Tuesday, March 31, 2015

The Myth of "Conservatism" .

With Senator  Ted Curz hitting the campaign road , along with Mike Huckabee . These two politicians have become the ironic symbols of *** "conservatism" . Just this week I was able to hear with an audience on live streaming TV Ted Cruz speaking to members of a Church that I was invited to go to. It was interesting to note how far religion has mixed with politics . Here I am going explain why "churches" have become so political.  Sen Cruz embodies a  Christian  (2)> Reconstructionism form (viewpoint)  of theocratic dominion theology in his speaking .Cruz’s campaign looks to be a remarkable distillation of the hoary, oft-repeated notion that America is a fundamentally conservative country. +++> “Today, roughly half of born-again Christians aren’t voting,” Cruz said in his kick-off speech. “Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values.” There’s no need broaden the party to the center, in other words, when there’s enough room to the right with which to win.  Its leaders challenged evangelicals across a wide swath of theological beliefs to engage in a more muscular and activist form of political participation. The core theme of dominion theology is that the Bible mandates Christians to take over and "occupy" secular institutions.A number of Christian Right leaders read what the Christian Reconstructionists were writing, and they adopted the idea of taking dominion over the secular institutions of the United States as the "central unifying ideology" of their social movement. They decided to gain political power through the Republican Party. Cruz is no stranger to religion ,like his speeches , they sounded more like sermons , and "warnings" about how awful government has become. The "theory" behind what the right wing media calls  "conservatism" is a belief of   " traditional "values," socioeconomic hierarchies and institutions. And so the conservative is against most anything new, and anything that disturbs the hierarchy. The conservatism view point has come a long way , ##>  and there are "myths" that bind that idea. The idea of fiscal conservatismCurrent “conservatism” suffers from a profound case of (1)>  Doublethink, trying to reconcile its principles (whatever’s left of them) to Bush’s spending, wars, and expansion of government intrusion into our personal lives (e.g., Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind). Reagan who fully embraces modern conservatism (myth) as constructed by William F. Buckley and other mid-century thinkers. Even Reagan himself had deviated prior to 1980 on abortion, but by the time he won the Republican nomination, he embraced the complete modern conservative issue bundle that included low taxes, social conservatism, and aggressive foreign policy. While there are still factional fights within the GOP after 1980, no Republican president (or presidential nominee) has seriously challenged that bundle.Everyone on the right these days claims Ronald Reagan. Neoconservatives, libertarians, social conservatives, moderates, and the rest each have a favorite quote. He was a complex man with complex thoughts, allowing every ideologue to pick out-of-context phrases. Even many of those claiming a multifaceted Reagan transcending a single ideology simplify him through his concept of an ideal city uniting the contending ideologies through politics and power. Here the Republican Party suffers from myth absorption , Reagan is no longer there but each member of the GOP are trying to bring back how  (3)> Reagan governed. The tea party was a carefully crafted PR stunt by the Republican party to “rebuild” themselves after eight years of George W. Bush nearly destroyed their entire party—and our country.Because nothing says “freedom” and “good Christian values” (you know, what Republicans claim they represent) quite like blackmailing politicians to do what you want, otherwise you’ll unleash millions of dollars attacking them in an effort to ruin their political careers.

Conservative Vs Liberal .
A social liberal wants society to change, usually to advance towards some more ideal goal.The other side of the equation, that one can be a conservative yet still want social change, thus fails. And the phrase " conservative" is an oxymoron anyway. One cannot be a conservative--meaning someone who doesn't want change-- and expect the fiscal state of the union to improve. History and logic both prove this. Historically, the economy suffers under conservatives, and although it does not always improve under liberals, Paradoxically, the people of the United States became the chief conservative nation of the world at the very time when they had ceased to call themselves conservatives at home.The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. (4)> Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats

The main points :

Conservative : fiscal restraint, less government intrusion into personal lives, lower to NO income taxes, no capital gains taxes, a strong military for defense, and preservation of the Constitution. Btw, it is not a living document. 
Moderate : fiscal restraint, government regulation of business, a graduated income tax, strong military for defense, and belief that the Constitution is a living document. 
Liberal (Progressive is a nice word with no meaning) : increased government spending on social programs with increased taxes, taxes on capital gains for social giveaways, decreased military strength, subjugating US sovereignty to the UN, providing illegals with social security benefits and free health care with taxpayers dollars, putting justices on the Supreme Court who will legislate their will over the vote of the people, no foreign policy, and government intrusion into our personal lives.

The "ghost" of Ronald Reagan . 

Ronald Reagan would
be disgusted  at
the GOP today.
Ronald Reagan was perhaps the "last" Great American President in my mind . Today the Republican party is chopped up , fragmented and a petty ploy to extremism . (6)>  Reagan is king. And the many Republicans vying to be president will work feverishly to align with him. But do they? Yes, to bring a Reagan back would be ideal . If Reagan could come back . His ghost , we would need a witch of  (5)> Endor . She would have  to summon up Reagan out of the smoke and fire to "warn" his "party" of their sins.Conservative Republicans today don’t have one Reagan-type to coalesce around. But they long for one, which is why all the presidential hopefuls (even Christie and Bush) want face time in front of Reagan’s old foot soldiers. Honorably today the GOP is a "disgrace" in Reagan's eyes . it’s clear that the Tea Party Republicans have little regard for the policies of the president they claim to venerate.Reagan presided over 18 debt ceiling increases, raised taxes 11 times, and signed an expansion of Medicare. Reagan was a flaming liberal compared to today’s American Taliban members and their views. In the conservative canon, Reagan was a heroic tax cutter and fiscal hawk, brought the Soviet Union down with his steely resolve and soaring rhetoric (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”), and made America proud of itself again. Reagan’s record, though, was a bit different. Was nothing like the PART of NO today . If his ghost could come back , he would be correcting the entire Congress of  Republican's of their political SINS.

*** The real irony is that The Republican president who freed the slaves was a liberal. The
Democrats who populated the Ku Klux Klan and fought hard to deny civil rights legislation in the 1960s were conservatives. So by using the terms "conservative" and "liberal," rather than party labels, we can more clearly recognize the historic consistencies between the two opposing philosophies.Christian fundamentalists and neo-Confederate white supremacists – is set on crippling the federal government and humiliating the first African-American president. But the extremism has already shattered the Republican Party. (1)> Doublethink, is the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.Here is an example , Senator Cruz and former congressman Dennis Kucinich put the brakes on the Obama Administration’s rush to commit the U.S. military to an expansion of the war in Syria by calling it a plan to provide al-Qaeda with an air force. It was a powerful moment of truth that delegitimized the Administration’s plan and exposed the deceit of the war on terror.And only a few week before that, liberals and Tea Party members in the House nearly prevailed on a vote to reign in the NSA’s surveillance of the American public.(2)> Reconstruction is the spark plug behind much of the battle over religion in politics today. The movement’s founder, theologian Rousas John Rushdoony, claimed 20 million followers—a number that includes many who embrace the Reconstruction tenets without having joined any organization. Card-carrying Reconstructionists are few, but their influence is magnified by their leadership in Christian right crusades, from abortion to homeschooling. The same have also embraced: They oppose raising the minimum wage, or even the existence of a minimum wage. They would gut Medicare, Social Security and unemployment benefits, along with every other government program that supports the middle class. They would reduce their own taxes even more, while raising taxes on working families—all retrogressive ideas that even the average Republican rejects.+++The Republican party’s claim that they’re the “party for Christian values” is an absolute myth.Except, being a Christian and following the Bible are not mutually exclusive. It’s very possible to believe in the Bible – without actually being a Christian. And most of what right-wing ideology is based on comes from the Old Testament, which was before Jesus Christ. ## >There’s this common misnomer within the Republican party that seems to imply calling yourself “fiscally conservative” means you’re fiscally responsible.However, Republicans are neither fiscally conservative nor fiscally responsible.So tell me again, how is that “fiscally conservative?”  Because they want to cut taxes for the rich?  Oh, by the way, cutting taxes does not make someone “fiscally conservative.”  Especially when those tax cuts have led to drastic increases in our deficits, have mainly benefited the rich and have had zero correlation with job creation.And let’s not forget the trillions Republicans have spent on bloated defense contracts and wars since the 1980′s.(3)> Reaganites don't see this, believing that the economy grew under Reagan, but the only increases were due to the fact that Reagan had crashed the economy so far down that the minor improvements under his reign of error seem impressive. By the end of the Reagan error, the economy had barely made it back to where it was when Reagan took over, and even then only after Reagan had abandoned his "trickle down" nonesense, raising taxes and growing the government to its largest size in history.(4)> Conservatism is not for individual rights or personal liberty; rather, it is for religious values (euphemistically called “traditional values” or “family values”) and a government that enforces them. Although conservatism calls for some economic liberties, it simultaneously demands various violations of individual rights in order to support certain aspects of the welfare state (e.g., Social Security and government-run schools), in order to shackle or control “greedy” businessmen (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley and anti-immigration laws), and in order to forbid certain “immoral” acts or relationships (e.g., drug use and gay marriage). Thus, conservatism is utterly at odds with capitalism. (5)> ENDOR  witch of Endor really summon Samuel from the dead (1 Samuel 28:7-20)? ... What does the Bible say about praying to / speaking to the dead? (6)> Reagan made government seem like "a lazy brother in law sleeping on the sofa and eating all your food.." (quote from George Will). The modern GOP sees the government not just as other, but alien and dangerous; an invading foreign power that must be crushed.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Cruz'n for the White House.

If politics has mirrors, they would certainly say that Ted Cruz has a twin , perhaps Cruz's twin may be a reflection on him .Forty-four percent of the country doesn't know who Cruz is, so it’s too soon to talk about the Cruz . Enter Paul Ryan (1) > Some years ago Senator Paul Ryan was credited for "saving" the GOP  from the brink of Sen. Ted Cruz's great blunder of a government shutdown trying to repeal (4)>  Obamacare . The Polls then reflected how the public disliked the GOP . *** President Obama also took a dive at the pollsters as well in 2013. As one of the (3)>  authors of the government shutdown calamity, Cruz  has taken a seat back since then  . And his colleagues were eager to push him under the rug to show that he doesn't define their party. He has in some places been a Tea Party favorite . Cruz and Ryan look like the so called "bright boys" of the GOP , sadly to say Cruz shares a lot with Ryan as being ineffective . Cruz is going to run from the right. He has spent much of his short career in Washington blasting the "mushy middle" of his party (which might be news to most Democrats), which he dismisses as a "failed electoral strategy."2016 Republican nominee for president. Cruz has been positioning for himself for the  nomination almost since he entered the upper chamber in 2012. His announcement takes place at a bastion of conservatism, Liberty University, the institution founded by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell.This, of course,  whose presence in American politics was partly responsible for laying the foundation in those politics that inevitably led to the absurdity of Ted Cruz as a candidate for president.Over the past several decades, Republicans have cultivated the party’s most reactionary, uncompromising and extremist base of supporters. They have portrayed government as a deeply nefarious and destructive force; they have fetishized ideological rigidity; they have derided and demonized compromise of any sort; they have destroyed the party’s moderate wing and even drove conservatives out of the party for not being conservative enough.Ted Cruz told New Hampshire voters on Sunday. Cruz said deep-pocketed donors should have the same rights to write giant campaign checks as voters have to put signs in their front yards. Both, Cruz said, were an example of political speech, and he added that "money absolutely can be speech." Here is another problem that sure won't go pass to press , and you might say its a big fuss to point out that Sen . Ted Cruz was not born in America . (2)>  Ted Cruz was indeed born outside the United States and that he is a citizen of both Canada and the U.S. It makes things a little awkward for him inside the tea party that spawned the baseless, mean-spirited and totally whacked birther movement that accused Pres. Obama of not being born  in America. If Cruz really sticks to his  strategy of (5)>  extremism, he faces very long odds of making it to the White House. The strategy might help him to garner some primary votes against Jeb Bush in red states, but it is not an approach with a great track record.The most centrist candidate always is nominated, and wins. McCain and Romney were the most centrist, they were nominated. It's a myth that the base runs either party - a myth partisans want to believe, about the other party. Dems hope and think Cruz can be nominated, but there is not a chance.

*** The Gallup poll that tracks the approval rating of Republicans in Congress looks like the bend of a hockey stick. At 28 percent approval, it is the lowest since the organization started measuring and down 10 points from last years. The Wall Street Journal poll has an identical finding: The GOP has never been less popular. By a margin of 22 points, the public blames Republicans over President Obama for the government shutdown, a bigger gap than the last major shutdown in the mid-1990s. Seventy percent say that Republicans are putting their "political agenda" ahead of the good of the country.This coming election will be tough for Republicans. As all the experts have shown, the electoral college math does not favor the GOP. Some experts have predicted that Democrats have over an 80% chance of winning the Electoral College. According to the Washington Post, if one looks at the states where the margin was narrow in the 2012 election, five currently favor Democrats (Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania) while in others, like Colorado, Democrats have a very good chance of winning as a result of demographic trends, namely growing minority populations that favor their party's nominee. Barring any dramatic changes in the coming months, Democrats will also have a very strong and seasoned nominee in Hillary Clinton.(1)>The 2012 vice presidential nominee, Ryan has decided not to run in 2016, but rather he plans to commit his time to his new role as chairman of the influential House Ways and Means Committee. (2)> AS CONFUSING about Obama's birth right Cruz'z is extraordinarily just as daunting The son of an American mother and Cuban-born father, Cruz would be the nation's first Hispanic president. While born in Canada, two lawyers who represented presidents from both parties at the Supreme Court recently wrote in the Harvard Law Review that Cruz meets the constitutional standard to run. Sounds a bit like Obama birth-er theory . It's pretty obvious to anyone other than his misguided supporters that Ted Cruz is incapable of winning a presidential election. Keep in mind that these folks don't question his eligibility despite the indisputable fact that he wasn't born here, but continue to insist that Obama was born in Kenya.Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia , but born again in Hawaii .(3)> His role in the government shutdown in 2013 is still resented by many of his fellow Republicans, especially the comical presumption by which Cruz went behind John Boehner's back—or over his prone and motionless body (opinions vary)—to gin up the fringier denizens of the monkeyhouse. (4)> Congressional staff members, yes the people who helped bring the Obamacare monstrosity on to the American public, sought and were granted waivers and or government subsidies for participating in Obamacare. Some businesses have also been granted waivers from the “employer mandate” which if implemented would have been so costly that many companies would have been seriously damaged if not cease to remain in business. So with all of this said, one would think that conservatives and Republicans would be on solid ground for insisting that Obamacare be defunded. Though many Republicans are wary, conservatives like Cruz have demanded this strategy – and have challenged the conservative bona fides of any who fail to get in line. A month ago, speaker of the House John Boehner was powerless to resist the crazies and finally relented, introducing legislation that tied the federal budget to a defunding of Obamacare.(5)> defining Cruz'z "extremism" is like this He is promising to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and scrap the Education Department. He vows to curtail federal regulators, likening to locusts that deserve to be killed. And his standard campaign-style speech includes a zinger about the Second Amendment."I'm pretty sure, here in New Hampshire, y'all define gun control like we do down in Texas: gun control is when you hit what you aim at," Cruz said Sunday during the first of a two-day visit to New Hampshire.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Why America needs a NEW POLITICAL PARTY.

American Patriots in 1776
did not want taxation
without representation ,
a common problem in
modern America.
239 years ago America was founded . It can be said that our nation was at the time was grand "experiment" in politics that liberated ( and set apart ) the old system of monarchies , and "theocratic" governments that were ruled by the Church . Today America suffers from a two party system , The biggest problem with American democracy is one that hardly gets any attention. (1)>  The United States doesn't have enough political parties. Two is not enough. Two have ruled so long that they both have been sold out to "special interests" and "foreign governments" . In a parliamentary system, even obscure parties have representation and every point of view gets heard. In our winner-take-all system, you get an endless stream of middle of the road warmonger corporatists. We have to speculate how many of our senators took bribes . The Clinton e-mail scandal reveals how much money the Clinton's took The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday night that the Clinton Foundation received $7.3 million from Saudi Arabians from 1999 to 2014, based on contributions of more than $50,000. This goes to the root of our political problem . (4)>  Our system is hung dry that either party is not working for the American people .  Glenn Beck as was reported "finally" quitting  the Republican party. I find that hard to believe . Beck a few years prior was trying the anti-Obama rally , he made what is  called the (3)> TEA PARTY , although he  did not start the tea party movement, but he can be considered one of its first leaders, so to speak, back when it got its start in 2009, helping shape the movement over the past five years. Beck's about face turnaround is worthy of comment in this blog .Well Beck said it’s time to stop using the “tea party” label altogether.The Tea party was too "ultra right" and dangerously religious in nature . The Tea Party was-really the "moral majority" (Christian Coalition )  in disuse . The popularity of that party waned do to part that it leeched on the Republican party like a parasite causing a major schizophrenic attack on would be senators who did not follow the tea party line . It got so bad that most of the Republican's did not want to associate with it .Both parts of the Tea Party, and also the mainstream Republican party, are about lower taxes. Libertarians don't want to ever pay taxes.  And they believe the Republican party when they say they will balance the budget (not true at all, really) and that they will keep taxes low or lower them further.  The Tea Party Constitution folks are the same, except that they are also incredibly bigoted toward gays, minorities, and women, and are incredibly ignorant about science and about U.S. history.  The Libertarian and Constitution Parties.  Of course, they're very different, revealing a deep division in the movement.And on the left, there's the Green Party - the Socialists have largely faded away.  Given the inability of the Republican and Democratic parties to agree on the most basic of government functions -- passing an annual budget to pay for federal programs -- it is perhaps not surprising that the percentage of Americans who believe a third party is needed has never been higher. (5)> The Democrats and Republicans have no interest in seeing more political parties, despite how healthy it would be for this country. That's why the debate committee works so hard to make sure no voices outside of the duopoly are heard. More parties would mean more choice. With Democrats and Republicans agreeing on so many fundamentally terrible things, and staging a sideshow of distraction on the ancillary issues, the two parties can maintain their vision for America, one of big business and empire working hand in hand. 

Why a Solution is needed .
Returning to real American values
means that America
can't be a two party
On Thursday, while watching a Senate budget meeting, it proved again the strictly party-line voting by its members. (6)>  Many amendments by either party had merit, but were voted down yes or no by the majority, which had a 12-10 representation.Why make a roll call when everyone strictly follows the party line? A third or fourth party is very much needed to stop the two-party juggling for power. As usual, nothing gets accomplished for the struggling taxpayers.We are not free. Under this two-party system, unintended by our fore fathers, any party other than the two in power cannot play due to rules that have blocked them from participating. Sure some get a cursory nod from time to time based mainly on their kookiness or outlier extremism. but most are one issue parties. Both parties write rules to keep others out.  It's wrong.  A large and growing third party already exists, however, among Independent voters.  While they admittedly don't get to participate in primaries, their votes are the ones that matter in general elections.  As the political pendulum swings back and forth, the system is built to be largely self-policing by delivering gridlock in most times of electoral disagreement. 

Remember this :

Democratic establishment angst is composed of obvious and less obvious elements.
James Madison’s "Federalist #10." The first thing that is apparent is that James Madison was a great writer. James Madison concisely ensured that every word, every sentence was effective. The 85 Federalist Papers were written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution.After reading "Federalist #10" one cannot help but view the founding fathers in a different light. Moreover, those like the Tea Party and the Republican Party, who wrap themselves in a type of rhetoric of adulation for what they believe was the founding fathers intent for the population, should rethink their position. James Madison starts "Federalist 10" with his disdain for factions. He does not view them as necessary or warranted within a democracy.Real democracy will not come to Americans until most Americans understand that the current state of government is designed. James Madison never expected those that represented the masses to vote in concert with the constituents. He makes that clear in "Federalist #10." A representative democracy can be purchased on the cheap. The plutocracy only needs to purchase 1 president, 5 Supreme Court justices, 67 senators, and 218 Congressional representatives—300+ million Americans, you all be damned. For this reason careful examination of those representing us must take on more urgency and scrutiny.
As long as Americans are somewhat content, stability is maintained. The continuous hoarding of wealth.  class at the expense of the masses may tip the scale. It may make those checks and balances moot.

(1)> If the U.S. had a fair voting system, the Democratic Party might fission into more independent caucuses or even different parties. Why should upscale environmentalists who want to eliminate hydropower dams, nuclear power plants, natural gas pipelines and automobiles be in the same party as unionized workers who want to build all of these things? In a fair voting system, they wouldn’t be.However, before any real representation could ever be implemented, multi-party or otherwise, we must convene another "Church Committee" to dismantle the National Security State Infrastructure from top to bottom.  Only when the ever-present bureaucratic Shadow Government is retired, fired or imprisoned, can there be a chance to implement the a new system. (2)> A majority of Americans have typically favored a third party in response to this question. Notably, support has dropped below the majority level in the last two presidential election years in which Gallup asked the question, 2012 and 2008. Support for a third party was lowest in 2003, the first year Gallup asked the question. That year, 40% thought the U.S. needed a third party, while 56% ODDLY  believed the Republicans and Democrats were doing an adequate job. (3)> The name " Tea Party" one would assume that they would be about ending high levels of taxation in America . The Original Boston Tea Party was made up of  angry patriots who disguised themselves as "Indians" , and literally threw the Kings tea in the harbor in defiance of the Tea Act of May 10, 1773.On the night of December 16, 1773, Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships in the Boston harbor and threw 342 chests of tea overboard. This resulted in the passage of the punitive Coercive Acts in 1774 and pushed the two sides closer to war.(4)> Our trouble with the two-party system is that wing policy has a short self life. Right wingers jerk us to the hard right while moderates attempt to maintain steady progress. Many liberals refuse to vote for anything but the perceived lurch to the left. The political center isn't able to maintain the political compromise necessary to positively affect more people.(5)>There are over 100 political parties in the USA but because of financing issues and debate rulings, we only ever get to really hear from 2 of them. This will be difficult to unravel since the 2 parties in control are enjoying the status quo and prefer that we remain strongly divided. Basically, we are screwed (6)> One of the most disappointing things about the new Congress (and there have been many) is how the beltway and the media at large have managed to twist the story around to suit the progressive narrative of the day. We’ve discussed this here before, and it’s truly enough to make me not want to get out of bed in the morning some days. The most glaring example has been the dreaded Threat of a Government Shutdown saga, also known as the Masters of Gridlock. Once the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress – at least in theory – they should have been able to pass bills, including the job of feeding all or any part of the government beast. The only way the money wouldn’t get through would be if the Democrat minority held up votes or if the President vetoed completed items. Either way, the responsible party for “shutting things down” would be clear.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Netanyahu's victory. After thoughts.

Netanyahu's victory was coming . I told a friend recently that he was going to win again regardless of any  kind of opposition & voting in the State of Israel. There are many factors on this . I would first like to elaborate that   Netanyahu,  Israel’s prime minister was elected four times . He has dominated American politics and Israeli politics for over 20 years . ^^ You might say that he has been called a "dictator" by many of his opponents in the Israeli state . One of them many years ago named Tzipi Livni, the leader of the opposition, accused Mr Netanyahu of an "attempt to transform Israeli into a type of dictatorship," while her Kadima party claimed that the legislation represented the "gravest" challenge to democracy since the establishment of the state in 1948. So for me there no SURPRISE that he won out a forth term . Now there was the accusation the President Obama was funneling money to the opposition leader . Mr Obama may have pulled as many strings as he could to defeat Netanyahu,. ***He had dispatched Jeremy Bird, the architect of the grass-roots and online organizing efforts behind both of Obama’s presidential campaign, to Israel to work the same magic there with a group called Victory 15. Victory 15 was in turn a close ally of the One Voice Movement — a U.S. tax-exempt organization with a subsidiary in Israel that actively worked against Netanyahu. One Voice apparently used $350,000 in State Department grants to to fund its anti-Netanyahu efforts in direct contravention with U.S. law.  () >However there was also money from the GOP that was going to the Pr0- Netanyahu camp . How much of it may not have been counted as of yet . There was also a "RELIGIOUS" zeal for American money to line Bibi's coffers . (1)>  Since for the most sincere ultra right Christian's Netanyahu would represent the fulfillment of some biblical prophesy .On his radio program . Glenn Beck declared that the victory of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party in yesterday's Israeli election proves that "the Lord does exist."Repeating the bogus right-wing claim that the Obama administration had used tax dollars to fund an anti-Netanyahu election campaign, Beck declared that "our administration is completely out of control and criminal," but that God carried Likud to victory despite the president's dirty tricks."The Lord does exist and he is sitting on his throne," Beck declared, saying that there was no way that Netanyahu should have won the election (IT was the American dollar Beck and the fact that he did is proof that "God exists.""God exists for us as well," he continued. "No matter what they have, no matter how dirty they play it, if we do what we're supposed to do, the scales will be even. God will have his thumb on the scale":American Evangelical pastor John Hagee - who heads the largest pro-Israel lobby group in the United States - half jokingly compared Benjamin Netanyahu to the Messiah once . 
Bibi's  One Party State.
Privately, the White House is expressing deep disappointment with the result of Tuesday’s elections, which they believe reinforces some of the greatest points of tension inflaming the relationship between Washington and Jerusalem. Netanyahu’s comments on the eve of the polls, apparently backing away from his support of a Palestinian state, particularly irked the president’s teamMr Netanyahu tried to regain right-wing support by repudiating his acceptance, in a speech in 2009,Palestinian statehood. This leaves a big question: is the real Bibi a man of negotiation, or of occupation?However, without a Palestinian state, Israel will either endanger its Jewish majority or lose its moral standing by subjugating and disenfranchising the Palestinian population. Israel will lose support abroad even when it legitimately defends itself. Now, with Netanyahu's return to power, that relationship doesn't look like it will be improving anytime soon.Publicly, the White House says the U.S.-Israeli relationship is too strong to be affected by one election. But it's clear that many administration officials would have preferred a different result. The Obama administration's frustration with Benjamin Netanyahu is turning into outright hostility after the Israeli prime minister's commanding victory this week.A senior administration official said that Netanyahu's sharp tacks to the right before  (1)> Tuesday's vote -- in which he ruled out the creation of a Palestinian state, a pillar of U.S. policy in the Middle East -- "raise very significant substantive concerns" for the White House, and that "we have to reassess our options going forward." A few years ago a  coalition of Israeli peace organizations published a list of 50 reasons for Israel to support a Palestinian state. Assuming that you only accept five of them, isn't that enough? What exactly is the alternative, now that the heavens are closing in around Israel as the center of a biblical tradition ? Can anyone, can Netanyahu, seriously contend that the regional hostility toward Israel be changed ?

^^  Netanyahu would be a shoo-in without an election. So there had to be an election anyway . Though Israel is not a DICTATORSHIP in any way or form, but it has the characteristics of one  , since one ruling party has been in power for so long , and Bibi's dominance .Mr Netanyahu is now Israel’s longest-serving leader since David Ben-Gurion. That is a remarkable feat for a man whose father once doubted his suitability for the job. Mr Netanyahu’s longevity is due to many factors, not least luck, cunning, a silver tongue and the loyalty of the Likud party. To date, Netanyahu is the FIRST and ONLY Prime Minister BORN IN ISRAEL after their establishment in 1948 to rule over them Netanyahu has been and still is being called Israel's King and He was in authority on their 50th independence day! (1)> NETANYAHU was recently looked upon by some right wing media nuts as some kind of Prophecy fulfillment . Netanyahu’s own interest in the Scriptures has been growing significantly in recent years,At a speech at the Auschwitz death camp in 2009, for example, Netanyahu declared that the prophecies of Ezekiel 37 — the dry bones of the Jewish people coming back together miraculously to form the State of Israel — had come to pass in his lifetime.Netanyahu also alluded in the speech to the Biblical prophecies of a Persian king named “Cyrus” would rise up one day and set the Jewish people free from captivity.*** Expect a congressional investigation of the “dark money” the U.S. government may have indirectly spent in Israel. Reps. Mike Bost and Randy Hultgren, two GOP House members from Illinois, have joined 18 of their colleagues in sending a letter calling on Bird and other Obama operatives to give a full accounting of their activities: “As Members of Congress, we are greatly concerned to hear allegations of our own State Department spending American tax dollars that were then used to influence foreign elections. Netanyahu has accused left-wing forces in Israel and abroad of orchestrating an “Anyone but Bibi”campaign, aimed at removing him from power after six years as prime minister.()> Army Radio reported that the Likud employed Vincent Harris, who worked for Republican senators Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz. The report said the Likud complained about US President Barack Obama’s former field director, Jeremy Bird, advising groups working to unseat Netanyahu, even though they were using the same tactic sending money . (1)> Thirty-two years ago, Israel signed a peace agreement with Egypt in which it undertook "to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people" and to establish an autonomous authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip within five years. Nothing happened.Israel and the U.S. have been fighting against a Palestinian State for decades. Israel wants the formation of 'Greater Israel' based on the boarders of the "biblical Solomonic " empire under a "restored" Davidic ruler , who SURPRISINGLY not to the wishes of the Christian world is not Jesus Christ according to Zionism. At the time of Balfour Declaration (1917), there were 65,000 Jews living in Palestine, as compared to 700,000 Arab Muslims and Christians. This was confirmed by the mid-wife of Balfour Declaration, British Zionist foreign secretary Arthur James Balfour by saying: “Zionism is of far profounder import that the desires of 700,000 Arabs who inhabit the land.”

Saturday, March 14, 2015

America & Russia : The media spin on "aggression".

An Abrams main battle tank, for US troops
deployed in the Baltics as part of NATO's Operation
 Atlantic Resolve, leaves Riga port
March 9, 2015. (Reuters/Ints Kalnins)
In the news lately , what ever the Government wants to disperse through the media . Not much has been said .  We have heard about Russian aggression lately . How far can we believe this in the media as propaganda ? Right the West has been "marketing" a new cold war at our children's expense , our American government is beating down on Russia again. So let's look at what's going on now, The latest operations performed under Atlantic Resolve include naval exercises in the Black Sea, as well as joint US-Bulgaria drills that will span the next three and a half months, and US-Polish missile exercises to be held later in March, which will involve an American Patriot missile battery.The increase of (1)>  NATO activity at Russia's western borders has repeatedly drawn worried statements from Moscow. Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov sees it as a containment scheme against Russia: "Instead of uniting forces to fight evil, the worst of which is terrorism, Western nations are drawing new divisive lines, trying to realize containment schemes against unwelcome states. Today, Russia has been chosen as the target,” he said on March 5. While we Americans are being told by our media about Russia's "invasion" of Ukraine we were never told that United States was engaged  in direct talks with the *** Ukrainian revolutionary government to set up a (2)>  Navel Base right in Crimea . While it was secretive to us From Libya, to Mali, to Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, and beyond – the West has engaged in direct and indirect geopolitical meddling and manipulation through various forms of force including covert military and intelligence operations to proxy terrorism, and even outright direct military intervention. As the West nears the boundaries of nations capable of defending themselves and a defense is in fact mounted, pundits and politicians have begun framing it as “aggression.” OBVIOUSLY we might be in a dangerous situation with Russia . The Media spin in the west has been   a specious claim, an absurd claim, a ridiculous claim, an unreal claim. Russia and Russians have been involved in certain respects in Ukraine, but by no sensible stretch of the imagination can such involvements be termed aggression. If there were an actual war aggression, it could not be hidden because the scope of a typical war aggression is very large. The photographic evidence for it would be overwhelming. No such evidence has been provided by Russia’s accusers. Even more importantly, it would have to be shown that the attack was an unprovoked offensive
attack, and not a defensive operation. This too has not been proven by Russia’s accusers.It will be immediately apparent to any rational observer that Russian involvement in Ukraine, whatever it is or has been, doesn’t even remotely resemble an attack on Ukraine or the kind of attack in force that defines real war aggression's. Far from being "in coma" the US NATO has expanded from the river Elbe into all former USSR satellite states. Just during Putin's first term in office, in 2004 while the West was professing coexistence and peacful relations with Russia, 7 new states were incorporated into NATO. Not to mention the Serbian, Kosovo war with bombing and NATO troops on the ground. And as early as 1997-1999 before Putin had taken power in Russia.Let's face it! Western goodwill and claims of peaceful coexistence are plain lies. All their acts fly in the face of such propaganda. We must call out the hypocrites, and show their lies to the whole world. This won't bring peace but it will document and identify those Western powers who are responsible for bringing the war to the brink of war.

The idea of the good US versus evil Russia (and anyone else) was so successfully driven into the minds of the US public that almost everyone exhibits it up to today, as Robert Parry pointed out this  in his article “The Crazy US ‘Group Think’ on Russia“.

***In other words, from Belarus, to Georgia, to Ukraine, and Serbia, the US has been insidiously overthrowing governments not through outright military aggression, but through covert military, political, and intelligence operations aimed at manipulating elections and overrunning regimes that refuse to accept the subsequently skewed results. Surely, then, regimes resulting from such a practice are not then “voluntarily” joining NATO – and NATO is surely expanding itself through a campaign of insidious, violent, lawless subversion of sovereign nations, one at a time with Ukraine once again in its sights.Current attempts by the West to portray Russia’s concern over Ukraine and the Nazi menace festering on their doorstep to Soviet leader Josef Stalin’s invasion of Poland aim to stir up anti-Communist, anti-Soviet fears and hysteria long programmed into the psyches of Western audiences Russia has instead chosen restraint despite multiple attempts by the West to bait it into overt military intervention in Ukraine - and in this restraint, has secured a growing global consensus long driven weary by the West’s attempts to dress up its own global aggression and expansionism as “democracy promotion” and “humanitarian interventions.” (1)> “NATO” military installations, which they had dishonestly claimed only existed to counterbalance the Soviet Union.  When Russian leaders pointed out that NATO expansion was in violation of specific US promises not to move NATO “one inch east”, US reps essentially replied that if anyone is stupid enough to expect them to honor their word, that is their problem – a point impossible to contest.(2)> The idea of a  US navel base in the Ukraine/ Crimea as a member of NATO  must be the probably the "cause" of what seems to Russia's retaliation to gain control of that region . I would ponder how would the American government feel if the Russian's established a base near us ? That's what is  behind the push to protect the naval base lies a much more abstract and deep-seated Russian interest: the expansion of Russian influence and policy throughout Eastern Europe, and keeping it out of the hands of the West. Ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has been a weak link in Russia's defenses against the West. The last thing Putin needs is for Ukraine to embrace Western influence, and to back out of its lease agreement in Sevastopol.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015


Our once great Republican Congress has turned a new leaf in obstructionism and treachery.  I agree with that we must have a "cautionary" dialog with Iran regarding nuclear energy . I reject complete all of Benjamin Natenyahu's preoccupation with apocalyptic fear-mongering on grounds that Israel has already nuclear weapons . I don't take sides with Obama on some facts about any deal with Iran , and my speculation is that Mr. Obama is seeking Iran's help to fight the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq .So out of diplomacy the President must try a solution first that is not in any way militarily.   Yes I want to try out diplomacy first. NOW my  Issue with the Republican Congress of this nation is why this treachery ? . The *** 47 Republican U.S. senators engaged in treachery by sending a letter to the mullahs aimed at cutting the legs out from under America’s commander-in-chief. Yes, they sunk at a all time low , but we  must strenuously condemn their betrayal of the U.S. constitutional system. They are an embarrassment to the Senate and to the nation. This pattern of cowardice is deplorable domestically. Seeing the same pattern in international affairs is dangerous. I would ask this if we could IMPEACH the 47 Republican U.S. Senators ? We should , and it's not out fondness of Mr. Obama . We all can guess that out of his weakness as a American President HE IS TRYING to deal with Iran  , but as Americans we can't afford a Congress like this . With Republicans needing significant Democratic support to achieve their goal of derailing the talks — or at least altering the emerging deal . Meanwhile some Democrats warned that Republicans risked alienating some of the dozen or so Democrats who have pledged support for two GOP measures that could blow up the fragile talks. As CRAZY as what GOP Congress did Vice Pres. Joe Biden made a statement that gives you exactly how far off they were .  So Joe Biden articulated :  “In 36 years in the United States Senate,” Biden said, “I cannot recall another instance in which senators wrote directly to advise another country — much less a longtime foreign adversary — that the president does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.” The critics offer a plausible reason for being so upset: The letter was a near-unprecedented attempt by one party to meddle in the foreign diplomatic affairs of the United States, as presented by the president.Given the Republicans’ pure hatred of Obama, it also seemed extra personal, yet another politically motivated attempt to stop him from doing anything that might be perceived as a victory for his administration. The Iranian side also had a comment  to the "letter" , they saw right through it . “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”

***These Senators really committed a serious crime , and who is going to haul them in ? They violated:The Logan Act of 1799, so at the very least, these 47 Senators are guilty of sedition. "The Logan ­Act (18 U.S.C.A.­ § 953 [1948])­ is a single­ federal­ statute­ making­ it a crime ­for ­a citizen­ to confer­ with ­foreign ­governme­nts against­ the interest­s of the United­ States.­ Specific­ally, it prohibit­s citizens­ from ­negotiat­ing with ­other ­nations­ on behalf­ of the United­ States­ without­ authoriz­ation."