[CitizensTruth] More questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.
Richard Fobes
richardfobes at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 13 21:07:11 EST 2009
Connie,
You're right, it was getting hard for me to understand when you were mocking things and not (I'm slow.......) - often times emails are misinterpreted because of lack of tone and I apologize for any misinterpretation.
You are also correct in that I wish I am wrong about Obama's promises not to pursue actions against the criminal Bush gang.
However, you are suggesting that there may be a need for military organization skills, not military action, which is why Obama has promised troops surges and re-deployment by the tens of thousands. I'm not a military strategeryist (we won't be able to make fun of our president anymore because our president is too bright...!), but I would hope that does not require tens of thousands of troops as promised by Barack Obama. I would also assume that does not require further bombing/provocation of Pakistan, with an eye on the Soviet Union and China (Zbig). So, to me, this surge and provocation indicates a furthering of our imperialistic agenda.
I understand that you wrote that you are needing to move on from this discussion, but I believe this to be important, as activists are becoming split about how to move forward in the Obama Administration.
Anyway, I'm grateful for the discussion. Thank you for being respectful.
-Rich
From: dimension04 at sbcglobal.net
To: richardfobes at hotmail.com; citizenstruth at six.pairlist.net
Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth] More questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:32:27 -0600
Dear Rich,
Apparently my writing failed to convey to you --
such as when I put things in quotes and said yeah, yeah, yeah and "get bin
Laden," etc. -- that I was mocking all those false rationales. In other
words, being in agreement with most of what you state below.
We have the same philosophy, except that you
apparently know more than I do about Zbig, something which I also addressed and
concluded with why I'm still puzzled.
Certainly, for example, when I
enclosed "justify" in quotes like this, regarding our incursion in
Iraq, you knew I meant that it cannot be justified?
And even when most Americans thought we had to go
into Afghanistan (which I didn't), I nevertheless was explaining below the hopes
of some feminists (human rights people) that U.S. presence would curb the
Taliban -- in other words, hope there would be an upside to it since "we had to
go in there."
Now see, there are my quotes again, indicating:
that was the thinking -- but the quotes mean it's not
my thinking. The quotes mean that was the propaganda we
got -- something which I thought was pretty easy to see through and felt
frustrated beyond words that ANYBODY, any American, would fall for
it.
I want all the troops home, too -- but we might
have some responsibility to clean up some messes first with military
organization skills -- not military action -- such as it has been.
Don't feel like explaining any more since it's
probably not getting across again. Needing to move on.
Connie
----- Original Message -----
From:
Richard Fobes
To: dimension04 at sbcglobal.net ; Citizen's.Truth
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:07
PM
Subject: RE: [CitizensTruth] More
questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.
Thanks for engaging in
this discussion!
I am, by NO
MEANS, an expert on Zbig. However, Mr. Founder of
the Trilateral Commission, Zbig, is NOT a 9/11 whistleblower, I can assure you
of that. He has been confronted on several occassions by 9/11 Truth
activists, and he has shunned them away in hate and rage. He IS a
war-monger, to be sure. He, like the PNAC boys, needed 9/11 to further
his agenda of imperialism with the U.S. in charge, and he got it.
Yes, he has criticized
Bush and serveral of his policies and decisions, which is good. However,
his life-long pursuit of attacking Pakistan and keeping the Soviets and China
in check is well documented in Grand Chessboard. I would be willing to
bet that when Obama suggested bombing Pakistan last year, that was Zbig
talking. And, sure enough, we started bombing Pakistan a few months ago
- Zbig and Obama got their wishes.
WMDs or not, NOTHING would have justified
our illegal war of aggression in Iraq.
"but
assisting with stopping a form of extreme international 'domestic violence.'
"
Again, I
respectfully disagree, NOTHING can justify our illegal war of aggression in
Afghanistan, period. It is/was under the guise of 'getting those shadowy
terrorists' as Obama put, and fighting the 'good war' in Afghanistan because
we needed to 'get Bin Laden' and 'stop al-Queda.' Eliminating the
Taliban was not the idea, is was to ensure the pipelines were put down and
secured. The U.S. was ready to go to war in Afghanistan prior to 9/11,
the papers were allegedly on Bush's desk! In reality, they had no
intention of 'getting Bin Laden' or stopping extreme international domestic
violence. Even if they did, I don't think it's debatable that we had
'had the right' to invade their country and 'force democracy' among them,
which isn't what happened or what is happening
anyway.
"I would hope that Obama believes we've
made an unspeakable mess there, and we need to clean it up -- hence more
troops, but with a different focus."
Well, I have a much, much better
idea: TROOPS HOME NOW! Not more violence, lost lives, endless war,
torture, and trillions spent on our Defense budget. No one has ever been
able to 'win' in Afghanistan ever before anyway. Plus, there are no
'winners' in that kind of a war. War is wrong.
And what's wrong with his statement about "securing,
destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction."
That IS going on, it needs monitoring, it was Valerie Plame's operation
before Bush et al shut it down by leaking her name. I understand they
were pissed that her effectiveness stopped the transporting
and planting of WMD in Iraq, which WOULD HAVE "justified" our
invasion.
I respectfully disagree. What's wrong here is that
he is saying that the Bush doctrine is OK - bringing wars of aggression
(imperialism) to other countries to secure, stop, and destroy the spread
of WMDs. All the while, the U.S. clearly has the most WMDs, and the U.S.
military is the biggest terrorist organization on the
planet. Terrorism is also said to be what he bigger army (US) calls
the smaller army (everyone else). This, of course, is only
justified through the fallacy that is the so-called 'War on Terror' (a
Lie). Imperialism is the motivation.
And I think it was masterful of Obama to state an idea like
this of reassurance to the American sheeple: "we must never take the military
option off the table. But our first line of offense here must be sustained,
direct and aggressive diplomacy." I think he's saying, "in other words,
you believe in war -- and I have to take that into account as I run for the
presidency -- but my intention is to devotedly pursue
peace.
I hope so..! Nuking Iran....uumm...NOT a good
idea, NO MATTER WHAT.
He goes on to propound "keeping the deadliest weapons out of
the world's most dangerous hands" -- yes, please! is he implying he knows who
the deadliest hands really are? -- "and to form alliances to change of message
of hate to an agenda of hope." Looking at his background and his wife
who knows him better than anybody, he means that, ya know. She would've
split long ago -- or never gotten involved -- if he were phony in any
way. Fallible, sure. But not phony.
As for not pursuing criminal charges, even Henry Waxman who
is the hound who has rounded up all the criminal details on Bush/Cheney,
says we probably can't pursue them because of urgent priorities.
Again, the message is that torture is OK. Lying about going to war is OK.
Warrant-less wiretapping on us is OK. Wars for Empire are OK.
Knowingly murdering Americans in a false-flag operation (9/11) is OK.
Scaring the American public to death to justify the Bush program is OK.
Proven war criminals not being accountable is OK.
-Rich
From: dimension04 at sbcglobal.net
To: richardfobes at hotmail.com;
citizenstruth at six.pairlist.net
Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth] More
questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009
09:13:25 -0600
Thanks for doing all this work on these
subjects. I'm sorry I can't spend that much time myself, so maybe I am
inadequately informed.
However, Jay Leno's wife was particularly
outspoken on the idea that perhaps U.S. forces could stop the Taliban's
brutality. Note: not "bringing/forcing democracy
down a country's throat" (that IS a despicable and ludicrous idea,
like Bush in Iraq) -- but assisting with stopping a form of extreme
international "domestic violence." It IS debatable whether any other
country has the RIGHT to do that, but -- "since we had to go in there
anyway to get bin Laden" -- yeah, yeah, yeah) -- I remember "eliminating
the Taliban" as being the hope.
It was never imagined that wedding parties and
other innocent lives would be involved -- it was just "going after the bad
guys." Too simplistic and idealistic and misguided, as it turned
out. (And too sinister in what's really all behind it.)
I would hope that Obama believes we've made an
unspeakable mess there, and we need to clean it up -- hence more troops, but
with a different focus. The skills of military organization CAN BE used
to help humanity -- it just depends on who's giving the orders...
...as from your Obama quote below:
"the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in
how we deploy it."
Wisdom is what I'm talking about.
And what's wrong with his statement about "securing,
destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction."
That IS going on, it needs monitoring, it was Valerie Plame's operation
before Bush et al shut it down by leaking her name. I understand they
were pissed that her effectiveness stopped the transporting
and planting of WMD in Iraq, which WOULD HAVE "justified" our
invasion.
