-1

104F Part Two: The other side of the coin - protecting freedoms. Specific Targets: corporations and free open elections. Framing and reframing the debate

Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 4 months ago to Politics
3 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

on edit I added the rest of the Looking Back Chapter. the minus one comment is a good choice the chapter wasn't worth reading....except for the part about the move on legalizing direct vote buying....and the part about their successes. You want to be a die hard cover all bases type to wade through this tripe.

104F Part II The other side of the debate as Re-Framed by the author of this post.

I. This opposition debate is done in different format than the previous examples. Those are meant to expose you step by step to the technique and methodology and enable you to do it on your own. When to ask questions when to look up sources and cites especially those noticeably missing. When to question definitions and theory vs. fact. How to discover facts not in evidence or if in evidence is untrue, distorted or suspect.

Keep in mind that corporations are owned by many investors including union and public employees retirement funds. The actual control is by a few people. Board of Directors or Trustees and CEO,COO, CFO (Executive Officer, Operations Officer, Financial Officer)

Keep in mind corporations are not limited to business per se many non-profits are corporations nor are PACs, SuperPACs etc. They can contribute to certain carefully defined broad loopholes based on the foregoing.

What is absent is direct unlimited contributions to candidates from individuals with no restrictions no limits and no liabilities. But then setting up an LLC and through that a Political Action Committee solves most of that even if the corporation is an individual or a non-profit.

II. The question is...Why Lakoff came out in favor of limiting Citizens United or did he. Not really. He views it as a stepping stone and Citizens United has already moved in that dirction.

That's because the end game is in favor of expanding it from Corporations and PACs to individual citizens with no restrictions. Sure you will have that right at least initially but how much is that right worth to you. How much do you have to spend?

More importantly it will be universal right with no limitations. Any precinct, town, city, county, State is fair game and any dollar amount with no limit. Many of the wealthiest of the nation are all left wing socialist fascist including Trump - Which leaves the Koch Brothers, Waltons and a few others but it takes a great many of them to equal the Gates fortune and Gates is a publicly confessed supporter of socialism - not bad for the worlds richest capitalist.

IV. So...to blow George and his buddies in the Billionaire Boys Club out of the water as promised the Court does not allow, yet, direct donations to candidates. That has to take another route usually corporate to PAC to Campaign Finance Committee or Tax payer though Congress to Davis-Bacon Act inflated wage union contracts to Unions to PACs to Campaign Finance Committees. Another route is through family foundaations Melinda Gates is top dog in that effort. At the other end of the wealth scale - unpaid Chelsea Clinton - at least by her work for the Clinton Foundation is another.

Sprinkled in between are such individuals such as the leaders of Secular Progressive organizations of George Soros multi billionaire who does business out of Curacao to presumably evade taxes, Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance another secular progressive billionaire and most recently Bill Gates the supreme billionaire, all of them major left wing socialist corporatists and major capitalists of the country and of the world.

The only reason I could find was most of the Billionaire Boys Club are left wing supports and most would like to directly contribute to individual candidates without restriction. This allows very direct access to the election process and ability to influence pork barrel ear marked exceptions to such things as tariffs, fees, and taxes.

The reason to carefully blame 'conservatives' for all the foregoing is to set the stage, to reframe the debate to urge for a change allowing people the same rights (mirror reflexivity full reverse coming up) as have the corporations in which they are invested including non business ventures.

Corporations will then gain the same rights as their investors. Both able to contribute directly to any candidate in any level any corner any nook and cranny of this country. No question the Congress, White House, Media and public education will support that move though the trap is apparent. Only the Supreme Court has made a stand - on occasion - and that depends on whose appointing whom. The Railroads vs Santa Clara decision that opened Pandora's Box featured a performance by a former railroad lawyer turned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Once direct donations of cash, material, time and labor to candidates are approved George Soros can go into any precinct, district, city,county state and fund any candidate at any level he so chooses without bothering with offshore funded Political Action Committees. And by the way foreign owned corporations are not excluded even today from donating to candidates through PAC's. After all when you are seeking to buy influence, to encourage and maintain corruption why not deal direct? When you are seeking to control a an election or a nation as George Soros has declared as his goal why not deal direct.

Along with the phony Declaration of Period Scam, the Plato plagiarizing scam, and the purchasing of court decisions scam, this massive ability to buy whole campaigns and dictate both sides of whole slates of candidates makes the attack on Christmas and the same sex scandal shrink to nothing.

But defeating Secular Progressives needs more help than just Hillary distancing herself in order to regain lost votes from the center of the left as happened to day Nov 25th, 2015

As you can see and This portion one needs comments from all the Gulch participants and so does the following.

IV. Where does that leave us. It leaves us with what wasn't said.

The terminology and what to watch for or watch out for.

Start with the meaning of metaphor - A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two.

It's not truth, it's not fact but it's also a way of turning fiction into fact. That begins with definitions that have not been redefined/

A cognitive metaphor is the association of object to an experience outside the object's environment.

A conceptual metaphor is an underlying association that is systematic in both language and thought.

A root metaphor is the underlying worldview that shapes an individual's understanding of a situation

A non linguistic metaphor is an association between two non linguistic realms of experience

A visual metaphor uses an image to create the link between different ideas.

None of which makes a reality without some additional help. So far it's only an idea not a fact nor even a valid concept..


continued as Comment One


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 4 months ago
    V. In the moral sense we keep it simple. Is it moral to allow outsiders and foreigners to interfere at will with any and all parts of our process of democratically selecting delegates and positions that guide and govern our precincts, neighborhoods, villages, towns, cities, counties, State Districts and Districts used to select our delegates to the Federal Government and at the top our Presidents and through them our Supreme Court Justices?

    Foreigners means individuals or corporations or limited liability corporations or Societe' Anonymous or their various front organizations bet they from Ghana, Tonga or Curacao. It also means foreign to our local areas. Outsiders means those from other parts of a State, or any parts of another State unless it is a national question up for vote such as who shall be President. Put another way do I or should I as a resident of one state and local area have the right to interfere with another area? No address, no tax receipts, nothing ties me to anywhere but the location of my home and my home voting precinct.

    Morally should the moral implication I just mentioned allow me to restrict such guarantees as free speech which, by the supreme court is defined as money?

    Morally, did the Supreme court err by excluding some requirement to show some valid connection in the geographical and political sense to an area before allowing interference with the freedom of voting with out undue outside or foreign influences?"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 4 months ago
      VI. So instead of fighting city hall I intend to do what the Secular Progressives did as they set themselves up to attack my rights and attack their lack of rights on moral grounds, and on legal principle using my status as a free and independent citizen of this country.\

      Therefore I present the one requirement that was not addressed in any of the court decisions and overlooked by all of them. Intentionally or otherwise. I have created my own metaphors one is Ensuring Freedom of Choice in Voting. The other is Geo-Political Interest.

      Those who May Not Vote May not contribute and individual or corporate may not vote outside their own geo-political area as defined by their precinct voters pamphlet and which to forestall the hired guns does not violate free speech. Just outsider vote buying and influence peddling in areas where they have no valid connection nor interest.

      Consider...in your precinct you can vote for local, city, county, special districts, state and federal level candidates and proposals. The rest is none of your business. Nor is your areas business any concern of any outsider.

      Consider... in your precinct, you and your neighbors, can watch the polls to ensure honest elections without interference, you can examine the rolls to ensure dead people or those since moved elsewhere, or those who have not earned residency are excluded and those who should be are included.

      Consider...in your precinct the smallest official corner of America in existence in one of 110,000 similar corners you and your neighbors hold sway, carry the water and ensure it's purity.

      Consider...in your tiny little corner you are the front line troops defending independence, freedom, democratic principles resulting in a freely elected Republic and not resulting in the dictator ship of the dollar.

      Consider...in your precinct you are the Citizen and not common and you are the living Constitution. Where no one else outside your precinct may interfere if you don't allow it. Powers not granted the 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights was written in by the founders with you, specifically you, in mind.

      VI. What is geo-political? It's your corner of America, your piece of the pie. No one else, President to citizen from elsewhere may enter your domain and tell you and your neighbors how to think, who and what to vote for, who is allowed to vote or not vote. Who and what is allowed on the ballot in Primary, Special, and General elections. No matter how poor or how wealthy. It's nobodies business but that of me and my neighbors.

      If there are misdeeds, mistake, any form of wrong doing to any degree we are the watch dogs and it is you who select the operators of this basic building block of the country.

      At least for a while and even now you have lost some of those Constitutionally guaranteed privileges. One only has to read Part One to discover that. Or look at Oregon who sends ballot out to addresses that are out of date and accept them back with out let nor hindrance. That need not be your final solution as it is in our newest slave state. That was their business. They chose their fate presumably without outside or foreign influence. So be it. (Or did they?)

      But in my precinct one of some 110,000 nationwide yet they are not welcome. It's a tiny small area and even so it's important to the opposition who attack attack attack on every front large or small. "What can I do?" One hears that. "I'm only one insignificant common man or woman." Answer is simple. With your nearby neighbors sweep your own kitchen. Vacuum your own living room, carry out your own garbage. Reclaim your rights as citizens by starting not at the bottom but at the start point that ends not begins in Washington DC. You are only common if you accept that role in life. I think the opposite.

      VII. Geo-political considerations denies free speech to no one. What it does do is keep someone who resides part time in New York City or full time in Edina Washington or at an address of Convenience in Ten Sleeps, Wyoming from interfering with your local vote for a new water system, who you select for Mayor or city council, Representative or or Senator to the State Government. Sheriffs or Judges, District or State wide delegates to the Federal Government. Propositions or Questions for any of these areas of Geographic/Political Concern. It starts with who you allow to operate your local polling place. With who watches the watchers.

      Why? The answer is Why not? What business is it of those who May NOT vote who you elect for any office or how vote on school budgets proposals if they don't live nor are registered to vote in your City, County or State?

      The only two federal level found on the ballot are President and Vice-President. Wide open to any citizen. State level you select two senators and one Representative as delegates of your State or Congressional District to the federal government and to the State Government and so on down the list to the city dog catchers salary.

      VIII. Free speech which presently by law includes corporate money meaning through their PAC's and Super Pac's is not denied to anyone. In fact it is allowed without regard to geo-political consideration and that is a license to kill if ou have billions. I don't and I want, demand parity and equality.

      With that law in mind http://Amazon.com the number one action group of secular progressives aka Socialist Extremists.

      So they can do national advertising for President and Vice-President but do they have entre to every state? Probably. Every county every city every precinct? Yes they do.

      What the do not have is the right to directly fund individual campaigns. But it's all that's left and now you see how the chain of events starting with the Dartmouth College ruling through the 14th and the more recent rulings has progressed but that was before you were informed of this low key, quiet, effort to your subvert your rights as a citizen. Are you alone? No. some recent decisions showe the Court has begun to put on the brakes.

      If they May Not VOTE they May NOT contribute and the fatal flaw in Citizens United is lack of legitimate Geographical/Political interest. If they do not reside they may not register and may not vote. No taxation without representation? How about No residency Equals No vote, No voice, No interference

      Where for example is Boeing located? Chicago? In what precinct?

      Where for example is George Soros located. Not his business nor his money that's offshore in a tax haven. It's in New York City. In what voting precinct. That excludes 109,999 precincts, 49 States, the counties outside that of New York City, cities outside of New York City, special taxing districts outside of New York city. Limits his direct billions to One Governor one state Representative, two state Senators, One federal representative, Two federal Senators, one Federal Vice President and one Federal President position. Kinda makes his billions shrink in value wouldn't you say?

      That is how the playing field is leveled. Trump can do battle in New York City's playing field with Soros and that field is leveled. Leave ours alone.

      IX. Why? As as registered voter he had no geo-political connection to the rest of the nation. Then make that same principle apply to all his LLC's and their sock puppet organizations. Starting With outACLUe.

      This is where the rest of you come in with your ideas how to use this particular point to torpedo Soft Money, Vote Buying, Political Corruption, and influence selling. Not limited to owned by US citizens, any corporation registered in the US may join in with out asking. But ...it doesn't have to be that way.

      What's the point? Diminish soft money and laundered tax or billionaire dollars into campaign contributions. Keeping your elections open and honest and hastening a return to the multi party system of government. That starts at the top in the precincts.

      X. Personally I would go much farther not all will agree and some may add a few things.

      1. Not foreign influence. Pfizer wants to move to Ireland they drop out of influence peddling and vote buying or corruption influencing in the USA. Not their country anymore.

      2. Funds collected within a geo-political must be spent within that same area or refunded and for the stated purpose of the donor. If Johnny drops out of the race all that money refunded. Not whenever but immediately OR Johnny's supporters sign a new form or a previous, - in the even of - form directing where the funds go and for what purpose.

      3. Political advertising paid for from outside the area may not be spent nor the advertising allowed within any areas where no geo-political connection can be shown. Yes if it's for a national candidate - no if it's for anything NOT found on the ballot nor in the voters guide.

      4. All funds from without must be fully accounted for and disclosed.

      5. Source verified before use is allowed.

      6. Campaign contributions on the federal tax form go to each candidate that has been selected by their particular group by whatever method of selection - evenly divided according to the laws of the State such as 5% of vote to gain official party recognition. Winner take all banned. Period.

      7. None of the above (that's a whole separate discussion) required as a choice for every slate of candidates and every proposal, proposition or question.

      But I'll settle for now on the ability of someone in Augusta Georgia to influence the vote in Beaver, Oklahoma. Except for Presidential campaigns. Why? It's none of their business.

      The citizens then gain the same rights as corporations pretending to be people. Tit for tat. Level playing field. Fair Play and the vote buying industry is on welfare.

      Not to mention to protect your rights as a citizen against those who claim. "I have the right without explanation to all of your rights without exception."

      XI. Now THAT is what I call Re-Framing Lakoff's shoddy little plan. And you may of course use any part of this in debate with his secular progressive operatives AKA Socialist or anyone else. Better yet add to the list of 7.

      Demand facts, demand they explain anything they say fully and pound them without mercy. They deserve none. Send a copy to your congressional delegates to Washington and your State Government under the heading why I'm not voting for you. Then drop by your local precinct office and check out how it's really run.

      Need more ammunition? Where in the Constitution does it allow violation of other civil rights and violation of other portions of the Constitution or accruement of rights to one specific portion to the destruction of other rights? Fact is No such power has ever been granted.

      To make the stretch from the contractual clause to violating the freedom of citizens to vote without interference from outsiders in the form of person, corporate person or money one has to agree to violate the following portions of the Constitution. It is a freedom issue and this time Lakoff and friends have come down hard on those freedoms and openly embraced the dark side.

      XII. The rest is for the most part additional ammunition and lists pertinent sections of the Constitution including Article One with a different way of viewing Freedom of Speech and that is Freedom From Speech Suppression.

      Preamble - General Welfare and Securing The Blessings of Liberty

      Article Sections 1 and 3. Members of Congress in House of 'Representative and Senate shall be 'inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.' With the exception of years of citizenship and age no other qualifications are listed at the federal level. This binds the election of the State Delegates to the Federal Government under the rules of the State

      Article One Section Four. Elections, Meetings.

      "The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time alter such Regulations, except as to the place of chusing Senators."

      None of this section has been amended except the manner of choosing Senators.

      Allowing outside intervention and interference if allowed is not a right granted to the US Federal Government. As the right is not stipulated it is retained by the State and the people of that state.

      Article One Section 8 Powers Of Congress

      Nowhere is the right to allow or disallow outside interference in the affairs of a State or it's people granted to the Federal Government. Since it is not granted it does not exist and therefore cannot be exercised. To do so puts the federal government in violation of The Constitutional Contract and this was not mentioned nor addressed in the various Supreme Court Decisions concerning granting rights of personhood to corporations or corporate rights to individuals.

      Section Nine of Article one limits or denies ex post facto. Therefore they may not pass a law or make a Court Decision after the fact to correct. add to, delete, or extend a prior law or decision. Outside interference in elections was not mentioned

      Section Nine however does permit suspension of Habeas Corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion.

      Article one section 10 powers prohibited to the States. No state shall ....pass any...ex post facto law or law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.....

      Thus the 10th Amendment powers not granted to to the States prohibits any laws at their level concerning obligation of contracts of which the Contract of the Constitution and the People is one.

      First Point the Federal Government has, without an amendment to Article 1 in the cited sections, no right to grant, deny or discuss allowing outside interference in the election process of any State or locality under the 9th and 10th Amendments and Article One itself.

      Lakoff is not the only who can make up metaphors.

      Article II Executive Branch

      "Before he (the President) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

      'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States'."

      That's when the pay check starts. This is where it leads

      Pardon Power, Appointments...

      and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

      Another is the injunction against ex post facto laws.

      (What I'm doing is cherry picking the portions of the Constitution Lakoff left out and closing the doors he attempted to open.)

      Section 4. Republican government
      the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government and shall protect each of them against Invasion ....

      Metaphor building. Invasion of those outside of the state with no geo-political business within the state for he purposes of controlling election through the use of money or

      Invasion By Money

      Amendment One

      "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people to peaceably assemble..."

      Including laws allowing geo politically outside interests with no business or connection to likewise abridge the freedom of speech or assembly

      Amendment Five

      "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty,or property, without due process of law..."

      Taking of liberty by person(s) or corporations as persons who have no geo-political interest or connection is deprivation of liberty without due process.

      Amendment 9

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed t deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      The right for outsider influences and interfering with freedom of speech, freedom of election procedures was not granted.

      Amendment 10

      Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved by the States respectively, or to the people.

      The right to grant permission for geo-political outside influences having no connection to another State or area of another State and interfering with freedom of speech,and voting procedures by these same outside influences personally, corporately or through use of money was not granted to the US Government not to the States byh the people.

      Amendment 13, 14 and 15

      Prohibits interfering with voting rights and disenfranchisement.

      While not a subject of this article a form of disencranchisement is keeping certain items, candidates or political beliefs off any of the ballots.

      An unstated subject is vote theft through such mechanisms as 'winner take all.'

      This is a direct quote from the 14th Amendment.

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunity of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      Outside influences with no geo-political connection not within the jurisdiction of each of the Ststesand not entitled to equal protection as are those within the jurisdiction of the stte.

      All of the items mentioned in 13, 14, 15 are thus connected directly to freedoms and deny any right for anyone to take any one of my rights by virtue, if it be such, of having money speak for him or her.

      Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred. Ratified 1/23/1964.

      1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

      2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      This one is metaphor only. Rights to vote shall not be abridged implies freedom to vote without interference from outside non geo-politically connected entities or persons by reason of ...their ability to speak with money is another construct.

      However it supports the intent of the Constitution and further makes not interfering with voting or the election process including campaigning an issue of freedom.

      Section XIII of the post....

      I have no objection to citizens living, working, voting withing the confines of any particular geo-political location contributing and letting them set limits of donations of time, money, material including advertising space on Boob Tubes - in their own geo-political area.

      I protest mightily against the incursion of raiders, looters and moochers horning in where they have no business. If they want to vote and contribute in my precinct? Let them establish residency and leave the other 109,999 alone. And if they may not vote they may not contribute.

      Did you know there is no such thing as a secret ballot in the USA? Doesn't exist. Nor does the Federal government have the power to install one and nor do they have the power to demand 'required' voting. That and those are the principles of freedom I'm defending.

      I held back on one more source. Call it poetic justice. The one that got us into the same sex controversy. Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Each State must honor the rules of the other 49 states.

      Since the 9th and 10th Amendment hold election tampering is not a power given to the Federal Government. It falls to each state if given permission by their citizens to do whatever they wish if they wish and it falls to each of the 49 States to honor the laws of the 50th - by not interfering nor accepting interference unless their citizens have granted that right..


      Thus ends 104 Targeting Specific, How they do it, Why they do it and how to box their ears when they do.

      The next and last section of Framing Elephants is a review of the ten years since he wrote the first edition which might prove instructive....We'll see then I'm going back to the other subject I mentioned. Surviving in a post revolutionary or as I put it counter-revolutionary world and better yet winning back our country and it's Constitution.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ 8 years, 4 months ago
        How the first and second Gulf Wars were twisted into the cause of Global Warming. Really? I read the whole thing...

        It isn't worth reading. So I condensed it and cut to the chase. ... and for an ending it actually blames the entire Middle East experience on the slow witted members of the progressive movement. Well....he may have a point. Hitler you may recall after all blamed the German people for failing him.

        And concludes we hope that all of this writing is not going to stop Gulf War II so 'why bother.' Reducing everything to the value of a decaf no fat milk $8 espresso.

        And never says a thing in the whole chapter.

        That concludes Looking Back A Decade. The purpose of that chapter? Justify a repeat of the first one and clip the customers an extra ten bucks in the process?

        Next and the final chapter of the book and how to counter the methodology is called Theory To Action.

        We'll call it 105. Just to say I don't skip anything.

        Addendum


        Some reference material for 104F

        “War in Kosovo Was Cruel, Bitter, Savage; Genocide It Wasn’t.”

        After Clinton invaded Kosovo along with NATO his first reason for doing so was something along the lines of 'when your President sends troops into harms way you should support him.'

        A few twists, spins and restarts later it became Genocide....There was no genocide .

        Plenty these resources using Google. I netted two from WSJ and Chomsky for starters....

        NATO Fraud
        There Was No Genocide In Kosovo
        UN Court And Western Military Witnesses Confirm
        NATO Claims Of Genocide By Serbs In Kosovo Were False
        http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/kosovof...
        How NATO's Hugely Successful Anti-Serb Propaganda Efforts In The 1990s
        Became A Model For The Bogus 'Public Relations' Campaign For The 2003 Invasion Of Iraq

        "A United Nations court has ruled that Serbian troops did not carry out genocide against ethnic Albanians during Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of aggression in Kosovo from 1998 to 1999... The court, which is comprised of two international judges and one Albanian, was ruling on the case of a Serb, Miroslav Vuckovic, convicted of genocide by a district court in Mitrovica".
        Kosovo assault 'was not genocide'
        BBC Online, 7 September 2001

        A Review of NATO’s War over Kosovo
        Noam Chomsky
        Z Magazine, April-May, 2001

        The tumult having subsided, it should be possible to undertake a relatively dispassionate review and analysis of NATO’s war over Kosovo. One might have expected the theme to have dominated the year-end millennarianism, considering the exuberance the war elicited in Western intellectual circles and the tidal wave of self-adulation by respected voices, lauding the first war in history fought “in the name of principles and values,” the first bold step towards a “new era” in which the “enlightened states” will protect the human rights of all under the guiding hand of an “idealistic New World bent on ending inhumanity,” now freed from the shackles of archaic concepts of world order. But it received scant mention.

        A rare exception was the Wall Street Journal, which devoted its lead story on December 31 to an in-depth analysis of what had taken place. The headline reads: “War in Kosovo Was Cruel, Bitter, Savage; Genocide It Wasn’t.” The conclusion contrasts rather sharply with wartime propaganda. A database search of references to “genocide” in Kosovo for the first week of bombing alone was interrupted when it reached its limit of 1,000 documents.

        As NATO forces entered Kosovo, tremendous efforts were undertaken to discover evidence of war crimes, a “model of speed and efficiency” to ensure that no evidence would be lost or overlooked. The efforts “build on lessons learned from past mistakes.” They reflect “a growing international focus on holding war criminals accountable.” Furthermore, analysts add, “proving the scale of the crimes is also important to NATO politically, to show why 78 days of airstrikes against Serbian forces and infrastructure were necessary.”

        The logic, widely accepted, is intriguing. Uncontroversially, the vast crimes took place after the bombing began: they were not a cause but a consequence. It requires considerable audacity, therefore, to take the crimes to provide retrospective justification for the actions that contributed to inciting them.


        Flash forward to Iraq....and Afghanistan...


        Reasons given for 2003 invasion of Iraq.

        Generally first on the list

        Banned from the use of certain types of weapons including all forms of WMD.

        Insufficient evidence of Nuclear WMD

        Sufficient evidence of Chemical WMD capability in portable or movable truck mounted production facilities, notably nerve gas or Sarin and others which be easily be set up to show agricultural use was the primary purpose. (The gas used by Hitler to kill concentration camp inmates was an insecticide.)

        Sufficient evidence of Biological WMD including false reporting of destruction of same notably anthrax.

        Sufficient evidence of use in the genocide of Sunni Kurds in northern iraq 180,000 as a minimum figure verified and Sunni Arabs in southern iraq of 200,000 reducing their population to 40,000 of those left in the country.

        Second sometimes third most commonly mentioned was genocide..Verified

        Charges of Genocide and reports of mass graves, unlike Kosovo were verified with delivery systems and preparation systems featuring heavy artillery used against civilian populations .

        Use of chemical weapons of Mass Destruction against segments of the civilian population verified.

        Use of biological weapons of Mass Destructin against segments of the civilian population verified.

        Third was a group of violations of requirements pursuant to the
        UN Arms Inspection program later claimed by the left to have been working with no proof of that statement other than repetition.

        The violations included Failure to allow mandatory inspections while in fact using WMDs against civilian populations.

        Ejection of UN from Iraq on multiple occasions.

        Failure to provide documentation and physical proof of destruction of
        Chemical and Biological weapons of mass destruction.

        It appears that in the eyes of the secular progressive left wing extremists that some people's 'ragheads' are more equal than some other people's 'ragheads.'

        They have yet to provide proof of genocide in Kosovo which used Genocide as the sole reason for invading and only after stonewalling a number of other reasons such as 'you should support your President.'

        No effort was made nor demanded for a War powers Act approval and to this day none has ever been applied for by any Democrat President. The Democrat majority instituted and signed by a Democrat President War Powers Act has always been honored by all Republican Presidents including the 2003 invasion of Iraq with 77 of the Democrat controled Senate including a certain Senator Hillary Clinton.

        After sending our troops into harms way with 6,000 or so eventual deaths the Democrats within a few months joined the other side and since then have cited only lack of proof of nuclear weapons of mass destruction as their only reason. This did not stop them from continuing the war under their own President and extending it into another country instead of pulling them out as their campaign promises had pledged.

        US military continued to die and still are to this day in a war they claim is unjust and was uncalled for. As of 2011 1728 US troops have died in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001, with 1153 of those deaths having occurred since President Obama's inauguration. 575 US troops died in Afghanistan during President Bush's term in office. By 2015 (http://CNSNews.com database.

        Of those 2,232 deaths, 1,663 – 74.5 percent – occurred since President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009. The deadliest years for U.S. personnel were 2010, when 495 were killed; 2011, when there were 404 casualties; and 2009 when the death toll was 306.

        Those three years combined accounted for more than half, or 54 percent, of the total U.S. casualties in the war.

        In 2014, 42 fatalities (76.4 percent) were combat related, attributed to small arms fire, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), or rocket-propelled grenades. The other 13 deaths were due to accidents, illnesses, or heart attacks.

        On December 28, 2014 Obama released a statement announcing the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan, yet more than 10,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan.
        http://examiner.com

        As many as 2221 U.S. and Allied troops combined have been killed on the Obama watch as well as thousands maimed vs 1049 during the Bush Administration as of May 30, 2013

        2221 U.S and Allied troops have been killed to date on this President’s watch with and increasing number daily and the question still remains: “What’s the President’s real feelings toward the military?”
        ...
        Sources Confirmed: I-Casualties and U.S. Department of Defense Reports

        To report a story, call (256) 738-2200 or send an email to tips@pronlinenews.com."


        What's their excuse this time?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo