obama gives 400k to gaddafi causes
by HellFire
 Obama Gives 400k to Gaddafi causes
Apr 08, 2011 | 986 views | 38 38 comments | 16 16 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
Remember as a kid drawing connect-the-dotspictures?  Simply follow the dots and a clear picture emerges.  As an adult, connecting the dots of Obama's actions leads to an oxymoronic picture.  A clear picture of a murky web.  Obama's actions continually link him to people and causes that the majority of Americans do not support. The recent event of another aid ship sailing to Gaza is an example of to whom and what the strands of Obama's web link him, and unfortunately America.


 Last year, right around the time Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi called Obama "our son," Obama earmarked $400,000 for two Libyan charities. The money was divided between two foundations run by Gaddafi's children; Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, run by his son Saif, and Wa Attassimou, run by his daughter Aicha.  What noble causes did our tax dollars potentially help support thanks to Obama's generosity?


Funding of the ship Amalthea:  The Amalthea sailed to Israel with the intent of breaking the Israeli blockade on Hamas.  It carried aid for a pseudo humanitarian crisis and supporters who were said to be "keen on expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people in the plight amidst the siege imposed on Gaza."  The ship was funded by Saif Gaddafi's charity, Gaddafi International Charity andDevelopment Association.  Obama's friend, Bill Ayers, joined attempt #1 against Israel's blockade on Hamas.  Saif joined attempt #2.  One has to wonder which of Obama's friends will step up to the plate at attempt #3. 


The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi:  Saif Gaddafi was involved in negotiating the convicted bomber's release, and accompanied him back to Libya, where al-Megrahi was praised and welcomed.  For those who have forgotten the extent of the carnage of the Lockerbie bombing, 270 people, including 189 Americans, were killed.


Honoring Iraqi journalist, Muntazer al-Zaidi:  Al-Zaidi is the journalist who threw his shoe at President George W. Bush.  He was given a bravery award by Aicha Gaddafi's charity, Wa Attassimou.  Thecharity stated that al-Zaidi's actions "represented a victory for human rights across the world."


As long as we are connecting the dots between Obama and Libya, now seems a good time to remember that the state department issued an official apology to Libya after spokesman P.J. Crowley made disparaging comments about Gaddafi's call for jihad against Switzerland.  Apparently Crowley spoke on instinct instead of running his reaction by Libya's "son" first.  As an Obamian spinmeister, Crowley learned that one doesn't speak ill of "family."


What a web Obama continues to spin.  One can only hope he falls into it soon, before all of American is smothered by it.  Camie Davis








IMPEACH THE ILLEGAL ALIEN MUSLIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!


Comments
(38)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
laselva
|
April 14, 2011
M. Hope- If you don't know what insulting is, that is a personality issue.

I stand my remarks, learned from people as wise as you consider yourself to be - and Catholic school is run by God, not the government. What we have taking place in the name of "small government" or "no government" is what will lead to the public and the environment getting squashed by unregulated profiteers and corporate thugs as has happened many times in our history until someone...usually the "government - the people of the United States," steps in and tries to correct the harm.

If this wild west capitalism is the kind of freedom you want to see, then you have me as an opponent. I know, you're shaking in your boots, but at least I get to vote against people like you.
Michael_W._Hope
|
April 14, 2011
P.S. Laselva. How was I being insulting? What, by telling the truth about real economic history and not parroting something I heard in some 7th grade socialist studies class at some government run school? You know I wasn't being insulting. You just simply didn't have a counter argument that's all. I wasn't trying to be insulting. If I was,I apologize for that.
Michael_W._Hope
|
April 14, 2011
Laselva your wrong on two accounts. First of all I don't support corporatism, which is basically corporate welfare, weather in the form of regulatory monopolies or bailouts and subsidies. Secondly I despise the banking establishment because of the great monopoly that they were granted by the governments under both Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson. Lincoln in 1863 with the passage of the national currency acts and Wilson with the passage of the Owen-Glass act which in 1913 ushered in the Federal Reserve system. Lincoln was a huge supporter of Alexander Hamilton, who was a big champion of mercantilism/corporatism and central banking. Hamilton wanted to bring about a government/corporatist system by which a few rich elites benefit at the expense of everyone else. But I assure you laselva this wasn't capitalism. This my friend was mercantilism. These robber barons and bankers that you speak of were the first progressive socialist. They were the ones getting the special deals and privileges from government. They were not true capitalist, they were corporatist. It was with the help of government that they obtained monopoly status and therefore became the robber barons that not only you but I despise also. Lincoln as a Hamiltonian was a big supporter of the fascist banking system. He had the support of the fascist industrialist in the north. Old honest Abe was far from being honest when it came to matters of banking and mercantilism. His actions of signing the National Currency Acts into law, nationalizing the currency and granting regional monopolies to the largest private banks in those respective regions(Lincoln's political buddies). If Lincoln did make the case you claimed he made, then that was a great case to end the government granted monopoly power of private central bankers and to return to a free market competition in banking with a solvency requirement of 100% reserves. You and Lincoln just made my case for a free market, not only in banking, but also in every other industrial matter as well.

laselva
|
April 14, 2011
M. Hope-

A little more of my 7th grade US Government class homework - those nuns were a bunch of socialists!

Throughout much of the 1800s and into the 1900s, the United States suffered several economic crises, one of the most significant of which was the Great Depression of 1873. The crisis was built into a system which was chaotic in its nature, in which only the very rich were secure. It was a system of periodic crises – 1837, 1857, 1873 (and later: 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929 (seems like bust and boom to me, as previously stated), that wiped out small businesses and brought cold, hunger, and death to working people (Not according to you - no one went hungry), while the fortunes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, kept growing.

During the 1873 crisis, Carnegie captured the steel market, and Rockefeller was wiping out his competitors in oil. Massive industrial consolidation by a few oligarchic elites was the rule of the day, as J.P. Morgan expanded total control over railroad and banking interests, and John D. Rockefeller, now controlling of the oil market, expanded into banking.

The imperial leader of the new oligarchy was the House of Morgan. In its operations it was ably assisted by the First National Bank of New York (directed by George F. Baker) and the National City Bank of New York (presided over by James Stillman, agent of the Rockefeller interests). Among them, these three men and their financial associates occupied 341 directorships in 112 corporations. The total resources of these corporations in 1912 was $22,245,000,000, more than the assessed value of all property in the twenty-two states and territories west of the Mississippi River.

As this appears to be occurring again within our latest financial crisis - the rise in the fortunes of the wealthy class - personally, I would feel more comfortable with a little government control over these so-called free market pirates.
laselva
|
April 14, 2011
M.Hope-

As you have decided to get insulting and apparently incapable of sustaining a civil conversation, I wish you only ill in your efforts to be soundly defeated in your little election. In you and your libertarian friends desire to turn this great country back over to the "people" (robber barons and greedy bankers), I will end with words from "Honest Abe."

Lincoln stated:

"The money powers prey on the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes.

I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. As a most undesirable consequence of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."

Michael_W._Hope
|
April 13, 2011
Laselva.... We came out of the great depression not because of the New Deal interventions. But inspite of them. The government policies protracted and prolonged the liquidation of the malinvestments and debts of the 20'S. We needed liquidation of the malinvestments not a hindering and prolonging of that process by government interventionist policies. People didn't starve to death in 1893 and 1921. The debts were quickly liquidated and the liquidated capital was then shifted to areas of the economy that most met the preferences of all consumers at a noninflated price that they could afford to pay. You see the market consumers benefited with cheap non inflated quality goods In 1893 and 1921. In 1929 however, only the big government bureaucrats hungry for power and control benefited at the expense of all.

Michael_W._Hope
|
April 13, 2011
Laselva... I'm impressed with your 7th grade government indoctrinated version of the greatest economic calamity in modern times. First of all you don't even mention anything about the Two preceding depressions of 1893 and 1920-1921 where the government and the central bank did absolutely nothing and the economy recovered in months and not decades unlike the 1929-1946 FED created great depression, under Hoover and FDR. Secondly you mentioned that Capitalism has episodic bouts of "Growth" and then recession or depression, which clearly displays a true misunderstanding of how economies actually grow. Which is not through monetary inflation but through the actual formation of private capital, real property, not printing phony claims to property that doesn't exist, that is capital, that can only come about through production, savings and investment. This method of savings induced "actual growth" does not bring about the boom\bust business cycle. Because actual resources are present to underwrite all the investment projects, not inflation. So it wasn't growth that led to a depression. It was a deviation from the gold standard and the massive monetary expansion, by the FED, beyond the amount of gold in existence able to back said expansion. Prices rose and interest rates rose and the illusory money supply was contracted for fear of a run on the dollar for something of actual real value like gold and silver. Contrary to what government run indoctrination centers teach, Hoover was not some noninterventionist free market capitalist. The Smoot Hawley tariff was passed under his administration, which ushered in massive unprecedented government interventions in domestic commerce and foreign trade. Hoover was a huge interventionist. So much so that when FDR ran against him in 1932 FDR accused HOOVER of being a socialist. It turns out FDR was even a bigger socialist. Bush on the other hand was a big interventionist also, with the bailouts of AIG and Lehman brothers. Bush said that we had to abandon capitalism to save capitalism. That doesn't sound like a free market hands of policy to me. Even though we haven't had real capitalism since the 1850's. This is corporatism run amok.
laselva
|
April 13, 2011
Jack-

You've missed a big one.

Do away with Homeland Security. We already have plenty of police, spies, and security experts in the FBI, CIA, NSA.

I've already mentioned that the IRS spends 100 billion collecting the tax each year. Must be a simpler way to do that. Oddly, the Republicans shot down the IRS' ability to go after over $300 billion in unpaid tax - it didn't fit into their budget cutting plans. ???

I think the government could raise money with a 25¢ charge for every blog post. That would cut down on a lot of the jabber that fills our cables and satellites beams. Idiotic responses might be 50¢ - more reasons to get an education.

I think I just upped the GDP by 2%