Wednesday, July 04, 2012

What, Really, is Patriotism?

Since at least the 1950s conservatives have been determined to force us (what an irony in "the land of the free") to return to the "way things used to be" in this country, with "traditional values" of patriotism, flag waving, mindless, unquestioning devotion to every whim and desire of their favorite [republican] leaders, blah, blah, blah. However, democrats are no better. In fact, they may even be worse, for they believe in mindless, unquestioning devotion to every whim and desire of their favorite [democrat/socialist/communist] leaders, as they lead us into a grim, poverty-stricken, politically correct, socialist/fascist/police-state future. I would like people on both sides to think about that as they read the following timeless editorial by Margaret Deland (1857-1945). As you read it, please keep in mind that it was published 90 years ago this month -- smack dab in the center one of those eras to which you would have us return -- in The Ladies’ Home Journal. I think this editorial, which I have loved since I first discovered it twenty years ago, is especially timely in the 21st century, as most Americans have been watching in stunned disbelief as the Bush and Obama Administrations slowly attempt to destroy our Constitutional freedoms, and call true American patriots "terrorists" because they dare to question and/or expose the criminal (nay, evil) activities of these truly sick and twisted administrations.

Some of you may not consider it an "easy" read in certain places. Please don't let that deter you from reading all of it, for it really packs a punch:

-----

What, Really, Is Patriotism?
By Margaret Deland
July 1916

I might as well confess at once that I would not drink to Decatur’s toast: “Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong!” On the contrary, I believe of my native land, when it comes to toasts, that they

“… best honor her
Who honor in her only what is best.”

And yet I do not think I am one of those persons with

“… soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!”

But whether I may be called patriotic depends upon what patriotism, in a democracy, means. Does it involve the abrogation of individual judgment and, coincidentally, individual conscience? Is a man unpatriotic who refuses to support his nation with voice and sword when, in his judgment, she is doing wrong? Is he patriotic when he does so support her? The definition of the word patriotism does not answer these questions; the dictionary sums it up in those master words of human life — love and service: “Patriotism: Love of country; the passion inspiring one to serve one’s country.” But this only removes the difficulty by one step, because of course the question arises, what do we mean by “country”?

The eagle screams, or the lion roars; the citizen boasts; the tourist sees his colors in a foreign land, and his throat tightens — all for love of — something. The train full of Americans who swarmed out of their cars in Germany a year ago last August [1914, the start of World War I], to stand on the platform of a railroad station and, reaching up trembling hands, touch the American flag, the tears wet upon their faces, loved and were ready to serve — something. Just what is it that rouses such poignantly true emotion?

Of course it is not the land — the earth; not

“… thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills.”

Is it, then, the people who dwell in the land? It appears not, because the man who so loves his country that he would die for her has not the slightest impulse to die for an unknown fellow citizen. The woman who wept when she touched the flag never dreams of serving her next-door neighbor. No one would say of any other individual, merely because he was a fellow countryman: “This person, right or wrong! I will love and serve this man, or even this group of men, whose course is opposed to all I call right.”

“Country,” then, is not the land, nor the people who live in it — the good, bad, stupid, vulgar folk all about us — ourselves, in fact. And if patriotism does not mean love and service of the people of the nation, it cannot mean love and service of the nation of people — the aggregation of fellow citizens. If they were all blotted out but one man, his country would remain!

Now the only things in the world which always remain, which cannot be annihilated, and to which a man may dedicate himself, his soul and body, in reasonable and living sacrifice, are ideas. So I think that, in its last analysis, country, to any man, of any nation, is an idea. It prompts to deeds — golden deeds of courage and self-sacrifice and aspiration; and, as the years and generations pass, these deeds build themselves into that vast edifice of nationality, rounded with the dome of many-colored glass, in which the spirits of men are sheltered.

It is interesting to see how, under each nation, lies its own idea — good or bad — its cornerstone for the edifice of life. The very old nations are permanent only as their ideas are permanent: China continues to be China because of ancestor worship; India, broken into bits, invaded and conquered by another nation, coheres and is still India because of the idea of caste. The idea that has made England England is liberty; and until liberty is dead England will live. In the delirium of 1792 old France died with the ceasing of its old ideas — and a new idea, Equality, was born. The idea of the United States is Democracy.

