We Cannot Allow An Unmanned Drone Bomber Gap!

It's the classic case of keeping up with the neighbors. Especially the new ones: the hoards from America who always wear helmets, build massive bases of operation, bring along thousands of "independent contractors", and tend to shoot first and ask questions later.

The latest object of regional envy for militaries in the Middle East: killer drones. The USA introduced them, now everybody wants them.

First, the Iranian government announces they have a new unmanned military drone bomber. Iranian President Ahmabinejad said "The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship." The remote-controlled flying weapon's estimated range means local major enemies of humanity - like Israel - remain out of reach. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-ml-iran-unmanned-bomber,0,4364976.story

Iranian officials gaze admiringly at a model of their new drone.  It will strike fear in enemies of humanity who are within its 620 mile range - and will probably just cause mild anxiety to those farther away.

Then Israel announces, they too have a new unmanned miltary drone. According the the Telegraph in London, "Israel considers Iran a strategic threat because of ...repeated references by its leaders to the Jewish state's destruction." Wouldn't do to have a flying drone gap with an archenemy, so the Israeli version can make it all the way to Tehran:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7287623/Israel-unveils-unmanned-drones-which-can-fly-to-Iran.html

No models here - the Israeli drone makes an appearance. It's capable of carrying diverse payloads - like propaganda leaflets to drop over Iran.

In the meantime, the Middle East pioneer in the field of conducting aerial bombing via remote control - the USA - is way ahead of the game. Actively using them for years now, our tax dollars are funding more operators in obscure Nevada locations and increasing robot drone attacks in Afghanistan (courtesy the U.S. military) and Pakistan (courtesy the CIA):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/world/asia/20drones.html?_r=1

American drone on the job, firing away - is it collateral damage if we bomb targets in an ally's territory?

But remember, as noted in the Telegraph article, President Ahmabinejad has touted spectacular weapons advances before that didn't amount to much. Remember the Iranian long-range missile announcement a couple of years ago?

Iran's latest rocket technology takes flight - with Plan B waiting on the bench. Good thing the Japanese goverment is friendly with Israel.

Besides, we can't let the Iranians usurp our best military slogan!  Peace and friendship?  That's why you call in the USA - we're the professionals:

General Jack D. Ripper and Colonel Lionel Mandrake exemplify the Strategic Air Command's motto: Peace Is Our Profession.

Just in case you thought Stanley Kubrick made that last one up:

Circa 1962 - after all the US military doesn't kid around. Now you kids get off my lawn!

Hollywood's Monied Liberals And The President

It's a cliche, a stereotype that many folks love to trot out: Hollywood is full of liberal socialists, Democrats to the core, and their big money elitism has left them out of touch with the much more conservative American populace.

I can see where that image comes from. Of course it's full of holes. Big time actors/producers like Clint Eastwood, Jerry Bruckheimer, Jon Voight, Gary Sinise, Mel Gibson, Kelsey Grammer, Tom Selleck, and many more are self-described conservative/Republicans. And the bottom line is still the bottom line - money rules Tinseltown, no matter what the political persuasion of the creators.

But Hollywood is made up of people, and people who have enthusiastically committed (and contributed) to a political candidate are loath to give up that support even when their standard-bearer has let them down. And by this point in his presidency, are there any progressive/liberal causes that Mr. Obama has not let down?

That's why this story, "Obama And Hollywood: State Of Their Union" from The Hollywood Reporter, is so interesting. The richest political progressives in Hollywood gathered recently to raise money for Mr. Obama. And while they still support him, many are disappointed. "He had an opportunity to show he's a different generation, and he hasn't done it," said on interviewee. Hollywood liberals are disappointed that war continues in the Middle East, concerned that health care and Wall Street reforms are toothless, and upset that gay rights are not high on the Administration's agenda.

But no one among the many folks interviewed here are ready to throw in the towel. Of course, none of these extremely creative, imaginative people - whose movies and tv shows often dazzle with their unique ideas - seem able to visualize an America with more than two political parties.

Maybe that's because every one of these Hollywood entertainment industry players is ultimately in the employ of, or partnered with, major media corporations. They know the difficulties artists encounter when their creativity challenges the money men. And we all know where corporate America stands when it comes to progressive change.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i4a25a9f106904fc175e55b8dcf6b2e3e

Corporate Money Wins, Part 2

The last restrictions on major corporate political campaign donations were removed by the Supreme Court in January this year (see: http://songofhiram.blogspot.com/2010/01/corporate-money-wins.html).

The first flower of this New Age of Government For Sale has bloomed: Rupert Murdoch handed over a cool million to the Republican Party.

"The contribution from Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and other news outlets, is one of the biggest ever given by a media organization, campaign finance experts said." Read the full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/us/politics/18donate.html?ref=media

To put things in perspective, every time Mr. Murdoch sneezes a couple of million dollars routinely spews out. While this particular donation isn't the biggest given by a media group, it does seem to be the first under the new rules, which makes it newsworthy.

Especially for News Corp outlets. How will Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, WSJ, etc. report this one?

The Country Is Being Dragged - Kicking And Screaming - To The Left!

Is the government being dragged to the left? It's leaning decidedly to the right in this view. And that lady's sign is truth-telling at its best.

The absolute unwillingness, or refusal, to acknowledge the truth of what is right in front of our collective eyes is astounding, baffling, bewildering and mind-boggling. It gets dangerous when folks act on the belief that up is down, the world is flat, and that in Washington, the left is radical.

The political, governing left is not radical, it's not even remotely progressive. Just ask all those Goldman-Sachs folks appointed to high places. Or Arlen Specter.

That reaction comes after reading a story telling of a new conservative-centric web site - Ricochet - launching soon. Ricochet is designed as an "online conversation that is akin to a conservative cocktail party." That's the goal, to show how the collective right is funny, thoughtful, engaging and doggone it, people like us! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37189215/ns/politics/

A statement in this article made me roll my eyes. It's attributed to Ricochet honcho Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan (I'm sure he's been employed elsewhere the last couple of decades or so - but maybe this job is the best conservative credential he could produce): "At a time when the country is being dragged to the left by Washington and mainstream media, this is another way to fight back."

That statement beggars belief. America is being dragged to the left?! Conservatives must fight back?!? I can think of four major Obama Administration accomplishments - three with the assent of a allegedly-liberal Democratic majority Congress - that should please every conservative of every stripe. Why fight when you're already winning?

1. Congress mandated that every American purchase a broken private-sector product: health insurance. PURCHASE, as in spend money in a capitalist system, as in turn a profit for a company, as in no money, no service. A very conservative approach – everyone pays, cash on the barrel! Don't dare think about distributing a societal benefit equally, paid for by taxes – that would be left-leaning, wouldn't it?

2. Continuing to spend over $500 billion per year, every year, on the War Department - very liberal move there. Maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops, and hundreds of thousands of private contractors on the taxpayer dime, in an illegal occupation of two foreign countries - if that's a left position, what would the right-wing stand be? Prolonging massive military actions and paying billions to for-profit companies to assist that process - a war to procure resources and a tidy private profit in one package! Which part don't conservatives like?

3. The President has offered an energy bill that advocates more offshore and inland oil drilling, more coal burning, and the construction of new nuclear power plants. And he’s apparently done little to get the Department of Interior to end its incredibly automatic rubber-stamp policy towards extraction industry regulation. Again, moves that most left-leaners have been advocating for years!

4. The President and Congress agree - civil rights are secondary, and the most privacy-invasive laws in American history must be maintained! So the alleged leftist Dems agree with the GOP - the Patriot Act must be extended, domestic surveillance must be maintained, and the government has the right to arrest anyone on the planet, anytime, on executive order alone. Somewhere, in an undisclosed location, Dick Cheney is smiling.

However, this statement from the article is absolutely true:

"In addition, Obama has been in the White House long enough to convince people of the direction he's taking America in..."

That he has. Only folks totally committed to blindered thinking could possibly look at the evidence and maintain that the Obama administration is liberal verging on socialist. (And it works both ways - the president has a lot of unblinking, unthinking supporters, as well.)

Or is this ridiculous position being advocated by those who see a way to gain more power and money by exploiting those who would rather yell than think? So who is funding Ricochet? The fellows quoted in the article are just the faces. Follow the money, and maybe we'll find a cozy relationship with Tea Party funders?

90 Obama Administration Accomplishments In Two Years?

I'm getting tired of this photo, but it has yet to go out of style.

I recently received a list originated by Dr. Robert Watson of Lynn University in November 2009, who has decided the media is overlooking the many "accomplishments" of the Obama Administration. His enumeration of "90 Accomplishments Of The Obama Administration In Two Years" is an interesting resume: a mix of random acts of kindness, some common-sense moves back to the political middle (which is still leaning decisively to the right) and many, many preparations for supposed future actions – studies, evaluations, reviews, plans.

But the next major campaign for President will begin next year, so there’s not much time for these learning sessions to turn into actions. You can see the list here: http://www.tellingthoughts.com/asides/obamas-90-accomplishments-email-list (open up a second tab so you can reference some of the points - no need to reprint the entire entry here).

As Mr. Watson points out, Mr. Obama has undoubtedly been active, but some things on this list are flat wrong.

Policy is one thing, but there has been no change yet to the actual tax code to punish corporate job outsourcing. See how India – a major destination for outsourced jobs – sees the situation (Accomplishment #48, a hint: they aren't worried: http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=383970). The tax credits for many hybrid car purchasers are largely cut or already gone (#37, http://www.hybridcars.com/federal-incentives.html). Many veterans benefits upgrades started in 2008, (enacted by Congress in 2007), the new law is the Credit Card Reform Act of 2008 (#49, pre-Obama), and how do we know overseas secret prisons are being closed (#27) - weren't they "secret" to begin with? There has been little news since April 2010, when CIA Director Leon Panetta (a former member of British Petroleum's 'special advisory board' for government lobbying) said they were closed - cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die! But there are some exceptions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040902497.html.

For me, the bottom line on President Obama are his most expensive actions: his first two defense budgets have been among the largest in American history, over $660 billion per year. Hope and change? I cannot count expanding both wars (#81) and the military (#61) as “accomplishments.” Troops may be leaving Iraq (#4), but they are rotating to a new front (#81).

Shifting troops from Iraq to an intensified, expanding war in Afghanistan, increasing attacks by drone-piloted weapons in Pakistan, continuing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on weapons research are some of the President's real accomplishments since his inauguration. The enormous costs of the USA’s aggressive military/industrial/legislative complex - financial, political, social, and spiritual - outweigh nearly every "accomplishment" on Dr. Watson's list. Our government uses our tax dollars for its major export: weapons and war.

Cutting the F-22 warplane funding (#13) and scrapping a missile program (#30) represents $2.15 billion out of a $660 billion military budget (2010) - much ado about relatively nothing. That’s $660 billion for one year – more than half of federal expenditures every year go to the military. More money is spent on the military by the USA - our tax dollars - than the rest of the planet combined!

Keep multiplying that $600 billion figure out for the last ten years and the next twenty, and then ask yourself: is this why we allegedly cannot pay for universal health care, infrastructure improvements, or education upgrades? And then ask why defense issues are seemingly never discussed - a taboo subject - when overheated rhetoric about out-of-control government spending comes spewing out of politicians.

The best part – the President said he would veto the entire defense budget if the suddenly controversial $1.75 billion for the F-22 remained! http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/21/senate.f22/ Seriously? Is that a joke? Cut out social services, cut out regulatory oversight funding, cut out helping kids and seniors, but keep those bombs rolling! How has the President changed that landscape?

On the issues of open government and transparency…well, much like VP Dick Cheney’s closed-door energy meetings, the Obama White House banned public inspection of the guest books during the time that insurance/pharmaceutical companies were visiting the White House to cut their history-making deal. It was only after a Freedom of Information Act request was filed (#8) that the records were opened: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/see-the-white-houses-heal_n_277707.html . I guess it's called an "accomplishment" when a taxpayer-funded entity agrees to finally abide by the transparency thing.

On many other open government fronts however, the Obama Administration continues to fight lawsuits aimed at opening up its under-cover operations (#9) – on issues ranging from domestic surveillance/spying to “state secrets” to 9/11 photos to EPA hazard sites and more:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/06/17/transparency/#postid-updateA4.

No time to get into financial sector “reform”, bank bailouts, that crazy "we don't torture, but we reserve the right to" protocol (#28), and the implementation of the planet’s only exclusively-for-profit health care system. Or the assertion that Mr. Obama’s style is encouraging bi-partisanship (really?) and is not heavy-handed (just ask Dem legislators who the White House threatened to ignore in the next election cycle if they failed to vote for the Health Care reform: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7450237/Barack-Obama-threatens-to-withdraw-support-from-wavering-Democrats.html).

Ninety accomplishments? Dr. Watson's research is a little shaky in places, and his "three cheers for war!" listings don't ring as "accomplishments" for anyone interested in peace, diplomacy and using our country's immense wealth to help people instead of coercing and killing them. By now, even the most ardent Obama supporters must realize that he will not be ending our wars of occupation in the Middle East during his term - as Dr. Watson notes enthusiastically, the opposite is occurring.

Dr. Watson assails the media for biased reporting. The military and continuing promulgation of “state secrets” are just two of the major issues that the media fails to present to the American public about the Obama Administration on a regular, unbiased basis. Ever ask yourself why?

Letters To Washington

Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced both a bill and an amendment that would require an audit of the Federal Reserve - despite its public sounding name, the Fed is a private corporation that has its multiple financial sector hands on the tiller of the America's seriously listing economic ship.

This entity is literally above the law. The Fed is a major government player that cannot be investigated, audited, or subjected to any federal oversight. Ron Paul made taming the Fed a major platform of his GOP presidential campaign. And now Sanders is getting closer to voting on legislation that would take the first steps towards that goal.

Below is the text of a letter I sent to both Colorado senators today:

Senator Bennet/Udall - I ask you to support Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in his efforts to pass either a bill or an amendment to audit the Federal Reserve (Fed).

If you are serious about financial sector reform, and showing that Congress is representative of the majority of American citizens, this must be your course.

It's painful enough knowing that a private corporation - the Fed -is legally distanced from private citizens and congressional oversight. And that this private corporation is in charge of the nation's money protocols, interest rates, etc., but it does not answer to the people.

No federal entity should be above the investigatory/audit functions of the Congress. Establish this right of the people by voting for whatever measure legalizes oversight of the Fed.

By not voting for this reform, Senator, you confirm your support of big financial corporations at the expense of the citizens of Colorado. How else to explain it?

Stranger Than Fiction? Your Tax Dollars At Work: Blowing Things Up

Dave Lindorff at Information Clearinghouse says it best, so there's little need to do anything but recap the lead and send you over there to read his words:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25206.htm

Our tax dollars will fund a United States government budget that devotes 53% of its revenues to the military and all its associated ancillary operations. More than half of the money spent by our federal institutions go to blow things up, kill people, or buy the weapons and materials necessary to prepare for those eventualities.

That is the value system we citizens perpetuate. Our budget reflects our values - or somebody's values.

Is creating a global police/military force really where Americans want to spend the majority of their money? If you had a choice, would you really choose guns and bombs over improving health care, providing money to upgrade the educational system, building new energy infrastructures, or hundreds of other worthy projects that truly benefit all citizens?

Really? We want to spend most of our money on weapons and death? What are we afraid of?

This situation can be fixed. The example is right there in the very fine film "Stranger Than Fiction." IRS auditor Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) enters the bakery owned by Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllennhaal) to discuss her non-payment of taxes:

Ana Pascal: Listen, I'm a big supporter of fixing potholes and erecting swing sets and building shelters. I am *more* than happy to pay those taxes. I'm just not such a big fan of the percentage that the government uses for national defense, corporate bailouts, and campaign discretionary funds. So, I didn't pay those taxes. I think I sent a letter to that effect with my return.

Harold Crick: Would it be the letter that begins "Dear Imperialist Swine"? It says, in the file, that you only paid part of your taxes for last year.

Ana: That's right.

Harold: Looks like only 78 percent.

Ana: Yep.

Harold: So you did it on purpose?

Ana: Yep.

Harold: So you must've been expecting an audit.

Ana: Um, I was expecting a fine, or a sharp reprimand.

Harold: A reprimand? This isn't boarding school, Miss Pascal. You stole from the government.

Ana: No I didn't steal from the government. I just didn't pay you *entirely*.

We need more people to decide to not pay "entirely." What if everyone only sent in 47% of their tax bill and let the military-industrialist-congressional powerbrokers figure out how to pay for their profits?

The Empire Strikes Back

The Empire moves overtly and covertly: top, a map showing Turkey and Iran, both getting some bad publicity from the US government. Bottom, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who abandons his fight against the health insurance industry bailout bill supported by the President.

A one-two uppercut by the Empire in today's news is leaving many folks feeling sucker-punched. But that's how power works - by force.

First, the leading progressive among Democrats, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, has decided to vote in favor of the current health care "reform" bill after spending months denouncing it. Even his statement revealing this remarkable turnaround cites the multiple misgivings he has about the measure: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/17-9 . But, in the end, "after careful discussions with the President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Elizabeth my wife and close friends, I have decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."

It's a stunning reversal, and only one explanation makes sense - the Empire said vote yes and you will get to live to fight another day. Apparently it was made clear to Rep. Kucinich that he would be facing re-election in the fall without national Democratic Party resources (with the money going to a primary challenger, no presidential visits to the district, etc) should he continue to oppose the President's health insurance bailout - er, "reform" - plan. Plainly Kucinich decided not to fall on his sword over the health care reform issue, and take the support so he has the chance to continue his job. (Read a UK report on the President's strong-arm tactics here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7450237/Barack-Obama-threatens-to-withdraw-support-from-wavering-Democrats.html .)

But how much credibility has Kucinich lost with progressives by making this decision? Is it a compromise when you are threatened? Score this one a win for the Empire (and its corporate cronies).

On the international front, it's being reported today that the USA is pressuring erstwhile ally Turkey to get "on board" the anti-Iran bandwagon or face repercussions: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100304/POLITICS-US-TURKEY-USA/ . Ankara has recalled its ambassador to the US over the bill currently in Congress that condemns Turkey for perpetrating the massacre of Armenians in 1915, a very hot topic for Armenia and Turkey.

Ah, nothing like peer pressure from the Empire; Assistant Secretary Of State Phillip Gordon says Turkey should get in line to strengthen its credentials as "an important, responsible actor" in the Middle East - in other words, return the diplomats and back the Iranian sanctions. All actors need a script, and Ankara is improvising its lines - earning a frown from the stage managers in Washington. If the Obama Administration is going public with its threats against Turkey, imagine what's already been discussed between the governments behind the scenes.

There are geo-political energy issues swirling around the area - new pipelines crossing Turkey, Armenia, etc. taking natural gas to Europe are going to make gazillions in financial profits for many energy companies. Could it be the Turkish government is not going along with the corporatocracy? The Empire doesn't like that.

What really gave me a chortle was this statement: describing the ultimate fate of the Turkish massacre condemnation bill in Congress, Gordon said: "The Congress is an independent body and they're going to do what they decide to do." Really - they think independently? Resistant to influence?

Let's ask Dennis Kucinich.

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?

All together now, to the tune of "Barbara Ann," as popularized by John McCain. The bunker-busting Blu-110 and Blu-117 smart bombs are the middle and bottom respectively.

The Empire moves in mysterious ways...or it posts its military shipping manifests in public places. Since many duties formerly performed by the US military are now outsourced to private contractors, it's sometimes harder to shield activities from the public.

Unless you live in the United States, where you will be saved from learning about such details by our benevolent corporate media.

That's why this story from Scotland is so interesting. The Navy, according to public records, is shipping hundreds of bunker-busting smart bombs to a US military base in the Indian Ocean. Now which of our many terrorist enemies might have underground bunkers that need busting? Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Militants in Iraq? Those pesky Hamas leaders in Lebanon and Gaza? Not them?

How about Iran! The government in Tehran been raised as a specter of global doom for the last decade by the USA. Probably because they figured out that if they have a nuclear bomb, the USA won't attack them. So it appears that the Nobel Peace Prize winner has approved moving some heavy weaponry into place for another round of saber rattling. Or something more.

Now Mr. Obama is a smoother fellow than his predecessors, so he might not go public with the overt threats for a while. But rest assured that the Iranian government is aware that the big bombs are heading over for rapid deployment, should the situation arise. For the opinions of European observers following the developments, read all about it here: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/final-destination-iran-1.1013151

Good to see that yet another Bush-Cheney priority - using the military might of the Empire to cower those who don't want to play ball by our rules - is alive and well in the Obama Administration.

By "yet another", I'm thinking about the renewal of the Patriot Act, the refusal to totally to abolish torture as a tool, contract renewals for Blackwater - oops, I mean Xe - and expanding both the military and private contractor base in Afghanistan...well, I guess the USA didn't really change anything with the 2008 presidential election.

A different smiling face, and a little less bluster. The actions remain depressingly consistent.

"The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology." - Michael Parenti (political scientist, author)

The Creation Of Music - Depends On The Venue

Click on the post title, and you will be transported to www.davidbyrne.com, where you will find an excellent entry in his on-line Journals entitled "Valentine's Day." But the post is not about the greeting-card holiday.

Rather, it's about a talk the singer/songwriter/artist/all-around intriguing guy gave called "Creation In Reverse", a theory about music, delivered at a recent conference in California called TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design). His thesis: the creation of music is as dependent on the venue in which it is heard as much as any other internal/external forces at work.

As someone who has dabbled in writing music for over twenty years, I found it fascinating, both as an idea as well as a thumbnail history of the evolution of music. Check it out!

Unsolved Mysteries Are Usually Conspiracies - That's My Theory

Around the world - and increasingly in the USA - the official government story about the events of September 11, 2001, as issued by the 9/11 Commission is being questioned.

The term "conspiracy theory" is used as shorthand by establishment-types to identify wackos and nutjobs and others who might have a thinking brain able to form intelligent questions. However, there is little doubt that the attacks, explosions and demolitions in New York City and Washington, D.C. were not carried out by single assailants - a crew conspiring to do damage was organized, trained and deployed. That's my theory. The question is, who were the conspirators?

The 9/11 Commission was forbidden from investigating that particular aspect. Not that it's resulting slipshod inquiry would have uncovered anything substantial.

A recent article by Elizabeth Woodward, published online at Global Research, details media stories about 9/11 from around the world that have appeared in the last fifteen months. Her survey shows a shift is taking place: the official 9/11 story is openly debated and openly doubted. Go here and see this excellent summary of world news stories, including my favorite: from Focus Money, a German business magazine, an article plainly called "We Don't Believe You": http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WOO20100214&articleId=17624

As mentioned in that overview, some American media outlets - including the mighty Time Warner conglomerate - have started to approach the subject less hysterically. TW's newly launched TruTV (formerly Court TV) includes a show called "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura." The former governor of Minnesota hosts weekly explorations of mysteries, and included a show called "9/11" in its first season (http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/mysterious_ways.html). Notable in this episode are the appearances of several top 9/11 independent researchers.

A series of acts on 9/11/01 have led the USA to spend trillions of dollars on war, eradicate traditional American civil liberties via the Patriot Act and other laws, and cemented America's reputation as a thuggish global emissary for violence and disaster capitalism. At the very least, the events of 9/11 deserve a new investigation - and voices around the world are turning up the volume on that initiative.

Who Needs A Warrant? We Just Want To See Your Cell Phone Records

The Obama Administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) is arguing in federal court to allow the government access to private citizen cell phone records without a warrant, without showing any probable cause.

Previous court decisions, during the Bush Administration, ruled against the government's case - but the current DOJ is moving ahead anyway. Government lawyers argue that private citizens have no Fourth Amendment protections when it comes to private telephone company records regarding cell phone usage, including Global Positioning System (GPS) information.

Sprint revealed that it received over 8 million information requests from government/law enforcement entities, and has over 110 employees assigned to process this activity. A Sprint spokesman also said that every telecom has such a team.

The ACLU and Electronic Frontiers Foundation have joined the legal battle.

Why does the government feel it is above the established rule of law? Why does the government feel it is imperative that no warrants and no probable cause evidence be presented to judges and courts? Why does the government want to further tie telecommunications corporations into its legal apparatus?

What do you think? Read more here:
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/obama-attorneys-argue-warrantless-cell-phone-tracking/

"My Country Has Been Hijacked" by Cynthia McKinney

Cynthia McKinney is a true American patriot. A former six-term member of the House Of Representatives representing Georgia as a Democrat, she left the party in 2007 to run as the Green Party candidate for President in 2008. McKinney is also an outspoken commentator on all things related to 9/11.

In short, Ms. McKinney does not mince words when it comes to politics and power. Here is a transcript of a speech she gave at a peace rally in Munich, Germany in February 2010.

Thank you for allowing me to come from the United States and participate in this rally for peace.

My country has been hijacked by a criminal cabal intent on using the hard-earned dollars of the American people for war, occupation, and empire.

As a result, the national leadership of my country, both Democratic and Republican, became complicit in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace.

As a Member of Congress from the Democratic Party, I drafted Articles of Impeachment against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice. Later, when Democrats voted to support more war rather than take care of the needs of the people, I declared my independence from them and all national leadership; the Green Party nominated me to run for President, which I did on a platform of truth, justice, peace, and dignity.

I watched as Candidate Barack Obama came here to Germany to speak. I saw tears on the faces of many in the crowd who believed that, finally, there was something worth believing in again. That America had turned a page from its evil playbook that had so outraged and disappointed the world. That good was finally about to triumph over evil.

I know that beleaguered people all over the world, victims of cruel and deadly military, economic, imperial policies finally could believe in hope and change. And America could be believed in again.

Everywhere I went all over the world there were pictures of Barack Obama, slogans “Yes, We Can,” and the words “Hope” and “Change” plastered everywhere.

And after eight years of George W. Bush, Barack Obama seemed to be the man the world was waiting for.

So when the Candidate became the President, we held our breath in anticipation.

That torture and rendition; spying on innocent, dissenting Americans; war and occupation; crimes against the U.S. Constitution and crimes against the peace would end and that the United States would finally join the community of nations.

Sadly, one year into the Presidency of Barack Obama, that is not the case.

On our front door step we have witnessed U.S. complicity in the overthrow of President Zalaya in Honduras and the hostile takeover of Haiti by 20,000 troops with guns sent in when the devastated people needed food, doctors, and heavy lifting equipment.

President Obama is expanding U.S. troop presence in Colombia, threatening the people’s gains in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

President Obama has drones killing innocent people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. And Administration lawyers are trying to figure out how to legally kill U.S. citizens. You even have U.S. assassination teams on German soil!

Sadly, President Obama is guilty of every item I cited in my Articles of Impeachment against President Bush.

Both Tony Blair and President Obama justify war in Afghanistan by citing the tragedy of the September 11th attacks in New York and on the Pentagon. But my government has not told the truth about what really happened that day. Just like they lied to start a war against Iraq.

So what are we to do? Let us work together on behalf of truth, justice, peace, and dignity. I will struggle in the U.S. and I will struggle with you:

Not one more dime for war.

We can’t give in and we can’t give up. We must take our countries back.

Joe Walsh Vs Joe Walsh

Guitar maestro and talented singer/songwriter Joe Walsh issues the old cease-and-desist to a politico candidate in Illinois who happens to share his name. And who is illegally utilizing one of Joe's tunes as a campaign ditty.

It's funny to me that this kind of thing keeps happening over the years - Reagan using Springsteen, Tom Petty and Jackson Browne getting co-opted. Is it me, or are the offenders mainly conservative/Republicans?

In any case, life's been good to musician Joe Walsh and he's refusing to walk away, calling time out, becoming the bomber; stealing songs may be okay in Illinois, but it's not the Rocky Mountain way! What is this candidate Joe Walsh doing, living a life of illusion?

At a James Gang reunion show I saw a couple of summers ago, Joe mused on running for President. Why not a rock star musician in office? As former Texas gubernatorial candidate and singer/songwriter/author Kinky Friedman has famously said, "How hard can it be?"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/01/joe-walsh-vs-joe-walsh-the-rock-star-wrestles-with-a-tea-party-copyright-infringer.html

Howard Zinn 1922 - 2010

"From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble." - Howard Zinn, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (1994).

It's hard to imagine a world without Howard Zinn, a singular human being and citizen of the planet. His penetrating and honest recounting of the hidden history of power in the USA and the world influenced millions. But now Zinn has died, in the fashion he lived much of his life - on the road, speaking and teaching.

The teacher has passed on, yet his lessons remain: imagining a better world was Zinn's message.

I never created the opportunity to hear him in person, something I now regret. This summer I read the graphic novel "A People's History Of American Empire," the latest iteration of themes first presented in Zinn's game-changing book "A People's History Of The United States." Highly recommended as an introduction to some real American history, with arresting visuals:

There will be hundreds of articles in the coming days, weeks and months reflecting on Zinn. Here's nice one from Fred Branfman at the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-branfman/howard-zinn-has-died-long_b_440480.html

The Only Rational Response

The only rational response to the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns.

Corporate Money Wins

Stunning news yesterday - the Supreme Court has opened the door for corporations to jump into political campaigns with both feet. Go here to read/watch a very clear explanation about the decision and the background of the case:http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/

Going forward, it's legally possible for these "persons" (as corporations long ago gained many of the same legal rights/protections as individuals) to openly spend money in elections - oops, I mean exercise their right of free speech - just like any other "person."

Of course corporations already dominate the political/government landscape - but now they can forgo those pesky rules about PACs, corporate money bundling, and other contributory efforts.

Individual citizens are still face a dollar limit on contributions to any single federal campaign. Corporate "citizens" - probably not.

I guess the "equal-opportunity" of the American system provides a solution: the interested citizens can set up a corporate entities to increase their electoral spending power - oops, I mean amplify their message. That seems simple enough! Then those citizens can successfully compete with messages being sent by their fellow citizens, named Goldman-Sachs, Haliburton, etc.

"Swift boat"-style ads are where corporations may now indulge freely. The overall effect on hearing both sides of an issue in the media - already a massive challenge - will be chilling. Writer/legal consultant Richard Goldberg on the tattered state of regulating money and elections:

As many have noted, this amounts to a significant gutting of our already tepid campaign finance laws, and it will allow corporations like Aetna—if they can find a political issue about which they feel strongly (can anyone think of one?)—to use corporate funds, derived from success in the economic marketplace, to defeat candidates in the political marketplace. That political marketplace, which was once called the "marketplace of ideas," may henceforth be called the "marketplace of whichever corporation can buy the most ads." This money will be spent nearly without regulation.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/17055/can-anything-fix-our-broken-campaign-finance-system-part-i

Journalist Greg Palast weighs in on the Supreme Court ruling. He explores some scenarios and analyzes the potential real-life results of the decision. His assertion that the Obama campaign of 2008 was majority-funded by individual citizen contributions has been proven wrong, but he raises pertinent issues - like the potential that foreign governments/mega-corporations, with a registered U.S. corporate arms (gotta love Joe Biden's Delaware, home of the corps), could spend without restriction on political campaigns.

The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens United case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign governments. (Ted) Olson (arguing in favor of the plaintiff) offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.

http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-to-ok-al-qaeda-donation-for-sarah-palin/

Wow, really? It's a bad idea to restrict foreign interests from participating financially in our electoral system?

If that's the case, our system is broken. The two-party system of government "by the people, for the people" has been purchased by business interests - and one of the last see-through curtains shielding us from that reality has been removed.

Corporations are organizations of people - a small minority of our population with a majority of the money. Time for the majority population to figure out how to exercise influence. It won't be through a Democrat or Republican political party, although we can scare them into some action.

It's best to seek another path - let's think seriously about reforming the entire system so it benefits people, not companies, and creates safety and wealth benefits for all - not the minority.

Speaking The Truth - On The State Of The Democrat Party

"We have to be more defined as being on the side of the people and not on the side of interest groups that are so entrenched. And we can't do that by playing patty-cake with Wall Street, by caving into the demands of big banks, by playing footsie with insurance companies and by jumping in bed with the pharmaceutical industry." - Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) on his political party.

Speaking the truth, usually unvarnished and clear-eyed, is Representative Dennis Kucinich's stock-in-trade. Thankfully, the voters of his Cleveland district keep returning him to Congress.

Rep. Kucinich, in this interview, outlines his view on the state of the Democratic Party - essential reading.

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/exclusive-kucinich-shreds-democrats/