonably ask, "What is Machin doing in the Democratic Party anyway?" Well, that would depend upon what the questioner thought the Democratic Party stood for. If that were the facade of a party of the working folk that question would be reasonable. However, if the party were nothing but a vehicle for getting elected in order to actuate ruling class mandates, just like the other guys, well, there ya go...
The Biden/Machin dynamic duo completely dismembered the marginally progressive policy initiatives a majority of the party wanted and now Joe goes around acting like he did something great and some idiots will believe him while more pathetic souls will vote against Trump.
Machiavelli would be stunned by the manipulative genius.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."