Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

"Trump Administration" is oxymoron

SUBHEAD: The sloppiness is a sign of the contempt with which Team Trump views government itself. 

By Howard Fineman on 19 March 2017 for Huffington Post  -
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-trump-administration-is-an-oxymoron_us_58cb1996e4b00705db4dd6ae)


Image above: Team Trump  L-R - Senior White House Policy Adviser Stephen Miller, Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway, Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, (former) National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly at a press conference with President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the East Room at the White House, February 13 in Washington. From original article.

Donald Trump took the oath of office two months ago, but is not yet running a real presidency. His administration, thus far, largely is playing like a junta that surprised the royal guards and seized the palace ― while still remaining unable to pacify the capital city, let alone inspire the countryside.

The White House is as stately as ever, but there aren’t enough friends outside the (porous) iron fence to make the inhabitants as comfortable as they should be in the first months of a new regime.

Rather, Trump is under siege from pretty much all sides.

Federal courts again are slapping down Trump’s first, signature move: a temporary travel ban on citizens from predominantly Muslim countries that he says harbor “radical Islamic terrorists.”

The joint Trump-GOP effort to “repeal and replace” Obamacare ― another key first promise and response ― is bogged down in multiple internal Republican divisions over everything from spending numbers to philosophy to legislative strategy.

With growing sharpness and specificity, GOP leaders are joining Democrats in dismissing as flat-out false the president’s repeatedly tweeted charge that former President Barack Obama “tapped” ― or surveilled in any way ― Trump Tower or its owner.

Trump’s new guns-and-no-butter first budget, which would literally take food from the poor and the elderly to give more money to Pentagon contractors, has been greeted with derision by many Republicans, who regard it as less of a blueprint than a political statement too harsh even for the tea party.

The nonpartisan polling “job approval” numbers for Trump have been in the 40s consistently in the first few months, and are the lowest launch average on record for a new president.

Trump has had his successes. They include the assembly, after some fits and starts, of a good ― or at least credible ― national security team of respected current and former members of the military or Congress.

As a result, there is a solid chain of command for Trump in his role as commander in chief.

He nominated a man to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, to whom the American Bar Association gave a sterling endorsement.

Trump has issued some executive orders that make good on other campaign promises ― such as the gutting of EPA regulations on the use of coal, building pipelines, getting out of multilateral trade treaties and instituting tougher domestic rules on the apprehension and repatriation of undocumented immigrants.

His tweets and campaign-style speeches, vowing tax cuts and the twisting of corporate arms to “buy and build American,” have had an effect: The stock market has been on a wild run.

But these successful measures ― the exception to the general pattern ― were comparatively amenable to direct White House control.

Everything else is harder to control or even withstand. And the dangers of drift are real. He elicited a new sense of hope from white working-class voters; their cynicism will deepen if he doesn’t deliver the jobs ― especially since his proposed new budget cuts are aimed at programs in rural counties.

Trump could well be tempted by the slow pace of change to ignore the law, especially since his aides, led by Steven Bannon, are telling him that the so-called “deep state” is itself a lawless force and is out to get him to preserve its own status.

He could use military confrontation ― such as the one brewing now with North Korea ― to emphasize the broad powers of a commander-in-chief who can’t be easily countermanded by institutions that constrain him now.

Another terrorist attack on the “homeland” would give him a rationale ― if not justification ― for sweeping new executive actions in the United States.

Leaders around the world, already confused and unsure of American leadership, could distance themselves further from U.S. aims and interests ― no matter how much more money Trump spends on modernizing the military and putting boots on the ground.

Why does a man who claims such great success as a business manager seem so overwhelmed?

Democrats have taken their time filling his Cabinet, arguing, with much justification, that Trump had presented them with a roster of conflict-laden billionaires and ideologues antagonistic to the goals of the departments they had been nominated to lead. But there a host of in-house reasons for the first months’ mess. Here they are:

He only wants to talk to people who have no choice but to agree with him, or who are glad to tell him why his enemies are scum.

I know poll-takers who shied away from doing polls for Trump because they knew that the numbers would not be favorable ― and that Trump therefore would never hire them. “I turned down lots of jobs with him for that reason,” one of them told me. “You never give Trump bad news.”

Which means that he is constantly infuriated when his yes men are forced to tell him the world says “no.”

He has to lash out somewhere, and that place is still Twitter.
 The Trump administration has been annoyed and distracted for a week ― a crucial week on the budget and on health care, among other things ― by the president’s false accusation of Obama’s purported “tapping.” He never should have said it. But he almost always does.

D.C. is not New York - politics is not real estate.


Trump’s tactical principle is that if someone “hits” you, you “hit back twice as hard.” I have heard him say it in private as well as in public, and it is a method he has used since he came to Manhattan decades ago with a million bucks from his dad.

But the paradox of the presidency is this: You are the most powerful person in the world, but in dealing with the rest of government and all of politics, it’s better not to make threats, and certainly not threats in public. Everything Trump thought he knew about how to get things done in the midst of controversy is wrong now.

This is not a parliamentary system, it just looks like one. 
 The Founding Fathers knew that parliaments could be dictatorial, which is why they chose not to have one. They dispersed and divided power. Even when one American party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress, a president’s clout is limited by the size of the majorities, legislative rules and the courts.

Trump can almost be forgiven for thinking that he had parliamentary power: Politics in America has been drifting in the one-party-rules direction for years. Obama passed his health care bill with only Democratic votes; Trump figured he could pass his with only the GOP. That already has been proven to be a faulty assumption.

The GOP doesn’t really like him, and the feeling is mutual.
 Unlike Ronald Reagan, Trump did not build from the ground up a new party and a new movement that he then led in the White House. Trump essentially carried out a hostile takeover of the rundown hulk of the GOP, battered by the unpopular presidency of George W. Bush and the rebellious internal assaults of the tea party.

Virtually every key figure in the House and Senate was for someone other than Trump, and some of them ran against him. Trump swept the primaries with money and jingoistic salesmanship, but he remains widely distrusted ideologically and personally on all sides.

Trump & Co. were elected because they’d had nothing to do with government ― and it shows.
 The “transition planning” cobbled together by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was a joke, and even that work was ignored by the coup plotters who burst into the White House. Almost no one in Trump’s inner circle had any executive experience in government. The list of rank amateurs in the highest places includes son-in-law Jared Kushner, chief of staff Reince Priebus, policy strategist Stephen Miller and counselor Kellyanne Conway. They are big into concepts and messages ― sales, Trump style ― but so far not the blocking and tackling of running things.

Benign neglect. 


If they want, the amateurs can console themselves with a semi-philosophical excuse: The government, which they regard as too big and too intrusive, can use a little neglect.

And so we see unfilled sub-Cabinet posts, catch-as-catch-can administrative oversight, rule by fiat that demoralizes the denizens of what White House Big Thinker Steve Bannon calls “the administrative state.” Misusing a fancy academic word, he says he’s for “deconstructing” it ― and why not do it by not filling positions or following procedure?

Worse: a contempt for the process of government. 
 Republicans have joined Democrats in marveling at the sophomoric crafting of something as valuable to Trump ― allegedly ― as his moratoria on travel to the U.S. by citizens of six (originally seven) Muslim-majority countries.

