The Populist Review

Bush 44

2009-06-18T11:25:18-07:00

During the 2008 presidential campaign I was lambasted by members of the progressive left for supporting Hillary Clinton. I was personally castigated as a racist for not supporting Barack Obama and dismissed out of hand for my contention that Obama was ordained by the ruling elite to defeat Mrs. Clinton and continue the policies of the Bush Administration. I called him a "Robot Maria," created to lead the people from class warfare and channel their revolutionary rage into self-destruction, like the android in Fritz Lang's Metropolis.

My contentions were not well received. Gay and lesbian friends deserted me, insisting Obama would lead us to the promised land. Union friends asked me to work on Obama's behalf after threatening members who openly supported Hillary. Hillary supporters themselves jumped ship, claiming that unity was paramount to petty differences. Media conglomerates Disney (ABC, CBS, MTV, ESPN, Miramax,etc), Time Warner (CNN, Time Magazine) and General Electric (NBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, Universal Studios), who together own over 90% of the media holdings in the United States, promoted Obama relentlessly, fanning the myth that his warchest was stocked with the pennies of paupers. A New Age had arrived. A clean break with the past. A new generation had risen to stake their claim. A colorblind generation that banished the entire political spectrum with their technological saavy. Left and right, liberal and conservative were now just quaint anachronisms. Political distinctions would melt like the snows in Iowa once the Chosen One was annointed.

The excitement bordered on hysteria.

In fact, the frenzy to elect Barack Obama was eerily similar to the frenzy that surrounded the runup in home and stock prices during the bubble. Then, too, we were told that the rules had changed. We were told the sky was the limit and economic fundamentals like LTV ratios and down payments were hopelessly out of date. Then too, I and others like me were castigated as fools for not jumping on the bandwagon, "gloom and doomers" who preferred to remain perennially pessimistic.

Yet now, only six months after Barack Obama's nomination, some are beginning to see their folly.

Like Bush 43, Barack Obama has reinstated controversial military tribunals. He continues to maintain he'll close Guantanamo Bay, but somehow the torture continues. He's proclaimed that Bush Administration officials, contractors and CIA operatives who engaged in torture overseas should be immune from prosecution. He took the additional step of quashing photos set to be released by the Pentagon that showed the extent of the horror. His Justice Department has come out fervently in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act and he's shown himself to be in favor of maintaining the military's failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. He retained George Bush's Secretary of Defense, bypassing perfectly qualified left wing candidates for the job, and nominated two more Republicans to his cabinet. He's removing our troops slowly from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan where they're being augmented with yet more troops, setting the stage for another quagmire. He increased the military budget by 4% ($6.7 billion more than the Bush Administration's projections) and thrown tens of billions at his Wall Street supporters, even as the nation grapples with a thirties-style Depression. He clamors for health care reform, but has rejected the single payer plan proposed by Hillary out of hand. He also insists now that money to pay for health care reform will have to come, in part, from Medicare and Social Security benefits. Indeed, slashing benefits from Medicare and Social Security is one of Barack Obama's mandates...a mandate given to him by the ruling elite.

Obama also took the opportunity to nominate a moderate-to-right leaning judge to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by a moderate-to-left leaning justice (though I realize we don't use those terms anymore), thus guaranteeing under his leadership the court will tip EVEN FARTHER to the right!

All this, of course, has The Left dismayed, disturbed, concerned, bothered, apprehensive or disquieted, depending on who you read. But they still haven't come to grips with the fact that they've been duped. According to OpenSecrets.org, Obama's top contributors during his presidential campaign were banks (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan, UBS, Morgan Stanley), media conglomerates Time Warner (CNN) and National Amusements (CBS, Viacom, Paramount Pictures), lawyers and lobbyists (WilmerHale, Skadden Arps, Latham & Watkins, Sidley Austin) and colleges (Harvard, Stanford, Columbia). Banks wanted a president who would cover their bad debts by stealing the public's money and giving it to them without oversight. Media conglomerates wanted to maintain their stranglehold on mass communication. Lawyers and lobbyists wanted someone who would talk reform but maintain the status quo. Colleges saw in Obama their chance to augment admissions by tapping into public funds.

As time goes by, I suspect my friends on the Left will become ever more disillusioned, especially if (as I expect) Justice Sotomayor casts the deciding vote to overturn Roe v Wade. By then, the bubble will have burst and the frenzy all but dissapated. Our passe political distinctions of right and left will have returned. And our Messiah d'Jour will have proven to be little more than Bush 44.

Judge Sotomayor: Obama's Choice to Axe Roe v Wade

2009-05-31T18:34:16-07:00

It may seem odd to suggest that President Obama would nominate a Supreme Court Justice to help overturn Roe v. Wade. However, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

President Obama, like all Chicago politicians, is steeped in a culture of pay-to-play. The entire Chicago political apparatus operates on that principle. To assume that a nomination as important as an appointment to the Supreme Court comes without strings is, in my view, naive. Yet, if strings are attached, what strings might they be?

Obama is clearly not looking to swing the court to the left with this nomination. If anything, Judge Sotomayor is more conservative than outgoing Justice Souter. He's also not looking to placate the right. The right will attack any Democratic nominee so it makes no difference how moderate the choice. But Obama could easily have picked a judge with a clear position on abortion.

Why didn't he?

The fact is, Judge Sotomayor's position on abortion is not just unclear. It's entirely unknown. We do know she's Latino. We know she's Catholic. And we know that Latino Catholics, as a group, are traditionally opposed to abortion. We also know that her addition to the court would make it disproportionately Catholic.

We also know President Obama is morally opposed to abortion, though he's gone to great lengths to assert his support for a woman's right to choose. And we know that abortion is a major dividing line between Democrats and the Republican faithful.

Oh, and we know one more thing.

If Judge Sotomayor were to side with the majority on the court and Roe v Wade was overturned, President Obama could publicly express his dismay over the decision and claim that there was no way he could have known how she'd vote on the issue while privately applauding the outcome. Abortion would become illegal and Obama would shoulder none of the political fallout.

That's politics Chicago-style.

With that divisive stumbling block out of the way, Republicans would find themselves with one less major fundraising issue and an ever more difficult path toward rebranding. Democrats, by contrast, might find themselves winning more elections in traditional Republican strongholds.

This might also be the reason Ted Olson has filed on behalf of gays and lesbians in California who've lost the right to marry. Ted Olson is no friend to the GBLT community. And this case is certain to go to the California Supreme Court. But it also might wind up in the...

U.S. Supreme Court.

Hmmmm. That means a case led by Ted Olson with national implications for gay marriage could end up in front of a Supreme Court with Justice Sotomayor as it's newest member. And, considering that Latino Catholics were largely responsible for defeating Proposition 8 in California, it's not inconceivable she would side with the other Catholics on the court.

Could gay marriage, which Obama expressly opposes, be next on the chopping block after Roe v Wade, and is Judge Sotomayor the president's designated "hatchet man" on the court?

I believe she is. And I hope Senator Feinstein and others flush out her stand on these issues before rubber-stamping her nomination. President Obama must not be given a pass by the progressive left. By his own admisstion he opposes gay marriage and abortion.

Women and members of the GBLT community must not be deceived into believing we have an ally in the White House.

The Truth About Brownback

2007-01-21T10:28:53-08:00

Sen. Sam Brownback made his candidacy official yesterday with a simple announcement that caught no one off guard: "It is with sincere humility and a determination to do good that I declare my candidacy for President of the United States." He now becomes the first of three likely candidates for the Republican nomination, Sen. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney, in a field that's sure to grow more crowded. But how much "good" has Brownback actually done in his years in the Senate...and for whom?

He's certainly gained considerable media attention these last few weeks with his opposition to Bush's troop surge. And he's one of the few senators who can honestly say he voted against the war (not even Hillary can say that). But beside his purported opposition to Iraq, Brownback has the most abysmal voting record we've seen in years. And he's surely no friend to the average American voter.

He voted against holding bankrupt companies accountable for their workers' pensions. He voted against extending federal health insurance to U.S. Steel workers. He voted against protecting textile workers from international trade agreements. He voted against providing mortgage assistance or wage insurance to workers who lose their jobs due to international trade agreements. And he voted against assistance for manufacturing employees who lose their jobs through outsourcing.

And why is there so much outsourcing?

One reason is that Brownback voted special tax breaks for companies who operate their businesses overseas. He voted similar tax breaks to companies that move their operations overseas. At the same time, he voted down tax breaks for companies who bring their operations here. He voted down an amendment to force offshore companies to spend their profits in the U.S. (creating jobs or funding pensions). He voted against a measure to force federally-funded contracts to be performed in the U.S., and voted against a measure to provide assistance to displaced workers by reducing tax cuts for people who make over $1 million.

Indeed, Brownback's record shows him to be no friend of the poor.

He voted against an exemption for victims of identity theft in bankruptcy cases. He voted against a measure to limit collections from credit card companies who refuse to waive fees and interest for their customers in credit counseling. He voted against an amendment restoring $1.5 billion for Medicare and Medicaid.

And since he's positioned himself against the war, just what is his record on Iraq?

He voted down attempts to get Bush to submit cost estimates for the war or even a plan for his so-called "reconstruction." He voted down attempts to make it a crime to illegally profit from contracts connected to Iraq or Afghanistan. He voted down an amendment to pay for the war by eliminating tax cuts for those making over $1 million. He voted down a measure to prevent private contractors from interrogating prisoners. He voted against a measure providing our servicemen in the Reserves and National Guard with the same equipment our full-time soldiers have. And he voted to extend the tours of duty for part-time military personnel.

With regard to our election process, Brownback isn't concerned.

He voted against a measure to improve the reliability of our nation's voting systems. He voted against a measure to allow voters the opportunity to examine their punch-card ballots. He voted against an amendment to examine the error rates in vote-counting machines and voted against a measure to reduce fraud by requiring signatures at polling places. He also voted against restoring $1.5 billion to the budget to overhaul our election process.

In his eyes, our electronic voting system is working just fine.

Of course, Brownback does have a few things going for him. He's Catholic, which gives him an "in" with 25% of the population. He's virulently anti-abortion, which endears him to Evangelicals. And he has an anti-war image that may snag a few moderates and uninformed liberals.

But the truth about Brownback lies in his voting record. That voting record shows a candidate who's consistently rallied against the poor, the sick, the elderly, the disenfranchised, and the working class in favor of corporate big-wigs, more secretive government and war profiteering. If Brownback's "determination to do good" is anything like his voting record, we suggest his supporters take another look.

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

A Letter from Harry Reid

2007-01-19T22:38:20-08:00

Now, I don't know about you, but we at the Populist Review are getting pretty tired of the line that cutting funding for an expansion of the war means leaving our troops defenseless in Iraq. Hillary's using it. Biden's using it. Edwards is using it. Reid's using it. Their all using it as a way to avoid a necessary constitutional showdown with Bush.

But, let's be clear on one thing: cutting funds for this surge means cutting funds for those additional troops who haven't left our shores, not the ones overseas. And we would hope, at the very least, this Democratic Congress would try to stop additional troops from heading to the Middle East. I mean, come on. You guys were elected to withdraw our troops from Iraq, right? We all knew it wouldn't be easy. We knew it would take a fight and we knew it wouldn't happen overnight. But an increase in troop levels with little more than a wimper and a few promises about resolutions?

Come on.

As if to make our case, we received an email from Sen. Reid this afternoon, outlining his position on Iraq, and it's the most milquetoast position we've seen since the day Chamberlain conceded Poland to Hitler. It begins with the Dems' new excuse for capitulating to Bush: cutting funds for Iraq means cutting weapons for our troops in the field [and it adds a nouveau tinge of nationalism just to make sure we're all on the same page]:

"We must ensure that our brave troops currently serving in Iraq have exactly what they need to successfully carry out their mission."

What mission? Did we miss something here?

It continues with a compete capilulation to the omnipotence of the Executive Branch [and a barb for those who would advocate cutting funds]:

"Although some have suggested that Congress withhold funds from the war, it is ultimately up to the President as Commander-in-Chief to find and implement a new strategy for success in Iraq."

Success in Iraq? Has anyone ever figured out what that means? Does it mean Chevon and ExxonMobil get the oil rights? Does it mean 1,000,000 Iraqi dead? Does it mean glistening shopping centers in downtown Baghdad and regular monorail service to the Anbar province?

The Senator from Searchlight continues: "Congress can be most effective by conducting the tough oversight needed to ensure a change in policy in Iraq."

Now there's a good one. In one sentence he announces that the Democratic majority perfers sound-bite investigations to substantive measures [which pretty much makes a mockery of the word "tough").

"With specific regard to Iraq funding, one of the best ways to ensure Congressional oversight over the war is to require greater transparency and accountability in the budget for the war."

Oh. So, it's okay to keep funding the war at astronomical levels to the detriment of the American people, but Congress must be informed on how the money is spent? Here, Reid demotes the responsibility of Congress to that of a junior accountant and leaves us wondering: just why do we need the GAO?

Later in the text we're assured that Sen. Reid really is on our side:

"Please be assured that I recognize that our country must change course in Iraq."

Phew! For a moment we thought a giant Harry Reid pod had developed overnight and sezied control of his body. "Change course!" That's what we need to do! Why didn't we think of that? How refreshing it is to hear Bush rhetoric from the leader of the Democratic Senate.

"You may be certain that under my leadership, Congress will conduct the necessary oversight over the war and support our troops in Iraq..."

Leadership, eh? Here it is again. The best we can do is crunch the numbers and wave an American flag.

Then comes our favorite: "The stakes are high, and failure in Iraq is not an option."

Don't you just love the sound of that? And coming from Las Vegas, we at the Populist Review can really appreciate a good gambling analogy when we hear it. I mean, who wants to lose when the stakes are high? "No one!" And that bit about "failure" not being an option. I wonder where he got that? Of course, without knowing the mission, without knowing the definition of "success" (other than the fact it's not failure), without knowing the duration of hostitlies, without knowing the scope of hostilities, without knowing the projected cost of hostilities, without knowing the projected number of casualties, without knowing the potential rewards that might be gained to offset the despicable carnage and devastation that's already charaterized this debacle, how could anyone possibly decide if "failure" is or isn't an option?

He concludes with a veiled promise to divert much-needed funds to (Halliburton?) to mop up Bush's train wreck while teasing us with the proven electoral carrot of troop withdrawals:

"Although the rebuilding process will take time, I look forward to steadily reducing our military presence in Iraq and bringing our troops home to their families."

Say what you will about the detriment of a third party, this country needs a Congress that will stand up to the Executive Branch. If the leader of the Democratic Senate has already conceded defeat, we have a moral obligation to support an alternative no matter how much the Democrats cry about fracturing the party. No party can disregard the will of its constituents and retain their hold on power. "Bringing our troops back home" has to become more than rhetoric. It must become a reality. Not just for the troops and their familes. But for the restoration of our beleaguered democracy.

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

The Ascent of American Fascism

2007-01-19T01:33:26-08:00

The 60 Minutes interview last Sunday with Dick Cheney and his babbling sidekick, George, confirmed what many Americans have already suspected: that our political system has been usurped by a malevolent duarchy. As if to underscore that fact, Dick Cheney, speaking for Bush while demeaning our electoral process as a “poll,” insisted, “this president does not make decisions based on public opinion.” He further asserted his contempt for American traditions by dismissing our elected representatives, referring to the anti-surge resolution being considered by Congress as a meaningless verbal exercise and declaring that Bush has the sole authority to send troops to Iraq regardless of their opinion. Such arrogance in the face of abysmal support can only be seen as a eulogy to representative government and a declaration of accession by the Executive Branch―a chilling consideration by anyone’s measure.

Yet, as historians may well recall as they mull our descent into tyranny, the roots of our constitutional crisis can be traced to the days of Adolph Hitler when a powerful elite in America financed a political vision far different from the one we learned in school. That elite included such notables as George Herbert Walker (W’s great grandfather) and his son-in-law, Prescott S. Bush (W’s grandfather), and it included such Nazi collaborators as W. Averill Harriman, the presidential advisor who paved our way into Vietnam, and John Foster Dulles, the former Secretary of State who ratcheted the Cold War after sneaking his Nazi riches out of Berlin. And when the war was over, and our servicemen returned to forget the horrors they’d witnessed overseas, many of these same players were instrumental in driving their Nazi vision into the American political mainstream, using fear and the fortunes they’d amassed to uproot our populist traditions.

None of this is new, of course. It’s all well documented, almost hackneyed, and could well have been accessed by that segment of the public who found it easier to get their news from FOX Television in the last two elections. Nevertheless, in light of our waning constitutional grip, we think it fitting to reopen the issue of the Bush family’s complicity in international fascism, if only to reconcile our collective naiveté. So, let’s review.

In 1918, following the U.S. entry into the first World War, Samuel Prescott Bush (W’s grandfather) was given a sinecure on the US War Industries Board as Director of the Facilities Division under Bernard Baruch (advisor to Woodrow Wilson), and Clarence Dillon, a Wall Street private banker. Bush’s principal mission was to direct arms sales to Remington Arms, owned by Percy Rockefeller (John D Rockefeller’s brother) and run by his man, Samuel Pryor.

The following year, George Herbert “Bert” Walker (W’s great-grandfather), a mid-west power broker renowned for his international contacts, formed a private bank with Averill and “Bunny” Harriman, and Percy Rockefeller. That bank was called W.A. Harriman & Co.

Meanwhile, a young Prescott Bush was back from the war and going nowhere―that is, until he met Bert Walker’s daughter. Their union rocketed Prescott from a minor executive at a railroad equipment supply house to vice president of W.A. Harriman & Co., the largest private bank in the world.

Small wonder the Bushes embrace the sanctity of marriage.

In 1920, Walker and Harriman somehow gained control of the German shipping line, Hamburg-Amerika―whose assets had been confiscated by the U.S. after WWI― through a William Cuno (who later became a heavy contributor to the Nazi Party) and Max Warburg of the line’s banking firm, M.M.Warburg. Also involved in the deal (not surprisingly) was Rockefeller’s representative, Samuel Pryor. The shipping line was deceptively renamed the American Ship & Commerce Corp. and Pryor was placed on its board of directors. Harriman and Walker now controlled half of the largest shipping line in the world and dominated the other half through the auspices of the Anglo-American occupation of Germany. Their next step was to foment hostilities.

In 1922, Harriman established a branch of the W.A. Harriman Bank in Berlin under Walker’s presidency. It was at that time he met the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who began donating heavily to the Nazis. According to government records, Thyssen and Harriman agreed to set up a bank for Thyssen in New York, the Union Banking Corp (UBC), that would link Thyssen’s bank in the Netherlands and provide funds for Hitler’s insurgency. Thus, the UBC, as aptly described in Tarpley and Chaitkin’s book, “George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography” (read it here: http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm ) became Hitler’s de facto bank in New York.

Soon afterwards, funds began pouring back and forth between New York and Thyssen’s bank in Holland and into the coffers of Hitler’s militia. The war profiteers, anxious to usher more profitable times, were up to their necks in intrigue.

It’s instructive to note that Fritz Thyssen was no run-of-the-mill industrialist. He was the single most important financier for Adolph Hitler (as confessed in his book, “I Paid Hitler”). And it’s no stretch to say that without Thyssen’s money, Hitler might never have come to power. And of course, without Hitler, there might never have been a Second World War.

Not good for the arms business.

In 1926, as mentioned above, Prescott Bush became vice president of W.A. Harriman. That same year, he, Harriman, and Dillon established the German Steel Trust (GST) with Thyssen and Thyssen’s partner, Friederich Flick. The GST later provided the Third Reich with much of its explosives, steel plate, wire, pig iron, pipes, and tubing (materials that would later be used for such projects as the Atlantic Wall and the 155mm cannons that rained death on our servicemen on the beaches at Normandy). The GST was directly linked to George Bush’s grandfather’s bank in New York and was presided over by Albert Voegler, another German industrialist who paved the way for Hitler’s ascent (and, incidentally, Voegler also held a directorship on the Hamburg-Amerika Line).

Funny how it all links together, eh?

Thus, Bush, Walker, and Harriman were now in direct partnership with Flick’s zinc, steel, and coal conglomerate in Germany and Poland. Together they owned a third of his sprawling empire and renamed it the Consolidated Silesian Holding Co.

Between 1930 and ‘31, as admitted at Nuremburg, Thyssen arranged with Rudolph Hess for the transfer of 250,000 to 300,000 marks to the Nazi Party through his bank in Holland. During that period, W.A. Harriman merged with the Anglo-American investment house, Brown Brothers, to create Brown Brothers Harriman. Prescott and two Harriman brothers were made senior partners along with Thatcher Brown and Montagu Norman, the notorious Nazi sympathizer. Brown ran the London office while Prescott ran the New York office. Montagu Norman, who often stayed with Prescott when he came to New York, was not only an ex-Brown partner, but his grandfather had led the company during the American Civil War at a time when they were shipping three quarters of the slave cotton to British mills.

Clearly the group had a lot in common.

By 1932, Hitler’s SA and SS troops numbered nearly 400,000 and questions began to surface as to how this madman could have obtained financing. Yet, even as the German government battled his brown shirts in the streets, the Hamburg-Amerika Line was funding propaganda to thwart their efforts.

In 1933, the efforts of the Nazi financiers paid off and Hitler came to power. That year, Prescott sent Max Warburg to represent the American Ship & Commerce Line on the Hamburg-Amerika’s board of directors. Prescott and Max were old buddies and Warburg was a close friend of Montagu Norman. He was also an executive at Hitler’s Reichsbank. His brothers had run the Kuhn Loeb investment bank that brokered Harriman’s buyout of the bankrupt Union Pacific Railroad back in 1890 when Sam Bush was still head of the Buckeye Steel Casings Co. And he was also a close advisor to Hitler’s Economics Minister, Hjalmar Schacht. Schacht and John Foster Dulles (the man for whom Dulles Airport is named), worked closely to arrange an agreement whereby all trade between the United States and Hitler’s Germany would be funneled through the Harriman International Co. under Oliver Harriman.

It’s nice work if you can get it.

The Dulles’ family ties to Nazi Germany are almost too numerous to list. Two Dulles brothers, partners at the law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, acted for I.G. Farben, the company that developed Tabun, the nerve gas used by the Nazis. They assisted SKF, a company that supplied 60% of the bearings used by the Third Reich. They acted for the Shroeder Bank which offered Hitler financing before he assumed power on condition he break the trade unions. Allen Dulles, who became the first director of the CIA and sat on the whitewashing Warren Commission, set up business deals between the Nazis and Bush-Harriman-Rockefeller, and sat on the boards of both Standard Oil (Rockefeller) and I.G. Farben. He also set up the notorious BND, Germany’s intelligence-gathering apparatus after the war, with spymaster Reinhardt Gehlen, Hitler’s intelligence chief on the Eastern Front. It was Dulles who recruited Nazi butchers like Gehlen for what soon would become the CIA.

Is it any wonder we’re in the mess we are today?

In 1933, a North German company, Lloyd Co., merged with the Hamburg-Amerika Line. The American Ship & Commerce Co., who owned the Hamburg-Amerika Line, installed a long-time Harriman executive, Christian Beck, to head North American operations while Emil Helfferich, a high-ranking Nazi, presided over the newly-merged company, Hapag-Lloyd. All shipping was accompanied by Nazi guards. The following year, Samuel Pryor—still at Remington where Rockefeller put him―entered into a cartel arrangement with I.G. Farben. Thanks to his efforts, Nazi troops by then were all well armed with American guns.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Trading With The Enemy Act was enacted and Hapag-Lloyd’s property was confiscated by the government. The stock shares of Union Banking Corp were also seized, and the list of shareholders read like a Who’s Who of Nazi financiers: Prescott S. Bush (director and largest shareholder), “Bunny” Harriman, Cornelis Lievense (president, responsible for all New York banking finances for the Nazis), H.J. Kouwenhoven (director who helped establish UBC as a conduit to Fritz Thyssen, managed the Netherlands office during the Nazi occupation, and served as the director of the German Steel Trust) and two other associates of Bush. Other UBC companies were also seized, including the Seamless Steel Equipment Co. (long managed by Prescott Bush and father-in-law Bert Walker), the Holland-American Trading Corp. as well as Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corp.

Okay, okay, wait a minute. Maybe George Bush’s ancestors were involved with the Nazis. But does that make him a Nazi sympathizer?

Not necessarily. It’s a question of, well…family values. The Bush family has consistently demonstrated a contempt for human liberty whenever it stood between them and a profit, and whenever that liberty threatened their financial interests or the interests of their wealthy friends. Just look at W’s dad.

George Herbert Walker Bush left Yale and entered Brown Brothers Harriman, just like his father. He then entered Dresser, which produced the incendiary bombs dropped on Tokyo and pumps for the Manhattan Project. Dresser later merged to become the logistical giant we know today, Halliburton.

Bush was also involved with the CIA from its earliest years. In 1953, he formed Zapata Petroleum which became a front for the Nixon-Dulles Bay of Pigs invasion (indeed, the failed CIA invasion of Cuba was dubbed Operation Zapata). His Zapata Offshore had oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and South America (as well as the Middle East) and it’s been suggested they were used as a cover for CIA arms and drug smuggling operations (strongly suggested).

In ’54, when the CIA staged their coup in Guatemala, toppling the democratic government for requiring United Fruit to sell its unused land to starving peasants, an endless series of U.S. interventions began. Governments audacious enough to request their land were denigrated as dupes of the Kremlin. And when the Brazilian ambassador asked Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (who just happened to be a former attorney for United Fruit) if, in fact, he had proof that Guatemala was a Soviet satellite, Dulles answered curtly, “We don’t have that proof, but we’re proceeding as if it must be so.” And when Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA agent who carried out the coup in Iran that same year, briefed Dulles about his activities, “Dulles smiled.” And why not? A new America had emerged. An America poisoned by Nazi collaborators like John and Allen Dulles and a network of like-minded sympathizers. An America that was now in the business of murdering democratically-elected officials overseas who challenged her rapacious elite. Is it really a stretch to imagine that policy extending to domestic politics?

The connection between Bush and Edwin Pauley is especially telling. Pauley had been a Dulles spy in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. With the fall of Nazi Germany, Truman made him U.S. representative to the Allied Reparations Committee, which put him in a unique position to negotiate the Yalta reparations to the benefit of Dulles’ wealthy clientele. He was also in a unique position to distract the Soviets long enough for the Dulles brothers to sneak their ill-gotten Nazi gains out of Berlin. And his efforts didn’t go unnoticed. After successfully keeping the Nazi riches in Nazi hands (Dulles), Pauley was sent to Japan to do likewise.

In 1958 he founded Pauley Petroleum with Howard Hughes and expanded his offshore oil production to Mexico. And in Mexico he laundered CIA money and created slush funds for campaign contributions through the country’s oil monopoly, Pemex, and pumped oil for pennies on the dollar. In fact, it was Pauley who originated the use of Mexican oil fronts for the slush funds that Richard Nixon used for his dirty deeds―a fact Nixon tried to hide by invoking “national security.” And who was Pauley associated with? He was associated with Bush through Zapata and Pemago Oil in 1960 (which, too, served as a front for the Bay of Pigs) and through deals he cut in Mexico. In fact, it was those Mexican deals that rocketed Bush into the political limelight and established him as a protégé of Richard Nixon.

In 1964, when Bush lost his bid for the Senate, Nixon was there. And in 1972, when Nixon surrounded himself with only his most devoted loyalists, he instructed John Ehrlichman, “Eliminate everyone except George Bush. Bush will do anything for our cause.”

Interesting choice of words, wouldn't you say? "Cause?"

As head of the Republican National Committee, Bush was instrumental in pressing “ethnic émigrés” into service for that “cause” through the Republican Party’s National Heritage Groups Council. That council included a number of genuine pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic organizers, including various Nazi émigrés brought into the United States by the Dulles brothers. One of them, Lazlo Pasztor (who served in the pro-Nazi Hungarian government embassy in Berlin during the war) became a leader in Bush’s ethnic outreach arm, The Coalition of American Nationalities, during his presidential campaign.

Indeed, one of the main concerns for those in the inner circle when Nixon’s tapes were uncovered, was the chance that Nazi skeletons would be discovered in the Republican closet. There was also the distinct possibility that references to JFK’s assassination would incite a call to reopen the investigation and expose those same individuals. No doubt, this was on his mind when Bush advised Nixon to resign. And when he agreed, Nixon took his tapes with him, leaving historians to fill in the blanks.

As to our current Bush, the parallels to Hitler are compelling notwithstanding his IQ and seeming inability to complete sentences. Hitler was appointed in 1933. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court. The Nazi’s burned the Reichstag to seize control by creating an emergency. 9-11 created a similar emergency, and evidence points to foul play. Hitler was granted emergency powers as a result of the Reichstag Fire. So, too, was Bush granted emergency powers through the so-called Patriot Act. Concentration camps opened just after Hitler’s rise. CIA camps were opened overseas just after Bush took office. The Gestapo was formed. So have all intelligence-gathering agencies in the U.S. been subsumed under military tutelage.

The signs are as blatant as they can be. The question is, is anyone listening?

Nefarious forces have always been at work in American politics. But those forces have become so entrenched in the national mindset lately that we find ourselves excusing things like torture and secret prisons, or yawning at the television when we hear that our mail will opened or our phone calls tapped because we belong to a church group or animal rights organization or some other collective that someone, somewhere considers a threat. This challenge to our fundamental system of government must not be met with complacency. Congress must act to assert its control over the Executive Branch. If not, our fate may be no different than that of our overseas brethren. And historians will be left to shake their heads.

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

__________________________________________________

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BushCh01#WarIndustry

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:737VQI0RYscJ:emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5.htm+George+Herbert+Walker+Bush,+Nazi&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

http://www.spectrezine.org/resist/bush.htm

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/George_H._W._Bush

A Viable Alternative to The Surge

2007-01-15T18:20:55-08:00

Bush is prepared to ask Congress for $5.6 billion to fund his troop surge and an additional $1.2 billion to fund a “jobs program” in Iraq with the claim that his detractors have no viable alternative to that plan. Yet, while that may be true of some members of Congress who feel our continued presence in the Middle East is unequivocal, it’s certainly not true of us here at the Populist Review. And to prove our point, we've compiled a list of alternatives to expanding the war and recommendations on more productive ways to spend the money. So, here goes.

First let’s look at a few theories surrounding our involvement in the Middle East. The first and most prevalent theory on Iraq is that our leaving would create a power vacuum which would be filled by anti-American terrorists, extending their base of operations and giving them total control over the country’s oil resources. Maybe so. But who exactly benefits from having international conglomerates control Iraq’s oil production? The American people? If Iran were to sweep in today and take control of Iraq’s oil fields, would Americans be stricken by higher gas prices? Would we be struck with higher heating bills? Would the price of oil increase to such a point as to threaten our economy? Perhaps. But how would ExxonMobil’s control of the oil fields be any different? And to those who think it would: are the interests of the American people really so aligned with the interests of ExxonMobil and Chevon as to justify our kids remaining in harm’s way into perpetuity?

We at the Populist Review think not. So, our first alternative would be to pull our troops out immediately. Call it defeat. Call it cut-and-run. Call it whatever you like. But if international conglomerates like ExxonMobil want to steal Iraq’s oil, which it appears they have, they can damn well pay for their own security force. Our troops have sacrificed enough on the altar of corporate greed. It's high time we brought them back home.

The next theory is the notion that a troop withdrawal would threaten our national security. This is a favorite on both sides of the aisle. But would it really? The answer is yes if you identify your security with the economic interests of Halliburton and ExxonMobil. The answer is yes if you identify your security with the political security of the ruling elite in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE. The answer is yes if you identify your security with the security of Israel. The answer is yes if you identify your security with an ever-expanding network of U.S. bases and overseas prisons, and a head-on assault with the Moslem world. But the answer is a resounding no if you identify your security with a reduction in global hatred toward the United States. And the answer is no if you identify your security with a reduction in the fanaticism that’s made anti-U.S. recruitment as easy as selling coke.

So, again, we beg to differ. Our security has never been more threatened than it is today thanks in large part to this war and our relentless presence. And expanding that presence will only exacerbate the situation. So our second alternative would be to not only pull our troops from Iraq, but to remove our battleships from the region as well. We need bold action to repair the damage done by this administration and a truly new strategy will only be credible if we end hostilities.

Of course, with all the money we save by ending this war (indulge us, please), we could initiate any number of social programs. Instead of a jobs program for Iraq, we could start a jobs program here at home. Or how about subsidies for small business owners? Or a self-pay national health plan to cover the 50 million Americans without health insurance? We could inoculate every child in America, pay for No Child Left Behind, offer tuition reimbursement to the millions unable to afford higher education. We could provide jobs for the millions of homeless who’ve fallen through the ever-widening cracks in our social programs. Or how about our veterans? Or how about subsidies for free clinics? Or reducing the cost of prescription drugs for our senior citizens? Or funding alternative energy programs?

The problem isn't a lack of alternatives to expanding this war. It’s finding the political courage to stand up to entrenched corporate interests and their toadies in government, both here and abroad, who have a stake in our continued commitment. Bush’s plan would expand that commitment at the expense of our troops, our prestige, our security, our economy, our people, and our long-held traditions. Our alternative, however radical it may seem with respect to the mainstream debate, would prevent such sacrifices.

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

The Grand Imperialist Scheme

2007-01-13T12:21:53-08:00

In case there was ever any doubt, the British newspaper, Independent, recently obtained a leaked version of a new hydrocarbon law to be approved in the next few days by the US-installed puppet government in Iraq that hands unprecedented control of the country's vast oil reserves to US and British energy conglomerates. The law, expected to take effect in March, was written by a US consulting firm hired by the Bush Administration and radically changes the country's oil industry. According to the Independent, the law will permit "the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in Iraq since the industry was nationalized in 1972" and represents a major departure from other oil producing nations in the region who tightly control their industries through state-owned monopolies.

But wait. It gets better. The most significant aspect of the legislation, as reported by the World Socialist web, is the introduction of "production sharing agreements" or PSAs. Under these agreements, the state would retain formal ownership of the reserves yet offer billions in "compensation" to foreign energy firms like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP for investment in infrastructure and the operational costs of their drills, pipelines, and refineries. These PSAs would be fixed for an incredible 30 years, regardless of the presiding government. And there's even a provision that insists that all disputes be settled through international, rather than Iraqi, arbitration!

How's that for letting the Iraqis control their destiny?

Of course, PSAs aren't new to the oil industry. They're used in 12% of the world's oil reserves, generally in places where exploration prospects are uncertain and production costs high. But neither situation exists in Iraq where many oil fields have already been mapped or discovered and oil lies close to the surface.

The Independent continues: "Under the chapter entitled, 'Fiscal Regime,' the draft law spells out that foreign companies have no restrictions on taking their profits out of the country, and are not subject to any tax when doing this."

Steal the oil and pay nothing for it. Is that what Bush means by democracy?

The draft also states, "A Foreign Person may repatriate its exports proceeds [in accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force at the time]" and "may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners." In other words, Iraqi oil projects can be freely sold to other foreign companies without interference from the Iraqis.

All the flag-waving in the world can't diminish the fact that this war was initiated, and continues to be waged, for this very purpose. And those who need proof beyond this legislation need only look to the items released under court order from Dick Cheney's infamous Energy Task Force meeting in 2001. Among those items were maps of Iraq's oil fields, pipelines, and refineries, and a supporting list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which named more than 60 firms with projects under discussion with Baghdad. Small wonder Cheney thumbed his nose at the GAO when they subpoenaed his minutes.

Of course, the idea that we invaded Iraq for oil is hardly ground-breaking news. Yet, as we near what seems an imminent invasion of Iran and perhaps the start of global hostilities, I believe it bears repeating. The core of this global chess game is the unconscionable theft of foreign oil reserves. And though that's nothing new for the likes of Chevron and ExxonMobil, it's hardly a reason to send our kids into harm's way. And with another 20,000 on the way, it's even less of a reason for national pride.

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

He's Got an Uncontrollable Surge...

2007-01-11T23:03:36-08:00

With his autonomous decision to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq, King George has assumed a dictatorial prerogative that leaves Congress no other choice but to cut funding for the war. If they don't, if they choose to debate semantics or concepts like "victory" or success," their deference will demonstrate an inability to rein this evolving dictatorship and render themselves obsolete.

This is a watershed event for our country. In six short years, Bush has transformed the presidency into a dictatorial power, much like Hitler in 1933. Using ~~the Reichstag fire~~ 9-11 as a justification, he's created an American Gestapo by placing all intelligence-gathering services under military rule, hardlined to the Oval Office, and giving them sweeping powers to spy and detain American citizens. He's suspended basic constitutional rights in place for hundreds of years. He's invaded ~~Poland~~ Iraq with false assurances to the world and outright lies to the public. He's established secret prisons overseas where ~~political dissidents~~ enemy combatants can be tortured without trial or redress. He's cloaked his hegemony in anti-~~semetic~~ "terrorist" propaganda to incite the citizenry to render their sons and daughters. All he needs now is an Enabling Act to elevate himself to the position of ~~Fuhrer~~ Decider and an edict outlawing opposition parties, and he'll be there.

Neither can be far off.

Fact is, Bush's audacious expansion of the war is a gauntlet thrown at the public's feet and a challenge to anyone who thinks they can override his omnipotence. And it may well be the first and last chance Congress ever gets to stop this cowboy before he ignites a global conflagration. Congress must cut funding for this war. Period. There is no other choice. Anything less, any attempt at reason or concilliation, any attempt to legitimize his criminal enterprise in the Middle East, will end in disaster, especially if he moves on Iran.

Bush is no Hitler. That much we know. He doesn't have the cunning or the popular support. If anything, he's closer to Louis XV if the polls we read are correct. But his neocon advisors--a misnomer designed to seduce the politically naive--are fascists, through and through. And such fascists, as we learned years ago, have no respect for democracy or its institutions.

When Bush requests the $5.6 billion he needs to pay for his ludicrous troop surge and the additional $1.2 billion he wants for "rebuilding" and "jobs programs" in Iraq, the answer from Congress should be a resounding no. Questioning the logic behind his strategy, as many in Congress have done (including Republican Sens. Smith, Colemen, Hagel, Snowe, and Brownback) or passing non-binding resolutions, as suggested by Sen. Charles Schumer, is not enough. The request for additional funds should be denied out of hand, and Sen. Kennedy's proposal to require congressional approval for troop increases should be passed quickly. Anything less would concede the authority of civilian rule and shatter our illusion of democracy.

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

Our Man Kucinich?

2007-01-08T22:21:42-08:00

As debate heats up around Bush's "New Way Forward," it's a good time to review the current slate of Democratic presidential hopefuls and their respective positions on the war in Iraq. So, here goes.

John Edwards has talked at length about bringing the troops home and turning the responsibility for Iraq over to the Iraqis ("We need to make it clear that we intend to leave Iraq and turn over the responsibility of Iraq to the Iraqi people. The best way to do that is by actually starting to leave"), but he's been noticeably mum on the issue of cutting funding for the war. Ditto Tom Vilsack, who's come out vociferously against more deployments, but avoided the subject of funding. Joe Biden, too, has maintained that a troop escalation would be "a mistake," but insists that a reduction in funding isn't an option. Then there's Mike Gravel. Mike's suggestion that we raze Gitmo, set up a single payer national health plan, and withdraw from Iraq immediately, is a welcome debate. But he, too, stops short of advocating funding cuts. As for Chris Dodd, he's called for an immediate troop withdrawal ("searching for military solutions in Iraq today is a fool's errand"), but he too has stopped short of suggesting that Congress unfund the war.

As for Hillary? Despite her belated regret for approving the war (if I knew then what I know now...yada..yada..yada), her opposition to a timetable for troop withdrawal, her vigorous support for sanctions against Iran, and her recent statements ("we need to ensure that we are providing [our servicemen] with the support and resources that they need to get the job done"--a euphemism for continuing the war's funding) make clear that she'll have nothing to do with funding reductions.

Then, of course, there's Obama who announced today with Sen. Reid that his "office is investigating what tools are available...to condition or constrain appropriations" for the surge in troops. It sounded impressive on C-Span this afternoon. But when he added that he doesn't want troops already in Iraq to be "shortchanged," we realized his investigations probably won't recommend a cut in funding.

That leaves one Democratic presidential hopeful who's come out in favor of cutting funds for the war in Iraq: Dennis Kucinich. And as much as we find his supporters at times...oh, I don't know...idealistic?...we have to admit he's on the right track. "The only way we can bring the troops home," he said. "is by cutting the funding to this war--just like the Vietnam War." He also said, "the Democratic Congress has a mandate from the people to stop the war, bring the troops back home, and help Iraq take a new direction. We cannot do that if we appropriate more funds which set the stage for a sharp escalation of the war."

Regardless of his perceived chances or the idealism of his supporters, we at the Populist Review have to admit Dennis Kucinich is on the right side of this debate. This war won't be contained, much less ended, by rhetoric, investigations, or calls for immediate redeployment. It will only end when Congress cuts funding for the war. We only hope that Sens. Reid, Obama, and their colleagues in Congress will come to that conclusion before this "New Way Forward" gets off the ground.

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

Congress on Iraq: Yada Yada Yada

2007-01-07T15:00:00-08:00

It now seems evident that, tough-sounding rhetoric aside, the Democrats in Congress will do nothing to block Bush's request for a troop surge. For proof, we need look no further than Speaker Pelosi's recent interview on CBS' "Face The Nation" in which she stated, when asked if Congress would cut funding for the war: "we won't do that." She added that her party favors increasing the military by 50,000 troops to "protect Americans."

Joe Biden, who just threw his hat in the ring, concurred, insisting that it would be a "tragic mistake" for Bush to widen the war while dismissing the notion of funding reductions, saying that wasn't an option.

We at the Populist Review must disagree. We believe cutting off funds for this unjustified occupation is precisely the option. And we would hope, though we don't expect, that Congress would do just that, especially in the wake of November's mandate.

But, alas, events are not shaping up that way. It now seems clear that Bush's "new strategy" will include a "temporary" troop increase (like the temporary suspension of rights in the Patriot Act) and a few token gestures to make the move more palatable to Democrats--like the "jobs program" being suggested which would provide micro loans to (complicit?) Iraqis through U.S. commanders, or a similar "education" program now under consideration--minuscule gestures designed to ameliorate opposition. And unless we miss our guess, the Democrats will seize on the opportunity to avoid a showdown with the WH while clamoring for "better accountability" and a "verifiable mission"--goals that deviate markedly from their original mandate.

Of course, they're fools if they get sucked into this. Up to this point, the war in Iraq has been solely a Republican burden. To acquiesce now puts the Dems right there with them. Their only course in dealing with this quagmire---and I'll say that again---their only course is to cut funding for the war. If Bush and his neocon buds want to continue their jihad, they can damn well do it by running drugs and arms like they did in Nicaragua when his dad was in office. This nightmare has already cost an incredible $500 billion--not to mention the dead and our devastated image abroad--and Bush plans to call for another $100 billion in his budget on Feb 5! If the Democrats go along with this scheme--and make no mistake, it's a scheme to add troops for an eventual showdown with Iran--they can forget their dreams of ever balancing the budget, driving down the deficit, or funding any social programs. Their only choice will be to rally around their decision and play to the nationalistic fervor that comes from our descent into a global conflagration.

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net