Not a day passes without some hyped up media story of how big-pharma is racing to the rescue of humanity with its search for a coronavirus vaccine. There are over 40 companies now searching for a vaccine. Collectively they are spending huge sums of money supported by lavish amounts of tax payer cash. Estimates of how soon a vaccine can be produced vary wildly but most estimates agree that it is unlikely to happen this year. It goes without saying that the first to market with a usable vaccine stands to make billions of dollars.

The mainstream media, scientific and political establishments are completely under the spell of big pharma. Governments reassure the public that they’re doing everything in their power to protect them with a variety of measures. These range from mass lock downs and trillion dollar bailouts for big business to limited amounts of helicopter money for the citizens of wealthier countries.

Regardless of where you live if you have to go to hospital with symptoms of the coronavirus the key question facing you is: will you be able to leave walking out front door or will you end up being wheeled out the basement back door?

The mainstream media in cahoots with governments and the medical establishment are suppressing any news regarding the use of a cheap, safe and easy to produce treatment for coronavirus patients. Maybe its because this treatment is being used in Chinese hospitals to save lives. Let’s face it there has been no let up in Cold War 2.0 during the current pandemic.

Dr. Andrew W. Saul, Editor in chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, sums up the Western big pharma approach nicely when he says:

“Medical orthodoxy obsessively focuses on searching for a vaccine and/or drug for coronavirus COVID-19). While they are looking for what would be fabulously profitable approaches, we have with vitamin C an existing, plausible, clinically demonstrated method to treat what coronavirus patients die from: severe acute respiratory syndrome, or pneumonia.’’

On 17 March a group of Chinese physicians held a video conference to discuss the use of high dose intravenous vitamin C for patients with moderate to severe cases of corona virus. The keynote speaker at this meeting was Dr. Enqian Mao, chief of the emergency medicine Department of Ruiijin hospital in Shanghai.

Dr Mao is also a senior member of the expert team at the Shanghai Public health Centre, where all coronavirus patients have been treated from the Shanghai area. Dr Mao was also a co-author of the medical protocol for the treatment of coronavirus that has been adopted by the Shanghai Medical Association and the government of Shanghai. This medical protocol also advocates the use of high-dose intravenous vitamin C for the treatment of mild, moderate and severe cases of the coronavirus.

Over the last decade Dr Mao has been using high-dose intravenous vitamin C (IVC) to treat patients with a variety of acute medical conditions ranging from pancreatitis and sepsis to surgical wound healing. When the coronavirus epidemic first broke out he and several other colleagues thought that high-dose intravenous C could be a potential treatment for patients presenting with the coronavirus. Their recommendation for the use of high-dose intravenous vitamin C as a treatment was adopted by the Shanghai expert team.

Dr. Richard Cheng, an American-Chinese doctor currently based in Shanghai has given a report of this meeting. He notes that:

“Dr. Mao stated that his group treated ~50 cases of moderate to severe cases of Covid-19 infection with high dose IVC. The IVC dosing was in the range of 10,000 mg – 20,000 mg a day for 7-10 days, with 10,000 mg for moderate cases and 20,000 for more severe cases, determined by pulmonary status (mostly the oxygenation index) and coagulation status. All patients who received IVC improved and there was no mortality. Compared to the average of a 30-day hospital stay for all Covid-19 patients, those patients who received high dose IVC had a hospital stay about 3-5 days shorter than the overall patients. Dr. Mao discussed one severe case in particular who was deteriorating rapidly. He gave a bolus of 50,000 mg IVC over a period of 4 hours. The patient’s pulmonary (oxygenation index) status stabilized and improved as the critical care team watched in real time. There were no side effects reported from any of the cases treated with high dose IVC. ‘’

Dr Cheng also reported that he had a separate meeting with Dr. Sheng Wang, Professor of critical medicine of Shanghai’s 10th Hospital, Tongji University College of medicine. At this meeting Professor Weng said that there were several important lessons to be learned from Shanghai’s experience treating patients with the coronavirus. The most important lesson was:

Early and high-dose IVC is quite helpful in helping Covid-19 patients. The data is still being finalized and the formal papers will be submitted for publication as soon as they are complete.’’

Professor Wang also stated that coronavirus patients displayed a high rate of hyper-coagulability, i.e. an abnormally increased tendency toward blood clotting, which is best treated with heparin.

He also stated that it was vitally important for front line medical professionals to, ‘wear protective clothing at the earliest opportunity for intubation and other emergency rescue measures.’ The American health authorities shouldtake notice of this considering that pictures of nurses in New York wearing black plastic refuse sacks have been appearing on social media.

Richard Chang has also noted that Professors Mao and Weng have stated that high-dose intravenous vitamin C is being used as a treatment for coronavirus patients in other hospitals around China.

Not surprisingly, reports of this cheap, safe treatment, that has been pioneered in China, have been being completely ignored by Western governments and the medical establishments that are beholden to the big pharmaapproach to the current pandemic.

Thankfully, there are doctors in the West who are not blinded by the close minded approach pursued by their governments and so called medical experts. Apparently, doctors at several hospitals in New York, which is the epicentre of the coronavirus epidemic in America, have started to use the pioneering treatments coming out of China.

Dr. Andrew G. Weber, a pulmonologist and critical-care specialist affiliated with two Northwell Health facilities on Long Island, has said that coronavirus patients admitted to intensive care immediately receive 1,500 mg of intravenous vitamin C. This dosage is then repeated 3-4 times a day.

According to Dr. Weber this treatment regime is based upon the experimental use of high-dose vitamin C in Shanghai’s hospitals. He told the New York Post:

“The patients who received vitamin C did significantly better than those who did not get vitamin C. It helps a tremendous amount, but it is not highlighted because it’s not a sexy drug.”

Apparently, high-dose intravenous vitamin C is been used in hospitals across New York. Sadly, its use appears to be patchy and is dependent upon the whims of individual doctors rather than being part of any systematic medical protocol.

As the global death toll soars higher we can only hope that more and more doctors will follow in the footsteps of their Chinese colleagues and have the courage to use a safe and cheap treatment that is totally at odds with the big pharma approach currently followed by the World Health Organisation and most governments. The current approach used by many Western Governments has been slow, clumsy and ill informed putting the interests of big business above saving the lives of ordinary people.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Why Is the U.S. So Exceptionally Vulnerable to Covid-19?

March 27th, 2020 by Nicolas J. S. Davies

The United States has become the new center of the global coronavirus pandemic, with over 86,000 cases, more than China or Italy. More than a thousand Americans have already died, but this is surely only the very beginning of this deadly collision between the U.S.’s uniquely inadequate public healthcare system and a real pandemic.

On the other hand, China and South Korea, which both have universal public health systems that cover the bulk of their people’s healthcare needs, have already turned the tide on Covid-19 through targeted quarantines, mobilization of public healthcare resources and testing programs that quickly and efficiently test everyone who may have come into contact with the virus. China sent 40,000 doctors and medical staff, including 10,000 respiratory specialists, into Hubei province in the first month or two of the epidemic. It has now gone up to 3 days in a row with no new cases and is starting to lift social restrictions. South Korea quickly tested over 300,000 people, and only 131 of its people have died.

The WHO’s Bruce Aylward visited China at the end of February, and reported,

“I think the key learning from China is speed… The faster you can find the cases, isolate the cases, and track their close contacts, the more successful you’re going to be… In China, they have set up a giant network of fever hospitals. In some areas, a team can go to you and swab you and have an answer for you in four to seven hours. But you’ve got to be set up — speed is everything.”

Researchers in Italy have experimentally confirmed that up to 3 out of 4 Covid-19 cases are asymptomatic and therefore undetectable by testing only people with symptoms. After a series of deadly missteps, the U.S., which had its first case on January 20th, the same day as South Korea, has over two months later only just begun widespread testing, when we already have the most cases and the 6th highest death toll in the world. Even now, the U.S. is mainly limiting testing to people with symptoms, not doing the targeted testing of new case contacts that was so effective in China. This ensures that otherwise healthy, asymptomatic carriers will unknowingly spread the virus and keep fueling its exponential growth.

So why is the United States so uniquely incapable of confronting this pandemic as efficiently or effectively as China, South Korea, Germany or other countries? The lack of a national, publicly-funded universal health system is a critical deficiency. But our persistent inability to set one up is itself the result of other dysfunctional aspects of American society, including the corruption of our political system by powerful commercial and class interests and the American “exceptionalism” that blinds us to what we can learn from other countries.

Also, the military occupation of the American mind has brainwashed Americans with strictly military concepts of “defense” and “security,” perverting federal spending priorities in the interest of war and militarism at the expense of all our country’s other vital needs, including the health of Americans.

Why can’t we just bomb the virus?

Of course this question is ridiculous. But this is how U.S. leaders respond to every danger we face, with massive diversions of our national resources to the military-industrial complex (MIC) that leave this otherwise wealthy country starved of resources to tackle problems our leaders can’t pretend to solve with weapons and war. Depending what is counted as “defense” spending, it accounts for up to two-thirds of federal discretionary spending. Even now, a bailout for Boeing, the 2nd largest U.S. weapons maker, is more important to Mr. Trump and many in Congress than helping American families get through this crisis.

At the end of the Cold War in 1989, senior officials told the Senate Budget Committee that the U.S. military budget could safely be cut by 50%over the next ten years. Committee chairman Jim Sasser hailed the moment as “the dawn of the primacy of domestic economics.” But by 2000, the influence of the military-industrial complex had shrunk the “peace dividend” to only a 22% reduction in military spending from 1990 (after adjusting for inflation).

Then, in 2001, the military-industrial complex seized on the crime of the new century by 19 mainly Saudi young men armed only with box-cutters to launch new wars and the most expensive U.S. military build-up since World War Two. As former Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz said at the time, this was not a legitimate response to the crimes of September 11th. “It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done,” Ferencz told NPR. “If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don’t approve of what has happened.”

Despite the abject, bloody failure of the so-called “Global War on Terror,” the opportunistic military-build-up it served to justify still wins every budget battle in Washington. After adjusting for inflation, the 2020 U.S. military budget is 59% higher than in 2000, and 23% higher than it was in 1990.

Over the past 20 years (in 2020 dollars), the U.S. has allocated $4.7 trillion more to the Pentagon than if it had just maintained its budget at the same level since 2000. Even between 1998 and 2010, as Carl Conetta documented in his paper, An Undisciplined Defense: Understanding the $2 Trillion Surge in US Defense Spending, actual war spending was matched dollar for dollar by unrelated additional military spending, mostly increased procurement spending to develop and buy very expensive new warships for the Navy, budget-busting warplanes like the F-35 fighterfor the Air Force, and a wish-list of new weapons and equipment for every branch of the military.

Since 2010, this unprecedented diversion of our national resources to the military-industrial complex has outstripped actual war spending even further. Obama spent more on the military than Bush, and now Trump is spending even more. In addition to $4.7 trillion in extra Pentagon spending, U.S. wars and militarism have cost $1.3 trillion more for Veterans Affairs since 2000 (also adjusted for inflation), as Americans predictably come home from America’s wars needing levels of medical care that the U.S. does not otherwise provide to its people.

All that money is gone now, just as surely as if it had been heaped up somewhere in Afghanistan and incinerated by a few of the 80,000 bombsthe U.S. has dropped on that poor country since 2001. So we do not have it to spend on public hospitals, ventilators, medical training, Covid-19 tests or any of the things we so desperately need in this distinctly non-military crisis.

Our $6 trillion have been utterly wasted – or worse. The U.S. war on terror did not defeat or end terrorism. It only fueled an endless spiral of violence and chaos across the world. The U.S. war machine has destroyed country after country: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen – but it has never rebuilt or brought peace to any of them. Meanwhile, Russia and China have built effective 21st century defenses against America’s obsolete war machine at a small fraction of its cost.

As countries around the world face the common danger of Covid-19, perhaps the most cynical response of all has been the U.S. government’s decision to impose even more brutal sanctions on Iran, one of the worst-hit countries, already deprived of life-saving medicines and other resources by existing U.S. sanctions.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has called for an immediate ceasefire in every war during this crisis, and for the U.S. to lift its deadly sanctions on all our neighbors around the world. That should include Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Syria; Venezuela; Zimbabwe; and not least Cuba, which is playing a courageous and active role in fighting the pandemic, rescuing the passengers of an infected British cruise ship that was refused entry by the U.S. and other countries, and sending medical teams to Italy and other infected countries around the world.

The 21st Century Command Economy

The “command economy” was a derisive term used to criticize the centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe during the Cold War. But economist Eric Schutz used the 21st Century Command Economy as a subtitle for his 2001 book Markets and Power, in which he analyzed the effects of the dominant market power of monopolistic multinational corporations on the U.S. economy.

As Schutz explained, neoliberal (or neoclassical) economic theory ignores a critical factor in the “free” markets a generation of Americans have been taught to revere. This ignored factor is power.  As more and more aspects of American life are entrusted to the mythical “invisible hand” of the market, the most powerful players in every market are free to use their market power to concentrate wealth and even greater market power in their own (not so invisible) hands, driving smaller competitors out of business and exploiting other stakeholders: customers; employees; suppliers; governments; and local communities.

Since 1980, every sector of the U.S. economy has been gradually taken over by fewer and fewer larger and larger corporations, with a predictably debilitating effect on American life: fewer opportunities for small business; diminishing investment in public infrastructure and services; shrinking or stagnant wages; rising rents; privatization of education and healthcare; the destruction of local communities; and the systematic corruption of politics. Critical decisions that affect all our lives are now made primarily at the bidding and in the interests of big banks, big pharma, big tech, big ag, big developers, the military-industrial complex and the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

The infamous revolving door through which senior officials move between the military, lobbying firms, corporate boards, Congress and the executive branch is duplicated in every sector of the economy. Liz Fowler, who wrote the “Affordable Care Act” as a Senate and White House staffer, was a senior executive at Wellpoint Health (now Anthem), the parent company of Blue Cross-Blue Shield, which now rakes in billions in federal subsidies under the law she wrote. She then returned to the “industry” as an executive at Johnson & Johnson – just as James “Mad Dog” Mattis returned to his seat on the board at General Dynamics to reap the rewards of his “public service” as Secretary of Defense.

Whatever mix of capitalism and socialism each American may favor as a model for the U.S. economy, very few Americans would pick this corrupt 21st century command economy as the system they would choose to live under. How many American politicians would win election if they honestly told voters that this is the system they believe in and plan to promote?

We are living in a society in which everybody knows the deal is rotten, as the Leonard Cohen song goes, and yet we remain lost in a hall of mirrors, victims of a “divide and rule” strategy by which the wealthy and powerful control politics and the media along with every other sector of this 21st century command economy. Trump, Biden and Congressional leaders are just their latest figureheads, demonizing and arguing with each other as they and their paymasters laugh all the way to the bank.

There is a savage irony in the way the Democratic Party closed ranks around Biden just as Covid-19 appeared on the scene. A month ago, it seemed that 2020 might be the year Americans would finally blow away the well-funded smoke and mirrors of the for-profit U.S. health insurance industry and achieve universal publicly-funded healthcare. Instead, Democratic leaders appear to be settling for the lesser evil of another humiliating defeat and four more years of Trump over (to their minds) the greater danger of a Sanders presidency and universal healthcare.

But now this exceptionally dysfunctional society has run smack-bang into a real force of nature, a tiny virus that can kill millions of people. Other countries are rising to this exacting test of their healthcare and social systems more successfully than we are. So will we finally wake up from our American dream, open our eyes and start learning from our neighbors in other countries, including ones that have different political, economic and healthcare systems than ours? Our lives may depend on it.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He is a freelance journalist and a researcher for CODEPINK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: President Trump visited the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on March 6, 2020. From the left: Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, CDC director Robert R. Redfield, and CDC associate director Stephan Monroe. Credit: White House photo by Shealah Craighead

锁定之后:全球冠状病毒疫苗接种计划…

March 27th, 2020 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

这种趋势是由于恐惧和媒体虚假信息导致的全球封锁。目前,全球有数亿人处于封锁状态。

COV-19危机演变的下一步是什么?

1月7日,中国当局在发现达科那病毒后仅两周,就在达沃斯世界经济论坛(1月21日至24日)上宣布了一项冠状病毒疫苗计划。

新型冠状病毒疫苗计划的牵头实体是流行病防范创新联盟(CEPI),该组织由世界经济论坛(WEF)和比尔及梅琳达·盖茨基金会赞助和资助。

请注意时间顺序:在世卫组织正式发起全球公共卫生紧急事件(1月30日)前一周,达沃斯世界经济论坛(WEF)宣布了2019年nCoV疫苗的开发。确诊病例”,全球(中国以外)为150个(包括美国的6个)。

CEPI正在与大量“候选人”合作,在疫苗接种业务中寻求“垄断”角色,其目标是“全球疫苗项目”。它宣布为与Inovio和昆士兰大学(澳大利亚)的现有合作伙伴关系提供资金。此外,CEPI于1月23日确认了与Moderna,Inc.以及以Anthony Fauci博士为首的美国国家过敏和传染病研究所(NIAID)的合同,后者在整个美国开展了恐惧和恐慌运动: “比季节性流感还糟十倍”。

**

你可以点击下面的链接阅读整篇文章的英文版,也可以用手机翻译

 

After the Lockdown: A Global Coronavirus Vaccination Program…

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 24, 2020
  • Posted in 中文
  • Comments Off on 锁定之后:全球冠状病毒疫苗接种计划…

The destruction of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to the much-anticipated final report issued today by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The UAF team’s findings, which were the result of a four-year computer modeling study of the tower’s collapse, contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded in a 2008 report that WTC 7 was the first tall building ever to collapse primarily due to fire.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse,” said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study’s principal investigator. “The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column.”

Twin TowersThe four-year study was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit organization representing more than 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed the organization’s petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11.

“We are proud to have supported the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Professor Leroy Hulsey in conducting a genuinely scientific study into the reasons for this building’s collapse,” said Richard Gage, president and founder of AE911Truth. “It is now incumbent upon the building community, the media, and government officials to reckon with the implications of these findings and launch a new full-scale investigation.”

AE911Truth and its allies among the 9/11 victims’ families will now use the findings in the report as part of a formal “request for correction” that the group plans to submit to NIST in the coming days.

“The indisputable errors documented in our request for correction will give NIST no way out of correcting its deeply flawed report and reversing its conclusion that fires were the cause of the collapse,” said Gage.

The final report, entitled A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 – Final Report, includes clarifications and supplemental text based on public comments submitted in response to a draft report released by UAF and AE911Truth on September 3, 2019.

The UAF team’s final report is the result of an extensive four-year computer modeling effort that was followed by a robust peer review process. The peer review included dozens of public comments as well as external review by two independent experts, Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski of Analytical Service Company, a leading expert in structural mechanics and finite element modeling, and Dr. Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.

“I am grateful to everyone who supported or participated in this study in any way,” said Professor Hulsey. “We hope that our findings will be carefully looked at by the building community and spur further investigation into how this building came down on that tragic day.”

The Hulsey report and supporting materials can be found on UAF’s Institute of Northern Engineering website at http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7 and on the AE911Truth website at https://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from ae911truth.org

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 911 Truth: WTC 7 Not Destroyed by Fire, Concludes Final University of Alaska Fairbanks Report
  • Tags: ,

Lockerbie’s Only Convict May be Exonerated Posthumously

March 27th, 2020 by Dr. Mustafa Fetouri

The only man to be convicted of the infamous Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, died in 2012 and protested his innocence until his final breath. His fellow Libyan and co-defendant, Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted and is still living in Libya. The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988 killed all 259 passengers and crew on board as well as 11 people on the ground in the small Scottish town of Lockerbie.

Al-Megrahi was not alone in believing that he and his country were innocent of the crime. His family members are determined to clear his name if not prove his complete innocence. His son Ali is leading the family mission and told the BBC that his father was “innocent and had cared more about the victims than himself.”

The family has just won a huge victory with the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) decision on 11 March that an appeal can be made to the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland’s highest criminal court. The SCCRC had to decide if there are grounds for a posthumous appeal on the basis of a possible miscarriage of justice, among other possibilities. The commission found sufficient grounds to question the 2001 trial that convicted Al-Megrahi. Six grounds for review were considered before it was concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred by reason of “unreasonable verdict” and “non-disclosure”.

This specifically raised serious doubts about the process by which Al-Megrahi was identified and linked to clothes found in the suitcase said to have contained the bomb. According to the SCCRC, “No reasonable trial court could have accepted that Mr. Megrahi was identified as the purchaser.”

The only witness to link Al-Megrahi to the clothes was a Maltese shop keeper named Toni Gauci, who died in 2016. He was a co-owner of a clothes shop in Malta and he testified that he sold the clothes to Al-Megrahi, who denied vehemently that he had ever been to the shop let alone bought anything from the witness. During the trial, this testimony was central to Al-Megrahi’s conviction, although the crown prosecutor, Lord Advocate Peter Frasier, later completely dismissed Gauci as “an apple short of a picnic” and “not quite the full shilling”. Why he accepted his testimony at the special court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in the first place is still a mystery. Could it have been a conspiracy against Muammar Gaddafi and Libya, as the late Libyan leader always claimed? He is not alone in thinking so.

Law Professor Robert Black, who came up with the idea of holding Al-Megrahi’s trial in a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands — the first such occasion in history – now talks of a wider conspiracy to frame Libya. “I think the Scottish prosecution was from the start excessively influenced by the US Department of Justice, FBI and CIA,” Black told me this week when I asked about this possibility. In the late eighties, the US hated Gaddafi for his unrelenting opposition to America’s policies in the Arab world and beyond. He was accused of so many terrorist acts around the world that adding Lockerbie to the list would have been neither difficult to do nor easy to dispute; western media and politicians already projected Gaddafi as a monster capable of any and every evil.

Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, 23 April 2017 [Twitter]

It later emerged that Toni Gauci received $2 million in return for his testimony against Al-Megrahi before he disappeared from Malta altogether. Many experts think that he was coached on his story to be as convincing as possible. Under Scottish law, it is illegal to reward or coach witnesses in any legal proceedings.

According to Professor Black, the High Court of Judiciary could return its verdict before the 32nd anniversaries of the atrocity on 21 December this year. Meticulous as ever, the now retired professor thinks the court is likely to quash the original verdict and thus exonerate the late Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi posthumously. If that happens, he believes that Al-Megrahi’s family would be “entitled to claim compensation for wrongful imprisonment.” The convicted man spent eight years in prison after his conviction on 31 January 2001 before being released in 2009 on compassionate grounds as he was terminally ill with prostate cancer. However, warned Black, any such claim is likely to be resisted strongly.

At this stage we might feel entitled to ask what should happen to Libya if the verdict goes the way that Al-Megrahi’s family hope. The North African country had to endure crippling economic sanctions imposed by a series of UN Security Council resolutions starting with Resolution 731 passed on 21 March 1992. If Al-Megrahi is vindicated, might Libya also be vindicated and possibly claim compensation for the damage caused by the sanctions? Can it ask for the reimbursement of $2.7 billion paid to victims’ families? Even though the country accepted responsibility for the actions of its “officials” — Al-Megrahi and Fhimah, who was station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta at the time of the bombing — the money was paid as part of the requirements of the UN Resolutions.

Whatever the Scottish High Court of Justiciary decides later this year, many think that Al-Megrahi and Libya are already exonerated by the fact that the SCCRC has raised serious doubts about the trial and its verdict. Given the obvious US links to the case, it is interesting to note that current US Attorney General William Barr was the acting Attorney General who indicted the two Libyans in 1991. What will he have to say when the Court in Scotland returns its verdict?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Why France Is Hiding a Cheap and Tested Virus Cure

March 27th, 2020 by Pepe Escobar

What’s going on in the fifth largest economy in the world arguably points to a major collusion scandal in which the French government is helping Big Pharma to profit from the expansion of Covid-19. Informed French citizens are absolutely furious about it.

My initial question to a serious, unimpeachable Paris source, jurist Valerie Bugault, was about the liaisons dangereuses between Macronism and Big Pharma and especially about the mysterious “disappearance” – more likely outright theft – of all the stocks of chloroquine in possession of the French government.

Respected Professor Christian Perronne talked about the theft live in one of France’s 24/7 info channels: “The central pharmacy for the hospitals announced today that they were facing a total rupture of stocks, that they were pillaged.”

With input from another, anonymous source, it’s now possible to establish a timeline that puts in much-needed perspective the recent actions of the French government.

Let’s start with Yves Levy, who was the head of INSERM – the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research – from 2014 to 2018, when he was appointed as extraordinary state councilor for the Macron administration. Only 12 people in France have reached this status.

File:Agnès Buzyn 2018-04-06 lancement stratégie autisme 2018-2022.jpg

Levy is married to Agnes Buzyn (image on the right), who until recently was minister of health under Macron. Buzyn was essentially presented with an “offer you can’t refuse” by Macron’s party to leave the ministry – in the middle of the coronavirus crisis – and run for Mayor of Paris, where she was mercilessly trounced in the first round on March 16.

Levy has a vicious running feud with Professor Didier Raoult – prolific and often-cited Marseille-based specialist in communicable diseases. Levy withheld the INSERM label from the world-renowned IHU (Hospital-University Institute) research center directed by Raoult.

In practice, in October 2019, Levy revoked the status of “foundation” of the different IHUs so he could take over their research.

Raoult was part of a clinical trial that in which hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin healed 90% of Covid-19 cases if they were tested very early. (Early massive testing is at the heart of the successful South Korean strategy.)

Raoult is opposed to the total lockdown of sane individuals and possible carriers – which he considers “medieval,” in an anachronistic sense. He’s in favor of massive testing (which, besides South Korea, was successful in Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam) and a fast treatment with hydroxychloroquine. Only contaminated individuals should be confined.

Chloroquine costs one euro for ten pills. And there’s the rub: Big Pharma – which, crucially, finances INSERM, and includes “national champion” Sanofi – would rather go for a way more profitable solution. Sanofi for the moment says it is “actively preparing” to produce chloroquine, but that may take “weeks,” and there’s no mention about pricing.

A minister fleeing a tsunami

Here’s the timeline:

On January 13, Agnes Buzyn, still France’s Health Minister, classifies chloroquine as a “poisonous substance,” from now on only available by prescription. An astonishing move, considering that it has been sold off the shelf in France for half a century.

On March 16, the Macron government orders a partial lockdown. There’s not a peep about chloroquine. Police initially are not required to wear masks; most have been stolen anyway, and there are not enough masks even for health workers. In 2011 France had nearly 1.5 billion masks: 800 million surgical masks and 600 million masks for health professionals generally.

But then, over the years, the strategic stocks were not renewed, to please the EU and to apply the Maastricht criteria, which limited membership in the Growth and Stability Pact to countries whose budget deficits did not exceed 3% of GDP. One of those in charge at the time was Jerome Salomon, now a scientific counselor to the Macron government.

On March 17, Agnes Buzyn says she has learned the spread of Covid-19 will be a major tsunami, for which the French health system has no solution. She also says it had been her understanding that the Paris mayoral election “would not take place” and that it was, ultimately, “a masquerade.”

What she does not say is that she didn’t go public at the time she was running because the whole political focus by the Macron political machine was on winning the “masquerade.” The first round of the election meant nothing, as Covid-19 was advancing. The second round was postponed indefinitely. She had to know about the impending healthcare disaster. But as a candidate of the Macron machine she did not go public in timely fashion.

In quick succession:

The Macron government refuses to apply mass testing, as practiced with success in South Korea and Germany.

Le Monde and the French state health agency characterize Raoult’s research as fake news, before issuing a retraction.

Professor Perrone reveals on the 24/7 LCI news channel that the stock of chloroquine at the French central pharmacy has been stolen.

Thanks to a tweet by Elon Musk, President Trump says chloroquine should be available to all Americans. Sufferers of lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, who already have supply problems with the only drug that offers them relief, set social media afire with their panic.

US doctors and other medical professionals take to hoarding the medicine for the use of themselves and those close to them, faking prescriptions to indicate they are for patients with lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.

Morocco buys the stock of chloroquine from Sanofi in Casablanca.

Pakistan decides to increase its production of chloroquine to be sent to China.

Switzerland discards the total lockdown of its population; goes for mass testing and fast treatment; and accuses France of practicing  “spectacle politics.”

Christian Estrosi, the mayor of Nice, having had himself treated with chloroquine, without any government input, directly calls Sanofi so they may deliver chloroquine to Nice hospitals.

Marseille professor seeking to cure Covid-19

Because of Raoult’s (image on the left) research, a large-scale chloroquine test finally starts in France, under the – predictable – direction of INSERM, which wants to “remake the experiments in other independent medical centers.” This will take at least an extra six weeks – as the Elysee Palace’s scientific council now mulls the extension of France’s total lockdown to … six weeks.

If joint use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin proves definitely effective among the most gravely ill, quarantines may be reduced in select clusters.

The only French company that still manufactures chloroquine is under judicial intervention. That puts the chloroquine hoarding and theft into full perspective. It will take time for these stocks to be replenished, thus allowing Big Pharma the leeway to have what it wants: a costly solution.

It appears the perpetrators of the chloroquine theft were very well informed.

Bagged nurses

This chain of events, astonishing for a highly developed G-7 nation proud of its health service, is part of a long, painful process embedded in neoliberal dogma. EU-driven austerity mixed with the profit motive resulted in a very lax attitude towards the health system.

As Bugault told me,

“test kits – very few in number – were always available but mostly for a small group connected to the French government [former officials of the Ministry of Finance, CEOs of large corporations, oligarchs, media and entertainment moguls].  Same for chloroquine, which this government did everything to make inaccessible for the population.

They did not make life easy for Professor Raoult – he received death threats and was intimidated by ‘journalists.’

And they did not protect vital stocks. Still under the Hollande government, there was a conscious liquidation of the stock of masks – which had existed in large quantities in all hospitals. Not to mention that the suppression of hospital beds and hospital means accelerated under Sarkozy.”

This ties in with anguished reports by French citizens of nurses now having to use trash bags due to the lack of proper medical gear.

At the same time, in another astonishing development, the French state refuses to requisition private hospitals and clinics – which are practically empty at this stage – even as the president of their own association, Lamine Garbi, has pleaded for such a public service initiative:

“I solemnly demand that we are requisitioned to help public hospitals. Our facilities are prepared. The wave that surprised the east of France must teach us a lesson.”

Bugault reconfirms the health situation in France “is very serious and will become even worse due to these political decisions – absence of masks, political refusal to massively test people, refusal of free access to chloroquine – in a context of supreme distress at the hospitals. This will last and destitution will be the norm.”

Professor vs president

In an explosive development on Tuesday, Raoult said he’s not participating in Macron’s scientific council anymore, even though he’s not quitting it altogether. Raoult once again insists on massive testing on a national scale to detect suspected cases, and then isolate and treat patients who tested positive. In a nutshell: the South Korean model.

That’s exactly what is expected from the IHU in Marseille, where hundreds of residents continue to queue up for testing. And that ties in with the conclusions by a top Chinese expert on Covid-19, Zhang Nanshan, who says that treatment with chloroquine phospate had a “positive impact,” with patients testing negative after around four days.

The key point has been stressed by Raoult: Use chloroquine in very special circumstances, for people tested very early, when the disease is not advanced yet, and only in these cases. He’s not advocating chloroquine for everyone. It’s exactly what the Chinese did, along with their use of Interferon.

For years, Raoult has been pleading for a drastic revision of health economic models, so the treatments, cure and therapies created mostly during the 20th century, are considered a patrimony in the service of all humanity.“That’s not the case”, he says, “because we abandon medicine that is not profitable, even if it’s effective. That’s why almost no antibiotics are manufactured in the West.”

On Tuesday, the French Health Ministry officially prohibited the utilization of treatment based on chloroquine recommended by Raoult.  In fact the treatment is only allowed for terminal Covid-19 patients, with no other possibility of healing. This cannot but expose the Macron government to more accusations of at least inefficiency – added to the absence of masks, tests, contact tracing and ventilators.

On Wednesday, commenting on the new government guidelines, Raoult said,

“When damage to the lungs is too important, and patients arrive for reanimation, they practically do not harbor viruses in their bodies any more. It’s too late to treat them with chloroquine. Are these the only cases – the very serious cases – that will be treated with chloroquine under the new directive by [French Health Minister] Veran?” If so, he added ironically, “then they will be able to say with scientific certainty that chloroquine does not work.”

Raoult was unavailable for comment on Western news media articles citing Chinese test results that would suggest he is wrong about the efficacy of chloroquine in dealing with mild cases of Covid-19.

Staffers pointed instead to his comments in the IHU bulletin. There Raoult says it’s “insulting” to ask if we can trust the Chinese on the use of chloroquine. “If this was an American disease, and the president of the United States said, ‘We need to treat patients with that,’ nobody would discuss it.”

In China, he adds, there were “enough elements so the Chinese government and all Chinese experts who know coronaviruses took an official position that ‘we must treat with chloroquine.’ Between the moment when we have the first results and an accepted international publication, there is no credible alternative among people who are the most knowledgeable in the world. They took this measure in the interest of public health.”

Crucially: if he had coronavirus, Raoult says he would take chloroquine. Since Raoult is rated by his peers as the number one world expert  in communicable diseases, way above Dr. Anthony Fauci in the US, I would say the new reports represent Big Pharma talking.

Raoult has been mercilessly savaged and demonized by French corporate media that are controlled by a few oligarchs closely linked to Macronism. Not by accident the demonization has reached gilets jaunes (yellow vest) levels, especially because of the extremely popular hashtag  #IlsSavaient (“They knew”), with which the yellow vests stress that French elites have “managed” the Covid-19 crisis by protecting themselves while leaving the population defenseless against the virus.

That ties in with the controversial analysis by crack philosopher Giorgio Agamben in a column published a month ago, where he was already arguing that Covid-19 clearly shows that the state of exception – similar to a state of emergency but with differences important to philosophers – has become fully normalized in the West.

Agamben was speaking not as a doctor or a virologist but as a master thinker, following in the steps of Foucault, Walter Benjamin and Hannah Arendt. Noting how a latent state of fear has metastasized into a state of collective panic, for which Covid-19 “offers once again the ideal pretext,” he described how, “in a perverse vicious circle, the limitation of freedom imposed by governments is accepted in the name of a desire for security that was induced by the same governments that now intervene to satisfy it.”

There was no state of collective panic in South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam – to mention four Asian examples outside of China. A dogged combination of mass testing and contact tracing was applied with immense professionalism. It worked. In the Chinese case, with the help of chloroquine. And in all Asian cases, without a murky profit motive to the benefit of Big Pharma.

There hasn’t yet appeared the smoking gun that proves the Macron system not only is incompetent to deal with Covid-19 but also is dragging the process so Big Pharma can come up with a miracle vaccine, fast. But the pattern to discourage chloroquine is more than laid out above – in parallel to the demonization of Raoult.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: A mask-wearing French citizen in Paris. Photo: Facebook

Excerpts from Fidel’s 2003 speech in Buenos Aires:

“Our country does not drop bombs on other peoples… our country does not possess nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or biological weapons. Our country’s tens of thousands of scientists and doctors have been educated in the idea of saving lives.”

***

Since I am an optimist, I think this world can be saved, in spite of the mistakes made, in spite of the immense, hegemonic powers that have been created, because I believe ideas prevail over force.…

Our country does not drop bombs on other peoples, nor does it send thousands of planes to bomb cities; our country does not possess nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or biological weapons. Our country’s tens of thousands of scientists and doctors have been educated in the idea of saving lives. It would absolutely contradict this concept to put a scientist or a doctor to work to produce substances, bacteria or viruses to kill other human beings.

Allegations that Cuba is doing research on biological weapons have even been made. In our country, research is conducted to cure diseases as severe as meningococcal meningitis and hepatitis, to produce vaccines with genetic engineering techniques, or, something of great importance, to discover vaccines or therapeutic formulas through molecular immunology; some of which can prevent and others cure. We are moving forward along this path. This is the pride of our doctors and our research centers.

Tens of thousands of Cuban doctors have provided internationalist services in the most remote and inhospitable places. I once said that we could not and would never carry out preventive or surprise attacks against any dark corner of the world; but rather that our country could send needed doctors to the darkest corners of the world.

Doctors, not bombs. Doctors, not smart weapons.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Granma

Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.

As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Venezuela Dismisses US Justice Department ‘Narco-terrorism’ Accusations

By Lucas Koerner and Ricardo Vaz, March 27, 2020

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro rejected US drug trafficking accusations against his person and senior members of his government.

In a televised address Thursday evening, Maduro blasted the State Department’s “racist cowboy methods” of offering money for information leading to his and other Venezuelan leaders’ arrest. The president likewise touted Venezuela’s role in fighting the drug trade and in the Colombian peace process.

Real Virus, Fake Shock

By Mark Taliano, March 27, 2020

One of the “solutions” to the WHO-fabricated shock has been to “helicopter” (2) money into a broken financial system.

But root causes are being ignored. The predatory doctrine of neoliberalism should be identified as the failure that it is. The evisceration of the public sphere, deregulation, and hyper privatisations schemes, hallmarks of neoliberalism, are among the root causes.

COVID-19 Puts Capitalism on a Ventilator. No More Bank and Corporate Bailouts!

By Prof. Anthony A. Gabb, March 27, 2020

The aftershock of previous pandemics was catastrophic. The fourteenth century Black Plague and the 1918 Flu pandemics inflicted colossal hardships and caused many deaths. The Black Plague shook the foundations of feudal social relations. It killed 25 to 30 million people, resulting in peasant uprisings, shortages that caused wages to rise, and large parcels of land to go fallow. Scientists believe the 1918 Flu could have come to Spain from the United States and spread to other parts of the world killing 20 to 50 million people, more than the 17 million who died in WW1. Even though it was common knowledge that the flu was already in Philadelphia, the authorities went ahead anyway with a parade to raise funds for the war causing many unnecessary deaths—at the time the economics of the war took priority over stopping the spread of the flu. Similarly, today there are competing views about whether fixing the economy should take precedence over addressing the ravages of COVID-19.

The Senate’s Coronavirus Relief Package Must be Stopped!

By Mike Whitney, March 27, 2020

The Senate’s $2 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Package is not fiscal stimulus and it’s not a lifeline for the tens of millions of working people who have suddenly lost their jobs. It’s a fundamental restructuring of the US economy designed to strengthen the grip of the corrupt corporate-banking oligarchy while creating a permanent underclass that will be forced to work for slave wages. This isn’t stimulus, it’s shock therapy.

Recognizing and Resisting the “Hasbara Pandemic”

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, March 27, 2020

On the opposite side is the news story about a former FBI agent Robert Levinson. Levinson disappeared in 2007 and the United States had accused Iran of holding him hostage. Iran has no information about him. Yesterday, out of nowhere, various hasbara outlets cited Levinson’s family releasing a statement citing that they recently received information from US officials that led them to conclude that “our wonderful husband and father died while in Iranian custody.”

Iran denied having held him in custody and the news of his death was news to them. Why was this unbelievable? After all, I have no way of knowing who is lying, the US or Iran. Though one certainly may question the timing of this report.

Covid-19: Lithuania on the Brink of a Catastrophe

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, March 27, 2020

COVID-19 expands in Lithuania. Having registered its first official case in February, the country currently has almost 300 infected people and four confirmed deaths. Taking into account that the official numbers tend to differ from the real ones due to the delay in investigating suspicions, it is likely that there are already many more infected, perhaps even thousands. In parallel, state measures to contain the announced catastrophe are few and weak and the government is more concerned in dealing with an alleged “Russian threat” than with the country’s imminent crisis.

Lancet Chief Skewers Johnson Government for Its Disastrous Covid-19 Failure

By True Publica, March 27, 2020

Horton looks at the moment when the government realised their ‘herd immunity’ strategy had imploded. “Many journalists, led by the BBC, reported that the science had changed and so the government had responded accordingly. But this interpretation of events is wrong. The science has been the same since January. What changed is that government advisers, at last, understood what had really taken place in China. The UK’s best scientists have known since that first report from China that Covid-19 was a lethal illness. Yet they did too little, too late.”

 

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: COVID-19 Relief “Bailouts” and “Handouts”

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro rejected US drug trafficking accusations against his person and senior members of his government.

In a televised address Thursday evening, Maduro blasted the State Department’s “racist cowboy methods” of offering money for information leading to his and other Venezuelan leaders’ arrest. The president likewise touted Venezuela’s role in fighting the drug trade and in the Colombian peace process.

“Our spirits are high,” he said. “We’ve had record numbers of drug busts in the past 15 years, ever since we got rid of the [US] Drug Enforcement agency.”

Earlier in the day, a communique from the Foreign Ministry likewise refuted the accusations as “miserable, vulgar and baseless.”

“At a time when humanity is facing a pandemic, Donald Trump attacks the Venezuelan people once more with miserable, vulgar and baseless accusations,” the statement reads.

In a press conference Thursday morning, US Attorney General William Barr unsealed an indictment against Maduro, accusing the Venezuelan leader of conspiring with Colombia’s FARC rebels to “to flood the United States with cocaine” as far back as 1999 when he was first elected to congress.

Fourteen current and former officials were also charged in parallel indictments, including National Assembly President Diosdado Cabello, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez, Supreme Court President Maikel Moreno, Industry Minister Tareck El Aissami, former intelligence chief Hugo Carvajal, and retired major general Cliver Alcala.

FARC leaders Ivan Marquez and Jesus Santrich were similarly indicted. The two head a dissident faction that took up arms again last year, blaming the Colombian government for the collapse of the 2016 peace accords.

“For more than 20 years, Maduro and a number of high-ranking colleagues allegedly conspired with the FARC, causing tons of cocaine to enter and devastate American communities,” Barr claimed.

Washington has long accused Caracas of drug smuggling, previously sanctioning other Venezuelan senior officials, including then Vice President El Aissami in 2017, on the same grounds.

However, US officials have so far declined to provide concrete evidence implicating top Venezuelan leaders, while data from the Drug Enforcement Agency shows that only a fraction of drug routes pass through Venezuelan territory, with the majority of cocaine entering the US via Central America and Mexico.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a US $15 million reward for “information related to” Maduro and $10 million for that pertaining to Cabello, Carvajal, Alcala, and El Aissami. Carvajal has reportedly been missing for several months, with Spanish authorities having approved his extradition to the United States.

Cliver Alcala made headlines on Wednesday after an arms shipment was seized by authorities in Colombia. The Venezuelan government claimed the weapons were part of a coup attempt by the retired general.

Alcala has since confirmed the plot, claiming that the weapons belonged “to the Venezuelan people” and had been acquired as part of a signed agreement between himself, self-proclaimed “Interim President” Juan Guaido, longtime anti-government strategist J. J. Rendon and “US advisors.”

In a radio interview and later in Twitter videos, Alcala explained that the goal was to form a “liberation force” to “surgically take out targets in Venezuela.” He went on to blame members of the opposition for leaking the plan, claiming that opposition leaders Guaido and Leopoldo Lopez were “very much aware” of the operation.

“He [Guaido] can’t deny it because I have the contract waiting for the moment that justice [officials] comes to my house, to present the indictments,” he told W Radio.

Reacting to the Justice Department indictment, Alcala denied the charges, stating he had previously met with US officials on no less than “seven occasions.” He said he would await authorities’ inquiries at his residence in Barranquilla, Colombia.

For his part, Attorney General Tarek William Saab announced Thursday afternoon that his office was launching an investigation against Alcala, Guaido and “other conspirators” following the former’s public statements. Saab lashed out against Washington and Bogota on Twitter, slamming their efforts to “promote assassinations and terrorist attacks.”

The Attorney General’s Office has launched several investigations against Juan Guaido ever since his self-proclamation in January 2019. Guaido had his parliamentary immunity revoked by the Supreme Court, but has yet to be taken into custody.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ricardo Vaz reporting from Mérida and Lucas Koerner from Santiago de Chile.

Featured image: U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman announcing charges against Maduro and other high ranking officials. (US Attorney’s Office)

The notorious “moderate rebels” have blown up a bridge on the M4 highway in southern Idlib as part of their effort to sabotage the creation of a security zone in the area. The Kafr bridge is located near the town of Jisr al-Shughr, near positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the Turkistan Islamic Party, both of which are linked to al-Qaeda. Surprisingly, pro-opposition sources publicly admit that the bridge was destroyed to hinder Russian-Turkish plans to conduct joint patrols along the M4. After previous acts of sabotage against the deal, supporters of the Idlib “moderates” opted to blame “Russian barbarians”, “sectarian Iranian militias” or the “puppet Assad regime”. But such claims did not hold water because the rough actions of the Idlib militants were too obvious.

Over the past two weeks, Turkish troops have conducted at least 8 patrols on their own along the M4 highway and participated in 2 joint patrols with Russian Military Police west of Saraqib. However, the presence of the Turkish Army in the area of the supposed security zone did not stop supporters of Idlib armed groups from building barriers with large mounds of earth, blowing up bridges, destroying improvised Turkish road checkpoints and even staging IED attacks on Turkish military columns. The constant threat of terrorist attacks will clearly remain a sad reality of modern Idlib for as long as al-Qaeda-linked groups exist there.

On March 25, a Turkish soldier, Umit Udul, shot himself dead near the town of Ras al-Ayn in northeastern Syria. Kurdish sources claim that he did it as an act of protest against the actions of the Turkish Army in Syria. However, these claims remain unconfirmed. The security situation in the Turkish-controlled part of Syria’s northeast has been deteriorating for months. So, the incident may have been a result of local tensions.

Two Turkish soldiers were killed by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region, in the area of the Turkish anti-PKK operation “Claw”. The Turkish Defense Ministry confirmed the casualties saying that 8 PKK members were “neutralized” in response to the attack.

Rocket strikes continue hitting US-linked facilities across Iraq. Early on March 26, several rockets were launched at the area of the US embassy in Baghdad’s Green Zone. A day earlier, on March 25, unidentified forces shelled Camp Taji, the biggest military base hosting US troops in the country. Regular rocket attacks already forced the US military to evacuate several smaller bases, including the key fortified facility near the Syrian border – al-Qaim. This was done under the pretext of “successes” against ISIS and COVID-19-related issues.

Meanwhile, the US-led coalition itself is collapsing. On March 25, Maj. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf, a spokesman for the Commander in Chief of the Iraqi Armed Forces, announced that French troops had withdrawn from Iraqi territory.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Covid-19: Lithuania on the Brink of a Catastrophe

March 27th, 2020 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

COVID-19 expands in Lithuania. Having registered its first official case in February, the country currently has almost 300 infected people and four confirmed deaths. Taking into account that the official numbers tend to differ from the real ones due to the delay in investigating suspicions, it is likely that there are already many more infected, perhaps even thousands. In parallel, state measures to contain the announced catastrophe are few and weak and the government is more concerned in dealing with an alleged “Russian threat” than with the country’s imminent crisis.

Incompetent to deal with the virus’s arrival in Lithuania, the pro-Western government decided to choose simple targets to blame for the coming disaster: Russia and the Lithuanian diaspora. Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis in recent pronouncements went to the extreme of saying about diaspora Lithuanians returning to the country:

“You have probably seen scenes on social media, who and what types are returning to Lithuania (…) I’m sorry, but they cannot be called people. (…) These are the individuals that, after getting off planes and ferries, are posing danger to us.”

Supposedly, there was a collective breach of social isolation rules by Lithuanian emigrants, however, instead of making decisions that enforce quarantine rules, Skvernelis prefers to harass his own people.

Lithuania then began to spread the lie reported by the European Union that Russia would be spreading fake news about the development of the pandemic in western European countries. In a March 16 report, the European External Action Service published:

“The overarching aim of Kremlin disinformation is to aggravate the public health crisis in Western countries […] in line with the Kremlin’s broader strategy of attempting to subvert European societies”.

According to the EU, Moscow would be interested in increasing panic in the bloc’s countries and would be spreading lies on social networks for this purpose.

In response, the incompetent Lithuanian government decided to hide the lack of policies against the virus by tightening up measures against Russia. The government announced that as a quarantine measure it would close the access route to Kaliningrad, which is a Russian territory in the Baltic. In addition to being a measure of extremely dubious effectiveness, it is above all disrespectful, anti-diplomatic and outrageous maneuver against Russia, since Moscow has sovereignty over Kaliningrad. Although the traffic in the region has not been completely closed, the Lithuanian government has already restricted it significantly, reducing the number of trains and limiting the number of passengers to a maximum of 100 people.

However, with great attention being paid to Russia and the diaspora, a very important point in the Lithuanian viral crisis is being ignored. So far, 20 NATO soldiers stationed in Lithuania have tested positive for the disease. The number is truly alarming and can indicate the beginning of a major outbreak of infection. Official government data did not report the nationality of the infected, but it is already known that two of them come from the Netherlands. Apparently, in addition to bringing international instability and insecurity to Lithuanians, NATO is also carrying a deadly pandemic, but it is minimally curious how the government remains inert about such numbers and simultaneously prefers to implement policies against Russia and the diaspora.

Indeed, if the Lithuanian government maintains its current stance, it will have to deal alone with what could be the biggest crisis in its country’s history. The rate of growth of the infection is still inaccurate, partly due to the lack of transparency in the Ministry of Health, which is clearly omitting data to “prevent collective panic”. Due to the fact that a large part of the Lithuanian population is educated in the Russian language, it does not remain totally hostage to the lies spread by the media agencies in the country and in the European Union, and can consume content produced in Russian, which usually shows another view about the pandemic. It is for this reason that the Lithuanian government and the EU accuse Moscow of spreading “fake news”.

What we know so far is that in less than a week the numbers jumped from 60 to 300 officially confirmed cases. In addition, two members of Seimas are infected and Parliament is unable to maintain activities, with meetings being conducted remotely. In the morning of last Wednesday, 46 new cases of COVID-19 were confirmed. Apparently, it is increasingly difficult to hide the truth about the catastrophic scenario that is approaching the country.

Above all, Lithuania is dealing with its own choices. The situation of the coronavirus in Russia, compared to the Western scenario, is very clear: it is Western Europe that is succumbing to the coronavirus. Therefore, it is much more logical to think that the infection vector for Lithuania is also the West, and not Russia, which shows the weakness of anti-Russian policies and restriction of access to Kaliningrad as ways to contain the pandemic. And the alarming number of infected NATO soldiers makes one to presume that the virus has entered the country through this way.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Real Virus, Fake Shock

March 27th, 2020 by Mark Taliano

The coronavirus is real, but the shock is a fabrication.

The WHO proclaimed a “pandemic” prematurely, without sufficient evidence, no doubt influenced by “vested interests”.

How do we know this?

The UK government recently proclaimed that

“more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.” (1)

The information from “Public Health England” is, apparently, being suppressed.

One of the “solutions” to the WHO-fabricated shock has been to “helicopter” (2) money into a broken financial system.

But root causes are being ignored. The predatory doctrine of neoliberalism should be identified as the failure that it is. The evisceration of the public sphere, deregulation, and hyper privatisations schemes, hallmarks of neoliberalism, are among the root causes.

As happened after the shock of 9/11, emergency legislation will be passed which will exacerbate the cancer of the current political economy which serves the ruling, billionaire class to the detriment of us all.

We need to push back and use this shock to demand a more socially-oriented, democratic political economy that rejects both militarism and neoliberalism. Ironically, but not surprisingly, the countries best able to respond to the current shock, notably China and Cuba, are both being sanctioned and undermined by the Western oligarch class.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

Notes

(1) GOV.UK, “High consequence infectious diseases (HCID).” Updated 21 March, 2020.
(https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid?fbclid=IwAR3IevitiWljJXNzFy3aQJr4TisgkVKLCMtewtMb8RFdjCQJEHjf6YjL8QA#status-of-covid-19 ) Accessed 25 March, 2020.

(2) Alastair Crooke, ” ‘Helicopter Money’: This Is the Game-Changer Geo-Politically.” 23 March, 2020.
( https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/03/23/helicopter-money-this-is-the-game-changer-geo-politically/?fbclid=IwAR1vbUuVFckx47c3Pq8BpkO6m0BIB2oSnM9G2tvORk41uz-clW7yayqNjrg) Accessed 25 March, 2020.


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro after weeks of downplaying the potential seriousness of the coronavirus is beginning to lose popularity for his irrationality, especially since describing the coronavirus as a “fantasy” and a “minor flu.” While all South American countries, with the exception of fellow neoliberal Chile, have taken drastic measures to fight against coronavirus, Bolsonaro has been inactive, allowing the infection rate in Brazil to more than quadruple in only a week to over 2,200 people. This has caused angst for many in the middle classes that were crucial to his election as the country’s presidency in 2018. For days now, many in the middle class have led protests from their home balconies by banging on saucepans loudly. Some in Brazil are even speculating whether he is allowing coronavirus to get out of control as a reason to cancel the municipality elections scheduled for October this year – this at a time when his popularity continues to tumble.

Bolsonaro fell out with the Governor of São Paulo, João Doria, whom he called a “lunatic” and accused of “creating terror” for implementing quarantine in the most populous state and financially important state of Brazil. São Paulo is the most infected state and highest death count. The conservative governor of Rio, second most populous state in Brazil, Wilson Witzelsaid “The lack of dialogue and sanity is unacceptable. I never thought that I would experience this in a democracy.” Effectively the most important states of Brazil are defying the Federal government feeling that Bolsonaro is doing next to nothing to deal with the pandemic.

According to public opinion institutes, Bolsonaro’s popularity is crumbling. In a Datafolha survey, 35% of Brazilians believe Bolsonaro is handling the pandemic in a good manner while 33% thought it was poor. Although it may seem insignificant, this would overlook the immense popularity that Bolsonaro once had, and in his stronghold of São Paulo, it is especially telling how much his popularity is falling. In an IBOPE survey, 48% of people in São Paulo found his handling of the pandemic as bad and lousy, and 25% of people believed it was optimal and good. These figures will only continue to get worse for Bolsonaro as the Center for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases of the London School of Tropical Medicine, estimates that the underreporting of those infected in Brazil is enormous and that there would be at least nine times more than the 2,200 detected so far.

One of Bolsonaro’s ideas to deal with the economic fallback of the pandemic was to suspend work contracts and therefore workers’ wages for four months. He had to back down in the face of massive opposition from all social strata, which was especially expected since 21% of Brazilians live in poverty. Bolsonaro is of course protecting ultra-capitalist interests in Brazil, as he openly said he would before his election, where he was dubbed “Tropical Trump.”

This moniker continues to be proven true as Bolsonaro follows every step of U.S. President Donald Trump, who yesterday expressed his ambition to end American lockdowns by Easter. Bolsonaro following shortly after Trump announced that Brazil’s lockdown measures are exaggerated and his country will be back open for business. However, this will prove to be a catastrophic move as Brazil’s fragile healthcare system will inevitably be overwhelmed and the country will not be able to conduct business ‘as usual.’

At a time when the U.S. has shown self-interest during this pandemic by abandoning its closest NATO allies, Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo created a diplomatic crisis between Brazil and China by saying on Twitter that “China is to blame [for the coronavirus] and freedom would be the solution.” The Chinese Embassy hit back, saying: “His words are extremely irresponsible and sound familiar. They are still an imitation of your dear friends. Upon returning from Miami, he unfortunately contracted a mental virus, which is infecting friendships among our peoples.” Brazil’s Foreign Minister then ludicrously demanded that China apologize for the insult. Bolsonaro had to call Chinese President Xi Jinping yesterday to affirm Brazil’s “friendship” with China and reverse the damage made by his son and Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo.

Many Europeans appreciate Russian, Chinese and Cuban assistance to fight against coronavirus as Washington has abandoned its European NATO allies, isolated itself and refused to help the hardest hit countries such as Spain and Italy. And unsurprisingly, the U.S. has shown a complete disinterest to assist Brazil. Bolsonaro has already had to humiliate itself by getting Brazilian Secretary of Health João Gabbardo to request Cuba to send back doctors who were expelled by him so they can help prevent the country’s health system from collapsing. Although Bolsonaro does everything he can to serve Trump’s agenda against China, Cuba and other states, it is these very states that Brazil must cooperate with so that it can navigate through this pandemic. Bolsonaro must now have a serious relook at his foreign policy in light of this fact.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

U.N. chief Antonio Guterres warned that a global recession, “perhaps of record dimensions”, was a near certainty…“We are in an unprecedented situation and the normal rules no longer apply.”

The aftershock of previous pandemics was catastrophic. The fourteenth century Black Plague and the 1918 Flu pandemics inflicted colossal hardships and caused many deaths. The Black Plague shook the foundations of feudal social relations. It killed 25 to 30 million people, resulting in peasant uprisings, shortages that caused wages to rise, and large parcels of land to go fallow. Scientists believe the 1918 Flu could have come to Spain from the United States and spread to other parts of the world killing 20 to 50 million people, more than the 17 million who died in WW1. Even though it was common knowledge that the flu was already in Philadelphia, the authorities went ahead anyway with a parade to raise funds for the war causing many unnecessary deaths—at the time the economics of the war took priority over stopping the spread of the flu. Similarly, today there are competing views about whether fixing the economy should take precedence over addressing the ravages of COVID-19.

COVID-19 originated through natural processes. On 31 December 2019, Chinese authorities alerted the World Health Organization (WHO) of an outbreak. It has since become a pandemic. As it navigates its way across the planet, COVID-19 is expected to leave no less of a calamitous trail of suffering, death, and economic devastation. Globally, so far over 435,000 have been afflicted by the virus and over 19, 000 have died. The economic repercussions could result in “perhaps record dimensions” . The stock market has dropped over 30 percent, and whole industries such as airlines, tourism, and travel have been negatively impacted.

Globally and in the United States COVID-19 spotlights capitalism’s dim response to cope with it. Many countries are using revolting health care systems. Not surprisingly, the U.S. healthcare system, which is inadequate under normal circumstances, is woefully insufficient and unpracticed. It is based on crisis management principles therefore it is devoid of advanced planning; this is evidenced by shortages of basic supplies like masks, testing kits, and ventilators. The delayed response, which is tantamount to a crime, is being coordinated by a President who is doltish, in denial, and who initially claimed the virus was a hoax and a Vice President who is an anti-science creationist. To be clear, the Democrats are equally responsible for this chaos.

Should the virus be contained within a reasonable short time, the economy will struggle with an easier recovery process. The longer it takes to suppress the virus, the effectiveness of the delayed response could be eclipsed by unnecessary misery, deaths and an existential economic meltdown. There are already calls once again for another bailout of corporate America and the banks. Again, it will fall on the backs of working people to save the system from itself.

Who we are, our individuality, is not separate from what and how we as a species produce things, as we interact with nature. COVID-19, like climate change, is a natural outgrowth of the profiteering activities of Anthropocentric Industrial Capitalism (AIC), which is an existential threat to humanity. If we continue to pillage the earth for profits, we will, in part, trespass deeper into the habitats of other species increasing the frequency of closer contact with them, creating the possibility for other novel coronaviruses. This should come as no surprise, since in the recent past the earth’s ecosystem has responded to abuse with AIDS, Avian flu, SARS, MERS, and Zika. It is time to start asking hard questions like: Is capitalism capable of addressing the problems it produces? How many times should a system that time and again fails to deliver be bailed out? And what’s the next coronavirus?

In the absence of an advanced plan, the only response is containment, mitigation, and testing for the virus. To be clear, this is not a discussion about containment, mitigation, and testing per se which is a true and tested approach. Until a vaccine is found, there will be testing for the virus and those who have the virus will be targeted and contained. To mitigate the spread of the virus people are being told to stay at home, regularly wash their hands, stop shaking hands, and engage in “ social-distancing ”. Meanwhile, developing a vaccine could take another year.

It is true that qualitative external shocks like COVID-19, tsunamis or wars can throw the economy out of kilter. But more importantly it is also true that crises are part of the internal logic of capitalism. Just before COVID-19 hit, as recent as December 2019, the economy was already showing signs of weakness. Its very existence depends on the generation of profits, while at the same time it produces misery, inequality, unemployment, inflation, alienation, stress, recessions, and systemic crises. A commodity like a health care service is virulent with these contradictions and tension. Many who work in the healthcare system are underinsured, or have no health care benefits. COVID-19 is the trigger that exposes systemic weaknesses and exacerbates this current crisis.

Similar measures were taken in response to previous pandemics. Those who had the plague were contained and walled off from entering other villages. Alarmingly, almost seven centuries later, in the age of high-tech communications, the same tools are being used to match those who get the virus with a limited number of available hospital beds. While the authorities can quickly find trillions of dollars to bailout corporations and banks, you are told that a planned robust universal health care system that anticipates pandemics is too expensive.

Then there is the containment and mitigation of the virus while allowing the economy to unravel, hopefully for a short period. The longer the unravelling the deeper will be the economic carnage and the longer will be the recovery. If you and everyone else stop dining out, your neighborhood restaurant will have no customers and will go bankrupt. After which wholesalers that supply your local restaurants will follow. This will cause unemployment to rise. If the ripple effect mutates the whole economy could be put on a ventilator. Global debt is about $188T, of which corporate debt is about $16T. Because their reserve cash is generally enough to keep them afloat for 12 days, small businesses will be the first to go under–small businesses are the canary in the coal mine.

The modern-day Robber Barons of industry and Wall Street, along with the government are frantically designing a ventilator to distribute taxpayer’s money to all organs of the economy–domestic and foreign banks and corporations and consumers. The corporate media is firing on all cylinders hoping to convince you to support the efforts of the “job creators”. While the Congress is preparing a stream of trillion dollar bailout programs, last Friday the Federal Reserve Bank handed the banks a massive $1T handout at zero interest rate.

But the optics of bailing out only corporations and banks might raise eyebrows this time. As a result, they are also saying that working people must receive help. While this is true, the hidden motive is that they know that workers do not have any money to spend in order to reset the system. Over forty percent of the US population has less than $400 in savings. Seventy percent of every dollar spent in the US is spent by consumers.

Any bailout in the form and magnitude of the 2008 crisis bailout handed to banks and Wall Street, could trigger widespread anger in this country. This justifiable anger could find a productive outlet in the form of a transition plan with firm conditions in the interest of the many hard-working wealth creators and the planet, rather than 2,000 multibillionaires, Wall Street and corporations. With this is mind there should be no more bank and corporate bailouts. When workers are required to buy health insurance, corporations in the airlines, hospitality, or any other industry should be required to do the same before they make risky investment decisions. They should no longer expect working people to bail them out. This is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us.

Working people should advocate for an alternative transition plan whose main goal is to restructure key industries such as healthcare, education, food, housing, and transportation. This plan would be under the control of working people and a restructured government. In order for businesses to qualify for phase one of this plan, they must have a history of: being friendly to unions; paying a livable wage with full benefits packages including childcare; and complying with environmental requirements. In addition, businesses must agree to regular monitoring of how the loan money is being used; must not have previously received any bailout money; and must commit to a timeline to transition to worker control of these enterprises. These conditions would be subjected to periodic review by a worker’s committee. The plan would be funded by a rollback of the $1.5T recent tax cut to the rich and a special bailout progressive tax on billionaires. Businesses that are a part of other than key industries, would be encouraged to seek financial assistance through the banks.

During the second phase of the transition plan, a Department For Environmental Research and Climate Change will be established and funded by a retroactive tax on corporations who profited from the destruction of the environment; a worker’s political party will be established; there will be free access to healthcare, education, vacant land/property/housing including utilities, food, and public transportation; a progressive tax on all income and wealth over $1 million; all student debt will be cancelled; religious establishments will be taxed; inheritance laws, unproductive industries like advertisement, and rent will be abolished; banking and media will be nationalized/centralized; political prisoners and those who have been criminalized because they are poor will be freed; the military, which includes the police and the judiciary will be downsized; and a jobs bill for all working age adults will be enacted.

Time and again billionaires, bankers and corporate executives have received unconditional bailouts. While they will benefit, working people are always those who are asked to finance these bailouts. If you are unemployed or in an insecure job with little or no benefits, have unpayable student debt or cannot afford to pay for an education, trapped in unsustainable housing conditions, another unconditional balout will not improve your quality of life. The level of inequality in the US is at dizzying heights and getting worse. The richest three people in the US have more wealth than the bottom 50 percent. Without fundamental changes, more bailouts will be necessary because economic crises are intrinsic to capitalism. This crisis precipitated by COVID-19 represents a great opportunity for transforming a chaotic system that has proven it is unable to deliver. The transition plan outlined in this essay might be a good place to start that transformation.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Anthony A. Gabb, Ph.D. is a retired Professor of economics. He has taught economics for 40 years, 32 of which was at St. John’s University, New York. His most recent work includes “Can the Fascist Germ Rise to Epidemic Levels in the USA Today?” and “Financial Oligarchy Feudal Aristocracy”. He has published and delivered dozens of papers, a book chapter, and a book review, interviewed by The New York Times, Corriere della Sera, and has appeared on Channel 1 New York.

The Senate’s $2 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Package is not fiscal stimulus and it’s not a lifeline for the tens of millions of working people who have suddenly lost their jobs. It’s a fundamental restructuring of the US economy designed to strengthen the grip of the corrupt corporate-banking oligarchy while creating a permanent underclass that will be forced to work for slave wages. This isn’t stimulus, it’s shock therapy.

Who can survive on $1,200 for one, two or three months time? And what happens to the millions of people who paid no taxes last year? Are they supposed to scrape by on nothing? Congress knows that most households live paycheck to paycheck. With no savings how will they pay the rent, the electric bill, the phone and the cable? Congress is quibbling over an extra $600 per month unemployment for those who are lucky enough to get it, when most people are just trying to figure out how they’re going to survive, how they’re going to pay the mortgage, when they’ll be able to go back to work, and whether their job will still be there when this nightmare is finally over?

Did you know that “if you don’t already have direct-deposit information on file with the IRS from previous tax returns, you won’t get the emergency funds for up to 4 months”? That means millions of people will have zero income for 4 months! What will become of them? Where will they go? Who will provide them with shelter and food? Shouldn’t congress be asking these questions?

And what happens to the 50% of the American people who had less than $400 saved before the crisis hit? What happens to them when they fall between the cracks and lose their apartments, lose their jobs, and lose their ability to maintain their tenuous standard of living? These people will never regain their financial footing. Never. It’s a death sentence. We’re going to see an explosion of homelessness, drug addiction, depression, alcoholism, suicide and crime unlike anything this country has ever seen before. Are the imbeciles in congress so blind that they can’t see that they’re condemning a large part of the population to permanent, inescapable, grinding poverty and desperation? Can’t they see that?

Do you understand why this bill is being rushed through congress?

It has alot to do with the falling stock market but more precisely with the hundreds of corporations that have been hawking bonds to gullible investors who thought they were buying the debt of responsible, well-managed companies that used the money to improve their product-line, train workers, or build new factories. But instead, greedy CEOs have been using the money to buy shares in their own companies to boost executive compensation and reward shareholders. It’s a multi-trillion dollar scam that blew up in their faces causing a complete freeze-over in the corporate bond market. That’s what’s really going on, there’s a massive credit crunch that has a stranglehold on the bond market and there are only two ways to fix the problem:

  1. Let the failing corporations default and pick up the pieces after the dust settles or…
  2. Launch a major $4.5 trillion bailout for busted corporations that drove their companies off a cliff.

Those are the two choices. Naturally Treasury Secretary Mnuchin chose the latter which suggests that the real motive for giving working people the $1,200 checks was simply to divert attention from the massive trillion dollar bailout to teetering corporations. That’s the real objective of the so-called fiscal stimulus bill. It’s another giant welfare check for the plutocrats.

The centerpiece of the new legislation is a provision for $425 billion giveaway to big business. The New York Times explains what is going on in a recent article. Here’s an excerpt:

“Republican senators have suggested creating a fund of $425 billion at the Treasury Department that the Fed could use to back emergency lending facilities — which would enable such programs to grow far beyond that scale.

Because the Fed cannot take on substantial credit risk itself, the Treasury Department backs its emergency lending, using money from a fund that contains just $95 billion. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Sunday suggested that the new money in the Republican bill could be leveraged by the Fed to back some $4 trillion in financing.

“We do have limited amounts of money we’re using before Congress passes this bill, so we’re not waiting on Congress,” Mr. Mnuchin said in an interview on CNBC on Monday. “As Congress gives us the authority, we’ll be increasing the facilities substantially.” (“The Fed Goes All In With Unlimited Bond-Buying Plan”, New York Times)

What does it mean?

It means that Mnuchin is transforming the US Treasury into a hedge fund. That’s what it means. It means that the Treasury is going to use the $450 billion that is obliquely allocated in the emergency bill, to create a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)–which is a sleazy, off-balance sheet operation that is used to conceal underhanded bookkeeping, that will leverage up by 10x (which means that the Fed will use the $450 billion to borrow tens times more than the original amount or $4.5 trillion) that will be stealthily used to bail out underwater corporations, financial institutions and, yes, banks. (Note–The fairy-tale about “well capitalized banks” is pure bunkum. These guys have serious exposure through “sponsored repo” which is lending to hedge funds via the repo market.) The Fed has already created one SPV for the Commercial Paper market under the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) which is supposed to be used to mitigate volatility in global currency markets, not for bailing out failing corporations. It’s a complete misuse of funds. Unfortunately, targeted suspension of the Sunshine Act will prevent the public from figuring out who is getting money in what amount and for what purpose. This whole scam has been carefully worked out right down to legal provisions preventing transparency.

By the way, Mnuchin’s personal bio is worth reviewing. According to Senator Ron Wyden:

“Mr. Mnuchin’s career began in trading the financial products that brought on the housing crash and the Great Recession. After nearly two decades at Goldman Sachs, he left in 2002 and joined a hedge fund….

“In early 2009, Mr. Mnuchin led a group of investors that purchased a bank called IndyMac, renaming it OneWest. OneWest was truly unique. While Mr. Mnuchin was CEO, the bank proved it could put more vulnerable people on the street faster than just about anybody else around.

“While he was CEO, a OneWest vice president admitted in a court proceeding to ‘robo-signing’ upward of 750 foreclosure documents a week…between 2009 and 2014, a period during which the bank foreclosed on more than 35,000 homes. ‘Widow foreclosures’ on reverse mortgages – OneWest did more of those than anybody else. The bank defends its record on loan modifications, but it was found guilty of an illegal practice known as ‘dual tracking.’ One bank department tells homeowners to stop making payments so they can pursue modification, while another department presses on and hurtles them into foreclosure anyway.” (“Stimulus Bill: The Fed and Treasury’s Slush Fund Is Actually $4 Trillion”, Wall Street on Parade)

Does that sound like someone who can be trusted in the distribution of $4.5 trillion in government funds?

The media is not even trying to hide the sordid details of what’s going on behind the scenes. Take a look at this excerpt from an article at Bloomberg:

“The Federal Reserve could now have as much as $4.5 trillion to keep credit flowing and make direct loans to U.S. businesses through the massive coronavirus stimulus bill being considered by U.S. lawmakers. The bipartisan agreement, which still needs to be passed by the Senate and House and signed into law by President Donald Trump, will include $454 billion in funds for the Treasury to backstop emergency actions by the Fed to support the U.S. economy, Senator Patrick Toomey said on Wednesday.

The central bank will work with the U.S. Treasury to use that money as a backstop against credit risk as it supports markets for corporate and short-term state and local debt, while also loaning directly to large and medium-sized businesses….

“It is a very, very big thing; it is unprecedented,” the Pennsylvania Republican told reporters Wednesday on a conference call, adding it was an opportunity to lever up “the unlimited balance sheet of the Fed.”

Toomey’s comments suggest Fed facilities could be expanded with the new funds, in effect doubling the Fed’s current $4.7 trillion balance sheet if necessary. On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the bill would provide up to $4 trillion in liquidity through broad-based lending programs operated by the Fed.” (“Fed’s Anti-Virus Lending Firepower Could Reach $4.5 Trillion”, Bloomberg)

Toomey is an idiot! Can’t he see what’s going on? Why does he say: “This is a very, very big thing.”… “an opportunity to lever up “the unlimited balance sheet of the Fed”??? Doesn’t he know that the US Treasury has now accepted full liability and credit risk for the Fed’s emergency bailout operations. Does he like the idea that the American people will now be on the hook for the CEOs who blew up their own companies to fatten their own bank accounts?? That’s what this means. Readers should parse these articles very carefully, word by word, phrase by phrase. The ugly truth is spelled out in black and white. Here’s the key phrase in the Times article:

“Because the Fed cannot take on substantial credit risk itself, the Treasury Department backs its emergency lending.”

