www.GlobalNewsAruba.com Aruba and the World's International Online Newspaper

Global News Aruba 


Hillary in 2020?

by Stephen Lendman

Contact at [email protected]


Say it isn’t so. Hillary Clinton is profoundly unfit for any public office.

Besides being hugely unpopular and a two-time loser for the nation’s highest office, she’s the most ruthlessly dangerous presidential aspirant in US history. She’s unaccountable for major war crimes, racketeering, and perjury, along with contempt for rule of law principles and the fundamental rights of ordinary people everywhere.





Yet the FBI and Justice Department refuse to lay a glove on her, preoccupied with Robert Mueller’s Russiagate witch hunt, along with charging countless numbers of ordinary Americans with offenses too minor to matter or invented – especially people of color and Muslims.

It’s in deference to the nation’s racist prison/industrial complex, the world’s largest by far.

Mass incarceration in America is a crime against humanity – supported by Republicans and undemocratic Dems alike.

It reflects a US obsession with imprisonment, punishment, and the commodification of prisoners to fill beds for profit.

Society’s most vulnerable are oppressed, targeted for supporting ethnic justice, racial emancipation, along with political, economic and social equality across gender and color lines.

Mandatory minimum sentences exacerbate the problem. So do other racist policies, including judicial unfairness, three strikes and you’re out, get tough on crime policies, and a guilty unless proved innocent mentality in a ruthless nation masquerading as democratic.

Judicial Watch (JD) said the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation “(s)houd be renamed “The Clinton Corruption Foundation.”

It’s a money laundering operation, masquerading as a charitable NGO – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea the main beneficiaries.

“…Hillary Clinton has a demonstrated record of showing contempt for the rule of law,” said JW, abusing public offices held, using them for extrajudicial power-grabbing and self-enrichment.

As president and commander-in-chief of America’s military, unthinkable nuclear war could become a reality with her in charge.

The Clintons are one of America’s most notorious crime families – Bill and Hillary as co-president, she as first lady, senator, secretary of state, and two-time presidential aspirant.

Will she try again in 2020? According to the Wall Street Journal: “Hillary Will Run Again. Reinventing herself as a liberal firebrand, (she’ll) easily capture the 2020 nomination,” adding:

Reinventing herself for two presidential runs failed. Her 2016 campaign cooked the books to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Her key New York primary win was rife with irregularities.

Over 125,000 registered voters were purged from NYC rolls, illegally disenfranchised. So were over three million registered NY independents.

She stole Iowa by rigged coin-flips – Massachusetts, Nevada and Arizona by old-fashioned fraud.

Former acting DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile accused her of a conducting a hugely unethical power play to usurp control of the (undemocratic) Dem party during the primary season – to assure her selection as presidential nominee, rigging things against Sanders.

DNC fund-raising was a “money laundering” scheme, Brazile revealed, as an insider well aware of what went on. The race for Dem nominee was decided before primaries began.

November 8, 2016 was a day to remember. Overwhelmingly one-sided media coverage for Hillary slammed Trump daily for the wrong reasons ahead of election day. Polls predicted a sure Hillary triumph.

The NYT turned truth on its reinventing her, saying she’s “the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America…one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.”

He won. She lost. A Clinton co-presidency 2.0 would have combined the worst of Bush/Cheney, Obama and Trump – featuring endless wars of aggression, fealty to Wall Street and other corporate interests, Russia bashing worse than now, destroying social justice, and likely full-blown tyranny against dissent.

Analyst Doug Henwood earlier said her qualifications “boil down to this. She has experience. She’s a woman, and it’s her turn. It’s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor.”

As first lady, she pushed husband Bill to terror-bomb Belgrade in 1999. The rape of Yugoslavia raged throughout the 1990s, culminating with 78 days of lawless US-led NATO aggression from March 24 – June 10, 1999.

She’s as hawkishly belligerent as the most hardline Trump regime neocons. A Wall Street favorite, her self-proclaimed progressivism was and remains pure fantasy. She encouraged husband Bill to end welfare for needy households.

She has a long dissembling history, promising one thing, doing something entirely different, especially on issues mattering most.

Throughout her public life, she wholeheartedly supported all US wars of aggression. As a 2008 presidential aspirant, she said the following at AIPAC’s annual convention:

“The United States stands with Israel now and forever. We have shared interests…shared ideals…common values. I have a bedrock commitment to Israel’s security.”

“(O)ur two nations are fighting a shared threat” against Islamic extremism the US created and supports. “I strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense (and) believe America should aid in that defense.”

“I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats (despite none except invented ones).

“I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas’ campaign of terror” – blaming the victim rhetoric, what the US and Israel repeatedly feature. Hamas and all Palestinians are victims of US supported Israeli state terror.

Hillary lied claiming Hamas “calls for the destruction of Israel.” She lied saying “Iran threatens to destroy Israel,” adding:

“I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”

She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Hillary recklessly endorsed use of nuclear weapons, calling them “peacekeep(ing)” deterrents, adding “I don’t believe any that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.”

She’s militantly against what all just societies cherish, as mean-spirited as the worst of tinpot despots.

Her record in public office proved it. It’s hard imagining a worse choice for president, a more dangerously ruthless one, a disaster waiting to happen with her in the nation’s highest office.

World peace already hangs in the balance. A Hillary presidency could doom us all – if Trump regime hardliners don’t do it first.

A Final Comment

According to the WSJ, despite all of the above, Hillary “has a 75% approval rating among Democrats, an unfinished mission to be the first female president, and a personal grievance against Mr. Trump,” adding:

“Expect (her) to come out swinging…She has had two years to go over what she did wrong and how to take him on again.”

Nixon’s 1968 comeback “will be (her) model. (She’ll) sideline Bill and Mr. Obama, limiting their role to fundraising.”

She’ll “ take down rising Democratic stars like bowling pins. Mike Bloomberg will support her rather than run, and Joe Biden will never be able to take her on.”

Ignore her “I won’t run” again public statements…(R)est assured…one way or another,” she’s in the race to try turning her 2016 loss into a 2020 triumph.

Humanity trembles at the prospect!


11.03.2018

Saturday's Editorial

Global News Aruba


Trump’s War on the Fed

By Ellen Brown Juris Doctor
Attorney at Law 
Author and Journalist
Senior Editorial Writer and Advisor
Global News Aruba

October was a brutal month for the stock market. After the Federal Reserve’s eighth interest rate hike, on Sept. 26, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 2,000 points, and the NASDAQ had its worst month in nearly 10 years. After the Dow lost more than 800 points on Oct. 10 and the S&P 500 suffered its first weeklong losing streak since Trump’s election, the president said, “I think the Fed is making a mistake. They are so tight. I think the Fed has gone crazy.” In a later interview on Fox News, he called the Fed’s rate hikes “loco.” And in a Wall Street Journal interview published on Oct. 24, Trump said he thought the biggest risk to the economy was the Federal Reserve, because “interest rates are being raised too quickly.” He also criticized the Fed and its chairman in July and August.


Trump’s criticisms are worrisome to some commentators, who fear he is attempting to manipulate the Fed and its chairman for political gain. Ever since the 1970s, the Fed has declared its independence from government, and presidents are supposed to avoid influencing its decisions. But other Fed watchers think politicians should be allowed to criticize the market manipulations of an apparently out-of-control central bank.

Why the Frontal Attack?


Even if the president’s challenges are a needed check on the Fed, some question whether he is going about it in the right way. Challenging the central bank in public forces it to stick to its guns, because it must maintain its credibility with the markets by showing that its decisions are based on sound economic principles rather than on political influence. If the president really wants the Fed to back off on interest rates, it has been argued, he should do it with a nod and a nudge, not a frontal attack on the Fed’s sanity.


True, but perhaps the president’s goal is not to subtly affect Fed behavior so much as to make it patently obvious who is to blame when the next Great Recession hits. And recession is fairly certain to hit, because higher interest rates almost always trigger recessions. The Fed’s current policy of “quantitative tightening”—tightening or contracting the money supply—is the very definition of recession, a term Wikipedia defines as “a business cycle contraction which results in a general slowdown in economic activity.”


This “business cycle” is not something inevitable, like the weather. It is triggered by the central bank. When the Fed drops interest rates, banks flood the market with “easy money,” allowing speculators to snatch up homes and other assets. When the central bank then raises interest rates, it contracts the amount of money available to spend and to pay down debt. Borrowers go into default and foreclosed homes go on the market at fire-sale prices, again to be snatched up by the monied class.


But it is a game of Monopoly that cannot go on forever. According to Elga Bartsch, chief European economist at Morgan Stanley, one more financial cataclysm could be all that it takes for central bank independence to end. “Having been overburdened for a long time, many central banks might just be one more economic downturn or financial crisis away from a full-on political backlash,” she wrote in a note to clients in 2017. “Such a political backlash could call into question one of the long-standing tenets of modern monetary policy making—central bank independence.”

And that may be the president’s endgame. When higher rates trigger another recession, Trump can point an accusing finger at the central bank, absolving his own policies of liability and underscoring the need for a major overhaul of the Fed.

End the Fed?


Trump has not overtly joined the End the Fed campaign, but he has had the ear of several advocates of that approach. One is John Allison, whom the president evidently considered for both Fed chairman and treasury secretary. Allison has proposed ending the Fed altogether and returning to the gold standard, and Trump suggested on the campaign trail that he approved of a gold-backed currency.

But a gold standard is the ultimate in tight money—keeping money in limited supply tied to gold—and today Trump seems to want to return to the low-interest policies of former Fed Chair Janet Yellen. Jerome Powell, Trump’s replacement pick, has been called “Yellen without Yellen,” a dovish alternative in acceptable Republican dress. That’s what the president evidently thought he was getting, but in his Oct. 24 Wall Street Journal interview, Trump said of Powell, “[H]e was supposed to be a low-interest-rate guy. It’s turned out that he’s not.” The president complained:

[E]very time we do something great, he raises the interest rates. … That means we pay more on debt and we slow down the economy, both bad things. … I mean, we had a case where he raised interest rates right before we have a bond offering. So you have a bond offering and you have somebody raising interest rates, so you end up paying more on the bonds. … To me it doesn’t make sense.

Trump acknowledged the independence of the Fed and its chairman but said, “I’m allowed to say what I think. … I think he’s making a mistake.”

Presidential Impropriety or a Needed Debate?


In a November 2016 article in Politico titled “Donald Trump Isn’t Crazy to Attack the Fed,” Danny Vinik agreed with that contention. Trump, who is not a stickler for consistency, was then criticizing Yellen for keeping interest rates too low. Vinik said that while he disagreed with Trump’s interpretation of events, he agreed that the president should be allowed to talk about Fed policy. Vinik observed:

The Federal Reserve is, by definition, not independent. Unlike the Supreme Court, the central bank is a creation of Congress and is accountable to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. It can be changed—or abolished—by Congress as well. And to pretend it’s not—to treat the Fed as an entity totally removed from American politics—also leaves us powerless to talk about the ways it might be improved. …

The long tradition of deference to the Fed’s policy independence can even pose a risk: It creates an environment in which any critique of the Fed is seen as out of line, including the idea of reforming how it works.


Vinik quoted Andrew Levin, a Dartmouth economist and 20-year veteran of the Fed, who published a set of recommended central bank reforms in conjunction with the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up campaign in 2016. One goal was to make the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets Fed policy, more representative of the American public. The FOMC is composed of the president of the New York Fed, four other Federal Reserve bank presidents and the Federal Reserve Board, which currently has only four members (three positions are vacant). That means the FOMC is majority-controlled by heads of Federal Reserve banks, all of whom must have “tested banker experience.” As Vinik quoted Levin:

The Federal Reserve is a crucial public agency, so there are lots of important questions—including the selection of its leaders, the determination of their priorities, and the specific strategy that they’re following—that should all be open to public discourse.

Vinik also cited Ady Barkan, the head of the Fed Up campaign, who agreed that questioning Fed policy is appropriate, even for the president. Barkan said the Fed’s independence comes from its structure: Its leaders are appointed, not elected, for long terms, which inherently insulates them from political pressure. But the Fed must still be accountable to the public, and one way policymakers fulfill that responsibility is through public comments. Monetary policy decisions, said Barkan, are therefore appropriate topics for political debate.

Reassessing Fed Independence

According to Timothy Canova, professor of law and public finance at Nova Southeastern University, the Fed is not a neutral arbiter. It might be independent of oversight by politicians, but Fed “independence” has really come to mean a central bank that has been captured by very large banking interests. This has not always been the case. During the period coming out of the Great Depression, the Fed as a practical matter was not independent, but took its marching orders from the White House and the Treasury; and that period, says Canova, was the most successful in American economic history.


The Fed’s justification for raising interest rates despite admittedly low inflation is that we are nearing “full employment,” which will drive up prices because labor costs will go up. But wages have not gone up. Why? Because in a globalized world, the availability of cheap labor abroad keeps American wages low, even if most people are working (which is questionable today, despite official statistics).

Higher interest rates do not serve consumers, homebuyers, businesses or governments. They serve the banks that dominate the policy-setting FOMC. The president’s critiques of the Fed, however controversial, have opened the door to a much-needed discourse on whether the fate of the economy should be in the hands of unelected bureaucrats marching to the drums of Wall Street.

Postscript: The stock market has turned positive as of this writing (Thursday), but the rebound has been led by the FANG stocks—Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google. As noted in my article of Sept. 13, these are the stocks that central banks are now purchasing in large quantities. The FANG stocks jumped in unison on Wednesday, although only one (Facebook) had positive news to report, suggesting possible market manipulation for political purposes.



Ellen Brown is an attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including "Web of Debt" and "The Public Bank Solution."

Ellen Brown, is an American author, political candidate, attorney, public speaker, and advocate of alternative medicine and financial reform, most prominently public banking. Brown is the founder and president of the Public Banking Institute, a nonpartisan think tank devoted to the creation of publicly run banks. She is also the president of Third Millennium Press, and is the author of twelve books, including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. She has appeared on cable and network television, radio, and internet podcasts, including a discussion on the 
Fox Business Network concerning student loan debt with the Cato Institute's Neil McCluskey, a feature story on derivatives and debt on the Russian network RTand the Thom Hartmann Show's "Conversations with Great Minds." Ellen Brown ran for California Treasurer in the California June 2014 Statewide Primary election.
US Midterm Elections 
By Stephen Lendman
Freelance News Reporter
Global News ARuba

US elections most often reflect no more than rearranging deck chairs on America’s deeply debauched ship of state – conditions for ordinary people worsening over time, not improving, things heading for totalitarian rule with bipartisan support.

America is governed under one-party rule – by what the late Gore Vidal called the “money party” or the “property party.”

Its two extremist right wings take turns controlling Congress and the White House, not a dime’s worth of difference between them on issues mattering most.


They govern by Washington rules, ignoring the rule of law, waging endless wars on humanity at home and abroad, serving privileged interests exclusively, rejecting the general welfare, and cracking down hard on nonbelievers.


Undemocratic Dems are as militantly hostile to peace, equity, justice, rule of law principles, and democratic values as Republicans – notions both wings of US duopoly governance abhor.


America’s money-controlled electoral process is too corrupted to fix, a fantasy democracy from inception, not the real thing.

Ordinary people have no say over how they’re governed – why voting is a waste of time. Elections when held improve nothing for the vast majority of voters. Dirty business as usual wins every time.


NYT editors laughably said: “The best way to protect democracy is to practice it.” How when government of, by, and for everyone equitably doesn’t exist in America.


Gandhi when asked what he thought of Western civilization responded, saying “I think it would be a good idea.”

The same goes for democracy, a “good idea” absent in America, the West, and most everywhere else, a notion abhorrent to most societies, serving the interests of business and high net-worth individuals exclusively, at the expense of most others.


The Times saying “(t)here’s no good excuse for not voting,” ignored all of the above. Calling “millions of eligible voters (opting out) their own worst enemies” pretends that elections in America matter.


How can they under one-party rule, independents shut out, democracy the way it should be absent in the country. Outcomes most often are determined by which major party candidates raise the most money.


The Times turned truth on its head, claiming “every vote really can make a difference” – not when Wall Street, America’s military/industrial/security/media complex, and other monied interests determine outcomes.

It’s not so when secrecy and back room deals substitute for a free, fair and open process, when candidates are pre-selected, when big money owns them.


It’s not so when millions of Americans are disenfranchised, when election rigging often occurs, when horse race “journalism,” he said, she said, who’s ahead and who’s behind dominate political reporting, vital issues left undiscussed, the electorate left uninformed about what’s most important to know.

A truth emergency exists because of major media managed news, reporting what powerful interests want people to know, suppressing what they need to know.


America’s electoral process was constitutionally flawed by design – to assure powerful interests owning the country run it for their own self-interest, while the general welfare increasingly goes begging.


America’s deplorable state is why half or more of the electorate often opts out.

November 6 midterms are the first federal elections since Trump took office. Undemocratic Dems hope to regain control of the House and/or Senate.

The notion that they represent progressive ideas and policies is pure fantasy. The Dems’ 2016 party platform largely reflected dirty business as usual interests.


Lofty mumbo jumbo rhetoric pretending otherwise couldn’t conceal it.

Proposals for the following were rejected: universal healthcare, a $15 minimum wage indexed to inflation, ending wars of aggression, support for Palestinian liberation, a carbon tax, opposition to corporate coup d’etat trade deals, destructive offshore drilling and fracking, as well as prioritizing world peace, equity and justice for everyone.


Next Tuesday, Americans should either vote independent or stay home.

Either way, they have no say over how the country is run, no way to change who’s served exclusively at their expense.

The only thing possibly positive about Tuesday is if Dems retake one or both houses, they could block some of Trump’s most extremist policies – for political, not ideological, reasons.


The problem is they support most policies harming ordinary people everywhere. They abhor world peace, stability, equity and justice for all. They go along with things they rhetorically oppose while campaigning.

Voters supporting candidates from either major party disenfranchise themselves for not opposing dirty business as usual – what duopoly governance and what it stands for is all about.


CONTACT STEPHEN LENDMAN : 

[email protected]

Stephen Lendman
Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or archived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.