Tag Archives: obama

U.S.

United Police States of America: Two U.S. courts say Rumsfeld is NOT immune from being charged with torture, Obama is on Rumsfeld’s side says your rights don’t count

“Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that Secretary Rumsfeld personally established the relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional rights during detention.”-Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

August 8, a Federal appeals court ruled that former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is not immune from being sued for torture.

Interestingly, the two people suing Rumsfeld are U.S. citizens, and former security agents as well.

The two former private security agents, were detained and tortured, in Iraq by U.S. personnel, with sleep deprivation, and deprived of food and water.  They claim they were detained because they were trying to blow the whistle on the illegal activities of their employer.

The two agents suspected their employer of making improper payments to Iraqi officials, and that fellow employees were engaged in weapons-trafficking.  After providing U.S. officials with information they were suddenly detained.  The two agents were never charged with anything.

In another case, last week a Federal court in Washington DC ruled that Rumsfeld can indeed be sued for torture.

In that case a U.S. military contractor was also tortured by U.S. personnel in Iraq.  Government officials say the contractor was passing information to the enemy, but, for some reason, after torturing him, the government decided not file charges and let him go.

Don’t think President Barack Obama influenced the courts’ decision.  Obama supports Rumsfeld, saying, effectively, that U.S. citizens have no rights when they’re in a combat zone. The U.S. Justice Department is planning to appeal the latest Federal court decisions.

 

 

 

Idaho, U.S.

Idaho leads United States in Disapproval of President Obama, more proof that Washington DC is out of touch

In the latest Gallup Poll, Idaho takes number one position, in the disapproval of President Obama.

Only 27% of Idahoans approve of what Obama is doing.  Idaho beat out Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Arkansas.  Those states tied for the number two and three spots.

And, as no surprise, residents of Washington DC show the most support for Obama, with 83% approving of what he’s doing.  It’s also shows how out of touch DC has gotten with the rest of the country.

The latest Gallup Poll surveyed only 16 states, and the District of Columbia (DC).  The Gallup results say there has been little change in the county’s support of President Obama, since last year.

Fukushima, Idaho

Idaho EPA RadNet sites not working

14 July 2011, I tried to access the Idaho Department of Environmental EPA RadNet site.  All I got was a “Server Error” message.

I then tried accessing the Idaho Falls RadNet site, directly through the Environmental Protection Agency’s web site.  I got an EPA page that said “The requested item was not found on the EPA’s Web Server”.

Fukushima, U.S.

Government Coverup: Department of Energy using helicopters to test for airborne radiation above Seattle!

The U.S. Department of Energy is using helicopters to take airborne radiation samples over Seattle, Washington.  Officially this is to establish a “baseline” for any future nuclear “emergency”.

The operation is being paid for by the Department of Homeland Security.

The state of Washington is home to the controversial Hanford nuclear plant.  Do a search for information on the plant and you’ll be concerned as well.  Could officials know something about the plant’s current condition?

Do Homeland Security officials have some info about a possible terrorist attack involving nukes and the city of Seattle?  Or, is the “emergency” they’re talking about one that already happened, in a place called Fukushima, Japan?

Officials claim this airborne radiation “baseline” operation was planned back in 2009.  Mmmm

International, U.S.

Iraqi Prime Minister succumbs to demands of president Obama, will ask for U.S. troops to stay

Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told the newly appointed U.S. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, that he will ask for U.S. troops to stay beyond the original withdraw date.

The Prime Minister said it would be contingent upon the Iraqi Parliament to approve such a request.  At least half the members of the Iraqi Parliament have warned of dire consequences if the United States keeps troops in Iraq.

Leon Panetta was in Iraq on July 11, to push the Iraqis to keep U.S. troops in their country, despite the promised pullout by the end of the year.

 

International, U.S.

100 Iraqi politicians sign letter of warning, the U.S. better leave or else

Despite repeated public statements, protests and even attacks against U.S. troops, U.S. officials are still haranguing the Iraqi Prime Minister about letting them stay.

U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen admitted that his staff is having a hard time convincing the Iraqi officials that the United States should stay past their agreed upon withdraw date.  The U.S. is now taking the stand that Iraq has serious security gaps, that only the U.S. can fill.

In response to the continued efforts of the Obama administration to renege on the promised withdraw date, 100 Iraqi lawmakers signed a letter of warning, which basically said if the U.S. gets its way all hell will break loose in Iraq, with the focus of that hell upon U.S. forces.

 

 

International, Opinion, U.S.

War on Terror will cost U.S. taxpayers $4 trillion, and that’s just for Iraq and Afghanistan

Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies “Costs of War” study says the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could hit $4.4 trillion and could last until 2020.

And for those that think war is good for the economy, the study said war spending makes up only a half a percent, per year of total GDP for the U.S.

The study also compared lives lost during the September 11, 2001 attacks, to the amount of lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.  2,995 people were killed on 9/11.   According to U.S. sources as many as 258,000 people have been killed, in the War on Terror, as a direct result of combat, even more have died indirectly, 365,000 have been wounded, 7.8 million people are refugees.

Realize that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and that most Afghans didn’t even know about 9/11, and you really have to question the motives of our leaders.  Now President Obama wants to refocus the War on Terror onto the United States itself!

 

 

International, Opinion, U.S.

The U.S. IS a Police State: Obama refocuses U.S. War on Terror, the targets: Iran, Syria and…the people of the United States

“This is the first counter-terrorism strategy that designates the homeland as a primary area of emphasis in our counter-terrorism efforts.”-John Brennan, White House counter terrorism adviser

The Obama administration announced its new anti-terror policy.  Some confusing statements were made by Brennan, such as saying that the new policy will principally focus on “…al Qaeda, its affiliates and its adherents…”, but then went on to say that Iran and Syria “…remain leading state sponsors of terrorism.”, and that they will be targeted by the U.S.: “We will therefore continue to use the full range of our foreign policy tools to prevent these regimes and terrorist organizations from endangering our national security.”

The problem is that Iran and Syria are not partners with al Qaeda, in fact they are being targeted by al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda declared jihad against Syria because the government is secular.  And they declared jihad against Iran because most of the Iranians are Shia Muslims.  Al Qaeda members are mostly Wahhabi (aka Salafi) Muslims.

Brennan went on to say that the main focus of the new anti-terror policy will actually be…the people of the United States: “…the first counter-terrorism strategy that focuses on the ability of al Qaeda and its network to inspire people in the United States to attack us from within.”

Brennan believes al Qaeda is weakened, and that the greatest threat to the U.S. is domestic “lone wolf” terrorists.

Several countries worry that this means the U.S. will abandon them in the global War on Terror.  India considers its main threat a group called Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (aka Jamaat ud-dawa), not al Qaeda.

Is this new policy what Obama meant when he said he was going to refocus military/police action in the War on Terror?

 

 

Fukushima, U.S.

Corporate & Government Incompetence: Nebraska flood knocks out power to Nuclear Plant, no thanks to workers not paying attention

26 June 2011, an accident at the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant resulting in the expanding Missouri River flooding into the compound.  The water hit the nuke plant’s electrical transformers, cutting off power.

Electricity is still needed to keep the spent fuel pools cool.  Plant officials say they are now running on back up generators.

Forth Calhoun officials ordered the installation of a water filled artificial levee (berm).  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not approve the artificial levee.  At about 1:25 am, 26 June, workers broke the water filled berm, allowing the Missouri River to flood in.

This natural disaster is the latest bad news for the Fort Calhoun nuke plant.  In April plans to refuel its reactors were halted, over concerns of flooding by the Missouri River.  Then, on 07 June, a fire broke out in one of the reactor control rooms.  An inspection two years ago revealed that plant operators were not properly prepared for a flood.

Business/Economics, International, U.S.

Obama’s order to release U.S. oil reserves is BS, 27 other countries to release oil reserves is also BS, blame war on Libya

All indicators are that global demand for oil is going down, despite the oil “experts” continuing to say it’s going up.  The fact that oil and gas prices are going down is proof of the decrease in demand.  One study says oil should be at $70.00, based on actual consumer demand.

Yet President Barack Obama, and 27 other members of the International Energy Agency, are ordering the release of their respective strategic oil reserves.

The official reason the Obama administration gives, is to ease the supply problems with oil from Libya.  First off, the U.S. is a minor user of oil from Libya, secondly the U.S. is partly to blame for the oil supply problems in Libya!

The U.S. uses about 1% of oil produced in Libya, according to a USA Today report.  The U.S. has been supporting rebels who destroyed Chinese run oil fields in Libya, according to the Chinese government.

As I’m writing this U.S. crude oil prices are at $91.00 per barrel.  Why release U.S. oil reserves now, and not back when it was more than $100.00 per barrel?

Here something interesting; the U.S. Department of Energy reports that the strategic oil reserves are at record highs, 727 million barrels to be exact.  Why would that be? Because demand is down?

The IEA (not to be confused with the United Nations IAEA) is made up of 28 oil consuming countries, including the United States.  The decision of the IEA to release 60 million barrels of oil reserves, is to benefit the countries that get most of their oil from Libya, ie Europe.  One report showed that almost all of Italy’s oil comes from Libya.

In other words, Obama’s decision to release U.S. strategic oil reserves is for the benefit of the Europeans, not the United States!

It is also totally because of the U.S. supported European war on Libya, the aggressors (U.S. and Europe) brought it upon themselves.