Big Republican Gains in Congress. Is President Obama Secretly Celebrating?

Is Obama, in his heart of hearts, delighted at the results of last week's election? After all, it didn't take President Obama long to sell out the progressives in his first term when his cabinet picks didn’t include a single liberal and he extended, not to mention, expanded, many of the Bush administration's policies: from increasing drone strikes in foreign countries to drafting legal justification for killing U.S. citizens abroad to signing the Bush tax cuts into law to spying on Americans to deportation of immigrants. Unfortunately, President Obama has no problem helping his financial friends on Wall Street.

Now, Obama is very good at spouting liberal rhetoric and Fox News is very good at spreading the delusion that he's some extreme left-wing socialist, if one looks at Obama's actions, they clearly prove otherwise. Obama, as author and activist Cornel West said, is a "Rockefeller Republican in blackface."  

“AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to be with you. So we’re right here in the president’s city. In fact, he just flew out on Wednesday after his re-election. Cornel West, the figures—who is ahead? Who isn’t? As your book is titled The Rich and the Rest of Us.

CORNEL WEST: Well, one, I think that it’s morally obscene and spiritually profane to spend $6 billion on an election, $2 billion on a presidential election, and not have any serious discussion—poverty, trade unions being pushed against the wall dealing with stagnating and declining wages when profits are still up and the 1 percent are doing very well, no talk about drones dropping bombs on innocent people. So we end up with such a narrow, truncated political discourse, as the major problems—ecological catastrophe, climate change, global warming. So it’s very sad. I mean, I’m glad there was not a right-wing takeover, but we end up with a Republican, a Rockefeller Republican in blackface, with Barack Obama, so that our struggle with regard to poverty intensifies.

One thing is for sure: the Republican Congress and President Obama certainly agree on one very important issue: prioritizing and fast tracking the very secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which virtually exempts multinational corporations from national laws.  In other words, even more protection for corporate profits..."NAFTA on steroids".

Fast-track legislation was introduced in January but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would not allow a vote. Many Democrats fear that opening markets to countries with lower wages and standards will cost American jobs. Republicans tend to be supportive, because from the small leaks, since the TPP is negotiated mostly in secret, seem to indicate favoring US big business above overseas consumers (e.g entertainment, pharmaceuticals etc.)

After the election, when Mitch McConnell was asked what specific areas he could work on with President Obama:

“ Trade agreements. The president and I were just talking about that right before I came over here. Most of his party is unenthusiastic about international trade. We think it’s good for America. And so, I’ve got a lot of members who believe that international trade agreements are a winner for America. And the president and I discussed that right before I came over here, and I think he’s interested in moving forward. I said, "Send us trade agreements. We’re anxious to take a look at them." -- Sen. Mitch McConnell, November 5, 2014 

Links:

McConnell and Obama are Already Planning to Undercut Liberal Democrats in Congress

“Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he and President Barack Obama are already discussing plans to cut corporate tax rates and pass free trade agreements, following the GOP's major gains in Tuesday's elections.

...

“Obama has struggled to sell Democrats on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pact his administration is negotiating with 11 other Pacific nations. Leaked drafts of the text have sparked a host of liberal concerns. Consumer advocates are worried about potential restrictions on food safety and other regulations, environmentalists fear it will undermine environmental protections, and global health experts are concerned it will curb access to low-cost generic medicines.

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has a testy relationship with many Democrats in Congress and with many liberal policy organizations, who accuse him of making promises on key Democratic priorities and then retracting them as trade negotiations continue.

Large swaths of the Democratic Party are simply wary of free trade deals in the mode of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement. Some studies have concluded that such deals exacerbate income inequality and depress wages. While the NAFTA and World Trade Organization treaties have helped to expand overall U.S. economic growth, many economists argue they have had substantial negative consequences for American workers.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, however, is a strong supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been finalized. The pre-eminent American corporate lobbying group almost exclusively supports Republican candidates.

Trade and Income Distribution: The Debate and New Evidence

“Trade policy in particular has at times been hostage to the fears of some (including Ross Perot) that international trade and globalization are reducing living standards for American workers.

Stop TPP

Expose the TPP

Read more...

War on Drugs: Cui Bono? Cui Pacat? Cui Patitur?

 Since the Nixon presidency, the U.S. government has poured almost a trillion dollars into the “war on drugs,” and what has it produced? More drugs. More inner-city violence, and the largest prison population in the world. Since Mexico's former President Felipe Calderon initiated a large scale "war on drugs" in 2006 funded by millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in U.S. aid, the death toll in Mexico is believed to have reached at least 60,000, possibly even $80,000, with more than 26,000 people missing. As the murder rate has dramatically increased, with Ciudad Juárez on the northern border recognised, not too long ago, pinpointed as the most dangerous city on the planet, the supply of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine from Mexico continues to increase.

So, without doing much research, it's easy to answer questions such as these when it comes to the "war on drugs," Although, to be sure, research will most definitely support the answers we can see right in front of our eyes: escalated race and class warfare--in effect, a new Jim Crow; mass incarceration of American citizens (1100% increase for drug law violations); unimaginable violence, especially in Mexico; more drugs than ever before; wealthier than wealthy banksters, politicians, CEOs, multinational corporations, etc.;  unprecedented wealth and power, and the list goes on  and on. 

In other words:

Cui bono? Who benefits? Why, the capstone elite, of course. No, I'm not talking Illuminati, I'm just referring to those few special people who reside at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid.

Cui pacat? Who pays? We, the taxpayers, as usual. 


Cui patitur? Who suffers? The people who reside at the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid.

Another question you might want to ask yourself is, which kills more people? Marijuana? War on drugs?  To my knowledge, pure marijuana has never killed anyone, while the war on drugs is responsible for millions of deaths.  In fact, marijuana has numerous health benefits, but that's another story.

Let's take a look at Mexico for a clear cut example. Not only who gets what, that's fairly obvious; but are the results of this "war on drugs"-- that just so happens to coincide with neo-liberal "reform"--purely an accident, making the "war on drugs" a complete failure?  Or, was/is the "war on drugs" really quite successful when you dig a little deeper and discover the true motive/agenda?  Remember, Mexico's war on drugs is using the same model used in Columbia: Plan Columbia. 

Warning: If you believe everything is a coincidence, and that the predator ruling class, no matter what political party they attach themselves, are mostly benevolent creatures, who are only looking out for our best interest, there is no need to read any further.

While Carlo Slim Helu, world's richest man according to Forbes, takes in $27 million per day--yes, that's per day--half of all Mexican citizens barely take in $2 per day. In fact, it's so bad in Mexico-- innocent people are kidnapped, tortured and brutally murdered, then displayed for public consumption by viscous rivaling drug cartels on a daily basis--right now that many of its citizens have two choices: sneak into America, or work for what's turned Mexico into the the horrific war zone that it is: the drug cartels.  The cartels have gained so much power, they could be considered a de facto and/or "parallel government."  After all, in too many areas throughout Mexico, the heavily armed cartels are implementing their own brand of law and order.

As for defending oneself in this living hell, it's almost impossible because legally owning a gun  is nearly impossible, and most of law enforcement/military/government are corrupt, or indistinguishable from the cartels, leaving Mexican citizens to live their daily lives like pop-up figures in a shooting gallery.

Now if Mexico were solely responsible for this unimaginable tragedy, one could argue, "it's their problem...let them deal with it," and tough immigration laws might make sense.  However, not only are most of the drugs sold to Americans, and not only is America providing 90% of the estimated 15 million illegal assault weapons--an arsenal of highly sophisticated weaponry-- the U.S. participated in setting up the conditions that would facilitate the drug cartels' slaughter of Mexican citizens...from the very beginning--and conditions we continue to facilitate

While Mexico most certainly took part, the Clinton administration, and other western imperial powers pushed NAFTA, which accelerated the neo-liberal "reforms" widening the already huge wealth gap in Mexico, pauperizing the working class, and pushing the already poverty-stricken Mexicans into even deeper poverty. Of course, this ensured that the drug cartels would have a vast population from which to recruit foot soldiers

Moreover, Clinton  refused to allow the subject of narco-trafficking, in relation to NAFTA, into public debate, even though, for example, the DEA, voiced its concerns that by improving infrastructure (road/rail system, removal of tariffs for goods going northwards), for the increased trade from Mexico into the U.S. would make it that much easier for drug traffickers.

Clinton can't say he didn't know of the consequences NAFTA would create for the Mexican people because he had already created and implemented Operation Gatekeeper, aimed at halting illegal immigration at the United States–Mexico border. He knew NAFTA would not only impoverish Mexicans, but it could be said the U.S. government was well aware of the war-zone it would create. In fact, it could be said that is exactly what they wanted.

Crazy? Not so much. There is no doubt that preparing Mexico and laying the foundation for NAFTA were in the works a long time ago. In the 1980s, as Mexico was coerced to implement a more neo-liberal approach toward politics and government, abandoning the social arena, and creating, more or less, a social vacuum that the cartels were/are more than happy to fill, that is, along with the brutal violence.

“From 1980 to 1991, Mexico received thirteen structural adjustment loans from the World Bank, more than any other country. It also signed six agreements with the IMF, all of which brought increased pressure to liberalize trade and investment.”-- Tom Barry, Zapata’s Revenge.

NAFTA reshaped Mexico's  land ownership laws, slashed tarrifs on U.S. imports, and allowed subsidized U.S. corn to flood the country, devastating Mexico's agricultural sector.  Ironically, lured by the promise of work, border towns like Ciudad Juarez, now murder capital of the world,  attracted many of the Mexicans who could no longer find work after NAFTA was implemented.  The factories located there that provided cheap labor (equivalent of approximately $5/day) to foreign manufacturers offered employment, albeit, at slave wages.

The violence the drug cartels and the Mexican government have created is a bonus as it controls workers and displaces communities from territories of interest, that is, with valuable resources, to transnational corporate expansion. Corporatized conflict or disaster capitalism, where people are the collateral damage to keep capital moving through the feudal system.

"This notion of “security” calls up the Colombia model: paramilitarization in the service of capital. This model includes the formation of paramilitary death squads, the displacement of civilian populations, and an increase in violence. In the commercial sector, it is workers, small businesses and a sector of the local elite who are hit hardest by drug war policies.

Consider the links between the drug war and struggles around areas with natural resources:

• Residents of Ciudad Mier, a small community in Tamaulipas, left en masse because of paramilitary violence. The town sits on top of Mexico’s largest gas field, as does a large portion of the violence-ridden state.

• In the Juárez Valley, considered the most dangerous place in Mexico, killings and threats have forced many to leave, just as a new border crossing between the U.S. and Mexico is being constructed.

• In Santa Maria Ostula, a small Indigenous Nahuatl community in coastal Mexico, at least 28 people have been killed (and four others disappeared) by paramilitary and state violence since 2009. Their territory is in a mineral rich and strategically located area.

• In the Sierra Madre mountain range in northern Mexico, Canadian mining companies operate in areas where even government officials fear to enter because of the presence of armed narcotraffickers.

• In Petén, Guatemala, government officials militarized the area and declared a state of emergency because of the presence of Zetas that lasted eight months, ending in early 2012. Recent announcements indicate that a new oil rush is taking place in the same region.

 The "war on drugs" is not about drugs; rather, it's a smokescreen. It "may be better understood as being about increased social and territorial control over lands and people, in the interest of capitalist expansion."

“In this context, the current offensive follows the neo-liberal manual on indigenous territories. It is about sowing terror with a baseline of murders and disappearances until families abandon their lands…”--columnist and indigenous rights activist Gloria Munoz Ramirez

Cartel Kidnapping in Chihuahua Mexico

Read more...

Under Cover of Darkness: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Increasingly, corporations are gaining more and more access and influence to legislation that the public and even Congress does not have through groups like  ALEC and trade agreements such as NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that merged the United States, Canada, and Mexico creating essentially a north American continent of supposedly, "free" trade. "NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws - regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils." After NAFTA was signed, two-thirds of Canadian families saw a decline in real income while two million peasant farmers were displaced from their land in Mexico, forcing many into trying to gain entrance into the United States, adding to our already growing immigration problem.

Now, there is "NAFTA on steroids," the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) (see links below), "a legally binding trade agreement for advancing transnational corporate tyranny and dismantling domestic democratic accountability" that is not only the largest “free trade agreement” ever negotiated, but also the most secretly negotiated, with "no public oversight, input, or consultations". Only two of its 26 chapters deal with trade, the rest grant unprecedented powers and privileges upon Trans-National Corporations (TNCs)while dismantling regulations and laws without any democratic oversight or input."

Take the intellectual property chapter alone, which would extend copyright provisions, if enacted into law,  from a state/federal jurisdiction to a matter of international agreement, and within that framework, plans on extending endless copyright terms across the globe  The U.S. already has the most extensive copyright terms in the world.  This is increasingly problematic for today's remix culture, intrinsic to the health of our economy. Not only can one face statutory damages, with preset fines of up to $150,000 per infringement, the criminal section of intellectual property chapter indicates an individual could face actual jail time.if it's proven that they had direct or indirect motivation for financial gain  Not to mention, copyright expansion can  be used to silence speech as they often do on websites such as Youtube.

In February 2012, powerful content groups such as the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the MPAA (Motion Pictures  Association of America) met in Beverly Hills along with representatives from nine countries including the United States were secretly meeting in a luxury hotel in Beverly Hills. Public interest groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) were shut out, their hotel reservations canceled without their consent. Another public interest group's representatives were kicked out of the hotel.

For example, public interest groups have been warning that the TPP could result in millions of lost jobs. As a letter from Congress to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk stated, the TPP “will create binding policies on future Congresses in numerous areas,” including “those related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.”

The next round of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiations will take place from December 3-12 in Auckland, New Zealand, and it will be done with the same level of secrecy as the last 14 rounds in order to grant far-reaching new rights and privileges to the 600 corporations aligned with the TPP at the expense of the tax-paying public. This could affect the health and welfare of billions of people worldwide, so where is the mainstream media?

The following is a list of 35 of the 134 lobbying clients who paid more than $1 million on lobbying in 2011-2012 and reported lobbying a federal agency on the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Links:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: This is What Corporate Governance Looks Like


Why So Secretive? The Trans-Pacific Partnership as Global Corporate Coup

Read more...

The Trans Pacific Partnership: NAFTA on Steroids.

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a highly secretive "power-tool of the 1%", and is not really about trade at all; rather, it's about "putting into effect a binding legal system of international governance for by and of the big multinational companies", according to Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch..

The TPP is so destructive to domestic policy space that it would even limit how governments can spend tax dollars.

In one blow could, the TPP could:

• offshore millions of American jobs,
• free the banksters from oversight,
• ban Buy America policies needed to create green jobs and rebuild our economy,
• decrease access to medicine,
• flood the U.S. with unsafe food and products,
• and empower corporations to attack our environmental and health safeguards.

Chirbit - Lori Wallach Interview

Read more...