Sunday, June 29, 2008
Also, read today’s previous post, an article by Joel Skousen on “The Iran Factor in US Elections.” He quotes Insiders saying the Iran war is a done deal, with only the timing and provocation still to be decided. With the ostensibly (but not really) anti-war Obama leading McCain in the polls, the NeoCons need this war to keep the Republicans in power.
The Senate Intelligence Committee in early June concluded in an under-reported study that Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld et al. continually made their case for the Iraq war with intelligence that was “unsubstantiated, contradicted or even non-existent” leading the American people that the Iraq threat “was much greater than existed.” The same people, using the same techniques, are being used to scare Americans into attacking Iran. You’ve got to read McGovern’s article to see how near we are to war.
The difference this time is that no one is claiming that a war with Iran will be a “cakewalk,” and no one believes we will be greeted as liberators. As McGovern says: “Unlike Iraq, which was prostrate after the Gulf War and a dozen years of sanctions, Iran can retaliate in a number of dangerous ways, launching a war for which our forces are ill-prepared. The lethality, intensity and breadth of ensuing hostilities will make the violence in Iraq look, in comparison, like a volleyball game between St. Helena's High School and Mount St. Ursula.”
A number of scenarios about the consequences of a war with Iran, such as this and this from the Christian Science Monitor, ought to make even the most ardent hawk re-think this insane idea. Some even think an Iranian attack might trigger the “Sampson Option” for Bush, making the Middle East a trigger for World War III.
In an article about the current covert operations designed to destabilize Iran, Seymour Hersh quotes Defense Secretary Gates that if the Bush Administration stages a preemptive strike on Iran, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.”
Please watch the video of Ron Paul’s warning about the proposed Iranian attack in Congress on June 26. He summarizes the war-like actions toward Iran that the US would take if Rep. Gary Ackerman’s (D-NY) House Joint Resolution 362 is passed and enacted by the Congress after the July 4th recess. The resulting naval blockade will likely trigger a war. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) introduced a similar Resolution 580 in the Senate.
These resolutions are a top priority of AIPAC and are eerily reminiscent of the plan enacted by FDR in 1940 that provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, triggering our entry into World War II.
If you want higher oil prices, more inflation, more recession, more unemployment, more loss of world reputation, more police state measures at home, more military deaths and maimings, then you’ll like this war.
If you are against this new war, you must call your Congressman and Senator and register your opposition. And if you think that surely this can’t be happening because the Democrats control Congress, and they were given a majority in 2006 because they would stop the war, then you are sadly mistaken. Notice both authors are Democrats. And Ron Paul recently revealed how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2006 spiked a provision from a spending bill that would require a vote by Congress before the President could attack Iran. She did it at the behest of Israeli leadership and AIPAC.
You can see if your Congressional Rep is a cosponsor here, and if your Senator is, here. Notice the long list of Democrat co-sponsors. Not very anti-war, are they? That shows why the Israeli lobby is probably the most powerful in Washington. Unfortunately, Oklahoma’s Dan Boren, John Sullivan, Mary Fallin and Frank Lucas are cosponsors. To their credit (at the time of this posting) not listed as co-sponsors are: Tom Cole, Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn.
Please call your Congressman and Senator and register your opposition this week. You can also easily send and email by going to this site.
This piece is from Skousen’s excellent weekly newsletter, “World Affairs Brief,” is just $48 a year delivered every Friday by email. I highly recommend it. http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com
THE IRAN FACTOR IN US ELECTIONS
Right now, the main concern of Americans is painfully high gas prices and the fast declining economy, which I will address later in the brief. No incumbent president or party can stay in office with this kind of public dissatisfaction--bordering on rage. The public will succumb to the hollow but populist promises for change coming from Barack Obama, a closet Marxist. Polls continue to show Obama outpacing McCain by large margins, despite the disadvantages of race. But war with Iran can change all that--for the worse. Even though war would cause gas prices to skyrocket even further, there is nothing that drives Americans to act more blindly and without thinking than the specter of having our troops attacked by another country. That appears to be what our globalist leaders are planning. However, it will make a big difference whether they pull this off before or after the election. That's what we will analyze this week.
In an interview this week with Dennis Wholley, insider and former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Carter's handler) talked openly about the coming war with Iran. He stated that either the US will justify such a war by some terrorist attack inside the US that can be blamed on Iran or that Israel would initiate a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear program, inducing an Iran retaliation against American forces in Iraq--knowing (as the Iranians do) that Israel would never attack Iran without a green light from the US. Iran's retaliation against US troops would, in turn, be used to justify the US attack on Iran.
