Updates on the War on Terror
Now, Mohamad Rafea was killed by FSA terrorists and deathsquads. He was an actor in Syria. He was kidnapped and killed by the FSA. He spoke out many times about the truth in Syria. Rafea Mohammad exposed the civil war in Syria. The truth is apparent. There has been Western backed death squads that is fomenting violence in Syria as a means to promote a puppet, pro-Western state. The whole situation is a slick way to divide and conquer the citizens of Syria. Many of the terrorists are allied with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UK, and the USA. This is similar to the situation in Libya where NATO funded terrorists to harm Libya. Libya has a huge oil supply and the Western oil companies are trying to gain more resources in Libya. Gaddafi before he died wanted an independent currency among Africans and Muslims in order to compete against the dollar. The elites controlling the global major central banks don't like that. Saddam wanted euros to trade not the dollar. Iraq later suffered sanctions and an invasion. Before NATO destroyed NATO, there were sanctions against Libya including a no-fly zone. Soon, Libya experiences war crimes by al-Qaeda related terrorists who lynched black men, women, and children (as predicted by Gaddafi before he was murdered without a trial). Gaddafi wasn't perfect, but NATO is wrong in this affair since they backed the rebels in causing the destruction of Libya. The CIA led covert operations in Libya and throughout the Middle Eastern region as well. One Syrian woman debates a pro-FSA person on the Australian show "Insight." The rebels have murdered religious minorities and caused a lot of chaos in the nation of Syria. Even Christians have been killed or beheaded in Syria. Mimi Al Lahm is a Syrian woman said that the Muslim Brotherhood wants to eliminate the secular government of Syria. She doesn't support Assad, but she doesn't want extremists to harm the Syrian government. You fight injustice by reform & legitimate activism not by aiding NATO backed terrorists. Russia and China (with dealings with Iran and Syria) are emerging as a superpower and the Western elites want to control the geopolitical both nations. Syria should have less corruption, but a foreign policy that is tolerable without NATO/Western domination. Assad isn't perfect, but the Muslim Brotherhood should not control all of Syria. Syria should maintain a separation of church and state. Syria should have reform, but extremists ought not to control the political instruments of the nation of Syria at all. The Syrian civil war continues. The West is openly backing foreign al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria while they overtly claim to oppose al-Qaeda. The truth is that al-Qaeda was fathered by Western backed terrorists back in the late 1970's. Now, it is a tragedy that innocent children have to die as a product of drone attacks and war crimes. It's wrong to use our taxpayer dollars to fund these war crimes under the guise of promoting democracy of "humanitarian aims." It is not right to see Pakistani civilians to be blown up by bombs or to see this unjust, immoral war on terror to continue. Like I have mentioned before, the President of the United States can act revolutionary and reject this war on terror nonsense once and for all or he can continue in the pragmatic "compromising" centrist path. That is the choice that the brother must make. We have a responsibility too. We should always reject corrupt corporate power. We should fight to restore our beleaguered civil liberties. We should promote the strengthening of the existence of democratic unions. We should fight for a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures. We should implore the White House to end all American militarism and imperialism.
The war on terror is happening even in Mali. Many Islamists have been exploited by the West as a means to cause conflict in Mali. There is an internal civil war in Mali and other foreign factions are interfering with it. We have Africom (or the U.S. Africa Command military force) acting like they are "humanitarian" in their orientation. The reality is that the Anglo-American network has their influence in Libya, Uganda, Somalia, Sudan, and other places in Africa. One reason why the West is fighting in Somalia is that massive untapped oil reserves in the Puntland region of northeastern Somalia. Mali has a huge amount of resources in mining, agricultural commodities, and oil. Ghana and Mali made a significant percentage of oil supplies in the world. America and France don't want Islamists to take over northern Mali. That is why both nations are leaning on Abdelaziz Boutefika or the President of Algeria to support an international invasion of Mali. The West doesn't want independent factions to control Mali. To this credit, President Boutefika said that an invasion of Mali would cause more problems than solutions. Drone attacks by America have been executed in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Mali is complex since many Muslims in Mali deal with local concerns. Not every Muslim is some terrorist. Mali has been an economically stable nation in Africa for years. Mali is Africa's third larger producer of gold after South Africa and Ghana. Mali has a lot of uranium resources as well. We know the Tuareg (who live in many areas filled with uranium) oppose colonization and some Tuareg fighters are being slandered as Islamic jihadists as an excuse to promote Western imperialism. Mali is having a civil war with the Tuareg fighters who once fought on the side of Gaddafi. The U.S. trained Captain Amadou Sanogo led a coup d'etat against the government in Bamako. The Taureg rebels also are fighting the al-Qaeda forces in Mali. It is obvious that the West wants the eviction of China from the continent. They want ARFICOM to have more a geopolitical foothold in Africa. This form of imperialism wants to eliminate competition or total African control of the resources in Africa as a means to rape Africa's great resources. If African countries further control their own natural resources, then a significant dent in African nations' poverty rates can transpire according to a World Bank report. So, it is important for us to understand what is happening in the Motherland greatly.....
One of the tragedies of the 2 party system is that both major parties in America aren't serious about handling our civil liberty crisis in the USA. Now, in our day, we have to promote fundamental human rights. Far too often, both parties have a love affair with Empire. We don't need an unitary executive power base as advocated by John Yoo. We must have the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution and by expert scholars of the past like Montesquieu. Today, Guantanamo Bay is not closed. There is the continuation of military tribunals and the practice of torture in Afghanistan. These are a small number of immoral realities we witness in our foreign policy apparatus. There is a continuity of these policies between the Bush and Obama administrations. The political system causing these policies to exist in the first place came about long before administrations transpired. The National Defense Authorization Act violates much of the concept of habeas corpus for U.S. citizens and foreigners. The Patriot Act even authorizes indefinite detention without indictment for foreigners suspected of having links to terrorist organizations. The executive order of November 13th, 2001 enables the trial, by these military tribunals, of foreigners suspected of being in contact with Al Qaeda, or having "committed, prepared or helped to devise acts of international terrorism against the USA." Some of these laws violate even the military code itself beyond being harmful to liberty itself. These tribunals were set up to judge foreigners suspected of terrorism, and no proof which could invalidate such charges is admissible by either civil or military tribunals. The Military Commissions Acts was passed in September 2006. The law legitimized the military commissions. The law extends the notion of "illegal enemy combatant" which no longer describes only foreigners captured on the field of battle, but also foreigners or US citizens who have never left their country of origin. While US citizens indicted on the basis of this notion of illegal enemy combatant must be deferred before civil courts, it is not the case for foreigners, who may be judged by military commissions. These courts will not allow defendants to choose their own lawyer. A defense lawyer will be a military person as appointed by the President. The amount of physical coercion is determined by the President. The lawyer also has no access to evidentiary elements of the case which may be classified as "secret." The law only gives the President the power to designate people (even the U.S.'s own citizens) as an illegal enemy combatant. The 2009 Military Commissions Act of 2009 was supported by the President and the President opposed the old legislation back in 2006. The new law no longer mentions 'illegal enemy combatants', but "hostile non-protected enemies". However, the main thrust remains – the inscription of the notion of 'enemy' into criminal law, and thus the fusion of criminal and military law. But the term "belligerent", which characterizes the notion of 'enemy', widens the field of incrimination. The new definition includes folks who act even in solidarity with those oppose U.S. armed forces. This ambigious definition of belligerent can include American citizens under certain circumstances. The National Defense Authorization Act was signed by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011. The law authorizes indefinite detention without trial of indictment of suspected terrorists. The White House issued a signing statement that the indefinite provision doesn't apply to American citizens, but indefinite detention of any human being is a violation of international law and basic human rights. That is why people are in opposition to the NDAA as I am. The ACLU is right to mention that: "...the breadth of the NDAA's detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war..." The law concerns any person designated by the administration as "a member of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and who takes part in hostile action against the United States", but also anyone who "substantially supports these organizations". This formula enables an extensive and flexible use of the law. For example, it would enable the government to lash out at any civil defense organizations who seek to protect the constitutional rights of US citizens who have been designated by the executive as enemies of the USA. The big picture is that the executive branch ought to respect international and national law. There is a division of powers here. Our human civil liberties ought to be respected not only for Americans, but all people in the world. There are still real people that oppose the TSA tyranny, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, SOPA, and all unjust, anti-civil liberty laws completely. ....
....
Conclusion
The elites aren't progressives nor conservatives. They are corportatists and extremists or globalists. If the elites were progressive, why have the elites promoted anti-voter, anti-labor, pro-war, and anti-civil liberty policies in recent years? The establishment uses both parties for their aims. That is true, but the elite are blatantly against the interests of the people. Many of the elite view the poor in degatory and evil perceptions. Some folks may harbor bigoted, immature, and narrowminded thinking about the poor. Yet, the poor aren't our enemy. The poor have been the recipients of oppression. That is why we have to take anti-poverty measures seriously. All human beings regardless of their income or socioeconomic status have dignity and worth.
Now, I know that there are strengths in the Affordable Care Act. Yet, there are weaknesses to it as well. One weakness of the law is that is allows the insurance company to have too much control over our health care system. The election is over. Our health care costs are still very high. The average cost for health insurance is about $15,745. The reactionary, Tea Party types falsely believe that the law is some government takeover of health care. The left paradigm believes that it is the most sweeping healthcare reform since Medicare. The truth is not in those extremes. The truth is that the law has good parts, but the private insurance industry morphs its power as a means for them to control of health services in a slick fashion. While it is positive that the PPACA requires coverage of people with pre-existing conditions and prohibits lifetime caps, it can't control what people pay for insurance, because it doesn't limit actual premiums. Premiums have risen 13% on average since the Act was passed. Now, we have the growth of mergers in the insurance world. In late August, the third largest insurance company in the US, Aetna announced it was buying Coventry Health Care for $5.7 billion. Coventry provides Medicare and Medicaid services, thus the takeover expands Aetna's Medicare and Medicaid business. Being part of Aetna enables Coventry to grab more consumers on more state-run health insurance exchanges, reducing competition in the process. The Department of Justice is examining anti-trust issues surrounding the deal, but it's still expected to close in mid-2013. Some companies are using mergers as a means to move profits around and circumvent restrictions and other tax laws. The law doesn't start to cover the uninsured fully until at least 2013. Even Congress passed Medicare in 1965 and President Lyndon Johnson rolled out coverage for millions of seniors in eleven months, back in the days before they even had computers. Today, we have the internet, UPS, and other technologies. Yet, 22,000 Americans now perish each year because they can't get or can't afford medical care. Real health care should come to people as soon as possible. Even the small public option is small to 10 million. The law wants individuals to be mandated to purchase health insurance policies from private insurers. The law was heavily influenced by Big Pharma, because Big Pharma was greatly involved in the negotiations of the creation of the Affordable Care Act. The corporate media have silenced people who wanted a single payer health care system, which is superior to the ACA. We should have a publicly funded, everybody in nobody out system where it's single payer health care. The President supported such a system, but he rejected it. A single payer Medicare-For-All system will eliminate 500,000 insurance company jobs and replace them with 3.2 million new jobs in health care for a net gain of 2.6 million new jobs according to a study by the National Nurses Organization. That's as many jobs as the US economy lost in all of 2007. The independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in March 2012, estimated that the PPACA will leave up to 31 million people completely without health insurance, and lacking access to "affordable" health care. The ACA law is based on the plan created by the reactionary Heritage Foundation many years ago. The same goes for health insurance exchanges, another idea formulated by conservatives and supported by Republican governors and legislators across the country for years. An exchange is as pro-market a mechanism as they come: free up buyers and sellers, standardize the products, add pricing transparency, and watch what happens. Market Economics 101. The law has many legitimate parts to it, but it isn't a truly universal health care law at all. Single payer will create hundreds of billions in annual wages and local and state tax revenues for cash strapped cities and towns. The Obama plan does address some of the major problems inherent in the current system, such as allowing parents to continue covering young adult children and preventing pre-existing conditions from barring access to coverage. These are certainly worthy goals, but a true single payer, Medicare for all plan would address those problems too, and would also address the biggest obstruction to true health care reform, the reliance on private health insurance companies to provide care for every person. Still, private insurance companies can manipulate the market place by giving Americans access to inferior coverage with high deductibles. A national single payer health care system is needed. We must fight for this goal completely. Private health insurers should never control every aspect of our health care system in America at all. It's a shame that many Republicans and Democrats agree with making war globally, bailing out big banks (without adequate help to the poor), and austerity like measures in the world. I do believe that the ACA is better than the status quo, but single payer health care is better than the ACA. Having such a program is entrepreneurial regardless of what Max Baucus says. I believe that some states rejecting Medicaid expansion is truly disgraceful. Universal health care is the way to go. I think that the Affordable Care Act should be improved upon (in making truly universal health care) not totally eliminated.
*In nearly 2020, we should allow the White House and governments of the world to be held accountable for their own actions. We don't want all "free stuff" as the reactionaries lie about. We just want justice, freedom, and equality. It's sweet and simple. We still have the power, but we have a long way to go in really growing our power. We had the power to end overt slavery and we expressed the power to end Jim Crow and we still have the power to end the prison industrial complex and other ills in our society. Revolution is always hard. When FDR wanted a Second Bill of Rights, it was shot down by the establishment.The Second Bill of Rights is relevant in our time. It called for the guarantee of everyone the right to employment, the right to a living wage, the freedom from unfair competition or monopolies, the freedom to have a house, the right to an education, and the right to have Social Security for the elderly. That is why real populist want similar goals in our time with a Wall Street tax, student loan amnesty, ending all foreclosuers, jobless benefits for Americans that need it, a living wage, restore food stamps, the investigation of assassinations and tragedies (of 9/11, etc.), and to reform the Federal Reserve System (with a 0 percent credit for production). In our generation, this is our legacy. We have the right to oppose the international drug trafficking ,we have the right to oppose the prison industrial complex, and we have the right to oppose gentrification. I believe in the legalization of industrial hemp too as supported by people from across the political spectrum. The President deserves no passes on his errors, but it's bigger than the President. It's about a corrupt system that must be opposed with vigor, strength, and resiliency (not pessessism). We fight evil by doing good. Doing righteousness and having a love for humanity are wise procedures indeed.
By Timothy
No comments:
Post a Comment