The Democrats are proposing what is being called an immigration reform bill (why isn’t it illegal immigration reform?) that ostensibly provides money for more border patrol agents and hardware, things like helicopters and drones. It would seem to me that a lack of funding and manpower should never have been an issue, particularly when you consider the billions we are paying for the newly created Department of Homeland Security. If protecting your borders and stopping undocumented people from pouring into your country isn’t a matter of homeland security, what is?

Anyway, it’s interesting to note that the Dems want to require a micro-chipped national ID as part of this bill that they say isn’t really a national ID in some sort of Orwellian obfuscation. They say it’s not an ID and that it is only for employment purposes. In other words, you don’t have to get one, but you can’t work without one. Here is a quote from the bill regarding the card:

“These cards will be fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, wear resistant, and machine-readable social security cards containing a photograph and an electronically coded micro-processing chip which possesses a unique biometric identifier for the authorized card-bearer.”

Fortunately, the Republicans are not supporting the bill at the moment.

If you are at all in touch with the value and sanctity of human life, you have to recognize how horribly immoral this occupation of Afghanistan has become. What exactly is an “insurgent?” Somebody who is mad that foreign military forces are in their country dictating terms and killing innocent people? If that happened here in America, virtually everyone I know would be an “insurgent.” To say that the “insurgents” are hiding among innocent civilians is completely asinine. The “insurgents” are native to Afghanistan. It is their homeland. The U.S.-led NATO forces murdered 2,412 innocent Afghani citizens last year. Insurgents are apparently people who the U.S. thinks might fight back as their people are being slaughtered and their culture is usurped by colonialists.That is going to make every native Afghani citizen either an open or underground insurgent.

It is true that most Americans would not want to live within the Afghani culture, but so be it. Saudi Arabia is far worse when it comes to women’s rights, draconian customs and social mores, and most of the WTC perpetrators where Saudi, but we have no problem with them. We are continually staining our hands, and our very souls, with the blood of innocent people in Afghanistan every day, and there is no way to “win.” We have been wrong all along and keep getting deeper into moral debt as we spend $57,000 a minute over there to do it.

What would you do if foreign troops killed your unarmed 12-year-old son on your own country’s soil? I would guess that you would become an, uh….insurgent. We create more of them with each person that we murder. At this point, what exactly is the objective in Afghanistan? To kill indiscriminately and expect that this will eliminate the underlying rage that can lead a few to an act of terrorism?

What we have done since the 911 event is so incredibly heinous and sad that it trumps the deeds of the WTC bombers about a thousandfold, and we keep building on that failure each day we maintain an offensive presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. A peaceful, non-military effort to improve conditions in these countries would have made us far more safe than the Bush/Obama preemptive and illegal wars of aggression that are leaving us morally and fiscally bankrupt as a nation.

Wilkerson made these statements in connection with a lawsuit that has been filed by a Gitmo detainee. Powell apparently supports Wilkerson’s decision to come forward with the truth concerning these illegal detainments. There were children as young as twelve-years-old among them, and a man as old as 93.

Concerning Vice-President Dick Cheney, Wilkerson offered: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent … If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.”

But the buck didn’t stop there.

“I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell. I learned that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making,” asserted Wilkerson.

You read this and you have to wonder how we somehow have the moral authority to decide who lives and who dies in the Middle East, and there is little doubt that the people who live in Iraq and Afghanistan have been asking themselves the same questio

“While our politics has remained entrenched along worn divides, the ground has shifted beneath our feet. Around the world, countries are seeking an edge in the global marketplace by investing in new ways of producing and saving energy,” said Obama.

This approach to energy would not be possible under a so-called Republican president, because the Democrats in Congress would have to resist to provide the illusion of a two-party system. There is in fact just one force calling the shots behind both parties, and actions such as these prove it, whether you are in favor of drilling or not. Obama wouldn’t be president today if he told the voters in no uncertain terms that he intended to keep the same Secretary of Defense that Bush had, follow the same military course that Bush did, force people to buy health care, and approve of an energy strategy that has Dick Cheney smiling ear to ear.

You can read more about the drilling here:

Obama to reverse ban on offshore oil drilling

United States strategy in the region hinges on a major offensive that will take place in June in Kandahar that is intended to rid the area of Taliban influence. Though Mullen only speaks generally of this “corruption” without filling in the blanks, it would seem as though he is implying that President Karzai is enabling activities in Kandahar that the United States is ostensibly trying to squash.

Muddying the waters further, The New York Times reports that Ahmad Wali Karza is on the CIA payroll, and that part of the money that he gets from the American intelligence agency is used to support the Kandahar Strike Force, which is described as a “semi-private” army. If you didn’t know, the CIA created this same Taliban (that we are now spending $30 billion a year to fight) under the Carter administration.

So right now, today, it is clear that Obama and Mullen feel as though Karzai is playing both ends against the middle, and it does not seem off-base to suggest that the CIA may be working against the aims of the American military in Kandahar. We have been fighting this “war” for eight years. (I put the word war in quotes because it is really not a true war. It is an ongoing partial occupation that enables massive military spending). Considering the fact that America spends about as much as the rest of the world combined on its military, you have to wonder what good it is doing if we can’t “defeat” an enemy as undersized, under-armed, and underfunded (are what funds they have coming in part through the CIA and President Karzai?) as the Taliban.

Don’t necessarily villainize the CIA here. The military hasn’t been able to succeed over eight years and hundreds of billions of dollars poured down the drain. It would seem prudent, and much, much cheaper, to use covert ops to monitor and manipulate the machinations of a foe that is embedded among an innocent populace. Infiltration coupled with dollar diplomacy could have done the trick.

Anyone who has ever been in the military knows that they never, ever want their budget cut, and they will spend unnecessarily to make sure that doesn’t happen; I have experienced it personally. There is little doubt in my mind that pennies on the dollar are going directly into the cut and dried, black and white, effort to “win the war” in Afghanistan. It is an exercise in pouring massive amounts of money into the military coiffures, and oversight is difficult to impossible. They ask Congress for a particular sum, and Congress has no choice but to acquiesce lest they be charged with “not supporting our troops.” This is why we needed to exit both Iraq and Afghanistan a long time ago and engage covert pressures, intelligence gathering, and dollar diplomacy to secure America aims in the region.

Announcing to the Taliban, and to the world, that this massive offensive is to be launched will simply cause them to lay low and melt into the general populace. Some specifically targeted individuals and rogue fighters will get picked off, and for a minute all of these U.S. troops will dominate the area at a cost of $57,000 a minute. But I ask you this: how in the hell will that make you and me safer here in America?

Another reason why the president might want to concern himself with the wars (hey, wait…isn’t the president supposed to be the commander-in-chief?) is that they are very expensive and driving the country deeper and deeper into debt. It was recently estimated that after this “surge” in Afghanistan we will be spending $57,000 a minute in that country. People in Afghanistan make less than $1000 a year on average. Wouldn’t you think that you could directly buy the peace over there with a fraction of what we are spending trying to kill people to get it?

It is truly amazing to consider how little the American president has said or done about the wars that his forces are fighting in the 13 months that he has been there commander-in-chief. However, for the very first time since he was sworn in, Obama has finally visited Afghanistan. He made it to Kabul over the weekend ahead of a planned U.S. assault on the city of Kandahar, a Taliban stronghold.

Clearly, Obama has absolutely no power or authority concerning military matters. He kept the same Secretary of Defense that we had under George Bush, even though he was elected largely due to the distaste that the public had for the wars. It is pretty obvious that there is another force pulling the strings outside of the democratic process, and this visit to Afghanistan achieves nothing other than reminding us of how little attention Obama has paid to the matter over the last 13 months.

Under the last administration, the NWO was able to implement many of their long term, socialist plans. These would include the expanded powers of the executive branch, the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, all a means for centralizing powers in the hands of the federal government. That was bad enough, but the economic turn toward socialism that took place while Bush was president was staggering.

Bush inherited a country that was enjoying its largest budget surplus ever. That, to me, sounds like the goal of capitalism: build wealth. Bush almost immediately spend all of that, and started getting involved in massive deficit spending. Why? Because of the largely unilateral (“coalition of the willing” not withstanding) decision to sweep aside all objections and illegally enter a war without pretext, another instance of the state acting without the consort of the people.

When we talk about debt, there has to be someone holding those treasury notes that the Bush deficit spending created, and guess who was the largest holder of American debt during the Bush years? That would be The People’s Republic of China, a SOCIALIST country. During the last year of the Clinton presidency, the U.S. had a 6.039 billion dollar trade deficit with China; not so good. But here are the annual trade deficits that we had with the socialists in China during the Bush years (in billions):

2001: $7.24
2002: $6.846
2003: $9.334
2004: $11.469
2005: $15.277
2006: $17.986
2007: $21.251
2008: $20.636

How would you describe the practice of a person in charge of a country’s spending pouring capital into a socialist country? And this is something that cost American’s their jobs, driving them to social programs like unemployment compensation, Medicaid, and welfare. How can anyone claim that Bush didn’t further the cause of socialism?

Plus, the bank and insurance bailouts happened on the Republican watch, remember? It was George W. Bush that bought 80% of the insurance giant AIG and got the government into the insurance business!! How is it that now that this Obama health tax has passed, the mainstream Republicans are purporting to be some sort of true blue freedom fighters staving off the “red threat?”

Let’s stay vigilant and not get swept into the trap of emotion and oversimplification that the central bankers have set here. The Democrats and the Republicans serve the central bankers, and the banking cartel will always win because they own both sides of the “political debate.” (I use quotes because what really needs to be debated, like the end of the Fed, never enters the picture.)

Don’t fall for this charade. This is not a statement in support of Obama by any stretch of the imagination; he is just as bad as Bush, but not a million times worse as many on the right are duped into believing. They say don’t hate the player, hate the game, and the way that people are hating Obama, as though he is actually in charge of something, is asinine. If this uninformed and sheep-like behavior continues from the right, and we all join hands and vote for mainstream Republicans, all we are doing is empowering the same global bankers who are controlling the “super villain”

As you might expect from a group that might just as well have had an extended, open hand as its logo, they take no personal responsibility for their financial woes; instead, they shift the blame onto others.

“It’s really declining revenue in the face of a series of attacks from partisan operatives and right-wing activists that have taken away our ability to raise the resources we need,” said ACORN spokesperson Kevin Whelan when asked about the reasons for the demise of the group.

You can check out the video below:

(Acorn image from Fresh Conservative)

Anyway, the main reason why George Herbert Walker Bush and Generals Powell and Schwarzkopf didn’t attempt to colonize Iraq during the first Gulf war is because they knew that the sectarian makeup of the population is very difficult to appease. They didn’t want to spend ten years and trillions of dollars only to leave the country in more disarray that it was in under Hussein. But under Bush Jr., the neocons got their war.

Now we are seeing that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki is looking like a loser in the election over there. Iyad Allawi, a Shi’ite whose coalition includes many Sunnis, is leading in the balloting and al-Maliki can’t cope. He is calling for recount and predicting (calling for?) violence if he doesn’t get his way.

“I call on the High Electoral Commission to respond immediately to the demands of those blocs to preserve the political stability and prevent the security situation from deteriorating and avoid the return of violence,” said al-Maliki.

The Iraq electoral commission see no need for a recount. Faraj al-Haidari, who heads up the commission, remarked: “If there is a glitch, they can file a complaint and say there was a glitch in that station. They say they want a manual count, but this is up to the commissioners’ board to decide. We do an accurate electronic count.”

Mr. al-Maliki appears to be all for democracy, unless people decide not to vote for him. Clearly, the Iraqi people are interested in going in another direction, and that says something about the U.S. invasion and occupation.

This fellow that carries the title of Pope Benedict XVI has issued a letter of apology to the victims of pedophile priests in Ireland, and hey, you know, if someone molests your son all you need to hear from the pervert is a heartfelt apology and its all good, right? In the letter he makes no mention of the cover-up by senior bishops in Ireland, who allegedly knew about the pedophilia but shielded the perpetrators from responsibility for their crimes. This is what the Church has done all along, and that reveals their underlying intentions and legitimizes my description of the Catholic Church as a bastion of institutionalized pedophilia. Critics of the apology also point out the fact that the pope didn’t mention the revelations of child abuse that are coming out in other countries around the world, including the Pope’s own former diocese in Germany.

I wonder what the response in the United States would be if it was revealed that the highest ranking leaders of the Islamic faith were covering up a culture of institutionalized, global pedophilia? It is time for people to come together and recognize that when it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck, dammit, and this horrid outrage cannot be allowed to continue unabated by the legal authorities. I better stop here before I get myself in trouble. You can read some more about it if you click here:

Pope sorry kids were molested, sidesteps cover-ups, scope of