Why Doesn’t Obama Care About Freedom?

clipped from www.aim.org If you recognize that Obama failed to vigorously and immediately support the pro-freedom demonstrators in Iran, take a look at his attitude toward those suffering under the Castro dictatorship. An extraordinary editorial ran in the liberal Washington Post on Thursday, June 25, about the indifference of the Obama White House to the plight of those who believe in freedom just 90 miles from our shores The editorial, "A Dissident Deflected," told the story of how the Obama Administration wouldn't issue a statement recognizing the plight of five human rights activists in Cuba until the Post itself inquired about the matter The Washington Post editorial on Cuba only scratched the surface of the dangers we face from this White House. Ultimately, the question that has to be seriously addressed by the Post and other media is: What should we do about the fact that the President of the United States is allied with those forces that want to bury us?

This clip comes from Accuracy In Media a presents a biting commentary on how Obama’s indifference toward Cuban freedom fighters. This, in light of his recent apparent reticence to support Iran’s pro-freedom demonstrators, paints an ugly picture of the leader of the most powerful democracy on the planet aligning himself not with those brave souls fighting for freedom but more with their oppressors.

Given Obama’s association with people such as Communist Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor and father-figure, and anti-American crackpot Miguel D'Escoto, the U.N. General Assembly President, Obama is beginning to appear more as a revolutionary Marxist who sympathizes not with those being oppressed by anti-American governments but with the governments themselves.

He is walking a very thin line between facilitating peace among opposing nations and helping to cement the UN’s idea of a world government financed by global taxes.

According to the author he appears to be leaning heavily towards socialism. I am inclined to agree.

Confidential memo reveals US plan to provoke an invasion of Iraq

clipped from www.guardian.co.uk A confidential record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution, will be an explosive issue for the official inquiry into the UK's role in toppling Saddam Hussein. The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action. Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.

Proof of immoral leadership?

Documents like this raise issues of national embarrassment, not national security. The restoration of public confidence requires this new inquiry to be transparent. Contentious matters should not be kept out of the public domain, even in the run-up to an election

Paraphrasing Bush's comments at the meeting, Manning, noted: "The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."

Has America become apathetic towards human rights?

Doctors Without Borders has reported that 75% of all the rape cases it dealt with worldwide were in the eastern Congo, 30 percent of whom were children.

Rape has become ingrained in Congolese civilian society and is widely used to determine power relations. Men and teenagers rape not only women and girls of all ages, but also other males. Is it safe to declare that those who participate in this atrocity have devolved into something less than human? Resorting to pure physical power in order to have their will become the ‘rule of the land’ IS the result of something less than human.

How much longer can the rest of the world sit back on its pampered laurels and allow this atrocity to continue? How much longer can we stomach the animalistic enslavement of women by saying it is their country therefore it is none of our business? The U.S. has ignored this tenet many times when it is to their benefit.

There is the fine distinction between respecting sovereignty of a nation and respecting the safety of its human inhabitants. Which is more valuable?

We Americans protest any attempt to step on our rights yet we don’t care about what happens elsewhere. And we prove this every day by simply moving onto the next news story.

The U.S. partook of its animalistic behavior by unleashing its formidable military muscle against Iraq based on human rights violations, among other things, but we wouldn’t dream of taking on China over their human rights abuses. Nor will we take on Congo over its human rights abuses, nor Burma over its human rights abuses, nor any other country unless there are oil reserves we want to control and the country is smaller than us.

It deeply saddens me to realize that the U.S. weighs the safety of helpless victims against how resource-rich their nation is. For surely if the Congo had oil reserves coveted by the U.S. we would be occupying them, and saving at least a majority of these women from their hell, instead of occupying Iraq.

Rape represents a grave lack of respect for human life and dignity. To use it as a tool of war is both a war crime and a crime against humanity. To allow it to continue lessens the value of our humanity.

For a man to turn against his wife after she becomes a victim of rape demeans the man and further victimizes the woman.

A society that views a raped woman as ‘damaged goods’ simply validates the power these animals have over them.

Again I ask, how long are we going to allow this to continue?

Conservative Mouthpieces and Hate Mongers

In a New York Times commentary, Mr. Krugman makes the observation that when the Republicans are in power right-wing hate groups are complacent, and when the Democrats are in power right-wing hate groups shorten their fuses while conservative talk-show hosts happily strike the match.

A recent DHS report brought this fact to light and conservatives, taking it way too personally, denounced it, saying the Obama administration is attempting to label all conservatives as terrorists.

But the one constant that validates the basic tenet of this report is the very conservative talk-show hosts themselves. Fox News’ group of conservative hate-mongers, led by Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck espouse, if not outright endorses, the action of anyone willing to ‘Fight for the Right’ by underscoring their views through violence.

Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and all the others, as well as conservative print media, seem to keep themselves giddy by denigrating anything and everything the Democrats do without any thought whatsoever about helping this nation of taxpayers who are caught in the middle.

These platforms could be put to much better use by conservatives if they would present their party’s ideas, build on them in a positive way and condemn violence as the act of weak-minded zealots.

Escape from the tyranny of hatred. Conservatives hate Democrats so much that they are turning away from doing anything positive and it is doing a grave disservice to themselves.

I am calling on the Republican party to get its act together and formulate a solid, positive platform for the purpose of benefiting the whole country, not just yourselves, to run against the Democratic party of 2012 so we, the voters, can have a solid contest, without vitriol and the underhanded, backstabbing, negativity that so often accompanies the political election process. Don’t leave voters with the choice of the ‘lesser of two evils’. Make yourself a positive force.

Getting the Rich to Help the Poor

On the blog War On You, Pam Martens offers an assessment of the problem facing President Obama and her submission “Our Economy Is Going to Keep Tanking Until We Stop Shoveling Billions to Rich People” is accurate. I applaud the expertise she brings to this issue.

While she is addressing the problem of allowing money to be concentrated in the hands of the rich, I want to throw in my two cents worth.

The middle class is the engine of our economy and the rich supplies the ‘fuel’ to keep it going. We need each other to make this thing work.

We also need an incentive for companies to hire more people and pay a higher wage instead of allowing them to stash their earnings in foreign banks to avoid taxes.

Likewise, if the rich had an incentive to work with the government to help the poor and disadvantaged there would not be such a overwhelming burden on the government to do it by itself.

The benefit of living in a capitalist economy is that people can become rich. I would not disparage anyone from using this system to better themselves and their families unless they do it illegally or unethically. Ethics unfortunately is the one aspect of this system that is the most perplexing. Which is why we need regulation.

Regulation is one of those necessary evils in a free-market economy only because there will always be dishonesty surrounding the game of making more money. And nothing grabs the attention of money makers quicker than financial incentives.

As the gap between the haves and have-nots widens we can only sit helplessly by and watch it happen. It is a very frustrating and debilitating feeling. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their hope for their families.

We know we cannot simply rely on the rich to just give their money away to help close this gap. We have seen too much money go to the rich as a means of re-starting the economy. It obviously is not working. The banks hang on to it instead of loaning it out to help people save their homes.

My sister-in-law works in a mortgage lenders office that has an excessive amount of foreclosed homes. Her problem is not unique. Buyers come to her every day hoping to take advantage of depressed prices but the bank refuses to sell at less than what is owed on them. This situation does nothing for the economy or the banking system. The homes sit there empty, the banks continue to lose money on them. If the government continues to give banks bailout money they have no incentive to get these homes off of their books. This is an untenable situation.

The banks need to understand that if the economy does not get on its feet all the money they are holding will be worthless.

This is a crisis situation and the banks and mortgage lenders need to loose this round, taxpayers have already lost all they possibly can.

Is Compassion in the Media A Long-Past Concept?

I am a fan of the blog Photography is not a Crime. I think the blog author Carlos Miller does a fabulous, tireless and much needed service to the public by reporting on the continued disharmony between the police and the press.

In a recent blog post entitled Cop knocks news videographer’s camera down before handcuffing him, I commented that I understood the reason for the police officers actions and gave what I thought was a very valid reason. I did not say that I condoned the actions, I simply stated that I understood the reasoning.

Judging from the numerous responses my position generated there appears to be an abundance of sensitivity over any threat to our freedoms. This is a good thing. These freedoms are worth fighting for and in light of the governments actions in regards domestic spying and Homeland Security using terrorism as a reason to clamp down hard on all of us, there should be concern. But, I think our Freedom of the Press will survive an emotional outburst from a police officer.

I am proud to be counted among the many staunch supporters of Americas constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. It does my heart good to see such compassionate outpouring over even the slightest threat, perceived or real. Let’s not ever lose that compassion.

I condemn this police officers actions, however, I do not condemn her show of emotion. She apparently shares my concern over an obvious lack of compassion creeping into the media. I believe this lack of concern is fired by sensationalism.

Is it really necessary to record the aftermath of a fatal automobile accident? A photojournalist was quick to say yes and backs that answer with a lot of valid reasons. I have been shown that it is possible to use that video as a research tool to help society. But I don’t think this was the reporters intent in this case.

Could the tragedy of that scene be conveyed by the use of words without videotape? I say yes.

I am told that editors are compassionate enough to not allow this type of footage to be released to the public. But can we be assured this will not change in these very difficult financial times?

Newspapers are folding from lack of readership. A very jaded general public needs more and more sensationalism to grab their attention. And holding their attention for any longer than the length of a sound bite is becoming even more of a challenge. How long before publishers begin forcing editors to use bloody traffic accident photos to sell their papers? Or to use the video of the bloodied aftermath to sell ads on the internet?

There once was a time when that reporter would have been publicly shamed for having the bad taste to video a bloody traffic scene. Doing so dishonors the dignity of the human victim. I’ve been told that this kind of thinking is ‘subjective’ and therefore should not be considered. Apparently, there is no longer any room for the concern of a persons dignity when it comes to ‘news’ gathering.

Likewise, it seems human emotion and compassion from a police officer is a luxury’ we as a ‘freedom’ loving nation will no longer tolerate.