A declaration of war is one of the first things I have read this dark morning. I’m sure there will be lots of important commentary on what happened to America yesterday, but here is a starter.
The President was right about one thing: The vote on Obamacare last night was a historic one.
The Democratic Party has in the course of the nine-month health care debate revealed itself to be an anti-democratic Party and an anti-liberty party. It is a party that has demonstrated its contempt for the Constitutional framework, for the democratic process, and for the expressed will of the American people. Its brazen contempt for the compact that holds the diverse factions of this country together has initiated a political war at home that will extend not only into the next elections but into the next generations that will be encumbered with the trillions in debt and oppressive government controls that the socialist majority in Congress has demonstrated that it is intent on inflicting on this country.
The people of this nation are still sovereign, and their voice will be heard. Last night’s vote was lost but it is not the end of the battle.
It is the beginning.
Visit the bookstore at David Horowitz’s Frontpage magazine and get your copies of the Art of Political War for Tea Parties, here.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the United socialist States of America! All you leftists out there, aren’t you just so damn giddy that your president and congress are “granting” you a “right” to healthcare? Not only are they undermining what the majority of the American people want, they are telling us what they think we need. Can you say Stalin? Mussolini? Hitler? Roosevelt? Wilson? FDR? I really hope you liberals are happy now, because I can guarantee you this won’t last. The American people will not put up with this nonsense.
These liberals in congress will not stop. The next ”right” they will ”grant” us is the “right” to become a legal resident after we come here illegally. Then we will have the “right” to green energy because we can’t afford our electric bill. Next comes our “right” to a job, after the government pays for our college, then excuses our debt if we take a position in public service. The fact is, the liberal/socialist agenda has no end in sight. There will never be enough. Their appetite is unsatiable. They are vampires. They feed off the blood and the greed of their egos. They could care less about their constituents, much less the will of the American people. Power is what they care about.
And power is precisely what We The People will strip them of this November. We will take them to war. Our battlefield will be our respective precincts and our polling places. Our weapon of choice will be our collective voices, rising up to the threat of tyranny, and our battle cry will be that which has been handed down throughout the ages of all free people: “FREEEEEEDOOOOOOMMM!!” To those of you who couldn’t hear that, I said freedom.
I have said it before and I will say it again, Congress is a rotten, stinking corpse. It is no wonder that it currently has the lowest approval rating of all time. This week more ridiculous legislation was introduced in that body that will only make our lives worst. The bipartisan bill that was introduced would punish any country that practices currency manipulation as an unfair trade subsidy. It would give President Obama the ability to impose retaliatory protectionist measures to level the playing field. Of course, the impetus for the legislation is China’s alleged undervaluing of its currency, the yuan, in order to support Chinese exports to other countries.
Now, it’s funny, how the legislation comes in an election year when there is a very strong anti-incumbent mood amongst the electorate. Many Americans who have lost their jobs in this depression are naturally fixated on statements from Washington dealing with job creation. So as not to disappoint, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer was quoted as saying, “”There is no bigger step that we can take to promote job creation here in the US than to confront Chinese currency manipulation.” This sounds logical on the surface, but upon closer analysis the senator as usual has it all wrong.
In the first place, to even threaten protectionist measures in such a fragile economic environment as we live in is dangerous. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was passed in 1930 and placed protective tariffs on thousands of imports coming into the United States from abroad. At the time, during the Great Depression, its purpose was to protect American jobs. Sound familiar? Instead, the tariff caused our trading partners to retaliate with tariffs of their own thereby exacerbating an already horrendous employment situation. What makes our politicians believe that China would not retaliate with protective measures of its own or worst yet cause the collapse of our currency by flooding the world markets with hundreds of billions of dollars it keeps in reserve?
But secondly, and much more importantly to our situation, we need inexpensive Chinese products otherwise our inflation rate would be through the roof and unemployment would be right there with it. Here is the vicious cycle of events that is American/Chinese trade relations. China’s products are cheaper because the cost of doing business there is less than in the U.S. Thus, we purchase Chinese goods with dollars and treasury notes. China holds these dollars and interest-bearing bonds in reserve and then prints yuan to pay off the Chinese suppliers of our purchases. When the smoke clears, we get cheap Chinese goods to buy, the Chinese manufacturer makes a profit, and the Chinese government acquires more units of the world’s reserve currency. Everybody wins, right?
If the Obama Administration ends this cycle by imposing protective tariffs on Chinese goods coming into the United States, not only will the Chinese government reciprocate with retaliatory measures of its own, the prices of goods in the U.S. will rise sharply. You see right now we export our inflation to China by way of treasury bonds and newly printed Federal Reserve notes. Without the ability to export our debt and a lot of the dollars the Federal Reserve has been printing, all of that liquidity will be spent in the U.S. instead on more expensive goods. As more money enters our economy prices in general will be bid up and will rise and given how much the Federal Reserve has inflated the money supply over the last few years prices will rise by a lot. At that point, Economics 101 tells us that high prices will squelch demand and huge increases in unemployment will result.
Since the 1970s, the politicians in Washington have placed us in this no win situation with regard to trading with China. They have destroyed our industrial base with unconstitutional mandates and regulations, and collective bargaining laws. They have spent us into oblivion by financing a welfare/warfare state unmatched in human history. If we impose protectionist measures against China we will incur inflation in the short run and high unemployment in the long run. If we continue to borrow from China to buy their inexpensive goods we put ourselves on an unsustainable course. At some point, if it isn’t happening already, China will stop financing our purchases and absorbing our inflation. They will sell their goods elsewhere and Americans will pay higher prices. Our standard of living will plummet and China will replace us as the world’s number one economic superpower.
But, Chuck Schumer and his colleagues on the Hill are oblivious to all of this. Of course, they also ignore the fact that the Federal Reserve is the biggest currency manipulator in the world. Ben Bernanke and his cabal of economic central planners better known as the Federal Open Market Committee fix interest rates and determine the supply of money. These actions directly determine the value of the dollar. Before Congress complains about China for not using market forces to value the yuan it should look in the mirror.
And that is really why I consider Congress a rotten, stinking corpse. Time and again its members grandstand for personal political gain and leave the American people with the mess. Its hypocrisy is appalling. Lastly, it seems like it is constantly coming up with cockamamie schemes to ruin our economy further. This latest scheme places the blame on China for our own financial incompetence.
Kenn Jacobine teaches internationally and maintains a summer residence in North Carolina.
Image: The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the current health reform bill “would cost $940 billion and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during the first ten years[, and] in the second 10 years, it would reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion.” It’s no surprise that Republicans are still criticizing the current health reform bill over costs, despite the fact that Republicans have voted for more expensive programs under the Bush II Administration.
Presiden Amerika Serikat dipastikan akan melakukan lawatannya ke Indonesia pada 23-25 Maret mendatang. Saat ini petugas Pengamanan Presiden Amerika Serikat (Secret Service), tengah melakukan koordinasi intensif dengan pihak keamanan Indonesia.
JAKARTA – Presiden Amerika Serikat dipastikan akan melakukan lawatannya ke Indonesia pada 23-25 Maret mendatang. Saat ini petugas Pengamanan Presiden Amerika Serikat (Secret Service), tengah melakukan koordinasi intensif dengan pihak keamanan Indonesia.
“Sekarang Secret Service mereka sudah berada di Indonesia dan sudah banyak mengadakan koordinasi dengan Paspampres, Polisi, juga dengan TNI,” ungkap Juru bicara Kepresidenan Dino Patti Djalal di Kantor Kepresidenan, Jakarta, Rabu (17/3/2010).
Dino tidak mau mengungkapkan mengenai pembagian pengamanan antara pihak Indonesia dengan Amerika Serikat. “Saya tidak berwenang untuk ngomong masalah keamanan silakan tanya kepada Paspampres,” tukasnya.
Mengenai, permintaan standar keamanan dari pihak Secret Service, secara diplomatis Dino mengatakan, bukan kali ini saja Indonesia menerima lawatan Presiden Amerika Serikat.
“Kita menjamin keamanan tentu, dan kita yakin ini bukan pertama kalinya mendapat kunjungan Presiden Amerika Serikat. Jadi kita yakin dapat menjaga keamanan selama kunjungan,” jawabnya diplomatis.
“Dari kita menyambut baik setiap kepala negara yang datang ke Indonesia. Dari negara manapun akan kita sambut dengan baik dan memberikan fasilitas protokoler yang sesuai dengan kunjungan tersebut,” tuturnya. (Source)
The bankruptcy of leadership in the Arab World should be more pressing for the US than to condemn Israel for building houses.
Joe Biden feels more comfortable in Ramallah than among Israeli leaders.
The current friction in U.S.-Israel relations has one source: the mishandling of those relations by the Obama administration. Poll data show that Israel is as popular as ever among Americans. Strategically we face the same enemies — such as terrorism and the Iranian regime — a fact that is not lost on Americans who know we have one single reliable, democratic ally in the Middle East.
The two problems that bedevil relations with Israel are Iran policy and Israeli settlements. On Iran, we say nuclear weapons would be “unacceptable” but want to rely solely on sanctions to stop them, and administration officials go out of their way to say any use of force would be catastrophic. Not surprisingly Israelis wonder if we’re serious — and if, as is likely, sanctions prove too weak to succeed, so will many Americans.
On settlements, the Obama administration demanded a 100 percent construction freeze, including in Jerusalem, something never required before even by the Palestinians as a precondition for negotiations. This stance cornered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who could demand no less, and led the U.S. administration last week to “condemn” the announcement of plans for Israeli construction that is years away. The verb “condemn” is customarily reserved by U.S. officials for acts of murder and terrorism — not acts of housing.
As this example shows, the Obama administration continues to drift away from traditional U.S. support for Israel. But time and elections will correct that problem; Israel has a higher approval rating these days than does President Obama.
Source: Washington Post
ELLIOTT ABRAMS
Senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
President Obama took office hoping that constructive diplomacy could yield progress on some of the thorniest foreign-policy challenges facing the United States. Among these was Burma, a Southeast Asian nation of 50 million people that has been misruled into poverty, decline and perpetual warfare by a benighted military dictatorship. Mr. Obama did not abandon economic sanctions against the regime, but he did hold out the prospect of warmer relations if Burma`s regime would show some sign of easing up on its people.
This week the regime delivered its answer: Get lost. The government promulgated rules that make clear that an election planned for this year will be worse than meaningless. The new rules make it official: Burma`s leading democratic party and its leader, Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, will not be permitted to take part.
Mr. Obama was right to offer, cautiously, an open hand. It has been spat upon. Now is the time for something new.
The Washington Post
Read more: Editorials from around the country – Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_14665454#ixzz0iEkTwNd4
When Zionist control over East Jerusalem is broken, the final antichrist will enter a new International Zone and the Temple Mount.
Both Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton is preparing the way for the last antichrist with his seat in East Jerusalem.
US Secretary of state Hillary Clinton do not know that she works for the spirit of antichrist. Since Jerusalem is the city of David, a forced Islamic re-occupation of East Jerusalem in not what God of the Bible desires.
But its a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.
2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4.
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
The Zionist Israel will not give up East Jerusalem, without getting something in the bargain. The state of Israel will have to be offered a peace deal that Jews can live with. Now the Papist Tony Blair will be the mediator of a new covenant, that is not based up on the truth. East Jerusalem will not come under Islamic control, alone. The International community will be responsible for a new International Zone. A new Quartet promoted body will govern East Jerusalem, and secure that all the three World faiths will get access to their Holy sites. The Temple Mount will be made into an International temple of all faiths, and the UN will establish an International peace center in East Jerusalem.
This will be a compromise that both Jews and Arabs can live with, for the sake of peace.
When East Jerusalem is handed over to the control of the Quartet, the stage is set for the entry of the last antichrist.
The London-based newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported Saturday, that US Middle East envoy George Mitchell has promised the Palestinians that Israel will not construct new homes in east Jerusalem during peace negotiations.
According to the paper, Mitchell told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas over the phone that Washington would provide the PA with guarantees that Israel would halt construction in the east of the city. This is reported by the Jerusalem Post.
Green-Energy might be next wave of innovation in Silicon Valley and pundits are naming it Silicon Valley 3.0. The report talks about the following areas:
The next great wave of innovation
Part 1: Silicon Valley has assumed a leading role in the global competition to develop renewable energy and other clean, green technologies.
The innovators | The adopters
Star technologies: solar, smart grid
Part 2: The two sectors are already reshaping the way we use energy.
Fierce global competition in cleantech
Part 3: Silicon Valley’s ability to innovate its way to the top is far from guaranteed.
I suggest that it is worth reading this report which outlines the competitive landscape as well especially from China 100 billion clean tech research fund which is bigger than the Obama administration’s $70 billion in economic recovery funds for the Cleantech sector. I am optimistic that new wave of innovation will take place in this sector as research and development is being focused in this area. Europe is also hoping to lead the way especially Scandinavian countries.
Now the technology as only renewable resource is being utilized to solve the climate change and energy problems not only import substitution but to become really independent as well!
An Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants is again being pushed within the U.S. Congress, and weekend after next the amnesty supporters plan to march in Washington, DC. They plan to send 200+ bus loads of citizen supporters and illegals to Wash, DC for a protest on March 21st and then lobby members of Congress on Monday, March 22nd. We are supporting NumbersUSA in a national effort to thwart this nonsense and DEFEAT amnesty again. We will offer support to ALIPAC as well with their national effort to defeat amnesty.
WE need your help. Allowing 12-14 million+ illegal immigrants to become citizens is a bad idea at the worst time. With 15 million citizens unemployed with another 10 million only working part-time but want and cannot find a full-time job, to include providing even more free health benefits to illegals once they and their dependents become eligible and become citizens, and to then encourage even more illegal aliens to come to America in hopes of an amnesty, the notion of granting an amnesty is about the most dimwitted and disconnected with reality idea to come from the leadership in Congress.
OUR NC LISTEN effort is to contact each of the thirteen Congressional offices here in North Carolina to include both US Senators from North Carolina on Friday, March 19th. WE cannot let the other side get away with pressing for amnesty and have only quiet on our side. PLease contact me and offer to visit your member of Congress’s local North Carolina field office ”in your neck of the woods”. Each U.S. Congressman and Congresswoman have several field offices in North Carolina, so it will be a short drive for you. We will provide several talking points and handouts for you to deliver. We will provide directions, help coordinate any group visit, and again provide materials for you. We will also let you know the voting record of your member of Congress concerning immigration.
WE together stopped amnesty before and we CAN do it again, but only if we have citizen support. The time to take action is now! Let me hear from you! I need your help.
Glenn Beck wasn’t impressed with Eric Massa yesterday.
While Massa isn’t coming across as the most credible of witnesses, the picture that he’s painting of an ultra desperate White House in pursuing the passage of its health socialization package makes perfect sense.
These attempts to discredit Massa for first providing a cover story and then evolving his story are standard operating procedure in Washington, are they not? Consider all the lies the White House has told to get health reform passed.
How do you know Obama can save half a trillion dollars on Medicare?
You don’t.
In fact, you do.
You know he probably can’t. After all, Obama just presented the 2011 budget and it was in deficit by $1.2 trillion. In the entire federal budget there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of programs. Obama says he can save half a trillion in just one government program. He should have been able to save at least one or two trillion with that many programs to cut. But he didn’t.
So Obama fails the test by not balancing the budget.
One can almost see little Barry with big crying eyes blubbering that little Georgie never balanced a budget neither!!!
Barry, Barry, Barry.
Is this the standard of excellence they teach at Harvard? What the other guy did on the test?
Is the standard of excellence in community organizing. Wait a minute, there is no standard of excellence for community organizing. You could phone that in! In fact, that explains everything.
Obama Breaking the Law?
By poetryman69
Is President Barack Hussein Obama breaking the law? If he knows exactly where to find $500 billion of waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare budget and he fails to take immediate action to stop it isn’t he aiding and abetting violations of law? Isn’t he engaged in a conspiracy in furtherance of a criminal enterprise? Doesn’t this meet the test of “high crimes and misdemeanors?”
If, on the other hand, Obama relents and says he only kinda, sorta knows where half a trillion dollars is…Well…hmmm. With the exception of Bernie Madoff, have you ever known of anyone who said he kinda, sorta knows where $500 billion is?
*
*
*
Saving $.5 trillion?
President Barack Hussein Obama claimed that he could save half a trillion dollars on Medicare. But Medicare is only one government program. In his 2011 budget Obama dealt with dozens if not hundreds of government programs. If he really is so good at ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse then surely there would be a multiplier effect when dealing with the whole budget. In fact, if Obama can really save $500 Billion on one program he should have been able to save over a $1 trillion on the federal budget as a whole so why didn’t he? Why was Obama’s 2011 budget $1.2 trillion in the red? Where did that deficit come from?
Perhaps there was no waste, fraud or abuse in the rest of the government. In fact, maybe Obama inherited from George Bush a federal bureaucracy that was so sound that it runs like a Swiss watch with 100% efficiency. In fact since, after a year of looking, Obama could find no waste, fraud or abuse in the non-Medicare part of the budget one wonders why we needed Obama or that much ballyhooed change at all. Surely a third installment of that movie Revenge of the Shrubbery: When Bushes Attack starring John McCain would have done just as well as Obama. That is, if there was no waste, fraud or abuse that Obama could find and cut out of the entire government apparatus. After all, George Bush ran the government for 8 years, surely he left some shoddy workmanship somewhere in federal government.
Makes you wonder if that $500 Billion that Obama claims he could save is vaporware, smoke and mirrors, illusory.
Barack H. Obama presiden AS direncanakan akan datang ke Indonesia Maret ini antara tanggal 20-22. Dengan slogan The Change We Need dan Yes We Can, peraih nilai magna cum laude dari Sekolah Hukum Harvard ini mampu menyihir masyarakat AS dan juga dunia. Sejak ia menjadi senator partai Demorat dari Illionis, selama ajang konvensi partai Demokrat, selama kampanye presiden dan setelah menjadi presiden, dari satu podium ke podium lainnya, dari satu mikrophone ke mikrophone lainnya, Obama terus menebar janji-janji perubahan dan perbaikan bukan hanya bagi masyarakat AS tapi juga bagi dunia.
Masyarakat AS dan juga dunia pun menaruh harapan besar kepada Obama, pun masyarakat di dunia Islam. Dunia di landa dengan penyakit ”Obamaphoria”, bagi sebagian masyarakat yang melek politik fenomena ini tidak lebih dari apa yang di sebut sebagai ”wahm” alias ilusi.
Sejak itu masyarakat dunia dibuai ilusi akan terjadi perubahan signifikan di dunia karena perubahan yang terjadi di AS baik dalam kebijakan dalam negerinya dan terlebih plan kebijakan-kebijakan luar negerinya yang mengesankan sangat bersahabat dan tidak tampil sebagai polisi dunia yang memaksa peta tata dunia ”unipolar” dimana AS menjadi episentrumnya. Pasalnya, sebagai negara adidaya kebijakan AS sangat mempengaruhi kondisi dunia.
Namun perubahan seperti apakah sebenarnya yang ditawarkan oleh AS di bawah Obama? Dalam pidato di Senat Amerika, Hillary Clinton, Menteri Luar Negeri AS yang baru mengatakan, “Kita harus menggunakan apa yang disebut smart power, suatu perangkat yang lengkap yang dilakukan dengan kekuasaan yang kita miliki. Dengan smart power, diplomasi akan menjadi garda depan politik luar negeri kita.”
Hillary pun seperti yang dilansir oleh New York Times menggambarkan smart power itu : “Ini artinya penggunaan semua perangkat yang bisa mempengaruhi diplomatik, ekonomi, militer, hukum, politik dan budaya untuk mendapatkan apa yang Anda inginkan.”
Obama dan pemerintahannya menganggap kepemimpinan Bush dengan hard powernya telah gagal. Karenanya smart power menjadi cara baru bagi Obama untuk memperbaiki rusaknya reputasi mereka di mata dunia, khususnya di dunia Islam. Karena sebagaimana yang ditegaskan Obama sendiri bahwa tugas dia adalah memperbaiki citra AS di mata dunia khususnya dunia Islam. Karena itu, Pemerintah AS kini berupaya mengefektifkan kebijakan luar negeri dengan taktik baru tersebut.
Namun, jika menengok track record presiden-presiden AS, baik yang berasal dari Partai Republik atau Demokrat, AS di bawah Obama tidak akan berubah secara signifikan. Hal itu telah tercermin dalam pidato Obama di Council on Foreign Relation, Chicago 12 Juli 2004, kira-kira 3,5 tahun sebelum Obama menjadi presiden AS ke-44. Obama yang ketika itu menjadi senator dari Illionis mengatakan: “Di setiap wilayah di muka bumi ini, kebijakan luar negeri kita harus mendukung idealisme tradisional AS: demokrasi dan hak-hak asasi manusia, perdagangan bebas, adil, serta pertukaran budaya; juga pendirian berbagai lembaga yang menjamin pemerataan kesejahteraan di dalam ekonomi pasar.”
Selanjutnya Obama mengungkapkan, “Kesamaan kepentingan di dunia akan memulihkan pengaruh kita serta merebut hati dan pikiran demi mengalahkan terorisme dan menyebarkan nilai-nilai AS ke seluruh dunia.” (Lisa Rogak, Obama in His Own Words).
Maka sedari awal dari berbagai ungkapan Obama sebenarnya sangat jelas bahwa, arah kebijakan Pemerintah AS tidak akan berubah. “Presiden boleh datang dan pergi, kebijakan mungkin berubah, tetapi tidak akan ada perubahan yang benar-benar nyata (real change),” kata Taji Mustafa, perwakilan media Hizbut Tahrir Inggris seperti dikutip Khilafah.Com.
Perubahan yang akan terjadi hanyalah soal gaya dan cara pendekatan. Sedang substansinya adalah sama, yaitu kebijakan AS tetap ditujukan untuk menyebarkan nilai-nilai tradisional AS yaitu ideologi kapitalisme dan ide-idenya, untuk merealisasi kepentingan-kepentingan AS yang mengusung ideologi kapitalisme dan untuk menjaga dominasi AS atas dunia. Sebagai negara pengusung kapitalisme metode AS tetap berupa penjajahan dalam berbagai bentuknya. Dengan demikian kebijakan-kebijakan AS tetap saja bertujuan untuk mendekte dan mengontrol negara-negara lain serta mengeksploitasi sumber dayanya demi kepentingan dan kemakmuran AS khususnya para kapitalisnya.
Maka satu tahun lebih sejak Obama dilantik menjadi presiden AS ke-44 pada tanggal 20 Januari 2009, tidak terlihat adanya perubahan signifikan dari kebijakan luar negeri pemerintahan Obama khususnya terhadap dunia islam. Masyarakat AS sendiri masih merasakan menu retorika Obama yang kembali mengulang janji mimpi-mimpinya di banding solusi-solusi riil yang bisa secepatnya memulihkan kondisi ekonomi yang carut-marut, karena kebijakan-kebijakan strategisnya belum memberikan efek berarti untuk mengurangi pengangguran dan meringankan beban hidup masyarakat AS.
Sebagian Janji Obama Atas Dunia Islam
Demikian juga Selama kampanye dan setelah menjabat presiden AS, Obama banyak menebar janji terhadap dunia Islam. Obama menyatakan bahwa AS akan mengembangkan hubungan dengan dunia Islam dalam bentuk hubungan yang hangat, saling memahami dan atas dasar kepentingan yang sama. Ia juga mengatakan bahwa AS akan menghormati negara-negara Islam.
Sekaligus ia berjanji akan segera menyelesaikan masalah Irak. Obama mengatakan: “Amerika menghormati negara-negara Islam. Karenanya, kita segera menyelesaikan masalah Irak. Amerika adalah teman semua negara.” (pidato kenegaraan pertama Obama, 20 Januari 2009).
Saat berkunjung ke Turki Obama menyampaikan pidato dihadapan parlemen Turki. Dalam kesempatan itu Obama tak lupa menebar janji-janji dengan retorika manisnya.
Obama menyatakan bahwa hubungan antara Barat dan Islam mengalami hambatan dalam beberapa tahun belakangan ini. Namun ia mengakui Islam telah memberikan kontribusi yang besar pada dunia sejak berabad-abad yang lalu. Obama juga menegaskan bahwa AS tidak dan tidak akan pernah memerangi Islam.
“Saya katakan sejelas-jelasnya, Amerika Serikat tidak dan tidak akan pernah memerangi Islam. Saya tahu, hubungan AS dan Turki belakangan ini mengalami ketegangan, dan saya tahu ketegangan itu terjadi hampir di semua tempat dimana agama Islam dianut,” kata Obama.
Dalam pidatonya, Obama juga mengatakan bahwa hubungan antara AS dan dunia Islam tidak bisa didefinisikan semata-mata karena sikap AS dalam menentang terorisme dan al-Qaida. “Hubungan kerjasama kami dengan dunia Islam tidak hanya sebaatas pada sikap kritis kita terhadap ideologi-ideologi yang menganut prinsip kekerasan yang tidak diterima oleh penganut agama manapun, tapi juga dalam upaya memperkuat kesempatan bagi seluruh rakyat kita,” tukas Obama seraya menjajikan program-program khusus untuk meningkatkan kesehatan dan pendidikan di dunia Islam.
“Kami akan menunjukkannya lewat komitmen kami untuk masa depan yang lebih baik. Kami akan memfokuskan pada apa yang bisa kami lakukan untuk menjalin kerjasama dengan seluruh dunia Islam, guna mewujudkan harapan dan impian kita,” janji Obama.
Janji-janji manis kembali ia sampaikan saat berpidato di Universitas Kairo pada tanggal 4 Juni 2009 atau enam bulan setelah dilantik, di hadapan hadapan akademisi, mahasiswa dan berbagai kalangan di negeri Piramida itu dan sejatinya ditujukan kepada dunia Islam. Ia mengatakan, “Saya datang ke Kairo untuk mengupayakan satu permulaan baru bagi perdamaian Timur Tengah dan menjembatani antara Amerika dan umat Islam di seluruh dunia”.
Terkait kamp tahanan militer AS di teluk Guantanamo Kuba, Obama berjanji akan menutupnya. Kamp yang dibuka sejak tahun 2002 yang dijadikan tempat penahanan orang-orang yang dituduh sebagai teroris tanpa pembuktian dan mereka mengalami berbagai bentuk penyiksaan. Pada 22 Januari 2009, atau dua hari setelah resmi menjabat presiden ke-44, Obama mengeluarkan dekrit yang isinya memerintahkan penutupan kamp Guantanamo dalam setahun kepemimpinannya.
Janji lain Obama adalah terkait dengan Irak. Dalam pidato kenegaraan saat pelantikannya, Obama berjanji akan segera menyelesaikan masalah Irak. Obama berjanji akan menarik seluruh pasukan AS dari Irak dalam jangka waktu 16 bulan pemerintahannya.
Kemudian terkait dengan penyelesaian masalah Israel-Palestina, Obama tak lupa juga menebar janji manisnya. Obama mengungkapkan janjinya dalam bentuk ungkapan-ungkapan indah tentang perdamaian dan hidup berdampingan antara dua negara. Di depan sidang Majelis Umum PBB itu Obama hanya mengumbar janji untuk mewujudkan negara Palestina berdaulat. “Saya orang yang sangat percaya dengan solusi dua negara kendati masih ada perbedaan-perbedaan,” katanya.
Kejahatan Amerika Dibawah Obama Terhadap Dunia Islam
Janji-janji Obama terhadap dunia islam memang terdengar manis. Namun kenyataan yang ada menunjukkan bahwa tidak ada perubahan signifikan dalam kebijakan pemerintahan AS terhadap dunia Islam dan kaum muslim.
Kejahatan Ekonomi Amerika
Obama dan pemerintahannya akan tetap berpegang pada National Security Strategy of USA, September 2002 sebagai manifesto ekonomi politik, politik luar negeri dan militer AS. Dalam hal ini kebijakan AS dalam bidang ekonomi tetaplah ditujukan untuk mengamankan kepentingan nasional AS. Yaitu untuk menjamin penguasaan atas minyak dan gas, mengamankan investasi AS di negara-negara dunia ketiga termasuk dunia Islam untuk mengeruk kekayaan alamnya, bahan baku dan mengeksploitasi tenaga kerja murahnya demi kemakmuran AS dan menciptakan pasar bagi produk-produk perusahaan Barat.
Dalam memastikan penguasaan atas minyak dan gas, AS di bawah Obama tidak akan segan menggunakan kekuatan militer (hard power) jika diperlukan. Dipertahankannya perang di Afganistan, keberadaan militer AS di Irak, perluasan perang ke Pakistan dan dipeliharanya perang di Nigeria adalah bukti dan indikasinya.
Dan tidak menutup kemungkinan AS akan membuka lahan-lahan perang baru di berbagai belahan dan wilayah dunia Islam, baik secara langsung melakukan ekspansi militer atau menjadi pemain belakang mendukung separatis dan konflik-konflik dengan berbagai motif, contoh kasus konflik di Darfur Sudan.
Demi menjamin kepentingan ekonomi itu AS akan tetap melakukan berbagai intervensi terutama ke negara-neagra berkembang. Untuk memuluskannya Pemerintah AS akan tetap menggunakan Dana Moneter Internasional (IMF) dan Bank Dunia. Lihat saja bagaimana pertemuan G20 di Washington yang menegaskan tetap memegang komitmen mekanisme pasar. Begitu juga pertemuan APECs di Lima-Peru yang konsisten melanjutkan liberalisasi pasar.
Melalui konsep neo-liberalis, Pemerintah AS berupaya menjajah negara-negara berkembang dengan gaya baru. Lembaga keuangan multilateral IMF dan Bank Dunia terus mendorong transaksi utang luar negeri kepada negara-negara berkembang. Cara itu untuk melanggengkan kepentingan AS dalam menguasai perekonomian nasional negara yang memiliki potensi strategis dalam berbagai aspek.
Melalui IMF dan Bank Dunia serta hubungan biletaral, AS tetap saja berupaya mengontrol (memaksa) negara berkembang termasuk negeri Islam, untuk mengadopsi konsep ekonomi liberal yang tercermin dalam lima kebijakan: Pertama, mendorong kebebasan pasar; Kedua: memangkas pengeluaran publik untuk pelayanan sosial; misalnya subsidi untuk sektor pendidikan, kesehatan, ‘jaring pengaman’ masyarakat miskin; bahkan pengurangan anggaran untuk infrastruktur publik, seperti jalan, jembatan, air bersih. Ketiga: paket kebijakan deregulasi dengan jalan mengurangi peraturan-peraturan pemerintah yang dianggap mendistorsi pasar dan bisa mengurangi keuntungan pengusaha; membuat kebijakan yang meliberalisasi seluruh kegiatan ekonomi, termasuk penghapusan segala jenis proteksi; membuat aturan yang memperbesar dan memperlancar arus masuk investasi asing dengan fasilitas-fasilitas yang lebih luas dan longgar. Keempat: privatisasi. Kelima: menghapus konsep barang-barang publik dan menggantinya dengan “tanggung jawab individual”.
Semua itu menyebabkan kemiskinan, kesenjangan kaya dengan miskin makin lebar, harga-harga melambung, tidak ada lagi subsidi dan pelayanan atas kebutuhan masyarakat banyak, mengalirnya kekayaan ke negara maju terutama AS dan keterjajahan negara berkembang secara ekonomi. Kemiskinan yang mendera akhirnya memicu munculnya banyak problem sosial: kekurangan gizi anak-anak, makin banyaknya anak-anak terlantar, meningkatnya angka kejahatan, meningkatnya perceraian dan kerusakan keluarga akibat makin tingginya himpitan hidup, dsb.
Maka munculnya semua fenomena itu secara tidak langsung juga dipengaruhi oleh kebijakan AS yang menontrol kebijakan ekonomi negara-negara berkembang termasuk dunia Islam. Maka semua itu sejatinya masuk dalam daftar kejahatan AS meski secara tidak langsung dan tidak disadari oleh banyak orang.
Kejahatan Politik AS Dibawah Obama
Janji pemerintahan Obama untuk lebih mengedepankan smart power seakan menjanjikan terciptanya suasana kehidupan dunia yang lebih tenteram. Namun nyatanya hal itu tidak terjadi. Dalam kebijakan politik luar negerinya terhadap dunia Islam, AS tetap saja menggunakan kerangka perang melawan terorisme. Segala bentuk perlawanan penduduk negeri Islam atas penjajahan di stempel dengan tindakan terorisme.
Setiap negara yang memiliki potensi menghambat hegemoni AS maka dimasukkan daftar negara penyokong terorisme. War on terrorism menjadi uslub yang terbukti banyak menguntungkan AS untuk menawarkan ideologi kapitalisnya di dunia Islam tanpa hambatan, dengan mengeksekusi setiap sikap perlawanan dari kelompok muslim melalui penguasa-penguasa komparadornya. Segala kebijakan yang berkaitan dengan agenda war on terror pun akan tetap dipertahankan dan ke depan akan muncul kebijakan-kebijakan baru dengan nafas yang sama.
Karena itu berkaitan dengan kamp tahanan Guantanamo meski Obama sudah mengeluarkan dekrit yang memerintahkan penutupannya dalam waktu 12 bulan, nyatanya hingga kini kamp tahanan itu belum juga. Disana masih terdaat 198 tahanan termasuk belasan tahanan yang siap dibebaskan.
Obama sendiri untuk pertama kalinya mengakui bahwa pemerintahannya telah melanggar janji terkait penutupan penjara Guantanamo. Dalam sebuah wawancara yang disiarkan oleh channel NBC Amerika di ibukota Cina, Beijing, saat lawatan ke negara-negara Asia, Obama menyatakan, “Guantanamo. Sungguh kami telah melanggar janji.”
Lagi-lagi belum ditutupnya kamp tahanan tersebut dikaitkan dengan isu war on terror, khususnya setelah klaim AS akan adanya upaya peledakan pesawat Northwest oleh al-Qaeda setelah ditangkapnya Abdul mutallab pada Natal tahun lalu, seorang warga Nigeria berusia 23 tahun, seorang mahasiswa teknik, putera seorang bankir di Nigeria, di bandara Detroit.
Bahkan sepuluh hari setelah penangkapan itu, Dinas Keamanan Transportasi (TSA) AS menyatakan semua penumpang yang terbang menuju AS dari luar negeri akan diperiksa secara acak. Terutama yang berasal dari 14 negara yang 13 diantaranya dalah negara muslim.
“Semua orang yang terbang ke AS dari mana pun di dunia, dari atau melalui negara-negara yang menjadi sponsor terorisme, harus melalui pemeriksaan yang lebih ketat,” bunyi pernyataan TSA.
Kuba. Iran, Sudan, dan Suriah adalah empat negara yang masuk daftar hitam AS sebagai negara pendukung terorisme. Di luar itu, penumpang dari Afghanistan, Libia, Nigeria. Pakistan, Somalia, Aljazair, Irak, Lebanon, Arab Saudi, dan Yaman, juga akan dikenai pemeriksaan dengan ketat.
Semua penumpang dari negara-negara yang disebutkan akan diperiksa ekstra teliti. termasuk penggeledahan seluruh tubuh dari atas ke bawah, pemeriksaan dengan layar canggih, dan penggeledahan barang bawaan. TSA mengatakan peraturan baru diberlakukan di seluruh dunia bekerja sama dengan departemen dan penegak hukum dari dalam dan luar negeri.
Jelas bahwa kebijakan itu mencerminkan bahwa pemerintahan AS di bawab Obama belum berubah dan masih tetap memandang negeri Islam dan kaum muslim sebagai teroris.
Dalam kasus Israel-Palestina, sikap pemerintahan Obama tidak berbeda dengan pemerintahan Amerika sebelumnya.
Invasi (pembantaian) Gaza oleh Israel yang terjadi dari tanggal 28 Desember 2008 hingga 18 Januari 2009, yang berakhir dua hari sebelum pelantikan Obama, tragedi kemanusiaan itu sama sekali tidak disinggung dalam pidato kemenangannya. Saat invasi biadab Israel di Gaza itu, sikap Obama justru sangat kentara mendukung penuh negeri Zionis dengan dalih mempertahankan diri.Padahal tragedi itu lebih merupakan pembantaian penduduk Gaza oleh zionis Israel.
Padahal invasi itu telah menyebabkan sebanyak 1.400 orang lebih tewas dimana ratusan diantaranya dalah anak-anak, wanita dan orang tua; 5.000 orang terluka, termasuk 1.000 yang cacat seumur hidup, disamping kehancuran dahsyat akibat berbagai jenis senjata paling mutakhir negeri Zionis.
Bukan hanya itu, bahkan Goldstone Report, yang benar-benar membuktikan Israel melakukan pembunuhan dan pemerkosaan terhadap korban-korban yang tak bersalah, ditolak oleh pemerintah Amerika dan dicegah untuk diajukan ke Dewan Keamanan PBB dan Pengadilan Internasional.
Sikap AS di bawah Obama itu menunjukkan memang AS tidak memiliki niat untuk menyelesaikan masalah Israel-Palestina secepatnya. AS hanya ingin menyelesaikan masalah itu pada waktu yang diinginkan dengan penyelesaian yang diinginkan yaitu dalam kerangka dua negara, satu negara Israel dan “negara” Palestina yang tidak punya kedaulatan.
Ketidakseriusan AS itu tampak sejak awal. Dalam pidato pelantikannya, Obama hanya menyebut masalah itu dengan ucapan manis yang masih kabur dan multi-interpretasi. Hal yang sama diulang lagi dalam pidatonya di Universitas Kairo. Ketidakseriusan itu juga terlihat dari pidato Obama di sidang Majelis Umum PBB pada September lalu, yang sama sekali tidak menyinggung persoalan permukiman baru Israel di Jerusalem Timur, yang menjadikan proses perdamaian mengalami jalan buntu.
Di depan sidang Majelis Umum PBB itu Obama hanya mengumbar janji untuk mewujudkan negara Palestina berdaulat. “Saya orang yang sangat percaya dengan solusi dua negara kendati masih ada perbedaan-perbedaan,” kata Obama tanpa menyentuh persoalan permukiman Yahudi. Pernyataan Obama itu dinilai sebagai suatu pengakuan diam-diam yang mungkin ia tak menjamin akan terjadi pembekuan permukiman baru Yahudi di Tepi Barat termasuk di Jerusalem Timur, yang selama ini menjadi kendala terbesar bagi upaya proses perdamaian.
Bagi Obama menjaga keamanan Israel tidak bisa ditawar. Dalam siaran pers Pembaruan Kepemimpinan Amerika, 12 Juli 2004 (Lisa Rogak, Obama in His Own Words), Obama mengatakan, “(AS harus) menggunakan kewenangan moral dan kredibilitas membantu Timur Tengah mencapai perdamaian. Komitmen pertama dan mustahil ditawar adalah keamanan Israel, sekutu sejati kita di Timur Tengah dan satu-satunya demokrasi. Kita harus konsisten dan melibatkan Uni Eropa serta negara-negara Arab untuk mendesak reformasi di dalam masyarakat Palestina.”
Obama juga menyatakan dalam pidatonya pada Konferensi AIPAC 4 Juni 2008, “Biarkan saya jelaskan. Keamanan Israel adalah keramat. Hal ini tidak bisa dinegosiasikan. Orang Palestina membutuhkan sebuah negara yang berdampingan dan kohesif [dengan Israel], yang memberi tempat bagi mereka untuk hidup makmur—tapi perjanjian apapun dengan rakyat Palestina harus melindungi identitas Israel sebagai negara Yahudi, dengan perbatasan yang aman, diakui, dan bisa dipertahankan. Jerusalem akan menjadi ibu kota Israel, dan [kota] ini akan tetap tidak terbagi.”
Obama kembali menegaskan komitmennya terhadap Israel setibanya di bandara Tel Aviv dalam kunjunganya ke Israel bulan Juli 2008, “Hal yang paling penting bagi saya adalah hubungan bersejarah dan khusus antara Amerika Serikat dan Israel, suatu hubungan yang tidak bisa diputus”.
Disamping itu Obama juga banyak berutang budi kepada orang-orang Yahudi Amerika. Beberapa nama mereka menjadi penggalang dana bagi kampanye Obama yang menghabiskan jutaan dolar. Diantara mereka; penggalang dana kampanye bagi Obama yaitu: Sheldon Adelson seorang Republikan, neokonservatif dan seorang ‘mega-donor’, Sherry Lansing penggalang dana dan donatur utama Partai Demokrat, pernah menjadi perempuan pertama yang memimpin Paramount, salah satu studio film terkemuka di Hollywood, Eli Pariser memimpin situs MoveOn.org, situs advokasi online beraliran liberal yang menggalang dana untuk kandidat presiden dari Partai Demokrat, Penny Pritzker ketua nasional bidang keuangan kampanye Obama, seorang milyader berasal dari keluarga Yahudi yang dikenal kerap menjadi donatur besar, Denise Rich mantan istri milyader March Rich, seorang penggalang dana terbesar bagi Partai Demokrat, Barbra Streisand penyanyi terkenal yang menjadi ikon Yahudi-liberal dan penggalang dana bagi Yahudi, mendukung Obama dan berhasil menggalang dana sebesar 25.800 dollar dari kalangan selebritis Hollywood.
Maka dengan semua itu, Amerika di bawah Obama akan tetap menjaga eksistensi Israel. Amerika juga akan terus melanjutkan memberikan bantuan sebesar US$ 3 milliar per tahun pada Israel. Bantuan ini merupakan seperlima bantuan luar negeri Amerika. “Buku hijau” Badan Amerika untuk Pembangunan Internasional (USAID) mencatat, hingga 2003, total pinjaman dan hibah yang diterima Israel lebih dari US$ 140 miliar atau Rp 1.260 triliun, lebih besar dari APBN Indonesia 2010.
Maka penyelesaian masalah Israel-Palestina bagi AS adalah tetap menjamin keberadaan negara Israel dan diakui legalitasnya oleh dunia khususnya negara-negara Arab dan nenegara muslim. Maka ini merupakan kejahatan AS terhadap Islam dan ummatnya.
Daftar kejahatan AS terhadap umat Islam tidak berhenti di situ.
Dalam kasus Irak, Barack Obama berjanji melakukan penarikan mundur seluruh pasukan AS secara bertahap dalam tempo 16 bulan sejak menjabat. Sebaliknya, Obama menentang penarikan mundur secara total dan mendukung upaya reposisi kekuatan militer AS di Irak. Upaya menentang adanya penentuan tanggal tertentu sebagai batas akhir penarikan pasukan AS, membuktikan Obama masih membutuhkan keberadaan kekuatan militer untuk mendukung pelaksanaan kebijakannya di Timur Tengah. Obama juga menekankan bahwa sebagian besar kekuatan militer AS harus tetap siaga di tempat strategis seperti di Kuwait, kalau tidak di Irak itu sendiri.
Artinya Obama hanya mau menarik pasukan AS dari Irak setelah ia memastkan kontrol AS terhadap Irak melalui agen-agen dari penguasa, militer dan polisi Irak. Niat penarikan itu bukanlah sebagai wujud belas kasihan dan kebaikan kepada rakyat Irak dan kaum muslim pada umumnya. Tetapi penarikan pasukan AS itu memang menjadi sebuah keniscayaan karena tidak lagi efektif dan kondusif untuk mencapai tujuan AS. Disamping beban dari invasi Irak terasa sangat membebani keuangan AS sehingga menimbulkan defisit yang sangat besar dan membuat rapuh fondasi perekonomian AS.
Karena itu rencana penarikan mundur pasukan AS dari Irak yang dijanjikan Obama selain tidak terpenuhi sesuai janjinya, hal itu merupakan kejahatan yang dibungkus dengan ungkapan manis, karena sebenarnya penarikan itu adalah bagian dari strategi AS untuk menancapkan hegemoni terhadap Irak dan penguasaan atas minyaknya. Dan penarikan itu memang sudah bagian dari skenario umum yang dirancang sejak awal. Peran Obama hanyalah menentukan detil pelaksanaannya sesuai dengan strategi AS itu.
Perlu diketahui menurut perkiraan pertama yang dikeluarkan oleh pemerintah Irak, lebih dari 85.000 warga Irak tewas di negeri itu antara 2004 hingga 2008. Perkiraan itu didasarkan pada surat kematian yang dikeluarkan oleh kementerian kesehatan yang telah memasukkan hitungan 15.000 jenazah tak teridentifikasi. Sekitar 148.000 orang cedera pada periode yang sama.
Namun perkiraan itu tidak memasukkan hitungan korban yang jatuh pada beberapa bulan pertama setelah perang pecah sesudah invasi yang dipimpin AS tahun 2003, karena saat itu tidak ada pemerintahan yang berfungsi di Irak untuk merekam catatan kejadian.
Diantara para korban terdapat 1.279 anak, 2.334 perempuan, 263 profesor di universitas, 21 hakim, 95 pengacara dan 269 wartawan. Data hanya merujuk pada korban tewas akibat kejadian mengenaskan, seperi korban terbunuh akibat penembakan, pemboman, serangan mortir dan pemancungan. Tidak termasuk didalamnya faktor kematian tak langsung seperti akibat rusaknya infrastruktur, tempat perawatan kesehatan serta stress yang juga menyumbang pada banyak kematian.
Sementara itu, taksiran korban yang terbaru versi Iraq Body Count, sebuah lembaga swadaya masyarakat yang menghitung para korban sipil sejak perang dimulai, menyebut jumlah korban mencapai 93.540 jiwa.
Begitu pula sikap Obama dan pemerintahannya terhadap invasi Afganistan tdak kalah jahatnya. Obama secara gamblang dan berulang mengatakan akan meningkatkan keterlibatan AS di Afganistan, menambah jumlah pasukan, memperluas daerah operasi militer dan melancarkan serangan lintas batas secara sistematis. Pemerintah AS telah memprioritaskan membangun rezim agen di Kabul sehingga Afganistan tetap terkontrol dalam kepentingan AS.
Tujuannya adalah mempertahankan aset strategis di Asia Tengah seperti sumber energi dan infrastruktur pembangunan jalur pipa minyak. “Saya selalu merasa kita sudah melakukan hal yang tepat di Afganistan. Kerisauan saya hanyalah bahwa kita mengalihkan perhatian dari Afganistan ke Irak. Saya kira, saya akan melakukan hal yang lebih baik dalam menstabilkan negara itu ketimbang yang sudah kita lakukan, dengan memberikan bantuan kepada rakyat Afgan. Kita semua harus mendukung rakyat Afganistan dan memastikan siap membantu mereka untuk mewujudkan berbagai hal,” ungkap Obama dalam debat Senat Illionis di Jaringan Radio Illionis 12 Oktober 2004.
Nyatanya invasi ke Afganistan hingga sekarang masih tetap dilanjutkan, bahkan makin intensif. Obama pada awal Desember 2009 justru memutuskan pengiriman pasukan tambahan sebanyak 30 ribu personel.
Delapan tahun setelah penggulingan Taliban dari kekuasaan di Afghanistan, lebih dari 40 negara bersiap-siap menambah jumlah prajurit di Afghanistan hingga mencapai sekitar 150.000 orang dalam kurun waktu 18 bulan, dalam upaya baru memerangi gerilyawan.
Invasi AS dan Sekutu terhadap negeri miskin Afganistan sejak 2002 lalu telah menyebabkan ribuan korban dari orang-orang yang tak bersalah. Tidak sedikit diantara korban itu adalah anak-anak, wanita dan orang tua.
Amerika meluaskan perang ke Pakistan dengan dalih memerangi Taliban dan kelompok-kelompok yang mendukungnya di dalam wilayah Pakistan. Obama telah mengumumkan bahwa pemerintahannya akan memperluas ‘Perang Melawan Teror’ secara sistematis, menggencarkan serangan darat dan udara secara besar-besaran di Pakistan serta menargetkan setiap desa dan kota yang diduga melindungi simpatisan perlawanan Afgan.
Semua indikasi mengarah pada Pakistan yang akan menjadi ajang perang AS dalam ekspansi imperiumnya. Langkah itu diperlukan Obama untuk memenangkan perang regional ini. Maka wilayah Persukuan dan propinsi Waziristan pun berubah menjadi neraka bagi penduduknya. Amerika pun memaksa militer Pakistan untuk menggempur saudara-saudara muslim mereka. Puluhan ribu personel militer Pakistan menggempur saudara mereka di kawasan persukuan dan Waziristan itu, didukung dengan gempuran bom-bom dari pesawat-pesawat tempur. Semua itu demi memuaskan tuan-tuan mereka yaitu Amerika.
Disamping itu, AS juga melancarkan serangan menggunakan pesawat tanpa awak (serangan drone) di wilayah Afganistan dan Pakistan. Penggunaan serangan pesawat tanpa awak Predator dalam perang terselubung CIA di Pakistan menewaskan ratusan orang penduduk sipil. Serangan Drone itu telah menciptakan rasa takut di kalangan masyarakat sipil Afghanistan dan Pakistan.
Serangan drone telah mengakibatkan ratusan nyawa warga sipil melayang setiap kali diluncurkan. Dan Obama, dengan kebijakannya, telah melakukan tiga ratus (serangan drone) dalam enam bulan terakhir, atau enam bulan pertama masa pemerintahannya, lebih banyak dibandingkan dengan yang dilakukan George Bush dalam tiga tahun.
Bahkan kini serangan semacam itu dipergunakan juga di Yaman, Somalia dan Syiria. Lalu, kapan hal ini akan berhenti?
Akibat dari serangan-serangan itu ribuan orang tewas. Sebagian besar dari mereka adalah penduduk sipil tak berdosa, termasuk para wanita, anak-anak dan orang tua. Lebih dari 150 ribu orang harus terusir mengungsi dan kehilangan tempat tinggal mereka. Mereka pun dipaksa untuk hidup beralaskan tanah dan beratapkan langit dan menjalani cuaca sangat dingin dalam kondisi seperti itu.
Sementara itu di belahan dunia islam lainnya, AS menggunakan kekuatan diplomasi, politik dan tekanan untuk menancapkan hegemoninya di sana. AS dalam hal itu bekerjasama dengan antek-anteknya dari kalangan penguasa, ekonom, intelektual ataupun militer. Seperti yang berjalan di Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, Turki, negara-negara Timur Tengah, Bangladesh termasuk Indonesia.
Semua itu tidak lain adalah demi semaksimal mungkin bisa mengeksploitasi dan mengambil keuntungan dari negara-negara yang lebih lemah. Semua itu untuk kepentingan perusahaan-perusahaan dan kaum kapitalis di belakang mereka.
Secara budaya, Barat khususnya AS akan menggunakan media massa untuk membawa pandangannya dan mengekspor ide-ide itu kepada dunia Islam. Secara ekonomi, Pemerintah AS berupaya mengeruk habis kekayaan negeri-negeri Muslim. Melalui lembaga keuangan internasional yang bekerjasama dengan agen-agennya penguasa di negara berkembang, mereka membuat kebijakan yang menguntungkan kapitalis.
Maka sampai disini masihkah kaum muslimin sebagian atau seluruhnya masih nyenyak dengan penyakit ”obamaphoria”nya? Ini tidak akan terjadi kecuali mereka yang sudah teracuni sikap nifaq dan tidak bisa melihat kejahatan AS seperti melihat mentari disiang bolong.(LS-HTI)
While some folks regard Palin as a shallow thinker (at best) she does an excellent job of presenting the thoughts and feelings of a certain segment of America. She also excels at sticking to the Republican’s talking points. Interestingly enough, the views that she expresses when criticizing Obama about the war on terror nicely raise the contrast between Obama’s views and those allegedly held by Republicans.
On Fox News she raised the usual point against Obama by pointing out that “We are in war. These are acts of war that these terrorists are committing.”
While the Republican’s take the line that Obama does not get that we are at war, this does not seem to be the case. Obama, of course, says the word “war” to describe the situation and we are still conducting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, we are still actively involved in the more general conflict with terrorist groups. As such, Obama seems to get the idea that we are at war.
I suspect that Palin (and other Republicans) do not harp on the “we are at war” point to try to convince Obama that we are, in fact, at war. Rather, I think that the line is that “we are at war, so we have to act like we are at war” and by this they mean “we are at war, so we can, should and must act in ways that violate Constitutional, moral, and human rights.” As Palin puts it:
“We need to treat them a little bit differently than an American who is worthy, an American being worthy of our U.S. constitutional rights. I don’t think the terrorists are worthy of our rights.”
The first claim, that terrorists need to be treated differently, can be taken as a reasonable claim. After all, terrorists (like criminals) act in ways that are different from law abiding citizens and hence should be treated differently. After all, people who break the law get treated differently-they are punished. Of course, Palin makes it clear that she does not mean this. Rather, her point is that the terrorists should not have our rights because they are not worthy of them.
This view does have a certain appeal. After all, when people act badly (be they terrorists or criminals) it is natural to think that they deserve less protection from the law and also forfeit some of their rights.
In some cases, it is reasonable to argue that people should be denied certain rights based on their actions. For example, someone who murders someone should have his right to liberty restricted because he no longer deserves that right. Of course, this should be done after a trial that involves due process. After all, to justly take away someone’s rights requires establishing that doing so would be just. To take away the right before the trial would be rather unjust and to hold no trial at all would be extremely unjust.
The same applies to terrorists who are captured. To strip them of their rights before their trial or to not hold a trial at all would be to act unjustly.
The usual counter to this is to restate that we are at war. After all, we do not conduct trials during firefights to see if we can shoot back at the enemy.While this is a reasonable point, it does not establish that captured terrorists should not be subject to the rule of law. After all, when the police come under fire, they can shoot back without holding a trial first. This fact does not prove that we should not hold trials for criminals who are captured or surrender.
Palin, not surprisingly, is very much against the idea that fighting terrorist is a matter of law enforcement. She says,
“Treating this like a mere law enforcement matter places our country at great risk because that’s not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this. They know we’re at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.”
This is, of course, a stock point: the terrorists do not respect the rule of law and they “know we’re at war” (that is, they are willing to do whatever it takes to win), so we need to be like them.
While being as bad as the enemy does have a certain appeal (eye for an eye and all that), this is a war of values. In the West, we put forth the rule of law, human rights, and justice as being among our most important values. We also pride ourselves on our ethics and often cast this battle with terrorists as a moral struggle. In short, we are fighting for our values against their values.
As Palin points out, the terrorists do not value the rule of law, they do not respect human rights, and they have a badly distorted view of justice. But, if we take her advice and accept that being at war means we can be like them in this regard, then we have lost this war in a very meaningful sense. Each day that we remain true to our values, we win. As such, those who would tempt us away from these values is aiding the enemy.
IF IT IS NOT ….billions of people have been deceived.
IF IT IS NOT……then the ecumenical movement is not God.
IF IT IS NOT…… then Roman Catholics are heading for spiritual disaster.
At work I received a track (handout ) from Chick publications attacking the Catholic faith. This bothers me. We have to give to Jesus and the father God. Save the unsaved. Not attack each other. I wanted to discuss this as there is much misleading information out there and the net and on paper attacking our faith without facts!
First they attack the baptized of little babies and other who want to find God. ‘ ONE WHO IS BORN AGAIN ARE SUBJECT TO AND ONLY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. ‘ This is false. To be baptized is to freed of sin and pure in the soul and heart. A little baby for example does not know sin and is given the baptized to receive a fresh start in life or removal of sins. For adults, One returned to the faith to make it official or clean the soul of sins and the Devil. Why new comers go for Baptized and speak to a priest at their last day to go with a clean soul.
‘ HELEN IS NOW A CITIZEN OF TWO COUNTRIES. HELEN HAS TWO FLAGS, TWO PRESIDENTS, TWO CONSTITUTIONS, AND TWO LOYALITES.’ False. For this writer, God is tops in my book. Yes I am a proud American, and good Catholic but I know that Jesus is the one and only one who will save us from sins. Up to the last day! Not a president of country, baseball team, flag will save your soul from sin! As the saying goes, ” You never see a U-Haul following a hearse. ‘
THE BOOK ALSO COMPARES THE HOLY COMMUNION TO SUN SHAPED WAFERS AND TO EGYPTIANS AND SUN GOD’S. not true. First, there are no ‘Sun God’s. Why Moses lead his people out to the Promise Land . The bread and wine represent the respect to God who died on the cross for our sins. Seeking Holiness in Jesus who would rise on Easter Sunday and be seated at the right hand of the father. The garments worn by the priests, and Pope are in respect to Jesus and free of sin at the altar. Why a preist wear White under it. Pureness to Jesus and the Mass that day.
Finally, I write this as a lay person but want to bring the facts to light in regards to misleading infomation out there on our faith. What is your opinion? I know there are those who are well versed on this and I like to hear from you. I would also go to their web page www,chick.com/distrib.asp Phone number is - 1-909-987-0771 Tell them they are wrong! We have to defend why we are Catholics and God is the one and only one at the end!
I love stories like these. A congressman picks an easy mark–airport screeners–and cites a couple of examples of ill-minded behavior to make the claim that DHS is “unwilling or unable to rein in its agents.” What an incredibly fatuous remark. If a few examples of stupidity indicates a problem with an agency that numbers in the tens of thousands, what does the behavior of, say, Charlie Rangel or Tom DeLay say about Congress, which numbers in the hundreds?
By Joe Davidson
Even as we appreciate the need for airport screening, many of us have had our frustrations after waiting in a long line to pass through security before getting on with a trip. We take off our coats and our shoes and our belts, only to have the metal detector oink at us because of the foil around our breath mints.
The transportation security officers are just doing their duty to protect us, we understand that. But on occasion, some of them apparently go too far.
In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.), the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, complained that “innocent travelers” have been subjected “to baseless harassment, intimidation, and situations designed to instill fear and cause public humiliation.”
The letter, sent Tuesday to Secretary Janet Napolitano, said some cases involved “childish practical jokes” by officers or mistreatment of disabled passengers. Each instance, he said, “amounts to an abuse of power and a breach of public trust.”
He noted public apologies by the Transportation Security Administration but said that “the persistent misbehavior indicates that the Homeland Security Department is unwilling or unable to rein in its agents.”
TSA responded that it “has a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate behavior and acts swiftly when proper protocols are not followed. The inappropriate actions of a few individuals in no way reflect on the outstanding work of the more than 50,000 Transportation Security Officers who work tirelessly to keep our skies safe.”
It was bad news all around for Malmstrom AFB near Great Falls, Montana. Last month they failed another Nuclear Surety Inspection. They previously failed an inspection in 2008.
At least Malmstrom did not temporarily lose its nuclear mission, like one base did recently.
In short, a Nuclear Surety Inspection (NSI) tests the security, safety and reliability of nuclear weapons so there won’t be nuclear accidents, incidents, and an unauthorized weapon detonation.
So yes, it is a big deal to fail an NSI.
This is not good news on many fronts. First, the security safety and reliability of nuclear weapons is a big thing. When units fail these inspections, the world takes notice. Google Malmstrom AFB and see what’s out there – some of it is very negative. It’s a black mark on the base, the command, the Air Force and the communities that support them. It’s also a career ender for many in leadership – as it should be.
Secondly, with the plans on the table to drastically cut the nuclear stockpile in the United States, the DoD and the Obama Administration will probably see easy pickings to close an installation that some feel cannot do their jobs safely and securely. It will be easy to say, “Let’s close it before something really bad happens.”
Not many people (outside of the Air Force) know what actually happened at Malmstrom AFB that caused them to fail the NSI. From my experience as a veteran of the military (I was never stationed at a base that failed a major inspection) things are not too rosy at the Malmstrom AFB base right now. It will be hell until they pass the re-inspection.
I will say it’s tough in the military these days – two wars, deployment after deployment, time away from family and friends, and when you get back to the “real world” you have inspections – major inspections that can cause you to want to volunteer for the next deployment just to get the hell out of there.
But that’s where the leaders need to take over – to lead – and ensure their people are ready. There are outstanding people serving at these bases hungry for leaders to lead them. It does not appear that is happening at several bases across the country. That is not good for the United States of America and it certainly is not good for the future of Malmstrom AFB.
From the end of World War II to the end of the cold war we lived in a bi-polar world, the global political stage dominated by East and West, represented respectively by the Soviet Union and its allies and the United States and its allies. In the years since the collapse of the USSR, the world has seen the political rise of China and the creation of new economic blocs such as the GCC, ASEAN, MERCUSOR, and NAFTA, each having their own political influences, expressed in one form or another. Europe coalesced into a common economic zone and slowly a common political force, most recently with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and election of EU President Herman Van Rompuy and EU Foreign Minister Baroness Catherine Ashton.
While today we exist in this multi-polar world, bi-polar forces seem to be rising within many individual countries. The United States has seen growing divides between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, elections fractionalizing the population. In the United Kingdom the current top-level competition of ideas is between Prime Minister Gordon Brown, leader of the Labour Party and his rival, Conservative David Cameron. Last week, Ukraine saw an election between Orange Revolution leader Yulia Tymoshenko and opposition leader Viktor Yanukovich, a bitter fight between the two sides that dates back to 2004 (ironically, Yanukovich had the assistance of political consultant Paul Manafort, who provided political counsel to the Republican presidential campaigns of John McCain and Ronald Reagan). 2009 saw elections in South Africa between the ANC and Cope, the opposition party who claimed South Africa would become a failed state should the ANC win. Only several days prior to this writing, the Dutch government collapsed, as the two largest parties could not come to an agreement on whether to pull troops out of Afghanistan. In one BBC interview on the collapse, a Dutch resident commented, “there’s two governments…one on the left side and one on the right side.”
Are these simple anomalies or are we, in fact, experiencing the rise of bi-polar trending? If this is becoming a trend, it begs the question, why is this happening? Are more people coming to agreement and thus feel comfortable aligning themselves closer to one side or another? Or is this the age-old story of political power grabs, with a coalescing of power? If it is just political power grabs, then is this trending in the best interest of the citizens of the respective countries? If it is a case of more people coming to some agreement on certain issues, the pertinent question then becomes, is the reason for their gravitation towards one particular side because people truly are coming to agreement? Or is it a case of, “I don’t like Party A, but I hate what Party B is fighting for, so I have to support A to defeat B”? Whatever the reasons, the results of this trending towards bi-polar internal conflicts seems to be leading to a higher rate of divisiveness, the tonality of the words ever becoming more bitter and in some cases apocalyptic, the dialogue turning from speaking with to talking over the opposite point of view.
It takes two to tango…and sometimes more
In the 2008 US presidential election, then Senator Barack Obama ran on a platform of change – change Washington’s modus operandi from partisan politics. While all politicians of late seem to preach that they will be bipartisan and reach across the proverbial aisle to work with their colleagues form the other side for the betterment of the people, Barack Obama was able to take this message to a new level, vowing to change the system of typical politics that occurred in Washington. His campaign was keenly observed by politicians around the globe. His success, once elected, in these endeavors of change and bipartisanship is an entirely different matter. The healthcare battle, which has turned bitterly partisan, along with such events as Senator Evan Bayh’s recent announcement at the disgust of Washington’s partisan ineffectiveness [paraphrasing], have not helped his cause.
Shortly after President Obama’s inauguration, the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy brought with it reflections on the late Senator that he was the last true statesman, reminiscent of an era where political rivals could disagree and battle for their beliefs on the parliamentary stage during the day, but at night the same representatives of the people could enjoy drinks in celebration of mutual respect. Taming the bi-polar divide in the United States is a daunting task, some may say impossible. In this case, it takes two to tango. Should President Obama and Minority Leader John Boehner come out as true statesmen, put aside politics and elections (i.e. power grabs), look at each others’ ideas for merits, points of disagreement and commonalities, work together and change the tone of the dialogue from political rancor to debating issues based on facts, and lead their parties in this manner, then the United States may have a chance to move beyond the vitriolic bi-partisanship that currently exists. The benefits may outweigh the sacrifices, including more than likely winning more favorable approval ratings for both their branches of government and their parties, and certainly gaining the attention and possibly emulation by politicians in other parts of the globe.
Belgium may provide some insight into the direction that the EU may be heading, and the EU has the opportunity to lead politicians, again by example. Tension historically has existed between the two major Belgian regions, Flanders in the north and Wallonia in the south, and this friction every so often heats up. Most recently this happened in 2007 with talks of more autonomy coming out of the north. Ultimately, Herman Van Rompuy, as Prime Minister of Belgium, was able to bring a sense of stability and calm to the rather heated debate, no easy feat. Certainly he was not the first to try, but he was the first in this go around to succeed.
Not even one year into his term as Prime Minister, Van Rompuy is tapped to become the first ever President of the European Union. While there were certainly many political reasons for his selection, the fact remains that he now occupies the seat, and with it comes the opportunity to bring his talents of mediator and consensus builder, skills he is known for in European political circles. While he cannot interfere in the sovereign affairs of any member state, ultimately he is a leader in the public eye. Ambitious politicians in Europe may be taking note of this new reality, that being a unifier rather than divider has helped at least one politician accede to higher office. Will their ambitions lead to a change in political tactics? For success, it will take each side, the integrationists and eurosceptics, rising to a statesman-like level. This may be a challenge with politicians like Nigel Farage who seem to confuse the concepts of debate with insult. Cooler heads may however prevail and Van Rompuy may be given the chance to lead.
Opportunity to underestimate…
Should President Van Rompuy be successful at creating constructive dialogue between the eurosceptics and the integrationists, dialogue that leads to a truly consensus-based common economic and foreign policy, whereby certain personalities are not trying to steal the limelight for themselves and their countries, politicians around the globe will take note and learn from Mr. Van Rompuy. Should President Obama and Congressman Boehner create a series of truly bipartisan dialogues in the United States, some perhaps leading to solutions, again politicians around the globe will take note. If both these scenarios come to fruition, then we may have a solid beginning to a movement where bi-polar or multi-polar will not matter as much as polarity will be surpassed by dialogue. It will take statesmen to lead. Should they be successful, this will hopefully be a lesson taken to heart by their up-and-coming colleagues that the route of the statesman is the road to success – both for the constituents and the politicians. This is an opportunity to change history.
The inspiration for this piece came out of a discussion several months ago with a senior official of a European foreign ministry, shortly following the election of Van Rompuy. His observations on the reactions within political circles of this event, and theories as to possible impacts are what led to this posting.
Humbug is quaint Americana for something false, phony or underhanded.
President Obama was his usual arrogant self as he demonstrated bi-partisanship to the seventeen Congressional Republicans who attended his health care extravaganza.
Repeatedly interrupting Republican speakers and refuting factual representations made to him, the President’s idea of bi-partisanship comprised of one hundred and nineteen minutes of Obama-dominated campaign mode lecturing. The Washington Times stated he looked very professorial… a title he never held.
Republicans were held to a mere one hundred and ten minutes while the twenty one Democrats attending the meeting were allowed one hundred and fourteen minutes, during which they dredged up story after story of constituents medical woes in support of their boss, some of which stretched the imaginations of those present. It was the usual Democrat hysteria-inducing sob-story tactic we’ve all heard so many times before. You’d think they’d wise up to the fact that we’re on to it.
For the Republicans’ part they pretty much stuck to what they said they’d do, which was to stipulate that the entire piece of legislation should be scrapped and started over from scratch.
Eric Cantor with the 2,400 page Senate Health Care Bill.
Obama was also offended at Representative Eric Cantor (R) Virginia, for bringing the two thousand four hundred page health care bill to the meeting and prominently displaying the bill in front of him as he spoke. The President interrupted Republican speakers, refuting statements and giving somewhat unlikely anecdotes. At one point Obama got into a peeing match with Senator John McCain, where he petulantly quipped “We’re not campaigning here John”.
All in all, the Democrats not only didn’t cover themselves with glory, they looked pretty silly. The Democrats are trumpeting the use of the reconciliation process, since President Obama has said he wants an answer from the Republicans within six weeks, presumably giving Democrats enough time to see if they can come up with the requisite votes.
That’s not at all a done deal either, for all the Democrat bloviating.
Eric Cantor, the Minority House Whip, and his team have come up with some pretty solid calculations showing that the House Madame may only be able to come up with about 205 of the 217 votes she needs.
From your lips to God’s ears, Eric.
Try to stay awake: the President has a healthcare Bill to pass
to not show photographer information –>
(Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
to not show image description –>
‘Obama, looking incongruously glamorous in a crisp white shirt and blue tie – like Jamie Foxx chairing a convention of Pittsburgh cement contractors – gave an Oscar-worthy performance as the Concerned Listener’
to not show enlarge option –>–>
Chris Ayres: Healthcare Summit Sketch
Warning: watching American politicians argue about healthcare can be seriously damaging to your health. Symptoms may include migraines, extreme fatigue and sudden violent urges. In the event of exposure to competing statistics — regarding “donut holes”, “HMO deductibles”, “reconciliation devices” or suchlike — seek immediate medical help.
The public affairs television channel C-Span 3 might as well have put such a message at the bottom of its screen yesterday as it broadcast President Obama’s epic six-hour “bipartisan” debate on US medical reform.
Of course, by the usual standards of C-Span programming — which can induce sleep faster than an IV drip of propofol — the summit was the equivalent of a bikini mud wrestling contest. You half expected the picture to shake as the camera operator struggled to compose himself.
For the rest of us, however, it was mainly an opportunity to see how many conciliatory-looking poses Obama could strike while listening to his Republican opponents explain why the entire first year of his administration has been a gigantic waste of time, and why the telephone directory-sized health Bills produced by both the Democrat-controlled House and Senate should be fed into a shredder the size of Connecticut, before they . . . well, no one seems to know exactly what these vast pieces of legislation would do.
Except that it won’t be good, because the US Congress generally only does expensive and complicated.
The President’s first challenger of the morning was the Republican charmer Lamar Alexander, a whiskey-voiced Senator from Tennessee. “We want you to succeed, because if you succeed, our country succeeds,” he told Obama, before adding, a few moments later, that want he really wanted, more than anything, was for the President to fail.
Or, as he put it: “This [healthcare reform] is a car that can’t be recalled and fixed . . . we ought to start over.”
Throughout all this, Obama, looking incongruously glamorous in a crisp white shirt and blue tie — like Jamie Foxx chairing a convention of Pittsburgh cement contractors — gave an Oscar-worthy performance as the Concerned Listener.
He listened with his chin raised and his eyes narrowed. His listened with his head resting quizzically in one hand. He listened while scribbling furiously in his notebook. Indeed, it was only when one of his own allies began to speak — the purple-suited Nancy Pelosi, famed for her left-wing politics and fondness for private jets — that Obama’s camera-talent abandoned him, and he allowed himself to be filmed with his middle finger creeping over his lips, as if urging Ms Pelosi to shut the hell up and take the next Gulfstream back to California.
His frustration was understandable. After all, for a while, it seemed as though Senator Alexander might be getting the upper hand, and the viewer began to wonder if Obama’s gambit — to bore America into submission while getting another opportunity to look handsome on television — was about to blow up in his face.
But then Alexander made the fatal mistake of claiming that even Congressional Budget Office thought Obama’s healthcare reform plan would result in more expensive health insurance premiums.
Quite the opposite, interjected Obama, suddenly in his legal scholar element: the Budget Office said that premiums would fall, which would then inspire middle class families to purchase better, more expensive insurance policies. “This is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight,” he chided, in the tone you might use while encouraging a toddler to eat all his peas.
Alexander attempted a flustered response, before declaring that he would like to submit his rebuttal in writing at a later date, instead of “arguing in public”. Obama, now sounding like the leader that has been mostly absent from the White House for the past year, declined the offer. “I’d like to get this issue resolved before we leave today, because I don’t believe I’m wrong,” he said.
For the Democrats, it was a long overdue moment of victory. Whether anyone in America was still awake to witness it, however, was another matter.
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Milkround
Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers’ standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Folks are wondering why Obama, with a super majority in the House and Senate, can’t seem to get his agenda passed. The Republicans want nothing to do with his agenda and some Democrats feel the same way. Even though Obama proclaims that he is no an ideologue, most Americans believe he is.
Investor.com reports:
The nation seems polarized, Washington is gridlocked, Republicans don’t want anything to do with the president’s policies, and even Democrats, who control Congress by big margins, can’t pass long-sought initiatives. What gives?
Perhaps it’s President Obama’s politics, which according to a new IBD/TIPP Poll are significantly out of alignment with the majority of Americans.
Specifically, three of five Americans see themselves as politically to the right of where they see Obama. This includes not just eight of 10 Republicans but also two of three independents. Even a third of Democrats see themselves to the right of their party’s leader.
Cough! Obama is a far-left radical. This has been proven by his policies and actions. People are finally waking up and realizing that Obama is nothing that he claimed to be. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud. Talk about buyer’s remorse.
This is the results of electing a Saul Alinsky disciple. This is a guy that sought out radicals and Marxist professors. This is a guy that is following the Cloward-Piven strategy. Just look at who he surrounds himself with to understand the man who sits in the Oval Office spending the US further and further into debt.
The fundamental transformation of America that Obama’s speaks about can’t happen until the system crashes. Folks are waking up and are starting to listen to the words Obama says. They also are watching his actions.
The ideologue has no clothes and people see him for what he is…a far-left radical.
The Obama administration has just solicited public comment on their proposal to take money from Americans’ private 401(k) retirement accounts and convert it into government-backed annuities. In other words, they want to take your money now to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds, then pay you a monthly sum later after you’ve retired.
Although this proposal is being initially portrayed as a voluntary choice, Americans already have the ability to purchase Treasury bonds with their retirement money. Moreover, the Obama administration is considering making these annuities the default option. And as analyst Karl Denninger noted, “‘choices’ have a funny way of turning into mandates.” Nor is his concern unjustified.
In 2008, Professor Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School of Social Research testified before Congress proposing a similar scheme to convert private 401(k) accounts into government-run “guaranteed retirement accounts” that would pay a 3% return. And in 2008, the Argentinian government attempted to nationalize private retirement funds to help cover its runaway deficit.
As the U.S. Social Security system moves ever closer to bankruptcy, the billions of dollars Americans have saved in their private retirement accounts will become an increasingly tempting target for our politicians.
A government raid on private retirement funds wouldn’t necessarily take the form of outright confiscation. It could take the form of mandatory conversion into government accounts, where the government would determine how much money retirees could receive. Or it could take the form of, for example, a 40% surtax on disbursements from 401(k) balances over $1 million — on the grounds that it would only harm wealthy “millionaires.”
But regardless of the precise method employed, the basic principle would be the same: Your money would no longer be your money. Instead, the government would claim the right to redistribute your wealth to pay for others’ retirement on the grounds that they needed it more. In essence, the government would be implementing the Marxist principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Many Americans are predictably alarmed at this prospect. One of my friends who I’ll call “John” is a hard-working middle-class professional who has lived frugally, saved enough to send his two children to college, and has carefully built up a nest egg sufficient to ensure that he and his wife will have a comfortable retirement. In contrast, his neighbor George making the same salary has chosen to spend his income on fancier vacations and a more extravagant lifestyle, rather than saving for the future. John is understandably outraged that the government might someday tax or confiscate his nest egg to guarantee George’s retirement income regardless of George’s bad choices.
The fact that George could face old age with minimal savings does not entitle him to any of John’s savings. George’s need does not give him a right to John’s money. Penalizing John for having saved responsibly to bail out George would be a gross injustice — just as it was a gross injustice for the government to punish frugal homeowners who lived within their means to bail out irresponsible homeowners who took out larger mortgages than they could afford.
Unfortunately, the Republicans are little better than the Democrats with regard to respecting your rights to your own money. Republican Congressman Paul Ryan has proposed his own “roadmap” to “reform” Social Security, where you could divert some of your Social Security money into a nominally private individual account. But you couldn’t invest your money as you saw fit. Instead, if you met certain eligibility requirements (set by the government), you would be allowed to put some of your money into special accounts (approved by the government), to be managed not by the private investment service of your choice — but by the government.
In his Newsweek interview, Ryan claimed that his plan “unapologetically applies our nation’s founding principles — individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise — to the challenges of today.” But his plan does nothing of the sort. In fact Ryan openly admitted to the New York Times, “I make a lot of concessions here to the left.” As with the Obama administration’s plan, under the Ryan plan your money wouldn’t really be yours to do with as you wished. Instead, you could only do with it what the government permitted.
If Republicans truly wanted to respect the principles of individual liberty and limited government, they would respect Americans’ rights to save or spend their money as they wished. The government’s job is not to somehow guarantee a fixed standard of living to all retirees but instead to protect individual rights — including each person’s right to enjoy the fruits of his labor and his right to plan for his retirement according to his best judgment.
The Social Security program should be gradually phased out. Individuals should be allowed to save their own money in whatever investment vehicles they see fit. If they wished to form voluntary mutual aid societies or enter into voluntary insurance contracts to protect against financial catastrophe in their old age, they should be free to do so. But the government should not compel one man to pay for another’s retirement by raiding his 401(k) account to prop up the unsustainable Ponzi scheme of Social Security.
If someone lacked sufficient retirement savings in his old age, he should rely on voluntary charity, not demand another’s life savings as an entitlement. Most Americans will gladly help those who have fallen into dire straits through no fault of their own, as we’ve seen recently in Haiti, and as we’ve seen throughout history with countless innocent disaster victims in the U.S. and abroad. Conversely, those who have brought financial hardship on themselves through irresponsible living should not be able to compel their more-responsible neighbors to subsidize their bad choices via what amounts to forced charity.
As Don Watkins and Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights recently wrote in Investor’s Business Daily, we must reject the notion that one man’s “need” gives him an automatic moral claim on another man’s wealth. Instead, we must respect and affirm the principle that the person who has earned his wealth deserves it — and that it is his rightful choice (not the government’s) to decide whether and how he should save it, spend it, or give to others as charity.
The coming debate over Americans’ retirement funds won’t be just about economics, but about fundamental issues of justice and individual rights. Will we allow the government to raid John’s retirement account because George “needs” the money more? Or will we demand that it respect John’s right to his hard-earned life savings? The choice will be ours.
I SvD skriver Karin Henriksson om att det amerikanska folket inte direkt är imponerade av sin kongress. Stödet från höger är rekordlågt, då halva amerikanska folket motsätter sig att staten tar över en femtedel av ekonomin. Den amerikanska sjukvården är ungefär dubbelt så dyr och utbyggd som den svenska, vilket resulterar i enorma kostnader men inga vårdköer eller väntetider, de bästa medicinerna, och en generellt extremt hög standard, samt goda löner för såväl sjuksköterskor som läkare. Dessutom är man från höger skeptisk till skatt på koldioxid och el, höjda skatter, och så vidare. Vad Karin Henriksson missade att få med i sin artikel när hon skrev att ingen kan regelrätt höja skatter i USA så var hon delvis rätt. Systemet fungerar ofta så att skattesänkningar har en viss tidsgräns och måste regelbundet förnyas. Obama och hans kongress har sagt att de tänker i det “tysta” låta många av dessa löpa ut. Media har noterat detta i USA, och resultatet är kraftigt höjda skatter för medelklassen. Från vänster, givetvis, är man uppgiven att kongressen inte lyckas driva igenom just de så kallade “reformer” i socialdemokratisk riktning som gör USA:s konservativa livrädd och/eller vansinniga.
Karin Henriksson gör där, trots en i regel ganska god analys, misstaget att påpeka att systemets konstruktion gjort det så långsamt att det är nästintill handlingsförlamat. Detta skall vara en dålig sak, tydligen. Men faktum är att USA har lyckats överleva en bra bit över två hundra år som demokratisk stat utan vare sig statskupp eller diktatorer. Man har klarat sig igenom ett blodigt inbördeskrig utan att alla sönder. Se på Frankrike och deras revolution, där man redan haft fem så kallade republiker och otaliga kungar och kejsare. Se på Tyskland, där småstater, kejsardöme, ett par års demokrati, och diktatur trycks in på ett århundrade, och där världskrig och röd terrorism knappast gjort situationen gladare. Orsak och verkan, i detta fall, är just att det inte ska gå att driva igenom stora förändringar över en natt. Dessutom är USA, till skillnad från exempelvis Sverige, extremt heterogent. Massvis med kulturer, religioner, åsikter, tankar, invandrare från varje land i Europa och kanske världen.
Personligen hade jag inte klagat om det hade krävts 60% stöd även i Sverige för att driva igenom reformer. Vi hade då fått brett folkligt stöd bakom landets politiska väg, och kompromisser hade tvingats arbetas fram. Sverige är trots allt en land som uppskattar konsensus och kompromisser, vilket kan vara en anledning varför vi undvikit de blodiga inre stridigheter som slitit sönder många andra länder. I USA har Obama och hans cheerleaders har nu fått lära sig att det inte bara funkar att driva en ideologi i politikens utkanter utan försök till samarbete. Detta är en styrka, inte en svaghet!
Image: The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the current health reform bill “would cost $940 billion and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during the first ten years[, and] in the second 10 years, it would reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion.” It’s no surprise that Republicans are still criticizing the current health reform bill over costs, despite the fact that Republicans have voted for more expensive programs under the Bush II Administration.
Image via Wikipedia
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u_woXIONlY2Kl0glI6aMdTPLyOJCAhcLkKyEqSqns64o61ACEsqjU3wqRvlCS-4f5dv5-kPMX6s3cNgeFJk4hlas27bvcb7b5121B8Xjkrt8NSb7BDCaMclbRNmQ7cjBXCNSQJtwnFzGf-Zl4DBrs2=s0-d)
From the end of World War II to the end of the cold war we lived in a bi-polar world, the global political stage dominated by East and West, represented respectively by the Soviet Union and its allies and the United States and its allies. In the years since the collapse of the USSR, the world has seen the political rise of China and the creation of new economic blocs such as the GCC, ASEAN, MERCUSOR, and NAFTA, each having their own political influences, expressed in one form or another. Europe coalesced into a common economic zone and slowly a common political force, most recently with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and election of EU President Herman Van Rompuy and EU Foreign Minister Baroness Catherine Ashton.
