Jeff Daniels: “America is NOT the Greatest Country in the World”

Celebrity Jeff Daniels:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmumRMFx1YA&feature=player_embedded
“There’s absolutely no evidence to support the statement that America is the greatest country in the world.  We’re 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science,  49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, number 4 in labor force, and number 4 in exports.  We lead the world in only 3 categories: Number of incarcerated citizens per capita,  number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined – 25 of whom are allies.  Now none of this is the fault of a twenty year old college student but you are nonetheless a member of the Worst. Generation. Ever.  So when you ask what makes us the greatest country in the world, I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.” – Jeff Daniels

MARIJUANA FACTS

1. Marijuana is NOT Hemp!

Although both marijuana and hemp are weeds, have a similar leaf shape, and are subspecies of the Cannabis sativa plant, they are in fact very different. Marijuana has flowering buds with a high content of THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) the stuff that makes you feel “high”. Hemp, on the other hand, has a very low THC content, can be grown closely together, and it can be used to make a variety of useful products. (You cannot get high from smoking hemp.) Hemp and marijuana were once considered separate entities. The 1937 Marihuana Tax act was focused on the THC-producing variety. It wasn’t until 1970, when the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act took over lumping hemp and marijuana in the same category, making both illegal, and creating confusion in people’s minds to this day.

2. It Used To Be Patriotic To Grow Hemp

While America was still just 13 colonies, a 1619 law REQUIRED farmers to grow it. Hemp was used to make rope, clothing, and sails. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned hemp farms, and Jefferson wrote a draft of the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper. Also, what about the flag Betsy Ross sewed? You guessed it: made of hemp.

3. The US Government Used It To Fight The Nazis

During the height of World War II, the US produced a film entitled “Hemp for Victory” praising the many uses of hemp, and encouraging farmers to grow it to help with the war effort. The existence of the film was denied by the Government for many years until 1989, when marijuana advocate Jack Herrer donated a VHS copy to the Library of Congress. It is now in the Public Domain, and can be seen on YouTube – watch below!

4. Medical Marijuana Has Been Around For Thousands of Years

Chinese Symbol for Marijuana (Ma)

In Ancient China, the plant, known as Ma, was used for food, fuel, clothing, and medicine going back to 6,000 B.C. But the oldest existing reference to medical marijuana dates to 2737 B.C. when the Red Emperor Shen Nung is credited with writing The Herbal, a listing of medicinal properties of various herbs, including Ma, to alleviate rheumatism and gout pain. In 2 A.D. Hua T’o is recorded as having used Ma-yo (the female plant) and red wine as an anesthesia while he performed painful surgeries including organ grafts and loin incisions. Yeah, you’d probably want to be high for that.

5. Marijuana is actually GOOD for your lungs!

Brazilian artist Fernando de la Rocque uses pot smoke to make art.

That’s right, a recent study of 5,000 pot smokers by UCSF and University of Alabama showed that those who only smoke a few joints a week actually had stronger lung capacity and external blowing force than non-users. A 2005 UCLA paper also shows that marijuana smoke might actually help to PREVENT lung cancer. Unlike tobacco, which contains nicotine and is a known carcinogen, marijuana contains cannabinoids and THC, which seem to discourage cancer. It is also impossible to die of an overdose. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

6. The Indian Government Declared Marijuana Harmless in 1894

Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission

While use of cannabis was primarily medicinal in Ancient China, over in India they liked to party with it. It was a common substance, used in religious ceremonies and to help people chill out. It was often ingested as a drink, boiled with nuts and milk called Bhang. It made people happy, so much so that the British Colonial Government was concerned it might be driving the population insane. They commissioned a study and issued a report entitled The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report of 1894. It not only concluded that mainstream usage was harmless, but also that a ban on it might actually prove more detrimental.

7. Why Do They Call It Dope? 14.4 Million Americans Smoke

Grandma Stoner Smokes a Blunt

A 2007 Government report estimated that 14.4 million Americans smoked pot during a one month testing period. One study in 2006 suggested that marijuana is the largest cash crop in the US at $35.8 Billion, but that number has recently been disputed, with a contrasting report putting it as low as $2.1 Billion. (Either way, it’s still a large, essentially unknowable number.) The largest producer of marijuana in the world is Mexico, followed by Paraguay. But who are the biggest users of the drug? The Good ol’ USA. According to a study in Time, 42% of Americans have tried it. Even President Obama has smoked it.

8. Where Did The Name Marijuana Come From? No One Knows

There is a lot of speculation when it comes to the origin of the name marijuana. Folklore has it that it is a hybrid of the names Maria and Juana, slang terms for a prostitute. Another theory is that it is derived from the word maraguanquo, which means “intoxicating plant.” While a variant of the word appeared as early as 1873, the plant was known mostly as cannabis. It wasn’t until the demonization of the drug in the 1930′s and 40′s (used to suppress minorities) that the word Marihuana was associated with “Reefer Madness.” Over the years, hundreds of nicknames have been coined, including grass, weed, dope, pot, and kush. What’s your favorite?

9. The Use of Hemp Could Save Our Planet

Uses of the hemp plant fiber itself are numerous. It can be made into rope, paper, clothing, canvas, eaten as a food, and its seeds can be used for fuel. It’s also good for the planet. A study by McGill University in Canada estimated that 1 1/2 to 3 1/2 million acres of industrial hemp would take care of all of our oil needs. In addition, unlike tobacco, which destroys the soil after every crop, planting cannabis actually improves it. It is legal in Uruguay, Peru, India, and even in Iran for it to be grown for food/fuel. Legalization of both hemp and marijuana would produce thousands of jobs, take care of world hunger, cut back on greenhouse gases, and help people cope with the pain of AIDs, glaucoma, and cancer. It turns out that getting “high” from it is just an added bonus.

Bad News About Bananas

 
Ahh – the banana. Cherished by most. But especially loved by children, apes, and clowns. They are colorful, nutritious and tasty. What’s not to love?! The banana is vitally important in many regions of the tropics, where different parts of the plant are used for clothing, paper and tableware, and where the fruit itself is an essential dietary staple. People across the globe appreciate the soft, nourishing flesh, the snack-sized portions, and the easy peel-off covering that conveniently changes color to indicate ripeness. The banana, however, is actually a genetic freak of nature and might not be the healthiest choice for you. Despite its phallic appearance, the banana hasn’t had sex for thousands of years! And did you know, you’re not even eating the same banana that your grandparents ate?
The banana is a fragile genetic mutant that has sustained itself due to years and years of selective breeding. Some tens of thousands of years ago, early humans put together two South Asian wild plant species: Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana. The hybridized fruit was tasty and seedless and so much better than either of the originals. However, this hybridized version is now impotent. The only way the banana can reproduce is with human help.

 

A crop duster plane sprays fungicide to protect a 7,000 hectare banana plantation leaf virus. The world’s population is massively dependent on a dozen or so crops that are intensively cultivated in a tiny number of strains.

The banana that you are used to eating is called the Cavendish. Every Cavendish is genetically identical so that every one tastes the same. But it also means that every Cavendish is susceptible to the same disease. If the entire population of something is genetically identical, something that can attack and kill one member of that population can kill all of it; this is the same theory behind antibiotic resistance; in a population of bacteria, there will usually be some mutants that are resistant to antibiotics.
In the middle of the last century, the common banana was NOT the Cavendish, but was the Gros Michel. “Big Mike” was a banana that was apparently bigger and much tastier than the Cavendish, but unfortunately it was susceptible to Panama Disease. Panama disease was first reported in Australia in 1876, but it took until the 1950s for it to spread around most of the world. Between 1940 and 1960, 75,000 acres of banana plantations were destroyed in the Ulua Valley of Honduras, 10,000 acres were put out of use in Suriname in 8 years, and 15,000 acres in Costa Rica in 12 years. The effect was devastating. But by the end of the 1960s, luckily a solution was found to replace Big Mike. The Cavendish.
This exact same thing can happen with the Cavendish. A severe outbreak of banana disease could easily spread through the genetically uniform plantations, devastating economies and depriving our fruit bowls and banana splits. Varieties grown for local consumption would also suffer, potentially causing mass starvation in tropical regions.
The day of reckoning may be coming for the Cavendish. It is already being stalked by another fungal disease. Black Sigatoka has become a global epidemic since its first appearance in Fiji in 1963. It’s tearing through Asia at the moment and hasn’t yet reached South America. Commercial growers keep it at bay by a constant chemical assault. Forty sprayings of fungicide a year is typical, making the Cavendish the most heavily sprayed food crop in the world. (Remember this next time someone tells you that you don’t need to buy organic bananas because of their thick skin.) Think about the amount of chemicals we are putting on this planet and exposing the workers to. In Costa Rica, the second-largest banana exporter after Ecuador, women in banana-packing plants suffer double the average rates of leukemia and birth defects. Meanwhile, a fifth of male banana workers are sterile, allegedly as a result of exposure to dibromochloropropane, which is now banned, and other fungicides that are not. Organic farmers, who use natural pesticides, are much healthier, but they face the same problems of infestation.
It may seem silly, but actually a lot of research is currently being done around the world to prevent another banana-apocalypse. A genetically modified route of research and a non genetically modified route. So far, banana science has not provided many approaches for improving disease resistance. One method involves the traditional techniques of selective breeding: although banana plants are clones, very occasionally they can be persuaded to produce seeds through a painstaking process of hand pollination. Only one fruit in three hundred will produce a seed, and of these seeds only one in three will have the correct chromosomal configuration to allow germination. Those are not very good odds for success.
And as far as GM bananas go, well its a mixed bag. There is a public outcry against GMO (genetically modified organisms) at the moment, and at the same time, there aren’t many other options being presented.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.
And What About The Fact That The Banana is Hybridized?
There are plenty of individuals that think not-so-highly of seedless varieties of fruits. Hybrid fruit, in general, is biologically weak: it has not picked up the minerals from the soil properly. David Wolfe, world-renowned raw foodist, won’t eat any fruit that does not contain seeds. Why? It doesn’t contain the same nourishment as fruit with seeds. Wolfe warns us to avoid refined sugar, which should not come as a surprise, but he also points out that hybrid fruits (seedless) should be avoided. Seedless bananas, watermelon, grapes, oranges, etc. contain sugar that can act like processed sugar. A diet high in these fruits can lead to constipation, dehydration, and a slightly diabetic situation. According to Wolfe, eating too much hybridized fruit (and vegetables) causes the body to “bring heavy minerals from the bones into the blood to buffer the hybrid sugar. This hybrid sugar is not completely recognized by the liver and pancreas. The minerals and sugar are spilled off into the urine. Hybrid sweet fruit and sweet starchy vegetables can over stimulate you and cause you to lose minerals.” Furthermore, hybrid foods are attacked by different forms of fungi and are much more susceptible to early decay. Hybrid foods can feed fungal conditions like candida whereas non-hybrid or wild fruit will not lead to such a condition.
A majority of the population today consumes only 13 varieties of plants, 9 of which are so hybridized that they either do not have seeds at all or completely non-viable seeds in the wild: bananas, beans, beets and the refined sugar that comes from beets, corn, oranges, potatoes, rice, wheat, and soy beans. These are so low in nutritional value that they significantly contribute to malnourishment and starvation across the planet. A plant that cannot grow by itself in Nature is not likely to have enough life-force to turn us into healthy vibrant beings.
So – What Do We Do?
Bananas cannot survive without human intervention and at the moment we are swimming against the current of a banana-plague. This time, unfortunately, there is no obvious back-up variety waiting in the wings. The demise of the banana means the serious fall of Ecuadorian, Costa Rican and plenty of other South American country’s economies.
Do we go along with genetically modified bananas just so we can continue with our banana splits? And after all, how would we make the Bananas Foster without the Banana?

 Erin Schumacher is a Certified Natural Health and Holistic Nutrition Practitioner (CNHP; CHNP) She specializes in detoxification programs, internal cleanses, and helping clients build strong immune systems. She also travels internationally to do raw food workshops, yoga retreats, and personal coaching. In addition, Erin is a Certified Power Yoga Instructor and a Certified Raw Food Chef from the SunKitchen. She currently lives in Vilcabamba, Ecuador. For more information, visit ErinSchumacher.net.

Biggest Lies of Mainstream Nutrition

There is a lot of misinformation circling around in mainstream nutrition.
I have listed the worst examples in this article, but unfortunately this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Here are the top 11 biggest lies, myths and misconceptions of mainstream nutrition.
1. Eggs Are Unhealthy
There’s one thing that nutrition professionals have had remarkable success with… and that is demonizing incredibly healthy foods.
The worst example of that is eggs, which happen to contain a large amount of cholesterol and were therefore considered to increase the risk of heart disease.
But recently it has been proven that the cholesterol in the diet doesn’t really raise the cholesterol in blood. In fact, eggs primarily raise the “good” cholesterol and are NOT associated with increased risk of heart disease (1, 2).
What we’re left with is one of the most nutritious foods on the planet. They’re high in all sorts of nutrients along with unique antioxidants that protect our eyes (3).
To top it all of, despite being a “high fat” food, eating eggs for breakfast is proven to cause significant weight loss compared to bagels for breakfast (4, 5).

Bottom Line: Eggs do not cause heart disease and are among the most nutritious foods on the planet. Eggs for breakfast can help you lose weight.
2. Saturated Fat is Bad For You
A few decades ago it was decided that the epidemic of heart disease was caused by eating too much fat, in particular saturated fat.
This was based on highly flawed studies and political decisions that have now been proven to be completely wrong.
A massive review article published in 2010 looked at 21 prospective epidemiological studies with a total of 347.747 subjects. Their results: absolutely no association between saturated fat and heart disease (6).
The idea that saturated fat raised the risk of heart disease was an unproven theory that somehow became conventional wisdom (7).
Eating saturated fat raises the amount of HDL (the “good”) cholesterol in the blood and changes the LDL from small, dense LDL (very bad) to Large LDL, which is benign (8, 9).
Meat, coconut oil, cheese, butter… there is absolutely no reason to fear these foods.
Bottom Line: Newer studies have proven that saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Natural foods that are high in saturated fat are good for you.
3. Everybody Should be Eating Grains
The idea that humans should be basing their diets on grains has never made sense to me.
The agricultural revolution happened fairly recently in human evolutionary history and our genes haven’t changed that much.
Grains are fairly low in nutrients compared to other real foods like vegetables. They are also rich in a substance called phytic acid which binds essential minerals in the intestine and prevents them from being absorbed (10).
The most common grain in the western diet, by far, is wheat… and wheat can cause a host of health problems, both minor and serious.
Modern wheat contains a large amount of a protein called gluten, but there is evidence that a significant portion of the population may be sensitive to it (11, 12, 13).
Eating gluten can damage the intestinal lining, cause pain, bloating, stool inconsistency and tiredness (14, 15). Gluten consumption has also been associated with schizophrenia and cerebellar ataxia, both serious disorders of the brain (16, 17).
Bottom Line: Grains are relatively low in nutrients compared to other real foods like vegetables. The gluten grains in particular may lead to a variety of health problems.
4. Eating a Lot of Protein is Bad For Your Bones and Kidneys
A high protein diet has been claimed to cause both osteoporosis and kidney disease.
It is true that eating protein increases calcium excretion from the bones in the short term, but the long term studies actually show the opposite effect.

 

In the long term, protein has a strong association with improved bone health and a lower risk of fracture (18, 19).
Additionally, studies don’t show any association of high protein with kidney disease in otherwise healthy people (20, 21).
In fact, two of the main risk factors for kidney failure are diabetes and high blood pressure. Eating a high protein diet improves both (22, 23).
If anything, a high protein diet should be protective against osteoporosis and kidney failure!
Bottom Line: Eating a high protein diet is associated with improved bone health and a lower risk of fracture. High protein also lowers blood pressure and improves diabetes symptoms, which should lower the risk of kidney failure.
5. Low-Fat Foods Are Good For You
Do you know what regular food tastes like when all the fat has been taken out of it?
Well, it tastes like cardboard. No one would want to eat it.
The food manufacturers know this and therefore they add other things to compensate for the lack of fat.
Usually these are sweeteners… sugar, high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners like aspartame.
We’ll get to the sugar in a moment, but I’d like to point out that even though artificial sweeteners don’t have calories, the evidence does NOT suggest that they are better for you than sugar.
In fact, many observational studies show a consistent, highly significant association with various diseases like obesity, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, premature delivery and depression (24, 25, 26).
In these low-fat products, healthy natural fats are being replaced with substances that are extremely harmful.
Bottom Line: Low-fat foods are usually highly processed products loaded with sugar, corn syrup or artificial sweeteners. They are extremely unhealthy.
6. You Should Eat Many Small Meals Throughout The Day
The idea that you should eat many small meals throughout the day in order to “keep metabolism high” is a persistent myth that doesn’t make any sense.
It is true that eating raises your metabolism slightly while you’re digesting the meal, but it’s the total amount of food that determines the energy used, NOT the number of meals.
This has actually been put to the test and refuted multiple times. Controlled studies where one group eats many small meals and the other the same amount of food in fewer meals show that there is literally no difference between the two (27, 28).
In fact, one study in obese men revealed that eating 6 meals per day led to less feelings of fullness compared to 3 meals (29).
Not only is eating so often practically useless for most of the people out there, it may even be harmful.
It is not natural for the human body to be constantly in the fed state. In nature, we used to fast from time to time and we didn’t eat nearly as often as we do today.
When we don’t eat for a while, a cellular process called autophagy cleans waste products out of our cells (30). Fasting or not eating from time to time is good for you.
Several observational studies show a drastically increased risk of colon cancer (4th most common cause of cancer death), numbers going as high as a 90% increase for those who eat 4 meals per day compared to 2 (31, 32, 33).
Bottom Line: There is no evidence that eating many small meals throughout the day is better than fewer, bigger meals. Not eating from time to time is good for you. Increased meal frequency is associated with colon cancer.
7. Carbs Should Be Your Biggest Source of Calories
The mainstream view is that everyone should eat a low-fat diet, with carbs being around 50-60% of total calories.
This sort of diet contains a lot of grains and sugars, with very small amounts of fatty foods like meat and eggs.
This type of diet may work well for some people, especially those who are naturally lean.
But for those who are obese, have the metabolic syndrome or diabetes, this amount of carbohydrates is downright dangerous.
This has actually been studied extensively. A low-fat, high-carb diet has been compared to a low-carb, high-fat diet in multiple randomized controlled trials.
The results are consistently in favor of low-carb, high-fat diets (34, 35, 36).

Bottom Line: The low-fat, high-carb diet is a miserable failure and has been proven repeatedly to be vastly inferior to lower-carb, higher-fat diets.

8. High Omega-6 Seed and Vegetable Oils Are Good For You
Polyunsaturated fats are considered healthy because some studies show that they lower your risk of heart disease.
But there are many types of polyunsaturated fats and they are not all the same.
Most importantly, we have both Omega-3 fatty acids and Omega-6 fatty acids.
Omega-3s are anti-inflammatory and lower your risk of many diseases related to inflammation (37). Humans actually need to get Omega-6s and Omega-3s in a certain ratio. If the ratio is too high in favor of Omega-6, it can cause problems (38).
By far the biggest sources of Omega-6 in the modern diet are processed seed and vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower oils.
Throughout evolution, humans never had access to such an abundance of Omega-6 fats. It is unnatural for the human body.
Research that specifically looks at Omega-6 fatty acids instead of polyunsaturated fats in general shows that they actually increase the risk of heart disease (39, 40).
Eat your Omega-3s and consider supplementing with cod fish liver oil, but avoid the industrial seed and vegetable oils.
Bottom Line: Humans need to get Omega-6 and Omega-3 fats in a certain ratio. Eating excess Omega-6 from seed oils raises your risk of disease.
9. Low Carb Diets Are Dangerous
I personally believe low-carb diets to be a potential cure for many of the most common health problems in western nations.
The low-fat diet peddled all around the world is fairly useless against many of these diseases. It simply does not work.
However, low-carb diets (demonized by nutritionists and the media) have repeatedly been shown to lead to much better outcomes.
Every randomized controlled trial on low-carb diets shows that they:
1. Reduce body fat more than calorie-restricted low-fat diets, even though the low-carb dieters are allowed to eat as much as they want (41, 42).
2. Lower blood pressure significantly (43, 44).
3. Lower blood sugar and improve symptoms of diabetes much more than low-fat diets (45, 46, 47, 48).
4. Increase HDL (the good) cholesterol much more (49, 50).
5. Lower triglycerides much more than low-fat diets (51, 52, 53).
6. Change the pattern of LDL (bad) cholesterol from small, dense (very bad) to Large LDL, which is benign (54, 55).
7. Low carb diets are also easier to stick to, probably because they don’t require you to restrict calories and be hungry all the time. More people in the low-carb groups make it to the end of the studies (56, 57).
Many of the health professionals that are supposed to have our best interest in mind have the audacity to claim that these diets are dangerous, then continue to peddle their failed low-fat dogma that is hurting more people than it helps.
Bottom Line: Low-carb diets are the healthiest, easiest and most effective way to lose weight and reverse metabolic disease. It is a scientific fact.
10. Sugar is Unhealthy Because it Contains “Empty” Calories
It is commonly believed that sugar is bad for you because it contains empty calories.
It’s true, sugar has a lot of calories with no essential nutrients. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Sugar, primarily because of its high fructose content, affects metabolism in a way that sets us up for rapid fat gain and metabolic disease.
Fructose gets metabolized by the liver and turned into fat which is secreted into the blood as VLDL particles. This leads to elevated triglycerides and cholesterol (58, 59).
It also causes resistance to the hormones insulin and leptin, which is a stepping stone towards obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes (60, 61).
This is just to name a few. Sugar causes a relentless biochemical drive for humans to eat more and get fat. It is probably the single worst ingredient in the standard western diet.
Bottom Line: The harmful effects of sugar go way beyond empty calories. Sugar wreaks havoc on our metabolism and sets us up for weight gain and many serious diseases.
11. High Fat Foods Will Make You Fat
It seems kind of intuitive that eating fat would make you get fat.
The stuff that is gathering under our skin and making us look soft and puffy is fat. So… eating fat should give our bodies even more of it.
But it isn’t that simple. Despite fat having more calories per gram than carbohydrate or protein, high-fat diets do not make people fat.
As with anything, this depends on the context. A diet that is high in fat AND high in carbs will make you fat, but it’s NOT because of the fat.
In fact, diets that are high in fat (and low in carbs) cause much greater fat loss than diets that are low in fat (62, 63, 64).
12. Anything Else?
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Source: EndAllDisease.com

Media Scoundrels Pillory Chavez

His passing made no difference. Media scoundrels don't quit. They spent 14 years vilifying him. They did it unfairly. They haven't stopped.

