Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Obama: Neoconservative
Obama: Neoconservative
by Sheldon Richman, September 13, 2010
President Barack Obama was far from candid when he announced the end of combat operations in Iraq last month, but he did nothing to hide the fact that he is a neoconservative when it comes to the American empire.
That was not lost on leading neoconservatives, who tend to prefer Republicans. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, told a colleague that while he would have phrased the speech differently, "his basic response was 'All hail Obama!'"
John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, wrote in his New York Post column, "President Obama did something amazing. He delivered dare I say it? a rather neoconservative speech, in the sense that neoconservatism has argued for aggressive American involvement in the world both for the world's sake and for the sake of extending American freedoms in order to enhance and preserve American security."
Just to be clear, it is the neocons who were among the key architects of the war against Iraq in 1991, followed by the embargo that killed half a million children and set the stage for the 9/11 attacks, which were then used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq (an ambition long predating 9/11) and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, American's longest military engagement all of which have killed more than a million people, wreaked political havoc, and made life in those countries (and elsewhere) miserable. Let's not forget the drone assassination program being run in a dozen Muslim countries. The neocon achievement also has helped drive the American people deep into debt.
Nice crowd Obama is hanging with these days. And that's no exaggeration. Frederick Kagan, one of the top neocon brains and a signatory of the Project of the New American Century imperial manifesto, now works for Gen. David Petraeus.
The U.S. government has left Iraq a physical wreck and squarely in Iran's sphere of influence, but Obama propagates the neocon myth that Iraq was a great success. For him it's just the beginning: "But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.... Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq's future is not."
People throughout the Muslim world must be cringing.
It's not enough that the George W. Bush and Obama administrations made messes of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama promises more. "And because of our drawdown in Iraq," he said, "we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense."
That means more Predator drones shooting Hellfire missiles at so-called insurgents, who always seem to include innocent civilians.
As though his speech was written by the neocon brain trust, Obama intoned, "We must use all elements of our power including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America's example to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that's based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibilities of our time."
If people in the rest of the world would rather shape their own future, too bad. Obama has a date with destiny: "New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas." Oops. Were foreigners supposed to hear that mercantilist line?
"As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people," he wrapped up. "Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security."
Let's understand that this is blueprint for unlimited government to be precise, executive power. The Obama administration again demonstrates that while presidents come and go, the permanent regime rumbles on. Woe to anyone who gets in its way.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1009c.asp
Gunning for Islam
Gunning for Islam
The Islamophobes: fringe wackos, or rising mass movement?
by Justin Raimondo
September 13, 2010
Three people are dead because US "pastor" Terry Jones, in collaboration with the American media, staged (or threatened to stage) an anti-Muslim Koran-burning exhibition, which predictably stoked anti-American protests in Afghanistan: also predictably, US troops fired on demonstrators. The result: yet more "collateral damage."
In more 9/11 anniversary news: a rally sponsored by the David Horowitz-affiliated " Jihad Watch," in alliance with Pamela " Shrieking Harpy" Geller's "Stop the Islamization of America" grouplet and the British neo-fascist " English Defense League," attracted a few thousand wackos to a site a few blocks from Ground Zero, where uber-wacko Geert Wilders (Dutch neo-fascist and leading Islamophobe) made the case for banning Islam in the name of … "Dutch tolerance":
"America, New York and Shariah are incompatible in New York. New York stands for openness and tolerance. Suppose there was a place and it only allowed people of one persuasion within its walls. It would not be New York. It would be Mecca."
Maybe Wilders has been smoking too much of that strong Dutch weed, but to argue that we're too tolerant to tolerate the intolerant seems a bit odd. Then again, Dutch neo-fascism no doubt suffers in translation.
Wilders, Geller, and "Jihad Watch" anti-Islam guru Robert Spencer want to import Europe's Muslim-hating racist fringe to America: their thesis is that Islam is not a religion, but a political conspiracy to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims. They raise the specter of an Islamic States of America, with American women draped in the chador and mandatory mosque attendance – a scenario that doesn't even qualify as credible science fiction.
And if you think it doesn't get any kookier than that, then you didn't listen to John Bolton's speech to the anti-mosque rally, delivered via videotape, wherein he attacked the effort by "politicians" to "impose tolerance and understanding on us, whether we like it or not." He also indirectly attacked his own former boss, George W. Bush, when he lashed out against Imam Feisal Rauf's role as a State Department emissary of good will to Muslim nations. It was Bush's State Department who first sponsored him in that role. Shortly before delivering his remarks, Bolton confirmed he is considering a presidential run: can he ride the wave of hate all the way to the White House?
Another aspiring anti-Muslim Know-Nothing demagogue who spoke at the rally is one Ilario Pantano, whose credentials as a murderous hater are surely impeccable. We last heard about Pantano when Army prosecutors accused him of murdering two Iraqis in some very cold blood, as Mother Jones relates:
"The central facts of the incident that made Ilario Pantano famous are not in dispute. On April 15, 2004, Pantano, a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps, led a small group of Marines to search a suspected insurgent hideout in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, outside of Fallujah. As the patrol neared the house, two men tried to leave in a car. The Marines stopped, searched, and handcuffed the men. A Marine scoured the vehicle, but didn't find anything incriminating. After other Marines found weapons in the house, Pantano had the men uncuffed and ordered them to search the car themselves. At some point during that search, Pantano felt threatened by the two men. He shot them bothpausing to load a second magazine into his M-16 before emptying that clip too. Then he placed a cardboard sign reading 'No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy'the motto of his Marine battalionon top of the car. He wanted 'to send a message to these Iraqis and others,' he said later.
"For a time in 2005, it looked like Pantano might be court-martialed for killing the two Iraqis. One of his subordinates claimed the shooting was unjustified. But the prosecution's case collapsed in an early hearing, and Pantano was never even tried. The judge in charge of the hearing recommended non-judicial punishmentbut Pantano's commander didn't agree, and he was never disciplined."
This is the kind of person at the head of the "anti-Islamization" movement – an escaped war criminal.
Pantano is now running for Congress in North Carolina as a Republican, naturally.
Joe Conason made an important point about this hate movement, and that is its intensely partisan nature. Go here to listen to hate-monger Geller, aka Pamela Oshry, at a pro-Israel rally earlier this year. She ends her ultra-Likudist diatribe – "There is no Israeli occupation: the Arabs are occupying Israel!" – by urging her audience to "Dump Chuck!" Chuck Schumer, that is, the Democratic US Senator from New York who "dared" oppose John Bolton's nomination for UN ambassador: after all, "reasons" Geller, Bolton is "the best friend Israel ever had!" What else do we need to know?
If you think this gathering of pro-Israel fanatics, British football hooligans, and a Dutch neo-fascist is just a fringe phenomenon, ask yourself how many Americans believe Obama is a "secret Muslim"? The answer is depressing: and Republicans like Newt Gingrich are already using the anti-Muslim hysteria to target the President and his party in a display of shameless opportunism that is a new low, even for the GOP.
Part of this is due to internal Republican party politics: with the economics-driven "tea party" faction rapidly overturning the GOP Establishment, the neoconservative remnants are trying to stage a comeback by diverting the movement's energy to anti-Muslim scapegoating anything other than holding Republicans as well as Democrats accountable for spending us into penury.
The impetus for this comes, as I detailed in last Friday's column, from the pro-Israel lobby, which is moving into high gear with its bomb Iran campaign, with Bolton calling on both the US and Israel to launch an immediate military strike. Millions of dollars are being poured into this effort, with Spencer's "Jihad Watch" and various and sundry other pro-Israel groups on the receiving end of the moolah. Like many right-wing movements, the anti-Islam activists have founded a new industry, marketing books, videos, and t-shirts, and throwing up "celebrities," e.g. the exhibitionistic bikini-wearing Geller, whose nude body painted gold adorns her blog's masthead. Follow the money!
As nutty and improbable as the idea of an "Islamic States of America" might be, there is real potential for a mass anti-Muslim movement in this country. All we need is another terrorist attack, not even one on the scale of 9/11, and the smoldering fires of unfocused anger that burn just beneath the surface of polite society will burst through to the surface. Ask any Japanese-American.
Languishing for the lack of a proper enemy in the post-cold war world, the neoconservative right was saved from extinction by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The specter of militant Islam is, for them, the perfect villain, one who represents a threat not just to the US but also to Israel, a country which is to them as the old Soviet Union was to American Communists: a model and a fatherland. Their strategy is to replicate in the US the anti-Muslim xenophobia that swept Likud into power in Israel, and which has catapulted Avigdor Lieberman, head of an anti-Muslim ultra-nationalist party, into the Foreign Ministry. Bolton is our Lieberman, and hopes to take the same route to power.
"I don't think anybody has a problem with Muslims in America," opines Reason.com editor Nick Gillespie on PBS. Is that why the anti-mosque campaign has gone national, and with some success? Is that why "mainstream" Republican politicians like Newt Gingrich and Speaker John Boehner are weighing in against the Park51 community center? Is it because there's never been a mass political movement in America targeting a vulnerable religious minority?
I'd like to believe these people won't get far: after all, how many Americans feel threatened by the possible imposition of Sharia law? On the other hand, it takes very little to drive people over the edge, especially in these troubled times.
The only way to defeat these bastards is to counter-attack immediately, and mercilessly: don't let them get away with it for one moment. The very idea of forbidding the building of a mosque, or any religious edifice, is anti-American to the core, and must be fought tooth and nail. What could be a clearer confirmation of the libertarian contention that a foreign policy of global intervention necessarily means the rollback of our civil liberties here at home? For libertarians, there is no question but that Muslims must be defended against the gathering lynch mob.
How to do this is another question, but that's a subject for a future column. Suffice to say here that the defense of the Muslim minority in the US is the acid test for all those who claim to believe in "freedom" and "liberty."
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/09/12/gunning-for-islam/
Of course the GOP Interest Group Spending is more than the Dems
The Dems don't have to spend it. They have the MSM biased reporting to do their advertising for them. Just check the editorials of the major newspapers in the blue states, especially NYC and Boston, for examples on a daily basis.
G.O.P. Allies Drive Ad Spending Disparity
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: September 13, 2010
Outside groups supporting Republican candidates in House and Senate races across the country have been swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts on television since early August as the midterm election season has begun heating up.
Multimedia
Blog
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
Driving the disparity in the ad wars has been an array of Republican-oriented organizations that are set up so they can accept donations of unlimited size from individuals and corporations without having to disclose them. The situation raises the possibility that a relatively small cadre of deep-pocketed donors, unknown to the general public, is shaping the battle for Congress in the early going.
The yawning gap in independent interest group spending is alarming some Democratic officials, who argue that it amounts to an effort on the part of wealthy Republican donors, as well as corporate interests, newly emboldened by regulatory changes, to buy the election.
“While each of our campaigns has the resources they need to be competitive, we now face shadow groups putting their thumbs on the scale with undisclosed, unlimited and unregulated donations,” said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
As the primary season ends this week and the general election begins in earnest, the nightmare for the Democrats is that this is just the beginning. Tracking by Democratic media buyers, in fact, shows that other large chunks of television time have been set aside in the coming weeks in key House races by more Republican-leaning groups.
The snapshot of early television spending would seem to be a fulfillment of Democrats’ worst fears after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case in January that lifted a ban on direct corporate spending on political campaigns.
It is not clear, however, whether it is actually an influx of new corporate money unleashed by the Citizens United decision that is driving the spending chasm, or other factors, notably, a political environment that favors Republicans.
There are only scattered clues that can be gleaned about the financing, like the two $1 million contributions from Louisiana companies tied to Harold Simmons, a Texas billionaire and longtime Republican donor who helped finance Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, in the campaign finance filings of one group, American Crossroads; and that David Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries, is closely tied to another major player, Americans for Prosperity.
Corporations have so far mostly chosen not to take advantage of the Citizens United ruling to directly sponsor campaign ads themselves.
Some, however, are most likely funneling more money into campaigns through some of these independent groups, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. They had the right to make such contributions before the ruling, he said, but Citizens United made it more straightforward.
“There’s a greater comfort level,” Mr. Noble said.
Still, disclosure laws make it impossible to know for sure where the money for these groups is coming from in most cases.
“Corporate interests are buying the elections?” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of theCenter for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group. “Oh no, it’s much worse than that. We don’t know who’s buying the election.”
If the trend on television continues and extends across other types of independent group spending, it would be a reversal from the past. In recent elections, it was Democrats who used so-called soft money vehicles, which are able to accept unrestricted donations, to a much greater degree.
In 2006, for example, the last midterm election, Democratic-leaning 527 groups, named for the part of the tax code they fall under, outspent Republican-leaning ones in federal races $121 million to $65 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
“The groups that perfected this were on the Democratic side,” said Steven Law, president and chief executive of American Crossroads, a Republican-oriented advocacy group, and its sister organization, Crossroads GPS. Crossroads GPS has been the biggest third-party player on television by far since early August.
In Senate races, Republican-leaning interest groups outspent Democratic-leaning ones on television $10.9 million to $1.3 million, from Aug. 1 to Sept. 8, according to Campaign Media Analysis Group, a company that tracks political advertising.
In the House, Republican-leaning groups outspent Democratic-leaning ones, $3.1 million to $1.5 million.
Television spending by the candidates themselves was fairly even during the period, with Republicans in the Senate pouring out about $19.6 million compared with $17.3 million by Democrats; in the House, Democrats spent $7.6 million to the Republicans $7 million. Spending by the party committees was negligible.
A major question is how big a mark labor unions will be able to make for Democrats; they have mostly held their fire on television up to this point. The one exception is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which spent $1.2 million on House races. The Citizens United decision frees them up to more directly support candidates, as well, but even their leaders seemed to indicate that they would not be able to match pro-Republican expenditures over the airwaves.
“If we try to compete in that game, we can’t compete,” said Richard Trumka, president of theA.F.L.-C.I.O. “They have so much more resources.”
Fear has been building for some time among Democratic operatives that third-party spending on all fronts this year would favor Republicans, based on declarations by various groups on the amounts they were hoping to devote to this election. Spending on other activities, however, is much more difficult to track. Television advertising is, therefore, a useful gauge.
In Senate races over the last month, Crossroads GPS spent $4.8 million in California, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada and Pennsylvania. It was followed by the United States Chamber of Commerce, a Republican-leaning trade association, which spent $2.9 million in television advertising in Illinois, Missouri and New Hampshire.
Fund-raising for both of the Crossroads groups has been spearheaded by Karl Rove, the former political strategist for President George W. Bush, and Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Partychairman.
The groups are well on their way to meeting their combined fund-raising goal of just over $50 million for this election, Mr. Law said.
Crossroads GPS is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, meaning it legally cannot devote more than half of its activities to politics, but it also means that it does not have to disclose its donors.
American Crossroads, on the other hand, recently filed paperwork to become an independent-expenditure political action committee, a new classification for third-party groups made possible by a pair of recent advisory opinions by the F.E.C. after the Citizens United decision. Such groups can accept donations of unlimited size but are required to regularly disclose their donors.
Perhaps not so coincidentally, American Crossroads spent only $437,000 on television in August and early September, much less than its sister-organization. Donations revealed in campaign finance filings by American Crossroads, however, offer a glimpse of the kinds of hefty contributions its leaders have been soliciting. There are the $1 million contributions linked to Mr. Simmons; and another $1 million donation came from a trust controlled by Jerry Perenchio, a former chairman of Univision and another major contributor to Republican causes.
Meanwhile, the biggest sponsor of television advertising in House races over the last month was Americans for Prosperity, which spent about $1.5 million, singling out races in which Republican candidates are at a fund-raising disadvantage.
Americans for Prosperity is another 501(c)(4), which does not have to disclose its donors. Mr. Koch, who has mostly supported Republicans over the years, serves as the chairman of its sister organization, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which is much more limited in its political activities because it is set up as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
**JP** Taiwan Gangster Leader's Funeral
|
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
FDA Claims Walnuts Are Drugs
FDA Claims Walnuts Are Drugs
The following is excerpted from an FDA letter to Diamond Foods:
The following is excerpted from an FDA letter to Diamond Foods:
Based on claims made on your firm's website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. The following are examples of the claims made on your firm's website under the heading of a web page stating "OMEGA-3s ... Every time you munch a few walnuts, you're doing your body a big favor.":
• "Studies indicate that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses."
• "[O]mega-3 fatty acids inhibit the tumor growth that is promoted by the acids found in other fats ... "
• "[I]n treating major depression, for example, omega-3s seem to work by making it easier for brain cell receptors to process mood-related signals from neighboring neurons." • "The omega-3s found in fish oil are thought to be responsible for the significantly lower incidence of breast cancer in Japanese women as compared to women in the United States."
Because of these intended uses, your walnut products are drugs
http://www.gaia-health.com/articles201/000230-fda-says-walnuts-are-drugs-and-doritos-are-heart-healthy.shtml
--
I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's
really happening. What separates politicians from other
criminal organizations is superior public relations."
- Marc Stevens
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it
expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson
I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's
really happening. What separates politicians from other
criminal organizations is superior public relations."
- Marc Stevens
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it
expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)