Tag Archives: antiwar.com

Cindy, Lockerbie, recruiters, organ theft

Posted on by
Reply

Four great reads: AntiWar.com’s John Walsh describes Cindy Sheehan’s reception at Martha’s Vineyard: Barack Obama to Cindy Sheehan: get lost. John Pilger decodes the indignation about Scotland’s release of a terrorist: Lockerbie: Megrahi was framed. Mother Jones’ David Goodman details the military recruitment of American school kids: A Few Good Kids. An interesting inquiry into Professor Yehuda Hiss and Palestinian organ theft: The autopsy surgeon Aftonbladet forgot.

John Kerry puts his warmongering act into action against Iran

Posted on by
Reply

kerryHave I mentioned how repulsive I personally find all the Democratic Party enablers? The party is uniformly as disgusting to me as the Republicans are and more. The Republicans are just what they seem to be but the Democratic Party are a group of great pretenders.

If John Kerry had been elected in 2004 we would have gotten yet another guy pushing for war with Iran! You just cannot win with the Democratic Party since they are war mongers on the same level of magnitude as the Republican Party. It’s not for nothing that antiwar.com refers to both together as the ‘War Party’. Here is John Kerry pushing for yet more war making to feed the military-industrial complex of the US…

‘Kerry said the U.S. must not be lured into protracted negotiations with Iran. A timetable must be established and consequences set if progress isn’t made, he said.’

Full report at Pressure grows on Obama to engage Iran directly, and they’re not talking about Republican Party pressure either, but rather the repulsive, John Ketchup Kerry.

Obama reneging on promises to pull US troops out of Iraq

Posted on by
5

LiarObama won the presidency based on the fact that most Americans found him to be credible on his promise to get US troops out of Iraq, whereas they didn’t think John McCain had any commitment to do so. They got tricked and it appears that Obama today will merely restate the Bush promise to the Iraqi puppet government to get US troops out of Iraq by January 1, 2012. Look for numerous press reports to misstate that Obama is actually going to do nothing new in a manner similar to this one… Obama to Announce U.S. Troop Withdrawal in Iraq …Read the details and you can see that it is basically the Bush plan gift re-wrapped for more liberal Democratic Party voters acceptance of it!

What can be seen by this continued glue to the Bush program in regards to Iraq, is that the Democrats have no confidence that Iraq will not fall into a fight for power the minute US troops leave. The puppet government is that unstable, and in fact there are real and credible fears that civil war might now break out even with US troops still inside the country. Simply put, Barack Obama is fearful of changing Bush’s game plans for Iraq, so he’s sticking to the basic Republican program and sugar coating for his unmotivated Democratic Party constituency.

Yes, the Democratic Party ‘Peace’crats have kept the lid on all protest coming from their groups nationwide. The national coalition of these votes, the UFPJ (United for Peace and Justice) are refusing to unite with ANSWER in calling for Spring demonstrations. They simply really don”t want them with Abraham Obama in office…. he’s going to free the White Middle Class liberals from their slavery under Rush Limbaugh and Fox News!

Not only is Obama sticking with the Bush program directly promising to keep US troops in Iraq until 2012, he continues to carry out the Bush-Cheney game plan by expanding occupation in Afghanistan, and aggressively threatening Iran and Syria with war. Add to that the Democratic Party in no way has changed from giving Israel green light to continue their ethnic cleansing program against the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and elsewhere (inside Israel itself). Meanwhile the ‘Peace’crats stand around with their thumbs up their asses and mumbling CHANGE… SPARE CHANGE, PLEASE. It’s very sad to see people debase themselves in this manner.

One can only feel sorry for the Iraqi population, too. They have no guarantee that the US under Barack Obama as CIC will actually stick to the promises to get out by 2012. All sorts of excuses to justify the idea that that cannot be actually done when the time comes can be made up under the usual fire of events, and Barack Obama is just the man in the US Presidency to do just exactly that. Three years from now? Well the US under this plan most likely will still be inside Iraq like glue. The US government and military simply didn’t build all their forts and Embassy Closed Gates without a desire to stick around. Barack is their guy, and when stability begins to crumble with his limited pull out, you can pretty much guess that the ‘plans’ will get changed once again. It’s simply stupid to trust the Democratic Party with much of anything other than their own going plans to collaborate with the Republican Party in running the World on behalf of American corporate power.

Also see… Orwell in Babylon- Obama’s Non-Withdrawal Withdrawal Plan ….By CHRIS FLOYD at antiwar.com

Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!

Posted on by
7

gaza-protest-children1   By the rivers of Babylon—
there we sat down
and there we wept
when we remembered Zion.

Psalm 137, writes Joel Kovel, is “a virtual anthem of the Zionist cause.” The passage is subtitled in the New Revised Standard Edition Bible as Lament over the Destruction of Jerusalem. You probably recognize the phrases from gospel music:

4   How could we sing the Lord’s song
in a foreign land?

But omitted from the musical versions, and popular discourse at least outside of Israel, is the longing for revenge, expressed in verses 7-9:

7   Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem’s fall,
how they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear it down!
Down to its foundations!’
8   O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
9   Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!

Does this bear any relation to the 437 children killed in Israel’s last incursion into Gaza? Note, Kovel wrote Overcoming Zionism in the wake of the IDF’s atrocities in Lebanon, the ferocity of which their Gaza operation could only be said to have exceeded. Kovel did find counterparts to Psalm 137 in contemporary Israeli rhetoric. He quotes Rafi Ginat, editor-in-chief of Yediot Ahronot, July 28, 2006.

“wipe out villages that host Hezbollah terrorists […] wash with burning fire the Hezbollah terrorists, their helpers, their collaborators, and those who look the other way, and everyone who smells like Hezbollah, and let their innocent people die instead of ours.”

And Kovel quotes Israeli poet Ilan Shenfeld, published in Ynet, July 30, 2006, who throws the fate of Gaza’s children in with those of Lebanon:

“March on Lebanon and also on Gaza with ploughs and salt. Destroy them to the last inhabitant. Turn them into an arid desert, an uninhabited, turbid valley. Because we yearned for peace and wanted it, and our houses we destroyed first, But they were a wasted gift for those murderers, with beard and Jihad bands, Who shout: ‘Massacre now!,’ and who have neither love nor peace, Neither god nor father. […]

“Save your people and make bombs, and rain them on villages and towns and houses till they collapse. Kill them, shed their blood, terrify their lives, lest they try again To destroy us, until we hear from tops of exploding mountains, Ridden down by your heels, sounds of supplication and lamentation. And your pits will cover them. Whoever scorns a day of bloodshed, He should be scorned. Save your people, and make war.”

Ran HaCohen wrote in Antiwar.com, quoting Israeli peace activist A. B. Yehoshua from Ha’aretz, March 19, 2004, who justified the plan for Gaza.

“After we take out the settlements … we would use force against an entire population, use force in a total manner. … We would cut off the electricity in Gaza. We would cut off communications in Gaza. We would stop fuel supply to Gaza…. It won’t be a desirable war, but definitely a purifying one.”

gaza-protest-end-killing

Documents show Clinton Administration funded Colombia’s death squad killings

Posted on by
Reply

US out of ColombiaBill Clinton presided over murdering off hundreds of thousands of Iraqis via economic warfare, the bombing of multiple civilian targets in Yugoslavia including TV stations, water treatment plants, and the Chinese Embassy, and also the financing of Colombia’s death squads where tens of thousands of Colombians were murdered. Barack Obama has given new jobs in government policy making to these same Democratic Party political hacks that made all this bloodshed happen back in the 1990s. See “Body count mentalities” for some of the Colombian story about Democratic Party promotion of war and torture abroad. This was D.C.’s war, too. It was the Democrats’ war.

Antiwar.com reports that ‘since at least 1990, U.S. diplomats were reporting a connection between the Colombian security forces and far-right drug-running paramilitary groups, according to the Washington-based National Security Archive (NSA). In the meantime, the U.S. State Department continued to regularly certify Colombia’s human rights record and to heavily finance its “war on drugs.” The declassified documents were published Jan. 7 by the NSA, a non-governmental research and archival institution located at the George Washington University that collects, archives, and publishes declassified U.S. government documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.’

That was all back when only Israel and Egypt were getting more U.S. ‘aid’ dollars than Colombia was. With the Gaza slaughter underway as I write, we can today see the results there, too, of all that US money. Barack Obama is not about to change a damn thing! He is not CHANGE.

Secret Documents Show US Aware of Colombian Army Killings in 1990s

Obama’s plan for Afghanistan is to arm yet more death squads under Pentagon command

Posted on by
2

The US government calls them militias but the reality, like with Iraq, is that these forces are merely US controlled and trained death squads.
Kabul embassy flag ceremony
Here is the New York Times reporting on the Obama plan for more Afghanistan occupation… Afghans and U.S. Plan to Recruit Local Militias Don’t be deceived by the title of the report, since even the US government’s Afghan puppet ‘president’ Karzai is against the Obama plan. There are no Afghans that are planning to do anything more than participate under the command of US planned death squads being launched there by Obama and Dubya. Here is the LA Times more honest title to there own report… Afghanistan’s President Karzai laments coalition use of ‘thugs’ These 2 articles are on the Libertarian site, antiwar.com today.

The ‘Peace’crats are still giving Obama the benefit of their Democratic Party voting ‘doubt’. Why are so many of these little liberal types covering up from Obama’s plan to put in more US troops into Afghanistan to ‘surge’ the area with more US organized locals, platooned into death squads? And what does Obama have planned to do to the people of Pakistan? It’s time to oppose this Democratic Party criminality not to remain silent. Raise your voices against the local ‘Peace’crat groups, since we need better organization than they will ever provide to oppose effectively the Pentagon terrorism. They’re going to stay largely silent.

(That picture is of US troops at the US Kabul ‘Embassy’ 7 years ago December- 2001, right about the time that the US allied death squads slaughtered thousands of surrendering Afghan troops in air tight cylinders by suffocation and shooting bullets into them. They had tried valiantly to defend their country from US occupation but failed. See Mass grave plundered at site of Taleban prisoners’ massacre Six years later, the US government of Obama wants to organize yet more death squads to use against Afghans.)

Common Dreams? Or is it censorship in common with the corporate media?

Posted on by
124

Ira ChernusThe biggest liberal website out there online, Common Dreams, informs us with its headline today that ‘OBAMA’S PROGRESSIVES: HOLDING, PUSHING, TUGGING’. Common Dreams has become a major resource for the US Left and liberal community in the last couple of years through its posting of many important commentaries by Leftists and liberals plus its convenient links that many of us use quite often. Unfortunately there is a big weakness of the site, and that is their censorship of commentaries, writers, and readers who are not completely 100% on board with their ‘support the lesser of two evils’, pro-Democratic Party point of view.

As a result, when I go to read their headline, I today get the message that THE WEBSITE DECLINED TO SHOW THIS WEBPAGE (to me) HTTP 403 FORBIDDEN. What is Common Dreams scared of from me?

The exact post I made to one of their commentaries that got me blacklisted from their site was made on election night and was linked the following day to a commentary at Common Dreams, from the one I made here on Not My Tribe titled Sadly, Barack Obama will probably get us OUT of Iraq by getting us INTO Iran. Many people who read Common Dreams material link to other commentaries that back up their opinions and beliefs, and I merely did the same.

But this belief that Obama’s election will lead to yet more war ran counter to their cheeleading for the Democratic Party, and earned me their shunning. And you know what? I still think it is most probable that attacking Iran is a most possible final result, post national arrival of Obama into the White House. How will the Common Dreams’ censor feel if this actually happens? Will he/ she remember the decision to put me permanentl offline from their site, for simply making this observation? Probably not.

I certainly do not feel all alone at all in being treated so shabbily by the Common Dreams Democratic Party cheerleading censor on their site. The site shuns many others, too, including the Libertarian site ANTIWAR.COM that it has never chosen to link to and acts as if the site does not exist. ANTIWAR.COM, you see, is a major resource for those who oppose what they call one of the War Parties, the Democrats? Can’t do that per play book of Common Dreams censorship. Not at all if you want publication there.

Also of note, is that Common Dreams likes anarchists somewhat, linking to the giant academician anarchist site, Znet, but has no links to overt Marxist links. Major antiwar activists (and presidential candidates) like Gloria La Riva will never see any comment of theirs allowed the Common Dreams site. CENSORED by the CD group-ling of ‘OBAMA’S PROGRESSIVES:HOLDING, PUSHING, TUGGING’. More like BLOCKING, I would say, and Common Dreams doesn’t like people that are aware of that, and will comment to that effect on their pro-Democratic Party site.

I could list many people whose comments will never appear at Common Dreams, merely because they are activist Marxists. Many academic anarchists act at election time though as Social Democrats, and Social Democrats can be easily herded into voting Democratic Party in the US. ALLOWED.

The thing about Common Dreams is that they are not real honest, and pretend often to have no bias for the Democrat Party even as they push them with countless articles praising people like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, et al. With the final days to push to get Barack Obama elected though, they seem to have dropped much of their camouflage and subterfuge and the long time effects will be to make their site less attractive to people who actually do want uncensored Left opinion, and not just cheerleading for the new DP executives in power. The CD approach to activism is to try to herd all ‘Progressives’ into voting the Democratic Party. It really is about that plain and simple, but it would be much better for activism if this major Left resource in the US had a less sectarian and less Democratic Party partisan approach.

So to the question is it Common Dreams, or is it censorship in common with the corporate media? I leave you to contemplate that question? For me, I just know that I can no longer read the site on my home computer, let alone comment on their posted articles, all because I do not share their ‘common dream’, which seems narrowly limited to getting the Democratic Party politicians into office, and propagandizing for them. That’s why I see them as being so like the corporate media itself, which will only endorse one of the two corporate parties, and will censor those who want a different world.

As to those whose commentaries are promoted by Common Dreams? I will be writing to at least one of them, Ira Chernus who lives here in Colorado, and asking him what it feels like to have article after article of his promoting the idea of voting Democratic Party this last election published on the Common Dreams site, and then finding out how Common Dreams has censors who keep opposing ideas to his own offline at their Common Dreams site? I don’t think that Ira, or many of the other nice liberal Democratic Party voting writers, have given this censorship much thought. It reflects poorly on them though, when Common Dreams publishes their commentaries and then keeps ‘Progressives’ from actually being able to challenge their POV. Ira, that is censorship. Have you anything much to say about this?

PS.. That picture above is of Ira Chernus, whose multiple articles framed the Common Dreams site the last weeks of the election. He is a professor who happens to live in The Democratic Party Peoples Republic of Boulder.

Amy Goodman looks at Barack Obama

Posted on by
Reply

Amy GoodmanAmy Goodman gives Barack Obama a fair lookover during a discussion with investigative journalist John Pilger in Britain, Columbia University professor and Africa scholar Mahmood Mamdani, Laura Carlsen of the Center for International Policy in Mexico City, Iraqi analyst Raed Jarrar, Pakistani author Tariq Ali, and Palestinian American Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada.
President-Elect Obama and the Future of US Foreign Policy: A Roundtable Discussion The focus is on foreign policy and the conclusions are rather gloomy about what 4 years with Barack as the Great Helmsman in the White House will actually soon begin to look like.

What a breath of fresh air Amy Goodman gives America with this program. It is nice to see intelligent discussion of reality as opposed to adulatory and adolescent fantasies about the new president that border on worship services at a Pentecostal Church. It is clear that all of these people who participated in this round table discussion on Goodman’s program understand that Barack Obama is not alone at sail on The Seven Seas, but is clearly part of a leadership teem astride an American aircraft carrier armed to the teeth. None of them seem to be very positive about what the future will bring from this sad perspective.

Since the focus of this discussion with Amy is Obama’s future foreign policy, there is little mention of what his future domestic policies will probably be like. It would be great if she continues the dialog with yet another round table discussion that examines just that question! I rather think that the conclusions from an informed group of Leftists about the future Democratic Party’s agenda under Obama will be just as dreary if she does look at his plans on the domestic front as well. After all, we have already seen just what it will appear like with the bipartisan giveaway to the companies from the Federal Treasury that the Democrats and Republicans worked out together that is currently continuing to contribute to sinking the world economy, not to mention just ‘our’ own.

Without Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, alternet, counterpunch, and antiwar.comm, we would only be left with a group of totally abject Democratic Party cheerleaders now. Each and everyone of these websites is worthy of any financial donation that you can make? We rely on all of them for informative reporting. Let’s hope that they keep up the good work and hope that other important sources of discussion and reporting can be developed, too.

The Plan: big & stupid ideas for America

Posted on by
Reply

Rahm EmanuelOur blog’s most fervent Democrat challenged me to enlighten about the new chief of staff for Barack Obama (Rahmbo) and his book, ‘The Plan: Big Ideas for America’. Well here it is straight from antiwar.com’s website… Obama’s chief of staff choice favors compulsory universal service Even a cursory look at this material illustrates that Barack Obama and his crew want to even further militarize America, using this plan as a Trojan Horse to capture the support of the politically ignorant and naive cheerleaders they now have. They want a military draft in place.

No, they will call it a Civilian Service Plan or some other cover up name for what they are planning to do. They will talk about IDEALISM, HOPE, and CHANGE. But what will remain in the essence is forced conscription of young people into a so-called “anti-terrorism response team,” militarized to the point of the Homeland Security nitwits at all our airports.

The Plan: Big and Stupidly Poor Ideas for America, brought to you by the Democratic Party. But we absolutely don’t need further militarization of this country’s corrupt military patronage welfare system of jail guards/ soldiers/ police/ and vets. Nor do we need the Democratic Party itself running things in cahoots with their Republican Party politician/ businessmen/ lawyer friends..

US liberal radicals silent about ‘self determination’ now that South Ossetia and Abkhazia want it

Posted on by
2

One of the most aggravating things about American (and British) liberals has been how they consistently line up with the US government shouting ‘Self-Determination! Self Determination!’ every time the Pentagon uses some small nationality against another government.

When Australia wanted to split East Timor off of Indonesia, this was their shout. When the US and the Western Europeans wanted to carve up Greater Yugoslavia into nation-lets under their control this was their call. We hear their call again against China as the US government wants to use Tibet to propagandize for the Pentagon and against the Chinese. We hear it in Africa as they use the issue of the fighting in Darfur to move against Sudan.

Liberal radicals are always using the issue of ‘self determination’ to support US militarism while pretending to be doing the exact complete opposite. That is why their silence is so deafening now about keeping quiet about ‘self determination’ for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Apparently the liberal interventionist American Left is only for ‘self determination’ when the Pentagon calls for it? This is a sad illustration about the liberal Left’s own lack of self examination and their pro US nationalism and pro imperialism that hides behind liberal human rights rhetoric. Some even hide behind Marxism to justify what positions for the Pentagon they take!

What about the Ossetians? Once again the Libertarian Right is more honest than the pseudo Marxists and Left liberal ‘Progressive’ community is. They ask the question about the Ossetians when the phonys remain silent. While the pro Democratic Party liberals/radicals are out cheerleading Barack it is antiwar.com that keeps us informed about the dangerous buildup for war involving Russia and the US. And unfortunately, this constant misuse of the issue of ‘self determination’ in support of State Department propaganda is often used by many even to the Left of the Democratic Party, too. Shameful. But now they are all silent when it comes to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

9/11- searching for a balanced view of the events

Posted on by
Reply

At last a balanced perspective on 9/11, and one written by a Colorado professor up in Boulder, no less! I refer to antiwar.com’s published headline commentary CAMPOS: Very serious 9/11 untruths where Paul Campos points out that there are actually 2 brands of 9/11 conspiracy theories out there.

One theory often held up to ridicule, is that there is an all powerful, all competent, evil cabal of ruling elite that deliberately set off the attack in order to better enslave us all. Many Left liberal types seem inclined to believe all or a portion of that view point. Sad.

But Campos points out that the Bush government and its cohorts have covertly sponsored another conspiracy theory to justify their invasions and occupations, their money making imperialist corporate welfare. This conspiracy theory is that a nefarious group of thugs called ‘Islamo fascists’ is a deadly and ephemeral enemy of all Americans that must be struggled against for at least many decades, if not a hundred years are more. This is the type of nonsense that is popularly preached from the pulpits of American fascists like Glen Beck and David Horowitz, among many other Establishment loving , uh… shall we say ‘intellectuals’??? lol…

A good read by Paul Campos. I’d like to take any course he is giving over at the good U. They’ll probably try to get rid of him soon though. Nitwits don’t like smart professors like Campos to hold jobs teaching. They prefer every student left behind in a wave of nonsense. And it’s their racist, anti-Arab/ anti-Muslim 9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense that is driving much of US foreign policy now.

Tim Russert escaped hangman’s noose

Posted on by
4

james Carville and Mary Matalin mourn death of colleague Tim RussertThe endless tributes are making me nauseated. Tim Russert, NBC’s smiling big galoot, died of a sudden heart attack as if struck down by God. Who would have his reasons, though I think he was too lenient. The longer you tell me that Russert hosted Meet the Press, the more Americans should hold him responsible for the opaque window we have into the politics of Washington. On Russert’s watch, they’ve drawn the shades, while the press pretends its public tea parties represent access. The Matalin/Carville pundit operatives have reason to cry, they’ve lost an uncritical host under whose nose they got to run their con/shill shell game. On the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, Russert was a media war drum drill sergeant, and unless you’re prepared to eulogize him as a complete pea-brain, his affable demeanor was among the propaganda machine’s greatest snow jobs. In other news, they’re still sandbagging in Iowa.
 
UPDATE: More critics weigh in…

A Discordant Note on Tim Russert
-Matthiew Rothchild, THE PROGRESSIVE 6/14

Russert gave established power more voice
-Pierre Tristan, DAYTONA BEACH NEWS JOURNAL 6/17

Enough Already! The eulogies for Tim Russert ignore his role as the War Party’s sounding board
-Justin Raimondo, ANTIWAR.COM 6/18

The Last Penis Operation

Posted on by
Reply

I love how reading on the internet can get you thinking and moving in weird ways. Like this reportage titled Man with Two Penises Loses Wife.

One would actually think that she would take advantage of that?… but probably she just didn’t like sex that much?

Anyway, I got to that article by way of antiwar.com since they had a link titled Dilbert on Ahmadinejad which got me to a commentary on The Dilbert Blog by Scott Adams. I’ve liked him ever since the humorless Democratic Party-tied liberal, Norman Solomon, attacked him with an entire book dedicated to Dilbert, of all things!

Anyway, things go full circle sometimes and Dilbert does defend Ahmadinejad quite well, I rather think. The Iranian president certainly is a prick, but then most of those people making a fuss about him seem to be what might best be termed DOUBLE PRICKS. We should be like the wife in the story of the man with 2 penises. We should just leave these DOUBLE PRICKS and get on with reality and life. It’s just too much all the time getting screwed!

The DOUBLE PRICKS extreme are the current US government and the current Israeli government IMO. Right on Dilbert! Down with Ratbert and Dogbert! DOUBLE PRICKS like this are way too much tax-fed militarism to take all the time.

Afghanistan, the word the ‘peace’ troops never seem to mention

Posted on by
1

In Afghanistan, the US is consistently bombing civilian areas with large loss of life, and yet the US Peace Movement hardly seems to take notice. There’s next to no mention of the US Occupation of Afghanistan at all, with one notable exception being antiwar.com, a Libertarian run site. And the main antiwar coalitions call for peace in Iraq, but do not really mention Afghanistan on their web sites, their lit, or their banners. The reason is quite simple.

Many US citizens supposedly wanting an end to the Iraq War in the peace camp actually continue to support their government having invaded and occupied Afghanistan, so the peace movement, both local and national, has tended to say not a word about ending the US war against Afghanistan.

It’s high time to start changing that silence. It is a matter of showing solidarity or not? It is a matter of being seriously opposed to US militarism or not? It is a matter of being decent, or not? Which will American antiwar activists choose? More silence, or beginning to call for an end to this war against a downtrodden people in a downtrodden region of the world?

New Age posturing with the ‘pickaninnies’

Posted on by
Reply

Those who grew up in the Old South, remember when racist politicians used to pose with ‘Negro’ children to supposedly show their concern for Black people. That was a crude technique to deflect criticism for being a racist.

White racists often called Black children ‘pickaninnies’, and loved to rub their heads with the different type of hair. They would then comment about how cute and funny Black children were as opposed to the uppity adult Blacks who never fully wanted to acknowledge their assigned places in Apartheid America.

Why the term ‘pickaninny’ for Black children? Try thinking about what ‘pick a ninny’ means. A ninny means a fool. Black children were considered kind of adorable jesters in the court of White racist America of that era, so Whites often tried to help out the supposedly ‘adorable pickaninnies’ with gifts of food and clothing. That made the racist feel good and generous, instead of feeling full of self loathing for being the miserable monsters that most racists really are.

So enter today’s world, and has the posturing with the ‘pickaninnies’ now disappeared? No, it has just morphed into technicolor instead. Instead of touching the ‘pickaninnies moppy heads’ old style, we have good hearted folk posing themselves next to emaciated, injured, and distraught ‘pickaninnies’. And this is done outside US borders, and not inside them as of Old. Case in point is Mia Farrow posing in Chad today on Yahoo News with her great concern for the welfare of the ‘pickaninny’.

Don’t get me wrong here. Much suffering is underway in Africa, as it has been ongoing for centuries. That’s not the point of the posturing though, no more than it was with the posturing of the past. Why is Darfur THE GENOCIDE, and not Congo or Iraq or Palestine? That is the point of the posturing, simply to deflect attention elsewhere from one’s own crimes.

It is not just actresses like Mia Farrow, doing the posturing with the ‘pickaninny’ neither. Here is from antiwar.com today which links to an article titled… Bush considering Darfur no-fly zone. The title says it all. But look who else is posturing to deflect attention away from their own constructed genocides! It is Israel itself. We have Israel, Bush, and Mia Farrow all posing with the ‘pickaninny’. That little ‘pickaninny’ is called Darfur and we are supposed to forget all context in the real world and cry along with the crocodile tears of the genocidal and racist maniacs running amok across the planet. I refer to the governmental leaders of Israel and the US.

They can’t be racists and genocidists at all, look at their concern for the ‘pickaninny’! ‘Save the Pickaninny!’ they seem to be all shouting at one time. Send the candy distributing troops (our boys) in to save the ‘pickaninnies’ of Darfur! Hands off the ‘pickaninnies’! In the link, it is noted that ‘The Holocaust museum has taken the lead on behalf of Darfur’. How nice. Not noted is why the Holocaust museum has not taken the lead on behalf of the Palestinians instead? And why is Bush not trying to impose a no-fly zone over Iraq at this time instead of Darfur?

Let’s face it, New Age posturing with the ‘pickaniny’ is just as nauseating as it was in the Old South of another era. In fact, it may be even more repulsive than before.

Darfur needs peace, not peacekeepers

Posted on by
Reply

Thanks to the Libertarian antiwar.com for publishing this one. The title speaks for itself. Darfur needs peace, not peacekeepers. Except, are these really genuine peacekeepers in the first place? And is John Negroponte a genuine peacekeeper? Is Bush?

Calling for intervention in Darfur rather than calling for withdrawal from Iraq

Posted on by
Reply

More and more people are getting smart about knowing what the ‘Save Darfur’ campaing is really about. Today’s Spotlight article on antiwar.com (The largest antiwar website out there) had an article that hit the nail on the head about the campaign to encourage further US/ European militarism in Africa under the facade of giving humanitarian assistance. The commentary by Anthony Arnove and Tom Engelhardt was appropriately titled, ‘The Anniversary From Hell‘.

Many top Democrats echo Bushies in call to attack Iran and Syria

Posted on by
Reply

The top leadership of the Democratic Party is every bit as pro-continual war as Bush and Cheney are, and supports spreading the Iraqi war throughout the entire region. Antiwar.com highlights this reality by showing video of the testimony of Michigan Democratic Party Senator Carl Levin yesterday in front of the Senate Armed Service Committee. The Democrats are leading us alongside the Republicans into a war with Syria and Iran.

The corporate press blanks out coverage of the antiwar demonstrations

Posted on by
5

The coverage of the antiwar demonstrations everywhere has been abysmal. There is a conspiracy of silence by the major press to use silence to try to demoralize us. Antiwar activists now have the majority of population with us, but due to poor organizing, poor strategy, and a feeling of hopelessness amongst many of us, we have failed to adequately engage the public to do much more than support us while remaining inactive.

It appears that the main demonstration in Washiington drew 100,000 plus, but it is impossible to tell yet the actual numbers, since the media has been so uninformative. It also appears that the demonstration in Denver of 1200 to 1500 was one of the largest in the county in a comparable city. Salt Lake City drew 500 to their rally. Thousands came out in Seattle and Portland, with perhaps 5,000 or more in both LA and San Francisco. These are not great turnouts considering that the US government is going to ramp up this war, rather than end it.

Where is the anger? I went ot Znet and antiwar.com this AM, and cannot even find reportagre of these events. Same with a marxist list, same with IndyMedia, same with commondreams, though that site screams out that 1/2 million turned out in the streets of Washington. If that is so, why is this the only site yet saying so? The lack of mainstream coverage with the lack of coverage and participation by our own media is contributing to a hopelessness amongst the general population that any successful fight can be waged.

The anger is building, but yet has not reached a sufficient boiling point. In fact, many amongst our ranks think it wrong to even display anger, since it conflicts with their wrong notions about nonviolence! To them I say, Jesus spoke out, he was not a church mouse like so many of you think it right to be.

I the other great immobilizer amongst us is the idea that electoral activity trumps all other politics. Have you guys and gals ever thought that it is what inactivates protest, instead of making it work? Why do you think that he presidential campaign has begun almost 2 years ahead of the election? It is simply because the media can use this campaign to hypnotize Democrats into a somnolent state of paralysis. They do it ever election period, and the campaigning gets longer and longer. I wouldn’t be surprised that some liberal Democratic party presidential nitwit doesn’t announce that he is a candidate for president in the 2112 race, all to paralyze us with false hope and inactivation for a yet longer time.

