One Obama photo which says it all

Barak Obama is truly the epitome of hypocrisy.  Just look at this photo - here is a Black man shaking hands with a Jew whose so-called government is chock full of racist Jew-hating neo-Fascists (more about that tomorrow).  Here is a man who was nominated by a party which calls itself "Democratic" to become the President of a country which not only is supposed to be "democratic" itself but which gives "lessons of democracy" to the rest of the planet.  And yet - here is he shaking the hand of a man who overthrew a democratically elected President in a violent uprising and who has no popular mandate at all besides the support of armed thugs. 

It is no wonder that Obama's popularity rating is at a all-time low while Vladimir Putin's rating is at an all-time high.  I bet you that if Putin ran against Obama in a free and fair election for President of the United States he would win (just kidding!).  I wonder if Obama knows how much the entire planet despises him, including the American people and especially those who voted for him naively hoping for "change".

The Saker

Barak Obama: hated, despised and humiliated both at home and abroad

These are bad times for Barak Obama, and humiliations seems to fall upon him every day.  Yesterday it what a double-whammy: first NBC and the WSJ announced that Obama's approval rating were at a historical low and then Forbes announced that Obama's most hated adversary, Vladimir Putin, had displaced him in the Forbes world's most powerful person list and was now the most powerful person on the planet, followed by Obama and right after him Xi Jinping.

Of course, these are pure "media events" or, more accurately, non-events.  Nothing really happened.  But to a image and media centric politician like Obama these are very, very bitter pills to swallow because the send him a double message: both the people and the elites see you as a loser, in sharp contrast to Putin who is viewed as *the* big leader with whom everybody has to deal to get anything done.

Even the always hyper submissive and unconditionally subservient European leaders are taking some wholly symbolic, ambiguous and oblique steps to express their (wholly hypocritical and fake) dissatisfaction with the USA.  Another non-event, and yet its also a real humiliation: since when do US colonial satraps get to voice criticisms, even indirect ones?!

In many ways, Obama has proven to be even more incompetent that Dubya because while under (Bush) "Junior" most of the planet did hate the USA, there still was a small list of countries which remained loyal to the USA no matter what: Israel, the KSA and the EU.  Obama has managed to alienate even those.

Obama is now hated and despised everywhere, at home and abroad, while his most determined adversary is praised for his strength.  I can't say I am sorry for him because while I personally never believed a word he said, I know of many good and decent people who really believe that Obama represented "change we can believe in".  Obama betrayed these people and he deserves every bit of the humiliation he is now subjected to.

The Saker

Help Obama Kickstart World War III!

Obama wanted the "Sissy Option" but he might get the "Kosovo Option" instead

I have been following today proceedings in Congress with absolute dismay.  Sure, this was predictable, but still, to see these clowns trying to "out tough" each other is just sickening.  Already, Obama's proposed Resolution opened the door for much more than just a "Sissy Option" strike (under 3 days, 50-100 missiles).  But now it appears that the Ziocrazies in Congress want to authorize military operations up to 90 days!  That's no "Sissy Option" - that is a repeat of the 78 days bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO in 1999 plus two weeks to spare!

And since even 78 days of  bombing of  Yugoslavia did not achieve anything of military relevance, we can be quite sure that a few days of "Sissy bombing" will achieve nothing.  Hence, with nothing to show, Obama will be under immense pressure to keep on bombing, and bombing, and bombing some more.  And with each passing day, the Ziocrazies in Congress will demand more bombing and more blood (lest anybody be suspected of being "soft on Assad").

I am afraid that this drooling idiot Obama not only failed to calculate the consequences of his invitation for a false flag (speaking of a "red line"), but now that clueless cretin seems to have completely mis-judged the ziohysteria in Congress.

Thus what was supposed to be some kind of idiotic but basically harmless "message" fired across the "bow" of Assad can now turn into a vicious missile and bombing campaign only due to the spineless stupidity of one man.

Disgusting beyond words, if you ask me.

Some "world leader"...

The Saker

Barack Obama’s Staggering Incompetence (The Saker reprints "Commentary" editorial!!)

Today I am going to do something I never imaged I would even remotely contemplate: I am going to reprint an article by, I kid you not, Commentary.  Yeah, I am on their mailing list because I like to keep an eye on the crazies, but today, for the first time ever, I read a full editorial of theirs and I can only agree with every word.  So here goes, ready?  The Saker reprints "Commentary" editorial!! (red color added)
-------
Barack Obama’s Staggering Incompetence

by Peter Wehner for Commentary:

It’s reported that President Obama was ready to order a military strike against Syria, with or without Congress’s blessing, but “on Friday night, he suddenly changed his mind.” According to the Huffington Post:

Senior administration officials describing Obama’s about-face Saturday offered a portrait of a president who began to wrestle with his own decision – at first internally, then confiding his views to his chief of staff, and finally summoning his aides for an evening session in the Oval Office to say he’d had a change of heart.

In light of all this, it’s worth posing a few questions:

1. Why didn’t the president seek congressional authority before the administration began to beat the war drums this past week? Did the idea not occur to him? It’s not as if this is an obscure issue. When you’re in the White House and preparing to launch military force against a sovereign nation, whether or not to seek the approval of Congress is usually somewhere near the top of the to-do list.

And why has the urgency to act that we saw from the administration during the last week–when Assad’s use of chemical weapons was referred to by the secretary of state as a “moral obscenity”–given way to an air of casualness, with Obama not even calling Congress back into session to debate his military strike against Syria?

2. The president didn’t seek congressional approval for his military strike in Libya. Why does he believe he needs it in Syria?

3. Mr. Obama, in his Rose Garden statement on Saturday, still insisted he has the authority to strike Syria without congressional approval. So what happens if Congress votes down a use-of-force resolution? Does the president strike Syria anyway? If so, will it be an evanescent bombing, intended to be limited in scope and duration, while doing nothing to change the war’s balance of power? Or does the president completely back down? Does he even know? Has he thought through in advance anything related to Syria? Or is this a case of Obama simply making it up as he goes along?

This latest volte-face by the president is evidence of a man who is completely overmatched by events, weak and confused, and deeply ambivalent about using force. Yet he’s also desperate to get out of the corner he painted himself into by declaring that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would constitute a “red line.” As a result he’s gone all Hamlet on us. Not surprisingly, Obama’s actions are being mocked by America’s enemies and sowing doubt among our allies. (Read this New York Times story for more.)

What explains this debacle? It’s impossible for us to know all the reasons, but one explanation appears to be a CYA operation.

According to Politico, “At the very least, Obama clearly wants lawmakers to co-own a decision that he can’t back away from after having declared last year that Assad would cross a ‘red line’ if he used chemical weapons against his own people.” And the Washington Post reports:

Obama’s proposal to invite Congress dominated the Friday discussion in the Oval Office. He had consulted almost no one about his idea. In the end, the president made clear he wanted Congress to share in the responsibility for what happens in Syria. As one aide put it, “We don’t want them to have their cake and eat it, too.”

Get it? The president of the United States is preparing in advance to shift the blame if his strike on Syria proves to be unpopular and ineffective. He’s furious about the box he’s placed himself in, he hates the ridicule he’s (rightly) incurring, but he doesn’t see any way out.

What he does see is a political (and geopolitical) disaster in the making. And so what is emerging is what comes most naturally to Mr. Obama: Blame shifting and blame sharing. Remember: the president doesn’t believe he needs congressional authorization to act. He’s ignored it before. He wants it now. For reasons of political survival. To put it another way: He wants the fingerprints of others on the failure in Syria.

Rarely has an American president joined so much cynicism with so much ineptitude.

Obama - every bit the pathetic looser that he always was

I never liked Obama and as early as October 2008 I reminded everybody that Malcolm X would certainly consider Obama as a "house Negro".  Five years later my disgust with this man has almost reached a point where I miss bad old Dubya who, at least, had the excuse of being an ignorant, insecure imbecile.  Obama, of course, has no such excuse.  He is clearly very intelligent, well educated and charismatic - and he knows that.  But this is hardly a compliment, because when these undeniable qualities are paired with his policies it becomes immediately obvious that he is completely immoral, that he is for sale literally to the highest bidder, that he has no sense of right and wrong beyond serving his master(s).  Obama is the prototypical "house Negro" who's only concern is for his mater(s): the banks, Big Pharma, the Zionist lobby, the Homo lobby, etc.  This kind of complete dedication to the highest bidder (be in it dollars or in political support) inevitably brings the man to amazingly stupid decisions.  Here is just the latest one:

Obama cancels meeting with Putin and criticizes Russia's policies towards homosexuals.

Needless to say, I very much doubt that upon learning this news a heartbroken Putin seized a pillow and went bawling into his bed.  In fact, I can say with a great degree of confidence that Putin, on a personal level, was probably relieved by the news that he would not have to talk to this spineless slug.  And on a Presidential level?  Just ask yourself who needs whom more?  Does the US need Russian cooperation or does Russia need US cooperation?  I think that the answer is obvious.

As for the criticizing Russia's policies towards form of sexual psycho-pathologies - this just adds a touch of nauseating confirmation that Obama is just a puppet in the hands of various lobbies.  Again, something which nobody in the Kremlin will respect.  As for Putin himself, Obama just did him a favor as both Putin's stance on the Snowden affair and his handling of Western pro-homo propaganda has the support of the entire political class and the vast majority of the Russian population.

So all this is pure good news for Putin and for Russia.

The Saker

The US Empire throws in the towel

This is a great American tradition: declare victory and leave.  And that is what Obama did yesterday when he announced that 10'000+23'000 troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan.  The French immediately announced that they are withdrawing another 4'000 of their own.  Yes, I know, 68'000+ troops will remain.  Make no mistake, that is a fig leaf, also a security and a way to pretend that this is not what is really is: a total retreat following a strategic defeat.  Obama clearly indicated that:

Our mission will change from combat to support.  By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security. 

This is a howling joke, of course.  Translated into English it means "all future defeats will henceforth blamed on the Afghans, not on us - we have won".  Sure looks like the White House has finally read the writing on the wall.

As for the the alleged execution of Bin Laden, it provided Obama with the "patriotic" and "presidential" credentials needed to conceal the true magnitude of this strategic US defeat in Afghanistan.

While I do blame the USA for its infinite arrogance and imperial hubris in invading Afghanistan in the first place, and while Obama's idiotic "surge" was nothing but a useless PR effort, I cannot blame the US armed forces for having been defeated.

From the deserts of Dasht-i-Margo (Land of Death), Registan (Land of Sands) and Karakum (Black Sand), to the mountains of the Hindu Kush, Waziristan, or the Safīd range, to the "panhandle" of the Wakhan Corridor - most of Afghanistan is a hell-hole which always ended up defeating its occupiers, including the British and the Russians - far more capable (and ruthless) opponents than the US military, nevermind the NATO alliance's hodgepodge force.

All this was pre-ordained from Day 1 of the "invasion".  I put that word in quotation marks because the USA did never really invade Afghanistan.  The Northern Alliance attacked the Taliban with the support of the USAF and some special ops on the ground and rapidly seized Kabul.  As for the Taliban, they had no intention of openly fighting the USA; they waited for a better time (which soon came).

In reality, the US military simply entered the country with only minimal resistance.  In fact, and unlike the Soviets, the US never won a single battle during this entire war.  Bloody and ugly as this war was, it was primarily a gigantic multi-billion exercise in PR.  It is no wonder then that it ended in yet another, last, PR exercise.  When the Soviets left Afghanistan, they had least had the courage to do that openly and proudly; the US even lacks the courage to do that.

Now all this really begs the question of what will happen in Pakistan.  The relationship between the USA and Pakistan are now at an all-time low and the CIA's fancy drone-war combined with the infinite arrogance of its personnel on the ground, is creating a powerful blowback against the USA, and I would venture to say that the US Empire was also defeated in Pakistan.

The important thing to keep in mind though is that being militarily defeated does not entail loosing all influence, quite to the contrary, in fact.  If the USA cannot control "AfPak" it still can make darn sure that nobody else does, including the Taliban and their Pashtun brethren across the border.  Preventing the creation of a united "Pashtunistan" is an objective which the US shares with all other actors in the region, including India, Iran, Russia and the so-called "legitimate government of Afghanistan" aka The Northern Alliance.  Even the local drug lords and their foreign patrons will support this.  To be totally honest, I cannot disagree with this either: nuclear armed Wahabis is just about the worst of all imaginable options for all of mankind.

The fact is that no matter how much the US Empire is hated, nobody wants to replace the current regimes in Kabul and Islamabad with an alliance Wahabi crazies armed with nuclear weapons.  The easiest option to prevent this is to trigger and sustain a process of "Somalization" of the region.  And that is a skill which the US Empire and, in particular, the CIA, truly excels at.  That will also be the real mission of the US forces remaining in the region: maintain chaos and preventing the creation of a "Pashtunistan".

Next to the 68'000+ "chaos" forces we will also probably see "for profit" occupation forces (think Blackwater & Co. here) which will provide "security" for the various multi-national companies trying to exploit the country's natural resources (including opium).  Bottom line: the US "withdrawal" from Afghanistan does not mean that the US Empire is "letting go", only that it is redefining its strategy in a manner more commensurate to its actual capabilities.

The Saker

Barak Obama insults the US military (but will anybody notice?)

According to the BBC, Barak Obama met the soldiers which killed OBL and praised their mission as "one of the greatest military operations in our nation's history".  

Now, readers of this blog will no doubt have noticed that I am not exactly a big admirer of the US military.  And yet, there is no denying the US military did fight - and win - some major and very difficult battles in its history.  Take World War II, for example.  If the entire allied operation in Europe was an over-rated sideshow to the real war on the Eastern Front, the US did fight Imperial Japan in extraordinarily difficult conditions and the US did win by its tenacity, tactical, operational and strategic skills, and by the raw courage of a lot of US soldiers who fought the formidable Japanese Navy in the air, sea and land. 

Or take the war in Korea where the US was under-equipped and often poorly trained, and where it fought not only the Koreans, but even the Chinese (and the Russians in the air).

The US military has also been at the cutting edge of quite a few revolutionary innovations in military science ( such as the Follow on Forces Attack (FOFA) doctrine, the use of helicopters for vertical envelopment and anti-armor operations) and technology (if stealth technology is vastly over-rated, the USA was the first country to introduce technologies such as fly-by-wire, the ARPANET - the daddy of the Internet - or the absolutely amazing Willys MB Jeep). 

In fact, one could argue that the US civil war was the first modern war, both in terms of tactics and equipment used.

Now what was the operation to kill OBL really all about?  Shooting a defenseless, sick and unarmed man in front of his kids, meeting no meaningful opposition, crashing one helicopter in the process and lying about the true circumstances of it all.  And this is what Barak Obama calls "one of the greatest military operations in our nation's history"?!

What an absolute disgrace! One can condemn the imperialist history of the USA and the murderous role the US military played in it from the invasion of the North American continent to the war in Iraq today, but it would be very hard to deny the fact that the US has a long and distinguished history of military valor.  "Operation Geronimo" will go down in history somewhere between the massacre of native American villages, the total FUBAR on Grenada or the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch, and most definitely not as a "great military operation".

One more thing.  There is a damn good reason why most of the US military dislikes the various "elite" special forces.  For all the Hollywood propaganda about how "totally awesome" Delta, SEALs and the rest of them are, the reality is that they are often resented by the *real* grunts and in-the-mud soldiers who get to fight the tough and ugly battles from which US "elite" units somehow always manage to stay away from.

So if Obama's latest statement will get him the gratitude of the (bloated) US special forces community, I doubt that in the real combat units soldiers will be as thrilled as their President about all this.  After all, SEAL Team 6 is now getting medals and R&R stateside, while the regular Army grunts are still in the war, being blown up, maimed and killed every day far away from home.

These are all clear signs of imperial decadence.  But is anybody reading the writing on the wall?

The Saker

Lack of change we can all believe in

So Obama, having betrayed every promise he ever made, was in a popularity free fall for a looooooong time already.  Then he decided to announce that he would seek a second term.  That did littele to improve his ratings.  Then OBL was "killed" (on Holocaust Day!) while Obama was about to depart for a trip to New York to visit "ground zero".  That did the trick and his popularity jumped right back up. It's all just so all so *perfect*

The scary thing is to imagine what happens if Obama's popularity surge proves short lived.  There is still a long while to go before the elections, and the 10th anniversary of 9/11 is coming up this Fall.  Add to this the promise that 'al-Qaeda' will "retaliate" for the killing of OBL and you would see what this looks outright frightening.

Also - "waterboarding works".  Or, at least, that is what the US regime would want us to believe (they say that it was the mass waterboarding of KSM which yielded the name of the courier which lead the US to OBL).  So to "protect us" all, the TSA will keep on porno-scanning and "enhanced groping", the folks in Gitmo, Bagram and elsewhere will keep on waterboarding, and the NSA/FBI snooping on all our communications.

That is the *lack* of change we can all believe in.

In the meantime Russia is still trying to catch-up with the USA: the Russian government has announced that it is now introducing US-style color-coded "terrorism alert levels" which the US just dump.  *Hopeless* [sigh, rolleyes].

The Saker

Ruling on Behalf of Wall Street's "Super Rich": The Financial End Time has Arrived

by Prof. Michael Hudson for Global Research

Now that President Obama is almost celebrating his bipartisan willingness to renew the tax cuts for the super-rich enacted under George Bush ten years ago, it is time for Democrats to ask themselves how strongly they are willing to oppose an administration that looks like Bush-Cheney III. Is this what they expected by Mr. Obama’s promise to rise above partisan politics – by ruling on behalf of Wall Street, now that it is the major campaign backer of both parties?

It is a reflection of how one-sided today’s class war has become that Warren Buffet has quipped that “his” side is winning without a real fight being waged. No gauntlet has been thrown down over the trial balloon that the president and his advisor David Axelrod have sent up over the past two weeks to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% for “just” two more years. For all practical purposes the euphemism “two years” means forever – at least, long enough to let the super-rich siphon off enough more money to bankroll enough more Republicans to be elected to make the tax cuts permanent.

Mr. Obama seems to be campaigning for his own defeat! Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout – while keeping the debt overhead in place for America’s “bottom 98%” – this happy 2% of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75%) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains). This is nearly double what it received a generation ago. The rest of the population is being squeezed, and foreclosures are rising.

Charles Baudelaire quipped that the devil wins at the point where he manages to convince the world that he doesn’t exist. Today’s financial elites will win the class war at the point where voters believe it doesn’t exist – and believe that Mr. Obama is trying to help them rather than shepherd them into debt peonage as the economy settles into debt deflation.

We are dealing with shameless demagogy. The financial End Time has arrived, but Mr. Obama’s happy-talk pretends that “two years” will get us through the current debt-induced depression. The Republican plan is to make more Congressional and Senate gains in 2012 as Mr. Obama’s former supporters “vote with their backsides” and stay home, as they did earlier this month. So “two years” means forever in politician-talk. Why vote for a politician who promises “change” but is merely an exclamation mark for the Bush-Cheney policies from Afghanistan and Iraq to Wall Street’s Democratic Leadership Council on the party’s right wing? One of its leaders, after all, was Mr. Obama’s Senate mentor, Joe Lieberman.

The second pretense is that cutting taxes for the super-rich is necessary to win Republican support for including the middle class in the tax cuts. It is as if the Democrats never won a plurality in Congress. (One remembers George W. Bush with his mere 50+%, pushing forward his extremist policies on the logic that: “I’ve got capital, and I’m using it.” What he had, of course, was Democratic Leadership Committee support.) The pretense is “to create jobs,” evidently to be headed by employment of shipyard workers to build yachts for the nouveau riches and sheriff’s deputies to foreclose on the ten million Americans whose mortgage payments have fallen into arrears. It sounds Keynesian, but is more reminiscent of Thomas Robert Malthus’s lugubrious claim (speaking for Britain’s landed aristocracy) that landlords would keep the economy going by using their rental income (to be protected by high agricultural tariffs) to hire footmen and butlers, tailors and carriage-makers.

It gets worse. Mr. Obama’s “Bush” tax cut is only Part I of a one-two punch to shift taxes onto wage earners. Congressional economists estimate that extending the tax cuts to the top 2% will cost $700 to $750 billion over the next decade or so. “How are we going to go out and borrow $700 billion?” Mr. Obama asked Steve Croft on his Sixty Minutes interview on CBS last week.

It was a rhetorical question. The President has appointed a bipartisan commission (right-wingers on both sides of the aisle) to “cure” the federal budget deficit by cutting back social spending – to pay yet more bailouts to the economy’s financial wreckers. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform might better be called the New Class War Commission to Scale Back Social Security and Medicare Payments to Labor in Order to Leave more Tax Revenue Available to Give Away to the Super-Rich. A longer title than the Deficit-Reduction Commission used by media friendlies, but sometimes it takes more words to get to the heart of matters.

The political axiom at work is “Big fish eat little fish.” There’s not enough tax money to continue swelling the fortunes of the super-rich pretending to save enough to pay the pensions and related social support that North American and European employees have been promised. Something must give – and the rich have shown themselves sufficiently foresighted to seize the initiative. For a preview of what’s in line for the United States, watch neoliberal Europe’s fight against the middle and working class in Greece, Ireland and Latvia; or better yet, Pinochet’s Chile, whose privatized Social Security accounts were quickly wiped out in the late 1970s by the kleptocracy advised by the Chicago Boys, to whose monetarist double-think Mr. Obama’s appointee Ben Bernanke has just re-pledged his loyalty.

What is needed to put Mr. Obama’s sell-out in perspective is the pro-Wall Street advisors he has chosen – not only Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke (who last week reaffirmed his loyalty to Milton Friedman’s Chicago School monetarism), but by stacking his Deficit Reduction Commission with outspoken advocates of cutting back Social Security, Medicare and other social spending. Their ploy is to frighten the public with a nightmare of $1 trillion deficit to pay retirement income over the next half century – as if the Treasury and Fed have not just given Wall Street $13 trillion in bailouts without blinking an eye. President Obama’s $750 billion tax giveaway to the wealthiest 2% is mere icing on the cake that the rich will be eating when the bread lines get too long.

To put matters in perspective, bear in mind that interest on the public debt (that Reagan-Bush quadrupled and Bush-Obama redoubled) soon will amount to $1 trillion annually. This is tribute levied on labor – increasing the economy’s cost of living and doing business – paid for losing the fight for economic reform and replacing progressive taxation with regressive neoliberal tax policy. As for military spending in the Near East, Asia and other regions responsible for much of the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, Congress will always rise to the occasion and defer to whatever foreign threat is conjured up requiring new armed force.

It’s all junk economics. Running a budget deficit is how modern governments inject the credit and purchasing power needed by economies to grow. When governments run surpluses, as they did under Bill Clinton (1993-2000), credit must be created by banks. And the problem with bank credit is that most is lent, at interest, against collateral already in place. The effect is to inflate real estate and stock market prices. This creates capital gains – which the “original” 1913 U.S. income tax treated as normal income, but which today are taxed at only 15% (when they are collected at all, which is rarely in the case of commercial real estate). So today’s tax system subsidizes the inflation of debt-leveraged financial and real estate bubbles.

The giveaway: the Commission’s position on tax deductibility for mortgage interest

The Obama “Regressive Tax” commission spills the beans with its proposal to remove the tax subsidy for high housing prices financed by mortgage debt. The proposal moves only against homeowners – “the middle class” – not absentee owners, commercial real estate investors, corporate raiders or other prime bank customers.

The IRS permits mortgage interest to be tax-deductible on the pretense that it is a necessary cost of doing business. In reality it is a subsidy for debt leveraging. This tax bias for debt rather than equity investment (using one’s own money) is largely responsible for loading down the U.S. economy with debt. It encourages corporate raiding with junk bonds, thereby adding interest to the cost of doing business. This subsidy for debt leveraging also is the government’s largest giveaway to the banks, while causing the debt deflation that is locking the economy into depression – violating every precept of the classical drive for “free markets” in the 19th-century. (A “free market” meant freedom from extractive rentier income, leading toward what Keynes gently called “euthanasia of the rentier.” The Obama Commission endows rentiers atop the economy with a tax system to bolster their power, not check it – while shrinking the economy below them.)

Table 7.11 of the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) reports that total monetary interest paid in the U.S. economy amounted to $3,240 billion in 2009. Homeowners paid just under a sixth of this amount ($572 billion) on the homes they occupied. Mr. Obama’s commission estimates that removing the tax credit on this interest would yield the Treasury $131 billion in 2012.

There is in fact a good logic for stopping this tax credit. The mortgage-interest tax deduction does not really save homeowners money. It is a shortsighted illusion. What the government gives to “the homeowner” on one hand is passed on to the mortgage banker by “the market” process that leads bidders for property to pledge the net available rental value to the banks in order to obtain a loan to buy the home (or an office building, or an entire industrial company, for that matter.) “Equilibrium” is achieved at the point where whatever rental value the tax collector relinquishes becomes available to be capitalized into bank loans.

This means that what appears at first as “helping homeowner” afford to pay mortgages turns out merely to enable them to afford to pay more interest to their bankers. The tax giveaway uses homebuyers as “throughputs” to transfer tax favoritism to the banks.

It gets worse. By removing the traditional tax on real estate, state, local and federal governments need to tax labor and industry more, by transforming the property tax onto income and sales taxes. For banks, this is transmuting tax revenue into gold – into interest. And as for the home-owning middle class, it now has to pay the former property tax to the banker as interest, and also to pay the new taxes on income and sales that are levied to make up for the tax shift.

I support removing the tax favoritism for debt leveraging. The problem with the Deficit Commission is that it does not extend this reform to the rest of the economy – to the commercial real estate sector, and to the corporate sector.

The argument is made that “The rich create jobs.” After all, somebody has to build the yachts. What is missing is the more general principle: Wealth and income inequality destroy job creation. This is because beyond the wealthy soon reach a limit on how much they can consume. They spend their money buying financial securities – mainly bonds, which end up indebting the economy. And the debt overhead is what is pushing today’s economy into deepening depression.

Since the 1980s, corporate raiders have borrowed high-interest “junk bond” credit to take over companies and make money by stripping assets, cutting back long-term investment, research and development, and paying out depreciation credit to their financiers. Financially parasitized companies use corporate income to buy back their stock to support its price – and hence, the value of stock options that financial managers give themselves – and borrow yet more money for stock buybacks or simply to pay out as dividends. When the process has run its course, they threaten their work force with bankruptcy that will wipe out its pension benefits if employees do not agree to “downsize” their claims and replace defined-benefit plans with defined-contribution plans (in which all that employees know is how much they pay in each month, not what they will get in the end). By the time this point has been reached, the financial managers have paid themselves outsized salaries and bonuses, and cashed in their stock options – all subsidized by the government’s favorable tax treatment of debt leveraging.

The attempted raids on McDonalds and other companies in recent years provide object lessons in this destructive financial policy of “shareholder activists.” Yet Mr. Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission is restricting its removal of tax favoritism for debt leveraging only for middle class homeowners, not for the financial sector across the board. What makes this particularly absurd is that two thirds of homeowners do not even itemize their deductions. The fiscal loss resulting from tax deductibility of interest stems mainly from commercial investors.

If the argument is correct (and I think it is) that permitting interest to be tax deductible merely “frees” more revenue to pay interest to banks – to capitalize into yet higher loans – then why isn’t this principle even more applicable to the Donald Trumps and other absentee owners who seek always to use “other peoples’ money” rather than their own? In practice, the “money” turns out to be bank credit whose cost to the banks is now under 1%. The financial-fiscal system is siphoning off rental value from commercial real estate investment, increasing the price of rental properties, commercial real estate, and indeed, industry and agriculture.

Alas, the Obama administration has backed the Geithner-Bernanke policy that “the economy” cannot recover without saving the debt overhead. The reality is that it is the debt overhead that is destroying the economy. So we are dealing with the irreconcilable fact that the Obama position threatens to lower living standards from 10% to 20% over the coming few years – making the United States look more like Greece, Ireland and Latvia than what was promised in the last presidential election.

Something has to give politically if the economy is to change course. More to the point, what has to give is favoritism for Wall Street at the expense of the economy at large. What has made the U.S. economy uncompetitive is primarily the degree to which debt service has been built into the cost of living and doing business. Post-classical “junk economics” treats interest and fees as payment for the “service” for providing credit. But interest (like economic rent and monopoly price extraction) is a transfer payment to bankers with the privilege of credit creation. The beneficiaries of providing tax favoritism for debt are the super-rich at the top of the economic pyramid – the 2% whom Mr. Obama’s tax giveaway will benefit by over $700 billion.

If the present direction of tax “reform” is not reversed, Mr. Obama will shed crocodile tears for the middle class as he sponsors the Deficit Reduction Commission’s program of cutting back Social Security and revenue sharing to save states and cities from defaulting on their pensions. One third of U.S. real estate already is reported to have sunk into negative equity, squeezing state and local tax collection, forcing a choice to be made between bankruptcy, debt default, or shifting the losses onto the shoulders of labor, off those of the wealthy creditor layer of the economy responsible for loading it down with debt.

Critics of the Obama-Bush agenda recall how America’s Gilded Age of the late 19th century was an era of economic polarization and class war. At that time the Democratic leader William Jennings Bryan accused Wall Street and Eastern creditors of crucifying the American economy on a cross of gold. Restoration of gold at its pre-Civil War price led to a financial war in the form of debt deflation as falling prices and incomes received by farmers and wage labor made the burden of paying their mortgage debts heavier. The Income Tax law of 1913 sought to rectify this by only falling on the wealthiest 1% of the population – the only ones obliged to file tax returns. Capital gains were taxed at normal rates. Most of the tax burden therefore fell on finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector.

The vested interests have spent a century fighting back. They now see victory within reach, by perpetuating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, phasing out of the estate tax on wealth, the tax shift off property onto labor income and consumer sales, and slashing public spending on anything except more bailouts and subsidies for the emerging financial oligarchy that has become Mr. Obama’s “bipartisan” constituency.

What we need is a Futures Commission to forecast just what will the rich do with the victory they have won. As administered by President Obama and his designated appointees Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke, their policy is financially and fiscally unsustainable. Providing tax incentives for debt leveraging – for most of the population to go into debt to the rich, whose taxes are all but abolished – is shrinking the economy. This will lead to even deeper financial crises, employer defaults and fiscal insolvency at the state, local and federal levels. Future presidents will call for new bailouts, using a strategy much like going to military war. A financial war requires an emergency to rush through Congress, as occurred in 2008-09. Mr. Obama’s appointees are turning the U.S. economy into a Permanent Emergency, a Perpetual Ponzi Scheme requiring injections of more and more Quantitative Easing to to rescue “the economy” (Mr. Obama’s euphemism for creditors at the top of the economic pyramid) from being pushed into insolvency. Mr. Bernanke’s helicopter flies only over Wall Street. It does not drop monetary relief on the population at large.

“The Wurst of Obama: He’s Carving the Middle Class into Sausage Filler as a Super-Meal for the Rich.”

Michael Hudson is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Israel in America: Obama's dance of death

What are we to make of the latest changes in Obama's entourage, ponders Eric Walberg

Obama has just lost his close friend and chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who is making the unusual transition from national to municipal politics. He is also losing his closest adviser David Axelrod (pragmatist Emanuel described their difference as prose versus poetry) and his mentor and director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers.

Why are Obama's three closest advisers -- all Jewish -- leaving? There is no pat answer. Axelrod is no friend of Summers, having suggested in an email the latter would be more comfortable in the “cafeteria at Goldman Sachs”. He claims he is homesick. Obama's Keynesianism probably finally got to Summers, who prefers tax cuts. Emanuel, a former congressman, a talented ballet dancer, son of an Irgun terrorist, and an Israeli soldier during the first Gulf war against Iraq, leads us to the real answer.

As a very, very strong Zionist (dual citizen? sayan?), he is Israel's canary in the White House. Israel boycotted Obama's UN speech at the Millennium Goals Summit in September, and has subjected Obama to dose after dose of humiliating treatment, the latest when Netanyahu asked for the pardon of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard (serving a life sentence) in exchange for a temporary halt in settlement expansion. Netanyahu defiantly visited Pollard in jail in 2002 and he is celebrated as a hero in yearly commemorations in Israel. There seems to be an eerie replay of 1991, the last time the White House seriously tried to stop the settlements. The Israel lobby abandoned Bush then and destroyed him in the 1992 elections.

The writing is on the wall: Obama is a one-term president. That is if he is even allowed to finish his first term. Obama was never popular in Israel. When he tried to add Israeli critic Chas Freeman to his team as chair of the National Intelligence Council in 2009 AIPAC blew a fuse. Now there are even threats against his life as a result of his stance on settlements and his reluctance to attack Iran. Loud protests in front of Netanyahu’s residence witness crowds burning effigies of Obama “the new Pharaoh”, “the descendant of slaves” who must be put in his place.

Obama, son of a Kenyan Muslim and American expat radical, is facing equally vicious bigotry by non-Jews. He is attacked at home by Americans of more traditional backgrounds who call him a communist and are incensed by his unusual origins and his unrepresentative entourage. Apocalyptic movements and rightwing "patriotic" militias, which grew under Clinton but abated under Bush junior, are increasing rapidly under Obama, and more staid but equally frustrated Americans conduct political "tea parties", confused and desperate for both stability and real change.

For despite the radically different appearance of Obama's "change" administration (including the colourful Emanuel), his policies have provided neither stability nor any real change. They are remarkably like those of his predecessor. The unwieldy and disappointing healthcare reform aside, the bankers and generals have been given just about whatever they ask for, Guantanamo stays open and torture continues. US troops stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. The economic morass Obama inherited from Bush merely deepens.

And what is Emanuel's legacy? According to critics, he was responsible for scuttling the real public healthcare option, leaving it in the hands of private insurers. He was courted by a litany of Wall Street officials and business leaders from day one. Emanuel’s White House calendar was filled with the likes of Comcast VP David Cohen (who just happened to have mergers pending), Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, and New York Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman, who showed up three times in two months.

With the Republicans poised to take control of one or both houses in November, Rahmbo, as he is affectionately known for his ruthless strong-arm tactics in the political ring, can safely jump ship just before it sinks. He is clearly betting that his friendship with Chicago's darling, America's first black president, will see him to victory in safely Democratic Chicago.

But, why the municipal ring? Yes, his "friend" Obama is toast. But is it possible Emanuel's sudden interest in local politics is because he realises presidents, senators and the like have very little real power to make decisions anyway? That a mayor can at least leave a visible legacy -- bike paths, community centres, parks? Or is he just bored, looking for a challenge where he can flex his muscles anew, flit gracefully across the political stage yet again as prince charming seducing the sleeping Miss America?

Whatever his motives, Rahmbo epitomises the shallowness, the effeteness of American politics today. The president of the most powerful nation on earth is powerless. A stuffed shirt. A photo op. A cultured Afro-American presiding over the most brutal empire the world has every known. Emanuel "made him" and has decided to leave him to his fate, to yet again play games with the US media and political circles, like a virtual performer orchestrating a grand reality game.

Pundits are mixed in assessing his chances. His strongest supporters are Chicago's white moneyed class and the business community, who favour Emanuel’s run because of his history as a Washington power broker, says political analyst Charles Dunn. “His pockets are overflowing with IOUs” and he will be able to call in past favours, giving him a huge advantage over his many competitors.

But he has little appeal to the 35 per cent of Chicagoans who are black and the 28 per cent who are Hispanic. His challengers are predominantly minority candidates, including James Meeks, a state senator and Baptist minister, and Chicago City Clerk Miguel del Valle. Many minority leaders, including several aldermen, have already made statements saying they will not support Emanuel’s candidacy. The field is very much open. In fact the call among those unhappy with machine politics in the Chicago is "Abre" -- "Anyone but Rahm Emanuel", which translates into Spanish as "Open".

As a Jew, Emanuel is very much a supporter of minority rights, but these real minorities understand that Jewish support for them from the likes of Rahmbo is only skin deep, so to speak. CNN's Hispanic host Rick Sanchez shocked Americans last week for saying as much on air. Sanchez is constantly ridiculed by Jewish TV satirist Jon Stewart, and finally fought back, calling Stewart a "bigot" with "a white liberal establishment point-of-view", saying CNN and the media are largely run by Jews and elitists. Of course, he was immediately fired, but no one can dispute the truth behind his outburst. Says analyst Peter Myers, "Other minorities are accorded status only on condition that the Jewish minority remains number one."

Compounding Emanuel’s difficulties is the expected candidacy of Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, who is white (but not Jewish), and well-liked among black and Latino voters because of his highly publicised refusal to evict renters of foreclosed buildings and his prosecution of the owners of a historic black cemetery who illegally exhumed 300 bodies for profit.

Is any of this of importance to the world at large? Do the departures of Emanuel, Axelrod and Summers portend a more even-handed policy on the Middle East -- a defiance of Israel in the remaining two years of his one-term presidency? Will he suddenly cut Israel's massive aid budget and insist it withdraw from occupied lands? Will (largely Jewish) bankers and other elite miscreants be subpoenaed and jailed for their many crimes, as happened to an earlier Chicagoan, Moses Annenberg, who was jailed for tax evasion in the 1930s under president Roosevelt?

The answer is of course "no". I mention Annenberg, because he was a Jewish Chicago media magnate and underworld figure brought down by a president who still wielded some power. His son Walter Annenberg continued in his father's less-than-pristine footsteps, but covered them with the Annenberg Foundation, lavishing money on "good causes". He rightly realised he could use a liberal facade and his newspapers to make or break politicians, rather than be broken by them.

Like Obama and Emanuel, Annenberg's story is the stuff of legend. His publishing empire grew and grew, he was Nixon's ambassador to the UK and so charmed the Queen that she made him an honourary knight (Americans disdain such unseemly titles). All the time he was "conservative" Ronald Reagan’s “best friend" according to Nancy Reagan.

The “liberal” Barack Obama first gained political prominence as an activist with the Annenberg Foundation's Education Challenge. Annenberg, who died in 2002, would be delighted to know his charitable works in Chicago helped elect the first black president, whose "Israel first!" chief of staff would go on to become the city's first Jewish mayor, putting the real minorities in their place. Will Emanuel sail to victory on a pro-Israeli whirlwind, or can a plucky Dart prick the Zionist balloon and bring the circus to a halt?

***

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/

International Flaw: With New Iran Sanctions, POTUS Calls Tehran's Kettle Black

by Nima Shirazi for Wide Asleep in America

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

- Samuel P. Huntington

"By alleging Iran has some problems, America’s problems aren’t resolved. Just alleging that Iran has a problem is not going to resolve Mrs. Clinton’s problems for her."

- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking with Charlie Rose, May 3, 2010


On Wednesday afternoon, in a joint press conference, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner announced that the United States had imposed a new set of unilateral sanctions, including a travel ban and freezing of assets, against a number of top-ranking Iranian officials whom it accused of "serious and sustained human rights abuses" since the presidential election last year. The measure, which comes less than four months after the UN Security Council's latest illegal resolution and the Obama administration's last round of economic sanctions, was enacted via an Executive Order signed into effect last night by the President.

This marked, as Clinton pointed out, "the first time the United States has imposed sanctions against Iran based on human rights abuses." Every US administration since Carter's has issued unilateral sanctions against Iran due to its continued opposition to US imperialism and insufficient deference to American diktat. However, the sanctions have previously been justified using the pretense of Iran's alleged "active support of terrorism," its totally legal and fully monitored nuclear energy program, as well as the wholly fabricated notion that "the actions and policies of the Government of Iran constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States" and required "the declar[ation of] a national emergency to deal with that threat." This last hysterical claim was introduced by the Secretary of State's Presidential husband back in 1995.

This time around, Hillary Clinton stated, with regard to the eight government officials specifically targeted by the new order, "on [their] watch or under their command, Iranian citizens have been arbitrarily arrested, beaten, tortured, raped, blackmailed, and killed. Yet the Iranian Government has ignored repeated calls from the international community to end these abuses, to hold to account those responsible and respect the rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens. And Iran has failed to meet its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

Apparently, the United States' own recent history regarding the invasion and occupation of two foreign countries, the kidnapping, indefinite detention without charge, and the physical and psychological torture of thousands of people, including at places like Guantanamo, Bagram, and Abu Ghraib (where prisoners were raped by their American captors) is irrelevant to the administration's finger-pointing charade and ongoing demonization campaign against Iran. Prisoners held by the United States in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, in addition to being "chained to the ceiling, shackled so tightly that the blood flow stops, kept naked and hooded and kicked to keep them awake for days on end," have also been beaten to death by their interrogators. Of the fifteen soldiers charged with detainee abuse ranging from "dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter," all but three have been acquitted. Those three received written reprimands and served, at most, 75 days in prison for their crimes.

In contrast, after reports of torture at Iran's Kahrizak prison surfaced, the Iranian government moved swiftly to close the facility because it "lacked the standards" to maintain "rights of detainees" and launched an investigation into the allegations. Around the same time, 140 detainees were released from Tehran's Evin Prison at the urging of the head of the Judiciary and Majlis ministers.

Additionally, according to a Financial Times report from June 25, 2009 and featured only as an insert in the print edition, several students who had been arrested during the post-election protests, rallies, and riots, were freed in order to join 1.3 million other young Iranians in taking the national university entrance exam.

In December 2009, Iranian authorities announced that twelve prison officials from Kahrizak had been arrested and charged with murder and other crimes, including abuse, negligence and deprivation of prisoners' legal rights. This past June, courts passed down prison sentences and other punishment to those accused and two prison guards were convicted of murder and "intentional assault and battery" and were sentenced to death. It was reported this week that the death sentences have been rescinded at the request of the families of the victims.

Of course, human rights abuses in Iran are indeed serious and deserve condemnation. Most recently, Hossein "Hoder" Derakhshan, Iran's so-called "blogfather," has been convicted of "collaborating with hostile governments, committing blasphemy and propaganda against the Islamic Republic, and managing an obscene website" and sentenced to 19.5 years in prison.

Meanwhile, the United States continues firmly protecting its own war criminals, maintains a two-tiered justice system, routinely criminalizes dissent and whistleblowing, and breeds soldiers who kill civilians for sport and dismember corpses for fun.

"The steady deterioration in human rights conditions in Iran has obliged the United States to speak out time and time again. And today, we are announcing specific actions that correspond to our deep concern. The mounting evidence of repression against anyone who questions Iranian Government decisions or advocates for transparency or even attempts to defend political prisoners is very troubling," Clinton continued, at the press conference. The Secretary of State also noted the distressing treatment of Iranian "human rights lawyers, bloggers, journalists and activists for women’s rights."

This heartfelt announcement came just five days after the FBI launched its latest surreal assault in the US government's "war on dissent" (as termed by former FBI agent and courageous whistleblower Coleen Rowley) by kicking down doors, raiding homes at gunpoint, issuing grand jury subpoenas, and seizing the personal property, including "documents, files, books, photographs, videos, souvenirs, war relics, notebooks, address books, diaries, journals, maps, or other evidence," such as computers, cell phones, and emails of several American peace and justice activists in the Midwest. The raids were conducted under the guise of determining whether the targeted peace organizers and human rights advocates were actually devious supporters of "foreign terrorist organizations."

Elderly anti-war protesters, graduate students, neuroscientists, and civil rights attorneys have all been held for years by the US government and sentenced to lengthy prison sentences on bogus charges.

Furthermore, the claim that the US government supports "transparency" is deeply ironic, considering Obama's obsession with invoking "state secrets" and "sovereign impunity" in order to shield illegal programs like warrantless wiretapping and spying, extraordinary rendition, torture, drone warfare, and the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens from proper scrutiny and prosecution.

Whereas American officials are quick to declare their unqualified promotion of "new tools of communication" and support for "a free and open Internet," as President Obama did last week at the United Nations General Assembly, the US is itself a surveillance state, which relentlessly monitors its own citizens. The CIA and other intelligence agencies have invested in technology and companies that specialize in monitoring social media and, this past summer, a Senate committee approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that may grant the US president the authority to unilaterally shut down parts of the Internet during a "national cyber-emergency." Just this week, the New York Times reported that the Obama administration will propose new legislation to mandate US government access to all forms of electronic communications, "including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct 'peer to peer' messaging like Skype."

"In signing this Executive Order," Clinton declared on Wednesday, "the President sends the message that the United States stands up for the universal rights of all people" and serves "as a voice for the voiceless."

Obviously, she didn't mean the universal right of self-determination for or the cries for human dignity of the Palestinian people, who have been ethnically cleansed from their homeland to make room for US-backed and nuclear-armed colonial settlers and serial human rights abusers who systematically, and with total impunity, continue to dispossess, disenfranchise, displace, demolish, and destroy the indigenous population of the stolen land they occupy and control.

This should hardly be surprising due to the fact that during the "carefully choreographed" meeting between the American President and Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu in July 2010, described as "empty theater" by Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Booker, Obama pointed out that his administration is "unwavering in our commitment to Israel's security," while making sure to specifically not affirm the safety, human rights, or self-determination of Palestinians.

Last week, at the UN, Obama went even further in demonstrating the blatant hypocrisy entrenched in the United States doctrine of defending Zionist war crimes while condemning human rights abuses elsewhere around the world. The President stated, as he has so many times before, that any "efforts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy [sic] will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States," continuing that "efforts to threaten or kill Israelis will do nothing to help the Palestinian people. The slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance - it's injustice."

No mention was made of the constant Israeli murder - with US weaponry - of Palestinian civilians, despite the fact that, in the past decade alone, Israeli security forces have killed 6,371 Palestinians, of whom 1317 were minors, about 250 were police officers bombed to death during the 2008-9 Gaza massacre, and 240 were targets of assassinations. Apparently, this is not "injustice," according to the President, it's just a necessary side-effect of Zionism that didn't warrant a mention.

Hillary Clinton, after announcing the new Iran sanctions, claimed that "[the US] will hold abuse of governments and individuals accountable for their actions." The simplicity of this statement is profound considering it is a complete and provable lie.

Last year, when the United Nations released the Goldstone Report, which found overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that Israel had committed gross "violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and possible war crimes and crimes against humanity" during its 2008-9 Gaza assault, the US government roundly condemned the findings and refused to hold Israel accountable for anything.

Last week, the day before Obama addressed the General Assembly, the UN itself released its findings with regard to the Gaza Freedom Flotilla massacre. The report stated, not only that the ongoing Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal under international law and constitutes collective punishment (which is a war crime), but also:

"The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law."

The UN report also found "clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: willful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health," and stated that Israel had seriously violated its obligations under the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the "right to life...torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment...right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention...right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person...[and] freedom of expression."

Additionally, in July 2010, domestic Israeli policy and its occupation conduct had been found to violate these very same statutes (among others) by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Based on both "forensic and firearm evidence," the fact-finding panel concluded that the killing of American citizen Furkan Dogan and that of five Turkish citizens by the Israeli troops on the Mavi Marmara "can be characterized as extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions."

It has also been reported that Israel is not only proud of its actions, but actually awarded the Israeli commando who single-handedly shot most of those killed on the Mavi Marmara with a medal of valor, despite the fact that the government refuses to publicly release the soldier's name. What a hero.

In response, the United States voiced its objections to what it termed the UN report's "unbalanced language, tone and conclusions." It seems that the US government won't hold Israel accountable for the intentional murder of its own citizens, just as it has looked the other way when Israel has killed American sailors, severely injured American peace activists, and blinded American art students.

The same day the US dismissed the UN Flotilla report, President Obama signed his Executive Order sanctioning Iranian officials for human rights violations.

Despite Israel's constant ignoring of international law, UN Security Council resolutions, and blatant disregard for human rights, including brutal torture, beating and raping Palestinian children in prison, rampant police brutality and the aggressive stifling of peaceful dissent and demonstrations in East Jerusalem, the deliberate killing of protesters, the raiding of peace and justice organizations, the restriction of press freedom and enforcing media blackouts, the kidnapping and torture of democracy advocates, the destruction of Bedouin villages in the Negev, and the arresting of Torah-carrying women who dare approach the male side of the Western Wall to pray, the US government continues to provide political cover, financial assistance, and tremendous military aid without reservation.

The US Congress endorses each and every illegal act of Israeli aggression, defends West Bank colonization, praises the flotilla massacre.

In his much-lauded June 2009 speech in Cairo, President Obama declared, "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

But the illegal colonization of the occupied West Bank didn't stop. Not only that, massive US aid to Israel was completely unaffected by Israel's refusal to abide by international law and weapons trade between the countries actually increased. Eventually, the US just dropped any demand for a settlement freeze of any kind.

Between last year's UN General Assembly address and the one delivered last Thursday, it appears that Obama has also dropped any real demands regarding permanent borders, Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.

During Wednesday's press conference, Clinton, on behalf of the American government, declared "solidarity with their victims and with all Iranians who wish for a government that respects their human rights and their dignity and their freedom" and "convey[ed] our strong support for the rule of law." Whose rules and which law she was referring to is unclear.

Among the latest stipulations of the new UNSC sanctions, bullied into approval this past June, is the insistence that "States will be required to block Iranian investments outside the Islamic Republic in uranium mining or the production of nuclear materials and technology" and that "States will be barred from supplying Iran with specified categories of heavy weaponry that could potentially be used in offensive military operations," due to Iran's perceived violations of international law.

Nevertheless, the US government has continued to violate international and domestic laws regarding Israel's undeclared nuclear program and the constant shipment of American-made weaponry to the so-called Jewish State.

Recently, the United States has "sold" Israel, among other armaments, AH-64 and AH-64D Apache Longbow fighter helicopters, F-16 and F-15 Eagle fighter planes, F-16 Peace Marble II and III Aircraft, F-35 fighter jets, Boeing 777s, Hercules C-130J airplanes, Arrow missiles, Arrow II interceptors, AGM-114 D Longbow Hellfire missiles, GBU-9 small diameter bombs, bunker buster bombs, Tomahawk missiles, Patriot and Hellfire precision-guided missile systems, D9 Caterpillar military bulldozers, specifically designed for Israel's use in invasions of built-up areas.

Such sales are governed by the US Arms Export Control Act, which limits the use of US military aid to "internal security" and "legitimate self defense" and prohibits its use against civilians along with the Foreign Assistance Act which explicitly prohibits US assistance "to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country."

A more appropriate and accurate description of the State of Israel can not be found.

And yet, the United States shipped 3,000 tons of "ammunition" to Israel in the middle of the 2008-9 Gaza massacre. US weaponry was undoubtedly used in the assault, during which gross violations of international law, abrogation of human rights, and crimes against humanity were committed.

The connection of US outrage and sanctions to international human rights is, quite simply, absurd. One look at the recent $60 billion arms deal the US made with the human rights-challenged Kingdom of Saudi Arabia makes the American contention ridiculous and embarrassing.

The United States fetes European and Israeli war criminals, all of whom call for military aggression against the Islamic Republic, while imposing a travel ban on Iranian officials.

The double standards of the US government continue to betray its real intentions and motivations regarding the Middle East, namely the maintenance of military hegemony, allegiance to Zionist mythology, and the continued demonization and threatening of any country that dares question the moral superiority of the United States or opposes American and Israeli imperialism in the region. While Barack Obama continues to claim that he is "willing to reach out with an open hand to the Iranian government," it seems he's forgotten to first wash off all the blood.