Tag Archives: foreign-policy

Wikileaks Threatens America’s Imperial Ambitions – Release of Docs Cuts Them Down to Size

Vladimir Putin says that America is one to lecture others about “Democracy”. In a report from RT news this report about the response from Putin over American criticism of his country. In another report, one leaked document has led to a firestorm as Moscow now demands an explanation for revelations that a planned covert action was planned by the US towards Russia. Could it be that these documents are going to cut short America's Imperial Ambitions as the public in other countries begin to see that America is about corporate corruption and money and greed and projection of power, America will loose a major part of their credibility and ability to project that power…even though they have such massive military spending in comparison to the other state actors in the world. The pressure exerted by America seeking to remain the world's sole hegemonic power is that it forces all the allies to consider teaming up to form another alliance. The whole secrecy of international policy or foreign policy in the US is what propels the corruption of corporate power and for a long time it has served as a way for the US to brand “America” like a product and sell the “idea” to the people of the world that it is the “shinning city on the hill that will bring justice to mankind….etc”, but people weigh this in their minds against what they actually see what America does and now the revelations of corporate influence in the wars in Africa, its amazing that people can't see that Wikileaks serves a higher purpose, regardless of what you think about the media image of Julian Assange. This information that gets released can serve as a great equalizer and ensure that no one country has the power to dominate the entire world, for such to allow such a power to exist threatens the entire human race. We know for a fact that most of these government “professional managers” are there to fill their own pockets and that corruption is at the highest levels and trickles down all the way to its underbelly. Most average people who get their information from Mainstream Media Outlets don't get the real story but the censored story that makes America always look like the hero of the story, regardless of the scandal that surrounds individuals that get caught doing the dirty work. http://rt.com/politics/putin-cow-wikileaks/ The wiki revelations are taking over the job the fourth estate was always intended to do, uncover the corruption and blow the whistle. But once the fourth estate became all about profit, then the master it served changed, from the people to the stockholders. I would be interested to hear about what you think about these ideas… added by: jubal

11 reasons why the threat from Al Qaeda is not real

“All governments lie.” You can add to that great quote “and all newspapers lie, too.” -American journalist I. F. Stone. Knowing the truth matters in a democracy because without the truth citizens can’t make informed decisions about government policies that impact their lives. It is not possible to consciously answer fundamental societal questions like “should we go to war?” without a firm grasp of all the facts at hand. When independent journalists fail to provide the simple and straightforward facts to the public, they become complicit in government murder and fraud, and deserve even more ridicule than dishonest government officials and government-owned journalists. 11 Reasons Why The Threat From Al-Qaeda is Not Real Al-Qaeda is either one of these things, or it is a combination of them: a) a completely fake threat; the organization does not exist, b) an organization that exists in small numbers but was created by the CIA to serve a corrupt U.S. foreign policy, and remains a U.S. intelligence asset in the manufactured global war on terrorism, or c) a small organization that exists independently of the U.S. government but its strength and influence in the Middle East is exaggerated by radical policymakers and officials in Washington. Out of all three statements the first and second deserve the most serious attention because they are supported by the evidence listed below. #1. Radical American cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was ordered to be assassinated by President Obama, met with top military officials at the Pentagon months after the 9/11 attacks. #2. CIA Director Leon Panetta revealed in June 2010 on ABC’s This Week that there are less than 100 Al-Qaeda members in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. #3. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), one of the world’s leading security think tanks, published a report this year which said that the threat of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban is exaggerated by Western policymakers. #4. Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview to the Los Angeles Times’s Patt Morrison in October 2010 that Al-Qaeda doesn’t exist. #5. The U.S. government created, and funded Islamic fundamentalism in the 1980s to be used to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, and bleed it to death in a costly and unwinnable war. #6. Robin Cook, who served as a British MP for 22 years and as Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, wrote an article for the Guardian in July 2005, a month before his death, called “The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means.” #7. A BBC article from July 2004 called “Al-Qaeda’s origins and links” reveals that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA agent in the 1980s. #8. J. Michael Springmann, a 20 year foreign service official, and a former Consulate officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, has publicly stated for many years that the CIA brought over Muslim radicals to the United States for secret terrorist training. #9. Germany’s Der Spiegel’s published an article by Siegesmund von Ilsemann called “Arming the Middle East: The Checkered History of American Weapons Deals” in June 2007. The article backed up the reporting done by the BBC, and elsewhere that the United States government “supplied Afghan freedom fighters in the 1980s with money and arms for their struggle against occupying Soviet troops. One of the best customers for the CIA back then was Saudi millionaire Osama Bin Laden.” This account is only half-true. The CIA funded and trained a network of Muslim fighters not to liberate Afghanistan from corrupt Soviet influence, but to create havoc and instigate a Soviet invasion so that it would drain itself of blood and treasure. Once the objective of bringing down the Soviet Union was achieved, the stage was set for the United States and the West to invade Afghanistan and take advantage of the country’s vast resources, from oil to heroin. #10. Selig Harrison, a current member of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, a former senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and an expert on South Asia, said in March 2001 at a conference called “Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia,” that the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI helped create the backward and tyrannical Taliban. #11. The September 11, 2001 attacks, which serve as the basis for America’s wars in the Middle East, were committed by the United States government with assistance from the government of Israel. This is an indisputable fact added by: maasanova

NBC’s Lauer: WikiLeaks is Merely a ‘Messenger’ For Classified Material

On Monday's Today show, NBC's Matt Lauer downplayed the criminal factor in the release of hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic communiques by WikiLeaks, twice labeling the website as only a ” messenger ” for the documents. Both Lauer and NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell insisted the State Department “crossed a line” by ordering diplomats to spy on foreign diplomats at the United Nations. The NBC anchor interviewed Republican Congressman Peter King seven minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour on this latest release of confidential documents by WikiLeaks. Midway through the segment, Lauer raised the espionage issue: “Were you surprised to hear that Secretary of State Clinton and her predecessor, Secretary of State Rice, asked their diplomats to, in effect, spy on diplomats at the United Nations, asking for things like credit card numbers, computer passwords, DNA, fingerprints? This does cross a line, doesn't it? ” read more

Here is the original post:
NBC’s Lauer: WikiLeaks is Merely a ‘Messenger’ For Classified Material

Wikileaks…Wreckless Endangerment or Responsible Journalism?

From unflattering, flippant remarks about foreign leaders to deadly serious security concerns, the massive publication of U.S. diplomatic correspondence by Wikileaks could have one collective and potentially disastrous effect, according to policy officials: the loss of trust in the U.S. government. “I think the greatest harm … is the loss of trust that other governments will have in dealing with the United States of America,” Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told “Good Morning America” today. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange “is putting into danger our foreign policy and perhaps the lives of certain Americans around the world.” Officials in the Obama administration echoed Hoekstra's worries, citing one correspondence in particular that revealed what appeared to be an attempt by Yemeni leaders to mislead their own people — potentially damaging U.S. relations with a country that has proved a dangerous front in the war on terror. http://abcnews.go.com/US/official-wikileaks-greatest-danger-loss-trust/story?id=… added by: congoboy

At Cancun, ‘Climate Change Experts’ Call for End to Developed World Growth for ‘The Next 20 Years’

This would be really funny if it weren't for the fact that so many supposedly informed people, including our president and those who surround him, may actually buy into ideas being proposed at the United Nations-sponsored Cancun climate conference, and will relish the means by which they could be put into place. At the UK Telegraph today, environment correspondent Louise Gray feeds us the following headline and sub-headline: Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind that climate change experts are calling for Second World War-style rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions. From all appearances, such rationing would last at least two decades, during which there would be, by design, no economic growth. Zero, zip, nada. Here are selected paragraphs from Gray's grouse (bolds and number tags are mine): read more

Read more:
At Cancun, ‘Climate Change Experts’ Call for End to Developed World Growth for ‘The Next 20 Years’

Pity the Prez: NYT Blog Hauls Out the ‘Distraction’ Meme Again (Update: Press Treated NoKo as a Distraction in April 2009)

I heard Rush mention this Caucus Blog item at the New York Times on his program today. It seems that the Times's Michael Shear is disappointed that Dear Leader is yet again caught up in a “distraction” (“Pat-Downs Ensnare White House in New Distraction”) It's headlined in the item's browser window as “Pat-Downs Ensnare White House in New Controversy.” Interesting edit, don't you think? If it's a “controversy,” the President owns it. If it's a “distraction,” well, it's an unfair intrusion. Clever. Shear wrapped it in a narrative whose theme was that “It all felt vaguely familiar.” Well, yeah. What's more than vaguely familiar has been the press's tendency to lament the distractions our supposedly otherwise focused like a laser beam chief executive must endure. On April 9, 2009 (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), I noted that “The words 'Obama' and 'distraction' have both appeared in 2,425 articles in just the past 30 days; excluding duplicates, it's about 450.” In his blog entry, Shear listed many other awful distractions the president has encountered. What's interesting are how many of them escalated because of Obama or people working directly for him: read more

See the article here:
Pity the Prez: NYT Blog Hauls Out the ‘Distraction’ Meme Again (Update: Press Treated NoKo as a Distraction in April 2009)

Not News: IPCC Economist’s Statement That ‘Climate Change’ Is Really About Wealth Redistribution

I owe Ottmar Edenhofer thanks for two things. First, I am grateful that Edenhofer, a German economist who is “co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change,” has a last name on which searching is easy. I quickly determined that his name last name doesn't currently come up in searches at the Associated Press's main web site , the New York Times , the Washington Post , or the Los Angeles Times . That's because he hasn't said or done anything newsworthy, right? Wrong. What's newsworthy is my second reason for thanking him. First covered

Video emerges of Taliban stoning a woman to death in Pakistan

WARNING: The video above is graphic, and beyond disturbing. It is footage of a woman dying under a barrage of stones. But it must be exposed: This is Sharia. This is an act Muhammad approved of and participated in, according to canonical Islamic sources including Sahih (“sound,” “reliable”) Bukhari. This is Islam's “justice,” “compassion,” and “mercy” which apologists will not repudiate, attempting to dodge the issue by assuring the uninformed (and maybe even trying to make themselves believe) that it is not an issue because it is not prescribed in the Qur'an itself. Click here for why that does not make a difference to the Muslims who have continued the practice over the centuries. And what was this woman's crime? Here is the back story. “Rare Video Shows Taliban Allegedly Stoning Woman to Death in Pakistan,” by Megan Chuchmach for ABC News, September 24: 'A rare video reportedly smuggled out of northwest Pakistan allegedly shows a woman being stoned to death by Taliban militants in the upper region of Orakzai. Al Aan, a Dubai-based pan-Arab television channel that focuses on women's issues, said it had obtained cellphone footage that it says shows a woman being executed because she was seen out with a man. The killing reportedly took place two months ago and was smuggled out by a Taliban member who attended the stoning, according to Al Aan. ABC News could not independently confirm the cellphone video's authenticity. The video, which seems to show a woman tethered to the ground as a group of men throw stones at her, is so graphic that ABC News cannot show it in its entirety. Parts of it air today on the 25th episode of “Brian Ross Investigates.” “It's difficult to know where and when it was shot,” says Gayle Lemmon, deputy director of the Women and Foreign Policy Program at the Council of Foreign Relations, in an interview with Ross, “It is consistent with videos that have been coming from Taliban-controlled areas since the '90s.” Lemmon says that when women “stray outside the line” in Taliban-controlled areas, they may “face severe punishment.” “Women are respected as carriers of the family honor,” says Lemmon, “but they also pay the price.”… Gee, what a great system: be “honored” or be killed! The ABC link has its own video, including a mostly dismal interview with Lemmon, who hedges on whether this has anything to do with Islam.' But we know better. added by: crystalman

Newsweek to American Guys: We Can Learn Some Lessons from Europe on How to Be a Man

“To survive in a hostile world, guys need to embrace girly jobs and dirty diapers,” argued the Newsweek writers Andrew Romano and Tony Dokoupil in the subheadline of their September 20 article “Men’s Lib.” The writers set out to explain “[w]hy it’s time to reimagine masculinity at work and at home.” If American men want to be competitive in a global economy, they argued, they need to suck it up and get comfortable with the idea of working traditionally “girly jobs” and/or being stay at home dads: It’s possible to imagine protectionist trade and immigration policies boosting blue-collar employment at the margins. But the U.S. can’t stop globalization. If male morale—and the American economy—are ever going to recover, the truth is that the next generation of Homer Simpsons will have to stop searching for outsourced manufacturing jobs and start working toward teaching, nursing, or social-service positions instead. Fair enough. But Romano and Dokoupil also cast their gaze across the Atlantic, arguing America needs public policies that emulate European countries on paid parental leave, particularly paid paternal leave (emphasis mine): In 1995, Sweden passed a simple but revolutionary law: couples would lose one month of leave unless the father was the one who took it. A second use-it-or-lose-it month was added in 2002, and now more than 80 percent of Swedish fathers take four months off for the birth of a new child, up from 4 percent a decade ago. And a full 41 percent of companies now formally encourage fathers to go on parental leave, up from only 2 percent in 1993. Simply put, men are expected to work less and father more. By altering the roles of the Swedish father and the Swedish worker, Sweden’s paternity-leave legislation has, in turn, rewritten the rules for Swedish men (and, by extension, women). “Swedish dads of my generation and younger have been raised to feel competent at child-rearing,” writes Slate’s Nathan Hegedus, an American who experienced the system firsthand. “They simply expect to do it, just as their wives and partners expect it of them.” If a man refuses time at home with the kids, he faces questions from friends, family, and, yes, other guys. Policy changes produced personal changes—and then, slowly but surely, society changed as well. The implication is clear: American society must be engineered to catch up with the needs of a rapidly-changing global economy, and what better mechanism to make that progress than government. In fairness to Romano and Dokoupli, they do make a case for personal, spousal, and parental responsibility by American men at the close of their article: Ultimately, the New Macho boils down to a simple principle: in a changing world, men should do whatever it takes to contribute their fair share at home and at work, and schools, policymakers, and employers should do whatever they can to help them. After all, what’s more masculine: being a strong, silent, unemployed absentee father, or actually fulfilling your half of the bargain as a breadwinner and a dad? But the fact that this duo of  writers feel the need to preach this message is a window into the condescending view many liberal journalists take on the great unwashed masses who aren’t reading their pontifications.

Excerpt from:
Newsweek to American Guys: We Can Learn Some Lessons from Europe on How to Be a Man

Hollywood Feminism: Women Smart, Men Dumb

“Feminism is a Crock – and Other True Stories.” That’s the title for a book I’d like to write someday. The reason I say feminism is a crock is because it has morphed from “equal rights for all” to “women are better than men, and if you disagree you’re a sexist pig who should be castrated.” It’s also morphed into a sexual free-for-all: what used to be sauce for the gander (and those ganders were usually considered cads) is now sauce for the goose. This image is being perpetuated by pop culture and entertainment, and women are more and more frequently being portrayed as strong through their sexuality, not through their actual accomplishments. Is this the standard to which we want our daughters to aspire? Early feminists fought against the centuries-old image of a “woman on a pedestal.” Gloria Steinem (she of the “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” who in later years ended up getting married anyway) once said, “A pedestal is as much a prison as any small, confined space.” I suppose a bra is also a small, confined space, which might explain the bra burnings of the 1960s. But the early feminists had a point – to a point. If a woman wants to be put on a pedestal and admired and adored, fine. But if she doesn’t, she should have the right to do with her life as she chooses. She should be free to pursue any vocation  for which she is qualified,  either as a single or married woman, children or no children. But one of the problems with the new feminism was the annoying little fact that children could get in the way of this brave new world. Having to either stay at home with the little tykes or find daycare for them – not to mention all of the discomfort and disfiguration that comes with pregnancy itself – sure put a damper on Gloria Steinem’s idea of a “liberated woman” being “one who has sex before marriage and a job after.” Unbridled sex does, after all, have consequences. And so,  according to historian Elaine Tyler May, birth control was “an important tool to gain control over their lives.” May touts the contributions of Margaret Sanger, whose group eventually became known as Planned Parenthood, conveniently ignoring – as many do –  Sanger’s devotion to eugenics . Sanger spoke of sterilizing those “unfit” to contribute to the gene pool, a group which included not only blacks and other ethnic minorities but, according to  Sanger associate Dr. Harry Laughlin, the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.” What a classy group of people. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against safe, legitimate birth control methods. But when tooting the horn of the likes of Margaret Sanger, we need to be honest about what really drove her pursuit of birth control for women, just as we should be honest about what drives the abortion mills of Planned Parenthood –  profit . And quelle surprise – Planned Parenthood as we know it really  came into its own in the 1960s . In a nutshell: True feminists of the time felt that you could only be a feminist if you rebelled against the natural workings of your body and eschewed marriage and motherhood  for a “higher cause.” There are still many of the old guard around today. But the times, they are a changin’. Fast forward to 2010. Many would say the fight for equal rights has pretty much been won. Girls can dream of going to college and becoming airline pilots, electrical and biological engineers, teachers, doctors – the list is almost endless. In fact,  more women graduate with college degrees than men  – perhaps  due in part  to more focus being put on girls than boys in school to “make up for” previous inequality and also what is being called the feminization of society (what Rush Limbaugh calls “chickification”). And for years, the entertainment industry has done its part for the last 20 or 30 years by portraying men as bumbling but lovable fools who wouldn’t be where they are if it weren’t for the very attractive, smart-as-a-whip women they somehow managed to marry. Television’s  Home Improvement  and King of Queens  are two of the more recent examples. And, of course,  commercials like this one . So even if the woman did commit the sin of marrying, she always had the redeeming quality of having the upper hand in just about any situation. Earlier, I said that unbridled sex without birth control or easy access to abortion has the consequence of pregnancy and childbirth. Today, unbridled sex with birth control and easy access to abortion combined with an increasingly “anything goes” attitude in society and pop culture gets girls who have as their role models the like of Paris Hilton, the Kardashian sisters, Snooki from MTV’s  Jersey Shore  and various other “celebrities.” Their claim to fame is not similar to being the  first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean  or  receiving the Nobel Prize for pioneering work in radiation , but for on-camera antics like tanning, catfights, and puking after binge drinking, and having their “sex tapes” released to the press for quick and easy profit. Too many are the next target of the creator of the  Girls Gone Wild  video series, which shows images of drunken girls taking off their tops and making out with one another. We also have the likes of Lady Gaga, who makes Madonna look like a choir girl – almost. And those who begin their careers as wholesome young things (Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears, Christina Aguilera, Lindsey Lohan, Miley Cyrus) often decide that “growing up” must mean “giving out” – figuratively speaking in some cases, not so figuratively in others. As the mother of two girls, one just starting college this year and the other starting high school, I find these so-called role models severely lacking. Writing for  Macleans , Anne Kingston also notes this disturbing trend. As those she interviews see it, the fight for women’s equality is not over but has taken a giant step backward because of something called “enlightened sexism”: where women are not only “empowered” by overtly flaunting their sexuality, but are also obsessed with getting married. Certainly this new trend in the entertainment media, which exploits this so-called sexual empowerment for fun and profit, is partially to blame. But what about the parents? Where are they? Sure there are the mothers quoted in Anne Kingston’s article who are upset about this trashy turn of events. Unfortunately, there are plenty of others who are pushing the trend. I was in TJ Maxx some time ago and heard two women talking, excited because the store was finally carrying the tacky  Juicy Couture  clothing line. Yet I had to wonder – were they excited because they could buy it for their children or were they excited for themselves? Just a couple of weeks ago, I saw an older, heavyset woman at the mall who was with a boy who looked like he might be her grandson. She was wearing a tight t-shirt with the word Juicy across the front and it was painfully obvious that she wasn’t wearing a bra. Nothing like mutton dressed like lamb a la  Absolutely Fabulous . Blech. Then there’s the  recent story  about skinny jeans for toddlers. Why anyone would put their two- or three-year-old in an item of clothing usually connected with sexuality is beyond me. But then we have shows like TLC’s  Toddlers & Tiaras , where some think ” beauty pageant stage parents make Jon and Kate Gosselin look like Ward and June Cleaver .” There are notorious stage parents like Dina Lohan, who has  done her best  to  launch her own career  on the back of her daughter, nearly sucking her dry. Double blech. My take? The left tried its hand at social engineering in the name of equality – but rather than focusing on equal rights in education and the workplace,  ended up giving women the same “rights” as men in the arena of sex with no consequences. Religion and morality were for squares, no matter what  Huey Lewis might have said . Yet it has backfired. Girls still like to look pretty and still like to attract boys. However, now they don’t have to worry about public stigma for public misbehavior. A girl who would once be labeled a skank for certain behavior is now celebrated.  Be famous for being a no-talent party girl with an expanding rap sheet ! No need to ” settle with a man just to have that child .” Go back to the creep who  used your face for a punching bag . Turn yourself into a  literal caricature through plastic surgery . You deserve it. You’ve come a long way, baby . Here’s hoping you can find your way home again. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

Read more:
Hollywood Feminism: Women Smart, Men Dumb