Mediaboss Marketing

In 1953, the United States and the United Kingdom overthrew the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, installing in his place the monarchy of Reza Pahlavi. The reason? Mosaddegh was about to nationalize Irans oil, depriving British Petroleum of its control.

In 1954, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) toppled the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz, a champion of minimum wage, and agrarian reform in favor of the military dictatorship of Carlos Castillo Armas, who continued the United Fruit Companys exploitation of Guatemalan labor. The country is only now recovering from decades of civil war. Since 1958, the United States supported a series of Pakistani dictatorships instead of Indias non-aligned democracy.

In 1973, the United States overthrew the democratically elected Chilean President Salvador Allende, a supporter of national healthcare and free milk for children, and installed the dictator Augusto Pinochet, who committed horrific atrocities, leading to the disappearing of 300, 000 people.

In 2016, the Russian government meddled in Americas election, installing a narcissistic, racist, xenophobic, and totalitarian billionaire who would do the bidding of whoever stroked his ego, enhanced his power, and enriched his coffers.

The chickens are coming home to roost, at last.

There is poetic justice in the loss of the worlds so-called beacon of democracy, even if one wonders whether to laugh or cry about it. What is startling is that Americas newly minted dictator might well be using the CIAs handbook to take control of the state: first, curb the press and the judiciary; second, brainwash the citizenry by chanting lies and falsehoods; and ultimately, instill the fear of God into everyone.

Its a conspiracy theory you say? Lets examine the facts.

As early as the spring of 2016, the CBI (Central Intelligence Agency), the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the National Security Agency (NSA) knew that the Russian government was involved in interfering with the American election. WikiLeaks and its chief Julian Assange were hacking into Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committees emails to sway public opinion against them. At the same time, Trump was giving speeches extolling Putin and promising cooperation with Russia. And Trumps advisors were meeting with Russian intelligence officials, even talking to Gucifer 2.0, the famous Russian hacker.

You connect the dots. There remain a few loose links. The FBIs actions remain murky. Why did the FBI director James Comey release information about Hillarys use of a private email server while withholding what he knew about Trumps collusion with Russia? Was it because Comey and his staff were Republicans who hated Hillary? Used to playing with fire, did they not realize that Trump was playing them? Did they not fully understand the moral bankruptcy of conservatives like Paul Ryan and his Congressional gang who would be prepared to sell the countrys infrastructure, healthcare, and climate to the highest bidder? Did the FBI become wary of Trump only when he started attacking them?

The other loose link is Edward Snowden, who has been living in an apartment in Moscow since June 2013. Allegedly, he works in the field of computers there. Bleeding heart liberals like Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, and Arundhati Roy have put him on a pedestal. Even a stalwart like Daniel Ellsberg has applauded Snowdens revelations regarding the American governments surveillance of its citizens.

But think for a moment. Snowden is a computer hacker who is currently employed in a job no one knows anything about. The person who was instrumental in obtaining asylum for Snowden was none other than Julian Assange. The very same Julian Assange who not only helped Trump win the election but who is now working with the Russians to disarm Trumps opponents by releasing a trove of CIA surveillance methods the very week that Washington was abuzz with talk of an investigation into Trumps collusion with Russia. You still think its a conspiracy theory?

Before you use the label conspiracy theory, you should also know that the CIA created this expression in 1967 to discredit anyone who questioned the official narrative. And before you think I am going off the deep end, note that the hypothesis that Snowden is working for the Russians is not mine; a recent book by Jay Epstein asserts that Snowden was and continues to be a Russian spy. Of course journalists from outlets like The Guardian have harshly criticized the book, at least in part because it makes them look like fools for molding Snowden into a modern-day hero. What bothers me, however, is their refusal to question Snowdens motives.

The liberals embrace of Snowden is yet another proof of their arrogance and naivet, I believe. Not to mention their impotence in preventing the takeover of the American government by a totalitarian, profit-mongering junta.

The truth is, the Obama administration was well aware of the Russian plot, so much so that Secretary of State John Kerry urged Obama to open a special investigation prior to the election. The New Yorker asserts as much, spelling the magazines name in Russian above a picture of Putin on its March 6, 2017 cover.

Alas, true to his cautious and contemplative nature, Obama resisted Kerrys recommendation, believing it would appear a partisan move.

So our democracy died on November 8, 2016. Whats worse, we cant find a doctor who will perform an autopsy, let alone revive the corpse. RIP American Democracy!

Sarita Sarvate (www.saritasarvate.com) has published commentaries for New America Media, KQED FM, San Jose Mercury News, the Oakland Tribune, and many nationwide publications.

Read more from the original source:
RIP American Democracy! - India Currents

Gibraltar is caught in the crossfire of a historical dispute between the UK and Spain. As tensions grow, the question that becomes most apparent is one of democracy. Espaol

Photo by Ben Birchall/PA Wire/PA Images. All rights reserved.

Gibraltar doesnt appear in the international news very often, but last week it entered the spotlight. As the Brexit process commences, Gibraltarians found themselves at the hands of an unfairly played card, by democratic standards. In the first draft of the Brexit negotiating guidelines came a single clause with a large impact; the EU has stepped behind excluding Gibraltar from any agreements reached between the EU and the United Kingdom, unless Spain is in agreement with it. This is a futile exercise, as Gibraltarians know all too well, following an age old feud over the sovereignty of the Rock.

The EU handing Spain this veto card on the future of the Brexit talks in the name of defending their member state came as somewhat of a shock to many. Whilst coverage events has included sensational stories and falsehoods, namely war-mongering rhetoric from Lord Howard, there has been a lack of empathy for the Gibraltarian position in what will likely be a period of discomfort and uncertainty for its citizens, verging on an existential crisis.

The Brexit referendum was promoted as the ultimate democratic vote. But, was it? Committing the United Kingdom to leave the EU not only ties the current population to the result, but also the generations to come. Elections are cyclical because democracy is about ensuring that the peoples choice is frequently considered, and about allowing them to change their mind should they feel their decisions were wrong, or rather wrongly implemented; but a decision that carries such permanence as Brexit does is quite a different thing.

Rightly or wrongly, referendums have come to be seen as the ultimate exercise of democracy. Ironically, however, in the case of Brexit the referendum ended up undermining democracy. Political campaigns in this battle often misconstrued and at times blatantly lied about its possible outcomes, not to mention the unintended and undesirable consequences, or collateral victims. The Leave campaign even called for Gibraltars support in a tweet claiming it would be better off without the EU a position entirely rejected as shown by the Rocks overwhelming vote to remain.

The debate surrounding the referendums democratic credentials has resurfaced over the Gibraltar question. Gibraltar voted 96% to remain in the EU, and now its sovereignty is under scrutiny as a result of a decision made by 52% in UK, a result that becomes even more questionable if we consider that the turnout was 72.2%, and thus less than 1 out of 3 potential voters voted to leave - 15,188,406 out of a total census of 46,501,241 voters. The Rock made its democratic decision very clear, but yet it is being forced out of the EU against its wishes as it witnesses the UKs electorate completely dwarf its own. Of course, the British demos is constituted by all citizens within its borders and, thus, there is not a Gibraltarian demos of its own, as such. Yet, it evidently contradicts the will of the people as far as their status as Gibraltarians goes, but not their Britishness.

The Gibraltar situation is peculiar, because contrary to the global shift towards independence, it wishes to maintain its British ties and sovereignty, perhaps because its self-governing body politic does not share the same historical roots as the UKs past colonies. The Gibraltar Constitutional Order 2006 granted Gibraltar with a modern political relationship with the United Kingdom,[PP1] since which it has been able to engage in tripartite agreements that have allowed its interests to be voiced, voted and vetoed. When recognised at this level, Gibraltar has been given the ability to be anything but neglected. However, the EU referendum has exposed the cracks in this relationship by reverting it to its colonial core. As this act commences in the name of democracy, it entirely disregards their wishes as they sit, wait, wonder and witness the most remarkably undemocratic act within a democracy taking place.

Theresa May promises the best for these proudly British citizens, but throughout all of the exchanges and reassurances that have taken place in the last few days, there still remains an air of mistrust, and every Gibraltarian can smell it. As they put their faith in the hands of the democratic majority an unanswered question remains: why wasnt Gibraltar included in Theresa Mays letter triggering Article 50?

There is a feeling of betrayal lingering after the shock caused by the fact of not being included in that letter. At the same time, there is also an urgent need on the part of Gibraltarians for their counterparts in the United Kingdom to rise up to the challenge of defending their territory. It is this paradox of needing them more than ever whilst also appearing neglected, which leads Gibraltarians towards much unwelcomed uncertainty.

Neo-colonialism rears its ugly head when things are put into black and white: Gibraltar appears to be a bargaining chip. The fact that Gibraltar derives from colonialism, should not mean that it is exempt from democratic equality. While both Britain and Spain fight for it, why should it still be it, a possession to be owned by one or the other, without having a say? When reduced to a piece of property on the negotiating table, it becomes apparent that there is a question of whether the mind-set of colonialism has evolved with the mind-set of democracy.

The institution that arrived as the pinnacle of democracy is in fact the EU, founded on principles of democratic unity and pro diversity: United in diversity reads its motto. In the EU, Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights are the core values, but the suggestion that bilateral talks between Spain and the United Kingdom should decide the future of Gibraltar, without Gibraltar even needing to be present, seems so far from democratic it has shocked many. The EU is neglecting an entire peoples democratic wishes in its game of chess. Is this in accordance with EU values? Raising the issue of Gibraltars sovereignty revives a clash in nationalism by forcing two countries into opposition something the EU has long fought to dissolve.

When we were all a part of the European Union, the problem was diluted: on the Gibraltar dispute, Spain and Gibraltar were enemies on the same team and, although it wasnt always plain sailing, there was at least a sense of stability - the perfect example of the EUs struggle towards a common destiny. But now Gibraltar (unwillingly) finds itself on the other side of the fence and it seems as if those values do not matter anymore. The EU values are values to be adhered to at all times. With emerging populist rhetoric around Europe and an increasing divide between neighbouring countries, the EU has lately witnessed a re-nationalisation and finds itself at a critical moment.

As the next big thing in the Brexit negotiations erupts and the Rock fades from the news headlines, the question of whether it is possible for Gibraltar to belong to any given state and still have the democratic right to decide on its own future will remain that is the toughest issue ahead for Gibraltarians. Who is to care about Gibraltars rights and its future? Although the United Kingdom has stepped up to the challenge, this initial free-fall has only provided Gibraltarians with more doubt as they second-guess what is to come. Whilst it may seem as if the Rock is short of friends as it faces one of its toughest challenges in recent history, the only guarantee is the fierceness and drive of this community to hold on to their rights at any cost. And time will tell: it may just be enough to achieve the democratic respect that we have long deserved.

Excerpt from:
The Gibraltar rock reveals the rubble of democracy - Open Democracy

Gladys Berejiklian may have been heartened by the "extremely positive" reception she received from voters on Saturday, but her gastronomical choices certainly left a lot to be desired - namely, a bun and sauce.

The NSW Premier was snapped eating a democracy sausage sans bread on the campaign trail with Liberal candidate James Griffin at Manly West Primary School, in a move that drew the attention of state opposition leader Luke Foley.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten takes a 'sideways' bite of a sausage sizzle while visiting the polling booth at Strathfield North Public School.

Play Video Don't Play

Malcolm Turnbull has declared that dictator Bashar al-Assad has disqualified himself from any role in a political settlement in Syria and should be placed on trial for his "horrendous" war crimes. Vision courtesy ABC News 24.

Play Video Don't Play

Matt Davidson's take on India's infamous bureaucracy.

Play Video Don't Play

The US attacks have been limited, but they send some powerful messages, says David Wroe

Play Video Don't Play

US cruise missile strikes on Syrian government positions were proportionate, says Malcolm Turnbull.

Play Video Don't Play

The Federal Treasurer on the issue of Western Australia's GST share. Audio: 6PR.

Play Video Don't Play

As military threats come from multiple quarters, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says the Syria chemical attack "cries out for a strong response".

Play Video Don't Play

When he challenged Tony Abbott for the leadership, bad polls were one reason why. Hear what Malcolm Turnbull thinks about polls now.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten takes a 'sideways' bite of a sausage sizzle while visiting the polling booth at Strathfield North Public School.

"Unlike Gladys, I prefer my sausage sandwich with bread," Foley gleefully tweeted.

Ms Berejiklian's peculiar choice was reminiscent of another key sausage moment during the 2016 federal election campaign, when a seemingly confused Bill Shorten tucked into his roll in a manner that left onlookers stunned.

Last July, Mr Shorten infamously took a 'sideways' bite of his sausage sandwich at Strathfield North Public School, before turning away from cameras to tackle the remainder.

"The taste of democracy," the Labor leader then declared.

Perhaps the only constant amid a tumultuous string of election days, the humble sausage sizzle has continued to rise in prominence, with 'democracy sausage' being crowned Australia's Word of the Year by the Australian National Dictionary Centre in 2016.

However, Ms Berejiklian may well have been practising what she preached, after the premier in February announced plans to overhaul school canteens, ditching Space Food Sticks in favour of freshly-made lunchbox options, including more fruit and vegetables.

"I had too many sausage rolls and cream buns and Zooper Doopers [at school]," she told the ABC.

The Liberal Party was expecting large swings against it after a campaign marred by questions over the integrity of two candidates, James Griffin and Felicity Wilson, and pressure over issues including traffic and council amalgamations.

Originally posted here:
Gladys Berejiklian feels heat over democracy sausage faux pas - The Sydney Morning Herald

Tomorrow, Judge Neil Gorsuch will become a justice on the bench of the United States Supreme Court. For him, and for the Republicans, his appointment will be a victory, a time for celebration. But for many, his appointment, and the process which will have gotten him there, feels like one more notch in the dismantling of our democratic republic.

Sen. Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called nuclear option, which means that judicial nominees can be declared victorious by a simple majority instead of needing to have 60 votes. That rule was put in place to prevent or at least lessen, partisanship in the appointment of these most important public servants.

Judge Gorsuch, a staunch Conservative supported by what some call dirty money seems a nice enough person, but his judicial record caused some Democrats deep concern. Justices judges are supposed to be impartial, though history has shown that not to be the case, but there was something sacrosanct in residing in the myth of judicial objectivity. With that myth in place, there was always the hope that justice for the least of these would and could be attained.

The Democrats were determined that Gorsuch would not be the next Supreme Court justice. They were justifiably angry that Sen. McConnell would not even let President Obamas nominee, Merrick Garland, have a hearing. That seemed mean-spirited; it seemed anti-constitutional; it seemed deeply partisan and yes, it seemed racist.

But their anger was not enough to stop this train from its careening downhill. There seems to be a bitter, lingering spirit of resentment over the Obama presidency and all it stood for, accompanied by a determination to undo everything that Obama did. This nomination and the coming confirmation of Gorsuch feels like it is a part of that pot of boiling, seething resentment.

Sen. Harry Reid invoked this nuclear option in 2013. Exasperated by what he felt was unreasonable obstruction by Republicans of every appointment or nominee Obama put forth, he changed the parliamentary rules for the confirmation of judges. There is always wrangling or there had been wrangling between Congress and their respective presidents for decades, but Reid felt the wrangling during the Obama administration went over the top. He changed the rules, something that Obama said he felt would have dire consequences for the country. Its not what our founders intended, he said. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html?utm_term=.f53d453be447)

By now, we have all heard of some of the decisions made by Gorsuch in his work as a judge. They are not encouraging. He seems to be hand-in-glove with corporations and big money. That just does not feel good.

But neither do many of the members of this administrations cabinet. We have an Attorney General who apparently lied to the committee during his confirmation hearings, a man who has a history of being against immigration, (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/09/514365597/jeff-sessions-takes-strong-anti-immigration-views-to-justice-department) , who has a fear of Muslim immigrants, and who recently strongly encouraged American cities to forego the idea of being sanctuary cities, or face losing federal funds.

Sessions has not been a friend to those who fight racial oppression. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeff-sessions-race-civil-rights/story?id=43633501) Supporters of Sessions say he is a good man, and he probably is in the eyes of those who are not black, brown, Muslim, LGBTQ. He has not supported the fight against voter suppression. He is not a fan of affirmative action, and he thinks the complaints by blacks against police departments are overblown.

We could go on; all of the persons in this administration seem friendly enough but not to democracy as it has been practiced. The people in the administration are wealthy and largely disconnected to the masses of American people. The disregard for the lives and well-being of Americans as the GOP has sought to repeal and replace Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, has been disheartening.

We grew up believing in the Bible and in the Constitution. The Bible taught us that we should love each other and take care of each other. The Constitution taught us that a democracy was one where the people mattered. But as the governing body becomes smaller and smaller, and more and more wealthy, the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and the tenets of the Bible seem to be slipping into obscurity.

Timothy Snyder wrote in his book, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, that the Founding Fathers constructed the American democratic republic with the express purpose of preventing tyranny from ever developing here. The three branches of government, with the promise of them providing checks and balances so that no one branch had complete control and power, was called brilliant. But the three branches of government, controlled by the GOP, are failing in their function laid out by the Constitution. Snyder writes, the good news is that we can draw upon more recent relevant examples than ancient Greece and Rome when studying political order. The bad news, he writes, is that the history of modern democracy is also one of decline and fall.

It feels like our beloved country is falling, and the lessons of the Bible are being all but forgotten. The coldness this Congress has for the poor is mind-boggling; it is hard to believe that anyone would believe that the poor dont want health care and wont take care of themselves. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/08/kansas-congressman-under-fire-over-poor-dont-want-health-care-comment.html)

No government is perfect; the fight for justice and equality for the masses has always been a reality. But this was our country, with a government we held to be above all others.

It no longer feels that way. It feels like our government is in hospice. It feels like we are about to have to recite a requiem for our beloved democracy.

See the article here:
Requiem for a Democracy - Huffington Post

Voters in eight Wisconsin communities cast ballots April 4 for a constitutional amendment to reclaim democracy from moneyed interests and overturn the Supreme Courts Citizens United ruling.

The non-binding referendums asked voters whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended to establish that:

n Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings and not to government-created entities such as corporations or limited liability companies.

n Political campaign spending is not a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment.

Early returns showed voters approved referendums in Racine, Monona, Fox Crossing, Crystal Lake, the town and village of Blue Mounds, Jordan and Caledonia.

More than 100 communities in Wisconsin have approved referendums or resolutions, according to Wisconsin United to Amend.

We cannot solve any of the pressing issues in front of our country as long as our politicians do not represent us and they wont until we get the big money out of politics, said Racine activist Bill Earley.

The vast majority of voters know their voices arent being heard by their representatives. Politicians take their orders from the moneyed interests that keep them in office, said Karen Ingvoldstat, an activist in Marquette County.

The first such ballot question in Wisconsin was approved in Madison in 2011, a year after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In that 5-4 decision, the court said the First Amendment prohibited restrictions on political expenditures by corporations.

The ruling, as Barack Obama said a week later in a State of the Union address, reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections.

Nationwide, 18 state legislatures and 730 communities have called for passage of a constitutional amendment.

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan, DFL-Minnesota, has introduced the We the People Amendment in Congress.

Its time to establish once and for all that corporations are not people, money is not free speech and our elections and public policymaking process are not for sale to the highest corporate bidders, Nolan said.

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, is among the co-sponsors.

The amendment essentially has two provisions, Pocan said. It says that money is not free speech and that corporations are not people. A simple but vital premise that would even out the playing field by reversing the deeply corrosive impact of corporate interests on our democracy.

Read more:
Balloting boosts campaign to reclaim democracy from corporate interests - Wisconsin Gazette