But the sloppiness is a sign of the contempt with which Team Trump views government itself.

Yes, the Obama Nerds went over the line ― for example, some of what they did on drones is outrageous, many argue. But perhaps because they were Democrats (and lawyers for the most part, led by Obama himself), they showed enough respect for procedure to get things done.


What goes around comes around. 


 Team Trump seems shocked and outraged that so many forces in public life seemed arrayed against him, almost by instinct.

What did he expect?
  • He attacked the press at every turn, and at his rallies he all but sicced rabble-rousers on them. 
  • He attacked a federal judge as biased because he was of Mexican heritage. 
  • He called his rivals for the GOP nomination by crude nicknames, and reveled publicly in their humiliation. 
  • He hired and fired at will, dismissing aides but pulling them back in (because they could cause trouble for him in one way or another) with flattering phone calls.
The Senate alone is a monument to possible payback. Do “Lyin’” Ted Cruz, “Little Marco” Rubio, “One-Percent” Lindsey Graham, “Crazy” Rand Paul and “He’s No Hero” John McCain want to help the president out in a pinch?

Trump tried to have House Speaker Paul Ryan defeated in his local GOP primary in Wisconsin. Yes, Rubio and Cruz accepted dinner invitations at the White House. They said they had fun, but revenge is a meal best served cold.

Money isn’t everything in D.C.
With his proud contempt for ethics ― or even the need to appear ethical ― Trump and his family are making a mockery of the notion that public service is a selfless exercise in patriotism.

Trump has turned the presidency, at least in part, into a commercial enterprise that is enriching his family wealth.

But as cool as that might seem in at least in some avaricious circles in Manhattan and Palm Beach, it doesn’t impress anyone in Washington, a city that needs money, but that doesn’t really value it per se.

Money can buy you the White House, as Trump proved, but it can’t buy you D.C. Trump has yet to understand that people in the city care about the law, or at least procedure, because it is power.


Image above: The controversial artwork of Trump in front of mushroom clouds and flanked by dollar signs that look like dollar signs shaped liek swastikas appeared in Phoenix on Friday. Owner of sign says billboard will stay up as long as Trump is President. In the days since, California-based artist Karen Fiorito says she’s received death threats. From (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-trump-billboard-sparks-outrage_us_58ce7dfde4b0ec9d29dcb8c6).

Bannonism.

A master of cunning, apocalyptic, xenophobic narrative, Steve Bannon has given Trump a grander mission ― that of saving the Christian West from Islam, materialism, Wall Street, Hollywood, the Ivy League and the “Mainstream Media.”

Reared and educated in a blue-collar, conservative Catholic family in Virginia, Bannon’s radical medievalism fits Trump’s royal conception of himself.

But the risk is that the president will remain oblivious to what is going on outside the reality TV show Bannon has designed for him to live in, or that Trump will think that he has the kind of kingly authority that allows him to ignore the best parts of the Founders’ vision of a pluralistic, secular and welcoming America.

Too many cooks.
Bannon is not the only power center, despite having placed himself on the National Security Council and having created a new “Strategic Initiative Group” inside the White House with himself as head.

Other power centers (for now) include Vice President Mike Pence, Priebus and Kushner, not to mention Hill leaders. So who controls the message in these crucial days and weeks?

No one, except perhaps the person who has created the most trouble for the White House: Donald J. Trump.

.

DAPL fight not over yet

SUBHEAD: Trump may have approved the Dakota Access Pipeline, but the fight is far from over.

By Staff on 18 February 2017 for Russia Times -
(https://www.rt.com/usa/377768-investors-banks-divest-dapl/)


Image above: Aerial photo of Standing Rock NoDAPL campsite that North Dakota Governor ordered evacuated 2/16. From (https://spectator.org/north-dakota-governor-orders-emergency-evacuation-to-speed-clean-up-of-nodapl-protesters-toxic-waste/).

More than 120 investors with over $650 billion in assets in banks financing the Dakota Access Pipeline have called on the financial institutes to support the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s call to have the pipeline rerouted from Native American land.
Citigroup, Wells Fargo, SunTrust Bank and BNP Paribas are among the 17 banks targeted in a letter signed by pension funds, asset management companies, and organizations.

The signatories have a total of $653 billion in assets under their control.
“We are concerned that if DAPL’s projected route moves forward, the result will almost certainly be an escalation of conflict and unrest as well as possible contamination of the water supply,” the letter reads.
“Banks with financial ties to the Dakota Access Pipeline may be implicated in these controversies and may face long-term brand and reputational damage resulting from consumer boycotts and possible legal liability.”
The banks have already been pressured by protesters that have urged people to divest from institutions that are funding the $3.7 billion project headed by Energy Transfer Partners. To date, bank accounts worth $53 million have been closed as a result of the DAPL movement, the letter claims.

Seattle City Council voted to end ties with Wells Fargo over the pipeline, while New York mayor Bill de Blasio suggested he would support a boycott.

The California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, one of the pension funds behind the letter, has previously been criticized for its holdings in ETP. The fund received a petition signed by more than 40,000 people demanding it sells its ETP holdings, according to the Financial Times.
“We understand that the banks providing the project finance have contractual obligations to DAPL, but the extreme controversy tied to the project warrants their urgent action,” the letter states.

“We call on the banks to address or support the Tribe’s request for a reroute and utilize their influence as a project lender to reach a peaceful solution that is acceptable to all parties, included the Tribe.”


Video above: North Dakota Governor issue  order to evacuate NoDAPL Standing Rock campsite because of waste and danger to inhabitants. From (https://youtu.be/j4jV4qypoZA).



Water Protectors not going away
SUBHEAD: The natural elements in the universe that have their own spiritual authority. They’re older than us.

By Josh Fox on 9 February 2017 for Alternet -
(http://www.alternet.org/environment/trump-may-have-approved-dakota-access-pipeline-fight-far-over)

On Tuesday, February 7, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced it was canceling an environmental review of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline and will grant approval of an easement permitting the construction of the final link in the pipeline to be constructed.

The decision, which is a major blow to the Standing Rock Sioux and activists who have been fighting the pipeline, comes after President Donald Trump’s executive order from his first week in office meant to advance the project. The pipeline opponents have vowed to continue the fight.
“The Obama administration correctly found that the tribe’s treaty rights needed to be respected, and that the easement should not be granted without further review and consideration of alternative crossing locations,” Jan Hasselman, an attorney for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, told The Guardian. “Trump’s reversal of that decision continues a historic pattern of broken promises to Indian tribes and violation of treaty rights. They will be held accountable in court.”
I spoke with my friend and fellow activist Chase Iron Eyes, a Lakota lawyer and one of the Standing Rock Sioux water protectors, who was recently arrested at the Standing Rock Camp, about the Trump’s reversal of Obama’s decision on the Dakota Access Pipeline and the next steps for activists in this ongoing battle.

Josh Fox: Obviously this is very aggressive action on behalf of the Trump administration and the Army Corps of Engineers, basically flying in the face of the rule of law and canceling the legal process and the environmental impact study ordered the Obama administration that would have examined the issues you and the other water protectors have been campaigning about.

What are your thoughts on this dramatic reversal and what do the water protectors, activists and concerned citizens do now?

Chase Iron Eyes: We’ve expected this all along. Those of us who have been on the front lines knew in our hearts and minds that December 4th—when the feds blocked the final permit to continue the pipeline—was no victory at all; that it was a hollow and meaningless gesture of the Obama administration.

Everybody was asked to go home at that time. Now those of us who seemed paranoid at the time have been vindicated. Now we have to be prepared for two things. One of those is the Dakota Access pipeline company, Energy Transfer Partners, has to go ahead to start drilling now. All fronts need to be activated—whether it’s legal, political or front line civil resistance.

Then also there is the Environment Impact Statement process that the Trump administration is reporting to just do away with, which is in violation of the law.

I don’t know what Standing Rock and Cheyenne River’s legal moves are, but we’re at a point now where water protectors are pursuing other legal means to try to stop, hinder or otherwise prevent the unabashed and violent expression of the power of the corporate state further in North Dakota by a very highly militarized resource committing violence on unarmed water protectors, who are sure to protest and exercise their constitutional and civil rights.

Josh Fox: Is this a call that you would put out for more people to come to Standing Rock now and under what conditions?

Chase Iron Eyes:A lot of people have put the call out and I would say about 1,000 to 2,000 people are already on their way, including three contingents of U.S. veterans who are coming to stand in peace and dignity and help achieve a modicum of respect for our constitutional rights, which are being encroached upon. In addition to people coming to join that fight, #DefundDAPL is still an ongoing effort. Seattle divested $3 billion.

The Muckleshoot tribe, the Nez Perce and the Milat tribes have divested significant amounts. Dallas Goldtooth, a “Keep It In The Ground” campaign organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network, mentioned it Wednesday on Democracy Now! during our interview there.


We’re calling for the whole nation to be on guard. If drilling starts happening or when the camp gets raided presumably on the 23rd or possibly the 22nd, the Army Corps said that we’re to be vacated by February 22nd.

Josh Fox: Let me just add that there are a number of different calls to action. Number one is to attend the protest where you are. There are protests all across this nation right now against the actions of Dakota Access pipeline. There’s one in New Orleans. There’s one in San Francisco. There’s one in New York. They’re all over the place.

I think the other thing that is worth saying is yes, if you can get to Standing Rock and you’re a self-sufficient person and you’re not going to be a burden and you’re not going to be messy and you’re not going to be violent, show up and they need you. Especially veterans.

I have to say that the veterans’ presence has been especially poignant because it was a reaction to the police brutality that we saw against peaceful protesters who are exercising their constitutional right. The veterans are saying, North Dakota police force, you guys want to shoot at Americans, you want to shoot at indigenous people, you want to mace us, okay you can start with us, the people who put our lives on the line defending this country from all enemies foreign and domestic.

When I talked with retired general Wesley Clark, he referred to all enemies—foreign and domestic—meaning the Dakota Access pipeline is a foreign and a domestic enemy, which I thought was a very bold statement to make.

That call, the veterans coming to Standing Rock and people coming to Standing Rock who are able-bodied, who can be of use, who can withstand the winter, who can be that kind of level of toughness and that kind of level of peacefulness—it’s a very interesting mix.

You need to be tough. You need to be strong but you need to be peaceful. You cannot be violent. You cannot be aggressive. You cannot be all of those things that we know won’t lead us down the right path. I think also you’re saying divestment, that’s a huge part of this movement.

Divesting your own personal funds, divesting your church’s funds, divesting your company’s funds from Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiBank, TD and all the banks that are invested in the Dakota Access pipeline is another huge part of this.

Then of course the legal strategy which we have nothing to do with, that’s up to the lawyers, but that’s another big part of what’s happening here. That’s a four-pronged resistance and that’s still very much in swing.

I would add to that a media strategy that I’m helping with, our film on Standing Rock that you and your daughter Tokata are in, will be coming out next week. We have found a place. I cannot announce it yet but it’s coming out and we’re going to be using that to further your call and to further the actions that you want. We have just gained the help of our revolution.

Bernie Sanders’ organization for furthering, they’re going to help promote it so we can announce that.
We can’t say the TV station yet that it’s going to be on but it’s going to be happening. It’s very exciting. It’s called Awake, A Dream from Standing Rock. It’s a collaboration between me and indigenous filmmaker Myron Dewey, Josue Rivas and Oscar-nominated filmmaker James Spione.

Also, this is obviously a moment of incredible stress and anxiety. How are you dealing with that, the level of responsibility that you have and the fact that these forces have gotten more and more violent? I know you were just arrested, maybe you want to speak about that.

Chase Iron Eyes: Yes, it’s the same as it’s been: through prayer, through trying to spiritually ground myself, spiritually ground ourselves. We are fully cognizant of the nature of this struggle. Some would call it a spiritual struggle. Some would call it a political or an economic struggle for liberation. It is all of those things. I mean we’re at a time now where we can name our common colonizer who we were taught and rightly so through genocide, holocaust and slavery that a certain group of people of one phenotype or skin color committed those crimes against humanity against another type of another phenotype or skin color.

Now we’re at a point where we can name currency, debts, big finance, big extraction, consumer values, advertising, the global corporate state. We can name that common colonizer, that common enemy and we have to address it and own it for what it is because we are all part of it. For me, I’m just one soul that has to be willing to sacrifice something in order to liberate from this thousand year old enemy. I know that our country’s at a point now where enough of us can build those bridges. Just through prayer, bro, that’s how I’ve been holding up.

Josh Fox: We talked earlier about how this spirit of Standing Rock is pushing out across the nation. There are fights against fossil fuel infrastructure in Florida against the Sabal Trail pipeline, in New Jersey against the PennEast pipeline, against the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline in Pennsylvania, against the Bayou Bridge pipeline in Louisiana and Big Bend, Texas, and in Denver against fracking and in my own hometown at the Delaware River Basin, once again against fracking.

Do you see this call for water protectors is one that is echoing throughout the nation? Is this a moment where we all have to come together, where we all have to be Standing Rock? Do you say no, let’s keep the focus on Standing Rock right now?

How do you balance those things is I guess one of the things that I’m struggling with right now because I see the primacy of that Standing Rock struggle right now as so important and so inspirational.

At the same time I understand that we’re under siege across this nation in many of the same ways. How do we best, for your position of leadership, how do we best balance those obligations as a movement and move forward?

Chase Iron Eyes: I think it’s important to recognize that it’s not even human-led prayer or human-initiated uprising in consciousness, collective consciousness that guided this or that made it happen.

We certainly had a part in it, but I believe it’s the water itself, it’s the land itself that is creating a spirit of prayer that is connecting to all of us whether it’s prayer, whether it’s energy or the raised consciousness or however you want to define or express what those concepts mean in every given language or culture, it’s something is happening and we’re responding to it now.

Standing Rock is serving as the physical expression of an international prayer monument because there had been prayers. There had been people, there have been struggles there.

There have been people sending their energy from that place at the confluence of the Missouri and Cannonball Rivers but all of these other struggles now, that may be the only way that we win is to multiply the fronts instead of focusing on one single front.

The people who are here through are committed to that. There does need to be a sacred fighter here. There does need to be that expression of solidarity, international solidarity.

