Citing Racist Massacres and ‘Inexcusable’ Prevalence of Guns, Foreign Countries Issue Travel Safety Warnings for United States

“The world is watching.”

By Julia Conley

August 06, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –  While President Donald Trump and the Republican Party have spent the past several years claiming foreign migrants and refugees pose a threat to Americans, a pair of massacres in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio over the weekend has compelled two Latin American countries to warn their own citizens of the travel dangers lurking in the United States.

The foreign ministries of Venezuela and Uruguay issued urgent warnings to people in their countries who may travel to the U.S. following the deaths of 31 people in the two mass shootings. Both countries informed their citizens of the “indiscriminate possession” of guns by the U.S. population and the refusal of the federal government to address the problem.

Travelers from Uruguay were specifically urged to “take precaution amid the growing indiscriminatory violence, specifically hate crimes including racism and discrimination,” following the shooting deaths of 22 people in El Paso on Saturday by an accused gunman who reportedly posted an anti-immigrant, white supremacist manifesto online minutes before the attack.

The foreign ministry listed several crowded public venues which could pose a threat to travelers: “theme parks, shopping centers,festivalsreligious events, gastronomic fairs and any kind of cultural or sporting events.”     

Nearly all of the places listed have been the sites of mass shootings in the U.S., although the list was hardly exhaustive. As of Tuesday, the 218th day of 2019, there have been 255 mass shootings in the country.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

Venezuela also pointed to the “recent proliferation of violent acts and hate crimes” as reason to exercise caution regarding travel to the U.S., and slammed the country for the “inexcusable, indiscriminate possession of firearms by the population, encouraged by the federal government.”

“These increasing acts of violence have found an echo and support in the conversations and actions impregnated by racial discrimination and hatred against migrant populations, pronounced and executed by the supremacist elite who holds political power in Washington,” the foreign ministry told Venezuelans in its travel warning.

In Detroit on Sunday, the Japanese Consul also alerted Japanese nationals with plans to travel to the U.S. that they “should be aware of the potential for gunfire incidents everywhere in the United States,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

minority of U.S. households own guns, yet a 2017 study found that there were 120.5 civilian-owned firearms for every 100 people in the United States. Other countries like Australia and New Zealand have instituted strict gun control measures and even weapons bans after a single mass shooting while the U.S. has allowed hundreds to take place each year.

Travel warnings were mirrored by stunned international coverage of the two shootings, which took place within 13 hours of one another and in which both gunmen used high-capacity magazines and military-style semi-automatic weapons, which are legal in the states where the gunmen bought them.

An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald on Sunday condemned the United States’ “white nationalist terrorism crisis.” The Argentinian newspaper Clarín reported “another massacre in the U.S.” on Saturday, while the Dutch publication Algemeen Dagblad published a graphic explaining to readers that while the Netherlands is known for having more bicycles than people, the U.S. has more guns than people.

: More bikes than people
: More guns than people.
Telling graphic from Dutch paper @ADnl pic.twitter.com/8ZNpoWdWWI

— Danny Kemp (@dannyctkemp) August 6, 2019

The reaction of officials in Venezuela and Uruguay as well as the international perception of the U.S. as a dangerous country was unsurprising but dismaying to observers on social media.

“The world is watching,” wrote organizer Dan Knudsen.

Uruguay today issued a travel warning to its citizens visting the United States of America, citing “growing violence” fueled by “racism and discrimination” that American “authorities are unable to prevent” due to “indiscriminate” gun ownership. Let that sink in for a minute. pic.twitter.com/M0u6520caL

— Rep. Dean Phillips (@RepDeanPhillips) August 5, 2019

Sydney, Australia newspaper: “US in the Midst of a White Nationalist Terrorism Crisis.”

Uruguay issued a travel warning for any citizens traveling to the US, citing increasing indiscriminate violence rooted in racism.

The world is watching. https://t.co/hZqG0RedFi

— Nick Knudsen (@DemWrite) August 6, 2019

Killing fields USA: Foreign countries are warning their citizens about U.S. travel after mass shootings https://t.co/YMoMANJuzW

— Sir Henry Cuthbert-Purkiss #TheResistance (@VoteBlueFFS) August 6, 2019

This article was originally published by “Common Dreams” –

Do you agree or disagree? Post your comment here

==See Also==

Note To ICH Community

We ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by ICH to your social media accounts and post links to the article from other websites.

Thank you for your support.

Peace and joy

♪System Of A Down – Toxicity (Piano cover by Gamazda )

WOW, this is bloody brilliant! ❤

System Of A Down – Toxicity. Piano cover. Кавер на пианино на песню группы SOAD – Toxicity #systemofadown #piano #cover Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/gamazda VK – https://vk.com/gamazda ♫ iTunes – https://music.apple.com/ru/album/pian… ♫ Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/artist/2jQR1… ♫ Yandex.Music – https://music.yandex.ru/artist/7636191

 

Check out this cover:

Bravissima ladies!

More Fake Happy News About Jobs

By Paul Craig Roberts

August 03, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –  The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the US economy created 148,000 new private sector jobs during July.  The jobs number does not translate into employed people as increasingly Americans hold two or more jobs.  For example, the BLS reports that from June to July the number of multiple job holders rose by 233,000 which is 85,000 more than the 148,000 new private sector jobs.  What we are seeing is not more people employed, but more multiple job holders. Since May the number of multiple job holders has increased by 534,000.  https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

The claim of a falling rate of unemployment over the past decade is inconsistent with the falling labor force participation rate. Normally, when employment prospects are good the labor force participation rate increases.  To explain away the inconsistency, economists claim that the decline in the labor force participation rate reflects the increased retirements of the baby boomer generation.  However, the  BLS reported that the labor force participation rate for older workers of retirement age surged to the highest level in 7 years.

So, what is really going on?  The answer is that retired people, thanks to the Federal Reserve’s low to zero interest rate over the last decade, cannot live on their pensions and their savings.  They have to take part-time jobs to make ends meet.  Younger people, however, cannot form independent households on the basis of part-time jobs, and as they have no pension income to supplement the meager pay of a part-time job, have dropped out of the work force.

The reason the reported unemployment rate is low is that the millions who have dropped out of the labor force because they cannot find life-sustainable employment are not counted as unemployed.  What do these people do?  They live with parents or grandparents and they work cash jobs house sitting, walking dogs, cutting grass, and various handiman jobs.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

There are many problems with the payroll jobs report, and always are.  For example, the July report finds 16,000 new manufacturing jobs, but the manufacturing index weakened for the fourth consecutive month. How do manufacturing jobs rise when manufacturing activity declines?

Another anomality is the collapse of seven trucking companies this year.  if the economy is so good, why has demand declined for transportation to move goods from producers to warehouses and from warehouses to retail outlets?

Americans live in a world in which explanations are controlled. The facts are whatever serves the interests of the ruling elites. Identity Politics serves to keep Americans disunited.  We hear far more about “white supremacy” and “misogyny” than we hear about the agendas that control our existence.

More Fake News About Jobs:  Part 2

By Paul Craig Roberts

August 03, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –   Yesterday’s column referred to a “rising labor force participation rate” when it should have read “falling labor force participation rate.”  Those of you who read the column before I made the correction must have been puzzled, but, little doubt, figured it out from the context.

One of the main points of the article is that the number of payroll jobs are not the same thing as the number of employed Americans.  Jobs have been trending toward part-time as this allows employers to avoid benefit costs.  In order to make ends meet, many Americans work two or more part-time jobs.  Therefore, the announcement on Friday of 148,000 new jobs does not mean 148,000 more employed Americans.

There is another problem with the payroll jobs.  Although the figure is nonfarm and does not include imported agricultural labor, it does include immigrants on work visas, such as H-1B and L-1 visas.  This means that job gains in information technology and software engineering, for example, might be job gains for immigrants on work visas and not for American citizens.

As the payroll jobs number reflects reported information on payroll taxes and unemployment insurance, citizens and immigrants are lumped together.  The percentage of new jobs taken by immigrants on work visas is not broken out.

The householdl survey number, however, does estimate the numbers of foreign-born and American-born employees, but it does not specify the legal status of the foreign-born, that is, whether they are naturalized citizens, green card holders, or immigrants on work visas. The household survey numbers are interesting. There are 27.1 million foreign-born employees with jobs in the US and 131.2 million native-born American employees. This means that foreign-born employees are 20% of American-born employees.  That foreign-born employees comprise one-fifth of American-born employees reflects either a high rate of immigration or a large number of foreign workers issued work visas.

In response to yesterday’s column, a reader wrote that he had seen a report last Thursday that the House of Representatives has passed a bill to allow unlimited numbers of people from India and China to be granted work visas for US programming jobs.  The reader concludes that his job will soon be history and he will disappear into the ranks of the uncounted American unemployed.

When it happens to them, Americans finally understand, regardless of the controlled explanations of The Matrix in which they live, that their government does not ever represent them.  It represents profits—the profits of companies that produce profits by lobbying and legislating against Americans.

Assessing this information, the conclusion is that it is a waste of time and money for Americans to learn programming from a US institution.  Instead, they should acquire Indian citizenship, get a degree from an Indian university, and apply for a US work visa.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World OrderDonate and support Dr, Roberts Work.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

US federal court exposes Democratic Party conspiracy against Assange and WikiLeaks

By Eric London

August 02, 2019 “Information Clearing House” – In a ruling published late Tuesday, Judge John Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York delivered a devastating blow to the US-led conspiracy against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

In his ruling, Judge Koeltl, a Bill Clinton nominee and former assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, dismissed “with prejudice” a civil lawsuit filed in April 2018 by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) alleging WikiLeaks was civilly liable for conspiring with the Russian government to steal DNC emails and data and leak them to the public.

Jennifer Robinson, a leading lawyer for Assange, and other WikiLeaks attorneys welcomed the ruling as “an important win for free speech.”

The decision exposes the Democratic Party in a conspiracy of its own to attack free speech and cover up the crimes of US imperialism and the corrupt activities of the two parties of Wall Street. Judge Koeltl stated:

If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet. But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.

The ruling exposes the illegality of the conspiracy by the US government, backed by the governments of Britain, Ecuador, Australia and Sweden and the entire corporate media and political establishment, to extradite Assange to the US, where he faces 175 years in federal prison on charges including espionage.

The plaintiff in the civil case—the Democratic Party—has also served as Assange’s chief prosecutor within the state apparatus for over a decade. During the Obama administration, Democratic Party Justice Department officials, as well as career Democratic holdovers under the Trump administration, prepared the criminal case against him.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

The dismissal of the civil suit exposes massive unreported conflicts of interest and prosecutorial misconduct and criminal abuse of process by those involved. The criminal prosecution of Assange has nothing to do with facts and is instead aimed at punishing him for telling the truth about the war crimes committed by US imperialism and its allies.

The judge labeled WikiLeaks an “international news organization” and said Assange is a “publisher,” exposing the liars in the corporate press who declare that Assange is not subject to free speech protections. Judge Koeltl continued: “In New York Times Co. v. United States, the landmark ‘Pentagon Papers’ case, the Supreme Court upheld the press’s right to publish information of public concern obtained from documents stolen by a third party.”

As a legal matter, by granting WikiLeaks’ motion to dismiss, the court ruled that the DNC had not put forward a “factually plausible” claim. At the motion to dismiss stage, a judge is required to accept all the facts alleged by the plaintiff as true. Here, the judge ruled that even if all the facts alleged by the DNC were true, no fact-finder could “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Going a step further, the judge called the DNC’s arguments “threadbare,” adding: “At no point does the DNC allege any facts” showing that Assange or WikiLeaks “participated in the theft of the DNC’s information.”

Judge Koeltl said the DNC’s argument that Assange and WikiLeaks “conspired with the Russian Federation to steal and disseminate the DNC’s materials” is “entirely divorced from the facts.” The judge further ruled that the court “is not required to accept conclusory allegations asserted as facts.”

The judge further dismantled the DNC’s argument that WikiLeaks is guilty-by-association with Russia, calling the alleged connection between Assange and the Russian government “irrelevant,” because “a person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.”

Judge Koeltl also rejected the DNC’s claim “that WikiLeaks can be held liable for the theft as an after-the-fact coconspirator of the stolen documents.” Calling this argument “unpersuasive,” the judge wrote that it would “eviscerate” constitutional protections: “Such a rule would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a coconspirator in the theft.”

In its April 2018 complaint, the DNC put forward a series of claims that have now been exposed as brazen lies, including that Assange, Trump and Russia “undermined and distorted the DNC’s ability to communicate the party’s values and visions to the American electorate.”

The complaint also alleged: “Russian intelligence services then disseminated the stolen, confidential materials through GRU Operative #1, as well as WikiLeaks and Assange, who were actively supported by the Trump Campaign and Trump Associates as they released and disclosed the information to the American public at a time and in a manner that served their common goals.”

At the time the DNC filed its complaint, the New York Times wrote that the document relies on “publicly-known facts” as well as “information that has been disclosed in news reports and subsequent court proceedings.” The lawsuit “comes amid a swirl of intensifying scrutiny of Mr. Trump, his associates and their interactions with Russia,” the Times wrote.

It is deeply ironic that Judge Koeltl cited the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, in his ruling.

The DNC’s baseless complaint cited the New York Times eight times as “proof” of Assange and WikiLeaks’ ties to Russia, including articles by Times reporters Andrew Kramer, Michael Gordon, Niraj Chokshi, Sharon LaFraniere, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Eric Lichtblau, Noah Weiland, Alicia Parlapiano and Ashley Parker, as well as a July 26, 2016 article by Charlie Savage titled “Assange, avowed foe of Clinton, timed email release for Democratic Convention.”

The first of these articles was published just weeks after the New York Times hired James Bennet as its editorial page editor in March 2016. James Bennet’s brother, Michael Bennet, is a presidential candidate, a senator from Colorado and former chair of the DNC’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In 2018, Bennet signed a letter to Vice President Mike Pence noting he was “extremely concerned” that Ecuador had not canceled asylum for Assange, who was then trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

“It is imperative,” the letter read, “that you raise US concerns with [Ecuadorian] President [Lenin] Moreno about Ecuador’s continued support for Mr. Assange at a time when WikiLeaks continues its efforts to undermine democratic processes globally.”

In April 2019, after the Trump administration announced charges against Assange, the New York Times editorial board, under James Bennet’s direction, wrote: “The administration has begun well by charging Mr. Assange with an indisputable crime.” Two weeks later, Michael Bennet announced his presidential run and has since enjoyed favorable coverage in the Times editorial page.

Additionally, the father of James and Michael Bennet, Douglas Bennet, headed the CIA-linked United States Agency for International Development in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

On Wednesday, the Times published a brief, six-paragraph article on page 25 under the headline, “DNC lawsuit against election is dismissed.” In its online edition, the Times prominently featured a link to its special page for the Mueller Report, which is based on the same DNC-instigated threadbare lies that Judge Koeltl kicked out of federal court.

This article was originally published by “WSWS” – 

Copyright © 1998-2019 World Socialist Web Site – All rights reserved

Do you agree or disagree? Post your comment here

==See Also==

 

Note To ICH Community

We ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by ICH to your social media accounts and post links to the article from other websites.

Thank you for your support.

Peace and joy

Truth is many Democrat ‘moderates’ prefer Trump to Sanders in 2020 White House race

By Slavoj Zizek

August 02, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –  Many so-called Democrat ‘moderates’ would prefer Donald Trump to retain the US Presidency than for Bernie Sanders, or another genuine leftist, to defeat him.

In this sense they are mirror-images of establishment Republicans, such as George W Bush and Colin Powell, who publicly expressed support for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 contest.

In the course of this week’s heated Democratic Party primary debate, former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper warned that “you might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump” if the party adopts radical platforms. Such as Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare for All’ plan, the Green New Deal and other game-changing initiatives.

The ensuing passionate exchange clearly exposed the two camps in the Democratic Party: the ‘moderates’ (representatives of the party establishment whose main face is Joe Biden), and the more progressive democratic socialists (Bernie Sanders, perhaps Elizabeth Warren, plus the four young congresswomen baptized by Trump as the “Dem Squad”, and whose most popular face is now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.)

This struggle is arguably the most important political battle taking place today anywhere in the world.

It may appear that the moderates make a convincing case. After all, are democratic socialists not simply too radical to win over the majority of voters? Is the true struggle not the contest for undecided moderate voters who will never endorse a Muslim, like Ilhan Omar who keeps her hair covered? And did Trump himself not count on this when he brutally attacked the ‘Squad,’ thereby obliging the entire Democratic party to show solidarity with the four girls, elevating them to the status of party symbols?

For the Democratic Party centrists, the important thing is to get rid of Trump and bring back the normal liberal-democratic hegemony which his election disrupted.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

Deja Vu

Unfortunately, this strategy was already tested: Hillary Clinton followed it, and a large majority of the media thought she couldn’t lose because Trump was unelectable. Even the two Republican Presidents Bush, father and son, endorsed her, but she lost and Trump won. His victory undermined the establishment from the Right.

Now isn’t it time for the Left to do the same? Because, as with Trump three years ago, they have a serious chance of winning.

Of course it’s this prospect which throws the entire establishment into panic, even allowing for Trump’s pseudo-alternative. Mainstream economists predict the economic collapse of the US in the case of a Sanders victory and establishment political analysts fear the rise of totalitarian state socialism. At the same time, moderate Left liberals sympathize with the goals of the democratic socialists but warn that, unfortunately, they are out of touch with reality. Yet, they are right to panic: something entirely new is emerging in the US.

What is so refreshing about the leftist wing of the Democratic Party is that they left behind the stale waters of Political Correctness, as recently seen in the ‘MeToo’ excesses. While firmly standing with anti-racist and feminist struggles, they focus on social issues like universal healthcare and ecological threats, etc.

Far from being crazy socialists who want to turn the US into a new Venezuela, the left wing of the Democratic Party has simply brought to the US a taste of good old authentic European social democracy.

Indeed, a quick look at their program makes it abundantly clear that they pose no greater threat to Western freedoms than Willy Brandt or Olof Palme did.

All Changed

But what is even more important is that they are not only the voice of the radicalized young generation. Already their public faces –four young women and an old white man– tell a different story. Yes, they clearly demonstrate that the majority of the younger generation in the US is tired of the establishment in all its versions. Also that they are skeptical about the ability of capitalism as we know it to deal with the problems we are facing, and that the word socialism is for them no longer a taboo.

However, the true miracle is how many who have joined forces with “old white men” like Sanders represent the older generation of ordinary workers, people who often tended to vote Republican or even for Trump.

What is going on here is something that all the partisans of Culture Wars and identity politics considered impossible: anti-racists, feminists, and ecologists joining forces with what was considered the “moral majority” of ordinary working people. Bernie Sanders, not the alt Right, is the true voice of the moral majority, if this term has any positive meaning.

So no, the eventual rise of the democratic socialists will not guarantee Trump’s re-election. It was Hickenlooper and other moderates who were actually fedexing a message to Trump from the debate. Their message was: “we may be your enemies, but we all want Bernie Sanders to lose. So don’t worry, if Bernie or someone like him will be the Democratic Party candidate, we will not stand behind him – we secretly prefer you to win.”

Slavoj Zizek is a cultural philosopher. He’s a senior researcher at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana and Global Distinguished Professor of German at New York University.

This article was originally published by “RT” – 

Do you agree or disagree? Post your comment here

==See Also==

 

Note To ICH Community

We ask that you assist us in dissemination of the article published by ICH to your social media accounts and post links to the article from other websites.

Thank you for your support.

Peace and joy