Voices from Russia

Tuesday, 30 May 2017

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński: Death of an Anti-Russian Terrorist

________________________

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński is dead at the age of 89. The former US National Security Advisor put the feuds of his homeland above the interests of his adopted USA. Richard Nixon had more foreign policy achievements that just about any modern American President. However, Nixon’s scandal-plagued White House generally overshadowed these achievements. Amongst his most important achievements was engaging in détente with the USSR. Nixon’s de-escalation of tensions with Moscow ultimately led to the signing of the Helsinki Accords in 1975, wherein America and its allies and non-aligned states of Europe agreed to respect the borders and sovereignty of existing states, including that of the USSR and her allies. The Helsinki Accords affirmed renouncing violence as a means of settling disputes and forced signatories to respect the right of self-determination among peoples. This was a rare moment; the USA admitted that it couldn’t win the Cold War and that engagement and peaceful dialogue were preferable to threats against the Soviet superpower.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter became the President of the United States after Nixon’s former Vice-President Gerald Ford failed to win over an America hungry for change on the domestic front. While many remember Jimmy Carter as a man of peace, his Presidency was anything but peaceful. The reason for this was the power behind the throne, Carter’s National Security Advisor, Brzeziński. The Polish-born Brzeziński put the historic blood-feud of his mother country ahead of American interests. He openly opposed Nixon and Ford’s policy of détente and orchestrated the use of American power to arm and fund all those who sought to undermine the USSR.

This became most apparent when he decided to use the USA’s resources to fund, arm, and train the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Among the fighters Brzeziński’s policy helped to arm was Osama bin Laden, the founder of the Salafist terrorist group al-Qaeda. The USA later blamed that group for orchestrating and executing the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the USA. Brzeziński was happy to ally with blood-soaked jihadists to topple the secular modern government of Afghanistan, for the simple reason that it was a Soviet ally. Brzeziński’s jihadists took over the country in the 1990s; they famously executed and then mutilated the corpse of Afghanistan’s pro-Soviet President Dr Mohammad Najibullah in 1996. Many blame the Brzeziński-authored policies in Afghanistan for unleashing the plague of jihadist terrorism throughout the wider world.

Brzeziński’s formal time in the White House was only for Jimmy Carter’s single term, but many of his policies lived on long after his formal period in power. Throughout the rest of his life, Brzeziński continued to vocally advocate policies designed to cripple Russia, including NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe. He was a strong supporter of the 2014 coup against the legitimate Ukrainian government and more recently said that the Russian Federation would break up. Furthermore, he said that the USA must help those wanting to break it up, irrespective of who they are. He continued to advocate sanctions against Russia until his dying day, in spite of the fact that the sanctions ended up hurting his native Poland more than the Russian Federation he sought to destroy.

Brzeziński was a deeply violent and hateful man. He was also dishonest; he told the last Shah of Iran that the USA would give him full backing, knowing well that there was division in the White House on the issue. He was a man who brought ancient hatreds, hatreds which long pre-dated the USA’s existence, into the heart of American policy making. At the age of 89, Brzeziński is dead. Even if he lived another hundred years, he’d never see his dream, the death of Russia. Russia remains alive and well, and in this sense, perhaps, he died knowing that his entire reason for being was a failure.

26 May 2017

Adam Garrie

The Duran

http://theduran.com/zbigniew-brzezinski-death-anti-russian-terrorists/

Advertisements

Tuesday, 2 May 2017

Barack Obama is Using His Presidency to Cash In, But Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter Refused to Do So

_________________________

Defenders of Barack Obama’s decision to do things like accept a 400,000 USD (22.8 million Roubles. 2.76 million Renminbi. 25.68 million INR. 548,000 CAD. 532,000 AUD. 368,000 Euros. 312,000 UK Pounds) check for a speech to a Wall Street brokerage house argue that the former president might as well cash in… everyone else does. That was Daily Show host Trevor Noah’s defence of Obama:

People are like, “Why doesn’t he not accept the money?” No, fuck that. So the first black president must also be the first one to not take money afterwards? No, no, no, my friend. He can’t be the first of everything! Fuck that, and fuck you. Make that money, Obama!

This argument, while common, comes from historical ignorance. It assumes that presidents have always found a way to leverage their political connections post-presidency to make money from interest groups and wealthy political actors. However, that isn’t the case. It used to be the norm for presidents to retire to ordinary life after their stint in the White House… just ask Harry Truman. When the Democratic president was getting ready to leave the White House in 1953, many employers approached him. The Los Angeles Times noted:

If he’s unemployed after he leaves the White House it won’t be for lack of job offers … but [he’s] accepted none of them.

One of those job offers was from a Florida real estate developer, asking him to become a “chairman, officer, or stockholder, at a figure of not less than 100,000 USD”… the sort of position that’s commonplace today for ex-politicians. Presumably, had Truman taken the position, it would’ve been a good deal for both parties… the president’s prestige and connections would also enrich the company. Truman declined. He wrote of his refusal to influence-peddle:

I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialise on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency.

Although he had a small pension from his military service, Truman had little financial support after leaving office. He moved back into his family home in Independence MO. He insisted on being treated like anyone else. He’d tell people not to call him, “Mr President”, and settled into an ordinary routine once he was back in Independence. He’d take a morning walk through the town square. He kept an office nearby where he would answer mail from Americans. He chose to engage with just about anyone who walked into his office… not only people who wrote him big checks or invited him onto their private yachts and private islands. He once said:

Many people feel that a president or an ex-president is partly theirs… they’re right to some extent… and that they have a right to call upon him.

Indeed, his office number was in a nearby telephone directory. He eventually agreed to write a memoir for Life magazine, but it was a lengthy project, which paid a far-from-luxurious stipend. Truman’s modest life post-presidency moved Congress in 1958 to establish a pension that provides an annual cash payout as well as expenses for an office and staff.

Nevertheless, Gerald Ford shattered precedent when he joined the boards of corporations such as 20th Century Fox, hit the paid speech circuit, and became an honorary director of Citigroup. However, his successor, Jimmy Carter, who grew up in a modest home in Plains GA, didn’t follow Ford’s example. He refused to become a professional paid speaker or join corporate boards. He moved back to Plains and a crowd of neighbours and supporters welcomed him home. He quickly made himself busy as a nonprofit founder and a volunteer diplomat. He did make money post-presidency…but by serving ordinary people, not the élite. He wrote dozens of best-selling books bought by millions of people across the world… the post-presidency equivalent of small donors. Carter explained his thinking to the Guardian in 2011, telling them:

My favourite president and the one I admired most was Harry Truman. When Truman left office, he took the same position. He didn’t serve on corporate boards. He didn’t make speeches around the world for a lot of money.

The presidents who came after did not choose the same path. At a time when Japan was a major trade rival with the United States, Ronald Reagan flew to Japan for a series of paid speeches after he left office. He accepted 2 million USD (114 million Roubles. 13.8 million Renminbi. 128.4 million INR. 2.74 million CAD. 2.66 million AUD. 1.84 million Euros. 1.56 million UK Pounds) for a pair of 20-minute speeches to the Fujisankei Communications Group. An additional 5 million USD (285 million Roubles. 34.5 million Renminbi. 321 million INR. 6.85 million CAD. 6.65 million AUD. 4.6 million Euros. 3.9 million UK Pounds) went for expenses related to the visit. Both Bushes also joined the paid speech circuit, and the Clintons made over 100 million USD (5.7 billion Roubles. 690 million Renminbi. 6.42 billion INR. 137 million CAD. 133 million AUD. 92 million Euros. 78 million UK Pounds) from banks and other corporations, shortly after the Clinton presidency deregulated Wall Street. Bill Clinton lamented to a student group in 2009:

I never made any money until I left the White House. I had the lowest net worth, adjusted for inflation, of any president elected in the last 100 years, including President Obama. I was one poor rascal when I took office; but after I got out, I made a lot of money.

Obama was hardly facing poverty. He already has a 65 million USD book deal (3.705 billion Roubles. 448.5 million Renminbi. 4.173 billion INR. 89.05 million CAD. 86.45 million AUD. 59.8 million Euros. 50.7 million UK Pounds) and that 200,000 USD annual pension (11.4 million Roubles. 1.38 million Renminbi. 12.84 million INR. 274,000 CAD. 266,000 AUD. 184,000 Euros. 156,000 UK Pounds). By joining the paid speech circuit… his spokesman Eric Schultz told the press that paid speechmaking will be a fixture for the former president… Obama was making a conscious choice. Obama could have been like Truman or Carter, but instead chose to be like Bush and Clinton.

1 May 2017

Zaid Jilani

The Intercept

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/barack-obama-is-using-his-presidency-to-cash-in-but-harry-truman-and-jimmy-carter-refused/

Saturday, 22 December 2012

22 December 2012. The “Tea Party Patriots” Called the Late Senator Inouye “Irresponsible”… I DO Beg to Differ

00 Tea Party propaganda. 22.12.12

______________________________

The so-called “Tea Party Patriots” preferred the coward Willard Romney to the war hero Daniel Inouye. If that isn’t indicative of skewed standards and turning things on their heads, I don’t know what it is. Senator Inouye served in combat and was maimed in the service of his country, but the “Tea Party Patriots” hated him for his defence of the social safety net, his dogged fight for equal rights for ALL Americans, and for his willingness to admit America’s sins. Rather, the “Patriots” lionised Willard Romney, who had his megabucks corporate daddy buy him a spurious “clergy” deferment during the Vietnam War, who hides his money in overseas tax shelters (increasing all of our taxes), who sent and sends American jobs to China, and who wanted to waste trillions on warmongering in foreign parts. There’s something basically wrong and perverted with such thinking…

Lincoln, TR, RockyIke, Jake JavitsGerald Ford, and Bob Dole… their centrist/moderate Republican Party no longer exists. The Tea Party Patriots and their ilk are Hard Right feral beasts, intent on ravening this country (indeed, the whole world) for their personal profit and benefit. That’s EVIL beyond measure… and there’s no more to be said on such, is there? Ye cannot serve both God and Mammon… and don’t forget Who said that…

BMD

Saturday, 10 November 2012

Obama’s Economic Policy: The Rich Should Pay Too

______________________________

There’ll be no more tax cuts for wealthy Americans… President Barack Obama signalled that after his re-election, he sees this as the best way to prevent a “budget catastrophe”. Delivering his first speech after re-election, Mr Obama outlined his economic strategy for the years to come. A budget deficit could cause the catastrophe Mr Obama was talking about. A “fiscal cliff”, which is likely to happen in January of 2013, could plunge the American economy back into recession. Spending cuts were approved as part of a strategy to avoid budget deficit. Mr Obama cited experts to say that by September of 2013 the budget deficit will decrease by 503 billion USD (15.9 trillion Roubles. 400 billion Euros. 320 billion UK Pounds). However, the USA would have to pay a high price for this… mass unemployment and a 0.5 percent decline in American economic growth. It means that rich Americans won’t avoid higher taxes. Mr Obama emphasised that he’d veto any bill suggesting more tax benefits to those earning more than 250,000 USD (7.9 million Roubles. 197,000 Euros. 157,000 UK Pounds) a year.

Some analysts believe that Obama overdramatized on purpose, trying to provoke a reaction from the Republicans who control the House of Representatives. Konstantin Sonin, Pro-rector at the Russian School of Economics {a pro-oligarch mouthpiece: editor}, said, “Obama’s just bargaining, since the sides have different approaches to the issue. To avoid a serious conflict they should achieve a kind of a compromise”. Yakov Mirkin, expert at the Russian Institute of Global Economy, said, “Evidently, there’ll be no budget catastrophe. Republicans and Democrats will definitely agree on raising the debt ceiling. Both parties focused on reducing budget deficit, although they offer different approaches to the issue. If Romney had won the election, there’d have been a decline in taxes with numerous benefits offered by the American tax code removed. I mean tax loans related to education, and the money spent on healthcare and insurance policies, as well as small businesses”.

Obama offers a different approach… the affluent, which comprise some 2 percent of the American population, should pay more taxes, whilst the rest, some 98 percent, could enjoy lower taxes. The Senate has already approved a bill, and the president is ready to sign it at any moment. To reduce negative consequences, Mr Obama is ready to look for a compromise with Republicans. In any case, he won`t be able to avoid debates on the economy with the House of Representatives. Generally, Russian experts think that Obama’s re-election is a good sign for the US economy, since he’s already a proven and successful leader in terms of handling the financial crisis. Despite strong opposition from the Congress, he managed to attract huge investments into the American economy, which resulted in moderate economic growth. If Mr Obama sticks to this policy, it’d only do good to both domestic and global markets.

10 November 2012

Andrei Smirnov

Voice of Russia World Service

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_11_10/Obama-s-economic-policy-the-rich-should-pay-too/

Editor’s Note:

The American electorate rejected the tripartite emphasis of the Romney/Ryan non-plan:

  • Massive tax cuts for the rich, coupled with drastic cuts to all government social programmes
  • Unrestrained warfare in foreign parts and a return to torture and imprisonment at black sites abroad
  • Turning a blind eye to racism and white supremacy (“Keep the White House white”)

That is why white women rejected the Grand Olde Phony candidate. They saw their families hurt by Republican cudgelling of ordinary folks to aid the grasping Affluent Effluent, they saw their kids coming home in body-bags or maimed from the wars, and the Republicans’ unfeigned racism disgusted them (the “legitimate rape” comments weren’t so influential… all women know that the Grand Olde Perverts are like that). The Republicans needed to win big with white women, but their greedy and cruel platform ensured a massive gender gap in white voters (mainly, they lost white women whilst winning white men). Yet, its telling defeat didn’t lead the Republican Party to reject any of these rancid points. It’s poised to break into two, if not three, blocs, which would cement Democratic power for the next generation. The Republican Party is paying dearly for such heeding greedster RINOs as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Grover Norquist, and Paul Ryan… it’s rejected its true legacy from Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ike, Rocky, Jake Javits, Nixon, and Gerald Ford. As it’s done that, it deserves to die… the sooner, the better. They’re just shills for the rich and whores for the military-industrial complex… do remember what Ike said of that.

The Republican Party turned its back on its past with Slobberin’ Ronnie Reagan, with his shameless whoring for the Affluent Effluent and his mindless juvenile hatred of “big government”. No society of 300 million can be run as though it were a rural Ozark backwater. In 2012, the Republican Party shot itself in the head with full malice aforethought. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put them back together again…

BMD

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.