“Iran (is) the other major target (with North Korea) of the U.S Treasury Department’s efforts ‘to isolate bad actors from the global financial system’” writes Jim Hoagland.
So much for the “free market”. It’s OK for the Israelis to buy cluster bombs from us, and Ollie to sell anti-tank missiles to the Ayatollah, but North Korea and Iran, like Cuba for 40 some years, we ghetto-ize.
China, however, was welcomed into the marketplace. They later wiped out Tibet, destroying 6000 monasteries, it says on Wikipedia, and ran down their own people with tanks in Tianemen Square. We hear over and over how many people have suffered under the bit actors on the world stage, but China? Oh, they’ll come along, eventually, when they see that Capitalism is a good thing.
We only practice tolerance, forgiveness, and mercy with China, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, etc.? The pulpit is used to bully the little countries? “Squeeze the economy dry”. I forgot who said that, but that was the first step when Iran, Nicaragua, etc., chose leaders we didn’t like. From 1953 to Pinochet, we or our surrogates, did all kinds of terrorist actions. Unlike the Soviet Union, we could afford ruling an empire, and proud of it, it seems. I wonder what the Prince of Peace thinks.
My e-mail to Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: Dear Mr. Olbermann:
If you had been a reporter back in the days of Segregation, would you be ignoring it?
You, too, elevate election speculation, as 9-11 remains uninvestigated?
"Loose Change, 2nd Edition", which you can watch free on Google, shows the hole in
the Pentagon. If that photo is true, how could a jumbo jet have made it? And if that
is a lie, does the whole official story fall apart?
Jim Marrs' book, "Inside Job", p.73, explains what happened 69 times in the Pentagon
basement in the 9 months before 9-11. Routine scrambling, like for Payne Stewart's plane.
How come on 9-11, the Pentagon was like the hospital when Michael went to visit "The
Godfather"?
Now it's segregation of good and "evil", which exacerbates a new kind of slavery.
If we were made in the image of The Creator, why the cluster bombs?
This was in our TCPalm newspaper blog, 10-13-06
Does anyone remember Democratic congressman Studds, who actually HAD SEX with a 17 year old male page, and when the congress censured (sp?) him he turned his back as an act of defiance and got a standing ovation? Not only that, he ran for reelection and WON. This was no emails or IM's-He had sex with the 17 year old. Why isnt he in prison? Why didnt the press bash him? Is this not a double standard?Does anyone have any answers? This is the third time I posted this comment the past few weeks, with no response. 10:19:15 a.m. on October 13, 2006 RANDY COOPER | 10.13.06 - 10:24 am
Cornelius Deen replies: 1. Studds was involved with a single 17 year old page. Foley pursued pages purported to be as young as 14.
2. In 1983, there were no rules prohibiting sexual interaction between members of the House and Congressional pages. In 2006, such rules had been in effect for 23 years, as a result of the scandal involving Studds and Republican Representative Dan Crane. (Why do you suppose the Repugs are focusing on Studds and ignoring Crane?)
3. Studds broke no laws. Foley broke laws, including laws that he himself had sponsored and lobbied to have passed.
3a. (Added on edit) Studds' was censured for having sex with a young man in the District of Columbia, where the young man was of legal age and where "sodomy" was not a crime. According to published emails and instant messages, Foley engaged in sexual relations in the District of Columbia, California and Florida with young men who were below the age of consent for where the sex took place and, in Florida, at a time when sodomy was a criminal offense.
4. Studds acknowledged his actions. Foley blames alcoholism, sexual abuse at the hands of a priest more than 40 years before, and pretty much anything else that will let him deny responsibility.
5. When Studds' one affair became known to the Congress, the leadership acted swiftly to censure. When Foley's multiple affairs became known to the Congress, the leadership covered it up for several years.
6. Before his actions became public, Studds was not in a leadership position to oversee laws regarding protecting children and prosecuting those who exploit children. Foley was chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which according to the Wikipedia, "was formed in order to assist the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and coordinate federal legislation preventing child abduction and exploitation of children, including prosecution for possession of online pornography and solicitation of minors for sexual activity."
7. Studds and the Democratic Party had never set themselves up as judge and jury for the morals of all Americans. Foley and the Republican Party have.
I'm sure there are more differences, but these should suffice for now.
“Religion trumps regulation as exemptions grow”, Palm Beach Post, 10-9-06
For instance, Alabama had almost 12 children dying in day care centers, so inspectors can drop in on private day cares any time to make sure safety regulations are followed. Church-run centers are exempt from having 2 sinks, safety locks,, etc. And civil rights and financial rules don’t apply to religious day-cares either?
“An analysis by the NY Times of laws passed since 1989, shows that more than 200 special arrangements, protections, or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents, were tucked into congressional legislation, covering topic ranging from pensions to immigration to land use.”
“New breaks also have been provided by pivotal court decisions at the state and federal levels, and by rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch.
So is this affirmative action for Religion?