Not everybody can be here. Wherever the next fights are whether that’s Keystone or the Delaware River or wherever it’s at, we need to all be talking to each other so that we can share resources, share platforms and help each other overcome some of the challenges that face those who fall outside of the “corporate state” paradigm.

Josh Fox: I really appreciate that. I want to quote my friend Doug Pineda, who’s a wonderful person and teacher who I met at Standing Rock. He said we need to “fight like the water.” We are the water, we need to fight like the water. We need to embrace and swarm and need to go and meet obstacles and go around them and wear them down.

I also would say that just like the water is all connected across the United States, we all need to be connected. That is the great rallying cry. Standing Rock is at the geographical center of North America. We are all the water running out from it. Yoko Ono says we’re all water from different rivers, that’s why it’s so easy to meet. I love that saying.

Chase Iron Eyes: I believe that. Something greater than ourselves has moved us and it started with prayer. That prayer came from human beings but it’s the natural elements in the universe that have their own spiritual authority. They’re older than us.

Our stories, our cosmologies tell us this and kind of give us that center from which to find our place, you know. We do recognize that it’s not just us. That for us that’s the true path to civilization is recognizing our respect relationship with things that sometimes western theological or academic thought considers inanimate objects or without life force or to be exploitable, to be under the dominion of human beings which for us that’s just kind of a crazy concept.

Josh Fox: Atossa Soltani from AmazonWatch likes to say we are nature defending itself. I like that.

Chase Iron Eyes: The only thing that I need to add is that I always want to express that we love everybody who supports the movement, everybody who takes action on their own accord, on their own behalf and that we support you. Just know that we send our compassion back to you because this movement doesn’t happen unless bridges are built and everybody helps each other.

Josh Fox: Wonderful, thanks Chase. I got my marching orders. I’ll see you on the front lines soon.

Chase Iron Eyes: All right, brother. Talk soon.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: US vets defending NoDaPL 2/13/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Tribes divest DAPL Bankers 2/13/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Army Corps okays DAPL Easement  2/8/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Trump orders go on DAPL EIS 2/3/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Water Protectors pipeline resistance 2/1/17 
Ea O Ka Aina: Force a full EIS on DAPL 1/27/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Missile launcher at Standing Rock 1/19/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Lockdown at Trans-Pecos Pipeline 1/10/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Standing Rock has changed us 12/9/16
Ea O Ka Aina: As Standing Rock celebrates... 12/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Army Corps denies easement 12/4/16
Ea O Ka Aina: My Whole Heart is With You 12/2/16
Ea O Ka Aina: The Loving Containment of Courage 12/1/16
Ea O Ka Aina: The Beginning is Near 12/1/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Feds to shutdown NoDAPL Camp 11/25/16
Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL people are going to die 11/23/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Hundreds of vets to join NoDAPL 11/22/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Obama must support Standing Rock 11/21/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Trump's pro oil stance vs NoDaPL 11/15/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Kauai NoDAPL Demonstration 11/12/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Obama to Betray Standing Rock 11/12/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Trump impact on Standing Rock 11/12/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Ann Wright on Standing Rock 11/8/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Turning Point at Standing Rock 11/6/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Jackson Browne vs DAPL owner 11/5/16
Democracy Now: Boycott of DAPL Owner's Music Festival
Ea O Ka Aina: World responds to NoDAPL protests 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL victory that was missed 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: DAPL hid discovery of Sioux artifacts 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Dakota Access Pipeline will leak 11/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Route of the Dakota Access Pipeline 11/4/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Sanders calls for stopping DAPL 11/4/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Obama hints at DAPL rerouting 11/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: New military attack on NODAPL 11/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: How to Support NoDAPL 11/3/16
Unicorn Riot: Tweets from NoDAPL 11/2/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Standing Rock & the Ballot Box 10/31/16
Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL reclaim new frontline 10/24/16
Ea O Ka Aina: How far will North Dakota go? 10/23/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Amy Goodman "riot" charge dropped 10/17/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Amy Goodwin to face "Riot Charge" 10/16/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Shutdown of all tar sand pipelines 10/11/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Why Standing Rock is test for Oabama 10/8/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Why we are Singing for Water 10/8/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Labor's Dakota Access Pipeline Crisis 10/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Standing Firm for Standing Rock 10/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Contact bankers behind DAPL 9/29/16
Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL demo at Enbridge Inc 9/29/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Militarized Police raid NoDAPL 9/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Stop funding of Dakota Access Pipeline 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: UN experts to US, "Stop DAPL Now!" 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: No DAPL solidarity grows 9/21/16
Ea O Ka Aina: This is how we should be living 9/16/16
Ea O Ka Aina: 'Natural Capital' replacing 'Nature' 9/14/16
Ea O Ka Aina: The Big Difference at Standing Rock 9/13/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Jill Stein joins Standing Rock Sioux 9/10/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Pipeline temporarily halted 9/6/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Native Americans attacked with dogs 9/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Mni Wiconi! Water is Life! 9/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Sioux can stop the Pipeline 8/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Officials cut water to Sioux 8/23/16


.

The Trumpotopia to come

SUBHEAD: President Donald J. Trump has risen... but for how long Trumpotopia last?

By James Kunstler on 23 January 2017 for Kunstler.com  -
(http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/he-is-risen-but-for-how-long/)


Image above: The United States Trumpital on Inauguation Day. From (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/19/trump-inauguration-parade-how-to-watch-live-stream-online.html).

If the first forty-eight hours are any measure of the alleged Trumptopia-to-come, the leading man in this national melodrama appears to be meshuggeneh (Yiddish for "a mad or idiotic person").

A more charitable view might be that his behavior does not comport with the job description: president. If he keeps it up, I stick to my call that we will see him removed by extraordinary action within a few months.

It might be a lawful continuity-of-government procedure according to the 25th Amendment — various high officials declaring him “incapacited” — or it might be a straight-up old school coup d’état (“You’re fired”).

I believe the trigger for that may be an overwhelming financial crisis in the early second quarter of the year. In, the first case, under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, it works like this:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Or else, it will be an orchestrated cabal of military and intelligence officers — not necessarily evil men — who fear for the safety of the nation with the aforesaid meshuggeneh in the White House, who is summarily arrested, sequestered, and replaced by an “acting president,” pending a call for an extraordinary new election to replace him by democratic means.

I’m not promoting this scenario as necessarily desirable, but that’s how I think it will go down. It will be a sad moment in this country’s history, worse than the shock of John Kennedy’s assassination, which happened against the background of an economically stable Republic. History is perverse and life is tragic. And shit happens.

Returning to the first forty-eight hours of the new regime, first the ceremony itself: there was, to my mind, the disturbing sight of Donald Trump, deep in the Capitol in the grim runway leading out onto the inaugural dais.

He lumbered along, so conspicuously alone between the praetorian ranks front and back, overcoat open, that long red slash of necktie dangling ominously, with a mad gleam in his eyes like an old bull being led out to a sacrificial altar.

His speech to the multitudes was not exactly what had once passed for presidential oratory. It was not an “address.” It was blunt, direct, unadorned, and simple, a warning to the assembled luminaries meant to prepare them for disempowerment.

 Surely it was received by many as a threat.

Indeed an awful lot of official behavior has to change if this country expects to carry on as a civilized polity, and Trump’s plain statement was at face value consistent with that idea.

But the disassembly of such a vast matrix of rackets is unlikely to be managed without generating a lot of dangerous friction. Such a tall order would require, at least, some finesse.

Virtually all the powers of the Deep State are arrayed against him, and he can’t resist taunting them, a dangerous game.

Despite the show of an orderly transition, a state of war exists between them. Anyway, given Trump’s cabinet appointments, his “swamp draining” campaign looks like one set of rackets is due to be replaced by a new and perhaps worse set.

Trump was correct that the ruins of industry stand like tombstones on the landscape. The reality may be that an industrial economy is a one-shot deal. When it’s gone, it’s over.

Even assuming the money exists to rebuild the factories of the 20th century, how would things be produced in them? By robotics or by brawny men paid $15-an-hour?

If it’s robotics, who will the customers be? If it’s low-wage workers, how are they going to pay for the cars and washing machines? If the brawny men are paid $40 an hour, how would we sell our cars and washing machines in foreign markets that pay their workers the equivalent of $1.50 an hour.

How can American industry stay afloat with no export market? If we don’t let foreign products into the US, how will Americans buy cars that are far more costly to make here than the products we’ve been getting? There’s no indication that Trump and his people have thought through any of this.

Trump can pull out the stops (literally, the regulations) to promote oil production, but he can’t alter the declining energy return on investment that is bringing down the curtain on industrial society. In fact, pumping more oil now at all costs will only hasten the decline of affordable oil.

His oft-stated wish to simply “take” the oil from Middle Eastern countries would probably lead to sabotage of their oil infrastructure and the cruel death of millions. He would do better to prepare Americans for the project of de-suburbanizing the nation, but I doubt that the concept has ever entered his mind.

The problems with Obamacare, and so-called health care generally, are burdened with so many layers of arrant racketeering that the system may only be fixable if it is destroyed in its current form.

The overgrown centralized hospitals, the overpaid insurance and hospital executives, the sore-beset physicians carrying six-figure college-and-med-school loans, the incomprehensible and extortionate pricing system for care, the cruel and insulting bureaucratic barriers to obtain care, the disgraceful behavior of the pharmaceutical companies, all add up to something no less than a colossal hostage racket, robbing and swindling people at their most vulnerable.

So far, nobody has advanced a coherent plan for changing it. Loosing the Department of Justice to prosecute the medical racketeers directly would be a good start.

Overcharging and defrauding sick people ought to be a criminal act. But don’t expect that to happen in a culture where anything goes and nothing matters. A financial crisis could be the trigger for ending the massive medical grift machine. Then what? Back to locally organized clinic-scale medicine… if we should be so lucky.

Saturday afternoon, Trump paid a call at CIA headquarters, ostensibly to begin mending fences with what may be his domestic arch-enemies. What did he do? He peeved and pouted about press reports of the lowish attendance at his swearing in. Maximum meshuggeneh.

I’m surprised that some veteran of The Company’s Suriname outpost didn’t take him out with a blowgun dart garnished with the toxic secretions of tree frogs.

Do you suppose Trump is going to improve? That was the hope after the election: that he’d take on some POTUS polish.

No, what you see is what you get. I can only imagine that what’s going on behind the scenes in various halls of power would make a Matt Damon Bourne movie look like a sensitivity training session — grave professional men and women on all fours with their hair on fire howling into the acoustical ceiling tiles.

Don’t forget that it was the dismal failure of Democratic “progressive” politics that gave us Trump.

His infantile lies and foolish tweets were made possible by a mendacious political culture that excuses illegal immigrants as “the undocumented,” refuses to identify radical Islamic terror by name, shuts down free speech on campus, made Michael Brown of Ferguson a secular saint, claims that there’s no biological basis for gender, and allowed Wall Street to pound the American middle class down a rat hole like so much sand.

You think this is the dark night of the national soul? The sun only went down a few minutes ago and it’s a long hard slog to daybreak.

.

Under New Management?

SUBHEAD: Is Trump just another variant of the Deep State stranglehold on the Untied States?

By Jeff Thomas on  16 January 2017 for The International Man -
(http://www.internationalman.com/articles/under-new-management)


Image above: Obama meeting in White House with Donald Trump after he won the presidential election. From (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/transition-briefing-passing-the-presidency-to-donald-trump.html).

In 2008, the majority of Americans voted for “change,” and in some ways, they got it. They received a heavier dose of collectivism in the form of Obamacare, but in addition, they received an even heavier dose of “more of the same.”

Mister Obama did not put an end to Guantanamo as he promised.  And, although he did remove troops from Iraq (only to send them back a few years later), he expanded America’s military adventures overall, invading numerous sovereign nations.

As for his promise to come down hard on the sworn enemies of democrats—the evil usurpers on Wall Street—he instead dug in deeper. His Treasury secretaries were banking insiders, not the “reformers” that had been anticipated.

Many who had voted for Mister Obama were deeply disappointed. Under him, government had grown, warfare had expanded, the economy worsened and Wall Street became even fatter than before.
In 2016, Americans, in large part, sought the selfsame changes—less central government control, less overseas aggression and a reigning-in of Wall Street and banks.
But to achieve these ends, voters switched sides once again and voted for a Republican, one who boldly committed to “drain the swamp.”

So, what are the odds that they’ll receive those changes? Let’s have a look.

When a new leader is elected, the best first assumption to make is that his campaign promises probably had little or no relationship to his actual intentions.

More likely, his intentions will be to continue to pander to the Deep State and those that helped him to get elected. Therefore, it’s always a good idea, in any country, to pay attention to the new leader’s choice as his posse.

The US president-elect has been active in choosing the gunslingers who will ride with him into Washington and the choices may provide an early warning as to who the new president really intends to be.

So, first off would be his closest advisors—his chief of staff and his chief strategist. Mister Trump’s choices, respectively, are Reince Priebus and Stephen Bannon. Mister Bannon is a Goldman alumnus.

In addition, Gary Cohn, Goldman’s president, has been chosen as director of the National Economic Council. By any measure, the cabinet will be somewhat of an extension of Goldman.

Mister Trump railed against Wall Street during his campaign and vilified his opponent on Twitter, stating, “Hillary will never reform Wall Street. She is owned by Wall Street!” His supporters had every reason to expect that he would prove to be the reformer they hoped for, yet his choices above suggest that that’s not the plan.

This likelihood is further enforced by his choice of Steven Mnuchin, who spent 17 years at Goldman, as Treasury secretary. His choice for commerce secretary is Wilbur Ross, a billionaire investor who is also unlikely to emerge as an advocate for reform.

As to whether warfare will be diminished in the coming administration, Mister Trump has stated clearly, in reference to ISIS, that he intends to “bomb the shit out of ’em.” (No uncertainty there.)

His choice for national security advisor is Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, whose primary focus is in ramping up tensions with Iran.

His choice for secretary of defense is Gen. James Mattis, who has declared his desire to invade Iran. In addition, Mike Pompeo, who also favours an invasion of Iran, has been selected as head of the CIA.

