Obama Wants $5 a Gallon Gas.

IMF: halt in Iran oil could push crude up 30 pct

Yes, the forecasters and analysts at the IMF, not exactly the home of peaceniks, is predicting as much as a 30% rise in the price of crude oil due to the sanctions on Iran and the threat of war that such an act implies. Don't forget that it was the same sort of sanctions on Japan in 1941 that put Japan's leaders into the frame of mind that war with America was inevitable. This of course was followed by the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Phillipines and other American colonial possessions in the Pacific.

The International Monetary Fund warned on Wednesday that global crude prices could rise as much as 30 percent if Iran halts oil exports as a result of U.S. and European Union sanctions.

If Iran halts exports to countries without offsets from other sources it would likely trigger an "initial" oil price jump of 20 to 30 percent, or about $20 to $30 a barrel, the IMF said in its first public comment on a possible Iranian oil supply disruption.

Now, anyone who's watched an oil company in operation knows what is going to happen to gasoline prices. If crude oil jumps by 30%, you can expect gasoline prices to increase by at least that much and if not more. Then, they'll stay high after crude oil returns to normal, and even then won't ever drop back down to the pre-jump levels. Once the oil companies get people used to paying $3 a gallon, the price doesn't ever fall below that again.

So, expect at least a 30% rise in gasoline prices, which where I live will push 'regular' up to around $4 and the more premium levels up even higher. And, that's if the oil companies only raise the price by the same percentage as the price of crude oil on the spot market changes. Of course, the great humanitarians at the world's oil companies wouldn't dream of using the crisis as an excuse to raise prices even higher, would they?

This is the direct result of Obama's policies towards Iran. Obama's government has been playing up the fictional Iranian nuclear program and pushing these sanctions upon the rest of the world. This despite the predictable outcomes of such a confrontation and embargo jacking the price of oil higher.

Get ready for the economy to get even rougher. The price of gas is going to rise. Which means that not only will it cost more for you to get around, but everything you buy will have increased prices and more 'gasoline fees' that won't ever go away once put into place. Meanwhile, Obama's Wall Street banker-buddies are crashing the European economy in order to inact harse 'austerity measures' there.

This double whammy of a second banking crisis and skyrocketing energy costs is going to put an end to Obama's fictional, jobless, moneyless recovery and send things tumbling back into a downward spiral.

And, when this happens, remember that its entirely because Obama and his Democratic party loyalists put you and the economy at a lower priority than helping their banking buddies strangle Europe and than starting yet another war, this time with Iran.

Your life sucks and the economy is hard because Obama, the Democrats and most of the other politicians in Washington simply don't give a damn. Obama is capable of yakking away about economic recovery before Congress while at the same time taking actions that will crash the economy. If you learn the lesson that actions speak louder than words, then you'll better understand what's going on

Share

Where does the money go?

When you are thinking of the trillions of dollars the US government collects in taxes, and then when you are wondering why you can't find a job and you keep driving by storefronts with "For Lease" signs out front, just remember where the money went.

US to Grant Extension of $3.8 Billion in Loan Guarantees to Israel

The Obama administration told Israeli officials this week that the U.S. plans to extend for three years $3.8 billion in loan guarantees to Israel.

and ...

The loan guarantees are in addition to the unmatched support Washington gives to Israel – over $13 billion in direct aid since 2007 and more than $3 billion more scheduled for fiscal year 2012, not to mention privileged deals in military training and equipment.

...

“We consider the loan guarantees as preparation for a rainy day,” a senior Israeli Foreign Ministryofficial said. “This is a safety net for war, natural disaster and economic crisis, which allows Israel to maintain economic stability in unstable surroundings.”

Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have a safety net for a rainy day? Wouldn't it be nice to have the US government spending billions to maintain your economic stability in unstable surroundings? Maybe a Federal loan guarantee for your mortgage would be a nice thing? If you think so, then vote for someone who will put America and the interests of Americans first in the next elections. Supporting Ron Paul in the Republican primaries coming to your state soon is an opportunity to do just that.

Share

TSA Critic Detained at Airport

Rand Paul’s Pat-Down Standoff With TSA in Nashville Ends

Sen. Paul, who's been a critic of TSA proceedures and pat down searches, was detained at the Nashville airport by TSA officials.

The Twitter account associated with Paul staffer Moira Bagley, @moirabagley, tweeted around 10 a.m., ET, “Just got a call from @senrandpaul. He’s currently being detained by TSA in Nashville.”

Paul’s office confirmed he set off an airport security full-body scanner “on a glitch,” according to a spokesman.
The Paul staffer said TSA agents would not let Paul walk back through the body scanner and were demanding a full body pat-down.

Obviously, the Senator is as a dangerous terrorist who must be closely searched before being allowed to be on an airplane. If you think I'm joking, remember that Homeland Security helped Missouri put out an advisory to their police that anyone with a bumper sticker supporting his father, Rep. Ron Paul, for President was obviously a terrorist suspect.

If nothing else, this just goes to show that the TSA officials at airports have too much power that is unsupervised and impossible to appeal. Millions of Americans are constantly put in the position of having no choice but to abide by whatever arbitrary decisions that are made by TSA officials.

My problem is that I'm old enough to have been taught about America back when there was a Soviet Union. As a child, we were told that one of the reasons the Soviet Union was dangerous and awful compared to free America was that people in the Soviet Union weren't free to travel without having to constantly stop and show their papers and prove their right to travel to government officials at checkpoints.

This even made it into the pre-9/11 movie classic "Hunt for Red October"

Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: I suppose.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in... Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives.
Captain Ramius: Oh, at least.

Capt Borodin would be very disappointed in today's America, but he'd surely recognize the arbitrary officials at checkpoints demanding your papers and obedience.

Share

DHS and Politics

Behind Homeland Security's monitoring of web sites from Undernews

So, why is the DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, the agency with broad scope and the disturbing name that echos of 1930's Germany, monitoring articles and comments on websites ranging from the New York Times to the Huffington Post? Your tax dollars at work,

And, doing more than monitoring "capture public reaction to major government proposals", they are also likely acting to shape and deflect political action by citizens. This is from key Obama advisor Cass Susskind

Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.

Ever notice how on some comment boards or chat rooms its almost impossible to do any effective organizing, or even to carry on an intelligent discussion. There are almost always people there who are a) trying to tell everyone the story is wrong, b) telling everyone that nothing can be done to change things, or c) generally disrupting the conversation completely with silly, irrelevant posts and supposed flame wars between two such posters of silly posts.

When you see that, it isn't an accident. Now we know, thanks to EPIC's FOIA request that the DHS is monitoring and participating in these websites, including the comment areas. We also know that various PR firms offer the same as a paid service to their corporate clients.

The end result is that a political article that should be a spark to political organizing almost never is. I used to see this sort of organizing done back when the internet was new. Not only would you get an email detailing a problem, but people would be starting to organize to do something about it. These days, you see the same sort of article online, but the comments below almost never have any serious organizing going on. If you see anyone trying to start, watch how quickly the 'trolls' jump in and usually start either screaming at the organizers, or often just screaming at each other to take away the space that would otherwise be available for a free citizenry in a democracy to comment, communicate and organize.

We now see this in several areas of public debate. The government actively telling the citizens what to think and what course should be taken, as well as steps to disrupt any activity and speech to the contrary. This is most obvious on the question of drug policy, where any alternatives to the current prohibition is almost unspeakable in the public sphere. The government and Wall Street's media arm both immediately attack and blast anyone who dares to speak of ending prohibition, and thus scaling back the huge prison-industrial complex that rests upon that policy. Its almost as bad when it comes to the wars. Again, the government and the media have both tended to gang up on anyone questioning whether spending billions to kill sheepherders in Afghanistan really enhances the security of Americans in any real way.

Now it appears that we'll see more and more of this, as the government not only monitors but participates in the online discussions of our supposedly free society. Whenever you look at a string of comments on the internet and see a confusing mess that isn't really a discussion, remember that DHS is probably monitoring and participating in that website. And if not DHS, then a variety of PR firms and security companies that offer the same service.

How to get around this? Spot like-minded people on the internet, and then try to find a way to talk directly to them. Swap email addresses. Remember that you can create closed memberships on websites and forums to keep the trolls out. And, remember that email itself was the first mass-communication tool on the internet. An email list where the trolls aren't allowed to post is still an effective tool.

OK, Back to the SOPA/PIPA blackout. Sorry to interrupt, but I thought an article about government monitoring and interference in the internet was relevant enough to put out even on blackout day.

Share

SOPA - Internet Blackout

If I had an easy way to black out this blog today, I'd join the 7,000 other websites that are going black today in protest of the proposed Internet censorship bills known as SOPA and PIPA currently in the Congress.

The good news is that massed public opposition seems to be at least slowing down and temporarily preventing these awful bills from going forward.

What a stretch. First we've seen Congress say that having the military can indefinitely detain anyone they want just by pointing at them and saying "terrorist". Now we've got Congress proposing broad powers to censor the internet, joining such other bastions of freedom such as China in the desire to control what people see and hear. I truly do get the feeling that now I know what it must have been like to have lived in Germany in the early 1930's.

Share

The Lieberman Manuever

In 2006, a leftist rebellion during the Connecticut Senatorial primaries defeated Joe Lieberman and instead nominated Ned Lamont to be the Democratic nominee for US Senate. However, today Joe Lieberman is still the Senator from Connecticut. This is because he immediately ran as an "independent". The Republicans basically abandoned their own candidate, and threw their support behind Lieberman, joining the pro-war, pro-Wall Street Democrats who backed Lieberman.

If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination for President, expect to see something similar. The pro-war, pro-Wall Street faction of the Republican party will likely throw their support to some prominent Republican who suddenly decides to run as an "Independent". I'd doubt they'd support the pro-war, pro-Wall Street Obama campaign, despite the obvious alignment of interests. But, they wouldn't mind running an 'Independent' campaign that would take Republican votes away from a Republican Paul for President campaign. Even the end result of that was four more years of Obama. The Republicans would still get a Republican president who's following Reagan's economic policies and Dubya's foreign policy, and the tactical advantage of four more years of playing the outsider pretending to oppose Obama's policies.

No matter. The opposition forces in this country would still have a major candidate in a campaign for President. Wall Street's media arm will of course present Mr. Paul as dangerous and will undoubtedly give the Wall Street "Independent" campaign a huge amount of free publicity. But still, a Paul Republican campaign for President would have an opportunity to talk to the people of this country about the assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that has been going on in this country especially since 9-11. It would be hard to impossible to ban the Republican nominee from the debates. And while the Paul's campaign exposure to major media would be diminished by a general hostile tone and a relative lack of money (compared to the Wall Street financed campaigns), it would still have a presence that campaigns like Nader for President never reached.

America has an opportunity before it. There's a major candidate running in the primaries who's finished 3rd and 2nd in the early Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. This is an opportunity. And its an opportunity that the left especially needs to seize. Ron Paul may not be the ideal candidate for a leftist to support, but he's honest and he'd work to restore the Constitution. And among other things, that would undoubtedly include stopping FBI and other federal infiltration of leftist groups, the use of Homeland Security and the FBI against domestic US protesters like the Occupy movement, and the end of harassing legal cases like the grand jury attacks on mid-western anti-war protesters.

There is currently a massive propaganda out from Wall Street and their political parties to tell the left that Ron Paul is dangerous and can't be supported. Pay attention to this when you see it. It tells you two things. One is you learn who out there pushes out the Wall Street line. The other is that you learn to go the opposite direction. If there is suddenly a lot of voices in the left-wing echo chamber telling you that Ron Paul is dangerous, then the best thing to do is to ask why.

And, then maybe, you might remember which of those voices also told you that electing the pro-war and pro-Wall Street candidate Obama. How'd that work out? At some point, when do people learn to do the OPPOSITE of what these voices are telling you. Or to at least check it out. Go out on the internet, and find some LONG, unedited videos of Ron Paul speaking. That's the best way to learn about a candidate. Listen to them in length. Not in the easily manipulated sound-bites that you get from Wall Street's media, but let them speak to you ... and then you decide what you think.

And ask yourself this. Can we really afford four more years of war? Can we really afford four more years of assaults on privacy and civil liberties? Can we really afford four more years of turning the economy and the justice system entirely over to Wall Street?

A Ron Paul Presidency might not create a leftist wonderland, but it would be an important victory for all opposition forces in America, left or right. Wouldn't it be easier to be a leftist activist in America if the FBI was under the control of an honest President who believes strongly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So, why does everyone want to try so very, very hard to keep you from supporting Mr. Paul?

Share

10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free

10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free by Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University.

• Assassination of U.S. citizens (in company with Nigeria, Iran and Syria)
  
• Indefinite Detention (in company with China and Cambodia)
  
• Arbitrary Justice (in company with China and Egypt)
  
• Warrantless Searches (in company with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan)
  
• Secret Evidence
  
• War Crimes (in company with China, Syria, Serbia and Pinochet's Chile)
  
• Secret Court (in company with Pakistan)
  
• Immunity from Judicial Review (in company with China)
  
• Continual Monitoring of Citizens (in company with Saudi Arabia and Cuba)
  
• Extraordinary Renditions
  

Somehow, I don't think this is the America that the Founding Fathers fought a revolution to create. In fact, it reads much more like the list of reasons that those same Founding Fathers gave as to why they considered King George III a tyrant in the Declaration of Independence.
Or, as professor Turley puts it ...

The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

Share

Reality Check

If you want to know the real chances of something happening, check the Vegas odds. Of course, the Vegas odds don't really reflect those real chances, but just what is needed to get the betting money spread across the choices. But, in politics, where perception is everything, the public perceptions of reality as reflected by the odds the bookmakers offer to get the bets is probably a better indicator than any poll.

As of January 2012 ...

Obama - 2/3
Romney - 7/5
Paul - 25/1
Gingrich - 30/1
Santorum - 35/1
Huntsman - 50 /1

Since Perry is running behind a candidate that isn't even running (Hillary), I'll stop typing there.

Interesting is that Paul has moved up into 3rd place. Opensecrets.org reports that the Wall Street money is splitting so far between Romney and Obama. With Obama still the obvious favorite, they don't want to abandon him. And they appear to be succeeding in pushing Romney to the top of the Republican table. Thus creating what Wall Street always love is a non-contest between two politicians they've already bought.

The fly in this ointment is Ron Paul. He isn't bought by Wall Street, he opposes the wars, and he'd fight to restore civil liberties. He's not my perfect candidate, but he's in the race and running strong and has positioned himself as the one viable choice in these big party nomination fights that would end Wall Street rule in America.

If you oppose the wars. If you don't like having candidates who've been bought by Wall Street running everything. If you actually think the Bill of Rights is a good thing and we need to get back to honoring and respecting the deal that formed this government and approved this Constitution, then the only choice is to do everything you can to support Ron Paul. Vote for him if you can. Volunteer for him, help make phone calls, do whatever else you can do to support him too.

Its Obama, Romney and Paul. Two of the three represent no real change. One does represent change. And failing to support the candidate that does represent change is also a vote that you like things right now just fine and don't want any change from our endlessly expanding wars and rule by Wall Street all enforced by an ever growing surveillance state.

Share

Learning to Spot Propaganda

One of the keys to living intelligently in this modern media age is being able to accurately spot propaganda. In the old Soviet Union, citizens learned to be able to read between the lines. They learned to spot the obvious propaganda messages that were directed at them.

In this modern age, we need to be able to do the same. To somehow figure out what's really going on amongst the lies we are fed on a daily basis. We need to be able to know when to discard the obvious lies and other propaganda messages that are pushed at us daily.

This Glenn Greenwald article is a wonderful piece in exploring this. The subject is the recent car-bomb assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientists. And the fact that some western journalists and writers have accurately called this an act of terrorism. And the fact that these writers have been attacked for daring to state that the US or Israel appears to be engaged in acts that can only be properly described as terrorism.

Iran and the Terrorism game by Glenn Greewald from Salon.com

Part of the problem here is the pretense that Terrorism has some sort of fixed, definitive meaning. It does not. As Professor Remi Brulin has so exhaustively documented, the meaning of the term has constantly morphed depending upon the momentary interests of those nations (usually the U.S. and Israel) most aggressively wielding it. It’s a term of political propaganda, impoverished of any objective meaning, and thus susceptible to limitless manipulation. Even the formal definition incorporated into U.S. law is incredibly vague; one could debate forever without resolution whether targeted killings of scientists fall within its scope, and that’s by design. The less fixed the term is, the more flexibility there is in deciding what acts of violence are and are not included in its scope.

I remember that back after 9-11, there were writings and discussions about the definition of terrorism. The definition I remember goes something like this. "Acts of violence that kill or injure innocent civilians with the purpose of achieving a political goal".

The US and/or Israel apparently just killed an innocent scientist with the express political purpose of getting Iran not to continue its nuclear program. Of course, some might immediately respond that this scientist wasn't an 'innocent civilian' in that he was working on a nuclear bomb. But, this argument only rests on more propaganda. The IAEA has had inspectors looking at the Iranian nuclear program for at least a decade, and has never found a shred of evidence that any enrichment beyond what's needed for civilian reactors has ever occurred. And, such enrichment would be very hard to hide. The various intelligence agencies of the west have at times all concluded that the Iranians have no nuclear weapons program, only a peaceful civilian program. And of course, the Iranian government has consistently stated that they are only pursuing peaceful civilian uses of nuclear power.

I don't know who this man was, but it seems rather obvious that the facts point to him being a civilian scientist. One who is now dead because of a violent car-bomb attack. A man who is now undoubtedly being mourned by family and friends who loved him and who miss his presence in this world. This man is dead from an act of terrorism. And its an act of terrorism that was committed by either the US or our ally Israel.

If you want to understand the world, face up to the fact that the current government of the United States is a supporter of terrorism. Or, at the very least, that most of the rest of the world certainly has good reason to look at the United States as a supporter of terrorism.

It doesn't have to be this way. There were candidates on the last ballot for President who would not be supporting terrorist attacks against Iran. The voters of America had a choice not to support this policy. Yet, some 98% of American voters voted for candidates (McCain and Obama) who would clearly support and continue this policy. And only some 2% of American voters supported the candidates (McKinney, Nader, Barr) who would have opposed this policy.

If the thought of an American government that is an obvious supporter of terrorism bothers you, try voting for candidates that don't support this policy. If you voted for Obama or McCain in the last election, then you voted to support terrorism. If this bothers you, then please don't do that again in the next election. Votes for Obama, Romney or Gingrich are clearly and obviously votes for an America that is a supporter of terrorism.

Share

Dirty Trick

The Stolen War by Uri Avnery

What a dirty trick ... denying the generals their war by trying to take away their justification. Probably won't work. Being truthful in the reasons for going and killing more people isn't really a part of a general's DNA. Being a 'leader' and getting the killing and the maiming started by any means necessary is what they look for when picking generals.

Why is the war inevitable? Because of the terrorism, stupid. Hamas is a terrorist organization, isn’t it?

But along comes the supreme Hamas leader, Khaled Mash’al, and declares that Hamas has given up all violent action. From now on it will concentrate on non-violent mass demonstrations, in the spirit of the Arab Spring.

When Hamas forswears terrorism, there is no pretext for an attack on Gaza.

But is a pretext needed? Our army will not let itself be thwarted by the likes of Mash’al. When the army wants a war, it will have a war. This was proved in 1982, when Ariel Sharon attacked Lebanon, despite the fact that the Lebanese border had been absolutely quiet for 11 months. (After the war, the myth was born that it was preceded by daily shooting. Today, almost every Israeli can “remember” the shooting – an astonishing example of the power of suggestion.

Note one thing carefully. Whenever war with Iran is mentioned in the USA, its always presented as if it will be a nice, clean easy war. We'll fly our super jets in, we'll bomb some of the evil Iranian nuclear facilities, then we fly home. Meanwhile, the Iranian people will want to thank us so very much for bombing them that they'll rise up and pour out into the streets and overthrow their government. Then they'll line the streets and throw a party for the soldiers of the Great Satan when we arrive.

Of course, the first sign that this is total bull is the very basic fact that its being told to you by exactly the same people and the exact same TV channels and newspapers that told you that Iraq would be a cake-walk and that the Iraqis would stand by the road and cheer us and wave little American flags when we arrived. Basic common sense says that no one should be believing them this time.

But, in case you need more evidence and deeper analysis, read the end of Mr. Avnery's piece.

I do have some experience – some 60 or so years of it – but I did not leave any loophole. I said No War, and now General Gantz says the same in so many words. No Tehran, just poor little Gaza.

Why? Because of that one word: Hormuz.

Not the ancient Persian god Hormuzd, but the narrow strait that is the entrance and exit of the Persian Gulf, through which 20% of the world’s oil (and 35% of the sea-borne oil) flows. My contention was that no sane (or even mildly insane) leader would risk the closing of the strait, because the economic consequences would be catastrophic, even apocalyptic.

IT SEEMS that the leaders of Iran were not sure that all the world’s leaders read this column, so, just in case, they spelled it out themselves. This week they conducted conspicuous military maneuvers around the Strait of Hormuz, accompanied by the unequivocal threat to close it.

The US responded with vainglorious counter-threats. The invincible US Navy was ready to open the strait by force, if needed.

How, pray? The mightiest multi-billion aircraft carrier can be easily sunk by a battery of cheap land-to-sea missiles, as well as by small missile-boats.

Let’s assume Iran starts to act out its threats. The whole might of the US air force and navy is brought to bear. Iranian ships will be sunk, missile and army installations bombed. Still the Iranian missiles will come in, making passage through the strait impossible.

What next? There will be no alternative to “boots on the ground”. The US army will have to land on the shore and occupy all the territory from which missiles can be effectively launched. That would be a major operation. Fierce Iranian resistance must be expected, judging from the experience of the eight-year Iraqi-Iranian war. The oil wells in neighboring Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states will also be hit.

Remember, Iran is three times the size and population of Iraq. Iran will be at least three times a more difficult war than Iraq. And, to Iran, we've been the Great Satan for almost two generations now. The USA was the country that forced the evil and corrupt Shah upon them and kept him in power. The USA was the country who's CIA was training the Shah's secret police in the torture techniques used upon the Iranians. The Iranians threw this off with a revolution that drove the Shah and the USA from power in Iran. The USA has been fighting the Iranians in one way or another in a constant effort to return to power over the Iranians ever since. Any suggestion that the Iranians will not fight against the USA with the utmost of resolve and determination is utter nonsense. If we go to open and full war against Iran, the only people bringing flowers to our troops will have suicide-bomb vests strapped to themselves.

Share

(D) is for Liar

As we move into another election year, just remember, (D) is for Liar. The Dems will say whatever they think you want to hear. But it doesn't mean they'll do any of it.

No signing statements to nullify instructions from Congress
"While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."

That's what Obama used to say about signing statements in 2007-8. From http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/516/no-signing-statements-nullify-instruction-congress/ quoting Boston Globe.

Compare that to this ... from emptywheel blog

Obama’s signing statement on the defense authorization was about what I expected. He included squishy language so as to pretend he doesn’t fully support indefinite detention. And he basically promised to ignore much of the language on presumptive military detention.

But there was one part of the signing statement I (naively) didn’t expect. It’s this:

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Section 1024, remember, requires the Defense Department to actually establish the provisions for status reviews that Obama has promised but not entirely delivered.

There isn't really that much doubt about Congressional intent in Section 1024. Neither in the language nor in the debate. This is later, also from theemptywheel ...

Lindsey Graham (and other bill supporters, both the right and left of Lindsey) repeatedly insisted on this review provision. Lindsey promised every detainee would get real review of his status.

I want to be able to tell anybody who is interested that no person in an American prison–civilian or military–held as a suspected member of al-Qaida will be held without independent judicial review. We are not allowing the executive branch to make that decision unchecked. For the first time in the history of American warfare, every American combatant held by the executive branch will have their day in Federal court, and the government has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence you are in fact part of the enemy force.

And yet, in spite of the fact that Section 1024 includes no exception for those detained at Bagram, Obama just invented such an exception.

Section 1024 was one of the few good parts of the detainee provisions in this bill, because it would have finally expanded the due process available to the thousands of detainees who are hidden away at Bagram now with no meaningful review.

But Obama just made that good part disappear.

Remember, (D) is for Liar. Although, the line about "Obama made the good part disappear" could also be a wonderful description of his whole Presidency.

Remember, when the generation that had fought a long revolutionary war against the British Empire tried to design a government that would protect the unalienable rights that they had fought for and won, they envisioned a weak executive branch who's role was to execute the will of Congress.

Share

Merry Christmas

To any Christians who read this, Merry Christmas. To all others, may you also have a merry time at your holidays around the winter solstice.

Christians celebrate on this day the birth of the man known as the Prince of Peace. A man who came to us to teach us to live peacefully with each other, and to treat each of our fellow human beings as a brother and sister. The man who tried to teach us to love even our enemies.

In a few months, the Christians will also celebrate the death of this man who was tortured and killed by his fellow monkeys for speaking such heresy. Seems like not a lot has changed in 2000 years.

Share

A Tale of Two Iraqis

Iraqi PM chides Sunni provinces pushing for autonomy, warns of ‘rivers of blood’ from the Washington Post.

Two Iraqis. The first is the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. He's the one speaking with the quote that made the headline warning of "rivers of blood". It seems the Sunni areas, after being pretty much kicked out of the government by the PM, and who have seen one of their political leaders arrested on 'terrorism' charges, are talking about using the portion of the Iraqi constitution that allows for autonomous regions (like the US supported Kurdish areas) to gain some independence from the Shite-dominated central government. In response, Mr. al-Maliki is making speeches warning of 'rivers of blood'.

Remember, that Mr. al-Maliki is the hand-picked, US choice to lead Iraq. In 2006, when he was first chosen to be prime minister, the Americans were deeply involved in the 'process' and certainly were not going to let a choice unacceptable to them into power. Mr. al-Maliki has bent over backwards of course to be favorable to the Americans and to let the American military do whatever its wanted to do in Iraqi.

So, the pro-American and put into office by America Prime Minister is the one making speeches talking about 'rivers of blood' if a faction does something he doesn't like. I guess the Iraqis got about the same 'change' from Saddam that Americans got in 'changing' from Dubya to Obama.

Then, buried much later down in this Washington Post story, there's a second Iraqi. This is the Iraqi that the American government has always hated. He is of course described by the propaganda writer at the WaPo as the "anti-American Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr". If you only read the WaPo, you'd probably think 'anti-American' is the man's real first name as he can not apparently be mentioned without this editorial comment/smear being applied to his name first. The WaPo isn't about presenting facts and letting readers make up their own minds. Nope, they have to tell you he's the 'anti-American' cleric before they tell you anything else.

But, listen to what Muqtada al-Sadr is talking about.

Iraq’s anti-American Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, launched an initiative Saturday calling for peaceful coexistence among all Iraqis after the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country. The last soldiers left Dec. 18.

Al-Sadr, whose militiamen were blamed for sectarian killings during the worst years of Iraq’s violence, is seeking to assert his political weight Iraq after the U.S. pullout.

Al-Sadr’s proposal comes just two days after a terrifying wave of Baghdad bombings killed 69 people and wounded nearly 200. The bombs tore through mostly Shiite neighborhoods of the Iraqi capital, evoking fears the country could descend into a new round of sectarian violence.

Al-Sadr’s associates handed out to the media a 14-point “peace code” proposal written by the radical cleric. It warns against spilling Iraqi blood and urges respect for all religions, sects and ethnic groups.

Al-Sadr’s aide Salah al-Obeidi described the code as an attempt “to preserve the unity of the country and save it from fighting.”

Remember, America has been trying to crush and drive away Mr. al-Sadr for years now. The Us has openly declared war on him at least once back around 2004 when they invaded the poor "Sadr City" (named after his father) neighborhood of Baghdad to try to kill or detain/torture Mr. Sadr and his followers. And generally, its been a constant theme of American 'leadership' in Iraq to try to keep Mr. Sadr and his political party/faction out of any positions of power. Reserving those for the likes of Mr. al-Maliki. Even now, notice the great lengths the WaPo goes to try to tell you to hate this man in this article.

So, we see before us two Iraqis. One is pro-American, and who has been put into power and largely kept there by the Americans. He's the one talking about 'rivers of blood' in warning his political opponents to do what he demands. The other is 'anti-American' and has been opposed at every turn by the Americans who at times have tried to kill or arrest him. He's the one talking about peace. The one the Americans hate, and the one who propaganda organs like the WaPo constantly teach Americans back home to hate, that's the one trying to talk about peace. He's the one trying to get Iraqis to follow the simple rule of not shedding the blood of their fellow Iraqis.

Says an awful lot about American foreign policy. America obviously supports 'rivers of blood' while opposing the idea of peaceful coexistence. And we wonder why they hate us?

And, if you want to understand why the Iranians don't seem to like us much either, remember that we've done the same thing in their relatively recent history. America led the coup against the democratically elected Mossadegh government and replaced it with the dictatorial rule of the 'Shah of Iran'. After the CIA overthrew the Iranian democracy, it spent the next 20 years teaching and training the Shah's Savak secret police how to torture and kill and disappear Iranian's who might favor democracy and freedom over life under a US puppet-dictator. Then, when the Iranian people had the nerve to overthrow our chosen tyrant, the US has hated Iran ever since and constantly schemed to try to find a way to once again overthrow the Iranian democracy that replace our puppet/tyrant.

And, we wonder why they hate us?

Share

Freedom

The German translates to "Germany is Free".  German propaganda always talked a lot about "freedom".









Share

One people united

The German translates to "One People, One Reich, One Fuhrer". Authoritarian propaganda always demands "unity".  A free democracy is just the opposite, in that its acceptable for people to have differing views.

Share

Wow, A Senator Read the Constitution.

There's an excellent article up on The Atlantic, Ceding Liberty to Terror, about the recent vote by the US Senate to give the US government gestapo-like powers to sieze and detain anyone. A majority in the US Senate believes that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights magically dissappear as soon as any government agent or official utters the magic word "terrorist". They don't even have to wave a wand or click their heels together three times to perform such magic.

The article quotes Sen. Kirk (R-IL) from the debate. Read it closely. Some day you might be able to tell your grand-kids about when the Senate used to have debate.

Sen. Kirk had some grounding words to say about the Constitution:

I took the time, as we all should from time to time, serving in this body, to re-read the Constitution of the United States yesterday. The Constitution says quite clearly: 'In the trial of all crimes -- no exception -- there shall be a jury, and the trial shall be held in the State where said crimes have been committed.' Clearly, the Founding Fathers were talking about a civilian court, of which the U.S. person is brought before in its jurisdiction.

They talk about treason against the United States, including war in the United States. The Constitution says it "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The following sentence is instructive: No person -- 'No person,' it says -- 'shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.' I would say that pretty clearly, 'open court' is likely to be civilian court.

Further, the Constitution goes on, that when a person is charged with treason, a felony, or other crime, that person shall be 'removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime' -- once again contemplating civilian, state court and not the U.S. military. As everyone knows, we have amended the Constitution many times. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is instructive here. It says: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures' -- including, by the way, the seizure of the person -- 'shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, except upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Now, in section 1031(b)(2), I do not see the requirement for a civilian judge to issue a warrant. So it appears this legislation directly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution with regard to those rights which are inalienable, according to the Declaration of Independence, and should be inviolate as your birthright as an American citizen.

Recall the Fifth Amendment, which says: 'No person' -- by the way, remember, 'no person'; there is not an exception here. 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment,' hear the words, 'of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War' -- meaning there is a separate jurisdiction for U.S. citizens who are in the uniformed service of the United States. But unless you are in the service of the United States, you are one of those 'no persons' who shall be answerable for a 'capital' or 'infamous crime,' except on 'indictment of a Grand Jury.'

The Sixth Amendment says: 'In all criminal prosecutions' -- not some, not by exception, in all criminal prosecutions -- 'the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed' ... I go on to these because I regard all of these rights as inherent to U.S. citizens, granted to them by their birth in the United States.

Does your senator agree with all that? If not, isn't it about time that you elected someone who does?

Share

Rights Alienable by the Federal Government

No Free Speech at Mr. Jefferson’s Library by Peter Van Buren

An outstanding article on the case of Morris Davis. Morris Davis was at one time the chief military prosecutor at Gitmo. He stated publicly that he would not use evidence obtained by torture. Then a pro-screaming-in-pain-and-mortal-fear general was put in as his commanding officer. Rather than wait for the inevitable order to try to put people to death by using evidence obtained while the witness was screaming in pain or shaking in fear of their life, Mr. David resigned his commission in the US military.

Mr. Davis then took a job as a researcher at the Library of Congress. But, he also continued to speak out about Gitmo in articles and letters to the editor. He was fired for this. His bosses at the Library of Congress, an institution founded by Thomas Jefferson, claimed that by using his right to express his political views showed poor judgement on Mr. Davis' part. Mr. Davis is suing, and amazingly American courts have so far let this come to trial.

The whole article is outstanding, and should be read in full. If you are only going to read one article today, this is the most important one. Well, this and the articles (left and right) about how Goldman Sachs is taking over Europe in the midst of the crisis in the financial markets largely controlled by Goldman Sachs and its former employees in government jobs.

But here's a taste ...

More broadly, the Davis case threatens to give the government free rein in selecting speech by its employees it does not like and punishing it. It’s okay to blog about your fascination with knitting or to support official positions. If you happen to be Iranian or Chinese or Syrian, and not terribly fond of your government, and express yourself on the subject, the U.S. government will support your right to do it 110% of the way. However, as a federal employee, blog about your negative opinions on U.S. policies and you’ve got a problem. In fact, we have a problem as a country if freedom of speech only holds as long as it does not offend the U.S. government.

Morris Davis’s problem is neither unique nor isolated. Clothilde Le Coz, Washington director of Reporters without Borders, told me earlier this month, “Secrecy is taking over from free speech in the United States. While we naively thought the Obama administration would be more transparent than the previous one, it is actually the first to sue five people for being sources and speaking publicly.” Scary, especially since this is no longer an issue of one rogue administration.

Government is different than private business. If you don’t like McDonald’s because of its policies, go to Burger King, or a soup kitchen, or eat at home. You don’t get the choice of federal governments, and so the critical need for its employees to be able to speak informs the republic. We are the only ones who can tell you what is happening inside your government. It really is that important. Ask Morris Davis.

Actually, Mr. Van Buren is wrong on the last part. Since he refers to the Library of Congress properly as Mr. Jefferson's library, perhaps he should go visit and read some of Mr. Jefferson's more memorable words.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

• that all men are created equal,
  
• that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
  
• that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
  
• --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
  
• --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
  
• Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
  
• But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Perhaps the most important concept of America, perhaps the most fundamentally 'American' thing in all of history is the belief that we do indeed get to choose our federal government. That power really does come from and justly resides with We The People. Not the government. Not some King or President. Power comes from We The People, and we have the right and the duty to our great nation of America to choose our Federal government and to choose it well.

.
.

Share

Obama's War.

The “Left” and Libya by ALEXANDER COCKBURN

Sometimes one gets the impression that God must have a sense of humor, and that God probably does enjoy a good game of dice with the universe.

It turns out that one of the big supporters of the Iraq and Libya wars is the, wait for it .... "Paterno Family Professor" at Penn State University. No big surprise really. After all, its not a huge leap from protecting someone who rapes 10 year old boys to supplying the endowment that pays for a professor that supports the rape of foreign countries.

That's a God who's a patient practical jokester spending years setting this up so maybe we can simultaneously laugh and become enlightened to see how wrong and evil all this violence and killing really is. Of course, one would have thought sending his son to get murdered trying to teach us not to kill each other might have gotten the message through to us monkeys, but apparently neither crucifiction nor practical jokes is enough to keep us monkeys from finding new ways to be horribly evil to each other. I hope God is infinitely patient, because any mere mortal's patience would probably be wearing a bit then with us murdering monkeys by now.

Here in America, we stay so far away from the wars. Our wars are sanitized. We get reports of victory from the battlefields. We hear accounts of our wonderful allies and their struggle for victory. Of course, our virtuous allies in the Northern Alliance ended up putting people in container trucks and leaving them in the sun with no food or water to torture and kill their vanquished opponents. And now the tales of retribution from the wonderful saints we supported in Libya are starting to come forward. But still, we usually just hear stories of our great victories. So, read this quote that comes from this article to get a good close-hand look at what our Nobel Peace Prize winning President has really done in the world.

A team of Russian doctors wrote to the president of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, as follows:

“Today, 24 March, 2011, NATO aircraft and the U.S. all night and all morning bombed a suburb of Tripoli – Tajhura (where, in particular, is Libya’s Nuclear Research Center). Air Defense and Air Force facilities in Tajhura were destroyed back in the first 2 days of strikes and more active military facilities in the city remained, but today the object of bombing are barracks of the Libyan army, around which are densely populated residential areas, and, next to it, the largest of Libya’s Heart Centers. Civilians and the doctors could not assume that common residential quarters will be about to become destroyed, so none of the residents or hospital patients was evacuated.

“Bombs and rockets struck residential houses and fell near the hospital. The glass of the Cardiac Center building was broken, and in the building of the maternity ward for pregnant women with heart disease a wall collapsed and part of the roof. This resulted in ten miscarriages whereby babies died, the women are in intensive care, doctors are fighting for their lives. Our colleagues and we are working seven days a week, to save people. This is a direct consequence of falling bombs and missiles in residential buildings, resulting in dozens of deaths and injuries, which are operated and reviewed now by our doctors. Such a large number of wounded and killed, as during today, did not occur during the total of all the riots in Libya. And this is called ‘protecting’ the civilian population?”

That's Obama's war. A close up and dirty look at who the anti-war movement voted into office and exactly what he's doing in the world. If you vote Democratic in the upcoming elections, you are voting for more bombings of hospitals full of sick pregnant women. This is what you get when you vote Democrat these days.

The sad part is that we are broke as a nation. We are laying off teachers. We are letting our infrastructure crumble. How many billions did we spend on regime change in Libya? And exactly how does that improve the lives of ordinary Americans who are struggling to find work? How did it improve the lives of Americans who haven't had a raise in years? How does new leadership in Libya improve the lives of Americans who are fighting to save their homes from being seized by Obama's friends on Wall $treet? And yet, Obama and the Democrats are supporting the plans of a far-right-wing former Senator to gut social programs and steal from our children's and grandchildren's retirement in order to pay for this. Americans are told not only that we can't have any help, but that we have to pay the bill for this madness. And now they want a war with Iran. And now they are sending a carrier to Syria. It never ends.

We know Republicans aren't the answer. We know Democrats aren't the answer. Oh, there's a few decent people in each party who know this is wrong. The Ron Paul's and the Barbara Lee's who stand against this madness. But, those types are sidelined and scorned by the bulk of their own parties. The key thing Americans have to learn is that generally voting neither Democrat nor Republican will end this cycle of wars that has been approved by the vast majority of politicians in both parties. Its time to try something different.

Share

49 Congresspeople Who'd See You Starve to Save a Warplane.

Caucus forms to save the F-35 from budget cuts by T.W. Farnam @ Washington Post.

Reps. Kay Granger (R-Tex.) and Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) announced the formation of a Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus with 49 members from both parties. Its purpose: to protect funding for the F-35 stealth fighter. The plane, as the most expensive weapons program in history, is one of the biggest potential targets in the defense budget.

The members of the caucus are also some of the top recipients of political money from the company that designs and builds the fighter, Lockheed Martin. The company’s political action committee and its employees have given the caucus members $1.3 million in political contributions over their careers, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

We are told over and over again that there is no money to help Americans. Bankers got bailed out, but everyone else is told 'tough luck'. There's no money for jobs. There's no money to stop foreclosures. There's no money to extend unemployment benefits. There's no money for anything like a New Deal for Americans. In fact, not only are we told that there's no money to provide any help at all to struggling Americans, but we are told that we are the ones who have to pick up the bill from the deficit caused by the bank bailouts, the wars and the runaway defense budget.

In the midst of this situation, this group of 49 congresspeople stands up and basically gives the finger to the American people. They declare that a hunk of metal in the shape of a warplane, a warplane that has absolutely no role in what we are told is the great threat to Americans, ie, the Terror Wars, is more important that the jobs, homes and survival of Americans.

Want to know why America is in so much trouble these days? Here's 49 reasons why.

Share

Torture, Obama style

Report Confirms Bahrain’s Brutal Crackdown, Use of Torture

An independent commission in Bahrain has issued a report on the massive crackdown on pro-democracy protesters earlier this year, faulting the government for brutality against the dissidents as well as the broad use of torture against detainees.

“A number of detainees were tortured,” confirmed the commission’s head, M. Cherif Bassiouni. The report detailed the use of electric shocks and beatings against arrested protesters, and that at least 700 of the detainees are still in custody.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to overcome opposition and get a $53 billion arms deal for Bahrain to go through. Pressure from people who don't like murderers and torturers nearly as much as Obama does has gotten the deal 'delayed'. But remember, the deal wouldn't exist at all without Obama and official Washington support. So, 'delayed' just means that Obama thinks the heat is on and he wants to delay it until some slow news day like around Christmas when no one is paying attention. Obama worked the same tactic on his aid to the murderers and torturers in Honduras when Obama supported their overthrow of the democratically elected government and tried to quash the radical concept of the people having a say in their own constitution there.

Apparently being a murderer and a torturer is the way to get to be Obama's buddy. There's not a leftist nor peace activist in the world that he apparently will talk to. One never hears of peace activists being invited to the White House to have a long and frank talk with the President. But, he's happy to talk with Republicans. Obama has protected all of Bush era torturers from any prosecution, and he seems to love people like the King of Bahrain who go out and turn loose the secret police on his own people.

Of course, since Obama is doing the exact same thing to the Occupy movement here in the states, I guess that isn't really a surprise. Or shouldn't be. I'm sure there are still plenty of Obama-bots out there who manage to never to see Obama's love of torturers and who probably support Obama's turning the police loose on Americans who want simply freedom, democracy, change and hope.

Share