the betrayal of american

anonymous asked:

19 Muslim countries have banned Israeli citizens from traveling to their countries and nobody gives a shit, Trump bans 7 Muslim countries for 90 days and suddenly he is worse than Hitler.

America has always claimed to be an open melting pot of different cultures. We claim to be stronger and more beautiful because of our diversity. While we often fail to live up to those values, Lord Dump’s Muslim ban is an open betrayal of American values of inclusion, diversity, and religious freedom that we claim to hold dear. This policy is an enshrinement of bigotry, nativism, and racism as national policy, and the majority of Americans do not support it–especially considering the fact that homegrown white-supremacy and Christian terrorism is a much greater threat to the American public than foreign terrorist organizations that use Islamic beliefs as justification for their violence. This is confirmed both factually and statistically.

As for Israel, many Muslim majority countries believe they have very valid reasons for a travel ban as a protest of continuing Israeli occupation and settlement of Palestinian lands. That’s their choice to make and their concerns are not unfounded.

4

Gabriela Mistral (7 April 1889 – 10 January 1957) 

Born Lucila Godoy y Alcayaga, she was a Chilean poet-diplomat, educator and humanist. In 1945 she became the first Latin American author to receive a Nobel Prize in Literature, “for her lyric poetry which, inspired by powerful emotions, has made her name a symbol of the idealistic aspirations of the entire Latin American world”. Some central themes in her poems are nature, betrayal, love, a mother’s love, sorrow and recovery, travel, and Latin American identity as formed from a mixture of Native American and European influences. Her portrait also appears on the 5,000 Chilean peso bank note. (Wikipedia)

From our stacks: 1. Frontispiece from Gabriela Mistral (1889 - 1957). Washington, D. C.: Pan American Union, 1958.  2. Cover from Antología. Gabriela Mistral. (3.a Edición) Santiago de Chile: Zig-Zag, 1953.  3.Frontispiece from Selected Poems of Gabriela Mistral. Translated and Edited by Doris Dana. Woodcuts by Antonio Frasconi. Published for the Library of Congress By the Johns Hopkins Press / Baltimore, 1971.  4. Front matter detail from Ternura. Gabriela Mistral. Buenos Aires - México: Espasa Calpe Argentina, S. A., 1945.

January 30, 1917 - President Wilson Vetoes Law that would Require Immigrants to Take Literacy Test

Pictured - “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!“

American President Woodrow Wilson vetoed a law passed by Congress on January 30 that would require immigrants to pass a literacy test before settling in the United States. “It is not a test of character, of quality, or of personal fitness,” he said of the proposed law, “but would operate in most cases merely as penalty for lack of opportunity in the country from which the alien seeking admission came.”

Moreover, he noted, trying to separate immigrants on their literacy or their religion would cause severe diplomatic repurcussions, “and it is not only possible but probable that very serious questions of international justice and comity would arise between this government… and the governments thus officially condemned.” American immigration laws were hardly liberal in the early 20th century, with their racial quotas, but perhaps even Wilson knew very well that for the government to exclude immigrants because of their beliefs or their upbringing would be a blanket betrayal of American values. 

In my personal experience, I would say I’ve experienced more hurtful betrayals by friends than I have lovers, and friendships I’ve had in my life have been every bit as intense as relationships I’ve had that have been sexual, so there’s an aspect of that where nothing quite hurts as badly as a friend betraying you. In an infidelity, that type of betrayal between lovers, you understand the human nature and that the heart wants what it wants, and the draw of sexuality and the temptation of that, so you get how human nature is the betrayer in that situation. When it comes to a friend and it’s not about genitals, it’s about the souls, it cuts much deeper.

 - Bryan Fuller about friendship and betrayal {x}

2

October 18, 2016

Ask yourself this most important question!

Why were GMOs very quietly but deliberately unleashed onto America’s grocery shelves in the mid 1990’s without OUR knowledge and consent?

I have yet to find a legitimate answer to this question, no matter how much I get trolled by Monsanto’s minions on social media.

It is no coincidence that big biotech, major food corporations, and government agencies like the FDA, USDA and EPA are no longer trusted by a majority of Americans. Would you rely on people that have intentionally poisoned you for decades? Why would anyone blindly put their trust in corporations and governments who have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they are paid liars like the media that sells those lies to you every second of every day?

Where are the most basic questions about GMO health and environmental safety that any rational individual can ask? I can tell you that the answers are NOT found in any 90 day, short-term rat health study that big biotech like Monsanto passes off to the FDA for rubberstamp approval! Why were these GMOs so quickly approved by a government agency that is supposed to protect us?

What about our Congress? The DARK Act was passed by both the senate and house. Then, the backstabbing of consumers (that’s all of us) was given a final jab at the hearts of all Americans when our Traitor-in-Chief signed the DARK Act that our elected leaders passed, despite the fact that about 90% of Americans wanted and still want transparent GMO labeling. You will hear the same old, tired excuses from food companies that it costs too much to change a label, but they do it whenever they ship their GMO, poison-laden food products overseas. They have to; otherwise, their GMO junk will never make it further than a Boston tea party.

Why don’t the corporations that ship food and beverages to foreign countries every day at least label these genetically modified products that are made in the U.S.A.? Doesn’t it seem a bit suspicious to you that these same major corporations, like Coca Cola and Kraft, funneled millions of dollars to the Grocery Manufacturers Association, or GMA, to defeat GMO labeling laws in Colorado, Washington State, Oregon and California (twice)? In the meantime, biotech brat Monsanto stole Vermont’s GMO labeling law, and turned it into a weak federal labeling law (the DARK Act) that has the same eight, glaring loopholes in it that Vermont’s state GMO labeling bill had before our elected leaders and president deserted us, again, by signing this sinister act of American betrayal.

I am sure you are wondering at this point how much of what I stated is true. Where are the facts? They have been in front of you the entire time. I repeatedly point them out in my articles and social media posts. Other basic human rights activists have been doing the same for years. For big biotech, big Ag and big food, this is all just a money game. The losers in the end are the confused consumers who willingly keep shoving “glyphotoxic” (glyphosate and genotoxic) crap down their throats and also into the mouths of their children and grandchildren.

So, ask yourself all of the questions that I asked again, starting with the first one. Can you come up with any simple answers?

Or, maybe you already have that bitter taste of betrayal that consumes America’s barely beating heart.

John Loeffler
-Calling Out Corruption

9

Pruk week Day 2&3 - Fever and Pride

The 7 Years War had ended just a few decades ago. Great Britain had come out of this all-continent explosion not only barely scathed, but also the owner of a mighty colonial empire.In addition, Prussia, Britain’s greatest remaining ally, was furious. He had nearly destroyed himself fighting in the Seven Years War, and halfway through Great Britain had demanded he sue for peace, despite knowing that this would lead to the carving up of the state. Most Prussians had viewed this as an act of betrayal, and refused to fight with Britain in the American Revolutionary War.

“For a mild-mannered man whose music was always easy on the ear, Nat King Cole managed to be a figure of considerable controversy during his 30 years as a professional musician. From the late ’40s to the mid-’60s, he was a massively successful pop singer who ranked with such contemporaries as Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, and Dean Martin. He shared with those peers a career that encompassed hit records, international touring, radio and television shows, and appearances in films. But unlike them, he had not emerged from a background as a band singer in the swing era. Instead, he had spent a decade as a celebrated jazz pianist, leading his own small group. Oddly, that was one source of controversy. For some reason, there seem to be more jazz critics than fans of traditional pop among music journalists, and Cole’s transition from jazz to pop during a period when jazz itself was becoming less popular was seen by them as a betrayal. At the same time, as a prominent African-American entertainer during an era of tumultuous change in social relations among the races in the U.S., he sometimes found himself out of favor with different warring sides. His efforts at integration, which included suing hotels that refused to admit him and moving into a previously all-white neighborhood in Los Angeles, earned the enmity of racists; once, he was even physically attacked on-stage in Alabama. But civil rights activists sometimes criticized him for not doing enough for the cause.

Such controversies do not obscure his real talent as a performer, however. The dismay of jazz fans at his abandonment of jazz must be measured against his accomplishments as a jazz musician. An heir of Earl Hines, whom he studied closely as a child in Chicago, Cole was an influence on such followers as Oscar Peterson. And his trio, emerging in the dying days of the swing era, helped lead the way in small-band jazz. The rage felt by jazz fans as he moved primarily to pop singing is not unlike the anger folk music fans felt when Bob Dylan turned to rock in the mid-’60s; in both cases, it was all the more acute because fans felt one of their leaders, not just another musician, was going over to the enemy. Less well remembered, however, are Cole’s accomplishments during and after the transition. His rich, husky voice and careful enunciation, and the warmth, intimacy, and good humor of his approach to singing, allowed him to succeed with both ballads and novelties such that he scored over 100 pop chart singles and more than two dozen chart albums over a period of 20 years, enough to rank him behind only Sinatra as the most successful pop singer of his generation.” By William Ruhlmann

This is the first time the seven bands of the Sioux have come together since Little Bighorn. Now, we have no weapons, only prayers. We are here for what our ancestors fought and died for. We have endured 250 years of betrayal by the white man.
—  Hawste Wakiyan Wicasa, a Native American protestor interviewed at Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in September 2016
5

 Meanwhile, his Hamilton—about the improbable, Dickensian life of the “$10 Founding Father without a father,” starring actors of all color and ethnicity as the architects of young America—has convinced even the grumblers that a Broadway play, and a musical at that, might call attention to the enduring power of our national DNA. The thematic Venn diagram of the play overlaps with so many of the biggest themes of our own lives—death, loss, parenthood, love, lust, betrayal, displacement, the American Dream, the immigrant experience, etc.—that Common went so far as to call it one of “the greatest pieces of art ever made,” while Michelle Obama did him one better, calling it “the best piece of art in any form that I have ever seen in my life.”

prosiyat  asked:

if you want a drabble request can you please do Danse trying to befriend an asian american Sole after blind betrayal and kinda going out of his way to make up for being kinda dickish to them at Cambridge bc you write danse so well aaahhhh

Aww thank you so much!!! :)


Sole turned, hearing a light knock on the door of their small shack. 

“Come in.” They called out, not looking up from their pipe pistol. Danse walked in, some steaming bowls in hand. 

“Hey,’ he said softly, taking a seat next to Sole, “I, uh, hope you haven’t eaten.” Sole looked at the bowls. 

“Noodles bowls… with chopsticks? Really?” They cocked an eyebrow and took a bowl from his hand, “I don’t know how to use chopsticks.” He turned a bright red and coughed. 

“No! I, um, I didn’t mean anything by it, I just thought-” Sole cut him off, raising a hand. 

“Don’t worry about it, it was nice of you to bring me some dinner,” Sole dug around in a satchel and pulled out a tarnished fork, “All too often I’m skipping dinner due to being absorbed in modding my weapons.” Danse seemed to relax a little. 

“Watching you work with your weapons was always…fascinating.” He grinned and brought some noodles up to his mouth, before his face turned dark and he set them down back into the bowl. 

“Danse… what’s wrong?” Sole became concerned and placed a hand on his back. 

“I… I don’t need to eat, remember? I’m one of them.” 

“What? No way, that’s crazy talk! Just because you don’t need it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.” He just shook his head. 

“Let’s just face it, Sole. I’m a failure. Not only to the Brotherhood, but to you. The way I treated you in Cambridge wasn’t the way friends should treat each other.” Sole clicked their tongue and stood up, pulling Danse with them. They tightly wrapped their arms around his torso. 

“W-what are you doing?” he sputtered. 

“Hugging you.” 

“Why?” 

“Because,” they lifted their head from his chest, “I can feel your warmth, hear your heartbeat, and remember all the stuff you’ve done for me. Remember when you helped me search for Dogmeat for 4 hours until we found him? Or when you took the time to patch me up after a scuffle? Danse, that’s what friends do. You’re more human than 90% of everyone out there, and you don’t need to prove it to me.” 

He was speechless, his eyes beginning to mist. Danse didn’t need to speak, though. 

His bearhug was already worth 1,000,000 words. 

marxism-leninism-memeism  asked:

why dont u post about the wholesale shift to cacerality in american capitalism and its existence in relation to falling rates of profit and the neoliberal hollowing-out of the state

In late 1960s, an intensification of capitalist wars abroad, especially in Vietnam, the modicum of social programs in response to the civil rights movement, and Kennedy’s tax cuts contributed to push American growth through the roof. Utilization of industrial capacity reached 90% in some years, and the unemployment rate went under 4% for the first time in a decade. Any observer would assume that a high growth Capitalism would be a good thing, yet the rules of the game had changed. In fact, this brought on one of the biggest strike waves in history, reaching across the planet through 1967 and 1968, with American days lost to strikes tripling between the early and late 1960s. Corporations need a buffer of industrial capacity to ensure that production losses due to strikes can be made up elsewhere. They need a high unemployment rate so that any employee who asks for too much money can be easily fired and replaced. Instead, corporations were forced into an ameliorative stance with organized labour, giving out wage concessions and raising prices to keep profits level. This contributed to inflation and actually cut profits, with wages consuming the highest portion of GDP they ever have in American history. State planners were terrified. Their attempts to beat back Socialism abroad had led to its growth at home. Only a few visionaries at the Fed really knew what was going on. European attempts to fight back were certainly uninspired. The UK got union leadership on board for a wage freeze, but found it unsuccessful and instead was forced to devalue the pound to decrease imports. The French attempted a return to the gold standard to enforce austerity, but were forced to hand out massive wage increases in May 1968, which scuttled that plan. The West Germans attempted to use more social programs to buy out their unions, but that too failed, and an increase in the value of the Mark that would make German exports to America less appealing was forced.

The American response was much more interesting. Sure, it may have also been characterized by a periodic resort to the same programs, as when Johnson instituted capital controls in 1968 or Nixon declared a wage freeze in 1971, but America was the only nation with staff at the top levels of its treasury and national bank that could see the contours of the new world being created. They often made mistakes in their troubleshooting, but they were ultimately able to fine-tune together a new form of Capitalism with much trial and error. For some left-liberal commentators, the lower growth rates of Neoliberalism has been a problematic bug of the system that they wish to correct with a return to Keynesian prescriptions. For the Neoliberal state planners, it’s a feature that prevents an outbreak of sustained class warfare like that seen in the late 60s. Their challenge was to remove the planks of Keynesianism that encouraged class militancy even during recessions (the essence of so-called “stagflation” was that workers weren’t scared enough of being fired during an economic downturn to stop from striking) while keeping the system growing at all. First and foremost, this would restore psychological confidence in the system. Businesses had seen Keynesianism as a bulwark against Socialism in the 50s, but now saw it as an enemy. They registered their distaste for the security it gave to workers who opposed their ukases quite loudly. Quoting from Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell’s memo to the Chamber of Commerce:

“But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts….

One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.

The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.”

Many businessmen complained that unemployment provisions allowed people to spend time looking for a job that met their wage expectations rather than simply grabbing what they could so that they didn’t starve. This was seen as not only an odious attack on the rights of business, but a betrayal from inside the system. The American state had to prove that they weren’t on the side of “socialists and hippies” by providing a return to “law and order”. The Nixon campaign was largely predicated on such a return, as was that of the first Neoconservative mayor of New York City, Ed Koch. In the post-election period, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates to 9% in 1970, provoking a full-blown recession to discipline workers. However, a banking crisis resulted, causing the Fed to turn on the liquidity spouts and shower businesses in money. While the businesses themselves were happy, ideologues like Milton Friedman gave shrill warnings about how “central bank independence” had been undermined in order to stop a full on depression ahead of an election (quite an irony considering Friedman’s main critique of the Fed in the Great Depression is that it wasn’t a good enough dispenser of liquidity). This was the beginning of a full blown obsession with “law and order”, to the point that any tinkering with the system to create a temporary period of lax authority that would later be reversed was still met with the harshest of condemnation. And why wouldn’t it be? They were finally cementing themselves in power, for instance in Chile and Argentina where they committed the most barbarous acts imaginable in the name of protecting their countries from supposed “barbarians at the gates”. The Neoliberals wanted everything to go their way now, even though giving up something like the Nixon wage and price controls too early would have doomed them.

Of course, these were the years that met the most resistance. Strikes in 1970 totalled one sixth of all American unionized workers. Importantly, these workers were including demands related to control of workplaces in their negotiations, something considered sacrosanct by businesses. Nationalizations in the third world went from 8 per country per year on average in the early 60s to 56 in the early 70s. The newly formed Trilateral Commission asked leading political scholar Samuel Huntington for a report, entitled The Crisis of Democracy. The “crisis”, of course, was that there was far too much participation in the political system by the people, potentially dooming the ability of the “enlightened” upper class to manage the nation’s affairs in peace. In France, the Socialist Party worked hand in hand with the Communist Party at getting back into power, proposing the radical “Programme Commun”, which stipulated that banks would be nationalized, working hours would be decreased, and France would withdraw from NATO. In Sweden, the Social Democrats proposed the Meidner Plan for the final realization of Socialism, where companies would be forced to give small amounts of shares to unions over time until the unions controlled the companies. In the UK, Tony Benn’s Alternative Economic Strategy was bandied about at press conferences by the Labour Party, although enthusiasm wasn’t shared at the top levels. At the UN, economist Raul Prebisch led non-aligned nations to call for a “New International Economic Order”, with a vote for a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, explicitly allowing nationalization of property, taken in 1974, passing with 120 votes to 6. Within the US itself, Robert Roosa, formerly the treasury economist whose “Roosa Bonds” had salvaged American dollar dominance in the early 60s but now an investment banker, reluctantly joined hands with the President of the UAW, Leonard Woodcock, to call for an Office of National Economic Planning. These were dark days indeed, if significant sections of the American elite could call for state-directed central planning.

At the same time, economic conditions had only gotten worse. Investment failed to generate enough increased productivity to allow an escape from the crisis in the normal Capitalist method. This was in large part due to union attacks on corporate control of workplaces. New technologies couldn’t be used to reorganize workers for increased productivity if the workers were united in rejecting them. The American overture to China was made in this context. If there was any country that did have total control over its workers, it was the People’s Republic. Lets take a look at this cool chart that shows the deepening of the crisis as the decade wore on:

Now here was the Neoliberals time to shine. They would have to look like knights in shining armor, riding in on horseback and bringing order to chaos. By getting the consent of the American populace for their policies, they would gain the confidence of the business community to take over ever larger sections of the map. Their horse was Neoconservatism, the ideology of “liberals mugged by reality”, in other words, those American Democrats fed up that black people were protesting over economic conditions even though the Civil Rights Era was over. These intellectuals were largely centred in New York City, and it was New York City where Neoliberalism first took hold through the panic over a potential default by the city in 1975. Through the 1970s, New York City’s population declined. With economic stagnation came unemployment, drug use, suicide, crime, and urban decay. The city’s white population could afford to flee to racially pure suburbs, but its black population was cemented in place by racist city planning and racially discriminatory banks. All levels of media covered the issue as one of black dysfunction, from Neoconservative Daniel Moynihan’s report The Negro Family, which viewed black people paternally, to tabloid news propaganda, which viewed blackness as inherently tied to crime. Even media that catered to black people proclaimed that the number one threat to black livelihoods wasn’t racism, but drugs. More black members of Congress voted for the legislation that started the War on Drugs than against it. One other group that couldn’t flee was Wall Street, which put pressure on the city to “clean up its act” at the same time as it pressured the city over its financial obligations to bondholders. The problem was framed as one of “politically powerful labour unions” blackmailing the city to go easy on black criminals. The great irony of course was that every city union was in support of the Neoliberal coup and abrogation of the elected Mayor’s powers by an unelected council of bureaucrats. One racially tinged report states:

As primary author of the Kerner Commission report on the Watts Riots that had riled Los Angeles in 1965, Lindsay was a leading proponent of the claim that American racism blocked the conventional paths of upward mobility for African Americans, never mind compelling evidence of black economic progress in the 1960s. In Lindsay’s view, it was up to the government to create state-sponsored paths of social mobility for racial minorities. Thus, even at a time when the black male unemployment rate in New York was 4 percent and there were long columns of help-wanted ads for unskilled laborers in the Big Apple, Lindsay managed to double the welfare rolls to over one million. In doing so, he killed two birds with one stone, creating jobs for thousands of middle-class social workers. This would not have been so bad except that, in a condition unique to New York City, the state requires Gotham to foot one quarter of the bill for public income assistance and Medicaid. Lindsay would dig the hole even deeper after the Detroit and Newark race riots of 1967 and 1968. He became convinced that further social spending was the only sure way to avoid racial violence in New York. Maybe he was right, and maybe he wasn’t—at least New York was spared large-scale problems, although there were numerous small riots and a massive increase in violent crime that amounted to an ongoing rolling riot. But this relative stability had come at a steep price: Although its population was shrinking, and although spending on core services like police, fire, and sanitation declined as a percentage of overall expenditures, New York City’s budget grew by 125 percent during Lindsay’s tenure.

What is actually being expressed there is the inability of Capitalism to both maintain demands for rising living standards that might head off revolution and keep profitability from collapsing. So it was that New York ignored the tens of thousands of protesters who came out against Citibank in 1975 and handed control to Citibank and its comrades. In 1977, Ed Koch’s campaign of “law and order” and “fiscal restraint” showed how these policies could go hand in hand,and he became a leading light of the new economic order. However, the first examples of this are probably Nixon’s own 1972 campaign, where he maintained that the War on Drugs would be one of the few programs to survive budget cuts, and Nelson Rockefeller’s last years in office, where he became a prototypical Neoconservative, passing some of the harshest drug laws in the nation (Rockefeller would become Nixon’s Vice President).

Neoliberalism made many compacts in seeking consent among Americans. There was the compact to protect what was possible of the New Deal, but only amongst white Americans of that generation. The 1975 deal to keep New York’s bonds afloat included a union agreement to buy those bonds with their pension funds, so that they would see the same huge returns that banks would, at the cost of worsening the social services of New York overall and preventing their children, who can’t get hired as the city continually sheds staff to austerity, from having opportunities for a similarly cushy retirement. Banks were allowed to lend to poor, largely black but also white, Americans to keep them buying in exchange for securitizing mortgages for banks’ profits, a deal worked out in 1968 at semi-privatized but nominally state-controlled Fannie Mae. State investment in new computer technologies were handed over to the entrepreneurial classes, giving them new ways to profit and deepening the ability of American multinationals to exploit the third world. And, to answer your question, the state was given powerful new tools to surveil and control that meant it could absorb the excess unemployment it would create under Neoliberalism, in exchange for clearing out the neighbourhoods where both the white and black middle classes lived of “undesirables”. That’s why the big increase in incarceration comes not when Nixon declares a War on Drugs, which at first was largely for show, but when key Neoliberal Paul Volcker finally goes through with his interest rate shock in 1978, raising rates to 18% and putting 1 million out of work (including 22% of the construction industry and 24% of the automotive industry, both cores of lower class working life):

Of course, we shouldn’t just stick to the American milieu. The War on Drugs has been most pronounced internationally, especially in Latin America. America spent $7.3 billion in Colombia in the 2000s alone on the drug war. Most of this hasn’t gone to actually limiting production of drugs per se. Instead, drugs are brought under control of American allies, just as they were in Southeast Asia in the 50s and 60s. These drug lords, who had institutional links to the state authorities in each of their countries, put their money into American banks, essentially a way to capture and recycle some of the labour of American workers back into the Capitalist system. One UN estimate says that in 2008 $352 billion worth of drug money was sent through the American banking system. At the same time, drug wars are also effective in uprooting Latin American peasants and pushing them into cities. Colombia’s drug war operates under propaganda about peasant militias like FARC being drug profiteers, when the biggest drug lords in that country are in fact tied to right wing militias and the army itself. They bomb and invade peasant villages, creating refugees who travel to the cities and are forced to find work in American-owned factories. There, if these workers try to unionize, they’re assaulted by the very same militias armed under War on Drugs programs. This keeps their wages down and allows them to be exploited effectively under Neoliberalism. A similar process can be seen in Mexico, where the reigning Sinaloa Cartel is aided and abetted by the DEA in an effort to “stabilize” the country. Perhaps the most brazen was the Cocaine Coup of 1980 in Bolivia, where the CIA backed a group of drug lord and former Nazis under General Luis Garcia Meza in building a rather unstable state that topped about a year later. The dwindling of support for the War on Drugs, support for large prison populations and middle class black support for police may be signs of green shoots in the war on Neoliberalism, but I’m sure all of that will end up being monetized pretty heavily in new ways.

US political leaders react to the speedy firing of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates

After US President Donald Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates hours after she instructed lawyers at the Department of Justice not to defend an executive order temporarily banning refugees and people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering America, politicians across the country have quickly reacted with support and dismay.

Senior Democrats condemned the move. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi released a statement attacking House Republicans and said that Trump had fired Yates to “get the answer he wants”:

Acting Attorney General fired hours after speaking out against Trump travel ban

“Tonight, the Acting Attorney General was fired for upholding the Constitution of the United States. What the Trump Administration calls betrayal is an American with the courage to say that the law and the Constitution come first.

"President Trump’s executive order violates the Constitution, dishonors our values, and weakens the security of the United States. National security experts are warning that the President’s ban will make it harder, not easier to defeat terror.

Trump adviser Steve Bannon believes there is ‘a major war brewing’

"Earlier tonight, House Republicans blocked Democrats’ emergency bill to rescind this dangerous and unconstitutional executive order. Now, President Trump has fired the Acting Attorney General to get the answer he wants. Republicans will have to decide whether they will be complicit in the President’s reckless, wrathful and unconstitutional agenda.”

Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer called the action “chilling”, saying in a tweet that “The [Attorney General] should pledge fidelity to the law & the Constitution not the WhiteHouse. The fact that this admin doesnt understand that is chilling.”

'Substantial evidence’ the universe is a hologram

Yates was a holdover from the Obama administration. She would have kept the position until Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions is confirmed by the Senate.

Top Republicans came to Trump’s defence, with former Speaker of the House Next Gingrich referencing Trump’s time as host of the TV show, The Apprentice when he was known for the catchphrase “you’re fired”.

Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz, formerly a rival for the Republican presidential nomination, praised Trump as “exactly right” and accusing Yates of “lawless partisanship”.

Get your daily digest with the best of the day’s news, opinion, entertainment and sport

You may be interested in: