plainoldme
 
  1  
Fri 7 Jan, 2011 10:46 pm
From William Rivers Pitt:
The American people were treated on Thursday to a (mostly) full and complete reading of the Constitution of the United States from the floor of the House of Representatives. The performance was proposed and organized by the new Republican majority in that chamber for the purpose - according to them, anyway - of announcing that America is about to start going back to being America again. There's an irony in this, insofar as they chose to skip the Constitutional parts about African Americans not really being people. That portion of the document is a vital part of our shared history, so yeah, leave it to the GOP to to snip, redact and edit our founding document, even if it's just in a bit of political theater.

A friend astutely observed that this reading of the Constitution was an essentially meaningless act without including a recitation of the complementary documents and supporting arguments; I.e. it is akin to reading the owner's manual of a car, but not knowing how the thing really works once you open up the hood. Within my friend's opinion, however, lies a hidden solution to what is going to be, in my estimation, a truly messy and dangerous 112th Congressional session: make them read everything, up to and including the Federalist Papers. By the time they get through it all, this congressional session will have run its course, and a great deal of damage will have been averted.

Despite my cynical tone, I do think a reading of the Constitution on the House floor is, by and large, a good thing. It is never a bad idea to review the essential genius of the Founders...and besides, I'm pretty sure there was at least one new House member who’d never read the thing before. I can imagine the mental conversation that took place within the mind of some newly-minted Tea-Partying GOP Representative:

"'Well-regulated' militia? Has it always said 'well-regulated'? Well, shoot, guess I'll have to change my opinion on legalizing shoulder-fired grenade launchers sold over the counter at Wal-Mart without waiting periods or background checks. Gosh, I'm really glad we did this!"

Hey, a guy can dream, right?

It wasn't all sunshine and Constitutional roses in the House on Thursday, however. As one House member read the text from Article Two, section one - "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President" - a woman in the Gallery who called herself Theresa began shrieking, "Except Obama, except Obama, help us, Jesus!" Yes, friends and neighbors, she was a "Birther," one of those who refuse to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, and is therefore ineligible to be President. In other words, Theresa is a pillar of the base that supports the "Tea Party" faction of our newly-minted House majority.

Shades of things to come.

A vast amount of Stupid is about to start coming down the pike in the coming weeks, now that people like Darrell Issa (R-CA) have been given chairmanships of House committees. Rep. Issa, who now chairs the House Government and Oversight Committee, gives every indication of preparing to follow in the spectacularly ugly footsteps of Rep. Dan Burton. Burton, during his Clinton-era time as chairman of this committee, issued more than 2,000 subpoenas against the White House, for no other reason than to generate headlines and gin up the idea that a scandal lurked around every corner, and Mr. Issa is getting ready to pick right up on that particular process. If you think Rep. Issa won't listen to people like Theresa and undertake an investigation into President Obama's status as a citizen, well, I've got a big, red bridge in northern California to sell you.

The 112th Congress is going to waste a fabulous amount of time and money (the Constitutional display on Thursday cost American taxpayers $1 million, for starters), all under the banner of saving time and money...but don't expect the hypocrisy to abate any time soon. After passage of a huge new rules package, one that reflects the shift in power that has taken place in the House, Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY), raised a proposal that would require all members of the House to disclose whether or not they will be participating in the excellent government-run health care plan available to all members of Congress. His proposal was defeated on a party-line vote. To wit: every Republican in the chamber voting against letting the American people know which of them will be partaking in the government-run health care they purport to despise.

You will, of course, recall how many GOP members of this House either saved their seats, or won their seats, by railing against "Obamacare." Not only does their resistance to government-run health care stop at their own health care interests, they are also not at all interested in letting you know about it. No health care for you, but they get theirs, and we don't even get to see a list of names.

I'm shocked, shocked that gambling is going on in this establishment.
As bad as all this is certainly going to be, there is one thing that worries me even more...because it is something that has been going on for two years already, and at this point, shows no signs of abating. From Thursday's Boston Globe:
During the health reform debate in 2009, Republican alarmists decried a provision to pay doctors to discuss end-of-life treatment options with Medicare patients as tantamount to "death panels." The bill as finally approved lacked that clause, but late last year Obama administration officials authorized such counseling in a Medicare regulation on annual physical examinations. Now they have withdrawn that provision in a cave-in to expected opposition. The retreat is lamentable.

Conversations about a patient's preferences for or against heroic, life-extending measures have nothing to do with death panels denying care to elderly or disabled patients, the red herring raised by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, then-House minority leader John Boehner, and others. Those leaders weren't mistaken; they were deliberately disingenuous, going to any extreme to defeat health reform. Instead, they blocked what had been one of the most widely accepted, and least controversial, parts of the bill.

After the dust cleared, a national organization of hospice-care providers and members of Congress asked the Obama administration to establish counseling reimbursement in a new regulation. Far from depriving patients of the right to make decisions about their own care, the regulation would have increased their autonomy by encouraging discussions about care options during routine exams and not in the midst of a medical crisis. The administration should have stuck by its convictions.

The Obama administration in a nutshell: do the right thing, at least to a degree, and then fail to let people know the good that was accomplished, or, in this case, retreat from a perfectly good policy position because people like Theresa and her pals in the GOP spray lie after lie after lie. Don't fight for the policy, but run like cowards from the Republican Lie Machine.

This crap happened all too often when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress. Now that people like Rep. Issa have been given very large megaphones, the barrage of lies is only sure to increase by orders of magnitude. Mr. Obama has begun what is reported to be a wholesale turnover of his administration staff, so perhaps the people getting broomed out are the ones who didn't have the stomach to fight against this tidal wave of disinformation.

But I don't have a great deal of hope in that, if the Globe's analysis is correct. "The administration should have stuck by its convictions," said the Globe editorial.

How many times have we heard that before?

How many times are we going to hear it again?

This - I think, I fear, I suspect - is going to suck, unless the Obama administration gets out of their permanent crouch and finally starts fighting back against a newly-empowered GOP, and the lies that will be pouring fourth like polluted water from an open spigot.

The simple fact that Mr. Obama tapped William Daley, a JPMorgan Chase executive whose purview was "corporate responsibility," to be the new White House Chief of Staff does not bode well at all. Try not to laugh too hard at seeing the words "JPMorgan Chase" and "corporate responsibility" in the same sentence.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure this is going to suck.

Source URL: http://www.truth-out.org/this-going-suck66619
plainoldme
 
  1  
Fri 7 Jan, 2011 10:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I have never experienced a person more in love with himself than okie is with okie.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Fri 7 Jan, 2011 10:54 pm
@okie,
How can anyone possibly discuss Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro as a unit?
JTT
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Jan, 2011 10:56 pm
@okie,
This bullshit of yours needs to be addressed.

"In the mid-1990s, Noam Chomsky commented that "Cuba was the target of more international terrorism than probably the rest of the world combined, up until Nicaragua in the 1980s." And it was conducted by US-initiated state terrorism against the island state to remove a leader because he chose not to govern the way the US wished him to."


Quote:


Cuba Under Fidel Castro
A review article


by Stephen Lendman

...


The "Liberation" of Cuba, US-Style

From the earliest days of Cuba under Castro, the US imposed harsh conditions on the island state and waged an unending undeclared war against it. It wanted to destabilize the government, kill Fidel Castro or at the least make life so intolerable for the Cuban people, they'd willingly allow themselves to be ruled again by the interests of capital and the dictates of so-called "free market" forces. That many-decade campaign of state-directed terror never worked and likely never will convince the great majority of the Cuban people to favor giving up the essential social gains they now have for a return to what they surely know was a repressive past. They understand if it ever happened, it would be a throwback not just to the days and ways of the hated Batista regime but also to the time US President McKinley "liberated" the island from Spain in an earlier war based on a lie. From that time forward until the Castro-led revolution, the US effectively ruled Cuba as a de facto colony and used it to serve the interests of wealth and power at the expense of the welfare of the people. In his time, McKinley promised to let the Cubans govern themselves after the Spanish-American war, but the dominant Republicans in the Congress had other ideas and were only willing to go along with the island's self-rule if under it the US was allowed "to veto any decision (the Cuban government) made."

One of the earliest examples of US dominance was the Platt Amendment the Congress passed in 1901 after the US "liberated" Cuba in 1898. This federal law ceded Guantanamo Bay to the US to be used as the naval base we've had ever since and granted the US the right to intervene in Cuban affairs whenever it deemed it necessary. Theodore Roosevelt later signed the original Guantanamo lease agreement the terms of which gave the US jurisdiction over the territory that can only be terminated by the mutual consent of both countries as long as annual rent payments are made. The US thus gave itself the right to occupy part of sovereign Cuban territory in perpetuity regardless of how the Cuban people feel about it. The Castro government clearly wants the US out and through the years made its views clear by refusing to cash every US lease payment check it got other than the first one right after the successful revolution.

The US Embargo on Cuba

Whatever one's view of Fidel Castro Ruz, it's clear the achievements of the Republica de Cuba under his rule for nearly 48 years have been remarkable. He managed to do it in spite of the oppressive partial embargo the US imposed on the island state in October, 1960 that became a total embargo 16 months later in February, 1962 when it was expanded to include everything except non-subsidized sales of food and medicines and a month later banned the import of all goods made from Cuban materials regardless of where they were made. The embargo was further tightened with the passage of the Cuban Democracy (Torricelli) Act in 1992 that legalized the encouragement of pro-US opposition groups to act forcefully against the Castro government. It was made still far worse in 1996 after the passage of the outrageous Helms-Burton Act that allows the US government the right to sue any corporation anywhere that does business with Cuba.

Today the US embargo remains in place but is under siege because of its unpopularity among sectors of the US business community that want access to the Cuban market. They include oil and agricultural interests that see the profit potential of trading with Cuba and want to end the restrictions on it now in place. For US oil companies there are potential Cuban oil reserves they want access to, and for agribusiness there's a significant Cuban market for their exports. As a result, the pressure is mounting on the Bush administration which up to now has been defiant in its opposition to Fidel Castro and remains hostile and punitive. But of late the action has been in the Congress with attempts to pass legislation and avoid a Bush veto to ease the current restrictions and allow some economic relations with Cuba that for decades have been banned. For now it's uncertain whether the demands of US business will win out over the fiercely unyielding Bush administration's anti-Castro foreign policy. This and past administrations have always resisted all outside pressure to change their multi-decade hostile policy stance that included ignoring over a dozen overwhelming UN General Assembly votes to end the embargo. In all those votes (excluding abstentions), it was nearly the entire world voting to end it and two or three nations wanting to keep it - the US, Israel and one or another Pacific island.

Travel and Other Restrictions On US Citizens

To destabilize the Castro government, the US for over 40 years has also imposed travel and other restrictions on its own citizens. After the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962, President Kennedy first imposed restrictions on travel to the island in February, 1963. Through the years, US laws have changed at times but have grown harsher under the current Bush administration. Technically no US citizen can legally travel to Cuba without a Treasury license to do so. Doing it otherwise will subject anyone caught to fines up to $10,000 and possibly much higher as well as up to 10 years in prison. Until 2001, the travel restrictions were loosely enforced with only 16 criminal prosecutions between 1983 and 1999. However, all that changed post-2001, and now anyone caught travelling illegally to Cuba stands a real risk of heavy fine and possible imprisonment in this time of USA Patriot Act justice and the fraudulent "war on terror."

For those US citizens allowed to travel to Cuba, there are further limitations on the amount of money they may spend there or send to the country in the case of remittances to immediate family members there or to a Cuban national living in a third country. Under US Treasury license authorization, a visitor is allowed to spend a maximum $50 per day for non-transportational expenses and an additional $50 per day for transportation expenses. It's also permissible for persons in the US 18 years of age or older to remit to an immediate family member in Cuba or a Cuban national in a third country a maximum $300 per household in any consecutive three month period.

These restrictions of movement and a citizen's right to use ones own financial resources freely likely violate two or more amendments to the US Constitution although nothing in the Constitution specifically guarantees the freedom to travel. At the time the Constitution was written, the right to travel freely was unquestioned and was unheard of before the Cold War began after WW 11. After that time limitations were imposed, but challenges to them were made all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled in 1967 that restricting freedom of movement was an infringement of a citizen's constitutional rights. Justice William Douglas said at the time that "Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart.....it often makes other rights meaningful." On two other occasions in 1962 and 1984, the High Court ruled otherwise by narrow margins but only under "the weightiest conditions of national security" necessitated by the Cold War. It's quite likely a Bush-friendly majority on the present Court would uphold the harsher restrictions favored by the Bush administration and permit one more way for them to destroy our civil liberties.

And they no doubt would do it despite the fact that the right of free movement anywhere encroaches on the right to liberty which the Fifth Amendment specifically states citizens cannot be deprived of without the due process of law. This restriction also likely violates the First Amendment right of free expression and to be able to hear the speech of others, gather information and associate with others as we choose - activities that should be inviolate in a free and democratic society. In addition, the fact that freedom of travel was an unquestioned right when the Constitution was drafted is the reason for the Ninth Amendment which grants the states all other rights not specifically written into the Constitution. Any restrictions thus imposed and enforced in violation of constitutional law are a direct infringement of our sacred freedoms, fundamental rights and civil liberties and unless challenged and successfully reversed in the courts are dangerous steps toward a national security police state under which citizens and residents have no rights.

US restrictive laws also violate international law under Article 12 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that guarantees everyone the right to leave any country, including one's own, and return to it. Article 13 of the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the same thing as does the 1975 US - Soviet Union Helsinki Agreement committing both nations to protecting the right of its citizens to move freely across borders. The US, especially since the advent of the current Bush administration, has shown its contempt for international and US constitutional law ruling instead by Executive Order to pursue whatever policies it wishes in a manner characteristic of a dictatorship and with no restraint put on it by the Congress or the courts.

The result is a gross infringement of our civil liberties that will likely become far worse in the wake of the Orwellian Real ID Act of 2005 passed by the US Congress to become effective in May, 2008. This law mandates that every US citizen and legal resident have a national ID card (in most cases a person's driver's license) that will contain on it the holder's vital personal information. It also requires the states to meet federal ID standards. A likely future requirement will be what now is mandated by mid-2007 for all newly issued and renewed passports - that they be embedded with a radio frequency identification (RFID) technology computer chip that will be able to track all the movements, activities and transactions of everyone having them. This is an Orwellian dream for any government wanting police state powers and will let US authorities know the names of all persons in the US travelling to Cuba or anywhere else in cases where they did it from third countries so as to remain anonymous. No longer, and with national ID cards mandatory by mid-2008, the tracking of all US citizens and legal residents will become even easier.

Nearly Forty-Eight Years Later and Looking Back - the Castro Revolution and His Government

Fidel Castro's revolution likely was born in March, 1952 after Fulgencio Batista seized power forcibly by coup d'etat after it was clear he had no chance of winning the presidential election that year in which he was running a distant third in the polls. Batista, with full backing from the US, instituted a brutal police state that served the interests of capital and turned the island into a casino and brothel. It was marked by severe corruption, little concern for social needs, and violent crackdowns against the people to maintain order. Fidel Castro wanted none of it. Despite being born into a wealthy Cuban farming family in 1926, being educated in private schools and later at the University of Havana to study law, Castro went his own way. He became politically active early on in 1947 and joined the Partido Ortodoxa Party of the Cuban People to campaign against government corruption and misrule and to demand reform. He also began a law practice in a small partnership after receiving his degree in 1950 devoting most of his time to representing the poor.

Castro wanted change in Cuba and no doubt learned back then if it couldn't come about politically it would have to happen by force. As events dictated, Castro came to power by the latter path when he became the country's Prime Minister in February, 1959 following the successful revolution he led. He's held on to it to this day. He kept his title of premier until 1976 when he became the President of the Council of State and Council of Ministers as chief of state and head of the Cuban government and ruling Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) that was formed in October, 1965. Under the 1976 Constitution, the Republica de Cuba vests all legislative power in the country's 619 member National Assembly of People's Power who serve five year terms. To be elected to it, those candidates must receive at least 50% of the eligible votes. At the executive level sits a 24 member Council of State that's elected by the Assembly and headed by an elected president and vice-president. The Council's President (currently Fidel Castro) is both Head of State and Head of Government. The Vice-President is his brother Raul. Executive and administrative power is vested in the Council of Ministers as recommended by the Head of State.

The PCC has governed Cuba since being formed and is Cuba's only legally recognized political party. While other political parties and opposition groups exist in the country, their activities are minimal and the state views them as mostly illegal. The Cuban Constitution allows free speech, but the opposition's rights are restricted under Article 62 that states: "None of the freedoms which are recognized for citizens can be exercised contrary to....the existence and objectives of the socialist state, or contrary to the decision of the Cuban people to build socialism and communism. Violations of this principle can be punished by law." That one party basis is how Cuba has been governed since Castro assumed power, and officially the Republica de Cuba is called a socialist state. It was inspired and guided by the principles of Jose Marti, Cuba's 19th century born greatest hero who believed freedom and justice for the people should be the cornerstones of any government and despotic regimes that abused human rights should be condemned.

Castro's Human Rights Record In A Climate of Continued US Efforts To Destabilize and Topple His Government. A Comparison to Hugo Chavez's Record in Venezuela

Castro's record as Cuba's leader is mixed at best as judged by the principles its "greatest hero" espoused. Unlike his ally and friend President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela who established a true participatory democracy by national referendum, Castro chose not to allow Cuba to be governed democratically. Instead he decided early on that he above all others would decide what was best for the Cuban people and little dissent would be allowed. The result is that while Cuba is a model state in delivering essential social services to be discussed in detail below, it comes at the expense of the freedom to oppose the ruling state authority. In the past, Amnesty International reported on the crackdown on dissent in Cuba and in recent years on the significant increase in what Amnesty calls the number of prisoners of conscience. The Cuban government claims only "foreign agents" whose activities endanger Cuban independence and security have been arrested, but Amnesty disagrees even while recognizing the threat to the island by the US and the harm done to it by years of an oppressive and unjustifiable embargo.

Amnesty was quite clear in its language stating: "The economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba has served as an ongoing justification for Cuban state repression and has contributed to a climate in which human rights violations occur." Those violations include accusations of police state arrests, unfair trials, arbitrary imprisonments and the right to use capital punishment in cases of armed hijacking even after the Castro government placed a moratorium on the death penalty in 2001. While some of what Amnesty reports may be true, it's also important to note what it leaves out. It pays little attention to how for decades the US repeatedly tried to destabilize Cuba under Castro, isolate it in the region, destroy its economy, and failed in many attempts to assassinate the Cuban leader. Amnesty also doesn't explain how the US recruited and used various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to act as spies under the cover of their supposed missions. The Cuban government has every right to arrest, prosecute and imprison the ones they catch committing these acts of subversion against the island state for the US authorities that hired them, and Amnesty and other human rights groups fail to fulfill their obligation for full disclosure by not explaining this.

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has also been a US target for elimination but charted a somewhat different course than Fidel Castro in spite of it since being elected President in December, 1998 and assuming office in February, 1999. From the start, Chavez and his Movement for the Fifth Republic Party (MVR) wanted and got his revolution by the ballot box. In fairness to Castro, he too preferred that way but found it impossible under the repressive dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Hugo Chavez had a more favorable climate and once elected sought to achieve what few other political leaders ever do - keep his promises to the people who elected him. In a nation of overwhelming poverty, he wanted to follow the vision of 19th century revolutionary hero Simon Bolivar and his spirit of Bolivarianism to free the Venezuelan people of what Bolivar called the imperial curse "to plague Latin America with misery in the name of liberty."

He did it with his own Bolivarian Revolution based on the principles of participatory democracy and social justice, convened a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution that reflected these principles, and allowed the Venezuelan people the right to vote it into binding law by national referendum which they did overwhelmingly in December, 1999. The new constitution which went into effect in December, 2000 established the legal foundation for Hugo Chavez to move ahead with the political, economic and social justice structural changes he wanted for his people. He wanted to lift them from poverty, guarantee them essential social services like free health care and education to the highest level, the right of free expression to include criticizing the President, and the fundamental principle of true participatory democracy so that the people have a say in how their country is governed.

Fidel Castro much earlier was a model for Hugo Chavez in how he established essential social services for the Cuban people like world-class free health care for all and free education through the university level. These will be discussed in detail below. But he failed by not fully permitting Cuba to be governed democratically with unrestricted free and fair elections, effective opposition parties, the right to speak freely, openly and critically of the President even though everyone holding political office in the country including the President and Vice-President must be elected to it.

The Castro government also imposes unfair travel restrictions on the movement of its people requiring them to obtain exit visas to leave the island. More recently these restrictions were relaxed somewhat but not entirely. They're still imposed on professionals with essential skills, and in the case of human rights activists who have the right to leave Cuba but not to return. These freedom of movement restrictions violate international law under Article 12 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as already explained. Seeing that Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro appear to be good friends and allies, it's to be hoped the Cuban leader or his successor will see how successful the Chavez approach has been in Venezuela and one day wish to alter the Cuban state model to be in full accordance with the spirit and letter of Bolivarianism.

Nearly Five Decades of US-Directed Intimidation, Destabilization and Attempts to Overthrow the Castro Government

The US-directed terror campaign to oust Fidel Castro began under Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Kennedy with the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, continued with "The Cuban Project" (aka Operation Mongoose) in 1961 to "help Cuba overthrow the Communist regime" and Fidel Castro and aim "for a revolt which can take place in Cuba by October, 1962." It continued under the same and new names with many dozens of plots through the years to kill Castro including bizarre ones like using a poisoned wetsuit, poison pens, a pistol hidden in a camera (that almost worked), exploding cigars, explosive seashells in Castro's favorite diving places and a special hair removal powder to make the leader's beard fall out (maybe believing the latter scheme would remove Castro's power much like the biblical Sampson lost his physical strength after Delilah had his hair cut). In the mid-1990s, Noam Chomsky commented that "Cuba was the target of more international terrorism than probably the rest of the world combined, up until Nicaragua in the 1980s." And it was conducted by US-initiated state terrorism against the island state to remove a leader because he chose not to govern the way the US wished him to.

Besides the schemes listed above, the list of US terror tactics against Cuba is far too long to list in total here. They include US attacks on Cuban sugar mills by air, a 1960 blowing up of a Belgian ship in Havana harbor killing 100 sailors and dock workers, dynamiting stores, theaters, a Havana department store and burning down another one. In addition, there were dozens of attacks and bombings and over 600 known plans or attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro including the bizarre ones listed above. The CIA also conducted biological warfare against Cuba including introducing dangerous viruses to the island affecting sugar cane and other crops, African swine fever in 1971 that resulted in the need to slaughter half a million pigs, and hemorrhagic dengue fever that caused the deaths of at least 81 children in 1981. These incidents were later confirmed in declassified US documents.

It's also well remembered that Cubana flight 455 was terror-bombed in October, 1976 by former CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles that killed the 73 people on board. The plot was likely masterminded by Orlando Bosch who devoted his life to committing terrorist attacks against Cuba and trying to kill Fidel Castro. Now at age 80, he lives near Miami and was recently interviewed by Andy Robinson of La Vanguardia. He told Mr. Robinson he once nearly succeeded in killing Castro in 1971 in Chile (with a pistol hidden in a camera), but the assassins sent there to do it "chickened out and didn't shoot" even though they were standing meters away from the Cuban leader and easily could have done it.

Posada, too, was frank in at least one interview he gave to the New York Times. He said "The CIA taught us everything... explosives, how to kill, bomb, trained us in acts of sabotage." Posada, like Bosch, spent 40 years trying to overthrow the Castro government forcibly and was personally responsible for many acts of violence over that period. In April, 2005 he sought political asylum in the US, apparently won't get it as the Bush administration is seeking a "friendly" country to extradite him to while ignoring requests for extradition by Cuba and Venezuela to face charges of terrorism in both countries. Posada was also likely responsible for other terror-bombings of hotels later in the 1990s to destroy the Cuban tourist industry with the help of CIA financing to do it. It's also well known that CIA trained US based paramilitary groups like Alpha 66 and Brothers to the Rescue in Florida are free to operate from here where they're regarded as heros among Cuban reactionaries. They have no fear of prosecution or extradition to Cuba for their crimes against the island state.

With all the detail above and much more than this article can cover, it's easy to understand that the Cuban government or any other under such continued assault to destabilize and topple it would be on high alert at all times and would always have to take all necessary precautions to assure the security of the state, its leader and people. That's more true than ever today as the out-of-control Bush administration is committed to regime change on the island and set up a Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba to help achieve it. The Commission presented its Report to the President in July this year detailing its plan to return Cuba to its pre-Castro de facto colonial status and end the Castro socialist revolution and all the benefits it brought to the Cuban people. In a word, the Bush administration wants to do for Cuba what it did in "liberating" Iraq and Afghanistan and do it by force if necessary. It wants to re-privatize every publicly operated state enterprise and return the Cuban people to the status of serfs exploited by capital, set up a puppet government to administer the changeover, and have it all controlled by Washington and the corporate giants its beholden to.

Fidel Castro knows he's under threat and must take every measure to thwart it. To do otherwise would be foolish and irresponsible. Nonetheless, no leader or government should ever do this by denying its citizens and residents their civil liberties nor should the people anywhere allow them to be taken. Benjamin Franklin understood the danger and wisely explained that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." And he likely also said those willing to make that sacrifice for security will lose both. So while all necessary precautions are fully justified and necessary against a dangerous and determined adversary or even in a time of war, under no circumstances should a free people ever be willing to give up what they always should be working for to secure and preserve.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3084
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Jan, 2011 10:58 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
it is akin to reading the owner's manual of a car, but not knowing how the thing really works once you open up the hood.


That's Ican. How did this Pitt guy know to describe Ican?
plainoldme
 
  0  
Fri 7 Jan, 2011 11:22 pm
@JTT,
As much as it pains me to admit it, there are other people in this country who resemble ican.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 01:07 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
How can anyone possibly discuss Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro as a unit?
Thay r all commies;
communist slavers and sadistic murderers.





David
farmerman
 
  2  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 06:59 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Dave is still mad at the Conquistadors
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 10:49 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You just proved you are one-dimensional. Knew it all the time, but thanks for confirming it.

You, okie, and ican are all one-dimensional. You arrive at a conclusion without understanding the different issues involved in each one, and there is no way to educate you further with evidence and facts, because they just fly over your brain.

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 11:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
plainoldme wrote:
How can anyone possibly discuss Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro as a unit?
Thay r all commies;
communist slavers and sadistic murderers.
David
That is the point, David, but it seems some do not grasp the concept. My point was that they were 3 examples of radical leftists, and it behoves us to study those people to see what the common denominators were, which identifies or typifies their mindset or thinking pattern. I made the point also to remind cyclops of the obvious fact that they were radical leftists also obsessed with a lust for power. He had used the argument that since Hitler's primary motivation was a lust for power, that he was not a radical leftist. A dumb argument, but that was his argument nonetheless.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 11:39 am
@okie,
A more interesting study would be on people like you, okie.

You are one-dimensional without so much as any new learning ability no matter how much facts and evidence is presented to refute what you say.

You even ignore your own contradictions when they are pointed out to you.

That would be quite a study/research for some psychiatrists.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 06:59 pm
@okie,
Quote:
My point was that they were 3 examples of radical leftists, and it behoves us to study those people to see what the common denominators were, which identifies or typifies their mindset or thinking pattern


How many times have you been told that you can not measure what is left or right from country (Russia, Cambodia and Cuba) and from era to era?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 07:23 pm
@plainoldme,
Those concept are too simple for okie to understand.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 07:44 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Quote:
My point was that they were 3 examples of radical leftists, and it behoves us to study those people to see what the common denominators were, which identifies or typifies their mindset or thinking pattern
How many times have you been told that you can not measure what is left or right from country (Russia, Cambodia and Cuba) and from era to era?
So what are we supposed to do, judge each era and each country by a different yardstick? It appears that is your argument. Maybe the old Soviet Union was a conservative rightwing whacko regime according to you or somebody at least? I guess if you could get enough professors to write books claiming that, it would be fact?
plainoldme
 
  0  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 08:55 pm
@okie,
A long time ago, someone wrote to me in a private message "okie is just dumb." There is a great deal of information -- much of it correct -- to gather here. You've gathered nothing. In fact, you've regressed.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 09:00 pm
@okie,
Quote:
I guess if you could get enough professors to write books claiming that, it would be fact?
Isn't that exactly what you've done with your book claiming Hitler was a liberal?
okie
 
  0  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 09:28 pm
@dyslexia,
I don't write books, dys. My writing career consists mainly of wasting time on this forum. Besides it doesn't take a book to know Hitler was a liberal. He hated individual freedom. He hated capitalism. He loved big government, and thought it could solve every problem. End of story. That only took 3 sentences.
JTT
 
  -2  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 09:34 pm
@okie,
Quote:
End of story. That only took 3 sentences.


Laughing Laughing Laughing

Next, E=mc2 in 6 or less sentences.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 09:50 pm
From the ACLU:

Unconstitutional Bill Aims to Subvert 14th Amendment


Ask your representative to reject attacks on the 14th Amendment.

On Wednesday, a day before members of Congress recited the Constitution on the House floor and affirmed their commitment to defend and uphold it, an unconstitutional bill designed to subvert the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was introduced.

The bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Steve King (R-IA), attempts to subvert the 14th Amendment by rewriting the citizenship clause to restrict citizenship to only three categories of people: children of U.S. citizens or nationals, children of permanent residents and children of non-citizens in active-duty military service. The proposed legislation violates the constitutional guarantee that all people born in the U.S. and under its jurisdiction are U.S. citizens entitled to equal protection under the law. Further, it would violate long-established Supreme Court precedent. In addition, this radical proposal would deny citizenship to large segments of U.S. society including U.S.-born children to parents with lawful status such as refugees, foreign investors, scientists, engineers, artists, athletes, scholars and graduate students.

Also on Wednesday, a group of state legislators announced that they will introduce bills intended to deny Americans the fundamental protections of the 14th Amendment by requiring their states to deny standard birth certificates to many U.S. citizen babies born in the U.S. to immigrant parents.

"Citizenship for all born on U.S. soil has been one of the Constitution's most essential engines of equality and fairness under the law," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "It is too important to be defined by the political whims of any era."

Since its creation, the Constitution has guaranteed U.S. citizenship to every child born in the U.S., with very limited exceptions. Constitutional citizenship represents America's commitment to equality, fairness and justice under the law. Adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment negated one of the Supreme Court's most infamous rulings, the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which held that neither freed slaves nor their descendants could ever become citizens. The Amendment, which guaranteed the constitutional rights of citizenship for all who were born in this country was enacted in response to laws passed by the former Confederate States that prevented African Americans from entering professions, owning or leasing land, accessing public accommodations, serving on juries and voting.

In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the guarantee of the 14th Amendment and affirmed the fundamental principle that children born on American soil are U.S. citizens without regard to their parents' status. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that a baby born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were subjects of China and were prohibited by law from becoming U.S. citizens was a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment.

This principle has been the settled law of the land for more than a century.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Sat 8 Jan, 2011 09:58 pm
@plainoldme,
Any more threads you want to post this screed on?

I agree that King's proposal is a bit extreme. However, his argument is from his interpretation of the original intent of the constitutional language. The ACLU is making unjustified and innacurate categorical statements here.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/19/2024 at 05:18:39