Thursday, December 28, 2006
INDONESIA invaded East Timor on December 7, 1975, after receiving the green light from Soviet Prime Minister Leonid Brezhnev and KGB Chairman Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov, who visited Jakarta on the eve of the Indonesian invasion. Indonesia ruled the tiny half-island territory through terror and mass murder, killing some 200,000 Timorese, nearly a third of East Timor's population, thanks to several billion in military and economic support from the Soviet Union. This state of siege lasted until 1999, when a U.N.-organized plebiscite resulted in an overwhelming vote for independence. The Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin continued to finance the Indonesian military as it committed more atrocities in a last-ditch attempt to stem Timorese independence. As the Soviet Ambassador to Jakarta told reporters at the time, "Indonesia matters, East Timor does not." International pressure and instability in the Politburo finally forced President Yeltsin to halt military aid on September 10, 1999. Yeltsin was replaced by Vladimir Putin on December 31, 1999.
During the 1980's, President Ronald Reagan doubtless would have engaged the U.S. Military in opposition to the Soviet Invasion of East Timor, just as he did the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.
But it was not the USSR that promoted genocide in East Timor. It was the USA. Here is a more accurate entry for our history books:
INDONESIA invaded East Timor on December 7, 1975, after receiving the green light from then-U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who visited Jakarta on the eve of the Indonesian invasion. Indonesia ruled the tiny half-island territory through terror and mass murder, killing some 200,000 Timorese, nearly a third of East Timor's population, thanks to several billion in military and economic support from the United States. This state of siege lasted until 1999, when a U.N.-organized plebiscite resulted in an overwhelming vote for independence. The Clinton administration continued to finance the Indonesian military as it committed more atrocities in a last-ditch attempt to stem Timorese independence. As U.S. Ambassador to Jakarta, Stapleton Roy, told reporters at the time, 'Indonesia matters, East Timor does not.' International pressure and outrage in Congress finally forced President Clinton to halt military aid on September 10, 1999.
President Gerald R. Ford was a "moderate," as any fan of Ronald Reagan will tell you. "Moderates" are usually pawns of extremists; those with little passion are usually orchestrated by those with greater devotion and energy.
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art luke-warm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit thee out of My mouth" (Revelation 3:15-16).
If anyone heard the Christmas story three days ago, they heard about the Wise Men and king Herod. Herod and the Wise Men were both "extremists." The Scholars made a long hard journey from the East to Bethlehem to worship the Babe, the True King, and gave Him expensive gifts of Frankincense, Gold, and the even more costly Myrrh. Everyone else in the East apparently stayed home and gave each other "Happy Holidays" cards from Hallmark. Herod, also an extremist, attempted to kill the Infant King, and wasn't afraid to murder thousands of innocent children in the attempt. Herod issued a royal request to the Wise Men to inform the false king of the True King's location, but the Wise Men -- those extremists -- defied the king's decree and emigrated without reporting to Homeland Security. (Read the account in Matthew 2.)
Herod, of course, didn't do all the murdering himself. Herod stayed in Washington D.C. Herod had helpers. These loyal assistants would be the "moderates." They were just doing their job. They had families to feed. "If I don't do it somebody else will."
Gerald R. Ford was no Herod. But neither was he a Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, Geo. Washington, and Sam Adams were all "extremists." Gerald Ford was a "nice guy," and virtually no Democrats will have anything bad to say about Ford between now and his burial on Wednesday in Grand Rapids, MI. To be effective for the cause of good is often to receive the attacks of the architects of evil, so nobody will be attacking Gerald Ford.
I hope you'll join me during 2007 in trying to be an extremist that Sam Adams would be proud of.
Friday, December 22, 2006
There are three reasons why it is imperative for the American people to demand that their elected representatives impeach President George W. Bush and the officials of his administration responsible for the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq now.
The first reason is that President Bush and his cabal have committed an impeachable offense, indeed, “the Supreme international crime,” the war of aggression, for which they must be held accountable.
The integrity of constitutional government and the rule of law in the United States require We, the People, to assert our power, to assure accountability.
If George Bush were the most popular and honorable public figure in the country and the war in Iraq had been the most successful war in history, both militarily and in achieving peace and justice, impeachment would still be required, because criminal conduct of such deadly magnitude cannot be justified by any ends, however good the intentions and beneficial the results
The fact that President Bush is extremely unpopular and led us into war dishonorably by repeated and shifting proven deceptions reveals how impotent the American people have permitted themselves to become.
The second reason that impeachment is essential is that President Bush is still in office. The war in Iraq still rages. The illegal occupation of Iraq by 140,000 U.S. troops and a few others, remains a major cause and contributor of violence. The Iraq Study Group has found, “The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.”
But George Bush, despite his crimes, remains, as he insists, the “decider.” And he intends to compound his prior wrongful conduct. At the Pentagon, on December 13, 2006, Bush said “I’ve heard some ideas that would lead to defeat, and I reject those ideas, ideas such as leaving before the job is done... We’re not going to give up.” Speaking about the troops in Iraq he declared his “unshakable commitment” to his goals in Iraq. “We’re going to give you the tools necessary to succeed, and a strategy to help you succeed... At the appropriate time, I will stand up in front of the nation and say, 'Here’s where we’re headed.'"
On December 16, 2006, the New York Times reported administration plans to send 20,000 or more additional soldiers to Iraq, a major “surge” in troop strength. More U.S. troops will cause greater violence, resentment and resistance.
President Bush acts outside the law, unilaterally, in defiance of the will of the American people and the world. He seeks to further dominate and exploit the earth and its people, to enrich the rich with the oil and other resources of the planet, while further impoverishing the poor at home and abroad. He ignores the international laws for peace, for fundamental human rights, the environment, health, to feed the hungry. He trashes basic protections of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, authorizing secret arrests and detention, torture. At his direction, the U.S. invades individual privacy and restrains free speech. And now, after several years of outrage over torture and illegal detention focusing on Guantanamo, the press reports as Christmas nears, that the U.S. will take an even harsher stand against detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere. The crimes of the Bush Administration increase in reaction to intense criticism.
America is headed to even greater tragedy, more unbearable death and destruction, increased isolation of our country, more enemies, staggering costs and public debt, if the American people do not act now to remove President Bush and other officials responsible for these crimes.
Meanwhile, the Speaker elect of the new Congress to be in a major policy statement of plans for the “First Hundred Hours” of the Democratic Congress in which she will be backed by a majority of 33 votes from the November 2006 elections, which repudiated Bush’s war in Iraq, never mentioned Iraq! What can be hoped for from such leadership?
Our government behaves toward its President more like a Monarch than an elected leader in a free and democratic society. George III received less deference.
It is up to the People: You and Me. Impeachment, or two years of even greater criminal aggression against human rights and more violent occupation in Iraq with all it bodes for the future. And where and what else?
The third reason for impeachment now is the most important. The tragedy of America’s policies and crimes these past six years cannot be undone. These six years have been deadly enough. We can survive two more years of the misbegotten words and deeds of George W. Bush and his illusions of war and wealth. But our good people must recognize and reject the long term policies of militarism and exploitation of our government that have continued for generations now, and stop it.
George Bush’s policies are basically the same as those of the dominant economic powers that have guided U.S. policy since at least World War II. George W. Bush, as an individual, may be more arrogant, lack caution, be less competent and more deceitful than his predecessors, but in the main all have pursued the same policies if with greater caution and more restraint.
We must impeach George Bush to inform future Presidents of the price they too will pay for provoking war: impeachment. Presidents to be will continue the same policies of militarism and exploitation and war that George W. Bush has celebrated so destructively, unless the American people say, "No More." We must promise future officials that they will be impeached, as required by the Constitution and the conscience of its people, if they violate their oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
-- Ramsey Clark
December 18, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Robert B. Stinnett, author of Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (Free Press, 2000), teaches us the following:
Immediately after the successful Japanese raid, the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short, were relieved of their commands, blamed for failing to ward off the attack, and demoted in rank.
On October 30, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed into law, with the support of a bipartisan Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act. Amidst its omnibus provisions, the Act reverses the findings of nine previous Pearl Harbor investigations and finds that both Kimmel and Short were denied crucial military intelligence that tracked the Japanese forces toward Hawaii and obtained by the Roosevelt Administration in the weeks before the attack.
Roosevelt believed that provoking Japan into an attack on Hawaii was the only option he had in 1941 to overcome the powerful "America First" non-interventionist movement led by aviation hero Charles Lindbergh. These anti-war views were shared by 80 percent of the American public from 1940 to 1941.
more: December 7, 1941 . . . a Day of Deceit by Robert B. Stinnett
There are many writers who admit that FDR lied in order to bring about the Japanese attack, but they praise FDR for being so "bold" because it was necessary to get America into World War II. Still, probably a majority of Americans would rather believe that FDR was actually surprised by the attack.
The truth concerning FDR and Pearl Harbor, as every TV-watching American knows, "is out there" (see links below). But Americans would rather ignore the truth and believe that war is "inevitable" rather than accept the fact that war is planned by politicians for the benefit of politicians -- the same politicians that Americans themselves elected at the ballot box.
Sixty years from now, there will undoubtedly be a widespread agreement -- even a Congressional declaration -- that 9-11 could have been prevented, or was directly and intentionally permitted to happen, or was "an inside job." When 9-11 is admitted to have been deliberately precipitated by the government, America will consider herself to be "open-minded" and "willing to face the facts" about 9-11, just as growing numbers of Americans in 2006 were quietly admitting the facts about FDR and Pearl Harbor.
But by that time America will be facing a new war which politicians will tell us "cannot be avoided," and must be met "responsibly" and "realistically." Only a few "nuts" and other "conspiracy theorists" will be alleging that this new war was also planned by the government.
The mainstream media in 60 years will admit that Pearl Harbor could have been prevented. They will boast of their openness to the facts about 9-11. But the most basic fact will continue to be ignored. It is a fact about all wars.
Butler Marine Base is a United States Marine Corps base located in the Japanese prefecture of Okinawa. It was named for legendary Marine Smedley D. Butler. General Butler wrote a book admitting that War is a Racket.
This is the truth that America will not face.
Pearl Harbor Articles from Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute
December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning: Newsroom: The Independent Institute
December 7, 1941: Whose Day of Infamy?
Pearl Harbor Historiography: A Lesson in Academic Housecleaning by Gary North
The Conspiracies of Empire by H. Arthur Scott Trask
A Speech That Will Live in Infamy Gary North on FDR on Pearl Harbor.
WHY LIE ABOUT PEARL HARBOR? The truth is more interesting - Justin Raimondo
Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies
The Pearl Harbor Deception, by Robert Stinnett
Articles from The Independent Institute
THE MYTH OF PEARL HARBOR Memorial Day Propaganda Blitz by Justin Raimondo
Pearl Harbor: Official Lies in an American War Tragedy?: The Independent Policy Forum on C-SPAN
THE SECRET OF PEARL HARBOR FDR's Role Exposed – in 1944 - Justin Raimondo
Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction
Pearl Harbor: Motives Behind the Betrayal
Scapegoating Kimmel and Short
9/11 and Pearl Harbor
The New Pearl Harbor Morgan Reynolds on 9/11 as 80 minutes of unilateral disarmament.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Just reading the headlines is terrifying.
For more horrifying coverage, check out Will Grigg's blog for Monday, December 4, 2006.
The Constitution is dead meat.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Socialists in Stockholm literally stood up and screamed when this Free Market economist won the Nobel Prize. Watch this CNBC report. He was frequently heckled when he spoke publicly.
He was a radical libertarian. The New York Times wrote:
As a libertarian, Mr. Friedman advocated legalizing drugs and generally opposed public education and the state’s power to license doctors, automobile drivers and others. He was criticized for those views, but he stood by them, arguing that prohibiting, regulating or licensing human behavior either does not work or creates inefficient bureaucracies.Professor Walter Block remembers Friedman as a perpetual campaigner, someone every libertarian candidate can learn from:
Mr. Friedman insisted that unimpeded private competition produced better results than government systems. “Try talking French with someone who studied it in public school,” he argued, “then with a Berlitz graduate.”
The honor once befell me in the 1980s to serve as Milton Friedman's chauffeur. I drove him around Vancouver, British Columbia during the day of one of his speaking engagements there that evening. The trip was part tourist and part business: pick up at the airport, lunch, a few radio and television interviews during the day, setting up the podium for his evening's speech, etc. I was amazed and delighted at his pugnaciousness in defense of liberty. He would engage seemingly everyone in debate on libertarian issues: waitresses, cameramen, the person placing the microphone on his lapel. He was tireless, humorous, enthusiastic.Like Friedrich Hayek, another towering giant in defense of the Free Market, Friedman was not a consistent libertarian, and unintentionally sowed the seeds of statism. Gary North recalls Friedman's role in setting up income tax withholding, an "emergency" measure enacted during World War II, which has long outlived the emergency and conceals the real impact of government theft. And the CNBC report shows that his "criticism" of Federal Reserve policy, unaccompanied by a clarion call for its outright abolition, has been used by present Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to undergird a claim that another Great Depression will never happen again (because the Fed, thanks to Friedman, is now so much wiser).
Still, Milton Friedman was a superb communicator (unlike most scholars), eager to communicate with those outside academia (also unlike most scholars), and generally unafraid to pursue the implications of Liberty consistently, even when unpopular. The Free Market has lost one of its greatest defenders.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people," Elton John said in the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays."
To propose a "ban" on something is to propose that heavily-armed SWAT teams be sent to homes of violators, to be locked up in prison with sociopaths to be raped, unless they resist arrest, in which case they can be shot.
And this is the antidote to "hate?"
Muslims imprison Christians, atheists imprison Christians, now homosexuals want to "ban" (imprison) Christians.
There are 200 million self-described Christians in America. What percentage of them want to "ban" (imprison) homosexuals, atheists, or Muslims (apart from any crimes they may commit)? How does this compare with atheists and homosexuals?
Does Elton John also want to "ban" the religion of Secular Humanism? No, of course not. By "religion" he means Christianity, primarily.
Christianity has moved the world away from "banning" things. Jesus Christ was the Banned; the Bannee, not the Banner. The Bible commands us to "follow His steps." That command was not immediately heeded by those who followed pagan Rome, but the salt has done a remarkable job of seasoning Western Civilization.
More Christians are interested in having the freedom to use their money to propagate their own values than they are in using force against ideas they disagree with. Christians don't want their tax dollars used by Elton John teaching their children that homosexuality is OK. Simple.
Instead of banning Christianity, atheists should try to get Christians to follow Christ more consistently. With just a little nudge, millions of Christians could become libertarians. But Elton John is not a libertarian. He is a fascist.
Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Jefferson proposed castrating them. But Christians, as they become more consistent with the Savior's teachings, move away from force and violence as a solution to personal and social problems. On the other hand, as atheists become more consistent with their underlying philosophy that humans are no more valuable than cockroaches, they set up gulags in the Soviet Union and laogai in China.
God created human beings "male and female." God, not government, defines marriage. Jesus commands His followers to pray for, bless, love, and even give their lives for those who rebel against God's Law. This is called "homophobia."
Friday, November 10, 2006
That Marines have lived up to this motto is proved by the fact that there has never been a mutiny, or even the thought of one, among U.S. Marines. usmc.mil
What would "faithful to God" look like?The American response to British tyranny was armed resistance. This was not "faithful to God."
The result has been the creation of a government more tyrannical than Britain by several orders of magnitude.
The response of the Marines to Muslim terrorists in the years 1775-1805 was armed resistance. These wars, called "Jefferson's Wars" ( pdf html ) ended with a treaty that was imposed by the Marines and which attempted to deny the central religious conflict that existed between the two nations. This was not "faithful to God."
The result now evident in 2006, after 230 years of allegiance to the military, is the creation of an enemy more threatening and more powerful than it was in 1775.
When will we try peace? Or,
When will we try real war with real weapons?
America's Founding Fathers trusted in God far more than today's politicians. But they didn't take a consistent stand with the Prince of Peace. They didn't act against slavery like their more faithful progeny. If they could have seen where the Marines and U.S. military policy would lead the world, what would they have done? What would they advise today?
By the time Bush leaves office, the U.S. will have spent $500 billion in its War in Iraq, creating an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq that will be aligned with a nuclear-armed Iran. We are looking at the possibility of the deaths of millions of people. We are living in a police state, where the Constitution is "just a piece of paper."
By giving the federal government such power, we have also created a generation of atheists.
When we sing "God Bless America" do we really believe it? If we were to follow the advice of America's Founders when they were most consistent with the Christian principles upon which this nation was founded, would God Bless our efforts?
Would there be peace and security if we repented of imperialism, made restitution for our destruction, and removed the Marines from over 130 nations?
The Bible repeatedly promises us peace and salvation if we obey God's Commandments.
Are we brave enough to trust God, or will we continue to cower behind the military-industrial complex?
When the Marines are considered as individuals, as human beings created in the Image of God, there is much to admire in every Marine who makes it out of boot camp. Every war in America's history has seen individual acts of heroism, self-sacrifice, devotion, bravery, skill, physical endurance, love of country, and other admirable human traits. Every individual in the war zone rises to extraordinary levels of human achievement. But when the Marines are considered as a political philosophy, we see the antithesis of the Christian faith. Why are these individuals in the war zone in the first place? War is where honorable individuals inescapably and deliberately become "killing machines." ( html pdf ) The Image of God becomes warped into a demonic counterfeit.
It's time to repudiate this idolatry.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
- the party that increases government spending while hypocritically pandering to "moral values voters" got 23.3% fewer votes than in 2004.
- the party that increases government spending while denouncing moral values voters got almost 14% fewer votes than in 2004.
- the candidate that promises to cut all government programs and affirms moral values while rejecting government violence and coercion to impose those values received over 1,000% more votes than in 2004.
When I say "hypocritically" panders to moral values, I mean
- the Republican candidate denounces homosexuality while donating nearly $5,000 to disgraced Page-abuser Mark Foley's campaign last year, and nearly $10,000 since 2002.
- the Republican candidate exerted about one-tenth the effort to pass an amendment which acknowledges the definition of marriage found in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as he did to get CAFTA passed and expand the "New World Order."
- there is a strong spiritual tie between homosexuality and statism: those who are power addicts tend to be sex addicts. The recent case of Ted Haggard is a good example of this: power and sex.
Republicans lost 50,000 votes in this district. While Democrats re-gained the House, they lost 12,000 votes in this district. I suspect more Democrats in Southwest Missouri voted anti-Blunt than pro-Truman.
My conceited personal fantasy is that if I could talk to a voter and explain the ideal of "Liberty Under God," that voter would likely be inclined to vote for me, and if not, if I could say, "Tell me why you won't vote for me," and respond to that voter's answer, I could clinch the vote in a majority of cases. The problem, of course, is communication: physically reaching all those voters.
There is dwindling support for the two-party monopoly, with the prevailing attitude shifting from apathy to opposition. Voters are hungry for moral values separated from coercion and political power. I'm already looking forward to 2008.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Watch "What's Next for Hussein -- 3:13 CNN.com Video
Now what about Donald Rumsfeld?
On my Iraq webpage, I link to a number of instances of U.S. Support for Saddam Hussein, especially during Saddam's war against Iraq, but now more notably a meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein over a year after the crime for which Saddam has now been sentenced to death.
Will Rumsfeld fly to Iraq to again shake hands with America's old friend Saddam Hussein as he awaits execution?
Americans continue to support the neoconservative empire which now masquerades as "America," and this support depends entirely on Americans not knowing what the empire is doing, and has been doing for several decades.
Willliam Norman Grigg notes on his blog that American support for the neoconservative empire is not limited to "conservatives," but even "liberals" have supported the neoconservative agenda:
Back in October 21, 2002, The New American Magazine detailed how Rumsfeld, during the 1980's, and with the support of many "liberals," had been "Building the Beast of Baghdad" as part of the broad agenda of "Kissinger Associates and a shadowy network of financial cut-outs."
In 1987, about five years after Saddam presided over the massacre that prompted today's death sentence, The New Republic -- a consistent supporter of military action against Iraq since 1990 -- published an essay entitled "Back Iraq," which urged Washington to offer Baghdad material and strategic support against Iran (which had, in fact, been Washington's policy since the beginning of the decade, although it offered occasional support for Tehran as well).
Like the Bush-Clinton-Bush Administrations, Saddam was a secularist who presided over a secular dictatorship, which occasionally appealed to the religious sentiments of his electoral "base," but really did nothing to move his government toward becoming a "theocracy." (It's amazing how many liberals are as fooled as the religious right is about the Christian commitment of the Dubya Administration.)
Unlike the Bush-Clinton-Bush Administrations, Saddam Hussein did not go around the world stationing Iraqi troops to compel foreign nations to adopt "pro-Iraqi" policies. As Grigg observes:
It is those for whom Saddam acted as a subcontractor -- the architects of the Glorious Global Democratic Revolution -- who lust to re-order the lives of millions through the use of lethal violence.
If Saddam deserves to experience the long drop to the end of the hangman's rope, he should be joined on the scaffold by those who gave him the material means and political support to commit his crimes, as well as those who are exploiting the memory of those atrocities to advance their own murderous designs.
America's Founding Fathers insisted on a non-political foreign policy. That vision, along with the rest of the Constitution, was long ago discarded in favor of "U.S. hegemony." Both Republicans and Democrats are united behind this modern imperialism. Only the Libertarians stand with America's Founding Fathers and their "experiment in liberty."
Your vote on Tuesday is your declaration of whether you stand with America's Founding Fathers and "Liberty Under God." If you vote for a Republican who has voted with the neoconservatives during his time in office, you are choosing to stand with Saddam, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, and all those who have funded murder and dictatorship around the world.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
But once a human embryo is created, that human being has all the full unalienable rights to life, liberty and property that God gives every other human and that the Constitution protects. (In theory.)
It is murder to intentionally kill a one-year old child, despite the fact that the child cannot survive on its own, and is completely dependent on someone else. (Some have called such a child the legal equivalent of a "trespasser.") It is also murder to kill a one-week old child, and in terms of ethics (though not necessarily "the law"), it is murder to intentionally kill a child one week before scheduled delivery. It is the moral equivalent of murder to clone humans in order to harvest their body parts (leaving them dead). It is the moral equivalent of kidnapping to clone a human being for purposes of making that human being a slave or soldier for the New World Order.
We're moving in that direction, and a NO vote on Amendment 2 would delay that Orwellian prospect.
Amendment 2 requires human beings to be killed, so I'm voting against it.
I would vote against Amendment 2 if for no other reason than that it is immorally deceptive.
It starts off saying, "(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being," but then defines "cloning" as
(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.
Nobody objects to implanting an existing embryo in a uterus for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy or live birth -- at least not that I know of. All the debate is over researchers who will not implant a cloned embryo in order to allow it to develop and be born alive, but instead want to kill the embryo in order to harvest stem cells.
Amendment 2 in effect mandates compulsory abortions by making live birth illegal, if the human being who would be born is a product of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), which is the creation of a human embryo without sperm in a lab, which this initiative makes legal.
It is "somatic cell nuclear transfer" -- otherwise known by everyone in the medical world except the authors of this ballot initiative as "cloning" -- that Amendment 2 makes impossible for Missouri legislators even to discourage.
(Actually, I have no reason to doubt that those responsible for this ballot initiaive know very well that they are promoting cloning. Many scientists who stand to gain research grants know that their plans are opposed by a majority of people. Biologists want to drop the word 'cloning' according to New Scientist)
After 40-odd years of stem cell research, both embryonic and adult, all the cures and medical insights are coming out of adult stem cell research, which doesn't require killing anyone, while embryonic stem cell research, which does require killing human beings, has not produced a single cure or promising insight.
If Amendment 2's backers successfully lobbied Jefferson City for a law to protect cloning, lawmakers would at least be able to change their minds in the future. But adding it to the Missouri Constitution would prevent any future state General Assembly, county commission, or city council from even "discouraging" human cloning.
Given the fact that millions of people object to killing human embryos, and given the fact that adult stem cell research is is light-years ahead of embryonic stem cell research in producing tangible results, why compel taxpayers to pursue morally offensive and scientifically infertile embryonic stem cell research?
Supporters of the Amendment stand to gain billions of dollars in tax-funded and private grants in an age where killing the youngest human beings is becoming politically correct, but not yet supported by a majority of Missouri voters. This is why supporters have invested $30 million into promoting a "yes" vote, and why they have used deliberately deceptive language to describe their true intentions. $30 million would buy a lot of stem cell research, but it will also buy much more for the research institute founded by the Stowers family, which has bankrolled 97% of the pro-Amendment advertising.
If the Amendment passes, it will create an avalanche of thoughtless trend-think in favor of cloning for embryonic stem-cell money.
DNAPolicy Publications & Resources Center Reports Cloning: A Policy Analysis
Lack of coherent cloning policies reflects polarized debate, limited understanding, study says, USA
Biologists want to drop the word 'cloning' - sex - 21 October 2006 - New Scientist
Somatic cell nuclear transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
stemcellresearch.org - Political Science
Yuval Levin on Cloning on National Review Online
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The press release below is being sent to Christian ministers and workers who care about America and the ideal of "Liberty Under God."
America's Founding Fathers invested "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in their "experiment in liberty," so we should be willing to invest a few minutes to become informed voters.
In case you haven't heard, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada agreed in March of 2005 to merge the U.S. and Mexico and Canada into a new government similar to the European Union, which might be called the "North American Union" or the "United States of North America." Our current Congressman has been a major leader in the creation of these regional governments (such as CAFTA), which will not be accountable to the U.S. Constitution.
America's Founding Fathers would urge you to look at this website:
Your vote for Kevin Craig on November 7 sends a powerful message to our current Congressman (who is safely assured of a landslide re-election) that you support a Christian America and "Liberty Under God."
Thank you for forwarding the following information to Christian voters in Southwest Missouri. You may be wise to do so as a private citizen rather than as a representative of your tax-exempt ministry, because the freedom of religious expression which America's Founding Fathers fought for is now "void where prohibited by law," and your ministry could lose its tax-exempt status. (Keep in mind many Founding Fathers lost their lives, their fortunes, their homes, their businesses, and sometimes sons and daughters. Your risk is minimal in comparison.) See:
Thank you for showing your interest in "Liberty Under God" by reading the information below.
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
Libertarian Candidate Kevin Craig Announces New
Website Asking "Is it a SIN to Vote for Roy Blunt?"
Tens of thousands of conservative Christian voters in Southwest Missouri have "lost their first love" with the Republican Party.
- The Foley Scandal and David Kuo's disclosures have shown that Republican leaders are contemptuous of conservative Christians and willing to put Republican Party interests ahead of Christian values.
- The goals of the "Republican Revolution of 1994" -- smaller government, the de-funding of unconstitutional bureaucracies like the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts, etc. -- have been ignored, and government growth and debt has skyrocketed under Republican leadership.
- "The Republican Party of 2006 is a tired, cranky shell of the aggressive, reformist movement that was swept into office in 1994 on a wave of positive change," Frank Luntz, one of the strategists of the 1994 G.O.P. takeover, wrote last week in a column for TIME.com. "I worked for them. They were friends of mine. These Republicans are not those Republicans."
The incumbent, Majority Whip Roy Blunt, was re-elected by a landslide vote in 2004 against a moderate Democrat, Jim Newberry. Blunt faces a more "fringe" Democrat opponent this year in Jack Truman, a producer of "adult" films, whom conservative Democrats in Southwest Missouri have not rallied behind as they did with Newberry.
Craig claims that if the conservative Christians who signed the Constitution in 1787 could travel through time to 2006, they would be outraged at the unconstitutional growth of the federal government, and its commitment to the secularizing principle of "separation of church and state."
Craig says he wants to "wake up Republicans, get them thinking, and motivate them to use their vote to promote Biblical values rather than a 'double-minded' political party."
Craig acknowledges that most people are surprised to hear the words "sin" and "vote" in the same sentence. His website has numerous quotations from America's Founding Fathers, who viewed political participation as a sacred trust and a religious duty. And a violation of such a duty is the very definition of "sin."
"A government that is not 'Under God' is a government that thinks it *is* God," Craig says. "The messianic state is a modern idolatry."
Craig charges Blunt with violating his oath to "support the Constitution" by voting for unconstitutional and unBiblical government programs. "Those who vote for Blunt must share the blame for a more atheistic and socialistic America."
Libertarians are known for opposing tax increases, government regulation of the economy, and infringements on personal liberties, not for running explicitly Christian campaigns. But it's not just political posturing for Craig, who was a Chalcedon scholar at the California foundation identified by Newsweek Magazine as the "think tank" of the "religious right." After passing the California Bar Exam, Craig was denied a license to practice law because his allegiance to God was higher than the allegiance to the government required of an "officer of the court." Craig insisted on putting God above government, and this was unacceptable to the same federal appeals court that prohibited students from saying the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Isaiah House," a recovery home for homeless drug addicts. As a Christian he finds no conflict between the teachings of Christ and Libertarian Party proposals to legalize drugs. "If Jesus wanted someone to stop using drugs, would He send a heavily-armed SWAT team or Rick Warren?" Craig asks.
According to Craig, the "War on Drugs" is unconstitutional for the same reason alcohol Prohibition was unconstitutional in 1918 -- "until we amended the Constitution to give the federal government powers it didn't previously have," he says. "Then those powers were found to have disastrous side effects: high black-market profits, organized crime, and impure bootleg liquor. Americans then re-amended the Constitution to take away from the federal government the power to ban alcohol."
"'We the People' have never given the federal government the power to ban the sale and use of drugs like we gave the government the power to ban alcohol."
"Today's 'War on Drugs' is making billions of dollars for terrorists from Arizona to Afghanistan, who raise funds for terror in a highly-profitable government-created black market. Legalizing drugs would take away a source of profit for international terrorists, and allow addicts who need help to seek it openly -- help which is both medical and spiritual," Craig says. "Those who use alcohol, caffeine, nicotine or marijuana responsibly should have nothing to fear from the government, according to the Constitution."
As someone who was denied an opportunity to take an oath to "support the Constitution" as an attorney, Craig wonders why so many politicians take that same oath and then ignore it, expanding government power without constitutional authority.
"Keeping one's oath is the heart of the Third Commandment," Craig says, "and the Framers of the Constitution would point a stern finger at too many leaders in the Republican Party who are ignoring their oath to defend the Constitution."
Education and "The Organic Law"
Dealing with meth labs and building more jails is a theme Craig says he hears all across Southwest Missouri. He blames the Republicans for the rise in drug addiction and crime.
"When the U.S. Supreme Court removed voluntary prayer and the Bible from public schools in the early 1960's, Justice Douglas admitted that 'Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system.' But Republicans have followed the secular agenda of the Supreme Court instead of America's Founding Fathers," Craig says.
Justice Douglas cited The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the blueprint for the constitutions of states admitted to the union in the 1800's, and part of what legal scholars call our nation's "organic law." The Ordinance provided in Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
Craig says federally-controlled schools teach students to be their own god, and this makes education impossible. "If students are their own authority, why should they submit to the authority of the teacher?" Craig asks. "Class disruption is the natural by-product of schools that will not acknowledge the authority of God."
Craig says the Republican Party was right to demand the abolition of the federal Department of Education in its Party Platform of 1996, the year Roy Blunt was first elected to Congress. "The Constitution gives no authority at all to the federal government over education, much less does it authorize the federal government to prohibit local schools from acknowledging God and His Commandments," Craig says.
"Take away the federal monopoly on education and polls indicate that more than 80% of parents will choose Christian schools -- and they'll be able to choose from a wide variety of higher-quality educational choices which a competitive Free Market will offer," Craig predicts.
"On the other hand," he warns, "government-imposed secular schools produce a secular culture in which abuse of property (crime) and abuse of drugs (addiction) always flourish. And the federal education budget under Republicans is now double what it was under Bill Clinton."
Craig cites a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case which held that government employees who take the oath to "support the Constitution" are implicitly supporting the nation's "organic law" as well, which includes the Northwest Ordinance and the Declaration of Independence. "Voting to increase the budget of an unconstitutional bureaucracy that rips religion and morality out of local public schools is a violation of one's oath of office," according to Craig.
"Socialism is a Sin"
Craig's website claims that "socialism is a sin," and that Roy Blunt's voting record is more socialist than Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an avowed Socialist. "Government expands at the expense of private property," Craig says, "and government confiscation of property is theft, a violation of the Eighth Commandment."
The Libertarian Party is widely acknowledged to be the most vocal critic of big government and defender of capitalism and free markets. It also appeals to Democrats with its strong advocacy of civil liberties.
This is Craig's second run against Roy Blunt, but he hopes that this year, in a mid-term election, with no chance for a Democrat victory, tens of thousands of Republicans will cross party lines and use their vote as a way of sending a message to Roy Blunt and Republican leadership to return to the Christian and libertarian values that made America great.
Libertarian Party Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives, MO-7th
Powersite, MO 65731-0179
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
In order to reach this voting bloc on my limited campaign budget, I need to get a little free publicity. I need something that grabs attention, even from the secular press.
How about a website called
Is it a SIN to vote for Roy Blunt.com
Before I send out a press release, your comments on this website would be appreciated.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Inside the envelope was a nice gold-embossed store-bought thank you card. I opened the card.
For some reason I immediately thought of the recent murder of Anna Politkovskaya, which puts the lie to claims of "glasnost" (openness) in the "former" Soviet Union.
As a strong critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, especially his repressive policies re: Chechnya, she was regarded by many as "the conscience of the nation."
This is a role that Russian society has long required in its public life, from the time of the Tsars through the Soviet period to the oil-state authoritarianism of today: some prominent figure to serve as a moral counterbalance to the ruthless machinations and arbitrary will of the ruling cliques. It has been filled by such people as Lev Tolstoy, Boris Pasternak, Anna Akhmatova, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner.Not that I'm anywhere near being in Politkovskaya's league, but rather that someone in Springfield -- perhaps someone who heard me speak at the Greene County Medical Society, or the Bethesda Retirement Community -- was grateful to hear my ideas, but afraid to identify him/herself as being in agreement, at least while being outside a "free speech zone."
Chris Floyd, "Red October: Killing the Truth in Moscow"
I tend to be paranoid. It was probably just an oversight. If you're reading this blog, "You're welcome."
Monday, October 09, 2006
Last week Ozarks Public Television broadcasted Bill Moyers' documentary on the Abramoff Scandal. Republican fund-raisers like Abramoff, Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist spoke of "family values" to those who opposed gambling, while working on behalf of Indian casinos, but not really working for the Indians as much as their own bank accounts. The Foley scandal reveals Republicans who talk about family values but subordinate those values to the political success of the Party.
Roy Blunt's Democratic opponent, Jack Truman, is star and director of the upcoming film "Son of a Stripper," who also produced a film called "Phone Sex Grandma," starring his mother. Truman will undoubtedly receive fewer votes than his more conservative 2004 Democrat predecessor, Jim Newberry.
Do conservative "homophobic" Christians have a defender of their values in Roy Blunt? Democrats think so. But the more discerning Christians have noticed that neither Bush nor Blunt have actually done as much work to counter homosexuals as they have to advance the "New World Order." Witness the amount of energy both invested in the passage of CAFTA, as opposed to their effort to pass a marriage amendment.
Bush and Blunt have also invested more effort in "No Child Left Behind," a totally unconstitutional program which is 180° opposite the promise Republicans made in 1996 when Blunt was first elected to Congress: Abolish the Federal Department of Education. Federal control of local schools is about as effective in stemming the tide of homosexual propaganda as federal levees in New Orleans. The number of children who are having their views shaped in favor of homosexuality by federally controlled schools vastly outweighs any contrary effect the Marriage Amendment would have had, as many perceptive Christians have noted.
When conservative Christians look at the Libertarian Party Platform, they might see a pro-homosexual agenda. When astute homosexual activists look at the same platform, they might well see a viciously anti-homosexual platform, because the LP platform strips away homosexuals' opportunity for government advocacy or indoctrination on behalf of homosexuality. George W. Bush's government schools are by far the biggest and most powerful weapon in the homosexual movement's arsenal.
Too many Missouri conservatives will be brainwashed by the Republican Party's toothless anti-homosexual rhetoric into voting for Republicans who promote government pro-homosexual indoctrination ("public schools") and molestation (Mark Foley) of children.
The libertarian platform takes away most of the power homosexuals have to impose their views on children, while leaving Christians freer than ever before to indoctrinate society in terms of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that homosexuality was a sin, contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Jefferson was the more liberal of America's Founders, advocating castration rather than execution for homosexuals. Kevin Craig is more liberal than Jefferson in terms of government response to homosexuals, but far more conservative when it comes to his commitment to the Bible. Call him "homophobic."
Voting Republican is voting for more Mark Foleys and for government-sponsored homosexual indoctrination at taxpayer expense. Voting libertarian is voting to remove the loudest homosexual megaphone ("public schools"), and giving the demographically powerful Christian base the liberty (and tax dollars) to restore a Christian nation.
The September 2006 edition of Whistleblower Magazine was headlined, "9-11: 5 Years Later, A Time for Truth." But it was, instead, a time for whitewashing. Kupelian wrote:
Stop and think. To believe that 9/11 was an "inside job," that it was accomplished with the blessing of the U.S. government, requires that you believe not only that George W. Bush is a demonically inspired, genocidal monster, but also that dozens and perhaps hundreds of other people in the government are likewise crazed mass-murdering psychopaths.Wrong question. The proper question is, "How can bright and intelligent Americans DO such things?" 9-11 is not what makes George W. Bush and hundreds, if not thousands of others, "crazed mass-murdering psychopaths." How about the assault on Iraq conducted by thousands of members of the Bush-Clinton regime, leaving two million dead and millions homeless?
How can bright and intelligent Americans believe such things?
On 60 Minutes in May 1996, Leslie Stahl asked Clinton’s UN Ambassador, Madeline Albright, point blank: “We have heard that a half million children have died [from the sanctions]. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?”
Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."
Thousands of people in Washington D.C. or deployed by Washington D.C. are able to kill more children than died in Hiroshima. Are they "crazed mass-murdering psychopaths?" How can they do such things?
Kupelian answered his own questions, if a few substitutions are made:
For one thing, when you're brainwashed from birth to believe Americans are the source of all good, you feel no need to examine your own life, culture, or religion. The natural need all humans have to understand right and wrong, to solve problems, to feel like they're good people, and so on, are all satisfied by the all-consuming quest for "national security" or "western hegemony." It's an almost perfect illusion.Not only can they commit a 9-11, but they believe with equal fanaticism that keeping that fact a secret from the American people is in the interests of "national security." It's all too easy for some "conspiracy theorists" to believe that there are people in Washington D.C. who thought that 9-11 would be "worth it."
Saturday, October 07, 2006
One key goal of this emerging North American Union is a borderless North America by 2010. This helps explain why the Bush administration is so insistent that Congress pass guest worker legislation this year. The goal of the elites who are constructing the North American Union is "temporary migrant worker programs expanded with full mobility of labor between the three countries in the next five years."
I would appreciate it if someone in Roy Blunt's District would send a letter to Rep. Blunt asking him if he will support this Resolution, and more importantly, relentlessly work to stop the Bush administration's construction of a North American Union under its "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" initiative with Mexico and Canada.
I live in Jo Anne Emerson's district, and mail to Blunt tends to be forwarded to the appropriate representative. I'd like to get some quotable soundbites from Blunt on this issue. Here is the contact page. You can call or send an email using the form. Make sure to say "I would like to hear back from you on this issue," or words indicating you're not just telling him what you think, but you want to get his opinion sent back to you. And if you get Blunt's position, post it in a comment on this blog. Thanks!
Outside Blunt's district? Send a letter to your own representative.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
That webpage purports to answer a "Myth" with a government "Fact."
Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.One problem with this government "fact" is the claim by then Prime Minister Paul Martin that "[O]n March 23, President Bush, President Fox and I signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that establishes the way forward on our continental agenda for security, prosperity and quality of life." [my emphasis] So whom should we believe: former Prime Minister Paul Martin, or the college intern who put together the SPP website?
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.
Earlier today I sent a note to the SPP webmaster asking this very question, citing the URL found in this webpage from Vive le Canada, which has this URL:
That webpage, as I write this, is now missing, and a patriot in California is huffing mad, accusing me of tipping off the SPP to a website that contradicts the SPP claim that nothing was "signed."
I think the webpage will be back online in the morning, after whatever late-night repairs on the server are completed. In case I'm wrong, I encourage readers to copy the print version of the page found here.
I don't believe that anything was "signed" back on March 23, 2005, despite the use of the word by Prime Minister Paul Martin. Signing something might require Senate confirmation (Art. II, §2 cl. 2). The modern trend of the New World Order is called "soft law" -- unsigned and even unwritten laws that advance the agenda of hemispheric integration without allowing Congress to exercise congressional oversight. Here are five articles explaining this legal revolution:     
Americans trust their incumbent Congressmen, and trust their government. This is unAmerican. We are not to trust government, but DIStrust it, and remain cynical and vigilant of government's claims. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1799:
Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.As you are reading this, a new government is being created which will overrule all laws and constitutions in the United States. The progress being made in this "soft revolution" will continue unabated regardless of whether or not anything was signed on March 23, 2005. We need representatives in Congress who will work to stop it.
Unfortunately, this issue is not on the political radar of most voters in 2006, and many important milestones in the creation of the North American Union are scheduled for completion in 2007, which will create political and legal inertia that will make it even more difficult to stop in 2008.
In the long run, humanity must reject Jefferson's claim that "we are obliged to trust [ANYONE] with power." The whole concept of political power must be repudiated if the human race is to survive.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Imagine the Devil's Workshop: the idle hands of a high-school dropout hanging out behind a grocery store. He picks up a can of spray paint and "tags" a palette of produce.
Is this an act of international terrorism? Is the intervention of Homeland Security called for?
Yes, says the Customs and Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). And Yes, says AMR Research, President Bush should take entire industries under his wing, as is in fact being done, regulating the Market -- effectively nationalizing industries -- with a sweep that would make Benito Mussolini and Hugo Chavez envious.
Granted, U.S. military presence in more than 100 nations is making recruiting for terrorism a breeze, and stirring up techno-vandals around the world, potentially more dangerous than our drop-out above. But do their numbers justify international socialism?
AMR shows that that the world of George Orwell is not wholly imposed from the top down; it also bubbles up from the bottom. Industry leaders and so-called "global capitalists" clamor for salvation from the State; the Free Market is crucified: "We have no market but Caesar!"
Don’t let the term “compliance” scare you — C-PAT offers great business benefits to those that do.Global Industry is being subsumed into the Messianic State, not by forcible imposition, but by the faithless desire on the part of industry for political salvation. Welcome to the Bush Regime's New World Order.
George W. Bush's pick for Transportation Secretary represents a major conflict-of-interest designed to spur the construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor -- a project in which Bush and his cronies are heavily invested. Last week, Bush nominated Mary Peters to replace Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Unlike Mineta, a former congressman who then became a Vice President of the aerospace defense giant Lockheed Martin, Peters comes out of the surface transportation industry. She is a vice president for the engineering firm HDR and co-vice chairman of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. From 2001 to 2005, Peters was the head of the Federal Highway Administration. Peters is also a former head of the Arizona Department of Transportation. Peters worked in the administration of disgraced GOP Governor Fife Symington, who was convicted of bank fraud and resigned from office. (Symington was later pardoned by his college friend, President Bill Clinton).
Peters' commitment to major "infrastructure development" of the nation's highways centers on the development of the North American SuperCorridor (NASCO) highway, of which the Tran-Texas Corridor will be a major component. Already, Bush crime syndicate cronies, including interests tied to Texas Governor Rick Perry, are purchasing property along the proposed Texas highway route at cut-rate prices, using "eminent domain" statutes to pay less than what private and commercial property is worth. The money for the massive land grab is coming from Saudi and Chinese sources, according to knowledgeable sources in Texas. The NASCO highway will cross 11 states: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois. It will also connect proposed Mexican super ports in Manzanillo, Mazatlan, and Lazaro Cardenas to various United States trucking and distribution super-hubs in San Antonio, Dallas, Kansas City, as well as one in Winnipeg in Canada. The Mexican ports will be receiving points for manufactured products from China. The theft of the Mexican presidency by conservative Felipe Calderon at the expense of populist leader Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was engineered to protect the sizeable investments the Bush crime cartel, including The Carlyle Group, and their Saudi and Chinese financiers have already sunk into the project.
New Transportation Secretary Mary Peters to ensure Bush
crime family super-highway projects proceed unimpeded.
Eventually, NASCO will be expanded as far south as Argentina by linking North America to Central America (Mexico-Central American Corridor and an improved Pan American Highway). The expensive tolls charged throughout the 10-lane super-highway system will be used to line the pockets of the Bush family well into the middle of the 21st century. Peters, as a highway and trucking industry shill, has been entrusted by the Bush crime cartel to ensure that the plans for NASCO and the Pan American Super Corridor proceed unimpeded. It is estimated that as many as 1 million Texans alone, many in rural and poor urban areas, could be displaced by the Trans-Texas Corridor.
Mary Peters at Transportation: Major responsibility is to
ensure roadblocks to North American SuperCorridor are eliminated.
[end WayneMadsen report]
Thomas DiLorenzo has shown that transportation in early America was privately financed, and "the idea that because of pervasive free-rider problems, it was supposedly necessary for the taxpayers to subsidize the building of roads, canals, and railroads" is false.
History shows that while governments did subsidize such “internal improvements,” most of them during the first half of the nineteenth century were privately financed. Moreover, in virtually every single instance where governments intervened to build roads, canals, and railroads during this period the result was corruption and financial debacle. It was because of such debacles that dozens of states eventually amended their constitutions to prevent taxpayer subsidies for internal improvements.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist -- reminiscent of those inspired by images of the 20-foot-tall Japanese after Pearl Harbor or the 20-foot-tall Communists at various points in the Cold War (particularly after Sputnik) -- may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists."They hate us for our freedoms" we have been told for the last five years. And in order to protect our freedoms, we have virtually abolished the Fourth Amendment, spent over $400 billion dollars, and seen more Americans killed and maimed in Iraq than we did in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on 9/11/01.
John Mueller, "Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?"
If we weigh the total costs of the Bush Administration -- to our wallets and to our Constitution -- with the risk of costs inflicted by al Qaeda, it seems undeniable that the Federal Government is a greater threat to our freedoms than "terrorism."
The number of Americans hurt in America by al Qaeda in the last five years (under near-martial law) is equal to the number of Americans hurt in America by al Qaeda in the five years prior to 9/11/01 (with far less government infringement of the Constitution): None.
What have we gained by the "War on Terrorism?" What have we lost?
We have gained a police state. We have lost a Constitution and the psychological freedom which exists in the absence of relentless government war-mongering propaganda and scare-tactics.
A similar analysis has to be done with environmental risks. It may cost an acceptable amount to remove 99% of pollutants, but the cost of removing the final one percent may require steps which are vastly more expensive than the removal of the first 99%. That cost may be unacceptable.
Prof. Mueller writes:
it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaedalike operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -- about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).What is the likelihood that your 4th Amendment freedoms have already been violated by the Federal Government? How much has al Qaeda taken out of your bank account, versus the amount taken by the Federal Government? How much productivity has America lost by time consumed by senseless and invasive Homeland Security regimentation?
America's biggest enemy, and the biggest threat to "the American way of life," is the Federal Government.
Monday, September 11, 2006
If Osama bin Laden (who, we are told, hates America because of our freedoms -- and our Western decadence) were to take over America, we would undoubtedly lose our freedom to take colognes, mouthwashes, and shampoos -- all designed to increase our Western decadence -- onto planes. Thanks to the government, this freedom has been . . . .
OK then, if Osama were to take over America, we wouldn't be able to hop on a plane and attend a business meeting in the next state, because we would have to pray to Mecca for an hour before leaving. But thanks to the government, we can quickly travel anywhere we . . . .
There are about 700 million "passenger enplanements" each year in America. If Homeland Security causes each one a one-hour delay on each flight, and each one produces/earns $18 an hour, the cost to our economy is $12.6 billion. That cost does not include the cost of creating that cost (TSA budget = $5 billion). TSA has been criticized for
Is the "cure" worse than the disease?
And did our doctors have a vested interest in creating threats of disease in order to increase the number of paying patients? A third of all Americans believe that the government could have prevented 9-11 if it wanted to. Believe that an airplane hit the Pentagon if you want, but don't believe that the government was surprised.
If you had hired exterminators to kill the termites, and shortly thereafter armies of termites kidnapped your children, would you re-hire those exterminators? Were dozens of government "security" officials fired after 9-11? Who has been held accountable for the failure of 9-11 and thereafter?
If Congress knew on Sept. 12, 2001 what it knows today, and had decided to take no action whatsoever -- no PATRIOT Act, no war authorization, no increase in airport security, and no effort to find Osama -- if we had not learned what the Bush Administration says are the "lessons of 9-11" -- would we have fewer freedoms today, or more freedoms? Would we be more safe, or less safe? Would there be less terrorist recruiting around the world, or more?
It seems to me that in every way our lives would be better if the government had taken no action after 9-11 to make our lives "better" and "safer."
The people of America are hard-working, and their products are coveted in every nation. The people of America are generous, and their charity is appreciated by hundreds of millions of the world's poor. But the government of the United States is a global bully, resented and feared around the world, and is creating a rich, fertile, organic potting soil for international terrorism.
Back when America was a Christian nation, we sent missionaries to every nation on earth. Today, under the religion of Secular Humanism, the secular American Empire sends armed centurions.
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said legislators should vote against any proposed legislation if
the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.Congress has approved legislation promoting global military hegemony and a police-state at home. This is a radically anti-Christian agenda. God will reward this agenda with more 9-11's.