Thursday, September 13, 2018


Leaked Video: Google Executives Admit to Importing 10K Foreign Workers to Take U.S. Jobs


Silicon Valley giant Google employs nearly 10,000 foreign workers, importing them to the United States on visas, a newly leaked video obtained by Breitbart News reveals.

The video is a full recording of Google’s first all-hands meeting following the 2016 presidential election in which President Trump historically beat out Democrat Hillary Clinton. These Google meetings occur on a weekly basis and are known inside the company as “TGIF” meetings, short for “Thank God It’s Friday.”
In the Google meeting, Vice President of People Operations Eileen Naughton reveals the extent to which the tech conglomerate has imported and currently employs close to 10,000 foreign workers with plans to expand their foreign workforce population.
Naughton tells the room full of Google employees, who are called “Googlers” by the company:
First and foremost is immigration. We have nearly 10,000 Googlers in the U.S. on visas. Very understandably, those of you who are working here and have families here or are in the process of renewing or getting visas are probably very concerned.
Naughton then explains how President Obama’s administration readily allowed and invited Google and other tech corporations to import foreign workers instead of hiring American citizens.
“So here’s what we know, there is, for the time being, an absent any policy recommendation from the Obama administration, right, there’s no change,” Naughton says. “Googlers should not expect to be hassled, entering the border, there should be no change in your status.”
Google intends on importing to the U.S. and employing even more foreign workers, Naughton discloses:
We also know that the nature of the U.S. immigration system is such that it makes — and there are legal limitations — it makes immediate changes after January’s inauguration of the new administration highly unlikely. But we of course will keep a close watch on this. Our policy office in D.C. is all over it. And we will keep you informed, but we will keep Googlers’ interests at heart and we will of course fight to retain all the visas and then some, because we keep adding to this. [Emphasis added]
Every year, more than 100,000 foreign workers are brought to the U.S. on H-1B visas and are allowed to stay for up to six years. That number has ballooned to potentially hundreds of thousands each year, as universities and non-profits are exempt from the cap. With more foreign workers entering the U.S. through the visa system, Americans are often replaced and forced to train their foreign replacements. In the last decade, more than 2.6 million H-1B foreign workers were approved to take high-paying U.S. jobs.
The Trump administration has sought to clamp down on corporations outsourcing U.S. to cheaper, foreign workers through the H-1B visa. The pro-American reforms to the H-1B visa are expected to open up about 80,000 high-paying, white collar jobs for Americans over the next two years.
Naughton and Senior Vice President for Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer Kent Walker also promoted the corporation’s use of the H-1B visa to import and employ foreign workers, rather than Americans.
“I would believe, being pro-business as a Republican, [Trump] would understand the need of certain sectors to have H-1B visas, etc,” Naughton said.
Walker noted the monolithic, corporate open borders viewpoint among the Republican and Democratic political establishments on the H-1B visa and national immigration policy.
“The other thing to add to that, ever since we’ve been debating immigration reform, there’s been strong bipartisan consensus in both houses of Congress that H-1B visas are a great thing for the United States, as well as for the people that use it,” Walker said. “So I don’t see those majorities changing, in Congress changing.”
This year, alone, Google tried to import more than 5,200 foreign workers to take coveted, high-paying tech jobs in Silicon Valley. This would have added to the already nearly 10,000 foreign workers who are currently employed at Google, as revealed in the leaked video.
Google, along with other tech corporations like Cisco, Microsoft, and Facebook have been exposed for using Indian outsourcing firms like Tata Consulting Services and Infosys to hide the number of H-1B foreign workers they import annually.
Last year, Eric Schmidt — the top executive of Google’s parent company, Alphabet before leaving in January 2018 — said corporations should be allowed to import as many foreign workers as they want, without regard for whether Americans are replaced and displaced in the process.
“The stupidest policy in the entire American political system was the limit on H-1B visas,” Schmidt said at the time.
Analysis conducted last year revealed that despite the growing number of American STEM graduates every year, Americans are vastly outnumbered in Silicon Valley’s tech industry. About 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.
In 2017, the Trump administration set up an H-1B visa abuse hotline for American workers to email if they or their coworkers were being replaced by foreign workers. Last year, a total of more than 5,000 cases of H-1B visa abuse was reported.
Four million Americans turn 18 years old every year and begin looking for good jobs in the American economy, or enter higher education with the same goal. For decades, the federal government has inflated the supply of new labor by annually admitting more than 1.5 million new legal immigrants, providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by not effectively enforcing national immigration laws to block the employment of about 8 million illegal aliens.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder


“Records show that four out of Obama's top 

five contributors are employees of financial 

industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), 

UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase 

($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).”

This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”

“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
Why the swamp has little to fear

The midterm elections will either halt or hasten the current soft coup whose aim is to overthrow a legally elected President now being conducted by the swamp.   And if the history of Washington, D.C. corruption is any indication of what will happen after the midterms, the swamp will survive regardless of its coup's success or failure.  But the efforts to expose the treasonous plot will fade away into the dustbin of political history after being seen as just another waste of time and taxpayer money.  The seemingly endless parade of corruption scandals and mind-numbing criminal activity will go on unabated and continue to escalate to unimaginable heights because of an inescapable fact of human nature. 
In a Forbes 2015 article entitled "The Big Bank Bailout," author Mike Collins mentions several ways to prevent another housing bubble crisis from destroying the world economy when he writes, "But perhaps the best solution is to make the CEOs and top managers of the banks criminally liable for breaking these rules so that they fear going to jail.  These people are not afraid to do it again so if you can’t put some real fear in their heads, they will do it again."
What Collins has honed in on is accountability and punishment, the very things lacking in today's dealings with the swamp.  Just as the major banking institutions will soon, if not already, re-enter into risky, corrupt, and illegal lending practices because there was not a "smidgen" of accountability for the trillions of dollars they lost in the housing bubble catastrophe, so too will the past and presently unknown criminals within the IRS, FBI, and DOJ continue to thumb their noses at the law.
What the American people have been subjected to over the past 18 months since President Trump took office is a series of crimes that have been painstakingly unearthed but little else.  "Earth-shattering," "bombshell," and "constitutional crisis" are just some of the words and phrases used by media outlets to describe the newest update regarding the many ongoing investigations.  These words are meant to shock the audience but no longer have the impact they once did because of their overuse and because of the likely lack of any substantive outcome.  What Americans have seen are trials without consequences, clear proof of guilt with no punishment.  Draining the swamp without any repercussions to the swamp creatures inside is like going on a diet but eating the same foods.  
Americans witnessed no accountability regarding exhaustive investigations into the deadly circumstances surrounding the swamp's gun-walking campaign named Fast and Furious, a program where U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens were killed with guns the government sold to criminals.  The swamp continued on its power mission and attempted the deceitful confiscation of America's health care with Obamacare, whose real aim was a redistribution of the nation's wealth.  After little pushback and the passage of Obamacare,  Americans witnessed Benghazi in 2012, and when nothing was accomplished over the investigations of that tragedy, the swamp trampled on the rights of conservatives in what became known as the IRS scandal of 2013.  Nothing was done about that.  And on and on, with the swamp committing one bigger and bolder crime after the next with impunity. 
So we have arrived at the doorstep of the Russian collusion investigation farce by first traveling through the swamp of unsolved crimes perpetrated inside the Obama administration.  With the passage of time, swamp-dwellers like Eric Holder and Lois Lerner, knee-deep in the mud with congressional contempt charges, continue to be financially enriched and will slowly be forgotten, while more recognizable swamp royalty like Hillary Clinton get to run for president. 
Until Americans see guilty members within the United States government wearing orange jumpsuits and serving time, the investigations and congressional hearings are mere sideshow spectacles to appease the masses.

Who Can We Blame For The Great Recession?

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the “Great Recession” and the media are trying to determine if we have learned anything from it. The Queen visited the London School of Economics after the “Great Recession” to ask her chief economists why they hadn’t seen this disaster coming. They told her they would get back to her with an answer.  Later, they wrote her a letter saying that the best economic theory asserts that recessions are random events and they had successfully predicted that no one can predict recessions.  
Still, George Packer, a staff writer at the New Yorker magazine since 2003, thinks he knows more than the LSE academics. He wrote the following in the August 27 print issue:
"It was caused by reckless lending practices, Wall 

Street greed, outright fraud, lax government 

oversight in the George W. Bush years, and 

deregulation of the financial sector in the Bill 

Clinton years. The deepest source, going back decades, was rising inequality. In good times and bad, no matter which party held power, the squeezed middle class sank ever further into debt...
"In February, 2009, with the economy losing seven hundred thousand jobs a month, Congress passed a stimulus bill—a nearly trillion-dollar package of tax cuts, aid to states, and infrastructure spending, considered essential by economists of every persuasion—with the support of just three Republican senators and not a single Republican member of the House."

Typically, journalists will defer to an expert on matters in which they aren’t trained, which is most subjects. But Packer didn’t bother to ask an economist as the Queen did. Had he done so, he would have received the same answer from mainstream economists – recessions are random events and can’t be predicted. If economists knew the causes of recessions they could predict them when they see the causes present. 
So where did Packer get his “causes” for the latest recession? In the classic movie Casablanca, the corrupt and lazy policeman Renault is “shocked” to find gambling going on at Rick’s place and orders the others to round up the “usual suspects.” That’s what Packer does. People have blamed greedy businessmen and bankers for crises for centuries. Since the rise of socialism they added capitalism and the politicians who support it. The only new suspect in the socialist line up is inequality, even though inequality has varied little since 1900 and is near its record low since then.
Had Packer consulted the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, he wouldn’t have received much help. Keep in mind that mainstream economists think recessions are random events. After the storm subsides, they can identify likely contributors for the latest disaster, but those differ with each recession. Recently Chicago Booth queried experts for the top contributing factors of the latest recession. The top answer was flawed regulations, followed by underestimating risk and mortgage fraud. 
The “flawed regulations” excuse assumes that bitter bureaucrats who write the regulations are wiser than the actual bankers and ignores the fact that banking is one of the most regulated industries. One analyst described the recent recession as the perfect storm of regulations so massive no one group could understand them all and many of them working against other regulations. 
Blaming “underestimated risk” is good Monday morning quarterbacking. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight, or 50/50 as quarterback Cam Newton said. The same economists don’t explain why banks that took similar risks didn’t fail or why what seems risky now didn’t seem so risky in 2007. As for fraud, the amount was negligible and is always there; why did it contribute to a recession this time? Sadly, the correct answer to what caused the Great Recession– “Loose monetary policy” – came in next to last among Chicago Booth’s experts. 
Perspective is vital. A magnifying glass can make a lady bug look terrifying. Let’s pull back and put the latest recession in a broader context. There have been 47 recessions/depressions since the birth of the nation. Before the Great Depression economists called crises “depressions” and since then they are “recessions.” They’re the same thing; economists thought “recession” was less scary. 
Recessions before the Great Depression were mild compared to it. It took the Federal Reserve and the US government working together trying to “rescue” us to plunge the country into history’s worst economic disaster. Journalists like Packer have convinced people that the Great Recession of 2008 was second only to the Great Depression, but if we combine the recessions of 1981 and 1982, separated only by a technicality and six months, that recession would have been worse. The Fed did not reduce interest rates after that recession because it was still battling the inflation it has caused in the 1970s, yet the economy bounced back and recovery lasted almost a decade. 
I want to drive home the fact that the three worst recessions in our history assaulted us after the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. 
The best explanation of the causes of recessions, because it enjoys the greatest empirical support, is the Austrian business-cycle theory, or ABCT. Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek are most famous for refining and expounding it, but the English economists of the Manchester school were the first to write about it. They discovered that expansions of the money supply through low interest rates motivated businesses to borrow and invest at a rapid rate. That launches an unsustainable boom because businesses are trying to deploy more capital goods than exist. Banks raise rates to rein in galloping inflation and the boom turns to dust. 
Banks don’t control interest rates today as they did in the past. That’s the Federal Reserve’s job. The Fed generally reduces interest rates or expands the money supply through “quantitative easing,” or buying bonds from banks, in order to force an economy in the ditch to climb out. The recovery from the Great Recession remained on its feet for so long because the Fed’s policy of paying interest on reserves at banks soaked up much of the new money it created out of thin air. Also, much of the money went overseas to buy imports or as investments. 
The lesson – don’t ask medical advice from your plumber or economics from a journalist. And if you ask an economist, make sure he follows the Austrian school. 

Ten years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers

15 September 2018
Ten years ago on this day, the global capitalist system entered its most far-reaching and devastating crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. A decade later none of the contradictions which produced the financial crisis has been alleviated, much less overcome. Moreover, the very policies carried out to prevent a total meltdown of the financial system, involving the outlay of trillions of dollars by the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks, have only created the conditions for an even bigger disaster.
The immediate trigger for the onset of the crisis was the decision by US financial authorities not to bail out the 158-year-old investment bank Lehman Brothers and prevent its bankruptcy. There is considerable evidence to suggest that this was a deliberate decision by the Federal Reserve to create the necessary conditions for what they knew would have to be a massive bailout, not just of a series of banks but the entire financial system.
The previous March, the Fed had organised a $30 billion rescue of Bear Stearns when it was taken over by JP Morgan. But as the Fed’s own minutes from that time make clear the Bear Stearns crisis was just the tip of a huge financial iceberg. The Fed noted that “given the fragile conditions of the financial markets at the time” and the “expected contagion” that would result from its demise it was necessary to organise a bailout. As Fed chairman Ben Bernanke later testified, a sudden failure would have led to a “chaotic unwinding” of positions in financial markets. The bailout of Bear Stearns was not a solution but a holding operation to try to buy time and prepare for what was coming.
While the demise of Lehman was the initial trigger, the most significant event was the impending bankruptcy, revealed just two days later, of the American insurance firm AIG, which was at the centre of a system of complex financial products running into trillions of dollars.
Due to the interconnections of the global financial system, the crisis rapidly extended to financial markets around the world, above all across the Atlantic to Europe where the banks had been major investors in the arcane financial instruments that had been developed around the US sub-prime home mortgage market, the collapse of which provided the immediate trigger for the crisis.
The value of every crisis, it has been rightly said, is that it reveals and starkly lays bare the underlying socio-economic and political relations that are concealed in “normal” times. The collapse of 2008 is no exception.
In the twenty years and more preceding the crisis, particularly in the aftermath of the liquidation of the Soviet Union in 1991, the bourgeoisie and its ideologists had proclaimed not only the superiority of the capitalist “free market” but that it was the only possible socio-economic form of organisation. Basing themselves on the false identification of the Stalinist regime with socialism, they maintained that its liquidation signified that Marxism was forever dead and buried. In particular, Marx’s analysis of the fundamental and irresolvable contradictions of the capitalist mode of production had proved to be false. According to the central foundation for what passed for theoretical analysis, the so-called “efficient markets hypothesis,” a financial meltdown was impossible because with the development of advanced technologies all information had been priced into decision making and so a financial collapse was impossible.
Rarely have the nostrums of the bourgeoisie and its ideologists been so graphically exposed.
Two days after the crisis erupted, President George W. Bush declared “this sucker’s going down.” Later, the high priest of capitalism and its “free market,” the now bewildered former head of the US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, testified to the US Congress that he had been completely confounded because markets had failed to behave according to his “model” and its assumptions.
The crisis also exposed in full glare another of the central myths of the capitalist order—that the state is somehow a neutral or independent organisation committed to regulating social and economic affairs in the interests of society as a whole.
It confirmed another central tenet of Marxism, expounded more than 170 years ago, that “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie.”
This was exemplified in the naked class response to the financial meltdown. The plans, already developed by the Fed and other authorities to cover the losses of the financial elite, whose speculative and in many cases outright criminal activities had sparked the crisis, were put into operation.
In the lead-up to the presidential election of November 4, Wall Street swung its support behind Obama—with the media promoting him as the candidate of “hope” and “change you can believe in”—over McCain. The Democrats had committed themselves to the bailout, securing the passage of the $700 billion TARP asset-purchasing program through Congress. This massive increase in the national debt of the United States was authorised with virtually no debate.
Of course, a new political fiction was immediately advanced. It was necessary to bail out Wall Street first, the public was told, in order to assist Main Street. However, this lie was rapidly exposed. The crisis was the starting point for a massive assault on the working class. While bankers and financial speculators continued to receive their bonuses, millions of American families lost their homes. Tens of millions were made unemployed.
In the following year, the rescue operation organised by the Obama administration of Chrysler and General Motors, with the active and full collaboration of the United Auto Workers union, resulted in the development of new forms of exploitation, above all through the two-tier wages system, paving the way for even more brutal systems such as those pioneered by Amazon.
This was the other side of a Wall Street bailout—a massive restructuring of class relations in line with the edict of Obama’s one-time chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to “never let a serious crisis go to waste” because it provides “an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
The same class response was in evidence elsewhere. After the initial effects of the crisis had been overcome, the European bourgeoisie initiated an austerity drive forcing up youth unemployment to record levels. In Britain workers have endured a sustained decline in real wages not seen in more than a century.
The most egregious expression of this class logic has been seen in Greece with the imposition of poverty levels last seen in the Great Depression of the 1930s. The numerous bailout operations were never aimed at “rescuing” the Greek economy and its population but directed to extracting the resources to repay the major banks and financial institutions.
The crisis revealed the real nature of bourgeois democracy. The euro zone and the European Union were exposed as nothing more than a mechanism for the dictatorship of European finance capital. As one of the chief enforcers of its diktats, the former German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble, declared, in the face of popular opposition, “elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy.”
As the working class in every country confronts stagnant and declining wages, falling living standards, the scrapping of secure employment and attacks on social services, leading to mounting health and other problems, innumerable reports and data chart the development of a global system in which wealth is siphoned up the income scale.
According to the latest Wealth-X World Ultra Wealth Report some 255,810 “ultra-high net worth” individuals, with a minimum of $30 million in wealth, now collectively own $31.5 trillion, more than the bottom 80 percent of the world’s population—comprising 5.6 billion people. Overall the wealth of this cohort increased by 16.3 percent in 2016–17, rising by 13.1 percent in North America, 13.5 percent in Europe and 26.7 percent in Asia.
The full significance of the bailouts of the financial system and the subsequent provision of trillions of dollars is clear. It has brought about the institutionalisation of a process, developing over the preceding decades, where the financial system, with the stock market at its centre, functions as a mechanism for the transfer of wealth to the heights of society.
In its analysis of the financial crisis, the World Socialist Web Site insisted from the outset that this was not a conjunctural development, from which there would be a “recovery,” but a breakdown of the entire capitalist mode of production.
That analysis has been completely confirmed. While a total financial meltdown was prevented, the diseases of the profit system that gave rise to the crisis have not been overcome. Rather, they have metastasised and mutated into new and even more malignant forms.
The actions of the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks in pumping trillions of dollars into the financial system in order to “rescue” it, and to enable the continuation of the very forms of speculation that led to the crisis, have only created the conditions for a new disaster in which the central banks themselves will be directly involved.
This fact of economic and financial life can even be seen in the comments by bourgeois analysts and pundits on the occasion of the upcoming anniversary. While they generally maintain that the financial system has been “strengthened” since 2008—a completely worthless assertion given that it was held to be strong in the lead up to the crash and any warnings of growing risks were dismissed as “Luddite” by such luminaries as former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers—no one dares to proclaim that the underlying problems have been resolved.
Rather, taking heed from the warning of JP Morgan chief Jamie Dimon that while the trigger for the next crisis will not be the same as the last but “there will be another crisis”, they nervously scan the horizon for signs of where it might strike.
Some analysts point to the rise in global debt, which is now running at 217 percent of gross domestic product, an increase of 40 percentage points since 2007, contrary to all expectations that, since debt was a major cause of the 2008 crisis, some deleveraging would have occurred.
Others single out the mounting problems in so-called emerging markets facing repayments on dollar-denominated loans, a source of speculation when interest rates were at record lows but which now present major refinancing problems as interest rates have started to rise.
The seemingly unstoppable rise of stock markets, fuelled by the provision of ultra-cheap money by the Fed and other central banks, is also an issue of concern. The increased use of passive investment funds tied to global indexes via computer trading systems tends to reinforce downswings as has been seen in a series of “flash crashes” such as that of last February when Wall Street fell by as much as 1,600 points in intraday trading.
The greatest source of anxiety, although it is not mentioned so much publicly, is the resurgence of the working class and the push for increased wages. To the extent it is discussed publicly, this fear, manifested in stock market falls generated by news of relatively small wage increases, is generally couched in terms of “political tensions” caused by increased social inequality.
A further expression of the ongoing and deepening breakdown of the capitalist order is the disintegration of all the geo-political structures and relationships that have constituted the framework within which the movements of capitalist economy and finance have flowed throughout the post-war period.
In the wake of the 2008 crisis, the leaders of the G20 gathered in April 2009, in the midst of a collapse in world trade taking place at a faster rate than in 1930. They pledged to never again go down the road of the protectionist tariff policies that had played such a disastrous role in the Great Depression and had worked to create the conditions for the outbreak of World War II, just ten years after the Wall Street crash of October 1929.
That commitment lies in tatters as the Trump administration, seeking to counter the economic decline of the US so graphically revealed in the 2008 collapse, embarks on ever widening trade war measures.
The principal target, at least to this point, is China. But the Trump administration has designated the European Union as an economic “foe,” and has already implemented trade war measures against it, with more in the pipeline.
The G7, the grouping of major capitalist powers set up in the wake of the world recession of 1974–75 and the end of the post-war boom to try to regulate the affairs of world capitalism, exists in name only following the acrimonious split at its meeting last June with the US decision to impose tariffs against its nominal “strategic allies.”
World war has not yet broken out. But there are innumerable flashpoints—in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, in North East Asia and in the South China Sea to cite just some examples—where a conflict could erupt between nuclear-armed powers. The impetus for a new global conflagration is the drive by US imperialism to counter its economic decline by asserting its dominance over the Eurasian landmass at the expense of its enemies and allies alike.
It is of enormous significance that the civil war that has erupted in the American state apparatus between the state and military-intelligence apparatus, whose mouthpiece is the Democratic Party, and the Trump administration is over how this objective should be accomplished; that is, whether the American drive should be directed in the first instance against Russia or China. At the same time, all the major powers are boosting their military budgets in preparation for the escalation of military conflicts.
The political system in every country is beset by deep crisis. The very rapidity of the crisis is accentuating the contradictions between the objective dangers and the level of class consciousness. The chief obstacle to achieving the necessary alignment of working class consciousness with the objective reality of capitalist crisis on a world scale remains the reactionary political role of the old bureaucratised labour and trade union organisations, abetted by the various pseudo-left tendencies, in suppressing the class struggle. But the conditions are developing for these shackles to be broken.
In the founding program of the Fourth International, Leon Trotsky wrote: “The orientation of the mass is determined first by the objective conditions of decaying capitalism, and second, by the treacherous policies of the old workers’ organisations. Of these factors, the first, of course, is the decisive one: the laws of history are stronger than the bureaucratic apparatus.”
That perspective is now being confirmed in the resurgence of the class struggle internationally, above all in the centre of world capitalism, the United States.
Conscious of their profound weakness in the face of such a movement, and fully aware of its revolutionary implications, the ruling classes in every country have been developing ever-more authoritarian forms of rule.
Their greatest fear is the development of political consciousness, that is, the understanding in wider sections of the working class, and above all the youth, of its real situation, that its enemy is the entire capitalist system. Above all, the ruling elites fear the development of a revolutionary socialist movement, based on the principles and program of the Fourth International. This is why the World Socialist Web Site is the central target of internet censorship. It is also the reason for the escalation of attacks by the German coalition government on the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei, the German section of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI).
But the efforts to suppress the work of the International Committee will fail. The renewal of class struggle will provide new forces for the development of the working of the ICFI throughout the world.
The meltdown of 2008 demonstrated above all that the working class confronts a global crisis. The crisis can therefore be resolved only on a global scale through the unification of the working class across national borders and barriers on the basis of an international socialist program for the reconstruction of society to meet human need and not profit.
Nick Beams




Those are the subliterate, low-skill, non-English-speaking indigents whose own societies are unable or unwilling to usefully educate and employ them. Bring these people here and they not only need a lot of services, they are putty in the hands of leftist demogogues as Hugo Chavez demonstrated - and they are very useful as leftist voters who will support the Soros agenda.

"One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan 

Chase, issued an internal report on the eve of the 10th 

anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another 

“great liquidity crisis” was possible, and that a government 

bailout on the scale of that effected by Bush and Obama

will produce social unrest, “in light of the potential impact of 

central bank actions in driving inequality between asset 



Chris White | Energy Reporter

JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon said Wednesday morning that he could beat President Donald Trump in 2020, but by mid-afternoon the executive was apologizing for his bawdy talk.

“I think I could beat Trump,” Dimon said at an event Wednesday morning intended to celebrate JP Morgan’s philanthropy. “I’m as tough as he is, I’m smarter than he is.”

The bank later sent out a statement from the chief executive doing an about-face.

“I should not have said it. I’m not running for president,” the statement notes. “Proves I wouldn’t make a good politician. I get frustrated because I want all sides to come together to help solve big problems.”

The two men have a rocky relationship. 

Dimon was a member of the president’s strategy and policy forum before leaving in 2017 following fallout from the Charlottesville riot. Trump campaigned for president on a broadly populist message, painting himself as someone who would stand up to Wall Street and globalism.

“It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class,” he said in one ad, “stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.”

Trump criticized Dimon in 2013 for supposedly contributing to the country’s economic downturn.

“I’m not Jamie Dimon, who pays $13 billion to settle a case and then pays $11 billion to settle a case and who I think is the worst banker in the United States,” he told reporters.




 "The report was drafted in conjunction with a survey conducted among nearly 1,000 banking and business executives, government officials and academics, which found that 93 percent of them feared a worsening of confrontations between the major powers in 2018. Fully 79 percent foresaw a heightened threat of a major “state-on-state” military conflict."

"One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another “great liquidity crisis” was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, “in light of the potential impact of central bank actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor."


It will more likely come on the heels of economic dislocation and dwindling wealth to redistribute.”

"The kind of people needed for violent change these days are living in off-the-grid rural compounds, or the “gangster paradise” where the businesses of drugs, guns, and prostitution are much more lucrative than “transforming” America along  Cuban lines." BRUCE THORNTON

There can be no resolution to any social problem confronting the population in the United States and internationally outside of a frontal assault on the wealth of the financial elite. 

The political system is controlled by this social layer, which uses a portion of its economic plunder to bribe politicians and government officials, whether Democratic or Republican.

OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM destroyed a 11 TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity… and they’re still plundering us!

Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US

history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.

OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went to the top 1% of the world’s wealthy. 

Obama orchestrated the greatest transfer of wealth to the rich in U.S. history!



collapse of household income in the US… STILL BILLIONS IN WELFARE HANDED TO ILLEGALS… they already get our jobs and are voting for more!


Income inequality grows FOUR TIMES FASTER under Obama than Bush.

“By the time of Bill Clinton’s election in 1992, the Democratic Party had completely repudiated its association with the reforms of the New Deal and Great Society periods. Clinton gutted welfare programs to provide an ample supply of cheap labor for the rich (WHICH NOW MEANS OPEN BORDERS AND NO E-VERIFY!), including a growing layer of black capitalists, and passed the 1994 Federal Crime Bill, with its notorious “three strikes” provision that has helped create the largest prison population in the world.”

A week of crisis and deepening dysfunction in US politics

10 September 2018
Every day last week brought new demonstrations of an unprecedented crisis within the Trump White House and US state apparatus. The Trump administration is torn by internal divisions, amidst palace coup conspiracies involving the corporate media and sections of the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as the Democratic Party.
On Tuesday, initial reports on the new book by Bob Woodward portrayed top Trump aides deriding his intelligence and even sanity, working behind the scenes to derail his most inflammatory orders—such as a demand for the assassination of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Trump administration officials were carrying out what Woodward characterized as “an administrative coup d’état,” i.e., disobeying his wishes and carrying out their own.
The next day, the New York Times made public an op-ed, written for its Thursday print edition, in which an unnamed “senior administration official” presented himself as the spokesman for a cabal of top officials working to keep Trump in check. “We are the real resistance,” the official claimed, making clear his support for the main elements of the administration’s right-wing program.
On Friday, Barack Obama weighed in with a campaign-style speech—unusual for an ex-president in the first election after leaving office—in which he described the Trump administration as “radical” and “not normal.” He called on Republicans, conservatives and Christian fundamentalists to vote for Democratic candidates in November, to “restore sanity” in Washington and allow a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to provide an institutional check on Trump.
President Trump responded in kind. On Monday, he attacked his own attorney-general, Jeff Sessions, for not quashing Justice Department investigations into two Republican congressmen indicted on criminal charges of stock market swindling and theft. On Tuesday he denounced the Woodward book as a fabrication, and on Wednesday he called the New York Times op-ed an act of treason. On Thursday, he told a campaign rally in Montana that they had to vote Republican in November to prevent his impeachment. On Friday, he tweeted his demand that Sessions have the Justice Department investigate the New York Times op-ed and identify the anonymous writer.
Top Trump aides like chief of staff John Kelly, national security advisor John Bolton, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly met with Trump Thursday in an effort to convince him that none of them was the author of the op-ed and that he could still trust his inner circle. Some two dozen top officials issued formal denials that they were the anonymous writer.
There is simply no precedent in modern American history for such a level of political conflict and dysfunction within the leading institutions of the capitalist state. How is this to be explained? What direction will the crisis take?
It is entirely superficial to root such an explanation in the personality of Donald Trump. Even Obama in his Illinois speech admitted that Trump is not the cause, but merely the symptom, of more profound processes. But Obama, of course, 

covered up his own role, depicting his 

presidency as eight years of heroic efforts 

to repair the damage caused by the 2008 

financial crash. At the end of those eight 

years, however, Wall Street and the 

financial oligarchy were fully recovered, 

enjoying record wealth, while working 

people were poorer than before, a 

widening social chasm that made possible

the election of the billionaire con man and

demagogue in November 2016.
This social crisis underlies the political convulsions in Washington. There are, of course, political differences within the two factions fighting it out within the ruling elite. They are deeply divided over foreign policy, particularly over how to deal with the failure of US intervention in Syria and the Middle East more broadly, and over whether to target Russia or China first in the struggle to maintain the global dominance of American imperialism. The most significant passage in Obama’s speech was his criticism of the Republican Party for having retreated from its Cold War, anti-Communist roots by tolerating Trump’s supposed “softness” toward Putin.
More fundamental, however, is the growing concern within all sections of the ruling elite over the possibility of a renewed economic crisis under conditions of mounting social opposition from below, following the initial stirrings of the American working class this year—the series of statewide teachers’ strikes, the mounting resistance of industrial workers to sellout contracts imposed by the unions, and the buildup of anger over super-exploitation by giant employers like Amazon and Walmart.
Facing an impending eruption of the class struggle, there is little confidence in corporate boardrooms, on Wall Street, or at the Pentagon and CIA that the current chief executive of the American government can meet the test of great events.
One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another “great liquidity crisis” was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, “in light of the potential impact of central bank actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor.”
The report went on to note that political explosions on the scale of 1968 could develop, facilitated by the role of the internet as a means of dissemination for radical political views and a means of political self-organization. “The next crisis is also likely to result in social tensions similar to those witnessed 50 years ago in 1968,” the bank report warned. “Similar to 1968, the internet today (social media, leaked documents, etc.) provides millennials with unrestricted access to information … In addition to information, the internet provides a platform for various social groups to become more self-aware, polarized, and organized.”
The ruling class response to this danger is to prepare domestic repression on a massive scale. In that respect, there is no difference between Trump and his opponents, except the ferocious disagreement over who should be in control of the forces of repression that will be unleashed against the American working class. Trump, of course, is an authoritarian through and through, organizing a fascistic attack on immigrant workers and developing tools that will be used against the entire working class.
However, his opponents, utilizing of the methods of the palace coup—intrigues, leaks, media smears, special prosecutors and other provocations—are no more wedded to democratic forms than Trump. The essence of the drive to censor the internet, spearheaded by the Democratic Party, is revealed by the JP Morgan report: it is the platform for “social groups,” above all, the working class, “to become more self-aware.”
As one of Trump’s leading media critics, Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum, a frothing anti-communist, wrote Sunday, “Maybe we have also underestimated the degree to which our Constitution, designed in the 18th century, has proved insufficient to the demands of the 21st.”
Trump’s political opponents seek to use the Democratic Party campaign in the November elections both to further the preparations for repression and to disguise them from working people. The disguise is provided by a handful of self-styled leftwing and even “socialist” candidates for the House of Representatives, many aligned with Bernie Sanders, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley.
The substance is provided by the much larger number of Democratic candidates drawn directly from the military-intelligence apparatus, nearly three dozen in all, who will hold the balance of power if the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives. The policy the Democrats will pursue if they win the election has already been demonstrated by the anti-Russia campaign and the accompanying demands for internet censorship.
Whatever the outcome of the elections, it will not resolve the crisis in Washington nor alter the basic trajectory of politics, which is bringing the working class into explosive conflict with the ruling class, the entire state apparatus, and the capitalist system.





"The larger fear is that Obama might be just another 

corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when 

they claim to be all for the common guy."

"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview.  Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan

“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG

It will more likely come on the heels of economic dislocation and dwindling wealth to redistribute.”
"The kind of people needed for violent change these days are living in off-the-grid rural compounds, or the “gangster paradise” where the businesses of drugs, guns, and prostitution are much more lucrative than “transforming” America along  Cuban lines." BRUCE THORNTON

There can be no resolution to any social problem confronting the population in the United States and internationally outside of a frontal assault on the wealth of the financial elite. 

 The political system is controlled by this social layer, which uses a portion of its economic plunder to bribe politicians and government officials, whether Democratic or Republican.


The Democratic Party used to be the party of blue collar America- supporting laws and policies that benefited that segment of the U.S. population.  Their leaders may still claim to be advocates for American working families, however their duplicitous actions that betray American workers and their families, while undermining national security and public safety, provide clear and incontrovertible evidence of their lies…. MICHAEL CUTLER …FRONTPAGE mag

What did Obama do for black Americans during the 8 years he and Holder were sabotaging our laws and borders to get more Mexicans into our voting booths?!?


"But the Obamas are the center of the most delusional cult of personality that the media has yet spawned. And so we get bizarre pieces like these."
The mullahs rolled in cash as a result of rolling Obama and his gullible team over the deal, knowing that Obama was desperate for some sort of legacy.  MONICA SHOWALTER







“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of  groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”



"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview.  Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan

"We know that Obama and his inner circle have set up a war room in his D.C.

home to plan and execute resistance to the Trump administration and his legislative

agenda.  None of these people care about the American people, or the fact that

Trump won the election because millions of people voted for him."  

Patricia McCarthy / AMERICAN




"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview.  Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan




Now the outlines of a Watergate-like conspiracy are emerging in which a sitting Democrat president apparently used the apparatus of the state to spy on a Republican presidential candidate. Watergate differed in that President Nixon didn’t get involved in the plot against the Democratic National Committee until later as an accomplice after the fact. Here Obama likely masterminded or oversaw someone like the diabolical Benghazi cover-up artist Ben Rhodes, masterminding the whole thing.


"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview.  Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power." Karin McQuillan


Democrats Move Towards 

‘Oligarchical Socialism,’ Says 

Forecaster Joel Kotkin


Associated Press

Left-wing progressives are embracing a political alliance with Silicon Valley oligarchs who would trap Americans in a cramped future without hope of upward mobility for themselves or their children, says a left-wing political analyst in California.

Under the headline “America is moving toward an oligarchical socialism,” Joel Kotkin writes:
Historically, liberals advocated helping the middle class achieve greater independence, notably by owning houses and starting companies. But the tech oligarchy — the people who run the five most capitalized firms on Wall Street — have a far less egalitarian vision. Greg Fehrenstein, who interviewed 147 digital company founders, says most believe that “an increasingly greater share of economic wealth will be generated by a smaller slice of very talented or original people. Everyone else will increasingly subsist on some combination of part-time entrepreneurial ’gig work‘ and government aid.”
Numerous oligarchs — Mark Zuckerberg, Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, founder of the Y Combinator — have embraced this vision including a “guaranteed wage,” usually $500 or a $1,000 monthly. Our new economic overlords are not typical anti-tax billionaires in the traditional mode; they see government spending as a means of keeping the populist pitchforks away. This may be the only politically sustainable way to expand “the gig economy,” which grew to 7 million workers this year, 26 percent above the year before.
Handouts, including housing subsidies, could guarantee for the next generation a future not of owned houses, but rented small, modest apartments. Unable to grow into property-owning adults, they will subsist while playing with their phones, video games and virtual reality in what Google calls “immersive computing.”
This plan, however, is being challenged by the return of populism and nationalism when President Donald Trump defeated the GOP’s corporatist candidates and the progressives’ candidate in 2016. In his 2017 inauguration, Trump declared:
For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes starting right here and right now because this moment is your moment, it belongs to you …
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.
For several years, Kotkin has been dissecting the Democrats’ shift from working-class politics toward a tacit alliance with the billionaires in the new information-technology industries that are centralizing wealth and power through the United States. In 2013, for example, he argued that California’s politics were increasingly “feudal“:
As late as the 80s, California was democratic in a fundamental sense, a place for outsiders and, increasingly, immigrants—roughly 60 percent of the population was considered middle class. Now, instead of a land of opportunity, California has become increasingly feudal. According to recent census estimates, the state suffers some of the highest levels of inequality in the country. By some estimates, the state’s level of inequality compares with that of such global models as the Dominican Republic, Gambia, and the Republic of the Congo.
At the same time, the Golden State now suffers the highest level of poverty in the country—23.5 percent compared to 16 percent nationally—worse than long-term hard luck cases like Mississippi. It is also now home to roughly one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients, almost three times its proportion of the nation’s population.
Like medieval serfs, increasing numbers of Californians are downwardly mobile, and doing worse than their parents: native born Latinos actually have shorter lifespans than their parents, according to one recent report. Nor are things expected to get better any time soon. According to a recent Hoover Institution survey, most Californians expect their incomes to stagnate in the coming six months, a sense widely shared among the young, whites, Latinos, females, and the less educated.
Read Kotkin’s “oligarchal socialism” article here.



“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG


This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”

'Incompetent' and 'liar' among most frequently used words to describe the president: Pew Research Center
The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy.


The Obamas live the 1% life



“The response of the administration was to rush to

the defense of the banks. Even before coming to 

power, Obama expressed his unconditional 

support for the bailouts, which he subsequently 

expanded. He assembled an administration 

dominated by the interests of finance capital, 

symbolized by economic adviser Lawrence 

Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy 



Obama warns against “cynicism” at Ohio State commencement address

At a commencement address on Sunday at Ohio State University, President Barack Obama counseled students not to be “cynical” about government and politics.

There was an almost comically absurd element to Obama’s remarks, delivered with his characteristic demagogy and attempted gestures at profundity. In his first four years in office, along with the first months of his second term, Obama proceeded to systematically repudiate every campaign pledge and to deflate every illusion that, with the assistance of a highly coordinated marketing campaign, led millions of people, including a large number of young people, to vote for him in 2008.
The Obama administration handed trillions of dollars to the banks; has overseen a massive attack on public education; is leading the campaign to slash Social Security and Medicare, the core federal retirement and health care programs; expanded the war in Afghanistan, led a war against Libya, and is preparing a new war in Syria; and has asserted the right to kill anyone, anywhere, including US citizens, without due process.
After this record of service to the corporate elite, he declares: “When we turn away and get discouraged and cynical… we grant our silent consent to someone who will gladly claim it. That’s how we end up with lobbyists who set the agenda; and policies detached from what middle class families face every day; the well-connected who publicly demand that Washington stay out of their business—and then whisper in government’s ear for special treatment that you don’t get.”
The references to the “whispers” of the wealthy and well-connected is particularly rich, coming only a week after Obama nominated Penny Pritzker for commerce secretary. The selection of Pritzker—a longtime Obama confidant, billionaire heiress and owner of a private equity company—only underscores the fact that the administration is a government of, by and for the financial aristocracy. She will be the wealthiest person ever to serve in a presidential cabinet.

Previous to his appointment of Pritzker, Obama appointed Mary Jo White to head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), one of the main financial regulators. White made millions of dollars as an attorney for banks responsible for the financial crisis, including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, whose CEO, Jamie Dimon, called White the “perfect choice” to head the SEC.
Practically every cabinet appointee of Obama’s has close personal connections to the ruling class, many having come directly from corporate boardrooms. Under Obama’s watch not a single executive at a major financial firm has been criminally tried, much less sent to jail, for their role in the financial crisis.

As a whole, Obama’s speech was characterized by a complete separation from the actual conditions facing the graduates he spoke to, who confront joblessness, falling wages, and a lifetime in debt. “You have every reason to believe that your future is bright,” he told his audience. “You’re graduating into an economy and a job market that is steadily healing.”

He added later, “The trajectory of this great nation should give you hope.” Really? This is under conditions in which over 11 percent of college graduates are unemployed a year after getting out of school, and another 16.1 percent simply drop out of the labor force, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Most of those who do find a job are paid barely enough to get by, let alone pay off student loans. Wages for young adults are falling faster than any other part of the population, and are down by 6 percent in the past four years.
Most of the students that Obama addressed Sunday will be so burdened with debt that they will delay or have to completely put off starting a family or buying a home.

It is not surprising that Obama should neglect to dwell on this disastrous situation, because his administration bears responsibility for it. In the government-sponsored restructuring of the auto industry, the White House insisted that the wages of new-hires be slashed in half, setting the stage for vast reduction of wages throughout the economy.

Obama sought to paint opposition to the government’s violation of democratic rights as right-wing hysterics. “Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity,” Obama said. “They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.”

This comes from a president who has personally overseen the illegal assassination of thousands of people, including at least three American citizens, in weekly “Terror Tuesday” meetings. The assertions of executive power have been systematically expanded, going beyond those claimed even by the Bush administration. The specter of a police state—the response of the ruling class to growing social opposition—is in fact lurking around the corner.
The moribund state of American politics, of which the Obama administration is a principal expression, is, according to the president, the fault of the American people. “Democracy doesn’t function without your active participation,” he admonished. If politicians “don’t represent you the way you want… you’ve got to let them know that’s not okay. And if they let you down, there’s a built-in day in November where you can really let them know that’s not okay.”

Such limp efforts to encourage illusions in the viability of the “democratic process” in the United States will not go very far. The experience of the past four years has not passed in vain. Millions of people, including many of those in the audience at Ohio State, are drawing the quite justified, if “cynical,” conclusion that the entire political and economic system is rotten to the core.




“Democrats Move Towards ‘Oligarchical Socialism,’ Says Forecaster Joel Kotkin.”

Obama Mocks Trump's 'Economic Miracle': Don't Forget When the Recovery Started

President Obama accepted an ethics award from the University of Illinois in Champaign, IL, Friday before delivering a speech to his audience of college students. Raised in Chicago, Obama said it "was good to be home," before making a few local references that delighted the students.
Obama's main objective, however, was to offer voters a message for the midterms. He did so by suggesting he and Democrats deserved the credit for the improving jobs numbers. Republicans in Congress and the Trump team have been promoting the stats. The U.S. added 201,000 jobs and wage gains increased to 2.9 percent in August.