Do American Men Want Their Women To Know How To Protect Themselves?

From a Conversation between Jim Higginbotham and Elizabeth Sutton Whereby Elizaberth Kicks All Men's Asses

-----

Hi.
Elisabeth, your right, but i do know you have never been in combat, and i hope you NEVER are.
it's not something most of who have just up and talk about like people do at tea parties for general conversation.
i talk to other Vets but we almost never talk about what we did in combat, and especially a MIXED CROWD.
if the subject comes up and it does from time to time, we talk in generalities ext.
i will say this it's NOT like in the MOVIES.
your a LADY, and me being a SOUTHERN MAN, i was raised we PROTECT THE LADIES, NOT crawling in the MUD AND BLOOD with us, it's FINE for our ladies to know how to shoot and be able to PROTECT the HOME AND KIDS if were away,
im from the OLE SCHOOL and i NEVER CHANGE, and i NEVER COMPROMISE, when it comes to DEFENDING THE LADIES AND KIDS AND OUR HOMES.
you WOMEN are the SOFT SIDE OF GOD, you bring forth LIFE, your NOT LIFE TAKERS, that's OUT JOB WHEN NEEDED.
hope you had a good weekend, and them WHO DAT BOYS WON THE SUPERBOWL, the SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN.

Semper Fi.

 
Jim

_______________________________________________________

Jim,

Well, how you were raised has precious little to do with where we find ourselves today, regardless of gender and age.   It may be your preference to hold your opinions of how things "should" be, but those opinions have little to do with how things are.

You are constantly calling for people to rise up.  Who exactly do you think is going to do that?  All  (and only) males over the age of 18?  Think again...time immemorial, women have taken up arms in combat.  They have fought alongside men, died with their comrades, husbands, kings...and yet it is uniquely the unlearned American society which seeks to "protect" women from the knowledge and experience necessary to insure their survival. 

The Inquisition had the extermination of women developed to an art form.  The Romans marched across what is now modern day Europe removing inheritance from women, and raping, scourging, and burning women.  Kosovo had entire rape compounds set up for thousands of women and children.  If they didn't die from the abuse, they were shunned by families when returning home with babies conceived in those rapes.    Even today, rape is a tactic of war.  What the fuck do you mean this or that conversation is not for a "mixed crowd."  Do you honestly believe that women do not understand that they are and have been the most sought after prey on earth?  Do you think that by not speaking of combat, and blood, and mud, and guts that we are somehow "protected"? 

If you think to "protect" us, then in the name of all things Holy, you teach the ways and means of self protection.  You think it is "fine" for us to know how to shoot and defend the home and children while you are away?  I think it incumbent upon you to insure that your "life givers" know how to efficiently take a life.

I grow weary with this illusion that men protect women by treating them as though they were children.  How protected do you think they will be in an armed conflict? 

And when you tell us that we have "no place" in combat, then you take something from us that you do not understand.  I cannot explain it to you.  You need to think about what that means.  The first thing I wonder is does that mean that you will feel better if we die from wounds inflicted upon us in our homes, just so long as we didn't have to "see" the horrors of combat?  Or does it mean that what you choose to believe about our proper place is more important to you than our ability to survive? 

Now, I do not have a problem with men in general.  I have a problem with people who will say anything to protect their sacred cows.  If you men love us women, you will teach us to fight.  If you men love your idea of what women should be, and where we should stay, then you men love your ideas, not us.
Now I am not waiting for any of you to decide that for me.  I have learned it, and am learning it.  For all the world, you can't be out slaying the dragon and home protecting the women at the same time.  The sooner you accept that, the better our chances of survival.

Elizabeth

What the Feds Fear the Most

Earthhope Action Network

The Return of Nullification

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Today is the official release date for my new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Nullification, as many readers of this site already know, refers to the power of a state to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional federal law. Most Americans have never heard of the idea, or know of it only in caricature – which is pretty much the way the New York Times likes it.

When he memorably laid out the case for nullification in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson argued that if the federal government were allowed to hold a monopoly on determining what its powers were, we would have no right to be surprised when it kept discovering new ones. I’ve elaborated on all this in previous articles.

This important – if routinely distorted or even forgotten – history takes on unexpected relevance today, with a resurgence of interest in nullification growing all over the country, and no shortage of unconstitutional laws to which to apply it. The Tenth Amendment Center’s Legislative Tracking Page gives you some idea of the extent of a movement that is only just getting started. The purpose of my book Nullification is to make the strongest, most solidly referenced case I can in support of one of the healthiest developments in American political life in decades, and to serve as a kind of handbook for those who are serious about pursuing it.

Part II of the book contains eleven important documents hardly any American has read, but which lend additional support to the case for nullification. One of these documents has not appeared in print anywhere since 1835, yet it makes some of the strongest arguments for nullification, and against critics, I have ever read.

You can imagine what the response of critics will be to a book like this. Let me put that more strongly: you can script the critical replies down to the last syllable. If the book’s arguments are addressed at all, they will be treated at a strictly second-grade level. (Official Left and Right agree on more than they care to admit, an unswerving commitment to nationalism being one of those things.) The rest of the so-called reply will run like this: Nullification is a secret plot to restore the southern Confederacy, and Woods himself is a sinister person with wicked intentions, before which all his fancy moral and constitutional arguments are nothing but a devious smokescreen.

Anyone who actually reads the book, on the other hand, will discover, among many other things, that the Principles of ’98 – as these decentralist ideas came to be known – were in fact resorted to more often by northern states than by southern, and from 1798 through the second half of the nineteenth century were used in support of free speech and free trade, and against the fugitive-slave laws, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and the prospect of military conscription, among other examples. Nullification was employed not in support of slavery but against it.

Today, political decentralization is gathering steam in all parts of the country, for all sorts of reasons. I fail to see the usefulness of the term "neo-Confederate" – whatever this Orwellian neologism is supposed to mean – in describing a movement that includes California’s proposal to decriminalize marijuana, two dozen states’ refusal to abide by the REAL ID Act, and a growing laundry list of resistance movements to federal government intrusion. As states north and south, east and west, blue and red, large and small discuss the prospects for political decentralization, the zombies can intone scary-sounding propaganda words, instead of engaging in rational argument, all they like. The grownups, meanwhile, have important matters to discuss.

Who’s the book’s intended audience? Well, anyone and everyone, of course, as any author will tell you. But it may have particular appeal to those who actually want to roll back government power, who are prepared to embrace a new approach (given that all previous efforts against Washington’s expansion have been abject failures), and who aren’t altogether convinced that a vote for Mitt Romney in 2012 means the republic is restored. The book can also help state legislators who are unaware of or on the fence about nullification, by reassuring them that in taking this seemingly radical step they will be on eminently solid historical and constitutional ground – and that lots of state legislatures are already doing it. It also takes aim at the various objections that have been raised against nullification, from the merely uncomprehending (doesn’t this violate the Supremacy Clause?), to the more practical (wouldn’t nullification be chaotic?), to the historical (isn’t this all about slavery and oppression?).

The various categories of bad guy – e.g., law professors, Chris Matthews, the New York Times – have responded to the return of nullification about as you’d expect them to. Why, the stupid rubes think they can resist their overlords! Smear! Destroy! Crush! To the extent that such critics make any arguments at all, as opposed to mere character assassination, they either beg the question entirely or reveal a lack of acquaintance with the primary source material that would be embarrassing if such people were capable of embarrassment.

As I noted above, I’ve actually included a good portion of that source material in Part II of Nullification. Including these documents (1) makes it marginally more difficult for critics to pretend such documents do not exist, (2) helps supply advocates of nullification with additional supporting material, and (3) arms high school and college students with material they can use to drive their teachers and professors crazy, since almost none of them will be familiar with it.

As I promote the book I’ll surely be posting about my exploits on the LewRockwell.com blog, as well as on my Facebook page, my Twitter account, and my YouTube channel. It’s hard to say whether a book like this will get much media exposure, so I’d be grateful for anything supportive readers might do to help get the word out about it.

I’ll also be doing some traveling. Over the next few months I’ll be in Las Vegas, Nashville, Austin, Philadelphia (King of Prussia), Orlando, Eau Claire (Wisconsin), Dallas, Colorado Springs, Bloomington (Indiana University), Houston, Auburn (Alabama), and Phoenix; at most of these events I’ll be discussing the book, and at all of them I’ll have copies. Here’s my full schedule.

Never did I imagine that an issue I assumed would (unfortunately) remain a historical curiosity might actually be resuscitated. To my amazement, it’s being proposed all over the country, in the service of all sorts of good causes. I hope my book encourages more of it, provides supporters with useful intellectual ammunition, and explodes the idea that all we can do in the face of this regime is sit back and take it.

June 28, 2010

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail] holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is the author of ten books, including the just-released Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, and the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Visit his website and blog, follow him on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his YouTube Channel.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Thomas Woods

 

 

Earthhope Action Network

How the Ultimate BP Gulf Disaster Could Kill Millions

by Terrence Aym

• 

Disturbing evidence is mounting that something frightening is happening deep under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico—something far worse than the BP oil gusher.

Warnings were raised as long as a year before the Deepwater Horizon disaster that the area of seabed chosen by the BP geologists might be unstable, or worse, inherently dangerous.

What makes the location that Transocean chose potentially far riskier than other potential oil deposits located at other regions of the Gulf? It can be summed up with two words: methane gas.

The same methane that makes coal mining operations hazardous and leads to horrendous mining accidents deep under the earth also can present a high level of danger to certain oil exploration ventures.

Location of Deepwater Horizon oil rig was criticized

More than 12 months ago some geologists rang the warning bell that the Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig might have been erected directly over a huge underground reservoir of methane.

Documents from several years ago indicate that the subterranean geologic formation may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit.

None other than the engineer who helped lead the team to snuff the Gulf oil fires set by Saddam Hussein to slow the advance of American troops has stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas—compressed by a pressure of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)—could be released by BP's drilling effort to obtain the oil deposit.

Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to 100,000 psi.

By some geologists' estimates the methane could be a massive 15 to 20 mile toxic and explosive bubble trapped for eons under the Gulf sea floor. In their opinion, the explosive destruction of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead was an accident just waiting to happen.

Yet the disaster that followed the loss of the rig pales by comparison to the apocalyptic disaster that may come.

A cascading catastrophe

According to worried geologists, the first signs that the methane may burst its way through the bottom of the ocean would be fissures or cracks appearing on the ocean floor near the damaged well head.

Evidence of fissures opening up on the seabed have been captured by the robotic submersibles working to repair and contain the ruptured well. Smaller, independent plumes have also appeared outside the nearby radius of the bore hole itself.

According to some geological experts, BP's operations set into motion a series of events that may be irreversible. Step-by-step the drilling

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next page >>

Obamoran The Obama Man

This is what I'm talking about. See article below. We're being attacked on so many fronts at once and it never stops. The (nonstop attack mission) has been going on since theobamoron was not yet 5 months in office.

Hey here's a song. (Sung to the tune of Barbara Ann http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynoCrgl2gj0)
                   
               ♫    ♫  ♫
      ♫ ♫    ♫    ♫

        

Obamoran The Obama Man

by Maggie Mootcake Laupheimer

Bam, bam, bam,
bam bam oran.
Bam, bam, bam, Obamora - a- an..

You got me rockin' and a reelin' reelin' and a rockin' Obama Man!

. ~ .

Went to the polls looking for a chance
Instead I got a dictator with Muslims in his pants.

O bam ora - a - an
You got me rockin' and a reelin'
reelin' and a rockin' Obama Man!
Bam, bam, bam,
bam bama man.

. ~ .

Tried to protest you and the Congress Critters, too.
Tried to protest you but you said we couldn't do,
do do do - do - o that!
You got me rockin' and a reelin' reelin' and a rockin' Obama Man!
Bam, bam, bam,
bam bam oran.
. ~.

Bam, bam, bam,
bam bam oran.
Bam, bam, bam, Obamora - a- an..

You got me rockin' and a reelin' reelin' and a rockin' Obama Man!




   

♫


Yep, Yep, Yep !

-----
HOMELAND INSECURITY

White House welcomes Shariah finance specialist

Obama selects Muslim expert in Islamic transactions as fellow

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Samar Ali (Photo: Vanderbilt Register)

The Obama administration has announced its appointment of 13 White House fellows – and the first person featured on its short list is a Muslim attorney who specializes in Shariah-compliant transactions.
"This year's White House fellows are comprised of some of the best and brightest leaders in our country," Michelle Obama said in the June 22 announcement. "I applaud their unyielding commitment to public service and dedication to serving their community." White House fellows spend a year as full-time, paid assistants to senior White House staff, the vice president, Cabinet secretaries and senior administration officials. 

Samar Ali of Waverly, Tenn., is the first name appearing on the White House list. She is an associate with the law firm Hogan Lovells – a firm that claims to have advised on more than 200 Islamic finance transactions
What does Islam plan for America? Read "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America" and find out!
According to Ali's biography posted on the White House website, "She is responsible for counseling clients on mergers & acquisitions, cross-border transactions, Shari'a compliant transactions, project finance, and international business matters. During her time with Hogan Lovells, she has been a founding member of the firm's Abu Dhabi office."
Hogan Lovells lists Ali's experience "advising a Middle Eastern university in the potential establishment of a Foreign Aid Conventional and Shari'ah Compliant Student Loan Program and advising a Middle Eastern client in relation to a U.S. government subcontract matter." 

"Our team members are at the forefront of developments in the Islamic finance industry," Hogan Lovells boasts. "We help set standards for the sector. We have also advised on numerous first-of-their-kind transactions, such as the first convertible Sukuk, the first equity-linked Sukuk, the first Sharia-compliant securitization, the first international Sukuk al-mudaraba and Sukuk al-musharaka, the first Sukuk buy-back, and the first Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) guaranteed Islamic project financing."
Ali also clerked for Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Judge Edwin Cameron, now of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. 

Promoting Islam and Shariah
The White House notes that Ali also led the YMCA Israeli-Palestinian Modern Voices for Progress Program and is a founding member of the first U.S. Delegation to the World Islamic Economic Forum. Ali was listed as a member of the British delegation to the World Islamic Economic Forum in 2009 and as a U.S. delegate in 2010. 

Shariah Finance Watch blog noted, "[I]t was at the World Islamic Economic Forum where key leaders declared Shariah finance to be "dawa" (missionary) activity to promote Islam and Shariah."
In fact, the president of Indonesia, H. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, delivered a March 2, 2009, keynote address to Islamic leaders at the World Islamic Economic Forum in Jakarta during which he called for Islamic banks to do "missionary work in the Western world."

"Islamic banking should now be able to take a leadership position in the banking world," he said. "Islamic banks have been much less affected by the financial meltdown than the conventional banks – for the obvious reason that Shariah banks do not indulge in investing in toxic assets and in leveraged funds. They are geared to supporting the real economy."
He added, "Islamic bankers should therefore do some missionary work in the Western world to promote the concept of Shariah banking, for which many in the West are more than ready now." 

'We didn't consider terrorists to be Muslims'
 
Ali received her law degree from Vanderbilt Law School and served as the first Arab-Muslim student body president at Vanderbilt. She has interned for the Islamic International Arab Bank in Amman, Jordan.
According to Vanderbilt Law School, Ali's mother immigrated to the U.S. from Syria, and her father is Palestinian. He left the West Bank town of Ramallah at age 17. 

America.gov reported that Ali said her parents taught her to "never forget where we came from and to never forget where we are now."
"I will always be Arab and I will always be American and I will always be Muslim," she said. 

Ali spoke out at a campus memorial service days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"In my opinion," she told the Washington File, "Al-Qaida is trying to ruin Islam's reputation and we are simply not going to let them win this fight. If someone has a political agenda, they need to call it what it is, and not disguise it in the name of a religion or use the religion to achieve their political goals. This is simply unacceptable." 

While she said she grieved the loss of thousands of American lives, Ali told the File she grew concerned about whether Americans would assume that she, as a Muslim and Arab-American, approved of those attacks.
"Thus, I was worried that many of my fellow citizens, would not realize that just because my friends and I are Muslims and Arabs, did not mean that we were part of or even agreed with the terrorists who caused September 11," she said. "We didn't even consider the terrorists to be Muslims. I was worried that people would confuse Islam with Osama Bin Ladin and his agenda, that they would confuse his agenda as the agenda of all believers in Islam."


Creeping Shariah
Shariah already is moving into some elements of American society, with a lawsuit pending over U.S. government involvement in a financial institution that accommodates Shariah requirements in its business operations.
WND also reported in November 2008 that the Treasury Department sponsored and promoted a conference titled "Islamic Finance 101."
Islamic finance is a system of banking consistent with the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law. It is becoming increasingly popular, having reached $800 billion by mid-2007 and growing at more than 15 percent each year. Wall Street now features an Islamic mutual fund and an Islamic index. However, critics claim anti-American terrorists are often financially supported through U.S. investments – creating a system by which the nation funds its own enemy.

In his July 2008 essay, "Financial Jihad: What Americans Need to Know," Vice President Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy wrote, "America is losing the financial war on terror because Wall Street is embracing a subversive enemy ideology on one hand and providing corporate life support to state sponsors of terrorism on the other hand."
Holton referred to Islamic finance, or "Shariah-Compliant Finance" as a "modern-day Trojan horse" infiltrating the U.S. He said it poses a threat to the U.S. because it seeks to legitimize Shariah – a man-made medieval doctrine that regulates every aspect of life for Muslims – and could ultimately change American life and laws. Some advocates claim Islamic finance is socially responsible because it bans investors from funding companies that sell or promote products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork. 

However, many Islamic financial institutions also require industry participants to adhere to tenets of Shariah law. According to Nasser Suleiman's "Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking, "First and foremost, an Islamic organization must serve God. It must develop a distinctive corporate culture, the main purpose of which is to create a collective morality and spirituality which, when combined with the production of goods and services, sustains growth and the advancement of the Islamic way of life." Three nations that rule 100 percent by Shariah law – Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan – hold some of the most horrific human rights records in the world, Holton said.  "This strongly suggests that Americans should strenuously resist anything associated with Shariah." 

Tenets of Shariah
In his essay, "Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism," Alex Alexiev outlined the following tenets of Shariah taken from "The Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law":
with an aggregate deal value in excess of $40 billion.

• A woman is eligible for only half of the inheritance of a man
• A virgin may be married against her will by her father or grandfather
• A woman may not leave the house without her husband's permission
• A Muslim man may marry four women, including Christians and Jews; a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim
• Beating an insubordinate wife is permissible
• Female sexual mutilation is obligatory
• Adultery [or the perception of adultery] is punished by death by stoning
• Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
• Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
• Lying to infidels in time of jihad is permissible

'Useful idiots'
Alexiev wrote that many Islamic financial institutions claim Shariah-Compliant Finance "derives its Islamic character from the strict observance of the ostensible Quranic prohibition of lending at interest, the imperative of almsgiving (zakat), avoidance of excessive uncertainty (gharar) and certain practices and products considered unlawful (haram) to Muslims …" However, he said, "[E]ven a casual examination of the reality of Islamic finance today reveals it to be a bogus concept practiced by deceptive ploys and disingenuous means by practitioners that are or should be aware of that, but remain predictably silent."
Shariah finance institutions have funded militant Islamism for more than 30 years. Alexiev cited Islamic Development Bank's hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Hamas in support of suicide bombing. Bank Al-Taqwa and other banks and charities run by Saudi billionaires have funded al-Qaida activities.
Additionally, Shariah law mandates that Muslims donate 2.5 percent of their annual incomes to charities – including jihadists. When 400 banks regularly contribute to such charities, potential financial sums can be virtually limitless.
If Western banks endorse Shariah, they will "end up becoming what Lenin called useful idiots or worse to the Islamists," Alexiev wrote. "And it is a very thin line between that and outright complicity in the Islamist agenda."

Sovereignty Ceded: Why is Obama Gving Chunks of Arizona to the Mexicans?

by Margie Laupheimer Earthhope Action Network

Question: What ever happened to 'American' soil?

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2010/06/what-ever-happened-to-american-soil.php

By Bobby Eberle June 23, 2010 7:13 AM

Answer:

It flew south of the border where Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa resides as Drug King. Calderón caught it down there and threw a net back which caught El Señor Presidente Hóbama.

Hóbama and Calderón, with China and Spain waiting in the wings, now run the conglomerate nation of MexAmerica. The constitutional monarchy of Canada ruled by the primary minister of the Crown Stephen Joseph Harper is [joke]also somewhat interested in creating the infamous North American Union, but as a lot of (particularly the socialist) snob-ass Canucks do not want anything to do with Americans it's involvement is iffy.[/joke]

Then again read this and either weep or lock and load:
[not joke]One such inland port in Kansas City has ceded sovereign United States territory to Canada and Mexico with the flags of all three countries flying over it.[/not joke] http://www.thedailybell.com/934/US-Down-Trans-Texas-Corridor-Up.html

Good one on the North American Union
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA

CONCLUSION:
There is no United States. There is, rather, The North American Union.

---

ACTION ALERT: Support Arizona’s Immigration Law

Grassfire Action Alert

Support Arizona’s Immigration Law
Petition Sponsor:  Grassfire Nation

Sign Petition Here:

The Issue
Arizona’s tough immigration enforcement law has touched off a firestorm of protest from the Left and pro-amnesty activists who are looking to force President Obama’s hand in comprehensive immigration reform. With the media continuing to fuel the fire, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder is now considering legal action to block the new law.

The Action
Arizona’s illegal immigration problem is also our problem, and Grassfire Nation has launched a petition to rally 100,000 citizens who applaud reasonable immigration law, while opposing aggressive efforts to discredit and demonize those who stand for law and order on border security.

Over the next two weeks, Grassfire Nation is mobilizing at least 100,000 citizens who support Arizona’s new Immigration Enforcement law (SB1070). As soon as we reach our goal, we will deliver the petitions to Governor Jan Brewer in a strong grassroots showing of support for the law.

Kyl says Obama said no border security for political reasons!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpyrlX52TwA

Video by SheriffJoeSupporter — June 19, 2010 — On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Phoenix Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, "The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support 'comprehensive immigration reform.'" [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, "In other words, they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with 'comprehensive immigration reform.'"

Obama not telling the truth about immigration reform!

Sign Petition Here:


----- 

We'll Stand with You, Arizona
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=1076720
-----

Cloud of Death followed by Tsunami traveling at 400-600 MPH

A Deadly Bubble?

Cloud of Death followed by Tsunami traveling at 400-600 MPH

Part I

Part II


Earthhope Action Network

Obama, British Petroleum and the Constitution

Margie Laupheimer Earthhope Action Network

Quotes from Katrina and BP, Two Sides of the Same Coin

"Katrina and the Gulf oil spill prove that, at best, government can only get in the way.

Does that suggest, perhumps, that we don't need government? That no government is preferable to even the most benevolent of governments? And is there such a thing as benevolent government or is that combination of words an oxymoron?

It's no spill. It's gushing out with such force that they're saying we don't have the technology to stop it -- after BP even bothered to check into it, while our lying, completely useless president got on national television and wailed on about green energy sources. And this, after he opened the gulf up for BP to begin with. And back to BP. First they said there was 5,000 barrels a day spitting out of the hole. Then it was 50,000 a day, now it's 100,000. A hundred thousand X 50 (gallons) = 5,000,000 gallons a day. FIVE MILLION GALLONS OF OIL A DAY POURING INTO THE GULF and that doesn't even touch the methane spewing into the water and the air or all the other toxic chemicals filling the water.


"We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President's job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is supposed to enforce what Congress decides.

While I fully understand and sympathize with his stance doesn't this imply that Congress is implicit? If Congress were doing their job wouldn't they be putting a stop to Obama's self-proclaimed Kingliness? They could with no trouble at all, if they were so inclined. They can... but they won't. Just as they could have in Bush's 2nd term, but wouldn't.

Ah yes, the president's job is to "follow the laws passed by Congress" (providing those laws are Constitutional). Since when has any president since... not even sure when... maybe ever, followed the Constitution? What president did we ever have that actually followed the Constitution? There may have been one or two but who were they? Can anyone answer this because I sure don't know what the answer is and who these men were? I actually am interested to know.

The Constitution, having never been followed, and which does not even follow itself is, was and always will be, a blueprint for tyranny.

Just ask Obama. He knows all about it. He's a Constitutional lawyer.

The BP Oil Rig Disaster and What We Can Do about it

Earthhope Action Network

Margie Laupheimer The Unmoderated Patriots

This guy says the only way to stop it is to nuke it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MARDF8F4P4

BP will never be able to pay for all the damages it caused already. On top of that they are only liable for a portion of their damages thanks to good old state intervention and the US govt giving them quite a break.

This is what we should do.

1. Nuke it to stop it.

  BP, is a British corporation and when it can't pay all the  damages...

2. Move our troops into Britain and force them to pay all the damages at the threat of loss of British sovereignty or just surround the UK with our ships. Britain needs to pay up for BPs fuck ups rather continue to spew its God forsaken lies.

We overthrew the tyrannical buggers before and we can do it again.

3. If the EU backs up Britain we threaten to pull our troops out of all European countries, at which time they will suddenly become very cooperative, as they do not want Russia taking over their phony asses.

How's that for a plan? (Luke came up with it.)

Margie

Source: Earthhope Action network

Defenders of Wildlife Action Alert: End Brutal Aerial Wolf Killing

Alaska’s Wolves
Need Your Help

Hundreds of wolves have been killed in Alaska --
shot to death by gunners in low-flying aircraft or
chased to exhaustion and shot at point-blank range.

 Please help us stop the killing -- take action now to urge President Obama to help put an end to Alaska's brutal and unscientific aerial wolf-killing program.

Alaska's policy allows gunmen in planes to shoot down wolves from the air or chase them to exhaustion, then land and execute them at point blank range.

Right now, we need your help to end the brutal and unfounded aerial wolf killing programs that have already claimed the lives of more than 1,000 of these magnificent animals.

Take action now to help save these wolves -- sign our petition to urge the Obama administration to put an end to unscientific and brutal aerial wolf-killing in Alaska.

Easy targets against fallen snow, wolves are gunned down from airplanes or chased to exhaustion, then shot at point-blank range. State-licensed riflemen can target entire packs -- even pregnant wolves!
It’s not wolf management. It’s a wolf massacre. Please take action now to save these wolves.

Defenders of Wildlife has long led the fight to rein in out-of-control aerial wolf killing and promote sound management of wolves in Alaska. We were able to stop this terrible practice twice, only to see it started up again after two years. But, with the anti-wolf Bush/Cheney administration now gone from the White House, we have renewed hope that we can end these awful programs once and for all.   
Urge the Obama administration to enforce the Federal Airborne Hunting Act, the federal law that could end Alaska's brutal and unscientific wolf-killing programs.

Alaska’s politicians continue to promote aerial gunning and other extreme measures to kill wolves. In fact, in 2008 then-Governor Sarah Palin and the state legislature approved spending $400,000 in taxpayer funds to promote the slaughter from the skies and defeat a citizen’s initiative to limit aerial gunning. To encourage the killing, Governor Palin even proposed a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf -- a grisly proposal that Defenders of Wildlife was successful at stopping. 
Even with Palin gone, her hand-picked Board of Game is continuing her killing policies.

Please sign our petition right now and help us end cruel and unfounded aerial gunning in Alaska before move wolves die.

Our wolves are a crucial part of the natural heritage that we’ll leave our children and grandchildren, and we have a real chance to end this terrible practice -- and prevent other states from following Alaska's shameful lead.I hope you’ll help.
Sincerely,

Rodger Schlickeisen Preside

Seattle Officer Punches Girl in Face During Jaywalking Stop

Seattle’s Blue Gang Extortion Racket
by Darren Wolfe Earthhope Action Network June 18, 2010



The recent video of Seattle Police Patrol Officer Ian P. Walsh punching a 17-year-old woman in the face as she tries to help her friend evade him has caused much controversy. There is an understandable reaction among many decrying the young women’s lack of respect for authority. This is correct, they do lack respect for the police, but the question is why?

Let’s start with the jaywalking citation situation in Seattle. As the rest of us around the country are now learning, Seattle is quite tough on jaywalkers. Even doing stings to catch the evil doers. All this, of course, is claimed to be for public safety, but is it really?

(Article continues below)


Shop Earthhope Magazines

Like so many cities in our recession ravaged land Seattle has a budget shortfall. It is cutting services, which makes politicians mad as they have less pork to pass around. Naturally, they look for additional sources of revenue. Many cities abuse traffic citations and parking tickets to this end, but Seattle seems to have decided to go back to issuing excessive numbers of jaywalking citations to raise more money. They resort to this kind of legal plunder to avoid raising taxes or increase the deficit, hiding behind the guise of protecting the public. People know what’s going on. It’s just a form of robbery. When the police become a blue gang enforcing an extortion racket they command no respect. All they have left is their ability to use violence to get people to submit, a situation guaranteed to foster police brutality.

Instead of criticizing the young women for disrespecting a police officer they should be commended for their courage in standing up to him. It is only by not tolerating government abuses that we can put an end to them.

Darren Wolfe is the former Eastern Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. He grew up in Puerto Rico and lived in Venezuela for seven years, including the first year of Chavez's rule.His articles have appeared on OpEdNews.com, the Libertarian Penn, and the Nolan Chart. Links to his work have been picked up by news services such as Rational Review and the NYPost.com. Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/darrenlobo

©2009 Darren Wolfe, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.


Source: Earthhope Action Network

---

Restore liberty,
Darren

The International Libertarian
http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/

Washington DC Thug Report:

Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk

Washington DC Thug Report

---

Entering the Soviet Era in America

Earthhope Action Network
by Tom Engelhardt Antiwar


From The Real Barack Obama Left to Right: Jim Messina, chief-of-staff of the National Security Council; Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to U.N.; David Axelrod, Top Obama Advisor (Sitting); Rahm Emanuel, Obama Chief of Staff (standing); POTUS Obama; Denis McDonough, Senior Advisor to POTUS (standing); Vladimir Lenin, Communist politician; and Mark Lippert, chief-of-staff of the National Security Council. Far Right: Bust of Saul Alinsky, “community activist”.

"Their military ambitions, in other words, knew no bounds; nor, it seemed, did the money and resources which began to flow into the Pentagon, the weapons industries, the country’s increasingly militarized intelligence services, mercenary companies like Blackwater and KBR that grew fat on a privatizing administration’s war plans and the multi-billion-dollar no-bid contracts it was eager to proffer, the new Department of Homeland Security, and a ramped-up, ever more powerful national security state."

Editors note: This article is heavily referenced. To see all references go to the original article.

You remember the Soviet Union, now almost 20 years in its grave. But who gives it a second thought today? Even in its glory years that “evil empire” was sometimes referred to as “the second superpower.” In 1991, after seven decades, it suddenly disintegrated and disappeared, leaving the United States – the “sole superpower,” even the “hyperpower,” on planet Earth – surprised but triumphant.

The USSR had been heading for the exits for quite a while, not that official Washington had a clue. At the moment it happened, Soviet “experts” like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (then director of the CIA) still expected the Cold War to go on and on. In Washington, eyes were trained on the might of the Soviet military, which the Soviet leadership had never stopped feeding, even as its sclerotic bureaucracy was rotting, its economy (which had ceased to grow in the late 1970s) was tanking, budget deficits were soaring, indebtedness to other countries was growing, and social welfare payments were eating into what funds remained. Not even a vigorous, reformist leader like Mikhail Gorbachev could stanch the rot, especially when, in the late 1980s, the price of Russian oil fell drastically.

Looking back, the most distinctive feature of the last years of the Soviet Union may have been the way it continued to pour money into its military – and its military adventure in Afghanistan – when it was already going bankrupt and the society it had built was beginning to collapse around it. In the end, its aging leaders made a devastating miscalculation. They mistook military power for power on this planet. Armed to the teeth and possessing a nuclear force capable of destroying the Earth many times over, the Soviets nonetheless remained the vastly poorer, weaker, and (except when it came to the arms race) far less technologically innovative of the two superpowers.

In December 1979, perhaps taking the bait of the Carter administration whose national security adviser was eager to see the Soviets bloodied by a “Vietnam” of their own, the Red Army invaded Afghanistan to support a weak communist government in Kabul. When resistance in the countryside, led by Islamic fundamentalist guerrillas and backed by the other superpower, only grew, the Soviets sent in more troops, launched major offensives, called in air power, and fought on brutally and futilely for a decade until, in 1989, long after they had been whipped, they withdrew in defeat.

(Article continues below)


Shop Earthhope Magazines

Gorbachev had dubbed Afghanistan “the bleeding wound,” and when the wounded Red Army finally limped home, it was to a country that would soon cease to exist. For the Soviet Union, Afghanistan had literally proven “the graveyard of empires.” If, at the end, its military remained standing, the empire didn’t. (And if you don’t already find this description just a tad eerie, given the present moment in the U.S., you should.)

In Washington, the Bush administration – G.H.W.’s, not G.W.’s – declared victory and then left the much ballyhooed “peace dividend” in the nearest ditch. Caught off guard by the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington’s consensus policymakers drew no meaningful lessons from it (just as they had drawn few that mattered from their Vietnam defeat 16 years earlier).

Quite the opposite, successive American administrations would blindly head down the very path that had led the Soviets to ruin. They would serially agree that, in a world without significant enemies, the key to U.S. global power still was the care and feeding of the American military and the military-industrial complex that went with it. As the years passed, that military would be sent ever more regularly into the far reaches of the planet to fight frontier wars, establish military bases, and finally impose a global Pax Americana on the planet.

This urge, delusional in retrospect, seemed to reach its ultimate expression in the second Bush administration, whose infamous “unilateralism” rested on a belief that no country or even bloc of countries should ever again be allowed to come close to matching U.S. military power. (As its National Security Strategy of 2002 put the matter – and it couldn’t have been blunter on the subject – the U.S. was to “build and maintain” its military power “beyond challenge.”) Bush’s military fundamentalists firmly believed that, in the face of the most technologically advanced, bulked-up, destructive force around, hostile states would be “shocked and awed” by a simple demonstration of its power and friendly ones would have little choice but to come to heel as well. After all, as the president said in front of a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in 2007, the U.S. military was “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.”

In this way, far more than the Soviets, the top officials of the Bush administration mistook military power for power, a gargantuan misreading of the U.S. economic position in the world and of their moment.

Boundless Military Ambitions

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that “Pearl Harbor of the 21st century,” clinched the deal. In the space the Soviet Union had deserted, which had been occupied by minor outlaw states like North Korea for years, there was a new shape-shifting enemy, al-Qaeda (AKA Islamic extremism, AKA the new “totalitarianism”), which could be just as big as you wanted to make it. Suddenly, we were in what the Bush administration instantly dubbed “the Global War on Terror” (GWOT, one of the worst acronyms ever invented) – and this time there would be nothing “cold” about it.

Bush administration officials promptly suggested that they were prepared to use a newly agile American military to “drain the swamp” of global terrorism. (“While we’ll try to find every snake in the swamp, the essence of the strategy is draining the swamp,” insisted Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz two weeks after 9/11.) They were prepared, they made clear, to undertake those draining operations against Islamic “terrorist networks” in no less than 60 countries around the planet.

Their military ambitions, in other words, knew no bounds; nor, it seemed, did the money and resources which began to flow into the Pentagon, the weapons industries, the country’s increasingly militarized intelligence services, mercenary companies like Blackwater and KBR that grew fat on a privatizing administration’s war plans and the multi-billion-dollar no-bid contracts it was eager to proffer, the new Department of Homeland Security, and a ramped-up, ever more powerful national security state.

As the Pentagon expanded, taking on ever newer roles, the numbers would prove staggering. By the end of the Bush years, Washington was doling out almost twice what the next nine nations combined were spending on their militaries, while total U.S. military expenditures came to just under half the world’s total. Similarly, by 2008, the U.S. controlled almost 70 percent of the global arms market. It also had 11 aircraft carrier battle groups capable of patrolling the world’s seas and oceans at a time when no power that could faintly be considered a possible future enemy had more than one.

By then, private contractors had built for the Pentagon almost 300 military bases in Iraq, ranging from tiny combat outposts to massive “American towns” holding tens of thousands of troops and private contractors, with multiple bus lines, PXs, fast-food “boardwalks,” massage parlors, water treatment and power plants, barracks, and airfields. They were in the process of doing the same in Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, in the Persian Gulf region generally. This, too, represented a massive investment in what looked like a permanent occupation of the oil heartlands of the planet. As right-wing pundit Max Boot put it after a recent flying tour of America’s global garrisons, the U.S. possesses military bases that add up to “a virtual American empire of Wal-Mart-style PXs, fast-food restaurants, golf courses, and gyms.”

Depending on just what you counted, there were anywhere from 700 to perhaps 1,200 or more U.S. bases, micro to macro, acknowledged and unacknowledged, around the globe. Meanwhile, the Pentagon was pouring money into the wildest blue-skies thinking at its advanced research arm, DARPA, whose budget grew by 50 percent. Through DARPA, well-funded scientists experimented with various ways to fight sci-fi-style wars in the near and distant future (at a moment when no one was ready to put significant government money into blue-skies thinking about, for instance, how to improve the education of young Americans). The Pentagon was also pioneering a new form of air power, drone warfare, in which “we” wouldn’t be within thousands of miles of the battlefield, and the battlefield would no longer necessarily be in a country with which we were at war.

It was also embroiled in two disastrous, potentially trillion-dollar wars (and various global skirmishes) – and all this at top dollar at a time when next to no money was being invested in, among other things, the bridges, tunnels, waterworks, and the like that made up an aging American infrastructure. Except when it came to victory, the military stood ever taller, while its many missions expanded exponentially, even as the domestic economy was spinning out of control, budget deficits were increasing rapidly, the governmental bureaucracy was growing ever more sclerotic, and indebtedness to other nations was rising by leaps and bounds.

In other words, in a far wealthier country, another set of leaders, having watched the Soviet Union implode, decisively embarked on the Soviet path to disaster.

Military Profligacy

In the fall of 2008, the abyss opened under the U.S. economy, which the Bush administration had been blissfully ignoring, and millions of people fell into it. Giant institutions wobbled or crashed; extended unemployment wouldn’t go away; foreclosures happened on a mind-boggling scale; infrastructure began to buckle; state budgets were caught in a death grip; teachers’ jobs, another kind of infrastructure, went down the tubes in startling numbers; and the federal deficit soared.

Of course, a new president also entered the Oval Office, someone (many voters believed) intent on winding up (or at least down) Bush’s wars and the delusions of military omnipotence and technological omniscience that went with them. If George W. Bush had pushed this country to the edge of disaster, at least his military policies, as many of his critics saw it, were as extreme and anomalous as the cult of executive power his top officials fostered.

But here was the strange thing. In the midst of the Great Recession, under a new president with assumedly far fewer illusions about American omnipotence and power, war policy continued to expand in just about every way. The Pentagon budget rose by Bushian increments in fiscal year 2010; and while the Iraq War reached a kind of dismal stasis, the new president doubled down in Afghanistan on entering office – and then doubled down again before the end of 2009. There, he “surged” in multiple ways. At best, the U.S. was only drawing down one war, in Iraq, to feed the flames of another.

As in the Soviet Union before its collapse, the exaltation and feeding of the military at the expense of the rest of society and the economy had by now become the new normal; so much so that hardly a serious word could be said – lest you not “support our troops” – when it came to ending the American way of war or downsizing the global mission or ponying up the funds demanded of Congress to pursue war preparations and war-making.

Even when, after years of astronomical growth, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates began to talk about cost-cutting at the Pentagon, it was in the service of the reallocation of ever more money to war-fighting. Here was how the New York Times summed up what reduction actually meant for our ultimate super-sized institution in tough times: “Current budget plans project growth of only 1 percent in the Pentagon budget, after inflation, over the next five years.” Only 1 percent growth – at a time when state budgets, for instance, are being slashed to the bone. Like the Soviet military, the Pentagon, in other words, is planning to remain obese whatever else goes down.

Meanwhile, the “antiwar” president has been overseeing the expansion of the new normal on many fronts, including the expanding size of the Army itself. In fact, when it comes to the Global War on Terror – even with the name now in disuse – the profligacy can still take your breath away.

Consider, for instance, the $2.2 billion Host Nation Trucking contract the Pentagon uses to pay protection money to Afghan security companies which, in turn, slip some part of those payments to the Taliban to let American supplies travel safely on Afghan roads. Or if you don’t want to think about how your tax dollar supports the Taliban, consider the $683,000 the Pentagon spent, according to the Washington Post, to “renovate a cafe that sells ice cream and Starbucks coffee” at its base/prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Or the $773,000 used there “to remodel a cinder-block building to house a KFC/Taco Bell restaurant,” or the $7.3 million spent on baseball and football fields, or the $60,000 batting cage, or a promised $20,000 soccer cage, all part of the approximately $2 billion that have gone into the American base and prison complex that Barack Obama promised to, but can’t, close.

Or what about the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, that 104-acre, almost three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar, 21-building homage to the American-mall-as-fortified-citadel? It costs more than $1.5 billion a year to run, and bears about as much relationship to an “embassy” as McDonald’s does to a neighborhood hamburger joint. According to a recent audit, millions of dollars in “federal property” assigned to what is essentially a vast command center for the region, including 159 of the embassy’s 1,168 vehicles, are missing or unaccounted for.

And as long as we’re talking about expansion in distant lands, how about the Pentagon’s most recent construction plans in Central Asia, part of a prospective “mini-building boom” there. They are to include an anti-terrorism training center to be constructed for a bargain basement $5.5 million in… no, not Toledo or Akron or El Paso, but the combustible city of Osh in southern Kyrgyzstan. And that’s just one of several projects there and in neighboring Tajikistan that are reportedly to be funded out of the U.S. Central Command’s “counter-narcotics fund” (and ultimately, of course, your pocket).

Or consider a particularly striking example of military expansion under President Obama, superbly reported by the Washington Post’s Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe in a piece headlined, “U.S. ‘Secret War’ Expands Globally as Special Operations Forces Take Larger Role.” As a story, it sank without a trace in a country evidently unfazed by the idea of having its forces garrisoned and potentially readying to fight everywhere on the planet.

Here’s how the piece began:

“Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials. Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year.”

Now, without opening an atlas, just try to name any 75 countries on this planet – more than one-third, that is, of the states belonging to the United Nations. And yet U.S. special operatives are now engaging in war, or preparing for war, or training others to do so, or covertly collecting intelligence in that many countries across Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Fifteen more than in the Bush era.

Whatever it is or isn’t called, this remains Bush’s Global War on Terror on an expansionist trajectory. DeYoung and Jaffe quote an unnamed “senior military official” saying that the Obama administration has allowed “things that the previous administration did not,” and report that Special Operations commanders are now “a far more regular presence at the White House” than in the Bush years.

Not surprisingly, those Special Operations forces have themselves expanded in the first year and a half of the Obama presidency and, for fiscal year 2011, with 13,000 of them already deployed abroad, the administration has requested a 5.7 percent hike in their budget to $6.3 billion.

Once upon a time, Special Operations forces got their name because they were small and “special.” Now, they are, in essence, being transformed into a covert military within the military and, as befits their growing size, reports Noah Shachtman of the Wired’s Danger Room, the Army Special Forces alone are slated to get a new $100 million “headquarters” in northern Afghanistan. It will cover about 17 acres and will include a “communications building, Tactical Operations Center, training facility, medical aid station, Vehicle Maintenance Facility… dining facility, laundry facility, and a kennel to support working dogs.… Supporting facilities include roads, power production system and electrical distribution, water well, non-potable water production, water storage, water distribution, sanitary sewer collection system, communication manhole/duct system, curbs, walkways, drainage and parking.”

This headquarters, adds Shachtman, will take a year to build, “at which point, the U.S. is allegedly supposed to begin drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. Allegedly.” And mind you, the Special Operations troops are but one expanding part of the U.S. military.

Creeping Gigantism

The first year and a half of the Obama administration has seen a continuation of what could be considered the monumental socialist-realist era of American war-making (including a decision to construct another huge, Baghdad-style “embassy” in Islamabad, Pakistan). This sort of creeping gigantism, with all its assorted cost overruns and private perks, would undoubtedly have seemed familiar to the Soviets. Certainly no less familiar will be the near decade the U.S. military has spent, increasingly disastrously, in the Afghan graveyard.

Drunk on war as Washington may be, the U.S. is still not the Soviet Union in 1991 – not yet. But it’s not the triumphant “sole superpower” anymore either. Its global power is visibly waning, its ability to win wars distinctly in question, its economic viability open to doubt. It has been transformed from a can-do into a can’t-do nation, a fact only highlighted by the ongoing BP catastrophe and “rescue” in the Gulf of Mexico. Its airports are less shiny and more Third World-like every year. Unlike France or China, it has not a mile of high-speed rail. And when it comes to the future, especially the creation and support of innovative industries in alternative energy, it’s chasing the pack. It is increasingly a low-end service economy, losing good jobs that will never return.

And if its armies come home in defeat… watch out.

In 1991, the Soviet Union suddenly evaporated. The Cold War was over. Like many wars, it seemed to have an obvious winner and an obvious loser. Nearly 20 years later, as the U.S. heads down the Soviet road to disaster – even if the world can’t imagine what a bankrupt America might mean – it’s far clearer that, in the titanic struggle of the two superpowers that we came to call the Cold War, there were actually two losers, and that, when the “second superpower” left the scene, the first was already heading for the exits, just ever so slowly and in a state of self-intoxicated self-congratulation. Nearly every decision in Washington since then, including Barack Obama’s to expand both the Afghan War and the war on terror, has only made what, in 1991, was one possible path seem like fate itself.

Call up the Politburo in Washington. We’re in trouble.

[Note on sources and readings: I regularly rely on the invaluable Antiwar.com, Juan Cole's Informed Comment blog, Paul Woodward's The War in Context, and Noah Shachtman's Danger Room (for all things strange and military), as well as Katherine Tiedemann's Daily Brief at the AfPak Channel, and recommend them often enough. Let me suggest another interesting place to visit: TomDispatch regular Karen Greenberg's Center on Law and Security at NYU has a new Web site, the CenterLine, which has just launched a daily round-up report on “war on terror” issues of every sort: “Today's Terrorism News.” It's well worth attending to. Finally, as ever, my special thanks go to Christopher Holmes, who patrols the borders of TomDispatchland, day and night, in search of error. He's indefatigable.]

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. His new book, The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s (Haymarket Books), will be published this week. To catch him discussing America in the “Soviet era,” as well as his new book, on the latest TomCast audio interview, click here, or to download it to your iPod, click here.

Copyright 2010 Tom Engelhardt

Read more by Tom Engelhardt

• Pax Ottomanica? – June 13th, 2010
• Iran’s Green Movement: One Year Later – June 10th, 2010
• Doubling Down in Afghanistan – June 3rd, 2010
• Living in the 51st State (of Denial) – June 1st, 2010
• The American Century Is So Over – May 27th, 2010

Source: Antiwar
Artwork: The Real Barack Obama

.

---

Comment at Earthhope Forums