A Gentleman’s view.

The dirty game of politics played by gangsters with degrees cloaked in Brooks Brothers proper!

Archive for the ‘Iraq’


Tea Party Madness…

How Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories May Pose a Genuine Threat to Humanity

Tea Partiers, freaking out about “Agenda 21″ and convinced global warming isn’t real, are gumming up the works for those trying to save the planet.

The paranoia infecting a broad swath of the American right-wing can be comical at times — think about Orly Taitz and her fellow Birthers. But we laugh at our own peril, because what Richard Hofstadter famously characterized as “the paranoid style in American politics” poses a serious threat to our future: the right’s snowballing conspiracy theories could ultimately lead to disaster.

Consider what’s happening in Virginia’s Middle Peninsula on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, among the areas in the U.S. most vulnerable to climate change. Earlier this month, Darryl Fears, reporting for the Washington Postoffered a glimpse into the madness that city planners have faced in recent months as a local Tea Party group, convinced that a nefarious plot by scientists and city officials is afoot, have disrupted their work trying to mitigate the potential impacts of rising sea levels.

“The uprising,” wrote Fears, “began at a February meeting about starting a business park for farming oysters in Mathews County.” He continued:

The program to help restore the Chesapeake Bay oyster population was slated for land owned by the county, but it was shouted down as a useless federal program that would expand the national debt. The proposal was tabled.

As the opposition grew over the summer, confrontations became so heated that some planners posted uniformed police officers at meetings and others hired consultants to help calm audiences and manage the indoor environment, several planners said.

In James City County, speakers were shouted away from a podium. In Page County, angry farmers forced commissioners to stop a meeting. In Gloucester County, planners sat stone-faced as activists took turns reading portions of the 500-page Agenda 21 text, delaying a meeting for more than an hour.

“Agenda 21″ is one of a number of silly but dangerous conspiracy theories sweeping through the fever swamps of the right. Although admittedly sinister-sounding, Agenda 21 is just a blueprint for sustainable development, especially in emerging economies. It outlines how wealthier countries can contribute to smarter growth through technology transfers and public education. It stresses the importance of fighting deforestation and conserving bio-diversity — all things that normal people would consider wise.

The important thing to understand about Agenda 21 is that there is absolutely nothing binding or compelling member countries to implement any part of it. It’s not a treaty — it is entirely voluntary and certainly doesn’t have any connection to local governments. Yet for the right, with its long John Birch Society undercurrent of paranoia about international institutions, Agenda 21 represents some kind of dark UN conspiracy to impose socialism on the “free world.”

That craziness lies at the heart of Michele Bachmann’s quixotic war on energy-efficient lightbulbs. Tim Murphy reported, “The Minnesota congresswoman is part of a movement that considers ‘sustainability’ an existential threat to the United States, one with far-reaching consequences for education, transportation, and family values.”

Last year, during the Denver mayoral race, Tea Party candidate Dan Maes argued that a local bike-sharing program, a popular initiative among city residents, was a “very well-disguised” part of a plan by then-Denver mayor (and now Colorado governor) John Hickenlooper for “converting Denver into a United Nations community.” Alex Jones constantly hawks the conspiracy. Glenn Beck warned it would lead to “centralized control over all of human life on planet Earth.” And in September, Newt Gingrich, hoping to burnish his wingnutty creds, told a group of Orlando Tea Partiers that, if elected, his first order of business would be “to cease all federal funding of any kind of activity that relates to United Nations Agenda 21.” (Currently, no federal funding of any kind is used for implementing Agenda 21.)

It’s causing uprisings like that seen in Virginia at ordinarily dull city planning board meetings across the country. As Stephanie Mencimer reported for Mother Jones, “Agenda 21 paranoia has swept the Tea Party scene, driving activists around the country to delve into the minutiae of local governance… they’re descending on planning meetings and transit debates, wielding PowerPoints about Agenda 21, and generally freaking out low-level bureaucrats with accusations about their roles in a supposed international conspiracy.”

Agenda 21 is inextricably linked to the most dangerous conspiracy theory going: that 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists are lying when they say human activities are contributing to global climate change. This, too, is supposedly in service of the goal of destroying capitalism, which means one has to believe that climatologists around the world are not only all very political — enough to conspire to deceive the entire world — but they also all share the same largely discredited ideology.

Back in Virginia, the Coastal Zone Management program is struggling to “help prepare for the predicted effects of climate change, especially sea-level rise on Virginia’s coastal resources.” The area is uniquely imperiled; in June, Darryl Fears, a science correspondent, reported that Hampton Roads is especially vulnerable because several rivers run through it on their way to the Chesapeake Bay. He continued:

Unfortunately, this crowded, low-lying area also has long-term geological issues to deal with. Thirty-five million years ago, a meteor landed relatively close by and created the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater. Hampton Roads is also home to a downward-pressing glacial formation created during the Ice Age. Scientists theorize that these ancient occurrences are causing the land to sink — and together account for about one-third of the sea-level change.

Fears notes that “the water has risen so much that Naval Station Norfolk is replacing 14 piers at $60 million each to keep ship-repair facilities high and dry,” but “this geology is lost in local meetings, where distrust of the local and federal governments is at center stage.”

And their harassment is having the desired effect of “freaking out low-level bureaucrats” trying to prepare the area for the changes to come, preparations that have absolutely nothing to do with the United Nations, Agenda 21 or “socialism.” According to Fears, Shereen Hughes, a former planning commissioner, is “worried that some officials are giving ground to fearmongers. The uprising against smart growth ‘is ridiculous’ and ‘a conspiracy theory,’ she said. But it’s effective.”

Planners aren’t saying this is wrong, Hughes said, because “most are afraid they won’t have a job if they’re too vocal about this issue.” Tea Party members have political allies who “might stand up” against planners who complain, Hughes said.

In his excellent book, Collapse, scientist Jared Diamond looked at a number of societies that had seen their physical climates change. He tried to determine what made some cultures die out while others persevered. According to Diamond, it wasn’t the severity of the change, or its speed that was the determining factor. One important variable was the foresight of those societies’ leaders — their ability to properly diagnose the problem and adapt, to come up with proactive solutions to the problems they faced.

Diamond, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, said, “one always has to ask about people’s cultural response. Why is it that people failed to perceive the problems developing around them, or if they perceived them, why did they fail to solve the problems that would eventually do them in? Why did some peoples perceive and recognize their problems and others not?” Diamond explained:

A theme that emerges…is insulation of the decision-making elite from the consequences of their actions. That is to say, in societies where the elites do not suffer from the consequences of their decisions, but can insulate themselves, the elite are more likely to pursue their short-term interests, even though that may be bad for the long-term interests of the society, including the children of the elite themselves.

Today, oil and gas corporations are still funding a bunch of crank climate change deniers in order to avoid regulations that might slow their “short-term interests” in extracting as much wealth as they can from traditional hydrocarbons. And here we have Tea Partiers — a “movement” nurtured by business-friendly Republican operatives and backed by the Koch brothers’ dirty energy money – being whipped into a frenzy by the likes of Glenn Beck and shouting down local planners trying to do something about rising water levels. They’re freaking out about energy-efficient lightbulbs and bike-sharing programs, the very sorts of things we need in order to stave off disaster.

So the next time you hear a wingnut spewing feverish nonsense about “climategate” or the “globalist agenda,” remember that this is not just fodder for late-night TV monologues, but the kind of stuff that has in the past brought societies faced with changing environments to their ultimate end.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.
Share

Goodbye Iraq; Not Bad Mr. President…

Pretty Doggone Good for a Failed Presidency By 

As the world watched the last U.S. combat troops cross over the Iraqi border into Kuwait; one could easily be inclined to contemplate on what, by today’s standards, constitutes a failed presidency, since the Obama administration has been tagged with that label regularly. And this should come as no big surprise, because if you have ever listened to the Tea Party, the Republican Party, the Green Party, firedoglake.com, cable news, particularly Fox News; talk radio, Donald Trump, every presidential nominee for the 2012 GOP race—past and present, and even a few Democrats and a few liberals, you are more than aware of the ongoing, political narrative of the failed presidency of the Obama administration.

Despite the constant whining of conservatives who describe a lame-stream media that’s unashamedly in the tank for President Obama, outside of MSNBC there has been a strong, flowing current of political failure that has been attributed to President Obama, as many talking headed carnival barkers like Donald Trump have openly characterized him as the worst president in U.S. history. And this so-called lame stream media that’s supposed to be vying so heavily for Obama, along with politicians like Senator John McCain, have had no problems declaring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the only successful star of the entire Obama administration. Some of the political pundits have also implied everything from Hillary Clinton forcing Obama’s hand to get involved in Libya to Obama enlisting the services of President Clinton to help sell his 2010 payroll tax credit.

 

Now to the conservative ideology, this is like pouring blood in the water with a GOP, shark fin circling in full view making Obama look like political tuna. So while the Dick Cheney’s of the political world use the media to try to egg on Hillary Clinton into running against Obama in 2012; suggesting that she would have been much better at working with Republicans to get more thingsdone, when it is clearly a fact that President Obama has gone above and beyond the call of duty to try to work with Republicans to get things done, it only works to reaffirm the political perception of President Obama as the Black President Carter who is just ripe for the pickings by all of the wannabe Reagan-like candidates of the 2012 GOP.

So for a failed presidency that Ron Paul just stood on a stage in Iowa during the last debate and laughed about how he believed that any of the current, Republican nominees could beat Obama easily because his incompetence has already defeated his presidential chances, there have been some monumental successes during this so-called failed presidency; the kind of political successes that successful presidents hope to have and unsuccessful presidents fail to have. But to a person who is easily brainwashed, it would be very understandable to see how one could be led to believe that Obama’s presidency is a serious downgrade from President Bush 43’s eight-year-term in office, just based on the political rhetoric of 2011 alone.

Nevertheless, one should always keep in mind that quite often the only difference between the perceptions of political success and political failure is the identity of the recipient and the identity and the motives of the designator! For example, if President Bush 43 and Dick Cheney had found a way to capture and or kill Osama Bin Laden, there is a very good chance that their administration would not have been labeled as a failure, regardless of what happened after that, but poor President Obama is just not that lucky. In all honesty, President Obama could have accompanied the Navy Seals into Pakistan and taken the kill shot that put down Osama bin Laden himself, and he would have still been handed the label of a failed presidency fraught with accusations of a weak foreign policy built around bowing to dictators and apologizing to any country that will listen.

So, think about this for a moment. What if President Obama followed President Bush 43’s lead and decided to land on an aircraft carrier tomorrow to have his big “Mission Accomplished” moment to celebrate the end of the Iraq War? How do you think that would go over—probably like theHindenburg? If Obama did that, it just might cost him the election in 2012, as his opponents would be politically unmerciful in their criticisms of it, despite the fact that, unlike Bush 43, he actually has a tangible accomplishment that’s worth celebrating!

Withstanding the political aura of being labeled as a failure by the political opposition is an extremely tough job, but the successful case for President Obama can be made, from the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” to staving off another Great Depression, to lowering taxes, to helping revitalize the American auto industry, to continuing to keep America safe from attacks by thwarting the many underwear bombers of the world, to providing the backbone to coalition forces in Libya, to finally drawing the Iraq War to a close.

With public support for the Iraq War waning over the years, it was only a matter of time until someone was going to have to be courageous enough to go ahead and pull the plug on this economically and emotionally draining black hole. While politicians like John McCain seriously joked about staying militarily in Iraq for 100 years, the Obama administration deserves credit for setting a reasonable timeline and untiringly working towards the execution of it, and back in the good, old days, that used to be called a success.

As many of us watched the U.S., personnel trucks driving through the gates into Kuwait, it was hard not to look over to the other side of that gate towards Iraq wondering if more insurgents were going to appear at any moment out of the sand to launch an attack with those famed, mythical weapons of mass destruction rising from the ashes of Saddam Hussein to fire at U.S. troops one last time, but thankfully it did not happen. Instead, if you looked closely you could see what looked like an American service person and what appeared to be an Arabic service person closing the gate after the last of the convoy had passed through, as they stood face to face shaking hands in a congratulatory manner, which under normal circumstances would be considered a political success for any presidency.

In the end, the presidency is what it is, whether it’s President Obama today or someone else in 2013. Either way, no one can please everyone. And if that is the political criteria by which a successful presidency is now measured during the Obama era, then there are no successful presidencies.

This was not written to be a proponent for President Obama’s re-election campaign, nor is it an opponent against President Obama’s re-election campaign. Your vote belongs to you, and it is your responsibility to decide, but anyone who would try to tell you that things have not improved since the Bush 43 era or that the Obama administration is politically identical to the  shortcomings of the Carter administration thinks that you are either a fool or a Republican or both!

Share

Finally, One Down, One To Go…

Patrick Markey and Joseph Logan
Reuters US Online Report Top News

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – The last convoy of U.S. soldiers pulled out of Iraq on Sunday, ending nearly nine years of war that cost almost 4,500 American and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and left a country grappling with political uncertainty.

The war launched in March 2003 with missiles striking Baghdad to oust President Saddam Hussein closes with a fragile democracy still facing insurgents, sectarian tensions and the challenge of defining its place in an Arab region in turmoil.

The final column of around 100 mostly U.S. military MRAP armored vehicles carrying 500 U.S. troops trundled across the southern Iraq desert from their last base through the night and daybreak along an empty highway to the Kuwaiti border.

Honking their horns, the last batch of around 25 American military trucks and tractor trailers carrying Bradley fighting vehicles crossed the border early Sunday morning, their crews waving at fellow troops along the route.

“I just can’t wait to call my wife and kids and let them know I am safe,” Sgt. First Class Rodolfo Ruiz said as the border came into sight. Soon afterwards, he told his men the mission was over, “Hey guys, you made it.”

For U.S. President Barack Obama, the military pullout is the fulfillment of an election promise to bring troops home from a conflict inherited from his predecessor, the most unpopular war since Vietnam and one that tainted America’s standing worldwide.

For Iraqis, though, the U.S. departure brings a sense of sovereignty tempered by nagging fears their country may slide once again into the kind of sectarian violence that killed many thousands of people at its peak in 2006-2007.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s Shi’ite-led government still struggles with a delicate power-sharing arrangement between Shi’ite, Kurdish and Sunni parties, leaving Iraq vulnerable to meddling by Sunni Arab nations and Shi’ite Iran.

The intensity of violence and suicide bombings has subsided. But a stubborn Sunni Islamist insurgency and rival Shi’ite militias remain a threat, carrying out almost daily attacks, often on Iraqi government and security officials.

Iraq says its forces can contain the violence but they lack capabilities in areas such as air defense and intelligence gathering. A deal for several thousand U.S. troops to stay on as trainers fell apart over the sensitive issue of legal immunity.

For many Iraqis, security remains a worry – but no more than jobs and getting access to power in a country whose national grid provides only a few hours of electricity a day despite the OPEC country’s vast oil potential.

U.S. and foreign companies are already helping Iraq develop the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves, but its economy needs investment in all sectors, from hospitals to infrastructure.

“We don’t think about America… We think about electricity, jobs, our oil, our daily problems,” said Abbas Jaber, a government employee in Baghdad. “They (Americans) left chaos.”

GOING HOME

After Obama announced in October that troops would come home by the end of the year as scheduled, the number of U.S. military bases was whittled down quickly as hundreds of troops and trucks carrying equipment headed south toKuwait.

U.S. forces, which had ended combat missions in 2010, paid $100,000 a month to tribal sheikhs to secure stretches of the highways leading south to reduce the risk of roadside bombings and attacks on the last convoys.

Only around 150 U.S. troops will remain in the country attached to a training and cooperation mission at the huge U.S. embassy on the banks of the Tigris river.

At the height of the war, more than 170,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq at more than 500 bases. By Saturday, there were fewer than 3,000 troops, and one base -Contingency Operating Base Adder, 300 km (185 miles) south of Baghdad.

At COB Adder, as dusk fell before the departure of the last convoy, soldiers slapped barbecue sauce on slabs of ribs brought from Kuwait and laid them on grills beside hotdogs and sausages.

Earlier, 25 soldiers sat on folding chairs in front of two armored vehicles watching a five-minute ceremony as their brigade’s flags were packed up for the last time before loading up their possessions and lining up their trucks.

The last troops flicked on the lights studding their MRAP vehicles and stacked flak jackets and helmets in neat piles, ready for the final departure for Kuwait and then home.

“A good chunk of me is happy to leave. I spent 31 months in this country,” saidSgt. Steven Schirmer, 25, after three tours of Iraq since 2007. “It almost seems I can have a life now, though I know I am probably going to Afghanistan in 2013. Once these wars end I wonder what I will end up doing.”

NEIGHBOURS KEEP WATCH

Iran and Turkey, major investors in Iraq, will be watching with Gulf nations to see how their neighbor handles its sectarian and ethnic tensions, as the crisis inSyria threatens to spill over its borders.

The fall of Saddam allowed the long-suppressed Shi’ite majority to rise to power. The Shi’ite-led government has drawn the country closer to Iran and Syria’sBashar al-Assad, who is struggling to put down a nine-month-old uprising.

Iraq’s Sunni minority is chafing under what it sees as the increasingly authoritarian control of Maliki’s Shi’ite coalition. Some local leaders are already pushing mainly Sunni provinces to demand more autonomy from Baghdad.

The main Sunni political bloc Iraqiya said on Saturday that it was temporarily suspending its participation in the parliament to protest against what it said was Maliki’s unwillingness to deliver on power-sharing.

A dispute between the semi-autonomous Kurdish region and Maliki’s central government over oil and territory is also brewing, and is a potential flashpoint after the buffer of the American military presence is gone.

“There is little to suggest that Iraq’s government will manage, or be willing, to get itself out of the current stalemate,” said Gala Riani, an analyst at IHS Global Insight.

“The perennial divisive issues that have become part of the fabric of Iraqi politics, such as divisions with Kurdistan and Sunni suspicions of the government, are also likely to persist.”

(Additional reporting by Rania El Gamal; writing by Patrick Markey; Editing byAlistair Lyon)

Share

Bush Clan Banked On War America For Many A Generation

By Randy Reynolds

 

When the Remingtons, duPonts, Rockefellers, Mellons, J.P. Morgan, George Herbert Walker, Samuel Bush and Prescott Bush, as well as other representatives of America’s corporate elite decided to overthrow the government of the United States in 1934, they recruited retired Marine General Smedley Butler to lead it.

Butler was a two-time winner of the Medal of Honor, a man with a first-rate mind. He intended from the outset to infiltrate the group and turn them in. He did so and Congress held hearings, (the McCormack-Dickstein Hearings) headed by future Speaker John McCormack.

The group had planned to replace President Franklin Roosevelt with someone who would at first be called an “Assistant to the President” to take over the day-to-day operations of government. Remington would supply the arms, Smedley would get the “bonus army”–a half million World War I veterans–to march on Washington and Roosevelt would be shunted aside as Chancellor Hitler (much admired by America’s industrialists) had done to President Hindenburg in Germany.

The group intended to establish a Fascist regime that would send undesirables, including the unemployed, the Jews and political opponents to concentration and/or extermination camps.

Portions of the coup were carried out. The group paid to “own” the editorial policy of 25 major newspapers and sent fellow-plotters to help edit those papers.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (co-founded by Samuel Bush) publicly proposed a plan to control “subversion” that would resemble the Patriot Act of Bush’s great-grandson’s Presidency in 2001.

After General Butler collected names and details, he went public. The story was a sensation for a couple of days, but was quickly pushed off the front pages by a “red scare”–stories of Communist infiltration of the IWW Union.

In the McCormack-Dickstein hearings, none of the powerful citizens involved in the plot was called to testify. They were above that sort of thing.

Although Prescott Bush was a lowly tire salesman when he married Dorothy Walker, his fortunes had quickly improved. His father-in-law George Herbert Walker elevated him to the vice-presidency of Brown Brothers Harriman, which financed exports of gold, steel, weapons and people to Nazi Germany.

Bush ran Hamburg-American passenger line on which American Nazi sympathizers emigrated to Germany under the tutelage of a Nazi “political director.” Bush also helped organize and run UBC, a bank holding company that oversaw many of Hitler’s worldwide investments.

From tire salesman to Hitler’s chief banker and exporter in America, Prescott Bush had come a long way by the time Hamburg-American and UBC were confiscated by the U.S. government. Instead of being tried for treason, his name was kept out of the spotlight and he was given 1.5 million dollars for his one share of stock in UBC.

Five years after World War II, a Connecticut senator died. Prescott Bush who maintained residences in four different states ran for the vacant seat and lost. Two years later another Connecticut senator died, and this time, Bush won.

He personally recruited Dwight D. Eisenhower to run for president. He and his fellow war profiteers would be bitterly disappointed by Eisenhower’s warnings against the military-industrial complex….but that was in the future.

Bush also pushed for Richard Nixon as Vice-President, and was a major donor to Nixon until well into the 1960′s.

So there was a point in the 50′s, when Prescott Bush must have felt like the king of the world:

· He had survived being implicated in a coup against a President of the United States.

· He had thrived even after the defeat of his major client, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime.

· He had avoided being tried for treason, though the Justice Department had considered it.

· Both the President and Vice-President of the United States were personally indebted to
him.

· His lawyer Allen Dulles was head of the CIA (and gave his boy George H.W. Bush a job.)

· His business partner John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State.

· His business partner Averell Harriman was Governor of New York, later Ambassador to
the Soviet Union.

· Best of all, wars were breaking out all over the globe.

It was the dawn of a golden age of war profiteering.


“War is a racket. It always has been… A racket is something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.” –General Smedley Butler

“There is no historic parallel that can be drawn, nothing compares with the accomplishments of the Bush family. No dictator or tyrant can equal the suffering and destruction they have wrought on humanity, as they are not mere tyrants themselves, but the makers and breakers of tyrants, the organizers and profiteers of war and death. They are not alone and solely responsible for creating the present day military industrial complex, however since 1915 the Bush family has been directly involved in World War One and Two, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, numerous CIA secret wars, the Gulf War, and now a “Never Ending War”. The past four generations of this one family have had a hand in promoting and profiting from most of the major wars that America has waged since the beginning of the industrialized age.” –Schuyler Ebbets, Globalresearch

“The Walker-Bush cabal’s Nazi partners also helped finance–then profited from–the Auschwitz camp.” –Chris Floyd

“Every great family has its scandal. The Bush family’s scandal is that they funded Hitler and profited from the Holocaust.” –John Loftus

“…newly-uncovered government documents in The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926 until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush and his ‘enemy national’ partners.” –John Buchanan

“…in 1942, the U.S. government seized the Walker-Bush Nazi assets under the Trading With the Enemy Act. But the well-connected clan managed to bury the news in the back pages: brief mentions of the companies involved, but no names of the Establishment grandees behind them. They also pulled strings to keep their American assets from being seized as well, even though the profits from these enterprises were inextricably mixed with their Nazi loot. Prescott later cashed in these tainted assets for millions, a nest egg that helped launch him into the Senate and his son and grandson into the White House.” –Chris Floyd

“For six decades these historical facts have gone unreported by the mainstream U.S. media (except for the July 31, 1942 editions of the New York Herald and Washington Post.) The essential facts have appeared on the Internet and in relatively obscure books, but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes.” –John Buchanan

http://digital-falcon.com/pipermail/toxickemail_digital-falcon.com/2005-September/000497.html
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/committee.html
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/whitehouse.html
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/54/bush.html
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd06102003.html
http://www.heatherwokusch.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=86
http://www.countercurrents.org/pringle110407.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EBB20061022&articleId=3558

Share

GOP VS. Rethuglicklans

Since President Obama took the oath of office in January 2009, Republicans have reversed their stances on many policies and beliefs. Here are 24 of them. By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

 

1. Health Care Mandates) Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act by Democrats, Republicans widely supported the idea of an individual health care insurance mandate, Newt Gingrich being perhaps the chief supporter. Republicans have always preached about how people need to take responsibility for themselves, and now that a law exists that makes people take responsibility, the GOP is rejecting it simply on the grounds that President Obama and the Democrats passed it.

2. The Nuclear START Treaty) Republicans shamelessly filibustered the ratification of the Obama START Treaty for quite a period of time and criticized it tremendously and continue to try and find ways to circumvent the treaty today. What Republicans conveniently forget is that Ronald Reagan, the man that Republicans worship like a God, negotiated the very first START Treaty which was signed by yet another Republican, George H. W. Bush in 1991. That treaty expired in 2009 so President Obama negotiated a new one to continue the Reagan legacy. But since President Obama negotiated this treaty, Republicans retreated from Reagan’s policy faster than the decade it took to create the START Treaty in the first place.

3. Dream Act) Immigration reform has been touted by Republicans for decades now. Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in the 1980′s. Most recently, Republicans worked on immigration reform under the Bush Administration and failed. President Bush and Senator John McCain both supported immigration reform and were willing to cross the aisle to work with Democrats, most notably Edward Kennedy. All of that work and bipartisanship ceased after the 2008 Election. Staunchly opposed to President Obama and anything his administration supports, Republicans turned their backs on immigration reform in favor of militarizing the border and laws that violate the civil rights of Hispanics. Obama’s Dream Act would do much that Reagan would approve of, but Republicans refuse hear anything of it.

4. TARP) Republicans supported TARP when they helped pass it in response to the economic collapse in 2008. President Bush even signed the legislation into law. But since it’s been up to the guiding hands of President Obama to deal with TARP, Republicans have since revoked their support and have been highly critical even as they take credit for it when presenting stimulus checks to their local constituents. The fact is, TARP is successful because President Obama oversaw it and Republicans hate that fact.

5. Bail Out of Auto Industry) Republicans once supported this too but abandoned it once President Obama called for it. The auto industry is a vital manufacturing sector that supports millions of American jobs and Republicans WANTED the industry to fail simply because President Obama wanted the bail out. If it had failed, Republicans would have blamed President Obama for not supporting the American auto industry. The bail out has been a resounding success with most of the money plus interest paid back to the taxpayers. Mitt Romney has since tried to take credit for the idea because it has been so successful.

6. Israel Going Back To Pre-1967 Borders) Many Presidents have suggested this, even George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. But once President Obama repeated it, Republicans immediately denounced the President and threw their support to Israel’s President. This action by Republicans is totally unprecedented. It is reprehensible for American politicians to support a foreign leader more than the American President. Imagine if the Republican Party had overtly supported Hitler over FDR during World War Two. The only reason Republicans are rejecting President Obama’s plan is because they cannot bring themselves to endorse any idea he suggests, even if it is a Republican one.

7. Gun Control) Republicans overwhelmingly reject any and all gun control measures today. Which is very strange considering Ronald Reagan himself supported the Brady Handgun Act. But, it’s still true. Republicans did indeed support gun control measures in the past. It’s different now. Today’s intolerant, prejudiced, and extremist Republican Party is only against gun control now because they believe there needs to be a war against liberals and minority groups. It’s all about fear and war.

8. Public Education) Even the Founding Fathers believed in education for all. Every Republican President in United States history has been supportive of the public education system in this country. Ronald Reagan campaigned on axing the Department of Education but not only did he NOT eliminate it, he amped up its budget. It is only now that President Obama seeks to improve the education system that Republicans are against public education. When President Bush sought to improve public education, Republicans were on board but now that Obama is President, Republicans have decided that all public schools are evil liberal institutions that must be destroyed.

9. Infrastructure Spending) Republicans have always believed in strong infrastructure, until now. Republicans used the power of the federal government to build the railroads in the 1860′s and 1870′s, the Panama Canal in the beginning of the 20th century, and the interstate highway system in the 1950′s. Yet when President Obama called for new infrastructure spending to improve America’s crumbling roads and bridges and to improve our rail lines, Republicans immediately reversed their long-held belief in a strong American infrastructure. Why? Because they hate President Obama and oppose everything he believes in, even if it was once a part of the Republican platform.

10. Child Labor Laws) This one is surprising. Republicans were the ones that championed child labor laws in the first place. Starting in 1852, in the once Republican state of Massachusetts, child labor laws have been fought for by both parties. The only opponent of child labor laws has traditionally been big business. Republicans tried to pass a Constitutional amendment in 1924 and it didn’t succeed. It wasn’t until Democrats passed the Fair Labor Standards Act that child labor laws became federal law. Republicans oppose child labor laws now because of their deep ties with corporations. The goal of the corporate world is to find cheap labor and because President Obama is against huge corporations, Republicans must stand with the corporations, even if that means killing child labor laws.

11. Civil Rights) Republicans were once the champions of civil rights as well. They ended slavery and adopted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. They splintered over the Civil Rights Act in 1964, although it was a Republican led Supreme Court that ruled in the Brown v Board of Education case, and have become more and more opposed to civil rights ever since. President Obama has called for increased civil rights and because of that, Republicans now oppose civil rights for everyone except Christian white males.

12. Environmental Protection) Originally championed by Theodore Roosevelt, Republicans used to support efforts to protect the environment. Over the last century, however, that support has reversed. Republicans even once supported the environment in the 1970′s when Nixon created the EPA, but no longer. Republicans are now in complete support of the irresponsibility of the oil and coal industry and want to open the entire American coastline and even federally protected lands to drilling and mining.
Republicans even used to support cap-and-trade. The first George Bush signed legislation in 1990 that implemented the cap-and-trade system and many Republicans still do support cap-and-trade. But because President Obama supports it, most Republicans are now against it.

13. Deficit Spending) This one is big. Republicans have employed deficit spending since the Reagan years and abused it during the Bush administration to pass the conservative agenda and to fund wars. Reagan doubled the national debt and George W. Bush proceeded to double it again. But because Democrats controlled the White House and the Congress from 2008 to 2010, Republicans completely reversed their stance on deficit spending and still oppose deficit spending solely on the grounds that a Republican isn’t President. If a Republican were President right now, you can bet the farm that they would abuse deficit spending once again to slam the destructive anti-middle class, anti-poor, anti-women, and anti-America agenda through Congress with no thought about fiscal responsibility whatsoever.

14. Federal Reserve) The Federal Reserve is now a target for most Republicans, which is puzzling because it was a Republican idea. Proposed by Republican leader Nelson Aldrich to organize and regulate the banking system and to enforce monetary policy, and thus stabilize our financial system, the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Republicans now want to dismantle or weaken the Federal Reserve because President Obama needs it to enforce Dodd-Frank which will make banks more responsible and accountable, and will protect consumers.

15. Women’s Rights) The women’s rights movement was born in and grew with the Republican Party in the mid 1800′s. Many Republicans supported voting rights for women although to pass the 19th Amendment it took women threatening to cause Republican losses in the 1920 Election to persuade them to help pass it in Congress. As women gained more equality, they also demanded equal pay for equal work and reproductive rights. Ronald Reagan legalized abortion as Governor of California in the 1960′s and a moderate conservative Supreme Court handed down the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. Today’s Republican Party is now waging a war against women and the harder Democrats and President Obama fight for women’s rights, the harder Republicans will fight to eliminate them because of orders from white Christian extremists.

16. End Of Life Counseling) Republicans referred to this as “death panels” in 2009 in response to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. But Republicans wholeheartedly supported end of life counseling in their own 2003 Medicare bill. Both of the Bush Presidents supported end of life counseling and even Sarah Palin herself supported it before she suddenly turned against it. In fact, Republicans had supported end of life counseling for decades. So what happened? Easy. President Obama supports it, so Republicans are now against it. It’s really that simple. And petty.

17. Financial Disclosure) Republicans were all for this in 2002 when they passed and President Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law. Campaign financing laws have always been supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, until now. Because of their hatred of President Obama, who supports campaign finance laws, and their desperation for absolute power and authority, Republicans are now completely against financial disclosure. They have allied themselves with the corporate world over the American people in their effort to steer elections their direction and do that, campaign finance laws must not exist. That is why the activist conservative Supreme Court struck down the laws to begin with.

18. Minimum Wage) The way Republicans have been talking about abolishing the minimum wage, you would think they’ve always been against it, right? Wrong. 82 House Republicans and 39 Senate Republicans joined the Democratic majority in passing the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. President Bush signed the bill into law. It is only now that President Obama stands with the American workers that Republicans oppose the minimum wage on behalf of their corporate masters, most notably, Koch Industries. If Republicans were so against the minimum wage, they would not have voted to raise it. Three times.

19. Military Intervention In The Middle East) This should really convince you that Republicans are simply opposing policies because a black President supports them. Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 all supported military intervention in the Middle East yet when President Obama uses the military to intervene in Libya, Republicans all of a sudden become doves? They’ve really revealed themselves with this policy reversal. The fact that under President Obama, Libya successfully overthrew their dictator without one American life being lost must infuriate the GOP.

20. Abortion) It may sound really far-fetched but there are many pro-choice conservatives out there and some politicians are part of that group. Take Ronald Reagan for instance. He made abortion legal in California as Governor of the state. And most recently, it was discovered that extreme right-winger Rick Santorum’s wife had an abortion to save her own life. In my opinion, that means Santorum is for the procedure when his wife’s life is on the line, but every other woman needs to die rather than exercise their right to an abortion which was ruled to exist in Roe v Wade by a conservative leaning court in 1973.

21. Economic Development Administration) Never heard of this you say? This program provides grants to local projects which have created jobs. Republicans such as Susan Collins, Chuck Grassely, and even John Cornyn have supported it in the past. Cornyn stated in March 2010 that funds from an EDA grant “would pave the way for the creation of new jobs and business opportunities, which will strengthen the region’s economy,” according to a local East Texas NBC news affiliate. But now that the GOP plan to crash the economy on purpose is in full swing, Republicans are now calling for an end to the EDA.

22. Lower Taxes) Republican do support lower taxes, except they only support them for the wealthy, NOT the rest of us. Even as they crusade to eliminate taxes on corporations and the wealthy, Republicans fully support a new proposal that would actually raise taxes on the rest of us. And guess who opposes it? That’s right. President Obama. Republicans usually crusaded for lower taxes for everyone, but since they support class warfare now, they have partly reversed themselves.

23. Medicare) I’m aware that Republicans initially opposed Medicare when it was passed, but since its passage into law, Republicans have largely defended it, especially when they try to pander to senior citizens for votes. But if Republicans really wanted to kill Medicare, they would have actually done it when Ronald Reagan was in office. Reagan opposed Medicare when it was created but then did something quite unexpected as President. He saved it. By saving Medicare, Republicans practically endorsed it. Even Theodore Roosevelt supported national health care. And now the GOP has come full circle once again by opposing it, and are trying to slaughter it and the millions of seniors that rely on the popular health care program. Why? Because President Obama is in favor of keeping Medicare around for a very long time and Medicare represents just how popular government-run universal health care can be. So technically speaking, Republicans were against Medicare before they were for it before they were against it.

24. Social Security) Social Security is popular with everybody, even the staunchest right wingers. Ronald Reagan and Milton Freidman supported the New Deal programs of the 1930′s and even Ayn Rand collected Social Security up to her dying breath. Ronald Reagan even saved this program too by raising payroll taxes. This action also saved Medicare as it is part of the Social Security Act. The idea to privatize Social Security has popped up many times but has been met with negative reactions by a majority of the people so those ideas usually die in infancy. President Bush wanted to privatize it, but never did. Republicans had control of Congress and the White House from 2001-2006. If they had wanted to kill Social Security, they would have done so. But now all of a sudden they feel now is the time to privatize it, even as big bankers have proven that they are untrustworthy with money. Oh, and President Obama supports Social Security. Just another reason for Republicans to hate it.

Undoubtedly, one could add even more to the list but now you know what policies Republicans once supported and why they are now against those very same policies. If we take Republican claims to love America and their claims that the Founders were Republicans seriously, we could also now say that Republicans were for America before they were against her.

 

Share

Tea Party National Security

A few observations (5:38 minutes video)

Video opens…

I. ( 0 – 52 seconds) Ron Paul speaks about Patriot Act. Paul speaks from the heart and he correctly states the case against acts such as the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act served its purpose, may have been abused by Cheney, and has run it course. Gingrich ceased an opportunity to tear into Paul with an emotional attack. Paul demurs and looks as if chastised by an elder. Paul’s affect just does not work, if there is anything to be said about appearing “presidential.”

 

II. (52 – 1:15 seconds) Santorum’s obvious racism exudes his standard message, “Muslims are at the root of all terrorism.” So, profiling is the only way to go. Blitzer had actually setup the group via asking about ‘profiling.’ Paul, obviously coached by CNN to avoid interruption, appears like an impatient bystander. Paul’s demeanor is just terrible!

III. (1:15 – 2:05) Cain follows with his version of support for “profiling.” After giving a ‘Rah, Rah, Rah,’ statement and avoiding the questions, Blitzer pressed for a real answer. Note: Blitzer was referred to as “BLITZ”. When Cain goes off script and outside of his preset emphasis points, he blows it consistently.

IV. (2:05 – 2:15 seconds) Romney. Did Romney smoothly stumble on our place in time? I thought I heard 21st Century possibly modified to 20th Century.

V. (2:15 – 2:40 seconds) Bachmann. “Too Nuclear to Fail” (Interesting phraseology, after 30 seconds of “What did she say?” Blitzer asked about aid to Pakistan. Bachmann’s first few answer seconds ticked off like a real intelligence committee professional. Unlike, my Mother, her Mother must not have told her that, ”a fool is less likely to be discovered a fool, if his mouth is closed.”

Bachmann commented about President Obama’s “fingers crossed on Pakistan” was an example of weak politicking with no basis in fact. How about the Bush Administration and its support of the past Pakistani Administration: Musharraf?

VI. (2:40 – 2:53) Perry lies about financial aid to Pakistan. He will make no significant change in dealing with Pakistan. At least the Obama security professionals has leveraged opportunity to take-out many Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Paksitan.

VII. (2:53 – 3:45 seconds) Gingrich. Adroitly states the case about Pakistan. The presidential candidate used one solid minute of The Guardian’s 5:28 minutes video). At the risk of being considered a ‘hawk’ among liberals, Newt spoke succinctly and correctly about how the U.S. should deal with Pakistan. If they allow AL Qaeda safe haven, they should not complain about attacks on those murderers. And yes, the horror are the innocents who are victims of Al Qaeda tactical methods of disguise; hiding among non-combatants.

VIII. (3:45 – 4:11 seconds) Perry. Sanctioning the Iran Bank! Poppycock!. How will Perry convince Russia and China to do same. also Iran exports oil. How many oil import nations will join the US in Perry’s scheme?

IX. (4:11 – 4:32 seconds) Romney accomplishes an antsy ‘quick speak’ about spending. he ends with the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act via use of the derisive term “Obamacare.” One would think that after installing such a program in Massachusetts, a candidate would avoid such. Romney should also tread carefully on Obama Administration spending. Much of the president’s spending has been in efforts to recoup from the Bush Years. granted Healthcare reform and Afghanistan are Obama’s expenditures but other spending has been to bring the economy around.

Blitzes pivots to Paul, and he performs his typical, frankly, speak. He makes the point all of his opponents are simply talking about cuts and he implies, the cuts will not happen. TRUE!

X. (4:33 – 5:14 seconds) Bachmann’s asinine rambling about China. The nation has been in hock to China for many years and her President Bush, shoveled more into China than any president in history. Gingrich launches on an obvious general election strategy aimed at Hispanics and Latinos. Gingrich will probably do some for of clarification or retraction after the EIB Network and Fox News goes to work on his comments. But, he succeeded in delivering a zinger to the voting public.

XI. (5:16 – End of video) Huntsman. The candidate looked presidential, sounded presidential and was saved by the developers of the video to law. One has to wonder why.

Politifacts.com Fact Check

Compliments to CNN and Wolf Blitzer! The debate was, again, well produced, properly moderated, and planned for effectiveness.

A requiem for the losers. Even in the Guardian’s five-minute, Santorum and Huntsmann were rare sightings, and Paul was used pretty much as a ‘punching bag”, despite making sense on a few points.

I wish I could say I am looking forward to Debate #14.

Share

We Owe A Most Serious Debt Of Gratitude

What We owe our Veterans

Today’s news is filled with discussion about our national debt and what we must do about it. On this Veteran’s Day, I would like to talk about another national debt — the one we owe to our 24 million American vets. This immeasurable debt can never be fully repaid, but as individuals coming together as a community, we can do a lot to pay down some of that debt.

This Veteran’s Day, I’ll be walking with our veterans in their annual parade in Johnstown. This western Pennsylvanian city showed what you can do when you stick together as a community by overcoming one of the greatest disasters in our nation’s history when they rebuilt their town after the Great Johnstown Flood of 1889.

In addition to parades, every Veterans’ Day, I have visited veterans in federal prison. I feel compelled to go to penitentiaries to offer support to them because far too many prisoners are there as a direct or indirect result of their military service.

Approximately half of our vets in prison today are there because of drug and/or alcohol related crimes, often associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other mental illnesses that are caused or exacerbated by combat duty. When our Vietnam vets returned home, they were often treated with disrespect, and without any understanding of PTSD. For a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq, our servicemembers have gone “outside the wire” into combat conditions almost every day for the 15 months of their deployment; returned home for 12 months, and then did it all over again… and again. It’s no surprise that over a third of them return home burdened with PTSD and/or other mental challenges. And when they are discharged, they have faced a recession, and now a jobless economy. Not surprisingly, our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are showing up in the homeless ranks more quickly than those who served in Vietnam or the Korean War.

When long-term factors such as PTSD and other disabilities are considered, research at Harvard University has shown the overall cost of America’s war in Iraq alone is over 3 trillion dollars. Some demographics are more adversely impacted, or more neglected. About one in five women seen in Veteran Hospitals respond “yes” when screened for Military Sexual Trauma (MST), and one in 15 of our homeless population is a female veteran.

Obviously, many vets struggle with — or without — these issues and remain singular achievers. I was honored to wear the uniform of this nation for 31 years in the U.S. Navy, inspired to serve by my father’s example, another career-Navy man who fought in both the Atlantic and Pacific during World War II. He returned home to a successful career and a strong, supportive family, with unlimited opportunities available to him. Unfortunately, that is not the case today for many of our veterans.

It will take the community of America — all of us — to ensure we address the job training, mental assistance, education and health care needs of our veterans. Undoubtedly, our national debt crisis necessitates a shared sacrifice going forward. But let us keep in mind that only 1 percent of American families sacrificed up front with a loved one who volunteered to serve in our recent wars overseas.

We have learned from the way we mistreated our Vietnam veterans. Now we embrace our troops as they return home. But, this is still not enough. The real value of Veterans Day is not so much to recognize their service; it is to remind us that our veterans live alone every day with the burden of the war they brought home. They should not do so. Otherwise, it can mean incarceration — in mental illness or prison, in unemployment or addiction — for so many who risked their life for our American way of life.

As we are forced to make the needed cuts to help get us back on track financially as a nation, it’s important that we also stand together for who we are as Americans by ensuring that our veterans are not short changed in the process. Not by speeches, but by deeds. As a church deacon once put it, it is more important that “…what you do speaks so loudly, that I cannot hear what you say.”

 Joe Sestak 

Share

Perryview

10 Questions for Rick Perry By JOHN HARWOOD

Q.

Your plan — by cutting the top rate to 20 percent, eliminating dividends and capital gains taxes, would provide a huge tax cut to wealthy people. Given what’s happened with income inequality, why is that a good idea?

A.

We’re trying to get this country working again. And that’s what I focus on. We went through what are the ways to really give incentives to those that are going to risk their capital to create the jobs. Those that want to get into the class warfare and talk about, oh my goodness, there are going to be some folks here who make more money out of this, or have access to more money, I’ll let them do that.

Q.

But for those at the top, it is hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of dollars for them.

A.

But I don’t care about that. What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies. To go out and maybe start a business because they got the confidence again because they actually get to keep more of what they work for. If that’s what comes, I’ll take that criticism. Because what I’m interested in is getting Americans working.

Q.

Do you fundamentally believe we should not have a progressive tax system in this country?

A.

I do. I think you need to have a tax system that basically is flat, fair and simple. And that you can put on a postcard. Americans, I hope, aspire to be wealthy.

Q.

In 1996, when your adviser Steve Forbes was running on a flat tax, Mitt Romney said it was a tax cut for fat cats. If he says that about your plan, what are you going to say to him?

A.

Well, I would say that he ought to go look in the mirror, I guess. I consider him to be a fat cat. I consider what Mitt’s doing kind of nibbling around the edges. I consider what we’re doing bold.

Q.

Even if your plan increases growth, that’s going to take time. Year one, year two, you’re going to blow a huge hole in the deficit, right?

A.

I don’t think it does. The budget deficit needs to be addressed through a number of ways. We think this will balance the budget by 2020. And you’ve got to have some hard cuts. You’ve got to deal with the entitlement issue. I’m looking long term. I’m looking to get this country back on track. If you’re looking for somebody that’s going to nibble around the edges, if you’re looking for somebody that’s going to say, “Hey listen we’re not going to make it hard on you, it’s all going to work it out, and it’s just, you know, kumbaya,” I’m not your guy.

Q.

You would raise the retirement age for Social Security, and also limit the benefit calculation for high earners. How much do you have to make before your benefits are reduced in that way? How high would you raise the retirement age?

A.

I’m not ready to give some hard numbers on that one. But those are the types of thoughtful debates that we need to be having with Congress.

Q.

Why did you choose to keep the birther issue alive?

A.

It’s a good issue to keep alive. You know, Donald [Trump] has got to have some fun. It’s fun to poke him a little bit and say “Hey, let’s see your grades and your birth certificate.” I don’t have a clue about where the president — and what this birth certificate says. But it’s also a great distraction. I’m not distracted by it.

Q.

In the last debate, what were you thinking when Mitt Romney put his hand on you?

A.

I wasn’t giving a thought to it.

Q.

You have this proposal to dramatically cut taxes for people at the top and you want to repeal Dodd-Frank, going back to the old system of regulation of Wall Street. How would you explain that to Occupy Wall Street? You think the previous regulation on Wall Street was adequate?

A.

Yes, absolutely, I think it was adequate. We had a bunch of regulators that weren’t doing their job. Here’s what I would tell those young people — the old Churchill saying, you’re a liberal in your heart when you’re 20, and you’re a conservative when you’re 40. I hope what they will see is that America’s a fabulous country and it gives them the opportunity to go say your piece, go protest on the street. But at the end of the day America’s about having the opportunity to take care of your family.

Q.

If a member of the Tea Party in South Carolina says, “I’m trying to take care of my family. Why are you giving millions of dollars in tax cuts for people at the top?” What do you say to them?

A.

I say to them that we want those people at the top to be investing in this country so that you have a chance to have a job. Because that’s the way this country has always worked.

Share
A Gentleman’s view.0.874 Return to Top ▲Return to Top ▲ Copy Protected by Tech Tips's CopyProtect Wordpress Blogs.