Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/09/22/trump-never-noticed-modern-day-american-genocide
Older whites, dying disproportionately, favor Republicans. Not sure Thom’s hypothesis holds up.
The real indictment is the US political system. Two hundred thousand dead with a leader denying everything, and we can do nothing about it.
Why is this?
The “greatest country” in the world cannot stop a pathologically lying anti-leader who openly calls for violence against those who don’t blindly support him? A man installed by a political organization created to keep black voters in check, who lost the popular vote to the LEAST liked candidate in modern history, who’s been impeached and then lets 200k citizens die?
If this were 90% of any other country in the world, these leaders would have been dragged out of office physically by angry mobs. Instead, the “angry mobs” (who are sporting both parties sanctioned assault rifles) are those supporting the despot-in-chief and screaming that they’re being subjected to tyranny because certain retail establishments require masks to be worn.
I’ve been warning of the Night of the Longknives 2.0 for some time now.
What is being done to stop any of this?
Moaning sounds from the opposition party? Strongly worded press releases.
The real genocide is the healthcare system thats based on money, so that means that people without jobs will be looking at horrible alternatives, and maybe even genocide because they have no more money.
People all over the world, including the U.S., are dying/getting killed due to “American Exceptionalism” which allows the powers that be to do whatever they want to do, in order to keep the United States secure for the betterment of the rich. The rest of the global population is left to fight for the scraps.
The story of how we’re doing this is not at all what people expect. Its so outrageous that we could change it if people knew and spoke up all around the world in large numbers. But they are rigging it so that whan that occurrs, the way we pay for it is going to hurt us, the people of this country even worse. So its a real emergency, we must self-police. But the expert scammers - the people who we’re wrongfully trusting to make the call are the people who have been setting this scam up. Our country is totally captured, as are the leaders of all the other countries who are claiming to not want it, basically the rich all made a deal to dump their responsibilities, saying the US forced them to do it, They are very very slick at getting their way and dumping the bill onto others, Its a false flag attack on all of us, nothing is as it seems. As they frame it, so that the responsible, the very rich group at the tip of the elephants trunk, get off scot free, the world’s poor and especially, as the poor have nothing, the middle class must now be sacrificed.
We’re all being led into a trap
it rotates around a 26 year old deal (actually 34 year old deal on services,
Yeah uh, I cannot disagree with what you say. Any other countrypeople would have ended this long ago. But the levers of power are so far removed from the populace that nothing gets done.
Nice post. Thanks
If any are not aware, the current legal definition of ‘genocide’ is below:
‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Full text is here:
Projected deaths Covide-19 deaths in the U.S. (column on the right of the table) if it had the same ‘deaths per million’ (center column) as 6 developed countries with rates under 50 per million and 6 developed countries with rates over 100 per million.
Data as at: September 22, 2020, 20:41 GMT
"Proposals on the table at the GATS negotiations would create a variety of grounds to challenge domestic
regulations, including if they were not ‘necessary’ or not ‘reasonable’. If a necessity test is agreed to,
‘ WTO dispute panels would become the ultimate arbiter of whether government regulations over
services such as water supply, education, health, and cultural services are really necessary’ to realize
a government’s objectives. The Really Good Friends group includes some of the most aggressive
supporters – such as Australia and Switzerland – as well key opponents – such as the US and Canada -
of a necessity test.
Despite how controversial the necessity test has been at the GATS negotiations, promoters of imposing
a necessity test are viewing TISA as affording another opportunity to push this through. 43 The countries22
P SI Sp e c i a l Re p ort
- Chile, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Mexico, and Switzerland - that took the most intransigent position
insisting that a necessity test be inserted into GATS disciplines have submitted papers on domestic
regulation to the TISA talks. 44
“ aWTO dispute panels would become the ultimate arbiter of
whether government regulations over services such as water
supply, education, health, and cultural services are really
Corporate lobbyists have necessity testing of regulations as a priority in their demands. For example, the
Global Federation of Insurance Associations has declared that TISA should require that universal service
obligations cannot be “more burdensome than necessary for the kind of universal services defined by
the member.” 45
Universal service obligations are regulations requiring that the poor and hard-to-serve populations such
as residents of rural areas have access to services. A necessity test incorporated into either TISA or the
GATS could make regulations on universal access to services subject to a trade challenge if there were
alternatives that were less burdensome to business.
In deciding the necessity of a universal services regulation, dispute panels would weigh whether a
government’s objective in achieving universal access to a service was important enough to justify how
significant its impact was on trade. They would also judge whether the regulations were effective in
achieving universal access. In addition, they would decide whether there were alternatives that were less
of a burden to business and reasonably available that governments could have pursued. 46 Government
regulations can fail a necessity test on any of these grounds.
What would be the results of a necessity test applied to universal service obligations in health care? If
Really Good Friends countries rise to the highest common denominator of liberalization like they are
being urged to do, they would have to commit health insurance services as the US has already done in
its GATS commitments. The Obama Administration’s Affordable Care Act 47 is an example of what could
fail the necessity test advocated by the Global Federation of Insurance Associations. The Affordable Care
Act imposes standards for health care plans for individual and small group markets requiring them
to include ‘essential health benefits’ such as care for pregnant women and newborns, generally an
expensive patient group to serve. 48 The Act also stipulates that insurance providers cannot deny coverage
due to pre-existing conditions. 49
Although the US government’s objectives in extending health insurance to the uninsured could be
accepted by a dispute panel as important, the Affordable Care Act’s standards could be judged too
burdensome to business in light of alternatives the US could have pursued. Groups like the Heritage
Foundation have argued there are more market friendly alternatives to the Act. The Heritage Foundation
has proposed flat tax credits be given to individuals so they can buy health insurance in the open
market. 50 If TISA imposes a necessity test on non-discriminatory regulations, as the insurance industry
is calling for, trade panels will essentially be empowered to decide what kind of options countries are
allowed to adopt in critical areas like health care."
“Developing countries cannot expect to fare any better than OECD members when there is a trade challenge
to their regulations. Although WTO dispute panels are in theory supposed to take into consideration the
special challenges faced by developing countries, in practice panels have still insisted that developing
country regulations have to be made consistent with their trade agreement commitments.
“ aThe Obama Administration’s Affordable Care Act 47 is an
example of what could fail the necessity test advocated by the
Global Federation of Insurance Associations. ”
For example, in defending against a US challenge to its telecom regulations based on GATS
telecommunications regulatory disciplines, Mexico argued the panel should take account of Mexico’s
special concern as a developing nation to promote universal access to telecommunications services
and to improve its networks. 51 But the WTO panel ruled against Mexico, stating that “contrary to
Mexico’s position, the general state of the telecommunications industry’ and the ‘coverage and quality
of the network” were not relevant to a decision on whether regulations setting interconnection rates
were reasonable. 52 The panel concluded that Mexico’s telecommunications regulations were neither
‘reasonable’ nor ‘necessary’. 53
When trade panels come out with these kinds of findings, trade officials can express surprise that their
own country’s regulations have been ruled to violate the trade agreements they have worked to create
and expand. For example, the US Trade Representatives Office called the WTO panel ruling against the
US ban on cross-border gambling “shocking and troubling”. 54
However, when the offensive interests of exporters are the overriding preoccupation of trade officials
and citizens’ concerns are given short shrift, the stage is set for unanticipated trade challenges.
Speaking at a 2012 conference of the transnational services lobby held on TISA, Ron Kirk, the US Trade
Representative at the time, even asked for business to help government “combat groups who are
anti-trade.” 55 Kirk’s misuse of the term ‘trade’ invokes the pretence that these agreements are about
nothing more than trade, and misrepresents critics in the same way.”
"According to the European Commission, TISA negotiators will develop a series of regulatory disciplines
for particular sectors, including postal and financial services. 56
Going by what the delivery services lobby is seeking, the changes to postal and courier services could be
significant. The Express Association of America, representing transnational giants like UPS and FedEx,
says 57 its expectations of TISA are that it will:
• Eliminate regulations that favour public postal services,
• Eliminate licensing requirements for express delivery providers, and
• Eliminate requirements for express delivery providers to contribute to universal service funds.
This lobby group states that TISA “provides an opportunity to review the postal policies of the negotiating
partners…” But given the extreme secrecy surrounding the negotiations and its coercive negotiating
structure, TISA is the wrong forum for national postal policies to be revised. Change on the scale that
the transnational express delivery lobby is seeking should be debated in legislatures and not decided
behind the closed doors of the TISA negotiations.
In terms of financial services, a leaked draft of TISA’s Annex on Financial Services 58 indicates it generally
adopts the provisions of the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. 59 This understanding
is a WTO agreement some of its members have signed with enhanced rules and commitments to
liberalize financial services. Among the deregulatory provisions in the Understanding are: a prohibition
against limiting the ability of foreign financial service providers to provide any new financial service; a
standstill limiting non-conforming policies to existing ones; and a requirement that members of the
agreement endeavour to limit or eliminate any measures, even though non-discriminatory, that “affect
adversely the ability of financial service suppliers of any other Member to operate, compete or enter the
Note: Existing ones, means existing in 1998, so the ACA’s sdditions are deemed a violation under both TISA and the already existing services deal. Its likely to be challenged by foreign countries that see it as depriving them of patients they would otherwise be entitled to under GATS because they are subsidized.
(despite a reservation we have that limits government spending to US licensed facilities, there is a superiod GATS rule, mentioned above that could demand that the solution thats least restrictive to business be used.)
Source is Ellen Gould’s Really Good Friends of Transnational Corporations Report, Published September 2014
by Public Services International (PSI)
Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS)
Please read it.
as many as 6 million dead Americans
Sez Tom… without citing a source. I track a composite property of outbreak statistics I call trouble, which roughly connotes projective demographic mortality. That metric projects just a quarter of Tom’s six million for USA as a whole, at this writing. (Trouble of 456 per 100K, on the bottom line of the chart below, equates to 1.5 million deaths, projected and cumulative.)
The orientation I get from the following sort of United States by trouble seems to reliably derive an interesting interstate comparison – at least at the top, where trouble (at around 3K) foresees 3% of the population dying of COVID in half a dozen (mainly deep south) states:
> STATE MORTALITY CASES DEATHS PER-CASE TROUBLE > PER 100,000 FATALITY > 1. Mississippi 94.42 93,556 2,810 3.00% 3143.04 > 2. Louisiana 115.66 161,462 5,377 3.33% 3020.74 > 3. Alabama 49.74 145,780 2,439 1.67% 2973.28 > 4. Florida 62.00 685,439 13,317 1.94% 2944.16 > 5. Georgia 62.20 307,339 6,604 2.15% 2894.37 > 6. Arizona 75.26 214,251 5,478 2.56% 2778.18 > 7. South Carolina 62.38 138,124 3,212 2.33% 2683.23 > 8. Rhode Island 103.55 23,932 1,097 4.58% 2259.01 > 9. Illinois 68.60 277,920 8,693 3.13% 2192.43 > 10. Nebraska 23.37 41,388 452 1.09% 2139.74 > 11. Idaho 25.01 37,901 447 1.18% 2121.54 > 12. New Jersey 180.91 200,154 16,069 8.03% 2110.51 > 13. Utah 13.76 64,394 441 0.69% 2008.17 > 14. Missouri 29.95 115,537 1,838 1.59% 1882.28 > 15. North Carolina 30.96 194,355 3,247 1.67% 1852.72 > 16. Kansas 20.63 53,627 601 1.12% 1840.23 > 17. California 38.10 790,096 15,056 1.91% 1772.33 > 18. Wisconsin 21.37 102,498 1,244 1.21% 1738.49 > 19. Indiana 52.17 112,027 3,512 3.13% 1664.02 > 20. Virginia 35.37 141,022 3,019 2.14% 1651.26 > 21. Connecticut 126.08 56,024 4,495 8.02% 1571.44 > 22. Puerto Rico 19.07 42,476 609 1.43% 1329.78 > 23. New York 170.11 450,473 33,092 7.35% 1252.45 > 24. Ohio 39.55 145,165 4,623 3.19% 1241.76 > 25. Michigan 69.90 129,662 6,981 5.38% 1222.49 > 26. Massachusetts 134.07 129,182 9,317 7.21% 1176.65 > 27. Pennsylvania 62.37 155,693 7,985 5.13% 1157.63 > 28. Colorado 35.04 65,379 2,018 3.09% 1135.15 > 29. Maryland 64.23 120,568 3,883 3.22% 791.67 > 30. Oregon 12.54 30,995 529 1.71% 734.74 > 31. Washington 26.91 82,730 2,049 2.48% 654.70 > 32. Nevada 49.70 76,036 1,531 2.01% 552.15 > 33. South Dakota 22.83 18,869 202 1.07% 228.20 > 34. Kentucky 24.89 61,917 1,112 1.80% 157.48 > 35. Delaware 64.39 19,667 627 3.19% 140.03 > 36. District of Columbia 87.99 14,978 621 4.15% 122.66 > 37. New Mexico 40.59 27,683 851 3.07% 111.10 > 38. Texas 52.17 734,778 15,127 2.06% 108.45 > 39. Iowa 40.70 81,007 1,284 1.58% 86.45 > 40. Tennessee 32.68 184,409 2,233 1.21% 73.86 > 41. Arkansas 39.66 76,364 1,197 1.57% 71.82 > 42. North Dakota 25.33 18,244 193 1.06% 71.51 > 43. Hawaii 8.47 11,459 120 1.05% 59.55 > 44. Minnesota 35.84 90,942 2,021 2.22% 59.48 > 45. Oklahoma 23.96 77,908 948 1.22% 50.87 > 46. Montana 14.97 10,429 160 1.53% 45.72 > 47. West Virginia 17.58 14,181 315 2.22% 42.08 > 48. New Hampshire 32.21 7,952 438 5.51% 39.49 > 49. Alaska 6.15 6,892 45 0.65% 32.63 > 50. Wyoming 8.64 4,944 50 1.01% 17.00 > 51. Maine 10.41 5,106 140 2.74% 14.59 > 52. Vermont 9.29 1,719 58 3.37% 12.01 > > TOTAL 60.22 6,854,633 199,807 2.92% 455.91
What did you expect? Hartmann is a professional propagandist for the NY(cia) Times.
Hyperbole, false equivalence and predetermined conclusions is how he makes a living.