Don't Believe the False Budget Arguments (Video)

Youtube

http://www.wideawakenews.com/
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Laurence-Kotlikoff-Fiscal-Meltdown/2011/0...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2011-03-31-ceo-pay-2010.htm

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Is America Addicted to War?

The top 5 reasons why we keep getting into foolish fights.

Wikimedia Commons Image

Stephen M. Walt
Foreign Policy

The United States started out as 13 small and vulnerable colonies clinging to the east coast of North America. Over the next century, those original 13 states expanded all the way across the continent, subjugating or exterminating the native population and wresting Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California from Mexico. It fought a bitter civil war, acquired a modest set of overseas colonies, and came late to both world wars. But since becoming a great power around 1900, it has fought nearly a dozen genuine wars and engaged in countless military interventions.

Yet Americans think of themselves as a peace-loving people, and we certainly don't regard our country as a "warrior nation" or "garrison state." Teddy Roosevelt was probably the last U.S. president who seemed to view war as an activity to be welcomed (he once remarked that "A just war is in the long run far better for a man's soul than the most prosperous peace"), and subsequent presidents always portray themselves as going to war with great reluctance, and only as a last resort.


In 2008, Americans elected Barack Obama in part because they thought he would be different from his predecessor on a host of issues, but especially in his approach to the use of armed force. It was clear to nearly everyone that George W. Bush had launched a foolish and unnecessary war in Iraq, and then compounded the error by mismanaging it (and the war in Afghanistan too). So Americans chose a candidate who had opposed Bush's war in Iraq and could bring U.S. commitments back in line with our resources. Above all, Americans thought Obama would be a lot more thoughtful about where and how to use force, and that he understood the limits of this crudest of policy tools. The Norwegian Nobel Committee seems to have thought so too, when they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize not for anything he had done, but for what it hoped he might do henceforth.


Yet a mere two years later, we find ourselves back in the fray once again. Since taking office, Obama has escalated U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and launched a new war against Libya. As in Iraq, the real purpose of our intervention is regime change at the point of a gun. At first we hoped that most of the guns would be in the hands of the Europeans, or the hands of the rebel forces arrayed against Muammar al-Qaddafi, but it's increasingly clear that U.S. military forces, CIA operatives and foreign weapons supplies are going to be necessary to finish the job.

Moreover, as Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "[stain] the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight.

It remains to be seen whether this latest lurch into war will pay off or not, and whether the United States and its allies will have saved lives or squandered them. But the real question we should be asking is: Why does this keep happening? Why do such different presidents keep doing such similar things? How can an electorate that seemed sick of war in 2008 watch passively while one war escalates in 2009 and another one gets launched in 2011? How can two political parties that are locked in a nasty partisan fight over every nickel in the government budget sit blithely by and watch a president start running up a $100 million per day tab in this latest adventure? What is going on here?

Read the 5 Reasons Full Article Here

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Ratigan to Ron Paul: 'Don't You Have an Obligation to Run for President?' (Video)

Activist Post

Ron Paul appears with Dylan Ratigan on April 5th, 2011 to discuss the budget cut debate and foreign policy.  Paul says the budget debate is a joke and "nothing compared to the calamity that we face."  Ratigan, as if pleading with Paul at the end of the interview, asks "Don't you have an obligation to run for President?

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US has infiltrated Ecuador's police: military

A police officer in front of the US embassy in Quito
© AFP/File Rodrigo Buendia

AFP

QUITO (AFP) - President Rafael Correa has charged the United States with infiltrating Ecuador's armed forces and police, shortly after he ordered the US ambassador out of the country over a leaked Wikileaks diplomatic cable.

Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino earlier announced that the US ambassador, Heather Hodges, was sent home over a leaked diplomatic cable that quoted her as saying Correa knowingly appointed a corrupt chief of police.

In Washington, the State Department said it "deeply" regretted the decision by the South American country.

Hodges is "one of our most experienced and talented diplomats," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.

In a 2009 cable released by WikiLeaks, the ambassador was quoted as saying Correa had named as police chief general, Jaime Hurtado, a man she said had a reputation for being corrupt. Correa knew of his activities, she alleged.

Hurtado remained in the post from April 2008 to June 2009.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

How much did YOU pay for war this year? (Video)

Youtube - BraveNewFoundation

Ever wonder how much you paid to fund the war? Use the Afghanistan War Tax Calculator to find out. We'll give you an I.O.U. for what you paid that you can forward to your Member of Congress. Ask for your money back! http://rethinkafghanistan.com/



RELATED ARTICLE:
The Military Tax Collector is Here Again

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

What’s the difference between Obama’s Libyan war and neoconservatism?

David Rieff
The New Republic

Well, that was quick! It usually takes some time for the gap between how a White House justifies a military adventure to the public, and the reality of what is really going on to be revealed. It took the fall of Saddam Hussein for the Bush administration’s pretext for war—the threat of weapons of mass destruction—to be shown up as a fabrication. But from President Obama’s televised address on the evening of March 29, in which he claimed that the intervention in Libya was not about regime change, to the Reuters story revealing that he had signed an order allowing covert U.S. operations in Libya at least a week before the speech, and possibly longer, took—what?—24 hours. And so in we go to Libya, as both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists have been pressing for all along.

In his speech, the president insisted that there was no comparison between Iraq and Libya, and that broadening the U.S. military mission “to include regime change would be a mistake.” In reality, of course, that is exactly what Washington has done. President Obama made much of U.N. sanction and the multinational nature of the no-fly zone, and boasted that the United States had now handed over the lead role to our “allies and partners in NATO.” But this is disingenuous nonsense. From a military perspective, NATO without U.S. military assets is not a particularly redoubtable force. It is true that, politically, the French government pressed hard for more aggressive military moves to support the Libyan insurgency. But despite President Obama’s assertions to the contrary, the overwhelming preponderance of bombs, missiles, and bullets fired at Colonel Qaddafi’s forces have been from U.S. ships and aircraft.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Liberals Willing to Trade Blood for Oil Under Obama

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Scahill: US wages covert war in Yemen (Video)

Youtube


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

MUST SEE: Kucinich Exposes the Entire Libya Agenda on The House Floor (Video)

Youtube - DJKucinich
Congresman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) speaks for a powerful hour on the House floor about the illegality of the Libya war.  This is a MUST SEE speech as he reveals the entire agenda behind the Libya attack. He connects the dots to the CIA quite convincingly.  And he asked the big philosophical questions: "Our dear nation stands at a crossroads. The direction we take will determine not what kind of nation we are but what kind of nation we will become. Will we become a nation which plots in secret to wage war? Will we become a nation that observes our Constitution only in matters of convenience? Will we become a nation which destroys the unity of the world community painstakingly pieced together from the ruins of World War II, a war which itself followed a war to end all wars?"


You MUST WATCH Part 2 and beyond to hear Kucinich thrash Obama and the Congress

RELATED ARTICLE: 
Liberals Trade Blood for Oil Company Profits Under Obama

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Libya vs. Iraq Hypocrisy (Video)

Youtube

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Libya's rag-tag rebels badly need training: US

Editor's Note: Translation: We need to dedicate more money and more time to this third war front.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (L) and Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen testify
© AFP Saul Loeb

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday Libya's rag-tag rebels needed training more than guns in their battle against Moamer Kadhafi's army but that other nations should do the job.

Facing lawmakers concerned that armed intervention in Libya could end in stalemate, Gates and top military officer Admiral Mike Mullen said a NATO-led air campaign had damaged Kadhafi's forces but not yet brought them to a breaking point.

Gates said the military mission did not call for deposing Kadhafi but he said economic and political pressure and Libya's people -- not air strikes -- would eventually drive Kadhafi from power.
With the outgunned opposition in retreat, the United States and its allies were now looking at how to assist the makeshift force, with weapons or other help, Gates said.


The Pentagon chief described the rebels as a "disparate," improvised force that had a supply of small arms seized at regime depots but sorely lacked military leadership.

"What they really need is training, command and control and some coherent organization," Gates told the House Armed Services Committee.

He said training "requires advisers on the ground, as would more sophisticated weapons in terms of training them on how to use those weapons."

But Gates, insisting on a limited US role, said other countries could and should provide the training and assistance instead of the United States.

"The truth is in terms of providing that training, in terms of providing that assistance to them, frankly, there are many countries that can do that.

"That's not a unique capability of the United States and as far I'm concerned someone else should do that," he said.

Mullen said the United States was still weighing whether to arm and train the rebels, but agreed that other governments -- including some Arab countries -- could carry out the task.

A detailed picture of the rebels was still hard to come by, and the US government had biographical information for only a handful of leaders in the east, Gates said.

"We really don't know very much about what I think is a very disparate, disaggregated opposition to Kadhafi," he said.

His comments on the rebels came as US media reported CIA operatives were on the ground making contact with the opposition and amid speculation British and French intelligence and special forces' officers had started helping the opposition.

Gates, a former CIA director who led efforts to arm Afghan fighters against Soviet forces in the 1980s, declined to comment on the spy agency's work in Libya.

Admiral Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, told the same hearing about 20 to 25 percent of Kadhafi's military had been knocked out by coalition bombing but "that does not mean he's about to break from a military standpoint."

Kadhafi's army -- equipped with tanks and heavy guns on the ground -- still enjoyed a major edge over the rebels, said Mullen, estimating a "ten to one ratio" in favor of the regime.

Lawmakers voiced concerns about the risk of an open-ended war, complained the White House had failed to consult them in advance and worried whether the Libyan leader could still be standing when the dust settles.

 "I just don't see how this ends," said Senator Susan Collins.

With NATO now in command, the US military's involvement would in a matter of days "significantly ramp down," Gates said, repeating a vow of "no American boots on the ground."

Gates said the coalition air campaign launched March 19 was designed to protect civilians and not to remove Kadhafi, but suggested the strikes would steadily squeeze the regime.

He said Kadhafi's inner circle would be forced to choose whether to stick by him or save themselves as NATO bombing gradually decimates the regime's army.

"In my view, the removal of Colonel Kadhafi will likely be achieved over time through political and economic measures and by his own people," he said.

As lawmakers voiced concerns about the rebels whose political stance remained unclear, Gates pushed back, saying what was important was the threat posed by Kadhafi.

With popular unrest sweeping the region, Arab countries and European allies had backed military intervention because of Kadhafi's "potential for disrupting everything in the Middle East right now," he said.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

GE 'zero' US tax furor reignites calls for reform

Revelations that General Electric paid no US taxes last year, despite bagging a $14 billion profit, have reignited debate in Washington about tightening up corporate levies.

© AFP/Getty Images Scott Olson

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Revelations that General Electric paid no US taxes last year, despite bagging a $14 billion profit, have reignited debate in Washington about tightening up corporate levies.

No one, it seems, is very fond of the US corporate tax system.

Businesses bemoan the 35 percent minimum rate that is among the highest in the world, and taxpayers are furious at how easily big firms seem to pay much less.

But in recent months the issue has been overshadowed by multiple global crises and a fierce argument over government spending.


It resurfaced with a bang last week, when it emerged that manufacturing titan GE paid no taxes to the US government in 2010.

"GE did not pay US federal taxes last year because we did not owe any," spokeswoman Anne Eisele told AFP, rejecting suggestions the United States' fourth largest company was gaming the system.

But as millions of Americans struggle to make ends meet, and the Federal government fails spectacularly to do the same, that disclosure has caused consternation.

"The wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations must do their share to help bring down our record-breaking deficit," Democrat-allied Senator Bernie Sanders said Sunday.

Supporters of reform, from big business to the White House, are re-polishing their arguments.

The White House argues an overhaul could help bring down unemployment. Big business agrees a lower rate would aid growth.

Despite this broad coalition, experts say the prospect of a quick deal is illusory.

They argue the government has few options if it wants to substantially lower the minimum rate and not add to the deficit: Expand the number of people paying corporate taxes, or get more revenue.

"If you want to get the corporate tax rate down from 35 to 28 percent -- that is a 20 percent cut in the tax rate -- you have to have increase the tax base by 20 percent, or offset it," said Alan Auerbach, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

"That is a big increase."

President Barack Obama has leaned heavily toward closing loopholes, arguing that "revenue neutral" reform must spell an end to some antiquated, but much-loved, tax breaks.

"I don't think there is anyway to do this without winners and losers," said Seth Hanlon, the director of fiscal reform at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

Cutting roughly four billion dollars a year in oil and gas sector subsidies are a regularly cited example of cuts, so too is tightening manufacturing deductions that are used well beyond the sector.

But the most lucrative target for the Internal Revenue Service may be cracking down on overseas tax shelters.

Under current rules US firms pay tax on foreign subsidiaries only when profits are sent back to the United States.

© AFP/File Nicholas Kamm

Treating subsidiaries as domestic businesses for tax purposes could spell vastly higher tax bills for firms like GE.

While the company says much of this year's tax savings come from losses at GE Capital, even before other write-offs its effective US tax rate was just over seven percent -- thanks in part to some profits being kept overseas.

"If you just look at our statutory rate, it's high," said Annette Nellen, an accounting professor at San Jose State University, but "the effective tax rate for many companies is a lot lower."

Outrage or not, tough bargains will need to be reached if a reform deal is to be reached.

"It is going to depend on who all steps forward to say 'oh no, no, we can't get rid of the research credit, we can't get rid of that work opportunity tax credit,'" said Nellen.

"If you get enough people stepping forward to say you can't get rid of this stuff, then Congress I think will just step back and say, we'll leave the rate where it is."

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US apologizes for more Afghan 'kill team' photos

Der Spiegel/Wikimedia Commons image

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military apologized again Monday after Rolling Stone published more photos and videos of members of an alleged rogue army unit "kill team" accused of killing Afghan civilians for sport.

A week after one soldier was jailed after striking a plea bargain to testify against the alleged ringleader, the weekly magazine published a series of graphic images and a long story including extensive detail of the allegations.

"The photos published by Rolling Stone are disturbing and in striking contrast to the standards and values of the United States Army," said a Pentagon statement.
"Like those published by Der Spiegel, the Army apologizes for the distress these latest photos cause," it said, referring to an initial set of less graphic pictures published by the German magazine last week.

The Rolling Stone pictures, under the headline "the Kill Team," included unblurred versions of photos published by Der Spiegel showing soldiers posing with the bloodied body of an Afghan youth, holding the head up to the camera.

Battling to avoid a repetition of the Abu Ghraib scandal triggered by release of pictures of US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, the Pentagon apologized after Der Spiegel's publication of images last week.

The new pictures were accompanied by two videos, including one set to a heavy rock soundtrack -- and reportedly shared round among soldiers -- showing two men being killed after allegedly planting a roadside bomb.

The accompanying story related how the youth shown in the still pictures, identified later as Gul Mudin, a farm worker, was picked out on January 15 last year as the first victim of the so-called "kill team."

Corporal Jeremy Morlock -- who was jailed for 24 years last week -- and Private Andrew Holmes initially threw a grenade at the teenager before gunning him down, and pretending he had attacked them with the grenade.

The little finger of the boy's right hand is missing, allegedly cut off as a trophy.

In the following months they and others staged a number of such killings, according to the Rolling Stone account, citing other witnesses questioned after the killings were revealed by a fellow soldier.

Morlock, one of five soldiers charged with murder and tried in a military court south of Seattle, is expected to be the star witness in the court martial of the alleged ringleader, Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

New air missions attack Kadhafi troops: Pentagon

Editor's Note: Who knew the purpose of a "no-fly zone" is to actually air bomb ground forces?

© AFP/USMC/US NAVY

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) -  The United States used low-flying combat aircraft against Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi's ground troops, the Pentagon said Monday, but denied it was directly supporting the rebels.

"We have employed A-10s and AC-130s over the weekend," US Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the US military's Joint Staff, told reporters, without giving specifics about targets.

The A-10 is an aircraft designed for close air support, especially against tanks and armored vehicles. The AC-130 "Spooky" is a transport aircraft modified for close combat. Among its guns is a 105mm cannon.
Unlike the long-range guided missile attacks that have targeted command centers and anti-aircraft defenses, these aircraft are designed for close-range assaults against ground troops.

"We still have not received a single confirmed report of civilian casualties caused by the coalition," Gortney said.

The rebel offensive has benefited greatly from the coalition's strikes against Kadhafi's forces in recent days.

On Sunday, the rebels had seized Bin Jawad after retaking the key oil town of Ras Lanuf as they advanced with the support of coalition air strikes on Kadhafi's forces.

The head of the rebels' National Transitional Council even suggested Kadhafi will go on trial in Libya "after victory" by rebel forces.

"Clearly, they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Gortney said.

But Gortney said the US actions are only in support of the UN-backed resolutions to protect Libyan civilians.

"We're not in direct support of the opposition, that's not part of our mandate and we're not coordinating with the opposition," he said.

He added that they "would like a much better understanding of the opposition, we don't have it."

Gortney cautioned against over-confidence on the part of rebels.

"Clearly the opposition is not well-organized and is not a very robust organization, that's obvious, so any gain that they make is tenuous based on that," he said.

And US military officials said forces loyal to Kadhafi "are prepared to dig in" in Sirte, Gortney said. "Likewise in Zintan, where we assess the regime is prepared to reinforce existing positions."

Western military officials repeatedly say that their objective is not to topple Kadhafi but at the same time their political leaders call for Kadhafi's "immediate" departure.

NATO plans to take command of enforcing the no-fly zone but for now the United States continues to coordinate coalition strikes.

Coalition aircraft have carried out 1,600 missions since March 19, with US aircraft involved in 60 percent of the runs.

Two-thirds of the 178 missions in the past day were "strikes," and most would be from now on, Gortney said.

The United States plans to pull back into a supporting role. Currently, the US military conducts all of the electronic warfare -- blocking enemy communications -- and 75 percent of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

Six of the 199 Tomahawk missiles fired -- mostly in the early days of the operation -- targeted the headquarters of the Libyan army's 32nd brigade, the most heavily armed of Kadhafi's forces.

The USS Providence, one of three US submarines that had been firing Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya, has now left the area, Gortney said.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Veterans For Peace: Bush’s Shock and Awe Impeachable. So Where Is Their Call to Impeach Obama?

Dees Illustration

Rick Gedeon
Activist Post

First, a connection to the Arizona humanitarian mission to save chickens

Are we living in The Twilight Zone?  It sure appears that way when a Head of State refuses to return a Nobel Peace Prize after it was belatedly realized that he did not deserve it.  And then we have actor Steven Seagal riding alongside militant Sheriff Joe Arpaio on a tank with SWAT teams raiding a house owned by a man named Jesus—accused of cockfighting.  Need more proof of a police state?  The lunacy unfolding in front of our eyes feels even more unreal when it is presented on television absent any mass public outrage.  

History all too often teaches us that the tactics used in foreign policy usually return in the form of those used in domestic policies.  Ergo, the inane use of a tank to stop a cockfight actually becomes akin to the imperial hubris of conducting the bombing of a people in order to help the people.  In the case of Mr. Jesus: “Thousands of dollars in damages were made to the property and 115 birds were euthanized on the spot.”  By which Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies later claimed to have “erred on the side of caution”.  Some error: it was their tank plowing into the house that killed all the chickens.

In such an insane world, we can actually draw several parallels between these disparate events.  All due to wrapping violence in the latest pretense:  Humanitarianism.
The tank used in Phoenix and the bombs dropped over Libya have similar objectives:

• Terrorize populations. 
• Advertise the effectiveness of the arsenal in order to generate revenue.
• Incrementally establish new methods as the status quo.
• Discourage disobedience through violent intimidation.

Setting Humanitarian Precedents
In a well-crafted speech, Obama justified why he refused to return his peace prize:   

I think the American people don’t see any contradiction in somebody who cares about peace also wanting to make sure that people aren’t butchered because of a dictator who wants to cling to power.

What’s even more hypocritical is that when Obama was interviewed by Justin Webb from the BBC, he was asked if he regarded Mubarak as an authoritarian ruler; Obama’s response was boastfully:  “No, I tend not to use labels for folks.”

Apparently this is why Obama did not see fit to enforce a no-fly zone when Mubarak was torturing his people.  Or perhaps it was because the US actually helped train the brutal Egyptian secret police. One cable dated November, 2007 and published by theTelegraph, describes a meeting between the head of the SSIS, Egypt's secret police, and FBI deputy director, John Pistole, in which the secret police chief praises Pistole for the "excellent and strong" cooperation between the two agencies.  SSIS chief, Abdul Rahman, said the FBI's training sessions at Quantico were of "great benefit" to his agency.  As an aside, how grand that the FBI was training the SSIS and now its former deputy director, John Pistole, is in charge of the TSA.  In all fairness, TSA abuses are tame by comparison.

What is it that the SSIS was doing that was so bad?

Electric shocks and sleep deprivation to reduce them to a 'zombie state'," the cable stated. The lawyers asserted that 'this kind of torture' is different from what [name redacted] normally sees, and speculated that a special branch of Interior Ministry State Security (SSIS) could be directing the torture.

The site of the FBI training sessions, Quantico, is where Bradley Manning is currently being tortured into a ‘zombie state’.  No wonder.  Peace Prize winner Obama approved the continued torture of Bradley Manning in a recent press conference.  Manning is being kept naked, in a dirty cell, with a mattress on the floor, no sheets, blankets or pillows. He has no contact with the outside world, save for his attorney. He has no access to the newspaper, Internet or TV. He has no reading materials and is in his small cell 23 hours a day. He was stripped of his eye glasses and, in his own words, "Forced to sit in essential blindness."

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley showed his humanity and decency when he ended up resigning over Private Manning’s torture abuses (which Obama can stop with a phone call or stroke of a pen).  Crowley said Manning's treatment by the Defense Department, which includes solitary confinement and being forced to sleep naked, "is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid."

We move, then, to Obama’s selective harsh language in labeling “folks” like Mr. Gaddafi as a butcher and dictator, even while Obama and Mubarak are closer to the definition.  Lew Rockwell clarifies who the butcher and dictator really is in his recent interview with antiwar radio:

How many people has he killed versus how many people has Obama killed?  Obama is a far bloodier dictator than Muammar Gaddafi. 

Obama is employing the distraction game, just as other warmongers always have when they want to involve the nation in more conflicts in order to steadily divert attention away from doomed domestic policies and failed promises.  In the US the real unemployment figure is 22%, and household wealth has gone down 23% in two years, but people are going to jail condemned as domestic terrorists for issuing silver as currency in a noble attempt to right the sinking fiat-currency ship.  Meanwhile, there is always one billion extra dollars to spend on identification systems at home and the steady reinforcement of the war machine abroad.

Obama finds himself losing creditability and advocacy.  On March 18, Minister Farrakhan's YouTube video was briefly censored for a few days after he criticized Obama for invading Libya.  Farrakhan was a staunch advocate who once remarked “I love that brother,” which has now changed to “America will be bathed in blood, not because Farrakhan said so, but the dissatisfaction in America has reached the boiling point!”

VFP should call for Obama Impeachment
One of the reasons Veterans Force Peace was being spied on by the fusion centers in Florida is because the Central Florida chapter of Veterans For Peace passed a resolution on July 7, 2009 calling for the impeachment of President Obama for war crimes.

Phil Restino the Chapter Co-Chair, VFP Chapter 136, stated: “I’d love to hear Veterans for Peace put on the hot-seat again . . . in '09 I went up to the convention and it was an Obama love fest . . . the antiwar movement has made itself a left vs. right thing.”

Mr. Restino contends that AFRICOM, which was created in 2007, was the prelude to this new Libya invasion. It's extremely unreasonable and naive to expect any kind of populist consensus concerning a call from the "left" for the prosecution of the former President Bush without concurrently calling for the impeachment of the current President Obama for the very same war crimes; just as it is for the "right" to call for the impeachment of President Obama without concurrently calling for the prosecution of the former President Bush for the very same crimes.

It is high time that left and right come together against war criminals both abroad and at home.

Know your rights! 


Rick Gedeon is graduate from USAF Air University, amateur historian, and anti-imperial/anti-police brutality activist.   Rick Gedeon has traveled extensively throughout the US and Asia.  A political marketer, routinely bringing together and forging alliances with different political organizations that share similar goals. He considers himself a Political Atheist and sympathizes with many Libertarian causes.  He can be reached at rick_gedeon@hushmail.com

 

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Could Obama be Impeached over Libya? Let's ask Biden (Video)

Youtube


RELATED ARTICLE:
Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls for Draft

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner