Saturday, May 24, 2008

'Saint' Barack goes after Hugo again

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED (SEVERAL TIMES OVER) LEADER OF VENEZUELA HAS LONG BEEN A TARGET FOR BARACK WHO APPARENTLY HAS A SEVERE CASE OF CHARISMA ENVY WHEN IT COMES TO CHAVEZ.
 
HE ACCUSED CHAVEZ OF AIDING F.A.R.C. AND OF DESTROYING DEMOCRACY IN VENEZUELA. 
 
THESE REPORTERS WERE NOT ABLE TO REACH CHAVEZ SO WE PUT IN A CALL TO HIS SELF-STYLED AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S., I-NEED-ATTENTION BENJAMIN.
 
REACHED AT THE D.C. LOBBY OFFICE OF CODESTINK, BENJAMIN INSISTED, "BARACK BABY SAID NO SUCH THING! HE WOULDN'T HE COULDN'T!"
 
WHEN THESE REPORTERS RECOUNTED NOT JUST BARACK'S MOST RECENT ATTACK ON CHAVEZ BUT HIS LONG LINE OF ATTACKS ON CHAVEZ OVER THE YEARS, I-NEED-ATTENTION REFUSED TO BELIEVE IT AND INSISTED, "OF COURSE HE IS A SAINT!  HE IS BLACK!  AND MY COMMUNIST PARTY TRAINING DICTATES THAT ALL BLACK MEN ARE SAINTS! THE REVOLUTION STARTS AFTER COCKTAILS AND CANAPEES! VIVA THE REVOLUTION!  RIGHT ON THE REVOLUTION!"
 
I-NEED-ATTENTION-BENJAMIN HUNG UP THE PHONE BEFORE THESE REPORTERS WERE ABLE TO QUESTION IF, BY HER STANDARDS, BARACK WOULD BE ONLY "HALF SAINT" SINCE HE IS BI-RACIAL?
 
 
 
Starting with war resistance.  On Wednesday, US war resister and Iraq War veteran Corey Glass was informed by the Canadian government that he had until June 12th to leave the country or he would be deported.  While a large chunck of the left and 'left' play dumb, stupid silent (including Amy Goodman who still hasn't informed her audiences of the decision), "digitaljournal.com" ("The Power of Citizen Journalism") notes Glass by repeating the lies the left and "left" have allowed to take hold:  "Military service today is voluntary, not compulsory. There is no draft. Men and women in uniform today are they because they have enlisted or been commissioned of their own accord, not because they have been called into service by the draft board."
 
Canada didn't base the decision on there being a draft. The US involvement in Vietnam was illegal, it was a slaughter. Their decision wasn't about the draft. This is so remedial but apparently still needed. There were "draft dodgers" and "deserters." The former was a male who had been called out but did not report for induction. The latter was someone who was part of the military and decided to leave. They were both welcomed in Canada. Had "draft dodgers" been the only ones welcomed (legally) then digitaljournal.com would have a point. But that's not reality. "Deserters," members of the military who checked out, were welcomed into Canada. There was no question about, "Wait, you were drafted, right? You didn't enlist on your own, did you?" There was no, "Oh, wait! You chose to enlist. Sorry, no safe haven for you."  The safe haven was not dependent on the draft during Vietnam. That is a lie.
 
We apparently need to again review.  From the April 1st snapshot, (no quotes, we're just going to run it together) . . . During Vietnam, American males could go to Canada and seek asylum.  There were two categories "draft dodgers" -- which everyone seems to remember -- and "deserters."  A "draft doger" (also known as a "draft resister") was someone who had been called up.  A "deserter" was someone already in the service.  Canada's asylum then was not conditional upon someone being drafted.  Those who were in the military and elected to resist were waived on through the border and welcomed the same way.  There was no additional burden placed on them.  They were not required, for instance, to prove that, yes, they were in the service, but they had been drafted into it.  A male who chose to enlist and then began resisting after he was serving could go to Canada and be granted asylum.  Pot apparently smoked the brains of not only our left 'leaders' of that period -- a pot haze is the only thing to explain the repeating of the lies of the draft -- but the Canadian education system failed to educate their citizenry on recent history because an editorial board that wants to argue -- as one did last week and all the right-wing Canadian cites have re-posted it -- that Canada should say "no" to today's war resisters because there was a draft during Vietnam and Canada only took in "draft dodgers" is merely flaunting how ignorant everyone serving on the editorial board is.
 
Had Canada put in a place a qualifier that said, "We will take war resisters but only those who have seen duty in Vietnam," Canada still would have been swarmed with some of the same war resisters.  "Draft dodger" (or "draft resister") or "deserter," both cateogries were welcomed in Canada during Vietnam.  That is reality and I'm sorry that the Canadian education system is so poor today.  In terms of the US, honestly the same male 'leaders' of the left tripping out on tales of the draft today hurt the movement in many ways back then as well.  They'll probably continue to do so when they are in their graves.
 
Then US president Gerald Ford pardoned Tricky Dick of crimes against the US citizenry, crimes against the US government, crimes against humanity and a great deal more.  With the war resisters, he set conditions.  Apparently he didn't think Tricky Dick's fat ass could make it through an obstacle course so he just waived Nixon on through.  Ford granted war resisters an amnesty . . . . provided they went through a long process and met this criteria and that critieria and then, in the end, were judged to be worthy of the pardon.  Having just pardoned the War Criminal Nixon, it was outrageous.  Hearing an idiot, post-Ford's death, go on Democracy Now! and brag about Ford's program only explained to you just how much "establishment" is also in the left.  In Canada (and I was visiting Canada when that program was announced) there was huge outrage and outcry -- from Canadians as well as US war resisters.  Those who resisted the slaughter in Inochina were being asked to leep through hoop after hoop with no guarantee that if they made it through all the hoops they might be pardoned.  Much speculation at the time was that it was a trap/trick to get US war resisters back in the United States where they would be tossed in prison.  But Ford's program offered the obstacle course to both.
 
Jimmy Carter followed the Ford presidency.  Carter didn't offer anything to deserters.  Carter did offer draft resisters a limited asylum.In recent years, a number of war resisters from that era have been arrested while visiting the US.  So there's really no excuse for people who lived through that time period to not know the difference.  The only excuse is to provide cover for a peace movement that continues to struggle and to provide an excuse for your own inaction.  (And to brag about days forty years ago which, let's face it, is all some left 'leaders' have to offer today having willingly been co-opted long ago.)  Not grasping the difference, not speaking of that difference between reality then and 'reality' remembered now is hurting US war resisters and someone please throw a pie in the face of the next Baby Boom left male 'leader' who wants to gas bag about the hardships he endured due to the 'draft' that never found him called out because he knew how to game the system.  It's the equivalent of fishing tales only damaging and it needs to stop.  If you can't pie them, stop the males with, "When did you serve in Vietnam?"  And when they stutter that they didn't, ask them how they got it.  When they start to offer the tale of that 'invasive' physical, stop them and repeat, "I asked how you were able to avoid serving since you didn't go to Canada and you didn't go to Vietnam?"  If one claims "I went underground" ask him, "From the time you turned 18 until Vietnam was over?"  Because, no, the bulk of the 'leaders' jaw boning today did not go 'underground' and when a few did, it had nothing to do with the illegal war but everything to do with being kicked to the curb by the peace movement.  But that's the story they never want to tell.
 
That's the April 1st snapshot.  We have gone over and over this: May 20, 2007, September 9, 2007, March 26, 2008, we could go on and on.  David Postman (Seattle Times) outlined what Gerald Ford offered to war resisters: "a limited clemency for Vietnam draft resisters and military deserters."   Here's Gerald Ford speaking in September of 1974 (and link has text and audio):
 
In my first week as President, I asked the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to report to me, after consultation with other Governmental officials and private citizens concerned, on the status of those young Americans who have been convicted, charged, investigated, or are still being sought as draft evaders or military deserters.   
On August 19, at the national convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in the city of Chicago, I announced my intention to give these young people a chance to earn their return to the mainstream of American society so that they can, if they choose, contribute, even though belatedly, to the building and the betterment of our country and the world.
 
Get it?  A lot of people don't.  And some of them are 'helpful' 'friends'.  This history hasn't just been lost, it's been distorted in outlets such as Democracy Now! where a 'friend' spoke of Carter and Ford's programs -- allegedly -- but was speaking of Ford's unknowingly.  Jimmy Carter?  Here's how PBS's The NewsHour (then The MacNeil/Lehrer Report) reported Carter's program on January 21, 1977 (link has text, audio and video):
 
Just a day after Jimmy Carter's inaguration, he followed through on a contentious campaign promise, granting a presidential pardon to those who had avoided the draft during the Vietnam war by either not registering or traveling abroad.  The pardon meant the government was giving up forever the right to prosecute what the administration said were hundreds of thousands of draft-dodgers. . . . Meanwhile, many in amnest groups say that Carter's pardon did too little.  They pointed out that the president did not include deserters -- those who served in the war and left before their tour was completed -- or soliders who received a less-than-honorable discharge.  Civilian protesters, selective service employees and those who initiated any act of violence also were not covered in the pardon.
 
Then US House Rep Elizabeth Holtzman was among the four guests (and, in the seventies, with demands being made, there were two women and two men brought on for the report) and stated, "I'm pleased that the pardon was issued, I'm pleased that it was done on the first day and I'm pleased that President Carter kept a commitment that he made very clear to the American people.  I would have liked to have seen it broader, I would like to have seen it extended to some of the people who are clearly not covered and whose families will continue to be separated from them . . . but I don't think President Carter has closed the door on this category of people."  It's really clear.  It hasn't been due to the fact that 'helpers' have continually gotten the facts wrong and we used to let that slide and think, "Oh, they mispoke.  They'll correct themselves." But they never did.  After March 2006 when a 'helper' got it so wrong, we started calling this crap out.  You don't know your history, you need to stop speaking long enough to learn it.  Obviously, you baked your mind with drugs.
 
Hope it was fun.  But today's war resisters don't have to suffer because you repeatedly insist that "draft dodgers" went to Canada and they were the category provided safe harbor and it was just because there was a draft in the US.  There is no draft today (and that's a good thing), you're nostalgia is not only distorting reality, it's damaging the chances of today's war resisters in Canada.  Get your act together or get off the stage.  Going on stage Saturday will be three war resisters who will speak as part of a presentation (including a film) from seven to nine p.m. at the First United Church, 435 21st St. W. in Owen Sound Canada for an event sponsored by the Grey Bruce Coalition for Peace and Justice and the Grey Bruce Presbytery Peace and Justice Committee.
 
War resisters in Canada need support as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor.  You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration.  In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.  Lahey quotes NDP's Oliva Chow, who steered the motion, explaining, "If (Liberal leader) Stephane Dion were to say tomorrow that he supports this motion . . . we will then debate it.  So we need people to call Mr. Dion . . . 'whose side you on Mr. Dion'?"  The number to call is (613) 996-5789.       
 
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
 
[. . .]
 
Turning to the Democratic race for president.  It is a tie.  No one will be awarded enough delegates (from states and primaries) to be declared (or worse, to declare themselves) the winner.  By rules and guidelines, the fight goes to the DNC floor.  But the media lies.  And they lie some more.  Hillary's ahead in the popular vote.  So they lie and they lie some more.
 
Let's deal with one of the 'kinder' lies.  CBS News online features a conversation with Doug Schoen who is smart but dead wrong on one aspect, not calling out nonsense.  CBS News tells him, "A lot of Obama partisans have argued that his weaknesses are exaggerated right now in the heat of a primary battle.  They say that in this environment in which 80 percent of the public thinks we're on the wrong track, Bush has the highest disapproval of any President in modern history, that this is a Democratic year and Obama will do fine."  Bully Boy is not running for a third term.  That's the sort of weak-ass nonsense the Barack campaign offers daily.  Give it up, it's not going to work.  But let's deal with their "80 percent of the public thinks we're on the wrong track!" so any Dem will win.  Today is March 23, 2008.  Via CBS News, travel back with us to May 24, 2004.  John Kerry was the nominee (due to everyone else dropping out after Kerry won the needed number of delegates from primaries and caucuses).  And Bully Boy was in the White House. How many Americans thought the country was on the "wrong track"?  65%.  65% and Kerry couldn't pull out a win.  In four years 15% more Americans think it's the wrong track and The Cult of Obama would have you believe (a) that is significant in terms of November and (b) that's astounding!  It's neither.  A lousy candidate can't close the deal with the public. [Bully Boy had a 41% approval rating then.  Polls taken this month put him at a low of 28% with a high of 33% on approval.  That's not a huge shift either.  But, again, Bully Boy is not John McCain.  It's interesting that the Barack campaign keeps screaming they are being "smeared by association" when their entire McCain counter-strategy appears to smear McCain by association.]
 
Andrew Stephen (New Statesman) documents some of the sexism the media used to attack Hillary with and how they felt good about themselves for lying and distorting:
 
The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presi dential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.         
I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent. 
The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.            
But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.
 
As today's HUBdate notes: "The Popular Vote Leader: The Philadelphia Inquirer reports about Tuesday night's contests: 'Hillary Clinton netted approximately 150,000 votes and is now poised to finish the primary season as the popular-vote leader. In some quaint circles, presumably, these things still matter...If you believe that the most important precept in democratic politics is to 'count every vote,' then...Clinton leads Obama by 71,301 votes.' Read more."  She's the stronger candidate.  She's leading in the popular vote.  She has a plan.  Bob Somerby notes the media confession on the decision to weigh the scales against Hillary. You'll see that in play tonight and over the weekend as a remark she made pointing out that this primary is not really going that long.  That will be dubbed 'news'.  Barack not knowing how many states there are?  His fan club in the press doesn't care.
 
 

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)