Obama’s War: The Reaction – The neocons and the war liberals are on board

The following is a part of Raimondo’s AntiWar published article in which he points out some of the most horrendous “progressive” justifications for supporting Obama’s imperialist Afghanistan surge.

I am struck by the one example he sites from the Huffington Post.

10 years ago, if someone blindly supported a party leaders bad decision, they would be accused of doing anything they could to underhandedly promote the “Party” over the morality or the lives of our solders or the innocent civilians.  This guy, James Slater, actually comes out and SAYS that we should support Obama’s fraudulent surge for the sake of “The Party” and apparently the lives lost and the misery inflicted to innocent civilians in Afghanistan and to our own soldiers…  is a SECONDARY consideration to the success of “The Party”.

Dead, maimed, and displaced innocents… people wrongly arrested and tortured… drones raining indiscriminate HellFire down on innocent civilians for years to come… and all that is SECONDARY to “electoral consequences“?

This is beyond morally bankrupt. Its… it’s just evil.  I just don’t know what else to say about it.

read the entire article from Justin Raimondo at AntiWar, here

The Huffington Post has become the trumpet of the Obama cult in the blogosphere, and on this occasion it doesn’t disappoint. Aside from Cesca, we have Professor Jerome Slater of SUNY Buffalo with what has got to be the most morally bankrupt rationale for war I have ever seen in print:

Since the international, strategic, moral, and even the ultimate economic consequences of whatever we do are unknowable, we might just as well make the relatively more knowable domestic political consequences in the United States the decisive consideration. And that leads – at least for me – to one conclusion: the best thing for Obama, and for the Democratic Party, and indeed for the cause of liberalism in this country, would be to give the military what it wants (within reason), if the new troop commitments prove to be insufficient to turn the tide in Afghanistan.

“If the military gets what it wants and the tide turns in Afghanistan, Obama will get some of the credit; if it doesn’t, at least Obama and the Democrats can say they gave the armed forces what they said it needed. But if the military is denied and then we lose, Obama and the Democrats will get the blame, with electoral consequences likely to reverberate for many years. In the worse case, a Taliban-al-Qaeda victory followed by a massive attack on the United States, for years to come we can kiss good-bye to liberalism in this country, and maybe even to minimally rational foreign and domestic policies.”

The “decisive consideration” in this argument, which Slater doesn’t explicitly acknowledge but which is glaringly obvious, is pure politics: matters of principle, morality, and the national interest don’t enter into his calculations at all (presumably because they are “unknowable”). In Slater’s view, it doesn’t matter how many Afghans we kill in the process, or how many Americans are sacrificed on the Obama cult’s bloody altar – all he cares about is ensuring Obama’s reelection prospects and the fortunes of the Democrats. And this profoundly immoral statement is made in the name of “saving liberalism”!

If this is liberalism, then it is a degenerate variety that has little or no relation to the original – and it deserves a speedy (albeit painful) death.  Justin Raimondo

Sen. Bunning to Fed Chairman Bernanke:Your Federal Reserve has Become the Creature from Jekyll Island

U.S. Senator Jim Bunning delivers his statement at the Senate Banking Committee explaining why he will oppose the nomination of Ben Bernanke to serve a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Lynne Stewart ordered to Prison: The Criminalization of the US Justice System

by Claude Jacqueline Herdhuin, Global Research

On Thursday, November 19th, long time civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart was ordered by Judge John G. Koeltl to turn herself in to begin serving a 28-month prison sentence for her 2006 conviction for conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists. This 70 year old woman has devoted her life to the poor, the underprivileged, the black community and to cause of social justice.

Anyone who could not afford for a lawyer could knock at her door. Today, Lynne Stewart is fighting not only for her freedom but for any American’s freedom.

Lynne Stewart did not benefit from the US justice system. Her case became important after 911. Let me remind you that her only mistake was to ignore the US Bureau of Prisons Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) she had to sign in order to defend Sheik Omar-Abdel Rahman. The SAMs are unconstitutional and constitue a violation of both the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel.

Continue reading