We now have two deep insiders talking openly about this Iran provocation strategy that I have long predicted--Dick Cheney and Brzezinski. Even more surprising was Brzezinski's openness about discussing how likely this would be to happen prior to the election --which would "change the dynamics of the election and galvanize the American people" into a unified cry for vengeance against Iran--a warmonger's dream.
Brzezinski denied that he was formally associated with Obama's campaign as a foreign policy advisor, giving the lame excuse that "I have to be my own person," implying that advisors have to align themselves with the campaign positions taken by the candidate. Actually, it's the other way around. But he did admit to advising Obama on occasion and being an Obama supporter. I wonder.
In reality, Brzezinski is NOT being his own person nor a passionate Obama supporter. He is, above all, a globalist who has been positioning himself deceptively in opposition to the globalist Bush-Cheney policies so that he and others of "Team B" can control the rising anti-war opposition-represented by Obama. He is concealing his deeper involvement with the Obama campaign for a variety of reasons. 1) He is well into his 80s and will not be able to serve in a formal government capacity, and 2) His marching orders may require the flexibility to switch support to McCain if a war with Iran should serve to dump Obama at the last moment. In any case, Brzezinski is worth watching because he is one of those globalists who appears to switch sides in advance of a change in direction.
The Iran war could change the dynamics of the election in various ways depending on timing. If it comes as an "October surprise" (apt code name for the operation by the dark side of government which subverted Jimmy Carter's reelection by fomenting the Iran hostage crisis and bribing the Iranians not to release the hostages until Reagan was elected) before the election, it will be timed to derail the otherwise certain election of Democrat Barack Obama and reinstall another Republican war president. If the provocation by Israel and the US attack comes after the election while Bush is a lame duck, the events will give Obama (the presumed winner) the excuse to support the war, subvert the anti-war movement and bring all Americans into the patriotic fervor of another war to "protect our troops." Obama would also welcome the opportunity to convince Americans that he can be a forceful commander-in-chief.
In the Wall Street Journal's Review and Outlook column entitled, "Israel on the Iran Brink" it outlined the establishment position. Here are some excerpts with [my critique in brackets]:
"Israel isn't famous for welcoming public scrutiny of its most sensitive military plans. But we doubt Jerusalem officials were dismayed to see news of their recent air force exercises splashed over the front pages of the Western press. Those exercises -- reportedly involving about 100 fighters, tactical bombers, refueling planes and rescue helicopters -- were conducted about 900 miles west of Israel's shores in the Mediterranean [towards Cyprus]. Iran's nuclear facilities at Bushehr, Isfahan and Natanz all fall roughly within the same radius, albeit in the opposite direction. The point was not lost on Tehran, which promptly warned of 'strong blows' in the event of a pre-emptive Israeli attack.
"The more important question is whether the meaning of Israel's exercise registered in Western capitals. It's been six years since Iran's secret nuclear programs were publicly exposed, and Israel has more or less bided its time as the Bush Administration and Europe have pursued [token] diplomacy to induce Tehran to cease enriching uranium. It hasn't worked. Iran has rejected repeated offers of technical and economic assistance, most recently this month. Despite four years of pleading, the Administration has failed to win anything but weak U.N. sanctions.
"Russia [always playing both sides in its habitual commitment to Hegelian conflict creation] plans to sell advanced antiaircraft missiles to Iran and finish work on a nuclear reactor at Bushehr, though spent fuel from that reactor could eventually be diverted and reprocessed into weapons-usable plutonium. Chinese companies still invest in Iran while the U.N.'s chief nuclear inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly downplayed Iran's nuclear threat.
"As for the U.S., December's publication of a [purposely] misleading National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran had halted nuclear weaponization signaled America's own lack of seriousness toward Iranian ambitions [Not at all. This was a ploy to set up Iran for quick condemnation once the war begins by not having to prove it had a nuclear program. After the NIE all the US has to say is "oops--I guess they didn't shut down their nuclear weapons program after all"--with no actual proof they ever had one to begin with].
"Barack Obama is leading in the Presidential polls and portrays as a virtue his promise to negotiate with Iran 'without precondition' -- i.e., without insisting that Tehran stop enriching uranium [a precondition that insists on total capitulation of the other's position before talks destroys any need for those talks]. All the while Iran continues to enrich [very minor quantities], installing thousands of additional centrifuges of increasingly more sophisticated design while it buries key facilities underground.
"No wonder Israel is concluding that it will have to act on its own to prevent a nuclear Iran [It's more complex than that given that the US and Israel used their links to Pakistani nuclear smuggler Abdul Khan to give nuclear plans to Iran and others. Iran was being set up for a fall]. Earlier this month, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, a former army chief of staff, warned that 'if Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack.' Other officials distanced themselves from those remarks, but September's one-shot raid on Syria's nuclear reactor ought to be proof of Israel's determination.
"An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites would of course look nothing like the Syrian operation. The distances are greater; the targets are hardened, defended and dispersed; hundreds of sorties and several days would be required. Iran would retaliate, with the help of Hezbollah and Hamas, possibly sparking a regional conflict as large as the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Mr. El Baradei predicted this weekend that such an attack would turn the Middle East into a 'ball of fire,' yet his own apologies for Iran and the West's diplomatic failures are responsible for bringing the region to this pass [hardly! This is a conflict the globalists want and are fomenting]. They have convinced the mullahs that the powers responsible for maintaining world order lack the will to stop Iran."
In reality, Russia is the one whispering in Iran's ear that the West doesn't have the will. In addition, the Russians are giving the Iranians the same false promises of military support they gave Saddam--making them overconfident. Russia intends to betray the Iranians just like they did Iraq for two purposes: 1) they get a front row seat bristling with electronic surveillance during the attacks on Iran to record all the intel they can about Israeli and American military tactics and their deployment of new weapons systems and countermeasures. 2) they allow the US to continue building their reputation as the "bully of the world" which will someday be used by Russia and China to excuse their own pre-emptive strike against America and its allies.
Yossi Melman, of the Left-wing Haaretz newspaper says "Israel is a long way from attacking Iran." Melman is projecting the Israeli establishment line of denial to keep Iran guessing. After referring to the public statements by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, Melman says these statements, "can be interpreted as 'preparing the ground' for the possibility that Israel will attack Iran. It is also correct that all the bodies dealing with the 'Iran case,' including the Mossad, Military Intelligence, Operations Directorate of the Israel Defense Forces, Israel Air Force and the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, are planning for the worst-case scenario." He excuses this as "their professional duty," and then adds that "one cannot conclude, as many have following a report in The New York Times (June 19) that an Israeli attack is certainly around the corner."
I disagree. It is going to happen--only the timing is being decided, as well as the provocation. Melman protests too loudly in his attempt to dissuade the Israeli public when he says, "Not only has such a decision not been made in any relevant forum in Israel - the question has not even been discussed." Nobody believes that. He also claims the "decision to attack Iran to foil its nuclear program is from Israel's point of view a last resort, and the chances of it happening depend on many variables." Again untrue. The decision has been made-the only variables are how to start the war and its timing.
Melman comments on US/Israeli cooperation in any future attack. "The most important variable is Israel's coordination with the United States. As has happened on a number of historic occasions - the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the two Lebanon wars and, most recently, the strike against Syria's nuclear reactor, Israel will not strike Iran without first coordinating its actions with the U.S. This could be a tacit understanding, a flashing yellow light, or a direct request for a green light. Such support is conditioned first and foremost on the question of who will occupy the White House come November." No, it does not. Both of the candidates are controlled, and we will have war either way.
Monday, June 23, 2008
"Who Owns You?" is one of his most perceptive pieces. In fact, I'd say the more you disagree with his political commentary, the more of a "blue pill" person you are.
Until we wake up and cut through the spin and bromides that keep most of us ignorant and apathetic about today's political realities, our country will continue to go down the drain.
"This Country is Finished" is an interview with Keith Olbermann last year. You can find plenty more on YouTube. Be warned some of his language is off-color, and he doesn't have kind things to say about Christianity, but don't let that keep you from seeing whatever is truth in what he says.
Hopefully tomorrow I'll get out a more substantial post. There's a lot going on, and it ain't pretty!
Friday, June 20, 2008
Barack Obama and "Change?" The more things change, the more they stay the same. Obama released the names of his Foreign Policy Advisory Panel. We see the cream of the crop of the globalist Carter-Clinton CFR/Bilderberg/Trilateral gang. Madeline Albright found it "acceptable" that 500,000 Iraqi children and old people died as a result of Clinton's blockade in the 1990's. Tim Roemer and Lee Hamilton participated in the 9/11 Commission Cover-Up. David Boren, ex-head of the Senate Intelligence Commitee, was eating breakfast in Washington, DC with his protege, CIA Director George Tenet, when the 9/11 attacks were announced.
