Archive for July, 2010

I was surfing through You Tube last night and came across a video of Pat Buchanan giving Glenn Beck a little lesson in foreign policy.

Beck – as he says in the clip – is a libertarian, but he mentions Ron Paul and says the guy is wrong on so many issues. Now for a guy like Beck to spout words of the fathers and the Constitution, wouldn’t it cross peoples minds that he should be against our interventionist foreign policy?

Buchanan mentioned having troops on the border between the Koreas, and asked why? The war has been over for fifty years, South Korea can take care of themselves, why do we need 30,000 troops massed on their border? Sure the North’s ruler is a little out there, but when one looks at our own history, one has to ask the question, what in the hell were we thinking?

Hussein? Obama? Noriega? Musharif? Iran-Contra? These are men and entities we made alliances with in the name of peace? How much more of deficits, how much more of our financial soveriegnty is going to be sold into the hands of the Federal Reserve, other banks and communist China?

How many children are we willing to make fatherless and motherless all in the name of peace? All in the name of propping up governments that don’t exist. Karzai is a figurehead. Iraq still can’t get their shit together. Why else would Biden go over there?

Saddam Hussein didn’t have the military to terrorize a mouse. Would North Korea have any incentive to attack the United states if we WERE NOT OVER THERE?

How many soldiers lives, innocent civilians lives will be lost before this foreign policy is exposed for what it is? A lie. As far back as 1997 the neocons were planning their invasion of the Middle East, and in selecting George W. Bush, they had the fall guy.

How much more of international crisis, wars lead by the United States, joint military excercises done in the face of their enemies will occur before the American people awaken to the sad reality that our foreign policy is just fun and games?

“To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men.”
President Abraham Lincoln

Advertisements

We live in a country in post 9/11 where the guv’ment has eavesdropped in on our phone calls, e-mails, and even put Americans on watchlists.  Senators like Joe Lieberman and John McCain have sponsored bills to have Americans stripped of their rights and citizenship, held indefinately and interrogated, all in the name of “enemy combatant”.  Legislation for I.D. card has been passed.  Habeous Corpus and Posse Comatatous have been obliterated.

Arizona wants to know who is documented and who isn’t and everyone gets in a frazzle.  To say that border jumpers have rights is to say that we don’t have rights.  I’ve got news for border jumpers:  The only right that you have is to get out of my country,  You know, the one that I pay taxes to.

PHOENIX (Reuters) – Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.

A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.

“Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving,” said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. “We have no alternative. They have us cornered.”

The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.

The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.

It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers’ status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.

Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.

In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.

On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/

“They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect,” said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.

She said she had taken in just $20 as “everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy.”

LEGAL RESIDENTS FLEE

Arizona straddles the principal highway for human and drug smugglers heading into the United States from Mexico.

The state’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the law in April in a bid to curb violence and cut crime stemming from illegal immigration.

Polls show the measure is backed by a solid majority of Americans and by 65 percent of Arizona voters in this election year for some state governors, all of the U.S. House of Representatives and about a third of the 100-seat Senate.

Opponents say the law is unconstitutional and a recipe for racial profiling. It is being challenged in seven lawsuits, including one filed by President Barack Obama’s administration, which wants a preliminary injunction to block the law.

A federal judge heard arguments from the lawyers for the Justice Department and Arizona on Thursday and could rule at any time.

The fight over the Arizona law has complicated the White House’s effort to break the deadlock with Republicans in Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, an already difficult task before November’s elections.

While the law targets undocumented migrants, legal residents and their U.S.-born children are getting caught up in the rush to leave Arizona.

Mexican housewife Gabriela Jaquez, 37, said she is selling up and leaving for New Mexico with her husband, who is a legal resident, and two children born in Phoenix.

“Under the law, if you transport an illegal immigrant, you are committing a crime,” she said as she sold children’s clothes at a yard sale with three other families. “They could arrest him for driving me to the shops.”

Lunaly Bustillos, a legal resident from Mexico, hoped to sell some clothes, dumbbells and an ornamental statue on Sunday before her family heads for Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Monday.

“It makes me sad and angry too because I feel I have the right to be here,” said Bustillos, 17, who recently graduated from high school in Phoenix.

