Third Party candidates - America, give these a chance!

 

Constitution Party presidential candidate Virgil Goode (2nd R) makes a point as Jill Stein (L) from the Green Party, Rocky Anderson (2nd L) from the Justice Party and Gary Johnson (R) from the Libertarian Party look on during a debate hosted by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation and moderated by former CNN talk-show host Larry King on October 23, 2012 in Chicago, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images/AFP)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/usa/news/third-party-us-choice-829/

Millions of voting Americans have been misled – even coaxed – into believing that either incumbent Barack Obama or challenger Mitt Romney must become the next president of the US. A bad choice? Sure, but… “No buts!”

­Look again, however, because Americans do have a choice. For instance, consider what presidential candidates Gary Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico) of the Libertarian Party, and Jill Stein of the Green Party have to say.

Watch Monday evening’s second and final Third Party Presidential Debate from Washington DC, hosted by RT, where both these candidates will offer American voters real options; or at least different options from what political look-alikes Mitt and Barack are offering; “Oromney” and “Rombama” as some have dubbed them.

Two sides of same coin

Many American voters were particularly taken aback by the latest major prime-time candidate “debate” focusing on foreign policy, in which Obama and Romney seemed to agree on all those key issues that have got – and continue to get – America and the world into so much trouble.

Both expressed unflinching support for Israel, even though it’s the sole saber-rattling nuclear power in the Middle East; both continue to threaten Iran with unilateral military attack, demonizing that country as a “threat to the international community,” even though Iran hasn’t attacked any neighbor in over a century (actually, Iran was repeatedly attacked directly by the Western powers or through proxies like Saddam Hussein); both pledged continued support for terrorist “freedom fighters” in Syria’s civil war triggered by the US and allies, just as they did in Iraq and Libya; and both will continue hi-tech drone attacks over Pakistan and Afghanistan, which seem particularly fond of local wedding parties.

But are there no foreign policy options? How about pulling out of the Middle East and stop triggering generalized civil war in the region – aka, “Arab Spring”? Why not curb America’s pro-Israel foreign policy lobbies and put the US national interest back in center stage instead of Israel’s national interest as happens today?

On the global financial scene, why not stop bailing out the irresponsible and criminal Bankster claque to the tune of trillions upon trillions of dollars – with the Fed’s recently-announced QEIII acting as yet another open-ended Bankster Charity Fund – and start bailing out American workers for a change? Here Republicans and Democrats are in full pro-bankster sync.

US voters have other coins in their pockets

It doesn’t always have to be this way. Although it doesn’t hit mainstream media headlines, American Voters do have other choices.

A week ago, the Free & Equal Elections Foundation sponsored a Third Party Candidates Debate that included Gary Jackson and Jill Stein, together with Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party and Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party. It was aired nationwide and worldwide by RT, moderated by Larry King, and boycotted by the mainstream media.

Obama and Romney also boycotted this debate by declining invitations to attend, a clear snub at the American voter.

Reflecting the public’s favorites from that first debate, tomorrow Johnson and Stein will meet once again to speak to America on key issues.

Gary Johnson, a former Republican, says lots of things millions of Americans want to hear: cut military spending by 43 per cent; stop meddling in Syria and Libya; stop threatening Iran with military attack; refuse to support Israel if it decides to go against Iran on its own; stop fueling America’s imperial overdrive and over-reach.

Johnson also supports Ron Paul’s crusade to audit the Federal Reserve Bank and even to close it down altogether, recognizing that the Fed is the culprit for the ongoing financial crisis, having allowed the Bankster takeover of the US and global financial systems.

Jill Stein of the Green Party, in turn, also says things millions are eager to hear. When announcing her presidential candidacy a year ago in her native Massachusetts, the Boston Globe quotes her as saying, “We are all realizing that we, the people, have to take charge because the political parties that are serving the top 1 per cent are not going to solve the problems that the rest of us face. We need people in Washington who will refuse to be bought by lobbyists and for whom change is not just a slogan.”

A courageous and powerful statement from a female candidate who personally took part in the Occupy Wall Street movement and was arrested several times for peacefully and democratically daring to express her ideas in a country that is fast becoming a police state under Gestapo-like FEMA/FBI/CIA/NSA/local police thugs.

No more fizzy drinks

A key factor to the Global Power Elite’s stranglehold on We the People is what America and its favorite allies call the “two-party system”, glorifying it as the “backbone of democracy”.

If we take a closer look, however, we find that “two-party-system-democracy” – whether of Democrats and Republicans as in America, Labour and Conservatives in the UK, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in Germany, and similar variants in most other countries – hides a neat and simplistic mechanism of coaxing people into the lowest infantile common denominators for “solutions to our nation’s problems”.

What the two-party-system basically does is impose one sole mainstream ideological road that’s been previously surveyed and approved as “politically correct” for Global Power Master interests and objectives.

Then, they put a face to each party: your Obamas, Romneys, Bushes, McCains, Clintons… Then, they let voters play around making believe they have an absolutely free and democratic choice to decide whether they will drive on the left side or right side of that one sole road.

But don’t they dare look around for other, more direct highways or “kinder, gentler” side-roads that might carry them and their nation towards a very different, far more beneficial destination!

No, no. In America, voters must choose between Bush and Gore, or Bush and Kerry, or Obama and McCain, or Obama and Romney.

It must boil down to the “have-a-pepsi-or-coke…” option: you might think you’ve been given a choice, but more and more people are realizing that both are basically the same brown, sugary, bubbly slushy soda drink.

So, if you insist on drinking something different, that’s when the Powers That Be will brand independent thinkers as trouble-maker anarchists, communists, fascists, or “downright stupid for throwing your vote away on a third party candidate.”

It doesn’t always have to be that way.

Why should the world care?

In an incredible twist of history, US “democracy” has sunk to such loathsome depths that in order for American voters to even learn about electoral options for their country, they must now tune-in to RT of the Russian Federation.

How times have changed from when the Global Power Masters played with our fears about the “red menace”, “mutually assured destruction” and “better dead than red”!

But why should people outside the US really care whether Americans will pay more or less in taxes, have better or worse healthcare, or whether unemployment, inflation and poverty will rise or fall?

Here’s why: in today’s highly complex global power structure, where an unelected but extremely powerful private Global Power Elite have become embedded into the US and its key allies, whatever happens there will affect all of us.

If, for example, Argentineans vote for the wrong leaders (and believe me, we do!), or the Colombians, or the Greeks, or Malaysians, the consequences of such mistaken choices are basically suffered only by those peoples. The world can just sit back and look at us, for example, and mutter, “Those Argentineans…always making mistakes; serves them right!!”

But when US voters put the wrong guy in the White House, that means untold millions of dead, injured, maimed and wrecked lives in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Latin America, Africa, Asia and other places in this dark, troubled world.

So, yes, it is our business to make sure slumbering American Voters wake up. Not just for their sakes, but for the rest of the world’s sake.

Precedent begs perspective

A new generation of war-mongers is right now preparing to double their bets on the geopolitical arena. They have no qualms in risking outright military confrontation, not just with Iran, but even with Russia and China.

Maybe that reflects their mad geopolitical ambitions; maybe it’s about their less mad realization that they have so completely destroyed the global financial system that their only way out is to “flee forwards” to an overwhelming world war, the likes of which mankind can hardly fathom.

The Global Power Masters already pulled something like that back in 1914 and especially in 1939; why shouldn’t they be tempted to so again?

So, “friends, Americans, countrymen” tomorrow evening please watch the Jackson-Stein Debate. “Lend them your ears!!”

Not that they’re a panacea for America. Not that American voters should childishly “fall in love and rave” about them.

Actually, it’s not so much that Jackson or Stein are better, but rather that Obama and Romney are so much worse!

A final irony: in a world where politicians and media moguls speak and drool over “democracy”, on November 6 around 60, maybe 70, million US voters will decide the destiny over the next four years for 7 billion people. That’s 1 per cent deciding for the remaining 99 per cent.

Democracy should be made of sterner stuff!

Let’s hope US voters realize the huge global responsibility they carry upon their shoulders. In the end, the world will hold them accountable.

­Adrian Salbuchi for RT
­

Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina. www.asalbuchi.com.ar

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
 

Read More

Third Party debates Ending the foreign policy monologue (Op-Ed)

 

Presidential candidates (L - R) Jill Stein of the Green Party, Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party, Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party wait to be introduced at a debate.(AFP Photo / Scott Olson)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-election-third-party-770/

Many watching US President Barack Obama debate Republican nominee Mitt Romney on foreign policy issues were taken aback (or some even pleased, I suppose) - each candidate functioned as an echo chamber for the other.

The encounter may very well go down in history as the "me too debate." If a viewer had little, or indeed any, knowledge of American foreign policy, then he or she probably would have come to the conclusion that the country's relationship with the world was just fine and "American exceptionalism" stands on a solid moral foundation.

Both candidates appeared satisfied with their performance too – both could claim to be the winner in the debate. The fact is both candidates lost, the American people lost and the world continues to be threatened by America's unbridled power, from drones to starting wars of choice. But it doesn't have to be this way. This is why America's voters should tune-in to the Third Party debate which will be televised by RT America in Washington on November 5.

Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson will face-off Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Neither are experts in foreign policy, but this does not matter. What does matter is the refreshing fact that Johnson and Stein can speak openly without the fear of what special vested interests and lobbies demand for support and money. Expect to hear what some Americans say amongst themselves, but hardly ever hear or read in mainstream media. Many voters are tired of war, bloated government budgets, expensive (and essentially useless) nation-building in foreign countries (after these same countries are destroyed by the Pentagon and other actors never held to account).

The Gary Johnson and Jill Stein debate is an important public service in a country that claims to be the beacon of free speech and political pluralism. Mainstream media long ago failed the American people – not to speak of the countless millions around the world who have fallen victim to a foreign policy that is rarely seriously debated in the US. This Third Party debate is a small step toward reclaiming a more open and democratic conversation about foreign policy among Americans.

The following is a short list of issues I believe need to be debated by voters and candidates of all parties:

* Presidential war powers

* The legality of using drones

* Foreign military aid to tyrants and dictatorships around the world

* Radically re-casting or completely shutting down the "war on drugs"

* Ending uncritical support of Israel and its illegal colonization of Palestinian lands

* Honestly engaging Iran through diplomacy

* Significantly scaling back or completely dismantling NATO

* Turning to the United Nations to resolve conflicts, not start them

* Stopping the export of "democracy" through the use of force

* Treating Russia as an equal partner to resolve conflicts

There is nothing particularly radical or even original about calling for debate on these issues. They are discussed all the time by scholars, activists, and foreign policy experts. Sadly, they are purposefully denied a place in mainstream politics and media. It is time to take back the foreign policy debate. Those who control it today do not have the interests of the voters (or the world) in mind.

Peter Lavelle, RT

Peter Lavelle is host of RT's debate show CrossTalk and business program On the Money

 

Read More

Third Party Presidential Debate and pre-debate show - Full Version

Source: Russia Today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEMi9-WZQqU

This presidential election is not just about Obama and Romney, there are also third party presidential candidates. RT is honored to be presenting a platform for the major third-party candidates also vying for the White House this election year to debate. We are offering the event live in cooperation with the debate's organizers, the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.

The event is moderated by multi-award winning broadcast journalist Larry King and is broadcast live from Chicago, Illinois. Thom Hartmann, the star of RT's The Big Picture and noted radio host, is one of a few select journalists hand-picked to hit the candidates with questions about their campaign.

Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_America

 

Read More

Venezuela’s Victory Over Wall Street

 

By: Tony Cartalucci

Source: Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuelas-victory-over-wall-street/

Venezuela looks to have effectively outmaneuvered Western designs to overthrow national sovereignty, but many challenges lay ahead.

Venezuela has provided the world with a successful model to counter the subversive methods of Wall Street and London in their bid to overthrow yet another nation-state to be rolled into their global collective. However, many have noted that President Hugo Chavez is a flawed leader, with flawed policies – many of which run contra to concepts of personal freedom and

Image: President Hugo Chavez soundly defeated US-backed opposition, despite a coordinated propaganda campaign, and millions of US State Department dollars utilized to manipulate the elections. Venezuela still faces many challenges.

While this could be said about virtually any politician, the fact is that despite President Chavez’ flaws, he has posed a substantial obstacle to Western ambitions across South America, and has consistently opposed Western machination across the world.

It has been pointed out however, that President Chavez is heading a political movement very similar to the highly criticized, Wall Street proxy, Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand – that is, using populist policies to build a reliable voting bloc to stay perpetually in power. In many aspects this is true, though Venezuela’s policies are sustainable, and a direct result of nationalizing the oil industry, while Shinawatra of Thailand simply took money out of state coffers while attempting to further privatize and sell-off to foreign multinationals, Thailand’s vast resources.

Also, political and economic policies are erroneously viewed by many as “sides” one is either on or against. In reality, the global elite see them simply as tools, and their use dictated not by personal preference or ideology, but by utility given any specific circumstance. Whether one is “good” or “bad,” when they are presented with boards that must be nailed together, they pick a hammer. Likewise, when a nation must be unified against a large, capable political opposition – political machines, populism, and socialist policies are generally used.

It is difficult to see what other effective method President Chavez could have used against the West in organizing the Venezuelan people against the collective corporate-financier interestsarrayed against them and the substantial foreign subversion President Chavez has faced throughout his political career. Boards needed to be nailed together, and President Chavez elected to use a hammer. He is succeeding, and as his political structure is hammered together, taking a more distinct and stable form, it will soon be time to take out other tools to further refine it.

Ensuring A Stable, Enduring Structure

As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez consolidates his position, it will be important to move beyond the populist policies required to win over people in the face of concerted efforts by foreign-funded opposition to win them over. In “Free Markets & Socialism: An Alternative View,” it stated:

Socialist handouts are tools. Like any tool they are only as good as the people using them. While the intentions of socialist medicine, welfare, education and so on seem noble, in reality they are primarily used by self-serving crooked politicians as bribes handed out in exchange for the voting public’s servile dependency on a particular political agenda. Generations of voting blocs have been created using socialist handouts in just this fashion. Pragmatic solutions are never seriously pursued because pragmatic, permanent solutions – while alleviating entirely any particular social problem – would undermine the real purpose of the handouts, namely, building a dependent, servile voting bloc.

However, let us imagine socialist handouts for a particular social problem such as medical care applied in the context of a temporary stop-gap measure. While people are subsidized for care, the commitments are temporary and voluntary only to prevent people from dying without proper treatment. Meanwhile, investments are put into education and biomedical technology with specific benchmarks and time frames in mind. Simultaneously, barriers such as crippling “intellectual property rights” and monopolizing business practices are eliminated to allow real competition to flourish.

By increasing the supply of trained practitioners and biomedical engineers through improved education, and advancing biomedical technology past current levels of precarious scarcity the price for medical care will drop accordingly. With monopolies eliminated, real progress can be effected. If a particular company has a viable, affordable treatment for cancer, no established monopoly will be able to lobby Washington to regulate it out of business to protect their particular racket. Similar solutions could also easily be applied to the inadequate, antiquated, parasitic oil and car industries as well.

We should look around society today and take stock in industries and commodities we take for granted. We do not kill one another over the last chicken leg or leaf of lettuce nor do many people go without basic food. This is not because we have mastered subsidizing socialist handouts to feed our populations, rather we have developed agricultural technology that allows us to create an affordable market nearly anyone can benefit from under normal circumstances.

Likewise, medical technology and other essential industries can and must be advanced to where the market price is affordable to all. This will not happen with socialist handouts or monopolizing regulations in place. It will happen with improved education and healthy competition within the markets, where the only protection given is the rights of entrepreneurs big and small to pursue their trade without being hindered by monopolistic practices. In the meantime, it is sensible to transition away from total, permanent (and pandering) socialist solutions and move toward temporary stop-gaps until this is achieved.

It should be understood that the concept of a “free market” described above does not refer to absolute economic anarchy. For instance, should Venezuela elect to pursue more permanent, technological solutions to problems currently subsidized, they would not by necessity “open their markets” to foreign multinationals and crippling “neoliberalism.” In many ways the West already observes truly “free markets,” or economic anarchy where giant corporations are free to do anything they wish, including wage massive, global wars in pursuit of their interests. The constricting laws and regulations many well-intentioned free-market advocates abhor, have been imposed by these unhindered, anarchical corporations, not by a “socialist government.” What these advocates perceive as a “socialist government” is in fact an interface created and controlled by unhindered, unregulated, unaccountable corporate-financier interests

Image: Building things, making things, technological and scientific progress moves forward the frontier of human knowledge and makes all that follows in its wake more accessible and affordable to the average person. The next step of any genuine socialist movement aiming to meet the immediate needs of the people, is to empower the people through education and technology with the means to develop permanent technological solutions to replace what should be only temporary government-dependent subsidies. Socialism as a final end, is but another system of control.
….

For Venezuela, the threat of foreign subversion is still very real. There is a very real global network of subversion maintained by the corporate-financier interests of Wall Street and London, forming the foundation of modern imperialism. For President Hugo Chavez to move on to the next step, to put down the hammer and begin using more articulate tools, he would have to effectively communicate these intentions to his support base and ensure that the Venezuelan people are aware of the dangers and payoffs of pursuing the next step.

Finally, as a growing front of nations begin to rise up against Western global hegemony and the “Washington Consensus,” it is important that people around the world prevent an identical, but opposing global order to take its place. Global governance by any name, administered by any nation, or group of nations, is unnecessary and only serves to subvert national, local, and individual sovereignty. A mulipolar world where the mutual respect of national sovereignty, and the primacy of the nation-state is it’s foremost principle, is what we the people of the world should not only demand of our representatives, but should work on a daily basis locally to achieve.

 

Read More

Attacking Democracy: Chavez, the US, and the Destabilization of Venezuela

By: Eric Draitser

Source: Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/attacking-democracy-chavez-the-us-and-the-destabilization-of-venezuela/

Venezuela goes to the polls this Sunday in an election many are calling a referendum on President Chavez and his policies. Although there is surely such a dimension, the significance of the elections goes far beyond political opinion and partisan bickering, striking at the heart of the Venezuelan state. This is because these elections will be used as a front for an attempt to overthrow, by brute force if necessary, the democratically elected government and put in its place a government more amenable to US interests.

If this sounds familiar, it should. This is precisely the same tactic tried in 2002 in a US-instigated coup that, though it briefly deposed Chavez, ultimately failed. Now, ten years later, the US imperialist ruling class is prepared to try their hand at regime change in Venezuela once more.

The Destabilization Strategy

Sunday’s election presents the ideal opportunity for US intelligence to instigate some kind of coup or “color” revolution in Venezuela. However, in order to achieve this insidious goal, there are very specific strategies, tactics, and contingencies which must be understood. In his paper, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, former US Ambassador to Venezuela Patrick Duddy presents a number of scenarios in which the election becomes the centerpiece of a destabilization campaign. Perhaps the most important of these scenarios, one which would be in keeping with the tradition of “color” revolutions all over the world, is the outbreak of violence in the hours after the winner is announced. Duddy writes, “most plausible scenarios for instability and conflict in Venezuela derive from the premise that the Chavistas will not willingly surrender power and would be willing to provoke violence, orchestrate civil unrest, or engage in various forms of armed resistance to avoid doing so.” Naturally, Duddy fails to explain for whom such a scenario would be deemed “plausible”. Because of the nature of the paper and the author, it is fair to assume that he is referring to the US intelligence community for whom this is “plausible”. Of course, this assertion is made with no precedent of historical evidence of Chavistas engaging in such behavior. Rather, this is precisely the type of unrest fomented by the United States in the service of regime change.

Any violence would have to be predicated on the notion that the election were unfair and that Chavez has “stolen” a victory. In fact, the US propaganda on this premise is unmistakable. In an article written for the right-wing Heritage Foundation and propagandistically titled “The Chavez Plan to Steal Venezuela’s Election”, Dr. Ray Walser writes that the “stealing” of the elections will be made possible because of deception, electoral inequality, propaganda, and violence among other factors. However, in examining the way in which Dr. Walser presents each of these factors, one begins to see that, in fact, what is being described is not a list of possible tactics and scenarios, but rather, an incredibly detailed blueprint of the pretexts that will be used to legitimize a manufactured and likely violent response to a Chavez victory.

One of the most obvious forms of deception that the US intelligence community is engaging in is the manipulation of polling data. A study conducted by the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign UK shows that, no more than two months ago, Chavez’s lead was anywhere from 15 to 27 points, depending on the polling agency. However, despite the overwhelming amount of statistical evidence to the contrary, the Western media and intelligence establishment continue to propagate the outright lie that Chavez is actually behind in the polls. Nowhere is this deception more obvious than in the fact that Democracy Digest, a mouthpiece for the National Endowment for Democracy, claims that Capriles Radonski holds a two point lead over the Venezuelan president. The article quotes Luis Christiansen, a representative of the dubious Consultores polling group, who states, “If we were to make a linear projection for the election, it would be that Capriles will maintain an advantage of 2.5 percent over Chávez.” This would seem a rather innocuous assertion that might have some validity were it not for the incontrovertible fact that more than a dozen other independent polling agencies conclude just the opposite that, in fact, Chavez leads and that the margin is significant. Therefore, one can easily see that a poll such as Consultores will play a major role in manufacturing a crisis because the poll will then be held up as evidence of clear “election fraud”.

Another aspect of this propaganda and deception has to do with the integrity of the elections themselves. One of the most common talking points established by the US imperialist ruling class has been that the decision by Chavez not to allow international elections observers can only be interpreted as an admission of government guilt in election fraud. As Walser states in his Heritage Foundation article, “Following the 2006 presidential election, Venezuela ended serious electoral observation missions by the OAS, the European Union, and other groups, such as the Carter Center in the U.S…The CNE [National Electoral Council] now allows only electoral ‘companions’…which lack international credibility.” This assertion completely ignores the obvious fact that such international NGOs and other organizations are part of a complex network of institutions funded and controlled by the Western imperialist ruling class. As was most clearly demonstrated in Russia following Putin’s reelection, so-called “independent monitors” function as provocateurs who attempt to create controversy where there is none. Moreover, such organizations are entirely dependent on funding from the US State Department and other powerful institutions of the ruling class, and work in the service of US imperialism. In light of such attempted subversion as well as similar examples throughout the world in recent years, it makes perfect sense that Caracas would want to ensure the validity of elections outside the purview of US hegemonic power.

Beyond the elections themselves, the US also intends to try to use the military against Chavez. In a strategy reminiscent of Egypt and the use of Tantawi and others to do the dirty work of ousting Mubarak, so too does the intelligence establishment hope to bribe or otherwise influence senior officers to turn on Chavez. This is precisely the final, and perhaps most significant, recommendation made by former ambassador Duddy who writes that the US should, “Leverage defense department contacts in Latin American and Spanish armed forces to communicate to the Venezuelan military leadership that they are obliged to uphold their constitution, respect human rights, and protect their country’s democratic tradition.” Aside from being a gross violation of international law by meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state, such a recommendation demonstrates the weakness of the political opposition which, despite being well-funded and enjoying the support of the wealthy elite, still does not have the support to achieve a legal, electoral victory.

The recommendations of Duddy, Walser, and others show that those forces (opposition, military, police, business elite, etc.) that instigated the attempted coup d’etat against Chavez back in 2002, are very much active in this renewed destabilization effort. Nowhere is this fact more obvious than in the opposition candidate himself, Henrique Capriles Radonski. At the time of the attempted coup, Capriles was mayor of Baruta (a municipality in Caracas) and led what can only be described as an assault on the Cuban embassy. His culpability in the attack is demonstrated quite clearly in the statement issued by the Cuban embassy staff which read:

The immediate responsibility of Mr. Capriles Radonsky and other Venezuelan state authorities was demonstrated when they failed to act diligently in order to prevent an increase in the aggression to which our embassy was subjected, causing serious damage and endangering the lives of officials and their families in clear violation of national and international law. Some also speculate, with good reason, that Capriles was also involved in the assassination of Danilo Anderson, the prosecutor in charge of investigating the individuals involved in, and responsible for, the 2002 coup. Given such criminality as Capriles has demonstrated, coupled with an insatiable egomania, one would have to wonder whether this man could possibly be anything other than a US puppet.

Capriles does have a base among the wealthy and some of the bourgeois middle class, though it should be pointed out that the breadth of this base is often purposely mischaracterized by the media mouthpieces of the ruling class. However, regardless of the size, his core supporters will be put in harm’s way due to the recent call by Capriles for them to “stay in the streets” to “minimize fraud” at the polls. These supporters will likely become the victims, instigators, and/or both, of post-election violence, just as has been seen in Kenya, Thailand, and countless other countries in recent years. This violence would then be blamed on the Chavez government and is designed to destabilize the entire country. However, the question remains: if not Chavistas, then who would perpetrate such violence?

One possibility is a covert, mercenary force that has penetrated into Venezuela by crossing the border into the country illegally. In early August, an American was captured trying to sneak into Venezuela. Although he has refused to divulge any information about himself or his mission, his passport showed trips to Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries. This revelation alone would indicate at least some military involvement and, likely, Special Forces or some other covert detachment. Moreover, his capture coincided quite closely with the mysterious refinery explosion and fire that killed a number of innocent Venezuelans. Was this individual part of a group of saboteurs and mercenaries sent into Venezuela in preparation for a destabilization effort? Though concrete proof of this is impossible to obtain given the nature of covert operations, the possibility must be considered.

Why They Hate Chavez

The reasons why Chavez evokes such rage and antipathy from the US ruling class are many and interrelated. First and foremost, Chavez has demonstrated himself to be perhaps the leading international voice of anti-imperialism and resistance to US hegemony. He has led the transformation of much of Latin America from little more than US markets for exploitation to independent nations capable of managing their own affairs. This development comes in the form of the establishment of regional cooperation organizations, the assertion of national sovereignty and control over resources, as well as the formation of viable and independent political blocs in the region. Additionally, Chavez leads a country that is one of the world’s leading energy producers, giving him leverage over Western oil companies. Finally, and perhaps most critically, Chavez represents a model for other nations of Latin America and the rest of the world who wish to pursue an independent, socialist path of development. This is, of course, anathema to the goals of the financial elite of the Anglo-American establishment who wish to reassert dominance in what had been the US sphere of influence.

One of Hugo Chavez’s great accomplishments has been the formation of regional cooperation organizations such as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). These organizations serve as both economic communities and political blocs, providing a viable alternative to dependence on the United States. It is because of such regional organizations that countries such as Ecuador and Bolivia have been able to take the initiative against the various forms of domination, coercion, and subversion by the United States. Moreover, this has delegitimized the hegemony of the US by allowing Latin America to move away from US-dominated organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS) and Mercosur. In doing so, ALBA, CELAC, and other such alliances become organs of national agency and independence.

Another aspect of Chavez’s influence that draws the ire of the US imperialists is his support for large-scale economic development in the region. Not only has Venezuela taken over from the US and its international finance arms, the IMF and the World Bank, but it has used the aforementioned alliances to promote independent economic development. The recently announced plans for an Inter-Oceanic Canal through Nicaragua that would link the Pacific and Atlantic oceans along with the proposed Colombia-Venezuela oil pipeline, are merely two examples of the Chavez government’s commitment to mutually beneficial economic development. These projects, and many like them, have helped move Latin America in the direction of cooperation and progress and away from the division and subjugation of the 20^thCentury.

This form of domination at the hands of the US Empire was nowhere more apparent than in the oil sector. For decades, foreign oil companies had extracted untold wealth from beneath the feet of the people of Venezuela while rampant poverty only worsened. However, with the Hydrocarbons Law of 2001, the Chavez government effectively nationalized the energy industry and, for the first time, exercised national sovereignty over natural resources. This move, perhaps more than any other, earned him the hatred of the Anglo-American ruling class. The oil industry was not the only one to be nationalized – cement, telephone, and a number of others were also brought under state control.

Chavez has also built warm economic and political relations with China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, and countless other countries that the imperialists perceive to be “enemies”. This is what is often referred to as Chavez’s “anti-Americanism”. However, it should here be pointed out that Chavez has stated repeatedly his positive view of Americans, saying at a speech in New York City, “…I fell in love with the soul of the people of the United States.” Rather, it is the ruling class of the United States, the same ruling class that exploited and oppressed Venezuela and the rest of Latin America for decades, which he despises. This is an important distinction which is crucial to dispelling the distortions and lies told by the mainstream media in the US.

Perhaps Chavez’s most important accomplishments are socio-economic. The progress that his government has made in combating poverty, illiteracy, racism, oppression of indigenous peoples, infant mortality and countless other indicators of social progress, has made Venezuela into the shining example for the rest of Latin America and the world. This is, of course, an existential threat to the power of international finance capital, and capitalism more generally. By expounding this sort of “21^st Century Socialism”, Chavez makes himself into the target of subversion at the hands of the US – his social policies make him public enemy number one.

Hugo Chavez has come to symbolize everything that the US imperialist ruling class despises: independent economic development, independent foreign policy, and a deep commitment to social justice. He has openly challenged, not just the US Empire, but imperialism in all its forms. Moreover, Chavez represents a viable future for Latin America, one that is free of the chains of US bondage. For these reasons, the ruling class is set on trying for regime change once more. Anti-imperialists the world over must stand now and defend Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, not because we agree or disagree with all of its tenets, but because it stands in opposition to empire, colonialism, and domination.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. He is the Founder and Editor of StopImperialism.comas well as host of the Stop Imperialism podcast. He is a frequent contributor to Russia Today, the Center for Research on Globalization, and many other sites and publications.

Read More

Venezuela’s electoral campaign closes with massive rallies (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

Supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez attend his campaign closure rally in Caracas, on October 4, 2012. (AFP Photo/Luis Acosta)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/news/venezuela-elections-chavez-capriles-701/

Incumbent Hugo Chavez is facing down rival Henrique Capriles in the South American country’s elections after 14 years in power. Thousands gathered to hear the candidates’ closing speeches as they vied to drum up support before ballots open.

Chavez is currently leading in the popularity polls, pitting Capriles to the post by a narrow margin that fluctuates between 2 and 20 points.

Analysts say that the vote is likely to be the tightest race in over a decade with 19 million people registered for the elections, 96.6% of the voting population.

Chavez’s supporters flooded Caracas’ Bolivar Avenue to show solidarity for the charismatic leader, while rival Capriles drew almost a million followers to a rally in the Venezuelan capital.

In his closing speech Chavez focused on the social reforms that have won him the popularity of the lower classes in Venezuela. He pledged to continue the fight against poverty and inequality in the Latin American state.

"In all these years, we managed to save the country and have built the foundations for the future. In six years' time, we will be the first on health and education. In 10 years, there will be no more homeless in Venezuela," Mr Chavez pledged.

Capriles, a 40-year-old lawyer, attacked the government’s policy on the economy and promised to focus on education and job creation should he be elected.

“14 years is enough and 20 is too much,” he said in an address to his supporters, stressing that the Chavist government had run out of steam.

Hugo Chavez has received a lot of negative coverage by western media, many regarding him as a reactionary seeking to cling to power for another presidential term. His controversial foreign policies have provoked the anger of the US on more the one occasion.

Chavez has condemned the support of the opposition in Syria and advocates Iran’s right to enrich uranium. In addition, he has been a key figure in the movement for Latin American integration and the exclusion of the US regarding internal policies.

In contrast, Capriles has resolved to radically change Venezuelan foreign policy upon election, heralding a possible strengthening of ties with the US.

Chavez’s health has also been a bone of contention in the elections. The Venezuelan president had surgery to remove a cancerous tumor less than six months ago, but has reassured supporters he is fit to serve another term in power.

Venezuelans will make their way to the ballots on Sunday to pick the victor in the presidential battle.

­Capriles ‘more malleable’ for US

James Petras, professor emeritus of Sociology at Brighampton University told RT that given Chavez’s anti-US policies Washington would prefer Capriles as the “more malleable client.”

“Along the line, both domestically and foreign policy-wise, President Chavez has been defining an alternative route for Latin America and has played a major role in lessening the US influence in the region,” said Petras. He added that this effectively meant the “exclusion of the United States.”

Citing Chavez’s promotion of the “redistribution of politics and the nationalizing of several important oil, petroleum and gas companies,” Petras said that the US and EU would like to “get rid of Chavez” because on many issues he is “on the other side of the political map.”

 

Handout photo released by the Venezuelan Presidency of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (C) waving to supporters during the closing rally of his campaign in Caracas, on October 4, 2012. (AFP Photo/Presidencia)

 

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gestures amid a downpor during his closing campaign rally in Caracas, Venezuela on October 4, 2012. (AFP Photo/Luis Acosta)

 

Handout photo released by the Venezuelan Presidency of an aerial view of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's closing rally in Caracas, on October 4, 2012. (AFP Photo/Presidencia)

Venezuela's president and presidential candidate Hugo Chavez greets supporters in the rain during his closing campaign rally in Caracas October 4, 2012. (Reuters/Miraflores Palace/Handout)

Supporters of the Venezuela's opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles hold pictures of him at his campaign rally in Barquisimeto, in the state of Lara October 4, 2012. (Reuters/Carlos Garcia Rawlins)

 

Supporters of the Venezuela's opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles attend his campaign rally in Barquisimeto, in the state of Lara October 4, 2012. (Reuters/Carlos Garcia Rawlins)

 

Venezuelan opposition presidential candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski (C), waves to supproters during the closing rally of his campaign in Barquisimeto, Lara state, Venezuela on October 4, 2012. (AFP Photo/Leo Ramirez)

Read More

New parliamentary majority in Georgia advises president to resign

 

Bidzina Ivanishvili, the leader of the Georgian Dream coalition, speaks during a news conference in Tbilisi on October 2, 2012.

Source: Press TV

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/03/264647/georgian-dream-asks-president-to-resign/

The leader of the party that won Monday’s parliamentary election in Georgia has called on President Mikheil Saakashvili to step down.

On Tuesday, Saakashvili conceded defeat in the election to the opposition Georgian Dream coalition led by billionaire businessman and philanthropist Bidzina Ivanishvili, who is set to become the next prime minister.

At his first news conference after winning the Monday vote, Ivanishvili, 56, called on the pro-Western president to quit. “The only right decision now for Saakashvili would be to resign.”

With results in from 72 percent of polling stations, the opposition was leading Saakashvili's United National Movement by 54 to 41 percent. This accounts for 77 of the 150 seats for the Georgian Dream. The rest of the seats are made up of 73 constituencies elected by a first-past-the-post voting system, which means that to become an MP, all a candidate has to do is to get more votes than any rival in that constituency.

Saakashvili, 44, will remain as the president of Georgia until his second and last term ends in October 2013. Under the 2010 constitutional amendments, which will go into effect after Saakashvili leaves office, many of the president's powers will be transferred to the prime minister.

Ivanishvili said there will be no repression once he comes into power. He promised to cooperate with Saakashvili's party but made clear that former officials who’ve committed crimes will face justice.

On foreign policy, he said normalizing ties with Russia will be a priority for his government. Relations between Moscow and Tbilisi soured after a five-day war between the two countries back in 2008.

In Moscow, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev welcomed the Georgian Dream victory as opening the way for “more constructive and responsible forces” to enter the Georgian parliament.

He added Moscow was "ready for dialogue about the future of Russian-Georgian relations."

The Monday vote was Georgia’s seventh legislative election since the country gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

Read More

Saakashvili concedes defeat, says his party now opposition

 

One of the opposition supporters holds a national flag to celebrate what they call the victory of Georgian Dream opposition bloc in central Tbilisi, late on October 1, 2012. (AFP Photo/Andrey Smirnov)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/news/georgian-parliamentary-elections-hindering-476/

Georgian President and leader of the United National Movement ruling party Mikhail Saakashvili has officially conceded the defeat in the parliamentary election on national TV. The UNM now goes into opposition to the winning Georgian Dream coalition.

The Georgian Dream coalition that has won the election will be forming the next Georgian government and it is expected that the coalition’s current leader billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili might be elected Georgia’s next prime minister. According to the laws adopted in the country recently, the prime minister will have more powers than the ruling president, making for an interesting power dynamic.

Central Elections Committee data indicates that with over 25 per cent of the votes counted so far, the opposition Georgian Dream coalition is winning with about 53.3 per cent of the popular vote, while the ruling United National Movement (UNM) has gained about 41.5 per cent. One more opposition party, the Christian-Democrat Movement, has managed to pass the necessary 5 per cent threshold.

The CEC has estimated the election’s final turnout at 61 per cent. With 3,613,851 voters officially registered in Georgia this means at least 2,204,450 people went to cast their votes.

The CEC said its website has suffered a denial-of-service attack, leading to a delay in the release of the results. “Our website was under DDoS attack, which has caused minor delays…but we were ready for such a scenario too,” said Elections Committee Chairman Zurab Kharatishvili, as quoted by Civil Georgia news website.

 

Opposition supporters celebrate what they call the victory of Georgian Dream opposition bloc in central Tbilisi, late on October 1, 2012. (AFP Photo/Vano Shlamov

Reaping what was sown

­The election campaign in Georgia was marred by a flurry of accusations from both the ruling party and the opposition, with some experts labeling the campaign “the dirtiest ever in Georgia”.

On the eve of the elections the battle for electoral minds reached its zenith after national TV channels broadcast video evidence of torture and rape in a detention facility in the capital Tbilisi – with the connivance of, or even direct orders from, the ruling party.

Thousands of protesters took to the streets in several Georgian cities over the abuses in a Tbilisi prison. The minister of execution of sentences resigned as a result of the atrocities.

 

AFP Photo/Vano Smirnov

Polling day was not exempt from violations.

On Monday, Georgian media reported national security forces clashed with local residents in the town of Khashuri, a town close to the country’s capital Tbilisi. Three people were injured at a polling station when rubber bullets and teargas were fired by security forces, claimed opposition news station TV-9. Reportedly the cause for the incident was some kind of attempted illegal activities at the polling station.

An observer group Transparency International Georgia has claimed falsifications took place in Khashuri.

“Our observer present at precinct No. 46 reported that Georgian Dream had most of the ballots in a vote summary protocol, but shortly afterwards, armed persons arrived at the precinct, and kicked all the observers out of the building. A new summary protocol was made in which the United National Movement was the winner; the District Election Commission accepted this very protocol,” TI Georgia was quoted by Civil Georgia news website.

The Public Chamber of Russia and the Democratic Research Problem Fund, working in close co-operation with Georgian activists, have accused Georgia’s ruling United National Movement party of a number of gruesome violations during the elections on October 1.

“The election campaign of the UNM party was accompanied with open attempts of bribing the electorate. Speaking at the UNM congress [acting president] Mikhail Saakashvili promised mass distribution of 1000-lari [about US$1,660] certificates after the election, which according to international standards is an evident and transparent bribery of voters,” proclaims the Public Chamber’s statement issued on Tuesday.

The statement also mentions a number of other violations registered at the polling station by the Georgian observers, including already-completed ballots being brought to the stations, as well as prosecution and intimidation of opposition activists.

Overall 60,000 observers from 100 Georgian and international organizations and 15 countries were monitoring the elections in Georgia. The international observers have declared the elections conformed to international standards, despite a number of incidents at polling stations.

The OSCE mission in Georgia has acknowledged that the parliamentary election in the country was free, democratic and conformed to international standards.

Read More

Tens of thousands hit Tbilisi streets in 'largest-ever' rally on eve of election (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

Supporters of the opposition Georgian Dream Coalition shout slogans at an election rally in Tbilisi September 29, 2012. (Reuters / David Mdzinarishvili)

Source: Russia Today

http://rt.com/news/georgia-opposition-rally-election-305/

Around 200,000 people have reportedly come out in support of opposition party Georgian Dream in what may become the biggest ever rally to hit Tbilisi. Georgia is set to cast votes in a parliamentary poll Monday.

­The Georgian capital was strewn with blue colors Saturday as the South Caucasian country's parliamentary campaign comes to a climax.

“One of my promises has already come true: all of Georgia is standing united today,” opposition leader Bidzina Ivanishvilitold tens of thousands people gathered at central Freedom Square to show their support for him. “All Georgia tells the authorities…”

“…leave!” responded the crowd

“The authorities cannot pretend they did not know what happens in our prisons,” continued the billionaire tycoon, referring to a recent torture scandal that led to the resignations of several top officials and left President Mikhail Saakashvili playing spin-doctor for himself at the UN General Assembly.

Reports on the rally's turnout vary, with Russia's RIA Novosti agency estimating the demo to be 200,000 strong, while the multinational channel MTRK MIR says 300,000 people were in attendance. MIR remarks that Tbilisi's last most massive rally was held in 2010, and gathered around 100,000 people

Tycoon-turned-politician Ivanishvili founded his public movement, Georgian Dream, in December 2011. In April 2012, it transformed into an opposition coalition, called Georgian Dream–Democratic Georgia. The current election is generally viewed as a struggle between billionaire Ivanishvili, whose wealth at $6.4 billion equals nearly half of Georgia's economic output, and President Mikhail Saakashvili.

Saakashvili’s role in Georgian history remains highly controversial. In its "Doing Business 2012" report, the World Bank named Georgia a "top reformer." According to that assessment, the South Caucasus country, which serves as an important transit route for oil and gas to the West, showed an astounding improvement since 2005 in terms of the ease of doing business, climbing from 112th to 16th place.

But the opposition has little praise to spare for the leader. Nino Burdzhanadze, the ex-chairperson of the Georgian Parliament and Saakashvili’s former ally, claims that "we have less democracy today than before the revolution", as Spiegel quotes her. Like many others, Burdzhanadze accuses the president of authoritarian dictatorship that has suppressed the opposition, while engaging the country in all-around corruption and money laundering.

Saakashvili, in his turn, says the Georgian opposition are simply Kremlin agents.

Ivanishvili has taken great pains to deny the claim. During the rally, he said he did not go to politics after some foreign powers told him so, but because he could not come to terms with the escalating poverty and injustice that are choking the country.

"Saakashvili's system must be destroyed. The fate of the country is being decided at these elections," Ivanishvili told the rally, promising to create “a truly democratic country free of violence or fear.”

Georgia's opposition leader Bidzina Ivanishvili and the leader of the Georgian Dream political party gestures during a rally in central Tbilisi, on September 29, 2012. (AFP Photo / Vano Shlamov)

A parallel opposition demonstration was held in Georgia’s second largest city, Kutaisi. Rally organizers say tens of thousands people are there.

Ivanishvili’s party, whose platform seems to be centered on displacing the incumbent president, is expected to come out as the main rival to Saakashvili’s United National Movement.

UNM’s convention Friday gathered around 70 thousand people at a central stadium in Tbilisi. On Saturday, Saakashvili also addressed voters in the port city of Poti, stressing the upcoming election may be a turning point for the country. “A force which wants to destroy everything we have created in the last nine years is keen to grab power,” he told supporters, hinting at the coalition headed by Ivanishvili.

Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili enters the podium to address a showpiece rally of his party three days before elections in central Tbilisi, on September 28, 2012. (AFP Photo / Vano Shlamov

 

Read More