And here’s the key phrase in the Bloomberg article: “The central bank will work with the U.S. Treasury to use that money as a backstop against credit risk as it supports markets for corporate and short-term state and local debt, while also loaning directly to large and medium-sized businesses.”

There it is: Credit risk, credit risk, credit risk. Who assumes the credit risk for this $4.5 trillion dollar giveaway??

The American taxpayer. Look: The Fed has always had the ability to print as much money as it chooses. (Remember: “Unlimited QE”??) So why did the Fed need to link-up with the Treasury for this operation?

Because the Fed is unwilling to accept the credit risk. Who will ultimately be accountable for all the bad bets and worthless bonds that are being downgraded as we speak? Who is going to mop up the trillions in red ink created by crooked, scheming, cutthroat corporations (and their financial counter-party accomplices) who plundered their companies for the sole objective of enriching themselves and their shareholders?

Who?

The US Treasury backed by the American taxpayer.

This is really the endgame. Wall Street has subsumed the US Treasury and turned it into a massively leveraged hedge fund that is controlled by an unscrupulous charlatan who made his bones evicting families from their homes during the worse economic slump since the Great Depression.

We’re truly fu**ed.

NOTE– As this was being written, stocks were shooting higher for a third consecutive day due, in large part, to the easing of credit spreads in the corporate bond market. According to Matt Maley, chief market strategist at Miller Tabak, “They’ve been able to come into the credit markets and stabilize that area; we see credit spreads starting to tighten up a little bit…..The fact that they’re starting to stabilize gives people the kind of confidence they need to be able to dip their toes back into the market at a time when we absolutely need it.”

In other words, the bailout appears to be working for the investor class. Yipee.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Recognizing and Resisting the “Hasbara Pandemic”

March 27th, 2020 by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

Steady media reports on the rising number of the novel Coronavirus infections and its human toll have contributed to a global psychology of fear where entire populations are succumbing their free will to those in positions of authority, elected and otherwise.   But while we try to keep ourselves safe during this pandemic, a deadlier and more destructive virus creeping in the shadows for years is also reaching its peak. The virus is called hasbara or better understood as propaganda.

Lest you think it is not contagious or deadly, think Iraq.  The Iraq war alone cost the American taxpayers trillions of Dollars but the Iraqi population bore the brunt of the pain and suffering from America’s sanctioned terror attack and invasion with over one million souls lost and counting.  Just like COVID-19 which may be dismissed as a cold, the hasbara virus may be taken for the truth – and therein lies the threat.  As we surrender our will to the officials so that we can survive this pandemic, the spinners have upped their hasbara in order to coax us into embracing their terrorism, their wars, and their genocide.

Abandon your will, if you must, but not your common sense. As someone who has studied propaganda for fifteen years, I have never seen it so prevalent and so dangerous at a time when we are distracted by a viral disease.  Having allowed the hasbara virus to spread and go undetected for such a long time, we’ve lost all ability to recognize it. The spinners know this and are taking full advantage of it. Let me give you two examples from the last 24 hours alone.

First one is a heartwarming ‘news item’ – even benign.

How can the picture of this cute dog not touch you heart? More so when you read on that his owner is in quarantine in Mexico with the coronavirus.  His chips cravings prompt him to tie a note to the dog, send him to the store with a $20 bill and instructions to the shopkeeper to give the dog a bag of “Cheetos”.  Now didn’t that give you the warm fuzzies?  The story is shared over and over and the ‘news reporter’ gets a kudos from his boss for writing this sweet story which would no doubt increase circulation.  I loved it.

But then I had to ask myself why a man in Mexico would tie a 20 Dollar bill to his dog and not Pesos.  That is a lot of Mexican Pesos, and no change was returned.  I mean where would the poor dog keep the change, a lot of change, in Mexican Pesos.

I shared the story with many friends, some of whom included university professors.  None noted the oddness of the Dollar bill.    Even when I asked if they noted something strange about the story, they did not point to it until I told them.  The story was heartwarming and the incident was something they all wanted to accept – a feel good story. Nothing else was noted. We want to believe a story that appeals to our sense of reality, our values, no matter how unrealistic.

On the opposite side is the news story about a former FBI agent Robert Levinson. Levinson disappeared in 2007 and the United States had accused Iran of holding him hostage. Iran has no information about him. Yesterday, out of nowhere, various hasbara outlets cited Levinson’s family releasing a statement citing that they recently received information from US officials that led them to conclude that “our wonderful husband and father died while in Iranian custody.”

Iran denied having held him in custody and the news of his death was news to them. Why was this unbelievable? After all, I have no way of knowing who is lying, the US or Iran. Though one certainly may question the timing of this report.

But it was not just the timing that was odd. It was the orange prison uniform. Orange prison uniform is easy to process for Americans, and the West.  Images of prisoners wearing orange jumpsuit in Guantanamo is embedded in our minds. More disturbing still are the images of prisoners captured by ISIS and wearing orange jump suits as they are being executed. I always wondered where did ISIS get all the orange jump suits their prisoner wore. But that is beside the point. In Iran, prisoners do not wear orange. The uniforms are different shades of blue depending on their status. Ordinary prisoners wear the striped while political prisoners the plain blue uniforms.

Photos courtesy of Iran-based journalist

Aside from the wrong color uniform, I was struck by Levinson’s appearance as portrayed in Western media.  It was hard to process the tanned face which contrasted so sharply with his pale hands. It didn’t make sense. It is not clear to me as to why America would choose this moment to stage this death. I can only imagine that it is to present an image of a ruthless Iran in order to justify its terrorism by way of sanctions at a time when Iran, like the rest of the world, is fighting this pandemic. But even the lies will not hide the shameless stain of America’s cruel madness. Hence, we must resist and fight the propaganda.

For decades, we have been victims of propaganda to the point that we are no longer aware of it.  In spite of it, we have not managed to build an immunity to the lies.  Quite the opposite — we have become more vulnerable as our resistance erodes with every shot of hasbara.  But we are not broken – not yet.  It can only affect us if left undetected.  Like COVID-19, the hasbara virus goes undetected until it’s tested for and discovered.  We must therefore learn to test for, detect, and reject it.  We can do this by refusing to abandon our critical thinking. Pleasant or not, we cannot allow our underlying bias guide us and use commonsense. Don’t let the hasbara virus infect you — it is deadlier than you can imagine.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on US foreign policy. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

The largest country in the world is faring surprisingly well when it comes to surviving World War C, which is greatly attributable to Russia’s proactive measures in taking COVID-19 as serious as possible, including through border closures and the forthcoming imposition of what can be described as “lockdown-lite”.

Ahead Of The Curve

World War C has taken the planet by storm and is set to continue wreaking havoc across the world, but one country has thus far largely avoided the disastrous socio-economic consequences of COVID-19. Russia is faring surprisingly well when it comes to surviving this crisis, which is greatly attributable to its proactive measures in taking this pandemic as seriously as possible. It was one of the first countries to curtail the entry of Chinese citizens, as elaborated upon by the author in his piece last month titled “Russia Bans Most Chinese From Entry: ‘Pure Racism’ Or ‘Preventive Reaction’?“, and it was also the first in the world to do the same with Iranians, the latter of which are now suffering one of the worst viral outbreaks. These measures might have been controversial to some observers at the time, but are now vindicated in hindsight as having been essential to Russia’s success, according to the country’s World Health Organization (WHO) bureau chief.

Putin’s Proactive Policies

Earlier this week, President Putin strongly recommended that his people exercise the utmost caution with respect to this deadly virus. According to the official Kremlin website, he told them the following:

“I am addressing all our citizens. Let us not rely on chance as we tend to do in Russia. Do not think, as we usually do, that this cannot happen to you. It can happen to anyone. And then we will very quickly see what is now happening in many western countries, in Europe and across the ocean, happen here in Russia. We must strictly comply with all the recommendations. We must protect ourselves, our families and friends, and we must adopt a more disciplined and responsible approach. Trust me: the best thing to do now is stay home.”

He also unveiled a generous socio-economic support package that RBTH handily summarized as including the following:

“1. Nationwide paid leave starting week commencing March 28

2. The vote on constitutional changes has been postponed from April 22 until further notice

3. All social benefits are to be extended automatically, no documentation required

4. All families that qualify for maternity benefits are to get an additional 5,000 rubles (ca. $63) monthly for each child under 3 for the next three months starting from April, 2020.

5. All employees on sick leave will not have their pay reduced below the minimum wage – this provision will last through 2020

6. The new maximum unemployment benefit pay will be set at 12,130 rubles (ca. $154)

7. All private loans and mortgage payments are to be frozen for borrowers who provide evidence of a more than 30% decline in the ability to repay (failure of business, salary-related issues, etc.)

8. Concerning businesses suffering through the COVID-19 outbreak, the new measures are as follows:

* Small and midsize businesses: tax payments – aside from value added tax – are to be postponed for six months.

* Microbusinesses: an additional postponing of insurance payments for six months.

9. A six-month delay in loan payments for all small and midsize businesses

10. Additional measures for strengthening small businesses are to be introduced

11. A six month moratorium on bankruptcy claims for businesses operating in areas hardest hit by the outbreak

12. Dividend tax rate is to indefinitely be increased to 15 percent in case of money taken out of the country

13. Returns on each personal investment, including bank deposits and stocks exceeding the total sum of 1 million rubles (ca. $12,600), are to indefinitely be taxed 13 percent”

This policy is all the more impressive when considering the ongoing oil price crash that’s also had a pretty hard impact on the ruble, the former of which was elaborated upon by the author in his article about how “Russia’s Rejection Of OPEC+ Was The Result Of Cold Geostrategic Calculations” while the latter was reported on by RT which published a piece last week dramatically headlined “As markets panic, Russian Ruble is WORLD’S WORST performing currency in 2020“. Quite clearly, Russia is putting its people above everything else, as it and all other countries should be doing during this global crisis.

Additional Measures

That’s not all, though, since Russia’s doing even more than that to ensure that its people remain as safe as possible during World War C. All arrivals from abroad were mandated to quarantine themselves for two weeks prior to this week’s decision to outright suspend all flights to and from foreign countries except those repatriating Russians abroad. According to RT, the government is using facial recognition to enforce its mandatory self-quarantine policy for all arrivals, while Reuters reported that it’s also using mobile phones to track people at risk of coronavirus.

Furthermore, the Russian government adopted amendments punishing those who violate their quarantine restrictions with a maximum fine of 300,000 rubles (~3,890). Moscow Mayor and first deputy chairman of the Russian government’s response to coronavirus Sergei Sobyanin, meanwhile, suggested that all senior citizens above the age of 65 living in cities with more than one million people be placed under quarantine, and he also said that all shops except for grocery stores and pharmacies will be closed in the capital until 5 April since the coronavirus infection there hasn’t yet peaked.

Given the seriousness of the situation, those who spread fake news about it will be fined up to 3,000,000 rubles ($37,320) and the Russian government is demanding that social media platforms remove their content, with TASS reporting that “Facebook agreed to delete false information that is deemed socially important which undermines public order and security.” It’s unclear if the false information that was deleted relates to the Alt-Media Community‘s widespread speculation that the virus is man-made, but that theory is at odds with the findings of a leading specialist in infectious diseases at the Russian Health Ministry who carried out a study decoding the novel coronavirus genome which showed that the deadly virus had not been created in a lab.

Concluding Thoughts

The Russian government is proactively doing everything in its power to prevent its people from suffering the socio-economic consequences of World War C, and thus far, it can objectively be said that the state stands head and shoulders above all the rest except for China in this respect. President Putin and his team are leading from the front, reassuring Russians with concrete actions designed to mitigate the effects of this virus, and they therefore deserve to be applauded for showing the world the right way to respond to this global crisis. None of this guarantees that Russia will be spared from the ravages of COVID-19, but it’s doing more than practically anyone else to ensure that it’s as properly prepared as possible to weather World War C, which could put it in one of the most globally advantageous positions once the COVID World Order enters into being.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Make an unnecessary journey and you could face a fine of £60: that’s the message the UK government is sending as it tightens up its restrictions in light of the current coronavirus pandemic. On Monday night, Prime Minister Boris Johnson addressed the nation, and in truly unprecedented manner for this liberal politician, informed people that their rights and freedoms would have to be temporarily curtailed; he instructed the British public to stay at home unless absolutely necessary. The Prime Minister has become the latest victim of Covid-19, along with Prince Charles: this virus does not discriminate.

Boris Johnson has been trying to get his message across for weeks now – that self-isolation is the key to tackling the pandemic. Yet not everyone has been paying attention. Just a few hours after his announcement on Monday for people to remain indoors, people could be seen socialising outside and the London underground was still jam-packed, even though there is now a limited number of places people can gather in. Despite the warnings, some people have chosen to ignore the advice on social distancing, leading to the PM’s decision to give the police powers to fine and even arrest those who disobey the rules.

UK residents may only leave their homes for essential reasons: to buy groceries, once a day for exercise (or walk the dog), to fulfil a duty of care, to travel to essential work or for medical reasons. The police are already taking their enforcement powers very seriously, using drones and roadblocks to catch out anyone flouting the law. This has already caused some controversy however as a couple walking their dog in the Peak District were exposed by a police drone. Police claimed that the couple had driven 30 miles away to walk their dog in a way that was ‘not essential’. However when the UK cabinet office was approached about this the response was that it is not in fact forbidden to drive somewhere to take a walk.  It’s not clear why the police thought that this couple, walking in a remote part of the country far from anyone else, could possibly be worth highlighting as an example. This case emphasizes the extent to which this law is open to interpretation and that problems could arise as a result.

The measures that Boris Johnson has taken however are undoubtedly necessary, and if nothing else have perhaps not been implemented early enough.  The number of deaths in Britain to Covid-19 is now 578 with over 11,600 cases and the country is on a steeper trajectory than either Italy or Spain – the two worst affected European countries – have been on to date. Italy’s scientific advisor, Walter Ricciardi, who called his nation’s lockdown has even said that the UK government should have shut down the country earlier – 10 days earlier in fact – to halt the spread of the virus.  He has suggested that as a result, the UK may go on to have a higher infection rate than that of Italy and that it will have to endure lockdown conditions for a longer period.

Scenes of struggling hospitals in Italy and exhausted medical staff have shocked the world. The death toll in the country is now over 8000 with morgues bursting at the seams and stadiums transformed into makeshift hospitals. Spain is not far behind with over 4000 deaths and the largest number of deaths in one day amongst nations: 718 in total. Things have got so out of hand that an ice rink in Madrid has had to be used as a temporary morgue. The President of the Madrid region has said she expects around 80% of the population to contract coronavirus.

Across the world people are getting used to a new reality. In the age of globalization, our freedom of movement has been the key to the current crisis. Now we must learn to live without it for the time being. At least, most of us have the ability to stay connected through the internet. Without that convenience, the current lockdown would be much bleaker.

One thing is for sure, this period in our history will have a profound effect on all of us. When it is over, we will all be changed in some way. It will have both negative and positive effects: for some of us, we will have lost loved ones; for others, we will learn to appreciate the things we take for granted: meeting with friends and family; exercise, entertainment, holidays. Things we deemed an essential part of life now don’t seem so essential after all…

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from TruePublica

Perspectives on the Pandemic:

Dealing with Coronavirus, a fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.

Dr John P.A. Ioannidis is a professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine, professor by courtesy of statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) at Stanford University.

Watch the interview below.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Perspectives on the COV-19 Pandemic, A Fiasco in the Making: Dr. John Ioannidis, Stanford University
  • Tags: , ,

Hospitals all over the western world are bracing for a tsunami of intensely ill patients suffering from breathing difficulties due to the Coronavirus.

In Britain, car companies are scrambling to produce ventilators. Plans are being laid for the army to build hospitals in conference centres. In Ontario, Canada, wards are being cleared, plans are being laid, models of infection are being scrutinised. If 70 percent of the population does not cut its social engagement by 70 percent, locking down will not work. Nerves are jangling.

Breaking point

So what do you think it is like in Gaza? This is not a question heard often these days, when Palestinians have been dropped off the international agenda, either as refugees or as people.

What do you think the prospect is for a besieged enclave that has 56 ventilators and 40 intensive care beds for a population of two million?

By comparison, according to figures from the OECD, Germany has 29.2 ICU beds per 100,000; Belgium 22; Italy 12.5; France 11.6, and the UK six and a half. Gaza has two.

Everywhere, medics are asking themselves whether they will be brought to their knees by Covid-19. They don’t ask themselves that question in Gaza. The health system there already is on its knees – by design. It passes for normality. It does not make the news. The international community scrambles with sticking plaster relief.

This has been the reality for the past 13 years. No conflict in that time was complete without a warning that the health system in Gaza was on the point of collapse.

In June 2018, at the start of a year when Israeli soldiers killed 195 Palestinians and injured nearly 29,000 people on the Great March of Return, UN experts said that healthcare in Gaza was “at breaking point”.

Acts of cruelty

During the war in 2014, hospitals such as Al-Aqsa in Deir al-Balah or al-Wafa in Shujaiyyeh were the target itself of Israeli shelling. Ambulances too were deliberately fired on by Israel. But this is what happens day in day out, acts of cruelty which never make the headlines that define who lives and who dies in Gaza.

Think about what happened to Muna Awad at the Erez Crossing in May last year. Muna had to hand over her gravely ill five-year old daughter Aisha to a woman she had never seen to get medical treatment in East Jerusalem. Aisha had been diagnosed with brain cancer, which could not be treated in the specialist hospital in Gaza.

Neither Muna nor her husband Wissam was allowed to travel with their daughter. Even Aisha’s grandmother, who was 75 (Israel refuses entrance to women under the age of 45 and men under 55), was refused entry.

Erez was the last time her mother saw Aisha conscious. The little girl had several operations in East Jerusalem but returned in a coma and never came out of it. She died in Gaza. Her case is not unique.

Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, in Gaza, documented 25,658 Palestinians who applied for permits to seek medical treatment outside the enclave in 2018. Of that number, Israeli authorities delayed processing or rejected outright 9,832 applications – some 38 percent of cases.

If you want to know what collective punishment feels like in Gaza, try getting sick.

To retrieve the body of one of its soldiers, Hadar Golden, who was killed in combat in 2014, Israel reduced the number of entry permits from Gaza. The campaign was led by Golden’s family. There was an op-ed article in the Washington Post. And the government acted on it.

Figures supplied to Haaretz by Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories showed that in the first half of 2018, Israelrefused permission to 769 Palestinians seeking to leave Gaza for Israel because they were “first-degree relatives of a Hamas activist.”

So who holds the key to a medical collapse in Gaza? Israel.

Medical collapse

This is why the Ministry of Health in Gaza called on the international community to compel Israel to remove the blockade amid an acute shortage in ventilators, ICU beds, medicine and protective equipment.

And this is why the international community should now listen. Majdi Duhair, director of preventive medicine at the Ministry of Health in Gaza, told MEE that the biggest difficulty they faced was their ability to scale up ICU beds.

Given the shortage that exists, they only have 26 free ICU beds to deal with the spread of Covid-19.

“This is the biggest dilemma we face, all that is available is 65 beds of intensive care between children and adults, and this number is sufficient for normal and routine cases, and we need this number. There are six beds in the field hospital, and there are 18-20 beds in all places to deal with the spread of corona,” Duhair said.

He added:

“We are doing crew training, but this number is not sufficient. No new staff has been hired, the problem is there are volunteers, but the employment potential is limited, and existing employees receive 40-50 percent of their salaries.”

Gaza has suffered enough. No-one can just sit on the sidelines and watch this happen. Israel has to be told to lift the siege or suffer the consequences of sanctions and isolation itself.

This is an obscenity – one of many in the Middle East – that no western government can afford to maintain.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

David Hearst is the editor in chief of Middle East Eye. He left The Guardian as its chief foreign leader writer. In a career spanning 29 years, he covered the Brighton bomb, the miner’s strike, the loyalist backlash in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland, the first conflicts in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in Slovenia and Croatia, the end of the Soviet Union, Chechnya, and the bushfire wars that accompanied it. He charted Boris Yeltsin’s moral and physical decline and the conditions which created the rise of Putin. After Ireland, he was appointed Europe correspondent for Guardian Europe, then joined the Moscow bureau in 1992, before becoming bureau chief in 1994. He left Russia in 1997 to join the foreign desk, became European editor and then associate foreign editor. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he worked as education correspondent.

Featured image is from Desertpeace

Make no mistake. Legislation that should be called the GOP/Dem-Don’t-Care/CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act is a corporate bailout bill with crumbs for ordinary Americans.

It’s a bandaid approach to a public health emergency/economic crisis, the latter mostly harming the vast majority of ordinary Americans.

Well-managed companies will survive. Mismanaged ones like Boeing, the airlines, and others should be allowed to go bankrupt — their operations considered essential nationalized and run by the government, free from market considerations, focusing solely on the public interest.

Republicans and Dems failed to prioritize what’s most important in the current environment.

All the money in the world thrown at corporate America won’t help a bit if spreading/highly infectious COVID-19 outbreaks aren’t contained.

Public and personal health alone should be prioritized. The economy can wait. Without healthy employees and customers, businesses can’t operate.

If infections keep spreading and most people remain fearful of resuming normal activities, stores and restaurants will stay empty if reopened.

The same goes for airports, train stations, bus terminals, and other public spaces, including sports venues, if most people remain hunkered down to stay safe.

The July Tokyo Olympics was cancelled. So is the remainder of the current NBA and NHL seasons, most likely, that have yet to be formally announced. Suspending games was likely prelude to cancelling remaining ones.

MLB and NFL games may be affected the same way. As things now stand, few people want to be around others in public, except for family members because of the risk of spreading infections.

Fixing the economy requires safeguarding public health, welfare and safety.

That’s not how Congress and the Trump regime are addressing the COVID-19 crisis.

It’s growing more serious daily. On Thursday, the US surpassed China with the most infections — rising to 86,000, up around 17,000 in the last 24 hours.

The US death toll exceeds 1,000, around 300 in New York state, the hardest hit of the 50 states.

The duration and severity of the public health and economic crisis are unknown.

It’s unlikely to disappear quickly. There are already over half a million confirmed cases globally.

Compared to 38 million US flu cases this season, that runs from October to May, 390,000 hospitalizations, and 23,000 deaths, numbers of COVID-19 cases are minor by comparison except as follows:

The disease is a highly contagious new flu/influenza strain, no one with immunity, and severe cases can cause painful death by suffocation — the elderly and others with weak immune systems most vulnerable, why it’s better to be safe than sorry.

On Wednesday, the US Senate voted unanimously for the CARES Act business giveaway — Bernie Sanders supporting what his rhetoric opposed.

In a message to constituents he said the following disingenuously:

“(B)e assured that I am doing everything in my power in the US Senate to correct the completely unacceptable federal response to this crisis (sic).”

“(W)e must prioritize the health and economic wellbeing of Vermont’s working families—particularly our most vulnerable community members—instead of handing over another welfare check or no-strings-attached bailout to corporate CEOs and bankers on Wall Street (sic).”

“Working people must have the income, healthy food, safe shelter and child care, workplace leave, and cost-free medical testing and treatment that they need right now (sic).”

Let the record show he lied. He could have held up passage of the corporate giveaway but supported it instead — the latest example of his rhetoric going one way, his vote on the Senate floor another.

The measure includes delaying payment of individual payroll taxes until 2021 or 2022. The same holds for eligible businesses as follows:

They can delay paying payroll taxes through December 2020, pay 50% of them in 2021, another 50% in 2022.

Dems, including self-styled progressive Bernie Sanders, agreed to suspend payment of worker and business payroll taxes that’s all about weakening Social Security and Medicare trust funds — part of a longterm plan to erode and eliminate them.

In fairness, he has lots of company in both houses with nary a true blue profile in courage in Washington on all issues mattering most.

A handful of House representatives partly uphold this standard — none in either house fully across the board since Cynthia McKinney served for a six terms until 2007.

Then, earlier, and now she defined and continues to define what progressive politics is all about.

No one in Congress approaches her stature — why corporate giveaways like the CARES Act easily become the law the land.

The same or similar outcome to the Senate’s unanimous adoption is certain when House members vote Friday — Trump to sign into law what no responsible leader would tolerate.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

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.

An editorial piece in The Lancet – the world’s most prestigious, and best known general medical journal warned two months ago of the oncoming conflict between an ill-prepared, under-funded national health service and an indiscriminate invisible killer in the form of the 2019 coronavirus. More recently The Lancet warned again of the problems that health workers would be facing and yet the government took no notice – until it was too late:

“As the pandemic accelerates, access to personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers is a key concern. Medical staff are prioritised in many countries, but PPE shortages have been described in the most affected facilities. Some medical staff are waiting for equipment while already seeing patients who may be infected or are supplied with equipment that might not meet requirements. Alongside concerns for their personal safety, health-care workers are anxious about passing the infection to their families. Health-care workers who care for elderly parents or young children will be drastically affected by school closures, social distancing policies, and disruption in the availability of food and other essentials.

Health-care systems globally could be operating at more than maximum capacity for many months. But health-care workers, unlike ventilators or wards, cannot be urgently manufactured or run at 100% occupancy for long periods. It is vital that governments see workers not simply as pawns to be deployed, but as human individuals. In the global response, the safety of health-care workers must be ensured. Adequate provision of PPE is just the first step; other practical measures must be considered, including cancelling non-essential events to prioritise resources; provision of food, rest, and family support; and psychological support. Presently, health-care workers are every country’s most valuable resource.”

The Lancet takes aim at governments around the world, including the British government, that these front-line healthcare workers are being deployed in a way that will inevitably cause them to be infected and die needlessly.

Richard Horton – editor-in-chief of The Lancet – is clearly angry at the British response and wrote a scathing and highly critical article in The Guardian last week. He asked – “After all the warnings why did it take the UK government eight weeks to recognise the seriousness of what we now call Covid-19?”

The Lancet published the first report submitted by Chinese scientists in mid-February. Horton goes on – “Under immense pressure, as the epidemic exploded around them (the Chinese Scientists), they took time to write up their findings in a foreign language and seek publication in a medical journal thousands of miles away. Their rapid and rigorous work was an urgent warning to the world. We owe those scientists enormous thanks.”

And as Horton says – “But medical and scientific advisers to the UK government ignored their warnings. For unknown reasons they waited. And watched.” Horton is clearly still stunned by Britain’s response. He bemoans the controlled epidemic strategy of the ‘herd immunity’ as promoted by the two government experts who are regularly wheeled out to explain what is supposed to be going on. Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, suggestedthat the target was to infect 60% of the UK’s population.

There is a reason why this strategy was the preferred one. The government had been warned of the pandemic four years earlier. It was such a foregone conclusion that the NHS went through a three-day exercise to model the outcome of a flu-like pandemic. The Chief Medical Officer at the time warned that the health service would not cope under such circumstances, specifically focusing on the lack of equipment, intensive care beds and most especially – “the real threat of totally inadequate ventilation.” Three previous tests and reports said the same and an updated report in 2018 meant that the Conservative government, in their quest for austerity and deliberately under-funding the NHS, knew all along that a pandemic was certain – and did the opposite of what was required to defend the country against such a threat.

Horton looks at the moment when the government realised their ‘herd immunity’ strategy had imploded. “Many journalists, led by the BBC, reported that the science had changed and so the government had responded accordingly. But this interpretation of events is wrong. The science has been the same since January. What changed is that government advisers, at last, understood what had really taken place in China. The UK’s best scientists have known since that first report from China that Covid-19 was a lethal illness. Yet they did too little, too late.”

Even as the catastrophe in Italy unfolded, the British government sat on its hands confident that what they were seeing live in southern Europe would somehow not happen in Britain. And as Horton says – “We had the opportunity and the time to learn from the experience of other countries. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the UK missed those signals. We missed those opportunities. There will be deaths that were preventable. The system failed. I don’t know why. But, when we have suppressed this epidemic when life returns to some semblance of normality, difficult questions will have to be asked and answered.”

In the meantime, our frontline health workers are inadequately protected, the country unprepared and people will needlessly die. This episode is a lesson that needs to be learned because next time, the virus could be more infectious and more deadly and as Horton says – “we can’t afford to fail again. We may not have a second chance.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from TP

In American politics, it is not often that one sees an assassination carried out in public, but that is exactly what the Democratic Party establishment did to peace candidate Tulsi Gabbard. She was sidelined right from the beginning of her campaign and the fact that she was a woman of color and a veteran earned her no points with the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and, more to the point, with the Clintons, who continue to have a disproportionate say in what goes on in the party.The chameleonlike Clintons have long been known for their ability to punish anyone who stands in the way of their ambition and Hillary’s dislike for Gabbard dates back to the 2016 election when Gabbard, then vice-chair of the DNC, endorsed Bernie Sanders.

Gabbard is admittedly a somewhat controversial figure, but many individuals involved in the antiwar movement who have taken time to speak with her have come away impressed by her sincerity and willingness to talk up an issue that all the other candidates, save Bernie Sanders, have ignored. She is a serious non-interventionist and a critic of her party’s embrace of the national security state that has emerged since 9/11. In the several debates where she was allowed to participate and actually given some time to speak, she has been a harsh critic of the endless “regime change wars.”

Tulsi has stayed in the race in spite of the fact that the Democratic Party establishment, most particularly to include the Clintons, have been out to destroy her since she first appeared. Gabbard, generally definable as a conventional moderate Democrat, believes that the United States should end nearly all its wars overseas, which are a symptom of a fractured foreign and national security policy. She also advocates auditing the Federal Reserve and is a supporter of Julian Assange as well as whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Tulsi has stuck by her guns and had stayed in the race to promote those and other anti-establishment views.

Unfortunately for the many Americans who had hoped to see Tulsi somehow surfacing either as a candidate or as a major voice in shaping the party platform, her candidacy has finally ended. Her announcement came after she was blocked from participating in the candidates’ debate on March 15th by an abrupt and unexpected change in the guidelines for being included. The new qualifying criteria require a candidate to have earned at least 20 percent of the delegates awarded thus far, which meant that only Biden and Sanders could participate.

On March 18th, Gabbard announced her decision to wrap up her campaign and throw her support to Joe Biden as follows:

“I know that he [Biden] has a good heart and he’s motivated by his love for our country and the American people… So today I’m suspending my presidential campaign, and offering my full support to Vice President Joe Biden in his quest to bring our country together.”

The endorsement of Biden came as somewhat of a surprise as Bernie Sanders is closer to her philosophically, but sources close to Tulsi suggest that she did so in the belief that Biden was more likely to unite the party and also better suited to defeating Donald Trump. In any event, speculation that she will have some influence over where the Democratic Party is heading seems to be misplaced as she is not running again for Congress and seems content to return to what passes as a normal life in Hawaii. She retains her commission as a major in the Hawaii National Guard.

If one sought to make a case for who was most active in the undoing of Tulsi Gabbard, the finger would point directly at Hillary Clinton. When Tulsi endorsed Sanders in 2016 she did so knowing that “Clinton had a stranglehold over the Democratic party and that crossing Clinton (who considered herself the ‘inevitable nominee’) could mean the end of her own political career.” Clinton was reportedly made “extremely angry — to put it mildly” by the endorsement and had her aides send Tulsi a wave of threatening emails. 

Hillary Clinton’s first major attack against candidate Gabbard in 2019 was featured in a podcast hosted by former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe that was recorded last fall. The comments on Gabbard came during a discussion of the upcoming election. Clinton speculated that President Donald Trump and the GOP would likely be “grooming” a potential spoiler candidate for a third-party bid to take away votes from the Democrats. She said “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up because she’s also a Russian asset.”

Clinton did not name Gabbard but one of her spokespersons later confirmed the “Russian asset” comment referred to her. The reference to the completely respectable Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, was based on the oft-repeated claim by Clinton and others that Stein was being supported by Russian agents and that she took votes away from the Democratic candidate. Clinton has also suggested that Moscow is “grooming” Gabbard to run third party and steal votes from the Democrats.

Gabbard courageously responded to the Clinton attack with: “Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.”

Shortly before dropping out of the race, while Tulsi was the only remaining woman contender for the nomination, Hillary Clinton opted to get in the proverbial last shot in an interview with Fareed Zakaria, saying “We no longer have a woman in the presidential race. There are a lot of reasons for that. We started off with I think six, and now have none.” 

That Tulsi Gabbard, a genuine peace candidate, was deliberately marginalized in the Democratic Party nomination process in spite of having considerable grassroots support does not speak well either for the party or for the system of government by the corruption that prevails in the United States. Tulsi has sued Hillary Clinton for $50 million for defamation due to her being labeled a Russian asset. In the suit, she describes Hillary as “a cutthroat politician by any account” and claims that the former Secretary of State has been working to destroy Gabbard’s presidential campaign as payback for 2016. May Tulsi prevail. And one has to hope that we all have heard the last of the Clintons.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on American Herald Tribune.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard speaking with attendees at the 2019 California Democratic Party State Convention at the George R. Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco, California. Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr

Government watchdog Public Citizen celebrated Wednesday afternoon as pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences backed off a monopoly claim for its drug that may treat the coronavirus which has sickened more than 487,000 people worldwide. Gilead, Public Citizen said, must now commit to ensuring the drug is accessible to all who need it.

Public Citizen applauded the news as a “big win” for those who spoke out against Gilead Sciences, whose former lobbyist, Joe Grogan, now serves on President Donald Trump‘s so-called “coronavirus task force.”

“It was outrageous that Gilead ever sought an ‘orphan drug’ designation for remdesivir, which aims to treat a patient population that easily may number in the tens of millions in the U.S. alone,” Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program, said in a statement. “Thankfully, under pressure, the company has backed down. There’s no doubt that the prospect of an enormous public backlash is what made the difference.”

Gilead’s claim to “orphan” drug status for remdesivir, one of several drugs being tested to treat the coronavirus, officially known as COVID-19, drew outrage this week from Public Citizen, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and dozens of other public interest advocates. 

Trump’s Food and Drug Administration granted the orphan status—which would allow a seven-year monopoly on the drug and could keep it out of reach of many Americans by preventing other companies from developing generic versions—even though Gilead developed remdesivir with at least $79 million in government funds. Orphan status is generally reserved for companies that may not recoup their research costs and for drugs which treat conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 people.

“Gilead must have been feeling the heat,” James Love, director of public interest non-profit Knowledge Ecology International, told NPR after Gilead reliquished its claim. “I think it’s embarrassing to take something that’s potentially the most widespread disease in the history of the pharmaceutical industry and claim it’s a rare disease.”

Soon after Public Citizen was joined by 50 other groups in demanding Gilead end its “unconscionable abuse of a program designed to incentivize research and development of treatments for rare diseases,” the company announced on Wednesday it would proceed without orphan drug status.

Public Citizen said that Gilead Sciences must go further than simply withdrawing its claim of orphan drug status, and actively work to ensure that remdesivir is widely produced and available for all who need it.

“Gilead must do more than make vague promises of reasonable pricing,” Maybarduk said. “It should commit right now to license the right and needed know-how to manufacture remdesivir to all qualified producers, in exchange for a modest royalty.”

“If the drug proves viable as a COVID-19 treatment,” he added, “the U.S. and the world will need the product available at a low price that reflects both the public health need and the potentially enormous market—with production at an unprecedented scale.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: The Gilead Sciences logo is seen on the company website. (Photo: Ivan Radic/Flickr/cc)

Italians furious at the lack of help and solidarity from the European Union began removing flags of the Union throughout the country and replaced them with Chinese and Russian ones. As this is happening in a long-time member of the European Union, the small Balkan country Montenegro went in the opposite direction and began praising the bloc. Refusing to assist Italy, the credibility of the European Union was dealt a huge blow, and Brussels decided to set aside a significant amount of assistance for Montenegro to mitigate the effects of the spread of coronaviruses. There is no doubt that the promised European Union assistance for Montenegro is certainly welcomed and valuable in the aftermath of delaying all assistance to the European Union’s worst hit countries, Italy and Spain. But this is merely a reaction to the increased popularity of China and Russia in these countries who have all provided assistance in a timely and unbureaucratic manner.

As part of a face saving exercise when many European Union members are questioning the necessity of such a bloc, Brussels has prioritized Western Balkan countries to legitimize itself again by fast tracking the memberships of not only Albania and North Macedonia, but also Montenegro. The European Union Ambassador to Montenegro, Aivo Orav, announced on Twitter that Brussels is allocating €3 million in emergency assistance to the Montenegrin health sector and €50 million for the health sector, the economy and business. This assistance to Montenegro, an aspiring European Union member, is an attempt to salvage the shaky reputation of the European Union. Attempting to regain credibility is understandable, but the big question is to what extent this move by the European Union can change the overall impression that the current crisis has shown a complete collapse of European solidarity.

Montenegrin Prime Minister Duško Marković described the European Union assistance to Montenegro as “European values ​​and solidarity in action.” Montenegro will continue to work diligently with the European Commission and the delegation to jointly address the effects of the crisis, Marković said.

Montenegrin President Milo Đukanović then said on Twitter:

“A great decision for our neighbours North Macedonia and Albania. Today – support to Montenegro in fighting COVID-19! EU keeps standing with Western Balkans in the hard times!”

The official Twitter account of the Montenegrin Government went to Twitter to say:

“The EU, in the difficult moments of fighting against coronavirus, stands by Montenegro and provides urgent help for procurement of equipment and protective supplies worth €3 mil through the UN system while working on defining the model for an additional €50 million to help overcome the socio-economic effects of the crisis. We have also agreed to accelerate a € 18million collaborative programme to help small businesses, the most vulnerable categories of society and the unemployed.”

The pro-Western Đukanović helped steer Montenegro into full NATO membership in 2017 and is on track to make his country soon join the European Union. The European Union gives the illusion that it is an alliance of liberal democracy, efficient and free of corruption. However Đukanović is alleged to have strong links to the mafia, as well as involved in smuggling, organized crime and unnecessary privatizations like the Prva Banka, which went to his family.

It is precisely the Western liberal aspect of European Union membership which supposedly united Europe that has been cited as crucial in media close to Montenegrin authorities. Today however, we see that there is nothing of such in the European Union as it quickly turned realist with the coronavirus pandemic. The member states of this organization have been left to fend for themselves in the most difficult and critical situations. From these different treatments of allies, by the EU and NATO on the one hand, and China and Russia on the other, a different composition of the global order will emerge at the end of the coronavirus pandemic.

Although Serbia has blasted so-called European Union solidarity, it remains a lonely voice of the non-member countries of the Balkans. North Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro on Serbia’s southern flank are serving the Western agenda and acting as willing agents to inhibit Russian influence in a region that is overwhelmingly Slavic and Christian Orthodox. Despite the clear corruption of Đukanović, who should be the antipathy of so-called European values, Montenegro was not only fast-tracked into NATO, but is now being accelerated to the European Union in a face-saving regime. It is therefore unsurprising that anti-Serbian sentiment is being pushed by the ruling class in Podgorica to demonstrate to the West that Montenegro will be a partner to pressurize Serbia. Therefore, the accession of Montenegro, Albania and North Macedonia to the European Union and NATO is being used by the West as a mechanism to contain Serbia and halt Russian influence into the Balkans, and also to save their own legitimacy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Mainland China is closing down the hospitals in Wuhan, releasing patients who are already cured. Doctors are celebrating, and with them, the ordinary people; in China and all over the world.

It is not the end of the medical emergency, yet, but it is the beginning of the end; a victory of reason, of determination and discipline; a victory of the system that is serving its citizens.

People are returning home. Families are being reunited. Cities are slowly beginning to open up, again. With the victory comes spring; real and metaphorical.

Now, the biggest threat to China is that which comes from outside, from abroad.

But instead of shooting fireworks into night skies, China is sending wide-body airplanes. They are taking off, towards places such as Italy, bringing medical supplies and medical staff. China knows how to share and how to help those who are in need. It is part of its culture, as it is part of its political system.

For several weeks now, the Hong Kong rioters have been relatively quiet. Frankly, they have been humiliated.

Lately, they and their handlers have been re-grouping, changing tactics, thinking how to harm the People’s Republic of China, without making fools of themselves again.

Months ago, they tried to break China into pieces, using politics. And they failed. Then, they attempted to use the COVID-19, and nothing good came of it, either; the PRC flexed its muscles, used some of its best brains, and managed to perform the impossible: to save the nation with minimal casualties, in as short a period of time as possible.

*

But what now, really is the worst news for the Hong Kong rioters and their decreasing base of supporters? Clearly, the fact that the Chinese and also Cuban socialism have presented themselves as much kinder, much more humane systems than those which are governing the Western countries.

The rioters are paid to hate and smear socialism. It is their job, their business to promote “Western values”.

China is now helping others, and so is Cuba, a country which is itself under a malicious U.S. embargo. Cuba has some of the best doctors on earth, always ready to send their “medical brigades” to all corners of the world, wherever people are facing medical emergencies and calamities. It is said that Cuba may already be extremely close to having a vaccine for the COVID-19.

In the meantime, the favorite man of the Hong Kong rioters, the U.S. President Donald Trump, is trying to turn medicine into a weapon, or as they say, to “weaponize the coronavirus”. He doesn’t seem to have much shame doing it.

Various publications, including the Mirror, recently printed stories of analogous headlines:

“Coronavirus: Donald Trump offers German lab cash to ‘make vaccine exclusive to the US.’”

“Donald Trump’s White House offered a German science lab cash to develop a coronavirus vaccine exclusively for the United States, it has been claimed.”

Is this the system that the rioters want for Hong Kong, for China and the entire world?

But this time the world is watching. This time, the world is not willing to forgive.

Italian people have been singing China’s national anthem, from the balconies of Rome, as a thank youfor China’s help with the coronavirus outbreak.

Then, on 16 March, 2020, RT reported that the Serbian President doesn’t believe in European solidarity, anymore, asking China for help, instead:

“As President Aleksandar Vucic declared a national emergency on Sunday, he had some scalding remarks for the EU.”

“The crisis has proven that European solidarity, only exists “on paper,” Vucic said, citing the ban on the export of medical equipment and supplies imposed by EU members to non-EU countries in response to the outbreak.

“Only China can help us in this situation,” the Serbian leader added, saying he recently wrote a letter to China’s Xi Jinping “asking him for help and calling him a brother.”

One heavy-lift Russian plane after another is taking off, heading for Italy, medical staff and equipment on board.

Now, what do the rioters feel? Are some of them at least finally realizing that they are finding themselves on the wrong side of history?

It is not Communism and socialism that are outdated and belonging to a depressing pile of historic scrap. It is gloomy imperialist nihilism and fundamentalist capitalism that have, a long time ago lost all luster and appeal.

It took an epic ideological battle over Hong Kong, as well as the global battle against a new form of the coronavirus, to demonstrate where the future of humanity really lies.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on China Daily, Hong Kong.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are “China Belt and Road Initiative”,China and Ecological Civilization”with John B. Cobb, Jr., “Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism”, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and Latin America, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website, his Twitter and his Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

In February, Friends of the Association of Peasant Workers (ATC) and the Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ) organized an agroecology and Sandinismo solidarity delegation to Nicaragua. Led by Friends of the ATC’s Coordinator and co-International Relations Secretariat, Erika Takeo, the delegation witnessed the current conditions in Nicaragua nearly two years after an attempted coup and the on-going work of the ATC in cooperative communities and unions around the country. Delegates included folks from Nicaragua, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Ecuador, Canada and the United States.

Other than the economy still recuperating from the attempted coup of 2018, the Nicaraguan people continue their struggle to remain independent and out of the grips of the neoliberal orbit of US imperialism. Despite the crippling effects of US sanctions, the Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega has made significant social advances since it came to power in 2007, including expanding electricity to 97% of the population. The government is building new water and sewer systems, as well as funding tuition-free public schools through university. All Nicaraguans have access to the country’s universal health care system, regardless of income or employment, although the rural areas experience fewer services than the more urban areas.

It was apparent everywhere we traveled that the Ortega government is spending money on improving infrastructure and roads so that the country can easily and safely transport people and goods. And the country feels safe to be traveling around, with Nicaragua’s crime rate being the lowest in all of the Central American countries.

Gender equality is evident by some of their current laws. Fifty percent of government representatives must be women. For example, if there’s a male governor then there must be a female vice-governor. This progressive law makes Nicaragua unique in the Americas. Also, there is a Domestic Violence law that is actually enforced and, in some areas of the country, there is a police force made up of only women who respond to these cases, supporting women and children in homes and communities.

The Sandinista revolution remains strong, with the majority of Nicaraguans supporting the current Ortega government. Every Saturday, supporters march through the streets in Managua and other cities around Nicaragua. Graffiti and stencils of FSLN (Sandinista National Liberation Front) and other artwork adorn walls, and statues of Sandino stand proudly in central parks reminding everyone of the revolution and the struggle it takes for it to continue.

Our delegation focused on the agricultural cooperatives and unions working in the country, such as the ATC and La Vía Campesina (LVC). Agriculture makes up a large part of Nicaragua’s economy for internal markets, exports and subsistence farming relied on by campesino families. An enduring part of the revolution is land reform, which has been supported by the Ortega government by continuing to grant smaller growers land title regardless of gender.

The delegation visited several unions and cooperatives, which, in the spirit of the Sandinista Revolution, reject the corporate food regime that demands peasants produce cheap exports for commodity markets paying them very little, while selling them expensive seeds, fertilizers and toxic pesticides. The cooperatives and unions save and share their own, creole, non-GMO seeds and many maintain seed reservoirs. Nicaragua prohibits the import of GMO (genetically modified organism) seeds. Farmer-to-farmer education through the ATC and the LVC supports the horizontal sharing and experimentation of sustainable agricultural practices, rejecting the top-down education of more “developed” agribusiness-dominated nations.

Santa Julia, a women’s cooperative growing coffee for market, as well as for their own sustenance, has embraced the agroecological method. This includes the social, economic and environmental well-being of meeting their needs individually as well as communally. With an anti-capitalist, anti-neoliberal and anti-patriarchal methodology, they are improving their community by becoming food sovereign, composting, saving and sharing seeds, and finding ways to protect their crops from the effects of climate change. With the help of the ATC, the community was able to purchase equipment for processing coffee and, since March of this year, they now have running water from their well.

Other cooperatives, such as La Unión coffee cooperative in Jinotega municipality, and the community of Marlin Alvarado in Santa Teresa, Carazo, use agroecological methods of meeting their community’s needs. La Unión de Cooperativas Agropecuarias del Nueva Segovia (UCANS), a growers cooperative union in Somoto, has been organizing groups of cooperatives since 1998 to strengthen the social and economic well-being of growers. Their program includes: planning and coaching; exchange with other growers; technical assistance; seed banks; home gardens; crop management; and health nutritionists to the communities.

The radical practices of agroecology and food sovereignty are a figurative middle finger to US agricultural corporations. Nicaragua is about 90% food sovereign, meaning that they produce and consume 90% of the country’s food needs. This intentional and popular part of the revolution is one of the major reasons why Nicaragua can hold these powerful agricultural corporations at bay.

As I write this, the US House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill without debate to impose more sanctions on Nicaragua. Why is the US government so obsessed with destroying Nicaragua? Like the examples of Cuba and Venezuela, Nicaragua is in the crosshairs of imperialism for standing up and saying no to the neoliberal model of dependence. The assaults and attacks from the US continue, but the Sandinista Revolution will endure. We can help them by contacting our Representatives and educating them about the realities of Nicaragua and their struggle to protect their country and their right to participatory democracy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Carissa Brands was a delegate in the recent Friends of the ATC delegation; she is an agroecological worker and a board member of the Task Force on the Americas.

The West Bank situation is becoming increasingly complicated amid the coronavirus pandemic and territorial disputes between Palestinians and Israelis. At first, the Palestinian Authority and Israel showed signs of cooperation in combating the pandemic. A few weeks ago, joint measures were announced between both sides to contain the epidemic of the new coronavirus in the region. The measures include distribution of cleaning and personal hygiene materials, in addition to virus testing kits and medical equipment.

On the part of Tel Aviv, the total closure of the West Bank was promoted, allowing, however, access for Palestinian workers involved in the construction and agriculture sectors to the Jewish state, which is why the proposal was well accepted by Ramallah. On the part of the Palestinians, the West Bank has also been blocked, but only partially and for two weeks, since last Sunday (March 22), in addition to the implementation of a series of control and quarantine measures.

However, efforts to contain the pandemic have not prevented Israeli incursions into the region, which have increased recently. Ibrahim Melhim, a spokesman for the Palestinian Authority, acknowledged Israeli efforts to contain the coronavirus in the country and in Palestine, but criticized the unstoppable incursions against the Palestinians.

“We have very strong round-the-clock coordination with the Israeli side to prevent the coronavirus from spreading (…) At the same time, Israel continues to operate in the Palestinian Territories as if there is no coronavirus crisis (…) They [Israeli forces] continue their raids across the West Bank, arresting people and confiscating lands, and that harms the existing coordination between the PA and Israel putting an additional burden on the Palestinian Authority,” said the spokesman.

Apparently, Israel pretends to collaborate with Palestine to stop the pandemic, when, in fact, it freely promotes its military maneuvers in the region, which go unnoticed by the mainstream media, strongly focused on covering the viral tragedy. In addition, Tel Aviv’s own collaboration to control COVID-19 in the region seems extremely limited. The blocking measures made it impossible, for example, for doctors from the “Physicians for Human Rights” (an Israeli NGO that serves Palestinians free of charge) to move alongside the West Bank, clearly hampering medical care in the region.

Mention should also be made of the fact that Israel, not Palestine, is the major focus of infections by the new coronavirus in the region. Israel has already more than 1.000 officially reported cases of the disease, in addition to one death, and several suspicions. In contrast, Palestine has around 60 infected people. It is clear from these data that the most stringent containment measures should come exclusively from Ramallah, since the Israeli military presence in the region itself poses a serious risk to Palestinian public health.

According to a survey by the Truman Institute for Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 63% of Israelis say Israel must help Palestinians during the coronavirus crisis. Vered Vinitsky-Serousse, president of the Institute, said that

“the majority of Israelis believe that, when necessary, the government should devise preventive measures to help Palestinians during the Covid-19 epidemic.”

The big problem, however, is how these joint maneuvers are conducted. Perhaps the first step to be taken in establishing joint measures is the definitive and immediate end to military incursions in the region, which constantly bring insecurity and terror to the Palestinian people.

The situation of tensions in the region must still be read in the context of the so-called “Deal of the Century”, the “peace” proposal for the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians announced by American President Donald Trump. The “agreement” was celebrated unilaterally by the Washigton-Tel Aviv axis, with no participation of Palestinians, which is why it was rejected by the Palestinian Authority and the Arab League. The document foresaw the annexation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, leaving around 70% of the region under Palestinian rule – a figure much lower than that proposed by all previous attempts to resolve the conflict. Everything indicates that Israel will not stop its attempts to occupy that territory as much as possible.

It is in this context that the “joint” actions between Israelis and Palestinians must be analyzed with skepticism and suspicion. Are these pandemic containment measures really good, even when behind them the Israeli army expands its occupation in the region with increasingly aggressive incursions? Also, to what extent does Palestine benefit from the help of these joint actions when Israel has an absurdly greater number of infected people? Would Israel be able to help the Palestinians? Or would that aid be a mask for such military incursions? All of these are valid questions.

It is also worth remembering that a few weeks ago, at the end of February, Israel announced the construction of more than 2.000 new settlements in Palestinian territories – and on the same occasion, Netanyahu authorized the construction of other 7.000 units in the East Jerusalem region. These data mean that Israel’s aggressiveness against the Palestinians was increasing recently. Did this aggression really disappear from Tel Aviv’s plans in the face of a “commotion” with public health in Palestine (which is much better than the situation in Israel)? Perhaps, the mainstream media and Human Rights observers should divide their attention between the coronavirus and the conflict in Palestine, before more serious clashes erupt.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

It was NATO’s first out-of-area operation, against its own Treaty and without a UN mandate. On March 24, 1999.

Independent Kosovo was established – against UN SC resolution 1244. Thanks to the Clinton administration and Madeleine Albright. CNN’s Amanpour endorsed it generously on TV with her State Department husband, James Rubin, a chief operator in the non-negotiations at Rambouillet. And TIME of course knew the truth too.

Serbia suffered tremendously from the 78 days of indiscriminate, hard bombing. I know because I was there.

Finally, Serbia and its president Milosevic was threatened with total destruction of Belgrade. And gave in.

Western hubris after the Cold War was won? Of course!

Russia was on its knees. International law and the UN Charter sidelined. Militarism embraced. Full spectrum dominance. The winner takes it all! Right – but with the risk of losing it all later. It’s called hubris.

Boomerangs do exist.

Oh, what ignorance. Hardly 5 foreign ministry people in Europe knew a thing about the complexities of Yugoslavia.

And today, 21 years later?

Kosovo – the 2nd Albanian state in Europe – still doesn’t function. Hardliners in that war are still leaders, protected by the Americans who back then called Kosovo “ours” – I know because I interviewed them in Prishtina.

Serbia – moving ahead with no more illusions about a decent treatment by the EU or the US. It’s now Europe’s main friend of China (whose embassy NATO bombed by so-called accident). Huge Chinese air bridge of aid to Serbia these very corona days.

China – well you know what has happened there the last 20 years. And how it is the main builder of a new world order.

NATO – outdated and sharing little but inner conflicts because it should have been closed down when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact dissolved.

The EU – unable to handle Yugoslavia, 2015 refugees, Iran/JCPOA or helping its Spanish and Italian brothers and sisters with the corona.. China is able.

The US – moving towards (more) authoritarianism and inner dissolution, rioting and revolver violence: Wait and see how the corona virus’ political dynamics will play out there…

For all the West – A world order loser in deep inner structural crisis.

Yugoslavia was a game changer – TFF said it then and warned about all the Western actions in the most comprehensive ever peace and conflict study of Yugoslavia – a good 2000 A4 pages equivalent.

No, not written years after but while it happened. Predictions more precise than any government’s.

And with lots of alternatives and peace plans lined up too. Because there were alternatives to the destruction of that country and to the bombing for Kosovo. But everything done was – peace-prevention:

Sadly, the West is destroying itself because of militarist hubris. There is no one it can blame for its manifest destiny downwards – except, of course, the Serbs, Russians, Chinese and Iranians and …

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Poll: 100% of Americans Expect to Get Coronavirus

March 26th, 2020 by Steve Watson

A new survey has discovered that every single American is convinced they will get the coronavirus, highlighting just how entrenched the message about the crisis has become in the US.

The poll by Survey USA finds that 100 percent of respondents said yes to the question “Based on what you know at this hour, what would you say that the chances are that you, yourself, will get sick from the Coronavirus?”

The survey was conducted last week, just as the peak of the panic was hitting. It also found that 21 percent of Americans say their daily life has “been turned upside down” by the virus, which originated in China.

A further 42 percent say it has “changed noticeably”, while 31 percent say it has “been impacted only slightly”.

Six percent say life has “not been impacted at all,” although that has probably changed by now.

Interestingly, only five percent of respondents said that they personally know someone who has been officially diagnosed with the virus, while an overwhelming 92 percent say they don’t.

When asked how concerned they are about the virus, and whether they will be able to get adequate medical care if they catch it, sixty-six percent of respondents over the age of 50 said that they are “extremely concerned” or “concerned”.

Seventy-one percent responded that think the worst is “still ahead,” while just 8 percent believe it is “behind us.”

Asked when they think thinks will return to “normal”, 17 percent pointed to June 2020, while ten percent said they expect the entire year to be lost to coronavirus, and are looking to 2021 for normal life to return.

This is in stark contrast to President Trump’s comments yesterday when he said he’d like to see things get back on track by Easter.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

US Media Defends Al Qaeda in Syria

March 26th, 2020 by Tony Cartalucci

When is a terrorist group not a terrorist group? Apparently when US foreign policy requires it not to be. This is precisely the case regarding Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch – Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) – the most recent rebrand of Jabhat Al Nusra – which currently occupies the northern Syrian governorate of Idlib.

The US corporate media has recently attempted to generate public sympathy for HTS – as well as animosity toward Syrian, Russian, and Iranian forces seeking to liberate the supposedly one million people trapped under the terrorist organization’s rule.

Another factor behind US media support for HTS is the necessity to explain why NATO member Turkey is providing direct military and material support for a US-designated terrorist organization, and why the US itself is in turn providing Turkey support to do so.

Articles have appeared in Newsweek – for example – framing Russian opposition to negotiations with HTS as negative – and echoing US State Department efforts to support the terrorist organization despite it appearing on Washington’s official Foreign Terrorist Organization designation list.

The article titled, “Russia Warns Against Any U.S. Talks with Militant Group It’s Bombing in Syria,” is actually referring to Al Qaeda’s HTS front when it refers to the “militant group” Russia is bombing in Syria.

Newsweek places Russian statements regarding the US designation of HTS as a terrorist organization in quotes as if to question the veracity of the claim.

However, a visit to the US State Department’s own website reveals a 2018 statement titled, “Amendments to the Terrorist Designations of al-Nusrah Front,” which openly admits:

The Department of State has amended the designation of al-Nusrah Front – an al-Qa’ida affiliate in Syria – to include Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and other aliases. These aliases have been added to al-Nusrah Front’s designations as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) under Executive Order 13224.

In January 2017, al-Nusrah Front launched the creation of HTS as a vehicle to advance its position in the Syrian uprising and to further its own goals as an al-Qa’ida affiliate. Since January 2017, the group has continued to operate through HTS in pursuit of these objectives.

Thus – according to all sides of the Syrian conflict including Washington – HTS is without doubt – unequivocally a terrorist organization.

And eventually – 5 paragraphs in – Newsweek also admits HTS is a US-designated terrorist organization – and even includes quotes from US military leaders admitting that Idlib is overrun by extremists. Yet the US-based publication still attempts to frame Syrian and Russian efforts to liberate Idlib from these extremists negatively.

Newsweek is just one example of the US corporate media obliquely defending terrorism. The New York Times would provide a much more robust defense.

New York Times Does PR for Al Qaeda in Idlib 

To illustrate just how far the US corporate media is willing to go to bolster Al Qaeda’s HTS and its Turkish and US backers, the New York Times claims its staff actually accompanied HTS terrorists in Idlib in order to write their emotionally manipulative article, “‘The Only Choice Is to Wait for Death’.”

The article’s author – Carlotta Gall – claims:

I made a rare visit into Idlib with a photographer and interpreter on Wednesday, crossing the border from Turkey. We were accompanied by relief workers of a Syrian charity and members of a jihadist rebel group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which controls the province.

While the identity or organization these “relief workers” are affiliated with is never mentioned in the article – they are almost certainly from the so-called “White Helmets” and their presence alongside Al Qaeda HTS militants would only further confirm that they themselves are nothing more than Al Qaeda auxiliaries.

The article contains weepy anecdotes devoid of any actual evidence, playing on the familiar “humanitarian” concerns the US and its media often use to demonize its adversaries and justify its own – very real – aggression and abuse globally.

In this case – the aggression and abuse the US and its media are attempting to justify is the continued existence of Al Qaeda’s HTS in northern Syria and its rule over an alleged population of “one million” civilians.

The article describes Syrian and Russian security operations to liberate Idlib from Al Qaeda with paragraphs like:

There has been no letup for the people of Idlib Province as the forces of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, backed by Russian air power, have smashed their way forward, demolishing towns and villages in the south and east of the province with punishing airstrikes.

Only until twenty-five paragraphs into the New York Times’ article, does author Carlotta Gall finally admit HTS is a US-designated terrorist organization, claiming:

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, has been designated a terrorist group by the United Nations but recently allowed Western journalists into Idlib in cooperation with Turkey, which has wanted to build international pressure against Russia and Syria.

In other words – Al Qaeda and its Turkish backers want to build pressure against Russia and Syria who are attempting to liquidate the terrorist organization and restore order to Idlib – and the New York Times is willingly – even eagerly – aiding Al Qaeda and Turkey in doing so.

The US Has Flattened Cities and Nations in Pursuit of “Terrorists” 

Cities held by terrorist organizations – or even entire nations for that matter – have served as a pretext for the United States and its allies to carry out brutal military operations. For example – the alleged presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan served as the pretext for the now 19 year war the US has waged there since 2001.

In 2004 – citing the presence of extremists in the Iraqi city of Fallujah – the US military would flatten the urban center not once – but twice.

One might imagine that the US military and its allies would be eager to move against the northern governorate of Idlib in Syria – admittedly held by the terrorist HTS front.

Yet here the truth about America’s so-called “War on Terrorism” is revealed.

While extremists may have been based in Afghanistan in 2001 or active in the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004 – that is not why the United States moved against them. The US had overarching geopolitical plans that required the long-term occupation of Afghanistan – with the presence of extremists serving merely as a pretext to pursue these plans.

In Fallujah it was not the militants or their extremism that bothered the United States – as Washington had previously armed and backed many of the groups there in proxy conflicts for decades beforehand and for nearly two decades since – it was their resistance to the US occupation that triggered the two battles for the city.

Al Qaeda in northern Syria serves US interests – the fact that it appears on the US State Department’s own terrorist designation list is merely a political inconvenience at the moment – one the above-mentioned Newsweek article even admits US diplomats are trying to work around.

Newsweek claimed:

James Jeffrey, the U.S. special representative on Syria and special envoy to the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), told a press briefing earlier this month he had not seen Hayat Tahrir al-Sham “planning or carrying out international terrorism attacks.” He made similar comments days earlier.

The obvious implications of Jeffery’s comment is that – at the moment and despite HTS’ status as a US-designated terrorist organization – the US does not see it as one. And not because HTS isn’t a terrorist organization – but simply because at the moment – such a designation is not politically convenient for US objectives in northern Syria.

So while the US has flattened entire cities in pursuit of “terrorists,” it currently seeks to complicate and draw out the Syrian conflict – placing the lives of “one million” civilians in the balance – in defense of terrorists.

The malignant nature of US foreign policy is fully illustrated by Washington and the US media’s stance regarding Al Qaeda’s HTS in northern Syria – amid circumstances where unequivocal terrorists threatening the lives of what the US itself claims are “one million” civilians have attracted the attention and support of American journalists and diplomats.

The coordinated nature of this support – spanning the corporate media and the US government itself – indicate just how deep the rot  is within US foreign policymaking and helps explain why – no matter who sits in the White House – this agenda continues forward, unabated and unfazed no matter how much the light of truth is shone upon it.

The fact that large amounts of resources are still being invested by Washington and the US corporate media indicates that US efforts to destabilize and destroy Syria are still very much in play – and now more than ever those seeking to restore order in Syria must guard against complacency.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO   

Can South Asia Survive World War C?

March 26th, 2020 by Andrew Korybko

The planet’s second-most populous region will struggle to survive World War C due to its largely dilapidated health infrastructure and widespread abject poverty, but its chances of success would greatly increase if the South Asian security dilemma temporarily disappeared in order for everyone to focus more closely on the common goal of making it through this crisis with the least amount of damage possible, though that’s only possible if India puts its hegemonic aspirations aside for the time being by undertaking unilateral military steps that contribute to de-escalation and would prospectively be followed up by reciprocal ones by Pakistan.

South Asia is poised to be pummeled by the COVID-19 pandemic given its largely dilapidated health infrastructure and widespread abject poverty, which isn’t helped any by the fact that this region is the planet’s second-most populous and many of its people live in very densely populated settlements. World War C could therefore be utterly devastating and have unprecedentedly catastrophic consequences, be they in the obviously humanitarian sense or even in the indirect economic one (which could in turn catalyze similarly profound destabilization in this fragile part of the world) in spite of the region’s states doing their utmost to lessen the latter’s blow through various emergency policies. The aforementioned warning isn’t to “fearmonger” as some critics might claim, but to simply convey the seriousness of the threat that lies ahead if the worst-case scenario even begins to remotely appear plausible, which will be discovered soon enough after the Indian media outlet ThePrint reported that current calculations predict a “conservative estimate” of at least 30,000 deaths in India by the end of May. Pakistan might not fare any better either, so two of the world’s nuclear powers might be brought to the brink of collapse without a single bullet ever being fired if everything spins out of control.

There’s no “silver bullet” solution for surviving World War C, especially given South Asia’s poor preexisting socio-economic and healthcare situation, but its chances of success would greatly increase if the regional security dilemma temporarily disappeared in order for everyone to focus more closely on the common goal of making it through this crisis with the least amount of damage possible. That would require the rogue state of India putting its American-backed hegemonic aspirations aside for the time being and not attempting to exploit the pandemic through any Pulwama-like false flag attacks that it could conveniently blame on Pakistan in order to “justify” further saber-rattling or, in the worst-case scenario, another Bollywood-like “surgical strike” out of the misguided belief that its rival is “weakened” by the pandemic and could therefore “easily” be “paid back” for the bloody nose that it gave New Delhi last year. Since India is the regional aggressor, the responsibility falls on it to lessen the preexisting security dilemma with Pakistan by taking unilateral military steps that contribute to stability in South Asia, which could in turn be followed by reciprocal ones by Islamabad and thus improve the odds that both of them can instead focus their entire attention on responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

It’s of the highest importance that neither India nor Pakistan are destabilized by World War C, and under no circumstances should New Delhi even remotely consider the delusion that this would be an opportune moment to attack its neighbor since that would certainly push the world to the brink of World War III, so it would be helpful if other Great Power stakeholders got involved in ensuring that interstate relations in South Asia remain stable. This could realistically be achieved by the US, China, and possibly even Russia acting as guarantors of any prospective agreement that might be reached between these two rivals, especially if they do so under the aegis of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), but only in the event that India stops trying to politicize this regional bloc. As the author wrote in September 2016, “India Split Up SAARC And Brought The New Cold War To South Asia“, but its paltry $10 million donation to this 1.7 billion-person organization (equivalent to approximately half a center per person) as part of its over-hyped anti-COVID-19 efforts was ridiculously misportrayed by one of RT’s pro-BJP writers over the weekend as an attempt to “counter” China. Although laughably ineffective, such information warfare doesn’t inspire confidence about India’s intentions.

In order for the author’s proposed solution to have any feasible chance of ever working, India must commit to the depoliticization of SAARC, at least temporarily given the emergency conditions under which its requested unilateral military de-escalation measures would prospectively be commenced. Only then might Pakistan respond in kind, possibly formalize this new arrangement through SAARC, and then bring on board the three previously mentioned Great Power stakeholders as guarantors for what might potentially be a one-, two-, or three-month “trial period”. There’s no doubt that the global pivot state of Pakistan wants peace since nothing less than that can guarantee that it actualizes its geopolitical destiny as the “Zipper of Eurasia” and ultimately the “Convergence of Civilizations” through CPEC+, but it’s incumbent on India to make the first move in this direction since the South Asian security dilemma is entirely of its making. Neither India nor Pakistan can afford to become the next major victims of World War C, especially given the immense humanitarian stakes involved that might eventually lead to nuclear ones in the event that one or the other collapses in the worst-case scenario, so it’s in both of their interests to do what’s needed in order to focus solely on containing COVID-19.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

On Wednesday, the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act was unanimously passed by the Senate.

It’s scheduled to be voted on and adopted by House members on Friday, Trump to sign it into law. Its provisions are largely what was discussed in a previous day article.

There’s plenty in it for monied interests, along with the Wall Street owned and operated Fed supplying trillions of dollars in virtually free money to banks, other corporate interests, hedge funds, and large investors —  more to come as needed.

By comparison, ordinary Americans get peanuts. Households will get one-time direct deposits of $1,200, married couples to get $2,400, plus an additional $500 per child.

This applies to households earning up to $75,000, $150,000 for married couples, scaled down amounts going to households earning up to $99,000/$198,000 for married couples.

Unemployed workers will get $600 weekly for four months — through July 31.

So-called Pandemic Unemployment Assistance will provide up to 39 weeks of unemployment insurance payments to individuals not otherwise eligible to receive benefits — including the self-employed and others who exhausted their regular and extended benefits.

The bill provides 13 weeks of emergency unemployment insurance for individuals who remain unemployed after they exhausted their benefits and aren’t otherwise eligible for them.

A four-member household, including two children, will get a one-time payment of $3,400, a single individual $1,200 + $600 weekly if unemployed through July 31 in both examples.

Federal unemployment benefits are in addition what individual states provide.

According to US Census Bureau data, median US rent in 2017was $1,012, median mortgage costs $1,513.

An average one-person household spends around $370 a month for food, double this amount for a three-person household.

In 2017, average per capita spending for healthcare annually was $10,224.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, average pre-tax household income in 2017 was $73,573, average annual expenses around $60,000.

The average federal income tax rate is around 20%, after-tax income less than $59,000 — minus state, property, and other local taxes, meaning most households spend borrowed money on top of income to cover expenses.

A family of four getting $3,400 + $600 a week if get federal unemployment benefits for around 17.5 weeks from April 1 through July 31 would receive $13,900 —far below what households need to cover expenses, supplemented by state unemployment benefits if get them.

Individuals are permitted to delay payment of payroll taxes until 2021 or 2022. The same holds for eligible businesses as follows:

They can delay paying payroll taxes through December 2020, pay 50% of them in 2021, another 50% in 2022.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in government loans to business and trillions of dollars in zero-interest Fed money may end up partially or entirely forgiven.

Will unpaid business payroll taxes be treated the same way? Looking ahead, what hasn’t been paid may not be when companies begin emerging from ongoing economic and financial duress.

Dems, including  progressive Bernie Sanders, agreed to suspend business payroll taxes that’s all about weakening Social Security and Medicare trust funds — part of a longterm plan to erode and eliminate them.

He and other Dems agreed to provide business with the lion’s share of benefits, instead of demanding more for American households, including government provided healthcare for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, excluding what covered by insurers.

Taking this step would advance the ball incrementally for universal healthcare, what’s vitally needed, Sanders its most vocal congressional supporter rhetorically.

His voting record shows otherwise, including on Wednesday by supporting the so-called CARES Act.

On Tuesday, Politico reported that the Trump regime temporarily “stopped seizing the wages, tax refunds and Social Security benefits of people who are in default on their federal student loans,” citing an unnamed Education Department source.

Through federally controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as perhaps the entire mortgage industry, unemployed homeowners may also get temporary payment relief if qualify, permitting reduced or suspended payments for a fixed period.

According to Federal Housing Finance Agency director Mark Calabria, “(t)hat forbearance is up to 12 months, depending on their particular situation,” adding:

Homeowners “need to contact their servicer…the lender that they send the check to every month.”

“That lender will work with them to be able to work out a payment plan. Obviously, we hope to get them back on their feet as soon as possible.”

The above is not debt forgiveness. Loan obligations will be extended for the period of reduced or suspended payments.

A plan for renters is needed. While many municipalities halted evictions of individuals unable to pay landlords, there’s no federal program that authorizes reduced or suspended payments during the current economic and public health crisis.

Companies receiving bailout help are prohibited from making stock buybacks for the term of the amount provided plus an additional year.

Dividends, capital distributions, and executive bonuses are to be suspended for the same period.

How closely this will be monitored and whether actions will be taken against violators is another matter entirely.

Health insurers are required to cover the cost of COVID-19 tests. The same goes for vaccines when available.

Testing is supposed to be available for everyone in need. Americans are on their own for treatment of all health issues, including COVID-19.

Even federally mandated free healthcare for seniors that began in the mid-1960s when Medicare was established is longer free, especially because supplementary insurance is needed for what Medicare doesn’t cover.

Separately, COVID-19 infections keep spreading. Through Wednesday, around 472,000 were reported worldwide.

In the US, the total exceeds 69,000, New York state its epicenter with around 33,000 cases through Wednesday, New York City hardest hit with over 20,000 cases.

