Friday, July 14, 2006

The Republican Snowball

I originally published the following as a comment at Tom Degan's Daily Rant. in response to a commenter nicknamed "fenrir." I like it well enough that I thought I would give it its very own blog entry.

Without further ado:

fenrir said: Regarding the republican party, "A person may be to blame, but not the entire party..."

I say: That's like saying, "A mafia member may be to blame, but not the entire mafia."

We have to admit that certain organizations and/or political parties attract a certain element of humanity (for a variety of reasons, both good and bad). Over time, by bits and pieces, some of the more radical elements corrupt the original philosophy of those organizations/parties to fit their own whims. Some are for ridiculously self-serving, petty reasons, but which hurt no one else in the country (certain liberal elements); others are for authoritarian reasons, cloaked in a veil of patriotism, that definitely infringe on the rights of everyone else in the country (certain conservative elements). Eventually, those bits and pieces add up. Once that accumulation passes a certain point, as has happened in our Congress, there is a snowball effect, and the corruption takes on a life of its own. Eventually, there is a point of no return for that snowball, and one must admit that that particular organization/party is a lost cause.

Personally, I believe that has happened to the republican party. It started in the mid 1960s, as Tom states (maybe even a little of it during the "red scare" of the 1950s). By January 1981, with Reagan's presidency (actually, George H.W. Bush's vice presidency), the snowball was starting to get out of control. All hope for the party was lost in January 1995 (although this may not have been clear to everyone yet), with Newt Gingrich's republican "revolution" in Congress (even Nixon's White House counsel John Dean believes this, as did Barry Goldwater).

As I state in my previous comment, I wouldn't vote for a republican candidate now, or ever again, even if he or she was the reincarnation of Gandhi, because he or she could possibly allow the bad republicans to keep a majority of seats in either or both houses. I suspect that there are many other Americans who feel the same way, and the numbers are growing -- hence the republican need for hackable voting machines made by republican-dominated corporations. If the republican snowball keeps on expanding and destroying everything in its path, even some hardcore republican voters are going to abandon it. If you doubt me, here is a very shocking survey that might give you pause: John Birch Society. You cannot get more TRADITIONALLY conservative than the John Birch Society.

In my book, this means the republican party is lost, although it may take a long time for it to die out. When that day comes, traditional, honest conservatives will have to start a new party from scratch.

Thus the cycle goes on.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

I Smell A Rat

This is pretty simple math.

Israel has attacked Lebanon.

Israel seems to be threatening to attack Syria.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad has warned Israel not to attack Syria. This implies that he will send Iran's army to the aid of the Syrian army if Israel attacks it.

President Ahmadinejad is an extremely stupid person sometimes, almost as stupid as Usurper Bush. Usurper Bush's neocon handlers know this. Israel knows this. I'm willing to bet that both entities are taking full advantage of Ahmadinejad's stupidity, just as the final draft of their carefully written script requires. They are baiting the trap.

If -- When -- Iran's army comes to the aid of the Syrian army -- against "poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel (even though its army is larger than the armies of most of its neighbors combined; and even though it has nuclear weapons) -- Usurper Bush will insist to Congress that the United States must defend Israel at all costs. [There will be no explanation as to why we must defend Israel, since Israel has never -- in all of its history -- been of the slightest strategic or economic interest to the the United States, whatsoever. No oil exports, no food exports, no clothing exports, no U.S. military bases, nothing. Zilch.]

AIPAC (the staunchly pro-Israel lobbying group) will finally call in its markers and demand satisfaction from every member of the U.S. Congress, stating that it now expects repayment in full for the millions or billions of "campaign" dollars it has given them over the years. That satisfaction will naturally come in the form of Congress's approval of Usurper Bush's "purely altruistic" plan to invade Iran in order to "defend poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel.

The lapdog republican Congress then approves Usurper Bush's "purely altruistic" plan to invade Iran in order to "defend poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel.

Usurper Bush thus pulls an end run around all of his critics worldwide and finally gets a "legitimate" excuse to invade Iran after all. And Syria will even be thrown in as a bonus "enemy."

I smell a dirty, evil sewer rat -- or two. Is it possible that Israel's recent military overreaction was actually predesigned to ensure that the United States will get to attack Iran and Syria? Is it possible that that military overreaction is actually unrelated to a few dead or kidnapped Israeli soldiers?

It's too bad for the world that the United States is so short of troops these days. One can imagine the excessive slobber, from overactive salivary glands, that is even now dripping down the chins of Usurper Bush and his neocon handlers as visions of invasion and/or nuclear bombs explode in their heads.

[Update: 07-17-06: It appears that my theorizing above (from four days ago) may have been completely correct. Read this (making sure to note that the article continues below the video "screen"): Danny Schechter: The WWIII Meme.]

Disgusting Hypocrisy & Double Standards

1.) -----

I'm opposed to the invasion and brutal occupation of Tibet by China and the systematic genocide they have been conducting there since 1950. I even saw the Dali Lama in person a few years ago.

"I'm with you all the way, man."

2.) -----

I was opposed to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait back in 1990, even though I found out later it was because Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil by drilling at a slant into Iraqi territory. Iraq warned Kuwait several times to stop, but Kuwait didn't listen.

"Yeah, that was a pretty despicable act on Iraq's part. I didn't know Kuwait was doing that stuff, though."

3.) -----

I was totally and violently opposed to the imprisonment and murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis in World War II and the subsequent theft of their property and wealth. One of my favorite movies of all time is Escape from Sobibor.

"Yes, that's one of the worst crimes in the history of the human race."

4.) -----

I was opposed to Serbians killing Muslim civilians in a genocidal manner in Kosovo and Bosnia and then taking their land merely because many residents in those provinces wanted independence and were willing to fight for it.

"That was really horrible. I agree with you."

5.) -----

I was opposed to the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor a few years ago.

"So was I. I'm glad the UN forced the Indonesians out and allowed East Timor to become an independent nation."

6.) -----

I am opposed to the mass genocide and eviction by the Sudanese government of the minority inhabitants of the Darfur region merely because a few Darfur rebels fought for more rights. The government is now using it as an excuse to take their land and kill them off.

"Yes, it's sickening. I cannot believe we are doing so little to stop it from happening."

7.) -----

I am totally opposed to the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq (and the theft of their future oil rights) by the United States.

"Yeah, I've been protesting that one myself. Bush and Cheney used non-Iraqi terrorists as a weak excuse to invade that country."

8.) -----

I'm absolutely sickened by the right-wing christian takeover of the republican party.

"Yeah, those religious nuts need to keep their noses out of our government. They're destroying our democracy."

9.) -----

I am opposed to Israel's systematic mass imprisonment and murder of Palestinian civilians (including women and children) and the blatant theft of land that the Palestinians have owned for thousands of years.

"You disgusting, anti-Semitic, neo-nazi piece of trash."

I see... So what you're saying is that Israel isn't like all the rest of the countries I just mentioned. Instead, it is allowed to perpetrate crimes against humanity -- and no one, including the press, is allowed to identify them as crimes -- simply because most Israelis are Jewish? How come I'm not anti-christian for my opposition to the Serbian and U.S. invasions of Muslim territories? How come I'm not anti-christian due to my disgust with right-wing christians who are taking over our government? Or, if even if I did happen to be anti-christian, how come that's OK with you? How come I'm not anti-Muslim for my opposition to the Sudanese government's practice of genocide in Darfur and the Indonesian government's occupation of catholic East Timor? How come I'm not considered pro-Semitic and anti-Nazi for my total condemnation of the Nazi holocaust of World War II?

"Hmmm, I didn't think of it that way."

Yes, I know. From now on, please stop with the hypocrisy and double standards. No nation, including Israel, has the right to hide behind its predominant religion -- no matter what that religion is -- in order to commit its own atrocities. And no one should be demeaned and condemned for exposing those atrocities for what they are.

[Inspired by Israel's recent attacks on civilian targets in Gaza and Lebanon, no matter what their excuse might be.]

Sunday, July 09, 2006

Framing Isn't Just a Foreign Affair

Darn that Gene Lyons! The famous mainstream editorialist has just ruined my day -- actually my foreseeable future -- by stating a possible conspiracy theory that is just too feasible -- or rather, too scary -- to contemplate (and I never used to be the paranoid type). I'm almost glad that I hadn't thought of it myself at some point in the past, at least not in such concrete terms. When even mainstream journalists start to think such thoughts, then one can only imagine the depths to which our government has sunk. [Off-topic note: Lyons also puts into perfect words why I despise The New York Times -- most of the time.]

Plan A, Part 1: U.S. Imperialism to "Fight Terror" (with Collateral Profits)
The Bush/Cheney Regime has stretched the U.S. military to the limit in that tiny postage stamp of a country known as Iraq. In doing so, it has re-revealed to the world the "soft underbelly" of our superpower status (it was originally revealed in Vietnam). As a result of this over stretching, it has now become somewhat impractical for them to try to frame some other Middle Eastern nation for a future "terrorist" attack within the U.S., although they certainly seem to be trying lately with all the "successfully foiled" terrorist "plots" (some of which have been attributed to poor, young American men -- keep that in mind -- who have neither the means nor the know-how to blow up massive skyscrapers). In essence, the Pentagon no longer has enough military personnel or taxpayer money with which to wreak "vengeance" upon yet another oil-producing nation (Usurper Bush has, according to inside sources, actually considered using nuclear weapons on Iran because of his lack of other options). In short, the Bush/Cheney Administration cannot attack any newly framed "transgressor nation" without partially or wholly abandoning its ill-gotten gains in the previously framed "transgressor nation" -- Iraq. [Some of us predicted this over stretching way back in early 2003.]

Plan A, Part 2: U.S. Dictatorship to "Protect Us from Terror"
There is more to the Bush/Cheney agenda than U.S. imperialism. They are also power hungry here at home (as if you needed me to tell you that). According to "Plan A", "foreign terror threats" are supposed to be the necessary excuse for increased domestic authority and decreased democracy. But what if they can no longer afford to use "foreign terrorists" as their primary excuse to abolish the U.S. Constitution? How, then, will they continue their dictatorial power grab here at home (and avoid war-crimes trials and hard prison time)? Well, there is always Plan B (which they might have been considering doing all along, anyway).

Plan B: U.S. Dictatorship to "Protect Us from Terror" (Revised)
Gene Lyons has provided me with a possible missing piece of a puzzle that I have been trying to assemble for some time now. It appears that Bush/Cheney might not have to rely solely on "foreign terrorists" to accomplish their domestic goals. Lyons concludes his most recent editorial with this unpleasant thought:

"Reasonable people never want to believe that extremists [radical conservatives and neocons] believe their own rhetoric. But quit kidding yourselves. This is mass psychosis. The next terrorist strike, should it happen, will be blamed on the enemy within: treasonous "liberals" who dissent from the glorious reign of George W. Bush. Unless confronted, it's through such strategems that democracies fail and constitutional republics become dictatorships."

You scoff at such a theory? I sincerely, with all my heart, hope you are right; however, as I remember it, it was an American (a gung-ho, flag-waving veteran of the first Gulf War) who was captured, tried and executed for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (even though the FBI and local police confirmed to Oklahoma City TV stations that bombs were planted inside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, and that they had even successfully defused two of them).

Maybe, as I have imagined all along, "treasonous liberals" are the motivating factor behind these things... For months, I've been trying to figure out what excuse the government would use to start filling them. Lyons has provided me with a possible answer.

Am I getting a little too carried away here? Probably. The losers in the White House don't have much credibility left to accomplish much of anything, and if they had any credibility, they wouldn't be concerned with liberals. But, hey, as I say, it has finally come to the point that I am keeping company with famous mainstream media journalists, as far as paranoia goes. That's not an insignificant thing for me.

Friday, July 07, 2006

Illegal Immigration Finally Costs Mexico Dearly

In a recent entry entitled, The Double-Standard Test, I wrote the following analogy regarding Mexico, the United States and millions of illegal Mexican immigrants:

Imagine two lifeboats on the open sea. Both are filled to capacity with passengers... The first boat suddenly springs a slow leak. It may well be moral and instinctual for some of the passengers in the second boat to invite the passengers from the first boat to join them [in spite of the fact that the passengers from the first boat are already inviting themselves into the second boat], but is it realistic? Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible for all concerned in both boats if those passengers in the first boat took some initiative and fixed the leak instead of abandoning their boat?

Well, the consequences of abandoning their "lifeboat" -- and not helping to fix that "leak" -- has finally come back to haunt the millions of illegal Mexican immigrants who chose to abandon their native land to its fate. The following quote is from an excellent editorial entitled, Anatomy of a Fraud Foretold, by John Ross (published at CounterPunch):

One of the IFE's [the Mexican "Federal Electoral Institute's"] more notorious accomplishments in this year's presidential elections was to engineer the non-vote of Mexicans in the United States, an effort that resulted in the disenfranchisement of millions of "paisanos" living north of the Rio Bravo. Undocumented workers were denied absentee ballot applications at consulates and embassies and more than a million eligible voters were barred from casting a ballot because their voter registration cards were not up to date and the IFE refused to update them outside of Mexico. Untold numbers of undocumented workers who could not risk returning to Mexico for a minimum 25 days to renew their credentials were denied the franchise the IFE was sworn to defend. The PRD insists that the majority of undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. would have cast a ballot for Lopez Obrador.

I hate to say, "I told you so."

Well, no, actually I don't hate to say it... "I told you so."

The presidential vote in Mexico was very close ("closeness" being the preferred smokescreen tactic of republicans in the U.S. who wish to cover their own vote stealing in countless elections). If illegal Mexican immigrants had remained in their own country and had worked for change, there might have been a president there now who would have tried to improve conditions in Mexico dramatically (or at least until he was assassinated by the CIA, etc.). Even conservative Lou Dobbs of CNN, who clearly doesn't like Socialists, appeared to admit as much. Instead, thanks to fraudulent elections, aided and abetted by millions of absent Mexican voters illegally living in this country, Mexico will get another cohort/puppet of the Bush Administration (as is Vicente Fox), and the newly revealed plans for a North American Union, whose government would likely have the authority to countermand decisions made by our own government (thereby nullifying huge portions of the U.S. Constitution -- any idealists reading this should remember that fact if they think a union is a good thing, as I once did) is one step closer to reality.

Footnote: Make no mistake. If Bush is in favor of an American Union, then it cannot possibly be for the good of the citizens of any of our countries, but rather it is for the convenience of his own puppet masters' authoritarian goals and for the unlimited profits of global corporations (puppet masters and corporations probably being one and the same).

Here is video proof that I am not just making this up:

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Yet Again... Do I Dare to Hope?

Although the federal government is desperately short of that element of humanity known as "good guys," we now at least have an extremely solid legal basis for the prosecution of the members of the Bush Administration for war crimes. Amazingly, the legal groundwork for this prosecution was laid by yet another criminal organization, the very organization that illegally installed this future war criminal as president back in December 2000: The Supreme Court of the United States. Read on:
Supreme Court: Bush Administration Has Committed War Crimes

...What has been largely missed is the clear point that the Supreme Court has now declared that for the past five years, Bush and his gang of war-mongers, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State and former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, former Attorney General Donald Rumsfeld and current Attorney General and former White House Chief Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and many others in the administration, have been guilty of violating the Third Convention on treatment of prisoners of war. They are also, therefore, in violation of federal law, which back in 1996 adopted that convention as part of the U.S. criminal code. [Read the rest here.]

Monday, July 03, 2006

Do I Dare to Hope?

I'm trying to restrain myself...

And not to hold my breath...

Could something really be happening?!


"RFK Jr., Florida Law Firm to File Federal Whistleblower Suits Against Two Voting Machine Companies!

"First Case to be Filed Next Week, According to Attorneys Scheduled to Meet with U.S. Dept. of Justice Officials This Week."

Read the rest here.

Yes, maybe this is a very small step; but it is at least one taken in the right direction, finally. One step in the right direction is better than standing still facing the wrong direction (RFK Jr. just needs to be very careful for the next few weeks).

Please watch this excellent 35-minute video:

Votergate - The Presidential Election Special Edition (Election Fraud)

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Truth and Laughter

I laughed out loud at when I read the name of a particular U.S. demographic group for the first time just moments ago. It is mentioned in Max Udargo's Blog. Below are just the first two paragraphs of that blog, which was written in early May but has not lost any of its impact on me:

"President Bush appears to be losing support among a key group of voters who had hitherto stood firmly with the president even as his poll numbers among other groups fell dramatically.

"A new Gallup poll shows that, for the first time, Bush’s approval rating has fallen below 50% among total fucking morons, and now stands at 44%. This represents a dramatic drop compared to a poll taken just last December, when 62% of total fucking morons expressed support for the president and his policies..." (Read the rest here.)