Yes, Shirley Sherrod’s comments were taken out of context.  But is that anything different from the lies that the corporate media feeds you?  Evidently freedom of speech and the right to have a political opinion only pertains to them, not the bloggers.  I’ve said it before; you would have a better chance of getting your news from some guy who has a media outlet such as this and a radio station from his basement as opposed to the mainstream media.

Imagine if the role was reversed.  What if a conservative had said the things that Sherrod had said and a blogger jumped all over them?  CNN would be praising that blogger.  But as I said, one of their own kind was attacked, and in the realm of party politics, that just cannot fly.

Why not lay the blame with the administration who fired her?  The ones who should have looked more into it.  Inevitably the ball that the Obama administration dropped has been turned into something like a political football.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 25, 2010

In the video clip below, CNN talking heads Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discuss internet journalism and the Sherrod case. “Imagine what would have happened,” says Roberts, “if we hadn’t taken a look at what happened to Shirley Sherrod and plumbed the depths further and found what had been posted on the internet was not in fact reflective of what she said.”

Once Again, Corporate Media Turns On Bloggers  onepixel  
Once Again, Corporate Media Turns On Bloggers  donttrust Once Again, Corporate Media Turns On Bloggers  onepixel
   

Too bad this self-righteous attitude was nowhere to be found when it was discovered that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. It was obvious well before Bush and the neocons invaded Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear and biological weapons. Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. It did not buy yellow cake in Niger.

In 1995 Gen. Hussein Kamel told U.N. inspectors and the CIA that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles (weapons, incidentally, sold to Hussein by the U.S. and European countries). Even one of then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s analysts, Greg Thielmann, said key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.

Everyone knew Saddam did not have WMDs and that includes the corporate media. Tony Blair said Iraq did not have WMDs. Majority Whip at the time, Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, who was on the Senate intelligence committee, knew Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, who was a member of the National Security Council, said he saw absolutely nothing he would have characterized as evidence of weapons of mass destruction. He also said the neocons planned to invade Iraq well before the attack of September 11, 2001.

In 2008, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan published a memoir. In his book McClellan said that the Iraq invasion and occupation was sold to the American people with a “political propaganda campaign” led by Bush and aimed at “manipulating sources of public opinion” and “downplaying the major reason for going to war.”

Following the publication of McClellan’s book more than a few corporate media types admitted acting as “complicit enablers” in the march to slaughter more than a million Iraqis and wreck the country (more than it was already wrecked by a decade of brutal sanctions). Even so, the corporate media generally avoided accepting blame. “There was almost no self-assessment, after five years of war. I observed then that this revealed a disturbing, and continuing, mode of denial or defensiveness,” wrote Greg Mitchell on June 2, 2008.

Tom Brokaw was especially weasel-like in his defense of mass murder. He defended the role of the corporate media as “complicit enabler” for warmongers and psychopaths.

“All wars are based on propaganda. John Kennedy launched the beginning of our war in Vietnam by talking about the domino theory and embracing the Green Berets. Lyndon Johnson kept it up and so did Richard Nixon. World War II–a lot of that was driven by propaganda, and suppressing things that people should have known at the time. So people should not be surprised by that,” he told Brain Williams. “In this business we often bump up against what I call the opaque world. The White House has an unbelievable ability to control the flow of information at any time but especially at a time when they are planning to go to war.”

Now a sanctimonious corporate media has the audacity to criticize bloggers for getting a bureaucrat fired. As painful as that experience was for Ms. Sherrod, at least she is alive. Her family was not killed by “smart bombs.” Her kids don’t have cancer from depleted uranium. She can flick a switch and there will be electricity in her home. Chances are very remote she will be killed by a suicide bomber when she shops for groceries.

Tom Brokaw and the corporate media are in large part responsible for mass murder and war crimes.

But you won’t hear Kyra Phillips and John Roberts talk about it. Instead, they will beat up on bloggers and for good reason — the alternative media is about to put the teleprompter reading class on the unemployment line.

In 1963 Presidet John F. Kennedy passed a memorandum ordering the first 1,000 troops home by Christmas of that year, and all forces out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.  In my mind, in no way should two incidents justify a prolonged invasion for nine years, lose 60,000 men, and spend over two-hundred billion dollars on a war where we are propping up a government that didn’t exist.

This is the problem with resolutions authorizing the president to use this sort of power.  As we have seen in the past they are half-baked, half-assed resolutions with no clear objective and no clear end.  Foreign policy is a power that Congress needs to reign in and limit the unlimited power that the office of the President enjoys.

President Kennedy in the interview advocated staying in Vietnam.  However, the telling line in that conversation is when Kennedy says, “it’s their war, they’re the ones that are gonna have to win it or lose it.”  And that’s the thing; none of the countries that we invade and occupy want to clean up their own messes.  They would be just happy with us fighting the war for them.

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Thursday, Jul 15th, 2010

De classified Vietnam era Transcripts Show Senators Knew Gulf Of Tonkin Was A Staged False Flag Event 150710LBJOver 1,100 pages of previously classified Vietnam-era transcripts released this week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee highlight the fact that several Senators knew that the White House and the Pentagon had deceived the American people over the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The latest releases, which document skepticism over the pretext for entry into the Vietnam war, date from 1968.

Four years into the war, senators were at loggerheads with Lyndon B. Johnson. At the time Foreign Relations Committee meetings were held behind closed doors.

It would take over thirty years for the truth to emerge that the Aug. 4, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats – an incident that kicked off US involvement in the Vietnam war – was a staged event that never actually took place.

However, the records now show that at the time senators knew this was the case.

In a March 1968 closed session of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee, the father of former vice president Al Gore, noted:

“If this country has been misled, if this committee, this Congress, has been misled by pretext into a war in which thousands of young men have died, and many more thousands have been crippled for life, and out of which their country has lost prestige, moral position in the world, the consequences are very great,”

Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, said in an executive session in February 1968:

“In a democracy you cannot expect the people, whose sons are being killed and who will be killed, to exercise their judgment if the truth is concealed from them,”

Other senators were keen to withhold the truth about Tonkin in order not to inflame public opinion on the war:

Senator Mike Mansfield, Democrat of Montana, stated, “You will give people who are not interested in facts a chance to exploit them and to magnify them out of all proportion.”

Mansfield was referring to the proposed release of a committee staff investigation that raised doubts over whether the Tonkin incident ever took place.

The committee decided in the end to effectively conceal the truth, with Senator Church noting that if the committee came up with proof that an attack never occurred, “we have a case that will discredit the military in the United States, and discredit and quite possibly destroy the president.”

He also noted that if the senators were to follow up on their skepticism over Tonkin, “The big forces in this country that have most of the influence and run most of the newspapers and are oriented toward the presidency will lose no opportunity to thoroughly discredit this committee.”

 The LBJ Presidential tapes, declassified and released in 2001, prove that LBJ knew the Tonkin incident never happened. After dressing down his Defence Secretary Robert McNamara for misleading him, Johnson then discussed how to politically spin the non-event and escalate it as justification for air strikes.

“You just came in a few weeks ago and said they’re launching an attack on us – they’re firing at us,” Johnson tells McNamara in one conversation, “and we got through with the firing and concluded maybe they hadn’t fired at all.”

The NSA also deliberately faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost in the “attack”.

Johnson used the 1964 false flag event to expand dramatically the scale of the Vietnam War by ushering in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, as well as to rope in much needed domestic support with the Congress and public.

Perhaps if the Foreign Relations Committee hadn’t been so afraid of “the big forces” controlling America, a large percentage of the almost 60,000 American soldiers and 2 million Vietnamese people wouldn’t have lost their lives.

Sadly, modern day elected representatives have failed the American people in exactly the same way over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

By Agence France-Presse

Two US lawmakers — a Republican and a Democrat — proposed a bill this week demanding the withdrawal of all US troops in Pakistan, where they are conducting covert operations against militants.

“We have known that US forces have been operating in secret inside the territories of Pakistan without congressional approval,” Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich said Friday, pointing to reports the United States was stepping up its presence there.

He said the House of Representatives was expected to take up the resolution next week. The measure was introduced late Thursday.

Kucinich said the covert operations were a “violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution introduced after the Vietnam War that only allows the president to send US armed forces into military operations abroad if Congress approves the decision or if the United States is under a serious threat or attack.”

“It is our constitutional responsibility as members of Congress to act,” Kucinich added.

Washington is working to deepen engagement with the nuclear power across the border from war-wracked Afghanistan and overcome rife anti-Americanism after years of perceived neglect of bilateral relations.

Joining Kucinich on the bill was Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who espoused libertarian views during his failed 2008 bid for the presidency.

Paul said the US military has “significantly increased” its operations in Pakistan, without providing figures.

He also noted the increased use of unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan since President Barack Obama came to office a year and a half ago.

“This increasing US military activity in Pakistan has little to do with protecting the United States and in fact is creating more enemies than it is defeating,” Paul said.

“The administration, like its predecessor, is misusing language in the original post-9/11 resolution to prosecute a wider regional war and Congress is sitting quietly on the sidelines. This must stop.”

The Pentagon says only a small number of US soldiers operate in Pakistan, mostly Special Forces tasked with training Pakistani troops along the Afghan border. Those US forces are not officially engaged in combat operations.

Kucinich previously tabled a resolution demanding that all US troops withdraw from Afghanistan, but it was rejected in March.

Washington has branded the rugged tribal area along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border a global headquarters for Al-Qaeda and other militants, who use it as a base to launch attacks on US-led forces in Afghanistan.

But the presence of US troops is a sensitive issue in Pakistan due to prevailing anti-American sentiment in the country, as well as conspiracy theories about US military operations and a perception that they threaten Pakistani sovereignty.

Can the liberal mainstream media get any more biased than this?  Come on.  All these winers complaining people are saying nasty things about someone, please, give me a break.  Its the first amendment, people.

Is the mainstream media more credible?  Do they want us censored just like they are?  We are the most free media network out there.  Just because some blogger jumped to conclusion over a speech given by Sherly Sherrod and now all of us have to pay the price.

Since nasty things are being said about people all the time on the blogs, why didn’t they say something sooner.  Oh, I get it.  Becuase one of their own was attacked.

In a free market internet the common sense and free speech of others keeps dubious and sometimes malicious statements “fair and balanced”.

P.S.  Did I mention that outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News hate bloggers because they want to be the only source for news.

Keep the internet free!  Watch the clip here.

Imagine if tomorrow or maybe a year from now coalition forces lead by the United States would lead surgical attacks against Iran.  A nation contrary to most Americans popular belief, has done nothing to the United States and hasn’t even invaded a neighboring country.  This is a country since the Bush administration has been under threat.  Why?

Is it because they pose a threat to the United States?  Israel?  Has Iran launched a full-scale attack on U.S. forces in Iraq?  True they fund Hamas, but hasn’t the United States funded Saddam Hussein?  A terrorist to his own people.  Were we not allied with Osama bin Laden?  These facts cannot be ignored.

So what would happen?

Mini-nukes: “Safe for Civilians” 

The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.  

The war agenda is based on the Bush administration’s doctrine of “preemptive” nuclear war under the 2002  Nuclear Posture Review. 

Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate. 

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or “low yield” “mini-nukes”, with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered “safe for civilians” because the explosion is underground. 

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war.  The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for “battlefield use”, they are slated to be used in the next stage of America’s “war on Terrorism” alongside conventional weapons:  

Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea]  Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.  Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of  21000  and 15000 tons ( http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm

Ground War 

While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war. 

Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border  and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria. 

In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises as well as deploy Special Forces  in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:  

Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.

[According to]  … a UAE newspaper …, according to the agreement reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military manoeuvres in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.

Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran’s borders in winter.

The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel’s special military units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.

Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of cooperating with America in espionage operations against its neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab press has been publishing various reports about Ankara’s readiness or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about its soil and air space being used for action against Iran.

Tehran has said that if attacked they will retaliate.  Undoubtedly targets of retaliation would be U.S. forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and Israel.  Iranian forces would breach the Iraq/Iran border and this would lead to nothing short of full out war.  While this has been labeled (as in the case of Iraq) a “cause for peace”, it seems to me that this would lead to a cause for destruction.  Only a fool would think that using air strikes and various forms of nuclear weapons would “solve the problem”.  Can we really think that Iran would roll over and die?

A foreign policy such as this deserves one word – idiocy.  And a slap across the face.

My source.