Monday, January 25, 2010

"Chemical" Ali and "Chemical" Rumsfeld


As "Chemical" Ali is put to death today in Iraq it is Interesting to review the connections between Saddam Hussein, "Chemical" Ali, Bechtel and Donald "Chemical" Rumsfeld. http://www.oldamericancentury.org/donald_rumsfeld.htm
Admittedly, this is a biased account, but it would be interesting to see any refutations. There may be none.

The photo shows Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan's then-special envoy to the Middle East, meeting with Saddam Hussein during a visit to Baghdad, Iraq in December 1983, during the Iran–Iraq War. A 60 second video of the event can be see here> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shakinghands_high.OGG

I believe “Chemical” Ali is present in both the handshake photo (with his back to the camera wearing horn-rimmed glasses) and seated in the video

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Obama - Year One

Obama is now becoming seen as a possibly deceptive person, at the best as an uncertainty . No one really feels confident that either they or Obama understands where Obama really stands. There is a growing sense that much is taking place behind the scenes, a sense that a lot is passing under the table. He tells you something and you feel good, then he shows you something else. And while you are figuring that out, you seem to feel that you lose something that you really didn’t want to give up. But it still only “seems” that this is going on. When you hear him talk you do feel better. But I don’t feel as much better now as I did a year ago, or six months ago, or even one month ago.

There is a sense that people are beginning to back away from Obama. No longer as certain as they were - still liking him - but now wary, worried, confused, uncertain. We definitely do hear what he said but now we wonder what he meant. More and more we have to accept one of these two terms: 1) either he is a very likable liar, or 2) he is being manipulated and can't figure it out.

The healthcare fiasco is an embarrassment. It is now apparent that the Democrats could not have passed it even if they had had 110 senators and 700 members of the house. Meanwhile, the Republicans are hanging back in the wings, throwing verbal brickbats at the Democrats, and waiting to be called back on main stage in 2012. They are not risking a thing, only saying the Democrats can't govern. And Obama wants to appeal to the republicans and they publicly make fun of him for it.

Obama needs a bit of the old Harry Ass Truman about him, and PUSH his plans out before the public, stand on them and work for their passage. MAKE Landrieu, or Nelson or Lieberman HAVE to get up on main stage and expose themselves. MAKE the Republican party HAVE to come out on that stage also and MAKE them stop the health care plans that the majority of the American people want. MAKE the Republicans expose themselves as the “Do Nothing” party.

The wars need to be stopped. NOW. Nothing good has ever come out of a war, nothing ever will. The good that followed World War II came not from that awful war, but from the peace that was waged in the rebuilding of Europe and Japan. Defence is one thing, but wars take on a mind of their own, they take charge and live on words like “Honor!”, “Glory!”, “Homeland!”, and make the other guy seem evil. Then the wars can run supreme. Meanwhile, almost all of the people ever killed in any war are innocent of any sin or crime and most of them are women and children. Now, our military is worn out. The equipment is badly worn, the troops have been over 2, 3, 4, sometimes 5 times. More and more it seems, Bechtel, Halliburton, Blackwater (neĆ©) are being used - and that is bad because those corporations make money from war - they WANT wars. They NEED wars.

So Year One ends badly. As I said sometime ago I was not in favor of Obama running for president because he was the wrong color. He was too green. Now we WILL see just how quickly he can learn. Maybe now is his time. But the Supreme Court decision has probably ended his term in office. He has much to think about when he wakes up.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Supreme Court Ruling January 21, 2010.

The Supreme Court of the United States today just changed the playing field of American politics for the foreseeable future with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Now corporations can spend as much money as they want in persuading members of congress or the administration to fulfill their needs. Already the major corporations EACH have 100 senators and 435 members of the U.S. House to represent THEM. Those 535 officials are theirs to contact and provide with money, prizes, meals, women, psychologically effective advertisements, even threats and demands (see http://theprettypenny.blogspot.com/2009/07/nra-and-sotomayor.html). You and I have two senators and one representative. I don't know how much money you have, but I can't compete with General Electric say, or Microsoft or Walmart or MacDonalds, much less ALL of them.

So now we are in competition in the selection process of our elected representatives, with the companies that have sold us cars that get 12 MPG, cigarettes, food that has led to a malnourished and sick nation, a "health-care" system that ranks 37th in the world (according to the World Health Organization) and costs two to three times the cost of developed nations, and are heavily invested in armament, bombs, land mines, and other weapons of war. Many of these corporations have substantial investors from foreign countries.

This also means that from now on every election in the United States, even one for the representative Butte County, South Dakota say (the geographical center of the country) will ring with international significance instead of the issues important to just those voters. Not only that but the money the corporations will be using to "influence" congress will be OUR money too. So we still have to pay taxes, then pay the corporations, plus pay our own special lobbies, whether they be Move On, NAACP, AARP or the NRA, and we have very little choice whether to pay any of them or not.

What can we do? Until and unless the corporations can be barred from any contributions to elections, there is no way. Some countries forbid these types of contributions and the entire cost of all elections are borne by the government and regulated and enforced with jail terms for infringement. That would mean a tax increase but would probably result in more money for the taxpayers.