Brother Obama

The kings of Spain brought us the conquistadores and masters, whose footprints remained in the circular land grants assigned to those searching for gold in the sands of rivers, an abusive and shameful form of exploitation, traces of which can be noted from the air in many places around the country.

Tourism today, in large part, consists of viewing the delights of our landscapes and tasting exquisite delicacies from our seas, and is always shared with the private capital of large foreign corporations, whose earnings, if they don’t reach billions of dollars, are not worthy of any attention whatsoever.

Since I find myself obliged to mention the issue, I must add – principally for the youth – that few people are aware of the importance of such a condition, in this singular moment of human history. I would not say that time has been lost, but I do not hesitate to affirm that we are not adequately informed, not you, nor us, of the knowledge and conscience that we must have to confront the realities which challenge us. The first to be taken into consideration is that our lives are but a fraction of a historical second, which must also be devoted in part to the vital necessities of every human being. One of the characteristics of this condition is the tendency to overvalue its role, in contrast, on the other hand, with the extraordinary number of persons who embody the loftiest dreams.

Nevertheless, no one is good or bad entirely on their own. None of us is designed for the role we must assume in a revolutionary society, although Cubans had the privilege of José Martí’s example. I even ask myself if he needed to die or not in Dos Ríos, when he said, “For me, it’s time,” and charged the Spanish forces entrenched in a solid line of firepower. He did not want to return to the United States, and there was no one who could make him. Someone ripped some pages from his diary. Who bears this treacherous responsibility, undoubtedly the work of an unscrupulous conspirator? Differences between the leaders were well known, but never indiscipline. “Whoever attempts to appropriate Cuba will reap only the dust of its soil drenched in blood, if he does not perish in the struggle,” stated the glorious Black leader Antonio Maceo. Máximo Gómez is likewise recognized as the most disciplined and discreet military chief in our history.

Looking at it from another angle, how can we not admire the indignation of Bonifacio Byrne when, from a distant boat returning him to Cuba, he saw another flag alongside that of the single star and declared, “My flag is that which has never been mercenary…” immediately adding one of the most beautiful phrases I have ever heard, “If it is torn to shreds, it will be my flag one day… our dead raising their arms will still be able to defend it!” Nor will I forget the blistering words of Camilo Cienfuegos that night, when, just some tens of meters away, bazookas and machine guns of U.S. origin in the hands of counterrevolutionaries were pointed toward that terrace on which we stood.

Obama was born in August of 1961, as he himself explained. More than half a century has transpired since that time.

Let us see, however, how our illustrious guest thinks today:

“I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas. I have come here to extend the hand of friendship to the Cuban people,” followed by a deluge of concepts entirely novel for the majority of us:

“We both live in a new world, colonized by Europeans,” the U.S. President continued, “Cuba, like the United States, was built in part by slaves brought here from Africa. Like the United States, the Cuban people can trace their heritage to both slaves and slave-owners.”

The native populations don’t exist at all in Obama’s mind. Nor does he say that the Revolution swept away racial discrimination, or that pensions and salaries for all Cubans were decreed by it before Mr. Barack Obama was 10 years old. The hateful, racist bourgeois custom of hiring strongmen to expel Black citizens from recreational centers was swept away by the Cuban Revolution – that which would go down in history for the battle against apartheid that liberated Angola, putting an end to the presence of nuclear weapons on a continent of more than a billion inhabitants. This was not the objective of our solidarity, but rather to help the peoples of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau and others under the fascist colonial domination of Portugal.

In 1961, just one year and three months after the triumph of the Revolution, a mercenary force with armored artillery and infantry, backed by aircraft, trained and accompanied by U.S. warships and aircraft carriers, attacked our country by surprise. Nothing can justify that perfidious attack which cost our country hundreds of losses, including deaths and injuries

As for the pro-yankee assault brigade, no evidence exists anywhere that it was possible to evacuate a single mercenary. Yankee combat planes were presented before the United Nations as the equipment of a Cuban uprising.

The military experience and power of this country is very well known. In Africa, they likewise believed that revolutionary Cuba would be easily taken out of the fight. The invasion via southern Angola by racist South African motorized brigades got close to Luanda, the capital in the eastern part of the country. There a struggle began which went on for no less than 15 years. I wouldn’t even talk about this, if I didn’t have the elemental duty to respond to Obama’s speech in Havana’s Alicia Alonso Grand Theater.

Nor will I attempt to give details, only emphasize that an honorable chapter in the struggle for human liberation was written there. In a certain way, I hoped Obama’s behavior would be correct. His humble origin and natural intelligence were evident. Mandela was imprisoned for life and had become a giant in the struggle for human dignity. One day, a copy of a book narrating part of Mandela’s life reached my hands, and – surprise! – the prologue was by Barack Obama. I rapidly skimmed the pages. The miniscule size of Mandela’s handwriting noting facts was incredible. Knowing men such as him was worthwhile.

Regarding the episode in South Africa I must point out another experience. I was really interested in learning more about how the South Africans had acquired nuclear weapons. I only had very precise information that there were no more than 10 or 12 bombs. A reliable source was the professor and researcher Piero Gleijeses, who had written the text Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976, an excellent piece. I knew he was the most reliable source on what had happened and I told him so; he responded that he had not spoken more about the matter as in the text he had responded to questions from compañero Jorge Risquet, who had been Cuban ambassador and collaborator in Angola, a very good friend of his. I located Risquet; already undertaking other important tasks he was finishing a course which would last several weeks longer. That task coincided with a fairly recent visit by Piero to our country; I had warned him that Risquet was getting on and his health was not great. A few days later what I had feared occurred. Risquet deteriorated and died. When Piero arrived there was nothing to do except make promises, but I had already received information related to the weapons and the assistance that racist South Africa had received from Reagan and Israel.

I do not know what Obama would have to say about this story now. I am unaware as to what he did or did not know, although it is very unlikely that he knew absolutely nothing. My modest suggestion is that he gives it thought and does not attempt now to elaborate theories on Cuban policy.

There is an important issue:

Obama made a speech in which he uses the most sweetened words to express: “It is time, now, to forget the past, leave the past behind, let us look to the future together, a future of hope. And it won’t be easy, there will be challenges and we must give it time; but my stay here gives me more hope in what we can do together as friends, as family, as neighbors, together.”

I suppose all of us were at risk of a heart attack upon hearing these words from the President of the United States. After a ruthless blockade that has lasted almost 60 years, and what about those who have died in the mercenary attacks on Cuban ships and ports, an airliner full of passengers blown up in midair, mercenary invasions, multiple acts of violence and coercion?

Nobody should be under the illusion that the people of this dignified and selfless country will renounce the glory, the rights, or the spiritual wealth they have gained with the development of education, science and culture.

I also warn that we are capable of producing the food and material riches we need with the efforts and intelligence of our people. We do not need the empire to give us anything. Our efforts will be legal and peaceful, as this is our commitment to peace and fraternity among all human beings who live on this planet.

Fidel Castro Ruz

March 27, 2016

10:25 p.m.

Nordea-Bank hotar att lämna Sverige om nya finans skatter införs.

Nordea reagera på den av regeringen förslagna nya bank skatten, som kommer att hjälpa till att finansiera det svenska socialsystemet.

Skandinaviens största bank, Nordea, varnar regeringen i Stockholm från att använda sig av skatte verktyget mot banken. Detta påstår Bloomberg News.

Hotet är ett direkt svar på den av den svenska regeringen planerade skatt på finans transaktioner. Dessa inkomster kommer att hjälpa till att finansiera sociala utgifter.

Nordea varnade efter att förslaget offentligt gjordes, att man kommer att förlägga sin verksamhet till utlandet. Detta betyder att 16000 arbetsplatser kommer att försvinna till utlandet, eller att ett robot system kommer att ersätta dessa. Svenska regeringen anser detta hot överdrivet.

Nordea chefen Björn Wahlroos gav påpekade ytterligare med eftertryck att Nordea kommer att flytta sin verksamhet till utlandet, eller att man slår sig samman med den Holländska banken ABN Amro.

Denna option kan komma till stånd om skatte situationen ytligare försämras. “Genom att välja ABN Amro visar vi, att det från vår synpunkt är viktig att vi även I fortsättningen kan bedriva en konkurrensmässig bankverksamhet inom den redan så hård konkurrerande marknaden.

Wahlroos visar en vis tillfredställelse att Trump van president valet i USA. Jag basera mina förhoppningar på att den nya presidenten har antydd att han vill sänka skatten – och kanske även ändra regleringen för bankerna – vilket gör att utsikterna för US-handeln kommer att förbättras avsevärt. Det kommer även att visa sig om Trump´s inställning till frihandels avtalen, på lång sikt förorsakar problem. På kort sikt kommer hans skattesänkningar att stimulera den nuvarande handeln I framtiden.

Översatt från tyska Alfons

The nail test for Donald Trump: America needs fair wages


German Economic News, Michael Bernegger Published: 20.11.16 15:53 hrs.

Without immigrants, the US economy could no longer work. But the workers do not generally benefit from the growth of the economy. This contradiction is the core task of the economic policy of Donald Trump.

In the election campaign, Donald Trump promised the blue of heaven. Like Obama eight years ago (‘Yes we can’), he has found a catchy slogan (‘Make America great again’), which perfectly covers the Zeitgeist and, above all, conveys a vision (or ‘retroversion’). Now he or the future government must develop a coherent program from it. This is not an easy task. In reality, some of the promises promised are already contradictory. As a whole, I. Several of them are simply incompatible. In addition, political feasibility must be ensured.

It is to be emphasized that there will also be a great deal of uncertainty about future policy. Trump has won with a populist program that is partly not the Republican program. He just won it. The Republican Party establishment has been played on the wall by an outsider because its own program is absolutely incoherent and destructive.

Two articles outlined the possible focal points in industrial policy and tax and spending policy as a result of Trump’s election campaign. First, a few other core points are to be mentioned. In this article, we will focus on domestic policy issues. A further article will outline the implications for the global economy and the financial markets.

Immigration was a very big issue in the election campaign. Illegal immigration is to be prevented. To this end, a continuous, insurmountable wall is to be built on the border to Mexico. It is to be funded by Mexico. The illegally present foreigners are to be picked up and returned to their homelands. This requirement was extremely popular. It reflects a deep-seated malaise, expressed in open and hidden strangers. Here are some facts:

According to American statistics, some 42 million foreigners live in the United States. Their share of the total population has risen drastically over the past three decades – since the 1980s and especially in the 1990s and 2000s.


These statistics even undermine the true weight of immigrants, especially in the international context. For the US-born children of these foreigners who live in the USA are expected to be US citizens in the USA, even if the immigrants are illegally, I. Without a residence permit, in the USA. This is a big difference from the practice in most European countries, where the naturalization of the children can often only take place after a period of several years, possibly a decade or so. The available estimates show this population as a whole with 81 million foreigners and their children born in the USA. This is enormous, it is equivalent to a quarter of the total population. Such a strong immigration has existed only in a few European countries. The unwanted immigration to the United Kingdom, a main theme of Bruit, is not comparable to it.

Of these 42 million foreigners, around 11.4 million are currently illegally present. This appears to be relatively unimportant, but the real importance of illegal immigration appears to be too small. For parts of the illegal immigrants have received a residence permit over time. The number of illegally resident foreigners has slightly declined since the financial crisis, which seems plausible.

Immigration is by no means distributed evenly across the United States. Rather, it focuses on a few large federal states, where it reaches a high share of the population.


The graph clearly shows that immigration is concentrated in California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Florida and Illinois. In these states the share of foreigners is also very high. If the foreigners born in the United States were still counted, this would be quite considerable shares. In California, 27 percent of the population is foreigners. This would be more than 40 percent for children. These states also represent the growth regions of the past 20 to 30 years on the west and east coasts and in the south and north of the United States. In them, modern growth industries such as IT, energy, financial industry are located. In the election campaign, illegal immigration played an important role. The largest group of illegal foreigners are the Mexicans (56 percent), followed by other Central and Latin American (13 percent). They also focus on these growth regions. With the exception of Texas, these states have all voted for Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, some of them with sporadic distances to Donald Trump. The phenomenon of rejection of immigration is therefore very similar to that in the United Kingdom. Where the share of foreigners in the growth regions (London, Greater London) is very high, there were fewer reservations when voting on the Bruit. Where the proportion of foreigners was small and small, the Brexit was advocated.

However, the rejection of immigration is probably not related to illegal immigration. Behind it is much more a social question. Immigration is therefore politically so controversial, because parallel to the immigration, the average salaries of the employed have stagnated – over more than 30 years. However, this applies only to the paid-out Reals. For many employees this means a slipping from the middle class, especially since the turn of the millennium. The following chart shows the enormous structural break-up since the 1980s and explains why many people look back on the past. It should be pointed out here that consumer prices, and thus also the reallos, pose considerable measurement problems – especially in the long term. Inflation measurement in the early 1980s, for example, had a structural break. Presumably, the rollers did not record the losses in the 1970s, which the graphic suggests. There are also very different developments behind the stagnation for individual groups and segments of employees.


An addition, the employment of the working age population has declined significantly since about 2001. Many of the industry and related services have withdrawn from the labor market due to a lack of prospects, but would like to work. But the temporal congruence of accelerated immigration and stagnating living standards does not mean effective causality. The immigration has not compressed the Reals. The US is historically the country of immigration par excellence. Such long periods of strong immigration have traditionally been accompanied by strong macroeconomic growth, high investment, accelerated productivity growth, and rising rallies. The Nobel laureate Simon Kuznets, who developed the national accounts and was the first to appreciate the long-term and consistent in the US, has given the Kuznets cycles to these growth-driven growth phases. The development since the 1980s has been completely in tune with this experience of American economic history.


Labor productivity in the United States has risen sharply, with the exception of the years since the turn of the millennium, and especially since the financial crisis. But the real labor costs have not continued any longer since the 1980s. An enormous gap has opened up. The real labor costs also include the unpaid benefits of employers, such as contributions to health insurance. The gap has widened in the 2000s. Since the turn of the century, economic growth has therefore passed the majority of the population – in whole or in part.

Up until the turn of the millennium, this gap was not felt so strongly. The majority of households earned more than before. This was done for two reasons: the women’s employment rate had increased considerably, so that a second income was added. On the other hand, parts of the population had switched to second and third jobs to improve the stagnating initial income.

The growth rate of labor productivity has declined significantly since 2002. Part of this is difficulty of statistical coverage. But labor productivity has grown decisively even in the most likely underestimated data. Despite some strong economic growth, the realer have stagnated. Why this? There is, of course, a huge scientific discussion on this subject. We will find in a following article: US governments have put too much money into useless wars – and neglected important areas such as education and infrastructure. This is the biggest challenge for Donald Trump’s economic program – and probably his only chance.

translate into english


The Trump-Putin phone call has widespread geopolitical implications

Before even entering the White House, Donald Trump has made the world a safer and better place. There is much work to be done and things will not always – if ever – be easy. But there is much to rejoice in. The unthinkable is on the verge of becoming the inevitable.

It’s official, it is time to panic. The world has been pushed by Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to the brink of peace. I can already see the looks of fear and trepidation on the faces of the corrupt bloodthirsty princes of Saudi Arabia, the despots of Qatar, the apparatchiks of Brussels, the tired old guard of London and because Angela Merkel constantly looks miserable, I can detect no tangible change to her countenance whatsoever.

But the biggest surprise surrounding the phone call between the leaders of the world’s two most geopolitically powerful and relevant states, is that anyone is at all surprised. As I wrote hours ago, those who are waiting for President-elect  Trump to backtrack on his pledges and break his word are going to be sorrowfully disappointed, as disappointed as the filthy scum in the mainstream media who wish physical harm to President Putin, only to realise that he is as fit and intellectually able as any man in the world.

Trump is a man who is open for business and as the world knows all too well, Putin is a man who means business.

The only surprise is that if someone had told me as little as three years ago that there would be an American leader who would not only reach out to the Russian President, but understand that the crux of world peace and general prosperity is contingent upon the two countries working in concert, rather than under the guise of suspicion and hatred, I would have said, it will never happen in my lifetime.

This is, for all intents and purposes the closest that America and Russia have been since the Alaska Purchase of 1867. What’s more though, is that whilst that was a financial transaction born out of pragmatism on both sides and a healthy dose of mitigating skepticism from both sides, the embryonic yet evolving relationship between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin is born out of something vastly more profound than a transactional relationship.

Both men agree that strong states needs strong leaders with a strong purpose. Both understand that the main threat to wider world stability and peace is the Wahhabist terrorism funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the outgoing American government and aided by elements of the Turkish Republic. I hope that soon both men will make equally compelling statements in support of pulling the plug on the fascist regime in Kiev, a regime as evil as ISIS, though with fewer global ambitions or strategic capabilities.

