Here's Joseph Kishore calling out the theft of our resources that are then handed over to the US oligarchy:
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic continues to have devastating consequences for the vast majority of the population in the United States. The new month begins on Friday, which means that rents and mortgages will come due for tens of millions of workers who have no income to pay for them.
More than 20 million people have filed for unemployment benefits over the past five weeks. In March, less than 30 percent of those who filed received any benefits. Millions more are ineligible for any assistance.
Millions of people have yet to receive anything, including the $1,200 federal cash stimulus, and are desperately attempting to stave off destitution. Food banks are overwhelmed by demand and are running out of staple goods. According to the Economic Policy Institute, more than nine million people who lost their jobs have also lost their health insurance through April 11, with millions more in the weeks that have followed.
There are, however, two realities, two Americas. While the economic destitution of workers is being used in an effort to drive them back to work over widespread opposition, the corporate and financial oligarchy has seen its fortunes increase.
Gigantic corporations, many of which have massive cash hoards, are laying off employees while continuing to pay executives. Entertainment giant Disney recently came under public scrutiny over the fact that it has furloughed more than 100,000 workers while maintaining its executive compensation program. But this is the general rule.
US billionaires, since mid-March, have increased their wealth by $282 billion. The collective fortune of these 614 individuals, which totals $3.2 trillion, has been buoyed by the continued rise of share values on Wall Street, which increased sharply again on Monday.
A headline in the German newsweekly Der Spiegel yesterday captured the economic situation: “The death toll in the US is rising—so are the markets.” Noting that while businesses remain shut down and joblessness exceeds by far anything seen in American history, Der Spiegel writes: “So if the fundamental economic data actually offer so little incentive to buy, what is behind the rally? The solution to the riddle has three letters: Fed.”
The Fed—that is, the US Federal Reserve—has made clear that it will do everything in its power to support Wall Street. As a consequence, the markets keep going up. “If you wanted to bet on price losses,” Der Spiegel remarks, “you would have to bet against an institution whose funds are practically infinite.”
Beginning in March, as the Trump administration and the media were downplaying the danger posed by the coronavirus pandemic, the Federal Reserve began funneling money into the markets—first by reducing interest rates to zero, then by initiating a raft of programs to buy up assets from banks and corporations, providing them with cash to purchase stocks.
The activity of the Federal Reserve was endorsed unanimously by the US Congress in late March, when it passed the “CARES Act,” which allocated $454 billion to finance up to $4 trillion in asset purchases. Every single senator voted for the CARES Act, including the erstwhile “democratic socialist” from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.
The Fed is spending something on the order of $80 billion every day. The central bank’s balance sheet is expected to increase to as much as $11 trillion, from less than $4 trillion last year and less than $1 trillion before 2008. This would bring the overall value of assets held by the Fed to nearly half the entire annual economic output of the United States.
One should call things by their right names. Terms such as “asset purchases” and “quantitative easing” tend to obscure what is happening. This is plunder, thievery, robbery on an unprecedented scale. Since stock ownership is overwhelmingly concentrated among the rich, it is the rich who are benefiting.
The Great Wall Street Heist of 2020 has been aided and abetted at every stage by the Democratic and Republican parties. The various institutions of the state, including the mainstream media, have exposed themselves as nothing more than the paid hirelings of Wall Street, to put the matter delicately. Others might have more expressive terms.
Here's a Tweet from Joseph Kishore:
Sanders' campaign leaders forming a Super PAC to support Biden. It's in line with everything else. From "political revolution" to Super PAC...
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Tuesday:
Tuesday, April 28, 2020. ISIS grows more active in Iraq while we all
need to ponder how a man accused of rape can claim he's 'eletable'?
March 24th, Ryan Grim (INTERCEPT) reported on Tara Reade going to Times Up to get assistance as she came forward to accuse Joe Biden of assaulting her. One month and four days later and Joe Biden has still not made a public statement to any news outlet. Instead, he's hid behind a series of women including the nut job who should have been disqualified by a working press. (I noted her conflicts in the "Tara Reade and coronavirus roundtable" we did.) The media has assisted Joe by refusing to ask him when they interview him. There is nothing else newsworthy about Joe's campaign currently but people like Anderson Cooper ignore the topic over and over. In fact, Anderson has interviewed Joe twice since the allegation surfaced and both times refused to ask a question about it.
The media has practiced a double standard and wallowed in hypocrisy. Of THE NEW YORK TIMES smear job on Tara, April 12th, Naomi Wolf Tweeted:
As a feminist I just note that the wording around this accusation in
@nytimes
is more skeptical and guarded than in the same paper’s reporting on women accusing Trump. Should be a nonpartisan single standard for reporting allleged sexual abuse.
The hypocrisy was noted on FOX NEWS.
Lara Logan: Well, to me, Sean, it says something very disappointing: That people who claim the moral high ground, claim to have some degree of moral authority, don't really care about the principles at all because the principles should survive politics, they should survive ideology, they should survive everything. And I know, in my own case, it's hard, in a way, even listening to it. Not because I haven't come to terms with it but because I know as someone who was raped, I know all the people, men and women, over the years, who've come to me with their own stories of what they've been through. And the one thing I was concerned about through the entire MeToo movement and Kavanaugh and everything else is that the voices of the real victims would be lost as everybody was rushing in the frenzy to use this moment for their own gain.
Yesterday, Rich McHugh (BUSINESS INSIDER) reported:
In March, when a former aide to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden accused the candidate of sexually assaulting her in 1993, two people came forward to say that the woman, Tara Reade, had told them of the incident shortly after it allegedly occurred — her brother, Collin Moulton, and a friend who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution.
Now two more sources have come forward to corroborate certain details about Reade's claims. One of them — a former neighbor of Reade's — has told Insider for the first time, on the record, that Reade disclosed details about the alleged assault to her in the mid-1990s.
"This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it," Lynda LaCasse, who lived next door to Reade in the mid-'90s, told Insider.
The other source, Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the mid-'90s, told Insider that she recalls Reade complaining at the time that her former boss in Washington, DC, had sexually harassed her, and that she had been fired after raising concerns.
Each day, Tara's case gets stronger and yet no one wants to ask Joe Biden the question they need to. Is that a ground rule?
Are they getting access by guaranteeing not to ask Joe about the rape allegation?
The media watchdogs are largely napping. The right-wing NEWSBUSTERS has followed this story. The left-wing CJR has. But FAIR, COUNTERSPIN? They won't say a word.
Joe won't say a word. We know why. He fears litigation. He's pulling the Bill Clinton strategy. Juanita Broadrrick accused Bill of rape (I believe her). Bill hid behind a spokesperson and never himself spoke to the allegation. That's what Joe's doing now.
With Bill, he was a lame duck president. It was 1999. He could ride it out and did. Joe's asking people to vote for him. This isn't something he can ride out.
Tara's case gets stronger with every day.
The calls for Joe to drop out mount.
This is not a strong candidate for November. Joe needs to go. He was never more than an empty suit and now he's facing credible charges of assault. He's been unable to defend himself for over a month. How does this argue for him doing well in November?
He's offering nothing but tired plans from the past which failed. His only argument has been that he's 'electable.' He's now accused of rape and does not look like a sure thing at all.
Turning to Iraq, Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports, "A militant wearing a suicide vest struck an intelligence bureau in northern Iraq on Tuesday, wounding at least three members of the security personnel, Iraqi officials said, blaming the attack on the Islamic State group." Margaret Griffis (ANTIWAR.COM) adds, "ISIS attacked the Rutba home of a district councilman. Talal Al-Absi was killed, and his son was abducted."
As ISIS grows more active, Iraq has no real prime minister. The 'acting' prime minister resigned last year. Adil Abdul Mahdi was inept and resigned at the end of November. All these months later, Iraq still does not have a prime minister.
And let's be clear, the post is supposed to be filled long enough for elections to be called. No one is saying that the new prime minister needs to serve a lengthy term.
Struan Stevenson (UPI) offers:
Iraq's prime ministerial merry-go-round continues to spin apace. Spy chief Mustafa al-Kadhimi, director of the country's National Intelligence Service, is the third prime minister designate this year, following the withdrawal of Adnan al-Zurfi, the previous prospective candidate, after he failed to secure enough support to form a government.
Al-Zurfi had tried to step into the shoes of Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi, who suffered a similar fate, leaving Iraq under the tremulous caretaker control of Adil Abdul-Mahdi, the crooked former prime minister and puppet of the Iranian mullahs, who was forced to resign last November amidst widespread protests.
Under the Iraqi constitution, a prime minister designate has 30 days to secure the backing of parliament for his new government. This has been the stumbling block for each of Abdul-Mahdi's chosen successors so far, as they have attempted to gain the approval of the wide range of deeply divided and sectarian factions that make up Iraq's Majilis.
Recently, former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki hosted a 'party' at his house where various Shi'ite politicians plotted how to defeat Allawi.
Khaled Yacoub Oweis (THE NATIONAL) reports:
A parliamentary supporter of Iraq’s latest Prime Minister-designate Mustafa Al Kadhimi cast doubt on whether he could form a Cabinet, in the first acknowledgement from the allied camp of the secular nominee that he is in political trouble.
Shirwan Mirza of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) told Iraq’s official news agency late on Sunday that Mr Al Kadhimi, an intelligence chief supported by Washington, could fail like his two predecessors.
Mr Mirza said Mr Al Kadhimi was hoping to be approved by parliament before the month of Ramadan.
“The Cabinet talks are ongoing but have not reached a result so far,” Mr Mirza said. “Al Kadhimi was supposed to present his cabinet before Ramadan but some political groups withdrew their support for him.”
The Kurdish parliamentarian was referring to pro-Iranian Shiite players linked with militia powers who dominate the legislature and who had initially indicated that they would let Mr Al Kadhimi form his Cabinet.
Mr Mirza said if Mr Al Kadhimi does not suffer “the same fate” as his predecessors”, parliament could convene a physical vote-of-confidence session despite the coronavirus.
The following sites updated:
March 24th, Ryan Grim (INTERCEPT) reported on Tara Reade going to Times Up to get assistance as she came forward to accuse Joe Biden of assaulting her. One month and four days later and Joe Biden has still not made a public statement to any news outlet. Instead, he's hid behind a series of women including the nut job who should have been disqualified by a working press. (I noted her conflicts in the "Tara Reade and coronavirus roundtable" we did.) The media has assisted Joe by refusing to ask him when they interview him. There is nothing else newsworthy about Joe's campaign currently but people like Anderson Cooper ignore the topic over and over. In fact, Anderson has interviewed Joe twice since the allegation surfaced and both times refused to ask a question about it.
The media has practiced a double standard and wallowed in hypocrisy. Of THE NEW YORK TIMES smear job on Tara, April 12th, Naomi Wolf Tweeted:
As a feminist I just note that the wording around this accusation in
@nytimes
The hypocrisy was noted on FOX NEWS.
Lara Logan: Well, to me, Sean, it says something very disappointing: That people who claim the moral high ground, claim to have some degree of moral authority, don't really care about the principles at all because the principles should survive politics, they should survive ideology, they should survive everything. And I know, in my own case, it's hard, in a way, even listening to it. Not because I haven't come to terms with it but because I know as someone who was raped, I know all the people, men and women, over the years, who've come to me with their own stories of what they've been through. And the one thing I was concerned about through the entire MeToo movement and Kavanaugh and everything else is that the voices of the real victims would be lost as everybody was rushing in the frenzy to use this moment for their own gain.
Yesterday, Rich McHugh (BUSINESS INSIDER) reported:
In March, when a former aide to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden accused the candidate of sexually assaulting her in 1993, two people came forward to say that the woman, Tara Reade, had told them of the incident shortly after it allegedly occurred — her brother, Collin Moulton, and a friend who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution.
Now two more sources have come forward to corroborate certain details about Reade's claims. One of them — a former neighbor of Reade's — has told Insider for the first time, on the record, that Reade disclosed details about the alleged assault to her in the mid-1990s.
"This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it," Lynda LaCasse, who lived next door to Reade in the mid-'90s, told Insider.
The other source, Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the mid-'90s, told Insider that she recalls Reade complaining at the time that her former boss in Washington, DC, had sexually harassed her, and that she had been fired after raising concerns.
Each day, Tara's case gets stronger and yet no one wants to ask Joe Biden the question they need to. Is that a ground rule?
Are they getting access by guaranteeing not to ask Joe about the rape allegation?
The media watchdogs are largely napping. The right-wing NEWSBUSTERS has followed this story. The left-wing CJR has. But FAIR, COUNTERSPIN? They won't say a word.
Joe won't say a word. We know why. He fears litigation. He's pulling the Bill Clinton strategy. Juanita Broadrrick accused Bill of rape (I believe her). Bill hid behind a spokesperson and never himself spoke to the allegation. That's what Joe's doing now.
With Bill, he was a lame duck president. It was 1999. He could ride it out and did. Joe's asking people to vote for him. This isn't something he can ride out.
Tara's case gets stronger with every day.
The calls for Joe to drop out mount.
This is not a strong candidate for November. Joe needs to go. He was never more than an empty suit and now he's facing credible charges of assault. He's been unable to defend himself for over a month. How does this argue for him doing well in November?
He's offering nothing but tired plans from the past which failed. His only argument has been that he's 'electable.' He's now accused of rape and does not look like a sure thing at all.
Turning to Iraq, Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports, "A militant wearing a suicide vest struck an intelligence bureau in northern Iraq on Tuesday, wounding at least three members of the security personnel, Iraqi officials said, blaming the attack on the Islamic State group." Margaret Griffis (ANTIWAR.COM) adds, "ISIS attacked the Rutba home of a district councilman. Talal Al-Absi was killed, and his son was abducted."
As ISIS grows more active, Iraq has no real prime minister. The 'acting' prime minister resigned last year. Adil Abdul Mahdi was inept and resigned at the end of November. All these months later, Iraq still does not have a prime minister.
And let's be clear, the post is supposed to be filled long enough for elections to be called. No one is saying that the new prime minister needs to serve a lengthy term.
Struan Stevenson (UPI) offers:
Iraq's prime ministerial merry-go-round continues to spin apace. Spy chief Mustafa al-Kadhimi, director of the country's National Intelligence Service, is the third prime minister designate this year, following the withdrawal of Adnan al-Zurfi, the previous prospective candidate, after he failed to secure enough support to form a government.
Al-Zurfi had tried to step into the shoes of Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi, who suffered a similar fate, leaving Iraq under the tremulous caretaker control of Adil Abdul-Mahdi, the crooked former prime minister and puppet of the Iranian mullahs, who was forced to resign last November amidst widespread protests.
Under the Iraqi constitution, a prime minister designate has 30 days to secure the backing of parliament for his new government. This has been the stumbling block for each of Abdul-Mahdi's chosen successors so far, as they have attempted to gain the approval of the wide range of deeply divided and sectarian factions that make up Iraq's Majilis.
Recently, former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki hosted a 'party' at his house where various Shi'ite politicians plotted how to defeat Allawi.
Khaled Yacoub Oweis (THE NATIONAL) reports:
A parliamentary supporter of Iraq’s latest Prime Minister-designate Mustafa Al Kadhimi cast doubt on whether he could form a Cabinet, in the first acknowledgement from the allied camp of the secular nominee that he is in political trouble.
Shirwan Mirza of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) told Iraq’s official news agency late on Sunday that Mr Al Kadhimi, an intelligence chief supported by Washington, could fail like his two predecessors.
Mr Mirza said Mr Al Kadhimi was hoping to be approved by parliament before the month of Ramadan.
“The Cabinet talks are ongoing but have not reached a result so far,” Mr Mirza said. “Al Kadhimi was supposed to present his cabinet before Ramadan but some political groups withdrew their support for him.”
The Kurdish parliamentarian was referring to pro-Iranian Shiite players linked with militia powers who dominate the legislature and who had initially indicated that they would let Mr Al Kadhimi form his Cabinet.
Mr Mirza said if Mr Al Kadhimi does not suffer “the same fate” as his predecessors”, parliament could convene a physical vote-of-confidence session despite the coronavirus.
The following sites updated:
-
Rodrigo y Gabriela: Tiny Desk (Home) Concert3 hours ago
-
-
How much proof is enough?8 hours ago
-
Who can't handle the truth?8 hours ago
-
-
-
No one wants to vote for a rapist8 hours ago
-
-
PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE9 hours ago
-
-
The greed, the corruption9 hours ago
-
-
Joe is a rapist9 hours ago
-
Alyssa investigates -- with her tongue!10 hours ago
-
THIS JUST IN! ALYSSA IS THAT STUPID!10 hours ago
-
-
