De thuiskomst

door Frits Abrahams

Er wachtte Jan Peter Balkenende een lastig weerzien met zijn echtgenote, toen zijn chauffeur de dienstauto voor de woning in Capelle aan den IJssel had geparkeerd.  

Je kon niet zeggen dat ze hem stralend stond op te wachten, al deed ze haar uiterste best.

Pas toen de auto weer vertrokken was en ze met Jan Peter in de vestibule stond, liet ze zich gaan. „Ik vind het zó rot voor je”, zei ze met een korte snik, terwijl ze hem door zijn haar streek.

Hij week met zijn bovenlichaam iets terug en keek haar effen aan. „Hoezo?”

„Nou, die rotzakken die jou al die tijd hebben laten bungelen en toen voor die Belgische nobody kozen.”

„Waar heb je het over?” zei hij.

Hij probeerde haar zachtjes van zich af te duwen, pakte zijn uitpuilende presidentiële loodgieterstas bij het hengsel en liep naar de woonkamer. Ze dribbelde achter hem aan en zei: „Het is een schande.”

Hij draaide zich om, keek haar strak aan en zei: „Wanneerhoudenjullieernoueensoverop? Ik wás geen kandidaat, ik bén niet gevraagd, ik héb het nooit gewild en ik hóef dus helemaal niet teleurgesteld te zijn, verbitterd, geschokt, of wat dan ook. Ik ben mijn collega’s dankbaar voor deze beslissing, Van Rompuy lijkt me een uitstekende president en ik zal hem door dik en dun steunen. Watetenwevanavond?”

Het duurde even voor de verbijstering haar gezicht tekende. „Ik begrijp het”, zei ze, „maar je hoeft je voor mij niet groot te houden.”

Hij keerde haar zijn rug toe en beende driftig naar het raam, waarachter Capelle aan den IJssel iets minder veelbelovend lag te fonkelen dan Brussel bij nacht.

„Weetjewathet is”, zei hij, „jullie praten elkaar allemaal na. Politiciperspubliek. Ik zeg het nu nog één keer en daarna hou ik er voor eeuwig mee op: ikwasgeenkandidaat. Punt! Basta! Schluss! Finito!”

Ze knikte en liep naar de keuken. „Ik heb nog wat groentesoep van gisteren over, wil je dat?”

Ze luisterde niet naar zijn antwoord en zette een bakje met soep in de magnetron. Ondertussen dacht ze aan al die nachtelijke gesprekken van de laatste maanden.

Hoe ze hier aan de keukentafel hadden gezeten en hij zijn gal gespuwd had. Over die zak van Bos die steeds met de eer ging strijken, over Verhagen met zijn eigenwijze gedram, over de Venlose proleet die hem stond uit te schelden, over die waanwijze kakker van D66, over dat nuffige nest van GroenLinks, over die vergelijkingen met Harry Potter, over de hetze van de pers, ja, over dat hele klotekikkerlandje met z’n ruwheid en onfatsoen waar hij zich steeds meer aan ergerde.

God, wat hád hij er genoeg van gekregen en wat hád hij er graag weggewild. Reizen, regelen, recepties, dát wilde hij, regeren zonder regering, prestige zonder prestatie.

Ze dekte zwijgend de tafel en haalde de soep. De ringtone – de eerste maten van het Wilhelmus – van zijn mobieltje klonk. „Ja, Jack, leg jij het de mensen maar uit”, hoorde ze hem vermoeid zeggen, „ik hou erover op.”

Jack de Vries, wist ze, die gruwelijke gladakker, het leek wel alsof-ie met hém getrouwd was in plaats van met haar. De eeuwige lach van die man! Hij zou nog blijven lachen als hij je met een slagersmes van boven naar beneden opensneed. Den Haag, wat een verschrikkelijk oord.

„De soep is klaar”, zei ze dof.

Frits Abrahams is columnist en redacteur bij NRC Handelsblad
http://weblogs.nrc.nl/dag/2009/11/20/de-thuiskomst/#more-1213

Jack de Vries is staassecretaris van Defensie in de Nederlandse regering, voorheen campagneleider van de partij CDA (Christen-Democratisch Appèl) en persoonlijk adviseur van Balkenende (jc)
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2419625.ece/Nederland_bleef_in_Brussel_lobbyen_voor_premier

En over de teleurstelling in Londen, deze lezersbrief  in The Guardian:

‘There are so many negatives about Herman van Rompuy. He’s never declared an illegal war, never claimed Iraq has tons of chemical and biological arms, and nuclear weapons; and he’s never been addressed as “Yo, Rompy” by an US president. How can such a person command respect across Europe and the rest of the world?’ (Gordon Mott)

We get it. You’re a transvestite. No one cares anymore.

(pic is from here)

Central Florida Future – http://bit.ly/8KleHL

By Cassie Turner

Print this article

Share this article

Published: Friday, November 20, 2009

Updated: Friday, November 20, 2009

Caitlin Bush

"Most Americans do not know slavery not only exists in the world today, it flourishes," said Ron Soodalter, co-author of The Slave Next Door, in his presentation in the Pegasus Ballroom Monday morning.

"Somewhere around 27 million people are in bondage in the world today. Now, that’s over twice the number as were trafficked in chains in the entire 350 years of the African slave trade."

Soodalter, an active abolitionist and historian, kicked off International Education Week at UCF as the keynote speaker for the Second Annual International Breakfast. The Slave Next Door presentation concluded the three-part series on "Slavery’s Resurgence" facilitated by the Office of the Special Assistant to the President for Global Perspectives and the International Services Center.

The series began with Somaly Mam, a Cambodian human rights activist, former slave and author of The Road of Lost Innocence: The True Story of a Cambodian Heroine, when she shared her experiences in September.

In October, Micheline Slattery, a human-rights activist and former restavek, or domestic child slave, in both Haiti and the United States, addressed about 300 attendees.

Modern-day slavery includes around 800,000 men, women and children trafficked each year around the world. According to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Web site, about 17,500 of them end up in the United States, with a high percentage received in Florida.

Soodalter suggests a simple Google search on human trafficking for astounding results.

In spite of major federal legislation and anti-trafficking laws passed in 43 states, 103 human-trafficking convictions have resulted, Soodalter said.

Trafficking remains hidden, is largely unreported and difficult to identify. According to the 2009 Trafficking in Persons, or TIP, report, published by the U.S. Department of State, forced labor/involuntary servitude represents the majority of human-trafficking cases in the world. The co-author of Soodalter’s book,  Kevin Bales, wrote the original 156-page TIP report, titled “Trafficking Persons in the United States — A Report to the National Institute of Justice.”

“The whole thing is disserving and extending,” said retired UCF foreign language professor David Gurney. “It contributes to the antagonism from people in underdeveloped countries to Western civilizations or Western countries.”

In the 1850s, purchasing a slave ran roughly $1,200, the equivalent of around $40,000 in today’s money. The reality is purchasing a slave today costs as little as $100, which makes them affordable and disposable, Soodalter said.

A trafficking victim lives in fear of violence or the threat of violence daily, he said.

Shawn Cox, victim witness coordinator and licensed clinical social worker with the United States Attorney’s Office, advocates that trafficking is a crime of absolute power over someone. According to the report Cox co-authored, “Victims of Human Trafficking and Trauma,” the psychological consequences of a victim are similar to the consequences of severe or chronic child abuse or experiencing acts of terrorism.

"In case you thought slavery doesn’t touch you, guess again," Soodalter said. "Chances are, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, has been touched by slavery."

The good news is there have been some inroads made recently in the area of agricultural servitude, Soodalter said. When Taco Bell refused to stop buying produce picked by enslaved workers in an effort known as the "Ban the Bell" campaign, it set a precedent that several other companies, including McDonalds, A&W, Long John Silver’s, Pizza Hut, Whole Foods, Chipotle and Burger King, have followed, Soodalter said.

"The message is clear," Soodalter said. "Slavery and worker abuse will not be tolerated. Not here, not now, not ever."

Mark Freeman, public affairs coordinator for the Global Perspectives Office, said they are hoping to continue the series next spring since response has been incredible. Because of the series last spring, students on campus were so spurred into action they formed the unofficial student group “Students Against Slavery @ UCF,” Freeman said. “Students Against Slavery @ UCF” has a Facebook page, and Harry Coverston serves as the faculty advisor for the group.

"Spreading the word is the most important thing," said Frank Hegedus, a senior political science and international relations major. "There is only right now."

http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/abolitionist-historian-wraps-up-global-perspectives-series-1.2093273

“The argument came down to two horribly similar words: verifying and verified….He said a word in Russian which I heard as verifying party – …..when I translated it back into Russian, Gorbachev said, ‘No, no, I did not say that. I said it’s up to the verified party to provide the aircraft’ – not … verifying party as I translated”

&

“Mrs Thatcher …..  leant across, fixed him …[the visiting president of the former French Congo - a well known Marxist and Communist] with a baleful glare and said, ‘I hate Communists’……..the French interpreter, …..rendered it something like ‘Prime Minister Thatcher says that she has never been wholly supportive of the ideas of Karl Marx’”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3426257.stm written by James Robbins

This is also a taste of what Sign interpreters must do as well as the Deaf culture is very different from the hearing culture!

or: I’ll trade you civil liberties circa 1980, for the right to beat your wife circa 1920

or: If Glenn Beck were a decade, which one would he be?

For almost a year now, and even further back possibly, I have been fascinated with politics and punditry. I have become a self-proclaimed politico and I follow politics and media pretty closely, as closely as my tenuous hold on sanity will allow. In following politics my liberal mind has always been perplexed by the conservative party line of ‘returning to traditional American values’ and trying to recapture the ‘lost spirit of what it is to be an American’. In recent months it as been the loud ram’s horn call of Glenn Beck, and his ever growing audacity matched only by his ever growing audience, that has caused me to pontificate further on this subject. For the past few weeks this idea of lost values and traditional American fundamentals has led me to research where we might have gone wrong. Is there a specific time and place, a particular era that the GOP and other right-leaning hard-liners would want us to return to? If I can put my finger on the ethos that these guiding principles existed in, can we get back there? I delve in to this quagmire of American history to try and find “Glenn’s America”, so that he and others can stop preaching in general broad strokes and say, “we need to get back to what we believed in 19XX (or 18XX as it may be).”

When examining the general party ideas of what I understand to be the GOP’s fundamental idealogical structure I take my understanding from some 25 years on this planet, though you can’t count the first 16. I think that until you turn 17 and start trying to find yourself and begin to shape your views and identity in preparation for voting and contributing to society you are more of a blank slate in terms of personal free thought; up until this point you do not question a source but only try to fit in to the general parameters of ‘normal’ life as to not rock the boat and interfere with the indoctrination that American public schools instill in our youth. My true views have been shaped in my most recent years and as such I have adopted a view of the world quite different from my parents’, a direct result of informing myself for the first time in my life. In my home growing up as a small boy liberal leaders and democratic ideals warranted venom and crass, lewd criticism. The views I set forth will be of my own creation, independent of those I was raised on, either despite or in spite of them, I cannot tell. A crazy person isn’t crazy if he knows he’s crazy. Indeed.

The GOP seems to feel that gays should not marry, and are sinful. This makes no sense to me as sinful is a religious idea, not a political one; though it seems one position is quite often the result of the other. Gun rights should be protected at all costs to personal safety and public responsibility. Abortion is a no-no, ‘nuff said. They want smaller government, tax cuts, reform to let states decide things, though not gay marriage rights or any of the other items I just mentioned. They are for fiscal responsibility. GOP feels that a free market should regulate itself, again smaller government. They claim to fight for the middle class but public programs and universal anything is bad, that’s more government. They hate the environment as far as I can tell. Campaign finance reform (yeah right), education in America (no child left behind has gone so well after all). Prayer in school is ok, capital punishment and the death penalty are pretty much thumbs up, and the Ten Commandments should be at the steps of a courthouse flying the confederate flag. I am pretty close on this, right? So, basically it is a small government that has an abridged copy of the constitution, a cliff’s notes of the Bill of Rights, and a bible as it’s guiding principles. Hmmm, ok.

So, in American history, where can we find this utopia we strive for every day? This shangri-la we lost so long ago would obviously be the one saving grace for this country of godless sodomites. If we could only return to this point in time then everything would be fine. As far as I can tell it is the GOP that can save us if you believe the rhetoric. The liberals and the liberal media have scattered us across the nation and we are divided along partisan lines and are all doomed unless we jump on the Republican band wagon like some lifeboat after the Titanic sank. This is what self proclaimed “libertarian” Glenn Beck would like you to believe. I will give him credit for criticizing the government as a whole, even in the Bush days, though not in such inflammatory terms, but in reality he is like a Liber-publican. So, let’s take a step, Glenn, in to the way back machine and start a search for the time in American history you would like us to return to, as well as all of the Republican nay-sayers.

I want to start by saying that I am skipping the nineties completely being that he wasn’t happy with Clinton either, and it is far too close to the 21st century and the liberal progress this country has made; there is no way anyone wants to get back to how we were in the nineties, not even me and I loved my teen years in the nineties. And I am going to come back to the eighties later, they were too soon as well, but I will look at them briefly. We are sending our way back machine to a time when I think this country went bat-shit crazy and we were in maybe the most turmoil as a nation than anyone today can recall. I want to start out in the era that good old Glenn was born in, and that many of our current figure heads today, that make our decisions, can remember very ‘fondly’…the sixties.

Well I start here, in this decade of utter unrest by trying to illustrate that this can’t possibly be the America Glenn wants back. This cannot be the period in American history we want to recapture. This was a time that the late Strom Thurman must have hated with more zeal than any other period in history. It is hard to decide where to start. The sixties started out innocent enough, Kennedy beat Nixon and became the President, what followed was the Bay of Pigs incident, rumors about Marilyn, the meager beginning of Vietnam, the cuban missile crisis, then the man is assassinated. Further Vietnam BS, Malcolm X is killed, the Compton Cafeteria Riots in San Fran, then Nixon and all his Vietnam BS and his ‘secret plan to end the war’, the massive inflation crisis, MLK Jr. is killed, Bobby Kennedy is killed, the Stonewall riots of ’69, oh and a little thing who was named Manson did some killing. Great decade.

The sixties were a time of massive riots in the black and gay communities. Civil rights on all fronts tore the fabric of this country apart from women liberation, blacks, gays, even the Chicano revolution in this country. Outside of that was the acid wave of the sixties, a complete change in television, film, art, and especially music. The counterculture as it came to be known galvanized this country after the death of JFK, I think. The nice, homely manners of the 50’s were gone in a big way and now came very free thinkers, revolutionaries, protests exploded, demonstrations, inflation choked the middle class as they tried to compete with the changes in the landscape. The sixties were an ugly, hate-filled time, the emerging civil rights movement after the death of JFK was really the catalyst for it all. There is no way we want to return to the sixties as a country. America was in a violent turmoil and unsure of it’s identity and where the road we were on was going to lead us and people were strung out or scared for their lives, or both. I don’t think Glenn wants that back, so let’s move on.

How about we take a step forward and find Glenn in the seventies as a small boy, maybe these are the innocent and moral times he wants back…but I doubt it. Well in the seventies music really got good including the first ‘rap’ song, movies got weird, TV got lewd, and the country just got fucked up worse. This country started watching shows like All In The Family and the Brady bunch, dealing with some of the issues of the day. Vietnam choked the first few years while a little thing called Watergate slipped by the news press during Nixon’s re-election campaign and then killed him by ’74. It was the most embarrassing and shocking scandal in American political history, which in my opinion was the death of politics. I think that Nixon and his escalation of the doomed Vietnam war and his scandal killed the American political system. Outside of the US revolution was abundant across the world. Woodstock was a shining beacon of what drugs and music and mud can do for young people, a complete change from how we started the decade on the campus of Kent State where the National Guard gunned down peaceful protestors of the war on a college campus; unthinkable today, one would hope. The draft was the height of outrage, an unbelievable moment when Ali fought the draft and Elvis went in. Protest and anti-war sentiment was as widespread in this country as pant legs were flared. The Cold War ramped up a bit and this country got really scared, really fast. Our involvement in a few revolutions and military coupes as well as an assassination or two was a continuation of poor foreign affairs decisions. The middle east started down the road to where we are today with Israel, Egypt, Syria, the Soviet Union, and Afghanistan, all starting to kick each others asses.

The seventies brought women’s rights to the forefront as the sixties had civil rights for minorities eclipsing women’s rights to some extent. Vietnam ended finally, well our involvement, leaving the North to just wait for us to leave and drop Saigon to it’s knees and claim the country unified again. A sad end to a war we should have not been in and an end that was mostly our fault. Oh and lest I forget the massive recession we were in mixed with oil crises a couple of times resulting in rationing and further middle class stresses that included a very high unemployment rate. Then of course there was Jonestown, about 900 dead there. Idi Amin started his tyrannical, violent rule of Uganda as well. Is this the era we should return to? Hatred, war, violence, and tragedy pock marked this era. The seventies hold within their years scandal, racism, and fear-mongering, of the most epic scale one can imagine. There is no way we want to return to the moral or political views of this era. The seventies were the time for change for sure, but it came at great expense on the heels of a decade of radical change and upheaval. The 70’s continued the massive crime rate spikes that the sixties brought and the country still sat on the edge of it’s seat every day as nothing seemed to get better. Surely we don’t want the seventies back.

Ok, the eighties might be better, the days of Reagan and Bush, this might be the most likely time we want to return to. The eighties would be the most formidable years of Beck’s life; the decade of excess. The eighties brought the yuppie, and with it, all the coke, parties, and BMW’s we could handle. We saw great multinational growth and wall street was glamorous, they were kings then, still total scum, but they had better PR people then. Of course Reagan declared a War on Drugs, the Cold War raged to a massive scale. Sure, communism fell apart as did the Berlin Wall, but we saw the further mishandling of the middle east that is the source of our problems and involvement there today, can’t argue with that. Reagan put a major black eye on his presidency with the discovery of the Iran-Contra debacle that Oliver North was the mastermind behind. This country saw massive economic growth against the backdrop of very complicated and protracted battles all over the world including Asia, the middle east, central and south america, and ever Ireland with ‘the troubles’ brewing. (Only badass Irish would call a modern, religious civil war ‘the troubles’, an understatement to say the least)

The eighties, I think were a time of thinking that we could not be beaten, being the short attention span of Americans forgetting the seventies. We were coked out of our minds, living beyond our means, and we were kicking Commie ass. But the eighties, world wide, were complicated, painful growth, some democratic, but on the whole we saw massive famine and destruction abroad as the industrialized countries were making head way. The middle class of nations was being evaporated as the gap between rich and poor nations grew drastically. Domestic issues were tough though, as it seemed we were trying to use our power for good as a people with things like LiveAid and becoming more aware of issues in Africa and other countries, the eighties saw the rise of the religious right. They really got fired up on the gay issue and the discovery of AIDS, ‘the gay plague’. This country grew in many way, a decent decade I guess, I don’t really remember much of it but it seemed like a lot of people were having a lot of fun, safer fun.

Glenn probably liked the eighties, he used to be a liberal and an alcoholic, he draws a fine parallel between the two in a Katie Couric interview you should look up on YouTube, and this might have been his favorite time. Old enough to enjoy and understand it, he probably had a great time. Conservatives in power, strides made internationally, excess and money everywhere. The eighties were a wild party time, a decade that seemed to be a release of the past twenty years of hard work, growing pains, and controversial conflict. The 60’s and 70’s were going to lead inevitably to a time when we finally just cut loose and took a deep breath after so much bloodshed, upheaval, and serious talk. It was the decade we all remembered fondly on VH1. Music was weird, movies were great, TV was filled with classics we all watched, and standup comedians were making it big; the country was having a good laugh, a bump, and some beer. Not too bad.

I discount the nineties entirely so let’s jump back to a more general era I don’t think we can reasonably go back to, the 50’s to the 30’s. This was another era of massive wars, depression, civil rights injustice, bigotry, no women’s liberation, industrialization, organized crime, et al. These were times when blacks were openly hung from gallows, women were expected to be barefoot and pregnant in front of the stove, except when they were making tanks for the troops overseas for next to nothing wages. A time where minorities were rightfully scared at night of police or white boys out for a joyride. The prohibition, crime in the streets, Bonnie and Clyde, the Tommy gun, the B.A.R., saloons, speakeasy’s, and rampant bank robberies and crooked cops on the beat. This was a different time for this country and I don’t think we can agree with many of the ideals that were held to in this time and apply it today, the role of women alone is too much inequality to bare, let alone the rest.

OK, let’s take a big jump to my favorite era, the old west. You know the times, I’m talking post manifest destiny, pre-FBI. A time of no gun laws, showdowns in the streets, legal prostitutes, and riding in to town on a horse. Tombstone, San Francisco, Indian and cowboys. A time where gold was rushing and crazy white drunks ran amok and contracted TB and polio. Yes, when there were still a few Indians around, you had ranchers with thousands of acres, cattle drives, train robberies, and the men of storied legend lived and died by Winchester, Colt, and Smith&Wesson. I like to think I lived in the times with a town sheriff, shitty beer, floozies, and general martial law over most of the country. A time where you could shoot a man in the street in broad daylight in front of 50 people, and they might actually clap and then go about their day. The good times.

I think this might not be far enough back though. When I hear Glenn speak, he talks about the founding father’s principles. The true foundation of the country as he sees it with the men who earned America through blood, sweat, and tears. Jefferson’s America. OK, well let’s first examine the fact that we are talking late 1700’s and early 1800’s. These are pre-electric, pre-phone times. We are talking Boston Tea Party, Paul Revere, plantations, etc. If this is the time Glenn thinks we need to get back to I want to highlight a couple of things. First off, slavery was alive and well…need I say more? Secondly, this country treated women like shit, there were no civil rights, and it was unindustrialized. This country was populated and run by rich, white land owners, and then there was everybody else. I don’t want anyone to romanticize this era. This country was created, founded, and declared on the bodies of millions of natives and the death and suffering of minority races of people removed from their homes and treated worse than dogs in the time period.

America has never been truly righteous. We revolted for selfish reasons, nothing simpler than that. We turned against the imperialism of the Queen and her rule and declared our independence; the worst “dear John” letter ever. Up to that point we had slaughtered, tricked, infected, raped, and pillaged our way to the Mississippi and thought very highly of white skin and could kill a black man for any reason at any time, or sell them, whatever struck our fancy. What I am about to say is going to piss off the right, but if I could meet George Washington I think I would take the opportunity to shake his hand and then slap the wooden teeth out of his head. These were racist white bigots with an knack for the written word and hard on for ‘freedom’ by their definition as it applied to them as an emerging nation of first class citizens at the top of the shit pile. All due respect, but their ideas and principles were fundamentally offensive and their beliefs of equality were for themselves and those they agreed with. How many minorities or women were running around enjoying their freedom of speech or right to bare arms…or even read? I rest my case.

So maybe Glenn does have a time in mind. Maybe he wants the scandalous, violent 70’s, or the civil unrest and inequality of the 60’s. The old west certainly had smaller/non-existent national government, and the 40’s sure were good times to be a gangster, Nixon would have done well, that’s for sure. The eighties surely had the best coke, and some unprecedented growth, outside of post-industrialized America (without all of these pesky labor laws we got). Maybe he wants the great depression era, maybe to live amongst the greatest generation, or rub elbows with white men who raped their slaves on their plantation as a matter of principle and patriotism. The history of America is short, embarrassing, and seemingly without a lesson learned throughout. Glenn, I dare you and your constituents to point out that shining beacon in American history that is so much better than now, ‘cause I must have missed it. All those moments have led up to now, and I’ll be damned if where we are isn’t a hell of a lot better than where we were; you can pry this progress from my cold dead hands, pal.

http://floridapundit.com/2009/11/obamas-show-trial-of-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/

President Obama was conveniently out of the country when his Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced that the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), and four other terrorists would be brought to New York to stand trial in a civilian court only a few blocks away from the site where the World Trade Center Towers stood.

What possible justification can Obama and Holder have for subjecting New York City to years of dealing with the person responsible for 3,000 deaths on 9/11? And why would they give KSM a worldwide forum for spouting his ideology of hatred?

During his campaign, Barack Obama opposed the military commissions set up by the Bush administration and Congress to try terrorists. Is this why he is bringing KSM to New York? Well, no. Since becoming president, Obama has accepted the need for military commissions. At the same press conference, where Holder announced bringing KSM to New York, he announced that several other terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay would be tried by military commissions.

Are we differentiating between detainees captured on US soil and those captured abroad? No, again. KSM was captured in Pakistan a year after personally beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

One explanation that has been offered goes like this: KSM attacked a civilian target and will therefore be tried in a civilian court. The terrorists tried by military commissions attacked the USS Cole and other military targets. Huh? Did Holder forget the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, certainly no civilian target? And the United Airlines flight that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after the heroic actions of its passengers was targeting a central site in Washington, i.e. the White House or the Capitol building.

Even if we overlook this oversight, distinguishing between terrorists that attack military and civilian targets creates bad incentives for future terrorists: If you attack the US military you face streamlined justice in front of a military commission (Can we at least apply this principle to Ft. Hood terrorist Malik Nadal Hassan and try him in front of a military commission?), but if you attack American civilians, you will get all the rights and protections of a civilian trial. If you attack people that can shoot back, we’ll try you swiftly, but if you attack unarmed civilians we will give you all the rights of our civilian court system.

So maybe we are doing this to influence “world opinion” and to show the world that the America has changed since the “enlightened” Obama has taken over from the “evil” Bush. Maybe we want to show how we give even our worst enemies rights and protection that no other country in the world would consider for someone who has admitted killing thousands of its citizens. I thought I finally understood Obama’s position, but then Holder stated that he is certain that KSM will be convicted and presumably sentenced to death. Hmmm. In our judicial system aren’t you innocent until proven guilty? What are we demonstrating with this trial if the Attorney General states that he knows that KSM will be convicted?

If Holder really has a basis for knowing the outcome of the trial, is he just having a show trial for propaganda purposes? Obviously, the cause (of convicting KSM) is just, but the process would then be no different from show trials in the former Soviet Union where the only people that believed in the credibility of the trial were naive communist sympathizers in the West.

Ok, let’s assume that this was just a careless statement by Holder and that he really doesn’t have the power to put on a show trial with a pre-determined outcome. But the statement has been made and any decent defense attorney will use Holder’s comments to try to get a mistrial or at least severely damage the credibility of the trial.

Now that we have started thinking about what KSM’s lawyers may do, why wouldn’t they question the admissibility of KSM’s confessions in court? After all, KSM was waterboarded many times and the Obama administration now considers waterboarding “torture.” Why wouldn’t KSM’s attorney try to get confessions thrown out because they were made during waterboarding? And they could claim that any later confessions were made because KSM feared further waterboarding.

I have no doubt that should these types of defense tactics work and KSM, inconceivable as it may seem, were to be acquitted, we would promptly rearrest him on new charges. It will cost millions, it will distract us from other issues and it will cause pain to the families of the victims of 9/11, but KSM is not going to walk free. Still, this could have been so much simpler with a military commission dispensing the same justice faced by US military personnel.

Thinking about KSM’s defense, there is another danger: during discovery, KSM’s attorney’s could ask for countless secret government documents. Release of these documents could endanger the ongoing war against Islamo-fascist terrorism also known as the Global War on Terror (although the Obama administration does not use either term to describe the ongoing war).

In the end, there only seem to be two plausible explanations for Holder’s actions. First, it could simply be naive inexperience and monumental stupidity. The problem with this hypothesis is that, although we may not agree with them, we are dealing with smart people that have managed to rise to the top in their fields and to the leadership of the US government. Then again, the following questioning of Attorney General Eric Holder by Senator Lindsey Graham doesn’t inspire confidence in Holder’s competence:

The second explanation is worse. Maybe the goal of Obama / Holder is to put the “evil” Bush / Cheney administration on trial. It is hard to see how any defense attorney for KSM will not bring up enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding that were used to extract information about ongoing terror plots in order to prevent future attacks. The Obama administration has condemned these methods as “torture” and continues to vilify President Bush and Vice President Cheney for having used these methods in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. They neglect to mention that enhanced interrogation techniques hadn’t been used for several years.

KSM was ready to plead guilty to his acts last year and was willing to face the death penalty. One hesitates to give KSM the “martyrdom” that he wants. But bringing him to New York City for a civilian trial will cause the families of his victims to relive the pain of their loss. It will provide KSM a platform to spew his hateful ideology to the world. And it will rile up sympathizers and possibly inspire others to commit terrorist acts against us. It may even make New York the target of another attack. It will also cost millions of dollars and take a long time to end. It does not create a more just process or outcome, but it does let Obama, Holder and the loony Left to have a show trial, not of KSM, but of President Bush and his administration.

If you would have asked people on 9/12/2001 if America could prevent another terrible attack for eight years, most people would have believed this impossible. Yet President Bush achieved just that. President Obama is playing a dangerous game, lowering our alertness to threats, continually projecting weakness abroad and blaming his predecessor for every problem of his administration. The motivation for his actions may be. in part, naive beliefs and inexperience, but the only compelling reason for having a trial in New York City is to have a show trial – a show trial not of KSM, but of President Bush.

We’ve known, since at least 2005, that Bush and Blair manipulated information and, with the complicity of the mainstream media and leading members of political parties in both countries, secured widespread support to invade and occupy Iraq.

Now, finally, an inquiry is being launched into how Britain was drawn into the conflict. And the Sunday Telegraph has revealed the existence of secret papers confirming both that Blair misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 (when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change,” and that there had been no planning for military action) and that he need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process (with the result that the invasion was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period).

According to the Guardian, military commanders

were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict.

There is no easy solution to the wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan but a step in the right direction would be to investigate and prosecute the war crimes committed by Bush and Blair.

HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS SHOCKING STORY IN THE U.S. MEDIA?…..ABSOLUTELY NOT!

The following article is almost unbelievable and potentially deadly for our nation.  And while it poses a very serious and detrimental danger to the United States, I have not heard anything about it from the mainstream media.

The information was obtained from Israel National News and is located at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134466, which thankfully to the Lord, DOES NOT worship Barack Obama nor props him up on some sort of throne.

With that said, take a look at what they have discovered about the guy sitting in the White House.

Obama ‘Reaches Out’ by Naming ‘Devout’ Muslims to Security Posts

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

(IsraelNN.com) U.S. President Barack Obama continues to “reach out to Muslims” by appointing them to key security posts amid charges he wrongly ignored internal Muslim terror. One recent appointee was harshly criticized for appearing on a British-based television station whose host is a member of a radical Muslim group.

His “reaching out Muslims” speech in Cairo last June has been followed by action, the latest being this past week’s swearing-in of a Muslim rights advocate to the Homeland Security Advisory Council, shortly after the Fort Hood massacre. HSAC members are involved in expertise on national security.

The new member is Syrian-born Kareem Shora, who was the national executive director of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination (ADC), which previously has called on the United States to stop providing Israel with weapons because of alleged “atrocities” against Arabs. Her background for her new security post is having been a legal counsel and advocate for Muslim civil rights.

She also has been a frequent guest on the pro-Hamas al-Jazeera satellite network.

Shora, who has been described as a “devout Muslim, joins another devout member of the faith, Arif Alikhan, who was appointed as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development in the Department of Homeland Security. His qualifications for the job were listed as having been in charge of public safety in Los Angeles during his term of deputy mayor. One of his actions was to remove the plan that tracked Muslims in the city who were suspected of terrorist activities.

Americans have been jolted by several lethal attacks and confrontations with Muslims over the past year, including a plot to attack synagogues and down U.S. military aircraft, the manufacture of bombs, an alleged attempt to explode a Texas skyscraper, a plot to blow up malls in Boston, and last month’s Fort Hood massacre by a Muslim psychiatrist who was an officer in the army.

A desire to avoid the appearance of labeling all Muslims as terrorists lunged out from the shadows last month after President Obama faced criticism for not taking seriously the threat of Muslim terrorism within American society as well as in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

Several months ago, President Obama appointed Dalia Mogahed, a “devout Muslim,” to his Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She quickly came under fire for appearing in a telephone interview on a London-based Muslim television station, whose host is a member of an extreme Islamic group.

She said was unaware of the affiliations of her host, whose program included questions and comments favoring the implementation of Islamic Law (“sharia”).

Mogahed explained that she did not hang up the phone in the middle of the interview because “I assumed that very few people would watch this show but that doing something more dramatic would bring more attention.”

In the current issue of Newsweek, columnist Jacob Weisberg, citing former Secretary of State Colin Powell, wrote that “Obama’s [Muslim] heritage feeds a broader suspicion that he is too casual about the threat from America’s Islamist enemies.”

The journalist added, “With the massacre in Texas, Obama now confronts something that George W. Bush did not face in the years after September 11—not just a major act of domestic terrorism, but one struck from inside our security apparatus…. America does not face a threat from the perversion of faith in general. We face a threat from the perversion of one faith in particular.”

End

I want to encourage all of you to pray and to draw ever so close to the Son of the Living God, the LORD JESUS CHRIST……THE ONLY SAVIOR.

By all appearances, judgment seems to be heading for the United States of America.  As a watchman giving warning, I am urging everyone who is reading this to please follow the Lord’s Word from Isaiah chapter 55 verses 6-7 which is as follows:

Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:  Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

May we all take heed to this warning while we still have the chance, because a time is coming when we will not.

The H1N1 Swine Flu virus knows no borders,has no boundaries, and has absolutely no respect for religious or cultural traditions.

This year at the annual Hajj to Mecca,  Four foreign pilgrims have died of swine flu, the Saudi Health Ministry announced on Saturday.

The Saudi Arabia Health Ministry  said none of the four foreign victims had been vaccinated against the H1N1 virus, as has been recommended by The Health Ministry.

An official statement released by the ministry said all had underlying health problems, including cancer and respiratory illness, AFP news agency reported.

Three of the victims died in Medina and one in Mecca.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=128688&d=22&m=11&y=200Over

The BBC is reporting that….up to three million Muslims from around the world take part in the holy pilgrimage every year, but health officials have expressed fears that it could provide a breeding ground for the virus.

Authorities had tried to prepare for any outbreaks by installing thermal cameras at airports and sea terminals, deploying 15,000 additional health workers and ensuring hundreds of extra beds were available.

The Hajj (Arabic: حج‎ Ḥaǧǧ) is a pilgrimage to Mecca. It is currently the largest annual pilgrimage in the world,^[1] and is the fifth pillar of Islam, a moral obligation that must be carried out at least once in their lifetime by every able-bodied Muslim who can afford to do so. The Hajj is a demonstration of the solidarity of the Muslim people, and their submission to Allah (God).^[2] The pilgrimage occurs from the 7th to 13th day of Dhu al-Hijjah, the 12th month of the Islamic calendar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj)

The Health Minister has reported that there are 16 other people that have been diagnosed with swine flu and four remain in hospital in “critical condition”.

He added 12 others had recovered following treatment.

The Saudi government has recommended the elderly, pregnant women, people with chronic diseases and children skip the Hajj this year.

The Saudi government has said all pilgrims need a certificate of vaccination before they can apply for a visa.

This is real people, and this disease is spreading worldwide,at a rapid pace.

I encourage everyone to get a H1N1 swine flu shot as soon as you can.The reports of any side effects are exaggerated, and will cause millions of people to perish from the lack of the vaccine.

Any paranoia surrounding any alledged complications from the shot are totally unsubstantiated, and if those people out there insist on not receiving the vaccine, then we as a society should only expect more mounting mass casualties from the swine flu, as exhibited this weekend, unfortunately in Mecca.

If it can happen in Mecca, it can happen anywhere.

Please everyone, wash your hands, and go get the shot.

To follow the full story, click on the links for my sources below…

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iDApMAhUln5jw-ffhzIZCh0I_-bgD9C41MJ00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8372378.stm

http://www.saudiembassy.net/latest_news/news11210903.aspx

• This past week (Nov. 15 to Nov. 21, 2009) Sarah Palin was all over the news – the way she likes it!

Here was Sarah on the cover of Newsweek – and there was Sarah on Oprah and ABC’s 20/20 and other places that I don’t watch.

And there was the phony controversy that both Sarah and the media promote. She was complaining all the way to the bank – about Newsweek putting a cutesy photo of her in her snug shorts on their cover.

Now Sarah – did Newsweek make YOU pose for that flirty photo? NO!

Why did YOU choose that particular pose for that photo? I don’t think we’ll see the Queen in shorts in that pose any time soon. So obviously, YOU posed, for your own reasons and liked the photo enough to let another publication run it.

So if it wasn’t sexist when YOU posed, then it’s not sexist now.

It’s like taking nude photos for playboy and saying Newsweek shouldn’t run them when the poser decides to run for president of the church guild!

However, Newsweek too is playing games. I mean, come on – of all the photos of Miss Palin in your archive; of her in suits that she paid for, suits the campaign paid for – you could have gotten a different (note I didn’t say better, just different) one to put on the cover.

So both Newsweek and Sarah Palin are playing games with the rest of us – the dummies who they think won’t notice.

Palin is generating publicity for her book and she will do whatever…

Newsweek is trying to sell magazines, and it will do whatever…

Play your games, but don’t try to fudge the score. 

• Americans are angry over the economy…

Apparently “the economy” resides in Washington, in the White House basement, and President Obama is just sitting on it.

We forget that we, yes WE affect the economy every day with our purchasing  and other choices

When we buy cheap whatever from China, WE are affecting the economy.

When you buy those expensive jeans you cannot afford and charge them to your credit card, then pay off the minimum each month, YOU are affecting the economy.

When people buy houses and cars they can and cannot afford, THEY are affecting the economy.

When we eat out, WE are affecting the economy.

When we don’t go to see a movie, WE are affecting the economy.

Buy a car or take the bus; go overseas on vacation or stay home; invest and pay taxes or stash our money overseas - all this affects the economy.

Was I the ONLY person who heard all the warning heads who were saying that the US economy is under pressure and something has to give?

That speculative housing was straining the market?

That our trade deficit was/is too large?

Why did some take note, while so many others did not?

Why did they disregard their own expenses and go on spending?

Why did people NOT save for the proverbial rainy day?

Now we are railing at the government for not providing more unemployment benefits…did the government ask you to overload your credit card?

Did the government prevent you from balancing your resources and allocating them efficiently?

So why do the prudent people who wear their shoes to the soles and buy things on sale now have to pay for your stupidity – instead of you?

AND MOST IMPORTANLY, WHEN OR RATHER IF PEOPLE GET OUT OF THEIR SELF-IMPOSED BLACK HOLE, WILL THEY HAVE LEARNT A LESSON – OR CONTINUE SPENDING AS IF THERE’S NO TOMORROW? Because we just learnt: TODAY IS TOMORROW’S…TOMORROW!

Now I understand that the government bailed out the banks. Well, you’re NOT a bank, even if you spent like you were a bank! So there!

You will never be treated as equitably as those big Wall Street guys. Not under a democrat, especially NOT under a republican, double especially NOT under a capitalist system! And not under communism either!

So basically, what all this long rambling tirade means is: We should be angry at OURselves for TURNING OUR BACKS on the old principles of saving and being thrifty and to hell with the Joneses.

But of course, that’s painful and inconvenient for us to blame ourselves, so let’s take our anger out on the government…and the banks and whomever.  (Not that they’re blameless, either!) But if we blame somebody ELSE, then we can feel better about our poor/lack of planning.

You think that’s bad?

Wait until you’re ready to retire and you didn’t plan, set NOTHING aside because it’s not your responsibility or your fault or your decision – NO ROTH IRA, NO 401K, NO PENSION…and find out there’s NO social security or a leaner payout!

America has become a country where IT IS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE’S FAULT.

I’m just waiting for the case where a pregnant woman sues because nobody warned her that sex leads to pregnancy. I’m sure it’s already happened. I just haven’t heard. Let me know…

• Did you see Republican lawmakers and some Democrats too, talking about spending?

The same ones who were there before AND during eight years of Bush, who helped spend, spend, spend…who gave Mr. Bush carte blanche to finance two losing wars?

Now those hypocrites want us to believe that the “economy” just turned sour overnight. That things started going downhill last January. That you sent them to Washington to enjoy a cozy incestuous relationships with their pals in the insurance industry and the auto industry and the housing industry…

And you agree – because YOU keep sending them back. Don’t you?

My Twitter is @FOA2009

please follow me as all I want to do is spread truth and love. Thank you. and help us

1.  “Perhaps KSM is also a magician, and used voodoo to make WTC 7 fall at partial freefall, to make jet fuel “switch elevators” on its way to the lobby, and to then spring the jet fuel over to WTC 7. Perhaps he used magic to persuade the FBI to drop their surveillance of the 1993 bombers, and to fill the towers with nano-thermite. Perhaps KSM used voodoo to vaporize lead and steel in the towers, and to hide Saddam’s mysterious WMD.”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21923

2.  What a grotesque charade:

“Albania: Town to Unveil Statue of President Bush”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/world/europe/21briefs-Albania.html?_r=1&ref=world

3.  “USA Today undermines the entire master narrative of US/NATO military operations in Afghanistan, writing: “The U.S. military says the vast majority of the 700 detainees at its biggest prison in Afghanistan could eventually be released because they’re fighting more for money than ideology.”

War hawks are always saying we are there to fight the Taliban because they are ideologically aligned with and inseparable from al-Qaeda. But the guys we’ve been fighting and imprisoning seem just to be poor schmucks looking to make a buck by militia activity.”

http://www.juancole.com/

4.  “Wells Fargo Says It Doesn’t Have to Reserve Against Its Off-Balance Sheet Residential Exposure Because the FHA (Meaning the Taxpayers) Will Pay For It

WFC is basically saying that none of the bank’s $1.1 trillion in conforming OBS [off balance sheet] exposures need to be represented or reserved against.
…
Bottom line: Wells Fargo is saying that since the FHA – that is, the government, that is, the taxpayers – will bail out Wells for loans that go bad, the giant bank doesn’t have to reserve against these possible losses.

Yes, Wells is as bad as the other too big to fails. See this, this, this and this.”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/11/wells-fargo-says-it-doesnt-have-to.html

5.  “Why we fight”: The Nature of Modern Imperialism

Aggressive and exclusive military alliances like NATO should be disbanded

Alan McKinnon shows that the UK and US ‘defence’ policy is in fact a ‘projection of power’ policy with the primary purpose of defending the commercial interests of transnational companies

The Gulf area still accounts for up to 70 per cent of known oil reserves where the costs of production are lowest. So it is no surprise that US policy continues to focus on Iran which has the world’s second largest combined oil and gas reserves.

The US response has been largely military – the expansion of NATO and the encirclement of Russia and China in a ring of hostile bases and alliances. And continuing pressure to isolate and weaken Iran by a campaign of sanctions orchestrated through the IAEA and the United Nations with the threat of military action lurking in the background. The danger is that, even under the presidency of Obama, an economically weakened United States will tend to use the one massive advantage it has over its rivals – its global war machine.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16210

(source : http://antimperialista.blogia.com/ 22/11/09, traduction Futur Rouge)

La DEA et ses prédécesseurs, les organismes fédéraux d’exécution des lois sur les drogues, ont toujours été infiltrés et, à des degrés divers, dirigé par les agences de renseignement des États-Unis. La raison est assez simple: le gouvernement américain. Des USA a protèer ses alliés trafiquants de drogue, notamment le crime organisé, depuis que le trafic de drogue a été criminalisé pour la première fois en 1914. » ( Douglas Valentine (double opération)

Selon des documents déclassifiés par le gouvernement des États-Unis, le gouvernement Reagan-Bush (le père) dans les années 80, utilisait le trafic de drogue comme un mode de financement de la lutte anticommuniste dans les différentes régions de la planète.

Il ya 30 ans, à la mi-1979, le Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN) au Nicaragua, prend le pouvoir après 45 ans de dictature de Somoza. A partir de ce moment, l’oligarchie nicaraguayenne, a commencer à voir comment ses privilèges étaient réduits en faveur du peuple, fâché, pour cette raison il a décidé de s’allier avec le gouvernement américain, dont les multinationales voyaient d’un mauvais œil leur bénéfices se réduirent au profit des droit des travailleurs, grâce à des mesures du nouveau gouvernement progressiste. Les deux décident de former un groupe de guérilleros anticommuniste, qui plus tard serait connue sous le nom de « Contras », avec l’objectif de déloger du pouvoir le FSLN.

En plus des fonds approuvés par le Congrès américain et des dons privés, d’autres méthodes ont été utilisés pour financer la guérillas anti-sandiniste, dont été la vente clandestine d’armes à l’Iran et le trafic de drogue (en particulier la cocaïne et l’héroïne). Pour développer ce dernier projet, ils ont décidé de compter sur la coopération, entre autres, du criminel du Cartel de Medellin : Pablo Escobar Gaviria.

Pablo Escobar a organisé dans le Yucatan (Mexique), une structure complète pour passer de la cocaïne vers les États-Unis, qui incluait l’acquisition d’un ranch de 16000 acres. De là, avec la collaboration de la Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) qui étais parfaitement infiltrés dans le DEA (supposée organisation qui combat le trafic de drogues), des centaines de vols transportant de la drogue d’Amérique du Sud, est venu en Amérique, inonder les rues (en particulier les rues des bidonvilles) de de cocaïne et de crack. Selon un rapport de 410 pages de l’inspecteur général de la CIA Frederick Hitz (1990-1998), récemment déclassifiés, entre 1984 et 1986, l’agence d’espionnage a organisé de 50 à 100 vols d’avions de ce Cartel vers les terminaux des aéroports des États-Unis Amérique du Nord, vols qui n’ont pas été inspectées par le Service des douanes de ce pays dans le cadre d’un accord entre la CIA et les trafiquants de drogue colombiens.

Selon les déclarations de Michael Tolliver (l’un des pilotes qui a transféré à plusieurs reprises, des armes des États-Unis vers l’Amérique centrale et des expéditions de drogue d’Amérique centrale vers les Etats-Unis), dans l’émission de CBS “West 57th CBS Nouvelles», 6 Avril 1987: «Dans la base militaire de Homestead, en Floride, l’armée américaine avait des boîtes avec de la marijuana comme si c’était la nourriture.

L’un des principaux protagonistes de l’histoire est l’agent de la CIA Barry Seal, qui en 1984 a été arrêté à Fort Lauderdale, en Floride pour le blanchiment d’argent et du trafic de drogue. Seal a négocié un accord avec la justice, qui comprenait sa conversion en tant qu’informateur au DEA et de témoigner contre ses anciens employeurs. En plein scandale « Iran-Contra », Seal a déclaré que la CIA a participé au financement des Contras avec les bénéfices du trafic de drogue. Peu après ces déclarations, Seal a été tué (19 Février 1986) à Baton Rouge, Louisiane. Il est estimé que Seal a introduit aux États-Unis plus de milliard de dollars de cocaïne, avec l’aide de la CIA, des services de douanes et d’autres autorités politiques. Le témoignage de Seal pourrait avoir aidé à l’emprisonnement de hauts fonctionnaires de l’administration Reagan-Bush.

Steven Carr, un mercenaire recruté par la CIA pour conseiller la «Contra» après avoir été arrêté avec d’autres mercenaires au Costa Rica, pour avoir violé la neutralité du pays dans le conflit du Nicaragua et la possession d’explosifs, fatigué de ne pas obtenir l’aide de ses supérieurs de l’Agence, se mit à parler à la presse, qui a raconté comment il a effectué la fourniture d’armes aux Contras par la CIA et comment il a transporté de la drogue vers les États-Unis pour y être vendues , et obtenir des fonds pour financer la lutte contre la guérilla sandiniste. Quelques jours avant le début de la commission d’enquête du Sénat (Décembre 1986), sur l’affaire Iran-Contra, dans laquelle il était appelé à témoigner pour ses déclarations, Carr est trouvé mort dans son appartement.

En Décembre 1986 c’est précisément une déclaration secrète (des années plus tard déclassifiés), du directeur de la CIA, William Casey (1981-1987), qui curieusement est décédé d’une crise cardiaque, peu avant le début des audiences au Sénat de l’affaire « Iran-Contra », dans laquelle il pouvait être aussi appelés à témoigner:

“Colby (son prédécesseur) m’a dit que le produit de la cocaïne serait lavée par Al Carone, la mafia de New York et Robert Vesco et ensuite utilisées dans la lutte anticommuniste par Colby lui-même. Après avoir parlé avec Carone j’ai pris la décision de déplacé la cocaïne entreposés à l’aéroport Mena en Arkansas, parce que la CIA avait déjà utilisé cet aéroport à plusieurs reprises. Dans ces circonstances, la cocaïne a été l’instrument. Le piège consistait était d’ignorer la loi et d’éviter d’être découvert. Ces efforts ont aidé Bill Clinton (gouverneur de l’Arkansas à l’époque) et William Weld.

Les conclusions du Rapport Kerry, préparé par la Sous-comission sénatorial sur les stupéfiants, le terrorisme et les opérations internationales, à la tête de laquelle était alors sénateur américain John Kerry (candidat démocrate à la présidentielle en 2004) et publié le 13 avril 1989, après deux ans et demi de recherche, ne laissait aucun doute. Selon ce rapport, le Département d’État des États-Unis a effectué des paiements à «quatre entreprises qui ont été possédées et exploités par des trafiquants de stupéfiants», en outre, la CIA a fourni la couverture légale dans le commerce de la drogue en échange de quoi, les trafiquants de drogue effectuaient la “fourniture d’une assistance aux Contras, y compris des liquidités, des armes, des avions, des pilotes, l’appui aérien et d’autres matériaux sur une base volontaire pour les trafiquants.” Le rapport Kerry déclencha un scandale sans précédent : la coopération du gouvernement Américain, dans l’introduction et la vente de tonnes de cocaïne aux États-Unis, de la part des narcotrafiquants colombiens,, qui, mandaté, prévoyaient une part importante des bénéfices pour financer la lutte contre la guérilla communiste des “contras”, les grands médias américains, notamment le New York Times, Washington Post et du Los Angeles Times ont simplement fait l’écho de cette dénonciation scandaleuse du Sénat, en consacrant à peine quelques lignes, dans les profondeurs de leurs pages.

Cette sombre alliance entre les puissances qui gouvernent les Etats-Unis, l’oligarchie nicaraguayenne et les trafiquants de drogue, a été forgée pour écarter du pouvoir le FSLN au Nicaragua, car les mesures progressistes mises en œuvre par lui depuis son arrivée au pouvoir en 1979 ( plus juste répartition des richesses dans le pays, reconnaissance des droits des travailleurs, etc) a conduit à réduire considérablement les avantages économiques de l’oligarchie et des multinationales Yankees au Nicaragua, qui, avec ancienne dictature Somoza (1934-1979) a décimé les pays à volonté.

Cette «sombre alliance», financé et parrainé par Washington a conduit à une guerre sanglante qui a duré presque 10 ans, et tué plus de 60.000 personnes (en plus des milliers de mutilés à vie) et a coulé l’économie nicaraguayenne (en plus de l’embargo brutal américain et la poursuite des actes de sabotage par la “Contra” contre les grandes entreprises d’importance stratégique pour le pays). Cette évolution, conjuguée à l’appauvrissement de la population et aux millions de dollars dépensés par Washington dans la campagne électorale du candidat de l’opposition, Violeta Chamorro, a fait que les sandinistes ont perdu le pouvoir lors des élections de Février 1990.

Nous ne devons pas oublier l’épidémie de «crack» dans les années 80, aux États-Unis, qui a emporté la vie de milliers de personnes, notamment au sein de la communauté noire. Tels ont été les effets dévastateurs du crack dans la population afro-américaine, non seulement les effets nocifs de cette drogue sur la santé, mais aussi par la violence causée par les combats entre gangs de rue pour le contrôle de la distribution, qui ont mené quelques leaders de la communauté noire à parler d’un plan gauche de purification ethnique, de la part des autorités des États-Unis..

Le Nicaragua est un exemple de la façon dont les États-Unis ont utilisé et continuent d’utiliser le trafic de drogue pour financer une politique criminelle visant à piller les richesses des autres peuples. L’alliance entre Álvaro Uribe, l’actuel président de la Colombie, avec des liens avérés avec le trafic de drogue, et les pouvoirs des États-Unis, est une autre preuve.

«Les opprimés n’ont pas d’avions ou de bateaux. La presse et le gouvernement culpabilisent les opprimés pour la drogue, mais le commerce international des drogues exige des flottes d’avions de fret, des pistes d’atterrissage dans plusieurs pays, des réseaux internationaux, de grandes quantités d’argent pour les investissements, des réseaux de blanchiment d’argent, et des contacts de haut niveau pour sortir le corps pour les douanes et le DEA. “Malcolm X, 1966.

I was a kid for most of the fabulous Sixties, but by the very end of the decade I was in high school, and by the time the Seventies began I was at university. So I missed some of the good parts—the free speech movement, the early days of the civil rights movement, the free love movement—and what I remember best about the years of 1968 through 1974 was how tense everybody was, all the time.

Divisive politics—hardhats versus hippies—were on everybody’s mind, and back then the stakes were high. Tens of thousands of mostly blue-collar kids went off to fight a war without the support of the citizens they were serving; many of those kids never got the chance to grow up. Other kids, smart enough or at least well-off enough to go to college, used student deferments to postpone or avoid the draft. From that latter group, here and there sprang up groups such as SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and the Weathermen. Most of the men and women in these organizations were not terrorists of the Bill Ayers-Bernadine Dohrn variety, but they were passionate in their opposition to the Viet Nam War, vehemently “anti-establishment,” and united in their hatred of Presidents Johnson and Nixon, who inherited the mess President Kennedy made when he diddled with the balance of power in Southeast Asia.

I shared none of these deep emotions, and I did not understand them. I’d flee the campus scene if a large demonstration was in the offing. I never chanted “hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today.” I didn’t feel the visceral, soul-draining hatred of Richard Nixon that ate at the gut of so many of my contemporaries even unto today. For me, politics was somewhere between a sport and an intellectual challenge: I watched, I listened, I formed opinions, I mouthed off—but I did not dwell in a house of doom. It seemed to me that the United States had weathered centuries of good interrupted by bad, very bad, times and would therefore continue as at always had, an imperfect union ruled by imperfect law imperfectly administered at times but with built-in mechanisms for righting wrongs.

When the Sixties finally wound down in the mid-Seventies, with Nixon “in exile in San Clemente” and President Carter presiding over eighteen percent inflation rates, I’d occasionally wonder why Nixon was still a punching bag, but occasional wonder was about it. When Reagan ran for president I was skeptical and a little embarrassed to tell the truth that an actor could aspire to “the highest office in the land.” So I was at least prepared for the spew of venom that drenched him and Nancy Reagan after the election. In 1980 it seemed as if the end of days were at hand. The country was being governed by an “out-of-touch” “Teflon” old geezer and his shrew of a wife. Reagan delegated too much. As old as he was, he nevertheless provided fresh meat for the Sixties squad—Nixon’s history, now let’s hate Reagan. Reagan’s “morning in America” became “mourning in America,” for many a clever leftie.

George Bush was elected on Reagan’s coattails and suffered much of the same irrational emotional response. His notion of a “kinder, gentler nation” was ridiculed; his ideas about community service—“A Thousand Points of Light”—mocked or ignored by the left, who prefigured their portmanteau “[GW] BushHitler” with “ReaganBush,” as if the two administrations were a monolith of fat-cat politics out to get the little guy. By this time I was working and living in a community that prides itself on politics so left-of-center that it once declared Linda Jenness its patron saint. So President Clinton’s election was greeted with joy in the streets, and sweetness and light obtained until nasty Congressional Republicans took out their “contract on America.” Newt Gingrich was evil incarnate, and forget about monsters like Henry Hyde, Bob Barr and other Republicans in the House and Senate who ganged up on the president to impeach him for—well, you know what for.

The eight years of BushHitler that followed President Clinton’s two terms in many ways brought me back to the Sixties, more so certainly than any of the preceding decades. Bush was stupid. Bush was evil. Bush was crooked. Bush was a cokehead. Bush was Cheney’s puppet. Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing to prevent it. Bush suspended our civil liberties. Bush wanted to know what library books you were checking out. Bush wanted to avenge his daddy in Iraq. Bush dodged the draft. On and on and on…if you could say it, think it, or make it up, about George Bush it was probably true…after all, he was a traitor to his class: in spite of two Ivy degrees, he’d somehow avoided drinking the Kool-Aid of socially acceptable leftism, so that was strike one. And he espoused bourgeois values of home, hard work and religion so that was strike two. No matter that he wore none of them on his sleeve. And he pretty much didn’t give a damn about America’s enemies, excepting for wanting them stopped. Strike three. The pulsating, consuming, ice-hot hatred lavished on Richard Nixon at long last had a new prince of darkness on which its practitioners could fixate.

No matter how hard I tried, I could not wrap my mind around the genuine emotional investment of the haters. Many of them were colleagues, some friends. In other areas of life they seemed like good people, stable and kind, but mention the B(H)-word and they’d start foaming at the mouth. Although I did not understand them, I did not doubt the sincerity or the depths of their emotions. These people really and truly thought one man and his gang of political cronies were using the United States as their piggy bank and plaything. I didn’t get it.

But now of course I do, and I owe all of them an apology. For what I had been reading as hatred for forty years was something else entirely: terror. These people weren’t eaten up on the inside from hatred; they were terrified for the future of their country. Afraid of the fragility of their American way of life. Anxious that their Constitution was imperiled. I am sorry that I didn’t understand these people. Ces’t moi.

Để Bụi Đường Cay Lòng Mắt (IMG_5544-W1), originally uploaded by Nguyen K. Do.

View On Black

Eltham, November 2009.
Nguyen K. Do © 2009

La Alianza del Atlántico Norte, que incluye a los países más ricos y mejor armados del mundo, ha decidido invitar a la marina israelí  a participar en unas maniobras conjuntas, es decir, al igual que Ucrania o Rusia, pasar al estatuto semi-oficial de potencia aliada que aun no es miembro de pleno derecho de la Alianza. Sólo Turquía ha puesto pegas a esta invitación, lo cual puede a la larga acarrear no solamente que se retrase para siempre su entrada en la Unión Europea, sino que en un momento dado también su expulsión de la OTAN. Esta invitación es una declaración no-oficial de guerra a Palestina, al no-Estado de Palestina en el territorio ocupado donde colonizan, explotan y asesinan a la población palestina no reconocida y desprotegida legalmente ante los ataques cotidianos de soldados y colonos israelíes.

La OTAN está por lo tanto en guerra simultáneamente contra Afganistán y Palestina, mientras mantiene contingentes de ocupación en numerosos países africanos y en Irak. Desde este punto de vista, es decir, desde el punto de vista de los agredidos por la OTAN, parece evidente que la OTAN ataca a los países más débiles de manera sistemática. Ahora bien, como la explicación oficial de las maniobras conjuntas con Israel es que forman parte de una estrategia global contra el terror, cabe hacer una síntesis y deducir de ambas perspectivas que la OTAN es una organización terrorista de una enorme magnitud que condena a los pobres a la miseria y a la violencia sin límite que merecen los terroristas. Es evidentemente una antisituación sádica en la que los ricos machacan a los pobres y los llaman, entre otras cosas, terroristas. El sadismo del capitalismo se encauza por lo tanto en la OTAN a la que pertenecemos. Nuestro Estado es por lo tanto cómplice de una agresión sádica y colectiva cuya ideología no asume en absoluto su sadismo. Si no lo asume es porque no puede hacerlo, por lo tanto hay una mala conciencia. Es la razón por la cual debemos seguir aireándola, porque así el Estado llegará a un punto crítico: cambiar o aplastar la libertad de expresión.

 This shot is taken from the Andrew Laurie Lookout, which is on the short track to the Gloucester River Falls in the Gloucester Tops section of the Barrington Tops National Park in New South Wales, Australia.

The walk from the car park to the lookout is only about 5 to 10 minutes of easy walking, with a further 5 to 10 minutes until the Gloucester River Falls are reached. The circuit track back to the car park only takes about 30 minutes to complete in total and is an easy walk on a bush track, with some minor rises along the way.