Monthly Archives: July, 2009

Liberal FOX boycott big failure, now it’s crush Lou Dobbs over aliens and birthers

There has been a movement by some folks to boycott Lou Dobbs, because he has given airtime to supporters and opponents of the theory that President Obama was not born in Hawaii. Such boycotts rarely are effective, because most viewers are not one issue.

However, CNN is generally liberal and too often PC. You would think that Fox News would be a target of overly excited liberals, not CNN. Perhaps, there has been a movement to squash Fox. If so, it has been a failure.

TV by the numbers most recent report breaks out viewership as follows with Fox destroying the competition:

Morning programs (6:00AM-9:00AM) P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
FOX & Friends- 867,000 viewers (290,000) (566,000)
American Morning- 415,000 viewers (143,000) (219,000)
Morning Joe-312,000 viewers (104,000) (197,000)
Squawk Box- 149,000 viewers (56,000) (96,000)
Morning Express w/ Meade- 209,000 viewers (121,000) (156,000)

5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
(FOX) Glenn Beck– 2,136,000 viewers (524,000) (969,000)
Situation Room—802,000 viewers (206,000) (319,000)
Hardball w/ Chris Matthews—688,000 viewers (189,000) (308,000)
Fast Money—238,000 viewers (92,000) (135,000)
Prime News–264,000 viewers (121,000) (141,000)

6PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
(FOX) Special Report with Bret Baier– 1,799,000 viewers (395,000) (770,000)
Situation Room—830,000 viewers (224,000) (332,000)
Ed Show—586,000 viewers (168,000) (271,000)
Mad Money—209,000 viewers (73,000) (121,000)
Prime News — 208,000 viewers (81,000) (84,000)

7PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Fox Report w/Shep Smith–1,554,000 viewers (350,000) (737,000)
Lou Dobbs Tonight—688,000 viewers (191,000) (286,000)
Hardball w Chris Matthews— 661,000 viewers (190,000) (372,000)
Kudlow Report —158,000 viewers (64,000) (106,000)
Issues– 424,000 viewers (136,000) (240,000)

8PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
(FOX) The O’Reilly Factor– 3,467,000 viewers (805,000) (1,508,000)
Campbell Brown- 787,000 viewers (226,000) (335,000)
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann– 904,000 viewers (286,000) (455,000)
CNBC Reports- 142,000 viewers (a scratch w/ 37,000) (76,000)
Nancy Grace – 826,000 viewers (253,000) (425,000)

9 PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
(FOX) Hannity –2,258,000 viewers (544,000) (979,000)
Larry King Live—1,100,000 viewers (329,000) (547,000)
Rachel Maddow—886,000 viewers (273,000) (419,000)
Marijuana Inc–366,000 viewers (165,000) (179,000)
Issues- 463,000 viewers (163,000) (284,000)

10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
(FOX) On the Record w/ Greta—1,762,000 viewers (454,000) (769,000)
Anderson Cooper 360—1,085,000 viewers (351,000) (580,000)
Countdown w/ K. Olbermann— 552,000 viewers (179,000) (317,000)
Ultimate Fighting: Fistful- 324,000 viewers (197,000) (153,000)
Nancy Grace –324,000 viewers (151,000) (212,000)

Conclusion – Trilateral and Kissinger

The following excerpt is the conclusion of a recent speech by Henry Kissinger to the Trilateral Commission. Part two was yesterday.

THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION
2009 PLENARYMEETING – TOKYO, JAPAN, APRIL 26, 2009
THE INTELLECTUAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE TRILATERAL PARTNERSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Henry Kissinger:

So, it is an enterprise that must be undertaken, but it is an enterprise also that needs to be looked at or studied in the excruciating detail that it involves. It is not something that you can achieve with placards or in outbursts of pacifism. It is because when you ask yourself of the impact on the world of the reduction of nuclear weapons, each phase of this has its own aspects and each phase will lead to a very complicated political discussion.

I have been very much engaged in putting Russian-American relations on a new basis. In dealing with Russian strategists one learns that the notion we had in the 1970s of a Russia with unlimited reserves of manpower, threatening Europe militarily with its conventional force, that had to be opposed with nuclear weapons on the ground is totally reversed. It is Russia today that thinks that it is surrounded by countries with unlimited reserves of manpower and unlimited ideological commitment and that it, therefore, had its own necessities for nuclear weapons which cannot be simply analyzed in terms of the overall deterrence of the United States and Russian equation.

The issue of nuclear weapons has similarities to the Schleswig-Holstein Question in the 19th century, about which Lord Palmerston said there were only three people who had ever understood it: one was dead, the second was in a lunatic asylum, and he himself was the third and he had forgotten all about it. We have to be the third on this issue and we have to learn about it. This is one of the great challenges before us.

All of us here have been affected by the rise of China, and it has been an explicit and an unspoken aspect of many of our discussions. It has never happened before that a country of such magnitude entered the international system without conflict and yet this is precisely the challenge that our international order faces.

There are two aspects to this. One is, What is Chinese policy? Is it Chinese military policy to dominate the region? This is something one can affect, and must affect, by discussions. The second is the weight of China. Regardless of the intentions of Chinese leaders, the weight of China will increase. It is inevitable; it is a fact of life; and it must, therefore, be considered in any discussions we have about a new international system.

This requires, on the side of China, wisdom and restraint, and it requires, on the side of its surrounding countries, comparable wisdom and restraint. Looked at from this point of view, no conversation in the world today is more important than the American and Chinese strategic dialogue.

This does not derogate from any of our alliances; it is not a way of governing the world. Quite the contrary, it is a dialogue that makes it possible to create a multipolar world based on the recognition by two of the countries that are the principal carriers of international economic and strategic power of the role that they must play in this.

So what we need to think about is this. What matters can only be done, or can best be done, on a global basis? What matters should be done on a regional basis? What issues require specific, limited groupings to deal with them?

This afternoon, we have heard about the issue of Afghanistan, and that issue and the Pakistan issue involve, really, two problems. One is the traditional military problem of how do you deal with the challenge to order that has presented itself. But secondly, there is the necessity of creating a political system in the region that enables all of the countries that are potentially affected by this to act in a unified manner over an extended period of time.

On this we could find that India, China, Russia, Iran, and the United States have parallel objectives, and the challenge will be, first of all, to define these objectives to ourselves in a way that can be translated into action and, secondly, to use the combined pressures that they can exercise to diminish the purely American military aspect of it and merge it into this international system.

In a deep way, this is exactly the problem we face also with respect to North Korea and Iran. Whatever the debate is about the military significance of their weapons, the fact is that we have a situation in which the international community has expressed its determination that there not be nuclear weapons programs in those countries. If they now occur anyway, how can one then still speak of a meaningful international consensus? Of course, there could be a negotiation to achieve this.

Having described all of these complexities, let me leave us with a positive feeling. First, the international financial crisis can help the creation of an international political order for a negative reason. Every country is so preoccupied with its own domestic issues; no country has a great surplus of resources that it can devote to international adventures. So, if political leadership can develop, this is a good objective circumstance.

Secondly, we are living in a period in which, for the first time that I know of, no major country is challenging the international system. All of the challenges to the international system come from countries that, in relation to the overall order, are relatively fringe countries or from non-state actors. So, the opportunities that we can see in developing the global patterns that are inherent in this situation are very great despite the fact that the surface knowledge is the opposite.

To all of this I think this Trilateral Commission can make a significant intellectual contribution. It can raise issues; it can define them in a long-range point of view; and it can help with one of the great needs of this period, which is that governments are so preoccupied with the immediate issues that there is sometimes no focal point for a consistent application of long-range visions.

So we can raise issues, we can indicate directions, and in this way we can fulfill the vision that created the Trilateral Commission when it operated in a smaller framework and when one of its primary purposes was to bring Japan into a North Atlantic framework. Now it can help bring Asia and Russia into a coherent global framework.

Henry A. Kissinger is Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York, NY; former U.S. Secretary of State; former U.S. Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; and Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission

Kissinger and Trilateral Commission – Part 2

The following excerpt is Part 2 of a recent speech by Henry Kissinger to the Trilateral Commission is fascinating. Part one was yesterday. Tomorrow’s post will be a continuation.

THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION
2009 PLENARYMEETING – TOKYO, JAPAN, APRIL 26, 2009
THE INTELLECTUAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE TRILATERAL PARTNERSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Dr. Henry Kissinger

Therefore, some of the disagreements that have existed between Europe and the United States are not due primarily to the personality of American leaders, though they were not aided by some of the arguments that the American leaders made. Their fundamental cause is the fact that European public opinion is very reluctant to engage in foreign policy beyond soft power. It is not a lack of loyalty to the alliance; it is not a lack of understanding of what the issues are; it is the fact that in Europe, the nation-state—based on its experience in two world wars—cannot conduct a strategic foreign policy involving significant sacrifices, and the European Union has not yet substituted a political concept.

Therefore, a wise policy will keep that in mind, and I believe the Obama administration has acted wisely in Afghanistan in not making an issue of the disparity between the formal NATO commitment and the willingness of the Europeans to support it. I would prefer a different attitude, but I think that if we push that issue, we will weaken our relationship. And in a more fundamental way, as we think of the way the international order is likely to evolve, we need to understand what Europe can and cannot do and how the North Atlantic alliance needs to be defined to fit the current circumstances.

In other parts of the world, the notion of sovereignty has also collapsed, but for quite different reasons. In the Islamic world, particularly in the Middle East, the notion of a sovereign state conducting an autonomous foreign policy was brought in at the end of World War I by the European countries. It, therefore, has not ever, and certainly does not now, attracted the loyalties that the European nation-state had at its fully developed period. What has emerged is a concept of Islamism that challenges the notion of the secular state and, in some cases, the existence of the actual states.

The principal country in that area that is conducting a traditional foreign policy in some respects is Iran because it has the tradition of an empire. It has had a national identity, but it is now using it, at least in part, to support the Islamic movements that undermine the secular state.

The principal place where the traditional international system still exists in its more or less pure form is in Asia. The nations of Asia have the kind of national loyalties that were characteristic of the European states. Strategic conflict between the European states is practically inconceivable. In Asia, war is highly unlikely, but there is a tendency to consider each other as potential strategic adversaries. At any rate, a balancing of power of the various states is always in the back of their minds.

So, as the center of gravity of international affairs moves to the Pacific and to the Indian Ocean, there are, in a way, two somewhat contradictory approaches to international affairs that are being conducted, and, if other conditions had not changed, one would predict for Asia some of the kinds of conflicts that existed previously in the evolution of European history.

The reason that conflict is not likely is the emergence of global issues that can only be dealt with on a global basis—issues like climate, the environment, energy, trade, weapons of mass destruction—and they impel a global approach. And there is another element. The nations of Europe went to war with each other because they thought the consequences of defeat were worse than the consequences of war.

Nobody with modern weapons can have any illusions that the consequences of war will not have the most drastic impact on modern societies. And so, the rise of Asia has to be accommodated in an international system that is based on cooperation and on dialogue without the recourse to military measures that used to dominate international affairs.

But that raises the question of how does one do this? In history, international orders emerged either by consensus or by some application of a balance of power. Now, ideally, one would like to see order emerge out of consensus. But history teaches, and our own experience teaches us, that in groups based on consensus there is very often an unequal willingness to assume risks and, therefore, leadership groups emerge within the consensus group that assume responsibility, or the whole thing will gradually stagnate and fall apart.

But then, the question arises, how does one apply this in the multipolar world that I have described? How can one get either consensus or equilibrium when the various actors are states but they can also be NGOs and they can also be non-state groups. This is the challenge of our time, and this is where a group like this can be of great importance. This group can raise questions that the governments sometimes do not find it possible to address, and it can provide a possible consensus to which governments can repair or which they can use as they make their decisions.

This applies to a number of issues. Let me give one example that was raised by President Obama in Prague, the issue of a world without nuclear weapons. That is a goal every American president has avowed since the beginning of the nuclear age and it has attracted enormous support and been supported by any number of intellectual groups. But the fact is that as a practical matter it is extraordinarily difficult to reach and, in fact, impossible to reach under present circumstances.

At the Munich Security Conference, I quoted Senator Sam Nunn, who is a colleague of mine, on having talked about this project, together with George Shultz and Bill Perry. Senator Nunn puts it this way: “The project is like trying to climb a mountain that is covered in clouds. And you announce that you want to reach the summit but you have no idea what the summit looks like.

On the other hand, you will never understand what the summit looks like until you begin the journey and start going into the clouds, and in that process it may become clearer to you. In fact, you cannot do it unless you undertake that journey.” Now the reason I and others who have been in my office and who were known as hardliners have cooperated in this project is that we have all had the experience of asking ourselves, “What would we do if we had to make the decision to use nuclear weapons?”

Each of us understood that this was a decision of a magnitude that goes beyond anything in previous political experience and probably of a magnitude that can have no moral justification.

(continued tomorrow)

Kissinger raps U.S. at Trilateral Commission plenary meeting in Tokyo, Japan

The following excerpt of a recent speech by Henry Kissinger to the Trilateral Commission is fascinating. Tomorrow’s post will be a continuation.

THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION
2009 PLENARYMEETING – TOKYO, JAPAN, APRIL 26, 2009
THE INTELLECTUAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE TRILATERAL PARTNERSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Dr. Henry Kissinger

When the Trilateral Commission was started in 1974, the world was essentially a bipolar world. The idea of David Rockefeller and his colleagues was to bring Japan into a dialogue with what was then the center of global thinking and power, namely, the North Atlantic area. China had just begun its relationship with the United States—it was not a significant economic factor—and Japan was an outpost in Asia for the concerns that were evolved primarily in the North Atlantic context. Since then, the international system has changed fundamentally.

Let me talk about the nature of the international order and the issues in relation to the international order that I see emerging and which require some global group that addresses them.

Since 1974, we have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unification of Germany, the rise of China, and the abandonment by India of its non-alignment and its active participation in global affairs.

We have also seen the rise of nongovernmental organizations—some terrorist, some nongovernmental organizations that undertake positive work, but all of them active in a manner that was marginal or nonexistent when we conducted Middle East policy in the administration in which I served. Terrorism was a very marginal phenomenon. We dealt with governments and we thought we had a difficult time, but those governments were only marginally affected by the groups that avowed terrorism.

We have seen the shift of the center of gravity of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and that is one of the major themes of this new period. We have seen the collapse of the financial system that had been believed to be—in the 1980s and 1990s— the pillar of the economic financial order.

About this I will make a few observations. Some of the discussions with respect to the economic system create the impression that their advocates believe that, at the end of the current crisis, we will go back to a slightly improved version of the previous system, with perhaps some more regulation. I do not believe that that is possible. There are a number of reasons why that will not be the case.

I do not think it will be possible or desirable to restore the dominant position of the United States, and one of the key issues that needs to be discussed in this group and others is how one can have an international economic system that has various centers of power, not one that is dominated by one country.

In fact, one of the consequences of the financial crisis is a certain loss of confidence in the United States across the board. Many governments and many countries had become used to the proposition that in the political world we have flights of inspiration that prove temporary. But in the economic world it had been assumed that the US model was the one that was correct and that would be permanent. The fact that this has proved not to be the case will affect the American ability to prescribe solutions in a fundamental way.

I also think that the role of government in the next period, for better or worse, will be much larger and that attention will have to paid to the fundamental flaw of the globalized economic system as it existed before, which was that the economic model and the political model were out of sync with each other.

The global economic model assumed that there were principles that could be applied universally and that it was self-regulating. For that reason it was not believed to be necessary to have a political safety net for the economic system. But the fact was that whenever a crisis occurred, or whenever any group felt significantly disadvantaged, they would go to the political institutions that they knew, which were the national governments.

Therefore, there was an inherent discontinuity between the way economics was dealt with and the way politics would react. This has been shown by the fact that in the first round of this crisis, the solutions are attempted on a national basis—which are then coordinated—and not on a global basis. So, all of these matters will need attention and they will need attention in a very special context. Every country that holds the views that I described, which is most of them, has two contradictory motivations.

On the one hand, they want to make themselves independent of the forces that produced the crisis and, at the same time, they recognize that the solutions require a global answer. The result will have to be the evolution of some kind of multipolar leadership of the international system.

Let me now turn to that issue. The political world is in a period of fundamental change. When I taught international politics, we dealt with the concept of sovereignty as the organizing principle of the international system, both for foreign policy and for domestic policy. But now the notion of sovereignty is under attack or in the process of change in many parts of the world. Europe, which originated the concept of the nation-state, has voluntarily surrendered part of its sovereignty to the European Union.

But the European Union has not been able, up to now, to generate the political loyalties that the nation-state did. Therefore there is a gap in Europe between the way foreign policy used to be conducted when the nation-state was the repository of all national loyalties and the current situation where on the economic level the European Union becomes stronger but there is no repository for the kind of strategic foreign policy that used to be characteristic of Europe.

(continued tomorrow)

Law passed to exempt workers under ten

Watching Henry Paulson explain the trillions of dollars spent on the banks today, it didn’t make me yearn for the good old days when capitalism was even more unfettered than presently. He, and his friends Tim Geitner and Larry Summers, epitomize what happens when bankers and their lackeys run America.

Conservative politicians and commentators (have a “Rush”) agree that all our problems today are caused by government regulation of business and taxes levied. Those regulations restrict capitalist freedom, the right of companies to do what they want in the marketplace.

Which brings me to the free market utopia of the past – particularly Great Britain in the early 1800s. For hundreds of years the working class in that richest nation in the world lived better than some residents of Africa and Asia. That prosperity included rented houses and bread and butter.

There was a down side. Like today’s Americans, both husband and wife had to work. Fortunately for capitalism the work day was 12 hours, not eight, and six days a week, not five. That’s 72 hours. But you got Sunday off to thank God for your blessings.

There was another difference between then and now. You didn’t need a babysitter for children over eight, which saved money, as any working mother will explain today.

However, the children weren’t actually in childcare. They had jobs, to teach them responsibility and earn extra money for family luxuries, like coal to heat the house.

Speaking of coal, the mines were big employers of children. Here is a quote from http://www.dmm.org.uk/.

Drawers pulled heavy carts of cut coal to the pits surface with heavy chains around their waists.
” I am a drawer, and work from six o’clock in the morning to six at night. stop about an hour at noon to eat my dinner: I have bread and butter for dinner; I get no drink.
I have a belt round my waist, and a chain passing between my legs, and I go on my hands and feet. The tunnels are narrow and very wet where I work. My clothes are wet through almost all day long.” Girl aged 10

And life for children in the mines was dangerous. Another quote:

A trapper, only 10 years old killed in an explosion.
A horse driver aged 11. Crushed by horse.
A driver, aged 14 fell off limmers and was crushed between the tubs and a door.
A token keeper aged 14. Crushed by surface wagons on branches.
A screenboy aged 12. Crushed by surface wagons.
A trapper aged 12. Crushed by tubs.
A driver aged 12. Horse fell on him.
A bank boy aged 11. Caught by cage.
A driver aged 12. Head crushed between tub top and a plank while riding on limmers.
A trapper aged 13. Head crushed between cage and bunton while riding to bank.
Tub Cleaner, aged 13. Fell down the shaft off a pumping engine.
Boy aged 14, drowned.
Boy, aged 7. Killed in an explosion.
Trapper , aged 9. Killed in an explosion.
Driver, aged 14. Crushed against wall by a horse.
Screen Boy, aged 15. Head crushed between a tub and screen legs; too little room.

Unfortunately for free market purity, in 1847 the government passed a law forbidding the working of women and girls in mines, and all boys under the age of ten.

When we hear about deregulation, like the kind advocated by the Democratic Leadership Council, the New Democrat Coalition and the Republican Party, remember the children of years ago, and realize history teaches us that our grandchildren will face an onerous life if business is allowed to do whatever it wishes.

Fox Business says bank sues itself

For years I have watched CNBC for financial news, but in the past year or so, they have become absurdly against the average person. One example, the constant repetition by pundits that the current depression was caused by citizens spending too much on credit cards and mortgages, and totalling ignoring the Wall Street speculation which really caused our downfall.

Fox Business on the web has produced some excellent reports in recent weeks, including the following excerpted piece:

Al Lewis: Wells Fargo Bank Sues Itself

Al Lewis — A DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
COLUMN
FOXBusiness

You can’t expect a bank that is dumb enough to sue itself to know why it is suing itself.

Yet I could not resist asking Wells Fargo Bank NA why it filed a civil complaint against itself in a mortgage foreclosure case in Hillsborough County, Fla.

“Due to state foreclosure laws, lenders are obligated to name and notify subordinate lien holders,” said Wells Fargo spokesman Kevin Waetke.

Being a taxpayer-subsidized, too-big-to-fail institution, it’s possible that one of the few ways for Wells Fargo & Co. to know what it is doing is to notify itself with a court filing. In this particular case, Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium, according to Sarasota, Fla., attorney Dan McKillop, who represents the condo owner.

As holder of the first, Wells Fargo is suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is itself. “The primary reason is to clear title and ownership interest in a property to prepare it for sale,” Waetke said in an email exchange. “So it really is not Wells Fargo vs. Wells Fargo.”

Yet court documents clearly label “Wells Fargo Bank NA” as the plaintiff and “Wells Fargo Bank NA” as a defendant.

Wells Fargo hired Florida Default Law Group., P.L., of Tampa, Fla., to file the lawsuit against itself. And then Wells Fargo hired another Tampa law firm — Kass, Shuler, Solomon, Spector, Foyle & Singer P.A. — to defend itself against its own lawsuit, according to court documents.

Wells Fargo’s defense lawyers even filed an answer to their client’s own complaint.

“Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property,” the answer reads. “All other allegations of the complaint are denied.”

Is this dumb, or just someone giving business to lawyers? We will never know, but we do know that billions of dollars have been shoveled into this bank and you and I will pay the bill. We will probably pay it in taxes to redeem treasury notes, bought by bailed-out banks, who will also receive interest on “their” money.

Americans lose healthcare reform battle

It’s all over. Insurance and drug companies won. Readers of this post have lost.

“Mr. (Rahm) Emanuel said one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama’s goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own. He noted that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger mechanism when they created a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare in 2003. In that case, private competition has been judged sufficient and the public option has never gone into effect.” – Wall Street Journal (WSJ)

Emanuel is a former member of the right-wing New Democrat Movement, a group founded by the Democratic Leadership Committee. He is no friend of the populist movement in America.

The drug benefit trigger has been a joke. Medicare and all other health plans pay two or three times what citizens of other countries pay for drugs. There are patients with $100,000 a year prescription drug costs in America, and no country has higher prices than here.

Thank you to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), New Democrat Coalition and the rest of the traitors out to remake the world on the backs of Americans. You might argue that is an extreme conclusion, but consider that the reason given for us to pay insane prices for prescription drugs is to subsidize research. We wouldn’t want the British, Germans or French to have to pay more, would we? Take from Americans, and subsidize the world. However, American sacrifice only includes citizens, but not big corporations and their lackeys, who always seem to benefit by recent government actions.

WSJ also said: “the president and his aides already have signaled a willingness to consider an alternative to a public plan under which a network of nonprofit cooperatives would compete with for-profit insurance companies. That is the leading idea in the Senate Finance Committee.”

President Obama is caving to a finance committee dominated by the DLC and New Democrat Coalition, groups that pander to international corporations.

Current or recent New Democrat Coalition Senate members, according to Wikipedia, include, in addition to Max Baucus (D-MO):

Blanche Lincoln (AR, founder)
Dianne Feinstein (CA, by 2001)
Thomas R. Carper (DE, by 2001; co-chair from 2003)
Joseph Lieberman (CT, founder)
Bill Nelson (FL, by 2001)
Evan Bayh (IN, founder)
Mary Landrieu (LA, founder, co-chair from 2003)
John Kerry (MA, from 2000)
Debbie Stabenow (MI, by 2001)
Kent Conrad (ND, from 2000)
Ben Nelson (NE, by 2001)
Tim Johnson (SD, from 2000)
Maria Cantwell (WA, by 2001)
Herb Kohl (WI, from 2000)

Past New Democrat Senators are:

Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2009)
Bob Graham (FL, founder, chair 2000-2003, then retired from Senate)
Max Cleland (GA, from 2000; defeated in 2002)
Zell Miller (GA, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2004)
John Breaux (LA, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
Jean Carnahan (MO, from 2001; defeated in 2002)
John Edwards (NC, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
Bob Kerrey (NE, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
Richard Bryan (NV, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
Chuck Robb (VA, from 2000; defeated in 2000)

CFR loves Mexico, but why lie about guns?

“…the arms that cartels can and do buy from the open U.S. market, completely illegally, leave Mexico’s police force and even its military outgunned. There are nearly 7,000 gun shops along the southern U.S. border, about three for every mile. They sell thousands of hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, AK-47s, and “cop killer” guns and bullets that cut through Kevlar body armor. The weapons quickly flow south, again with barely a nod from U.S. Border Patrol.” –Shannon O’Neil, Douglas Dillon fellow for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and blogs at www.LatIntelligence.com.

The truth is obvious. You cannot buy rocket-propelled grenade launchers and hand grenades at gun shops in the United States. Shannon O’Neil and the CFR know better, so this is propoganda, the same thing we despised in autocratic Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. CFR is pushing the agenda to help Mexico, because it is a source of cheap labor coming into the U.S., as well as the location of factories owned by U.S. corporations that benefit from Mexican wage slavery. Here is the real story on guns, Mexico and the U.S.

“… there have been occasions where grenade launchers were used against security forces and twelve M4 carbines with m203 grenade launchers have been confiscated. It is believed that some of these high power weapons were stolen from U.S. military bases.” – Wikipedia

And readers of this post may ponder: what about all the legal U.S. weapons being used in crimes in Mexico?

“Mexican officials only submitted 32% of the guns they seized to the ATF for tracing, and less than half of those weapons had traceable serial numbers. Overall, 83% of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.” – Wikipedia

Some might be upset about lies and propoganda, and they might want to complain to someone, so here’s the list and links of corporate CFR members, according to Wikipedia:

ABC News
Alcoa
American Express
AIG
Bank of America
Bloomberg L.P.
Boeing
BP
CA, Inc.
Chevron
Citigroup
Coca-Cola
De Beers
Deutsche Bank
Duke Energy
ExxonMobil
FedEx
Ford Motor
General Electric
GlaxoSmithKline
Google
Halliburton
Heinz
Hess
IBM
JPMorgan Chase
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Lockheed Martin
MasterCard
McGraw-Hill
McKinsey
Merck
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley
Motorola
NASDAQ
News Corp
Nike
PepsiCo
Pfizer
Shell Oil
Sony Corporation of America
Tata Group
Time Warner
Total S.A.
Toyota Motor North America
UBS
United Technologies
United States Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Trust Corporation
Verizon
Visa

French may take Iraq, America French fried

Remember when France decided not to support our war and occupation of Iraq?

And some media neo-cons derided French culture? And some called french fries, freedom fries?

It was fashionable at the time to promote the idea that we were helping Iraq, building relationships, and bonding in a way that meant guaranteed oil and great trade relations.

During this past week, China and BP won the only oil contracts awarded so far by Iraq (see previous post), and on Thursday French Prime Minister Francois Fillon visited Baghdad with a delegation of officials and businessmen to raise France’s profile in Iraq.

“Iraqis were keen to remove themselves from American guardianship, and that is because they want to do business with other investors that they know well, among them the French,” a French aide told journalists.

Iraqi spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said: “Our country wants France to be a strategic partner, particularly in trade, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has indicated his desire to see bilateral relations grow significantly.”

The French arrived some 48 hours after US troops withdrew from cities under a security pact initiated by Iraq.

An aide to the French premier said there is plenty of international corporate interest in business deals with Iraq.

“Security is the major worry for the French,” he said. There was no offer to send troops from France to Iraq, where some 4,300 Americans have died so French business vultures can pick the Iraqi carcass.

Among those travelling with Fillon and Finance Minister Christine Lagarde were the heads of oil major Total, the Lafarge building materials group and European aerospace giant EADS. After meeting Maliki in Baghdad, Fillon traveled to Sulaimaniyah in Iraqi Kurdistan to meet President Jalal Talabani who, the French prime minister said, will make a state visit to Iraq in November, according to AFP.

Several agreements were signed during Fillon’s visit, including technical cooperation in domestic security and the military sector, an aide said. There are some nice tanks and planes from America that France could take apart for new ideas for their military.

France undertook to help Iraq in its application to join the World Trade Organisation and to support proposals for a trade partnership between Iraq and the European Union.

Where’s Hillary while the French and others eat our lunch? Probably, answering calls from her New Democrat and DLC buddies, who voted for the Iraq invasion.

America, Frances, Iraq, what’s the difference when your view is global?

The good news is that we can’t be accused of colonizing Iraq for our interests, because so far, we did it for France, BP and China, who are now in the position to reap the benefits of our sacrifices.

%d bloggers like this: