The U.S. military, Western powers, and China are trying to dominate Africa. It's a type of neo-colonialism in the 21st century. America wants to dominate Africa for numerous reasons. American elites want to gain its political and economic resources. This is apart of the promotion of the military industrial complex since America's prosperity is starting to wain because of many reasons. This is nothing new since Western power intervened in various nations in order to control its policies (its market trade, and other reasons). Today, the U.S. is using diplomatic means and military bases in order to try to control Africa and many places in the world (in Ecuador, Uzbekistan, Colombia, and Korea). The U.S. is competing against the powers of China and Russia for natural resources as well. Yet, the U.S. has a bloated military budget. America's access to oil and rare Earth elements have decreased, while China's access to these resrouces have only increased. China is producing more metals like titanium that is found in military aircraft. Some in the U.S. in 2009 form the creation of the annual Strategic Metals Conference. This conference deals with concerns related to US access to metals with important industrial and military uses. The second annual conference, held in Cleveland, Ohio in January 2010, saw dozens of engineers and military personnel express heightened concern over China’s near monopoly over rare earth metals. China rules about 95% of the world's rare Earth's output. It has decided to restrict the export of these metals. This has caused international consumers to drop about 20,000 tons in 2010. China is now the 2nd largest economy in the world in terms of its GDP. It's only 2nd to America. China has a growing middle class and export markets around the Earth. China has few strings attached in dealing with Africa nations. So, it has grown its investments in Africa. In Africa, China has loans, debt forgiveness, and job training. In 2000, the forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) was formed to develop more trade and aid to Africa. 50 African nations worked in the forum to develop bridges of economic trading, political plus cultural exchange. This is a South-South alliance since the North-South colonial relationships with Africa have been unpopular. This is why Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade said that: "...China’s approach to our needs is simply better adapted than the slow and sometimes patronizing post-colonial approach of European investors, donor organizations and nongovernmental organizations. In fact, the Chinese model for stimulating rapid economic development has much to teach Africa. With direct aid, credit lines and reasonable contracts, China has helped African nations build infrastructure projects in record time—bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, dams, legislative buildings, stadiums and airports. In many African nations, including Senegal, improvements in infrastructure have played important roles in stimulating economic growth.” More and more African view Chinese influence as more positive than American influence. Even Putin and Medevdev from Russia have seek trade with Africa. The U.S. is losing its influence in Africa. The empire of America is costing billions of dollars. This is why the West form Africom to control Africa in imperialism under the guise of promoting "peace, security, democracy, and economic growth to Africans..." Yet, Africom is a military orientated group. Even Africans realize Africom's true intensions. Africom is allowing U.S. military exercises to occur despite protests form citizens in African nations.
The Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur is wrong for allowing the aide to attack Pro-Life people. Marcy's spokesperson Steve Fought made highly controversial statements. These statements attacked pro-life groups for opposing Congresswoman Kaptur and the new health care law. Kaptur's office believes that the executive order signed by President Obama will eliminate any pro-life concerns with the new law. Mr. Fought said, "Their political agenda, anti-Obama, is stronger than their belief in consistency when it comes to pro-life issues.""Some people you're never going to satisfy. Some people, it's never enough. And those folks fall into that category," Mr. Fought said. "If you're talking about the organizations themselves, they were opposed to it. But, if you talk about the individuals, it depends on the individual.... Sometimes organizations don't represent the interest of their membership necessarily, and I think that's the case here with the executive order." Some people disagree with these statements. Congresswoman Kaptur's office omitted that when the U.S. House passed a version of the Health care bill in November of 2009 with specific language to prevent taxpayer funded abortions, the Right to Life took a neutral position. Later, the U.S. Senate stripped out the House's pro-life amendment. This was when the Right to Life opposed it. So, Mr. Fought's contention that you're never going to satisfy pro-life groups and that it's never enough is wrong (sicne the original House pro-life amendment was "enough" to satisfy the Right to Life's concerns about the bill's effect on abortion). Fought said that nothing in the bill promotes aboriton. The Senate added provisions that specifically authorize insurance companies to cover elective aboritons in plans supported by federal subsidies. The Obama executive order doesn't override this provision. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to comply wit it. Mr. Fought said that pro-life groups are not representing the views of its members. Many pro-life oppose parts of the health care bill and a great majority of Ohioans do as well. In a January 2010 poll conducted for Ohio Right to Life, 1001 registered Ohio voters were asked: "Do you think that health insurance that is paid for or subsidized by taxpayer money should include coverage for abortions, or should abortions be excluded from coverage in such situations?" 65% of Ohio voters said abortion should not be covered, while only 22.1% said that it should be covered.Thus, when Congresswoman Kaptur turned a deaf ear to the requests of pro-life groups, she was ignoring not only those groups, but also the wishes of the majority of Ohioans. So, the health care law should be reformed and not totally eliminated in my opinion.
The Ground zero mosque deals with property rights. Yet, the corporate media is using the controversy to brainwash people to accept anti-religious liberty propaganda. Time Magazine on August 19 shown a poll saying that 61% of the respondents oppose the construction of the mosque. While, 26% of the pople support it. Time wrote that: "...More than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center..." Bill O'Reilly and the Clinton era throwback person Dick Morris demand that Muslims be stripped of the right to own property in America. This is an insult to the victims of 9/11 among many were Muslims. Muslims collectively have no responsibility for the catastrophic event of 9/11 at all. Time Magazine is apart of the CIA Mockingbird corporate media network. Any poll from them should be labeled as suspect. There is no evidence of the true barometer of American support for the mosque. Yet, most Americans probably believe that the mosque is an insult to the victims of 911, because of the corporate media's anti-Muslim propaganda. Neo-con Newt Gingrich compared the site to Nazis trying to put up a sign near Washington's Holocaust museum. Sarah Palin said that it is an unnecessary provocation that "stabs hearts." She is supportive of the establishment's Tea party movement (that independent Tea Party people are pushed to the side). Palin and her ilk claim to support the Constitution. Yet, the Constitution is clear that private property rights is a keen part of constitutional rights. There is nothing wrong with having the freedom to own private property in a legitimate fashion. The all but 4 of the 55 men at the Constitutional Convention placed the protection of property as behind only liberty itself. As Lynch notes, of the four who disagreed on this point, three differed not because they valued property rights less than their fellows but because they actually “put [their] protection ahead of liberty as the main object of society,” as Forrest McDonald explains. The Supreme Court even recently have a vague understanding of property rights and the Constitution. The neo-con Supreme Court back in 2005 ruled in the Kelo decision that local governments may force property owners to sell out (and make way for private economic development). The founders would have been appalled by the very concept of "eminent domain." Eminent doman is the idea that government can deny the right of the individual to hold property. Sharif El-gamal is the real estate developer. He owns the buildings that will be transformed into a 15 story mosque on Manhattan. In order that the feelings of the 9/11 victims families will not be hurt — and also buttress the cornerstone premise of the manufactured global war on terror — El-Gamal’s property rights may be violated. Even New York governor David Paterson and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid oppose the building of the mosque. Dean said that it's a real affront to people who lost their lives. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights promote the view that Muslims have the right to own property. Almost 2/3 of Americans disagree with property rights (if we are to believe the corporate media). The Patriot Act, the naked body scanners in airports around the nations, etc. are representations of our precious freedoms being lost. I don't agree with Islam, but if people can strip Muslim private property rights, then they can strip yours.
Some say that the Gulf Coast oil may not degrade for decades. Scientists are finding gigantic under oil plumes from the BP spill. There is one that is more than 22 miles long, more than a mile wide, and 650 feet deep. Last Thursday, Dr. Ian MacDonald and Dr. Lisa Suatoni testifed to a Congressional subcomittee that the oil will toxic and won't degrade much further for decades. MacDonald is an expert in deep-ocean extreme communities. That includes natural hydocarbon seeps, gas hydrates, and mud volcanos systems. Dr. MacDonald is a former long time NOAA scientist and a professor of Biological Oceanography at Florida State University. Suatoni has a PhD in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Yale, and is the Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council's Oceans Program. Dr. MacDonald told Congress that the oil has already degraded, emulsified, and evaporated about as much as its going to, and it is going to very resistant for further biodegradation. The oil will be in the environment for a long time according to MacDonald. The imprint of the BP discharge will be there for the rest of MacDonald's life according to him. He is 58 years old and the average lifespan of an American man is about 18 years after 58. Dr. Suatoni told Congress that oil which goes into low-oxygen zones will reamin in a full toxic form for decades. The oil isn't degrading faster. Why. Some want more studies on why this is occuring or why the oil isn't disappearing faster via mircobes, etc. Christopher Reddy is a marine chemist at WHOI that is trying to find out why it is occuring (including study leader Richard Camilli of WHOI's Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering Department). Some of the oil eating bacteria isn't even presented in the underwater plumes that some researchers have tested. Glen Beck is having his pro-Tea Party event in Washington, D.C. on August 27, 2010. this is on the day that Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech back in 1963. Beck wants to believe that his march should be a means to unite the nation among different religious people, etc. So, it's highly Ecumenical. Beck is a Mormon, so that is interesting to mention. Mormonism is not Chrisitanity. It was created by the Freemason Joseph Smith. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods in the world (and that you can become gods and goddesses in the celestrial Kingdom. This is found in Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20). The OT and NT says that there is only one God in the Universe: "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is: ..." Isaiah 45:5 (KJB). Another verse says that: "... there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is.Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:21,22 (KJB). The Book of Mormon is a book that was created by Mormons and it isn't the New Testament. Mormons teach in 3 separate gods of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christianity teaches the believe in one God that manifests himself as 3 distinct persons of the one Godhead. Beck's religion believe that the God the Father has a body of flesh and bones like mankind. Beck uses a mixture of a calm demeanor and an angry persona to get his audience interested in his neo-conservative views. Even Glenn Beck's website shows the Masonic obelisk of the Washington Monument (that was set up by Freemasons. Freemaons promote the new order of the ages, which is code for the new world order). Glenn Beck wants to make known how faith played in the Founding Fathers' life, but many of them were occultists, Deists, and Masons. Beck gave a speech to the pro-CNP, Ecumenical Liberty University in May 15, 2010. He's an ally of Roman Catholic and CFR member Newt Gingrich. So, Glenn Beck can't be trusted when Brigham Young believes in people shedding their own blood for the atonement of sin. This is the repudiation of the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Beck is the one who disrespected 9/11 victims, called the victims of Hurricane Katrina scum, and called President Barack Obama a racist. Now, Beck says that he's following in the footsteps of Dr. Martin Luther King when he's not. He's trying to misrespesent the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. Dr. King believed in opposing Communism, but he wanted a radical redistribution of economic and political power to help the poor. In 1968, Dr. King said that: "... It didn't cost the nation one penny to integrate lunch counters" and "[i]t didn't cost the nation one penny to guarantee the right to vote." However, he concluded that "now, we are dealing with issues that cannot be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars -- and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power." The redistribution of wealth toward the super rich is commonplace. King wanted land reform. Glenn Beck promoted Ayn Rand when she was an atheist and an Objectivist. King say this since the super rich have an uneven amount of wealth and power as it is in the world. Dr. King opposed the evils against the poor and desired compensatory programs to fight against the evils of poverty in the world. Dr. Martin Luther King believed in the guaranteed income policy of a citizen dividend. Dr. Martin Luther King wanted all human beings to be equal in all places worldwide. Beck says that he wants to reclaim the civil rights movement, but he doesn't even some known basic facts of the Civil Rights Movement. Dr. King believed in using Christian theology to promote social transformation of the environment in our landscape (or social justice. Beck is opposed to social justice explictly). Dr. King criticized the economic disparity in America and unregulated capitalism. If Dr. Martin Luther King was alive today, Glen Beck, the Tea Party movement, and others would be opposed to much of the views of Dr. King. The First Amendment from the Bill of Rights dictates that Glenn Beck has a right to his rally (Sarah Palin is to speak there. Beck said he believes it was “divine providence” that the rally was scheduled on the anniversary of the King speech) and people have the right to disagree with it. Alveda King and Pastor Stephen Broden are right on many issues like respecting the rights of the unborn. Yet, even they have been brainwashed by the propaganda of the reactionary and Mormon Glen Beck. Mormons have had a big discriminatory history against black people for a long time. Even the Founding Fathers like Beck almost worships believed in using taxpayer dollars to build infrastructure like canals, manufacturing, and other tools in America. These spending plans are something that Beck and his ilk would oppose. Beck is making unemployed people the scapegoats of their benefits being lost by him calling them "un American."
By Timothy
No comments:
Post a Comment