Homeland Security Has a Bullet With Your Name On It.

Obama's Department of Homeland Security has put out a contract for 450 million bullets. If you take a rough estimate of 300 million Americans, that's 1.5 bullets for every American.

The Department Of Homeland Security Is Buying 450 Million New Bullets

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office is getting an "indefinite delivery" of an "indefinite quantity" of .40 caliber ammunition from defense contractor ATK.
U.S. agents will receive a maximum of 450 million rounds over five years, according to a press release on the deal.

And that's only the .40 cal ammo stockpile.

We've also learned that the Department has an open bid for a stockpile of rifle ammo. Listed on the federal business opportunities network, they're looking for up to 175 million rounds of .223 caliber ammo to be exact. The .223 is almost exactly the same round used by NATO forces, the 5.56 x 45mm.

In case you think there's some misunderstanding about what these bullets do.

The high performance HST bullets are designed for law enforcement and ATK says they offer "optimum penetration for terminal performance."

Feel like you've got a target on your back? Apparently you and every other American based on the quantities of ammo they are buying. And no, this article is not an April's Fools prank. Unfortunately, this is very sadly true.

Share

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Born Again! George Galloway Stuns Labor, Shakes Up Britain
by TARIQ ALI

How did we get here? Following the collapse of communism in 1991, Edmund Burke’s notion that “in all societies, consisting of different classes, certain classes must necessarily be uppermost” and that “the apostles of equality only change and pervert the natural order of things”, became the common-sense wisdom of the age. Money corrupted politics, big money corrupted absolutely. Throughout the heartlands of capital we witnessed the emergence of effective coalitions: as ever, the Republicans and Democrats in the United States; New Labour and Tories in the vassal state of Britain; Socialists and Conservatives in France; the German coalitions of one variety or another with the Green’s differentiating themselves largely as ultra-Atlanticists, the Scandinavian centre-right and centre-left with few differences, competing in cravenness before the Empire.

In virtually each case the two/three-party system morphed into an effective national government. A new market extremism came into play. The entry of capital in the most hallowed domains of social provision was regarded as a necessary “reform”. Private finance initiatives that punished the public sector became the norm and countries (such as France and Germany) that were seen as not proceeding fast enough in the direction of the neo-liberal paradise were regularly denounced in the Economist and the Financial Times.

To question this turn, to defend the public sector, to argue in favour of state ownership of utilities, to challenge the fire sale of public housing, was to be regarded as a dinosaur.

Its time to demand some Respect everywhere. Freedom, Liberty and Equality are not the concepts of a dinosaur. They are essential human demands of people who want to live in a free and fair society. Those who want power and money based on your labor and subservience will always try to tell you that you cannot have Freedom, Liberty and Equality. But, we've also known for a couple of hundred years now that we the people can have exactly that simply by standing together and demanding it.

Share

Say What?

Israel Shields Public from Risks of War with Iran byGareth Porter

The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been telling Israelis that Israel can attack Iran with minimal civilian Israeli casualties as a result of retaliation, and that reassuring message appears to have headed off any widespread Israeli fear of war with Iran and other adversaries.

Does anyone see the contradiction here? On one hand, we are told that Israel must attack Iran because Iran poses an "existential" threat to Israel's very existence. Then we are told that Iran is too weak to retaliate against Israel should Israel attack Iran.

Do you maybe get the sense you are being lied to? That perhaps some blood-thirsty leaders who want a war are just saying whatever they want to say. That when hyping the war they are talking about what a horrible threat Iran is to the very existence of Israel. But that when trying to reassure and convince their own people that this war must be fought that they then turn around and reassure them that Iran is to weak to threaten them.

Of course, the fact that the same power structure and media system completely lied to you about the war with Iraq when it was being pushed and promoted is another sign that perhaps you are being lied to now. Remember back when Iraq was this horrible threat pursuing horrible weapons of mass destruction and that we had to attack today, that tommorrow would be too late, or else we'd see mushroom clouds over American cities?

Today we are told the same about Iran.

Remember back when we were told the Iraq war would be a cakewalk? Remember when we were told that the Iraqis would stand by the road and wave little American flags as we marched into their country.

Today we are told the same about Iran. Today we are told it will be a surgically clean war with Iran, with just some wonderful air strikes hitting targets. And we are told how this will cause the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their government then they'll love us for bombing their country.

Don't get fooled again. These people are obviously liars. They start with the lie that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. They push this lie even though the IAEA, US intelligence and most of the rest of the world's intelligence agencies all agree that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

You are being lied to.

You should not vote for any politician that lies to you.
You should not watch, listen or read to any media that lies to you.

Simple things like that can change the world and stop yet another war.

Share

War Crimes In Progress

SOS From Emergency in Afghanistan

For several days the NATO war lords in Afghanistan have been heavily bombing the village of Mirbandao in the Helmand province of the south of Afghanistan. The Italian medical aid and anti war group called Emergency has a hospital for war casualties located in the Helmand province along with three locations for first aid and first response care. The hospital is in Lashkar-gah.

Neither the hospital nor the first location closest to the bombardment in Grishk have received any injured casualties. The Emergency staff have been informed by the local population that the area is completely surrounded and military checkpoints are stopping injured people and civilians from getting away from the combat zone.

All of this constitutes a violation of International Human Rights beyond representing an offense to our civil conscience. Emergency is asking with utmost urgency that a humanitarian corridor is opened and a guarantee of the evacuation of civilians and transfer of injured.

The above is translated directly from the SOS sent out by Emergency staff from Afghanistan to Italy and to the world.

