By Chris Floyd

Our imperial elites (and their innumerable little yapping media sycophants on both sides of the political fence) simply cannot bear to have American power and domination resisted in any way, at any time, for any reason, anywhere, by anyone. It offends their imperial dignity.

It is apparent that the nation of Ecuador will now be in the frame for what American foreign policy elites like to call, in their dainty and delicate language, “the path of action.” Ecuador granted political asylum to Julian Assange on Thursday for one reason only: the very real possibility that he would be “rendered” to the United States for condign punishment, including the possibility of execution.

None of the freedom-loving democracies involved in the negotiations over his fate — Britain, Sweden, and the United States — could guarantee that this would not happen … even though Assange has not been charged with any crime under U.S. law. [And even though the sexual misconduct allegations he faces in Sweden would not be crimes under U.S. or UK law.] Under these circumstances — and after a sudden, blustering threat from Britain to violate the Ecuadorean embassy and seize Assange anyway — the government of Ecuador felt it had no choice but to grant his asylum request.

As we all know, some of America’s top political figures have openly called for Assange to be put to death for the crime of — well, what was his crime, exactly, in American eyes? His crime is this: he published information leaked to him by a whistleblower — exactly as the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, Fox News, etc., etc., do on a regular basis. Some American leaders and media blowhards have demanded he be executed for “treason,” although, as an Australian citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States. Others say his leaking of classified documents (none of them remotely as sensitive as, say, the much-celebrated Pentagon Papers from the Vietnam Era) has put “American soldiers in danger” — even though America’s own military and intelligence officials have repeatedly stated that no one has been harmed from the publication of documents on Wikileaks.

No one has been physically harmed, that is. Of course, great harm has been done to the pride of the puffed-up poltroons who strut and preen atop the imperial battlements, thinking themselves the lords of all the earth and the apple of every little peon’s eye. Their crimes and lies and third-rate minds were exposed — in their own words — by Wikileaks: and it is for this that Assange must pay. (And be made an example to all those who might do likewise.) Our imperial elites (and their innumerable little yapping media sycophants on both sides of the political fence) simply cannot bear to have American power and domination resisted in any way, at any time, for any reason, anywhere, by anyone. It offends their imperial dignity. It undermines their extremely fragile, frightened, frantic egos, which can only be held together by melding themselves to an image of monstrous, implacable, unstoppable power.

It also — and by no means incidentally — threatens to put a slight crimp in their bottom line, for the American system is now thoroughly militarized; the elite depend, absolutely, on war, death, terror and fear to sustain their economic dominance. As the empire’s chief sycophant, Thomas Friedman, once put it: “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.” You really can’t put it any plainer than that. The only path to prosperity is through domination by armed force. Others must die, must suffer, must quake in fear, to preserve our comfort. This is Modern American Militarism in a nutshell: the ruling ideology and national religion of American society today.

Anything or anyone who threatens this dominance — or just disagrees with it, or simply wants to be left alone by it — is automatically judged an enemy of the imperial state. You must accept the system. You must get with the program. You cannot question it. The beliefs or religion or  ideology of the resister (or perceived resister) do not matter in the slightest. Even the impact (or lack of impact) of the resistance doesn’t matter. It is resistance that it is the crime. It is the refusal to acknowledge the greatness and goodness of the strutters on the battlements, and the legitimacy of their armed domination over the earth, and over you.

It is not enough that you obey; you must be seen to obey. You must obey cheerfully, without complaint — just ask any of thousands and thousands of your fellow citizens who have been tasered or beaten or arrested for failing to show due deference to a police officer or security guard or any of the many other heavily armed figures out there who can stop us, hold us, put us away — or put us down — on the merest whim.

Although Britain is acting as the beard in this case, the government of the Nobel Peace Laureate is clearly driving the action. It is simply inconceivable that Washington will not find ways to punish Ecuador for this act of lèse-majesté. What form it will take remains to be seen (although it could begin with covert backing for Britain’s violation of the Ecuadorean embassy in London). But the fragile, frantic strutters will not let this pass.

***
UPDATE: Just to make it clear, sexual assault is a very serious matter. To say that the accusations now being made against Assange would not constitute a crime under U.S. or UK law is not to diminish the right of all women to be free from sexual assault in any form.

But these concerns have nothing to do with what is being played out in London right now. Assange has not actually been criminally charged with sexual assault, although this claim is repeated unceasingly in stories about the situation. [Including my post above, when I carelessly wrote “charges” in place of “allegations”; now corrected.] He is wanted for questioning in a case involving such allegations; a case which was at first dismissed by a prosecutor then reopened later by a different prosecutor. This prosecutor did not charge Assange with a crime, but wanted to question him further in the process of re-examining whether formal charges are warranted.

Now here is one of the many bizarre turns in this story. Assange was in the UK after the case was re-opened. If the prosecutors wanted to question him, they could have done so at any time, either by coming to London or interviewing him via video hookup. There are ample precedents in European and Swedish law for either course. They refused to do so. (They have also refused Ecuador’s offer to have Assange interrogated in their London embassy.) Assange has also said he would return to Sweden for questioning if the government there would guarantee he would not be extradited to the United States. This was also refused.

Given the fact that Swedish prosecutors have repeatedly turned down opportunities to question Assange about the case — even though they say this is their sole aim — it is not entirely unreasonable to assume, as Assange has done, that there is some other intention behind the process that has led to the standoff we see today. If the primary concern was justice for the two women involved in the allegations, who have had the case hanging over their heads for almost two years, Assange could have been questioned by Swedish authorities at any time during that period, and the process of resolving the case, one way or another, could have moved forward. But this has not been done.

As Assange’s lawyer, Per Samuelson, notes:

“In August 2010, Assange was interviewed by the police for the first time, then released. A month later, the prosecutor requested an additional police interrogation be held, insisting this time that it be done with Assange behind bars. She called for Assange’s arrest, issued a European arrest warrant and ordered that he be deported from the UK. Stockholm district court and the Svea court of appeal upheld her request and arrested Assange in absentia.

“Neither Assange nor I can understand the motivation. Why couldn’t the second police interview be conducted with Assange at liberty? Assange is not a Swedish citizen. He does not reside in Sweden. His work has worldwide impact and he must be able to travel freely to accomplish this. He would happily have presented himself for interrogation and, had the case gone to trial, willingly returned to Sweden to face charges. All this could have been done while he remained at liberty. Had Sweden handled the case in this way, the issue would have been resolved a long time ago.

“Instead, Sweden insists on Assange’s forcible removal to Sweden. Once there, he will immediately be seized by police and put in jail. He will be taken to the detention hearing in handcuffs, and will almost certainly be detained. He will remain in custody for the duration of the proceedings. This is unnecessary. The prosecutor is at liberty to withdraw the arrest warrant and lift the detention order, and a hearing in Sweden could be arranged very quickly. The prosecutor could also arrange a hearing in the UK or at the Swedish embassy in London.”

Again, it seems evident that the Swedish authorities did not want to pursue any of these options, but have instead sought relentlessly to put Assange in a Swedish jail and keep him there. Whatever their motives for this heavy-handed course of action, concern for victims of sexual assault does not seem to be among them.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

Sweden is changing—rapidly—says the author, but much of it is not for the best—or has it always been a mirage?

Report: A tale of two very different Swedens
Dalarna, Sweden
By Ritt Goldstein
Copyright August 2012

The attack came at the afternoon’s end, this making the fourth I would report to the local police.  I was on the phone when the sickeningly familiar odor made itself known, known in a way that only nightmares that are real can, its presence followed within minutes by the strong kidney pain accompanying such attacks.  And while a toxic agent was responsible for the fumes I was enduring, the most remarkable thing was that I was in my apartment in Falun, Sweden, not some distant battle zone.

Of course, history demonstrates that there are times, places, where some have felt free to abuse minorities and particularly ‘outsiders’.  Whether it was the legendary good ol’ boys of America’s Deep South of another era, or European Fascists in the 1930s, from time to time, place to place, there have long existed those where only the passage of time demonstrates to a community its capacity for the monstrous.

Not to be misunderstood, some of those I’ve met in Sweden are among the finest people one might ever encounter; but, others would seem unquestionably among their opposite.  For some here, it seems that foreigners, ‘outsiders’, living in Sweden are committing a crime, one demanding ‘punishment’, or at least a bit of abuse, with this seeming particularly true of any victims that might actually object to such ‘special attention’.

Keeping ‘the rabble’ in their place is also an old story, regardless of how ‘the rabble’ is defined and those providing the definition.  And in all fairness to the many good folks that do exist here, perhaps the reasons for such changes are similar to those that caused Swedish Radio (SR) to headline this June, “Åtta av tio kommuner misstänker korruption” (Eight of ten municipalities suspect corruption).

While most of the ordinary Swedes I’ve met are quite decent, assorted scandals have been making news.  On the local level there have been a number of sordid affairs regarding the privatization of healthcare and education, plus the usual municipal scandals involving officials caught pursuing some difficult to explain ways.

In example, Falun found some of its respected officials had taken trips at the expense of a construction firm, a firm that was awarded a sizable contract for a new ski jump.  One local headline read “Peab fick tiomiljonersjobb utan upphandling” (Peab received a ten million job without procurement).  But such once unheard of headlines have become a part of today’s life.

As just this June The Local (Sweden’s leading English-language news site) headlined “Man charged for running down refugee boy”, it isn’t hard to imagine how some blame ‘outsiders’ for deteriorating circumstances, the genuine pain that many common people suffer.  And, such scapegoating was perhaps even more vividly seen in the recent trial of Peter Mangs.

“Mangs was arrested in November 2010 after a massive manhunt following a string of shootings against people of immigrant origin”, according to The Local ( Malmö sniper Peter Mangs found guilty ), with Mangs convicted in July of two murder counts and four counts of attempted murder.  Of course, such troubling conduct may help put the abuse this journalist has suffered in perspective.

The police hadn’t come the first two occasions that someone had previously ‘scented’ my home, the perpetrator entering my apartment in the process on both of those occasions.  I actually had to begin to carry anything I couldn’t risk being vandalized with me.  The ‘calling card’ left with these ‘unauthorized visits’ smelled noxious, the same sharp odor marking the final three attacks.  The quite nasty physical effects became too well known.

It seemed someone felt the need for an ‘upgrade’ after the first assault.

Since the police hadn’t come on the first two occasions, I did invite a medical chemist to visit the flat after the second.  There’s no substitute for first-hand experience, not to mention a witness statement.

The fellow was properly surprised when he arrived, the smell of the toxin evident even though I had succeeded in cleaning away most of it.  He wrote that its smell reminded one of trichloroethylene, and when the third incident occurred, police did eventually come by to take samples.  Earlier, they had first simply suggested I contact my landlord.  Following that, they said they were too busy to come for months, again suggesting I contact my landlord (Falun’s municipally owned housing company, Kopparstaden); but, following the witness statement from the chemist, the third time they did come.

The ‘rental office’ of Kopparstaden, now this journalist’s ex-landlord

It was months later when I contacted forensic chemist Jan Andrasko of  Statens kriminaltekniska laboratorium – SKL (The Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Science), almost his first words to me being, “I thought that they contact you from our Poison Group”.  But the Poison Group never had contacted me, though Andrasko had found “acetic acid”, a solvent, in the samples he received.  Notably, he also emphasized there were problems with the samples.

When SKL received the material to be analyzed from Falun’s police, “they are placed in just paper bags”, Andrasko complained, adding that due to the improper packaging, if the samples contained volatile compounds “they are away, of course”.  So much for the kind of effective crime-fighting shown on TV and in Henning Mankell’s Kurt Wallander novels.

What’s particularly remarkable is that at the time of the final attack, I was scheduled to leave the flat the very next day (though very few knew so), my landlord having earlier petitioned the local court to force my removal, the Court finding it was not a ‘hardship’ (translated from the Swedish) to immediately move me.  Of course, the flat which Falun’s District Court saw no hardship in my relocation to is documented as contaminated by ‘powerfully elevated’ levels of mold, with ‘unusually high levels’ of some nasty chemicals as well.  As to what that means, two environmental consultants testified under oath that they had become ill in the apartment after but a brief period – one became ill in twenty minutes, and for only the second time in his career.  A third witness noted that he was ill for three to four days following just hours there; yet, the Falun court’s decision was that my living in such an apartment would not be a ‘hardship’.

Falun’s Courthouse

I find myself repeatedly thinking of how the courts in some small towns in Mississippi during the 1950s must have been, how the legal system worked there and then.

Equally noteworthy, despite the fact that I called police four times in the hours following the last attack, emphasizing that I would be leaving the apartment the next morning and that any evidence would be lost accordingly, no officer ever came.  Apparently, my poisoning wasn’t a priority, though the police report did term it assault (misshandel).

If these events sound far from what one would think appropriate, it should be added that a medical certificate from a local ‘chief physician’ mentioned the ‘furthest negative’ consequences that my health could face from exposure to mold or toxic chemicals.  Given this, does the Court’s action, in itself, arguably raise a question of state-sanctioned abuse?  As justice system discrimination against those of foreign origins has been documented by governmental reports here, does the failure of those authorities charged with protecting the most basic of rights arguably suggest a further question of state-sanction of wrongful conduct?

It is small wonder that Julian Assange prefers the confines of London’s Ecuadorian Embassy to Stockholm.  It is also small wonder that, with an honest evaluation of Assange’s circumstances, Ecuador courageously awarded him asylum.  However, while reports and events have highlighted problems within the Swedish justice system, this is not to say that such problems are all-encompassing within it.

On 18 June, a criminal investigation was opened by a Stockholm-based environmental prosecutor that I had sent documentation regarding a flooring practice my now ex-landlord, Kopparstaden, stated it uses.  The prosecutor in question, Anders Gustafsson, sent me an email observing: “it is my opinion that at this stage there is reason to believe that a miljöbrott (environmental crime) has been committed.”  In replying to my query as regards what suspects are being investigated, Gustafsson said “the company being investigated is, of course, Kopparstaden primarily.”

As for my circumstances, I terminated my tenancy with Kopparstaden rather than try and survive in the troubled flat which Falun’s Court found wouldn’t be a ‘hardship’.  If it was not for the courage of some of those here, the simple decency of others, I seriously wonder if I would be alive to write this.  But, what is it that such extreme circumstances say?

At a time when so many people in so many supposedly civilized places suffer silently, I cannot but recall Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, the comments upon the events surrounding the French Revolution which it so eloquently made.  To my eyes, today there seem two Swedens – that of those that exemplify the best of the Progressive state so many yet consider this country, and that of those that recall something far different.  As for the latter, Dickens wrote: “’Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark deference of fear and slavery, my friend,’ observed the Marquis, ‘will keep the dogs obedient to the whip…’”.

Ongoing events have left me with a new appreciation of Dickens, the words he chose to begin his novel … “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”.  And, given this, as some in the US and UK hold up Sweden as a model to follow, it perhaps doesn’t seem the best of times to do so.

_____________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ritt Goldstein is a courageous American investigative political journalist living in Sweden. His work has appeared fairly widely, including in America’s Christian Science Monitor, Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald, Spain’s El Mundo, Sweden’s Aftonbladet, Austria’s Wiener Zeitung, Hong Kong’s Asia Times, and a number of other global media outlets. He has lived in Sweden since July 1997, officially acquiring permanent residency there in 2006.  At present he is about to begin work on a book, one titled “Brave New Sweden”.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

By Paul Craig Roberts

The morons who rule the American sheeple are not only dumb and blind, they are deaf as well. The ears of the American “superpower” only work when the Israeli prime minister, the crazed Netanyahu, speaks. Then Washington hears everything and rushes to comply.  Israel is a tiny insignificant state, created by the careless British and the stupid Americans. It has no power except what its American protector provides. Yet, despite Israel’s insignificance, it rules Washington.

When a resolution introduced by the Israel Lobby is delivered to Congress, it passes unanimously. If Israel wants war, Israel gets its wish. When Israel commits war crimes against Palestinians and Lebanon and is damned by the hundred plus UN resolutions passed against Israel’s criminal actions, the US bails Israel out of trouble with its veto.

The power that tiny Israel exercises over the “worlds’s only superpower” is unique in history. Tens of millions of “Christians” bow down to this power, reinforcing it, moved by the exhortations of their “Christian” ministers.

Netanyahu lusts for war against Iran. He strikes out against all who oppose his war lust. Recently, he called Israel’s top generals “pussies” for warning against a war with Iran. He regards former Israeli prime ministers and former heads of the Israeli intelligence service as traitors for opposing his determination to attack Iran. He has denounced America’s servile president Obama and America’s top military leader for being “soft on Iran.” The latest poll in Israel shows that a solid majority of the Israelis are opposed to an Israeli attack on Iran. But Netanyahu is uninterested in the opinion of Israeli citizens. He has Washington watching his back, so he is war mad. It is a mystery why Israelis put Netanyahu in public office instead of in an insane asylum.

Netanyahu is not alone. He has the American neoconservatives in his corner. The American neoconservatives are as crazed as Netanyahu. They believe in nuclear war and are itching to nuke some Muslim country and then get on to nuking Russia and China. It is amazing that no more than two or three dozen people have the fate of the entire world in their hands.

The Democratic Party is helpless before them.

The Republican Party is their vehicle.

The Russians, watching Netanyahu push Washington toward dangerous confrontations keep raising their voices about the danger of nuclear war.

On May 17 Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned the West against launching “hasty wars,” which could result “although I do not want to scare anyone” in “the use of a nuclear weapon.”

On November 30 of last year the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia warned of nuclear war with NATO. General Nikolai Makarov said that NATO’s eastward expansion meant that the risk of Russia coming into conflict with NATO had “risen sharply.” General Makarov said, “I do not rule out local and regional armed conflicts developing into a large-scale war, including using nuclear weapons.”

Here is Russian president Medvedev (currently the prime minister) describing the steps toward nuclear war that Russia has taken pushed by the crazed warmongers in Washington wallowing in their insane hubris:

With regard to the American missile bases on Russia’s borders, “I have made the following decisions. First, I am instructing the Defense Ministry to immediately put the missile attack early warning radar station in Kaliningrad on combat alert. Second, protective cover of Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons will be reinforced as a priority measure under the program to develop our air and space defenses. Third, the new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defense penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads. Fourth, I have instructed the Armed Forces to draw up measures for disabling missile defense system data and guidance systems. These measures will be adequate, effective, and low-cost. Fifth, if the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy modern offensive weapon systems in the west and south of the country, ensuring our ability to take out any part of the US missile defense system in Europe. One step in this process will be to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad Region. Other measures to counter the European missile defense system will be drawn up and implemented as necessary. Furthermore, if the situation continues to develop not to Russia’s favor, we reserve the right to discontinue further disarmament and arms control measures.”

Russian president Vladimir Putin has said, as politely as possible, that the US seeks to enslave the world, that the US seeks vassals, not allies, that the US seeks to rule the world and that the US is a parasite on the world economy. It would be difficult for an informed person to take exception with Putin’s statements.

Putin told the politicians in Washington and Western and Eastern European capitals that surrounding Russia with anti-ballistic missiles “raises the specter of nuclear war in Europe.” Putin said that the Russian response is to point nuclear armed cruise missiles, which cannot be intercepted by anti-ballistic missiles, at the US missile bases and at European capitals. The American move, Putin said, “could trigger nuclear war.”

Putin has been trying to wake up the American puppet states in Europe at least since February 13, 2007. At the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy, Putin said that the unipolar world that Washington was striving to achieve under its banner, “is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”

That has certainly happened to the US which now has a police state as thorough-going as Nazi Germany. And even better armed: http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-ammo-rounds-security-560/print/

Putin went on to tell his European audience that in Russia, “we are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.” Instead, Putin said, “we are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basis principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, Who likes this? Who is happy about this?”

People are not happy, Putin said, because they don’t feel safe. Not to feel safe “is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this–no one feels safe!” The result, Putin said, is “an arms race.”

Putin politely upbraided the Italian defense minister, a person owned by Washington, for suggesting that NATO or the EU could take the place of the UN in justifying the use of force against sovereign countries. Putin took exception to the idea that Washington could use its puppet organization or its puppet states to legitimize an act of US aggression. Putin stated flatly: “The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN.”

Putin went on to discuss the forked tongue of Washington. Reagan and Gorbachev had firm agreements, but Reagan’s successors put “frontline forces on our borders. . . . The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favor of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family. And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls.”

Putin’s speech of more than 6 years ago shows that he has Washington’s number. Washington is The Great Pretender, pretending to respect human rights while Washington slaughters Muslims in seven countries on the basis of lies and fabricated intelligence. The American people, “the indispensable people,” support this murderous policy. Washington uses the status of the dollar as reserve currency to exclude countries that do not do Washington’s bidding from the international clearing system.

Washington, awash in hubris like Hitler before he marched off into Russia, has turned a deaf, dumb, and blind ear to Putin during the entirety of the 21st century. Speaking on May 10, 2006, Putin said: “We are aware of what is gong on in the world. Comrade wolf [the US] knows whom to eat, he eats without listening, and he’s clearly not going to listen to anyone.”

“Where,” Putin asked, is Washington’s “pathos about protecting human rights and democracy when it comes to the need to pursue its own interests?” For Washington, “everything is allowed, there are no restrictions whatsoever.”

China also has caught on. Now the hubris that drives Washington toward world hegemony confronts two massive nuclear powers. Will the criminal gang in Washington drive the world to nuclear extinction?

Washington, thinking that it owns the world, has imposed more unilateral sanctions on Iran without any basis in any recognized law. The imposed sanctions are nothing but Washington’s assertion that its might is right.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said that Washington could stick its sanctions up its ass. “We consider efforts to impose internal American legislation on the entire world completely unacceptable.”

Washington will do what it can to assassinate Putin and effect regime change through the Russian “opposition” that Washington funds. Failing that, Washington’s pursuit of world hegemony has run up against a brick wall. If the fools in Washington with their hubris-inflated egos don’t back off, that mushroom cloud they have been warning about will indeed blossom over Washington.

About the author
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

Matters of Opinion—Explorations of the right-wing ideology
We think this is total baloney, especially coming from the Koch brothers, but we’ll let our readers decide for themselves.—Eds

___________________________________________________
Breaking News from Newsmax.com

Charles Koch: Why We Fight for Economic Freedom
In nations with the greatest degree of economic freedom, citizens are much better off in every way, writes Charles Koch in an op-ed published on Newsmax. One of America’s most successful businessmen, Koch serves as the chairman and CEO of Koch Industries. A strong critic of President Obama’s policies, Koch warns of the insidious, unchecked growth of U.S. government today. “When everyone gets something for nothing, soon no one will have anything,” Koch writes, “because no one will be producing anything.”

Charles Koch, head of Koch Industries, Inc., calls for more economic freedom and more prosperity for all Americans and says big governments “are inherently inefficient and harmful.”

_______________________________________________________________________

In 1990, the year before the collapse of the Soviet Union, I attended an economic conference in Moscow.

Like my father during his visits to the U.S.S.R. in the early 1930s, I was astonished and appalled by what I saw.

Simple necessities, such as toilet paper, were in short supply. In fact, there was none at all in the airport bathroom stalls for fear it would be stolen. Visitors using the facilities had to request a portion of tissue from an attendant beforehand.

When I walked into one of Moscow’s giant department stores, there was next to nothing on the shelves. For those shoppers who were lucky enough to find something they actually wanted to buy, the purchase process was maddening and time-consuming.

Although the government provided universal healthcare, I never met anyone who wanted to stay in a Soviet hospital. Medical services might have been “free,” but the quality of care was notoriously poor.

Reality Check

My experiences in the Soviet Union underscore why economic freedom is so important for all of us.

Nations with the greatest degree of economic freedom tend to have citizens who are much better off in every way.

No centralized government, no matter how big, how smart or how powerful, can effectively and efficiently control much of society in a beneficial way. On the contrary, big governments are inherently inefficient and harmful.

And yet, the tendency of our own government here in the U.S. has been to grow bigger and bigger, controlling more and more. This is why America keeps dropping in the annual ranking of economic freedom.

Devil’s Bargain

Citizens who over-rely on their government to do everything not only become dependent on their government, they end up having to do whatever the government demands. In the meantime, their initiative and self-respect are destroyed.

It was President Franklin Roosevelt who said: “Continued dependence on [government support] induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”

Businesses can become dependents, too. If your struggling car company wants a government bailout, you’ll probably have to build the government’s car – even if it’s a car very few people want to buy.

Repeatedly asking for government help undermines the foundations of society by destroying initiative and responsibility. It is also a fatal blow to efficiency and corrupts the political process.

When everyone gets something for nothing, soon no one will have anything, because no one will be producing anything.

Cronyism

Under the Soviet system, special traffic lanes were set aside for the sole use of officials in their limousines. This worsened driving conditions for everyone else, but those receiving favored treatment didn’t care.

Today, many governments give special treatment to a favored few businesses that eagerly accept those favors. This is the essence of cronyism.

Read the rest of this piece on Newsmax.com: Charles Koch: Why We Fight for Economic Freedom
Portions reproduced here under Fair Use clauses, as  outlined below.
_____________________
Fair Use Notice
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 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. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, 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.
See our complete copyright/fair use disclaimer here.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.