Sunday, January 22, 2017

THE RUTHLESS PLUNDERING OF GEORGE SOROS: BILLIONAIRE LOOTING TERRORIST

SOROS IS AN ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED


George Soros: Billionaire Terrorist

George Soros: Billionaire Terrorist
JUNE 20, 2016   AFP   12 COMMENTS
http://americanfreepress.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/25_26_Soros.jpg
• Extremely powerful “nation wrecker” driving force behind New World Order.
By Ronald L. Ray —
The subject of George Sorosborn Schwartz György, the super-wealthy slash-and-burn speculator and Jewish-Hungarian expatriate, is one always revealing new facets. Soros’s adventures in “nation-building” and “democratic revolution” are the left half of internationalist vise grips, set in so-called opposition to the “rightwing,” Trotskyite, neoconservative war hawks. While seemingly fighting each other, together both tighten the political hold on the peoples of the world, as they turn all toward a New World Order (NWO). The terrorist suspect’s most recent efforts through “open society” foundations he funds are bringing globalist gunpowder plots to places like Poland and Armenia, in the long march to make the world safe for plutocracy.
The typical American, brainwashed by the terminology of political “right” and “left,” often is puzzled by apparent inconsistencies in Soros’s behavior. On the one hand, the Jewish investor generally opposes Zionism and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, yet he is guilty of the worst forms of crony capitalism and exploitative libertarianism, while funding a variety of social uprisings. But, in reality, his views and practices are remarkably consistent.
Apparently, Soros learned his trading practices through the black market in Hungary’s “bad old days.” This amoral ruthlessness in pursuit of profit allowed him to amass a fortune of approximately $22 billion, while nearly destroying the currencies of Great Britain and Malaysia. He was convicted of insider trading by a French court, and Thailand branded him an “economic war criminal,” according to the online FrontPage Magazine.
From our perspective, it is this plutocratic piracy which is the leitmotiv of Soros’s life. Ultimately, he uses his political involvements as springboards to profit from the societal destruction he promotes, and his efforts to help establish a centrally planned globalist government are meant to protect his profiteering.
Thus, the recently installed nationalist/populist government of Poland—universally deemed, along with all other nationalist movements, as “extreme right wing” by the mainstream media myrmidons—has become a new target for Soros, the “stateless statesman” and international parasite.
According to an extensive article by Matthew Tyrmand of Breitbart on May 19, 2016, the Committee for Defense of Democracy (Komitet Obrony Demokracji, or KOD) sprang up shortly after Poles almost completely rejected the thoroughly corrupt major parties and remaining communist apparatchiks. This contrived “popular” opposition to the nationalists mirrors typical Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations elsewhere and is designed to reintegrate the local population into the European Union and NWO.
The KOD is well funded and shadowed everywhere by the Stefan Batory Foundation, which in turn is funded by Soros’s Warsaw Open Society Foundation. These groups exhibit the typical New Left defense of white genocide, open borders, exploitation of workers, and government by unelected technocrats. Soros and his ilk clearly cannot tolerate people with strong national identities, who might seek their own people’s welfare.
In Armenia, which is closely allied with Russia as a defense against their hereditary Turkish enemies, a phony “popular” opposition to the government has arisen, as well, funded by the Soros-backed CIA-front group, the National Endowment for Democracy. Here, the purpose is again to destroy strong nationalist opposition to the globalists’ desired hegemony through carefully orchestrated mobocracy.
Such Soros initiatives bear close watching as they typically develop into violent, sociopathic uprisings. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen recently exposed the deep roots of the erstwhile Hungarian’s harmful internationalism, which appear to include ties to organized terrorism.
According to Madsen, Soros began profitseeking infiltration efforts into Eastern Europe in 1984 through the Soros Foundation Budapest. After exploiting the “crash of 1987” for massive monetary gains, he started funneling what the CIA called “kosher cash” into anti-communist opposition groups to destabilize the government of then-Czechoslovakia. Soros financially supported Charter 77 and the likes of future Czech leader Vaclav Havel. But a declassified, redacted CIA report raises the question of whether anti-communist terror bombings at the time may also have been funded or even authorized by Soros.
What is not in question is Soros’s involvement in numerous similar activities for decades across the world. Hungary, Serbia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan as well as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq have all experienced the societally detrimental effects of Soros’s provocations.
Viktor Orban, prime minister of Hungary, recently criticized Soros for attempting to destabilize it and “trying to cause trouble,” in opposition to the will of the people, according to the online The Times of Israel. “Soros is opposing the government . . . by supporting non-governmental groups which want to push back [its] position on the migration issue,” said Orban.
Perhaps the capstone of the plutocrat’s power grab has been Ukraine, where his International Renaissance Foundation spent over $100 million to destroy the Russian-aligned country and establish an even more corrupt, genocidal puppet government. In this case, Soros proudly admits to being one of those who have funded the United States- and Israel-sponsored bloody coup and unabated civil war. He also has close ties to the oligarchs now ruling the beleaguered Slavic nation.
Soros likewise is busily dumping tens of billions of dollars into the accelerating white genocide through foreign invasion in Europe and the U.S., with the goal of destroying those regions’ historic cultures and peoples—including the Catholic Church. Another example, Black Lives Matter is attempting to incite an anti-white race war and has received tens of millions of dollars from Soros groups.
Soros is neither a philanthropist nor an entrepreneur. Based on his record, he is an international sponsor of terrorism, war, and genocide. He should be imprisoned and hanged for his crimes.
Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.






FROM THE MAGAZINE

Connoisseur of Chaos





The dystopian vision of George Soros, billionaire funder of the Left
Winter 2017
Politics and law

When the dust was cleared and the debris swept away, he stood 
revealed as Hillary Clinton’s most generous billionaire donor. Yet his name rarely surfaced during the presidential campaign—and that’s generally the way he likes it. Dark Money, Jane Mayer’s book about covert political funding, refers to the Koch brothers more than 300 times in its excoriation of the “radical right” but mentions progressive icon George Soros just six times; three are footnotes.
One of the planet’s richest men, his past marred with crimes and misdemeanors, the 86-year-old billionaire skates on. More than a decade ago, he moved his financial headquarters to Curaçao, a tax-free haven in the Caribbean designed for monied hypocrites who talk one game and play another. The place is not bulletproof; on occasion, Soros has been accused—and even convicted—of insider trading. A French court found him guilty of that crime and levied a fine of $2.3 million. In the parlance of the billionaires’ club, that was small change. Investigative journalists, a dwindling cadre, show little interest in him. They prefer to scrutinize safer, softer targets.
If they took even a cursory look, though, they would see that Soros’s global reach and influence far outstrip those of the Koch brothers or other liberal bogeymen—and that underlying it all is a vision both dystopian and opportunistic. “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order,” Soros has declared, “is the United States.” Ergo, that constitutional republic must be weakened and its allies degraded. The Sorosian world order—one of open borders and global governance, antithetical to the ideals and experience of the West—could then assume command.
George Soros has been an escape artist since his adolescence in Budapest, when Nazi occupiers gave him his first life lessons. Until then, the Schwartz family lived in a large house, located on an island in the Danube. György’s mother, Elizabeth, was the daughter of affluent silk merchants. His father, Tivadar, was a prominent lawyer and eccentric; in good weather, he commuted to his office by rowboat.
But all was not as it appeared, even before the predations of the Third Reich. Anti-Semitism ran deep in Eastern Europe, and Hungarian Jews lived on a knife blade, no matter how large their bank accounts. The secularist Tivadar never attended synagogue, but he had a devout belief in Esperanto, the artificial language that he and other disciples believed would eventually become the world’s tongue. The Tower of Babel would be razed, and nationalism would disappear, along with dialects, local attitudes, and national boundaries. But that world lay in the future. For the present, Jewish identity would have to be papered over.
Accordingly, the family changed its name to Soros—“to soar,” in Esperanto. In 1944, the personification of the Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann, came to German-occupied Hungary to administrate the Final Solution. But Tivadar had anticipated him. By then, he had purchased false identity documents for himself and the family. He bribed a government official to “adopt” György and testify to investigators that the boy was his Christian godson.
Now came the fulcrum of Soros’s life and career. The bureaucrat who housed teenage György was assigned the task of confiscating Jewish land and property. Acolyte in tow, he went from house to house, making inventories for Nazi officers. It’s unfair sweepingly to condemn those individuals, Jewish and Gentile, who, in order to survive, sometimes collaborated with evil. Still, most of those who did escape the Holocaust were tormented by pangs of remorse and survivor’s guilt.
Not Soros. In 1998, 60 Minutes profiled the man whose stock-market manipulations were making news. CBS interviewer Steve Kroft asked him about his wartime experiences:
KROFT: You watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and—and anticipate events and when—when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a—a very personal experience of evil. . . .
KROFT: I mean, that’s—that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
SOROS: Not—not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t—you don’t see the connection. But it was—it created no—no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, “I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.” None of that?
SOROS: Well, of course I c— I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was—well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets—that if I weren’t there—of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would—would—would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the—whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the—I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
Adolf Eichmann offered an oddly similar rationale at his 1961 trial in Jerusalem. “Why me?” he demanded. “Why not the local policemen, thousands of them? They would have been shot if they had refused to round up the Jews for the death camps. Why not hang them for not wanting to be shot? Why me? Everybody killed the Jews.”
When the war ended, Hungary’s troubles continued. Soviet troops moved in, and the new rulers ruthlessly expunged the Germans—and their collaborators. Yet György was never punished, never even reprimanded for aiding the Nazis. Petr Cibulka, a onetime Czech dissident, told a British journalist that the only way for Soros to avoid reprisals “would be an agreement to co-operate with the GRU Soviet [Russian] military intelligence or perhaps also with the NKVD [later KGB].” Somehow, the 16-year-old Soros passed through “countless Red Army check points, without a passport that would be valid, without a Soviet approved permit to leave the country, without money and without any outside help. . . . His stay in the U.K. and his 1947 enrollment to the London School of Economics, and to be able financially to support himself during that time, with no mentioned help or financial backing, and to be able to graduate in 1952 at that young age, this all gives me chills.” In his own account of his days at the London School of Economics, Soros maintained that he had been a scholarship student.
The undergraduate, his name now Anglicized, was beguiled by the writings of Karl Popper (1902–94). The Viennese-born professor devoted his life and work to what he called the Open Society—a place free of such “tribal” affinities as religion, nationalism, and traditional economic formulas. But he also denounced, as a “monument of human smallness,” Plato’s concept of the philosopher king. “What a contrast,” Popper wrote, “between it and the simplicity of humaneness of Socrates, who warned the statesman against the danger of being dazzled by his own power, excellence, and wisdom. . . . What a decline from this world of irony and reason . . . down to Plato’s kingdom of the sage whose magical powers raise him high above ordinary men; although not quite high enough to forgo the use of lies, or to neglect the sorry trade of every shaman—the selling of spells . . . in exchange for power over his fellow-men.”
Was Soros beginning to confront the implications of these big ideas? No one knew—perhaps not even Soros himself, as he strove to find a place in postwar Britain. Alas for the new graduate, the financial world proved to be a closed society. No one seemed interested in his sheepskin or his multilingual abilities. Finally, he found work at the London-based merchant bank Singer and Friedlander because, he stated in a rare moment of self-deprecation, the managing director was a fellow Hungarian.
In 1930s Hollywood, when former Magyars like Alexander Korda, Peter Lorre, Leslie Howard, and Bela Lugosi reigned supreme, so many of their countrymen applied for positions that one film studio put up a sign: “It’s not enough to be Hungarian, you must also have talent.” So it proved in 1950s London, where the new hire could not rest on his Budapest connections. He had to demonstrate a gift for creating revenue—and he did. Within a few years, he had mastered the craft of arbitraging—making profits by trading different currencies. As befit a man with his background, he also promoted European stocks, then winning favor with U.S. institutional investors. Through Soros, they gained opportunities in the new Coal and Steel Community, soon to become the Common Market.
By 1959, Soros had relocated to New York City, the financial nexus of the West. He continued to be a salaried employee but a high-level one. He told colleagues that he planned to work for three more years—enough to accumulate a personal fortune of $500,000. He would then return to England to study philosophy. That event never occurred. His ego kept getting in the way. “I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of my self-importance,” he later admitted. “To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god.”
In the 1960s, the fancied god conceived his Theory of Reflexivity. Despite its Einsteinian overtones, the concept had a great deal of mumbo and not a little jumbo. Essentially, it stated that those who observe a phenomenon—like economics or politics—become a part of what they’re observing, and thus risk losing their objectivity. Economic arenas—Wall Street, for example—are particularly vulnerable to forces that have little to do with empirical evidence or historical precedent. Knowing this, the cunning witness can make a whacking good profit if he stays above the fray, the tipsters, and the “smart money.”
The recession of 1973 provided one of many examples. After years of wild, bullish ascents, the market seemed impervious to business cycles. Then it crashed. Investors waited for the predicted rebound—and were still waiting five years later. The resignation of Richard Nixon, the oil shortages, the seizing of American hostages in Iran, and the inept response of Jimmy Carter all put paid to the good times. And yet, a few speculators profited from these disasters; Soros was one of them.
Soros went on to enjoy many other triumphs, and none did more for his image than a killing made across the pond two decades later. He had gone out on his own by then. Aware that the British government was propping up the pound sterling, he and his associates acquired millions of pounds and then shorted the currency, betting that its worth would decrease. After some bad press and some bloody political infighting, Prime Minister John Major caved, withdrawing the pound from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). The pound plummeted, and Soros pocketed more than $1 billion. Retirees on fixed incomes saw their pensions diminished and their savings wiped out. But the human consequences had no effect on Soros; indeed, he gained in stature. In high-finance circles, he was the “man who broke the Bank of England.”
The subprime mortgage crisis of the 2000s offered another opportunity. Houses had been overvalued and underfinanced. The day of reckoning occurred in 2008. It led to the downfall of Lehman Brothers, the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the near-collapse of the entire global financial system. Again, Soros came smiling through. “I’m having a very good crisis,” he told a reporter.
Soros had long since become wealthy beyond avarice. Two large alimonies (he married for a third time in 2013) and the education of his heirs (like Donald Trump, he has five children), plus lavish homes in Westchester and on Long Island, scarcely made a dent in the family fortune, which continued to grow. But along the way, it occurred to Soros, as it had to many another financial giant before him, that mere getting and spending were not enough for a man of his colossal self-measurement. He put his sons and other principals in charge of his companies and hedge funds. Thereafter, like the owner of beach frontage whose landscape is obstructed by trees, he devoted himself to cutting down whatever blocked his worldview.

Soros’s Open Society Foundations was clearly devoted to the eradication of national sovereignty.

His presidential candidate lost in 2016, but this setback likely won’t slow Soros down. His political activism portfolio is well diversified. Backing organizations dedicated to social agitation and change-for-change’s-sake, Soros has caused tsunamis of upheaval, in the United States and around the world.
A few cases in point: last August, DC Leaks, a group of adroit hackers, got into the Soros files and released them. Perhaps the most notorious of the disclosures concerned Soros’s Open Society Foundations, named in honor of Sir Karl Popper. Underneath its lofty rhetoric, the organization was clearly devoted to the eradication of national sovereignty. A key Open Society paper, hacked in its entirety, described the Syrian refugee crisis as an opportunity to “shape conversations about rethinking migrations governance.” Translation: use agitprop to flood Europe and the U.S. with evacuees (among them some probable terrorists); make the old borders and institutions irrelevant; and, in the process, create a world liberated from the restraints of constitutionalism, American exceptionalism, free-market capitalism, and other obsolete isms.
One of Soros’s long-standing targets is the State of Israel. Providing funding for groups devoted to BDS (boycott, disinvestment, sanctions) against the Jewish State is only part of the equation. According to DC Leaks, Soros gave more than $2 million to Adalah, an “independent human rights organization.” As a matter of policy, Adalah demands that governments sever diplomatic relations with the only democracy in the Middle East. Soros also donated more than $1 million to the Palestinian media center I’lam, which regularly accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing. Though the Open Society Foundations’ biases are obvious, its members prefer to work under deep cover, as one of the leaked documents describes. “For a variety of reasons, we wanted to construct a diversified portfolio of grants dealing with Israel and Palestine . . . as well as building a portfolio of Palestinian grants and in all cases to maintain a low profile and relative distance—particularly on the advocacy front.”
Print reporters were enlisted in the cause of propagating the Soros mind-set. As recorded by WikiLeaks, Soros operatives, determined to shape media coverage of events in Ukraine, were instructed to “select journalists from the five target countries (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Greece) and offer them long stay reporting trips in Ukraine. Rather than specify what they should write about they should make suggestions for articles; we retain a veto on stories we think are counterproductive. Suggestion that we liaise directly with journalists to determine interest.”




Soros bankrolls a wide array of protest groups across the country, including MoveOn.org, shown here demonstrating outside Senator Charles Schumer’s office. (MARK APOLLO/PACIFIC PRESS/LIGHTROCKET/GETTY IMAGES)
Soros bankrolls a wide array of protest groups across the country, including MoveOn.org, shown here demonstrating outside Senator Charles Schumer’s office. (MARK APOLLO/PACIFIC PRESS/LIGHTROCKET/GETTY IMAGES)

In the United States, Soros bankrolls a broad range of political and cultural causes. One is to destabilize the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. In 2015, he dedicated $650,000 for the purpose of shaping Pope Francis’s U.S. visit, using left-leaning Catholic groups to promote gay marriage, abortion, and physician-assisted suicide. Leading the effort was Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, a self-professed Catholic. Bill Donohue, outspoken president of the Catholic League, vainly called for Podesta’s dismissal. “He is fomenting revolution in the Catholic Church, creating mutiny and is totally unethical,” Donohue said. “He is the front man for George Soros to create a host of phony anti-Catholic groups. These are not just bad comments, as some have suggested. These words are orchestrated, calculated and designed to create fissures in the Catholic Church.”
Another Soros favorite is Black Lives Matter, the radical protest group dedicated to the proposition that police are inherently racist. Working the streets with incendiary rhetoric, at odds with the truth about black-on-black crime, BLM has helped foster “depolicing,” as Heather Mac Donald describes it, in high-crime urban areas. In 2015, after days of rioting in Baltimore in response to the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, an Open Society Foundations memo excitedly commented that “recent events offer a unique opportunity to accelerate the dismantling of structural inequality generated and maintained by local law enforcement and to engage residents who have historically been disenfranchised in Baltimore City in shaping and monitoring reform.” Three straight acquittals of police officers involved in the matter left the prosecution’s case in shreds but made no difference to the Open Society Foundations. It has donated at least $650,000 to Black Lives Matter and pledged more assistance to antipolice factions across the country. These activities prompted the father of one of the Dallas police officers killed during a Black Lives Matter protest to sue Soros (along with other individuals and groups) for inspiring a “war on police.”
Soros’s open-borders obsessions can be seen in the $2 million he gave to opponents of Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff Joe Arpaio, an outspoken critic of illegal immigration. The sheriff’s “influence on the national conversation about immigration has been poisonous,” said a Soros spokesman. Arpaio fired back, calling the billionaire a “far-left globalist” who was trying to “buy a local race.” The sheriff failed to ride in on Trump’s November wagon, though, and Soros enjoyed one of his few election-night victories. Soros also spent millions backing liberal-minded district attorneys—they all opposed jail time for nonviolent drug offenders—in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, and Texas. Some of these candidates won; most lost.
The emphasis on leniency for drug offenders is no accident. Two decades ago, Soros began an ardent campaign to decriminalize marijuana and other illegal drugs, which he promoted as an issue of fairness: Why should abusers be arrested and imprisoned when what they really needed was counseling and rehabilitation? To that end, he backed the Lindesmith Center, a “drug policy institute,” which served as Soros’s echo chamber on matters concerning proscribed substances. “I’m sure Lindesmith’s desire to take us into nihilism and chaos and to jam our hospital emergency rooms with more users has some useful purpose,” scoffed a spokesman for General Barry McCaffrey, during his tenure as Bill Clinton’s drug czar. Since then, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have all legalized marijuana, and Heads, a pro-drug magazine, enthusiastically dubbed Soros “Daddy Weedbucks.” But data are confirming what skeptics like McCaffrey had argued all along: that legalization serves as a forerunner to more drug use rather than less, more emergency-room visits rather than fewer, increased danger to the health of the young, and a consequent weakening of the social fabric.
As the postpresidential fever abates, Soros’s work carries on. In a New York City luxury hotel, Soros recently huddled with other devastated operatives in the so-called Democratic Alliance, including former House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, and Congressional Progressive Caucus cochairman Keith Ellison. According to Politico, they discussed strategies to combat President-elect Trump’s “terrifying assault on President’s Obama’s achievements.” Not all Democrats were pleased with the occasion. “The DA itself should be called into question,” said one attendee. “You can make a very good case it’s nothing more than a social club for a handful of wealthy white donors and labor union officials to drink wine and read memos, as the Democratic Party burns down around them.”
With the threat that a Trump presidency poses to their power, Soros and his allies figure to be even more voracious for influence—and secrecy. This is no time to let up. Yet Soros must occasionally think back to the professor whose writings he cherry-picked, using what was digestible and abandoning what could not be stomached. When he does, one tocsin is likely to cause discomfort even to this most insensitive of plutocrats: Popper’s reference to the figure “whose magical powers raise him high above ordinary men.” Popper warned about this type long before George Soros perverted Sir Karl’s teachings and crowned himself a philosopher king.


THE REVOLUTION HAS BEEN SPOTTED.... It's headed down Wall Street tomorrow!


"Populism is basically a system wherein people of all classes and 

creeds, from the bottom up and not the top down, secure their share

in the economic pie and are therefore ensured upward mobility in 

alliance with secure voting rights and the ability to effect change, 

while having the freedom to preserve their property—and their 

family, community, and ethnic-national heritage—without undue 

“political correctness” fouling up the works. In its purest form, 

populism opposes business monopolies and vaguely defined free-

market ideologies, especially predatory banking, and therefore 

seeks an economic democracy. It’s not precisely right-wing, nor is 

it left-wing."

DREADING DE-GLOBALIZATION IN DAVOS
JANUARY 19, 2017   CHRIS   5 COMMENTS
http://americanfreepress.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/3_4_SS_Davos.jpg
Corporate executives, top bankers, global speculators, and power brokers at the annual Alpine retreat in Davos, Switzerland are complaining openly that the rise of populism and nationalism across the United State and Europe is a serious threat to globalism and the New World Order. Ending globalization is apparently hitting them in the pocketbook.

By Mark Anderson

Many of the gilded glitterati gathering in Davos, Switzerland amid the towering Alps for the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) see the populism sweeping much of the world as a fascinating trend. They certainly enjoy talking about it. But their 

academic chitter-chatter is starting to take on a

panicked tone over the implications of the 

common man demanding a better life—a life 

without poverty in the face of plenty and 

without nonstop unwinnable wars, among other

vexing problems.
Even before this year’s WEF started on Jan. 17, American public television personality Charlie Rose—a frequent attendee of the much more exclusive Bilderberg meetings that AFP has doggedly covered since 1975—was interviewing several guests about this topic on his well-known talk show, as this AFP reporter flipped on the TV during recent travels. Rose’s esteemed guests fretted over several trends that suggest there’s a devolution from globalism in the works—call it “de-globalization.”
Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas and Chicago Council on Global Affairs President Ivo Daalder in early December 2016 confided to Rose that they’ve got the jitters over the current populist surge, most visibly represented by brash businessman Donald J. Trump’s ascent to the presidency—and above all by what his election says about the worldview of a sizable cross section of the American people. Simply put: Globalization is losing its grip on the human psyche.
Daalder feebly tried to say that largely unregulated “integration” is the Western “tradition,” without mentioning that the kind of forcible integration that’s taking place—largely due to wars waged by Western powers that force people out of their homelands and into places they wouldn’t otherwise live, in most cases—creates cultural clashes, crime, and upheaval. This could all be avoided if world government promoters would chill out on trying to mold the world according to their portfolios and to their impractical, sometimes demented visions of world governance.
Rock band U2’s vocalist, Bono, and Ian Brenner of the Eurasia Group were among other guests on Rose’s show in early January. They, too, greeted the populist revival with a mix of fascination and barely muted alarm.

BLOG: BEHIND GLOBALISM IS OPEN 

BORDERS, AMNESTY OR CONTINUED 

NON-ENFORCEMENT, NO E-VERIFY AND 

NO LEGAL NEED APPLY.... It's all about 

keeping wages DEPRESSED!
So, silver-spoon WEF attendees—and the likeminded corporate media that usually does their bidding—are acknowledging more than ever before that populism is undermining what’s typically called globalism. This is the credo practiced by those who want to knit the world into a singular economic-political-cultural construct lacking the rich and varied landscape that can only be produced by a world of distinct nation-states with unique cultures.
In other words, if money can’t buy you true love, perhaps it also cannot ultimately buy total world-rule, either, because there’s something in human nature that naturally rejects a mechanistic existence that lacks heart and soul and a real sense of heritage.
This doesn’t mean, though, that those bent on world-rule are about to flatline. The private, usurious central banking system that stole the people’s credit and put everyone’s land and labor in hock is their chief weapon. Without it, their press control would shrivel and the rest of their influence would wane to, or almost to, the breaking point. But at least real freedom-seekers know that key monetary and financial reforms of the proper sort are the core pathway to ending the “new world order.”

TOUGH ADMISSIONS IN THE TIMES

“Davos Glitter in the Gloom of Populism” topped the front page of the Jan. 17 New York Times on the first day of the WEF, which runs through Jan. 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration as the 45th U.S. president—the first one ever so clearly defined as a “populist.” The Times sub-headline added: “Elites grapple with working-class rage.”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The article itself noted that the 2017 WEF attendees included Bilderbergers like International Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde and Microsoft co-founder-turned-“philanthropist” Bill Gates, along with smug mattoids like JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon and film stars like Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie. Also attending this year’s Davos event is Chinese president Xi Jinping, who reportedly stated that populism, defined as “support for the concerns of ordinary people,” is seen as a threat to globalism.
Populism is basically a system wherein people of all classes and creeds, from the bottom up and not the top down, secure their share in the economic pie and are therefore ensured upward mobility in alliance with secure voting rights and the ability to effect change, while having the freedom to preserve their property—and their family, community, and ethnic-national heritage—without undue “political correctness” fouling up the works. In its purest form, populism opposes business monopolies and vaguely defined free-market ideologies, especially predatory banking, and therefore seeks an economic democracy. It’s not precisely right-wing, nor is it left-wing.
The above-noted Times article succumbed to the realization that the elites’ long-sought notion of world government may be fundamentally doomed.
Each year, the WEF crowd talks (mainly on the basis of global investment-class perspectives) about their typical topics of climate change, inequality, and the economic challenges facing developing and emerging nations. But, as the Times continued, “Missing from these high-minded conversations have been meaningful challengers or critics of the underlying theme that was seemingly stipulated from the birth of this (WEF) 46 years ago: Globalization has the potential to benefit everyone.”
Of particular note, the Times piece quoted economist John Mauldin as saying: “Trump’s election victory is a clear indication that the majority of people are not interested in a world government, but want to return to a classical local democracy. Strange as it may seem to the Davos men, most people tend to love their ‘patria,’ the land of their fathers.”
This is not to say that all WEF attendees are deluded power-mongers or vain pseudo-intellectuals. Many have considerable expertise in various fields and clearly have some worthwhile perspectives and ideas to share, especially in the technological realm. Their problem, however, is philosophical, not intellectual.
Several other recent headlines from big media outlets similarly represent the same basic admission by the plutocratic oligarchy (rule by the rich few who constitute “the establishment”) that they are on particularly shaky ground due to the populist tremors emanating from recent events including the pending Trump presidency, the June 23, 2016 affirmative “Brexit” vote that, if fully consummated, would allow the UK to officially exit the European Union, from the prospect of noted populist candidate Marie Le Pen gaining even more political ground in France, and so on.
Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor and has covered the last few Bilderberg gatherings since the death of James P. Tucker Jr.


THE CRONY BANKSTER PRESIDENT

President Obama will leave behind plenty of populist rhetoric, but his record on economic policy is eight years of corporatism. For two terms, Obama grew the government's role in the economy, often in concert with big business, and usually to its benefit. If President-elect Trump was aided by the perception that Washington rigs the game in favor of the big guys, Obama's consistent corporatism is a key culprit. The phrase crony capitalism became popular on the Right during the Obama years, but it's a little off-target as a criticism of Obama. Crony capitalism connotes doing favors for friends and hurting enemies. Did some of that go on under Obama? Of course. (See the Clinton Global Initiative, for instance.) But mostly, Obama wasn't doling out quid-pro-quo goodies as much as he was creating an economic system — of more regulations, more mandates, more subsidies — that favored the big guys.







This will be Obama's legacy: A bigger federal government more entangled with big business than before, with more ability to pick winners and losers. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

This will be Obama's legacy: A bigger federal government more entangled with big business than before, with more ability to pick winners and losers. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)






Obama's corporatist legacy






President Obama will leave behind plenty of populist rhetoric, but his record on economic policy is eight years of corporatism.

For two terms, Obama grew the government's role in the economy, often in concert with big business, and usually to its benefit. If President-elect Trump was aided by the perception that Washington rigs the game in favor of the big guys, Obama's consistent corporatism is a key culprit.
The phrase "crony capitalism" became popular on the Right during the Obama years, but it's a little off-target as a criticism of Obama. Crony capitalism connotes doing favors for friends and hurting enemies. Did some of that go on under Obama? Of course. (See the Clinton Global Initiative, for instance.)

But mostly, Obama wasn't doling out quid-pro-quo goodies as much as he was creating an economic system — of more regulations, more mandates, more subsidies — that favored the big guys.

Obama's corporatist streak revealed itself early 

with his pick of Tim Geithner, a chief author of 

the Wall Street bailouts, as treasury secretary.

In crafting the Troubled Asset Relief Program

under President Bush and implementing it 

under President Obama, Geithner wasn't simply 

trying to stop panic and ward off a meltdown. He 

was trying to make sure the post-crisis financial 

sector looked a lot like the pre-crisis one. That is, 

Geithner wasn't just trying to save the economy, 

he was trying to save the big banks.
Big banks have many virtues. An economy without Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and with a smaller JP Morgan would lack some things. It also might be a financial sector less in danger of systemic meltdown, and with more competition. Geithner probably saw that trade-off, but he thought the liquidity and the particular type of stability provided by the big guys was too important to give up.

Obama and Geithner's bailouts and regulations helped widen the moat that protects the big guys from competition, and helped make the big banks more or less immortal. It would be easy to call it Wall Street cronyism, but financial corporatism is more precise.

Obama's stimulus, in his second month, was a giant raft of subsidies for everyone from the concrete pourers to the computer makers to the solar-panel peddlers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed this massive spending bill.

Obamacare was another exercise in corporatism. Hammered out in the back room with the drug lobby and the hospital lobby, Obamacare directly (and perhaps deliberately) has driven consolidation among hospitals and insurers. The law includes subsidies for hospitals, mandates to buy private insurance, plus protections and subsidies for drug companies. No wonder the drug lobby celebrated the law's passage and pledged money to re-elect Democratic senators who voted for it. No wonder insurers and hospitals defended it in court.

Obama in 2012 ran for re-election with a mantra "General Motors is Alive and Osama bin Laden is Dead." This was a striking embrace of corporatism and militarism from a Nobel Peace Prize winner who had originally run against "the special interests."

That election, Obama's economic platform was called "Economic Patriotism," a phrase that may ring a bell these days. Unlike Trump, Obama's "economic patriotism" didn't involve tariffs. Instead he promised a nickel-and-dime tax hike: ending the deductibility of moving expenses for companies that offshore jobs. And Obama was at least as generous as Trump promises to be with the goodies for U.S. manufacturers, including bailouts, loan guarantees and special tax breaks.

Obama's biggest legislative victory of his final two years was the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. This is a federal agency that subsidizes U.S. exporters by extending taxpayer-backed finance to foreign buyers of U.S. goods. Obama pitches this as a small-business agency, but Boeing sales get twice as much Ex-Im financing as exports by all U.S. small businesses combined.

It wasn't just give, give, give by Obama. These subsidies and protective regulations empowered Obama to ask a lot, too, and to steer the economy. Obama used Ex-Im and the stimulus to reward "green energy" firms and punish coal companies. Giving hospitals bigger profit margins allows the government to grab more of that money. Forcing everyone to buy what Blue Cross is selling allows Obama to turn these companies into appendages of the Health and Human Services Department.

This will be Obama's legacy: A bigger federal government more entangled with big business than before, with more ability to pick winners and losers. I wonder if any future president might abuse that increased power.

Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.

AMERICA: One paycheck and two illegals away from homelessness.


"The economists found that the pre-tax share of national income received by the bottom half of the US population has been cut nearly in half since 1980, from 20 percent to 12 percent, while the income share of the top one percent has nearly doubled, from 12 percent to 20 percent."



SOARING POVERTY IN AMERICA’S OPEN 

BORDERS



Wikileaks exposes Obama’s bankster-infested

 

administration!








BARACK OBAMA …… the banksters’ RENT BOY!

 “Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock  purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.”

MUCH MORE HERE:


“As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping executive pay at bailed-out firms.”


“So when Clinton was hobnobbing with  Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein in 2013, while  investigations of wrongdoing by Goldman and the other Wall Street banks were still ongoing, she was consorting with a man who belonged in prison.”

CRONY BANKSTER LOOTING OF AMERICA

THEIR GOLDEN AGE OF PLUNDER IS NOT OVER!



NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS NOR INFESTED HIS ADMIN WITH BANKSTER CRONIES MORE THAN OBAMA!

And while the Obama administration worked systematically to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home foreclosures and other illicit activities.


TIME TO DEAL WITH REALITY?


AMERICA UNRAVELS:


The Road to Revolution or Civil War II





“Behind this year’s surge is a toxic mix of cuts to social services, unemployment, hopelessness…”




DID BARACK OBAMA SERVE HIS CRONY BANKSTERS PAYMASTERS WELL?


"The US stock market is now valued at $26 trillion, the highest in history."




"Overall, share prices and profits of the big Wall Street banks are soaring, fueled by expectations of sharply higher profits under a new administration pledged to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulatory overhaul and remove virtually all regulations restricting speculative activity and protecting investors and the general public from Wall Street fraud."
US banks report massive fourth quarter profits
By Gabriel Black
16 January 2017
Profits for the two largest US banks by assets surged in the fourth quarter, reflecting a rise in trading activity following the election victory of Donald Trump.
JPMorgan Chase profits increased 24 percent to $6.7 billion, while the bank’s revenue rose two percent to $24.3 billion, according to the quarterly earnings report released by the bank on Friday. The bank reported its best-ever fourth quarter trading business. It net income jumped 96 percent from a year earlier.
Bank of America’s fourth quarter profit shot up by 42 percent to $4.7 billion. The second largest US bank’s revenue climbed 2.1 percent to $20 billion, the result of a gain in interest income and loan growth.
Earnings for the country’s fourth largest bank by assets, Wells Fargo, fell 5.4 percent to $5.3 billion and revenue remained flat in the wake of a scandal over the bank’s practice of opening unauthorized customer accounts in order to meet aggressive sales targets.
Combined 2016 profits for Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo totaled $64.6 billion, some two percent higher than in 2015.
Overall, share prices and profits of the big Wall Street banks are soaring, fueled by expectations of sharply higher profits under a new administration pledged to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulatory overhaul and remove virtually all regulations restricting speculative activity and protecting investors and the general public from Wall Street fraud.
The incoming Trump administration is also promising to sharply cut corporate taxes and personal income taxes for the wealthy. Its key economic posts are filled with Wall Street insiders, including Goldman Sachs alums named to at least five top positions. These include Steven Mnuchin as treasury secretary, Gary Cohn as director of the National Economic Council, and longtime Goldman lawyer Jay Clayton to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.
US financial stocks have been on a tear since the November 8 election, with total gains for the 63 largest groups hitting $459 billion. The financial sector has headed up a general surge in stock prices, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average increasing 8.9 percent since Election Day and nearing the 20,000 mark. The US stock market is now valued at $26 trillion, the highest in history.
The Dodd-Frank law is a largely token measure that has done virtually nothing to rein in the type of speculative and fraudulent activity that led to the 2008 Wall Street crash. Nevertheless, the big US banks have denounced it and lobbied against provisions that require them to maintain a bigger capital reserve and others that minimally restrict their ability to gamble with depositors’ money.
And while the Obama administration worked systematically to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home foreclosures and other illicit activities.
Now the banks are confident they will not even face such token reprimands for their reckless and often criminal pursuit of super-profits.
Trump is also expected to offer massive tax breaks to companies that invest in government-sponsored infrastructure projects. A spurt in growth and an anticipated rise in interest rates promise to increase the opportunities for the banks to realize higher returns.
This Trump boom will make the inevitable bursting of the stock bubble that much more violent. The fundamentals of the European, East Asian and American economies remain weak, with very low rates of reinvestment.
The massive profits reported by the American banks contrast sharply with the situation in Europe. The total profits of the three largest US banks for 2016, $65 billion, exceeds the combined market value of Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, two of the largest European banks.
This reflects a sharp decline in the position of European banks relative to their US rivals in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. Share prices for major European banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and UniCredit are below their pre-2008 levels.


BARACK OBAMA , HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTERS 

AND THE LA RAZA MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS….



There’s more than one way to destroy America’s 

white middle class!




HSBC laundered hundreds of millions and perhaps 

billions of dollars for drug cartels responsible for 

the deaths of tens of thousands of people over the 

past two decades. The bank transferred at least 

$881 million of known drug trafficking 

proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa Cartel 

in Mexico, which is known for dismembering 

its victims and publicly displaying their body parts.

THE DEMISE AND ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION of HILLARY CLINTON

"Hillary Clinton is a known liar, a criminal of monstrous proportions; others have gone to prison for crimes she has committed over and over: lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, violating national security laws by which she was bound as Secretary of State, etc. It's a long list."


Clinton, the candidate favored by most of Wall Street and the corporate elite and large sections of the Republican Party establishment, is seeking to assemble something akin, within the framework of the US political setup, to a grand coalition between the Democratic Party and the Republican leadership.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/clinton-preparing-bipartisan-government.html

Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton 

speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which she

received six-figure paychecks, show her 

praising the recommendations of the 2010 

Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction 

commission, which called for sweeping cuts to

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the 

elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on 

employees’ health benefits; and huge cuts in 

income taxes for the wealthy and corporate 

taxes.


“But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now.”



Wikileaks exposes Obama’s bankster-infested

 

administration!







BARACK OBAMA …… the banksters’ RENT BOY!

 “Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock  purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.”

MUCH MORE HERE:


“As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping 
executive pay at bailed-out firms.”

“So when Clinton was hobnobbing with  Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein in 2013, while  investigations of wrongdoing by Goldman and the other Wall Street banks were still ongoing, she was consorting with a man who belonged in prison.”


Report to Davos summit: Rising inequality threatens “market capitalism”
By Nick Beams
14 January 2017
The year 2016 was characterised politically by the emergence of deep hostility to the official political and economic establishment as a result of rising social inequality. This was manifested most sharply in the Brexit vote in Britain and the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency, with right-wing nationalist forces being the main beneficiaries to date due to the reactionary anti-working class policies of what passes for the political “left.”
This shift has found expression in a warning sounded by the World Economic Forum, which hosts its annual gathering of world business and political leaders in Davos, Switzerland next week. The annual “risks report” prepared for the meeting concludes that the growing concentration of income and wealth at the very top of society is the biggest single risk to the stability of the economic and political order over which the millionaires and billionaires assembling in Davos preside. The report identifies “rising income and wealth inequality” as the most significant force driving global politics over the next decade.
The report cites the weakness of the economic “recovery” following the financial crisis of 2008 as one of the reasons for the anti-establishment backlash, but warns that boosting growth is not sufficient to shore up the credibility of the capitalist system.
There is a need to revive growth, “but the growing mood of anti-establishment populism suggests we may have passed the stage where this alone would remedy fractures in society: reforming market capitalism must also be added to the agenda,” the report states.
It continues: “The combination of economic inequality and political polarization threatens to amplify global risks, fraying the social solidarity on which the legitimacy of our economic and political systems rest.”
The report notes that the policy of quantitative easing by the world’s central banks—the pumping of trillions of dollars into the global financial system—has “exacerbated income inequality” by boosting “the returns enjoyed by the owners of financial assets, while workers’ real earnings have been growing very slowly.”
Productivity growth has been slow to recover from the crisis and structural rates of unemployment remain high, particularly among young people in Europe, while in the United States there has been a marked decline in the labour participation rate, signifying that large numbers of workers are dropping out of the workforce.
The report points out that “in contrast to the pre-crisis era, when China’s rapid expansion bolstered overall growth rates, there is no market game-changer on the horizon,” with China in a gradual slowdown as its economy moves away from investment-led growth.
“In sum, it is difficult to identify routes that will lead back to robust global rates of economic growth,” the Davos report concludes.
In line with other studies, the report points to rising inequality in the US, with the incomes of the top 1 percent rising by 31 percent between 2009 and 2012 compared to less than 0.5 percent for the rest of the population.
“Middle-class income stagnation,” it states, “is particularly affecting youth; recent research shows that 540 million young people across advanced economies face the prospect of growing up to be poorer than their parents.”
In examining longer-term trends, the report dwells on the impact of new technologies associated with the advance of computerisation and the Internet. According to one study it cites, some 47 percent of jobs in the United States are at risk from automation, affecting more than 80 percent of low-income work.
“Technology is also contributing to the changing nature of work, with secure and predictable jobs giving way to more sporadic and short-term self-employment,” with research suggesting that the number of people in so-called “alternative work arrangements” in the US increased faster than overall employment between 2005 and 2015.
In fact, the rate at which this is taking place is increasing. A recent study has found that 94 percent of the 10 million jobs created during the Obama administration were temporary, contract or part-time positions, with the proportion of the workforce engaged in such occupations rising from 10.7 percent to 15.8 percent. The number of full-time jobs today is 1 million below the level at the start of the recession.
The increased use of technology provides the material foundation for the advance of living standards. But under the profit system, it is the means for driving down the living standards of the mass of the population.
According to statistics prepared by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and cited in the World Economic Forum report, up to 80 percent of the decline in labour’s share in national income between 1990 and 2007 was the result of the impact of technology. This trend will only have accelerated in the past decade.
The report warns that one way in which technological change could prove disruptive is via the labour market, with incomes pushed down and unemployment pushed up in affected sectors and regions, leading to “disruptive” social conditions. This is in line with the overall finding of the report that “the most important of global risks is the pairing of unemployment and social instability.”
While pointing to the rise of populist and nationalist movements, the report does not offer much in the way of in-depth analysis. But it does at least indicate one of the most significant factors, noting that “the economic policies of historically mainstream parties from the right and the left have converged in recent decades,” making it possible for “once-fringe movements” to rise by “portraying the established parties as part of the same technocratic political class, focused on self-enrichment.”
The overriding fear of the World Economic Forum, though not stated explicitly in the report, is that popular opposition will shift to the left. As other commentators have noted in this, the centenary year of the Russian Revolution, there is a parallel between the conditions that prevailed a century ago and those of today.
Summing up its findings, the report concludes that it is a “febrile time for the world,” where “deep-rooted social and economic trends are manifesting themselves disruptively across the world,” and “persisting inequality, particularly in the context of comparative economic weakness, risks undermining the legitimacy of market capitalism.”
The World Economic Forum, which begins in the alpine resort of Davos, Switzerland on Tuesday, will involve the usual round of networking by business chiefs, political leaders and the heads of NGOs, as lucrative deals are made and relationships established. Of course, it will produce no solutions to the deepening social, political and economic malaise. How could it, as the forces gathered there preside over the very social order that has produced the crisis?
But for the global elites, the taste of the champagne, the delicacy of the canapés and the flavour of the haute cuisine may be somewhat tainted by the smell of death wafting up from the grave opening up before them.

TRUMP SIGNALS OBAMA’S  CRONY BANKSTERS THAT BETTER LOOTING IS UP AHEAD.


The chief motivating factor behind the rise on Wall Street is the understanding that the incoming Trump administration will not only carry out policies to benefit the financial elites, but that responsibility for implementing this agenda will be in the hands of some its foremost representatives.

TRUMP VOWS TO KEEP OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERS LOOTING
MNUCHIN: THE  FORECLOSURE  MACHINE!

The FDIC paid OneWest $1 billion, which Stein said went to “billionaire investors … to cover the close of foreclosing on working class, everyday American folks.”
“But the bank came under fire for its foreclosure practices as housing advocacy groups accused it of being too quick to foreclose on struggling homeowners. In 2011, dozens of demonstrators descended on Mnuchin's $26.5 million home in he wealthy Bel Air neighborhood to protest OneWest's eviction tactics, according to the Los Angeles Times.”

TRUMP VOWS TO SERVE THE RICH WITH SUPER OBAMA-CLINTONIMCS!

There is a vast chasm between this empty populist rhetoric and the personnel that Trump has selected to populate his government. The speech followed a series of cabinet picks, including billionaire asset strippers, Wall Street bankers, and dedicated opponents of financial and corporate regulations, public education and Medicare and Medicaid, to lead the Treasury, Commerce, Education and Health and Human Services departments.

THE TWISTED ROAD TO REVOLUTION CAME DOWN WALL STREET

FIRST

 OBAMA –CLINTONOMICS FOR THE SUPER RICH

"Between 2002 and 2015 annual earnings for the bottom 90 percent of Americans rose by only 4.5 percent, while earnings for the top 1 percent grew by 22.7 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Under the Obama administration, more than 90 percent of 
income gains since the so-called “recovery” began have gone to the top one percent."

 http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/11/comes-revolution-class-struggle-in-us.html

  “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan THEAMERICAN THINKER.com

Eight men own same as poorest half of world: Oxfam
1
The wealth of the world's poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico
by AFP16 Jan 2017

London (AFP) – Eight men own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population, a level of inequality which “threatens to pull our societies apart”, Oxfam said on Monday ahead of the World Economic Forum opening in Davos.
The wealth of the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico.
Picked from Forbes’ billionaires list, they include Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg who co-founded Facebook, and Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.
Oxfam pointed to a link between the vast gap between rich and poor and growing discontent with mainstream politics around the world.
“From Brexit to the success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, a worrying rise in racism and the widespread disillusionment with mainstream politics, there are increasing signs that more and more people in rich countries are no longer willing to tolerate the status quo,” Oxfam said in its new report, “An economy for the 99 percent”.
The charity said new data on wealth distribution from countries such as India and China had prompted it to revise its own calculation, having said a year ago the wealth of half the world’s population was in the hands of 62 people.
Inequality will be among the issues topping the agenda as the world’s political and business elite meet in Davos from Tuesday until Friday, when 3,000 people will gather for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. 
“Responsive and responsible leadership” has been chosen as the theme of the summit, which organisers said was a response to a “backlash against globalisation leading to two surprising vote results and a rise in populism in the West”.
In its report Oxfam called for an increase in tax rates targeting “rich individuals and cooperations”, as well as a global agreement to end competition between countries to lower corporate tax rates. 
The charity also condemned lobbying by corporations and the closeness of business and politics, calling for mandatory public lobby registries and stronger rules on conflicts of interest.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/eight-men-own-same-as-poorest-half-of-world-oxfam/

 and the banksters suck the blood out of anything that moves!

"Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of America’s biggest banks."
"Profiting from poverty was apparently an 'important business' for JP Morgan."

Food Stamps: $1.3 Billion Spent on Junk Food, Soft Drinks, Says Study

8
food stamps



















AP







Overall, food stamps worth nearly $1.3 billion were spent on “sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar,” which accounted for about 20 cents of every dollar spent on food items purchased by 26.5 million households in 2011, said the report.
The USDA administers the $74 billion food stamp program, also known as SNAP or the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
The report compared spending patterns between SNAP and non-SNAP households and found that “sweetened beverages,” which includes fruit juices, energy drinks, and sweetened teas, accounted for nearly 10 percent of the total amount of money spent on food.
“In this sense, SNAP is a multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy of the soda industry,” Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University told the New York Times. “It’s pretty shocking.”
Overall, SNAP users spent 22.8 percent of their benefit on sugary drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, sugar, plus jams and sweets, and only 11.9 percent on fruits and vegetables. Families that don’t use the SNAP program spent 20 percent of their funds on those sweet items, and 16.3 percent on fruits and vegetables.
The multi-billion dollar, taxpayer funded food stamps program has become increasingly controversial thanks, in part, to its massive growth under President Obama.
More than 10.7 million more Americans — a 32 percent jump — have become reliant on food stamps to feed themselves since Obama took office in 2009, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
And in that time, countless studies have been published and health experts have warned that restrictions are needed to curtail food stamp use to purchase unhealthy foods. Government watchdog groups have also called for tighter regulations as food stamp fraud remains a common and costly problem.
Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of  America’s biggest banks.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made by a handful of banks that help the U.S. government process payments to food stamps recipients.
“Three companies – J.P. Morgan EFS, Affiliated Computer Services, and eFunds – provide EBT services for 49 states and 3 US territories,” an investigation by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) found.
“Since 2004, 18 of 24 states who contract with J.P. Morgan to provide welfare benefits have contracted to pay $560,492,596.02,” the GAI investigation revealed. “New York alone has a seven-year contract worth $126,394,917.”
Profiting from poverty was apparently an “important business” for JP Morgan.
“This business is a very important business to JP Morgan,” Christopher Paton, the company’s former managing director of treasury services, told Bloomberg News in 2011. “It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale. We also regard it as very important in the sense that we are delivering a very useful social function. We are a key part of this benefit delivery mechanism. Right now volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years or so … The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.”
The president-elect has indicated that he wants to make cuts to various welfare programs and the Republican platform promises to separate the food stamps program from the Farm Bill, where SNAP funding is currently derived.

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/15/food-stamps-billions-spent-junk-food/


Requiem for a Lightweight: Obama Out


January 16, 2017

Requiem for a Lightweight: Obama Out

Critics often make for strange bedfellows.  Louis Farrakhan and Cornell West are examples.  Both argue that Barack Obama was not ready for prime time.  For Farrakhan, Obama failed on race and social issues.  For West, the 44th president was a sell-out to a capitalist establishment.  Overall, both say the Obamas didn't do much for blacks in particular and social justice in general.  For brothers like Farrakhan and West, the last eight years were a wasted opportunity.  
Buyer's remorse may be the new "hope and change."
There will be a black president one day – maybe not for decades, thanks to the outgoing regime.  Obama had little time for pragmatism and too much to do with special pleading; identity politics; and feckless, if not sanguinary, foreign policy.
Be it race or religion, Obama's tragic flaw was policy marked by timidity and moral ambiguity – both underwritten by the belief that he could be a racial, religious, or policy shape-shifter as the occasion demanded.  Having parents on both sides of racial and religious divides allowed Obama to play race and religious cards often, yet seldom well.
As team Obama heads for the exits, the race joker is again in play.  White working-class Americans and any flavor of Russians are the new bogymen for bad losers, right and left, across the land.
In the twilight of a checkered political career, Obama's only claim to legacy might be "first black," a dubious attribute that can never be more than a half-truth.  Half- truths might be a fitting coda to an era that may go down in history as a tipping point, a juncture where "fake news" became the real news.  Factual ambiguity is now viral and that cultural meme is a precedent that Obama owns.
As a young hipster in exclusive white schools, he was "Barry," not Barack Hussein.  As a Chicago politician, Obama self-identified as a black man, although that identity was more expedient than real.  As a presidential candidate, Obama often ignored his African and Muslim antecedents while celebrating his heroic American white grandparents.
In mid-career, with a media assist, he jettisoned the "Hussein" moniker.  Clearly, it wasn't politically expedient to self-identify as black and Muslim, even in Farrakhan's Chicago.
Barack's father was an unfortunate stereotype, a deadbeat dad who abandoned his son and fled to a life of substance abuse in Africa.  Obama's mother seemed to be a white flower child with a taste for exotic, if not constant, mates.  Ultimately, Obama spent his formative years in the custody of white privilege and grandparents in Hawaii.  To this day, the black and Muslim sides of family Obama languish in Kenyan and Indonesian poverty and obscurity.
In the main, the president's personal career path was consistent snowflake: prep school, Ivy League college, prestigious law school, and then politics.  At the curb level, Barack Obama probably cared as much about black culture in America as does Chris Matthews.
After 20 January, the Obamas plan to remain in Washington so that their daughter can remain in a pricey, majority-white private secondary school.  Self-segregating public schools in Washington, D.C. are a function of entrenched double standards among elite black liberals like the Obamas.  Arguably, the District of Columbia has the worst public schools in America.  
Withal, you could argue that the "great black hope" was neither.  In life and theater, the last act is often like the first – bookends, if you will.
The Obama Bookends
Obama leaves the Oval Office as did the Clintons, trashing the White House.  Since the election, both families have done their level best to poison domestic and foreign policy wells.  First, there is challenging the legitimacy of the 2016 election at home and then blaming the Trump victory on white fright or Russian meddling abroad.
Sour grapes do not capture the stench of such 11th-hour hypocrisy.  And "sore loser" does not begin to describe the perfidy of American intelligencecollaboration in the partisan challenges to the legitimacy of the 2016 election.
Eight years of Obama torpor had nothing to do with the Clinton defeat?
If the Kremlin hacked the DNC attempt to hijack the Democrat primaries, such enterprise is a tribute to an efficient FSB or GRU.  Worse still, if there was a hack, and subsequent desinformatsiya campaign in America, any Kremlin scam is a testament to the manifest incompetence of the DNC and General Clapper'sbloated American intelligence megaplex.
The truth about the intelligence profession today is alarming.  The grand illusion in Congress about 16 U.S. intelligence agencies is the belief that spending is somehow related to performance.  Since 9/11, the business of the I.C. is clearly business, not efficiency, effectiveness, or improved national security.
The intelligence community took sides in the recent election because it anticipated a Clinton win.  Trump is a clear threat to business as usual at DOD and a clear threat to an obese and out-of-control intelligence behemoth.   
When the media speaks of weaponized cyber-attacks, the American sponsored "Stuxnet" assault on Iran's nuclear infrastructure is seldom mentioned.  U.S. intelligence fired the first salvo of the 21st-century internet wars as early as January 2010.  Any hack of the DNC is small potatoes compared to the Obama-Clapper idiocy of playing nuclear chicken in a dicey neighborhood like the Levant.
Bottom line: A Shia bomb is still waiting in the wings.
Beginning with the Sunni attack on Manhattan, intelligence community fundinghas been inversely proportionate to national security performance.  Indeed, regime change chickens have now come home to roost inside the Beltway.
Opposition to Trump in D.C. is now flirting with sedition.
The latest "Russian" hysteria has all the earmarks of xenophobia, vindictive remorse, or political vendetta.  General Clapper's empire bet on Obama and the Clintons.  Trump won in spite of Washington fixers.  Real change is a bitter pill for losers and elites alike.
The best revenge is often blowback.  Barack Obama and Jim Clapper have managed to turn Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and Edward Snowden into global cyber-heroes.
Clapper and his agency vassals might now displace both Benedict Arnold and Rube Goldberg on the partisan political walk of shame.  If Russian intelligence is more effective than American intelligence, Putin might indeed take a bow, but surely Donald Trump is not the culprit, nor the beneficiary.
Obama leaves the Oval Office as he entered, festooned with garlands from sycophants.  The president got the Nobel "Peace" Prize at the start of his run when he had done nothing.  Now he gets the "Defense" Distinguished Service Medal after accomplishing little.  Both awards are bookends for wishful thinking.  Eight years of Obama were neither distinguished nor a service.
Obama probably killed, with Islamic allies, more Muslims than Charles Martel.  Mister Obama also leaves his successor at least five hot wars in the ummah and one cold war in Europe.  No fair analyst can possibly argue that America and the world are better, or safer, places after the Obama years.
Nearly a decade ago, Obama ran on a theme of "hope and change" as if he had a program for either.  Recent events in Chicago are a microcosm of domestic failure on both counts.  We could start with the Black Lives Matter hustle, a coalition of greedy lawyers, hip-hop, rap, and anti-cop punk activists.
Apologists might argue that Chicago is not Obama's problem, but if urban punk pathology is a national problem, then that buck stops on Obama's desk.
Chicago is Obama country – his nascent political constituency, if you will.  The Windy City is a burg where lives do not matter, especially black lives.  Chicago is the murder capital of America, a city where victims are usually black, and perps are almost always black, too.
In any given year, nearly five thousand of Mr. Obama's Illinois constituents will be maimed by criminals and a fifth of those usually end up dead.  Black mayhem is routine in every American city, most of which are one-party towns like Chicago and Washington, D.C., hostages to a smug and complacent Democratic Party.
Chronic, now generational, violence in the United States is a phenomenon of the urban American Left. Obama and his Party own that demographic.
The most recent racial atrocity in Chicago featured four punks who kidnapped a mentally challenged white man for two days of racial abuse and ritual torture.  The ordeal was live-streamed on YouTube.  The only difference between this incident and everyday city mayhem is that this victim was white.
Social pathology in places like Chicago is of a piece with Islamic necrosis abroad, a product of indulgence.  Tolerating aberrant behavior anywhere makes more of it possible everywhere.
Culture is behavior.  Behavior is culture.
Maybe it is too early to suggest that Barack Hussein Obama is America's first affirmative action president.  Buyer's remorse is the ugly side of affirmative action.  If facts and performance matter, Obama had eight years of golden opportunity to address domestic and foreign policy civility.  Alas, he did little or nothing on both accounts.  Both landscapes now are literally littered with body bags and the human detritus of civic incontinence.
Barack Obama was never varsity material.
Indeed, he doubled down on failure.  Obama never used his bully pulpit todemand a better moral standard for his core urban constituency at home or those perfidious Muslim "partners" he sought to appease abroad.
Obama's tenure is not without merit.  He looks good in a suit.  Just ask CNN or MSNBC.  He seems to have a nice family, too.  And Barack's rap is nonpareil.
Indeed, Obama sounds like a park bench preacher.  He's arrogant enough to tell a crowd to go to hell, and most marks would get in line for the trip.  The Obama aura for folks who work for a living; however, people in flyover country is something very different.  If you ask about Obama in Deer Lick, the response would be "all hat, no cowboy."
The black vote in America may continue to be a "blue wall," a racial monolith – or maybe now with Keith Ellison, just another round of domestic jihad.  Yet for the rest of America, any future appeals to melanin as an asset, religion as an excuse, or affirmative action as a remedy may be dead letters.
Team Obama out!  Let the requiems begin.
G. Murphy Donovan writes about the politics of national security. 

The Strange Saga of Osama and Obama

They are the two men who changed the course of the history of the United States and the world in the new millennium: one by his capacity for evil, the other by his incapacity to comprehend it.  The saga of Osama and Obama begins at the dawn of the 21st century.
In September of 2001, Osama bin Laden slaughtered thousands of Americans in New York, Washington, and in the skies, undermining the nation's sense of security. The Twin Towers were a symbol of the soaring power of the unchallenged United States following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Osama didn't have to leave his Afghan hideaway to accomplish his "feat."  He sent no clunky missiles in an effort to dent the impenetrable power of fortress America as Saddam Hussein had attempted with his Scuds against U.S. troops during the Gulf War.  He relied on a small group of Muslim fanatics with box cutters and the schedules of U.S. airlines servicing a booming economy.
In response to bin Laden’s outrage, then President George W. Bush launched the War on Terror.  In 2008, Americans chose Barack Hussein Obama to be their first post-9/11 elected president.  That his surname, Obama, rhymed with Osama and had the unusual names “Barack Hussein" attached to it is only a coincidence.  The resemblance, however, was not lost on the future president when he lunched with a political consultant in late September of 2001.  Before them was a newspaper with Osama bin Laden's photo.  "Hell of a thing isn't it?" remarked the consultant. "Really bad luck.  You can't change your name, of course.  Voters are suspicious of that kind of thing."
Voters seemed to be more suspicious of Obama’s association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom the Wall Street Journal called a "passionate proponent of the view of America as the world's leading agent of evil and injustice,” than his Muslim roots.  The association with fiery preacher and his friendship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers did not deter the American people.
Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama’s amazing rise was the result of some deep wound in the American psyche after such a direct hit on its pride that still smarted seven years later.  
On May 2, 2011, Obama killed Osama, or at least he took responsibility for the action, while watching it on closed-circuit deep in the heavily-fortified White House Situation Room -- but his incapacity to call out evil during his presidency weakened America's power in the world and gave birth to an even more malicious Al-Qaeda offspring -- the Islamic State.
“Like most children of divorced parents, he felt a loss, for he was no longer as intimately involved with his father’s family… he keenly felt his lack of status, genuinely suffering from his father’s lack of personal love and care.”  These words were written by Omar bin Laden, one of Osama’s 20 sons, regarding his father's relationship with his grandfather, but they could have easily been written about Barack Obama, whose autobiography, titled Dreams from My Father, aptly describes the importance of his Kenyan progenitor's absence.  Both men’s Muslim fathers died prematurely:  Osama’s in a plane crash at age 59, Obama’s in a car accident at age 46, thus precluding any reconciliation with their feelings of abandonment.
Osama bin Laden’s father was fantastically rich and had many wives. Since Osama was not among the first born among 50 sons, he received little attention from the busy patriarch before he died.  He was raised by a stepfather. Unlike his brothers, who studied abroad, Osama stayed in Saudi Arabia and thus remained  “the most provincial of the bin-Laden boys.”
Barack Obama was raised in multicultural Hawaii and in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation.  It was with Obama’s Indonesian stepfather that the future president first came in contact with Islam, at the time in Indonesia, a much more tolerant version than that of Osama’s Saudi Arabia.
Bin Laden, living in the birthplace of Islam, found meaning in its message and gravitated towards the works of Sayid Qutub, “widely considered the father of contemporary jihadist thought.”
Four and a half years younger than Osama, Barack Obama was drawn to the writings of Malcom X of the Nation of Islam, a black nationalist group that prepared for a race war in America and believed that Christianity was the religion of slavers.  Malcolm eventually left the NOI for the more traditional Sunni form of the religion and made the Hadj to Mecca. Obama wrote:
If Malcolm X's discovery toward the end of his life, that some whites might live beside him as brothers in Islam, seemed to offer some hope of eventual reconciliation, that hope appeared in a distant future, in a far-off land.  In the meantime, I looked to see where the people would come from who were willing to work toward this future and populate this new world.
That search led Obama to a hybrid multicultural and polyreligious concept of world harmony that included an idyllic image of Islam based on his formative years in Indonesia and his emotional attachment to his Muslim forbears.  For his “vision,” the president won the Nobel Peace Prize shortly after taking office and spent the next eight years trying to create it.  He failed miserably, further undermining the post-World War II order that Osama Bin Laden’s atrocity had shaken.
The youthful quests of these two highly educated, self-confident men led them to two opposing views of Islam.  Bin-Laden's followed the literal words of the Quran: only all-out war on the unbelievers would bring the peace of Islam to the world.  For Obama, Islam was a religion of peace.  Later it became his "responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Osama became an evil man of action -- Obama an immoral man of inaction.
Osama, with few troops, no country, and no official title, declared war on the world's greatest superpower in 1996 and took action:  the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, the U.S. embassies in Africa, the WTC, and many more acts of terror.
Obama, commander in chief of the world's most powerful military, did everything to appease America's enemies:  the withdrawal of troops from Iraq which led to the rise of ISIS, his failure to act when Syria's Assad crossed his red line of chemical weapons use, the nuclear deal with Iran, and many more acts of rendition. 
Osama always told the truth about his beliefs -- Obama told half-truths and lies about Islam.
Let us contrast just a few of their statements from Osama's letter to America andObama's Cairo speech.
On each other’s civilizations:
Osama: It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.
Obama: As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.
On religious pluralism:
Osama: The religion of Jihad in the way of Allah [is] so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. It is to this religion that we call you: the seal of all the previous religions.
Obama: The world must continue to lift up the voices of Muslim clerics and scholars who teach the true peaceful nature of Islam.
On war and peace:
Osama: Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.
Obama: Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.
President Obama told the world "that Islam has always been a part of America's story."  In fact, the first country to declare war on the United States was Muslim Tripoli. Following the early conflicts with the North African Barbary States, historian Bernard Lewis wrote (The Crises of Islam, p.69) that there was little contact between the two civilizations until the post-WW II oil boom.
The United States is now in a third historical phase of interaction with the Muslim world.  We have been savagely attacked by "Radical Islam," a phrase Barack Obama refuses to utter, while being besieged by Muslim propaganda. By taking an active role in the latter and by failing to decisively combat evil, Barack Hussein Obama has advanced the cause of Osama Bin Laden.  Yes, the president "killed" one mass murderer, but he has enabled the formation of tens of thousands of ghoulish assassins who believe that it is their religious duty to enslave non-Muslim women and who can look an infidel in the face before slowly slicing off his head.
The author is a “self-made multiculturalist” who has lived and worked in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. He blogs at The Multicultural Conservative: Conservative by Nature – Multicultural by Choice.  



CRONY BANKSTER LOOTING OF AMERICA

 THEIR GOLDEN AGE OF PLUNDER IS NOT OVER!



NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS NOR INFESTED HIS ADMIN WITH BANKSTER CRONIES MORE THAN OBAMA!

*
And while the Obama administration worked systematically 

to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer 

than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession 

from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of the

banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless 

subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key 

global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered 

Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home 

foreclosures and other illicit activities.

"Hardly a week goes by without a new report on signs of extreme social crisis or ever-more obscene levels of wealth among the financial elite. "
Obama’ farewell address: One last round of clichés and lies
By Niles Niemuth
11 January 2017
President Barack Obama capped his eight years in office with a vacuous and hypocritical farewell address Tuesday night delivered at the McCormick Place convention center in downtown Chicago.
The first-ever presidential farewell address delivered outside of Washington, DC had the atmospherics of an overblown, cheap spectacle. Obama strode onto the stage like a rock star, flanked by oversized American flags, a massive illuminated presidential seal and an introductory soundtrack by the rock band U2.
As with every address Obama has delivered over the last eight years, his speech in Chicago was full of clichés, his rhetoric padded with empty phrases and delivered with a false gravitas, signaled by his trademark pursed lips and affected whisper.
The speech was rife with contradictions, the starkest being the juxtaposition of Obama’s boasting of the great social progress achieved by his administration and his warning of threats to American democracy arising from ever-growing social inequality and economic insecurity.
The president declared: “If I had told you eight years ago that America would reverse a great recession, reboot our auto industry, and unleash the longest stretch of job creation in our history… if I had told you that we would open up a new chapter with the Cuban people, shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program without firing a shot, and take out the mastermind of 9/11… if I had told you that we would win marriage equality, and secure the right to health insurance for another 20 million of our fellow citizens—you might have said our sights were set a little too high.
“By almost every measure, America is a better, stronger place than it was when we started.”
He made no attempt to explain why, given this impressive record of social progress and foreign policy success, his party was routed in the elections and the billionaire demagogue Donald Trump was preparing to succeed him in the White House.
A basic component of the answer, of course, is the grotesquely false rendering of his record and the state of American society as he leaves office. Hardly a week goes by without a new report on signs of extreme social crisis or ever-more obscene levels of wealth among the financial elite. Just in the past month, studies have been published showing the first decline in US life expectancy in 23 years, plunging pay for young adults, a 72 percent surge in deaths from synthetic opioids, and home ownership rates at historic lows for young people.
Other surveys have documented a $237 billion increase in the wealth of the world’s richest 200 billionaires, driven largely by the US stock market boom under Obama, and an acceleration of the transfer of wealth from the bottom half of the US population for the top one percent.
In boasting of presiding over a record number of consecutive monthly job increases, Obama neglected to mention that 94 percent of the new jobs created in the last eight years have been either part-time or temporary.
Noticeably absent from Obama’s remarks was any mention of the social conditions in the city where he was speaking, which is ravaged by high levels of poverty and unemployment, an epidemic of police killings and violence, and a skyrocketing homicide rate.
He lamented in general terms the growth of social inequality and the dangers it poses to American democracy—that is, the threat of a social explosion in the United States.
“While the top one percent has amassed a bigger share of wealth and income, too many families, in inner cities and rural counties, have been left behind—the laid-off factory worker; the waitress and health care worker who struggle to pay the bills—convinced that the game is fixed against them, that their government only serves the interests of the powerful—a recipe for more cynicism and polarization in our politics.”
As always, he spoke as if none of these social ills had anything to do with the policies pursued by his administration, including severe cuts in social spending on the one side and the bailout of the banks and flooding of money into the stock market on the other.
Another piece of monumental hypocrisy was Obama’s pose of fighting to defend democracy when he has done more to destroy it than perhaps any other US president.
“Democracy can buckle when we give in to fear,” he declared. “So just as we, as citizens, must remain vigilant against external aggression, we must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are. That’s why, for the past eight years, I’ve worked to put the fight against terrorism on a firm legal footing. That’s why we’ve ended torture, worked to close Gitmo, and reform our laws governing surveillance to protect privacy and civil liberties.”
This is from a president who has personally authorized the assassination of American citizens and thousands of others around the world with drones-fired missiles, protected and promoted those in the CIA responsible for torture, kept the prison at Guantanamo Bay open, persecuted journalists and jailed whistleblowers, militarized the police, and expanded the illegal surveillance of electronic communications.
Obama also used his farewell address take parting shots at Russia and China, lumping the war against ISIS with efforts to counter both countries, and arguing that aggressive action against the world’s second- and third-largest nuclear-armed powers was the only way to avoid war.
“[T]he fight against extremism and intolerance and sectarianism are of a piece with the fight against authoritarianism and nationalist aggression,” he said. “If the scope of freedom and respect for the rule of law shrinks around the world, the likelihood of war within and between nations increases, and our own freedoms will eventually be threatened.”
Obama spent his eight years in office waging war abroad and war on the working class at home. With Tuesday’s speech, he passed the reigns to Trump with a shrug.







Eight men own same as poorest half of world: Oxfam
1
The wealth of the world's poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico

by AFP16 Jan 2017

London (AFP) – Eight men own the same 
wealth as the poorest half of the world’s 
population, a level of inequality which 
“threatens to pull our societies apart”, Oxfam 
said on Monday ahead of the World Economic 
Forum opening in Davos.
The wealth of the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico.
Picked from Forbes’ billionaires list, they include 
Microsoft founder Bill Gates (A LA RAZA 
FASCIST PARTY DONOR FOR OPEN 
BORDERS) , Mark Zuckerberg (A LA RAZA 
FASCIST PARTY DONOR FOR OPEN 
BORDERS) who co-founded Facebook, and Jeff 
Bezos,  founder of Amazon.
Oxfam pointed to a link between the vast gap between rich and poor and growing discontent with mainstream politics around the world.
“From Brexit to the success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, a worrying rise in racism and the widespread disillusionment with mainstream politics, there are increasing signs that more and more people in rich countries are no longer willing to tolerate the status quo,” Oxfam said in its new report, “An economy for the 99 percent”.
The charity said new data on wealth distribution from countries such as India and China had prompted it to revise its own calculation, having said a year ago the wealth of half the world’s population was in the hands of 62 people.
Inequality will be among the issues topping the agenda as the world’s political and business elite meet in Davos from Tuesday until Friday, when 3,000 people will gather for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. 
“Responsive and responsible leadership” has been chosen as the theme of the summit, which organisers said was a response to a “backlash against globalisation leading to two surprising vote results and a rise in populism in the West”.
In its report Oxfam called for an increase in tax rates targeting “rich individuals and cooperations”, as well as a global agreement to end competition between countries to lower corporate tax rates. 
The charity also condemned lobbying by corporations and the closeness of business and politics, calling for mandatory public lobby registries and stronger rules on conflicts of interest.

 and the banksters suck the blood out of anything that moves!

"Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of America’s biggest banks."
"Profiting from poverty was apparently an 'important business' for JP Morgan."

Food Stamps: $1.3 Billion Spent on Junk Food, Soft Drinks, Says Study

8
food stamps














AP

Overall, food stamps worth nearly $1.3 billion were spent on “sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar,” which accounted for about 20 cents of every dollar spent on food items purchased by 26.5 million households in 2011, said the report.
The USDA administers the $74 billion food stamp program, also known as SNAP or the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
The report compared spending patterns between SNAP and non-SNAP households and found that “sweetened beverages,” which includes fruit juices, energy drinks, and sweetened teas, accounted for nearly 10 percent of the total amount of money spent on food.
“In this sense, SNAP is a multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy of the soda industry,” Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University told the New York Times. “It’s pretty shocking.”
Overall, SNAP users spent 22.8 percent of their benefit on sugary drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, sugar, plus jams and sweets, and only 11.9 percent on fruits and vegetables. Families that don’t use the SNAP program spent 20 percent of their funds on those sweet items, and 16.3 percent on fruits and vegetables.
The multi-billion dollar, taxpayer funded food stamps program has become increasingly controversial thanks, in part, to its massive growth under President Obama.
More than 10.7 million more Americans — a 32 percent jump — have become reliant on food stamps to feed themselves since Obama took office in 2009, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
And in that time, countless studies have been published and health experts have warned that restrictions are needed to curtail food stamp use to purchase unhealthy foods. Government watchdog groups have also called for tighter regulations as food stamp fraud remains a common and costly problem.
Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of  America’s biggest banks.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made by a handful of banks that help the U.S. government process payments to food stamps recipients.
“Three companies – J.P. Morgan EFS, Affiliated Computer Services, and eFunds – provide EBT services for 49 states and 3 US territories,” an investigation by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) found.
“Since 2004, 18 of 24 states who contract with J.P. Morgan to provide welfare benefits have contracted to pay $560,492,596.02,” the GAI investigation revealed. “New York alone has a seven-year contract worth $126,394,917.”
Profiting from poverty was apparently an “important business” for JP Morgan.
“This business is a very important business to JP Morgan,” Christopher Paton, the company’s former managing director of treasury services, told Bloomberg News in 2011. “It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale. We also regard it as very important in the sense that we are delivering a very useful social function. We are a key part of this benefit delivery mechanism. Right now volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years or so … The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.”
The president-elect has indicated that he wants to make cuts to various welfare programs and the Republican platform promises to separate the food stamps program from the Farm Bill, where SNAP funding is currently derived.

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson

Oxfam issues report on eve of Davos conference
Eight billionaires control as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population
By Nick Beams
17 January 2016
Eight billionaires, six of them from the United States, own as much combined wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population, some 3.6 billion people, according to the latest report on global inequality from the British-based advocacy group Oxfam.
The report was released Monday, on the eve of the annual World Economic Forum in the mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland, at which many of the ultra-rich will converge this week. The Oxfam document contains a range of figures that highlight the staggering growth of social inequality, showing that the income and wealth gap between a tiny financial elite and the rest of the world’s people is widening at an accelerating rate.
New data made available to Oxfam reveals that wealth is even more concentrated than the organization had previously believed. Last year, Oxfam reported that 62 people controlled as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity. In its latest report, the charity notes that “had this new data been available last year, it would have shown that nine billionaires owned the same wealth as the poorest half of the planet.”
Oxfam writes that since 2015, the richest 1 percent of the world’s population has owned more than the rest of the world put together, and that over the past quarter century, the top 1 percent has gained more income than the bottom 50 percent combined.
“Far from trickling down, income and wealth are being sucked upwards at an alarming rate,” the report states. It notes that the 1,810 dollar billionaires on the Forbes 2016 rich list own $6.5 trillion, “as much wealth as the bottom 70 percent of humanity.”
Over the next 20 years, some 500 people will hand over to their heirs more than $2.1 trillion, an amount larger than the gross domestic product of India, a country of 1.3 billion people.
Oxfam cites recent research by the economist Thomas Piketty and others showing that in the United States, over the past 30 years the growth in incomes of the bottom 50 percent has been zero, while the incomes of the top 1 percent have risen by 300 percent.
The same process is taking place in the world’s poorest countries. Oxfam notes that Vietnam’s richest man earns more in a day than the country’s poorest person earns in 10 years.
The report points to the systematic character of the siphoning of global wealth to the heights of society. The business sector is focused on delivering “ever higher returns to wealthy owners and top executives,” with companies “structured to dodge taxes, drive down workers’ wages and squeeze producers.”
This involves the most barbaric and criminal practices. Oxfam cites a report by the International Labour Organisation estimating that 21 million people are forced labourers, generating $150 billion in profits every year. The world’s largest garment companies all have links to cotton-spinning mills in India that routinely use the forced labour of girls.
Small farmers are also being driven into poverty: in the 1980s, cocoa farmers received 18 percent of the value of a chocolate bar, compared to just 6 percent today.
The extent of corporate power is highlighted in a number of telling statistics. In terms of revenue, 69 of the world’s largest economic entities are now corporations, not countries. The world’s 10 largest companies, including firms such as Wal-Mart, Shell and Apple, have combined revenue greater than the total government revenue of 180 countries.
Although the authors avoid any condemnation of the profit system per se, the information provided in their report amounts to a stunning verdict on the capitalist system. It highlights in facts and figures two central processes delineated by Karl Marx, the founder of modern socialism.
In Capital, Marx explains that the objective logic of the capitalist system, based on the drive for profit, is to produce ever greater wealth at one pole and poverty, misery and degradation at the other. In the Communist Manifesto, he explains that all governments are but the executive committee for managing the affairs of the capitalist class.
This is exemplified in the tax policies and other “business-friendly” measures undertaken by governments around the world. The Oxfam report notes that technology giant Apple is alleged to have paid a tax of just 0.005 percent on its European profits.
Developing countries lose around $100 billion a year as a result of outright tax dodging and the exemptions granted to companies. In Kenya, $1.1 billion is lost to government revenue every year because of exemptions, an amount nearly twice the country’s annual health budget.
Government tax policies work hand in hand with tax dodging and criminality. The report cites economist Gabriel Zucman’s estimate that $7.6 trillion of global wealth is hidden in offshore tax havens. Africa alone loses $14 billion in annual revenues because of the use of tax havens: enough to pay for health care that would save the lives of four million children and employ enough teachers to ensure that every African child went to school.
There is one significant omission from Oxfam’s discussion of accelerating inequality. It makes no mention of the critical role of the policies of the world’s major governments and central banks in handing over trillions of dollars to the banks, major corporations and financial elites through bank bailouts and the policies of “quantitative easing” since the eruption of the global financial crisis in 2008.
A discussion of these facts would raise uncomfortable political issues. The report opens by favourably citing remarks by US President Barack Obama to the UN General Assembly in 2016 that a world in which 1 percent of the population owns as much as the other 99 percent can never be stable.
But the very policies of the Obama administration have played a key role in creating this world. After rescuing the financial oligarchs from the results of their own criminal actions with massive bank bailouts, the Obama administration and the US central bank ensured their further enrichment by providing a supply of ultra-cheap money that boosted the value of their assets.
Under Obama, the decades-long growth of inequality accelerated, along with the descent of the ruling class into parasitism and criminality. He paved the way for the financial oligarchy to directly seize the reins of power, embodied in the imminent presidency of casino and real estate billionaire Donald Trump, to whom Obama will hand over the keys to the White House on Friday.
The overriding motivation behind the Oxfam report is fear of the political consequences of ever-rising inequality and a desire to deflect mounting anger over its consequences into harmless channels. It advances the perspective of a “human economy,” but maintains that this can be achieved on the basis of the capitalist market, provided corporations and governments change their mindsets.
The absurdity of this perspective, based on the long-discredited outlook of British Fabianism, which has dominated the thinking of the English middle classes for well over a century, can be seen from the fact that the report is directed to the global financial elites gathered at the Davos summit this week, with a call for them to change their ways.
The bankruptcy of this outlook is demonstrated not only by present-day facts and figures, but by historical experience. A quarter century ago, following the liquidation of the Soviet Union, the air was filled with capitalist triumphalism. Freed from the encumbrance of the USSR, and able to dominate the globe, liberal capitalist democracy was going to show humanity what it could do.
And it certainly has, creating a world marked by ever-rising inequality, the accumulation of wealth to truly obscene levels, oppression and anti-democratic forms of rule, criminality at the very heights of society, and the increasingly ominous prospect of a third world war.
This history brings into focus another anniversary: the centenary of the Russian Revolution. Despite its subsequent betrayal at the hands of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the Russian Revolution demonstrated imperishably, and for all time, that a world beyond capitalism and all its social ills and malignancies is both possible and necessary. Its lessons must inform the guiding perspective for the immense social struggles that are going to erupt out of the social conditions detailed in the Oxfam report.


TIME TO DEAL WITH REALITY?


AMERICA UNRAVELS:


The Road to Revolution or Civil War II





“Behind this year’s surge is a toxic mix of cuts to social services, unemployment, hopelessness…”



DID BARACK OBAMA SERVE HIS CRONY BANKSTERS PAYMASTERS WELL?


"The US stock market is now valued at $26 trillion, the highest in history."




"Overall, share prices and profits of the big Wall Street banks are soaring, fueled by expectations of sharply higher profits under a new administration pledged to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulatory overhaul and remove virtually all regulations restricting speculative activity and protecting investors and the general public from Wall Street fraud."
US banks report massive fourth quarter profits
By Gabriel Black
16 January 2017
Profits for the two largest US banks by assets surged in the fourth quarter, reflecting a rise in trading activity following the election victory of Donald Trump.
JPMorgan Chase profits increased 24 percent to $6.7 billion, while the bank’s revenue rose two percent to $24.3 billion, according to the quarterly earnings report released by the bank on Friday. The bank reported its best-ever fourth quarter trading business. It net income jumped 96 percent from a year earlier.
Bank of America’s fourth quarter profit shot up by 42 percent to $4.7 billion. The second largest US bank’s revenue climbed 2.1 percent to $20 billion, the result of a gain in interest income and loan growth.
Earnings for the country’s fourth largest bank by assets, Wells Fargo, fell 5.4 percent to $5.3 billion and revenue remained flat in the wake of a scandal over the bank’s practice of opening unauthorized customer accounts in order to meet aggressive sales targets.
Combined 2016 profits for Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo totaled $64.6 billion, some two percent higher than in 2015.
Overall, share prices and profits of the big Wall Street banks are soaring, fueled by expectations of sharply higher profits under a new administration pledged to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulatory overhaul and remove virtually all regulations restricting speculative activity and protecting investors and the general public from Wall Street fraud.
The incoming Trump administration is also promising to sharply cut corporate taxes and personal income taxes for the wealthy. Its key economic posts are filled with Wall Street insiders, including Goldman Sachs alums named to at least five top positions. These include Steven Mnuchin as treasury secretary, Gary Cohn as director of the National Economic Council, and longtime Goldman lawyer Jay Clayton to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.
US financial stocks have been on a tear since the November 8 election, with total gains for the 63 largest groups hitting $459 billion. The financial sector has headed up a general surge in stock prices, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average increasing 8.9 percent since Election Day and nearing the 20,000 mark. The US stock market is now valued at $26 trillion, the highest in history.
The Dodd-Frank law is a largely token measure that has done virtually nothing to rein in the type of speculative and fraudulent activity that led to the 2008 Wall Street crash. Nevertheless, the big US banks have denounced it and lobbied against provisions that require them to maintain a bigger capital reserve and others that minimally restrict their ability to gamble with depositors’ money.
And while the Obama administration worked systematically to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home foreclosures and other illicit activities.
Now the banks are confident they will not even face such token reprimands for their reckless and often criminal pursuit of super-profits.
Trump is also expected to offer massive tax breaks to companies that invest in government-sponsored infrastructure projects. A spurt in growth and an anticipated rise in interest rates promise to increase the opportunities for the banks to realize higher returns.
This Trump boom will make the inevitable bursting of the stock bubble that much more violent. The fundamentals of the European, East Asian and American economies remain weak, with very low rates of reinvestment.
The massive profits reported by the American banks contrast sharply with the situation in Europe. The total profits of the three largest US banks for 2016, $65 billion, exceeds the combined market value of Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, two of the largest European banks.
This reflects a sharp decline in the position of European banks relative to their US rivals in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. Share prices for major European banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and UniCredit are below their pre-2008 levels.


BARACK OBAMA , HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTERS 

AND THE LA RAZA MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS….



There’s more than one way to destroy America’s 

white middle class!




HSBC laundered hundreds of millions and perhaps 

billions of dollars for drug cartels responsible for 

the deaths of tens of thousands of people over the 

past two decades. The bank transferred at least 

$881 million of known drug trafficking 

proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa Cartel 

in Mexico, which is known for dismembering 

its victims and publicly displaying their body parts.

THE DEMISE AND ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION of HILLARY CLINTON

"Hillary Clinton is a known liar, a criminal of monstrous proportions; others have gone to prison for crimes she has committed over and over: lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, violating national security laws by which she was bound as Secretary of State, etc. It's a long list."


Clinton, the candidate favored by most of Wall Street and the corporate elite and large sections of the Republican Party establishment, is seeking to assemble something akin, within the framework of the US political setup, to a grand coalition between the Democratic Party and the Republican leadership.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/clinton-preparing-bipartisan-government.html

Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton 

speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which she

received six-figure paychecks, show her 

praising the recommendations of the 2010 

Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction 

commission, which called for sweeping cuts to

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the 

elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on 

employees’ health benefits; and huge cuts in 

income taxes for the wealthy and corporate 

taxes.


“But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now.”



Wikileaks exposes Obama’s bankster-infested

 

administration!


BARACK OBAMA …… the banksters’ RENT BOY!

 “Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock  purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.”

MUCH MORE HERE:


“As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping 
executive pay at bailed-out firms.”

“So when Clinton was hobnobbing with  Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein in 2013, while  investigations of wrongdoing by Goldman and the other Wall Street banks were still ongoing, she was consorting with a man who belonged in prison.”


Report to Davos summit: Rising inequality threatens “market capitalism”
By Nick Beams
14 January 2017
The year 2016 was characterised politically by the emergence of deep hostility to the official political and economic establishment as a result of rising social inequality. This was manifested most sharply in the Brexit vote in Britain and the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency, with right-wing nationalist forces being the main beneficiaries to date due to the reactionary anti-working class policies of what passes for the political “left.”
This shift has found expression in a warning sounded by the World Economic Forum, which hosts its annual gathering of world business and political leaders in Davos, Switzerland next week. The annual “risks report” prepared for the meeting concludes that the growing concentration of income and wealth at the very top of society is the biggest single risk to the stability of the economic and political order over which the millionaires and billionaires assembling in Davos preside. The report identifies “rising income and wealth inequality” as the most significant force driving global politics over the next decade.
The report cites the weakness of the economic “recovery” following the financial crisis of 2008 as one of the reasons for the anti-establishment backlash, but warns that boosting growth is not sufficient to shore up the credibility of the capitalist system.
There is a need to revive growth, “but the growing mood of anti-establishment populism suggests we may have passed the stage where this alone would remedy fractures in society: reforming market capitalism must also be added to the agenda,” the report states.
It continues: “The combination of economic inequality and political polarization threatens to amplify global risks, fraying the social solidarity on which the legitimacy of our economic and political systems rest.”
The report notes that the policy of quantitative easing by the world’s central banks—the pumping of trillions of dollars into the global financial system—has “exacerbated income inequality” by boosting “the returns enjoyed by the owners of financial assets, while workers’ real earnings have been growing very slowly.”
Productivity growth has been slow to recover from the crisis and structural rates of unemployment remain high, particularly among young people in Europe, while in the United States there has been a marked decline in the labour participation rate, signifying that large numbers of workers are dropping out of the workforce.
The report points out that “in contrast to the pre-crisis era, when China’s rapid expansion bolstered overall growth rates, there is no market game-changer on the horizon,” with China in a gradual slowdown as its economy moves away from investment-led growth.
“In sum, it is difficult to identify routes that will lead back to robust global rates of economic growth,” the Davos report concludes.
In line with other studies, the report points to rising inequality in the US, with the incomes of the top 1 percent rising by 31 percent between 2009 and 2012 compared to less than 0.5 percent for the rest of the population.
“Middle-class income stagnation,” it states, “is particularly affecting youth; recent research shows that 540 million young people across advanced economies face the prospect of growing up to be poorer than their parents.”
In examining longer-term trends, the report dwells on the impact of new technologies associated with the advance of computerisation and the Internet. According to one study it cites, some 47 percent of jobs in the United States are at risk from automation, affecting more than 80 percent of low-income work.
“Technology is also contributing to the changing nature of work, with secure and predictable jobs giving way to more sporadic and short-term self-employment,” with research suggesting that the number of people in so-called “alternative work arrangements” in the US increased faster than overall employment between 2005 and 2015.
In fact, the rate at which this is taking place is increasing. A recent study has found that 94 percent of the 10 million jobs created during the Obama administration were temporary, contract or part-time positions, with the proportion of the workforce engaged in such occupations rising from 10.7 percent to 15.8 percent. The number of full-time jobs today is 1 million below the level at the start of the recession.
The increased use of technology provides the material foundation for the advance of living standards. But under the profit system, it is the means for driving down the living standards of the mass of the population.
According to statistics prepared by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and cited in the World Economic Forum report, up to 80 percent of the decline in labour’s share in national income between 1990 and 2007 was the result of the impact of technology. This trend will only have accelerated in the past decade.
The report warns that one way in which technological change could prove disruptive is via the labour market, with incomes pushed down and unemployment pushed up in affected sectors and regions, leading to “disruptive” social conditions. This is in line with the overall finding of the report that “the most important of global risks is the pairing of unemployment and social instability.”
While pointing to the rise of populist and nationalist movements, the report does not offer much in the way of in-depth analysis. But it does at least indicate one of the most significant factors, noting that “the economic policies of historically mainstream parties from the right and the left have converged in recent decades,” making it possible for “once-fringe movements” to rise by “portraying the established parties as part of the same technocratic political class, focused on self-enrichment.”
The overriding fear of the World Economic Forum, though not stated explicitly in the report, is that popular opposition will shift to the left. As other commentators have noted in this, the centenary year of the Russian Revolution, there is a parallel between the conditions that prevailed a century ago and those of today.
Summing up its findings, the report concludes that it is a “febrile time for the world,” where “deep-rooted social and economic trends are manifesting themselves disruptively across the world,” and “persisting inequality, particularly in the context of comparative economic weakness, risks undermining the legitimacy of market capitalism.”
The World Economic Forum, which begins in the alpine resort of Davos, Switzerland on Tuesday, will involve the usual round of networking by business chiefs, political leaders and the heads of NGOs, as lucrative deals are made and relationships established. Of course, it will produce no solutions to the deepening social, political and economic malaise. How could it, as the forces gathered there preside over the very social order that has produced the crisis?
But for the global elites, the taste of the champagne, the delicacy of the canapés and the flavour of the haute cuisine may be somewhat tainted by the smell of death wafting up from the grave opening up before them.

TRUMP SIGNALS OBAMA’S  CRONY BANKSTERS THAT BETTER LOOTING IS UP AHEAD.


The chief motivating factor behind the rise on Wall Street is the understanding that the incoming Trump administration will not only carry out policies to benefit the financial elites, but that responsibility for implementing this agenda will be in the hands of some its foremost representatives.

TRUMP VOWS TO KEEP OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERS LOOTING
MNUCHIN: THE  FORECLOSURE  MACHINE!

The FDIC paid OneWest $1 billion, which Stein said went to “billionaire investors … to cover the close of foreclosing on working class, everyday American folks.”
“But the bank came under fire for its foreclosure practices as housing advocacy groups accused it of being too quick to foreclose on struggling homeowners. In 2011, dozens of demonstrators descended on Mnuchin's $26.5 million home in he wealthy Bel Air neighborhood to protest OneWest's eviction tactics, according to the Los Angeles Times.”

TRUMP VOWS TO SERVE THE RICH WITH SUPER OBAMA-CLINTONIMCS!

There is a vast chasm between this empty populist rhetoric and the personnel that Trump has selected to populate his government. The speech followed a series of cabinet picks, including billionaire asset strippers, Wall Street bankers, and dedicated opponents of financial and corporate regulations, public education and Medicare and Medicaid, to lead the Treasury, Commerce, Education and Health and Human Services departments.

THE TWISTED ROAD TO REVOLUTION CAME DOWN WALL STREET

FIRST

 OBAMA –CLINTONOMICS FOR THE SUPER RICH

"Between 2002 and 2015 annual earnings for the bottom 90 percent of Americans rose by only 4.5 percent, while earnings for the top 1 percent grew by 22.7 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Under the Obama administration, more than 90 percent of 
income gains since the so-called “recovery” began have gone to the top one percent."

 http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/11/comes-revolution-class-struggle-in-us.html

  “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan THEAMERICAN THINKER.com

Eight men own same as poorest half of world: Oxfam
1
The wealth of the world's poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico
by AFP16 Jan 2017

London (AFP) – Eight men own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population, a level of inequality which “threatens to pull our societies apart”, Oxfam said on Monday ahead of the World Economic Forum opening in Davos.
The wealth of the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico.
Picked from Forbes’ billionaires list, they include Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg who co-founded Facebook, and Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.
Oxfam pointed to a link between the vast gap between rich and poor and growing discontent with mainstream politics around the world.
“From Brexit to the success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, a worrying rise in racism and the widespread disillusionment with mainstream politics, there are increasing signs that more and more people in rich countries are no longer willing to tolerate the status quo,” Oxfam said in its new report, “An economy for the 99 percent”.
The charity said new data on wealth distribution from countries such as India and China had prompted it to revise its own calculation, having said a year ago the wealth of half the world’s population was in the hands of 62 people.
Inequality will be among the issues topping the agenda as the world’s political and business elite meet in Davos from Tuesday until Friday, when 3,000 people will gather for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. 
“Responsive and responsible leadership” has been chosen as the theme of the summit, which organisers said was a response to a “backlash against globalisation leading to two surprising vote results and a rise in populism in the West”.
In its report Oxfam called for an increase in tax rates targeting “rich individuals and cooperations”, as well as a global agreement to end competition between countries to lower corporate tax rates. 
The charity also condemned lobbying by corporations and the closeness of business and politics, calling for mandatory public lobby registries and stronger rules on conflicts of interest.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/eight-men-own-same-as-poorest-half-of-world-oxfam/

 and the banksters suck the blood out of anything that moves!

"Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of America’s biggest banks."
"Profiting from poverty was apparently an 'important business' for JP Morgan."

Food Stamps: $1.3 Billion Spent on Junk Food, Soft Drinks, Says Study

8
food stamps














AP

Overall, food stamps worth nearly $1.3 billion were spent on “sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar,” which accounted for about 20 cents of every dollar spent on food items purchased by 26.5 million households in 2011, said the report.
The USDA administers the $74 billion food stamp program, also known as SNAP or the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
The report compared spending patterns between SNAP and non-SNAP households and found that “sweetened beverages,” which includes fruit juices, energy drinks, and sweetened teas, accounted for nearly 10 percent of the total amount of money spent on food.
“In this sense, SNAP is a multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy of the soda industry,” Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University told the New York Times. “It’s pretty shocking.”
Overall, SNAP users spent 22.8 percent of their benefit on sugary drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, sugar, plus jams and sweets, and only 11.9 percent on fruits and vegetables. Families that don’t use the SNAP program spent 20 percent of their funds on those sweet items, and 16.3 percent on fruits and vegetables.
The multi-billion dollar, taxpayer funded food stamps program has become increasingly controversial thanks, in part, to its massive growth under President Obama.
More than 10.7 million more Americans — a 32 percent jump — have become reliant on food stamps to feed themselves since Obama took office in 2009, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
And in that time, countless studies have been published and health experts have warned that restrictions are needed to curtail food stamp use to purchase unhealthy foods. Government watchdog groups have also called for tighter regulations as food stamp fraud remains a common and costly problem.
Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of  America’s biggest banks.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made by a handful of banks that help the U.S. government process payments to food stamps recipients.
“Three companies – J.P. Morgan EFS, Affiliated Computer Services, and eFunds – provide EBT services for 49 states and 3 US territories,” an investigation by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) found.
“Since 2004, 18 of 24 states who contract with J.P. Morgan to provide welfare benefits have contracted to pay $560,492,596.02,” the GAI investigation revealed. “New York alone has a seven-year contract worth $126,394,917.”
Profiting from poverty was apparently an “important business” for JP Morgan.
“This business is a very important business to JP Morgan,” Christopher Paton, the company’s former managing director of treasury services, told Bloomberg News in 2011. “It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale. We also regard it as very important in the sense that we are delivering a very useful social function. We are a key part of this benefit delivery mechanism. Right now volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years or so … The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.”
The president-elect has indicated that he wants to make cuts to various welfare programs and the Republican platform promises to separate the food stamps program from the Farm Bill, where SNAP funding is currently derived.

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson














THE TWISTED ROAD TO REVOLUTION CAME DOWN WALL STREET

FIRST









OBAMA –CLINTONOMICS FOR THE SUPER RICH









 









George Soros: Billionaire Terrorist
JUNE 20, 2016   AFP   12 COMMENTS
http://americanfreepress.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/25_26_Soros.jpg
• Extremely powerful “nation wrecker” driving force behind New World Order.
By Ronald L. Ray —
The subject of George Sorosborn Schwartz György, the super-wealthy slash-and-burn speculator and Jewish-Hungarian expatriate, is one always revealing new facets. Soros’s adventures in “nation-building” and “democratic revolution” are the left half of internationalist vise grips, set in so-called opposition to the “rightwing,” Trotskyite, neoconservative war hawks. While seemingly fighting each other, together both tighten the political hold on the peoples of the world, as they turn all toward a New World Order (NWO). The terrorist suspect’s most recent efforts through “open society” foundations he funds are bringing globalist gunpowder plots to places like Poland and Armenia, in the long march to make the world safe for plutocracy.
The typical American, brainwashed by the terminology of political “right” and “left,” often is puzzled by apparent inconsistencies in Soros’s behavior. On the one hand, the Jewish investor generally opposes Zionism and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, yet he is guilty of the worst forms of crony capitalism and exploitative libertarianism, while funding a variety of social uprisings. But, in reality, his views and practices are remarkably consistent.
Apparently, Soros learned his trading practices through the black market in Hungary’s “bad old days.” This amoral ruthlessness in pursuit of profit allowed him to amass a fortune of approximately $22 billion, while nearly destroying the currencies of Great Britain and Malaysia. He was convicted of insider trading by a French court, and Thailand branded him an “economic war criminal,” according to the online FrontPage Magazine.
From our perspective, it is this plutocratic piracy which is the leitmotiv of Soros’s life. Ultimately, he uses his political involvements as springboards to profit from the societal destruction he promotes, and his efforts to help establish a centrally planned globalist government are meant to protect his profiteering.
Thus, the recently installed nationalist/populist government of Poland—universally deemed, along with all other nationalist movements, as “extreme right wing” by the mainstream media myrmidons—has become a new target for Soros, the “stateless statesman” and international parasite.
According to an extensive article by Matthew Tyrmand of Breitbart on May 19, 2016, the Committee for Defense of Democracy (Komitet Obrony Demokracji, or KOD) sprang up shortly after Poles almost completely rejected the thoroughly corrupt major parties and remaining communist apparatchiks. This contrived “popular” opposition to the nationalists mirrors typical Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations elsewhere and is designed to reintegrate the local population into the European Union and NWO.
The KOD is well funded and shadowed everywhere by the Stefan Batory Foundation, which in turn is funded by Soros’s Warsaw Open Society Foundation. These groups exhibit the typical New Left defense of white genocide, open borders, exploitation of workers, and government by unelected technocrats. Soros and his ilk clearly cannot tolerate people with strong national identities, who might seek their own people’s welfare.
In Armenia, which is closely allied with Russia as a defense against their hereditary Turkish enemies, a phony “popular” opposition to the government has arisen, as well, funded by the Soros-backed CIA-front group, the National Endowment for Democracy. Here, the purpose is again to destroy strong nationalist opposition to the globalists’ desired hegemony through carefully orchestrated mobocracy.
Such Soros initiatives bear close watching as they typically develop into violent, sociopathic uprisings. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen recently exposed the deep roots of the erstwhile Hungarian’s harmful internationalism, which appear to include ties to organized terrorism.
According to Madsen, Soros began profitseeking infiltration efforts into Eastern Europe in 1984 through the Soros Foundation Budapest. After exploiting the “crash of 1987” for massive monetary gains, he started funneling what the CIA called “kosher cash” into anti-communist opposition groups to destabilize the government of then-Czechoslovakia. Soros financially supported Charter 77 and the likes of future Czech leader Vaclav Havel. But a declassified, redacted CIA report raises the question of whether anti-communist terror bombings at the time may also have been funded or even authorized by Soros.


What is not in question is Soros’s involvement in numerous similar activities for decades across the world. Hungary, Serbia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan as well as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq have all experienced the societally detrimental effects of Soros’s provocations.
Viktor Orban, prime minister of Hungary, recently criticized Soros for attempting to destabilize it and “trying to cause trouble,” in opposition to the will of the people, according to the online The Times of Israel. “Soros is opposing the government . . . by supporting non-governmental groups which want to push back [its] position on the migration issue,” said Orban.
Perhaps the capstone of the plutocrat’s power grab has been Ukraine, where his International Renaissance Foundation spent over $100 million to destroy the Russian-aligned country and establish an even more corrupt, genocidal puppet government. In this case, Soros proudly admits to being one of those who have funded the United States- and Israel-sponsored bloody coup and unabated civil war. He also has close ties to the oligarchs now ruling the beleaguered Slavic nation.
Soros likewise is busily dumping tens of billions of dollars into the accelerating white genocide through foreign invasion in Europe and the U.S., with the goal of destroying those regions’ historic cultures and peoples—including the Catholic Church. Another example, Black Lives Matter is attempting to incite an anti-white race war and has received tens of millions of dollars from Soros groups.
Soros is neither a philanthropist nor an entrepreneur. Based on his record, he is an international sponsor of terrorism, war, and genocide. He should be imprisoned and hanged for his crimes.
Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.

THE REVOLUTION HAS BEEN SPOTTED.... It's headed down Wall Street tomorrow!


"Populism is basically a system wherein people of all classes and 

creeds, from the bottom up and not the top down, secure their share

in the economic pie and are therefore ensured upward mobility in 

alliance with secure voting rights and the ability to effect change, 

while having the freedom to preserve their property—and their 

family, community, and ethnic-national heritage—without undue 

“political correctness” fouling up the works. In its purest form, 

populism opposes business monopolies and vaguely defined free-

market ideologies, especially predatory banking, and therefore 

seeks an economic democracy. It’s not precisely right-wing, nor is 

it left-wing."

DREADING DE-GLOBALIZATION IN DAVOS
JANUARY 19, 2017   CHRIS   5 COMMENTS
http://americanfreepress.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/3_4_SS_Davos.jpg
Corporate executives, top bankers, global speculators, and power brokers at the annual Alpine retreat in Davos, Switzerland are complaining openly that the rise of populism and nationalism across the United State and Europe is a serious threat to globalism and the New World Order. Ending globalization is apparently hitting them in the pocketbook.

By Mark Anderson

Many of the gilded glitterati gathering in Davos, Switzerland amid the towering Alps for the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) see the populism sweeping much of the world as a fascinating trend. They certainly enjoy talking about it. But their 

academic chitter-chatter is starting to take on a

panicked tone over the implications of the 

common man demanding a better life—a life 

without poverty in the face of plenty and 

without nonstop unwinnable wars, among other

vexing problems.
Even before this year’s WEF started on Jan. 17, American public television personality Charlie Rose—a frequent attendee of the much more exclusive Bilderberg meetings that AFP has doggedly covered since 1975—was interviewing several guests about this topic on his well-known talk show, as this AFP reporter flipped on the TV during recent travels. Rose’s esteemed guests fretted over several trends that suggest there’s a devolution from globalism in the works—call it “de-globalization.”
Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas and Chicago Council on Global Affairs President Ivo Daalder in early December 2016 confided to Rose that they’ve got the jitters over the current populist surge, most visibly represented by brash businessman Donald J. Trump’s ascent to the presidency—and above all by what his election says about the worldview of a sizable cross section of the American people. Simply put: Globalization is losing its grip on the human psyche.
Daalder feebly tried to say that largely unregulated “integration” is the Western “tradition,” without mentioning that the kind of forcible integration that’s taking place—largely due to wars waged by Western powers that force people out of their homelands and into places they wouldn’t otherwise live, in most cases—creates cultural clashes, crime, and upheaval. This could all be avoided if world government promoters would chill out on trying to mold the world according to their portfolios and to their impractical, sometimes demented visions of world governance.
Rock band U2’s vocalist, Bono, and Ian Brenner of the Eurasia Group were among other guests on Rose’s show in early January. They, too, greeted the populist revival with a mix of fascination and barely muted alarm.

BLOG: BEHIND GLOBALISM IS OPEN 

BORDERS, AMNESTY OR CONTINUED 

NON-ENFORCEMENT, NO E-VERIFY AND 

NO LEGAL NEED APPLY.... It's all about 

keeping wages DEPRESSED!
So, silver-spoon WEF attendees—and the likeminded corporate media that usually does their bidding—are acknowledging more than ever before that populism is undermining what’s typically called globalism. This is the credo practiced by those who want to knit the world into a singular economic-political-cultural construct lacking the rich and varied landscape that can only be produced by a world of distinct nation-states with unique cultures.
In other words, if money can’t buy you true love, perhaps it also cannot ultimately buy total world-rule, either, because there’s something in human nature that naturally rejects a mechanistic existence that lacks heart and soul and a real sense of heritage.
This doesn’t mean, though, that those bent on world-rule are about to flatline. The private, usurious central banking system that stole the people’s credit and put everyone’s land and labor in hock is their chief weapon. Without it, their press control would shrivel and the rest of their influence would wane to, or almost to, the breaking point. But at least real freedom-seekers know that key monetary and financial reforms of the proper sort are the core pathway to ending the “new world order.”

TOUGH ADMISSIONS IN THE TIMES

“Davos Glitter in the Gloom of Populism” topped the front page of the Jan. 17 New York Times on the first day of the WEF, which runs through Jan. 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration as the 45th U.S. president—the first one ever so clearly defined as a “populist.” The Times sub-headline added: “Elites grapple with working-class rage.”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The article itself noted that the 2017 WEF attendees included Bilderbergers like International Monetary Fund head Christine Lagarde and Microsoft co-founder-turned-“philanthropist” Bill Gates, along with smug mattoids like JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon and film stars like Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie. Also attending this year’s Davos event is Chinese president Xi Jinping, who reportedly stated that populism, defined as “support for the concerns of ordinary people,” is seen as a threat to globalism.
Populism is basically a system wherein people of all classes and creeds, from the bottom up and not the top down, secure their share in the economic pie and are therefore ensured upward mobility in alliance with secure voting rights and the ability to effect change, while having the freedom to preserve their property—and their family, community, and ethnic-national heritage—without undue “political correctness” fouling up the works. In its purest form, populism opposes business monopolies and vaguely defined free-market ideologies, especially predatory banking, and therefore seeks an economic democracy. It’s not precisely right-wing, nor is it left-wing.
The above-noted Times article succumbed to the realization that the elites’ long-sought notion of world government may be fundamentally doomed.
Each year, the WEF crowd talks (mainly on the basis of global investment-class perspectives) about their typical topics of climate change, inequality, and the economic challenges facing developing and emerging nations. But, as the Times continued, “Missing from these high-minded conversations have been meaningful challengers or critics of the underlying theme that was seemingly stipulated from the birth of this (WEF) 46 years ago: Globalization has the potential to benefit everyone.”
Of particular note, the Times piece quoted economist John Mauldin as saying: “Trump’s election victory is a clear indication that the majority of people are not interested in a world government, but want to return to a classical local democracy. Strange as it may seem to the Davos men, most people tend to love their ‘patria,’ the land of their fathers.”
This is not to say that all WEF attendees are deluded power-mongers or vain pseudo-intellectuals. Many have considerable expertise in various fields and clearly have some worthwhile perspectives and ideas to share, especially in the technological realm. Their problem, however, is philosophical, not intellectual.
Several other recent headlines from big media outlets similarly represent the same basic admission by the plutocratic oligarchy (rule by the rich few who constitute “the establishment”) that they are on particularly shaky ground due to the populist tremors emanating from recent events including the pending Trump presidency, the June 23, 2016 affirmative “Brexit” vote that, if fully consummated, would allow the UK to officially exit the European Union, from the prospect of noted populist candidate Marie Le Pen gaining even more political ground in France, and so on.
Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor and has covered the last few Bilderberg gatherings since the death of James P. Tucker Jr.


THE CRONY BANKSTER PRESIDENT

President Obama will leave behind plenty of populist rhetoric, but his record on economic policy is eight years of corporatism. For two terms, Obama grew the government's role in the economy, often in concert with big business, and usually to its benefit. If President-elect Trump was aided by the perception that Washington rigs the game in favor of the big guys, Obama's consistent corporatism is a key culprit. The phrase crony capitalism became popular on the Right during the Obama years, but it's a little off-target as a criticism of Obama. Crony capitalism connotes doing favors for friends and hurting enemies. Did some of that go on under Obama? Of course. (See the Clinton Global Initiative, for instance.) But mostly, Obama wasn't doling out quid-pro-quo goodies as much as he was creating an economic system — of more regulations, more mandates, more subsidies — that favored the big guys.







This will be Obama's legacy: A bigger federal government more entangled with big business than before, with more ability to pick winners and losers. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

This will be Obama's legacy: A bigger federal government more entangled with big business than before, with more ability to pick winners and losers. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)






Obama's corporatist legacy






President Obama will leave behind plenty of populist rhetoric, but his record on economic policy is eight years of corporatism.

For two terms, Obama grew the government's role in the economy, often in concert with big business, and usually to its benefit. If President-elect Trump was aided by the perception that Washington rigs the game in favor of the big guys, Obama's consistent corporatism is a key culprit.
The phrase "crony capitalism" became popular on the Right during the Obama years, but it's a little off-target as a criticism of Obama. Crony capitalism connotes doing favors for friends and hurting enemies. Did some of that go on under Obama? Of course. (See the Clinton Global Initiative, for instance.)

But mostly, Obama wasn't doling out quid-pro-quo goodies as much as he was creating an economic system — of more regulations, more mandates, more subsidies — that favored the big guys.

Obama's corporatist streak revealed itself early 

with his pick of Tim Geithner, a chief author of 

the Wall Street bailouts, as treasury secretary.

In crafting the Troubled Asset Relief Program

under President Bush and implementing it 

under President Obama, Geithner wasn't simply 

trying to stop panic and ward off a meltdown. He 

was trying to make sure the post-crisis financial 

sector looked a lot like the pre-crisis one. That is, 

Geithner wasn't just trying to save the economy, 

he was trying to save the big banks.
Big banks have many virtues. An economy without Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and with a smaller JP Morgan would lack some things. It also might be a financial sector less in danger of systemic meltdown, and with more competition. Geithner probably saw that trade-off, but he thought the liquidity and the particular type of stability provided by the big guys was too important to give up.

Obama and Geithner's bailouts and regulations helped widen the moat that protects the big guys from competition, and helped make the big banks more or less immortal. It would be easy to call it Wall Street cronyism, but financial corporatism is more precise.

Obama's stimulus, in his second month, was a giant raft of subsidies for everyone from the concrete pourers to the computer makers to the solar-panel peddlers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed this massive spending bill.

Obamacare was another exercise in corporatism. Hammered out in the back room with the drug lobby and the hospital lobby, Obamacare directly (and perhaps deliberately) has driven consolidation among hospitals and insurers. The law includes subsidies for hospitals, mandates to buy private insurance, plus protections and subsidies for drug companies. No wonder the drug lobby celebrated the law's passage and pledged money to re-elect Democratic senators who voted for it. No wonder insurers and hospitals defended it in court.

Obama in 2012 ran for re-election with a mantra "General Motors is Alive and Osama bin Laden is Dead." This was a striking embrace of corporatism and militarism from a Nobel Peace Prize winner who had originally run against "the special interests."

That election, Obama's economic platform was called "Economic Patriotism," a phrase that may ring a bell these days. Unlike Trump, Obama's "economic patriotism" didn't involve tariffs. Instead he promised a nickel-and-dime tax hike: ending the deductibility of moving expenses for companies that offshore jobs. And Obama was at least as generous as Trump promises to be with the goodies for U.S. manufacturers, including bailouts, loan guarantees and special tax breaks.

Obama's biggest legislative victory of his final two years was the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. This is a federal agency that subsidizes U.S. exporters by extending taxpayer-backed finance to foreign buyers of U.S. goods. Obama pitches this as a small-business agency, but Boeing sales get twice as much Ex-Im financing as exports by all U.S. small businesses combined.

It wasn't just give, give, give by Obama. These subsidies and protective regulations empowered Obama to ask a lot, too, and to steer the economy. Obama used Ex-Im and the stimulus to reward "green energy" firms and punish coal companies. Giving hospitals bigger profit margins allows the government to grab more of that money. Forcing everyone to buy what Blue Cross is selling allows Obama to turn these companies into appendages of the Health and Human Services Department.

This will be Obama's legacy: A bigger federal government more entangled with big business than before, with more ability to pick winners and losers. I wonder if any future president might abuse that increased power.

Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.

AMERICA: One paycheck and two illegals away from homelessness.


"The economists found that the pre-tax share of national income received by the bottom half of the US population has been cut nearly in half since 1980, from 20 percent to 12 percent, while the income share of the top one percent has nearly doubled, from 12 percent to 20 percent."



SOARING POVERTY IN AMERICA’S OPEN 

BORDERS



Wikileaks exposes Obama’s bankster-infested

 

administration!








BARACK OBAMA …… the banksters’ RENT BOY!

 “Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock  purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.”

MUCH MORE HERE:


“As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping executive pay at bailed-out firms.”


“So when Clinton was hobnobbing with  Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein in 2013, while  investigations of wrongdoing by Goldman and the other Wall Street banks were still ongoing, she was consorting with a man who belonged in prison.”

CRONY BANKSTER LOOTING OF AMERICA

THEIR GOLDEN AGE OF PLUNDER IS NOT OVER!



NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS NOR INFESTED HIS ADMIN WITH BANKSTER CRONIES MORE THAN OBAMA!

And while the Obama administration worked systematically to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home foreclosures and other illicit activities.


TIME TO DEAL WITH REALITY?


AMERICA UNRAVELS:


The Road to Revolution or Civil War II





“Behind this year’s surge is a toxic mix of cuts to social services, unemployment, hopelessness…”




DID BARACK OBAMA SERVE HIS CRONY BANKSTERS PAYMASTERS WELL?


"The US stock market is now valued at $26 trillion, the highest in history."




"Overall, share prices and profits of the big Wall Street banks are soaring, fueled by expectations of sharply higher profits under a new administration pledged to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulatory overhaul and remove virtually all regulations restricting speculative activity and protecting investors and the general public from Wall Street fraud."
US banks report massive fourth quarter profits
By Gabriel Black
16 January 2017
Profits for the two largest US banks by assets surged in the fourth quarter, reflecting a rise in trading activity following the election victory of Donald Trump.
JPMorgan Chase profits increased 24 percent to $6.7 billion, while the bank’s revenue rose two percent to $24.3 billion, according to the quarterly earnings report released by the bank on Friday. The bank reported its best-ever fourth quarter trading business. It net income jumped 96 percent from a year earlier.
Bank of America’s fourth quarter profit shot up by 42 percent to $4.7 billion. The second largest US bank’s revenue climbed 2.1 percent to $20 billion, the result of a gain in interest income and loan growth.
Earnings for the country’s fourth largest bank by assets, Wells Fargo, fell 5.4 percent to $5.3 billion and revenue remained flat in the wake of a scandal over the bank’s practice of opening unauthorized customer accounts in order to meet aggressive sales targets.
Combined 2016 profits for Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo totaled $64.6 billion, some two percent higher than in 2015.
Overall, share prices and profits of the big Wall Street banks are soaring, fueled by expectations of sharply higher profits under a new administration pledged to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulatory overhaul and remove virtually all regulations restricting speculative activity and protecting investors and the general public from Wall Street fraud.
The incoming Trump administration is also promising to sharply cut corporate taxes and personal income taxes for the wealthy. Its key economic posts are filled with Wall Street insiders, including Goldman Sachs alums named to at least five top positions. These include Steven Mnuchin as treasury secretary, Gary Cohn as director of the National Economic Council, and longtime Goldman lawyer Jay Clayton to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.
US financial stocks have been on a tear since the November 8 election, with total gains for the 63 largest groups hitting $459 billion. The financial sector has headed up a general surge in stock prices, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average increasing 8.9 percent since Election Day and nearing the 20,000 mark. The US stock market is now valued at $26 trillion, the highest in history.
The Dodd-Frank law is a largely token measure that has done virtually nothing to rein in the type of speculative and fraudulent activity that led to the 2008 Wall Street crash. Nevertheless, the big US banks have denounced it and lobbied against provisions that require them to maintain a bigger capital reserve and others that minimally restrict their ability to gamble with depositors’ money.
And while the Obama administration worked systematically to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home foreclosures and other illicit activities.
Now the banks are confident they will not even face such token reprimands for their reckless and often criminal pursuit of super-profits.
Trump is also expected to offer massive tax breaks to companies that invest in government-sponsored infrastructure projects. A spurt in growth and an anticipated rise in interest rates promise to increase the opportunities for the banks to realize higher returns.
This Trump boom will make the inevitable bursting of the stock bubble that much more violent. The fundamentals of the European, East Asian and American economies remain weak, with very low rates of reinvestment.
The massive profits reported by the American banks contrast sharply with the situation in Europe. The total profits of the three largest US banks for 2016, $65 billion, exceeds the combined market value of Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, two of the largest European banks.
This reflects a sharp decline in the position of European banks relative to their US rivals in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. Share prices for major European banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and UniCredit are below their pre-2008 levels.


BARACK OBAMA , HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTERS 

AND THE LA RAZA MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS….



There’s more than one way to destroy America’s 

white middle class!




HSBC laundered hundreds of millions and perhaps 

billions of dollars for drug cartels responsible for 

the deaths of tens of thousands of people over the 

past two decades. The bank transferred at least 

$881 million of known drug trafficking 

proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa Cartel 

in Mexico, which is known for dismembering 

its victims and publicly displaying their body parts.

THE DEMISE AND ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION of HILLARY CLINTON

"Hillary Clinton is a known liar, a criminal of monstrous proportions; others have gone to prison for crimes she has committed over and over: lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, violating national security laws by which she was bound as Secretary of State, etc. It's a long list."


Clinton, the candidate favored by most of Wall Street and the corporate elite and large sections of the Republican Party establishment, is seeking to assemble something akin, within the framework of the US political setup, to a grand coalition between the Democratic Party and the Republican leadership.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/clinton-preparing-bipartisan-government.html

Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton 

speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which she

received six-figure paychecks, show her 

praising the recommendations of the 2010 

Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction 

commission, which called for sweeping cuts to

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the 

elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on 

employees’ health benefits; and huge cuts in 

income taxes for the wealthy and corporate 

taxes.


“But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now.”



Wikileaks exposes Obama’s bankster-infested

 

administration!







BARACK OBAMA …… the banksters’ RENT BOY!

 “Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock  purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.”

MUCH MORE HERE:


“As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping 
executive pay at bailed-out firms.”

“So when Clinton was hobnobbing with  Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein in 2013, while  investigations of wrongdoing by Goldman and the other Wall Street banks were still ongoing, she was consorting with a man who belonged in prison.”


Report to Davos summit: Rising inequality threatens “market capitalism”
By Nick Beams
14 January 2017
The year 2016 was characterised politically by the emergence of deep hostility to the official political and economic establishment as a result of rising social inequality. This was manifested most sharply in the Brexit vote in Britain and the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency, with right-wing nationalist forces being the main beneficiaries to date due to the reactionary anti-working class policies of what passes for the political “left.”
This shift has found expression in a warning sounded by the World Economic Forum, which hosts its annual gathering of world business and political leaders in Davos, Switzerland next week. The annual “risks report” prepared for the meeting concludes that the growing concentration of income and wealth at the very top of society is the biggest single risk to the stability of the economic and political order over which the millionaires and billionaires assembling in Davos preside. The report identifies “rising income and wealth inequality” as the most significant force driving global politics over the next decade.
The report cites the weakness of the economic “recovery” following the financial crisis of 2008 as one of the reasons for the anti-establishment backlash, but warns that boosting growth is not sufficient to shore up the credibility of the capitalist system.
There is a need to revive growth, “but the growing mood of anti-establishment populism suggests we may have passed the stage where this alone would remedy fractures in society: reforming market capitalism must also be added to the agenda,” the report states.
It continues: “The combination of economic inequality and political polarization threatens to amplify global risks, fraying the social solidarity on which the legitimacy of our economic and political systems rest.”
The report notes that the policy of quantitative easing by the world’s central banks—the pumping of trillions of dollars into the global financial system—has “exacerbated income inequality” by boosting “the returns enjoyed by the owners of financial assets, while workers’ real earnings have been growing very slowly.”
Productivity growth has been slow to recover from the crisis and structural rates of unemployment remain high, particularly among young people in Europe, while in the United States there has been a marked decline in the labour participation rate, signifying that large numbers of workers are dropping out of the workforce.
The report points out that “in contrast to the pre-crisis era, when China’s rapid expansion bolstered overall growth rates, there is no market game-changer on the horizon,” with China in a gradual slowdown as its economy moves away from investment-led growth.
“In sum, it is difficult to identify routes that will lead back to robust global rates of economic growth,” the Davos report concludes.
In line with other studies, the report points to rising inequality in the US, with the incomes of the top 1 percent rising by 31 percent between 2009 and 2012 compared to less than 0.5 percent for the rest of the population.
“Middle-class income stagnation,” it states, “is particularly affecting youth; recent research shows that 540 million young people across advanced economies face the prospect of growing up to be poorer than their parents.”
In examining longer-term trends, the report dwells on the impact of new technologies associated with the advance of computerisation and the Internet. According to one study it cites, some 47 percent of jobs in the United States are at risk from automation, affecting more than 80 percent of low-income work.
“Technology is also contributing to the changing nature of work, with secure and predictable jobs giving way to more sporadic and short-term self-employment,” with research suggesting that the number of people in so-called “alternative work arrangements” in the US increased faster than overall employment between 2005 and 2015.
In fact, the rate at which this is taking place is increasing. A recent study has found that 94 percent of the 10 million jobs created during the Obama administration were temporary, contract or part-time positions, with the proportion of the workforce engaged in such occupations rising from 10.7 percent to 15.8 percent. The number of full-time jobs today is 1 million below the level at the start of the recession.
The increased use of technology provides the material foundation for the advance of living standards. But under the profit system, it is the means for driving down the living standards of the mass of the population.
According to statistics prepared by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and cited in the World Economic Forum report, up to 80 percent of the decline in labour’s share in national income between 1990 and 2007 was the result of the impact of technology. This trend will only have accelerated in the past decade.
The report warns that one way in which technological change could prove disruptive is via the labour market, with incomes pushed down and unemployment pushed up in affected sectors and regions, leading to “disruptive” social conditions. This is in line with the overall finding of the report that “the most important of global risks is the pairing of unemployment and social instability.”
While pointing to the rise of populist and nationalist movements, the report does not offer much in the way of in-depth analysis. But it does at least indicate one of the most significant factors, noting that “the economic policies of historically mainstream parties from the right and the left have converged in recent decades,” making it possible for “once-fringe movements” to rise by “portraying the established parties as part of the same technocratic political class, focused on self-enrichment.”
The overriding fear of the World Economic Forum, though not stated explicitly in the report, is that popular opposition will shift to the left. As other commentators have noted in this, the centenary year of the Russian Revolution, there is a parallel between the conditions that prevailed a century ago and those of today.
Summing up its findings, the report concludes that it is a “febrile time for the world,” where “deep-rooted social and economic trends are manifesting themselves disruptively across the world,” and “persisting inequality, particularly in the context of comparative economic weakness, risks undermining the legitimacy of market capitalism.”
The World Economic Forum, which begins in the alpine resort of Davos, Switzerland on Tuesday, will involve the usual round of networking by business chiefs, political leaders and the heads of NGOs, as lucrative deals are made and relationships established. Of course, it will produce no solutions to the deepening social, political and economic malaise. How could it, as the forces gathered there preside over the very social order that has produced the crisis?
But for the global elites, the taste of the champagne, the delicacy of the canapés and the flavour of the haute cuisine may be somewhat tainted by the smell of death wafting up from the grave opening up before them.

TRUMP SIGNALS OBAMA’S  CRONY BANKSTERS THAT BETTER LOOTING IS UP AHEAD.


The chief motivating factor behind the rise on Wall Street is the understanding that the incoming Trump administration will not only carry out policies to benefit the financial elites, but that responsibility for implementing this agenda will be in the hands of some its foremost representatives.

TRUMP VOWS TO KEEP OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERS LOOTING
MNUCHIN: THE  FORECLOSURE  MACHINE!

The FDIC paid OneWest $1 billion, which Stein said went to “billionaire investors … to cover the close of foreclosing on working class, everyday American folks.”
“But the bank came under fire for its foreclosure practices as housing advocacy groups accused it of being too quick to foreclose on struggling homeowners. In 2011, dozens of demonstrators descended on Mnuchin's $26.5 million home in he wealthy Bel Air neighborhood to protest OneWest's eviction tactics, according to the Los Angeles Times.”

TRUMP VOWS TO SERVE THE RICH WITH SUPER OBAMA-CLINTONIMCS!

There is a vast chasm between this empty populist rhetoric and the personnel that Trump has selected to populate his government. The speech followed a series of cabinet picks, including billionaire asset strippers, Wall Street bankers, and dedicated opponents of financial and corporate regulations, public education and Medicare and Medicaid, to lead the Treasury, Commerce, Education and Health and Human Services departments.

THE TWISTED ROAD TO REVOLUTION CAME DOWN WALL STREET

FIRST

 OBAMA –CLINTONOMICS FOR THE SUPER RICH

"Between 2002 and 2015 annual earnings for the bottom 90 percent of Americans rose by only 4.5 percent, while earnings for the top 1 percent grew by 22.7 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Under the Obama administration, more than 90 percent of 
income gains since the so-called “recovery” began have gone to the top one percent."

 http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/11/comes-revolution-class-struggle-in-us.html

  “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan THEAMERICAN THINKER.com

Eight men own same as poorest half of world: Oxfam
1
The wealth of the world's poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico
by AFP16 Jan 2017

London (AFP) – Eight men own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population, a level of inequality which “threatens to pull our societies apart”, Oxfam said on Monday ahead of the World Economic Forum opening in Davos.
The wealth of the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico.
Picked from Forbes’ billionaires list, they include Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg who co-founded Facebook, and Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.
Oxfam pointed to a link between the vast gap between rich and poor and growing discontent with mainstream politics around the world.
“From Brexit to the success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, a worrying rise in racism and the widespread disillusionment with mainstream politics, there are increasing signs that more and more people in rich countries are no longer willing to tolerate the status quo,” Oxfam said in its new report, “An economy for the 99 percent”.
The charity said new data on wealth distribution from countries such as India and China had prompted it to revise its own calculation, having said a year ago the wealth of half the world’s population was in the hands of 62 people.
Inequality will be among the issues topping the agenda as the world’s political and business elite meet in Davos from Tuesday until Friday, when 3,000 people will gather for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. 
“Responsive and responsible leadership” has been chosen as the theme of the summit, which organisers said was a response to a “backlash against globalisation leading to two surprising vote results and a rise in populism in the West”.
In its report Oxfam called for an increase in tax rates targeting “rich individuals and cooperations”, as well as a global agreement to end competition between countries to lower corporate tax rates. 
The charity also condemned lobbying by corporations and the closeness of business and politics, calling for mandatory public lobby registries and stronger rules on conflicts of interest.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/eight-men-own-same-as-poorest-half-of-world-oxfam/

 and the banksters suck the blood out of anything that moves!

"Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of America’s biggest banks."
"Profiting from poverty was apparently an 'important business' for JP Morgan."

Food Stamps: $1.3 Billion Spent on Junk Food, Soft Drinks, Says Study

8
food stamps



















AP







Overall, food stamps worth nearly $1.3 billion were spent on “sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar,” which accounted for about 20 cents of every dollar spent on food items purchased by 26.5 million households in 2011, said the report.
The USDA administers the $74 billion food stamp program, also known as SNAP or the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
The report compared spending patterns between SNAP and non-SNAP households and found that “sweetened beverages,” which includes fruit juices, energy drinks, and sweetened teas, accounted for nearly 10 percent of the total amount of money spent on food.
“In this sense, SNAP is a multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy of the soda industry,” Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University told the New York Times. “It’s pretty shocking.”
Overall, SNAP users spent 22.8 percent of their benefit on sugary drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, sugar, plus jams and sweets, and only 11.9 percent on fruits and vegetables. Families that don’t use the SNAP program spent 20 percent of their funds on those sweet items, and 16.3 percent on fruits and vegetables.
The multi-billion dollar, taxpayer funded food stamps program has become increasingly controversial thanks, in part, to its massive growth under President Obama.
More than 10.7 million more Americans — a 32 percent jump — have become reliant on food stamps to feed themselves since Obama took office in 2009, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
And in that time, countless studies have been published and health experts have warned that restrictions are needed to curtail food stamp use to purchase unhealthy foods. Government watchdog groups have also called for tighter regulations as food stamp fraud remains a common and costly problem.
Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of  America’s biggest banks.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made by a handful of banks that help the U.S. government process payments to food stamps recipients.
“Three companies – J.P. Morgan EFS, Affiliated Computer Services, and eFunds – provide EBT services for 49 states and 3 US territories,” an investigation by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) found.
“Since 2004, 18 of 24 states who contract with J.P. Morgan to provide welfare benefits have contracted to pay $560,492,596.02,” the GAI investigation revealed. “New York alone has a seven-year contract worth $126,394,917.”
Profiting from poverty was apparently an “important business” for JP Morgan.
“This business is a very important business to JP Morgan,” Christopher Paton, the company’s former managing director of treasury services, told Bloomberg News in 2011. “It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale. We also regard it as very important in the sense that we are delivering a very useful social function. We are a key part of this benefit delivery mechanism. Right now volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years or so … The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.”
The president-elect has indicated that he wants to make cuts to various welfare programs and the Republican platform promises to separate the food stamps program from the Farm Bill, where SNAP funding is currently derived.

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/15/food-stamps-billions-spent-junk-food/


Requiem for a Lightweight: Obama Out


January 16, 2017

Requiem for a Lightweight: Obama Out

Critics often make for strange bedfellows.  Louis Farrakhan and Cornell West are examples.  Both argue that Barack Obama was not ready for prime time.  For Farrakhan, Obama failed on race and social issues.  For West, the 44th president was a sell-out to a capitalist establishment.  Overall, both say the Obamas didn't do much for blacks in particular and social justice in general.  For brothers like Farrakhan and West, the last eight years were a wasted opportunity.  
Buyer's remorse may be the new "hope and change."
There will be a black president one day – maybe not for decades, thanks to the outgoing regime.  Obama had little time for pragmatism and too much to do with special pleading; identity politics; and feckless, if not sanguinary, foreign policy.
Be it race or religion, Obama's tragic flaw was policy marked by timidity and moral ambiguity – both underwritten by the belief that he could be a racial, religious, or policy shape-shifter as the occasion demanded.  Having parents on both sides of racial and religious divides allowed Obama to play race and religious cards often, yet seldom well.
As team Obama heads for the exits, the race joker is again in play.  White working-class Americans and any flavor of Russians are the new bogymen for bad losers, right and left, across the land.
In the twilight of a checkered political career, Obama's only claim to legacy might be "first black," a dubious attribute that can never be more than a half-truth.  Half- truths might be a fitting coda to an era that may go down in history as a tipping point, a juncture where "fake news" became the real news.  Factual ambiguity is now viral and that cultural meme is a precedent that Obama owns.
As a young hipster in exclusive white schools, he was "Barry," not Barack Hussein.  As a Chicago politician, Obama self-identified as a black man, although that identity was more expedient than real.  As a presidential candidate, Obama often ignored his African and Muslim antecedents while celebrating his heroic American white grandparents.
In mid-career, with a media assist, he jettisoned the "Hussein" moniker.  Clearly, it wasn't politically expedient to self-identify as black and Muslim, even in Farrakhan's Chicago.
Barack's father was an unfortunate stereotype, a deadbeat dad who abandoned his son and fled to a life of substance abuse in Africa.  Obama's mother seemed to be a white flower child with a taste for exotic, if not constant, mates.  Ultimately, Obama spent his formative years in the custody of white privilege and grandparents in Hawaii.  To this day, the black and Muslim sides of family Obama languish in Kenyan and Indonesian poverty and obscurity.
In the main, the president's personal career path was consistent snowflake: prep school, Ivy League college, prestigious law school, and then politics.  At the curb level, Barack Obama probably cared as much about black culture in America as does Chris Matthews.
After 20 January, the Obamas plan to remain in Washington so that their daughter can remain in a pricey, majority-white private secondary school.  Self-segregating public schools in Washington, D.C. are a function of entrenched double standards among elite black liberals like the Obamas.  Arguably, the District of Columbia has the worst public schools in America.  
Withal, you could argue that the "great black hope" was neither.  In life and theater, the last act is often like the first – bookends, if you will.
The Obama Bookends
Obama leaves the Oval Office as did the Clintons, trashing the White House.  Since the election, both families have done their level best to poison domestic and foreign policy wells.  First, there is challenging the legitimacy of the 2016 election at home and then blaming the Trump victory on white fright or Russian meddling abroad.
Sour grapes do not capture the stench of such 11th-hour hypocrisy.  And "sore loser" does not begin to describe the perfidy of American intelligencecollaboration in the partisan challenges to the legitimacy of the 2016 election.
Eight years of Obama torpor had nothing to do with the Clinton defeat?
If the Kremlin hacked the DNC attempt to hijack the Democrat primaries, such enterprise is a tribute to an efficient FSB or GRU.  Worse still, if there was a hack, and subsequent desinformatsiya campaign in America, any Kremlin scam is a testament to the manifest incompetence of the DNC and General Clapper'sbloated American intelligence megaplex.
The truth about the intelligence profession today is alarming.  The grand illusion in Congress about 16 U.S. intelligence agencies is the belief that spending is somehow related to performance.  Since 9/11, the business of the I.C. is clearly business, not efficiency, effectiveness, or improved national security.
The intelligence community took sides in the recent election because it anticipated a Clinton win.  Trump is a clear threat to business as usual at DOD and a clear threat to an obese and out-of-control intelligence behemoth.   
When the media speaks of weaponized cyber-attacks, the American sponsored "Stuxnet" assault on Iran's nuclear infrastructure is seldom mentioned.  U.S. intelligence fired the first salvo of the 21st-century internet wars as early as January 2010.  Any hack of the DNC is small potatoes compared to the Obama-Clapper idiocy of playing nuclear chicken in a dicey neighborhood like the Levant.
Bottom line: A Shia bomb is still waiting in the wings.
Beginning with the Sunni attack on Manhattan, intelligence community fundinghas been inversely proportionate to national security performance.  Indeed, regime change chickens have now come home to roost inside the Beltway.
Opposition to Trump in D.C. is now flirting with sedition.
The latest "Russian" hysteria has all the earmarks of xenophobia, vindictive remorse, or political vendetta.  General Clapper's empire bet on Obama and the Clintons.  Trump won in spite of Washington fixers.  Real change is a bitter pill for losers and elites alike.
The best revenge is often blowback.  Barack Obama and Jim Clapper have managed to turn Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and Edward Snowden into global cyber-heroes.
Clapper and his agency vassals might now displace both Benedict Arnold and Rube Goldberg on the partisan political walk of shame.  If Russian intelligence is more effective than American intelligence, Putin might indeed take a bow, but surely Donald Trump is not the culprit, nor the beneficiary.
Obama leaves the Oval Office as he entered, festooned with garlands from sycophants.  The president got the Nobel "Peace" Prize at the start of his run when he had done nothing.  Now he gets the "Defense" Distinguished Service Medal after accomplishing little.  Both awards are bookends for wishful thinking.  Eight years of Obama were neither distinguished nor a service.
Obama probably killed, with Islamic allies, more Muslims than Charles Martel.  Mister Obama also leaves his successor at least five hot wars in the ummah and one cold war in Europe.  No fair analyst can possibly argue that America and the world are better, or safer, places after the Obama years.
Nearly a decade ago, Obama ran on a theme of "hope and change" as if he had a program for either.  Recent events in Chicago are a microcosm of domestic failure on both counts.  We could start with the Black Lives Matter hustle, a coalition of greedy lawyers, hip-hop, rap, and anti-cop punk activists.
Apologists might argue that Chicago is not Obama's problem, but if urban punk pathology is a national problem, then that buck stops on Obama's desk.
Chicago is Obama country – his nascent political constituency, if you will.  The Windy City is a burg where lives do not matter, especially black lives.  Chicago is the murder capital of America, a city where victims are usually black, and perps are almost always black, too.
In any given year, nearly five thousand of Mr. Obama's Illinois constituents will be maimed by criminals and a fifth of those usually end up dead.  Black mayhem is routine in every American city, most of which are one-party towns like Chicago and Washington, D.C., hostages to a smug and complacent Democratic Party.
Chronic, now generational, violence in the United States is a phenomenon of the urban American Left. Obama and his Party own that demographic.
The most recent racial atrocity in Chicago featured four punks who kidnapped a mentally challenged white man for two days of racial abuse and ritual torture.  The ordeal was live-streamed on YouTube.  The only difference between this incident and everyday city mayhem is that this victim was white.
Social pathology in places like Chicago is of a piece with Islamic necrosis abroad, a product of indulgence.  Tolerating aberrant behavior anywhere makes more of it possible everywhere.
Culture is behavior.  Behavior is culture.
Maybe it is too early to suggest that Barack Hussein Obama is America's first affirmative action president.  Buyer's remorse is the ugly side of affirmative action.  If facts and performance matter, Obama had eight years of golden opportunity to address domestic and foreign policy civility.  Alas, he did little or nothing on both accounts.  Both landscapes now are literally littered with body bags and the human detritus of civic incontinence.
Barack Obama was never varsity material.
Indeed, he doubled down on failure.  Obama never used his bully pulpit todemand a better moral standard for his core urban constituency at home or those perfidious Muslim "partners" he sought to appease abroad.
Obama's tenure is not without merit.  He looks good in a suit.  Just ask CNN or MSNBC.  He seems to have a nice family, too.  And Barack's rap is nonpareil.
Indeed, Obama sounds like a park bench preacher.  He's arrogant enough to tell a crowd to go to hell, and most marks would get in line for the trip.  The Obama aura for folks who work for a living; however, people in flyover country is something very different.  If you ask about Obama in Deer Lick, the response would be "all hat, no cowboy."
The black vote in America may continue to be a "blue wall," a racial monolith – or maybe now with Keith Ellison, just another round of domestic jihad.  Yet for the rest of America, any future appeals to melanin as an asset, religion as an excuse, or affirmative action as a remedy may be dead letters.
Team Obama out!  Let the requiems begin.
G. Murphy Donovan writes about the politics of national security. 

The Strange Saga of Osama and Obama

They are the two men who changed the course of the history of the United States and the world in the new millennium: one by his capacity for evil, the other by his incapacity to comprehend it.  The saga of Osama and Obama begins at the dawn of the 21st century.
In September of 2001, Osama bin Laden slaughtered thousands of Americans in New York, Washington, and in the skies, undermining the nation's sense of security. The Twin Towers were a symbol of the soaring power of the unchallenged United States following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Osama didn't have to leave his Afghan hideaway to accomplish his "feat."  He sent no clunky missiles in an effort to dent the impenetrable power of fortress America as Saddam Hussein had attempted with his Scuds against U.S. troops during the Gulf War.  He relied on a small group of Muslim fanatics with box cutters and the schedules of U.S. airlines servicing a booming economy.
In response to bin Laden’s outrage, then President George W. Bush launched the War on Terror.  In 2008, Americans chose Barack Hussein Obama to be their first post-9/11 elected president.  That his surname, Obama, rhymed with Osama and had the unusual names “Barack Hussein" attached to it is only a coincidence.  The resemblance, however, was not lost on the future president when he lunched with a political consultant in late September of 2001.  Before them was a newspaper with Osama bin Laden's photo.  "Hell of a thing isn't it?" remarked the consultant. "Really bad luck.  You can't change your name, of course.  Voters are suspicious of that kind of thing."
Voters seemed to be more suspicious of Obama’s association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom the Wall Street Journal called a "passionate proponent of the view of America as the world's leading agent of evil and injustice,” than his Muslim roots.  The association with fiery preacher and his friendship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers did not deter the American people.
Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama’s amazing rise was the result of some deep wound in the American psyche after such a direct hit on its pride that still smarted seven years later.  
On May 2, 2011, Obama killed Osama, or at least he took responsibility for the action, while watching it on closed-circuit deep in the heavily-fortified White House Situation Room -- but his incapacity to call out evil during his presidency weakened America's power in the world and gave birth to an even more malicious Al-Qaeda offspring -- the Islamic State.
“Like most children of divorced parents, he felt a loss, for he was no longer as intimately involved with his father’s family… he keenly felt his lack of status, genuinely suffering from his father’s lack of personal love and care.”  These words were written by Omar bin Laden, one of Osama’s 20 sons, regarding his father's relationship with his grandfather, but they could have easily been written about Barack Obama, whose autobiography, titled Dreams from My Father, aptly describes the importance of his Kenyan progenitor's absence.  Both men’s Muslim fathers died prematurely:  Osama’s in a plane crash at age 59, Obama’s in a car accident at age 46, thus precluding any reconciliation with their feelings of abandonment.
Osama bin Laden’s father was fantastically rich and had many wives. Since Osama was not among the first born among 50 sons, he received little attention from the busy patriarch before he died.  He was raised by a stepfather. Unlike his brothers, who studied abroad, Osama stayed in Saudi Arabia and thus remained  “the most provincial of the bin-Laden boys.”
Barack Obama was raised in multicultural Hawaii and in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation.  It was with Obama’s Indonesian stepfather that the future president first came in contact with Islam, at the time in Indonesia, a much more tolerant version than that of Osama’s Saudi Arabia.
Bin Laden, living in the birthplace of Islam, found meaning in its message and gravitated towards the works of Sayid Qutub, “widely considered the father of contemporary jihadist thought.”
Four and a half years younger than Osama, Barack Obama was drawn to the writings of Malcom X of the Nation of Islam, a black nationalist group that prepared for a race war in America and believed that Christianity was the religion of slavers.  Malcolm eventually left the NOI for the more traditional Sunni form of the religion and made the Hadj to Mecca. Obama wrote:
If Malcolm X's discovery toward the end of his life, that some whites might live beside him as brothers in Islam, seemed to offer some hope of eventual reconciliation, that hope appeared in a distant future, in a far-off land.  In the meantime, I looked to see where the people would come from who were willing to work toward this future and populate this new world.
That search led Obama to a hybrid multicultural and polyreligious concept of world harmony that included an idyllic image of Islam based on his formative years in Indonesia and his emotional attachment to his Muslim forbears.  For his “vision,” the president won the Nobel Peace Prize shortly after taking office and spent the next eight years trying to create it.  He failed miserably, further undermining the post-World War II order that Osama Bin Laden’s atrocity had shaken.
The youthful quests of these two highly educated, self-confident men led them to two opposing views of Islam.  Bin-Laden's followed the literal words of the Quran: only all-out war on the unbelievers would bring the peace of Islam to the world.  For Obama, Islam was a religion of peace.  Later it became his "responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Osama became an evil man of action -- Obama an immoral man of inaction.
Osama, with few troops, no country, and no official title, declared war on the world's greatest superpower in 1996 and took action:  the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, the U.S. embassies in Africa, the WTC, and many more acts of terror.
Obama, commander in chief of the world's most powerful military, did everything to appease America's enemies:  the withdrawal of troops from Iraq which led to the rise of ISIS, his failure to act when Syria's Assad crossed his red line of chemical weapons use, the nuclear deal with Iran, and many more acts of rendition. 
Osama always told the truth about his beliefs -- Obama told half-truths and lies about Islam.
Let us contrast just a few of their statements from Osama's letter to America andObama's Cairo speech.
On each other’s civilizations:
Osama: It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.
Obama: As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.
On religious pluralism:
Osama: The religion of Jihad in the way of Allah [is] so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. It is to this religion that we call you: the seal of all the previous religions.
Obama: The world must continue to lift up the voices of Muslim clerics and scholars who teach the true peaceful nature of Islam.
On war and peace:
Osama: Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.
Obama: Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.
President Obama told the world "that Islam has always been a part of America's story."  In fact, the first country to declare war on the United States was Muslim Tripoli. Following the early conflicts with the North African Barbary States, historian Bernard Lewis wrote (The Crises of Islam, p.69) that there was little contact between the two civilizations until the post-WW II oil boom.
The United States is now in a third historical phase of interaction with the Muslim world.  We have been savagely attacked by "Radical Islam," a phrase Barack Obama refuses to utter, while being besieged by Muslim propaganda. By taking an active role in the latter and by failing to decisively combat evil, Barack Hussein Obama has advanced the cause of Osama Bin Laden.  Yes, the president "killed" one mass murderer, but he has enabled the formation of tens of thousands of ghoulish assassins who believe that it is their religious duty to enslave non-Muslim women and who can look an infidel in the face before slowly slicing off his head.
The author is a “self-made multiculturalist” who has lived and worked in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. He blogs at The Multicultural Conservative: Conservative by Nature – Multicultural by Choice.  



CRONY BANKSTER LOOTING OF AMERICA

 THEIR GOLDEN AGE OF PLUNDER IS NOT OVER!



NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS NOR INFESTED HIS ADMIN WITH BANKSTER CRONIES MORE THAN OBAMA!

*
And while the Obama administration worked systematically 

to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer 

than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession 

from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of the

banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless 

subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key 

global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered 

Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home 

foreclosures and other illicit activities.

"Hardly a week goes by without a new report on signs of extreme social crisis or ever-more obscene levels of wealth among the financial elite. "
Obama’ farewell address: One last round of clichés and lies
By Niles Niemuth
11 January 2017
President Barack Obama capped his eight years in office with a vacuous and hypocritical farewell address Tuesday night delivered at the McCormick Place convention center in downtown Chicago.
The first-ever presidential farewell address delivered outside of Washington, DC had the atmospherics of an overblown, cheap spectacle. Obama strode onto the stage like a rock star, flanked by oversized American flags, a massive illuminated presidential seal and an introductory soundtrack by the rock band U2.
As with every address Obama has delivered over the last eight years, his speech in Chicago was full of clichés, his rhetoric padded with empty phrases and delivered with a false gravitas, signaled by his trademark pursed lips and affected whisper.
The speech was rife with contradictions, the starkest being the juxtaposition of Obama’s boasting of the great social progress achieved by his administration and his warning of threats to American democracy arising from ever-growing social inequality and economic insecurity.
The president declared: “If I had told you eight years ago that America would reverse a great recession, reboot our auto industry, and unleash the longest stretch of job creation in our history… if I had told you that we would open up a new chapter with the Cuban people, shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program without firing a shot, and take out the mastermind of 9/11… if I had told you that we would win marriage equality, and secure the right to health insurance for another 20 million of our fellow citizens—you might have said our sights were set a little too high.
“By almost every measure, America is a better, stronger place than it was when we started.”
He made no attempt to explain why, given this impressive record of social progress and foreign policy success, his party was routed in the elections and the billionaire demagogue Donald Trump was preparing to succeed him in the White House.
A basic component of the answer, of course, is the grotesquely false rendering of his record and the state of American society as he leaves office. Hardly a week goes by without a new report on signs of extreme social crisis or ever-more obscene levels of wealth among the financial elite. Just in the past month, studies have been published showing the first decline in US life expectancy in 23 years, plunging pay for young adults, a 72 percent surge in deaths from synthetic opioids, and home ownership rates at historic lows for young people.
Other surveys have documented a $237 billion increase in the wealth of the world’s richest 200 billionaires, driven largely by the US stock market boom under Obama, and an acceleration of the transfer of wealth from the bottom half of the US population for the top one percent.
In boasting of presiding over a record number of consecutive monthly job increases, Obama neglected to mention that 94 percent of the new jobs created in the last eight years have been either part-time or temporary.
Noticeably absent from Obama’s remarks was any mention of the social conditions in the city where he was speaking, which is ravaged by high levels of poverty and unemployment, an epidemic of police killings and violence, and a skyrocketing homicide rate.
He lamented in general terms the growth of social inequality and the dangers it poses to American democracy—that is, the threat of a social explosion in the United States.
“While the top one percent has amassed a bigger share of wealth and income, too many families, in inner cities and rural counties, have been left behind—the laid-off factory worker; the waitress and health care worker who struggle to pay the bills—convinced that the game is fixed against them, that their government only serves the interests of the powerful—a recipe for more cynicism and polarization in our politics.”
As always, he spoke as if none of these social ills had anything to do with the policies pursued by his administration, including severe cuts in social spending on the one side and the bailout of the banks and flooding of money into the stock market on the other.
Another piece of monumental hypocrisy was Obama’s pose of fighting to defend democracy when he has done more to destroy it than perhaps any other US president.
“Democracy can buckle when we give in to fear,” he declared. “So just as we, as citizens, must remain vigilant against external aggression, we must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are. That’s why, for the past eight years, I’ve worked to put the fight against terrorism on a firm legal footing. That’s why we’ve ended torture, worked to close Gitmo, and reform our laws governing surveillance to protect privacy and civil liberties.”
This is from a president who has personally authorized the assassination of American citizens and thousands of others around the world with drones-fired missiles, protected and promoted those in the CIA responsible for torture, kept the prison at Guantanamo Bay open, persecuted journalists and jailed whistleblowers, militarized the police, and expanded the illegal surveillance of electronic communications.
Obama also used his farewell address take parting shots at Russia and China, lumping the war against ISIS with efforts to counter both countries, and arguing that aggressive action against the world’s second- and third-largest nuclear-armed powers was the only way to avoid war.
“[T]he fight against extremism and intolerance and sectarianism are of a piece with the fight against authoritarianism and nationalist aggression,” he said. “If the scope of freedom and respect for the rule of law shrinks around the world, the likelihood of war within and between nations increases, and our own freedoms will eventually be threatened.”
Obama spent his eight years in office waging war abroad and war on the working class at home. With Tuesday’s speech, he passed the reigns to Trump with a shrug.






Eight men own same as poorest half of world: Oxfam
1
The wealth of the world's poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico

by AFP16 Jan 2017

London (AFP) – Eight men own the same 
wealth as the poorest half of the world’s 
population, a level of inequality which 
“threatens to pull our societies apart”, Oxfam 
said on Monday ahead of the World Economic 
Forum opening in Davos.
The wealth of the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico.
Picked from Forbes’ billionaires list, they include 
Microsoft founder Bill Gates (A LA RAZA 
FASCIST PARTY DONOR FOR OPEN 
BORDERS) , Mark Zuckerberg (A LA RAZA 
FASCIST PARTY DONOR FOR OPEN 
BORDERS) who co-founded Facebook, and Jeff 
Bezos,  founder of Amazon.
Oxfam pointed to a link between the vast gap between rich and poor and growing discontent with mainstream politics around the world.
“From Brexit to the success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, a worrying rise in racism and the widespread disillusionment with mainstream politics, there are increasing signs that more and more people in rich countries are no longer willing to tolerate the status quo,” Oxfam said in its new report, “An economy for the 99 percent”.
The charity said new data on wealth distribution from countries such as India and China had prompted it to revise its own calculation, having said a year ago the wealth of half the world’s population was in the hands of 62 people.
Inequality will be among the issues topping the agenda as the world’s political and business elite meet in Davos from Tuesday until Friday, when 3,000 people will gather for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. 
“Responsive and responsible leadership” has been chosen as the theme of the summit, which organisers said was a response to a “backlash against globalisation leading to two surprising vote results and a rise in populism in the West”.
In its report Oxfam called for an increase in tax rates targeting “rich individuals and cooperations”, as well as a global agreement to end competition between countries to lower corporate tax rates. 
The charity also condemned lobbying by corporations and the closeness of business and politics, calling for mandatory public lobby registries and stronger rules on conflicts of interest.

 and the banksters suck the blood out of anything that moves!

"Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of America’s biggest banks."
"Profiting from poverty was apparently an 'important business' for JP Morgan."

Food Stamps: $1.3 Billion Spent on Junk Food, Soft Drinks, Says Study

8
food stamps














AP

Overall, food stamps worth nearly $1.3 billion were spent on “sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar,” which accounted for about 20 cents of every dollar spent on food items purchased by 26.5 million households in 2011, said the report.
The USDA administers the $74 billion food stamp program, also known as SNAP or the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
The report compared spending patterns between SNAP and non-SNAP households and found that “sweetened beverages,” which includes fruit juices, energy drinks, and sweetened teas, accounted for nearly 10 percent of the total amount of money spent on food.
“In this sense, SNAP is a multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy of the soda industry,” Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University told the New York Times. “It’s pretty shocking.”
Overall, SNAP users spent 22.8 percent of their benefit on sugary drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, sugar, plus jams and sweets, and only 11.9 percent on fruits and vegetables. Families that don’t use the SNAP program spent 20 percent of their funds on those sweet items, and 16.3 percent on fruits and vegetables.
The multi-billion dollar, taxpayer funded food stamps program has become increasingly controversial thanks, in part, to its massive growth under President Obama.
More than 10.7 million more Americans — a 32 percent jump — have become reliant on food stamps to feed themselves since Obama took office in 2009, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
And in that time, countless studies have been published and health experts have warned that restrictions are needed to curtail food stamp use to purchase unhealthy foods. Government watchdog groups have also called for tighter regulations as food stamp fraud remains a common and costly problem.
Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of  America’s biggest banks.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made by a handful of banks that help the U.S. government process payments to food stamps recipients.
“Three companies – J.P. Morgan EFS, Affiliated Computer Services, and eFunds – provide EBT services for 49 states and 3 US territories,” an investigation by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) found.
“Since 2004, 18 of 24 states who contract with J.P. Morgan to provide welfare benefits have contracted to pay $560,492,596.02,” the GAI investigation revealed. “New York alone has a seven-year contract worth $126,394,917.”
Profiting from poverty was apparently an “important business” for JP Morgan.
“This business is a very important business to JP Morgan,” Christopher Paton, the company’s former managing director of treasury services, told Bloomberg News in 2011. “It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale. We also regard it as very important in the sense that we are delivering a very useful social function. We are a key part of this benefit delivery mechanism. Right now volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years or so … The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.”
The president-elect has indicated that he wants to make cuts to various welfare programs and the Republican platform promises to separate the food stamps program from the Farm Bill, where SNAP funding is currently derived.

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson

Oxfam issues report on eve of Davos conference
Eight billionaires control as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population
By Nick Beams
17 January 2016
Eight billionaires, six of them from the United States, own as much combined wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population, some 3.6 billion people, according to the latest report on global inequality from the British-based advocacy group Oxfam.
The report was released Monday, on the eve of the annual World Economic Forum in the mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland, at which many of the ultra-rich will converge this week. The Oxfam document contains a range of figures that highlight the staggering growth of social inequality, showing that the income and wealth gap between a tiny financial elite and the rest of the world’s people is widening at an accelerating rate.
New data made available to Oxfam reveals that wealth is even more concentrated than the organization had previously believed. Last year, Oxfam reported that 62 people controlled as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity. In its latest report, the charity notes that “had this new data been available last year, it would have shown that nine billionaires owned the same wealth as the poorest half of the planet.”
Oxfam writes that since 2015, the richest 1 percent of the world’s population has owned more than the rest of the world put together, and that over the past quarter century, the top 1 percent has gained more income than the bottom 50 percent combined.
“Far from trickling down, income and wealth are being sucked upwards at an alarming rate,” the report states. It notes that the 1,810 dollar billionaires on the Forbes 2016 rich list own $6.5 trillion, “as much wealth as the bottom 70 percent of humanity.”
Over the next 20 years, some 500 people will hand over to their heirs more than $2.1 trillion, an amount larger than the gross domestic product of India, a country of 1.3 billion people.
Oxfam cites recent research by the economist Thomas Piketty and others showing that in the United States, over the past 30 years the growth in incomes of the bottom 50 percent has been zero, while the incomes of the top 1 percent have risen by 300 percent.
The same process is taking place in the world’s poorest countries. Oxfam notes that Vietnam’s richest man earns more in a day than the country’s poorest person earns in 10 years.
The report points to the systematic character of the siphoning of global wealth to the heights of society. The business sector is focused on delivering “ever higher returns to wealthy owners and top executives,” with companies “structured to dodge taxes, drive down workers’ wages and squeeze producers.”
This involves the most barbaric and criminal practices. Oxfam cites a report by the International Labour Organisation estimating that 21 million people are forced labourers, generating $150 billion in profits every year. The world’s largest garment companies all have links to cotton-spinning mills in India that routinely use the forced labour of girls.
Small farmers are also being driven into poverty: in the 1980s, cocoa farmers received 18 percent of the value of a chocolate bar, compared to just 6 percent today.
The extent of corporate power is highlighted in a number of telling statistics. In terms of revenue, 69 of the world’s largest economic entities are now corporations, not countries. The world’s 10 largest companies, including firms such as Wal-Mart, Shell and Apple, have combined revenue greater than the total government revenue of 180 countries.
Although the authors avoid any condemnation of the profit system per se, the information provided in their report amounts to a stunning verdict on the capitalist system. It highlights in facts and figures two central processes delineated by Karl Marx, the founder of modern socialism.
In Capital, Marx explains that the objective logic of the capitalist system, based on the drive for profit, is to produce ever greater wealth at one pole and poverty, misery and degradation at the other. In the Communist Manifesto, he explains that all governments are but the executive committee for managing the affairs of the capitalist class.
This is exemplified in the tax policies and other “business-friendly” measures undertaken by governments around the world. The Oxfam report notes that technology giant Apple is alleged to have paid a tax of just 0.005 percent on its European profits.
Developing countries lose around $100 billion a year as a result of outright tax dodging and the exemptions granted to companies. In Kenya, $1.1 billion is lost to government revenue every year because of exemptions, an amount nearly twice the country’s annual health budget.
Government tax policies work hand in hand with tax dodging and criminality. The report cites economist Gabriel Zucman’s estimate that $7.6 trillion of global wealth is hidden in offshore tax havens. Africa alone loses $14 billion in annual revenues because of the use of tax havens: enough to pay for health care that would save the lives of four million children and employ enough teachers to ensure that every African child went to school.
There is one significant omission from Oxfam’s discussion of accelerating inequality. It makes no mention of the critical role of the policies of the world’s major governments and central banks in handing over trillions of dollars to the banks, major corporations and financial elites through bank bailouts and the policies of “quantitative easing” since the eruption of the global financial crisis in 2008.
A discussion of these facts would raise uncomfortable political issues. The report opens by favourably citing remarks by US President Barack Obama to the UN General Assembly in 2016 that a world in which 1 percent of the population owns as much as the other 99 percent can never be stable.
But the very policies of the Obama administration have played a key role in creating this world. After rescuing the financial oligarchs from the results of their own criminal actions with massive bank bailouts, the Obama administration and the US central bank ensured their further enrichment by providing a supply of ultra-cheap money that boosted the value of their assets.
Under Obama, the decades-long growth of inequality accelerated, along with the descent of the ruling class into parasitism and criminality. He paved the way for the financial oligarchy to directly seize the reins of power, embodied in the imminent presidency of casino and real estate billionaire Donald Trump, to whom Obama will hand over the keys to the White House on Friday.
The overriding motivation behind the Oxfam report is fear of the political consequences of ever-rising inequality and a desire to deflect mounting anger over its consequences into harmless channels. It advances the perspective of a “human economy,” but maintains that this can be achieved on the basis of the capitalist market, provided corporations and governments change their mindsets.
The absurdity of this perspective, based on the long-discredited outlook of British Fabianism, which has dominated the thinking of the English middle classes for well over a century, can be seen from the fact that the report is directed to the global financial elites gathered at the Davos summit this week, with a call for them to change their ways.
The bankruptcy of this outlook is demonstrated not only by present-day facts and figures, but by historical experience. A quarter century ago, following the liquidation of the Soviet Union, the air was filled with capitalist triumphalism. Freed from the encumbrance of the USSR, and able to dominate the globe, liberal capitalist democracy was going to show humanity what it could do.
And it certainly has, creating a world marked by ever-rising inequality, the accumulation of wealth to truly obscene levels, oppression and anti-democratic forms of rule, criminality at the very heights of society, and the increasingly ominous prospect of a third world war.
This history brings into focus another anniversary: the centenary of the Russian Revolution. Despite its subsequent betrayal at the hands of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the Russian Revolution demonstrated imperishably, and for all time, that a world beyond capitalism and all its social ills and malignancies is both possible and necessary. Its lessons must inform the guiding perspective for the immense social struggles that are going to erupt out of the social conditions detailed in the Oxfam report.


TIME TO DEAL WITH REALITY?


AMERICA UNRAVELS:


The Road to Revolution or Civil War II





“Behind this year’s surge is a toxic mix of cuts to social services, unemployment, hopelessness…”



DID BARACK OBAMA SERVE HIS CRONY BANKSTERS PAYMASTERS WELL?


"The US stock market is now valued at $26 trillion, the highest in history."




"Overall, share prices and profits of the big Wall Street banks are soaring, fueled by expectations of sharply higher profits under a new administration pledged to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulatory overhaul and remove virtually all regulations restricting speculative activity and protecting investors and the general public from Wall Street fraud."
US banks report massive fourth quarter profits
By Gabriel Black
16 January 2017
Profits for the two largest US banks by assets surged in the fourth quarter, reflecting a rise in trading activity following the election victory of Donald Trump.
JPMorgan Chase profits increased 24 percent to $6.7 billion, while the bank’s revenue rose two percent to $24.3 billion, according to the quarterly earnings report released by the bank on Friday. The bank reported its best-ever fourth quarter trading business. It net income jumped 96 percent from a year earlier.
Bank of America’s fourth quarter profit shot up by 42 percent to $4.7 billion. The second largest US bank’s revenue climbed 2.1 percent to $20 billion, the result of a gain in interest income and loan growth.
Earnings for the country’s fourth largest bank by assets, Wells Fargo, fell 5.4 percent to $5.3 billion and revenue remained flat in the wake of a scandal over the bank’s practice of opening unauthorized customer accounts in order to meet aggressive sales targets.
Combined 2016 profits for Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo totaled $64.6 billion, some two percent higher than in 2015.
Overall, share prices and profits of the big Wall Street banks are soaring, fueled by expectations of sharply higher profits under a new administration pledged to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulatory overhaul and remove virtually all regulations restricting speculative activity and protecting investors and the general public from Wall Street fraud.
The incoming Trump administration is also promising to sharply cut corporate taxes and personal income taxes for the wealthy. Its key economic posts are filled with Wall Street insiders, including Goldman Sachs alums named to at least five top positions. These include Steven Mnuchin as treasury secretary, Gary Cohn as director of the National Economic Council, and longtime Goldman lawyer Jay Clayton to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.
US financial stocks have been on a tear since the November 8 election, with total gains for the 63 largest groups hitting $459 billion. The financial sector has headed up a general surge in stock prices, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average increasing 8.9 percent since Election Day and nearing the 20,000 mark. The US stock market is now valued at $26 trillion, the highest in history.
The Dodd-Frank law is a largely token measure that has done virtually nothing to rein in the type of speculative and fraudulent activity that led to the 2008 Wall Street crash. Nevertheless, the big US banks have denounced it and lobbied against provisions that require them to maintain a bigger capital reserve and others that minimally restrict their ability to gamble with depositors’ money.
And while the Obama administration worked systematically to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home foreclosures and other illicit activities.
Now the banks are confident they will not even face such token reprimands for their reckless and often criminal pursuit of super-profits.
Trump is also expected to offer massive tax breaks to companies that invest in government-sponsored infrastructure projects. A spurt in growth and an anticipated rise in interest rates promise to increase the opportunities for the banks to realize higher returns.
This Trump boom will make the inevitable bursting of the stock bubble that much more violent. The fundamentals of the European, East Asian and American economies remain weak, with very low rates of reinvestment.
The massive profits reported by the American banks contrast sharply with the situation in Europe. The total profits of the three largest US banks for 2016, $65 billion, exceeds the combined market value of Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, two of the largest European banks.
This reflects a sharp decline in the position of European banks relative to their US rivals in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. Share prices for major European banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and UniCredit are below their pre-2008 levels.


BARACK OBAMA , HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTERS 

AND THE LA RAZA MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS….



There’s more than one way to destroy America’s 

white middle class!




HSBC laundered hundreds of millions and perhaps 

billions of dollars for drug cartels responsible for 

the deaths of tens of thousands of people over the 

past two decades. The bank transferred at least 

$881 million of known drug trafficking 

proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa Cartel 

in Mexico, which is known for dismembering 

its victims and publicly displaying their body parts.

THE DEMISE AND ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION of HILLARY CLINTON

"Hillary Clinton is a known liar, a criminal of monstrous proportions; others have gone to prison for crimes she has committed over and over: lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, violating national security laws by which she was bound as Secretary of State, etc. It's a long list."


Clinton, the candidate favored by most of Wall Street and the corporate elite and large sections of the Republican Party establishment, is seeking to assemble something akin, within the framework of the US political setup, to a grand coalition between the Democratic Party and the Republican leadership.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/clinton-preparing-bipartisan-government.html

Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton 

speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which she

received six-figure paychecks, show her 

praising the recommendations of the 2010 

Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction 

commission, which called for sweeping cuts to

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the 

elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on 

employees’ health benefits; and huge cuts in 

income taxes for the wealthy and corporate 

taxes.


“But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now.”



Wikileaks exposes Obama’s bankster-infested

 

administration!


BARACK OBAMA …… the banksters’ RENT BOY!

 “Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock  purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.”

MUCH MORE HERE:


“As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping 
executive pay at bailed-out firms.”

“So when Clinton was hobnobbing with  Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein in 2013, while  investigations of wrongdoing by Goldman and the other Wall Street banks were still ongoing, she was consorting with a man who belonged in prison.”


Report to Davos summit: Rising inequality threatens “market capitalism”
By Nick Beams
14 January 2017
The year 2016 was characterised politically by the emergence of deep hostility to the official political and economic establishment as a result of rising social inequality. This was manifested most sharply in the Brexit vote in Britain and the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency, with right-wing nationalist forces being the main beneficiaries to date due to the reactionary anti-working class policies of what passes for the political “left.”
This shift has found expression in a warning sounded by the World Economic Forum, which hosts its annual gathering of world business and political leaders in Davos, Switzerland next week. The annual “risks report” prepared for the meeting concludes that the growing concentration of income and wealth at the very top of society is the biggest single risk to the stability of the economic and political order over which the millionaires and billionaires assembling in Davos preside. The report identifies “rising income and wealth inequality” as the most significant force driving global politics over the next decade.
The report cites the weakness of the economic “recovery” following the financial crisis of 2008 as one of the reasons for the anti-establishment backlash, but warns that boosting growth is not sufficient to shore up the credibility of the capitalist system.
There is a need to revive growth, “but the growing mood of anti-establishment populism suggests we may have passed the stage where this alone would remedy fractures in society: reforming market capitalism must also be added to the agenda,” the report states.
It continues: “The combination of economic inequality and political polarization threatens to amplify global risks, fraying the social solidarity on which the legitimacy of our economic and political systems rest.”
The report notes that the policy of quantitative easing by the world’s central banks—the pumping of trillions of dollars into the global financial system—has “exacerbated income inequality” by boosting “the returns enjoyed by the owners of financial assets, while workers’ real earnings have been growing very slowly.”
Productivity growth has been slow to recover from the crisis and structural rates of unemployment remain high, particularly among young people in Europe, while in the United States there has been a marked decline in the labour participation rate, signifying that large numbers of workers are dropping out of the workforce.
The report points out that “in contrast to the pre-crisis era, when China’s rapid expansion bolstered overall growth rates, there is no market game-changer on the horizon,” with China in a gradual slowdown as its economy moves away from investment-led growth.
“In sum, it is difficult to identify routes that will lead back to robust global rates of economic growth,” the Davos report concludes.
In line with other studies, the report points to rising inequality in the US, with the incomes of the top 1 percent rising by 31 percent between 2009 and 2012 compared to less than 0.5 percent for the rest of the population.
“Middle-class income stagnation,” it states, “is particularly affecting youth; recent research shows that 540 million young people across advanced economies face the prospect of growing up to be poorer than their parents.”
In examining longer-term trends, the report dwells on the impact of new technologies associated with the advance of computerisation and the Internet. According to one study it cites, some 47 percent of jobs in the United States are at risk from automation, affecting more than 80 percent of low-income work.
“Technology is also contributing to the changing nature of work, with secure and predictable jobs giving way to more sporadic and short-term self-employment,” with research suggesting that the number of people in so-called “alternative work arrangements” in the US increased faster than overall employment between 2005 and 2015.
In fact, the rate at which this is taking place is increasing. A recent study has found that 94 percent of the 10 million jobs created during the Obama administration were temporary, contract or part-time positions, with the proportion of the workforce engaged in such occupations rising from 10.7 percent to 15.8 percent. The number of full-time jobs today is 1 million below the level at the start of the recession.
The increased use of technology provides the material foundation for the advance of living standards. But under the profit system, it is the means for driving down the living standards of the mass of the population.
According to statistics prepared by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and cited in the World Economic Forum report, up to 80 percent of the decline in labour’s share in national income between 1990 and 2007 was the result of the impact of technology. This trend will only have accelerated in the past decade.
The report warns that one way in which technological change could prove disruptive is via the labour market, with incomes pushed down and unemployment pushed up in affected sectors and regions, leading to “disruptive” social conditions. This is in line with the overall finding of the report that “the most important of global risks is the pairing of unemployment and social instability.”
While pointing to the rise of populist and nationalist movements, the report does not offer much in the way of in-depth analysis. But it does at least indicate one of the most significant factors, noting that “the economic policies of historically mainstream parties from the right and the left have converged in recent decades,” making it possible for “once-fringe movements” to rise by “portraying the established parties as part of the same technocratic political class, focused on self-enrichment.”
The overriding fear of the World Economic Forum, though not stated explicitly in the report, is that popular opposition will shift to the left. As other commentators have noted in this, the centenary year of the Russian Revolution, there is a parallel between the conditions that prevailed a century ago and those of today.
Summing up its findings, the report concludes that it is a “febrile time for the world,” where “deep-rooted social and economic trends are manifesting themselves disruptively across the world,” and “persisting inequality, particularly in the context of comparative economic weakness, risks undermining the legitimacy of market capitalism.”
The World Economic Forum, which begins in the alpine resort of Davos, Switzerland on Tuesday, will involve the usual round of networking by business chiefs, political leaders and the heads of NGOs, as lucrative deals are made and relationships established. Of course, it will produce no solutions to the deepening social, political and economic malaise. How could it, as the forces gathered there preside over the very social order that has produced the crisis?
But for the global elites, the taste of the champagne, the delicacy of the canapés and the flavour of the haute cuisine may be somewhat tainted by the smell of death wafting up from the grave opening up before them.

TRUMP SIGNALS OBAMA’S  CRONY BANKSTERS THAT BETTER LOOTING IS UP AHEAD.


The chief motivating factor behind the rise on Wall Street is the understanding that the incoming Trump administration will not only carry out policies to benefit the financial elites, but that responsibility for implementing this agenda will be in the hands of some its foremost representatives.

TRUMP VOWS TO KEEP OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERS LOOTING
MNUCHIN: THE  FORECLOSURE  MACHINE!

The FDIC paid OneWest $1 billion, which Stein said went to “billionaire investors … to cover the close of foreclosing on working class, everyday American folks.”
“But the bank came under fire for its foreclosure practices as housing advocacy groups accused it of being too quick to foreclose on struggling homeowners. In 2011, dozens of demonstrators descended on Mnuchin's $26.5 million home in he wealthy Bel Air neighborhood to protest OneWest's eviction tactics, according to the Los Angeles Times.”

TRUMP VOWS TO SERVE THE RICH WITH SUPER OBAMA-CLINTONIMCS!

There is a vast chasm between this empty populist rhetoric and the personnel that Trump has selected to populate his government. The speech followed a series of cabinet picks, including billionaire asset strippers, Wall Street bankers, and dedicated opponents of financial and corporate regulations, public education and Medicare and Medicaid, to lead the Treasury, Commerce, Education and Health and Human Services departments.

THE TWISTED ROAD TO REVOLUTION CAME DOWN WALL STREET

FIRST

 OBAMA –CLINTONOMICS FOR THE SUPER RICH

"Between 2002 and 2015 annual earnings for the bottom 90 percent of Americans rose by only 4.5 percent, while earnings for the top 1 percent grew by 22.7 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Under the Obama administration, more than 90 percent of 
income gains since the so-called “recovery” began have gone to the top one percent."

 http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/11/comes-revolution-class-struggle-in-us.html

  “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan THEAMERICAN THINKER.com

Eight men own same as poorest half of world: Oxfam
1
The wealth of the world's poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico
by AFP16 Jan 2017

London (AFP) – Eight men own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population, a level of inequality which “threatens to pull our societies apart”, Oxfam said on Monday ahead of the World Economic Forum opening in Davos.
The wealth of the world’s poorest 3.6 billion people is the equivalent to the combined net worth of six American businessmen, one from Spain and another from Mexico.
Picked from Forbes’ billionaires list, they include Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg who co-founded Facebook, and Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.
Oxfam pointed to a link between the vast gap between rich and poor and growing discontent with mainstream politics around the world.
“From Brexit to the success of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, a worrying rise in racism and the widespread disillusionment with mainstream politics, there are increasing signs that more and more people in rich countries are no longer willing to tolerate the status quo,” Oxfam said in its new report, “An economy for the 99 percent”.
The charity said new data on wealth distribution from countries such as India and China had prompted it to revise its own calculation, having said a year ago the wealth of half the world’s population was in the hands of 62 people.
Inequality will be among the issues topping the agenda as the world’s political and business elite meet in Davos from Tuesday until Friday, when 3,000 people will gather for the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. 
“Responsive and responsible leadership” has been chosen as the theme of the summit, which organisers said was a response to a “backlash against globalisation leading to two surprising vote results and a rise in populism in the West”.
In its report Oxfam called for an increase in tax rates targeting “rich individuals and cooperations”, as well as a global agreement to end competition between countries to lower corporate tax rates. 
The charity also condemned lobbying by corporations and the closeness of business and politics, calling for mandatory public lobby registries and stronger rules on conflicts of interest.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/eight-men-own-same-as-poorest-half-of-world-oxfam/

 and the banksters suck the blood out of anything that moves!

"Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of America’s biggest banks."
"Profiting from poverty was apparently an 'important business' for JP Morgan."

Food Stamps: $1.3 Billion Spent on Junk Food, Soft Drinks, Says Study

8
food stamps














AP

Overall, food stamps worth nearly $1.3 billion were spent on “sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar,” which accounted for about 20 cents of every dollar spent on food items purchased by 26.5 million households in 2011, said the report.
The USDA administers the $74 billion food stamp program, also known as SNAP or the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
The report compared spending patterns between SNAP and non-SNAP households and found that “sweetened beverages,” which includes fruit juices, energy drinks, and sweetened teas, accounted for nearly 10 percent of the total amount of money spent on food.
“In this sense, SNAP is a multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy of the soda industry,” Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University told the New York Times. “It’s pretty shocking.”
Overall, SNAP users spent 22.8 percent of their benefit on sugary drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy, sugar, plus jams and sweets, and only 11.9 percent on fruits and vegetables. Families that don’t use the SNAP program spent 20 percent of their funds on those sweet items, and 16.3 percent on fruits and vegetables.
The multi-billion dollar, taxpayer funded food stamps program has become increasingly controversial thanks, in part, to its massive growth under President Obama.
More than 10.7 million more Americans — a 32 percent jump — have become reliant on food stamps to feed themselves since Obama took office in 2009, according to data released by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
And in that time, countless studies have been published and health experts have warned that restrictions are needed to curtail food stamp use to purchase unhealthy foods. Government watchdog groups have also called for tighter regulations as food stamp fraud remains a common and costly problem.
Food stamps have also become a major moneymaking market for some of  America’s biggest banks.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made by a handful of banks that help the U.S. government process payments to food stamps recipients.
“Three companies – J.P. Morgan EFS, Affiliated Computer Services, and eFunds – provide EBT services for 49 states and 3 US territories,” an investigation by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) found.
“Since 2004, 18 of 24 states who contract with J.P. Morgan to provide welfare benefits have contracted to pay $560,492,596.02,” the GAI investigation revealed. “New York alone has a seven-year contract worth $126,394,917.”
Profiting from poverty was apparently an “important business” for JP Morgan.
“This business is a very important business to JP Morgan,” Christopher Paton, the company’s former managing director of treasury services, told Bloomberg News in 2011. “It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale. We also regard it as very important in the sense that we are delivering a very useful social function. We are a key part of this benefit delivery mechanism. Right now volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years or so … The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.”
The president-elect has indicated that he wants to make cuts to various welfare programs and the Republican platform promises to separate the food stamps program from the Farm Bill, where SNAP funding is currently derived.

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson














THE TWISTED ROAD TO REVOLUTION CAME DOWN WALL STREET

FIRST









OBAMA –CLINTONOMICS FOR THE SUPER RICH









 









George Soros: Billionaire Terrorist
JUNE 20, 2016   AFP   12 COMMENTS
http://americanfreepress.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/25_26_Soros.jpg
• Extremely powerful “nation wrecker” driving force behind New World Order.
By Ronald L. Ray —
The subject of George Sorosborn Schwartz György, the super-wealthy slash-and-burn speculator and Jewish-Hungarian expatriate, is one always revealing new facets. Soros’s adventures in “nation-building” and “democratic revolution” are the left half of internationalist vise grips, set in so-called opposition to the “rightwing,” Trotskyite, neoconservative war hawks. While seemingly fighting each other, together both tighten the political hold on the peoples of the world, as they turn all toward a New World Order (NWO). The terrorist suspect’s most recent efforts through “open society” foundations he funds are bringing globalist gunpowder plots to places like Poland and Armenia, in the long march to make the world safe for plutocracy.
The typical American, brainwashed by the terminology of political “right” and “left,” often is puzzled by apparent inconsistencies in Soros’s behavior. On the one hand, the Jewish investor generally opposes Zionism and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, yet he is guilty of the worst forms of crony capitalism and exploitative libertarianism, while funding a variety of social uprisings. But, in reality, his views and practices are remarkably consistent.
Apparently, Soros learned his trading practices through the black market in Hungary’s “bad old days.” This amoral ruthlessness in pursuit of profit allowed him to amass a fortune of approximately $22 billion, while nearly destroying the currencies of Great Britain and Malaysia. He was convicted of insider trading by a French court, and Thailand branded him an “economic war criminal,” according to the online FrontPage Magazine.
From our perspective, it is this plutocratic piracy which is the leitmotiv of Soros’s life. Ultimately, he uses his political involvements as springboards to profit from the societal destruction he promotes, and his efforts to help establish a centrally planned globalist government are meant to protect his profiteering.
Thus, the recently installed nationalist/populist government of Poland—universally deemed, along with all other nationalist movements, as “extreme right wing” by the mainstream media myrmidons—has become a new target for Soros, the “stateless statesman” and international parasite.
According to an extensive article by Matthew Tyrmand of Breitbart on May 19, 2016, the Committee for Defense of Democracy (Komitet Obrony Demokracji, or KOD) sprang up shortly after Poles almost completely rejected the thoroughly corrupt major parties and remaining communist apparatchiks. This contrived “popular” opposition to the nationalists mirrors typical Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations elsewhere and is designed to reintegrate the local population into the European Union and NWO.
The KOD is well funded and shadowed everywhere by the Stefan Batory Foundation, which in turn is funded by Soros’s Warsaw Open Society Foundation. These groups exhibit the typical New Left defense of white genocide, open borders, exploitation of workers, and government by unelected technocrats. Soros and his ilk clearly cannot tolerate people with strong national identities, who might seek their own people’s welfare.
In Armenia, which is closely allied with Russia as a defense against their hereditary Turkish enemies, a phony “popular” opposition to the government has arisen, as well, funded by the Soros-backed CIA-front group, the National Endowment for Democracy. Here, the purpose is again to destroy strong nationalist opposition to the globalists’ desired hegemony through carefully orchestrated mobocracy.
Such Soros initiatives bear close watching as they typically develop into violent, sociopathic uprisings. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen recently exposed the deep roots of the erstwhile Hungarian’s harmful internationalism, which appear to include ties to organized terrorism.
According to Madsen, Soros began profitseeking infiltration efforts into Eastern Europe in 1984 through the Soros Foundation Budapest. After exploiting the “crash of 1987” for massive monetary gains, he started funneling what the CIA called “kosher cash” into anti-communist opposition groups to destabilize the government of then-Czechoslovakia. Soros financially supported Charter 77 and the likes of future Czech leader Vaclav Havel. But a declassified, redacted CIA report raises the question of whether anti-communist terror bombings at the time may also have been funded or even authorized by Soros.


What is not in question is Soros’s involvement in numerous similar activities for decades across the world. Hungary, Serbia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan as well as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq have all experienced the societally detrimental effects of Soros’s provocations.
Viktor Orban, prime minister of Hungary, recently criticized Soros for attempting to destabilize it and “trying to cause trouble,” in opposition to the will of the people, according to the online The Times of Israel. “Soros is opposing the government . . . by supporting non-governmental groups which want to push back [its] position on the migration issue,” said Orban.
Perhaps the capstone of the plutocrat’s power grab has been Ukraine, where his International Renaissance Foundation spent over $100 million to destroy the Russian-aligned country and establish an even more corrupt, genocidal puppet government. In this case, Soros proudly admits to being one of those who have funded the United States- and Israel-sponsored bloody coup and unabated civil war. He also has close ties to the oligarchs now ruling the beleaguered Slavic nation.
Soros likewise is busily dumping tens of billions of dollars into the accelerating white genocide through foreign invasion in Europe and the U.S., with the goal of destroying those regions’ historic cultures and peoples—including the Catholic Church. Another example, Black Lives Matter is attempting to incite an anti-white race war and has received tens of millions of dollars from Soros groups.
Soros is neither a philanthropist nor an entrepreneur. Based on his record, he is an international sponsor of terrorism, war, and genocide. He should be imprisoned and hanged for his crimes.
Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.

‘Refuse Fascism’ Group Behind Berkeley Riot Received $50k from George Soros

4



‘Refuse Fascism’ Group Behind Berkeley Riot Received $50k from George Soros
4
Protestors Bonfire
by CHARLIE NASH5 Feb 2017

One of the far-left “anti-fascist” groups behind last week’s riot in Berkeley, Refuse Fascism, received $50,000 from a group backed by socialist billionaire George Soros, according to the Daily Caller.

The Alliance for Global Justice, which is funded by the George Soros-backed Tides Foundation, reportedly donated $50,000 to fund Refuse Fascism, which openly brags about using violence to shut down conservative and libertarian speech.
“While it is unclear whether those who carried out the violence were paid to do so, the benefactors of the Alliance for Global Justice — and Refuse Fascism — are listed online,” reported the Daily Caller. “According to its most recent 990 tax form, Alliance for Global Justice (AfGJ) received $2.2 million in funding for the fiscal year ending in March 2016. One of the group’s biggest donors is the Tides Foundation, a non-profit funded by billionaire progressive philanthropist George Soros. Tides gave AfGJ $50,000.”
“Other notable donors include the city of Tucson and the United Steel Workers labor union. The former gave $10,000 to AfGJ while the latter contributed $5,000,” they continued. “Charities associated with several major corporations also donated. Patagonia.org, the outdoor apparel and equipment company, gave $40,000. The Ben & Jerry Foundation, the charity associated with the ice cream maker, gave $20,000. And Lush Cosmetic gave $43,950. Another bit of irony is seen in the $5,000 contribution from the Peace Development Fund, a group that claims to support organizations that fight for human rights and social justice.”
The group defended the violent riot at Berkeley on Facebook, which left numerous Trump supporters and fans of MILO injured and bloody, before deleting their post.
“Dismantling police fences is not violent,” they claimed, according to the Daily Caller, ignoring the rest of the violence that occured. “And to compare preventing someone like that from speaking to the real-world violence that they perpetuate everyday is ludicrous.”
Refuse Fascism also branded the riot as “righteous,” and encouraged more violence to shut down conservatives in a post on their website.
“Last night, thousands of students, professors and others protested the appearance and organizing rally of Milo Yiannopoulos, a major fascist operative, shutting it down. This was righteous and much more like this is needed,” the group proclaimed. “Lets be clear: Milo Yiannopoulos is not engaging in ‘free speech.’ He is consciously spearheading the Nazification of the American University.”
The riot started at UC Berkeley on Wednesday after protesters against Breitbart Senior Editor MILO became increasingly violent outside of his show.
“Anti-fascists” started several firessmashed windows and ATMs, looted downtown storesattacked cars, and assaulted dozens of MILO fans, male and female, who they falsely accused of being “Nazis.”
Despite the large amount of violence, numerous reports indicate that police officers refused to intervene, and only one suspect was arrested.
UFC veteran and professional MMA fighter Jake Shields was even forced to rescue a man who was being assaulted by left-wing rioters after police allegedly refused to intervene.
“Like fifteen people were trying to attack him and others were cheering them on,” explained Shields, who managed to successfully rescue the man, in an interview with Breitbart News. “No one helped, no one had the balls to step in, so my reaction was to run in and start picking people off.”

“More chaos started happening, so I went up to the police and tried bringing them back, but they were just like ‘we’re not really going over there. You should just stay away.’” he continued. “I don’t know if they were taking orders from someone or if they were just being lazy. I don’t know what the situation was, but it was pathetic to watch. Our police, who are supposed to defend the citizens of Berkeley. It’s a sad scene that they would allow that.”

Summer of Soros: Endless Immigration Protests Being Planned Across America
By Robert Jonathan
Newstarget.com, February 15, 2017

Soros-funded groups apparently plan to continue the protests all summer against ICE targeted apprehensions while feeding the most sympathetic, made-for-TV stories to a gullible and hysterical mainstream (or fake stream) media, World Net Daily claims. (RELATED: Read more about media fakery at Journalism.news.)

Through his Open Socity Foundation, billionaire Hillary Clinton supporter Soros reportedly provides the cash behind many social justice activist groups, rent-a-mobs, and think tanks all of which promote a collectivist agenda.

Under the lofty guise of building “tolerant societies” and “initiatives that advance justice,” Soros and his globalist minions are more interested in a borderless world and using covert operations to destabilize nations, Natural News previously insisted.
. . .
http://www.newstarget.com/2017-02-15-summer-of-soros-endless-immigration-protests-being-planned-across-the-america.html



Soros Behind Lawsuits Designed to Keep Borders Porous, Unsafe

FEBRUARY 17, 2017   CHRIS   1 COMMENT
http://americanfreepress.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/7_8_SS_Soros_Immigration.jpg
Is anyone really surprised that, behind efforts to undermine everything that is good and righteous in the United States, the familiar hand—and money—of billionaire slash and burn speculator George Soros is found? He broke the Bank of England and was prosecuted in France, yet the scheming globalist keeps popping up in the U.S.
By John Friend
On Jan. 27, President Donald Trump signed what has proved to be an extremely controversial executive order that temporarily bans visas and entry to the United States for individuals from seven predominantly Muslim countries that are vulnerable to terrorism. The countries, which include Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, had previously been identified by the Obama administration as countries whose citizens deserved closer scrutiny and a stronger vetting process before being granted a visa and entry into the United States.
http://americanfreepress.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/3_4_SS_Web_Advert_Bohemian-Grove.jpg
The hostile mass media and leftist activists were quick to denounce Trump’s rational and commonsense executive order as a blanket “Muslim ban,” stirring up echoes of racism and oppression. Protests were organized across the country at numerous major airports, while political leaders of both parties as well as some government bureaucrats and officials voiced their opposition and attempted to set up roadblocks to implementing and complying with Trump’s executive order.
Trump’s order has also run into countless legal and political obstacles, as federal judges have ruled the order is unconstitutional, while lawyers representing the Trump administration argue the order is well within the rights and duties of the executive branch.
Dozens of state attorneys general, mostly from states run by Democrats, as well as countless private legal organizations, including the ACLU, have brought lawsuits against the Trump administration relating to the executive order.
As was the case with many of the leading organizations that planned and organized the high-profile protests against Trump’s inauguration, it appears many of the legal challenges currently facing the Trump administration have been funded and instigated by left-wing billionaire agitator George Soros and other radical leftist activists.
“It shouldn’t surprise anyone that pressure groups funded by George Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America,” Matthew Vadum, who serves as senior vice president of Capitol Research Center, a D.C.-based think tank, recently stated. “Soros has said he wants to bring America down. Flooding the country with Muslim aliens who won’t assimilate is one way to do that.”
The uproar actually began only days after Trump signed the order.
On Jan. 30, Trump fired Sally Yates, the acting U.S. attorney general who had been appointed by former President Obama and was set to serve in the position until Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump’s pick to head the Justice Department, was officially confirmed. Ms. Yates openly defied the president and refused to enforce his order. What did she think was going to happen? Did she believe the White House would back down?
Following Ms. Yates’s dismissal, the Trump team chose Dana Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to replace the disgraced former acting attorney general, who Trump argued had “betrayed” the U.S. government and American people. Boente served as attorney general until Sessions was officially confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 8.
“Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration,” the Trump administration declared in a statement released following Ms. Yates’s termination. “It is time to get serious about protecting our country.”
The hysteria and mindless fury generated as a result of Trump’s executive order demonstrates once again the extreme hostility the mass media and political establishment have toward the Trump administration and its America-first mindset. Trump’s executive order is essentially following a proposal originally put forth and implemented by the Obama administration, which did not generate nearly as much controversy as Trump has with his recent order.
“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months,” Trump said in an official White House statement. “The seven countries named in the executive order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”
Trump went on to emphasize that his order is “not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.”
“This is not about religion. This is about terror and keeping our country safe,” Trump stated.
“There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.”

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.

No comments: