There is the controversy over the resignation of CIA Director David Patraeus. David Patraeus admitted that he had an extramarital affair with his biographer reserve Army officer Paula officer Paula Broadwell. Now, some believe that it's bigger than adultery, which is probably is. The reason is that there are strange emails, a FBI investigation of the matters, and the war on terror issues that make it bigger than just a question of a man making the grave error of committing adultery against his own wife. In the Middle East, there is an investigation of the total facts of the Benghazi Libyan bombing. The West is arming terrorists and the FSA in Syria as a means to try to overthrow the al-Assad regime. It's strange that Patraeus is not testifying before a closed door session of the Senate Intelligence Committee next week about the CIA's role in the September 11 assault on the diplomatic facility and a CIA annex in Benghazi. The House Intelligence Committee has also scheduled a hearing to grill Petraeus and National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen. The chairman of the House committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, has vehemently criticized the Obama administration for its role in the attack that left ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead. “Benghazi is not about Libya, Benghazi is about the policy of the Obama administration to involve the United States without clarity to the American people, not only in Libya but throughout the whole of the Arab world now in turmoil,” Baxter told Kudlow. “Benghazi is about the NSC directing an operation that is perhaps shadowy, perhaps a presidential finding, perhaps doesn’t, that takes arms and men and puts them into Syria in the guise of the Free Syria Army.” There is a whole list of questions about the sudden resignation of the CIA boss. The GP is attacking the administration for the terrorist murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. The truth is bigger than what is seen. The State Department is being accused of never requesting for backup. Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer is accusing the President of personally watching in real time the attacks as they occurred via video feeds from drones flying over the Benghazi consulate. An independent investigation should determine the real truth. The truth is that most Syrian terrorists came from Libya. The Western supported opposition which overthrew Libya's Gaddafi was largely comprised of Al-Qaeda terrorists. The 2007 report from West Point's Combating Terrorism Center's center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al-Qaeda's main headquarters (and bases for sending Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq, before to the overthrow of Gaddafi). We see that Al-Qaeda has a huge influence in Libya as evident on Al-Qaeda flown over Benghazi courthouse from Gaddafi was toppled form. Gaddafi was about to invade Benghazi in 2011 (since he rightfully deduced that it was an Al-Qaeda stronghold). NATO planes stopped him and NATO protected Benghazi. The Washington Times, the CNN, and the Telegraph (including other mainstream sources) confirm that al-Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime. America has armed the Syrian opposition since 2006. Now, according to the Wall Street Journal and Telegraph (plus other sources) confirm that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation. Reuters said that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals. Business Insider said that Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda linked Libyan opposition (working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life). The CIA has funneled weapons to the rebels in Southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handling out the heavy weapons from Libya. Regardless of the CIA's operation in Benghazi, the U.S. backed terrorists for geopolitical ends for decades. The U.S government has planned regime change in Syria and Libya for 20 years. Most Americans don't want another war, but wars are now being promoted under the guise of "humanitarianism."
Confucius was one of the greatest philosophers in human history. He lived from 551 B.C. to 479 B.C. His views of Confucianism were made the official belief system of the Han Dynasty in China. The Han Dynasty was one of the most important ancient dynasties in China, because a massive amount of inventions, cultural, and other forms of governmental development grew under that dynasty. Confucius wanted a society that deals with the improvement of the government and the human family in China. The Analects are the selected sayings of Confucius. Confucius was a man who was a governmental official. He wanted to improve the world around him as a means to formulate just society. His code of conduct in his perception is necessary in growing a better community. Confucius believed that man's basic nature was good and it was necessary to grow five basic relationships in the human race. These relationships involve older/younger brother, husband/wife, ruler/subject, father/son, and friend/friend. In these relationships, Confucius taught that the older brother must teach the younger brother, the father must teach the son, and so forth. He believed that society must function in order as a means for people to be content in their role of life. This can result in Confucius' mind to achieve social harmony. He believed in filial piety or respect for parents. He believed in a strong government and that people can be in government based upon merit (or you pass tests in order to have a certain position in governmental structures). He wanted good government and to have respect for the emperor or elders in China. Confucianism definitely believed in education as a means to benefit the welfare of society and the individual. Confucian thinking spreads into Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and then the entire world now in 2012. Confucius believed in a code of conduct that is still valued in China today. One is the common sense philosophy of do unto others as others would have done unto you (or the Golden Rule from Jesus Christ centuries after the time of Confucius). Confucius always believed in sincerity, justice, and he wanted personal morality to be extensive in ancient Chinese culture. The Qin Dynasty was influenced heavily by the authoritarian Legalist philosophy. Confucius believed in the reverence of the ancestors. His personal name was "Kong Qui." His courtesy name was "Zhongni." He was also known as "Kong Fuzi" or "Master Kong." Confucianism discusses concepts of the afterlife and Heaven, but it is unconcerned with other essential religious thinking like the nature of souls. Confucius wanted the government to rule ethically so the people in society can benefit without bribery and coercion. He explained that this is one of the most important analects: "If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of the shame, and moreover will become good." (Translated by James Legge) in the Great Learning (大學). If society was more moral in Confucius' eyes, the Mandate of Heaven would cause peace to exist among the people. The Mandate of Heaven is an ancient Chinese concept that believed that fair rulers would have the blessings of Heaven (while corrupt rulers will causes curses, earthquakes and other problems in the land. This concept is the opposite of the divine rights of kings where the divine rights of kings in Europe viewed the King as nearly immune from criticism from the people. Under the divine rights of Kings, Kings can do almost anything they want based on God's will. The Mandate of Heaven requires that the King must act moral in order for blessings from Heaven or "Tian" to come). Therefore, Confucius is a great figure in the realm and history of philosophy indeed.
Now, people know the truth about economics all of the time. Most Americans believe in a slight tax increase on the super wealthy. Most Americans believe in not cuts to Social Security, because Social Security has no bearing on the national deficit. So, the majority of the American people are on our side in terms of economics. People like Stephen Zarlanga have written great literature about economic populism. Now, I reject the radical thinking of cut, cut, and more cutting as a pristine economic philosophy. Instead, I accept the fundamental principle that investments, progressive taxation, eliminating unfair tax loopholes, and the fight against economic inequality as better actions than austerity. Even people in both major parties say that we should spend some money, but Austrian economic extremists don't want to spend any form of money at all. People know about the John Birch Society and its history. The JBS was funded by Nelson Rockefeller. The JBS have links to the pro-near theocratic Council for National Policy (with members involved in the Iran Contra scandal too). The CNP in some of its membership desire some quasi-theocratic government in America. Now, we know that full free market and full privatization of corporatism of all resources in a nation will increase that nation of being broke and being not able to compete in the world. Norway and other nations in the world refute the free market fundamentalist ideology completely. The reason is that Norway has universal healthcare, low poverty, universal education (like Finland), and other things without a privatized 100 percent free market system. That is why people like Ron Paul don’t talk about Norway, Sweden, or Finland since it is antithetical to their Utopian vision. In the final analysis, privatization doesn't work. The Norwegian economy has a mixed economy with some free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. Most nations with the highest GDP on Earth have universal healthcare. The democratic social tradition is one way out of many that can improve our economic and social problems. Much of the economic philosophy in the Republican has coded language that seeks to try to intimidate the poor and minorities to worship the individual at the expense of the collective interest of all of society. That is why it is fine for us to condemn human rights violations in the world. Yet, we have the right to also expose the rapaciousness and exploitation of capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism.
There has been health news as well. Researchers from Stanford University said that injecting older mice with younger blood can improve the older mice's vitality. Leader of the research team Saul Villeda and his team found that the boost of youth improved learning and memory in the older mice. Villeda shared his research with the Society for Neuroscience conference in New Orleans on Wednesday and did not understate its implications for conditions that are caused by deteriorating brain function. "I think any sort of disease that has that component, there is a chance this might help," he said. "What I am thinking is if we can address it earlier, when our body still has the control to prevent this from happening, then we might not have to cure Alzheimer’s, we might just be able to stop it." This story has been reported by the Guardian. This hasn't been the first study to suggest that young blood can reverse effects of human aging. In 2010, a team of Harvard researchers connected the circulatory systems of young and old mice so that their blood mixed and found that it rejuvenated the blood-forming stem cells in the older mice. In the words of MIT’s Technology Review, "They found that the procedure made the blood-forming stem cells in older animals act young again." The biggest difference in that study seems to be the mice’s ability to produce immune cells, though it’s unclear exactly what the long term effects of the blood mingling would have on the animals. It is not a secret that we can't have a sedentary lifestyle. We should stand and exercise. Sitting for a long period of time can harm our health like smoking, alcohol, lack of exercise, and junk food. Sitting only burns about one calorie per minute. You good cholesterol can drop by 20 percent after 2 hours of sitting and after 24, insulin effectiveness drops by 24 percent; your risk of developing diabetes rises. "People with sitting jobs have twice the rate of cardiovascular disease as people with standing jobs. Sitting six-plus hours per day makes you up to 40 percent likelier to die within 15 years than someone who sits fewer than three, even if you exercise" (MedicalCoding&Billing.org). Sitting for too long can harm our lower back muscles (or it can cause lower back pain). The journal, Diebetologia, performed a meta-analysis to see the correlation between sitting and disease. They concluded that "sedentary time is associated with an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality; the strength of the association is most consistent for diabetes." (Wilmot, et al., 2012). That is why experts believe that people should get up at least every 30 minutes to walk, increase circulation, stretch, hydrate, etc. We can walk move on trains, cars, buses, and at other locations. We can take the stairs at work and bike as well. Some offices are using standing work stations to decrease sitting times and lower health problems. Activation of the muscles in the lumbar spine will improve with movement and standing tasks; chair type will not make your back work. No chair will do the job of exercise and moving. Movement is part of nature and it is part of life.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo is promoting his lies about Abraham Lincoln again. President Abraham Lincoln wasn't perfect and he was given pressure by people like Frederick Douglas to act more progressive. Yet, Lincoln was much better than Jefferson Davis, who wanted the Confederacy to exist with brutal slavery against black Americans. Now, DiLorenzo is at it again. He tries to show the imperfections about Lincoln as a means to promote the Confederacy. See, he is a neo-Confederate and Alex Jones entertains neo-Confederates on his website. Alex Jones also entertains the hypocritical John Birch Society (these reactionaries slandered the late President John F. Kennedy decades ago). Now, we realize that Rockefeller-sponsored Mises Institute supports the agenda of Thomas J. DiLorenzo. People like DiLorenzo believe in a radical form of libertarianism that believes that any government intervention is equivalent to communism or socialism, which is a lie. They seek to slander Lincoln and FDR. Now, the Confederates hated the general welfare clause of the Constitution. Also, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution after the Articles of Confederation as a means to promote individual rights. Slavery is a violation of real individual freedom and the Confederacy's Constitution explicitly promoted the institution of slavery. Many leaders of the Confederacy were hugely more racist than the President of the Union during the Civil War indeed. We know their quotations. Unilateral secession is unconstitutional. It's a fact that the British elites, European colonialists, and the Papacy supported the Confederacy as a means to divide and conquer the Union. The Confederacy was aided by the establishment. That's a historical fact. Neo-Confederate economic philosophy is related to the feudalists today. The neo-Confederates today ignore the fact that the Federal Bill of Rights and the federal Constitution is superior to states' rights. States’ rights aren't infallible at all. Human rights are superior to states’ rights. Now, these neo-Confederates want to abolish even the 13th Amendment that gave citizenship rights to black Americans. People like DiLorenzo, the Pauls, and Rockwell are the modern day neo-Confederates that seek to re-write history (many in that clique don't respect the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment, especially the 14th Amendment, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act). The North wasn't perfect in that time period, but it was better than never-ending overt slavery. The Cornerstone Speech and the declarations of secession (from Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina) outlined slavery was one major justification for their secessions in the first place. Yet, the truth is ever real. The Southern constitution barred any and all laws limiting slavery in any, at any time, forever. The South (which attacked Fort Sumter) even had Black Codes decades before the Civil War transpired. It's hypocritical for racists in the neo-Confederate to try to talk about Lincoln being a racist (and Lincoln abandoned colonization), but the Confederacy was ruled by huge racists. It's hypocrisy. Alex Jones unconsciously supports these characters like Thomas DiLorenzo. In the final analysis, these people believe unconsciously or consciously in white supremacy (as white supremacy is the major driver force of the new world order system). Now, Lincoln wasn't perfect and I make no excuses for his fundamental flaws. Yet, he was right to support the Union above the interests of the Confederacy. He was right to allow black soldiers to fight on the Union. Also, Abraham Lincoln woke up a little and by 1865 and acknowledged the great evil slavery was in American society. The reactionaries omit that. The reality is that all human beings (as cited by the Declaration of Independence) should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Also, all humans should have social and political equality irrespective of their background or differences. We don't need money bombs or demagogic rhetoric, but truth, liberty, and justice (individually and collective for all peoples of the world).