Is it me or does anyone else think that the United Kingdom is not paying their fair share of the of the mess that they helped create in Iraq. UK has spent a total of $13 Billion on the military operations and rebuilding in Iraq so far. Now conservative estimates say the US has spent nearly $450 Billion.
Now if both countries were forced to pay for the Iraq war based on the size of their economies, then you would have to agree the UK is getting off big time compared to what the the American tax payers are paying. Based on GDP our economy is $13 Trillion annually and the UK is $2.1 Trillion annually. The US economy is 6 times that of the UK's economy so that means for every $6 dollars we pay the UK should have to pay a dollar. So if the Iraq war cost for the US and UK is $ 463 Billion so far, the UK should be required to pay approximately $66 Billion of that cost.
This should also apply to troop levels, if the "coalition of the killing" agree that they need a 170 thousand troops in Iraq then the UK should chip in approximately 28.3 thousand soldiers based on their population. The UK population is 60 million and ours is 300 million. The US population is 5 times that of the UK, so for every 5 soldiers we contribute the UK should be required to contribute 1 soldier. I think this should apply to all the original "coalition of the killing" partners because without their complicity the war criminal George Bush couldn't have pulled this war off.
In no way am I in support of the Iraq war and the atrocities that have taken place because of the invasion. The point I'm trying to make is the so called coalition countries should also have to pay equally for their leaders decision just like the American people will have to pay for our idiot's decision even after he's long gone. The additional money should go strictly to rebuilding, security and reparations for the Iraqi people.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Bush's goal: Ethinic Cleansing of Iraq
The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has soared since the American troop increase began in February, according to data from two humanitarian groups, accelerating the partition of the country into sectarian enclaves...The effect of this vast migration is to drain religiously mixed areas in the center of Iraq, sending Shiite refugees toward the overwhelmingly Shiite areas to the south and Sunnis toward majority Sunni regions to the west and north.
It is now obvious that one impetus behind the "surge" was to accelerate the "ethnic cleansing" of Iraq. Given the manifest failure to establish a strong central government to serve as a client state, the conquerors now find it easier to deal with separate ethnic enclaves, which can police themselves, shake out their own internal conflicts (however bloodily) and thus establish some kind of solid leadership that can cut deals and guarantee investments. Most of the measures taken during the "surge" seem aimed precisely at ethnic cleansing: the increased support of the Iraqi government security forces -- which are largely Shiite militias -- has been matched with what some see as the lunatic policy of arming Sunni militias.
The latter is indeed a lunatic policy -- if your aim is to establish security and political rapprochement in Iraq. And although the leaders of the United States are indeed a gang of depraved moral idiots, they are not lunatics. Even they could see the folly of such a course -- again, if the aim was actually security and political cohesion. Thus one can only conclude that this is not their aim, that their aim is indeed to exacerbate ethnic conflict, to foment more violence, in what amounts to a stealth operation of ethnic cleansing.
This serves two main purposes: first, as noted above, it will help shake the country out, eventually, into more manageable enclaves -- each one stronger and more cohesive than the current government (which is largely a fictional notion at this point), yet weaker, and more malleable, than any stable and legitimate central government would be. And since the only kind of central government that could achieve stability and legitimacy in the eyes of all Iraqis would be one which was genuinely sovereign, truly independent from American domination, we will never see such a government in Baghdad as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq.
Which brings us to the second purpose of the "surge's" arming of sectarian gangs: to maintain a level of violence and chaos that would "justify" the continuing presence of American troops in Iraq. A permanent military presence is one of the overriding goals of the invasion, set down long before the war, before 9/11, even before the loser Bush was given the presidency by five Supreme Court justices (two of whom had family members working for the Bush operation). Therefore, to the Bushists, any measure is justified that will keep American troops in Iraq -- including fomenting bloody sectarian conflict and carrying out ethnic cleansing.
This in turn is tied to another of the chief war aims: the "oil law" that will open Iraq's sumptuous resources to predatory Western investors. This can only be can only be guaranteed by the presence of American troops, backing up some compliant puppet state or "semi-autonomous enclave." Again, a genuinely sovereign, truly independent government would never give away the nation's patrimony to Bush and Cheney's oil baron cronies and their European comrades.
And so the strategy behind the "surge" becomes clear: A united, independent Iraq cannot be allowed to exist, because such a state would not permit a permanent American military presence nor sign away the nation's oil wealth. Therefore, Iraq must be torn apart -- by sectarian strife, ethnic cleansing, terrorism and "counterinsurgency" warfare. And violence must continue until this shake-out is completed, in order to justify the continuing American presence.
******
Excerpt
It is now obvious that one impetus behind the "surge" was to accelerate the "ethnic cleansing" of Iraq. Given the manifest failure to establish a strong central government to serve as a client state, the conquerors now find it easier to deal with separate ethnic enclaves, which can police themselves, shake out their own internal conflicts (however bloodily) and thus establish some kind of solid leadership that can cut deals and guarantee investments. Most of the measures taken during the "surge" seem aimed precisely at ethnic cleansing: the increased support of the Iraqi government security forces -- which are largely Shiite militias -- has been matched with what some see as the lunatic policy of arming Sunni militias.
The latter is indeed a lunatic policy -- if your aim is to establish security and political rapprochement in Iraq. And although the leaders of the United States are indeed a gang of depraved moral idiots, they are not lunatics. Even they could see the folly of such a course -- again, if the aim was actually security and political cohesion. Thus one can only conclude that this is not their aim, that their aim is indeed to exacerbate ethnic conflict, to foment more violence, in what amounts to a stealth operation of ethnic cleansing.
This serves two main purposes: first, as noted above, it will help shake the country out, eventually, into more manageable enclaves -- each one stronger and more cohesive than the current government (which is largely a fictional notion at this point), yet weaker, and more malleable, than any stable and legitimate central government would be. And since the only kind of central government that could achieve stability and legitimacy in the eyes of all Iraqis would be one which was genuinely sovereign, truly independent from American domination, we will never see such a government in Baghdad as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq.
Which brings us to the second purpose of the "surge's" arming of sectarian gangs: to maintain a level of violence and chaos that would "justify" the continuing presence of American troops in Iraq. A permanent military presence is one of the overriding goals of the invasion, set down long before the war, before 9/11, even before the loser Bush was given the presidency by five Supreme Court justices (two of whom had family members working for the Bush operation). Therefore, to the Bushists, any measure is justified that will keep American troops in Iraq -- including fomenting bloody sectarian conflict and carrying out ethnic cleansing.
This in turn is tied to another of the chief war aims: the "oil law" that will open Iraq's sumptuous resources to predatory Western investors. This can only be can only be guaranteed by the presence of American troops, backing up some compliant puppet state or "semi-autonomous enclave." Again, a genuinely sovereign, truly independent government would never give away the nation's patrimony to Bush and Cheney's oil baron cronies and their European comrades.
And so the strategy behind the "surge" becomes clear: A united, independent Iraq cannot be allowed to exist, because such a state would not permit a permanent American military presence nor sign away the nation's oil wealth. Therefore, Iraq must be torn apart -- by sectarian strife, ethnic cleansing, terrorism and "counterinsurgency" warfare. And violence must continue until this shake-out is completed, in order to justify the continuing American presence.
******
Excerpt
Friday, August 24, 2007
Iraq War Brings Drop in Black Enlistees
By SARAH ABRUZZESE
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 — Joining the Reserve Officer Training Corps was once an attractive choice for people with few options growing up in impoverished, predominantly black East Baltimore. That has all changed, largely because of the war in Iraq.
“Now, it is like, no way,” said Cornelius McMurray, who does outreach with a local church and says the young black people he works with view life in Baltimore as enough of a war. “It is a continuous fight waking up and walking the streets every day.”
In the Bronx, Adeyefa Finch says he simply walks past the recruiters who, seeking out minority members along Fordham Road, make the case that the military can help with college financing and job placement after they serve. “I’m not really into going overseas with guns and fighting other people’s wars,” said Mr. Finch, 18, headed to college this fall to study accounting.
That kind of rejection of military service as an option of young blacks throughout the country has resulted in a sharp drop in black recruitment figures since the war began. Defense Department reports show that the share of blacks among active-duty recruits declined to 13 percent in 2006 from 20 percent in 2001, the last year before the invasion of Iraq began to seem inevitable.
And while blacks continue to account for a larger share of the existing troop level than their share of the general population, as has been the case throughout the 34 years of the all-volunteer force, that margin is shrinking.
The sharpest decline in black recruitment has been experienced by the Army, which has the most troops deployed in Iraq; black recruits dropped to 13 percent of the Army’s total in 2006 from 23 percent in 2001. In the Marines, with the second-largest force in Iraq, the share of black recruits decreased to 8 percent from 12 percent in the same period. There were also declines in the Navy and the Air Force, though not as great as those in the two other services.
-Snip-
In a recent CBS News telephone poll, 83 percent of the blacks surveyed said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq; only 14 percent said it had done the right thing in taking military action. Whites, by contrast, were closely divided: 48 percent said military action had been right, and 46 percent said the United States should have stayed out. The poll was conducted Aug. 8-12 with 1,214 adults nationwide and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
-Snip-
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 — Joining the Reserve Officer Training Corps was once an attractive choice for people with few options growing up in impoverished, predominantly black East Baltimore. That has all changed, largely because of the war in Iraq.
“Now, it is like, no way,” said Cornelius McMurray, who does outreach with a local church and says the young black people he works with view life in Baltimore as enough of a war. “It is a continuous fight waking up and walking the streets every day.”
In the Bronx, Adeyefa Finch says he simply walks past the recruiters who, seeking out minority members along Fordham Road, make the case that the military can help with college financing and job placement after they serve. “I’m not really into going overseas with guns and fighting other people’s wars,” said Mr. Finch, 18, headed to college this fall to study accounting.
That kind of rejection of military service as an option of young blacks throughout the country has resulted in a sharp drop in black recruitment figures since the war began. Defense Department reports show that the share of blacks among active-duty recruits declined to 13 percent in 2006 from 20 percent in 2001, the last year before the invasion of Iraq began to seem inevitable.
And while blacks continue to account for a larger share of the existing troop level than their share of the general population, as has been the case throughout the 34 years of the all-volunteer force, that margin is shrinking.
The sharpest decline in black recruitment has been experienced by the Army, which has the most troops deployed in Iraq; black recruits dropped to 13 percent of the Army’s total in 2006 from 23 percent in 2001. In the Marines, with the second-largest force in Iraq, the share of black recruits decreased to 8 percent from 12 percent in the same period. There were also declines in the Navy and the Air Force, though not as great as those in the two other services.
-Snip-
In a recent CBS News telephone poll, 83 percent of the blacks surveyed said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq; only 14 percent said it had done the right thing in taking military action. Whites, by contrast, were closely divided: 48 percent said military action had been right, and 46 percent said the United States should have stayed out. The poll was conducted Aug. 8-12 with 1,214 adults nationwide and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
-Snip-
$1.5BN RAPPERS PLAY GIG
Stars' secret gig is the richest stage show ever
By John Dingwall
IT WAS the most expensive onstage gathering of music talent in history.
When Jay-Z, Kanye West, 50 Cent and Diddy all appeared at New York's Madison Square Garden, the US stock market must have skipped a beat, as the quartet are worth Û1.5billion.
The foursome surprised the 20,000 crowd who turned up for the Screamfest 07 tour show, co-headlined by 50 Cent's girlfriend Ciara and rapper T.I. During the second half of Ciara's set, former drug dealer turned hip-hop mogul 50 Cent appeared and they performed Can't Leave Him Alone. He then sang I Get Money and was joined by rappers Lloyd Banks, Mobb Deep and Tony Yayo, who are themselves multimillionaires.
Then during T.I.'s set as he played Watch What You Say, Jay-Z strolled down a runway in the middle of the stadium to the main stage. Kanye West was next before 50 Cent crashed the gathering, with Diddy last to join the party. And as if to underline the staggering wealth of those onstage, they then sang Money In The Bank. As well as being hip-hop artists, the four are all involved in businesses ranging from record labels to clothing lines.
And Jay-Z is so rich that he can afford his own basketball team - he owns a share in the New Jersey Nets. The gathering dwarfs the impromptu jam session by rock 'n' roll legends Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Carl Perkins and Jerry Lee Lewis on December 4, 1956 in Memphis, Tennessee, at the Sun Records Studios. Recorded by Sam Philips, an article about the session was published in the Memphis Press-Scimitar under the headline "Million Dollar Quartet".
50 CENT
Makes a mockery of his name after picking up $487million from his share in water firm Glaceau which was sold to Coca-Cola.
$531MILLION
KANYE
The son of former Black Panther and photojournalist Ray West is a newcomer on the back of his 2004 album The College Dropout.
$114MILLION
DIDDY
The hip-hop heavyweight is a record producer and has a clothing range, a movie production company and two restaurants.
$346MILLION
JAY-Z
Beyonce's boyfriend shot to fame with Hard Knock Life. He is president of Def Jam and Roc-A-Fella records.
$547MILLION
By John Dingwall
IT WAS the most expensive onstage gathering of music talent in history.
When Jay-Z, Kanye West, 50 Cent and Diddy all appeared at New York's Madison Square Garden, the US stock market must have skipped a beat, as the quartet are worth Û1.5billion.
The foursome surprised the 20,000 crowd who turned up for the Screamfest 07 tour show, co-headlined by 50 Cent's girlfriend Ciara and rapper T.I. During the second half of Ciara's set, former drug dealer turned hip-hop mogul 50 Cent appeared and they performed Can't Leave Him Alone. He then sang I Get Money and was joined by rappers Lloyd Banks, Mobb Deep and Tony Yayo, who are themselves multimillionaires.
Then during T.I.'s set as he played Watch What You Say, Jay-Z strolled down a runway in the middle of the stadium to the main stage. Kanye West was next before 50 Cent crashed the gathering, with Diddy last to join the party. And as if to underline the staggering wealth of those onstage, they then sang Money In The Bank. As well as being hip-hop artists, the four are all involved in businesses ranging from record labels to clothing lines.
And Jay-Z is so rich that he can afford his own basketball team - he owns a share in the New Jersey Nets. The gathering dwarfs the impromptu jam session by rock 'n' roll legends Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Carl Perkins and Jerry Lee Lewis on December 4, 1956 in Memphis, Tennessee, at the Sun Records Studios. Recorded by Sam Philips, an article about the session was published in the Memphis Press-Scimitar under the headline "Million Dollar Quartet".
50 CENT
Makes a mockery of his name after picking up $487million from his share in water firm Glaceau which was sold to Coca-Cola.
$531MILLION
KANYE
The son of former Black Panther and photojournalist Ray West is a newcomer on the back of his 2004 album The College Dropout.
$114MILLION
DIDDY
The hip-hop heavyweight is a record producer and has a clothing range, a movie production company and two restaurants.
$346MILLION
JAY-Z
Beyonce's boyfriend shot to fame with Hard Knock Life. He is president of Def Jam and Roc-A-Fella records.
$547MILLION
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Is US a Fascist Country?
- Your president asserts the right to ignore part or all of laws passed by the national legislature.
Massive warrantless searches
Your president and other officials regularly lie to you Fraudulent election counts- Government monitoring of letters, emails, phone calls and checking accounts
Secret courts
A government subservient to the interests of the country's largest corporations.
Use of torture on prisoners
Courts that support presidential use of unconstitutional powers
Massive spying on citizens, especially those involved in political dissent
A government that uses words like democracy, freedom and peace while engaging in acts dramatically at odds with such words
Government agencies or officials declaring themselves exempt from portions of the law or constitution
Creation of watchlists, no-fly lists and similar exclusionary documents
National ID cards
Growing number of citizens incarcerated for a growing number of offenses
Massive use of cameras to spy on citizens
A media supportive of, or obsequious towards, the government in covering its police state activities
Security bubble around government leaders' public appearances including preselected audiences and limit on proximity of protests
Disarming of citizenry
Dissent characterized as disloyal by government and its supporting media
Increasing government control over private behavior
Lack of legal recourse to stop illegal government actions
Prison without trial and arrests without charges
It is difficult to borrow books from libraries pertaining to controversial subjects such as, communism,socialism,and, fascism.
Transfer of powers from legislatures to executive
Assassinations of popular public figures
Expansion of prisons and laws that lead people to prisons
President claims right to make war whenever he wants
Words misused to mean their opposite: i.e. peace for war, democracy for fascism
The president sets himself up as the sole moral authority for the entire country, using his personal beliefs as the basis on which to declare what is 'good' and what is 'evil.'
Federal takeover of functions formerly considered essential state or local responsibilities such as state militias and public education
Creation of a mercenary military force used for foreign and domestic purposes
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Why Hillary Endorsed the Surge
Posted August 21, 2007 10:24 PM (EST) Huffington Post - By Senator Mike Gravel
In an attempt to please an audience of veterans yesterday, Hillary Clinton said the surge was "working" and gave a helping-hand to the Bush spin machine, Pentagon dead-enders and right-wing pundits who have already begun to quote her.
"Of course the surge is working," they'll say, "even Hillary Clinton acknowledges that!" Just when Congressional Democrats were beginning to grow spines and stand up against the war, Hillary has cut them off at the knees.
As always Hillary tried to have it both ways and went on to say: "We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.
" I'm not sure what she meant by that, but I do know the surge is not working. Whatever success we might achieve in Bagdad is temporary and isolated. We've just nudged the terrorists and death squads to other parts of Iraq.
If you want to know the truth about the surge, look at the numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians killed and the number of people fleeing the country this summer. In both cases the numbers have remained fairly steady. In January, before the surge, bombings in Baghdad killed 438 people. After the surge began in February, that number jumped to 520, declined in March to 323 and rose again in April, to 414. The lowest total came in June with just 190 dead, but then swung back up last month, with 354 dead. And that's just Baghdad.
Some Americans, like Hillary, might find those numbers encouraging but the majority of Iraqis view us as an inept occupation force that has failed to keep them safe from terrorism, ethnic cleansing and violent crime. That's why they continue to abandon their homes and families to join millions of their countrymen in refugee camps in Jordan and Syria.
General Petraeus' September report will of course paint a different picture. He'll offer the same cheerleading that we always hear from Bush's media savvy, but militarily clueless generals. We, in the anti-war movement, will counter his lies with facts and try to push the cowardly congressional Dems and wavering Republicans to cut off funding. But thanks to Hillary our task will be more difficult.
After yesterday's speech, Clinton aides tried to clarify her remarks, saying she was specifically referring to increased cooperation from Sunnis battling insurgents in Al Anbar province. But that clarification was too little too late. Unless Hillary publicly reverses herself and personally calls the surge an overall failure, Bush's allies in the media and the Congress will have the cover they need to impede any funding cuts next year.
Endorsing the surge is another example of how Hillary is adopting Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy. After securing the Democratic base, the Clintons always sacrifice their allies to the Right. (Remember Sister Souljah?) Last week Hillary sand-bagged the LGBT community with her states rights argument against gay marriage. This week she throws the anti-war movement under the bus. I'm curious to see who's going to be next week's victim
In an attempt to please an audience of veterans yesterday, Hillary Clinton said the surge was "working" and gave a helping-hand to the Bush spin machine, Pentagon dead-enders and right-wing pundits who have already begun to quote her.
"Of course the surge is working," they'll say, "even Hillary Clinton acknowledges that!" Just when Congressional Democrats were beginning to grow spines and stand up against the war, Hillary has cut them off at the knees.
As always Hillary tried to have it both ways and went on to say: "We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.
" I'm not sure what she meant by that, but I do know the surge is not working. Whatever success we might achieve in Bagdad is temporary and isolated. We've just nudged the terrorists and death squads to other parts of Iraq.
If you want to know the truth about the surge, look at the numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians killed and the number of people fleeing the country this summer. In both cases the numbers have remained fairly steady. In January, before the surge, bombings in Baghdad killed 438 people. After the surge began in February, that number jumped to 520, declined in March to 323 and rose again in April, to 414. The lowest total came in June with just 190 dead, but then swung back up last month, with 354 dead. And that's just Baghdad.
Some Americans, like Hillary, might find those numbers encouraging but the majority of Iraqis view us as an inept occupation force that has failed to keep them safe from terrorism, ethnic cleansing and violent crime. That's why they continue to abandon their homes and families to join millions of their countrymen in refugee camps in Jordan and Syria.
General Petraeus' September report will of course paint a different picture. He'll offer the same cheerleading that we always hear from Bush's media savvy, but militarily clueless generals. We, in the anti-war movement, will counter his lies with facts and try to push the cowardly congressional Dems and wavering Republicans to cut off funding. But thanks to Hillary our task will be more difficult.
After yesterday's speech, Clinton aides tried to clarify her remarks, saying she was specifically referring to increased cooperation from Sunnis battling insurgents in Al Anbar province. But that clarification was too little too late. Unless Hillary publicly reverses herself and personally calls the surge an overall failure, Bush's allies in the media and the Congress will have the cover they need to impede any funding cuts next year.
Endorsing the surge is another example of how Hillary is adopting Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy. After securing the Democratic base, the Clintons always sacrifice their allies to the Right. (Remember Sister Souljah?) Last week Hillary sand-bagged the LGBT community with her states rights argument against gay marriage. This week she throws the anti-war movement under the bus. I'm curious to see who's going to be next week's victim
Monday, August 20, 2007
Muqtada al-Sadr: The British are retreating from Basra
The British Army has been defeated in Iraq and left with no option but to retreat from the country, claims radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Violent resistance and a rising death toll among UK troops has forced a withdrawal, he said in an interview with The Independent.
"The British have given-up and they know they will be leaving Iraq soon," Mr Sadr said. "They are retreating because of the resistance they have faced. Without that, they would have stayed for much longer, there is no doubt."
-snip-
The British have realised this is not a war they should be fighting or one they can win," Mr Sadr said. "The Mehdi army has played an important role in that." He also warned that Britain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq had made the UK a less safe place to live. "The British put their soldiers in a dangerous position by sending them here but they also put the people in their own country in danger," he said. "They have made enemies among all Muslims and they now face attacks at home because of their war. That was their mistake." His comments came during two separate meetings with The Independent at the Sadr movement's headquarters in Kufa, a holy Shia city, 100 miles south of Baghdad, and site of the Grand Mosque where Mr Sadr often preaches fiery Friday sermons. The streets were eerily devoid of cars, which are, in effect, banned in an effort to prevent bombings. Senior Shia leaders are high on the list of targets for Sunni extremists.
*******
Excerpt
"The British have given-up and they know they will be leaving Iraq soon," Mr Sadr said. "They are retreating because of the resistance they have faced. Without that, they would have stayed for much longer, there is no doubt."
-snip-
The British have realised this is not a war they should be fighting or one they can win," Mr Sadr said. "The Mehdi army has played an important role in that." He also warned that Britain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq had made the UK a less safe place to live. "The British put their soldiers in a dangerous position by sending them here but they also put the people in their own country in danger," he said. "They have made enemies among all Muslims and they now face attacks at home because of their war. That was their mistake." His comments came during two separate meetings with The Independent at the Sadr movement's headquarters in Kufa, a holy Shia city, 100 miles south of Baghdad, and site of the Grand Mosque where Mr Sadr often preaches fiery Friday sermons. The streets were eerily devoid of cars, which are, in effect, banned in an effort to prevent bombings. Senior Shia leaders are high on the list of targets for Sunni extremists.
*******
Excerpt
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The divide between Old School and New School Blacks
Apparently rapper David Banner doesn’t take too kindly to Rev. Al Sharpton’s recent protests against rap lyrics. I read here David Banner called Sharpton a “permed-out pimp” and said, “They’re killing kids in New Jersey and all he’s got to talk about is rap lyrics?” Oh yeah, how can I forget, Banner also said, “The next time you see Al Sharpton, tell him I said f*ck him and he can suck my d*ck!”.
Wow.
Rev. Al Sharpton responded to Banner’s comments, at least through a spokesperson, Kirsten John-Foy, a leader with Sharpton’s National Action Network: “I am sure Rev. Sharpton would not call Crump the “N” “B” or “H” word. And, despite Crump’s personal request, I am sure Reverend Sharpton would not call him a f-g–t. He would just pray for him. We at NAN are pro civil rights for everyone, even Levell Crump (David Banner’s real name)who has not had a banner year since his debut album in 2003.”
Again…wow.
These back and forth statements between the civil rights leader and the Mississippi born and bred rap star clearly illustrates the deep, bitter problems that exist between the older generation of African-Americans and the Hip-Hop generation. Forget about the media and white America, it seems to me that the black community really needs to have dialogue that will bridge the gap and help both generations to understand the concerns of the other so that we can all get on the same page as far as the progress of blacks in American society.
-Snip-
Link
Wow.
Rev. Al Sharpton responded to Banner’s comments, at least through a spokesperson, Kirsten John-Foy, a leader with Sharpton’s National Action Network: “I am sure Rev. Sharpton would not call Crump the “N” “B” or “H” word. And, despite Crump’s personal request, I am sure Reverend Sharpton would not call him a f-g–t. He would just pray for him. We at NAN are pro civil rights for everyone, even Levell Crump (David Banner’s real name)who has not had a banner year since his debut album in 2003.”
Again…wow.
These back and forth statements between the civil rights leader and the Mississippi born and bred rap star clearly illustrates the deep, bitter problems that exist between the older generation of African-Americans and the Hip-Hop generation. Forget about the media and white America, it seems to me that the black community really needs to have dialogue that will bridge the gap and help both generations to understand the concerns of the other so that we can all get on the same page as far as the progress of blacks in American society.
-Snip-
Link
To snitch or not to snitch
Michael Vick's co-defendants certainly didn't follow what is said to be the black community's code of not snitching. It seems they immediately got busy taking the deals they probably felt they couldn't refuse. So much for some parts of the myth, anyway. A segment of Sunday's "60 Minutes," a rerun, was about the anti-snitching propaganda promoted by some rappers, and allegedly embraced wholesale by young blacks. Sometimes parents or older siblings spend a great deal of time telling little kids not to tattle -- "nobody likes a tattletale." So, for some young people, not snitching might be viewed in the same context. The trouble a kid might get into by tattling on siblings is multiplied by the time he or she gets to school bullies and neighborhood thugs. By then the principle may be the same, but the consequences are far more serious.
When people talk about the anti-snitchers, we don't seem to hear much about the consequences of talking to the wrong people. We do, however, hear a lot about doing the right thing. But for whom? Because school bullies often grow up to be neighborhood thugs with a lot more at stake than being suspended from school, those who look the other way are often doing the right thing for themselves. Of course, the opposite seems to have been true for Vick's co-defendants. If Virginia was Hollywood and they were true gangsters, they would have assumed so much responsibility, there wouldn't have been anything left with which to charge Vick.
But as we see, that's not the way this incident will play out. The lesson in this for young people hung up on not snitching is not about ratting people out. It's about trying to hang with too many homies after you've moved on. No matter how this all ends, Vick might have saved himself a lot of grief and millions of endorsement dollars if he'd been collaborating with fellow athletes rather than people who had absolutely nothing to lose -- until law enforcement started searching the property. Law enforcement is another component in snitching we don't hear much about.
Inner city children don't typically grow up with coloring books containing pictures and phrases such as "the policeman is my friend." In fact, in some instances, police may be seen as just as much the enemy as the neighborhood thugs. There is an underlying cause of distrust of law enforcement, said Joe McCrea, a major in the Muscogee County Sheriff's Office and an adjunct criminal justice professor at Columbus State University. McCrea thinks everyone should take "Introduction to Criminal Justice" because one of the things talked about in that class is the relationship between law enforcement and the citizens it serves. "When it comes to the African-American community, there have been cases such as Rodney King and O.J. Simpson and several other similar cases, that created a lot of mistrust between law enforcement and the community," he said. "Although the cases don't necessarily reflect the same problems, what we've seen is the results of the mistrust created -- with juries and verdicts and things like that. There are statistics that show, proportionately there's mistrust between all different aspects of society and law enforcement, but it's greatest in the African-American community. A lot of that has to do, not only with history, but cases in the '80s and '90s that drew media interest on a large scale."
When people talk about the anti-snitchers, we don't seem to hear much about the consequences of talking to the wrong people. We do, however, hear a lot about doing the right thing. But for whom? Because school bullies often grow up to be neighborhood thugs with a lot more at stake than being suspended from school, those who look the other way are often doing the right thing for themselves. Of course, the opposite seems to have been true for Vick's co-defendants. If Virginia was Hollywood and they were true gangsters, they would have assumed so much responsibility, there wouldn't have been anything left with which to charge Vick.
But as we see, that's not the way this incident will play out. The lesson in this for young people hung up on not snitching is not about ratting people out. It's about trying to hang with too many homies after you've moved on. No matter how this all ends, Vick might have saved himself a lot of grief and millions of endorsement dollars if he'd been collaborating with fellow athletes rather than people who had absolutely nothing to lose -- until law enforcement started searching the property. Law enforcement is another component in snitching we don't hear much about.
Inner city children don't typically grow up with coloring books containing pictures and phrases such as "the policeman is my friend." In fact, in some instances, police may be seen as just as much the enemy as the neighborhood thugs. There is an underlying cause of distrust of law enforcement, said Joe McCrea, a major in the Muscogee County Sheriff's Office and an adjunct criminal justice professor at Columbus State University. McCrea thinks everyone should take "Introduction to Criminal Justice" because one of the things talked about in that class is the relationship between law enforcement and the citizens it serves. "When it comes to the African-American community, there have been cases such as Rodney King and O.J. Simpson and several other similar cases, that created a lot of mistrust between law enforcement and the community," he said. "Although the cases don't necessarily reflect the same problems, what we've seen is the results of the mistrust created -- with juries and verdicts and things like that. There are statistics that show, proportionately there's mistrust between all different aspects of society and law enforcement, but it's greatest in the African-American community. A lot of that has to do, not only with history, but cases in the '80s and '90s that drew media interest on a large scale."
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Iraqi vets talk about random civilian killing
If this is what America calls "Liberation" I'd rather stay oppressed.
Mansfield, La: We Know How To Handle Our Niggers...
by TheManWithNoPoint
Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:25:00 AM PDT
And don't, please don't come into this Diary complaining about the title. If you do, I'll ask you: What offends you more- my title, or Mansfield, La.'s new Anti-Nigger Law?
----------
'Cause that's exactly what it is, folks. Trust a Halfrican, I can spot these things a mile away...you may just wish to call it "racial profiling," but I prefer the old-fashioned term, a law to "Keep them nigras in them their place..."
Effective Sept. 15, anyone in this northwest Louisiana town caught wearing sagging pants that expose his or her underwear will be subject to a fine up to $150 plus court costs, or face up to 15 days in jail.
Uh, can anyone here pronounce the name of this particular animal?
Hint: It rhymes with J-I-M C-R-O-W...
Yeah, that'll show those white people who love to walk around with their pants sagging down...
(flip)
TheManWithNoPoint's diary :: ::
Mansfield...yes, there's more than one Mansfield in the United States. I'm talking about this one, whose only claim to fame is
History
The Battle of Mansfield, a Confederate victory under General Richard Taylor (son of Zachary Taylor), was fought here on April 8, 1864. This battle turned 42,000 Union Troops away from their conquest of the Louisiana Confederate Capital, Shreveport and sent them in retreat to New Orleans.
So, don't think this is about race?
Don't think it's about race? Then, tell me to which racial group does John Gibson, FoxNews' resident Ku Klux Klan nostalgist, refer to, when he loudly cheers the new law and says of the style:
It's not exactly new. Young men walking around with their pants sagging down somewhere south of their boxer shorts has been a feature of urban life for sometime. There are even hip-hop songs about saggin': I sag here, I sag there. My life is saggin' pants.
Yeah, you're right...he's talking about the ten-pierce-holes, green-haired white youth of that region, must be...
Because, according to the 2000 census, little ol' Mansfield, La.;
...there were 5,582 people...The racial makeup of the city was 34.13% White, 64.26% African American, 0.13% Native American, 0.27% Asian, 0.47% from other races, and 0.75% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.59% of the population.
Wow, a Jim Crow law in a Southern town that is one-third white, and nearly two-thirds black...
And pray tell, Mr. Gibson (of "let's make more white babies" fame), whose pure Anglo-Saxon bloodlines art whiter than thine hair, why are you so tickled by this law?
Even though you admit that the ACLU will shoot this down like a drunken duck in a bio-dome, and that the Supreme Court will give it the "hard good-bye" in a world-record quick ruling?
Is it that you already know that the targets of this law are more likely to end up doing 15 days in the bin than to come up with $150.00?
Wow, you're a real humanitarian, Grand Wiz- I mean, Mr. Gibson. In fact, this is how special you are, getting right into it;
...I say book 'em chief. Enforce the law until the courts say stop. Maybe in the meantime the kid with the sagging pants will grow up.
Yes, I'm sure they will, Mr. Gibson- after they've done 15 days in a Southern American jail for...a breach in dress etiquette...
----------
Tell me again, Mr. Gibson, how many days Scooter Libby served for his conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice?
No time in jail? Not even one day?
And you were in support of this?
Excellent...
----------
Reminds me of a hilarious quote from Fried Green Tomatoes, where the Georgia sheriff says to the black man, "Just remember...we hang our lyin' niggers in Georgia... just as fast as they do in Alabama..."
----------
My advice to young black men in the Southern States of America:
A. Repeat after me: "You've got me confused with someone else, officer, my name isn't Crow, it's 50-Cent..."
B. If you're going to wear pants that hang low...wear shorts beneath them, so your "drawz" aren't showing?
Hey, no one said there was anything wrong with sagging pants exposing athletic shorts, did they?
----------
Give them a minute...
----------
It's Official: In certain parts of the United States of America, it is now a crime to Walk While Black.
----------
You heard it here first...
Source
Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:25:00 AM PDT
And don't, please don't come into this Diary complaining about the title. If you do, I'll ask you: What offends you more- my title, or Mansfield, La.'s new Anti-Nigger Law?
----------
'Cause that's exactly what it is, folks. Trust a Halfrican, I can spot these things a mile away...you may just wish to call it "racial profiling," but I prefer the old-fashioned term, a law to "Keep them nigras in them their place..."
Effective Sept. 15, anyone in this northwest Louisiana town caught wearing sagging pants that expose his or her underwear will be subject to a fine up to $150 plus court costs, or face up to 15 days in jail.
Uh, can anyone here pronounce the name of this particular animal?
Hint: It rhymes with J-I-M C-R-O-W...
Yeah, that'll show those white people who love to walk around with their pants sagging down...
(flip)
TheManWithNoPoint's diary :: ::
Mansfield...yes, there's more than one Mansfield in the United States. I'm talking about this one, whose only claim to fame is
History
The Battle of Mansfield, a Confederate victory under General Richard Taylor (son of Zachary Taylor), was fought here on April 8, 1864. This battle turned 42,000 Union Troops away from their conquest of the Louisiana Confederate Capital, Shreveport and sent them in retreat to New Orleans.
So, don't think this is about race?
Don't think it's about race? Then, tell me to which racial group does John Gibson, FoxNews' resident Ku Klux Klan nostalgist, refer to, when he loudly cheers the new law and says of the style:
It's not exactly new. Young men walking around with their pants sagging down somewhere south of their boxer shorts has been a feature of urban life for sometime. There are even hip-hop songs about saggin': I sag here, I sag there. My life is saggin' pants.
Yeah, you're right...he's talking about the ten-pierce-holes, green-haired white youth of that region, must be...
Because, according to the 2000 census, little ol' Mansfield, La.;
...there were 5,582 people...The racial makeup of the city was 34.13% White, 64.26% African American, 0.13% Native American, 0.27% Asian, 0.47% from other races, and 0.75% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.59% of the population.
Wow, a Jim Crow law in a Southern town that is one-third white, and nearly two-thirds black...
And pray tell, Mr. Gibson (of "let's make more white babies" fame), whose pure Anglo-Saxon bloodlines art whiter than thine hair, why are you so tickled by this law?
Even though you admit that the ACLU will shoot this down like a drunken duck in a bio-dome, and that the Supreme Court will give it the "hard good-bye" in a world-record quick ruling?
Is it that you already know that the targets of this law are more likely to end up doing 15 days in the bin than to come up with $150.00?
Wow, you're a real humanitarian, Grand Wiz- I mean, Mr. Gibson. In fact, this is how special you are, getting right into it;
...I say book 'em chief. Enforce the law until the courts say stop. Maybe in the meantime the kid with the sagging pants will grow up.
Yes, I'm sure they will, Mr. Gibson- after they've done 15 days in a Southern American jail for...a breach in dress etiquette...
----------
Tell me again, Mr. Gibson, how many days Scooter Libby served for his conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice?
No time in jail? Not even one day?
And you were in support of this?
Excellent...
----------
Reminds me of a hilarious quote from Fried Green Tomatoes, where the Georgia sheriff says to the black man, "Just remember...we hang our lyin' niggers in Georgia... just as fast as they do in Alabama..."
----------
My advice to young black men in the Southern States of America:
A. Repeat after me: "You've got me confused with someone else, officer, my name isn't Crow, it's 50-Cent..."
B. If you're going to wear pants that hang low...wear shorts beneath them, so your "drawz" aren't showing?
Hey, no one said there was anything wrong with sagging pants exposing athletic shorts, did they?
----------
Give them a minute...
----------
It's Official: In certain parts of the United States of America, it is now a crime to Walk While Black.
----------
You heard it here first...
Source
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
US falls from 11th to 42th in Life Expectancy
Except
A combination of expensive health insurance and an ever-increasing rate of obesity appear to be behind a startling fall by the US in the world rankings of life expectancy
Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, America has dropped from 11th to 42nd place in 20 years, according to official US figures.
Dr Christopher Murray, head of the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, said: "Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries."
-Snip-
The decline reflects the disparity in wealth.The life expectancy of African Americans is 73.3 compared with 77.9 for whites. For African-American males, it is even shorter: 69.8.
-Snip-
The drop is also due to improved health care, nutrition and lifestyle elsewhere in the world. Countries with longer life expectancy include most of Europe, Japan, Singapore and Jordan.
-Snip-
The US also has a higher infant mortality rate than many other countries: 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. The worst life expectancy figures are in Africa, with Swaziland at the bottom, at 34.1 years.
-Snip-
Just another sad example of what happens when you allow the Republicans to control the political debate and set the agenda in this country.
A combination of expensive health insurance and an ever-increasing rate of obesity appear to be behind a startling fall by the US in the world rankings of life expectancy
Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, America has dropped from 11th to 42nd place in 20 years, according to official US figures.
Dr Christopher Murray, head of the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, said: "Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries."
-Snip-
The decline reflects the disparity in wealth.The life expectancy of African Americans is 73.3 compared with 77.9 for whites. For African-American males, it is even shorter: 69.8.
-Snip-
The drop is also due to improved health care, nutrition and lifestyle elsewhere in the world. Countries with longer life expectancy include most of Europe, Japan, Singapore and Jordan.
-Snip-
The US also has a higher infant mortality rate than many other countries: 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. The worst life expectancy figures are in Africa, with Swaziland at the bottom, at 34.1 years.
-Snip-
Just another sad example of what happens when you allow the Republicans to control the political debate and set the agenda in this country.
Why does the the backwards state of Texas love executing people?
In less than three weeks Kenneth Foster, an African American man sentenced to death in 1997 for the murder of Michael LaHood, is scheduled to be executed in Texas.
LaHood's actual killer, Mauriceo Brown, was executed in 2006. Foster, who was in a car about 100 yards from the crime when it was committed, was convicted under the controversial Texas state "law of parties", under which the distinction between principal actor and accomplice in a crime is abolished. The law can impose the death penalty on anybody involved in a crime where a murder occurred. In Foster's case he was driving a car with three passengers, one of whom, Brown, left the car, got into an altercation and shot LaHood dead. Texas is the only state that applies this statute in capital cases, making it the only place in the United States where a person can be factually innocent of murder and still face the death penalty.
Foster maintains that he did not know that Brown would either rob or kill LaHood. According to an Amnesty International investigation, there is evidence not heard at trial that the murder was an unplanned act committed by Brown, as the latter himself claimed before his execution.
In 2005, a federal district judge found a "fundamental constitutional defect in Foster's sentence" and ruled that Foster's jury had not been asked to determine if he had any intent to kill LaHood, and that this failure represented a misapplication of the law. However, the state of Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the decision.
The crazy thing about this case is that no one argues that Foster killed the victim. As the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's award-winning columnist Bob Ray Sanders wrote, the case "is further proof of how cruel, capricious, unjust and utterly insane our death penalty laws have become....Because of this tainted system, whether you believe in capital punishment or not, a man who did not plan or commit a murder will die August 30 unless somebody -- a judge, the Board of Pardons and Paroles and/or the governor-- has the heart and the guts to stop it."
You can help these folks get up the guts at freekenneth.com. Find updates on the case and urge members of the Texas legislature to stay Foster's execution and ask for a re-trial based on new evidence.
LaHood's actual killer, Mauriceo Brown, was executed in 2006. Foster, who was in a car about 100 yards from the crime when it was committed, was convicted under the controversial Texas state "law of parties", under which the distinction between principal actor and accomplice in a crime is abolished. The law can impose the death penalty on anybody involved in a crime where a murder occurred. In Foster's case he was driving a car with three passengers, one of whom, Brown, left the car, got into an altercation and shot LaHood dead. Texas is the only state that applies this statute in capital cases, making it the only place in the United States where a person can be factually innocent of murder and still face the death penalty.
Foster maintains that he did not know that Brown would either rob or kill LaHood. According to an Amnesty International investigation, there is evidence not heard at trial that the murder was an unplanned act committed by Brown, as the latter himself claimed before his execution.
In 2005, a federal district judge found a "fundamental constitutional defect in Foster's sentence" and ruled that Foster's jury had not been asked to determine if he had any intent to kill LaHood, and that this failure represented a misapplication of the law. However, the state of Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the decision.
The crazy thing about this case is that no one argues that Foster killed the victim. As the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's award-winning columnist Bob Ray Sanders wrote, the case "is further proof of how cruel, capricious, unjust and utterly insane our death penalty laws have become....Because of this tainted system, whether you believe in capital punishment or not, a man who did not plan or commit a murder will die August 30 unless somebody -- a judge, the Board of Pardons and Paroles and/or the governor-- has the heart and the guts to stop it."
You can help these folks get up the guts at freekenneth.com. Find updates on the case and urge members of the Texas legislature to stay Foster's execution and ask for a re-trial based on new evidence.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Iraq Occupation - By the numbers
1,000,985 - Number of Iraqis killed so far
3,684 - Official number of US Military personnel sacrificed so far
27,186 - Official number of US Military personnel wounded so far
$451,132,611,431 - Taxpayer's money spent on the war so
far.Source/
3,684 - Official number of US Military personnel sacrificed so far
27,186 - Official number of US Military personnel wounded so far
$451,132,611,431 - Taxpayer's money spent on the war so
far.Source/
Saturday, August 11, 2007
50 Cent places big bet on the record
Friday, August 10th 2007, 4:00 AM
50 Cent is betting his entire rap future that he'll beat Kanye West on Sept. 11 - the day both artists drop hotly anticipated albums.The two have long competed, but Fitty upped the ante yesterday when he swore to hang up his mike if his CD "Curtis" didn't outsell West's "Graduation."Fitty blasted it out over sohh.com, knowing the hip-hop site gets 4.5 million visitors monthly - many of them teen record buyers."Let's raise the stakes," said the Queens-born rapper, whose given name is Curtis Jackson 3rd. "If Kanye West sells more records than 50 Cent on September 11, I'll no longer [perform] music. I'll write music and work with my other artists, but I won't put out any more solo albums."West knows how to make hits: His last CD, "Late Registration," has sold 2.8 million to date - but 50 Cent's "Get Rich or Die Tryin'?" has sold nearly 8 million."They would like to see Kanye West give me a problem," Fitty mused to sohh's Carl Chery, "because I've worked myself into a space where I've become the favorite. Everybody roots [for] the underdog when he goes against the favorite. "And I bet this: When Kanye West's sales come in, he's gonna have a 70% decrease cause Def Jam is gonna buy records [the first week] to keep him closer to 50 Cent. So watch the first week and then watch the second week. Watch his a - drop off the planet."He added: "I didn't get one trophy for ‘The Massacre.' ... I don't get trophies, I get checks. He gets the trophies. ... And I'll be sitting here like, ‘It's cool 'cause I get the check.'?" Last week, Fitty - who has his own label, G-Unit Records - accepted an offer from BET of a debate with Kanye to be televised on the network; in it, the two would decide which had the better-produced record. "I accept the challenge," Fitty said on BET's "106 & Park." "Kanye, he's not going to want to show up." "What am I going to debate about?" West asked reporters at the MTV Video Music Award nominations Tuesday. "I thought [the debate] was the stupidest thing. When my album drops and Fifty's album drops, you're going to get a lot of good music at the same time."He didn't comment on Fitty's challenge by deadline.
New Strategy for Iraq: Bring Back the Draft!
You youngsters out there who don't seem to give a fuck about what's going on in DC, on the video first you have Gen. Petreas proclaiming the war in Iraq could last at least a decade, then you have Bush's new war czar Gen Lute say we should be discussing the draft. My question is what would you do if the draft is reinstated.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Jay Z - Who You Wit(video)
I just had to bring you this video WHO YOU WIT by Jay-Z, this is one of my favorite Jay-Z songs I like his flow and swagger on this one
Immortal Technique- Bin Laden(video)
This is my dude here motherfucking Immortal Technique feat. Mos Def peep the message. MC's with a purpose unlike these bubble gum rappers out today
Brother Ali - Uncle Sam Goddamn(video)
If you've been missing that real Hiphop you need to check out Brother Ali an MC with a message and purpose
U.S. has used the ultimate weapon of terror - A-bombs on Japan
Robert Scheer
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Thursday, August 9, 2007
DURING A week of mayhem in Iraq, in which terrorists have rightly been condemned for targeting schoolchildren, it is sobering to recall that this week is also the 62nd anniversary of U.S. attacks that deliberately took the lives of thousands of children on their way to school in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As noted in the Strategic Bombing Survey conducted at President Harry Truman's request, when the bomb hit Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, "nearly all the schoolchildren were at work in the open," to be exploded, irradiated or incinerated in the perfect firestorm that the planners back at the University of California-run Los Alamos lab had envisioned for the bomb's maximum psychological impact.
The terror plot worked all too well, as Hiroshima's Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba recalled this week: "That fateful summer, 8:15 a.m. The roar of a B-29 breaks the morning calm. A parachute opens in the blue sky. Then suddenly, a flash, an enormous blast silence - hell on Earth. The eyes of young girls watching the parachute were melted. Their faces became giant charred blisters. The skin of people seeking help dangled from their fingernails. Others died when their eyeballs and internal organs burst from their bodies. Hiroshima was a hell where those who somehow survived envied the dead." Like most of the others killed by the two American bombs, neither the children nor the adults had any role in Japan's decision to go to war, but they were picked as the target instead of an isolated but fortified military base whose anti-aircraft fire posed a higher risk. The target preferred by U.S. atomic scientists - a patch in the ocean or unpopulated terrain - was rejected, because the effect of hundreds of thousands of civilians dying would be all the more dramatic.
-Snip-
This article came from the SFGate news paper and it is truly shows that America has done some truly evil things in her history. You got to be honest with yourself that was the ulitimate act of terrorism what the americans did to Japan. At the time america dropped the bombs they knew Japan was on the verge of surrender but America wanted to send a message to the rest of the world "that there's new big dog on the block you either fall in line or you can get it next". If you would like to read the entire article click on the link below.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Why are most democratic Senators Hiding even from Censure?
August 7, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
When the history of the Bush Administration is finally written, the date of August 6, 2007, should stand out. That was the day that a pair of identical resolutions were introduced in the Senate and in the House to censure George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales for a catalogue of sins, which could easily be turned into an impeachment bill of particulars.
One resolution deals with the Iraq War, the other with various assaults on the Constitution.
Together, the charges include: Misleading the nation into the Iraq War, Authorizing the NSA to illegally spy on Americans, Allowing the torture of detainees, and denying them due process rights, Misleading Congress and the American people about the firings of the U.S. attorneys, and obstructing investigations into this scandal, And undermining acts of Congress by flagrant use of signing statements.
Senator Russ Feingold introduced the two measures in the Senate. “Congress cannot stay silent when the American people are demanding that this Administration be held accountable for its blatant misconduct regarding Iraq and its attack on the rule of law,” Feingold said. Representative Maurice Hinchey introduced the two censure motions in the House.
“The White House has continuously misled and deceived the American people while disregarding the rule of law that guides our democracy,” Hinchey said. Censure is necessary, he added, “to let the historical record show that an equal branch of government found the actions of this Administration undeniably reprehensible.”
Hinchey got 19 co-sponsors:
Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Danny Davis (D-IL), Sam Farr (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), John Hall (D-NY), Michael Honda (D-CA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), James Moran (D-VA), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Carol Shea Porter (D-NH), and Diane Watson (D-CA).
But Feingold got only one-and-a-half sponsors. Tom Harkin signed on to both the resolution on Iraq and the one dealing with constitutional violations. Barbara Boxer signed the Iraq motion only.
Where are the other Democratic Senators?
Where is Biden?
Where is Byrd?
Where is Clinton?
Where is Dodd?
Where is Kennedy?
Where is Leahy?
Where is Obama?
Where is Reid?
Let’s face it: Censure is just a public spanking. It carries no penalty. Certainly not removal from office, which is what a conviction for impeachment—which is what Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales deserve—would require.
We’ve been hearing all these noises coming from the Democratic leadership that impeachment would be a distraction and would tie up the business of the Congress. I don’t buy that. What is more important than standing up for democracy? But censure wouldn’t tie up Congress. And still the Democratic honchos are sitting this one out. So what’s their excuse?
It can’t be that they don’t believe in censure. After all, 29 Democratic Senators were on record in favor of censuring the President—when his name was Bill Clinton.
Dianne Feinstein introduced the bill to censure Clinton back in 1999. I don’t see her signing on to Feingold’s bill, even though the Clinton’s besmirching of his office does not compare to the grievous soiling of the Constitution that Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales have been engaged in.
Here are the names of some of the Democratic co-sponsors of Feinstein’s bill who are still in the Senate:
Daniel Akaka
Byron Dorgan
Richard Durbin
Daniel Inouye
Joe Lieberman
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Carl Levin
Barbara Mikulski
Jay Rockefeller
Charles Schumer
And yes, Harry Reid.
Where are they now? They’re nowhere to be seen. One footnote on the Clinton censure: even 9 Republicans were in favor, including Pete Domenici, Mitch McConnell, and Olympia Snowe. So don’t let any of them—Democrat or Republican—say that censure is somehow unthinkable or unconstitutional. Back in 1999, they not only thought about it; they did it. But now, in 2007, when Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales are assaulting our very democracy, all of these Senators have gone into hiding. They are letting Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales carry on, with impunity, like some Argentine junta. And they are setting a terrible precedent for future reprehensible lawlessness at the highest end of the executive branch.
http://Source
When the history of the Bush Administration is finally written, the date of August 6, 2007, should stand out. That was the day that a pair of identical resolutions were introduced in the Senate and in the House to censure George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales for a catalogue of sins, which could easily be turned into an impeachment bill of particulars.
One resolution deals with the Iraq War, the other with various assaults on the Constitution.
Together, the charges include: Misleading the nation into the Iraq War, Authorizing the NSA to illegally spy on Americans, Allowing the torture of detainees, and denying them due process rights, Misleading Congress and the American people about the firings of the U.S. attorneys, and obstructing investigations into this scandal, And undermining acts of Congress by flagrant use of signing statements.
Senator Russ Feingold introduced the two measures in the Senate. “Congress cannot stay silent when the American people are demanding that this Administration be held accountable for its blatant misconduct regarding Iraq and its attack on the rule of law,” Feingold said. Representative Maurice Hinchey introduced the two censure motions in the House.
“The White House has continuously misled and deceived the American people while disregarding the rule of law that guides our democracy,” Hinchey said. Censure is necessary, he added, “to let the historical record show that an equal branch of government found the actions of this Administration undeniably reprehensible.”
Hinchey got 19 co-sponsors:
Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Danny Davis (D-IL), Sam Farr (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), John Hall (D-NY), Michael Honda (D-CA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), James Moran (D-VA), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Carol Shea Porter (D-NH), and Diane Watson (D-CA).
But Feingold got only one-and-a-half sponsors. Tom Harkin signed on to both the resolution on Iraq and the one dealing with constitutional violations. Barbara Boxer signed the Iraq motion only.
Where are the other Democratic Senators?
Where is Biden?
Where is Byrd?
Where is Clinton?
Where is Dodd?
Where is Kennedy?
Where is Leahy?
Where is Obama?
Where is Reid?
Let’s face it: Censure is just a public spanking. It carries no penalty. Certainly not removal from office, which is what a conviction for impeachment—which is what Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales deserve—would require.
We’ve been hearing all these noises coming from the Democratic leadership that impeachment would be a distraction and would tie up the business of the Congress. I don’t buy that. What is more important than standing up for democracy? But censure wouldn’t tie up Congress. And still the Democratic honchos are sitting this one out. So what’s their excuse?
It can’t be that they don’t believe in censure. After all, 29 Democratic Senators were on record in favor of censuring the President—when his name was Bill Clinton.
Dianne Feinstein introduced the bill to censure Clinton back in 1999. I don’t see her signing on to Feingold’s bill, even though the Clinton’s besmirching of his office does not compare to the grievous soiling of the Constitution that Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales have been engaged in.
Here are the names of some of the Democratic co-sponsors of Feinstein’s bill who are still in the Senate:
Daniel Akaka
Byron Dorgan
Richard Durbin
Daniel Inouye
Joe Lieberman
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Carl Levin
Barbara Mikulski
Jay Rockefeller
Charles Schumer
And yes, Harry Reid.
Where are they now? They’re nowhere to be seen. One footnote on the Clinton censure: even 9 Republicans were in favor, including Pete Domenici, Mitch McConnell, and Olympia Snowe. So don’t let any of them—Democrat or Republican—say that censure is somehow unthinkable or unconstitutional. Back in 1999, they not only thought about it; they did it. But now, in 2007, when Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales are assaulting our very democracy, all of these Senators have gone into hiding. They are letting Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales carry on, with impunity, like some Argentine junta. And they are setting a terrible precedent for future reprehensible lawlessness at the highest end of the executive branch.
http://Source
XM 169 The Power Fires Black activist Mark Thompson aka Matsimela Mapfumo
Black activist Mark Thompson calls former listeners to action
By Robert "Rob" Redding Jr.
Publisher
Aug. 1, 2007, 3:45 p.m. (Updated Aug. 2, 2007, 11:50 a.m.) - Black activist the Rev. Mark Thompson (Matsimela Mapfumo) today called on his former listeners to continue to fight after he was fired by Radio One-owned XM 169 The Power, ending almost 20 years with the company.
Thompson said he wants people to take what they leaned on the air and confront local injustices - like Martin Luther King worked in the trenches - to build a national movement.
"People at this moment should take everything that we have done and move from theory into action...right there in your locale," he said during an Internet radio interview.
Redding News Review last week exclusively reported that Lanham, Md.-based Radio One fired Thompson and three other XM 169 staffers. Radio One's Syndication One announced a new lineup the same day that includes "The Al Sharpton Show," "2 Live Stews" and "The Warren Ballentine Show."
Thompson, a key speaker at the "Million Man March," "Millions More Movement" and founder of the Umoja Party, made his call to action on the Black Coffee Program hosted by Cedrick Muhammad.
"We have gotten a lot of letters of love and support," he told Muhammad during a 15-minute interview. "I would like for people to continue to pray those prayers for my family and me."
Lee Michaels, national program director for Syndication One News/Talk and XM 169, declined to comment.
Redding News Review reported last Thursday that Thompson's show "Make it Plain" and Ambrose Lane's show "We Ourselves," along with their supporting staff, were eliminated.
Radio One has been running best of shows in the place of the two shows.
The cuts come as Comedian Sheryl Underwood decided not to sign a deal at the channel, after starting a daily show in March.
"We offered her a deal and she drug her feet about signing the deal," Michaels, said last week. Michaels, Thompson’s former boss, also cited her many scheduling conflicts.
The cuts also came as a source at Radio One had been complaining about delayed payments.
"That's absolutely untrue," Michaels said last week.
The company lost close to two-thirds of its value in the past two years earlier this year, according to a Washington Post report.
Sharpton's show will run from 1 to 4 p.m. and be followed by "The 2 Live Stews" from 4 to 7 p.m. Warren Ballentine, to air from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., will kick off the new XM 169 lineup.
Radio One programs XM 169 for XM Satellite Radio, which is in the process of merging with Sirius Satellite Radio. Syndication One, a joint venture of Radio One, Inc. and REACH Media, Inc., airs on 25 local news/talk stations across the country, according to the news release.
(Disclosure: Redding News Review's radio program was heard on XM 169 The Power's "We Ourselves").
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that was kind of foul, to fire my man Matsimela Mapfumo. The article doesn't say why he was fired but I'm sure it was because dude was raw and outspoken probably a little bit too much. In this Bush era they are axing left wing talkers and television personalities left and right, it seems everybody is running scared, even so called black owned radio stations. Maybe the owner are afraid being wire tapped I guess.
By Robert "Rob" Redding Jr.
Publisher
Aug. 1, 2007, 3:45 p.m. (Updated Aug. 2, 2007, 11:50 a.m.) - Black activist the Rev. Mark Thompson (Matsimela Mapfumo) today called on his former listeners to continue to fight after he was fired by Radio One-owned XM 169 The Power, ending almost 20 years with the company.
Thompson said he wants people to take what they leaned on the air and confront local injustices - like Martin Luther King worked in the trenches - to build a national movement.
"People at this moment should take everything that we have done and move from theory into action...right there in your locale," he said during an Internet radio interview.
Redding News Review last week exclusively reported that Lanham, Md.-based Radio One fired Thompson and three other XM 169 staffers. Radio One's Syndication One announced a new lineup the same day that includes "The Al Sharpton Show," "2 Live Stews" and "The Warren Ballentine Show."
Thompson, a key speaker at the "Million Man March," "Millions More Movement" and founder of the Umoja Party, made his call to action on the Black Coffee Program hosted by Cedrick Muhammad.
"We have gotten a lot of letters of love and support," he told Muhammad during a 15-minute interview. "I would like for people to continue to pray those prayers for my family and me."
Lee Michaels, national program director for Syndication One News/Talk and XM 169, declined to comment.
Redding News Review reported last Thursday that Thompson's show "Make it Plain" and Ambrose Lane's show "We Ourselves," along with their supporting staff, were eliminated.
Radio One has been running best of shows in the place of the two shows.
The cuts come as Comedian Sheryl Underwood decided not to sign a deal at the channel, after starting a daily show in March.
"We offered her a deal and she drug her feet about signing the deal," Michaels, said last week. Michaels, Thompson’s former boss, also cited her many scheduling conflicts.
The cuts also came as a source at Radio One had been complaining about delayed payments.
"That's absolutely untrue," Michaels said last week.
The company lost close to two-thirds of its value in the past two years earlier this year, according to a Washington Post report.
Sharpton's show will run from 1 to 4 p.m. and be followed by "The 2 Live Stews" from 4 to 7 p.m. Warren Ballentine, to air from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., will kick off the new XM 169 lineup.
Radio One programs XM 169 for XM Satellite Radio, which is in the process of merging with Sirius Satellite Radio. Syndication One, a joint venture of Radio One, Inc. and REACH Media, Inc., airs on 25 local news/talk stations across the country, according to the news release.
(Disclosure: Redding News Review's radio program was heard on XM 169 The Power's "We Ourselves").
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that was kind of foul, to fire my man Matsimela Mapfumo. The article doesn't say why he was fired but I'm sure it was because dude was raw and outspoken probably a little bit too much. In this Bush era they are axing left wing talkers and television personalities left and right, it seems everybody is running scared, even so called black owned radio stations. Maybe the owner are afraid being wire tapped I guess.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Concert Lineup Angers Some Va. Tech Families
Rapper's Violent Lyrics Draw Protests
By Sandhya SomashekharWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, August 3, 2007
By Sandhya SomashekharWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, August 3, 2007
A free concert organized to lift the spirits of the shaken Virginia Tech community is instead angering some parents of the victims, who say the decision to feature a New York rapper known for his violent lyrics shows a blatant lack of respect for the people killed in the April 16 shooting rampage.
Vincent J. Bove, who said he is a spokesman for seven of the victims' families, said yesterday that the parents are outraged that the Sept. 6 concert at the university would include the rapper Nas, who in one 1999 track chants, "Shoot 'em up, just shoot 'em up, what?" followed by whispers of "Kill, kill, kill, murder, murder, murder."
The lyrics "are indicative of the moral decay in our society that contributes to acts of violence," said Bove, a New Jersey security expert who has volunteered to speak for the families. "For a university official to condone it or to be clueless of what this person's track record is, it's unconscionable beyond belief."
University officials, however, said they have received an overwhelmingly positive response since they announced the concert Wednesday and have no plans to revise the lineup.
Snip
Roadside bomb attacks at a all time high
Roadside bomb attacks in Iraq reach an all-time high
By Kim Sengupta
Published: 09 August 2007
Roadside bomb attacks on American troops in Iraq reached an all-time high last month, accounting for more than one third of all combat deaths.
The increase in the number of casualties caused by the explosive devices comes at the height of the "surge' of US forces which, the Pentagon claims, is broadly a success. Washington and London have blamed Iran for supplying the devices which have been used with lethal effect against American and British troops.
Snip
Link
I wonder how General Patraeus will try to spin this news when he gives his progress report next month. He will most likely take the easy route and blame it on Iran. A person today have to be damn near retarded to join the military under George Bush and risk life and limb for this bullshit war.
By Kim Sengupta
Published: 09 August 2007
Roadside bomb attacks on American troops in Iraq reached an all-time high last month, accounting for more than one third of all combat deaths.
The increase in the number of casualties caused by the explosive devices comes at the height of the "surge' of US forces which, the Pentagon claims, is broadly a success. Washington and London have blamed Iran for supplying the devices which have been used with lethal effect against American and British troops.
Snip
Link
I wonder how General Patraeus will try to spin this news when he gives his progress report next month. He will most likely take the easy route and blame it on Iran. A person today have to be damn near retarded to join the military under George Bush and risk life and limb for this bullshit war.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Will Barack Obama survive the onslaught?
The media can make or break a candidate and now it's seems they have turned their sights on Barack Obama for some allege gaffes he made recently. First Hillary made a big deal over Obama's statement at the last Democratic Debate about his willingness to meet with America's adversaries. The media took the story and ran with it, Hillary's response sounded no different than Bush and the Republican's and Obama's response was reasonable in my opinion. Bush refused to talk to any of the so called bad regimes and they all seemed to have grown in strength and or influence; Iran has more influence in the region, North Korea has more Nukes than ever and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has more clout in South America than the USA has there. So I don't understand why the "inside the Beltway group think" always prevail in the corporate news media when they're proven to be wrong over and over. Anyone who has a different opinion is ridiculed by the corporate controlled media. The bottom line is we have to stop allowing the media to choose for us who's the best candidate, it's up to us study the candidates and make our own decisions and stop allowing the media to influence us over non-sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)