Gaza and Afghanistan- it’s election time so it’s time to spill The Barbarians’ blood!

gaza-babyThe Israeli Zionist Jewish State waited 24 hours after Jesus’s birthday to unleash their State Terrorism yet once again, since Jews have already unfairly been judged by many Christians in the near historical past for having murdered the ‘Son of God’. So they gave the Gazan Arabs one whole day of reprieve for Jesus. Wow!

Election time was coming up, and just like in the Christian US, Zionist Jewish politicians have to show that they are tough on the Barbarian Blacks of The Third World. The core of Zionism is racism, just exactly like the core of US nationalism (Christian patriotism) is racism, too. So, it’s time to kill the Gooks! It’s election time once again (early February in Israel)! One thousand Gazans have laready been killed or maimed in this new Israeli terrorist bombing.

Much overlooked in the US is why Barack Obama was allowed by his super rich backers to take office? He simply told them that he was tough on Barbarians, too. Oops, you missed that in his campaign? The rich who made his election possible did not. Barack Obama pledged to continue the ‘Global War on Barbarians’ by surging in Afghanistan, imitating the Bush war effort just exactly. Luckily for Obama, he had a bunch of ‘Peace’crat liberals out there to cover his ideological ass.

What is it about the Christian and Jewish Right that makes them so blood thirsty? Is it their ‘Holy Scriptures’ that tell them that they are ‘chosen peoples’? Kind of reminds one of the Aztecs, Incas, and Maya. ‘God’ like that just demands human sacrifices.

They are on a schedule almost, and once the Jewish platoon holds their ‘elections’ in their racially clean ‘democracy’, then that’ll be the Democrats green light to turn Iran into a Gaze/Iraq/Somalia. Such restraint! Makes the nut cases proud to be American, I bet.

Let’s just hope that all this planned war doesn’t trigger off a nuclear row between India and Pakistan mean time? Real mean time. Like car bombs, these things (Gaza) can just blow up right in your face when you go to set them off.

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

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.

Is John McCain Sarah Palin’s grandpa?

Seven years after 9/11, and Bush still isn’t interested in catching Osama bin Laden. The only time he ever even thinks of him is around election time, when he uses him to scare up the voters. Well, that’s a Republican for you.
tough questions

On Sept. 11, 2002, John McCain was already trying to lie the country into attacking Iraq.

CREW issues it’s annual 20 Most Corrupt Congressmen report.

Corruption: it’s the Republican way. Bush Interior Dept. mired in scandal.

Unfit to be VP. Judge repeatedly warned Palin to stop attacking her sister’s ex.

CBS orders YouTube to remove McCain ad that deceptively misuses a quote from a CBS anchor to make it look like McCain has CBS’ support.

Don’t go near that dirty old man, son, he’s a Republican. John McCain goes after the child molester vote.

Just say NO to McCain. How John and Cindy McCain covered up her drug addiction, and their retribution against the man that exposed it.

Drunkest drinking game ever: take a drink every time McCain or Palin tell a flat-out obvious lie.

Excerpts from Thomas McCullock’s 9/11 notes,

Eye now on undemocratic nature of the Democratic Party

Super delegates or not, the public eye will still be turned on the totally undemocratic nature of the Democratic Party, since there is nothing about Barrack Obama that will bring about any real change long term. Still, the question of the moment though is whether the Clinton part of the DLC machine can still manipulate the entire DP or not? The Obama part certainly could… short term.

There is no doubt though that the corporations can manipulate the party since they totally own it. This is no people’s party at all. Rather, The Democratic Party is owned by the military industrial complex every bit as much as the Republican Party.

Nothing will be gained election time with a Barrack Obama as the new president. The only long term gain can only come about when the US population gets angry and totally fed up enough with the corporate 2 parties that act as one con. Unfortunately though, the American people still think that their corporate rulers have some God given right to rule everybody on the planet. Stupid, very stupid. No personality change in the front office will bring about change as long as the American people still are enamored of their country’s nationalism….The Empire.

‘Democracy’ marketing

Ask the average American if advertising influences kids decisions and they will say that YES IT DOES. Ask them if advertising influences their own decisions and the overwhelming majority will deny that advertising effects their decisions in the least. Nobody wants to think of themselves as childlike, so they give out this childlike response!

So it is election time. What do we see all the American children doing? We see them responding to ‘democracy’ marketing just like little children in front of an advertising for a ‘Happy Meal’. Barrack Obama is the young person’s candidate, the CHANGE guy, the ‘we can all get along together’ man. Hillary is the ‘women first’ candidate, the ‘stick by her man’ woman. All the Democrats are into ‘democracy’ marketing because liberals, like conservative American, are little tiny tots. Slick Willy was the ‘First Black President’ even! Al Bore is Mr. Environment (forget about all those toxic computer items he pushed for the longest time) and Jimmy is the Man of Prayer Peace Center Guy! Madelyn Albright is Ms. Stop the Genocide woman!

The Republicans are skilled at Mr Tough Guy, Mr, Protector, Mr Family Values stuff. Yes, I know that the family values are more like those family values of Ted Haggard, the Pope, and Pat Robertson, but still…. America has a lot of sick, sick, sick families out there that this marketing approach appeals to.

Ask yourself, does this marketing act add up to DEMOCRACY, capital letters? Or is it just Gunsmoke, brought to you by…? the Devil himself? You so smart that all this propaganda doesn’t influence you any? Add it all up then.

Anti-war is not pro-peace?

Human peace sign on the Magyar Heroes SquareI’ve heard the point made twice now. First someone complained after a rally that they were the only one to speak in favor of peace in the midst of exclusively anti-war sentiments. Then another person asked me, if instead of the anti-war statements I was soliciting, could they submit ideas that were pro-peace?

“Of course!” I told her. To be inclusive was my main intent, but I really wanted to ask, what to you is the difference? And I’d like to put the question to anyone: what distinction are you making between ant-war and pro-peace? Are you thinking that someone against the Iraq War is not necessarily against all war? Because I’m thinking someone who is pro-peace is not necessarily taking a stand at stopping this war or any other.

There are enough people sidestepping the issue of war, ignoring the War in Iraq, afraid to speak out of turn or against the grain or outside of the norm. The I’d like to teach the world to sing peace people would seem to be choosing the non-confrontational route while the tanks roll onward. Our mantra must be peace, but our bodies must be set against war.

It’s so easy to criticize someone who is anti, because they can be accused of offering no alternative. But need there be an alternative to war? Just stop it. If I catch you strangling your little brother in the bathtub, need I suggest an alternative method for you to dispatch him? No. Cut it out. Period. Let your brother be.

Anti-war voices were accused of being too negative at election time. Too anti. But were there any politicians we could support? If more candidates had expressed being opposed to the war, we could have been pro- those candidates! Instead, look at the batch that we got, a Democrat majority, but too few of them against the war, I’m sorry, pro-peace.