Muslim Protest Take II

See What the protests were about and when. Sent in by kddove

'Religion of Peace Demonstration Images

These pictures are of Muslims marching through the streets of London during their recent 'Religion of Peace Demonstration.'

from an email sent by Betsy.

WILL IT EVER END?

It really is all about oil. This is where the neoconservative and neoliberal visions merge. After the hell fire that President Bush ignited by invading Iraq, causing many thousands of unnecessary deaths, now there is talk of bringing in big corporate oil companies, to get those valuable resources under control. Ah yes, the holy blessings of the free market (Barack Obama is a believer, he himself has said it) that will unleash the entrepreneurial spirit (John McCain is also a believer, he himself has said it) of profit and efficiency.

If the truth be told, the United States government did not give a damn about what Saddam Hussein did to his subjects. During the cold war, the Central Intelligence Agency helped him to be a handy anti-communist tool. Not even when Iraq nationalized its oil supply did relations with Washington go sour. It should be remembered that Saddam Hussein defied the OPEC embargo of the 1970’s, and sold oil to the United States. No, that did not stop the love fest. When Iraq attacked Iran, the United States sided with Saddam, because the US government wanted some pay back for the hostage crisis.

No, what tore it , between Saddam Hussein and Washington, was when he demanded euros instead of dollars for the oil. This would never do. And besides, George Bush knew Saddam was a bad man, he tried to kill his daddy.

The current estimate is that the US spends $138 billion annually on protecting the oil supplies, a figure that continues to increase. Despite all the patriotic pandering about bringing democracy to the world, the control of oil is what all this slaughter is truly about. But should it be? The real question is: by what constitutional mandate is the government given the right to interfere with the sovereignty of other nations. Sovereign nations who may have bad governments (don’t we?) and problems, but are what they always are, their own.

That is why the presidential process has become such a disappointment. Neither McCain or Obama are willing to do the proper constitutional mandate of withdrawing our troops from foreign entanglements. Instead they argue over who knows the best way to fiddle. Both want to increase military spending. Both want to keep pushing around the world.

All of this partisan pagaent politics is a huge distraction from realizing this country’s constitutional crisis. Both Republicans and Democrats are evading this, hoping that fear, uncertainty, doubt, will win over the gullible before they realize that the country they live in, the country they have been told, all of their lives, that holds so much promise… that country no longer exists.

Neoliberalism like neoconservatism has delusions of empire. After the guns comes the carpetbaggers. Control of fossil fuels is a brutal industry, whether it is Nigeria or The Baltic States. For many, oil is the only business, and everything must be sacrificed: human rights, environment, the rule of law, in order for the flow to be continuous. If continuous war is a consequence, so be it. A disasterous policy to be sure, but for for those on top of this pyramid, who cares? There is still plenty of money to be made.

I recently found a picture of an Iraqi Muslim family celebrating Christmas. They are wearing their Santa hats and smiling, in front of their Christmas tree.
I look again at the photograph and ask myself: why, with all that is holy, would anyone want to blow these people up? That is of course the problem of this world. Politicians justify savagery and call it being strong.

A BIPARTISAN NEED FOR LIBERTY

By: thebeerdoctor

The reaction was to be expected from those accustomed to the daily cat and mouse game called politics. The experts always know. That is why Representative Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment were ridiculed as worthless, "a waste of time" from a "annoying gnat". While the movers and shakers of his own political party have more important matters to attend to than defending the Constitution and the rule of law.

Something ironically similar was happening across the pond, in the United Kingdom.
That is where Gordon Brown's Labour party government is trying to enact a law that enables the government to hold terror suspects, or as they say, persons of interest, for 42 days without any redress. Tory Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, resigned from the House of Commons in disgust.

"I had always viewed membership of this House as a noble endeavor," said David Davis. "Not least because we and our forebears defended the fundamental freedoms of our citizens. Or we did, up until yesterday."

"This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta --the document that guarantees that most fundamental of British freedoms-- Habeus Corpus."

Here in the United States, I begin to wonder how many people still remember that the Magna Carta is the root document of the United States Constitution. It is where it was officially established that no one is to be above the law. As Winston Churchill said in 1956: "here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break."

Evidently, this is not the case for President Bush, who attempts to shrug off the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of detainees, simply because it was a 5-4 decision. Senator Barack Obama said the Supreme Court ruling refutes "the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole in Guantanamo." But that legal black hole most certainly exists, simply by making the false claim that human legal standards do not apply to military tribunals. Yes, it is what it is: a breathtaking argument for legalized torture.

Meanwhile, over in England, David Davis has remarked that the British have "the most intrusive identity card system in the world. A CCTV camera for every 14 citizens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with thousands of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it... the creation of a database state opening our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers..."

It is wise to remember that these objections to the Orwellian order, come from a conservative Tory member. That is also why Dennis Kucinich said his articles of impeachment were not about politics, but the rule of Constitutional law. How strange that a few persons in high powerful positions think it is perfectly acceptable to ignore the law upon which all of western civilization is based: the liberty of its citizens. A state sponsored abolition of basic freedoms becomes a final victory for terror. To say you are defending freedom by destroying it, using the cafard of security, is to be sure, very strange indeed.

I'm Voting Republican

Sent in by: Kddove

A short video giving reasons to vote Republican.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

By thebeerdoctor

It is hard for some to imagine, but Senator Barack Obama may turn out to be the perfect candidate for the neo-conservative agenda. His recent speech at the AIPAC conference revealed a harder line than that of Vice President Dick Cheney, when it comes to the Middle East. He offered this caveat: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

That is a very dangerous sore to pick if there is going to be any hope for any kind of peace. A complete denial of the Palestinians to East Jerusalem has been a point of contention for decades. Why did Obama say this? Was it to prove to this hawkish Zionist advocate group that he totally gets their agenda?

“Let me be clear, said Senator Obama, “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non negotiable.”

Sacrosanct? Last time I heard that phrase was back in the 1980’s, when General Alexander Haig said that about the defense budget. What a twisted notion our political leaders have about the security of the United States. Both of the main parties think it is perfectly acceptable to tie our destiny to another country, supposedly as a defensive posture, but in reality it is just a means to continue the armaments industries. As Senator Obama said: “As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade–investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation.”

$30 billion over a decade? That’s $3 billion dollars a year. An increase in American largese that underlines the fact that the United States government is simply not interested in avoiding foreign entanglements. Exporting more weapons sows the seeds of future conflicts, which alas, is the most hideous cynical reason of all.

Senator Obama claims he wants to end the war in Iraq, but does he really? The plan to build fifty permanent bases there, already in the works, will undoubtedly continue, no matter who is elected president. That iron triangle that John McCain used to speak of, is being embraced in a truly bipartisan way. The privatization of the military will also continue. Senator Obama refuses to endorse H.R. 4102, the Stop Outsourcing Security Act. A brief exchange with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman, revealed that the junior Senator from Illinois has not only a talent for lofty rhetoric, but also equivocation:

Sen. Barack Obama: Here’s the problem. We have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of these with US troops, we can’t draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops. So what I want to do is draw–I want them out in the same way we make sure that we draw out our own combat troops, alright? I mean, I–

Amy Goodman: Not a ban?

Sen. Barack Obama: Well, I don’t want to replace these contractors with more US troops, because we don’t have them, alright? But this was a speech about the economy.

Amy Goodman: The war is costing $3 trillion, according to Stiglitz.

Sen. Barack Obama: That’s what–I know, which I made a speech about last week. Thank you.

On the Barack Obama web site it states: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.”

This all sounds well and good, until you get to the next sentence: “He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

Enough is enough. Despite the pageant thrills of electing the first black President, when you examine the double speak on foreign policy, you’ll find that any rumors about correcting the military-industrial-congressional complex are greatly exaggerated, to say the least. How ironic that Senator Obama used the phrase from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the fierce urgency of now, to explain the reason for his presidential campaign. It should always be remembered that Dr. King used those words in a speech denouncing the Vietnam War. It would have been grand if Senator Obama would have applied some of those peace and justice principles, when he addressed the AIPAC conference. But that is asking too much. He looks good. He talks well. But he is really just a politician. If elected, he may bring about some domestic reform and just might restore some our stolen liberties. But his pandering about Iran being a threat to us, even makes that seem dubious. Obama supporters who denounced Senator Clinton before she quit, use to say: She’ll say anything in order to get elected. Senator Obama’s performance at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, proved him to be the same.