Clearing Cobwebs

by Adventure Wynn


This was an experiment after September 11th to see if I could quiet the non stop questions ping pinging around in my head for like 2 weeks. By the end of the stream of consciousness writing my take on life had changed. My view of the world changed. I can mark two epochs of my life as many probably can before and after September 11 but this paper helped me see the why. After realizing I was making good points I tried to edit it. Its still a lot to read but it means too much to me to delete and forget it. I will admit to venturing unexpectedly Into some very unpopular ideas. Unpopular at the time but are far more excepted now, like Zionism as another form of racism and apartheid. My stream of questions and answers directly after 911 have stood the test of time and in many many cases proven 100% true.

Since Sept. 11th I have been compelled by my concern for this country's welfare, to examine the United States' standing in the world community and try to figure out how disaster can be avoided in the future, mainly because I don't think the American government is working very hard on the solution. The concept of detainees prior to the U.S. utilization of it, were known as political prisoners and have always been used as a sign of oppression. Are these people more of a threat to our government than they were to Stalin's, Castro's, or Husseins? Are we to forget that Nelson Mandela was one of these detainees at one point? Gandhi too was a detainee, as well as Martin Luther King Jr. One big difference between these men and the recent American detainee is that Mandela for instance, was known to be the agitator. The American detainees are only suspicious looking. The people that were reported kidnapped from their homes in the middle of the night by Stalin's KGB and loaded into boxcars and sent to Siberia, are today arrested by Bush's FBI or INS and sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. How do these ideas differ? Abuse of human rights to protect a Communist government is the same abuse when it is applied to protect a Democratic government. Even if it is repackaged and sold by the American media as a step toward disrupting the evil forces that threaten our way of life. The war technologies that were once pioneered by Germany like the Zeppelin and poison gas, have given way to smart bombs and predator drones of the Americans. Here is a funny concept "smart bombs". It is in the character of the average American today that it is far easier to spend billions on "smart bombs" instead of taking a few precious moments out of their highly constructive life to spend time learning the truth, thereby enabeling the average American to elect "smart leaders". Bombs are no smarter than those employed to use them! Logical reasoning says that to overt future disasters of this nature the United States must listen to the people perpetrating these acts of aggression toward America. The people responsible for these acts that we call "terrorists" are only that from our point of view meaning, many people from these countries where this anti-American sentiment originates see these acts as great blows against the forces that they view as oppressive... that they view as supporting their enemies. Given America's reaction and overall attitude, which many view as arrogant, this list seems to be multiplying quite rapidly. I'm sure given the mode of military combat during the American Revolutionary War, when the Hessians awoke from their stupors on Christmas morning in Trenton to the assault by General Washington's forces, there could have been little doubt you would have heard them mumbling something about this dastardly underhanded act as they dropped their weapons. To the American cause it was and is, one of only a few victories during that entire engagement to be proud of. To this day we revere Washington's maneuver across the Delaware on that historic evening so much that it is memorialized on one of our coins. The fact is that Washington was a desperate man at that point as were most patriots in the colonies. He would have and should have done anything to strike at the enemy in a way to ensure a victory, to boost morale in this country. This same desperation I believe, is the driving force behind an ever growing and more diverse group that oppose the United States. General Washington knew the overwhelming odds facing the colonies in 1775, but he readily accepted the task put to him. For General Washington, although not an outstanding military tactician, was a wise man. He understood human nature is not to be defeated by mere force, and a desperate man, after all else has abandoned him, can count on this fact. For this we should thank god. In 1865, when John Wilkes Booth leaped from the box at Ford's Theater after mortally wounding President Lincoln, he cried "Sic Semper Tyrannis"(Ever Thus to Tyrants). Mr. Booth was absolutely justified in his opinion that President Lincoln and the U.S. Government were tyrants, according to the constitution, for violating the sovereignty of the south. Legally speaking, you would never be able to deny that fact. The U.S. Constitution plainly states, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That when any form of government becomes destructive to these ends(life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), it is a right of the people to alter and abolish it". This is why none of the rebels like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were ever brought to court for being traitors. Legally the Federal Government had no case! Of course teaching this fact would make the prosecution of people like Tim McVey much more difficult. However horrible and cowardly the act that Tim McVey was convicted of seemed, it was his right under the constitution to attempt "to abolish" a government that he viewed as oppressive. Allow me to teach you a fact about the United States here, that few are aware of and that has something to do with this paper. The framers of the constitution, knowing that the issue of slavery was the one issue that would without a doubt destroy the fragile alliance of the 13 states, allowed for the benefit of the Union, the issue of slavery to be overlooked knowing fully well that it would be dealt with in a bloody civil war later. They allowed it to be overlooked at this point, to first of all form the Union yes, but secondly to allow the Federal Government to gain enough strength to put the inevitable rebellion down. This is the reason for putting Washington DC in northern Virginia and not southern Virginia, so it wouldn't end up in the heart of the enemy country some day! Other than ours, most all revolutions end the same way. Once the object of everyone's anger is removed they inevitably break into warring factions. There are countless examples of this throughout time. Unless a man like Napoleon steps in and takes over. (This is a point I will return to later) This is the reason the American revolution was so incredible. Overlooking slavery was the only way the United States had a chance, the anti-slavery people gambled and won. The Constitution was written for posterity. That's why the Constitution seems to be so contradictory prior to the civil war. Slavery was a dying issue, and they knew it. Before going off on a tangent, by explaining General Washington's and John Wilkes Booth's desperate position, I was trying to explain that the term terrorist is relative. It's like calling someone "Evil". Sure its easy to grasp the concept but is it a responsible comment, hardly. I believe only the most irresponsible leader would make a statement like this in regards to a person or country. I know for a fact it only acts to cloud an already cloudy issue further. To quote John Adams "A man who has not better government of his tongue, no command of his temper, is unfit for everything but childerns play and the company of boys".These kinds of comments, if not spawned by President Bush's own shear stupidity, then must only have been put to him by his speech writers for the purpose of desensitizing the American public while tending to dehumanize the opposition. In my opinion, and I've thought about it for many weeks now, I believe that the definition of terrorist and patriot differ in that the terrorist chooses the path of destruction where the patriot has no other option. That's the only legitimate thing that separates these ideas. "Patriot" is defined by the dictionary as "one who loves his or her country and zealously guards its welfare". Conspicuously absent from the dictionaries definition of "patriot" is that this is as relative a term as terrorist. If a terrorist isn't at least zealous I'm not sure what he or she is, and I know they believe they are protecting there country, culture and religion. The main difficulty that these individuals encounter when trying to communicate their desires to us, when attempting to penetrate the veil that the American media has shrouded the American public in for so long has I believe, proven to be to much. So perhaps because they give up trying, or because they decide to subvert the media conglomerates of this country and gain the attention of the public in other ways, they strike the US or Israel in a terrorist act. The very act of a suicidal terrorist blowing themselves up is the most powerful, and I would say in some ways, the most beautiful expression of frustration a person or society could produce. Please don't confuse this act with that of the cowardly Tim Mcvey, there are no similarities. With these simply conceived definitions of terrorist and patriot, it is reasonable to understand the majority of the worlds opposition to President Bush's immediate, permanent, and unaltered demands of military intervention and refusal to cooperate with the United Nations resolution. As long as United Nations worked to his advantage he agreed to go along with them, but when they became impediments to his plan he rejected them. It appeared to most of the world, that after President Bush demanded the UN inspectors return to Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction that American Intelligence declared beyond a doubt were there, apparently no other outcome could or did satisfy him . The locations of these WMD we were told, were known by American Intelligence but because of compromising informants, the intelligence community was forbidden to divulge this information. This fact alone, the location of these WMD, would have to me so totally swung the war issue in President Bush's favor and for legitimate reasons, that the opposition would have melted away. Don't misunderstand me I'm not saying that these WMD would justify an American invasion of any country. America can not pick and choose which countries to invade and which countries to supply with WMD. Even now after the major land offensive has ended, why has the media not been taken to the empty bunkers where these chemicals were known to be stored? Why not show up at these places with these high-tech devises that supposedly exist and detect these chemicals for the world to see. Everyday that goes by makes locating these WMD less likely and less believable. I don't trust our government not to plant these somewhere and "find" them later. If I cared anymore about the US than I do I would almost encourage this to undo the damage that our President has done to our reputation in the world. We are supposed to believe that alienating the entire world was a better option than jeopardizing even one informant. That telling the UN security counsel in secret or even a leak of there location, because it would jeopardize an informant was impossible. We are apparently supposed to believe this is just an example of American honor when dealing with foreign policy issues. Perhaps this is the reason, but someone with even a basil knowledge of American history and human nature couldn't possibly accept this without at least a few unresolved questions. The story the American people were fed got even stranger when we were told of the diabolically illusive "mobile labs", that although not substantiated by American Intelligence, are apparently invisible! Its not for the average American to contemplate that after over 10 years of devastating UN sanctions that Iraqi scientists could produce a cloaking technology. I don't mean to lessen the severity of the matter by joking but it helps me, as I'm sure it helps others, personally deal with it. I heard on Public Radio a little while ago that France was calling to have the sanctions on Iraq removed. Hussein has been out of power over a week and the sanctions are still in place! While the U.S searches desperately for the WMD, leaving the humanitarian aid up to others to worry about, another country steps in and has to say "Hey have we forgotten something...the people are dying!" America has proven to the world, once again, where our interests lie. Concerns for justification, not humanitarian concerns. In science, there are laws that are recognized to effect a grain of sand and a universe all the same. Similarly, there are laws that effect individuals and countries all the same. The people in Palestine for instance, under these situations that drive their young men and women to horrible acts, deserve our pity not our hatred. They should be helped, not destroyed. As parents, aren't we told that when our children lash out they are trying to get our attention? When a child enters a school and murders their classmates are they not desperately asking for help? If we could find a way of predicting which children are "likely" to strike out should we employ preemptive strike and euthanise them? The specialists say that these children always exhibit signs prior to this and if we as adults, would only take notice of these signs, this kind of disaster could be avoided. I agree totally as most observant people would, and I go farther saying it's exactly the same in the international community. If that is, the impediments that block this knowledge from our minds were removed. Another law that I believe effects individuals and countries all the same is the #1 rule in all of Bullydom, and that is...If you look for trouble you will find more than you want. If all that America receives from these transgressions is a fat black eye we should be able to go home and lick our wounds and learn from this! I'm afraid this runs against the grain of most Texan attitudes though, and this might prove to difficult for the President. There is certainly no chance of this happening prior to the next elections. At this point I would like to remind you of the fact that most all revolutions end in civil war between factions. That unless a man like Napoleon or Sadam Hussien steps up and unifies the groups by force, they will continue to fight. This is a well known fact to anyone who has studied this phenomenon. To think that the United States is going to go in and impart the wisdom of our forefathers, a wisdom we obviously no longer possess ourselves, onto a large diverse population, the majority of who don't want to know it in the first place, defies all logic. The only way this "nation building" could possibly...could possibly have a chance is to install a leader and supply that leader with the military equipment to hold the country together. In other words install a Napoleon or Sadam Hussein! Its just what we have to do in Afghanistan...and haven't accomplished yet. That's why we have yet to hear about the wonderful job we've done helping those poor people. From most accounts Afghanistan is a disaster area. The goal of a terrorist or any revolutionary (for that's what a terrorist is) is to disrupt the throw the tea into the harbor so to speak, and say "We will not stand for this"! All revolutionaries come to a point where they finally accept the fact that it will have to get a lot worse before it gets better, by definition it takes reaching this point to force most people to revolt. With this in mind one can not argue that the people behind Sept. 11th must be quite satisfied with events so far. By their flawless attempt to draw us out and into world-wide conflict over their demands, they have won. Demands that I say with certainty an overwhelming majority of Americans are still clueless about. If someone you loved were savagely murdered, wouldn't a natural response to that be to ask why? Don't you think responsible, unbiased journalists would point to the obvious reasons, reasons that the terrorist themselves went to there deaths shouting? NO! these answers were neither demanded nor produced by our country in the mad response to exact revenge that our President was at the forefront leading. Ask George Bush this question, "Why did it happen" he would say what he is told to say by the voice in his ear. He would say something like it would be a waste of time to even consider talking to these madmen bent on our destruction. It is such a twisted idea that we are to believe that the freedom of their speech would endanger us all. America being one of the most fortunate countries in the world in regards to resources, I would like to think, could explore many options before taking the easy way out by resorting to war. This would require self control which is obviously wanting in our people as well as our President. In the people it is forgivable, in the leadership it is inexcusable. Our President was actually encouraging our country to instantly react just as some, no doubt, predicted and hoped. It would have without a doubt frustrated and confounded the terrorists much more if we would have done nothing! An impossibility I know but think, it would have proved that we will not react to terrorist demands. Instead we overreact to terrorist demands! Instead we go as hard and as fast as we can to meet them on their own turf... absurd! Not one single alternative was legitimately proposed in good faith, of this I am convinced. I can understand the general populace's call for blood in retaliation for being attacked but I would like to think that our leadership, a leadership at the helm of a power that could destroy the world would show a little more restraint from the passions of the heart. For isn't that the one true mark of leadership? In the leadership of this country I know, as many in the country know, there are influences and forces at work. Through favors and financial contributions they jostle to attract the ears of the politicians. This is an irrefutable fact that we are conditioned to accept as reality. Why when you offer money to a police officer it's bribery, but to a politician, it's a tax deductible contribution? Some of these influences would gladly applaud a strike into the Middle East. Perhaps these influences are in the minority, of this I am almost sure. I am equally sure though, that these influences are the strongest in the country. The strength of these influences lie in their financial resources they are allowed to draw upon and also in their ability to mobilize their constituency into a display of unity at the polls. The current path that the US is pursuing will undoubtedly result in many more causalities than the alternative path of actually dealing with the issues that create these anti-American attitudes...granted the percentage of casualties that are American will be less the longer this goes on, but this is not a matter of us against them as the President and the media would have you believe. It's a matter of humanity. I've heard some people, including the President and everyone below him, say that under no circumstances can we communicate and deal with terrorists. I ask you again to consider that a terrorist is nothing more than a desperate man? Take away his reason for desperation, in short a lack of communication to begin with. More specifically in this case, America's unwillingness or inability to address his concerns. You will be left with just a man asking for help. I say this is a catch 22 designed specifically this way! A man asking for help is much more difficult to wage war on and destroy than a evil terrorist. I believe there are influential people in this country who much prefer this man stay an evil terrorist. As I have said this is a matter of humanity. A child having his or her face burnt off doesn't care if the person doing it is an Muslim, Jew or Christian. One of the arguments for the war(s) is "Don't you want the world safe for your children". Well when I look into my sons eyes I know in an instant that I would sacrifice my life to secure his happiness, but his happiness will be unattainable as long as the world has not attained its happiness and for that I would sacrifice us both. Since its inception, all media has been produced as propaganda. So, much of what I'm about to say is no different. Its NOT my hope to convince the readers that the ideas put forth here are all correct, I am still questioning them myself. It is my hope however, that the readers will walk away with a few unanswered questions of their own that they must discuss with friends to help find the answers to. I believe it is the job of every human being that makes the decision to become a voter, to actively take part and educate themselves on important issues such as national security, so they will help themselves make informed decisions when the time comes. We do not expect our adolescents to get behind the controls of our cars without some form of education, because the chance that it could result in a fatality, correct. Yet we as "political adolescents" readily climb behind the controls of a decision making process that could result in everyone's fatality. The best advice I ever heard from a teacher on this subject, was "If you don't know anything about it, stay out of it". To help you better receive the shock and awe of what I'm about to explore I think it would be appropriate to tell you a little about myself and what motivates me to write this. My motivation for writing about this matter is simply to try and illustrate the importance of having the interests of American national security considered paramount to any foreign policy issues. By doing this I'm sure we can build a more stable future, a much more solid peace for our children. I have decided that the best way to describe myself, and the briefest way would be by telling you who the five men I admire most are...Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Anwar Sadat, and Yitzak Rabin. A couple of Christians, a Hindu, a Muslim, and a Jew. I think this shows that although as an American, whose ancestors fought to help establish the United States of America, and then fought to help hold that union together, I am biased as such but I declare to god, the one true god of Abraham that all true Christians, Jews and Muslims worship alike, that I possess no allegiance to any race or religion. I admire these five men for their dedication to righteousness and their understanding that it requires sacrifice sometimes to live up to that dedication. This sense of sacrifice is a fact that separates these men from mere men, and if I am forced to claim allegiance it will be to this fact, and this fact alone. A man with no reason to die has no reason to live! With that out of the way I'll return to the main idea I was originally intending to present. As a student of history one comes across countless scenarios that bare striking similarities to other events in time. History can certainly be used as a road map through difficult times, showing possible outcomes for certain actions. I believe there is absolutely nothing occurring today that hasn't occurred in one form or another in history. The feelings of desperation that motivate a people today is the same desperation that motivated people thousands of years ago. Peoples reactions to these feelings have not changed at all over the course of time, and for this reason, our actions and reactions have developed a pattern that we can examine by looking at history. For instance consider the world in the early 20th century to the world in the early 21st century. Technology has changed more drastically over the last century than all the centuries prior, but mankind has remained the same. That's why a comparison can be made between 1760 and 1960 if we choose. Compare the actions of Gavarilo Princip to Osama Bin Laden. Princip was an Austrian who was associated with a Serbian group called "The Black Hand". He assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian Thrown, while visiting Sarajevo in 1914. Austria's reaction was to declare war on Serbia in an apparent attempt to destroy "The Black Hand" that was based in Serbia. Well this apparently justified act led the world into WWI and cost millions of lives. Not only that but without WWI there never would have been a WWII, So because of this justified act perhaps a billion people have died and the repercussions are being felt to this day. Now you can easily compare this to the United States' response to send troops to Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda. This has led to us threatening every nation in the world that we perceive as threatening us, even though they have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The threats from all these nations existed during the last several administrations and will continue to exist for many more. The current administration has exhibited a lack of reasoning to differentiate between the threats as real and perceived. Why does the Bush administration have to tackle all these problems right this instant, unless of course there are other motivating factors. Come with me on an accelerated trip through history and see how one impetuous act leads to many down the road. Lets start with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand perpetrated by Gavarilo Princip in 1914. This led to WWI which caused England to seize power over Palestine from Turkey, among other places in the Middle East. WWI also ultimately led to the very unjust Treaty of Versailles in 1918. This fostered a deep seated hatred for all things French, and an insult to German honor that most Germans felt. This led to the rise of Adolph Hitler, champion of the German people in the 1930's. This led to WWII in 1940's and this of course led to the holocaust. The holocaust in turn led to a feeling of guilt and sympathy over Hitler's "final solution' to the "Jewish Question". This feeling of sympathy enabled many Jews to migrate to Palestine and force the question of a Jewish state upon England (through many terrorist acts might I add). This led to the rise of pro-Israeli feelings that many Jews around the world experience. This pro-Israel feeling has given rise to lobby groups around the world. The lobby groups persuading these countries have enable a very young country like Israel to build up an incredible arsenal of military power. That has enabled them to go on a perceived offensive with their Arab neighbors without much fear of retaliation. This perceived offensive has spawned a militia type organization that has led to Sept. 11th. We in return attack Afghanistan and then Iraq, like Austria did to Serbia, to root out this terrorist organization. It's interesting to look back on history and see what motivated certain individuals to produce high-tech weapons. If you look to the history of gunpowder you find a man named Alfred Nobel. Who after refining gunpowder, inventing TNT and nitroglycerin declared that his hopes were that his discoveries would make war obsolete. Then we come across the history of the machine-gun, although the inventor has slipped my mind, his sentiment that his creation would make wars obsolete hasn't. Robert Oppenhiemer shared this sentiment when he help create the atomic bomb. I would imagine that the first person to make a metal knife blade thought the same thing. Humanity is what creates this sentiment in people, take away the humanity and you just get people who invent "smart-bombs" and "predator drones" to kill lots of the enemy. The point to this is that while these men prayed their inventions would be used to end war, in contrast they only made war easier and made killing a lot less personal. No longer did you have to become part of the killing by sighting in on an individual and pulling the trigger, you simply had to push a button. During WWI and WWII whole populations of people, man, woman and child had to be mobilized to fight a war. The soldier on the front line contributed to victory no more than his wife who stayed in the States and worked his job at the steel mill producing the weapons he would use to fight it. Wars of the past were great motivaters. They motivated the people into knowing they were making a difference, that they were helping save the world. This fact caused the very act of war, as long as you were winning, to boost the economies. This led to the current fallacy believed by some that a war in the Middle East would help our current economy. Again this is caused by ignorance of the situations of today and yesterday. Back in the day if you wondered how the war was going you went to the gas station to see if you could get gas. Today we sit on our couches and watch 24 hour news coverage of it. I ask you were is the motivation? Today's wars are in no way similar to the great wars of the 20th century. Unless you take into account the massive loss of life incurred by them that could almost certainly be avoided. I say these violent purges of mankind's stupidity, in the form of World Wars, will certainly continue until the chain is broken. For anyone to say the United States attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in retaliation over Sept. 11th is not only guilty of oversimplifying but is also obviously ignorant of the history that has been unfolding over the last century.< To truly affect a solution to this persistent problem that has plagued the world for a century we must look at the events. Not the events that are in our immediate memory but back into history where these problems start, when you find that point then...and only then will we be on the right track to finding a solution. Until this approach is applied to our problems we will only be postponing the next terrorist attack. Until we break the chain that has led up to Sept. 11th we will only be working toward the next World War, it is inevitable. If we as a country truly want to improve our future then we need to at least take into consideration our past, because just like world history, American history is just a cycle of events that evoke the same reaction time and time again. This problem was bound to arise. To quell the feelings of uncertainty that are encountered time and again by every generation we have history to look to. Our founding fathers laid the foundation for a great nation and it has been the responsibility of successive generations to add to that foundation, but just like a home, a nations foundation can be attacked by forces and eroded right out from under the first and second stories. Unless precautions are taken to insure this doesn't happen, it is to be expected. What precaution has the United States taken? I don't mean a military stockpile to stay in the lead of the arms race. Well our Founding Fathers left a wealth of documents to aid in our upkeep of the foundation. The document that believe best encapsulates most of the concerns to our young republic is to be found in President Washington's farewell address. I have repeatedly read this document and tried to apply it to our situation to show that we needn't be so afraid of what tomorrow will bring, that is if we chose to heed the warnings put forth in President Washington's farewell. Following are parts of that farewell speech that I have chosen to record for this paper, but I insist it is your duty to find a copy in its entirety and study it. As you will see it's what President Washington expected. On Sept 15th 1796, George Washington after having completed two terms as President of the United States stepped before congress to tell the American people that he would not except the nomination to a third term. After stating this he continued..."Here perhaps I ought to stop, but a solicitude for your welfare which can not end with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present, to offer to your contemplation and recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection"...And he goes on to highlight some points of concern. These points he put forth in hopes they might serve as guidelines to our future government. He warned that those entrusted in the administration of government to be confined to their constitutional spheres "avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon the powers of another". He said that "the spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism". He agreed that if the distribution of power in the government appears to the people to be in a particular wrong, then let it be changed by amendment. But let there be no change my usurpation". He explained "for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." President Washington also advised us to "observe good faith and justice to all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people guided by an exalted justice and benevolence". One major point of concern to President Washington was factional divisiveness, what we call BI-partisan politics. He warned that division along geographical lines was a danger. We experienced the effect of this during the civil war. He also said, "Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of parry generally. This spirit, unfortunately is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all forms of government...but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy." He warned that this partisanship "serves always to distract the public agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms...kindles the animosity against one part against another". The result of this President Washington spelled out as, "It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through these channels of parry passion. Thus the policy and will of another country are subjected to the policy and will of another". One point that has since become known as his great rule follows..."Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens, the jealousy of a free people should always be awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the very instrument to be avoided instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and an excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger on only one side, and serve to veil and actually second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots" Washington says, "who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while the tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests". I think it is obvious to most that in every case the advice that President Washington past down through the generations, that I have listed and still many, many more I have not, has been ignored. Perhaps in one or two examples if these "rules" were broken I would not fear for the safety of my country, but it is impossible to find any advice of President Washington's that we as a nation have chosen to follow. This we should fear. I think the civil war that the U.S. experienced plainly illustrates the possible consequences of disregarding his advice. It is my belief from my study of history that we have in every case betrayed the ideals of our founding fathers. That we as a people have been lulled into the belief that the great experiment of the United States Government ended long ago. We have become complacent and the "jealousies" that we should possess have been exchanged for an unquestioning allegiance to the President, and not an allegiance to the country which our constitution represents. Since all media is propaganda one of the few choices the consumer has is to decide what influence they want the producer of their media to be under before they ingest it. It has been said an opinion is like a set of scales, and if the information you receive is all one sided your opinion will be off balance and quite frankly irrelevant to the larger picture. This is the point that General Washington eluded to in his farewell address in regards to the one sided media disseminating the "intrigues of the favorite". During the media blitz about the war, the FCC had been considering rescinding a law that limited the number of media outlets one corporation could legally own in a given market, monopolies they once were called. This was originally designed to protect us from one sided views and ideas, as well as create competition that is the hallmark of capitalist societies. The chairman of the FCC the other day said that this law is outdated, that this was a pre-Internet law. I interpret this to mean, for one his mind was already made up, and two that if you don't actively seek to acquire information from a variety of mediums, honestly how many of us do, then you are not regarded in his equation, that you are not worth considering. If the state budgets are cut as they are all being, and library funding disappears, then the last bastion of technology for the poor will disappear too. Is the Chairman of the FCC prepared to invite you to his house to use his computer? I think this is yet another example that the people in charge are out of touch and another example of leaving the poor people out in the cold. Perhaps if our economy gets so bad that we have no bread we will be told to eat cake! I believe that this paper adequately highlights why it is so very essential to have a broad based media that covers all topics from every angle, and I believe is what was meant by article 12 of the Virginia Declaration that states, "The freedom of press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick governments". Of course you may chose to interpret this to mean the exact opposite of what I interpret it to mean. I'm certain that the framers of the constitution, of which the Virginia Declaration was a major influence, had not anticipated the giant media conglomerates of the 20th and 21st centuries. I hope that by the end of this paper you might understand my point of view. If then you don't write your own paper. At this point I really don't know what's been done by the FCC about this since the media refuses to cover it, but judging from the ignorant comments of the chairman, It looks bleak. Of course the people who own the large media companies don't want to educate the public on this and the war is a convenient way of pushing this subject out of the headlines (perhaps just coincidence). Ask yourself this, why is this media conglomeration an acceptable form of monopoly, but Bill Gates and Microsoft are portrayed in the media as the antithesis of a free market economy. Microsoft is not trying to purchase every computer company in the country. The lack of unbiased knowledge that the American public receives via the media can only be a direct attempt to misinform, or should I say, ill-inform the public due to self-promoting interests. When Stalin became the leader of the U.S.S.R after the death of Lenin he showed that he understood the importance of media by erecting movie theaters all over the Soviet Union to show movies that Stalin himself edited to bolster his image. In some of these films Stalin was even portrayed as the leading figure in the Russian revolution. I think this shows that even the most outrageous concept can be covered with enough sugar to make it palatable. Stalin's political opponents, like Leon Trotsky were erased from the manuscripts of history. Every village had access to a movie theater. In these theaters the ignorant peasant would ingest all sorts of messages that would shape his opinion of his world. Bathing communist life in the sunlight enlightenment, while portraying the proletariat and bourgeois classes of the capitalist society as somehow foreign to god's design. This was done to help ensure the populations support of the government. Stalin understood the importance of media as a propaganda machine. Eleanor Roosevelt wrote in her autobiography of her visits to the Soviet Union during Stalin's tenure as leader. There she saw the Soviets engaged in a type of education of their young that she said appeared to be based on the research conducted by the scientist Ivan Pavlov. Mrs. Roosevelt wrote that this "conditioning" would ensure that the population would be more manageable and react to certain stimulus in more predictable ways. In the earliest days of the United States various politicians like Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams and many of our founding fathers started their own newspapers to disseminate and popularize their views while bashing their opponents, which most of the time was each other. Some of these surviving papers, all of which have transferred ownership to the media barons, have grown into the oldest and most respected in the country today. In fact almost all newspapers share the same shameful beginning as Stalin's own propaganda machine. I've already touched upon the fact that most major media outlets are controlled by people who almost certainly have biased leanings, and that it goes to reason that this, consciously or not, has got to have some influence on what makes it to print. If the leading paper in Boston, for example, were owed by a die-hard catholic. How willing would the owner have been to break the story that Bernard Law looked the other way when one of his priests was accused of being a pediphile? Well what did President Washington mean by saying, "Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and an excessive dislike for another...serve to veil and second the arts of influence"? In the 70's President Nixon who maybe not so coincidentally is remembered as a bad President stated bluntly, "People have got to realize that Jews in the US control the entire information and propaganda machine and there is a force to take into consideration". Ben Stein recently published a work entitled, "Do Jews Own Hollywood? You Bet They Do and What Of It". CNN, AOL, Time Warner, FOX, CBS, Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, ESPN, Disney, Touchstone, Buena Vista, ABC, New World Entertainment, DreamWorks, MCA, US World Report, The New York Times, NEWSWEEK, The Washington Post, and this is barely the tip of the iceberg. When the FCC rescinds that law I mentioned earlier the list will go on indefinitely until there are no more companies, just one single propaganda machine. Comrade Stalin will be quite envious. In the eighties some of you might recall the Rev. Jesse Jackson made a racial slur in reference to New York City calling it "Himey Town". Look at what the media has accomplished in regards to this mans reputation. A man who stood shoulder to shoulder with one of the greatest Americans of any generation Martin Luther King Jr. Rev. Jackson's reputation completely destroyed in what appears to me to be an on going, although periodical campaign in the media. If the Reverend Jackson can be so destroyed, what would save any of us if we say something that attracts its wrath. I remember during President Clinton's trials and tribulations a remark my Father made in passing that I have not forgotten, to the effect that when he was younger the media never would have dishonored and shamed the President like they did President Clinton. I say its not the same media he recalls. This is an interesting thing to consider. If in Mark Twain's classic "Tom Sawyer", Tom's friend Jim were repeatedly referred to as a kike would that book be so dear to America...certainly not, and Mr. Twain instead of being regarded as one of the greatest writers America has ever produced would be instead regarded as a disseminator of anti-Semitic propaganda on the scale of Joseph Goebbels, burnt in effigy along with everything he ever wrote, and forgotten. How many Jews have we ever seen smoking crack on TV? Or robbing a liquor store? Or prostituting themselves out? About the only "dregs" that Judaism will willing lay claim to is Bob Dylan or Gene Simmons and their both American icons! I truly am surprised that the game "monopoly" still has that little fat guy as a trademark, if it still does that is, and if it does its only because America has been conditioned to deny what that little character represents. Ask someone in a crowd what that character represents....uh, a banker or maybe a capitalist. Ask the same person who Al Jolson, Aunt Jamima , Sambo, Mushmouth, Fat Albert, or Amos and Andy represent and I bet its to the effect of a stereotype of an ignorant black! In a crowd or not, you will likely get they same answer to the second question. This is just like the cartoon "Dodd and Elrod", or "Snuffy Smith". Everyone knows these cartoons represent white trash, and many would announce this fact in a schoolroom full of children without the slightest hesitation. The "Monopoly" guy is an exception that slipped past the sensors, I guess. Note for yourself how many times black persons are portrayed as righteous brothers like Ruben Carter and how many times you see them portrayed as whore mongering ,crack smoking ghetto trash. It's changed some over the decades since the civil rights movement but still has decades to go. Conversely, note how many times you see a Jew either portrayed like the main character in "The Pianist" or like...the fact is there are no bad stereotypes of Jews in the media! Every year or two there's a movie put out portraying Jews as the struggling oppressed ones. Imagine though the "Monopoly Jew" as a TV character who has all the attributes of Scrooge McDuck...How many seasons would this run? Blacks for decades have rebelled against Hollywood claiming that it's depiction of Blacks as ignorant, barefooted, foot shuffling, Uncle Tom, house-niggers driving Miss Daisy around is an insult, god damn right it is. One of my favorite expressions of this is in a song entitled "Burn Hollywood, Burn". It's these stereotypes that allow a decent, innocent, hard working, family man like Ruben Carter to get railroaded in the first place, and believe it, it happens daily in one way or another. Who do they turn that anger on? Well you heard Ben Stein so defiantly declare "Jews own Hollywood". Hollywood willingly perpetuates these stereotypes upon America and who takes the heat? Hollywood is not only responsible for Ruben Carter going to jail in the first place, but then when he's finally acquitted Hollywood is responsible for pointing out the injustice that whitey has once again wronged the black man. I ask you again who takes the heat for this? I'll tell you who takes it, the ignorant white trash on the west side who "aint gotta goddamn clue as to what the hell yer so uptight about"! Black peoples hostility toward them only exacerbates their own hostility toward blacks in return, or vice versa, because its pointless to say where it originates. The point is, we are all pawns in this game, and the white trash on the west side are no better or worse off than the niggers on the east side! I'm saying that the media, which black society has acknowledged for years, but that they too have been conditioned to accept, has been portraying blacks in the most negative way possible. This only acts as a catalyst increasing the level of ignorance, fear and loathing, that we are all told by the media, exists in the white community as well as the black. It is my belief that Hollywood owned by Jews has been disguised by their skin color so as to be able to continue these absurd stereotypes, without receiving one word of negative press, which wouldn't make it into the press anyway cause they own that too! To paraphrase a quote by Marlon Brando, We've seen the greaser, the nigger, the slant-eye, even the wily Filipino, but we have never seen the kike, because they know that is going to far. Once you have opened your eyes to this fact you will drown in the flood of images that assault your brain daily, if not hourly. Why? Why would I even consider giving a voice to this ridiculous, obviously intricate and surely pointless idea? Here you as the reader have two choices, both of which will furnish satisfying answers to this question. You have the choice to stop and go with your "gut-feeling" along with all the neon signs flashing to "nazi-ism", that are no doubt burning at this moment with a wattage equal to the sun, or you can read on. Thank You for making what I hope is the right choice. It's a well known fact that a people divided are much easier to control than a people united. As long as a certain "conditioned" people can be kept herded together it is child's play predicting their reaction to issues or how they will vote as a block. I say the issues that for years have been crammed down our throats as either white or black just help widen the demilitarized zone between Americans. The United States' as well as the Soviet Union's governments have used this technique of manipulation to divide an otherwise homogeneous group of peoples, in Latin America and the Middle East for instance, into warring countries vying for the favors of the intriguer. I believe Washington's words apply to all governments not just Republican governments. They become pawns like Fidel Castro or Sadam Hussein, and when their side they align themselves with disintegrates. Then their countries suffer, their society suffers, their economies suffer, their children die in countless numbers from things like parasites and malnutrition that we have never heard of in our wealth! All for the sake of a game. Us against them! Democracy against Communism! If you understand why this is I have to ask you if you have a soul? If you have a child, have you ever looked into their eyes? It is the only thing you can look at in the world without wondering how the other side sees it. If given the choice of exterminating every complacent, apathetic slob I know in this country, including myself, to fix the situation and save one innocent Iraqi child, I think you know my answer(sorry fellas but the world is better off without you)


"What I heard the President say also disturbed me. It may make for grand theater to describe Saddam Hussein as an ally of al Qaeda or to characterize the fall of Baghdad as a victory in the war on terror, but stirring rhetoric does not necessarily reflect sobering reality. Not one of the 19 September 11th hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence to link the September 11 attack on the United States to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, and there is no doubt in my mind that he encouraged and rewarded acts of terrorism against Israel. But his crimes are not those of Osama bin Laden, and bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not bring justice to the victims of 9-11. The United States has made great progress in its efforts to disrupt and destroy the al Qaeda terror network. We can take solace and satisfaction in that fact. We should not risk tarnishing those very real accomplishments by trumpeting victory in Iraq as a victory over Osama bin Laden. "-Senator Bird

Last of my opinions...

Currently it appears to most everyone in the world that in the Middle East this technique of playing sides has finally backfired on the United States on a grand scale. The difference in applying this technique of manipulation in the Middle East and when it is applied in Latin America, is best exemplified by the degree in which both groups have lashed out at us for it in the past. It also explains why we got away with it so long in Latin America without life altering reprisals. Pancho Villa the great Mexican revolutionary leader, hero to most Latin Americans, and one of only a few foreign people to strike the mainland of the United States in an attack, the others being from the Middle East. General Villa did what he could do in 1916 by riding his Division del Norte into Columbus, New Mexico, and shooting the town up after he fell victim to this double-dealing technique, killing a handful of Americans. It's interesting to note that prior to this he was described by a General Grant of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the "George Washington of Mexico". I cant imagine a greater compliment from a military man. That was as long as he appeared complacent to US demands. The very reasons that the United States backed Pancho Villa and led General Grant to compliment him, ultimately proved his downfall. After realizing just how powerful and charismatic a leader Villa was becoming the United States decided that after many months of supporting him it would be in America's interest to support his rival, Venustiano Carranza, the weaker of the two men. Villa, who was known to fly into blinded rages, did at the betrayal from whom he considered friends and allies. Who do you think paid the price for this betrayal? The American citizens of Columbus, New Mexico. More recently, Osama Bin Laden in 2001 did what he could do by attacking New York City. It is my belief that to Bin Laden, New York City in a sense, almost certainly represents the capital of Israel. Israel, a country that has since it's creation in 1948, has been on a campaign of expansion through military aggression. It has repeatedly inflicted this upon everyone of it's Arab neighbors. Here I would like to point out that one of the founding precepts of the American constitution is the separation of church and state. If history has taught us anything it is that politics and religion don't mix. President Bush even used the seperation of church and state as an excuse to reject the demand of representation in the new Iraqi government by the more extreme muslim elements in that country. A country boasting of a single official state religion has through the years always been regarded as an oppressor. Ask yourself this, why would President Bush oppose a country run by Shi'ites, but caters to the pro-israel lobby like he owes them a huge favor. Back to Bin Laden though, if you ask where's the double dealing I talked of, you have to look no further than the Iran/contra affair. Although not directly related to Bin Laden, it most definitely effected his world. While the US spent years supporting Sadam Hussein and Iraq as he was knowingly gassing the Iranians with the Communist backing (the American Government thought in this case the ends justified the means), the Reagan administration covertly and illegally sold arms to the Ayatollah Khomeni of Iran so that American hostages in Lebanon would be released, the Ayatollah , Sadam Hussien's arch enemy. Knowing that at the same time that President Carter was in negotiations for the hostages, while trying a little to campaign to be reelected, future Vice President elect George Bush was making secret agreements with Khomeni to get the hostages released. Bush told Khomeni that if you keep the hostages until the election that would certainly cause President Carter's downfall, then you can have your weapons. One could argue that the hostages were secondary to the election results. Was I the only one who thought it strange that the hostages were released 30 minutes after President Carter left office. Khomeni, Sadam Hussein and the United Nations have something in common, as long as they worked with the US, they were supported but when the US had no use for them we threw them away. As I've said, while the Iran\contra affair was not directly related to Bin Laden, it definitely effected his world and his country, his country being Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family being viewed by many in the Arab world as pawns to America. Bin Laden, like Villa, being at one time supported by the US, and then being viewed as a threat to American interests by the US, was sent into exile by the royal family. Thence began his plotting revenge on the United States. Given the truth about our track record, of which I wouldn't guarantee most Americans know better than most Arabs. Who is to say when we will finish with Saudi's Crown Prince Faud and expose him to the light of justice as the dictatorial despot that all monarchies through out time have always been considered. An ignorant supporter of the enemy is no less an enemy than a willing supporter, and that goes for the American citizen as well. That's why any way you look at it New York City was and still is as viable and honest a target as any other city in the United States or Israel to people who consider us a threat to their interests. Consider this, if we were at war with say, Iraq, this should be easy enough to imagine, and we find out that say, Syria is supplying them with military aid. Would not Syria then become a prime legitimate target? If Syria didn't know we knew, would it be any less of a target. If you understand this idea then there is hope that you might understand that on Sept 10th 2001, the United States was no less at war then on Sept. 12th, 2001. The only difference is on the 11th the veil was forcibly removed and we were made abundantly clear of this fact. We have been at war for decades with these anti-American factions in one form or another, it has only recently pierced the shroud of ignorance that we as American's have been living under. Long after every nation in the world has been forced, coerced and bribed into alignment with the United States, we will still be at war. Thanks to our manipulating foreign policy there will always be a fresh supply of enemy combatants. Like I said earlier human nature can not be subdued by mere force, and I still thank god for this. The major difference between the events of 1916 and 2001 is not the time frame. The major difference is that America is now meddling and manipulating a region with vast financial resources and can and will afford the major strikes at the US. One similarity in these events that one can not argue with is the response of the US government to send an overwhelming force into the regions to root out the corresponding leaders. Neither of these expeditions to this date has yet succeeded. Woodrow Wilson saved face only because WWI broke out and stole the headlines allowing him to withdraw the "punitive expedition" under the command of General Pershing and send them to Europe to fight the Kaiser. Likewise George W Bush sent an overwhelming force into Afghanistan under General Tommy Franks to root out Bin Laden. Unlike Wilson though, Bush was not lucky enough to have WWIII break out at the desired moment to distract the headlines so he could slip out of this mess he's created. So Bush has done the next best thing? He knows as most know that this will not end until an outcome that will secure his re-election has been attained. An outcome that will justify the loss of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that every American knowingly or not has underwent. As school children we are reminded repeatedly that 'those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it'. Name one instance when this mantra was adhered to by "grown-ups". If we're lucky history will repeat itself to the point when Wilson had a massive cerebral hemorrhage. Take a look at a time line chart and notice how the marks that represent events get progressively more congested the closer to present day you get. It will not be 85 years before the next assault on America takes place so we should start addressing the issues now! The issue that created these terrorist's attitudes, as well as millions and millions of others around the globe and back, is directly related to our biased, unjust foreign policy decisions. I say that the pro-Israeli media coverage of the Middle East has knowingly pushed its own biased view of the situation onto the American public for literally decades. So long in fact that the specter of the holocaust has become as much ingrained into our society as the belief that we own the patent on free speech and the right to bear arms. The Jews that were deported and exterminated from the Warsaw ghetto and the Jews that are on the campaign to deport and exterminate the Palestinians are different beings. It looks as though Americans are not the only ones who've forgotten their history. Take this as an example of the media bias. The act of televising Hanukkah celebrations for instance, would have been unthinkable a generation or two ago, not that I believe there's anything wrong with this, in fact I revel in diversity, but my point is in contrast Ramadan has only became know to the general public thanks to terrorism! I believe that it has been known for years in other countries that the "fanatical" supporters of Israel in America have been pushing and dragging American foreign policy into a war in the Middle East, as an example to the enemies of Israel, of the danger of American military support for Israel. At least I know this is what the Arab world believes. How do I know this? Any news source outside this country discusses these concerns of Arabs thoroughly. I say that European countries have been aware of this "final solution" to their problems that Israel has been pushing, with the aid from the American pro-Israeli lobby, in the Middle East. I believe that it is proved in the fact that the European Union was formed, and switched from a dollar based economy to one that is based on the Euro. The media in this country glossed over this topic by saying that it was a matter of convenience for tourists on the Eurorail traveling throughout Europe no doubt a benefit, but to say that such a monumental change, not to mention a show of unity at the exclusion of the US, and which has no precedent to my knowledge in the course of human history is based on tourism is ludicrous beyond conception to me. Israel is conducting what I call self-fulfilling support from America. American taxpayers are giving Israel billions and billions of dollars in aid a year, way more than any other country. Now of course foreign governments are forbidden to funnel money into American politics. I ask why should it be any different with Americans that possess dual citizenship? Would we elect a president with dual citizenship? Saying a person has dual citizenship is the same as saying they have dual interests or divided allegiance. Should America have persons with divided loyalties influencing the government? It doesn't sound like a good idea to me, nor did it sound like a good idea to General Washington for that matter. Israeli-Americans take a small percentage of this aid from the United States taxpayer and re-invests it back into the American government. It's a fact, so much so, that politicians have used finance reform as platforms for running on. The last one was Senator McCain who ran against Bush in the republican primary. One could easily view this as a last ditch effort by "Real Patriots" in government to thwart this plan. I've read were this concept is not so strange to people in the "know", including more moderates in Israel. American Jews have been described by these more moderate voices in Israel as "more Israeli than most Israelis". Granted these financial aid reform candidates don't get far because the average American of which 50 percent never vote are not informed by there community leaders (the media) that it is not necessarily to combat big business but foreign interest lobbies. Where as the Israeli-American of which 90 percent always vote are told by their community leaders (the media owners) of the specific relevance. I've heard that it has been estimated that Israel has at least 300 Political Action Committees (PAC)working in Washington. The exact number is difficult to say because many PACs have misleading names. Dr. Thomas Stauffer was quoted in the Christian Science Monitor in December of 2002 as saying that he estimates this aid has cost American taxpayers 1.7 trillion dollars. That's a third of the national debt! How many foreign governments have PACs working