SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2450)10/12/2002 9:42:40 AM
From: Victor Lazlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8683
 
If Stalin were still alive, he'd include you as one of the "useful idiots" he used to talk about.

Remember them? They were the Berkley types in the U.S. during the Cold War who considered themsleves Communists and they were quite anti-Americabn. At least one group of them actually travelled to the Soviet Union and met with a few of Stalin's top people.

Stalin thought of them as naive tools he could use for his own ends.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2450)10/12/2002 10:12:43 AM
From: lorne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8683
 
U.N. land grab in the works
October 12, 2002
For reasons that defy common sense, some congressional Democrats insist that the United States rejoin UNESCO – the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. The State Department appropriations bill has $60-million included for this purpose.

President Ronald Reagan withdrew from this U.N. organization in 1984 because of its "gross financial mismanagement, anti-American bias, and anti-freedom policies." If there has been any change at all in UNESCO, the situation is worse now than it was then.

Congressman Ron Paul has introduced a concurrent resolution, HCON 489, urging the United States not to rejoin UNESCO. So far, the measure has only four cosponsors. Every congressman should support this resolution.

Among the reasons cited by the resolution for not rejoining, is the fact the UNESCO is promoting a global tax on the Internet, among other global taxes; the organization continues to actively influence school curriculum in the United States, and other, equally valid reasons.

One reason cited by the resolution is of particular interest: " UNESCO, through a memorandum of agreement with the Department of State, has designated 47 United Nations biosphere reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres, without congressional consultation or approval."

This agreement, reached in the late 1970s, is the basis for the Wildlands Project that is spreading across America like a plague, gobbling up private property and restricting the use of public land, as well as the private land the government cannot yet afford to buy.

The Everglades is one of the 47 biosphere reserves designated by UNESCO without congressional approval. The Everglades is also a U.N. World Heritage Site – "In Danger" – and a U.N. Ramsar "Wetland." All of these designations impose land management policies, established by UNESCO, with which the United States is bound to comply, either through treaty requirements, or by executive agreement.

The U.S. Constitution clearly designates the U.S. Congress as the manager of federal lands. The U.S. Constitution clearly specifies what lands, and the purposes for which the federal government may purchase land. Private land was never considered to be the responsibility of the federal government.

The U.S. Constitution, however, seems to be a lost document, as far as Congress is concerned. In recent years, there has been a mad rush to use your tax money to buy up private property for open space, wilderness corridors, wildlife refuges, scenic viewsheds, heritage sites, and other purposes never anticipated by our founders. Rarely, if ever, are state legislatures asked for permission as is specified in the U.S. Constitution.

The 47 biospheres reserves in the United States, part of an international network of 411 such reserves, serve as the nucleus of the rewilding of America as envisioned by the Wildlands Project. The function of each biosphere reserve, as specified in the management documents prepared by UNESCO, and amplified by the U.S. State Department's Man and the Biosphere Program, is to continually expand the core wilderness areas, and connecting corridors, as well as the buffer zones surrounding the reserves.

In 1993, Science magazine described the Wildlands Project vision, as "nothing less than the transformation of America to an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas."

This vision ignores the constitutional principle of private property rights. Environmental extremist organizations are pushing this agenda, and fully support the U.N. policy that declares "public control of land use is, therefore, indispensable."

UNESCO exerts enormous influence over U.S. policy, even though we are no longer members of this organization, simply because past presidents, and certain members of Congress agree with the UNESCO philosophy and objectives.

Ron Paul's resolution should be adopted with an overwhelming majority, and the United States should stop yielding to UNESCO and the U.N.'s policy directives.

The United States is a sovereign nation. No foreign power – including the U.N. – can dictate U.S. policy. But then, they don't have to, so long as we keep electing people to Congress who are willing to surrender our national sovereignty through membership in U.N. organizations such as UNESCO.

UNESCO should be a litmus test for every candidate in November. Candidates whose backbone is not strong enough to stand up and say "no," should be retired for a new crop of representatives who have the gumption to put America first.

worldnetdaily.com



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2450)10/12/2002 10:23:28 AM
From: lorne  Respond to of 8683
 
lil ray. This article may really mess up your mind or maybe I should say mess up your mind more than it already is. This looks like a democrat actually trying to do something good...is this allowed in the democratic party?

Question: Should the USA remove the criminals in control of this country?

Hell Is a Real Place
Zimbabwe: Anyone in America Give a Damn?
October 11th,
This is the story of a woman in Zimbabwe. She is not one of the white farmers being extracted from their land and homes by President Robert Mugabe and the veterans of the 1980 war for independence, who are in the front lines of the takeovers. This woman is black and is being punished for her support of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the leading opposition party.
Her tormentors are members of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), which has been in power since independence was won under Mugabe's leadership. I learned of her story from a June 20, 2002, report by the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition—a wide range of what we call civil rights groups fighting for a "civil society." Among them: trade unions, women's rights organizations, students, and the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum. Leading the report is a letter of confirmation signed by Desmond Tutu, archbishop emeritus, Cape Town, South Africa—a world-renowned paladin of the anti-apartheid movement.

This thoroughly documented and voluminous Zimbabwe Report contains many horror stories. This one is "Case 2 and 3: Baby 4 months old, and mother of child: interview with mother . . . Date of Incident: from November 2001, and still continuing in April 2002."

"B is four months old. When he was only eight days old . . . he was taken from his mother at midnight by 12 war veterans and held upside down by his ankles. The war veterans said he was a whip and they would use him to beat others. They slapped him on the face and all over the body and said that he should die because he was 'an MDC property.' The mother was gagged and beaten."

While she was eight months pregnant with B, the mother was attacked by war veterans who kicked her in the groin and lower abdomen "until she bled profusely from her vagina." She couldn't go for treatment at any clinic in her district because "she is among those blacklisted as an MDC supporter." (An interesting use of "blacklisted.")

Refused health care throughout her pregnancy because of her pariah status, she delivered by herself at home. She has had no postnatal care. Her child "has also received no medical attention whatsoever—his birth is officially unrecorded and he has received no immunizations."

In hiding and on the run, she is "in severe pain" and "needs urgent specialist attention for her back and needs to see a urologist" for problems that started "from her beating when eight months pregnant."

The entry of this case in the Zimbabwe Report closes with "The history is remarkable as to the violence against a newborn baby; but otherwise it is in agreement with other testimonies of reprisals against MDC supporters."

There is a foreword to the report by Pius A. Ncube, archbishop of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: "In the past two months, I have known of a number of persons who have died of hunger right here in my city. We have seen police and militia threaten, intimidate, and sometimes attack unarmed civilian protesters. We have spoken out, only to be threatened and attacked ourselves. Writing a report such as this one by the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition carries great risks. Those risks must be borne by us all if we are to find a more peaceful path into the future."

The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights in New York and Washington has distributed this report to members of Congress and other groups. But while there has been considerable coverage in newspapers, though not on television, of what is happening to the families of the foreclosed white farmers, the desperate condition of huge numbers of black Zimbabweans is largely ignored.

In his letter that prefaces the report, Archbishop Tutu writes: "The hard facts on the ground in Zimbabwe, so well compiled in this report, suggest an alarming array of policies and practices that may be leading the country to a catastrophic future. . . . The ongoing political violence . . . must be brought to an end. The threatening famine, caused in part by government lands policy, will make things even worse."

While a critical mass of anger and indignation in this country helped end South African apartheid, there is scarcely any awareness here of the facts on the bloody ground contained in this message in the Zimbabwe Report:

"Since January 2002, 57 people have been killed, 26 'disappeared,' and more than 450 tortured. Thousands have been forced to flee their home areas. Ninety percent of the violence has been perpetrated by ZANU-PF supporters or State Security agents, with encouragement from leading members of the government."

And in the August 25 Sunday Telegraph in London, Christina Lamb quoted Tony Reeler, clinical director of the Amani Trust, based in Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe. The Trust monitors and treats victims of torture and other human rights abuses. Tony Reeler says:

"We're seeing an enormous prevalence of rape, and enough cases to say it's being used by the State as a political tool, with women and girls being raped because they are wives, girlfriends, or daughters of political activists. There are also horrific cases of girls as young as 12 or 13 being taken off to militia camps, used and abused and kept in forced concubinage. But I suspect, as with Bosnia, the real extent of what is happening is going to take a hell of a long time to come out." (Supporters of the Amani Trust include the UN's Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the Swedish Red Cross.)

Why, in this country, are there only whispers, if that, from most civil rights activists and organizations, the clergy of all colors that finally awoke to the slavery and mass rapes in Sudan, editorial writers, women's rights groups, and such trombones of the people as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?

In Congress, Donald Payne of New Jersey is involved, as he has been for many years about slavery in Sudan, but what of his colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and the white human rights champions on both sides of the aisle?

For information: Lorna Davidson, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 333 Seventh Avenue, 13th floor, New York, NY 10001; 212-845-5251; nyc@lchr.org. We're supposed to be fighting a war on terrorism, right? By the way, Zimbabwe is a proud member of the United Nations Human Rights Commission—along with Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and Sudan.
villagevoice.com



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2450)10/12/2002 11:21:15 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8683
 
Another good speech on Iraq...

salon.com

"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors"

Not every Democrat has caved to Bush's martial fervor. Rep. Pete Stark makes it stunningly clear why he voted against the Iraq war resolution.

Editor's note: Below is the fiery statement delivered on the floor of the House Wednesday by veteran California Democrat Rep. Pete Stark.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Oct. 10, 2002 | "Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution (authorizing military force against Iraq). I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions through careful and cautious diplomacy.

"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors.

"Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to the president, who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history. It sets a precedent for our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or international consensus.

"Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a president who has been so callous to proceed without reservation, as if war was of no real consequence.

"You know, three years ago in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of Texas politics, wrote: 'For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard. At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy.'

"'Somebody,' she said, 'should be worrying about how all this could affect his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein.' How prophetic, Ms. Ivins.

"Let us not forget that our president -- our commander in chief -- has no experience with, or knowledge of, war. In fact, he admits that he was at best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he didn't notice 'any heavy stuff going on.'"

"So we have a president who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's dugout and Kashmir is a sweater.

"What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the certain loss of life. Do the generalized threats and half-truths of this administration give any one of us in Congress the confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their child or loved one was in the name of a just cause?

"Is the president's need for revenge for the threat once posed to his father enough to justify the death of any American?

"I submit the answer to these questions is no.

"Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by who pays for his capricious adventure into world domination. The administration admits to a cost of around $200 billion!

"Now, wealthy individuals won't pay. They've got big tax cuts already. Corporations won't pay. They'll cook the books and move overseas and then send their contributions to the Republicans. Rich kids won't pay. Their daddies will get them deferments as Big George did for George W.

"Well then, who will pay?

"School kids will pay. There'll be no money to keep them from being left behind -- way behind. Seniors will pay. They'll pay big time as the Republicans privatize Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the capricious war. Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable. And there won't be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it all on the war.

"Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining rights. Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water quality. And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil rights, women's rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism and to courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.

"The questions before the members of this House and to all Americans are immense, but there are clear answers. America is not currently confronted by a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq. The call for war is wrong.

"And what greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well-being of the world, but for the short-term political interest of our president.

"Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also put political calculation ahead of the president's accountability to truth and reason by supporting this resolution. But, I conclude that the only answer is to vote no on the resolution before us."

salon.com

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer:

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., represents the Fremont, Calif., congressional district.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2450)10/12/2002 11:28:58 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8683
 
Little Raymond, here's the truth about you...

users.pandora.be

GZ