Author: mechanic

TOUGH GUYS WHO STAND UP AGAINST THE ANGLOS! [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2010-12-31 20:49:24 |Display all floors

Are you a 12 year old?

Originally posted by seneca at 2010-12-31 11:22
69: The sunshine hasn't touched your anus yet, has it?

In other posts you opined there are no American Natives left after the immigrant Americans have butchered them out of existence.

So how  ...


You sound really thick and don't seem to understand English comprehension!

What is the matter with you?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2010-12-31 21:05:32 |Display all floors

Reply #1 mechanic's post

Iran's government is really tough on it's citizens -- that'a s afact!


They have incarcerated just about everyone thatdoesn't agree with the thugs that run the place, right?

Pretty tough, motorcycles and batons against a crowd of helpless civilians


go Iran tough guys!
The Brotherhood of Knights of the Mystic Sea

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-1-5 23:08:35 |Display all floors

Why the West fears Putin

04.01.2011


By Xavier Lerma. Part I

Russia's Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, is a good Orthodox Christian but you would never know that from the way the West portrays him in the media. They have their own reasons for hiding this from everyone. Russia seeks expansion not as the atheistic monster from the Soviet Union, but as a Christian nation that overcame a turbulent and horrific past. Christians in Russia have survived Hell's fury from communism. The blood that once soaked the land was the seed for Russia's new destiny. The evil that spread from Russia in 1917 to the West will be destroyed by Russia's renewed faith that will heal the world.

American liberals hate the Tea Party and Christians in "public view". They demonize Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and ridicule Christians in America as crazed right-wingers. They danced when President Reagan, Jerry Falwell and Charlton Heston died. There is no longer a powerful conservative in the West the liberals fear. They know they can handle the majority of America through Hollywood and the entertainment media.

They control America as a toy captivates a child.

Putin has real world power, which causes the liberal media to fearfully ignore or warp his image. Like a good Christian King he leads a nation to Christ. As a small example, last February, Russia bought some land near the Eiffel Tower where an Orthodox Church will be built. The liberals don't want Russia's Christianity to spread and re-Christianize Europe. Liberals, like most Democrats in America, would hate Russia if they inspired and renewed Christians throughout the world.
Putin moves West.



With the World Cup coming to Russia in 2018, the writing is already on the wall and Prime Minister Putin seeks to expand to the West, not militarily but economically and more importantly, allowing the kingdom of Christianity to spread. One way to do that is to have a Visa free trade zone between Europe and Russia to stimulate the economy. Putin helped to bring the World Cup to his country and it is only logical to open the doors between Europe and Russia. RT reports about the Visa free travel here.

Putin told the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper, "Europe needs its own vision of the future. We propose to shape it together, through a Russia-EU partnership. It would be our joint bid for success and competitiveness in the modern world."

Russian stereotype.

Senator John McCain is typical of those who stereotype Putin when he said, "I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes and I saw three things - a K and a G and a B".

McCain is insinuating that Putin, a former KGB agent, is an old hard line communist like the NKVD was under Stalin. McCain has read Alexander Solzhenitsyn and even did an article about him. However, he really knows nothing about Russia, Solzhenitsyn and Putin otherwise he would know why Solzhenitsyn would vehemently disagree with his KGB statement which I will prove near the end of this article.

He later said "I think it's very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian Empire". I respect Senator McCain's service in the military and as a POW, but he is a typical politician. He makes Putin sound like Godzilla about to attack. McCain also opposed Russia's membership in the G-8. Putin is a straight talker and not a politician like McCain. Putin's reply to McCain was, "forego your threats until after you're elected." McCain did lose to Obama.

"John McCain funded by Soros since 2001"

It is necessary to note that McCain like Obama, received money from George Soros. McCain is known as one of the most liberal Republicans. I, for one, cannot trust anyone who deals with Soros.

Atheist Soros hates and fears Putin. When Soros sees Putin he sees his own end. Long ago I had heard that Soros' Nazi collaborating hand was in Georgia but I had no confirmation until later. Andrew Bolt from the Australia's Herald Sun wrote, "of course, Australia is only one of 50 countries in which Soros works. And his meddling here is nothing given what he's just done in Georgia..He then backed Georgia's former justice minister, Mikhail Saakashvili"

Some westerners speculate Soros and Putin are a team. The truth is, billionaire Soros knows Putin would throw him in jail as he has done to other oligarchs who misbehaved. Even today Putin pushes greedy oligarchs to help their country. Do you think a devious man like Soros would allow Putin to tell him what to do? Last March, the UK's Telegraph wrote, "Not since he threw a pen at Oleg Deripaska has Russia's prime minister so publicly berated the country's richest billionaires"

There are many examples of the prime minister not being afraid to push the rich to help Russia. The World Cup is coming to Russia in 2018 thanks to Putin's help and he is also persuading the billionaires to invest millions for a new stadium, new high speed rail services and other necessary construction. Billionaire owner of the Chelsea football club, Roman Abramovich was told by Putin to pay for the World Cup. He will at least pay more than £500m for the new stadium outside of Moscow. In comparison, sport team owners in America, like the NFL owners, scheme to have the people pay for the stadiums through higher taxes.

Western media hides the truth.

The western media constantly portrays Russia as the same old Soviet Union. I understand their mistrust but they should learn at least to report the facts.

When Soros' Georgia attacked innocent civilians the same McCain said, 'we are all Georgians'. Remember it was the American media who told us on August 2008 that Russia was invading S.Ossetia and Georgia while insisting Russia was at fault and should be stopped. Condoleeza Rice kept referring to Russia as though it was the Soviet Union. AP news reported she said that the NATO alliance would "punish Russia". CNN quoted Bush telling Russia,"We strongly condemn bombing outside of South Ossetia". Reuters reported that Obama said, "Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected".

The American media was still eagerly blaming Russia for starting the war even when the young S.Ossetian girl Amanda Kokoeva went on Fox News and thanked the Russians for helping.

The truth was unveiled on November 2008 when Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili admitted he did start the war. Oops! Did the American media or politicians such as Senator Obama, President Bush, Condoleeza Rice and McCain admit their mistake in condemning Russia? Did they acknowledge the thousands killed by Saakashvili? No, of course not. Admitting a mistake would lower credibility and network ratings.

"We did start military action..." - Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.

Later, CNN did allow Putin to have his say but the damage was done in portraying Russia as an invading menace. On May, 2010, the European Parliament said Georgia, not Russia, was responsible for starting the war with South Ossetia: "The European Parliament supported the findings of a special report which says Georgia "triggered the war" with heavy artillery attack on Tskhinval."

Patrick J. Buchanan.

I met Buchanan in 1996 during a fundraiser for the presidential election. He was against globalism then as he is now. Even he said that Georgia started the war. In his article, "Blowback from Bear Baiting"

he wrote: "Georgia started this fight - Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end." VIDEO

Why didn't America follow Reagan's path and keep her promises? Russia was like the South after Lincoln was shot. Without a strong leader, Russia was open to attack by the "New World Order". Buchanan further wrote:

"When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do? American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia's doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members. Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin's birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia's Black Sea fleet.

When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?

The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.

We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic "revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus."
To be continued
Xavier Lerma

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-1-5 23:22:38 |Display all floors

Why Washington Hates Hugo Chavez

by Mike Whitney


Global Research, January 2, 2011


In late November, Venezuela was hammered by torrential rains and flooding that left 35 people dead and roughly 130,000 homeless. If George Bush had been president, instead of Hugo Chavez, the displaced people would have been shunted off at gunpoint to makeshift prison camps--like the Superdome--as they were following Hurricane Katrina. But that's not the way Chavez works. The Venezuelan president quickly passed "enabling" laws which gave him special powers to provide emergency aid and housing to flood victims. Chavez then cleared out the presidential palace and turned it into living quarters for 60 people, which is the equivalent of turning the White House into a homeless shelter. The disaster victims are now being fed and taken care of by the state until they can get back on their feet and return to work.

The details of Chavez's efforts have been largely omitted in the US media where he is regularly demonized as a "leftist strongman" or a dictator. The media refuses to acknowledge that Chavez has narrowed the income gap, eliminated illiteracy, provided health care for all Venezuelans, reduced inequality, and raised living standards across he board. While Bush and Obama were expanding their foreign wars and pushing through tax cuts for the rich, Chavez was busy improving the lives of the poor and needy while fending off the latest wave of US aggression.

Washington despises Chavez because he is unwilling to hand over Venezuela's vast resources to corporate elites and bankers. That's why the Bush administration tried to depose Chavez in a failed coup attempt in 2002, and that's why the smooth-talking Obama continues to launch covert attacks on Chavez today. Washington wants regime change so it can install a puppet who will hand over Venezuela's reserves to big oil while making life hell for working people.

Recently released documents from Wikileaks show that the Obama administration has stepped up its meddling in Venezuela's internal affairs. Here's an excerpt from a recent post by attorney and author, Eva Golinger:

"In a secret document authored by current Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Craig Kelly, and sent by the US Embassy in Santiago in June 2007 to the Secretary of State, CIA and Southern Command of the Pentagon, along with a series of other US embassies in the region, Kelly proposed "six main areas of action for the US government (USG) to limit Chavez's influence" and "reassert US leadership in the region".

Kelly, who played a primary role as "mediator" during last year's coup d'etat in Honduras against President Manuel Zelaya, classifies President Hugo Chavez as an "enemy" in his report.

"Know the enemy: We have to better understand how Chavez thinks and what he intends...To effectively counter the threat he represents, we need to know better his objectives and how he intends to pursue them. This requires better intelligence in all of our countries". Further on in the memo, Kelly confesses that President Chavez is a "formidable foe", but, he adds, "he certainly can be taken". (Wikileaks: Documents Confirm US Plans Against Venezuela, Eva Golinger, Postcards from the Revolution)

The State Department cables show that Washington has been funding anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that pretend to be working for civil liberties, human rights or democracy promotion. These groups hide behind a facade of legitimacy, but their real purpose is to topple the democratically elected Chavez government. Obama supports this type of subversion just as enthusiastically as did Bush. The only difference is the Obama team is more discreet. Here's another clip from Golinger with some of the details on the money-trail:

"In Venezuela, the US has been supporting anti-Chavez groups for over 8 years, including those that executed the coup d’etat against President Chavez in April 2002. Since then, the funding has increased substantially. A May 2010 report evaluating foreign assistance to political groups in Venezuela, commissioned by the National Endowment for Democracy, revealed that more than $40 million USD annually is channeled to anti-Chavez groups, the majority from US agencies....

Venezuela stands out as the Latin American nation where NED has most invested funding in opposition groups during 2009, with $1,818,473 USD, more than double from the year before....Allen Weinstein, one of NED’s original founders, revealed once to the Washington Post, “What we do today was done clandestinely 25 years ago by the CIA…” (America's Covert "Civil Society Operations": US Interference in Venezuela Keeps Growing", Eva Golinger, Global Research)

On Monday, the Obama administration revoked the visa of Venezuela’s ambassador to Washington in retaliation for Chávez’s rejection of nominee Larry Palmer as American ambassador in Caracas. Palmer has been openly critical of Chavez saying there were clear ties between members of the Chavez administration and leftist guerrillas in neighboring Colombia. It's a roundabout way of accusing Chavez of terrorism. Even worse, Palmer's background and personal history suggest that his appointment might pose a threat to Venezuela's national security. Consider the comments of James Suggett of Venezuelanalysis on Axis of Logic:

"Take a look at Palmer's history, working with the U.S.-backed oligarchs in the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Sierra Leone, South Korea, Honduras, "promoting the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." Just as the U.S. ruling class appointed an African-American, Barack Obama to replace George W. Bush with everything else intact, Obama in turn, appoints Palmer to replace Patrick Duddy who was involved in the attempted coup against President Chávez in 2002 and an enemy of Venezuelans throughout his term as U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela." (http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publis...er_60511.shtml)

Venezuela is already crawling with US spies and saboteurs. They don't need any help from agents working inside the embassy. Chavez did the right thing by giving Palmer the thumbs down.

The Palmer nomination is just "more of the same"; more interference, more subversion, more trouble-making. The State Dept was largely responsible for all of the so-called color-coded revolutions in Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan etc; all of which were cookie cutter, made-for-TV events that pitted the interests of wealthy capitalists against those of the elected government. Now Hillary's throng want to try the same strategy in Venezuela. It's up to Chavez to stop them, which is why he's pushed through laws that "regulate, control or prohibit foreign funding for political activities". It's the only way he can defend against US meddling and protect Venezuelan sovereignty.

Chavez is also using his new powers to reform the financial sector. Here's an excerpt from an article titled "Venezuelan National Assembly Passes Law Making Banking a “Public Service”:

"Venezuela's National Assembly on Friday approved new legislation that defines banking as an industry “of public service,” requiring banks in Venezuela to contribute more to social programs, housing construction efforts, and other social needs while making government intervention easier when banks fail to comply with national priorities."...

The new law protects bank customers’ assets in the event of irregularities on the part of owners... and stipulates that the Superintendent of Banking Institutions take into account the best interest of bank customers – and not only stockholders... when making any decisions that affect a bank’s operations."

So why isn't Obama doing the same thing? Is he too afraid of real change or is he just Wall Street's lackey? Here's more from the same article:

"In an attempt to control speculation, the law limits the amount of credit that can be made available to individuals or private entities by making 20% the maximum amount of capital a bank can have out as credit. The law also limits the formation of financial groups and prohibits banks from having an interest in brokerage firms and insurance companies.

The law also stipulates that 5% of pre-tax profits of all banks be dedicated solely to projects elaborated by communal councils. 10% of a bank′s capital must also be put into a fund to pay for wages and pensions in case of bankruptcy.

According to 2009 figures provided by Softline Consultores, 5% of pre-tax profits in Venezuela's banking industry last year would have meant an additional 314 million bolivars, or $73.1 million dollars, for social programs to attend the needs of Venezuela’s poor majority." http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5880

"Control speculation"? Now there's a novel idea. Naturally, opposition leaders are calling the new laws "an attack on economic liberty", but that's pure baloney. Chavez is merely protecting the public from the predatory practices of bloodthirsty bankers. Most Americans wish that Obama would do the same thing.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-1-5 23:22:58 |Display all floors
According to the Wall Street Journal, "Chávez has threatened to expropriate large banks in the past if they don't increase loans to small-business owners and prospective home buyers, this time he is increasing the pressure publicly to show his concern for the lack of sufficient housing for Venezuela's 28 million people."

Caracas suffers from a massive housing shortage that's gotten much worse because of the flooding. Tens of thousands of people need shelter now, which is why Chavez is putting pressure on the banks to lend a hand. Of course, the banks don't want to help so they've slipped into crybaby mode. But Chavez has shrugged off their whining and put them "on notice". In fact, on Tuesday, he issued this terse warning:

"Any bank that slips up…I'm going to expropriate it, whether it's Banco Provincial, or Banesco or Banco Nacional de Crédito."

Bravo, Hugo. In Chavez's Venezuela the basic needs of ordinary working people take precedent over the profiteering of cutthroat banksters. Is it any wonder why Washington hates him?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2011-1-7 01:24:39 |Display all floors

Why Anglos are a global threat

Because of the Norman invasion of 1066, Anglos became infected with Norman's white supremacy and have been colonizing and devastating the world with their capitalist pillaging and plundering ever since:

http://www.stateofnature.org/darkLords.html

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2011-1-8 00:16:58 |Display all floors
Originally posted by firstcause at 2011-1-5 23:22
According to the Wall Street Journal, "Chávez has threatened to expropriate large banks in the past if they don't increase loans to small-business owners and prospective home buyers, this tim ...


Hugo Chavez is putting the Anglo criminals on notice:
You will not get away with your crimes in Venezuela!

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.