From Dove to Hawk: Rachel Maddow

Beloved liberal commentator Rachel Maddow, often seen as a purveyor of hope and fairness in the bleak wash of the corporate media, has now come out with a new hardline stance she believes President-Elect Obama has the right to take against Iran. War against Iran will remain high on the agenda in 2009, regardless of the change of the President's Party.

The "American President" Takes A Stand

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been widely criticized by his own people and other Europeans as the "American President". Conveyed by his close working relationship with the American Administration, conservative ideals, and push for greater law and order for France, many French feel betrayed by this simple-talking inborn Frenchman of Hungarian origins. But, despite Sarkozy's blustering appearances, he may soon make his mark as a peacemaker for the world.

This year, during tense moments between the United States and Russia over the invitation of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, Sarkozy stood firm, negating American demands and calling for a freeze on NATO membership. In addition, his handling of Georgian President Saakashvili's U.S. backed genocide in the August War in Georgia as an arbiter between America and Russia is another notable foregin policy achievement.

Shockingly, yesterday, in a complete reversal of previous statements by the French and European Union President, Sarkozy upon meeting with Russian President Medvedev in Paris, stated that the U.S. plans for a Missile Defense System in Czech Republic and Poland is unnecessary and that the United States should think again about the system. He also claimed that the radar and anti-ballistic nuclear missiles have nothing to do with European security and that Missile Defense should wait until a European Security meeting in the summer of 2009.

Sarkozy's bold statements gave hope to the Czech and Polish people, in which a majority vehemently opposes the proposed installation of American bases and soldiers. In addition, the new American President Barack Obama has tacitly supported the Missile Defense Shield perogative, although he has made befuddled statements about reconsidering the program if it is proven not to be effective. While Obama's stance is unclear, at least Sarkozy's brave stand has given doubt that Robert Gates' plan to divide Central Europe, and in turn, the whole of Europe, may be reduced to failure. The Czech Parliament's ratification of two treaties to build the radar and station U.S. troops there still awaits a vote.

Rahm Immanuel's Plan for America

Congressman Rahm Immanuel (D) of Illinois has been the first primetime face to emerge on the scene from Barack Obama's newly formed cabinet. As Obama's head chief of staff, Immanuel is the first in a soon-to-be stream of choices for cabinet appointments from the corporately-owned Democrats. In the video posted below (from eyeblast.tv as well as CNN), Immanuel is recorded speaking about his plan for a required three month to four month "Civil Defense Service" program that would require all Americans to join part of civilian military training and as Immanuel hints, a nationally-required program of corporate-state indoctrination.

In the guise of "civic participation" the program would teach civilians simple military tactics and domestic spying; it is all too reminiscent of the required camps for students in the former USSR and Communist bloc nations. According to Obama and Immanuel's idea of America, taking away people's freedom is a good thing for Americans. Instead of wholesomely encouraging people to be active in their community voluntarily with the will to do it, "required service", or a coercion of people into a paramilitary domestic unit is nothing short of selling one's people straight into bondage.

But don't listen to me, Rahm Immanuel's interpretation of the so-called Civil Defense Service is all the more frightening.




http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e4qG6UIr8z

Obama Pledges Support for US Missiles in Poland

In the first few days within being elected President of the United States, Barack Obama has taken bold stances toward the foreign policy discussion. During a weekend when most Americans are attempting to take a break from the confrontational political jabber which has been blasted through the FOXs and CNNs of the world since September 11th, Obama took steps to greater hostility toward not only Iran, but also Russia and most of the populace in Central Europe.

According to the AP, President-Elect Obama spoke with Polish President Lech Kaczyinski this past Friday, and promised Kaczyinski his continued support for the Missile Defense Shield, which will include a radar in Brdy, Czech Republic, and ten anti-ballistic missiles in Poland, only 100 miles from the Russian border. Seeking to establish close ties with the Polish government, in both economic and military matters, Polish newsite Dziennik.pl reported that Obama hinted at making a visit to Warsaw as a top point on his agenda for 2009. However, Obama's willfull concessions to increased militarization in Central Europe and increased hostility with Russia strikes alarm to many of the citizens of these freedom-loving nations.

At a President-Elect news briefing the next day, Obama representative Dennis McDonough backpedalled on questions about Obama's telephone conference with Kaczyinski. When asked about Obama's support for stationing missiles in Poland, he claimed that Obama has continued supporting the greater Missile Defense Shield project only if the science proves that it actually works. However, the many scientific tests done over the past year for the radar in the Czech Republic have questioned the integrity of the system and pointed out the many health risks for citizens living in the 50km area.

Despite all the jabber and positioning from the new mixed-signal Obama team, Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski noted that the entire system depends on the ability of the Czech Parliament to ratify the two treaties for the radar signed in Prauge earlier this summer. Unlike in 1938, this year, the Czechs (or at least their notoriously corrupt representatives), will have a chance to decide the fate of their national sovereignty.

Alex Jones on Obama's Team: WAR HAWKS!

Alex Jones on Russia Today comments on the 2008 American Election and suggests that an Obama Administration will be even more hawkish than Bush on Russia.

Corporate America Wins! / The Fight Continues

Barack Obama was able to capture the election, as he easily carried the media glow of celebrity through the night. Even worse, McCain attempted a dismal "Country First" campaign that even isolated conservatives by his servant-slave-state pronounciations. But even Barack Obama's CHANGE campaign openly enumerated its corporate agenda. Famed economist Milton Friedman strongly objected to such political imagery. In his interpretation, the idea of a sheltering nanny state wreaked of totalitarianism. And he in his writing is unfraid of calling it so.

In Milton Friedman's 1962 masterpiece Capitalism and Freedom, he addresses the challenges facing modern society, much which, its institutions have helped to create. In a benevolent and just fashion, Friedman conveys the major benefits society has reaped from liberalism and the laissez faire culture our society is rooted in. He speaks of the liberation from authoritarian rule which humanistic movements in the Rennaissance and Enlightenment championed. This progress in thought revolutionized society from a shell of slaves and masters into a world of independent action and destiny.

Much prosperity and advance can be celebrated. But, Friedman argues that with the rise of the corporate nation state since the 1930's, free man's progress is now threatened by a new form of innocuously phrased authoritarian rule. The power to heavily tax, distort monetary value, and make major closed international trade agreements serve an unfree nationalist agenda that smacks of fraud. In Friedman's delicate, sensible and logical way, the reader is left to ponder the fate of freedom in practicality. Convincingly so, putting into practice Friedman's arguments for allowing non-regulated open-market solutions would greatly improve our lives.

Education is an invaluable measure of a People. It is the basis for many's status and well-being. Even the success of their future depends on their attainment of education. But, in a nation where our Constitution explicity leaves all matters of local education to local authorities, it is astonishing to think of the shallow federal programs for education. Sadly, as Friedman points out, much federal meddling ammounts to little educational advances and in most cases, contributes to the demise of educational standards.

Calling for local communities to voluntarily cooperate to form schools with admission open to all, Friedman claims that much competitiveness would be maintained. For they would be a "shareholder" in this cooperative effort and care for the success in education above other nearby schools. Friedman stresses that "this would eliminate government machinery required to collect tax from all residence" (87). Thus, would be a just in a free and open society.

Friedman does concede to some federal aid to extreme considerations in which one's livelihood is now entirely depended on the state. Wisely, and in the name of laissez faire, he argues for "a combination of public and private schools" (93). He continues that, "It would permit competition to develop, the development and improvement of all schools would thus be stimulated. The injection of healthy competition would do much to promote a healthy variety of schools" (93). But private schools would eventually excel because once controlled by the state, "the parent or local community comes to exsercise little control" (95). Throughout his writing, Friedman's tone smacks of well-thought out indignance of the present status quo.

His writing screams out like a defender of a great unintangible prize. But, his steadfast belief that "government intervention reduces freedom and limits voluntary cooperation" (113) convinces of the power of a voluntary society. His further assertion that, "in a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse is for me to seek to persuade them that their tastes are bad and that they should change their views and their behavior, not to use coercive power to enforce my tastes and my attitudes on others" (111). The well-meaning virtue weaved through his work is all the more a testament to the principles of liberalism.

For now government affects society in boundless ways. Friedman asserts that

"the direction in which policy is now moving, of permitting corporations to make contributions for charitable purposes and allowing deductions for income tax, is a step in direction of creating a true divorce between ownership and control and of undermining the basic nature and character of our society. It is a step away from an individualistic society and toward the corporate state" (136).

Friedman continues on to champion the free market and its "invisible hand" as a critical link necessary to unleash the goodness and creativity of man. In describing his process he argues that in a long term look the United States' progress (as of 1962) in technological advances, living standards, and social culture proves that freedom works. Friedman explains that,

"The United States has continued to progress; its citizens have become better fed, better clothed, better housed, and better transported; class and social distinctions have narrowed; minority groups have become less disadvantaged; popular culture has advanced by leaps and bounds. All this has been the product of the initiative and drive of individuals co-operating through the free market. Government measures have hampered not helped this development. We have been able to afford and surmount these measures only because of the extraordinary fecundity of the market. The invisible hand has been more potent for progress than the visible hand for retrogression" (200).

As government has grown larger and more intrusive than ever under the cleavership of George W. Bush, it is frightening to see what the future holds now that the private banks are now directing our federal government. Through the guise of the now dictatorial Secretary of the Treasury, the banks have their own "President", able to command the economy at will. After Congress voted down the initial horrendously hashed Bailout, we have both Obama and McCain to thank for the media wind they used to steal from the poor to give to the super-elite rich of the greater Goldman-Sachs community. Such fraud still stings for the average losing American. After all, considering the history of America's government in the first decade of the 21st century, maybe favoring the consciously guided path of laissez faire freedom isn't such a bad idea.

Ralph Nader Runs On!

As Ralph Nader made his final campaign stops for his 2008 Presidential bid, on occassion he embarked on a journey to Minneapolis, Minnesota, this past Friday. In a small and intimate, yet racuous crowd held in Willey Hall on the University of Minnesota campus, Nader spoke with prolonged diatribes against the political and moral decay in America. He Counterd the delicate myths of the mainstream with eloquent, often philosophical remarks which lead to thunderous applause. He teased Americans about the shallow criteria now have instated as the qualities on which to judge a President. He mocked Obama for his pseudo-liberal creed, all of it formulated by his corporate masters. And Ralph Nader assailed Bush/Cheney for their utter disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law. He comended the Impeachment proceedings against Bush and criticized Nancy Pelosi several times for her stalwart support of neo-conservative agendas. However, most powerfully, Nader begged the crowd for more civic leadership on the local level, as he promoted community activism as a solution to take on America's and the World's problems.

Nader came slugging with his respected anti-war, pro-liberty messagte. Yet his advocacy of socialist policies to combat local issues left a strong disconnect. Nonetheless, Nader's intentions are well-hearted and his demands to drastically cut the bloated and bursting military budget shiow his wise understanding of Empire. Declaring the dangers of a multi-national corporate empire, Nader chastised Big Oil and its recieved gifts from the corporate welfare system imposed by the federal government. He also presented the case for single-payer government issued healthcare, and stressed "no one in America should die becuase they can't see a doctor." However, his solutions for health and education fall short of returning to Consitutional doctrine, Nader brings a fresh attitude to a stinking rotten old game.

Nader made multiple calls to action during the speech, urging the founding of a new independent liberty-minded party. Upon being asked whether such a party, composed of both social-liberlas and libertarians could be formed to merge into a political power base, Nader answered optimistically. He pointed to the "We Agree" platform, (adopted by Constitution Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin and himself with the guidance of Texas Congressman Ron Paul), as a stronng sign that such a confluence is occurring and will have the possibility of becoming a powerful political party in the near future. He then advised the questioner to "stay tuned" to the movement in this country. While there are many blanks yet to be filled in, this possible alliance presents strong hope for the coming years.

As Nader predicted tougher economic times to befall the nation, he warned of the possibility of a quick disenchantment with an Obama Administration. Nader predicted that Obama would receive much blame for the economic situation in the following years. In addition, Obama's continued adherence to the corporate status-quo will produce greater fractioning of an empassioned but still ill-informed populace. In the outcome, an independent leadership without the political gaming of the Republican-Democrat plutocracy will gain the opportunity to rise. We can all only work to ensure, that when the time is right, the People will restore its place.