Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 04, 2014

Electing more vermin for a rotten carcass by Wayne Madsen




Electing more vermin for a rotten carcass
As Americans go to the polls today to elect, or re-elect, members of Congress, governors, and other officials, WMR is relating some anecdotal information from a top Republican aide to Ronald Reagan. In late 1972, according to the Reagan friend who had known the actor-turned-California governor since his run for the state house in 1966, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller requested that Governor Reagan meet with his representatives in Los Angeles.

Reagan, no fan of Rockefeller or his family who he considered "too liberal" and who represented the "eastern establishment," demanded that Rockefeller's people meet with him at his Simi Valley ranch home. Reagan was increasingly wary of Rockefeller after David Rockefeller announced at the April 1972 Bilderberg Conference in Belgium the planned formation the following year of the Trilateral Commission, which would include Japan in an elitist political-financial group representing North America and Western Europe. WMR learned from another informed source that Reagan learned of the evils of the Trilateral Commission from then-Democratic Party renegade and political activist Lyndon LaRouche while both were attending a political seminar in California. Reagan told LaRouche that he had been an avid consumer of information in LaRouche's newsletters, whereupon the quasi-Marxist economics professor arranged with Reagan to have future copies sent directly to Reagan's ranch home.

Richard Nixon had just been re-elected in a landslide in 1972 and Rockefeller was planning on claiming his political "legacy" by running for the White House in 1976. Rockefeller was aware that Reagan had inherited the support of the conservative supporters of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater who was roundly trounced by President Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 presidential election. Reagan was also preparing to run for the presidency in 1976 after his gubernatorial term expired in 1974.

Our source, a senior executive for the Walt Disney Company, as well as Trans America Corporation president John R. Beckett, attended the meeting between Reagan and Rockefeller's people. The Rockefeller team was confident that Nixon's 1972 campaign, called the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP), could be transformed into a permanent fundraising and political team that would eventually ensure that the Republican Party would become the only meaningful political party in the United States and herald America becoming a one-party state.

Reagan was told that CREEP's new incarnation would be used to elect Nelson Rockefeller as president in 1976, thus providing the nation with the prize of the presidency long sought by the Rockefeller family. Reagan would have to agree not to run for the GOP nomination in 1976, paving the way for Rockefeller to easily wrest the nomination and serve as president for 8 years. Reagan would then receive Rockefeller and his team's support for a run for the presidency in 1984.

However, by 1973, it was clear that CREEP was very much a part of the Watergate scandal. Eventually, all the top CREEP officials, including its director, former Attorney General John Mitchell; Treasurer Maurice Stans, the former Commerce Secretary; deputy director Jeb Stuart Magruder; Deputy Treasurer Herbert Kalmbach; and Watergate burglars James McCord, G. Gordon Liddy, and E. Howard Hunt, as well as dirty tricks operative Donald Segretti and White House special counsel Charles Colson, all ended up in prison for their respective criminal roles in the Watergate operation.

Reagan had been warned by his aides that the meeting was nothing more than a Rockefeller "ambush." Rockefeller had no intention of allowing Reagan to succeed him. One of Reagan's aides tipped off the news media that a meeting was taking place with Rockefeller's people at his ranch. After the Rockefeller team departed, Reagan told reporters, "I will not be a kingmaker." Reagan was telling Rockefeller publicly that there would never be a deal and that the Republican Party could expect a Reagan candidacy for the White House in 1976.

Reagan saw Rockefeller; Gerald Ford, who would succeed Nixon as president and name Rockefeller as his vice president; and the man who would be forced on to Reagan's 1980 ticket, George H. W. Bush, as embodiments of the "eastern establishment," which Reagan detested. Even Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who Reagan lauded in his famous speech at the 1964 GOP convention in San Francisco, did not escape Reagan's distaste for moneyed oligarchs. Reagan told our source that although he appreciated Goldwater's supporters and Goldwater's policies, Reagan felt that the GOP's so-called "Mr. Conservative" was influenced primarily by money, which dictated the policies of "all Jews like Goldwater." When it was pointed out to Reagan that Goldwater, whose father's Jewish family owned Goldwater's department store in Phoenix, was an Episcopalian, Reagan replied that it didn't matter because when Jews like Goldwater "gather in synagogues on Saturdays, all they discuss is business and money." As president, Reagan never visited Israel, a distinction he shared with Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and George H. W. Bush.

Reagan's distaste for Jews arose during his anti-communist activism during the Senator Joseph McCarthy Red-baiting era in Hollywood. Reagan also served as an informant for FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. Hollywood's anti-communist stars were members of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (MPAPAI), which identified a number of alleged communists in Hollywood and sent their names to the FBI. Since a number of the identified communists also happened to be Jewish, the zeal of MPAPAI earned it the appellation of "anti-Semitic" by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and other Jewish organizations. One of MPAPAI's most active members was Reagan. Others included John Wayne, Walt Disney, Cecille B. DeMille, Gary Cooper, Ginger Rogers, Robert Taylor, Barbara Stanwyck, Irene Dunne, Adolphe Menjou (who was about as right wing as the late führer with the same first name), George Murphy (a future U.S. senator from California), columnist Hedda Hopper, Ward Bond, King Vidor, and Victor Fleming. The group also included Ayn Rand and Morrie Ryskind, both of whom were Jewish.

Many of these Hollywood notables were members of MPAPAI in order to placate Hoover, who had extensive dossiers on many of the actors that included details of homosexual liaisons. According to Hollywood biographer Darwin Porter, Nixon once told Reagan during the red scare era: "Isn't it ironic that Hoover and McCarthy are chasing after Reds and faggots . . . and both of them, the senator and director, have sucked more cocks than your secret girlfriend, this Marilyn Monroe thing." Nixon was also letting the increasingly politically-active Reagan know that he and Hoover had interesting dossiers on the Democrat-turned-Republican actor.

After Nixon was consumed by Watergate in 1973, Rockefeller's team arranged to have House Minority Leader Ford installed as vice president to replace Spiro Agnew, who resigned in October of that year amid a bribery scandal. After Nixon resigned the presidency in 1974, Ford, in a deal worked out in the eleventh hour of the Nixon administration, agreed to nominate Rockefeller to be his vice president. The deal also included a full pardon for Nixon and keeping Henry Kissinger, a longtime Rockefeller operative, as Secretary of State.

Reagan, knowing full well that the Ford-Rockefeller seizure of the White House was a prelude to Rockefeller's one-party state plan, decided to challenge Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976. Realizing that both he and Ford were unelected, Rockefeller decided not to seek the vice presidential nomination in 1976. Ford chose Kansas Senator Bob Dole to be his running mate. Dole had received Rockefeller's blessing. In the primaries, Ford barely eked out victories over Reagan in Iowa and New Hampshire but eventually Ford amassed enough delegates to win the nomination. In the general election, the peanut farmer governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, defeated Ford for the presidency.

AP GESTURING CANDIDATES_001
Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, responding to a group of pro-Reagan hecklers at a 1976 campaign event in Binghamton, New York. Vice presidential nominee Bob Dole laughs. 

On January 26, 1979, Rockefeller, age 70, died of a heart attack at a Manhattan townhouse while reportedly engaged in sexual intercourse with his 25-year old aide, Megan Marshack. When medical personnel arrived at the home they discovered Rockefeller had been propped up on a chair with his shoes on the wrong feet, holding The Wall Street Journal upside down, along with a clearly visible penis rod protruding from under his trousers. No autopsy was performed on Rockefeller to determine the actual cause of death.

When our source met with Reagan after Rockefeller's death was announced, he asked the prospective Republican presidential candidate what he thought. Reagan replied, "many leaders have been known for their final words on their death beds." Then, Reagan, clutching his chest and wheezing and groaning profusely, laughed and said, "that's what Rockefeller's last words were while he was screwing a god-damned hooker!"

A number of Americans practically worship GOP icons like Rockefeller, Goldwater, Ford, and Reagan. The unblemished history, however, suggests that the current lot of political candidates are merely the heirs of unsavory political forebears.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Europe and Ukraine: A tale of two elections by Pepe Escobar




Europe and Ukraine: A tale of two elections


Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia.
Published time: May 27, 2014 09:26
Ukrainian presidential candidate Petro Poroshenko walks in front of screen displaying results of the presidential elections in Ukraine prior his press-conference in Kiev on May 26, 2014. (AFP Photo / Sergei Supinsky)
Ukrainian presidential candidate Petro Poroshenko walks in front of screen displaying results of the presidential elections in Ukraine prior his press-conference in Kiev on May 26, 2014. (AFP Photo / Sergei Supinsky)
The regime changers in Kiev decided to hold a presidential election on May 25, the same day as European Parliament elections, in order to demonstrate their desire to follow a European-centric foreign policy.Circumstances surrounding the European and Ukrainian elections were far from being a mere coincidence.
Talk about two elections somewhat joined at the hip! In the end, the Ukraine election did actually represent European foreign policy in action – manifested in regime change leading to the specter of civil war.
Few in Europe would have noticed how this process is so far away from “democracy” –instead enshrining intolerance and an ideology of blind confrontation, as represented by this “debate” in Kiev driven by a clueless Yale historian.
Key facts that should be understaood are how the West ignored the Odessa massacre, as well as the detention of Russian journalists; and how the West dismissed the aspirations of eastern and southern Ukrainians as the work of “pro-Russians” or “terrorists.” These people simply became objects of repression - fully supervised by the West, with now the whole regime change theatre of the absurd in Kiev legitimized through an election charade.
Way beyond the established fact of an Atlantic push against Russian western borderlands, Ukraine remains a catfight of local oligarchies. No wonder the new Ukrainian president is also an oligarch; the 7th wealthiest citizen in the land, who owns not just a chocolate empire, but also automotive plants, a shipyard in Crimea and a TV channel. The only difference is that he’s a NATO oligarch

It’s the economy, stupid

Meanwhile, in NATOstan, local and transnational elites have been desperately trying to spin a measure of success. Abstention remains notable – only roughly 4 in 10 Europeans take the trouble to vote on what goes on in Strasbourg, with a majority alienated enough to legitimize the mix of internal European austerity and international belligerence.
Yet the vote on Sunday went way beyond “anti-establishment,” nationalist – and frankly xenophobic or even fascistic – parties consolidating the rejection of “more EU.”
Hardly discussed in the pre-vote campaigns were the Snowden NSA revelations; the shady negotiations between Washington and Brussels over a free trade agreement which will be a boon for US Big Business; and how the financial casino supervised by the European Central Bank, the IMF, and the European Commission (EC) will remain untouched, further ravaging the European middle classes.
The anti-EU crowd performed very well in France, the UK, Denmark and Greece. Not so well in Italy and the Netherlands. The mainstream did relatively well in Germany and ultraconservative Spain – even though losing votes to small parties.
A general view shows press crews working in the hemicycle of the European Parliament during the announcement of the European Parliament elections results on May 25, 2014 in Brussels. (AFP Photo / Georges Gobet)
A general view shows press crews working in the hemicycle of the European Parliament during the announcement of the European Parliament elections results on May 25, 2014 in Brussels. (AFP Photo / Georges Gobet)

In Italy, the ruling Democratic Party of current Prime Minister Matteo Renzi did very well (almost 41 percent). The Italian Tony Blair keeps promising a vague “radical reform” – whatever that means. As for the anti-establishment 5 Star party of comedian Beppe Grillo, it lost a lot of votes.
In regions such as northwest France, which includes Normandy – a traditional bastion of the Left – Marine Le Pen’s National Front got a whopping 32.6 percent of the vote. With Francois Hollande’s pathetic socialists in power, Le Pen could not but have the last laugh.
And that duly prompted a portentous intellectual nullity such as the former executive editor of the International Herald Tribune to roar that Marine Le Pen is the French Vladimir Putin.
Essentially, European voters said two things out loud: either “the EU sucks,” or “we couldn’t care less about you, Eurocrat suckers.”
As if that sea of lavishly pensioned Brussels apparatchiks – the Eurocrats - would care. After all, their mantra is that “democracy” is only good for others (even Ukrainians…) but not for the EU; when the European flock of sheep votes, they should only be allowed to pick obscure Brussels-peddled and Brussels-approved treaties.
Brussels, anyway, is bound to remain the Kafkaesque political epitome of centralized control and red tape run amok. No wonder the EU is breathlessly pivoting with itself as the global economy relentlessly pivots to Asia.

Follow the money

To believe that an EU under troika austerity will bail Kiev out of its massive outstanding debts is wishful thinking. The recipe - already inbuilt in the $17 billion IMF “rescue” package is, of course, austerity.
Oligarchs will remain in control, while assorted plunderers are already lining up. Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – for whom hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children were expendable –“observed” the elections, and most of all observed how to privatize Telecom Ukraine, as she is doing now with Telekom Kosovo.
There’s no evidence Right Sector and Svoboda will cease to be crypto-fascist, racist and intolerant just because Poroshenko – the King of Ukrainian Chocolate – is now the president. By the way, his margin for maneuver is slim, as his own markets – not to mention some of his factories – are in Russia. Heavy industry and the weapons industry in eastern Ukraine depend on Russian demand. It would take at least a whopping $276 billion for the West to “stabilize” eastern Ukraine. The notion of the EU “saving” Ukraine is D.O.A.
Moscow, once again, just needs to do what it is doing: nothing. And make sure there will be no economic or political help unless a federalized – and Finlandized - Ukraine with strong regions sees the light of day.
Even the Brookings Institution has reluctantly been forced to admit that the US neo-con gambit has failed miserably; there’s no Ukraine without Russian help.
A man assists a woman with the casting of her ballot at polling station in the southern Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk on May 25, 2014. (AFP Photo / Anatolii Stepanov)
A man assists a woman with the casting of her ballot at polling station in the southern Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk on May 25, 2014. (AFP Photo / Anatolii Stepanov)

So it’s up to the Chocolate King to prove himself a leader of all Ukrainians, and only then will he have a shot at entente cordiale with – and even help from - Moscow.
Signs so far are mixed. Poroshenko said Ukraine could “possibly” become an EU member state by 2025 (it won’t happen). He ruled out entering NATO (wise move). He rejects federalization (dumb move). He believes that with a strong economy Crimea would want to be back (wishful thinking). Still, he believes in reaching a compromise with Moscow (that’s what Moscow always wanted, even before regime change).

What a mess

Back in NATOstan, there’s the crucial point of what happens to the ultra-right-wing anti-EU brigade in the Parliament in Strasbourg. They may all abhor the EU, but the fact is this ideological basket case will hardly form an alliance.
An alliance would mean at least 25 Parliament members coming from at least 7 different countries. Marine Le Pen has already stepped into the ring. She has an agreement with the nasty Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and could also count on the Austrian FPO and the Belgian Vlaams Belang. The Swedish Democrats – which are in fact crypto-Nazis – are sitting on the fence. The Greek neo-Nazis of Golden Dawn and the Hungarian Jobbik are out. As for UKIP, they definitely don't see themselves as part of this “family.”
What this ultimately means is that conservative and moderate parties, as per the status quo, will remain in control, expressed via an extremely likely coalition of the European People’s Party (center-right) and the Socialists and Democrats (center-left).
What comes next, in the second half of 2014, is the appointment of a new EU Commission. That’s Kafka redux, as in the bureaucrat-infested executive arm of the EU, which shapes the agenda, sort of (when it’s not busy distributing subventions in color-coded folders for assorted European cows.)
There are 5 candidates fighting for the position of EC president. According to the current EU treaty, member states have to consider the result of EU Parliament elections when appointing a new president. Germany wants a conservative. France and Italy want a socialist. So expect a tortuous debate ahead to find who will succeed the spectacularly mediocre Jose Manuel Barroso.
The favorite is a right-winger of the European People’s Party, former Prime Minister of Luxembourg Jean-Claude Juncker. He is an avid defender of banking secrecy while posing himself as a champion of“market social economy.”
Then there’s more Kafka: choosing the new president of the EU Council and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. Translation: the EU won’t decide anything, or “reform” anything for months. That includes the critical negotiations with the Americans over the free trade deal.
It’s absolutely impossible to spin these Sunday elections as not discrediting even more the EU project as it stands.
As I’ve seen for myself, since early 2014, in 5 among the top EU countries, what matters for the average citizen is as follows: how to deal with immigration; how to fight the eradication of the welfare state; the implications of the free trade agreement with the US; the value of the euro –including an absurdly high cost of living; and what the ECB mafia is actually doing to fight unemployment.
With Kafka in charge for the foreseeable future, what’s certain is that Paris and Berlin will drift further and further apart. There will be no redesign of the EU’s institutions. And the next Parliament, filled with sound and fury, will be no more than a hostage of the devastating, inexorable political fragmentation of Europe.“Saving” Ukraine? What a joke. The EU cannot even save itself.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.