Refuse to live in fear!
Don't just take my word for it- watch the video of Article I for yourself.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Universe of Religious Right Influence
Go to the site for larger image, click on the Heavenly Bodies, and learn how the Religious Right is shaping today's Universe!
|
Thursday, June 19, 2008
We Smear For Obama
Ever gone to gop.com? Chances are that you haven't, and you're missing out. Really. If you delve deep enough into the Bible, surely there is something about "Know thine enemy" lingering somewhere, and if you go to the website you will immediately see that the G.O.P knows this all too well. In fact, the entirety of the site isn't even directed at the issues themselves, it's all about smearing Barack Obama. Apparently that is all they can do to try to make themselves look better at this point. As the Republican party is being abandoned by the Old Money that embody the nickname "GOP" (see a few entries back), as well as the neo-Evangelicals and other conservative Christians that have come to realize that war wasn't on Jesus' mind, and now by poor people who realize that they need things like health care and jobs, the best they can do is try to run Obama through the mud and hope that anyone still cares.
The main smear today is Obama's links with Tony Rezko. As you probably know, Rezko was charged with political corruption earlier this month and had both contributed $50-$60K to Obama and bought a property adjacent to Obama's in Illinois. (Read more at the Sun Times.) Barack had previously donated all of the Rezko money to charity and explained his involvement with Rezko to the media and to the public, and continues to take the non-smear High Road. The first transcripts of the trial say blatantly:
Apparently his name even being mentioned has given the GOP a reason to "question his judgment." Obama has since countered with a message from his campaign saying that any inquiries into his transactions with Rezko or Rezko connections would be no problem. Rather than smear, why not inquire into the facts?
Of course, when you have a candidate as bad as McCain, just one smear isn't enough to cut it. Obama's opt-out of public campiagn financing has fueled the GOP into calling him a two-face, boasting "Obama vs Obama" as a point of their "In The News" link.
What is this Public Financing of which we speak? Literally, it is money offered by the Federal Treasury to finance the campaigns of political candidates. The United States allows both public and private monies to be used in presidential elections at this time, and this would mean that McCain would be taking both money from the public AND from the deep pockets of the Republican National Committee AND from lobbyists. That sounds like Public Usury to me, and of course none of that is mentioned on the gop website. The fact remains that McCain is desperate for cash as the numbers roll in on how far behind he is on fundraising:
Could it not already be said that Obama is already raising funds from the public? The vast funds already raised by his campaign have been mostly from small contributions from supporters over the internet and there are no lobbyists to answer to, so arguably you could say that his campaign is being run by the people- everyday people who can only donate what they can and their time- and why then run on the Public Finance system as well? As he says:
Why try to drag down a candidate running on Hope? The answer is this: Smear worked for the GOP. Just ask Al Franken, who detailed the horrible smearing of John Kerry's record as a War Hero in his book The Truth: With Jokes. The war in Iraq is still a major issue in the minds of Americans, and now the Democratic party is putting forth a candidate who has consistently been vehemently against the war (as are most Americans). While this is a point of legitimate contention, it is unlikely that the GOP could win on this issue alone this time. Obama's positions are also uniting struggling poor and middle-class workers, who want health care and jobs and financial security. So, the focus is shifting away from the fact that what the Republicans offer is the New Bush and politics as usual to the GOP website putting up a few well-edited quotes tying Obama to Tony Rezko. All it takes is a swift gathering of the facts and presenting them to the media to clear this, and I will make the call to public inquiry to do so. John Kerry's war record wasn't cleared fast enough from the smear and that led in part to his demise, as Al Franken puts it, so let's not let the GOP get away with it this time and clear Obama immediately.
The main smear today is Obama's links with Tony Rezko. As you probably know, Rezko was charged with political corruption earlier this month and had both contributed $50-$60K to Obama and bought a property adjacent to Obama's in Illinois. (Read more at the Sun Times.) Barack had previously donated all of the Rezko money to charity and explained his involvement with Rezko to the media and to the public, and continues to take the non-smear High Road. The first transcripts of the trial say blatantly:
Obama was a tangential figure at the trial, mentioned only a few times as a beneficiary of Rezko's fund-raising. But Republicans are already exploiting the Democrat's long friendship with a now-convicted felon.
Apparently his name even being mentioned has given the GOP a reason to "question his judgment." Obama has since countered with a message from his campaign saying that any inquiries into his transactions with Rezko or Rezko connections would be no problem. Rather than smear, why not inquire into the facts?
Of course, when you have a candidate as bad as McCain, just one smear isn't enough to cut it. Obama's opt-out of public campiagn financing has fueled the GOP into calling him a two-face, boasting "Obama vs Obama" as a point of their "In The News" link.
What is this Public Financing of which we speak? Literally, it is money offered by the Federal Treasury to finance the campaigns of political candidates. The United States allows both public and private monies to be used in presidential elections at this time, and this would mean that McCain would be taking both money from the public AND from the deep pockets of the Republican National Committee AND from lobbyists. That sounds like Public Usury to me, and of course none of that is mentioned on the gop website. The fact remains that McCain is desperate for cash as the numbers roll in on how far behind he is on fundraising:
CAMPAIGN TOTALS SO FAR
He said Mr McCain's campaign was being financed by Washington lobbyists and special interest groups.
No kidding. If Obama does want to win, one way to not do that is by playing the GOP Game.
One visit to barackobama.com shows that he is above the smear, as no attacks appear on his page, only news reports on the issues. In true dirty Rebublican style, the "In the News" focus on demonizing Obama is not enough, and they have even started a direct Site of Smearage, MeetBarackObama.com. In it, I assume it will entail taking, twisting, and running with every possible point of contention that they can possibly dig up. Already you can get your own ticker widget counting down how many days it's been since Obama visited Iraq and since McCain invited him to town hall meetings (two of these meetings are, by the way, listed on Barack's Agenda already).Why try to drag down a candidate running on Hope? The answer is this: Smear worked for the GOP. Just ask Al Franken, who detailed the horrible smearing of John Kerry's record as a War Hero in his book The Truth: With Jokes. The war in Iraq is still a major issue in the minds of Americans, and now the Democratic party is putting forth a candidate who has consistently been vehemently against the war (as are most Americans). While this is a point of legitimate contention, it is unlikely that the GOP could win on this issue alone this time. Obama's positions are also uniting struggling poor and middle-class workers, who want health care and jobs and financial security. So, the focus is shifting away from the fact that what the Republicans offer is the New Bush and politics as usual to the GOP website putting up a few well-edited quotes tying Obama to Tony Rezko. All it takes is a swift gathering of the facts and presenting them to the media to clear this, and I will make the call to public inquiry to do so. John Kerry's war record wasn't cleared fast enough from the smear and that led in part to his demise, as Al Franken puts it, so let's not let the GOP get away with it this time and clear Obama immediately.
Recession much?
If you aren't paying attention, now would be a good time to start.
The panic in world financial markets has led to sharp falls in share prices and led to the contraction of credit markets. BBC News looks at how key indicators around the world have moved as recession fears grow.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Marketwatch ticker
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
From masbury, Clipmarks.com
My remarks: Looks now like it's the Republican party that needs to re-think what it is they stand for. And it looks like McCain has an uphill battle ahead.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92% of max Bush contributors not giving now; Iraq concern
"I always considered myself a Republican, primarily because of a belief in smaller government. And if you want a smaller government, you don’t want wars — especially wars that can be avoided."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92% of max Bush contributors not giving now; Iraq concern
"I always considered myself a Republican, primarily because of a belief in smaller government. And if you want a smaller government, you don’t want wars — especially wars that can be avoided."
|
Monday, June 9, 2008
Obama Vs McCain: Pundits Weigh In
Click the links for full text. I agree with much of what they have to say. What do you think?
The big battle for the White House is about start. Who has the wind behind him, Barack Obama or John McCain? What hurdles do they face and what strategies can they employ to overcome them? Five leading US pundits give their views.
|
Friday, June 6, 2008
From DanaGarett on Clipmarks.com
My remarks: Justice would be served by taking GW out of office in handcuffs, landing him at Guantanamo or some other such place (he wouldn't know where it was because he would be taken there blindfolded) and using **US APPROVED** torture tactics on him until he confesses the entire plot that he & his administration used to destroy America for their personal betterment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Then, Let's All Say It Together: IMPEACH!
If they lied to Congress and the American people, then impeach them. If lying about a BJ is impeachable, then lying about the reasons for going to a ruinous war ought to be impeachable. This is not complicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Then, Let's All Say It Together: IMPEACH!
If they lied to Congress and the American people, then impeach them. If lying about a BJ is impeachable, then lying about the reasons for going to a ruinous war ought to be impeachable. This is not complicated.
Claims by U.S. President George W. Bush and other top administration officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq regarding Baghdad’s ties to al Qaeda and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes were generally not supported by the evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had at the time, according to a major new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee released Thursday. The long-awaited report, found that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, frequently made assertions in the run-up to the war that key intelligence agencies could not substantiate or about which there was substantial disagreement within the intelligence community “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent,” the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller |
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Apparently the US has learned nothing from its history
Let's call a spade a spade here: the Terror Watch List is racial profiling at is worst. But it isn't even just Arabs and those from the Middle East that are getting the brunt of it. According to Government testimony, the list has swelled in the past ~7 years to contain more than 880,000 names, and is growing by 20,000 names per month. Certainly every name is not unique to a specific individual, as evidenced by the fact that the Redress system created by the government in February has nearly 72,000 names on it, all of innocent travelers who are commonly mis-flagged at the airports.
In addition to the uncontrolled growth of the list, the Americans for Terror Watch List Reform cite this as part of their cause:
Wired.com reports that despite the high number of mis-flags, as well as other inconveniences of being on the list such as electronic money transfers, the government still has not set up any sort of system to clear innocent names. The same individuals and families therefore receive repeated harassment from agents of the US Government, and no one is any safer.
What we have here folks is the modern-day internment camp. Individuals are singled out based on race or religion, harassed, and made to suffer needlessly in the name of "national security".
Says Ahmad Al-Akhras, Ph.D in an article on freepress.org:
He adds:
Don't let your rights be eroded away. Refuse to be terrorized yourself by standing up to the War on Terror.
In addition to the uncontrolled growth of the list, the Americans for Terror Watch List Reform cite this as part of their cause:
Civil Liberties. Uncertainty surrounding the list infringes on individual civil liberties. Procedures to get off the list are classified for national security reasons. Access to the list has grown, raising concerns beyond minor hassles at the airport. Americans on the list can be denied mortgages and student loans, lose their jobs, be labeled as terror suspects on routine traffic stops, or be detained traveling abroad.
Wired.com reports that despite the high number of mis-flags, as well as other inconveniences of being on the list such as electronic money transfers, the government still has not set up any sort of system to clear innocent names. The same individuals and families therefore receive repeated harassment from agents of the US Government, and no one is any safer.
What we have here folks is the modern-day internment camp. Individuals are singled out based on race or religion, harassed, and made to suffer needlessly in the name of "national security".
Says Ahmad Al-Akhras, Ph.D in an article on freepress.org:
Like racial profiling, the so-called Watch List hinges on a false premise that people commit crimes because of their racial, ethnic or religious background. This false premise caused huge suffering to African America, Japanese Americans and now Arab and American Muslims. The worst part of this is the assumption that practicing Islam, never mind being an activist at that, gives one an appetite for terrorism. In the process, people who are in good standing who did not commit nor had a criminal record are treated as "posing a threat to civil aviation or national security" or as "potential enemies of the state".
He adds:
Watch lists only provide false sense of security by pacifying the public with the perception of added security.Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant ppl in this country who are in fact placated by the Watch List. Just like with the internment camps, the government is keeping the public in fear in order to do what they want. In WWII it was drop atomic bombs on the Japanese. Now the stakes are even higher: Civil liberties are lost, the War in Iraq ("conflict" my foot) continues, and social services for poor and struggling middle-class families are being cut, all so that we can fund a nebulous and poorly-defined "War on Terror".
Don't let your rights be eroded away. Refuse to be terrorized yourself by standing up to the War on Terror.
The Internet is at Stake
The mainstream media outlets don't want you to know, but an internal fight over censorship of the web is going down right under our noses. This doesn't just mean that your favorite porno could be cut off (goodness knows what kind of riots that would start), but it could prevent you from reading certain news outlets, seeing certain videos, or researching certain topics.
If you click the link to the story and tool around the site a little more, one of the things you will find is that there is a fight from Native American groups to stop discrimination on television. Ironically, this discrimination would be OK but reading nebulous wording of White House bills- potential laws for the country!- would not be.
If you click the link to the story and tool around the site a little more, one of the things you will find is that there is a fight from Native American groups to stop discrimination on television. Ironically, this discrimination would be OK but reading nebulous wording of White House bills- potential laws for the country!- would not be.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)