Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

When Donald Trump became US president, he set about to undo three things former President Obama had succeeded in doing. That is because many billionaire Republican donors were opposed to Trump, most notably Charles and David Koch, who are heavily invested in the energy industry. Trump did not want enemies inside his own party, and he had plenty of them when he was first elected.

Quite naturally, the Paris Climate Agreement had to go since it is an attack on the oil industry, which primarily, though not exclusively, supports Republicans. Ending world oil dependency and thereby reversing course on global warming means terminating the industry or greatly reducing it. as well as ending or significantly reducing corporate oil profits, share prices, and dividends. In effect, the Paris Climate Agreement is an attack on the billionaires of the Republican Party. That is precisely why Trump pulled the US out of the accord, regardless of the false excuses that came out of his mouth.

Trump had to get rid of the Iranian nuclear deal since it allowed Iranian oil back on the world market during Obama’s presidency. This placed downward pressure on the profits, dividends and share prices of the fossil fuel corporations because the increased supply put downward pressure on the prices of all sorts of things we pay for, such as oil and gasoline. The best way for Trump to get oil and gasoline prices moving upward again was simply pulling the United States out of the nuclear deal with Iran. Since the USA pulled out, notice the price we pay for gasoline has risen.

By pulling the US out of the nuclear deal using lies and distortions, Trump knowingly and deliberately was redistributing income from the 99 to the 1 percent via higher oil and gasoline prices. But, the billionaires behind the Republican Party were happier with Trump because of it.

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B) bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe for $26.5 billion back in 2010. It was his biggest acquisition ever. The railroad is the largest transporter of crude oil in the United States. If the Keystone pipeline is completed, it will compete directly with Buffett’s railroad. The pipeline will transport oil from the Canadian Tar Sands to the Gulf of Mexico. The Republican Koch brothers are heavily invested with the Tar Sands.

Koch Industries is a major player in the Canadian oil market. The Washington Post identified the company in April 2014 as the largest foreign leaseholder of acres of Canadian oil sands.

According to EcoWatch in 2018, “A leaked memorandum published by The Intercept and Documented Investigations shows that a Koch Industries’ donors network, known as the Seminar Network, has taken credit for Donald Trump approving the permits for both the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines during the first months of his presidency.” (Click here for the original story.)

Needless to say, Warren Buffett is a big supporter of the Democratic Party and the Koch’s basically control the Republican Party. Buffett’s loss is the Democratic Party’s loss while it is the Koch brothers and Republican Party’s gain.

These political games are being played pitting billionaires against the 99 percent (as well as other billionaires), and the US corporate news media wants to keep you ignorant of these facts.


Read Full Post »

Official portrait of President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, Dec. 6, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

Official portrait of President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, Dec. 6, 2012.

President Obama was no Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but he did take office during an economic crisis greater than any since the Great Depression, a mess helped along by the worst and one of the most corrupt presidents of all time, George W. Bush. I don’t consider Obama to be a great president. I don’t think we’ve had one since Harry Truman. That being said, I think he’ll be remembered fondly even though he was largely a puppet of Wall Street.

1. Obama actually accomplished quite a bit despite the fact the Republican Party leadership fought against almost everything he wanted tooth and nail even if it meant sending the United States down the tubes. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell said, “Our top political priority over the next two years is to deny President Obama a second term.”

2, Got us out of the illegal and costly occupation of Iraq.

3. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). This became the first time in US history the government could tax us for not buying something, which is not a good sign since now the government can tax you on anything you choose to not purchase. This legislation also drove up health care costs for everybody, increased deductibles and co-pays.

3. Ended the trade embargo against Iran, which put Iranian oil back on the market and helped drive down the cost of oil and gasoline.

4. Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for seven years, creating 12 million new private-sector jobs. However, it should be pointed out that on a per month basis this growth was worst than that which occurred under President Jimmy Carter. On the other hand, monthly job growth of all of the presidents since Carter have been worst than what happened under Jimmy.

Worst Action?

Along with Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, President Obama continuously groveled at the feet of Wall Street and other big corporate executives, which is why he mightily tried to secretly ram through the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Obama promised an open and honest administration, but he was extremely secretive about the TPP, most likely because it would’ve exported millions of US jobs and redistributed trillions of dollars from working folks to Wall Street and other corporate executives and rich shareholders.

Read Full Post »

The Iranian nuclear deal has done something quite wonderful. It has lowered oil prices by ending the US led embargo of Iran’s products, including oil. Iranian oil is now flooding the international markets, driving the price of oil and gasoline down. Some people in the USA are not happy with this deal, notably Republicans. One has to wonder, however, if that’s because of that oil flooding the world’s markets, or if they’re really worried the Iranians will violate the agreement, launch a suicidal nuclear assault on the United States, which would be a calamity for the Iranians since there would be a dust heap afterwards where the nation of Iran once stood, especially considering the success these same people claim for the US missile defense shield.

One has to wonder if the deal to keep Iran embargoed was intentionally to keep its oil off the world market, which drove oil and gasoline prices higher than they would otherwise have been. In other words, the effect of the Iranian embargo was to redistribute money from the 99 percent to investors and executives of Big Oil. The lack of a nuclear deal kept that embargo in place. Was this a strange coincidence? Or a master plan?

Big Oil is a big supporter of the Republican Party. Did the president strike a deal with the Iranians with an eye toward driving the price of oil and gasoline down, as well as Big Oil’s profit margins. The president’s deal may lower campaign contributions to the Republicans from the masters of this sector of the economy.

The Iranians have never been a threat to the United States, and they won’t be even if they violate any agreement to not produce nuclear weapons. The truth is that the Iranians entered the fray against ISIS at the behest of the Americans many months ago. They also offered to join with the US to eliminate Al Queda in Afghanistan after 9-11. However, President George W. Bush found it convenient to paint the Iranians as a dangerous threat to the US in order to jack up profitable military spending. That administration also most likely did not want Iranian oil flooding the world markets.

Perhaps President Obama had this in mind when he sealed the deal, and perhaps lower gasoline and oil prices is just a happy coincidence.

Read Full Post »

It is clear Iran Wants War with the United States and this is why!

Read Full Post »

Is Iran Really a Problem to the People of the United States?

The answer of course is no, Iran is not a threat to the United States. Hell, Iran got its ass kicked by Iraq, while the USA dusted off Iraq via a first round knockout, not once, but twice. However, the parasites of the 0.01 percent that rule the USA need a bad guy they can divert the attention of the 99 percent to while they direct their two political parties to adopt legislation to financially redistribute income and wealth from the 99 to the 1 percent.

Read Full Post »

Sound confusing? War sometimes is, but it’s always profitable.

Read Full Post »


Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran after the 1979 revolution, said in a interview with the Christian Science Monitor that “Ayatollah Khomeini and Ronald Reagan had organized a clandestine negotiation, later known as the “October Surprise,” which prevented the attempts by myself and then-US President Jimmy Carter to free the hostages before the 1980 US presidential election took place. The fact that they were not released tipped the results of the election in favor of Reagan. Two of my advisors, Hussein Navab Safavi and Sadr-al-Hefazi, were executed by Khomeini’s regime because they had become aware of this secret relationship between Khomeini, his son Ahmad, the Islamic Republican Party, and the Reagan administration.”

Not too surprisingly, Iran released the hostages on January 20, 1981, at the exact moment Ronald Reagan was sworn into office. That, of course, was the deal the agents for Khomeini and Reagan made, and not because the Iranian government feared Reagan.

This was a “keep the hostages and we’ll give you military weapons” moment. The Reagan campaign went out of its ways to successfully undermine negotiations between the government of Iran and the government of the United States. After winning the presidency via treason, Reagan hypocritically announced that he would never deal with terrorists. However, this was Reagan’s so-called October Surprise, and the first great victory of the 1 percent against the 99 percent. The result of this treason was Reagan’s arms for hostage crisis, also known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

Treason is how low the 1 percent will go to in order to successfully wage war against the 99 percent. Carter was leading Reagan in all the polls before October. He would have won reelection had the hostages been released because his poll numbers would’ve only gone up more had the hostages been released before the election, and the US would have continued to be a progressive nation.

Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye, head of the Iran-Contra congressional investigative committee, famously stated at the beginning of the investigation that his committee would not investigate back further than 1983. This suggests that plenty of people in congress, including Inouye, knew or suspected, treason had taken place back in 1980. It also suggests where the Democratic Party establishment sympathies lay, and it wasn’t with the 99 percent.

As shown by Bani-Sadr, those involved in this treason did not care that people died because of their actions. Getting political control over the United States was more important.

Notice also, the US corporate propaganda media isn’t jumping on this story, with the exception of course of the honest journalists at the Christian Science Monitor and Truthout.org.

Check out the links below for more on this issue.

Argo-helps-Iran-s-dictatorship-harms-democracy/(page)/2–Christian Science Monitor


Read Full Post »

Did the US government set up a revolution in Syria to stop an IranianSyrianIraqi natural gas pipeline? Is that what US involvement is all about?

The US has a history of doing this, from Iran in 1953 to Guatemala in 1954 to Nicaraqua in the 1980s and many more. Supposedly, there are billions of dollars being invested in this pipeline, and US corporations have been shut out of the deal. This smells suspiciously like when US corporations were shut out of bids for a natural gas pipeline in Afghanistan in 2001 after much lobbying by the Bush regime. The Northern Front, which controlled 10 percent of Afganistan in 2001, offered the job to an Argentine firm. Just before 9-11, the leader of the Northern Front was assasinated. The Taliban, which controlled the other 90 percent, after much lobbying by the Bush regime, gave the job to a Spanish company. After the US army invaded Afganistan, the government the US set up gave the job to Unocal. It should be pointed out that the president the US installed in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is a former CIA informant. That’s an amazing coincidence, isn’t it?

I’m not saying this is the case in Syria, but you got to wonder, especially given US interference in other nations on behalf of US corporte parasetic elites, I also have a friend of sorts from Syria who says most of what we’re getting in the US press about Syria is a lie. I don’t know one way or the other, but the story below is worth a read.

The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis: Syrian “Opposition” Armed to Thwart Construction of Iran-Iraq-Syria Gas Pipeline

Read Full Post »

There’s a really good reason why people don’t have enough money to pay for food. Governments continue to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent. That’s true in the USA, whose government has redistributed so much income from the 99 to the 1 percent via legislation that the 99 percent now take home only 68 percent of the nation’s income, compared with 92 percent back in 1980. That’s also true in Egypt, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico, Ghana, Italy and just about every nation in the world, with only a few exceptions, mostly in Europe. So naturally people don’t have enough money to buy food. The produce of their labors are stolen by those who have political power.

Read Full Post »

How can the US government charge Edward Snowden with revealing the existence of the National Security Agency (NSA) spy program on US citizens since the New York Times revealed it’s existence ten years ago? And what about New York Times reporter, James Risen? He wrote a detailed book about it called State of War. So far as I can tell in rereading the book, Snowden hasn’t revealed any information that hasn’t already been revealed.

Snowden’s defense may be simple. How can he have revealed something that has already been revealed on the New York Times best seller list? The government’s case is weak, at best.

All the crap being said about Snowden is nonsense, about being a traitor and other stuff, especially since Washington Post journalist Robert Novak revealed the identity of CIA deep undercover operative Valerie Plame right there on the pages of the Post a decade ago. That information was given to him by George W. Bush’s Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage. According to court records, this was authorized by then Vice President Dick Cheney. They revealed her identity and, in doing so, blew up a multi-billionaire dollar CIA front company named Brewster-Jennings, which she had worked for as an under cover agent, and which was used to monitor the movements of weapons and nuclear materials across the middle east. Why didn’t Novak, Cheney and Armitage go to prison? Why didn’t the Bush regime go after them? Oh, that’s right. It was all politically motivated, but the damage to national security was done.

So what has Snowden done? Nothing so far as damage to national security, and nothing so far as information that you can obtain from your local library.

At best, the government might be able to convict Snowden of giving out information by having read it in Risen’s book.

This suggests that all of this nonsense about Snowden is another attempt to distract the public. But from what impending disaster? A coming recession worst than last time? The potential and likely astronomical cost of the Affordable Care Act when it takes full effect on January 1, 2014? A secretly scheduled attack on Iran? Who knows?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: