The Right Reaches And Preaches The Ultimate Obscenity!
109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office and charge.109: 9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
No Christian Would Frame The Issue This Way. Sick Racist Bastard Hypocrite “Christians” Would!
November 18, 2009 10:09 pm ET
Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity have linked a task force's recommendation that fewer women younger than 50 receive regular mammograms to the widely debunked smear that Democratic health reform bills include "death panels." Right-wing media figures have repeatedly raised the specter of these purported panels in their discussions of health care; in this case, their fearmongering is undermined by the fact that the recommendations are not legally binding on health care providers or insurers.
Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity all link nonbinding task force recommendations to the "death panels" falsehood
Beck referred to "some crazy skeptics still worried about potential rationing, so-called death panels," and then proceeded to discuss the task force's mammogram recommendations. During the November 18 broadcast of his Fox News program, Beck said, "The health care reform debate continues. Some crazy skeptics still worried about potential rationing, so-called death panels, Sarah Palin." Beck continued: "In a totally unrelated matter, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force has seemingly done a 180-degree turn in the last six months" and then discussed the recommendations.
Limbaugh: "You might even say that we've got death panels going on here." During the November 18 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh discussed the recommendations and stated, "You might even say that we've got death panels going on here."
Hannity adds "death panels" to his fearmongering over the mammogram recommendation. On his November 18 radio show, [[Sean]] Hannity continued to fearmonger over the task force recommendations, stating: "Is this a death panel, ladies and gentlemen? I mean for women who don't get mammograms. What does that mean? That means we're not going to have the early detection."
Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity join right-wing media's fearmongering over the task force recommendations. Numerous conservatives in the media, including Fox News contributors Dr. Marc Siegel and Dr. Keith Ablow -- in addition to Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity -- have fearmongered that the task force recommendations are a part of government rationing under health care reform.
Rationing claim undermined: Task force recommendations not legally binding
Task force did not recommend blanket ban on mammograms for women under 50. The task force issued a grade C recommendation "against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years" and stated that "[t]he decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms." As a grade C recommendation, clinicians are counseled to "[o]ffer or provide this service only if other considerations support the offering or providing the service in an individual patient."
Task force encouraged policymakers to include additional considerations and "individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation." In publishing its updated recommendations in The Annals of Internal Medicine, the task force acknowledged that other considerations should be included in determining what preventive treatment to provide, stating, "The USPSTF recognizes that clinical or policy decisions involve more considerations than this body of evidence alone. Clinicians and policymakers should understand the evidence but individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation."
NBC's Snyderman: "It's important to remember that these new recommendations from this independent task force are just that -- they're recommendations." In a Nightly News report on the task force recommendations, NBC chief medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman stated, "It's important to remember that these new recommendations from this independent task force are just that -- they're recommendations. They don't mandate any changes in who should get mammograms and when." [NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, 11/17/09]
Right-wing media have repeatedly revived debunked "death panel" claim
Fox News personalities advance Palin's "death panel" claim. In an August 7 Facebook posting, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin claimed that under Democratic health care reform, "Obama's 'death panel' " would "decide" whether her parents or her son Trig, who has Down syndrome, were "worthy of health care." Over the following days, several Fox News anchors, hosts, and contributors adopted Palin's "death panel" term or advanced or expressed support for her assertion -- which is based on the widely debunked claim that the House health care reform bill would require end-of-life counseling. Media Matters for America subsequently identified more than 40 instances of media reporting that these claims are false.
Fox News uses "death book" lie to revive "death panels" lie. Following several days in which Fox News promoted the smear that an educational booklet on end-of-life decisions used by the Veterans Health Administration is a "death book," on August 24, Fox News host Megyn Kelly and Fox News contributor Jonah Goldberg used a discussion about the booklet to revive the falsehood that Democratic health care reform legislation would institute "death panels." Kelly also falsely claimed that the booklet encourages veterans to "hurry up and die" and that VHA officials are "required" to refer patients to it.
Right-wing outlets used AP article about Medicare coverage for voluntary end-of-life counseling to resurrect "death panel" myth. Linking to an October 30 Associated Press article about Medicare coverage for voluntary end-of-life counseling in the House health care bill, conservative media outlets such as Fox News and BigGovernment.com featured misleading headlines to revive the widely debunked "death panel" smear. Fox News' Peter Johnson Jr. also stated during an interview with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), "So with regard to the death panel, nothing much has changed."
At a special evening meeting of the Democratic caucus tonight, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid outlined, in broad strokes, the details of his health care bill, which the CBO has found, in a preliminary analysis, will expand coverage to 94 percent of Americans while reducing the deficit. And earlier in the day, during a separate meeting about floor procedure, Reid let three of his party's key skeptics know that if they join Republicans at any stage of the process to block the bill, he still retains the option of passing major parts of it through the filibuster proof budget reconciliation process.
In response to a question from TPMDC Nelson told reporters that, at a meeting this afternoon with Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Reid "talked about process, procedure, discussion about reconciliation and a whole host of issues of that sort."
"Nobody's really jumping up and down to push for reconciliation," Nelson said, "he's not threatening that, but anybody can conclude that if you don't move something on to the floor, that is one of the possibilities."
Nelson said he has still not committed to vote for even the first procedural vote, but in a sign that he's leaning toward bringing a bill to the floor, he emphasized his view that the floor debate is a chance to improve the legislation. "I wanted to make it clear that that is, unlike some are suggesting, is not the vote...it's a motion to enter into the debate and possible amendments and improvements of the legislation" Nelson said. "The vote is the second cloture vote, and that is the cloture on a motion to cease debate, and I wanted that clear, because I've already begun to see people out there say, 'oh no, no, if you vote [to take it up] you've voted for health care."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has explicitly stated that the Republican party will treat Democrats who vote for any procedural motion as if they've voted for the entire health care bill.
So what's in it exactly? Tonight, Reid described some of the key controversial provisions to the full caucus.
The bill will include a public option with an opt-out clause for states, though the public option itself, and many other key provisions in the bill, including the exchanges and a Medicaid expansion wouldn't be available until 2014--one year later than previous versions of the legislation, and the House bill call for. It also includes new language prohibiting federal funds from financing abortions--though the exact mechanism remains unclear.
"There is a strict wall between a woman's private funds and federal funds," said a supportive Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), one of the Senate's leading pro-choice members.
Boxer could not elaborate about whether or not the bill would, like the House's legislation, preclude people who receive federal insurance subsidies from buying health care plans that cover abortion, but Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), a pro-life Democrat, told TPMDC, "I think that's certainly the intention."
According to a number of senators, the language differs from both the Stupak amendment and the less restrictive Capps amendment. But though most details remain unclear, the public option would not be permitted to provide abortions, and insurance companies in every exchange in every state would be required to provide at least one plan that covers abortion, and one that does not. "There will be no public money spent on abortions...there will be a requirement in each state that they offer a plan, one without any abortion and one with so that you cover bases appropriately," said Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
As expected, Reid raised the floor on a controversial tax on high-end "Cadillac" health care plans, so that fewer policies with more luxurious coverage will be immediately impacted. At a baseline, insurance companies would pay a 40 percent tax on purchased plans that cost individuals $8,500, and $23,000 for families of four. To account for the lost revenue, Reid increased the Medicare payroll tax for high-income earners.
Under the terms of the bill, Medicaid would be expanded to cover everybody up to 133 percent of the poverty line. And in a move that will disappoint progressives, tax credits to buy health insurance would be limited to those between 133 and 300 percent of poverty line. (People between 300 and 400 percent of poverty would not be provided any direct federal assistance, but insurers would not be able to set their premiums at more than 9.8 percent of their annual income.)
And, to address one of Ben Nelson's concerns, Reid stripped out a provision that would have overturned the insurance industry's anti-trust exemptions.
As they trickled out of the meeting, Democrats sounded optimistic. "We're going to pass this legislation," Kerry said. "That means we're going to get it to the floor, we're going to debate it, we're going to pass it."
"We're not going to allow a procedural hurdle to deter the effort to get to what the American people want us to do, which is their business with respect to health care," Kerry said. "A procedural hurdle is a minor, minor inconvenience in the process of getting this legislation addressed and on the floor."
