Albert Einstein’s Anti-War Agenda by Stephen Lendman



Today we face one of the most perilous times in world history – with the November 13 Paris false flag and Turkey’s aggression against Russia, and with full US-dominated NATO support.

In the wake of Paris and Washington’s complicity with Erdogan’s bandit act, an article days earlier said the Doomsday Clock inched closer to midnight.  

The threat of possible global war with nuclear weapons should terrify everyone. Public complacency and ignorance in America and other Western societies make the unthinkable possible. The horror of potential nuclear war looms. 

November 25 marks the centennial anniversary of Einstein’s famous theory of relativity, revolutionizing science, making him internationally renown for his important achievement. 

Less well-known were his views on the horrors of war – important to remember at a time events increasingly drive things toward the unthinkable – potential mass annihilation from thermonuclear weapons. 

Einstein deplored them, saying: “I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan.” Five months before his November 1954 death, he explained “one great mistake in my life…when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made…” 

Separately he said: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” 

Some of his anti-war quotes included saying “(p)eace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.” 

“It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” 

Using “(f)orce always attracts men of low morality.” 

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” 

“The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.” 

“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” 

On July 9, 1955, Einstein and famed philosopher, anti-war/anti-imperial activist Bertrand Russell together with other signatories below once issued “The Russell-Einstein Manifesto,” its full text saying: 

“In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft. 

“We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism.

“Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire. 

“We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it. 

“We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?

“The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. 

“The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow. 

“No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. 

“But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed. 

“The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. 

“It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow. 

“No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. 

“But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed. 

“It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima.

“Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish. 

“No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race.  

“It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration. 

“Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. 

“What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices.”  

“They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.” 

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war. 

“The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term ‘mankind’ feels vague and abstract.”  

“People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. 

“They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited. 

“This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious. 

“Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. 

“First, any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second, the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension.  

“We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step. Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West. 

“There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels?  

“We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death. 

“Resolution: We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution:

“ ‘In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.’ ” 


Max Born

Percy W. Bridgman

Albert Einstein

Leopold Infeld

Frederic Joliot-Curie

Herman J. Muller

Linus Pauling

Cecil F. Powell

Joseph Rotblat

Bertrand Russell

Hideki Yukawa 

It bears repeating what the manifesto stressed: “Shall we put an end to the human race, or shall mankind renounce war” and live in peace. The choice today perhaps is more stark than ever.


Stephen Lendman pictureStephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at  

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” 

Visit his blog site at 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

posted by Steve Lendman @ 9:49 AM 

<< Home



Here is a listing of some “alternative” live news programming available on your computer with a simple click on the icon below from World News 24/7 online. You may also click on “Live News” and obtain the entire list from that website.  I have added Press TV at the top of the list. I cannot guarantee that they are all available 24/7 especially CNN.

News From All Over The World







The Complete Breakdown Of Every Hillary And Bill Clinton Speech, And Fee, Since 2013

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/03/2015 21:07 -0400
 Reported by Zero Hedge (link is obtained by clicking here.  The Complete Breakdown…..


Earlier today, when we reported that based on Hillary Clinton’s latest tax disclosure, she and her husband had made $139 million in gross income since 2007 most of its from private speaking fees, the one aspect that readers founds most fascinating was the breakdown of all the bribes better known as speeches given by the two Clintons (who in Hillary’s wordscame out of the White House “dead broke”) in 2013 as well as the going rate.

So due to popular demand, we appended to the 2013 speech detail first released last week the full breakdown of Hillary’s and Bill’s 2014 and 2015 speeches which had been provided previously as part of her mandatory disclosure in May of this year.

As Politico cautions, the disclosure omits an unknown number of speeches that the Clintons delivered while directing the payment or honoraria to the Clinton Foundation, despite instructions on the and guidance from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, saying that honoraria directed to a charity should be reported.

Still, as readers will note, even the “modest” data that Hillary chose to share is quite stunning.

We hope it will surprise nobody that the bulk of speeches were bought and paid for by Wall Street and affiliated “financial entities” because that’s what hollow populist pandering is all about – pretending to be an “everyday American” while getting paid tens of millions by Wall Street and America’s biggest corporations.

How many millions?

Since 2013 Bill Clinton has been paid $26.6 million for 94 speeches; Hillary’s grand total is slightly less: $21.7 million for 92 private appearances.

Below we present the full breakdown of every publicly disclosed speech event by Hillary Clinton, together with the associated fee.


Hillary Clinton Speeches 2013-2015_1_0 (1)



Bill Clinton Speeches 2013-2015_1_0





“Clinton Inc.” Raises Almost $3 Billion, And The Biggest ‘Donor’ Is…

Tyler Durden's picture


Clinton Inc. is going to be the most formidable fundraising operation for the Democrats in the history of the country. Period. Exclamation point,” is how on Republican lobbyist describes the Bill-and-Hillary show and as WSJ reports, in total, the Clintons raised between $2 billion and $3 billion from all sources, including individual donors, corporate contributors and foreign governments. They have raised more than $1 billion from U.S. companies and industry donors during two decades on the national stage through campaigns, paid speeches and a network of organizations advancing their political and policy goals. Financial Services firms have been one of the single largest sources of money for the Clintons since the 1992 presidential campaign; and the couple’s No. 1 Wall Street contributor, giving nearly $5 million – Goldman Sachs.



As WSJ reports,

Bill and Hillary Clinton helped raise more than $1 billion from U.S. companies and industry donors during two decades on the national stage through campaigns, paid speeches and a network of organizations advancing their political and policy goals, The Wall Street Journal found.

Those deep ties potentially give Mrs. Clinton a financial advantage in the 2016 presidential election, if she runs, and could bring industry donors back to the Democratic Party for the first time since Mr. Clinton left the White House.

In total, the Clintons raised between $2 billion and $3 billion from all sources, including individual donors, corporate contributors and foreign governments, the Journal found. Between $1.3 billion and $2 billion came from industry sources.

The donated funds were split among the Clintons’ political operations, which raised $1.2 billion; their nonprofit foundation, which collected between $750 million and $1.7 billion; and speaking fees, which totaled about $100 million.

Not counting about $250 million the Clinton foundation has received from foreign donors, at least 75% of the money arrived in large donations from industry sources, a category defined by federal regulators and the Center for Responsive Politics.

“She has the credibility among Wall Street donors that could make it likely that Wall Street moves back into the Democratic fold,” said Sam Geduldig, a Republican lobbyist and fundraiser who represents Wall Street firms.

But do not worry – she is all about Main Street…

“If we are going to take on the mortgage debt of storied Wall Street giants,” she wrote, “we ought to extend the same help to struggling, middle-class families.”

Nothing changes…


King World News Interviews Paul Craig Roberts— Russia Rises As The West Destroys Itself and Much More on Syria



King World News Interviews PCR:  Syria, Turkey, and the U.S. Mess

Russia Rises As The West Destroys Itself

To access audio, click on link above, open and click the arrow at the top of the page: 


Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: Former US Treasury Official, Co-Founder of Reaganomics, Economist & Acclaimed Author – Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is an American economist, a columnist and recent author of “The Neoconservative Threat to World Order: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony”. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. Dr. Roberts has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy. He has also written extensively that during the 21st century the Bush and Obama administrations have destroyed the US Constitution’s protections of Americans’ civil liberties and has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The Neoconservative Threat to World Order - Washington's Perilous War for Hegemony : Paul Craig Roberts : King World NewsIn Dr. Roberts latest book The Neoconservative Threat to World Order: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony,” he explores the extreme dangers in Washington’s imposition of vassalage on other countries and Washington’s resurrection of distrust among nuclear powers, the very distrust that Reagan and Gorbachev worked to eliminate. Roberts explains how the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 removed the only check on Washington’s ability to act unilaterally. The United States’ position as the sole remaining superpower led to the euphoric proclamation of “the end of history” and to Washington’s presumption of the victory of “American democratic-capitalism” over all other systems. The neoconservatives became entrenched in successive American administrations, both Republican and Democratic.

Syria’s Cauldron of Fire: a Downed Russian Jet and

the Battle of Two Pipelines


With yesterday’s shooting down of a Russian SU24 by Turkey, the war in Syria just took a new twist – and one that sends a powerful message to the UK as it contemplates joining in bombing raids on Islamic State militants.

And for those who are hard of hearing, that message is: ‘keep well out!’

Up until now, the war in Syria has looked complicated. On the one side the Syrian state led by President Bashar Assad, supported by its long term ally Russia, Iran and Iraq – ‘Them’.

On another side, Islamic State (IS) and allied terrorist groups.

And finally the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France and Israel as a silent partner, allied with ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria whom they equip and finance. Very possibly to be joined by the UK, at least if David Cameron gets his way. Collectively, ‘Us’.

Of course there have been well-supported allegations that those last two sides are actually one and the same. Much as the US supported Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan to attack Russia in the 1980s (and has been suffering the blowback ever since), the theory goes, so it is now supporting IS as a proxy force against Syria to advance its geopolitical goals.

Continue reading at link.


Jeremy Corbyn Opposes Britain Bombing

by  Stephen Lendman

Britain already is bombing Syrian targets covertly. Prime Minister David Cameron ordered it illegally despite parliamentary majority opposition in August 2013.

Freedom of Information (FOI) documents obtained by the UK-based Reprieve human rights group revealed illegal British aerial operations in Syria – striking infrastructure and government targets, not ISIS and other terrorist elements as Cameron later claimed, a liar and unindicted war criminal like Obama.

In response to Reprieve’s FOI request, Britain’s Defense Ministry lied, saying:

“UK military personnel embedded with the USA, French and Canadian armed forces have been authorized to deploy with their units to participate in coalition operations against ISIL.”

US, UK, French, Canadian, Australian and Israeli warplanes are involved in bombing Syrian targets illegally. Russia alone, working cooperatively with Syrian ground forces, is effectively combating ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Continue reading at link.

Where are we going and why are we in Hillary’s hand basket? by David Swanson

Perpetual warfare by presidents

War Is A Crime .org —

Blogs / davidswanson’s blog /

Posted on 11 September 2015

Hillary Clinton’s favorite “Hitler” these days is Putin, with Assad in close second. Her days of giggling triumphantly over the murder of Gadaffi may be behind her. And one of her favorite ways of demonizing Putin has been denouncing his opposition to gay rights. Yet Hillary, along with Rick Santorum, was a supporter of proposed legislation that might have legalized the recently hyped refusal of a government employee in Kentucky to allow a gay couple to marry. Hillary has long favored bombing places that lack civil liberties, and sponsored legislation to criminalize the burning of a U.S. flag.

Some contradictions in U.S. politics (President Obama allowing Arctic drilling and then visiting the Arctic to lament his own destruction of the earth’s climate, for example) appear easily explained by sheer soulless corruption via the simple transfer of dollars. Other contradictions (the eagerness of Hillary and her then-president husband Bill) to launch a war over fictional atrocities in Yugoslavia but not over real ones in Rwanda) require at least a bit more analysis.

Diana Johnstone’s forthcoming book, Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, succeeds in providing an understanding of Hillary Clinton’s own worldview like nothing else I’ve read — and it does so despite being largely not about Hillary Clinton. Johnstone’s book is culture and political criticism at its finest. It’s a study of the American neo-liberal, with a particular focus here-and-there on Clinton. I strongly recommend reading it, whatever your level of interest in the “Queen of Chaos” herself, for its illumination of the ideologies underlying U.S. adventurism, exceptionalism, and “responsibility to protect” obsession with identifying believable threats of “genocide” in nations disloyal to Washington or Wall Street.

Johnstone has little interest in “proving” that a woman can be president, a point that she takes to be obvious. “Avoiding World War III is somewhat more urgent,” she maintains. Why World War III? Isn’t everything well with the world, other than a few evil Muslims trying to kill us all? And wouldn’t a woman president help ease tensions?

Johnstone’s account of Clinton’s record moves from her support of a right-wing military coup in Honduras to her active engagement in facilitating a right-wing military coup in Ukraine. In between, Johnstone looks in-depth at Clinton’s backing of her husband’s illegal war on Yugoslavia, and the lies she’s told about it, which go much deeper than her false claim to have braved sniper fire at an airport. Johnstone also examines the 2011 war on Libya for which she gives Clinton significant blame. (And lest we forget, here’s video of Clinton promoting the 2002 authorization for an invasion of Iraq.)

Then there’s Clinton’s allegiance to the right-wing Israeli government agenda, on exhibit in her speech this week and in Queen of Chaos:

“In July 2014, billionaire Haim Saban declared in a Bloomberg TV interview that he would contribute ‘as much as needed’ to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016. This is significant because both Saban’s fortune and his zeal seem to be inexhaustible. Saban declares proudly that his greatest concern is to protect Israel through strengthening the United States-Israel relationship. ‘I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.’ . . . Saban showered seven million dollars on the Democratic National Committee, donated five million dollars to Bill Clinton’s Presidential Library, and above all, founded his very own think tank, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy within the Brookings Institution, previously considered the most politically neutral of major Washington think tanks. This was accomplished by a record donation to Brookings of thirteen million dollars. . . . As things look now, the 2016 presidential race could be a contest between Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. In either case, the winner would be Israel.”

Johnstone does a good job of bringing out Clinton’s belief in the rightness of all U.S. wars, past and possible. In 2012 Clinton gave a speech in which she claimed that a “small group” was preventing the U.S. from going in and saving Syria from Hitler/Assad, a small group consisting of Iran, Russia, and China:

“She went on to say that: ‘we are also increasing our efforts to assist the opposition,’ before adding that if we are successful, ‘Assad will increase the level of violent response.’ At a moment like this, one must ask whether she realizes what she is saying. She is admitting that U.S. military aid to the opposition intended to prevent violence will provoke more violence. If there is indeed a possibility of ‘genocide,’ which is doubtful, this possibility will be increased by that very assistance to the opposition Hillary is calling for, since it will increase the overall violence.”

When asked about bombing Libya on Meet the Press, Clinton said, “Let’s be fair here. They didn’t attack us, but what they were doing and Gaddafi’s history and the potential for the disruption and instability was very much in our interests … and seen by our European friends and our Arab partners as very vital to their interests.’ In short, bombing the hell out of a sovereign country that did us no harm is perfectly okay if we consider it to be in our ‘interests,’ or in the ‘interests’ of our ‘European friends’ and our ‘Arab partners.’ Not only that, but bombing a country, arming rebels and overthrowing its government is the way to prevent ‘disruption’ and ‘instability.'”

Clinton is open about her view of the world, but would prefer the details remained unknown. She has condemned Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing as criminal and even suggested that he should face prosecution under the Espionage Act.

One way of grasping where Clinton is coming from is to examine, in her case, what she herself admits is the major corrupting factor in U.S. elections: money. Who funds her? Here’s Johnstone:

“Take a look at the list of Clinton Foundation donors who have contributed millions of dollars, supposedly for charity – the sort of charity that begins at home. These are philanthropists who give in order to get. Eight digit donors include: Saudi Arabia, the pro-Israel Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, and the Saban family. Pinchuk has pledged millions to a branch of the Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, for a program to train future Ukrainian leaders according to ‘European values.’ Seven digit donors include: Kuwait, Exxon Mobil, ‘Friends of Saudi Arabia,’ James Murdoch, Qatar, Boeing, Dow, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart and the United Arab Emirates. Cheapskates paying their dues to the Clintons with contributions above only half a million include: the Bank of America, Chevron, Monsanto, Citigroup and the inevitable Soros Foundation.”

For an example of how Clinton does the bidding of her funders, look at the case of Boeing, examined by theWashington Post.

Does this help explain why Republicans on Wall Street are backing her?

Here’s a list of horrible governments to which Hillary supported transferring weaponry once they had donated to her foundations.

Can you get more corrupt that that? Hillary Clinton can. Here’s a collection of examples how.

For a deeper understanding of where candidates like Hillary Clinton, her husband, the three Bushes, Obama, and others come from, I also strongly recommend another forthcoming book called Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014, by Laurence Shoup, who co-authored the 1977 book, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy.

The CFR, according to Shoup, is the world’s most powerful private organization. It has about 5,000 individual members and 170 corporate members, a staff of 330, a budget of $60 million, and assets of $492 million. It began at the end of World War I and included both wings of the wealth-and-war party, dedicated to spreading U.S. dominance and influence around the globe for the good of the heathen.

Madeleine Albright brought Bill Clinton into the CFR in the 1980s, and the contacts he made there, in Shoup’s view, brought him the media, funding, and insider advisers that made him president, not to mention his post-presidential fortune. Co-Chair of CFR Robert Rubin led Clinton’s National Economic Council and his push for NAFTA before being made Secretary of the Treasury and pushing the repeal of Glass-Steagall before moving on to the board of Citigroup — listed as a major Clinton-foundation funder above. Fifteen of Bill Clinton’s top 17 foreign policy officials were, like him, CFR members, five of whom had been or would soon be directors. Daughter Chelsea Clinton became a CFR member in 2013.

What’s wrong with CFR broadcasting its views on National Public Radio and holding its elitist meetings with movers and shakers? You might as well ask what’s wrong with U.S. foreign policy, because the policy of the past decades has in fact been largely the policy desired, proposed, and enacted by the CFR and its members. And it is not what the U.S. public has wanted.

In 2013, a Pew-CFR effort polled CFR members and the general public. Among the public, 81% wanted protecting U.S. jobs to be a priority, but only 29% of CFR members did. Among CFR members, 93% favored corporate trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and a much higher percentage than among the general public believed that drone murders make the United States safer. These results line up with the 2014 peer-reviewed study done at Princeton and Northwestern Universities, which found that the United States is not a democracy, but an “oligarchy,” that the demands of the wealthy are met by the government, whereas the desires of everyone else are ignored.

Changing that will require a nonviolent revolution, not a particular outcome from an almost completely corrupted electoral (and communications) system. But with the current corporate media behaving as if we need to know something more about Hillary Clinton before rejecting her, let me just say this to the infinitely annoying plague-like medium known as the email: My Dear emails, you little maggots eating away the minutes of my day, if your scandal rids us of the risk of installing Hillary Clinton in the White House, all shall be forgiven.


Hillary Clinton--from war is a crime


New book:  “Queen of Chaos:  The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton” by Diana Johnstone

“United States wars are getting repetitive. Always the same old scenario. The mainstream media alert public opinion to the latest villain supposedly threatening to slaughter his own people . The U.S. does the job instead with its drones and missiles. The new villain is soon forgotten, but his country is left in a shambles, with competing fanatics vying to dominate the chaos. Something new is needed. How about a Woman War President? Hillary Rodham Clinton has painstakingly groomed herself for the role. Her record as Secretary of State shows that she is fully qualified to be the first woman to be known as the mother of all drones or even to launch World War III.”

United States wars are getting repetitive. Always the same old scenario. The mainstream media alert public opinion to the latest villain supposedly threatening to slaughter his own people . The U.S. does the job instead with its drones and…

STEPHEN LENDMAN: U.S. and Turkey’s Evil, Reckless Behavior in Syria

I am pleased to present two important posts by Stephen Lendman this Thanksgiving Day.  Stephen is writing from his hospital room and we wish him a speedy recovery.—Thomas Baldwin

by Stephen Lendman


“A personal note. I’m not writing from my usual location, comfortably at home on my desktop – currently hospitalized, hopefully released soon. I’ll be briefer than usual, conserving strength – thankful to maintain daily communication with readers, best as able when less than par.

Let’s not mince words. Washington is no Russian partner. It policy is adversarially hostile, notably during the Cold War, especially throughout Putin’s leadership years – a preeminent world leader/peace champion polar opposite rogues running America, perhaps one day able to turn the tide against their hegemonic agenda. Saving humanity from the scourge of another devastating global war – potential nuclear armageddon – depends on his efforts to prevent it.

Washington’s rage for endless wars threatens world peace, security and humanity’s survival. Bipartisan US policymakers tolerate no independent countries, especially Russia, China and resource rich ones like Iraq, Libya, Iran and Venezuela – two down, two to go plus others.”

Listen Live Sunday, Noon – 1:00 PM CT on PRN for cutting-edge discussions with noted guests on major world and national issues. Archived Shows

by Stephen Lendman

“He’s a despotic loose cannon, a close US imperial ally, one of 28 NATO members – part of its killing machine war on humanity.

Downing Russia’s aircraft was an act of war – Washington the likely orchestrator, both nations acting conspiratorially – part of longstanding US-led Putin-bashing, the one world leader above all others challenging America’s imperial agenda forthrightly, deserving universal praise and support.

On Thursday, Erdogan brashly, recklessly and defiantly said he’ll continue downing Russian aircraft on the phony pretext of Turkish airspace violations – bluster without proof.

“If another violation of our aerial border happens, we(‘ll) respond in the same way,” he raved – lying by claiming Russia’s plane was shot down “within the rules of engagement announced earlier.”

Listen Live Sunday, Noon – 1:00 PM CT on PRN for cutting-edge discussions with noted guests on major world and national issues. Archived Shows

Signs of a Dying Society By Paul Buchheit

November 24, 2015

Information Clearing House” –

While Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and John Kiriakou are vilified for revealing vital information about spying and bombing and torture, a man who conspiredwith Goldman Sachs to make billions of dollars on the planned failure of subprime mortgages was honored byNew York University for his “Outstanding Contributions to Society.”

This is one example of the distorted thinking leading to the demise of a once-vibrant American society. There are other signs of decay:

1. A House Bill Would View Corporate Crimes as ‘Honest Mistakes’

Wealthy conservatives are pushing a bill that would excuse corporate leaders from financial fraud, environmental pollution, and other crimes that America’s greatest criminals deem simply reckless or negligent. The Heritage Foundation attempts to rationalize, saying “someone who simply has an accident by being slightly careless can hardly be said to have acted with a ‘guilty mind.’”

One must wonder, then, what extremes of evil, in the minds of conservatives, led to criminal charges against people apparently aware of their actions: the Ohio woman who took coins from a fountain to buy food; the California man who broke into a church kitchen to find something to eat; and the 90-year-old Florida activist who boldly tried to feed the homeless.

Of course, even without the explicit protection of Congress, CEOs are rarely charged for their crimes. Not a single Wall Street executive faced prosecution for the fraud-ridden 2008 financial crisis.

2. Unpaid Taxes of 500 Companies Could Pay for a Job for Every Unemployed American

For two years. At the nation’s median salary of $36,000, for all 8 million unemployed.

Citizens for Tax Justice reports that Fortune 500 companies are holding over $2 trillion in profits offshore to avoid taxes that would amount to over $600 billion. Our society desperately needs infrastructure repair, but 8 million potential jobs are being held hostage beyond our borders.

3. Almost 2/3 of American Families Couldn’t Afford a Single Pill of a Life-Saving Drug

62 percent of polled Americans said they couldn’t cover a $500 repair bill. If any of these Americans need a hepatitis pill from Gilead Sciences, or an anti-infection pill from Martin Shkreli’s company, they will have to do without.

An AARP study of 115 specialty drugs found that the average cost of a year’s worth of prescriptions was over $50,000, three times more than the average Social Security benefit. Although it’s true that most people don’t pay the full retail cost of medicine, the portion paid by insurance companies is ultimately passed on to consumers through higher premiums.

Pharmaceutical companies pay competitors to keep generic drugs out of the market, and they have successfullylobbied Congress to keep Medicare from bargaining for lower drug prices. The companies claim they need the high prices to pay for better medicines. But for every $1 they spend on basic research, they invest $19 in promotion and marketing.

4. Violent Crime Down, Prison Population Doubles

FBI statistics confirm a dramatic decline in violent crimes since 1991, yet the number of prisoners has doubledover approximately the same period.

Meanwhile, white-collar prosecutions have been reduced by over a third, and, as noted above, corporate leaders are steadily working toward 100% tolerance for their crimes.

5. One in Four Americans Suffer Mental Illness, Mental Health Facilities Cut by 90%

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, 25 percent of adults experience mental illness in a given year, with almost half of the homeless population so inflicted. Yet from 1970 to 2002, the per capita number of public mental health hospital beds plummeted from over 200 per 100,000 to 20 per 100,000, and after the recession state cutbacks continued.

That leaves prison as the only option for many desperate Americans.

There exists a common theme amidst these signs of societal decay: The super-rich keep taking from the middle class as the middle class becomes a massive lower class. Yet the myth persists that we should all look up with admiration at the “self-made” takers who are ripping our society apart.

Copyright © 2015 by NationofChange



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 85 other followers