1. “Missouri retracts police memo which labeled activists as ‘militia’
The Missouri Department of Public Safety has retracted a controversial profiling memo which linked libertarian activists, Christians, constitutionalists, supporters of Congressman Ron Paul and other traditionally conservative groups to underground militias.
It also specifically cautioned police to be on the lookout for bumper stickers advertising third party candidates, or people with copies of the United States Constitution.
“[Lt. Gov. Peter] Kinder called on Nixon to place Department of Public Safety Director John Britt on administrative leave pending an investigation of how the report came about,” reported the Springfield News-Leader. “[Gov. Jay] Nixon’s office did not comment on Kinder’s demand, but said it backed Keathley’s plans to reform the process of releasing [Missouri Information Analysis Center] intelligence reports.
“In a lengthy statement, Keathley expressed remorse for the lack of oversight in the creation and distribution of the report, but he did not apologize for its contents. Keathley said his office ‘would undertake a review of the origin of the report by MIAC.’”
…
“Training law enforcement officers to watch for political speech like signs and bumper stickers when trying to determine if someone is part of a violent hate group will, obviously, ‘chill open discourse’ and people’s willingness to express their beliefs,” said Missouri Libertarian party spokesman Mike Ferguson in a prepared statement.
“It literally describes half the state of Missouri as potentially linked to these hate groups,” he said in a published report. “It really would be laughable, if it weren’t such a serious situation.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Missouri_retracts_police_memo_which_labeled_0326.html
2. I hope the rift continues to widen:
“Breaking With Israel
A new turn in US foreign policy?
The US-Israeli symbiosis that defined our Middle Eastern policy, and set the framework, in no small part, for our relations with the rest of the world, is coming under a severe strain. In any relationship that goes sour, there’s always a lot of recriminations: “It isn’t like it used to be!” “Yes, but you’ve changed—oh, how you’ve changed!”
It’s Israel, not the US,. that has changed, and not for the better. The rise of an Israeli neo-fascist organization with real electoral clout – enough to get their leader the foreign ministry – is a sign of a very deep sickness, an ominous portent that cannot and must not be overlooked. After all, Israel is a nuclear power, and Senor Lieberman did once express a desire to blow up the Aswan dam. If the extreme right-ward trend in Israeli politics continues, it isn’t hard to imagine such a loon one day becoming Prime Minister – and I leave the rest to your imagination.
This is not the Israel of Exodus, the musical theme of which inspired my youthful passion for the lushly Romantic, the storyline as well as the music. It is, increasingly, the Israel of our worst nightmares. This is already costing the Lobby public support. Cracks in the reflexively pro-Israel consensus are already beginning to appear, and the prospect of a real policy realignment has the Israel lobby working overtime to turn the tide. This struggle will be an object lesson in how and why a nation’s foreign policy is determined: whether it is formulated with an eye to objective circumstances, and the national interest, or simply designed to the specifications of lobbyists, foreign and domestic.
Objectively, the Israel-centric policy we pursue in the Middle East works against our interests, which, since 9/11, are to split the Muslim world in the fight against Al Qaeda. Up until now, however, our policy has been based entirely on the dubious axiom that Israeli and American interests are identical, a principle that unites the entire Muslim world against us. Since 9/11, and really since the end of the cold war, American and Israeli interests have begun to diverge, and, today, they are reaching the breaking point. Whether the subjective factor – the power of the Lobby – can triumph over the objective circumstances promises to be an interesting test, and a fateful one for all concerned.“
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14471
3. “In 1877, Lord Salisbury, commenting on Great Britain’s policy on the Eastern Question, noted that ‘the commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies.’
“Salisbury was bemoaning the fact that many influential members of the British ruling class could not recognize that history had moved on; they continued to cling to policies and institutions that were relics of another era.”
“Relics of another era” – thus did Stephen Meyer, in Parameters in 2003, begin his essay “Carcass of Dead Policies: The Irrelevance of NATO.”
NATO has been irrelevant for two decades, since its raison d’etre – to keep the Red Army from driving to the Rhine – disappeared. Yet Obama is headed to Brussels to celebrate France’s return and the 60th birthday of the alliance. But why is NATO still soldiering on?
…
Few Americans under 30 recall the Cold War. Yet can anyone name a single tripwire for war put down in the time of Dean Acheson or John Foster Dulles that we have pulled up?
Dwight Eisenhower, writes Richard Reeves, in his first meeting with the new president-elect, told JFK, “‘America is carrying far more than her share of the free world defense.’ It was time for the other nations of NATO to take on more of the cost of their own defense.”
Half a century later, we are still stuck “to the carcass of dead policies.”
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=14470
4. What could be a clearer sign that the last 8 years have accomplished nothing?
“US repels Taliban from the gates of Kabul“
5. “The Red Cross report concluded: “The allegations of ill-treatment of the detainees indicate that, in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture. In addition, many other elements of the ill-treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
“One wonders whether there were any profiles in courage among the CIA officers who might have protested against these torture crimes.
I would like to think so, but none has stepped forward.Perhaps to salve their own consciences, they may be telling themselves that they “were just following orders” — the defense unsuccessfully used by Nazis on trial at Nuremberg following World War II.“
http://www.wxii12.com/helenthomas/18960370/detail.html
6. “Leading Conservative Backs Nationalization of Banks and the Fed
Roberts writes today:
Would it be cheaper for government to buy the shares of the banks and AIG at the current low prices than to pour trillions of taxpayers’ dollars into them in an effort to drive up private share prices with public money? The Bush/Paulson bailout plan of approximately $800 billion has been followed a few months later by the Obama/Geithner stimulus-bailout plan of another approximately $800 billion. Together it adds to $1.6 trillion in new Treasury debt, much of which might have to be monetized.
Could this massive debt issue be avoided if the government took over the banks and netted out the losses between the constituent parts? A staid socialized financial sector run by civil servants is preferable to the gambling casino of greed-driven, innovative, unregulated capitalism operated by banksters who have caused crisis throughout the world.
Perhaps the Federal Reserve should be socialized as well. The notion of an independent, privately-owned Federal Reserve system was never more than a ruse to get a national bank into place. Once the central bank is part of the state-owned banking system, the government can create money without having to accumulate a massive public debt that saddles taxpayers’ and future budgets with hundreds of billions of dollars in annual interest payments.
Many liberal economists, as well as Alan Greenspan, free market advocate Marc Faber, and many others have previously called for bank nationalization.“
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/03/leading-conservative-backs.html
7. So the US has attacked yet another country – how many is that now?
“Did US Assist Israeli Attack In Sudan?
Oh what a slippery slope Obama is now on. This Sudanese attack has US cooperation and Intelligence assistance written all over it IMHO. It would appear that Israel is now going to be attacking and invading any country where it deems anything suspicious, and with the approval (or assistance) of the US government.On January 19th 2009 an MOU (memorandum of understanding) was signed between the US government and Israel to “work together” in keeping anyone from replenishing arms to Hamas. (Like every time Israel invades, Hamas doesn’t have the right to defend itself, its people and it’s country from an invader? Only Israel gets to defend itself as we have seen and continue to see) But, there you go. At any rate, the Israeli fighter jets would have had to fly a great distance and possibly through other countries air space, additionally needing a mid air re-fuelling to complete the mission.
It seems like Obama is going to not only keep, but honour, the agreements Bush made with Israel, so much for “change” and “hope” This means the US will support Israeli attacks into other countries, and possibly assist in those attacks. As if the US does not have enough problems already. Israel is pushing America towards war with Iran and has been for 3 years now. The slippery slope begins.
From the Globe and Mail:
“Whoever did this was operating with pretty hard intelligence,” said Mark Heller, principal research associate of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.
“The strike itself would have required satellite guidance or cameras on the missiles,” Mr. Heller said. “There are only two air forces that could have carried it out: the U.S. and Israeli.”
…
Such a trip would have required at least one in-air refuelling, Mr. Heller said.
…
The memorandum of understanding, signed Jan. 16 in Washington by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, calls for the United States and its partners to work together to address the problem of the supply of arms to Hamas and other militant forces in Gaza. It lists the areas where such arms shipments may occur as “the Mediterranean, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and Eastern Africa.” Sudan is an Eastern African country.”
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22301.htm
8. Good:
“States Rebellion Pending
Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war.
Today it’s the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George’s actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance—perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we’ve become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants—has made us easy prey for Washington’s tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans’ characteristic spirit of rebellion.
Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There’s speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.
You might ask, “Isn’t the 10th Amendment that no-good states’ rights amendment that Dixie governors, such as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, used to thwart school desegregation and black civil rights?” That’s the kind of constitutional disrespect and ignorance that big-government proponents, whether they’re liberals or conservatives, want you to have. The reason is that they want Washington to have total control over our lives. The Founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
…
Put yet another way, Washington is a creature of the states, not the other way around.
Congress and the White House will laugh off these state resolutions. State legislatures must take measures that put some teeth into their 10th Amendment resolutions. Congress will simply threaten a state, for example, with a cutoff of highway construction funds if it doesn’t obey a congressional mandate, such as those that require seat belt laws or that lower the legal blood-alcohol level to .08 for drivers. States might take a lead explored by Colorado.
In 1994, the Colorado Legislature passed a 10th Amendment resolution and later introduced a bill titled “State Sovereignty Act.” Had the State Sovereignty Act passed both houses of the legislature, it would have required all people liable for any federal tax that’s a component of the highway users fund, such as a gasoline tax, to remit those taxes directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The money would have been deposited in an escrow account called the “Federal Tax Fund” and remitted monthly to the IRS, along with a list of payees and respective amounts paid.
If Congress imposed sanctions on Colorado for failure to obey an unconstitutional mandate and penalized the state by withholding funds due, say $5 million for highway construction, the State Sovereignty Act would have prohibited the state treasurer from remitting any funds in the escrow account to the IRS. Instead, Colorado would have imposed a $5 million surcharge on the Federal Tax Fund account to continue the highway construction.
The eight state legislatures that have enacted 10th Amendment resolutions deserve our praise, but their next step is to give them teeth.”
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22303.htm