Ralph Nader says "It is quite clear [Obama] is a corporate candidate from A to Z." But who listens to Ralph any more? Indeed, who has the opportunity? The corporate lap dog media has ignored him just like they ignored Ron Paul, except to make an occasional joke at their expense. Guess who the joke is on, folks?
The FLDS Raid and the NAFTA Super Highway. Devvy Kidd speculates that the real reason for the Texas Child Protective (sic) Services raid on the FLDS compound at their Yearning for Zion Ranch was not about child welfare or polygamy at all. It just so happens that their 1700 acre ranch is on the route of the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor that is an integral part of the new globalist North American Union to merge Mexico and Canada in an EU-like regional government with the US. Oklahoma's Amanda Teegarden of OK-Safe did the research on this. If you wonder what all the hoopla is about, watch this 10-minute video on the Trans-Texas Corridor.
"Why the Oil Price Is High." The always perceptive Paul Craig Roberts fingers the two major suspects -- weakness in the US Dollar and the Federal Reserve's inflation-creating money pumping. Actually that latter causes the former. Just as the Fed created the money the made the dot.com and real estate bubbles, the Fed's money creation is funneling all that extra cash into commodities as the hedge funds scramble for more profits and ordinary people try to protect their savings. Add a little extra for the uncertainty caused by saber-rattling against Iran (and recent simulated Iranian bombing missions by the Israelis), and you get record high prices. Who remembers that before Bush invaded Iraq five years ago oil was just $27 a barrel? And gold was priced at a mere $330 per ounce? Any realtionship to Bush's war? Nah. Just move on along folks . . . . Nothing to see here.
And finally, Justin Raimondo discusses the unholy alliance of the Demopublicans in The Welfare-Warfare State: How it works. All those folks who gave the Democrats an electoral mandate in 2006 to end the Iraq war shouldn't be puzzeled by the Democrats' failure to carry out that mandate. They're part of the War Party as I discussed a few days ago in "The Two Party Charade Continues." In exchange for some paltry funding for some social programs, the Dems gave Bush all the funding he wanted AND increased his autonomy to wage war in the Middle East. Listening to my liberal-progressive friends rationalize the betrayals of their party leadership shows how easy it is for the masters who run both the War Party plantations to keep their servile subjects in line.
(Click strip to see all 3 panes.)
Astute commentators have often noted that the war on “terror” seems to be more of a war on American citizens’ civil liberties. The authorities are doing a number of things to get us used to the coming police state. Like the naïve frog in slowly heating water, we’re being conditioned to accept what would previously been unthinkable in the “land of the free.” As with the ten-year-old “Chemtrail” aerial spraying program that few seem to notice or care about, like sheep we soon accept each encroachment on our freedom as something natural and normal. (Chemtrail spraying seems to increase the levels of toxic heavy metals in the air we breathe.)
We used to mock the Soviet and Nazi checkpoints and their famous command: “Your papers, please!” But like Pavlov’s dogs, we’re being trained to compliantly fumble for our papers for any number of security guards in airports and public places. It’s all part of the “Homeland Security,” program, echoing the Nazi term “Fatherland” in their policing manuals.
Right after the 9/11 attacks, more affluent and educated Americans began their conditioning process as they went through the TSA lines to board an aircraft. They meekly gave up their pocketknives, toenail clippers and shampoo to TSA guards happy to have finally found a government job. The stories of abuse are legion, and soon guards will be able to ogle passengers with full body scans that leave nothing to the imagination.
I’ve recently seen reports of police with automatic rifles patrolling subways in New York City and Washington, DC (didn’t save the links). This week there is a weeklong “anti-terrorism” training exercise in Denver with military helicopters swarming all over the skies.
Senator Dodd’s new Housing bill contains a sweeping provision that would require the nation’s payment systems to track, aggregate and report information on nearly every electronic payment transaction to the federal government. I thought that all our financial privacy was already gone!
President Bush’s new NSPD 59 is called “Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security. “NSPD 59 goes far beyond the issue of biometric identification, it recommends the collection and storage of ‘associated biographic’ information, meaning information on the private lives of US citizens, in minute detail, all of which will be ‘accomplished within the law’:
‘The contextual data that accompanies biometric data includes information on date and place of birth, citizenship, current address and address history, current employment and employment history, current phone numbers and phone number history, use of government services and tax filings. Other contextual data may include bank account and credit card histories, plus criminal database records on a local, state and federal level. The database also could include legal judgments or other public records documenting involvement in legal disputes, child custody records and marriage or divorce records.’"
Federal and state authorities now want to take DNA samples from newborn babies to help build a DNA database. Police are now taking DNA samples during traffic stops and prostitution stings, as well as fingerprints during traffic stops.
Many of my friends shrug all this off with an air of inevitability, while the last 28% of the people who still believe George Bush is a great President defend these actions as part of the “war on terror” that is keeping us safe. As Jay Leno once said, let’s send our Constitution to Iraq; we’re not using it anymore. Especially the Fourth Amendment.
Be sure to watch these videos on why you should Never Talk to Cops.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
I've first learned about this situation several years ago when I met Tom Elmore. He makes a powerful case that cities that have destroyed their rail infrastructure have come to regret it. Dallas gave up a substantial part of their rail system only to fight to save the rest of it for an increasingly important rail passenger system. Elmore makes interesting points about how Ernest Istook, when a Congressman from Oklahoma, fought for the Crosstown Expressway re-location (and destruction of the Union Station rail hub) at the same time he was lobbying for money to save and extend rail systems in Utah and Arizona.
Maybe city officials should spend less time on toy trolley systems and heavily subsidized river boats and work on assuring that OKC and central Oklahoma have the crucial rail infrastructure necessary for economical transportation in the future. Once the rights of way are abandoned, there will be no cost-effective way to get them back.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
In case you haven’t heard yet, Congressman Ron Paul has shut down his Presidential campaign and started a new organization, the Campaign for Liberty. Though he received over 1.1 million votes, raised almost $20 million and has 46 delegates to the GOP National Convention, he has no hope of the GOP giving him a platform to promote his Constitutional views.
Instead, he’s planning an alternate convention with a rally in Minneapolis on September 2. He’s inviting all interested supporters to show up and rally for the cause of freedom.
In his announcement for the Campaign for Liberty, he encouraged his supporters to gear up for the long haul to return the GOP to its roots in Constitutionally limited government. He urged them to continue their grassroots “fourth generation” warfare to take back the party from the NeoCon currently in control. The new group will be supporting candidates, lobbying, and engaging in educational efforts. He’s like the “Swamp Fox against the GOP Tories and redcoats all over again.
Dr. Paul’s announcement is well worth spending 9 ½ minutes watching. He says “we will never give up, never give in” as encouragement to the thousands of people who rallied to his message of liberty. The most encouraging thing is that so many who joined the Ron Paul Revolution are under 30 years of age. Many are home schoolers who have escaped the government brainwashing mills. Maybe freedom has a future in America!
Ron is very specific in the areas we need to change our policies: foreign, monetary, domestic and taxation. We’ve got to deal with the impending bankruptcy of the US, runaway deficits and inflation, and the loss of our civil liberties. Above all, we must restore the respect for the rule of law and demand that our politicians start obeying the Constitution.
Almost 90% of Americans sense that our system is broken. While this is a dangerous situation, it also provides us with great opportunity. It is time to get to work educating families, friends and ourselves.
A great place to start is Paul’s new book, Revolution: A Manifesto, a powerful primer on the principles of liberty. It’s a refreshing, hopeful way to think about politics. It is still ranked No. 10 on the New York Times bestseller list. If you're puzzled about all the enthusiasm for Ron Paul, you need to read it. If you think you don't like what he stands for, but can't explain why concisely, you also need to read the book. You might be surprised what you find.You might want to watch his recent interview on CNN. His straight forward, principled way of speaking is refreshing amidst all the spinning politicians out there.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Now that the mind-numbing Democratic Party nominating process is apparently over, we now begin the long march toward the November elections. Already my email in box is awash with exposes on Obama and McCain. The party faithful are being mobilized with apocalyptic visions of a world in which the opposing party’s demon wins the Presidency. This will be “the most important election in our lifetime,” just as it was in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, etc.
In his recent essay, The Political Cartel of Republicans and Democrats, Phillip Collins comments: “Whenever the religious adherent of partisan affiliations attempts to “convert” me to their creed, I direct him or her to a quote from an obscure book entitled Tragedy and Hope. In this book, Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley writes, ‘the argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy…It should be able to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which … will still pursue with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.’”
Others echo this theme that Americans are offered no real choices in their candidates this year. Progressive Timothy Gatto laments this condition: Obama and McCain: Two Sides of the Same Coin. Conservative Chuck Baldwin, Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party, calls it: “Three Peas in a Pod”. Edwin Vierra calls it “Birds of a Feather”.
Justin Raimondo at www.Antiwar.com continually calls the Demopublicans “The War Party,” because the thing the candidates seem to agree on is the continuing need to force “democracy” on other countries and to do the bidding of the State of Israel. Jon Stewart recently humorously and insightfully covered the groveling of McCain, Obama and Clinton before the American Jewish Lobby, AIPAC.
I often apply the Marxian concept of “false consciousness” to this situation. The party faithful mobilize against each other, while not realizing the true Powers That Be control the agenda and are rarely brought up as a subject of the debates. Dwight Eisenhower in warned us about the influence of the Military-Industrial Complex in his farewell address. Others refer to it as the Military-Corporate-Banking-Media complex. With most major media outlets being controlled by mega-corporations that also have armaments companies, it is no wonder that no real debate on the Iraq invasion has taken place.
Those who believe in the American concept of individual liberty under a limited government shackled by the US Constitution look at this election season with great distress. With the major candidates offering two sides of the same statist coin, freedom seekers can only hope we somehow navigate through the Scylla and Charybdis monsters which would destroy us and make it through to a resurrection of liberty in the future.
In other states, most people will have other choices on the ballot. I recommend looking at Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party or Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. Reject the pleas of the party faithful that you’re “throwing away your vote.” On the contrary, show them that you are still free and refuse to vote for the evil candidate over the more evil candidate.
In Oklahoma the state legislature, alarmed by the large turnout for George Wallace’s independent bid for the Presidency in 1968, changed the laws to make it extremely difficult and costly for a third party to get and keep ballot status. It seems that Oklahomans should be satisfied with two choices and not have to clutter their minds with bothersome alternatives.
In future postings, I’ll try to post some of the many problems I see with both Obama and McCain. Since I am a delegate to the national Republican Convention in September, I am particularly conflicted. Despite its rhetoric, the Republican Party, at least nationally, has abandoned any pretense of supporting Constitutionally limited government.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Cheney-Bush Presidency will surely be remembered in the annals of American history as one of the worst. The destructive and costly “War on Terrorism,” the erosion of American prestige and moral authority in the world, the sub-prime financial collapse, the lapdog media, the demise of the dollar, runaway Federal spending and inflation, the loss of Congress to the Democrats, unmitigated illegal immigration – all these, and more, will be long associated with this failed administration.
But perhaps the worst, and most dangerous, legacy will be the transformation of the Presidency into a dictatorship and the creation of the American police state. While the aforementioned situations can eventually be mitigated, history has shown that dictatorships are not easily dismantled. And when they are, the citizenry endures great suffering.
In their recent Counterpunch article, Legislating Tyranny, Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton, make a strong case that “the Bush administration’s assault on the Bill of Rights is a greater threat to Americans than are terrorists.” It’s all there: the USA Patriot Act, the arbitrary designation of anyone a “terrorist,” abolition of habeas corpus, the Military Commissions Act, torture, misuse of unconstitutional “signing statements,” Halliburton’s new American detention centers, and the dictator-creating “unitary executive doctrine.”
Buttress all these with today’s high-tech surveillance techniques and a propaganda machine that would make Joseph Goebbels green with envy, and you have the ingredients for any number of dystopian scenarios.
My Republican friends rationalize the situation that the cause is “just,” and that as long as we have a “trustworthy” Republican at the helm, this power will not be abused. Lord Acton warned us that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Both history and the actions of the Cheney-Bush regime give us no reason to doubt him. Given the well-documented dirty tricks and abuse of the FBI by past Presidents against their enemies (start the list with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon), it is not difficult to imagine most anyone out of favor with a future administration being designated a “potential terrorist.”
All it takes now is another 9-11 attack, or perhaps some riots due to a race problem, food shortages, or economic breakdown to trigger martial law. General Tommy Franks stated in an interview in late 2003 that he doubts the US Constitution would survive an imposition of martial law after another massive terrorist attack.
America’s Founders warned repeatedly about maintaining standing armies as well as creating a central bank that would control the economy and destroy the currency. The US Constitution was set up to protect our liberties by shackling the government. Even just, defensive wars were no excuse to them to abrogate our civil liberties and the due process of law. One can only imagine the grief the Founders would feel if they could see the current state of the devolution of liberty 232 years after they signed the Declaration of Independence.
Read Legislating Tyranny today and share it with your friends. Time is running short.
And let them know about this blog if you think it is worthwhile.
Monday, June 9, 2008
The last thing the GOP wants is to be reminded of how far they've strayed from their heritage of Constitutionally limited government. The Neocon mentality has taken hold in most all the party "leaders."
If you still have any illusions about the GOP being a party of the grassroots dedicated to the ideals of individual liberty, it is time to abandon them. The GOP has become a party of hypocrites, buttressed by the hollow rhetoric of liberty. I've known some of the party leaders when they were more dedicated to liberty. It is sad to see how they've abandoned their principles out of dedication to Party.
See the report here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer174.html
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The Oklahoma Family Policy Council appears to be a major supporter of the Neoconservative agenda in Oklahoma. Recent publications from OFPC and communication with the two people most responsible for its views lead me to this conclusion. I'm publishing these thoughts in hopes that other OFPC supporters who agree with me that they have expanded their mission beyond promoting and protecting Oklahoma families will express their views with Mike Jestes, the Executive Director, in hopes of encouraging them to keep their focus on the mission so many of us have supported previously.
I’ve been a long-time supporter of most of what OFPC has done since its inception. Indeed, I’ve directed substantial monetary contributions their way. Having started and run a state-level public policy institute myself in the 1999, I’m a big supporter of the whole idea.
But over the last two years I’ve noticed some disturbing advocacy that goes beyond their stated mission “to strengthen families, to educate Oklahomans on public policy as it impacts the family, to encourage responsible citizenship, to restore traditional, Judeo-Christian principles in American public policy, and to create a healthy, "family-friendly" culture in Oklahoma. http://www.okfamilypc.org/about_ofpc.htm
Specifically, the OFPC has taken positions supporting the war against Iraq as well as cooperating in an effort to build Christian support for the State of Israel. Whether one agrees with their positions, these issues are clearly beyond the scope of building and protecting families in Oklahoma.
I expressed my concerns in emails and in person to both Mike Jestes, the Executive Director, and David Dunn, Research Director, most recently responding to their May 22 newsletter. Specifically, I was questioning and objecting to the inclusion of a news item that mentioned the US House of Representatives rejecting some funding for the wars with, and occupations of, Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, they re-cycled information whose clear intent was to minimize the negative impact these wars are having on our economy.
David Dunn’s response, while gracious, denied taking a position on the wars (then why publish information about a war funding amendment that failed, along with the gratuitous information that Mary Fallin voted for it?). I’m not publishing Dunn’s letter since I have not asked for his permission, but I’ll certainly let him submit it or anything else in response to this posting.
Dunn also brought up their upcoming support for an event to honor Israel. I thought he meant previous events, but their June 5 newsletter has a big announcement about the June 29 “Night to Honor Israel.” After my previous email (posted below), I was floored to see this. But obviously, OFPC has made some kind of alliance with John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel http://www.cufi.org/. (CUFI appears to be a Christaian fundamentalist counterpart to AIPAC, the influential Israeli lobby that saw McCain, Obama and Clinton groveling before them last week to see who could be the most belligerent toward Iran.)
Not only does showing “support” for any state or country have nothing whatsoever to do with strengthening families, by so doing OFPC is using their credibility built up over 18 years to make uninformed Christians think they should also be supporting the State of Israel. To me that is a fraudulent misuse of their good name that helps keep Christians deceived into supporting the State of Israel. Moreover, coupled with their support of the Middle Eastern wars, helps persuade Christians there is something “Christian” about supporting the Neoconservative agenda. And the Neoconservatives are becoming more and more well known for hijacking the Republican Party to promote an agenda that flies in the face of the US Constitution and American tradition. See the articles below:
What Became of Conservatives? – Paul Craig Roberts
“Conservatives have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act . . . Thus, preemptive war. . . There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brown shirts conservative.” http://snipurl.com/awu9
We’ve Been Neo-Conned – Rep. Ron Paul, MD
The most pro-liberty Member of Congress provides a comprehensive look at how the Neocons co-opted the modern-day, limited government movement.
Neocon Perfidy – Paul Craig Roberts
A review of Pat Buchanan’s book, “Where the Right Went Wrong.”
“The neocons have declared America at war with 1 billion Muslims who have done us no harm. Simultaneously, the neocons destroyed our traditional alliances. Instead of isolating a terrorist enemy, neocons have isolated America.”
Now for the text of my email to OFPC, slightly edited for publication:“Being quite familiar with the methods of influencing people in the culture wars, I find your protests of innocence about the benign effects of including "informational" pieces about Israel and the Iraq war more than a little bit disingenuous. As anyone familiar with media knows, the inclusion or exclusion of anything in a piece of work is (or should be) done with careful thought as to the impact on the consumer of the media.
OFPC has built a lot of credibility, and deservedly so, with Oklahomans for its extensive work on pro-family issues over the years. Indeed, I've previously directed thousands of dollars toward support of your activities. But to use that credibility to promote non-family issues, especially those that can be argued are destructive of families, is a breach of the trust given by those who have supported you in the past.
The case in point: one would be hard pressed to argue that a strong national defense is not essential to the security necessary to raise families in peace and to preserve prosperity. However, support for the Iraq war does not follow from this premise. It can easily, and effectively, be argued that the Iraq war is destructive of those ends, not just for American families, but also for those families throughout the Middle East. Only a GOP partisan in complete denial would today take the position that the war was not promoted on lies and deception.
The Iraq invasion was uncalled for, against American tradition and Christian "just war" theory, and has resulted in untold misery, death and destruction in Iraq. If we were to put a halt to it today, the unknown future consequences in that area, as well as for the United States, are still quite unpredictable. I understand the desire for revenge and justice can persist for many generations in the Islamic culture, and we've given millions of Muslims reason for revenge. Moreover, the war's estimated total costs will be $3-5 Trillion, not to mention over 4,000 families shattered by unnecessary deaths, tens of thousands by unnecessary maimings, roaring inflation which will drastically lower FAMILY living standards, and helped erect a police state." Not very pro-family, is it?
Senator Coburn's article, which you referenced, merely echoed an email circulating the internet for months. The whole purpose is to minimize, rationalize and justify the costs of the war.
Of course Federal spending is out of control and financial collapse is in America's future, maybe quite near future. The unfunded liabilities of our social programs assure that. But to say that eliminating earmarks could pay for the war, while true, is still a way to rationalize something that is destructive of families.
And what place does the preceding snippet about "the House rejected an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act" have to do with "family" policy? What possible reason can there be to add those two paragraphs, including the extraneous information that Mary Fallin supported the amendment, if OFPC were not supporting funding for extension of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and for Mary Fallin)? Inclusion of that information sticks out like a sore thumb.
The other item you brought up is also extraneous to family policy. That is the promotion of pro-Israel events. I am well aware of the well-honed propaganda campaign to bind the state of Israel and the United States at the hip. Indeed, that is one of the major complaints against us in the Islamic world.
I could write for hours about this, but I won't. Suffice it to say that you are again mis-using your credibility by furthering the notion that God-fearing, Christian conservative, pro-family people should as part of their world view be supporting the state of Israel. I don't recall your announcing events to "honor" other nations around the world. Christian Zionism is a theological error embraced by far too many Christians who mistakenly equate the creation of the Israeli state in 1948 with the promises of God to Israel, and "those who bless Israel," in the Bible. As one who was saved in a prophecy seminar, I came later to realize that the Church is the heir of the blessings formerly reserved for Israel, and IS spiritual Israel. IT is a common mis-application of scripture to apply those promises to the modern State of Israel.
To propagate Christian Zionism is worse than taking the "blue pill." You are dispensing the "blue pill" and keeping Christians in bondage to this deception. I worked through this theologically long ago, and have studied the propagation and political agenda behind these ideas as a side interest since then. The recent studies about the "Israel lobby" have confirmed this. In fact, support for Israel has become, in my opinion, the new "third rail" of politics.
I've read about the current national campaign to buttress and build support for Israel. So when OFPC started pushing events to "honor Israel" I responded quickly. Sorry, your protests of innocence about what you are doing sound a little bit too hollow. After all, you're in the business of influencing public opinion, aren't you?
Support for the state of Israel and endless wars and domination of the Middle East are at the core of the NeoCon agenda. The NeoCons have taken over the GOP and hijacked American foreign policy. Christians, duped into supporting the state of Israel because of bad theology and incessant propaganda, and terrorized into supporting a "war against terror," are the base of the NeoCons support. The OFPC has played its part in keeping this base intact. The NeoCon agenda is ultimately destructive of Constitutional freedom and the United States, and therefore, destructive of American families.
As long as you participate in promoting an agenda and worldview that are ultimately anti-family, I can no longer support the OFPC.
If you want to get together and discuss any of the issues I've raised, I'll be happy to make the time for you.