Monday, November 20, 2006

Some Rights Just Have to be Surrendered

(Originally published at OpEdNews)

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

Well, maybe.

I’m as liberal, progressive socialist, leftist, pinko, commie as they come.

However, I’m saying that we need to give up some freedoms to protect our basic freedoms. I know, I know, you’ve never read anything so Orwellian in your life.

Let me try to explain.

When the wealthiest people are the only people who can afford to run for important national office, you get a bunch of bored people in leadership positions. What could people who have everything possibly want?

More. Yep, that’s the only thing that they could possibly want. More power, even more money.

Sure, they can be giving and philanthropic at times. Sometimes they share their excess more with their wealthy friends. It gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. As Bush once implied, not only will the “haves” be helped, but the “have mores” won’t be left out.

But, as long as wealthy people are the only people who can afford to run for office, the “barely haves” and the “have nots” will continue to be left out.

So, unfortunately, here are some freedoms that need to be surrendered.

1. Corporations have to surrender their personhood. After all, if you look at them, you can clearly see that they’re not people. I mean, where are the ears, the eyes, the heart? They are definitely missing a heart.

Consequently stopping them from “contributing” millions of dollars to their favorite political candidates will no longer be a violation of their first amendment rights because they’ll no longer have first amendment rights.

2. People have to surrender their right to announce their candidacies any sooner than six months before an election.

If someone does so or, underhandedly, lets his or her intention “leak out” any sooner than six months before an election, that person will just have to wait for the next election to run for office.

3. The Electoral College electors will have to surrender their rights to jockey the real numbers around when they report them to Congress because there won’t be any Electoral College.

4. Candidates have to surrender their right to spend an obscene amount of money to support their candidacies.

What’s an “obscene” amount of money?

We’ve already removed those non person corporations from the picture, so that should help.

Really, though, who are we to dictate what an “obscene” amount of money is?

We’re the people who are going to hire these candidates, so shouldn’t we determine what their “compensation” will be? Paying someone or taking money from someone to have an edge over a competitor for the same job should be unacceptable to us, the employers, and that candidate should be rejected.

Like any good corporation, we should write a Standard Operating Procedure that defines “obscene”. We’re the employers. We have the right to do that. If we consider how much our favorite candidate can afford, maybe we can develop a standard. Maybe the money should originate from we, the people in the form of equally distributed public money. Yep, we give ‘em some money and tell them to go play, but only for six months.

5. During the six month campaigns, one would think that the candidates would want to use the time to allow people to learn about them. However, some candidates may still be tempted to speak about non issues.

Keeping this in mind, the candidates will surrender their right to address non-issues.

These issues include non relevant attacks about their opponent’s personal affairs - and you can take that any way you want.

Candidates may only speak about what they would do to improve social conditions, economic conditions, all domestic and international situations, if appropriate for that particular political race.

A candidate still maintains the right to explain how he or she differs from his or her opponent(s)’ positions concerning issues relevant to the welfare of his or her constituents, whether they’re local people or the entire citizenry of the country.

We should have the right to force a candidate out of the race if she or he veers from political relevancy. In fact, veering from political relevancy is another good candidate for a standard operating procedure.

There may be more rights that should be surrendered in order for the vast majority of us to keep our basic freedoms. In fact, please feel free to add your candidates for surrenderable freedoms.

To friendship,

“Truth is on the march, and nothing will stop it.” - Emile Zola

World Conditions and Action Items
Cemetery Rose

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Why was it necessary for the Administration to get caught torturing some Muslims?

A member of the World Conditions and Action Items mailing list sent this to me. It’s not only pretty enlightening, in my humble opinion, but, if true, magnifies the heinousness of The Regime’s crimes.

I thought that I’d share it with you.


My guess is that the short answer to the question, "Why was it necessary for the Administration to get caught torturing some Muslims?" would be, "To keep up appearances". But I've been stewing with this question for some months, now. Here's what it looks like to me.

When a liar knowingly and openly accuses an innocent person of a heinous crime it then becomes necessary for the liar to relate to the accused as if he is a heinous criminal. ....else onlookers will begin to smell a rat.

If we assume that individuals within the US government, including within the Bush Administration, conceived and orchestrated 9/11 then why have these same people been capturing, imprisoning and torturing Muslims whom they know are not terrorists and had nothing to do with 9/11? Is it possible that these torturings are for show, that these individuals are being tortured so as to impress us? The Administration needs the show in order to keep from being investigated, arrested and tried for the mass killings of 9/11. The capture and torture of Muslims is intended as a show of absolute determination on the Administration's part to prevent another 9/11. These, true criminals of 9/11, have decided [as a part of their deception] to blatantly violate constitutional and international law by torturing people. They, better than we, know that such illegal actions have nothing to do with thwarting additional 9/11s, that such extreme, inhumane measures have nothing to do with protecting the US, but that these immoral acts are part of their strategy to reinforce and sustain the illusion that 9/11 was done by Islamic terrorists.

The true murderers here MUST act as if they are over-reacting; they have to play-out an extreme response to 9/11 else they run the risk of being found-out. Anything less than an extreme response....and what could be more extreme than knowingly torturing innocent
individuals...risks exposing the fact that Muslims didn't do 9/11, that the USA isn't threatened from outside, that the USA's most lethal enemies are at the White House, itself. Any grade-school kid who habitually lies to his friends knows that his lies have to be followed-up with behaviours that reinforce the lies.

Some might say, "But the Administration attempted to hide the fact that they've been overseeing the torture of prisoners." Yes, they did. Early on, they denied having any part in torture. In spite of their denials, they were soon found-out. It seems reasonable to assume that from the get-go it was important to them that they be found-out. It seems reasonable to assume that they actually saw to it that the truth of their torturings would be made public. THE WHOLE POINT IN TORTURING THESE CAPTIVES WAS TO GET CAUGHT DOING IT! When they were found-out....something which they made sure would happen....they then argued that they are motivated by an unprecedented and justified, absolute determination to protect the US population from another 9/11 attack. All of this is to support and sustain the illusion that 9/11 was the work of Islamic terrorists.

As long as the government doesn't release to the public surveillance footage of a Boeing airliner crashing into the Pentagon, then it's reasonable to assume that there's a staggering cover-up taking place, here. It's a no-brainer. The king has no cloths.

Until the bulk of a Boeing airliner (Flight 93) is dug-up out of the ground near Shanksville.

PA....with a deligation of independent, international witnesses on hand....then it's reasonable to assume that there's a staggering cover-up taking place here. It's a no-brainer. The king has no cloths.

Until there it is revealed who purchased the put-options in the days prior to 9/11.....

Until it is scientifically explained how WTCs 1, 2 & 7 could collapse in so few seconds.....

The list of "untils" is long.

To friendship,

To friendship,

“When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'” - Theodore Roosevelt

World Conditions and Action Items
Cemetery Rose

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Bush’s Potential Liberal, Progressive Legacy

(Originally published by OpEdNews)

When asked the question, “Who would you say was the most liberal (progressive) president in the past forty years?”, most people would get the answer wrong. Why? Because, based upon what was accomplished domestically during the administration of Richard Nixon, the only logical answer has to be Richard Nixon.

Nixon was a liar, that’s been proved. He strongly supported, in more ways than one, the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. After Allende was removed from office, the United States supported the man who became a tyrannical dictator, Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet is in the twilight of his life and is in custody for the crimes against humanity that were committed while he was leader of the Chilean government.

Nixon OK’d the bombing of Cambodia, escalating the conflict in Southeast Asia rather than following through with the promise of “peace with honor” he made during the 1968 presidential campaign. Not only did we begin invading Cambodia with air strikes, but he tried to keep it from the American people.

Nixon also knew that the Democratic headquarters located in The Watergate Hotel were going to be burglarized to learn the Democratic strategy for the 1972 presidential campaign.

What also happened during Nixon’s administration was that the Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were created. Nixon was reluctant to sign these agencies into existence, but did so nonetheless.

Title IX, raising women’s collegiate sports to the level of men’s sports was also implemented during the Nixon years.

Nixon held talks with the Soviet Union which led to agreements to limit strategic arms.

Nixon opened up a dialogue with what is called “communist” China and became the first president to visit that nation since it was overtaken by Mao Zedong. In fact, Nixon met with Mao during his visit to China.

If Nixon had only kept his promise to accomplish “peace with honor” and only hadn’t been overcome with the pursuit of power, especially since the ’72 presidential race was already looking like a Nixon landslide, the Nixon legacy may have been different. Nixon may have retired with tremendous respect from American citizens and the rest of the world.

But, alas, he became the first president to cut his administration short voluntarily, resigning before Watergate and his underhanded attempt to escalate the war in Southeast Asia got him impeached, removed from office and, who knows, litigated right into prison. Good move, Dick.

There is some talk that George W. Bush may take the same road taken by Nixon before the Democrats in the House, ignoring Speaker Pelosi’s pre-election promise, move forward with an investigation. George W. Bush has proved in the past that he’s a quitter and a loser and, if the “heat gets too hot”, he may just walk out of the kitchen.

If he does not quit, however, it’s difficult to see him vetoing a minimum wage increase.

He and many of the Democrats already agree on a moderate solution to immigration.

Democrats may pressure what is actually becoming a real George W. Bush administration to abandon its Iraq policy and bring the troops home.

Diplomacy in the cases of Iran and North Korea may be taken more seriously by the administration due to congressional pressure. We shouldn’t hold our collective breath, but the president may just make a trip to Geneva to meet with Iranian or North Korean leaders. If nothing else, he may send a diplomat to negotiate with high ranking officials from one or both of those countries. Diplomacy may lead to a solution to the problem(s) which is praised and supported not only by Americans but by much of the world.

Global warming rhetoric from the administration may become more open, honest and serious.

The search for alternative fuel sources may take on a whole new sense of urgency.

All of this because Democrats now hold the purse strings and, if Bush wants to be known as a president who got things done, he’ll have to get done many of the things proposed by the Democrats in congress. Being veto happy will not presuppose a positive legacy.

It should be noted that Dick Cheney is still in the picture, but Cheney has lost many of his allies within the administration. If nothing else, he’s lost neocon support within the administration. In fact, Cheney is much more of a lame duck president than is Bush. It is this writer’s opinion that, if Bush is impeached and removed from office or if Bush quits, Cheney will not accept the presidency. He knows that impeachment hearings will recommence to remove him from office. Besides, it would be more emotionally difficult for Cheney to accept Democratic legislation than it would be for Bush.

There may be a temptation to withhold some much needed legislation just to ensure that Bush is known throughout history for almost bringing the United States of America to its knees. Giving in to this temptation, however, wouldn’t be good for Americans and certainly won’t be good for Democrats.

While Bush is, indeed, known to be a quitter and a loser, he’s also paradoxically known for his stubbornness. It will be much more difficult for him to assert such stubbornness in light of the recent message from American voters and the political make up of Congress.

It would, indeed, be a shame if Bush, like Nixon, gains a reputation for implementing progressive programs and/or avoiding conflict, possibly nuclear conflict, with Iran and/or North Korea. However, the alternative is unacceptable.

To friendship,

“The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.” - Mark Twain

World Conditions and Action Items

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Now is the Time

OK, folks, it’s now time to see how observant or how stupid our fellow Americans are. Today, Saddam Hussein, former legitimate, albeit tyrannical leader of Iraq has been sentenced to death.

Today, by the way, happens to be November 5, 2006, two days before elections are to be held in the FUSA (Former United States of America).

Let’s think of possible scenarios.

First, it’s predicted that this decision will intensify the violence in Iraq. What does this mean to The Regime? This means that those of us who know that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were enemies are wrong. After all, why would the “Al Qaeda insurgents” intensify the violence if their enemy has been sentenced to death? Would they not take time to celebrate?

Will Americans see that The Resistance is just that, resisting the takeover of their part of the world by The FUSA? The people of that area of the world are just plain tired of being American puppets. They want to benefit from the natural resources of their land. Finally, to them, their land is holy and that should be respected by the rest of the world.

The Regime will take explanations like the above explanation and spin it much differently. Anyone who disagrees that this proves that Al Qaeda and Saddam were on the same page will be accused of being a Saddam supporter and a supporter of his crimes against humanity.

This can only mean that we support Al Qaeda, that we supported the attacks of 9/11, that we support the insurgents who are killing Americans in Iraq.

One of the most asked polling questions since the war in Iraq began has been, “Do you think the war with Iraq has or has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States?”

Americans have been changing their minds over time.

When asked this question in December of 2003, 64% of Americans said that the war was contributing to the security of the United States.

In a more recent poll taken between October 6-8 of 2006, 36% of Americans answered that the war in Iraq is making this country safer while 53% answered that the war is making the FUSA less safe.

Will Americans still see the occupation is this light?

Will the sentencing of Saddam, because it was choreographed by the FUSA’s Regime, be a cue for another catastrophic attack upon the FUSA, the UK or any of the patsies who are still sacrificing their military personnel at the bequest of The Regime?

Maybe a quick poll ought to be taken asking, “Are you more or less afraid of such a catastrophe happening in this country as a result of its interference in the domestic proceedings of Iraq?”

Americans who think clearly will have no choice but to answer, “More afraid.” I know I am.

Any offensive act against the FUSA, if one, indeed, takes place, will have nothing to do with the love or hate that Al Qaeda had or has for Saddam Hussein. This offensive will, again, be in response to the FUSA’s controlling the government in Iraq.

The Regime will not spin it in this way. It will use any offensive against this country to further prove complicity between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Will Americans see this for what it is? Will Americans see this as a political ploy by The Regime?

It’s two days before America goes to the polls. The sentencing of Saddam and the elections are not mutually exclusive. Let’s hope that Americans have become more enlightened since December of 2003.

To friendship,

“We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent man.” - George Orwell

World Conditions and Action Items
Save The World