Showing posts with label War on Drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Drugs. Show all posts

Friday, 21 December 2018

CIA and its links to the Opium trade in Afghanistan

The CIA and its links to the Afghanistan's President's brother, Hamid Karzai and his role in the Opium trade

By Dark Politricks

Another signal that the war on terror and the war on drugs in Afghanistan maybe more about controlling the very lucrative opium trade was the following article printed in the New York Times. The article details how the brother of Hamid Karzai a Ahmed Wali Karzai, who is regarded to be the biggest Opium dealer in the country, is also on the payroll of the CIA.

Now I won't even pretend to be shocked as we all know that the CIA is the biggest drug smuggler in the world and has been for some time. However for those people who are still under the illusion that our troops are dying out in the Stan for some noble cause it should be another sign that things are not always what our benevolent leaders tell us they are.

According to various sources including journalists and Russian government ministers the USA is definitely involved in the lucrative Opium trade which is severely affecting Russia with its ever increasing population of addicts. Russian journalist Arkadi Dubnov quotes Afghan sources as saying that “85 per cent of all drugs produced in southern and south-eastern provinces are shipped abroad by US aviation.”

A source in Afghanistan’s security services told Dubnov that the American military buy drugs from local Afghan officials who deal with field commanders overseeing eradication of drug production. Dubnov claimed in Vesti Novostei that the administration of President Hamid Karzai, including his two brothers, Kajum Karzai and Akhmed Vali Karzai, are involved in the narcotics trade.

We should only have to look at a simple graph that shows the levels of Opium production in Afghanistan over the years to see that when the CIA has been involved crop production has spiked. Remember it was actually a flat-line at zero up until the war with Russia and then the CIA had the brilliant idea of getting the Mujahedeen resistance fighters to grow Opium as a way of financing the guerrilla war as well as demoralising the Russian conscript army by getting them hooked to the drug.




The Opium crop only went up and up until the Taliban took over the country and then banned the growing of the poppy plant seeing it as Un-Islamic in 2001. They were actually successful at this eradication process and areas of the country controlled by the Taliban in 2001 grew next to nothing according to a UN report.


Should we be surprised that Afghanistan was then invaded later that year by the CIA and the Northern Alliance rebels it sponsored or was it just a lucky coincidence. The war was started supposedly to catch the master mind villain behind the 9.11 attacks a Mr Usama-bin-Laden who denied all knowledge or involvement in the attacks in an interview taken just afterwards.

However the invasion went forward and once rooted in the country the invading forces seemed to ignore the chase for bin-Laden and put their full attention to destroying the Taliban instead and unsurprisingly the opium crop started rising with record levels of the drug being produced year by year. Therefore when Blair and Bush were telling us that not only were in Afghanistan to catch al-Qaeda masterminds but also to help eradicate the Opium crop were they lying on only one front or both?

The following article was taken from the New York Times website and I have re-published it in full. The original link is at the bottom of the article.

Brother of Afghan Leader Is Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll

By DEXTER FILKINS, MARK MAZZETTI and JAMES RISEN
Published: October 27, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.

The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.

The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America’s increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The CIA.’s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban.

More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.

“If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves,” said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.

Ahmed Wali Karzai said in an interview that he cooperated with American civilian and military officials, but did not engage in the drug trade and did not receive payments from the C.I.A.

The relationship between Mr. Karzai and the C.I.A. is wide ranging, several American officials said. He helps the C.I.A. operate a paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, that is used for raids against suspected insurgents and terrorists. On at least one occasion, the strike force has been accused of mounting an unauthorized operation against an official of the Afghan government, the officials said.

Mr. Karzai is also paid for allowing the C.I.A. and American Special Operations troops to rent a large compound outside the city — the former home of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban’s founder. The same compound is also the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. “He’s our landlord,” a senior American official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Karzai also helps the C.I.A. communicate with and sometimes meet with Afghans loyal to the Taliban. Mr. Karzai’s role as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban is now regarded as valuable by those who support working with Mr. Karzai, as the Obama administration is placing a greater focus on encouraging Taliban leaders to change sides.

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment for this article.

“No intelligence organization worth the name would ever entertain these kind of allegations,” said Paul Gimigliano, the spokesman.

Some American officials said that the allegations of Mr. Karzai’s role in the drug trade were not conclusive.

“There’s no proof of Ahmed Wali Karzai’s involvement in drug trafficking, certainly nothing that would stand up in court,” said one American official familiar with the intelligence. “And you can’t ignore what the Afghan government has done for American counter-terrorism efforts.”

At the start of the Afghan war, just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, American officials paid warlords with questionable backgrounds to help topple the Taliban and maintain order with relatively few American troops committed to fight in the country. But as the Taliban has become resurgent and the war has intensified, Americans have increasingly viewed a strong and credible central government as crucial to turning back the Taliban’s advances.

Now, with more American lives on the line, the relationship with Mr. Karzai is setting off anger and frustration among American military officers and other officials in the Obama administration. They say that Mr. Karzai’s suspected role in the drug trade, as well as what they describe as the Mafia like way that he lords over southern Afghanistan, makes him a malevolent force.

These military and political officials say the evidence, though largely circumstantial, suggests strongly that Mr. Karzai has enriched himself by helping the illegal trade in poppy and opium to flourish. The assessment of these military and senior officials in the Obama administration dovetails with that of senior officials in the Bush administration.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it,” a senior American military officer in Kabul said. Like most of the officials in this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the information.
“If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck,” the American officer said of Mr. Karzai. “Our assumption is that he’s benefiting from the drug trade.”
American officials say that Afghanistan’s opium trade, the largest in the world, directly threatens the stability of the Afghan state, by providing a large percentage of the money the Taliban needs for its operations, and also by corrupting Afghan public officials to help the trade flourish.

The Obama administration has repeatedly vowed to crack down on the drug lords who are believed to permeate the highest levels of President Karzai’s administration. They have pressed him to move his brother out of southern Afghanistan, but he has so far refused to do so.

Other Western officials pointed to evidence that Ahmed Wali Karzai orchestrated the manufacture of hundreds of thousands of phony ballots for his brother’s re-election effort in August. He is also believed to have been responsible for setting up dozens of so-called ghost polling stations — existing only on paper — that were used to manufacture tens of thousands of phony ballots.

“The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone,” General Flynn said.

In the interview in which he denied a role in the drug trade or taking money from the C.I.A., Ahmed Wali Karzai said he received regular payments from his brother, the president, for “expenses,” but said he did not know where the money came from. He has, among other things, introduced Americans to insurgents considering changing sides. And he has given the Americans intelligence, he said. But he said he was not compensated for that assistance.

“I don’t know anyone under the name of the C.I.A.,” Mr. Karzai said. “I have never received any money from any organization. I help, definitely. I help other Americans wherever I can. This is my duty as an Afghan.”

Mr. Karzai acknowledged that the C.I.A. and Special Operations troops stayed at Mullah Omar’s old compound. And he acknowledged that the Kandahar Strike Force was based there. But he said he had no involvement with them.

A former C.I.A. officer with experience in Afghanistan said the agency relied heavily on Ahmed Wali Karzai, and often based covert operatives at compounds he owned. Any connections Mr. Karzai might have had to the drug trade mattered little to C.I.A. officers focused on counterterrorism missions, the officer said.

Virtually every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade,” he said. “If you are looking for Mother Teresa, she doesn’t live in Afghanistan.”

The debate over Ahmed Wali Karzai, which began when President Obama took office in January, intensified in June, when the C.I.A.’s local paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, shot and killed Kandahar’s provincial police chief, Matiullah Qati, in a still-unexplained shootout at the office of a local prosecutor.

The circumstances surrounding Mr. Qati’s death remain shrouded in mystery. It is unclear, for instance, if any agency operatives were present — but officials say the firefight broke out when Mr. Qati tried to block the strike force from freeing the brother of a task force member who was being held in custody.

“Matiullah was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Mr. Karzai said in the interview.

Counter-narcotics officials have repeatedly expressed frustration over the unwillingness of senior policy makers in Washington to take action against Mr. Karzai — or even begin a serious investigation of the allegations against him. In fact, they say that while other Afghans accused of drug involvement are investigated and singled out for raids or even rendition to the United States, Mr. Karzai has seemed immune from similar scrutiny.

For years, first the Bush administration and then the Obama administration have said that the Taliban benefits from the drug trade, and the United States military has recently expanded its target list to include drug traffickers with ties to the insurgency. The military has generated a list of 50 top drug traffickers tied to the Taliban who can now be killed or captured.

Senior Afghan investigators say they know plenty about Mr. Karzai’s involvement in the drug business. In an interview in Kabul this year, a top former Afghan Interior Ministry official familiar with Afghan counter-narcotics operations said that a major source of Mr. Karzai’s influence over the drug trade was his control over key bridges crossing the Helmand River on the route between the opium growing regions of Helmand Province and Kandahar.

The former Interior Ministry official said that Mr. Karzai was able to charge huge fees to drug traffickers to allow their drug-laden trucks to cross the bridges.

But the former officials said it was impossible for Afghan counter-narcotics officials to investigate Mr. Karzai. “This government has become a factory for the production of Opium because of corruption and injustice,” the former official said.

Some American counter-narcotics officials have said they believe that Mr. Karzai has expanded his influence over the drug trade, thanks in part to American efforts to single out other drug lords.

In debriefing notes from Drug Enforcement Administration interviews in 2006 of Afghan informants obtained by The New York Times, one key informant said that Ahmed Wali Karzai had benefited from the American operation that lured Hajji Bashir Noorzai, a major Afghan drug lord during the time that the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, to New York in 2005. Mr. Noorzai was convicted on drug and conspiracy charges in New York in 2008, and was sentenced to life in prison this year.

Habibullah Jan, a local military commander and later a member of Parliament from Kandahar, told the D.E.A. in 2006 that Mr. Karzai had teamed with Haji Juma Khan to take over a portion of the Noorzai drug business after Mr. Noorzai’s arrest.

Read full article here.

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

The Drugs War - Why It Should Be Ended - A documentary by Russell Brand

The Drugs War - Why It Should Be Ended - A documentary by Russell Brand

YouTube.com
Russell Brand End The Drugs War - By Dark Politricks

As someone who has been around drugs all my life in the UK it is interesting to see different people's perspectives on drugs.

You can read my own thoughts on drugs and the war on it here: The Drug Laws Need Re-Thinking.

If you know my history and my current conitions then you will know I am on Fentanyl for my chrionic pain condition, a drug 100 * stronger than Morphine and many times more potent than heroin. It's a drug that they cut heroin with and has caused many deaths in the USA.

I am not committing a crime by taking this strong opiate because I am being prescribed it by my GP for my pain.

It's given to me in patches I stick on my body where the drug is slowly absorbed over 2 days . It's supposed to be 3 days but I am on the highest dose and the GP has overruled NICE rules on medications due to the severity of my condition.

When I go to the chemist to collect my supply they have to get it from the Controled Drugs Supply where I then sign an extra part of the form.

It is a strong drug, one that I was told by a girl I met who worked at a homeless centre when I was in iceland (where heroin wasn't available) that if I threw one of my patches into the middle of a crowd of homeless addicts they would fight to the death over it.

Apparently due to the lack of heroin any Icelandic addict would cook these patches up, extract the Fentanyl and then inject or smoke it.

Basically though it doesn't touch the sides on me and I get no buzz at all from taking it through a patch. This is probably why I am prescribed the maximum amount and over 2 not 3 days plus other prescribed pain killers, and of course taking other strong drugs as well to ease the pain.

For me to be on a drug that is legal because a GP gave it to me and for another person to be a criminal for using it because they bought it off me in the streets is madness in my mind.

Why is it ok to take a mind and body altering drug when it is supplied by the "system" but not when you buy it to take it for recreational purposes.

Why is it okay to ease the pain of the body but not of the mind?

You can see how the Goverments involved in cracking down doors in the morning and locking up junkies are two faced by the way they keep the drugs flowing.

From Vietnam and the Golden Triangle, Columbia and Mexico and their own internal wars and to Afghanistan where opium and now Heroin production has increased hugely since the most recent war started.

Let's not forget that it was US policy to let Opium be grown in Afghanistan when the Soviets were at war in the same country 30 years ago to get their soldiers addicted and demoralise them as well as use the funds from the sales to pay for weapons for what is now al-Qaeda.

You can read all about the CIA's involvment in the production and selling of drugs in this 4 part article and the most amazing quote comes from the biggest heroin producer in the 1980's from Burma, Khun Sa, who when interviewed claimed that the the CIA were one of his best customers.

"by 1986 he was refining 80 percent of the opium harvest in the Golden Triangle. The king of opium trade, Khun Sa had risen to become the world’s largest single heroin trafficker by controlling 60 percent of the world’s illicit opium supply."
"In 1986, Bo Gritz went to Burma with White House approval to meet with Khun Sa who supposedly had information on American MIAs. Khun Sa said that he wanted to end the opium and heroin traffic in his territory and to expose American officials involved in the drug smuggling. Gritz claimed that he took this message to the United States government and was told by Tom Harvey of the National Security Council that “there is no interest here” in the Khun Sa overture. Gritz had in his possession 40 hours of video tape of Khun Sa who “charged American officials, both past and present, with being the chief buyers of drugs produced in that part of the world.” He also claimed that he wanted to stop drug trafficking, but that the United States government would not let him. Khun Sa said that the CIA were some of his best customers. He offered support to the DEA to alert them of drug movements, but this was rejected at the headquarters level."
For more information about the CIA’s involvement in drug smuggling please read the following articles:

You might aready know that the rulers of our world have no interest in stopping the war on drugs just like they have no interest in stopping the war on terror.

They are benefiting from it.

They are earning good money from the misery of others and it just shows what kind of people we are being controlled by when they would rather make another billion to add to their existing hundreds than stop people living in squalour taking heroin to ease the pain of the existence these overlords have created for them.

What a world.

As I sit here and write this I am watching Russell Brand's documentary on the war on drugs on BBC3.

He is an ex addict and I recommned reading his book Revolution at the same time.

It discusses the fact that we are all tring to escape reality because reality is so crap.

As some ex addict says "Drugs and Drink are the answer to reality" - It's true.

When reality is so crap that it doesn't give you anything more than cheap consumerism, materialism, banksterism and a lack of jobs and free training for people who want it.

Why wouldn't you want to escape reality by going up the pub, taking drugs, watching TV or other mind numbing activities.

I suggest you watch his documentary as he interviews politiicans, goes on drug raids, speaks to addicts and politiicans and visits drug clinics in Switzerland where people are allowed to bang up and smoke crack.

Russel Brand - End The Drugs War

This is the blurb above the video on YouTube.com.

Russell Brand:

End the Drugs War BBC Full Documentary 2014

The documentary Russell Brand made for BBC Three in 2012 concluded with him giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Drawing on his own experience of drug taking and recovery, he advocated treating addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal problem and underlined his own belief that abstinence is the best way to help addicts.

Since then the Committee has reported its findings, concluding that the British drugs laws were failing and that it was a 'now or never' moment to reform them. But David Cameron didn't agree, insisting that the drugs policy is working in Britain and that we should 'stick at it'.

In this personal journey for BBC Three, Russell Brand sets out to challenge that point of view. He wants to find out how other countries are tackling their problems of drug abuse and to explore how the framework of criminalization implicit in the 'war on drugs' produces enormous harm in the treatment of addicts. Russell believes that 'a shift' is happening in the way that people view drug addiction. But to really change things he needs to persuade those who have power.

Russell starts on the frontline of the 'war on drugs' by joining the Met Police as they carry out dawn drug raids, and ends up sharing a police cell with a young addict who has been in and out of prison since she began taking drugs aged 12. He witnesses the dangers of street addiction in Birmingham, but is as shocked by what he sees in the legal 'drug-consumption room' he visits in Berne, capital of conservative Switzerland.

At a drug recovery conference, Russell is drawn into an argument about abstinence versus government methadone programmes, but also finds an unlikely ally for his campaign in a Tory lord. At a UN drugs conference in Vienna he meets the politician who in 2001 decriminalized drugs in Portugal. What Russell discovers from him informs his impassioned plea at the end of the conference that drugs should be decriminalized.

As he takes his argument public, Russell finds his views are challenged by those who say that the public fear that lifting criminalization will also lift drug use. But a second encounter with the young addict he met during the Met drug raid (who, since then, has been in prison, been released and is back on drugs) bolsters his belief.

Russell meets the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, who surprises him by agreeing in principle that the 'war on drugs' is futile and unsuccessful, but then frustrates him by explaining the lack of political will to move forward quickly to change things for the better.



Presenter Russell Brand Executive Producer Liz Hartford Producer Ross Wilson Director Ross Wilson Production Company Matchlight Ltd

View the original video at YouTube.com. View the original article on the main site Russell Brand End The Drugs War - By Dark Politricks

Sunday, 11 November 2012

The failed war on drugs and the anti-states pledge

The failed war on drugs and the anti-states pledge

By Dark Politricks

As you may or may not know when America went to the polling booths last weeks to vote for their President they also had a chance to vote for numerous other politicians at various levels of the government as well as state level ballot initiatives which are a referendum of the people on a certain subject.

The two most pertinent ones to this post are the ballots in Washington and Colorado that legalised Marijuana in those states for recreational use. Not just medicinal use as many other states have already done but pure recreational use.

Now my position on drugs is clearAll drugs should all be legalised and regulated. The fact that they are illegal causes so many social and health problems as well as draining resources from the government it is unbelievable.

Cigarettes and alcohol are much more dangerous to society and to peoples health yet they remain legal. In a logical world they would be banned and other drugs that claim many less lives per year - mainly due to their impure nature because of their illegality - would be legalised.

In these times of austerity would you rather you local policeman was out looking for rapists and murderers or bashing down the door of a teenage pot smoker?

On top of that just imagine if drugs were probably regulated and sold at their real price instead of the over inflated prices they are currently are sold at due to their illegality.

The amount of money brought in as tax revenue would probably close the UK's deficit in a year. The reason so much crime is committed by addicts to pay for their drugs is due to their over pricing which is also due to them being illegal. Cut the price, cut the crime. Make them available on prescription, cut all the crime.

Just imagine  the money that could be saved by not having the Police force, who are already being cut back due to lack of funds, from wasting their time on small drug busts. Or the cost of insurance claims from people who have had their houses or cars broken into so an addict can pay for their next fix.
Before 1968 and then the 1973 Misuse of Drugs Act in the UK Heroin and Cocaine addicts could obtain their fixes easily from their local doctor. It was called the British Experiment.

Doctors can still obtain special licences to dispense heroin if they wish but it is much more tightly regulated and there are very few who do this apart from some drug addiction treatment centres where they are trialing giving addicts heroin in a safe and clean environment. The evidence from these trials show that not only does giving addicts heroin in a clean environment cuts crime but it also cuts their use of street drugs as well.

However the UK government would rather give addicts a more addictive drug instead - Methadone.

A drug that has been known to kill small children when they stumble across it due to it's sweet taste and one that is much more addictive and harder to come off than Heroin due to the length of time it stays in the body.

However it is used, despite the addict still wanting to take Heroin - for that is their drug of choice, because:
  1. It's cheaper.
  2. It comes in liquid form so it can be reduced in small levels easily over time and,
  3. It doesn't give the addict any form of high (unless they drink the whole bottle) - another reason most Methadone users still use Heroin on top of their prescription.
In my eyes these are 3 good reasons to give heroin addicts heroin and not Methadone as if they are still out committing acquisitive crimes (robberies, shoplifting, burglaries etc) to get money to pay for the drug they really want, rather than the drug they are given, the scheme is not working.
Now this article is not about Heroin in the UK it is about the failed war on drugs in total.

Just like the war on terror which will never be won by dropping bombs from drones on Pakistani villagers, especially with a 49 innocent victims to a single Terrorist kill rateThe war on drugs is a war that will never be won.

This is due to evolved human beings innate desire to give themselves a "rush" whether it be through natural highs like exercise, adrenaline rushes from bungee jumps or chemical highs from stimulant drugs or their desire to block out the pain of a cruel and horrible world that we live in (some worlds more horrible than others) through downers whether it be drinking alcohol, popping pills or smoking opium.

Since the beginning of time man has been altering his mental state with naturally growing herbs, mushrooms and plants and if you are a religious person then you must be a believer in Genesis in which it states quite clearly that God filled the world with plants for man's use.

Why would God bother creating the Opium poppyMarijuana plantsSalviaMagic Mushroomsthe Coca plant and all the other naturally occurring vegetation that covers the earth yet also changes man's mental or physical state when consumed?

Also if you are a believer in States rights as many Republicans are or you see the Federal Government as an all too powerful system that infringes on the right of the state to make their own choices then surely you would be supportive of these ballot initiatives to legalise pot in Colarado and Washington?

If you are hypocritical enough to hold both positions at the same time e.g you want more state rights for the things "you believe in" whilst denying those other fellow citizens then I think you should take the pledge Cenk Uygur gave out on the Young Turks show the other night.
ANTI STATES RIGHT'S PLEDGE
"I have never actually believed in state's rights. Every time I mentioned it I was lying. I promise to never, ever mention it again as long as I shall live."
Not only should Republicans who rattle on about State Rights but support the failed war on drugs make this pledge but so should President Obama who has appointed a right wing, Bush era, Czar to head the DEA - Michele Leonhart.

This should be a sign to anyone on the right who thinks Obama is actually a progressive liberal that he is nothing of the sort. For if he were a true liberal he would be dismantling the failed structures that incarcerate so many people in US prisons every year for mere pot possession. Instead he would be embracing the wind of change that is floating from state to state not battle it with the full force of the Federal government.

That is what a real progressive and liberal President would do.

The fact that he is promising a war against the states who have legalised marijuana for recreational use and already attacked states that have medicinal marijuana shops PROVES he is a right of centre politician and no liberal.

You can watch the Young Turks video in which Cenk Uygur asks hypocritical states rights enthusiasts who don't believe in the ballots to legalise marijuana to make the Anti States Pledge.

Tuesday, 20 July 2010

The very non liberal Democratic party – where is the choice?

There is no real difference between the Democrats and Republicans

By Dark Politricks

The democrats are not a left leaning party, they are not liberal in any meaningful way rather they are the current face of the one party state that supports the corporate bankster take over of government and the economy.

The current financial reforms prove this as no matter how much Obama may claim they will prevent another repeat of the financial meltdown they won’t do anything of the sort and it will only be a matter of time until another bubble bursts and the government is expected to clean up the mess. Instead of doing something drastic such as re-introduce Glass Stegal and other post depression laws they have instead given even more power to the one group of people who are probably more responsible for the current mess e.g the Federal Reserve.

The current reform act has done nothing to prevent the huge casino banks from making high risky investments and relying on the taxpayer to bail them out when they go wrong. Instead this act proves the amount of power that the banksters have over government policy as they taken a large chunk of the bailout money given to them and used it to lobby, bribe and buy off politicians to prevent any meaningful reform from occurring. If the Democrats were a true left leaning party they would have stuck up for the man on the street instead of Wall Street. Their recent actions prove where their real allegiances lie.

If the Democrats were a true left leaning liberal party they would be against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and definitely against the expansion of the never ending war on terror into Iran, Yemen and Pakistan. Instead they kowtow to Israeli pressure groups and the neo-con factions pushing for more war as if it was some kind of economic stimulus rather than one of the primary causes behind the collapse of the American dollar.

Instead of trying to reverse the massive amount of damage the last Republican war party has done to world peace, Americas image abroad, and to the rule of law they have instead followed previous policies as well as expanding them. 

A true liberal party would have stopped these wars of aggression and instead used the trillions of dollars spent blowing up Afghani wedding parties and school buses to help the economy at home.

At home in America they have proved that they are controlled by financial and corporate interests by watering down any truly progressive bills such as the health care reform. Instead of going for a public option, a cheap affordable insurance plan that everyone could get covered by they opted for fudges and unconstitutional insurance mandates. When it came to propaganda about death panels and abortions on demand the Democrats buckled and gave in to fear and in fact it was the lack of votes on their side of the aisle that prevented their original plans from being implemented.

On civil liberties they have proved their non liberal credentials by following George Bush’s attack on the constitution and by extending the high tech surveillance state that is now a common feature of most western democracies. 

Using the war on terror as an excuse for anything and everything they have kept the Patriot Act, continued mass unwarranted wire tapping, renditions of prisoners to overseas prisoners where they can be tortured and extended the definition of “terrorist” to include many domestic protesters.

Instead of standing up for liberal beliefs in personal freedom and a small state they have instead extended the size of government beyond any comprehension and the size of the national debt is such that it is very likely to never be paid off unless a massive devaluation of the dollar takes place.

As Bill Maher often says, a true liberal party would have legalised marijuana, and ended the other war that will never be won e.g the war on drugs. Instead of rolling back the police state apparatus that has sprung up they have allowed it to continue growing at a very fast pace.

This is a police force that sees nothing wrong with Tasering old grannies lying in their beds, or to shoot people in the back on train station platforms, or to storm into ones house and kill family pets who bark to loud. 

This is a Brown Shirt style police force that is crying out for a big firm hand to be squeezed around it to prevent abuse and in which cops who abuse their power by shooting, assaulting and killing are punished in the same manner as any other citizen of the country would be. 

In fact I would go so far as to say that Police officers should be forced to upkeep even higher standards of professional conduct than anyone else and no leniency should be given to officers who choose to abuse their power by mistreating the public.

No matter what some on the right may say about Democrats being liberals, Socialists and Commies the truth of the matter is that the majority of Democrat house members don’t seem to have any liberal views at all.

The old left right paradigm has long disappeared and the only choice for voters in the 2 party political system is between a center right party e.g the democrats and a far right religious fundamentalist neo-con war mongering party. 

If you are anti war, anti corporate take over, pro civil rights and pro constitution which party are you supposed to vote for?

By Dark Politricks

© 2010 Dark POlitricks