<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>However, Jay Leno's wife was particularly outspoken
on the idea that perhaps U.S. forces could stop the Taliban's
brutality. Note: <STRONG>not</STRONG> "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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>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.)
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>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...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>...as from your Obama quote below:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>"the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in
how we deploy it."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>Wisdom is what I'm talking about. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>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.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3>However, Obama's got somebody on board now just in case it
becomes possible. From Frank Rich:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 7.5pt"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"><FONT
size=4>One of the sharpest appointments yet made by the incoming president may
support decisive action: Dawn Johnsen, </FONT><A
href="http://info.law.indiana.edu/sb/page/normal/1419.html"><FONT color=#000066
size=4>a law professor and former Clinton administration
official</FONT></A><FONT size=4> who last week was </FONT><A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08johnsen.html"><FONT
color=#000066 size=4>chosen</FONT></A><FONT size=4> to run the Office of Legal
Counsel in the Department of Justice. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-LEFT: 7.5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 7.5pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"><FONT size=4>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 </FONT><A
href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/04/03/outrage-at-the-latest-olc-torture-memo.aspx"><FONT
color=#000066 size=4>wondered</FONT></A><FONT size=4> “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 </FONT><A
href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/arar/default.aspx"><FONT
color=#000066 size=4>asked</FONT></A><FONT size=4>, “How do we save our
country’s honor, and our own?”<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"><FONT size=3>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.”<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P><FONT size=3></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>No more time. Thanks for input.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Connie</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT size=3>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT size=3>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=richardfobes@hotmail.com
href="mailto:richardfobes@hotmail.com">Richard Fobes</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net
href="mailto:citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net">Citizen's.Truth</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 12, 2009 11:03
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CitizensTruth] More
questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>"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?"<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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:<BR><BR>... "The second way
America will lead again is by building the first truly 21st century military
and showing wisdom in how we deploy it."<BR><BR><BR>"...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."<BR>...<BR>"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." <BR>...<BR>"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."<BR>...<BR>"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."<BR>...<BR>"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 defea<FONT face=Verdana>t the terrorists’ message of hate
with an agenda for hope around the world."</FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><FONT
id=EC_EC_role_document style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" face=Verdana color=#000000
size=2>Yesterday, </FONT><A
href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17317.html"><FONT
id=EC_EC_role_document style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" face=Verdana color=#000000
size=2><U>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.</U></FONT></A> <BR><A
href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17317.html"><U><FONT
id=EC_EC_role_document style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" face=Verdana color=#000000
size=2>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.</FONT></U></A><BR><A
href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17317.html"><U><FONT
id=EC_EC_role_document style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" face=Verdana color=#000000
size=2>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'<WBR>s going
to be to move forward."</FONT></U></A><BR><FONT id=EC_EC_role_document
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt" face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2>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. <BR></FONT><BR><BR><BR>Zbigniew
Brzezinski - Some of his credentials include:<BR><BR>
<UL>
<LI>Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission
<LI>Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations
<LI>Attendee and presenter at several Bilderberg
conferences<BR></LI></UL><BR>Some quotes from 'Grand Chessboard':<BR><BR>"Ever
since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years
ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)<BR><BR>"It is
imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia
and thus of also challenging America. <B>The formulation of a comprehensive
and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this
book</B>.” (p. xiv)<BR><BR>
<P
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">"<STRONG>How
America 'manages' Eurasia is critical.</STRONG> 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)</P>
<P
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><STRONG>“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."</STRONG> (p.35)</P>...And there are several other
telling quotes <A
href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard">here</A><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>>
From: dimension04@sbcglobal.net<BR>> To: richardfobes@hotmail.com;
rmigalla@earthlink.net; citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>> Subject: Re:
[CitizensTruth] More questionable characters-Zbigniew, Israel, etc.<BR>>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:18:46 -0600<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I
haven't adequately looked into it, but I have at times wondered if <BR>>
Brzezinski is misperceived. I remember being flabbergasted one time in an
<BR>> interview where he sounded like a 9/11 Truther, sounding the alarm --
<BR>> leaving the impression that his "Grand Chessboard" book was not "what
we <BR>> must do" -- like the aggression of PNAC -- but instead, that is
just what IS <BR>> going on -- and that is (what we also believe) exactly
what's wrong! (???)<BR>> <BR>> Also, he was Jimmy Carter's adviser, and
it's hard to find a more <BR>> authentically humanitarian activist than
Carter -- who even dares to openly <BR>> and frequently DIS Israel.<BR>>
<BR>> As for Afghanistan -- I remember the women's movement (despite being
<BR>> anti-war) being relieved that the U.S. was going in there, which
would put <BR>> down the Taliban, and therefore put a stop to their
brutality towards all <BR>> females. But of course, the Taliban have
thrived under Bush. Does Obama <BR>> have an anti-Taliban-brutality motive
-- in other words, an authentic human <BR>> rights motive -- for focusing
on Afghanistan?<BR>> <BR>> As for Obama and Israel<BR>>
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/29<BR>> <BR>> The link
leads off with "Obama aligns with White House..." But what the <BR>>
article CLEARLY states, unlike the headline, is this:<BR>> <BR>> "So
far, Obama has given no hint on his policy on the Israeli-Palestinian <BR>>
conflict, though he has said finding a peace plan would be an early priority
<BR>> of his administration."<BR>> <BR>> "Further, on 12/28/08, the
Washington Post quoted an unnamed senior Bush <BR>> administration official
saying he thought the Israelis launched the attack <BR>> because of
uncertainty over Obama's policy."<BR>> <BR>> I've seen one or two other
comments like this. The Israelis apparently have <BR>> some reasons to
doubt blind loyalty from Obama, which has always been US <BR>> policy. And
I remember, pre-election, a number of articles about Jewish <BR>> Americans
being nervous about voting for Obama -- they saw indications he <BR>> was
NOT very pro-Israel.<BR>> <BR>> For one thing, there are periodically
headlines like this one in the foreign <BR>> press: "Obama will bring the
end of Jewish Domination"<BR>>
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/11/04/greek-newspaper-obama-win-will-bring-%e2%80%9cthe-end-of-jewish-domination%e2%80%9d/<BR>>
<BR>> And mainly -- and I am kicking myself because I failed to copy the
link -- <BR>> but here's the info that I DID copy from March, 2008:<BR>>
<BR>> Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman is
Merrill <BR>> "Tony" McPeak. McPeak is a former chief of staff of the Air
Force.<BR>> <BR>> McPeak has a long history of criticizing Israel for
not going back to the <BR>> 1967 borders as part of any peace agreement
with Arab states. In 1976 McPeak <BR>> wrote an article for Foreign Affairs
magazine questioning Israel's <BR>> insistence on holding on to the Golan
Heights and parts of the West Bank.<BR>> <BR>> In recent years McPeak
has echoed the Mearsheimer-Walt view that American <BR>> Middle East policy
is being controlled by Jews (Zionists) at the expense of <BR>> America's
interests in the region. In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian, <BR>>
McPeak complained of that the "lack of playbook for getting Israelis and
<BR>> Palestinians together ....We need to get it fixed and only we have
the <BR>> authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody
knows that."<BR>> <BR>> The interviewer then asked McPeak: "So where's
the problem? State Dept.? <BR>> White House?"<BR>> <BR>> McPeak
replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote there in favor <BR>>
of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."<BR>> <BR>>
Translation (as if it's needed): Jews (Zionists) -- who put Israel over
<BR>> every American interest -- control America's policy on the Middle
East.<BR>> <BR>> McPeak also claims that a combination of Jews and
Christian Zionists are <BR>> manipulating U.S. policy in Iraq in dangerous
and radical ways... Guys like <BR>> McPeak are upset because they think
Jews have too much influence.<BR>> <BR>> Instead of discussing Hamas and
Hezbollah, McPeak returns to his primary <BR>> target: Christian and Jews
who support Israel...In other words, American <BR>> policy is the product
of "religious Jews and neocons" who in McPeak's mind <BR>> are just as much
to blame for a lack of peace in the Middle East as are <BR>> Hamas and
Hezbollah."<BR>> <BR>> Last I checked, Obama still has McPeak on board
as military adviser. There <BR>> is ample evidence, I'd say, that Obama is
not as pro-Israel as is often <BR>> conveyed.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>>
From: "Richard Fobes " <richardfobes@hotmail.com><BR>> To: "Connie
Smith " <dimension04@sbcglobal.net>; "Robin Migalla " <BR>>
<rmigalla@earthlink.net>; "Truth Group (E-mail) " <BR>>
<citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net><BR>> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009
12:48 PM<BR>> Subject: RE: [CitizensTruth] More questionable
characters<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> What is most concerning to me is Obama's
foreign policy. Zbig Brzenski is a <BR>> dangerous fellow, defining the
term 'hawkish' and very war hungry. Obama <BR>> promises to enhance the
'good war' in Afghanistan by tens of thousands of <BR>> troops and
re-depolying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. These promises are <BR>> not
humanitarian. There is no 'good war', especially the illegal war of <BR>>
agression that we engaged in Afghanistan. I don't want to engage in anger
<BR>> and defensiveness either in talking about Obama, but these things
shouldn't <BR>> be ignored.<BR>> <BR>> This justification is under
the guise of the so-called War on Terror, which <BR>> we KNOW is based on a
lie that is 9/11. A more accurate decription is the <BR>> War OF Terror,
including ther biggest domestic spying program in history <BR>> that Obama,
unfortunately, is inheriting, not to mention the policy of <BR>> torture
and the Bush doctrine of 'taking the fight to the terrorists'.<BR>>
<BR>> Obama's recent FISA vote is concerning.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The
promise to estabish tens of thousands of domestic troops is concerning.
<BR>> His past loyalties to Israel and AIPAC is concerning, though I read
an <BR>> article yesterday in the Guardian saying the Obama's transition
team is <BR>> saying that they will be ready to talk to Hamas on a
low-level diplomacy <BR>> level.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> While I am
grateful for the change from Bush, anything would have been <BR>>
better.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Obama has his plate full (overly full!). I'm
encouaged by some of his <BR>> words, but not most of his words about
foreign policy. His actions will be <BR>> interesting.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> -Rich<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>
From: Connie Smith <dimension04@sbcglobal.net><BR>> Sent: 1/11/2009
5:51:28 PM<BR>> To: Robin Migalla <rmigalla@earthlink.net>, Truth
Group (E-mail) <BR>> <citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net><BR>>
Subject: Re: [CitizensTruth] More questionable characters<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I've lost track of it now -- I didn't archive it
because I thought it was<BR>> common knowledge anyway -- it being a
commentary by Obama about the need to<BR>> create jobs "from the bottom up,
not from the top down" -- in other words,<BR>> priority given to local
business-building, not global.<BR>> <BR>> I still think he's playing it
safe with APPEARING to be no threat to the<BR>> powers-that-be, initially,
easing his way into power until he can (almost<BR>> safely) be who he
really is -- possibly one of the greatest humanitarians we<BR>> will ever
know.<BR>> <BR>> Here's someone he's appointed that's being lauded as a
"brilliant pick."<BR>> Being a constitutional law professor -- gosh, we
finally have a politician<BR>> who actually KNOWS the Constitution and
cares about it!! -- I think this<BR>> sort of appt. shows Obama's true
colors.<BR>> <BR>> by Frank Rich: "One of the sharpest appointments yet
made by the incoming<BR>> president may support decisive action: Dawn
Johnsen, a law professor and<BR>> former Clinton administration official
who last week was chosen to run the<BR>> Office of Legal Counsel in the
Department of Justice.<BR>> <BR>> "This is the same office where the
Bush apparatchik John Yoo produced his<BR>> infamous memos justifying
torture. Johnsen is a fierce critic of such<BR>> constitutional abuses. In
articles for Slate last year, she wondered 'where<BR>> is the outrage, the
public outcry' over a government that has acted<BR>> lawlessly and that
'does not respect the legal and moral bounds of human<BR>> decency.' She
asked, 'How do we save our country's honor, and our own?'<BR>> <BR>> "As
Johnsen wrote last March, we must also 'resist Bush administration<BR>>
efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for
retroactive<BR>> immunity, its assertions of state privilege -- and the
implausible claims<BR>> that openness will empower terrorists.' "<BR>>
<BR>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11rich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>> From: "Robin Migalla" <rmigalla@earthlink.net><BR>> To:
"Truth Group (E-mail)" <citizenstruth@six.pairlist.net><BR>> Sent:
Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:52 AM<BR>> Subject: [CitizensTruth] More
questionable characters<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Happy Sunday
Everyone,<BR>> ><BR>> > Here's a new site I've just been turned
onto that seems like it might be<BR>> > another lightworker among
us...<BR>> ><BR>> > http://www.small-mart.org/<BR>>
><BR>> > Michael Shuman's Blog<BR>> > Ideas for Obamanomics:
Post-Meltdown Thoughts (Part II)<BR>> ><BR>> > Posted on November
25, 2008<BR>> ><BR>> > Many of you were probably dancing in the
streets on election night. I<BR>> > was -<BR>> > even though I
identify myself as an independent. That the country will<BR>> > finally
enjoy a leader who actually cares about ideas, who speaks<BR>> >
grammatical English, who believes in science more than ideology, who<BR>>
> doesn't see ecological or women's rights as liberal conspiracies,
who<BR>> > exudes discipline, confidence, and charisma, who sincerely
cares about the<BR>> > have-nots in society, and who won't always resort
to war as the answer to<BR>> > every national security problem is a huge
relief.<BR>> ><BR>> > But beware. Or, more precisely, be wary. Two
weeks before the election, a<BR>> > Sunday talk show featured a debate
between representatives of each<BR>> > campaign: Senator Evan Bayh
(D-Indiana) representing Barack Obama versus<BR>> > Senator John Kyl
(R-Arizona) representing John McCain. When the debate<BR>> > turned to
which candidate would improve the nation's economic<BR>> >
competitiveness, the two senators agreed that the goal was to attract
more<BR>> > global corporations and spent the rest of their time
quibbling over the<BR>> > best means of doing so. The role of small
business was relegated to Joe<BR>> > the<BR>> > Plumber.<BR>>
><BR>> > Obama's Big Thinking<BR>> > President-elect Obama has
surrounded himself with the visionary captains<BR>> > of<BR>> >
global capitalism - those who believe that "kinder, gentler" free
trade<BR>> > and<BR>> > free finance, qualified with corporate
responsibility, will save our<BR>> > fast-sinking economy. Obama's chief
economic advisor during the campaign,<BR>> > Jason Furman, is best known
for a paper arguing that Wal-Mart, because it<BR>> > provides cheap
goods for all, is one of the most progressive corporations<BR>> > in
America. Robert Reich made his career in a series of arguments in
early<BR>> > issues of The American Prospect suggesting (against Laura
Tyson, another<BR>> > Obama advisor) that ownership of business
generally - let alone local<BR>> > ownership - no longer mattered. And
as John McCain fairly observed,<BR>> > candidate Obama has surrounded
himself with experts who made awful calls<BR>> > over the past decade
about relaxing standards for low-income housing loans<BR>> > and
deregulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all of which contributed to<BR>>
> the current financial mess.<BR>> ><BR>> > What's most
worrisome is that no one on the Obama A-Team understands that<BR>> > the
key to revitalizing the economy and to fixing the financial crisis is<BR>>
> nurturing and expanding locally owned business. But at the B- and
C-Team<BR>> > levels there is enormous sympathy for the views of us
locavores. So what<BR>> > should they be doing? (Full article
http://www.small-mart.org/obamanomics)<BR>> ><BR>> > Color me
really grateful for the internet,<BR>> > Robin<BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> > CitizensTruth
mailing list<BR>> > CitizensTruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>> >
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth<BR>> > website:
http://citizenstruth.info<BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> CitizensTruth mailing
list<BR>> CitizensTruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth<BR>> website:
http://citizenstruth.info <BR>> <BR><BR>
<HR>
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. <A
href="http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009"
target=_new>Check it out.</A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>CitizensTruth
mailing
list<BR>CitizensTruth@six.pairlist.net<BR>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/citizenstruth<BR>website:
http://citizenstruth.info<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>