Questions and Contemplations

Call your senators today! Stop Alito!

2006-01-28T01:42:00.000-08:00

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There is still time to stop the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, a confirmation that would mean the death of our Constitution as we know it and the official institution of a dictatorship in the United States of America via Alito's belief in the so-called, "unitary executive".

Call every single senator on the list below and make your wishes known. There is still time. A cloture vote has been forced for Monday, January 30 at 4 PM, on an Alito filibuster. Call today. Call NOW! If you love your freedom and want to preserve it for your children and grandchildren - CALL NOW! The telephone numbers for every single senator are below. They, and a form to send emails to the senators, can also be found at nocrony.com/ and congress.org/.

Call them ALL!

Gang of 14:
Pryor (AR) 202-224-2353
Salazar (CO) 202-224-5852
Lieberman (CT) 202-224-4041
Inouye (HI) 202-224-3934
Landrieu (LA) 202-224-5824
Nelson (NE) 202-224-6551
Byrd (WV) 202-224-3954

Other Swing Democrats:
Lincoln (AR) 202-224-4843
Dodd (CT) 202-224-2823
Carper (DE) 202-224-2441
Nelson (FL) 202-224-5274
Levin (MI) 202-224-6221
Baucus (MT) 202-224-2651
Dorgan (ND) 202-224-2551
Conrad (ND) 202-224-2043
Bingaman (NM) 202-224-5521
Wyden (OR) 202-224-5244
Johnson (SD) 202-224-5842
Murray (WA) 202-224-5274
Feingold (WI) 202-224-5323
Kohl (WI) 202-224-5653
Rockefeller (WV) 202-224-6472

Republican Moderates:
McCain (AZ) 202-224-2235
Murkowski (AK) 202-224-6665 Collins (ME) 202-224-2523
Snowe (ME) 202-224-5344
DeWine (OH) 202-224-2315
Voinovich (OH) 202-224-3353
Smith (OR) 202-224-3753
Specter (PA) 202-224-4254
Chafee (RI) 202-224-2921
Warner (VA) 202-224-2023

If you're still in doubt about who Alito is and what he stands for, then re-read the clip of Jeffrey Steinberg's article that I included in a previous post:

Judge Samuel Alito and The `Fürerprinzip':

On Jan. 5, 2006, in a front-page story, the Wall Street Journal identified Judge Samuel Alito, President George W. Bush's nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court, as a leading proponent of the savagely unconstitutional doctrine of the "unitary executive." The idea of the "unitary executive," which forms the core dogma of the ultra-right-wing Federalist Society, to which Judge Alito belongs, is more properly identified by its modern historical name the Fürerprinzip, authored by the Nazi regime's anointed "Crown Jurist" Carl Schmitt. Schmitt's doctrine, that the charismatic head of state is the law, and can assert absolute dictatorial authority during periods of emergency, has been used to legitimize every totalitarian regime in the West, from Hitler, through Gen. Francisco Franco in Spain, through Gen. Augusto Pinochet in Chile, to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in the United States.

The Wall Street Journal quoted Judge Alito from a November 2000 speech, delivered, appropriately, before a Federalist Society convention in Washington, D.C. The Constitution, Alito declared, "makes the President the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that. The President has not just some executive powers, but the executive power - the whole thing."

Judge Alito elaborated, "I thought then" referring to his 1980s tenure at the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "and I still think, that this theory best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure," adding that, in his view, the Framers "saw the unitary executive as necessary to balance the huge power of the legislature and the factions that may gain control of it."

After reviewing the Wall Street Journal account, Lyndon LaRouche declared, "If Judge Alito does in fact adhere to the views reported in the Wall Street Journal, he should not be allowed near any court certainly not the United States Supreme Court except as a defendant." LaRouche insisted that Alito's nomination must be decisively defeated in the Senate, or the Supreme Court will fall fatally into the hands of a cabal of outright "Schmittlerian" Nazis, led by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Alito all members of the self-avowed "conservative revolutionary" Federalist Society.

LaRouche counterposed the outright Nazi doctrine of the Federalist Society proponents of the "unitary executive" (Fürerprinzip) to the American System principles invoked by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he was confronted with the awesome responsibility of preparing the United States for world war. On Sept. 8, 1939, at a press conference following his Proclamation of Limited Emergency, as war was erupting in Europe, FDR assured the American people, "There is no intention and no need of doing all those things that could be done.... There is no thought in any shape, manner or form, of putting the Nation, in its defenses or in its internal economy, on a war basis. That is one thing we want to avoid. We are going to keep the nation on a peace basis, in accordance with peacetime authorizations."

Cheney and 9/11

FDR's respect for the U.S. constitutional system of checks and balances, and separation of power, stands in stark contrast to the assault on the Constitution, launched by Vice President Cheney even before Sept. 11, 2001.

As LaRouche prophetically warned, in testimony delivered on Jan. 16, 2001 to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, opposing the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General, the Cheney-led Bush Administration came into office committed to government-by-crisis-management, modeled on the Hitler Nazi dictatorship in Germany. LaRouche warned that the Bush Administration would seek, at the first opportunity, a "Reichstag fire" justification for dictatorship, all based on the legal theories of Hitler's Carl Schmitt. It was Schmitt, who wrote the legal opinion, based on the "unitary executive" Fürerprinzip, that justified Hitler's declaration of emergency dictatorial rule on Feb. 28, 1933, 24 hours after the German parliament was set ablaze by agents of Hitler's own Herman Gðring.

The aftermath of 9/11 proved that LaRouche was 100% right. On Dec. 19, 2005, in a press conference aboard Air Force Two, Vice President Cheney flaunted the fact that he came into office in January 2001, committed to rolling back the legislative safeguards, passed by Congress and signed into law by Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and the revelations about illegal FBI and CIA spying on American citizens. In calling for a rollback of those post-Watergate "infringements" on Presidential power, Cheney was, in effect, declaring war on the most sacred principles written into the U.S. Constitution. [....]

Alito Confirmation: Something you can do to stop it

2006-01-18T14:18:00.000-08:00

If Judge Samuel Alito is confirmed, it will be the fatal blow that puts an end to the US Constitution and what little democracy that may be left in the United States. It will only be a matter of time - perhaps a very short time - until a totalitarian regime is then fully ensconced in the US. It will only be a matter of time before every single freedom, every single right that US citizens may still hold will be taken from them indefinitely. It will only be a matter of time before free speech - which has already been taken from a number of people who have been imprisoned or received death threats for speaking the truth - is nothing but a memory for EVERYONE.

For those who see this, but don't know what they can do, here is something. Go to this website and they will assist you to send a letter to those congressmen who are leading the opposition against the Alito. All you have to do is write a letter. That's all. Just a letter.

It might not seem like much, but if enough people do it, it might very well tip the scales towards a future for ourselves and our children that is one of retained freedoms, rather than stolen ones.

Go to this OpEdNews.com article as soon as possible - there's no time to waste - and make your opinion known.

Time to do something about this situation, don't you think?

Alito
911
Middle East
Foreign Policy
Patriot Act
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
Current Affairs

Alito, Fürerprinzip and the Freedom to Choose

2006-01-17T13:20:00.000-08:00

These are indeed extremely frightening times we're living in these days. And the more I read about Alito, the scarier it gets. If this guy gets into the Supreme Court, all I can say is....God help us all.

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek wrote about Alito in her Abortion Politics:

The Alito hearing couldn't have come out better for the Republicans if the Supreme Court nominee himself had chaired the committee. Even though it was a Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who brought Alito's wife to tears by asking her husband if he was "a closet bigot," the Democrats got blamed for hectoring the nominee with questions he wasn't going to answer.

The shock of the rhetorical ploy briefly drove Martha-Ann Alito from the hearing room and gave Graham the stage to defend the judge's character and bemoan the "guilt by association" tactics employed by Democrats. It turns out that Graham had a hand in helping prep Alito for the hearings, which raises the issue of whether the line was scripted.

Well, that wouldn't be surprising, would it? Considering Graham is a Republican and helped Alito prep for the hearings? Nothing like the old pity play to put people off their guard and bring them over to your side. A typical sosiopathic tactic, interestingly enough.

Clift addresses the abortion issue in her article, but women's freedom to choose is not the only issue we should be worried about at this point. Everyone's freedom is at stake here, and it has been in danger ever since Bush came to power. With Alito in the Supreme Court, it will only be a matter of time before Bush becomes the legal dictator of the United States.

Don't think so?

Then I suggest you read Jeffrey Steinberg's, Judge Samuel Alito and The `Fürerprinzip' , which I found while over at Signs of the Times, Steinberg states in his article:

On Jan. 5, 2006, in a front-page story, the Wall Street Journal identified Judge Samuel Alito, President George W. Bush's nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court, as a leading proponent of the savagely unconstitutional doctrine of the "unitary executive." The idea of the "unitary executive," which forms the core dogma of the ultra-right-wing Federalist Society, to which Judge Alito belongs, is more properly identified by its modern historical name the Fürerprinzip, authored by the Nazi regime's anointed "Crown Jurist" Carl Schmitt. Schmitt's doctrine, that the charismatic head of state is the law, and can assert absolute dictatorial authority during periods of emergency, has been used to legitimize every totalitarian regime in the West, from Hitler, through Gen. Francisco Franco in Spain, through Gen. Augusto Pinochet in Chile, to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in the United States.

The Wall Street Journal quoted Judge Alito from a November 2000 speech, delivered, appropriately, before a Federalist Society convention in Washington, D.C. The Constitution, Alito declared, "makes the President the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that. The President has not just some executive powers, but the executive power - the whole thing."

Judge Alito elaborated, "I thought then" referring to his 1980s tenure at the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "and I still think, that this theory best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure," adding that, in his view, the Framers "saw the unitary executive as necessary to balance the huge power of the legislature and the factions that may gain control of it."

After reviewing the Wall Street Journal account, Lyndon LaRouche declared, "If Judge Alito does in fact adhere to the views reported in the Wall Street Journal, he should not be allowed near any court certainly not the United States Supreme Court except as a defendant." LaRouche insisted that Alito's nomination must be decisively defeated in the Senate, or the Supreme Court will fall fatally into the hands of a cabal of outright "Schmittlerian" Nazis, led by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Alito all members of the self-avowed "conservative revolutionary" Federalist Society.

LaRouche counterposed the outright Nazi doctrine of the Federalist Society proponents of the "unitary executive" (Fürerprinzip) to the American System principles invoked by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he was confronted with the awesome responsibility of preparing the United States for world war. On Sept. 8, 1939, at a press conference following his Proclamation of Limited Emergency, as war was erupting in Europe, FDR assured the American people, "There is no intention and no need of doing all those things that could be done.... There is no thought in any shape, manner or form, of putting the Nation, in its defenses or in its internal economy, on a war basis. That is one thing we want to avoid. We are going to keep the nation on a peace basis, in accordance with peacetime authorizations."

Cheney and 9/11

FDR's respect for the U.S. constitutional system of checks and balances, and separation of power, stands in stark contrast to the assault on the Constitution, launched by Vice President Cheney even before Sept. 11, 2001.

As LaRouche prophetically warned, in testimony delivered on Jan. 16, 2001 to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, opposing the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General, the Cheney-led Bush Administration came into office committed to government-by-crisis-management, modeled on the Hitler Nazi dictatorship in Germany. LaRouche warned that the Bush Administration would seek, at the first opportunity, a "Reichstag fire" justification for dictatorship, all based on the legal theories of Hitler's Carl Schmitt. It was Schmitt, who wrote the legal opinion, based on the "unitary executive" Fürerprinzip, that justified Hitler's declaration of emergency dictatorial rule on Feb. 28, 1933, 24 hours after the German parliament was set ablaze by agents of Hitler's own Herman Gðring.

The aftermath of 9/11 proved that LaRouche was 100% right. On Dec. 19, 2005, in a press conference aboard Air Force Two, Vice President Cheney flaunted the fact that he came into office in January 2001, committed to rolling back the legislative safeguards, passed by Congress and signed into law by Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal and the revelations about illegal FBI and CIA spying on American citizens. In calling for a rollback of those post-Watergate "infringements" on Presidential power, Cheney was, in effect, declaring war on the most sacred principles written into the U.S. Constitution. [....]

Are we awake yet America?

[See also: Alito Confirmation Would Soon Establish Unitary Executive Theory (Fuehrerprinzip) As Law, Then Make Bush Dictator ]

911
Middle East
Foreign Policy
Patriot Act
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
Current Affairs

Did a Boeing 757 strike the Pentagon on 911, or did something else?

2006-01-08T02:27:00.000-08:00

Surfing through some of of my usual news sites today, I came across this interesting article at Signs of the Times about what happened at the Pentagon on 911. It also discusses "damage control" by the government on those who say a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon via certain people and/or websites. In this case, the author states that the forum at AboveTopSecret.com seems to be one of those places where such damage control is being carried out. It's a fascinating article, so I thought I'd pass it along. An excerpt follows:

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11, and Neither Did a Boeing 757 by Joe Quinn

After the release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August 23rd, 2004, a veritable onslaught of new articles were published that sought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. One such article, that is frequently referenced by certain '9/11 researchers' was authored by a member of the forum at the "Above Top Secret" (ATS) website. Interestingly, the article was written just a few weeks after the release of the Pentagon Strike Flash animation, which by then, was winging its way around the world and into the inboxes of millions of ordinary citizens. Perhaps you were one of them...

The claim that promoters of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory were doing immense damage to the truth/accountability movement was raised in Mike Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon. In a stunning piece of warped logic, Ruppert claimed that, while he is quite convinced that it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, he chose not to talk about or deal with the subject as part of his overall case for conspiracy because of the "implications". According to Ruppert, the "implications" are that anyone that suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, is then forced to answer the question as to what actually happened to Flight 77. If that's the case, then we better just wrap up the whole 9/11 Truth Movement and go home and have a beer.

Ruppert balks at the idea of offering an answer to this question to his readers because, he claims, most people would be unable to accept it, and, he suggests, 9/11 researchers serve only to alienate the public support that they wish to attract by stretching the boundaries of the collective belief system. What Ruppert doesn't explain is why any member of the public would happily accept that U.S. government officials participated in the slaughter of the passengers on Flights 11 and 175 and the occupants of the WTC towers (as he details in his book) yet would be unable to accept the idea that the same government officials played a part in disposing of the passengers of Flight 77 in a much less imaginative way. Let's be honest here, in the context of 9/11 being the work of a faction of the US government and military, the answer to the question as to what happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon is quite obvious - Flight 77 and its occupants were flown to a specific destination and “disposed of” by the conspirators. That's pretty simple; cut and dried; no need for much stretching there! But, for some reason, Ruppert (and others affected by this paramoralism) seems to think that killing thousands of citizens by crashing airplanes is easier to accept than cold bloodedly murdering them "in person," as it were.

Since Ruppert's declaration about the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory, many other "9/11 researchers", such as Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman, have seized upon Ruppert's idea and even expanded upon it by suggesting that the "no planers" are actually government agents trying to discredit the REAL 9/11 researchers with the 'kooky' "no plane" theory.

In order to really understand the insidiousness of this patronising claim that the public could not accept the implications of the idea that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, let's look at the "evidence" as presented by the ATS member that it really was Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon that bright September morn.

First, however, I would like to make a few observations about 9/11 research in general.

Anyone who takes on the formidable task of digging into the events of 9/11 is immediately at a disadvantage because the US government has already declared the case closed. The government knows how it happened and who did it and have informed the entire world. As a result, there is no possibility of access to the raw data, to the crime scene or analyses of same. Here is where we meet the major obstacle: since the US government is the prime suspect, we cannot simply take as truth everything - or anything - that they say in relation to the case.

Investigation of the 9/11 attacks should be approached like any murder investigation. When confronted with a murder case (like 9/11) and a suspect that has a history of deceit and murder (like the US government and its agencies) and who had an opportunity and a motive to commit the murder, do you take as fact any claims by the suspect that he did not commit the murder? Do you seek to fit the facts around his claim that he did not commit the murder? When you confront evidence that suggests that the suspect is lying about his account of where he was and what he was doing, or you find inconsistencies and logistically impossible scenarios in his account, do you ignore these and focus only on the fact that he said he did not commit the murder and try to find and present evidence that backs up his claim to innocence?

The fact is that researchers coming to the 9/11 investigation after the fact, and after the case has been officially closed, are not only confronted with the task of trying to find out what actually happened - they also face the already well established public belief, by which they themselves are also influenced, that the official story is the truth. The best approach for any 9/11 researcher with honest intentions is to, if possible, wipe from their minds the official version of events and take the attitude of someone who has just returned from a 5 year trip to the outer reaches of the solar system, during which time they had no communication with planet earth. Start with a beginner's mind, turn off the sound of all the conflicting voices and their claims, and just LOOK at the evidence without prejudice.

Now, if the person with a truly open mind is given all of the publicly available evidence and has been additionally furnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that of missile impacts, what would such a person conclude about the most likely cause of the Pentagon damage? Of course, not all of the evidence was made available to the public, but there is still sufficient visual evidence from "ground zero" (both in terms of place and TIME), to form a pretty good "best guess". For a definitive conclusion to be reached, the "private" evidence, like the video tapes of the event that the FBI confiscated, would have to be released, and we don't expect that to happen any time soon. Of course, the fact that the definitive evidence of the videos has not been released is in itself a key piece of evidence that suggests that the official story of what hit the Pentagon is not the real story.

The purpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for the fact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagon theory, the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed to the influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantly parroted the official government story about what happened on 9/11 for the three years prior to the writing of the article. As such, he has failed to don the mantle of objective observer of the available evidence that is so crucial to finding the truth, and instead exerts a lot of effort to make the available evidence fit the government claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th 2001. Either that, or he/she is part of the "official government cover-up." After you read everything below, you can make a call on that one yourself.

Here is the ATS article as it appears on the ATS site with my comments interspersed in blue text. [....]

For the full article, go here.

911
Middle East
Foreign Policy
Patriot Act
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
Current Affairs

A Call to Action II: Feedback

2005-12-28T15:30:00.000-08:00

I received two comments today to "A Call to Action", which was inspired by an article by Newsweek's Eleanor Clift
, and I thought I would make a blog post out of my response, rather than hiding it away in the comments section.

Firstly, let me just thank both Real Speck and Truth Seeker for their comments. It's so nice to read how others think about things!

Real Speck wrote:

For the most part, K, I like the thinking.

I've always held that that "goddamned piece of paper" is the most powerful revolutionary tool ever created. Far more effective that Mr. Malatov's famous brew.

The seeds of change have been sitting there for 200+ years. So Scalia is wrong; the document is alive. It's just been taking a little nap since we repealed prohibition.

But I differ on the tactics for regime change.

To my mind, focusing energy on getting those guys out is not nearly as important as getting 'our guys' in. Specifically, if 'our guys' are Kerry, Daschle, Hillary, etc., then they flat-out suck!

Our real problem is finding 'our guys' (who are probably mostly gals) and convince them that running for office -- so every two-bit media outlet can put a Beta-cam up their sphincter -- is a good thing for their life.

Are you one? (How's that for a sudden, bold and unexpected question?)

I have the growing suspicion that I might be one, too.

And we should take a page from the Republicans' playbook and start small. Let's get some traction at the state and local level before thinking about the national game.

Check me out:
http://leftwingbiz.blogspot.com/
http://realadvertising.cc/

Then Truth Seeker responded:

There is no time to start small. Changing teams does not change the status quo, imho. It does not matter which side of the fence any of "our guys" are from, just as long as they value truth and justice and are willing to sacrifice the backing of corporate masters.

And if we eliminated the ability for money to rule government, then maybe, just maybe, we would be able to have a truly representative government.

To me, that is why the "taking a page from the Republicans" will not really change anything, except the faces of our leaders.

I tend to agree with Truth Seeker, in that there really does not seem to be enough time to "start small" at the state and local levels, although I imagine that these levels would be included and affected by any changes. In addition, the government that is doing the most damage to the nation and globally exists at the top, the national level, not at the state and local levels, so that is where the changes must begin. If you have cancer, you don't go in for an appendectomy. The point being, you have to go to the source or location of the disease and give the appropriate treatment. In this case, the main source doing the most damage is at the top, not the bottom. Moreover, the "disease" is at such an advanced stage that extreme "emergency measures" seem to be required, and this means that something needs to be done, and done rather quickly, before the disease that is fascism takes an even stronger foothold and what was merely "creeping" turns the US to into a full-blown dictatorship.

As for being someone who would run for office, I sincerely doubt it. Not unless the miracle being discussed here should come to pass, and a new, innovative system is put into place in which government officials aspire to their posts - not for wealth and power - but to genuinely serve the people and do what is right, honorable, just and best for them. Not unless government ceases to be the haven for war mongers and those whose thirst for wealth and power is insatiable. Not unless "kings become philosophers, or philosophers become kings", and the present system becomes a government that is truly "for the people and by the people". No, I don't think so.

Sure, I think I am of the sort to "serve", and try to do so in whatever way presents itself to me day by day, but as Raphael said to Sir Thomas More in his Utopia, after telling Raphael that he was a "generous and philosophical soul" that would be a great counsellor to any king:

"You are doubly mistaken," said he, "Mr. More, both in your opinion of me and in the judgment you make of things: for as I have not that capacity that you fancy I have, so if I had it, the public would not be one jot the better when I had sacrificed my quiet to it. For most princes apply themselves more to affairs of war than to the useful arts of peace; and in these I neither have any knowledge, nor do I much desire it; they are generally more set on acquiring new kingdoms, right or wrong, than on governing well those they possess." [...]

There is more, but the general point is that, in the present system, those who truly want to "do some good" or serve others, cannot do this in the political arena because they simply do not "fit", and their efforts would be for nothing. They generally have to find other ways apart from politics in order to do this.

Like blogging.

Until the system changes.

Constitution
Bush
Patriot Act
Human
Fascism
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
Current Affairs

A Call to Action

2005-12-28T02:32:00.000-08:00

It's time for a change.....and Americans know it. They see it, they feel it and they know it.

If the majority of Americans no longer trust nor want the current government - as the polls are telling us - then it is, quite simply, time for a new one. One that truly represents the people and the will of said people.

It is time then, not only for a new President, but a new government, and changes in the election system that will safeguard against rigged elections that put people in power who do NOT have the best interests of the populace at heart, but only their own self-interest.

I came across this commentary over at Signs of the Times in response to Newsweek journalist, Eleanor Clift's article, Big Lies: Who told the worst political untruth of 2005? It’s a shame the list of contenders is so long.
, which makes some excellent suggestions for actions that should be taken to save America from the fascism that has been creeping up on her ever since 911.

If you love America - and more importantly - love Justice, Truth and Freedom, and wish to protect them all, then take these suggestions to heart and spread them far and wide. Write to friends, family and co-workers. Write your congressmen - whose salaries YOU pay - and make your wishes known. Demonstrate.

Stop the erosion of our civil rights that is slowly putting us all in a prison. If we do nothing, then that prison will be of our own making. Our own responsibility. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Stop government eavedropping and surveillance of it's citizens.

Stop the murder of innocents in our names.

Stop the tyranny.

Stop the sosiopaths in government from fully taking over America, and succeeding in their goal of total world domination.

And start making the changes that will preserve and protect the Lives, Liberty and Well-Being of both American citizens and people the world over who will suffer from the bullying and domination of the current US government. Do this for all of us who live today, and for future generations.

Start making the changes that will remove those from power who refer to the Constitution as just a "Goddamned piece of paper".

If you feel any sense of responsibility to others. If you have any love at all living in your heart. If you have any semblance of a conscience at all.

Then start making the changes today, America.

Before it's too late.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Signs of the Times commentary in response to Newsweek journalist, Eleanor Clift's article, Big Lies
:

Comment: It's a strangely schizophrenic state for the United States to be in: on one side, you have Bush, Cheney and the gang loudly proclaiming "their reality," and on the other, you have more and more mainstream media outlets loudly proclaiming that Bush, Cheney, and the whole White House gang are out and out liars.

Two years ago, almost NONE of the mainstream media sources were calling Bush and Cheney liars; that was the purview of the alternative news sites and bloggers. But the issues have grown so large, so frightening that even the moderates and former Bush supporters are joining the general clamor for something to be done.

There's a problem, however, as Eleanor Clift points out above:

"The polls show that a majority of Americans no longer trust this team, which is why Bush and Cheney are hitting back hard at their critics. ... We have no mechanism to deal with a president who has lost the trust and confidence of the American people and has three years remaining in office. Impeachment is a nonissue; it’s not going to happen with Republicans in control of the House and Senate."

Recent polls (uncooked ones, that is) show that over 80 % of the American People want Bush impeached. But, as we pointed out a day or so ago, that's not the answer. If you impeach Bush, you get Cheney, if you impeach Cheney, you get Hastert, if you impeach Hastert, you get Stevens.

What we need is a way to get rid of an entire government.

The problem seems to be that our Founding Fathers did not include in their deliberations, any situation such as the United States is faced with today: a gang that has fixed elections, assassinated opposition, blackmailed and stacked the Congress to pass laws that essentially create a dictatorship.

Some other democratic governments have made provisions for just such contingencies. Typically, when parliaments vote 'no confidence,' or where it fails to vote confidence, a government must either: 1. resign, or 2. seek a parliamentary dissolution and request a General Election. We think that such provisions still leave something to be desired in that there is no way to factor in the voice of the people

In view of the situation, we here at Signs do have an idea. Since it is now obvious that 80 % or more of the American people want Bush OUT, it is not very likely that any of them will be voting Republican in the next congressional elections. If a Republican majority is returned to Congress, we can then be almost certain of vote rigging. So, the thing to do first is deluge all state governments with demands for voting systems that have a paper trail to ensure that no more elections are stolen.

Then, the people must put their energy into demanding new legislation. This legislation should be a bill introduced in Congress to the effect that a petition of citizens can invoke a national referendum of confidence/no confidence. Such a referendum will be 1 person = 1 vote, no "electoral college," no steps between the will of the people and the representatives of the people. If the will of the people is "no confidence" in the reigning government, they must all resign and a new election will be held. There ought to also be new legislation regarding elections, election financing, Congressional perks and power brokering.

So, here are some general ideas:

Government Should Be In The Hands Of Those Who Wish To Serve And Who Are Qualified By A Thorough Psychological Testing Program As Well As Extensive Background Investigation by something equivalent to a Grand Jury. Governing powers should certainly never be in the hands of those who are evaluated according to "electability" in terms of looks, or budget. Government should be made undesirable to those who seek money and power. Honor and the High Regard of the People should be the main rewards of statesmanship. Therefore, the following should be enacted as Constitutional Amendments:

A. Outlaw Expensive Political Campaigns. The Top Five qualified candidates should be given equal media representation gratis so that each can clearly state their positions and platforms. Money must be divorced from power in a Democracy.

B. Outlaw Lobbying And Special Interest Groups. Each Act Of Legislation should be clearly written so that all people can understand it,and no bills should be "conglomerates" where an unpopoular measure can be piggy-backed on a popular one.

C. All Elected Officials should be elected by Majority Vote of the People only. The Electoral College needs to be dismantled.

D. Salaries Of Elected Officials should reflect an average of the incomes of their constituents. In this way, they will have a better idea of how everybody else lives and will be more motivated to solve the problems of the people they serve.

Legislators and government officials should be provided with simple apartments, paid for by the government, where they can live while performing government functions if they must live away from their normal homes while doing so. Expensive residences, parties, cars, trips, and other so-called perks must be outlawed. Entertainment for visiting heads of state from other countries can be handled via special programs for same.

E. Outlaw Honorariums, Speaking Fees, Consulting Fees, Gifts etc, for elected officials while in office. If they can't live on their salaries, how do the expect anyone else to do so?

Such measures as the above are simple and would quickly result in social adjustments relating to government. With individual riches and power eliminated from the government equation, only those who truly seek to serve will be motivated to run for government office.

Naturally it is to be expected that great resistance to such ideas will issue from those possessing great wealth and power. The wealthy and powerful control not only the government, but also religions, social customs and social institutions. They have access to very clever theoreticians who invent very clever theories to justify everything they do. The result of these machinations can be seen all around us today. Never before has humanity been so precariously balanced on the edge of a chasm of fire, from which no one will emerge if we fall in.

Popular Theory holds that, while concentrated wealth may seem unfair, it is "good for economic prosperity." A couple of con-artists once made an Emperor a New set of clothes, too.

We believe in prosperity and comfort and freedom from want for all. Indeed, those who are more industrious and ambitious will naturally have more than others: that is the nature of a free market. We have no issues with that. However, we believe that those individuals who are less "equal" in terms of intellect or ambition, but who are still the majority of humanity, should be able to establish and maintain a basically comfortable and fulfilling lifestyle. The people who are content flipping burgers and collecting the trash should be able to live without stress, too.

Since our current major problems are actually Economic, we think immediate measures must be taken. These measures are based on the ideas of Dr. Ravi Batra, Professor Of Economics at Southern Methodist University.

A. Enact taxation in proportion to benefits received from the government. Since "Defense Of Our Way Of Life" is the Primary Benefit we receive, and is the major part of the Federal Budget, those who have the most to protect should pay the most taxes for that service.

Those who have accumulated great wealth in the United States have been vigorously protected at great expense of life limb by the common people from the time of The Revolutionary War until the present. That is to say, that the wealthy have been protected at the expense of the poor and middle classes and yet, the poor and middle classes are getting poorer and less able to survive while the rich are getting richer and sending more of the sons of the poor and middle classes off to die to enable the rich to get richer. For this reason, such a Wealth Tax should be retroactive when possible.

This Tax should be imposed on net worth including Stocks, Bonds, Real Estate, Precious Metals, Paintings Etc. An Exemption of an amount to equal twice the average cost of living in a given region should be allowed for everyone for personal and living expenses. The next double amount of the average cost of living would be taxed at 2%, the third at 3%, the fourth at 4%, and so on up to 10% of everything above 10 times double the average cost of living.

As can easily be seen, this would instantly remove the tax burden from the poor and Middle Classes entirely.

This Tax Rate would also generate revenues amounting to well over $300 Billion, based on $15 Trillion in total wealth.

This tax would apply to all foreign investors as well. This money should be used to immediately balance the Federal Budget. At the same time, government spending must be frozen and capital controls against moving money out of the country enacted.

Several things would result from this plan.

1. The tax would only fall on those who could afford to pay.

2. It would stimulate those of wealth to divest themselves of speculative paper and invest in actual industry. REAL jobs would be created and expanded.

B. Financial Institutions Must Be Regulated, and not by themselves as is the current situation with the so-called "Fed."

C. Charge Foreign Countries For Defense. It is cheaper for foreign governments to pay the U.S. than to establish and maintain their own standing armies. That is one of the reasons the U.S. has so many military bases all over the world. Ten years agoa, as much as $290. billion of the U.S. Defense Budget was spent on defense abroad. Today, that figure is so unbelievable that the U.S. is in imminent danger of economic collapse.

Following WW II, America offered a sefense umbrella to impoverished allies. At that time it was the world's largest banker. Those surpluses have declined turning America into the world's largest debtor. We can no longer compete in world trade because of our defense spending. Charging 1 To 2 percent of other nation's GNP for defense would bring in hundreds of millions annually. It can be said that the Iraq War is being fought on behalf of Israel, therefore, Israel should pay for it. Any wealthy individuals in the U.S. holding dual Israeli/American citizenship ought to pay double the Wealth Tax: once for the U.S. and once for Israel.

If other countries imposed a wealth tax as well, they would easily be able to bring their books into balance. But, as we have noted above, it is the wealthy who have risen to power on the blood, sweat and tears of the common man with the predictable result of today's embarrassing situation of the U.S. being stuck for the next three years with a president and administration that over 80% of the people do not want. It is the "love of money" for its own sake that has brought this evil on America.

In closing we would like to say: We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people - and we desire to see that it does not perish from the Earth!

Constitution
Bush
Patriot Act
Human
Fascism
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
Current Affairs

US lawmakers want to wall up Mexico border

2005-11-14T03:50:00.000-08:00

Geez. This brings to mind what Israel is doing with their "security wall", doesn't it? Which they are apparently building to "keep Palestinians out" - or is that, to "keep them in"? That is, imprison them, corral them up like so many cattle? Anyone familiar with WWII history might also recall the wall that was built around a Jewish ghetto in Warsaw. The world just keeps getting more and more insane.

US lawmakers want to wall up Mexico border

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to build a 3,200 kilometer (2,000 mile) wall along the US border with Mexico to keep illegal immigrants out.

The legislation aims to "create a border security fence from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico," said House of Representatives members Duncan Hunter of California and Virgil Goode of Virginia in a statement.

"Prior to September 11, 2001, illegal immigration was considered a regional issue without national implications. We quickly learned on that day, however, that this is a national issue, affecting each and every American, not just those living in border communities like San Diego County," Hunter said.

Their True Enforcement and Border Security Act would also "authorize thousands of new border patrol officers, immigration investigators, attorneys and immigration judges," they said.

Hunter told CNN it was important to identify who crosses the border and who helps them do it, adding that four North Koreans were among those arrested trying to enter the US illegally in the past few months.

About the cost and difficulty of building a wall along the entire border with Mexico, Hunter simply said: "It's a simple construction."

While Hunter assured skeptics that a fence would work in keeping out unwanted immigrants, pointing to a successful 22-kilometer (14-mile) stretch of fence near San Diego, California, other Republican lawmakers were not so sure.

Representative Jeff Flake (news, bio, voting record), of Arizona, was quoted as saying in Friday's issue of The Washington Times that a fence would not work for half of the 400,000 immigrants that enter the United States every year and overstay their legal entry visas.

While the administration of Republican
President George W. Bush has vowed to do more to enforce the borders.

It was unclear whether the fence building bill would receive sufficient support to pass in both houses of Congress.

Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff on Tuesday announced that 1,000 additional border guards would be recruited to help stem the tide of illegal immigrants.

Two weeks ago, Chertoff said his goal was to deport all illegal aliens caught crossing the border.

The conservative Washington Times newspaper on Friday said Republican lawmakers were also considering a bill ending birthright citizenship, or jus soli, which is a right granted under the US constitution.

"There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally," said Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

A group of Republican lawmakers trying to find consensus on immigration is studying whether the issue of jus soli would require a constitutional amendment or a congressional statute.

A constitutional amendment would require approval by three fourths of the 50 US states, a very difficult undertaking. The last amendment, the 27th, establishing congressional pay increases was passed in 1992.

News
Politics
News and politics
Foreign Policy
Current Affairs
Current events
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life

Military Blocks Commercial Email Sites: First Sign of a Public Internet Lock-down in the Name of "Safety" and "Security"?

2005-10-21T14:24:00.000-07:00

Well, I can't say that I'm really surprised about this one.

Navy, Marines Block Commercial Email Sites

Stars and Stripes
By Sandra Jontz
October 19, 2005

Hotmail account not working? Or Yahoo!? It's not a glitch with the computer connection.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps blocked all access to
commercial e-mail services, such as Yahoo!, Hotmail, America Online
and Google, from overseas government computers.

And not just at office workstations.

The block includes access to e-mail services from computers at base
libraries and liberty centers that are connected to an official
government network.

"This concerns us, because so many of our patrons won't be able to
access their e-mail, and many come to the library to do just that,"
said Ciro Giordano, supervisory librarian at Naval Support Activity
Naples, Italy.

But access to such services leaves the unclassified government
network too susceptible to hackers and computer viruses, said Neal
Miller, a senior plans and policy manager with Naval Network Warfare
Command in Norfolk, Va.

"By going through some of the commercial Web-based e-mail accounts,
it opens up vulnerabilities to government-run networks and presents
too high [of a] risk to be acceptable," Miller said. [....]

Here's a thought: Maybe the access has been blocked - not as protection against hackers and the like - but as protection, for the government, against too much of the truth - the "antibody" against the "virus" of mainstream government propaganda - being exchanged. Truth, for example, about the war in Iraq, what is really going on in the prison camps, and in Afghanistan. Truth about the real death tolls, about human rights violations, etc. For example.

Maybe some of those marines have seen a few things that the government doesn't want leaked out to the general public. Things that the marines are perhaps reporting to family and friends via email? Maybe that's the real reason for the access to these accounts being blocked? Maybe?

It's really amazing what governments can get away with - all in the name of "safety" and "security", isn't it? They can take away civil liberties - albeit in slow increments so that you don't notice too much, and by the time you do, it's too late. All in the name of "safety" and "security". They can bomb the hell out of and occupy other countries, and institute new governments of their choosing in them. They can murder innumerable innocent civilians while doing so. They can build massive walls around borders, imprisoning the residents within. All in the name of "safety" and "security".

Before long - and I think it may be sooner rather than later - the general public may find itself that access will be blocked to many sites - normal webpages, news sites, blogs, chatrooms and discussion groups - on the internet that are considered "subversive" simply due to the fact that they are speaking out against the actions of governments. Simply due to the fact that they are voices of dissent. Alternative voices to the mainstream propaganda. These sites will be labelled "dangers to safety and security", and access to them will be denied.

All of which essentially amounts to a modern-day version of "book-burning" and all-encompassing state control over dissemination of information.

I also have to wonder if maybe the blocking of access to commercial email accounts in the marines may be a sort of "experiment" to gauge just how much of a reaction - if any - they might eventually get by taking away free access to information and communication on a wider scale.

Some things to ponder, anyway.

News
Politics
News and politics
Foreign Policy
Current Affairs
Current events
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
War
Military

US Soldiers Desecrate Bodies

2005-10-20T13:42:00.000-07:00

This is one of the main stories being covered today on news sites such as CNN, the UK's Guardian and Signs of the Times, among others.

James Sturcke writes in the Guardian article:

Senior US military officials launched an investigation today into claims that US soldiers desecrated the bodies of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan as part of a propaganda campaign.

Australian investigative news programme Dateline broadcast a film which appeared to show US soldiers burning the bodies of two fighters and using their charred and smoking corpses as a taunt to nearby Islamic militants.

The programme, which aired last night, depicted what was described as a US psychological operations team broadcasting over a loudspeaker toward a village thought to be harbouring Taliban fighters and sympathisers.

According to a transcript of the program, the soldiers faced the bodies towards Mecca in a deliberately provocative move and set them on fire. One said: "Wow, look at the blood coming out of the mouth on that one, fucking straight death metal."

A message was then broadcast over a loudspeaker in the local dialect which, according to the freelance cameraman, Stephen Dupont, embedded with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, said: "Attention, Taliban, you are all cowardly dogs. You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to come down and retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be."

Now, if that isn't clear provocation, I don't know what is. These folks certainly seem to get a kick out of their jobs. Get their thrills ensuring that as much bloodshed and destruction as possible takes place. What kind of maniacs do and say things like this? What kind of a world is it that sits back and allows it to happen?

News
Politics
News and politics
Foreign Policy
Current Affairs
Current events
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
War

Spanish Flu Virus Recreated

2005-10-08T03:31:00.000-07:00

You know, I'm not really sure if I am ever going to understand this world, how some of the people living here think, or why they do what they do.

Did you catch this article at The Guardian about the recreation of the Spanish flu virus? Just quoting a little from it:

Scientists have recreated the 1918 Spanish flu virus, one of the deadliest ever to emerge, to the alarm of
many researchers who fear it presents a serious security risk.

Undisclosed quantities of the virus are being held in a high-security government laboratory in Atlanta,
Georgia, after a nine-year effort to rebuild the agent that swept the globe in record time and claimed the
lives of an estimated 50 million people.

The genetic sequence is also being made available to scientists online, a move which some fear adds a further risk of the virus being created in other labs.

Ok. Right. So my first question is: Why? Why the hell would someone want to re-create a virus so deadly that it killed an estimated 50 million people??!!?? Why would scientists work diligently burning the midnight oil for nine whole years to create something that KILLS? Why?

Yeah, I know. It certainly isn't the first time this has been done. We've got a lovely assortment of various biological and chemical weapons to chose from should we decide that we would like to exterminate a large number of people in one shot - and, of course, we can't forget to add to that list of goodies our "masterpiece" either - the atomic bomb - now, can we?

But this still begs the question: Why? Why do governments fund such projects? How can those working on them go home and sleep well at night? Where are their consciences? Do they have consciences?

I have to wonder.

Actually, the above-mentioned article does answer this question of "Why?", to some extent at any rate. It reads:

The recreation was carried out in an attempt to understand what made the 1918 outbreak so devastating.

Why? So that they might be able to create something equally, or even, more devastating?

Reporting in the journal Science, a team lead by Dr Jeffery Taubenberger at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Maryland shows that the recreated virus is extremely effective. When injected into mice, it quickly took hold and they started to lose weight rapidly, shedding 13% of their original weight in just two days. Within six days, all mice injected with the virus had died.

Well, this is certainly comforting, isn't it? If you come down with the Spanish flu, you'll likely be dead within six days. Very "effective", indeed! Boy, I'll bet those folks in the lab must've been jumping for joy when they made this big breakthrough. I wonder if they had a party to celebrate?

The government and military researchers who reconstructed the virus say their work has already provided invaluable insight into its unique genetic make-up and helps explain its lethality.

Note that it was government and military researchers who recreated this virus. Use your head on that one, and you should be able to answer the question as to "Why?" they would re-create such a deadly virus. What do military researchers research? They research how to make better, more "effective" weapons.

But other researchers warned yesterday that the virus could escape from the laboratory. "This will raise clear questions among some as to whether they have really created a biological weapon," said Professor Ronald Atlas at the centre for deterrence of biowarfare and bioterrorism at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

Well, let's put our thinking caps on here for a minute. Hmmm. Have they "really created a biological weapon"? Aahh. Yeah. Looks that way.

Publication of the work and the filing of the virus's genetic make-up to an online database followed an emergency meeting last week by the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which concluded that the benefits of publishing the work outweighed the risks. Many scientists remained sceptical. "Once the genetic sequence is publicly available, there's a theoretical risk that any molecular biologist with sufficient knowledge could recreate this virus," said Dr John Wood, a virologist at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control in Potters Bar.

Then, of course, after they make these "scientific breakthroughs" that have no other purpose other than to wreak death and destruction on a huge mass of people - get this - they then start harping about "security" !

"Oh, my! What if it gets into the wrong hands! What if these "bad guys" then decide to use it on US! Oh, my!"

Well, hell, maybe you should've thought of that one before you spent almost a decade re-creating the thing, yeah?

Or, maybe - and here's just one of those funky conspiracy theory type things, so no need to pay much attention - maybe, just maybe, this is what was intended all along. Maybe it was the intention of the "government behind the government" - you know, the one who thinks that the population of the planet is way too high and needs to be drastically cut back if they're going to be able to get enough of everything they want - to create this thing, make sure "someone else" knows about it, then when it is used - perhaps on the US population itself - then the US government-within-a-government gets what it wants, and the US administration comes out squeaky clean. Not only that, but such a scenario would allow the Bush administration to finally declare martial law.

Still, they actually don't need to go to all of the trouble of leaking the information to the wrong people. All they have to do is plan one of those false flag operations they're so good at planning, and the deed is done. You know, rather than waiting for and hoping that real Arabs go do the dirty deed, just dress up as a couple of Arabs and go do the job yourself! You might even make a quick video of them claiming responsibility, and "bang!" - mission accomplished!

In fact, it seems to me that the fact that information about this little "scientific breakthrough" has been released may very well be to psychologically prepare the public to expect such a bio-attack, and to become even more afraid of anyone that even looks slightly middle-eastern than they may have been before. In other words, to terrorize the population. Because I can guarantee you, if such an attack occurs, it will most assuredly be blamed on "Arab terrorists" - and will likely even be well-set up with all the necessary evidence to prove it.

But of course, very few would even consider such scenarios possible - least of all much of the US population who is very deeply invested in the idea that their government can "do no wrong", and most certainly not against its own people. Least of all much of a US population that is so deeply invested in the belief that there is an enemy, and that enemy is "out there". The "other".

Thinking otherwise - thinking that, perhaps, the enemy isn't actually some "other" government or organization in a far-away land they barely know how to find on an atlas, thinking that, perhaps, their "enemy" may very well be their own power-hungry, psychopathic, fundamentalist government - is just too terrifying.

In any case, whether it is the US government who might use the virus and then blame it on the Arabs, or whether the Arabs or some other group get the information, develop and use the virus themselves, any blame for the inevitable genocide that will occur as a result still lies primarily with those who re-created this virus in the first place.

The US government and military.

Did you ever ask yourself just how many tax dollars may have been used to fund this nifty little project? Do you realize what your tax dollars may be being used for? Do you care?

News
Politics
News and politics
Current Affairs
Current events
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
Health and wellness
Science
Research
Terrorism

Dissent will not be tolerated

2005-10-01T11:15:00.000-07:00

Well, it seems this poor blog has been neglected again. Not intentionally though. I was abroad for a month, and when I got back, I became ill with the flu and an ear infection the likes of which I don't believe I've ever experienced before. My ear was so inflamed that the doctor couldn't even get a probe in there to see what was up. The ear infection seems to be under control, although I've lost some hearing, I think, and things feel a little different in that ear. The flu is gone, but the fatigue is still there from it, as well as some residual infection in the lungs. That will likely be there for a while yet. When I get it in the lungs, it usually stays a spell. Still, compared to what I was feeling like earlier, I'm feeling pretty good now. Everything's relative, I guess....

Anyhow....seems like a lot has been happening lately. Nothing new there, really. Alot is always happening. Alot of pain. Alot of suffering. Alot of incompetence and idiocy coming out of the Bush Administration. Alot of bad, and very little good.

For example, did you hear about Mr. Walter Wolfgang getting thrown out of the Labour Party conference in the UK? Did you hear what this 82-year-old had the nerve to say that got him dubbed a "heckler", physically manhandled and tossed out of the conference? After Jack Straw told delegates of the conference that, "We are in Iraq for one reason only - to help the elected Iraqi government build a secure, democratic and stable nation.", Wolfgang, a Jewish survivor of Nazi Germany, shouted out one word:

"Nonsense!"

That's it. Nothing more. Just...."nonsense".

And for that, he was labelled a heckler and thrown out. When he tried to get back in a while later, he was stopped by police under the Terrorism Act, his pass was seized and he was not allowed in.

Now....just think about that a minute.

Mr. Wolfgang was thrown out for uttering one word. One simple word. "Nonsense".

That's all it was. Just one word.

But - and this is key here - it was a word of dissent.

And that should make each and every one of us very, very nervous.

Of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized for the episode later, and Mr. Wolfgang was told that he could return to the final day of the conference so long as he was a "good little boy" and didn't create any further "disturbances" - but the damage had already been done. The message already sent.

The message?

Be careful what you say. Be very careful.

Dissent will not be tolerated.

Free speech will soon be a distant memory.

Today Mr. Wolfgang was merely labelled a "heckler" - tomorrow's Mr. Wolfgangs will be dubbed "terrorists".

Just like it was in Nazi Germany. All dissent must be silenced. Even the tiniest whispers. Even single words.

Think about that.

To see a video of Mr. Wolfgang being thrown out of the conference, go
here.

News
Politics
News and politics
Current Affairs
Current events
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life

US Plans to Nuke Iran

2005-07-27T09:45:00.000-07:00

I came across this article written by Justin Raimondo at Anti-War.com by way of Signs of the Times, and I'm really not quite sure how to express what is going through my mind at this point. The article, entitled: Cheney's Plan: Nuke Iran, starts like this:

A recent poll shows six in ten Americans think a new world war is coming: the same poll says about 50 percent approve of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Somewhat inexplicably, about two-thirds say nuking those two cities was "unavoidable." One can only wonder, then, what their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in a recent issue of The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Two points leap out at the reader – or, at least, this reader – quite apart from the moral implications of dropping nukes on Iran. The first is the completely skewed logic: if Iran has nothing to do with 9/11-II, then why target Tehran? As in Iraq, it's all a pretext: only this time, the plan is to use nuclear weapons. We'll wipe out the entire population of Iran's capital city because, as Paul Wolfowitz said in another context, "it's doable."

The other weird aspect of this "nuke Iran" story is the triggering mechanism: a terrorist attack in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11. While it is certain that our government has developed a number of scenarios for post-attack action, one has to wonder: why develop this plan at this particular moment? What aren't they telling us?

I shudder to think about it.

The more I look at it, and the more I think of it, the more I sense a monumental evil casting its shadow over the world, and I have to tell you, it makes me wonder how much more time I want to spend on this earth. In my more pessimistic moments, I doubt whether we can avoid the horrific fate that seems to await us just around the next corner, the next moment, looming over the globe like a gigantic devil stretching its wings and blotting out the sun.

It seems to me that the question of whether life is really worth living anymore is inextricably bound up with the question of whether or not these madmen can be stopped. If not, then the only alternative is to live it up while we can and laugh defiantly in the face of the apocalypse. Why write columns, why comment at all, if we can't have any effect on the outcome? [...]

On my more optimistic days, however, I almost believe it's possible to outflank the War Party on the media front – because the Internet is a mighty weapon that will defeat them in the end. A recent Pew study shows that this is not just a technophilic fantasy:

"The Internet continues to grow as a source of news for Americans. One-in-four (24%) list the internet as a main source of news. Roughly the same number (23%) say they go online for news every day, up from 15% in 2000; the percentage checking the Web for news at least once a week has grown from 33% to 44% over the same time period.

"While online news consumption is highest among young people (those under age 30), it is not an activity that is limited to the very young. Three-in-ten Americans ages 30-49 cite the Internet as a main source of news.

"The importance of the Web for people in their working years is even more apparent when the frequency of use is taken into account. One-third of people in their 30s say they get news online every day, as do 27% of people in their 40s. Nearly a quarter of people in their 50s get news online daily, about the same rate as among people ages 18-29."

What this means is that we can put the news the MSM won't cover – e.g., the story about Cheney's Dr. Strangelove plan to strike Iran – on the front page of Antiwar.com and potentially reach one-in-four Americans. Last month we had over 2 million readers; this month is headed toward the same range – and that's in summertime, a traditionally slow time for us. Yet we're setting new records.

This, it seems to me, is the only reason for hope: a strategy of doing an end run around the mass media. We must mount a last desperate attempt to stand athwart the apocalypse shouting "No!" The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. [...]

Well, I'll tell ya. I can sure relate to how Mr. Raimondo felt when he wrote this piece, because I felt much the same way when I read it. It brought me to tears, I have to admit, and brought on a severe headache to boot.

When you read something like this, you realize how utterly mad the world has gone. I mean, really, truly, stark raving mad.

You know, I've thought that the possibility of the US striking Iran with nuclear weapons and triggering WWIII was a real one for quite some time now, but even I hoped beyond hope that such a possibility, while real, would somehow, some way become an unliklihood at some point.

After reading what Mr. Raimondo had to say above, I no longer think this is the case.

And I agree with him that the only thing to do is to spread this information far and wide. It may seem like it is a futile exercise, but you never know what can happen if enough people do it.

So, for those of you who think that a nuclear war that will lead to the destruction of most of us living on this planet at this particular moment in time is something you would like to avoid - then please, write about it! BLOG about it! Spread this news around as fast and as furious as you can. If enough people do this, who knows what kind of an effect it might have?

Do it.

Not just for you. Not just for us.

But for future generations. For your kids.

Do it - no matter if it seems as though it won't do any good - because you couldn't just sit by and watch it all happen without doing SOMETHING.

Do it because there's nothing else to do.

* Another good article I came across that you might want to look at is John Kaminski's Are You Prepared for World War III? When that defining moment finally comes, will you have the time to remember what you could have done to stop it?

Iran
911
Iraq
Foreign Policy
News
Politics
News and politics
Current Affairs
Current events
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
Media

You Lied - A Must Listen!

2005-07-04T13:33:00.000-07:00

Well, been away for a bit again, and still don't have time to write too much, but I did want to pass along what I think may very well be the hit song of the century!

"You Lied", courtesy of the folks over at Signs of the Times and Away With the Fairies.

Lyrics and links to the tune below.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/youlied/you_lied.m3u

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/youlied/you_lied.mp3

You lied

You told the world Saddam had chemical bombs
To kill us in our homes, and on our farms
You said he sent his men into the heavens
big planes crashing down, September 11

You lied, You lied,
People died, When Bush lied

I've got some questions, wipe that smirk off your face
Betraying your people, that's a real disgrace
See I'm having a hard time finding that plane
that you said hit the Pentagon, bursting into flames
Vapourising the aircraft, didn't leave no remains
But the bodies appear not to burn quite the same

More lies Yeah, yeah, more lies
America died, When Bush lied

And talk about mir'cles, did you see how they fell,
the three towers in New York, those charges worked well
Flattened out in a straight line, just like it was planned
Did you think we were so stupid that we wouldn't understand
And it's a pity about the folks there on Flight 93,
Just as they took back control, you blew them to smithereens

You lied, You lied
Heroes died, when Bush lied

You say Osama is living in a place you have traced
But you don't go and get him, it seems such a waste
Could it be it's because he's still one of your men
A C-I-A asset just like he was then
He endorsed your campaign in a last minute pitch
Is he just one more man who has gotten quite rich

From your lies, Your lies
Freedom died, from your lies

How about those Israelis dancing to their success,
On the rooftops of Jersey, they created a mess
So you sent them back home with a slap on the wrist
Told the cops not to bother, 'cause they don't exist

It's a lie, You lied
Justice died, when you lied

Now people are dying through your crimes in Iraq
You've killed more than Saddam, though you don't care to keep track
Cause they're only some Arabs in a faraway land
That Yahweh has promised to his chosen band
While Sharon and his cronies pull on your strings
When he opens his mouth your whole government sings

His lies, His lies
Palestinians die, With Bush lies

Next time you talk to your God, I've got a question for him
What side is he on or does it change on a whim'
There's a whole lot of people, suff'rin here in his name
What kind of pyscho is he that he's playing this game
It sounds more like the devil is guiding your hand
Destruction and death are the plagues of the land

of your lies, your lies
Children die, When Bush lies

You see, Mr President, there's something amiss
Two elections you lost, but you overcame this
By rigging the vote, not counting the blacks
You've ensured two full terms, the dry drunk is back
And now they're changing the laws to get you a third
The brown shirts are charging at the front of the herd

of your lies, your lies
Democracy dies, When Bush lies

The question remains what can we do about this
Most people refuse to consider this list
They're lost in illusion, can't recognise proof
so we offer this song to all who stand for the truth

No more lies, No more lies
Must we all die, Because of your lies

No more lies, No more lies
Must we all die, Because of your lies

Your lies...

Music
911
Iraq
Foreign Policy
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
Media

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely An 'Inside Job'

2005-06-19T14:56:00.000-07:00

Found these two pieces browsing the web tonight. Very interesting times we live in. More and more facts are coming to light about the events of September 11, but will they be accepted? Or will they be too much - as the truth so often is - and the majority simply go back to their comfortable, warm slumber? The only problem with slumber though is, if you sleep too deeply, you may not wake up unless it is forcibly, or - even worse - not until it is way, way too late....

Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.

June 12, 2005
By Greg Szymanski

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds about his comments that first appeared June 9 on the web. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."

However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.
[...]

THE MOTHER OF ALL HOAXES? World Trade Tower 'Controlled Demolition'?

MER Editorial

MIDDLEEAST.ORG - Washington - 15 June: MER has never before published this story, this 'conspiracy theory' if you will. Though under much pressure over the years to do so we always held back and never published anything about this 'possibility'...until today that is. But now the fact that a ranking former Bush Administration official, in fact the man who was the top government economist in the Labor Department on 11 September 2001, has now gone public saying 9/11 may have been a historic hoax and the World Trade Towers were 'most likely' destroyed by a 'controlled demolition', causes us to reconsider. This is far too important to simply dismiss at this point. At the least we conclude this story now deserves far more attention that it has gotten in recent days with nearly the entire corporate media focused on Michael Jackson and various frivolities while this paragraph -- published this week on the UPI wire from Washington in fact -- has hardly had any attention:
[...]

911
peak oil
Iraq
Middle East
Foreign Policy
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal

George's Latest Faux Pas

2005-05-31T10:11:00.000-07:00

George W slipped up again a week ago and accidentally let a little truth out. I found this quote on yesterday's edition of Signs of the Times, who had linked to it from an article at The Huffington Post. The text from the press release where this quote was originally found is on the White House's web site here.

Speaking at a townhall meeting in Greece, New York, the US President said:

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

G.W. Bush - May 24/05

Hang on there a sec.

Did George just come right out and admit that what the US government feeds the American public as the "truth" is actually propaganda??

Oops.

Bet he caught some hell for that one behind closed doors.

What is even sadder than George's blatant stupidity (or is it arrogance? Indifference? All of the above?) though, is the fact that this comment will likely blow right over the heads of a fair number of Americans. They'll either pass it off as George making a joke, or George just a little tired and confused that day (again). Some may not even be quite sure what "propaganda" is. Something like the above seems to be the case with those who were present when he made this comment anyway. According to the press release, there was applause right after he made the statement.

Sigh.

You know, you can read about this stuff - or write about it, or talk about it, or even try to change it - til the cows come home, but one has to wonder: does any of it make any difference?

That's the question I'm asking myself right now.

What difference is it making? Of what use is it? Really?

I mean, if you look back on the history of our planet, no matter what has happened, no matter how many people have been aware of the truth, or how many people have spoken or written about it, or how many people who have actually tried to do something about it in other ways - whether through revolution or non-violent protest - nothing has changed! If anything, the old players are just replaced with new ones, but the new ones are still basically the same as their predecessors. They are simply wearing different masks.

There's not even any comfort in the fact that the American empire will eventually fall - perhaps sooner rather than later - just as all empires down through the ages have risen and fallen. But how many innocents will it take with it as it falls? How many have been sacrificed on its way up? And even when this empire falls, it will only be replaced by another. Who will the next global bully be?

So, what's the point? Of what USE are we? When nothing ever changes.

And nothing ever changes because people don't change, as I have said and thought so many times before. This world is one which belongs essentially to darkness and decay. Evil rules it because those who are evil, or brain-dead, are those who are in the majority. The minority, any representing good, are usually wiped out as quickly and efficiently as possible.

So, what does one do? What CAN one do? Revolution isn't the answer. Violence only breeds more violence, as has been seen time and again. In fact, if there ever was a violent revolution in the US, that would give the government just the excuse it needs to start incarcerating people in camps and getting rid of the ones who are not "with them".

I guess the only thing to do is to just keep doing what you do. Keep talking when asked for an opinion. Keep informed. Keep writing. Keep trying to shine a little light in this Dark Night, because that is what is in you to do.

No matter how futile, no matter how woefully inadequate it seems some days.

News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life

Baking and Storms

2005-05-29T15:02:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been a busy weekend with birthday parties, visits and slumber parties, and it's not quite over yet. Tomorrow is my son's birthday - so, more cake and a few extra rambunctious boys running around the apartment. Then another cake the next day that I need to take to school for his class. Today, I made two loaves of bread and some potatoe/spring onion soup. Can't seem to get that baking bug out of my system. Maybe when it stops raining . . . . :-)

Speaking of the rain, it rained much of yesterday. It wasn't storming, just drizzling, so I didn't think I needed to worry about lightening. In the evening around 7 pm or so I guess, we were here in the living room. I was sitting at the computer, half facing the window, and the kids were standing beside me. Suddenly, we heard this loud electric SNAP, and saw at the exact same time this flash of white light that filled the whole window. An incredibly loud clap of thunder followed a couple of seconds later. The dang thing must've been pretty close to being right on top of us.

After making sure everyone was OK and calm, I wondered about my modem. It went out
a number of times a few years ago. Just as I would be getting ready to unplug things, CRACK - and my modem would be gone. Too late.

During one storm, I managed to unplug the computer, and was running quickly around the house, closing all of the curtains. I had the tv left to unplug and the curtains of the window behind it to close. I was just heading across the floor towards the tv when CRACK! The whole room filled with white light, and I thought, "Oh, boy. This is it."

It was the same type of light, only a bit more intense. It had apparently come through the television, which was completely useless afterwards, we discovered. I was living in a different house, in another part of the world in those days, and the thunder storms used to be incredibly violent there in the winter. I liked it when it just rained, but I was afraid of the lightening.

I never used to be though. As a child, I used to watch storms with fascination and awe at the incredible power and beauty of Nature in action. It was only after a close call in a subway accident that I suddenly began to fear lightening storms. That has eased off some over the years though.

Anyway, this particular event took out the tv cable and internet connections, which run on the same line. (The electricity was fine though.) I called the company and I got a recorded message that stated that there was a problem with the connection in our area and that they were fixing it. It was still out at 1:30 am this morning, but all was in order again by the time we all woke up.

The gods must've been having some battle up there. . . .

Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal

Rainy Days

2005-05-26T10:01:00.000-07:00

It's been raining alot around here lately. Some people don't like the rain, but I do - so long as it doesn't last for weeks, and weeks, and weeks...... :-)

I always seem to get sort of "nesty" when it rains. I just want to make some good, strong coffee, light up a couple of candles (a fireplace, too, if I have one), and start baking bread and making hot, home-made soup. Boy, there's nothing like the smell of those two things when you walk in the door out of a storm - now is there? They're the smells of home and mothers.

Things always seem fresher and invigorated after a good rain, too. Just as a good cry cleanses our inside worlds - the world of the soul - a good rain cleanses things in the ouside world. The trees seem greener, the colors of the houses brighter, the air cleaner. Everything is just . . . . fresh. Enlivened. Renewed.

I guess that's why it rains so much in the spring - that time in the yearly cycle that represents renewal, rebirth, resurrection. New life needs water. One can have the soil, and have the seed, but without the water - nothing is given life. Nothing is born. The seed simply remains a seed in dry, parched earth until it finally withers away into nothingness.

Yes, I rather like the rain. Rain is a good thing.

Again though. . . .so long as it doesn't last forever.

Balance. Too much rain, and the flood that ensues destroys and takes life. Too little, and life never comes to fruition.

Life
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal

Reasons to Smile

2005-05-26T09:50:00.000-07:00

You know, some days are good. Some days, you hear just a few words, and you know that you must be doing something right. Some days, you hear just a few words, and you are given reason to smile.

I am very grateful for those days, and feel blessed when they happen. Yesterday and today were two of those days.

My eldest daughter told me a little while ago, right out of the blue, "Mamma, you know, you are a special person, I think. You have your own style. You think for yourself. You don't watch tv. You're a little different, but I love you very, very much. Even though I get angry at you when you are hard on me, I love you."

And I smiled.

My youngest told me last night before I tucked her in and gave her her goodnight kiss,

"Mamma, I hope I will be with you forever. I will love you forever and ever and ever."

And I smiled.

My son, who used to be too "tough" for goodnight kisses, now requires them and even "breaks down" and gives me one back, laying down afterwards on his pillow with an expression of such pure joy on his face that it just warms my heart like nothing else.

And makes me smile.

It is not always easy raising three young children, trying to provide for them, and find time to do the many other things I want to do. Some days are difficult and exhausting and stressful, but some days - other days - things happen that confirm for you that it is all worth it.

Some days, I am given reason to smile.

I only hope that one day, these three little blessings that have given me reasons to smile, know how great the gift is that they have given me. That they know how much they have filled my life.

And how much I love them.

Women
Life
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal

Holocaust Survivor Leaves US Because He's "Seen This Before"

2005-05-24T15:12:00.000-07:00

I was just now blog browsing a little bit and came across this over at The Steel Magnolia, which I just have to post. I haven't read something that made me feel so much sorrow and fear in a while - mostly because I haven't spent much time on the internet lately, I imagine - because whenever I keep up with the news, I am filled with similar feelings. It's not a pretty picture out there these days.

At any rate, here is the article. Read it carefully, and if it doesn't make you sit up and take notice of what is going on around you, then I doubt that anything will:

Caught a piece by Joey Picador on Signs of the Times yesterday that nearly made me weep. He wrote:

One of our neighbors is moving. I’ve been in this neighborhood for about six years now, but didn’t really know them very well at all - just waves and nods, mostly.

So I heard the moving van pull up this morning. When I got home this evening I happened to spy my neighbor (he’s like 85 years old - I don’t know exactly, but he’s old, talks and moves very slowly) standing on the sidewalk next to the van. I walked over and shook his hand, and we started talking. I asked him where he was moving, and he said, “Back to Germany.”

I had been stationed in Germany for two years while in the military, so I lit up, and commented about how beautiful the country was, and inquired if he was going back because he missed it.

“No,” he answered me. “I’m going back because I’ve seen this before.” He then commenced to explain that when he was a kid, he watched with his family in fear as Hitler’s government committed atrocity after atrocity, and no one was willing to say anything. He said the news refused to question the government, and the ones who did were not in the newspaper business much longer. He said good neighbors, people he had known all his life, turned against his family and other Jews, grabbing on to the hate and superiority “as if they were starved for it” (his words).

He said he was too old to see it happen right in front of his eyes again, and too old to do anything about it, so he was taking his family back to Europe on Thursday where they would be safe from George W. Bush and his neocons. He seemed resolute, but troubled, nonetheless, as if being too young on one end and too old on the other to fight what he saw happening was wearing on him.

I gotta tell you - it was chilling. I let him talk, and the whole time, my gut was churning, like I had mutated butterflies in my stomach. When he was finished, he shook my hand, gripping it really hard, until his knuckles turned white and he was shaking. He looked me in the eyes, hard, and said, “I will pray for your family and your country.” He let go of my hand and hobbled away.

I have related this event to you in the hopes it will serve as a cautionary anecdote about the state of our Union, and to illustrate the path we Americans are being led down by a group of fanatics bent on global economic and military dominion. When a man who survived the fruits of fascism decides its time to leave THIS country because he’s seeing the same patterns that led to the Holocaust and other Nazi horrors beginning to form here, it is time for us to recognize the underlying evil inherent in the actions of those who claim they work for all Americans, and for all mankind. And it is incumbent upon all Americans, Red and Blue, Republican and Democrat, to stop them.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I read the news over the last few years since Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court, I get sicker and sicker and wonder just what kind of madness has overtaken our world.

I simply cannot believe that the subjects of torture and xenophobia take up so much space and almost nobody is talking about peace and getting along and taking care of our planet anymore.

What is even more astonishing - even heartbreaking - is the fact that so-called “Christians” support this “strange new world” post 9-11.

The old fellow in the story above can see the Handwriting on the Wall. What’s wrong with the average American that they cannot?

I agree wholeheartedly with Steel Magnolia. I'm asking the same question.

What is WRONG with Americans who cannot see what is going on? Why are they in such denial? Is it lack of information? Lack of desire for information? Is it fear? What is it?? Why is it that they can't see that we are on the verge of doing a repeat of Nazi Germany - only on a much grander scale? That the atrocities have already begun is clear, and they are bound to get alot worse. That the controls have already been instituted is clear, and they are bound to get alot tighter. That people are becoming paranoid and turning against their neighbors in their fear is clear, and this, too, is bound to get alot worse.

When will Americans see the truth about what is happening? And if they finally see it - WHEN will they see it?

Before it's too late?

Or only after......

As they did in Nazi Germany.

News
Politics
News and politics
Middle East
Foreign Policy
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life

Be With Those Who Help Your Being

2005-05-16T13:22:00.000-07:00

Being fond of Rumi, I thought I would include this poem of his which I just read again.

Be with those who help your being.
Don't sit with indifferent people, whose breath
comes cold out of their mouths.
Not these visible forms, your work is deeper.

A chunk of dirt thrown in the air breaks to pieces.
If you don't try to fly,
and so break yourself apart,
you will be broken open by death,
when it's too late for all you could become.

Leaves get yellow. The tree puts out fresh roots
and makes them green.
Why are you so content with a love that turns you yellow?

- Rumi

Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal

Some Thoughts....

2005-05-16T12:46:00.000-07:00

Have you noticed that there are people out there who see something in others that they wish to possess, and rather than attempt to bring those qualities about in themselves, instead attempt to attack and destroy those who have them? Or at the very least, attempt to eliminate the qualities that they are envious of from those people?

I have noticed this.

I have also noticed that not all do this intentionally or consciously. Some do, of course. Some are genuinely evil. But there are others who do it simply because they know no other way to be yet. Some have been traumatized so badly at some point in their lives that it killed something within them, but there nevertheless still exists a spark of goodness that is struggling to grow into a flame. Good people sometimes do bad things. That doesn't mean, of course, that their actions are any less painful to those they are carried out on - they can be extraordinarily painful - but understanding why such things take place can make forgiveness easier.

Very often, these attacks amount to accusing the victim of doing something or being something that couldn't be farther from the truth. Recently, this happened to a friend of mine, and she was so baffled by the accusation that she had to go look up what it was she had been accused of! This tells you how far off from being true the accusation was, if the accused didn't even fully understand what she had been accused of being.

But, this is the world, isn't it? So often it seems - all too often - things are destroyed, rather than built up. Plowed under, rather than nourished in order to grow. Demeaned, rather than encouraged.

All too often.

Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal

Propaganda, Government Ops, 911 and Mark Robinowitz

2005-05-01T12:14:00.000-07:00

I was just wandering around the blog world again and came across something that I just HAVE to pop in and post here. (I know. I should spend more time writing than blog surfing, but there you go. Some great blogs out there, you know, and I just keep finding more and more of them.)

None of what is written here really surprises me - but it does depress me. What the heck kind of world are we living in?

An Email from COINTELPRO and Shocking 9/11 Revelations

It is bound to happen eventually.

Search for the truth long enough, post a little about it, and you will be contacted. Apparently no blog is small enough to avoid attention.

I started a blog, 9.11 Soundbytes, to post quotes from the memory hole on the terrorist attack as I found them. I received an interesting email from Mark Robinowitz of oilempire.us regarding the blog, and I will share a small fraction of it with you.

My guess is that he regularly sends something similar to all sites that link to The Pentagon Strike Video. The email makes him appear more like a paid COINTELPRO agent, or so I think.

Stumbled upon your site -

the "Pentagon Strike" video has been debunked by many of the best
writers on 9/11 complicity issues - such as the author of the
911research site you list. [...]

Now for a bit of context. The Pentagon has all but announced that they are using propaganda:

U.S. government planting propaganda and misleading stories in the international media

BBC News
By Tom Carver
Wednesday, 20 February, 2002
Washington correspondent

The Pentagon is toying with the idea of black propaganda.

As part of George Bush's war on terrorism, the military is thinking of
planting propaganda and misleading stories in the international media.

A new department has been set up inside the Pentagon with the Orwellian
title of the Office of Strategic Influence.

It is well funded, is being run by a general and its aim is to influence
public opinion abroad.

Black and white

It has been canvassing opinion within the Pentagon on what it should do. [...]

I have written briefly here about psyop operations, and have posted an image of a propaganda wheel from a 1950's government sponsored research paper demonstrating methods used. There is plenty of evidence that such activities have never stopped, and US citizens are a primary target of propaganda or psyops as it is now called.

Regular readers know that I am opposed to the Peak Oil concept, particularly when it is used to downplay the obvious crimes of the Bush Regime. In a blatant and obvious attempt at sleight of hand trickery, Ruppert (and buddyRobinowitz) is telling us to not look at the man behind the curtain, instead focus on our impending economic collapse due to peak oil.

While searching for information on the email I received, I turned up this very interesting tidbit:

David Beckham and Flight 77 in Paris

[...] The dinner itself was "normal" in every respect, and MOST of the conversation was also "normal." It only got strange when politics - including the subject of George Bush and 9-11 - was brought up.

Our friends who circulate socially among various government officials brought out some photos to show of a recent private party. Among the attendees of said party - which I reiterate, was private and not an "official function," was the brother of Vladimir Putin! There was the usual grouping of various ministers, AND one of the most powerful men in the Financial World (and here I don't mean America, I mean the GLOBAL Financial world!)

What was interesting about these photos was the obvious camaraderie of these individuals depicted in the photographs. There was Vlad's brother whooping it up with what were obviously close pals in France.

Hmmmm...

So, of course I asked about this. What came next was, in a sense, quite shocking. It seems that it is common knowledge in these circles that Russian satellites photographed a ship-launched craft (seems to have been a drone type plane rather than a missle) that ended up impacting the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001, and that, for various reasons this information has been withheld from the public.

I was naturally startled to hear this even though I have long held the opinion that it was NOT a commercial jetliner that hit the Pentagon. I think the thing that startled me was the fact that, if Russia (and perhaps other countries with satellites?) had proof that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, why weren't they revealing this?

It was explained to me that during part of the time George Bush was "incommunicado" on September 11, 2001, he was on the phone to Putin "negotiating." That was a polite way of saying "blackmailing." Apparently, Bush, by way of MOSSAD and/or the CIA had enough goods on Vlad to keep him silent.

Now THAT explains why Putin has not responded publicly to the rather obnoxious criticisms of Russia made by Bush and Condi Rice.

In any event, it was explained to me further that these satellite photos HAD been revealed to Thierry Meyssan who was asked by either French or Russian intell to write his book "Pentagate" to "leak" the info that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. His instructions were, apparently, that he had to "make the case" without recourse to official backing; he couldn't refer to the satellite photos.

Well, suddenly, a LOT of things began to make sense. [...]

A lot of pieces begin to fall into place if we begin to consider that the above has some validity (and I do).

The above post from Perfect Infidel, goes on to discuss the author of the email sent to me, Mark Rabinowitz:

Another interesting event in this timeline was the creation of a website with the domain name oilempire.us. This site lists what it calls "Bogus 9-11 Websites" saying:

The three biggest stories used to alienate the public from 9/11 truth

1. No Planes on 9/11 (Pentagon, North Tower WTC, "pod plane" at South
Tower, Pennsylvania)
2. The Jews Did It (Israel had foreknowledge and possibly played a role,
but that doesn't justify anti-semitism and Holocaust Denial)
3. The Victims' Phone Calls Were Faked (a way to keep the 9/11 families
and the skeptics from working together)

why are there bogus 9/11 websites? a mix of malice and incompetence, but both make real evidence harder to find

Considering the very good case for the involvement of MOSSAD in 9-11, the very good case that the victims phone calls WERE faked, not to mention what I have discovered about satellite photos on 9-11, it sure does look like the Oil Empire Website is a "plant," so to say. So I did a whois lookup. Here's what I found: [...] [catalytic: I cut out the whois information]

The site is claimed by a Mark Rabinowitz even if it was "prepared for use" as early as February of 2003. That, in itself, is rather suspicious. Seems that this was right about the time that the Meyssan book was making a splash.

Robinowitz was posting on usenet as far back as 1994 in regards to an auto free DC. He's on a few dc.biking threads on usenet.

Rabinowitz then did some reporting for the Institute of Global Communications based in MD.
[See: http://www.igc.apc.org/]

He then moved to Eugene, Oregon by the looks of things and is into permaculture. He appears to be coming from a "green" perspective. He got into the Y2K hysteria for a bit and now it appears he's onto the "Peak Oil deal" via Ruppert.

Do a Ruppert- Robinowitz search on google and you'll see what I mean in regards to the Ruppert promotion.

So it DOES look like Ruppert - who has been quoted as promoting the "no plane theory" but has now advised everybody to just "forget 9-11 and concentrate on Peak Oil" - has a strange bedfellow with Rabinowitz.

Shades of COINTELPRO!

The Pentagon Strike Video has been such a hit on the internet that even the Washington Post sat up and took notice. Something had to be done.

Now just imagine what you would do, if you committed the crime of the century and had infinite resources to cover it up along with willing lackeys to sally forth and do your bidding. I am reminded of an old AC/DC song.

Playing along with the Bush Regime is much worse than anything the anti-hero of that song could imagine doing. 9/11 has been used to justify mass murder and genocide. For the Worldwide Attack Matrix to continue, it is imperative that the truth not come out.

And they might have overplayed their hand with blowing a hole in the side of the Pentagon. Hubris will get you every time.

I have not yet seen a reasonable explanation as to how a plane could plow into the side of Pentagon in the heaviest defended air space in the world - without destroying the lawn or the lamp posts. The Regime is counting on most of us to not question the official story. For the rest of us, they send out their agents to create a lot of confusion and misdirection.

Even with the message that the Bush regime allowed it to happen, justification can be made in the minds of some that we should continue and escalate the "War on Terrorism". That psyop fantasy still handily delivers the idea of the enemy out there, ready to strike at any moment, so give up your freedoms as we march off to war.

Who had the resources to pull of such an attack? Who has benefited from these wars? Certainly not the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, who had nothing to do with 9/11 anyway. As the US and Israel prepare to escalate the violence, we can expect more desperate attempts to have us look away from the truth.

Check out the The Center for an Informed America for more humorous tales of the ridiculous lengths these bad stage magicians will go. Who better to debunk a conspiracy than suppossed conspiracy researchers?

Anyone else been contacted by Robinowitz and care to share?

Pretty interesting stuff, eh?

911
Middle East
Foreign Policy
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Peak Oil

Kaminski's Deer in the Headlights

2005-04-30T13:49:00.000-07:00

Hello there.

OK. I know I should be writing my own stuff here, but I am so utterly exhausted that I don't have the energy for it. So, since I want to post something here as I haven't done so in a couple of days, I thought I'd yet again, just post a portion of a great article I came across. [ I know I've done that a couple of times already, but I hope I'll be forgiven :-) ]

This is Kaminski's latest - a great and honorable writer if there ever was one.

It's entitled Deer in the Headlights, and it's one of his best to date.

At least, I think so....

So, without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, I give you.....

Deer in the Headlights

Searching for the truth is
ugly, frightening and dangerous
— and the only worthwhile choice

By John Kaminski
4-26-05

Maybe I'm already sufficiently hunkered down; safely ensconced in my leaky trailer; barricaded against the onslaughts to come; insulated from the contrived catastrophes that get worse with each new assault; prepared for the biological barrage our masters have scheduled for us to cull this feckless human herd and make their sinister existences even more profitable; as fortified as I can be against the imminent financial collapse about to engulf us all, at least for someone who earns his meager coins by hurling reckless adjectives at all these endless crimes against humanity.
After all, they haven't come for me yet. But will they come next week?

Oh, I am so prudent. I remove the magnetic antiwar sticker from my trunk in certain rural parking lots so the rednecks won't trash my car. Mmm, such courage. And sagacity. And always the darting eyes of man hazardously at large in an alien world. Who the hell are all these people, and why are practically all of them fast asleep?
Never have I heard so much talk as over the past few years about people wanting to escape from warmongering America. I get postcards from Costa Rica, cryptic e-mails from Thailand, letters about how nice it is in Denmark or Portugal or Brazil, all from people who have shucked that furtive sense of panic that still grips many people with actually functioning souls who remain uneasily in their decaying United States.
Once I wrote that we shouldn’t run off to foreign places, that the best of us should stay and fight for what is truly ours. But who can blame those of us who are intimidated by the widespread lack of support for values and actions that are truly humane. What’s the score now? About six people in the entire Congress who are apt to tell the unvarnished truth about anything? And not a single newspaper.

To not be afraid is to be stupid.

I have already received several notes from people who journeyed to Oklahoma City recently especially to see me. I had volunteered to go and participate in the group analysis of a previous disaster, now several incidents removed from the current affront to all things decent and holy, which is of course the continuing massacre of innocents in a faraway country whose oil America wishes to steal.

Some of you may remember that I canceled my appearance, essentially because of three things: extreme poverty; disenchantment with the overly respectful (and hence, IMHO, futile) way the organizers of the event planned to discuss this clear case of mass murder of American citizens by the American government. And, of course, fear of flying. I love to fly. But I wish to avoid having my orifices scrutinized by minimum wage Homeland Security goons.

More to the point in my recent field of vision were the hundreds of letters that have recently blessed me with tokens of appreciation for my efforts at describing how so-called humans can be so inhuman. We're talking cold hard cash here, folks, and book orders. In between my scribbled rants that often show up in the most unexpected places, I eke out an austere living by selling my books, in which I have collected these very rants. I am always uneasy about asking for support, and always humbled by the sincere ways in which many people respond.

People (them again) always ask me, "How can you read all those horrible stories day after day and not be affected by them; how can you keep from slitting your wrists?" or something along those lines. It's a question I don't usually answer.

But when I try to, I think of that series of photos taken at a checkpoint in Iraq in which triggerhappy U.S. troops shot first and asked questions later, later to find six terrified and bleeding children in the car that rolled to a stop. I think of that little bleeding girl screaming over her butchered parents, and U.S. soldiers wearing masks to hide their identities from the photographer. That little girl is my boss. And the rage I feel at the people who put her in that position, I'm telling you, is simply more than you want to hear. Why do I do what I do, and how can I stand what I have to look at? I work for that little girl, and if you don't too, then you have a problem with me.

Because if you don't work for her, that means you're an accomplice to mass murder (which as Americans, we all are), and that means I'm going to seriously kick your ass if I get the chance, although as you have rightly guessed by now, it will only be verbally and from a distance.

Likewise, I work for the souls of those kids in that Murrah building daycare center so righteously snuffed out by all those federal employees who were warned not to go to work that day. Which is why I got somewhat upset by the relatively inferential (as opposed to confrontational) intent of the organizers who had chronicled the irrefutable evidence that the OKC attack on humanity was not about a renegade pseudopatriot with a truck bomb, but about a government conducting an experiment on its population’s social alienation from reality. Which spectacularly continues, meaning the experiment was a success.

I wrote a story for that group, but they didn't want it because they already had plenty of good ones (especially by Pat Shannan and Craig Roberts), and I know it's only a fool who quotes himself, but here's part of what I wrote:

Your silence guarantees
more phony disasters
American cowardice triumphs as the facts
of the OKC bombing remain concealed
They come into your town, commit some unpardonable crime, then disappear into the night.

The cops follow, explain the event in some way that absolutely does not make sense, some luckless patsy is put on trial, convicted by a judge who excludes most of the relevant evidence, and the patsy is executed.

Case closed, the government tells you.

The next day the ad-filled newspapers embellish the official version. Legislation is then passed to prevent the contrived atrocities they took such pains to explain.
But as you contemplate the blazing memory of the sight of your beloved children exploded into little bloody pieces or crushed by fallen debris, you wonder what you should say, what you can do.

When you attempt to express your doubts about what happened, you are looked upon with a nervous terror by your neighbors. You receive unmistakable messages that you really shouldn't go there, out of concern for your own health, your own future.

The messages include newspaper reports of others who didn't heed this advice and were discovered in some odd place after their puzzling and unexpected suicides.

So the message gets through to most, and a brittle silence engulfs the land.
After awhile, those who continue to speak about the incompatibility of what was written down and what they saw with their own eyes begin to be tolerated as amusing oddities, embarrassing gadflies, whimsical conspiracy theorists.

The voluminous dossiers of suppressed facts they have compiled are regarded as mere evidence of their quirkiness, and can never supplant the initial impression that the popular cover story has hazed over the general populace, anesthetizing the consensus thought process like some warm, familiar blanket, which most refuse to realize is permeated with a smallpox of the mind.

"Well, we know it was those damned terrorists," is the repeated mantra. "That's why we make war on them."

"You don't want to put yourself in a place you know you can't go," say others, reviving a variation of the old canard that you can't fight city hall, and thereby guaranteeing that the sudden act of vicious tragedy will happen again in some other town, and be followed by the same process of phony explanation, prosecuted patsy, and ultimately suppressed knowledge of what really happened.

It is the one consistent pattern of American history. The majority don't really know what happened, and are terrified to challenge the official version lest they be blackballed by their cowardly neighbors, or worse, ruined or killed by the same shadowy, unidentified forces who perpetrated the original crime and then covered it up.

For those who disregard the obvious dangers and continue to speak the truth as they perceive it, the rewards are bittersweet and intangible. [....]

This is quite a long piece, so I didn't want to post the whole thing here. For the rest, go to Deer in the Headlights, by John Kaminski.

Iraq
Middle East
Foreign Policy
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life

Why Americans Refuse to Believe the 9/11 Evidence

2005-04-23T15:15:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post before I turn in. I found this over at Signs of the Times today:

Why Americans Refuse to Believe the 9/11 Evidence

An Analysis by TvNewsLIES.org - April - 2005

The attacks of 9/11 were so unthinkable that most Americans would refuse to believe the complicity of their own government, even if presented with a mountain of evidence.

Very simply, it is possible to escape blame if you do something that nobody in the world believes you could do.

PROLOGUE

When I was 11 years old I sat next to my friend and fellow class clown Jeffery, quietly thinking of ways to torture the unsuspecting substitute teacher. Jeffery and I were competing comedians, always trying to "get over" on each other in school. Jeffery was good and there were no limits to what he would do.

On this particular day we sat next to each other, sharing one of the double desks with which Brooklyn school children of the 70's were so familiar. As our unsuspecting substitute turned his back to write something on the black board, Jeffery raised his arm and launched all his own books across the room in the direction opposite from where I was seated, immediately turning towards me with a look of horror and shock plastered on his face. The teacher, alarmed by the noise of the book launching, spun around only to see Jeffery's books scattered around the room. His loose leaf binder had opened up and produced an explosion of confetti in the form of notes and homework sheets.

A quick glance our way by the teacher brought into view a shocked Jeffery, who appeared to be the victim, sitting right next to me and staring at me with an expression of, "What the hell did you just do?" splashed on his face. I sat there, speechless, as the person on the right side of Jeffery's books prior to their launch to the left. I had nothing to say because the truth was simply not believable and no convincing lie presented itself.

Anyone witnessing this scene from the teacher's vantage point could only come to one conclusion, Jesse did it. Even if I tried to explain that Jeffery launched the books, who would believe me? After all, who would have done this to his own property? Jeffery would have to spend the next hour or so reassembling his loose leaf binder. There is no way he would have done this to himself. No way, except for one thing...he did do this to himself, his motive...comedy. I was the patsy for two good reasons. First, I was sitting right there when it happened, and second - I had a history of being a clown. I understood why people thought I was guilty and let me be the first to commend Jeffery for executing the perfect crime. He did the unthinkable and set up a patsy with his convincing claim of innocence.

In this sad, but true story, I was kicked out of the class by our substitute teacher. I was only 11 years old but I knew enough to understand that there was no way in hell that anyone would believe me if I told the truth and said that Jeffery was guilty of tossing his books . And so, having no proof that I was blameless, I swallowed my defeat and walked out of the room wondering what form my revenge against Jeffery would take.

The point to be made is this: sometimes, the more outrageous an action, the easier it is to get away with. Sometimes, there is no way that people can connect the criminal with the crime: the very idea of guilt is so far out of the norm as to be unthinkable.

Very simply, it is possible to escape blame if you do something that nobody in the world believes you could do. If the deed is egregious enough, even if some proof of your culpability surfaces, you'll be on safe ground. If people cannot imagine your involvement in an unthinkable action, they will simply not believe you could possible be complicit in its commission. Think about it.

THE ART OF DENIAL

Flashback to a heinous crime of the recent past: When Susan Smith appeared before the public to beg the kidnapper of her children to return them to her, the nation cried with her. Her description of the guilty assailant was so very believable. It fit right into the criminal stereotype that had been etched into the psyche of Americans by the corporate media. And for a few very long days, everyone believed her.

But there was one huge problem with her story. It was Susan Smith, herself, who killed her children. Yes, the unbelievable was true. A young mother had actually allowed her own children to drown. It was inconceivable. It just couldn't be. But it was.

Susan Smith had tried to throw the blame for her crime to a reasonable patsy. Had her story gone unchallenged, she might have gotten away with it. As it was, her crime fell apart because there was an effective investigation. Smith had no way of curtailing or controlling the inquiry into her crime. And as a result, justice was done, and Susan Smith was eventually charged and convicted of murder.

Truth and reality often can be totally unbelievable. It is very possible for people to totally deny assertions presented to them, even when provided with very credible of evidence that corroborates what they are told. A perfect example of such denial occurred when eye witness accounts of the Holocaust began coming out of war torn Europe. The unimaginable horror of what was being reported was simply too terrible to believe. It was easier to deal with the information as some sort of exaggeration and overreaction. Humans simply could not do this to other humans.

Think about what we know about acts of genocide in the Congo or Rwanda or Darfur? The art of denial is a well honed form of human self protection. Sometimes it is far easier to close one's eyes to the truth than to acknowledge what is very painful. Think about that as well.

9/11 AND AMERICAN DENIAL

In this post 9/11 era, most Americans are unable even to consider the possibility of US government complicity in the attacks on our nation even when confronted with a mountain of evidence. In contrast, many of these same people accept far less believable scenarios simply on the basis of faith and without a single shred of evidence such as believing in the existence of a God. Tragically, they seem to have the exact same blind trust in the Bush administration.

At close inspection, the official version of 9/11 is outrageously full of holes. When those of us who are knowledgeable discuss the evidence that has been unearthed about that day, there is so much to reveal that we don't know where to start or where to stop. When tapped for what we know, we have so much to expose that the torrent of information that rushes can sound like the meaningless rant of a lunatic. Regardless of how credible or tangible the evidence, when rolled out in front of the public, it often sounds too far fetched or irrational to believe.

The facts that have come out about 9/11 differ so greatly from the official story that they almost defy validity. On the contrary, the official version is so simple as to be perfectly believable. It places the entire blame on the work of a handful of terrorists who hated us for our freedom. Case closed.

It is important to keep in mind that the 9/11 issue is not simply a question of whose version of a story is correct. This is a case in which millions of people would be taking a great risk. They would have to consider that the very government they have trusted and supported for more than four years may have participated in an unthinkable atrocity. That, in itself, may be impossible. By opening their minds to an objective examination of what has been discovered about the 9/11 attacks, millions of Americans would have to abandon their blind faith in this administration, and reject the mistaken belief that those in charge of our nation can do no wrong. That, too, may be impossible.

Herein lies the paradox. If the American people want truth they must acknowledge that they have been deceived. If that were to happen, and if they were to accept the facts that have been uncovered by the independent 9/11 research community, their faith in their government would be irreparably destroyed. In the long run, it is far easier to maintain one's faith in a deceptive government than to deal with the painful details of that deception.

The consequence of such denial is that people end up believing what they must, rather than what is true. As time passes, they totally erase the distinction between fact and fiction in order to believe in their government, and they find themselves living in the America of 2005.

The greater tragedy of course, is the nature of the deception that has been accepted. There are lies, and there are lies. There are deceptions, and there are horrendous deceptions that alter history. It is one thing for Jeffery to have gone unpunished for throwing his own books around so he could claim the crown of class clown. Thirty years after the fact, our mutual friends now believe the truth, and we can laugh at what went on.

It would have been another thing altogether to have allowed Jeffery to perpetrate a Columbine-like massacre to claim that same crown. There is no way that could have resulted in denial, and there is no way that any one would have dared to laugh.

BOTTOM LINE

Ironically, it's almost funny when the fact-based 9/11 research community gathers to discuss the events of that day. The official government version of what happened loses so much credibility in the light of the available facts, films, testimony & chronicled history that it is almost impossible not to laugh in disbelief when we start to share what we know. The evidence that has been amassed is so persuasive as to rip the official version of 9/11 to shreds. And still, there is no one but ourselves to hear us.

We go on and on and on like people obsessed because as responsible citizens of the world we have assigned ourselves the task of exposing the truth. But we also have to accept the obstacles we face. We must understand how and why people refuse to believe what we say despite all the evidence in our possession. To explain that phenomenon I think about my friend Jeffery and his book launch. He did something no one believed he could possibly have done. As a result, he carried it off.

The people who were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 did something so unbelievable that most people would not believe they did it, even if presented with conclusive evidence of their guilt. As a result, they also carried it off, and the evidence be damned.

In the end, there is always the comment by those who would discredit the research and the evidence that has been uncovered. The defenders of the official version of 9/11 inevitably ask how so many people could keep a secret. "Wouldn't someone have blown the whistle by now?" is the constant challenge by the champions of denial. How naïve they are.

At the higher levels of government the issue is no longer about secrecy, but about survival. The extent of the 9/11 crimes are so great that a very real scenario of self preservation has arisen. Exposing the truth about 9/11 would virtually mean the end of the United States of America as a viable power. If the good people in our government and in our intelligence community exposed the truth, America would never ever regain its credibility in the world. We would never again be respected or trusted. We would immediately relinquish our leadership position in the world and sink to the position of a rogue nation that had committed an unforgivable atrocity against its own people for political purposes. We would expose the huge betrayal of trust that has been developed and nurtured over our 230 year history as a nation.

The minute any ranking government official was charged with complicity in 9/11, this nation would be no more. We would never recover. The people who were involved in 9/11 know this. They know that there is more at stake than their exposure. They know that once they did what they did, they would never be held accountable. As I did with Jeffery, let me be the first to admit that these folks committed the perfect crime. Not in the sense that they would not be discovered, but in the sense they knew it would do more harm to the country to expose them than it would to play along with them.

The perpetrators of 9/11 knew they were they protected by the blind loyalty of the American people who would refuse to believe they could have been involved. But they had another ace in the hole as well. They knew that no one who cared for the nation would reveal the truth, for to seek justice would in essence bring down the nation.

Bottom line: the truth is out there, the evidence is real. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Think about that, and weep for us all.

Signs Comment: Consider the following two quotations from this article:
"Sometimes, there is no way that people can connect the criminal with the crime: the very idea of guilt is so far out of the norm as to be unthinkable."

"We would expose the huge betrayal of trust that has been developed and nurtured over our 230 year history as a nation."

A careful and thorough re-examination of US history will clearly reveal that the idea of the complicity of elements of the US government in 9/11 is not so far out of the norm as to be unthinkable.

Successive US governments have been overthrowing democratically-elected regimes and financing brutal dictators for ages. Latin American countries are a prime example.

The lie is therefore far more grand than many people are willing to admit. After all, who would believe that the last 230 years of US actions have all been leading up to what is occurring now? How could such an endeavor possibly have been organized over such an extraordinary span of time?

The disbelieving American would not only have to admit that the current government is corrupt and willing to sacrifice US citizens to further its own nefarious aims, but that it is quite possible that America as a whole was never the "greatest democracy on Earth" as we were all told.

The question remains: How can any of this be possible? Furthermore, just the what the heck can we do about it, if anything?

For some potential answers, we highly recommend Laura Knight-Jadczyk's groundbreaking and eye-opening work, The Secret History of the World - And How to Get Out Alive.

911
Iraq
Middle East
Foreign Policy
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life

Slime-mold beetles named after Bush, Cheny and Rumsfield

2005-04-21T11:41:00.000-07:00

Sorry. I just couldn't resist posting this.

How appropriate that insects that thrive in slime be named after Bush, Cheny and Rumsfield!

Really. I couldn't help laughing.

Slime-mold beetle named after Bush, Cheny and Rumsfield

By Michael Schirber
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 13 April 2005

02:58 pm ET

Namesakes of the U.S. President and two of his key people might be crawling around your back yard as you read this.

Three new beetles of the genus Agathidium have been named after members of the current administration: A. bushi, A. cheneyi and A. rumsfeldi.

Two former Cornell University entomologists, Quentin Wheeler and Kelly Miller, were in charge of naming 65 new species of slime-mold beetles, which they discovered while studying the insects’ evolution and classification.

Wheeler, who is now head of entomology at the Natural History Museum in London, said that the choice to name beetles after President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was out of admiration for their principles, not because they look like the beetles.

None of these beetles make their home inside the Beltway.

Wheeler said Agathidium bushi has been found in southern Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia; Agathidium cheneyi inhabits Chiapas, Mexico; and Agathidium rumsfeldi is known from Oaxaca and Hidalgo in Mexico.

The slime-mold beetles are so-called because they feed on fungi-like molds.

Some of the other recently identified specimens were named after the entomologists’ wives and their scientific illustrator, as well as Pocahontas, Hernan Cortez, and the Aztecs.

Most of the rest of the names are derived from various geographic locations or distinguishing features. One of the beetles was called A. vaderi because of its shiny, Darth-Vader-like head.
Scientists are allowed to name the species they discovery. According to rules established by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the species name must end in "i" if it comes from a person.

The rather long scientific names also includes the names of those who first described the species.

The new names are reported in a monograph in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History.

Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Life
Science

Butterflies Abound

2005-04-18T12:32:00.000-07:00

Ten days ago, billions of butterflies descended on California after record rains. We read at LiveScience:

Billions of Butterflies Descend on California

By LiveScience Staff

posted: 08 April 2005
01:51 pm ET

Heavy winter rains have led to billions of butterflies that are beginning to descend on California in what could be a record migration.

Millions of butterflies that flew into the Central Valley in the last week of March could be just the advance guard of an unprecedented hoard.

"This may be the biggest migration of modern times," said Arthur Shapiro, a professor and expert on butterflies at the University of California, Davis.

There are now reports of billions of painted lady butterflies around Trona, near Death Valley, and in the San Fernando Valley, Shapiro said. More waves of butterflies are likely to appear in central California over the next few weeks.

Painted lady butterflies (Vanessa cardui) winter in the desert. As caterpillars turn into adults in the spring, they migrate north in search of food and a place to mate.

Painted ladies migrate every year, but usually in far fewer numbers. Exceptionally high winter rainfall in southern California has created a bumper crop of plants on which the caterpillars feed, Shapiro said.

The butterflies take about three days to reach the Central Valley. Some will fly on to southern Oregon to mate. Their offspring head up to British Columbia by summer, before returning south again in the fall. [....]

Now, when I read that, I smiled. Have you ever heard of the Chaos Theory? Said theory goes something like this: The fluttering of the wings of a butterfly in one part of the world can lead to the development of a hurricane in another.

Imagine that. Just one little butterfly. Fluttering away with all its might. Just doing what it does. Just being what it is. That one little butterfy might actually, eventually, create something as powerful as a tempest in another part of reality - without even realizing it.

Imagine what millions of butterflies might do.

And if the adage is true - As above, So below - then imagine, if you will, what millions - even just hundreds - of creative, caring, strong-willed individuals - "butterflies" on another level - might do. Imagine what they might accomplish in this world gone mad if they simply migrated from the "desert" into the cleansing "rain" that will metamorphose and evolve them into their true selves, and then, once transformed into the "butterflies" that they were meant to be, joined together and just did what they do best.

Flutter.

Flutter and create a "storm" in a entirely different part of reality.

A shift.

But to do this, the butterfly caterpillar needs to move from the dryness of the uninviting desert and into the rain - water.

Water symbolizes emotion. Water is revitalizing. Lifegiving. It awakens.

Perhaps it is time to allow the "water" of our emotions to awaken us from the cold, dark stupour that so many seem to be in, so that we may awaken that creative, lifegiving spirit residing within us. So that we can become the "butterflies" we are destined to be, flutter our wings, and create something completely different. Something wonderous. Something divine.

A shift in our way of being and living.

News
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Spirituality
Science
Life

Bush's Hypocrisy

2005-04-17T14:23:00.000-07:00

You know, one of the many things that bothered me about what happened to Terri Shiavo was President Bush's hypocrisy with regards to that whole situation.

George Bush's statement on Terri Schiavo reads:

"The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities."

When I read this, then recall how in 1999, Bush signed a Texas law that would allow hospitals to remove life support of patients - even against the wishes of the patient and/or the families of the patient.

Just last month, a six-month-old baby boy died as a result of this law. From For Bush, High Drama and Mixed Reviews I read:

[....]

"Bush's Texas Life-Support Law

And in what many liberal bloggers are calling an example of outright hypocrisy, Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that created a legal mechanism to allow attending physicians and hospital ethics boards to pull the plug on patients -- even if that specifically contradicts patient or family wishes.

As it happens, a major test case for that law was resolved just last week -- with a baby's death.

Leigh Hopper writes in the Houston Chronicle: "The baby wore a cute blue outfit with a teddy bear covering his bottom. The 17-pound, 6-month-old boy wiggled with eyes open and smacked his lips, according to his mother.

"Then at 2 p.m. today, a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died.

"Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts. A similar case involving a 68-year-old man in a chronic vegetative state at another Houston hospital is before a court now. . . .

"Texas law allows hospitals [to] discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree."

"Where, I would ask, is the outrage?" blogger Mark A.R. Kleiman wrote in a post that went careening around the blogosphere yesterday.

Later, blogger Digby wrote: "By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. . .

"Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on Medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country. . . .

"Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is 'stepping in to save Terry Schiavo' mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain."

[....]

This leaves me just speechless. Not only Bush's hypocrisy, but note the bit about this being possible, even without the consent of the patient or the family. It is legalized murder of those who are considered to be burdens on the system. That's all it seems to boil down to.

Pretty damn scary, isn't it?

What is even scarier is that so few people seem to care.....

News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Culture
Current Affairs

Jerome Corsi and The Iran Freedom Foundation

2005-04-17T11:02:00.000-07:00

I wandered over to The Gorilla in the Room recently and saw that they had posted some info on Jerome Corsi and the Iran Freedom Foundation over there.

It was the first time I had heard of this Iran Freedom Foundation, so I went over there to take a look. I really just had to shake my head in disbelief. Nothing but more propaganda as far as I can see. More fuel for the pro-war, pro-empire fire to get people convinced that going into Iran is the "right" thing to do. Yeah. We've got to "liberate" Iran - just like we "liberated" Iraq.

What a flippin' crock.

What is really scary is that I'm really starting to think that many Americans are actually stupid enough to believe this whole crock AGAIN. I mean, everyone was told the US just HAD to go into Iraq because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Said weapons turned out to be non-existent. Now - we're being told that the US just HAS to go into Iran - essentially for the same reason, only now the weapons are specified as being nuclear. Wonder what they're going to tell everyone when they decide to officially extend their war front to Syria? Or North Korea?

Come on, people. Time to wake up and smell the coffee here. Time to face a few facts.

The US doesn't want to go into Iran to save the world from those "evil doers with nuclear weapons". The only evil doers with nuclear weapons that the world should really be worried about are the US and Israel - the ones with the dreams of empire. The ones who will stop at nothing to see that empire realized - even at the expense of their own people. I wonder what kind of "event" will be carried out to give them the excuse they will need to go into Iran, etc.?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think ANYONE should have nuclear weapons, but nations who have said weapons themselves - and have actually USED them - have no business telling other nations whether they can or cannot have them.

And about this Corsi fellow. He is the author of "Atomic Iran" and the principle founder of this Iran Freedom Foundation (IFF) (See: Iran Freedom Foundation - About Us. One should be very wary about a hatemonger who makes such racist remarks such as these from Media Matters:

• Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

• Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

• Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

• Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

• Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

I mean, come on. How can you take anything a man filled with such hatred, such vileness, has to say with any seriousness?

Then again, it seems quite a few people do, since his book is apparently a best seller.

Pretty damn terrifying thought, if you ask me.

**For further information, see: False Reasons to Intervene in Iran

911
Iraq
Iran
Middle East
Foreign Policy
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Journal
Current Affairs

Nostradamus and Muslim Invasions

2005-04-12T23:46:00.000-07:00

Well, it seems that some Columbian guy is saying that Nostradamus predicted a Muslim invasion in one of his quatrains. How timely that this should pop up right around the time that the US (with the support of Israel) is planning its own invasion of Iran, with Syria possibly next on the list. Sounds alot like anti-islamic propaganda to me. Just another way to induce fear in Americans, continuing on the theme of "Be afraid! Be very, very afraid! Always Remember. There's a muslim terrorist under every bed!".

But while you're remembering that, you are also supposed to be forgetting who the real invaders are, who the real occupiers are, who the real empire builders are - right at this very moment. You're supposed to forget who invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Who is planning to do likewise with Iran and Syria. Yes, all of this, we are meant to forget.

I found a real good write-up on this Nostradamus business over at Steel Magnolia in a piece entitled, Sun Twenty Degrees of Taurus on May 11, 2005. Be sure and read, Did Nostradamus Predict the Assasination of the Next Pope? while you're there.

Personal
Journal
Culture
Weblogs
Weblog
Politics
News and politics

Open Letter to Mr. Darrell Andersen, and All Other Conscientious Objectors of the War in Iraq

2005-03-11T21:26:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Andersen,

Last night, I read about your story and heard that your mother had been interviewed on the radio. It is now 4:00 am and all I can think about is your story, so I decided I would write you this letter.

However, while this letter is addressed to you, my thoughts here are also directed towards all of those whose names I do not know, but who, like yourself, have so honorably fled this war and so courageously resisted against the insatiable war machine that is the US government. This letter is directed to all of those who have taken a stand against the genocide, the tyranny and the occupation of a sovereign nation in the name of greed, in the name of the sense of superiority over other peoples, in the name of power, and ludicrously, in the "name of Christ".

Know that while you all take a stand against this contemporary Crusade, you are at the same time taking a stand for your own souls by expressing your free will, your right to chose. Each time we refuse to say, "No!" in the face of tyranny, in the face of injustice, in the face of a choice between doing what is right and what we know at the deepest level of our beings to be wrong, we lose a part of ourselves. A piece of our beings wither and die. You have made a choice to honor that which is right, that which is ethical. You have made a choice to honor that which is eternal in all of you - and for that, I in turn honor all of you.

I have seen videos and photographs depicting US soldiers who have executed and tortured innocents. Who have run them down with their tanks and then complained because they had only just cleaned all the blood off from the last "joy ride". Who have held up the hands of dead men so they could wave to the camera. Who have filmed and photographed their "kills" as though their actions were something to be proud of. In short, I have witnessed, as many of us have, the actions of soldiers who, it would seem, have no souls.

Take comfort in the fact that you are not men and women such as these.

There are those who would call you "defectors", "traitors", "cowards" - but you are the opposite. You are all the examples of true courage, true fortitude, and true heroism. For it takes a hero to stand up against and resist that which you have resisted - a government, a military, injustice and genocide - in the face of persecution and imprisonment. This mad world in which we reside has so few heroes. There are not many left, but you are among them. Take heart in that, and let it give you strength to continue your struggle for Truth and Justice. The struggle to keep your souls intact.

I wish you all possible wisdom and strength on that journey.

Let your voices be heard.

Iraq
News
Politics
News and politics
Middle East
Foreign Policy
Current Affairs
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal

Peak Oil and 911

2005-03-08T12:01:00.000-08:00

Well, I've been sitting here thinking about what to write in my blog today and decided that what better thing to write about than something I have just read about.

I just read this article that discussed the peak oil topic and the 911 truth movement. I have to admit, I didn't know much about this peak oil business before I read this article, apart from the fact that it had something to do with a fellow named Mike Ruppert.

It seems that Mr. Ruppert thinks that the planet is on the verge of running out of oil, which will ultimately lead to the extinction of Humanity if something isn't done about it, and soon.

No more oil, eh? Mass extinction?

Well.....THAT should get your attention, shouldn't it? Maybe that is precisely what it is meant to do? Attract attention? Or rather, distract attention from certain other things that are getting major attention these days - like getting to the truth about 911? Like admitting that the US is illegally occupying a sovereign nation? Facing that so far, during said occupation, tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children have been slaughtered?

Hmmmmm.

You get people so frightened contemplating their own possible imminent demise, and many of them will forget everything else - including their ethics. Not only that, but if they actually believe that we are running out of oil, which will lead to our certain demise, even liberals might be inclined to start leaning towards the right a little and thinking, "Well, hell, the war might not be 'nice', or even moral, but, hey, maybe we do need to be in there to get what oil we can".

You know. Survival of the fittest - and all of that.

Hmmmm again.

Sounds like maybe - just maybe - some brain washing/mind programming going on to me. Sounds like maybe some government and/or intelligence agency may not like that folks are focusing as much as they are on getting to the truth about 911, or that there is increasing opposition to the unquenchable thirst of the imperialist war machine, and have set an operation into effect.

Hmmmmm.

Lots of food for thought, anyway......

peak oil
911
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal

Commandments Debate Prompts Demonstrations

2005-03-02T17:03:00.000-08:00

The Associated Press reported today via Yahoo News that demonstrators were protesting Wednesday in front of the Supreme Court. Quoting from that article:

"Shouts of "Amen" and a response of "hypocrites" pierced the chill air Wednesday as demonstrators protested in front of the Supreme Court while inside justices considered cases involving displays of the Ten Commandments on government property. " [....]

[....] "The cases before the court centered on whether a 6-foot-tall monument of the Ten Commandments in Texas should be allowed to remain on Capitol grounds and a copy of the Commandments can stay posted in a courthouse in Kentucky. " [....]

Towards the end of the piece, the author writes:

[....] "Christan Stapleton, 13, of Newland, N.C. carried a homemade, cardboard Ten Commandments tablet. She came to the Supreme Court with her church and family members.

'We do need them in our school,' she said, 'to help us know what to do, what God wants us to do as we go through our day.' " [....]

"What God wants us to do" ??

How about: THINK FOR YOURSELVES, rather than expecting someone else to do it for you?

How about: stop your government from going into foreign countries and murdering the citizens of said countries - all in the "name of God", in the name of "democracy", in the name of "freedom", in YOUR name?

How about: WAKING UP and smelling the flipping coffee, for Pete's sake?

How's that for starters?

News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal

Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Al Hariri Assasinated: A US/Israeli Operation?

2005-02-16T12:50:00.000-08:00

Whenever something like this happens, my first question is: Who benefits?

For quite some time now, it seems that the US and Israel have been looking for an excuse to go into Syria and Iran. Both countries, like Iraq, have been demonized and belong to the so-called "Axis of Evil" - that is to say, they are on the list of countries that the joint US-Israeli coalition have in their sights in order to fulfill their dreams of empire.

In yesterday's edition of Signs of the Times, the editors wrote:

[....]By all accounts, Hariri was one of the few "men of peace" left in the Middle East. In his two terms as Lebanese PM since 1990 he had brought Lebanon out of the carnage wrought by 15 years of civil war and set it well on the way to becoming once more the "Paris of the Middle East." As in the case of Iraq, Israel is determined to do whatever necessary to ensure that it remains all-powerful in the region and prevent any of its Arab neigbours from emerging as solid, unified Muslim democracies that it could not demonise as "terrorist states". By murdering Hariri and having the blame pinned on Syria, the Mossad have removed a stablising influence on recovering Lebanese society and the Middle East in general, and given the US government an excuse to further ratchet up the war rhetoric towards Damascus.

In this sense, Israel shares a common goal with the US and it is for this reason that Israel has always enjoyed the overwhelming support of successive US administrations. While the US and Israel both make much of their bogus "war on terrorism", both countries have long since realised that it is by fomenting "terrorism" and "terrorist" groups that their control of the Middle East can be assured. Yet, while both countries share a common goal, the reasons that each desires to achieve that goal are slightly different.

By controlling the extensive oil resources in the Middle East (and the countries that sit upon them), the US can ensure that it continues to top the heap of world superpowers. Israel too wishes to remain as a powerful world player, and its leaders realise that acting as a hired thug for the US in the region is the best way to do so. Yet it is more than mere power lust that is driving Israel's leaders to deliberately antagonise and provoke the entire Arab world. Israel's very presence in the Middle East is predicated on the Judaic notion of a "chosen people" and their very own homeland granted to them thousands of years ago by their mythical god, yahweh.

While it may be possible (if unlikely) to make a convincing geopolitical argument for the US government's Middle East policies over the years, to understand the thinking of people like Sharon and all those that act on his orders, one would have to first embrace as legitimate the idea that a group of human beings can constitute a "chosen people", one of their lives being worth more than 1,000 of the lives of the "lesser" people of the world. One would also have to accept that the "chosen people" are divinely entitled to a piece of land in the Middle East and that they are permitted therefore to act in any way necessary to achieve their goals of lebensraum. While the Israeli government is careful to distance itself from extreme Judaic beliefs, it is clear that it is just such beliefs that underpin its policies.

Religious and political incentives aside, one of the strongest indications of an Israeli involvement in the murder of Hariri is the fact that not ONE mainstream news source is even mentioning the possibility of Israeli involvement, when it is painfully clear that Israel has the most to gain from his death. But then again, we have become accustomed to the severe lack of intestinal fortitude or any real journalistic integrity on the part of the mainstream media. And also to the fact that much of the Western press is dominated by Israeli sympathisers and/or "Zionists".

Makes sense to me.

911
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal

Questions About 911

2005-02-16T01:23:00.000-08:00

911 has been on my mind a bit lately - and getting to the truth about what really happened that day. I'm not alone in that, it seems. There are lots of folks out there who think that there was something very "fishy" about the events that day. Lots of folks with lots of questions. Questions like:

- Why in photos taken right after a 757 supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, do we see no plane?

- How in the world could a jetliner of that size fit into a hole as small as the one shown in photos after the event at the Pentagon?

- And presuming that it even could have fit into that hole, where are the wings?

- How is it possible that 19 Arab hijackers somehow managed to simultaneously hijack 4 planes, fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours, and crash them into buildings that are American landmarks without the US intelligence or military services knowing anything about it?

- How did passports of the hijackers magically survive the infernos of the crash scenes?

- Why, when George Bush was informed of the attacks as he sat in a gradeschool classroom, did he not display any dismay or surprise? Why did he not, in fact, seem to react AT ALL?

Well, there are many questions and many trying to find answers. ** There are also some who are apparently trying to find answers, but essentially seem to have been co-opted and are directing people's attention from getting to the truth about the issues.

I read an interesting article about this today. Here is a quote:

In looking at the best known "big names" among those individuals allegedly attempting to uncover the truth about 9-11, high up on the list (at the moment anyway) we find Mike Ruppert of ‘From the Wilderness’.

Ruppert has been making alternative news headlines for the past few months over two issues: the flack he has been taking, and giving, in a war of words with several high profile 9-11 investigators, and the issue of "Peak Oil". Quite often the two controversies are related.

It all began, it seems, with another 9-11 investigator, Dick Eastman, and some comments that he made about Ruppert's focus, or lack thereof, on the Pentagon attack and the evidence for the "no plane" scenario. Ruppert, true to his apparent love of litigation, threatened to sue Eastman, which, not being the most diplomatic response, got Eastman all flustered and the games where on.

For more, see Ruppert and Hopsicker Co-Opting the 9-11 Truth Movement.

**
See what's being written at some of these places for example:

Signs of the Times
911-strike.com
Truth Out
September 11, 2001 Revisited
WhatReallyHappened.com

****

911
News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal

Where's the Plane?

2005-02-14T02:55:00.000-08:00

Hi, folks.

You know, when I look at the photo below of the Pentagon right after it was hit on 911, one question comes to mind:

WHERE'S THE DAMN PLANE?????

Pentagon, September 11, 2001

Don't you wonder too?

For some possible answers, see Eye-witnesses's Accounts of Pentagon Crash Don't Add Up

You might also want to check out this flash presentation.

News
Politics
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal

The Real Axis of Evil

2005-02-11T05:02:00.000-08:00

Lullabies from the "Axis of Evil"

Take a good look at this photo. A real good look.

Why? Because it is children such as this one that are being slaughtered each and every day in the Middle East, simply because they happen to be citizens of member countries of the so-called "Axis of Evil", as defined, naturally, by the US government. They are being slaughtered essentially because they are Arabs, Muslims and/or happen to inhabit a parcel of land that certain power-hungry, money-hungry neo-colonialists have set their sights on. Even if I believed that "Arab terrorists" were responsible for 911 - which I don't - that would in no way, shape or form justify the genocide that is now being carried out in the name of America, in honor and in tribute to the "Vengeful God" of George Bush and his neocon brotherhood.

In President George Bush's State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, he listed the countries which made up what he called, "The Axis of Evil" - regimes that, according to the US government, sponsor terror. These states were Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. This "axis" was later widened to include Syria, Libya and Cuba in a speech made in May of 2002 by Under Secretary of State, John Bolton. Last month, the new Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, extended this list yet further to include the countries of Belarus, Burma (Myanmar) and Zimbabwe - calling them "outposts of tyranny".

Well, that's quite a list we've got there, isn't it? Nine countries. It probably won't be long before France and China are on it as well, plus any others who might not take much of a liking to the US's imperial dream of a "New World Order".

In any case, for the time being, we've got Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe.

Now, in order to justify going in and attacking, raping and occupying a country, a government needs to first demonize the people of that country. They must convince their own people that those "others" - all of them - are little more than wild animals that need to be "taught a lesson" or exterminated. They very often need to stage some sort of an attack in order to succeed at this. 911 anyone? Pearl Harbor?

Once the attack is carried out, the propaganda machine rolls into action, full force. To many Americans, all Arabs and Muslims are now terrorists. They all oppress women and children, they murder their own, and they starve their own. They are all animals. They are all born demons, devils, servants of Evil, who deserve annihilation.

Now, look at the above photo again. Does this look like a "terrorist" to you??

Would you call such a child - and the mother, father and siblings who would mourn her death in an air-raid in some Iraqi or Palestinian city - a "terrorist"?

Or would you call the ones who are responsible for her death the terrorists?

Who is the one representing the true evil here?

Think about that for a while.

The Merrian-Webster dictionary defines "terror" as the following:

"Violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands."

Let's rephrase that:

"Violence (as bombing)" - Iraqi cities and Palestinian villages, for example - "committed by groups" - such as the US and Israeli governments - in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands" - such as saying, 'Hand over your weapons of mass destruction (never mind that you don't have any), or we're going to come in and take them ourselves. Then we'll install our fascist "democracy" in your countries and set up all of our corporations there, too."

So, let's see. Who might that be describing?

Who are members of the real "Axis of Evil"?

Certainly not that child, nor others like her. Certainly not the mothers who are singing the lullabies on the CD that belongs to that cover photo above. Mothers who all come from places like Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Cuba and North Korea. **

No. These are people - human beings - not "animals". They weep, laugh, grieve, celebrate, fear and dream, just as you and I do. They cherish the ideals of freedom, independence and justice. Just as you and I do.

Remember that the next time someone tells you that what the US and Israel are doing in the Middle East is justified.

Remember that the next time someone tells you that all Arabs are "terrorists".

** See Lullabies from the Axis of Evil for information on the CD, including sound clips of some of the songs.

About the CD:

"This extraordinary collaborative work by women from around the world brings a new sense to the Bushian phrase by making a statement of hope and peace in an age of chaos. The album contains 14 lullabies from Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan and Cuba, sung by women from these countries including Rim Banna, Mahsha Vahdat, Sun Ju Lee, Jawahar Shofani, in duets with 'western' artists including Nina Hagen (Germany), Eddi Reader (Scotland), Sarah Jane Morris (England), Lila Downs (USA/Mexico) and Mimi (USA), all within compositions by Knut Reiersrud and a group of musicians from Norway and the world. Thus the record forms 14 small musical bridges between east and west, north and south. A complete track, sound samples and artist listing follows below. "

News
Politics
News and politics
Science
Iraq
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Music

HAARP, Chemtrails, Mind Control and UFOs

2005-02-08T11:38:00.000-08:00

There's been a lot of talk over the last several years about both HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program) and Chemtrails - what they are, what their real purposes might be. Some say that HAARP is being tested to be used as a weapon to create weather or geological events, such as hurricanes or severe earthquakes. Similarly, many stories have circulated about what the purpose of chemtrails may or may not be.

Today, while doing my usual web surfing I came across another very thought-provoking article by Laura Knight-Jadczyk called The Canary in the Mine. In it she proposes that HAARP, in concert with chemtrails, may be functioning as a mind control device - a form of secret warfare. It is possible that it could be doing everything from making people more aggressive or depressed, to setting off certain individuals who may have been programmed in secret government experiments to "go off" at certain points, or after having been exposed to a certain frequency. It may be setting off car alarms, fires and explosions - perhaps inadvertently in the course of experiments. They may possibly be using it to create images in space that could be interpreted by the average citizen as UFOs. I know it sounds incredible, but that's why it is so fascinating!

How could HAARP be used to create the illusion of UFOs? Read: First Artificial Neon Sky Show and that might give you some idea.

Why would they want to do this? Maybe so that people will be so scared to death that they will turn to the government as their "Savior"? Maybe in order to make them more easy to control? Maybe they want to create a "light show" that will convince the populace of the benevolence of aliens - convince them that they are here themselves as Humanity's "Savior"? Who knows?

How do chemtrails supposedly fit in? How are all of these things apparently connected?

Well, in his book UFOs and the National Security State, Richard Dolan may have part of the answer. He writes:

Next to the bureau, the military intelligence services became the most important component of the domestic intelligence scene. Army intelligence had nearly unlimited funds, extensive manpower, specialized personnel, deep planning and training resources, and the most sophisticated communications and data processing capability. [...] The army’s intelligence surveillance did not focus on tactical and reconnaissance data, but on political and ideological intelligence within the United States. (This was wholly illegal.) [...]

Then there was the CIA. By the late 1960s, there were more spies than diplomats in the State Department, or employees in the Department of Labor. [...] When the Weather Underground, a radical splinter of the SDS, had an “acid test” to detect agent’s provocateurs, they had no idea that the CIA had been tripping on LSD throughout the 1950s, creating a special caste of “enlightened agents” for precisely these occasions.

Then,

The agency continued its work on mind control. Following the work of Dr. Jose Delgado [experiments in] Electrical Stimulation of the Brain [were conducted.] This involves implanting electrodes into the brain and body, with the result that the subject’s memory, impulses, and feelings could all be controlled. Moreover, ESB could evoke hallucinations, as well as fear and pleasure. “It could literally manipulate the human will at will,” [said Dr. Robert Keefe, a neurosurgeon at Tulane University.]

In 1968, George Estabrooks, another spook scientist, spoke indiscreetly to a reporter for the Providence Evening Bulletin. “The key to creating an effective spy or assassin, rests in creating a multiple personality with the aid of hypnosis,” a procedure which he described as “child’s play.”
By early 1969, teams within the CIA were running a number of bizarre experiments in mind control under the name Operation Often. In addition to the normal assortment of chemists, biologists, and conventional scientists, the operation employed psychics and experts in demonology.
Over at the NSA, all one can say with certainty is that its budget dwarfed all others within the intelligence community.

Then there is this. Read it and think about chemtrails:

By the early 1970s, there were already means available to alter the moods of unsuspecting persons. A pocket-sized transmitter generating electromagnetic energy at less than 100 milliwatts could do the job. This is no pie-in-the-sky theory. In 1972, Dr. Gordon J.F. McDonald testified before the House Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment on the issue of electromagnetic weapons used for mind control and mental disruption. He stated:

The basic notion was to create, between the electrically charged ionosphere in the higher part of the atmosphere and conducting layers of the surface of the Earth, this neutral cavity, to create waves, electrical waves that would be tuned to the brain waves. ...About ten cycles per second. ...You can produce changes in behavioral patterns or in responses.

Now, I wonder....are chemtrails creating this "neutral cavity" and is HAARP creating the electromagnetic waves for purposes of mind control?

This all reminds me of another article called MICROWAVING IRAQ: “Pacifying” Rays Pose New Hazards To Iraqis that I read recently about a weapon American soldiers have been using in Iraq. A weapon based on radio waves designed to alter the moods, behaviour and health of people - specifically in this case - Iraqis.

A similar device to HAARP, only on a smaller scale?

Lots to ponder on, anyway.....

News
Politics
News and politics
Science
Iraq
Weblogs
Weblog
Personal

Bleeding Hearts and Bleeding Orphans: A Sign of the Times

2005-02-05T02:52:00.000-08:00

A few minutes ago, I sat here trying to think of what to write today. I was surfing through a few sites at the same time, and came across the photo of the little girl covered in the blood of her parents, taken after American troops had opened fire upon their car in Tal Afar. Both of her parents died. Her father had been so riddled with bullets that his skull had caved in.

Just as the world of this innocent child and all of her siblings caved in at that very same moment.

Nothing will ever be the same for them again. They won't be the same. They, and their lives, have been completely altered forever. Their parents - who represented their whole world, who represented the only safety and security that they might have felt in a very insecure, unstable Iraq, where one never knows from one second to the next whether they will remain alive - are gone. Their parents are gone. Their world is gone. Any small vestige of safety and security they might have felt are gone. All gone. They are orphans. Alone. Frightened. Grief-stricken. Angry. Confused. Lost.

Imagine, for just one single moment, what it would be like to be that little girl in the photo. Just one single moment.

Try to put yourself in her shoes.

Can you? Can you imagine it?

I can. Even though I have never been in exactly the same situation. I have never, thankfully, seen both of my parents blown away before my very eyes. I have never been covered in the blood of my mother and father. Still, I can empathize with such loss, and the feelings and thoughts associated with it.

And because I could, the tears began to roll down my cheeks as I looked at that photo, and the others in the series that included the images of her wounded brother - and another brother, a tiny, little boy, completely and utterly traumatized and confused by the events. As the tears fell, and my heart grew heavier and heavier, feeling as though it would burst at any second, I asked myself,

"Will I ever be strong enough? Will I ever get used to this? Will I ever be able to face such suffering without flinching?"

What I find somewhat interesting is that this isn't the first time I have seen these photos. When I first saw them, I had the same reaction. The second and third time, I was sad, but did not break down in tears. For some reason today, they hit me hard again, and I'm not sure whether that is a good or a bad thing. In one sense, it is good in that it means I haven't lost that which makes it possible for me to feel for others. I haven't lost my empathy. My soul. On the other hand, it means I am still not strong enough to be able to handle what may very well be some very difficult times ahead. But maybe the way is to find a balance between the two, yes? Between strength and feeling. Between the masculine and the feminine. To feel, but rather than letting those feelings weaken you - make you incapable of doing something - let those feelings provide you with the strength and motivation for action, movement, creativity.

I have been described, quite recently actually, as being a "strong person", although others would also call me a "bleeding heart" - a name that is considered to be an insult in this day and age when those who don't feel are in control of the world. I suppose I am both strong and emotional, both "masculine" and feminine - more so the latter on some days - like today. Today, while my heart may be "bleeding" for that little girl and her siblings, I find some comfort in the fact that at least I have a heart that can bleed. Unlike those who ridicule and criticize others who "bleed" for the suffering of others, who feel for others. Those who may not have hearts of their own. **

So, today, my heart is with that little blood-soaked girl and her siblings again. Today, they are orphans. Tomorrow, maybe they will be freedom fighters. Freedom fighters born in the blood of their parents. Whether they will be freedom fighters of the sort that kill others, or of the sort that bring life to others, will remain to be seen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** From a discussion forum, see: "Parents Blown Away Trying to Run Checkpoint"

Quote:

Really, the main reason I bring up this typical spread of not-so-subtle anti-Americanism from the BBC is to see if anyone out there has heard anything concerning the incident, outside of what the media has reported -- mainly, whether the two parents were trying to make a suicide run, or if they were simply complete frigging idiots.

Either way, I shed no tears for them.

My sister (who is pretty much hopeless) sent this link to me, sobbing that it "breaks her heart" (she blames the soldiers). I'd love to be able to lay on her any inside story there might be to this, in addition to the hard, cold fact that these two parents are entirely responsible for getting themselves killed and orphaning their five kids.

Politics
News
News and politics
Weblogs
Weblog

Is This the End of the World? Is There Hope?

2005-02-04T01:34:00.000-08:00

When we live in an age where genocide reigns supreme, when children are shrouded in the blood and entrails of their parents, when it becomes emphatically clear that we live in a world gone completely, utterly mad - where does one find hope? Can one find hope? Does it even exist when things have gotten to the point where they have in our present time?

I have clung to Hope all of my life. Through everything, Hope was there for me. She has picked me up on the times I have been knocked down, and didn't think I could ever stand again. She gave me the faith in myself I needed to continue. She tenderly cared for my bleeding wounds. Wiped the sweat from my brow. She gave me the small comfort that she could during the dark, seemingly eternal, nights I passed through, providing the only light there was. Just a small flame, but strong and bright.

And I clung to her, because there was nothing else to cling to.

Just Hope.

I have long known that the best things, the most precious things in Life, do not come easily, and have just as long believed that if a person just never gave up, worked hard, sacrificed, had patience, kept their strength of will, honored Life - then there was always hope that something wonderful could happen. That some good would come from it all. That something perhaps even miraculous might have a chance of taking place.

Lives could change. Realities could change. Perhaps even worlds could change.

But there are days when I see Hope's shining face begin to fade. Days when I see her start to move slowly off into the distance, into the darkness. A solitary tear, filled with the pain of lifetimes of suffering, trickling down in a stream on her soft cheek. I call her back. Beg her not to go. But she is unsure. She is unsure because it seems as though she cannot do much more for this fallen world. That this world does not even want her.

Like yesterday, for example. I read Robert Fisk's article Baghdad: The City that Dreams of Death. When you read Fisk describe how, at the very least, 20 bodies are arriving at the Baghdad morgue every single day (some days it has been up to 80), making a total minimum of 560 dead men, women and children every single month - Hope begins to dim.

When you understand that so few people know about these figures because they go essentially unreported, and many of those that do know, do not give a damn one way or the other - Hope begins to dim.

When you read about people finding the heads of women on the rooftops after an explosion - women who had just minutes earlier been smiling in gratitude at the kindness shown to them by a friend - Hope begins to dim.

She dims and fades, and you reach desperately out to grasp her, reluctant to let her go.

Can we take hold of her again? Is there anything, anything at all that will bring her back? Or is she lost forever? Is there Hope?

Is there?

Maybe. But then, I don't give up Hope easily. Whenever she begins to fade, to move away, I - sometimes in the last moment - reach out quickly, take hold and clutch her back to my bosom again.

Because as I wrote, without Hope - which gives us the strength and helps us discover and nurture the will to go on in the face of adversity - we have nothing during such times as these.

Times when the world has become a raging, mad hell and it seems on the verge of extinction.

Again, is there any Hope for this world?

Again, it is hard to say, but I have come to one conclusion at least, and it is this. If there is any hope to be found at all, then it is in the Truth. Pure, unadulterated, objective Truth. The Truth about ourselves, our lives, the world we live in - and acceptance of that Truth.

Of course, that is easier said than done. It has been said that the truth will set you free - and I believe this to be so - but it is a difficult, painful escape into that freedom.

I have been doing alot of web surfing as I have tried to discover if there is any hope left for Humanity in this age where we seem poised on the edge of both spiritual and physical obliteration. I have surfed high and low in my efforts to discover the Truth. That's not an easy road either, I might add, because in this psychopathic world that we live in, the Truth is very well hidden. And it is hidden because it is the greatest danger to those who are among the power elite in this world.

But you find bits and pieces - or what you think have a good chance of being bits and pieces - if you look diligently enough. For example, there is a woman writing on the net that may have some pieces of the puzzle, it seems. Alot of what she says makes a good deal of sense - at least to me.

Her name is Laura Knight-Jadczyk, and she talks alot about Truth, about objectivity, and about the psychopathy of our world and the importance of not succumbing to it. Her Wave and Adventure series are particularly fascinating. Some of the most amazing things I've ever read actually, and while some of what I read seemed pretty unbelievable and outlandish, the more I read, the more I thought that, well, maybe - just maybe - some of what she is saying explains a lot. Maybe some of what she is saying begins to answer some of those questions that have haunted me, and many others, for a lifetime. Questions like: "Why is there so much evil in the world? Why do bad things always happen to good people? Why is there so much suffering? Why is there so much deception? So much greed? Why, no matter how much we may not want it, do evil, lies, avarice and bloodshed dominate our world anyway? Why do we keep repeating history? Why are we here? What's the point?"

I really recommend reading some of this stuff. If nothing else, it will get you thinking about things you've never even contemplated before.

So, back to the Truth.

I really do think that the Truth is our only hope for a better existence, and I know this from personal experience, my wanderings in both the virtual and real worlds, and through my studies. I know it may be considered a cliché, but I will say it again.

I truly believe that it is only the Truth that will set you free.

With the Truth,

Lives could change. Realities could change. Perhaps even worlds could change.

Weblogs
Weblog
Personal
Politics

Not Even a Bone

2005-01-26T13:47:00.000-08:00

Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard,
To fetch her poor dog a bone;
But when she got there, the cupboard was bare,
And so the poor dog had none.

A colleague of mine in New England mentioned today that he had recently gone to the store to buy groceries. He had thought that there would be few people there due to the blizzard, but discovered he was wrong. Not only that, but he was surprised to discover that many of the shelves in the store were empty.

When I heard about this, I recalled that a few months back we experienced something similar in our area. Due to a trucker's strike, all of the grocery stores in the area were at least half empty. There was almost nothing in the freezer section. The shelves were frighteningly sparse.

I can tell you, it made me very nervous.

With three kids to support, and barely making ends meet, I couldn't help worrying about how I would take care of them should suddenly we go to the "cupboard", and find it bare. Not just half empty, but completely bare. Not even a "bone" to gnaw on.

What would you do? What would happen if it wouldn't matter if you had money or not - because there wouldn't be anything to buy!

My first thought was, "Well, I wonder if this is a taste of things to come?"

It can happen, you know. Don't think it can't. How long do you think the food is going to last if World War IV breaks out? (the Cold War being considered WW III)

When I went to the store that day and saw that there was so little there to buy, I realized how vulnerable we are. How dependent we are on the grocery (and other) stores for mere survival, and how much we take for granted that they will always have what we need, when we need it.

I began to think of a dream I have had since I was a child. A dream of owning a little farm or cabin somewhere - not too far from "civilization", but not too close either. A self-sufficient haven where we would grow our own fruit and vegetables, and know that they were the "real thing" - healthy and not dusted in chemicals. Maybe have a few chickens for eggs, a cow for milk and cheese. We'd heat the place with wood and cook on a wood stove. Lighting by candles and karosene lamps. A generator for electricity when it was needed. Real rustic. We'd harvest and can in the fall in preparation for the coming winter months. Maybe have a little celebration after the harvest with some home-made wine. Watch the sun set in the evening instead of "Everybody Loves Raymond" (or whatever is the latest favorite these days. I wouldn't know, not being a big watcher of television anymore, but my daughter watches re-runs of that program so it was the first to come to mind.)

It's a nice dream, and there are only two problems with it really. One - no money. And two, I'd probably not be able to an get internet connection out there. :-)

Still, I hold on to that dream. I haven't given it up. And maybe that's a good thing.

If I don't give it up, and maybe even see it become a reality, it might just come in handy.

Just in case I ever go to the cupboard, and find it bare.

Not even a bone.

LIFE

Clean Your Own House First

2005-01-23T01:58:00.000-08:00

The venerable leader of the United States of America was inaugurated on Thursday - Black Thursday, as it has come to be known in some circles. I would have to agree with this description of that day myself. It was a very dark day indeed that began the second term in office of a man who is responsible for the continuing slaughter of untold numbers of human beings at this point in time. A very dark day indeed when the world witnessed the leader of the world's sole remaining superpower publically declare his intentions for world domination. And all under the guise of spreading "freedom" and "democracy". Of battling tyranny.

Of course, this plan for world domination - a new world order - has been in the works for a good while now, but the fact that Bush is coming out public with it shows that he is confident of his support and in his ability to carry out his plans relatively unhindered.

But then, all fascist dictators think alike. They all believe that they are infallible and unstoppable. They never doubt themselves or their abilities to carry out their schemes. They believe they are invulnerable, that they are demi-gods. And this is precisely what the masses under their sway believe as well, which is why they are allowed to continue relatively unhindered.

So, we should all be very anxious now. But not of the "terrorists" that Bush and company have defined for us (such as those Iraqi freedom fighters who are doing nothing but defending their country against US occupation). No. We should be afraid of the real terrorists out there that will strip us of any vestiges of freedom we may still have left - all the while screaming that they are defenders of our freedom. We should be afraid of the real terrorists who will bring us to the brink of World War IV in their bid to build their world empire - their Pax Americana - perhaps initiating a genocide the likes of which the world has never seen.

We should not be afraid of the terrorist that is supposedly behind every bookcase, under every bed, behind every black beard or under every veil. We should not be afraid of the illusory tyrants in every country that the US government has set it sights on in order to control and rape its resources. We should not be afraid of illustory tyrants - who are apparently "tyrants" simply because they have a different culture and religion - because the US government believes that they have a mission to spread their version of Christianity and the "American way of life" to the rest of the world - no matter how many die in the process, no matter how much death and destruction is left in their wake.

No, we should be afraid of the real tyrants, the real terrorists.

The tyrants and terrorists in the White House.

And if you are not afraid, then you are blind.

And if you stay blind, and do not recognize that the American tyrant in the White House is a tyrant, then you will end up being afraid of more than just the illusory enemy that the American government has produced in order to have the necessary excuse to begin their colonial efforts. For the more American aggression is experienced by nations around the globe, the more likely it will be that the victimized nations will eventually retaliate.

George Bush said in his inaugural address:

"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

I would remind the American populace of the saying: "Clean your own house first."

Clean your own house first. Do it properly so that others see that you really know how to clean a house, and then, if - and ONLY if - you are asked for your help by someone else with their house, offer to help them clean it - properly.

Do not leave your own house, which is so filthy that the stench extends 10 miles in every direction, to go to someone else's house, make out that you are an expert and advise them on how to clean their own house. And by all means, don't do that, then while the head of the house is busy cleaning up, steal all the gold in his safe, murder his son, and rape his three daughters.

Someone might think you're a criminal.

And we all know what happens to criminals. They either end up incarcerated or executed.

Or end up in the White House.

News
Politics

Comfortably Numb

2005-01-23T01:53:00.000-08:00

As I read about the current debate on torture in the US, I am baffled.

What we essentially seem to have is one side saying that torture should be allowed, and another saying that it isn't useful.

What happened to: It isn't ethical??

Where are the souls of the individuals who are engaging in such a debate? How can there even BE such a debate? There should be no question at all in the mind of any thinking, feeling human being with even an ounce of heart, a glimmer of empathy within them, about whether one should use torture or not. No question at all.

And yet, people are questioning. They are actually wondering what the arguments for and against the use of torture are. Since when can there even exist an argument for torture? Torture is torture. The very word should send a chill down a normal person's spine.

Something is very wrong with this picture.

I am reminded as I think of this issue of an old Pink Floyd song from The Wall. Comfortably Numb.

Hello,
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone at home?

America, I ask you: Is there anybody in there?

Have the American people become the living dead? Has the majority become "comfortably numb"?

It would certainly seem so. And if it is so, then it is absolutely terrifying because numbness leads ultimately to one place, and one place only: destruction.

It is time to wake up, America. It is time to rise from the slumber that the blatant lies and manipulations of your leaders have put you in. It is time to slap your numbed down, dumbed down intellects into life again.

Before it is too late. Before "big brother" comes knocking on your door, accusing you of being an "enemy combatant", and submitting you or your loved ones to torture.

Just in case you "know something".

When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown
The dream is gone
And I have become
Comfortably numb.

- Pink Floyd, The Wall -

Politics

To Thine Own Self Be True

2005-01-13T13:07:00.000-08:00

"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
-- William Shakespeare, Hamlet --

To thine own self be true. This has been a favorite quote of mine for a number of years now. It is an ideal that has been with me, but one that I have only recently begun to slowly find the strength and ability to begin living. And living it can be a constant, uphill battle - one which one lives and breathes every waking moment once one has finally chosen to take that path.

It is also a path that is painful as one is cast into the crucible. There is no place on this path for self-calming. For arrogance or judgement. For undue or excessive praise and admiration - the sustenances of the ego and saboteurs of the soul.

There is also no place on this path for the greatest sin of all. The Grand Profanity. The Unholiest of the Unholy.

Lying to the self.

For the Truth is sacrosanct. It is the greatest gift of Love.

And it is only the Truth that will set us free.

"To thine own self be true" means to never commit that greatest of sins. To never lie to yourself. Not about yourself. Not about your life, your relationships, your world. To do so is a violation of your very being. It damages not only yourself, but those around you.

Of course, we are all guilty of this greatest of sins - of lying to ourselves - but the moment we begin to recognize, to objectively see the lies to self, is the moment we make our first step towards Freedom and Being, which is what ultimately may bring us to the place that every human soul seeks.

Home.

It follows that once one begins to see the lies, begins to slowly unveil them, then what is gradually revealed is the objective reality around one, and one's true essence. Their Being. And this is also something I have been thinking about recently.

To be. What does that mean? How does one "be"? How important is it to "be"? To be oneself?

It is ALL important. Because if you cannot be, then it is only logical that you will ultimately cease to exist.

I saw the film "The Hours" a while back, (the first time I've been to the cinema in a very long time) and it seems to me that the topic of "being" plays an integral role in it, although there are those that say that the film simply deals with "female madness". "Madness" (and suicide) does certainly have a role, but it is peripheral - a consequence of inaction, of living the lie, of a suffocation of being.

The Hours is a story which weaves together the lives of three different women living in three different places during three different time periods. The British author, Virginia Woolf (played by Nicole Kidman) lives during the 1920's and is battling depression as she writes the novel "Mrs. Dalloway". Laura Brown (Julianne Moore) is a mother and housewife in Los Angeles just after WWII. She is also depressed and attempting to make choices for herself. As she reads "Mrs. Dalloway", she begins to come to certain decisions that will change her life and those of her husband and son forever. Clarissa Vaughan (Meryl Streep) is a 1990's New Yorker who is trying to come to grips with how her own life has progressed. Her ex-lover, the poet Richard Brown and adult son of Laura Brown (played by Ed Harris), is dying of AIDS and Clarissa spends much of her time taking care of him. Her story is in many ways a version of the original Mrs. Dalloway story. Ultimately, Richard commits suicide by jumping out of a window in order to "release" Clarissa and let her get on with her life, and release himself from the suffering his existence is causing him. Richard's mother, Laura, comes to New York to Clarissa's apartment when news of her son's death arrives. It then becomes clear that the choice that Laura made in the past (after nearly committing suicide) was to leave her husband and son. She and Clarissa have a conversation in the dining room when Laura says something I will never forget. She said:

"For me, it was a matter of life and death. I chose Life."

Now, is breaking up a family something selfish, or in certain cases, simply a matter of survival - a survival that will ensure that one is here to continue on their particular path, fulfill their potential, and hopefully be of some service at the end of the day? Can an individual who is miserable living a life that suffocates them, that is slowly eating away at their being, day by day, be of much use? What good are they to others? What good are they to themselves?

Virginia Woolf's existence appears to have been a struggle. Her life seems to have been one that was controlled by others - primarily her husband, (even though they loved each other) and her doctors. She made precious few choices of her own. As Woolf (Nicole Kidman) said in the film: "My life has been stolen from me.", although I would venture to say that her life wasn't so much stolen from her, as it was given away, and it was she who did the giving. This lack of a sense of control over her life, and a lack of courage to regain that control, is in fact what I think may have led to Woolf's suicide in real life. That and perhaps her feelings of guilt for causing her husband so much anguish as he watched her suffer. She may have wished to release him from the burden of having to take care of her, much as Richard did with Clarissa in the film. But more so perhaps, she wished to simply release herself from the pain. She didn't have the courage to make a choice to halt the lies to self and create a new life for herself. Birthing a new life involves a great deal of suffering, strength, work, thought and patience. It is an extremely difficult road to take. One must be willing to give up all, and by "all", I mean the old life, the old ways of thinking, the old beliefs. It takes courage. Courage to face the detractors and critics. Courage to face the lies to self. Courage to "jump into the abyss" and face the unknown. Courage to hurt those you love, simply in order to exist.

There were three very different resolutions to the same existential dilemma for these women - this dilemma of "being". Three different choices and events, but each involved a supreme sacrifice. In Virginia Woolf's case, the sacrifice was her own life. She simply ceased to be. Laura ultimately sacrificed her family life, making the painful decision to hurt those that she loved the most in order to exist herself. The sacrifice in Clarissa's drama was not one she personally made in the end, but the one the man she loved made when he released her of the burden his own existence was causing her (while releasing himself from his own pain, it must be added).

They were three very different women living in very different times, but all with one thing in common. All had lived the lie, the illusion. All had suffered under the pressure of not being able to simply be - not being able to make the choices that would allow them to do so. All had lived their lives the way that other people thought they should and at the expense of their own lives, which essentially prevented them from fulfilling their complete potentials. Choices had to be made, and they were.

"To Thine Own Self Be True" then, is a motto which one should attempt to live if Life is one's only choice. If one does not live it, if one is not true to oneself, the only other choice is death, non-existence, in whatever form that may take. In one sense, it can be a difficult choice to make due to the effort and sacrifice involved, but for those for whom non-existence is not an option, there really is no other choice in the end. If life, being, freedom, free will, truth, and fulfilling one's potential are the only choices available to them on a deep level to start with, if the need and desire for these things is ablaze within them, then there is no choice. They simply, at the end of the day, ultimately, must BE.

"To look life in the face. To know it for what it is. To love it for what it is. It is the right of every human being."

-- Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf, The Hours --

Personal

What's the deal?

2005-01-12T13:12:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm sitting here with my mug of coffee, looking out the window, watching the rain pour down, listening to the wind howl at tempest intensity, and I'm wondering,

"What's the deal with the world these days?"

I mean, you've got a madman in the White House on a modern Crusade in the mid-east. From his comfy seat in the Oval Office, he's seen to it that one nation has been laid waste to, and already has his eyes set on a couple of others in the region. The blood of countless human beings is dripping from his hands, and he calls himself a "man of God". Which god does he pray to, I wonder? Which god is it that whispers in his ear at night and tells him that to prove his worth and to pay homage, he must sacrifice thousands?

What's the deal with that?

Then, we've got all of this freak weather. Storms, floods and landslides in California. Severe storms and spring weather in parts of Europe and Scandinavia. Birds are chirping, bears are coming out of hibernation, flowers are blooming.

In January.

What's the deal with that?

Then there is the barrage of meteor sightings the world over. Chicken Little was right. The sky does seem to be falling. But no one seems to be noticing.

Same thing with the volcanoes and earth quakes. The earthquake in Asia set off a tsunami resulting in devastation people haven't seen the likes of in decades. There are so many casualties that after 150,000, they've stopped counting. Entire villages were wiped off the map. Coastal areas are littered with bodies. Inlets are so clogged with them that boats can't get through. They are gathering the dead for mass burials with bulldozers.

What's the deal with that?

The tsunami itself has resulted in thousands of orphaned children. It has been discovered that these children, the most vulnerable of society - made even more vulnerable by the enormous trauma that they have just experienced - are being kidnapped by the most vile of the human race, likely to experience any number of fates worse than death. Or death itself. Many will not survive the torture and abuse at the hands of such monsters. Many will begin to wish that they had perished with their families in the tsunami. In the midst of such a tragedy, it is "harvest time" for the predators of the world.

What's the deal with that?

What the hell is the matter with the world?

Have you ever asked yourself?

News

Questions

2005-01-11T17:14:00.000-08:00

Do you ever ask yourself questions?

You know - questions - those sentences that begin with things like "Why?" , "How?", "When?", "Is there..?", "Can there be...?"

Do you ever ask them? Questions?

I do. Every day - without fail - I find myself asking any number of questions.

I ask questions, and then I contemplate possible answers. Today, I asked myself the question,

"Are there others out there asking questions, too?"

I contemplated a bit, ruminated a bit, and I came to the conclusion that, yes, there simply must be others out there asking questions. And so I thought, perhaps if I make my questions public, others who may be asking similar questions might share their own thoughts, and together we might be able to come up with some probable answers to our queries.

And so we saw the birth of this blog.

Shall we have a go?