Jerusalem - Eternal, Indivisible Capital of Israel?

"Writing in The Jerusalem Report (Feb. 28, 2000), Leslie Susser points out that the current boundaries were drawn after the Six-Day War. Responsibility for drawing those lines fell to Central Command Chief Rehavan Ze'evi. The line he drew 'took in not only the five square kilometers of Arab East Jerusalem - but also 65 square kilometers of surrounding open country and villages, most of which never had any municipal link to Jerusalem. Overnight they became part of Israel's eternal and indivisible capital.'" Allan Brownfield in The Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, May 2000.

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

The position of the United Nations on the question of Jerusalem is contained in General Assembly resolution 181 and subsequent resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council concerning this question. A total of six UN security council resolutions on Israel have denounced or declared invalid Israel's attempts to unify the city, though none of them have been Chapter VII resolutions.

The UN Security Council, in UNSC resolution 478, declared that the 1980 Jerusalem Law declaring unified Jerusalem, including annexed East Jerusalem, as Israel's "eternal and indivisible" capital was "null and void and must be rescinded forthwith" (14-0-1, with United States abstaining). The resolution advised member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from the city as a punitive measure.

In 1980, the Israeli Knesset approved a Basic Law, which is a foundational statute in the country's unwritten constitution. This 1980 law is entitled "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel." The law establishes Jerusalem as the country's official capital. The Basic Law has four clauses. First, that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel."

The Palestinians claim Jerusalem (al-Quds) as the capital of a future Palestinian state. In the Palestine Liberation Organization's Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988, Jerusalem is stated to be the capital of the State of Palestine. In 2000 the Palestinian Authority passed a law designating East Jerusalem as such, and in 2002 this law was ratified by President Arafat.

In a 1991 letter, United States Secretary of State James Baker stated that the United States is "opposed to the Israeli annexation of east (sic) Jerusalem and the extension of Israeli law on it and the extension of Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries". However, the U.S. Senate in 1990 had adopted a resolution "acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel's capital" and stating that it "strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city." Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act on October 23, 1995, which declared that Jerusalem should remain undivided and that it should be recognized as Israel's capital.

From the solemnity of a Holocaust museum to a dusty village battered by Hamas rockets, Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Wednesday professed "an unshakable commitment to the security" of Israel, whether the threat comes from terrorists, Iran or elsewhere.

At his news conference, Obama brushed aside a question of whether he had backed off his statement this spring that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel. Palestinians also lay claim to the city as the capital for any state they establish as the result of peace talks, and the two sides have agreed that the final decision is to be negotiated.

Criticized by Abbas after he made that comment, Obama subsequently amended it. "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," he said. He added that "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city.

Abbas issued a statement saying he and Obama had not discussed the issue in their hour together.

Asked by an Israeli reporter about the matter, Obama said, "I continued to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again. And I also have said that it is important that we don't simply slice the city in half. But I've also said that that's a final status issue."

    The  issue of Jerusalem as a capitol city is crucial for peace between Israel and Palestine. After seizing East Jerusalem, the UN mandated capital of the future Palestinian State, during the 1967 Six Day War, Israel has declared all of Jerusalem as it's capitol, without UN recognition. The United States, it it's "lapdog" support of Israel has officially condoned Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem and Israel's designation of Jerusalem as it's "undivided" capitol. Senator Barack Obama, the self proclaimed "agent of change" has aligned himself with Israel's position on Jerusalem, thus crushing any hopes of the occupied Palestinian people of any "change they can believe in" when it comes to ending the Israeli Zionist occupation of their territories and would be nation of Palestine. After all there are very few Arab Palestinians voting for President in '08. Obama's and McCain's call for an "undivided" Jerusalem gets the Jewish vote, unjust occupation of East Jerusalem be damned!

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• " Obama, Zionism And West Bank Occupation"
• "Congress Stands Together For Medicare And The People"
• "Obama Takes Up Bush's War On Terror"
• "Will Obama Continue To Use Bush's Mercenaries?"
• "Texas Is Runnin' In The Wind"
• "Turkish Secularists Begin Resistance"
• "Should Obama Just 'Lighten Up'?"
• "The Legacy Of Kenneth Lay, Phil Gramm And The Enron Loophole"
• "Karl Rove's Contempt For Congress Continues"
• "Will Bush's Iran Covert Operations Continue?"

Is there anything new a presidential candidate can say about the absence of peace in the fragile Middle East?

Anything beyond a promise to work at it hard?

Barack Obama is not offering a sure-to-work formula to bring Israel and its Arab neighbors together.

The Democratic candidate for president is speaking of the security needs of Israel and the economic hardships of the Palestinians.

But the bottom line is, and will always be, it is up to the parties and not the American president to make peace.

"It's unrealistic to expect that a U.S. president alone can suddenly snap his fingers and bring about peace in this region," Obama said.

If the Jewish vote, assuming there is such a thing, weren't valued especially in what could be a tight race, Obama might have left it at that. His Republican opponent, John McCain, isn't offering anything new yet. He appears to be relying on stating clearly his commitment to Israel and its security.

At least to some observers, Obama appeared to be saying something new in a speech last month to pro-Israel lobbyists at a dinner in Washington.

He spoke in one breath of Jerusalem remaining undivided and Israel's capital.

It turned out, though, that he wasn't exactly saying all of Jerusalem should be Israel's capital.

The Palestinians want at least the part of the city Israeli troops captured from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war, and Obama was not ruling out that possibility.

If the Illinois senator is signaling a change it is his promise to be active from the get-go, insinuating that President Bush sat on his hands too long and opportunities may have been lost.

"What I think can change is the ability of the United States government and a United States president to be actively engaged with the peace process," Obama said.

It is debatable whether a sleeves-rolled-up Bush could have been any more successful than Bill Clinton was in playing a direct role in trying to drive Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and Syria into peace agreements.

On the other hand, President Jimmy Carter kept Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin from quitting the Camp David talks in 1978 and drove them to a treaty the next year.

At this point, Iran appears to be overtaking peacemaking as the primary topic in the region.

"Iran has become the biggest issue for Israelis," said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It is making peacemaking harder with its support for rejectionist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and that will be a daunting challenge for any president."

And Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. negotiator, in a separate interview said "reassuring the Palestinians and the world that he is going to take the Arab-Israeli conflict seriously" is important.

And Miller, author of "A Much Too Promised Land" added that assuring the pro-Israeli community of his commitment to Israel's security is important as well.

However, Miller said, the more important reassurance is that "while Obama may engage the Iranians he is irrevocably committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

Zionism is an international political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”), and continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.

Although its origins are earlier, the movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. The movement was eventually successful in establishing Israel in 1948, as the world's first and only modern Jewish State. Described as a "diaspora nationalism," its proponents regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.

While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era (i.e. up to 70 CE), the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe. It constituted a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism. At first one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to the position of Jews in Europe, Zionism gradually gained more support, and after the Holocaust became the dominant Jewish political movement.

After WWII and the Holocaust, support for Zionism increased, especially among Jewish Holocaust survivors. The British were attacked in Palestine by Zionist groups because of their restrictions on Jewish immigration, the best known attack being the 1946 King David Hotel bombing. Unable to resolve the conflict, the British referred the issue to the newly created United Nations.

In 1947, the UNSCOP recommended the partition of western Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state and a UN-controlled territory (Corpus separatum) around Jerusalem. This partition plan was adopted on November 29th, 1947 with UN GA Resolution 181, 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. The vote itself, which required a two-third majority, was a very dramatic affair and led to celebrations in the streets of Jewish cities.

The Arab states rejected the UN decision, demanding a single state with an Arab majority. violence immediately exploded in Palestine between Jews and Arabs. On 14 May 1948, at the end of the British mandate, the Jewish Agency, led by Ben-Gurion declared the creation of the State of Israel and the same day, the armies of four Arab countries invaded Israel.

During the following eight months, Israel forces defended the Jewish partition and conquered portions of the Arab partition, enlarging its portion to 78 percent of mandatory Palestine. The conflict led to an exodus of about 711,000 Arab Palestinians , of whom about 46.000 were internally displaced persons in Israel. The war ended with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which included new cease-fire lines, the so-called Green line.

After the war the Arabs continued to reject Israel's right to exist and demanded that it retreat to the 1947 partition lines. They sustained this demand until 1967 when the rest of western Palestine was conquered by Israel during the Six-Day War, after which Arab states demanded that Israel retreat to the 1949 cease fire line, the only "borders" currently recognized by the international community. These borders are commonly referred as the "pre-1967 borders" or the "green line".

There have been a number of critics of Zionism, including Jewish anti-Zionists, pro-Palestinian activists, academics, and politicians. The Arab League and Arab Higher Committee rejected the UN Partition Plan (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) approving the creation of a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine, and some of the most vocal critics of Zionism have been Arabs, many of whom view Israel as occupying Arab land. Such critics generally opposed Israel's creation in 1948, and continue to criticize the Zionist movement which underlies it. These critics view the changes in demographic balance which accompanied the creation of Israel, including the displacement of some 700,000 Arab refugees, and the accompanying violence, as negative but inevitable consequences of Zionism and the concept of a Jewish State.

Map Of Israeli Occupation Of The West Bank

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Jerusalem The Eternal, Indivisible Capital Of Israel?"
• "Obama Takes Up Bush's War On Terror"
• "Will Obama Continue To Use Bush's Mercenaries?"
• "Turkish Secularists Begin Resistance"
• "Should Obama Just 'Lighten Up'?"
• "Will Bush's Iran Covert Operations Continue?"
• "The Bush Party Passes FISA Compromise Bill"
• "Future Supreme Court Appointments Matter"
• "Iraqis Want A Timetable"
• "The Real Solution To The Housing Crisis"

Congress delivered a stern rebuke to President Bush on Tuesday, overriding his veto of a Medicare bill and preventing pay cuts to doctors who treat seniors, the disabled and military personnel.

Despite little chance of prevailing, Bush issued the veto in the morning, declaring the bill "objectionable" because it would take funds from private health insurers to keep paying doctors and would be "fiscally irresponsible."

But within hours, the House voted 383 to 41 to overrule him. The Senate soon followed in a 70-26 vote that was hailed by physicians and seniors.

The bill, which affects 44 million Medicare beneficiaries and more than 9 million military personnel, now becomes law.

The override, the fourth Congress has delivered to Bush in the last year, underscored the president's weakened status as his second term nears its close.

Bush has vetoed nine bills in two years after issuing no vetoes in his first term.

The votes were part of a long-running ideological battle over the privatization of Medicare, a Bush administration priority that Democrats energetically oppose.

With strong bipartisan support for the override, lawmakers said the vote could set the stage for cooperation on healthcare reform under a new administration.

In the short term, the votes to nullify Bush's veto postponed a pay cut that would have gone into effect the very same day, potentially forcing 60% of doctors to limit new Medicare patients, the American Medical Assn. said.

In the long run, however, lawmakers still must grope for a way to address the reimbursement issue as well as the popular program's overall condition.

"We wasted no time in reversing the president's carelessness and protecting our nation's doctors and the patients they treat," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Physicians celebrated.

The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 halts a scheduled 10.6% cut in payments to physicians and institutes a 1.1% payment increase in 2009. The bill improves preventive and mental health benefits and increases an array of other services.

The bill originally passed the House, 355 to 59, then was approved in a dramatic Senate ballot, when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) took a break from cancer treatment to vote for the bill.

Neither Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) nor Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the presumptive presidential nominees, were present for Tuesday's vote. California's Democratic senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, voted to override the veto.

In the midst of a tough election year, only 41 House Republicans supported Bush's veto, while 153 voted to override it. In the Senate, Republicans split more closely, with 26 voting to support Bush and 21 voting to override.

Many Republicans objected to paying doctors by cutting more than $12 billion in payments to private insurers that offer coverage through private Medicare Advantage plans, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

"This is an attempt to undercut the private insurance part of Medicare that many on the other side of the aisle have never liked. It's one of the signature achievements of the Bush administration," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

In a sign of the vote's importance, the powerful seniors lobby AARP made the override a "key vote," informing 39 million members how their elected representatives voted on the issue.

Bush said the bill would force 2.3 million people to leave Medicare Advantage and result in higher drug costs and reduced choices.

"Medicare beneficiaries need and benefit from having more options than just the one-size-fits-all approach of traditional Medicare," Bush said.

But Democrats depicted Bush as siding with private companies over seniors in his drive to privatize the federal program.

Democrats argued that the cuts to private insurers would be minimal and that patient rolls in the private programs would continue growing.

Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. It was originally signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to Social Security legislation. At the bill-signing ceremony President Johnson enrolled former President Harry S. Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first Medicare card.

In general, individuals are eligible for Medicare if they are a U.S. citizen or have been a permanent legal resident for 5 continuous years, and they are 65 years or older, or they are under 65, disabled and have been receiving either Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board disability benefits for at least 24 months, or they get continuing dialysis for permanent kidney failure or need a kidney transplant, or they are eligible for Social Security (disability) and have Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS-Lou Gehrig's disease).

With the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Medicare beneficiaries were given the option to receive their Medicare benefits through private health insurance plans, instead of through the original Medicare plan (Parts A and B). These programs were known as "Medicare+Choice" or "Part C" plans. Pursuant to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, the compensation and business practices changed for insurers that offer these plans, and "Medicare+Choice" plans became known as "Medicare Advantage" (MA) plans.

Medicare spending is growing steadily in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007, or 16 percent of all federal spending. The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense. Given the current pattern of spending growth, maintaining Medicare's financing over the long-term may well require significant changes.

According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes this year (2008). The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019.

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

   The Founding Fathers in the wisdom given them, gave the Congress the power to override a Presidential veto because the Congress was envisioned as "the people's House", the branch of the Federal government most sensitive to the needs and desires of the American people but this requires the members of Congress to rise above partisan politics for the good of the people. The Democrat controlled Congress with Republican party support joined together to override President Bush's veto of a very necessary  bill to preserve Medicare coverage for many retired and disabled Americans. Though the government subsidized health care program has benefited millions of Americans, the cost of Medicare continues to grow at a rate that far exceeds the taxes allocated for it and is projected to become insolvent by 2019 without some kind of serious reform. The Bush Administration has begun the process of privatizing Medicare with the goal of eventually eliminating the social insurance program initiated by President Johnson in his "Great Society" agenda. As a Libertarian, in my opinion, that is the ultimate goal of a free market/limited government economy but the transition from government subsidized health care to free market health care must be done in a compassionate process to secure  the well being of the elderly and disabled already in the Medicare system. The 109th Congress did good in standing together for medicare, the elderly and disabled, for the present. The best solution for health care in America is still being worked out. How Obama or McCain will deal with this issue in the next four years remains to be seen. No matter, the people will always have Congress to work things out for the good of the people because ultimately Congress "got the power". Thank God for the Constitution!

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Jerusalem The Eternal, Indivisible Capital Of Israel?"
• "Obama Takes Up Bush's War On Terror"
• "Will Obama Continue To Use Bush's Mercenaries?"
• "Ron Paul; 'Looney Tune' Or Social Prophet?"
• "Texas Is Runnin' In The Wind"
• "Should Government Be A Lending Institution?"
• "Should Obama Just 'Lighten Up'?"
• "Big Business And Taxpayers Corporate Welfare"
• "The Legacy Of Kenneth Lay, Phil Gramm And The Enron Loophole"
• "Karl Rove's Contempt For Congress Continues"

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged steadfast aid to Afghanistan in talks with its Western-backed leader Sunday and vowed to pursue the war on terror "with vigor" if he is elected, an Afghan official said.

On the second day of an international tour designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials, Obama and other U.S. senators held two hours of talks with President Hamid Karzai at his palace in the Afghan capital.

Obama has chided Karzai for not doing more to build confidence in the Afghan government, whose grip remains weak after the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Mark Stroh said the senators had discussed issues including the painstaking rebuilding of the country's government and economy, the security situation and corruption with Karzai.

The Afghan presidency said Obama's message was positive.

"Sen. Obama conveyed ... that he is committed to supporting Afghanistan and to continue the war against terrorism with vigor," said Humayun Hamidzada, Karzai's spokesman.

Both Democrats and Republicans "are friends of Afghanistan and no matter who wins the U.S. elections, Afghanistan will have a very strong partner in the United States," Hamidzada said.

Obama has made Afghanistan a centerpiece of his proposed strategy for dealing with terrorism threats.

The Illinois senator has said the war in Afghanistan, where Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants are resurgent, deserves more troops and more attention as opposed to the conflict in Iraq.

Obama advocates ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq by withdrawing troops at the rate of one to two brigades a month while increasing the military commitment to Afghanistan. Obama has proposed sending two more combat brigades — about 7,000 troops — to Afghanistan. McCain also is advocating sending more forces to the war-battered country.

Obama also has expressed weariness with efforts by Afghanistan's neighbor, Pakistan, to go after militants in its territory. That frustration may strike a chord with Karzai, who has accused Pakistan's intelligence service of supporting the Taliban insurgency — a claim that Pakistan denies.

But Obama also has chided Karzai and his government, saying it had "not gotten out of the bunker" and helped to organize the country or its political and security institutions.

The War on Terrorism (also known as the War on Terror) is the common term for the various military, political and legal actions initiated by the United States government, often stated to be a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The terminology "War on Terrorism" and its objectives predate the 2001 attacks by about 20 years however, having become part of US policy already under the Reagan administration and, according to critics such as Noam Chomsky, sometimes led to active support of terrorist organizations in the struggle against Communism.

The official objectives of the 2001 War on Terrorism are to counter terrorist threats, prevent terrorist acts and curb the influence of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda. Both the term and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, human rights abuses and other violations of international law.

On September 20th, 2001, during an address to a joint session of congress and the American people, President George W. Bush formally declared war on terror when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

The Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, Ken McDonald — Britain's most senior criminal prosecutor — has stated that those responsible for acts of terror such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings are not "soldiers" in a war, but "inadequates" who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He added that a "culture of legislative restraint" was needed in passing anti-terrorism laws, and that a "primary purpose" of the violent attacks was to tempt countries such as Britain to "abandon our values." He stated that in the eyes of the UK criminal justice system, the response to terrorism had to be "proportionate, and grounded in due process and the rule of law": "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement."

    President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their war mongering neoconservative think tank were very heartened to hear Senator Barack Obama's vow to continue with their so called "War On Terror", with vigor no less. The Bush Administration's nebulous and open ended "War On Terror" is making billionaires in the military-industrial complex ,as long as America is fighting a war someplace, be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran, "it's all good". The United Kingdom of Great Britain no longer even uses the expression "war on terror", much less the faulty ideology. The UK has the insight to discern that terrorists are not "soldiers" but criminals and the best way to fight international terrorists is through law enforcement agencies, not the military. Common sense tells us we can't fight "terror" in any physical way, so a "War On Terror" is a smokescreen for some other agenda or an excuse to pursue world domination. Is this the "change we can believe in"?

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens.  The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

   The political party and President that holds the above views on America and the fight against international terrorism, is genuinely the "change we can believe in". As far as Bush's overall "War On Terror", nothing will change in either a McCain or an Obama administration, as I see. The neoconservative agenda and the military-industrial profits will continue, just "politics as usual".

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Jerusalem The Eternal, Indivisible Capital Of Israel?"
• " Obama, Zionism And West Bank Occupation"
• "Congress Stands Together For Medicare And The People"
• "Will Obama Continue To Use Bush's Mercenaries?"
• "Ron Paul; 'Looney Tune' Or Social Prophet?"
• "Texas Is Runnin' In The Wind"
• "Should Government Be A Lending Institution?"
• "Turkish Secularists Begin Resistance"
• "Should Obama Just 'Lighten Up'?"
• "Big Business And Taxpayers Corporate Welfare"

Blackwater: Shadow Army

There are a variety of ongoing controversies involving Blackwater Worldwide that are not in direct relation to their specific and individual operations for the U.S. government. However, their role in their work is the factor of these controversies. Critics consider Blackwater's self-description as a private military company to be a euphemism for mercenary activities. Jeremy Scahill points out that Chilean nationals, mostly former soldiers, whose country of origin does not participate in hostilities in Iraq, work for Blackwater in that country, thus those Chileans meet the definition of "mercenary." At least 60 Chilean Blackwater employees were trained during dictator Augusto Pinochet's regime. Author Chris Hedges wrote about the establishment of mercenary armies, referring to Blackwater as an example of such a force, asserting its existence as a threat to democracy and a step towards the creation of a modern day Praetorian Guard in a June 3, 2007 article in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In March 2006, Cofer Black, vice chairman of Blackwater USA, allegedly suggested at an international conference in Amman, Jordan, that the company was ready to move towards providing security professionals up to brigade size (3,000–5,000) for humanitarian efforts and low-intensity conflicts. Critics have suggested this may be going too far in putting political decisions in the hands of privately owned corporations. The company denies this was ever said.

From California to Iraq, business has never been better for the controversial private security firm Blackwater Worldwide. Company President Gary Jackson recently boasted that Blackwater has "had two successive quarters of unprecedented growth." Owner Erik Prince recently spun his company as the "FedEx" of the U.S. national security apparatus, describing Blackwater as a "robust temp agency."

Such rhetoric may seem brazen, given Blackwater's deadly record in Iraq and troubled reputation at home, but here is the cold, hard fact: Blackwater knows its future is bright no matter who next takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The company's most infamous moment came last September, when Blackwater operatives were alleged to have gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square. A U.S. military investigation labeled the shootings a "criminal event," and a federal grand jury in Washington is hearing evidence in the case.

At the end of the day, perhaps criminal charges will be brought against a handful of Blackwater operatives as a token gesture. But this will not bring substantive change to the unaccountable private war industry. Indeed, the killing of Iraqi civilians and other scandals do not seem to hurt Blackwater's business at all. Quite the opposite.

In April, over the objections of the U.S.-installed Iraqi government, which has demanded Blackwater's expulsion, the Bush administration quietly renewed the company's lucrative Iraq contract for yet another year. To date, the company has pulled in over $1 billion from its Iraq and Afghanistan "security" contracts alone.

Blackwater is also winning at home. The company recently fought back widespread local opposition to its plans for a new warfare training center in San Diego. When residents and local officials tried to block it, Blackwater sued the city. A federal judge, appointed by President Bush's father, ordered San Diego to stand down. Now the company is entrenched, guns a blazin', in San Diego and is well positioned to cash in on the increasingly privatized border-patrol industry.

Blackwater's California expansion is just one of several ventures that reveal how Blackwater is growing. Among the others:

* Prince's private spy agency, Total Intelligence Solutions, is now open for business. Run by three veteran CIA operatives, the company offers "CIA-type services" to governments and Fortune 1000 companies.

* Blackwater was asked by the Pentagon to bid for a share of a whopping $15-billion contract to "fight terrorists with drug-trade ties" in countries such as Colombia, Bolivia, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Analysts say it could be the company's "biggest job" ever.

* Blackwater is wrapping up work on its own armored vehicle, the Grizzly, as well as its Polar Airship 400, a surveillance blimp Blackwater wants to market for use in monitoring the U.S.-Mexico border.

But is Blackwater counting its chickens before they hatch? Some may see it as a foregone conclusion that if Barack Obama wins in November, Blackwater's days on the federal payroll would be numbered. Obama has labeled it "unaccountable" and a danger to U.S. troops in Iraq. (By comparison, John McCain's top strategist, Charlie Black, has worked for Blackwater.)

But it is far more complicated than that. Obama may want to draw down U.S. troops in Iraq, for instance, but "diplomatic security" is where Blackwater's bread is lathered with golden butter. Obama has pledged to increase diplomatic activity in Iraq and to keep in place the Green Zone and the monstrous U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Despite his criticism, Obama may have no choice but to use these private forces. His top advisors have painfully acknowledged Obama "cannot rule [it] out."

Consider the numbers: At present, Blackwater has about two-thirds as many operatives in Baghdad as the U.S. State Department has diplomatic security agents in the entire world, including Iraq. Although Obama has said he wants diplomatic security to be done by U.S. government employees, accountable under U.S. law, the State Department estimates that it could take years to recruit, vet and train a force to take over Blackwater's work.

In addition, Obama's rhetoric on Latin America strikes familiar "drug war" chords, which bodes well for Blackwater, and he plans to send 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan, where the company is already firmly entrenched.

Blackwater's work in Iraq began with one $27-million no-bid contract to guard the U.S. administrator for the country, L. Paul Bremer III, in 2003. In five years it has metastasized into a central component of the U.S. presence in Iraq and is spreading fast into the most sensitive areas of the national security apparatus.

There is no question that a McCain White House would be preferred by Blackwater and its allies. The question is: Would a Democratic victory really be bad for business?

   Many Americans today have come to recognize the dangers of the mega private security firm of Blackwater Inc.  Blackwater, for all intents and purposes, are unaccountable, government subsidized mercenaries with a "license to kill", in the opinion of many Americans, a "shadow army" of the Bush Administration. Undoubtedly they will expand their business operations under John McCain but the $64,000 question is, will Barack Obama continue to use this "corporatist army"? If Barack Obama is truly "change we can believe in", then he will end all contracts with Blackwater Inc. but even if he does not (and in my opinion, he won't) ultimately Congress has the power to end the contract with these mercenaries because the Constitution gives Congress control of the nation's "purse strings". Americans have come to invest too much power in the executive branch of the American government. Though the Founding Fathers provided checks and balances within the three branches of our government, Congress has the most power and authority because Congress, particularly the House Of Representatives, is most susceptible to the will of the people (Representatives are in proportion to population and are in office only two years). In my opinion, a Constitution upholding Congress will do more for the American people than any power hungry President ever will. It is my hope that the next Congress will give the boot to Blackwater, no matter what neoconservative influenced Obama or McCain does.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Jerusalem The Eternal, Indivisible Capital Of Israel?"
• " Obama, Zionism And West Bank Occupation"
• "Congress Stands Together For Medicare And The People"
• "Obama Takes Up Bush's War On Terror"
• "Ron Paul; 'Looney Tune' Or Social Prophet?"
• "Texas Is Runnin' In The Wind"
• "Should Government Be A Lending Institution?"
• "Should Obama Just 'Lighten Up'?"
• "Big Business And Taxpayers Corporate Welfare"
• "The Legacy Of Kenneth Lay, Phil Gramm And The Enron Loophole"

America , with her traditions of free markets and property rights, led the way toward great wealth and progress throughout the world as well as at home. Since we have lost our confidence in the principles of liberty, self reliance, hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire building, financed through inflation and debt, all this has changed. This is indeed frightening and an historic event.

Today things are different from even ancient times or the 1970s. There is something to the argument that we are now a global economy. The world has more people and is more integrated due to modern technology, communications, and travel. If modern technology had been used to promote the ideas of liberty, free markets, sound money and trade, it would have ushered in a new golden age--a globalism we could accept.

There are reasons to believe this coming crisis is different and bigger than the world has ever experienced. Instead of using globalism in a positive fashion, it's been used to globalize all of the mistakes of the politicians, bureaucrats and central bankers.

The financial crisis, still in its early stages, is apparent to everyone: gasoline prices over $4 a gallon; skyrocketing education and medical-care costs; the collapse of the housing bubble; the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble; stock markets plunging; unemployment rising; massive underemployment; excessive government debt; and unmanageable personal debt. Little doubt exists as to whether we'll get stagflation. The question that will soon be asked is: When will the stagflation become an inflationary depression?

We cannot understand what we're facing without understanding fiat money and the long-developing dollar bubble.

There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare.

By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971.

It's the post Bretton-Woods system that was responsible for globalizing inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting, and we're seeing what it's like to suffer the consequences of the many previous economic errors.

Ironically in these past 35 years, we have benefited from this very flawed system. Because the world accepted dollars as if they were gold, we only had to counterfeit more dollars, spend them overseas (indirectly encouraging our jobs to go overseas as well) and enjoy unearned prosperity. Those who took our dollars and gave us goods and services were only too anxious to loan those dollars back to us. This allowed us to export our inflation and delay the consequences we now are starting to see.

Printing dollars over long periods of time may not immediately push prices up--yet in time it always does. Now we're seeing catch-up for past inflating of the monetary supply. As bad as it is today with $4 a gallon gasoline, this is just the beginning. It's a gross distraction to hound away at “drill, drill, drill” as a solution to the dollar crisis and high gasoline prices. Its okay to let the market increase supplies and drill, but that issue is a gross distraction from the sins of deficits and Federal Reserve monetary shenanigans.

This bubble is different and bigger for another reason. The central banks of the world secretly collude to centrally plan the world economy. I'm convinced that agreements among central banks to “monetize” U.S. debt these past 15 years have existed, although secretly and out of the reach of any oversight of anyone--especially the U.S. Congress that doesn't care, or just flat doesn't understand. As this “gift” to us comes to an end, our problems worsen. The central banks and the various governments are very powerful, but eventually the markets overwhelm when the people who get stuck holding the bag (of bad dollars) catch on and spend the dollars into the economy with emotional zeal, thus igniting inflationary fever.

This time--since there are so many dollars and so many countries involved--the Fed has been able to “paper” over every approaching crisis for the past 15 years, especially with Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, which has allowed the bubble to become history's greatest.

The mistakes made with excessive credit at artificially low rates are huge, and the market is demanding a correction. This involves excessive debt, misdirected investments, over-investments, and all the other problems caused by the government when spending the money they should never have had. Foreign militarism, welfare handouts and $80 trillion entitlement promises are all coming to an end. We don't have the money or the wealth-creating capacity to catch up and care for all the needs that now exist because we rejected the market economy, sound money, self reliance and the principles of liberty.

Since the correction of all this misallocation of resources is necessary and must come, one can look for some good that may come as this “Big Event” unfolds.

There are two choices that people can make. The one choice that is unavailable to us is to limp along with the status quo and prop up the system with more debt, inflation and lies. That won't happen.

One of the two choices, and the one chosen so often by government in the past is that of rejecting the principles of liberty and resorting to even bigger and more authoritarian government. Some argue that giving dictatorial powers to the President, just as we have allowed him to run the American empire, is what we should do.  That's the great danger, and in this post-911 atmosphere, too many Americans are seeking safety over freedom. We have already lost too many of our personal liberties already. Real fear of economic collapse could prompt central planners to act to such a degree that the New Deal of the 30's might look like Jefferson 's Declaration of Independence.

The more the government is allowed to do in taking over and running the economy, the deeper the depression gets and the longer it lasts. That was the story of the 30s and the early 40s, and the same mistakes are likely to be made again if we do not wake up.

But the good news is that it need not be so bad if we do the right thing. I saw “Something Big” happening in the past 18 months on the campaign trail. I was encouraged that we are capable of waking up and doing the right thing. I have literally met thousands of high school and college kids who are quite willing to accept the challenge and responsibility of a free society and reject the cradle-to-grave welfare that is promised them by so many do-good politicians.

If more hear the message of liberty, more will join in this effort. The failure of our foreign policy, welfare system, and monetary policies and virtually all government solutions are so readily apparent, it doesn't take that much convincing. But the positive message of how freedom works and why it's possible is what is urgently needed.

One of the best parts of accepting self reliance in a free society is that true personal satisfaction with one's own life can be achieved. This doesn't happen when the government assumes the role of guardian, parent or provider, because it eliminates a sense of pride. But the real problem is the government can't provide the safety and economic security that it claims. The so called good that government claims it can deliver is always achieved at the expense of someone else's freedom. It's a failed system and the young people know it.

Restoring a free society doesn't eliminate the need to get our house in order and to pay for the extravagant spending. But the pain would not be long-lasting if we did the right things, and best of all the empire would have to end for financial reasons. Our wars would stop, the attack on civil liberties would cease, and prosperity would return. The choices are clear: it shouldn't be difficult, but the big event now unfolding gives us a great opportunity to reverse the tide and resume the truly great American Revolution started in 1776. Opportunity knocks in spite of the urgency and the dangers we face.

Let's make “Something Big Is Happening” be the discovery that freedom works and is popular and the big economic and political event we're witnessing is a blessing in disguise.

     Some today may consider the Bill Of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, the powers of the Congress and the limitations of the President to be out of date and irrelevant in our technological globalized economy of government controlled by business, business controlled by government and the people controlled by both government and business with no civil liberties, rights and responsibilities. However time and experience has shown that the warning that Thomas Jefferson gave over two hundred years ago has come true, "I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23.

   Some may consider Congressman Dr. Ron Paul a "looney tune" but I consider him a social prophet for our times, who for many years has warned of the economic crisis we now face in America and the world. Ron Paul's solutions to this economic crisis does not entail more socialistic "Big government" spending, fighting a war somewhere to satisfy the neoconservative military-industrial complex or investing the US President with so much "executive privilege" that he becomes  America's "CEO" but rather Congressman Paul sees the solution in the return to the non-interventionist and limited government called for in the Constitution, a government committed to protecting the civil rights, liberties and responsibilities of it's freedom loving and self reliant  citizens. For those , rich and poor, who have become accustomed to "corporate welfare" as well as "po folks" welfare, Ron Paul does sound like a "looney tune" but for those who are willing to stand on their own two feet with not a "handout" but a hand to those who need help in getting on their feet, Ron Paul is an inspiring and energizing social prophet. http://campaignforliberty.org/

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Congress Stands Together For Medicare And The People"
• "Obama Takes Up Bush's War On Terror"
• "Will Obama Continue To Use Bush's Mercenaries?"
• "Texas Is Runnin' In The Wind"
• "Should Government Be A Lending Institution?"
• "Should Obama Just 'Lighten Up'?"
• "Big Business And Taxpayers Corporate Welfare"
• "The Legacy Of Kenneth Lay, Phil Gramm And The Enron Loophole"
• "Karl Rove's Contempt For Congress Continues"
• "Will Bush's Iran Covert Operations Continue?"

Texas, headquarters of America's oil industry, is about to stake a fortune on wind power.

In what experts say is the biggest investment in the clean and renewable energy in U.S. history, utility officials in the Lone Star State gave preliminary approval Thursday to a $4.9 billion plan to build new transmission lines to carry wind-generated electricity from gusty West Texas to urban areas like Dallas.

Texas is already the national leader in wind power, generating about 5,000 megawatts. But wind-energy advocates say the lack of transmission lines has kept a lot of that power from being put to use and has hindered the building of more turbines.

Most of Texas' wind-energy production is in petroleum-producing West Texas, where nearly 4,000 wind turbines tower over oil pump jacks and capture the breeze that blows across the flat and largely barren landscape. The new plan would not directly build a slew of new turbines, but would add transmission lines capable of moving about 18,000 megawatts. One expert said that is enough to power more than 4 million Texas homes.

Supporters predict the plan will spur new wind power projects, create jobs, reduce pollution and lower energy costs. Texans pay some of the highest electric rates in the country, in part because of congested transmission lines.

Texas electric customers will bear the cost of construction over the next several years, paying about $3 or $4 more per month on their bills, according to Tom Smith, state director of the consumer group Public Citizen. But he predicted that increase would easily be offset by lower energy prices.

Environmentalists and landowners have launched protests against wind turbines from Cape Cod in Massachusetts to Idaho and Texas' South Padre Island, complaining that wind turbines spoil the view and threaten migrating birds.

The conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation said companies that build wind and solar farms should bear more of the cost of the new lines, and it warned that those power sources cannot be expected to consistently produce abundant energy.

The wind energy industry has benefited from the support of billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens, who is planning to build the world's largest wind farm on about 200,000 acres in the Texas Panhandle. When completed, Pickens' 2,700 turbines will be capable of producing enough electricity to power 1.3 million homes.

Pickens has become an evangelist for wind power as a way to break the nation's dependence on foreign oil, launching an advertising blitz in which he warned: "I've been an oilman all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of."

The Pickens Plan is a major energy policy proposal announced July 8, 2008 by American businessman T. Boone Pickens, Jr.

Pickens said the plan could cut the amount the country spends annually on foreign oil from $700 billion to $400 billion." He proposed the following steps: Using the United States' wind corridor, private industry will fund the installation of thousands of wind turbines in the wind belt, generating enough power to provide 20 percent or more of the country's electricity supply. Again funded by the private sector, electric power transmission lines will be built, connecting these wind power generating sites with power plants providing energy to the population centers in the Midwest, South and Western regions of the country. With the energy from wind now available to operate power plants serving the large population centers in key areas of the country, the natural gas that was historically utilized to fuel these power plants can be redirected and used to replace imported gasoline and diesel as a fuel for thousands of vehicles in the transportation system.

   At a time when the Bush Administration "Manchurian" candidate John McCain is advocating environmentally hazardous off shore oil drilling, so called "clean coal" technology and nuclear energy, the private utility company in Texas and the billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens are "runnin' in the wind" for the advancement of the genuinely clean energy source of wind power. Because Texas already has the wind turbines in place, utilities officials in Texas have committed themselves to building grids and power lines to take the energy from those wind turbines to  major Texas urban areas. What is amazing about this effort is that it is a project of the free market with no "Big government" subsidies or intervention. As I see it,this is what good old "American ingenuity" can accomplish using the constitutional civil liberties and responsibilities of private citizens within the minimal regulations of the constitutional "limited government". Wind Power Rocks!

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Jerusalem The Eternal, Indivisible Capital Of Israel?"
• "Congress Stands Together For Medicare And The People"
• "Obama Takes Up Bush's War On Terror"
• "Will Obama Continue To Use Bush's Mercenaries?"
• "Ron Paul; 'Looney Tune' Or Social Prophet?"
• "Should Government Be A Lending Institution?"
• "Should Obama Just 'Lighten Up'?"
• "Big Business And Taxpayers Corporate Welfare"
• "The Legacy Of Kenneth Lay, Phil Gramm And The Enron Loophole"
• "Karl Rove's Contempt For Congress Continues"

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. said Tuesday that two troubled mortgage giants should remain in the hands of shareholders.

Speaking to members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in Washington Paulson, outlined the Treasury's three-step plan to restore confidence in the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (NYSE:FRE) and the Federal National Mortgage Association. (NYSE:FNM)

The plan includes extending lines of credit for the companies to $300 billion, allowing the Treasury to purchase equity in the companies on a temporary basis and giving the Federal Reserve a regulatory role in the two government sponsored enterprises, known as GSEs.

"We have long maintained that the GSEs have the potential to pose a systemic risk," Paulson said.

That risk can be measured by Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE-W) and Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM-Q)'s involvement in "70 percent of new mortgages," and their role as "the only functioning secondary mortgage market," Paulson said.

Although leaning on taxpayer dollars, Paulson repeated his position that the two companies should remain in private hands. "As I have said, we support the current shareholder-owned structure of these enterprises," he said.

The desperate worry over the health of huge financial institutions with country cousin names — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — reflects a reality that has reshaped major spheres of American life: the government has in recent months taken on an increasingly dominant role in assuring that Americans can buy a home or attend college.

Much of the private money that once surged into the mortgage industry has fled in a panicked horde, leaving most of the responsibility for financing American homes to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie.

A similar trend is playing out in the realm of student loans. As commercial banks concluded that the business of lending to college students was no longer quite so profitable, the Bush administration promised in May to buy their federally guaranteed student loans, giving the banks capital to continue lending.

In short, in a nation that holds itself up as a citadel of free enterprise, the government has transformed from a reliable guarantor into effectively the only lender for millions of Americans engaged in the largest transactions of their lives.

The new reality is scorned by libertarians and conservatives, who fear state intrusions on the market, and by populists and progressives, who dislike the idea of education and housing increasingly resting upon the government’s willingness to finance it.

Ron Paul in the House Financial Services Committee, September 10, 2003

I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.

One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

     Nearly five years ago, libertarian leaning Republican Congressman and now suspended Presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, foresaw the present mortgage and foreclosure crisis and submitted legislation to forestall that  crisis from occurring, such legislation being the prohibition of further federal government subsidies and guarantees to the giant private mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At present, the Bush Administration continues to pour taxpayers dollars to support these practically failed mortgage companies, which as Ron Paul said five years ago would merely be "postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections (that) will  only deepen the inevitable fall."

    In my opinion, continued "Big government" spending won't solve any of America's economic woes but only exacerbate them. Subsidies for war, covert foreign operations, Wall Street investment banks, mortgage and loan companies, as well as failed alternative energy industries such as corn ethanol, will have to cease. A "limited government" regulated free market will restore the American economy in a way that the "Big government" policies and spending of the present Bush Administration and the potential administrations of Barack Obama or John McCain never will. Banks are lending institutions, the constitutional Federal government is not.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Congress Stands Together For Medicare And The People"
• "Obama Takes Up Bush's War On Terror"
• "Will Obama Continue To Use Bush's Mercenaries?"
• "Ron Paul; 'Looney Tune' Or Social Prophet?"
• "Texas Is Runnin' In The Wind"
• "Should Obama Just 'Lighten Up'?"
• "Big Business And Taxpayers Corporate Welfare"
• "The Legacy Of Kenneth Lay, Phil Gramm And The Enron Loophole"
• "Karl Rove's Contempt For Congress Continues"
• "Will Bush's Iran Covert Operations Continue?"

Prosecutors on Monday charged 86 nationalists, including former army officers and a best-selling writer, of plotting to overthrow Turkey's Islamic-oriented government, escalating a power struggle between the ruling party's supporters and secular forces.

Aykut Cengiz Engin, the chief prosecutor in Istanbul, said the suspects were charged either with forming or belonging to a terrorist organization, or of provoking an armed uprising with the aim of bringing down Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government.

The suspects are believed to be part of a nationalist network called Ergenekon, which takes its name from a legendary valley in Central Asia believed to be the ancestral homeland of Turks.

The opposition says the case smacks of a political revenge against secularist groups — including the military — at a time when the country's top court is deliberating whether to disband the ruling party for alleged anti-secular activity.

Erdogan's supporters on the other hand, say the lawsuit will help strengthen democracy in a country that has experienced several military interventions in the past half century. The military staged three coups since the 1960s and in 1997 pressured an Islamic party out of power.

The indictment accuses the suspects of "attempting to prevent the functioning of the Turkish government or of eradicating it, by using oppression and force," the prosecutor said.

The suspects allegedly devised plans to create a climate of civil unrest to provoke a military coup.

The prosecutor did not name those charged but they are believed to include at least one retired general and an opposition politician, who were arrested over the past year.

Hardline secular Turks believe Erdogan's government is trying to erode Turkey's secular laws and is making too many concessions on national interests to join the European Union.

A court will decide within two weeks whether to open the case.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
1st President of Turkey

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (May 19, 1881 – November 10, 1938) was an army officer, revolutionary statesman, and founder of the Republic of Turkey as well as its first President.

Mustafa Kemal established himself as an intelligent and extremely capable military commander while serving as a division commander at the Battle of Gallipoli. He later fought with distinction on the eastern Anatolian and Palestinian fronts, making a name for himself during World War I. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire at the hands of the Allies, and the subsequent plans for its partition, Mustafa Kemal led the Turkish national movement in what would become the Turkish War of Independence. Having established a provisional government in Ankara, he defeated the forces sent by the Entente powers. His successful military campaigns led to the liberation of the country and to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey.

As the first President of Turkey, Atatürk embarked upon a major programme of political, economic and cultural reforms. An admirer of the Enlightenment, Atatürk sought to transform the ruins of the Ottoman Empire into a modern, democratic, secular, nation-state. The principles of Atatürk's reforms are often referred to as Kemalism and continue to form the political foundation of the modern Turkish state.

      The Founder Father of the Republic Of Turkey, Mustafa Ataturk, wanted a secular Muslim republic with freedom from religion. As he was a military commander, he left the Turkish military with the charge to defend the Turkish Republic and constitution. In recent years the majority of Turks have elected moderate Islamist leadership. Currently the Turkish Supreme Court is ruling on the constitutionality of the current Islamist administration. The evidence indicates the secular military is poised to remove the religion oriented President and party in power. It is my hope that the secular republic and constitution set up by Ataturk will hold sway in the Republic Of Turkey, because theocracies will always be ultimately repressive and intolerant, in my opinion. The principle of the separation of religion and State is a sound one, in the governance of freedom loving people.

Leave Comment

Related Entries:

• "Jerusalem The Eternal, Indivisible Capital Of Israel?"
• " Obama, Zionism And West Bank Occupation"
• "Obama Takes Up Bush's War On Terror"
• "Iraqis Want A Timetable"
• "Despotic Rulers Can't Live Forever"
• "Obama, The Constitution And Terrorists"
• "Puppet Afghanistan President Engages In Saber Rattling"
• "Pakistani Fatalities In US Coalition Incursion"
• "Obama Tells Hard Line Zionists What They Want To Hear"
• "A Principled And Pragmatic Military Commander"

Barack Obama's campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Obama in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.”

“I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added.

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it's just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

Ann Telnaes, a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist, defended the magazine cover against critics who say it is offensive

“There will always be someone offended somewhere,” she said, suggesting that the Obama campaign has responded too sensitively.

The cover, Telnaes wrote in an email, “was meant to be satirical and comment on the ludicrous rumors which have been going around the Internet and repeated endlessly on cable news.” According to Telnaes, the campaign operatives and pundits who have attacked the cartoon have been misreading the image.

Nick Anderson, who also won a Pulitzer for his cartooning and serves as president of the American Association of Editorial cartoonists, agreed with Telnaes that the cartoon was intended as satire. But he also had some sharp words for the New Yorker cartoonist.

“I think, as a piece of satire, it utterly fails,” Anderson told Politico. “The artist and the New Yorker editor [David Remnick] have claimed that it is so over the top that it is clearly absurd. But it’s not sufficiently over the top. It is merely depicting what the whisper campaigns have been suggesting.”

Anderson added that the cover might have been more effective if it had included the title of the cartoon, “The Politics of Fear,” on the front of the magazine.

“It would have been even stronger had they shown an enemy of Obama painting the picture, or imagining it in their head,” he said.

Stephen Hess, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who co-authored Drawn and Quartered: The History of American Political Cartoons, also said that it would have been helpful for readers to have the title of the cartoon as context.

But while Hess is no great fan of the New Yorker cover – in an interview with Politico, he called it “not particularly well-drawn or interesting” – he also thinks it has accomplished its goal by creating so much controversy.

The cartoon is “absolutely” offensive, Hess said. But he added: “That’s partly what makes it a good cartoon.”

“If it makes people argue and think about something, in our society that’s good. It does what a cartoon should do,” Hess continued. “Cartoonists should be equal-opportunity offenders.”

Remnick, the New Yorker editor, has said the cartoon “combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are.”

“Satire is part of what we do,” Remnick said in a statement, “and it is meant to ring things out into the open, to hold a mirror up to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd.”

But Anderson argued that cartoonists have the responsibility not just to be provocative, but also to be clear. He reiterated that this particular cartoon is not clear enough in its satire to be effective.

Jesse Goes Nuts

Copyright © 2008 Creators Syndicate

Political satire is a significant part of satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics, politicians, and public affairs. It has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden.

    The recent so called "satire" of Democrat Presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama, on the cover of the "New Yorker" magazine wasn't funny, in my opinion. Good political satire should be funny while at the same time thought provoking. (The above "Jesse Goes Nuts" is an excellent example of politcal satire, as I see it. Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh!) The "New Yorker" cover cartoon merely affirms what many uninformed Americans really believe about Senator Obama and his wife. Should Obama just "lighten up", after all it's just "political satire"? In my opinion, the Obama campaign should demand a public apology from the magazine and possibly sue the magazine for libel. Americans are guaranteed freedom of the pr