When The S*** Hits the Fan

#Hillary #Clinton’s Million Dollar Professional Internet Troll Army

by

Nick Bernabe
April 24, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Hillary Clinton-aligned Super PAC, Correct the Record, is taking a page out of Vladimir Putin’s playbook by employing a $1 million dollar professional internet troll army to build a paid, positive consensus about the Clinton campaign. The effort, called “Breaking Barriers 2016,” claims:

“While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media.

“Correct The Record will invest more than $1 million into Barrier Breakers 2016 activities, including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram.”

The campaign will essentially be employing an unknown number of paid, pro-Hillary trolls to spread positive news about the candidate and counter anyone posting negative information about her. And these aren’t just ragtag trolls living in their mothers’ basements — they are industry and campaign professionals. As Correct the Record acknowledges:

“The task force staff’s backgrounds are as diverse as the community they will be engaging with and include former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers, Ready for Hillary alumni, and Hillary super fans who have led groups similar to those with which the task force will organize.”

In response to this news, Bernie Sanders campaign staffer Mike Casca told The Daily Beast, “Our campaign and our vendors are not paying people to reply to anti-Bernie comments on social media.” He added, “Come on man, really?”

The Hillary campaign was also recently called out by The Intercept for deploying “astroturfers” into the media — people with ties to Clinton who act as experts and political commentators to promote her campaign without disclosing their ties to the candidate.

With Hillary’s highly effective media strategies employing media surrogates — and now internet trolls — it’s becoming increasingly hard to decipher a distinction between actual Clinton supporters, unbiased political commentators, and paid campaign shills.

This article (Hillary Clinton’s Million Dollar Professional Internet Troll Army) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nick Bernabe and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Gage Skidmore. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

New Report Proves US #Law Enforcement Preparing for #Rioting on a National Scale

by

 

Claire Bernish
April 22, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Fascism doesn’t often sweep in overnight and take over some hapless nation’s government; rather, it gradually seeps into the cultural fabric — as is quietly taking place all around the globe, evidenced by an upsurge in sales of riot equipment that has gone largely unnoticed.

A new report from analysts with industry research group, Sandler Research, forecasts the Global Riot Control System Market for the next four years — but beyond a burgeoning market to parallel the expanding global police state, it appears world governments are also keenly aware of civilian discontent. Sandler predicts the market will have an annual growth of 3.5 percent, and makes a telling juxtaposition, emphases added, involving the United States:

“Law enforcement agencies around the world are the biggest market for riot control systems. This market is expected to generate revenues of over USD 3.5 billion by the end of 2020. Countries such as the U.S., Iran, Egypt, Russia, China, and Thailand have started procuring riot control equipment and are investing heavily in [non-lethal weapons]. Moreover, special vehicles that are equipped with water cannon and reservoirs have been designed for security personnel, for use in areas of conflict to handle large crowds and demonstration. Demand for such equipment is expected to rise during the next few years.”

Note the last sentence in its truncated time frame.

Specifically, the analysts continue:

“In North America, the prominent markets are Canada and the U.S. and law enforcement agencies in these nations are best equipped with the upgraded weapons. The militarization of the police department and other law enforcement agencies in the Americas has encouraged the use of advanced riot control equipment.”

While swaths of the country debate the finer points of which lesser evil should take the helm of the corporate plutocracy, various U.S. law enforcement agencies have been gearing up for the virtually inevitable unrest both during and following those elections.

Militarized police forces have become de rigueur, even in the nation’s smallest towns — but arming law enforcement with the weapons of war, rather than protecting civilians, has birthed a chasm of distrust and animosity on both sides. It isn’t as if this equipment is being produced by a marketplace intent on keeping civilians safe from an ostensible outside threat.

As the report, which does not offer a breakdown of specific agencies it might be referring to (though may in its body which can be purchased for $2,500 here), definitively states:

“Law enforcement agencies use riot control systems to maintain the public order and safety and to enforce laws. They are used to disperse, control, and arrest people involved in riots and protests. Riot control systems include lethal and non-lethal weapons (NWLs), body-worn cameras, armored vehicles, and communications systems.”

As if released in conjunction with one another, a report by Lloyd’s intones the necessity of preparedness as mass civil unrest can not only spark without prior warning, but flare outward, unpredictably — what the insurer calls “Political Violence Contagion.” According to the report, instances of political violence “contagion (pandemics) have become more frequent, and the contagion effect ever more rapid and impactful.”

Considering massive worldwide demonstrations in the U.S. and elsewhere — as people finally grasp how corrupt governments actually are — it becomes apparent in these reports the politicians and their enforcement agencies comprehend the greatest threat to their power. As caucuses and primaries fall into chaos — and the City of Cleveland gears up for the Republican National Convention — voters and nonvoters alike harbor greater disillusionment than ever before.

Cleveland, whose police are currently under federal oversight following a Department of Justice probe that found a general pattern of brutality, plans to spend around $20 million to beef up security measures for the RNC. While part of the sum will focus on training, personnel expenditures, and the like, Vox reported 40 percent will be earmarked for “equipment and supplies” — including, in part, 2,000 sets of full-body riot gear. Additionally, if not ominously, the city “has put out bids for, among other things, 24 sets of ballistic body armor, 300 patrol bikes, and more than 3.7 miles of interlocking steel barriers, all of which can be used to curtail protestors,” according to Vox.

Together, the reports paint a dire prediction — not as much for its illustration of a world in chaos, but for its intimation authoritarian actors may act aggressively to quash even positive and peaceful change by the rest of us.

This article (New Report Proves US Law Enforcement Preparing for Rioting on a National Scale) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

Why #US Govt. And #SaudiArabia Don’t Want Americans Knowing the Truth About 9/11

by

 

Anti-Media Staff
April 21, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) In a rare show of bipartisanship, President Obama and top Republicans in Congress have come together to shield Americans from knowing the truth about who was behind the 9/11 terror attacks, which took the lives of 2996 people in 2001. However strange it is for neoconservative members of Congress to agree with Obama on anything, there is no doubt the issue must be serious if it warrants this level of partnership.

The issue at hand is the classified, 28-page section of the 9/11 commission report, which many experts and politicians with knowledge of the documents have said point to Saudi Arabian government officials’ direct role in the terror attacks. This is why the Saudis put out a stern warning several days ago threatening to dump up to $750 billion in U.S. assets if Senate Bill 2040 becomes law; S.B. 2040 would make public the 28 pages and also allow for victims of 9/11 to sue foreign governments found responsible.

The Saudis’ warning seems to have worked, with Obama now in the nation to “mend ties” with the monarchy and top Republicans sounding the alarm about the 9/11 bill. In an interview with Charlie Rose, President Obama claimed:

“If we open up the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries,” apparently referencing the U.S.’ own attacks overseas that have taken the lives of countless civilians.

Currently, Saudi Arabia enjoys “sovereign immunity” with the U.S., meaning even if the 28 pages proved Saudi officials were indeed behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would not be able to seek justice for their losses. The new 9/11 bill would change that, and the Saudi response to the legislation moving through Congress reinforces suspicions the kingdom is somehow behind the 9/11 attacks.

The video below further explains why both Saudi Arabia and members of the U.S. government don’t want the 9/11 bill to pass:

This article (Why US Govt. And Saudi Arabia Don’t Want Americans Knowing the Truth About 9/11) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Robert J. Fisch. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

The Video That Could Bring Down #Hillary #Clinton’s Campaign

by

 

Claire Bernish
April 20, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) After New York’s stunningly disorganized and questionable primary results proved, yet again, our elections are rigged to ensure establishment darling Hillary Clinton garners the Democratic nomination, a new video from Abby Martin’s Empire Files could topple Clinton’s entire campaign.

Evidence of said rigging isn’t difficult to find — it’s written directly into the electoral process in superdelegates, whose 700 “unpledged” votes remain uncommitted to a candidate until the nomination. This is “to ensure nominees are hand-picked party insiders,” as Martin explains in the video.

“The single vote of a superdelegate is worth thousands of ours,” Martin notes. “Many of these people are current and former members of Congress, and dozens more are literally corporate lobbyists working on behalf of every industry from healthcare to private prisons.”

In fact, the employment of superdelegates was initiated precisely for situations when the people’s choice doesn’t align with the establishment’s — such as the current overwhelming popularity of Bernie Sanders.

But the web of corporate media executives and insiders contributing directly to Hillary Clinton’s campaign couldn’t possibly explain the extreme bias, lack of criticism, and virtual media blackout on Sanders’ success, right? And her campaign, dripping with corporate lobbying cash, wouldn’t concern the American voting public, even though lobbyists literally act as superdelegates — would it?

Watch Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents to see the proof the establishment doesn’t want you to discover.

This article (The Video That Could Bring Down Hillary Clinton’s Campaign) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Gage Skidmore. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Primary Chaos: #NY #Elections Face Audit After 126,000 Mysteriously Denied Right to Vote

by

Claire Bernish

April 19, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Amid further reports of numerous problems with today’s primary election — including reports of some 126,000 voters purged from the rolls — New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer announced on Tuesday he will be auditing the city’s Board of Elections.

“There is nothing more sacred in our nation than the right to vote, yet election after election, reports come in of people who were inexplicably purged from the polls,” the Comptroller stated. “The people of New York City have lost confidence that the Board of Elections can effectively administer elections and we intend to find out why the BOE is so consistently disorganized, chaotic and inefficient.”

Stringer was so alarmed, he penned a letter to NYC BOE Director Michael J. Ryan about the audit, noting his “deep concern over widespread reports of poll site problems and irregularities” — and demanded the BOE provide viable explanations for each.

“Voters across the city have complained about poll workers erroneously redirecting them to different poll sites, poll workers unable to operate voting machines, poll workers unable to produce the correct party ballot for an individual voter, and poll workers giving conflicting information,” he wrote.

“Of particular concern are numerous allegations of widespread removal of eligible voters from voter-registration rolls, as well as instances of incorrect party affiliations on individual registration records. These errors have conspired to bar first time and longtime voters from exercising their fundamental democratic right.”

Stringer’s concerns were echoed by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio this afternoon, who issued a statement cited by Politico about the ongoing turmoil and outrage:

“It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists. I am calling on the Board of Elections to reverse that purge and update the lists again using Central, not Brooklyn borough, Board of Election staff.”

In fact, a spokesman for State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman claimed his office has already received “by far the largest volume of complaints” from any election since 2011, Politico reported.

In concurrence with Stringer’s audit announcement, de Blasio added:

“We will hold the BOE commissioners responsible for ensuring that the Board and its borough officers properly conduct the election process to assure that voters are not disenfranchised. The perception that voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process and must be fixed.”

Despite these telling public statements from officials, Ryan told the Observer:

“I bristle at the suggestion that some folks might be making that there are widespread problems. We’re just not seeing it.” He added the snafus occurring Tuesday were “what we typically see during elections.”

Ryan did mention he’d been away from his office most of the day, yet repeatedly rebuffed suggestions the voluminous number of reports were anything out of the ordinary for an election.

“Comptrollers audit agencies, that’s why comptrollers are there,” Ryan told the Observer about Stringer’s intent to audit. “If Comptroller Stringer believe that it is a worthy use of his agency resources to investigate the Board of Elections, we’re no different than any other city agency.”

With voters increasingly irate over inexplicable difficulties in simply casting a primary vote, we may be in for quite the ride in November.

This article (Primary Chaos: NY Elections Face Audit After 126,000 Mysteriously Denied Right to Vote) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#Clooney Raised $15 Million for #Hillary & DNC, Denounced #Money in Politics a Day Later

by

 

Elizabeth Montag
April 18, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) George Clooney held a $353,000-per-couple fundraiser for Hillary Clinton just one day before he called the amount of money in politics “obscene.” On Sunday, he discussed his two-day San Francisco event on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he defended the pricey dinner galas — even as he acknowledged the problem of out-of-control spending in elections.

Clooney went on to justify the fundraiser, estimated to have generated $15 million in two days, by arguing the money raised goes not only to Hillary Clinton, but the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — the institution currently under fire for subverting the electoral process to satisfy the party’s establishment machinery which, of course, includes the Clintons.

Asked point blank by host Chuck Todd if he felt the fundraiser pooled an “obscene” amount of money, as Bernie Sanders alleged, Clooney acknowledged it was over the top:

“Yes, I think it’s an obscene amount of money,” he said, adding that protesters showed up to the event to voice their disapproval.

“[W]e had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco. And they’re right to protest, they’re absolutely right — it is an obscene amount of money,” he added. The protesters were largely Bernie Sanders supporters, some of whom threw dollar bills at Clinton’s motorcade.

“The Sanders campaign when they talk about it is absolutely right, it’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree, completely,” he said.

truth-cancer-ad

The A-list actor acknowledged he likes Bernie Sanders and thinks he is fostering important conversations within the Democratic Party. He also vowed to throw a similar fundraiser should Sanders receive the nomination. Nevertheless, he reaffirmed Hillary Clinton as his first choice. Further, he justified the fundraiser by arguing, essentially, it was a necessary evil to place Democrats back in power.

“The overwhelming amount of the money that we’re raising, is not going to Hillary to run for president. … It’s going to the congressmen and senators to try to take back Congress,” he said, prefacing his statement with the suggestion the Clinton campaign has not made this clear enough.

He continued, “…we need to take the Senate back because we need to confirm the Supreme Court justice, because that fifth vote on the Supreme Court can overturn Citizens United and get this obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I never have to do a fundraiser again. And that’s why I’m doing it.”

Indeed, much of the money raised for the Hillary Victory Fund — the beneficiary of the weekend’s fundraisers — goes to the DNC to invest in candidates, though Clooney did not explicitly mention the committee in the interview. A much smaller portion goes to state Democratic parties, leaving millions for Clinton and the national party establishment. Unsurprisingly, Todd did not press Clooney on the merits of raising millions of dollars for an organization that has admitted to suppressing the voices of Democratic voters in its tirade against Bernie Sanders.

As Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the increasingly loathed chair of the DNC, said of the Democratic Party’s political process in February:

“Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.” Her statements — and the shenanigans at polling centers — enraged Sanders’s followers. Clinton’s corporate funding has also raised serious suspicions about her credibility.

When Todd pressed him, Clooney denied the possibility that — as Sanders suggested — wealthy donors will expect access to a ‘President Clinton’ for their contributions at the fundraisers. Rather, he abruptly shifted his focus to the Koch Brothers:

“No, I actually don’t think that’s true. I think there is a difference between the Koch Brothers and us. The difference is, if I succeed — if we — succeed in electing an entire Congress…and a president, you know, the tax policies that they would enact would probably cost us a lot more money, quite honestly. The Koch Brothers would profit if they [got] their way, and…there’s no profit for us in this.”

Though Clooney may not personally be making a profit (and he admits the policies he envisions would further indebt the nation), he neglected to note that under a Clinton presidency, defense contractors, private prisons, and other corporatist industries who back Clinton will expect to receive a boon to business for the investments they’ve made in her — even if they didn’t attend this particular Hollywood fundraiser. Further, considering the establishment DNC spearheads Clooney’s stated goal of winning a Democrat-dominated Congress, it’s likely those selected to run for office with the “obscene” cash he raised would favor the same interests as the corrupt party rulership.

In spite of these concerns, Hollywood’s behind-the-scenes moguls, some with interests in Washington D.C., have thrown their support and money behind Clinton; Jeffrey Katzenberg, founder of Dreamworks Animation and former top bundler for the Obama campaign, co-hosted Clooney’s fundraiser and enjoyed alone time with Clinton beforehand. Katzenberg and his staff  have enjoyed access to the White House throughout the Obama years, and he has long-promoted internet censorship legislation for the sake of stopping online piracy, along with other policies beneficial to the film industry.

Others, like Haim Saban, a proudly pro-Israel Hollywood billionaire, have supported Clinton for years. Saban currently runs Univision, which recently acquired the Onion and boasts of his contributions to Hillary, which total $6.4 million. Perhaps reflecting his purchased influence, Clinton wrote a letter to Saban last July vowing to oppose the BDS movement (boycotts, divest, sanctions), which seeks to disempower Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

As Hollywood’s behind-the scenes power players favor Clinton, so do celebrities. Many, like Beyoncé, Kerry Washington, Ellen Degeneres, and Katy Perry, are considered “empowered women,” and thus, apparently support the female presidential candidate. A majority of entertainers openly supporting nominees opt for Clinton. Clooney — and many other actors and musicians — proudly supported Barack Obama and continue to do so, even as his reign failed to live up to expectations, extended privacy violations, sanctioned and committed war crimes, and sought to bolster America’s oligarchy.

The star-studded event over the weekend undoubtedly raised millions for Hillary, but it is unclear whether the Hollywood establishment is unaware of her myriad crimes — or simply overlooking them for the chance at influence over the next president.

As Bernie Sanders said of the extravagant weekend galas:

“So it’s not a criticism of Clooney. It’s a criticism of a corrupt campaign finance system, where big money interests — and it’s not Clooney, it’s the people coming to this event — have undue influence on the political process.”

This article (Clooney Raised $15 Million for Hillary & DNC, Denounced Money in Politics a Day Later) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Elizabeth Montag and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. Image credit: Michael Vlasaty. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

#NASA’s #Propaganda Campaign Wants You to Embrace the Militarization of Space

by

 

Jake Anderson
April 11, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) We’ve seen quite a bit of NASA in the news recently. The latest photos of Pluto rattled up considerable excitement — and why not? The celestial body was dead not too long ago, heartlessly stripped of its 9th planet status. Now it’s back with a vengeance.

NASA made headlines again on Friday, when it announced a watershed mission to Europa, the icy moon of Jupiter that many scientists believe could harbor life in the oceans under its glacial surface.

Last year, coinciding with the cinematically poignant, if not propagandistic film, The Martian, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) unveiled its “Visions of the Future” project, a set of 14 posters meant to instill a new generation of Americans with a renewed interest in traveling to other planets and moons in the solar system and beyond.

The posters, made by the design company Invisible Creature, are fascinating. They depict a future in which advanced space travel has allowed humans to freely hop around the solar system; it is intrasolar space tourism of the highest order.

nasa-1-titan

The project saw NASA officials, scientists, engineers, public relations experts, and artists collaborating to imagine what the future of humanity could entail.

truth-cancer-ad

One particularly beautiful poster features humans in advanced hot air balloons touring Jupiter. The description reads:

“The Jovian cloudscape boasts the most spectacular light show in the solar system, with northern and southern lights to dazzle even the most jaded space traveler. Jupiter’s auroras are hundreds of times more powerful than Earth’s, and they form a glowing ring around each pole that’s bigger than our home planet.”

Other posters include an illustrative future history of Mars exploration; a journey through the clouds of Venus; a boat ride on Titan’s rivers and lakes of liquid ethane and methane; an undersea exhibit of the life forms under the ice of Europa; exoplanets with red vegetation; a dark orphan planet flying through the galaxy without a sun (“where the nightlife never ends”), and many more.

nasa-2-jupiter

The posters are undeniably inspired and sure to delight space buffs, science fiction fans, and children alike. More than a few people have noticed the strangely propagandistic feel of the posters. One writer even compared them aesthetically to the Atomic Age posters from the 20th century.

One of the artists responsible for creating the posters admitted the influence. “We were inspired by vintage travel posters, WPA-type posters from the 1930s and then all the way up to mid-century modern— 1940s, 1950s, 1960s,” he said.

There is certainly no denying that while these posters have an altruistic goal of getting a new generation interested in space travel, they are also greasing the wheels for new NASA budget proposals and the new age of the space-industrial complex. The agency, which many mistakenly believe has been on essential furlough since the moon landings, has actually been prolific in recent years, with unmanned missions to Jupiter, Pluto, and Mars. Currently, NASA is running very exciting, groundbreaking projects, including JUNO, DAWN, and the New Horizons mission to Pluto, which garnered over 10 million visits to the NASA government homepage.

That said, there have been considerable budget cuts in the last decades, with more to come. Since 1966, NASA’s budget has fallen from 4.41 percent of the federal budget to just 0.5 percent.

Despite the recent fantastic recent discoveries and NASA’s robust social media presence, there has been the perception that the agency’s missions have become “boring.” Rocket launches barely even make the news these days, and, until this decade, the only space endeavors that truly got people talking were images from Mars and speculation about life there. Many believed space travel was dead.

That is the perception NASA wants to overcome. Movies like The Martian — which NASA influenced heavily — and the “Visions of the Future” space tourism posters can be seen as ambitious moves to get the public excited about space exploration again. An excited public is a powerful leveraging tool for requesting more funds.

Some have noted that efforts by NASA to infiltrate popular culture are nothing new. The agency launched an entire series of novels called “NASA-Inspired Works of Fiction,” for which they conscripted science fiction authors to produce novels amenable to the new eclectic age of federally sponsored space travel. One of these novels, William Forstchen’s 2014 science fiction novel, “Pillar to the Sky,” for example, argues that bureaucratic slashes to the NASA budget are one of the biggest threats to humanity.

For the record, this is a textbook example of a psychological operation (psyop) — or a planned operation by the government meant to manipulate public opinion. Specifically, this would be classified as a “white psyop,” which is an official statement or act associated with a government source. To put it bluntly, it’s the nicest form of propaganda, as contrasted with grey and black psyops, which use varying gradations of subterfuge and covert operations. There are thousands of psyops being conducted around the world, some acknowledged, some top secret with classified government budgets.

The release of both the “Visions of the Future” series and The Martian coincided with NASA’s request of $19 billion to fund a manned mission to Mars. The request comes at a time when NASA is increasingly partnering with private companies to bolster the United States space apparatus. Earlier this year, the agency issued massive contracts to three companies — SpaceX, Orbital ATK, and Sierra Nevada Corporation — that will complete six cargo resupply missions for International Space Station (ISS) by 2024.

SpaceX, of course, is run by Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk, who has openly said he wants the company to help enable the colonization of Mars. Last year, the company released its own Mars propaganda posters. Over the weekend, the company made headlines by successfully launching and delivering the first inflatable room for astronauts.

SpaceX-Valles-Mariners-4-12[Savy]

Orbital ATK is an American aerospace manufacturer and defense industry company that produces tactical missiles, defense electronics, and medium and large-caliber ammunition.

Sierra Nevada Corporation is an electronic systems provider and systems integrator specializing in microsatellites, telemedicine, and commercial orbital transportation services. In addition to the NASA contract, the United States Army contracted them to manufacture Mobile Tower Systems (MOTS) and help fund Gorgon Stare, a remotely controlled, aircraft-based Wide-Area Persistent Surveillance (WAPS) system. Since 2006, the United States military has awarded the company 65 contracts, totaling nearly $3 trillion.

That NASA’s functions are interwoven with the military-industrial complex should come as no surprise. Since its inception, the Pentagon has controlled the agency through an oversight committee, with the open goal of utilizing the space between Earth and the moon for strategic military operations. Space is widely considered to be the next frontier of warfare. The militarization of space in the coming decades will see tactical satellites capable of launching nukes, disarming weapons, and collecting vast amounts of surveillance data. Noam Chomsky calls it one of the biggest threats facing humanity.

How does this connect back to the “Visions of the Future” posters? To be fair, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with getting excited about space. We live in an incomprehensibly large universe with billions of galaxies, each one containing billions, and even trillions of stars. Our species has finally stepped off its front porch and is looking to venture out into the cosmos. While some might question whether the human species is safe — both to ourselves and others — leaving its home, we must colonize other planets in order to ensure the long-term survival of the species. We’re set to render our home planet uninhabitable, but that doesn’t mean splinter groups of humans might not someday live sustainably on a colony world (think big, folks!).

Though we are likely centuries away from traveling to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, there is a very real chance we will explore other planets in the solar system in the coming decades. As we rekindle our excitement about space, let’s keep in mind that NASA’s space technology will also allow us to wage wars and engage in planetary surveillance. With great promise comes great peril. As with artificial intelligence, biotechnology and countless other burgeoning fields with revolutionary potential, we must proceed with great caution. With space, especially, we must carefully consider the people to whom we’ve entrusted our explorations — or the human race could end up like George Clooney’s character in Gravity, metaphorically speaking.

This article (NASA’s Propaganda Campaign Wants You to Embrace the Militarization of Space) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: NASA/SpaceX. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

Jailed #Bankers Freed Early as #Icelandic Government Implodes Over #PanamaPapers

by

Carey Wedler
April 7, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Iceland — The world watched in admiration last year when over two dozen Icelandic bankers who played a role in causing the 2008 financial crisis were sentenced to prison. Less than a year later, three of those bankers have been released — years earlier than expected. Their release was predicated on a change to current law regarding maximum penalties, but at least one lawmaker has suggested those who pushed the change through “handcrafted” it precisely to help bankers. News of their highly reduced sentences coincides with an ongoing scandal revealed by the Panama Papers this week regarding the Icelandic prime minister’s previously secret, offshore holdings in banks implicated in the collapse.

Icelandic outlet Stundin reported Thursday, as translated to English by the Icelandic Review, that three bankers from the Kaupthing Bank who were sentenced last year have been released. Former Kaupthing Chairperson of the Board Sigurður Einarsson, former Kaupthing Luxembourg CEO Magnús Guðmundsson, and former investor and 10% owner of Kaupthing Ólafur Ólafsson were convicted last year for their role in market manipulation and fraud. As the Reykjavík Grapevine summarized, “they artificially inflated the value of the bank, deliberately deceiving investors and depositors alike, and contributed significantly to the late 2008 collapse of the Icelandic banking system.”

They have each served roughly a year of their prison sentences, which ranged between four and five years, but because of a change to the law made March 16 regarding maximum penalties, they were released Thursday.

The Icelandic Review explained:

“The main part of the law change is to allow prisoners to double the amount of their sentence they serve at home, under electronic surveillance (i.e. tagged). The parliamentary bill was changed in committee to allow five days of electronic monitoring for every month of a prisoner’s sentence, instead of 2.5 days as it has been. This means that a prisoner sentenced to one year in prison can now spend the last 60 days electronically tagged and in the community, instead of 30 days. The rule change means criminals can now be released earlier from prison.”

Stundin reported they will be able to finish out their sentences at a “halfway house,” where they will be expected to spend every evening but will otherwise be free. After they have completed this phase — Stundin did not specify the exact length — they will be allowed to finish their sentences via electronic surveillance as determined by the new five-day guideline established by changes to the law.

truth-cancer-ad

The change to the law was, according to Stundin’s sources, pushed through the legislature by Unnur Brá Konráðsdóttir, chair of the Alþingi (Parliament) General Committee and MP for the Independence Party.

But not all lawmakers viewed the decision in a positive light.

“I don’t think this is a good time for this legislative change, in light of the situation surrounding these particular prisoners,” Left-Green MP Bjarkey Olsen Gunnarsdóttir said of the modification. “This seems to have been handcrafted for them. I generally support the increased use of electronic surveillance [as opposed to prison]. But we need to have a discussion about what crimes this new law would apply to.”

Though the world celebrated the sentences of the bankers last year, the financial convicts complained of unfair treatment at their low-security prison, in spite of, as the Grapevine noted, “all evidence of their wrongdoing, their lenient sentences, practically idyllic living conditions, and – most galling of all – their continued assertions that they did nothing wrong.”

In a televised interview with the bankers from prison conducted this January, they expressed disbelief they had ended up behind bars.

“We made a big mistake, our lawyers and us, in trusting the system. We trusted the courts, and put our trust in the Supreme Court to sentence according to the law. There is our mistake,” Ólafsson claimed. The ex-banker, who has been called a “corporate Viking,” also complained of the ongoing backlash against bankers. “The community is responding to a certain social group. They are subjecting a certain social group to bullying,” he said. Twenty-six bankers were sentenced last year, receiving a combined total sentence of 74 years — an average of slightly less than three years per banker.

Regardless, the Kaupthing bankers have been now released from jail. The news comes the same week Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson came under fire amid evidence of corruption highlighted in the Panama Papers leak; Gunnlaugsson was revealed to have holdings in an offshore company — one tied to the banks implicated in the financial collapse for which the bankers were convicted. He initially refused to officially resign, instead “step[ping] aside for an unspecified amount of time.” Sigurdur Ingi Johannsson, deputy chair of the Progressive party Gunnlaugsson chairs, will now serve as Prime Minister. Gunnlaugsson will remain chair of the party.

The Panama Papers revelations inspired mass protests in Iceland as 22,000 gathered in the capital city of Reykjavík on Monday evening, many demanding new elections to wipe the slate clean after corruption reached the highest office. The protests have continued throughout the week, though the size of the crowd has grown smaller.

As the current government remains mired in scandal and attempts to salvage its image, news of the freed bankers highlights deep-rooted issues with accountability in Iceland prior to the Panama Papers scandal; Stundin also reported that last week, before they were released, the bankers were allowed to leave their confinement center to go out for ice cream.

This article (Jailed Bankers Freed Early as Icelandic Government Implodes Over Panama Papers) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

Bill #Clinton May Have Just Cost #Hillary the #Black Vote

by

Nick Bernabe
April 8, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Philadelphia, PA — Hillary Clinton has been performing well with minorities so far in the 2016 Democratic primary, but that could soon be changing. Bill Clinton may have just severely damaged the former secretary of state’s reputation among African Americans by committing a major gaffe — one he is now “almost” apologizing for.

At a campaign stop in Philadelphia on Thursday, Bill was interrupted by protesters — a common theme this presidential election. The protesters, mostly young black Americans, interrupted Bill’s speech to air their grievances about his sweeping 1994 crime bill — the largest ever passed. The bill, sold as a way to effectively fight inner-city crime, actually helped expand an already developing trend of mass incarceration that had an overwhelmingly negative impact of the black community.

Signs reading “Clinton Crime Bill destroyed our community,” and “Hillary is a murderer” could be seen waving in the audience as Bill was interrupted Thursday. He caused a major backlash in the the African-American community when he decided to comment on the people who were incarcerated because of his crime bill.

“I don’t know how you would describe the gang leaders who got 13-year-olds hopped up on crack and sent them out in the streets to murder other African-American children.“Maybe you thought they were good citizens…You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter. Tell the truth. You are defending the people who cause young people to go out and take guns,”  he said at the campaign event.

Hillary Clinton was a major supporter of her husband’s crime bill when she was First Lady. As we reported previously:

truth-cancer-ad

“Hillary Clinton lobbied Congress to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Bill Clinton signed the act into law in 1994… The largest crime bill in history, it provided $9.7 billion in prison funding. From 1992 to 2000, the amount of prisoners in the U.S. increased almost 60%.”

In another recent incident, Hillary came under scrutiny for alluding to young black males as “super-predators” in a speech in 1996. She, like Bill, has been confronted by activists for her contribution to the nation’s mass incarceration problem.

Hillary is facing eroding support from the Latino community, as well. Recent polling shows her previous popularity among this key demographic has evaporated — leaving Bernie Sanders with a slight lead of 48% to Clinton’s 47% in Latino support.

Ironically, though he defends it now, Clinton previously disowned the crime bill, admitting in an interview with CNN last year that it had “too wide a net” that resulted in “too many people in prison.”

Regardless, Hillary Clinton is still raking in major cash from the private prison industry despite her haunting past with mass incarceration.

This article (Bill Clinton May Have Just Cost Hillary the Black Vote) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nick Bernabe and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Yes, the #PanamaPapers Could Really End Hillary #Clinton’s Campaign

by

Op-Ed by Jake Anderson
April 6, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) With Senator Bernie Sanders winning seven of the last eight delegate battles — the most recent was Tuesday night’s Wisconsin victory — there’s a feeling in the air that most progressives haven’t felt since the Iowa caucus. It speaks to a hard truth Hillary Clinton and her choleric campaign staffers will encounter when they wake up in the morning: Bernie really could still beat Clinton and become the Democratic nominee for president.

No way, some of you are saying. The television faces said the delegate math was too hard. The superdelegates make it impossible. Hillary wins the primaries, Bernie only wins caucuses; America won’t elect a socialist; the nation won’t rally behind free healthcare and college tuition.

Despite the supposedly ineluctable logic of Sanders’ unelectability, many pundits now believe there has been a seismic shift in the 2016 presidential race. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Americans are sick to death of the two corporatist political establishments and will do anything to send them a message. The evidence of this is that the two most popular candidates in the 2016 election are a Jewish democratic socialist and a reality TV star who referred to his penis during a nationally televised debate.

Then there’s the matter of the Panama Papers. In case you haven’t heard about them over the roar of mainstream media’s ‘round-the-clock anti-Trump coverage, it’s being referred to as the biggest data leak in history. For the last year, 400 journalists have been secretly decoding 11.5 million documents leaked from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. The 2.6 terabytes of data show billions of dollars worth of transactions dating back 40 years.

Acquired from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and then shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the documents present a jaw-dropping paper trail of how the upper echelon of the 1 percent has used shell companies and offshore tax havens to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes. In less than a week of exposure, the Panama Papers have already implicated 140 world leaders from 50 different countries. Top executives and celebrities who appear in the leaked emails, PDFs, and other documents may also be indicted in money laundering, tax evasion, and sanctions-busting activities.

Though the source of the leak opted not to do a Wikileaks-style data dump and is instead allowing media outlets to curate the information, international tax reform could be imminent.

truth-cancer-ad

The revelations are relevant to the 2016 presidential election because they once again illustrate the stark contrast in judgement between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The transgressions documented in the Panama Papers were directly facilitated by the Panama-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, which Congress ratified in 2012. In 2011, Sanders took to the floor of the senate to strongly denounce the trade deal:

“Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama free trade agreement will make this bad situation much worse. Each and every year, the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations evade about $100 billion in taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and in other countries.”

Clinton, on the other hand, completely ignored the tax haven issue, and instead, regurgitated the same job-creation platitude she used to peddle NAFTA, which has decimated American manufacturing jobs and led to an economic refugee crisis in Mexico.

Beyond just exposing her unwillingness to understand how modern free trade agreements benefit the rich and punish impoverished countries, Clinton may have a more nefarious connection to the Panama Papers.

In lobbying for the Panama-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, Clinton paved the way for major banks and corporations, most notably the Deutsche Bank, to skirt national laws and regulations. After she resigned as Secretary of State, the Deutsche Bank paid her $445,000 for a speech. While criminality can’t yet be definitively established, this may change when the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” publishes its comprehensive list at the end of the month. In addition to the aforementioned connection, Clinton’s name has already surfaced in connection to a billionaire and a Russian-controlled bank named in the files.

The fallout from the Panama Papers is being felt around the world. On Tuesday, Iceland’s Prime Minister resigned after it was revealed his family had used a shell company to hold millions of dollars worth of bonds in a collapsed bank. After an interview in which Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson had a meltdown when asked about the company’s assets, over 20,000 citizens of Iceland protested. For context, that’s approximately 10% of the country’s population.

How does this lead to Bernie Sanders defeating Hillary Clinton? The Sanders campaign has been run on the premise that Clinton is inextricably linked to political corruption, disastrous military interventions, and collusion with Wall Street. If it can be shown that Clinton was involved in criminal improprieties exposed by the Panama Papers, this will constitute yet another major line of attack for Sanders headed into the April 14th debate in New York. If Sanders wins the New York primary a few days later and scoops up its 95 delegates, the narrative of the election will dramatically shift.

When added to the myriad other Clinton scandals and political vulnerabilities, the Democratic party’s gatekeeper superdelegates could decide that Clinton is too big of a liability going into the general election. It all comes down to New York, though — Sanders must win New York. If he does, you will see historic chaos unleashed upon the American electorate. And if the Panama Papers leak sets off an unstoppable domino effect, the DNC may soon find its fractured party looking just as ghoulish as the clown’s autopsy being conducted on the Republican Party.

This article (Yes, the Panama Papers Could Really End Hillary Clinton’s Campaign) is an opinion editorial (OP-ED). The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of Anti-Media. This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#WikiLeaks Spokesperson Says #PanamaPapers Should Be Made Available to Public

by

Michaela Whitton
April 6, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — A spokesperson for WikiLeaks has called for the Panama Papers to be published in full in order to ensure the public is fully informed of the revelations. In a snippet of an interview set to air on RT’s “Going Underground” Wednesday, the Icelandic investigative journalist-turned-Wikileaks representative criticized the media’s current coverage. “When they are saying this is responsible journalism, I totally disagree with the overall tone of that,” he said.

Kristin Hrafnsson, who became a spokesperson for WikiLeaks after Julian Assange became engulfed in legal battles, also told RT’S Afshin Rattansi:

“I do have a sympathy towards stalled releases, we certainly did that in WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011 with the Diplomatic Cables and we were actually highly criticised for holding back the documents. But in the end the entire cache was put online in a searchable database.”

Saying this is what he wants to see with the Panama Papers, he said the leaked data should be available to the general public — not just the group of journalists directly working on reporting on the revelations. He added that while he understands there may be a slight delay in the release of the information — in order to maximise impact — ultimately, the public should have full access to it. “That’s the new way, it’s the way that WikiLeaks operates and it is highly appreciated by the general public.” Hrafnsson insisted.

In an attempt to combat what appears to be a mainstream news monopoly on the biggest data leak in history, by Tuesday evening WikiLeaks had made 149 of the of 11.5 million Panama Papers available to the public by sharing them via DocumentCloud.

In a Twitter poll, WikiLeaks asked people if the Panama Papers should be made public and searchable. Of the 85,000 who responded, 95% said they should be.

truth-cancer-ad

This article (WikiLeaks Spokesperson says Panama Papers should be Made Available to Public) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

The #TSA Spent $1.4 Million on an #App That Only Cost This Guy $10 to Reproduce

by

 

Clarice Palmer
April 5, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) The International Business Machines Corporation, commonly known as IBM, has been named in a series of reports tied to the TSA’s “randomizer” app. Though many news sources have focused on the cost of the app, few have looked deeper into the relationship between Washington D.C. and IBM’s powerful lobbyists.

Geek.com reported the Department of Homeland Security’s TSA awarded IBM with a $336,413.59 contract for the production of an app that randomly chooses a left or a right arrow. The function is used in U.S. airports, and its goal is to make lines more efficient by randomly choosing which travelers get to skip the extensive security checks.

The information was made available promptly after web developer Kevin Burke filed a Freedom of Information Act request. As a result of the query, Burke received a copy of the contract between IBM and the TSA, which shows the app cost taxpayers at least $336,000 (in a Twitter reply to Burke, Time Magazine’s Partheek Rebala advised that a summary of the total cost tied to the app could be also found online.)

That summary shows that between September of 2014 and August of 2015, IBM was awarded at least seven contracts, all of which were tied to software development. All services and products add up to $1,444,315. According to Geek.com, “It could be IBM supplied all the iPads and training as well as the app itself.” But even then, “the cost of the project is crazy.” After all, the product is just “an app that is [sic] just randomly selects left or right.”

To Chris Pacia, a Bitcoin expert and lead backend developer for OpenBazaar, the cost the TSA paid for the app made no sense. After all, how expensive could an app that acts like a digital a coin flip actually be?

To demonstrate how easy — and cheap — it is for anybody to come up with an app just like TSA’s randomizer, Pacia posted a video on YouTube demonstrating the entire process. Pacia’s app took him less than 10 minutes to develop, according to his video’s description. It cost about $10 worth of labor to build.

truth-cancer-ad

Though Pacia demonstrated the TSA’s inefficient budgeting, the underlying cause of these indulgent expenditures can be understood through the agency’s relationship with IBM.

While important details regarding the contracts between the Department of Homeland Security and the company are not listed on the government’s accounting website, the tech giant is no stranger to the establishment’s favoritism game.

According to the Center for Responsible Politics, IBM Corp. spent over $9 million on lobbying efforts between 2014 and 2015 alone. Defense and information technology, the group claims, are some of IBM’s top issues. In many cases, IBM also lobbied for anti-privacy measures.

One of the bills IBM lobbied to pass was H.R. 1731, also known as the National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015. The law places the information gathered via both the federal government and the private sector in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. IBM also lobbied for the Cybersecurity Disclosure Act of 2015, a bill turned into law that “trump[s] possibly forthcoming federal regulatory efforts and state privacy laws” and that broadens “powers of network operators to monitor and disclose” online information.

Considering IBM’s apparent lack of respect for privacy — and its efforts to influence government policy, it is unsurprising the multinational corporation is working so closely with the Department of Homeland Security.

This article (The TSA Spent $1.4 Million on an App That Only Cost This Guy $10 to Reproduce) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Clarice Palmer and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.

 

From theantimedia.org Team

#PanamaPapers: #British Elite Linked to #Corruption, yet Media Only Focuses on Putin

by

Michaela Whitton
April 04, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — Believed to be the largest leak of secret documents in history, the Panama Papers are the latest revelations exposing global corruption. The worldwide investigation supposedly exposes the secretive offshore industry the world’s elites use to hide assets and swerve rules. Based on a library of more than 11 million leaked files, it claims to have exposed a host of characters using offshore companies to facilitate bribery, arms deals, tax evasion, financial fraud, and drug trafficking.

Few will be surprised that the global rich and famous hide their money offshore, regardless of their country of origin. While the Panama Papers are set to identify a cast of characters, from the stars of pitch and screen to political establishments, it’s worth pointing out that the 2.6 terabytes of data hail from just one law firm in one tax haven. They are the tip of the iceberg in spotlighting the shadowy corners where elites stash their cash.

Though much of the public reveres whistleblowers, as author and human rights activist Craig Murray points out, this particular leaker has made the mistake of turning to the Western corporate media to publicise the results. The crucial part of this story, according to Murray, is who is managing the leaked information: the “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.” He explains they are funded and organised by the U.S.A’s Center for Public Integrity, which includes sponsors such as the Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Rockefeller Family Fund, W. K., the Kellogg Foundation, and the Open Society Foundation,  which is owned by George Soros.

All roads lead to Putin

Considering those guarding the information, it is unsurprising that here in the U.K., corporate press coverage has shown an overarching focus on official enemies like Putin and Assad. With the media dominated by glaring close-ups of Putin and misleading headlines, it seems the British public are only privy to information about official establishment foes while the misdemeanours of tax dodgers are practically ignored. From what Murray says, the identities of those behind managing the leak could also explain the deafening silence on the hundreds of Israeli companies and shareholders implicated.

With the enemies of the West paraded by British news outlets, by mid-morning only the Mirror and the Metro had given brief mention to the fact that David Cameron’s father and a host of senior Tory figures had reportedly used tax havens for the rich and powerful. David Cameron’s late father, Ian, is allegedly named as a client of Mossack Fonseca, the firm at the centre of the scandal. Using it it to protect his investment fund from U.K. taxes, he is said to have built up a significant legacy, part of which was inherited by the Prime Minister. The irony is not lost on many, especially in view of Cameron’s previous pledges to clamp down on tax dodgers and havens. He has described them as “morally wrong.”

Few will hold their breath for any of the rich and powerful named in the files to be held to account for the details released the latest data splurge. Undoubtedly, it will soon become clear whether there will be any real consequences of a leak of this size, particularly when most of the information will remain private. While tumbleweeds blow through the corporate media on the fact that the Tories were up to their necks in global corruption, Twitter users didn’t hold back.

This article (Panama Papers: British Elite Linked to Corruption, yet Media Only Focuses on Putin) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

The End of America’s Two-Party System May Be upon Us

by

Chris “Kilila” Perrin
March 26, 2016

(UR) Washington, D.C. —  There’s a reason most parliamentary and presidential democracies have more than two political parties, and both Trump and Sanders are examples of why. Both nominee-hopefuls have increasingly come to represent polar opposites of the singular problem that the American two-party political system is suffering from: Stagnation.

With only two parties, what this presidential race is showing is that there has been a tendency for those parties to become static and unbending in their policy, stance, and platform. Historically, one or both of the parties must then break, either because the progressive edges within the party force it apart, or voters start to see the party as inflexible and obsolete. It has happened before in the U.S., and it looks like it is happening again. The recent increase of voters registering as independent, as well as the parallel growth in independent candidates, is a good example of the level of dissatisfaction people and politicians now have with the GOP and Democratic Party. It is also an indication that American democracy is changing. Again.

The inclusion of Sanders in the Democratic Party, Trump in the Republican, and the cataclysmic portrayal of them both in the media, has only confused the issue. This is particularly noticeable as Trump is often blamed for the imminent demise of the GOP as a relevant institution. With both candidates running for the nomination of their respective parties, the GOP and the Democratic Party appear internally fractured, split on major issues and confused as to their directions. This can only be the case in a two-party system.

As a country with a long history of a two-party system, these internal party divisions can feel like a breakdown of sorts. In a multi-party system, however, the issue would not be so destabilizing. Although a multi-party democracy does have the down side of sometimes appearing to have too many parties and politicians to choose from, space exists within the system to have the centre-left (Democratic Party) and centre-right (GOP) represented, while far-left and -right candidates don’t tear the centrist parties apart from within.

Whatever the new face of democracy in America, and whatever the future implications of the 2016 election, what is clear is that Americans are no longer content to be represented by parties too close together at the center of the political spectrum. At the very least, the fact that Trump and Sanders have gained so much traction throughout their respective nomination bids is a clear indication that the U.S. will not become a single-party state any time soon. That is at least something to be happy about.

This article (The End of America’s Two-Party System May Be upon Us) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Chris “Kikila” Perrin and UndergroundReporter.org. If you spot a typo, please email the error and the name of the article to undergroundreporter2016@gmail.com. Image credit: Flickr/DonkeyHotey

0 Total Shares

From theantimedia.org Team

#Wikileaks Drops #Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It

by

Michaela Whitton
March 20, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom — On Wednesday, a major archive containing over 30,000 of Hillary Clinton’s emails were released. Though the State Department began releasing the emails in May last year — after a Freedom of Information Act request — it is the first time the messages have been made easily available in a searchable format, courtesy of WikiLeaks. Before the launch, the FBI was investigating the Democratic candidate’s use of a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The archive contains over 7,000 emails written by Clinton herself.

The scary, albeit fascinating exposé on who’s in bed with whom in the halls of global power has expanded to include Facebook, according to WikiLeaks. The organization has accused the social networking site of censorship, saying Facebook is blocking users’ access to the latest Clinton dispatch.

wikileaks-hillary

As a result of the outing, Twitter users are calling Clinton wicked, a thug, and a hypocrite. The released emails uncovered that the presidential frontrunner was instrumental in spreading chaos and extremism in Libya. They also revealed that she pushed for oil privatization in Mexico and forwarded emails claiming a Sunni-Shiite war would be good for Israel and the West.

wikileaks-hillary-2

For those who are fascinated but don’t have the time or inclination to sift through more than 30,000 documents, here is a snapshot of what Clinton’s emails revealed:

This article (Facebook, WikiLeaks and Clinton’s Warmongering Emails) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

#Netflix’ House of Cards Is Much More Realistic than We’d Like to Admit

by

Jake Anderson
March 19, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) — ***MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

Netflix original series, House of Cards, has never shied away from controversial storylines. The narrative has followed Frank Underwood’s rise to power from Congressional whip to Vice President to President. His meteoric ascent to power was always trailed by a dark shadow, though — one that perhaps mirrors the real life brutality, scandal, and corruption that accompanies the machinations of most high-level politicians.

House of Cards is particularly ruthless in this regard. Frank Underwood has personally killed two people. One, a journalist with whom he has been having an affair. She learns too much, and during a discreet subway station meeting, Frank takes advantage of a well-timed metro train to push the young woman into its oncoming path. Another Underwood victim is a ruined, alcoholic candidate for governor of Pennsylvania (who had become politically toxic for the Democrats). Late one evening, he passes out in his car, and Frank, who has driven him home, leaves the gas running and closes the garage door.

Frank, of course, has addressed the camera and been open about his Machiavellian philosophy of power. “For those climbing to the top of the food chain there can be no mercy,” Frank once said. At one point, he also stated, “I’d push [the Russian president] down the stairs and light his broken body on fire just to watch it burn if it wouldn’t start a world war.”

Season 4 of House of Cards picked back up in the middle of the savage Democratic primary, where  Underwood is pitted against an ethical judicial reformist, Heather Dunbar, who promises to restore dignity to the White House. Unfortunately, her brief inconsequential meeting with journalist-turned ex-felon Lucas Goodwin, who pleads with her to listen to his evidence of the president’s crimes, spells her end. After Goodwin attempts to assassinate Underwood, rendering him on the brink of death, Dunbar’s dalliance with Goodwin is a nail in her political coffin.

Season 3 also ended with Claire Underwood leaving the president, though she returns to him as the season progresses. While Underwood is the frontrunner on the Democratic side, he trails in the general election polls to a Kennedy-esque Republican by the name of Will Conway. After his recovery from the near fatal gunshot wound to the liver, Frank and Claire come up with an unprecedented plan for her to be his Vice President. This effectively reunites the two and makes them a formidable opponent against Conway, who is a war hero. He is also the user of a mysterious data analytics company deploying a proprietary data mining surveillance tool to gather voter information.

Underwood begins his own surveillance program, obfuscating its paper trail with a military strike that would necessitate surveillance. Here we start to see the full measure of Frank Underwood’s manipulative warmongering — Wag the Dog mixed with some black ops. Underwood, who is a moderate Democrat toeing the line with conservative policies (he proposed ending social security, as well as doubling down on foreign interventionist strategies), appears very much as a Clinton-like centrist ideologue who uses the military for nebulous political gains and geopolitical chess moves.

The real manifestation of this comes in the last few episodes of Season 4 of House of Cards. Underwood negotiates with ICO — a radical Islamic terrorist group clearly modeled after ISIS — for the release of a family held captive. The mother and daughter are released, and the Underwoods allow the kidnappers to speak with their imprisoned leader. When that goes awry, a federal raid turns up nothing, and a news story draws attention to his previous crimes, Frank begins to panic.

Claire, overwhelmed by emerging scandals from their past that threaten to dismantle their political dynasty, devises a sinister but calculated plan.

“I’m done trying to win over people’s hearts,” Claire says to a dejected Frank, insinuating the Underwoods should start a war to help win the election. “We can work with fear.”

The fear instilled in the public from terrorist attacks like ICO’s often serves as fodder for foreign intervention, and in the season finale, Claire realizes it can also serve as a distraction from their corruption.

This is more than a reflection of the times: this is political reality. Americans live in a militaristic empire that thrives on using fear as leverage to coerce the population into thinking war is a necessity. In reality, it is a boon for defense contractors… and the politicians who facilitate this wealth. Distractions abound as those in power execute hidden agendas in Washington D.C.

During an address to the nation in which Frank notifies the public he will not negotiate with terrorists — leaving the father of the family in the hands of the domestic extremists who kidnapped him — Underwood declares a merciless war on ICO. It is presumably declared without congressional approval. “We must move beyond reason, we must respond with force,” he says. “It will be a war more total than anything we have waged thus far in the fight against extremism.”

After the terrorists share video of them slitting the kidnapped father’s throat, the Underwoods share a moment together. Frank casts his characteristic gaze into the camera, readying to speak. Only this time, Claire is looking at us, too.

“We don’t submit to terror,” the president says. “We make the terror.”

House of Cards Season 4 ends.

This article (Netflix’ House of Cards Is Much More Realistic than We’d Like to Admit) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Ex-CIA Official Says Obama Doesn’t Follow Through on Promises Out of Fear of CIA

by

Claire Bernish
March 14, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) AcTVism Munich recently interviewed former CIA analyst-turned-activist, Ray McGovern, whose steadfast anti-torture stance led him to return his Intelligence Commendation Medal in 2006 — when the CIA sought official inclusion of torture in its methodology.

AcTVism’s Zain Raza asked McGovern to describe what led to his decision to return the medal.

“It was a time when the director of the CIA was openly pleading for an exception to legislation being drafted by Senator John McCain, prohibiting U.S. government officials from torturing people,” McGovern explained, noting he was aware torture had been practiced during CIA operations in Latin America. “But this was the first time the CIA was openly advocating for permission to be able to torture … and that seemed to me so abhorrent that I wanted to disassociate myself from the CIA for the first time since 1963 — because I didn’t want to be associated in any way, however remotely, with an agency engaged in torture.”

McGovern also described Europe’s role in the torture campaign and his opinion on whether President Obama had followed through on campaign promises to hold officials accountable for their actions.

“The role of our ‘allies,’ in my view, is a scandal. Fifty-three other countries cooperated in the kidnapping — extraordinary rendition — of suspected terrorists to black sites, where they were administered ‘enhanced interrogation techniques … which, by the way, is a direct, literal translation of verschärfte Vernehmung, right out of the Gestapo manual. I have the manual, and the sad thing is that many of the techniques are exactly the same — with a few ‘enhancements’ by the U.S. since World War II. So the role of our European allies and others has just, really, disappointed me greatly.

“Now, why President Obama … decided not to hold the torturers accountable is another very sad story,” McGovern continued, saying the president “is afraid” of the CIA. “I never thought I would hear myself saying that the President of the United States is afraid of the CIA, but he is. He’s afraid of the NSA, as well.”

McGovern says this is evident because National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who lied under oath in a Senate hearing, and Director of the CIA John Brennan, who hacked computers involved in the Senate committee overseeing him, both remain on the job to this day.

“You know, it’s hard to say this,” he continued, “but I suspect that Obama is afraid either of blackmail potential or even worse; and he has referred to the killing of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. … saying, ‘Don’t you remember what happened to Dr. King?’”

Discussing the NSA’s overreach and domestic spying, as well as general tacit acceptance of surveillance by people in both the U.S. and Germany, McGovern warned against passivity. He strongly emphasized the need to protect against the gradual ebbing of liberties and human rights, comparing such programs to those of the Gestapo.

“This is terribly, terribly dangerous territory,” McGovern said. “And the passiveness, you know, the apathy, that’s not responsible citizenship. When I’m asked why am I an activist, I say, ‘well, that’s the rent that I pay for living on this planet,’ okay? … To the degree we pretend to be a democracy, we have a corresponding duty to be activists enough to prevent our human rights from being infringed upon.”

McGovern also discussed Edward Snowden, whom he met in Russia, and dispelled some myths and rumors surrounding the whistleblower many call a hero.

AcTVism Munich’s interview can be seen in full below, or at the link here. The independent media site has previously conducted interviews with Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, and many others, which are available in multiple languages. AcTVism Much relies heavily on crowdsourcing to fund such endeavors, which you can help by donating here.

This article (Ex-CIA Official Says Obama Doesn’t Follow Through on Promises Out of Fear of CIA) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

California Legislature Votes to Ban Some Adults From Buying Cigarettes

by

Josh Mur
March 11, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) At the age of 18, young American adults are granted the legal right to sign a contract, purchase a firearm, marry, enlist in the military, sit on a jury, and vote. These rights bear a fresh batch of life-changing choices to youth that the law views them capable of making.

California lawmakers, on the other hand, appear to perceive 18-year-olds capable of no such thing. A list of new anti-tobacco bills was passed by the state Assembly on Thursday, among it, a bill that pushes the legal age to purchase cigarettes and other tobacco products from 18 to 21 throughout California. The motion passed with a 46 to 26 vote. Governor Jerry Brown has yet to sign off on them.

In addition to raising the smoking age, the new bills seek to put further restrictions on e-cigarettes and vaporizers. If these new laws are put into effect, California will become the second state after Hawaii  to raise the smoking age. However, a handful of cities ─ San Francisco and New York being the largest ─ have adopted the same new regulation.

As stated earlier, 18-year-olds in America are granted a set of rights, as they are perceived to be ─ or at least capable of being ─ responsible adults worthy of making very serious and/or life-changing decisions. So let’s ask the obvious question here:

How is one seen as competent and responsible enough to join the ranks of the military to risk their lives for the agenda of corrupt power elites, sign a legal contract that could bind them to harmful terms and conditions, choose the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, have a voice in what laws are passed, and who our political leaders are, and sit on a jury with the fate of a peer in the hands of their judgement, but somehow not seen as sufficiently “adult” enough to buy a pack of cigarettes or enjoy a cold beer?

Having gained the support of nearly all of the Democratic party, the bill was largely opposed by Republican lawmakers.

“I don’t smoke. I don’t encourage my children to,” said Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine. “But they’re adults, and it’s our job to treat our citizens as adults, not to nanny them.”

Those in support of the bill argue that raising the smoking age to 21 will significantly reduce smoking, as an approximate 95% of  smokers pick up the habit before age 21. In addition, an analysis published in March 2015 suggests raising the smoking age to 21 could possibly reduce smoking by about 12% within a decade, along with saving around 273,000 lives from lung cancer and premature deaths.

While good intentions may be found underneath these bills, it does not change the fact that they directly stifle the freedom of the American adult. One should not have a say in a presidential election if they cannot be seen as capable of choosing whether or not to smoke cigarettes. One should not have the option to carry an assault rifle and risk their life for government policy if one is not considered responsible enough to have a drink.

It would appear such basic principles are much more difficult to grasp than they seem.

This article (California Legislature Votes to Ban Some Adults From Buying Cigarettes) is an opinion editorial (OP-ED). The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of Anti-Media. This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Josh Mur and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

The iPhone Is Just the Beginning: FBI Already Accessing Your DNA

by

Jake Anderson
March 9, 2016 

(ANTIMEDIA) Private genetic databases like 23andMe and Ancestry.com are increasingly used by people for genealogy tracing and medical diagnostic tests. With a million customers each, the two companies receive a great deal of attention from privacy advocates, who for years warned the government would eventually seek access to citizens’ DNA in order to assist with law enforcement.

They were right, and yet another conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact…

It turns out both the FBI and local law enforcement departments routinely seek DNA samples from these companies for familial DNA searches. In fact, according to Ancestry.com’s recently released transparency report, the company received 14 law enforcement requests in 2015. They provided customers’ genetic information in 13 of those cases.

A similar, recently released report by 23andMe discloses there were four law enforcement requests to the company in 2015.

The issue has received increased attention in part because of a frightening article by Wired. The story recounted the legal imbroglio filmmaker Michael Usry endured after Idaho Falls police “matched 34 of 35 alleles” from a crime scene to Usry’s father’s DNA.

Years earlier, his father had donated some DNA to a genealogy project funded by his Mormon church. Ancestry.com purchased the project and made the database of samples publicly available. Though Idaho Falls police ultimately concluded Usry was not involved in the murder of Angie Dodge, they had been able to obtain a search warrant for Michael’s cheek cells based on the sample they found online.

Ancestry.com didn’t realize police would be able to use their information to conduct genetic searches, but as they would soon learn, law enforcement authorities around the country are looking to expand their ability to conduct DNA searches beyond the FBI’s current national genetic database.

Anti-Media reached out to Ancestry.com for more information regarding how the company responds to national security requests. They referred to their transparency report, which states:

“As of December 31, 2015, Ancestry has never received a classified request pursuant to the national security laws of the United States or any other country. In other words, Ancestry has not received a National Security Letter or a request under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

Could this change in the wake of a terrorist attack? In the midst of the increasingly rancorous debate over civil liberties and national defense — epitomized by the FBI’s court case against Apple — it doesn’t seem like too big of a stretch, given the right political climate, to imagine private DNA databases being turned over to Homeland Security.

In Kuwait, citizens must submit their DNA to a government database to assist with criminal cases. Some actually argue the United States should have a similar mandatory DNA database, though this seems unlikely to gain widespread support given the backlash over electronic privacy violations in the aftermath of controversial NSA surveillance programs.

For now, the debate revolves around whether the United States government and local law enforcement should have the legal authority to access private DNA databases while investigating crimes. There hasn’t been a major Supreme Court ruling on this issue, so for the time being, companies like 23andMe and Ancestry.com will have to deal with police requests on a case-by-case basis.

As 23andMe’s first privacy officer Kate Black has stated:

“In the event we are required by law to make a disclosure, we will notify the affected customer through the contact information provided to us, unless doing so would violate the law or a court order.”

This article (The iPhone Is Just the Beginning: FBI Already Accessing Your DNA) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: thierry ehrmann. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

Chomsky: Trump Rising in Polls for Same Reasons Germany Embraced Hitler

by

Claire Bernish
February 24, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United States — Adolf Hitler rose to power during a period of similar social tumult as that which has currently garnered Donald Trump such fervent support, according to Noam Chomsky. In a recent interview with Aaron Williams for Alternet, Chomsky explained how fear, alone, does not sufficiently explain Trump’s surprising popularity:

“Fear, along with the breakdown of society during the neoliberal period. People feel isolated, helpless, victim of powerful forces they do not understand and cannot influence.”

Governmental control over the lives of the U.S.’ populace has increased tremendously in recent time.

[Read more…]

From theantimedia.org Team

We Just Found out the Real Reason the FBI Wants a Backdoor into the iPhone

by

Jake Anderson
February 24, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) The FBI versus Apple Inc. An unstoppable force meets an immovable object — the feverish momentum of American technocracy accelerating into the cavernous Orwellian entrenchment of the surveillance state. You thought the patent wars were intense? The ‘Battle of the Backdoor’ pits one of America’s most monolithic tech conglomerates against the Department of Justice and, ultimately, the interests of the national security state. And this case is likely only the opening salvo in what will be a decades-long ideological war between tech privacy advocates and the federal government.

On its face, the case boils down to a single locked and encrypted iPhone 5S, used by radical jihadist Syed Rizwan Farook before he and his wide Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino on December 2nd. The DOJ wants Apple to build a backdoor into the device so that it can bypass the company’s state of the art encryption apparatus and access information and evidence related to the case.

[Read more…]

From theantimedia.org Team

This Restaurant Just Banned Bankers but Allows Dogs

by

Michaela Whitton
February 24, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) France — Furious French cafe owner Alexandre Callet has taken the unprecedented step of banning bankers from his establishment after claiming that they have treated him like a dog. The 30-year-old restaurant owner is fuming with the morally corrupt industry after his request for a €70,000 ($78,000) loan to open a second restaurant was denied.

Callet said the requested amount of €70,000 is “nothing” given that his turnover for last year was €300,000. To express his disgust, the blackboard outside his Parisian restaurant which would normally display the day’s specials now reads: “Dogs welcome, bankers banned (unless they pay an entry fee of €70,000).”  [Read more…]

From theantimedia.org Team

Former Finance Minister Compares Current Financial Crisis to Great Depression

by

Claire Bernish
February 23, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) Greece’s financial crisis, unprecedented in scope, reached a pivotal moment last summer when the Greek people voted overwhelmingly against further austerity programs — ostensibly imposed to help the country pay back enormous debt. Overseeing the matter was Syriza Party Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis — a staunch opponent of the crippling austerity measures that had effected a stranglehold on the country’s economy.

Greece’s debt to the so-called Troika — the International Monetary Fund, European Commission, and European Central Bank — turned out not to be the true reason for the proposed austerity. As Varoufakis discovered, the Troika actually, if somewhat covertly, intended to decimate Greek organized labor and the country’s modest social safety net. After the Greek populace stunned the world with its ‘no’ vote, Varoufakis sensed the coming accession by Syriza to implement the plans — and he hastily and quietly resigned his post.

The Real News Network partnered with acTVism Munich for an exclusive interview with Varoufakis about those events. Discussing the lead-up to his resignation, Varoufakis said:

“The Greek people didn’t vote for yes. They voted as we were directing them to. Overwhelmingly they said no. And extremely courageously, for reasons I’m sure you know. That night [after the vote], when I spoke to my prime minister, it became abundantly clear to me that the pressure had gotten to him; and he was going to turn that magnificent no of the Greek populace into a yes. And I was not going to be a part of that. So I took my leave. I stole into the night. And since then I’ve been campaigning for that no.”

Varoufakis compares the Greek and global economic situation to that of Wall Street in the 1930s, and the impending stock market crash — with all the same social and political consequences. The first installment of the interview, How the Greek People’s Magnificent “No” Became “Yes,” can be viewed below:

[embedded content]

In the second installment of the interview, Varoufakis discusses the Origins of the European and Global Economic Crisis. As he explains:

“Capitalism requires surplus and recycling — just like the planet requires environmental recycling — so does capitalism require a mechanism that takes the surpluses, the profits if you want, from where they are being produced and invests them in areas that are in deficit, that have losses, where demand is low and unemployment is high. Unless you have this recycle mechanism, capitalism fails. These recycle mechanisms are part and parcel of every major state, or have been, for 200 years now.”

The former finance minister discusses the implications of the Bretton Woods System on past and current state of global economics, among a number of other related issues. You can view the second part of the interview below:

[embedded content]

This article (Former Finance Minister Compares Current Financial Crisis to Great Depression) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: marclozano.If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team

One (Extremely) Important Policy that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Both Agree on

by

Claire Bernish
February 23, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) An increasing number of politicians have joined the call for an audit of the Federal Reserve, including several presidential contenders — most surprisingly, Donald Trump.

Senator Rand Paul drove the recent push for the audit, following in the footsteps of his father, Representative Ron Paul, with a proposed bill that drew condemnation from corporations and the Obama administration, as well as anti-Wall Street Senator Elizabeth Warren. Though the bill was ultimately defeated in January in a close 53-44 vote, the proposition to audit the Fed increasingly garners widespread attention and support.

Though Senator Bernie Sanders, with his apparent populist, socialist platform, might not be such a surprising supporter of the proposal, billionaire mogul Donald Trump is. In a tweet on Monday, Trump asserted:

“It is so important to audit the Federal Reserve, and yet Ted Cruz missed the vote on the bill that would allow this to be done.”

Cruz had backed the bill, but failed to show up for the vote. Sanders, Rubio, and a bipartisan assortment of senators all voted in favor of it.

Questionable Fed policy decisions and the handling of the financial crisis of 2008, namely the multi-trillion dollar big bank bailout, are cited as major concerns by those who support both the audit and oversight of the notoriously secretive central bank. Fed officials ambiguously argue against legislative oversight, and Fed chair Janet Yellen claimed prior to the vote that Paul’s bill would “damage the economy.”

In a statement before Congress in 2015, Sanders questioned the lack of transparency from the Fed in its refusal to disclose which financial institutions had received trillions in “zero-interest, or near zero-interest loans” after the crisis, courtesy of the American taxpayers.

“This $2 trillion [recent estimates have placed the figure above $3 trillion] in zero- and near zero-interest loans does not belong to the Fed,” Sanders declared. “It belongs to the American people, and the American people have a right to know where trillions of … their taxpayer dollars are going.”

He added that tracking where the money wound up seems a reasonable request, and “is why millions of Americans — whether you’re conservative, whether you’re progressive, or whether you are in-between — have come together to say that we need transparency at the Fed.”

Though the Vermont senator favors an audit, Ron Paul previously criticized what he called Sanders’s efforts to “water down” previous legislation to initiate one in 2010.

Nevertheless, however strange it may seem to find Sanders and Trump — and even Rubio — siding with a movement begun in earnest by Ron Paul, the importance of an audit has become the one point where an unlikely amalgamation of individuals of widely varied political camps can agree.

Despite the bill’s failure last month, the push for an audit of the Federal Reserve continues undeterred. Borrowing a choice mantra of government, the Fed should have nothing to fear in transparency — if it has nothing to hide.

This article (One (Extremely) Important Policy that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Both Agree on) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

From theantimedia.org Team