War

Soldiers vs Winehouse

Soldiers v Winehouse (8/3/2011)

This past week I was riding with my daughter Haley talking about events of the week when I asked her if she knew who Amy Winehouse was. About two weeks ago Amy Winehouse died of an overdose and I had never heard of her, you probably haven’t either. What intrigued me more was the amount of media coverage her death received. I watch the NBC Nightly News and they gave at least three minutes to this celebrity, focusing on a lifestyle of degradation wrought with drugs and alcohol. My daughter impressed me with her next question, “did you see the Facebook post about this?”

I asked her to explain as I had no idea what she was talking about. Haley went on to share a girl had posted about Amy Winehouse versus the soldiers who died in the same week. Essentially, this is the same issue bothering me. Receiving no media coverage were the U.S. soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya.

Since 2002 thousands of soldiers have died fighting in our Presidents’ war on terror. These are funded by, but not declared wars by Congress and in my opinion Bush and Obama along with the entire Senate and House can be blamed for these deaths. Prior to Obama’s Presidency the major networks would publish the names of the soldiers who died each day and give coverage to the IEDs and bombings taking the lives of our sons and daughters. Part of Obama’s election platform was the withdrawal of troops and shutting down the wars, but the opposite has happened with as many lives lost on his watch as Bush’s.

I puzzle why we have U.S. soldiers dying on foreign soil and speculate the following: Iraq – to install democracy, Afghanistan – to stop Al Queda, Libya – to remove Qhadaffi, and Yemen – to protect human rights. All of these theaters are U.N. sanctioned and fought without a declaration of War by the Congress. Therefore, our soldiers are policeman, not upholding the Constitutional premise of protection against enemies foreign and domestic, especially since Osama Bin Laden was killed and the mission accomplished.

The Gulf of Tonkin taught us politicians will lie to create wars. I must now questions the policies of our government, and more personally I wonder if I would allow the government to send my sons to a questionable war. Of most concern is the media stopped questioning the reason for these wars and it now appears a meaningless, drugged up 27-year old British citizen deserves more coverage than our youth fighting a politicians’ war.

August 6, 2011 by Controversy Obama Terrorists

Can I Wear My Shoes Now?

Can I wear my Shoes Now? (5/4/2011)

Sunday night I was on my way home from Atlanta tuned in to CNN when I heard the President planned an unprecedented press conference around 10:40pm. My wife and I speculated on possibilities, “what could be so important?” Jokingly I offered maybe Osama bin Laden was dead, but that certainly was not worth a late night press conference. Of course, if your poll numbers have fallen to historic lows and your re-election campaign was prematurely announced weeks ago then this could be the much needed booster shot.

I argue, “who cares?” Eight or nine years ago the death of Osama bin Laden may have had material impact. For nearly 10 years we have been given the boogeyman of threat, Bin Laden and his minions trying to harm us. Of course, Orwell would not have given up his government boogeyman, Emmanuel Goldstein, because he was the necessary fuel for the government machine. Bin Laden, like Goldstein, is a necessary enemy of the state; serving to distract, unit e and focus the people away from the true issues. Bush brought as bin Laden, a desperate politically troubled president has eliminated him. Reminding us how important it is not to piss off our enemies, the United States is treating Osama bin Laden’s body in “accordance with Islamic practice,” a White House official says. If this man was our enemy I assert his body be publicly hung in Times Square and treated to a ticker tape parade, unless of course, no body exists and this is a diversion.

So, the real question the next time I board an airplane is, “can I wear my shoes now?” If Bin Laden is dead I assume this means we can pull out of Afghanistan this week and bring our troops home since we spent billions of dollars chasing this idiot through caves, not unlike Bill Murray and the “Caddyshack” gopher. Sadly, the media was quick to report ramped up security efforts, more scanning, and began fear-mongering possible Al Qaeda retaliation attacks. Give me a break, Goldstein (I mean bin Laden) is dead and now the threat level is pushed to imminent. I expect more money will have to be spent to assure Al Qaeda terrorism is minimized. I expect much focus on the White House this week, defining our President as a world-wide hero who saved humanity from an evil man, with the media acting like teen-age girls at a “Teen Beat” cover shoot. Osama bin Laden is dead; can I wear my shoes now?

May 25, 2011 by Civil Rights Freedom Muslim Obama Stupid People Terrorists

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy (03/30/2011)

I consider hypocrisy to be the most appalling and disgusting action someone can take. I believe examples abound like politicians campaigning for family values then engaging in affairs, organized religious leaders looking away from rape by their clergy, preachers wrapped in wealth, or global warming followers driving jets and SUVs. Many on the right are struggling with the hypocrisy of the press; their basis of accusations of liberal bias against the mainstream media. Out of fairness, our media has never been held accountable for any reporting, no matter how inaccurate. With the Libyan conflict though it appears a “wink-wink” of approval has been made to the current administration.

In December 2007, Senator Obama said: “[the] president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Shortly thereafter Senator Obama was supported by Senator Joe Biden who pledged to start impeachment proceedings against President Bush if Iran were attacked without congressional approval. Ironically, we find ourselves with the hypocrisy of our President and Vice President doing exactly what they accused Bush of doing. On March 19, 2011 President Obama stated, “Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.”

Hypocritically the question must be raised as to how Obama could make such a statement, and ignore his prior assertions of Presidential authority. Over the last several weeks uprisings have occurred throughout the Middle East, starting with the self-immolation of a fruit stand worker in Tunisia. Each of the middle-eastern governments has turned on its citizens: Tripoli, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, and of course our oil-rich ally Saudi Arabia. While the President had psychic-like success with his NCAA basketball picks his reason to start a war with a meaningless dictator remains a mystery. Whether or not I agree with Mohammar Qhaddaffi, Libya is a sovereign nation entitled to manage her affairs, or the same principles shall apply to China, Korea, Venezuela, and most of the middle-east. Protected by our media it is easy to see the quick dismissal of the hypocrisy of the situation, as a lover will always look away. “Hypocrisy is a fashionable vice, and all fashionable vices pass for virtue,” – Moliere (1622-1673).

April 17, 2011 by Big Government Mainstream Media Muslim Obama Terrorists

I am Angry

I am angry because it appears no one knows what is going on around them with deficits, rising fuel prices, Islamic radicalization, and Middle East uprising. The most twisted issue is an American society willing to tax food, clothing, and shelter, at the same time as supporting 44-million Americans on food stamps all while watching media celebrities like Charlie Sheen make fools of themselves. It cost an extra “Andrew Jackson” to fill my car today and the mainstream blames fuel prices on the Middle East, but that’s far from the truth. A middle-school look at the readily available data shows a more fundamental reason for the rise, one destroying our lifestyle and future.

Rising fuel prices are simply attributed to three factors: monetary supply, supply and demand, and speculation. Speculation is based on fear in the market which is driven by political unrest around the world. Supply and demand is a direct consequence of emerging economies, hurricanes in the Gulf, or destruction of Middle East oil assets. Although the Middle East uprisings are dominating news reports daily, the current rising prices are truly a function of monetary supply. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke speculated on QE2 in August 2010 and it was officially announced November 4, 2010. Each week I graph crude oil prices and up until August prices were relatively stable, but immediately following QE2’s speculation fuel prices started to rise, increasing more after the official announcement. With the devaluation of our currency, OPEC announced a desire for higher fuel prices to effectively capture the same income. Today’s Middle Eastern uprising is a secondary issue exacerbating the underlying cause of rising fuel prices. Blame our government and central bank, not those fighting for civil liberties.

The solutions being thrown around by political pundits from both sides make no sense and demonstrate politics’ need-to-please, not realistic solutions. Opening strategic reserves is anecdotal to a giving a cancer patient a band-aid. “The Long Emergency,” as James Howard Kunstler writes, has begun and political unrest, failed monetary policies, and a third-world desirous of the same excesses we enjoy will continue to drive oil prices upward. I am angry pop-culture nonsense Tom Brady’s hair and Gaga’s breast milk ice cream exploits resonates more importantly than the collapse of our currency. On November 10, 2010 I wrote, “Gasoline should easily reach $3.40/gallon by April as OPEC is demanding a minimum $100/gallon.” I am angry no one listens.

March 25, 2011 by Big Government Muslim Obama sheep Stupid People

Cairo – Do Americans Riot?

Cairo – Do Americans Riot?

Several weeks ago uprisings in Tunisia dominated the evening news and daily papers. Most Americans are quick to dismiss such events, and why not? Steven Tyler’s performance on “American Idol” or the choosing of 20-something millionaires to play in the Super Bowl delude the masses; appearing far more important than citizens risking their lives for freedom. I too have felt the challenge to understand, but in college I watched Chinese students challenge communist regime and ultimately give their lives in Tiananmen Square to demonstrate the human rights violations of their government. Growing up I knew the communists of the U.S.S.R. regularly violated individual freedoms and imprisoned citizens behind the iron curtain. Through Hollywood movies I learned more about the fight after World War II and my history classes tried to explain the actions of authoritarianism and dictatorships.

Although many arguments about the cause may be made, the issues in Cairo this week are driven by 30 years of authoritarian rule under President Hosni Mubarak and a discontent youth rebelling against his authority. But the recent riots are not new, and by no means ultimately represent the underlying problems in a country desirous of democracy but operating with an ancient mentality. On November 24, 2010 a Christian was killed, 100 arrested and 3,000 demonstrators protested the razing of a new Christian church built without a permit. Under Ottoman law a permit is required to build a Christian church, in contrast Mosques are built easily and regularly without review of a state authority. Today many assertions are being made in the media that the riots are religious in nature, but local reporting and blogging, held an opposite view. Instead, the riots are the result of 30 years of oppression and dictatorship and inspired by the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.

As the World’s policeman the American citizenry believes our own government is above such actions and the riots we watch overseas could not occur here. My wife and I had a conversation this week about Americans and whether riots would take place here. Coincidentally I am reading a book, “The Emerging Police State” by William Kunstler and together we watched “Battle in Seattle,” chronicling protests against the World Trade Organization. Skeptically I listen to the outrageous conspiracy claims of Alex Jones and wonder if any truth inspires. As I learn more though I have discovered striking parallels between the radical claims of the left and the right; the common thread leading to a questioning of our government’s actions. Uprisings have occurred on our soil, and many are similar to Egypt: spurred by youth and ideological believers desperate for change and an opportunity to be heard. Sadly, like Egypt, death has come upon those who question the United States government or the corporations profiting and seeking protections through the rule of law.

Kunstler’s book is a compilation of speeches made through the years and inspired by his battles for justice. In my opinion it is easy to condemn the actions of those we do not like, but it is more important to defend the application of justice when we like it least. From a speech in 1971, with memories of Kent State fresh, long forgotten to the annals of time and unknown to anyone under age 40 today, he indicts the government for condoning the slaughter of unarmed students, using the law to fabricate evidence and justify its actions. In the most disgusting example, the Grand Jury which is supposed to provide protection from the law, but serves as an agency of the government, found the National Guard justified in shooting, although no student sniper existed and it was a Major’s discharge of his sidearm that prompted spraying the crowd with bullets. Furthermore, the Grand Jury recommended .22-caliber bullets should be used against future student demonstrators instead of the larger, more harmful caliber M-1.

Forty years later, in the summer of 2010, Pittsburg was shut down and noise suppression cannons were used to hold off G-20 demonstrators. No one was killed, but our government has mechanisms to slow and prevent demonstrations. Likewise, the movie “Battle in Seattle” shows the offensive measures police and National Guard took against WTO protesters in 1999. Since then “Exclusion Zones” have been created and are defined as “areas where protesters are legally prohibited.” A quick read of the Bill of Rights contradicts this as the Congress was prohibited from passing any law interfering with the right to peacefully assemble. Without protest though, we have sheepishly allowed court rulings to support the establishment of Exclusion Zones and Free Speech Zones, often located miles from the desired protest site and set behind concrete barriers, fencing, and razor wire.

Watching from a distance this past week I am concerned our government and media does not condemn Egypt’s actions to shut down the internet and communications. With bi-partisan support the Senate is prepared to again introduce legislation to create an “Internet Kill Switch.” In Egypt stopping communication has become necessary to thwart organizing by protesters. I believe many Americans view such actions as part of their perception of safety, but I counter it is another step in the incremental destruction of our freedoms. When challenged, a congressional white paper on the measure said the proposal prohibits the government from targeting websites for censorship “based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Ironically, the same language is used in the Patriot Act.

Our country is radically changing, not in terms of Democrat versus Republican, but government and corporations versus citizenry. Each of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights has been usurped over the last 40 years to protect the state and corporation. Meanwhile we have sat idly by accepting, like children, the supposed safety created in exchange for liberty. We have watched legislation pass that punishes minorities and the indigent in greater numbers. Currently the mainstream populace finds itself victim to the banking, mortgage, and credit fraud perpetrated by the elite few and legitimized by Congress. I challenge you to understand why youth in Egypt are risking their lives against oppression, question why Icelandic people rioted to avoid the indebtedness of the banks, why 170,000 TSA employees have the freedom to ignore the Fourth Amendment, and why both sides of Congress support legislation to cut communications via the Internet. From the comfort of our homes it is safer to let others protest and not put ourselves at risk. I think the answer to my wife’s question about whether Americans riot is easy, “the passionate due, the idle don’t.”

February 12, 2011 by Civil Rights Controversy Muslim Terrorists