If we concede country to be, not us, with our blunders and trivialities and egotisms, but the idea that has made us a nation, it seems to me possible for a man to call himself patriotic and yet repudiate the conduct of his countrymen. That is what a certain English officer did at the time of the Boer War. He was one of many Englishmen who thought England wrong — so wrong that he did his best to thwart her wicked purpose, to save her from herself. He entered the Boer Army. That last is unthinkable to me; I could refuse to fight for my nation, but I could not fight against her; her soul might go; perhaps she might be spiritually dead; but to fight her would be like striking a dead face which once I had kissed! Yet certainly it took courage for this soldier to turn his sword against England; it took love; it meant service. And, also, it meant the utmost arrogance of judgment. The mugwump is always arrogant — the group mind says so. When the single fish swims against the school no doubt all the rest of the fish say, “Bosh!” and call him a traitor; but who can say that the perverse and conceited minnow may not have, somewhere in his dim brain, a vision to which he dare not be disobedient? I don’t mean to deduce from this that the rebel is necessarily a patriot; he is just as apt, perhaps more apt, to be a self-seeker. But certainly the patriot is sometimes a rebel.

History is full of passionate minnows who in their agony of conscience earn, while they are alive, the name “traitor,” and when they die are called “Patriot.” Charles Fox was patriotic when, loving liberty, he denounced the English Government for its attempt to coerce the American Colonies, and was called an enemy of England. Zola was patriotic when he cried out, “I accuse!” — and instantly, with “A bas Zola!” the people, in a hurricane of rage, roared hatred of the traitor and denial of the creating idea of France — Equality. As for our idea — that idea for which

“… the embattl’d farmers …
… fired the shot heard round the world” —

when we, the people, have trailed it in the dust of apish imitation of the undemocracy of foreign countries, of commercial selfishness, of cheap Fourth-of-July militarism, there have always been single voices crying in the wilderness, single “traitors” who bade us remember our inheritance from the fathers and save our soul (which is Democracy) alive! We have done our best to stifle these patriots, even to the extent of dragging them through the streets of Boston with ropes about their necks. Yet in spite of such things, in spite of us, and our betraying majorities, America’s creating idea still survives, and is something to love and serve, to live and die for!

Of course the “betraying” majorities” — or what I like to call the Group Mind — brings to the individual mind puzzling questions about duty. I suppose that in every national crisis men ask themselves whether patriotism means loyalty to parties and governments. If it does, then, as Johnson said, patriotism may be the last refuge of a scoundrel. Faithfulness to country must sometimes involve unfaithfulness to countrymen. The patriot must denounce the government when he thinks it betrays the creating idea; he may even refuse to serve it. If he does otherwise; if, seeing what he thinks is right, he pursues the wrong — if “Faith, unfaithful, keeps him falsely true” — then he is loyal, not to country, not to principles, but to persons; for parties and majorities are only persons. It is that kind of loyalty—that small conception of patriotism — which has wrought evil and suffering in the world, and is the deep cause and root of the awful irrationality called war.

So I come back to my belief that Decatur’s speech is an insult to intelligence and morality, and that his patriotism was no deeper than his wine glass! I believe of

THE PATRIOT AND HIS COUNTY —
Lover he is, and slave without wage!
On bended knee he takes her high command
And on his heart he wears her glowing gage —
Memories, and hopes, and deaths from her dear hand.

But should her lips betray her mighty past,
Deny his Dead their deaths for Liberty,
Shame the unborn, put first what should be last —
Her Lover loves me no more! Her slave is free!

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Obama Speech - Teleprompter Goes Out

Here is a timeless classic that I just found, two days after posting my previous entry.

Monday, March 09, 2009

Obama Retains Another of Bush's Evil Dictatorial Powers

ITYS ... YA:
Supreme Court urged to drop enemy combatant case
Yahoo! News, Wed Mar 4, 6:00 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Wednesday renewed its request that the Supreme Court ... not rule on whether a president can indefinitely detain terror suspects in the United States. ... [Click here to read the rest.]
Aw, but it's completely okay if Obama does this sort of thing, because, unlike Larry Moe Curly Soprano-Bush, Obama is civilized and sophisticated and liberal. Right? Evil isn't evil if the leaders committing it are civilized and sophisticated and liberal and supposedly photogenic and supposedly charismatic and supposedly intellectual.

And it doesn't hurt if they are also able to read meaningless rhetoric off of a teleprompter in a supposedly appealing, mesmerizing and inspiring manner.

Oh, and the perpetrators of these evil-for-the-sake-of-good acts must only be members of the U.S. federal government (or members of American law enforcement agencies, or members of foreign governments that have the U.S. government's temporary blessing), because U.S. leaders are the duly self-appointed "good guys"; and the duly self-appointed "good guys" are always allowed to commit evil acts if they are spun as "good causes." Besides, they have been trained (by their very own agencies, mind you) to know "the difference" between "justifiable" and unjustifiable evil far better than anyone outside the U.S. government could ever hope to grasp "the difference."

Yep, that's "hope" and "change," all right. If only I had known that Obama wasn't using those words in the same sense(s) that the dictionary defines them, I might not have been so skeptical about him during the presidential campaign. Well..., Actually, I would have, because every carefully selected presidential candidate is merely a temporary PR manager for a permanently entrenched power elite (aka unelected bureaucracy) that never changes its policies.

