Commentary: Is Obama a Clinton or a Carter?

CNNPolitics.com

By Ed Rollins
CNN Contributor

NEW YORK (CNN) — Today is the 100th day of the Obama administration. Judging a president after 100 days is not realistic — and may be absurd.

After the first hundred days, President Carter was viewed as potentially great, and President Clinton was viewed as a one-termer. Obviously, it didn’t turn out that way.

No one can predict after a few months whether a presidency will be successful over the long four-year term, or eight years if he gets re-elected. We have no idea what lies ahead.

In a way, it is like judging a marathoner after he has completed the first few blocks of a race. You can tell whether he is running easy or smart or whether his stride and pace is correct, but you certainly can’t predict whether he will win or finish the race strong. …

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/29/rollins.hundred.days/index.html

Why would Mr. Ed Rollins frame his question the way he did? Perhaps additional information in the article will give a clue:

Editor’s note: Ed Rollins, a senior political contributor for CNN, was political director for President Reagan and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Based upon the economic condition of the country, Ed Rollin’s question could have  been:

Is Obama a Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

Or perhaps fearing that the country – already a mess, will remain a mess, the question could have been:

Is Obama a George W. Bush?

But seeing that President Obama is shying away from “voodoo” economics, that question might not be the right question. Would Mr. Rollins consider the question:

Is Obama a Ronald Reagan?

But the likelihood that President Obama would fire 11,000 American workers at one fatal swoop means this is probably a bad question. What about:

Is Obama an Abraham Lincoln?

Obama is certainly more like Abraham Lincoln than was George W. Bush like Abraham Lincoln. And Obama has certainly expressed admiration for America’s former President of GREAT STANDING in America.

No one could even imagine Abraham Lincoln or Barack Obama calling America’s Constitution an [EXPLETIVE DELETED] piece of paper.

Compared to: Jimmy Carter And Bill Clinton

And yes, Obama is more like diplomatic Jimmy Carter and treasury sensitive Bill Clinton than he is like Mr. George W. Bush. And yes, we are grateful!!!

Comparing Past American Presidents to: Mr. George W. Bush

What other American President, in America’s history,  could Mr. Rollins have compared Mr. George W. Bush to? He compared the current president to past presidents. What past president would Mr. Rollins compare Mr. George W. Bush to? Name one! Where would Mr. Bush fit in that famous list of “America’s 10 worst Presidents”?

And judging an American President after 100 days may not be realistic or perhaps it may be absurd – especially if there are a lot of neocons hoping for an Obama failure – but instead have gotten a long lost view of competent rather than “train-wreck” job performance.

The far-right wing of the Republican party might move farther right – so far right that perhaps diversity would not have an impact in their organization. Whatever happened to the John Birch Society?

Technorati Tags: obama,clinton,carter,100 days,franklin delano roosvelt,george w. bush,ronald reagan,abraham lincoln

Is Israel heading for a clash with the US?

Jewish settlements in the West Bank may be one of the issues Israel and the US disagree over

BBC NEWS

By Katya Adler
BBC News, Jerusalem

It is Israel’s Independence Day – traditionally time for leading Israeli politicians to give big interviews about their country’s past and future.

Israel’s new Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has remained conspicuously tight-lipped.

Israeli voters went to the polls in February.

Mr Netanyahu knows their number one priority is personal and national security.

This would have been an ideal moment for him to set the scene as regards foreign policy, but it looks like Israelis – and the impatiently expectant international community – will have to wait a little while longer.

In a region where sparks can fly and wars can start without too much warning, Mr Netanyahu’s spokesmen have announced the world view of this new Israeli government will only be revealed around 18 May.

This is when Mr Netanyahu is scheduled to meet US President Barack Obama in Washington.

In the meantime, the Israeli leader’s defence and foreign ministers have dropped some heavy hints (though, not unusually for tumultuous Israeli government politics, the declarations were not always harmonious).

They, as well as Washington’s statements and comments made by Arab leaders, are being closely monitored.

Israelis and Middle East-watchers are keen to know if there will be an ugly clash at the White House next month.

In the end, it is unlikely, but the players’ stated positions make it perfectly possible.

Mr Netanyahu has a track record of difficult relations with his country’s closest ally, dating back to his previous term as Israel’s premier back in the late 1990s. …

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8023366.stm

Israel has demonstrated some winning ways in its war making activities. But the victims of its wars have not been strong enough to give Israel the “respect” it may soon be demanding. Perhaps, a world “shocker” might add to the huge RESPECT that Israel might want. What-if Israel admitted to owning nuclear weapons?

Would the shock of admitting to owning, in access of 150 nuclear weapons get Israel the RESPECT it wants and a high standing in the nuclear club?

If Israel did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but somehow wound up with the knowledge, materials and money to build 150 – 200 nuclear weapons would the United Nations’ IAEA be able to “SQUARE” that with its “conscious” and its behavior(possibly mis-behavior)?.

If Israel  decided to reveal to the world that its nuclear stockpile is significant, would the United Nations’ IAEA show interest, embarrassment, puzzlement or something?

Would the World – perhaps, minus the West, be interested in discovering how a tiny country in the Middle East was able to amass the resources needed to build a significant nuclear arsenal right under the nose of the IAEA?

Would Israel, if it has them, need 150 – 200 nuclear weapons to “fend off” the Arabs who may want Israel to reconsider the theft, in 1948, of their land.

The West has already demonstrated that one nuclear bomb per major city and two major cities per country are enough to get a message across to opposing armies. With an arsenal of, say… 200 nuclear  bombs – one could, at two nukes per country, cover 100 countries. Are there 100 countries in the Middle East that would qualify for a nuke from Israel? Not likely.

Would Israel send a symbolic “ENOLA GAY – II” toward the West? That question would be difficult to answer but one might start with a basic question – are there GENTILES in the West?

Apparently Jewish religious leaders, during the recent Holocaust against Hamas, reminded the world that there is a natural division between Jews and Gentiles. And…

“Holocausting” by the Jews is ok. “Holocausting” against the Jews is not ok – UNDERSTAND?

Technorati Tags: israel,clash with the us,jewish settlements,israel new prime minister,personal and national security,gentiles

Annals of Opposition: 11 Republican Party Moments to Mark Obama’s First 100 Days

False Steps – and Glimpses of Unity – as GOP Fills New Role

abc NEWS

By RICK KLEIN and JONATHAN KARL
WASHINGTON, April 28, 2009

If the first 100 days are a test of a new president, they’re a major exam for an opposition party — particularly one that’s coming off eight years in control of the White House.

With a few new leaders emerging — and more than a few old leaders not going away — Republicans have witnessed battles pitting congressional leadership against White House aspirants, voices of the past against possible voices of the future, and talking heads vs. decision-makers.

Here are 11 key moments from the first 100 days of Republicans as opposition party against the White House:

No. 1: United Vote

It was only Day 9 of the Obama presidency, but it would mark the defining moment for the Republican opposition of the first 100 days.

Every single Republican in the House voted against the $789 billion economic stimulus plan, despite an intense lobbying push by the Obama White House to achieve a bipartisan victory on his first major legislative priority.

The remarkable display of unity was a significant victory for House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va. — one of the party’s new young faces.

It was also an embarrassment to a president who seemed to try everything — including rides on Air Force One and a White House Super Bowl party — to get the support of at a least a few moderate Republicans.

The vote also served as a stark reminder of Republican powerlessness: Even when totally united, they could do nothing to stop, or even significantly influence, the Obama agenda.

No. 2: Limbaugh’s Lips

Rush Limbaugh knew exactly what he was doing when he declared, “I hope Obama fails.”

The problems came when Republican leaders were asked whether they agreed. It put GOP elected officials in a bind: Either contradict perhaps the most powerful force in the conservative media, or be accused of rooting against the president of the United States.

El Rushbo’s comments fed directly into Democratic lampooning of Republicans as the “party of no.” And with the few Republicans who contradicted Limbaugh rushing to apologize for it, the leadership vacuum in the GOP was exposed — a vacuum that Limbaugh and others have been only too happy to fill. …

…

No. 4: Pelosi’s Proclamation

Just three days into the new presidency, a Democrat did more for Republican unity than any GOP leader.

With Capitol Hill consumed by the president’s call for a massive stimulus bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced that House Democrats had gone forward and crafted a measure without Republican input.

“Yes, we wrote the bill,” Pelosi declared. “Yes, we won the election.”

With those words, the seeds of Republican opposition were planted. …

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Obama100days/story?id=7442673&page=1

The above authors said:

“With those words, the seeds of Republican opposition were planted”.

But, the seeds of Republican opposition were planted soon after the neocon led Republican party realized that the American electorate was serious about removing the party of Reagan from positions of leadership. That did not happen in 2006, but it did happen in 2008. Why the electorate’s “shot across the neocon’s bow” in 2006 failed to register, is a mystery. Perhaps the IN-DENIAL tool was used.

The neocons have been in power since the 80’s and it appears that they may have had visions of a permanent hold on the Presidency of the United States of America – thus their idea that the President should need only himself to start a nuclear war – did not likely reference Barack Obama.

Republican opposition to the Democrats did not really start in 2006 as the electorate swept numerous neocon Republicans out of power. Even after that, the neocon led Republican party still had hopes of not having to contend with Democrats after the 2008 campaign for President.

The neocon’s  campaign did not always center on political topics – they had no political topics they wanted to talk about. Lipstick on a Pig came into focus.  What a campaign topic!

After Barack Obama won the office of President of the United States of America, the Republican opposition to the Democrats surfaced – BIG time.

Words like, “I hope Obama fails”, escaped the lips of a neocon spokes-person whose own ideas about “managing his personal prescription drug plan” ran afoul of America’s “best practices” rules.

The Republicans “presided over” America’s first devastated economy in the 30’s. The Republican’s contribution to the solution of that 30’s problem is not well known. And they are well on their way to “STONEWALLING” a Democratic attempted solution to their MOST RECENT wrecking of America’s economy.

[An aside]

What would have happened, in 2006  if Pelosi and the Democrats, had decided to impeach the Bush team? One thing is for certain, America would not now be faced with a “double standard” in the impeachment category.

But WHAT-IF the President was impeached, tried and convicted(based on the odds, not too likely a chance) and the Vice President was not?

Technorati Tags: republican party,obama’s first 100 days

The Imperial Presidency and the War on Terror

April 1, 2006

by Gene Healy

CATO
INSTITUTE

“Trust the president.” That was the Bush administration’s main defense of the president’s bizarre choice of corporate lawyer Harriet Miers for a seat on the Supreme Court. But the administration also had a backup rationale: as D.C.’s Hill newspaper reported, in an October 3, 2005, conference call with conservative leaders, Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman stressed “the need to confirm a justice who will not interfere with the administration’s management of the war on terrorism.”

It was a bit unsettling to hear that proposition stated so baldly, but no one who has followed the administration’s drive to expand executive power could have been altogether surprised that leaving that power unchecked was a key goal for the Bush team. Since the start of the war on terror, the Bush administration has singlemindedly advanced the view that, in time of war, the president is the law, and no statute, no constitutional barrier, no coordinate branch of the U.S. government can stand in the president’s way when, by his lights, he is acting to preserve national security. Bush administration officials have argued

that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as “enemy combatants,” strip them of any constitutional protection, and hold them for the duration of the war on terror;

that the president has the power to ignore validly enacted statutes prohibiting war crimes if he believes those statutes impede his prosecution of the war on terror; and

? that the president has the power to launch invasions of other countries at his discretion, without so much as a by-yourleave to Congress.

In a 1977 interview with David Frost, Richard Nixon described his view of the president’s national security authority: “Well, when the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” In the arguments it has advanced, both publicly and privately, for untrammeled executive power, the Bush administration comes perilously close to that view.

A Presidential Power to Imprison?

In recent months the executive power issue has come to the fore with the revelation that the Bush administration has repeatedly bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by conducting warrantless surveillance of Americans. President Bush has asserted that he has inherent authority as commander in chief to ignore the statutory framework set up by Congress. Judging by the polls and the press, many Americans find that line of argument alarming.

It’s unclear why it was domestic surveillance that finally drew public attention to the administration’s proclivity for evading the law in the name of national security. The claims the administration has made in the FISA debate are consistent with the view of executive authority that they’ve pressed since 9/11. Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of José Padilla, perhaps the starkest example of the administration’s drive for unchecked presidential power. Padilla, a Brooklyn-born American citizen, was arrested by federal agents at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport in May 2002 and held on a material witness warrant. Two days before a hearing in federal court on the validity of that warrant, the president declared Padilla an “enemy combatant” plotting a “dirty bomb” attack in the United States and ordered him transferred to a naval brig in South Carolina, hundreds of miles away from his lawyer. Padilla was held there for three and a half years without being charged, until his recent transfer to federal prison. …

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n2-1-060401.html

Rice: People will soon thank Bush for what he’s done

December 28, 2008

CNNPolitics.com

“This isn’t a popularity contest. I’m sorry, it isn’t. What the administration is responsible to do is to make good choices about Americans’ interests and values in the long run — not for today’s headlines, but for history’s judgment,” she said. …

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/28/rice.administration/?iref=mpstoryview

The Rice quote kinda reminds me of a TV ad I once saw – long ago. Two senior citizens, a mother and father, were rocking in their rocking chairs on their front porch. As I remember it their son, a well know baseball player, was known by practically everybody as being rather “mischievous” as a baseball player. He kicked dirt on more than one umpire, more than one time.

The mother was voicing her memory of their son – the baseball player. She went on to say, “he was a fine boy”. And the father, after a few moments of reflection, reminded the audience that “mother’s memory is not as good as it used to be”.

Ex-Secretary of State Rice, may not remember Mr. George W. Bush’s administration the same way that some of the rest of us do. And that is an acceptable idea, opinion or state.

[SIDEBAR? While the world has to be aware of how  much the neocons wanted Mr. George W. Bush to have expanded powers, would the neocons feel that way today? An advantage that “functional opportunists” have is their CORE values are hard to pin-down. They may not want expanded power for America’s President – unless that President is a neocon.]

Technorati Tags: imperial presidency,war on terror,supreme court,expand executive power

The Latter-Day Neocons and Reaganomics

Reaganomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Voodoo economics)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2008)

Reaganomics (a portmanteau of Reagan and economics attributed to Paul Harvey^[1]) refers to the economic policies promoted by United States PresidentRonald Reagan during the 1980s. The four pillars of Reagan’s economic policy were to:^[2]

1. reduce the growth of government spending,
2. reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. reduce government regulation of the economy,
4. control the money supply to reduce inflation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_economics

It certainly looks like Reaganomics MUST be defined as the complete set of four items – the four pillars. Ignoring any one of the pillars during the application of Reaganomics seems like a candidate for disaster. So, as a composite, one should describe Reaganomics as: (1) reduce the growth of government spending AND (2) reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates AND (3) reduce government regulation of the economy AND (4) control the money supply to reduce inflation.

It appears that it could be extremely unwise to pick and choose a subset of the four pillars, in an attempt to manage a major country’s economy.

But throughout the rein of the neocons(starting in the 80s), a subset of Reaganomics appears to be just what was executed. The neocons, starting in the 80’s seems to have had major difficulties with pillar # 1. The way the neocons handled pillar # 1 seems to be a defining characteristic of the neocons. And they differed from the Centrist Republicans, the Conservative Republicans, Liberal Democrats and Centrists Democrats.

The neocons were in a class by themselves in the category of GROWTH in spending of America’s hard-earned dollars. The below graph shows how America’s spending grew or declined during the administration of many of its Presidents. Spending, compared to earnings, ought to show the proper relationship. There should be some acknowledgement that spending ought to be aware of earnings.

Note where the graph line is colored red and look at the administrations representing that red color. Where the graph line is colored red, Reaganomics pillar # 1 is being stressed.

Note Bill Clinton’s fight to turn the “red line” to a “black line”. Notice what the neocons did to the color of the line after impeaching Bill Clinton for failing to tell the truth about improper touching.

The below graph shows how America’s administrations managed America’s resources:

National Debt Graph: Bush Goes for WWII Stimulus

Note the run-up in debt starting in 1942. That’s equivalent to $10 trillion today. That pulled the economy out of the great depression and into high gear to win World War II.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

One might need to be a WITCH DOCTOR versed in VOODOO in order to make Reaganomics work. The latter-day neocons did not prove to be too adept at doing much of anything and should have been the last ones on earth to “go for broke” with what has been called “VOODOO ECONOMICS”.

Technorati Tags: reaganomics,neocons,growth in spending,national debt graph

Ahmadinejad Supports Two State Solution If…

…Palestinians Vote for Agreement with Israel: ‘Whatever Decision They Take is Fine With Us’

George’s Bottom Line

ABC News

April 26, 2009

During our exclusive “This Week” interview, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would support a two-state solution in the Middle East if Palestinians voted to approve a peace agreement with Israel.

I pressed him repeatedly on the issue, culminating in this exchange:

Stephanopoulos: “If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?”

Ahmadinejad: “Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well. …”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/04/ahmadinejad-sup.html

With the neocons out of office for just over 100 days, the world is already beginning to sound less hostile – more civil. Perhaps the Bush team, with their disdain for diplomacy, served as a catalyst for warmongering.

Technorati Tags: ahmadinejad,two state solution,israel,palestinians,100 days,neocons

Betcha Never Thought America Would be Arguing the MERITS of Physical Torture!

The bungling crew of the latter day neocons had lots of trouble trying to do things right.

They seemingly hired their personnel based upon ideology rather than job skills.

After numerous job failures, it may have been decided that if the neocons’ talents could not measure up to America’s expectations, then America’s expectations should be brought down to the level of the neocons’ talents.

And there was no lower-level to deal with than how to make the POWS in Guantanamo TALK. There were some 400 inmates and news accounts said that prosecutors refused to try hundreds of cases due to lack of evidence. The Bush team had painted themselves into a corner and needed a way out – in a hurry. The calendar, not impeachment, was about to “chime”.

If you don’t have evidence, because of whatever reason you don’t have the evidence, there is the possibility of “persuading” the POWs to talk.

If you use the RIGHT techniques, you can get ANYBODY to confess to ANYTHING you want them to confess to. You can put a “HURT” on them that won’t even show your handiwork. And thus the solution to the problem of no evidence is solved. The solution is a “NO BRAINER”.  Pain hurts. And “nobody won’t even know” that the real problem was a lack of evidence. And the Republican intellectuals will get America arguing the merits of physical torture of a human being. And this ain’t even the Middle Ages. Republicans seem to be opportunists. It is difficult to know what their CORE values won’t permit them to do.

America’s prosecutors don’t seem to have problems with jailing people. They play according to the rules of law. The neocons tried that avenue in a case where the terrorist admitted to being a terrorist. And the “talented” neocons even messed that up. If they can’t move up to America’s expectations, they’ll bring America’s expectations down to their level.

My, my,  how America has changed!

Technorati Tags: merits of physical torture,neocons,ideology,america’s expectations,make pows talk,lack of evidence,impeachment,rules of law

Washington diary: While I was away

By Matt Frei
BBC News, Washington

April 22, 2009

I have just returned from a 10-day trip to Berlin, which turned out to be a timely reminder of how sane, uneventful and pleasant life in Europe can be despite the world’s woes.

The German economy has been hit hard by the economic crisis. Exports have plummeted. Growth has shrunk.

Youth unemployment, especially in the former East, is rising to alarming, Depression-era levels, and all this despite the fact that Germany had no housing bubble, no sub-prime excesses and a relatively healthy banking sector.

To my surprise, I found very few Germans blaming America. I did find the notoriously gloomy Teutons enjoying an early burst of summer sunshine and generally chilling out.

The worship of Barack Obama has simmered down to polite curiosity about how he is doing and reassurance that he is un-doing some of the Bush era policies from waterboarding to Guantanamo Bay.

Undiluted rage

And what happened here while I was gone?

It was revealed, amongst other things, that the CIA waterboarded a notorious al-Qaeda chief 183 times in one month.

He had already confessed to his role in 9/11 on al-Jazeera, but the Bush administration famously did not watch that channel.

Apart from the question of whether this kind of torture actually works – most experts on the subject seem to think it does not – and the dodgy legal justification, there is also the vexing question of timing.

How many waterboarding sessions can you fit in a day? At least six, on average, according to the publicised CIA memo.

While I was away, unhappy Republicans, who seemed to have found their voice of late, organised thousands of tax day tea parties to protest against Barack Obama’s economic policies.

A few protests carried messages not usually associated with tea drinking. Or with tax protests, for that matter.

One poster complained that “American taxpayers are the Jews for Obama’s ovens”.

Another called “Barack Hussein Obama” the “new face of Hitler”.

Add to that the news that gun sales have rocketed because gun owners fear – quite unrealistically – that Mr Obama may be restricting the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms.

To sum up: a small number of Americans, who believe that Obama is the new Anti-Christ, are arming themselves to the teeth, fully expecting to have to defend their property from marauding gangs let loose by the recession and a grasping government.

Mercifully, this is a tiny minority, but what is worrying is the degree to which more and more Republicans are responding to just about anything that the Obama administration does with undiluted rage.

Ideological war

The party that lost the election is getting adept at channelling the middle-class anger that was unleashed by the economic crisis with some of the same tools perfected by the Obama campaign. …

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8011439.stm

America’s treasury was “sacked” during the administration of the Republican neocons. The money is gone – bye, bye. Lots of Republicans stood by as the neocons spent lavishly on wars, business interests and the like. That money went away from America’s treasury. The surplus that ex-President Bill Clinton left in America’s treasure vanished. Some of America’s treasury went into the pockets of suppliers of “goods” and “services”. And yes, some of the “money” simply “evaporated”. That is the nature of the world’s economic system.

Now, however, some of the Republicans, on whose watch America’s financial well-being cratered,  are expressing outrage. They are twenty-four years too late. The idea upon which the Republicans(neocons) fashioned America’s economy is called Reaganomics. It sports a “lassie faire” component, de-regulation, that is an economy killer.

Republicans love DE-REGULATION within the business community. Business was allowed to perform “on its honor”. But, business goals are not constrained to enhance good government. It is likely that the neocons still don’t get it, or won’t admit to it,  but ALL major components of government should be managed by rules. Even America’s presidency is supposed to be managed by rules.

For centuries America’s Constitution has guided America’s Presidents in the fashioning of their responses to conditions in government. It was only recently that an American President described America’s Constitution as an [expletive deleted] piece of paper.

America is “BROKE” and apparently “nobody ain’t responsible to fix that problem in a timely fashion”. It took the latter-day neocons a year before they were willing to admit that America was going “down-hill fast”. Apparently some taxpayers are just getting the message that the treasury is now bare and somebody needs to replenish both the treasury and the earning power of those who initially filled the treasury.

You see, the neocons not only “broke the bank”, their management style broke the “pockets” of those who helped fill the bank in the first place. Economics, among other things, just don’t seem to be a neocon strong point.

Voodoo economics has that effect when an administration tries to use it to manage a nation’s economy.

So, many Republicans stood by without noticing that the country was in a “tail-spin”. The “IN-DENIAL” process handles reality much like the “commodities” that were sold to California’s street gangs during the 80’s.

The ones who controlled America’s treasury, and who spent lavishly on wars and who looked the other way(lassie faire) as new “financial instruments” were put in the market place, now wants America to take note of the fact that America is  broke? And now the Republicans wants Obama to be the REASON for America’s “delicate condition”.

America did not get to  be 300 years old by being DUMB – no matter who showers it with the “propaganda” of stupidity. America is now going through the same kind of renewal “throes” that it went through during the depression of the 30’s. There was EXTREME ugliness spoken during the 30’s.

When someone REMOVES America’s funds from its treasury, someone will need to put them back. And at this time, human beings(tax payers) are the ONLY SOURCE of revenue. Human beings are the only ones who can put the money back.  Politicians do a lot of talking about finding new sources of revenue but there is only ONE source of revenue – human beings.

At this time monkeys have not reached the stage of development, or the stage of evolution where they could be considered a source of revenue. And there may be extreme reluctance, on the part of human beings to try to make a gorilla work in an office for eight hours and be paid accordingly. So America’s recovery task, as one should expect, falls on the shoulders of America.

The American tax-payer is the only one who can bail America out of the deep hole that it allowed the neocons to dig. And it is absurd to think that effort will be “business as usual” or “won’t cost a dime”.

The neocons, on whose watch America experienced this Great Depression like  financial disaster, are doing their best to “pretend” that America is not in trouble. And the Republicans, being the opportunists that they are – can use, to their advantage, the likely fact that the economy won’t experience a national bank holiday. Thanks to FDR.

But there is no such thing as a “get out of this financial recession free” card.

Technorati Tags: berlin,europe,german economy,youth unemployment,housing bubble,sub-prime excesses,healthy bank sector,barack obama,bush era policies,undiluted rage,water-boarding,cia,gun sales,anti-christ,republicans,neocons,voodoo economics,california street gangs,in-denial

Dark Alliance: The CIA, The Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion

By Gary Webb

“The [Dark Alliance] series became the most talked-about piece of journalism in 1996 and arguably the most famous-some would say infamous-set of articles of the decade.” – Columbia Journalism Review.

In August 1996 Gary Webb stunned the world with a series of articles in the San Jose Mercury News reporting the results of his year-long investigation into the roots of the crack cocaine epidemic in America. The series, titled “Dark Alliance,” reveals that for the better part of a decade, a bay area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to Los Angeles street gangs which funnelled millions in drug profits to the CIA-backed Nicaraguan Contras.

Webb’s articles created an immediate national and international outcry. Within days of publication, both of California’s senators made formal requests for investigations of the US government’s relationship with the cocaine ring. Yet, the mainstream press refused to assign any importance to Webb’s expose. As a result, public demonstrations erupted in LA, Washington, and New York. The “Dark Alliance” page on the World Wide Web was deluged with visits-on one day alone it received 1.3 million hits.

According to a recent cover story in the Columbia Journalism review, the series has become what New York Times reporter Tim Weiner calls a “metastory-a phenomenon of public outcry, conspiracy theory and media reaction that has transcended the original series itself.” In his book, Dark Alliance, Webb pushes his investigation further, drawing from hours of undercover DEA audio and video tapes that have never been publicly released, federal court testimony, and interviews. Webb demonstrates how our government brought death, disease, crime and unspeakable violence to millions of its most vulnerable citizens through a breathtaking combination of negligence, greed, and criminal conduct.

The characters in Dark Alliance are like something out of a spy novel. Webb focuses on the three men who created the nation’s biggest crack cocaine market: Norwin Meneses, the international crime boss who oversaw the operation; Danilo Blandon, the Contra cocaine broker with a marketing MBA; and Freeway Rick Ross, an illiterate ghetto teenager who became America’s first king of crack.

Further, Webb takes a broader look at the darkest secret of the Iran Contra scandal: the involvement of US government agents and agencies with Latin American drug traffickers. Dark Alliance may be the most controversial book of the decade.

Gary Webb has been an investigative reporter for 19 years, focusing on government and private sector corruption. His controversial 1996 newspaper series “Dark Alliance” – which exposed the sale of cocaine and weapons by CIA-supported rebels to the street gangs of South Central L.A. – caused a nationwide outcry that is still reverberating today.

Webb has written for the San Jose Mercury News since 1988. He worked as a statehouse correspondent for The Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Kentucky Post before that, and has won more than 30 journalism awards. Webb was part of the Mercury News reporting team that won the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for news.

He has appeared on Dateline NBC, the Montel Williams Show, CNN, National Public Radio, C-SPAN, CBS Morning News, MSNBC, the BBC, British and Australian TV, and dozens of syndicated and local talk radio shows from Bogota, Colombia to British Columbia. …

http://www.uhuh.com/bbks/darkalli.htm

There is a long list of topics that the exiting neocons don’t want to talk about. And many of the topics seem to point to a behavior that is illegal, immoral or both.

After America refused to fund the neocons’ desire for war activity in the jungles of South America, it should have been criminal for an American administration to enhance the delivery of recreational drugs to the streets of America – perhaps in an attempt to fund an “illegal” war.

And indeed the neocons activities were considered illegal. But the punishment came no where near the magnitude of the crime. And, as is customary for the neocons, the top of the chain escaped accountability.

Americans, to a significant extent, don’t know their own  current history i.e. America’s history during the rein of the neocons. And some of the current Republicans are trying to keep it that way.

America’s drug habit is appalling. But to learn that a neocon American government played a role in providing drugs to young people and old people on the streets of America is even more appalling.

Technorati Tags: dark alliance,cia,contras,crack cocaine

Two U.S. senators say H-1B visas allow ‘legal discrimination’

Grassley, Durbin renew efforts to get H-1B restrictions

COMPUTERWORLD

By Patrick Thibodeau

April 23, 2009 (Computerworld) WASHINGTON — The H-1B visa program allows companies to “legally discriminate” against U.S. workers and displace them, said two U.S. senators who today introduced new legislation to “mend,” not end, the controversial program.

The H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act, introduced by Sens. Chuck Grassley, (R-Iowa), and Dick Durbin, (D-Ill.), is similar to legislation the two senators introduced last year. But while the bill may be similar, what has changed since then is the economy.

Indeed, the two senators hope to the duplicate the success Grassley and co-sponsor Sen. Bernard Sanders, (I-Vt.), had in getting restrictions placed on H-1B use by financial services firms receiving bailout funds under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). That bill was approved as part of the massive stimulus package passed by Congress in February.

This legislation, however, is far more sweeping than the TARP-related measure and seeks some permanent changes in how the H-1B program operates, especially when used by offshoring firms. …

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9132052

Twenty-four years of the neocons’ concept of “business friendly” has left America in a serious financial bind. Business, by and large, does not assume the responsibility of government. Business is responsible for its bottom line.

Government is responsible for government. And  a lassie faire government practically guarantees failure of the responsibility of government.

Technorati Tags: h-1b visa,legal discrimination