SAY NO TO "HELP" FROM OBAMA TO RESCUE GIRLS
The Boko Haram of Nigeria seem to have taken their clue from the early settlers of Rome.
According to Virgil and the formation myth of Rome, the first generation of Roman settlers, single male immigrants from Troy, acquired wives from the local Latium Sabine tribe in 750 BC by simply abducting them during the festival of Neptune Equester.
Nigeria, a state in south west African, which is Islamic in the north and Christian in the south, has been torn by religious strife since 2009. That date marks the emergence of a quasi religious-political group known as " Boko Haram" which has been responsible for over 1500 deaths, bombing, and abductions since its formation in 2009. The name "Boko Haram" ( apparently derived from the French, "boucoup", and the Arabic ( ? )"harram" meaning "sinful" thus: " very much sinful") and is often interpreted in the west as: "sinful western culture" or "sinful western education", tells much about what they are about.
On April 14, in the State of Borno in Nigeria, the schools in the district had all been closed due to the danger from attacks by the BH Islamic extremists. One school in the district remained opened where young women, aged 15 to 18 years of age, were assigned to take their exams. It was at this school that more than 300 young women were abducted by the Boko Harram. Subsequently, some fifty young women escaped and revealed that the abducted girls were forced into marriage contracts with either the Boko Harram or other Islamic men. Some claim the Boko Haram sold the women for a $12 dollar marriage contract. Others assert that the women were taken into neighboring Niger, and Chad and dispersed widely over the countryside. Their parents are understandably aroused and concerned. They have demonstrated for the return of their children.
This is a sad and strange story. But President Obama's recently reported promise to "help" the Nigerians find and return the girls seems another ill advised move into an area of sectarian conflict in a Moslem world where we have little experience and could only make things worse. He would be better advised to send humanitarian supplies and keep our troops and military help at home.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
APARTHEID ISRAEL :NOT KERRY BARAK FIRST
EHUD BARAK MOST DECORATED MAN IN ISRAELI HISTORY FIRST TO WARN ISRAEL MAY BE APARTHEID STATE
"As long as in this territory, west of the Jordan River, there is only one political entity called Israel. It is going to be either non-Jewish or non-Democratic. If this block of millions of Palestinians cannot vote that will be an apartheid state.” Prime Minister Ehud Barak (as Minister of Defense) at National Security Conference, Feb 2, 2010 in Herzilya, Israel.
Secretary of State John Kerry, who was probably only expressing his disappointment at the failure of peace talks and concern for Israel's future when he warned Israelis and used the "A" word. Kerry faced a withering storm of vituperation after his speech in which he warned that if the Netanyahu government does not follow through on peace negotiations leading to a two state solution the result may be an apartheid state. Kerry's words caused a great stir in the pro-Israel US press, with knee jerk Republicans, cowardly Democrats and with the far right. Poor Mr. Kerry had to bend his tall angular frame down in abject obeisance and beg forgiveness as the Republican press, right wing radio and other attack machines went into full swing. The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee called the remarks "deeply troubling". "Any suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state is offensive and inappropriate," they stated, also adding, "The Jewish state is a shining light for freedom and opportunity in a region plagued by terror, hate and oppression." While Abe Foxman of the ADA, called Kerry's remarks "startling" and "repugnant language".
A little bit of research regarding the term "apartheid" turned up the fact that Secretary Kerry was not the first to use the "A" which suggests the worrisome concept ( for the Israeli's) that they are morphing into South Africa and like that nation might be forced to the bargaining table where they would have to make unwanted compromises with the Palestinians as a result of unfavorable international public opinion. The first was Ehud Barak a distinguished Israeli decorated war hero, and former Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Ehud Barak is no shrinking violet, he has had a distinguished military career. He joined the military in 1959 and served in the IDF for 35 years rising to position Lt. General and Chief of General Staff. He was awarded many medals and decorations for his heroic service as a commando and military officer in the too numerous battles and conflicts of his nation. He is frequently noted as the most highly decorated military man in Israeli history. He served as Prime Minister and again as Defense Minister. If war hero and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak can use the "A" word to point out the dangers of the present policy of the Netanyahu government for Israeli future and claim that Israel may become an "apartheid state" in that future, certainly others who are equally concerned about the Israel and peace in the Middle East can too.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
CIA's TOUGH GUY MICHAEL HAYDEN, CALLS FEINSTEIN "EMOTIONAL"
Appearing on Chris Wallace's Fox News last Sunday (April 6,2014) , where he was surrounded by other Fox tough guys who like to swagger behind their desks and heel-click their patent leather shoes as they support sending other people's kids to war, little Micky Haden (former CIA director under George Bush and Dick Cheney) characterized Senator Dianne Feinstein as "emotional" and her CIA torture report non-objective, though he had not even read the summary of the report.
“That sense that the motivation for the report may show deep emotional feeling on the part of (Sen. Dianne Feinstein), but I don’t think it leads you to an objective report,” Hayden said on "Fox News Sunday."
Hayden, used the "emotional female" card against Feinstein, suggesting that she could not be "objective" about torture. The catty, ad hominem attack by Hayden to Wallace's question left little Micky look looking "emotional" as he squirmed with obvious anxiety concerned that his own culpability in the torture revelations of the CIA will be exposed.
I image Haden labors under the "tough-guy-behind-the-desk" opinion that you are only a "real man", when you can order six big guys to tie down a scared, struggling individual to a gurney, then stub out cigarette butts on his bare chest, or pour water down his mouth and nose, or stick the handle of plunger up his anus, or tie electric cables to his testicles, then be able to laugh about it when he screams in agony. Yeah, maybe Diane Feinstein can't countenance such behavior, but a "real man" like little Micky Haden can do it.
Friday, April 11, 2014
OBAMA LEADS FROM BEHIND ON SENATE CIA REPORT, LETS CIA DECIDE
Obama Leads from Behind, Lets CIA Torture Advocates Decide What to Release of Senate (Torture) Report.
Today (April 11, 2014) we learn of another example of President Obama taking the lead by turning on his heel and doing a one-eighty. It was revealed today in the guardian.com, (see:“CIA and White House under pressure after Senate torture report leaks”) that Mr. Obama will let the CIA decide what portions of the Senate report (devastatingly critical of the CIA) will be revealed to the public.
The Senate Intelligence Committee under the leadership of Senator Dianne Feinstein spent years and $40 million dollars of taxpayers money to prepare the now infamous Senate report on CIA operations, misinformation policies and efficacy of torture during the Bush Years. Recent revelations by Ms. Feinstein on the floor of the Senate and leaks to the press indicate the report is highly critical of the CIA. That organization has been understandably fighting tooth and nail to suppress the report. Feinstein claims that organization has spied on, threatened and blocked her committee staffers. Admittedly those years were a time that perhaps many Americans now wish had never happened. (Though many in the USA urged the CIA on, others quietly let them get away with clearly illegal and immoral policies..Ms Feinstein among them..and the rest did not have the fortitude to stand up to voice their objections.). Somehow after 9-11 some elements in our government seem to have morphed into the very “evil doers” our uncles and fathers fought and died fighting against during the Second World War. I'm glad my uncles, one of whom was tortured by the Japanese, did not survive to to this day and have to contemplate these sad revelations. I can only imagine what he would have said.)
Senator Feinstein has urged the President to release the findings of her hard working, courageous committee expeditiously and with few redactions so that this awful “experiment with torture” could be seen for what it was---an utter failure and a moral lapse. But Mr. Obama, who too often seems to have the capacities and determination of TV characters Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza, was not up to the task. As in the Seinfeld “Cheever Letters” episode, George states (on the ease of building a log cabin) “We could do it.”; Jerry’s response: “Well maybe not us, but two men could.”
So as a result, with a President who can’t stand up to the CIA himself, but might let ”two men from the CIA do it”, it seems the public will learn next to nothing about how the CIA misled the Congress, while it tortured, renditioned and snatched unknown numbers of people off the streets of their native lands and into “black sites” around the world during the Bush war years. Obama might as well have had Mr.Brennan and his torturing co-conspirators write the report in the beginning. It would have saved the Nation $40 million dollars and the embarrassment and revelations about the shameful inner workings of the American government of the early 21st Century.
Today (April 11, 2014) we learn of another example of President Obama taking the lead by turning on his heel and doing a one-eighty. It was revealed today in the guardian.com, (see:“CIA and White House under pressure after Senate torture report leaks”) that Mr. Obama will let the CIA decide what portions of the Senate report (devastatingly critical of the CIA) will be revealed to the public.
The Senate Intelligence Committee under the leadership of Senator Dianne Feinstein spent years and $40 million dollars of taxpayers money to prepare the now infamous Senate report on CIA operations, misinformation policies and efficacy of torture during the Bush Years. Recent revelations by Ms. Feinstein on the floor of the Senate and leaks to the press indicate the report is highly critical of the CIA. That organization has been understandably fighting tooth and nail to suppress the report. Feinstein claims that organization has spied on, threatened and blocked her committee staffers. Admittedly those years were a time that perhaps many Americans now wish had never happened. (Though many in the USA urged the CIA on, others quietly let them get away with clearly illegal and immoral policies..Ms Feinstein among them..and the rest did not have the fortitude to stand up to voice their objections.). Somehow after 9-11 some elements in our government seem to have morphed into the very “evil doers” our uncles and fathers fought and died fighting against during the Second World War. I'm glad my uncles, one of whom was tortured by the Japanese, did not survive to to this day and have to contemplate these sad revelations. I can only imagine what he would have said.)
Senator Feinstein has urged the President to release the findings of her hard working, courageous committee expeditiously and with few redactions so that this awful “experiment with torture” could be seen for what it was---an utter failure and a moral lapse. But Mr. Obama, who too often seems to have the capacities and determination of TV characters Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza, was not up to the task. As in the Seinfeld “Cheever Letters” episode, George states (on the ease of building a log cabin) “We could do it.”; Jerry’s response: “Well maybe not us, but two men could.”
So as a result, with a President who can’t stand up to the CIA himself, but might let ”two men from the CIA do it”, it seems the public will learn next to nothing about how the CIA misled the Congress, while it tortured, renditioned and snatched unknown numbers of people off the streets of their native lands and into “black sites” around the world during the Bush war years. Obama might as well have had Mr.Brennan and his torturing co-conspirators write the report in the beginning. It would have saved the Nation $40 million dollars and the embarrassment and revelations about the shameful inner workings of the American government of the early 21st Century.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
SUPREMES GIVE RIGHTS TO POLLUTERS IN MCCUTCHEON DECISION
Clearing the smoke from the Recent Supreme Court Decision (Or how the supremes give the right to pollute the airways.)
The Roberts Supreme Court has misinterpreted the First Amendment to favor the fat cats... again. First there was “Citizens United” which gave the big corporations the status of individual voters. Now they have treated us to the recent McCutcheon decision which removed the caps on how much any one donor can legally give to a candidate.
The way we see things in the clear cold air from the tops of the still snowy Greens here in Vermont resolves into two basic issues. One, can money corrupt the democratic process? And two, does permitting one small elite minority (perhaps less than a thousand individuals) the ability to disperse unlimited funds into elections have the effect of drowning meaningful discourse and the voices and will of the vast majority of the the electorate?
The answer to the first question is easy. Can anyone imagine that the “quid pro quo” effect is not in operation when one donor gives millions of dollars to one party or one gang of candidates of the same party? Anyone who doubts that has only to recall how the Republican 2016 presidential “hopeful candidates” showed up at the Sheldon Adelson “primary" in Las Vegas last month, arriving on bended knees to swear allegiance to Adelson’s view of Israel, his green backs and Sheldon’s persona. That event underscored with finality how money “talks” and controls. There is no question that there is a quid pro quo and the more money involved the more powerful the effect.
The second question is analogous to the old and discredited “right” to pollute question. In my old home town of Riverhead, the original settlers raised ducks on the banks tidal rivers. The tide came in twice a day to remove the duck wastes and carry them down stream. The awful stench and suffocating pollution which made vast areas downstream, smelly, lifeless toxic zones was the problem of the poor fool who chose to live down stream of a duck farm. The wealthy and powerful old duck farmers thought it was their “right” to use “their” river as they saw fit. In like manner does the right to smoke an expensive cigar after dinner in a posh restaurant take precedence over those of other diners who would rather breathe fresh air and smell the aroma of their fragrant foods rather than that of smouldering tobacco? In this McCutcheon decision the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, in effect, awarded the paramount right to the water polluters and smokers. After McCutcheon, the rights of those who would “pollute” the election atmosphere with cash and the repetition “ad nauseum” of their opinions on the airways, drowning out opposing views and eliminating the possibility of legitimate discourse, now take precedence over the rights of those in the vast majority who may not agree or have an opposing view. To the Robert’s Court the “rights” of perhaps less than one thousand elites beats the rights of 300 million Americans to have meaningful political,discourse. Its that simple. And these men are the so-called “conservatives” who make me laugh when they tout their putative adherence to the “original intentions” of the founders. The founders would cringe at this decision.
Cash corrupts and introducing more cash corrupts more fully and effectively. The supremes of the Roberts Court have brought us back into the bad old days of the 19th and early 20 centuries when the robber barons dumped their pollution into the air and drinking water of the nation, owned and controlled the local newspaper (and the later radio stations), and openly bought their Congressman and Senator.....and who were convinced it was their God given right to do so.
The Roberts Supreme Court has misinterpreted the First Amendment to favor the fat cats... again. First there was “Citizens United” which gave the big corporations the status of individual voters. Now they have treated us to the recent McCutcheon decision which removed the caps on how much any one donor can legally give to a candidate.
The way we see things in the clear cold air from the tops of the still snowy Greens here in Vermont resolves into two basic issues. One, can money corrupt the democratic process? And two, does permitting one small elite minority (perhaps less than a thousand individuals) the ability to disperse unlimited funds into elections have the effect of drowning meaningful discourse and the voices and will of the vast majority of the the electorate?
The answer to the first question is easy. Can anyone imagine that the “quid pro quo” effect is not in operation when one donor gives millions of dollars to one party or one gang of candidates of the same party? Anyone who doubts that has only to recall how the Republican 2016 presidential “hopeful candidates” showed up at the Sheldon Adelson “primary" in Las Vegas last month, arriving on bended knees to swear allegiance to Adelson’s view of Israel, his green backs and Sheldon’s persona. That event underscored with finality how money “talks” and controls. There is no question that there is a quid pro quo and the more money involved the more powerful the effect.
The second question is analogous to the old and discredited “right” to pollute question. In my old home town of Riverhead, the original settlers raised ducks on the banks tidal rivers. The tide came in twice a day to remove the duck wastes and carry them down stream. The awful stench and suffocating pollution which made vast areas downstream, smelly, lifeless toxic zones was the problem of the poor fool who chose to live down stream of a duck farm. The wealthy and powerful old duck farmers thought it was their “right” to use “their” river as they saw fit. In like manner does the right to smoke an expensive cigar after dinner in a posh restaurant take precedence over those of other diners who would rather breathe fresh air and smell the aroma of their fragrant foods rather than that of smouldering tobacco? In this McCutcheon decision the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, in effect, awarded the paramount right to the water polluters and smokers. After McCutcheon, the rights of those who would “pollute” the election atmosphere with cash and the repetition “ad nauseum” of their opinions on the airways, drowning out opposing views and eliminating the possibility of legitimate discourse, now take precedence over the rights of those in the vast majority who may not agree or have an opposing view. To the Robert’s Court the “rights” of perhaps less than one thousand elites beats the rights of 300 million Americans to have meaningful political,discourse. Its that simple. And these men are the so-called “conservatives” who make me laugh when they tout their putative adherence to the “original intentions” of the founders. The founders would cringe at this decision.
Cash corrupts and introducing more cash corrupts more fully and effectively. The supremes of the Roberts Court have brought us back into the bad old days of the 19th and early 20 centuries when the robber barons dumped their pollution into the air and drinking water of the nation, owned and controlled the local newspaper (and the later radio stations), and openly bought their Congressman and Senator.....and who were convinced it was their God given right to do so.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
GOV. CHRISTIE APOLOGIES IN LAS VEGAS, LOSES CACHET
A RJKS Tongue-In-Cheek Report.
Governor Christie Apologies To Flat Earthers and Loses His Tough-Guy, Straight-Shooter Cachet
Governor Chris Christie, "mis spoke" at the Las Vegas gambling palace of super wealthy Vegas tycoon and casino owner Sheldon Nobelson. Nobelson was hosting the Republican Flat Earth Coalition where GOP supplicants were gathered to vie for the flat earther's financial support in the 2016 campaign During his presentation, Christie, trying to re-float his swamped electoral canoe after the devastating "GW Bridge traffic tie-up scandal" got himself in bad doo doo again, when he verbally slipped when suggesting that the earth might be a sphere. Christie's speech was an attempt to underscore his strong commitment to the planar earth theory by recounting the events of a 2012 family sea voyage. Christie, waxing eloquent, added a short digression from his prepared remarks intending to underscore his devotion to the widely-questioned “earther” hypothesis. Christie remarked at one point that even though "he was far out to sea, he didn't fall off the edge". But a murmur of disapproval arose among his listeners when, attempting to gild the lilly, he added the further remark that he was "so far out to sea, that he lost sight of land". At that point, a low murmur arose among the fur-coated and bejeweled crowd who shifted around in their seats and looked at each other in disapproval. The term "losing sight of land" is verboten among flat earthers, since the phrase suggests that the earth is actually spheroidal and it is only upon such a surface that the sight of land could diminish then disappear. Such terms are banned in the world of the flat earthers.
Allies of Mr Nobleson quickly caught up to Christie after his presentation and alerted him of his error. According to reporters from the Washington Times, National Review, Spectator, The New American who were attendees, Christie immediately sought out Nobelson and offered him an apology, claiming that he "misspoke". "The earth IS really flat. I believe that in my heart!” said Christie, some said, with tears in his eyes. Mr. Nobelson is reported to have "graciously" accepted the governor's apology. But, Sallus Little, one of the Nobleson's entourage, was not so satisfied with the governor's apology, even if if was delivered on bended knee. Little concluded to reporters that the Governor "either does not understand the issue or is hostile to the flat earth agenda."
The whole affair brings disappointment and trepidation for those of us who saw the Governor as a courageous, straight-shooter who could speak out and tell it like it is. He was so up front, blunt and one might even say a bully, with the likes of school teachers, voters, Jersey Shore residents and others who had little power or leverage. But he was a mumbling schoolboy, unable to state the accepted facts to the flat earthers. Of course these latter were all sitting on wallets bulging with cash. The affair in Las Vegas makes the rest of us, who accept the world as it is, wonder about the ability of the Governor to function effectively in a solar-centric planetary system and scientific based universe. One wonders is Mr. Christie ready for prime time? And what about his ability to make decisions for all the rest of us, the not so wealthy, the powerless, the majority who live in the real world?
Get the picture?
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
OBAMA WANTS US TO PAY FOR HIS MISTAKES IN THE UKRAINE!
President Obama and the Bush neocon holdovers in his State Department and CIA, blundered in their handling of the Ukraine dossier. The US and the EU overplayed their hand in their illegal and counter productive attempts at prying the Ukraine away from the hug of the great Russian Bear--which lives right next door. Their blunders led to the crisis in the Ukraine we face now. In an attempt to save face, as this crisis unfolds, the Obamians, who should have known better (it was quite obvious what Putin would do in regard to Crimea if he was pushed into a corner), are now attempting to placate the unhappy House and Senate left and right...by senseless and counter productive sanctions, fleet movements, saber rattlings, and vituperation.
But what is worse is having to PAY for the stupidity of our leaders too. Funds spent on the Ukraine come out of an already over the top budget...so the money has to borrowed. It means less for educating our kids, repairing our infrastructure and providing for the health of our citizenry. So as it stands now Mr. Obama and company are asking us to take scarce funds from those worthy and necessary expenditures and send it off the the impoverished Ukraine. A black hole for money if I ever saw one. Ask Mr. Obama to turn his attention to the home front. We have Americans as needy as the Ukrainians right here in Peru, Vermont.
Get the picture?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)