Friday, October 28, 2011

What is Really the Situation in Libya? (Part 2)


The Butchering of Gaddafi Is America’s Crime
by Glen Ford
Global Research, November 2, 2011
Moammar Gaddafi’s last minutes gave clarity to NATO’s war in Libya. It is a mission of mass murder and theft of sovereignty through the arming of savages. “The saner sections of America’s psychological operations machinery were doubtless as horrified as anyone at the Libyan jihadis’ insistence on revealing so graphically to the entire planet the barbaric character of the ‘revolution.’” Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s “hands and gums ooze blood – a lasting impression on decent world opinion.”
“Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared like ghoulish despots at a Roman Coliseum, reveling in their Libyan gladiators’ butchery.”
Last week the whole world saw, and every decent soul recoiled, at the true face of NATO’s answer to the Arab Spring. An elderly, helpless prisoner struggled to maintain his dignity in a screaming swirl of savages, one of whom thrusts a knife up his rectum. These are Europe and America’s jihadis in the flesh. In a few minutes of joyously recorded bestiality, the rabid pack undid every carefully packaged image of NATO’s “humanitarian” project in North Africa – a horror and revelation indelibly imprinted on the global consciousness by the brutes’ own cell phones.
Nearly eight months of incessant bombing by the air forces of nations that account for 70 percent of the world’s weapons spending, all culminating in the gang-bang slaughter of Moammar Gaddafi, his son Mutassim and his military chief of staff, outside Sirte. The NATO-armed bands then displayed the battered corpses for days in Misurata – the city that had earlier made good on its vow to “purge Black skin” through the massacre and dispersal of 30,000 darker residents of nearby Tawurgha – before disposing of the bodies in an unknown location.
The saner sections of America’s psychological operations machinery – including their collaborators in the corporate media – were doubtless as horrified as anyone at the Libyan jihadis’ insistence on revealing so graphically to the entire planet the barbaric character of the “revolution.” The months of gushing, ad nauseam press reports of near-universal jubilation in Tripoli and elsewhere at rebel “victories” – always under cover of NATO bombs – now made great sense. Who but those in search of instant martyrdom would voice displeasure at the NATO-jihadi triumph, with murderous fiends such as this roaming the streets?
“In a few minutes of joyously recorded bestiality, the rabid pack undid every carefully packaged image of NATO’s ’humanitarian’ project in North Africa.”
The United Nations Human Rights Office and Amnesty International found themselves compelled to ask for investigations into Gaddafi’s death – as if the immediate circumstances were not excruciatingly apparent to anyone with eyes and ears. Although the same U.S. domination of the UN that enabled NATO’s regime-change operation will ensure that the neocolonial powers escape legal liability for the results, the world still sees the executioners, correctly, as monsters in league with Washington, Paris, London and Riyadh. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who gave a snarling thumbs down to Gaddafi just days before his death, appeared like ghoulish despots at a Roman Coliseum, reveling in their Libyan gladiators’ butchery. Their hands and gums ooze blood – a lasting impression on decent world opinion.
The assault on Libya began as a desperate bid by the West and Persian Gulf royalty to bludgeon their way into the dangerous (for them) dynamic of the Arab Spring. The “rebels” (now, ludicrously, the “revolutionary” government) are their guys, just as the Afghan “mujahidin” were the foot soldiers of the Saudis and Washington from 1979 through the Eighties and (for the Saudis) beyond. Here lies the certainty of catastrophic “blowback.” As Trinity College political scientist Vijay Prashad points out, Tripoli may soon resemble 1996 Kabul, a place of mass carnage between rival warlords.
“The world still sees the executioners, correctly, as monsters in league with Washington, Paris, London and Riyadh.”
The Libyan jihadis are far more Saudi Arabia’s and Qatar’s brethren, than the West’s. The Arab Spring has both emboldened and frightened the wealthy Persian Gulf despots, who have their own agendas in the Arab world that are not necessarily consonant with the U.S. and Europe (the same applies in Pakistan and elsewhere in the region). All reactionaries are not alike. The oil-rich monarchs are fighting to preserve legitimacy in their own, Muslim milieu, not for Western-based corporate hegemony, and will cause at least as much problems for Washington as the accommodating Gaddafi they set out to depose at the beginning of the Arab Spring.
But that is secondary. As always, U.S. imperialists cannot resist the temptation to overreach. John Pilger writes, “With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent is under way.” It is by no means certain that Libya will remain “secure” or under American sway. And President Obama’s all-out offensive to the south – now centered in East and Central Africa, but soon to become generalized – takes place with the cell phone imagery of Gaddafi’s demise fresh in the minds of tens of millions of Africans. Obama may believe the pictures send the message that resistance is futile, but it is likely to have the opposite effect. As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said, of the Americans, “The most lamentable thing is that in their determination to dominate the world…they are setting it alight.”
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at
The ‘Rebel’ Assassination of Muammar Gaddafi: a NATO Operation from A to Z
by Martin Iqbal
Global Research, October 22, 2011
Muammar Gaddafi – revolutionary leader of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya – was assassinated on Thursday 20 October, 2011, in the Libyan city of Sirte. The precise circumstances surrounding his death have been clouded with mystery and contradicting reports, but the media consensus is that NATO’s ‘rebel’ stooges captured and killed him. This has lent the unelected and universally despised NTC occupation government a decisive propaganda victory in the war on Libya. However, a picture is emerging as to the actual circumstances of his death, one that puts NATO special forces – likely the British SAS – in the centre of the frame.
SAS squads hunting Gaddafi for weeks
NATO special forces including the British SAS have been on the ground in Libya since February – long before the beginning of the Orwellian ‘no-fly zone’. These forces set up bases in Libya from which they trained and directed the poorly-trained ‘rebel’ mercenaries being used as pawns to overthrow Gaddafi. The Libya war would not have been possible without the presence of these special forces. NATO airstrikes have been coordinated by these operatives on the ground. Further to this, the incredibly inept ‘rebels’ have proven themselves utterly incapable of achieving and holding a single military or strategic victory against the overwhelming size and breadth of the indigenous Green Libyan Resistance. Operation Mermaid Dawn, coordinated and overtly carried out by Western special forces and soldiers, was an indication of the sheer ineptitude of the tribalists, terrorists and extremists fighting for NATO as ‘Libyan rebels’.
After Operation Mermaid Dawn in August, British SAS soldiers, dressed in civilian Arab garb and carrying the same weaponry as the ‘rebels’, refocused their efforts towards hunting down Muammar Gaddafi. Furthermore, the British media was replete with reports of this special forces activity on Libyan soil.
A matter of days ago on Thursday 20 October, 2011, NATO’s war on Libya culminated in the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi. As could have been predicted for a war replete with brazen psychological warfare, the ‘official’ story was that the ‘rebel’ forces had captured Gaddafi cowering in a sewage pipe, and he subsequently died in their custody. This story was betrayed by the fact that NATO themselves admitted to bombing the revolutionary leader’s convoy as it was travelling in the Sirte area on that morning. U.S. officials confirmed that an American Predator drone fired on the convoy, as did French aircraft. In reality it is not justifiable to claim a ‘rebel’ victory here, when NATO bombs were instrumental to Gaddafi’s capture, as they were to the entire war.
Knowing that NATO had targeted Gaddafi’s convoy, and knowing that the British SAS had been hunting him for weeks, a logical person will deduce that NATO would have been tracking the convoy during and after the strike, and an SAS squad would have been rapidly sent to the location.
This theory is bolstered by a recent report from the well-connected Israeli intelligence outfit DEBKAfile. In a report titled ‘After helping to kill Qaddafi, NATO prepares to end Libya mission‘, DEBKA reveals that its military sources indicate Gaddafi was captured and shot by NATO special forces:
DEBKAfile’s military sources report mounting indications that a NATO special forces unit – although of which nation is unknown – located and captured Muammar Qaddafi in the Sirte area.
They aparently shot him in both legs to prevent his escape and informed a Misrata militia of his whereabouts, knowing they would kill him in view of the town’s long reckoning with the former Libyan ruler. NATO was guided by two considerations: First not to comprise the presence of ground troops in the battle zone in breach of the alliance’s UN mandate; and second, to give the Libyan rebels a psychological victory – especially after they failed in battle to capture Qaddafi’s home town of Sirte.”
Qatari special forces are known to have a long relationship with the British SAS, dating back 20 years. Qatari special forces were involved in Operation Mermaid Dawn. NATO’s inclusion of Qatari forces allows the occupying forces to: a) minimise the chance of Western casualties and the resulting political fallout, and b) more easily impersonate indigenous Arab Libyan fighters.
In light of the known SAS involvement in coordinating airstrikes and hunting Gaddafi – in addition to DEBKA’s report – it is highly likely that British special forces (or Qataris led by the British) captured Gaddafi and handed him over to the occupation ‘rebel’ forces after callously shooting him to prevent escape and ensure his eventual death.
The media consensus however paints an entirely false picture of a ‘rebel’ victory. These occupation stooges have been unable to hold a single city without NATO’s bombs, bullets and hellfire missiles first razing everything in their path. Every single decisive event in the war on Libya has been achieved by NATO while being fraudulently attributed to this group of witless, power-hungry rats. Even the ultimate ‘victory’ of capturing and murdering Muammar Gaddafi, was handed to them on a plate by foreign forces – the real face behind the so-called Libyan ‘uprising’.
Also See:
What is Really the Situation in Libya? (Part 1)
24 August 2011
Libya seeks Freedom from Dictatorship!
(Part 1)
21 February 2011
(Part 2)
19 April 2011
(Part 3)
21 July 2011
Depleted Uranium Used in Libyia!
30 May 2011

Thursday, October 27, 2011

More on the Middle East!

Bahrain: Nailing the Lie in Washington’s Rhetoric on "The Arab Spring"
By Finian Cunningham
Global Research, November 10, 2011
US ally Bahrain continued its crackdown against popular calls for democratic rights with the illegal arrest and detention this week of prominent journalist and commentator Jaffar Al Alawy.
To date, nearly 100 journalists, poets, bloggers and media figures have been targeted for detention by the Persian Gulf oil kingdom since pro-democracy protests erupted there last February, according to the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.
The detainees have claimed gross ill-treatment and torture while in custody – independently verified by several international human rights groups. Two respected media figures, Zakariya Al Aushayri and Karim Fakhrawi, have died during detention, their bodies showing undeniable signs of brutality.
In the latest arrest, Al Alawy was hauled into prison after security forces smashed their way into his home without a warrant. Well-known for his radio and television appearances, he is also a published poet, who has been mildly critical of the US-backed Al Khalifa regime.
Ironically, the arrest of Al Alawy followed only hours after US secretary of state Hillary Clinton claimed in a major speech in Washington that the Bahraini government “has recognized the need for dialogue, reconciliation, and concrete reforms. And they have committed to provide access to human rights groups, to allow peaceful protest”.
The detention and torture of nearly 100 media figures in Bahrain is hardly a sign of “allowing peaceful protest”.
Clinton’s speech on US policy and the Arab Spring was spellbinding in its hypocrisy and sophistry. She glorified the US-backed illegal war to overthrow Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and denounced Syria for its “brutal” crackdown on protests. Syrian President Bashar Al Asad, warned Clinton, “must step down; and until he does, America and the international community will continue to increase pressure on him and his brutal regime”.
There were no such bristling sanctions for Washington’s ally in Bahrain, where the US Fifth Fleet is based. Indeed, the US government recently signed a military arms deal worth $53 million with the Al Khalifa monarchy.
Yet on many counts, Bahrain’s human rights violations put it way out in front for urgent international sanctions against its rulers. In Syria, the death toll from violence is estimated at 3,500. But perhaps a third of this total are casualties among the state forces which are combating in some cases an armed insurrection supplied by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel (with obviously US oversight).
By contrast in Bahrain, protesters are unarmed and have invariably conducted peaceful demonstrations of civic disobedience. Proportionate to their populations, Bahrain’s death toll of civilians is easily comparable to that of Syria’s. Furthermore, the persecution of dissenting public voices is equivalent to 3,660 journalists being detained; the figure for the detention of all protesters since February rising to 55,000.
Among those hauled into Bahraini prisons, tortured and sentenced are doctors and nurses who did nothing more than treat civilians injured by American-equipped and Saudi-backed state forces. The proportionate figure for these medics subjected to crimes against humanity amounts to over 3,300. On so many measures therefore, Bahrain is a clear case of outrageous human rights violations and atrocities that deserves urgent international intervention. But Washington is not only tolerating these crimes, it is actively supporting them while doing its rhetorical best to conceal.
The British and Canadian governments are also complicit in this US hypocrisy and twisted manipulation of international law. The former is another major supplier of military weapons that can have no other purpose than internal repression; meanwhile Ottawa maintains a stoic silence over the illegal detention, torture and sentencing of Canadian citizen Naser Al Raas. Al Raas was arrested while trying to leave Bahrain after visiting his family and fiancée during March.
He was tortured during illegal detention in the notorious Ministry of Interior headquarters in the capital, Manama. Al Raas told Global Research that he believes the reason why he is now facing a five-year sentence for allegedly participating in “illegal public protests” was because he happened to be held in a cell adjacent to the journalist Karim Kakhrawi. During the 12 days that Fakhrawi was tortured to death, Al Raas heard the screams from his companion prisoner, whose identity he later found out. And he can recall the horrible moment when the screams suddenly stopped. For this reason, Al Raas believes the Bahraini regime wants to suppress his potential testimony to a damning state killing.
Helping the Bahraini regime do its dirty work are the governments of the US, Britain and Canada, which otherwise take every opportunity to moralise, sanction and militarily attack any state that they happen to disprove of.
In her speech at the National Democratic Institute in Washington, Clinton said: “Americans believe that the desire for dignity and self-determination is universal—and we do try to act on that belief around the world. Americans have fought and died for these ideals. And when freedom gains ground anywhere, Americans are inspired.”
In fending off criticism of “inconsistent” US policy on the Arab Spring, Clinton let the cat out of the bag when she referred to “close allies” Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and the need to “a secure supply of energy”. She added pointedly: “There will be times when not all our interests align... that is just reality.”
Other realities could be mentioned for why the US and its allies are participating in arresting and torturing citizens calling for democracy in Bahrain – such as the fear that the long-overdue franchise for the Shia majority in the Persian Gulf state would boost Iran’s regional role and give the Islamic Republic a degree of respite from Washington’s recently cranked-up campaign to lynch the government in Tehran.
But the bottom-line and truly remarkable reality that Clinton did not mention – which Bahrain clearly demonstrates – is this: Washington stands implacably against democratic progress in the Middle East. Its highly selective invocation of democratic rights and freedoms is nothing but a cynical, self-serving lie.
Finian Cunningham is Global Research’s Middle East and East Africa correspondent:
The Left’s Worst Crime in the Middle East
The left's worst crime in the Middle East is its craven love for tyranny, for grand empires built on race and religion
Daniel Greenfield
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The left’s worst crime in the Middle East has been its support for the region’s Arab-Muslim majority at the expense of its minorities. It has supported the majority’s terrorism, atrocities, ethnic cleansing and repression of the region’s minorities. Very rarely has it raised a voice in their support, and when it has done so, it was in muted tones completely different from their vigorous defenses of the nationalism of the Arab Muslim majority.
The left is obsessed with the Arab Spring, which rewards the ambitions of Arabist and Islamist activists at the expense of Coptic, African and other minorities. It is dementedly fixated on statehood for the Arab Muslims of Israel, (better known by their local
Palestinian brand), but has little to say about the Kurds in Turkey or the Azeri in Iran. The million Jewish refugees and the vanishing Christians of the region never come up in conversation. They certainly don’t get their own protest rallies or flotillas.
The Africans of Sudan could have used a flotilla, or an entire UN organization dedicated to their welfare, which the Arab Muslims who had failed to wipe out the region’s Jewish minority are the beneficiaries of. But they had to make do with third tier aid.
Unlike the Arab nationalists and Islamists of Libya, the French, English and American air force did not come to their rescue. It came to the rescue of the Libyans who showed their gratitude in the time honored way of the Arab majority by massacring the African minority. All under the beaming smiles of the selective humanitarians of the left. But what’s a little genocide between friends?
The left embraced Pan-Arabism, a race based nationalism, in line with the Soviet Union’s expansionist foreign policy
The left embraced Pan-Arabism, a race based nationalism, in line with the Soviet Union’s expansionist foreign policy. Pan-Arabism’s socialism made it easy for the left to ignore its overt racism along with the admiration of many of its leading lights for Nazi Germany. The same left which refused to see the Gulags and the ethnic cleansing under the red flag, turned an equally blind eye to the contradiction of condemning Zionism for its ethnic basis, while supporting Pan-Arabism, which was ethnically based.
Under Zionism, Israel retained a sizable Arab minority. The Pan-Arabists however drove their Jews out with mob violence, political repression, prisons and public executions
Under Zionism, Israel retained a sizable Arab minority. The Pan-Arabists however drove their Jews out with mob violence, political repression, prisons and public executions. The left’s criticisms of Zionism are rendered moot by their own support for Pan-Arabism, and their own longstanding hostility to Jewish national identity, insisting that socialism demands that Jews assimilate into the dominant race, whether in Russia or Western Europe. In the Middle East and North Africa, Arabization has led to repression of non-Arab minorities and the destruction of other cultures through the insistence on unity through race.
As the sun of Pan-Arabism sets, the left has turned its attention to Pan-Islamism with equal enthusiasm. While Pan-Arabism allowed Christian Arabs some representation, Pan-Islamism excludes based on religion. Having endorsed a racial tyranny, the left has fallen so low that it now champions majority theocracies.
The left’s fledgling support for Kurdish nationalism has faded as Turkey has gone from a secular ally of the Western powers, to an Islamist tyranny dreaming of empire. This perverse twist of affairs has the left abandoning the national struggles of an oppressed people when their rulers align themselves more closely with the bigoted regional majority.
The War on Iraq, which the left hated, removed a tyrant aligned with the region’s Sunni majority and the Libyan campaign, which the left supported, removed a tyrant who had deviated too far from the positions of that majority. So too in Egypt, where Mubarak’s excessive tolerance for minorities, led the left to endorse the Pan-Arabist and Pan-Islamist calls for his overthrow. And in Tunisia, where a government tolerant of minorities has been replaced by the Islamists.
The left rises in support of racial and theocratic rule
The pattern repeats itself over and over again as the left rises in support of racial and theocratic rule. And for all the left’s critiques of American and European foreign policy, its own foreign policy which endorses racial and theocratic rule and works to bring it about is a true crime and blot on the region.
It is no coincidence that the one country in the region that the left hates above all else, is neither Arab nor Muslim. Just as it is no coincidence that the Arab Spring replaces regimes tolerant of minorities with Islamists and Arabists. The left’s true regional agenda is the racist agenda of its Arab members. The Arab Socialists and the Islamists who have defined its regional positions have turned the left into a vehicle for their racial and theocratic agendas.
It is the left which is racist. It is the left which backs theocracies and always supports the majority’s oppression of the minority
For the left to shout racism when American troops empower the Kurds in Iraq, or when Israeli soldiers stand watch over tiny strips of land where the region’s oldest and most frequently oppressed minority finds shelter is the height of hypocrisy. It is the left which is racist. It is the left which backs theocracies and always supports the majority’s oppression of the minority.
The idiots in their Keffiyahs eager to give everyone a lesson on the Middle East think the Assyrians vanished in ancient times, have no idea who the Circassians are, or the Arab Gypsies, think the Zoroastrians are a traveling circus, and couldn’t begin to tell you anything about the Druze, the Bahai or the Ahmadis—except that American foreign policy or Israel are probably to blame.
In the meantime they proudly wear a garment associated with the Pan-Arabists and their rejection of Turkish reforms—while stupidly believing that it’s all-purpose garments of revolution. But why should they care that they’re endorsing a romanticized neo-feudalism that led to mass murder and the rise of a theocratic reactionary movement disguised as nationalism. Or that these movements have inevitably led to the repression of minorities and the ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide of the region’s native inhabitants by their Arab Muslim conquerors.
The left relies on the intellectual laziness of its followers not to notice that the nationalism they support is the nationalism of medieval conquerors and the resurgence of their colonial descendants. The only two nations with any historical roots in the region are Israel and Persia. In North Africa, where the Arab Spring has burned fiercest, the left is cheering the resurgence of an Arab Pretoria, racist regimes turning into even more racist theocracies run by the great-great-grands of the men who invaded the region and destroyed much of its history and culture.
The Arab Spring, with its purges of Coptic Christians and Africans, its outpouring of hostility toward Jews, is as perverse as if the left had suddenly decided that Africa needed proper Boer rule. It’s the senseless behavior of racist idiots and totalitarian hypocrites who think that if they call you a “racist” first then they win the argument.
The left has endorsed Arab and Islamic rule over the Middle East, which means that it is in absolutely no position to criticize anyone or anything. It will talk your ear off about Gaza or Fallujah, but it won’t have anything to say about Turkish chemical weapons raids into Kurdish areas of Iraq. The tens of thousands of political prisoners in Turkish jails, some there for no other crime than the use of the Kurdish language, don’t exist for the left. Erdogan’s casual threat to ethnically cleanse the Armenians again doesn’t stir their interest.
It is no secret that the left is totalitarian and that it is attracted to totalitarian movements. But few have been willing to say it openly and clearly when it comes to its politics in the Middle East.
The left’s worst crime in the Middle East is its craven love for tyranny, for grand empires built on race and religion
The left picked Pan-Islamists over secularists in Iran and Turkey. It picked racialist fascists in Egypt, Iraq and Syria—and their local Palestinian militias. It backed Islamist and Arabist revolts again in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. And after backing every totalitarian majoritarian regime that wasn’t too closely aligned to the United States—their one great enemy is the region’s only democratic state.
The left’s worst crime in the Middle East is its craven love for tyranny, for grand empires built on race and religion, over the national and political rights of the minority. These Apartheid states are all they care about. Their greatest effort has been set not on resolving the stateless problems of the Kurdish minority, on the national borders of Armenia or ending the Turkish occupation and settlement of Cyprus—but on adding yet another Arab-Muslim state to the region.
Palestine, the cynical project of Pan-Arabist and Pan-Islamist thugs, is the great obsession of the left. Because if there’s one thing that the Middle East doesn’t have enough of, it’s totalitarian regimes built on Arab and Islamist identity. And the one thing it has too much of is democratic state with a non-Arab and non-Muslim minority. And that one thing is what they are committed to destroying.
Israel and the Jews
By Dr. Laurie Roth
September 30, 2011
One of the largest and most deadly international conspiracies of our time is the presentation and promotion of the ‘big bad wolf’ Israel and the ‘poor little victims’ Palestine and Islam. The last few weeks we have seen the Arab league, representing radical Islam, Hamas and Fatah, both with radical and terrorist pasts, pushing for the creation of a Palestinian state. Hamas and Fatah along with the Arab league want to seize more land from Israel, including East Jerusalem.
Hamas and Fatah say in their charters and Government structure that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist along side them and calls for the death of the Jews and destruction of Israel. Even with this vicious, anti Semitic and unequal playing field, the UN, international community, Hillary and Obama demand a Palestinian state. This is like a bunch of 13 year old rape victims working out a peaceful settlement with serial killer Ted Bundy.
Now, even though there was a small reprieve and Obama didn’t give the UN the vote for a Palestinian state, (obviously, a desperate strategy to win back the liberal Jewish vote he is losing) Hillary is pushing hard behind the scenes condemning the building of homes in east Jerusalem. Representing anti Semitic Obama and herself, they are expressing disappointment over the settlements, which they say increase tensions between Palestine and Israel. Even the lying choice of their words is most revealing. Israelis are building ‘settlements’ not
‘neighborhoods’ on their own sovereign land.
Thank God Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has found the continued courage to confront the UN, Hillary and the rest of the world with the truth. Building settlements in Gilo is not a remote outpost or settlement. It is a neighborhood in the very heart of Jerusalem, 5 minutes drive from the center of town.
Palestinians have claimed for ages that Jerusalem is their capital and they want the West Bank obtained by Israel in the 1967 war. The truth is far more deadly. Islamic radicals that control Palestine and the surrounding Arab countries want only one thing, the death of the Jews and destruction of Israel.
How much more must Israel give away? They already live on a land area the size of a postage stamp compared to all the Arab/Islamic countries surrounding them. The bottom line is that all the countries surrounding Israel, including the wanna be country, Palestine, hate the Jews and preach jihad and death to them in all their mosques and schools.
Other than the ‘boring already’ hatred of the Islamic nations wanting to destroy the Jews, there is something else I can’t help but notice as well. Israel and the Jews started with little or nothing in 1948, many families were still healing from the Holocaust of WWII. Yet, even with their humble beginning, they have turned their country into one of the wealthiest and most productive countries in the world. Their military might, inventions and continued achievements amaze the world.
Can we say……a sea of endless anti Semitism and jealousy perhaps?
The UN is being used as nothing but an extension arm of the nazi party. They want international controls, hiding behind the environment, health and rights, while promoting nothing but controls, anti Semitism and sharia law.
It is high time the U.S. stop wasting the billions we waste on the UN and support our best alley in the Middle East again, Israel. It is time in 2012 to vote out this anti Semitic, Islamic President out of the White House and vote in a real patriot and friend of the country and our alleys.
The Importance of the Middle East
By Gwynne Dyer
26 October 2010
The media in the Middle East carry a lot of Middle Eastern stories, of course, but why do most of the other media in the world do the same? Asian media strike a better balance, but Western media, and any other media that basically follow the American news agenda, focus obsessively on the region. Between a third and a half of all foreign news stories in the Western print and broadcast media are usually about the Middle East.
Like fish that never notice the medium they swim in, people tend not to remark upon this familiar aspect of their media environment. I didn’t really become aware of it myself until I flew into Canada a few years ago, got a copy of the Globe and Mail, “Canada’s National Newspaper,” and found that every single story on the two pages of foreign news it offers was about the Middle East.
Eight or nine stories, about Iran and Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine, oil and refugees and Iraq. Canada has troops in Afghanistan, so maybe that one is understandable, but there was no big war on, no vast crisis, just business as usual. Yet all the stories that might have been there about Latin America, Europe, Africa and Asia had been crowded out by Middle Eastern stories. I doubt that anybody at the paper even noticed how weird that was.
This is a phenomenon that cries out for an explanation, and it’s not easy to find a credible one. It’s certainly not oil, which is the lazy explanation. Oil is quite important in the global economy, and the Middle East has a large share of the market and an even bigger share of the reserves. But it’s been 37 years since the oil-rich Arab states once refused to sell their oil, and they couldn’t do that again.
Not WOULDN’T; it’s not a question of trust. COULDN’T, because it would cause far too much disruption in their own economies. The 1973 oil embargo took place at a time when most of the major Arab oil-exporting countries had populations two or three times smaller than they are now, and when their people did not live in full-fledged consumer societies.
It’s different now. The cash flow from oil exports pays not just for imported cars and plasma-screen TVs, but for the very food that the local people eat: most Arab oil-exporting states import half or more of the food they consume. They also have huge investments in the Western economies that an oil embargo would hurt. Another oil embargo isn’t going to happen, and stories about oil belong on the business pages.
Well, then, how about the fact that the United States has invaded two Middle Eastern countries in the past ten years, and still has troops in both of them? Does that explain the obsessive focus on the Middle East?
No, because the obsession was there before the invasions. In fact, the causation is probably the other way round: the exaggerated importance with which Americans already viewed the Middle East was almost certainly a contributory factor in the Bush administration’s decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
The main factor in the Afghan decision, of course, was the foolish belief that invading Afghanistan would somehow help to suppress anti-American terrorism rather than stimulate more of it. Almost nobody in Washington seemed aware that they were falling into a trap laid for them by Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq had more complex and even less rational motives, but was equally driven by the mistaken belief that this was a very important place.
The greater Middle East contains about ten percent of the world’s population. The Arab world at its heart is only five percent. The whole region accounts for only three percent of the global economy, and produces almost nothing of interest to the rest of the world except oil. So why does it dominate the international news agenda?
The Europeans play a role in this, because the media in the former imperial powers take a greater interest in their former colonies than in other countries of equal importance. But the American media really set the agenda, and their fascination with the Middle East requires a different explanation.
A large part of it is driven by the deep emotional investment in Israel that many Americans have. Israel is not viewed as just another foreign country, to be weighed by its strategic and economic importance. It is seen as a special place, almost an American protectorate, and its foreign policy agenda (which is all about the Middle East) largely sets the US media agenda.
The other big factor is the lasting American obsession with Iran, which is as great as the obsession with Cuba. Both countries have successfully defied the United States, and that has been neither forgiven nor forgotten.
Combine the love for Israel and the hatred of Iran, and you have an explanation for the American media’s obsession with the entire Middle Eastern region. Most media elsewhere, especially in the West, just follow suit. It’s a huge distortion that leads to the neglect of much important news about the rest of the world, but at least the Middle East gives good value for money. The news it generates is unfailingly interesting.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Harper Scraps the Long-Gun Registry!

More guns in Canada now, but fewer owners: RCMP
By Jeff Davis
Postmedia News, Jan 23, 2012
Canadians own more than half a million more firearms than they did in 2006, according to the 2010 annual report from the RCMP’s Canadian Firearms Program.
But while federal firearms data shows that the number of registered gun owners in Canada is dropping, the arsenal of each is getting bigger and bigger.
But many gun owners — and a Tory MP — say the government’s estimates are off the mark, and that there may be twice as many firearms, and firearms owners, in Canada as the RCMP says. They say many Canadian gun owners are “going underground,” due to fears they will face increased police scrutiny and the seizure of their weapons.
In 2006, there were a total of 7,102,466 firearms registered in Canada. By 2010, this number had grown to 7,646,699, an increase of 544,233, or over 100,000 per year.
However, between 2006 and 2010, the number of licensed gun owners has dropped from 1,908,011 to 1,848,000. This represents a decrease of 60,011, or about 12,000 per year for five years.
As such, each registered gun owner in Canada had an average of 4.14 guns in 2010, up from 3.72 guns per registered owner in 2006.
Many Canadians, however, say that there are many more guns and gun owners in Canada than the RCMP says.
Garry Breitkreuz is the Tory MP who drafted the legislation to repeal the long-gun registry currently before the House. He said his own independent research — gleaned from comparing Canada’s firearms import and export data — has shown there are between 16.5 and 21 million guns in Canada.
He said the dwindling number of registered firearms owners is perhaps due to a disinterest in hunting among younger Canadians.
“There is a slow decline in the number of people hunting,” he said. “The registry has discouraged people from getting involved.”
Canadian Shooting Sports Association executive director Tony Bernardo agreed the RCMP’s estimates on the number of guns in Canada is way off.
“There are still seven, eight, nine, 10 million guns out there that are not in (the)system, and never were in the system,” he said.
Allister Muir, a spokesman for the Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association, said he has never held a firearms licence, but owns seven guns.
Muir said he thinks there are between 3.3 and four million firearms owners in Canada — registered or otherwise — and between 14 and 21 million guns.
He said he has never been charged by the RCMP, despite his best efforts at provocation, such as a cross-country tour to protest the gun registry. Due in part to weak incentives to register, he said, millions of gun owners have simply chosen not to inform the government of their arsenals.
Reached at his home in Stellarton, N.S., Muir said that back in 1995 when the long-gun registry came into force, many gun owners simply chose not to opt in. Muir said he thinks there are around two million Canadians who, like himself, have chosen not to register.
“The original belief was that this registration was about confiscation, and that was the driving force,” he said.
Muir said there are now more than 300,000 firearms licences that have lapsed and were not renewed. The licences are supposed to be renewed every five years.
He said he thinks the risk of being slapped with a trumped up criminal firearms charge is much higher for registered owners, so many shooters choose to keep a lower profile.
“And a lot of people are simply going underground right at this point,” he said. “It’s getting harder and harder to determine whether this is an issue of lower ownership or hidden ownership.”
Bernardo estimates there are 330,000 expired firearms licences in Canada, which he said is mostly people who have had enough of the registry.
“Most of them consciously opted out, and said, ‘I’m not going to do this anymore,’” he said. “This is the government’s elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.”
RCMP to seize more ‘scary-looking’ guns before registry dies
By Jeff Davis
Postmedia News Jan 6, 2012
With the firearms registry on death’s door, the RCMP is using what little time remains to reclassify and seize certain scary-looking guns from the hands of Canadian firearms owners.
Undated police handout photo of weapons, cash and paraphernalia seized in a Dec. 12, 2007 raid of a residence in Kelowna by a Manitoba Integrated Organized Task Force Investigation.

Among the guns being seized is a small-calibre varmint rifle called the Armi Jager AP80. Like many non-restricted rifles, it is semi-automatic and fires the .22-calibre bullet, the smallest and weakest used in any long gun.
The AP80 has been singled out because it looks too much like the infamous AK-47 assault rifle, although it shares no parts or technical similarities with that infamous battle rifle.
On Dec. 20, the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program — the office charged with administering gun control regulations in Canada — served hundreds of registered firearms owners with a “notice of revocation.”
“This notice is to inform you that the firearm registration certificates indicated below have been revoked,” says the letter, obtained by Postmedia News. “You have 30 days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer . . . or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them.”
The letter says the AP80 was “incorrectly registered” in the past, and is being banned because it is now considered a member of the AK-47 family.
“The above mention firearm is prohibited as a variant of the design of the firearm commonly known as the AK-47 rifle,” the letter says.
Until Dec. 20, the AP80 was classified as a non-restricted firearm, the most lightly controlled category of firearms in Canada. It has now been moved to the most tightly controlled category: the prohibited firearms list.
As a result, the AP80 can now be owned or used only by people possessing rare “grandfathered” prohibited licences.
The RCMP have also issued a notice of revocation for the Walther G22 rifle on Dec. 30. This gun, also a .22-calibre semi-automatic, was prohibited because it has a removable “bullpup” style shoulder stock.
The Walther G22 vaguely resembles the Beretta Storm carbine, used in the Dawson College shootings.
The letters say nothing about compensating gun owners for the seizures.
Ottawa firearms lawyer Solomon Friedman says the consequences could be severe for any owners who don’t comply with the confiscation notice.
“If you don’t surrender this without compensation, the RCMP can come to your home, seize it and charge you with possession of a prohibited firearm,” he said.
Friedman says some owners of the AP80 are considering challenging the changes in court.
Under current firearms law, bureaucrats at the Canadian Firearms Program can reclassify any firearm through orders in council. Such classifications are done without parliamentary input or oversight.
Friedman said this confiscation effort contradicts the spirit of Bill C-19, the Harper government’s legislation that will relax gun control, which is currently before the House. He noted the RCMP served their letters of confiscation while MPs were away on holidays.
Moving the firearms into higher classification brackets means those owners who are allowed to have them will have to keep their weapons registered even after the Harper government’s firearms law passes.
By changing classifications now, the RCMP will retain records of ownership even after the long-gun-registry data is destroyed.
Friedman says activist bureaucrats at the Canadian Firearms Program are using what little time remains to move more firearms into the restricted and prohibited categories, for which registration will remain necessary.
“Remember, once (the) gun registry is eliminated, the RCMP will lose their ability to identify, target and harass law-abiding owners of non-restricted firearms,” he said. “They only took notice of (the AP80) when the gun registry is in its death throes.”
Friedman says there is a broader movement at the Canadian Firearms Program to seize small-calibre rifles that are dressed up to look like assault weapons.
They include .22-calibre semi-automatics made to resemble guns such as the M-16 assault rifle and MP5 submachine-gun used by police and army.
Quebec launches legal battle to save long-gun registry
By Kevin Dougherty
Postmedia News, Dec 13, 2011
QUEBEC – Quebec’s Public Security Minister Robert Dutil announced Tuesday that the province will go to court to keep the Quebec portion of the federal long-gun registry in service.
Ottawa’s Bill C-19 would abolish the federal registry.
“Quebec believes a system of registering weapons is essential in crime prevention,” Dutil told reporters at a news conference, also attended by representatives of Quebec police forces, their unions, crime experts and crime victims.
In the event Quebec wins its court battle and gets its hands on the gun records, Quebec would then adopt a bill to create its own arms registry.
The Liberals established the gun registry in the mid-1990s but its origins date back to December 1989, when Marc Lepine walked into the engineering school of the University of Montreal with a semi-automatic rifle and shot 28 people, killing 14. He then took his own life.
Dutil noted that 2,561 weapons were ordered seized across the province during the past year out of concerns for the safety of the owner or another person.
Bill C-19 proposes that the arms registry be not only abolished but that all the records will be destroyed.
Dutil made his case for preserving the registry at House of Commons hearings on Bill C-19 in Ottawa, but his federal counterpart, Vic Toews, has said plans to destroy the registry would go ahead.
The long-gun registry has long been a political hot button — wildly unpopular in much of the West and in rural Canada but enjoying broad support in Quebec. Advocates have argued it’s a much-needed tool for police to keep Canadian communities safe while critics call it a costly intrusion into the lives of law-abiding gun-owners.
The Conservatives introduced Bill C-19 in October.
With their majority in both the Commons and the Senate, the Tories now have the power to ensure the bill will be passed and that the long-gun registry will be abolished.
A year ago, the minority Conservative government attempted to repeal the long-gun registry through a private member’s bill introduced by Tory MP Candice Hoeppner.
That bill was narrowly defeated once the Liberals whipped all their MPs to vote as a block against it, and when some NDP MPs who had opposed the registry previously changed their votes to help keep it alive.
During the spring election campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed to introduce legislation if re-elected to kill the registry.
“We must stop targeting law-abiding gun owners, and instead focus our resources on real criminals,” he said in a statement while campaigning in April.
The RCMP has argued it’s an important tool used by police to keep track of firearms.
The RCMP says the registry costs about $4-million to run but it was plagued by cost overruns when it was being launched in 2002. Then-auditor general Sheila Fraser pegged the costs at $1-billion.
Tim Harper: Conservatives get set to kill off an old friend — the long-gun registry
Tim Harper
October 20, 2011
It’s been often toxic, sometimes abusive, but the volatile relationship between the Conservatives and the long-gun registry has endured for 15 years.
But it will be shortly ending.
The Conservatives have signaled they will introduce legislation to abolish the registry, fulfilling a campaign promise — in fact, a promise its predecessor party first made in 1997.
They are finding, however, that breaking up is hard to do because over the years the registry has been a stalwart friend, a gift that kept on giving.
They have used the “Liberal” registry to raise funds and create division in opposition parties.
It has been their perfect wedge issue, a blunt instrument with which to club their opponents in Ottawa, an issue used to try to fatally finish the Liberal party and wound rural New Democrats right in their own backyard.
They have used it to rally their base and lash out at “Toronto elites.”
Even now, with their majority, they still taunt New Democrats about changing their position on the registry in the last Parliament and they seek donations to help them kill the registry, even though they need no help at all.
When a private member’s bill that would have killed the registry narrowly failed last year, some in the then-minority government immediately saw a huge upside.
They may have lost that battle, but it was a way to win the war and use it as leverage on their way to a majority government.
The Liberals, under Michael Ignatieff, forced his caucus to back the registry en masse, saving it for the time being, but hurting some political careers in the process.
The Liberal carnage in May, when the party lost 43 seats, could hardly be blamed on the registry.
But Mark Holland in Ajax-Pickering, Larry Bagnell in the Yukon and Anthony Rota in northern Ontario could at least partially blame their defeat on their support of the registry.
The Conservatives also aggressively targeted the NDP Six, a half-dozen largely rural MPs who switched their position on the registry, under a free vote allowed by then leader Jack Layton.
Their last minute conversions in support of the registry swung the vote, but the Conservatives vowed they would be punished for their duplicity by voters in their ridings.
Manitoba Conservative Candice Hoeppner took the battle to their ridings, holding town halls to preach the evils of a gun registry.
But then a funny thing happened.
The six — Charlie Angus, Malcolm Allen, Glenn Thibeault, Peter Stoffer, Claude Gravelle and Carol Hughes — were all re-elected.
Four were returned to Ottawa with enhanced pluralities.
No government measure of the past two decades has caused more cumulative emotion, sparked more tears or anger.
The day of reckoning is at hand, to be sure, but like a cat with a mouse, the government wants to torture and toy with the registry before finally moving in for the kill.
The bill is on the government order paper and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will introduce the needed amendments to the pertinent federal acts to kill it.
The Conservative majority in the House of Commons and the Senate will ensure its demise.
A spokesperson for Toews will only say it will be introduced “soon.’’
The death of the long-gun registry was really signaled years ago when former auditor-general Sheila Fraser pegged its cost at more than $1 billion.
No pleas from police forces or the victims of gun crime in this country could sway a mindset that it had become a huge boondoggle.
“The party I lead will not rest until the day it is abolished,’’ Harper said a year ago.
He will get there. It was a campaign promise.
But sometimes it’s hard to walk away from a friend.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

‘Restore the Constitution’ Rally!

The Dream of JB Williams
‘Restore the Constitution’ Rally
Judi McLeod
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
JB Williams has this dream.
In the dream of JB, millions of patriots will come together at the Washington Monument on November 11, Veterans Day.
“Thousands can’t turn this around, millions can,” he writes of his 11/11/11 ‘Restore the Constitution’ Rally.
Gathering at the Monument in this critical time of America’s history will be heroic veterans, many still bearing the crippling wounds they suffered in defending what so many both at home and abroad consider to be the most courageous and generous country in all the world.
Others there at the Monument bear wounds and worries of the heart: Their own government is taking their beloved country down. They are the truckers, the housewives, insurance and real estate agents, farmers, waiters and waitresses, working people trying to hang onto jobs in a deepening Recession and ‘Working People’ who never give up on the hunt for another job to feed families.
Unlike so many others out demonstrating in city parks, JB’s dream is to restore the American Constitution and to rebuild the Republic from damage already caused, not to replace a free market society with forced-on-the-public ‘Revolution’.
Everything about JB is Move Forward in mode, and his dream rides on lighting the spark that will travel on God’s Speed by word of mouth and Internet message across the United States of America. Not a single mainstream media has reported on the 11/11/11 Rescue Mission he’s calling to DC.
With or without the mainstream media, JB will never give up.
JB can’t give up because the patriots coming to DC on November 11, is a sort of return of the cavalry at a time when America most needs it.
The patriots coming out are, in effect delivering the blood needed for a transfusion for an America that is being bled dry by an anti-Constitution gang of politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, who have already discarded the Constitution and the Republic’s noble and mighty Declaration of Independence; all those who work non-stop for the Fundamental Transformation of America.
Remote from We the People for decades, DC has become the ivory tower whose walls have become almost impossible to penetrate since January, 2009.
JB’s dream transforms DC into “a place to come to”, something it always should have been.
Without the Constitution, without the Declaration of Independence, without the bricks in the infrastructure carefully built by its founders, what is America?
There are those who convince themselves the destruction of America isn’t happening. There are those who will say it is too late. When it comes to restoring the Constitution; transfusing blood into anemic freedom and liberty, it is never too late.
None of us would have been here today had Winston Churchill decided it was too late to stop Hitler’s relentless march.
“It is quite clear that America is speeding toward a cliff,” JB wrote in his latest call to action. “Even after the Tea Party success in the 2010 mid-term elections, the rush toward the cliff is only accelerating. Totally shut out from the legal system with no political solution available, what started out as a simple question has quickly become a national plea for men and women who had taken an oath to stand up for “we the people” and honor that oath.”
JB’s dream calls on all oath keepers—including the 21 million civil servants working for the government—to live up to the oath they swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Many, who are making JB’s Dream their own, are getting ready to come to Washington, DC by bus, by plane, by rail, and by family car.
Even as they prepare for the trip, many of the parks in their home cities are already under ‘occupation’ by anarchists, insurgents and other agents of change that Barack Obama openly supports.
JB’s dream is nothing less than the last chance in real time to stop the Fundamental Transformation of America into a Socialist State; a dream that is a piercing battle-cry for patriots to come join the dream; the chance for freedom lovers everywhere to realize that there is room for those who love America to take a necessary stand for her survival.
For those reasons alone, please God take JB’s dream viral.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Communism! Is It Just a Matter of Time? (Part 4)

The Re-Emergence of Communism in Eastern Europe
Liberals at heart would eagerly try socialism. “Everybody wants free stuff. Welfare is so much better than work.” Those who do not study history carefully are doomed to repeat it
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
Monday, October 24, 2011
On a sunny fall day, I was walking in my hometown, dodging dozens of cars parked everywhere, legally and illegally, on sidewalks and streets, careful to avoid being run over even in pedestrian crosswalks.
I was searching for my favorite bakery that Dad used to take me to for a special treat. I was disappointed when I realized that it was gone; I half expected that it might not be there since 25 years have passed.
The building was still there attached to a row of various privatized stores after communism fell in 1989. The new occupants had opened boutiques, taking advantage of the new economic freedom of free market capitalism. What I did not expect was the discovery that the new renter of the former bakery was the Social Democrat Party. I had thought the commies were gone. Here they were, one of the twelve or so parties, jockeying for political control.
As we entered the hallway, my husband and I were still speaking English when we spied a large, occupied table. All eyes turned to us with curiosity and annoyance. The austere and smoky atmosphere was reminiscent of the former communist party planning meetings. We excused ourselves and explained in Romanian that we wanted information about their platform.
All the literature was printed in bright red in case there was any doubt about their socialist/communist leanings explained in the motto, “The LEFT is going to do everything right.”
The very young president of the Social Democrat Party admitted that he had no connection to the communist era but he wanted to do everything in his power for the future, disregarding the past completely. He said, we built a very good governing program for today’s Romania with the most knowledgeable party members, academics, professors, and union members. “We will be a party of the masses, of the workers.” This sounded like the former communist party who promised to protect the proletariat against the evil bourgeoisie, yet the planners were party apparatchiks and academic elitists. They knew what was better for the poor masses.
Promising to reinstate remuneration to the levels prior to the recent austerity measures of cutting pensions and salaries by 25 percent, the brochure explained that a person being paid 25 percent less, will work 25 percent less. I have heard this before under communism. “The communists pretended to pay the workers and the workers pretended to work.”
The Social Democrats demanded a 40 percent increase in salaries across the board, indexing by inflation not just salaries but welfare checks as well. They promised collective bargaining and guaranteed jobs to everyone. No modification of contracts would be allowed without union approval in consultation with big government.
The cost of energy would be frozen and excess cost paid by government subsidies. The rich would pay a higher tax than the middle class would. Currently, Romania has a flat tax. Financial control by the state would be increased. This sounded like the Economic Police we used to have under communism. While Romania was becoming capitalist, these PSD members were pushing for return to communism, using euphemisms, class warfare, and stratagems to accomplish it.
The new socialists were asking the welfare recipients to contribute volunteer work in the community. By doing so, they were hoping to ease the pressures on unemployment. Really?
As they promised to make government more transparent, laws and decisions easily accessible and debatable on line, I could not help but compare it to the empty promises made by our own American regime, promises that were never kept.
The Social Democrats were promising the development of infrastructure, massive infusion of capital, “green energy,” carbon taxes for polluters, changing the politics of urbanism, agricultural and rural development, similar to the White House Rural Council. If that sounds very similar to the goals of UN Agenda 21, it is.
Massive funds for economic programs and development came from the European Union to which Romania became a member in 2007. EU offers 200,000 Euros to a businessperson who is willing to invest ten percent of his/her own capital and follow their rules. EU offers 25,000 Euros for a farm with no personal investment. It sounds enticing but there are specific rules that must be followed.
The Social Democrats were guaranteeing social welfare to parents to raise their children, pay for their day care, medical assistance, physical education in communist style sport clubs, socio-cultural indoctrination, environmental education, “school after school” programs, physical education for the masses, national health care system, national pharmaceutical system, and a cradle to grave nanny state.
While the citizens were busy getting their private properties back that had been confiscated by communists from 1947-1989, the Social Democrats were working overtime to turn the country back into communism by making empty promises that could not possibly work because they have failed everywhere else they had been tried.
The new socialists encouraged birthrates by promising to pay mothers to have children just as they did under Ceausescu’s regime. Two hundred Euros were proposed to those willing to tie the knot. Special concessions and programs were promised to communities of minorities such as “rromi,” the new PC misnomer for gypsies.
The Social Democrats promised a “minimum guaranteed justice system” and a national program to stop criminality. They assured citizens that all judicial decisions would be published on the Internet. To discourage the infractions of drivers of fast cars, the speeding fines were to be correlated to the value of the vehicle.
Finally, in line with the new European programs and infrastructure (rail, roads, energy transportation, Internet), the new socialists emphasized communitarianism, smart growth, sustainability, and joint agricultural politics based on rural development and ecological production. For those of you who are not familiar with UN Agenda 21, these are their buzzwords.
(Right: graves of those trying to cross the border in Berlin)
Would citizens fall for this new socialist/communist rhetoric? Have they forgotten how bad life was under communism and how much they wished to be free? Some were shot trying to cross the border in order to defect to the west. Some drowned trying to swim across the Danube to freedom.
Seniors with misplaced communist nostalgia, would answer definitely yes. Middle-aged adults would answer with a resounding no. Young people, who are naïve, idealistic, and liberals at heart would eagerly try socialism. “Everybody wants free stuff. Welfare is so much better than work.” Those who do not study history carefully are doomed to repeat it.
Also See:
Communism! Is It Just a Matter of Time?
(Part 1)
03 March 2008
(Part 2)
10 January 2010
 (Part 3)
08 October 2010
Russia is Still Dangerous, Still Communist!
20 December 2008
None Dare Call It Socialism?
27 June 2009
Feminism - A Communist Plot!
18 August 2009

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Maybe Herman Cain will be the Next President?

From 9-9-9 To ?-?-?
Herman Cain
J.J. Jackson
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is still receiving a lot of scrutiny. That scrutiny comes from people who either do not understand how to do simple math, who have nothing better to offer or who just want to maintain the status quo.
Recently I warned in a posting on my personal website that Herman Cain should ditch the 9-9-9 plan. But, for the benefit of those who have not read that particular post, that warning was not because it did not work. Because anyone with a calculator, basic math knowledge and the wherewithal to get on the internet and look up the figures to multiply by 9% (consumption of goods, investments, corporate incomes and personal incomes, etc.) can prove to themselves that it does. No, rather I warned him against the plan because it was even easier to demagogue by political hacks than the much better plan, which he also supports, the FairTax.
Not that the FairTax is not without its problems. As I said in my article last week, an article that drew out many non-economic minded individuals who felt compelled to express their lack of knowledge on the subject, the whole “prebate” system with the FairTax is nothing but a sop to the welfare class who would revolt if they did not get a check from the government every month. Even Mr. Cain seems to be against this and that is good, because it appears he and I are on the same page with regards to the national retail sales tax concept but also ways to make it better.
But back to Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan which implements the national retail sales tax on a smaller plan and keeps the existing system of taxing incomes even though, thankfully, at a much reduced rate. Up until now my biggest complaint with the 9-9-9 plan until recently was that it kept the income tax in any form. However, like I have said, it works and is better than the current progressive version of the tax. But now Herman Cain has given me a very pressing reason to rethink my support for his plan.
Apparently 9-9-9 is not really going to be 9-9-9 but rather ?-?-?. If you are confused, let me explain.
In an article defending, mostly masterfully, his 9-9-9 plan against the gripes of those that hate it for misunderstood reasons, Herman Cain confesses that 9-9-9 will not be 9-9-9 everywhere. Yes, sadly it is true. A good idea is heading for a rotten turn and Mr. Cain appears to be succumbing to the gripes of the looters who want to make sure they will be able to bargain and ply legislators for favors. In point number three of his rebuttal, Mr. Cain states that he will soon be adding to his plan, “empowerment zones for economically struggling areas in which the rates will be even lower”.
Oh my! Now 9-9-9, a formerly flat tax, becomes a progressive tax? That pretty much makes the whole plan a non-starter in my mind if Mr. Cain is serious about traveling down this nebulous and dangerous path.
I can see it now! Detroit gets to be a 6-6-6 zone (pun intended) and New York City gets to be an 8-8-8 zone while Cleveland gets to be a 7-8-4 perhaps? Meanwhile you and I are stuck in a 9-9-9 zone still carrying the freight for those that have destroyed society.
My advice to Herman Cain is stop this insanity. Stop it now. It is obvious that this idea of “empowerment” zones is something that he is adding to try and bring on board people who will not come on board unless they get special treatment. Enough!
Are you purposefully trying to scuttle a decent plan?
Stick to your guns. Do not start playing politics now. The fact that you have not done that to date is what has endeared you to many in the GOP. It is just not worth the risk to start “playing the game” now.
Listen to the advice Yoda gave to Luke Skywalker. He warned him not to “start down the dark path”. Because once you do, “forever will it dominate your destiny”.
Herman Cain's 9-9-9: Another Poison Band Aid for Bankers
By: Devvy Kidd
October 19, 2011
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1820. FE 10:175
Presidential hopeful, Herman Cain, came out with his proposal to continue fleecing the American people: 9-9-9. His so called 'tax overhaul' is nothing but more of the same. Another life raft thrown to desperate Americans who want to hear "solutions", but don't know how the problem started.
Cain's proposal is a 9 percent personal income tax, a 9 percent business tax and a 9 percent national sales tax. Double taxation for the bankers - and "its resonating with voters"!
Washington beltway mouthpieces, radio talk show hosts, cable news anchors and his rival candidates are all
chiming in:
Cain's ‘9-9-9’ tax plan hits poor, helps wealthy, experts say:
"The “9-9-9” plan that has helped propel businessman Herman Cain to the front of the GOP presidential field would stick many poor and middle-class people with a hefty tax increase while cutting taxes for those at the top, tax analysts say."
Cain's '9-9-9' tax reform plan under fire from both left and right:
"But conservatives have a different concern – that Cain's plan to install a 9 percent national sales tax, paired with income and corporate taxes at that same rate, would give Democrats a brand new tax stream to try to squeeze out more revenue."
Cain has rebutted the concerns over his proposal which, of course, if elected he would have absolutely no constitution authority to implement under Art. II, Sections II & III of the U.S. Constitution:
HYPERLINK 9 responses to 9 false attacks on 9-9-9
Reading Cain's response reminds me of Saint Sarah Palin. Lots of folksy talk, but painfully obvious Cain doesn't have a clue about the intention of those who birthed this republic regarding taxation, which I will get to shortly.
Between exchanging spit over class warfare card and the same old political bickering about Cain's love affair with the number 9, where is any discussion about reducing the size of government by abolishing unconstitutional cabinets like the EPA, "Federal" Department of Energy and Education? Right there we the people would save over $150 BILLION dollars a year - every penny borrowed from the candy store called the "FED". Get rid of the draconian and unnecessary Department of Fatherland (Homeland) Security. A savings of over $42 BILLION borrowed dollars - which goes up every year.
There is no constitutional authority to steal the fruits of our labor to give to any foreign country for any reason, so why aren't the candidates pointing the finger where it belongs - at the outlaws in the U.S.
Congress for not stopping all foreign "aid"? Don't forget: Every penny borrowed from the "FED" has interest tacked on; more debt heaped on our backs, our children and grand children with no future except poverty.
How about abolishing the unconstitutional Department of Health and Human Services raping the American people for social welfare? Hundreds of billions in their budget; every penny will have to be borrowed:
"The President's FY 2011 Budget totals $911 billion in outlays, an increase of $51 billion over FY 2010. The Budget proposes $81 billion in discretionary budget authority, an increase of $2.3 billion over FY 2010 on a comparable basis. HHS’s portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) addresses and responds to critical challenges in our health care and human services systems through investments that immediately impact the lives of Americans. To fulfill the President's health care vision, the Budget builds on Recovery Act investments and continues on the path to health insurance reform in key HHS priority areas."
A few billion here, a few trillion there when the people's purse is overdrawn $14.8 TRILLION monoply "dollars".
I posted the following in my email alert last Friday, October 14, 2011, regarding the news items below:
Panetta warns of retreat in Africa due to budget cuts:
"Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta on Thursday warned Congress that automatic cuts in defense spending would force the Pentagon to reduce its presence in some trouble spots, including Africa, a hotbed of al Qaeda franchise groups. Mr. Panetta previously raised the specter of a dysfunctional, "hollow" U.S. military if automatic budget reductions force the Pentagon to squeeze out $1 trillion in spending over 10 years."
"How about bringing all our troops home from the unconstitutional invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? Tens of BILLIONS of BORROWED dollars EVERY MONTH to keep the war machine going in those two countries:
Illegal Iraq, Afghan, Pak Wars Cost US $4 Trillion:
"Every penny borrowed. More debt heaped on our backs, our children and grand children. For what?
"How about stop bombing the hell out of Libya and the new putrid "foreign policy" of putting our military into Africa, butting in where we do not belong? When hell freezes over - let's keep America drowning in those immoral wars for big profits for another decade:
At 10 years in Afghanistan, US general says 'just over halfway' to reaching goals:
What a capital idea! Our foreign policy - kill even more civilians and children, you know, acceptable collateral damage. For what? $$$$
Civilians killed by NATO airstrike in eastern Afghanistan:
KABUL, July 26 (RIA Novosti) "At least three civilians including two schoolchildren died and six were injured following a NATO airstrike in Kunar province in eastern Afghanistan, regional governor Said Fazlulla Wakhidi said on Tuesday.
The airstrike took place in the Vatapur district late on Monday night, the governor said, after an attack by Taliban fighters on an American military base and battle with NATO troops. A grenade fired by one of the Taliban hit a residential building in the attack, wounding five Afghan civilians. NATO attack helicopters carried out an airstrike in response, but cannon shells from a helicopter hit a school, killing the civilians. At least 1,462 civilians have been killed by fighting in Afghanistan in the first six months of this year, 14 percent more than the same period last year, according to UN human rights officials."
"In Nov. 2010, the people of this country reelected 86% of the same incumbents who have allowed this monstrous mess to continue, all for geopolitical games, the defense industry and oil."
What Cain proposes is just another way to feed the Levethian monster created by the Outlaw Congress while those crooks and cowards continue to kill American jobs through more "free" trade treaties. Cain's proposal is another poison pill that will do nothing but treat the symptoms while the patient is dying on the operating table.
Prior to 1913, there was no "Federal" Reserve banking system - a system in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution. There was also no income tax. The only reason the Sixteenth Amendment was created was to feed that candy store your incumbent and mine need to continue stealing us blind to pay for their insane and illegal spending. While the Sixteenth Amendment clearly was not ratified by enough states, there isn't a single member of the U.S. Congress with the guts to stand up and tell the truth. Not only did the Sixteenth Amendment NOT confer any new power of taxation, the IRS (with the blessing of the thieves in Congress)
continues to misapply the code stealing us blind. Read The Memorandum:
Let me give you an excerpt from the book, Toil, Taxes and Trouble, by the great Vivien Kellems; published in 1952, pgs 41 - 46:
"Since a capitation means a tax of the same amount for every person, this provision makes doubly sure that all federal taxes must be at the same uniform rate for everybody. This limitation that direct taxes be levied by the Federal Government must be in proportion to a census and apportioned among the States in accordance with numbers, is the only provision in the Constitution that is stated twice.
"The only reason that our Constitution required a census to be taken every ten years was to count the people to determine how many Representatives should go to Congress, and how direct taxes should be levied. I wonder how many Americans thought of this in 1950 when those little busybodies came knocking on their doors, asking ten thousand impudent, silly questions which were none of their, or Washington's, business.
"There is absolutely no power granted in the Constitution which enables a top-heavy bureaucracy of empty-headed simpletons, and worse, to invade the privacy of the American people in such a monstrous manner.
"This census is just a preview of what is really in store for us if they actually take over, which they most certainly will do unless we uproot and vote them out.
"The census was to count the people - that was all. The number of people determined the number of Representatives in Congress and the apportionment of direct taxes among the states.
"For a long time I asked myself, 'Why were Representatives and direct taxes linked together and apportioned among the States in accordance with population?' It was understandable that Representatives should be chosen in accordance with numbers but why should taxes be apportioned the same way? And then one day, out of the blue, it came to me crystal clear. All at once I understood the plan to safeguard the future freedom of the nation, conceived and executed by those scholarly men.
"I read again: 'Representatives and direct taxes shall be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers...' 'No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.' And in those two sentences our forefathers bound fast the hands of Congress and secured the liberty and freedom of the American people. How? By making it utterly impossible to levy an income tax.
"An income tax is certainly a direct tax, probably the most direct tax of all since it cannot be shifted but must be paid by the person receiving the income. By specifying that direct taxes must be levied in accordance with the number of people, not upon what they produced, as in the days of ancient Egypt, an income tax was simply out of the question. It cannot be levied upon a man but must be levied upon what he receives.
"Our forefathers designed and incorporated in the Constitution a new system of government. It was built upon a revolutionary idea; the conviction that the government belonged to the people and existed only by their consent. Its genius lay in the careful system of checks and balances among the three departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. And it went further and maintained a balance between the powers of the individual States and the Federal Government. In addition it carefully reserved to the States and to the people all rights and powers not specifically delegated, or prohibited to the Federal Government and further stated that because certain rights were enumerated in the Constitution it did not mean that others not mentioned were still not the property of the people.
"However everything in the Constitution was arrived at by compromise. The interests and concerns of the thirteen states varied widely and each delegate was sent to Philadelphia to protect the commerce, industry and agriculture of his particular state. It required months of patient discussion, argument and forbearance to finally produce the finished document, which when completed, comprised a system of government to protect the people in the rights and liberties set down in flaming words in the Declaration of Independence. It is a wonderful document, the best system of government ever devised for human beings, but it could have varied in some respects and still have worked satisfactorily......
"The supreme achievement of the combined brains of all those men were written into those two sentences
and the freedom and liberty of the American people were secured in them. For in those two sentences the right of the free man to own something was made inviolate. This was his distinguishing mark, the only criterion of freedom in all the world, the right of the common man to retain for himself the fruit of his labor.
"Now this is how it worked. Every man was given a vote with which he could vote for his Representative. Originally only Representatives were elected, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures and it's too bad we changed that provision."
"That Representative having to stand for election every two years was close to the people and responsive to their wishes. That is why he was given the power to tax; all bills of revenue arise in the House. And that is why he must come home every two years and give an accounting to the people.
"But his power to levy direct taxes was limited by an ironbound restriction: that tax must be apportioned among the States in accordance with the population. Since all taxes were to be at a uniform rate, Congress simply could not penalize one section of the country, or one group of citizens for the unfair advantage of another.
"When Congress levied a tax, everybody had to pay and at the same rate. The amount would vary with the wealth of an area, as it does today with the different values of real estate, but the rate was the same for all and the tax was distributed among the States according to population.
"The men who wrote our Constitution did not found a democracy. They feared the so-called 'Democrats' of their day as much as we fear the Communists today. They did not believe in mob rule, or government by the unintelligent, irresponsible mass. They founded a republic and they made certain that the right to vote should be curbed and controlled by the necessity of paying taxes. Scheming politicians could not take taxes from a helpless minority and buy themselves back into office with the votes of the tax exempt majority. When a Representative voted a tax, he voted to tax everybody because the tax was based upon numbers, not upon dollars.
"This was the most brilliant plan ever conceived for guaranteeing the freedom of a nation. It protected every
person in his right to private property, rich and poor alike, and under this protection we built the richest, most powerful nation on earth. We achieved and maintained for the majority of our people a standard of living undreamed of before, the hope and the envy of the whole world.
"And we accomplished something even more important: we developed a vigorous, self-reliant, self- respecting race of people. An American citizen would have been ashamed to ask for a handout from his Government. The Government belonged to him, he did not belong to the government.
"And then what happened? We chucked our carefully safeguarded right to own something out the window, and we passed the income tax amendment. Gone was our apportionment among the States in accordance with population, and also gone was our principle of uniformity. Income 'from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration' could be taxed and without limit. And when we passed this income tax amendment the slow, distilled poison of tax slavery dripped into our veins. We sowed the seeds of our national decay which is rapidly coming to maturity before our eyes today. The heritage of freedom so carefully insured for us by our forefathers is gone; it has been taxed away."
Herman Cain seems like a nice man, a patriotic man, but he's in way over his capabilities. Additionally, Cain worked for our enemy, the "Federal" Reserve Banking System, and has never said a peep about the disabilities of our monetary system and why his former boss is responsible for the destruction of this country (with the blessing of every Congress since 1913 - although' some have fought against it like Charles Lindbergh, Sr., Congressman Wright Patman, Ron Paul and a scant few others), or even broached the subject of sound money. Cain was caught in his own lies recently, and please remember as you read this column, The Despicable Lies of Herman Cain, I have no candidate preference and belong to no party.
Everyday my email box is full of comments like: Mickey Mouse vs Obama on the ballot, I'll vote for Mickey. Romney vs Obama, I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney and on down the line. How sad. Just remember this: All bills of expenditure must come from the U.S. House of Representatives, not a sitting president. Candidates can promise you the moon; they do every election. But, look what continues in this country with the corruption and rot coming out of the Outlaw Congress because of special interests, greed and pure insanity as the spending goes on as well as the grotesque, unconstitutional invasions and occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the bombing of Libya and now U.S. military intervention for tribal squabbles in Africa.
A president can veto spending bills, but how many times have you seen it happen your lifetime to stop unconstitutional spending? Expect anything different in 2012? With the massive anger from voters in Nov. 2010 and the tea party folks - a whopping 86% of the same thieves got reelected. Tens of millions of Americans sent the same crooks, cowards and criminals back to do the same thing they've been doing for decades, but somehow expected a different outcome. Hello?
That's why our last line of defense against the rotting carcass out in Washington, DC, are the 50 state legislatures, nullification, sound money bills and outright defiance of unconstitutional "laws" being shoved down our throats. That won't happen unless tens of millions of Americans become active at the state and local level. Are you doing your part?
Herman Cain: Runaway Slave
By Lloyd Marcus
October 19, 2011
I keep having images of Herman Cain barefoot, covered in sweat and mud, wearing an old patchwork shirt and hand made burlap pants held up by a rope rather than a belt, out of breath and frantically running for his life; to freedom. Menacing sounds of barking dogs in the distance focused on Cain's scent. Not far behind, hot on Cain's trail, are black overseers determined to keep their fellow black slaves in check for their white liberal democrat massas.
Cain's crime? He achieved success via traditional routes; education, hard work and character. Cain did not use or need Affirmative Action or lowered standards; a clear violation of the left's law for acceptable minority success.
White massas Lawrence O'Donnell, Janeane Garofalo and the Democratic Party leadership have instructed their black “slave control” enforcers/overseers to “Stop Cain! NOBODY, escapes the Liberal Democrat Slave Plantation! NOBODY!!!”
So a posse of black overseers consisting of Harry Belafonte, Tavis Smiley, Morgan Freeman, Al Sharpton and other blacks who are loyal to their white liberal democrat massas are on a mission to destroy runaway slave, Herman Cain.
Why has the left launched a stop-at-all-cost political hit on Herman Cain? The answer is quite simple. Herman Cain represents truth. Truth can be devastating such as the great Oz is only a man behind a curtain pulling levers, Soylent Green is people and the greatest enemy of black Americans is the Democratic Party.
Cain was correct in saying black voters have been brainwashed by the democrats. Black overseers have kept blacks obediently and mindlessly monolithically voting democrat for years despite huge elephants in the black community's living room; over 70% black high school dropout rate, over 70% black out of wedlock births and unprecedented black unemployment under Obama.
Black overseers and liberal white democrats do not want to see a character driven black in the Oval office who will not exploit his race to further a socialistic agenda. They do not want a black Commander in Chief whose life confirms the limitless opportunities for success available to all Americans who choose to “go for it”. The last thing in the world the left wants to see is a black president who does not think more government control is the solution to every problem. They also do not want a powerful black voice celebrating America rather than proclaiming America to be the greatest source of evil on the planet. A black leader who loves and stands up for America, individual rights and freedom petrifies the left.
Obama uses his skin color to insulate himself from criticism as he usurps authority like no other president before him. All opposition to Obama's hostile takeovers is branded racist. Obama preaches his gospel of entitlement; everyone is a victim and everyone is entitled to the fruit of someone else's labor. Again, anyone daring to disagree with Obama's sermons are declared heartless and racist.
As president, Herman Cain would be the left's worst nightmare. Cain would be historic, not as the first black president, but as the first black “leader” to occupy the Oval Office. Cain's Justice Department would distribute equal justice to all Americans regardless of skin color; unlike the Obama Justice Department who said they would not press charges against fellow blacks.
President Cain would be a true celebration of all which has made America great; education, hard work, individuality, character, religious faith and freedom. Such wholesome virtues are deemed corny and repulsive to the left who are typically spoiled brat former hippie rich white kids.
And for this reason, black overseers and liberal white democrats must capture, hogtie and drag Cain's black “n----- a--” back to the liberal democrat plantation where he belongs.
And yes, my personal experience bears witness that white liberals freely call us black conservative runaway slaves the “N” word.
Harry Belafonte Insults Herman Cain—but Hails Fidel Castro
Castro's treatment of Blacks in Cuba
Humberto Fontova
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Harry Belafonte recently denounced Herman Cain as a “bad apple” as a “false Negro” and as someone “denied intelligence” and “denied a view of history” (whatever that means.) His host Joy Behar snickered her approval of Belafonte’s every vocalization, often before they were decipherable.
“If you believe in justice,” vocalized Mr Belafonte in an interview with Cuba’s propaganda ministry years earlier, “if you believe in democracy, if you believe in people’s rights, if you believe in the harmony of all humankind—then you have no choice but to back Fidel Castro as long as it takes!”
If only Herman Cain were a lily-white Stalinist whose regime murdered more people in its first three years in power than Hitler’s murdered in its first six, jailed and tortured political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin’s—including the longest suffering black political prisoners in modern history. If only Herman Cain proposed policies to plunge a nation more prosperous than half of Europe’s into one that repels Haitians. If only he’d driven into exile—even with machine-gunners and Tiger Sharks as dutiful border guards—20 per cent of the population from a nation formerly flooded with immigrants.
Instead Herman Cain spent most of his life creating wealth and promoting freedom. He personifies the antithesis to the disaster and horror known as Castroism. This grates on Harry Belafonte.
“The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolities and drink, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent,” wrote AWS hero Che Guevara in his diaries. Shortly after entering Havana, Che took a break from signing death warrants and blasting apart the skulls of defenseless men and boys, exhaled, wiped his brow and gave a radio conference. A black listener asked him what the revolution planned to do for Cuba’s blacks. “We’re going to do for Cuba’s blacks exactly what they did for the Cuban revolution. By which I mean nothing!”
“VIVA CHE!—VIVA FIDEL!” roared Harry Belfonte’s friend Jesse Jackson , arm in arm with Castro at the Univsesity of Havana in 1994.
Actually, Che was much too modest. “Nothing” is not an accurate description of Castroite treatment of Cuba’s blacks. Fidel and Raul Castro are sons of a European Imperial soldier (Angel Castro) who butchered Cuban patriots for pay by the King of Spain. Then came the son’s turn. First off, by media manipulation, terrorism and guile (NOT guerrilla war) they overthrew a Cuban government where Cuban blacks had served as President of the Senate, Minister of Agriculture, Chief of Army, and Head of State (Fulgencio Batista a grandson of slaves who was born in a palm-roofed shack in the Cuban countryside.) These blacks had all served elective and appointed office in a nation 72 per cent white, by the way.
Not that you’ll learn any of this from the liberals’ exclusive educational source on pre-Castro Cuba: the
Godfather II movie, which is probably still an improvement over what the Ivy League teaches. Today the prison population in Stalinist/Apartheid Cuba is 90% black while only 9% of the ruling Stalinist party is black. Many of Cuba’s most prominent dissidents today are black, many female. Were they opposing anyone but the Left’s favorite poster boys, the MSM would have made them household names long ago. Think Rigoberta Menchu and Winnie Mandela.
In 1980 Harry Belafonte visited Cuba to collude with Castro’s KGB founded and mentored propaganda ministry for a documentary in his honor titled, “I Look at My Life.” Within walking distance of where Belafonte posed for Castro’s cameras detailing the horrors of life for black Americans, the world’s longest-suffering black political prisoner languished in a torture-chamber.
“N*gger!” taunted his Castroite jailers between tortures. “We pulled you down from the trees and cut off your tail!” Shortly before his
death in 2006, this prisoner, Eusebio Penalver, granted this writer an interview. “For months I was naked in a 6 x 4 foot cell,” Eusebio recalled. “That’s 4 feet high, so you couldn’t stand. But I felt a great freedom inside myself. I refused to commit spiritual suicide.” Eusebio Penalver suffered longer in Castro’s prisons than Nelson Mandela in apartheid South Africa’s.
On another of Belafonte’s almost annual visits to Cuba he again posed for Castro’s propaganda ministry complaining about the stifling censorship in the U.S. “In the U.S. people don’t know the truth,” he vocalized for Castro’s press in 2002.
Within walking distance of his fulminations against U.S. racism and censorship, Black human-rights activist, Dr. Oscar Biscet was being kicked, spat upon, and burned with cigarettes in a Castroite torture chamber. Cuban doctor, Oscar Elias Biscet had been sentenced to 25 years
in Castro’s gulag for public readings of the Works of Martin Luther King and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.
Shortly after Belafonte’s Cuba visit in Dec. 2009 the Black human-rights activist Orlando Zapata-Tamayo, was beaten comatose by his Castroite jailers and left with a life-threatening fractured skull and Subdural Hematoma. A year later Zapata-Tamayo was dead after a lengthy hunger-strike. Samizdats smuggled out of Cuba by eye-witnesses’ report that while gleefully kicking and bludgeoning Tamayo, his Castroite jailers yelled: “Worthless N*gger!—Worthless Peasant!”
Apparently Castro’s KGB-founded and trained police regarded all of the above blacks as “bad-apples.” And surely the MSM kept you as informed about this half century of racist horrors 90 miles from U.S. shores as they did about Nelson Mandela’s travails, 8000 miles from U.S. shores.
Herman Cain: A step above other GOP candidate
A vision for Economic growth
Felicia Benamon
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Once in a while, there comes a candidate that “up and grabs you” by the collar and demands you listen to the urgency of the time, the urgency of problems facing our nation. That person is Herman Cain. No politician he is to me, he represents the working man.
The straight-talking presidential candidate is leading the presidential pack with his common sense approach to our nation’s problems—Cain has grabbed the attention of the American people. He is able to connect with a large base of people who recognize the soundness and straight forward approach of his ideas.
Mr. Cain is a man who has earned and worked his way to the top. He is a man with business experience who will know a little something about economics—to pull our nation out of this slump. He is someone who respects free enterprise, and believes in the individuals’ ability through creativity and innovation to create jobs, wealth, and prosperity—not putting together useless “stimulus” packages that benefit no one in the long run.
CBS senior political reporter Brian Montopoli writes, “Certainly, the simplicity of his message - most notably, of course, in the form of his “9-9-9” plan - has captured primany voters’ attention.”
Of course in the same article, he questions whether Cain is knowledgeable enough to hold the high position
from statements Cain has made before.
There is no perfect candidate, and presidents make mistakes. But assuredly, America needs a man who is in tune with and believes in the American people without making empty promises. Someone who has a plan. Someone who believes in America and her ability to pull herself out of the mire.
I’ve heard Cain reference former president Ronald Reagan, America as the “shining city on a hill.” He elaborated and said, “…but of late, that shining city on a hill has started to slide down the hilltop.”
Everyone knows running for president takes money. Cain has so far raised 2.8 million over the summer and has 1.3 million currently. This is a man who, to me, takes little resources/funds he has (compared to his competitors) and makes much use of it wisely. He has certainly passed the pack of top contenders who have far more to spend and are using more methods to reach voters.
People are looking for a candidate that is not tied to big money and Herman Cain is it. He does it his way and is having success at it. That is the mark of true leadership.
You will expect no political correctness from this candidate. Yes the GOP is not immune to the political correctness trap. If you want a no-nonsense man leading this nation, Herman Cain is that person who needs no-nonsense support behind him.
Montopoli continued: “Cain is essentially throwing out the playbook in favor of a seat-of-the-pants, cash-poor, lightly staffed operation that is leaving political insiders scratching their heads. If Cain is able to win the nomination, he’ll not only shock the political establishment, he’ll forever alter the way the political game is played. He might even shock himself.”
I believe America is ready for someone with fresh, new ideas ( Herman Cain’s 9-9-9: A vision for Economic growth: Video).

It’s time to put on our big boy pants and get to work to support Herman Cain in this critical hour!
Also See:
What About Mitt Romney for President?
13 October 2011
Will Rick Perry be the Next President? 23 August 2011
Will Michele Bachmann be the Next President?
22 August 2011