Jul 31, 2007
And from the Northern Ireland point of view:
And here is a fine article "About Turn" by Mick Fealty on the Guardian's collective group blog, Comment is Free
The comment sections at both Slugger and comment is free are both illuminating as well- the strife may never be completely gone, but at least the discourse is becoming a bit more civil.
One comment served to remind me just how ridiculous our "occupation" of Iraq is:
Seriously though, the scale of British Army involvement in the Troubles was enormous, to match the level of garrisoning on a per capita basis that NI had at the peak of the Troubles Iraq would need to have five hundred thousand “coalition” forces and Afghanistan would need about fifty thousand more troops again. It shows just how much effort was required to keep the paddies down and correspondingly how little chance the current adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have of succeeding.
Posted by Shay Begorrah
George Freidman of Stratfor has some interesting analysis of Presidential elections and our current situation.
After reading it, all I can say is : Edwards 2008!
Gaming the U.S. Elections
By George Friedman
Domestic politics in most countries normally are of little interest geopolitically. On the whole this is true of the United States as well. Most political debates are more operatic than meaningful, most political actors are interchangeable and the distinctions between candidates rarely make a difference. The policies they advocate are so transformed by Congress and the Supreme Court -- the checks and balances the Founding Fathers liked so much, coupled with federalism -- that the president rarely decides anything.
That is not how the world perceives the role, however. In spite of evidence to the contrary, the president of the United States is perceived as the ultimate "decider," someone whose power determines the course of action of the world's strongest nation. Therefore, when presidents weaken, the behavior of foreign powers tends to shift, and when elections approach, their behavior shifts even more. The expectation of change on the burning issue of Iraq is based on the misperception that the American presidency is inherently powerful or that presidents shape the consensus rather than react to it.
The inability of Congress to make any decisive move on Iraq demonstrates that immobility isn't built only into the presidency. The two houses of Congress are designed to be gridlocked. Moreover, the congressional indecision reveals that behind all of the arias being sung, there is a basic consensus on Iraq: the United States should not have gone into Iraq and now that it is there, it should leave. There is more to it than that, though. The real consensus is that the United States should not simply leave, but rather do it in such a way that it retains the benefits of staying without actually having to be there. To sum up the contradiction, all of the players on the stage want to have their cake and eat it, too. We are only being a trifle ironic. When all is said and done, that is the policy the system has generated.
The United States has been in roughly this same position with the same policy since World War II. The first time was in 1952 in Korea, when the war was at a stalemate, the initial rationale for it forgotten and Harry Truman's popularity about the same as President George W. Bush's is now. The second time was in 1968, when any hope of success in the Vietnam War appeared to be slipping away and Lyndon Johnson's presidency collapsed.
In both cases, the new president followed the logic of the popular consensus, regardless of whether it made sense. In the Korean instance, the national position favored decisive action more than withdrawal -- as long as the war would end. In Vietnam the demand was for an end to the war, but without a defeat -- which was not going to happen.
During Korea, Dwight D. Eisenhower appeared a formidable enemy to the Chinese and his secret threat of using nuclear weapons seemed credible. The war ended in a negotiated stalemate. In the case of Vietnam, the public desire to get out of Vietnam without a defeat allowed Richard Nixon to be elected on a platform of having a secret plan to end the war. He then continued the war for four years, playing off the fundamental contradiction in the consensus. Adlai Stevenson, who ran against Eisenhower, might not have been nearly as effective in convincing the Chinese to close the deal on Korea, but we doubt that Hubert Humphrey would have differed much from Nixon -- or that Bobby Kennedy, once in power, would have matched his rhetoric with action.
Yet the fact is that the world does not see the limits of the presidency. In the case of Iraq, the perception of the various players in Iraq and in the region is that the president of the United States matters a great deal. Each of them is trying to determine whether he should deal with the current president or with his successor. They wonder who the next president will be and try to forecast the policies that will break the strange consensus that has been reached.
Therefore, we need to begin handicapping the presidency as we did in 2004, looking for patterns. In other words, policy implications aside, let's treat the election as we might a geopolitical problem, looking for predictive patterns. Let's begin with what we regard as the three rules of American presidential politics since 1960:
The first rule is that no Democrat from outside the old Confederacy has won the White House since John F. Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were all from the Confederacy. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry were from way outside the Confederacy. Al Gore was from the Confederacy but lost, proving that this is necessary, but not a sufficient basis for a Democratic win. The reason for this rule is simple. Until 1964, the American South was solidly democratic. In 1964 the Deep South flipped Republican and stayed there. If the South and mountain states go Republican, then the Democrats must do extraordinarily well in the rest of the country. They usually don't do extraordinarily well, so they need a candidate that can break into the South. Carter and Clinton did it, while Johnson did extraordinarily well outside the South.
The second rule is that no Republican has won the White House since Eisenhower who wasn't from one of the two huge Sunbelt states: California or Texas (Eisenhower, though born in Texas, was raised in Kansas). Nixon and Reagan were from California. Both Bush presidents were from Texas. Gerald Ford was from Michigan, Robert Dole from Kansas. They both lost. Again the reason is obvious, particularly if the candidate is from California -- pick up the southern and mountain states, pull in Texas and watch the Democrats scramble. Midwestern Republicans lose and northeastern Republicans do not get nominated.
The third rule is that no sitting senator has won the presidency since Kennedy. The reason is, again, simple. Senators make speeches and vote, all of which are carefully recorded in the Congressional record. Governors live in archival obscurity and don't have to address most issues of burning importance to the nation. Johnson came the closest to being a sitting senator but he too had a gap of four years and an assassination before he ran. After him, Former Vice President Nixon, Gov. Carter, Gov. Reagan, Vice President Bush, Gov. Clinton and Gov. Bush all won the presidency. The path is strewn with fallen senators.
That being the case, the Democrats appear poised to commit electoral suicide again, with two northern senators (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) in the lead, and the one southern contender, John Edwards, well back in the race. The Republicans, however, are not able to play to their strength. There are no potential candidates in Texas or California to draw on. Texas right now just doesn't have players ready for the national scene. California does, but Arnold Schwarzenegger is constitutionally ineligible by birth. In a normal year, a charismatic Republican governor of California would run against a northern Democratic senator and mop the floor. It's not going to happen this time.
Instead, the Republicans appear to be choosing between a Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, and a former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani. Unless Texan Ron Paul can pull off a miracle, the Republicans appear to be going with their suicide hand just like the Democrats. Even if Fred Thompson gets the nomination, he comes from Tennessee, and while he can hold the South, he will have to do some heavy lifting elsewhere.
Unless Obama and Clinton self-destruct and Edwards creeps in, or Paul does get a miracle, this election is shaping up as one that will break all the rules. Either a northern Democratic senator wins or a northeastern Republican (excluding Thompson for the moment) does. The entire dynamic of presidential politics is in flux. All bets are off as to the outcome and all bets are off as to the behavior of the new president, whose promises and obligations are completely unpredictable.
If one is to ask whether the Iranians look this carefully at U.S. politics and whether they are knowledgeable about the patterns, the answer is absolutely yes. We would say that the Iranians have far more insight into American politics than Americans have into Iranian politics. They have to. Iranians have been playing off the Americans since World War II, whatever their ideology. In due course the underlying weirdness of the pattern this year will begin intruding.
Here is what the Iranian's are seeing: First, they are seeing Bush become increasingly weak. He is still maintaining his ability to act in Iraq, but only barely. Second, they see a Congress that is cautiously bombastic -- making sweeping declarations, but backing off from voting on them. Third, they see a Republican Party splitting in Congress. Finally, they see a presidential election shaping up in unprecedented ways with inherently unexpected outcomes. More important, for example, a Giuliani-Clinton race would be so wildly unpredictable that it is unclear what would emerge on the other side. Any other pairing would be equally unpredictable.
This results in diplomatic paralysis across the board. As the complexity unfolds, no one -- not only in the Iraq arena -- is sure how to play the United States. They don't know how any successor to Bush will behave. They don't know how to game out who the successor to Bush is likely to be. They don't know how the election will play out. From Iraq and Iran to Russia and China, the United States is becoming the enigma and there won't be a hint of clarity for 18 months.
This gives Bush his strange strength. No president this low in the polls should be acting with the confidence he shows. Part of it could be psychological, but part of it has to do with the appreciation that, given the strange dynamics, he is not your normal lame duck. Everyone else is tied in knots in terms of policy and in terms of the election. Bush alone has room to maneuver, and the Iranians are likely calculating that it would probably be safer to deal with this president now rather than expect the unexpected in 2008.
Jul 25, 2007
The setting: A political speech given by Cheney, attended by a large group of press, senators, and White house operatives. Behind the scenes, various men of substance discuss our failing leadership and the President's deferral to the Vice President...
Then, Bush, I have much mistook your passion;
By means whereof this breast of mine hath buried.
Thoughts of great value, worthy cogitations.
Tell me, good Bush, can you see your face?
No, Powell; for the eye sees not itself,
But by reflection, by some other things.
'Tis just: And it is very much lamented, Bush,
That you have no such mirrors as will turn
Your hidden worthiness into your eye,
That you might see your shadow.
I have heard, Where many of the best respect in Rome,
except immortal Cheney, speaking of Bush.
And groaning underneath this age's yoke,
Have wish'd that noble Bush had his eyes.
Into what dangers would you lead me, Powell,
That you would have me seek into myself
for that which is not in me?
Therefore, good Bush, be prepared to hear:
And since you know you cannot see yourself
So well as by reflection, I, your glass,
Will modestly discover to yourself
That of yourself which you yet know not of.
And be not jealous on me, gentle Bush:
Were I a common laugher, or did use
To stale with ordinary oaths my love
To every new protester; if you know
That I do fawn on men and hug them hard
And after scandal them, or if you know
That I profess myself in banqueting
To all the rout, then hold me dangerous.
Shouting heard from the crowd, angry
What means this shouting? I do fear,
the people Choose Cheney for their king.
Ay, do you fear it? Then must I think you would not have it so.
I would not, Powell; yet I love him well.
But wherefore do you hold me here so long?
What is it that you would impart to me?
If it be aught toward the general good,
Set honour in one eye and death i' the other,
And I will look on both indifferently
Well, honour is the subject of my story.
I cannot tell what you and other men
Think of this life; but for my single self,
I had as lief not be as live to be In awe of such a thing as I myself.
I was born free as Cheney; so were you:
We both have fed as well, and we can both Endure the terror's cold
as well as he:
For once, upon a raw and painful day,
The troubled towers crashing to her shores,
Cheney said to me 'Darest thou, Powell,
now Leap in with me into this angry flood,
And swim to yonder point?' Upon the word, Accoutred as I was,
I plunged in And bade him follow; so indeed he did.
The torrent roar'd, and we did buffet it With lusty sinews,
throwing it aside And stemming it with hearts of controversy;
But ere we could arrive the point proposed,
Cheney cried 'Help me, Powell, or I sink!'
I, as Lincoln, our great ancestor, Did from the flames of America
upon his shoulder, The old leader bear,
so from the waves of Tumult Did I pull the tired Cheney.
And this man Is now become a god,
and Powell is A wretched creature and must bend his body,
If Cheney carelessly but nod on him.
He had a fever when he was in Iraq, And when the fit was on him,
I did mark How he did shake: 'tis true, this god did shake;
His coward lips did from their colour fly,
And that same eye whose bend doth awe the world
Did lose his lustre: I did hear him groan:
Ay, and that tongue of his that bade the Americans Mark him
and write his speeches in their books,
Alas, it cried 'WMD, Condoleeza,' As a sick girl.
