I Thought President Obama Did Something Right...... I Was Wrong! Look deeper into his speech, and you know what you'll find?......

That would be useless rhetoric, and a big helping of BULLSHIT.

Some excerpts for this story are taken from an article on Alternet, by John Mearsheimer

As the President expounded on the future of peace in the middle east, his rhetoric didn't ring true to either Israel or Palestine.
For example, Israel's hard-line supporters were outraged that he said, "Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."
Israel's views are that the 1967 borders are "Auschwitz borders" and thus can never serve as a basis for negotiations.

Many Palestinians, on the other hand, did not like Obama's assertion that it made little sense for them to go to the UN General Assembly this September and win recognition for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. If in fact Palestine was to win that recognition from the UN General Assembly, it would put the United States in the position of voting against the decree, in order to remain firmly joined at the hip with Israel.
Surely Palestinians also noticed that shortly after saying that "every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself," the president then said that the Palestinians would have to be content with "a sovereign non-militarized state."
That means, in reality,... they won't be able to defend themselves against Israel, or any other state for that matter.

(Are we recognizing the hypocrisy and element of Bullshit, yet?)
The United States has little influence over events in the broader Middle East, as well. The Arab Spring, which Obama fully embraced in his speech, happened in spite of American foreign policy,... not because of it. After all, Washington has played a key role for decades in keeping friendly dictators like Hosni Mubarak in power. And not surprisingly, the Obama administration has remained quiet while Saudi and Bahrani security forces have been crushing the protestors in Bahrain. Why? Because the US Navy's 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain and we have excellent relations with its authoritarian leaders.

On top of all this, the US military is pinned down in messy wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. The administration's hard-nosed policy for dealing with Iran's nuclear enrichment program is not working, but the president seems unwilling (or unable because of pressure from Israel and the lobby) to countenance a new approach for dealing with Tehran.

The bottom line is that the US is in deep trouble in the Middle East and needs new policies for that region. The possibilities of that occurring soon, are pretty much non-existent. President Obama's speech was destined to disappoint almost everyone. While we cannot be seen as opposing democracy, we surely don't want to see it flourish. That would change the scope of our influence drastically.

[John Mearsheimer is professor Political Science at the University of Chicago and co-author of the best-seller, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.]

It's Time For Me To Decompress, Again....... Here's An Original Poem By John Schweizer

John and I went to Berkeley High together. We reunited via "Facebook" and "Classmates", and from time to time John emails me a poem. Totally unpretentious.... always thought provoking, never easy to face in their stark emotional honesty. Thank you John. "You've got a friend in me."

This poem arose from answered prayer, yours and mine.

Forgiveness

I need forgiveness
Desperately, like drowning
Sailors need life rings

And caterpillars
Need leaves for food, shelter, and
Haven cocoons.

I did homicide
To Vietnamese soldiers
And Russian pilots,

Easier back then
Than the impossible Grace-
Guided battle plan.

Forgiveness comes now,
Each butterfly moment of
Eternal present

Created anew,
And the instant I know that
I need forgiveness.



John Schweizer

It Just Keeps Getting Better... The Shame of Our Leaders Knows No Bounds.

I received this as an email. Spread the word.

No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.

Monday on Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?

35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government.

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This is an idea that we should address.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.

I truly don't care if you are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

If each person that sees this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

And presidents!

My Hypocrite, Facists, Representatives...... Senators Feinstein and Boxer, Just Voted To Extend "The Patriot Act" until 2015....... Am I Pissed Off? How can you tell?

These two have a lot of nerve calling themselves "Americans"!
Their support of the Patriot Act is a slap in the face to everyone of their constituents. I don't know about you, but my respect for these "Representatives" of the people, has just taken a nose dive.

They are traitors to everything the United States used to stand for. I for one will be working to get these two out of office.

To help cover their evil ways they have cut off their emails from receiving messages.
I urge each and every one out there to call and voice your displeasure. Their fascist action must not go unanswered. Call your Senators at 202-224-3121, and tell them you don't want to live in a police state. It's time to take democracy back. Tell them their support of this heinous bill, that was installed under the dictatorship of George W. Bush, under a pretense of lies and falsehoods, is an abomination to the values of America, and it will not go unanswered.

It's time to stop this travesty.

Because you've got to start somewhere.

Why Don't You Pass These Words of Wisdom,... (or lack thereof) to Israel, Harry?

This came in from Newsmax....

Reid Rejects Obama's Israel-Palestinian Border Stance

President Barack Obama has lost at least one ally for his views on the Mideast. In a speech Monday night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected Obama’s own talk last week in which he called for Israel to negotiate peace with the Palestinians using pre-1967 borders as a baseline, Politico reports.

“The place where negotiating will happen must be at the negotiating table — and nowhere else,” Reid told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Those negotiations . . . will not happen — and their terms will not be set — through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media.”

As for the borders issue, “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else,” he said.

[MS comment from here on]
So, now if Harry Reid could just get Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to actually sit down with a realistic respect for Palestine, and face the fact that as long as Israel keeps destroying Palestinian homes, to make room for the occupation of settlers on Palestinian land, there will NEVER....., repeat.... NEVER, be peace or support of free thinking people for Israel. Then,... he might actually be saying something meaningful. Until that time comes, Harry and the President are just whistling in the wind. If we want Israel to take peace negotiations seriously, we've got to stop supporting their unconscionable actions in the Middle East. Having terrorists as allies is not only a threat to peace in the region, it's a threat to the credibility of the United States throughout the world.

Here's A Take A Breath Moment....... Breathe...... Slowly...

Just When I think He's Totally Wrong about Almost Everything,.... He Does Something Good and Right. Way to go, Mr. President!

Now,... if you'll just stick to your guns.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians' demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.

In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama on Thursday sided with the Palestinians' opening position a day ahead of a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.

Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that the Palestinian goal of a state based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, should be reconciled with Israel's desire for a secure Jewish state through negotiations.

Below is a single paragraph from the President's speech. To read the transcript of the entire speech, go to The Guardian UK (You can click the link on the right of this page in the "Here's a Few Things I Follow" section.)

"So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

When Did "Justice" Become The Lynch Mob Mentality In This Country?

This came to me via email from "The Pen".They are right on the money with this. What happened to our sense of justice? When did we become everything we been fighting against for decades?

It turns out after all these years all they had to do to find Bin Laden was check the roster of the Islamabad Jihadists basketball team where he was the starting center. Of course, nobody for a thousand miles would breathe a word of it, that is just how much they hate America in that part of the world. In any case, all these Middle East occupations and wars have always been and remain destructive and counterproductive even to our own interests. So we start with the action page.

End The Wars In Afghanistan And Iraq:
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1078.php

If nothing else, the demise of Osama bin Laden again raises the question of what exactly we think we are doing occupying so many countries in the Middle East. Surely not to fight terrorism. Instead, terrorism is driven precisely by these same kinds of operations. There is nothing at the end of this road but utter ruin for our own country, unless we somehow find the political courage to change course. So we speak out again, and will continue to do so.

The only thing good the right wing has had to say about the Bin Laden
operation is that this action by Obama was just a continuation of the
policies of George Bush. In one respect that is completely false. It
was the policy of Bush NOT to pursue Bin Laden, but rather to use him
as an excuse and justification for all the wars they had on their
pre-existing agenda. The last thing the right wing wanted to do was
to actually catch Bin Laden.

But in a larger sense, and sadly, they are correct in that Obama has
done absolutely nothing to change anything of substance whatsoever
about American foreign policy. The wars and occupations continue and
have even been enlarged, run by exactly the same people who started
them in the first place, with all Bush holdovers otherwise still in
actual charge. And nothing about that will change until so-called
liberals and so-called progressives stop giving Obama a pass when he
just acts like a smarter version of George Bush.

By way of a disclaimer, our position is that we do not support the
death penalty, and in particular we do not support the institution of
war as the mutually preferred cultural institution for settling
differences among nations. So we can only be appalled by the raucous
celebration of what now appears to be the summary execution of a man
already in custody.

It is perfectly obvious that there was never any intention of
bringing Bin Laden back alive under any circumstances. If we have
learned nothing else from recent history, it should have been
anticipated that all we were told night one about the Bin Laden raid
were just made up lies and fairy tales. What was portrayed initially
as a "fire fight" might have consisted of one person firing back. And
once that person was taken down, what proceeded after that can only
be described as a precision "execution" operation of every adult male
present.

None of this should surprise anyone. We have had people in custody
now for upwards of 10 years already who will NEVER have an actual
trial. So why would anyone think we would bring Bin Laden back for a
trial? The clear order was to kill him on the spot regardless. Is
there really any doubt of that? Bin Laden was an important long term
CIA asset who turned on his handlers. A talking Bin Laden in custody
was the last thing they could afford.

The word used most often night one in the corporate media about the
Bin Laden killing was "justice". "Justice had been done," they said.
There may be some primitive, ultimate "justice" in it. But the most
appropriate choice of word, if our language has not been completely
corrupted already, would be "revenge". Justice would be to put the
man on trial before the world. But there is no law, even of war, that
would permit the summary killing of a man already subdued and in
custody, regardless of his crimes. Isn't that what the bad guys do?

"We don't need a trial!" Where have you heard those words shouted
before, outside of the scene of lynch mob in a movie? The lynch mob
is a grand old American tradition, and unfortunately not one to be
proud of. The fact that historically those lynched were most likely
innocent, where as Bin Laden proudly professed to his own guilt,
changes nothing about the process. What value is a justice system if
it could not convict someone like Bin Laden?


And anyone celebrating the manner in which Bin Laden was killed may
in fact be celebrating the demise of that justice system MORE than
the demise of Bin Laden himself. Meet the New American Lynch Mob.

My final comment on the sad state of affairs that this country is wallowing in is.......
"This should be the new flag of our country. It seems to be closer to the sense of justice we subscribe to.

Would We Be Out for Revenge?? .... You're Damn Skippy We Would!!

I don't usually like to run serial articles from an author, but in this case Noam Chomsky has once again captured my thoughts with an expression of clarity that sums it all up.

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

© 2011 Noam Chomsky

By George, I think He's Got it!

This is right off of Democracy Now...... True, true...

Noam Chomsky: "The U.S. and Its Allies Will Do Anything to Prevent Democracy in the Arab World"

Speaking at the 25th anniversary celebration of the national media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky analyzes the U.S. response to the popular uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North Africa. "Across the [Middle East], an overwhelming majority of the population regards the United States as the main threat to their interests," Chomsky says. "The reason is very simple... Plainly, the U.S. and its allies are not going to want governments which are responsive to the will of the people. If that happens, not only will the U.S. not control the region, but it will be thrown out."

Worth a read. Check out the whole story and a video at http://www.democracynow.org/tags/noam_chomsky

M.S. Comment:
Yeah,... the USA talks a good game, but "democracy" as we know it, here, today.... is a far cry from the democracy being sought throughout the Arab World. If they knew what form of democracy we have in store for them, they'd be careful what they wish for. Our support comes with a heavy price tag. And, that price tag is controlled by corporations for profit.
True democracy has left the building...... "Thank you very much."

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead..... O.K.... So, Can We Go Home Now?

Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (March 10, 1957 – April 2011) was a member of the wealthy Saudi bin Laden family and the founder of the jihadist organization al-Qaeda, most widely recognized for the September 11 attacks on the United States and numerous other mass-casualty attacks against civilian and military targets. As a result of his dealings in and advocacy of violent extremist jihad, Osama bin Laden lost his Saudi citizenship and was disowned by his billionaire family. On Sunday, May 1st 2011, U.S. officials announced that bin Laden was dead. -wikipedia

He was in a mansion in Abbottabad, 90 miles north of Islamabad, Pakistan instead of hiding in a cave as commonly thought. CNN reports it was not a drone strike, but a manned team, and that some family members may also have been killed. The Pakistani Intelligence Service was NOT also involved in this operation as initially reported. His location in a mansion brings up the spectre that there might have been a certain degree of collusion with some powerful elements within Pakistan to keep him hidden and safe, although that is speculative at this point. The second in command of Al Qaeda, Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri was not at the mansion.

So,.. Who gets the $25,000,000? .... Not the Navy Seals, I'll bet.
We'll probably need the money to finance our divorce from Pakistan. Not that we're getting a divorce, but it is getting a little tenuous to keep calling them allies, when we keep finding high ranking Al Qaeda leaders living in high end neighborhoods.

Hey! I'm just saying.....

Alternet has an excellent article that expands on peripheral aspects of this story, titled "Inside His Mansion, Inside the Mission, Inside the Media Reaction."

While researching this story I discovered that there are already pictures of him dead out there in all their graphic splendor. No need to thank me for not posting one.

THE FATTED CALF REMAINS UNTOUCHED

THE "Y" ARTICLE
The Pentagon's secret plan to slash its own budget.

As appeared in www.foreignpolicy.com The online site for Foreign Policy Magazine
BY JOHN NORRIS | APRIL 13, 2011

The report places considerable emphasis on the importance of achieving a more sustainable approach to security, energy, agriculture, and the environment. Again, it is important to stress that this narrative was penned by senior military thinkers, not the Sierra Club. The simple fact is that any clear-eyed analysis pretty quickly comes to the same conclusion: The United States has established an incentive system that just doesn't make any sense. It continues to pour tens of billions of dollars into agricultural and oil subsidies every single year even as these subsidies make the gravity of the environmental, health, and land-use problems the country faces in the future ever graver. As the report argues, America cannot truly practice the use of "smart power" until it practices "smart growth" at home. While some may be quick to argue that the Pentagon should not be considering issues like smart growth and investments in America's youth, this goes to another key point from the authors: America won't get its approach to policy right if it leaves foreign policy and domestic policy in tidy little silos that ignore the interconnection between the two.

The paper argues persuasively that the tendency of Americans to broadly label the rest of the world has been hugely counterproductive. The authors point out that the tendency over the last decade by some Americans to view all Muslims as terrorists has made it more difficult to marginalize genuine extremism, while alienating vast swaths of the global Muslim community. In a world where credibility is so central to America's national interest and reach around the globe, the overheated domestic debate about the war on terror has never served it very well.

Lastly, the narrative makes a clarion call for America to look forward, not back, in today's interconnected world:

And yet with globalization, we seem to have developed a strange apprehension about the efficacy of our ability to apply the innovation and hard work necessary to successfully compete in a complex security and economic environment. Further, we have misunderstood interdependence as a weakness rather than recognizing it as a strength. The key to sustaining our competitive edge, at home or on the world stage, is credibility -- and credibility is a difficult capital to foster. It cannot be won through intimidation and threat, it cannot be sustained through protectionism or exclusion. Credibility requires engagement, strength, and reliability -- imaginatively applied through the national tools of development, diplomacy, and defense.

The budget deal over the weekend lopped $8 billion off of funding for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Defense spending was left untouched. Congress doesn't seem to have gotten the wake-up call.

AMAZING HOLES! This just needed to be passed along.

HAPPY EARTH DAY, EVERYONE. THANKS BP.... One Year later, and the Effects are Still Being Tallied

As reported and excerpted from ALJAZEERA

One year after BP's Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, the number of lawsuits against the oil giant continues to mount.

Ryan Lambert is enraged.

The owner of a charter fishing business, he had always supported the oil industry in his home state of Louisiana.

He previously trusted BP, and the rest of the oil industry, to do the right thing in case an accident happened. But not any more. "I'm seeing people starving to death and BP won't pay them," said Lambert.

His business drop of 94 per cent in the last year has cost him more than $1.1mn, he told Al Jazeera, "They won't pay me, they owe me well over a million dollars just for last year, and all they do is send more papers to fill out."

He continued:

They know what they did is wrong and they still won't pay me. I'm done playing their games. All they are doing is starving people out and trying to get them to take the one-time $25,000 payment and give up their right to sue. I know thousands of people in the fishing industry, and I don't know one person who has been made whole yet.

In the aftermath of BP's disaster that began on April 20 of last year, the oil giant promised those whose livelihoods had been damaged that they would be made "whole" and fully compensated for their losses.

On June 1, 2010, upon the announcement that they were instituting a $20bn compensation fund to do this, BP board chairman Henric Svanberg stated: "[President Obama] is frustrated because he cares about the small people, and we care about the small people. I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don't care, but that is not the case in BP. We care about the small people."

Lambert vehemently disagrees.

"I want the entire country to know, you cannot trust what BP or [what] the oil industry promises you. I'm most definitely taking up litigation against BP," he added.

Lambert is not alone.

The Centre for Biological Diversity (CBD) is a group that uses the law to protect the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive. CBD has an unparallelled record of legal successes, with 93 per cent of their lawsuits having resulted in favourable outcomes. And, now they are suing BP for $19bn.

"We have sued them under the Clean Water Act," Kieran Suckling, the executive director and founder of the CBD told Al Jazeera. "The way the Act works is it levies a fine based on the number of gallons [of oil] spilled and how malicious or criminal BP was acting when the spill occurred. So a big part of the suit is about determining how many barrels were spilled, and BP's level of negligence."

Suckling explained that, depending on BP's level of negligence, the fine they face per barrel of oil released into the Gulf of Mexico, "could range from $1,300 to $4,300 per barrel if they are found criminally negligent."

CBD believes BP released 5.5 million barrels of oil, and is awaiting the official estimate from the federal government, which has not been released yet.

Environmental effects

This March, US interior secretary Kenneth Salazar approved the first deep water drilling exploration plan since BP's disaster, giving Shell Offshore the go-ahead to drill three exploration wells in water 2,950 feet deep, after his department's environmental assessment plan found there was "no possibility of significant environmental effects".

Prior to this, CBD, GRN, the Natural Resources Defence Council, and the Sierra Club filed a formal notice of intent to sue Salazar for ignoring marine-mammal protection laws when approving offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf.

CBD has already filed suit against Salazar for concluding that oil drilling poses no possible risk of significant environmental effects. Furthermore, for failing to assess possible impacts on the Gulf of Mexico's endangered whales and sea turtles, his continued approval of offshore drilling plans in the Gulf without environmental review, and for his withholding emails, phone logs, and meeting notes documenting his interactions with oil-industry lobbyists since he became secretary of the interior.

About the suit CBD is preparing to file against Salazar for ignoring marine mammal protection laws when approving offshore oil and gas activities in the gulf, Suckling is blunt:

In the wake of the beginning of BP's disaster last year, it became apparent the Obama administration has not followed the Endangered Species Act, among other laws, so despite claims they've reformed the agency, they are still not following these Acts or the National Policy Act. So it's business as usual with a little window dressing. They are still not obeying the law.

For the entire story as written by Dahr Jahmall, see Aljazeera In Depth "BP's Criminal Negligence Exposed"

When All Reason Fails to Reach These Guys,...... What's the Solution? They're Not Listening to Our Voices.....

Somebody once told me that violence never solved anything. I'm starting to disagree.

.

A friend of mine's sister came here from Belgium for a visit with her family and friends. She was born here, but moved many years ago. One of the things that struck me was something she said while we were grazing the issue of politics during the conversation. She said that people in Belgium can't understand why we don't revolt. Her question... "What's it going to take before the people of this country wake up and start a revolution?" It is a question I've been asking myself... a lot lately.

Every day we are being undermined by our own government. Our "Democracy", of which we have been so proud, is an idyllic memory that we just can't seem to let go of. The truth is, it's dead. It was replaced while we were resting on our laurels, with an evil empire of Fascism. It didn't happen overnight, but it happened never the less. Slowly the power of corporations became the voice of our representatives, and the voice of the people was stifled until it was listened to no more.

So what will it take to awaken the sedentary populace? We know they're armed. We know they're out there. What will be the straw that breaks the Camel's back? Where's the dedicated extremists that we used to be in the sixties. Have we all grown too old and too comfortable? They're coming after us in our old age, now. They killed the dream then, and they're trying to kill it now.

......WE HAVE TO STOP THEM!......

15 TAX EVADERS MAKING HUGE PROFITS AT OUR EXPENSE.

IF THIS DOESN'T PISS YOU OFF, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

UNVEILING FRENCH HYPOCRISY......

This article is from Al Jazeer, written by Mohammad Kahn

Forcing women to uncover their faces will not create some form of 'moderate Islam' but it does unveil French bigotry.

Nicolas Sarkozy's government is implementing a ban on wearing the face veil in public [EPA]
In one of my earlier pieces on the Arab revolutions (Tunisia's tide of defiance), I cautioned those brave souls risking life and limb for the cause of freedom in the Arab world to "beware the French" by being vigilant against their "behind the scenes machinations and manoeuvrings".

Remarkably, my fear of French deceit has been realised far quicker than I imagined. After first colonising and then propping up for decades some of the worst despots in North Africa with economic, financial and political support, the French government found itself wrong-footed by the overthrow of Tunisia's long-running autocrat Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

Let us not forget that just days before Ben Ali was deposed in January, French officials - in the form of the now discredited former foreign minister Michele Alliot-Marie - offered the Tunisian regime security assistance in quelling the protests, while the same officials were making merriment in Tunisia on private holidays paid for by Ben Ali's cronies.

To quote again from my previous article: "How often are the French wont to proclaim liberté, égalité, fraternité as their most fundamental values? As far as French policy in North Africa is concerned, we may add another: Fallacy." As recent events have unfolded, however, I admit that I erred by overlooking one more very official French value: Hypocrisy.

In an effort not to be completely left behind by the massive political convulsions currently shaking the Middle East region, French political cunningness has been on ample display recently under the guise of offering French support to downtrodden Arab populations. At the receiving end of French ire have been the forces of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya. The French political and military establishment has been desperately trying to redeem itself from its earlier Tunisian debacle by attempting to take the lead in bombing Gaddafi's forces, albeit under a UN mandate, and thereby advertising its humanity.

However, the irony of the French unleashing their prestigious Rafale fighter jets on Gaddafi's forces, the very same jets that France sought to sell Libya following a $6.5bn arms sale in 2007, is glaring. Back then, Gaddafi was obviously a good guy and selling him sophisticated weapons was nothing but a noble enterprise, especially when so many business opportunities were at stake. Besides, it was not like Gaddafi was going to use the planes against his own people, right?

A faux pas (if indeed that is what it was) by the French interior minister, Claude Guéant, has not helped the French cause: He boldly described his country's military action in Libya as a "crusade," a choice of words that will not be lost on Libyans and Arabs, more widely. The French and other Europeans have carried out many a 'crusade' against the Middle East throughout history, leading to the deaths of millions of people. It is not for nothing that modern Algeria is known as balad el million shaheed in honour of the million or so martyrs who perished at the hands of the French during the war of independence in 1954-1962.

Given France's penchant for selectivity, therefore, was there really any surprise when the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, condemned Europe's participation in bombing Libya as "hypocrisy"? Tusk said such actions gave the impression that Europe only intervened when oil interests were at stake. Perhaps the French establishment would concur.

Where is the liberté at home?

Now you would think that given France's belated rush to save North African, and mostly Muslim, lives, the country was a model of solid social relations and stability at home. Suppose those Libyan civilians fleeing daily barrages from Gaddafi's tanks fled to France, they would enjoy a peaceful future there free from stigmatisation and social isolation, right? Well, no. The men may get by but the women, if they choose to wear the niqab, had better stay in Libya.

As of today, the French state will forbid face coverings in public, a measure which, while couched in generalisations, is aimed specifically at outlawing some 2,000 or so Muslim women from deciding how they dress and conform to their religion.

The government of President Nicholas Sarkozy has pledged the full force of the law to enforce these measures. Furthermore, in a bid to outdo the fascist tendencies in the country, Sarkozy's ruling party, the UMP, has gone to such extremes as to question the role of Islam in republican France. Apparently Islamic values and practices are not compatible with the French way of life.

Beware Libyans, Tunisians, Egyptians and a whole plethora of other political refugees currently battling repression. If you are thinking of escaping to France, know that your "alien" values may not be welcome there.

The startling thing about France's actions is not just the audacity with which these policies are pursued but also the belief that such measures will have no bearing on external relations.

While the two faces of France are now on public display, this hypocrisy barely raises any questions at home.

Sarkozy's arms dealer and business acquaintances will rush to the Middle East, to the Gulf, to North Africa, at the next available opportunity to sign multi-billion euro contracts. Here they will intermingle with Muslims, male and female (yes females also step out of their homes in the Arab world) who, lo and behold, may be veiled.

Why are they veiled? Not because their husbands beat them into covering their heads and faces but because they have chosen to do so. (Is it really so hard to believe that they can decide for themselves?) Now France may well have a problem with such a choice. Then it should make a point by breaking all relations with this region, so that the rest of the world knows what the French feel about the practice of niqab, and, for that matter, halal food and Islamic finance. And, for good measure, perhaps male circumcision too. It is always good to know where people and governments stand on certain issues. Sarkozy and his coterie should have enough courage to declare publicly their animosity towards Islamic practices, if indeed that is what they harbour.

French government policy will not create some form of 'moderate Islam' by forcing women to uncover their faces. If it has achieved anything, it has successfully unveiled French hypocrisy and bigotry towards Muslims. The people of the Middle East are not fooled by France's diversionary tactics in pretending to back human rights in Libya.

Lest anyone ask how Gaddafi's brutality should be dealt with if not militarily, that is not the point of contention. The Gaddafi gang rightly needs to be defeated with broad international, including Arab, military support. Suffice to say that France need not overexert itself in this endeavour given how bankrupt its recent policies have proven. A tiresome, hypocritical, wannabe global power will not redeem itself so easily.

Mohammed Khan is a political analyst based in the UAE.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

OOH..... SCARY! SO WHAT,... EXACTLY SEEMS TO BE THE THREAT HERE????

Is it the fact that these eyes are just too provocative to be ignored, or is it just more, than any red blooded Christian can bear? Or, are we such pigs that we feel we have some unwritten right to oogle all women face to face? As a species, we probably ought to get over that.

France has just enacted a law forbidding the wearing of the Niqab and Burka with full veil. The fine for wearing this garb in public is 150 euros ($216). France has a Muslim minority of five million strong, but it is believed that fewer than 2000 actually wear the full veil.

The timing is all the more sensitive after France's ruling political party, President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP, called a debate on the place of Islam in France, a move that some say risked stigmatising a portion of the population. (Do you think?)

Rachid Nekkaz, the man who called for the Notre Dame prayer, said in a webcast that he was putting a property worth around two million euros up for sale to help fund his campaign.
"I am calling on all free women who so wish, to wear the veil in the street and engage in civil disobedience," he said.
French police arrested 59 people on Saturday who turned up for a banned protest over the veil ban, one of them on arrival in France from Britain, according to a police spokesman.

Okay, as someone who really didn't understand the significance of the wearing of the veil, I looked at this as one extremely repressive act of the Muslim world. I saw it as an act of oppression towards women that was unfathomable in the modern world. My friends saw it as "Brain Washing" and an oppression that set us at odds with a world that had no place in the 21st century.

But, then,.... I talked to someone who actually lived in that world for almost 20 years. She was a close friend from Berkeley High School. She was married to a Saudi Arabian man, and lived in Saudi Arabia for almost 20 years. She told me that wearing a full veil was "one of the most liberating experiences of her life". She divorced her husband, but remains friends with him to this day.

Cultural differences had their effects on her marriage, but wearing the full veil wasn't one of them. She described it as an experience of "freedom". Freedom from every "Joe Dokes" making a pass at her, and hitting on her just because she was a good looking woman. She said when she was out in public and wearing the Niqab, she was treated respectfully way beyond anything she had experienced before. In her words,.. ..."It was liberating"!

So,... my question to all of you out there is,.... what is the problem with someone wanting to wear a veil? What threat does it pose to you and me? Does it really change who we are, and how we relate to each other? It was enlightening for my friend, but she found herself adapting into a different culture. So,... why do we find this such an offense? My guess is that it's social conditioning... Nothing more. It's a changing world out there, and we need to get a grip, and learn to accept the feelings of others as being as valid as our own. Learn.....

WHEN DEMOCRACY ROLLS OVER..... IS THIS OUR FUTURE? WE DO MEET THE CRITERIA.

This was emailed to me by a friend from high school. Although this friend is a Conservative,... the fact that he sent this, I think, shows just how unsatisfied he is with the way this country is heading. Finally, he and I agree on something. Now if we could just agree on a solution.... Even though this was written during the reign of "The Decider", George W. Bush, it is a very graphic detail as to where we are headed. It rings more true every day. Read it well, and look around you.

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
by Lawrence Britt
Spring 2003
Free Inquiry magazine

Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.

The 14 characteristics are:

(1) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

(2) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

(3) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

(4) Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

(5) Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

(6) Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

(7) Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

(8) Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

(9) Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

(10) Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

(11) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

(12) Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

(13) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

(14) Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


Copyright © 2003 Free Inquiry magazine
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.

This article was based upon the article "The Hallmarks of Fascist Regime" by Skip Stone, at www.hippy.com/php/article-226.html.

NOW HERE'S A GREAT IDEA....... TO BAD IT MAKES WAY TOO MUCH SENSE.

I received this e-mail from the office of Senator Barbara Boxer:

April 02, 2011
Dear Friend:

Today I joined with 15 of my Senate colleagues to send a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) urging him to immediately take up and pass S. 388, my “No Budget, No Pay” bill. This legislation would prevent Members of Congress and the President of the United States from being paid during a shutdown of the federal government.

In our letter, we point out that Speaker Boehner has repeatedly refused to take up the bill, which was approved by the Senate unanimously a month ago. We wrote, “It is essential that we work together to avoid a government shutdown, but if we cannot do our jobs and keep the government functioning, we should not get paid.”

To read the text of our letter and more about the “No Budget, No Pay” bill, please click here.

Sincerely,


Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

( To read the full text of the S.388, go to....... http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/033011.cfm )

Good one Senator Boxer. I don't think it will be received very well, however. Just a guess on my part, but I'm betting that would bring the House Republicans down to the level of their constituency. It sort puts unemployment on a level they don't seem to understand...... Brings it too close to home.

So,... do you think the Speaker is overcompensating for something with that gavel?

Okay..... We know he's not stupid,.... so what else could it be???

Maybe he just doesn't care about things like the Planet, or perhaps he's bought and paid for, like our Supreme Court Judges.....

Or Maybe he is the.....

God,... you've got to love stupid people. They're everywhere.

But all kidding aside, What the hell is our President thinking when he touts the "Drill Baby Drill" mentality. His facts just don't add up.
Not only are the "New Safety Standards" he wants to enforce non-existent,...they're actually the same standards that were in effect in 2009. What's worse,... it's even the same companies that caused the Gulf Disaster, that are receiving new deep water drilling permits. I mean,..... come on!!!

Let's just pretend for a minute that we actually learned something from this last disastrous experience. Why in the hell would we want to take a chance on a repeat performance? Isn't that the definition of "insanity"?.... Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

Damn!.... Maybe he is the Antichrist.... (Maniacal Laughter..who's spelling I have no idea of....)

......... MILLIONS AGAINST MONSANTO .........

It has a Nice Ring to it, doesn't it?

Consumer Activists Unite to Demand Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods.

Contact: Trish Wright, Organizer: 540-915-3677
(Rally for the Right to Know)
Email: nogmosroanoke@yahoo.com
April Reeves, Media Contact 604-233-0781
Email: aprilreeves@shaw.ca

Their demands are simple:
1. We have the right to know and want genetically modified foods labeled.
2. We want factory farmed animal and genetically modified animal products labeled.
3. We want independent, transparent, long-term studies done on the safety of GMO’s for animals, plants
and humans.
4. We want the organic industry protected from cross-contamination and law suits to organic farmers.
The FDA currently considers GM foods “substantially equivalent” and therefore doesn’t require labeling.
There is a growing body of evidence that show:
• Health and environmental concerns.
• Corporate control of world food and seed supplies, and monopolization through patents, government
lobbying and corporate interest over human interest in all levels of government.
• Monsanto is the leader in GM patents.
Rally Organizer, Trish Wright “We will not stop in our efforts to accomplish our goals. If the FDA won’t
tell people, we will. Our freedom of choice is being violated by the FDA not requiring these products to
be labeled.”
To date, the majority of commodity crops are genetically engineered. (Soy, corn, canola, cotton). Many
deregulated crops such as GE Alfalfa and GE Sugar Beet, being planted in 2011, have the ability to
destroy the organic industry.
People are asked to participate in or organize a rally in their area.
Visit: www.facebook.com/rallyfortherighttoknow2011 for more information.
Or, go to...http://organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm

MONSANTO..... CHANGING THE WORLD, WHETHER YOU WANT IT OR NOT!

NATURAL NEWS REPORTS: MONSANTO ILLEGALLY PLANTED A GENETICALLY MODIFIED CORN ("FRANKENCORN") IN INDIA WITHOUT PERMISSION.

(NaturalNews) "Recent reports out of India say that multinational biotechnology giant Monsanto has once again skirted the law by clandestinely planting its genetically-modified (GM) corn without receiving approval to do so. Nitish Kumar, chief minister of the Indian state of Bihar, recently wrote a letter to India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh explaining the situation. Just days earlier, Ramesh had denied Monsanto permission to plant the crops at all.

When he discovered that Monsanto had schemed with India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) and the Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR) to plant genetically-modified (GM) corn without official approval, Kumar was outraged. Kumar had previously written a letter to Ramesh reinforcing his opposition to the GM corn, and shortly thereafter Ramesh asked GEAC to block Monsanto's corn plantings that it had first approved back in December."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031807_India_GE_corn.html#ixzz1HXbkomcT
_________________________________________________________________________
Is there any turning back on our food supply being genetically modified, and mutated into the controlled substance of the Monsanto Corporation?
Not if they have any thing to say about it.

TODAY,... OVER 86% OF THE CORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED. (Based on a 2005 study)

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE EATING?

TOMORROW THE WORLD........

HERE WE GO AGAIN....... HEY KIDS,.. HOW ABOUT ANOTHER WAR? THERE'S ALWAYS ENOUGH MONEY FOR ONE MORE.

You're feeling sleepy..... You want to invade Libya.... We need to invade Libya.... This is "Change".... Feel the democracy..... Muhmmar is not our friend....

It's obvious that our "off again/on again/off again" relationship with Libya's wild and crazy leader, Muhmmar Qaddafi, is in the tank, but when did the latest honeymoon come to an end? And, why?

So,... what's the real motivation for the latest "War Without End"?

It's simple, really. I think Brazilian cartoonist, Carlos Latuff, has captured the essence of our motivation, perfectly.

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FREEDOM FIGHTERS. THEY'LL THANK US FOR IT, LATER.

TERRORISM BY REMOTE CONTROL..... AND WE HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL OURSELVES ANYTHING BUT TERRORISTS.

This is the face of war in Pakistan. 40 people were killed by unmanned U.S. drones on Thursday.
It's also the face of recruiting hatred for the U.S.A.
And,... it looks like it's working.

Published on Friday, March 18, 2011 by BBC News

Pakistan: Calls for Revenge After US Drones Kill 40

Tribal leaders in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan have vowed revenge against the US after drones killed more than 40 people near the Afghan border.

"We are a people who wait 100 years to exact revenge. We never forgive our enemy," the elders said in a statement.
Thursday's attack has caused fury - most of the dead were tribal elders and police attending an open-air meeting.

Thursday's drone strike is thought to have killed more civilians than any other such attack since 2006.

This kind of action speaks louder than anything else the United States does throughout the world. A time will come when we will pay for our aggressions. What will that cost be, and who will pay it?
Stop the Madness. End unchecked military spending. Bring U.S. troops home, now!