It's Obama and the Republicans, versus congressional Democrats. Senate's Republicans Want U.S. War Against Russia Over Ukraine, Propose U.S. Weapons-Makers' Tax-Relief and Subsidy Act of 2014. They'll Probably Get Their Way. They Carry Obama's Real Agenda.

::::::::

Senate's Republicans Want U.S. War Against Russia Over Ukraine,

Propose U.S. Weapons-Makers' Tax-Relief and Subsidy Act of 2014.

They'll Probably Get Their Way. They Carry Obama's Real Agenda.

S. 2277 in the U.S. Senate is a bill with 26 sponsors, all of whom are Republicans. No Democrats in the Senate support it. But the bill would be a dream for Obama, who quietly does: it's his actual policy. It aims to give him unlimited power to do to Russia what he wants to do to Russia: surround it with enemies and arm those enemies to the teeth. This Obama-Republican policy is now before the currently Democratic-majority Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it proposes that the United States surround Russia with our nuclear missiles and Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABMs), and with American corporate investments (tax-favored and partly financed by the U.S. public) in Russia's adjoining countries of Ukraine and Georgia, plus in Moldova and in the Baltic nations near Russia, so as to make that strangulation even more provocative of a Russian military response, and thus of even more business to be generated for America's arms-dealers. This incredibly aggressive U.S. bill has the Orwellianly self-righteous, if not downright hypocritical, title of "Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014," and it might actually be more honestly titled the "U.S. Weapons-Makers and Oil Company Tax-Relief and Subsidy Act of 2014," because it proposes, among other goodies for Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, UT, KBR, Exxon, Chevron, etc. (quoting now the bill):

the President is authorized to provide to the Government of Ukraine upon that Government's request, as appropriate and in a manner consistent with the capabilities and needs of the armed forces of Ukraine identified in such assessment, the following defense articles, services, and training: [a virtual laundry list of weapons and training, partly at U.S. taxpayer expense, for Ukraine to be supplied with U.S.-made weapons, follows, including:] ...

provision of PATRIOT, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or other missile defense systems [so that we can nuke Russia while their missiles in response will be blocked by our ABM shield] ...

Prioritization of Energy Projects in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova by the World Bank Group and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.--The President shall direct the United States Executive Directors of the World Bank Group and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to encourage the World Bank Group and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to invest in, and increase their efforts to promote investment in, efforts to help exploit existing natural gas reserves, to conduct additional exploration for oil and gas, to develop alternative sources of energy, including oil and gas, and to encourage energy efficiency, for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, including the development of associated transportation, storage, and refinement facilities, and to stimulate private investment in such projects. ...

expedited review of and, where appropriate, approval of, applications by eligible investors (as defined in section 238 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2198)) for loans, loan guarantees, and insurance for such investments. ...

loan, lease, and bond guarantees [by U.S. taxpayers] to appropriate financial institutions and other eligible borrowers through the Development Credit Authority to facilitate the involvement of such institutions and borrowers in financing efforts in Ukraine to help exploit existing natural gas reserves, to conduct additional exploration for oil and gas, to develop alternative sources of energy, including oil and gas, and to encourage energy efficiency, for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, including the development of associated transportation ...

So, not only would the U.S. public be subsidizing U.S. armaments-makers and oil companies, but we would be guaranteeing or otherwise taking on some of the investment-risks, while the stockholders and executives of those American firms would reap all of the investment benefits, assuming that our ABM systems function perfectly and that we don't all get nuked to death ourselves, by this corrupt business deal that those 26 Republican Senators are seeking to turn into a new U.S. law signed by this "Democratic" President.

Right now, there are 51 Senate Democrats, 47 Republicans, and 2 Independents. So, Republicans are already close to controlling the Senate, and almost all of the Senate seats being contested now are held by Democrats. The latest odds are that there's an 86% chance that the 2014 elections will produce a Republican majority in the Senate as well as in the House, and only a 14% chance that the Senate will remain having a Democratic majority. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that approximately an 86% likelihood exists that this bill will become law in 2015 (when Republicans are expected to be in the majority, and Obama is expected to sign it).

Perhaps a good investment opportunity now would thus be a construction company that builds bomb-shelters, especially nuclear-hardened ones (which don't exist, but never mind that, it'll be an "extra feature"). Republicans in Congress are probably already heavily invested in such firms, especially considering those 86% to 14% odds. On the other hand, any big and well-connected oil-or-gas firms would also be good, and so would any big "defense" (to use the Orwellian term) contractor (i.e.: the weapons-makers, and other aggression-merchants). Best might be a firm that's diversified in all of these war-marketing fields.

After all, the "U.S. Weapons-Makers Tax-Relief and Subsidy Act of 2015" seems like a good bet for our "free market," doesn't it? American voters are apparently all set to embrace it, even if they have no idea that it's in the works. They'll invest in it, once they know about it. But, by that time, it'll already be too late -- those stocks will already have hit their highs. Of course, that's the point of a "free market": the few insider winners taking from the many outsider losers.

Democracy is so terrific for investors, especially for ones that have millions of dollars and reliable inside information, like almost all Senators (and Wall Street's elite) do. "Democracy" is great, for those people and other aristocrats.

But everybody else needs to be building a bomb-shelter, and that's not really a good investment, at all. The benefits are only for the very rich people. That's why those people are constantly propagandizing for what they euphemistically call "free markets." The freebies actually go to themselves. Everybody else gets mainly debts to pay, and bomb-shelters to buy. Maybe we can load our bomb-shelter with toys, and have fun in it, sort of like Ukrainian refugees in tents now in Russia do, in some people's fantasies. Except that those refugees are "the enemy." They're not supposed to have fun. After all, it's "our" side that has bombed their homes. They're the "bad guys." (In Orwell's "Newspeak," at least.) They are "terrorists." Our "news" media tell us so, even though we are bombing their neighborhoods, and driving them out. We aren't "terrorists"; we are, instead, "champions of peace and democracy," like in Iraq, Palestine, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Honduras, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina ... and Ukraine.

But, look at S. 2277. In next year's Senate, it'll probably make some Republican Senators even richer than they already are.

And yet, the latest Gallup poll is headlined "Americans Say Business Background Is Best for Governing." Americans overwhelmingly want more people like Mitt Romney in our government. After all, he was part of "the free market." We need more of that, don't we? If government is just big business writ larger, of course we do. The biggest smartest psychopath is also then the best person to serve as the President in our Government. In other words: Obama's fascism isn't enough for such Americans. They want More. More of the same. The same, but just more of it -- like Romney would be.

Imagine: Hillary versus Mitt. What a "choice" that would be. Another "choice" between two fascists. We've come to call that type of choice "democracy." Romney is merely a less skillful liar than Obama. Whereas Romney told Wolf Blitzer, on 26 March 2012, that Russia "is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe," Obama denied that, while he adheres to it in his actions as our President. And so do almost all other Republicans adhere to it -- the ones who, unlike Obama and Hillary Clinton, call themselves "Republicans."

Anybody who voluntarily has children now has to be either very rich, very misinformed, or else very callous. America's decent days are gone. That seems to be a rational bet, but nobody can make money selling it; so, only few people believe that it's true, though it is.

In politics, like in religion, there's not much of a market for truth. It's a product for which there are few, if any, buyers. Tragic. But true.

American democracy is now just an act, no longer the real thing. And, so, unless the 14% chance of Democrats retaining control of the U.S. Senate turns out to be the result of the 2014 elections, we'll get Romney's policy, after all, signed into law by Obama, in 2015.

----------

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Authors Bio:
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.