Remove this ad

3/24 THURSDAY John Boehner rips President Obama on Libya

Rss     Subscribe     Share     Tweet    

0 Points


Mar 24 11 3:33 PM

Tags : :

John Boehner rips President Obama on Libya

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) escalated his critique of President Barack Obama’s handling of military operations in Libya Wednesday, sending the president a scathing letter that demands answers to the run-up to engagement in the region and hits the White House for first consulting the United Nations and the Arab League, but not Congress.
Boehner wrote in the letter that he is “troubled” the United States military has been engaged in the attacks on Libya “without clearly defining” what the mission is and what America’s role is in achieving the goal.

The letter is a far sharper critique of the president’s handling of the affair than Boehner has offered. It makes clear that Republicans, at least in the House, will play an oppositional role for the White House as the situation in Libya unfolds.

Libya has emerged as thee dominant political discussion in Washington and partisan divides are beginning to take firmer shape. On Wednesday, a band of Senate Democrats who were critical of the war in Iraq came out in support of Obama. In the Republican-controlled House, the Foreign Affairs Committee called on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to testify.

Politically, the GOP had been cautious on Libya. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been publicly silent after the airstrike. Boehner’s letter, though, escalates their position against the White House. Given Boehner’s methodical, and deliberate messaging strategy, the questions he posed are likely to keep surfacing until sufficient answers are given to Congress.

The questions touch on the U.N. resolution, among other things. Boehner notes that the U.S. has said Col. Mommar Qadhafi should step down, but the resolution does not indicate a similar goal. Given that, Boehner asks if it would be acceptable for Qadhafi to stay in power, how he’d be removed from power, and why the U.S. would “commit American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interest.”

He also hits on the strategy as it deals with American partners in the mission. The speaker asks which nations are in the lead, if there are clear lines of authority and responsibility and whether the mission involves attacking “land-based battlefield activities.”

And if other nation’s drop their support, Boehner wants to know if the U.S. will “take on an increased role.” He’s also seeking information on when the Americans will hand over control, and how long after that U.S. forces will be involved. And if Qadhafi stays in power, how long a no-fly zone would stay in place.

Also, he wants the administration’s plans to engage with opposition forces, also inquiring what “standards must a new regime meet to be recognized by” the U.S. government.

The budget-slashing Republican leader also wants to know the cost of the mission, and if the administration will seek a supplemental funding measure for military actions.

“Because of the conflicting messages from the Administration and our coalition partners, there is a lack of clarity over the objectives of this mission, what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East,” Boehner continues. “The American people deserve answers to these questions. And all of these concerns point to a fundamental question: what is your benchmark for success in Libya?”

Boehner criticized the Obama administration for sending “contradictory” messages about the U.S. role, leaving the American people in the dark, while consulting “extensively on these same matters with…the United Nations and the Arab League.”

He called the decision not to consult with congressional leaders before deploying American troops “regrettable.”

On Tuesday, though, Obama administration officials did brief House and Senate aides on the mission while Congress was in recess and most lawmakers were out of Washington.

Read more:


The letter is a far sharper critique of the president’s handling of the affair than Boehner has offered. It makes clear that Republicans, at least in the House, will play an oppositional role for the White House as the situation in Libya unfolds.
Libya has emerged as thee dominant political discussion in Washington and partisan divides are beginning to take firmer shape. On Wednesday, a band of Senate Democrats who were critical of the war in Iraq came out in support of Obama. In the Republican-controlled House, the Foreign Affairs Committee called on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to testify.
Politically, the GOP had been cautious on Libya. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been publicly silent after the airstrike. Boehner’s letter, though, escalates their position against the White House. Given Boehner’s methodical, and deliberate messaging strategy, the questions he posed are likely to keep surfacing until sufficient answers are given to Congress.
The questions touch on the U.N. resolution, among other things. Boehner notes that the U.S. has said Col. Mommar Qadhafi should step down, but the resolution does not indicate a similar goal. Given that, Boehner asks if it would be acceptable for Qadhafi to stay in power, how he’d be removed from power, and why the U.S. would “commit American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interest.”
He also hits on the strategy as it deals with American partners in the mission. The speaker asks which nations are in the lead, if there are clear lines of authority and responsibility and whether the mission involves attacking “land-based battlefield activities.”
And if other nation’s drop their support, Boehner wants to know if the U.S. will “take on an increased role.” He’s also seeking information on when the Americans will hand over control, and how long after that U.S. forces will be involved. And if Qadhafi stays in power, how long a no-fly zone would stay in place.
Also, he wants the administration’s plans to engage with opposition forces, also inquiring what “standards must a new regime meet to be recognized by” the U.S. government.
The budget-slashing Republican leader also wants to know the cost of the mission, and if the administration will seek a supplemental funding measure for military actions.
“Because of the conflicting messages from the Administration and our coalition partners, there is a lack of clarity over the objectives of this mission, what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East,” Boehner continues. “The American people deserve answers to these questions. And all of these concerns point to a fundamental question: what is your benchmark for success in Libya?”
Boehner criticized the Obama administration for sending “contradictory” messages about the U.S. role, leaving the American people in the dark, while consulting “extensively on these same matters with…the United Nations and the Arab League.”
He called the decision not to consult with congressional leaders before deploying American troops “regrettable.”
On Tuesday, though, Obama administration officials did brief House and Senate aides on the mission while Congress was in recess and most lawmakers were out of Washington.

Read more:

 GO TO THE PAGE TO listen to the 3 vidios :)

VIDEO: Clinton on Libya

Rumsfeld on Libya confusion

DOD briefing on Libya mission

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Mar 24 11 3:38 PM

Dem: Obama Told Me We Would Be "In And Out" Of Libya


Everything that the President has indicated to me is that we expect to be 'in and out' very quickly. The reason why we started is because we have the technology that the other countries don't have but after the first week or so we're expecting the British, the French and the other NATO countries to really take over for us," Rep. Engel Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) told ABC News' "Top Line" program.

Engel said that President Obama needs to address the nation on Libya. Engel says Obama also needs to talk to Congress if the operation in Libya "lasted a few weeks."


watch the video on the page please :)

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Mar 24 11 3:40 PM

Pentagon: US likely to continue combat in Libya


 A senior Pentagon official says the U.S. probably will continue flying combat missions over Libya once the U.S. relinquishes command of the air campaign to NATO or others as early as this weekend.

Navy Adm. William Gortney told reporters Thursday that the U.S. role would predominantly be in support of allied partners, with refueling missions, surveillance, reconnaissance and other


non-combat flights. But he also said he expects U.S. planes would continue flying some strike missions.

Gortney said the U.S. military foresees a handoff of the lead command role by this weekend. He said details are still being worked out.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Mar 24 11 3:42 PM

The Campaign Spot


Obama: No U.S. Forces on the Ground in Libya… Except For Those Guys.


Tags: Barack Obama

NPR: “President Obama said Wednesday it was ‘absolutely’ out of the question that U.S. ground forces would be used in Libya.”

How would the president describe the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit? There is no such thing as a purely air-based combat mission; planes have problems and pilots end up on the ground, and then U.S. forces have to end up on the ground, hopefully briefly, to rescue them and bring them home safely. Ask Scott O’Grady how much time you can spend on the ground while patrolling a no-fly zone.

Details on the recent rescue:

The Kearsarge then sent up two MV-22 Ospreys carrying Marine rescue teams. As they were en route, the Harriers dropped two laser-guided bombs near the crash site, apparently to keep Libyans on the ground from approaching the pilot.

With additional helicopters hovering overhead for security, one of the Ospreys landed and picked up the pilot. He was then taken aboard the Kearsarge.

The weapons systems officer was recovered by what U.S. officials described as Libyan opposition forces. He is safe, officials have said.

There are about 2,200 Marines off the shore of Libya right now.

UPDATE: God bless Matt Drudge and the Drudge Report.

With the sudden influx of attention, permit me to further clarify the original point of this post: President Obama’s tendency to speak in broad, sweeping terms that are not accurate (see Tim Carney for more illustrations of this) and to underline the folly of the notion, implied by much of this administration’s rhetoric, that any military action can be quick, clean, easy, or minimal risk. Thankfully, the rescue of the downed pilots earlier this week went off without a hitch, and God willing, any future rescues will end successfully and with minimal contact with the enemy. But that’s up to chance; Operation Eagle Claw and the Battle of Mogadishu demonstrate that there’s no such thing as a simple rescue mission. At some point, the U.S. may need many “boots on the ground,” despite repeated, broadly-worded assurances from the president and commanding officers that such a scenario will not occur.

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Mar 24 11 3:43 PM

Obama rules out 'land invasion' in Libya

President Barack Obama Wednesday categorically ruled out a land invasion to oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi as coalition forces launched a fifth day of air strikes against government military targets in the North African nation.
And Obama said the U.S. this week will be pulling back from its dominant role in the international campaign aimed at preventing Gadhafi from attacking civilians.
In international attacks early Wednesday, missiles from F-15 fighter jets destroyed Gadhafi missile sites around Tripoli. In two cities where pro-Gadhafi troops have besieged civilians, the international force struck a government ammunition depot outside Misrata and other planes hit ground forces outside Ajdabiya, officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.
Residents in Misrata said coalition attacks forced government troops to withdraw tanks there.
Obama was asked in an interview with the Spanish-language network Univision if a land invasion would be out of the question in the event air strikes fail to dislodge Gadhafi from power. Obama replied that it was "absolutely" out of the question.
Asked what the exit strategy is, he didn't lay out a vision for ending the international action, but rather said: "The exit strategy will be executed this week in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment."
"We'll still be in a support role, we'll still be providing jamming, and intelligence and other assets that are unique to us, but this is an international effort that's designed to accomplish the goals that were set out in the Security Council resolution," Obama said.
Obama had said last week that he had no intention of sending ground combat troops into Libya, and his statements in the interview served to reinforce that point.

As the air war in Libya achieves some of its early objectives, such as grounding Gadhafi's air force, the administration is looking for a quick way out of the front-line role it has assumed in an international operation that has yet to gain the robust participation of Arab nations that Washington wanted.

NATO warships have started patrolling off Libya's coast to enforce the U.N. arms embargo, as the alliance appeared set to assume responsibility for the no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians.
But civilians in major cities like Misrata are still bearing the burden of clashes with pro-Gadhafi forces, raising the prospect of stalemate and doubt about whether the Libyan leader can be defeated outright.
Obama was returning to Washington on Wednesday a few hours earlier than planned. In El Salvador on Tuesday he painted an optimistic picture of the international military operation and said he had "absolutely no doubt" that control could be shifted from the U.S. to other coalition members within days.
"When this transition takes place, it is not going to be our planes that are maintaining the no-fly zone," the president said earlier at a news conference. "It is not going to be our ships that are necessarily enforcing the arms embargo. That's precisely what the other nations are going to do."
The most obvious candidate to take control — the NATO military alliance, which also happens to be led by the U.S. — has yet to sort out a political agreement to do so. Obama said NATO was meeting to "work out some of the mechanisms."
Meanwhile, the U.S. effort has easily cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Despite the cost and the potential for casualties, Obama said he believes the American public is supportive of such a mission.
"This is something that we can build into our budget. And we're confident that not only can the goals be achieved, but at the end of the day the American people are going to feel satisfied that lives were saved and people were helped," he said.
The Persian Gulf nation of Qatar was expected to start flying air patrols over Libya by this weekend, becoming the first member of the Arab League to participate directly in the military mission. Obama and NATO had insisted from the start on Arab support.
With congressional critics growing more vocal, the president defended the wisdom of the operation so far. "It is in America's national interests to participate ... because no one has a bigger stake in making sure that there are basic rules of the road that are observed, that there is some semblance of order and justice, particularly in a volatile region that's going through great changes," Obama said. With longtime autocratic governments under pressure elsewhere in the Arab world, the president made clear his decision to dispatch U.S. planes and ships to intervene in Libya did not automatically signal he would do so everywhere. The president also suggested the administration would not need to request funding from Congress for the air operations but would pay for them out of money already approved. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the administration is getting reports — of questionable credibility — that some in Gadhafi's inner circle may be looking for a way out of the crisis. She said some of them, allegedly acting on the Libyan leader's behalf, have reached out to people in Europe and elsewhere to ask, in effect, "How do we get out of this?" "Some of it is theater," Clinton said in an ABC interview. "Some of it is, you know, kind of, shall we say game playing." She added: "A lot of it is just the way he behaves. It's somewhat unpredictable. But some of it we think is exploring. You know, `What are my options? Where could I go? What could I do?' And we would encourage that." Several members of Congress, including a number from Obama's own party, were increasingly questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement. "We began a military action at the same time that we don't have a clear diplomatic policy, or a clear foreign policy when it comes to what's going on in Libya," said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., adding that the Obama administration lacks a clear understanding of rebel forces trying to oust Gadhafi, who has ruled for 42 years. "Do we know what their intentions would be? Would they be able to govern if they were to succeed? And the answer is we don't really know," Webb said.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Mar 24 11 3:47 PM

Ultrasound at $59,490 Spurs Aetna Outrage in Suit Naming Doctors

Aetna Inc. (AET) is suing six New Jersey doctors over medical bills it calls “unconscionable,” including $56,980 for a bedside consultation and $59,490 for an ultrasound that typically costs $74.
The lawsuits could help determine what pricing limits insurers can impose on ”out-of-network” physicians who don’t have contracts with health plans that spell out how much a service or procedure can cost.
One defendant billed $30,000 for a Caesarean birth, and another raised his fee for seeing a critically ill patient in a hospital to $9,000 in 2008 from $500 the year before, the insurer alleges in the suits. The Caesarean price was more than 10 times the in-network amount Aetna quotes on its website.
“If these charges are accurate, consumers and purchasers should be outraged,” said David Lansky, president of the San Francisco-based Pacific Business Group on Health, a coalition of health-insurance buyers that includes Chevron Corp. (CVX), Walt Disney Co. (DIS) and General Electric Co. (GE)
Lawyers for the doctors declined to comment on specific charges in the suits, and said their clients did nothing wrong.
The insurance industry is grappling with how to respond to out-of-network hospital physicians who realize they have pricing muscle, according to Arthur Leibowitz, chief medical officer of Health Advocate Inc., a Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, insurance adviser.
“These doctors can charge whatever they want,” Leibowitz said. “The challenge for the carriers is to come up with an agreeable, acceptable, unbiased judgment as to what a reasonable and customary reimbursement rate is.”

AMA Lawsuits

Aetna tried in 2007 to impose caps on some out-of-network payments, prompting doctor complaints to the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance. The agency sided with the doctors, fined the company $2.5 million, and ordered it to pay out-of-network practitioners enough so that patients wouldn’t be asked to pay balances other than co-pays.
In 2009, Aetna, UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH), Cigna Corp. (CI) and WellPoint Inc. (WLP) were accused by the New York attorney general of underpaying out-of-network physicians by manipulating a database used to calculate payments. They paid a total of $90 million in settlements without admitting wrongdoing. UnitedHealthcare agreed that year to pay $350 million to settle a lawsuit by the American Medical Association over the same issues. Similar AMA lawsuits against Aetna, Cigna and Wellpoint are pending.

Rare Glimpse

The Aetna lawsuits, filed in superior court in Camden, New Jersey, over the last eight months, allege the defendants violated New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners rules against excessive fees, and seek triple damages under state insurance- fraud laws against filing false or misleading claims.
The complaints provide a rare glimpse at the sums physicians earn from an insurer and the huge variations in what different doctors charge and receive for the same services.
Aetna reimbursed the defendants $8.3 million in 2009, up from $4.9 million in 2008, spokeswoman Cynthia Michener said, sometimes paying the full amount demanded and sometimes not. The insurer paid some of the large charges because of state regulations mandating timely payments and to prevent doctors from sending patients big bills, Michener said.
The Hartford, Connecticut-based company is looking at claims in other states for anomalies, said chief of litigation J. Edward Neugebauer. Aetna is the third largest U.S. health insurer, with 18.5 million members.

$56,980 Consultation

The most detailed complaint is against Benyamin Hannallah, a cardiologist at Jersey City Medical Center. Hannallah charged $59,490 for a heart ultrasound in April 2010 and was paid $47,592, the suit says. Aetna reimburses in-network doctors $74 for the procedure at Jersey City hospitals, Michener said.
Hannallah billed Aetna $56,980 last July for a consultation with a patient who wasn’t critically ill, a hospital visit that typically takes 25 minutes, according to the suit. The insurer refused coverage, and said Hannallah had asked for $220 for this type of consultation in 2007.
In April 2010, Aetna said, Hannallah asked for $54,600 for a heart catheterization, up from $5,500 for the same procedure in 2007. When the insurer gave him $2,000 -- a sum it deemed “usual and customary” for the procedure -- Hannallah complained, and Aetna paid in full to prevent him from billing the patient for the remainder, Michener said.
The amount Hannallah requested for heart ultrasounds quadrupled between 2009 and 2010, and his price for cardiac- stress tests rose more than tenfold to $15,850 between 2008 and 2010, Aetna’s suit claims.

Healthy Profits

For an electrocardiogram, Aetna said it paid him $5,500 in 2010, up from $800 in 2008. The in-network fee listed on Aetna’s website for EKGs in Jersey City is $23.
Aetna said it paid Hannallah a total of $3.2 million in 2008 and 2009, up from $529,503 in the prior two-year period.
Robert Conroy, Hannallah’s lawyer in Bridgewater, New Jersey, said the fees in Aetna’s complaint are “false and/or misleading.” Some charges cited were pre-approved by the insurer, and some were negotiated between Hannallah and a third party representing Aetna, Conroy said.
Conroy said comparisons with some earlier rates are unfair because they represent fees when his client was an in-network doctor. Some of Hannallah’s patients or their employers paid higher insurance premiums for the right to use out-of-network doctors, Conroy said.
Aetna, which collects more than enough premium and administrative revenue to earn healthy profits, is suing because it wants to make even more money, Conroy said. “How much did Aetna pay its CEO last year?” he asked. “How many lives did he save while feathering his nests?”

‘Unfounded’ Countersuit

Aetna’s net income rose 38 percent in 2010, to $1.77 billion, or $4.18 a share. Its revenue for the year fell 2 percent, to $34 billion. The stock closed yesterday at $35.49, up 6 cents, in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.
Mark Rabson, a spokesman for Jersey City Medical Center, said it has “no knowledge” of what private physicians charge. He said Hannallah is credentialed with several area hospitals.
In its suit against Deepak Srinivasan, a cardiologist at Hackensack University Medical Center, the company claims he raised his fee for heart catheterizations to $18,720 from $3,000 between 2006 and 2007. Srinivasan’s income from Aetna rose to $2.5 million in 2008 from $155,310 in 2006, the suit says.
Srinivasan filed a countersuit alleging that Aetna, by not paying him what it owes, violated U.S. and state laws governing group health plans and committed mail and wire fraud in its reimbursement practices. Aetna’s Michener called Srinivasan’s counterclaim “unfounded.”

Caesarean Charge

“Our client is livid,” said George Frino, an attorney in Teaneck, New Jersey, who represents Srinivasan. He said Srinivasan worked for a practice in 2006 that controlled his billings and that Aetna agreed to his fee schedule as a sole practitioner in 2007.
“He can’t comprehend how, after a four-year period without any complaints by Aetna, he gets served with this complaint -- weeks after they paid him a five-figure check.”
Another defendant at the Hackensack hospital, obstetrician- gynecologist Waleed Abdelghani, increased his charge for a Caesarean-section delivery to $30,000 in 2009 from $3,000 in 2008, the suit alleges. Aetna paid his full $30,000 fee “numerous” times in 2009, said Michener, the company spokeswoman. In-network doctors in the area receive $2,655 for the operation, according to the insurer’s website.
Abdelghani earned $76,173 from Aetna in 2007, $136,632 in 2008, $1.4 million in 2009 and $5.1 million in 2010, according to the company.

‘No Merit’

The defendant’s attorney, Charles Gormally of Roseland, New Jersey, disputed Aetna’s figures and said the insurer paid Abdelghani’s practice a total of $5.8 million over a three-year period. The group billed Aetna nearly $13 million over the three years, with some procedures not reimbursed at all, he said.
Gormally said many of the bills cited in the suit were paid after Aetna vetted them with an independent claims adjudicator.
The allegations don’t take into account the economic factors that force out-of-network doctors to demand higher fees, such as the absence of referrals that in-network doctors get from insurers, Gormally said. A spokeswoman for the Hackensack hospital, Nancy Radwin, declined to comment.
Another defendant, Magdy Wahba, an internal medicine specialist at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Paterson and St. Mary’s Hospital in Passaic, raised his fee for 30 to 74 minutes of service to critically-ill hospital patients to $9,000 in 2008 from $500 in 2007, the suit claims. Medicare pays $236 for the same type of consultation, according to the AMA website.
For a half-hour consultation with a non-critically ill patient, Wahba charged $6,000 in 2008, up from $250 in 2007, the suit says. The insurer said its total payments to Wahba grew to $3.8 million in 2009 from $309,446 in 2008.
Wahba’s attorney, Vafa Sarmasti of Fairfield, New Jersey, said Aetna’s claims “have no merit from a legal and factual standpoint” and that Aetna’s reimbursements to Wahba were based on “fair, usual and customary rates” determined by Aetna, not Wahba. Spokeswomen Vanessa Warner of St. Mary’s and Liz Asani of St. Joseph’s declined to comment.
To contact the reporter responsible for this story: Peter Waldman in San Francisco at

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:17 PM

there is a MAP NEAR THE BOTTOM OF PAGE along with videos as well can't copy or past it here so you will have to look please tahnks :)

Libya: Nato Refuses Military Ops Command

Nato has again refused to take over command of military operations in Libya, with objections from Turkey frustrating US efforts to hand over control.

America wants to give up its lead role in the war-torn country in a "matter of days" and has requested that Nato plays a key role in a new power structure.
But details of that structure are still under discussion, with the necessary consensus still to be reached between member countries.
A senior aide to US President Barack Obama said: "I think this is going to be a matter of days in which you see a movement toward the transition with regard to command and control."

The UK government, along with Washington and Paris, have all agreed the alliance should play a key operational role, but the assent of all 28 Nato states is needed.
Objections from Muslim Nato member Turkey have held up agreement on that role for three days and a fourth day of talks in Brussels is due to take place.
Turkey said it did not want Nato to take responsibility for offensive operations that could cause civilian casualties.

It also objected to the alliance taking charge of enforcing a UN-mandated no-fly zone while coalition aircraft were still bombing Libyan forces.
France wants an ad hoc steering group of coalition members, including the Arab League, to exercise political control.
All nations are welcome to join, a French presidential source said.

"We need to have a place where all those who want to commit to help Libyans build a future can meet and discuss a political framework," he said.
"It's about accompanying the military process with a political one."
The UK Foreign Office has announced the group will meet at a conference on Libya in London next Tuesday.

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:20 PM

Naming Names: Your Real Government

This is your real government; they transcend elected administrations, they permeate every political party, and they are responsible for nearly every aspect of the average American and European’s way of life. When the “left” is carrying the torch for two “Neo-Con” wars, starting yet another based on the same lies, peddled by the same media outlets that told of Iraqi WMD’s, the world has no choice, beyond profound cognitive dissonance, but to realize something is wrong.
What’s wrong is a system completely controlled by a corporate-financier oligarchy with financial, media, and industrial empires that span the globe. If we do not change the fact that we are helplessly dependent on these corporations that regulate every aspect of our nation politically, and every aspect of our lives personally, nothing else will ever change.
The following list, however extensive, is by far not all-inclusive. However after these examples, a pattern should become self-evident with the same names and corporations being listed again and again. It should be self-evident to readers of how dangerously pervasive these corporations have become in our daily lives. Finally, it should be self-evident as to how necessary it is to excise these corporations from our lives, our communities, and ultimately our nations, with the utmost expediency.

International Crisis Group
Background: While the International Crisis Group (ICG) claims to be “committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict,” the reality is that they are committed to offering solutions crafted well in advance to problems they themselves have created in order to perpetuate their own corporate agenda.
Nowhere can this be better illustrated than in Thailand and more recently in Egypt. ICG member Kenneth Adelman had been backing Thailand’s Prime Minster Thaksin Shinwatra, a former Carlyle Group adviser who was was literally standing in front of the CFR in NYC on the eve of his ousting from power in a 2006 military coup. Since 2006, Thaksin’s meddling in Thailand has been propped up by fellow Carlyle man James Baker and his Baker Botts law firm, Belfer Center adviser Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and now Robert Amsterdam’s Amsterdam & Peroff, a major corporate member of the globalist Chatham House.
With Thailand now mired in political turmoil led by Thaksin Shinwatra and his “red shirt” color revolution, the ICG is ready with “solutions” in hand. These solutions generally involve tying the Thai government’s hands with arguments that stopping Thaksin’s subversive activities amounts to human rights abuses, in hopes of allowing the globalist-backed revolution to swell beyond control.
The unrest in Egypt, of course, was led entirely by ICG member Mohamed ElBaradei and his US State Department recruited, funded, and supported April 6 Youth Movement coordinated by Google’s Wael Ghonim. While the unrest was portrayed as being spontaneous, fueled by the earlier Tunisian uprising, ICG’s ElBaradei, Ghonim, and their youth movement had been in Egypt since 2010 assembling their “National Front for Change” and laying the groundwork for the January 25th 2011 uprising.
ICG’s George Soros would then go on to fund Egyptian NGOs working to rewrite the Egyptian constitution after front-man ElBaradei succeeded in removing Hosni Mubarak. This Soros-funded constitution and the resulting servile stooge government it would create represents the ICG “resolving” the crisis their own ElBaradei helped create.
Notable ICG Board Members:
George Soros
Kenneth Adelman
Samuel Berger
Wesley Clark
Mohamed ElBaradei
Carla Hills
Notable ICG Advisers:
Richard Armitage
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Stanley Fischer
Shimon Peres
Surin Pitsuwan
Fidel V. Ramos
Notable ICG Foundation & Corporate Supporters:
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Hunt Alternatives Fund
Open Society Institute
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Morgan Stanley
Deutsche Bank Group
Soros Fund Management LLC
McKinsey & Company

Brookings Institute
Background: Within the library of the Brookings Institute you will find the blueprints for nearly every conflict the West has been involved with in recent memory. What’s more is that while the public seems to think these crises spring up like wildfires, those following the Brookings’ corporate funded studies and publications see these crises coming years in advance. These are premeditated, meticulously planned conflicts that are triggered to usher in premeditated, meticulously planned solutions to advance Brookings’ corporate supporters, who are numerous.
The ongoing operations against Iran, including US-backed color revolutions, US-trained and backed terrorists inside Iran, and crippling sanctions were all spelled out in excruciating detail in the Brookings Institute report, “Which Path to Persia?” The more recent UN Security Council resolution 1973 regarding Libya uncannily resembles Kenneth Pollack’s March 9, 2011 Brookings report titled “The Real Military Options in Libya.”
Notable Brookings Board Members:
Dominic Barton: McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Alan R. Batkin: Eton Park Capital Management
Richard C. Blum: Blum Capital Partners, LP
Abby Joseph Cohen: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Suzanne Nora Johnson: Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Richard A. Kimball Jr.: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Tracy R. Wolstencroft: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Paul Desmarais Jr.: Power Corporation of Canada
Kenneth M. Duberstein: The Duberstein Group, Inc.
Benjamin R. Jacobs: The JBG Companies
Nemir Kirdar: Investcorp
Klaus Kleinfeld: Alcoa, Inc.
Philip H. Knight: Nike, Inc.
David M. Rubenstein: Co-Founder of The Carlyle Group
Sheryl K. Sandberg: Facebook
Larry D. Thompson: PepsiCo, Inc.
Michael L. Tipsord: State Farm Insurance Companies
Andrew H. Tisch: Loews Corporation
Some Brookings Experts:
(click on names to see a list of recent writings.)
Kenneth Pollack
Daniel L. Byman
Martin Indyk
Suzanne Maloney
Michael E. O’Hanlon
Bruce Riedel
Shadi Hamid
Notable Brookings Foundation & Corporate Support:
Foundations & Governments
Ford Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
Government of the United Arab Emirates
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Banking & Finance
Bank of America
Goldman Sachs
H&R Block
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Jacob Rothschild
Nathaniel Rothschild
Standard Chartered Bank
Temasek Holdings Limited
Visa Inc.
Big Oil
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Shell Oil Company
Military Industrial Complex & Industry
General Dynamics Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Siemens Corporation
The Boeing Company
General Electric Company
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Raytheon Co.
Hitachi, Ltd.
Telecommunications & Technology
Google Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Panasonic Corporation
Verizon Communications
Xerox Corporation
Media & Perception Management
McKinsey & Company, Inc.
News Corporation (Fox News)
Consumer Goods & Pharmaceutical
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Coca-Cola Company

Council on Foreign Relations
Background & Notable Membership: A better question would be, who isn’t in the Council on Foreign Relations? Nearly every self-serving career politician, their advisers, and those populating the boards of the Fortune 500 are CFR members. Many of the books, magazine articles, and newspaper columns we read are written by CFR members, along with reports, similar to Brookings Institute that dictate, verbatim, the legislation that ends up before the West’s lawmakers.
A good sampling of the most active wings of the CFR can be illustrated best in last year’s “Ground Zero Mosque” hoax, where CFR members from both America’s political right and left feigned a heated debate over New York City’s so-called Cordoba House near the 3 felled World Trade Center buildings. In reality, the Cordoba House was established by fellow CFR member Feisal Abdul Rauf, who in turn was funded by CFR financing arms including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, chaired by 9/11 Commission head Thomas Kean, and various Rockefeller foundations.
Notable CFR Corporate Support:
Banking & Finance
Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co
American Express
Barclays Capital
Morgan Stanley
Blackstone Group L.P.
Deutsche Bank AG
New York Life International, Inc.
Prudential Financial
Standard & Poor’s
Rothschild North America, Inc.
Visa Inc.
Soros Fund Management
Standard Chartered Bank
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
Veritas Capital LLC
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Moody’s Investors Service
Big Oil
Chevron Corporation
Exxon Mobil Corporation
BP p.l.c.
Shell Oil Company
Hess Corporation
ConocoPhillips Company
Marathon Oil Company
Aramco Services Company
Military Industrial Complex & Industry
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Airbus Americas, Inc.
Boeing Company,
DynCorp International
General Electric Company
Northrop Grumman
Raytheon Company
Hitachi, Ltd.
BASF Corporation
Alcoa, Inc.
Public Relations, Lobbyists & Legal Firms
McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Omnicom Group Inc.
BGR Group
Corporate Media & Publishing
Economist Intelligence Unit
News Corporation (Fox News)
Thomson Reuters
Time Warner Inc.
McGraw-Hill Companies
Consumer Goods
Nike, Inc.
Coca-Cola Company
PepsiCo, Inc.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
De Beers
Telecommunications & Technology
Google, Inc.
IBM Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Sony Corporation of America
Xerox Corporation
Verizon Communications
Pharmaceutical Industry
Merck & Co., Inc.
Pfizer Inc.

The Chatham House

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Background & Membership: The UK’s Chatham House, like the CFR and the Brookings Institute in America, has an extensive membership and is involved in coordinated planning, perception management, and the execution of its corporate membership’s collective agenda.
Individual members populating its “senior panel of advisers” consist of the founders, CEOs, and chairmen of the Chatham House’s corporate membership. Chatham’s “experts” are generally plucked from the world of academia and their “recent publications” are generally used internally as well as published throughout Chatham’s extensive list of member media corporations, as well as industry journals and medical journals. That Chatham House “experts” are submitting entries to medical journals is particularly alarming considering GlaxoSmithKline and Merck are both Chatham House corporate members.
No better example of this incredible conflict of interest can be given than the current Thai “red” color revolution being led by Chatham House’s Amsterdam & Peroff with consistent support lent by other corporate members including the Economist, the Telegraph and the BBC.
In one case, the Telegraph printed, “Thai protests – analysis by Dr Gareth Price and Rosheen Kabraji,” within which Price and Kabraji make a shameless attempt at defending the Western-backed, Maoist themed, violent protests. While the Telegraph mentioned that Price and Kabraji were both analysts for the Chatham House, they failed to tell readers that the Telegraph itself retains a corporate membership within the Chatham House as does the Thai protest leader’s lobbyist, Robert Amsterdam and his Amsterdam & Peroff lobbying firm.
Notable Chatham House Major Corporate Members:
Amsterdam & Peroff
Coca-Cola Great Britain
Goldman Sachs International
HSBC Holdings plc
Lockheed Martin UK
Merck & Co Inc
Mitsubishi Corporation
Morgan Stanley
Royal Bank of Scotland
Saudi Petroleum Overseas Ltd
Standard Bank London Limited
Standard Chartered Bank
Thomson Reuter
United States of America Embassy
Vodafone Group
Notable Chatham House Standard Corporate Members:
Amnesty International
Boeing UK
CBS News
Daily Mail and General Trust plc
De Beers Group Services UK Ltd
G3 Good Governance Group
Hess Ltd
Lloyd’s of London
McGraw-Hill Companies
Prudential plc
Telegraph Media Group
Times Newspapers Ltd
World Bank Group
Notable Chatham House Corporate Partners:
British Petroleum
Chevron Ltd
Deutsche Bank
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Royal Dutch Shell
Toshiba Corporation
Total Holdings UK Ltd
Unilever plc
These organizations represent the collective interests of the largest corporations on earth. They not only retain armies of policy wonks and researchers to articulate their agenda and form a consensus internally, but also use their massive accumulation of unwarranted influence in media, industry, and finance to manufacture a self-serving consensus internationally.
To believe that this corporate-financier oligarchy would subject their agenda and fate to the whims of the voting masses is naive at best. They have painstakingly ensured that no matter who gets into office, in whatever country, the guns, the oil, the wealth and the power keep flowing perpetually into their own hands. Nothing vindicates this poorly hidden reality better than a “liberal” Nobel Peace Prize wearing president, dutifully towing forward a myriad of “Neo-Con” wars, while starting yet another war in Libya.
Likewise, no matter how bloody your revolution is, if the above equation remains unchanged, and the corporate bottom lines left unscathed, nothing but the most superficial changes will have been made, and as is the case in Egypt with International Crisis Group stooge Mohamed ElBaradei worming his way into power, things may become substantially worse.
The real revolution will commence when we identify the above equation as the true brokers of power and when we begin systematically removing our dependence on them, and their influence on us from our daily lives. The global corporate-financier oligarchy needs us, we do not need them, independence from them is the key to our freedom.
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)
For more information on alternative economics, getting self-sufficient and moving on without the parasitic, incompetent, globalist oligarchs:
The Lost Key to Real Revolution
Boycott the Globalists
Alternative Economics

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:22 PM

Unreported Soros Event Aims to Remake Entire Global Economy
Left-wing billionaire's own experts dominate quiet push for 'a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.
Two years ago, George Soros said he wanted to reorganize the entire global economic system. In two short weeks, he is going to start - and no one seems to have noticed.

On April 8, a group he's funded with $50 million is holding a major economic conference and Soros's goal for such an event is to "establish new international rules" and "reform the currency system." It's all according to a plan laid out in a Nov. 4, 2009, Soros op-ed calling for "a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order."

The event is bringing together "more than 200 academic, business and government policy thought leaders' to repeat the famed 1944 Bretton Woods gathering that helped create the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Soros wants a new 'multilateral system," or an economic system where America isn't so dominant.

More than two-thirds of the slated speakers have direct ties to Soros. The billionaire who thinks "the main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat" is taking no chances.

Thus far, this global gathering has generated less publicity than a spelling bee. And that's with at least four journalists on the speakers list, including a managing editor for the Financial Times and editors for both Reuters and The Times. Given Soros's warnings of what might happen without an agreement, this should be a big deal. But it's not.

What is a big deal is that Soros is doing exactly what he wanted to do. His 2009 commentary pushed for "a new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the post-WWII international financial architecture." And he had already set the wheels in motion.

Just a week before that op-ed was published, Soros had founded the New York City-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), the group hosting the conference set at the Mount Washington Resort, the very same hotel that hosted the first gathering. The most recent INET conference was held at Central European University, in Budapest. CEU received $206 million from Soros in 2005 and has $880 million in its endowment now, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.

This, too, is a gathering of Soros supporters. INET is bringing together prominent people like former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and Soros, to produce "a lot of high-quality, breakthrough thinking."

While INET claims more than 200 will attend, only 79 speakers are listed on its site - and it already looks like a Soros convention. Twenty-two are on Soros-funded INET's board and three more are INET grantees. Nineteen are listed as contributors for another Soros operation - Project Syndicate, which calls itself "the world's pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries" reaching "456 leading newspapers in 150 countries." It's financed by Soros's Open Society Institute. That's just the beginning.

The speakers include:

  • Volcker is chairman of President Obama's Economic Advisory Board. He wrote the forward for Soros's best-known book, 'The Alchemy of Finance' and praised Soros as "an enormously successful speculator" who wrote "with insight and passion" about the problems of globalization.
  • Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute and longtime recipient of Soros charity cash. Sachs received $50 million from Soros for the U.N. Millennium Project, which he also directs. Sachs is world-renown for his liberal economics. In 2009, for example, he complained about low U.S. taxes, saying the "U.S. will have to raise taxes in order to pay for new spending initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable energy, climate change, education, and relief for the poor."
  • Soros friend Joseph E. Stiglitz, a former senior vice president and chief economist for the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics. Stiglitz shares similar views to Soros and has criticized free-market economists whom he calls "free market fundamentalists." Naturally, he's on the INET board and is a contributor to Project Syndicate.
  • INET Executive Director Rob Johnson, a former managing director at Soros Fund Management, who is on the Board of Directors for the Soros-funded Economic Policy Institute. Johnson has complained that government intervention in the fiscal crisis hasn't been enough and wanted "restructuring," including asking "for letters of resignation from the top executives of all the major banks."

Have no doubt about it: This is a Soros event from top to bottom. Even Soros admits his ties to INET are a problem, saying, "there is a conflict there which I fully recognize." He claims he stays out of operations. That's impossible. The whole event is his operation.

INET isn't subtle about its aims for the conference. Johnson interviewed fellow INET board member Robert Skidelsky about "The Need for a New Bretton Woods" in a recent video. The introductory slide to the video is subtitled: "How currency issues and tension between the US and China are renewing calls for a global financial overhaul." Skidelsky called for a new agreement and said in the video that the conflict between the United States and China was "at the center of any monetary deal that may be struck, that needs to be struck."

Soros described in the 2009 op-ed that U.S.-China conflict as "another stark choice between two fundamentally different forms of organization: international capitalism and state capitalism." He concluded that "a new multilateral system based on sounder principles must be invented." As he explained it in 2010, "we need a global sheriff."

In the 2000 version of his book "Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism," Soros wrote how the Bretton Woods institutions "failed spectacularly" during the economic crisis of the late 1990s. When he called for a new Bretton Woods in 2009, he wanted it to "reconstitute the International Monetary Fund," and while he's at it, restructure the United Nations, too, boosting China and other countries at our expense.

"Reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system and involve the United Nations, especially membership of the Security Council,' he wrote. 'That process needs to be initiated by the US, but China and other developing countries ought to participate as equals."

Soros emphasized that point, that this needs to be a global solution, making America one among many. "The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system in order to ensure that they will be active supporters."

And that's exactly the kind of event INET is delivering, with the event website emphasizing "today's reconstruction must engage the larger European Union, as well as the emerging economies of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Asia." China figures prominently, including a senior economist for the World Bank in Beijing, the director of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the chief adviser for the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations.

This is all easy to do when you have the reach of George Soros who funds more than 1,200 organizations. Except, any one of those 1,200 would shout such an event from the highest mountain. Groups like or the Center for American Progress didn't make their names being quiet. The same holds true globally, where Soros has given more than $7 billion to Open Society Foundations - including many media-savvy organizations just a phone call away. Why hasn't the Soros network spread the word?

Especially since Soros warns, all this needs to happen because "the alternative is frightening." The Bush-hating billionaire says America is scary "because a declining superpower losing both political and economic dominance but still preserving military supremacy is a dangerous mix."

The Soros empire is silent about this new Bretton Woods conference because it isn't just designed to change global economic rules. It also is designed to put America in its place - part of a multilateral world the way Soros wants it. He wrote that the U.S. "could lead a cooperative effort to involve both the developed and the developing world, thereby reestablishing American leadership in an acceptable form."

That's what this conference is all about - changing the global economy and the United States to make them "acceptable" to George Soros.


Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:25 PM

Be careful what you wish for

In his latest effort to get his feet out of the RomneyCare quicksand, Mitt Romney recently wrote that if he were President he "would issue an executive order paving the way for ObamaCare waivers to all 50 states."

Sounds good so far, but what if more of those "laboratories of democracy," jumped out of the kettle into the fire, converting to a state-run single payer system.

As the number of waivers reached 1,040, New York's Rep. Anthony Weiner upped the ante by saying he is "looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City."

Mr. Weiner, who is said to be a likely candidate for Mayor of New York in 2013, recently chided his fellow Democrats to "ditch the ‘hiding-under-our-desk' strategy and embrace the health care law in 2012 -- because it will be a campaign issue whether they like it or not."

The same Anthony Weiner was a leading champion of single-payer health care during the months of debate among Democrats over the shape of the health care bill. 

Weiner's own web site includes a July 2009 press release:

Single-payer is a better plan and now it is on center stage. Americans have a clear choice. Their Member of Congress will have a simpler, less expensive and smarter bill to choose. I am thrilled that the Speaker is giving us that choice.

So it would appear that a Weiner waiver request may be less to seek relief from onerous obligations, but rather to impose an even more onerous system on the city of New York.

While Weiner and other liberals keep flogging their holy grail, Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson reflects on the health care law's paper anniversary," in the Wall Street Journal:

Some years ago, a little girl was born with a serious heart defect: Her aorta and pulmonary artery were reversed. Without immediate intervention, she would not have survived.

The infant was rushed to another hospital where a surgeon performed a procedure at 1 a.m. that saved her life. Eight months later, when her heart was the size of a small plum, an incredibly dedicated and skilled team of medical professionals surgically reconstructed it. Twenty-seven years later, the young woman is now a nurse in a neonatal intensive care unit where she is studying to become a nurse practitioner.

She wasn't saved by a bureaucrat, and no government mandate forced her parents to purchase the coverage that saved her. Instead, her care was provided under a run-of-the-mill plan available to every employee of an Oshkosh, Wis., plastics plant.

If you haven't guessed, this story touches my heart because the girl is my daughter, Carey...

...I don't even want to think what might have happened if she had been born at a time and place where government defined the limits for most insurance policies and set precedents on what would be covered.

No doubt the Democrats are still privately laughing up their sleeves at their success in passing the bill, but as Mr. Weiner aptly notes, the health care law will be on the front burner come 2012.

Even with a Republican President, however, a recalcitrant Senate may block full repeal, leaving Romney's "executive order" as one possible course of action to return control to the states.

But with the Anthony Weiners of the world still seeking single-payer utopia, be careful what you wish for.

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:28 PM

Obama's Illegal War

The whole notion that the President can unilaterally enter into unprovoked hostilities without first consulting Congress and receiving at a minimum legislative authorization is arguably false.  The National War Powers Act of 1973, oft cited as granting the President such powers, offers no such relief.

As stipulated by the Act, at least one of three conditions must be met prior to the President sending armed forces into ongoing hostilities or into situations where hostilities are likely to occur.

(1) a declaration of war

(2) specific statutory authorization


(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

None of these three conditions were met before the President attacked Libya.  In fact, there are serious concerns whether President Obama even bothered to consult congressional leaders before making his announcement to commence strikes against Libyan forces.

But even if Obama had met with legislative members and discussed a plan to launch attacks, that still would not have satisfied any of the requirements necessary to enter into hostilities in Libya. 

Since there was no attack or even the anticipation of an imminent attack against United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, the President is bound by the Constitution and the War Powers Act to receive congressional approval beforehand.  This would require a declaration of war or specific statutory legislation passed by both houses of Congress authorizing the introduction of armed forces into hostilities.

It is important to understand the War Powers Act of 1973 was never intended to circumvent Congress's power to declare war.  Nor does the Act permit involvement in hostilities unrelated to a national emergency without congressional authorization.  Instead, the Act was intended to establish a cooperative procedure by which the President as Commander-in-Chief and Congress could exercise their constitutional powers and to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities."

Only in the extraordinary situation where an attack against the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces has already occurred does the President have the authority to introduce armed forces into hostilities without congressional approval.  And even with this one exception, it is mandated "the President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities."

The information required of the President is specific. "In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced," the President shall provide and report to Congress information regarding:

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement


"such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad."

Any argument implying the President lacked time, ability, or even the requirement to inform and receive the appropriate authorization from Congress prior to bombing Libya is misinterpreting the meaning and intent of this Act.

And based upon the stunned reactions from vacationing congressional representatives on both sides of the aisle, they clearly did not receive any of the above information prior to the decision to attack.

Once again Congress has been relegated to the status of helpless bystanders watching a rogue President who feels more accountable to the United Nations, NATO, the pantsuit advisory coalition, and the Arab League than to the American people, the Constitution, or public law.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#11 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:32 PM

Will SEIU Tape Its Next Corporate Kill?

There have been some interesting and sometimes humorous caught on tape news items lately, but the most explosive and scary one was last week. The subject at interest here is Stephen Lerner, a former official with the powerful union SEIU, and he offers a disturbing glimpse into the hidden anti-business agenda of the Left -- to intentionally harm our economy to build its own power base.

Speaking at a university forum last week, Lerner spoke about his plans to destroy Wall Street and the markets and create all the necessary conditions to push us into a complete change of government and redistribution of wealth.

For example, he schemes that, "10% of homeowners are underwater, right, their home they are paying more for it than it's worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up.... If you could double that number you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again."

Last Spring, writing in the New Labor Forum, Lerner argued that the modern labor movement has not done enough to capitalize on economic crisis and is at risk of losing relevance unless they take drastic measures. He writes,

"If we don't seize the opportunity of the current economic crisis to chart a radically different course-committing ourselves and our movement to organizing for transformative change-we will sink into a deserved abyss of irrelevance."

If that sounds familiar, it's because it echoes anti-corporate, anti-liberty "thinkers."  Over-burdening the machine is straight out of the Cloward/Piven strategy to seek (and cause) systemic crisis to seize power. And those who have actually read V.I. Lenin will note that Lerner's argument has shades of the former political radical and communist leader's logic and rhetoric.  Their idea of progress is a combination of socialism and anarchy.

These are not just thoughts, since thoughts have consequences. Far-out SEIU activists have attempted to mold the world in their image of "progress." It's not just that SEIU types like Lerner want to kill mean ol' banks; a Texas businessman is suing the union after it threatened to "kill" his company if he didn't accede to card check demands, and allegedly cost the company millions of dollars in lost business.

As a small business owner, there's always more than enough to do with actually running the business, managing employees, purchasing and maintaining equipment and many other tasks that are common to every other hard working business. The personal benefits are many, foremost is the ability to provide for my family, provide jobs to those who work hard, and be in a position to be a benefit to my community and the economy.

It's astonishing that there are individuals such as Mr. Lerner and others in the Big Labor and "community organizer" movement who find the business community and a robust economy as powers that must be ruined and brought down as the means to enact their warped view of government. We should automatically be suspicious of anyone who rejoices at economic downturns and wishes they would hurt more, as they obviously don't have the well being of Americans at heart.

It's a good reminder next time SEIU or one of its ilk pushes "social change" that seems to put more change in their pocket but be bad for the rest of society.

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:33 PM

NYT, WaPo agree -- Deadly Jerusalem bus bombing was not an act of terrorism

A British woman was killed and dozens of bystanders were injured when a bomb exploded in the center of Jerusalem.  An all too familiar event in Israel -- a country that has sustained more terrorist attacks than any other nation.

But as far as the Washington Post and the New York Times are concerned, the bomb explosion -- designed to kill and maim as many civilians as possible -- was not an act of terrorism.

Both newspapers go to great lengths to avoid describing the Jerusalem bombing as a terrorist event. .  The Washington Post headline -- "Blast fractures Jerusalem calm -- Bomb Kills One at Bus Strop -- Dozens hurt in city once accustomed to attacks" -- carefully elides the "T" word.  Ditto the New York Times headline:  "Explosion in Jerusalem Kills One and Shatters Relative Calm."

Keeping to the Post's long-held doctrine that there is no such thing as Palestinian terrorism, Jerusalem correspondent Janine Zacharia reports merely that a "bomb detonated...the attack came...the Jerusalem attack....the bombing..."  Any Orwellian euphemism to avoid use of the "T" word.

Zacharia even quotes Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat as referring to "terror" in his city. But she stoutly refuses to endorse his view.  Never mind that President Obama in condemning the Jerusalem bus bombing, used the "T" word.  "Terrorism" against Israel simply is not part of Zacharia's personal vocabulary.

The same goes for New York Times correspondent Isabel Kershner, who also tiptoes around this terrorist attack without ever designating it with the "T" word.  Her dispatch mentions that a "bomb exploded...the worst attack in Jerusalem in four years...the Jeruslaem bombing...the blast."  Anything except actual terrorism, as far as Zacharia is concerned.

Never mind that in Kershner's own article, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad all use the "T" word.  It makes no difference to Kershner, who's determined not to emulate them.

When terrorism strikes across the globe, the Times and the Post have no hesitation to use the "T" word in their own copy.  Except when it happens in a place pummeled by terrorism more than any other -- Israel.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:34 PM

Significant decline in Anti-Muslim 'hate crimes' since 2003

Dick Durbin is about to do what Democrats do best; pander to a minority.

In this case, the minority is Muslim and Durbin sees evil walking the land where Muslim constitutional rights are concerned:

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who chairs a subcommittee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, will hold a hearing on March 29 on protecting the civil rights of Muslim Americans. The hearing is being billed as the first of its kind for Congress. Durbin said the hearing is necessary following an increase in anti-Muslim bigorty in the United States, including "[Koran]burnings, restrictions on mosque construction, hate crimes, hate speech, and other forms of discrimination."
Is it true? Has there been an "increase" in "anti-Muslim bigotry?"
Washington Times:
In 2009, the latest FBi statistics available, anti-Islamic hate crimes accounted for 9.3 percent of the 1,376 religiously motivated hate crimes recorded. That's far less than the 70.1 percent that were anti-Jewish.
Let's take that notion by Durbin of an "increase" in anti-Muslim bigotry for a spin and see if he's right.
FBI stats from 2008 show that there were 105 incidents of hate crimes directed against Muslims, with 125 offenses cataloged involving 130 victims. For 2009, those numbers were 107 incidents, 128 offenses, and 130 victims.
No increase - repeat, no increase - in the number of victims. A less than 2% increase in the number of incidents and offenses over that period.
Let's look at this from the standpoint of time. What were the statistics for hate crimes against Muslims in 2003?

Incidents: 149; Offenses: 155; Victims; 171
Dear Dick Durbin: Incidents and victims of Anti-Muslim bigotry has gone down considerably since 2003.
Since the number of anti-Jewish hate crimes has risen fairly steadily over that same period - from 1025 victims in 2003 to 1132 victims in 2009 - maybe you're looking at the wrong religion to investigate, Dicky? 
The question is - did he think nobody would look this up and challenge his bald faced lie? Took me 5 minutes of googling to find the reports and less than a minute to find these tables.

This is not a serious effort to investigate anything. It is an outright pander to a religious group that keeps crying wolf about how terrible it is to be a Muslim in America. I don't dismiss or excuse those incidents by knuckledraggers who commit acts of violence against anyone based on their religion. (Whether there should be anything in the law called a "hate crime" is another story). But we should draw the line when politicians - for no good reason or, in Durbin's case, manufactured reasons - seek to exploit our divisions for political gain.

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:36 PM

Not a war: A 'kinetic military action'

A "war" is a war, is a "war," right?

Not if you live in the Rabbit Hole and have to answer to Alice as commander in chief.

Byron York:

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war? From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no. But that leaves the question: What is it?
In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer. "I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone," Rhodes said. "Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end."

Rhodes' words echoed a description by national security adviser Tom Donilon in a briefing with reporters two weeks ago as the administration contemplated action in Libya. "Military steps -- and they can be kinetic and non-kinetic, obviously the full range -- are not the only method by which we and the international community are pressuring Gadhafi," Donilon said.

Rhodes and Donilon are by no means alone. "Kinetic" is heard in a lot of descriptions of what's going on in Libya. "As we are successful in suppressing the [Libyan] air defenses, the level of kinetic activity should decline," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a meeting with reporters in Moscow Tuesday. In a briefing with reporters the same day from on board the USS Mount Whitney, Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, said, "The coalition brings together a wide array of capabilities that allow us to minimize the collateral damage when we have to take kinetic operations."

Why can't they just say we're at war and leave it at that? Probably didn't want to put Alice's Nobel Peace Prize in jeopardy. That, and the knee jerk liberal opposition to war in any form - even if it's for self defense, which this war is decidedly not.

What we are doing in Libya is making war whether the Obama administration admits it or not. People aren't getting killed by "kinetic" anything. They are dying the old fashioned way - they are getting blown up. 

This gives a whole new meaning to "KIA."

Ed Lasky adds:


These people sure know how to use euphemisms: man-caused disasters (a.k.a., terror attacks); overseas contingency actions (a.k.a., Global War on Terror); rogue states are "outliers" (see What Euphemisms Tell Us).

"Terrorism " is avoided, as are references to extremist Islam. There is even a mock "Obama-matic Content-Free Euphemism Generator."  The Daily Show has even had a bit of fun regarding the Obama administration's penchant for Orwellian-like use of language.

All this from the president who has a habit of beginning sentences with ‘Let me be clear."

Richard Baehr adds:

Annd with regard to Israel: "violence breaks out."  Did it escape from an apartment building or a jail?

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:42 PM

Saudi Tanks Roll Where Obama Fears To Tread

Saudi Arabia is the last country an American should respect, having spawned fifteen of the nineteen 9-11 murderers and continuing to fund and spew hate-filled, anti-Western, anti-Semitic Wahhabi-inspired propaganda everywhere in the world.  But however grudgingly, we must tip our hats to a country with a coherent foreign policy that uses its military -- unilaterally and unapologetically -- to defend its interests and allies against real or perceived threats. Hence we might almost applaud as Saudi tanks boldly rolled through the streets of Shia-dominated Bahrain to guard its Sunni monarch and staunch Saudi ally King al-Khalifa against potential overthrow by Iranian-backed street mobs.

Behaving like a superpower concerned about its survival and willing to defend its friends, Saudi Arabia sent dozens of tanks via the King Fahd causeway into neighboring Bahrain.   King al-Khalifa thanked the Saudis profusely, clearly unconcerned about the opinion of the international community as the Saudi contingent crossed into Bahrain without permission from the Arab League or the sanction from a UN Security Council plebiscite.

It's possible to imagine that the aggressive Saudis were actually inspired by past American presidents and their martial resolve. In the ante-Obaman age when Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the steely George H.W. Bush announced: "This will not stand..."  And it didn't.

His son stood on the World Trade Center rubble in 2001 and proclaimed resolutely: "And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." And indeed they did.

But when the Libyan multi-generational thug Muammar Gaddafi, who among other crimes ordered the killing of 189 Americans on Pan-Am Flight 103 in 1988, turned his bloodthirsty apparatus on his own citizens, Barack Obama whispered from his makeshift faculty lounge on Pennsylvania Avenue: "He has lost all legitimacy and he must go. . ."  But Gaddafi decided to stay, taunting and ridiculing this "son of Africa."

Enfeebled Obama was eventually embarrassed enough by Hillary Clinton and others to jump into action against Libya especially after the West's two new superpowers -- France and England -- promised to inject forces first.  Perhaps Hillary's militarist pleadings reminded Obama that even the sex-obsessed Bill Clinton finally halted the genocide in the former Yugoslavia, though mostly through sanitized bombing from 30,000 feet. Apparently sex obsession is less debilitating for decision-makers than basketball obsession. 

Surely, recent events in North Africa and the Middle-East have shaken the Kingdom to its core.  The Saudis (and the Israelis) warned Obama not to throw Egypt's Hosni Mubarak overboard publicly even if they knew that Mubarak's military was hoping to push him into retirement privately. And now Saudis see that once stable autocrats and theocrats in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan and elsewhere are all teetering.

The ummah is in turmoil if not aflame in half a dozen countries and the leading sponsor, official and unofficial, is Iran, the Saudi nemesis that Obama refuses to confront head on even as Ahmadinejad leads them to Shia hegemony through nuclear dominance.

Could the Saudis or anyone else make sense of Obama's choice to support the jettisoning of Mubarak, a thirty-year US ally, in favor of so-called Egyptian democrats when Obama supported the ruthless Iranian mullahs against Iranian democrats just eighteen months earlier? And how could an oppressive, unpopular Saudi governing elite stand by as their similarly structured Bahraini neighbor with an Iranian supported opposition stumbles toward anarchy?

With the US Navy 5th Fleet home port of Bahrain, the most support the Obama team could muster for King al-Khalifa were the dreaded bromides from secretaries Clinton and Gates demanding that the kingdom liberalize.  Why, the Saudis must wonder, do Obama and his military and diplomatic chiefs feel the need to meddle in their affairs when the entire US diplomatic apparatus refused to meddle in the more ominous affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Hillary Clinton, who recently announced that, regardless of Obama's fate she will leave the post at State at the end of his current term, has suddenly morphed into Margaret Thatcher.  She and her boss threw average Hondurans and Iranians under the bus during earlier crises, but somehow she felt she had to draw the line in the Libyan sands.

The Saudis, tired of Obama's reluctant, indecisive and incoherent Middle East policy, have decided to take matters into their own hands.  If they continue in this direction and  leave the American sphere, the Saudis will inevitably drift into the welcoming embrace of Pakistan for nuclear technology and into China's whose burgeoning demand for oil will tie it to the guardian of Mecca and Medina.

In a few short years, Obama has managed to neuter sixty-five years of accumulated American power and global prestige.  And in the last few weeks he has set into stone an even more a damning presidential assessment: Barack Obama lost not only Egypt and Saudi Arabia but the entire Middle East.

Most incompetent presidents are content to lose just a single country while they hold power.   But Barack Obama was not about to be outdone by Jimmy Carter who only lost Iran.


Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:43 PM

Democrats' Tyranny of the Minority

Talk radio kingpin Rush Limbaugh has repeated for years his belief that as a political party, the Democrats feel entitled to power.  When they are denied it by the results of an election, they react as though they are the victims of a grave injustice, thereby at liberty to engage in whatever tactic is necessary to retrieve what is rightfully theirs.  Beginning with the Wisconsin walkout and now embodied in the temper tantrum of Indiana Democrats, the self-professed Doctor of Democracy has once again been proven right.

Statehouse walkouts are not without precedent.  In fact, they are a reasonably common occurrence.  But they are largely symbolic gestures -- an attempt to demonstrate the minority's outraged disapproval of the majority's agenda.  Seldom do they go on for days, and until now, never have they been legitimate attempts to undermine the entire democratic process by grinding the operation of government to a halt.

Yet that is exactly what the Wisconsin Democrats attempted, and what their Indiana counterparts are still shamefully perpetrating.  What is taking place in the Indiana Statehouse is far from a mere regional or petty statewide issue; it is a direct assault on the democratic process that deserves national attention and collective, bipartisan scorn.  For while the Wisconsin constitution allowed the Republicans a procedural recourse to rectify the stalemate (something they employed when it became apparent the Democrats could not be lured back by compromise), Indiana Republicans have no such option.

For those who may be unaware, Indiana Statehouse Democrats staged a walkout a month ago to deny the large Republican majority the ability to enact legislation opposed by public and private union bosses - specifically right-to-work and public education reform laws.  The Democrat caucus fled across state lines to Illinois (where else?), and have been holed up in a hotel demanding concession after concession to earn their return.  But even after capitulating to their juvenile fit and pulling the right-to-work law off the table, Republican leaders have been unsuccessful in luring the Democrats back to work.

Indiana House Speaker, Republican Brian Bosma, acknowledged as much when he lamented, "We can't do the Madison shuffle that Wisconsin legislators were able to accomplish."  The consequence of that reality?  Given that Indiana has a part-time legislature, the stalemate will most likely cease only when the session adjourns and Governor Mitch Daniels calls the Assembly back into special session to pass a budget and new redistricting maps - the only items the legislature is required by law to pass.  This special session may give Republicans some wiggle room, but the likelihood is that the Democrat temper-tantrum will have killed the passage of virtually every bill introduced this year.

There's a phrase for what is occurring in Indiana; it's called the "tyranny of the minority."  In Federalist #10, James Madison warned against the tyranny of the majority by proposing that a republican form of representative democracy would best protect the rights of the minority.  What he apparently didn't count on was that in an effort to appease their union masters, the minority would one day use those protections to obliterate the democratic process.  And that is precisely what is unfolding.

It's telling that the phrase "tyranny of the minority" has been employed in recent years by Democrat apologists angry at the Republican Party's use of the filibuster to stall Democrat-sponsored legislation.  Watching Republicans require a supermajority of 60 Senators to pass some of Barack Obama's most controversial policies (thereby slowing his left-wing revolution of government), Democrat consultant Peter Fenn thundered, "This is the tyranny of the minority...This acceptance of a supermajority to get anything done in America has gotten way out of hand...There is a place for a supermajority: impeachment, eviction of members, veto overrides, votes on treaties and constitutional amendments.  But we should not have such requirements for the regular conduct of legislative business, especially at times like these, when action is required to move the country forward."

One must wonder where Mr. Fenn and his counterparts are now.  After all, while both parties' overuse of the filibuster to obstruct legislation is a fair topic of conversation, it pales in comparison to the unseemly tactic of a group of lawmakers who hold representative democracy itself hostage by refusing to show up for work.  Because while a filibuster is levied to obtain critical changes and adjustments to pending legislation, these walkouts are a brazen attempt to thwart the will of the people expressed in an election.

As Bosma explained, "We've offered a number of concessions on substitutive matters on issues of concern to the Democrats. What we have not agreed to do is to meet their demand to remove issues for the remainder of the legislative session in both chambers, which is their continued demand, that these issues just go away, really nullifying the election results of November 2."

And that's why reasonable and fair minded individuals from around the country and from both sides of the aisle should be outraged at this stunt.  The dangerous precedent being set here is that whatever party loses the election should just flee the state to prevent the winners from passing any laws.  This un-statesmanlike chicanery annihilates the very republican form of government our Constitution guarantees.

In his article, Fenn complained, "We have seen the rapid evolution of a nation that covets the concept of majority rule to one where the tyranny of the minority threatens to paralyze the country."  Indeed it does.  Nothing less than the democratic process is at stake.  And ironically, it's the group of folks who euphemistically and now wholly inappropriately refer to themselves as the Democratic Party who have the gun to its head.


Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:46 PM

Libya, BP Oil, Arms sales, Britian, France

The Second Time as Farce

It was Hegel who said that history repeats itself because nations and governments fail to learn from it, but it was Karl Marx who added that history repeats itself a second time as farce. Which makes it all too appropriate that Obama is repeating the Bush era as farce.
For years American liberals accused George W. Bush of being dumb and unserious—only to elect a man who actually is dumb and unserious. Who announces a war in between his NCAA picks and a trip to Rio. Who has spent more time playing golf, than directing the war effort. Who spends more time in front of the mirror and the camera, than on policy.

They accused Bush of running an imperial presidency—and that is exactly what they got the second time around. A war without even the thinnest facade of congressional involvement. Without Dick Cheney being anywhere in sight. They accused Bush of having a Nazi collaborating grandfather, and their own grass roots efforts to elect an Un-Bush were funded by a philanthropic Nazi collaborating billionaire.

After all those years of calling Blair, Bush’s poodle—Obama turned out to be Cameron’s poodle

They falsely insisted that Bush went to war for oil. And now their Great Hope has actually gone to war for oil. For BP’s 900 million dollar Libyan oil deal, which Prime Minister Cameron endangered when he precipitously rushed to back the Libyan rebels who seemed on their way to victory, only to crumble at Gaddafi’s pushback. After all those years of calling Blair, Bush’s poodle—Obama turned out to be Cameron’s poodle. They’re no doubt laughing about it in London.
Back when Gaddafi was securely in power, BP lobbied to free the Lockerbie bomber to avoid Gaddafi’s threat to cut all commercial ties with the UK. What a difference a year makes. Now the only thing that will save BP is a good old fashioned war. Gaddafi had already called on Russian and Chinese oil companies to replace Western oil companies. Not to be left out, the Libya rebels quickly created their own oil company reminding everyone of what this is really about.
History repeats itself as farce. But who’s laughing now?
There is a reason why Europe yawns at Turkey’s use of chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels, while sending in the jets when Gaddafi bombs rebel positions. Why the genocide in Sudan was not interrupted by a No Fly Zone, and top European firms still do business with Iran through proxies in Dubai. It’s not about human rights. It’s not even about the threat potential. If it were, North Korea or Iran would be in our bomb sights. Right now Syria is massacring protesters, but don’t look for military intervention there either. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about the bright boys deciding that Gaddafi stands in the way of the future, just like Slobodan Milosevic once did. Genocide, ethnic cleansing and terrorism are minor crimes, compared to obstructing the emergency of a stable order and the fat profits it will bring.

The idea that the US has become the ‘Enforcer’ for the Arab League is an ugly enough idea

Obama’s justification for the bombing to congress,  citing, “Qadhafi’s defiance of the Arab League”, and the “international community”, as well as “the authority of the Security Council” should send chills up anyone’s spine. The idea that the US has become the ‘Enforcer’ for the Arab League is an ugly enough idea, though it is a remarkable moment of honesty about just who’s calling the shots in US foreign policy.
But more meaningful still is the end of that sentence which hinges that trail of justifications on, “efforts to preserve stability in the region”. Which is another unexpected moment of honesty, as long as you understand that stability has nothing to do with democracy, human rights or preventing bombs from falling on orphans. It’s about keeping the trade going and the oil flowing. Keeping the violence down to a dull roar and maintaining predictable economic conditions. No oil price fluctuations, no crazy demands from a lunatic and an advancement of the new order of the January Revolutions.
This wasn’t an intervention in response to genocide or WMD’s. Gaddafi is fighting a civil war with few blatant atrocities. Two weeks ago the UN death toll was at a mere 1,000. That would have been a slow month in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But NATO set similarly low standards for declaring genocide in Kosovo. And all the weepy reports and heartstrings tugging was meant to disguise those simple facts. Just as news reports on Libya describe massacres in vague terms and cheer on the bravery of the rebels without telling us who they are.
We’re told what we need to know, that Gaddafi is bad and the rebels are good. And while it’s hard to argue that a world without him might be a better place, it’s unclear what Libya will be like without him. The US and Europe have been encouraged to believe that they will be dealing with former members of the US governments and the Libyan human rights people they have been funding. That may or may not be the case. In Egypt, the Jan 25 twitter activists just got stomped into the ground. With enough members of the old regime around, Libya may experience a more stable transition. Most likely it will trade in one civil war for another. And the African mercenaries will be back hunting down Islamist rebels. If the Libyan air force bombs them, we won’t say a thing. So long as the oil keeps flowing on schedule.
When a panicked Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program to avoid going the way of Saddam, European oil companies fared poorly at the bidding, while US companies got the inside track. But last year many of those companies, including the influential ChevronTexaco, pulled out, tired of the corruption and the bribery. BP however remained, holding on to its 900 million dollar deal, even lobbying for the release of one of Gaddafi’s mass murderers. The Iraq War had intimidated Gaddafi, but its collapse had him feeling his oats again. Irrational demands followed. And the toadying of the American and British governments to his family only fed the beast.

France’s Sarkozy now sees a chance to push his Mediterranean Union

France’s Sarkozy now sees a chance to push his Mediterranean Union, by doing what France routinely does, and yet what President Chirac (now facing trial for embezzlement) lambasted the US for in Iraq—unilateral intervention. Libya was formerly under French rule, and France is fairly casual about invading its former colonies to restore order. That the new coalition to bomb Gaddafi met in Paris is an ironic concession to its Francocentric nature. This war is a French project, in partnership with the UK, with the US along to provide the brute muscle.
Sarkozy needs to catch fire with French voters, almost as badly as Obama does with US voters. He is polling behind Marie LePen and his UMP party barely outdrew the National Front in local elections. He has failed to rein in domestic Islamism, but bombing Libya is easy by comparison. And gives him the illusion of placing his fingerprint on history’s page. Then there’s France’s Total S.A. oil company which has its own presence in Libya. Between its dirty deals with Saddam Hussein and Iran, Total SA makes BP look good.
Three years ago, Gaddafi was pitching his tent in the heart of Paris, on Sarkozy’s lawn. Back then Sarkozy denounced “those who excessively and irresponsibly criticised the Libyan leader’s visit” and his aide explained that Gaddafi’s visit was a good thing because it brought billions of euros and tens of thousands of jobs to France. But now Monsieur Gaddafi is Le Monstre.
And what were those jobs and billions of euros coming from? The sale of French fighter jets to Libya, from the country which took the lead in going after the Libyan air force. Considering the poor performance of Libya’s air force, Gaddafi would be justified in asking Sarkozy for a refund.
Two years ago, UK PM Gordon Brown was expressing his “admiration and gratitude” for Gaddafi. Now Cameron had to interrupt a Middle Eastern arms sales tour to call for a war on Gaddafi for his suppression of rioting rebels. Pity then that the UK had actually been selling some 350 million dollars worth of military equipment, including a good deal of crowd control gear.

France and the UK are stepping in to save the Libyan rebels from the military equipment that they themselves sold to Gaddafi

Now France and the UK are stepping in to save the Libyan rebels from the military equipment that they themselves sold to Gaddafi.
Did Gaddafi dramatically change over the past few years? No. The circumstances did. In 2008, Gaddafi was being cooperative and welcoming to Western oil companies and arms dealers in a region ruled by tyrants. By 2011, he was no longer cooperative and it suddenly seemed as if a wave of democratic change was sweeping the region. That made him into an obstacle. Had Gaddafi quickly suppressed the uprising, Sarkozy and Cameron would have kept their mouths shut. But Gaddafi’s real crime was to start winning, after the Europeans had decided he was going to lose. Now they intend to make sure he does. It’s as cynically simple as that.
Sarkozy and Cameron are committed. The price of oil is also the price of political power. Western economies rise and fall on the price of oil. Falling oil prices after the Cold War helped spur economic development, and rising oil prices will prevent any recovery.
With an election in 2012, Barack Hussein Obama also stands to personally benefit from stabilizing oil prices. But that may be giving him credit for intelligence he doesn’t have. What he does have is a need to be the center of attention. And given a choice between backing a fairly safe war, or standing shamefacedly on the sidelines, the choice wasn’t surprising. Hillary Clinton needed to end her term as Secretary of State with a bang. It’s not her husband’s Kosovo, but it’s the closest she can come to being Madeleine Albright. Everyone involved has now gotten their war. It’s not a very impressive war, but even a small war is better than nothing.
The Libyan rebels range from Gaddafi’s own regime cronies to Al Qaeda, to various professional human rights activists and rebels of the sort that all Arab countries collect after a while. And they’re all eager for our support, so long as we don’t ask any difficult questions. Such as who besides Gaddafi was responsible for human rights abuses and whether they intend to protect equal rights for all peoples regardless of gender and religion. And of course we won’t be asking any bothersome questions like that.

We will act as mercenaries for the Arab League, European oil companies and a trio of cynical leaders who embraced Gaddafi one minute and turn him the next

Instead we will act as mercenaries for the Arab League, European oil companies and a trio of cynical leaders who embraced Gaddafi one minute and turn him into the world’s worst criminal next. Those who wonder why Israel is constantly denounced by Europe while Muslim tyrants are pandered to, need only understand this simple fact. There is neither trust nor honesty in foreign policy.
Bush’s invasion of Iraq, ill-considered as it was, had a basic germ of idealism in it. That idealism is wholly and completely absent from European foreign affairs, which is precisely why it stirred so much cynicism and rage. Bush genuinely believed that Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world could be made better if we just showed them what was possible. But Bush is gone now, and this is about trade, money and power. That iron triangle whose shape is regional stability and whose name is hypocrisy.
It is why we are now spending billions of dollars on regime change in Libya, while ignoring genocide elsewhere. It’s why a man who denounced the overthrow of Saddam, who actually did commit genocide, is now part of a campaign against Gaddafi, who has not. We are ensuring stability. The stable order. The mold of convenience. Get your war on with Obama and see Iraq repeat itself a second time as farce. Marx would have been proud.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:47 PM

Progressive approach to war, near-war, and humanitarian intervention

Barack Obama’s 10 Commandments of War

President Obama’s actions in dealing with the crisis in Libya have revealed much about his progressive approach to war, near-war, and humanitarian intervention.
The Barack Obama 10 Commandments of War:

  1. One must never call an intervention “war,” particularly when that is exactly what it is.
  2. The use of American military force is always subject to approval by the United Nations Security Council.
  3. Rulings made by the United Nations trump the will of the U.S. Congress.
  4. The only thing worse than starting a war is actually winning one.
  5. Surrender is the only “exit strategy” a progressive president will ever need.
  6. Braggadocio about the U.S. military being the best and “number one” is no longer appropriate in this, the era of post-American Exceptionalism.
  7. Because the U.S. military is no longer exceptional, Americans forces must never take the lead when only the best will do.
  8. Gloating over military victory is in very poor taste and can lead to hurt feelings among the defeated. Better to apologize and promise to make diplomacy work next time.
  9. Congressional pre-approval is always a Constitutional requirement—when the president is Republican.
  10. Killing and maiming civilians is justifiable only when a president is engaged in humanitarian intervention to prevent the killing and maiming of citizens,but only after approval by the UN.
For patriotic Americans, the election of 2012 cannot come soon enough!

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:50 PM

Court in Canada ruled that under socialized medicine the baby Joseph of Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader must die in the hospital

Here’s a Killer Story About Socialized Medicine and Families


Sometimes, a story of love should outweigh any other type.  This is a story of true family love.  And it’s my feature article this week.  But it’s not without its political overtones.


It is a story of a family who were ordered by a judge no less, to pull the plug on their infant son because a “death panel” refused to grant an emergency procedure that most like would have prolonged the baby’s life. 

It happened to a devoted couple in Canada; but I feel if ObamaCare isn’t deep-sixed, and SOON, we here in the United will be hearing more stories with similar problems and rulings by heartless panels of political appointees and equally heartless and politically appointed judges.  Right now we can feel righteous in this case because the parents of the infant were able to get the procedure they wanted for their child, here in the States.

But that is because the full whammy of ObamaCare has not been put into effect or fully set in motion as of yet.  But trust me, if Congress keeps twiddling its thumbs and weaseling out from under the cold hard hatchet of reality and stop this monstrosity in its tracks, there will be many more incidents of this nature, and to United States citizens.

The story as seen here was told online by Investors in an IBD Editorial on March 21, 2011 titled “Baby Joseph is Going Home.” It began when a court in Canada ruled that under socialized medicine the baby Joseph of Moe Maraachli and Sana Nader must die in the hospital.

Baby Joseph, who’d been set to have his ventilator removed against his parents’ wishes at an Ontario hospital last month, got a tracheotomy Monday morning in the U.S., getting the care his parents, not the bureaucrats, want.  The baby is doing well, his family says. The procedure was denied him under a system of medicine that may be coming to a hospital near you courtesy of ObamaCare, if nothing is done to prevent it.

Joseph’s parents took him to Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center in St. Louis after trying unsuccessfully to get him the simple procedure at London Health Sciences Centre, a Hospital in London, Ontario, Canada.

Currently, his doctors report that he is resting comfortably and his parents will soon be able to take him back to his home; which was their initial wish.

Thirteen-month-old Joseph has a neurodegenerative disease that doctors say leaves little hope for recovery. Nine years ago his parents lost an 18-month-old daughter to the same disease. What’s made the anguish of this Windsor, Ontario, family worse this time is that the parents have spent precious time battling courts and medical boards as to just how and where their son should die.

Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board, America’s Death Panel

But Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Rady recently ordered the couple to agree to take Joseph off his ventilator. The court was upholding a decision made by Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board, which some here (in the United States) might call a death panel.  (Of course the Obama-ites who support ObamaCare claim that the talk about death panels is all false as there are none.)  Maybe not yet, but “sounds like” language is in there.

Joseph’s parents defied the court order to consent to the removal of the breathing tube. They feared Joseph would die a painful death if taken off the ventilator and wanted a tracheotomy performed so they could take Joseph home. If he is to die, they said, he should die in his own home in his own bed surrounded by those who love him.

Nine years ago, (apparently before the Canada Socialized medicine law was in effect) the couple’s daughter did have a tracheotomy performed, and she lived at home for six months before she passed away. The family hopes for a miracle with Joseph, but does not expect one. They’ve at least succeeded in having Joseph transferred to where his treatment, care and even death will be decisions that they make.
The judge who ruled in this case in Canada, (Rady) set the time for Joseph’s government-decreed passing “to afford the family adequate time to say their goodbyes.”

The family however, would like the privilege of making that decision at their choosing.  They were not reassured when President Obama’s choice to head the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, an admirer of Britain’s draconian National Health Service, said in an interview:

“We can make a sensible social decision and say, ‘Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.” 

In other words, the highly controversial Berwick is saying that we can’t afford the luxury of keeping babies like Joseph alive.

As the IBD Editorial finishes, “Don’t think the case of baby Joseph can’t happen here. Unless ObamaCare is repealed, the day will rapidly come when bureaucrats, not patients and parents, will not only decide what care we get, if any, but also how, where and when we should die.”

That will forevermore be known as ‘Obama Socialist Love’ as written in ObamaCare.

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Mar 24 11 4:52 PM

Infiltration, Indoctrination and Demoralization, Communist Party U.S. goals

Dancing Puppets or Free Men

Infiltration, Indoctrination and Demoralization, Communist Party U.S. goals

Dancing Puppets or Free Men

After many years of infiltration, indoctrination and demoralization, (see the Communist Party U.S. goals as entered in the Congressional Record Jan. 1963)( Also see the 1984 Video interview with Yuri Bezmenov,  here Yuri Bezmenov Uploaded by onmyway02 ), the “uber rich” elitists, the puppet masters of the useful idiots they used to promote their goal of One World Governance with them in control of all the worlds resources, selected and trained a young bi-racial man to become their puppet to destroy America and move all countries of the world closer to One Wo

The training began in Hawaii when their “Puppet” was only ten years old at the knee of his mentor Frank Marshall Davis. The training continued In in the U.S by the radical Socialist professors the puppet was instructed to seek out. Additional “on the job” training as a Community Organizer was received in Chicago.

Every aspect of Obama’s career was orchestrated, choreographed and financed by his puppet masters abetted by the useful idiots in the educational system, the judicial system, the corrupt Chicago political system, and the useful idiots in the U.S. .

Observations of Obama’s words and actions show that he and rest of the useful idiots dance in perfect lock step on their strings controlled by the puppet masters.

The question Patriots of America: Will you cut the strings of the puppet masters and sweep the puppets they have been controlling into the garbage heap, or will you do nothing and soon find that YOU are now nothing But a puppet dancing on the strings of the “Ruling Elite” puppet masters?


Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help