These choices are not likely to sit comfortably with Mister Putin, with whom the president-elect suggests he will enjoy a good relationship. Nor will they sit well with the many throughout the world who already feel the US has gone far beyond its limit in seeking to police the world.

Rather than back off from the dreaded Wolfowitz Doctrine, the choices of cabinet members, taken collectively, suggest a continuation of the foreign boondoggles that began in 2001.

The one departure may be in the important position of secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, a lifetime employee of Exxon who has developed good relations with Russia and opposes government regulation of business. He may be the one pick that reflects Mister Trump’s campaign claims.

Still, Mister Tillerson falls right in line with the ever-expanding corporatist relationship extant in the US government.

Finally, those who hope that Trump will reverse the trend of the Deep State’s near-total control over the US will be disappointed not only by the choice of Mike Pompeo for the CIA, but of Trump campaigner and establishment insider Jeff Sessions as attorney general.

None of the above guarantees that the voters who chose Mister Trump will soon be experiencing buyer’s remorse, but the indicators that Americans may find themselves out of the pan and into the fire are significant.

There’s an old saying that “the more things change, the more they stay the same,” and the lineup of new players above suggests that that may well be the case in the next administration.

Meanwhile, not only the US, but the entire world will be holding its collective breath over the coming months. The new president is less likely to spend as much time on the golf course as his predecessor. He’s far more likely to hit the road running.

The question will be in what direction he chooses to run. His choices for cabinet suggest that that direction might have less relationship to his campaign rhetoric and more relationship to the ongoing Deep State program.

To be sure, his clear choice of Washington insiders for so many of his primary cabinet positions informs us that the swamp will not, in fact, be drained. Big Business, the military-industrial complex and Big Banks will dominate the Trump cabinet.

Whatever the world will be treated to under the new American presidency, the words of Neil Innes ring true:
“No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.”
.

Is Grizzly Steppe a joke?

SUBHEAD: No,Grizzley Steppe is not a locale in Yellowstone Park or a Chippandale dancer's name. It's just propaganda.

By Deirdre Fulton on 30 December 2016 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/12/30/critics-still-see-holes-us-evidence-russian-election-interference)


Image above: Jeh Johnson, Director of the Department of Homeland Security under cover as male stripper "Grizzly Steppe" of Chipendale's. From Wikipedia and (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d1/64/ba/d164ba23e6e8a95d8f29ae33813c23e7.jpg). Mashup by Juan Wilson.

[IB Publisher's note: Grizzly Steppe is actually a ridiculous name made up by US intelligence agencies. On Thursday, the DHS and FBI released a report on alleged Russian election interference, dubbed GRIZZLY STEPPE]

Critics still see holes in US 'Evidence' of Russian election interference. Like the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi WMDs, the charges that Russia 'hacked' the presidential election in November have not been established beyond secret intelligence sources.

As the U.S. expels 35 Russian diplomats over hacking charges, critics say the so-called evidence released Thursday alongside President Barack Obama's sanctions is an insufficient response to calls for hard proof of the allegations.

The FBI/Department of Homeland Security Joint Analysis Report "Grizzly Steppe" (pdf), published as part of the White House's response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process, "adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the [Democratic National Committee, or DNC], the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee], the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content of those hacks to WikiLeaks," wrote cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr on Friday.

The brief report "merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists," Carr said.
He continued:
If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn't means either that the evidence doesn't exist or that it is classified.
If it's classified, an independent commission should review it because this entire assignment of blame against the Russian government is looking more and more like a domestic political operation run by the White House that relied heavily on questionable intelligence generated by a for-profit cybersecurity firm with a vested interest in selling "attribution-as-a-service."
In fact, cyber-expert Robert M. Lee, in his posted critique on Friday, noted that the FBI/DHS report "is intended to help network defenders; it is not the technical evidence of attribution."

As such, Lee argued, it is likely to "confuse readers" who are seeking such evidence.

Meanwhile, Intercept journalist Sam Biddle, who recently published a take-down of the public evidence that had been put forth as of mid-December, added his voice to calls for more in the way of hard evidence:
Sam Biddle @samfbiddle
GRIZZLY STEPPE only restates premise that APT 28/29 are Russian gov, rather than proving it. let’s hope for more in congressional testimony
And The Young Turks politics reporter Jordan Chariton also raised questions in a video posted Thursday afternoon:


Video above: Jordan Chiriton From (https://youtu.be/snJin79SbaU).

For raising these questions, Chariton and others who supported his demand were branded "Kremlin cheerleaders," continuing what journalist Glenn Greenwald described as a trend:
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
it's worse than that. If you question adequacy of the evidence or want to see more, they'll accuse you of disloyalty & being a Russian agent https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/814875448651853824 
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
Lets be clear: U aren't an American patriot & don't respect Constitution if u believe Saddam more than our President & intelligent services https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/814615305729220609 
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
Words don't exist for how low it is to depict someone as a Kremlin agent or traitor for questioning adequacy of evidence for USG assertions.
Like Greenwald, author and media critic Howard Friel sees parallels between the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the current "unconfirmable claims" of Russian election interference.
"Like the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi [weapons of mass destruction], the charges that Russia 'hacked' the presidential election in November have not been established beyond secret intelligence sources, which have been treated and printed by the New York Times as impeccable," Friel wrote on Friday.     

He continued:
Just as the Times editorial page in February 2003 had no basis for concluding that Colin Powell's presentation at the UN was "the most powerful case to date" that Iraq possessed WMD, the Times today has no confirmable basis for concluding that "there should be no doubt" that Russia hacked the presidential election last month or that President Obama has any basis for "punishing Russia," which in any event is unprofessional and jingoistic journalistic usage from the leading newspaper in the United States.

Yet, it reflects the warlike tone and tenor of the liberal political and journalistic establishments, led by the New York Times, which seems determined to drive us over the cliff once again toward war.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday he would not expel any U.S. diplomats in retaliation for Obama's moves—"a surprisingly calm reaction," as the Guardian described, "that appears to be designed as an overture to the incoming U.S. president, Donald Trump."

.

Exit Hope and Change

SUBHEAD: Obama was a bird with elegant plumage that sang a song every sunrise to the reptiles who stirred in the mud.

By James Kunstler on 26 December 2016 for Kunstler.com -
(http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/exit-hope-change/)


Image above: An egret on the back of an alligator in a kind of partnership. From (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/blogs/swamp-birds-sacrifice-babies-alligator-bodyguards).

By now, anyone in this country still of sound mind knows that Barack Obama presided through eight years of remarkable continuity — of changeless conditions that left a great many hopeless. As the days of his tenure dwindle, what do we make of the departing 44th president?

He played the role with cool-headed decorum, but that raises the question: was he just playing a role?

From the get-go, he made himself hostage to some of the most sinister puppeteers of the Deep State:

Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Tim Geithner on the money side, and the Beltway Neocon war party infestation on the foreign affairs side. I’m convinced that the top dogs of both these gangs worked Obama over woodshed-style sometime after the 2008 election and told him to stick with the program, or else.

What was the program? On the money side, it was to float the banks and the whole groaning daisy chain of their dependents in shadow finance, real estate, and insurance, at all costs.

Hence, the extension of Bush Two’s bailout policy with the trillion-dollar “shovel-ready” stimulus, the rescue of the car-makers, and a much greater and surreptitious multi-trillion dollar hand-off from the Federal Reserve to backstop the European banks with counter-party obligations to US banks.

In April of 2009, Obama’s new SEC appointees, strong-armed by bank lobbyists, pushed the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) into suspending their crucial Rule 157, which had required publically-held companies to report their asset holdings based on standard market-based valuation procedures — called “mark-to-market.”

After that, companies like Too-Big-Too-Fail banks could just make shit up.

This opened the door to the pervasive accounting fraud that allowed the financial sector to pretend it was healthy for the eight years that followed. The net effect of their criminal fakery was to only make the financial sector artificially larger, more dangerously fragile, and more prone to cataclysmic collapse.

Another feature of life on the money-side of the Obama presidency was that nobody paid a personal price for financial misconduct. This established the basic ethos of Obama-era finance: anything goes, and nothing matters. All the regulators looked the other way most of the time.

And when forced to act by egregious behavior, they made deals that let banking executives off-the-hook while their companies shelled out fines that amounted to the mere cost of doing business. It happened again and again.

The poster boy for this kind of “policy” — or just plain racketeering — was Jon Corzine, the head of the commodities brokerage MF Global, whose company looted “segregated” customer accounts to the tune of nearly a billion dollars in the fall of 2011. Corzine was never prosecuted and remains at large to this day.

Another signal failure in the money realm was Obama’s response to the 2010 Citizen United Supreme Court decision, which declared that the alleged legal “personhood” of corporations entitled them to exercise “free speech” by giving as much money as they wanted to political candidates for election. Big business no longer had to just rent congressmen and senators, they could buy them outright with cash.

A conservative Supreme Court made the call, but Obama could have acted forcefully in the face of it. The former constitutional law professor-turned-politician could have marshaled a response in his Democratic Party-controlled congress to draft legislation, or a constitutional amendment, that would properly redefine the personhood of corporations.

It should be obvious, for instance, that corporations, unlike human citizens, do not have duties, obligations, and responsibilities to the public interest; by legal charter they have only to answer to their shareholders and boards of directors.

How does this confer the kind of political free speech “rights” that the court allowed them to claim?

And how did the Obama and his allies in the legislative branch roll over to allow this disgraceful affront to the constitution to stand?

And how is that almost nobody in the mainstream press or academic law even pressed these issues? Thanks to all of them, we’ve set up the primary means for establishing a fascist Deep State: the official marriage of corporate money and politics. Anything goes and nothing matters.

Finally, in foreign affairs, there is Obama’s mystifying campaign against the Russian Federation. The US had an agreement with Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union that we would not expand NATO if they gave us a quantity of nuclear material that was in danger of falling into questionable hands in the disorder that followed the collapse. Russia complied.

What did we do?

We expanded NATO to include most of the former eastern European countries (except the remnants of Yugoslavia), and then under Obama, NATO began holding war games on Russia’s border.

For what reason? The fictitious notion that Russia wanted to “take back” these nations — as if they needed to adopt a host of dependents that had only recently bankrupted the Soviet state. Any reasonable analysis would call these war games naked aggression by the West.

Then there was the 2014 US State Department-sponsored coup against Ukraine’s elected government and the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych. Why? Because his government wanted to join the Russian-led Eurasian Customs Union instead of an association with European Union.

We didn’t like that and we decided to oppose it by subverting the Ukrainian government. In the violence and disorder that ensued, Russia took back the Crimea — which had been gifted to the former Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic (a province of Soviet Russia) one drunken night by the Ukraine-born Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. What did we expect after turning Ukraine into another failed state?

The Crimean peninsula had been part of Russia for longer than the US had been a country. Its only warm water naval ports were located there. They held a referendum and the Crimean people voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia. So, President Obama decided to punish Russia with economic sanctions.

Then there was Syria, a battleground between the different branches of Islam, their sponsors (Iran and Saudi Arabia), and their proxies, (Hezbollah and the various Salafist jihad armies). The US “solution” was to sponsor the downfall of the legitimate Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad.

We apparently still favored foreign relations based on creating failed states — after our experience in Iraq, Somalia, Libya, and Ukraine. President Obama completely muffed his initial attempt at intervention — the “line-in-the-sand” moment — and then decided to send arms and money to the various Salafist jihadi groups fighting Assad, claiming that our bad guys were “moderates.”

Meanwhile, Russia stepped in to prop up Assad’s government, apparently based on the idea that the Middle East didn’t need yet another failed state. We castigated Russia for that.

The idiotic behavior of the US toward Russia in these matters led to the most dangerous state of relations between the two since the heart of the Cold War. It culminated in the ridiculous campaign this fall to blame Russia for the defeat of Hillary Clinton. And here we are.

I didn’t vote for Hillary or Donald Trump (I wrote-in David Stockman). I’m not happy to see Donald Trump become president. But I’ve had enough of Mr. Obama. He put up a good front. He seemed congenial and intelligent.

But in the end, he appears to be a kind of stooge for the darker forces in America’s overgrown bureaucratic Deep State racketeering operation. Washington truly is a swamp that needs to be drained.

Barack Obama was not one of the alligators in it, but he was some kind of bird with elegant plumage that sang a song of greeting at every sunrise to the reptiles who stirred in the mud.

And now he is flying away.

.

Trump, Obama and Climate Science

SUBHEAD: On climate change, Obama lays down a scientific gauntlet for Trump Administration.

By John H. Cushman Jr. on 23 December 2016 for Inside Climate News -
(https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23122016/climate-change-effects-global-warming-science-donald-trump)

http://www.islandbreath.org/2016Year/12/161226ustempbig.jpg
Image above: Map of United States observed temperature change in the 20th century. From Page 3 of PDF file (http://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/NCA3_Highlights_LowRes-small-FINAL_posting.pdf). Click to enlarge with bar chart of history.

As if parading its best evidence against an expected onslaught of climate denial, the Obama Administration released on Thursday an updated compendium of the accepted science about global warming.

The science review is intended to guide the preparation of the government's next National Climate Assessment, a periodic comprehensive report scheduled to be released in in 2018. The last assessment was published in 2014.

With the entire Obama climate agenda expected to come under assault by the Donald Trump regime, this report, released in draft form for comment by experts, lays down a marker for the climate consensus. It may well become a benchmark against which the next administration will be measured.

It is not just a map of the known climate science. It is also a political chessboard on which a high-stakes tug of war over science, energy policy and ideology may play out in the months ahead.

"This report is a comprehensive and updated assessment of the state of knowledge on human-induced climate change," the White House said as it announced the draft, "including observed and future projected changes in temperatures, precipitation patterns, extreme-weather events, sea-level rise, and ocean acidification, focused primarily on the United States."

The Climate Science Special Report was produced by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the interagency coordinating body for all federal climate research. Forty-four scientists from federal agencies, laboratories and universities helped write the draft. It is still under peer review through the National Academies of Sciences.

At the most basic level, the report speaks bluntly of the core understanding of climate science that is accepted by essentially every authoritative institution, yet remains anathema to some politicians.

"Human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are primarily responsible for observed climate changes in the industrial era," it says. "There are no alternative explanations."

But its more significant contribution comes in its presentation of the peer-reviewed science published during the past few years, a time when global warming has seemed to lurch into overdrive.

Among the salient updates is the report's detailed discussion of the putative "hiatus," or unexpected pause in global warming after the intense 1997-98 El Niño spike in temperatures.

The hiatus notion, often seized upon by those disputing the consensus on climate change, has essentially been laid to rest in the past couple of years. Additional research fleshed out the scientific picture, just as the latest El Niño came and went with an even higher temperature spike.

The report concludes that "surface and tropospheric temperature records do not support the assertion that long-term global warming ceased, a conclusion further reinforced by recently updated and improved datasets."

In another important advance, the report's final chapter, called Potential Surprises, gives the first thorough look of any national climate assessment at the problem of "tipping points," or "perfect storms." These are events that may lurk outside the edges of inherently imperfect climate models.

"Humanity is conducting an unprecedented experiment with the Earth's climate system," it declares. "There is a significant potential for our planetary experiment to result in unanticipated surprises, and a broad consensus that the further and the faster the Earth's climate system is pushed towards warming, the greater the risk of such surprises."

The draft's 533 heavily annotated and illustrated pages encapsulate what's new and different in the increasingly robust scientific consensus. It shows which models are improving and how, and which observations are more illuminating and why.
  • It notes "significant advances" in the reliability with which scientists can link individual extreme events—heat waves, for example—to manmade climate change.

  • It contains extensive new research on ocean acidification, warming and oxygen loss—all potentially profound consequences of the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Further, it presents "growing evidence" that an important oceanic circulation described in layman's terms as the ocean's conveyor belt may be slowing.

  • It also updates the worrisome trends—which just in recent weeks have been seizing headlines again—in the loss of ice sheets and sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
In the near term, many ill effects are already locked in by pollution that has been emitted so far. The worst effects of continuing business as usual for another decade will pile up as more time goes by.

In short, the worst effects already being felt will become the new normal before long.

"The temperatures of recent record-setting years will become relatively common in the near future," with temperatures expected to rise in the next few decades even if emissions of greenhouse gases are significantly reduced. Temperatures in the U.S. are likely to keep going up for the rest of the century, it says.

.

EPA obedient to Monsanto

SUBHEAD: Don't expect Obama administration to save farm workers from Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

By Alexis Baden-Mayer 15 December 2016 for Truth-Out -
(http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/38751-obama-s-epa-has-a-weakness-for-monsanto)


Image above: Photo illustration of boy eating corn with quote from World Health Organization IARC Report on Glyphosate "Glyphosate can be found in soil,air, surface waterand groundwater, as well as in food." See connection to WHO full report below. From (http://www.ifoam.bio/en/news/2015/08/04/who-publishes-full-probable-human-carcinogen-report-glyphosate).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is convening an advisory panel to review the science that links the main ingredient in the world's #1 herbicide with cancer.

But don't expect one of the last acts of the Obama administration to be to save US farmers and agricultural workers from the ravages of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

All signs point to EPA caving to Monsanto, the company that markets glyphosate in its flagship Roundup herbicide.

The saga started in 1985, when the EPA classified glyphosate as a possible human carcinogen, based on the presence of kidney tumors in male mice.

By 1991, the EPA had received enough pushback from Monsanto to reverse this decision.
In 2009, the EPA began its registration review of glyphosate, required once every 15 years for all pesticides.

In March 2015, the EPA was trying to wrap up that review when the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer assessed the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and determined that it was a probable human carcinogen. The EPA said it would consider the WHO finding in its own review of glyphosate.

In May 2016, the EPA "mistakenly" released an assessment of glyphosate that contradicted the World Health Organization's finding that the herbicide was a probable human carcinogen. The leak gave Monsanto ammunition in its fight to keep its profitable Roundup on the market. (In 2015, Monsanto made nearly $4.76 billion in sales and $1.9 billion in gross profits from herbicide products, mostly Roundup.)

After the leak, EPA tried to restore legitimacy to the process by insisting that it hadn't yet made a decision on glyphosate's carcinogenicity and convening a Scientific Advisory Panel to review the matter.

In September, for the Scientific Advisory Panel's review, EPA released "Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential." The paper concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant to human health.

An analysis of the study by Food & Water Watch researcher Amanda Starbuck exposed several deficiencies in the science EPA used to reach its conclusion that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans:
  1. More than half of the studies were submitted by the industry. The EPA looked at 131 studies to decide if Roundup causes cancer, but 71 were unpublished industry studies.

  2. Independent studies were 30 times more likely to find glyphosate's toxicity than those from the industry -- but the EPA ultimately concluded that there was "no convincing evidence" of glyphosate's toxicity.

  3. The EPA used a "weight of evidence" approach, which means that heavy industry slant overwhelmed the independent published findings -- including a study that linked glyphosate with the growth of breast cancer cells.
Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council's Health Program argues that the EPA's science is so poor that:
EPA violated its own Cancer Guidelines by dismissing evidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in people.

Even a meta-analysis of many epidemiologic studies that was sponsored by the agrochemical industry reported a statistically significant risk of NHL cancers when glyphosate-exposed individuals were compared with individuals never exposed to glyphosate. IARC's analysis reported similar results.

EPA's Cancer Guidelines are consistent with calling this "suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential" for "evidence of a positive response in studies whose power, design, or conduct limits the ability to draw a confident conclusion."
Knowing that the EPA's weak science wasn't up to a serious review, CropLife, the trade association that lobbies on behalf of Monsanto and the rest of the pesticide industry, launched a campaign to discredit scientists chosen for the EPA's Scientific Review Panel.

CropLife succeeded in getting EPA to cancel the panel's October meeting, remove an esteemed epidemiologist from the panel, and reschedule the meeting for December 13-16.

The EPA has received 254,392 comments from the public in advance of the meeting.

Nearly all of the people who submitted comments support a finding that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, including the 119,857 members of the Organic Consumers Association who signed a petition asking the EPA to follow the World Health Organization's finding.

Organizations that organized their members to submit public comments include Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Food Democracy Now, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Moms Across America, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pesticide Action Network North America, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.



IARC Glyphosate & Cancer Report Link

SUBHEAD: Who publishes full probable human carcenoen report on Glyphosae.

By Staff on 4 August 2015 for IFOAM -
(http://www.ifoam.bio/en/news/2015/08/04/who-publishes-full-probable-human-carcinogen-report-glyphosate)

The World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC has published the full report which caused a huge worldwide response, when they announced earlier this year that the World’s most sold herbicide, glyphosate, is a probable human carcinogen.

The assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of glyphosate, which is used in herbicides with estimated annual sales of USD 6 Billion, is of special concern to Monsanto, the company that brought glyphosate to market under the trade name Roundup in the 1970s.

The IARC reached its decision based on the view of 17 experts from 11 countries, who met in Lyon, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of 5 organophosphate pesticides.

Since the IARC report was released in March 2015 many countries have been looking at possible bans on glyphosate-based herbicides and Sri Lanka even announced a complete ban. Supermarkets across Europe have also removed glyphosate-based herbicides from their shelves.

You can find the full IARC Report here:
monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-02.pdf (link is external)
Source: http://sustainablepulse.com/ (link is external)