PBS Now Preview: The Ron Paul Phenomenon (video)

Dandelion Salad


This is a preview for the upcoming episode of NOW, starting Friday December 14 or later, depending on your area

PBS tv schedule:

NOW talks to Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters across the country about Paul’s surprisingly popular run for the Republican nomination, led in large part by people acting on their own without help from Ron Paul or his campaign. – 1/2 hour

Added: December 10, 2007


John Stossel interviews Ron Paul – ABC Afraid to put it on TV Part II (video)

12.07.07 Uncensored News Reports From Across The Middle East (video; over 18 only)

Dandelion Salad

This video may contain images depicting the reality and horror of war and should only be viewed by a mature audience.

Selected Episode

Dec. 17, 2007


For more: http://linktv.org/originalseries
CIA Destroyed “Waterboarding” Tapes,” Al Jazeera English, Qatar
Iraqi Politicians Engage in Hot Debates,” Al Arabiya TV, UAE
Female Suicide Bomber Strikes in Iraq,” Dubai TV, UAE
Iraqi Awakening Group Accused of Collaborating with US,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
Lebanese Closer to Electing a President,” Future TV, Lebanon
Israeli Mines Devastate Bedouins in Negev,” Dubai TV, UAE
Fateh Leaders Optimistic About Annapolis,” Palestine TV, Ramallah
Chad’s Army Attacks Rebels,” Al Jazeera TV, Qatar
Ahmadinejad’s Winning Smile,” Link TV, USA
Produced for Link TV by Jamal Dajani.

How to Vote in Primaries and Not Be an Idiot by David Swanson

Dandelion Salad

By David Swanson
After Downing Street
Dec. 10, 2007

A Short Instructions Manual

1. Virtually nobody votes in primaries (or caucuses) compared to general elections. Therefore, each individual primary vote is worth many times what it is in the general election. And, it’s more likely to be counted, since there’s typically less fraud and abuse of the system in primaries. So, if you vote in general elections, you pretty much have to vote in primaries in order to not be an idiot. Bring a few friends to vote too, and you’re practically a genius.

2. If you have to join a party that you don’t support in order to vote in a primary, you can always unjoin again immediately after the primary. In the meantime, maybe you’ll have helped to create a party you can support. You can even vote in a primary without planning to vote in the general election. If the 50% of Americans who don’t vote at all (or even a small fraction of them) voted in primaries, they would determine the candidates in the general elections, in which they might then choose to vote as well.

3. If there’s no candidate you like in a primary, you can write one in. A relatively very small amount of organizing can even lead to a victory for that candidate. (Or some signature gathering could place your candidate’s name on the ballot.)

4. If there is a good candidate on the ballot, then an extremely small amount of organizing can lead to a victory for that candidate. And something short of a victory can still mean some number of delegates for your candidate going to the party’s convention from your state, or momentum for your candidate in future states. Primaries, unlike general elections, are not winner-take-all. (You can even become a delegate for your candidate and get a trip to a convention out of this.)

5. In most presidential elections, the party’s nominee is decided before many states hold their primaries. So, for most people, the point of voting is not to choose the nominee. (And therefore almost nobody votes, opening the door to effective action by non-idiots.) The point is also not to “show support and loyalty” for a nominee already chosen (democracies have no need for such displays, which are best suited to another type of regime). Rather, the point is to elect as many delegates as possible for the candidate whose positions you most favor, so that those delegates can influence the party’s platform and the nominee’s positions at the convention, or even make your candidate the vice presidential nominee.

6. In early states, surprise underdog candidates can build momentum, and voting for such a candidate does not entail spoiling the primary for a mediocre candidate who you believe has a better chance of defeating the worst candidate. This is because it takes several states over a period of days or weeks for one candidate to lock down a victory. A surprising showing for an underdog candidate with dramatically distinct positions can put that candidate into the running in the minds of future voters, and can very quickly move the mediocre candidates to become better than mediocre, and therefore better able to compete in future states.

7. Swing voters almost do not exist. Fewer than 4% of voters in 2004 ever planned to vote for Kerry and switched to Bush or vice versa. So, appealing to one’s own base and turning those people out to vote is key to winning the general election. Therefore, Democrats who want to win the general election, for example, should nominate the most Democratic, not the most Republican, candidate in the primaries. (Republicans already know this.)

8. Pre-primary corporate polls that purport to tell us who is most “viable” and “electable” are primarily a product of corporate media coverage and spin, much of which is “coverage” of the previous polls. The way to determine which candidate is most viable begins by canceling your newspaper subscriptions and recycling your television.

9. In a democracy, the most electable candidate is the candidate whom the most people actually like. The most reliable gauge available to any of us of whom people will like is whom we ourselves personally and honestly most like. Therefore, there can be no distinction between whom you like and whom you consider “viable.” The candidate you most like, honestly, in your own considered private opinion, is the most viable candidate. And you can make that even more so if you lead by example. Don’t just vote, but campaign, promote, and contribute, as much and as early as you can. “To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men [and women], — that is genius.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson.

10. The following are majority positions among Americans, and overwhelmingly majority positions among Democrats: end the occupation of Iraq, impeach the vice president, create single-payer not-for-profit universal health coverage, withdraw from corporate trade agreements like NAFTA, and slash the Pentagon budget in order to invest in diplomacy, foreign aid, education, jobs, and green energy. Only one candidate supports this platform. He came in third in MoveOn.org’s poll, and then second in Democrats.com’s, then first in Democracy for America’s, and most recently first in Progressive Democrats of America’s poll. These are polls done outside the corporate media, polls of progressive activists. His campaign is where the energy is, but it is energy that must resist the influence of the corporate media. Our country and our planet are in peril, and we have no viable alternative. Nobody else comes close. His name is Dennis Kucinich.

h/t: Dennis 4 President

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Caucus for Kucinich!

National and State PDFs for Kucinich for President campaigning

Bush’s Reaction to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reveals him as World Warmonger No. 1 by Sherwood Ross

Dandelion Salad

by Sherwood Ross
Global Research, December 10, 2007

So, just how much are the American people supposed to take? Here we’ve got a president who lied us into making war on Iraq and who, despite a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), is stubbornly trying to lie us into another war against Iran.

President Bush today is telling Iran to “come clean” when he’s nose deep in what comes out of the hind end of a Texas Longhorn.

Our commander-in-chief is so fanatical for war against Iran that, as investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote earlier this year in The New Yorker, there’s a special planning group under the Joint Chiefs of Staff organized to plot one. Hersh quotes a former intelligence official stating the group is “charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented upon orders from the President, within 24 hours.”

So it’s clear why Bush pushed Congress last September for his warmongering Iran resolution that Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.), former Secretary of the Navy, labeled “a de facto authorization for use of military force against Iran.” Bush is rarin’ to attack! The wonder is why the Senate would give this liar anything but the boot?

Despite the new NIE estimate, Bush continues to insist Iran is the warmonger. This only further strengthens the case for impeachment against him and for criminal prosecution of those responsible for Iraq war, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his successor, Condoleezza (“Mushroom Cloud”)Rice.

As John Prados points out in his book “Hoodwinked”(The New Press), Vice President Richard Cheney also “played a key role in getting Iraq to the top of the Bush agenda and keeping it there…and falsely implicated Iraq in Al Qaeda terrorism,” and much, much more. Maybe we need a refresher course in Bush’s lies.

As Prados recalled: “An alleged chemical storage area at one facility turned out to be an Olympic-size swimming pool, a production plant had actually been a distillery making whiskey, another chemical storage site was a plant making car license plates, a cache of documents on chemical weapons a graduate student’s master’s thesis.”

The WMD lie was so preposterous, the “Weekly World News” joked in its August 19, 2003, issue that Saddam had smuggled 3,600 killer dinosaur eggs into the U.S. that would hatch to turn America into a new “Jurassic Park.”

To date, Bush’s war has cost the American people 4,000 lives and 30,000 wounded and a trillion dollars of wasted tax dollars. And it has cost the people of Iraq a million killed, perhaps another million wounded, untold billions in destroyed property and commerce, four million driven from their homes, and two million forced to quit the country!

The UN calls this exodus a “humanitarian crisis” but believe me, those are just words unless it is your family, your children, and your loved ones driven into the streets! Unless it is you that gets the call to come down to the morgue to identify a body thought to be your kid. And what for? What did the people of Iraq ever do to us?

Still worse, commander-in-chief Bush has allowed the Pentagon to fire irradiated ammunition (banned by the Geneva Convention) all over Iraq as though it is some kind of paintball playland, radiation that is likely causing cancers, radiation that will poison that unfortunate country perhaps for thousands of years to come— a crime against humanity.

Are we, the people, so blind, have we so lost our moral perspective, that we will believe a president when he tells us that Iran, a country with an annual military budget of 5 billion bucks, poses a threat to USofA with our total military spending of $800 billion? That Iran, which doesn’t have the beginning of a nuclear bomb, poses a threat to this country with our arsenal of 10,000 tethered nukes at the fingertips of (shudder) you-know-who? That Iran is raring to take on our missile-armed frigates and aircraft carriers, ships at this very moment plowing the waters of the Persian Gulf off the Iranian coast with enough atomic punch to destroy the planet?

Well, millions of us believed Bush when he and his top aides told us Iraq had “horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.” Shakespeare’s Puck must have foreseen Americans were coming when he cried, “What fools these mortals be.”

Just before this nation was born, one observer said the British Crown dispatched its Redcoats to invade the colonies because “their crime was property.”
Today, it may be seen the “crime” of Iran, like Iraq, is oil and our very own King George has his eye on it. The former Texas oil man in the Oval Office and his former oil man vice president have led us into a war for oil, creating a destabilization in the market that has doubled the price of oil to $3.20 a barrel since they took office and showered oil companies ExxonMobil and the others with fabulous profits. That’s the bottom line.

Americans are paying for this war with their taxes and they’re paying for it at the pumps and in their home heating bills and in higher prices for food at the supermarkets.

So, I repeat, just how much are the American people supposed to take? At least, out of pity for the agony of the people of Iraq, the public must urge Congress impeach and prosecute President Bush. Bluntly, we’ve got to stop him before he kills more.

Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based columnist who covers military and political affairs. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com

Sherwood Ross is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Sherwood Ross
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Sherwood Ross, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7586



Bush’s Iran NIE Credibility Meltdown Leads Directly to Impeachment

Dandelion Salad

After Downing Street
Dec. 10, 2007

The CIA destroying its torture tapes has sucked all the air out corporate media’s coverage of Bush’s Iran NIE credibility meltdown. Funny how that happened, eh? One day the intelligence community is hero for smacking down the CrippledChimp and Cheney’s Iran war-mongering, a couple days later the CIA is mud for destroying torture tape evidence sought in court cases and by the 911 Commission.

Didn’t someone once say they are no coincidences? So which is the more significant of the twin scandals roiling britches in Washington? Either one of which would lead to impeachment proceedings in a nation of laws, not men…

I say the NIE exposing the Bush/Cheney lies. You see, the NIE directly justifies, no VINDICATES, Dennis Kuncinch’s third article of impeachment against Dick Cheney.

Let’s review

Article III

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

Read the rest here plus view a lot of videos, too:

Bush’s Iran NIE Credibility Meltdown Leads Directly to Impeachment


CIA destroyed torture tapes by Joe Kay

Electromagnetic radiation (EMR): The most pervasive environmental exposures by BioInitiative

Dandelion Salad

by BioInitiative
Global Research, December 10, 2007
BioInitiative.org – 2007-09-18

BioInitiative Report:

A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)

September 18, 2007 – BioInitiative Report / Complete 610 pp (pdf)

From http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm


A. Introduction

You cannot see it, taste it or smell it, but it is one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in industrialized countries today. Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) or electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are the terms that broadly describe exposures created by the vast array of wired and wireless technologies that have altered the landscape of our lives in countless beneficial ways.

However, these technologies were designed to maximize energy efficiency and convenience; not with biological effects on people in mind. Based on new studies, there is growing evidence among scientists and the public about possible health risks associated with these technologies.

Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body. In some cases, this can cause discomfort and disease.

Since World War II, the background level of EMF from electrical sources has risen exponentially, most recently by the soaring popularity of wireless technologies such as cell phones (two billion and counting in 2006), cordless phones, WI-FI and WI-MAX networks. Several decades of international scientific research confirm that EMFs are biologically active in animals and in humans, which could have major public health consequences.

In today’s world, everyone is exposed to two types of EMFs: (1) extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF) from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RF) from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers. In this report we will use the term EMFs when referring to all electromagnetic fields in general; and the terms ELF and RF when referring to the specific type of exposure. They are both types of non-ionizing radiation, which means that they do not have sufficient energy to break off electrons from their orbits around atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms, as do x-rays, CT scans, and other forms of ionizing radiation. A glossary and definitions are provided in Section 18 to assist you. Some handy definitions you will probably need when reading about ELF and RF in this summary section (the language for measuring it) are shown with the references for this section.

B. Purpose of the Report

This report has been written by 14 (fourteen) scientists, public health and public policy experts to document the scientific evidence on electromagnetic fields. Another dozen outside reviewers have looked at and refined the Report.

The purpose of this report is to assess scientific evidence on health impacts from electromagnetic radiation below current public exposure limits and evaluate what changes in these limits are warranted now to reduce possible public health risks in the future.

Not everything is known yet about this subject; but what is clear is that the existing public safety standards limiting these radiation levels in nearly every country of the world look to be thousands of times too lenient. Changes are needed.

New approaches are needed to educate decision-makers and the public about sources of exposure and to find alternatives that do not pose the same level of possible health risks, while there is still time to make changes.

A working group composed of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has joined together to document the information that must be considered in the international debate about the adequacy (or inadequacy) of existing public exposure standards.

This Report is the product of an international research and public policy initiative to give an overview of what is known of biological effects that occur at low-intensity EMFs exposures (for both radiofrequency radiation RF and power-frequency ELF, and various forms of combined exposures that are now known to be bioactive). The Report examines the research and current standards and finds that these standards are far from adequate to protect public health.

Recognizing that other bodies in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, many European Union and eastern European countries as well as the World Health Organization are actively debating this topic, the BioInitiative Working Group has conducted a independent science and public health policy review process. The report presents solid science on this issue, and makes recommendations to decision-makers and the public. Conclusions of the individual authors, and overall conclusions are given in Table 2-1 (BioInitiative Overall Summary Chart).

Eleven (11) chapters that document key scientific studies and reviews identifying low-intensity effects of electromagnetic fields have been written by members of the BioInitiative Working Group. Section 16 and 17 have been prepared by public health and policy experts. These sections discusses the standard of evidence which should be applied in public health planning, how the scientific information should be evaluated in the context of prudent public health policy, and identifies the basis for taking precautionary and preventative actions that are proportionate to the knowledge at hand. They also evaluate the evidence for ELF that leads to a recommendation for new public safety limits (not precautionary or preventative actions, as need is demonstrated).

Other scientific review bodies and agencies have reached different conclusions than we have by adopting standards of evidence so unreasonably high as to exclude any conclusions likely to lead to new public safety limits. Some groups are actually recommending a relaxation of the existing (and inadequate) standards. Why is this happening? One reason is that exposure limits for ELF and RF are developed by bodies of scientists and engineers that belong to professional societies who have traditionally developed recommendations; and then government agencies have adopted those recommendations. The standard-setting processes have little, if any, input from other stakeholders outside professional engineering and closely-related commercial interests. Often, the industry view of allowable risk and proof of harm is most influential, rather than what public health experts would determine is acceptable.

Global Research Articles by BioInitiative

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright BioInitiative, BioInitiative.org, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7585

Ritual Gloating Postmortems – The Corporate Media v. Hugo Chavez by Stephen Lendman

Dandelion Salad

by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, December 10, 2007

Dateline December 3, 2007 – the corporate media is euphoric after Venezuelans narrowly defeated Hugo Chavez’s constitutional reform referendum the previous day. The outcome defied pre-election independent poll predictions and was a cliffhanger to the end. Near-final results weren’t announced until 1:15AM December 3 with about 100,000 votes separating the two sides and a surprising 44% of eligible voters abstaining. On December 7, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) released the final outcome based on 94% of ballots counted. A total of 69 amendment reforms were voted on in two blocks:

For Block A: No – 50.65%; Si (Yes) – 49.34%;

For Block B: No – 51.01%; Si (yes) – 48.99%.

Below is a sampling of corporate media gloating. They deserve a bit of slack as they’ve waited nine years for this moment, and they may not get another for some time. Venezuelans lost, they won, but Chavez may be right saying reform lost “por ahora (for now).” In a post-election comment on Venezuelan state TV channel VTV he added: Reform is slowed but alive, and “the Venezuelan people have the power and the right to present a request for constitutional reform before (my) term (in office) finishes, of which there is still five years.”

Under Venezuelan law, the National Assembly (NA) can pass new socially beneficial or other legislation any time provided it doesn’t conflict with constitutional law. The Constitution can only be changed by national referenda in one of three ways – if the President, NA or 15% of registered voters (by petition) request it. The Constitution, however, prevents the President from seeking the same amendments twice in the same term, but they can become law through popular initiatives or a constituent assembly.

In addition, Chavez can use his constitutionally allowed Enabling Law authority until next summer when it expires. Under it, he can pass laws by decree in 11 key areas that include the structure of state organs, election of local officials, the economy, finance and taxes, banking, transportation, the military and national defense, public safety, and policies related to energy.

Chavez had this authority two previous times and used it in 2001 to pass 49 legal changes to make them conform to the Constitution in areas of land and banking reform and for more equitable revenue-sharing arrangements with foreign oil companies in joint-state ventures. He wanted it this time to accelerate democratic change at the grassroots and be able to transfer power to the people through communal councils. He may also use it to advance his social and economic model based on equitably distributing more of the national wealth through investments in health care, education and social security. If these type reform measures are proposed, he’ll get strong public support for them provided he keeps them simple and explains them properly and often.

In his post-election comments, Chavez stressed another reform proposal is coming “next year or in three years. It doesn’t have to be exactly the same. It can be in the same direction, but in a different form, improved and simplified, because I have to accept that the reform that we presented was very complex.”

The pre-election debate and propaganda assault made it more complex, and the opposition out-muscled reform supporters. With proper planning and implementation, that problem is correctable, and in the meantime, the NA can enact some reforms legislatively and Chavez can do it on his own by decree. Expect that to happen and for most Venezuelans to support it enthusiastically.

Already, members of Venezuela’s National Indigenous Movement (MNIV) want constitutional reform reinitiated, intend to mobilize, and may begin collecting signatures for a petition drive for it. They met to strategize on December 7 after which MNIV coordinator Facundo Guanipa announced that Venezuela’s small indigenous population near-unanimously supports Chavez’s reforms according to referendum data results.

For now, however, the gloaters have center stage and aren’t quoting OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza’s comment that “Quite a few myths on the Venezuelan democracy are falling down. It works like all democracies….I hope the US government can acknowledge, as all of us, that it was a fair, clean process.”

Don’t count on it or from the dominant media, and start off with this writer’s favorite press adversary – the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady, this time on a Journal-produced three minute video available online. She warms up fast with comments like the referendum, if passed, would have given Chavez “dictatorial power to rule for life,” and Venezuela has a “rigged electoral system.” Outrageous and false on both counts, of course, but this is typical O’Grady ranting.

Further, she claimed near-final tallies were available around 8:15PM, but the National Electoral Council (CNE) waited until 1:15AM to report them. In fact, reporting was delayed because the election was too close to call, and it was agreed in advance not to do it until 90% of the votes were counted. At that point, the result was announced. One other O’Grady gem was Chavez came to power in 1999 by “removing” the “old elite” implying that defeating them decisively and democratically was improper – vintage O’Grady with more from her ahead assured.

The Journal wasn’t through. An online op-ed read: “Venezuelans Rain on Hugo (and it’s) more than a setback for Venezuela’s messianic strongman. It is a victory for the ideal of liberty across Latin America….kudos….to the people of Venezuela (by preventing Chavez from) impos(ing) what amounted to a personal coup against that nation’s democracy. He tried to bully Venezuelans into voting for one-man rule and a hard model of socialism. They said no (and CNE waited until 1:15AM) when it became clear that there was no way to fudge the results.”

According to the Journal, Chavez’s package “would have eviscerated Venezuela’s civil liberties (and) end guarantees of private property.” A final jab was in the form of a warning that Chavez still controls the country’s political institutions and “remains a threat to (the) region. He’s in a race against time (to advance his) expansionist agenda (that) has the potential to undermine Colombia’s democracy, and has already destabilized Bolivia and Ecuador.” Phew, and Rupert Murdoch hasn’t yet taken over the paper he bought last summer when he finalized a deal for Dow Jones & Company.

Enter the New York Times and its man in Caracas, Simon Romero, whose style outclasses Journal writers but not his substance. His byline on December 3 read “Venezuela Hands Narrow Defeat to Chavez Plan” that would have granted him “sweeping new powers. Opposition leaders were ecstatic,” and Zulia State governor and Chavez 2006 presidential opponent, Manuel Rosales, said “Tonight, Venezuela has won.” His next day report trumpeted the setback saying the “vote sets roadblocks (and) has given new energy to (the) long-suffering opposition.” It’s “an expression of….government mismanagement (and) a warning to Mr. Chavez that he had finally overreached (in wanting to end presidential) term limits and greatly (centralize) his power.” It’s a “sharp rebuke (from voters to) let Mr. Chavez know (they’re reluctant) to follow him much farther up the path to a socialist future.”

Still more from Romero, along with Times op-ed writers, that “Reflection and Anger (came) After Defeat,” and Chavistas are “being consumed by recrimination and soul-searching” following voter rejection. “Chavez lash(ed) out at his opponents (and) dismissed (their victory) with an (unmentioned) obsenity,” and “Chavismo” needs “to embrace a more pluralistic path.”

That was a warm-up for op-ed writer Roger Cohen. He chimed in with a backhanded salute for “the humiliation of a 51 to 49 percent rejection to end term limits and undermine private property rights.” He stopped short of mentioning most West European and other parliamentary systems allow unlimited reelections, and the latter accusation if false. Then Cohen attacks calling Chavez a “strongman….a caudillo….a menace (and) his ‘socialismo’ equals ‘Hugoismo.’ ” He aimed to “accumulat(e) power through threats, slandering opponents as ‘traitors,’ (and) buying support with $150 million a day in oil money.”

It gets worse: “his crony bankers (are) pocketing millions by arbitraging the disparity between the official and black-market (bolivar) rates. Crime and drug-trafficking are thriving.” His socialism is “the Russian (equivalent of) ‘Soviets,’ (and) I salute the Venezuelan people” for imposing “The Limits of (a) 21st-Century Revolution.” On December 3, Cohen listed them in eight Venezuelan marketplace and political rules to show by his logic Chavez “can(‘t) turn back the clock far enough to change” them.

The Times wasn’t done, and on December 4 it lashed out editorially with “A Tale of Two Strongmen.” The other was Vladimir Putin after his December 2 parliamentary election victory. According to The Times, it was a “referendum on himself (in which he) cynically manipulated a huge victory….” Chavez wasn’t as lucky in his “latest and most outrageous power grab (so there’s) hope (Venezuelan) political competition….will now flourish.” The Times concedes he’s “still very powerful,” so “The international community will….have to keep up the pressure on (him because he) hasn’t suddenly become a democrat.”

The Washington Post had it’s post-election say with a similar slanderous agitprop editorial torrent – that “Mr. Chavez had proposed to make himself a de facto president for life….Polls before the vote showed only about a third of Venezuelans favored the amendments (and) Urban slum dwellers who have supported Mr. Chavez in the past had good reason for second thoughts: Thanks to his crackpot economic policies….the outcome will not restore full democracy (because Chavez) still controls the legislature, courts, national television and the state oil company, and he retains the authority to rule by decree.” False on all counts except that most democratically elected legislators and Chavez-appointed judges support Bolivarianism as embedded in the country’s Constitution they’re sworn to uphold.

The AP was also hostile calling Chavez “conflict-prone (with a) larger-than-life personality leav(ing) little room for compromise (that) ensur(es) more friction (in a) deeply polarized (country).” But “Sunday’s victory has energized the opposition (that can petition) for a recall referendum once Chavez reaches the midpoint of his six-year term in December, 2009.”

In the West as well, the Los Angeles Times was celebratory in calling Sunday’s defeat “a remarkable indictment of (Chavez’s) agenda.” But it headlined: “Chavez isn’t finished.” Even in defeat, he’ll be “able to pass many of his desired reforms legislatively” since he controls the NA and Supreme Court. The Times cited “images of huge (opposition) student marches,” but the “biggest factor (on) Sunday (was) Chavez’s own nonsensical economic policies, which have caused many of his impoverished supporters to wonder if he really knows what he’s doing.” They’re “like Soviet Russia or modern Cuba (and) Chavez’s socialist ideals are leading Venezuela to a precipice, and it’s the poor who will suffer most if it goes over the edge.”

Time magazine wondered “How Will Chavez Handle Defeat? (and) Why Venezuelans Turned on Chavez.” It reported “panic set in around 7PM Sunday evening,” but it wasn’t until 1:00AM that “el comandante” conceded defeat. In the view of Time writer, Jens Erik Gould, they worried more about a Chavez power grab and ability to seize private property than the proposed social benefits for the poor and popular grassroots power they’d get. But while “defeat may….slow the President down….he and his allies still have wide-reaching powers (so the) battle is far from over” with no doubt left which side Time backs.

Business Week magazine was vocal about what was “Behind Chavez’s Defeat in Venezuela” in an article full of the usual kinds of errors, misstatements and pro-business slant. It said “rejection….may mean more stability for business and the economy” without ever mentioning business is booming, and the economy is one of the fastest growing ones in the world under Chavez’s “socialist vision.”

The article quoted the opposition saying if the referendum passed “We would have woken up in a dictatorship….a possible victory….undermined business confidence….defeat calls into question whether Chavez will be able to deepen his socialist revolution….the majority in Venezuela doesn’t share Chavez’s socialist vision….There is growing discontent with Chavez’s leadership.” Victory would have let Chavez “seize private property….curb private ownership….undermine Venezuela’s democratic and capitalist foundations, and allow Chavez to create a state styled on communist Cuba if passed.”

Anti-Chavez post-election rants could fill volumes. A few more follow below:

— the San Francisco Chronicle lamented that “Chavez (still) holds all the cards (and) The opposition has yet to find a leader that can match Chavez’s magnetic personality and charisma.”

— Bloomberg.com was also dismayed that one defeat won’t “likely….stop (Chavez’s) drive to socialize Venezuela’s economy….he may nationalize industries, seize property and weaken central bank independence.”

— the state-run Voice of America (VOA) trumpeted George Bush’s post-election comment that Chavez’s defeat is a “vote for democracy;” it never mentioned his pre-election rant about Venezuela being undemocratic;

— CBS News headlined “Chavez’s Democratic Authoritarianism (so) Despite (electoral defeat), Venezuela’s President will continue toward absolute rule;”

— the Christian Science Monitor said “Venezuela’s Chavez Defiant, Despite Defeat….few believe the results will cause (him) to alter his course,”

— the Financial Times in a “Chronicle of a defeat foretold” sees Chavez’s support among the poor eroding as “Venezuelans are seeing things with greater realism;”

— the Economist sees his “aura of invincibility….forever damaged, the battle for succession seems bound to begin soon (and) Survival strategies no longer….involve unquestioning loyalty to the ‘commandante.’ The fighting back is just beginning;”

— CNN was also at the forefront of what Chavez at a post-election press conference called its manipulation campaign. He said Defense Minister Rangel Briceno was “very angry by (CNN’s) manipulating campaign….all over the world,” he’s preparing to sue the cable network, and “behind (it) is the evil face of the United States;”

— the BBC is notorious as a “guardian of power;” it headlined “White House….welcomes the defeat of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s controversial reform….referendum….(and said) the people spoke their minds….that bodes well for the country’s future and freedom and liberty….(Venezuelans didn’t) want any further erosion in their democracy and their democratic institutions;” pro-Chavez voices or a clear explanation of the issues were nowhere in sight pre or post-election;

— the Chicago Tribune headlined “Chavez chastened, hardly capitulating (as) political leaders and analysts said it is too early to say whether the slim defeat….represents just a bump in the road….or the awakening of a durable and vibrant opposition;” and

— the London Guardian’s Seumas Milne headlined Chavez was “Down but not out in Caracas” in writing for a paper with a long history of pro-state support and too little of it for its people. Milne, on the other hand, struck another note saying Bolivarianism suffered a setback (but) “it’s far from finished (and) Sunday wasn’t a crushing defeat.” It also “discredit(ed) the canard that the country is somehow slipping into authoritarian or even dictatorial rule….The referendum was a convincing display of democracy in action….The revolutionary process underway in Venezuela has delivered remarkable social achievements.” Halting or reversing them “would be a loss whose significance would go far beyond Venezuela’s borders (but) Chavez’s comments and commitments (show) there is no mood for turning back.”

Chavez is resilient and will rebound from one electoral setback. Don’t ever count him out or underestimate his influence over what co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Mark Weisbrot, says is “A historic transformation….underway in Latin America (following) more than a quarter century of neoliberal” rule. Long-time Latin American expert, James Petras, puts it this way: “The referendum and its outcome (while important today) is merely an episode in the struggle between authoritarian imperial centered capitalism (Chavez opposes) and democratic workers centered socialism (it’s hoped Bolivarianism will deliver).” The spirit of democracy thrives in Venezuela, and one electoral setback won’t derail it.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on www.TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US Central time.

Stephen Lendman is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Stephen Lendman

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7582

Dennis Kucinich in Charlottesville, VA (videos; McGovern)

Dandelion Salad


Cville Podcast has the audio as well as the video here. The audio includes an intro.

download: http://www.cvillepodcast.com/podpress_trac/web/1720/0/kucinich_071207.mp3


WAR IS OVER … Vote for Kucinich IN THE PRIMARY! (video)


Putin names his candidate for presidency (video)

Dandelion Salad


Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party has nominated First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev as its candidate for next March’s Presidential election. The news came at a joint meeting with three other Russian political parties – Fair Russia, the Agrarian Party and Civil Force.

Added: December 10, 2007

Jerri Ward interviews Jim Rogers who endorses Ron Paul (videos)

Dandelion Salad


During the interview on “I Object! Justice Examined” airing on Right Talk Radio, the legendary commodities trader, Jim Rogers tells his host Jerri Lynn Ward that in his opinion Bernanke should be impeached if Bernanke believes the things he said in response to Ron Paul’s questioning during the November 8, 2007 joint Congressional Committee Hearing. He also had some choice words for Ron Paul’s presidential competition.

