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

"And our country’s been at war ever since"

"Armistice Day" By Anthony Gregory.

On November 11, 1918, the world finally had enough of the irrational killing spree known as World War I. Fifteen million individual human beings had perished in what was the largest military conflict the world had yet seen. Armistice Day, marking the end of the war, was declared a holiday by the Allied nations. Some countries still observe it every November 11.

Although the day was memorialized by governments whose integrity in the whole matter we can question, there is no doubt that there was much to celebrate in the end of hostilities. World War I convinced much of the world of the insanity of war.

Thanks mostly to mutual defense treaties among nations that had no real reason to fight each other, what started out as a royal family feud and regional squabble exploded into a global bloodbath. Serbia was joined by Britain, France, Belgium, Greece, Romania, Italy, Russia, Portugal, Montenegro, Japan, Brazil and, eventually, the United States, to fight Austria-Hungary’s alliance, which included Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. This madness was triggered when a Bosnian Serb secessionist, sponsored by members of the Serbian military, assassinated Archduke Ferdinand of Austria. One act of violence—over one localized territorial dispute—resulted in the loss of lives, property and liberty of tens of millions of human beings.

and ending with ...

At the end of the Korean War, President Eisenhower signed a bill in 1954 that changed the name of the national holiday to Veteran’s Day. Perhaps it made no sense any more to honor an Armistice that had been overshadowed by World War II and the beginnings of the Cold War. Whereas after World War I, the United States brought its armed forces home, the war against Communism guaranteed that the United States would henceforth have little interest in armistice, in truce, in peace.

And our country’s been at war ever since, with more and more veterans to observe every November.

Those who follow the link will find that this is from a right-wing/libertarian leaning website. Some people on the left have a bad habit of thinking in narrow-minded stereotypes, and by doing so they forget that there is and long has been an anti-war stance from the Libertarian point of view.

Me, I'm in the very strange state of having changed my voting registration from Green to Republican. The reason being that when the Presidential nomination caucuses occur in CO, the only 'anti-war' option is that of supporting Ron Paul on the Republican side. Since CO runs 'closed' primaries, if I want to support an anti-war voice during the nomination stage of this set of Presidential elections, I had to change my registration to Republican to do so.

For someone whom the first Presidential campaign they can remember was that of George McGovern, I find it both shocking and very revealing that the Democrats are offering no anti-war choice at all to their voters this time around. The Democrats are now firmly and undeniably a pro-war party. Heck, you'll need at least a smartphone's computing power just to keep up with all the new wars that the Democrats will have started in these four years. I don't expect the Republicans to be an anti-war party, but at least on that side there's someone with the guts and the convictions to stand up and fight for what they believe in. The very best you can say about the Democrats these days is that not a single person in that party cares enough about ending these wars to even stand up and try to oppose Obama.

Share

Video of the Year

My vote for Video of the Year. If this doesn't win like the Noble Prize for Songwriting,then its got to be because the voting is rigged and the North Korean judge voted for the Chinese gymnast because of an outdated sense of Marxist solidarity. This one goes on my blog for the best reason of all ... so I can find it again later. :)

Share

Democrats move to the Right of Alan Simpson.

The Democrats on the 'super-committee' are following the typical pattern we've seen under Democratic leadership for at least the last decade. They've voluntarily moved their position on 'deficit-reduction' so far to the right that its now to the right of a proposal cooked up by ultra-right-wing former Senator Alan Simpson and Wall Street's Erskine Bowles.

Democrats Offer Significant Concessions -Plan Is to the Right of Bowles-Simpson and Gang of Six

Of course, one thing to realize is that these millionaire Democrats conceded nothing of their own. What they are 'conceding' is our money and the few parts of the US budget that actually benefit some Americans. And remember, these are the same millionaire Democrats who already took the Bush tax cuts for millionaires (ie, themselves) and the trillion plus dollars a year we spend on war and defense off the table.

The new deficit-reduction plan from a majority of Democrats on the congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "supercommittee") marks a dramatic departure from traditional Democratic positions — and actually stands well to the right of plans by the co-chairs of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission and the Senate's "Gang of Six," and even further to the right of the plan by the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici commission. The Democratic plan contains substantially smaller revenue increases than those bipartisan proposals while, for example, containing significantly deeper cuts in Medicare and Medicaid than the Bowles-Simpson plan. The Democratic plan features a substantially higher ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases than any of the bipartisan plans.

For those too young to remember, that's Ronald Reagan's economic theory. Cut spending to the bone and refuse to raise revenue. Today's Democrats are running Ronald Reagan's playbook.

Politics in this country is going to remain stuck in this constant pro-war, pro-wall street cycle until people finally wake up and realize that this bunch of Democrats is not the answer. Voting for a party that has given you Ronald Reagan's economic policy combined with Dubya's policy of declaring wars all over the world is not going to fix anything.

Share

A Dangerous Precedent

A Dangerous Precedent by Ron Paul

Last week’s assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the president and his administration. If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a “really bad American,” is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States? If, as we learned last week, a secret government committee, not subject to congressional oversight or judicial review, can now target certain Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we presume to lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights?

and ending with ...

Awlaki’s father tried desperately to get the administration to at least allow his son to have legal representation to challenge the “kill” order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in court, the administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. The most worrisome aspect of this is that any new powers this administration accrues will serve as precedents for future administrations. Even those who completely trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power and denial of due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be expanded on by the next administration and then the next. Will you trust them? History shows that once a population gives up its rights, they are not easily won back. Beware.

Governments are like serial killers. Once they start killing, they rarely stop killing on their own. Typically someone or some group has to stop them. The reason for this is that killing becomes a way to solve problems for the Government. And, its a very easy and convenient way to solve problems. Its much easier to send a team of assassins in black to kill someone in the dark of night than it is to argue and compete against a person in a free and open democracy which can be time consuming in its dedication to make sure that everyone has a voice and a vote. Its much easier for a Leader or a Government to simply say "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

And isn't that precisely one of the arguments that one hears about why the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was necessary? Aren't we told that killing him was a better option because a public and fair trial under our constitution would have been so difficult?

Things become bloody and difficult because anyone who wants to stop the reign of killing by the government is viewed by that government as a problem needing to be solved. Thus, not only will a government tend to expand the number and range of problems that its willing to solve 'the easy way' with assassins in the night, but that they will also usually defend themselves by trying to easily solve the problem of those annoying idealists and moralists and just ordinary people concerned for their own safety who insist on this naive notion that Leaders and Governments don't automatically receive a license to kill.

The scary thought from the last time the US government practiced assassination as official policy is that it didn't stay offshore. It wasn't long afterwards that a US Presidential casket draped in black was drawn behind a riderless horse. And it wasn't too long before America was mourning the fact that some of the best and brightest among us, some of those who were willing to try to work to make America a better place for all of us were also the subject of tears at memorial services. This genie doesn't have a history of staying contained in the nice little bottle to which its been assigned by those who think they rule the world.

Share

The Occupation Heard Round the World

I tend to read a lot of history. Thus, as I stand with the #OccupyDenver occupation in support of #OccupyWallStreet, I am struck by the similarities with the 1st American Revolution.

Events happened more slowly back in the days when it might take a month for a piece of paper like a letter or a law to cross the Atlantic Ocean on a sailing ship. Thus, the American Revolution which is often thought to have begun in 1775 (not 1776 btw), actually began with the Boston Tea Party in 1773.

The British Parliament had passed an Act called the Tea Act which was designed to help rescue a failing corporation called the East Indian Corporation. The Act gave the East Indian Company the right to ship tea directly to the American colonies, and a legal monopoly on its sale. I guess even the tyrannical King George III wouldn't go so far as to mandate that people have to be the customers of a corporation. It also reignited the fight over taxation as many colonists felt it was another way of the British to impose taxation without representation. The act definitely had the effect of harming American based small businesses in the tea-trade in order to give more profits to the EIC which was highly politically connected in Parliament and the Royal Family. One of the main objections of the colonists was that parliament had given a legal monopoly on the tea trade to this connected company, and the colonists felt this had to be resisted before it was expanded to other areas and corporations.

In December, 1773, a dispute arose in Boston about three corporate tea ships that had arrived in the harbor. The people of Boston wanted the ships to turn around and leave. The Royal governor of Boston declared that the ships had to unload and pay the 'tea tax' on the tea on the ships before they could leave.

On the day of the deadline, 7000 citizens of Boston (approx 1/3 the population) rallied, and heard the news that the governor had refused to allow the ships to leave. Shortly after that, a group led by Samual Adams and called the Sons of Liberty dressed as Indians and then staged a direct action against the ships. They took over the ships, and threw some 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. This is of course known as the Boston Tea Party, and yes, it was a direct action destruction of corporate property. It was also largely non-violent, as no injuries to the crew of the ships is recorded that I can find in a quick search.

The British King and Parliament responded to this with the "Coercive Acts". One effect of these acts was to suspend local democracy in the Massachusetts colony. Up until then, the local courts that handled foreclosures had been overseen by locally elected judges. These Coervice Acts instead gave the King the authority to appoint these judges.

In the summer and early fall of 1774, these Royal judges arrived in Massachusettes to take up the offices that they had purchased from the King in the expectations of the profits to be made as such a judge. The people of Massachusetts rose up to oppose this, and "occupied" the county seats with large crowds that prevented these judges from heading these courts. Crowds of thousands of people in the town squares instead forced these judges to resign their offices and thus return to Boston and to England.

Thus, in the 1770's, when the British Parliament tried to ensure the profits of a politically connected corporation, this led first to direct action that destroyed corporate property, and then to mass popular occupations of towns across Massachusetts by people committed to defending their liberty and their freedom.

Sound familiar? To someone like me who's standing in occupation against a government that currently puts corporate privilidge and profits over the liberties and freedom of ordinary Americans, it sure does.

Where do Paul Revere and Lexington and Concord fit into all of this? That occurred in the spring of 1775. The people of Massachusetts knew that they had committed an act of rebellion against the King. See movies like Braveheart for how the English Kings responded to such rebellions. Thus, the colonists started to stockpile muskets and gunpowder and other weapons with which to defend themselves against Royal retribution. Meanwhile, the King had sent more troops to Boston over the winter.

When the spring came in 1775, these troops marched out from Boston to attempt to raid and seize a stockpile of weapons that they believed was in Concord. Paul Revere was one of several riders who rode out from Boston to try to warn the militias. He was less than successful as he was captured by the British and held in custody. Nonetheless, word of the raid spread through the Massachusetts militias, and they formed at Lexington and Concord to resist this attempt. That was the Shot Heard Round the World.

But, the Shot Heard Round the World was a direct response to what might be called the Occupation Heard Round the World. It was thousands of American citizens standing up for their freedom and liberties over attempted taxation and favoritism to corporations that started the American Revolution.

Share

The Men Who Crashed the World

The Men Who Crashed the World An Al Jazeera Special Report. This is the link to Pt 1 of 4. Other parts available by clicking on the "Meltdown" link for the series from this page.

Of course, this piece of in-depth investigative journalism is largely unseen in the United States. Al Jazeera is generally banned in America. Too bad, as it most important that reports like this be seen in the United States because we are the center of the problem.

Share

WebCam Near #occupydenver

Share

Letter from a Wall Street Jail

On this nite of the occupation, I've been doing a little reading. Found Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".

It sounds eirly familiar and relevant to the "Occupy" protests spreading across America. Of course, Dr. King's issue was racial injustice, while today's issue is Wall Street's economic injustice. But the eloquence with which he speaks against injustice still shines through.

To make a more concrete example, here's a small section updated to these more modern times. I'd apologize to Dr. King for these edits, but I don't think he'd mind. He was talking about leading a Poor People's March to #OccupyDC just before he died. His only question if he was here today would probably be what the heck took us so long.

Dr. King's original words:

"You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation."

By making some edits as to the particular injustice involved in the discussion, this becomes what sounds like a very relevant example below. To me, the whole letter can be read in this fashion, on this nite when so many #Occupy protests are spreading across America.

"

You deplore the demonstrations taking place on Wall Street. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals with merely effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place on Wall Street, but it is even more unfortunate that the nation's power structure left the 99% with no alternative.

In any non-violent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exists; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through all of these steps at Wall Street. There can be no gainsaying that economic injustice engulfs our nation. Wall Street's control of our economy, our media and our government is well known. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Americans have experienced unjust treatment in the courts. We are experiencing the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, activists have sought for years to negotiate with Wall Street leaders. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation."

Share