Chinese Say They've Located Flight 370

 As you know it was the Chinese who were yelling and screaming the most at the incompetency of the Malaysian government for losing track of Flight 370.  We heard the plane had turned to the west.  Now the Chinese government are telling us they've known the location of the downed plane since Sunday March 9th and are just getting around to telling us.  And they the plane wreckage was right where it was supposed to be if the flight path had not altered.  They have quite a number of big pieces like fifty or seventy foot hunks of the plane.  I always questioned why sattelites would not instantly have located any wreckage.  I had always wondered whether something was being "worked on us" in terms of this Bermuda Triangle style total disappearence of an entire large 787 Boeing.  Now it seems as if the Chinese government has a lot of "splaning" to do,  as Ricki Ricardo would say.  At last we may get answers.

Ralph Nader is on Democracy Now right now discussing how George Soros and some of these moneyed environmentalists could "do an equal job of flooding Congress with money and political pressure as the political right is doing".  I haven't looked at Geroge Soros, but apparently he's one of the good guys.  Late news.  I have checked him out.  He's been in the brokerage community his whole life and he was originally from Hungary.   Conservatives accuse him with connection with helping Goldman Sachs crash the economy in 2008.  A charge I deem as groundless.   World Net Daily - talk of self revelation - seems to be siding with Putin against Ukraine in this latest crisis and says "Soros wouldn't be supporting Ukraine unless he had something to gain by it.  Another groundless charge, in my oppinion.  It would seem that any progressive group active in keeping Ukraine sovreign and functional as a nation has suddenly become the Enemy of World Net Daily.  While I'm at it- - and in defense of President Obama - - the President let Congress vote on the whole going to War with Syria question, which personally if a move I felt unnecessary, and a stalling tactict.  But the Tea Party will not aknoledge Congress' role in a "Failure to go to war with Syria".  The lingering question is- - "Just what kind of enchantment does Vladimir Putin hold over the far right??

Lots of companies are real stinkers.  George Washington may have had Hemp plants and John Fugelsang says the herb may have been used even in Colonial times as a relaxant in tea, or for relief of headaches or other bodily pain, and nobody thought anything of it.  In the movie The Heiress there is a line about using "spirits of campher" for a headache.  Today many drug companies produce synthetic compounds that are downright unhealthy and poisonous to the body.  The right wing on the Glen Beck show today said that "The Health Insurance Companies" sold out to Obama Care, which states the obvious, and I'm glad the Tea Party finally realizes that fact.  If President Obama were as concerned about "keeping the human body healthy" he wouldn't fall right in line with the drug and insurance companies the way he has.  In terms of other questionable companies- - two I haven't referenced lately as "bad guys" are Archer Daniels Midland or whatever, who seem to fund a lot of PBS programs, and of course DOW chemical, and if you are of "Andromidan heritage" you know about all of this chemical company's antics.  In terms of "safe networks" as we at the Federation now define them- - there is one other network you should avoid- - ABC - - which comes as no surprise considering that "This Week" seems more than the other two "classic' networks, to be "tacking to the political right".  If you're wondering about FOX broadcasting - - in connection with what we were saying in the previous posting- - FOX isn't in the picture - at least on those issues raised in the last posting.  Obviously we all find their news shows highly deceptive and propagandistic.  But to return to John Fugelsang and yesterday's morning topic on the Stephanie Miller show - - President Obama is no fan of the progressives as that prospective congresswoman pointed out then.

I would like to return to things Ralph Nader said today - - we actually need people on the left - - environmentalists - - running for a Congressional seat themselves, because "outside demonstrations' just won't cut it now.  As such I think this cry of Thom Hartman and others of "Change only comes from outside Washington" will only get you so far because Congress "lives in a bubble" as Nader points out.  And Hillary in her run against Obama in 2008 pointed out that in cases like advancing Civil Rights for Blacks, that you actually had to HAVE a "Lyndon Johnson" and a congress willing to pass the legislation, or all of those March on Washington demonstrations were just so much sound and fury, signifying little.  Of course - - Pat Buchannon pointed out that some of the Democratic dominance in Congress for forty years was because of all the Dixiecrats in the party for so many years, and one by one they switched and became Republican.  While this is true, of course, they still caucused with the Democrats- - and at least were not handing the legislative agenda to the other side as they are doing now.  I was disturbed by a poll I saw just this morning where by a narrow martin the American People at large STILL prefer Republicans in congress.  If this poll holds up - - then Gerrymandering isn't the only worry because the people AT LARGE still would like to see the House dominated by Republicans, so will be voting that way, presumably, in the next election.  It's not an encouraging sign at all.

We know how heartless the tea party can be.  Gingrich says that school kids should earn their lunch money by cleaning out toilets after school.  We hear that unemployment insurance has now become "the government paying people not to work".   People say that food stamp alotments have gone up 35% in the past ten years, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that, too, were a lie.  We are told that the minimum wage is just a way to pamper lazy Black teenagers or something.  We are are told "If your family is starving- - you'll find a way to get food, one way or the other so - - there's really no problem".   People in countries far poorer than the United States are surprised when they come here and discover we have no health care.  I'm still rather puzzled because like I say "All of these people sit around all day and listen to Rush Limbaugh- - talking about lazy people that don't have anything better to do".  What's wrong with this picture?  What must strike anybody is that the more obvious these people on the fringe "falling off the cliff" right- - become- - the more brash, the more blatant- - - the LESS likely - - - there will EVER come a point when these people on the Right believe "those lazy 47% of Americans - - aren't all bad.  There is no reaching out to either communacate with them - - - let alone reconciliation.  Hypothetically - - how's that supposed to happen - if per chance someone wanted to declare a truce in the rhetoric?  I think if Rush Limbaugh had put in his first book entitled "The Way Things Out to Be" the sort of rhetoric he was spewing out over the radio Now- - that people would have fainted away from shock and dropped the book right out of their hands while they were previewing it at their local Waldons.   This - "Climate of Hate" we're in is kind of unique to our Time.  In no other period would such frenzied hate and hysteria be tollerated as anything resembling normal political discourse.

On the whole religious front - - we're still sticking in general with our "Anti Dispensationalist" message - - which is not directly related to what w were saying in the last posting.  As I have talked about almost since I began as a blogger coming up on eight years ago next month - - that this whole idea of "Grace" extends back to the Royalists of Europe.  "Your Grace" in fact evolved into the preferred form of address to royalty back then.  Not just the "Economic Royalist" Franklin Roosevelt talked about in a campaign speech in 1936 that Thom Hartman often used to play on the air.  We told you how in Communist China they have all these laws on the books they can enforce or not at the will of the government.  And the political right is correct in its concern that there may be a lot of technical "laws on the books' or perhaps even executive orders- - which if Enforced to the letter in hard-ass fashion, would make life hard for a lot of people out there, and we must avoid this sort of thing in this country.  Needless to say that "Freedom OF Religion is not so called "Freedom FROM religion".  These people should read the constitution which clearly states that no law shall be enacted which "Prohibits the free exercise thereof".   I would say this extends to putting up big crosses- - which might inadvertly be viewed by some Athiest out there and he may get "offended" the way some people were "offended" by the Hippies wearing long hair and beads.  But also contained in this royal idea of "Grace" is the idea of a "Dispensation", which is kind of a Papal license to - - Commit a Sin.  It's tantamount to "God taking days off" or "God getting tired of being God" or "God is how "evolving' into something he previously wasn't" like President Obama on the gay marriage issue.  God doesn't "Evolve".  And neither do the laws of science "Evolve".  People on the right when confronted with things in the Bible like marrying your First Cousin- - and in those days- - due to the inbreeding it was really worse than what it would be today - - that "It's OK because God wasn't against incest back then".  Others will even carry away from scripture the idea that "Well we think such and such an activity is a sin NOW- - but if God changes his mind and says that "Today it isn't a sin - -tomorrow we'll see" then it is NOT a sin,   This is the heart of dispensationalism.  It's like Nixon saying "Well, if the President does it, then it is not against the Law".   Another Nixonian phrase you often hear is "Well this particular Biblical injunction or warning is 'Innoperative" at this present time, just as John Mitchel said this or that law was "Inopperative' if he decided he wanted to break it.   Strangely - - the Presbyterian Church- - at least doctrinally is not a practicioner of "Dispensationalism".  There are shall we say- - other factors- - why we singled out the Presbyterian Church the way we did in the last posting.  But I actually in pretty much in accord with that Maryanne lady- from yesterday morning that "I am not really a big fan of Religion to begin with".  Because Religion almost by its definition is some "Trip" that you're trying to lay on somebody else to dominate or influence their lives, where most likely you have no business.  It's the idea of "We don't need Science or historical objectivity or anything else to justify ourselves.  All we need do is call it "Faith" and we get a free pass".  I reject this reasoning.