Showing posts with label military-industrial complex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military-industrial complex. Show all posts
September 17, 2014
September 15, 2014
Fmr IDF Soldier to US - Stand Up to #Israel War Crimes [RT crosspost - YouTube 12mins]
Fmr. IDF Soldier Calls on Americans to Stand Up to Israel War Crimes - Interview with Eran Efrati
Published September 15, 2014
Abby Martin speaks with Eran Efrati, a former IDF soldier who
recounts his experience being ostracized for attempting to
expose crimes he witnessed as a soldier.
LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet
FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin
_______________________________________
recounts his experience being ostracized for attempting to
expose crimes he witnessed as a soldier.
LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet
FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin
_______________________________________
June 11, 2014
Advice for those considering joining the military [3mins 2007 750000 views]
subjectandobject Youtube channel
Uploaded on Sep 4, 2007
'Retired Special Forces Master Sergeant Stan Goff explains what
military life really entails. Stan's website is feralscholar.org.'
July 27, 2012
Bankruptcy Obama War Romney Liberty Paul
Bankruptcy Obama War Romney Liberty Paul
July 21, 2012
by Diane V. McLoughlin
main website mcloughlinpost.com
Two candidates remain in competition for leadership of the Republican Party: former one-term governor Mitt Romney and 12-term Congressman and obstetrician, Dr. Ron Paul. The Republican National Convention takes place this August, in Tampa, Florida.
Proxies have unleashed a barrage of attack ads in what appears to be an almost frantic attempt to magnify the minor differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney. The expense of these ad campaigns are expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars - a wasteful sum in these troubled economic times.
Obama's healthcare insurance mandate forces the taxpayer to purchase private health insurance. But private industry must seek to maximize profit while minimizing expense. Government forcing people to purchase a privately produced product risks weakening further a system already accused of stingily doling out healthcare, with little accountability. To be sure, there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the woeful state of healthcare in the U.S.. Everybody demands a rich cut - insurance companies, healthcare providers and drug companies - while many sick people are neglected or forced to go bankrupt. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who do go bankrupt due to exorbitant healthcare costs have insurance. How the government guaranteeing insurance companies the taxpayers' business is going to help improve healthcare while controlling costs is the billion (or is it trillion?) dollar question.
'Obamacare' was modeled directly from the Massachussett healthcare model, which was rolled out during Mitt Romney's one-term as governor there.
All eyes are on the GOP. Ron Paul has qualified to be on the ballot in Tampa. Will the Republican Party follow the rules and register Ron Paul? It is certain that along with the underhanded activities of some, there are Republican Party leaders who have conducted themselves with grace, dignity and honor. Time will tell. Heads democracy wins regardless of the outcome at the convention. Tails, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama win the White House. In that case it may well be national bankruptcy and world war.
---------------------
Notes: In state contests where Ron Paul won the majority of delegates, the national Republican Party has indicated that the papers to register Ron Paul for the Tampa leadership convention need to be filled out and sent in.
I will hopefully get this posted to my main website in the next day or two.
Ron Paul on the Issues ;
A Ron Paul Youtube playlist
July 21, 2012
by Diane V. McLoughlin
main website mcloughlinpost.com
Two candidates remain in competition for leadership of the Republican Party: former one-term governor Mitt Romney and 12-term Congressman and obstetrician, Dr. Ron Paul. The Republican National Convention takes place this August, in Tampa, Florida.
Proxies have unleashed a barrage of attack ads in what appears to be an almost frantic attempt to magnify the minor differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney. The expense of these ad campaigns are expected to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars - a wasteful sum in these troubled economic times.
Obama's healthcare insurance mandate forces the taxpayer to purchase private health insurance. But private industry must seek to maximize profit while minimizing expense. Government forcing people to purchase a privately produced product risks weakening further a system already accused of stingily doling out healthcare, with little accountability. To be sure, there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the woeful state of healthcare in the U.S.. Everybody demands a rich cut - insurance companies, healthcare providers and drug companies - while many sick people are neglected or forced to go bankrupt. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who do go bankrupt due to exorbitant healthcare costs have insurance. How the government guaranteeing insurance companies the taxpayers' business is going to help improve healthcare while controlling costs is the billion (or is it trillion?) dollar question.
'Obamacare' was modeled directly from the Massachussett healthcare model, which was rolled out during Mitt Romney's one-term as governor there.
Both Obama and Romney support the continuance of formless, ill-defined, illegal wars. These regional pots we are stirring may represent - like a gathering storm on the horizon - a poorly organized (wildly unnecessary) yet potentially explosive World War Three. Not knowing when to quit is not new. The difference is that, be it tribe, country or empire, nobody was armed with nuclear weapons. Nobody held the power, at the push of a button, to launch war with the potential to destroy all life on Earth. (Beware the nihilists itching to deploy nuclear bombs. )
Both Obama and Romney support the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an odious set of new laws President Obama sanctified by signing during the Christmas holidays just past. (Irony.) The NDAA destroys all natural meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by empowering the government to kidnap and lock up anyone, including American citizens, and detain them indefinitely, in secret, without charge or trial.
However, given that President Obama claims the executive power to order the assassination of U.S. citizens on his say-so alone, the NDAA is merely a tattered corner of the rule-of-law shredded picture. Obama is handed the stats on individuals on cards, like baseball, only they're for intel on what suspects have done, are accused of having done, or are accused of thinking of doing. Then the President gives a Caesar-like thumbs up or thumbs down. Mistaken identity; falsely fingered by some guy being tortured at one of the country's many secret torture chambers around the world; well, too bad for you. There is no appeal. You won't even know you're in the cards in the first place, most likely.
It would be wrong to suggest that President Obama is coming up with these ideas entirely on his own. It's the fact that he chooses to cooperate with what has devolved into a rotten political, bureaucratic, military, industrial system. Barack Obama campaigned on the slogan, 'Change - Yes We Can!' He could have. But he hasn't and isn't.
Mitt Romney surrounds himself with Bush Junior's neocon foreign policy advisers. His foreign policy stump speeches are so belligerent one wonders if he's got 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' going around in his head like John McCain, before him. All indications point in that direction.
Mitt and Obama pass the system's muster because both are pro-war 'team players'.
However, given that President Obama claims the executive power to order the assassination of U.S. citizens on his say-so alone, the NDAA is merely a tattered corner of the rule-of-law shredded picture. Obama is handed the stats on individuals on cards, like baseball, only they're for intel on what suspects have done, are accused of having done, or are accused of thinking of doing. Then the President gives a Caesar-like thumbs up or thumbs down. Mistaken identity; falsely fingered by some guy being tortured at one of the country's many secret torture chambers around the world; well, too bad for you. There is no appeal. You won't even know you're in the cards in the first place, most likely.
It would be wrong to suggest that President Obama is coming up with these ideas entirely on his own. It's the fact that he chooses to cooperate with what has devolved into a rotten political, bureaucratic, military, industrial system. Barack Obama campaigned on the slogan, 'Change - Yes We Can!' He could have. But he hasn't and isn't.
Mitt Romney surrounds himself with Bush Junior's neocon foreign policy advisers. His foreign policy stump speeches are so belligerent one wonders if he's got 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' going around in his head like John McCain, before him. All indications point in that direction.
Mitt and Obama pass the system's muster because both are pro-war 'team players'.
As it stands, troops are being positioned in the Pacific (American; Canadian; presumably other countries, too.) Literally hundreds of military bases (and bombs) are set up all over the planet.
The U.S. has its bloodied military fingers in so many overseas pies that it is difficult to keep them all straight, or to trust that it's possible that we can know them all given the machinations of clandestine networks such as the CIA. The list includes Yemen; Iraq; Afghanistan; Pakistan; Libya; Syria; Palestine; Egypt; Bahrain and Iran (war ships being positioned directly off of Iran's coast now.)
The real 'prize', the goal, appears to be somehow 'controlling' Russia and China.
The closest we have come so far to nuclear war is during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The U.S. had placed nuclear weapons in Russia's backyard. Russia retaliated by placing nuclear bombs in Cuba. It became a dangerous nuclear stand-off. We are again ringing Russia with missiles. They don't like it. It is clear that this course could lead to MADness: Mutually Assured Destruction.
Something else raises the risk of nuclear war further. The longer nuclear weapons exist without large-scale and catastrophic use, the more complacent we become that such an eventuality could ever occur. There was no complacency or false sense of invincibility in America during the Cuban missile crisis fiasco. There are older apartment buildings in New York that, to this day, still have the signage posted indicating that the basements are to be used for nuclear fallout shelters. In point of fact, I and my elementary-aged school chums once howled with laughter when our teachers instructed us on how to cower beneath our desks, during a nuclear attack drill. We could kiss our asses goodbye.
The U.S. has its bloodied military fingers in so many overseas pies that it is difficult to keep them all straight, or to trust that it's possible that we can know them all given the machinations of clandestine networks such as the CIA. The list includes Yemen; Iraq; Afghanistan; Pakistan; Libya; Syria; Palestine; Egypt; Bahrain and Iran (war ships being positioned directly off of Iran's coast now.)
The real 'prize', the goal, appears to be somehow 'controlling' Russia and China.
The closest we have come so far to nuclear war is during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The U.S. had placed nuclear weapons in Russia's backyard. Russia retaliated by placing nuclear bombs in Cuba. It became a dangerous nuclear stand-off. We are again ringing Russia with missiles. They don't like it. It is clear that this course could lead to MADness: Mutually Assured Destruction.
Something else raises the risk of nuclear war further. The longer nuclear weapons exist without large-scale and catastrophic use, the more complacent we become that such an eventuality could ever occur. There was no complacency or false sense of invincibility in America during the Cuban missile crisis fiasco. There are older apartment buildings in New York that, to this day, still have the signage posted indicating that the basements are to be used for nuclear fallout shelters. In point of fact, I and my elementary-aged school chums once howled with laughter when our teachers instructed us on how to cower beneath our desks, during a nuclear attack drill. We could kiss our asses goodbye.
The fusing of private corporations and public governance is dangerous. It's a big part of the reason we are on the road we are on.
Ron Paul:
Ron Paul has fought corruption his entire Congressional career. Corporate lobbyists learned not to bother knocking on his door. His nickname on Capitol Hill: 'Dr. No'.
Ron Paul:
Ron Paul has fought corruption his entire Congressional career. Corporate lobbyists learned not to bother knocking on his door. His nickname on Capitol Hill: 'Dr. No'.
Above: Congressman Dr. Ron Paul seated at his desk
In contrast to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul has the backbone to say, Enough!, to the evil twins of endless war and government corruption.
The media is answerable to only a few corporate masters. If you haven't heard of presidential candidate Ron Paul, or if you have and its been to marginalize him as a goof or a bad guy there are reasons for that - none of them, I am sorry to say, are honest.
The Republican leadership contest began with a field of nine contenders. That field is now down to two. That is not how it has been played out in the corporate press.
The media is answerable to only a few corporate masters. If you haven't heard of presidential candidate Ron Paul, or if you have and its been to marginalize him as a goof or a bad guy there are reasons for that - none of them, I am sorry to say, are honest.
The Republican leadership contest began with a field of nine contenders. That field is now down to two. That is not how it has been played out in the corporate press.
The fact that Ron Paul has qualified to compete against Mitt Romney for leadership of the Republican Party is testament to his popularity, accomplished in spite of alleged state and national Republican Party leadership cheating, vote fraud, ballot box stuffing, and physical intimidation - broken fingers; a dislocated hip - and other shady works (example, Youtube clip, 'Interview Nevada Delegate Fraud'; at 4:56mins).
Below, award-winning news anchor, Ben Swann, discusses the current situation in Massachusetts. Seventeen elected delegates have been stripped of their appointed duty to vote for the next Republican Party leader, by the Mitt Romney camp within that state's party apparatus. Legal proceedings to reverse this sham are underway:
During the Republican leadership campaign, Ron Paul has garnered far and away more donations from veterans and active-duty military than all other candidates, combined. The following short Youtube was posted early January, 2012. To-date, it has garnered two million-plus views.
'Ron vs. Mitt (see why so many people believe in Ron Paul)':
Army veterans are organizing to march on the convention to pay their respects with a salute to Ron Paul - the only presidential candidate who is, himself, a veteran. As is so often the case, the one with military experience is the one most mindful of when, and when not, to send troops into harms' way. It is Ron Paul's conviction that it is well past time to bring the troops home. Defend the country by all means. But it is unconstitutional, as well as dangerous, to continue to try to be the policemen of the whole world.
The march in Tampa to salute Ron Paul will not be the first such march. A similar march was held earlier in 2012 on President's Day, to honor Dr. Paul as the choice of the troops. In addition, a dedication was conducted in front of the White House for all soldiers who have fallen in Iraq since Obama pledged to bring the troops home from there. The ceremony was held with backs symbolically turned to President Obama, because he broke his promise, with tragic consequences.
Below, award-winning news anchor, Ben Swann, discusses the current situation in Massachusetts. Seventeen elected delegates have been stripped of their appointed duty to vote for the next Republican Party leader, by the Mitt Romney camp within that state's party apparatus. Legal proceedings to reverse this sham are underway:
During the Republican leadership campaign, Ron Paul has garnered far and away more donations from veterans and active-duty military than all other candidates, combined. The following short Youtube was posted early January, 2012. To-date, it has garnered two million-plus views.
'Ron vs. Mitt (see why so many people believe in Ron Paul)':
Army veterans are organizing to march on the convention to pay their respects with a salute to Ron Paul - the only presidential candidate who is, himself, a veteran. As is so often the case, the one with military experience is the one most mindful of when, and when not, to send troops into harms' way. It is Ron Paul's conviction that it is well past time to bring the troops home. Defend the country by all means. But it is unconstitutional, as well as dangerous, to continue to try to be the policemen of the whole world.
The march in Tampa to salute Ron Paul will not be the first such march. A similar march was held earlier in 2012 on President's Day, to honor Dr. Paul as the choice of the troops. In addition, a dedication was conducted in front of the White House for all soldiers who have fallen in Iraq since Obama pledged to bring the troops home from there. The ceremony was held with backs symbolically turned to President Obama, because he broke his promise, with tragic consequences.
In addition to Ron Paul's support from troops, there are not one but two liberty-celebrating events being held in Tampa the weekend before the convention. Attendees who support Ron Paul for president will be travelling in from around the country to be there and could well be counted in the tens of thousands.
All eyes are on the GOP. Ron Paul has qualified to be on the ballot in Tampa. Will the Republican Party follow the rules and register Ron Paul? It is certain that along with the underhanded activities of some, there are Republican Party leaders who have conducted themselves with grace, dignity and honor. Time will tell. Heads democracy wins regardless of the outcome at the convention. Tails, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama win the White House. In that case it may well be national bankruptcy and world war.
---------------------
Notes: In state contests where Ron Paul won the majority of delegates, the national Republican Party has indicated that the papers to register Ron Paul for the Tampa leadership convention need to be filled out and sent in.
I will hopefully get this posted to my main website in the next day or two.
Ron Paul on the Issues ;
A Ron Paul Youtube playlist
June 14, 2012
June 10, 2012
June 07, 2012
Ron Paul Speech Texas GOP Convention 070612
[Volume 'high' recommend turning down] An excellent speech encompassing
freedom, economics, ending endless war and adhering to the Constitution.
Video streaming by Ustream
May 25, 2012
April 21, 2012
April 19, 2012
March 16, 2012
February 28, 2012
January 29, 2012
January 23, 2012
Smear the Peacemaker Exalt the Warmonger
by Diane V. McLoughlin
January 23, 2012
Casey Gane-McCalla, blogger at newsone.com, appears to have sold his soul for the rock bottom price of page views and Facebook 'likes'. (On the other hand, it is not an uncommon tactic to embed government plants in major publications to sway public opinion.)
Newsone.com, is a publication dedicated to black people's interests. Gane-McCalla, and/or newsone, has sold their readership out.
He baits readers with the red flags of racism, slavery and Deep South bigotry. Yet, many readers nevertheless watched the YouTube clip he attached to one of the several hit pieces he has cranked out on doctor, twelve-term congressman, and current contender for leadership of the Republican Party - Ron Paul.
We know this is so, because many readers have left blistering comments attacking Gane-McCalla's, 'Ron Paul Made "South Was Right" Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag' - yellow journalism, pointing out the glaringly obvious discrepencies between what Ron Paul actually says on the clip, versus Gane-McCalla's sly, misleading innuendo. It was heartening that some readers chose to watch the clip as well as read the screed. Because when we read 'South was right' we feel compelled to believe that it must mean 'right on slavery,' when nothing could be further from the truth.
From my experience on Facebook on subsequent days, there are also many who did not watch the YouTube clip for themselves, content to trust Gane-McCalla to report in an honest, forthright fashion.
There are three central points one comes away with from viewing two segments (not one) of Ron Paul's lecture on the South.
One: Slavery needed to be abolished. Let's be very clear on this point.
There were eleven other countries in the hemisphere at that time that had slavery. According to Dr. Paul, all of them abolished slavery by various means, but all of them without war; either through legislative measures, or, in at least one instance, by buying the freedom of people who were enslaved.
Two: The Civil War was not a war to end slavery. That was not why Lincoln launched the war. The North waged war against the South, because the South was to that time being forced to underwrite 90% of the entire federal government's budget. The South was fed up with being treated this way, and wanted to secede, which they had a natural right to do. (From this segment of the lecture.)
Three: Ron Paul laments the cost in human lives and suffering caused by the Civil War; the toll in human suffering were simply immense. Upwards of 700,000 young men's lives were lost, altogether. This would be extraordinary if we fought a war today and lost so many young men. The population of the country was much smaller back then, making the impact that much more devastating.
To reiterate, what Ron Paul shares in the lecture he is giving is that the Civil War was not waged by President Abraham Lincoln to end slavery.
Abolishing slavery was an important issue, and there were abolitionist societies devoted to the cause. But it was not the prime motivating force behind Lincoln's launching the war.
Much is made about the fact that a Confederate flag hangs in the room behind Dr. Paul during his public leture. (Although one comment following Gane-McCalla's article claims the flag is in fact an early State of Georgia flag.) He is a Texas congressman. I've never been to Texas. I'm also not black. (Celts have suffered racism, oppression and slavery, however - a story for another day.) Is it really a stretch for a lecture on the Civil War and secession to have the Confederate flag as a backdrop? I don't know. Maybe it is. I doubt it was Ron Paul who put it there.
If you are black, why should you care to give Ron Paul a second look, when the country has only had one black president, for one term - the current one? Even without this other stuff, it's a good question. On domestic policy, President Obama has some advantage over Ron Paul - Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative who wants to shrink government, drastically reduce taxes, restore the Constitution by getting rid of the Patriot Act, amongst other bad laws, and end the wars.
He has pledged to end the War on Drugs, legalize drugs, and pardon all nonviolent drug offenders currently in federal prisons. Blacks commit 14% of drug crimes. They comprise over 60% of those incarcerated. Ron Paul deplores the unequal administration of justice in America.
Congressman Paul says NO! to any more aggressive, unnecessary war. He wants to bring the troops home. Proportionally, the poor, blacks and minorities serve beyond their fair share in these conflicts. A doctor for thirty years, Ron Paul laments for the military men and women who are killed or return home wounded - physically, and psychologically.
The active military supports Ron Paul more than President Obama, and more than the other Republican candidates, combined.
The Establishment is going to try to take Ron Paul down. The weapon of choice is the charge of racism. Every allegation and false smear always has just enough of something in them to seem right.
He is such a threat to the shadow government that the corporate-owned media do their level best to not even mention his name. Candidates' names being mentioned after the South Carolina primary last week, averaged 80-90 times. Number of mentions of candidate Ron Paul? One.
Now, Newt Gingrich, another Republican leadership candidate, doesn't get that treatment, and he gets accused of being a racist all over the place. Calling President Obama 'the food stamp President', for example. Search 'Newt Gingrich' on Twitter, and one word that comes up in tweets is 'reptilian.'
So something else must be going on. One of the biggest somethings is that Ron Paul wants to stop the push for more unnecessary war. But. War is big business.
I'm independent and progressive, mostly, depending on the issue. Agnostic. I don't agree with Ron Paul's staunch blanket opposition to abortion, for example, preferring at least some flexibility on the issue for the woman's sake. So I must see something awfully worthwhile, to go to such lengths to support a man with such unfortunate baggage trailing behind him. President Obama doesn't have such baggage. He looks good. He sounds good. (Plus, I hear he sings a mean Al Green.)
But President Obama just signed a law granting unprecedented power to the military to be able to arrest and detain anyone, even American citizens on U.S. soil, and to hold them in indefinite detention without charge or trial.
Unless and until the National Defense Authorization Act is reversed, I don't know exactly what it has now become, but the U.S. is no longer a democracy. President Obama continues the legacy of war (Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran) in spite of his promises to the contrary when running for office.
The only challenger is Ron Paul.
Many progs are switching party allegiance* just for a year to be able to vote him in. Think progressives would go to those lengths to vote for a racist? Not a chance.
(* bluerepublicans.org)
January 23, 2012
Casey Gane-McCalla, blogger at newsone.com, appears to have sold his soul for the rock bottom price of page views and Facebook 'likes'. (On the other hand, it is not an uncommon tactic to embed government plants in major publications to sway public opinion.)
Newsone.com, is a publication dedicated to black people's interests. Gane-McCalla, and/or newsone, has sold their readership out.
He baits readers with the red flags of racism, slavery and Deep South bigotry. Yet, many readers nevertheless watched the YouTube clip he attached to one of the several hit pieces he has cranked out on doctor, twelve-term congressman, and current contender for leadership of the Republican Party - Ron Paul.
We know this is so, because many readers have left blistering comments attacking Gane-McCalla's, 'Ron Paul Made "South Was Right" Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag' - yellow journalism, pointing out the glaringly obvious discrepencies between what Ron Paul actually says on the clip, versus Gane-McCalla's sly, misleading innuendo. It was heartening that some readers chose to watch the clip as well as read the screed. Because when we read 'South was right' we feel compelled to believe that it must mean 'right on slavery,' when nothing could be further from the truth.
From my experience on Facebook on subsequent days, there are also many who did not watch the YouTube clip for themselves, content to trust Gane-McCalla to report in an honest, forthright fashion.
There are three central points one comes away with from viewing two segments (not one) of Ron Paul's lecture on the South.
One: Slavery needed to be abolished. Let's be very clear on this point.
There were eleven other countries in the hemisphere at that time that had slavery. According to Dr. Paul, all of them abolished slavery by various means, but all of them without war; either through legislative measures, or, in at least one instance, by buying the freedom of people who were enslaved.
Two: The Civil War was not a war to end slavery. That was not why Lincoln launched the war. The North waged war against the South, because the South was to that time being forced to underwrite 90% of the entire federal government's budget. The South was fed up with being treated this way, and wanted to secede, which they had a natural right to do. (From this segment of the lecture.)
Three: Ron Paul laments the cost in human lives and suffering caused by the Civil War; the toll in human suffering were simply immense. Upwards of 700,000 young men's lives were lost, altogether. This would be extraordinary if we fought a war today and lost so many young men. The population of the country was much smaller back then, making the impact that much more devastating.
To reiterate, what Ron Paul shares in the lecture he is giving is that the Civil War was not waged by President Abraham Lincoln to end slavery.
Abolishing slavery was an important issue, and there were abolitionist societies devoted to the cause. But it was not the prime motivating force behind Lincoln's launching the war.
Much is made about the fact that a Confederate flag hangs in the room behind Dr. Paul during his public leture. (Although one comment following Gane-McCalla's article claims the flag is in fact an early State of Georgia flag.) He is a Texas congressman. I've never been to Texas. I'm also not black. (Celts have suffered racism, oppression and slavery, however - a story for another day.) Is it really a stretch for a lecture on the Civil War and secession to have the Confederate flag as a backdrop? I don't know. Maybe it is. I doubt it was Ron Paul who put it there.
If you are black, why should you care to give Ron Paul a second look, when the country has only had one black president, for one term - the current one? Even without this other stuff, it's a good question. On domestic policy, President Obama has some advantage over Ron Paul - Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative who wants to shrink government, drastically reduce taxes, restore the Constitution by getting rid of the Patriot Act, amongst other bad laws, and end the wars.
He has pledged to end the War on Drugs, legalize drugs, and pardon all nonviolent drug offenders currently in federal prisons. Blacks commit 14% of drug crimes. They comprise over 60% of those incarcerated. Ron Paul deplores the unequal administration of justice in America.
Congressman Paul says NO! to any more aggressive, unnecessary war. He wants to bring the troops home. Proportionally, the poor, blacks and minorities serve beyond their fair share in these conflicts. A doctor for thirty years, Ron Paul laments for the military men and women who are killed or return home wounded - physically, and psychologically.
The active military supports Ron Paul more than President Obama, and more than the other Republican candidates, combined.
The Establishment is going to try to take Ron Paul down. The weapon of choice is the charge of racism. Every allegation and false smear always has just enough of something in them to seem right.
He is such a threat to the shadow government that the corporate-owned media do their level best to not even mention his name. Candidates' names being mentioned after the South Carolina primary last week, averaged 80-90 times. Number of mentions of candidate Ron Paul? One.
Now, Newt Gingrich, another Republican leadership candidate, doesn't get that treatment, and he gets accused of being a racist all over the place. Calling President Obama 'the food stamp President', for example. Search 'Newt Gingrich' on Twitter, and one word that comes up in tweets is 'reptilian.'
So something else must be going on. One of the biggest somethings is that Ron Paul wants to stop the push for more unnecessary war. But. War is big business.
I'm independent and progressive, mostly, depending on the issue. Agnostic. I don't agree with Ron Paul's staunch blanket opposition to abortion, for example, preferring at least some flexibility on the issue for the woman's sake. So I must see something awfully worthwhile, to go to such lengths to support a man with such unfortunate baggage trailing behind him. President Obama doesn't have such baggage. He looks good. He sounds good. (Plus, I hear he sings a mean Al Green.)
But President Obama just signed a law granting unprecedented power to the military to be able to arrest and detain anyone, even American citizens on U.S. soil, and to hold them in indefinite detention without charge or trial.
Unless and until the National Defense Authorization Act is reversed, I don't know exactly what it has now become, but the U.S. is no longer a democracy. President Obama continues the legacy of war (Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran) in spite of his promises to the contrary when running for office.
The only challenger is Ron Paul.
Many progs are switching party allegiance* just for a year to be able to vote him in. Think progressives would go to those lengths to vote for a racist? Not a chance.
(* bluerepublicans.org)
January 10, 2012
Ron Paul expresses gratitude to cheers in New Hampshire
by Diane V. McLoughlin
New Hampshire, January 10th, 2012: Clearly delighted, in his speech thanking his supporters Ron Paul spoke about freedom; the deplorable state of the economy; ending all the destructive wars abroad which do nothing but make enemies while weakening security at home.
Ron Paul spoke about how liberty means we should be able to live out our lives as each sees fit. To believe what we want to believe - or not believe. He stated if we pulled back the funding of the Military Industrial Complex, we would still maintain a robust defense, without the corrupt enriching themselves while demanding more profitable war.
And, he said if we do that, maybe the country would be able to maintain social services such as healthcare. But if we don't end the wars, the country will go broke.
The twelve-term Congressman thanked his supporters. Dr. Paul said he always tried to do the right thing, but - clearly, deeply moved - he had no idea [so many who believed what he did] were out there - the crowd roared - and he left the stage waving, with a grin from ear to ear.
----------------------
At time of writing: With 81% of electoral districts reporting, the results for the top three finishers in New Hampshire, are as follows:
Mitt Romney 38.3% Ron Paul 23.2% Jon Huntsman 17%, with all other candidates in the single digits. - dvm
----------------------
At time of writing: With 81% of electoral districts reporting, the results for the top three finishers in New Hampshire, are as follows:
Mitt Romney 38.3% Ron Paul 23.2% Jon Huntsman 17%, with all other candidates in the single digits. - dvm
May 22, 2011
Fascism, Terrorism and Osama bin Laden
by Diane V. McLoughlin, May 22, 2011
main website - mcloughlinpost.com
If we were gods, you and I, peering with omnipotent clarity at this precarious, nuclear-armed moment
in human history, I don't think we would see al Quaeda or Osama bin Laden as the principles in this
chromatic red canvass of blood, twisted sky-scraping steel, crumpled minarets, oil-soaked sand and
depleted uranium poisonous dust [1].
Although the picture is forever to remain less clear now that bin Laden has been killed during a U.S.
military raid in Pakistan, I am of the view that 9/11 was retaliation for American conquests conducted
in the Middle East; conquests orchestrated by insiders at the tippy-top with little-helper countries, for
whatever reason, joining in. Great Britain is all-in on this 'war on terror' for lucrative scraps, where
once she sat at the head of empire's bloated table.
These two forces, the U.S. under President Clinton, and the U.K., held Iraq under military siege,
deliberately bombing out that country's electrical and water treatment plants which caused the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi babies and children due to water-borne disease. This campaign of
terror against Iraq was conducted over the course of ten long, merciless years prior to 9/11 (1993 - 2003.)
That Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and subsequently was accused of harboring weapons of mass
destruction were the reasons given for the siege. Iraq maintained that Kuwait had always been a part of
Iraqi territory. It was Great Britain that redrew the regions' territorial boundaries early in the Twentieth
Century. Kuwait is suspiciously an independent speck on the giant bottom of Iraq. As far as WMD are
concerned, if Saddam had them he got them from the West which sided with Iraq during the disastrous
nine-year Iran-Iraq war (1980 - 1988). [1a] A million or more people perished in that conflict.
It is high time that our understanding of 'foreign intervention' matures past notions of national pride, in
order to weigh its actual justification.
Greed, arrogance, fear of blow-back, each thrusts tentacled arms of empire ever outward while
ordinary people on both sides are the only ones who pay the ultimate price, in blood (casualties) and
treasure (loot or tax.)
Even this is not an entirely fair or accurate criticism when it comes to Iraq. Because the fact of the
matter is that hundreds of thousands of people marched in the streets around the world to demand that
their respective governments not participate in the war against Iraq in 2003. It was a very strange thing
to witness war commenced that was so obviously opposed by so many people everywhere.
---------
Mussolini coined the term corporatism to describe the
melding of state, military and corporate power. That term
works in describing America, but the term fascism is better
Corporatism, fascism, or military-industrial complex,
the effects hold a lot (most? all?) of the same risks in
common.
Progressives might be tempted to say it was the
neo-conservatives (neo-cons for short) who should
be blamed for the aggressive trajectory of American
foreign policy. But the fact is that America amassed
a thousand military installations around the world
in 186 countries regardless of who was in power;
that this provides plenty of scope for making enemies
is a mewling understatement. [1b]
It is peculiar that, while the empire spread throughout the Twentieth Century, the Democrats managed
to pull off the appearance of just having weakly gone along.
Current President Barack Obama inherited an empire-sized mess; true. But Democrats forget that
democratic President Bill Clinton helped get us there. Once so hopeful, the continuing blind defenders
of the current President, widely referred to as the Obamabots, cannot get around the fact that Obama
has picked up the ball and run with it instead of calling for a war and Constitution-shredding time-out.
The Obama Administration claims the right to put out hits on American citizens. [2] Bombs Libya
without Congressional approval in what appears to be a race against China over control of Africa's
resources rather than anything to do with humanitarianism. [3] Obama doesn't close Guantanamo
prison, a Bush Administration experiment with shades of lawlessness (torture; indefinite detention
without charge or trial against randomly rounded-up foreigners, handed over for cash rewards by dirt
poor foreign headhunters) even though Obama had vowed that he would. [4] [5] President Obama
apparently believes in preventive detention. [6] He continues the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter
now the longest war in the entire history of America, as of June, 2010. The President is now overseeing
the dropping of bombs via remote-controlled drones in Pakistan, a notoriously inaccurate means of
targeting individuals, with a terrible cost being paid in human life, not to mention diplomatic capital.
------------------
I don't know if bin Laden was involved with the events of 9/11 or not. Sometimes he said he
wasn't. [7] Sometimes he said he was. [8] I haven't got the slightest idea why his message wasn't
consistent. Definitely, he was a severe critic of American foreign policy. [9]
We do know that Osama bin Laden's guilt or innocence wouldn't have been the only thing judged in
court if he was arrested and charged, as is the usual case with criminal suspects. That Osama bin Laden
ended up dead instead of in custody leaves a cloud of suspicion over America's (and indeed the West's)
reputation.
What we are witnessing in our time is an unprecedented wearing away of the rule of law. The rule of
law protects all of us from abuse of authority [10]; from corruption; tyranny and oppression. The
continuous undermining of the law corrodes the dream of democracy. The broken scales of justice
herald the retreat of civilized progress into an uncharted Dark Age in human history.
_________________________
Notes
[1] Website - 'International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons: The Problem - Overview: 'A concise
guide to uranium weapons, the science behind them and their threat to human health and the
environment'; http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/77.html ;
[1a] Wikipedia: 'United States support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war'; subsection, 'Chemical and
biological exports' - 'On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which
it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other
biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S.
Department of Commerce." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war ;
[1b] 'Full-Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order - Part I in a review
of F. William Engdahl's book'; by Stephen Lendman; June 22, 2009; Global Research.ca;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14046 ;
[2] Article: 'Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen'; Glenn Greenwald; Apr. 7,
2010; Salon.com; http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations ;
[3] Video (7 mins): 'U.S. - China oil conflict behind Libya war'; (taken from approximately one minute
in) Press TV interviews former U.S. Treasury official Paul Craig Roberts, May 10, 2011 - “What has
happened is while Washington was caught off guard by the Arab protests in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain
they quickly learned that they could use Arab protests as a cloak behind which to hide while China and
Russia are evicted from the Mediterranean”; http://www.presstv.ir/detail/179142.html ;
[4] Article, 'Guantanamo still open as 9th anniversary looms'; Agence France Presse as republished in
Common Dreams.org; Jan. 10, 2011; http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/01/10 ;
[5] Article, 'Guantanamo's lost souls'; The Guardian; Brent Mickum; Jan. 8, 2007:
'...approximately 99% of the prisoners have never been charged with any transgression, much less a
crime. Approximately 400 of these prisoners, characterised by the Bush administration as "the worst of
the worst", have been released without charge, many directly back to their families. That any prisoners
have been released is due almost entirely to the outrage of the civilised world. What most of the world
does not yet realise is the extent of the misinformation disseminated by the Bush Administration and the
US military: for example, American forces captured only 5% of all the prisoners at Guantánamo; 55%
of the prisoners were found by the military never to have committed a hostile act against the United
States or its coalition allies; the vast majority of the prisoners at Guantánamo were turned over to the
Americans in exchange for large bounties paid for by the United States.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/08/post885?INTCMP=SRCH ;
[6] Article, 'Obama is said to consider preventive detention plan'; Sheryl Gay Stolberg; May 20, 2009;
New York Times; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?hp ;
[7] 'Interview with Osama bin Laden, denies involvement in 9/11'; Pakistani newspaper the Daily
Ummat in Urdu, as translated into English by the BBC Worldwide Monitoring Service, Sept. 29, 2001,
as republished on Global Research.ca: "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September
attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of
these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an
appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24697 ;
[8] 'Bin Laden admits 9/11 responsibility, warns of more attacks'; PBS NewsHour; Oct. 29, 2004;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html ;
[9] Full text of Osama bin Laden's, 'Letter to the American People'; translated into English and
published Nov. 24, 2002; the Guardian.uk Observer Worldview Extra.
Bin Laden, "Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple...Because you attacked
us and continue to attack us..."; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver ;
[10] Article, 'Republicans in Congress to Crown Obama King'; David Swanson; May 19, 2011; War Is
a Crime.org; discusses H.R.1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and in
particular Section 1034; http://warisacrime.org/content/republicans-congress-crown-obama-king ;
main website - mcloughlinpost.com
If we were gods, you and I, peering with omnipotent clarity at this precarious, nuclear-armed moment
in human history, I don't think we would see al Quaeda or Osama bin Laden as the principles in this
chromatic red canvass of blood, twisted sky-scraping steel, crumpled minarets, oil-soaked sand and
depleted uranium poisonous dust [1].
Although the picture is forever to remain less clear now that bin Laden has been killed during a U.S.
military raid in Pakistan, I am of the view that 9/11 was retaliation for American conquests conducted
in the Middle East; conquests orchestrated by insiders at the tippy-top with little-helper countries, for
whatever reason, joining in. Great Britain is all-in on this 'war on terror' for lucrative scraps, where
once she sat at the head of empire's bloated table.
These two forces, the U.S. under President Clinton, and the U.K., held Iraq under military siege,
deliberately bombing out that country's electrical and water treatment plants which caused the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi babies and children due to water-borne disease. This campaign of
terror against Iraq was conducted over the course of ten long, merciless years prior to 9/11 (1993 - 2003.)
That Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and subsequently was accused of harboring weapons of mass
destruction were the reasons given for the siege. Iraq maintained that Kuwait had always been a part of
Iraqi territory. It was Great Britain that redrew the regions' territorial boundaries early in the Twentieth
Century. Kuwait is suspiciously an independent speck on the giant bottom of Iraq. As far as WMD are
concerned, if Saddam had them he got them from the West which sided with Iraq during the disastrous
nine-year Iran-Iraq war (1980 - 1988). [1a] A million or more people perished in that conflict.
It is high time that our understanding of 'foreign intervention' matures past notions of national pride, in
order to weigh its actual justification.
Greed, arrogance, fear of blow-back, each thrusts tentacled arms of empire ever outward while
ordinary people on both sides are the only ones who pay the ultimate price, in blood (casualties) and
treasure (loot or tax.)
Even this is not an entirely fair or accurate criticism when it comes to Iraq. Because the fact of the
matter is that hundreds of thousands of people marched in the streets around the world to demand that
their respective governments not participate in the war against Iraq in 2003. It was a very strange thing
to witness war commenced that was so obviously opposed by so many people everywhere.
---------
Mussolini coined the term corporatism to describe the
melding of state, military and corporate power. That term
works in describing America, but the term fascism is better understood by most.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower in an extraordinary
moment of stunning candor warned Americans to
guard against a growing military-industrial complex
becoming so powerful it could overtake America's
democracy, destroying it.Corporatism, fascism, or military-industrial complex,
the effects hold a lot (most? all?) of the same risks in
common.
Progressives might be tempted to say it was the
neo-conservatives (neo-cons for short) who should
be blamed for the aggressive trajectory of American
foreign policy. But the fact is that America amassed
a thousand military installations around the world
in 186 countries regardless of who was in power;
that this provides plenty of scope for making enemies
is a mewling understatement. [1b]
It is peculiar that, while the empire spread throughout the Twentieth Century, the Democrats managed
to pull off the appearance of just having weakly gone along.
Current President Barack Obama inherited an empire-sized mess; true. But Democrats forget that
democratic President Bill Clinton helped get us there. Once so hopeful, the continuing blind defenders
of the current President, widely referred to as the Obamabots, cannot get around the fact that Obama
has picked up the ball and run with it instead of calling for a war and Constitution-shredding time-out.
The Obama Administration claims the right to put out hits on American citizens. [2] Bombs Libya
without Congressional approval in what appears to be a race against China over control of Africa's
resources rather than anything to do with humanitarianism. [3] Obama doesn't close Guantanamo
prison, a Bush Administration experiment with shades of lawlessness (torture; indefinite detention
without charge or trial against randomly rounded-up foreigners, handed over for cash rewards by dirt
poor foreign headhunters) even though Obama had vowed that he would. [4] [5] President Obama
apparently believes in preventive detention. [6] He continues the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter
now the longest war in the entire history of America, as of June, 2010. The President is now overseeing
the dropping of bombs via remote-controlled drones in Pakistan, a notoriously inaccurate means of
targeting individuals, with a terrible cost being paid in human life, not to mention diplomatic capital.
------------------
I don't know if bin Laden was involved with the events of 9/11 or not. Sometimes he said he
wasn't. [7] Sometimes he said he was. [8] I haven't got the slightest idea why his message wasn't
consistent. Definitely, he was a severe critic of American foreign policy. [9]
We do know that Osama bin Laden's guilt or innocence wouldn't have been the only thing judged in
court if he was arrested and charged, as is the usual case with criminal suspects. That Osama bin Laden
ended up dead instead of in custody leaves a cloud of suspicion over America's (and indeed the West's)
reputation.
What we are witnessing in our time is an unprecedented wearing away of the rule of law. The rule of
law protects all of us from abuse of authority [10]; from corruption; tyranny and oppression. The
continuous undermining of the law corrodes the dream of democracy. The broken scales of justice
herald the retreat of civilized progress into an uncharted Dark Age in human history.
_________________________
Notes
[1] Website - 'International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons: The Problem - Overview: 'A concise
guide to uranium weapons, the science behind them and their threat to human health and the
environment'; http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/77.html ;
[1a] Wikipedia: 'United States support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war'; subsection, 'Chemical and
biological exports' - 'On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which
it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other
biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S.
Department of Commerce." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war ;
[1b] 'Full-Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order - Part I in a review
of F. William Engdahl's book'; by Stephen Lendman; June 22, 2009; Global Research.ca;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14046 ;
[2] Article: 'Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen'; Glenn Greenwald; Apr. 7,
2010; Salon.com; http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations ;
[3] Video (7 mins): 'U.S. - China oil conflict behind Libya war'; (taken from approximately one minute
in) Press TV interviews former U.S. Treasury official Paul Craig Roberts, May 10, 2011 - “What has
happened is while Washington was caught off guard by the Arab protests in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain
they quickly learned that they could use Arab protests as a cloak behind which to hide while China and
Russia are evicted from the Mediterranean”; http://www.presstv.ir/detail/179142.html ;
[4] Article, 'Guantanamo still open as 9th anniversary looms'; Agence France Presse as republished in
Common Dreams.org; Jan. 10, 2011; http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/01/10 ;
[5] Article, 'Guantanamo's lost souls'; The Guardian; Brent Mickum; Jan. 8, 2007:
'...approximately 99% of the prisoners have never been charged with any transgression, much less a
crime. Approximately 400 of these prisoners, characterised by the Bush administration as "the worst of
the worst", have been released without charge, many directly back to their families. That any prisoners
have been released is due almost entirely to the outrage of the civilised world. What most of the world
does not yet realise is the extent of the misinformation disseminated by the Bush Administration and the
US military: for example, American forces captured only 5% of all the prisoners at Guantánamo; 55%
of the prisoners were found by the military never to have committed a hostile act against the United
States or its coalition allies; the vast majority of the prisoners at Guantánamo were turned over to the
Americans in exchange for large bounties paid for by the United States.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/08/post885?INTCMP=SRCH ;
[6] Article, 'Obama is said to consider preventive detention plan'; Sheryl Gay Stolberg; May 20, 2009;
New York Times; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.html?hp ;
[7] 'Interview with Osama bin Laden, denies involvement in 9/11'; Pakistani newspaper the Daily
Ummat in Urdu, as translated into English by the BBC Worldwide Monitoring Service, Sept. 29, 2001,
as republished on Global Research.ca: "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September
attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of
these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an
appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24697 ;
[8] 'Bin Laden admits 9/11 responsibility, warns of more attacks'; PBS NewsHour; Oct. 29, 2004;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html ;
[9] Full text of Osama bin Laden's, 'Letter to the American People'; translated into English and
published Nov. 24, 2002; the Guardian.uk Observer Worldview Extra.
Bin Laden, "Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple...Because you attacked
us and continue to attack us..."; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver ;
[10] Article, 'Republicans in Congress to Crown Obama King'; David Swanson; May 19, 2011; War Is
a Crime.org; discusses H.R.1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and in
particular Section 1034; http://warisacrime.org/content/republicans-congress-crown-obama-king ;
Discussing whether or not targeted assassinations are good policy vis a vis bin Laden - 'The Osama bin
Laden Exception'; Glenn Greenwald; May 6, 2011, Salon.com;
For further reading on American foreign policy: 'Enforcing American Hegemony - A Timeline'; Josh
Buermann; 2002 - 2007; http://www.flagrancy.net/timeline.html ;
September 14, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)