According to NBC News New York, the “NYC death toll spike(ed) 110% in the (last) 36 hours.”

The city has 11,000 ventilators to help severely affected patients breathe. Around 30,000 are needed, likely many more in the days and weeks ahead.

NY Gov. Cuomo slammed the CARES Act, calling $3.8 billion in NY aid a “drop in the bucket” with around $15 billion needed at this time.

Economically and health-wise nationwide, things are likely to get much worse before improving.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

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.

Accelerating Albania and North Macedonia Membership EU Tries to Save Face Amidst Coronavirus Debacle

By Paul Antonopoulos, March 26, 2020

The European Union’s decision to open negotiations with Northern Macedonia and Albania is a propaganda act from Brussels that attempts to reassure members of the Union that countries, even in the midst of the epidemic, want to become members of the organization. This is a cheap propaganda trick that attempts to restore confidence in the European Union at a time when it has completely failed to deal with the coronavirus pandemic that has shown weakness in the alliance.

A Brady Bond Solution for America’s Economic Crisis and Unpayable Corporate Debt

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and Prof Michael Hudson, March 26, 2020

The Fed’s Quantitative Easing since 2008 plus large companies using their earnings for stock buybacks drove the prices of financial assets into a realm of unreality. The result was that markets already were teetering on the brink of fragility. Any rise of normal interest to more normal conditions, or any external shock, was bound to crash the artificial values at which financial markets were priced. The Fed’s policy was to perpetuate this situation for as long as possible by pumping in yet more credit. But at near-zero interest rates, there was little that could be done.

Our Leaders Are Terrified. Not of the Virus – of Us.

By Jonathan Cook, March 26, 2020

It emerged at the weekend that Dominic Cummings, the ideological powerhouse behind Britain’s buffoonish prime minister Boris Johnson, was pivotal in delaying the UK government’s response to the coronavirus – effectively driving Britain on to the Italian (bad) path of contagion rather than the South Korean (good) one.

US Senate’s Final Stimulus Bill – Why It Won’t be Enough

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, March 25, 2020

Middle class and worker households would get $500 billion in the form of direct checks ($250B) and increased unemployment insurance benefits for the next four months ($250B).

Corporations and businesses would thus get $867B–$367B of which would go to small businesses, and another $500B to large corporations like airlines, defense companies, cruise lines, hotels and other companies.

21 Years Since the Beginning of NATO Aggression against Yugoslavia

By Živadin Jovanović, March 25, 2020

During NATO aggression lasting from 24 March through 10 June 1999, NATO missiles killed 1100 soldiers and police officers and more than 2500 civilians, including 89 children. With the exception of the military and police personnel, the accurate list of casualties has not been established as yet, despite a recent statement announcing that relevant efforts would be stepped up. There is even less certainty about how many citizens lost their lives in the meantime, either due to injuries sustained by wounding, or due to malignant diseases caused by the use of weaponry filled with depleted uranium and other banned weapons and ordnances, or during the course of demining of unexploded ordnances, especially the cluster bombs.

Venezuela’s Coronavirus Response Might Surprise You

By Leonardo Flores, March 25, 2020

Within a few hours of being launched, over 800 Venezuelans in the U.S. registered for an emergency flight from Miami to Caracas through a website run by the Venezuelan government. This flight, offered at no cost, was proposed by President Nicolás Maduro when he learned that 200 Venezuelans were stuck in the United States following his government’s decision to stop commercial flights as a preventative coronavirus measure. The promise of one flight expanded to two or more flights, as it became clear that many Venezuelans in the U.S. wanted to go back to Venezuela, yet the situation remains unresolved due to the U.S. ban on flights to and from the country.

How ‘Defense’ Contractors Lobbied for War in Yemen and Reaped the Profits from Death and Destruction

By Ben Barbour, March 25, 2020

Lobbying firms like the McKeon Group, headed by lobbyist Buck McKeon (who was the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in the US Congress), represent both US defense contractors and countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are ruthlessly bombing Yemen with US made weapons. Through lobbying firms like the McKeon Group and American Defense International, defense contractors such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin spent millions to effectively pressure Congress members. Lobbying efforts focus on key members of committees, such as the aforementioned Armed Services Committee. This incentivizes Congress to approve legislation to sell arms to countries like Saudi Arabia and block any legislation that challenges the unethical arms sales.


Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Our Leaders Are Terrified. Not of the Virus – of Us.

US stock markets lifted today on a tide of investor enthusiasm following the announcement that the Federal Reserve was poised to give the US economy a limitless cash injection.

And in the closed mind of Donald Trump, this is simply the beginning and the end of the matter.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average soared 1,400 points putting on 7 per cent and the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite nearly matched this.

But even the impregnable ignorance of Trump will be tested to destruction by the analysis coming from the World Health Organisation that the US is due to become the new global epicentre of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In the Panglossian world of the US president, the material world can be dismissed through an act of will or the utterance of magic words.

Trump thinks that he can simply jump-start the US economy and prevent the pandemic becoming rooted as “a long-lasting financial problem.”

Assuming his new persona as an epidemiologist, public health expert and all-round economics guru, he said that the pandemic and its associated disruptions would not last as long as three or four months.

“Our country was not built to be shut down,” he said. “This is not a country that was built for this.”

And his top officials dismissed the government restrictions just promulgated as a “15-day challenge.”

Meanwhile on the North Atlantic division of planet Earth, upwards of 50,000 people are infected with the coronavirus, with 125 deaths recorded in New York alone out of a provisional national total of 593. This is but the beginning of the curve.

If we bear in mind that the accurate recording of infection rates and associated deaths in the US is hobbled by a pattern of vastly inadequate and unequal health provision — with one in 10 of the population without health insurance — we can be sure that the actual infection rate is higher and the death rate will grow.

It is an unsavoury thought, but President Trump is truly an emperor without clothes.

And the voice telling the US public that nothing covers their president’s metaphorical nakedness is Anthony Fauci, a member of the nation’s coronavirus task force and head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, whose rational voice is a vital counter-narrative to Trump’s meandering mind.

But the only metric which conditions the president’s thinking is the stock market indices — and in very short order there will be a point in which the illusory trajectory described by Trump’s imaginings with be intersected by the guided missile that is reality.

Trump’s notion, tweeted at 3.50am: “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF” is the clearest expression that the gap between rational and scientific thought and the unstructured ramblings of an ignoramus with untrammelled power is a serious threat to the US people.

On our side of the Atlantic we still have a very small window of opportunity to take what measures are necessary to mitigate the worst of this epidemic.

The conclusions we can draw from present-day events is that social distancing is the basic building block of our collective attempts to contain this virus, and decisive state action is the essential precondition for ensuring the best possible result.

The political lesson must be that maintaining a clear distance from the US in significant policy matters is an essential precondition of our national interest.

The two pillars of the economic and foreign policy orthodoxy favoured by our ruling class is the closest possible alignment to both the European Union and the US.

The toxicity of these alignments is manifest.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Morning Star

The European Union’s decision to open negotiations with Northern Macedonia and Albania is a propaganda act from Brussels that attempts to reassure members of the Union that countries, even in the midst of the epidemic, want to become members of the organization. This is a cheap propaganda trick that attempts to restore confidence in the European Union at a time when it has completely failed to deal with the coronavirus pandemic that has shown weakness in the alliance.

Maurizio Massari, Italy’s ambassador to the EU, said earlier this month that “the coronavirus crisis is a test of the EU’s cohesiveness and credibility — one that can only be passed through genuine, concrete solidarity. Europe must act according to the principle of mutual defense and help those members whose security is under threat.” With nearly 60,000 people confirmed infected and over 7,500 deaths, the European Union has failed in this test as no member states came to the aid of Italy and instead looked inwardly towards their own borders.  The European Union’s cohesiveness was exposed as a fantasy when days ago member state Poland closed its airspace to a Russian plane delivering aid to fellow European Union member Italy, forcing the aircraft to take an alternate route that is 1,000 kilometers longer.

Essentially the European Union that is currently the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic has exposed why the Union is dysfunctional and without any solidarity. It has shown a huge gap between words and action. The European Union as an example of the liberal world order endlessly spoke of humanity but have proven they are inhumane. They promoted the idea of efficiency but proven they are actually ineffective. In short, the announcement to progress the European Union membership of Albania and North Macedonia is a cheap propaganda gimmick for Brussels at a time when it is under heavy scrutiny for showing a lack of solidarity and assistance to Italy, raising questions to the credibility of the organization. It is negotiating in a way that has never existed, utterly undefined, with a big question mark as to what will be.

According to a draft decision signed by the bloc’s 27 members, which Reuters had access to, the hope of membership for the two Western Balkans countries has often been shattered in recent years due to the scepticism expressed, primarily by the Netherlands and France, as they correctly highlight that both countries are highly corrupt. However, the start date of the negotiations is not specified and will be subsequently determined when the European Commission prepares the framework for the negotiations.

Michael Roth, Germany’s state secretary for European affairs, wrote on Twitter on March 24, “Congrats to Tirana+Skopje, it’s well deserved,” after the agreement was reached during a videoconference. This was followed by European Union Enlargement Commissioner Oliver Varhelyi also going to Twitter, saying that he is “very pleased that EU member states today reached political agreement on opening of accession talks with Albania and North Macedonia. I wholeheartedly congratulate both countries. This also sends a loud and clear message to Western Balkans: your future is in EU.”

North Macedonia is unlikely to face resistance in joining the European Union, and is already being rapidly ascended into NATO after it resolved its name issue with Greece. However, the accession is not yet a guaranteed for Albania as Greece raises concerns on the rights and treatment of the Greek minority in occupied Northern Epirus in southern Albania. Approximately 200,000 Greeks of Northern Epirus face daily discrimination with Albanian authorities removing bilingual road signs that display Greek, the confiscation of property belonging to Greeks, and Albanian police even murdering a Greek in a shootout as they removed a Greek flag from a cemetery, among many other forms of discrimination. On these grounds, Greece may veto Albania’s accession, but this is likely to be a temporary measure as the Greek political establishment always eventually capitulate to the demands of Brussels and Germany. Once this issue is resolved, it is likely that Albania with North Macedonia will be accelerated into the European Union, and this will prove necessary as the bloc wants to maintain the illusion that it is not in disarray in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

This begs the questions though on why Albania and North Macedonia would want to ascend into the European Union after seeing the alliance’s treatment of its own long-time member states like Italy. Albania has always been a pro-Western state, owing to the Western world its existence, its occupation of Northern Epirus, and its indirect occupation of Kosovo. It is therefore unsurprising that it wants to be further integrated into the Western world. North Macedonia since the very beginning of its foundations with the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s wanted to join the European Union and NATO, but was prevented to do so because of the name dispute with Greece. With this issue resolved, it now has a clear path towards the bloc. None-the-less, both states are not even remotely close in an economic or so-called democratic sense to be candidates, but will be fast-tracked to help save face after the European Union’s debacle with the coronavirus pandemic.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Accelerating Albania and North Macedonia Membership EU Tries to Save Face Amidst Coronavirus Debacle
  • Tags: , ,

US Stimulus Plan: What’s Needed or Way Short?

March 26th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Congressional Republicans and Dems, together with the White House, agreed on a reported $2 trillion stimulus plan late Tuesday night — the text of the bill not finalized.

The devil is in the fine print and how what’s agreed on is implemented.

The plan will inject less than the reported $2 trillion into the US economy (see below), aimed mainly at helping monied interests.

It’s notably on top of over $6 trillion in virtually free Fed helicopter money for Wall Street, other corporate interests, hedge funds, and large investors.

Around $500 billion is earmarked for large corporations, $367 billion for undefined small business, $130 billion for hospitals, $150 billion for state and local governments, enhanced unemployment insurance, and one-time payments of $1,200 to US households with annual income of $75,000 or less, $2,400 for married couples, as well as $500 per child up to a maximum of two.

Households with incomes from $75,000 to $99,000 will get incrementally less, nothing for incomes above the top threshold.

Enhanced unemployment benefits are only for four months, total benefits for business and households around $1.65 trillion, not $2 trillion — when sustained government help is needed as long as dire economic and public health conditions persist.

Households with little or no tax liabilities will receive the same amount.

Given the high cost of living in the US, especially for urban dwellers, this amount with only help low-income or unemployed Americans short-term at a time of economic crisis and a national health emergency likely to continue for months or longer.

Trump’s aim for US business as usual to resume around mid-April ignores the reality of mounting COVID-19 infections and deaths — around 55,000 and nearly 800 respectively in the US, numbers steadily rising.

The larger these numbers, the more greatly they can expand exponentially — why it’s vital to shelter in place as much as possible and social distance when outside for essential activities until the threat of COVID-19 is eliminated.

By mid-April, the numbers of infected individuals and deaths will likely be much higher than now.

Most retail stores are closed indefinitely, public events cancelled or suspended, normal activities halted.

US states, cities, and towns recommended or mandated lockdowns, shelter-in-place orders, and/or social distancing when in public — cordon sanitaire protections against spreading disease.

If current policies in place don’t work, tougher measures will be needed, including a possible national lockdown by presidential executive order or congressional legislation — even though no constitutional provision permits this action.

Earlier federal legislation overrode state rights by mandating civil and voting rights — though way short of what provisions of both measures called for.

These are unprecedented times so unprecedented actions are needed post haste.

On Monday, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) called for the following economic relief package:

  • “Maximization of the income that can be delivered through existing social insurance and safety net programs during the lockdown and its aftermath.
  • Substantial aid to state and local governments.
  • Bailouts of industries’ workers, not shareholders, creditors, or senior management.
  • Direct cash payments to households.
  • Conditions-based triggers that keep aid flowing.”

EPI expanded on the above actions as follows:

Unemployment insurance should be expanded in “vast amounts” for laid off workers.

An array of social benefits should be instituted for US households in need, stressing:

“(T)here’s no reason why…benefits should be…less than” a steady flow of funds to US households needing help.

Mass layoffs and economic contraction are increasing, to what extent and for how long unknown.

EPI: “Economic activity will fall more sharply than in perhaps any other period in modern history, and tens of millions of US employees will be forced to stop working.”

At a time of economic shutdown, it’s the responsibility of government to fill the void — largely at the federal level, at state and local levels as well to the extent they’re able.

There’s no excuse for the world’s richest country not going all out for all its people — its unemployed, underemployed, and low-income households most of all, including hundreds of thousands of homeless and millions of food insecure households.

Key economically is enhancing social safety net programs, mostly to ensure everyone needing healthcare, food, and other essentials have access to it — no one in need left out.

Fundamental reforms of US economic policy should be implemented and “sustained beyond this crisis,” said EPI.

State and local governments are “on the front lines” of securing public health — why they “must be empowered to spend as freely as public health demands.”

Industry bailouts should be directed toward protecting jobs and wages for workers, not “shareholders’ wealth, creditors’ debt, or senior management salaries.”

Firms getting government handouts “must not be permitted to lay off workers, outsource or offshore work, cut workers’ pay or benefits, or reopen union contracts.”

What’s going on is unprecedented in US history, the same true in other countries.

EPI called for “a wraparound insurance policy to make sure that all households get at least some relief and that low-wage workers receive enough to live on during the enforced economic shutdown” — through “substantial cash payments to households.”

Economic stimulus/recovery measures must be sustained “as long as conditions warrant.”

“Cash payments should not be one-time” — what Congress and the White House agreed on, what will only help millions of Americans in need very short-term, way short of what’s needed.

Economists Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson called for a “debt jubilee.”

Roberts explained that debt forgiveness works as intended.

Piling on more debt will make an untenable situation worse.

Wipe the slate clean on “mortgage, student, car, (and) credit card” debt. They’re too “overwhelming” to be repaid — impossible during protracted economic duress.

Hudson stressed that “if the US government can finance $4.5 trillion in quantitative easing for the banks, it can absorb the cost of forgoing student and other debt,” adding:

“And for private lenders, only bad loans need be wiped out. Much of what would be written off are accruals, late charges and penalties on loans gone bad.”

Mismanaged companies like airlines, Boeing, and others should be nationalized or permitted to go bankrupt, not bailed out.

Instead of using their cash flow constructively, they directed billions of dollars for stock buybacks to inflate their valuations to bubble levels, their executives profiting hugely.

How bad will things get and for how long ahead? While only the fullness of time will tell, economist Nouriel Roubini’s outlook is bleak, saying:

“(E)very component of aggregate demand – consumption, capital spending, exports – is in unprecedented free fall.”

Contraction isn’t “V- nor U – nor L-shaped…(I)t looks like a I: a vertical line representing financial markets and the real economy plummeting.”

What’s happening since mid-February exceeds earlier economic downturns — much of the US and other world economies shutting down in a few weeks.

Combatting things economically, financially, and for public health requires “throw(ing) the kitchen sink of unconventional measures at the crisis” — including helicopter money for US households.

The risk of another Great Depression “worse than the original…is rising by the day,” Roubini warned.

Top priority is curtailing the spread of COVID-19 infections and halting them altogether.

As long as the virus forces most people to shelter in place, economic recovery won’t be possible.

At this time, there are about 425,000 cases worldwide, over 55,000 in the US.

If all-out public health measures aren’t prioritized, no matter the cost, there’s risk of exponential increases that could crater economies of the US and other countries catastrophically.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

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.

Featured image is from MICHAEL NAGLE/XINHUA NEWS AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES

Even before the Covid-19 crisis had slashed stock prices nearly in half since it erupted in January, financial markets were in an inherently unstable condition. Years of quantitative easing had loaded so much money into stock and bond prices that stock price/earnings multiples and bond prices were far too high by any normal and reasonable historical standards. Risk premiums have disappeared, with only a few basis points separating U.S. Treasury bills and corporate bonds.

The Fed’s Quantitative Easing since 2008 plus large companies using their earnings for stock buybacks drove the prices of financial assets into a realm of unreality. The result was that markets already were teetering on the brink of fragility. Any rise of normal interest to more normal conditions, or any external shock, was bound to crash the artificial values at which financial markets were priced. The Fed’s policy was to perpetuate this situation for as long as possible by pumping in yet more credit. But at near-zero interest rates, there was little that could be done.

A close parallel to this situation was the state of Third World debt in the mid-1980s. Mexico’s announcement that it could not meet its foreign debt service was the shock that brought ugly financial reality into conflict with the assumption that somehow any government debt could be paid – even debts denominated in a foreign currency. (Mexico and other countries had denominated their bonds in dollars in order to obtain lower interest rates than bonds denominated in their own currencies would have to pay. The assumption was that export earnings would provide hard currencies with which to redeem the bonds.)

The international financial system was rescued by the issue of Brady bonds – “good” new bonds for old “bad” ones. The capital value of these bonds was still far below the original debt, but they had the virtue of setting realistic levels by bringing the debt balance more in line with the actual ability of debtor countries to earn the dollars or other hard currencies needed to service bonds denominated in foreign currencies, mainly the US dollar.

The current crisis requires a similar write-down and recognition that fictitious price levels must give way to reality at some point. In fact, we have reached the end of an illusion – the illusion that bond (and stock) prices could be sustained indefinitely simply by financial engineering, without an economic base capable of producing enough surplus revenue to justify existing bond and stock prices.

So attractive were the former unrealistic bond and stock levels that the markets are still in the “denial phase” hoping that the Coronavirus bailout may be used as an opportunity for yet further infusion of money into the financial markets. But that merely postpones the inevitable adjustment to bring financial asset prices back in line with real economic capabilities.

There certainly is a financial panic, and prices are not necessarily more realistic in a panic than they were in the bubble leading up to it. The question is, what is a sustainable asset-price level? What needs to be supported is a realistic value of stocks and bonds. Bad debts should be taken off the books, not supported in an attempt to recover the unrealistic pre-virus levels.

A successful way of coping with overpriced bonds and other debts:

Our situation is similar to Third World debt in the early 1980s after Mexico triggered the Latin American debt bomb by explaining that it did not have the money to service its foreign bonds. Prices for Third World bonds plummeted as investors calculated the dollar-earning power of countries that had to export goods and services (or sell off their assets) to pay their foreign-currency debts. But their export proceeds simply could not cover the debt service that was owed.

The Sovereign Debt market was trading at such low prices that these foreign government bonds had become illiquid. Unable to obtain further credit, countries confronted by this financial state of affairs were threatened with political instability.

The Federal Reserve’s long Quantitative Easing and support of the financial markets has provided the appearance of stability. This artificial life support has been viewed as saving banks and large companies, pension funds and state and local finance from insolvency. But in doing this the Fed has been fighting what looks like a losing battle against reality. The Fed has been supporting illusory values that cannot be sustained.

The reality is that large swaths of the post 2008 corporate bond market boom have seen a proliferation of corporate bonds that cannot be paid. The fracking industry is only the most visible example. Airlines, entertainment, hotels and retail companies are facing losses that threaten their solvency.

The Fed fears a free market when it comes to asset prices. Or at least, it fears the political and economic consequences of withdrawing artificial support. Reality forced the Fed into the mid-March support and already a larger intervention has been announced. According to the New York Times, for the first time in history, the Federal reserve announced that it would buy cororate bonds, including the riskiest investment-grade debt. [1]  It seems the Fed also intends to purchase stocks (see this).

This is the “Denial stage” of the illusion that has resulted in crisis– the illusion that the stock and bond run-up could be turned from government manipulation into an actual market reality.

Where is this supposed to end? The Fed could buy up all the bonds – from corporate junk to state and municipal bonds as a way to prevent their prices from falling. At an extreme, this business-as-usual scenario would lead to the Fed owning the junk bond market, municipals, and a large swath of the stock market.

This could have a silver lining: having concentrated the debt in its own hands, the Fed would then have a free hand to write off the debt, privatize the companies and start all over again with a lower debt overhead. That is what China’s central bank has been doing: simply forgiving debt that is owed to itself. The Fed would swap “good” public debt (good in the sense that the government can print the money to pay) for bad (meaning unpayable) debt.

Bringing financial markets in line with reality would mean writing off a large swath of corporate debt and realizing that much corporate equity “wealth” has been created by decapitalizing corporations in stock by-backs instead of investing in the country’s productive capacity, including decent wages for workers. The American airline industry over the last decade has spent as much as 96% of its cash on stock buybacks – giving financial wealth to their CEOs and share holders rather than investing in their business. Such financial wealth, if not underpinned by real wealth, is built on quicksand, and it is now disappearing as asset markets plummet. So stock buybacks and other artificial ways to “create wealth” were “investments” that have had drastically negative returns.

To implement a rationalization of bond and stock prices bringing them in line with reality, it has to be in the interest of holders of these securities. Acknowledging that bonds are not worth as much as the price at which the Fed is supporting them will not appeal to bondholders as long as prices are artificially supported. A bond-swap (new good bonds for old bad bonds) can only be achieved in a situation where it is more realistic and less risky to have a sound good bond than a low-priced (or fictitiously high-priced) bad bond.

Therefore, the Fed should let prices sink to their “market” level without interference. The Fed is trying to support the unsupportable. By doing this, it has blocked a reasonable solution bringing financial asset prices in line with the realistic ability to carry debt.

Without the Fed’s support, bonds would need to be written down and stock prices would continue to plunge. That would prepare the ground for something like the Brady Bond solution for Third World debts in the 1980s. Latin American and other Third World bonds were selling around 25 cents on the dollar in the wake of Mexico’s announcement that it could not pay its scheduled debt in 1982. There was widespread recognition that Latin American governments couldn’t pay their bonds. That was because these bonds were denominated in US dollars, and foreign governments can only print their own currency. When they did this to throw domestic money onto foreign exchange markets to trade for hard currencies with which to pay their debts, their exchange rates plunged. [2]

Brady bonds addressed the problem by a swap of “good bonds for old.” The new bonds received IMF and other support, and were based on what foreign countries actually could pay in foreign exchange (mainly U.S. dollars). Bondholders could swap their old bonds, which were selling from 15 to 25 cents on the dollar, for new bonds priced higher than the market price but less than the original issue, but which at least were secure and less risky. They were “reality bonds.”

The government can organize something similar for corporate bonds after the market takes the artificial QE-added values out. However, to create a market environment for such an alternative, the Fed must let bonds and stocks fall to their natural “realistic” level recognizing that the existing debt overhead can’t be paid. Then, new “reality bonds” can be issued and the economy can start again with a non-crippling debt level. As panic will take the market price below the reality price, the new debt instruments will have higher values than the market panic prices. Alternatively, a good estimate of the real value of the bonds could be made with the debt written down to that level. If that can be done, it would avoid a panic fall to a lower level.

Banks and major creditors would have to absorb much of the loss resulting from the runup of stock and bond prices to overvalued levels. But something similar was a feature of the Brady reforms, which called for burden sharing by banks (the London club) and also governments (the Paris club) who had to provide debt relief. If the debt-writedown makes banks insolvent, they can be nationalized. When more normal conditions return, the banks can be privatized. This would also provide an opportunity to increase competition by breaking up “banks too big to fail” and to again separate commercial from investment banking. In other words, nationalization would be a way to increase competition and restore Glass-Steagall stability to the financial system.

The alternative is that we will face reality without a solution.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

Dirk Bezemer provided much help in this article.

[1] Jeanna Smialek, “The Fed Goes All In With Unlimited Bond-Buying Plan,” The New York Times, March 23, 2020. This report adds: “Because the Fed cannot take on substantial credit risk itself, the Treasury Department backs its emergency lending, using money from a fund that contains just $95 billion. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on Sunday suggested that the new money in the Republican bill could be leveraged by the Fed to back some $4 trillion in financing.”

[2] The situation was much like German reparations in the 1920s. (See Michael Hudson, Trade, Development and Foreign Debt).

Two Turkish soldiers were injured and two vehicles damaged in Syria’s southern Idlib on March 24. Their military convoy was targeted by a roadside bomb explosion near the village of Sfuhun. Turkish troops based at the al-Barah observation post were conducting a patrol along the contact line between the Syrian Army and Idlib armed groups.

This became the second attack on Turkish forces in Greater Idlib in less than 7 days. On March 19, two Turkish soldiers were killed and several others injured, when an IED exploded near their convoy near the village of Muhamabal.

Pro-militant propaganda claims that the attacks were carried out by the ‘criminal Assad regime’ in an attempt to destabilize the situation. Turkish media outlets pay scant attention to the situation reporting about some unidentified radicals. The open secret is that Turkish forces have become the target of attacks by groups that Ankara has been supporting with its  opposition of the anti-terrorist operations of the Syrian Army. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Houras al-Din, the Turkistan Islamic Party and similar organizations see the creation of a buffer zone along the M4 as a grave threat to their interests and survival. Therefore they are sabotaging the deal by blocking the highway and fuelling military tensions in the region. In the near future, they may even stage a large false-flag attack on Turkish forces near the contact line planning to blame the ‘Assad regime’ for it and thus  relaunch military hostilities between the Turkish Army and the Syrian Armed Forces.

Violations of the ceasefire regime by Idlib radicals are also increasing. Recently, ATGM, mortar attacks and artillery shelling were reported near Kafr Nubl, Saraqib, Kansafra and Kabinah. Turkish-backed groups claim that this week they destroyed a Syrian Army battle tank and  bulldozer north of Saraqib.

Members of Turkish-backed Faylaq al-Madj raided the village of Sukariya, near the town of Tell Abyad, in northeastern Syria. They attacked locals wounding dozens of them and looting their property. Earlier in March, members of Turkish-backed militant groups protested in the area of Operation Peace Spring because there had been a significant delay of salaries from Ankara. Turkish sources claim that Turkey is actively working to put an end to looting and attacks on locals. Nonetheless, such incidents continue to erupt on a regular basis.

Several explosions were reported near positions of the Syrian Army and Iranian-backed forces at al-Bukamal. Local sources claim that they were a result of actions by ISIS cells. Over the past months, al-Bukamal became a target of dozens of Israeli and US strikes. ISIS terrorists are likely trying to exploit this.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Although it was nearly twenty years ago, I can remember 9/11 like it was yesterday. I remember the shock of hearing about the planes crashing into towers, at first believing it was a tragic accident and quickly learning it to be otherwise. I remember being told that 19 hijackers, part of a fundamentalist plot to destroy America, were behind the attacks and that the mastermind was a man in a cave in Afghanistan named Osama bin Laden.

As all of America was glued to their television screens, many rushed out to give blood in an effort to at least do something to help one another. George W. Bush’s answer for Americans was to go to work and then go out and shop. Americans dutifully complied. But the government’s answer, in tandem with mainstream media, was also to be afraid. Very afraid. Americans also complied with this request, perhaps more than any other.

In the days and weeks after the initial shock, a college professor informed me about a bill called the PATRIOT ACT that would essentially eviscerate much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. After class, I questioned him further about the bill, which he explained, and suggested that if I really wanted to understand what was happening, I should read 1984 by George Orwell. I went home and did just that and was surprised to learn that not only was he right, but that I was watching what I was reading happen in front of me in real life.

I watched as the fear of speaking your mind and saying certain words became known as freedom. I watched as Americans came to assume that their communications were listened to, frightened of what they said, but justifying it as they praised their country for being unlike the totalitarian governments of the past. Peace became war. Any suggestion that invading Afghanistan was wrong was unpatriotic. In fact, any criticism of the government was considered unpatriotic and anyone who valued freedom over temporary security was borderline a traitor.

I watched as the United States became The Homeland and I watched as my friends had their window busted out of their car because they did not have one of those ridiculous window flags.

Still, shortly after the event itself, I began speaking out against the erosion of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I questioned the official story of 9/11 and fought against the passage of the PATRIOT ACT. In those days, anyone who did either of these things was considered either woefully ignorant and naive or a traitor who was giving moral support to the enemy.

I spoke out after 9/11 and was largely alone with a few notable exceptions. I was forced to watch the majority of my fellow Americans give away the most precious thing they had, the things which no other country could lay claim to, and the thing that they claimed they were supporting war to protect. America gave away a huge chunk of its rights in the wake of 9/11 and, though they were promised the measures were only temporary, twenty years on we have never received them back.

Instead, police officers are now often indistinguishable from military soldiers, the United States is still in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine, and a host of theatres across the world where its undefinable “interests” apparently lie. It is now a foregone conclusion that cellphone, internet, and all other communications are monitored. It is well understood that the iron fist of the state can come down with lack of due process and the Second Amendment is under daily attack. Torture is now general practice for foreign and domestic arrestees.

Now, here we are close to twenty years later. Americans once again have a shadowy nemesis for which our government has once again failed to provide adequate information. Once again, the governmental response is not a robust rethinking of how we got to be where we are, (in this case how medical care is provided, who has access to it, or the overarching philosophy behind it), but a massive police state, quasi martial law, and the evisceration of what is left of the liberties and rights they didn’t give away twenty years ago or give away gradually in the time between.

This time, it is not so much the President leading the charge to burn the Constitution, but Governors all across the country, acting in concert with one another. But they aren’t acting alone. Because of the massive propaganda mouthpiece of the mainstream media blasting hysteria and panic as well as the desired conclusions they intend for their audiences to reach, many Americans are demanding that their rights be taken away and that they and their fellow citizens be forced off the streets and into their homes at gunpoint.

My opposition to the potential Lockdown is twofold but principally it is based on the fact that over two hundred and thirty years of rights and liberties should not be shredded on the basis of any threat, real or imagined. Americans either have rights or we don’t. There is no asterisk in the Constitution that states the Bill of Rights is null and void in the event of a terrorist attack or a virus outbreak. If we do not maintain our rights in a time of crisis, then, simply put, we do not truly have rights at all.

If we do not maintain these rights, our country, such as it is, ceases to exist.

As Peter Hitchens, one of the few critics of this Lockdown mentality (happening all over the world and, in his case, Britain) wrote in his recent article for the Mail Online,

All the crudest weapons of despotism, the curfew, the presumption of guilt and the power of arbitrary arrest, are taking shape in the midst of what used to be a free country. And we, who like to boast of how calm we are in a crisis, seem to despise our ancient hard-bought freedom and actually want to rush into the warm, firm arms of Big Brother.

Hitchens’ article is well worth reading, not only for his views but for his critique of the scale of the pandemic, which is highly questionable.

Secondly, we are quickly driving this country to a second Great Depression where unemployment is at levels never before seen and where only the 1% and the major banks have anything resembling wealth. This Depression will be so devastating that it will make the first look weak in comparison, not just because of employment but because of the real human toll after decades of globalism, Free Trade, and urbanization have gutted this country of its workforce, manufacturing, healthcare, education, production capabilities, and general living standards. With more Americans living urban lives and fewer and fewer farms by the day, the Second Great Depression will kill many more people than the virus and leave those left alive scrounging for crumbs at the bottom. Already, since the beginning of this virus emergency, we have witnessed a huge transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the higher and we will no doubt witness more as this insane Lockdown attempt continues.

After the Lockdown passes, Americans will complain about low wages and lack of work. They will wait in lines for benefits that may or may not exist and that will be lower than their current living standards require. Unlike the loss of their rights, the benefits will be temporary. But Americans won’t be able to fully blame Wall Street this time around since it was the media and the people who listen to it who were howling in the streets for Lockdowns and shutdowns. They will have gotten what they wanted as well as the opportunity to live to regret it.

So here I am, twenty years after a writing career began as a result of generally good people who were frightened into giving away their rights, writing about exactly the same thing yet again. Of course, there may be time to reverse the direction in which we are heading. The next few weeks will most likely determine that matter. One thing is for certain, however, if Americans give up their rights now, they will never get them back.

I don’t have any illusions about the effect this article will have on the direction we are heading as a nation. Instead, I expect it to bring about more criticism, more insults, and more claims that I am no longer “credible” as the propaganda repeaters seen on the major cable networks are credible. But it will be worth it, for no other reason than to register my voice so that, for the record, there was at least a few people who retained their sanity through this worldwide era of panic and did not willingly sacrifice his rights on the altar of fear.

If we are able to step back from the abyss, perhaps the “credibility” and respect that I lose from peers as a result of this article will someday be returned. But if we are not able to step back, I can’t imagine anyone will be able to remember anything I’ve said here and, if that is the case, it probably wouldn’t matter if they did.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1500 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, civil liberties and, most notably, geopolitics and the Syrian crisis. His most recent release is a book of poetry, Dance, Amputee. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. He is from Columbia, SC. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Activist Post

Our Leaders Are Terrified. Not of the Virus – of Us.

March 26th, 2020 by Jonathan Cook

You can almost smell the fear-laden sweat oozing from the pores of television broadcasts and social media posts as it finally dawns on our political and media establishments what the coronavirus actually means. And I am not talking about the threat posed to our health. 

A worldview that has crowded out all other thinking for nearly two generations is coming crashing down. It has no answers to our current predicament. There is a kind of tragic karma to the fact that so many major countries – meaning major economies – are today run by the very men least equipped ideologically, emotionally and spiritually to deal with the virus.

That is being starkly exposed everywhere in the west, but the UK is a particularly revealing case study.

Dragging their heels

It emerged at the weekend that Dominic Cummings, the ideological powerhouse behind Britain’s buffoonish prime minister Boris Johnson, was pivotal in delaying the UK government’s response to the coronavirus – effectively driving Britain on to the Italian (bad) path of contagion rather than the South Korean (good) one.

According to media reports at the weekend, Cummings initially stalled government action, arguing of the coming plague that “if that means some pensioners die, too bad”. That approach explains the dragging of heels for many days, and then days more of dither that is only now coming to a resolution.

Cummings, of course, denies ever making the statement, calling the claim “defamatory”. But let’s dispense with the formalities. Does anybody really – really – believe that that wasn’t the first thought of Cummings and half the cabinet when confronted with an imminent contagion they understood was about to unravel a social and economic theory they have dedicated their entire political careers to turning into a mass cult? An economic theory from which – by happy coincidence – they derive their political power and class privilege.

And sure enough, these hardcore monetarists are already quietly becoming pretend socialists to weather the very first weeks of the crisis. And there are many months more to run. 

Austerity thrown out 

As I predicted in my last post, the UK government last week threw out the austerity policies that have been the benchmark of Conservative party orthodoxy for more than a decade and announced a splurge of spending to save businesses with no business as well as members of the public no longer in a position to earn a living.

Since the 2008 financial crash, the Tories have cut social and welfare spending to the bone, creating a massive underclass in Britain, and have left local authorities penniless and incapable of covering the shortfall. For the past decade, the Conservative government excused its brutalist approach with the mantra that there was no “magic money tree” to help in times of trouble.

The free market, they argued, was the only fiscally responsible path. And in its infinite wisdom, the market had decided that the 1 per cent – the millionaires and billionaires who had tanked the economy in that 2008 crash – would get even filthier rich than they were already.

Meanwhile, the rest of us would see the siphoning off of our wages and prospects so that the 1 per cent could horde yet more wealth on offshore islands where we and the government could never get our hands on it.

“Neoliberalism” became a mystifying term used to reimagine unsustainable late-stage, corporate capitalism not only as a rational and just system but as the only system that did not involve gulags or bread queues.

Not only did British politicians (including most of the Labour parliamentary party) subscribe to it, but so did the entire corporate media, even if the “liberal” Guardian would very occasionally and very ineffectually wring its hands about whether it was time to make this turbo-charged capitalism a little more caring.

Only deluded, dangerous Corbyn “cultists” thought different.

Self-serving fairytale 

But suddenly, it seems, the Tories have found that magic money tree after all. It was there all along and apparently has plenty of low-hanging fruit the rest of us may be allowed to partake from.

One doesn’t need to be a genius like Dominic Cummings to see how politically terrifying this moment is for the establishment. The story they have been telling us for 40 years or more about harsh economic realities is about to be exposed as a self-serving fairytale. We have been lied to – and soon we are going to grasp that very clearly.

That is why this week the Tory politician Zac Goldsmith, a billionaire’s son who was recently elevated to the House of Lords, described as a “twat” anyone who had the temerity to become a “backseat critic” of Boris Johnson. And it is why the feted “political journalist” Isabel Oakeshott – formerly of the Sunday Times and a regular on BBC Question Time – took to twitter to applaud Matt Hancock and Johnson for their self-sacrifice and dedication to public service in dealing with the virus:

Spare a thought this morning for health secretary @MattHancock who has such enormous responsibility right now and is working crazy hours trying to help the nation beat this. The hourly judgements he and @BorisJohnson have to make are so difficult.

Be ready. Over the coming weeks, more and more journalists are going to sound like North Korea’s press corps, with paeans to “the dear leader” and demands that we trust that he knows best what must be done in our hour of need.

Saved by the bail-outs 

The political and media class’s current desperation has a substantive cause – and one that should worry us as much as the virus itself.

Twelve years ago capitalism teetered on the brink of the abyss, its structural flaws exposed for anyone who cared to look. The 2008 crash almost broke the global financial system. It was saved by us, the public. The government delved deep into our pockets and transferred our money to the banks. Or rather the bankers.

We saved the bankers – and the politicians – from their economic incompetence through bail-outs that were again mystified by being named “quantitative easing”.

But we weren’t the ones rewarded. We did not own the banks or get a meaningful stake in them. We did not even get oversight in return for our huge public investment. Once we had saved them, the bankers went right back to enriching themselves and their friends in precisely the same manner that stalled the economy in 2008.

The bail-outs did not fix capitalism, they simply delayed for a while longer its inevitable collapse.

Capitalism is still structurally flawed. Its dependence on ever-expanding consumption cannot answer the environmental crises necessarily entailed by such consumption. And economies that are being artificially “grown”, at the same time as resources deplete, ultimately create inflated bubbles of nothingness – bubbles that will soon burst again.

Survival mode 

Indeed, the virus is illustrative of one of those structural flaws – an early warning of the wider environmental emergency, and a reminder that capitalism, by intertwining economic greed with environmental greed, has ensured the two spheres collapse in tandem.

Pandemics like this one are the outcome of our destruction of natural habitats – to grow cattle for burgers, to plant palm trees for cakes and biscuits, to log forests for flat-pack furniture. Animals are being driven into ever closer proximity, forcing diseases to cross the species barrier. And then in a world of low-cost flights, disease finds an easy and rapid transit to every corner of the planet.

The truth is that in a time of collapse, like this decade-long one, capitalism has only “magic money trees” left. The first one, in the late 2000s, was reserved for the banks and the large corporations – the wealth elite that now run our governments as plutocracies.

The second “magic money tree”, needed to deal with what will become the even more disastrous economic toll wrought by the virus, has had to be widened to include us. But make no mistake. The circle of beneficence has been expanded not because capitalism suddenly cares about the homeless and those reliant on food banks. Capitalism is an amoral economic system driven by the accumulation of profit for the owners of capital. And that’s not you or me.

No, capitalism is now in survival mode. That is why western governments will, for a time, try to “bail out” sections of their publics too, giving back to them some of the communal wealth that has been extracted over many decades. These governments will try to conceal for a little longer the fact that capitalism is entirely incapable of solving the very crises it has created. They will try to buy our continuing deference to a system that has destroyed our planet and our children’s future. 

It won’t work indefinitely, as Dominic Cummings knows only too well. Which is why the Johnson government, as well as the Trump administration and their cut-outs in Brazil, Hungary, Israel, India and elsewhere, are in the process of drafting draconian emergency legislation that will have a longer term goal than the immediate one of preventing contagion.

Western governments will conclude that it is time to shore up capitalism’s immune system against their own publics. The risk is that, given the chance, they will begin treating us, not the virus, as the real plague.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This essay first appeared on the author’s blog site, Jonathan Cook’s blog.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Goodbye Gabbard

March 26th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The Democratic establishment is deriving some delusionary cheer from it.  The line of candidates for the presidential nomination has thinned, many falling out and proceeding, suicidally, to endorse former Vice President Joe Biden

The case of Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard is particularly telling.  At points, she has spoken with sober detachment on the US imperium.  Herself an Iraq War veteran, she preferred to eschew military intervention and regime change tools of foreign policy.  The US record on that matter is lengthy, ignominious and bloody.  Peter Harris, writing in The National Interest, suggested the ideas of a realist at play, at least in a fashion; “that the United States must sometimes tolerate the existence of brutal foreign governments, especially if they share a common interest in fighting the same terrorist groups as America.” 

Such mild and calculating cynicism did not go down well in certain Democratic quarters.  Gabbard was accused of being a Russian asset by the perennially loathing Hillary Clinton.  Her politics on the US imperium, questioning of its international engagements, notably in Syria, struck Clinton as odd, even to the point of being mildly treasonous.  The remarks from Clinton on the “Campaign HQ” podcast are worth quoting in full: “She’s the favourite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she’s also a Russian asset.  Yeah, she’s a Russian asset, I mean totally.  They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate.”

This posturing libel by Clinton had a disruptive effect.  Gabbard might have laughed them off as the mad bile of the defeated, but she took it seriously enough to take to the courts.  In January, Gabbard initiated defamation proceedings, claiming that Clinton lied “publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent.”  The complaint makes accurate reading, at least when it comes to portrayals of Clinton, she with “a stranglehold over the Democratic party”.

Gabbard, like Bernie Sanders, has also had her issues with the dark machinery of the Democratic National Committee.  In September 2019, she made her sentiments clear.  “There’s just been a lack of transparency … lack of transparency means lack of trust in the process and that they’re trying to take the power away from votes to actually be the ones to decide who continues to move forward in this campaign.” 

One point at issue was the restrictions placed by the DNC on who should qualify for candidate debates, using individual donors and polling averages as criteria.  It was a decision taken without explanation and, as tends to be the nature of DNC machinations, behind closed doors.  The DNC also preferred to adopt polls – again, without explanation – that tended to disfavour Gabbard, despite her meeting the donation threshold.  Despite the muck levelled at her, she managed two delegates on Super Tuesday.  True to form, the DNC again showed its colours by tinkering with the donor prerequisite to give former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg a chance.  The establishment cheer squad was clear flexing some muscle.

Gabbard’s remarks on that particular bit of manipulation were hard to impeach.

“The fact that a billionaire can come in and have that kind of influence to change rules of the DNC – all of a sudden, not coincidentally, to be able to benefit Michael Bloomberg … They are picking winners and losers before voters have the opportunity to do so.”

With the party machinery marshalled against her, Gabbard’s chances were always small.  She also proved a bit too individual for her party colleagues, preferring to vote “present” when it came to the two articles of impeachment drafted against President Donald Trump.  It was a heresy that brought out the pitchforks. 

Look, I did not take the easy vote,” Gabbard reflected.  “I took the vote that I felt was in the best interest of our country and standing in the centre to be able to bring the country together, to be able to begin this reconciliation that I think is so necessary in this terribly divided moment in our country.” 

Last week, Gabbard’s will had crumbled.  Rather than being proudly defiant, she showed that she was a lady for turning.  Hatchets would be buried and differences set aside.  “After Tuesday’s election, it is clear that Democratic Primary voters have chosen Vice President Joe Biden to be the person who will take on President Trump in the general election.”   

The statement is rich with presumption, though might sadly prove to be the case, given the Democratic tendency to self-immolation.  “Although I may not agree with the vice president on every issue, I now that he has a good heart, and he’s motivated by his love for our country and the American people.”  Her skills on spotting that heart must be other-worldly in nature. “I’m confident that he will lead our country, guided by the spirit of aloha respect and compassion, and thus help heal the divisiveness that has been tearing our country apart.”  A misplaced confidence, if ever there was one.    

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Here in Washington state, a spokesman for the nursing home that is the epicenter of a coronavirus outbreak said on Sunday that he and his colleagues “had seen some residents go from no symptoms to death in just a matter of hours.” COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, does not necessarily progress little by little toward a critical stage.

The spokesman’s comments about the unpredictability and volatility of COVID-19 reminded me of how our planet is responding to climate change. While scientists measure climate change in fractions of degrees Celsius, its symptoms stubbornly refuse to emerge slowly and incrementally. We can no longer expect that weather patterns and glaciers and ecosystems will continue to change bit by bit. They may reach a tipping point and then collapse suddenly and perhaps even irreversibly—like a patient in a nursing home who seems fine one day but is dead the next.

As with climate change, the impacts of the coronavirus are unevenly distributed. Some places are harder hit than others, and some people are more vulnerable than others. Moreover, the Trump administration’s response to COVID-19 has been remarkably similar to how it has handled climate change: with a combination of denial and delaying tactics that will ultimately cost the public far more than taking quick action. And not just in dollars: Coronavirus denial could get people killed, by discouraging them from taking precautionary measures.

Here are some key strategies from the climate-denial playbook that are now showing up in the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus:

Downplay the danger. While public health officials caution people to wash their hands, maintain social distance, and avoid large public gatherings, President Trump and some of the conservative media personalities who support him have been spreading a very different message, asserting that COVID-19 is no worse than the common cold or the flu. (Trump even called the disease “coronaflu.”) Trump has speculated that the World Health Organization’s estimated mortality rate of 3.4 percent “is really a false number” and claimed that thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people recover from the disease “just by sitting around and even going to work.”

It has become difficult to believe anything the president says about the coronavirus, considering that it was less than three weeks ago when he posted this tweet:

Even now, with the disease spreading exponentially and public health agencies issuing warnings, the president, a self-described germaphobe, continues to shake hands with person after person and to make statements minimizing the risk to the American public. This is similar to how Trump has attacked climate assessments from his own government, saying he doesn’t believe human activities are causing economically damaging climate change. However, the president’s attempts to downplay the risks of coronavirus may be less effective than his dismissal of climate risks, say experts interviewed by E&E News, “given the virus’s immediate effect on human lives and the financial sector.”

Reject, restrict, or misrepresent the experts. The Trump administration has worked overtime to rid government reports and policies of references to the scientific consensus that human activities are destabilizing the planet’s climate. Trump has proposed a 26 percent budget cut for the Environmental Protection Agency, which is tasked with climate regulation.

Similarly, the administration has dramatically downsized epidemic-prevention activities at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), shut down the entire global health security unit of the National Security Council, eliminated the government’s $30 million Complex Crises Fund, and postponed an annual intelligence report warning that the United States is unprepared for a global pandemic. The president’s latest budget proposal would cut the CDC budget by almost 16 percent, and the Department of Health and Human Services budget by almost 10 percent. Trump claims he can bring in public-health experts on demand, as if they are gig workers who sit at home waiting for the government to call with an assignment.

Although the president has been briefed about the coronavirus outbreak by experts at the CDC and other government agencies—and brags about his “natural ability” to understand COVID-19—he routinely commandeers the microphone to make inaccurate statements about the number of Americans infected, the likelihood that the disease will spread, and the speed at which a vaccine can be introduced. After a meeting with GOP senators yesterday, for example, Trump said the virus “will go away” and made one of many misleading comparisons with seasonal flu: “So you have 8,000 [flu deaths] versus 26 [coronavirus] deaths at this time—with all of that being said, we’re taking this unbelievably seriously, and I think we’re doing a very good job.”

Delay action. When it doesn’t work to simply deny that a problem like climate change or COVID-19 exists, the administration has been slow to take action and direct resources to the problem. For example, Trump asked for only $2.5 billion to respond to the coronavirus outbreak, with half of that money to be diverted from other programs. Congress instead authorized $8.3 billion in emergency funding.

Now that it has become clear that the virus will become widespread and may have a severe economic toll, Trump is proposing to cut payroll taxes, provide assistance to hourly workers who have to stay home from their jobs, and give bailouts to the travel and hospitality industries. Economists generally agree that it is far more costly to deal with problems like the coronavirus and climate change later rather than sooner. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of adaptation.

The coronavirus response in the United States is now shifting from containment and precautionary measures to a pandemic-style response, but that shift is still happening community by community, rather than as a society-wide program to mobilize resources. The same is true of climate change, with some cities and states taking climate action but the federal government on permanent pause.

Make it political. When the president makes himself the messenger on a public health issue such as climate change or coronavirus, the message automatically becomes political. It also becomes less credible, because only one-third of American voters view Trump as an honest person, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll. Trump is a lousy coronavirus response spokesperson for the same reason that Al Gore was problematic as a climate campaigner: Having a politician as the spokesperson for a public health issue virtually guarantees that a lot of Americans will not take the issue seriously—and makes it easier for conspiracy theories and disinformation to thrive.

Some of the GOP senators who met with Trump yesterday reportedly asked him to make Anthony Fauci the face of the coronavirus response. That’s a great suggestion. Fauci, a prominent medical expert who heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, would focus on the science, not the political spin. And you’d never see him on television spreading germs from person to person along a rope line.

Blame someone else. When things aren’t going well, Trump’s first impulse is to blame anyone but himself. He points the finger at China and India for their climate-altering emissions and claims the Paris climate agreement gives those countries an unfair advantage over the United States.

In the case of the coronavirus, Trump initially accused China of not being transparent about the outbreak but more recently has focused his attention on the media and the Democratic Party, claiming that “fake news” about COVID-19 is causing markets to tank, and that the coronavirus situation has been exaggerated “far beyond what the facts would warrant.” The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., even told Fox News that Democrats hope the coronavirus “kills millions of people so they can end Donald Trump’s streak of winning,” a comment he later justified by saying he is “entitled to speak, with hyperbole.” Meanwhile, both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence tried to blame former president Barack Obama for the slow rollout of coronavirus test kits, even though the delay was caused by a policy adopted during the Trump administration.

Ignore the physical reality. Although the president’s thinking on both the coronavirus and climate change seems to be evolving from “hoax” to “serious,” he and his administration are still treating these public health issues as if they can be fixed with a well-placed tweet or budget appropriation, rather than through long-term investment in preparation and mitigation. This is a profound failure to acknowledge that even the most powerful humans on the planet cannot rewrite the laws of physics.

As author and climate activist Bill McKibben wrote in his newly launched climate newsletter at The New Yorker, “a physical shock like COVID-19 is a reminder that the world is a physical place. That’s easy to forget when we apprehend it mostly through screens, or through the cozy, contained environments that make up most of our lives. We seem to have a great deal of control, right until the moment that we don’t have any. Things can go very, very wrong, and very, very quickly. That’s precisely what scientists have been telling us for decades now about the climate crisis, and it’s what people have learned, from Australia to California, Puerto Rico, and everywhere that flood and fire has broken out.”

President Trump may eventually learn this lesson, too. But for the elderly residents of that nursing home near Seattle, and the hundreds of thousands of people around the globe who are dying annually from climate impacts, things have already gone very, very wrong.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dawn Stover is a contributing editor at the Bulletin. A science writer based in the Pacific Northwest, her work has appeared in Scientific American, Conservation, Popular Science, New Scientist, The New York Times, and other publications. One of her articles is included in the 2010 Best American Science and Nature Writing, and another article was awarded a special citation by the Knight-Risser Prize for Western Environmental Journalism.

Featured image: President Trump visited the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on March 6, 2020. From the left: Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, CDC director Robert R. Redfield, and CDC associate director Stephan Monroe. Credit: White House photo by Shealah Craighead

The coronavirus pandemic has impacted the United States unlike any other event in recent history, proving to be far more disruptive to American society, and far most damaging to the U.S. economy, than even the events of 9/11. 

The U.S. response is something President Trump has likened to a “war,” going so far as to label himself a “wartime President,” leading the U.S. against “the toughest enemy” in a struggle in which he vows “total victory.” If the fight against the coronavirus is a war, then the virus clearly took the U.S. government by surprise. “Certainly we didn’t get an early run on it, Trump noted in a press conference on March 17. “It would’ve been helpful if we knew about it earlier.”

It is the job of the U.S. intelligence community to provide senior U.S. government policy makers, including the president, with advance warning about potential crises. The U.S. taxpayer pays a premium for this service; in 2020, the budget for the National Intelligence Program, which includes all programs, projects and activities of the U.S. intelligence community, was $62.8 billion.

Included in this budget is a small, specialized intelligence unit known as the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), which operates as part of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The mission of the NCMI is to serve as the lead activity within the Department of Defense (DoD) “for the production of medical intelligence,” and to prepare and coordinate “integrated, all-source intelligence for the DoD and other government and international organizations on foreign health threats and other medical issues to protect U.S. interests worldwide.”

For a small agency, the NCMI packs a large punch in terms of the overall impact of its product. For example, in April 2009—two months prior to when the WHO and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officially declared the global outbreak of H1N1 influenza a pandemicNCMI published an intelligence product, known as an “Infectious Disease Risk Assessment,” which predicted that a recent outbreak of the Swine Flu (H1N1) would become a pandemic.

The positive work done by the NCMI in relation to the H1N1 outbreak contributed to the creation of the 2012 “National Strategy for Biosurveillance,” designed to help facilitate a full-time institutionalized process for obtaining timely and accurate insight on current and emerging biological risks. President Obama himself noted the critical role played by “accurate and timely information” during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic that enabled decision makers, including himself, to “develop the effective responses that save lives.

“The sooner we can detect and understand a threat,” Obama wrote in the introduction to the first National Strategy for Biosurveillance, “the faster we can take action to protect the American people.”

Providing this early detection of a threat is the mission of the NCMI. When it comes to diseases like H1N1 and the coronavirus, this task falls under the remit of the NCMI’s Infectious Disease Division, whose baseline requirement, according to a former commanding officer, Air Force Col. (Dr.) Anthony M. Rizzo, “is to understand the risk of every type of [endemic] infectious disease in every country.”

“When we think of the word biosurveillance, we think of the kinds of things that the public health community does—collecting cases, taking cultures, deciding which disease is which,” Rizzo said. “But we in the intelligence community are looking way before that to determine [if there are] threats on the horizon.”

The NCMI’s job, Rizzo noted, is predictive in nature—not to explain what is happening, but rather “what we believe is going to happen.” To do this, NCMI has access to the resources of the totality of the intelligence community, including intercepted communications, satellite imagery, and sensitive human intelligence, including covert sample collection.

The coronavirus was clearly part of the NCMI’s remit. And yet its first Infectious Disease Risk Assessment for COVID-19 was issued on January 5, 2020, reporting that 59 people had been taken ill in Wuhan, China. This report was derived not from any sensitive intelligence collection effort or independent biosurveillance activity, but rather from a report issued to the WHO by the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission, dated January 5, 2020.

The next day the CDC warned American citizens to take precautions if traveling to China, followed a day later with the activation of a COVID-19 incident management team within the CDC Emergency Management System. This, however, is not the kind of predictive analysis that U.S. policymakers needed if they were going to get ahead of the coronavirus pandemic. Unlike 2009, when the NCMI provided a full two months heads up about the threat of a Swine Flu pandemic, in 2020 the Trump administration was taking its cues from the WHO, which waited until January 30, 2020 to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The NCMI had been relegated to a mere observer, having failed in its mission to provide timely, predictive analysis of pending epidemiological threats.

Almost everything the NCMI knew about the current situation in Wuhan came from the WHO, which had been working very closely with Chinese authorities from the Chinese Center of Disease Control (CCDC) to determine the origin and nature of the coronavirus outbreak. While a great deal of attention has been paid to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in the city of Wuhan, which sells live poultry, fish, and several kinds of wild animals to the public, a detailed investigation by the Joint Field Epidemiology Investigation Team, a specialized task force working under the auspices of the Chinese Center for Disease Control (CCDC), found that the COVID-19 epidemic did not originate by animal-to-human transmission in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, as originally believed, but rather human-to-human transmission totally unrelated to the operation of the market.

Moreover, by analyzing the characteristic of some 27 genomes of the COVID-19 virus provided by the Chinese and published by the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GSAID), research scientists were able to determine that the “most recent common ancestor” for the coronavirus could be dated back to as early as October 1, 2019.

The importance of this date as it relates to the NCMI is that in mid-October 2019 a delegation of 300 U.S. military athletes arrived in Wuhan to participate in the 2019 Military World games. China has suggested that these personnel might have introduced the coronavirus infection to Wuhan, citing their own research thatsuggests that the virus was introduced into China from elsewhere, and Japanese and Taiwanese studies that point to the U.S. as the likely source of the virus. There is, however, no independent evidence to support these allegations.

The importance of the U.S. military athletes rests in the fact that the NCMI is responsible for conducting threat briefs for all deployments of military personnel world-wide, which meant that a Wuhan-specific Infectious Disease Risk Assessment would have necessarily been prepared in support of this deployment. Infectious Disease Risk Assessments are the bread-and-butter intelligence product produced by the NCMI’s Infectious Disease Division, one in which the totality of the medical intelligence collection and analytical capabilities would be utilized.

The production of a Wuhan-specific Infectious Disease Risk Assessment would have created a window of opportunity for the NCMI to have collected the kind of medical intelligence that could have provided early warning about the existence of the coronavirus. Moreover, these athletes should have been subjected to screening upon return as part of the national biosurveillance program, providing yet another opportunity for early detection of the coronavirus if anyone had been exposed to it during their travel.

The CDC has recently acknowledged, during a hearing of the House Oversight Committee on March 11, that its biosurveillance program has uncovered evidence that Americans who had previously died to what had been originally diagnosed as influenza have, through post-mortem testing, been found to have actually have perished from the coronavirus. Normally, the details obtained from this kind of biosurveillance would be widely shared to better understand the scope and potential spread of the infection, as well as to better pin down the source and timing of the infections.

However, the initial meetings regarding a national-level coronavirus response conducted under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, where intelligence gathered as a result of any such biosurveillance activity would logically be discussed, were all treated as classified events, under orders from the National Security Council. As a result, many people who otherwise would have been present were excluded, and those who did attend these meetings were precluded from discussing what occurred. This lack of transparency on the part of the Trump administration only fuels speculation about the reasons for meetings normally conducted in the open suddenly being classified, as well as precisely what information is being hidden from the public.

The sufficiency and efficacy of the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic remains to be seen. As President Trump noted on March 17, however, it would have been helpful to have had advance warning. That was the job of the NCMI, and they failed. This failure may have been a result of complacency, incompetence, or just a byproduct of circumstance. Regardless of the reason, the NCMI needs to learn from this experience, and reexamine the totality of the intelligence cycle—the direction, collection, analysis and feedback loop—associated with its failure to adequately predict the coronavirus pandemic. This reexamination should ensure that the U.S. will not be caught flat-footed the next time around, because there will be a next time around.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books, including his forthcoming, Scorpion King: America’s Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump (2020).

Featured image: A researcher works in a lab that is developing testing for the COVID-19 coronavirus at Hackensack Meridian Health Center for Discovery and Innovation on February 28, 2020 in Nutley, New Jersey. The facility develops novel therapies for some of the world’s most difficult diseases. At least 53 countries have reported cases of infection. (Photo by Kena Betancur/Getty Images)

COVID-19: Misinformation, Education and the Need for Clarity

March 25th, 2020 by Hassanal Noor Rashid

The recent explosion of COVID-19 cases in the South East Asian region has contributed to the globally growing pandemic that has impacted our global social order and may have many dramatic unforeseen consequences to come.

It has exposed the fragility of our dynamic inter-connected systems, the lack of adequate response from world leaders in an aggressively deteriorating situation, and perhaps worst of all, the apathy and ignorance of a significant segment of the global population to the severity of the pandemic.

It is not necessary to re-cap here on the origins of the COVID-19 virus. Beginning in China, the virus ultimately found its’ way to West Asia, South East Asia, Australia, Europe (which has been the worst hit to date, even surpassing China is some respects) and ultimately America. The danger it presents is indisputable, especially to the most vulnerable of us.

Governments have issued various controls to help contain the spread of the virus, but has had limited success.  The virus infection rates still continue to rise as medical infrastructures are now being strained, with a frightening prospect that when overburdened, the death tolls will begin to rise, much like the case of Italy.

But why is the spread of the virus still increasing and the situation still deteriorating?

A lot has to do with the continuous movement of people who are spreading the virus around and abroad, despite movement control orders that have been issued to curb and control such movements.

France and the United States of America still see mass gatherings occurring.  Italy before the pandemic crippled the country had a lax attitude towards the severity of the disease and disregarded the government’s advice to maintain social distancing. This is also happening in South East Asia with the recent Muslim Tabligh gathering in Malaysia, with an estimated 12, to 16 thousand people attending. This particular incident was one of the catalysts for the recent spike in Covid-19 cases in Malaysia and South East Asia.

Is this incident the fault of an apathetic populace or a group that is inanely selfish as to put the lives of others at risk for their own pursuits?

Not entirely.

While it is true that there were many who were more adamant about attending such gatherings, rather than obeying the movement control orders out of some misplaced notion of religiosity, individualism or human rights, the truth is many were also not aware of the severity of the virus’s impact upon the larger community, because of ignorance, or having been taken in by half-truths and fiction from various sources that had spread false information and “fake news”.

Information, that emphasizes the allegedly low death rates associated with of the virus; that the virus only survives in certain climates; that it is no worse than the common cold; and even the latest on how the virus can be treated with simply drinking warm water to flush out the virus from one’s system, have all contributed towards prevailing misunderstandings and misconceptions about Covid-19.

This illustrates one of the greatest ironies of our times, in that social media, while it has enabled us to become more connected and informed, has also allowed for such fallacies to spread and pollute discourse and thus  affect policy and decision-making.

And the bureaucracy of the larger governments, slow-moving as is their nature, were not quick enough in many instances, to address the rumors and misinformation in an effective manner. By the time they acted, the virus had spread to such a degree, that lockdown and containments were the only drastic options left.

Many of the falsities are still being propagated to this day with some members of the elite classes and “well-learned” members of the public still defying movement controls and arguing technicalities over the directive.

Governments need to play a more dynamic role in the face of this crisis, but they  also need to draw a lesson from this crisis as well, that education of the population, clear directions and communications are also important to manage a crisis such as this.

Liberties are important in times of peace, but a clear leadership is needed in times of crisis.

There has been a lot of slow and overly cautious response from the governments and not enough pro-active decision making. People have been stricken by the disease because of all the misinformation, lack of education on the situation, and poor forms of governance in managing it.

Should there be a much larger threat looming on the horizon, far worse than COVID-19, given our current handling of the crisis, it is truly doubtful we could manage the next one at all.

However, with all the gloom that has been addressed, the ray of hope that can be gleaned is the willingness of so many people to stand vigilant against wrongdoings and misinformation.

The dedication and proactiveness of the medical community who argue against such misinformation, while serving on the frontlines to battle the disease is commendable.

The police and law enforcement personnel who are out there enforcing the movement control order putting themselves at risk to help the community retain a semblance of order also deserve our accolades.

The people who continuously reach out to educate others of the disease and of the important steps to take in managing it, while calling out those who continue to disregard the severity of the situation, are also doing a commendable job.

All these groups and others I have not highlighted could play a constructive role, once the crisis is over. They could help Malaysia and the world to be better, stronger and wiser.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Hassanal Noor Rashid is Programme Coordinator at the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID-19: Misinformation, Education and the Need for Clarity

Though often discussed in relation to nuclear war or a similarly chaotic scenario, “continuity of government” plans can be triggered even by popular, nonviolent opposition to an unpopular war abroad. It exists solely to keep the current system in place, regardless of the cost.

***

 Last week, Newsweek published a report entitled “Inside The Military’s Top Secret Plans If Coronavirus Cripples the Government,” which offers vague descriptions of different military plans that could be put into effect if the civilian government were to be largely incapacitated, with a focus on the potential of the current novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic to result in such a scenario.

The article’s author, William Arkin, largely frames these plans as new, though — buried deep within the article — he eventually mentions that such contingency plans can be traced back to the Eisenhower administration (though they were in place before) and have since been developed and updated by most subsequent administrations, largely through the issuance of executive orders. Arkin also points out that some of these “Continuity of Government”, or COG, plans include the “devolution” of leadership and Constitutional authority, which he notes “could circumvent the normal Constitutional provisions for government succession, and military commanders could be placed in control around America.”

Screenshot from Newsweek

 

 

Yet, there are key aspects of COG and its development that Arkin leaves out. For instance, in his timeline on how such plans have developed in the post-World War II era, he conveniently fails to mention any of the Reagan administration’s major changes to COG, including the Reagan-era Executive Order on which all current COG programs are based. Indeed, many of the “extra-Constitutional” aspects of COG that Arkin mentions began during the Reagan administration, when these plans were redrafted to largely exclude members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House, from succession plans and even moved to essentially eliminate Congress in the event of COG being implemented, with near total power instead being given to the executive branch and the military. It was also during this time that the “devolution” aspect of COG was hammered out, as it created three president-cabinet “teams” to be stationed in different parts of the country outside of the nation’s capital. Arkin’s decision to not mention how COG was a major focus of the Reagan administration is striking given that that administration poured hundreds of millions of dollars annually into COG planning and development and also conducted COG drills on a regular basis.

Furthermore, the Miami Herald revealed in 1987, that the COG programs of that era were deeply connected to what the Herald termed “a virtual parallel government outside the traditional cabinet departments and agencies” that began operating “almost from the day Reagan took office” and included military and intelligence operatives as well as many of Reagan’s closest advisers, including then-CIA Director William Casey. The Herald further claimed that this “parallel government” had been responsible for the Iran-Contra scandal (i.e. “involved in arming the Nicaraguan rebels”) as well as “the drafting of martial law plans for national emergencies,” i.e. COG, as well as “the monitoring of U.S. citizens considered potential security risks.” This “parallel government” planned to use COG to install itself as the ruling power of the country and to detain potential opponents of a U.S. war with Nicaragua in the event that the Reagan administration moved to invade the country.

Other key players in those Reagan-era COG developments, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, former CIA Director James Woosley and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, are also left unmentioned in Arkin’s article. Not mentioning Cheney and Rumsfeld are particularly glaring omissions given that they were involved in the implementation of aspects of those COG plans that went live in the wake of the September 11 attacks, when both men were serving in key posts in the George W. Bush administration.

While Arkin’s omission of the role of the Reagan administration and leading neoconservatives in the development and use of COG is significant, arguably more significant is his failure to mention one of COG’s major components, one that has gone essentially unmentioned by well-known media outlets for well over a decade – Main Core.

The government’s database of “potential troublemakers”

When Reagan issued Executive Order 12656, he created COG plans that could be implemented during “any national security emergency,” which the E.O. loosely defines as “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” E.O. 12656 also put the National Security Council (NSC) in charge of developing and administering COG policies.

The NSC official placed in charge of this “secret” COG program was Oliver North, whose name would later become infamous for the key role he played in the Iran-Contra Scandal. During the Iran-Contra hearings in the late 1980s, then-Representative Jack Brooks (D-TX) attempted to ask the following question to North: “Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, were you not assigned at one time to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?” Brooks, however was immediately cut off by Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), who stated ” I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area, so may I request that you not touch upon that, sir.” Brooks protested, but North was ultimately not required to give an answer.

As the de facto leader of COG development and planning during the Reagan administration, North oversaw the creation of a controversial database that later became known simply as “Main Core.” The Main Core database, first built using the stolen PROMIS software (more information on PROMIS here and here), was essentially a list of American dissidents and “potential troublemakers.” A senior government official with a high-ranking security clearance and service in five presidential administrations described the database to journalist Chris Ketcham in 2008 as follows:

A database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.”

In 1993, Wired magazine stated that:

Using PROMIS, sources point out, North could have drawn up lists of anyone ever arrested for a political protest, for example, or anyone who had ever refused to pay their taxes. Compared to PROMIS, Richard Nixon’s enemies list or Sen. Joe McCarthy’s blacklist look downright crude.”

Main Core is the aspect of COG that is most often ignored in reporting on these types of plans, with Arkin’s article being just a more recent example. While most of the rare mentions of COG in the mainstream touch on how those plans would result in the implementation of martial law and the suspension of the Constitution, they even more rarely — if ever — mention Main Core. Indeed, the last “mainstream” reports on Main Core were written over a decade ago — all in 2008 — by Chris Ketcham in Radar, by Scott Horton in Harper’s and by Tim Shorrock in Salon.

Given that COG is now creeping back into mainstream reporting, revisiting Main Core is essential as the database still exists and has grown considerably since Oliver North first oversaw its creation in the early 1980s. In Ketcham’s 2008 article on the subject, he quotes then-senior government officials who said that, at the time, the number of “unfriendly” Americans on that database was approximately 8 million. Ketcham further notes that, in the event COG is implemented, these individuals could be subject to anything ranging from “heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.”

Tim Shorrock, in his coverage of Main Core, noted that the database was seen in use at the White House following the September 11 attacks and there is strong evidence pointing to it having been used by the George W. Bush administration to guide its domestic surveillance activities in the post-9/11 era. A government official who had told a reporter about having seen the database operational at the White House following September 11th “turned white as a sheet” when the reporter mentioned the name “Main Core” specifically. Shorrock’s reporting also details how Main Core includes vast amounts of information on those “unfriendly” Americans, including the fruits of the vast domestic surveillance programs of the NSA and other U.S. federal agencies that continue today and are now set to be expanded due to the current coronavirus crisis.

In a report written last year on the involvement of U.S. and Israeli intelligence and their private sector allies in pushing for new, troubling pre-crime programs, I noted that Main Core is not only available to U.S. intelligence but also Israel’s intelligence apparatus and that Israeli intelligence was involved in the creation and expansion of Main Core. That report also detailed how Main Core was used by members of Reagan’s NSC to blackmail members of Congress, a practice that is likely to have continued under subsequent administrations. It also noted how Main Core today likely involves the same software now used by every U.S. intelligence agency and numerous other federal agencies that is marketed by Palantir, a company created and owned by Trump ally Peter Thiel. Palantir’s software boasts “predictive policing” capabilities and tracks a category of person using the label “subversive,” very much in keeping with the spirit of Main Core.

Main Core and Bill Barr’s Power Grab

Though Main Core was reportedly in use after September 11 to target “unfriendly” individuals for increased domestic surveillance, concern that COG plans in the age of coronavirus could take a more drastic turn and involve the detention of Americans included in that database now seems more plausible than ever. On Saturday, Politico reported that the Department of Justice has demanded new “emergency powers” during the current pandemic and these powers include being able to indefinitely detain Americans without trial. Politico also noted that the DOJ’s controversial new requests “span several stages of the legal process, from initial arrest to how cases are processed and investigated.” Per the DOJ’s requests, indefinite detention would emerge through a new ability whereby the Attorney General or a judge could pause court proceedings whenever courts are “fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”

What Politico did not include in its report is that current Attorney General William Barr has spent the past several months fine-tuning and implementing a “pre-crime” program. Officially known as the “National Disruption and Early Engagement Program” (DEEP), it aims to “identify, assess and engage” potentially violent individuals “before they strike.” Barr first announced this program last October in an official memorandum and therein stated that the program was to be implemented sometime over the course of 2020 and would involve “an efficient, effective and programmatic strategy to disrupt individuals who are mobilizing towards violence, by all lawful means.”

A training conference for that program took place this past December and involved members of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and “private sector partners.” One recent DOJ statement regarding an arrest made last year in Nevada, claimed that that specific case was part of the DOJ’s “National Disruption and Early Engagement Program,” suggesting that this program is already in use — at least in some parts of the country.

In his memorandum, Barr further notes that the program’s “early engagement tactics” were “born of the posture we adopted with respect to terrorist threats” following the September 11 attacks, essentially stating that this pre-crime program will utilize methods from the “War on Terror” domestically and on a massive scale.

Given the context of the current coronavirus crisis, the DOJ’s recent request for sweeping new powers and the role of Main Core in COG plans, one part of Barr’s pre-crime memorandum stands out. In the part of the document where Barr outlines what actions will be taken once an individual is deemed potentially violent or threatening, he writes that those individuals will be subject to detention, court-ordered mental health treatment and electronic monitoring, among other measures.

The possibility of pre-crime detention was also present in the DOJ’s recent request for new “emergency powers” in light of the coronavirus crisis, as it specifically asks that those new powers apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings.” Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told Politico that the inclusion of the term “pre-arrest” likely means that “you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying.”

Thus, if DOJ is granted these new powers it has requested, the William Barr-led Department of Justice will not only be authorized to indefinitely detain Americans without trial, it will be able to detain them without any proof of those detainees having committed a crime or even having plans or the intent to commit a crime. Instead, the DOJ only needs to argue that the individual was “mobilizing towards violence,” an extremely vague phrase that could potentially be used against anyone who expresses discontent with the government or government policy.

Furthermore, with the FBI having recently flagged “conspiracy theorists” (and by extension those who distrust or question government narratives of both past and present) as a “domestic terror threat,” the DOJ could even make the case that failure to blindly trust government narratives presents a threat to the public order. Given that the Main Core database in its current form contains bulk surveillance gathered from social media, phone conversations/messaging apps and even financial information (i.e. purchasing history, etc.) on Americans deemed unfriendly “often for the slightest and most trivial reason,” this unprecedented power grab by the DOJ has an authoritarian and Orwellian potential to target legitimate dissent like never before.

With the specter of COG now snaking its way into mainstream discourse during the coronavirus crisis, it is essential that Americans stay vigilant, as these Orwellian and dystopian “solutions” to allegedly protect us from the current pandemic have been in place long before COVID-19 made its appearance on the world stage or landed on U.S. shores.

It is also essential to remember that COG, Main Core and the DOJ’s pre-crime program were all created and are currently controlled by extremely corrupt and fundamentally untrustworthy individuals who have not only been involved in innumerable scandals over the years, but have also installed and supported some of the most authoritarian, savage and horrific dictators the world has ever seen. To trust them with such unprecedented and dangerous powers in a period of national confusion and panic is tantamount to beckoning the horrors of those dictatorships — past and present — to come home to roost.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News contributing journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Coronavirus: What Newsweek Failed to Mention About “Continuity of Government”
  • Tags:

Like Freedom? Then You Won’t Like the FREEDOM Act

March 25th, 2020 by Rep. Ron Paul

Last Monday, a bipartisan group of Senators and a coalition including libertarian and progressive activists thwarted a scheme to ram through the Senate legislation renewing three provisions of the USA FREEDOM Act (previously known as the USA PATRIOT Act). The bill had already been rushed through the House of Representatives, and most expected it to sail through the Senate. But, instead, Senate leadership had to settle for a 77-day extension.

Senate leadership was also forced to allow consideration of several amendments at a later date. Included is Sen. Rand Paul’s amendment that would forbid the FISA court from issuing warrants targeting American citizens.

Deep state supporters claim the expiring business records provision (which authorizes the collection of our communications and was at the center of Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations), lone wolf provision (which allows government to subject an individual with no known ties to terrorists to warrantless surveillance), and roving wiretaps provision (which allows government to monitor communications on any device that may be used by a targeted individual) are necessary to keep Americans safe. But, since Congress first passed the PATRIOT Act almost 20 years ago, mass surveillance, warrantless wiretapping, and bulk data collection have not stopped a single terrorist attack.

The legislation does have “reforms” aimed at protecting civil liberties, but these new protections contain loopholes that render the protections meaningless. For example, the bill requires those targeted for surveillance to be notified that the government spied on them. However, this requirement can be waived if the government simply claims — not proves but just clams — that notifying the target would harm “national security.”

The notice provision also only applies to the target of an investigations. So, if you were caught up in a federal investigation because a coworker is being targeted and you shared an office computer, or if a store clerk reported to the government you and others bought pressure cookers, the government could collect your phone records, texts, and social media posts without giving you the chance to challenge the government’s actions.

The bill also makes some reforms to the special FISA court, which serves as a rubber stamp for the intelligence community. These reforms are mainly aimed at protecting political campaigns and candidates. They would not stop the FISA court from rubber-stamping surveillance on organizations that oppose the welfare-warfare-surveillance-fiat money status quo.

Anything limiting warrantless wiretapping and mass surveillance should be supported. However, nothing short of repeal of the USA FREEDOM Act will restore respect for our right to live our lives free of the fear that Big Brother is watching. The path to liberty, peace, and prosperity starts with eliminating all unconstitutional laws and returning to a system of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, sound money, and a foreign policy that seeks peaceful commerce and friendship with all instead of seeking new monsters to destroy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Just after midnight March 25, 2020 eastern time the US Senate passed a compromise bill of fiscal spending to address the accelerating economic decline. Both Democrat and Republican Senate leaders agreed on the terms. US House of Representatives Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, indicated she would rush approval of the package seeking a unanimous voice vote of the House.

Here’s what the terms of the stimulus package looks like, according to initial summaries by the Washington Post and CNN released within minutes of the bill passage:

Middle class and worker households would get $500 billion in the form of direct checks ($250B) and increased unemployment insurance benefits for the next four months ($250B)

Corporations and businesses would thus get $867B–$367B of which would go to small businesses, and another $500B to large corporations like airlines, defense companies, cruise lines, hotels and other companies.

Additional funding of $130B would go to hospitals to purchase needed medical supplies. State and Local governments get $150B. Other funds would be provided by the government’s Small Business Administration ($10B) to help pay their debt. Reference is made in the package as well for another $20 in farm bailout, raising that total from the $30B spent to date during the US-China trade war to $50B. While it appears the $130B for hospitals and $150B for local governments is in addition to the $867B to business and $500B to households, it’s not clear if the $20B farm bailout and $10B additional SBA are included in the $867B or not.

Here’s a further detail in breakdown of these amounts:

1. $500B to Business

The Airlines get their $58B they’ve been lobbying for. And if past breakdowns still apply, it means roughly half the $58B will take the form of outright grants, not loans, to the airlines and the remainder as loans. It is also unclear if the loans will be ‘forgiven’ after six months, as had been proposed before in past versions of the Senate bill.

Another $17B of the $500B is earmarked for defense companies considered important to national security. No details are released who these are and why such companies, not affected by consumer demand, should receive such an increase. (Possibly to back fill money that has been transferred from them by Trump to help pay for his wall).

Trump has also indicated he intends to have some of the $500B go to cruise lines and hotels which, along with airlines, are critical to his own company’s business.

The remainder of the $500 is designated for spending to support other industries. Whether in the form of loans, grants, or other forms of assistance is still unclear.

2. $367B to Small Business

The Senate bill always included $350B in loans for small business, and the provision that the loans would change to outright grants if used to pay wages and payroll costs. It won’t take clever accounting to use the $350 to cover wages and compensation (and payroll taxes, etc.), as companies move the money that would have been used for such purposes to other areas of their income statements. So consider the $350B as money without repayment—i.e. not a loan.

In addition to the $350B, another $17B is added now for small business to cover interest on their existing loans for six months. Finally, there’s the $10B from the Small Business Administration to help pay debts, which may or may not be part of the other totals.

Add in the $20B for farm support, the $10B from SBA, and the $130B to hospitals, it means Business Large & Small thus get $1,027B in direct assistance by the government in the new agreed on Senate-House stimulus package.

Another item that the Democrats demanded and received in part was to have an Oversight Board to review how corporations and businesses actually spent the government money. In the previous emergency economic recovery legislation in 2009, much of the direct assistance was ‘gamed’ by businesses that received it. Some even used it to buyback their stock and award bonuses to managers. The Oversight Board is supposed to prevent that. It remains to be seen, however. Who will by chosen to manage the Board will make all the difference. It can assumed the Senate or Trump will. As Trump has said publicly when asked who will ‘oversee’ the distribution of the funds to business, he replied “I’ll be the oversight”.

Middle class families and workers get a total of $500B under the agreement, which is what it was before. It appears that the money was just ‘moved around’.

3. Direct Household Cash Assistance

Talk of $3,000 per household is now changed to a check of $1,200 for a single household member, or $2,400 for married couple, plus $500 per child. (It’s unclear if that’s for all children in a family or just up to two).

To qualify for the full $1,200/$2,400 an individual must make no more than $75,000 income annually. Income above $75,000 phases out until $99,000 after which no payment is made. For couples, the phase out is at $199,000 per household.

4. Increased Unemployment Insurance Benefits

The package includes an increase of $600 to the state’s defined level of unemployment benefits paid (that vary by state quite a bit). But it’s unclear if the $600 applies to the highest paid state benefit payment or to all levels of state benefit payments. For example, in California the top payment is $450/week. The new payment would be $1,050/week. But will those below the top payment level also get $600?

A plus to the unemployment insurance provision is that it will also apply to contingent work: that is, to part time, temp, contract labor not just to full time employed who are laid off due to the effect of the virus on company shutdowns.

On the negative side, all the improvements in unemployment insurance will take effect for only 4 months, then will expire.

It is clear, therefore, that middle class families will receive only the $500 billion that had been allocated before—in the form of cash assistance one time worth $250 billion and improved unemployment benefits for four months costing another $250 billion. It appears some of the cash assistance was redirected toward improvement in unemployment insurance benefits, but no net increase in the total $500B on the negotiating table before.

In other words, in the final stimulus bill businesses get more than twice as much as do households and the working class!

5. State & Local Governments

An additional $150 billion is allocated in the bill to assistance to state & local governments.

THE TOTALS:

The totals in spending thus appear to be approximately $1,650 billion! It is being reported as a $2T stimulus effect and increase in US GDP overall. AS Trump’s advisor, Larry Kudlow, has said on a previous occasion, the $2T represents the spending plus the ‘multiplier effect’. $2T is not therefore the actual spending. That is less, around the $1,650T estimated here. The difference is a multiplier effect of about $400B.

But that’s a generous estimate of the multiplier. It’s based on normal economic conditions. And the current collapse of the real and financial US economy is anything but normal. The multiplier will be much less. That is because much of the spending by the government, to business and households alike, will be used to pay down debt, hoard the money due to expectations of future profits and employment insecurity, or to cover price gouging by businesses selling necessities.

The US economy spends monthly the equivalent of $1.7 trillion. The Senate’s stimulus package is thus a one month stop-gap at best! As this writer has been arguing in recent days, the stimulus needed to get through the summer will have to be $4 trillion, not $1.65 trillion.

The $2 trillion (spending + multiplier) is estimated at around 9% of US Gross Domestic Product, GDP, at present. A 20% increase of GDP is necessary, raising total government spending in GDP terms from the roughly current 21% of GDP to 40%.

40% of GDP is what the US government raised spending to in 1942, when we went to war at that time. It was an increase from around 15% pre-war. If the fight against the new enemy, the virus, is a kind of ‘economic war’, then the US will have to mobilize its economy again on a war footing. Trump’s activation of the War Production Act, and then doing nothing about it further, is not a war mobilization. Trump is not a ‘war president’, as he claims. Indeed, he allowed the enemy to actually penetrate our shores and spread amongst us with his delayed action to stop airline travel and cruise travel. It’s not an accident that the largest concentrations of the virus infections are in our coastal ports and airports—Washington state, California, New York, and now increasingly New Orleans, Philadelphia, Chicago and Miami.

Trump as ‘War President’ & Other Fictions

Unlike our prior war presidents, Roosevelt and Truman, Trump is not mobilizing production and distribution of key resources and supplies to fight the enemy. He simply asks the private sector to do it and then gives his daily ‘sales pitches’ to the nation press conferences to say what he’s doing when he’s not actually doing it. War supplies (masks, ventilators, PPE) are promised and promised but are slow to appear, if they ever do.

The question follows then whether the current Senate-House stimulus bill represents a sufficient stimulus to protect the US economy. The answer is no. It’s not even half way there for Main St.

In contrast, however, the Federal Reserve US central bank has quickly allocated no less than $6.2 Trillion so far to bail out the banks and investors, even before they fail this time. And promises to do more if needed and for as long as necessary. It is writing a blank check for the bankers and investors.

Meanwhile Congress provides one-fourth that, and only one third of that one fourth, for the Main St., workers, and middle class families.

Finally, it is clear from Trump’s statements in recent days that he knows this stimulus is only a one month hit to the economy. That’s why he—and the capitalist investors who have been lobbying him hard the past week—are turning up the message we should all start going back to work by mid-April.

As Trump put it, the timing is ‘beautiful’, at Easter. But it won’t be so beautiful when a surge in infections and death occur on top of the current surge underway occur by early summer.

But profits and money are more important to this wheeler-dealer, commercial property speculator capitalist in the White House. With the US budget deficit this fiscal year almost certainly to exceed $3 trillion, and his election looming on the horizon, Trump and friends see Wall St. and US business interests as more important than the rising death rate that is inevitable should we return to work prematurely by mid-April. Such action will all but ensure the eventual overwhelming of the US hospital system three months from now, an even higher death rate, and an even greater collapse of the US economy and financial system in the aftermath.

Trump may think he’s at war with the coronavirus, but it is the virus that is winning! And his poor generalship is aiding and abetting that enemy. Unfortunately, the American public—and especially the old and infirm—are becoming the ‘cannon fodder’ in Trump’s phony war.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, January 2020; ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’ (2017), and ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy’, 2016. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and tweets at @drjackrasmus. His website is http://kyklosproductions.com.

Read this article very carefully. Forward it around the World. Our US foreign policy experts are contemplating NUCLEAR WAR ON A FIRST STRIKE BASIS AGAINST RUSSIA. And the media is telling us folks who are under lockdown that coronavirus is far more deadly than nukes. And yes, of course, we believe you…

“When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no Turning Backwards” (Michel Chossudovsky)

**

Faced with Coronavirus “our first concern is to protect the health of our forces and our Allies”- the US European Command declared. It therefore announced it had reduced Defender Europe 20 exercise in number of soldiers. But it will go on anyway.

“Since January the US Army has deployed 6,000 soldiers from the United States to Europe,” with 12,000 pieces of equipment (from personal armaments to tanks), and “soldiers and equipment movement ” from different ports to training areas in Germany and Poland has been completed,” the Command stated on March 16. In addition, 9,000 US service members based in Europe will also be participating in the exercise. Since January, the Army deployed approximately 6,000 soldiers from United States to Europe. It moved approximately 9,000 vehicles and pieces of equipment from Army Prepositioned Stocks and approximately 3,000 pieces of equipment via sea from United States. It also completed movement of soldiers and equipment from multiple ports to training areas in Germany and Poland.

The purpose prospected by the US is “to deploy a credible combat force in Europe in support of NATO”, evidently against “Russian aggression.” The real purpose – we wrote two and a half months ago in Il Manifesto (the only daily newspaper that gave news of Defender Europe 20 at the time) – is to sow tension and feed the idea of the enemy.

The exercise prospected scenario could never occur, because an armed clash between NATO and Russia would also be inevitably nuclear. This is the real scenario which US forces are training in Europe for. It was confirmed by General Tod D. Wolters, head of the United States European Command and, as such, he is Commander of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.

On February 25, 2020, during a hearing in the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, U S Air Force Commander – US European Command, General Tod D. Wolters, declared: “Nuclear forces are the supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies,  and underwrite every US military operation in Europe.” This means that Defender Europe 20 is not only an exercise of conventional (non-nuclear) forces, but of nuclear forces.

On March 18, it was reported that two US nuclear attack bombers B-2 Spirit, part of the task force that arrived from the US on March 9, flew over Iceland and the North Atlantic this week. They were escorted by three Norwegian F-35 fighter jets.

These two types of aircraft are designed for using the new B61-12 nuclear bombs, which the USA will soon deploy in Italy and other European countries replacing the current B-61s.

In the Senate hearing General Wolters made clear what role US Nuclear Forces play in Europe. When Senator Fischer asked him what he thought of the non-first-use of nuclear weapons, the General replied: “Senator, I am a Fan of Flexible First-use Policy”He, who is responsible of US / NATO nuclear weapons in Europe, officially declared that he is a supporter of their first use for the first strike, the nuclear surprise attack on a “flexible” basis.  

Faced with a declaration of such gravity, which pushes Russian Generals to put their finger on the nuclear trigger, there is complete silence by Governments, Parliaments and major European media.

In the same hearing, General Wolters said:

Since 2015 the Alliance placed increased emphasis on the role of nuclear capabilities” and “the European Command of the United States fully supports the recommendations contained in the Nuclear Posture Review 2018 to deploy the W76-2 low-power ballistic missile.”

The low-power nuclear warhead W76-2, already installed on submarine-launched missiles (announced by the Pentagon on February 4), can also be installed on ground-based ballistic missiles near the enemy territory. The U.S. Navy has fielded the W76-2 low-yield nuclear warhead, which is used on the submarine-launched Trident II ballistic missile

It is particularly dangerous. “Less powerful nuclear weapons – even authoritative US experts warn – increase the temptation to use them first, they can lead commanders to push because in an attack the nuclear bomb is used knowing that the radioactive fallout would be limited. Instead, it would seem like throwing a lit match in a powder keg”.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto. Translated by Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti 

Award winning author and geopolitical analyst Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. (CRG)

While everyone was worried of what they believed would inevitably be World War III, mankind suddenly found itself fighting World War C against COVID-19 instead, which has since become the single most globally disruptive event in human history.

The entire world is at war, though it’s not one of the many World War III scenarios that a lot of people have speculated upon in the recent past (e.g. US vs. IranIndia vs. PakistanRussia vs. NATO, etc.), but a battle against an invisible foe that threatens us all and could theoretically infect every one of us without anyone else knowing until it’s too late. World War C, as the author has taken to calling it, is the single most globally disruptive event in human history because it occurred at the moment when the world was more connected than ever before through globalization.

Life as we know it has been fundamentally changed in an instant and will never go back to how it was before, for better or for worse, and our final victory over this foe still seems too far away for comfort. There’s no telling when World War C will end, but it’s nevertheless already possible to prognosticate about how the system of International Relations is changing as the New Cold War of recent years takes a new form under these unexpected conditions.

The global competition between the US and China for predominant control over the world system isn’t going away, and will continue to characterize the coming decade, if not longer. The People’s Republic has already largely recovered from the initial onslaught of World War C that brought what many describe as “the world’s factory” to an abrupt standstill, thereby placing it in a comparatively more advantageous position to shape the outcome of this global conflict as the country shifts its focus from containing the virus at home to assisting others in this respect upon request after it obtained invaluable first-hand experience over the past few months. “China Is Saving The World From COVID-19“, as the author wrote earlier this week, but it won’t be the only savior if the US can help it. It’s true that China’s medical and humanitarian aid will greatly expand its soft power, the same as its foreseeable economic assistance will do once that phase of the Beijing-backed global recovery commences, but the US won’t willingly surrender its systemic hegemony without a fight.

That doesn’t mean that the US and China will enter into a kinetic (“shooting”) war with one another, but just that America will soon attempt to catch up to its competitor once it finally gets the situation at home under control. The first step to this effect can be seen through the de-facto imposition of martial law and historically unprecedented stimulus package that’s presently being negotiated, after which the US can then coordinate with its G7 allies to devise a solution for slowing down the West’s economic collapse. There should be no doubt that the fundamental basis of the global economy will forever change after what happened, though it’s thus far uncertain whether the new system will continue to be disproportionately influenced by the US or if China will succeed in more powerfully shaping the outcome. The “Trumpist” model is all about radical anti-globalization while China’s is closer to the previous system, as explained in the author’s piece last week titled “The Coronavirus: Crown Jewel Of The NWO Or Crippling Blow To Globalization?

There are arguments in favor of either envisaged system coming out on top. World War C has exposed the fragility of global supply chains and the strategic risks of having other countries produce essential items such as medicine and related healthcare supplies, which works against China’s favor in the sense that its global Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) is all about doubling down on globalization, albeit with various reforms that Beijing believes will make this seemingly historically inevitable economic model more equitable for the Global South states that have hitherto largely been denied their fair share of its benefits.

On the other hand, Trump can’t just snap his fingers and do away with decades of globalization considering the trillions of dollars of capital invested abroad over this period by the countless companies that offshored their production, especially since “the world’s factory” is already recovering and therefore able to rely on its pre-crisis physical assets to help the rest of the world as well, which could incentivize the recipients to preserve as much of the old system as possible.

World War C is the ultimate black swan event, one which might also give rise to other relatively less impactful but nevertheless still significant black swans as well, such as the outright collapse of major economies and so-called “fragile/failed states” alike, be it those in the EU or the Global South respectively. It’s these tangential consequences of this global conflict — and the degree to which the US and China can influence them, whether in terms of actualizing these scenarios or preventing them — that will prove to be the ultimate game-changers in this equation. At the risk of sounding cliche, there are “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, and while strategists might be able to forecast some of the former and thus help their states better react to such possible challenges, their skills will really be put to the test rapidly responding to the latter the moment that they begin to arise. All that we regular folks can do without any “inside information” or the data needed to arrive at relevant conclusions is try to figure out what might prospectively constitute these two categories.

A “known unknown” might be the resiliency of the Iranian government as the country struggles to prevent the current confluence of crises from leading to regime change like the author wrote earlier in the month in his piece titled “Iran: Regime Change By Coronavirus?“. An “unknown unknown”, meanwhile, could be a latent social, economic, political, and/or religious trend that has thus far largely escaped detection but which might quickly come to the fore of worldwide attention, whether directly in the sense of shaping the emerging world order or indirectly by exercising disproportionate influence over a key player in this equation (or a comparatively less significant one which can in turn influence that said key player). It’s not hyperbole to say that World War C has opened up Pandora’s Box in every respect and that everyone should brace themselves for more rapid and unexpected changes, both in terms of how they live their lives and also just as importantly in the sense of the emerging world order’s formation.

As it stands, however (and barring an “unknown unknown” such as something that leads to the complete and irreversible collapse of the US and/or China), the one constant that can thus far arguably be relied upon is that the US and China will continue competing with one another per their ever-intensified New Cold War in order to shape the global systemic outcome of World War C. This is first and foremost a battle against the invisible enemy of COVID-19, but secondly, it’s also a battle between the American and Chinese models of global economics that in turn will form the basis upon which the subsequent international political system will be built once this conflict finally ends. Amidst all of this, there are countless latent risk to the author’s forecast that could abruptly shift the entire trajectory of every future scenario, though it’s of course too early to identify each and every one of them as they presently exist (provided that they’ve even been identified) given how fast everything is moving, but the present analysis should hopefully suffice for the time being at least.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

On the occasion of the 21st anniversary of the beginning of NATO’s armed aggression against Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), representatives of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals and the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia today laid the flowers at the Memorial to Children Victims of NATO Aggression in the Tašmajdan Park and at the Memorial to All Victims of NATO Aggression “Eternal Flame” in the Friendship Park, Beograd. 

During NATO aggression lasting from 24 March through 10 June 1999, NATO missiles killed 1100 soldiers and police officers and more than 2500 civilians, including 89 children. With the exception of the military and police personnel, the accurate list of casualties has not been established as yet, despite a recent statement announcing that relevant efforts would be stepped up. There is even less certainty about how many citizens lost their lives in the meantime, either due to injuries sustained by wounding, or due to malignant diseases caused by the use of weaponry filled with depleted uranium and other banned weapons and ordnances, or during the course of demining of unexploded ordnances, especially the cluster bombs.

A series of formerly scheduled conferences, exhibitions and other manifestations of citizens’ associations in the country and abroad, marking this anniversary had to be cancelled due to the COVID-19 virus pandemic. Also cancelled were scheduled international conferences in Belgrade, Moscow and Paris, where the latest, in addition to the conference, should have been comprising a movie premiere of “Balkans Borders”, dedicated to the landing of the Russian Army units at the ‘Slatina’ Airport near Priština, June 10-11th, 1999.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 21 Years Since the Beginning of NATO Aggression against Yugoslavia
  • Tags: ,

First the Fed. Key is understanding that it’s not federal. 

It’s owned and operated by major Wall Street banks, their interests its top priority.

Its dual mandate is supposed to be maximum employment and price stability. How it operates is another matter entirely.

Years of money printing madness (quantitative easing – QE) at near-zero interest rates had nothing to do with stimulating economic growth and jobs creation.

It was all about handing business and large investors free money to elevate stock prices to an unsustainable level at the expense of the economy and main street.

It’s now all about reviving risk-on animal spirits to turn around crashing markets.

Former Dallas Fed president Richard Fisher earlier said “QE can’t go on forever because (it’ll) kill the patient.”

It’s back with an unprecedented vengeance. Pulling out all the stops to help Wall Street, other corporate favorites, large hedge funds, and other wealthy investors, the Fed opened its money spigot full throttle.

A policy unrelated to helping ordinary people, it’s latest free money scam is all about letting large holders of toxic debt dump it into what Mike Whitney called the Fed’s toxic waste “landfill for distressed assets” — what the Wall Street Journal called “cash-for-trash.”

Now to Congress. Dems and Republicans are dickering over a stimulus package. Disagreement on what should be in it continues.

Members of both right wings of the one-party state have one objective in mind over all others — reelection in November for all House members and one-third of the Senate.

Virtually all their legislative actions and public pronouncements are politically motivated.

That said, Senate Republicans want over one trillion dollars in free money going mainly to business interests.

They also proposed a one-time payment of $1,200 to adults earning $75,000 or less based on IRS tax returns + $500 per child for eligible households.

The amount might help for a few weeks at most, no longer if large-scale unemployment is protracted  because of continued shelter in place policies and movement restrictions.

We’re in uncharted territory so there’s no way to know for sure what will play out ahead.

As of now, economic shutdown and lockdowns are unprecedented in the US, Europe and elsewhere.

The GOP plan also includes $350 billion in virtually free money (called loans) to so-called small business enterprises. Republicans and Dems disagree on which ones should get it.

Another provision calls for $500 billion in virtual free money to large businesses with virtually no oversight.

The GOP-controlled Senate and Dem-controlled House bills are works in progress, provisions in both likely to change.

Republicans one-sidedly want the lion’s share of government handouts going to business favorites.

Seeking political advantage in November, Dems want more for main street.

During Obama’s tenure, they force-fed eight years of austerity on ordinary people while favoring privileged ones.

Obama fraudulently called it “shared sacrifice.”

Since the neoliberal 90s under the Clinton co-presidency, throughout the new millennium, especially since the 2008-09 financial crisis, most of all under Trump, ordinary people “sacrifice(d)” so privileged ones could “share.”

The current work-in-progress $2.5 trillion Dem plan calls for $1,500 in aid per individual — up to $7,500 for a family of five.

It includes what’s called temporary “Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation of $600 for workers affected by COVID-19 who are eligible for unemployment benefits.

It expands paid leave, family medical leave, and helps loan-entrapped students.

It calls for $500 billion in virtual free money for small businesses.

It provides $200 billion to states, another $15 billion to cities and municipalities through a so-called Community Development Block Grant program.

It offers $4 billion to help states carry out November elections.

A provision has no cost-sharing for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, including for the uninsured.

It offers $150 billion in funding for hospitals, community health centers, and government health programs, another $60 billion in funding for colleges, universities, and debt relief for students.

There’s funding for food stamps and other food assistance programs.

There’s also funding for cancelling postal service debt, community newspapers, free Internet service, and a so-called NASA environmental restoration group.

The plan includes $50 billion for US airlines, calls for them to be carbon-neutral for domestic flights by 2025, and offers to buy older planes so carriers can upgrade to new ones.

US airlines and others worldwide are operating at minimum capacity or temporarily shut down.

Instead of offering carriers free money, now is the time for Congress to nationalize the industry and eliminate profit-making as an incentive to operate.

The same applies to troubled Boeing. The company and most others used cash flow for stock buybacks to elevate their valuations to bubble levels so company executives could profit hugely, along with getting increased pay and bonuses.

Now they want large-scale taxpayer-funded congressional bailouts they don’t deserve.

Dems and Republicans will likely resolve differences, pass legislation, and send it to Trump for signing this week.

If COVID-19 outbreaks continue and states remain partially or more greatly locked down, economic duress continuing, another stimulus package may follow what’s now under consideration.

It’s uncertain what lies ahead and for how long.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

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.

The Covid-19 pandemic has thrown up an array of questions, yet one question that has been given little attention pertains to how much state power and suspension of civil liberties is justified in the face of a global pandemic? This is by no means a simple question to answer, but it is clear that state power in many countries has grown considerably in recent times, as governments and local authorities have declared national emergencies to fight the virus. 

Martial Law Rollout? 

Already, we have seen extreme measures taken and unnerving laws passed in the name of combating Covid-19, with these actions considered unthinkable only a few months ago. Just last week, the Italian region of Lombardy has called in the army to help enforce the lockdown against Covid-19. Italy has now reported the most deaths from the Coronavirus pandemic, and has imposed a strict lockdown on its citizens, with only essential travel permitted, such as going to work or going food shopping.

Approximately 40,000 people have now been charged with violating the lockdown in Italy. One notable case was when a man disobeyed the order to self-isolate after testing positive for Covid-19, potentially facing up to 12 years in prison if he is convicted of facilitating the spread of the virus. Italy serves as an example of a potential situation that could unfold in many other countries in the near future.

To be clear, I am not arguing that people should ignore the advice of governments and authorities that have imposed restrictions to contain the virus. For a limited period of time, these measures may well be justified in some sense, although each viewer and reader will have their own take on this issue. Yet there is a balance, and it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that there is so much space in this emergency, wartime period, for governments to abuse the power that they have given themselves. Fighting this virus on one hand, whilst keeping state power in check on the other, is going to be like walking a tightrope.

Mandatory Vaccination Laws? 

Denmark has also reportedly passed emergency legislation that could give authorities the power to forcibly test, treat and quarantine citizens, including potentially being able to forcibly vaccinate people, even though no vaccine has been developed yet for Covid-19. The new law will be in force until March 2021, and will suspend certain rights stipulated in the Danish constitution, including the right to assemble. An earlier draft of the law would have allowed police to enter private homes without a court order, yet this section was scrapped from the legislation.

More broadly, without a vaccine for Covid-19 even being available, the calls for stricter vaccination laws are growing louder by the day. The point here is not to take a position either way on the merits of vaccination programs, it is simply to state that the principle of consent is one of the most fundamental principles in free societies. In this time of fear and panic caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, it is crucial to remind ourselves of the history of medical consent.

The Nuremberg Code

The principle of consent was affirmed in the documents that came out after the prosecution of Nazi officials at the Nuremberg trials that took place after World War II. More specifically, the trial of the United States v. Karl Brandt, also known as the Nazi Doctors Trial, where Nazi doctors were tried for war crimes before US military courts, including for conducting sterilization experiments and euthanasia programs. It led to the conviction of 15 out of the 23 defendants, seven of which were given the death sentence (Pelias 2006: 74). Karl Brandt was one of Hitler’s personal physicians and the lead defendant in the trial, who served as co-director of the Nazi euthanasia program amongst holding other positions, and was hung in 1948 after being convicted and sentenced to death at Nuremberg (Ben-Amos 2009).

The Nuremberg Code was one document that came out of the Doctors Trial, and set principles regarding medical ethics and standards that should be followed by doctors and researchers when conducting experiments on human subjects (Pelias 2006: 74). Consisting of 10 principles, the first principle of the Nuremberg Code is perhaps the most important. It states that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,” and goes on to state that the consent has to be competent, informed and be the product of the “free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.”

Today, governments may well be justified in taking draconian steps to fight this deadly virus for a limited period of time, but in this process, we cannot lose all our basic human and civil rights permanently. Striking this balance is going to be no easy task, yet starting a reasonable conversation around this issue is at least one step forward.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Sources

Annas, G. J., & Grodin, M. A. (2018). Reflections on the 70th Anniversary of the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial. American journal of public health, 108(1), 10–12

Ben-Amos, B. (2009). [Review of the book Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor. Medicine and Power in the Third Reich]. Holocaust and Genocide Studies 23(2), 313-316.

Harvard Law School Library Nuremberg Trials Project, NMT Case 1 – U.S.A. v. Karl Brandt et al.: The Doctors’ Trial 

Kirk, L (13 March, 2020) Danish public employees sent home for two weeks, EU Observer

Pelias, M. (2006). Human Subjects, Third Parties, and Informed Consent: A Brief Historical Perspective of Developments in the United States. Community Genetics, 9(2), 73-77.

Reuters (20 March, 2020) Italy to use army to enforce coronavirus lockdown in worst-hit region

The Boston Globe (5 March, 2020) Coronavirus and Maine vote make case for Mass. vaccine law

The Local (13 March, 2020) Denmark rushes through emergency coronavirus law

Tondo, L. (18 March, 2020) Italy charges more than 40,000 people with violating lockdown, The Guardian

Russia has encountered problems in delivering humanitarian aid to Italy, with assistance struggling to be reached quickly due to the hostilities of many European Union/NATO countries towards Russia. Yesterday it was revealed that Poland did not let Russian planes pass through its airspace to arrive in Italy, the hardest hit coronavirus country in the world with over 6,200 dead and still climbing. As seen on flightradar24.com, you can follow the trajectory of aircraft that departed from Moscow to Rome. The Russian Il-76 was forced to take an alternate course south over the Black Sea and over the airspace of Turkey, Greece and Albania before finally landing in Rome. This alternate route took 3,000 kilometers while flying over Belarus, Poland, Czechia and Austria would have been 1,000 kilometers shorter.

Russian Senator Alexei Pushkov described this as “meanness,” saying on Twitter

“Poland did not miss Russian aircraft with help for Italy through its airspace. This is meanness at the level of public policy.”

The revelation of Poland’s behaviour was met with intense scrutiny on social media, some even comparing the situation to 1938 when Poland prevented the Soviet Union from helping Czechoslovakia from Nazi aggression. The meanness that Pushkov described is not because Poland acted against Russia, but rather because it completely showed no solidarity to a fellow European Union member and so-called NATO ally. Every hour Italians are dying because of the coronavirus. This means that the 1,000-kilometer extra travel distance that the Russian plane had to make because of Poland’s action meant many Italians could have died before the delayed Russian aid arrived.

On Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin in a telephone conversation with the head of the Italian government Giuseppe Conte confirmed his readiness to immediately support Italy in the fight against the coronavirus. The Russian Ministry of Defense announced that it will send eight mobile teams consisting of military virologists and doctors, vehicles for disinfection and medical equipment. Russia’s support for Italy in the fight against coronavirus is an act of Russian contribution in improving the situation in the hard-hit country and creating the conditions for friendlier relations with Europe Union states. Poland meanwhile was not able to withhold its issues with Russia to assist a fellow European Union and NATO ally.

Rome for weeks has been calling for assistance from the European Union, who have all but done nothing to help the struggling country. As Matteo Salvini, leader of an Italian nationalist League party, said: “Italy needed help and it has been given a slap in the face,” in reference to the economic policies of the European Union. Every European Union country has been left to fend for itself and rather it has been China and Russia who have mobilized their doctors, manufacturing and medical equipment to assist Italy. It is for this reason that across Italy, people have been begun removing the European Union flag from public display and replacing them with Russian and Chinese flags. Public sentiment towards Russia and China is significantly changing in Italy despite being a European Union and NATO member, organizations that are traditionally hostile towards these two countries.

This is becoming a common theme in Europe. The European Union’s Lack of coronavirus solidarity has only pushed Serbia further towards China and even silenced pro-European Union liberal Serbians. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučic proclaimed that European solidarity is just a “fairy tale on paper” in the face of President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announcing in a Twitter video message that the European Union is restricting the export of medical devices and stressed that the ban on exports of these goods applies throughout the entire Union. However, Serbia is not a European Union member state, which makes Poland’s actions against Russia all the more shocking as it directly affects Italy. There is also a massive difference in showing a lack of solidarity as the European Union has done with Serbia and Italy, and blatantly sabotaging relief efforts for Italy when people are dying by the hour, as Poland has done.

In an article last week, I argued that the liberal globalized order, epitomized especially by the European Union, is collapsing under pressure from the coronavirus. What has emerged from this pandemic is China taking a global leadership role for the first time in its history by sending aid and doctors across Asia, Europe, Africa and even the United States. As we live in an interconnected world, this is the first time in the 21st century that the globe is facing a common issue. The United States, as the world’s other superpower to China, has increased sanctions against Iran and hoarded medical supplies for its own use. China however has expanded its aid and relief efforts across the globe. Although Russia has not done this across the globe, it has certainly assisted European states, who will remember that Russia assisted them when the European Union abandoned them.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

On March 23, Russian and Turkish forces carried out a second limited joint patrol in southern Idlib. The patrol involved six armoured vehicles and took place along a short chunk of the M4 highway west of the government-controlled town of Saraqib. This part of the highway remains the only safe place within the entire security zone, which was set to be established in the framework of the Russian-Turkish de-escalation agreement.

After the March 23 patrol, the Turkish side got additional time to neutralize terrorists and radicals entrenched in the agreed to buffer zone. This was the second time when Moscow provided Ankara with such an opportunity. However, Ankara seems to be taking very little or no efforts to do so.

Over the past days, the Turkish Army established observation points near Khattab and Msheirfeh and made a formal attempt to de-block the highway removing earthen mounds made by terrorists. Despite these heroic efforts of the Turkish military, the M4 remains in the hands of al-Qaeda-linked groups and the security zone there exists only on paper. Such a situation on the ground is slowly but inevitably leading to the resumption of hostilities in the region.

Humanitarian conditions are deteriorating in the Rukban refugee camp within the US-controlled zone of al-Tanf. According to media reports, people in the camp have to pay money for tents and the bare necessities, and are forcefully recruited into the ranks of US-backed militant groups. Additionally, militants sabotage the evacuation of refugees from the camp.

A series of IED attacks rocked the town of Tabqah, controlled by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), on March 21. IED explosions targeted positions, vehicles and personnel of the SDF next to the Andalusia pool and the Maysalun roundabout. 6 SDF members were reportedly killed. Pro-opposition sources immediately blamed ‘Assad agents’ for the attack. Kurdish sources blame ISIS and Turkey.

On March 22, the SDF released 80 ISIS members that had been captured during the combat operations along the eastern bank of the Euphrates. All the released individuals are reportedly Syrian citizens, from the governorates of Raqqa, al-Hasakah and Deir Ezzor. During the last few years, the SDF has released hundreds of ex-ISIS fighters.

The group often does this for money or upon request from influential figures, like tribal leaders, businessmen and local commanders. This SDF behavior likely contributed to the reemergence of ISIS cells in eastern Syria. Last week, ISIS announced that its fighters had assassinated 40 people in the province of Deir Ezzor during the last 3 months alone.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: SDF Releases Tens of ISIS Members in Eastern Syria. Turkey, Russia Struggle with Idlib De-escalation

Lobbying firms like the McKeon Group, headed by lobbyist Buck McKeon (who was the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in the US Congress), represent both US defense contractors and countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are ruthlessly bombing Yemen with US made weapons. Through lobbying firms like the McKeon Group and American Defense International, defense contractors such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin spent millions to effectively pressure Congress members. Lobbying efforts focus on key members of committees, such as the aforementioned Armed Services Committee. This incentivizes Congress to approve legislation to sell arms to countries like Saudi Arabia and block any legislation that challenges the unethical arms sales.

On August 9th, 2018, Saudi Arabia used a laser guided MK-82 bomb, manufactured by America’s lead defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, to intentionally blow up a school bus in Yemen. The bombing killed 44 Yemeni kids. MK-82s are general purpose bombs, but they were sold to Saudi Arabia in conjunction with precision-guided technology that made the MK-82 bomb act as a precision-guided munition (PGM).

The Obama administration outlawed the sale of PGMs to Saudi Arabia earlier in March 2016 after Saudi Arabia bombed an open-air market in Yemen and killed 97 civilians. In that bombing, Saudi used a precision-guided MK-84, manufactured by General Dynamics, another top American defense contractor. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s previous sales of PGMs to Saudi Arabia led to other incidents that same year, such as the October 2016 bombing of a funeral home in Sana’a. 155 people died, all of whom were civilians. A MK-82, similar to the model used in the 2018 bus bombing, was used in this bombing. This laser-guided bomb was also manufactured by Lockheed Martin.

As a side note, the Obama administration should not be heaped with praise for simply outlawing the sale of PGMs to Saudi Arabia. They still proceeded to sell Saudi Arabia other weapons that were used to slaughter Yemenis, they refueled Saudi bombers twice per day, and they gave logistical support and intelligence to the Saudis via the Joint Planning Cell.

Those caveats aside, the Obama administration did outlaw the sale of PGMs to Saudi Arabia in March 2016. So, why did the Trump administration overturn the ban on PGM sales to Saudi in 2017? According to The Nation, in 2018 alone, defense contractors made over $5 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In their article, The Nation identified that Saudi Arabia used a GBU-12 Paveway II (which is a PGM), manufactured by yet another top US defense contractor, Raytheon, to blow up a wedding.

That’s now three separate defense contractors, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, that made billions off of selling Saudi Arabia munitions, including hi-tech PGMs, that were used to intentionally target civilian areas.

Hitting targets with PGMs is not like dropping regular munitions. There is rarely ever unintentional targeting of civilian areas. It is not accidental when a school bus, a wedding, or a funeral home is blown up with a PGM. If an ally is intentionally using PGMs to repeatedly target civilian areas, then selling those weapons to the buyer makes the seller culpable in the war crimes. Here is how the lobbyists overturned the March 2016 ban on PGMs.

Lobbying firms like the McKeon Group, headed by lobbyist Buck McKeon (who was the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in the US Congress), represent both US defense contractors and countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are ruthlessly bombing Yemen with US made weapons. Through lobbying firms like the McKeon Group and American Defense International, defense contractors such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin spent millions to effectively lobby Congress members. Lobbying efforts focus on key members of committees, such as the aforementioned Armed Services Committee. This incentivizes Congress to approve legislation to sell arms to countries like Saudi Arabia and block any legislation that challenges the unethical arms sales.

The Nation reported on the findings of the Lobbying Disclosure Act website. They found that in the year of 2018, “Boeing spent $15 million on lobbyists, Lockheed Martin $13.2 million, General Dynamics $11.9 million, and Raytheon $4.4 million.” To understand the revolving door between Congress members and defense contractors look no further than the aforementioned Buck McKeon. According to Open Secrets, during his time in Congress, McKeon received campaign contributions of $192,900 from Lockheed Martin, $190,200 from Northrop Grumman, $103,050 from General Dynamics, and $94,400 from Boeing.

They were his top contributors throughout his time in Congress. Defense contractors bribed the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee to make sure that no one blocked unethical arms deals to fundamentalist theocracies, like Saudi Arabia, that are carrying out mass slaughters overseas. McKeon currently represents both Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics through his lobbying firm.

While working for General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, the McKeon Group also represented Saudi Arabia. In 2018, McKeon took $920,148 from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to prevent bills that would have blocked arms deals to Saudi Arabia.

In 2018, the McKeon group lobbied the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jim Inhofe, to vote against legislation that would have ended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Weapons contractors work hand in glove with theocratic dictatorships overseas. They use the same lobbying firms to pressure Congress to vote down bills to stop genocides in places like Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East.

American Defense International (ADI) lobbies on behalf of both the UAE and Saudi Arabia. According to The American Conservative, ADI also represents “General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, L3 Technologies, and General Atomics.” ADI was tasked with lobbying swing votes regarding the “Paveway (PGM) sales to the UAE.” One defense contractor, Raytheon, paid ADI $120,000 in 2018 for their lobbying efforts. ADI specifically met with Steve Scalise, the House Majority Whip at the time. ADI lobbied him to vote against H.Con.Res 138, a bill that was drafted to remove the US from the war in Yemen.

Blowing up kids in poor countries is a successful business model. This is a harsh reality that is rarely talked about. This is just one more reason that the US needs to get money out of politics. As long as there is a revolving door between Congress members and lobbying firms, then US foreign policy will continue to reflect the interests of rich shareholders of the weapons companies.

(For a broader understanding of the revolving door between the relationship that Congress and the Department of Defense have with defense contractor lobbyists, I recommend reading chapter 16 of the book The Separation of Business and State. It provides a holistic overview of the problem from Vietnam to Iraq)

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Ben Barbour is an American geopolitical analyst.

Coronavirus and the Prison Industrial Complex

March 25th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The legacy of the coronavirus pandemic, at least in so far as responses are concerned, is thickening by the day.  Behavioural changes are being urged, language is rapidly evolving (spot the “covidiot” amongst you) and the policy of health surveillance is being pushed.  Another field where the virus has triggered interest is the very idea of incarceration.  Prison may be a school for crime, but it is also the concentrated incubator for disease and infection.  

Social distancing, one of those oxymoronic terms uttered with little care to what it suggests, would tend to be a misnomer when it comes to controlling detained populations.  It has sparked calls for releases and pardons across the globe.

In beleaguered Iran, where COVID-19 is exacting an ever increasing toll, tens of thousands have been released as a result.  Latest figures suggest that 85,000 have been temporarily released; 10,000 more are due to receive pardons.  Judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili stated that,

“Those who will be pardoned will not return to jail … almost half of those security-related prisoners will be pardoned as well.”

One of Britain’s more prominent prison officials, Andrea Albutt, has been warning about the threat posed by COVID-19 for weeks.  On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the president of the Prison Governors Association was not optimistic.  Prison populations “don’t completely mirror society with our demographic of prisoners so we do have a higher number of people in the vulnerable groups, so they will be ill and there will be deaths.”  With 85,000 people in Britain’s prisons, overcrowding was endemic, making transmission easy. “Coupled with that, we have a significant ageing population – the vulnerable groups, the people the Government keeps telling us will be more susceptible and more ill with this virus.”

While the temptation to release prisoners has yet to be succumbed to (the UK government’s advice remains a feeble one: “protective isolation” for inmates showing symptoms), the warnings of not doing so are loud.  This is more so after cases of coronavirus were detected at Strangeways in Manchester and HMP High Down, Surrey.  Over the weekend, former justice secretary David Gauke insisted on the suspension of short sentences and early release.  “The advantage of not sending people inside for short sentences is that it reduces the churn.”  Reducing the movement of people in and out of the system would reduce the risk of spread. 

Eric Allison, who spend some 16 years in prison for theft offences, furnishes a view from The Guardian.  The penal system in England and Wales, he proposes, is grim on the health front, packed with “horror stories of medical neglect”.  Prisoners dying in hospital, still in chains, ignored by medical staff, is a not infrequent occurrence.  With coronavirus, another killing agent awaits.  “The local jails,” he warns, “may well transform into charnel houses if nothing is done to release those who represent at worst a nuisance, rather than a danger to society.”

Australia has also become a site for discussions on early release.  “Release prisoners or see deaths,” tweeted sombre legal advocate Greg Barnes.  “If it happens it will be industrial manslaughter.”  The state government of New South Wales has shown a willingness to come to the party.  On Tuesday, legislation was speedily passed giving the Corrective Services Commissioner Peter Severin powers to permit the early release of prisoners on parole and pass measures to assist in “social distancing”.  This would require Severin to be satisfied that COVID-19 posed a sufficient risk to public health or the good order and security of prisons. 

Such “extraordinary measures,” explained NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman, “are only to be used to respond to the threat of COVID-19, and would allow the Commissioner … to prioritise vulnerable offenders and others who pose a low risk to the community for consideration for conditional release.”

In the United States, which boasts, with dubious distinction, the largest prison population on the planet, states are taking their own measures to initiate releases.  “Jails can be incubators for disease so we need to take bold and drastic steps,” stated New Jersey’s Attorney General Gurbir Singh Grewal.  To avert a coronavirus crisis within the prison system, the pained former prosecutor insisted on something against his pro-incarceration nature.  On Sunday night, the Chief Justice of the state’s Supreme Court, Stuart Rabner, signed an order to suspend or commute sentences served by inmates for probation violations and municipal court convictions.  The measure is set to free up to 1,000 inmates, though they would still be subject to stay-at-home orders.

Across the country, albeit in piecemeal fashion, releases and reductions are taking place.  New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has promised the release of 40 inmates from Rikers Island jail, with another 23 to follow.  The situation there is particular dire, with 35 confirmed COVID-19 cases and an absence of hand sanitiser and bleach.  Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villaneuva has also mucked in with the release of inmates with less than 30 days left on their sentences. 

A bar to any significant releases lies in the fact that court orders are generally required for state and federal prisoners, though President Donald Trump is considering an executive order that may permit the release of “totally nonviolent prisoners”.

The risk posed by COVID-19 is not helped by the deplorable state of sanitation many face in empire’s prison land.  As Maria Morris, staff attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project describes it,

They are also living in filthy conditions and often without adequate access to soap, other hygiene products, other cleaning supplies, and that exacerbates the likelihood of the spread of a contagious illness.”

Shane Fausey, President of the American Federation of Government Employees Council of Prison Local 33, has had an eye on both the policed and the policing agents in prison, issuing a plea in a phone interview to Attorney General William Barr to intervene. 

“I am imploring the attorney general of the United States to stop all inmate movement, shelter in place at least for 14 to 21 days, following the guidance of the White House press briefings.” 

Not exactly a heartening measure, given that such briefings on the matter have been sketchy, at best.

As the United States takes to the stage as a confused combatant against a pandemic that continues its march, its institutional foundations are being challenged.  A way of holding them is to consider penal conditions and their reform.  The same might well be said of other countries who take pride in the prison industrial complex.  Whether a vaccine is found or otherwise, the urgency of dealing with the spread is immediate and commanding.  The narrow mind, traditional in penal matters, risks winning out.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”― Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

You can always count on the government to take advantage of a crisis, legitimate or manufactured.

This coronavirus pandemic is no exception.

Not only are the federal and state governments unraveling the constitutional fabric of the nation with lockdown mandates that are sending the economy into a tailspin and wreaking havoc with our liberties, but they are also rendering the citizenry fully dependent on the government for financial handouts, medical intervention, protection and sustenance.

Unless we find some way to rein in the government’s power grabs, the fall-out will be epic.

Everything I have warned about for years—government overreach, invasive surveillance, martial law, abuse of powers, militarized police, weaponized technology used to track and control the citizenry, and so on—has coalesced into this present moment.

The government’s shameless exploitation of past national emergencies for its own nefarious purposes pales in comparison to what is presently unfolding.

It’s downright Machiavellian.

Deploying the same strategy it used with 9/11 to acquire greater powers under the USA Patriot Act, the police state—a.k.a. the shadow government, a.k.a. the Deep State—has been anticipating this moment for years, quietly assembling a wish list of lockdown powers that could be trotted out and approved at a moment’s notice.

It should surprise no one, then, that the Trump Administration has asked Congress to allow it to suspend parts of the Constitution whenever it deems it necessary during this coronavirus pandemic and “other” emergencies.

It’s that “other” emergencies part that should particularly give you pause, if not spur you to immediate action (by action, I mean a loud and vocal, apolitical, nonpartisan outcry and sustained, apolitical, nonpartisan resistance).

In fact, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been quietly trotting out and testing a long laundry list of terrifying powers that override the Constitution.

We’re talking about lockdown powers (at both the federal and state level): the ability to suspend the Constitution, indefinitely detain American citizens, bypass the courts, quarantine whole communities or segments of the population, override the First Amendment by outlawing religious gatherings and assemblies of more than a few people, shut down entire industries and manipulate the economy, muzzle dissidents, “stop and seize any plane, train or automobile to stymie the spread of contagious disease,” reshape financial markets, create a digital currency (and thus further restrict the use of cash), determine who should live or die…

You’re getting the picture now, right?

These are powers the police state would desperately like to make permanent.

Specifically, the DOJ wants to be able to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. The DOJ also wants to be able to pause court proceedings and suspend the statute of limitations on criminal and civil cases.

Both signify a clear violation of every right espoused in the Constitution, including habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus, a fundamental tenet of English common law that guards against arbitrary and lawless state action, does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights. Its importance was such that it was enshrined in the Constitution itself. And it is of such magnitude that all other rights, including those in the Bill of Rights, are dependent upon it. Without habeas corpus, the significance of all other rights crumbles.

The right of habeas corpus was important to the Framers of the Constitution because they knew from personal experience what it was like to be labeled enemy combatants, imprisoned indefinitely and not given the opportunity to appear before a neutral judge. Believing that such arbitrary imprisonment is “in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instrument of tyranny,” the Founders were all the more determined to protect Americans from such government abuses.

Translated as “you should have the body,” habeas corpus is a legal action, or writ, by which those imprisoned unlawfully can seek relief from their imprisonment. Derived from English common law, habeas corpus first appeared in the Magna Carta of 1215 and is the oldest human right in the history of English-speaking civilization. The doctrine of habeas corpus stems from the requirement that a government must either charge a person or let him go free.

While serving as President, Thomas Jefferson addressed the essential necessity of habeas corpus. In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, Jefferson said, “I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough.” But, said Jefferson, our nation was “the world’s best hope” and, because of our strong commitment to democracy, “the strongest government on earth.” Jefferson said that the sum of this basic belief was found in the “freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.”

Throughout the twentieth century, the importance of the right of habeas corpus has repeatedly been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet 200-plus years after America’s founders risked their lives to secure their freedoms, we find ourselves right back where we started, with a government determined to strip us of every vestige of our freedoms.

The DOJ’s latest request to Congress is merely a signal that the police state is ready to step out of the shadows, with the current national emergency being a convenient cover for their dastardly deeds.

Bear in mind, however, that these powers the Trump Administration, acting on orders from the police state, are officially asking Congress to recognize and authorize barely scratch the surface of the far-reaching powers the government has already unilaterally claimed for itself.

Unofficially, the police state has been riding roughshod over the rule of law for years now without any pretense of being reined in or restricted in its power grabs by Congress, the courts or the citizenry.

As David C. Unger, observes in The Emergency State: America’s Pursuit of Absolute Security at All Costs:

“For seven decades we have been yielding our most basic liberties to a secretive, unaccountable emergency state – a vast but increasingly misdirected complex of national security institutions, reflexes, and beliefs that so define our present world that we forget that there was ever a different America. … Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have given way to permanent crisis management: to policing the planet and fighting preventative wars of ideological containment, usually on terrain chosen by, and favorable to, our enemies. Limited government and constitutional accountability have been shouldered aside by the kind of imperial presidency our constitutional system was explicitly designed to prevent.”

This rise of an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security is all happening according to schedule.

The civil unrest, the national emergencies, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters,” the government’s reliance on the armed forces to solve domestic political and social problems, the implicit declaration of martial law packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security: the powers-that-be have been planning and preparing for such a crisis for years now, not just with active shooter drills and lockdowns and checkpoints and heightened danger alerts, but with a sensory overload of militarized, battlefield images—in video games, in movies, on the news—that acclimate us to life in a police state.

Whether or not this particular crisis is of the government’s own making is not the point: to those for whom power and profit are everything, the end always justifies the means.

The seeds of this present madness were sown several decades ago when George W. Bush stealthily issued two presidential directives that granted the president the power to unilaterally declare a national emergency, which is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.

Comprising the country’s Continuity of Government (COG) plan, these directives (National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20), which do not need congressional approval, provide a skeletal outline of the actions the president will take in the event of a “national emergency.”

Mind you, that national emergency can take any form, can be manipulated for any purpose and can be used to justify any end goal—all on the say so of the president.

Just what sort of actions the president will take once he declares a national emergency can barely be discerned from the barebones directives. However, one thing is clear: in the event of a national emergency, the president will become a dictator because while the COG directives ensure the continuity of executive branch functions, they do not provide for repopulating or reconvening Congress or the Supreme Court.

Thus, a debilitating attack would give unchecked executive, legislative and judicial power to the executive branch and its unelected minions. The country would then be subjected to martial law by default, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be suspended.

Originally devised as a plan for quickly restoring constitutional government, the COG concept arose during the Cold War. The fear was that a nuclear strike would paralyze the federal government.

These concerns continued into the 1980s.

Under President Ronald Reagan, an elaborate plan was created in which three teams consisting of a cabinet member, an executive chief of staff and military and intelligence officials would practice evacuating and directing a counter nuclear strike against the Soviet Union from a variety of high-tech, mobile command vehicles. If the president and vice president were both killed, one of these teams would take control, with the ranking cabinet official serving as president.

Among those Reagan handpicked to advise an inexperienced and potentially incompetent successor in a time of crisis were Congressman Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, then a business executive with G. D. Searle & Co. At least once a year during the 1980s, Cheney and Rumsfeld vanished on top-secret training missions, where each of the teams practiced evacuating and directing a counter nuclear strike against Russia.

This all changed after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when it became clear that the assumptions that drove COG planning during the Cold War no longer applied: there would be no warning against a so-called “terrorist” attack. Thus, instead of relying on part-time bureaucrats and evacuation schematics, the Bush administration permanently appointed executive officials, stationed outside the capital, to run a shadow government.

The U.S. military has reportedly already been given standby orders under COG for this present coronavirus pandemic.

The plans for the shadow government administered by those who run the Deep State are more elaborate than many realize. Massive underground bunkers the size of small cities are sprinkled throughout the country for the government elite to escape to in the event of a national emergency. Mount Weather, near Bluemont, Va., is one of a number of such facilities. Built into the side of a mountain, this bunker contains, among other things, a hospital, crematorium, dining and recreation areas, sleeping quarters, reservoirs of drinking and cooling water, an emergency power plant and a radio/television studio.

There is also an Office of the Presidency at Mount Weather, which regularly receives top-secret national security information from all the federal departments and agencies. This facility was largely unknown to everyone, including Congress, until it came to light in the mid-1970s. Military personnel connected to the bunker have refused to reveal any information about it, even before congressional committees. In fact, Congress has no oversight, budgetary or otherwise, on Mount Weather, and the specifics of the facility remain top-secret.

What is the bottom line here?

We are, for all intents and purposes, one crisis away from having a full-fledged authoritarian state emerge from the shadows, at which time democratic government will be dissolved and the country will be ruled by an unelected bureaucracy.

This is exactly the kind of mischief that Thomas Jefferson warned against when he cautioned, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Power corrupts.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Thus far, we have at least pretended that the government abides by the Constitution.

Those who wrote our Constitution sought to ensure our freedoms by creating a document that protects our God-given rights at all times, even when we are engaged in war, whether that is a so-called war on terrorism, a so-called war on drugs, a so-called war on illegal immigration, or a so-called war on disease.

The attempts by each successive presidential administration to rule by fiat merely plays into the hands of those who would distort the government’s system of checks and balances and its constitutional separation of powers beyond all recognition.

Remember, these powers do not expire at the end of a president’s term. They remain on the books, just waiting to be used or abused by the next political demagogue.

So, too, every action taken by Trump and his predecessors to weaken the system of checks and balances, sidestep the rule of law, and expand the power of the executive branch of government has made us that much more vulnerable to those who would abuse those powers in the future.

Although the Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers, in recent years, American presidents (Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) have claimed the power to completely and almost unilaterally alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill.

The Trump Administration’s willingness to circumvent the Constitution by leaning heavily on the president’s so-called emergency powers constitutes a gross perversion of what limited power the Constitution affords the executive branch.

The powers amassed by each successive president through the negligence of Congress and the courts—powers which add up to a toolbox of terror for an imperial ruler—empower whomever occupies the Oval Office to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond any real accountability.

As law professor William P. Marshall explains, “every extraordinary use of power by one President expands the availability of executive branch power for use by future Presidents.” Moreover, it doesn’t even matter whether other presidents have chosen not to take advantage of any particular power, because “it is a President’s action in using power, rather than forsaking its use, that has the precedential significance.”

In other words, each successive president continues to add to his office’s list of extraordinary orders and directives, expanding the reach and power of the presidency and granting him- or herself near dictatorial powers.

This abuse of presidential powers has been going on for so long that it has become the norm, the Constitution be damned.

We no longer have a system of checks and balances.

“The system of checks and balances that the Framers envisioned now lacks effective checks and is no longer in balance,” concludes Marshall. “The implications of this are serious. The Framers designed a system of separation of powers to combat government excess and abuse and to curb incompetence. They also believed that, in the absence of an effective separation-of-powers structure, such ills would inevitably follow. Unfortunately, however, power once taken is not easily surrendered.”

All of the imperial powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush and now Trump—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects (including American citizens) indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to wage wars without congressional authorization, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to establish a standing army on American soil, to operate a shadow government, to declare national emergencies for any manipulated reason, and to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—have become a permanent part of the president’s toolbox of terror.

These presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.

Think on this: the presidential election is right around the corner.

Suddenly, the improbable possibility of any incumbent president attempting to extend the police state’s stranglehold on power by using current events to justify postponing or doing away with an election—forfeiting the people’s rights to govern altogether—and establishing a totalitarian regime seems less far-fetched than it did even a few years ago.

The emergency state is now out in the open for all to see. Unfortunately, “we the people” refuse to see what’s before us. Most Americans, fearful and easily controlled, would sooner rouse themselves to fight for that last roll of toilet paper than they would their own freedoms.

This is how freedom dies.

We erect our own prison walls, and as our rights dwindle away, we forge our own chains of servitude to the police state.

Be warned, however: once you surrender your freedoms to the government—no matter how compelling the reason might be for doing so—you can never get them back.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, no government willingly relinquishes power.

If we continue down this road, there can be no surprise about what awaits us at the end.

The America metamorphosing before our eyes is almost unrecognizable from the country I grew up in, and that’s not just tragic—it’s downright terrifying.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Some book covers are better than others, and that of Yves Engler’s House of Mirrors is beautifully expressive of the contents of his latest work.  It shows a very friendly faced and happy smiling Justin Trudeau in an iconic pose that says it all:  America first.

This is Engler’s eleventh book exposing the down side of Canadian politics.  It covers two main themes, the obvious first one is that of Canada’s involvement in the U.S. imperial-hegemonic demands around the world.  The second, more domestic, is that the Liberal’s and Conservatives, Canada’s two main parties, are essentially the same thing when it comes to foreign policy.  Whereas the Conservatives are much more aggressive with their terminology while the Trudeau Liberals couch their words in fancier more humanistic sounding language, the end results are the same: following the U.S. corporate-industrial-military complex and in certain cases being ahead of that curve.

With that as its underlying theme, Engler covers many topics concerning the Trudeau Liberals.  The first long section deals with “The Canadian Monroe Policy” discussing how Canada fits into U.S. initiatives throughout Latin America with the overthrow, attempted overthrows, and manipulations of various organizations (OAS) in order to control the western hemisphere.  While paralleling U.S. interests, in terms of Venezuela, Canada, under Chrystia Freeland’ tutelage, has taken a leading interest with its support of the Lima group (all sycophantic governments to U.S. corporate interests) against Venezuela.

A long essay on the Middle East, “Loving Monarchies, Hating Palestinians” discusses how Canada relates to the Arab countries, Israel, and the Palestinians.  An earlier chapter, “The Sun Never Sets on the Canadian Military”, ties in with this chapter in exploring the numerous military sales and security contacts with Middle Eastern countries.  Large orders of military materials are sent to the likes of Saudi Arabia in support of its war on Yemen.  Much information and technological information for security is exchanged between Canada and Israel (fun fact: Canada developed apartheid long before South Africa and Israel).  The official position for Palestine is the still born two state peace process while the actual position is more one of asking why the Palestinians do not acquiesce to Israeli demands.

Many other important topics are presented:  around the world from China and North Korea through to Freeland’s favorite bogeyman, Russia, and on into Africa (military and mining interests);  around the world from its domestic carbon dioxide/environmental policies; another hit on Canada’s mining interests in particular with South America; and the language of “Judge What I Say, Not What I Do”.

It is interesting how often Chrystia Freeland’s name rises in connection with Trudeau’s foreign policy.  She is foremost in using the platitude about “international order based on rules” and the “rule of laws”. Whatever the foreign policy, as Foreign Affairs Minister and now as Deputy Prime Minister (a conveniently invented position), she carries considerable sway concerning Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Syria and other global hotspots (coronavirus notwithstanding).  She inverts the colonial role, making Canada a victim rather than a colonizer and exploiter, “Canada has never been an imperialist power…we’ve been the colony.”

In his conclusion, Engler reprises comments about Canadian banks, the mining  industry, Russia, Israel, Iran, the military, and business in general.  He summarizes, “corporate Canada is highly international” with “segments…tied to extreme capitalism.”  Extreme capitalism being capitalism dominated by and supported by the military-industrial complex with assistance from the financial community and the mainstream media.

As with all of Yves Engler’s books, House of Mirrors is tightly written, with little philosophizing, allowing the information to speak for itself, information that is highly notated and well referenced.  The smiling man on the cover, Justin Trudeau, is essentially another true believer in an oligarchic world order (along with Ms Freeland) supported by an international array of corporate and military liaisons.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Venezuela’s Coronavirus Response Might Surprise You

March 25th, 2020 by Leonardo Flores

Within a few hours of being launched, over 800 Venezuelans in the U.S. registered for an emergency flight from Miami to Caracas through a website run by the Venezuelan government. This flight, offered at no cost, was proposed by President Nicolás Maduro when he learned that 200 Venezuelans were stuck in the United States following his government’s decision to stop commercial flights as a preventative coronavirus measure. The promise of one flight expanded to two or more flights, as it became clear that many Venezuelans in the U.S. wanted to go back to Venezuela, yet the situation remains unresolved due to the U.S. ban on flights to and from the country.

Those who rely solely on the mainstream media might wonder who in their right mind would want to leave the United States for Venezuela. Time, The Washington Post, The Hill and the Miami Herald, among others, published opinions in the past week describing Venezuela as a chaotic nightmare. These media outlets painted a picture of a coronavirus disaster, of government incompetence and of a nation teetering on the brink of collapse. The reality of Venezuela’s coronavirus response is not covered by the mainstream media at all.

Furthermore, what each of these articles shortchanges is the damage caused by the Trump administration’s sanctions, which devastated the economy and healthcare system long before the coronavirus pandemic. These sanctions have impoverished millions of Venezuelans and negatively impact vital infrastructure, such as electricity generation. Venezuela is impeded from importing spare parts for its power plants and the resulting blackouts interrupt water services that rely on electric pumps. These, along with dozens of other implications from the hybrid war on Venezuela, have caused a decline in health indicators across the board, leading to 100,000 deaths as a consequence of the sanctions.

Regarding coronavirus specifically, the sanctions raise the costs of testing kits and medical supplies, and ban Venezuela’s government from purchasing medical equipment from the U.S. (and from many European countries). These obstacles would seemingly place Venezuela on the path to a worst-case scenario, similar to Iran (also battered by sanctions) or Italy (battered by austerity and neoliberalism). In contrast to those two countries, Venezuela took decisive steps early on to face the pandemic.

As a result of these steps and other factors, Venezuela is currently in its best-case scenario. As of this writing, 11 days after the first confirmed case of coronavirus, the country has 86 infected people, with 0 deaths. Its neighbors have not fared as well: Brazil has 1,924 cases with 34 deaths; Ecuador 981 and 18; Chile 746 and 2; Peru 395 and 5; Mexico 367 and 4; Colombia 306 and 3. (With the exception of Mexico, those governments have all actively participated and contributed to the U.S.-led regime change efforts in Venezuela.) Why is Venezuela doing so much better than others in the region?

Skeptics will claim that the Maduro government is hiding figures and deaths, that there’s not enough testing, not enough medicine, not enough talent to adequately deal with a pandemic. But here are the facts:

First, international solidarity has played a priceless role in enabling the government to rise to the challenge. China sent coronavirus diagnostic kits that will allow 320,000 Venezuelans to be tested, in addition to a team of experts and tons of supplies. Cuba sent 130 doctors and 10,000 doses of interferon alfa-2b, a drug with an established record of helping COVID-19 patients recover. Russia has sent the first of several shipments of medical equipment and kits. These three countries, routinely characterized by the U.S. foreign policy establishment as evil, offer solidarity and material support. The United States offers more sanctions and the IMF, widely known to be under U.S. control, denied a Venezuelan request for $5 billion in emergency funding that even the European Union supports.

Second, the government quickly carried out a plan to contain the spread of the disease. On March 12, a day before the first confirmed cases, President Maduro decreed a health emergency, prohibited crowds from gathering, and cancelled flights from Europe and Colombia. On March 13, Day 1, two Venezuelans tested positive; the government cancelled classes, began requiring facemasks on subways and on the border, closed theaters, bars and nightclubs, and limited restaurants to take-out or delivery. It bears repeating that this was on Day 1 of having a confirmed case; many U.S. states have yet to take these steps. By Day 4, a national quarantine was put into effect (equivalent to shelter-in-place orders) and an online portal called the Homeland System (Sistema Patria) was repurposed to survey potential COVID-19 cases. By Day 8, 42 people were infected and approximately 90% of the population was heeding the quarantine. By Day 11, over 12.2 million people had filled out the survey, over 20,000 people who reported being sick were visited in their homes by medical professionals and 145 people were referred for coronavirus testing. The government estimates that without these measures, Venezuela would have 3,000 infected people and a high number of deaths.

Third, the Venezuelan people were positioned to handle a crisis. Over the past 7 years, Venezuela has lived through the death of wildly popular leader, violent right-wing protests, an economic war characterized by shortages and hyperinflation, sanctions that have destroyed the economy, an ongoing coup, attempted military insurrections, attacks on public utilities, blackouts, mass migration and threats of U.S. military action. The coronavirus is a different sort of challenge, but previous crises have instilled a resiliency among the Venezuelan people and strengthened solidarity within communities. There is no panic on the streets; instead, people are calm and are following health protocols.

Fourth, mass organizing and prioritizing people above all else. Communes and organized communities have taken the lead, producing facemasks, keeping the CLAP food supply system running (this monthly food package reaches 7 million families), facilitating house-by-house visits of doctors and encouraging the use of facemasks in public. Over 12,000 medical school students in their last or second-to-last year of study applied to be trained for house visits. For its part, the Maduro administration suspended rent payments, instituted a nationwide firing freeze, gave bonuses to workers, prohibited telecoms from cutting off people’s phones or internet, reached an agreement with hotel chains to provide 4,000 beds in case the crisis escalates, and pledged to pay the salaries of employees of small and medium businesses. Amid a public health crisis – compounded by an economic crisis and sanctions – Venezuela’s response has been to guarantee food, provide free healthcare and widespread testing, and alleviate further economic pressure on the working class.

The U.S. government has not responded to the Maduro administration’s request to make an exception for Conviasa Airlines, the national airline under sanctions, to fly the Venezuelans stranded in the United States back to Caracas. Given everything happening in the United States, where COVID-19 treatment can cost nearly $35,000 and the government is weighing the option of prioritizing the economy over the lives of people, perhaps these Venezuelans waiting to go home understand that their chances of surviving the coronavirus – both physically and economically – are much better in a country that values health over profits.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Leonardo Flores is Latin American policy expert and campaigner with CODEPINK.

Featured image: Venezuelan doctors conducting a COVID-19 house visit. Photo courtesy of @OrlenysOV