Dick Durbin (D-IL), the second highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, said the caucus had a "very positive response to the legislation."
Tomorrow, Reid will file for cloture on the motion to proceed, which will set off 30 hours of debate before the cloture vote itself is held, likely on Saturday. That could set off yet another delay before the motion to proceed is actually passed, which could take until Monday. If that happens, the debate on the bill--including a reading of its 2000+ pages, won't likely begin in earnest until after Thanksgiving. Got that all? Good.
On Tuesday, the Senate voted 70-29 to invoke cloture on Judge David Hamilton, clearing the way for a confirmation vote for the controversial Obama nomination to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Senator Jeff Sessions had a hold on the nomination for weeks and demanded the cloture vote, citing the judge’s radical judicial record.
In a recent speech to the Federalist Society, Senator Sessions quoted Hamilton as saying a judge’s job is to “write footnotes to the Constitution.” And Sessions also criticized Hamilton for arguing that judges “need to empathize” with the parties of cases rather than dispassionately and equitably applying the rule of law.
Ten Republicans broke ranks with their party on this vote: Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John Cornyn of Texas, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and John Thune of South Dakota.
This differs drastically with the Senate Democrat caucus. They voted in lockstep—all 60 members—for cloture, demonstrating a party loyalty and discipline that has been lacking for Republicans in the current Congressional session.
Though, in hindsight, it is clear that Republicans did not have the votes to sustain the filibuster, that does not excuse the GOP defectors. As ALG President Bill Wilson commented yesterday, “Every election cycle, Republican candidates for Senate state their commitment to bringing judges to the federal bench who will help restore the role of constitutionally limited government in American jurisprudence. Instead, Republican and conservative constituents have been betrayed by their own Senators.”
Hamilton was clearly no strict legal constructionist. A coalition letter from 24 conservative leaders late last week urged all members of the Senate to filibuster Hamilton because of his views on the law. According to the letter, Judge Hamilton has ruled “that prayers to Jesus Christ offered at the beginning of legislative sessions violate the Constitution, but that prayers to Allah do not”, chose to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines, overturned a sex offender registry law, and had “urged the President to grant clemency for a police officer who had pled guilty to producing child pornography”.
The Republicans’ lack of unity will have repercussions—it sends a message to the current White House that it can push through even the most outrageously radical appointments to the bench. And with two of the nine Supreme Court justices now in failing health, that bodes ill for future High Court nominees.
Unless Republicans muster the courage to stand strong – and focus on persuading conscientious Democrats to join with them -- they will not be able to block a single Obama judicial nominee, giving the White House carte blanche to easily stack the federal bench with radicals. And as that occurs, it will be the Senate Republicans, as well as the Democrats, who must shoulder the blame when decisions are handed down from federal judges like Hamilton restricting religious expression, protecting child predators, and turning a blind eye to the usurpations of a federal government out of control.
In a recent Rasmussen Poll, 74 percent of Republicans nationwide said GOP members of Congress are out of touch with their base that elects them. The Hamilton vote suggests the grassroots Republican dissatisfaction with their representatives will only continue to grow.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters say former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% of Republican voters disagree and think the 2008 vice presidential candidate does not share their values. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
By contrast, 74% of Republicans say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years. Only 18% of Republican voters believe their elected officials have done a good job representing the base.
The findings in these two surveys highlight the political debate within the Republican Party. Party leaders worry that Palin is pushing the GOP too far to the right to win general elections by aligning herself with Tea Party voters frustrated with both parties in Washington and the big government policies they have produced.
Still, just 18% of Republicans - and 26% of voters nationwide - see Palin as a divisive force within the GOP. A plurality believes Palin is representative of a new direction for the Republican Party. That view is held by 57% of Republicans and 41% of all voters. A plurality of Democrats aren’t sure what to think of Palin’s role within the opposing party.
Among all voters, 41% say Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation, while 30% think otherwise and 29% are not sure.
Palin has a new book, “Going Rogue,” coming out this week that gives her side of the 2008 presidential campaign and launches new battles between her and some of her running mate John McCain’s campaign team.
Sixteen percent (16%) of all voters are following news about Palin’s book release very closely, and 20% say they are likely to read it. That latter figure includes 31% of Republican voters. (To order the book, Going Rogue, click HERE).
Last month, Rasmussen Reports found Palin in third place among possible contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
Former Arkansas governor and now Fox News host Mike Huckabee is currently the leader of the pack. But Huckabee’s gains since a previous survey are matched almost precisely by Palin’s decline. That suggests a large pool of voters are committed to choosing between Huckabee and Palin, two candidates routinely dismissed as unacceptable in the eyes of Republicans in Washington, D.C.
Forty percent (40%) of Republican voters nationwide said in July that Palin’s decision to resign as governor of Alaska hurt her chances of winning the party’s presidential nomination in 2012.
Overall, 21% of voters nationwide have a Very Favorable opinion of Palin while 29% have a Very Unfavorable view. Keep in mind that those people likely to show up and vote in mid-term elections tend to be somewhat older, more Republican, and more conservative than the population at large.
Forty percent (40%) of Republican voters have a Very Favorable opinion of Palin while 50% of Democrats have a Very Unfavorable view.
Thirty-five percent (35%) of conservatives have a Very Favorable opinion of her while 62% of liberals offer a Very Unfavorable assessment.
Among the Political Class, just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion of Palin while 64% hold a Very Unfavorable view.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 36% who are Very Angry. Most doubt that the leaders of either major political party understand what’s needed.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters nationwide now hold populist, or Mainstream, views of government. Seventy percent (70%) generally trust the American people more than political leaders on important national issues. Sixty-eight percent (68%) view the federal government as a special interest group, and 71% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely voters say it is at least somewhat likely the next president of the United States will be a Republican.
(Here's an effort that I coordinated, which failed: http://campdemocracy.org A couple of Iraq War Anniversaries ago, peace groups engaged in creative nonviolent action in DC, but with a different approach from Seattle, and with meager results. As side-shows to marches, or as independent actions, we've gotten arrested, including at the Capitol, but we haven't closed the place down.)
I've been reading a brand new book called "The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle," which is in large part an analysis of what worked in the protesting of the World Trade Organization 10 years ago. Why is it, I wonder, that activists were able to shut down the center of this major city in Washington state, but for years we have been unable to shut down the center of Washington, D.C., in opposition to wars.
Swanson and others of the failed Anti-War, Impeachment, and Peace Movement still haven’t gotten the message that Resistance, Rebellion, Revolt and real change are not low risk endeavors that can be planned with a book or a street theater script. Such actions require passion, perspective and the willingness to sacrifice as much as those, who faithful to their oaths; we desire to bring home from the insanity of wars that make no sense and are devoid of validity.
I weary of lists of proposed grievances slogans and protest points. Real change in social upheaval comes when people of conscience and commitments, with diverse issues, dedicate themselves to a common goal with the perspective that victory for one eventually means victory for all.
The American Revolutionary War was not a single issue cause. The American Civil War was not a single issue cause. The Vietnam era uprisings were not the product of a single issue or cause. It is only when a multitude of causational factors coalesce on a collision course with the forces of intransience, insanity and subjugation that paradigm shifts in this nation’s history and evolution have taken place, and they have never been peaceful; they have never been pretty.
In our times with a “beaten-down-to impotence populous”,” alleged” change agents advocating low risk token street theater that might as well be listed in The Washington Post as a “DC Weekend Event for tourists” ; we have become minimized players in and of the system. We are “playing the game” like good little boys and girls, playing right into the hands of those who oppress us and “keep us in our place”.
“The system” is corrupted, corroded with premeditated criminality well- schooled in manipulation and pest-advocate-management/control. So long as folks find satisfaction in weekend, fair weather political theater and validate one another with cyber space back-patting the forces of real change, real impact, remain frustrated in the shadows, growing more vehement and violent by the day, totally contemptuous of the “Pious Peace Makers DC Tabernacle Choir”, and so weary of the faux “self-assigned” role of the righteous and right way to change groups and voices. It is the pathway of folly and failure, not the road to the recovery and restoration of this land.
I don’t know where folks got the idea that if you write of evil and point your fingers at the evil doers, that somehow in a miraculous fashion, they would see the error of their ways and with great benevolence and personal epiphany fall down upon the ground and repent of their evil and extend a hand of redress!
Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing an effective peace between Israel and Palestine, dealing with the increasingly nuclear weapons world of the Far and Middle East, seriously accepting the fact that man impacts our fragile planet, and though natural forces beyond our control may indeed be at play in climate change; we can make a difference and secure sufficient change for man to grasp the magnitude of the problem and to provide the energy, resources and funds necessary to deal with the onslaught of the change as a matter of planetary survival, shit canning all of the verbal lint associated with wordsmith assaults on Capitalism and coming to grips with the fact that no economic system: Capitalism, Communism, Socialism is inherently better or worse…that the problem rest firmly on our own species and how we as players function within any frame work…and that without rules and enforceable regulation with accountability and consequences; every economic theory/model/system is simply one step away from economic anarchy and devastation. The problem is not the theoretical system; the problem is the human players drunk with avarice playing in the financial Casinos.
If we can’t get them into a twelve step program then we have to regulate them and shut off their money taps.
Our problems are legion, but not a damned thing is going to happen to change or rectify the situation unless we demand in pitch fork certain terms that there is going to be change or the blood sucking leaches that prosper off our broken lives and dead servicemen and woman will be broken and sent homeless into the streets. That would be justice.
And So Again I will Repeat My Position!
I have put up with a lot of bad mouth and silence as regards my distain for the sham political theater of “alleged advocacy” organizations who put on occasional shows in the fair weather of Washington DC and have to self-film to have something to show for their time on You Tube. They write; they talk; they solicit money and everyone comes and has a good time as if they were attending some Medieval Carnival or Festival, and they all go home and nothing has changed! There I said it again.
I think if you read Mr. Swanson’s words, which I rarely do anymore, you will once again find WORDS filled with the type of questions vacillation and equivocation that I have to absolutely despise. If these are the words of leader; spare me please. A clarion call to action they are not and Seattle was not all “peaceful and proper.” There is a “once-upon-a-time” quality!
I republish here my remarks of May 1, 2008 as the Truckers rolled into DC in protest of fuel costs. The entire nation took note and DC FELT the action! We have all the grievances that entitle us to act and the moral high ground is ours. If we are going to act in March let it be nationwide, and let it be definitive and unyielding !
May 1, 2008
I have long held that the day of polite protest, the barrage of words, and the relentless petition signings would come to an end as this nation, like an alcoholic, hit the bottom.
The bottom of the bottle is in clear view. I know many do not like to be reminded that not every battle can be won with words and public protest gathering. Those who would resort me with the words of Ghandi, and plead for “peaceful protest” find in me now profound deafness. “The Pen is Mightier than The Sword” is nice altruistic expression that does not account for the reality of the human experience and human nature.
This nation was born in a Revolutionary War fashioned of “The Word and the Sword”! We were once a nation when the unity and solidarity of the voice of the people meant something because it was fortified by the willingness to ACT! When John L. Lewis said: STRIKE! ... The shovels were heard hitting the bottom of the mine pits and grim, determined faced American workers marched to the picket line and there was going to be hell to pay if someone confronted that line.
I dare say anyone reading this would have fool enough to do so to suggest to those workers that, they should be patient and passive. Sam Adams. “The Grand Incendiary”, Father of the Revolution was no pacifist, not Henry and not Jefferson who declared that:
“Every generation needs a new revolution”; “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
“Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
“"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776.’
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
and “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson—
We are again at the point in our history where a paradigm shift is demanded to merely preserve the foundation of the nation, that is; we are on the verge of revolution, the only question remaining to be answered is whether it shall take the form of blood, fire and steel in the streets or massive upheaval in such a way as this government cannot continue to function in the corrupt fashion of the moment, a massive upheaval that demands that criminally guilty be driven from, resign from power and or to be prosecuted by every applicable law of this land and international law.
Let us assume that you wish the transformation to be accomplished without massive violence and conflagration. Your answer is a national strike of such proportions that this administration cannot survive nor its supporters and collaborators.
What is be offered. Proposed for May 1 is indeed only the first step to such an action. All other avenues have failed and while I will not suggest that anyone abandon their personal and local efforts it is time for a serious change in direction.
It is time to call together the leaders of all activist organizations: peace, impeachment and immigration, all American Labor Unions in marshalling a comprehensive national strike on heretofore unheard of proportions. Failure to do so and to execute such an approach will leave no other course of action but that thought of a traditional revolutionary approach.
The ports and harbors must be closed. Trucks must be parked, there rotors removed blocking thorough fares and bridges across the land. Railroad traffic must cease. Unions must strike and workers disbursed to other meaningful tasks of shutting the nation down. The streets must be filled with the masses so traffic and commerce cannot flow. Those who are now working should surround the offices of every major media outlet in America so that cannot ignore the people. The management and workers of those “institutions” should have to attempt to wade through a sea of humanity to get to their desks and microphones, and they will try as they have the consciences of scabs and the integrity of Judas.
The police powers should be reminded that they are Americans first before they are the Blue Line of puppets, and if they insist on macho enforcement of silly proportions they can expect that they will never see another voter levy to support their salaries for the next twenty years at least. Yes, that is a call to leave their posts and join the masses!
Mall parking lots should be empty, stores, hotels and theaters empty and silent. The teachers of America, public private and collegiate should leave their classrooms and students should join with adults in the demand to restore this land to the people.
The Halls of the Senate and House should bulge with Americans swarming into elected leaders offices delivering a few simple messages. The message: “Shut up and bring our men and women home from the Middle East; plan and execute now…no more talk and excuses about staying another 20, 50 or 100 years until we are satisfied and they are pacified. That is an illusion, a delusion, a lie and a formula for raging terrorism and warfare that must end in a nuclear confrontation sooner or later, a formula for insanity.
They should get the message that if they are not going to abide by and uphold and enforce The Constitution and International Law by bring Bush, Cheney and all other guilty parties to justice, that they will never see another red cent in campaign contribution and will never enjoy your vote again because they will be removed from office. Say it; mean it; do it. Finish them off. Bring the work of the House and Senate to a stop until they are ready to Impeach!
We have seen in recent days that actions in DC which disrupt everyday business and traffic get attention, so swarm on DC and bring it to a standstill. Work to get every Metro employee in every major city to strike. Shut down the trains and buses. Enlist taxi drivers to strike. Get to the pilot’s union and airline employees union and get them to strike. Silence the air, silence the roads, silence the rail lines…shut it all down.
While you’re not working swarm on the nearest defense contractor’s office and manufacturing sites; Blockade them. If you have a major store Wal-Mart, Penny’s, Sears. K Mart, Target, whatever… that attempts to stay open swarm pickets on and block the parking lots….shut them down.
We have yet many who need to be brought to justice from the Bush Administration, many corporate criminals who have crippled this land who need to be behind bars and wars that need to brought to conclusion; the war criminals of those wars need to stand before The Hague Bar Of Justice.
Resistance, Rebellion, Revolt and ………….. There Is Nothing As Powerful As An Idea Whose Time Has Come.
And If You Really Want To Read A Book Worth Reading; Try Tom Hayden’s "The Long Sixties."
By Tom Hayden
November 10, 2009
Fifty-nine Americans died in October fighting to protect the corrupt Afghan electoral process that resulted in a second five-year term for Hamid Karzai. Since July and the run-up to the August election, 195 Americans were killed and more than 1,000 were wounded, a higher casualty rate than during the 2007 military "surge" in Iraq. A principal purpose cited by President Obama for sending 17,000 more combat troops to Afghanistan earlier this year was to protect the election, which, according to most observers, Karzai stole.
Has it occurred to anyone in the White House national security circles or the pundit class that these recent American deaths were wasteful and immoral? That sending Americans to die for an unpopular regime of warlords, landlords, drug dealers and CIA assets (Karzai's brother) is impossible to justify? And that rather than admitting the mistake, the president and his advisors are preparing to compound it?
I suspect that part of the U.S. unhappiness with Karzai has nothing to do with his well-known incompetence and corruption. After all, with Afghanistan's economy almost entirely dependent on heroin, how could the government not resemble a mafia state? What worries the Pentagon even more is that Karzai, in response to Afghan public opinion, may want to negotiate with the Taliban before the Pentagon can turn the tide of war.
Semi-secret peace talks with the Taliban, supported by the Karzai government, were reported in May. During the campaign, peace talks were the top issue among voters, with Karzai depicted as "the most vocal candidate" calling for talks with the Taliban, according to the New York Times.
Perhaps his campaign promise of peace talks was only a ploy to win votes, but that also is a measure of Afghan public opinion.
There were signs that the Afghan Taliban leadership was interested in a peace process too. An April task force led by Washington insiders Thomas Pickering and Barnett Rubin noted that "the [Taliban] Quetta shura is showing signs of willingness to distance itself from Al Qaeda and seek a political settlement."
A back-channel, U.S.-blessed Saudi diplomatic initiative in December reported a negotiating proposal from Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar demanding, among other things, a new power-sharing arrangement in Kabul, including Karzai; a timetable for U.S. withdrawal; replacing NATO forces with peacekeepers from Islamic countries; and a role for the insurgents in the reconstituted Afghan security forces. On Sept. 19, Omar issued a statement of assurance that the Taliban, "as a responsible force, will not extend its hand to cause jeopardy to others" -- words interpreted by a British intelligence officer as a willingness to separate itself from Al Qaeda.
U.S. officials haven't exactly leaped to pursue these feelers. The reason is pure power politics. The United States and NATO apparently want to negotiate only from a position of strength. "Reconciliation is important, but not now," said one Western official in August. "It's not going to happen until the insurgency is weaker and the government is stronger." Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed her readiness "to welcome anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces Al Qaeda, lays down their arms and is willing to participate in the free and open society that is enshrined in the Afghan Constitution." She was calling for a surrender, not the opening of a conflict-resolution process. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson, ratcheted up the war rhetoric last month by asserting that if the Pakistani army failed to eliminate Omar, the U.S. would.
It is plain to me that the United States seeks to gain the military upper hand with more troops, thus strengthening a negotiating position, while at the same time curbing Karzai's desire to enter talks with his Afghan adversaries. Portrayed as weak, Karzai in fact may be too much of a nationalist for the Pentagon's taste.
Negotiating with the Taliban would be distasteful, but how many more American soldiers will die while trying to achieve this upper hand? The Pentagon forecasts two years of harsh combat in Afghanistan alone, which at current rates could mean an additional 1,000 American dead and 8,000 wounded. For each American boot on the ground, there will be an equivalent increase in roadside bombs, according to a U.S. agency called the Pentagon Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is running taxpayers about $3.6 billion a month.
The Al Qaeda strategy of overextending our military and exhausting our economy seems to be on schedule. With Al Qaeda relocated to Pakistan, the Pentagon now is fighting Afghan insurgents -- who hate foreign invaders -- on the hypothetical grounds that Al Qaeda will someday return to Kandahar. Elsewhere, national security strategists such as Britain's Peter Neumann claim "broad agreement" that Europe is actually the nerve center for global jihad. One is tempted to respond that NATO should invade Europe instead of Afghanistan, but this is not a laughing matter.
Al Qaeda is a real threat, but the threat only worsens as Western powers rampage through Muslim countries. Defense against Al Qaeda is a legitimate mission, but not where the tactics being used feed a desire for indiscriminate revenge among millions of people with nothing to lose.
This is the "march of folly" once predicted by historian Barbara Tuchman. And it requires an exit strategy, not a deepening quagmire. In 1989, German essayist Hans Magnus Enzensberger wrote of the need for a "new kind of hero," not one who spills blood to save a reputation but one brilliant at withdrawing from untenable situations of their own making.
"It was Clausewitz," wrote Enzensberger, "who showed that retreat is the most difficult of all operations. That applies in politics as well. . . . It goes without saying that the protagonist risks his life with every step he takes on this path."
This is the choice facing Obama: Whether to send more Americans to their graves in support of Hamid Karzai while at the same time blocking the emergent quest for peace negotiations in Afghanistan.
Tom Hayden is a former California state senator. His latest book is "The Long Sixties."