Monday, March 31, 2008

Senator McCain Can't Quit John Hagee : Religion and Politics


Religion and the three Presidential candidates
What about the separation of Church and State
Will their decisions in the White House be a result of their Religious or Spiritual mentors ultimate beliefs or a matter of their belief in a particular End-Times scenario .
Will they be able to put such considerations aside if they are forced to decide whether or not to Launch Nuclear Weapons.
On the other hand will they decide to not torture detainees because it would go against their Christian Principles.
Would they decide against a war of aggression because of their Christian Principles.
Would they insist on doing more for America's poor and the homeless and others unjustly treated in America based on their Christian Principles.
Or would they just cherry pick from scriptures to suit their own agenda?

Anyway Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has been criticized and mocked because of his association with Reverend Wright who is rather outspoken and sometimes veers into the conspiratorial realm. Though I think some of his criticisms of America are reasonable it is also true due to his rhetorical style he has away of saying things in a rather inflammatory manner. There are also some things he has said such as that the CIA invented Aids or is selling drugs to enslave Black Americans etc. which are just conspiratorial nonsense.

Now Senator John McCain is also involved with an Evangelical preachers who has also said some rather disturbing things . Should we now condemn Senator McCain or should we as in the case of Obama have him explain the situation. If the Media is to take Obama to task over Reverend Wright then they should take Senator McCain to task over his association with Pastor Hagee . Should McCain be given a free ride on this matter. It would be extremely unfair to attack Obama on this matter and not McCain since Pastor Hagee has also said some rather disturbing things i.e. his anti-Catholicism, blaming Gays and Lesbians for Hurricane Katrina or suggesting that Islam is an evil religion and must be destroyed etc.

But as has been pointed out Hillary Clinton shouldn't be left off the hook either. Senator Hillary Clinton belongs to an evangelical group that also at times sounds almost conspiratorial which may be a result of their rhetoric or a matter of beliefs espoused by certain individuals. But the group she belongs to is Fundamentalist and Evangelical so they are more than likely going to espouse certain end-times views that appear as dangerous if they influence a potential president of the United States.

We have seen over the last eight years how such ideas have had a negative affect on the Bush Regime . Believing he is acting under God's guidance George W. Bush at times does not appear to spend enough time evaluating a particular situation or after making a decision given unforseen outcomes going back to re-evaluate the decision he has made.This in part explains why he has never taken a second look at his decisions regarding the War in Iraq. One of the things one hopes for in a leader is that they are able to examine all sides of an issue or a situation and are willing to take counsel from those with differing views who are experts in their fields and then make an informed decision. Merely making a decision is not enough.

It is similar to Hillary answering the phone at 3am and making a quick uninformed decision. What one would hope for is that someone in her position has already spent time considering all of the various situations which could arise and their outcomes and the different responses one could have. Hopefully for all our sakes certain options like the Nuclear Option is not a valid option.

And so here are some examples of the inflammatory comments which have been made by Pastor John Hagee:

TPMtv: Mccain Can't Quit John Hagee
ant-Catholicism and fanatical supporter of Israel
Hurricane Katrina a judgement from God against New Orleans

" Your Daily Politics Video Blog: There's been a lot of chatter over the last few days about John McCain's embrace of Pastor John Hagee, who's well-known for a history of anti-Catholicism and claims that God will send terrorists to create a "bloodbath" in America for its support of a two state solution in Israel/Palestine. So what is it exactly that Hagee's said and just how much has McCain cozied up to him? We thought we'd put all the choicest moments into one quick video so you could take a look and make up your own mind." VERACIFIER

And now a discussion about Pastor Hagee and John McCain by Keith Olbermann:

Reverend Hagee supports Sen. John McCain
On Keith Olbermann Countdown MSNBC

Hardball MSNBC Extremist Pastor Hagee supports Sen. McCain
Senator John McCain sought Pastor Hagee's support

Bombing Iran will speed the Apocalypse
The Catholic Church is a whore / the whore of Babylon

Pastor Hagee also preaches that Islam is a violent religion and that its followers intend to destroy all other religions. He like many Americans uses the term " Islamofascism as if it were equivalent to Islam. Hagee further preaches that American Muslims are not loyal Americans . Would Hagee place all Muslim Americans in detention centers or have them all driven out of the country.

Much of what Pastor Hagee and others have said about Islam is a characterization based upon a particular reading of the Quran . But the Quran can be interpreted in other ways. As in Christianity the interpretation of the sacred text is combined with the writings of commentary of the various Christian philosophers and scholars. This is also true in Islam and Judaism and in other religious systems.

Christianity though many Christians claim it is a religion of peace yet the history of Christianity suggest otherwise. Some would claim that Christianity from the very beginning was not a religion of peace. Christ said " I bring not peace but the sword ". Some therefore would argue that Jesus was not committed to a form of absolute pacifism. As with Augustine they believed in the concept of the 'Just War Doctrine '.
But there are Christians who practice their faith as if it were a religion of peace since this is how they interpret the words of Jesus.They therefore either renounce any use of violence or believe violence or the taking up of arms only applies in certain narrowly defined circumstances.

Some believe that Christ taught that society needed to take care of the poor , the weak, the widow, the orphan etc. and that the rich must give up a large percentage of their wealth to help others.
Other Christians claim Jesus preached a form of self-reliance and that success was a reward for those who truly believed in Christ.

Some Christians believe that Jesus taught that those with faith needed to be active in the world even to taking part in the political system . Others believe Jesus taught that those with faith needed only to preach the word of God and that they should keep out of politics as much as possible.
Almost any religion can be interpreted in various ways since this is the nature of the various religious texts and the writings of the various interpreters of these texts over the centuries.

and so it goes ,

Saturday, March 29, 2008

American Empire and the Film " WE " Suzanne Arundhati Roy

Anyway I was looking for more videos on the US backed coup of General Pinochet who overthrew Salvadore Allende of Chile and came across this one of a speech given by Indian writer and activist Suzanne Arundhati Roy. So I thought I would share part of it here. See entire video at : see the entire video WE at Google

From the film WE - Suzanne Arundhati Roy
CIA Terror On September 11 - - 9/11
includes section on the other 9/11 of Chile 1973
(more on American interventions below)

I am posting this next video of a speech by Suzanne Arundhati in part for those who claim the reason or rationale for the War in Afghanistan is to liberate the women of Afghanistan from the hateful Taliban. So Arundhati in her speech is quite critical of the idea that the American military goal in Afghanistan is a feminist goal .The American goal or agenda has more to do with expanding its empire than that of defending the women of Afghanistan.

So we are accused of supporting the Taliban and their oppressive theocracy if we dare question the role of the Americans and Canadians and NATO troops in Afghanistan.But NATO is not there to protect the women of Afghanistan or the in general the people of Afghanistan anymore than the United States invaded and occupies Iraq for the well-being of the Iraqi people.

If the West and America so hated the Taliban why did they support the Taliban in its fight against Soviet Union and help the Taliban take over as the Afghanistan Government. Why didn't the Americans and its Western Allies support the more popular and moderate groups in Afghanistan who were also trying to drive the Soviet Forces out of Afghanistan. As usual these foreign powers including Canada , Britain and the United States had or have their own agenda and so pursued it without any concern for the people of Afghanistan. This is how Empires operate.
People of the Western Powers are for the most part indifferent to the fate of people outside the West except if it has an impact on the West.

The other strange thing is to hear Neoconservatives claiming to be concerned about women's rights when they have shown no real concern for anyone's human or civil rights unless they belong to their elite group . As far as I can tell the Neoconservatives and their friends the Radical Christian Right have little interest in women's rights or the rights of the poor or the disadvantaged or the disenfranchised or those who are physically or psychologically challenged. Nor are the Neocons concerned about the homeless or the victims of Katrina or the Iraqi Vets who are left to struggle on their own.

These Neocons believe in the most extreme form of self-reliance combined with the worship of material or financial success . As for ethics they really don't believe in anything since they believe all such matters are merely relative and subjective. They of course tailor their rhetoric as it were to their audience. So they say one thing to an audience of business people and the super-wealthy and something rather different to a group of radical Christian Evangelicals.

So if the Neocons can win more votes by being anti-abortion and anti-Gay and anti-Immigration or even by pandering to racist views then that's what they'll do. This is why Hillary Clinton seems to sound more like a neoconservative everyday. With her connections to giant corporations like WalMart and Arms Industry and with certain conservative Evangelicals who knows for sure what Hillary stands for beyond her desire to be President by any means necessary.

American Interventions

We is a fast-paced 64 minute documentary that covers the world politics of power, war, corporations, deception and exploitation.

Watch This Video For Iraq War Truth

We - Arundhati Roy about September The 11,
Full Video On, and

It visualizes the words of Arundhati Roy, specifically her famous Come September speech, where she spoke on such things as the war on terror, corporate globalization, justice and the growing civil unrest. It's witty, moving, alarming and quite a lesson in modern history.

Bush Administration: Guilty Of Warcrimes

# partial list of U.S. military interventions #
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) U.S./So. Korea fights China
IRAN 1953 CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 CIA directs exile invasion
VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed
CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
IRAQ 1963 CIA organizes coup that killed president, Ba'ath Party to power,Saddam Hussein back from exile
PANAMA l964 Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Green Berets intervene against rebels.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion
CHILE 1973 CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
ANGOLA l976-92 CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
LIBYA l981 Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
NICARAGUA l981-90 CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions
LEBANON l982-84 Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs
GRENADA l983-84 Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Nationalist government ousted
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Iraq countered after invading Kuwait
IRAQ 1990-? air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion
BOSNIA 1993-? downed jets, bombed Serbs.
IRAQ 1998-? Four days of intensive air strikes
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency.
YEMEN 2002 Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies.
LIBERIA 2003 Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Marines land after rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? CIA airstrikes on Al Qaeda refuge villages kill civilians
SOMALIA 2007 AC-130 strikes; naval blockade and Cruise missile attacks against Islamist rebels

and so it goes,

Thursday, March 27, 2008

American Myths of Freedom and Justice for All & Building An Empire

Pinochet one of America's Favorite Dictators who like Bush and Cheney enjoyed Torturing Detainees - So much for America Spreading Good Cheer and Democracy !!!

As the last few weeks of the Primary Season aka the Silly Season P. G. Woodehouse would say has shown that in order to run for President in the United States the candidate must accept all of the Myths about America and about American History. America has never committed any wrongs and has treated all of her citizens as equals and with dignity and justice. So don't mention slavery or Lynchings or the Ku Klux Klan or continuing racial inequality or even gender inequality . Hillary seems to forget women had to fight for equal rights since the White Men in power did not want to share their power with women whom they believed to be inferior. Nor did these White Man and later White women want to share their power with people of color whether black, brown, red,or yellow .

The other Big Myth is that America has never engaged in a war which was questionable or was just a war to extend the American Empire . Nor did the US get involved in a foreign country except to foster democracy and freedom.

Anyway as for American notions of freedom and Justice for all this seems to be an empty phrase to be repeated on certain occasions. Most of the history of the United States is in fact one of injustice and inequality . What's worse for those of us who are not American citizens is that America has a history of involving itself in the internal affairs of other countries. And this interference has more often than not led to despotic, dictatorial, authoritarian and totalitarian Regimes who abuse and terrorize their own citizens . For example we have the case of Chile. Even today most Americans know little or nothing about the US engineered Coup d'etat in Chile which overthrew a legally elected government and ended almost 150 years of Democracy in Chile . Given this why should we expect any new President of the United States to act any differently than George Bush or Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton in the end even the most idealistic to placate the lobbyists or big business or a Nativistic Xenophobic public will commit various Crimes against Humanity in order to stay in power. So maybe Hillary Clinton is correct that the system is so corrupt and Americans in general are so myopic in their view of the world that change is either painfully slow or non-existent.

The question I would pose for Hillary Clinton and John McCain and Barack Obama as an acid test for their supposed dedication to Human Rights and the Rights of a Sovereign Nation - so would they have supported the overthrow of president Allende who was legally elected and was very popular ?
Further would they have supported Pinochet's Brutal Regime which detained innocent civilians , tortured large numbers of these detainees ? Or are they like those who are in power now or previously who have little regard for the lives of Non-American citizens. This seems to me to be the leit motif of America that is that only American citizens count and even they are divided up into those who are worthy and those who are not . The rich and successful are worthy the rest of Americans not so much except when their votes are needed.

American Crimes Against Humanity
Indifference to human rights
indifference to Foreign Nation's Right to Sovereignty
indifference to the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians
indifference to the torture and detention of tens of thousands of Chilean Citizens
What is good for America's elite and America's corporations is more important than what the citizens of a foreign nation desire for their own country " The Crimes Of Pinochet "
Chile Coup d'Etat by Pinochet backed by the United States
The slaughter of approximately 3,000 unarmed civilians
mostly academics, artists, professionals, University students

Chile - "The Crimes of Pinochet" (Sep.2007)
"He claimed he was Chile's saviour but devised one of the worst concentration camp regimes since Hitler's 'Grand Plan.' As Chile comes to terms with General Pinochet's death, we offer you the definitive film on his crimes.

Under Pinochet's regime, over a quarter of a million people were detained in prisons like the Chacabuco desert camp. These are the only images to have emerged from his camps and reveal the true horror of his regime. "They must stay here until they realise they are on the wrong path," states the guard at Chacabuco Concentration camp. Nearby prisoners suspected of being Communists are forced to march and sing military songs. One of the victims filmed at the camp was Patricia Letelier. Now, she lives in exile in Scotland and recalls what happened to her at Chacabuco. "I heard shouting and screaming and knew what was waiting for me. Shortly afterwards my own torture began." Powerful images show men kneeling with their hands in the air, being kicked and beaten with the butts of soldiers' guns. Others show men being marched into the stadium stripped naked with blankets over their heads." journeymanpictures

For more verification on US involvement see:

The Pinochet File at The National Security Archive



National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 110

February 3 , 2004

WASHINGTON D.C. - President Richard Nixon acknowledged that he had given instructions to "do anything short of a Dominican-type action" to keep the democratically elected president of Chile from assuming office, according to a White House audio tape posted by the National Security Archive today. A phone conversation captured by his secret Oval Office taping system reveals Nixon telling his press secretary, Ron Zeigler, that he had given such instructions to then U.S. Ambassador Edward Korry, "but he just failed, the son of a bitch…. He should have kept Allende from getting in."

A transcript of the president's comments on March 23, 1972, made after the leak of corporate papers revealing collaboration between ITT and the CIA to rollback the election of socialist leader Salvador Allende, was recently published in the National Security Archive book, The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability by Peter Kornbluh; the tape marks the first time Nixon can be heard discussing his orders to undermine Chilean democracy. The conversation took place as Zeigler briefed the President on a State Department press conference to contain the growing ITT/CIA scandal which included one ITT document stating that Korry had been "given the green light to move in the name of President Nixon…to do all possible short of a Dominican Republic-type action to keep Allende from taking power." Other declassified records show that Nixon secretly ordered maximum CIA covert operations to "prevent Allende from coming to power or unseat him" in the fall of 1970 but that Ambassador Korry was deliberately not informed of covert efforts to instigate a military coup.


Results of the 1973 Church Committee Hearings, on CIA misdeeds, and the 1984 Iran/Contra Hearings....

"Our Presidents should not be able to conduct secret operations which violate our principles, jeopardize our rights, and have not been subject to the checks and balances which normally keep policies in line."

Morton Halperin
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Affairs

"In its consideration of covert action, the Committee was struck by the basic tension--if not incompatibility--of covert operations and the demands of a constitutional system. Secrecy is essential to covert operations; secrecy can, however, become a source of power, a barrier to serious policy debate within the government, and a means of circumventing the established checks and procedures of government. The Committee found that secrecy and compartmentation contributed to a temptation on the part of the Executive to resort to covert operations in order to avoid bureaucratic, congressional, and public debate."

The Church Committee

"The nation must to a degree take it on faith that we too are honorable men, devoted to her service."

Richard Helms, then DCI
April, 1971


A good example of the CIA's use of the type of political action mentioned above is the Agency's involvement in the internal political affairs of Chile beginning in 1963 and reaching a climax in 1973. In 1964, the United States became involved in a covert assistance program to Eduardo Frei in his campaign for the presidency of Chile. Frei was running against Salvador Allende, a candidate disliked by U.S. leaders for his leftist leanings. The CIA had judged previously that Frei would come to power regardless, with a plurality of the vote, and the assistance given by it to Frei was supposedly to help strengthen the Democratic process in Chile. Although Frei won the election, the United States continued to meddle in the internal affairs of Chile for another nine years.

The largest covert operation in Chile from 1963-1973 was propaganda. The CIA station in Santiago placed materials in the Chilean media, maintained a number of assets or agents on major Chilean newspapers, radio, and television stations, and manufactured and disseminated "black" propaganda. Examples of CIA activities ranged from support of the establishment of a commercial television service in Chile to the placement of anti-Soviet propaganda on eight radio news stations and in five provincial newspapers. The most significant contribution in this area of covert activity was the money provided to El Mercurio, the major Santiago daily newspaper during the Allende regime. The CIA spent over $12 million on the Chilean operation.

Another category of CIA involvement in Chile was that of political action. The most impressive of these actions undertaken was the massive effort made from 1963 to 1974 to influence elections. The CIA spent over $3 million in election programs alone. In addition to attempting to influence elections, the Agency combatted the principle Communist-dominated labor union in Chile and wrested control of Chilean university student organizations from the Communists.

As was discussed earlier, the United States never liked Salvador Allende, and in 1970, the CIA began covert political operations against the government of Allende under express orders from President Richard Nixon and his National Security Assistant, Dr. Henry Kissinger. Both the CIA and the State Department were apparently reluctant to become involved in what appeared to be an infeasible program to keep President Salvador Allende out of office, even though he had won by plurality in the September, 1970 election.

Nevertheless, the President and Mr. Kissinger directed the CIA, much against its officers' better judgments, to stage a coup in Chile. The project never developed into anything substantial. However, the CIA provided large sums of money (around $8 million) to support parliamentary opposition to Allende and to keep alive an opposition press. For all its efforts, the CIA was unsuccessful in defeating Allende although on September 11, 1973, he was overthrown in a coup which, though not under U.S. control, may well have been caused by U.S. anti-Allende pressures.


Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Hillary Clinton's Cynicism Politics as Usual or Hillary's " Anybody But Obama " Campaign

Note what Martin Luther King Jr. said about America in the 1960s that many Americans were under the delusion that America had been chosen by God to be the policemen of the world . But King said America had become too arrogant and that God would have to teach Americans a bit of humility . See video clip at the side -bar.

Anyway so the political games continue in the United States . The choice for president is supposed to be between two distinct parties . But in reality the leaders of both parties are not supposed to have policies which if implemented would substantively upset the status quo. So Hillary Clinton and John McCain agree on a number of issues . Both believe in maintaining or extending the American Empire.Neither one has any interest in discussing how the invasion and occupation of Iraq has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians . Iraqis are not important since Iraqi citizens are not eligible to vote in the primaries or in the general election. As for domestic issues both McCain and Hillary continue to play the fear card so that when they take power they can continue most of the policies of the Bush Regime concerning National Security . This means the wire-tapings, the renditions, the torture can continue to a lesser or greater extent depending on the mood of the next president. Both are too involved with big business and lobbyists and the super-wealthy and the Military Industrial Complex that is Halliburton and the Pentagon to insists on investigations of individuals and corporations for corruption . So all those involved with the Bush Regime including Bush and Cheney and John Bolton and Karl Rove etc.who have lied to the public or abused their positions of authority or defrauded the government will all continue on as before.

As for foreign affairs both McCain and Hillary view pursuing diplomacy with foreign nations as a sign of weakness. Both prefer to just threaten foreign countries with sanctions and military intervention including if necessary the use of nuclear weapons . Obama's bid for the presidency is therefore seen by many as a threat to the status-quo and business as usual. Heaven forbid America have a president who was willing to use diplomacy rather than bombers and tanks to get its Imperial way. The world's resources are supposed to be available to American companies at prices which they think is right and not what a foreign government or people believe to be a " Just Price ". Or what's the point of being the only Superpower if you can't make the world do as you say.

And so when the call comes at 3am Hillary and McCain know what to say - Bomb the bastards !!!

Obama might actually think about it for a second and then decide what to do. According to Hillary , McCain and their Neoconservative friends taking a moment to ponder the issue means that one is indecisive. Making a quick decision even if it is the wrong one is better than hesitating. Like Emperor George Bush who is the Decider and therefore is a better leader than someone who considers an issue's complexities.

So it is no wonder Hillary Clinton makes fun of Barack Obama for talking about making substantive changes . Hillary thinks Obama shouldn't bother trying to make any real changes since the world is a shitty place so get used to it. She's just another Neocon who pretends to be liberal or progressive but she's really regressive . In her view African-Americans have already achieved equality and fair justice in America. To claim otherwise is to be UnAmerican according to Hillary and McCain and the neocons such as William Kristol , Newt Gingrich etc. Maybe its just the very idea of a black president which bothers all those who have become not just supporters of McCain or Hillay but are anti-Obama or believe that anybody but Obama would be better for America.

One gets the impression that if a couple of million anti-war protesters were to march on Washington Hillary Clinton and McCain would both call for the military or Blackwater to arrest as many of the protesters as possible and make sure the Media ignores the whole event or spin it all as the work of Al Qaeda . In the good old days Martin Luther King Jr. was accused of being unAmerican and anti-American because he criticized those in power and made Americans aware of the injustices in America's society in its institutions and its legal system. It was one thing for black people to be allowed to use the same water fountain as white Americans and quite another to insist on being treated as equals and as fellow human beings .

Even now Black Americans and Latinos and other visible minorities are harassed more often by police than white people and they are far more likely to be arrested and incarcerated than a white American.A Black man is more likely to be judged guilty than a white man for a similar crime and the Black man's sentence will be harsher than a sentence for a white man for a similar crime. And still Americans want to believe race is no longer an issue. The inequalities are still quite evident whether Hillary Clinton and her Middle Class supporters want to believe it or not. And she criticizes Obama for being unrealistic while she deludes herself about how wonderful things are today in America.

Mr Pitiful - Yes We Can (Barack Obama 2008)

What is interesting about this little amateur video is that it points out how Hillary Clinton appeals to not the best in people but the worse. Her cynical view of the world and of America and Americans is not even commented on by the media. Anyone else saying these sorts of things would be labeled by Fox News and CNN as andi-American. As Obama has stated the truism that America was founded by people with a vision that America could live up to the ideals often paid lip service to by their British overlords . This they knew would not just happen on its own but would be a matter of hard work . As it turned out the British refused to grant the thirteen colonies their freedom without a fight. The struggle for equal rights for women came about after over a century of struggling . Equal rights for AfricanAmericans came about after two centuries of struggle. White America did not just end slavery without a fight. Nor did white America grant african Americans equal rights without a fight.

Though Hillary Clinton seems to think that it was Lyndon Johnson who decided to bestow equal Rights to African Americans as if he were a Monarch and therefore a law onto himself. Hillary tries to downplay and even mock the valiant struggle of Martin Luther King and his millions of supporters of African Americans and White Americans of Christians, Jews and Atheists who believed that America had not lived up to its basic ideals as found in its Constitution and its Bill of Rights . So in order to bring about change those who believed in equality and justice for all faced the reality that the changes that were needed would not take place unless millions of people were willing to take action. But these millions did not take up guns but rather fought through the methods of non-violence. who marched who protested who were beaten by citizens and by the police who were condemned by American Conservatives and by even many so-called liberals who kept telling African Americans to be patient and wait for the White Man to grant him freedom when he feels like it as if it were not the African-Americans right but rather a privilege White America could grant him and that he could take away when he felt like it.

And here are some examples of Hillary's cynical strategies for defeating Obama and having herself proclaimed the next authoritarian ruler of the United States.If Obama wins the nomination to head the Democratic party she would prefer that the Republicans under McCain win the Presidency. That would prove that Obama was unelectable and that she be given a chance in 2012 to become President. And even if Obama were defeated in part because he is not white that scenario doesn't bother Hillary Clinton or many of her die-hard followers in the least.

Does Hillary Clinton Want McCain to win?
Chris Mathews MSNBC
McCain and Hillary are true patriots Obama is not claims Bill Clinton

Hillary chooses McCain over Obama
Her years of experience allowed her to be fooled by Bush and Cheney


Hillary Clinton Lies and Embellishments Countdown Keith Olbermann

Hillary Clinton Geraldine Ferraro Racism
Ferraro claims Obama is the Affirmative Action Candidate

and so it goes,

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Hillary Clinton Lies About Bosnia Trip & her ties to Christian Fundamentalists

Obama is being attacked for whatever people in the Media can come up with from Fox News and Bill O'Reilly etc. and by those working for Hillary Clinton. Though she tries to distance herself from some of these attacks but why should we believe her. She is a political animal who will do whatever she needs to to get elected. So she is willing to play old style politics and is willing to throw as much mud as she can.

Hillary Clinton has even said or was it Mr. Clinton that she/ they have more respect and more in common with John McCain. But if she and John McCain have so much in common then why should voters favor her over McCain. The logic of this then dictates that it is a clearer choice between Obama and McCain . She would probably bomb more countries and manufacture as much fear among the electorate she can . With all these threats against America then she may be able to claim that she wouldn't have the time or resources to follow through on some of her campaign promises.

Video from YouTube

SNIPERGATE '08 - Can HRC survive being caught in a bald-faced lie?

Watch a news report from 1996 about HRC's trip to Bosnia and then see her speech from March 17, 2008 where she answers a question about the trip. So embarrassing!

and at Huffington Post and AlterNet & The Washington Post :

Footage from '96 Proves Hillary Lied About Bosnia Trip

by RJ Eskow, Huffington Post March 23, 2008.

Had Obama been caught in a lie of this magnitude, his campaign might well be over.

If you're Hillary Clinton and you've just been caught in a "whopper," the only thing to be grateful for is that it's Good Friday and people are distracted. How bad could this story be for her? When you tell the American public you faced gunfire, and it turns out all you really faced was a little girl with flowers -- well, that's as bad as it gets. When you dramatically say you made a journey that was too dangerous for the president, only to have it revealed that he made the same trip two months earlier -- and that your teenaged daughter was by your side -- that only makes it worse.

And from the Washington Post:

Washington Post,Candidate Watch/Hillary's Balkan Adventures, Part II/The Fact Checker by Michael Dobbs

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
--Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."

There are numerous problems with Clinton's version of events.
The Facts

As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.

Had Hillary Clinton's plane come "under sniper fire" in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post's John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret.

And it was rated:

The Pinocchio Test

Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport "under sniper fire" and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.

As for Obama and his embarrassing preacher Hillary has her own ties to extremist Christian Evangelicals . But the individuals and groups she is connected to are a lot more powerful and influential who promote a world view which can worsen foreign relations policies . But these groups may also have social policies which would influence Hillary's

and add to this Hillary Clinton's Questionable Ties with Christian Fundamentalists Extremists while everyone

Hillary's Ties to Religious Fundamentalists /

By Barbara Ehrenreich, March 20, 2008.

When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, Hillary Clinton is a lot more vulnerable than Barack Obama.

There's a reason why Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the "Fellowship," aka the Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.

Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells" -- their term -- and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, writer Jeff Sharlet joined the Family's home for young men, foreswearing sex, drugs and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn't undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners -- alone.

The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes -- knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian.


Saturday, March 22, 2008

Neil Young - Flags Of Freedom Video

Neil Young - Flags Of Freedom Video

Neil Young - Shock And Awe Video

Neil Young - Shock And Awe Video

Racism Embedded in American Policy Towards The People of Iraq

Anyway here's more from the Iraqi Vet's hearings in which they share their experiences about the War in Iraq.
Its a shame to realize that racism against Muslims plays such a big part in America's foreign policy. Not surprising as Obama has pointed out racism is still not talked about openly and seriously in America .

In case you missed it which most people did since the Media gave the event almost zero coverage. The difference between the Vietnam War and the media now in regards to the Iraq War is striking . That is in the sense that the peace marches and other protests against the Vietnam War received a lot more attention than does any protests against the Iraq War. It is so unsettling that this war has gone on for five years even though everybody knew by the second year that the invasion was based on lies and it was not the cake walk that it was supposed to be. Is it just about the oil and other plunder. Maybe the Americans are the true Barbarians . Maybe America has become a " failed state " . This doesn't affect most of the superwealthy who if in trouble Bush will bail them out.

Iraq War vets speak about unnecessary killings and atrocities as an everyday experience for US soldiers in Iraq.

Preview of Winter Soldiers Part 1.

Unfortunately it seems the mainstream media ignored the hearings . This is not much of a surprise since most Americans have been told the war is going much better since the surge. There are fewer American deaths and that of course is all that matters. The fact that this is an unnecessary war of aggression is unimportant as far as many Americans are concerned. Besides Americans do not want to hear unpleasant stories even if they are true.

The number of Iraqis who have now died as a result of the war is estimated to be about a million. Whereas only about 4,000 Americans have been killed . But as we know American lives are of much greater value than are Iraqis.

The problem with Americans and many Canadians and other Westerners is that they see all Muslims as the same. It makes little difference to them whether those Muslims who took part in the 9/11 attacks were from Egypt or Saudi Arabia which they were. They were not from Iraq or Iran . Only a minority of Muslims support the actions of Al-Qaeda or other extremist groups. But once people accept this racist attitude it is difficult to question or undo it. Besides people find some comfort in their stereotypical views of other people .

" They're just Hajis , who cares !!! "
Racism from the top down

Winter Soldiers at Democracy Now!

And from we get this disturbing article:

Iraq Vets: 'Racism Endemic; Comes from the Top of Command Chain'

At its core, the "War on Terror" is inherently racist. Its central tenet is that all Muslims are interchangeable.

To a significant degree, the invasion of Iraq was sold on that premise. At the time of the invasion, a majority of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of 9/11 (a third still believe that, as did 90 percent of soldiers deployed in Iraq in 2006, according to a Zogby poll). Only a populace that thinks all Arabs are the same could be convinced that it was possible to avenge Osama Bin Laden's attack -- carried out mostly by Saudis and Egyptians -- by invading Iraq.

There probably isn't a single American who would link an IRA bombing in Belfast with an abortion clinic bombing in Birmingham, despite the fact that both are the actions of Christian extremists who justify violence against civilians in the name of religious affinity. In the 1970s and 1980s, Europe had a dozen terrorist groups, all with vaguely similar grievances and with some minor contacts between them. Nobody ever suggested that those groups were parts of a cohesive entity that was waging a war on Western civilization.

But our response to the attacks of 9/11 was, and continues to be, built on the premise that disparate conflicts in predominantly Muslim countries are part and parcel of the same global struggle. Palestinian militants and fundamentalist tribesman in Pakistan's hinterlands and Abu Sayyaf rebels in the Philippines and Algeria's GIA are stripped of history and context and offered by Bush and his supporters as a collective justification for launching a global war in response to a single, if stunning, terror attack.

The reality is that they're conflating a series of independent conflicts, including many that have nothing to do with the United States. Dangerously, that plays right into Osama Bin Laden's preferred narrative of a grand Clash of Civilizations, as far-flung Islamic extremist groups have indeed found value in allying themselves with Bin Laden's "global jihad" since the launch of Bush's terror war.

and so it goes,

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Guantanamo and Free Speech / Hillary and Blackwater

Cartoon by Al-Hajj depicting ' force-feeding ' and " The Torture Chair " at Guantanamo

Al-Hajj was seized by the US military while he was covering the war in Afghanistan for Al Jazeera's Arabic channel and has been held as an "enemy combatant" without trial or charge since 2001.

And yet Bush and Cheney tell us they believe in democracy and freedom of the press unless you work for Al-Jazeera or any news agency that doesn't hold to the Bush party-line . Journalist have been targeted by the US military in both Iraq and Afghanistan by means of threats and physical violence or being shot " accidentally-on-purpose " as it were. It is a similar tactic to claiming that a detainee or prisoner was " shot trying to escape " which is another excuse American soldiers use . They also will blow up a whole street or village because they " suspect " there was an insurgent hiding out so the US soldiers were forced to kill a few dozen innocent civilians / non-combatants . As the Iraqi Vets report they often to cover their own asses will place a rifle near a dead body or if on the side of the road they will put a shovel beside someone they have mistakenly killed.

Anyway the detainees at Guantanamo are still being ignored by most of the main stream media . The detainees are being virtually rendered invisible or just not relevant or interesting to the Media or the public.

Are those in authority at Guantanamo or in the Whitehouse afraid of a simple cartoon. Americans and others in the West couldn't understand why Muslims got upset over a few harmless cartoons about Muhammad so why are the Americans censoring cartoons about Guantanamo and its abuse of detainees.

It would be reassuring to hear those same liberals and leftists who were so concerned about Free Speech at that time to come out and criticize the Bush Regime for this example of censorship.
I say the liberals and leftists because they claim to stand for a particular principle. Whereas the conservatives being hypocrites are always going to defend censorship when it is in their favor .

As the article in Al-Jazeera explains the case of Al-Hajj:

Al-Hajj's Guantanamo cartoon banned/By Al Jazeera /Media With Conscience

The US army has banned the publication of four cartoons drawn by Sami al-Hajj, the Al Jazeera camera held in the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, according to his lawyer.

The pieces, called Sketches of My Nightmare, include a drawing depicting al-Hajj, who has been on hunger strike for eight months, as a skeleton being force fed by US guards.

The drawings were submitted to the military censor but they would not permit their release.

However, detailed descriptions of the sketches were allowed through the censorship process and Lewis Peake, a political cartoonist, was able to recreate one entitled Scream for Freedom.

Al Hajj described the way he sees himself being force fed in the so-called "Torture Chair" - the restraint chair into which they are strapped twice a day to have a 110cm tube forcibly inserted into one nostril so that liquid food can be administered.

The tube is pulled out after each feeding and the prisoner is left in the chair for up to two hours so he can be force fed again if he vomits.

'Torture chair'

"The first sketch is just a skeleton in the torture chair," he explained.

"My picture reflects my nightmares of what I must look like, with my head double-strapped down, a tube in my nose, a black mask over my mouth, with no eyes and only giant cheekbones, my teeth jutting out – my bones showing in every detail, every rib, every joint.

"They are sitting like we do in interrogations, with hands shackled, feet shackled to the floor, just waiting. In between I draw the flag of Guantanamo – JTF-GTMO – but instead of the normal insignia, there is a skull and crossbones, the real symbol of what is happening here," he said.

Free speech

The cartoonist is also reproducing the other three sketches which show other aspects of the prisoners' treatment in US custody, Reprieve, a British charity which provides legal representation to Guantanamo detainees, said.

"You have to question, I have to question as an American, why the US government thinks that free speech in the form of this picture is a somehow a threat to US national security," Clive Stafford Smith, director of Reprieve, said.

So anyway it seems Hillary Clinton has finally made a clear and direct statement concerning the status of Mercenaries aka Private Contractors in Iraq and what she intends to do about them . She says she'll get rid of them as Jeremy Scahill reports in an article in The Nation Truthout Blackwater Seeps Into the Campaign /18 March 2008:

"Hillary Clinton has just become the most significant US political figure to come out in favor of banning Blackwater and other armed private security contractors from operating in Iraq. "When I am President I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors with the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors," she declared ..." ' and continued ...' "Senator Obama and I have a substantive disagreement here. He won't rule out continuing to use armed private military contractors in Iraq to do jobs that historically have been done by the US military or government personnel." '

but as Jeremy Scahill argues if this is so why hasn't Hillary done anything about their status before when she had the chance ..."She has served for five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has done nothing to end the use of Blackwater and other private security forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere." and as Scahill continues...

Instead, she chose to do it in late February, after The Nation published the comments of a senior foreign policy advisor to Obama who said, "I can't rule out, I won't rule out, private security contractors" in Iraq if Obama becomes president and that Obama does not intend to sign onto the Sanders-Schakowsky legislation. The next day, after refusing for over a week to provide a comment to The Nation on the issue, Clinton's staff released a statement saying she would endorse the Stop Outsourcing Security Act to "ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq." Clinton declared, "The time to show these contractors the door is long past due." The statement was released five days before the make-or-break primaries in Texas and Ohio, when the New York Senator was on the ropes.

On Monday, Clinton said, "I believe what matters in this campaign is not just the promises we've made to end the war; what matters is what we've actually done when it came time to match words with action. Because more than anything else, what we've done is an indication of what we'll do." On the issue of Blackwater, Clinton has been MIA for years.

Clinton's campaign is well aware that Obama has been ahead of the curve on the issue of armed private contractors in Iraq-and certainly ahead of her. In October 2007, Clinton claimed she was unaware that Bush had granted Blackwater and other contractors immunity in 2004. "Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it," she said.

And here's one of the commentaries on Obama's Speech which I wanted to share as it were:

Bill Maher- Obama

and so it goes,

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Obama Speech ' A More Perfect Union'

Barack Obama Speech on Racism March 18, 2008
' A MORE PERFECT UNION ' ( clip 9:00 minutes )
Racial stalemate

Inequality still exist in America
Systemic embedded racism Must be faced and overcome
Insist on a full measure of justice and equality for all Americans
" The most segregated hour in America takes place on Sunday Morning "

For full speech ( 37:00 minutes ) see Barackobamadotcom

also check out Keith Olbermann on Countdown at MSNBC
Rachel Maddow and Eugene Robinson join Keith Olbermann to discuss Barack Obama's landmark speech on race. Aired 3/18/08.

As the media and Neocons and the Radical Religious right act appalled by Obama's spiritual guide Pastor Wright they all seem to forget about the advisers and spiritual guides of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney which include the Straussian Neocons and religious leaders such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. It was Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell for example who believed 9/11 was payback from God for Americans living sinful lives ; allowing Gays and Lesbians and other perverts (in their view) to walk about freely and murdering millions of babies by legalizing abortion, while teaching Godless Evolution in the schools along with sex education and allowing women into the Army etc.

It just all seems a little less than even-handed. If Senator McCain or George Bush associates with Radical Christian Evangelicals and the odd White Supremacists the media are told it is not that important or if Bush spends an inordinate amount of time with various Radical Neoconservatives this is again not really the Public's or the Media's concern.

And here's a bit on one of Bush's spiritual and political advisers Norman Pohoretz

The Lunacy of Norman Podhoretz by the Southern Avenger

Well thank God George Bush had such a wonderful and insightful mentor to guide him so that all of his foreign and domestic policies have worked out so well. Of course ignoring the sarcastic tone as far as the Neocons and Podhoertz are concerned most of Bush's policies were stellar decisions . Ignoring the people who were the victims of Katrina is just part of the neocon agenda of self-reliance and allowing nature to take its course and Iraq has become a new Beach-head in the Middle East as American plans to conquers a number of other nations eventually.

Anyway back to Obama's speech.
What I fear is that Obama's speech will get lost in the noise of Fox News and the Radical Religious Right and the Neocons and the McCain and Clintons' campaign machines of half-truths, lies , rumors and other forms of propaganda as their spin doctors gear up for another wave of attacks on Barack Obama.

And so is Obama too honest and outspoken to be President of a country which would prefer not to accept or face up to certain issues such as race or the economic divide . Is Obama then in fact as Hillary and others claim too naive . Is his vision of America too far off the mark. Hillary and McCain believe that American's only understand things in very simple terms of good or bad , or good versus evil. Americans they seem to claim are just too simple-minded to understand the complexities of any issue. It is therefore the job of politicians to break issues down into overly simplified terms. What Hillary and McCain claim is that Politicians need to dumb it down so that American's can understand an issue. This is all part of the dumbing down of America.

What Obama seems to say is that American's are intelligent and sophisticated enough that they can understand the complexities of various issues and are mature enough to discuss these openly in the public arena . Obama's argues that American's are insightful enough that they understand that all of America's problems cannot be resolved by merely waving a magic wand . Obama is also arguing that American's know when fear and threats to the nation are merely being used by those in power to distract the citizenry from what are the real issues facing Americans . What McCain and Hillary claim is that solutions to America's economic , social, and racial problems and issues to do with inequality and injustice have to once more be postponed as America faces another National crisis and so has to spend or focus all its resources and energies on expanding its war on terror.

And so McCain and Hillary will be able to fix these internal problems once they have won the war on terror which McCain says may take another 50 to 100 years.
And they also promise that all they need is to be authorized to enter into even more foreign wars to widen the war on terror or that it could more quickly resolved by dropping even bigger bombs and possible nuclear bombs. After that they can then focus on domestic issues in the year 2028 or 2058 or even 2108 and then all will become perfect in America.

But are Americans willing to wait that long and are they willing to put their trust in politicians who seem locked into this sort of mindset of continuous and perpetual war. Or are Americans finally getting wise to being told that those in power always know what's best for America as in obliterating one country after another all in some dubious rationale of 'National Security' or 'America's interests' which really means the interests of various super-wealthy individuals and corporations.

For instance according to some of the conservatives and Neocons if anyone including an American questions some of America's foreign policies then that individual is labeled as being anti-American. There are many Americans who believe for example that the United States was not justified into going into Iraq and so those who believe this must be anti-American. Consider some of the foreign policies of America over the passed fifty years. Now not everything America did was wrong but some decisions and actions by former American administrations are questionable. Was America right in overthrowing Allende in Chile who had been democratically elected as President of Chile.The coup was American backed and there were American advisers who helped Pinochet and his army to take control of Chile. As I mentioned for instance when writing about Chilean musician Victor Jara that he was murdered by Pinochet's soldiers. Of the thousands executed during the coup most were not a threat to the state , most were musicians, poets, actors , writers, academics , journalists , university students who were unarmed but who supported Allende and for that they were murdered . So is it in some cases acceptable to question or even condemn a particular American foreign policy or must all Americans in order to be considered patriots support all American foreign policies of the present and the past ???
Was the Vietnam War for instance an example of a justified foreign policy or was it absolutely wrong-headed or just flawed ?

So once again Americans are told they may make minor changes in the system but nothing too substantive because then it will be labeled radical and anti-American.
So its acceptable to withdraw a few troops from Iraq but not most of the troops and one is not even permitted to talk about America's Holy Warriors such as the Mercenaries like Blackwater who are like the Centurion Guard or Royal Guard who are beyond reproach . What Obama's sin is that he says the War in Iraq was unjustifiable from the beginning and that the occupation is a disaster and for saying so bluntly the Republicans , Neocons , the Religious Right and even Hillary Clinton want to scuttle his campaign in anyway that they can .

Here is a good summary and analysis of the attacks on Obama by the Republican's and Neocons and the Religious Right and even Hillary Clinton's supporters :

The Media Repeats Stream of Lies About Obama

By Ari Berman, The Nation. Posted March 13, 2008.

He's been defended by AIPAC on his Israel views, made it clear that he's Christian, yet the media keeps swallowing right-wing lies.

By now you've probably seen at least some of these e-mails and articles about Barack Obama bouncing around the Internet. They distort Obama's religious faith, question his support for Israel, warp the identity and positions of his campaign advisers and defame his friends and allies from Chicago. The purpose of the smear is to paint him as an Arab-loving, Israel-hating, terrorist-coddling, radical black nationalist. That picture couldn't be further from the truth, but you'd be surprised how many people have fallen for it. The American Jewish community, one of the most important pillars of the Democratic Party and US politics, has been specifically targeted [see Eric Alterman's column in the March 24 issue, "(Some) Jews Against Obama"]. What started as a largely overlooked fringe attack has been thrust into the mainstream -- used as GOP talking points, pushed by the Clinton campaign, echoed by the likes of Meet the Press host Tim Russert. Falsehoods are repeated as fact, and bits of evidence become "elaborate constructions of malicious fantasy," as the Jewish Week, America's largest Jewish newspaper, editorialized.

...We may not know who started the smears, but we do know who's amplifying them. The "Obama is a Muslim" rumor began in the fringe conservative blogosphere. "Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always a Muslim," blogger Debbie Schlussel wrote on December 18, 2006. Schlussel had a history of inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations. She said journalist Jill Carroll, who was kidnapped by Iraqi insurgents in 2006, "hates America" and "hates Israel"; labeled George Soros a "fake Holocaust survivor"; and speculated that Pakistani terrorists were somehow to blame for last year's shootings at Virginia Tech. Yet her post on Obama gained traction; one month later, the Washington Times's Insight magazine alleged that Obama had attended "a so-called Madrassa" and was a secret Muslim.

The Christian right is also preoccupied with Obama's religious beliefs. "Is Obama a Muslim?" the Rev. Rob Schenck, a reform Jew who converted to Christianity and now calls himself a "missionary to Capitol Hill," asked in a recent videoblog. "He may be an apostate, he may be an infidel, he may be a bad Muslim, a very, very bad Muslim, he may be an unfaithful Muslim." Schenck's videoblog was circulated by the Christian Newswire and Cross Action News, a self-described "Drudge Report for Christians." Schenck later concluded that, although not a Muslim, Obama was also "not a 'Bible Christian'" and did not practice a "confident faith." A separate report posted on the Christian Newswire recently asked if Obama was "Wearing a What-Would-Satan-Do Bracelet." And a top figure in the group Christians United for Israel, Pastor Rod Parsley, a "spiritual guide" to John McCain, repeatedly referred to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" before campaigning with McCain in Ohio. (Thirteen percent of registered American voters now incorrectly believe that Obama is a Muslim, according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, up from 8 percent in December. Forty-four percent of respondents are unsure of his religion or decline to answer; only 37 percent know that he is a Christian.)

The Muslim rumor was followed by fictions about Obama's actual faith, Christianity. In February 2007, Erik Rush, a columnist for WorldNetDaily, a hub of right-wing yellow journalism, called Obama's Chicago church a "black supremacist" and "separatist" institution. Rush found a sympathetic audience at Fox News, where he was interviewed by Sean Hannity. Soon after, another blast of e-mails went out, calling Obama a racist: "Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's churchB-L-A-C-K!!!" Like the Muslim claim, it was a lie. But screeds about Obama's faith soon gave way to wide-ranging attacks against his campaign advisers, his positions on the Middle East and his associations in Chicago.

And he points out who he believes is at the center of the controversy surrounding Obama's campaign :

At the fulcrum of this effort is a little-known blogger from Northbrook, Illinois, named Ed Lasky, whose articles on have done more than anything to give the smear campaign an air of respectability. Lasky co-founded in 2003, modeling it after Powerline, a popular conservative blog. Before that, he had frequently written letters to newspapers defending Israel and criticizing the Palestinians. Though his background remains a mystery, Lasky didn't hide his neoconservative leanings. He wrote a blog post in 2004 titled "Why American Jews Must Vote for Bush," made three separate donations to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, contributed $1,000 to Tom DeLay and has given more than $50,000 to GOP candidates and causes since 2000. Lasky sits on the board of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, headed by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, whose close affiliations with Christian-right operatives like Ralph Reed has made Eckstein a controversial figure in the Jewish community.

A lengthy article from January 16, "Barack Obama and Israel," put Lasky on the map. "One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates," Lasky wrote. To reach that conclusion, Lasky laughably warped what it meant to be "pro-Israel," criticizing Obama for, among other things, opposing John Bolton as UN ambassador and hiring veteran foreign policy hands from the Clinton and Carter administrations. By Lasky's criteria, every Democrat in the Senate, and more than a few Republicans, would be considered "anti-Israel." "Lasky's piece is filled with half-truths, omission of 'inconvenient facts,' innuendo, deeply flawed logic, undocumented charges, hearsay, and guilt by distant association," wrote Ira Forman of the National Jewish Democratic Council in the Philadelphia Jewish Voice.

And to hear it from the horse's mouth see :article by ed lasky March 14, 2008
Senator Obama's Foreign Policy Judgment
By Ed Lasky

also in the spirit of equaltime see for a Neoconservative perspective on Obama's speech:

at American Thinker Blog: March 18, 2008
Obamababble/Clarice Feldman

"If in their close twenty year association Obama was not able to move Rev. Wright off his divisive hatred and correct his many historical errors, why are we to suppose he could unite a nation, millions of whom didn't and would never vote for him?"

and : March 16, 2008
A President Obama's Neoliberal Theocracy By Lee Cary

Barack Obama's first vocational choice was to help people in a poor African-American community. Later, he joined a church founded on black liberation theology. This combination could result in an Obama presidency that embodies something new in American history -- a Neoliberal Theocracy.

March 19, 2008/Obama's Coming-Out Speech By Lee Cary
After his speech yesterday, we now better understand Obama's church affiliation and have a framework to interpret his intentions. He and his spiritual mentor shape their respective vocations, politics and theology, through the same race-based class dialectic.


Monday, March 17, 2008

Iraq Vets Expose American War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

See more videos from Iraq Veterans Against the War:
Winter soldiers at The Real News Network and Youtube

updated: July 10, 2008

IVAW testimony,Winter Soldier Rules of Engagement clip

The gruesome details of these accounts are rather disturbing to most normal people who are bothered by the wanton killings of innocent civilians. But Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice ,the Neocons ,John McCain, Fox News and Ann Coulter etc. and other racists and bigots in America are probably pleased that American soldiers are doing their duty without flinching.

But they see these soldiers at the hearings as traitors and cowards for talking in public about policies and strategies which are supposed to be kept secret. The Bush supporters couldn't care less about the deaths of a half-million to a million Iraqis since the whole point is not just to terrorize the Iraqis but also send a message to any who dare stand up to the American War Machine. The Americans like the Nazis will show no mercy as they wipe out whole towns and cities . As Cheney and others say war is a messy business and this is true but to target innocent civilians is still a War Crime and a Crime against Humanity . But being of the Superior Race the Americans will never have to face a War Crimes Tribunal and because too many countries have either been complicit by their silence in these crimes while others fear the wrath of America.

It reminds me of the Nazis Waffen SS who had to suppress whatever sentiment they felt toward innocent civilians including the elderly, women and children and even infants in order to carry out what they believed to be their" sacred duty ". And so Iraq has become a 'free-Fire Zone' where all Iraqis are determined to be insurgents and terrorists or in the case of infants and toddlers potential insurgents and terrorists. The comparison to Nazis is to do with strategies and tactics such as reprisals If an American soldier is killed in Iraq then the military under the Bush Regime believes it is their right to kill a few Iraqis innocent or not to pay for the death of an American. The Nazis also would claim those they killed were " Partisans " or what Cheney would refer to as " Dead-Enders " or insurgents . But many of those Iraqis who have been fighting against the American Occupation are not necessarily " terrorists " or Al-Qaeda but rather average Iraqis who have lost their homes or have seen family members murdered by American Troops or American Mercenaries like Blackwater INC. or by American backed " death Squads ". But the Iraqi people are told that when American soldiers commit some atrocity , massacre or rape Iraqi teenage girls the Iraqis are not permitted to complain to the American Occupiers or to take justice into their own hands. If they complain too much they are either arrested and detained or their village or neighborhood or street is attacked once more to silence the critics .


Sunday, March 16, 2008

Bush & His Rich Friends Think War , Death, Destruction and Corruption Are Funny

The rich find war death and destruction corruption funny
But everybody loves the rich

As the corpses pile up the Bush Regime sees the funny side in it all.

Anyway at a recent dinner Bush sang a song making fun of his mistakes which have led to the deaths of Americans after Katrina . Bush also goes on to see humor in the deaths of 4,000 Americans and sees some humor in the less important deaths (in his view) of a half a million or more Iraqis in his unnecessary and illegal War in Iraq. He also thinks torture and renditions and the on-going atrocities as fertile ground for a joke or two. As for the wide-spread corruption , mismanagement and criminal negligence of his government this is all just good for a laugh. Its all funny unless one of their own is actually hurt in a substantial manner.

If these people are not Fascists then the term surely has no meaning. They are authoritarian and have an agenda which combines the brutality of the state with a radical religious view. They are mostly Christians who are Evangelical Fundamentalists who believe they are among the elite who have been chosen by God to transform the world which is in need of redemption and salvation.

If McCain comes to power then nothing much will change . If Hillary Clinton or Obama take power these powerful elites and lobbyists and entrenched Radical Religious Right and Neocons may prevent any substantive changes which Hillary or Obama may want to make That is they maybe permitted some room to tinker with Health Care or Education etc. . But it seems unlikely the Military and Intelligence agencies will permit any substantive changes in policies , strategies or even to to set up probes into whether they are working within the rules of the US Constitution or whether their massive budgets are being spent properly . All these agencies have to do is to plead National Security and claim any such information could be used by America's enemies within and outside the country against America.

I doubt Hillary will do much more than go through the motions since too many of those in power and the lobbyist and big corporations she counts among her friends or hopes to eventually . Besides again she has refused to call Bush a crook or criminal or madman or a fool or an idiot She is enamoured with Bush and Cheney etc. since they are men with power and though she might disagree with them no matter how criminal their actions no matter how many innocent people they kill or torture or who's careers they destroy , no matter how many elections they "fix " she still in public refuses to call their illegal and immoral actions " Crimes " since she claims she still respects them as Great Americans or whatever Propaganda she wants the American people to buy into.

On the other hand Obama may actually try to make changes only to be prevented by not just the Republicans and the Neocons but also all those who have backed Hillary since they Obama as an upstart or if you like an uppity black man who hasn't earned the right to challenge the entrenched White Elites who believe in their own right to entitlement.

DEAD INSIDE by Frank Prinzel

From: FreedomUnderground

about the above video " DEAD INSIDE "
Musician and videographer Frank Prinzel composition.

The nature of the source video in this piece:

Political Remix Videos are critical or satirical works of art focusing on political, social, cultural or economic topics and created by remixing corporate intellectual property and/or appropriated footage generally without the permission of the copyright holder.

Many Political Remix Videos "should" be classified as Fair-Use in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107.

and in case you missed it :


Saturday, March 15, 2008


Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

~Abraham Lincoln

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel . . . And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth.
Mark Twain

Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.
John F. Kennedy

John Quincy Adams, quotes about Honor:
[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

Samuel Adams,
He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man...The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
The best way of avenging thyself is not to become like the wrong-doer.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
Never esteem anything as of advantage to you that will make you break your word or lose your self-respect.

Nicolas Boileau-Despraux, :
Honor is like an island, rugged and without a beach; once we have left it, we can never return.
Anyway the war in Iraq goes on whether Western Media or American Media pay much attention to it. You would think the War was over or nearing its end and that America was on the verge of success. Well that is according to McCain and Hillary its just a matter of staying the course and coming up with a new bold strategy. Don't tell Hillary that the war in Iraq was lost a long time ago yet she still hopes for victory. Oh well she thinks McCain is a great guy and so is Bush and Cheney so what can we expect from her. She also is unwilling to take Bush or the military to task for the on-going atrocities and slaughter of innocent civilians.
So anyway back to the war.

From Information Clearing HouseWinter Soldier Hearings,

By Aaron Glantz

10/03/08 "ICH" -- - Get ready for the horrible, honest reality of the American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan like you haven’t heard it before. For four days, from March 13 through March 16, hundreds of U.S. veterans of the two wars will descend on Washington and testify in the “Winter Soldier” hearings about what they really did while they were serving their country in Iraq. And their experiences aren’t pretty.

The event is inspired by the Winter Solider tribunal held in 1971 by Vietnam War vets, including John Kerry. The name comes from a quote from Thomas Paine, the revolutionary who rallied George Washington’s troops at Valley Forge, saying: “These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

Paine was trying to keep Washington’s army from deserting in the face of a bitter winter and mounting defeats at the hands of the British. Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War say the same type of courage is needed to confront the evils unleashed by the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.


Friday, March 14, 2008

Olbermann: Hillary Clinton and Racism

Anyway It seems Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy is to complain that Obama is popular because he is black or because he is male and has little to do with Obama's policies or his style or whatever her strategist can come up with. She seems also to be reaching out to Democrats who are not comfortable voting for a black man. There is something not quite right about all this as Olbermann points out.

Keith Olbermann- Hillary and Racism

" But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican.

As Shakespeare wrote, Senator, that way madness lies."

and check out article at New York Times:

Democrats Face Racial Issue Again
By Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny/ The New York Times

Thursday 13 March 2008

After the Democratic primary in South Carolina turned racially divisive in January, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama essentially declared a truce and put a stop to fighting between their camps. But this week, race has once again begun casting a pall over the battle between the two.

On Wednesday a close ally of Mrs. Clinton, Geraldine A. Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984 who was on the Clinton finance committee, resigned from the campaign after being criticized by Mr. Obama's advisers, among others, for her recent comments that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position" as a leading presidential contender.

Ms. Ferraro did not disavow that remark. Mrs. Clinton, while calling it regrettable, did not break with her.

Mr. Obama, speaking to reporters on Wednesday, said he did not believe that there was "a directive in the Clinton campaign saying, 'Let's heighten the racial elements in the campaign.' I certainly wouldn't want to think that."

He said he was puzzled at how, after more than a year of campaigning, race and sex are at the forefront as never before.

"I don't want to deny the role of race and gender in our society," he said. "They're there, and they're powerful. But I don't think it's productive."

... the Rev. Al Sharpton, the black political leader in New York and a former presidential candidate, who questioned whether Mrs. Clinton's campaign was keeping the issue alive as a way to win white votes in Pennsylvania.

In addition to Ms. Ferraro's remark, Mr. Sharpton cited Mrs. Clinton's decision not to fire her top ally in Pennsylvania, Gov. Edward G. Rendell, for saying in February that some white voters there were "probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."

"When you hear the lack of total denunciation of Ferraro, when you hear Rendell saying there are whites who will never vote for a black, one has to wonder if the Clinton campaign has a Pennsylvania strategy to appeal to voters on race," Mr. Sharpton said in an interview. "I would hope Mrs. Clinton would make it clear that she is not doing that."

And Senator McCain seems to be playing the Islamophobic card so McCain and Hillary appear to be appealing to the worst in America rather than the best. I guess they feel sympathy for all those disenfranchised racists and bigots . Is that over-stating the case let's take a look:

McCain's Spiritual Guide/Destroy Islam

Televangelist Rod Parsley, a key McCain ally in Ohio, has called for eradicating the "false religion." Will the GOP presidential candidate renounce him?

By David Corn
13/03/08 "Mother Jones" -- -- Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment."

Parsley claims that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" predicated on "deception." The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, "received revelations from demons and not from the true God." And he emphasizes this point: "Allah was a demon spirit." Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion:

There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call "extremists" are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.

The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion "inspired" the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans "have become Muslim" and that there are "some 1,209 mosques" in America. Islam, he declares, is a "faith that fully intends to conquer the world" through violence. The United States, he insists, "has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam," but "history is crashing in upon us."

At the end of his chapter on Islam, Parsley asks, "Are we a Christian nation? I say yes." Without specifying what actions should be taken to eradicate the religion, he essentially calls for a new crusade.

Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.

and : US Racial Discrimination Must Be Remedied, UN Says
Louisiana Weekly/ Monday 10 March 2008

Post-Katrina housing rights violations also cited.

On Friday, March 7, in Geneva, Switzerland, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued its Concluding Observations charging the U.S. to do more to remedy the effects of racial discrimination in housing and other areas.

The Observations came after the formal review of the U.S.'s report to the Committee under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This is a required procedure for all signatories to the treaty, which the U.S. ratified in 1994.

During the oral review, Committee member Dilip Lahiri of India recalled, "When I was in Chicago, a journalist who visited then-apartheid South Africa came back and said, 'You don't need the South African laws to achieve the [same] segregation, the discrimination in the United States.' Residential segregation ... is a persistent factor and while programs have been undertaken, it is obvious that there is a problem and some sort of a vigorous proactive action needs to be taken to show some progress on the ground."

and so it goes,