with American politicians and hosting photo opportunities with them where they have for example Colin Powell, the Sec. of State of the United States standing in front of the flag of their nation? Not many if any at all, but with Israel...or should I say with the PAC with pro-Israeli interests...they host photo ops so much that it is not even noticed by most Americans. Its gotten to the point in the last few years that the PACs don't even make the slightest attempt to conceal the fact that they are lobbying the United States government on behalf of Israel. This is absolutely wrong in every way but the American people are conditioned just like Pavlov's dogs to accept this as completely normal without the slightest contemplation of what this means to their Government, of which need I remind you, is the entire concept behind President Washington's great rule. I find it very difficult to spell it out much more plainly than that! Through the eyes of the Arab world it must appear as it has been repeatedly stated in everything from Arabic media to Bin Laden's Fatwa that America is a country run by Jews, and with the knowledge of what really is happening in the government, how could you argue with this. We're conditioned to believe this idea of Jews running our government is somehow anti-Semitic, but if you say Israel's government is run by Jews, is that anti-Semitic? These images of our Government catering to the pro-Israel lobby are replayed over and over again around the world. With other countries they contact the American Government through their diplomat in the United States, but Israel's diplomat in many instances knows that he is expected to contact the American Government via the Jewish community and these PACs. If you want more than my opinion, and you definitely should. Find a copy of "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley, a congressman from Illinois for 22 years. One review said that "there's no denying Findley's premise-that pro-Israel interest throughout this country are pervasive, incredibly dogged, well moneyed and, unfortunately, often unfair in their tactics and targets. This book is an eye opener." How does a congressman of 22 years lose his seat? Mr. Findley states without hesitation it was because he was critical of U.S. policy toward Israel. I'm sure in some book somewhere Mr. Findley is a Nazi. This book has innumerable quotes from leading politicians. After you read this, you will see my ideas are not just my own. Let's get off this subject and go back to the 70's,so that you might see this is not just the rambling manifesto of a drunken, unemployed history professor (or maybe not). Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Brown, when questioned at Duke University about curbing the support America sends Israel replied, "When we get tough minded enough to break the Jewish lobby. It is so strong you wouldn't believe it. We have Israelis coming up to us for equipment. We say we can't get congress to support a program like this. They say don't worry about congress, we'll take care of it" General Brown goes on to say in disbelief that "this is someone from another country telling me this and they can do it". Well of course when General Brown was labeled an anti-Semitic by the press the commander of the US Air Force General Twining stepped up to defend Brown by saying, " A group of American Jews have grotesquely distorted US foreign policy by their blind fanatic support of Israel (this reflects the sentiment of those moderate voices from Israel). As head of our nations armed forces, he sees a nation of 200 million being dragooned into a disastrous war". General Twining goes on to say that, "General Brown deserves our praise for saying so". And again an Admiral Thomas Moorer, also of the Joint Chiefs of Staff repeats this sentiment, "I've never seen an American President, I don't care who he is, stand up to Israel. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. If the American people understood what kind of grip those people had on our government, they would rise up in arms". Remember this is in the 70's pro-Israeli control of our government, it goes to reason, could only have multiplied exponentially since these statements were made. Hence the now blatant displays of lobbying. Was it anti-Semitism that motivated these individuals? Possibly but its dangerous to accuse people of something that most Americans don't even know the definition of. In all the dictionaries I have consulted nowhere is politics included in the definition of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a personal, I repeat, personal attack on someone for their Jewish religion...not their politics, and politics is what this is all about. Don't let the issues be confused, because as the sun rises and sets, the powers that be will as they always have in the past, attempt just this. Why have these sort of pro-American statements apparently ceased since the 70's? Remember this question, I'll propose a possible answer shortly, but first I believe we should stay with the70's and look at the actions of the Presidents since then. Not that we couldn't go back to Truman and Eisenhower for the same type of information. I don't mean to say this started in the 70's, but it appears to me that things changed somehow in the 70's Consider this that in 70's when some of the last pro-American ideas had a voice Jimmy Carter(Dem) was President of the United States. If you read his memoirs Keeping Faith you will learn of the Camp David accords from President Carter's viewpoint as mediator. A job he continues to do for other countries around the globe and that he has as of late been honored with the Nobel Prize for. In his Memoirs of the historic meeting between Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egypt's President Anwar Sadat President Carter describes the two men repeatedly. Sadat he describes as a good man and as someone willing to compromise. Others have said of Sadat that he appeared "ready to bend over backwards" for peace. From the moment Anwar Sadat came to power, until the day his life was taken he fought tirelessly for peace. It's just this willingness that later led to his assassination. Begin on the other hand is described by President Carter as very uncooperative and unwilling to compromise on the smallest issue. It is interesting to note Begin was described by a fellow Israeli, journalist Simha Flapan, that when Begin as leader of Irgun in the early days of Israeli statehood was responsible for establishing "the pattern of terror used by Al Fatah 30 years later". The willingness of these two men to compromise is directly related to the difference in the amount of "pull" the two countries had in the United States. By no means do I mean to say Sadat was anything but a true humanitarian, but this "pull" continues to be the reason that Israel feels it doesn't have to compromise. The resulting peace treaty, although "historic" was a farce, as all peace treaties in the Middle East have been. I think everyone involved became so warn down after 13 days of unrelenting negotiations, that they all just wanted to present something and leave. Anyway, perhaps coincidentally, after his attempts to force Israel to inhale from the peace pipe, President Carter is voted out of office. I think it's worth noting here that from my research Jews in the US appeared prior to the 70's more likely to vote Democrat but from President Carter on there seems to be a significant shift to the Republican party. Jimmy Carter, a man that has almost without question proven himself morally and ethically superior to any man that has held that office since, or all of them combined, was voted out of office in favor of Ronald Reagan(Rep). Reagan , an expert politician, a better politician than Jimmy Carter to be sure, but also a man who allowed one of the worst crimes to be perpetrated by the American government in the history of the United States. Ask a school age child about the Iran\contra affair and you'll get a blank stare, but ask them about Watergate(and god forbid you mention Monica Lewinsky) and most at least know it happened during Nixon's watch. Do you have any idea how minor an affair Watergate was compared to the Iran\contra affair, or the Lewinsky scandal for that matter. Other countries didn't have the slightest concern for Monica Lewinsky and Watergate. Those were internal problems. The Iran\contra affair effected the entire Middle East AND South America! In all of those countries, trust in America, and America's reputation and was severely damaged, or at least exposed for what it is. What scandal will forever be truncheoned into our children's mind. The least important one, no doubt! Sexual scandals will always make for more memorable scandals by selling more media. Think about that fact alone! When George the first ran against Gary Hart(Dem), what was Mr. Hart's downfall, A SEX SCANDAL! It was splashed across every front page for weeks before the election. The timing alone made it impossible to get another candidate, and sealed the election of another known criminal. Now continue on. After Reagan we elect perhaps the only man more responsible for the aforementioned crime than Reagan himself George Bush(Rep). I wonder if George W. knows that if his Father would have prolonged the Gulf War things might have been different. Regardless, President Bush does such a dissatisfying job that no amount of support can salvage his presidency and he loses out to Bill Clinton(Dem). I believe it is important to look at how the press was used against Clinton from his campaign against Bush, through the end of his second term. It all started during his runaway campaign successes. First, the scandal that involved Jennifer Flowers. Clinton was fist allowed to deny it, then Flowers produced a tape recording of a phone conversation they had. Regardless if it sounded like she was setting him up...She recorded it what more proof do you need! Once this smoothed over and he was back to campaigning, then he had a draft dodging scandal. Then after his election the "Whitewater" scandal that involved Hillary Clinton was broke. Hillary's refusal to cooperate with investigators led to constant headlines and other scandals. After the "Whitewater" scandal broke, a scandal developed about his appointment to Attorney General, Zoe Baird, not paying taxes on her housekeeper. All this coupled with President Bush's misleading statements about the deficit during the campaign proved to negate all of the campaign promises about the budget. He looked like a liar basically. About this time Vince Foster, Hillary's law partner committed suicide. He left a note saying the press in Washington makes sport out of ruining people. The Arkansas paper-American Spectator then published the State Trooper scandal. Were it was reported Clinton used the Troopers to get dates. After this smoothed out, then Paula Jones accusations of sexual harassment. Then because Newt Gingrich and the Republican congress was getting nothing but good press it was said President Clinton had to "Shout and wave" to get the press' attention. Then the Oklahoma city bombing actually boosted his rating much like the Challenger explosion did for Reagan, but as soon as his numbers were up Hilary was brought before Ken Starr and the Special investigation over "Whitewater". A fact is that in no time before this was the First lady of the United States ever attacked like this and demonized by the press. Then President Clinton's "Shadow Advisor" Dick Morris, a traitor Republican had his own sex scandal. Then believe it or not President Clinton was reelected. Then Ken Starr the head prosecutor of the "Whitewater" case, which had nothing to do with Bill Clinton as President, dug up Monica Lewinsky. Ken Starr funded by the U.S. to investigate Hillary Clinton managed to turn his assault on the President. President Clinton was again allowed enough time to deny it and Linda Tripp turned up with a stained dress and her own incriminating audio tapes. Then, in retrospect, Clinton does something I was personally totally against at the time, struck Afganistan looking for Bin Laden. The press as well as everyone else, including me, said that was to distract the bloodthirsty wolves, but after Sept. 11th I changed my mind. The rest of the U.S has forgotten though. The strike into Afghanistan I wasn't against so much as the destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that has never been admitted by the government was a mistake. Then Clinton's numbers went up again then the Starr report came out. Also Clinton's grand jury testimony was aired on TV, where he repeatedly answer humiliating questions. This actually caused his numbers to go up. Then he was finally impeached. HE STILL HAD TWO YEARS TO GO! No more scandals could be uncovered...honestly after the Starr report and the impeachment which cost us millions and millions and accomplished nothing. I think Clinton's enemies gave up with 6 months of his last term I'm sure they counted him out. The last things Clinton was allowed to do, once his enemies backed off was the one thing he was elected 8 years earlier to do and that was fix the economy that Ronald Reagan and George Bush left in shambles. The only thing you could count on was that if President Clinton's popularity was up a scandal was around the corner. After 8 huge scandals, 4 of them sexual, of which only one or two could be linked to him, President Clinton left the Economy as Alan Greenspan put it "He had never seen such a strong economy". Imagine what might have been if the press would have let him do his job, in 6 month he did what the last two republicans Reagan and Bush were unable to do, balance the budget. In fact the Republicans drove the economy into the hole so far with military spending, and the ridiculous "trickle down" concept that we may never fully recover. Americans typically want as much as they can get for nothing. The current administration has just told the people what they want to here. Clinton fixed what these two destroyed, but thanks to the media portrayal of Clinton, we elect another destroyer of the economy who has his own "trickle down" scheme in the form of dividend tax breaks, and small tax rebates that equal trillion dollar tax cuts. Meanwhile our economy sinks lower and lower into depression unemployment jumps way up, our state governors have to raise every tax they can think of and cut funding for things like libraries, schools and roads. While President Bush becomes the tax cut hero the governors take the heat. The government is run on taxes they will get it from somewhere. What more needs to be said, but if talking to a Bush supporter you always here "I suppose you thought Clinton did a good job"? Well that brings us to the current chapter in American History, or what I fear is quite possibly the last chapter in American History (At least we should start a new volume out of respect for the civil rights movement) George W. Bush(Rep). Who strangely enough has under him many of the same players that the Reagan\Bush Iran\Contra era produced. John Poindexter for instance, a man who was perhaps one of the only people convicted of the Iran\contra affair, was later suspiciously acquitted after the heat and press coverage subsided. George W. Bush , a man who arguably by not winning the popular vote (votes from the individual American) stole the election in what some call a bloodless coup. America is to understand that the election of the President is the people's "unalienable right". It is my understanding though (for I'm not a political science major) that our popular votes are then given to a group called the electorate, to what seems to me, for the purpose of interpretation. Is the term "popular vote" not another way of saying who America favors? . A stranger chapter George Orwell himself could not have penned. Again, apparently the electorate knows more specifically what the term popular vote means, and with that knowledge they are blessed with their "alienable right" to help the ignorant masses to understand what we want...or at least what we meant! The only point, from my admittedly ignorant standpoint, of an electorate would be to have a smaller, more easily influenced group to cater to. That is if you were a group that needed to cater to politicians to secure aid for you cause. Well anyway, with the election of George W. Bush, we come to the current chapter of the Middle East also. Where the United States in opposition to the UN has begun what Muslim countries refer to as a crusade against Israel's enemies. On one side you have the extremist Arabs, which to me is best represented by the apparently bloodthirsty Al Qaeda faction. The other side I am sorry to say, is represented by the United States of America, thanks to Sept. 11th ,no less bloodthirsty. A war entirely based on "American Intelligence" apparently. The same American Intelligence that overlooked blatant facts that in retrospect would have alerted even the most distracted CIA or FBI agent to a planned attack involving airplanes, known terrorist training in flight schools and did might I point out, but as we are told to believe the memo was ignored by the higher ups. These higher ups probably gave the terrorists the benefit of the doubt, everyone can change. Plus this was prior to the implementation of the doctrine of preemptive strike. This lack of attentiveness ,or as we have heard it explained, a failure of the FBI and CIA to cooperate with each other and share puzzle pieces has caused some in the government, including President Bush, to draw the conclusion after many minutes of deliberation no doubt, that the bureaucracy of the Government was to small. Bush didn't actually say it himself, but I do recall someone on his team trying to place the blame with President Clinton for this by pointing out that President Clinton was responsible for budget cuts that reduced the number lines or something between the two departments, I cant remember exactly what it was and its irrelevant at this point anyway. This painful conclusion, that there was a shortage of policing departments in the US, has forced President Bush, against all his wisdom and desire (he'll tell you it's not in the Republican's nature) to contradict his campaign platform of "Small Government". I'm sure he realizes its been over 24 hours since he last said that so America has almost certainly forgotten. So he has to implement the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States and most certainly the world (also against the Republican's nature). Not to mention that it also forced him to renege and contradict his exhausting enunciation's on how he "trusts the people". So you see his hand was forced, and President Bush is no dummy and he knows his history. To prove it he turned the pages of American history back to one of the most shameful chapters and return with updated versions of the Alien and Sedition Acts, but we as the segment that he still trusts have nothing to worry about. For you see the only reason he had to do this was to thwart the enemy within. I can't pass this issue without being reminded of the "no new taxes" comment his Father used to get elected, that of course combined with the scandalizing of his opponent by the media. When Bush ran against Gore, another part of Bushes platform was "freedom to bear arms". This in my opinion lost Gore the election cause he came out honestly and said that it is something that needs to be considered. Bush, with his claims of "trusting the people", won the support of the NRA and a huge majority of trade unions who typically vote Democratic. I know without a doubt the first chance Bush gets to sign some law limiting guns, he will jump on it! He's a republican! He's supported by law enforcement...think about it! This is what that teacher meant saying, "If you don't know...stay out of it". I think that Democrats need to take a lesson from the Republicans and realize that to be the President you just have to use all your good lies before the election. Now seriously for a moment, back to the issue of reliance on American Intelligence to justify our aggression. This intelligence in conjunction with the propaganda machine led the American public to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Weapons which a multitude of United Nations inspectors led by Hans Blix, or as President Bush so UN-diplomatically referred to him as "the so called inspector" Hans Blix, failed to produce. Weapons that even "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has failed to produce. The press has reported several times on chemical agents that were discovered, but had to be "sent off" for analysis. They said this even after the press bragged for weeks before America forced the UN back into Iraq, about the various pieces of state-of-the-art equipment that the inspectors would possess that would sniff minuscule amounts of chemicals out of thin air. But lo!, sniffing imaginary chemicals, no matter how thick the air is, has still proven to difficult! Did the media publicize the fact that some of the banned chemical agents were also used to produce life saving medication for Iraqi children dying of an intestinal parasite? Anyway the particular chemical agents repeatedly mentioned in the media as discovered always had to be sent off to be analyzed, coincidentally never to be mentioned again. There are many stories reported in the press that plant these seeds in the American minds. For instance that Iraq had a hand in Sept. 11th. Polls show that prior to the invasion of Iraq a percentage of Americans equivalent to the percentage of Americans that supported the invasion believed that Iraq was in some direct way responsible for the Sept.11th attack on New York, an allegation that has been forgotten along with all the other allegations because they are completely unsubstantiated rumors that are willingly propagated and disseminated by the media to boost the war frenzy. This is all fact! Arguably open to interpretation yes, but never the less fact. We attacked the government of Afghanistan, I thought, because they were responsible for Sept. 11th. If we can then connect it to Iraq, we can certainly connect it with Syria, Iran, North Korea, the Philippines or anywhere these anti-American attitudes reside. I'd like to mention here also, that the media willingly let the pro-war and anti-war people go at each others throats. Anti-war people would say "bring our troops home", this offended the blinded patriot into a two minute hate and they would denounce the anti-war people and say, "We gotta support our boys"! The media, knowing that the anti-war people never said "Don't support our boys", knowing many veterans with children fighting were among the anti-war protesters, let the misunderstanding continue. This was no accident. Think of this conditioned response given by the pro-war people. If supporting the troops means not saying "bring them home", then would the greatest support we could offer be permanent occupation? But I ramble... The news of the capture of Bhagdad and the liberation of Iraq wasn't even two days old and American intelligence and the propaganda machine had already started pointing to Syria with a carbon copy of all the same unsubstantiated allegations that President Bush accused Iraq and Sadam Hussein of prior to invasion. If the conquest of Iraq had turned up these chemicals then these same allegation that they are starting to repeat at Syria wouldn't be unsubstantiated, and in this respect legitimate. As of yet they are unsubstantiated, yet we are supposed to be willingly "dragooned" into another war, with yet another country if necessary to possibly locate them. If these WMD do exist, and they have been sent to Syria, long before we ever invade they will be sent out of the country. Then we will replay the duplicate demands with Iran or whom ever. To save time and money let's get it on with the whole region. Locate those damned WMD, so we can return to our regular programming! If the Syrian well turns up dry President Bush or his handlers will undoubtedly point the finger at Iran or North Korea, or any of the growing list of countries with anti-American sentiment. Countries that Bush and the rest of the possible "usurpers" want you to believe are countries of oppressed citizens yearning for liberation and longing for a taste of American democracy. No matter what any of the future wars bring, it will not justify the gross injustice perpetrated on Iraq in the name of the American people. This unjust war can not help but remind the student of history of the 1840's invasions of Mexican territory and the dishonor done to that countries sovereignty by the American government under Presidents Tyler and Polk. Sovereignty, a concept far more hallowed and venerated by the founding fathers of this country than even, yes the right to bare arms, but as with most of the concepts from that generation, forgotten in an stupefying miasma of modernity. "Operation Mexican Freedom " which a young officer named Ulysses S. Grant later recalled in his memoirs, described America's policy toward Mexico as one designed to bring about conflict (familiar sounding). This particular chapter of American history that he was intimately familiar with also had something he chose to describe as an "army of occupation" and to his dying day he describe the War with Mexico "as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger on a weaker nation", and an example "of a republic not considering justice when acquiring territory". Mexico was not under a decade of sanctions designed to cripple it! I fear with certainty that as a people we have learned nothing from our great leaders. I believe that our government has a couple major flaws in it. One is that every four years the mostly ignorant population is lured away from their TelePrompTers and into the hallowed cattle stalls of democracy to have the honor of electing either a person our country can look up to, or a person our country can relate to, we invariably choose the latter. Someone who is capable of playing host to the royalty of foreign nations and then offering up BBQ. How can a President that can relate to a general population raised on "Ricki Lake" and "reality television" be the best choice to govern our nation? I sincerely apologize if I have offended but you are given the choice daily to live in ignorant bliss or to accept the sometimes crushing headaches and heart murmuring stress that accompanies the knowledge of the truth of what your country regards as policy. One quote from President Grant that he left for future generations to contemplate(this means you!) echoes of terrifying repercussions and some might say applies to certain current events, "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions". An eloquent and more appropriate quote I can not recall. Another major flaw I believe our country suffers from is also related to the four year term of the president. Our foreign policy is effected in that it can drastically change every four years according to the whims of the fortunate boob that gets elected. How exhausting could it be for a foreign leader who sees President after President come and go. Plenty of foreign leaders serve decades and longer in power. Every four years they have to take time out of their busy schedule to come press the flesh of the President and spend their valuable time just trying to figure out if this is the one who will open trade or label us a member of the axis of evil and set the stage for invasion. If it wasn't for the fact that we are financially well off, which has changed dramatically since Bush took over, we wouldn't get these meetings with leaders. That is until they needed to form a coalition, as propaganda, to justify setting about some selfish business. Well my answer to this would be to have a board established. The members of this board would serve for life, like the supreme court, and would be subject to impeachment. I think the board might be made up of a cross section of the various ethnic groups in the country easily enough so that all would find representation according to the population numbers. Religion would have no place on the board. Nor would partisan politics. Catering to PACs would be severely punished, as would receiving gifts or donations. They could not be allowed to benefit from there position in any way other than their salaries. The object of this board would be to decide all foreign policy issues. They could, as a board, hear testimony from concerned groups, foreign and domestic, on various sides of the issues being addressed, but closed door session would be strictly forbidden. I think this would be an excellent start to addressing our current problems with our foreign policy decisions. To the opponents of such an idea who would say it would be to difficult to accomplish, all I have to say to them is...Dept. of Homeland Security! At the current rate, with the current policies of established norms, long after the Bush administration is out of office the growing pro-Israeli lobby and pro-Israeli media conglomerates will still be out there, working in conjunction with each other, acting as a svengali to control the American public sentiment and influence the politicians in this country, and we as "real patriots" who are looked upon as "suspect and odious" will still be in the back seat right beside our interests. I believe the hold up until now in our display of military prowess in the Middle East has been determined by two main factors. The first and quite possibly the largest reason for our hesitance to get "to" involved was the Soviet Union. During the cold war there was a perceived balance of power in the world. Now with the collapse of the Soviet Union that perception has vanished. I believe this has led to a false sense of security in our government and has aided in, along with the support of the media, the feeling of American military invincibility. The fear of the cold war was actually a blessing in disguise. Is it not the fear of reprisals and incarceration, we are told, that keeps most criminals at bay? The other reason I believe is in the leadership of the United States itself. The Reagan/Bush dynasty for all its many faults had experience in the dealings of politics and were themselves better and more knowledgeable politicians, having spent their lives submerged in all facets of political endeavor. Criminal...yes, but not humiliating in their behavior. George W Bush has tried his hand at several vocations including, but not limited to, taxi driver, lawn care technician, goat herder, and ranchero. His most successful endeavor, besides being the son of a multi-billionaire oil man however, was in managing the baseball team the Texas Rangers. A job that coincidentally gained him the popularity to become governor of Texas and started his brief rise to the presidency. In the White House, he has adopted the Texan attitudes of "one riot, one ranger" and "Don't tread on me", which makes him easier to relate to for the average firearm hoarding American. These attitudes are an embarrassing disgrace to a modern civilized society, and they should be regarded only for their historical contributions like the Confederate Battle Flag, viewed as symbols of our past ignorance. Instead, there viewed as symbols of our country's current ignorance. I don't believe there is any proof existing that President Bush ever stepped outside of Texas before campaigning for the Presidency. Of course this is an exaggeration but you get my point. Again I would like to apologize for insulting the President, and I would that is, if every pore and twitch of his evil, gremlin-like body didn't demand to be insulted! God Bless America!! Now finally back to the question I raised earlier: Why have the pro-American statements from the 70's apparently stopped? There could be a number of possibilities, but the one that pre-dates most of them is a single term. A term that emerged in the media during the eighties as President Reagan took office. A term that any child born in that decade is thoroughly conditioned with. That term or should I say the conditioning concept the term represents is "politically correct". Where did that term come from...I don't know and I don't care. But I do know that this simple idea has silenced those voices from the 70's and conditioned America to reject the very term "pro-American" as something to be avoided and ashamed of. "Politically Correct" immediately makes any discussion of Israel other than to sympathize for the holocaust (which I do) impossible to discuss in an open forum without raising eyebrows, or without attracting the attention of the thought police with their denunciations of "nazi-ism". Why would our society, a "free" society question ,or I would go as far as to say fear the use of the word Jew. A term that all people have used through out time and continue to use to this day. I have used the term "Jew" in causal conversation as I would use any word be it Arab, Jew, or Christian and I have then asked if it was offensive. 100 percent of the time the answer is yes and 100 percent of the time the listener is unable to put his finger on it, or at least they fail to explain themselves to my satisfaction. Why is this perceived as offensive to most people? I say, with certainty, that the 'gut feelings" that people in this country experience when these issues are publicly discussed have been brought about by decades of conditioning. Conditioning by the media for this very response. I can only imagine that certain people must have misunderstood that the novel "1984" was not an attempt at blueprinting responsible government. This is the very important point when I must remind you of President Washington's words, "The real patriot who resists the intrigues of the favorite is liable to become suspected and odious". President Washington meant this quote to cross the centuries and fall upon your ears...your ears! Not the ears of the electorate to interpret for you, not the Ministry of Truth! He meant this for your ears to hear, your mind to absorb. He has sent this "for YOUR contemplation, and YOUR frequent review"! True that these radical ideas I've penned could easily be called a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies require a number of people acting in unison, and I don't...cant believe for a minute that certain lobby groups, Hollywood and most newspaper and TV stations all met in a secret meeting and decided on this plan years ago to manipulate the American Government. That is a ridiculous idea and easily dismissed. Even if this is an impossibility, which I agree it is, the result appears to be the same as if they would have. Radical ideas like these, we are told, are inherently developed by crazy recluses that set out to justify preconceived notions. I can assure you I'm neither a recluse nor did I have any preconceived notion as to this situation. Rather I am just an American who is troubled by current events, and who started writing in an attempt to alleviate the built up stress( I hope this explains the rambling nature of this). I might also add this has not help me in the slightest! Not to mention, writing this has added a thousand more questions to the problem. After I came across coincidence upon coincidence and listed them chronologically these radical ideas formed themselves. It was not formed by my manipulation, and that is a fact you must remember. I have not put words in people's mouths. General Washington, in the 1790's had the same motivation as General Brown in the 1970's! That was simply a fidelity to duty and country that every American, we are told, is said to possess. We are not told that the diversity of this country lends itself to diversifying the duty that we perceive is ours. A coincidence is only that until accompanied by many other coincidences, once this happens interpretation is no longer needed, because they become blatant patterns. Would it be just another coincidence if the people who were involved in the scandals that led to the impeachment of President Clinton and the resignation of President Nixon shown to be some of these people with divided loyalties? Would it be coincidence if the reason that President Reagan and Vice President Bush suffered absolutely nothing because of the Iran\contra affair could be linked to people of the divided loyalties? Is it a coincidence that Democrats always fair worse in the media? Would it be just another coincident if Bush's handlers, speech makers and that little voice in his ear were these people with divided loyalties? I tell you this conspiracy idea was not my point, in fact I wanted to avoid it for reasons I've already stated. Take some of these questions with you, if you find out anything interesting come tell me. Then "me" will be "we" and that's a start. Remember "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step". Consider these ideas people and don't let them be forced back into the closet of political taboo. We must remain loyal to the idea that we, as a free people, control our destiny. To quote from "1984", "Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious", because war is NOT peace, freedom is NOT slavery, and ignorance is NOT strength! After all this is why we as a nation are here. The disastrous war that General Twining warned us of in the 70's has finally been sprung upon us. Humor me a moment longer as I leave you with one more quote, this time from Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". As god as my witness, allow me the honor of being the first to step forward and offer the first drops. No...I must be allowed the honor of offering the second drops. I can only hope that as my moment of truth arrives that the same fortitude that was granted Rachel Corrie strengthens my resolve so that I may unwaveringly assume my place in history by her side. I only hope future generations are granted the wisdom to know in which of the two groups President Jefferson referred to, we would belong. For now I must rest I have a splitting headache....

Rate this submission


You must be logged in to rate submissions

Loading Comments