Saturday, March 26, 2011

Libya; The Humanitarian Misdirection

It should come as no surprise that our president is being less than honest regarding the US and NATO's attack on Libya. What started out looking like a humanitarian action, is now looking like one of those sponsored coup-d’etats the CIA so busied itself with in the 50s, 60s and 70s. According to the UK Daily Mail, British Special forces have been in Libya for over a month. What is now becoming clear however is the coalition has been given some strange rules of engagement; the rebels (usually called a Liberation Army) are now civilians. So any attempt by the Gaddifi to repel the ad-hoc rebellion is met with accusations that the Libyan army was using "indiscriminate" use of force and was killing civilians; it doesn't seem to matter that these protesters and civilians are armed to the teeth with RPG's, anti-aircraft missile and are even driving tanks. There also seems to be a lot of evidence that this military effort is far from a humanitarian affair.

The humanitarian label was used to describe the so-called, NFZ (No Fly Zone); the idea that Libyan military aircraft was bombing and strafing civilians (aka anti-government forces). The NFZ, is to simply stop Libya from using aircraft against the rebel forces. The positive side of a NFZ is keeping Libyan aircraft on the ground is easily accomplished. While Libya has a rather formidable looking airforce on paper, reality is a different story. Yes, Libya has some 200 military aircraft including 23 Mig-21s,109 Mig-23s and 38 SU-22s, the truth is we don't know how many are actually airworthy. It may not be common knowledge, it it takes more more maintenance to fly these jets than actual flight time. We do know it was the SU-22s Gadiffi was used to bomb the protesters, resulting in one crew intentionally crashing the plane and the civilian rebels have claimed to also shot down a number of them (as I said these civilians mean business). The fact is that coalition forces were acting beyond a NFZ almost from the beginning. After taking out command and control, radar installations and anti-aircraft batteries, they started hunting for Libyan army forces; bombing troops, armament, or anything else that looks like a military target. Further, The Saudis have been arming the rebels for months in anticipation of this uprising and the US is publicly weighing the option of openly arming the rebels against Libya. This of course has led to much more collateral damage than just a NFZ and has led to dissension within the coalition, especially amongst the Arab League, where chief Amr Moussa on Sunday condemned what he called the "bombardment of civilians."

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates replied to ABC’s Jake Tapper, “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said. And of course President Obama did not notify Congress; from ABC NEWS

During his campaign for the Presidency, in December, 2007, Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Earlier in 2007, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor that, “If the administration believes that any -- any -- use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

Secretary of State Clinton asked in regards to Libya, “Why not got to Congress?” she replied, “Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.” “I think that this had a limited time frame, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.

Clinton's response seemed especially dishonest as #1 the US had a much larger coalition under Bush in Iraq and one of the main criticism of Obama's foray into Lybia is a seemingly total lack of definition, beyond pulling out and handing over control to Canada and NATO, allowing Obama to be lead but not be in charge; something which seems to define the Obama presidency. Further, the idea that there was not time to inform Congress is absurd in the fact that Obama stated the “When a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now,” as far back as Feb 26.

So here are the lies. This military action is humanitarian; no we have taken sides in a civil war and are bombing and invading Libya. There will be no boots on the ground; no, we already have coalition special forces working with the rebels on the ground. From The Nation“We do not provide close air support for the opposition forces.” he said, “We protect civilians.” But he followed that immediately by noting that since the opposition, even armed, are civilians, the United States will protect them, too.” Does that include sharing military intelligence? “I’m not going to talk about sharing intelligence with the Libyan opposition.”

Here is where we have an obvious dis-connect. The Obama Administration denies using coalition war planes as air support for the rebels, and British officials say "the UK force is under very clear directions not to get drawn into close combat operations with regime forces unless their own lives are threatened or in extreme circumstances in which Gaddafi forces are killing unarmed civilians" and senior official said, "Our aim is maintain a low profile, and simply deliver information and facilitate the situation for other agencies to splash (destroy) the targets." So we are meant to believe that even though the British Commandos and Rebels have the same military goals and the coalition is supplying close air support for the British Commandos on the ground, they are not for the rebels, even though the two are fighting side by side. Further the Obama Administration fudges when asked if the British Commandos and Rebels are sharing military intelligence, as if it were possible for them not to.

In the final analysis, I will leave you with another exchange that demonstrates the absurdity of the so called Humanitarian rational for the attacks on Libya; again from the UK Daily Mail,

“Q: If opposition forces are trying to take back a city that Gadhafi holds, couldn't you argue that they would be attacking civilians; and therefore, would they be targeted as well?

“GENERAL HAM: Again, I'm not crazy about...answering the hypothetical questions. We would have to look at that situation as it was unfolding. We do have a mission to protect civilians. And we would have to make an assessment as that unfolded as to what our actions might be, consistent with 1973 and consistent with our mission.”

The UK writer editorializes with, "It stretches credulity, of course, to imagine that the United States would bomb the opposition if it tried to capture a city."

So no one has been able to explain how defining all those opposed to the Gaddifi regime as civilian victims, regardless of their level of armament and how the US and NATO are simply taking sides in a civil war to remove Gaddifi from power. If not humanitarian reasons then why did President Obama involve the US? Here one has to turn to conjecture. Libya only supplies .63% of US oil, however 85% of Libyan oil goes to Europe. So it appears this is another blood for oil battle, but this time Obama is demonstrating his willingness to engage in European discretionary battles outside the national interests of the United States; bypassing congress in the process. Further, while the uprisings in Libya and other Arabic nations have been titled Democratic, there is a lot of evidence that the uprising also have an Islamic Sharia bent. It is no secret that the Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized political party in the region and it is likely the Democratic uprising will result in a "vote once" for the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law. If this materializes it would result in accolades for President Obama from from the Arabic nations; something the President has been openly pursuing to the detriment of the United States previous allies such as Britain and Israel.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Lies, Damn Lies and Opinion Polls

Mark Twain once said there are lies, damn lies and statistics; its time to add "opinion polls" to that list. What we are now seeing is that pollsters are manipulating their polls results by either basing the poll on non-reflective demographics and/or asking poll questions in a manner that will result in a requite result. The purpose seems to be to sustain the slipping support for President Obama and the progressive agenda in general. In an article in the Nation Review, Jan 17, 2011, Two New Polls Have Higher Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions the writer Katrino Trinko points out an AP poll that, showed increasing support for Obamacare, even though it was only two months earlier that the Democrats had received what may have been the greatest rebuff of policy in the history of US Politics; and a major part of this rebuff was Obamacare. What could have happened? Did the electorate suddenly reverse what has a wholesale rejection of the Democrat juggernaut? The answer of course is no. The pollsters chose a 42% / 36% Democrat to Republican demographic, where the exit polls during the election showed the demographic to be equal at about 36%. Further the results were also skewed by the nature of the questions. The new poll showed that opposition to Obamacare has slipped from 38% for, 47% against to 40% for, 41% against. “Kellyanne Conway(, the president of the polling company,) also notes that when asked if they would favor a law ‘that would require every American to have health insurance, or pay money to the government as a penalty if they do not, unless the person is very poor,’ 59 percent are opposed. ‘When they actually hear what the health care reform is, they’re opposed to it,’ she says."

We are also faced with a CBS/ NY Times poll that shows that Wisconsin voters have reversed their backing of Gov Walker to stand up to the unions to reduce the state deficits. The poll results showed those opposed to Walker 56% to 37% in favor. In a March 1, 2011 article, also in the Nation Review Jim Gerargy Dissecting These New Wisconson Polls points out the again the demographics were manipulated for a desired result. In the last general-population survey, Wisconsin showed a 36% / 35% split between Republicans and Democrats, however the poll used a 26% Republican/ 36% Democrat split. Next, 20% of the poll’s respondents claim to come from union households. “However, only 11.9% of American workers belong to a union, according to a report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month and noted by none other than the Times itself.”

One reason that opinion polls have become nothing more than left leaning propaganda is that unlike an exit poll or other election poll, there is no defining way to determine the accuracy. Opinion polls used to be of value to the democratic process, but now it has become part and parcel of the ongoing erosion and creditability of the press. Who would have guessed that the American press, rather than being a stand-in for the public at large to guarantee the government and other public institutions fulfill their duties, is now damaging our democracy in ways none could have foreseen. Who would believe that the press in a country where a free press is guaranteed by it’s constitution, would self censor and reduce itself to stumping for a political party and trying to manufacture public opinion? In essence the American press has voluntarily become a tool of fascism, prior to a totalitarian government even taking power. One has to wonder how much more compliant the press will be if ever actually faced with the dictates of a fascist government.

Friday, March 4, 2011

The Dogma of Progressive Science

If there is one thing that ties all progressives together it is dogma masquerading as science. As I mentioned in a previous article, Progressives; Still Lost in the 1920s the modern progressive movement began around the late 1800s/ early 1900’s when progressive believed that human and societal behavior could be understood and controlled through science. These behaviors spawned the social sciences of Eugenics, Psychiatry, Evolution and Communism; all four were considered to have a scientific base, even Communism was proposed by Marx and Engle’s, not as a form of government, but the eventual scientific destination of all successful societies. One of the basic scientific procedures when trying to prove a theory is to release your findings to the scientific world to see if your finding can be reproduced; this is called peer review. Another basic tenet of science is there must be a way of disproving your theory or the theory becomes non-scientific dogma. As time went on, the pseudo sciences of Keynesian economics and Man Made Global Warming joined the ranks.

Taken separately it is easy to understand that these were not science at all, taken together it is the progressives desire to eliminate God from the equation. Psychiatry as defined by Sigmund Freud held the Newtonian belief that once a psychosis was understood and identified then a cure or course of therapy was not far behind. Once Freud started to understand the true complexity of human behavior he realized his life’s worth has been more defining what psychology is not, more than what was. I have covered Eugenics in several of my articles, but stated simply it is racism, and elitism, proven through pseudo science with the goal of eliminating the useless eaters of the world. The fourth of the original pseudo sciences is the Theory of Evolution or the original title of Darwin’s theory, “The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or Preservation of favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” It is not a big leap of faith to believe, even from just the title, that Darwin believed strongly in Eugenics, which he did.

The Theory of Evolution is still the sole and only scientific theory to challenge religious creation in the origins of life, even though it’s basic premise has never been scientifically proven. As most know the Theory of Evolution states that lower forms of animals evolved into higher forms of animals, and this occurred as animals adapted to their changing surroundings. This evolution was incremental and was the result of a genetic anomalies in animals the proved to be an life advantage, and the same species without this advantage would not be able to compete and would die off. This theory seemed to have been extrapolated from the common occurrences of adaptation, where a color of fur or resistance to a poison, helped a species become more viable. But these animals never morphed into an entirely different species, they simply adapted. Science has showed that similar species have similar genes and even identical strains of DNA, and that these strains of DNA seem to run through extinct and similar species, but no mid-species animals have ever been discovered. When confronted with this information, some of my progressive friends have said, okay so animals evolve in a single generation; which of course is something god could do, but by definition is not evolution.

I will not delve too much into Keynesian theory or Man Mad Global Warming , except to say both are a pseudo scientific, tied closely to progressive political beliefs and also have no avenue where they can be disproved. Those that espouse Man Made Global Warming, claim any and all weather conditions and changes are a result of Man Made Climate Change. Keynesians believe that if an economy does not recover after a stimulus has been injected into the economy, then the stimulus was not enough, with no ideal or maximum amount ever discussed.

So lets not be fooled by what always becomes the science of the oppressor. Science does not objectively become dogma and it takes a great deal of energy and financial considerations to keep this “scientific dogma” from coming crashing to the ground. Therefore, scientific dogma is always very easy to spot, as it will always exist to control and oppress people for the purposes of political or financial gain; or to simply control humanity as purpose unto itself.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Paul Krugman is Indeed a Liar

On 02.27.2011 The Santa Cruz Sentential posted a condensed version of my article, The Fallacy of the Republican/democrat Flip/Flop on Civil Rights

"Once again Paul Krugman has tried to prop up his worldview by simply lying. In his previous article he said the Republican Party had abandoned the party of Lincoln, by embracing the racist south for a voting block. The reality of course was the South finally outgrew the Jim Crow Democrats and joined the rest of the nation, while Democrats for 40 years have been trying to remove the stench of segregation and Jim Crow from their party. In his article, “Wisconsin Power Play” he states that major conservative pundits insisted President Obama help Mubaraka suppress the uprising in Egypt. This of course has no foot in reality; conservatives across the board have condemned Mubarak where it was Secretary of State Clinton and Vice President Biden who proclaimed their backing of the Mubarack regime. It is a shame that Krugman has the notoriety that gives him the space in your paper to write such trash."

If I have one purpose in writing these articles it is trying to root out those that blindly follow the likes of Paul Krugman. The response was from one of those folks. It gives one some insight on how the left nurtures progressive thought with lies and mis-information.

Brad Goodwin's letter in the Feb. 26 paper claims Paul Krugman lied when he said major conservative pundits insisted that President Obama help Mubarak suppress the uprising in Egypt when, in fact "conservatives across the board have condemned Mubarak." In fact, it is Mr. Goodwin who is misinformed. It's easy to find statements on the Internet from conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, before Mubarak stepped down, praising Mubarak and suggesting that people "root for" him to prevail that was Limbaugh. Try it yourself; it won't take long. People should be more careful before calling others liars and accusing them of writing trash.

Peter Gelblum, Boulder Creek

This response should have been my the original article, as I backs up the original concept that Paul Krugman is indeed a liar. Whether the Sentinel will print it is questionable.

"As usual those of the left never actually listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh or other conservative pundits, they simply read a Google hit from Media Matters to find quotes taken out of context. Peter Gelblum rushing to the defense of Paul Krugman, claims Rush Limbaugh and other conservative pundits did indeed denounced the uprising in Egypt; he commented, "before Mubarak stepped down, praising Mubarak and suggesting that people "root for" him to prevail that was Limbaugh". The Limbaugh quote in context occurred while he was discussing the Muslim Brotherhood and their anti-west rhetoric; "No one really knows who to root for...If you are concerned with US interests, we should root for Mubarak to prevail. Would Mr Gelblum deny that Mubarack was been a strong ally of the west? Krugman is a hack and a liar, for this there is no doubt."

edited 03.06.2011.

Another example of Paul Krugman's intellectual dishonesty is how he mixes statistic apples and oranges to arrive at what ever conclusion fits his world view. Here is an excellent article by Longhorns 17, Badgers 1 , that references one of Krugman's recent trips to fantasy land where he tries to equate collective bargaining and high school tests scores; I love it when a rather dry scholarly piece contains the word "bullshit!".