Even as I am writing this commentary now, the TV is telling us that the Democrats are planning legislation to stop funding. Hidden message for us from the boobtube, is that action is underway, and no need to do a thing personally to help stop the War. It’s already taken care of! Wrong, and if you buy it you are a fool.

Mexican government documents its criminal behavior in official report

Posted on by
Reply

In the waning last 2 weeks of the Fox Adminstration in Mexico, the Mexican government put a report quietly online admitting government criminality over 2 decades in the past. The criminality consisted of murder, torture, death squad activity, etc. in what is referred to as a ‘dirty war’ against Left activists. The time frame investigated by the authors of the report was from the late ’60s into the early ’80s, but nothing really has changed at all since then. The NY Times article about this report can be easiest read by going to antiwar.com. It is listed under their ‘Americas’ section.

Just this year, Mexican governmental forces have engaged in the same sort of activities, using them against striking miners and other Left activists in Atenco, Chiapas, and Oaxaca, where scores have been disappeared, beat up, tortured, and murdered. And that is not to mention other regions of Mexico which are less under observation by international observers. Actually the report is being used to make it appear as if Fox has taken responsibility for admitting occurrences of the past that are no longer being engaged in today. So the report is actually a style of coverup, rather than admittance of any guilt. That’s why no charges are being brought against any of the guilty parties.

All this being said, just what has been the role of the US press and the US government in its continual backing of the Mexican government? Let’s look at the New York Times, which while running the reportage of this Mexican government ‘confession’, just days previouusly was mocking Manuel Lopez Obrador for refusing to accept the fraud that put the losing candidate in office at Los Pinos, the Mexican White House. And what about admitting the US government’s role in accepting and even sponsoring the Mexican government’s terroristic counter insurgency campaigns? Silence. And the role of the American press in never coveri ng this terrorism, and in not informing the US public of the true state of affairs down South? Silence. The New York Times often times acts as if Mexico was on the other side of the moon when it comes to reporting activities there.

It always amazes me to hear our own, mainly ignorant US population spout off constantly that the Mexican government operates independently of the White House,and is independent of ‘our’ control. Yet, the same ignorant types that do this realize that the US government micro-manages areas off in the total boonies of Asia and other parts of the world. Our corporate daily press is totally complicit in keeping the US public this uninformed and backward in their views, and in keeping them believing that Mexico, which is the most important country to the US outside our own, is somehow on independent auto-pilot rather than in US control, unlike Afghanistan or Kosovo, say!

The truth is far different, and I just got through reading a John Ross report about how Halliburton is all over the still nationalized Mexican petroleum and gas industry. In fact, the man, Felipe Calderon, who stole Mexico’s presidency’s with the total support of Bush and the NY Times, has his principal goal to privatize Pemex, the government owned oil company. The Mexican government under the push by the US to do so, has already done the same with previously nationalized industries in power, communication, and transport. Now only PEMEX remains in state hands, and Halliburton certainly wants that to change as fast as possible.

The US antiwar movement needs to watch Mexico closely, and oppose our US government’s militarism promoted to the South of us. That’s where the counter insurgency programs that the Mexican government of Fox just admitted ran the country in a totally criminal manner throughout Mexico for 2 decades sprung from. That’s where the same criminality of the present springs from, US support for Mexican state terorism used against its own population. The US is messing up Mexico, messed up Mexico, and will not stop doing that until the American people begin to observe, resist their own government,and demand that the US intervention into the internal affairs of Mexico stop.

Stop the US militarization of the US-Mexican Border. Stop the phoney ‘drug war’ that is destroying Mexico, and stop training and supporting the Mexican military’s counter-insurgency against its own population!

This week in American football, Georgia plays Russia

Posted on by
Reply

Sandwiched in between Russia and Turkey, the American state of Georgia is located. It wasn’t always this way, but the shifting waters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have now relocated their currents into the Black Sea. Team Georgia is now playing with a new quarterback, George W. Bush, and though a traditional underdog, it is now favored to take the game hard and offensively against Russia.

Yes, Fans! For the best coverage of this exciting lineup, check out the antiwar.com web site. Expect quite a clash between these two ethnic groups as we head into the Fall season. The quarterback of the Russian team is an experienced pro known for making quite astute calls under the most difficult circumstances. Rash young Dubya, quarterback of the Georgia team, will have his hands full in trying to match the intellectual abilities of his opposite. Anything could happen in this explosive matchup. So stay tuned if you can get any coverage at all in the daily American press.

This promises to be possibly the most exciting matchup since Pakistan met India in its nuclear rivalry.