Todays’ phone call also represents a vindication for those in United Russia who want to establish joint political dialogue between members of the Russian State Duma and the US Houses of Congress.  In terms of longer lasting profundity, it represents an opportunity for both countries to gain a deeper cultural understanding with one another, as was recently proposed by the LDPR.

Russian people have never had any animosity for the existence of the United States and its magnetic culture. Likewise, Russian culture captivates and inspires millions of Americans as it always has done. The fact that both men discussed the possibilities of further trade, makes me optimistic in this sense. Because of geographical distance and a recent history of political divide, Russians and Americans do not have the opportunity to trade as much as they’d like to or ought to.

Opening up such avenues can only be an enriching process for each country and can help form the basis of further cultural exchange.

When two superpowers unite in the name of justice and prosperity, one has the feeling that a war has been won without a shot being fired. That’s how many will feel tonight, though not everywhere.

The mainstream media in America, still controlled by a failing cabal of liberal miscreants will try and damn Trump, but they are only damning themselves to further oblivion.

The biggest losers, though, are Britain and Germany, two nations whose governments remain intransigent in the face of new, emerging geopolitical realities. Germany is a peculiar case.  In spite of membership of the short lived Three Emperors League between the years 1873-1887, after the wise and politically satisfied Otto von Bismarck was forced from power, the ultimate goal of a united German state has been and remains the destruction of Russia.

The fact that Angela Merkel has imported thousands of violent men of military age under the guise of humanitarianism,  speaks to the fact that Germany is looking to build a mercenary fighting force directed at a traditional late-modern enemy.

As frightening as the prospect sounds, there is a silver lining in this. The fact that Merkel needs to important young, violent men to do her bidding, means that actual Germans have little appetite for repeating the atrocities of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. Both in the former DDR and BRD, people have indeed learnt the lessons of the 9th of May and understand the concept of Vergangenheitsbewältigung (overcoming the past) in its truest sense.

They understand that a commitment to reconciliation and atoning for the anti-Russian aggression that destroyed many German lives and families in addition to the proximate victims of German aggression, must be avoided at all costs. Many Germans continue to lay flowers on Soviet war memorials in the spirit of reconciliation in which Willy Brandt governed West Germany. This spirit is profoundly lacking in the current German Chancellor.

I have no doubt that whether the blow comes from a left-hook or a right-jab, Merkel’s political fight will end in a knock out, one which will ultimately give Europe a more meaningful and less aggressive trajectory towards Russia.

Then one must turn to Britain. Britain too bears a paradoxical relationship to Russia. Britain’s most glorious military victories have been achieved whilst working with Russia. I speak obviously about the victory first over Napoleon and then over Hitler. Yet there is a deeply ingrained racism against Russia in certain quarters of the British establishment, one which would frankly make many in America cringe.

These people have internalised the madness of the Crimean War without repentance, these are the people who tacitly supported the Nihilists who assassinated Tsar Alexander II. These are indeed the people who at first cheered the October Revolution in the hopes it would make Russia crippled and weak.

These are the people who believe Orthodox Christians are somehow less worthy than Protestants and Catholics.  These are the people who now hide behind every flag from those of Al Qaeda to the rainbow in trying to make Russia look barbaric and evil, whilst failing to convince the world of their own myopic ideals.

But there is also another Britain, the Britain of Nigel Farage on the right and George Galloway on the left who realise that in trying to agitate Russia, Britain is making herself look foolish in the eyes of the wider world which now seems to also include the United States.

It is up to Germans to reject Merkel’s neo-imperialist agitations and it is up to fair minded, enlightened and patriotic Britons to reject the ill-convinced racism of their government.

In any case, with the geopolitical weight of Russia, America and possibly China and the rest of the BRICS on one side and Germany and Britain on the other, one doesn’t need to be a master strategist to see where the weight of power and influence lies.

Poland and Latvia will simply have to accept that they’ll no longer court attention by peddling the anti-Russian line. Estonia by contrast is about to install a government which will diminish its hostility both towards the Russian Federation and Russians living in modern Estonia.

Finally, to those who doubted Donald Trump, I spit on you. You have wished and continue to wish the man failure. The failure that you wish for will plunge the world into war and stifle many cultural and economic opportunities which cooperation between superpowers virtually guarantees. May you be damned for your lack of human charity.

Before even entering the White House, Donald Trump has made the world a safer and better place.  There is much work to be done and things will not always – if ever – be easy. But there is much to rejoice in. The unthinkable is on the verge of becoming the inevitable. May fortune smile on Vladimir Vladimirovich and Donald John.


And the winner is Donald Trump


Well all this guessing about the election in the USA. The citizens of the USA have voted for Trump, that is what democracy is all about. It has divided the country in 48% Clinton and 49% Trump.

Looking back for a moment and think. When Trump cam on the arena, how many of the American citizens thought that he is a real candidate for the presidency. Everybody was calling hem a clan “this man will never have a chance to become our president, he das not know what he is talking about”

Well here is the result. 80% of the mainstream media, who brainwashed half of the American population, who mention that Trump will not have a chance against Hillary Clinton, and half of the Americans thought that the mainstream media was right.

The only one who is fit for the presidency is Clinton, that’s what the establishment put into the Americans head. Look back what she has done. She is fighting for woman’s right in the USA and the world, dose she??

Who is one of the largest contributor for the Clinton Foundation, paying millions and millions of dollar into the funds. The countries who are most against the freedom of women in the world “Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Arab Emirates and many others.

So what dose that say in regards of Clintons play for women’s right? Hillary was not interested in women’s liberation, she was only interested in her and her foundations money. The one who was cheating on the American people was Clinton and their follower, which where the mainstream media.

Trump said words which where appalling to many people. Manny of the reporters mention that Tramp did say things which was not usual in the political establishment. This could have been a reason that he won this race. He did not talk in terms, which most of the politicians do, he spoke to the audience in words, they understood his expression, that the American political system was rotten, Trump talk to people, so the people could understand. They understood what he meant, and that was his biggest access which help him to win.

To understand the whole problem is very difficult, but that Clinton did not win was not a such big surprise, for many who followed Hillary. Hillary was very little liked in her own way. She was very arrogant, playing as if she has already won the election. Had help from many part of the establishment, from Obama and his wife, from the old establishment, that was afraid of to loos power, if Trump would win, so it was a new awaking after the election, for both the establishment and the republican and democratic parties leaders.

What the future will be one only speculate, as many of the people, not only in the United States, but also in the rest of the world, calculated that Clinton would, if not easily but surly win, and be the first women president of the Unites States of America.

If we look at the economy behind the two presidential candidates. Clinton is way ahead of Donald Trump, but for once money did not win her the election. That was one of the largest surprises under this election. Trump had all the media against him, he had all the establishment, not only in the USA, but also in the western world, against him. If we look back, most of the European countries where all behind Clinton. They where pretty sure, that everything would be the same as during the Obama precedency. But know everything will change.

Now many experts are scratching and thinking how could this happen? The are sitting, talking in the radio on television and other media, and trying to explain and analyze the situation. Manny of the questions are, in regards of the foreign policy. Who will be the new foreign minister in the White House? Who will be the new representative in the High Court? There are many questions unanswered, but we will soon se, which politics Trump will continue in the country.

All the answers are pure speculation. Nobody knows anything during the nearest future. Trump will take his time to sort out this questions, except for some people, which of course have been very close to him during the run for the presidency.

Yes, America will be a different country, it maybe not be run by the political elite, it may be run by ordinary people, which I hope will do their best to serf the country and its citizens. It is astonishing that this hysterical outburst from the commentators, that now the world will be a different world.

I look forward to a world that can change in a direction, which is serving the people and which is giving less austerity to the pore in this world. Trump will not be the person who will create this during his term, but it has put forward the question, a question which is most important, equality and freedom for all the people on this earth. Trump is a business man and he will act as such in a certain way, but be sure, it will not always work that way. He will surly learn how to negotiate with other leaders, if he can see a win win situation in the deal. That’s what business is all about.

Look at the Reagan administration, an actor a clown in cowboy boots, riding around in B-movies. It was he who cam to an agreement with the Russian president Gorbasjov, and put down the Berlin wall, at the same time stating the change of the Soviet Union, which fell a part. Reagan was not a political educated person; he was a person which wanted to work for a world in peace.

The USA has to forget the exceptionalism, it is not an Exceptionalism country, The United States of America is one of many countries on this earth, which has the same right and the same say, and the same future as any other country. It is very difficult to understand that, because you have the strongest military, the strongest economy, that you should decide the future of other independent countries. After world war two, The USA has intervened in more than 50 countries, where they either have directly change governments, or indirectly supported with the help of CIA and other organizations, changed the government, and at the same time supported their own leaders, which they thought would listen to the American politics.

Now since Trump has covert his visit to President Obama, where Obama has informed Trump, that he will help hem to inaugurate Trump into the Whit House.

The chock of the defeat will hang for a long time over the Democratic party. Some speculation is going on, that the leaders of the Democratic party have played a dirty game, when the where proposing and fighting for Clinton as president. It has com forward now after the election, that Sanders had more people on his rallies than Clinton. The only exception was that the reporters showed not the amount of participants, the showed only the part where people where listing, and if you hear to the reports, their where always less people when Clinton hold her speech.

Now there are demonstration in New York, Chicago and other towns in the US, where people are demonstrating against Donald Trump. They have forgotten that the are living in a democracy, where people are deciding who will bee their next president. Now it is to late to demonstrate. Start instead and work for a more democratic election where “all” parties can participate, not only the republican and the democrats. Yes, it is a chock for many, not least for the foreign partners of the US. The Baltic states are wondering how they can continue their russofobia, when Trump will talk to Putin about solving the tension between their countries. It will not bee easy for the NATO member to increase their military spending, so It will be on the same level, as the agreement says, that is 2% of the countries BNP. This will include more austerity for the pure and more money for the war industry. This is maybe the policy of Trump.

One thing is clear, the old establishment in Washington has been hit with a heavy hammer, and it will take a long time for them to understand, that it is not the old elite who is any longer running the United States of America.


Republican Kelly Ayott lost millions of dollars by defying Koch brothers on CLIMAT CHANGE.

 By Alleen Brown “The Intercept”

CLIMATE  CHANGE IS urgent, human-caused, and real, yet all but one of the Republican Senate candidates in competitive races this year say they have doubts. If enough of them win to retain a GOP majority in the Senate, ambitious climate-change legislation is presumably doomed.

So why are Republicans so wed to a conclusion that defies science? New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s experience offers a clue. Ayotte is the only Republican senator in a competitive race who acknowledges humans are behind climate change and who backs President Obama’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Her stance came at a cost: millions of dollars in lost funding from the climate-denial-funding oil billionaire brothers, Charles and David Koch.

In January 2015, senators voted yes or no on whether “human activity significantly contributes to climate change,” and only five Republican senators voted “yes,” including Ayotte.

Back then, organizations backed by the Koch brothers still seemed interested in New Hampshire. Their nonprofit Americans for Prosperity spent $1.2 million in August on ads attacking Ayotte’s opponent, Gov. Maggie Hassan. But in October 2015, Ayotte came out in favor of the Clean Power Plan, President Obama’s carbon emissions reduction strategy.

As money from Koch-backed groups poured into other states, it ran dry in New Hampshire. Here’s how much the Koch network spent on each Senate candidate in the eight states from January 2015 through November 2016:

State Republican candidate Koch network funding
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio $3,646,059
Indiana Rep. Todd Young $2,464,202
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt $1,254,193
Nevada Rep. Joe Heck $9,109,342
New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte $0
North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr $1,451,053
Pennsylvania Sen. Patrick Toomey $9,936,202
Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson $3,064,603

Source: Center for Responsive Politics

The Koch nonprofit Americans for Prosperity did not respond to a request for comment, but has indicated in other interviews that Ayotte’s support for Obama’s carbon emission reduction plan was behind their decision.

Dynamics in Pennsylvania hint at the scope of what Ayotte was denied. The state’s incumbent Sen. Patrick Toomey is, like Ayotte, facing a fierce fight. He voted “no” on the are-humans-causing-climate-change question in January 2015 and is vehemently opposed to Obama’s climate plan. At a recent campaign stop, he told local coal workers, “There are a lot of times when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. … I don’t think taxpayers should be forced to subsidize these inefficient sources of energy.”

Koch-backed organizations have shown their support for Toomey with millions in spending on his race. The Koch brothers’ campaign data analyzer i360 reportedly identified 600,000 Pennsylvania voters who were Republican-leaning but either unenthusiastic or undecided.  Data in hand, Americans for Prosperity deployed volunteers from across the Northeast, including from New Hampshire, to knock on those voters’ doors.

Many of their targets had likely already seen ads from the Kochs’ Super PAC, Freedom Partners Action Fund, which since last May has been buying space on TV and social media to attack Toomey’s opponent, Katie McGinty. The Super PAC and the nonprofit, along with another Koch-backed nonprofit, Concerned Veterans for America, have together spent nearly $10 million to keep Toomey’s seat red.

The New Hampshire race is the only one among eight considered to be the most competitive that has not benefited from outside spending from the most important Koch-affiliated organizations. Ohio, which is less competitive, has also seen floods of Koch network cash.

To wrestle majority status away from the Republicans, Democrats will need to flip only four seats next Tuesday from red to blue; if Hillary Clinton loses the presidential race, they’ll need five. In an election that falls on the hottest year on record, the fate of the swing Senate races has major consequences for the future.

The reminders come almost daily. On Thursday, the United Nations Environment Programme released a dire report, warning, “Current commitments [under the Paris climate agreement] will reduce emissions by no more than a third of the levels required by 2030 to avert disaster,” adding that if urgent action isn’t taken, “We will grieve over the avoidable human tragedy; the growing numbers of climate refugees hit by hunger, poverty, illness and conflict will be a constant reminder of our failure to deliver. None of this will be the result of bad weather. It will be the result of bad choices by governments, private sector and individual citizens.”

President Obama’s carbon emissions reduction strategy, the Clean Power Plan, was created by executive order, yet the Republican-controlled Senate has done what it can to block it. In November 2015, the Senate approved two resolutions that would have halted the plan. Obama vetoed the measures, and the rule continues to be fought in courts.

The Senate races feature a who’s who of climate policy obstructionists. North Carolina incumbent Sen. Richard Burr introduced a 2011 bill that would have eliminated the Environmental Protection Agency, merging it with the Energy Department. Last May, Missouri incumbent Sen. Roy Blunt introduced a resolution against a possible carbon tax, even though one wasn’t being formally debated. His current legislative director, Tracy Henke, used to be chief operating officer and executive vice president for Americans for Prosperity.

In Nevada, home of outgoing Koch arch-enemy Democrat Sen. Harry Reid, $9 million has poured in from Koch-backed organizations to be sure he won’t be replaced with Democrat contender Catherine Cortez Masto. And in Florida, the Koch-backed non-profit Libre Initiative, which spreads its message by providing “everything from English classes to drivers’ license classes and citizenship classes,” is one of several Koch groups that have together spent $3.6 million to make sure incumbent Sen. Marco Rubio wins. This spring, Rubio claimed, “As far as a law that we can pass in Washington to change the weather, there’s no such thing.”

The Sierra Club’s legislative director Melinda Pierce disagrees. She points to an infrastructure plan Clinton has promised to send to Congress within her first 100 days in office as the type of climate-related legislation incoming senators may be able to influence. The plan would include efforts to strengthen communities’ climate resiliency. “Control of the gavel, and control of the Senate is critical in order to make any headway on a legislative agenda,” Pierce said.

The Koch brothers have a material interest in preventing that. The University of Massachusetts Amherst rated Koch Industries among the top 25 corporate emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases in 2014. Meanwhile, the Kochs continue to be the biggest organizing force for political donations outside of the parties. A recent report from the Brennan Center showed that the majority of the outside money pouring into the 10 most competitive Senate races falls into one of three categories: the Democratic party and its “shadow party groups,” the Republican party and its shadow groups, and Koch-linked Super PACs and nonprofits.

In the end, Ayotte did not lack outside spending in her favor. The Republicans’ swing state shadow group, the Senate Leadership Fund, came to her rescue. It has raised $75.6 million to be spent in competitive states, including Pennsylvania, Nevada, Indiana, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and New Hampshire. The fund filled the cash gap left open by the Koch network in New Hampshire by donating $19 million to the Super PAC Granite State Solutions, more than it spent on any other Senate race.

The Senate Leadership Fund has attracted millions in fossil fuel donations, so it’s clear Ayotte didn’t entirely alienate the fossil fuel industry — or even the Kochs. A month after her statement on the Clean Power Plan, David Koch and his wife Julia donated $10,800 to her campaign, which has received $341,065 in total from the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.