You know the American Wall Street media would not report to you on such a crime. Certainly not while its happening. Their reporters are embedded with the US military, and only report what they are allowed to see and report. The other source of information for the Wall Street media (CNN, FAUX, MSNBC, network news, monopoly newspapers etc) is official military press conferences.

So, if there were horrible war crimes being committed in Afghanistan, especially if they were out away from the capital of Kabul, how would you know about it? Most likely from the desperate cries of an aid group that's trying to help the victims. I don't know a thing about an Italian group called Emergency, and the above translation of their call for help and attention is frustratingly short on details.

However, what they ask for it basic human rights. What they ask for is something that would happen regularly back when war was less barbaric and had some basic rules. In years gone by, only the most horrible of barbarians would refuse to let civilians flee a castle or city they were besieging. Especially injured civilians seeking medical aid. Santa Anna at the Alamo allowed what the American and NATO generals apparently will not allow.

But, here's the main question you should ask about your life and what you really know. If war crimes such as these were being committed in your name right now in Afhganistan, how else would you hear about it?

Share

US among world's worst state murderers

Amnesty: US ranks 5th on global execution scale

America's 43 executions in 2011 ranked it fifth in the world in capital punishment, the rights group said in its annual review of worldwide death penalty trends.

Who's in the top four ahead of the United States of American in shedding the blood of their own citizens?

"If you look at the company we're in globally, it's not the company we want to be in: China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq," Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA

That's an interesting list actually. Not exactly the company you want to keep. Especially not if you want to proclaim to the rest of the world that you are the shining example of liberty and freedom to the world. But its an interesting list.

• Iraq is a US puppet state. We wrote their constitution and hand-picked their leaders of our liking. Might as well just put the deaths in Iraq on the tab of the United States.
  
• Saudi Arabia is our close friend and ally. In the last two decades we've sent troops and had our children killed to defend this regime. And we are apparently about to find a war for them against Iran.
  
• Iran. Current target of the American Two Minute Hate. Maybe the reason we are about to fight a war against them is because we are jealous that they kill more of their own people than we do?
  
• China is apparently the next great war that America wants to fight.
  

So, an interesting list. Two friends and two enemies. Its too bad we can't be more like someplace like Sweeden and be friends with the nice peaceful countries that don't murder their own people.

Share

Massacres Will Always Follow

The full title of this piece alone is a brilliant little nugget of truth.

Occupy A Country, Massacres Will Always Follow by PATRICK COCKBURN

All contested occupations have the potential for atrocities by occupying troops. There was a time, during national service and mass mobilizations, when this would have caused no surprise. Soldiers were considered by home populations as dangerous young men with semi-criminal tendencies.

The Duke of Wellington was denounced for snobbery for calling his men “the scum of the earth”, which was true. He was accused of inhumanity for favoring retention of the lash, but he argued that without the threat of a beating there was no way he could safeguard civilians from his soldiers.

Once again the drums of war are beating. This time over Iran. Every person with any sense in the world will tell you that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA, the world's official atomic experts have been sending in inspectors and saying this for years. For as long back as when Dubya was beating the war drums, the US intelligence community has been saying that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Yet, our current war President, Obama is still beating the war drums for Iran. The only question appears to be when will the killing begin, before or after his re-coronation.

And, massacres will always follow. When the war drums are beating, we are always told how clean and painless the war will be. We are presented with plans that show our planes and missiles cleanly destroying the enemy. We are told the enemy will quickly collapse. We are told that our enemy will greet us waving cute little flags and throwing flowers at our soldiers feet. It is all a lie. As surely anyone who's paid any attention at all to Iraq and Afghanistan can easily know.

Massacres will always follow. There will be resistance. Iran is a revolutionary country who threw off American rule with their own revolution. They are a bigger, stronger and more prosperous country than Iraq was, and they will resist us. Massacres will follow.

If we go to war with Iran, we know we'll soon be seeing the stories of dead innocent civilians. Blown up by bombs, killed by missiles, or machine-gunned down by our troops. We've seen this time and time and time again. We know as sure as the sun will rise in the morning that this will occur. Its a part of war. War is always hell.

If you support this war, then you support this. Then you support machine-gunning down innocent people. You support murder and torture and kidnapping. If you support war, you support death and destruction. If you support war, then you are a supporter of the hell that is war.

So, go ahead, vote for your favorite war leader if you want. Vote for your war president Obama. Or vote for his wall street financed challenger Romney. Or vote for the crusading Santorum. Go ahead, vote for war. Declare yourself to be a supporter of hell and all its minions.

Or, stand up and say no. Its your choice. But know that the only way to stop this from happening over and over and over again is to do exactly that ... stand up and say no.

Share

Truth

Truth is important. If you base your outlook on the world on lies, then you are certain to be wrong. Only when you accurately see and understand the world around can you understand the world and make intelligent decisions. Its equally important thus to understand who is telling you the truth, and who is not. Its important to support those who would tell you the truth about the world. And to shun and never listen to those who would tell you lies.

Obama’s personal role in a journalist’s imprisonment by Glenn Greenwald in Salon.

This commentary is largely based around Why Is President Obama Keeping a Journalist in Prison in Yemen? by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation.

To understand the world, and to understand who is telling the truth, and who is not telling the truth, and who is actively working to suppress the truth and punish those who dare to tell the truth, please read both articles.

From Mr. Greenwald's piece ....

As we now know, on December 17, 2009, President Obama ordered an air attack — using Tomahawk cruise missiles and cluster bombs — on the village of al Majala in Yemen’s southern Abyan province; the strike ended the lives of 14 women and 21 children. At the time, the Yemeni government outright lied about the attack, falsely claiming that it was Yemen’s air force which was responsible.

The Pentagon helped bolster this misleading claim of responsibility by issuing a statement that “Yemen should be congratulated for actions against al-Qaeda.” Meanwhile, leading American media outlets, such as The New York Times, reported — falsely — that “Yemeni security forces carried out airstrikes and ground raids against suspected Qaeda hide-outs last week with what American officials described as ‘intelligence and firepower’ supplied by the United States.” Those U.S. media reports vaguely mentioned civilian deaths only in passing or not at all, opting instead for ledes such as: “Yemeni security forces carried out airstrikes and ground raids against suspected hide-outs of Al Qaeda on Thursday, killing at least 34 militants in the broadest attack on the terrorist group here in years, Yemeni officials said.” While it is certain that dozens of civilians were killed, Scahill notes that “whether anyone actually active in Al Qaeda was killed remains hotly contested.”

There is one reason that the world knows the truth about what really happened in al Majala that day: because the Yemeni journalist, Abdulelah Haider Shaye, traveled there and, as Scahill writes, “photographed the missile parts, some of them bearing the label ‘Made in the USA,’ and distributed the photos to international media outlets.” He also documented the remnants of the Tomahawks and cluster bombs, neither of which is in Yemen’s arsenal. And he provided detailed accounts proving that scores of civilians, including those 21 children, had been killed in the attacks. It was Shaye’s journalism that led Amnesty International to show the world the evidence that it was the U.S. which had perpetrated the attack using cluster bombs, and media outlets to reveal the horrifying extent of the civilian deaths. Shaye’s work was vindicated when WikiLeaks released a diplomatic cable — allegedly provided by Bradley Manning — in which Yemen’s then-President Ali Abdullah Saleh joked with David Petraeus about continuing to lie to the public: ”We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours.”

As Mr. Schahill's article documents, this journalist is now in prison, and largely on President Obama's orders. There had been considerable outcry about the journalist's imprisonment in Yemen, and the US-backed Yemeni tyrant had been ready to issue a pardon. But President Obama intervened with a phone call insisting that the journalist who revealed this US war crime continue to remain in prison.

If you vote Democrat in the coming election, this is what you are supporting. Pretty much the same for the Republicans. If you like tyrants imprisoning journalists who report on their atrocities, then vote Democrat, or vote Republican. The one sure lesson of the election of Obama and the rise to power of the Democrats is that it makes no difference at all which one you choose. A vote for one over the other might signify that you prefer red or blue as your favorite color, or it might signify a preference for elephants or jack-asses, but a vote for one party over the other most certainly is not a vote to change the course this country is on. There are a few brave exceptions. People like Ron Paul in the Republican party, or Barbara Lee in the Democrats. But by and large, a vote for either the Democrats or Republicans is a vote for both spending millions of your dollars killing innocent women and children as well as imprisoning any who dare to try to tell you the truth about it.

There are always other names on the ballot. Please pick one. In the last election, although some 60% to 70% of the American people tell pollsters they want these wars to end, something like around 97% to 98% of those same people voted for a President who would do exactly what's described here. There were other names on the ballot. There were other choices. In fact, there were probably too many other choices to stage an effective opposition campaign. But no one who voted for these war crimes and this suppression of the truth can claim that there weren't other choices.

Make a difference in 2012 and vote for something different.

Share

The Reason Why the Democrats are so Afraid of Ron Paul

In the post below, I was noticing how the Democrat noise-machine seems to be in such an attack mode versus the only anti-war candidate with a real chance. Today, I saw the answer.

In a poll of potential Head to Head Matchups ....


Ron Paul beats Obama!  by a 43% to 41% margin.

Poll: Ron Paul bests Obama for the first time nationally

Congressman Paul (R-TX) has defeated President Barack Obama in a Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll of general election voters released Monday. This is the first time that Mr. Paul has defeated Mr. Obama nationally. Mr. Paul garnered 43 percent of the votes among general election voters and Mr. Obama pulled 41 percent of the votes.

When the Democrats get scared, they turn the nasty meter way up. Anyone who watched the Nader for President campaigns and the response it got in return in the form of sheer mean nastiness from the Democrats knows that. And this is why you are starting to see all over the left-leaning media constant mud-slinging smear attacks against Ron Paul.

Every time you see one, what you should really just note to yourself is that the party of Wall Street and War is afraid. There's a real opportunity for you to vote for real change. Change that would end the wars. Change that would save lives. Change that would start the process of kicking the money changers out of the temple.

Every time you see the Democrat propaganda machine slinging mud at Ron Paul, it means people out there are winning and threatening the power of the money and corruption that is today's modern Democratic party.

And you should be asking, what can I do now to help this along? What can I do to help Ron Paul defeat Wall Street? You should get involved.

Share

Left and Paul

Perhaps the most fascinating action on the current political stage is the way the Left in this country attacks Ron Paul.

The Republican nomination race right now consists of four candidates. The mainstream Democratic noise and propaganda machine mainly focuses on two. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Newt is doing is usual grandstanding routine, where he says anything that might get him attention and thus help make future book deals and speaking appearances pay in the hopes that he can live the rest of his life without ever having to get a real job. Santorum is usually described as the dumbest guy in politics, and routinely appeals to the people who would have burned Galileo and Copernicus at the stake for daring to suggest that the church was wrong when they said that the Earth was the center of the universe.

These two characters are the heart of the current Democratic campaign, which basically says that we should all vote for the current President and his economic policies of Hoover and Reagan and his foreign policy of Dubya just because these guys are worse. So, there's lots of noise from the noise machine about how awful Santorum and Gingrich are. The writers of the Dem noise machine generally ignore Mr. Paul because he's doesn't fit the role of this sort of propaganda as well as Santorum and Gingrich.

Mitt Romney is the Wall Street candidate on the right this year. Opensecrets.org records how the early Wall Street money in this election cycle has been flowing to Romney and Obama. So, the Democrats largely leave him alone. After all, he's backed by the same Wall Street money that backs the Democrats, and the likes of Santorum and Gringrich make much better propaganda for the Democrats politics of fear campaigns.

Then there's Ron Paul. On the surface, there's much in common between the left and Paul. There's a fake 2-D world-view imposed on politics in this age of 3-D entertainment that consigns candidates to the 'left' or 'right'. But when you look closely, its more of a mobius strip that wraps on itself as you find opposition to the wars and pro-corporate governance on both the left and right ends of the strip. In reality, what there really is is a corrupt, self-defined center that believes in taking your money and using it for corrupt payoffs to supporters and more and more and more war. All defended by an ever growing police and prison system that defends this corrupt, self-defined center from any real popular challenge.

In this view of politics, it makes sense for the left to support a Paul campaign that opposes our wars, opposes a corrupt pro-corporate government, and which opposes the anti-constitutional police state that tries to infiltrate, subvert and crush any opposition from the left.

Yet, what you find around the internet is the most shrill and nasty attacks upon any Republican from the left are aimed at Ron Paul. Reading these, you'd think Ron Paul is another Ralph Nader. Its a very strange sight to see. What passes for the left in this country is vigorously attacking the only anti-war candidate in the Presidential race that has even a slight prayer of success. With the only apparent outcome of such attacks to be the implied support of Obama and the Democrats and their goal to make Dubya look like a piker when it comes to starting war after war around the world.

You see the usual techniques of left-ist propaganda aimed at Mr. Paul. That is the cherry-picking of positions that the left doesn't like,and a focusing on those in their shrill screaming.

To me, I read these, and I ask the following questions. Does the left really want the wars to continue? The left is doing its political impersonation of Monty Python's dead parrot these days. There's absolutely nothing happening to the left of Obama to challenge his Reaganist government and policies. Which continues the pattern of the organized left that has existed for some time in that they only oppose Republican wars and policies. When a Democrat does the same things that a Republican does, the left falls into silent agreement.

If there was a strong left-ist challenge to Mr. Obama in this election, I'd support it. But there is none. The left has decided to sit out the Democratic primaries this year. And the popular left is so devoid of candidates in the general election that Rosanne Barr seems driven to take her comedy routine on to the political stage to fill the void that only a publicity hound could apparently spot.

With the left sitting there nailed to its perch in silence, the only political game in town right now for those who oppose our pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-police state government is the Ron Paul campaign. But, when people seem to spot that, that's when the screeching noises start to come from the dead lefty parrot nailed to its perch that suddenly start to tell you how awful Congressman Paul really is.

Its truly a quite bizarre political spectacle. I thought I'd seen the depths of how politically stupid and ineffective the left can be in politics, but this appears to be new depths.

Does the left not want the wars to end?
Does the left not want an honest government by a candidate who isn't bought by Wall Street?

Here's the main reason the left should support Ron Paul. Mr. Paul believes in the Constitution. We live in an age where the left's favorite Democrat has been sending the FBI and grand juries in vindictive attacks on the anti-war movement. We live in an age where one feels that in any political organizing attempt on the left one needs to look around the room to find out who's the FBI agent in the room. We live in an age where Cointel like activities seem to dominate anything on the left as you see people who seem to be actively subverting organizing and political goals from within any leftist popular movement.

Last year, we saw Obama's Department of Homeland Security and largely Democratic mayors and governors combine on coordinated police attacks on the Occupy Movement in cities across the country.

Given all of that, wouldn't it be nice to have a President that actually respects and believes in the Constitution?

To me, any political candidate is going to have policies I agree with and ones I don't. I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything. But, I think he's right on the important stuff. I'd like to see a President who ends these wars and who tries to reign in the military industrial complex. I'd like to have a President who seems to be honest and un-bought. If nothing else, I'd like to see a victory for Ron Paul because that victory would be a defeat for the minions of money from Wall Street that have dominated the government of this country for twenty years or more.

But, most of all, wouldn't it be nice to have a President who respects the Constitution and who isn't building a police state and using it to infiltrate, subvert, attack and crush any political organizing on the left? Wouldn't that just perhaps open up a little operating room for leftist activists in this country?

If you truly oppose rule by Wall Street and the wars and police state of the Dubya/Obama administration, you support Ron Paul. If you attack Ron Paul, I'm left wondering what you really support? At the very least, what can be said about the attackers of Ron Paul from the left are that they put their own narrow-minded political ideologies above any effective attempt to organize politically to challenge the power that's destroying this country. Of course, for anyone who's been around the left, that's not exactly a new revelation.

If anything decent is ever going to come from the political left in this country, first its going to have to grow up. And a sign of political maturity from the left would be support for an opposition candidate from the right that would give the left at least a few victories. Little things, like saving the lives of thousands of people who die in the Dubya/Obama wars.

So far, the left is still showing they haven't moved past political kindergarten. Does not play well with others is the political report card on the left so far this year.

Share

America Tortures 20,000 People a Day (at least)

In the Hole by BILL QUIGLEY

John McCain said his two years in solitary confinement were torture. “It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” The reaction of McCain and many other victims of isolation torture were described in an excellent 2009 New Yorker article on isolation by Atul Gawande. Gawande concluded that prolonged isolation is objectively horrifying, intrinsically cruel, and more widespread in the U.S. than any country in the world.

and ...

One of the most outrageous parts of the treatment of Bradley Manning is that the US kept him in illegal and torturous solitary confinement conditions for months at the Quantico Marine base in Virginia. Keeping Manning in solitary confinement sparked challenges from many groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU and the New York Times.

Human rights’ advocates rightly point out that solitary confinement is designed to break down people mentally. Because of that, prolonged solitary confinement is internationally recognized as a form of torture. The conditions and practices of isolation are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention against Torture, and the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination.

and ...

It is important to realize that tens of thousands of other people besides Manning are held in solitary confinement in the US today and every day. Experts estimate a minimum of 20,000 people are held in solitary in supermax prisons alone, not counting thousands of others in state and local prisons who are also held in solitary confinement. And solitary confinement is often forced on Muslim prisoners, even pre-trial people who are assumed innocent, under federal Special Administrative Measures.

In 1995, the U.N. Human Rights Committee stated that isolation conditions in certain U.S. maximum security prisons were incompatible with international standards. In 1996, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture reported on cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in U.S. supermax prisons. In 2000, the U.N. Committee on Torture roundly condemned the United States for its treatment of prisoners, citing supermax prisons. In May 2006, the same committee concluded that the United States should “review the regimen imposed on detainees in supermax prisons, in particular, the practice of prolonged isolation.”

America tortures 20,000 people a day by this single method. This doesn't include beatings by police or prison guards or interrogation procedures. Its almost a certainty that none of these people know of the location of a ticking time bomb. Solitary confinement is a slow motion form of torture over weeks and months. Which means its completely useless for the sorts of scenarios used to justify torture by claiming that getting vital information fast will save other lives. No, this is a slow form of torture used for vindictive punishments.

Welcome to America.

Share

Obama's Plan to Crash the Economy - $5 a gallon gas.

The dots are never connected. Our foreign policy towards Iran is always presented as being completely separate from economic issues. But, what happens if our attempts to start a war with Iran over Iran's mythical nuclear weapons program causes the price of gas to spike upwards? Everything then costs more. Everyone then has less to spend. And the current jobless, money-less, illusionary 'recovery' goes bye-bye.

US wants SWIFT war on Iran by Pepe Escobar

Iran supplies 500,000 barrels of oil a day to the EU. The mere threat of an Iranian embargo has already provoked an oil price spike.

And anyone who's ever done business with an oil company knows those spikes in the price of oil will soon be seen at gas pumps. In our global markets, it doesn't matter if the embargo is aimed at Europe, or even if the embargo is real or fictional. But you can count on increases in the price of oil being passed along to the consumers at the gas pump.

Add this to demand crashing in Europe because of Obama's banker backers demanding their pound of flesh in "austerity measures", and US policies that put those "austerity measures" (known as "deficit reduction" in America) into place here, also pushing down the already weak demand of the world economy, and the future does not look very bright. Under these policies, if you see our economic future wearing shades, its to cover up its black eye.

Share

Keep on Turning

The wheel is turning and you can't slow down,
You can't let go and you can't hold on,
You can't go back and you can't stand still,
If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will.

Won't you try just a little bit harder,
Couldn't you try just a little bit more?
Won't you try just a little bit harder,
Couldn't you try just a little bit more?

-The Wheel, Jerry Garcia and Robert Hunter

Share

Government of the Banks, by the Banks and for the Banks

The Divine Right of Money, Is Western Democracy Real or a Facade? by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Skeptics point out that President George W. Bush was put in office by the Supreme Court and that a number of other elections have been decided by electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail. Others note that elected officials represent the special interests that fund their campaigns and not the voters. The bailout of the banks arranged by Bush’s Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs chairman, Henry Paulson, and Washington’s failure to indict any banksters for the fraud that contributed to the financial crisis, are evidence in support of the view that the US government represents money and not the voters.

Recent events in Greece and Italy have created more skepticism of the West’s claim to be democratic. Two elected European prime ministers, George Papandreou of Greece and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, were forced to resign over the sovereign debt issue. Not even Berlusconi, a billionaire who continues to lead the largest Italian political party, could stand up to the pressure brought by private bankers and unelected European Union officials.

and ending with ...

Perhaps future historians will conclude that democracy once served the interests of money in order to break free of the power of kings, aristocracy, and government predations, but as money established control over governments, democracy became a liability. Historians will speak of the transition from the divine right of kings to the divine right of money.

There's an easy answer to this. Or, at least a way to test what elections can actually do. Stop voting for the candidates with money. You can easily tell who they are. They run lots of TV ads, the newspapers and TV will occasionally do stories on fund-raising. You know who the candidates of money are in every election. STOP VOTING FOR THEM.

Read the above article on what Goldman Sachs is doing right now in Europe. Then, realize that Goldman Sachs was one of Obama's biggest contributors. And with large amounts of key money early back when Hillary was supposedly the inevitable President. Then look at the current election. Goldman Sachs and Wall Street are currently pumping money into the Romney campaign. They are also giving enough to Obama to keep a hold on him too. Obama is still the odds on favorite to be President, while Romney is a heavy favorite right now to be the Republican opponent.

That means an election of Goldman Sachs versus Goldman Sachs. If Goldman Sachs wins, then you lose and they keep stealing trillions of US money while trying to stick you with the bill. Everytime you hear some politician talking about how we all have to sacrifice to cure the deficit, that's the Goldman Sachs bill-collector knocking on your door demanding you pay them trillions more dollars.

Its time to say No. The Republican nomination isn't settled yet. It doesn't have to be Goldman Sachs versus Goldman Sachs with all other so-called candidates locked out of the debates and basically the whole campaign by riot police and barricades. Just say No. Say no to Goldman Sachs and Romney.

I'm proud to display the Ron Paul delegate sign I've got below. Its only as a delegate to the Republican county convention. But still, it says I did at something in these elections to stand up to the banks, to stand up to Goldman Sachs, to stand up for their hand-picked, bought-and-paid-for politicians and say NO!

What are you going to do? Most of the states haven't voted for the Republican nomination, so what are you going to do? Stand up for democracy? Sit back and do nothing? Actively vote for the bankers' candidate whom you know is going to screw you?

America, freedom, democracy, a world where people can live free and enjoy the fruits of their hard work ... there's a lot hanging in the balance. So, what are you going to do?

Share

Congratulations!

Share

What the Aftermath of a Violent Revolution Looks Like

“Or Your Lying Eyes…” Truth and Fiction in the News Business by Alexander Cockburn.

Any struggle to overturn established power consists of two phases. The first is the struggle to overthrow that power. In this face, since the established power is strong and established, the only way it can succeed is if all the various opposition groups come together and struggle together. Its a Them aganst Us struggle of everyone trying to work to overturn a strong power that is fighting for its own continued existence.

Then, there's what comes next.

Mr. Cockburn quotes a NYT article as follows ....

“‘Nobody holds back the Misuratans,’ said Jumaa Ageela, an elder there. Bashir Brebesh said the same was true for the militias in Tripoli. On Jan. 19, his 62-year-old father, Omar, a former Libyan diplomat in Paris, was called in for questioning by militiamen from Zintan. The next day, the family found his body at a hospital in Zintan. His nose was broken, as were his ribs. The nails had been pulled from his toes, they said. His skull was fractured, and his body bore signs of burns from cigarettes.

“They’re putting themselves as the policeman, as the judge and as the executioner,’ said Mr. Brebesh, 32, a neurology resident in Canada, who came home after learning of his father’s death. He inhaled deeply. ‘Did they not have enough dignity to just shoot him in the head?’ he asked. ‘It’s so monstrous. Did they enjoy hearing him scream?’

“The government has acknowledged the torture and detentions, but it admits that the police and Justice Ministry are not up to the task of stopping them. On Tuesday, it sent out a text message on cellphones, pleading for the militias to stop.

“‘People are turning up dead in detention at an alarming rate,’ said Peter Bouckaert, the emergencies director at Human Rights Watch, who was compiling evidence in Libya last month. “If this was happening under any Arab dictatorship, there would be an outcry.’”

The one sense I get from history is that it matters how you act during a revolution, and how you achieve your victory in a revolution. If the revolution is a peaceful, non-violent movement for change, then those are the forces that are powerful and respected in the chaotic aftermath of the collapse of the established power. It doesn't guarantee a peaceful and non-violent transition to a stable society in the future. But at least there's a chance it can happen.

On the other hand, if the struggle for change is a violent one, where the most violent and most ruthless of the rebels are the most successful, then these are also the people and groups who are most powerful and if not respected at least feared during the aftermath. And, since they are the ones setting the tune, the chances of a peaceful and non-violent transition to a stable society in the future are pretty much zilch.

On one hand, to achieve real change, what's needed is a mass movement of all opposition groups. But at the same time, it matters how a struggle is conducted, and what examples are set during the struggle. If the day that's remembered is the day that the people came together as a mass and who through their non-violent resistance overthrew a tyrant, then that's what's remembered in the future. That will become the legend.

On the other hand, if the day that's remembered is the day when people with guns fought with the forces of the tyrant, eventually succeeding and overthrowing him/her, then that's what will be remembered. It will be the heroes of that fight, often the most violent, callous and ruthless people, who become the heroes of the new state.. Which means they, and their violence, will likely be calling the tunes in how the new society is created.

Of course, the tyrant also has a say in this. A tyrant like Quaddafy who fights violently and brutally to stay in power, and who fights down to the last breath of the last fool that supports him, tends to force a final violent fight for power in their society, and thus create the sort of aftermath where the most violent and ruthless people who could fight to overthrow him become the creators of the next thing to happen there.

Share

Vegas Odds

Want a real poll to tell you what's up in the Presidential elections. One that isn't spun by some media conglomorate or defense contractor or political party or campaign that isn't exactly neutral in the fight? Well, check the Vegas Odds.

Obama ------- 5/9
Romney ------ 17/10
Santorum ---- 15/1
Gingrich ---- 30/1
Paul -------- 50/1

Now, just to be clear, that's what the bookmakers have to put out in order for them to get a spread of money across the choices. But, in that sense, its an honest read on how the American people, or at least those willing to place a bet in Vegas, feel about the Presidential race. The Vegas bookies have to offer about 3.5 times better pay-outs to get people to wager on Romney instead of on Obama. Obama is still the clear favorite to be re-elected.

Share

Government of the Rich, By the Rich, and For the Rich.

Of the rich, by the rich, for the rich by SocialistWorker.org

As usual with the socialists, they are outstanding when it comes to identifying the problems we have in our society. But then, when it comes to what to do about it, they are dead wrong.

CALL IT the 1 percent election.

They may feign interest in the lives of ordinary people in their drive to win votes--visiting small-town diners and hobnobbing with the "common man"--but the leading contenders for the Republican nomination rake in enough money every year to rank at the very top of the U.S. income ladder.

And it's not just the Republicans--top Democrats, including Barack Obama, may talk more often about economic fairness, but they certainly don't deny themselves the kind of wealth that the vast majority of Americans won't see in a lifetime.

That's because from top to bottom, both parties in Washington are committed to protecting the wealth and power of America's elite few. And why not? The vast majority of them are a part of it.

Very, very true. A majority of the people in DC are millionaires. So, is it any wonder that they all got together and compromise on issues like extending the Dubya/Obama tax cuts for the rich, or for constantly lowering capital gains taxes, or that in general its the working people of this country that have to pay all the bills.

This provides a stark lesson about capitalism: An entire class of people does no actual work, but still makes fortunes--and it can buy an entire political class to protect and expand its wealth at the expense of workers and the poor.

That's exactly the system we have today. We have a class of people who do zero real work. They don't really have a job, except managing their 'investments' and spending their money. But we have a political system that is so tilted towards money that they dominate it. And of course, its tilted towards money and their domination because they made it that way.

However, this article falls apart on two counts. First is that it completely ignores the Ron Paul campaign. A very typical thing on the left these days, as his campaign isn't very useful for this sort of propaganda. Its the pin that punctures their balloon.

And, the conclusion it makes is that elections don't matter and that no one should bother with elections, and that instead the way to change the world is to go camp in a city park. Wrong!

Abandoning elections just leaves the rich and powerful even more firmly in power. Once they the rich and powerful win the elections that the left seems to want to abandon, they then use their authority as Mayor or Governor to send in the police to break up the campground in the city park. So, while the left will then churn out even more propaganda about how awful this is, they tend to forget or ignore the point that the reason these people were in charge of the police was because the left ran around telling everyone that elections don't matter.

Elections do matter. And there's a very simple path forward through elections. Teach voters that not only do elections matter, but the easy rule to follow for change is simply to stop voting for rich people. And not to vote for the candidates who have lots of the money of rich people backing them. STOP ELECTING THESE PEOPLE. That's the answer.

There's other names on the ballot. Heck, to even create this propaganda piece the socialists had to ignore the Paul campaigns presence on the ballot. Everywhere I've lived, there's usually at least one name on the ballot of someone who isn't rich and who doesn't have millions of rich people's money behind them. Try voting for these people for a change.

In electing Obama, the voters picked a millionaire who was backed by huge amounts of Wall Street and corporate money. In 2008, the money had shifted so completely to Obama that the McCain campaign declared that they'd accept public financing because they weren't able to raise money. The most bizarre political sight I've ever seen was the left, and especially the unions, working so hard to elected a millionaire backed by corporate millions. What a surprise that this didn't bring change. I'm shocked.

Try not voting for rich people sometime. Try voting for people who live in your neighborhood. Or who work the same jobs as you do. If they aren't on the ballot, help put one there. Elections do matter. And elections can be a powerful tool for change in this country. People just need to learn how to use them.

Share

Orwell's Obama

Obama's Drift Toward War With Iran by David Bromwich

This article is an interesting mix of Democratic propaganda and bs about Obama and a nice analysis of the real situation with Iran. And, in many ways that illustrates the confusion that infects the Democratic left. The problem is that they still have this inherent belief that Obama is the great progressive saint that was the campaign image of the 2008 primaries.

That leads to long discussions about Obama's supposed flaws, of the sort that occupies much of this article. Obama's slow to act, and never jumps ahead of his opponents. Obama has personal flaws that make him less effective as a President.

The president has made no comment on the situation. He has let it heat up for three years now, while the public mind grows swollen with false facts, and while negotiations, to the extent that there are negotiations, proceed under cover and in secret. As if negotiation were a shameful thing. Time does not tell for Obama. He will always have time. That was his philosophy in drawing out the health care debate for twelve months as his popularity sank from 70% to 45%. It was his policy once again, in catastrophically misjudging the odds for an agreement on the debt ceiling. In that affair, Obama hung back. He left it all in the hands of William Daley before sacking Daley and heading out on the campaign trail.

Yet, all of this seems to stem from an inherent mis-understanding about who Obama is politically. Obama is wall street money. Obama is the Israeli lobby. Obama is the pro-war President who during the last general election campaign supported Dubya's drone strikes inside Pakistan, called Afghanistan the right war, and that all along promised an expansion of the Army, the Marines and the Special Forces, as well as of the alphabet soup of competing intelligence agencies. And what the Democratic Left is incapable of understanding is that the real goals of Obama's policy towards Iran are being achieved by what the Democratic Left calls Obama's flaws.

The article does an excellent job of pointing out the real actions that Obama has taken, such as putting a very pro-Israli operative in charge of his policy. Then Obama sits back and says little publicly.

The way to regime change in Iran (so the strategy dictates) must pass through the destruction of the Iranian economy and a mixture of violence and menace to provoke the Iranian government. The Likud and neoconservative hope is simply to reach a point (if possible, before November) where Iran hits out first against the powers that are choking its trade, undermining its industry, assassinating its citizens and serving up serial ultimatums.

Those who read enough history to know the steps America took against Japan in the year or so before Pearl Harbor will find that a very depressingly familiar scenario.

The problem the Democratic Left has is that they fail to fully understand and appreciate the real Obama. They fail to see that Obama was always the candidate of wall street money, vetted and approved by the various 'defense' industries, and also the candidate of the Israeli lobby.
Obama was the candidate who before the 2008 elections supported Dubya's drone strikes into Pakistan, called Afghanistan the 'right war', and promised to spend what money America would have in a collapsing economy on a bigger Army, Marine Corp and Special Forces and increasing defense budgets. This is precisely the electoral coalition that was the backbone of the Obama campaign.

Yet, the Democratic left seem to have an amazing ability to see that Obama. Instead, they head off into tortured descriptions of Obama's personality flaws. Since they still believe the primary campaign image of Obama as a progressive saint, they can't just accept that maybe Obama is actually a rather skilled craftsman who manages to achieve the policies that his backers desire while convincing the Democratic Left that he really wants the opposite to occur.

The Democrats now have their own versions of Orwell's famous contradictions from 1984. Obama is the President who put Wall Street in complete command of the economy by naming their people as the leading economic advisers, but he's still somehow the progressive who's on our side. Obama is the guy who took millions from big health care corporations and then passed a 'reform' bill that made them even richer at our expense, but who is portrayed as a health care reformer. Obama is the guy who's continued the path of Dubya's wars and started many other new wars, but he's still somehow the anti-war President.

Wall Street = Prosperity
Big Corporate Profits = Health
War still equals Peace.

So, thus you hear all the excuses from the Dems about bad tactics and how Obama's personality doesn't let him do what the mythical Obama supposedly wants. Unfortunately, the reality is that Obama is the guy who took millions from all of Dubya's backers in 2008 and who has realiably executed the policies they wanted all along. The reality is that as always the President and his team are some of the best political operatives in the country, and to constantly assume that they are inept and incapable of doing their jobs is to miss the fact that they do their jobs very well in service of the people who paid for the campaigns that put these people in the White House.

Share

27 of Kucinich's 35 Article of Impeachment Against Dubya Apply to Obama Too.

27 of 35 Bush Articles of Impeachment Apply to Obama
Posted on February 2, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements, Creating Secret Laws, Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives, Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, etc. Its too long a list to retype. Aren't you glad you voted for change and hope? Next time, try voting against the money and power that wants these policies instead.

Share

One Million Dead Human Beings.

Just say that to yourself a few times. One Million Dead Human Beings. One Million Dead Human Beings. One Million Dead Human Beings.

And, this wasn't because of some natural disaster. It wasn't because of a drought or a flood. This was the deliberate act of one set of human beings taking actions they knew would cause massive amounts of pain and suffering and death to other human beings.

What do you think of that? Is that something you support? Or, do you consisder that to be something horrible that you'd oppose as a righteous and moral human being?

I'm talking about the United States' invasion and occupation of Iraq.

One million dead by Danny Lucia.

OVER A million Iraqis are dead from America's war.

That sentence is a cognitive litmus test. Some people's immediate reaction is, "That can't be right," because the United States couldn't do that. Or because crimes on that scale don't still happen. Or because they do happen, but only in horrible places that the United States hasn't rescued.

One million is a "Grandpa, what did you do to stop it?" number. It's a number that undeniably puts the American state among history's villains. Those who are not willing or able to accept this are physically unable to retain the fact that over a million Iraqis are dead. Their brains expel it like a foreign germ.

By the way, that one million number is both an understatement and rather dated by now. The real number is most certainly more. The study that number came from actually said about one and a quarter million dead Iraqis. And, its from 2007, so it doesn't even include the last two years of Dubya's killings in Iraq, and none at all of Saint Obama's dead people.

And, even back when the Democrats used to pretend to be shocked, shocked I say, at the dead bodies piling up in what they termed Dubya's Wars, it was always worth remember that Bill Clinton had killed probably as many Iraqis with his sanctions policies. The most famous spine chilling number of that era had some 500,000 extra deaths in Iraq, and that number was only for pre-school-age children back when the Clinton Democrats were working so hard to keep food and medicine out of Iraq. Surely that's only a piece of the deaths that results from such a medieval policy. If the children are dying, no one knows how many others of the ill or infirm or elderly were dying at the same time. A medieval siege always kills off the weakest members of a society, and pre-school-age children are only one aspect of that.

So, could you say Two Million Dead Human Beings? Two Million Dead Human Beings. Two Million Dead Human Beings. Two Million Dead Human Beings.

And that's two million dead human beings that are the direct result of America's policies towards Iraq over the last two decades. Is this something you support?

If you are an American reading this, the answer is almost certainly yes. A vast and huge majority of American voters have been voting for politicians who support and implement this policy. The policies span Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barrack Obama, and its only a tiny fraction of a percentage point or two of Americans who haven't voted for one of those three. And, the policies have been steadily supported by huge majorities in Congress, with the seeming opposition fading away and shifting sides of the aisle as the occupant of the White House changes. In general, the members of Congress elected by Americans are typically either supportive of their party when in control of the mass murder, and then even more shrill and bloodthirsty when in the opposition when they typically decry the current Administration's inefficiencies and mistakes that result in not enough dead human beings.

Two million dead human beings. And that's just in Iraq. It doesn't include the deaths in Afghanistan, which started with the US blockading food supplies to a country dependent on relief aid at the beginnings of the Afghan winter. That was back just after 9-11, and at the same time we were bombing Red Cross/Red Crescent food warehouses inside Afghanistan.

And, it doesn't count Iran, which is now the target of the Democratic and Republican unity in imposing yet more sanctions upon yet more people. With the full support of the Democrats, and with cries from the Republicans that starving people to death is too slow a way to commit mass murder and that we need to start bombing immediately to get our kill rates up to acceptable levels.

Two million dead human beings.

At what point do we become monsters? Do we have to kill more people than Hitler to be consider as big of a mass murdering monster? Does three million get us an honorable mention in the club of mass murdering tyrants? Maybe a portrait on the wall next to Stalin and Hitler and Mao and the other mass murderers of the 20th century? Maybe a little smaller and a little less prominent to reflect the fact that we haven't killed quite so many people, but still an honorable mention in the mass murderer wall of fame?

Its an election year. If you don't like this, vote for someone different. There are almost always other choices on the ballot. Other choices that would oppose this policy of mass death and destruction. There were at least three such candidates on the 2008 Presidential ballot (Barr, McKinney and Nader) as well as two more on the primary ballots (Kucinich and Paul). In 2012, there is Ron Paul running strongly in the Republican primaries, and several independent candidates gearing up for Presidential runs. All of whom would oppose and change this policy of worldwide mass murder. In the last Presidential election, the three anti-war, anti-empire opposition candidates got somewhat less than 3% of the total vote.

If you don't like knowing that you are responsible for electing politicians who are competing with Hitler and Stalin and Mao on the mass murderer wall of shame, then vote for someone different this time.

Share