Response to Thomas Jackson, Post #3
The truth is that the federal reserve system (not part of our government, but a private monopoly) started the whole thing by flooding the market with liquidity - inviting debt, both good and bad.
We, as Americans have no say and either does our government. They print as much money and create as much liquidity as they want. They answer to no one and are siphoning off the wealth of the middle class.
When Americans begin to understand that we have no control over the federal reserve, then they will begin to realize that the federal reserve actually controls us.
Most in government and many in the media know this but won't say a word.Comment Posted By DrKrbyLuv On 11.07.2008 @ 18:19
Phil Gramm is one of the most corrupt Senators to have ever served in the Congress. The "Enron Loophole" was crafted by Mr. Gramm for his wife, who was with Enron at the time. The bad legislation stays with us as we now see speculators driving up the cost of gas through the Enron Loophole.
The most bizarre part is that John McCain actually still defends the Enron loophole - http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/051908Leopold.shtml
McCain is clueless about the economy so he has hired Gramm to teach him how to best profit at the expense of the taxpayers. McCain has some experience in corruption through his involvement in the Keating S&L scandal. Gramm may be able to teach him how to actually get away with theft without messy government oversight.Comment Posted By DrKrbyLuv On 11.07.2008 @ 10:47
American politics is a joke. Obama and McCain are both terrible candidates and our media is just as bad with all the race crap they seem to be enthralled with. Can we please get to some issues?Comment Posted By DrKrbyLuv On 10.07.2008 @ 16:28
It has become clear that Bush’s real plan in invading Iraq was for oil and to establish a military fortress in the heart of the Middle East. Forget the phony WMDs and any talk of creating a democracy for the downtrodden people of Iraq.
Bush continues to "secretly" negotiate with Prime Minister Maliki. Senator Casey PA-D) spoke from the senate floor recently in asking that Bush allow Congressional approval of any deal being proposed. Bush and his cronies have been telling the American people and Congress to go to hell for the last seven years by operating a secret and contemptuous administration that refuses to be restrained by law and public opinion – nowhere is this more evident than with the secret negotiations with Iraq. Why doesn’t our congress have any say in any long term agreements with Iraq? Why won’t disclose the plan to the American people?
Bush’s plan to steal as much Iraqi oil as possible -
Bush and the oil companies put together a sweetheart deal that would have given them exclusive rights on most of Iraq's oil. It looked like a done deal as contracts looked imminent. However, yesterday, Iraq told Bush and the competing oil companies to go to hell when Iraq's Oil Minister; Hussein al-Shahristani, told a press briefing:
"We did not finalise any agreement with them because they refused to offer consultancy based on fees as they wanted a share of the oil. Iraq will not enter into production-sharing contracts with any energy major, while service arrangements for overseas firms would require locals partners. We think there is no need to share Iraq's oil with anybody."
Bush’s plan to make Iraq a “client state” -
Some of the details have been made public (Iraq informs their people and both the prime minister and their parliament must approve the deal) which has created quite a controversy as the Iraqi people, clerics and Government representatives are uniting in opposition to any "agreement" that strips them of their national sovereignty - God bless them! Not to be deterred, Bush issued a threat, essentially blackmail in the amount of $50 billion dollars, to pressure Iraq into accepting his terms.
The Iraqis are reasonable in objecting to Bush's demand for 58 military bases. Iraq would become a client state instead of a sovereign state. And the Iraqis know their country would be used by the US to launch covert military operations in both Iran and Syria and they would be pulled into the coming US/Israeli war against Iran.
Bush's rush to get the deal done may be part of a plan to attack Iran. According to press reports; the Bush administration is seeking the "power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq." Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party, confirmed that "the Americans insist that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq."
This language could allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq. The Washington Post explains that the administration is seeking "the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without the approval of Iraq.
A spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr voiced the growing resentment in Iraq in stating that "The agreement must be rejected because it is synonymous with humiliation and disgrace." Jalal al-Din al-Saghir from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq called the US proposals "more abominable than the occupation. Now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation."
The lame duck Bush should stop negotiating in secret. I am certain the vast majority of Americans wants out of Iraq and do not want to build an empire – from the pay checks of the disappearing middle class. Don’t expect Bush to allow Iraq to become a sovereign state. He will fight this tooth and nail. Bush should be placed in country club prison for the remainder of his term to protect us and the world from his diabolical ambitions.
"It has become clear that Bush’s real plan in invading Iraq was for oil..."
Yeah - clear as mud. It's only clear to those who choose to blind themselves to reality.
ed.Comment Posted By DrKrbyLuv On 9.07.2008 @ 11:46
The amazing hypocrisy - NY Times had no compunction regarding revealing the interrogator’s name - but howled mercilessly when Plame was outed.
And as you said...for what purpose? I have been appalled as editorial stuff has slowly become "news." Now, it's incredible to see the editorial stuff become harmful agenda driven propaganda.
On a separate note, what's up with: “”Poland is the 51st state,” one former CIA official recalls James Pavitt, then director of the agency’s clandestine service, declaring. “Americans have no idea.”
Can you elaborate on what they are talking about?Comment Posted By DrKrbyLuv On 7.07.2008 @ 13:10
America was founded by great people who were courageous and unselfish in creating a government of the people, by the people and for the people. This is truly to be celebrated.
I don't see democrats or republicans; or members of the left or the right on Independence Day (calling it the 4th of July is like calling Christmas the sparkle season) - I see only other Americans. I care greatly for the people of America but have only disdain for our current president/regime, contempt for our do nothing cowardly congress and especially loath the illegal federal reserve system that has become a parasite, sapping the prosperity and freedom from our citizens.
Today, our government is much more akin to the tyrants who ruled the English empire than to the humble, restrained and law abiding government our forefathers created.
I took great pleasure in lighting off illegal fireworks as a patriotic act of defiance in the face of a government that has become largely dysfunctional, corrupt and criminal. This is not their nation, it is ours, and we need to take it back.
Stop by and read my patriotic post at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/4/20614/42125/818/534118Comment Posted By DrKrbyLuv On 5.07.2008 @ 15:49
This is an extension of a comment I had posted here earlier.
I can understand why Adams and Ruttledge would have a hot debate about the slavery language - but where was Jefferson in the debate? Adams and the others seemed content to yield in order to keep the coalition from splitting. But Jefferson always seemed to put his philosophies and beliefs above any convenience or compromise.
Did Jefferson say anything of note in that heated debate?
Jefferson didn't think it his place to argue for his creation. He sat in a corner and, according to Adams, sulked. He was apparently upset that they were mangling his masterwork.
ed.Comment Posted By DrKrbyLuv On 3.07.2008 @ 15:12
Just read your “Liveblogging the Battle of Gettysburg” - an exceptional series that I throughly enjoyed. History often presents great leaders more as iconic figures rather than real people - it is worthwhile to recount their experiences in a present tense so that they may come to life.
I look forward to tomorrows "Jefferson’s declaration comes up for debate." I have often wondered how much Jefferson's great document was edited in coming up with a final version. Jefferson is one of my great heroes, but I suspect his original wording of the Declaration would need diluted before others would sign.
Bring it on!Comment Posted By DrKrbyLuv On 2.07.2008 @ 13:32
The second amendment seems pretty clear to me - people have the right to own firearms. Local politicians and agencies should simply comply.
Stop by and read my: "Iraq tells Bush to go to hell...twice"Comment Posted By DrKrbyLuv On 1.07.2008 @ 20:28
Negative attacks have been found to be a very successful strategy in American politics. When honestly applied, negativity is integral and natural to the healthy debate process. Negativity can be used to contrast differences between candidates, address specific shortcomings and reassure the loyal.
Unfortunately, the strategy of negative attacks has been perverted to include smear campaigns, ad hominem attacks and straw man fallacies, all intended to
demonize rather than to contrast or illuminate. Hit men like John Aravosis are ineffective on their own – offering no substantial dialogue. They rely on others to join the chorus; it is their combined voices that bring a certain amount of credibility to what is no more than an ugly smear.
Of course there is a downside to this strategy. While it may help galvanize the loyal; it is often seen as propaganda that turns undecided and independent voters to apathy and antipathy towards the election process and our political institutions.
The Obama people are playing to this end. They know that as things stand, their base will come out in mass at the voting booths. McCain lacks a solid base and even if 60% of Americans prefer him, only a percentage of those will actually vote. Expect to see a lot more of this “Aravosis” ugliness as evidenced by some of the new websites devoted entirely to this end (I won’t mention them by name or link them).
I am passionately against McCain’s candidacy but still acknowledge and respect that he is a true American war hero. I cannot imagine the terrible horror and suffering that he must have gone through in service of this country and to be sure, very few of us could have survived the ordeal.
This election is by far the most important in my lifetime. America is at a critical crossroad. This is a time for serious debate, we have no time for Aravosis and his ilk.Comment Posted By DrKrbyLuv On 30.06.2008 @ 12:42