Great Question

"All the hardcore, Jim Jones kool-aid drinking Obama supporters never really cared about ending the wars. They just wanted a Democrat to micromanage them. Obama has made it abundantly clear his policies are no different than Bush's. So why then, did all these Obamabots hate Bush so much?" ••• JesseKantstopolis, who wrote it as a comment on this excellent YouTube video on March 4, 2009.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Driving Over the Cliff

By Paul Craig Roberts
CounterPunch

...To whose agenda is President Obama being hitched? Writing in the English language version of the Swiss newspaper, Zeit-Fragen, Stephen J. Sniegoski reports that leading figures of the neocon conspiracy--Richard Perle, Max Boot, David Brooks, and Mona Charen--are ecstatic over Obama’s appointments. They don’t see any difference between Obama and Bush/Cheney.

Not only are Obama’s appointments moving him into an expanded war in Afghanistan, but the powerful Israel Lobby is pushing Obama toward a war with Iran.

The unreality in which he US government operates is beyond belief. A bankrupt government that cannot pay its bills without printing money is rushing headlong into wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, the cost to the US taxpayers of sending a single soldier to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq is $775,000 per year!

Obama’s war in Afghanistan is the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. After seven years of conflict, there is still no defined mission or endgame scenario for US forces in Afghanistan. When asked about the mission, a US military official told NBC News, “Frankly, we don’t have one.” NBC reports: “they’re working on it.”

Speaking to House Democrats on February 5, President Obama admitted that the US government does not know what its mission is in Afghanistan and that to avoid “mission creep without clear parameters,” the US “needs a clear mission.”

How would you like to be sent to a war, the point of which no one knows, including the commander-in-chief who sent you to kill or be killed? How, fellow taxpayers, do you like paying the enormous cost of sending soldiers on an undefined mission while the economy collapses?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. [Read the rest here.]

Obama's Justice Department backs Bush secrecy on renditions suit

Stephen C. Webster
Published: Monday February 9, 2009
RawStory.com

An attorney for President Obama's Department of Justice has told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it supports the Bush administration's controversial state secrets defense in a lawsuit over the prior president's "extraordinary rendition" program. [Read the rest here.]

Thursday, February 05, 2009

35 Inconvenient Truths

The errors in Al Gore’s movie.

Published by the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Click here to read those 35 inconvenient truths. People who are truly open minded (aka "interested in the truth, not political correctness," will have no fear of clicking that link (as well as the one below). I was entirely on Al Gore's side until I built up my courage and did my own investigating.

If that isn't enough for you, then watch this excellent documentary produced by Britain's Channel 4 Television: The Great Global Warming Swindle (not your typical "loony conspiracy-theorist" gang, eh?).

Obama, of course, is continuing the lie.

Obama to Overthrow a U.S. Puppet?

Eric Margolis
Contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada
February 3, 2009

Washington is rife with rumors that the Obama administration plans to dump the US-installed president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, and replace him by one of four CIA-groomed candidates. The problem is, three new stooges won’t be any better than one old stooge.

London is warning Washington both against a precipitous change of regime in Kabul that would be widely viewed as crass political manipulation. ...

Obama’s dismaying eagerness to expand the war demonstrates political inexperience and a faulty grasp of events in Afghanistan. ... The Afghan War will have to be ended by a political settlement that includes the Taliban-led nationalist alliance that represents over half of Afghanistan’s population, the Pashtun people. There is simply no purely military solution to this grinding conflict – as even the Secretary General of NATO admits.

But instead of diplomacy, the new administration elected to stick its head ever deeper into the Afghan hornet’s nest. The bill for an intensified war will likely reach $4 billion monthly by midyear at a time when the United States is bankrupt and running on borrowed money from China and Japan. ...

Why is President Obama, who came to power on an antiwar platform, committed to expanding a war where there are no vital US interests? Oil is certainly one reason. The proposed route for pipelines taking oil and gas from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea coast run right through Taliban-Pashtun territory. ...

The US and its allies cannot be seen to be defeated by a bunch of Afghan tribesmen. Coming after the epic defeat in Vietnam and the trillion-dollar fiasco in Iraq, defeat in Afghanistan is simply unthinkable to the military-industrial-petroleum-financial complex that still seems to be calling many of the shots in Washington. [Click here to read the rest.]

Monday, February 02, 2009

Obama Continues Crime of CIA Rendition

The role of the CIA's controversial prisoner-transfer program may expand, intelligence experts say.

By Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times
February 1, 2009


Reporting from Washington -- The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

[Read the rest.]

