by Stephen Lendman

Aleppo murders are the latest example. Western-recruited death squads ruthlessly target civilians. They're armed and directed to do so. They're merciless cowards.

Innocent men, women and children die. Murdering children, raping women, and beheading men are their specialities. So are other atrocities. Since winter 2011, many thousands of Syrians were slaughtered. Dozens more succumb daily.

That's what terrorism is all about. Imperialism operates that way. Barbarism best describes it. It's longstanding US practice in all its direct and proxy wars. Respect for human life isn't America's long suit. It never was.

Full story »

By Alan Hart

I have often said and written that in some important respects America is the least democratic country in the world because what passes for democracy there is for sale to the highest bidders (the Zionist lobby being one of them). It’s now apparent that former President Jimmy Carter agrees.

In his latest Conversation at the Carter Center, he said:

“You know how much I raised to run against Gerald Ford? Zero. You know how much I raised to run against Ronald Reagan? Zero. You know how much will be raised this year by all presidential, Senate and House campaigns? $6 billion. That’s 6,000 millions.” (It was “zero” from private donors, corporates and individuals, because Carter accepted public funding).

Full story »

by Stephen Lendman

So-called presidential debates are well-rehearsed, prescripted theater. Theater of the absurd best describes them. Election outcomes aren't influenced. They don't edify. They insult. Wednesday night was no exception.

Even some media scoundrels were underwhelmed. At least one was honest as far as his editors let him. London Guardian contributor Charles Ferguson headlined "America's duopoly of money in politics and manipulation of public opinion," saying:

"Behind the divisiveness lies a deeper bipartisan consensus in which donors own democracy and there are no votes (for) reform."

Full story »

by Greg Palast

What the hell happened? Did Barack have a fight with Michelle? Was it nicotine withdrawal? Do really rich guys just scare you, Mr. Obama?

Dear Mr. President: As a journalist I don’t take partisan sides, but I do take America’s side. And as Commander-in-Chief, you simply cannot fall asleep in the saddle.

I mean Commander-in-Chief in the Class War. The war of the billionaires against the rest of us.

Full story »

by Stephen Lendman

On October 7, Venezuelans go to the polls. Expect Chavez reelected again overwhelmingly. Expect the freest, most open and fair electoral process in the Americas. Perhaps it's the best anywhere.

On November 6, polls open in America. Voters have no choice. Democrats and Republicans barely differ. They're in lockstep on issues mattering most.

Ordinary people are entirely left out. They have no say. Voting for either major party assures same old same old. Money power runs things. Elections are for show. They're a facade. Venezuelans get the real thing.

Full story »

By Gary G. Kohls, MD

Anyone who watched the two national political conventions last month couldn’t help but be impressed with the nearly total lack of racial diversity at the (“White’s Only”) Republican National Convention. The large number of racially-diverse delegates at the Democratic National Convention was truly impressive. It should be obvious that white racism will be a huge factor in this November’s elections.

Oh, I admit that there were a few token blacks and Latinos on the Tampa convention center stage from time to time and a proportionally far smaller percentage of non-whites in the audience; but the TV cameras, probably under the direction of the RNC itself, often focused on those few, trying to give the impression that the GOP’s “Big Tent” was something other than a total fallacy.

Full story »

by Stephen Lendman

It's bad enough to make some despots blush. It doesn't rise to the level of good fiction. No respectable film producer would accept a script explaining it. Who'd believe a democratic system so implausible. It's more fanciful than real.

Longstanding electoral fraud alone subverts democracy in America. The entire process lacks legitimacy.

Most democracies have proportionally representative (PR) governance. America's winner-take-all system lacks credibility. It's borderline lawless.

Full story »

by Ellen Brown

QE3, the Federal Reserve’s third round of quantitative easing, is so open-ended that it is being called QE Infinity. Doubts about its effectiveness are surfacing even on Wall Street. The Financial Times reports:

Among the trading rooms and floors of Connecticut and Mayfair [in London], supposedly sophisticated money managers are raising big questions about QE3 — and whether, this time around, the Fed is not risking more than it can deliver.

Which raises the question, what is it intended to deliver? As suggested in an earlier article here, QE3 is not likely to reduce unemployment, put money in the pockets of consumers, reflate the money supply, or significantly lower interest rates for homeowners, as alleged. It will not achieve those things because it consists of no more than an asset swap on bank balance sheets. It will not get dollars to businesses or consumers on Main Street.

Full story »

James Petras

Introduction

On October 7th, Venezuelan voters will decide whether to support incumbent President Hugo Chavez or opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski. The voters will choose between two polar opposite programs and social systems: Chavez calls for the expansion of public ownership of the means of production and consumption, an increase in social spending for welfare programs, greater popular participation in local decision-making, an independent foreign policy based on greater Latin American integration, increases in progressive taxation, the defense of free public health and educational programs and the defense of public ownership of oil production. In contrast Capriles Radonski represents the parties and elite who support the privatization of public enterprises, oppose the existing public health and educational and social welfare programs and favor neo-liberal policies designed to subsidize and expand the role and control of foreign and local private capital. While Capriles Radonski claims to be in favor of what he dubs “the Brazilian model” of “free markets and social welfare”, his political and social backers, in the past and present, are strong advocates of free trade agreements with the US, restrictions on social spending and regressive taxation. Unlike the US, the Venezuelan voters have a choice and not an echo: two candidates representing distinct social classes, with divergent socio-political visions and international alignments. Chavez stands with Latin America, opposes US imperial intervention everywhere, is a staunch defender of self-determination and supporter of Latin American integration. Capriles Radonski is in favor of free trade agreements with the US, opposes regional integration, supports US intervention in the Middle East and is a diehard supporter of Israel. In the run-up to the elections, as was predictable the entire US mass media has been saturated with anti-Chavez and pro-Capriles propaganda, predicting a ‘victory’ or at least a close outcome for Washington’s protégé.

Full story »

by Stephen Lendman

Last month, Duke University's Patrick Duddy published a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) paper titled "Political Unrest in Venezuela."

From August 2007 - July 2010, he was Washington's Venezuelan ambassador. He represents imperial, not popular interests.

In September 2008, Venezuela declared him persona non grata. At issue were solidarity issues with Bolivia.

The State Department expelled its US ambassador Gustavo Guzman. It acted after Evo Morales banished Washington's ambassador Philip Goldberg. He did so for good reason. Goldberg "conspir(ed) against democracy" and encouraged internal disruptions.

Full story »