Sunday, October 29, 2006

November 8, 2006

This article is not just meant to be a scary story or the prediction of a nightmare. This was written to generate the question “At what point in this story do the American people revert to some kind of radical next step to stop this from coming to fruition?” and to generate answers to that question.

It’s 10:00 PM, Pacific Time, on the eighth of November, 2006. Many people are either scratching their heads, shaking their heads or both.

On October 29, 2006, polls showed that people favored Democrats over Republicans in yesterday’s mid term election. During yesterday’s elections, exit polls indicated that a vast majority of people voted for the Democratic candidate.

Yet, today, the eighth of November, well after the voting has ended, Democrats lost eight house seats and only won one Senatorial race. How could this be?

Many are convinced that malfeasance and fraud entered the election process and have immediately tried to bring suit to stop the declaration of a winner, only to have the cases thrown out by judges that were ultimately put in place by The Regime. Appeals will probably take place, but like 2000 and 2004, those appeals will be too late. Even if appeals reach the Supreme Court, is there any doubt in whose favor the court will rule?

The entire nation seems to be suspicious this time, although the mainstream media reports some disappointment in some corners concerning closely fought contests. They of course, begin a discussion about how the surprising results will affect policy in Bush’s last two years as president. The only mention they make about the anomalous difference between exit polls and the final results is to say that, with today’s technology, exit polls have become antiquated and almost useless. They fail, however, to explain how that is.

Many of us say, “OK, now it’s even more important to become active for the 2008 elections.” That statement is followed by the directive to start making calls and pounding the pavement.

Groups like MoveOn and Common Cause tell us that the election was stolen and strongly suggest that we write to our Senators and Representatives, demanding recounts for many of the elections. Of course, where there are no paper trails there can be no recounts. Besides, with Republicans picking up eight house seats and maintaining control of congress, who are these Senators and Representatives to whom we should write?

Articles on Common Dreams, TruthOut, TruthDig and many on line news sources quote experts who say that the voting machines were probably hacked or set up illegally.

Investigative reporters like Greg Palast write articles about the disenfranchisement of black voters, the long lines in strategic voting areas or early closings of polls in some areas. Other articles in the alternative media point out other subtle or even outright evidence of criminal conduct surrounding the elections.

Right wing pundits and other Regime supporters tell us to “stop whining. You lost again. Get over it.”

Bush goes before the cameras and assures the American people that he personally saw to it that all elections were fair. He assures the minority that he will have their well being in mind when he “invents” policy (we are unsure if this is a Freudian slip or just a Bushism).

It’s late January and the 110th Congress has been sworn in. People are all but trembling as they wait for this congress to tackle the tough issues facing it.

Almost the entire country is hoping that the new congress won’t extend the war in Iraq or vote to attack Iran. That’s not the first issue to be brought up and voted on.

NARAL, NOW and many other Americans fear that Roe v Wade will be overturned immediately, but their fears are calmed as that, also, is not the first issue for debate and a vote.

There are those who had some hope but have lost it all because they know that the other shoe will soon drop on the gay marriage issue. They have to wait a little longer, though, as that is not the first issue addressed either.

The first bill which is simultaneously brought before the House and the Senate begins with the following words:


Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:


`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.'.”

It is quickly passed and all state legislatures vote in favor of it.

On an evening in July of 2007, George W. Bush appears on television, stating that he will seek his party’s nomination for president for the upcoming 2008 election.

In his speech, the president says, “I can not in good conscience relinquish leadership of the great and blessed United States of America until the complex and dangerous war on terror is won.”

This article is not just meant to be a scary story or the prediction of a nightmare. This was written to generate the question, “At what point in this story do the American people revert to some kind of radical next step to stop this from coming to fruition?” and to generate answers to that question.

To friendship,

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

World Conditions and Action Items
Modern Propriety

Friday, October 20, 2006

Fighting for Their Country?

(originally published by OpEdNews) defines country as:
  1. a state or nation: What European countries have you visited?
  2. the territory of a nation.
  3. the people of a district, state, or nation: The whole country backed the president in his decision.
  4. the land of one's birth or citizenship.
  5. rural districts, including farmland, parkland, and other sparsely populated areas, as opposed to cities or towns: Many city dwellers like to spend their vacations in the country.
  6. any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc.: mountainous country; the Amish country of Pennsylvania.
  7. a tract of land considered apart from any geographical or political limits; region; district.
  8. the public.
  9. Law. the public at large, as represented by a jury.

The Tenth Edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, an admittedly old edition, nonetheless defines "country" in almost the exact same way.

As there is no such thing as an older version of on the internet at any given time, one should conclude that Merriam-Webster's definition has remained consistent.

For purposes of this essay, definitions #5, #6 and possibly #7 can be removed.

The States of America, once much more united than divided, now almost completely divided by The Regime's declaration of the death of relativity, is a country. Before the selection of The Regime in 2000, the convenient tragedy in 2001 and the bogus wars based upon the convenient tragedy, this country was known as The United States of America.

This country may become known again as The United States of America. There was another time, between 1965 and 1975, during which it would have been difficult to call this country "united". We had just emerged from the misguided McCarthy hearings and the word "communist" stood for evil. Most Americans, too ignorant or too lazy to research the word as it pertains to a proposed form of governance, began referring to The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and The People's Republic of China as communist countries. Communists were, first and foremost, evil people who wanted to take over the world. Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 "We will bury you" UN rant didn't help the perception.

Consequently, when populist movements started in Korea and in Vietnam, it wasn't difficult to convince the American public that we needed to stop the "spread of communism". Of course, since no nation state has ever experienced "communism" as a form of self governance, there was no communism to spread and/or stop.

Americans believed their government when it told them that "communist" North Vietnamese gunboats had attacked two American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. America supported its government's calls for retaliation.

The "retaliation" lasted from 1965 to 1975. However, retaliating for the Gulf of Tonkin incident grew further and further away from the minds of Americans as time marched on. Most Americans ultimately learned that their government had scammed them and caused the deaths of 58,000 American military personnel, not to mention over between three million and seven million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians.

We need a military to be willing to defend this country. We should be grateful for a military that will defend its fellow American citizens (people) and the land upon which they live.

In accordance with what the above definitions don't contain, the phrase, "a nation's interests", is not synonymous with the word "country". America's interests, for example, could include corporate manufacturing plants owned by Americans. Those corporations are not America. If corporations choose to do business outside of The Former United States of America, they have to accept the risks involved. American military personnel can not be expected to go to war and risk their lives if citizens of a host nation decide to harm American corporate interests located within the borders of that host nation.

Gambling that a nation may someday do harm to America is not an acceptable reason for The FUSA to go to war with that nation. American military personnel would not be fighting for their country if the war in which they were engaged was based upon what The Regime assumes a nation may do in the future or even based upon what The Regime thinks a nation like Iran, for example, is preparing today to do internally.

One is only fighting for one's country if the inhabitants of that country and/or the land upon which those inhabitants live are in immediate and definitive danger or if the inhabitants and/or the land have already been attacked.

Interestingly enough, however, we who opposed invading Iraq before the invasion took place and who still oppose our military presence in Iraq are told that we wouldn't be able to oppose the war if the soldiers weren't in Iraq fighting for their country. This rebuttal was used by those who supported the Vietnam War as well. The soldiers then, too, were fighting for their country.

I am not grateful to the soldiers in Iraq for my freedom of speech and I was not grateful to those who fought in Vietnam for my freedom of speech. I'm grateful to the US Constitution and those who composed it for my freedom of speech.

How many of us lost our freedom of speech after the North Vietnamese took over all of Vietnam?

To friendship,

“Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there is one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded faith.” - Thomas Jefferson

World Conditions and Action Items

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Here Are Some Crazy Theories for You

(Originally published by

It’s been over five years since the World Trade Center and The Pentagon were hit.

Since that time, we’ve been told that a terrorist group named Al Qaeda, led by a Saudi named Osama bin Laden, was responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001. In fact, Osama bin Laden has admitted to being behind what happened on 9/11/01 and he’s said this on video.

Osama bin Laden is to 9/11 what Emmanuel Goldstein was to members of The Party in George Orwell’s “1984”.

Just as Goldstein aroused fear and anger in members of The Party, Osama bin Laden has aroused fear and anger in many who live in the FUSA (Former United States of America).

In our search for vacation accommodations this past summer, my wife and I were able to learn a great deal using satellite imaging technology. From our computer screen, we were able to actually see the expressions on the faces of people who happened to be standing near the hotels we looked at.

What do my family’s vacation plans have to do with this essay?

On occasion, it’s been revealed that Osama bin Laden is somewhere in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The Regime has access to satellite imaging and can obtain real time satellite images from anywhere on earth, including Afghanistan.

It’s important here to remember that the FUSA invaded Iraq and now occupies that country. We’ve been spun through numerous reasons why this was done.

First, “Saddam” had weapons of mass destruction. Our Secretary of Defense claimed to know exactly where they were before we invaded Iraq. We’ve long since learned that there were no such weapons. There are people that say “Saddam” moved them before the invasion or hid them. This is strange behavior for a man whose life depended upon his actually having them and using them.

Secondly, Iraq had ties with Al Qaeda, according to Bush and Cheney. No he didn’t, according to Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld and, yes, Bush. Yes he did according to Cheney. No he didn’t… The truth? Saddam Hussein and the members of Al Qaeda were adversaries. Sorry, Dick. Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and, sometimes, Bush, are all correct.

Then, it suddenly became urgent that we free Iraq. We needed to hurry, invade Iraq, topple Saddam Hussein and force feed Iraqis something that The Regime calls “democracy”.

That’s even stranger than Saddam hiding or moving his means of defense. We were attacked by terrorists from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. They were guided by the words of Osama bin Laden and the ideology of Al Qaeda. Yet, instead of hunting down Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, it suddenly became our top priority to bring down the Iraqi government and begin building a “democratic” Iraq.

It’s been suggested that we invaded Iraq so that all of the radical Islamic terrorists would gather in one place so we could rid the world of them. This means that we’re supposed to believe that radical Islamic terrorists are clever enough to beat American defenses and carry out a well planned, well timed attack on 9/11, but they’re so dumb that they’d fall for a “mousetrap” ploy that would ensure their extinction. And why gather them in Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Why chance killing Iraqi civilians to trap these dummies who beat American defenses?

To review, 9/11 happened and, if you’re so inclined, you can believe The Regime’s fairy tale about how it happened.

The Regime has the most technologically advanced satellite imaging in the world.

Osama bin Laden has admitted to being involved in 9/11, but has not been captured.

Instead of responding en masse to the 9/11 attack, The Regime invaded Iraq.

In addition to all of the other fallacious reasons we were given for invading Iraq, some have said that we invaded Iraq to cleverly trap, kill and/or capture the members of the organization which carried out 9/11.

Since our invasion, The Regime has used torture to gain “important information about the enemy” and has gotten permission from Congress to continue to use torture.

In five years, we have not captured the person we claim was most responsible for what happened on 9/11/01, despite the advanced satellite imaging and tracking technologies possessed by The Regime.

We invaded Iraq, drew in what The Regime claims are “Islamic radicals”, captured, imprisoned and tortured them. It’s quite obvious that we have not yet tortured the right person, the person who can tell us where Osama bin Laden is so that we can capture him and bring him to justice. After all, The Regime reminds us on occasion that Osama bin Laden is the enemy about whom our torture processes are supposed to help us gain information.

Those who believe in an alternate explanation of what happened on September 11, 2001 are called names, much like kids in second or third grade call one another names.

Yet, those who do the name calling seem to believe that our military and covert operations haven’t been competent enough to capture Osama bin Laden by using satellite imaging which can focus in on a dime lying on a sidewalk.

Many seem also to believe that torture is necessary in order to gain important information about the enemy who should, by all accounts, be Osama bin Laden. Yet, in three years time, torture has not netted us Osama bin Laden or his whereabouts. Have we just not tortured the right person yet, have we tortured incompetently or could it be that torture just doesn’t have the results that its advocates claim it has? Could it be that torture doesn’t work?

During Watergate, Deep Throat told Woodward to “follow the money”. That should be done in the case of what happened on September 11, 2001 as well.

In addition, it might be advisable to follow the logic. There is no logic in what, according to the train of thought used above, we’re supposed to believe. Yet, this is what the people who are too “stable” to believe “crazy conspiracy theories” choose to believe.

To friendship,

“At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.” – Karl Marx

World Conditions and Action Items
Make One More Person Cry