Richard Falk ‘under fire’ for 9/11 comments

Have you ever seen the movie Conspiracy Theory?  It’s a great movie to be certain – it’s one that I love – and in recent years my family and those around me have taken to calling me Jerry Fletcher.  Most people would probably take offense to this, but not me – it’s a compliment.

If you were to ask me “do you believe September 11, 2001 was done by the government?”, without a moment’s hesitation I would say, “Absolutely.”  The very real fact that a conspiracy theory such as this would even exist should be enough to give a person a moment’s pause.

Before the U.N. George W. Bush said: “Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories regarding the events of September 11, 2001.  Malicious lies meant to shift the blame from the guilty.”

And it seems that they haven’t.

Steve Watson
Wednesday, Jan 26th, 2011

UN Human Rights Official Under Fire For Describing 9/11 As A Cover Up 100408Sept11 An official working within the recently established UN Human Rights Council is under fire from an NGO closely affiliated with Israel for suggesting that the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks is a cover up.

Richard Falk, a former professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights made the comments in a blog post last week, noting that the mainstream media is “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials.”

Falk described this version of the 9/11 story as an “apparent cover up” containing “gaps and contradictions”.

The group UN Watch, which describes itself as “an independent Geneva-based watchdog organization”, pounced on the comments, in a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, calling for Falk to be removed from his post immediately. The group described Falk’s comments as an insult to the victims of the attacks and their families and loved ones.

Hilel Neuer, the group’s chief executive, described Falk as “a serial offender with zero credibility”.

Ban Ki-Moon responded Monday by publicly condemning Falk’s comments, but added that he was not in a position to fire Falk from the Human Rights Council.

The story has since found its way into the mainstream media, however there is one vital detail that you will not read in such articles.

The UN Watch group is closely affiliated with the American Jewish Committee and has been described as “a lobby group with strong ties to Israel”. The group has been after the head of Richard Falk and others like him for years, purely because he and other human rights experts alike continue to criticize and condemn the Israeli government’s treatment of the Palestinian people.

Falk’s appointment to the Human Rights Council, as a monitor on human rights issues relating to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, hit headlines in 2008 owing to the fact that he has previously slammed the Israeli occupation of Palestine and compared the Zionist government’s treatment of Palestinian Arabs to the Nazi treatment of Jews in the holocaust.

As a result, the Israeli government has routinely denied Falk a visa to enter Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

This legitimate criticism of the Zionist Israeli government gets boiled down to “Richard Falk believes that Jews are Nazis” in pieces such as this op ed in last Friday’s New York Daily News. This disgusting piece of tabloid trash suggests that Falk and his contemporaries are “apologists for dictatorships”, ironically for criticizing the actions of a vehemently racist government regime.

Despite this and the now customary attacks from the Anti-Defamation League, Falk has stood by his criticisms, previously telling the BBC: “If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison.”

Falk’s position on 9/11 has remained constant. Just over two years ago he called for a fresh investigation into 9/11 in order to examine the possible role that neoconservatives may have played in the attacks.

Indeed, two days prior to his appointment to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2008, Falk appeared on former University of Wisconsin lecturer Kevin Barrett’s radio show and spoke of how he was keen to see a fresh investigation into 9/11 in order to address inconsistencies in the official account of what happened.

Mr. Falk told Barrett, “It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don’t think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess.”

Falk previously penned the preface to Professor David Ray Griffin’s groundbreaking 2004 book The New Pearl Harbor, in which the theologian catalogued scores of unexplained facets surrounding 9/11 and inconsistencies in the official government version of events.

Given that the majority of those who sat on the 9/11 Investigative Commission have themselves expressed doubts about the official findings and described their roles as participation in a cover up, it is perfectly legitimate for anyone else in the world to ask questions about 9/11. In fact it should be a priority of every official in Falk’s circle to ask the same questions and raise the same doubts.

Richard Falk has continually acted as a thorn in the side of the establishment. He has published a number of notable books and essays analyzing the legality of the Vietnam War and other military operations, including the Iraq invasion.

In 2007 he played a prominent role in a Citizens’ hearing on the legality of the Iraq War as a tribunal testifier. Of the Invasion he has previously written:

“inescapable that an objective observer would reach the conclusion that this Iraq war is a war of aggression, and as such, that it amounts to a Crime against Peace of the sort for which surviving German leaders were indicted, prosecuted and punished at the Nuremberg trials conducted shortly after the Second World War.”

The UN Human Rights Council has been afforded little opportunity to function in any meaningful way. It has met stiff opposition at every turn from the US Congress and was recently described by the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs as a “rogues’ gallery” for “pariah states”.

There is a clear worry within the establishment that like Falk, some of the officials within the Human Rights Council are legal experts that recognize war crimes and illegitimate attacks when they see them and are actually attempting to do something about it.

This is one instance where some are attempting to work within and through the establishment left arm of the global elite system to meter out some justice.

In a 2008 interview, Japanese member of Parliament Yukihisa Fujita told the Alex Jones Show that there are numerous individuals within the UN structure that are significantly interested in pursuing the coordination of a new 9/11 investigation in order to address unanswered questions.

However, it remains to be seen whether the Human Rights Council is composed of enough well meaning individuals to have a significant impact, or whether, like much of the rest of the UN, it will merely become a powerless part of the overall establishment control mechanism.


The Cost of Freedom: Auto Fatalities, Lightening Strikes, and Terrorism

Before you read the following post; I would like to make a point.  You know, I hear the “fighting for our freedoms” get thrown around a lot, and it really sticks in my crawl.  And I’ll tell you why.  For the last sixty years we have been meddling in the Middle East and manipulating their political systems, so is it too far out the American stretch of the imagination to understand why some people hate us?

True threats to freedom come from legislation, not invasion.  As I’ve stated earlier, to understand the Constitution and the principles of which it was founded, we must first understand the concept of freedom and liberty for all Americans.

For as Thomas Jefferson once said: “When the people fear the government there is tyranny; when the government fear the people there is liberty.”

Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, January 24, 2011

News that an alleged suicide bomber killed 31 people and injured over a hundred after an explosion at Russia’s biggest airport is sure to provide the establishment media and governments in the west with more grist through which to sell their fearmongering agenda, when in reality, Americans are just as likely to be killed by peanut allergies, accident-causing deer, and lightning strikes than they are by terrorists.

Roughly the same number as those unfortunately killed in today’s suicide bombing will die on America’s roads today, as well as tomorrow and in fact every day of the year – an average of 115 Americans are killed in car accidents daily, about one every 13 minutes, but you will never see it make the national headlines never mind gain global attention.

And why is that? Because every time we climb into our cars we subconsciously accept the price of freedom – which is the chance of being injured or killed. We take the same gamble every time we board an airplane, cascade down a ski slope or go up in a hot air balloon. We do so because the benefits of being a free human being are infinitely more rewarding than living in constant fear and demanding omnipresent “security,” which is never achievable anyway.

Despite the constant drumbeat of establishment fearmongering about the imminent threat of terrorist attacks, the likelihood of actually being a victim of one is infinitesimally small, and only highlights how such threats are hyperbolically exaggerated for political purposes.

To equal the danger that Americans place themselves in every day by driving their car down the highway, there would have to be a September 11 every month. To reach the same level of risk that one undertakes in boarding an airline, you only have to travel eleven miles in a car.

“Until 2001, far fewer Americans were killed in any grouping of years by all forms of international terrorism than were killed by lightning, and almost none of those terrorist deaths occurred within the United States itself. Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts,” writes Ohio University’s John Mueller in a report entitled A False Sense Of Insecurity.

“For all the attention it evokes, terrorism actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic,” concludes Mueller.

Which is precisely why Homeland Security’s gradual takeover of American society and its attempt to make citizens spy on each other in the name of preventing terrorism has nothing to do with providing some phantom sense of “security” and everything to do with indoctrinating the slaves to maintain complete obedience to their would-be slave masters.

This is about eviscerating constitutional rights by characterizing the exercise of those rights to dissent against the state as an abnormal behavior. This is not our claim – the DHS’ own internal documents list Ron Paul supporters, gun owners, gold bullion enthusiasts, and a myriad of other banal political interests as possible extremism and/or terrorism.

In addition, the US State Department defines the right to peaceably assemble and protest as “low-level terrorism”.

The fact that genuine acts of terror pose a miniscule level of real-world threat to Americans is known and fully understood by the likes of Homeland Security and the State Department. The fact that such agencies are now more concerned with persecuting politically-active Americans as terrorists explains the true intention behind programs like “See Something, Say Something,” which is firmly focused around chilling the 1st Amendment by creating a climate of constant fear and mistrust.

On the contrary, the V For Victory campaign is about creating a climate of solidarity, trust, and a bond of freedom amongst the American people, which is why we urge you to become part of the resistance against big government tyranny by re-asserting your status as a free-thinking, liberty-minded individual who rejects the odious historical connotations of recruiting citizen spies to tattle on their friends, colleagues and fellow Americans.

V for Victory Posters – “We Are Legion”

If you’ve read the Bible then you will remember the story of where Jesus Christ approached a man possessed by a demon.  When Jesus called out the demon and said, “I command you to tell me who you are!’

The Demon then replied, “We are Legion, for we are Many.” 

Which brings me to the subject of the day; why would Alex Jones – a man who talks of the world power elite, and occultism in the government – put a quote from a demon on a poster?  I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I would have put something like ‘We Are Liberty’.

Oppositon to the ‘N’-word a new McCarthyism?

Before I get into it, here is a quick reminder of Dr. Laura Schlessinger:

She’s such a dumbass.  Sensitivity?  A sense of humor?  A black woman calls in trying to get some help…and she’s supposed to have a sense of humor?  And where in the hell did HBO come from?  Is this woman Chris Rock?  Is this woman a black comic?  To be quite honest, this woman sounded to be educated.

Newshouds has written an editorial of Schlessinger appearing on Hannity to receive a pep talk.  With Hannity’s softball questions, Dr. Laura was pretty much given a free pass.  But more than that, it was trying to vilify those of the left who have used the same lack of common sense.  As if that makes Dr. Laura’s conduct that more right?

Now Dr. Laura has the right to free speech under the First Amendment.  But so do the rest of those who find her speech offensive. 

Click on the link above, scroll down and watch the clip; and did Sean Hannity really compare the attacks on Dr. Laura to that of the “new McCarthy”?  The very real fact that Hannity inducted ‘McCarthy‘ into the issue shows his utter disrespect for the historical integrity of our nation during one of her darkest periods in the twentieth century.

Understanding the Iraq Sanctions

Article written by Anthony Gregory

From the book Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq Sanctions by Joy Gordon

Between the Gulf War and the Iraq War, the United States enforced a comprehensive sanctions policy against the Iraqi people, under the auspices of the United Nations. Whereas the hot conflict of 1990 and the one that has run from March 2003 to this day have occupied American attention, the sanctions, beginning even before Operation Desert Storm and persisting until Shock and Awe, implemented by three presidential administrations, were largely ignored. Trade restrictions simply do not elicit the primetime excitement that bombs and aircraft do. Yet the devastation from depriving a nation of international trade is easily comparable to that of war.

On the eve of the Iraq War, moderate voices for “peace” even insisted that the sanctions were “working” in undermining Saddam’s regime and preventing it from rearming — as though such were worthy U.S. goals in the first place. But putting that question aside, the prospect of all-out war struck many Americans as imprudent, displeasing, perhaps even immoral — even as many of those same Americans defended the sanctions regime and advocated their continuation in lieu of war.

But more principled voices for nonintervention, and those aware of the enormity unleashed by the sanctions, had been protesting them for years. Indeed, as a practical matter, the sanctions ran counter to defending American lives on U.S. soil. Osama bin Laden cited the sanctions on Iraq, among other U.S. policies, as a main motive behind the attacks of September 11. Perhaps no single example of such policies is more horrific than the sustained and systematic destruction of Iraqi economic life — which is to say, Iraqi life — that took place in the “peacetime” era between the two wars. To this day, thanks to the sanctions as well as the wars, the Iraqis have “never [come] close to restoring the standard of living that most Iraqis had up to 1990,” according to Joy Gordon, whose new book, Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq Sanctions, is a powerful and rather comprehensive treatment of the topic.

War by other means

The sanctions began in August 1990, in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. During the actual Gulf War, 160,000 bombs were dropped on Iraqi forces and infrastructure. A UN envoy soon found 75 percent of the water access and 85-90 percent of the electricity infrastructure destroyed. The bombing and sanctions demolished Iraq’s relatively modern economy, turning the nation into a third-world country, and preventing it from recovering. “Between August 1990 and December 1995, food prices increased by 4,000 to 5,000 times.”

The result of these policies was mass devastation:

The destruction from the 1991 bombing campaign of electric generating plants, water purification, and sewage treatment facilities resulted in cholera and typhoid epidemics. In 1990 the incidence of typhoid was 11.3 per 100,000 people; by 1994 it was more than 142 per 100,000. In 1989 there were zero cases of cholera per 100,000 people; by 1994 there were 1,344 per 100,000.

Meanwhile, major surgeries fell to “30 percent of the pre-sanctions level.” Most terribly, child mortality rates skyrocketed. Although there is disagreement over the data, “the majority of the studies over the course of the sanctions regime strongly suggest that, for the period from 1990 to 2003 …at least 500,000” children died of malnutrition and disease who would most likely have otherwise lived.

All in all, “according to 1990 testimony before Congress, the sanctions eliminated 90 percent of Iraq’s imports and 97 percent of its exports. As a result, per capita income went from $3,510 in 1989 to $450 in 1996.” Iraq’s GDP, which had been $54 billion in 1979, sank to $10 billion in 1993.

At first, the goal was to pressure Iraqi forces to retreat from Kuwait. But sometime after the war began, the goal shifted to one of general containment and disarmament — at least as far as the UN Security Council was concerned — while the U.S. government and Britain upheld the more ambitious goal of regime change. That was a bipartisan policy in America. Bill Clinton said in 1993, “There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the [George H.W. Bush] Administration…. I have no intention of normalizing relations with [Saddam Hussein].” And as his secretary of State Madeleine Albright made clear in 1997, “We do not agree … that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.”

But if the goal was regime change, the policy was virtually destined to fail. Gordon writes, If Saddam Hussein was supposed to be motivated by self-interest, and wanted sanctions to end, then there was no reason for him to comply with the demands of the Security Council, since sanctions could not be removed without U.S. agreement and the United States repeatedly made clear that it would never remove them while Hussein was in power.

In a chapter called “The Magnitude of Catastrophe,” Gordon documents the extent of that destruction and finds that only the combination of war, restrictions on imports, central planning of exports, and a systematic undermining of Iraqi infrastructure could produce the calamity that occurred. The destructive policies, such as the bombing of Iraq’s water treatment facilities and the UN ban on the importation of chlorine, worked together. “Or take, for example, the ceiling on oil exports: once the ceiling on oil sales was lifted, Iraq was blocked from obtaining the equipment necessary to increase oil production. Or consider the blocked contracts for electrical equipment: even if Iraq had been allowed to buy the equipment and chemicals for water and sewage treatment, there was not sufficient electricity to power the plants.”

Gordon writes,

The perversity and irony of the sanctions regime, imposed under the auspices of international law, is that it may have done more human damage than Saddam Hussein’s persecution of ethnic groups and human rights combined.

Imperialistic central planning

How did the program work? Initially, the UN forbade all member nations to import any Iraqi goods, and required them to prohibit their nationals from shipping any goods or sending funds to either Iraq or Kuwait. From August 1990 to March 1991, that included food. The program soon came to involve “a labyrinth of UN agencies as well as the establishment of an entirely new agency within the UN.” Beginning in August 1991, Iraq was allowed to export up to $1.6 billion every six months to trade for food and medicine. All humanitarian goods, food, and medical equipment would be purchased through the “661 Committee,” which came to possess “extremely broad responsibilities for the overall implementation of the sanctions regime.” The 661 Committee, made up of 15 delegates, “few of whom had expertise in economic development, emergency relief, oil, or any other of the committee’s substantive areas of work,” made about 6,000 decisions a year about what would be allowed into Iraq. From 1990 to 1995, that was “the sole legal means for Iraq to import any goods.” By 1995, food was so scarce that an Iraqi government rationing program provided “1,100 calories per person per day.”

And before Iraq could buy any goods, it would have to present a “distribution plan,” giving a

detailed description of the areas of need in each sector…. The plan then listed every single item to be purchased, how it would be used, and where it would be used: every piece of equipment for electrical production, and the specific power plant where it would go; every chemical or instrument for water treatment, and the specific laboratory or plant where they would be used; every dose of vaccine for poultry and cattle, and every syringe, needle and scissors for veterinarians; and so forth.

Even as Iraqi imports were controlled in this totalitarian manner, so too was its principal export, oil. By determining how much oil could be sold, the United States and UN exercised total domination over the Iraqi economy. Altogether, war and sanctions “meant an 85 percent decline in oil production.” In 1995, the UN set up the Oil-for-Food Program, in response to problems with and criticisms of the initial sanctions regime, but the control was still cruel and becoming of a total state. “The Oil-for-Food Programme originally allowed imports totaling $130 per person per year. Together with existing imports, which averaged $20 per person per year, total imports came to $150, well below the level of the poorest Arab countries.”

Moreover, Iraq never handled any of the funds. The “proceeds of all oil sales were deposited in [a UN] account and all payments to vendors were made from this account.” The U.S. meddling with oil prices through a socialist scheme of “retroactive pricing” also interfered greatly with trade with Iraq. “The chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute asked, ‘How can you do business if you don’t know what the price is?'”

The United States calling the shots

Although done through the UN, the sanctions were essentially a U.S. policy. “The United States exercised singular influence over every aspect of the structure and extent of the sanctions.” The Multinational Interception Force, which enforced the policy, “for its entire history was under the command of U.S. naval officers.” The United States first created the policy by intimidating and bribing member nations to vote for it — offering aid to Colombia, Ethiopia, and Zaire to vote for the sanctions; making deals with China and the Soviet Union; and canceling aid to Yemen for refusing to go along. Then, by exercising its veto power over the implementation of the sanctions, the United States would put a “hold” on various importation contracts — blocking agricultural goods, children’s milk, food-packaging materials, raw cotton, and glue. The United States even “blocked the purchase of salt on the grounds that it could be used for the salinization of leather, which contributed to Iraqi industry.” These holds were at times both absurd and devastating: “Vehicles in general were targeted by the United States on the grounds, for example, that a vehicle that could carry a bulldozer could conceivably be used by the military to carry a tank…. Sixty percent of transportation contracts on hold were for accessories such as tires, car batteries, or spare parts, making it impossible to maintain or repair whatever vehicles there were.”

This “dual use” rationale for blocking items that could supposedly be used for both civilian and military purposes was taken to obscene levels. The United States “blocked a contract for 1,000 water tankers on the grounds that they were lined with stainless steel and therefore were ‘WMD dual use.'” A “catering truck was blocked because it was refrigerated.” Propellant used to make inhalers was disallowed. Vaccines were blocked, because it was supposed to be possible to turn the weak viruses into biological weapons. Pesticides were blocked because “Iraq might extract chemical components … to make chemical weapons.” Although the UN monitored how imports were used, the United States insisted on blocking such important goods outright. And although the holds were supposedly for security reasons, the United States was willing to reverse itself to benefit nations that went along with its sanctions policy.

All the while, Congress was content to allow the executive branch to handle the sanctions, blindly accepting State Department propaganda and only occasionally speaking up insofar as it concerned the disarmament of Iraq and regime change. Only a few legislators spoke in behalf of the devastated Iraqi people. Gordon provides a very good chapter on congressional dynamics. Of course, even with the Democrats running “both houses of Congress until 1995, for the most part they had little interest in the humanitarian situation.”

The UN itself is to blame as well, but, notably, most other member nations, the elected members of the Security Council, and the humanitarian organizations within the UN tended to protest the policy as framed by the United States and to an extent Britain. UN agencies produced damning reports of the humanitarian disaster. UN secretaries general complained. Starting in 1991, nations such as India, Zimbabwe, Ecuador, Cape Verde, and Morocco proposed reforms to allow for more humanitarian aid. In 1999, UN panels issued reports finding that the Oil-for-Food Program could not be sufficiently reformed to deal with the horror. In 2000, delegates from more than 20 nations, at this point even including the United States and Britain, gave presentations urging reform. But at every turn, “the United States either prevented the reforms from being adopted or undermined their implementation after they had been adopted.”

As for the well-publicized Oil-for-Food scandal, Gordon has a whole chapter detailing the facts, showing that the corruption involved was overblown compared with the destruction and corruption of the sanctions policy itself. Even without the Oil-for-Food corruption, the Iraqi people would have been virtually no better off. And even here, the United States is hardly blameless: “By far the greater part of Iraq’s illicit funds came from ongoing trade with Jordan, Turkey, and Syria…. The United States blocked any punitive action by the Council against either Jordan or Turkey.” The amount of misallocated money involved in the scandal was dwarfed, for example, by the waste and mismanagement of Iraqi funds by the Coalition Provisional Authority established by the United States in 2003:

From 1990 to 2003 Iraq averaged about half a billion dollars in illicit trade annually. By contrast, in fourteen months of occupation, the U.S.-led occupation authority depleted $18 billion in funds, a good deal of it on questionable contracts with little justification, but much of it just an outright giveaway of cash.

None of this is to defend the Iraqi government, which Gordon writes about extensively in one chapter. Some people mistakenly place all the blame on Saddam’s regime for its corruption and cruelty; the Iraqi state did exacerbate the problem but not as much as is often believed. “The more serious failings concerned the basic structure and policies of the Iraqi government itself: the centralization, the reliance on oil income, reliance on imports and on foreign professionals, and the reliance on advanced technology.” Indeed, the centralized nature of the Iraqi state and the widespread public dependency upon it meant that its bankruptcy under the sanctions regime impoverished the whole country. Gordon credits the government for some of its rationing and subsidy efforts, but it is telling that one of the effective and positive things the Iraqi government did was to allow “the expansion of the private sector in health care, to compensate for the state’s inability to meet health care needs.”

Philosophical, legal, and political lessons

Gordon finishes with a couple of chapters exploring the implications for international law and political and ethical philosophy. Libertarians will not be overimpressed by the sanctions’ incompatibility with UN guarantees such as the “right to health care,” but they will find very compelling the discussion of the Geneva Convention, war crimes, and the like. Gordon finds little legal recourse for the Iraqi people in the form of prosecution or judicial oversight of the Security Council. The sanctions, she concludes, probably do not rise to the level of “genocide” or “a crime against humanity” — “but it seems to me this does not constitute a vindication of the sanctions, but rather a failure of international law.” She comes to a rather encouraging libertarian conclusion: “It may be that, in the end, there is a particular risk posed to humanity by international governance,” whose institutions “entail the risk of a new form of global violence.”

But there is so much to learn from this tragic and disgusting episode. Conservatives need to recognize that totalitarianism and socialistic central planning are indeed not just an abstract threat under the banner of the Democratic Party, but are a reality of U.S. policy, especially as it concerns foreign affairs. They must come to grips with the evil and systematic destruction and terror that are unleashed in the name of U.S. national security upon innocent people in other countries. Liberals should learn that central economic control and restrictions of free trade contain the seeds for near-genocidal levels of cruelty and oppression; that allowing international bodies to govern trade is far from a panacea but is rather a tool of imperialism; that no political party and no state — American, international, or Iraqi — can be trusted not to put political interests above the human right to engage in economic exchange. The Iraqis have been brutalized by the U.S. government for 20 years now, and neither their own government, for all its monopolization of public services, nor the United Nations, for all its high rhetoric, has done much other than worsen their misery. The rest of us can learn about the extent of death and destruction meted out by our own government, in our own name, and come to see why so many in the world would hate us and be willing to kill us — not for our freedom, but for Washington, D.C.’s, war on the freedom of others. Invisible War is a very important book about a very important topic, a topic at risk of being neglected and forgotten, as have so many other atrocities commited by the U.S. empire.

If Sarah Palin cannot take criticism, then she shouldn’t be President

As the title says; If Sarah Palin cannot take criticism, then she shouldn’t be President.  You can look at President Obama and already tell the difference in his age.  Where else can you have a job where you have over two-hundred million voters bitching at you?

During her interview with Sean Hannity last night, Palin said that ‘they’re not going to shut me up’.  Good.  The more you talk, the more people will see that you are not the one to be the Chief Executive.

And all of this criticism is somehow a means to thwart what Palin is doing.  Sarah, YOU’RE NOT DOING ANYTHING!  You’re making millions off of books and book signings, your contributions to Fixed News, and your vastly filtered interviews and speeches.  You’re not even the Governor of Alaska anymore, so why in the hell are you still called Gov. Palin?  You quit your job, remember?

While Sarah’s map of the United States with crosshairs was not meant to incite rage or anger or the possible assassination of a public servant; she is polarizing and despite reasons that I can possibly fathom, people listen to her.

Her address on Facebook wasn’t so much an attempt to share her condolences as it was a political stump speech, and all in the name of saving her ass.