From LRC

• The phony arguments for presidential war powers.
• Obama is Bush and Clinton at the same time.
• Political correctness on Wikipedia. Charity gone wrong: lying about history.
• Wilson and FDR knew that their policies of unconditional surrender would ensure that their wars would go on as long as possible, which was one of their goals. They loved being wartime leaders, Great Men pushing the little boxes around on the map, sending so many to their graves. They knew that war strengthened them and their governments. And they wanted their special interests to profit from the destruction, and the remaking of a new US-dominated world. It is also no coincidence that Obama and his satraps confiscated all of Gadaffi’s money; forbade him to travel internationally; and now, told him he will be tried for war crimes. Of course, he is a war criminal, like Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Wilson, FDR, et al. But if one actually wanted him gone, a safe, plush retirement would be the most likely way to bring it about. Obama’s policy is designed to lengthen the war, cause maximum chaos, punish the Arabs who refuse to bow the knee, and enable the empire to extend its control over oil and everything else.
• What should the government tell the mother of an American soldier who loses his life in Libya? Answer: That he died for the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida, two organizations that have been identified as being part of “the rebels” opposing Gadhafi who are apparently our new “allies.”
• Why are thoughtful people so perplexed over Obama’s unilateral decision to go to war against Libya without seeking congressional approval, while opting for UN authorization? Has the possibility not entered anyone’s mind that Obama – put into office by the corporate-establishment – might be in the process of generating a world base for the political structuring of his masters’ interests, as a replacement for the national system of coercive authority? History demonstrates how the American business system sought a broadened federal power when the economic life of this country evolved from state and regional markets to national ones (see my In Restraint of Trade book). Are we to imagine that, in this age of multi-nationalism, these same interests would not be desirous of empowering an international state to standardize and universally enforce their interests? Does anyone really believe that this move was something that Obama and Michelle dreamed up one night in the Lincoln bedroom? Does anyone not suspect that the total lack of impeachment talk from members of Congress might be due to “our representatives” who, like Obama and the RCA Victor dog, are busy listening to their “masters’ voice”?

Labels: history, libertarianism, peace, politics