Part 1, check out another parts

original location: http://www.hipcast.com/playweb?audioi…


C-SPAN: Thomas Beaumont on Ron Paul, Huckabee (video)

If Americans Knew What Israel Is Doing! Video was Censored! (video)

Note not all Jews are Zionists, and Jews need to speak up LOUDLY in my opinion. Happy Chanukah everyone. love, Lo

Dandelion Salad



Those who want to suppress the facts have dishonestly contacted YouTube and claimed that the video “If Americans Knew What Israel Is Doing!” was a Terms of Service Violation. The video is clearly NOT a TOS violation. You can see why they don’t want you to see it. The user “rbdevon4” was a smartass contacting me with this message: “You have violated YouTube terms of use policy with your anti-Semitic hate videos. You must remove them IMMEDIATELY! Thank you for your cooperation.” Soon after that, he and his buddies succeeded in getting my video removed.
Israeli Army of Cyber-Soldiers Target Our Right to Know

See these videos:
Tanya Reinhart RIP

AIPAC is pushing us to war with Iran for Israel

Journalist Receives Death Threat for Talking About Israel

U.S. support of Israel puts America at risk and it is immoral and unjust. If Americans knew what Israel was actually doing they would not support it in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is the goal of If Americans Knew to provide full and accurate information on this critical issue, and on our power — and duty — to bring a resolution.

Deceptions Sell Israel to Americans

Israeli soldiers often intentionally murder and maim children.

Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel.

Mainstream Media, the 9/11 Commission Report, politicians and pundits have all downplayed and/or omitted the fact that the main motive for the 9/11 attacks was outrage over U.S. support of Israel. Here is a rare exception to the suppression, it comes from The Forward:

The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State.

The Israeli government’s Foreign Ministry is involved in efforts to influence public opinion on the Internet. Israel’s Foreign Ministry orders Internet propagandists, so called “trainee diplomats,” to skew online polls and public forums to conform with the Israeli line.

Added: June 24, 2007


The LeeVees: How Do You Spell Channukkahh? (music video)

Happy Hanukkah “Light Up the World” (music video)

WAR IS OVER … Vote for Kucinich IN THE PRIMARY! (video)

Dandelion Salad


WAR IS OVER … Vote for Kucinich
“WAR IS OVER” … Vote for Kucinich IN THE PRIMARY

“Through his own statements, Barack Obama relentlessly destroys his former anti-war credentials. In an effort to establish himself as a “statesman” in the eyes of the power structure, Obama now advocates a much larger Army and Marine Corps to allow the U.S. to “lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.” Do not expect a “peace dividend” under a President Barack Obama. The only genuine peace candidate is Rep. Dennis Kucinich, of Ohio – which is why the corporate media pretend Kucinich doesn’t exist.” – Obama, the Phony Anti-War Candidate: Kucinich is the Real Deal, A Black Agenda Radio Commentary by BAR Executive Editor Glen Ford

“Dennis Kucinich stands as the one candidate whose bred-in-the-bone beliefs about war and peace, the rights of working people, environmental integrity, and the sanctity of the Bill of Rights embody the convictions of what may be fairly called mainstream Democrats — political heirs of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and the best of the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson.” – Alan Bickley: If Dems voted their consciences, it would be Kucinich by a landslide

Obama is a bullshit artist who lies about Social Security. He is a candidate that the powers that be find acceptable because he is willing to disregard the interests of the majority of Americans. Hilary thought voting FOR Bush’s Iraq War Powers was a good idea. She has made it clear that she should not be president.

You can get the poster here:

The biggest online peace event.
It began on October 9th 2007, John Lennon’s 67th birthday.

What can I do?

Tell your friends!
Spread the word – copy and paste this chain letter & email to all your friends.
Put banners on your websites.
Put IMAGINE PEACE on your work and home computer desktops.
Put up posters in your window.
Put up posters on your noticeboard at work or at school.
Send postcards.
Put up flyers in your neighborhood.
Make T-Shirts.
Make a Wish Tree.

Take photos & send your IMAGINE PEACE stories to stories@imaginepeace.com

Keep reading!
See this link

Added: December 08, 2007


Kucinich: About the Imagine Peace Tower (video) 

The Light Goes ON! The IMAGINE PEACE TOWER dedication ceremony (videos)

Imagine Peace by Cindy Sheehan

Kucinich Weekly Update 12.10.07 (video)

Caucus for Kucinich!

National and State PDFs for Kucinich for President campaigning

Your $100 Will Save YOU (video)

Britain’s PM Brown Visits Iraq By Danica Kirka

Dandelion Salad

By Danica Kirka
Dec. 10, 2007

BASRA, Iraq (AP) — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown flew into southern Iraq Sunday to rally troops and confirm that Iraqi forces will take command of the last region under British control in mid-December.

Soldiers lined the staircases of an airport base to watch Brown arrive for his hour long visit, offering thunderous applause as he praised their efforts to maintain security in the south.

“We have managed now to get Iraq to a far better position. … We’re able to move to provincial control and that is thanks to what you have achieved,” Brown told soldiers.


FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.