Friday, January 30, 2009

Already - Three Promises Broken (at the very least)

My own commentary follows the four news clips.
----------
Obama airstrikes kill 22 in Pakistan
The Sunday London Times, January 25, 2009
Islamabad is the first to get a taste of the president’s ‘tough love’ policy. ... The airstrikes were authorised under a covert programme approved by Obama, according to a senior US official.
----------
US pours cold water over hopes of Iran deal
The London Times, January 30, 2009
The White House warned Iran last night that military action is still one of its options despite the "hand of friendship" offered by President Obama.
----------
In America, Speaking the Truth is a Career-Ending Event
Counterpunch, January 26, 2009
Paul Craig Roberts
The Bush regime was a lawless regime. This makes it difficult for the Obama regime to be a lawful one. A torture inquiry would lead naturally into a war crimes inquiry. General Taguba said that the Bush regime committed war crimes. President Obama was a war criminal by his third day in office when he ordered illegal cross-border drone attacks on Pakistan that murdered 20 people, including 3 children. The bombing and strafing of homes and villages in Afghanistan by US forces and America's NATO puppets are also war crimes. Obama cannot enforce the law, because he himself has already violated it.
----------
CounterPunch, January 23, 2009
By Ron Jacobs (retitled by MW of Palitone Press)
...Since he was elected, Mr. Obama has hedged on this promise [to bring the troops home from Iraq]. Since he was inaugurated, the Pentagon and its civilian boss, Robert Gates, have hedged even more. Now, they insist, US troops should remain. ... Even if Barack Obama overrides the Pentagon and Mr. Gates ... there will still be around fifty thousand US troops in Iraq. This is because Obama's call to bring all troops home from Iraq that began his campaign somehow morphed into a call to bring home only those troops determined to be "combat troops."
----------
I Told You So
Palitone Press, January 25-30, 2009
For those of us who stand outside the pathetic sham that is American two-party politics and study it objectively, the future under the faux intellectual, Barack Obama, and his cabinet of warmongers is ENTIRELY predictable (almost as if we are reading directly from "the establishment's" game plan — which, basically, we are). But trying to point this out to Americans who unquestioningly believe in that sham is like trying to talk sense to members of a cult who are excessively arrogant and self-righteous due to their cult's long history and almost universal acceptance.

The first time you try to convince members of this cult to, at the very least, investigate objectively all cult leaders — including their favorite ones — in order to discover that they are all frauds, the "cultists" look at you with smiles (or frowns) of supreme condescension, as if you are either a harmless, but deluded, blasphemer or a potential nuisance. If you continue to try to convince them, they will become annoyed and ignore you. If you persist beyond that, they will become openly hostile and shut you out completely. No amount of rational debate or proof is going to convince them to doubt their favorite leaders or their own deeply ingrained, highly partisan perceptions of reality. To them, the phrase, "open-minded, scholarly investigation," is just a trick to get them to read the "loony, biased opinions of deluded fringe groups."

"Luckily," the newest cult leader (Obama) has already started to break his promises to his devoted cultists (even if they refuse to see it), as we tried to tell them he would. Severe disillusionment among his followers is predicted for the not-too-distant future. This I welcome, as disillusionment often leads to a recognition, once and for all, that American two-party politics is, indeed, a sham — a sinister sham.

Update: According to the January 26, 2009, edition of the London Daily Mail, Fifteen percent of Americans appear to have become disillusioned with Obama already. Contrary to what most Obama supporters may think, I think these people have given him more than a fair chance. He just blew it in record time. However, I realize that he has promises to keep to the sleazy establishment that put him in the presidency. Making promises to them is like making promises to the Mafia. You break them at your own risk. That is the sham that is two-party politics.

P.S. Of course, it is always possible (actually, highly probable) that millions of liberals will either deny, ignore and/or justify Obama's broken promises throughout his entire presidency, just as millions of fanatical conservatives continued to deny, ignore and/or justify Bush's actions throughout his entire presidency. As always, in such cases, the permanent beneficiary is our massive, increasingly Orwellian federal government, that continues to function like clockwork, regardless of party.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

The More Things "Change" ...

London Times Online
January 23, 2009
President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'

Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W. Bush has not changed. ... locals also said that three children lost their lives. [Read the rest.]
Update 1 of 2, 8:38 AM, January 24, 2009:
Obama Dips His Hands in Blood
Posted by Lew Rockwell at 07:28 AM
Obama seemed like a decent guy, but as president, he has no hesitation in killing a group of people in Pakistan, including three little children. But what is murder in the private "sector is just public policy for the state, and Obama is head of state, so he wields his terrible, swift Predator on people he doesn't know, and of whom he knows nothing. During the campaign, he famously said that if missiles were endangering his daughters, he would "do anything" to stop them. Think anyone else feels the same way? (Via Antiwar.com)
Update 2 of 2, 8:38 AM, January 24, 2009:

I say: Obama "finally" has some innocent blood on his hands; and he even broke international law to accomplish it too. What an enlightened soul.

Of course, like most war criminals Obama can always say, "I was only following orders."

However, if he really believes that then he didn't need to run for president in the first place, because he knew what he was getting himself into. If he didn't know from the beginning, then it should have become abundantly clear by the time he was the sole remaining democratic presidential nominee.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Amidst All the Lies... A Hint of Truth...

Finally!

"The Lying Warmonger Times" (aka The New York Times) has published a tiny hint of truth, in which they "finally" expose a certain group of liars (while mostly absolving or feigning ignorance regarding the third -- and, by far, guiltiest -- party in the conspiracy). This group of liars has turned my stomach every time I've seen their smug faces on TV for the past five and a half years. Here is just a brief bit of that "tiny hint of truth":
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay... The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo...

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance... Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air... Collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants...

The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation. These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated...
Click here to read the rest.

Thankfully, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com discusses the third guilty party to which I refer above (I've added the bold emphasis):
In 2002 and 2003, when Americans were relentlessly subjected to their commentary, news organizations were hardly unaware that these retired generals were mindlessly reciting the administration line on the war and related matters. To the contrary, that's precisely why our news organizations -- which themselves were devoted to selling the war both before and after the invasion by relentlessly featuring pro-war sources and all but excluding anti-war ones -- turned to them in the first place...
I could see from the very start (long before the war started) that the media was doing this. So why, then, were the majority of Americans unwilling and/or unable to see it? It was so blatantly obvious! Is it, in part, because they have been subjected for the past sixty years to too many blindly patriotic, mindless movies featuring such "kill-them-first-and-ask-questions-later" stars as John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Steven Seagal? Is it because, in their blind rage, they wanted to get revenge on someone, anyone, no matter who the guilty parties involved really are? This is a question that has caused me no end of intense frustration for the past five and a half years.

In my opinion, the CORPORATE media (for what corporations wouldn't manipulate the output of what they consider to be their very own "PR departments"?) is, by far, the guiltiest of all three guilty parties.

Why are they the guiltiest?

Because if they had been doing their jobs for the past eight years (actually, the past 95 years), we wouldn't have this sort of government (which is quickly approaching fascist) and this nearly unfixable economic, diplomatic and military mess in which we are now mired. Nor would we have the small group of handpicked, corporate stooges that run for president every four years, thus ensuring that the bad guys are never replaced, and our criminal foreign policy is always seen as "just and decent."

Why again is the media the guiltiest of the three?

Because, due to their willful complicity in all of this unconstitutional mess, most Americans of the 21st century are not only uninformed and filled with incredibly stubborn, misplaced pride (and excessively hedonistic desires), but are also stupider than fence posts. We have the media to thank for our idiotically mindless -- and depressingly unconstitutional -- brand of patriotism more than we do the government or those traitorous retired generals.

P.S. Of course, our horribly federalized, completely shallow, politically and "patriotically" correct (to a fanatical degree), incompetent educational system has primed all of us to be completely receptive to the lies (and hedonistic pleasures) broadcast by the CORPORATE media. I worked in that federalized educational system for five years and saw it first hand!

P.P.S. And, no, I don't believe in religious-based local education either. That warps most people just as badly as does the federal education system.

Monday, November 19, 2007

For the Sake of Our Nation, Do the Unthinkable

I am returning to this blog after a very long absence. Why? Because I consider it my duty to my country. I don't make that sort of a clichéd patriotic statement very often since it has been so horribly abused and perverted by the immature adults and criminals of this nation. That should tell you just how strongly I feel on this matter.

I hope you won't get bored with this long essay, which is, in essence, still in rough-draft form. I've even thrown in an excellent music video as a bonus.

There Is Still Time
Three or four years ago, when I first heard Rep. Ron Paul speak to a nearly empty U.S. Congressional chamber, I never dreamed he would come to enjoy the amount of success that he has experienced in the past five months, an amazing degree of success that has occurred in spite of his having been initially ignored, then lied about and finally demonized by the corporate-owned mainstream media. He truly inspired me three or four years ago, but I must say that the millions of Americans who have been inspired by him in recent months is far more than I ever dared to dream [Update 11/23/2007: Here is an amazing example of that inspiration, which was created by students at the University of Nevada at Reno.]. I am afraid to say it out loud, but I once again believe there is a small chance to save our nation from the evil people.

But it will require all honest Americans to make a major effort, as the Founding Fathers expected us to do.

So, Without Further Adieu...
If you are a registered democrat or independent, please do the unthinkable: Temporarily (or permanently, if Mr. Paul purges the evil from the party) register as a republican so we can help Ron Paul defeat his fascist warmonger opponents in the republican primaries and the democratic warmongers in the general election. That's what I'm going to do -- and I am far from being alone in making the switch --, even though I never dreamed I would return to that party again. Why? Because Ron Paul is the only hope we have left to end both of our illegal wars and to prevent or -- God forbid -- end a third one in Iran. In fact, he is determined to bring our troops home from all 130 nations in which they are presently stationed (how many of you knew that we had troops in that many countries?). Equally as importantly, he is the only candidate who will keep our nation from sliding into a permanent dictatorship (unless Bush and Cheney cancel the elections, which they almost did in 2004).

No, Ron Paul is not your typical republican, not by a long shot.

Horrified Democrats, Please Hear Me Out!
Democrats, please don't worry about the democratic primaries. Even if they weren't already decided (which they clearly are), every candidate is basically alike, except for maybe Dennis Kucinich, and he doesn't stand a chance. No matter which democratic candidate wins the primaries, he or she will be someone who is completely owned by the corporate establishment, especially the three "top-tier" candidates.

At the very least, think of it this way: By registering temporarily as a republican and voting for Ron Paul in the primaries, you will be helping to ensure that none of the evil republicans will make it to the general election. And, by then, I believe you will have seen the light and will gladly vote for Ron Paul in the general election, too.

Well and Succinctly Said
A reader nicknamed "Zenken" says it perfectly:
Who'd have thought that a mainstream Republican with a classically conservative message could end up sounding so liberal that he is accused of being a radical, and by others as "certifiably crazy"? I guess this illustrates just how far the neo-cons have dragged this country into the bottomless pit. After hearing Ron Paul's views, several of which I do not agree with, I am now left with no other choice than to become a registered Republican so I can vote for him. As president, he will probably do a lot of things that will piss me off, but at least I'll be pissed off in a free country.
I couldn't have said it better myself.

But Isn't Ron Paul a Long Shot, Too?
Right now, many of you are probably thinking that Ron Paul stands just as little chance of winning the primaries and the general election as Dennis Kucinich. Well, if you think that way, then you've been fooled by the lying mainstream media. For example, Ron Paul has won 21 of the 41 republican straw polls that have been held around the country in the past five months, including in such diverse places as Alabama, California, Wyoming (Cheney country!) and New York City (Giuliani country)! Check out that link and see the entire list for yourself. Furthermore, he has come in near the top in many of the remaining straw polls.

As you study all those victories, ask yourself, "How come the mainstream media hasn't told us about them?" Even Keith Obermann, the only true defender of the Constitution in the mainstream media, has never even uttered Ron Paul's name, even though they are clearly kindred spirits in many ways. It is almost a certainty that Olbermann's bosses are preventing him from mentioning Paul's name.

Still in Doubt about Ron Paul's Chances?
Then compare this tiny set of maps of independent meet-up groups that are being organized in support of the republican and democratic candidates. Ron Paul's map leaves the other nine candidates' maps in the dust, waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy, waaaaayyyyyyy, waaaaayyyyyy in the dust. You have to see his map to believe it. It seems that millions of Americans are learning about Ron Paul in spite of the corrupt mainstream media.

In fact, in an independent fund raiser that was held in a single 24-hour time period on November 5, Mr. Paul received a record $4.2 million in donations over the internet. In this quarter alone, he has already raised about $8 million, mostly in small amounts from regular citizens. Does that sound like someone who doesn't have a chance? There will be another 24-hour fund raiser on December 16, which is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. From the sounds of it, it may possibly dwarf the November 5, fund raiser (I hope). [UPDATE 11/21/2007: It appears that I am right. Click here for details.]

What Europeans Think: Music Video Tribute
By electing Ron Paul, we also have a chance to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world. Look at this excellent and very inspiring music video that was put together by a European and dedicated to the millions of American supporters of Ron Paul (there is even a European Ron Paul meet-up map in the video).



Not since the days of John F. Kennedy have the citizens of other nations been this inspired by a U.S. presidential candidate. Why are Europeans, among others, so excited about republican Ron Paul? You would think no citizen of any other country would EVER trust another republican. The fact that they are this dedicated to Ron Paul should tell you something about the man. But I think this History News Network editorial explains very well why non-Americans like him so much: Ron Paul: The Only Presidential Candidate to Challenge the American Empire.

[UPDATE 11/21/2007: I should amend the above, for it appears that some citizens of the United States have not been this inspired since the days of JFK either. For instance, Racer wrote the following comment at TruthDig: "I am 65, and the last president I voted for was JFK, and Ron Paul gives me the same hope that JFK did. I will be proud to vote for Ron Paul. This 2008 election is a make it or brake it for our constitutional republic, and this country needs a president with a plan, not a story teller, or a member of CFR global elite. Just one more thing. John Zogby is a member of CFR, of the Zogby polls."]

Finally, if you still have any last lingering doubts about trusting Ron Paul, just read some of his own words. As you read, please ask yourself if these are the words of a modern republican/neocon fascist? I certainly don't think so. I'm none of those things, but I've been shouting most of these quotes all of my life. The first four are more reminiscent of Gandhi than of a republican of the 21st century:

Ron Paul Says
1.) "The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence."

2.) "All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state..., even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals."

3.) "Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."

4.) "Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms."

5.) "Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."

6.) "Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty..."

7.) "Monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment."

8.) "No matter how well intentioned, an authoritarian government always abuses its powers."

9.) "You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws."

10.) "Failure of government programs prompts more determined efforts, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away. Whether it’s the war against poverty, drugs, terrorism, or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice of liberty, here and there, is a small price to pay. The results, though, are frightening and will soon become even more so."

11.) "Justifying conscription to promote the cause of liberty is one of the most bizarre notions ever conceived by man! Forced servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a price to live free, makes no sense."

12.) "Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."

13.) "The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."

14.) "One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn to government."

15.) "I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card."

16.) "I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas."

17.) "I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force."

18.) "War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures."

19.) "Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon."

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

America: From Freedom to Fascism

The documentary film, America: From Freedom to Fascism is now available on Google Video. It is a major production by big-name producer Aaron Russo. I have not yet watched it myself. I thought I would give the few random readers who pass my way a quick heads up.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Corporate Mafia in Republicans' Clothes

LiberalTruthSayer recently criticized the ABC piece-of-trash movie that blames 9/11 on Presient Clinton. The movie's script was written by an arch neoconservative who has no qualms about lying. As you may not have known, it was actually written into the neoconservative philosophy by the movement's founder, Leo Strauss, that it is necessary to lie to the American people in order to "save" the United States from itself.

LiberalTruthSayer's comments section is plagued by an incredibly annoying, unthinking conservative named olerockytoptennsessee. He argues using the same tired old emotions and demonizaton tactics that have always been devoid of substance. Sometimes he makes several unfocused, ranting comments in each blog entry, thus polluting her very nice site. I stopped reading his comments sometime back because they never change. Once again, he made several comments in a row, this time at the entry linked above.

This is my response to LiberalTruthSayer's entry (the first paragraph), as well as to "Rocky" (all four paragraphs).

Yes, isn't it rich that this movie is a lie about a lie? The first lie is how it happened and who really had a part in it. The new lie is a pathetic attempt to attribute the fake/intentional "failures" behind the first lie to a democrat. It is yet another attempt to convert this country to one-party rule, just like the old Soviet Union. That's the sort of America that Rocky obviously believes in now.

It's hard to believe Rocky was probably once a government-hating, backwoods conservative before the corporate mafia took over the once-honest republican party -- and then took over the mainstream media and used it to brainwash people like Rocky (I'll bet he temporarily returned to his old government-hating ways while Clinton was in office).

The corporate mafia knows that most republican voters blindly vote a straight-party ticket, regardless of their candidates ("because we can't let a hippie democrat get into office, now can we?!"). Members of the corporate mafia must certainly have thought to themselves, "Hmmm, blindly loyal republican voters. What better way to get elected? And you know, deep down in your heart, that they would defend us to the death if we were ever accused of any criminal behavior, because -- hey! -- we're republicans! Check your skepticism and common sense at the door!"

True to form, now that the members of the corporate mafia have been safely installed in office, those same blindly loyal republican voters are staunchly refusing to believe any of their elected representatives are criminals. Why? "Because "they're republicans! That's why! No criminal would EVER join the republican party. Criminals would NEVER try to fool God-fearing republican voters into thinking they are patriotic, red-blooded Americans simply to get elected. Would they? And, even if they did fool us, they're still republicans! That's all that matters. Better a criminal republican who is hell-bent on destroying this nation and our constitutional freedoms in an orgy of greed than an honest democrat or honest third-part candidate!"

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

No, Really! It Was a Whitewash

What do the following people have in common, besides their overall employer?

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI

John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI

Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI

Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI

Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI

Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI

Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI

Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA

Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF

Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA

Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA

Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA

Click this link to find out. If you feel you really must, then please skim the article until you get to the list of people I've just mentioned. There you will find a brief paragraph following each name that details their mistreatment by a certain group of biased sham artists. The true Americans among you might get a bit angry at our government as you read. If you do, then great. That's what I want.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

The Power of Nightmares

WOW!

When something gets me really worked up, I have trouble writing about it. I have to force myself to limit the number of superlative words that I am tempted to use. And my descriptions of the individuals in question become more personal, to the point where they resemble insults, but are actually accurate portrayals of those individuals.

By way of an introduction, let me quote my last paragraph: "Here's my proof: The Power of Nightmares."

