Who is Pope Francis I? Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina’s “Dirty War”

Who is Pope Francis? Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina's "Dirty War" 

Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio? 

In 1973, he had been appointed “Provincial” of Argentina for the Society of Jesus.
In this capacity, Bergoglio was the highest ranking Jesuit in Argentina during the military dictatorship led by General Jorge Videla (1976-1983).

He later became bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires. Pope John Paul II elevated him to the title of cardinal in 2001.

When the military junta relinquished power in 1983, the duly elected president Raúl Alfonsín set up a Truth Commission pertaining to the crimes underlying the “Dirty War” (La Guerra Sucia).
The military junta had been supported covertly by Washington.

US. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a behind the scenes role in the 1976 military coup.

Kissinger’s top deputy on Latin America, William Rogers, told him two days after the coup that “we’ve got to expect a fair amount of repression, probably a good deal of blood, in Argentina before too long.” … (National Security Archive, March 23, 2006)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio not only supported the US sponsored dictatorship, he also played a direct and complicit role in the “Dirty War” (la guerra sucia”) in liaison with the military Junta headed by General Jorge Videla, leading to the arrest, imprisonment, torture and disappearance of progressive Catholic priests and laymen who were opposed to Argentina’s military rule.

“While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976 were released five months later. after having been tortured, six other people associated with their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos).”

In 2005, human rights lawyer Myriam Bregman filed a criminal suit against Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the military junta in the 1976 kidnapping of two Jesuit priests.

Several years later, the survivors of the “Dirty War” openly accused Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of complicity in the kidnapping of  priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio as well six members of their parish,  (El Mundo, 8 November 2010)

Bergoglio, who at the time was “Provincial” for the Society of Jesus, had ordered the two “Leftist” Jesuit priests and opponents of military rule  “to leave their pastoral work” (i.e. they were fired) following divisions within the Society of Jesus regarding the role of the Catholic Church and its relations to the military Junta.

While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976 were released five months later. after having been tortured, six other people associated with their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos). These included four teachers associated with the parish and two of their husbands.

Upon his release, Priest Orlando Yorio “accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over [including six other people] to the death squads … Jalics refused to discuss the complaint after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.” (Associated Press, March 13, 2013, emphasis added),

“During the first trial of leaders of the military junta in 1985, Yorio declared, “I am sure that he himself gave over the list with our names to the Navy.” The two were taken to the notorious Navy School of Mechanics (ESMA) torture center and held for over five months before being drugged and dumped in a town outside the city. (See Bill van Auken, “The Dirty War” Pope, World Socialist Website and Global Research, March 14, 2013) 

See http://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-pope-who-is-francis-i-cardinal-jorge-mario-bergoglio-and-argentinas-dirty-war/5326675

Russia and Putin, the Nonexistent Threat. Who is the Aggressor; the US or Russia?

Russia and Putin, the Nonexistent Threat. Who is the Aggressor; the US or Russia?

"Russia is fast becoming our latest bogyman with neocons, war hawks, and a complicit corporate media, all beating the preliminary war drums, rapidly convincing a duped public that the Russian threat is real.  The record shows the Russian threat is nonsense, but the record also shows there is a threat, not from Russia, but from the US.

...

The US orchestrated a coup of a democratically elected leader of the Ukraine and installed a US puppet, but blamed the next door neighbor Russia for the troubles in the Ukraine. We also inflamed the US public by accusing Russia of expanding by taking the Crimea by force, even though 99% of Crimeans wanted to belong to Russia, and this was achieved not by invasion, and not one single death in the Crimea.  Corporate media convinced the US public that Russia had invaded militarily, and taken over the Crimea.  Not so; there was no invasion and not one person died in a popular turn to Russia by the people of Crimea.

... 

So who is the aggressor nation? How many nations has Russia bombed in the past 25 years?  How many nations has the US bombed in the past 25 years? Russia has 2 military bases outside its borders, while the US has over 700. So which nation is the most aggressive? The US has killed approximately 4-5 million people since 1963. How many innocents has Russia killed during that time? The annual US military budget is 10 times higher than Russia’s, so who is the aggressor nation? There are US Special Forces operating in 81 foreign nations. Special Forces budget has increased fivefold since 2001 and their numbers have doubled.  So who is the aggressor nation? The US is planning to deploy nuclear weapons to Germany, and since 1776 the US has been at war for 93% of its history. The US with its bombings of 14 nations in the Middle East, has unleashed one of the biggest refugee crises in human history as people flee from US bombs and destruction.  So who is the aggressor; the US or Russia? Pay no attention to corporate media, get your own facts.

Joe Clifford lives in Rhode Island and writes for two online sites and regularly submits articles to Rhode Island newspapers. He writes mostly about US foreign policy but occasionally will venture into other venues."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-and-putin-the-nonexistent-threat-who-is-the-aggressor-the-us-or-russia/5478617

The harrowing truth of the 'forgotten' children caught in Putin's war with Ukraine?

The harrowing truth of the 'forgotten' children caught in Putin's war with Ukraine?
  
You can read and trust the Daily Mail, or you can learn and accept the truth.

So you want to know the truth? Can you handle it?
  
Here's an inconvenient truth from a Ukrainian-Russian-American lawyer and former police officer who spent May and June of 2014 in Lugansk, East Ukraine with his family:

1. The vast majority of he people of East Ukraine's Donetsk Coal Basin (Donbass), have a strong ethnic, linguistic and religious connection with Russia. 

Donbass became a part of Ukraine in 1922 only because Lenin and his Bolsheviks needed additional regions in Ukraine in ordere to have enough votes for Ukraine to "voluntarily" join the Soviet Union. 
    
The people of Donbass  have never supported radical West Ukrainian nationalists, such as the Svoboda party, who despise Russians and who consider Ukrainian Nazi war criminals and collaborators, like Stepan Bandera, Ukrainian heroes and patriots.

Donbass' residents have been told by their grandparents of the atrocities committed by radical Ukrainian nationalist Nazi collaborators during WW II not just in Western and Central Ukraine, but also in Eastern Ukraine where Ukrainian Nazi collaborators where brought in by the Nazis as local police ("polizei" in German) to maintain order and help neutralize anti-Nazi insurgents.
  
The Donbass region has very strong economic connections with Russia, including a substantial share of industrial goods being exported to Russia.

2. The people of Donbass were appalled by the violence unleashed by Ukrainian radicals during the Euromaidan protests at mostly unarmed Ukrainian police who were simply defending government buildings.

If these US-supported violent Ukrainian nationalist radicals were not afraid to attack Ukrainian police officers with chains, metal spikes, Molotov Cocktails, bleach, acid, pistols and rifles, then what would these people do to ordinary pro-Russian Donbass residents when they came to power?

The answer came soon enough: 

Around February 22, 2014 the time that Ukrainian President Yanukovich, a resident and supporter of Donbass, was being illegally ousted from office,  busloads of Yanukovich supporters (Anti-EuroMaydan activists) returning to Crimea were stopped and ambushed by Ukrainian nationalists. many passengers were beaten, tortured and killed while local police stood by, watched and even participated.

When Crimeans held their referendum in March of 2014 (under the protection of Russian troops) and overwhelmingly voted to return to Russia (Crimea was "administratively transferred" from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by Soviet Union's leader Nikita Khruschyev), many residents of Donbass preferred to be in Putin's Russia that in Ukraine ruled by pro-US/NATO Ukrainian Nationalists.
   
In the beginning of April 2014, Anti-EuroMaydan and pro-Russian supporters seized government buildings and authority in Donetsk and Lugansk regions. 
  
In April of 2014 government authority was seized in Slavyansk, a 100K+ city in Donetsk region, by pro-Russian activists with the military support of Russian "volunteers" including former Russian FSB officer Igor Girkin (Strelkov). 

Instead of negotiating, the new interim Yatsenyuk-Turchinov Ukrainian government sent in the Ukrainian Army, newly created National Guard and volunteer battalions staffed with Ukrainian Nationalists, who began a scorched earth siege of the city with disregard for civilian casualties.  
  
The residents of Donbass watched in horror and began to create armed self-defense units.

On May 2, 2014 dozens of Anti-EuroMaydan activists were burned alive, beaten, choked and shot to death in Odessa's House of Unions by radical Ukrainian Nationalists -- while the local police stood by and did nothing.

With all this mind, on May 11, 2014 the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk voted overwhelmingly for "governmental autonomy" from the new Yatsenyuk-Turchinov government in Kyiv, a government that the residents of Donbass considered illegitimate and dominated by Ukrainian nationalists who, if necessary, would turn any town that refused to recognize their authority, into a Slavyansk or Odessa.

Unlike what we read in Western government and Corporate Establishment Media, the referendum was democratic, had a > 80% voter turn out and those who voted against governmental autonomy (no more than 10% of voters) did so openly and without fear of retribution. These are my honest personal observations.

Many residents of Donbass mistakenly thought that Russian would offer them voluntary annexation like Crimea or would bring in Russian peace-keeping troops to protect them like the Trans-Dniester Region of Moldavia. When neither of these things happened, the local population in Donbass became afraid of what would come next.

When President Poroshenko was voted into office on May 25, 2014, instead of trying to negotiate a peaceful political settlement, he escalated the anti-autonomy/federalist/separatist military operation (the so-called "Anti-Terrorist Operation", a/k/a "ATO").

On May 26, 2014 the Donetsk International Airport was heavily damaged by Ukrainian Air Force strikes.  
  
After President Poroshenko's inauguration, many leading political, cultural, public and business leaders of Donbass asked him to hold negotiations withe the political leaders of the Donestk and Lugansk autonomy/federalism movements, but instead he labeled them separatist terrorists and escalated the ATO.

Villages, towns and cities of Lugansk and Donetsk regions were indiscriminately shelled and bombed by the Ukranian Armed Forces (UAF). 

War crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by the UAF when civilian areas were shelled and bombed (even those residential areas where there were no insurgents) without prior warning and without any organized evacuation of local residents.

The ATO used infamous anti-insurgency tactics against the local population -- tactics espoused and perfected not only by dictators and authoritarian regimes throughout the 20th century but also by the U.S. military and intelligence communities -- meant to shell, bomb, starve and scare the local population into submission and abandonment of the insurgents. 
  
The Ukrainian government did not care apparently that the local population included the innocent and vulnerable segments, such as the elderly, women and children.

Why? Because Ukrainian President Poroshenko and his government received approval from their foreign supporters & allies (U.S. first and foremost) for the ATO and assurances that the US/EU political establishment would turn a blind eye on the collateral damage (i.e. war crimes against civilians and crime against humanity) necessary to contain and/or defeat the pro-Russian federalist/autonomy menace that would threaten the new pro-US/EU/NATO Ukrainian government.

The Ukrainian and Western government and corporate media supporting US/EU/NATO policies and objectives in Ukraine also turned a blind eye on the UAF atrocities and engaged in blatant propaganda designed to falsely show the world that instead of the Ukrainian Army fighting local insurgents (who constitute at least 90% of the insurgent forces in Donetsk and Lugansk) and killing local civilians in the process, the Ukrainian people are battling a Russian invasion of East Ukraine.

This Daily Mail article on the consequences of war for East Ukraine's children has the same propaganda spin. 

Instead of putting blame for war crimes and crimes against humanity on the Ukrainian government and armed forces -- the side that, thanks to superior government firepower, undeniably has committed the vast majority of such crimes against the local population -- the Daily Mail, attempts to place blame for such crimes against children on Russia and its President Putin. 

How? For supporting and providing assistance to the DNR/LNR self-proclaimed republics and their populations after they were literally left to fend for themselves by the Ukrainian government without food, water, electricity, natural gas, heat, sewage, medical care, education, transportation, other vital government services and jobs.

If you think that I'm making up the ruthless & criminal approach of the Ukrainian government and President Poroshenko, then take a look at President Poroshenko's own words below .

So who's to blame for the death and suffering of Donbass' children, Daily Mail?  

How about the hundreds of thousands of children of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria?  

Russia and Putin?

I don't think so.

Gregory Krasovsky
   
******************************

"Poroshenko: "Their children will hole up in the basements - this is how we win the war!" 
Published on Nov 14, 2014

Petro Poroshenko announced another cynical approach of the Ukrainian government to the recalcitrant residents of Donbass during his speech in Odessa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHWHqj8g7Bk

Ukraine’s Tragicomedy
Made in the USA
by Justin Raimondo, June 05, 2015 

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/06/04/ukraines-tragicomedy/

"Unlike tranquil Crimea, east Ukraine is in blood-stained turmoil, with the inhabitants refusing to buckle under to rule from Kiev. 

This may have something to do with the merciless pounding they have taken from the Ukrainian military, which has murdered thousands of civilians in aerial bombardments of cities and towns. Kiev’s attitude toward its citizens in the eastern part of the country was succinctly summed up by Poroshenko, who famously declared:

“Our children will go to school, to kindergarten, while theirs’ will hole up in basements. This is how we will win this war!”

His statement has got to be the first time in recorded history that a government leader has boasted about targeting children in wartime."

Brazil Bans Corporate Donations in Elections, Meanwhile U.S. Elections Drown in Corporate Cash

The Free Thought Project

I bet most Americans want to have a government run by the people and for the people.

Yet, a democratic political system funded and, as such, controlled by large corporations and their owners, cannot be a true democracy that represents and protects the interests of the people.

Establishment politicians have been compared to, putting it mildly, escorts, who, once elected by the people, do what their major campaign contributors (and potential future employers, clients & co-investors in their businesses after leaving office) tell them to do -- to vote in a way that specifically benefits these strategic political & campaign supporters. 

Until elected politicians are just as afraid of losing the support of a regular middle-class voter constituency as they are of losing the trust of big business that funds these politicians -- during their election campaigns, while they're in office (by giving money, jobs and business to politicians' relatives and affiliated persons) and after they leave office (via jobs, paid speeches, business investments & etc.) -- the regular American voter will not have politicians who are defending his rights & interests, but instead, will have political prostitutes  who work in the best interests of their political pimps (both Democratic and Republican parties) and clients (big business & major campaign contributors.

America needs to say "NO!" to corporate campaign contributions, regardless if they're funneled through PACs and other legal entities being used to circumvent and manipulate campaign contribution laws.

Individual campaign contributions need to be capped the same way to preserved the "one man man one vote" principle, otherwise wealthy individuals will have a disproportionate effect on elections by funding their candidates the same way as corporations -- though PACs and etc.

Greg Krasovsky

"Taking an approach to the issue of corporate donations in election campaigns almost completely opposite that of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v FEC, the Brazilian Supreme Court has banned corporate donations in elections.

Last week, the court ruled 8 to 3 that campaign donations from corporations were unconstitutional.

The Brazilian ban on corporate donations comes amid an extensive corruption scandal that has reached all the way to the Brazilian presidency, with citizens calling for President Dilma Rousseff to be impeached.

During the Brazilian elections last year, close to 76% of the total $760 million donated to the campaigns for congress and the presidency, came directly from corporate sources, according to The Guardian.

Taking virtually the opposite position of the Brazilian Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, in the case of Citizens United v FEC, ruled to allow virtually unlimited giving to political campaigns by corporations in the United States

While in the U.S. corporations are technically limited in how much they may donate to a candidate or party, the use of 501 (c) 4 organizations, commonly referred to as a “super PAC” allow corporations to give limitlessly."

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/brazil-bans-corporate-donations-elections-u-s-system-drowning-big-business-money/#yOObvkTjq1AysC6y.99

Can the West afford to ignore Russia's offer to resolve the current Ukrainian conflict through the Minsk-2 Agreements?

"West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'."

Why?

Because the goal of the U.S. and its allies was regime change -- getting rid of Bashar al-Assad, who was considered an ally of Iran, another U.S. target for regime change in the Middle East.

The U.S. and its allies did not want to risk a negotiated political settlement that could have resulted in a new Syrian government with supporters of Assad or Iran at the helm -- so the U.S. & Co. funded, trained and equipped Syrian opposition rebels with the expectation that they would topple Assad's government -- Syria's lawful government -- fairly quickly.

What do we have now in 2015? 

A country devastated by war, over 200 thousand killed and ten million plus Syrians abroad seeking refuge in other countries.

Plus we have ISIS and other Islamic fundamentalist (extremist) rebels whose international ranks (now trained, experienced and full of blood-lust) constitute a clear and present danger -- including from terrorism -- worldwide and especially to their countries of origin and previous residence.
  
Was it moral, just or legal for the U.S. to try to oust Syria's president Assad? Had Syria declared war on the United States? 

Had Syria been proven guilty in terrorist attacks on Americans?

Could  the fact that Syria's president opposed U.S. foreign policy and refused to obey Washington's orders ever justify military, political and economic interference in another country's internal affairs?

Can it be argued that America's regime change project in Ukraine, which includes

- U.S. support (political, financial and military) of extreme right nationalist Ukrainian political movements (Svoboda party, UNA-UNSO, Right Sector and etc.),

- the Euromaydan protests, including aggravated assault and murder of Ukrainian police officers lawfully assigned to protect government buildings and officials,

- the unlawful ouster of President Yanukovich in February of 2014,  

- the approval and support (political, financial and military) of the so called "Ant-Terrorist Operation" (ATO) in East Ukraine against political movements and civilian populations who refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new pro-American government and voted for governmental autonomy from it in local referendums in May of 2014, a military and police operation that has devastated East Ukraine and includes the commission of numerous and grievous war crimes and crimes against humanity,
  
could produce the same results in Ukraine, the geographic center of Europe, as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and/or Syria? 

After all, the Poroshenko-Yatsenyuk government does not seem to be interested in resolving this civil conflict (war) through a political compromise by holding direct negotiations with the political leadership of the Donetsk and Lugansk Self-Proclaimed Republics (DNR/LNR).

Instead, the U.S. backed Poroshenko-Yatsenyuk government continues to believe that that DNR/LNR can be subdued eventually with an economic blockade and military action (as long as Russia does not provided direct military assistance to them!).
   
Let's think about it. If Russia is willing to provide direct military assistance to its ally, the Syrian government at a distance of 1200+ KM from Russia's borders (just like the U.S. has provided assistance to its allies across the globe, including Vietnam and etc.), does anyone really think that Russia won't provide direct military assistance to local rebels in DNR/LNR who are fighting a U.S. backed government in Kyiv that presents a clear and present danger (political, economic and military) to Putin's Russia?
  
So can the Ukrainian people and Europeans afford to have the same scenario unfold in East Ukraine and beyond as in the Middle East? After all, Europe is lucky that over a million of Ukrainian refugees have chosen to flee to Russia unlike their middle-eastern counterparts who are now storming European shores and borders while they seek refuge from the flames of war that the U.S. and its European allies have ignited and fed in Syria?
   
Sadly, the Poroshenko-Yastenyuk regime in Ukraine and its supporters in Washington understand that if DNR/LNR are reintegrated into Ukraine with political & economic autonomy and protection from political prosecution, then these regions with a population of over 7 million are likely to topple their governments in the next elections.

Why? Because the resident of DNR/LNR haven't forgotten how the Ukrainian government forces tried to bomb their cities, villages, industry and infrastructure into the stone age and how the Poroshenko-Yastenyuk  government tried to starve them into submission with a complete blockade blockade on the delivery of foodstuffs, medicine, goods, pensions and anything else of material value into their rebellious regions.
  
Once, again, we have a choice in America and Ukraine. We can step on the same rake twice -- by trying to resolve the East Ukrainian conflict with military means and the facing the same consequences as in Syria -- or we can try to resolve it with a negotiated political settlement.

But we must be ready to accept the strong possibility that  such a political settlement includes the risk of having a U.S. supported regime eventually be replaced by an independent Ukrainian government that's likely to select a non-aligned course to maintain the peace and productive economic relations both with the U.S., the EU and Russia.

So what's it gonna be? Another Syria, but in the center of Europe, or a political settlement like in Northern Ireland?
  
*****************

West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside'.

"Exclusive: Senior negotiator describes rejection of alleged proposal – since which time tens of thousands have been killed and millions displaced.
...
Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.
...
Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.
...  
Ahtisaari won the Nobel prize in 2008 “for his efforts on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts”, including in Namibia, Aceh in Indonesia, Kosovo and Iraq. 
... 
Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition. 
... 
On 22 February 2012 he was sent to meet the missions of the permanent five nations (the US, Russia, UK, France and China) at UN headquarters in New York by The Elders, a group of former world leaders advocating peace and human rights that has included Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, and former UN secretary general Kofi Annan.
...
But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.
... 
“It was an opportunity lost in 2012,” Ahtisaari said in an interview. 
...
“Nothing happened because I think all these, and many others, were convinced that Assad would be thrown out of office in a few weeks so there was no need to do anything.”
...
At the time of Ahtisaari’s visit to New York, the death toll from the Syrian conflict was estimated to be about 7,500. The UN believes that toll passed 220,000 at the beginning of this year, and continues to climb. The chaos has led to the rise of Islamic State. Over 11 million Syrians have been forced out of their homes.
...
“We should have prevented this from happening because this is a self-made disaster, this flow of refugees to our countries in Europe,” Ahtisaari said. “I don’t see any other option but to take good care of these poor people … We are paying the bills we have caused ourselves.”"

Read the rest at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

Ukraine Finance Minister’s American ‘Values’

Ukraine Finance Minister’s American ‘Values’

Joke: So what do you get when you adopt an adult mix of Beltway Bandit and Carpetbagger that's used to going to its business through a Revolving Door?

A house that'll have to get used to cleaning up the spills, 'cause you can't teach an old dog new tricks!

Basically, Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko's appointment, given her previous track record, could be bad news for Ukraine's regular folks, taxpayers, senior citizens and future generations -- who'll have to foot the bill -- for foreign loans, large-scale government contracts, fire-sale privatizations -- just like their Greek counterparts.

You're going to tell me that there were no honest, qualified and experienced Ukrainians who could have been nominated for Finance Minister?

So why was Ms. Jaresko, an American citizen, selected to be Ukraine's finance minister?

Her lack of propensity for corruption and back-room deals? Her former husband thought otherwise.

Or was it her loyalty to the U.S. government, her former employer.

It's painful to say, but there's a strong ring of truth to Russian President Putin's allegations that today's Ukraine is literally under foreign management, including its Ministry of Finance, just like colonies used to be.

For those who want to see an independent Ukraine on its way to eradicate government corruption, Ms. Jaresko is not the U.S. export to Ukraine that makes sense.

Unless you like Washington's Revolving Door policies and what they do to governmental independence and transparency in government contracts.

****************

Beltway bandit:
Beltway bandit is a term for private companies located in or near Washington, D.C. whose major business is to provide consulting services to the US government. The phrase was originally a mild insult, implying that the companies preyed like bandits on the largesse of the federal government, but it has lost much of its pejorative nature and is now often used as a neutral, descriptive term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_bandits

Carpetbagger:
In United States history, a carpetbagger was a Northerner who moved to the South after the American Civil War, during the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). White Southerners denounced them fearing they would loot and plunder the defeated South.[1]
...
The term carpetbagger was a pejorative term referring to the carpet bags (a form of cheap luggage at the time) which many of these newcomers carried. The term came to be associated with opportunism and exploitation by outsiders. The term is still used today to refer to an outsider who runs for public office in an area where he or she does not have deep community ties, or has lived only for a short time.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

Revolving Door:
In politics, the "revolving door" is a movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation.[note 1]

In some cases the roles are performed in sequence but in certain circumstances may be performed at the same time. Political analysts claim that an unhealthy relationship can develop between the private sector and government, based on the granting of reciprocated privileges to the detriment of the nation and can lead to regulatory capture.
....
Governments hire industry professionals for their private sector experience, their influence within corporations that the government is attempting to regulate or do business with, and in order to gain political support (donations and endorsements) from private firms.

Industry, in turn, hires people out of government positions to gain personal access to government officials, seek favorable legislation/regulation and government contracts in exchange for high-paying employment offers, and get inside information on what is going on in government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

************************

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/02/18/ukraine-finance-ministers-american-values/

"Special Report: Among the arguments for why Americans should risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine is that the regime that took power in a coup last year “shares our values.” But one of those “values” – personified by Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko – may be the skill of using insider connections, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Ukraine’s new Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, who has become the face of reform for the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev and will be a key figure handling billions of dollars in Western financial aid, was at the center of insider deals and other questionable activities when she ran a $150 million U.S.-taxpayer-financed investment fund.

Prior to taking Ukrainian citizenship and becoming Finance Minister last December, Jaresko was a former U.S. diplomat who served as chief executive officer of the Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), which was created by Congress in the 1990s and overseen by the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) to help jumpstart an investment economy in Ukraine.

But Jaresko, who was limited to making $150,000 a year at WNISEF under the U.S. AID grant agreement, managed to earn more than that amount, reporting in 2004 that she was paid $383,259 along with $67,415 in expenses, according to WNISEF’s public filing with the Internal Revenue Service."

2 cases of polio found in Ukraine, caused by mutated virus.

Polio in the geographic center of Europe in 2015?

This is what happens when instead of spending limited government budgets (or money borrowed from the IMF, EU and World Bank) on health care and vaccination, you spend it instead on militarization and a needless civil war in East Ukraine -- a war that could have been either prevented or resolved through political negotiations and compromise involving decentralization and increased regional autonomy.

Sad, but true.

2 cases of polio found in Ukraine, caused by mutated virus.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/20150902_ap_35b4f4bece9844b3a7846e7eadb8eece.html

"LONDON (AP) - The World Health Organization says officials have found two children stricken by polio in Ukraine, the country's first cases of the paralytic disease in nine years.

Health officials had warned Ukraine was at high risk of a polio outbreak due to its low vaccination rates; only half of children were immunized against diseases like polio last year.
...
WHO said the risk of Ukraine exporting polio to other countries was low but noted the region where the cases were found shares borders with Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland."

Honoring Labor's heroes on Labor Day.

Honoring Labor's heroes on Labor Day.

So I wonder how many of us Americans paid tribute yesterday to the fallen heroes of the American Labor Movement -- workers and union organizers who died or were crippled defending worker's rights to fair wages, safe work conditions, reasonable work hours, collective bargaining agreements and fair benefits, such as health care and compensation for workers injured on the job?

Wasn't their ultimate sacrifice on our domestic industrial battlefields to protect labor rights as important as the sacrifice of our veterans of foreign wars?

Weren't the benefits & protections that these labor heroes secured for Americans as important and direct -- in the long term -- than the protection of American freedom and democracy in the jungles of Vietnam?

Or do we Americans think that free-market capitalism, Walmart wages and Trump-style "you're fired" approach to labor relations will give the best terms and work conditions for employees -- perhaps through the trickle-down effect (from the wealthy business owners) that has enriched poor farmers and workers throughout the ages? smile emoticon

BTW, why don't we have a regular Labor Day parade in Washington, DC that's organized by major labor unions?

Regardless, here's a little more information on Labor Day for those of us who forgot it:

Labor Day: Where does it come from?

http://www.csmonitor.com/…/Labor-Day-Where-does-it-come-from

"But the labor movement already had another day associated with it: May 1. May Day was the International Labor Day, and had a significant US following. But the day was associated with a more radical tone. A post on the Massachusetts AFL-CIO website describes the controversy: “Especially after the 1886 Haymarket riot, where several police officers and union members were killed in Chicago, May Day had become a day to protest the arrests of anarchists, socialists, and unionists, as well as an opportunity to push for better working conditions. Samuel Gompers and the AFL saw that the presence of more extreme elements of the Labor Movement would be detrimental to perception of the festival.”

The spring of 1894 featured a bitter labor dispute between workers and the railroad industry – notably the Pullman workers who faced wage cuts in Chicago.

Amid the tension, President Grover Cleveland made a conciliatory gesture toward unions. He was a Democrat but no ally of organized labor. “After violence related to the Pullman railroad strike, President Cleveland and lawmakers in Washington wanted a federal holiday to celebrate labor – and not a holiday celebrated on May 1,” according to a Labor Day history compiled by the National Constitution Center, a museum in Philadelphia."

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/…/10-fascinating-facts-…/

Labor Day by Wikipedia:

"Labor Day in the United States is a public holiday celebrated on the first Monday in September.

It honors the American labor movement and the contributions that workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of their country.

Labor Day was promoted by the Central Labor Union and the Knights of Labor, who organized the first parade in New York City.

After the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago on May 4, 1886, U.S. President Grover Cleveland feared that commemorating Labor Day on May 1 could become an opportunity to commemorate the affair.

Therefore, in 1887, the United States holiday was established in September to support the Labor Day that the Knights favored.[1]

In 1882, Matthew Maguire, a machinist, first proposed the holiday while serving as secretary of the CLU (Central Labor Union) of New York.[2] Others argue that it was first proposed by Peter J. McGuire of the American Federation of Labor in May 1882,[3] after witnessing the annual labour festival held in Toronto, Canada.[4]

Oregon was the first state to make it a holiday on February 21, 1887. By the time it became a federal holiday in 1894, thirty states officially celebrated Labor Day.[3]

Following the deaths of a number of workers at the hands of the U.S. military and U.S. Marshals during the Pullman Strike, the United States Congress unanimously voted to approve rush legislation that made Labor Day a national holiday;

President Grover Cleveland signed it into law a mere six days after the end of the strike.[5]

The September date originally chosen by the CLU of New York and observed by many of the nation's trade unions for the previous several years was selected rather than the more widespread International Workers' Day because Cleveland was concerned that observance of the latter would be associated with the nascent socialist and anarchist movements that, though distinct from one another, had rallied to commemorate the Haymarket Affair in International Workers' Day.[6][7]

All U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the territories have made it a statutory holiday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day

The New Colonialism: Greece and Ukraine.

The New Colonialism: Greece and Ukraine. By Jack Rasmus in CounterPunch.
   
Can you hear that financial vacuum cleaner gearing up to empty the personal wallets and national wealth of Ukrainians? 

In comparison to this experienced, efficient and well-connected international machine, Ukraine's former President Yanunovich was a mere amateur in corruption and wealth extraction.
   
"A new form of colonialism is emerging in Europe.  Not colonialism imposed by military conquest and occupation, as in the 19th century. Not even the more efficient form of economic colonialism pioneered by the U.S. in the post-1945 period, where the costs of direct administration and military occupation were replaced with compliant local elites allowed to share in the wealth extracted in exchange for being allowed to rule on behalf of the colonizers.
...
In the 21st century, it is “colonialism by means of financial asset transfer.” It is colony wealth extraction by colonizing country managers, assigned to directly administer the processes in the colony by which financial assets are to be transferred. This new form of colonialism by direct management plus financial wealth transfer is now emerging in Greece and Ukraine.
...
The new colonialism as financial asset transfer takes several practical forms: as wealth transfer in the form of interest payments on ever rising debt, in firesales of government assets sold directly to the colonizer’s investors and bankers, and in the de facto takeover the colony’s banking system and bank assets in order to transfer wealth to shareholders of the colonizing country’s private bankers and investors.
...
In Ukraine’s case, only once U.S. and Euro bankers were installed as Ministers of Finance and Economics last December 2014, were more loans promised to Ukraine. The U.S. and EU put in another $4 billion in January, and the IMF quickly announced the new $40 billion deal in February. After the $40 billion, Ukraine’s debt rose from $12 billion in 2007 to $100 billion in 2015. The new $100 billion debt will mean a massive increase in financial wealth extraction in the form of interest payments on that $100 billion.
...
Another form of transfer will occur in the accelerating of privatizations. No fewer than 342 former government enterprise companies are slated for sale in 2015, including power plants, mines, 13 ports, and even farms.  The sales will likely occur at firesale prices, benefiting U.S. and European “friends” of the new US and European ministers.  So too will the sale of Ukraine private companies approved by the new Ministers. One of every five are technically bankrupt and unable to refinance $10 billion in corporate junk bond debt. Many will default, the best scooped up by U.S. and EU shadow bankers and multinational corporations."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/03/the-new-colonialism-greece-and-ukraine/

Court Ruling Builds a Barrier Against Challenges to NSA Spying on Americans?

Court Ruling Builds a Barrier Against Challenges to NSA Spying on Americans?
  
Here are Greg Krasovsky's thoughts on this article and its implications:

Should Americans be surprised that U.S. Federal judges -- who are pro-establishment figures that were appointed by the U.S. President for life after being nominated by either the Democratic or Republican parties -- are protecting the U.S. Federal government's unconstitutional spying on U.S. citizens?

If the current political establishment has decided and petitioned (ordered) its representatives in the executive, legislative and judicial branches to have the U.S. Government conduct wide-scale surveillance on Americans (in violation of the U.S. Constitution), then why would U.S. citizens expect federal judges (who represent the same establishment and pursue its agenda within their jurisdiction) to go against the system and protect ordinary citizens from unlawful government surveillance?   
  
As they say, the worst type of tyranny and corruption is the type that's fully "legal", bears the seal of government approval and is protected by the state as lawful activity. 

In this case, the Federal Court System has once more created a hurdle that's almost impossible to overcome for plaintiffs -- individuals whose basic and fundamental constitutional rights have been violated -- a demand that the plaintiff must show proof (legally obtained, of course -- i.e. not from Ed Snowden or other whistle-blowers) of unlawful government surveillance before he can have standing to sue the government in order to protect his rights, stop the unconstitutional surveillance and seek compensation.
  
So if Americans can't rely on the U.S. Federal judiciary to protect their constitutional rights, then where can they seek protection? From the President? From Congress? Does that seem likely if both the executive and the legislative branch are populated and controlled by the same establishment representatives that instituted and supported such illegal surveillance?
  
Basically, as long as Americans continue to elect the same establishment candidates to Congress and the White House -- candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties -- the system will continue to further and protect the interests of the establishment (the less that 1% of the U.S. population and the financial-industrial groups that they work for, own and represent). 

So despite the shocking revelations made by Ed Snowden, the system will continue to do what's necessary to protect its interests on the mass surveillance front through

- Executive Orders (public and secret) issued by an establishment president,
- Laws passed by a Congress controlled by establishment parties and politicians, and
- Federal court decisions written by judges nominated by establishment senators & parties and appointed for life by an establishment President.

In a nutshell, the Judiciary branch of the U.S. government is supposed to be able to police the executive and legislative branches by making sure that executive and legislative action is in full accordance with the supreme law of the land -- the U.S. Constitution.

But if the Judiciary Branch is not elected by the people, but appointed by the Executive Branch, then we don't really have an independent judiciary, especially since federal judges are nominated by (and loyal to!) the same establishment political parties that control the Executive and Legislative branches.

As past State Supreme Court elections have shown (especially in West Virginia), having an elected judiciary isn't a panacea -- elected judges tend to prove their loyalty to those who funded their election campaigns -- money spent mostly on mass election campaign advertising in corporate establishment media to convince the electorate that the establishment candidate will protect the average voter (instead of his establishment paymasters and sponsors). 

With all that in mind, if Americans want to see any meaningful change in government policy, including any stoppage in the erosion of their constitutional rights, then we must

1. Stop voting for establishment candidates in municipal, state and federal elections,

2. Reject and stop the duopoly (stranglehold) of the two establishment parties -- Democratic and Republican -- in the American political system and elections in
   -- all three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) 
   -- on all three levels (municipal, state and federal);

3. Stop the Justice Department's control by the Executive Branch by having the U.S. Attorney General elected by the people;

4. Have the Federal judiciary be directly elected by the people, including members of the U.S. Supreme Courts, instead of being staffed by and loyal to the President and the nominating actors (political parties and senators).

5. Stop the control of political campaigns by big business -- through PACs and etc. -- by limiting campaign financing (including of political advertising) to individuals with reasonable limits (such as $5,000.00 per individual contributor).
    
So if we want meaningful change in our state capitals and Washington, then we need to start implementing the above simple and straight-forward five point plan that we can count on the fingers of one hand. 

And since the media is often called the 4th branch of government (the fourth estate?), then we need to make sure that corporate establishment media holding companies do not control over 90% of our mass media resources and brainwash our population into supporting the establishment candidates, politicians and status quo.

Sound good?

If not, then let's keep on doing what we've always done and we'll get what we've always gotten, especially recently -- more erosion of our constitutional rights and more government policy that benefits the top 1% -- the Establishment -- at the expense of the rest of America and, thanks to globalization, at the expense of rest of the world. 

In this case, even ten more Ed Snowdens won't help us.
   
**************
  
"Back in December of 2013, critics of massive government surveillance appeared to have won a victory in challenging the system in a case called Klayman v. Obama. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia stated that the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of metadata from telephones, a clandestine program exposed by Edward Snowden, was probably a violation of the Fourth Amendment."

"However, at the end of August, an appeals court in the D.C. Circuit decided that the plaintiffs did not have adequate evidence that their data had been collected and never should have been allowed to pursue the case. Essentially, that court didn’t state that the NSA program was legal, but it suggested this case shouldn’t challenge the program’s legality."

“I’m not aware of any other situation in law where you have to have the defendant admit what they did before you can even go to court,” Cindy Cohn, executive director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Truthdig. 

   “It would be as if the police couldn’t arrest somebody unless they admitted they committed the crime first.” Cohn and Vladeck both said that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously stated plaintiffs don’t have this kind of burden of proof to establish a court case and that it seems to be a practice reserved for secret spying programs.

“Given what the government has said about the scope of its program, there is certainly circumstantial evidence that exists,” Cohn said. 

    “Many people are rotting in jail right now based on circumstantial evidence, and they never admitted their crime. It’s a double standard [being set up] in these cases.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/court_ruling_builds_a_barrier_against_challenges_to_nsa_spying_on_americans