And The Neo-Cons Still Think They Hate Us For Our Freedoms!

Yes, al Qaeda attacked us because of our aggressive foreign policy

By John Glaser   8:50 PM 09/15/2011

In an op-ed published by The Daily Caller on Wednesday, Jamie Weinstein argued against Ron Paul’s analysis that al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 in response to aggressive U.S. foreign policy. Embarrassingly, his rejection lies in stark contrast to the conclusions reached by the CIA, the State Department, virtually all of the academic literature written on the subject and al Qaeda members’ own explanations of their motivations.
Weinstein would have us believe that America hadn’t been intervening in the Middle East prior to 9/11. But U.S. intervention there has a long and ugly history. As a top-secret National Security Council briefing put it in 1954, “The Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance,” as it “contains the greatest petroleum resources in the world” as well as “essential locations for strategic military bases in any world conflict.”
To this end, America needed to prop up brutal dictators that would allow such U.S. imposition. This certainly got us some enemies. And in 2004, the Department of Defense recognized this fact in a report to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “If it is one overarching goal they share,” the report read, “it is the overthrow of what Islamists call ‘apostate’ regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan and the Gulf States” and that “The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward — and potentially dangerous — situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive.”
After the first Gulf War, not only did the U.S. place military bases in Saudi Arabia — something bin Laden described as a grave provocation — but harsh sanctions and a violent no-fly zone were imposed on Iraq. These measures are widely cited to have directly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously said in an interview that this direct contribution to the death of a “half a million children” was “worth it.” In a 2002 message to the American people, bin Laden pondered why it was that “Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern.”
Weinstein says “Osama bin Laden wasn’t upset because the Palestinians were given poor treatment: He was upset that Israel exists at all.” The truth is, he was upset about both. Israel is the world’s greatest recipient of American guns and butter, and Israeli military occupation and mistreatment of Palestinians added to al Qaeda’s list of grievances toward America.
And then Weinstein makes his greatest mistake, equating reiteration of al Qaeda’s motivations with justifying the attacks. Nothing could justify the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans. But as long as the denials of the basic facts about 9/11 persist, America will continue carrying out policies which exacerbate hatreds against America, as both Bush and Obama have done. America doesn’t need to be intervening in every corner of the Earth, particularly when the results are death and destruction, for them and for us.

John Glaser is the assistant editor of Antiwar.com.

And We Wonder Why The Federal Government Is Bankrupt?

Dead federal retirees paid $120 million yearly, report says

By Ed O'Keefe

The federal government pays out millions of dollars annually to dead people. (Bradley C. Bower/ASSOCIATED PRESS) The federal government pays out millions of dollars to dead people each year — including deceased retired federal workers, according to a new report.
In the last five years, the Office of Personnel Management has made more than $601 million in payments to dead federal retirees, according to the agency’s inspector general. Total annual payouts range between $100 million and $150 million.
Inspector General Patrick E. McFarland, who previously reported on the improper payments in 2005 and 2008, urged OPM to more closely track such mistakes.
“It is time to stop, once and for all, this waste of taxpayer money,” he wrote in the report.
Improper payments to dead retirees are up 70 percent in the last five years, far higher than the 19 percent climb in total annuity payments, the report said.
The payments are on the rise because OPM is doing a poor job of tracking potential cheats, McFarland said. In one dramatic case, a deceased annuitant’s son continued receiving federal benefits until 2008 — 37 years after his father’s death. OPM learned of the improper payments — which exceeded $515,000 — only after the son also died. The agency never recovered the payments.
An OPM spokesman said Thursday that the agency is reviewing the report and had no immediate comment.
The report, published Sept. 14, said OPM is attempting to stop and recoup payments in several ways, by conducting weekly and annual matches of its data against the Social Security Administration’s death records and occasionally checking records for retirees 90 years and older to determine whether they are still alive.
McFarland called those checks “only partial remedies at best.”
Overall, the federal government’s improper payments totaled about $125 billion in fiscal 2010 — a $15 billion year-to-year increase due to a growing number of unemployment insurance and Medicaid payments. Despite the jump, federal agencies also recovered about $687 million mistakenly paid to delinquent government contractors and beneficiaries.
Last October, an investigation by the office of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) concluded that the federal government had paid nearly $1 billion to at least 250,000 dead people since 2000. That same month, a watchdog reported that the Obama administration’s economic stimulus program had made 89,000 payments of $250 each to dead or incarcerated people.
In an effort to curb the payments, President Obama has ordered a reduction in the use of no-bid contracts and the development of a government-wide “do not pay” database. The White House is also forcing Cabinet secretaries to trim operational costs and on Wednesday ordered agencies to trim costs associated with conferences and off-site meetings.

Freedoms The U.S. Military Does NOT Defend!

Freedoms I Wish the Military Were Defending

by Laurence M. Vance

Recently by Laurence M. Vance: Cursed Be Unconditional Obedience

"Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended." ~ George W. Bush, September 11, 2001



We have heard it repeated loudly and continuously since 9/11 – the troops are defending our freedoms. This claim is made so often and by so many different segments of society that it has become another meaningless national dictum – like "God Bless America" or "In God We Trust."
This cliché is actually quite insidious. It is used as a mantra to justify or excuse anything the U.S. military does.
U.S. troops are engaged in unconstitutional, undeclared wars – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. drone strikes killed civilians in Pakistan – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. bombs landed on a wedding party in Afghanistan – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. soldiers murdered Afghan civilians and kept some of their body parts – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. helicopter pilots gunned down Iraqi civilians – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. soldiers killed civilians for sport – but the troops are defending our freedoms. U.S. troops carelessly killed civilians and then covered it up – but the troops are defending our freedoms.


But as I have pointed out many times in my articles on the military, and others like Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation have been arguing for years (see here and here), the troops are doing everything but defending our freedoms. In fact, the more the troops defend our freedoms by bombing, invading, and occupying other countries, the more enemies they make of the United States and the more our freedoms get taken away in the name of "fighting terrorism" or "national security."
Not in any particular order, and in varying degrees of significance, here are some freedoms I wish the military were defending:

• The freedom to fly without being sexually violated.
• The freedom to purchase a gun without a waiting period.
• The freedom to grow, sell, and smoke marijuana.
• The freedom to sell goods and services for whatever amount a buyer is willing to pay.
• The freedom to make more than six withdrawals from one’s savings account each month.
• The freedom to drink alcohol as a legal, voting adult under twenty-one years of age.
• The freedom to purchase Sudafed over the counter.
• The freedom to gamble without government approval.
• The freedom to deposit more than $10,000 in a bank account without government scrutiny.
• The freedom to not be stopped at a checkpoint and have one’s car searched without a warrant.
• The freedom to sell any good or offer any service on Craigslist.
• The freedom to fill in a "wetland" on one’s own property.
• The freedom to cut someone’s hair for money without a license.
• The freedom to home-brew over 100 gallons of beer per year.
• The freedom to advertise tobacco products on television.
• The freedom to smoke Cuban cigars.
• The freedom to not wear a seatbelt.
• The freedom to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• The freedom to keep the fruits of one’s labor.
• The freedom of an employer and an employee to negotiate for any wage.
• The freedom to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
• The freedom to videotape the police in public.
• The freedom of businesses to hire and fire whomever they choose.
• The freedom to not be brutalized by the police.
• The freedom to not be arrested for victimless crimes.
• The freedom to sell raw milk.
• The freedom to not have one’s child subject to unnecessary vaccinations.
• The freedom to not have one’s child unjustly taken by Child Protective Services.
• The freedom to not be subject to the Patriot Act.
• The freedom for kids to set up neighborhood lemonade stands.
• The freedom to not have every facet of business and society regulated.
• The freedom to stay in one’s home during a hurricane.
• The freedom to not have our e-mail and phone conversations monitored.
• The freedom to travel to and trade with any country.
• The freedom to be left alone.

Certainly there are hundreds of things that could be added. We no longer live in a free country. We are increasingly living in a police state, a warfare state, and a national security state. Our freedom is not absolute. The only reason the United States is still considered "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is because we are relatively free, with the degree of freedom varying depending on which country America is compared to.
Would I rather live somewhere else? No, I wouldn’t, but that is a ridiculous question. First of all, if the typical German, Italian, Swede, Korean, Australian, or Spaniard were asked if he would rather live somewhere else you would probably get the same answer. And second, although a prisoner would rather live in a clean prison than a dirty prison and a safe prison rather than a violent prison, he would prefer to not be a prisoner in the first place.
I conclude with three brief thoughts. One, I want the military to defend our freedoms. But fighting foreign wars only reduces our freedoms. After all, it is still true that war is the health of the state. Two, if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them. And three, the greatest threat to our freedoms is the U.S. government, not the governments of China, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, or Iran.

September 6, 2011

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State, The Revolution that Wasn't, and Rethinking the Good War. His latest book is The Quatercentenary of the King James Bible. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Chiefs Showing They're Not Serious

After the fourth pre-season game this last Thursday night, the Kansas City Chiefs have proven once again that they will not field a winning team let alone a Super Bowl caliber team for the 2011-12 NFL season. The Chiefs had plenty of money to spend and were well under the salary cap to do so. Why did they not bring in some real marquee free agent players or draft any better than they did this April? I believe that I have finally found the answer; the Hunt family now and in the past has not really been interested in fielding a onetime Super Bowl winning team or a legacy type team ala The New England Patriots under Coach Bill Belichick. A persistent rumor going around the Kansas City area during the Carl Peterson era was that Lamar Hunt had told Carl that “I do not care if you ever make it to the Super Bowl, just keep putting butts in those seats” (referring to Arrowhead Stadium). This rumor rings very true if one looks into the past and sees how close the Chiefs were to going to the Super Bowl during the Marty Shottenheimer coached teams. Does anyone still remember the 1996 divisional playoff game against the Indianapolis Colts where Lin Elliot missed three easy to make field goals where the veteran Nick Lowry (who the Chiefs failed to re-sign) most likely would have made them? To add insult to injury, do we also remember the 1998 divisional playoff game where Shotzy started a rusty Elvis Grbac over a well oiled Rich Gannon? Or how about the Dick Vermeil years (and two more playoff losses) where coach V actually thought he could win with just offense and no defense? I am not necessarily one for conspiracy theories, but the more I think about it, I am convinced that the Chiefs will never make it to a Super Bowl (with Todd Haley as coach or anyone else) until the Hunt family finally decides to sell the team to an individual or consortium that really wants to win it all! Robert Craft did it in New England. Why can’t it be repeated in Kansas City? Like last season’s dismal playoff loss under coach Todd Haley, the current Chiefs owners will keep the team just competitive enough to keep you die-hard fans (of which I used to be one!) buying season tickets and team merchandise as the Hunt family is quietly laughing all the way to the bank, country club and golf course! Do not get me wrong, I am an unabashed free market capitalist and will staunchly defend the right of the Hunt family to do whatever they want with the Chiefs, but they will not sucker me anymore into investing my money, time or emotions on a Sunday afternoon. From now on I am just an NFL fan, so bring on the season!

Time To Abolish The FDA!

Mulvane winery, feds settle elderberry juice case

By ROXANA HEGEMAN

Associated Press

WICHITA, Kan. - A federal judge has approved a settlement in a civil lawsuit filed by the government against a Kansas winery over claims about the medicinal benefits of elderberry juice concentrate.
U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson on Friday signed the consent decree hammered out by the Food and Drug Administration and Wyldewood Cellars near Mulvane. The move allows the winery to sell its product as long as it relabels it and removes from promotional materials any claims that elderberry concentrate cures or treats diseases.
Federal authorities raided the winery in June and seized bottles and drums of elderberry juice concentrate. Authorities contend the company's claims of its benefits for treating various diseases made the product a drug.
Winery owner John Brewer said Friday the settlement frees up $50,000 worth of inventory that had been sequestered by the U.S. Marshals Service in a cooler at his Mulvane facility.
Under the settlement, Wylewood Cellars has five days from the entry of the decree to remove from all labels and promotional material any representation that elderberry juice products cure or treat diseases, then provide FDA with an affidavit of compliance.
Brewer must post a $57,100 bond before any material can be released, and the winery must pay all court costs and expenses, including those incurred by the Marshal's Service.
Brewer said it would take a day to change the labeling on bottles. Most of the seized barrels of raw product need no "reconditioning" because that material is going to be made into other things like wine, jelly and syrup over which FDA has no jurisdiction, he said.
"When they were in here looking over everything we said, 'Guys, we are not trying to do anything wrong. If you see we are doing anything wrong, just let us know and we will correct it.' Well, instead of doing that, they choose to seize the material and make a big show of it," Brewer said.
The government contended in its lawsuit that the juice concentrate is an unapproved and misbranded drug because the winery claims it is used to treat diseases such as the flu and cancer.
Dara Corrigan, the FDA's associate commissioner for regulatory affairs, said in a news release that products with unapproved disease claims are dangerous because they may cause consumers to delay or avoid legitimate treatment.
"If you can't prove it with FDA-sanctioned human trial studies, you cannot say anything about any benefits you might get from the food you eat," Brewer said. "It is really in my mind ... a First Amendment thing. As a manufacturer, we cannot say what it can do unless we give multimillion-dollar studies to the FDA to prove exactly what we are talking about."
An affidavit filed in federal court contended the FDA sent Wyldewood Cellars a warning in 2006 after receiving a consumer complaint over the claims. The FDA said the company continued to make the same claims on its website and at its retail outlets.
Brewer contended that when the winery got that 2006 letter saying FDA didn't like the label, he changed the label. He said he hadn't understood that he also needed to change the advertising. He blamed bad advice.

"We thought we were doing everything right, but the FDA says no, we are not," Brewer said. "So they come in to get our attention and they seize material."

My comments: Time to abolish the FDA. It is all about politics and nothing about food and drug safety. The product that Wyldwood Cellars was selling did not actually harm anyone! They claimed that the product could do certain things. Big freaking deal! It is up to the consumer to determine whether the claims are true or not! The FDA is a useless organization.

Back To The Future, Forward To The Past?

From the Saturday September 3, 2011 edition of the The Wichita Eagle: Letters to the Editor section

GOP anti-science

Princeton University economics professor and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman recently wrote that Jon Huntsman "isn't a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that's too bad, because Mr. Huntsman has been willing to say the unsayable about the GOP — namely, that it is becoming the 'anti-science party.' This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us."
Too bad, indeed. Huntsman is the one Republican I possibly could have voted for. The idea of Texas Gov. Rick Perry in the Oval Office is unthinkable.
Krugman described Perry's know-little-or-nothing take on science as it relates to climate change. Krugman concluded: "The odds are that one of these years the world's greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti- science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic and more — that's a terrifying prospect."
It is becoming more apparent that what once was considered the extreme right wing of the GOP is now, sadly, the norm. Unless centrist and moderate Republicans are willing to stand up against this movement, Krugman may be predicting the future. Scary.


MARJORIE DELKER

Newton

My comments: The last time I checked there were a total of 31,000 scientists that have rejected the theory that global warming (if it exists at all) is man made and not caused by nature. Calling Paul Krugman a "scientist" is like referring to Joseph Mengele as a "doctor". Krugman is a Keynesian economist (follower of John Maynard Keynes) of the worst magnitude! He believes that by taking on even more debt the U.S. Government can spend its way out of the current recessionary depression. Krugman also believes that natural disasters like the Joplin tornado and Hurricane Irene are "good for the economy" because the re-building efforts will create jobs and a new demand for goods and services. What a crock! I suppose if I broke out all the windows in my house it would create work for the glazer but what about the goods I would not have been able to purchase from the butcher, baker and candlestick maker? If you want to know how a free market economy is really supposed to function, I suggest reading the works of Congressman Ron Paul, Thomas E. Woods, Robert P. Murphy and Murray Rothbard. They are all adherents of the Austrian school of economics and the intellectual giant, Ludwig Von Mises. Through the passage of time and economic history this man has been proven 100% right!