Troop Surge In Afghanistan: More War, More Debt, Less Accountability

It was announced by Barack Obama that in accordance with his campaign statements that he is deploying 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq in order to seek out Osama bin Laden and the members of al Qaeda per the original Resolution passed by Congress in the wake of 9-11 (after, of course, at first promising to end the engagement in the Middle East altogether after so many lives, and so many American dollars have been lost in the over eight years since 9-11).

The question is, with the guarantee of support from the Afghan government with respect to this redress for the deaths and lives lost on that fateful September day, why the need for 30,000 troops rather than a limited deployment of intelligence and career military officers?

Not to second guess the commanders on the ground as a mere citizen, but is it really necessary to risk an additional 30,000 U.S. lives in order to capture one leader and those that were DIRECTLY responsible for giving those that participated "aid and comfort" in the planning of 9-11 which is the exact wording of the original Resolution?

The original pilots, after all, were Saudi citizens. It was only days after the attacks that it was revealed that bin Laden had claimed reponsibility for the attacks - and with the assistance of the Taliban, as I recall, not al Qaeda, although the two have been merged now in this loosely defined "War on Terror" which evolved under the Bush Administration.

So far, the body count in Iraq is minimal compared to prior full scale declared wars but still staggering for the U.S. given that these individuals are actually using rudimentary weapons most of all, including themselves.

And the amount of money now which has been poured into the rebuilding efforts actually has resulted in the U.S. deficit soaring to unprecedented levels even before all the other "funny money" was printed in order to then "salvage" the U.S. economy in the domestic loss of jobs and the foreclosure mess which occurred in large part due to the inflationary costs and those taxes for the war itself, actually in conjunction with some rather questionably legal loans sold throughout the West and Southwest based on the "global" London bank rates, and not U.S. rates at all and then repackaged and resold to foreign investors who were protected, not the U.S. homeowners even to date that were in essence defrauded or forced into some of those loans due to rising costs and refinances.

As funds were appropriated for the war, less funds were appropriated for domestic needs and costs and the budget for an entire new Department (DHS) and its expensive toys burst the "true" inflation (not the published spin) in rising costs for fuel, groceries and local taxes now for eight years - and then even with the stimulus, states are announcing college tuition cost increases, added taxes and a host of other new ways to bankrupt Americans, of course, after Washington then went so far as to tax the air Americans now breathe, for the "global good" at that, and bail out a London based global insurer on the backs of Americans.

It was interesting and outrageous to note that one of the Congressional members is proposing a new "tax" on Americans labeled the SOS tax (Congress and the media whom it appears they consult more and more for PR purposes love the acronyms for new legislation, unlike days gone by with bills less than 50 pages tops. The size of the average mortgage loan these days, which has also increased from less than five pages to 50 or more, with all the riders and caveats).

I wonder how much destruction we can now wreck in Afghanistan in order to bulk up the revenue, jobs and coffers of the U.S. military contractors once again in order to further plunge this country into a full out depression, since the global economy may be seeing signs of improving, but thus far the U.S. economy continues to tank in order to feed all those other nations and European investors.

By the time this war ends, it appears that what will truly have transpired is that there will eventually have been a leveraged buyout of most of America's infrastructure and assets by foreigner investors.

We will lose our country to foreigners while fighting a foreign enemy and without a shot fired on domestic soil.

In order to capture simply one man who has somehow alluded capture now for over eight years by the finest military in the entire world.

Just when are some of those other promises going to be kept, Mr. Obama, such as making Iraq start picking up the tab actually for this rebuilding effort in which it seems the U.S. funds and builds government buildings only to then have them blown up once again?

While Ms. Clinton then attempts to switch hats, as it were, as ambassador for Iraq and urge what is left of corporate America unrelated to those military contractors to invest in Iraq?

It appears maybe that it would be only the global insurance companies that would profit on businesses that wish to now outsource American production to that country post the rebuilding effort, in hiring then cheaper Iraqi labor in order to then pay those stratospheric insurance rates.

Just how, again, can Congress and the President justify risking 30,000 additional U.S. lives in order to supposedly redress the loss of 2,500 - after, of course, having lost at least three times that many to date?

Is this now the mentality of those on the Hill in defending America, while of course leaving our borders open and affording foreign investors in our nuclear reactors throughout the country for those global markets?

Isn't it the U.S. economy, security and safety and not the global one, that is supposed to be the focus of our elected representatives, since it would appear that fighting a foreign enemy on their own home turf gives us a one down no matter what the engagement, and we've got plenty of risk now due to continued negligence and promoting "foreign investment" in American assets on our own shores at this point?

Isn't the risk of attack by foreign terrorists much greater from within at this point, than without with such skewered logic?

Just how many more lives will be risked in order to secure the Middle East as a permanent source of income for War, Inc. in the name of "jobs and the economy" for the telecom, networks, media, and thousands of military contractors?

Are these again some of the "new jobs" created in addition to those which were primarily taxpayer paid additional government jobs under the non-stimulus (rather than the red-lining promised)?

Do you think after these past two administrations particularly, the American public trusts either the Republicans or Democratic Globalists in any manner whatsoever, except to keep the balls spinning and give public appearances that belie the collusion now involved between both parties in continuing this fiasco?

Is this a war in providing for the common defense of America? Or expansion of a global agenda and result of pemanent alliances with differing interests at the cost of America and Americans?

The proposed timeline and ending of this war really says it all. 2011. Coincidentally, just prior to the next presidential campaign election cycle in order to be rehashed for the consumption of America and spun and spun some more by the Global Socialist Party now residing on the Hill. It will, of course, end as "politically" as it appears that it began.

And an enemy for which this country would never, ever have if it had practiced the "defensive war" measures provided in America's founding documents per the "intent" of the founders.

These were trained terrorists, trained by the U.S. government in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, from all reports. So trying these individuals in America's federal courts once again also seems to be a political move in order to again rachet up the temperature in America for the continuing war when the details are rehashed on CNN and FOX of the "evidence" for the accused for all America.

Of course, since it will be a world audience involved the Middle Eastern countries will get the impression that the United States citizens are still out for revenge and blood after eight years since actual combat footage of what truly is occurring in Iraq has been suspiciously absent, unlike Viet Nam, so the blood lust will be reignited for the New York trial and the American people the convictors hearing the "evidence," from foreigners that speak little, if any, English at all.

A military target was involved, and these were "soldiers" trained in covert activities. And the mastermind still remains at large, so once captured what type of "plea bargain" will be available for any of these now to be tried, one of whom at least it is claimed was an active participant, in order to convict Mr. bin Laden?

And since our military did train them initially, would they also not be more familiar with their history and an "open" military trial, per the Nuremburg Trials, more along the lines of what is called for here?

The timing of these trials, and now announcement of the surge in conjunction, seems War, Inc. is not about to end before this country is brought to its knees both economically, and in the theft of thousands more of America's youth.

USA Today Story Misses The Mark On Immigrant Issue

As a former long term border state resident, I read with interest a story in one of this week's editions of USA Today, a global and corporate owned newspaper in the United States.

Never in my lifetime has the media become so blatantly misrepresentative of the idea of the founders for our press and 4th estate as it has in more recent years become.

This story, below a picture of the continued riots going on in Iran over the election, bore the headline "For Immigrants, Living The Dream Is Getting Tougher." Interesting headline, given I am a political refugee now living in another state due to three "illegal" immigrant crimes due to the U.S.'s appeasement policies and open borders with that questionable government.

I say questionable because some of the past corruption of the Mexican government is well known by those who live within 200 miles of the border, or have been frequent visitors there.

Of course no distinction was made in the article in order to support the headline between the recent immigrants, illegal immigrants, or first or second generation Americans. There is a difference in their experiences in this country, and as an only second generation American on one side of the family can also truly attest.

In the story, written by a writer from Chicago no less on the Sanchez families hardship, it did point to the fact that originally this family were illegal immigrants "who swam across the Rio Grande" in 1967 to fulfill a dream of bringing Mr. Sanchez's family here and working together.

Mr. Sanchez is now 63, and I lived in a border state during that time period also as this piece actually simply demonstrates how long this situation has gone unaddressed by our federal government actually.

His story of working as a butcher for only $1.85 per hour, taking a second job at a candy factory and working 14 hours a day is told in vivid detail. He eventually brought his wife, family, siiblings and parents here, although again after originally entering this country unlawfully.

The writer also makes note of how "immigrant" owned businesses such as Mr. Sanchez's are a key part of the U.S. economy, and now being threatened by the recession. He stands to lose one or two of the three clothing stores he now owns.

I'd like to compare Mr. Sanchez's story with a more personal one of my own "legal" immigrant familes, who came over to this country, and how they compare, as a second generation natural born American on one side, and fourth or fifth on the other.

My grandparents came over to this country in the 1920s from Scotland, with my grandfather betrothed but still as yet married due to the poor economic conditions in Scotland at the time, and the high taxes there.

He applied for a visa and green card from Scotland, there was a thorough background and medical check undertaken prior to its approval, and he then booked his ship passage, after having arranged for a German family to sponsor him during the minimum two year approval process at the time for citizenship.

He worked in a shipyard long and hard hours, saving every penny he had in order to eventually send for his betrothed and his mother. My family still has some of his letters to them which they found after his death many years ago. He wrote of how kind his German immigrant hosts were, and lived in a section called Germantown in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

He eventually made enough to send for my grandmother, and his mother and they married and settled in Philadelphia. Soon the kids began to arrive (five in all), and my grandfather began working in a union shop as a tool and die maker (cutting the holes for cabinets). He did not make a fortune, and there were few benefits even with his union membership.

They bought a simple row house in Philadelphia and were living the American dream, although frugally.

Then the depression came, and they lost their home and their life savings. Whatever monies they had for retirement were gone and had little savings. The house was gone, and ended up renting from another kind soul who exchanged rent for the odd jobs my grandfather performed for the rental properties. He also sold a Scottish delicacy, "blood sausage" for extra money on the street corners in Philadelphia.

During this time they lost one of their children, who had contracted spinal menningitis which was misdiagnosed by a doctor as "teething." She was 18 months old at the time.

After Roosevelt's "New Deal," they did eventually get back on their feet, of course, after my grandfather found work, and he eventually had his own small shop but found that being an employer left him little family time and he was undercut by the major large companies. He again went back on the assembly line, and his son later joined him.

They did eventually get their American dream home, another simple row house in Philadelphia. And that was their legacy. Their entire life's wealth consisted of that small little house.

My mother and father married later in years, after World War II ended, and my father was fortunate enough to have served this country honorably, and was awarded with the GI Bill and graduated from college. First in his family as a fourth (or fifth, we're not sure) generation American.

Due to the number of applicants, he got in through the good word of one of the alumnists whose son was a friend from his service time. He waited tables in the women's cafeteria to help pay his expenses, since the cost of tuition was the only "free money" he received after his tour of duty.

He graduated and they were married, and he was then employed by successive non-profit business organizations in his line of work, a chemist specializing in wood technology. He mainly worked for lumber manufacturers and small businesses. We also had a rather large family, four children, and at the time of my high school graduation my father still made less than $10,000 per year with a college degree.

The recession of the 70's hit, and he was laid off. Fortunately, they had some savings put aside for a rainy day and were able to make their mortgage payments of less than $300 per month while my father collected unemployment, and worked in a sawmill cutting timber until he could find work in his chosen field. He finally did, back in Pennsylvania and our family was separated for almost a year until they could sell their home in Arizona. My father only could "visit" us once a month for two days during that time.

They left and I stayed in Arizona, got a job after high school since there was no money and few scholarships or grants at that time, and began working in a bank in 1972 for less than $320.00 per month (less than Mr. Sanchez since minimum wage then was $1.60 per hour). My apartment rent took nearly 2/3's of that, and my car payment the other third. I ate bake potatoes quite a bit.

My fiance attended ASU at a cost of $160.00 per semester for 16 credit hours, $10.00 per credit hour. Today, that tuition cost is eight times the increases in the consumer price index at over $6,000 per semester. He went to school on student loans at low interest, although we had to pay them all back within 10 months of his graduation.

I worked, he went to school during the fall and worked summers. We moved to Nebraska eventually so he could continue his degree and were separated summers while he found employment in Arizona through a job connection he had there.

We married, and after three children as 50% of the marriages in this country do, eventually divorced. Much of the stress of those early years contributed, and other factors of course.

But I was faced with living in the increasingly dangerous City of Phoenix, with the highest property and identity theft rates, Mexican gangs and drug problem in the nation as a single mother of three. I used up what savings we had attempting to be a "present" parent but even that was not enough.

The effects of the divorce and its complications, and my fractured energies meant I was not as good a "supervisor" as I needed to be in that city and also became the victim of three illegal immigrant thefts my last ten years living there.

I am without a "home," either state or physical dwelling. And not simply the choice of which of my stores I might need to cut loose.

Maybe next week USA Today will do a story on how much tougher living the American dream is becoming on natural born AMERICANS of two or more generations.

By the way, I'm 56. Hardly the age to be rebuilding either from scratch, and with the loans still as usurous as they were when I had to refinance, not very likely I will ever own a home as my grandparents eventually did.

And today, the illegal immigrants who canvas neighborhoods or who solicit work independently in Arizona want $10.00 per hour for their services, twice the minimum wage, but are threatened by employers with reporting them to CBP if they ask for increases by those corporate employers hiring them, which then leads the less satisfied to steal from the general public in order to survive, or sell the drug cartels product lines on the side in order to afford their cell phones and souped up and many times stolen automobiles.

So it is actually the lawful American citizens that are the victims in this scenario in the border states and beyond, either paying outrageous rates for work for hire privately, or subject to subsidizing the corporate entities through theft or public welfare benefits scamming those in their employ.

And it is the border hoppers that are creating most of the criminal activity, those that do not in any way ever intend to become U.S. citizens and would not take up any offer of amnesty if it were extended. In fact, with the situation in the border states as it is now and all the benefits now granted to illegals through federal provisos which even supercede state laws, there is not a single reason at this point I could think of that would make it advantageous for any illegal in this country any longer to naturalize.

Since the Bill of Rights appears now to apply more so each any every year to corporation "person-hoods", and foreigners and not those for whom it was actually intended, the lawfuly natural and naturalized U.S. CITIZENS as "We the people."