Freedom Of Speech Doesn't Apply To Those Who Are Saying What They Don't Want You To Hear

Remember when you were a kid, and if somebody told you something you didn't want to hear, such as it's time to go to bed, you would stick a finger in each ear and say "LaLalalalalalalalal" very loudly? It didn't work, because that very act alone told your parents that indeed it was time for you to go to sleep. Well, this is kind of like that. Jewish groups are asking member countries to stand up and walk out when Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the U.N. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference on May 3.

“Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability poses a threat to the region and the entire Western world. To have President Ahmadinejad address this review conference makes a mockery of the efforts of many countries to prevent nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism from becoming the gravest global threats of this century."

Mockery? Really? How about Israel deploring IAEA and UN calls for Israel to sign the NPT and join the IAEA while trying to simultaneously deciding whom that august body should and shouldn't be listening to?
The president and executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the group that is calling for the boycott, then goes on to state that:"It is dismaying that, once again, the U.N. is allowing the head of a regime, foremost in the sponsorship of terrorism and the abuse of human rights, who defies U.N. resolutions regarding its nuclear ambitions, to appear before the international body."
Really? You want to go there? Israel, an apartheid state where it's Palestinian peoples are treated as second class citizens, where the Goldstone report has listed numerous war crimes and abuses of Human Rights, a country that has defied more UN resolutions than Iraq, and rejects UN resolutions regarding it's nuclear ambitions, and now you want to criticize Iran, which, once again has not diverted one isotope towards anything but it's nuclear energy program, nor has it been found to be developing a weapons program?
Which is likely what Ahmadinejad will be discussing at the conference, which is what pro-Israel groups do not want the world to hear. That and the fact the US has not lived up to it's obligations under Article 4 of the NNPT. (It's unlikely that the Iranian president will be discussing the continued violation of it's own Symington amendment by the US either) So, once again, we have the US standing behind international criminal state Israel while making false claims against one of Israel's enemies in the region. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Chick Fight In 2012?

With the Obama administration unable to follow through on any of it's promises, from reforming health care, to ending the war in Iraq (or Afghanistan), ending the torturous practices of the previous administration, and generally failing to deliver the hope of change that was the theme of it's campaign, is someone looking ahead to 2012? Of course, I mean Hillary Clinton, who is still keeping a small political team from her campaign staff. For someone who believes the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes (and not by the will of the voters, who hope they'll keep their promises) to be so close to the top might be a temptation even such a spiritual person as Ms. Clinton can not resist.
And in this corner- Sarah Palin, able to garner support from 80% of the rich old white men at NewsMax in a 2012 presidential run. (I say old men because 80% of advertising is aimed at fat unhealthy seniors). She used her farewell speech as a foundation for her 2012 campaign. Who else dos the GOP have? Tim Pawlenty? "Bobby" Jindal? (I can see the base that refers to Barack Hussein Obama going for a guy whose first name is Piyush) George (or what ever his first name is)Huckabee? Mittens? Just read these pro-Palin comments and you can see what the base likes about her-she's good looking, especially lined up against a long-in-the-tooth hag like Clinton will be in three years.
Just face it. Even with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, Barack Obama is not going to change anything. America is fucked up the way the corporocratic masters want it fucked up. So if politics can't serve the will of the people, the least it could do is offer us some entertainment.

Tell Us The One About How You Invented The Internet, Senator Clinton

Hmmmm. "35 years of change".
In 1973, touch tone phones were becoming the rage, although they were still attached to the wall, so you couldn't talk on them in your car, or at the supermarket, so personal conversations were personal, not the property of everyone in earshot.
In 1973, news was reported to us by journalists, who actually investigated corruption and wrong doing. News focused on stories of the day and weren't celebrity obsessed nor tabloid-like offerings designed to pull in more ratings, but rather a respected part of a network's schedule. We only had three networks to choose from, and every night they all went off the air.
In 1973, the majority of consumer goods purchased by Americans were still manufactured in the US. Not only that, but we still exported goods to be sold in other countries apart from the munitions and other war weaponry which is pretty much all we export now. Many households were still one-income households, which was sufficient to support a family.
In 1973 there actually was an opposition party that vigorously investigated wrong doing by the executive branch...............


One could be a wag and point out all the advancements made since 1973 (the internet for one), and I welcome them, as well as I could make more points (for instance, in 1973, public opposition to an illegal war actually mattered and helped to bring it to an end) but in the end all these wonderful changes Sen. Clinton is taking credit for have only been good for the elite in the country at the expense of everyone else, especially the quickly vanishing middle class (which was thriving in 1973).

Next: A Promise To Leap Tall Buildings In A Single Bound

Is this the best the Democrats can muster? (No, it isn't) Can anyone, for God's sake tell me why Hillary Clinton is the front runner when she says absurd things such as “Elect me and oil prices will instantly drop!” Surely she must be intelligent to know that the president doesn't control oil prices, but maybe she's hoping that her supporters aren't that savvy.
Oil prices are set by demand, so as long as Americans insist on driving gas sucking pigs of cars, the oil prices will stay high. Sure, there are things a president can do to ensure lower gas prices, such as, I don't know, not labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization(second story down), a step towards a war with Iran that will, that's right, drive up oil prices. (of course, Ron Paul is a kook for suggesting that America's foreign policy is why we are hated in the Middle east, Hell, the whole damned planet, but what does he know? He voted against the war in Iraq that Hillary voted for, which was the start of the rise in oil prices.
Of course, Hillary has her kool-aid drinking legions who think she would be a great president, or maybe they feel that a female president would be better than a male (which, if you look at it, is chauvinistic sexist drivel.) Sure, she could be a president, just not a very good one, if her past actions are any indication of what the future holds from her.