And I think it was masterful of Obama to state an idea like
this of reassurance to the American sheeple: "we must never take the military
option off the table. But our first line of offense here must be sustained,
direct and aggressive diplomacy." I think he's saying, "in other words,
you believe in war -- and I have to take that into account as I run for the
presidency -- but my intention is to devotedly pursue
peace.
He goes on to propound "keeping the deadliest weapons out of
the world's most dangerous hands" -- yes, please! is he implying he knows who
the deadliest hands really are? -- "and to form alliances to change of message
of hate to an agenda of hope." Looking at his background and his wife
who knows him better than anybody, he means that, ya know. She would've
split long ago -- or never gotten involved -- if he were phony in any
way. Fallible, sure. But not phony.
As for not pursuing criminal charges, even Henry Waxman who
is the hound who has rounded up all the criminal details on Bush/Cheney,
says we probably can't pursue them because of urgent priorities.
However, Obama's got somebody on board now just in case it
becomes possible. From Frank Rich:
One of the sharpest appointments yet made by the incoming president may
support decisive action: Dawn Johnsen, a law professor and former Clinton administration
official who last week was chosen to run the Office of Legal
Counsel in the Department of Justice.
This is the same office where the
Bush apparatchik John Yoo produced his infamous memos justifying torture.
Johnsen is a fierce critic of such constitutional abuses. In articles for
Slate last year, she wondered “where is the outrage,
the public outcry” over a government that has acted lawlessly and that “does
not respect the legal and moral bounds of human decency.” She asked, “How do we save our
country’s honor, and our own?”
As
Johnsen wrote last March, we must also “resist Bush administration efforts to
hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity,
assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will
empower terrorists.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
As for Zbigniew -- "a Eurasia geostrategy is the purpose
of this book" -- again, I can only say I was flabbergasted one time, maybe
about 2 years ago, when he spoke about all that's wrong with this.
He sounded like a whistleblower, not an advocate. I
remain puzzled.
Perhaps Carter and Obama just practice the cliche' --
"keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" -- in order to pick
their brains and defeat their agenda.
No more time. Thanks for input.
Connie
----- Original Message -----
From:
Richard Fobes
To: Citizen's.Truth
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:03
PM
Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth] More
questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.
"I remember the women's movement (despite being anti-war)
being relieved that the U.S. was going in there, which would put down the
Taliban, and therefore put a stop to their brutality towards all
females.....Does Obama have an anti-Taliban-brutality motive -- in other
words, an authentic human rights motive -- for focusing on
Afghanistan?"
Yes, that would be nice. But even an
anti-Taliban-brutality motive does NOT justify what the U.S. has done in
Afghanistan, nor does it justify what Obama has promised he is going to do
by increasing the presence of our military by tens of thousands, which will
ultimately result in the slaughter of thousands more innocents. I
don't believe "bringing" (forcing) democracy down a country's throat with a
gun and murdering thousands of innocent civilians (women and children
mostly) justifies the war in Afghanistan.
I don't know of one
women that I've worked with or come across in anti-war or 9/11 Truth
activism that said they were happy that we brought a war to Afghanistan, but
that's just been my experience.
According to Obama in his
speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations last April, his motives
are to continue the so-called 'War on Terror' and continue our expansion of
imperialistic wars of aggression:
... "The second way America will
lead again is by building the first truly 21st century military and showing
wisdom in how we deploy it."
"...We must maintain the strongest,
best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter
conventional threats. But while sustaining our technological edge will
always be central to our national security, the ability to put boots on the
ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now
face."
...
"But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of
Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the
number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That’s
why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000
soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines."
...
"The third way America
must lead again is by marshalling a global effort to meet a threat that
rises above all others in urgency – securing, destroying, and stopping the
spread of weapons of mass destruction."
...
"As starting points, the
world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate
North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. If America does not lead, these two
nations could trigger regional arms races that could accelerate nuclear
proliferation on a global scale and create dangerous nuclear flashpoints. In
pursuit of this goal, we must never take the military option off the table.
But our first line of offense here must be sustained, direct and aggressive
diplomacy."
...
"These are the ways we will answer the challenge that
arrived on our shores that September morning more than five years ago. A
21st century military to stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar.
Global efforts to keep the world’s deadliest weapons out of the world’s most
dangerous hands. Stronger alliances to share information, pool resources,
and break up terrorist networks that operate in more than eighty countries.
And a stronger push to defeat the terrorists’ message of
hate with an agenda for hope around the
world."
Yesterday,
Barack Obama suggested he's not likely to actively pursue criminal
charges against national security officials who were directly involved in
unlawful interrogations or wire-tapping, and said it would be difficult to
quickly close down Guantanamo Bay.
On the question of prosecuting crimes that may have been committed
during the Bush presidency in the course of the war on terror, Obama
continued the theme of "looking forward as opposed to backwards" he took on
the campaign trail.
Asked specifically about the idea of a "9/11 commission with
Independence subpoena power" to look at torture and warrantless wiretapping
during the Bush years, Obama said that "We have not made final decisions,
but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving
forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has
blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my
orientation's going to be to move forward."
So, in other words, he is sending the message that high level
officials can do whatever they want to do and never have to worry about
being accountable. Torture is OK. Lying about going to war is
OK. Warrant-less wiretapping on us is OK. Wars for Empire are
OK. Knowingly murdering Americans in a false-flag operation is
OK. Scaring the American public to death to justify the Bush program
is OK.
Zbigniew Brzezinski - Some of his
credentials include:
Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission
Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations
Attendee and presenter at several Bilderberg
conferences
Some quotes from 'Grand
Chessboard':
"Ever since the continents started interacting
politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of
world power."- (p. xiii)
"It is imperative that no Eurasian
challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also
challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated
Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p.
xiv)
"How
America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates
Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and
economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that
control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's
subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically
peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the
world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is
there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia
accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."
(p.31)
“Never
before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the
pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in
conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic
well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the
human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in
the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to
imperial mobilization." (p.35)...And there are several other
telling quotes here
>
From: dimension04 at sbcglobal.net
> To: richardfobes at hotmail.com;
rmigalla at earthlink.net; citizenstruth at six.pairlist.net
> Subject: Re:
[CitizensTruth] More questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.
>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:18:46 -0600
>
>
>
> I
haven't adequately looked into it, but I have at times wondered if
>
Brzezinski is misperceived. I remember being flabbergasted one time in an
> interview where he sounded like a 9/11 Truther, sounding the alarm
--
> leaving the impression that his "Grand Chessboard" book was not
"what we
> must do" -- like the aggression of PNAC -- but instead,
that is just what IS
> going on -- and that is (what we also believe)
exactly what's wrong! (???)
>
> Also, he was Jimmy Carter's
adviser, and it's hard to find a more
> authentically humanitarian
activist than Carter -- who even dares to openly
> and frequently DIS
Israel.
>
> As for Afghanistan -- I remember the women's
movement (despite being
> anti-war) being relieved that the U.S. was
going in there, which would put
> down the Taliban, and therefore put
a stop to their brutality towards all
> females. But of course, the
Taliban have thrived under Bush. Does Obama
> have an
anti-Taliban-brutality motive -- in other words, an authentic human
>
rights motive -- for focusing on Afghanistan?
>
> As for Obama
and Israel
> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/29
>
> The link leads off with "Obama aligns with White House..." But what
the
> article CLEARLY states, unlike the headline, is this:
>
> "So far, Obama has given no hint on his policy on the
Israeli-Palestinian
> conflict, though he has said finding a peace
plan would be an early priority
> of his administration."
>
> "Further, on 12/28/08, the Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior
Bush
> administration official saying he thought the Israelis
launched the attack
> because of uncertainty over Obama's
policy."
>
> I've seen one or two other comments like this. The
Israelis apparently have
> some reasons to doubt blind loyalty from
Obama, which has always been US
> policy. And I remember,
pre-election, a number of articles about Jewish
> Americans being
nervous about voting for Obama -- they saw indications he
> was NOT
very pro-Israel.
>
> For one thing, there are periodically
headlines like this one in the foreign
> press: "Obama will bring the
end of Jewish Domination"
>
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/11/04/greek-newspaper-obama-win-will-bring-%e2%80%9cthe-end-of-jewish-domination%e2%80%9d/
>
> And mainly -- and I am kicking myself because I failed to copy the
link --
> but here's the info that I DID copy from March,
2008:
>
> Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign
co-chairman is Merrill
> "Tony" McPeak. McPeak is a former chief of
staff of the Air Force.
>
> McPeak has a long history of
criticizing Israel for not going back to the
> 1967 borders as part
of any peace agreement with Arab states. In 1976 McPeak
> wrote an
article for Foreign Affairs magazine questioning Israel's
>
insistence on holding on to the Golan Heights and parts of the West
Bank.
>
> In recent years McPeak has echoed the
Mearsheimer-Walt view that American
> Middle East policy is being
controlled by Jews (Zionists) at the expense of
> America's interests
in the region. In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian,
> McPeak
complained of that the "lack of playbook for getting Israelis and
>
Palestinians together ....We need to get it fixed and only we have the
> authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody
knows that."
>
> The interviewer then asked McPeak: "So where's
the problem? State Dept.?
> White House?"
>
> McPeak
replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote there in favor
>
of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."
>
>
Translation (as if it's needed): Jews (Zionists) -- who put Israel over
> every American interest -- control America's policy on the Middle
East.
>
> McPeak also claims that a combination of Jews and
Christian Zionists are
> manipulating U.S. policy in Iraq in
dangerous and radical ways... Guys like
> McPeak are upset because
they think Jews have too much influence.
>
> Instead of
discussing Hamas and Hezbollah, McPeak returns to his primary
>
target: Christian and Jews who support Israel...In other words, American
> policy is the product of "religious Jews and neocons" who in
McPeak's mind
> are just as much to blame for a lack of peace in the
Middle East as are
> Hamas and Hezbollah."
>
> Last I
checked, Obama still has McPeak on board as military adviser. There
>
is ample evidence, I'd say, that Obama is not as pro-Israel as is often
> conveyed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Fobes "
<richardfobes at hotmail.com>
> To: "Connie Smith "
<dimension04 at sbcglobal.net>; "Robin Migalla "
>
<rmigalla at earthlink.net>; "Truth Group (E-mail) "
>
<citizenstruth at six.pairlist.net>
> Sent: Sunday, January 11,
2009 12:48 PM
> Subject: RE: [CitizensTruth] More questionable
characters
>
>
> What is most concerning to me is
Obama's foreign policy. Zbig Brzenski is a
> dangerous fellow,
defining the term 'hawkish' and very war hungry. Obama
> promises to
enhance the 'good war' in Afghanistan by tens of thousands of
>
troops and re-depolying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. These promises are
> not humanitarian. There is no 'good war', especially the illegal
war of
> agression that we engaged in Afghanistan. I don't want to
engage in anger
> and defensiveness either in talking about Obama,
but these things shouldn't
> be ignored.
>
> This
justification is under the guise of the so-called War on Terror, which
> we KNOW is based on a lie that is 9/11. A more accurate decription
is the
> War OF Terror, including ther biggest domestic spying
program in history
> that Obama, unfortunately, is inheriting, not to
mention the policy of
> torture and the Bush doctrine of 'taking the
fight to the terrorists'.
>
> Obama's recent FISA vote is
concerning.
>
>
> The promise to estabish tens of
thousands of domestic troops is concerning.
> His past loyalties to
Israel and AIPAC is concerning, though I read an
> article yesterday
in the Guardian saying the Obama's transition team is
> saying that
they will be ready to talk to Hamas on a low-level diplomacy
>
level.
>
>
> While I am grateful for the change from
Bush, anything would have been
> better.
>
>
>
Obama has his plate full (overly full!). I'm encouaged by some of his
> words, but not most of his words about foreign policy. His actions
will be
> interesting.
>
>
> -Rich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Connie Smith
<dimension04 at sbcglobal.net>
> Sent: 1/11/2009 5:51:28 PM
>
To: Robin Migalla <rmigalla at earthlink.net>, Truth Group (E-mail)
> <citizenstruth at six.pairlist.net>
> Subject: Re:
[CitizensTruth] More questionable characters
>
>
>
>
> I've lost track of it now -- I didn't archive it because I
thought it was
> common knowledge anyway -- it being a commentary by
Obama about the need to
> create jobs "from the bottom up, not from
the top down" -- in other words,
> priority given to local
business-building, not global.
>
> I still think he's playing
it safe with APPEARING to be no threat to the
> powers-that-be,
initially, easing his way into power until he can (almost
> safely) be
who he really is -- possibly one of the greatest humanitarians we
>
will ever know.
>
> Here's someone he's appointed that's being
lauded as a "brilliant pick."
> Being a constitutional law professor
-- gosh, we finally have a politician
> who actually KNOWS the
Constitution and cares about it!! -- I think this
> sort of appt.
shows Obama's true colors.
>
> by Frank Rich: "One of the
sharpest appointments yet made by the incoming
> president may support
decisive action: Dawn Johnsen, a law professor and
> former Clinton
administration official who last week was chosen to run the
> Office
of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice.
>
> "This is the
same office where the Bush apparatchik John Yoo produced his
>
infamous memos justifying torture. Johnsen is a fierce critic of
such
> constitutional abuses. In articles for Slate last year, she
wondered 'where
> is the outrage, the public outcry' over a government
that has acted
> lawlessly and that 'does not respect the legal and
moral bounds of human
> decency.' She asked, 'How do we save our
country's honor, and our own?'
>
> "As Johnsen wrote last
March, we must also 'resist Bush administration
> efforts to hide
evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive
> immunity,
its assertions of state privilege -- and the implausible claims
> that
openness will empower terrorists.' "
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robin Migalla" <rmigalla at earthlink.net>
> To:
"Truth Group (E-mail)" <citizenstruth at six.pairlist.net>
> Sent:
Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:52 AM
> Subject: [CitizensTruth] More
questionable characters
>
>
> > Happy Sunday
Everyone,
> >
> > Here's a new site I've just been turned
onto that seems like it might be
> > another lightworker among
us...
> >
> > http://www.small-mart.org/
>
>
> > Michael Shuman's Blog
> > Ideas for Obamanomics:
Post-Meltdown Thoughts (Part II)
> >
> > Posted on
November 25, 2008
> >
> > Many of you were probably
dancing in the streets on election night. I
> > was -
> >
even though I identify myself as an independent. That the country
will
> > finally enjoy a leader who actually cares about ideas, who
speaks
> > grammatical English, who believes in science more than
ideology, who
> > doesn't see ecological or women's rights as
liberal conspiracies, who
> > exudes discipline, confidence, and
charisma, who sincerely cares about the
> > have-nots in society,
and who won't always resort to war as the answer to
> > every
national security problem is a huge relief.
> >
> > But
beware. Or, more precisely, be wary. Two weeks before the election,
a
> > Sunday talk show featured a debate between representatives of
each
> > campaign: Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) representing
Barack Obama versus
> > Senator John Kyl (R-Arizona) representing
John McCain. When the debate
> > turned to which candidate would
improve the nation's economic
> > competitiveness, the two senators
agreed that the goal was to attract more
> > global corporations
and spent the rest of their time quibbling over the
> > best means
of doing so. The role of small business was relegated to Joe
> >
the
> > Plumber.
> >
> > Obama's Big
Thinking
> > President-elect Obama has surrounded himself with the
visionary captains
> > of
> > global capitalism - those
who believe that "kinder, gentler" free trade
> > and
> >
free finance, qualified with corporate responsibility, will save our
>
> fast-sinking economy. Obama's chief economic advisor during the
campaign,
> > Jason Furman, is best known for a paper arguing that
Wal-Mart, because it
> > provides cheap goods for all, is one of
the most progressive corporations
> > in America. Robert Reich made
his career in a series of arguments in early
> > issues of The
American Prospect suggesting (against Laura Tyson, another
> >
Obama advisor) that ownership of business generally - let alone
local
> > ownership - no longer mattered. And as John McCain fairly
observed,
> > candidate Obama has surrounded himself with experts
who made awful calls
> > over the past decade about relaxing
standards for low-income housing loans
> > and deregulating Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, all of which contributed to
> > the current
financial mess.
> >
> > What's most worrisome is that no
one on the Obama A-Team understands that
> > the key to
revitalizing the economy and to fixing the financial crisis is
> >
nurturing and expanding locally owned business. But at the B- and
C-Team
> > levels there is enormous sympathy for the views of us
locavores. So what
> > should they be doing? (Full article
http://www.small-mart.org/obamanomics)
> >
> > Color me
really grateful for the internet,
> > Robin
> >
_______________________________________________
> > CitizensTruth
mailing list
> > CitizensTruth at six.pairlist.net
> >
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth
> > website:
http://citizenstruth.info
>
>
_______________________________________________
> CitizensTruth
mailing list
> CitizensTruth at six.pairlist.net
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth
> website:
http://citizenstruth.info
>
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. Check
it out.
_______________________________________________
CitizensTruth
mailing
list
CitizensTruth at six.pairlist.net
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth
website:
http://citizenstruth.info
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. See how it works.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/citizenstruth/attachments/20090113/638842b5/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the CitizensTruth
mailing list