The deal with the Clinton devil is over

Once untouchable, Hillary and Bill are getting pounded

1_132016_b1crowleylgclintons8201_c0-455-1200-1154_s885x516
Illustration on the Clinton’s imperiled political fortunes by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times more >

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Live by Bubba, die by Bubba.

Something has shifted when it comes to the treatment and perception of the Clintons, and it threatens their joint political ambitions like nothing before it.

For nearly a quarter of a century, the Clintons have been politically bulletproof. No charge, regardless of how salacious, illegal and true, seemed to stick. When they detected incoming fire, they activated their tried-and-true protocol: deny, stonewall, deflect and claim that the nation’s business was too important — they were too important — to respond: “I need to get back to work for the American people.” Exit left. Get protection from the leftist mainstream media.

They were untouchable, having created a cult of personality rivaled (and surpassed) only by President Obama.

They were untouchable, having created a cult of personality rivaled (and surpassed) only by President Obama.

Until now.

And surprisingly, the issue that is currently unraveling their Wizard of Oz illusion isn’t the allegations of massive fraud at the Clinton Foundation or her mishandling of classified material on her private email server. (More on both fronts to come, courtesy of the FBI).

And surprisingly, the issue that is currently unraveling their Wizard of Oz illusion isn’t the allegations of massive fraud at the Clinton Foundation or her mishandling of classified material on her private email server. (More on both fronts to come, courtesy of the FBI).

No, the issue posing the greatest risk right now to a Clinton Restoration is the public’s voiding of the deal it made with the Clinton Devil in 1992.

The conventional wisdom has long been that Mr. Clinton’s lewd, abusive past is itself a thing of the past. His serial extramarital affairs, including the one with the barely legal intern, Monica Lewinsky, his textbook sexual harassment of subordinates like Paula Jones, his alleged assault of Kathleen Willey and the rape alleged by Juanita Broaddrick, were considered old news, episodes litigated in the court of public opinion and dismissed for three reasons: 1) His piggery was already widely known; 2) a strong economy absolved many of his sins; and 3) the public took cues from his wife. “Hey, if she’s OK with his piggery, who are we to judge?”

This cleverly constructed protective shield is now crumbling because Mrs. Clinton, after enlisting her husband on the campaign trail in a retread of 1992’s “two for the price of one” deal, is oblivious to the political ground shifting beneath her.

Republican candidate Donald Trump does not play by anybody else’s rules, least of all Clinton-enforced ones, but apparently no one has informed Mrs. Clinton. So she gleefully and blindly launched an attack on his “penchant for sexism.”

You could almost see Mr. Trump’s rhetorical gun turret turn slowly toward her before he opened fire. “Be careful,” he warned on Twitter. And then, on MSNBC, he blasted her husband as “one of the great women abusers of all time,” adding, “I think Hillary is an enabler.” He then released an Internet ad tying her to the sex scandals of her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner (husband of her closest aide, Huma Abedin) and Bill Cosby.

He dared to go where no traditional politician would — hitting the Clintons’ grotesque hypocrisy — and made it acceptable to question both Clintons’ character and judgment on women’s issues. Suddenly, Mrs. Clinton — self-styled champion of women and girls — came under criticism, particularly from news organizations such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, MSNBC and others that have long protected both Clintons.

Liberals are now far less inclined to defend them, perhaps because she is the candidate this time and he, the charming rogue, is not, or perhaps because the Democratic Party and the broader culture have changed. But the cosseting they once enjoyed and exploited is disappearing, and they are floundering without it.

Bill Clinton, a man never at a loss for words, was rendered speechless when asked by an ABC News reporter if his past were fair game. Later that same week, he dodged another reporter who asked him specifically about Mrs. Broaddrick’s charge of rape. Having never before had to account for his behavior, Mr. Clinton’s usual veneer of calculated unflappability dissolved.

Earlier, Mrs. Clinton tweeted a message about rape victims: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” Except, apparently, for those attacked by her husband. At a campaign stop in New Hampshire, an audience member reminded her of her tweet and asked, “Would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and/or Paula Jones?”

Stunned, she gave a mangled reply: “I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

The Clintons are not used to this. Something has shifted. They don’t like it, and they sense they can no longer control it.

The Clintons thought the party would last forever. It took over 20 years, but it’s finally last call.

Mrs. Clinton’s wish for sexual assault victims to be heard and believed starts with her husband’s victims. And this time, they are getting far more support — and from unexpected quarters that once served as the Clintons’ political bodyguards.

As both Clintons may be slowly realizing, when the ground shifts beneath you, you are usually the last one to feel it. And by then, it’s too late to escape.

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor

Bernie Sanders Mr. Sanders is still running the Windows 95 version of progressive politics.

Bernie Sanders is still running the Windows 95 version of progressive politics.

(AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Senator Bernie Sanders

Team Bernie

By John V. Walsh

As the Democratic primaries came to an end Tuesday night, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton met. Mr. Sanders presumably made a strong case that the ideas and ideological direction of his campaign should be incorporated into her campaign and, if she wins, her presidency.

Earlier in the day, in anticipation of the meeting, he said, “I think the time is now — in fact, the time is long overdue — for a fundamental transformation of the Democratic Party.”

Mr. Sanders’s achievement has been to show the leadership of his recently adopted party that Democrats and many independents under 35 — that is, those who weren’t adults during Bill Clinton’s administration — are eager for a full-throated progressive agenda and are unafraid of backlash. While Democrats in the 1990s — notably Bill and Hillary Clinton — worried about the party’s mistakes of the 1970s, many in this decade worry more about triangulation and the cautious politics of the 1990s.

What will a post-Sanders progressive agenda look like? The first stop will be the official party platform. But for all the work and squabbling that go into them, platforms have long been throwaway documents.

The real progressive agenda will be written over the next few years, either to push the Clinton administration or to shape a challenge to a Republican president and Congress. But it’s unlikely that this new progressive agenda will be Mr. Sanders’s agenda, specifically, or that Mr. Sanders himself will be the leading advocate and arbiter of progressive policies in the way that Senator Edward M. Kennedy once was. Mr. Sanders is still running the Windows 95 version of progressive politics.

For one thing, he has never had the kind of influence with his colleagues that he found with the grass roots this year, in part because he never defined himself as a Democrat. No one expects that he’ll run for president again at 78 or 82, so he won’t have the clout of a senator who is seen as a potential president. And any institutional power he may gain as chairman or a ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee sounds a lot bigger than it really is. The committee’s main job is to produce a nonbinding budget resolution, and in many recent years, it hasn’t even done that.

But the biggest reason that Mr. Sanders won’t shape the next progressive agenda stems from a little-noticed aspect of his campaign: His policy proposals were consistently out of step with the ideas that have been emerging from progressive think tanks like Demos or the Center for American Progress or championed by his own congressional colleagues.

For example, many liberal Democrats would agree with Mr. Sanders, in theory, that single-payer health insurance could be fairer, more efficient and cheaper than our fragmented system. But the president and Congress made the decision in 2010 to build on the private insurance system, in the form of the Affordable Care Act, in part because single-payer wasn’t politically viable. A Democratic administration’s next moves will be to expand and strengthen the Affordable Care Act, not start over.

Like many of Mr. Sanders’s policy proposals, single-payer is an all-or-nothing proposition that creates few openings for legislators who want to do something incremental that could lead to a bigger goal. Congressmen like Senator Kennedy or Representative Henry Waxman of California often put forward ambitious ideas, too, but with manageable steps to build a structure that could be expanded later or that could attract enough support to pass.

Similarly, while progressive organizations such as the Roosevelt Institute have developed fairly complex visions for strengthening regulation of Wall Street and banks and reducing the overall “financialization” of the economy, Mr. Sanders continued to fixate on restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated investment and commercial banking but had become outdated long before it was repealed in 1999. His plan to “break up the big banks” sometimes seemed to consist simply of ordering the Federal Reserve to break up the big banks. The real progressive agenda has moved well beyond that to focus on raising and strengthening capital requirements, or the amounts that banks are required to keep as cash or safe investments.

Mr. Sanders made the $15 minimum wage a cornerstone of his campaign, probably accelerating the momentum that led to its passage in two states and the District of Columbia. But his campaign barely focused on other issues related to work, such as the challenges posed by new employment models in the on-demand, or “gig,” economy, a topic of a speech by Senator Elizabeth Warren in May. Ms. Warren called for a new social contract under which “all workers — no matter when they work, where they work, who they work for, whether they pick tomatoes or build rocket ships — should have some basic protections and be able to build some economic security for themselves and their families.”

This difference is part of a larger gap between Mr. Sanders and other progressives in their approaches to economic inequality. Where Mr. Sanders talks about “redistribution” of wealth from “the billionaires” to the middle- and low-income classes through high tax rates, others, such as the economists at the Economic Policy Institute, have focused more on what is sometimes called “predistribution,” wages and the conditions of work. They would reduce the gains at the top — such as by putting some meaningful constraints on executive pay — but also make sure that workers got a greater share of the profits, not only in the form of money, but also time, flexibility and predictable scheduling. If the initial distribution of benefits and money is badly skewed, it will be hard to use tax and transfer policies alone to redistribute it.

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

Mr. Sanders’s achievement in 2016 deserves respect: He has been the first insurgent Democratic candidate to emerge from the true left of the party since the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s two campaigns in the 1980s, and by far the most successful. That success points the way toward a new and more vigorous progressive agenda.

But he’s shown in his campaign that he’s unlikely to be the agent who fills in the details of that agenda. No doubt Senator Warren, with her ever-widening vision of economic fairness, will play a Kennedy-like role, whether she remains in the Senate or becomes Mrs. Clinton’s running mate.

Other Democratic senators, some almost as young as the Sanders enthusiasts, will play their part, as will outside organizations. If elected, Hillary Clinton will either join this new progressive wave or will be nudged and challenged by it. As Mr. Sanders finally steps back, the next era can begin.

Mark Schmitt is the director of the political reform program at the research organization New America.

As the Democratic primaries came to an end Tuesday night, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton met. Mr. Sanders presumably made a strong case that the ideas and ideological direction of his campaign should be incorporated into her campaign and, if she wins, her presidency.

Earlier in the day, in anticipation of the meeting, he said, “I think the time is now — in fact, the time is long overdue — for a fundamental transformation of the Democratic Party.”

Mr. Sanders’s achievement has been to show the leadership of his recently adopted party that Democrats and many independents under 35 — that is, those who weren’t adults during Bill Clinton’s administration — are eager for a full-throated progressive agenda and are unafraid of backlash. While Democrats in the 1990s — notably Bill and Hillary Clinton — worried about the party’s mistakes of the 1970s, many in this decade worry more about triangulation and the cautious politics of the 1990s.

What will a post-Sanders progressive agenda look like? The first stop will be the official party platform. But for all the work and squabbling that go into them, platforms have long been throwaway documents.

The real progressive agenda will be written over the next few years, either to push the Clinton administration or to shape a challenge to a Republican president and Congress. But it’s unlikely that this new progressive agenda will be Mr. Sanders’s agenda, specifically, or that Mr. Sanders himself will be the leading advocate and arbiter of progressive policies in the way that Senator Edward M. Kennedy once was. Mr. Sanders is still running the Windows 95 version of progressive politics.

For one thing, he has never had the kind of influence with his colleagues that he found with the grass roots this year, in part because he never defined himself as a Democrat. No one expects that he’ll run for president again at 78 or 82, so he won’t have the clout of a senator who is seen as a potential president. And any institutional power he may gain as chairman or a ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee sounds a lot bigger than it really is. The committee’s main job is to produce a nonbinding budget resolution, and in many recent years, it hasn’t even done that.

But the biggest reason that Mr. Sanders won’t shape the next progressive agenda stems from a little-noticed aspect of his campaign: His policy proposals were consistently out of step with the ideas that have been emerging from progressive think tanks like Demos or the Center for American Progress or championed by his own congressional colleagues.

For example, many liberal Democrats would agree with Mr. Sanders, in theory, that single-payer health insurance could be fairer, more efficient and cheaper than our fragmented system. But the president and Congress made the decision in 2010 to build on the private insurance system, in the form of the Affordable Care Act, in part because single-payer wasn’t politically viable. A Democratic administration’s next moves will be to expand and strengthen the Affordable Care Act, not start over.

Like many of Mr. Sanders’s policy proposals, single-payer is an all-or-nothing proposition that creates few openings for legislators who want to do something incremental that could lead to a bigger goal. Congressmen like Senator Kennedy or Representative Henry Waxman of California often put forward ambitious ideas, too, but with manageable steps to build a structure that could be expanded later or that could attract enough support to pass.

Similarly, while progressive organizations such as the Roosevelt Institute have developed fairly complex visions for strengthening regulation of Wall Street and banks and reducing the overall “financialization” of the economy, Mr. Sanders continued to fixate on restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated investment and commercial banking but had become outdated long before it was repealed in 1999. His plan to “break up the big banks” sometimes seemed to consist simply of ordering the Federal Reserve to break up the big banks. The real progressive agenda has moved well beyond that to focus on raising and strengthening capital requirements, or the amounts that banks are required to keep as cash or safe investments.

Mr. Sanders made the $15 minimum wage a cornerstone of his campaign, probably accelerating the momentum that led to its passage in two states and the District of Columbia. But his campaign barely focused on other issues related to work, such as the challenges posed by new employment models in the on-demand, or “gig,” economy, a topic of a speech by Senator Elizabeth Warren in May. Ms. Warren called for a new social contract under which “all workers — no matter when they work, where they work, who they work for, whether they pick tomatoes or build rocket ships — should have some basic protections and be able to build some economic security for themselves and their families.”

This difference is part of a larger gap between Mr. Sanders and other progressives in their approaches to economic inequality. Where Mr. Sanders talks about “redistribution” of wealth from “the billionaires” to the middle- and low-income classes through high tax rates, others, such as the economists at the Economic Policy Institute, have focused more on what is sometimes called “predistribution,” wages and the conditions of work. They would reduce the gains at the top — such as by putting some meaningful constraints on executive pay — but also make sure that workers got a greater share of the profits, not only in the form of money, but also time, flexibility and predictable scheduling. If the initial distribution of benefits and money is badly skewed, it will be hard to use tax and transfer policies alone to redistribute it.

Mr. Sanders’s achievement in 2016 deserves respect: He has been the first insurgent Democratic candidate to emerge from the true left of the party since the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s two campaigns in the 1980s, and by far the most successful. That success points the way toward a new and more vigorous progressive agenda.

But he’s shown in his campaign that he’s unlikely to be the agent who fills in the details of that agenda. No doubt Senator Warren, with her ever-widening vision of economic fairness, will play a Kennedy-like role, whether she remains in the Senate or becomes Mrs. Clinton’s running mate.

Other Democratic senators, some almost as young as the Sanders enthusiasts, will play their part, as will outside organizations. If elected, Hillary Clinton will either join this new progressive wave or will be nudged and challenged by it. As Mr. Sanders finally steps back, the next era can begin.

Mark Schmitt is the director of the political reform program at the research organization New America.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor

By John V. Walsh
Global Research, June 14, 2016
CounterPunch 13 June 2016

Region: USA
Theme: Militarization and WMD

Hillary2-400x266Hillary Clinton’s statement on the mass murder in Orlando is mostly a confection of the empty, saccharine pieties for which the entire American political class is known – but it concluded with a revealing statement.

There she said: “This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.” (Emphasis, jw)

But those “weapons of war” have been used on the streets of Iraq and in midnight raids on the civilian population in the war there that Hillary so ardently backed.

Does she even grasp what she is saying? She is saying that it is an atrocity to use such weapons on Americans – but not on the brown people, civilians in their homes, in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East and North Africa in U.S. wars of aggression and the occupation. To be horrified by the use of those weapons on Americans but not on Arabs qualifies as racism of the basest sort.

And what about the causes of the atrocity in Orlando? In attempting to discuss the cause, she mentions the lack of gun control and the discrimination against the LGBT community. But she forgets to say in her statement that ISIS laid claim to the atrocity, lauding one of its American followers for carrying out the deed. So ISIS is responsible, and the hatred of America on which ISIS thrives is responsible.

But where does ISIS come from? It did not exist before the war on Iraq that Hillary and her fellow neocons peddled so assiduously with lie upon lie. The war on Iraq, the divide and conquer tactic that the US invaders used to set Shia against Sunni to cripple the population are the factors that brought ISIS into being. The civil war in Syria, another pet project of Hillary’s, gave a further opening and impetus to ISIS.

And Barack Obama had pretty much the same message as his evil ex-Secretary of State. Gun control and LGBT rights were front and center, but nary a word about the devastation the U.S. Empire has wrought in the Middle East that brought about the rise of ISIS.

The word “blowback” was not to be found in Hillary’s or Obama’s statements.

But of course it goes deeper than that. The U.S. has long backed Saudi Arabia where the ideology for ISIS was concocted and promoted. Saudi Arabia and the other medieval monarchies of the Gulf who have so ardently supported ISIS have long been supported by the U.S. The secular governments in the region like those of Gaddafi, Hussein and now Assad, in contrast, are targets for regime change ops – brutal ones at that. These are the very governments that fought the Islamic fundamentalists – and the US has attacked every one of them. How deep does the hand of the U.S. government, or parts of it, go in the rise of ISIS? It is a question that needs to be answered by a full Congressional investigation, but chances of that are nil while Obama and Hillary and their neocon buddies are in charge.

Finally the U.S. alliance with Israel and the backing of the apartheid Jewish state in its long, slow genocide of an entire Arab people, the Palestinians, also stirs hatred for the U.S. Does Hillary think that has nothing to do with the hatred ISIS expresses for the U.S? She apparently thinks “the price is worth it,” to quote a protege of hers. Thus Hillary in her obeisance to AIPAC and the rest of the Israeli Lobby puts herself in the front ranks of those who have given birth to events like the ones in Orlando.

Atrocities breed atrocities. Or as Andrew Kopkind remarked in another context, the skies were dark in Orlando this past weekend with the chickens coming home to roost.
Prof. John V. Walsh, MD, can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com. He usually does not include his title in a little bio like this, but in this case the political essay above involved a bit about science. can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com
The original source of this article is CounterPunch
Copyright © John V. Walsh, CounterPunch, 2016

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor

By Tyler Durden
Global Research, June 13, 2016
Zero Hedge 12 June 2016

Region: Russia and FSU
Theme: Militarization and WMD, US NATO War Agenda

The launching of the European missile defense system (Aegis) by the United States in May has repeatedly been criticized by Russia as an attempt by the US to take away first mover advantage in the event that the US ever decided to attack.

While Russia has already indicated that the deployment of of Iskander missile systems would be one certain response to neutralize the the anti-ballistic missile defense system, Russia has wasted no time in developing future responses.

British Labour Party politician killed in Attack

 

 

 

 

Jo Cox, British Labour Party politician and member of British Parliament, was Killed in Attack

jo-cox-british-politician-700x394

Jo Cox
British Politician
Helen Joanne “Jo” Cox was a British Labour Party politician. She was the Member of Parliament for the Batley and Spen constituency from her election in May 2015 until her death 13 months later in June …

June 16, 2016, Leeds General Infirmary, City of Leeds, United Kingdom

5 days ago – Jo Cox, a British Labour Party politician, died after an attack Thursday in a village in her … Brendan Cox (@MrBrendanCox) June 16, 2016 … (CNN)Before her death, Jo Cox had become increasingly worried that politics was getting extreme, that things were turning “too tribal and unthinking,” said Brendan Cox, her widower.
“She was very worried that the language was coarsening and people were driven to take more

Cox was a rising star of the Labour party and a vocal advocate of Britain remaining in the European Union. She championed for the rights of immigrants and was particularly vocal about Syrian child refugees.

The shocking killing of Cox last week has focused international attention on the country’s pivotal referendum on whether to leave the European Union. United Kingdom voters head to the polls Thursday.

In Jo Cox’s town: Market stalls, a quiet library and now flowers after an unthinkable crime. In Jo Cox’s town, after her killing Cox said he was grateful for the outpouring of love from around the world and that he had even heard that a school in a refugee camp had been named after his late wife.

Cox said he would not run for election for his wife’s Parliament seat, saying that Jo would’ve wanted a woman to take the spot. He said he would focus on taking care of their two children and making sure that something good could come from the tragedy. “She’d want this to try bring people together, bring more compassion for each other, to dial down the rhetoric, hatred and bring communities together,” Cox said.

Last week, the 41-year-old politician was fatally shot and stabbed in Birstall in northern England. Cox said he believes his late wife was killed because of what she believed in.
“She had strong political views and I believe she was killed because of those views,” Cox said. “She died because of them. She would want to stand up for those in death as she did in life.”

On Thursday, Jo Cox, a young British Labour MP, was shot and stabbed in a public street. A few hours later, she was dead. The killing of the Brexit opponent and mother of two is yet another horrifying act in a week in which violence has struck at the heart of Western civilization. The victims were gays, police officers and a politician, and they took place in the settings of our everyday lives: a club, a street, a home.

It’s been 10 years since the Football World Cup transformed Germany into a “summer fairytale,” as it was referred to by Germans. During the weeks of that tournament, the world seemed like a more peaceful place. World events moved into the background, and what really mattered was the drama of sport. This summer, our attention is instead focused on the massacre in Orlando, the terror in Paris and the images of hooligan brutality. The green grass of the football pitch has become a threatened reserve. There is a jarring contrast when, following the half-time news broadcast, viewers are returned to the match — to the referee’s whistle and the players trying to win a game.

During the third day of this year’s European championship tournament, the worst “mass shooting” in US history took place in a gay club called Pulse in Orlando, where 49 people were killed and dozens were injured. The terrorist murders in the town of Magnanville, near Paris, took place the next day. There, a mother was murdered in front of her three-year-old son, with the perpetrator filming his act and posting it on Facebook. The matches themselves were accompanied by rioting English, Russian and German hooligans. The news showed a Russian fan kicking the head of a man lying on the ground, images of unrestrained aggression. Orlando, Magnanville, the Hooligans, the murder of Jo Cox — they may not be directly connected, but when taken together, they paint a disturbing image of our contemporary, violent times.

Disturbingly, the violence is also pushing its way into private and semi-private spaces that had previously seemed safe — front lawns, private homes, cafes or clubs. Pulse was a safe space for gays and lesbians. And terror targets don’t get more private than the little house with the white fence where the family of the murdered police officer lived. The message is clear: It can hit anybody, anywhere.

Not Only an Aberration

It’s not the number of the victims that affects us most. It may statistically be true that the tally of terror victims is lower than it has been in previous decades, and that the IRA and the PLO’s terror attacks in the 1970s killed more people. It may be true that the level of perceived threat during the Cold War was higher than today. But these days, we are not just afraid of the terror, which is statistical unlikely to affect us — we are worried about our civilized way of life. Haven’t we, in Western Europe, grown up with the idea of advancing peace, of globally decreasing violence, contained by a state that enforces peace in the interest of all?

After the events of Orlando and Paris, we once again look to the perpetrators’ biographies for explanations of their hate — into their complex identities and social backgrounds. The political terror of the IRA or PLO seemed less disturbing than suicide attacks conducted by radicalized lone wolves, because those groups had political goals that were at least comprehensible. The pure desire for destruction that is characteristic of today’s terror is not. If the violence could somehow be explained, then it could actively be fought. Then it would “only” be an aberration that could be rectified through politics. It is the feeling that we are at the whim of the irrational that unsettles us so much these days.

So far, politicians have done little to curtail the escalating brutality — quite the contrary. Donald Trump, for example, has removed the taboo against violence to the point that he encourages his supporters to beat up political opponents: “Knock the crap out of them.” And the deputy chairman of the Russian parliament applauded the violent hooligans: “Bravo, keep going!” Violence is becoming acceptable to the mainstream and brutality is glorified. The same thing is also happening, in a milder form, in Germany with vulgar invectives directed at politicians, journalists and dissenters on the web, with threats and attacks. The murder of Jo Cox shows how short the distance is between verbal and physical violence. Her case is also a warning: We cannot get used to brutality. Because when violence is no longer taboo, it endangers free society.

R.I.P. Jo Cox

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal — Unruly Hearts editor.

Preserving Syrian Sovereignty Essential Says Putin

aleppo-boy_2930553k                        A young boy plays in the Hanano neighbourhood of Aleppo

 

Picture: SAM TARLING FOR THE TELEGRAPH

Preserving Syrian Sovereignty Essential Says Putin

Author: Stephen Lendman

Hezbollah leader Sayyad Hassan Nasrallah once called Syria the “linchpin of resistance” against US/NATO/Israeli regional imperialism.

If it falls, Iran’s turn awaits. “Palestine will be lost…” Lebanon’s sovereignty will be jeopardized. “(A) bleak future awaits the peoples of the region.”

Anglo-Zionism’s rage to dominate represents the greatest threat since the Nakba, he stressed, promising committed resistance against it.

From the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), Putin expressed a similar sentiment, saying “(t)he most important thing is to avoid (Syria’s) breakup. And if the situation continues to develop as it does today, the collapse is inevitable, and this is the worst case scenario.”

Destabilization would follow, “not only for the region but for the whole world,” he explained – why it’s vital to resolve Syria’s conflict and preserve its unity.

Earlier Putin accused Western and Middle East regimes of “creat(ing) chaos…in other countries, including Syria.” He explained Russia aims “to help carry out changes for the better (worldwide) but not (by) force…”

“(S)trong countries are trying to push their rules and their moral code on weak countries, without taking into account the(ir) history, traditions and religion…”

Russia never has nor will it force its will on other nations, he stressed, urging all countries work together cooperatively for world peace and stability.

On Saturday, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and Assad met to discuss Syria’s ongoing liberating struggle.

According to Russia’s Defense Ministry, their “meeting touched upon relevant issues of military and military-technical cooperation between the defense ministries of the two countries, as well as certain aspects of cooperation in the fight against terrorist groups operating on Syrian territory.”

Reports indicate Russia stepped up its aerial operations against ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria), and terrorist elements falsely called “moderates” allied with them, targeting government forces and defenseless civilians.

On June 18, Defense Department spokesman Peter Cook said high level US and Russian defense officials discussed by videoconference “airstrikes conducted by Russian forces…striking Syrian opposition forces” allegedly combating ISIS, expressing “strong concerns.”

DOD “officials requested Russian responses to address (these) concerns,” none so far reported.

How far Moscow intends pushing its campaign and Washington’s response remain to be seen.

One thing is clear. Prospects for peace are distant at best. Endless conflict rages. A lot hangs on its outcome.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

posted by Stephen Lendman @ 5:33 AM

Us v. Them

Monday, June 20, 2016
Us v. Them

Author Stephen Lendman

In July, Republican and Democrat party bosses will choose the two most widely reviled US presidential aspirants in modern memory.

Each is unfit for any public office. Each represents wealth, power and privilege exclusively. Each mocks rule of law principles and democratic values.

Each assures four more years of war at home and abroad. Each says one thing and intends another, their promises made to be broken.

Each threatens world peace. Each represents what demands rejection. On election day in November, vote independent or stay home.

Never support any duopoly power candidate. They’re all cut out of the same dirty cloth. Otherwise they wouldn’t be presidential material.

Clinton is an unindicted war criminal/racketeer. Business tycoon Trump likely amassed wealth the old-fashioned way. Balzac once said behind every great fortune is a crime.

America’s state is deplorable, its criminal class bipartisan, ethically challenged, morally depraved, representing pure evil, responsible for genocidal high crimes – wanting planet earth colonized, its resources pillaged, its people exploited, intending institutionalized worldwide dystopian harshness.

“There is no one but us,” Paul Craig Roberts explains. Ordinary people have power when they use it. Now more than ever it’s needed. Everything is on the line like never before – our lives, welfare and futures.

The only solution is nonviolent revolution, bottom up change unattainable by voting. We have a choice – fight for what’s right or live enslaved.

The other alternatives are too grim to imagine – mushroom cloud denouement or ecocide.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

posted by Steve Lendman @ 11:43 AM

Trump’s War on Islam

Trump’s War on Islam

by Stephen Lendman

America needs enemies to justify pursuing its imperial agenda. Since none exist, they’re invented.

Communism was public enemy number one from the 1917 Russian revolution to Soviet Russia’s 1991 dissolution – pausing to defeat Nazism, the Red army playing an unheralded indispensable role, US forces a junior partner.

Muslim Arabs today are America’s enemy of choice – dehumanized, wrongfully demonized as threats. For decades, Hollywood deplorably portrayed them stereotypically as culturally inferior, dirty, lecherous, untrustworthy, religiously fanatical and violent – post-9/11 as gun-toting terrorists.

Fear-mongering is rife. False flag incidents in Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando and 9/11, the mother of them all, manipulate public sentiment to support wars of aggression and crackdowns on precious liberties – convincing people they make us safer.

Trump’s views on Islam reflect racist US policy – including endless wars on Muslim countries post-9/11, scapegoating its adherents domestically, using them as convenient patsies, the public none the wiser.

He adds a new dimension, last December calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” maintaining a ban “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” adding:

“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation, he called for racial profiling, perhaps with internment camps in mind, saying “I think (it’s) something that we’re going to have to start thinking about as a country.”

“You know, I hate the concept of profiling. But we have to start using common sense and we have to use our heads. We really have to look at profiling. We have to look at is seriously.”

“You look at Israel and you look at others, and they do it…successfully.”

Trump exploited Orlando, America’s latest false flag. Alleged gunman Omar Mateen was a convenient patsy, killed by SWAT police so he’d tell no tales.

According to Trump, “the only reason (he) was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here (from Afghanistan).”

Immigrants built America. Forgotten are Emma Lazarus’ moving words on Lady Liberty, saying:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Muslims and Latino immigrants today are unwanted – vilified for political advantage.

Trump overtly expresses views others in Washington don’t dare admit. Their deplorable actions speak for themselves.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Posted by Ainhoa Aristizabal – Unruly Hearts editor