Brasilien — Kluge Antifa-Aktion von Roger WATERS auf gestrigem Pink-Floyd-Konzert in Curitiba

Moin, moin,

hervorragende Aktion von Roger WATER’s (Pink FLOYD) + Veranstalter während des gestrigen Konzerts in Curitiba (Parana/Brasilien) s.u.

Eine Reportage zur Lage im Land gestern auf NDS unter: https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=46739

https://www.rt.com/news/442456-roger-waters-brazil-bolsonaro-protest/

Roger Waters dodges arrest with a last-minute slap at Brazil’s Bolsonaro

Published time: 28 Oct, 2018 04:47

Edited time: 28 Oct, 2018 08:54

Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters toed the line during his show in Brazil, when he urged people to stop right-wing candidate Jair Bolsonaro seconds before he could be arrested for violating election law.

Waters, an indisputable music icon, has been in Brazil with his Us+Them tour since October 9. The singer, songwriter and bassist had performed six shows in the country before arriving in the city of Curitiba on Saturday.

At every one of his concerts, the legendary musician, known for his progressive views, decried neo-fascists, listing among them US President Donald Trump, Hungarian President Viktor Orban, and former UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

— Die Aktion ist dokumentiert (23-Sek-Video) auf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=g58MkFWa7W0

While touring Brazil, Waters added the frontrunner in the country’s presidential race, Jair Bolsonaro, to this list. It caused mixed reactions among Waters‘ own fans, whose ranks include both supporters and opponents of the right-wing candidate from the Social Liberal Party (PSL).

Boos and cheers aside, matters became more serious for Waters as the Sunday vote inched closer. Before the show, the Electoral Court of Parana warned the musician and his Brazilian producer T4F that if he does not abide by the Brazilian law, which prohibits all campaigning after 10pm, he might be arrested and face imprisonment.

And it all went smoothly until two minutes before the deadline. Just as Waters‘ producers were, presumably, starting to breathe a collective sigh of relief, the stage went dark and silent. Then a message in Portuguese flashed on the big screen.

They told us we cannot talk about the election after 10 o’clock. We have 30 seconds. This is our last chance to resist fascism before Sunday. Not him!

„Not him“ – „Ele Nao“ in Portuguese – is the uniting slogan of everyone campaigning and protesting against Bolsonaro.

As the clock struck 10, the words „It’s ten o’clock. Obey the law,“ appeared on the display.

In the run-up to Waters‘ performance, Bolsonaro tweeted that „any person in the national territory, even if he is not a Brazilian citizen, has inalienable rights as a human being, as well as having a duty to obey the laws of Brazil.“

Bolsonaro, who is sometimes described as Brazil’s Trump, is widely expected to seal the vote in Sunday’s run-off. The right-wing politician cruised through the first round, wining 46 percent of the vote on October 7, with his main opponent, Fernando Haddad from the leftist Worker’s Party, receiving only 29 percent.

The MDA poll released on Saturday predicted a comfortable win for Bolsonaro, who currently holds a double-digit advantage over Haddad. Tens of thousands have protested against Bolsonaro’s all-but-secured rise to power both on the streets and online.

Catalonia’s independence struggle – Live Blog by green left Weekly (Australia)

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS – 29.10.2017

Dear all,

daily many of us are trying to get solid information about Catalonia’s independence struggle and the field of social and political forces involved – within, in Spain, Europe …

In that regard — according to our experience — the Australian Live Blog Catalonia’s independence struggle is one of the most instructive.

This will be exemplified by an excerpt of yesterday’s timetable 11:00 – 22:00.

Greets,

Martin Zeis

Catalonia News-Ticker – edited by green-left-Weekly

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/live-blog-catalonias-independence-struggle

Sa, 28.10.2017

2200 HOURS

  • Sigma-Dos poll shows pro-independence forces losing their majority at December 21 election.

IF REGIONAL ELECTIONS WERE HELD IN CATALONIA TODAY, FOR WHICH PARTY WOULD YOU VOTE?
(NOTE: C’s is Citizens, PSC is Party of Socialists of Catalonia, PP is People’s Party, CSQP is Catalonia Yes We Can, PDeCat is Catalan European Democratic Party, ERC is Republican Left of Catalonia, CUP is People’s Unity List.

„Independ.“ if pro-independence, „Constit.“ is constitutionalist). Sample: 1000

1800 HOURS

What happens on Monday? Or how to resist the article 155 onslaught (main points of NacióDigital report)

Main points of the passive resistance being planned against article 155:

— Ministers and senior executive to go to work as normal, challenging the Spanish administration to remove them physically;
— Puigdemont to continue to work from the main government building (the „Palau“) in St James Square, Barcelona, protected by special group of Catalan police;
— Parliament to meet as usual (with meeting of speakership panel set for Tuesday);
— The main public sector union, USTEC, has voted not to accept instructions from executives imposed under aricle 155 intervention.

— Workers Commissions (CCOO) will not offer disobedience. However, many workplaces have had all-in mass meetings and voted that they will not accept orders from executives imposed from Madrid..

— The minority unity confederation Intersindical-CSC has already held over 30 mass meetings to impart methods of peaceful resistance.

  • The PP demands that the Spanish and European flags, lowered from Sabadell town hall after Friday’s independence declaration, be re-hoisted.
  • Former Catalan police chief Trapero’s replacement leaves structures and personnel of his predecessor unchanged.
  • Spanish government complains that Catalan public television Channel 3 presented Juigdemont as „president“.

1600 HOURS

[TWEET] Juan José Ibarretxe (former Basque premier): „Respect, affection and recognition for the Catalan Republic.“

1500 HOURS

  • Catalan President Carles Puigdemont gives public address over Channel 3

„The best way we have for defending the achievements made to date is democratic opposition to the application of article 155“

October 28, 2017

Dear compatriots,

Yesterday we lived through a historic day, a day full of democratic and civic significance. The Parliament of Catalonia fulfilled what the citizens voted for on September 27, 2015, when the majority that emerged from the ballot box entrusted Parliament with the proclamation of independence.

Yesterday, too, the Spanish Council of Ministers agreed to the sacking of the entire Government of Catalonia, intervention into our self-government and the dissolving of Parliament. These are decisions contrary to the will of the citizens of our country as expressed at the polls. They know perfectly well that in a democratic society it is up to parliaments to choose or dismiss presidents.

However, citizens, in these first moments, all of you have understood that the phase we have now entered we must continue to defend — with a tireless civic spirit and with a commitment to peace. Your reaction is that of a mature country that knows where it wants to go and how it wants to arrive there. Let’s not get diverted from that: let’s continue to persevere in the only attitude that can make us winners. Without violence, without insults, in an inclusive way, respecting people, symbols and opinions and also respecting the protests of Catalans who do not agree with what has been decided by the parliamentary majority.

Our desire is to continue working to fulfil our democratic mandates and at the same time seek maximum stability and calm, understanding the difficulties logically involved in a phase of this kind, one that our country has never been through, in any case never before in the way that is happening now.

The message I would like to address to you is this: let’s have patience, perseverance and perspective. On that basis we can be clear that the best way to defend the gains won to date is through democratic opposition to the application of article 155, which is the end point of a premeditated aggression against the will of we Catalans who by a very large majority and over many years have felt ourselves to be a nation of Europe.

We have to do this by protecting ourselves against repression and threats, but doing that without ever, ever in our life, not at any moment, abandoning a public-spirited and peaceful conduct. We can’t be, nor do we ever want to be, right through might. Not us. I ask this of you convinced that this request is what everyone expects, also from outside our country.

We shall continue working to build a free country, to guarantee a society that has less injustcess, more equality, more solidarity and more fraternity with all the peoples of the world, starting with the peoples of Spain with whom we want to strengthen ties on the basis of respect and mutual recognition.

Thank you very much.

Carles Puigdemont and Casamajó
President of the Generalitat [Government] of Catalonia

1400 HOURS

  • Spanish government appoints number two of Catalan police force (Mossos d’Esquadra) to be the new chief.

1300 HOURS

[TWEET] Mikko Kärnä (Finnish Centre Party, for seat in Lapland): Congratulations to the independent Republic of #Catalonia. Next week I will submit a motion to the Finnish Parliament for your recognition. [October 27]

  • Council of Rubí (Vallès Occidental) votes not to condemn article 155 intervention on casting vote of mayoress.
  • Spanish government appoints Ferran López, the number two of the Catalan police, as chief.
  • Lleida mayor Àngel Ros (front line, in grey jacket, with glasses) takes part in unionist demonstration in Lleida.
  • God relieved (in the Spanish state): „The chairman of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, Ricardo Blázquez, today expressed support for efforts to restore the constitutional order under article 155.“ (Europa Press)

1200 HOURS

  • Ferran Mascarell, the Catalan delegate to the Spanish government sacked by Rajoy, will appeal the decision to the courts because the article 155 resolution adopted by the Senate is „manifestly unconstitutional“.
  • Albano Dante Fachín (Podemos Catalonia): „It would be an enormous contradiction to say one million times „No“ to 155 and then take part in elections as if nothing had happened ... At the present time I personally find it very hard to think of the December 21 elections as normal elections while the Jordis are in jail.“

1100 HOURS

  • St Carles de Ràpita raises the senyera in celebration of the declaration of the Catalan Republic.

Some international press front covers on the declaration of Catalan Republic. ……

Here Is The US Intel Report Accusing Putin Of Helping Trump Win The Election By „Discrediting“ Hillary Clinton | Zero Hedge

DOKUMENTIERT

Here Is The US Intel Report Accusing Putin Of Helping Trump Win The Election By „Discrediting“ Hillary Clinton | Zero Hedge

„We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.“

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-06/here-us-intelligence-report-accusing-putin-ordering-campaign-influence-us-election

Quelle: Here Is The US Intel Report Accusing Putin Of Helping Trump Win The Election 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Immanuel WALLERSTEIN: The U.S. Election: It’s over at last, or is it?; 15.11.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

Martin Zeis

us-geopolitical-overhaul161128

fwe-trump-presidency161125

 

Dear all,

 

in his distinctive manner Wallerstein dissects the US presidential election results – internal and external and entirely reverse to the frantic media-speculations hastily interpreting every Trump-tweet/guff.

 

Recent days some serious articles on the same subject were published – e.g.  F. William Engdahl’s The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency  (see: www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO25Nov2016.php ) or Gregory R. Copley’s Geopolitical Overhaul: What Will A Post-Obama World Look Like? (see:  www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-27/geopolitical-overhaul-what-will-post-obama-world-look )  —  both articles are attached (pdf-file)  —

 

Greets,

Martin Zeis

 

=============================================

 

http://iwallerstein.com/the-u-s-election-its-over-at-last-or-is-it

 

The U.S. Election: It’s over at last, or is it?

 

Immanuel WALLERSTEIN

Commentary No. 437,

Nov. 15, 2016

 

Almost everyone is astonished at Trump’s victory. It is said that even Trump was astonished. And of course now everyone is explaining how it happened, although the explanations are different. And everyone is talking about the deep cleavages that the election created (or it reflected?) in the U.S. body politic.

I am not going to add one more such analysis to the long list I’m already tired of reading them. I just want to concentrate on two issues: What are the consequences of this victory of Trump (1) for the United States, and (2) for U.S. power in the rest of the world.

 

(1)

Internally, the results, no matter how you measure them, move the United States significantly to the right. It doesn’t matter that Trump actually lost the national popular vote. And it doesn’t matter that if a mere 70,000 votes in three states (something under 0.09% of the total vote cast) had been lacking to Trump, Hillary Clinton would have won.

What does matter is that the Republicans have gained what is called the trifecta – control of the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court. And while the Democrats might win back the Senate and even the Presidency in four or eight years, the Republicans will hold on to a Supreme Court majority for a very much longer time.

 

To be sure, the Republicans are divided on some important issues. This is apparent just one week after the elections. Trump has already begun to display his pragmatic side and therefore his priorities: more jobs, tax reduction (but certain kinds), and saving parts of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that are widely popular. The Republican Establishment (a quite far right Establishment) has other priorities: destroying Medicaid and even Medicare, different kinds of tax reform, and rolling back social liberalism (such as abortion rights and gay marriage).

It remains to be seen if Trump can win against Paul Ryan (who is the key figure in the Congress-based rightwing), or Paul Ryan can push back Trump. The key figure in this struggle seems to be Vice-President Mike Pence, who has positioned himself remarkably as the real number two in the Presidential office (as had Dick Cheney).

 

Pence knows Congress well, is ideologically close to Paul Ryan, but politically loyal to Trump. It was he that chose Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff for Trump, preferring him to Steve Bannon. Priebus stands for uniting the Republicans, while Bannon stands for attacking Republicans who are less than 100% loyalists to an ultra-rightwing message. While Bannon got a consolation prize as an inside counselor, it is doubtful that he will have any real power.

However this intra-Republican struggle turns out, it is still the case that U.S. politics are now significantly further to the right. Perhaps the Democratic Party will reorganize as a more leftwing, more populist movement, and be able to contest the Republicans in future elections. That too remains to be seen. But Trump’s electoral victory is a reality and an achievement.

 

(2)

Let us now turn from the internal arena in which Trump has won and has real power to the external arena (the rest of the world) in which he has virtually none. He used the campaign slogan “make America great again.” What he said time and time again was that, if he were president, he would ensure that other countries respected (that is, obeyed) the United States. In effect, he alluded to a past in which the United States was “great” and said that he would recover that past.

The problem is very simple. Neither he nor any other president – be it Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or for that matter Ronald Reagan – can do very much about the advanced decline of the erstwhile hegemonic power. Yes, the United States once ruled the roost, more or less between 1945 and circa 1970. But ever since then, it has been steadily declining in its ability to get other countries to follow its lead and to do what the United States wanted.

 

The decline is structural and not something within the power of an American president to stem. Of course, the United States remains an incredibly powerful military force. If it misuses this military power, it can do much damage to the world. Obama was very sensitive to this potential harm, which accounts for all his hesitancies. And Trump was accused throughout the electoral campaign of not understanding this and therefore being a dangerous wielder of U.S. military power.

But while doing harm is quite possible, doing what the U.S. government might define as good seems virtually beyond the power of the United States. No one, and I mean no one, will follow today the lead of the United States if it thinks its own interests are being ignored. This is true not only of China, Russia, Iran, and of course North Korea. It is true as well of Japan and South Korea, India and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, France and Germany, Poland and the Baltic states, and our erstwhile special allies like Israel, Great Britain, and Canada.

 

I am fairly sure that Trump does not yet realize this. He will boast about the easy victories, like ending trade pacts. He will use this to prove the wisdom of his aggressive stance. But let him try to do something about Syria – anything – and he will soon be disabused of his power. He is most unlikely to retreat on the new relationship with Cuba. And he may come to realize that he should not undo the Iran agreement. As for China, the Chinese seem to think that they can make better arrangements with Trump than they would have been able to do with Clinton.

 

So, a more rightwing United States in a more chaotic world-system, with protectionism the major theme of most countries and an economic squeeze on the majority of the world’s population. And is it over? By no means, neither in the United States, nor in the world-system. It’s a continuing struggle about the direction in which the future world-system (or systems) should and will be heading.

—  emphasis, Martin Zeis  —

 

Nick BERNABE: Actually, „Nobody“ Won The 2016 Presidential Election; AntiMedia, 11.11.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

Martin Zeis, 14.11.2016

Nick BERNABE points to the broadly covered fact, that „around 193 million people did not vote for Trump or Clinton. That’s nearly two-thirds of the population of the United States. … The majority of Americans don’t vote anymore because the political system no longer represents them. We’ve been disenfranchised by decades of corrupt, unrepresentative politicians. The United States, according to a highly-cited academic study, is effectively an oligarchy “elected” by a minority of voters ruled by a smaller minority of disliked politicians who represent an even smaller minority of billionaires and special interests.“

It will be seen which faction of the US-Oligarchy – for quite some time entangled in a controversy about a geopolitical realignment after the 1990ff-full-spectrum-dominance „vision“ crashed – prevails in the wake of the presidential election outcome.

11.11.2016 – http://theantimedia.org/nobody-won-2016-election-landslide via zerohedge

Actually, „Nobody“ Won The 2016 Presidential Election… And It Was A Landslide
Submitted by Nick Bernabe via TheAntiMedia.org

Nobody for President, that’s my campaign slogan,” Nick Cannon asserted in “Too Broke to Vote,” his viral criticism of the American electoral process from March of this year. (1)

Now, it turns out nobody for president won the 2016 election in a landslide.

According to new voter turnout statistics from the 2016 election, 47 percent of Americans voted for nobody, far outweighing the votes cast for Trump (25.5 percent) and Hillary (25.6 percent) by eligible voters.

The Anti Media – 2016 Presidential Election – Turnout Rate
49,9% Don’t Vote
25,6% Voted for Clinton
25,5% Voted for Trump
1,7% Voted for Johnson

And the “I voted for nobody” group is actually much larger than the 47 percent reported because that number only includes eligible voters. How many millions of Americans under the legal voting age — not to mention the countless millions who have lost their voting rights — voted for nobody, as well? (2) Factoring in those individuals, around 193 million people did not vote for Trump or Clinton. That’s nearly two-thirds of the population of the United States.

Nobody also seemingly won the presidential primaries, with only 9 percent of Americans casting their votes for either Trump or Clinton.

So when does nobody take office? Nobody won the majority of votes in the primaries or the general election, and the two main candidates who were running didn’t “win” the popular vote — they simply slightly outcompeted each other considering neither garnered over 50 percent of the eligible voters’ ballots.

That’s where the real debate begins.

As I wrote back in August when the primary voter turnout rates came in, one could argue that Trump (and Obama) do not have a legitimate mandate to rule over the people of the United States. Trump did not win the majority of Americans’ votes — not even close.

When all Americans are included, Trump only garnered the votes of about 19 percent of us. This means the United States will be ruled over by a small minority of voters who elected someone to continually impose their political positions on the other 81 percent of us.

Of course, as is the case with Democrats looking to assign blame for Hillary’s loss, pundits and political pontificators argue the people who didn’t vote have no right to complain about the outcome. After all, a non-vote or a vote for a third-party candidate was, in actuality, a vote for Trump. But that logic is flawed. The majority of Americans don’t vote anymore because the political system no longer represents them. We’ve been disenfranchised by decades of corrupt, unrepresentative politicians.

The United States, according to a highly-cited academic study, is effectively an oligarchy “elected” (3) by a minority of voters ruled by a smaller minority of disliked politicians who represent an even smaller minority of billionaires and special interests. You know it, I know it, hell, even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter knows it. (4) The majority of Americans voted for nobody not because they don’t care or because they are apathetic — they voted no confidence in a political system that forgot about them a long time ago.

Notes
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AQjZ8ZbnF4
(2) http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx
(3) https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/S1537592714001595a.pdf/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens.pdf
(4) http://theantimedia.org/jimmy-carter-says-america-has-become-an-oligarchy

First Thoughts On The „Not-Hillary“ Election Results — Moon of Alabama

So I just woke up and found that the world has changed. World War III was called off. Trump won, Clinton conceded. His victory speech is fair and integrating. My „not Hillary“ hunch for the election was right. That is,…

über First Thoughts On The „Not-Hillary“ Election Results — Moon of Alabama

M. CHOSSUDOVSKY: Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game ?, 01.11.2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS

Martin Zeis, 02.11.2016

In past days we’ve seen scenic occurrences and disclosures by Wikileaks (possibly from inside the US governmetal machinery) in regards to the presidential election process – in particular illicit, criminal practices by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Prof. Chossudovsky considers the questions:

Who is behind Wikileaks which released the E-Mails?

Who is behind FBI Director James Comey?

Has there been a shift in the Corporate Elite’s unbending support for Hillary Clinton? Or are the Elites divided?

What happens, if both candidates (Clinton, Trump) are “dysfunctional”. Is there a Plan B?

Below excerpts of Chossudovsky’s examination … full text is aattached.

+++++++++++++++++

01.11.2016 — www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-wall-streets-loosing-horse-constitutional-crisis-whats-the-end-game/5553922

Hillary Clinton: Wall Street’s Losing Horse? Constitutional Crisis? What’s the End Game?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Since the release of FBI Director Comey’s Second letter to the US Congress, the presidential elections process has gone haywire, out of control. The bipartisan political apparatus is in crisis.

“I FBI director [James Comey] am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

Two important questions:

WHO IS BEHIND WIKILEAKS WHICH RELEASED THE EMAILS?

WHO IS BEHIND FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY?

In both cases, we are dealing with powerful interest groups. CUI-BONO?

Has there been a shift in the Corporate Elite’s unbending support for Hillary Clinton? Or are the Elites divided? This is something to be carefully investigated.

FBI Director Comey (image right) did not take this decision on his own. While he was described as responding to pressures from within the FBI, the crucial question is: Who are the power brokers behind James Comey? What mechanism incited him to take that decision?

Does he have a relationship with Trump? Several media have even intimated that Moscow could have been behind Comey’s second letter. An absurd proposition.

The Trigger Mechanism (…)

The corporate elites are not monolithic. Quite the opposite. There are major divisions and conflicts within the ruling corporate establishment. What seems to be unfolding is a division between competing media conglomerates, with Murdoch’s News Corp Group (which includes the WSJ and Fox News) supporting Trump and the Time Warner – CNN Group supporting Clinton. In turn, these media conglomerates are aligned with powerful and competing factions within the corporate establishment.

Those who triggered the release of the WSJ report were fully aware that this would lead to a response by FBI Director James Comey, which in turn would contribute to weakening and undermining Hillary Clinton. (…)

Opposition to Hillary Clinton from within the Armed Forces

There is also evidence of resentment to Clinton from within the Armed Forces. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed their opposition to the adoption of a “No Fly Zone” in Syria, which could lead to a war with Russia. Both the “No Fly Zone” as well as Hillary’s nuclear option “on the table” are the object of debate by America’s top brass. Referring to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, Hillary said “we will obliterate them”.

What Happens if She is Elected? If elected president, Hillary’s criminal record would haunt her throughout her term in office, leading to the possibility of an impeachment. The presidency would become totally dysfunctional from the very outset, which her corporate sponsors including the defense contractors and Wall Street would prefer to avoid. … If Trump is elected president, there will also be attempts to unseat him, calling for his impeachment.

If both candidates are “dysfunctional”. Is there a Plan B?

National Emergency Measures, Martial Law? Continuity in Government (C.O.G.)

Unquestionably the entire US bipartisan political apparatus is in crisis including US foreign policy, marked by the breakdown of diplomacy, America’s military agenda and the unfolding confrontation with Russia.

While it is difficult to predict what might occur in the wake of the November 8 elections, the unfolding political impasse –coupled with rising geopolitical tensions in Syria, Iraq as well as Eastern Europe on Russia’s border– could potentially lead at some future date to the suspension of Constitutional government under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) HR 1540, signed into law by president Obama on December 31, 2011. Most media have failed to analyze the far-reaching implications of this legislation.

The present impasse in the electoral process is a crisis of legitimacy characterized by the criminalization of the US State, its judicial and law enforcement apparatus. In turn, Washington is committed to a hegemonic US-NATO “war without borders” coupled with the formation of giant trading blocks under the TPP and TTIP proposals. This neoliberal macro-economic agenda has since the early 1980s been conducive to the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

These developments coupled with a potential constitutional deadlock point in the direction of rising political and social tensions as well as mass protests throughout the US which could lead America at some future date into outright suppression of constitutional government and the imposition of “martial law”.

There are multiple US “martial law” legislative procedures. The adoption of the “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), HR 1540) would be tantamount to a repeal of civil liberties, the surveillance state, the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act. (…)

Chossudovsky-Clinton-Wall-Streets-Losing-Horse161101.pdf