I have always found discussions on democracy in the U.S. curious and at times hilarious. While I have always been impressed by the skillful way elites construct a narrative of democratic values and practice in a country that is, in reality, the antithesis of a democracy, the fervor with which that fairytale is embraced, even by intellectuals, has always been a source of curiosity for me. But at other moments, like the one we are in now, I can't help but find some of the arguments used to support the U.S. Supreme Court's recent McCutcheon decision - and even some of the comments lamenting how the decision will destroy democracy in the U.S. - somewhat funny.

Of course, these are deadly serious times and the McCutcheon decision, which makes it easier for the corporate and financial elite to buy elections and candidates, is a serious ruling that conveys a devastatingly simple message: that the furtherance of the neoliberal project and the maintenance of the U.S. Empire require the evisceration of democracy.

U.S. House Republicans narrowly passed a new balanced budget plan from Representative Paul Ryan on Thursday in a vote that will help shape the debate ahead of November's congressional elections.

The plan authored by Ryan, the influential House Budget Committee chairman, would eliminate deficits within 10 years, due largely to deep cuts to social safety net programs, grants for college students, and research and infrastructure spending. It also seeks to boost defense spending over the next decade without any increase in tax revenues.

In a simple model of democratic politics, there are three basic drivers of political decision making:

• The collective opinion of average citizens
• The collective opinion of the affluent
• The lobbying of interest groups

But which of these really matter? Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page studied 1,779 policy outcomes over two decades and came to a pretty simple conclusion: the collective opinion of average citizens doesn't matter a whit:

A woman was taken into federal custody Thursday after throwing a shoe at Hillary Rodham Clinton as the former secretary of state began a Las Vegas convention keynote speech.

The incident happened moments after Clinton took the stage before an Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries meeting at the Mandalay Bay resort.

Clinton ducked, and she did not appear to be hit by the object. She then joked about it.

"Is that somebody throwing something at me? Is that part of Cirque de Soleil?" Clinton quipped.

Many in the audience of more than 1,000 people in a large ballroom laughed and applauded as Clinton resumed her speech.

"My goodness, I didn't know that solid waste management was so controversial," Clinton said. "Thank goodness she didn't play softball like I did."

Brian Spellacy, U.S. Secret Service supervisory special agent in Las Vegas, said the woman was being questioned and would face criminal charges. Spellacy declined to identify the woman, and he said it wasn't immediately clear what the charges would be.

Author's note: The world is currently commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. The official story is that the genocide directed against the Tutsi population was triggered by the Interhamwe militia of the Habyarimana government in the wake of the plane crash which led to the death of president Habyarimana. The evidence suggests that the United States played a covert role in shooting down the plane.

The geopolitics underlying the Rwandan genocide should be understood.

Whereas France was accused of supporting the Habyarimana government. the United States played an undercover role in triggering the genocide.

The ultimate objective was to displace France from Central Africa. It is worth noting that that a similar situation is unfolding in the Central African republic which historically has been an area of French influence. Ethnic divisions between Christians and Muslims are being fomented the ultimate objective is to establish a US proxy states in the Central African republic.

The 1994 Rwandan "genocide" served strictly strategic and geopolitical objectives. The ethnic massacres were a stumbling blow to France's credibility which enabled the US to establish a neocolonial foothold in Central Africa. From a distinctly Franco-Belgian colonial setting, the Rwandan capital Kigali has become - under the expatriate Tutsi led RPF government - distinctly Anglo-American. English has become the dominant language in government and the private sector. Many private businesses owned by Hutus were taken over in 1994 by returning Tutsi expatriates. The latter had been exiled in Anglophone Africa, the US and Britain.

The Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) functions in English and Kinyarwanda, the University previously linked to France and Belgium functions in English. While English had become an official language alongside French and Kinyarwanda, French political and cultural influence will eventually be erased. Washington has become the new colonial master of a francophone country.

In the words of former Cooperation Minister Bernard Debré in the government of France's Prime Minister Henri Balladur:

"What one forgets to say is that, if France was on one side, the Americans were on the other, arming the Ugandans, who armed the Tutsis. I don't want to portray a showdown between the French and the Anglo-Saxons, but the truth must be told." 43

Originally written in May 2000, published on Global research in May 2003, the following text is Part II of Chapter 7 entitled "Economic Genocide in Rwanda", Second Edition of The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order , Global Research, 2003.

From access to healthcare and education, gender equality, attitudes toward immigrants and minorities, the U.S. looks like a second-rate nation.

If America needed a reminder that it is fast becoming a second-rate nation, and that every economic policy of the Republican Party is wrongheaded, it got one this week with the release of the Social Progress Index (SPI).

Harvard business professor Michael E. Porter, who earlier developed the Global Competitiveness Report, designed the SPI. A new way to look at the success of countries, the SPI studies 132 nations and evaluates 54 social and environmental indicators for each country that matter to real people. Rather than measuring a country's success by its per capita GDP, the index is based on an array of data reflecting suicide, ecosystem sustainability, property rights, access to healthcare and education, gender equality, attitudes toward immigrants and minorities, religious freedom, nutrition, infrastructure and more.

The index measures the livability of each country. People everywhere depend on and care about similar things. "We all need clean water. We all want to feel safe and live without fear. People everywhere want to get an education and improve their lives," says Porter. But economic growth alone doesn't guarantee these things.

While the U.S. enjoys the second highest per capita GDP of $45,336, it ranks in an underperforming 16th place overall. It gets worse. The U.S. ranks 70th in health, 69th in ecosystem sustainability, 39th in basic education, 34th in access to water and sanitation and 31st in personal safety.

More surprising is the fact that despite being the home country of global tech heavyweights Microsoft, Cisco, IBM, Oracle, and so on, the U.S. ranks a disappointing 23rd in access to the Internet. "It's astonishing that for a country that has Silicon Valley, lack of access to information is a red flag," notes Michael Green, executive director of the Social Progress Imperative, which oversees the index.

If this index is an affront to your jingoistic sensibilities, the U.S. remains in first place for the number of incarcerated citizens per capita, adult onset diabetes and for believing in angels.

Or is it...farce?

Charles Hushburg sends word of this political assessment.

US Secretary of State John Kerry couldn't hide his frustration anymore as the US-sponsored peace process continued to falter. After eight months of wrangling to push talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority forward, he admitted while in a visit to Morocco on April 4 that the latest setback had served as a 'reality check' for the peace process. But confining that reality check to the peace process is hardly representative of the painful reality through which the United States has been forced to subsist in during the last few years.

The state of US foreign policy in the Middle East, but also around the world, cannot be described with any buoyant language. In some instances, as in Syria, Libya, Egypt, the Ukraine, and most recently in Palestine and Israel, too many calamitous scenarios have exposed the fault lines of US foreign policy. The succession of crises is not allowing the US to cut its losses in the Middle East and stage a calculated 'pivot' to Asia following its disastrous Iraq war.

US foreign policy is almost entirely crippled.

For the Obama administration, it has been a continuous firefighting mission since George W. Bush left office. In fact, there have been too many 'reality checks' to count.

Per the logic of the once powerful pro-Israel Washington-based neoconservatives, the invasion of Iraq was a belated attempt at regaining initiative in the Middle East, and controlling a greater share of the energy supplies worldwide. Sure, the US media had then made much noise about fighting terror, restoring democracies and heralding freedoms, but the neo-cons were hardly secretive about the real objectives. They tirelessly warned about the decline of their country's fortunes. They labored to redraw the map of the Middle East in a way that they imagined would slow down the rise of China, and the other giants that are slowly, but surely, standing on their feet to face up to the post-Cold War superpower.

Many Americans expecting to see their tax refunds in their bank accounts soon are waking up to a very different scenario: the government actively intercepting their checks in order to pay back debts they're not responsible for.

According to a new report in the Washington Post, the federal government is seizing nearly $2 billion from hundreds of thousands of taxpayers this year in order to settle debts, some incurred by their parents, some dating back to more than a decade.

This process has been ongoing since 2011, when a revision in the farm bill passed by Congress removed the 10-tier statute of limitations on debts owed to the United States. Since that bill was passed, the government has collected $424 million on debts older than a decade. This year, however, has seen the Social Security Administration (SSA) alone claim that 400,000 Americans owe a total of $714 million in debts older than 10 years.

Multiple government agencies told the Post they were not responsible for pushing for the change, with Social Security spokeswoman Dorothy Clark saying, "We have an obligation to current and future Social Security beneficiaries to attempt to recoup money that people received when it was not due."

In one case documented by the newspaper, 58-year-old Mary Grice of Maryland discovered her tax refund had been seized by the government to pay for a debt she did not even know existed, and had been incurred under her father's Social Security number. Her father died in 1960, but her mother - also deceased now - received survivor's benefits, and the SSA claims it overpaid someone back in 1977 although it is not sure who.

Brushing aside concerns over potential lawsuits, a bill has been sent to the Louisiana state legislature that would make the Bible the official state book.

On an 8-5 vote, the House municipal committee advanced the bill which now goes to the full House for debate, according to WWLTV.


Rep. Thomas Carmody (R) said he sponsored the proposal at the request of a constituent but insisted that the bill wasn't designed to be a state-endorsement of Christianity.

"It's not to the exclusion of anyone else's sacred literature," he told the House committee. He added, "This is not about establishing an official religion of the state of Louisiana."

Not all legislators agreed, with some pointing out that it might not pass muster with the courts.

Rep. Wesley Bishop (D) said that, as a preacher's son, he loved the idea. However, as a lawyer, he thinks the bill has problems.

"I think we're going to open ourselves up to a lawsuit. You can't adopt the Bible and not adopt Christianity," he said after voting against the measure.

Other legislators see the bill as exclusionary.