Ye gods, it doth amaze me
A man of such a feeble temper should
So get the start of the majestic world
And bear the power alone.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Bush, is not in our stars, But in ourselves,
that we are underlings.
Bush and Cheney- what should be in that 'Cheney'?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
O, you and I have heard our fathers say,
There was a Bush once that would have brook'd The eternal devil
to keep his state in America As easily as a king.
The speeches are done and Cheney is returning.
Re-enter Cheney and his Train
Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
Old neocons who are easily sated with coin.
Yond Powell has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
To the Senate:
Are we all ready? What is now amiss
That Cheney and his senate must redress?
Most high, most mighty, and most puissant Cheney, Harry Reid throws before thy seat An humble heart,--
I must prevent thee, Reid. These couchings and these lowly courtesies
Might fire the blood of ordinary men,
And turn pre-ordinance and first decree Into the law of children.
Be not fond,To think that Cheney bears such rebel blood
That will be thaw'd from the true quality
With that which melteth fools;
I mean, sweet words, Low-crooked court'sies and base spaniel-fawning.
Thy peaceful brothers by decree are banished:
If thou dost bend and pray and fawn for the war to end,
I spurn thee like a cur out of my way.
Know, Cheney doth not wrong, nor without cause Will he be satisfied.
Is there no voice more worthy than my own
To sound more sweetly in great Cheney's ear
For the repealing of this wrongful war?
I kiss thy hand, but not in flattery, Cheney;
Desiring thee that Harry Reid may Have
an immediate end to this war.
Pardon, Cheney; Cheney, pardon:
As low as to thy foot doth Powell fall,
To beg end to this madness.
I could be well moved, if I were as you:
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me:
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumber'd sparks,
They are all fire and every one doth shine,
But there's but one in all doth hold his place:
So in the world; 'tis furnish'd well with men,
And men are flesh and blood, and apprehensive;
Yet in the number I do know but one That unassailable holds on his rank,
Unshaked of motion: and that I am he,
Let me a little show it, even in this;
That I was constant this nation not fall to terrorism,
And constant I do remain to keep it so.
Doth Bush not kneel when he comes to beg?
Hands! Speak for me!
Webb first, then the others and Bush stab Cheney
Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!
Run hence, proclaim, cry it about the streets.
Some to the common pulpits, and cry out
'Liberty, freedom, and enfranchisement!'
What I have I done in the name of freedom?
People and senators, be not affrighted; Fly not; stand stiff:
ambition's debt is paid.
Bush stabs himself, falling over the dying Cheney
Et tu, Bush?
Rove, Condoleeza Rice, Gonzales, Rumsfeld and a host of other cronies scurry, cockroach-like for the exits.
Fates, we will know your pleasures:
that we shall die, we know; 'tis but the time
And drawing days out, that men stand upon.
Why, he that cuts off twenty years of life
Cuts off so many years of fearing death.
Grant that, and then is death a benefit:
So are we Cheney's friends,
and Bush's friends, that have abridged the time of fearing death.
Stoop, Americans, stoop, And let us bathe our hands in traitor's blood
Up to the elbows, and besmear our copies of the constitution:
Then walk we forth, even to the market-place,
And, waving our red weapons o'er our heads,
Let's all cry 'Peace, freedom and liberty!'
Stoop, then, and wash. How many ages hence
Shall this our lofty scene be acted over
In states unborn and accents yet unknown!
So oft as that shall be,
So often shall the knot of us be call'd
The men that gave their country liberty.
...and the people in the streets rejoiced, and the soldiers were called from the fields of war back to their homes, to protect the homeland.
Jul 24, 2007
The above post tore me up, because it just bleeds the heartless truth of the matter. And it reminded me of Riverbend's blog, Baghdad Burning. I spent countless hours glued to her blog, reading about the life of a young woman in occupied Iraq, with this hopeful line etched above post:
... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Her blog was full of truth yet it was far from heartless. But I watched that heart bleed itself out...
It began here
My suggestion? Bring in UN peace-keeping forces and pull out the American troops. Let the people decide who they want to represent them. Let the governing council be composed of Iraqis who were suffering the blockade and wars *inside* of Iraq. People are angry and frustrated and the American troops are the ones who are going to have to bear the brunt of that anger simply because the American administration is running the show, and making the mistakes.
It always saddens me to see that the majority of them are so young. Just as it isn’t fair that I have to spend my 24th year suffering this whole situation, it doesn’t seem fair that they have to spend their 19th, 20th, etc. suffering it either. In the end, we have something in common- we’re all the victims of decisions made by the Bush administration.
Reading her blog gave me the only real insight I had into how the people of Iraq felt. It was my first link up every day, when she didn't post for days, I would worry. I sent her emails detailing my own despairs and apologies for my country's occupation of hers. I told her of the many people that were fighting against the warmongers and the fascists who had taken over our government. I told her that some Americans cared deeply about her and her people and what our government was doing and that we would end this occupation as soon as we could.
In the end, I stopped altogether. As much as I believed what I wrote when it was written, I soon realized that I had lied. And I realized what an arrogant ass I must seem, emailing her my concerns as my countrymen trampled her country and tortured, raped, and killed her way of life.
I was ashamed. I am ashamed. But what is my shame to her pain? It is nothing, less than nothing.
And as her posts became fewer and fewer, her thoughts began to abandon any sense of hope at all. Atrocity upon atrocity dulled any capacity for such wishful thinking.
Towards the end, she just wanted to leave Iraq, her home, her country, and flee from the hell that the occupation had made of it.
Her last post was April 26. Did she make it out alive? Is she a prisoner in her own country or a refugee from her homeland? And does it make it a difference? Her life, like the lives of millions of Iraqis has been ruined, completely destroyed, because of America. And because of Americans.
And unless you are an American who has been sitting in jail for the past few years for fighting against the fascists who control this country, then you, like me, are complicit. And it doesn't matter how much you didn't like this war, or didn't approve of it. We are all complicit. Our hands are bloody, our souls are darkened by our failure to stop the madness.
And no matter how much YOU may tell yourself that you aren't responsible, it's not ME you have to convince- Convince the Riverbends of Iraq.
... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
I don't think I can blame her if her heart doesn't heal towards me or my fellow Americans.
Jul 23, 2007
What it means to be an American Leftist in 2007
Thanks to Mirth for posting these videos.
Make no mistake- America is a Progressive country; always has been and always will be as long as we do not lay down and let the intellectually deficient take our progress from us.
Jul 20, 2007
Ah, the Pro-Arab-"Displacement" crowd in Israel.
They use prettier words than Hamas, but they are ruled by the same simplistic, bloodthirsty mindset, where the end justifies the means and the only peace is that of a tomb...
I don't know exactly how I surfed onto this site :
Samson Blinded: A machiavellan perpsective on the Middle East conflict
a few choice excerpts:
"Peace treaties, like other barriers to natural course of events, suppressed many minor problems until they become one big problem."
"Nation-states hate to admit that peace treaties do not bring peace."
"Whether Israel reaches peace agreement with Palestinians or not, some of them will continue terrorism. Israeli government presents peace treaty as panacea forgetting that Israel recently sustained terror attacks even from Egypt, a country at peace with Israel and with strong security apparatus.
Carpet-bombing Palestine would solve the problem of terrorism only temporarily. The 1948 war inflicted on Arabs no less suffering than wide-area bombing, but the Palestinians soon returned to terrorism. "
"Instead of dismantling the settlements, Israel should line up her borders with colonies and give the Jews there a carte blanche for countering Arab terrorists – with punishing raids, if needed. Israel only needs to arm the settlers and turn a blind eye to their actions."
From the comments on the site:
And how convenient to dismiss the madness in war … “Rational—or honest—minds might argue that the causes for wars are usually silly or superficial, that enmity is forced on people on both sides otherwise content with each other” with no further discussion on the matter, replacing it with something completely different … “But that is a different issue, namely, do soldiers really need to die for the goals they fight for?”
But then defending the indefensible will always have its justification rendered as false and an abomination serving a personal agenda rather than promoting a universal cause.
- A Man From Mars
In case you missed it, we’re not promoting a universal cause. Our work is about a safe Jewish state. At whoever’s expense.
-Danny the Admin
Oh nobody misses that, Danny the Admin, it is so blindingly obvious……. just so long as it is not at your expense too, with everyone paying the price. How very magnanimous not.
Have you never considered that Peace is not something which you pay for but something which pays? A paradigm shift in conscious thought, I grant you, but a valid observation nonetheless.
- A Man From Mars
We desire to live peacefully in a Jewish state. That necessitates displacement of Arabs. Such things happen. In fact, they happened with the establishing of every state.
-Danny the Admin
Au contraire- America needs to let the Israel border be erased forever by refusing, finally, to be the big brother standing behind the gleeful sadistic midget that is Israel as it tortures its helpless neighbors. One day, we’ll treat Israel on equal terms with its neighbors: as one terrorist among many. No more weapons sales to Israel. No more ignoring Israel atrocities. Some serious economic sanctions ala Cuba ought to do it. Israel, unlike any other middle eastern country, HAS developed nuclear weapons illegally, with the quiet support of the U.S. Israel offers nothing as far as gains to the U.S. Supporting Israel is of no benefit to America and only hurts our country. So let these crazy Israelis attempt to “displace” the arabs (such a nice way to put it) but without American weapons, money, or resources.
How do you think Machiavelli would rate Israel’s chances?
Peace is an unknown concept to the greedy. It involves sharing and tolerance and equanamity; terms that no one who wants it all can accept. The people that refuse to believe in peace or attempting to live in peace are poor in perception and shallow of soul. It is their willingness to kill without mercy that weakens their own peoples in the long run.
Tyranny is never loved, and is an absolute path to self-destruction.
This is what I call a Terror Threat Red. I hope they don't mean that Cheney's taking over Bush's Colon Surveillance ...
No, I'm sure Dubya's got the perfect assistant already lined up...
With plenty of cronies close by Bush's ass, as usual, to help out
I wonder what will Bush's colonoscopy reveal?...
Hmm... Is it just a coincidence that with Cheney taking over and Bush being anally probed that this was the Breaking News Headline on MSNBC right after this announcement?
Jul 18, 2007
Pissed on Population
As Polishifter says:
So the question is now, are you with your blog, or me with my blog, who criticize Bush and the occupation of Iraq, does Bush think we are "threatening the stabilization of Iraq"? And if so, can he seize our assets?
There's no checks and balances. There's no habeas corpus. There's no requirement of a warrant. It's just up to Bush to decide who's a threat and who isn't. And if he deems you a threat, poof, your house, your assets, your bank account, and all your possesions can be seized by Bush.
Questions I would ask as a Mainstream media Interviewer
to Mrs. Vitter:
"Have you made David get HIV testing as a result of his 'mistake'? "
to Mr. Vitter:
"Were you full on fornicating with the hookers, or was it just Clinton sex?"
"Why did Clinton deserve to be impeached or forced to resign for a legal sex act while you feel you are not, when you used funds provided by the people of the United states to pay for an illegal sexual act?"
"Do you kiss Mrs.Vitter with that lying mouth?"
to every Republican in Congress, EVERY SINGLE DAY:
"Today, ____ lost his/her life in Iraq, leaving ____ children and a spouse. Was ____'s death worth the civil war and increase in Al Quaeda's power and recruitment?"
Next day: Repeat the question
to Tony Snow:
"Look you dirty lying cocksucker. We all know you will lie with your dying breath to protect the traitor in the whitehouse. What I want to know is- Do you ever feel a twinge of guilt knowing that you are protecting rich corrupt men for a tiny slice of the pie while the children of poor Americans are dying every single day for a war of lies?"
"Do you think you deserve more or less of war profitteering money for your efforts to hide the truth from the American people?"
"Hold still, sir. I'm reloading my... mike."
"Would you prefer to go down in history as the traitor who masterminded the not-so clandestine destruction of the U.S. constitution, the man who led U.S. out of its heyday as the world's only superpower, and a war criminal with 1 million dead Iraqi women and children as notches on your belt- or as a semi-religious, ex cokehead dumbass who never really had a clue what you were doing?"
I received some stupid bullshit email attributed to George Carlin this morning. It's basically just an unfunny Republican rant that some asshole is trying to pimp as Carlin's. It's not the first time I've gotten this bs, not by a longshot, and I'm sick of it.
So I replied all to the moron who sent it to me with a choice rant of my own directed at cowards who have to lie about whose beliefs they are selling.
I hope that a few of the people who forward this ignorant shit will think twice before they blindly re-send lies to all their friends in the future.
Because if you are forwarding Lies- you are repeating lies and it makes you look stupid. Not to mention that maybe some of these sheep will realize that if you have to lie about your beliefs and make up false quotes- your beliefs may be just as hollow as the falsehood of their origin.
You know, I have NEVER, EVER received an email that is a progressive diatribe that is falsely attributed to some famous comedian. It is ONLY the bushbots that perform these little lies of attribution. Why would I have to stoop to pretending to lying about my beliefs, that I feel very strongly about?
Well, I wouldn't.
Yet I get these bullshit emails once a week, supposedly written by Robin Williams, George Carlin, and a host of others, some who are supposedly soldiers in Iraq, or Generals, or whoever else.
The Republicans who exist out there have a credibility problem, but worse than that, they have a self-esteem problem. They cannot believe that their own views are worthy enough of repetition. They can only believe that these beliefs are important enough to be emailed when they rip their own names off of them and tag them with the name of some famous person.
And I realize why they do it- It's the difference between "Them" and "Us" after all.
It's the dumb shit people who forward these emails; the dumb shits who still adore Bush for fighting Saddam Osama for "Nine-levin" and giving flowers to the Iraqi people and you know, stuff like that. Patriot stuff.
It's the Nascar, trailer park crowd, the drunk parents listening to Skynrd and Papa Roach and their retarded children listening to Insane Clown Posse and sharing their weed. It's the dumbfucks that are in church praying for us sinners in the same breath that they say things like - "Well, Jesus doesn't want me to be destitute, doncha know" while buying their 2nd SUVs and a vacation home.
Its the dirty cocksuckers that bitch and moan about minimum wage hikes while ignoring the major corporations in every town in the U.S. overpaying their top executives by 1000% and even giving them bonuses as they are being let go.
It's the criminally stupid fucks that cry "Support the troops" then fight tooth and nail against a tax increase that would END situations like Walter Reed and provide a Modicum of real care for wounded vets.
They would rather bitch at the poor, whom they despise and simultaneous NEED, than the rich.
They need the poor, because if they didn't exist, these blue collar Republicans would be one rung lower on the ladder. The Rich must be great Americans because, because, uh they are rich. Who would you rather have, after all? A rich friend or a poor one? = Fuck the poor. Fuck those who care about the poor. They are all bleeding heart losers. They aren't rich because they care too much.
I watched today as a clueless corporate twat on CNBC, Maria What-the-fuck, smarmily commented about rich Democrats who WANT more taxes. This vapid money worshipper quipped "Time and time again these people vote AGAINST their economic interests." and she shook her head, utterly perplexed that some rich person would actually want to give up some of their profits in order to help bolster the lower and middle class. She seemed to not comprehend any interest EXCEPT one of monetary value.
We are all in this together. And the greater you make the divide between the superrich and ultrapoor, the more crime, violence, and disconnect this country will have.
And when that happens there's not ENOUGH gated communities in the country to shield these people from the reality they created with their greed.
You reap what you sow. Be careful you don't wake up in a field full of shit with nothing else to show for your "efforts".
UPDATE: Good God! While writing this I received two emails that were forwards of "Bill Gates sharing his wealth by YOU forwarding this email" Sometimes I wonder if there is any hope for America at fucking all.
Jul 17, 2007
From Common Dreams= CIA agents discuss Rumsfeld and the secret prisons
Real Americans DON'T SUPPORT Terror.
Jul 16, 2007
Jul 13, 2007
Wherein I exhale all manner of non-political thoughts upon my unsuspecting fellow bloggers...
The Gf and I are heading to Levelland today and probably tomorrow, to look at houses. I've been trying to "stay cool" but the excitement is starting to get to me anyway. An extra bedroom, maybe two. A real garage. Central Air. Not living in the ghetto. An EXTRA Bathroom! (hell yes!) I have been stuck with 3 females in a one bathroom house for far too long.
A new start in a new town. It's kind of mindblowing, which is why, i suppose, that i have been underplaying it in my mind. I am trying not to get overwhelmed by the monumental changes that are dancing on tomorrow's breeze.
Stress has been a factor, and the source for every one of the recent arguments between me and Lauren. The vacations didn't help a damn thing. Too much stress and too many things to do crammed into too little time do not a vacation make.
I have been struggling to breathe deep through it all, to slow my pulse and not fall prey to my anxieties. Everything that I do in life, from simply working out to studying stock market strategies reinforces this train of thought.
Everytime I react, forcefully and immediately, I ended up screwing up everything. If I take a long term view on what is going on, study the situation and move at a slower pace, everything works better. When I adjust to a change TOO quickly, it doesn't have the expected result. All my life I have been told not to "Get behind". I have been told over and over that you have to be the fastest, the first, in order to thrive. But it's just bullshit.
Instincts and reactions serve their purpose in situations that call for immediate action- in my experience with high-adrenaline fights or tense situations involving car wrecks or life threatening matters. But other than that, reacting too quickly and making quick judgment calls bites me in the ass almost every time. You have to find your center, within yourself, and hold yourself inside of it. You have to know yourself and your desires and those around you. You have to maintain focus, even when you are moving at a run. If you don't you zig and you zag and you end up doing something that may be expedient or seem right in the heat of the moment, but that ends up fucking you over in the end.
So, Instead of holding my breath and waiting on tiptoes for the perfect moment to exhale, I am balancing easily inside the breathing itself. Instead of action-reaction, I am trying to stretch it all out into a constant flow. My main consideration is to NOT react, to NOT act on my first impulse and to find a state of fluid concentration.
I've got to find that elemental focus that takes me above it all, Not all crashing water or roaring fire- But floating above it all, lightly avoiding the obstacles that come at me.
I've got to breathe deep and become that breath.
Jul 12, 2007
I guess I missed an important part of the story about the Republican congressman who got busted trying to pay a guy to have oral sex with him.
-THE REPUBLICAN TRIED TO PAY THE GUY, not to receive a blowjob in a public place, But To GIVE ONE TO THE UNDERCOVER COP-
Republicans are some seriously closeted fucking hypocrites.
Family Values Republicans - LMMFAO
Read the comments... oh hell, my sides hurt.
Republicans in action...
hot dirty man on man action in your local park, even.
How will they spin this, I wonder? He was seduced ? He was fighting the war on terror by inspecting random mens penises with a taste test for chemical wmd?
This is another Family values Republican.
If A Republican tells you ANY-Damn-THING, just believe the opposite.
More on the Moron
Jul 11, 2007
Fred's post on Chertoff got me thinking...
Chertoff and Lieberman are screeching like crazy lately.
Chertoff has a gut feeling that there's going to be an imminent attack. Is this just more crying and whining designed to round up the lost lambs of the bush base?
Or is it time for 9-11 part deux?
I wonder what part of his Gut has informed Chertoff of this imminent attack?
Does it have something to do with Phillip Perry, Cheney’s son in law, his connection to Chertoff, Lieberman, DHS and dismantling safety protections?
These guys are too arrogant to refrain from crowing about an attack so that they can be the first ones to claim credit, sadly (oh, so sadly), that they saw it coming.
They are the ones making it easier for our country to BE ATTACKED- as Art Levine notes in this telling article in Washington Monthly:
"The result has been that our chemical sites remain, even five years after 9/11, stubbornly vulnerable to attack. Philip Perry has hardly been alone in tolerating this. Others in the White House and Congress have been equally solicitous toward the chemical industry. But as part of a network of Cheney loyalists in the executive branch, Perry has been a key player in the struggle to prevent the federal government from assuming any serious regulatory role in business, no matter what the cost. And a successful attack on a chemical facility could make such a cost high indeed. A flippant critic might say the father-in-law has been prosecuting a war that creates more terrorists abroad, while the son-in-law has been working to ensure they’ll have easy targets at home. But it’s more precise to say that White House officials really, really don’t want to alienate the chemical industry, and Perry has been really, really willing to help them not do it."
The full article here- Dick Cheney's dangerous Son in law
This is what American has become. This is OUR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY on nepotism, corruption, and power-madness.
Levine ends with this:
“In January 2007, Perry announced his intention to step down as general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security and was rumored to be returning to Latham & Watkins. Elizabeth Cheney, Perry’s wife, had given birth to the couple’s fifth child in July 2006, and Chertoff spoke of fully supporting Perry’s “decision to put his family first.” But there were other reasons for Philip Perry to leave government, too. After all, he’d done what he came to do.”
Foxes in the henhouse. They are not only as corrupt as you think, they are far, far worse.
Ripping the spinal column from a District Attorney who didn't follow the evil plan
And who is the Dark Lord behind it all? The mystery Lich Lord of the damned, running the show from hell?
Move over, Satan.
No Undead Entourage would be complete without their horde of mindless followers
Jul 10, 2007
One stop shopping. My fellow bloggers have some great stuff today...
Moore rips Wolf Blitzer a new one
(from Station Agent at Ice Station Tango)
Dream things that never were and say "Why not"
(from Targa at Targa's Tirade)
I found this at Democracy Now! today- The Jena 6
Even racist Texans know that Louisiana owns the patent on racism in America today, but this is just crazy to see it happening right now.
What Breed of Liberal Are You?
Your Liberal Breed: Working Class Warrior
You are a Working Class Warrior, also known as a blue-collar Democrat.
You believe that the little guy is getting screwed by conservative greed-mongers and corporate criminals and you're not going to take it any more.
I am no longer nor have ever been nor if asked will I admit to any such affiliation with, nor would I ever promote or possibly glorify any group that may or may not be referenced or not referenced in this link. If, by any remote possibility, a flaw in the internet tube system, or a chaos theory-based simultaneous random action, or some timefold of quantum physics takes you to a link that may or may not refer to anarchic elitists with a bent for alien sex goddesses, I am not responsible nor have any idea of why you clicked here in the first place. This is obviously a html coding error and I am absolved of any and all involvement
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Ah, it never bores me, watching the eternal evolution of Jewish mythology as interpreted by the Not-jews. Especially by the Not-jews that don't really like the jews and who like to say that the not-jews who REALLY love the jews are wrong.
Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.
And don't forget his own flawed catholic clergy- infested with those damn liberals! Oh you damn Liberals! Damn you! Damn you to Hell! (Never gets old, does it? Say it with me: "And we would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those Damn meddling liberals!")
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.
Oh, and of course, those apostles never disagreed on anything, now did they? And if they had, the Catholic church and its many high priests have had about 2ooo years to scrub the records clean, right? Except for those pesky scrolls that keep turning up...
Oh well, fuck the religious debate and pass the mashed potatoes!
Hallelujah! Ah, God does work in mysterious ways.
Old House of the Rising Sons posts on Religion
Jul 5, 2007
Robert Ingersoll on the Declaration of Independence
(on its centennial, c.1876)
With one blow, with one stroke of the pen, they struck down all the cruel, heartless barriers that aristocracy, that priestcraft, that kingcraft had raised between man and man. They struck down with one immortal blow that infamous spirit of caste that makes a God almost a beast, and a beast almost a god. With one word, with one blow they wiped away and utterly destroyed all that had been done by centuries of war -- centuries of hypocrisy -- centuries of injustice.
And what more? That the people are the source of political power. That was not only a revelation, but it was a revolution. It changed the ideas of people with regard to the source of political power. For the first time it made human beings men. What was the old idea? The old idea was that no political power came from, nor in any manner belonged to the people. The old idea was that the political power came from the clouds; that the political power came in some miraculous way from heaven; that it came down to kings, and queens and robbers. That was the old idea. The nobles lived upon the labor of the people; the people had no rights; the nobles stole what they had and divided with the kings, and the kings pretended to divide what they stole with God Almighty. The source, then, of political power was from above. The people were responsible to the nobles, the nobles to the king, and the people had no political right whatever, no more than the wild beasts of the forest. The kings were responsible to God; not the people. They were responsible to the clouds, not to the toiling millions they robbed and plundered.
And our forefathers, in this declaration of independence, reversed this thing, and said; No, the people, they are the source of political power, and their rulers -- these presidents, these kings -- are but the agents and servants of the great, sublime people. For the first time, really, in the history of the world, the kind was made to get off the throne, and the people were royally seated thereon. The people became the sovereigns, and the old sovereigns became the servants and the agents of the people. It is hard for you and me now to imagine even the immense results of the change. It is hard for you and me, at this day, to understand how thoroughly it had been ingrained in the brain of almost every man, that the king had some wonderful right over him; that in some strange way the king owned him; that in some miraculous manner he belonged, body and soul, to somebody who rode on a horse, to somebody with epaulettes on his shoulders and a tinsel crown upon his brainless head.
So many religions met in our country -- so many theories and dogmas came in contact -- so many follies, mistakes and stupidities became acquainted with each other, that religion began to fall somewhat into disrepute. Besides this, the question of a new nation began to take precedence of all others.
The people were too much interested in this world to quarrel about the next. The preacher was lost in the patriot. The Bible was read to find passages against kings.
Everybody was discussing the rights of man. Farmers and mechanics suddenly became statesmen, and in every shop and cabin nearly every question was asked and answered.
During these years of political excitement the interest in religion bated to that degree that a common purpose animated men of all sects and creeds.
Now, do not understand that all our fathers were in favor of independence. Do not understand that they were all like Jefferson; that they were all like Adams or Lee; that they were all like Thomas Paine or John Hancock. There were thousands and thousands of them who were opposed to American independence. There were thousands and thousands who said "When you say men are created equal, it is a lie; when you say the political power resides in the great body of the people, it is false." Thousands and thousands of them said: "We prefer Great Britain." But the men who were in favor of independence, the men who knew that a new nation must be born, went on full of hope and courage, and nothing could daunt or stop or stay the heroic, fearless few. ...
They made up their minds that a new nation must be formed. All nations had bee, so to speak, the wards of some church. The religious idea as to the source of power had been at the foundation, of all governments and had been the bane and curse of man.
Happily for us, there was no church strong enough to dictate to the rest. Fortunately for us, the colonists not only but the colonies differed widely in their religious views. There were the Puritans, who hate the Episcopalians; the Episcopalians, who hated the Catholics; and the Catholics, who hated both, while the Quakers held them all in contempt. There they were, of every sort and color and kind, and how was it that they came together? They had a common aspiration. They wanted to form a new nation. More than that, most of them cordially hated Great Britain; and they pledged each other to forget their religious prejudices for a time, at least, and agreed that there should be only one religion until they got through -- and that was the religion of patriotism. They solemnly agreed that the new nation should not belong to any particular church but that it should secure the rights of all.
Our fathers founded the first secular government that was ever founded in this world. Recollect that. The first secular government; the first government that said every church has exactly the same rights, and no more; every religion has the same rights, and no more. In other words, our fathers were the first men who had the sense, who had the genius, to know that no church should be allowed to have a sword; that it should be allowed only to exert its moral influence.
So our fathers said: "We will form a secular government, and under the flag which we are going to enrich our air we will allow every man to worship God as he thinks best." They said: "Religion is an individual thing between each man and his Creator, and he can worship as he pleases and as he desires." And why did they do this? The history of the world warned them that the liberty of man was not safe in the clutch and grasp of any church. They had read of and seen the thumb-screws, the racks and the dungeons of the Inquisition. They knew all about the hypocrisy of the olden time. They knew that the church had stood side by side with the throne; that the high priests were hypocrites, and that the kings were robbers. They also knew that if they gave to any church power, it would corrupt the best church in the world. And so they said that power must not reside in a church, nor in a sect, but power must be wherever humanity is - in the great body of the people. And the officers and servants of the people must be responsible to them. And so I say again, as I said in the commencement, this is the wisest, the profoundest, the bravest political document that was ever written.
They turned, as I tell you, everything squarely about. They derived all their authority from the people. They did away forever with the theological idea of government.
As soon as our ancestors began to get free they began to enslave others. With an inconsistency that defies explanation, they practiced upon others the same outrages that had been perpetrated upon them. As soon as white slavery began to be abolished black slavery commenced. In this infamous traffic nearly every nation of Europe embarked. Fortunes were quickly realized; the avarice and cupidity of Europe was excited; all ideas of justice were discarded; pity fled from the human breast; a few good, brave men recited the horrors of the trade; avarice was deaf; religion refused to hear; the trade went on; the governments of Europe upheld it in the name of commerce -- in the name of civilization and of religion.
What we want today is what our fathers wrote down. They did not attain to their ideal; we approach it nearer, but have not reached it yet. We want not only the independence of state, not only the independence of a nation, but something far more glorious -- the absolute independence of the individual. That is what we want. I want it so that I, one of the children of Nature, can stand on an equality with the rest; that I can say this is my air, my sunshine, my earth, and I have a right to live, and hope, and aspire, and labor and enjoy the fruit of that labor, as much as any individual or any nation on the face of the globe.
All who stand beneath our banner are free. Ours is the only flag that has in reality written upon it Liberty, Fraternity, Equality -- the three grandest words in all the languages of men.
Liberty -- Give to every man the fruit of his own labor; the labor of his hands and of his brain.
Fraternity -- Every man in the right is my brother.
Equality -- The rights of all are equal. Justice poised and balanced in eternal claim will shake from the golden scales in which are weighed the acts of men the very dust of prejudice and caste.
No race, no color, no previous conditions, can change the rights of men.
I want you to go away with an eternal hatred in your breast of injustice, of aristocracy, of caste, of the idea that one man has more rights than another because he has better clothes, more land, more money; because he owns a railroad, or is famous and in high position. Remember that all men have equal rights. Remember that the man who acts best his part -- who loves his friends the best -- is most willing to help others -- truest to the obligation -- who has the best heart -- the most feeling -- the deepest sympathies -- and who freely gives to others the rights that he claims for himself is the best man. I am willing to swear to this.
More About Robert Ingersoll...
Jul 4, 2007
(NOTE: I lost my righteous fervor for this project when Bush commuted the sentence of one of his criminal underlings the other day and our "opposition leadership" affected a protracted yawn.. More below)
I got into an argument with an ardent C&L'er last week who wanted to tell me how horrible our founding fathers were. Yes, they had slaves. Yes, they were rich landowners. Yes, their women didn't have very many rights. Yes, they stole my ancestor's lands. But still they managed to craft the constitution and announce a Declaration of Independence - documents whose substance put to shame ANYTHING produced by a politician in my lifetime, even in times of equal strife.
These men were the power brokers of their time. And yet, they purposely set limits to their own powers. These men were in the position to become the 'new nobility' of America. And yet, they had the forethought and intelligence to look beyond their selves. These men had grandiose ideals of progress for their country. And instead of limiting their scope to "reasonable" levels, they reached as high as they could, bolstered by the belief that they were creating a new world, where men could live freely.
They declared their independence to an unjust government which treated its citizens unequally and capriciously. This document is no less valid today, considered against the unjust actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, than it was then against King George. Most of the declaration stands on its own, in 1776 or in 2007, two hundred and thirty one years later. Much has changed. The tyranny and greed of government officials has not.
As you read the Declaration of Independence on the anniversary of its' issuance- think about a small group of Americans, who discussed the that tyranny and decided to act to free themselves of it. Our founding fathers, flaws and all, gave us a precious gift in the laws and the constitution they crafted. We do the country they built dishonor when we discard this gift. We do OUR country the gravest of injuries when we disregard our own rule of law for the sake of expedience.
The Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Someone invariably says: "Violence is not the answer." Well, sometimes it is.
It solved Hitler when his violence became less than that of the nations his violence oppressed.
It solved Caesar when the Senate said enough is enough. Caesar took the law into his own hands one too many times, and thus, the Roman Senate responded.
I have a form of power, as a citizen. And I can exercise that power by gathering other citizens around, forminq quorums and working together for change. I can see this change on the horizon, distant yet coming slowly nearer. But at the same time, I can also see a power mad dictator becoming worse as each new day brings new transgressions against the republic and the people of the republic.
And I look around- and the only ones who seem to pay attention are those of us on the blogs- who, by and large- are convinced after careful deliberations for the past several years that our current government officials are corrupt; that they are traitors to this nation.
Day by day, we gain more of a foothold with the non-blogging public, as our efforts inform them more and more of what is going on and they began to see the horrible truth of our country's leadership.
I hope for the best and plan for the worst. But I cannot stand in line, step by tiny step while our President hurdles the constitution, and destroys our laws one by one.
But what is the alternative? Truly, at the moment, there is NO valid alternative, violent or otherwise, without true leadership.
The man on the American street, no matter how morally upset, is not troubled enough by the actions of his government to care much. Frankly, the subject of immigration gets people more upset, and thats a bullshit argument on all sides, as Mirth has pointed out.
There can be no "Declaration of Independence" until our countrymen are ready to be Independent. And right now, they aren't. They clamor for I-phones, video games, new cars and absurd television shows to draw their attention away from reality. They can't be bothered beyond waving a flag and simple solutions that don't require them to think.
And although I see pathways that lead to an end to this situation, they have horrible consequences and side effects. And why make awful choices and awful sacrifices for countrymen that are less independent than a fourth grade elementary class?
So, there is no declaration. Men like me, simple citizens of little or no substance, must be joined and led by men of substance both morally and financially if there is to be change. There are no Jeffersons, Franklins, and Washingtons among our generals, politicians, and community leaders.
I am the rabble. I have a voice. But if it isn't heard by those who can make a difference, it is just noise. And I am not yet willing to give up everything for countrymen who cant even be bothered to give up their time to affect a change.
I have begged, pleaded, commanded, and bitched at my countrymen enough.
Do as thou wilt. Protect your family and your community as best as you can.
Hope for the best. Plan for the worst.