They're called scoundrels for good reason. They violate fundamental journalistic ethics. They lie for power. They turn truth on its head. 

They substitute managed news misinformation. They support wealth, power, privilege and dominance. They're in bed with wrong over right.

They spurn rule of law principles and democratic values. They're well paid to do so. They betray readers and viewers. They do so unconscionably. They don't give a damn, and it shows.

Why anyone follows them they'll have to explain. Tune them out. Ignore their publications. Choose reliable alternative sources. 

Get informed. Stay that way. Why settle for manipulated rubbish. Real news, information and analysis is readily available. Use it daily. Know what matters most.

On March 5, Chavez passed. An era went with him. Venezuelans owe him much. They won't forget. 

He transformed an oligarch-run nation into a model participatory democracy. America's sham one pales by comparison. Venezuelans get the real thing and much more. 

They deplore what used to be. They won't tolerate going back. Chavismo lives! Bolivarianism is policy. Venezuelans won't let it die. It's too important to preserve. Not according to media scoundrels.

On March 5, The New York Times claimed Venezuela today is "bitterly divided." It's "in the grip of a political crisis." It grew "more acute" in recent weeks. 

Times writer William Neuman lied. He's paid to do so. Venezuelans overwhelmingly support Chavismo. His death changes nothing.

Dallas Morning News editor Sharon Grigs headlined "Chavez's death: Now Venezuela can reclaim its lost democracy." She wouldn't recognize the real thing if it bit her on the rump.

The Washington Post did no better. It called Chavez "polarizing." An "institutional crisis" exists. 

Other media scoundrels piled on. They pillory what deserves praise. Chavez institutionalized what won't change. Venezuelans won't tolerate their ugly past. They'll challenge dark forces to prevent it.

The Washington Times said "Chavistas' mourn dictator." White House/Capitol Hill reaction ranged from "cautious optimism" to "good riddance."

Obama vilified Chavez often. He scorned him unconscionably. He lied repeatedly. He's a serial liar. 

He now says America "reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interests in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government."

He doesn't give a damn about ordinary Venezuelans. He never did and doesn't now. 

Washington tolerates no independent leaders. Chavez was marked for removal. CIA rogues likely killed him. Perhaps he was poisoned or exposed to cancer causing elements. 

Israel used polonium to murder Arafat. Perhaps something similar caused Chavez's death. It wouldn't be the first time America assassinated a foreign leader. It won't be the last. Its rap sheet includes many.

BBC said "Iconic Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez dies." He leaves behind an "economic muddle."

He achieved impressive economic growth and prosperity. Britain's government pales by comparison. It's lawless, corrupt, dysfunctional, and hugely unequal. BBC's its propaganda mouthpiece. Don't expect it to explain.

Media scoundrels attacked Chavez. They did so before he's buried. His state funeral is Friday. Have they no shame? They don't now and never did.

Murdoch's the worst of a bad bunch. His world reflects demagoguery, propaganda, predatory capitalism, warmongering and sleaze.

Journalist Mike Royko's (1932 - 1997) assessment bears repeating. "(N)o self-respecting fish would (want to) be wrapped in a Murdoch paper."

"His goal (isn't) journalism." It's bottom line priorities. It's "vast power, political power." He wields it unscrupulously. He's a world class predator.

He uses deception, intimidation, and bullying. He does so to get his way. He hires likeminded scoundrels. Do it his way or work elsewhere. 

No middle ground is permissible. No independent journalists get hired. Truth tellers need not apply. No honest brokers wanted. No telling it like it is.

On March 5, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal headlined "Hugo Chavez: The lesson is to beware the rule of charismatic demagogues."

In December 1998, Venezuelans elected him. A dark era ended. Chavez made things "worse," said the Journal. It lied saying so.

"By 1998, the the Soviet Union was a memory, Latin American countries from Mexico to Chile were successfully adopting free-market policies, and Chavez's friend and role model - Cuba's Fidel Castro - was a discredited dinosaur."

Castro's a model leader. He transformed Cuba responsibly. He did so from police state harshness/casino/brothel corruption into an equitable socialist state. 

He was Chavez's mentor and friend. Chavez called him his father and role model. They bonded. They stayed close until until his death.

Not according to WSJThink. "Chavez showed that it's possible to run against the tides of history, at least for a while, and at least if you happen to get lucky with an oil revenue bonanza."

Chavez used Venezuela's oil wealth "to purchase political support of Venezuela's poor, the army and a loyal nouveau riche."

"It also allowed him to become a classic petro-dictator."

"In 1999 he revised the Venezuelan constitution to give him expanded powers."

"He used a constitutional assembly under his control to appoint a chavista Supreme Court."

"He stripped independent TV and radio stations of their licenses and intimidated reporters with draconian libel laws."

Fact check

Murdoch lies need challenging. They're over-the-top and unconscionable. 

Chavez used Venezuela's oil wealth responsibly. Everyone benefitted. Populism replaced neoliberal harshness.

Bolivarianism prioritizes vital needs. Living standards improved remarkably. Disadvantaged Venezuelans benefitted most.

Child mortality fell from 20 per 1,000 to 13. Unemployment dropped from 14.5% to 6.4%. 

Income inequality is Latin America's lowest. Poverty was cut in half. Extreme poverty fell over 70%. Economic growth in 2011 was 4.8%. In 2012, it was 5.6%. Forecasts estimate 6% in 2013.

Hundreds of thousands of new homes were built. Commerce grew 9.2%. Communications advanced 7.2%. Manufacturing increased 2.1%. Oil sector production increased.

Growth created jobs. Millions got free healthcare and education. They did so for the first time. Pension eligibility tripled.

Pre-Chavez years were disastrous." From 1980 - 1998, per capita income fell. Chavez turned disaster into success. Venezuela's future looks promising. Give Chavez the credit he deserves.

Corporate owners dominate Venezuela's media. Censorship doesn't exist. Short of advocating sedition or treason, they're free to publish or air what they wish. They take full advantage. They vilify populist reform. They pilloried Chavez for institutionalizing it.

"Though elections were held on schedule, (Chavez) made sure to tilt the playing field….Public workers risked being fired if they voted against him. It was the sort of election only Jimmy Carter could bless."

Fact check

Carter Center representatives monitor Venezuelan elections. Jimmy Carter calls its process "the best in the world." He does for good reason. It's open, free and fair.

It shames America's sham process. Duopoly power runs things. Republicans and Democrats replicate each other. They're two sides of the same coin. 

They're beholden to monied interests. They sold their souls for power. 

People have no say. Voters get the best democracy money can buy. Neoliberal harshness, permanent wars, and police state repression follow.

Venezuelan democracy is genuine. Voters need no persuasion. Chavez instituted the real thing. Venezuelans want it no other way. 

Expect what he began to continue. It's hardwired to stay. It's part of Venezuelan culture. It won't fade and die.

The Journal claims life for Venezuela's "bec(ame) worse." It lied saying so. It's never been better in

"Chavez made his mark on the world stage by forging alliances with Bashar Assad in Syria and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, giving sanctuary to Colombia's narco-terrorist FARC movement, providing the Castro regime with free oil, and inveighing loudly against the United States." 

"He succeeded in spawning political imitators in Ecuador and Bolivia."

Chavez governed responsibly. He allied with other independent leaders. He prioritized right over wrong. Journal editors can't tolerate his success. He represented the threat of a good example.

Venezuelans "have to fight to reclaim the democracy they once enjoyed….Let's hope Venezuelans seize the chance to bury the tragic legacy of Chavismo alongside its author's corpse."

Chavismo lives. Bolivarianism delivered democracy. Venezuelans got what they never had. They mourn their great loss. 

They want Chavez buried alongside Bolivar. He's in Venezuela’s Panteon Nacional (Temple of all the Gods). It lies on Caracas' northern edge. 

Its central nave is dedicated to Bolivar. It's adorned with his bronze sarcophagus and paintings reflecting his life. In 1883, an impressive crystal chandelier was installed. It was done on the centennial of his birth.

Expect Chavez be interned there. He belongs nowhere else. Both leaders stood tall. They supported what's right. Venezuelans won't ever forget. 

America never had anyone like them. Its deplorable government reflects it. Today it's worse than ever. 

It's corporatist, soulless, lawless, belligerent, and repressive. It's a hair's breath from tyranny. Don't explain media scoundrels to explain.

generations.

 

Remember Bani Walid

For courageous Jamahiriya fighters, it's their finest hour. Despite overwhelming force, use of chemical and other illegal weapons, and US-sponsored mass murder, they hang on valiantly.

Western major scoundrels shamelessly ignore the slaughter or misreport it. More on that below.

A previous article called what's happening one of history's great crimes. It's a Nuremberg level one writ large. Libyans and people of conscience won't ever let it be forgotten. Mass killing and destruction continues. An entire city is being destroyed.

Western-sponsored death squads are murdering civilians in cold blood. NATO-supplied rockets, shells, chemical, and other illegal weapons target them. Inside the city, door-to-door murder threatens anyone remaining.

Last year, Sirte was terror bombed to rubble. US-led NATO forces terrorized a city of 100,000. Unknown numbers perished. Civilians suffered most.

In all US direct and proxy wars, Washington targets them. Mass casualties and punishment follow. It's done to break morale, cause panic, and weaken an enemy's will to resist.

International law strictly forbids it. Article 25 of the 1907 Hague Convention states:

"The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."

Article 26 says:

"The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities."

Article 27 states: 

"In sieges and bombardments, all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes." 

Fourth Geneva protects civilians in time of war. Collective punishment is forbidden. So is violence of any type. Sick and wounded victims must be treated. 

In September 1938, the League of Nations prohibited the 

"bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces"

"In cases where (legitimate targets) are so situated, (aircraft) must abstain from bombardment" if doing so disproportionately harms civilians.

The 1945 Nuremberg Principles prohibit "crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity." 

These include "inhumane acts committed against any civilian populations, before or during the war." 

Indiscriminate killing and "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" is strictly forbidden.

In 1968, a General Assembly Resolution on Human Rights prohibits attacks on civilian populations. Washington, key NATO partners, and Israel do it repeatedly. State terror is policy. Strategy prioritizes murdering defenseless people.

Lest we forget, remember Guernica 1937, the 1940-41 London blitz, Dresdan 1945, fire-bombing Toyko 1945, Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945, North Korea 1950-53, Southeast Asia 1964-75, Iraq 1991 and 2003, Serbia/Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001, decades of Israeli wars on Palestinians and other Arabs, Libya 2011, many other US-led Western crimes, and now Bani Walid.

Progressive News Hour regular James Petras said on air that most NGOs skim 90% of donations for themselves. They're predators, not humanitarians. They serve political agendas for profit.

ICRC is no exception. It profits handsomely from wars, disasters and human misery. "Non-profiteering" is big business.

ICRC's claimed humanitarian mission is cover. What's involved is money, special privileges gotten, and connections to people in high places.

Benefitting this way is loathsome and contemptible. Operations profiting from human misery have no place in civil society. With hundreds of millions of dollars in funding annually, ICRC benefits like for-profit businesses. 

In return, services in kind are provided. ICRC is on the wrong side of the Syrian conflict. It's much the same for Libya.

On October 26, its press release belied the gravity of Bani Walid conditions. It explained nothing about willful slaughter. It merely said:

"The humanitarian situation remains difficult for the people of Bani Walid in Libya."

"Many people have had to get out of Bani Walid since fighting resumed in the city almost a month ago."

"The ICRC continues to monitor the humanitarian situation in and around Bani Walid as the fighting continues…."

Help provided is modest at best. Included is much less than adequate amounts of food, water and medical supplies. Residents able to reach nearby areas receive what isn't enough to sustain them. Others trapped inside Bani Walid are largely on their own.

On October 28, Russia Today (rt.com) headlined "Siege of Bani Walid: Foreign fighters, phosphorous bombs and nerve gas - RT sources," saying:

Bloodbath conditions affect city residents. Western-sponsored death squads attack them with "banned weapons like white phosphorous."

Resistance fighters hold out valiantly. Bani Walid didn't fall. RT sources "denied reports of the last few days that (it) was retaken by the Libyan government."

Refugees who fled the city are prevented from returning. A man with trapped relatives in Bani Walid told RT:

"There is no food. There is nothing to support the life of people. And the militia does not allow anyone to come back to their homes."

ICRC claimed it entered the city twice during fighting and supplied aid. Residents, in fact, got little or nothing.

Mercenaries "are demolishing homes with machinery and tanks. There is no communication or internet so people are not able to connect with each other."

Western sources want information on what's ongoing suppressed.

RT's source said foreign fighters are involved. He's unidentified to protect himself and family members. Washington's dirty hands control everything. Puppet Libyan officials do what they're told. Qatar and other regional states are involved.

RT's source said:

"We ask the envoy (Special Representative) of the Secretary-General of the United Nations (for Libya), Mr. Tarik Mitri - where is he now?"

"Where is the United Nations? Where is the EU? Where is Human Rights Watch? We ask for an intervention now as soon as possible – please!"

Washington blocked Russia's draft statement. It called on Libyan authorities "to take urgent steps to resolve the conflict by peaceful means and to preserve the rights of all Libyan citizens."

It expressed grave concern for conditions in Bani Walid. RT said "witnesses claim" foreign fighters are using "internationally prohibited weapons." They include "phosphorous bombs and nerve gas."

Bani Walid activist/lawyer Afaf Yusef told RT:

"We have documented all this in videos. We recorded the missiles they used and the white phosphorus raining down from these missiles."

"Many people died without being wounded or shot. They died as a result of gases. The whole world needs to see who they are targeting. Are they really Gaddafi's men? Are the children, women and old men killed - Gaddafi's men?"

RT said foreign fighters were told to use "all means necessary" to control the city. Libyan activist Ali Altakasih told RT that Bani Walid residents say that "chemical weapons and airplanes" attack them.

He urged Russia, China, and other countries to intervene to help. Civilians are isolated on their own and dying.

"Any house that looks of great importance to the militias is either burnt or robbed," he added. "There are people who are trapped inside the city who cannot leave the city, either for fear of the militia or fear of leaving their belongings inside the city."

Obama bears full responsibility. Libya's war is his. So is ongoing Bani Walid slaughter and destruction. Major media scoundrels support what they should condemn. 

What's happening in Bani Walid is suppressed. On October 24, The New York Times headlined "Libyan Forces Now Control Restive Town, Officials Say."

What city residents say is ignored. Fighting continues. Unnamed "officials" lied. Times writer Kareem Fahim regurgitated false information instead of reporting accurately.

BBC was no better. On October 24, it headlined "Libyan forces 'capture ex-Gaddadi bastion Bani Walid,' " saying:

"Libyan authorities say they have seized control of" the city. "The government alleges that Bani Walid harbors a number of Gaddafi loyalists….Authorities say all military operations have been halted."

They claim "troops will provide security and aid in the town."

"Dozens of people are believed to have been killed, and some 200 injured in recent violence."

"Civilians escaping the clashes have found refuge in surrounding towns, where they are staying with families or in schools."

All of the above is false or distorted. BBC viewers and listeners were willfully lied to. What else could they expect from a government owned, operated and controlled propaganda service.

Al Jazeera functions the same way. Qatar's monarchy runs it. It long ago abandoned professionalism, objectivity, truth and full disclosure. Credibility isn't its long suit. Key members of its staff resigned in disgust. They're journalists, not propagandists.

On October 26, Al Jazeera headlined "Libya 'captures' former Gaddafi stronghold," saying:

"Celebratory gunfire" followed. Fighters called it "a triumph for the government that replaced Gaddafi's regime."

"Youssef al-Mankoush, the Libyan army chief of staff, said military operations in the city were terminated but that some forces were still chasing a few pockets of Gaddafi loyalists."

This type rubbish substitutes for hard truths. Other reports are no better. Similar information is discussed. What's most important is suppressed. Readers are willfully lied to. They're not told what they most need to know.

Bani Walid is an ongoing human catastrophe. It's also one of history's great crimes. Washington bears full responsibility. Its dirty hands are all over conflicts throughout the region. That's how fascist states operate.

Obama Rejects Palestinian Statehood

by Stephen Lendman

What do you call a Black man who rejects equal rights for his own people and others? A racist traitor.

What do you call a rejectionist leader? A criminal who should be impeached, removed and prosecuted.

Obama stands guilty on multiple counts. His rap sheet includes much more than spurning Palestinian rights. He's complicit in grand theft and war crimes multiple times over. He's unfit to serve. He should be in prison, not government. 

Throughout his tenure, he repeatedly violated international, constitutional, and US statute laws. He's contemptuous of fundamental rights and other democratic values. 

From his earliest Chicago political days, he supported ethnic cleansing gentrification. Real estate and other financial priorities trumped populism. They still do and much more.

Obama fronts for wealth and power interests. As a state senator, he did it for his district. As president, he does it globally. He's in lockstep with Israel on Palestine.

He supports occupation harshness. Palestinians are Muslims and don't matter. Denying them fundamental rights is policy. So is total evisceration of freedom and standing four-square against sovereign independence in any form. He also opposes full or limited UN membership.

Washington wages wars multiple ways. Its repertoire includes financial and political warfare. 

Last year, US Jerusalem Consul General, Daniel Rubenstein, told chief negotiator Saeb Erekat that Washington will veto a UN Security Council resolution on Palestinian sovereignty within June 1967 borders.

Doing so is illegal. It also carries no weight. The General Assembly alone affirms new member states by a two-thirds vote. The Security Council only recommends admissions. 

Palestinians can override Washington's veto by petitioning the General Assembly through the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377. Doing so renders America's veto null and void.

Washington pledged earlier not to oppose any state seeking UN membership. Of course, its promises aren't worth the paper they're written on. The same goes for Israel. Both nations are rogue states. They govern by we're boss and what we say goes rules. 

Rubenstein also threatened to cut off all aid and impose other unspecified punitive measures. In July 2012, PA official Khaled Mesmar said Washington repeated its threat. 

An unnamed US diplomat told Abbas in Ramallah. He, of course, only goes through the motions of seeking official statehood recognition and UN membership with enough rights to matter. Rhetoric substitutes for follow-through. 

If proper procedures are followed, both objectives are within easy reach. Abbas struck out repeatedly on both counts. Expect nothing from him ahead. He epitomizes betrayal and illegitimacy. He represents Israel and Washington, not Palestine. He's an unprincipled quisling head of state.

In June 2011, the Senate unanimously approved a measure to end funding if statehood is pursued. Weeks later, the House followed suit. It voted 407 - 6. Its resolution also called for suspending aid if Fatah/Hamas unity is consummated.

Both House and Senate resolutions are non-binding. Foreign policy is the purview of the Executive. Exceptions include the right to declare war. Congress alone may do so. It abdicated its authority over seven decades ago. It shows no signs of reclaiming it.

The State of Palestine, in fact, exists. It was proclaimed in Algiers on November 15, 1988. At the time, the PLO adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence. 

PLO legal advisor Francis Boyle drafted it. He included safeguards to assure all sovereign state rights. His document left no wiggle room loopholes. He also made sure UN membership won't comprise them. 

Palestine satisfies all essential criteria for sovereign independence and full de jure UN membership. 

All UN Charter states (including America and Israel) provisionally recognized Palestinian independence in accordance with UN Charter article 80(1) and League Covenant article 22(4). 

Further, as the League's successor, the General Assembly has exclusive legal authority to designate the PLO as the Palestinian peoples' legitimate representative. 

The Palestine National Council (PNC) is the PLO's legislative body. It's empowered to proclaim the existence of Palestine. According to the binding 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council, Palestinians, their children and grandchildren automatically become citizens. 

So are diaspora Palestinians. Those living in Israel and Jordan have dual nationalities. Occupied Territory residents remain "protected persons" (under Fourth Geneva) until a final peace settlement is reached.

Rights are achievable under leaders who pursue them. Palestinian governance always fell short. Millions deserving better never got it. They remain occupied and oppressed in limbo. 

They're on their own to seek liberation PA leaders conspiratorially with Israel and Washington deny them. On September 27, Abbas addressed the General Assembly in New York. Once again he fell short.

His comments were watered down, weak-kneed, and duplicitous. He'll again seek UN non-member state status, he said. On the one hand, he promised before and backed down. 

On the other, why seek less than what's easily within reach and should have been gotten long ago. 

Last year, Francis Boyle emailed this writer as follows:

"I have advised the Palestinians to invoke the Uniting for Peace Resolution." Doing so overrides Washington's veto. "That get’s their Admission Application to the UN General Assembly." 

"It is the General Assembly that admits, not the Security Council. There they will need a 2/3ds vote of those states voting yes or no - abstentions, no votes, no shows do not count."

At the time, the Financial Times estimated they had 170 votes. They constitute 88% of UN member states. "If they get the 2/3ds vote in the General Assembly, Palestine" joins their ranks, "and you have Palestine and Israel, which everyone says they want but, of course, they do not mean it."

Boyle added that "Palestinians will always live to fight another day. And I will be there with them until my dying day. Or until Palestine is Free." For the record, this writer pledges the same thing without compromising what's right, fair, just, and long overdue.

On October 1, the London Guardian headlined "US warns European governments against supporting Palestinians at UN," saying:

It came in private memo form. Go along or else. Memo language said UN status in any form "would be extremely counterproductive." EU governments were told Palestinians will face "significant negative consequences." Financial sanctions were mentioned.

The memo said Palestinian statehood "can only be achieved via direct negotiations with the Israelis." Going that route, of course, assures permanent occupation, exploitation, persecution, and failure. 

European governments were urged to support US obstructionist efforts. General Assembly representatives in New York were given Washington's ultimatum. Do it our way or else.

Washington and Israel have serious concerns about rights UN member states are afforded. In another email, Boyle explained, saying:

Once Palestine "becomes a UN Member State, (it) can ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and then file a formal State to State Complaint against Israeli Officials, upgrading the lower level Complaint President Abbas filed at my advice." 

It can also "ratify the Genocide Convention and sue Israel for Genocide at the World Court, pursuant to the advice I had already given President Arafat and President Abbas, and get a temporary restraining Order against the Zionists, that would then go to the Security Council for enforcement, and if vetoed by the Americans, to the General Assembly for enforcement under the (1950) Uniting for Peace Resolution." 

"With these proceedings, (it may) be able to halt the Zionist settlement project of all Palestine in the immediate future." It will also lift Gaza's siege. Abbas refuses to do it. So did Arafat before him.

Decades of Palestinian leadership failure to do the right thing constitutes betrayal. Nothing ahead looks promising. A third Intifada is long overdue. 

Courageous independent leaders are needed to inspire, organize, and direct it. Hopefully enough of them are committed and ready. Liberation won't come any other way.