Saturday, May 19, 2007

How the Radical GOP Divided and Conquered America

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The GOP has divided the nation into haves and have-nots, the educated and those who cannot afford an education, super-patriots and "traitors", ins and outs, God's chosen and infidels whose lives mean nothing. By dividing this nation of the people, for the people and by the people, the GOP has literally robbed the people of its nation. The GOP has destroyed America and will soon make of it an extremist theocracy unless they are stopped.

The revolution itself began with the fall of Nixon and the resulting rise of Reagan. Clinton was reviled and hated by the teeth gnashers because he interrupted the process. The US government was, in fact, taken over by what was called the Reagan Revolution. That has turned out in retrospect to have been much more than a catchy slogan like the "New Frontier" or the "Great Society". It turned out to have been a real revolution and America still suffers for it.

We are accustomed to associating revolution with a more equitable distribution of income, levelling the playing field, improving the lot of the poor vis a vis the very, very rich. The Reagan Revolution was something else entirely. Unlike leftist revolutions, the Reagan revolution redistributed wealth upward.

Ronald Reagan stole from the poor their incomes, their benefits, their often pitiful homes. He literally gave that wealth to the upper quintile, the top 20 percent of income earners. I have the Gini Indices from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to prove it. [Also see: The Age of Anxiety and Inequality (scroll down] The situation kicked off by Reagonomics is so bad that even conservative voices sound liberal in denoucing this pernicious and potentially disastrous trend:
If the rich are getting richer, and the poor, if they are not getting poorer in real terms are not seeing their fortunes rise at comparable rates, this would seem to mean that the increasingly opulent consumption by the rich will have as its counterpart the increasingly austere consumption by the poor, and even by the now shrinking middle class. Eventually, the newly poor will not be able to earn enough to maintain their previous levels of consumption. Consequently, some goods produced will not be consumed, thus there will be fewer goods produced, there will be fewer producers or workers, there will be fewer goods consumed, and so on. We have yet another kind of cycle.

It is exactly this process that has long been identified (by John Maynard Keynes, among others) as one of the classical explanations of how the growing inequality of the 1920s led to a crisis of under-consumption and overproduction and then to the Great Depression of the 1930s. A similar cycle had occurred earlier, when the growing inequality of the 1880s had issued in the depression of the 1890s (which, at that time, had also been called the Great Depression).
--The American Conservative, The Rich Get Richer
This "conservative" periodical goes on to say that global inequalities will continue to fuel world wide terrorism. It gives the lie to Bush's simplistic, moronic: "they just hate freedom!"

By creating a tiny ruling elite, the GOP turned the relatively egalitarian America of the post World War II years into a banana republic ruled over by mediocrities, opportunists, common crooks and bigots. It is easy enough and accurate to say of the post-Abramoff GOP that it is no longer a political party. The GOP has become a crime syndicate, quite possibly a criminal conspiracy.

Now the GOP, increasingly unpopular for its jingoistic support for and complicity with the illegitimate regime of George W. Bush, is mounting a campaign against Democratic efforts to undo just a portion of the harm that has been done this nation by the back to back misrules of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. It is the Fairness Doctrine that the GOP now has in its cross hairs.

Let us dispel upfront some of the lies that are told about the Communications Act of 1934 and the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Predictably, both will be "positioned" by the GOP as increased government regulation. In fact, the Act itself made its purpose with respect to the "regulation" of content very clear:
§ 559. Obscene programming

Whoever transmits over any cable system any matter which is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United States shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Simply, if your speech is protected by the US Constitution, specifcally, the First Amendment, then your speech on the air is likewise protected. There is, then, no "regulation" or "censorship" applied to broadcasting that is not applied to all speech under the First Amendment. May we close the door on that issue now?
§ 326. Censorship

Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.
I have had considerable experience in this industry. I found that clause to have been the case during those years in which I was most active. Later, various assaults by the Reagan regime most certainly caused a deteriorating broadcast environment. Licensing requirements were so relaxed that now Clear Channel operates in a completely automated mode, offering no local emergency service whatsoever to most of its communities.

Why is that important? Consider rural communities in the great plans states. Without a committment from the local radio station, warnings of imminent tornadoes can be ignored. In fact, there is abundant anecdotal evidence of citizenry trying to inform local radio stations of impending storms or disasters and getting nothing but an answering machine. A timely warning of a killer tornado, for example, might mean the difference between life and death. Broadcasters operating in a purely automated mode, as Clear Channel often does, are irresponsible. Such an outlet does not deserve a license.

Clear Channel has its origins in George W. Bush's hometown of Midland, TX, a part of the country that I know well. KCRS in Midland was owned by Wendall Mayes, Clear Channel's founding family.

Goppers have already mounted a full court press to "position" the Fairness Doctrine. It will be called an abrogation of free speech by Big Brother. In fact, FOX and its five or six rivals constitute big brother and they have all but stifled dissent by eliminating citizen access to the air waves. If you don't believe me, just call up your local Fox affiliate and ask them to give you 30 minutes, a MERE 30 minutes to reply to just one of Bill O'Reilly's innumerable absurdities, distortions or outright lies. Ask Fox to give you just five minutes of prime time to reply to Sean Hannity's propaganda with just a soupcon of truth, common sense, or logic.

Call up Clear Channel and tell them you would like just 10 minutes to reply to Rush Limbaugh's life time of belligerence, outright lies, inanities and mind-numbing anti-intellectualism. Just ten minutes to counter a lifetime of crap representing nothing less than a diminution of what it means to be a human being does not seem like too much to ask. But you won't call because you know already that I am right. You know already that you won't get past the receptionist. You don't stand a chance of getting your view on the air. That's why we need to restore the Fairness Doctrine.

Savage continued to label supporters of the Fairness Doctrine "Nazis"

On the May 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage called Democrats who support the proposed Media  Ownership Reform Act (MORA), "National Socialists," continuing his pattern of comparing Democratic supporters of MORA to "Nazis." MORA would reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine," which, until 1987, required "that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage," as the Supreme Court wrote when it upheld the doctrine in 1969.

Citing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, Savage said: "If Senator Mitch McConnell will be the first to stand up against ... the National Socialists in the Democrat [sic] Party who are trying to ban free speech in this country, I will vote for any Republican." Later in the program, Savage directed a caller to an article on his website about the Chinese Cultural Revolution, saying, "[T]he reason I want you to do that is because there are people in this country who would gladly line up conservatives and shoot them against the wall." When the caller responded that those who would do so are "mentally insane," Savage replied, "No, they're not. They're mainstream progressives." He added: "They're no different than the Bolsheviks in 1917."

As Media Matters for America has noted, Savage has repeatedly compared Democrats to "Nazis." On the May 2 broadcast of his radio show, Savage called MORA's author, Rep. Maurice

Hinchey (NY), the "chief National Socialist," adding that Hinchey is seeking "the final solution for conservatives on talk radio." Additionally, on the May 11 broadcast, Savage denounced Rep. Robert Wexler's (FL) questioning of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales during a May 10 congressional hearing about the firing of US attorneys: "The last time I saw a politician scream at someone like that was in Nazi Germany in the kangaroo court trial against people who conspired to kill Hitler."

The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
That's why the GOP will fight the Fairness Doctrine with an organized campaign of propaganda and outright lies. The GOP does not want you to be on the air unless you are spouting GOP propaganda and talking points. The GOP does not want to hear your voice. The GOP will fight your efforts to be heard above the right wing noise machine. The GOP will deprive you of Free Speech and call it "liberty". The GOP will subvert the Constitution and call it "Americanism". The GOP will suck up to Fox to deprive you of the blessings of Democracy and pretend that all is "fair and balanced".

Having divided the nation into haves and have nots, the GOP now divides the nation ideologically. By eliminating the Fairness Doctrine the GOP unleashes upon an unsuspecting nation the Four Horsemen of a Propaganda Apocalypse: ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, and the GOP thought police.

Now, let's consider what the bill restoring the Communications Act of 1934 - called "Nazi" by Savage - will accomplish.

Bill Summary

I. Guarantees Fairness in Broadcasting

Our airwaves are a precious and limited commodity that belong to the general public. As such, they are regulated by the government. From 1949 to 1987, a keystone of this regulation was the Fairness Doctrine, an assurance that the American audience would be guaranteed sufficiently robust debate on controversial and pressing issues. Despite numerous instances of support from the US Supreme Court, President Reagan's FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and a subsequent bill passed by Congress to place the doctrine into federal law was then vetoed by Reagan.

MORA would amend the 1934 Communications Act to restore the Fairness Doctrine and explicitly require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.
II. Restores Broadcast Ownership Limitations

Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is essential to the condition of a free society." And yet, today, a mere five companies own the broadcast networks, 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks, produce three-quarters of all prime time programming, and control 70 percent of the prime time television market share. One-third of America's independently-owned television stations have vanished since 1975.

There has also been a severe decline in the number of minority-owned broadcast stations; minorities own a mere four percent of stations today.
  • MORA would restore a standard to prevent any one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 35 percent of US television households.

  • The bill would reduce local radio ownership caps to limit a single company from owning more than a certain number of stations within a certain broadcast market, with the limit varying depending upon the size of each market.

  • Furthermore, the legislation would restore the Broadcast-Cable and Broadcast-Satellite Cross-Ownership Rules to keep a company from having conflicting ownerships in a cable company and/or a satellite carrier and a broadcast station offering service in the same market.

  • Finally, MORA would prevent media owners from grandfathering their current arrangement into the new system, requiring parties to divest in order to comply with these new limitations within one year.
III. Invalidates Media Ownership Deregulation

MORA would invalidate the considerably weakened media ownership rules that were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2003; rules that are now under new scrutiny through the FCC's Future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The legislation further prevents the FCC from including media ownership rules in future undertakings of the commission's Biennial Review Process.
IV. Establishes a New Media Ownership Review Process

MORA creates a new review process, to be carried by the FCC every three years, on how the commission's regulations on media ownership promote and protect localism, competition, diversity of voices, diversity of ownership, children's programming, small and local broadcasters, and technological advancement. The bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on its findings.

V. Requires Reports for Public Interest

MORA requires broadcast licensees to publish a report every two years on how the station is serving the public interest. The legislation also requires licensees to hold at least two community public hearings per year to determine local needs and interests.
An old shibboleth states that a revolutionary faction will first seize a nation's media. Both the US media and the people were well served and protected under the terms of the US Communications act of 1934. The people were guaranteed continued ownership of the airwaves themselves, free speech was guaranteed, opposing voices had access to the "air". Despite protestations by an increasingly rabid right wing, licenses were not difficult to get.

My first boss opened an FM station in Odessa, TX for an investment of less than $20,000. It was operated virtually hassle free for years. The most odious requirement was that of keeping a station log. Eventually, automation would eliminate even that chore. I could never understand why owners were so unhappy considering that the government had virtually guaranteed them a good living.

Alas - rapacious radicals were not content to share the airwaves with mere rabble. This revolutionary elite would find in Reagan a means by which our airwaves could be seized. With the ascension of Fox, the coup d'etat became the fait accompli.

Big Brother had arrived.


 Reagan's so-called campaign of de-regulation gutted the Communications Act of 1934. It succeeded in the goal about which even Reganites dared not speak: that of giving to the increasingly radical and theorcratic right wing the control of our nation's media. They have largely succeed. As author Mark Crispen Miller relates, however, the radical theorcrats and right wing extremists are not done. The worst is yet to come unless we act to counter this enemy within.

Miller hits a home run with this one. He is ABSOLUTELY correct. It will be a miracle if this nation survives this assault on every principle that made us a free nation. The Theocrats support the GOP with whom its made a bargain. The GOP, however, is not a political party. It's a criminal conspiracy.

Friday, May 18, 2007

JFK: Case Re-Opened

More than forty years after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a British newspaper reports that new research has given new life to an old idea: Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone gunman. A new investigation could stir up a can of worms and pose a threat to official orthodoxy.

A complete investigation of the murder of JFK must begin anew, taking into consideration the possiblity that much of the evidence that has managed to survive has most probably been tampered with. That would include still photographs taken by amateurs in Dealy Plaza as well as the famous Zapruder film, in which the President's head is clearly seen to lurch backward upon a bullet's impact.

Doubt Cast On JFK ‘Lone Assassin’ Theory

From The Independent UK
By Andrew Buncombe
More than 40 years after he was fatally shot in Dallas, researchers have added fresh fuel to the speculation over who was involved in the assassination of President John F Kennedy by claiming the original bullet analysis was flawed and cannot rule out that a second gunman was involved.

Using new scientific techniques not available to previous researchers and analysing bullets from the same batch purportedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald, the team has argued that it cannot be assumed that Oswald was the only assassin involved. While they do not claim evidence to prove a second gunman participated, they say the original fragments of the bullets recovered from the scene of the shooting should be re-examined.

“Given the significance and impact of the JFK assassination, it is scientifically desirable for fragments to be re-analysed,” the researchers write in the journal Annals of Applied Statistics.

Kennedy, the 35th US president, was fatally shot as his motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza in Dallas on 22 November 1963. The official Warren commission that investigated the killing concluded the following year that the president had been killed by two of three shots fired by Oswald - his first shot having missed - from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
-- Read More Doubt   
I would hope that a new investigation of the assassination of JFK will begin with a clean slate. The first piece of hard evidence to be considered is the film shot by Abraham Zapruder using an 8mm Bell and Howell Camera from a vantage point on the north side of Elm Street. Long before we saw the film, Dallas viewers saw the interview.
EDDIE BARKER: At the time of the assassination, I was the news director for KRLD radio and KRLD television, the CBS affiliates in Dallas...
Zapruder was in a position to film the approaching motocade, following it with his camera as a fatal bullet was seen blasting away portions of the President's skull.

You may not have noticed, near the beginning of the film, a little girl running along the south side of Elm Street. Known to history as "the little girl in the red dress", her name, until she married, was Rosemary Willis. Her father, Phillip Willis, was taking 35mm color slides that day. He too can be seen in the film, looking forward at his daughter, perhaps calling to her. She appears to have been following the motorcade and suddenly stops.

Years later, I met and interviewed her. Her story, however fascinating, has been all but ignored by the mainstream media. When we met, she produced several boxes of color slides that had been taken by her father that day in Dealy Plaza. I put them on a light table and examined them with a loupe. I immediately recognized Dealy Plaza, the limoousine, the motorcade, the Texas School Book Depository, the Pergola, the Grassy Knoll, the Triple Underpass, place names now burned into the consciousness of a scarred nation.
One Phillip Willis took a series of 12 photos of Dealey Plaza, where Kennedy was shot, in the minutes before and after the assassination. Mr. Willis' photos and testimony before the Commission appear in the report.
He was not questioned about the eighth photo, a shot of the Book Depository entrance shortly after the shooting. As Willis later pointed out, one of the men in the photo "looks so much like (Jack Ruby), it's pitiful". F.B.I. agents questioning Willis agreed with him that the man bore a powerful resemblance to Ruby. When Willis mentioned this to the Commission, no interest was shown. When the photo was published in the Warren Report, a considerable part of the Ruby lookalike's face had been cropped away. 
        Referred to in the literature of the assassination as the "little girl in the red dress", she can be              seen in the Zapruder film above, running along the south side of Elm Street. She runs and then            stops suddenly just as the Presidential limousine is partially blocked by a sign between the                   mortocade and Abraham Zapruder's camera.
        --JFK Conspiracy Theory

At last, Rosemary (if I may be so familiar) pointed out some especially interesting slides. One of them was a shot of the Pergola, above the grassy knoll, taken from her father's position on the south side of Elm Street. Through the columns, all was clear. Then Rosemary produced an old copy of Look Magazine and turned to a double page spread. Reproduced over facing pages was her father's photograph of the limousine with the Pergola behind it.
"Do you notice anything unusual?" she aksed.

Sure enough. In the magazine spread, a train locomotive could plainly be seen between the columns. Indeed, there are railroad tracks in that area to this day as any Google maps search will reveal. Those tracks were there in 1963 as well. It was in that railyard that three "tramps" had been arrested prior to the Kennedy assassination. [See: JFK Conspirator Wanted Every Kennedy Dead ]

But why was a locomotive in the published picture but no locomotive in the "slide"? Rosemary explained that after Look Magazine published her father's pictures, FBI agents took all her father's slides. As I recall, the slides were kept for several years. When they were returned at last, every slide that had depicted the train had been doctored. The train was gone.

Why would the FBI find it necessary to remove a train? What did the FBI find threatening about a train? I've speculated that the train was the egress, the perfect getaway for the assassins who fired the fatal shot from the grassy knoll just as Mark Lane had theorized years ago. That raises the question: why would the FBI protect an assassins get-away? Unless the FBI was a part of the plot, lately called a coup d'etat, it would not.

However speculative my thoughts, it is fair to say that when you have uncovered the FBI's motive for removing the seemingly innocent picture of a train, you will have gone a long way toward explaining why the Warren Commission insisted upon the theory that the fatal shot came from the rear when any examination of the Zapruder film will reveal otherwise. Gerald Posner's absurd theory of "jet effects" nothwithstanding.

It was in 1993 that author Gerald Posner published a book entitled Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK [New York: Random House, 1993. Pp. xvi, 607. ISBN 0-679-41825-3.] in which he posited the now infamous "jet effect".

The fact that Posner finds it necessary to posit a "jet effect", however bogus and elusive the effect has proven to be in experiment, is an admission that JFK's head does, in fact, jerk backward upon being struck by a bullet on frame 313. If the backward motion were not real, why posit a "theory" to explain it. It is also interesting that those who debunk "conspiracy theorists" are themselves the purveyors of the most outrageous and convoluted theories. The "jet effects" is just such a theory, concocted to explain a version of events that has never conformed to observed reality. One of the most brilliant refutations of Posner - specifically the experimental results that demolished the mythical "jet effect" - can be found in Skeptic Magazine, Volume 6, Number 4.

Posner embraced the dubious single, "magic bullet" which he says struck Kennedy in the upper back exited the throat, passed through Governor John Connally only to emerge in near mint condition.
The theory is dubious from the outset because the weight of the evidence indicates that the magic bullet was not the object that injured Connally's thigh. According to the Parkland doctors and the WC, the object that injured Connally's thigh deposited a fragment in the femur bone. But did a bullet strike the thigh? Or was it just a fragment? The initial police report on the thigh wound, citing Parkland doctors, stated that it was caused by a fragment. Connally's own press secretary, Bill Stinson, said the same thing on the afternoon of the assassination. Dr. Malcolm Perry, who assisted with the surgery on the thigh, told Harold Weisberg that the thigh wound was caused by a fragment, not by a whole missile. And Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally's chest surgeon, has likewise said that only a fragment struck the thigh.
- Dr. John Nichols, professor of pathology; note: the bullet is officially labeled as Commission Exhibit (CE) 399.argued that the missile's alleged journey could NOT have produced the amount of flattening that the bullet suffered, even though it appears to be rather slight). [quoted in Hasty Judgement: A Republy to Gerald Posner 'Why the JFK Case is Not Closed!]   
Lately other theorists, perhaps to cover over the difficulties Posner got into by positing in violation of Occam's Razor a "jet effect", have said that JFK's head actually moves forward upon being struck by the fatal bullet. For a start, that is counter-intuitive. Secondly, the film itself disproves it. Examined frame by frame, JFK's indeed moves forward from just before frame 310 until the bullet strikes precisely on frame 313. From frame 313, the head clearly moves backward and quite dramatically. This is obviously the result of having been struck by the fatal shot fired from the front and most certainly the vicinity of the grassy knoll.

It would appear that not only "trains" were removed from still photos, but the famous Zapruder film itself may have been doctored while in the "protective custody" of the government of the United States.

The dissapearing train is one of many unexplained anomolies surrounding the murder of JFK. Another is the apparent dismissal of JFK's Secret Service protection.

The only motivation that I can attribute to whomever wanted to doctor the Willis photos and the Zapruder rilm must be to cover up or obscure the significance of the Grassy Knoll, the Pergola and, of course, the train and tracks behind them.
I am a signal supervisor for the Union Terminal and I was inspecting signal and switches and stopped to watch the parade. I was standing on top of the triple underpass and the President's car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first shot but that was the only puff of smoke I saw.
I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and did not see anyone running from there. But the puff of smoke I saw definitely came fromm behind the arcade through the trees. After the first shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off. Everything is spinning in my head and if I remember anything else later I will come back and tell Bill.  
--Statement of S. M. Holland, WCH 19, p. 473, taken 11/22/63

Bush is killing and torturing innocent people because he has neurotic, personal problems with "Daddy"

Books have been written about plans Bush made even before the election of 2000 to attack and invade Iraq. It was never about weapons of mass destruction except as it might be cited as a convenient pretext. It is most certainly about Bush's problems with "Daddy" who "failed" to unseat Saddam Hussein. Junior, always in Senior's shadow, may have seen in this "failure" an opening, a score to settle. With "Daddy"!

It is tragic that Bush's personal problems, his observable lack of self-esteem would manifest themselves in aggressive war and torture.

The history of psychology is replete with clever sociopaths who managed to hide their afflictions. Bush, who boasted that he does "not do nuance", is not so talented. His belligerance is often worn on his sleeve.

You don't need a PhD in psychology to understand how this bully attitude translates into the crime of aggressive war, a violation of international law that the US, itself, had insisted upon.

The public record is replete with direct, verifiable evidence of this as well as coincidences of the truly GOP kind. To wit:

Clearly, all the pieces had been put into place: the Saudi payoff, a "sweetener" to seal the deal, the pretext, the timing!

What may be most disturbing about this eye-opening timeline of atrocity, aggressive war, and phony terrorism is that it may stem from a deep-seated neurosis that has its origins in Bush's festering resentment of his father. " He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz.

"My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it." He [Geo. W. Bush] said, "If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

- Russ Baker, Common Dreams

Other revelations from Herskowitz included a laundry list of Bush neuroses, relating to his feelings of resentment towards or inadequacy compared to his father, celebrated as a WWII hero and a successful businessman:

  • In 2003, Bush's father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son's invasion of Iraq.

  • Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been "excused."

  • Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot's garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.

Bush described his own business ventures as "floundering" before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.

Not surprisingly, Bush Jr. would exorcise his demons with an old strategy that had its origin in the Ronald Reagan administration. It was, according to Herskowitz, Dick Cheney who summed it all up long before 911:

Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.

- Dick Cheney [as quoted by author Mickey Herskowitz]

Hermann Goering said something similar and equally outrageous.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering, awaiting trial for war crimes at Nuremberg
The quote has been unsuccessfully debunked. But, in fact, it is real. Goering made those remarks to Dr. Gustav Gilbert, the American psychologist charged with "interviewing" the Nazi war criminals during the long trial at Nuremberg following World War II. You can find Goering's comments in Gilbert's essential: Nuremberg Diary. Bush and Cheney are just as willainous as Goering but lack Goering's wit.
Goering's character is rich and multifaceted. The facets can hardly be reconciled as belonging to the same person. So much about him is appealing - his intelligence, his sense of humor, his expansive good-natured bonhomie, his childlike responses to praise or reprimand. But a man can smile and smile and still be a villain. Goering uses the weaker defendants to pressure the more independent ones to toe his "party line" of maintaining loyalty to Hitler. He offers to trade or withhold testimony, inveigles his lawyer into intimidating a witness, and even threatens retaliation by the Feme kangaroo courts. In part because the author's duties required him to prevent that sort of behavior, he spent more time with Goering than with any of the other defendants. In part, though, I think he just found him fascinating.

- Review of Nuremberg Diary,

Having read this book, I vouch for this review. That Hitler and Goering rose to power is almost as understandable as it is lamentable. The rise of a blithering idiot and "Darth" Cheney and is completely incomprehensible. Much is said about the stolen election. I agree that Gore won Florida but it should never have been that close.

It's bad enough that Bush has tried to work out his personal problems by sending U.S. troops to their deaths; he has, moreover, murdered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. And he has tried repeatedly to justify the American aggression against Iraq with numerous ex post facto rationales -- all of them lies.

Thus Bush's presidency becomes the story of a pathetic, insecure little man who, because he had a personal problem with his "daddy," would defraud the citizens of the United States and the world, would send U.S. troops in harm's way, and would order an illegal war that would kill thousands of innocent Iraqis -- citizens of a sovereign nation that had nothing whatsoever to do with 911.

Bush would do all this and, in the process, place himself above the law, the judiciary, and the legislative. He did it all to keep his fraud intact, to hide his lie, to shore up his own flagging self-esteem.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Mass Murder and High Treason

There are glaring discrepancies surrounding Bush's activities on the morning of 911. At the very least, George W. Bush is the liar we know him to be. At worst, the discrepancies may lead one to conclude that Bush knew about the events of 911 well in advance and did absolutely nothing.

The timeline of his travels depicts a man trying to stay out of the line of fire. It does not portray a President concerned with the lives of American citizens. It does not portray a "commander-in-chief" or a "decider". It portrays a weak-kneed wimp at the mercy of his "handlers", the real power behind the throne. Or - should I say "dictatorship"?

His false statements concerning his activities on that day raise doubts not only about his credibility but also the possibility that the President of the United States is complicit in mass murder and high treason.

Let's look at the time line which becomes a chronology of incredible coincidences, a literal round up of the usual suspects.
(8:00 a.m.): Former President George H. W. Bush Heads off After Spending Night at the White House

Former President George H. W. Bush, along with former First Lady Barbara Bush, leaves Washington, DC, by private jet, bound for a speaking engagement in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Bushes spent the previous night at the White House. They had flown to Washington the previous day to attend several meetings and a dinner. One of the meetings attended by the former president was the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group, which was also attended by Shafig bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers (see (9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001). They are later informed of the WTC attacks while on their jet. Due to all planes being grounded, they have to land in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [CBS News, 11/1/2002; Newsweek, 10/20/2003; CNN, 10/25/2003]
But things get even weirder and there are no innocent explanations.

George W. Bush left his Florida hotel about 8:35 AM. But, according to ABC News, just before leaving the hotel, reporters saw Andy Card whispering into Bush's ear. The topic of whispered conversation, according to the network, was the stunning events taking place in New York.

But the first plane did not crash into the north tower until 8:45 AM. "What was going on in New York" was not yet going on when Bush and Card talked about it. Yet, we are led to believe that Card and Bush discussed an event that would not take place for another ten minutes or so.

Much later, Bush would claim that while at the school in Florida, he saw the first plane crash the north tower on a TV that had been set up for him. How convenient!

The only known footage of that event was not broadcast until the next day. Presumably, no one knew it was going to happen. Or did they? Bush, however, made his claim on two occasions leading one to believe that this was not a mere slip of the tongue. The verbatim transcripts are still available at the White House web site. Nor was Bush referring to the crash of the second plane into the south tower. He is video taped being given that information by Card while still in the classroom. [depicted under the headline] Even Bush is not likely to have forgotten that.

If Bush told the truth about seeing a plane crash the north tower on live TV, it could only have been on monitors getting a feed from cameras placed in anticipation of an attack. If Bush is telling the truth about seeing the first plane, then he most certainly would have seen it on the TV depicted in the photos above. This is a room at the school where Bush had read goat stories to children, where Andy Card was seen in stills and in video informing Bush: "[The] second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Though Card is often quoted as having said "A second plane", Bush himself attributes to Andy Card the word "the". I find the use of the word "the" in this context to be interesting and revelatory.

Look closely at the above monitors. It has been pointed out to me that there is no network logo or "graphics bar" running across the bottom of the TV screen, though it clearly depicts the WTC. If it were a network feed, the network logo would be present. If it was, indeed, a closed circuit set up that Bush had seen, there might not be one. Clearly, there is no logo depicted above.

If Bush merely lied that is one thing. But consider the implications if Bush had, in fact, viewed a closed-circuit broadcast with cameras placed in advance delivering a signal that might be viewed by a complicit President. If that is the case, then Bush is not merely a liar as we know him to be. He is much more besides. He is a murderous traitor, complicit in mass murder, a conspirator to high treason.

Why Conservatives Hate America

Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

FOX Makes Up the News!

We've always known that the Fox network "slanted" the news. But that's not all. They make it up! Keith Olbermann exposes the truth about Fox news falsehoods.

I would like to know what's in it for Rupert Murdoch to preside over a news organization that is manufacturing - full cloth - phony news stories. What is Murdoch's specific connection to the Bush crime syndicate? There is a bigger story here than a single memo. The story is how the American media devolved from giants like Murrow, Cronkite and Severeid to the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

It is no surprise to learn that Murdoch adored Ronald Reagan. Reagan presided over the "de-regulation" of the media at about the time Murdoch took over Fox. There was a time when broadcast outlets operated from a legal premise that had been established by the Federal Communications Act of 1934 that the "public" owns the airwaves. Later, in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine limited the power of media corporations' control over communications systems. Media were required to serve "the public interest, convenience, or necessity." Congress mandated the new FCC - created in the act - set aside certain frequencies for educational use. It was this provision that made it possible for many to get real broadcast experience and a college education as well.

As Ronald Reagan reversed regulations and systematically demolished media restraints, media regulation all but stopped in the early 1980s. Later, In 1987, the first Bush administration went after the Fairness Doctrine. In the case of Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts ruled that the FCC need not enforce the so-called "fairness doctrine". It was a green light to demagogues like Rush Limbaugh.

By 1996, The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was touted as a means of opening up competition in the communications market. The opposite turned out to have been the effect. What followed was a wave of mergers that decreased competition. The media is now dominated by a handful of souless conglomerates like Fox. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is another case of political "bait and switch". It is, in fact, an intolerable situation.

In 1934, our government had said that the "airwaves" belonged not to the big corporations or to the government but to the people themselves. We want it back!

Earlier, Olbermann exposed a Fox tactic: the deliberately biased "poll", otherwise called "push polling".

Fox has poisoned the political climate with venom and bullshit. The most obvious example is Bill O'Reilly who regularly pukes up outright lies and calls them "fair and balanced". Judge for yourself.

The people want their media back from the likes of Clear Channel and Fox. It's bad enough that Fox is lying but they are making billions doing it. Worse still - they are doing it because Ronald Reagan and his partners in crime literally stole the airwaves from the people of the United States. Fox is lying on your airwaves.

Monday, May 14, 2007

How Do You Live With It When Your Country Becomes the Fourth Reich!?

You impeach and try the criminal bastards who did it, that's what! A first year law student can make the capital crimes case against George W. Bush now. So - why is the Congress afraid to impeach a prima facie criminal for whom a capital crimes case would be a cake walk?

What the MSM Won't Tell You: US Troops are ordered to kill Iraqi civilians indiscriminately. I won't live with that. Will you? How much longer will American citizens tolerate and by tolerating, enabling the most evil regime since Adolph Hitler. Will you be complicit in mass murder?

Through the general fog of censorship, official bullshit and one-sided reporting, revelations about US-led forces killing Iraqi civilians just keep coming. It's all verifiable. Much of it is admissable in court. Bush is the new "Fuhrer" and US troops are routinely ordered to commit war crimes. If you are in the armed forces and reading this, I suggest that you sober up, grow up and consider the implications of what you have been ordered to do.

We are not talking about renegade units. We are talking about US policy.

If you look, you can find the truth of it. As early as July 2005, reports were beginning to surface about a US policy that included the indiscriminate murder of Iraqi civilians. What was called a "stream of charges" were leveled at US commando units. Specifically, US marines were accused of the murder of the 21-year-old cousin of Samir al-Sumaidaie, the Iraqi government’s ambassador to the UN. It was called at the time a "counterinsurgency operation" and took place in Al Anbar province.

Need I recount the abominable war crime that US forces unleased upon the city of Fallujah.

It was laid waste by the American military and any idiot could make the case - at the international war crimes tribunal - that it was deliberate and it was ordered by higher ups. Possibly the White House itself?

Similarly, the provincial capital, Ramadi, was hit by repeated "sweeps", a euphemism for mass murder. It is said that they are "locating and destroying guerilla cells". I don't believe that. I no longer believe ANY official statement made by "my" government.

At last - I never gave a damn what the Bushies thought about Michael Moore. I still don't. Bush is the lying scum of the earth. His opinion is of less importance to me than a scarab's cargo. There was a time when Michael Moore was among a tiny minority who had the balls to speak up. He is still paying a price for having done so. It is time that we supported Michael Moore. In that spirit, I offer this reprise of the concluding scene of Fahrenheit 9/11.

There is more than I can cover in a single article:

And now for something completely different:

And from another galaxy, it's life, Jim, as we would have liked knowing it.
And from the master: Kubrick.