Tonight I learned that my intuition about the neocons has been based on solid, verifiable fact for the past 26 years, not just a strong gut feeling. Of course, I always knew this, but I could never prove it before. Why did I always know it? Because I entered adulthood just as they started to take power. As a result of that terribly sad fact, I have had a front-row seat to their shenanigans ever since.

Neocons are children, mentally and emotionally. And just like children (or, more accurately, just like selfish, self-righteous, arrogant, spoiled children), they see this extremely complicated world in very simple, black-and-white terms. What's worse, they are completely incapable of seeing it any other way. I just didn't realize HOW right I was about them until I clicked the link in the second, sixth and final paragraphs (if I link to it enough times, will that convince you that I really want you to watch it?).

What's even sadder for all of us is the fact that they are also the dumbest, most deceitful children in the world (that's a fact, not an insult), yet they honestly consider themselves to be intellectuals.

Don't take my word for it, though. Watch the documentary, The Power of Nightmares. You may think you have the ability to prove the producers wrong in their depiction of the neocons, but you don't. I have only watched part one, so far, so it is possible that the producers don't go far enough in revealing the depths to which these people, backed by the military-industrial complex, would sink to achieve their agenda.

Question: What ALWAYS happens when dumb people gain power?

Answer: The truly greedy, powerful, evil people (in this case the CEOs of the military-industrial complex) take maximum advantage of them. Together, they are destroying this once-great nation for purposes of truly naive idealism and truly disgusting greed.

We now see what happens in a very complicated world when people with childish fantasies get their hands on the reigns of power.

Here's my proof: The Power of Nightmares.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

A Setback for An Aggressor Nation & It's Ally

Here are just a few thoughts and enlightening links on Israel's recent invasion of Lebanon:

Israel did not "win," and the lie that Hezbullah was targeting only Israeli civilians is clearly shown by an Israeli journalist: From Mania to Depression, by Uri Avnery. Now compare that to the innocent civilians that the "good and decent" Israeli army purposely targeted in Lebanon.

The fact that Israel lost is shown even more clearly in this incredibly concise commentary: What Did and Didn't Happen in Lebanon; It Ain't Over, by Rachard Itani.

Hezbullah did not start this war: The Two Israeli Soldiers Were Captured in Lebanon. Even if they really did cross into Israel to kidnap the soldiers, it would still have been a criminal act, not a first strike in a major war. Israel, with full encouragement by their partner in crime, the United States, had just been waiting for an excuse to invade Lebanon, and this weak one was all they could come up with. Was Lebanon supposed to have become one of the future embarkation points for the invasion of Syria by U.S. troops? Will it still happen?

Israel's goal isn't survival. It's theft -- theft perpetrated while hiding behind every nation's fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they complain: An Interview with Noam Chomsky on Lebanon.

A Jewish writer and teacher in Montreal, Canada, explains it very well: No Peace Without Justice, No Justice Without Truth; Pulling the Plug on Israel, by David Himmelstein.

"Demographic threat" is a new code phrase for racism. Guess who uttered it and who is enforcing it with extreme violence.

Who set the historical precedent for Hezbullah's supposed fighting methods? War Crimes in Lebanon.

The U.S. news outlets' incredibly biased reporting: The US Media's "Special Relationship" by Remi Kanazi.

Just one of the possible reasons we get distorted one-sided news in the U.S.: AIPAC Congratulates Itself on the Slaughter in Lebanon, by John Walsh.

I have saved the best editorial for last: How Israel Could Destroy Itself; Delusional Expectations, by John Chuckman. Here is a brief quote from it (the comment in brackets [ ] is my own addition):

"Israel began by moving into a bad neighborhood [in the late 1940s, without invitation, and simply took land that had never been theirs], and everyone involved understood this from the beginning, yet Israel behaves as though it should be normal to enjoy a pristine Disney-like suburb with white-picket fences. It reacts to activities in the bad neighborhood that disturb its fantasy with ferocious indignation. Israel's destructive behavior is explained largely by this delusional expectation.

"If Israel had spent half the resources it has spent on war over the last fifty years instead on helping its neighbors and building up their economies, the region would be a far better place today. And if Israel had been willing to make reasonable concessions to the needs of others in the region, there might well be lasting peace today."

My concluding thought (just in case I am misunderstood): Israel is a nation, not a religion. It is populated by people, not by saints, and is governed by a greedy, violent, self-righteous government with total disregard for human rights. Criticism of the actions of a nation is not equivalent to criticism of that nation's predominant religion. That is a defense behind which many crimes can be, and clearly are being, perpetrated with reckless abandon.

I naively supported that country's aggressive land grabs for most of my adult life because I thought they were the good guys. I have every right to change my mind, and I've done so.

This Is America??????

Not much to say here. The article says it all: 9-11 Investigative Journalist Harassed And Beaten By Undercover Cops.

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.