free stats

28.2.06

Portgate and Presidential power...

Ron Paul, on Portgate:

It's important to note the administration did not bother to consult with Congress or the state governors involved. The Treasury department approved the purchase with no congressional oversight whatsoever. While many applaud unchecked presidential authority when it comes to war in Iraq, wiretapping, and other national security matters, they now demand that Congress overturn a unilateral administration decision. The lesson learned is that everybody likes presidential power when they agree with how it’s used. When they don’t, they rediscover that the Constitution authorizes Congress to make policy after all.

24.2.06

International Terrorism does not exist...

The use of the term "international terrorism" has the following goals:

1. Hiding the real objectives of the forces deployed all over the world in the struggle for dominance and control;

2. Creating a public demand for a struggle with undefined goals against an invisible enemy;

3. Destroying basic international norms and changing concepts such as: aggression, state terror, dictatorship or movement of national liberation;

4. Depriving peoples of their legitimate right to resist aggression and to reject the work of foreign intelligence services;

5. Establishing the principle of renunciation to national interests, transforming objectives in the military field by giving priority to the war on terror, violating the logic of military alliances to the detriment of a joint defense and to favor the anti-terrorist coalition;

6. Solving economic problems through a tough military rule using the war on terror as a pretext. In order to fight in an efficient way against international terrorism it is necessary to take the following steps:


  1. To confirm before the UN General Assembly the principles of
    the UN Charter and international law as principles that all states
    are obliged to respect;

  2. To create a geo-strategic organization (perhaps inspired in the
    Cooperation Organization of Shanghai comprised of Russia,
    China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) with a
    set of values different to that of the Atlantists; to design a
    strategy of development of states, a system of international
    security, another financial and economic model (which would
    mean that the world would again rest on two pillars);

  3. To associate (under the United Nations) the scientific elites in
    the design and promotion of the philosophical concepts of the
    Human Being of the 21st Century.

  4. To organize the interaction of all religious denominations in
    the world, on behalf of the stability of humanity's development,
    security and mutual support.

The fascist American media...

From Local6.com in Orlando:

Police in Orlando are asking people to stay home during a neo-Nazi march planned for the downtown area over the weekend, according to a Local 6 News report.

The same neo-Nazi group that instigated violence in Toledo, Ohio, last year will march Saturday in downtown Orlando, officials said Tuesday.


No, the neo-Nazi group did not instigate violence last year in Toledo. They exercised their rights to speak and assemble, and local residents who do NOT respect the right of people to do so instigated the violence.

In a free society, speech cannot be a precursor to violence. Anyone who responds to speech with violence must bear the full blame and responsibility of their violent acts.

For the media to paint the speech of groups whose messages they do not like as the instigation of violence clearly show that these fascists believe only certain ideas fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment.

From CNN (about last year's rioting in Toledo):

The Nazi march was called off, and none of the National Socialist Movement group's 80 members who showed up to participate was arrested, White said.

Hours later, aerial video showed people vandalizing buildings and setting fire to a two-story building that apparently housed a bar, Toledo police spokeswoman Capt. Diana Ruiz-Krause told CNN.

The violence was contained to a six- or eight-block area in the north Toledo neighborhood, she added.

At least 150 officers from various units -- some on horseback, bicycles and in riot gear -- were on the scene. The city's police chief said his officers showed "considerable restraint" after being pelted with rocks and bottles for "considerable hours."

"We could have made a couple hundred arrests," he said.

Ruiz-Krause blamed the mayhem on a disorganized group of the community's youth.

Most of the violence happened when residents, who had pelted the Nazi marchers with bottles and rocks, took out their anger on police, said Brian Jagodzinski, chief news photographer for CNN affiliate WTVG.

Video showed crowds at around 2:25 p.m. using bats to bring down a wooden fence as looters broke into a small grocery store.

"The crowd was very ... extremely agitated at the police ... for doing this [making arrests in] the community when they should be doing this to the Nazis," Jagodzinski said.

Spinning makes everyone dizzy...

The Bush White House as a "Fifth Column" by Jonathan M. Feldman

The Bush Administration's championing of a disastrous war, its grievous neglect of homeland security in New Orleans, and its promotion of a Dubai company to manage key strategic ports all point in one direction. The Bush White House represents a fifth column, an insidious Trojan Horse aimed against not only the American people but also American democracy itself. The state is no longer a tool for rational governance, but a tool of corporate plunder. The ruling corporate elite that has taken over the White House is loyal to a transnational economy and the short term cash nexus. It is in fact the direct extension of that economy into the very workings of government itself. Despite their protestations to the contrary, this parasitic elite is not patriotic. They only use the rhetoric of "patriotism" as a cover for junking civil liberties, wrecking the economy, and enriching their cronies.

23.2.06

Isolationism...

Remember this year's State of the Union Address when the President made repeated negative references to a philosophy he labeled as 'isolationism'?

Perhaps that was done to give talk radio and the columnists a few weeks to remind the sheep that good sheep are globalists.

Perhaps it was done with the port deal in mind, setting the stage for the spinners to remind everyone that they just got done saying they supported international business.

When that didn't work, the Benedict Arnolds declare opponents to be xenophobic racists, or even security threats.

The second in command at the Pentagon said Thursday that people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Senate Armed Services Committee that blocking the deal could ostracize one of the United States' few Arab allies.

"The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."


Notice the reinforcement relating paranoia and "isolationism".

I just don't understand how the Bushbots can continue to insist that America is involved in a "Global War on Terror" as their King sells our ports and ignore our borders.

Daniel Webster...

I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.

America's economic reality...

Imperial Decline: by Bill Bonner

The new globalized capital markets are rapidly bringing both cash and technology to the place that will earn it the highest rate of return. Fifty years ago, that place was America. Now, it is Asia. So, the factories go up in Shanghai...not in Cincinnati. But still, in the Buckeye State, people hardly notice. They go about their business peacefully, even rather tickled not to have the factories. After all, that means they can now move up the socio-economic ladder. Let the Asians do the sweating. They will do the thinking! The only question is, what will they think about? Most likely, it will be about how they will refinance their house, borrowing from Asian savers, in order to continue buying gadgets and gizmos, manufactured by Asian producers.

Another failed philosophy...

Neocon architect says: Pull it Down

NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects.

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.

In an extract from his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads, Mr Fukuyama declares that the doctrine "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes".

In its narrowest form, neoconservatism advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones.

Mr Fukuyama once supported regime change in Iraq and was a signatory to a 1998 letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to the then president, Bill Clinton, urging the US to step up its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was also signed by neoconservative intellectuals, such as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and political figures Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

However, Mr Fukuyama now thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

...



I'm still wondering why the President spend so much time and effort in his last SOTU Address to bash "isolationism" if he and his merry band of underlings were sailing along with their winning ideas.

I guess it turns out that the neo-con movement is coming unglued...

More "neo"-conservatism...

From a recent interchange between Viet Dihn and Paul Craig Roberts:

Assuming some fealty to the truth remains, let me recount what I[Dihn] said during my debate with Bob Barr at CPAC. I acknowledged that conservatism derives from a tradition of healthy skepticism of governmental power. However, I said, "At times that healthy skepticism must unfortunately yield to a greater threat to our national security."


So, being a conservative today means questioning the government, only until the government is successful at casting widespread fear and panic, at which time criticism must yield to blind faith until the government tells us the cause of the fear has been thwarted?

A new twist on an old story...

The Ant and the Grasshopper

by Jim Quinn

The Original Version

The ant busts his ass in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

The New Liberal Version

It starts out the same but when winter comes the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, and ABC show up and show pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to film of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be, in a country of such wealth that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Then a representative of the NAAGB (The National Association of Green Bugs) shows up on Night Line and charges the ant with "Green Bias" and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when he sings "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS evening news and tell a concerned Dan Rather That they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the summer, or as Bill refers to it, the "Temperatures Of The 80's".

Finally the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act" RECTRO-ACTIVE to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and having nothing left to pay his Retro-Active taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in....which just happens to be the ant's old house.... crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV; which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, Bill Clinton is standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "Fairness" has dawned in America.

20.2.06

A marxist flaw...

Karl Marx tried to advocate the idea that capitalists would enslave the masses by colluding to pay slave wages to everyone.

The flaw in that argument, of course, is that in order to stave off the inevitable tendency of liberty yielding to tyranny, the consumers and employees must be as aggressive in the marketplace as are the producers and the employers. The balance of power will be established between a smaller number of wealthy and powerful men pushing against a large number of individually weaker men. Each side must continue to push for freedom to sustain.

When the employees and consumers stop pushing, they are overrun by expensive lawyers, advertisers, propogandists and lobbyists. Finding themselves backed into a corner, the employees and consumers will turn to government, thus is born the "democracy", or mob rule. The majority ignorantly pushes back at the producers and employers through various Marxist policies, such as "free" medical care, education, price floors or ceilings, minimum wage laws, and "overtime" rules among others.

Being ignorant to the laws of economics, the employee and consumer widens and deepens his own demise, as the producers and employers invariably end up elected to the government, and thus are put in the position of pretending to legislate wealth and power away from themselves and into the hands of the powerless. Such a fanciful event has never once happened so far as I am aware!

Yesterday's Meet the Press...

I don't usually bother with these MSM "news"/opinion shows, but I did happen to watch a rerun of NBC's Meet the Press last night. On the show were Michael Chertoff, Mary Matalin (Bush/Cheney spin doctor), Maureen Dowd (left-wing columnist), David Gregory (NBC White House reporter), and Paul Gigot (WSJ editorial page editor). I heard many interesting words spoken, here are some:

I think my responsibility is to try to fix the department. - Michael Chertoff


Fix a brand new department? Are all government departments and agencies broken at the point of inception? How much time to broken by design government agencies require before they are "fixed"? Does any government agency work efficiently and effectively, or all they all continuous work-in-progress with a ready-made defense against criticism?

People are entitled by law to receive a certain amount of compensation, money for food, and—and clothing and shelter. Inevitably, some people are going do misuse that. And unless we move to a voucher system, which would be a very cumbersome system, we have to try to balance the urgency of getting people some money so they’re not literally left starving and without clothing against the fact that there will always be some scoundrels who will misuse the money or try to defraud us. - Michael Chertoff


Couple things here. First, nobody is entitled to cash payments by any LEGITIMATE law. It is possible that some Congressional act or executive branch directive establishes this welfare scheme, but it is unconstitutional on its face. The federal government does not exist to take money from me in order to give it to the victim of a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, or any other hardship due to circumstances within or beyond that individual's control.

Second, notice who Chertoff claims as the victim of the fraud in this case. The American people? The taxpayer?? No, the victims are "us", meaning the government.

Simply put, this scenario points out why government spending scams like this one that only apply to some Americans don't work. Government policies are legitimate so long as they apply to everyone. In other words, if they want to give $2000 to residents of New Orleans who "need it", then everyone else must also get the money. Want to pay farmers who DON'T grow certain crops, then EVERYONE who doesn't grow those crops must receive the "benefit".

So long as We the People are played against one another for a seat at the federal feeding table, our government is winning battles in the war for the future of America.

Because you don’t want to put something that’s fixed, that’s a mobile home, in a place that’s going to flood again. We originally hoped that at least some significant number would be placed in other parts of Louisiana and Mississippi. It’s turned out that some communities don’t want to have that happen, and some people don’t want to have that happen. And we’re not going to force them to take these mobile homes. - Michael Chertoff


So, it's okay to confiscate money from individual Americans in order to hand out debit cards, and to fund hotel rooms for the welfare class, but when it comes time to set up trailer communities for the "victims", the government must ask permission and abide by the responses given?

Did the government ever ask whether or not I wanted to contribute to the charity effort operated on behalf of the welfare crowd in New Orleans?

[Discussing the sale of US port control to a UAE based company]Without getting into classified information, what we typically do if there are concerns is we build in certain conditions, or requirements, that the company has to agree to to make sure we address the national security concerns. - Michael Chertoff


So, we're all set so long as we ask the company not to smuggle in contraband and they agree?

[Matalin discussing the Cheney shooting]Have Katharine be able to share with other witnesses, and she could be an eyewitness. - Mary Matalin


Well, was she a witness, or was she conveniently converted into one whose accounts now go unquestioned because nobody will come forward and admit that she did not witness the shooting?

19.2.06

"A Visitor from the Past" by Thelen Paulk...

I had a dream the other night I didn't understand.

A figure walking through the mist with a flintlock in his hand. His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed. He took off his three cornered hat and speaking low, he said:

"We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty. We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny. For future generations, this legacy we gave, in this, the land of the free and the home of the brave. You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun. Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one. On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent. Although you have no voice in choosing, how the money's spent."

"Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate. Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state. You read about the current news in a regulated press. You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the foreign I.R.S. Your money is no longer made of silver, or of gold. You trade your wealth for paper, so your lives can be controlled."

"You pay for crimes that make our Nation turn from God in shame. You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name. You've given government control, to those who do you harm."

"So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm. And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail. Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail. Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oath they've sworn. They defy and rape the nation, and leave it's fabric tattered and torn."

"Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores. And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars. Can you regain the freedom for which we fought and died?"

"Or don't you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride? Are there no more values for which you'll fight to save? Or do you wish your children to live in fear as a slave?"

"People of the Republic arise and take a stand! Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land! Preserve our Great Republic, and God Given Right! And pray to God, to keep the torch of Freedom burning bright!"

As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came. His words were true, we are not Free, we have ourselves to blame. For even now as tyrants trample each God Given Right, we only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight.

If he stood by your bedside, in a dream, while you're asleep, and wonders what remains of our Rights he fought so hard to keep, What would be your answer, if he called out from the grave;

IS THIS STILL THE LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE?


"A Visitor from the Past" by Thelen Paulk

Declaration of Constitutional Principles...

In a republic, all citizens are soldiers, policemen, and fire and rescue workers, with the default rank of private. Delegation of official powers to agents of government is the conferring of higher rank to those persons, and persons of lesser rank are subject to the lawful orders of persons of higher rank when persons of higher rank are present and exercising their authority legally and effectively. If not, their rank ceases and highest rank devolves on the person present who most effectively represents that authority, whatever his previous status. A citizen with the default rank of private also outranks any person who is acting in violation of law, for the rank of lawbreakers is lower than that of private, whatever their previous status.

A citizen not only has the duty to obey the law, but to help enforce it, within his ability, and to do what he can to prepare himself and others to do so.

In a constitutional republic, the constitution is the supreme law, superior to all other public acts, whether by officials or private citizens. Any statute, regulation, executive order, or court ruling which is inconsistent with that supreme law and not derived from it is unconstitutional and null and void from inception.


Declaration of Constitutional Principles

17.2.06

The simple, core difference...

The socialist argues in favor of one person or group of people (the government) spending the money of someone else (the taxpayer).

The capitalist argues in favor of the individual spending his own money as he sees fit.

Are you more likely to make foolish investments with your money or with someone else's money? Certainly it can be said that a person would be more likely to evaluate risk and reward when considering investing his own money than he would be were he to evaluate investing someone else's money, and therefore the individual investing his own money would more often than not make wiser choices than the government agent who has no personal stake in the outcome of the investment.

16.2.06

Disinformation...

Keep this handy as you listen to Fox News or the talk radio Bushbots...

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.



8 Traits of Disinformation

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

Sometimes less is more...

The responsibility for creating jobs for black, white, hispanic or any other American does not rest with the President of the United States, as Juan Williams is claiming on Hannity & Colmes in response to the Bryant Gumbel comment on the lack of black athletes at the Olympics.

The best thing the federal government could do for struggling people in this country would be to stop trying to help them immediately. Short of rewriting the whole tax code, eliminating Social Security withholding and the death tax would go further in helping poor and lower middle class people than all of the schemes the Congress is trying now. Not only would they be able to invest in themselves, but they would be able to pass on all of their life savings to their families.

Of course, the current crop of self-serving ego-maniacal oligarchs who run our government would never consider such ideas because they couldn't claim to have solved everyone's problems for them, or even attempted to do so.

How ironic that the more they try to do, the less they end up with. Only by doing nothing will the US Congress have done everything it needs in order to "help" struggling Americans.

(UPDATE: Hannity just accused a college professor of "advocat[ing] extreme views like overthrowing the government", making one wonder if Hannity has heard of the Declaration of Independence and understands the meaning of its simple language!)

Bush's economy...

Buchanan sets the record straight about our economy, and demonstrates that the picture painted by the neocon globalists seems to be somewhere between wishful thinking and treason.

Pat, please challenge Hillary in 2008. The country needs you sir, now more than ever.

Neocons quick with the brooms once again...

According to the Dallas Morning News (registration required, see LP thread here):

Sitting in the hunting car, Armstrong didn't know there was a problem until she saw Cheney's security detail running. "The first thing that crossed my mind was (Cheney) had a heart problem," she said.


Yet, according to Cheney's own words, in his interview with Brit Hume:

I said Karl has hunted at the Armstrong, as well, and we're both good friends of the Armstrongs and of Katherine Armstrong. And Katherine suggested, and I agreed, that she would go make the announcement, that is that she'd put the story out. And I thought that made good sense for several reasons. First of all, she was an eye-witness. She'd seen the whole thing.



So, did Cheney lie in his interview, or was the AP report wrong?

Why does it seem so difficult to get a simple story straight, such as how many drinks a person had on a day when he shot somebody?

Hume indicated that Cheney called last Saturday's accidental shooting "one of the worst days of my life," but that the vice president was certain that he handled it correctly by waiting nearly a day to make it public. He also revealed that Cheney disclosed having a beer with lunch that day, but stressed that it was several hours before the shooting occurred.

Ranch owner Katharine Armstrong has said no one hunting that day had any beer. The Los Angeles Times reported on Tuesday that it had been told that the hunters that day "broke for a lunch of antelope, jicama salad and camp bread, washed down with Dr. Pepper." Armstrong later modified her remarks, saying there may have been beer in coolers but she didn't think anyone who was hunting that day had any.

CNN today reports that Armstrong had told CNN she never saw Cheney or Whittington "drink at all on the day of the shooting until after the accident occurred, when the vice president fixed himself a cocktail back at the house."



Cheney admitted to the one beer at lunch during his interview with Brit Hume, but again, this seems to bring credibility issues in regarding Ms. Armstrong who apparently stated that nobody drank at all.

If Cheney were drinking, that would explain the delay in reporting the story, and it would also give him time to consume enough alcohol after the fact to cloud any investigation into whether or not he had been intoxicated at the time of the shooting.

In the end, it seems to me that should Mr. Whittington die, there is probable cause to arrest the VP for negligent manslaughter, and to proceed forward with a grand jury hearing.

Of course, it will never happen, because as we now know after the wire-tapping story, our elected officials are above the law.

13.2.06

Being a Bushbot (aka liberalism) is a mental disorder...

What exactly are the Bushbots (Hush, Hannity, various GOP talking heads, Weekly Standard, etc...) supporting when they defend virtually every action of Bush and Cheney on a daily basis?

To be fair, there are occasional token criticisms usually limited to overspending and apparent inattentiveness to the Mexican invasion. Anyway...

Jamie O'Neill wonders Do Bush Supporters Hate Their Country?

Sometimes the people who still fervently support George W. Bush seem just plain stupid, and other times it seems they must be dishonest and even malevolent, harboring a hatred for their country that allows them to support misguided ideas and private agendas over the public good. In more reasonable moods, I want to believe that the Bush supporters are just like me in simply wanting what is best for the country safety, security, fairness and a commitment to a government that observes the principles upon which our nation was founded. When I'm thinking that way, I assume we don't disagree on goals and objectives, just on the most effective way to achieve those goals and objectives.

It's hard to keep that thought, though, when the lies keep piling up higher and deeper, and when so much of the energy of Bush supporters goes into evading reality. Is it really possible for there to be an honest difference of opinion about the calamitous Bush decision to invade Iraq? No weapons of mass destruction there, as we were told there were. No link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, as we were told there was, and as we continue to be urged to believe by deceptive administration rhetoric. Almost no likelihood that a stable democracy will be possible in an Iraq rent by ethnic feuds and anti-democratic traditions. Billions upon billions of dollars squandered in Iraq, and billions more stolen by corrupt U.S. contractors. Meanwhile, the Homeland Security entity Bush created has shown itself to be yet another huge government boondoggle, and utterly witless in responding to a national emergency.

Beyond that, we have the shameful spectacle of Americans who call themselves patriots urging a forfeiture of our rights and liberties as U.S. citizens the rights to due process and the protections devised by the founding fathers to guard against abuses of power.

And beyond that, we have breaches of national security in the outing of a CIA agent for no better reason than spite. We have the staffing of all kinds of highly paid and important government jobs with incompetent administration cronies and partners in crime. We have repeated and massive failures of imagination. No one could have imagined a) people flying planes into U.S. skyscrapers, b) a storm of the magnitude of Katrina, or c) a Palestinian militant group like Hamas winning elections in Palestine these being just a few of the things Condoleezza Rice has said the administration couldn't imagine.

Beyond all of that, we have the growing gap between rich and poor, the exportation of American jobs by the hundreds of thousands, the wasteful and exploitive health care system that continues to bankrupt American industries, the packing of the Supreme Court with judges confirmed despite their stonewalling before the congressional oversight committees charged with vetting them before they assumed lifetime appointments. We have been unable or unwilling to secure our borders. We have seen corruption on an unprecedented scale and massive neglect of dozens of urgent national needs. Science has been disregarded whenever it runs afoul of the profit motive, and we have a foreign policy no one, least of all the people in charge of it, seems to understand.

Our actions in Iraq have fueled the most extreme anti-Western views throughout the Islamic world, and the entire Middle East is less stable than it was when the Bush bunch took office.

Meanwhile, we build for our children and grandchildren a legacy of international hatred, plus a huge debt burden as the Bush administration spends and spends as though there is no tomorrow.

...


10.2.06

Death of the West by 1000 cuts...

The Twilight of Freedom of Speech by Onkar Ghate

To fathom our government's contemptible treatment of a handful of unbowed journalists, you must see the roots of that treatment in the moral ideal Christianity bequeathed the West.

In the face of the intimidation and murder of European authors, film makers and politicians by Islamic militants, a few European newspapers have the courage to defend their freedom of speech: they publish twelve cartoons to test whether it's still possible to criticize Islam. They discover it isn't. Muslims riot, burn embassies, and demand the censorship and death of infidels. The Danish cartoonists go into hiding; if they weren't afraid to speak before, they are now.

How do our leaders respond? Do they declare that an individual's freedom of speech is inviolable, no matter who screams offense at his ideas? No. Do they defend our right to life and pledge to hunt down anyone, anywhere, who abets the murder of a Westerner for having had the effrontery to speak? No--as they did not when the fatwa against Rushdie was issued or his translators were attacked and murdered.

Instead, the U.S. government announces that although free speech is important, the government shares "the offense that Muslims have taken at these images," and even hints that it is disrespectful to publish them.


Neocon logic...

Having admitted that his invasion of Iraq is based on incorrect intelligence, why did Bush claim in his state of the union address that his war in Iraq is central to the war against terrorism? He must mean that his mistake created terrorism where it did not exist, and, having created the terrorism, he must now fight it even if doing so creates yet more terrorists.

A rational response to Bush’s mistake would be to remove the cause of the insurgency by apologizing for the mistake and withdrawing US military forces. Neoconservatives say that the US cannot withdraw because Iraq would fall into civil war. This is an admission that by removing Saddam Hussein, Bush created the conditions for civil war in Iraq. How, then, was removing Saddam Hussein a good thing?

The Adulation of Ignorance

7.2.06

Creative accounting...

US in Technical Default by Dr. C. H Martenson

In a shocking development, the Treasury Department website is openly stating that as of January 24th 2006 our national debt stood at $8,185.3 billion.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Yet the US national debt 'ceiling' stands at $8,184 billion - a full billion less. Although called upon by John Snow, congress has not passed an expansion of the debt ceiling and so the US government is now operating in technical default.


The last debt-ceiling adjustment was $800 billion and was passed in November 2004. Now, on January 24th 2006, it is entirely gone. $800 billion in only 16 months for an average of $50B a month.

Factoring out the plundering of excess social security contributions, the US government borrowed $52B in 3Q05, $96B in 4Q05 and expects to borrow $171B in 1Q06. A trend nearly as mind-boggling as the soon to be discontinued M3 series.

Why do I even bother to pen such distressing factoids?

Because in all my time studying economics I have determined only one thing; there's no free lunch. Pay now or pay later but pay we will.

Or, more accurately, we hope that our kids will, and not stiff us for the bill. But if they did, who could blame them?


I say yes, those who have accepted and advanced the welfare state ideas of past Presidents should bear the pain of funding them, not me. I reject entirely the idea of government force to redistribute property from me to older generations, on the implied promise that the government will be sure to plunder the next generation for my benefit.

This repulsive trend must stop, and those who should feel the pain in the transition are they who gave birth to these social diseases.

Military industrial complex...

President Eisenhower's farewell address:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.



Political Science 101 by Butler Shaffer

My wife and I watched the film Why We Fight, a wonderful exposé of the military-industrial-congressional complex. With Chalmers Johnson and Karen Kwiatkowski providing clear focus, the present war system is revealed for what it is: a racket for siphoning money from the pockets of gullible people willing to be convinced of the presence of ever-evolving bogeymen who pose a never-ending threat to their lives. These “threats” can, of course, only be repulsed by a strong government that (a) has sufficient police powers to detect their presence both at home and abroad, and (b) can generate weapons systems to “protect” Americans – and their hot tubs – from attack by these sinister forces. Boobus Americanus – like its cousin Boobus Britannia and other close relatives – has become so conditioned to both the concocted threats of the ogre du jour and to an omnipotent and omnipresent government scarecrow, that it is willing to surrender, without question, its wealth and liberty for the sake of “protection.”

To demonstrate the effectiveness of this shakedown racket, look at the Bush administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007: $2.8 trillion in government spending, with $439 billion to be tossed into the national defense trough. This budget is twenty-eight times greater than the $99.9 billion budget proposed by President Kennedy, who did not want to be the first president to have a $100 billion budget!


With numerous untold stories of military-industrial corruption inviting their inquiries, members of the established media can be counted upon to supply diversions. Like the purple smoke or multi-colored strings of silk used by magicians to distract their audiences, television newscasts will continue their in-depth reporting on missing teenagers and bridegrooms; tunnels used to smuggle marijuana into the United States from Mexico; unsolved murders; and chickens that can play the xylophone.


3.2.06

Think again...

This essay, originally written in 1951, completely undercuts all of the reasons given by the neocons for our military adventures around the world. If you want to read a soundly written argument based in history and reason, read this. If you prefer to delude yourself, and to think that George Bush is a genius with revolutionary ideas never before contemplated, go read the Weekly Standard.

2.2.06

Oprah vs. Home schoolers...

From Oprah's site:

On January 16, 2006, The Oprah Winfrey Show is doing something we've never done before. In addition to announcing my new book club selection—which I promise is mandatory reading for every human being on the planet—I will also announce Oprah's National High School Essay Contest to accompany it.


Contest open to all legal residents of the US, who are currently enrolled full-time (and in good standing) in a public or state-accredited private or parochial school, grades 9–12.


Home schoolers are not welcome? Is Oprah afraid that public schools might be shown for the failures they are, similar to the spelling and geography bees at which public school students routinely perform much worse than their counterparts who are home-schooled or attend private religous schools?

And I thought the left was about tolerance and including everyone...

Translating the Emperor's speech...

Thanks to Anthony Gregory

Although not quite as slickly eloquent as Willy before him, Dubya, like his predecessor, is proficient and experienced in the art of speaking one thing and meaning another. Just as often, he makes statements more flowery than they have to be, possibly intentionally so as to make what he’s saying sound less aggressive than if you were cut away the extraneous poetry to reveal the plain meaning of his words. Below are highlights from his State of the Union speech, translated into clear and candid English.

"Every time I'm invited to this rostrum, I'm humbled by the privilege, and mindful of the history we've seen together. We have gathered under this Capitol dome in moments of national mourning and national achievement. We have served America through one of the most consequential periods of our history – and it has been my honor to serve with you."

Translation: I’m very important. I rule this great big country at a very important time. I am obviously infinitely more important than you – notice that I'm speaking to the entire country – but I like to pretend that I believe that it’s you who is important.

"In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another – and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong – and together we will make it stronger."

Translation: I haven’t completely forgotten that this is a two-party dictatorship. Settle down, Democrats, go along with my program, and you’ll get your chance again soon.

"In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom – or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy – or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting – yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership – so the United States of America will continue to lead."

Translation: The United States is the most important country in the world. And the government of the United States, which I rule, is the most crucial institution to the future of humanity.

"Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal – we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer – so we will act boldly in freedom's cause."

Translation: Those of us who live in the United States can’t be safe if we don’t make sure the whole world is free. We tried leaving the world alone, but people came from across the planet to kill us. If the world lived under a form of government whereby the people voted on their rulers, or at least some of them, we’d be safe from the terrorists. It is our job to make the world safe for that form of government.

"Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder – and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder."

Translation: People that I describe as being similar to that man who killed 3,000 Americans want to kill more of you. We must listen to what they have to say, or at least those things they say that I focus on. (When they say that U.S. foreign policy is why they attack us, and that if the U.S. withdrew from the Middle East they would stop attacking, you should not listen to them.)

"Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it."

Translation: When you think about the war in Iraq, I want you to think about foreign terrorists that want to kill innocent people in their own countries. When you think of our troops killing people in Iraq, I want you to think of us fighting for our freedom.

"America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace."

Translation: Speaking on behalf of all the people who live in the United States, I have to say that we would never want the U.S. military to stop invading, bombing and attacking other countries. We should be proud of ourselves, since we are the Chosen Ones, destined to improve the entire world through force.

"[W]e’re continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom."

Translation: Not only should you believe that the U.S. government is responsible for economic progress in America, you should believe that the U.S. government, working through the Iraqi government it set up, is responsible for economic progress in Iraq, too.

"Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning."

Translation: Remember while you’re seeing all the carnage and chaos in Iraq on TV that the people there did not used to be free, but now that the U.S. government has conquered them and implemented a new government there, not only are the people free – they can vote! And if you think that their voting isn’t doing them a lot of good, seeing as how they’re still in the midst of a fledgling civil war and all, well, the answer is to stay the course.

"The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels – but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C."

Translation: I make the decisions around here, and if I want to stay in Iraq, that's what we'll do. And if I want to say that my decisions are made by "military commanders," and "not by politicians in Washington, D.C.," that’s also my prerogative, because I am the most important Washington, D.C., politician of them all.

"Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way, we have benefitted (sic) from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy.

"With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor. A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country, and show that a pledge from America means little. Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission."

Translation: Whether or not you agree with me, I took the country to war, and to criticize my policy now that we’re all in it together is to help the terrorists who want to kill you and your fellow Americans.

"Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices – and showing a sense of duty stronger than all fear. They know what it's like to fight house to house in a maze of streets, to wear heavy gear in the desert heat, to see a comrade killed by a roadside bomb. And those who know the costs also know the stakes. . . . Our nation is grateful to the fallen, who live in the memory of our country. We're grateful to all who volunteer to wear our nation's uniform – and as we honor our brave troops, let us never forget the sacrifices of America's military families."

Translation: Not only is failing to support my policy helping the terrorists, but it is turning your back on the people who died fighting in the war that you might not believe in, but that you must nevertheless support or else you hate freedom.

"The great people of Egypt have voted in a multi-party presidential election – and now their government should open paths of peaceful opposition that will reduce the appeal of radicalism. The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace."

Translation: Egypt, just because you had elections doesn’t mean I’m not watching you. Hamas, just because you won in an election doesn’t mean you’re off the hook. Elections are great and worth going to war for, but they are subject to my approval.

" Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity."

Translation: What's is a democracy, anyway? Well, I'm not sure. I can't describe it. It might just be a vague abstraction. When in doubt, I'd prefer that we think about it as another word for freedom. Democracy is certainly worth killing thousands of people to establish, but don’t complain if when we establish one it empowers a bunch of fanatics or it does not look at all like you thought it might.

"The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon – and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."

Translation: I will not let Iran get any weapons nearly as powerful as that one kind of which the government I head has thousands. I am willing to pressure other countries to go along with my efforts to stop Iran from having even a thousandth of the killing power I have.

"To overcome dangers in our world, we must also take the offensive by encouraging economic progress, and fighting disease, and spreading hope in hopeless lands. Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need. We show compassion abroad because Americans believe in the God-given dignity and worth of a villager with HIV/AIDS, or an infant with malaria, or a refugee fleeing genocide, or a young girl sold into slavery. We also show compassion abroad because regions overwhelmed by poverty, corruption, and despair are sources of terrorism, and organized crime, and human trafficking, and the drug trade.

"In recent years, you and I have taken unprecedented action to fight AIDS and malaria, expand the education of girls, and reward developing nations that are moving forward with economic and political reform. For people everywhere, the United States is a partner for a better life. Short-changing these efforts would increase the suffering and chaos of our world, undercut our long-term security, and dull the conscience of our country. I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America."

Translation: Not only is the U.S. government responsible for freedom throughout the world, but it is also responsible for solving every problem on this earth, or at least attempting to by spending the money that the American people earn and that the government extracts through force. I take credit for the whole process, calling myself compassionate for my willingness to spend your money.

"It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack – based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute – I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."

Translation: My being able to do pretty much whatever I want as commander of the United States during war is absolutely necessary to stop you from being killed by terrorists. I have the right to spy on you without judicial review to protect you. I am not the first top official of the U.S. government to see it this way.

"In all these areas – from the disruption of terror networks, to victory in Iraq, to the spread of freedom and hope in troubled regions – we need the support of our friends and allies. To draw that support, we must always be clear in our principles and willing to act. The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world."

Translation: The U.S. government, which I run, is what keeps the world safe and secure. It couldn't possibly be any other way.

"Yet we also choose to lead because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. American leaders – from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan – rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."

Translation: Great rulers don't keep their rule to their country alone. Neither will I.

"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources – and we are on the threshold of incredible advances."

Translation: Listen up, lefties. Forget my administration’s ties to the oil industry or the idea that I waged war for oil profits. I’m just as willing as Democrats to channel billions of dollars in other people’s money to new alternative energy special interests, not just the classic old energy special interests.

"Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

Translation: I’m prepared to take credit for successes nineteen years before they happen.

"Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science. First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources. . . . Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs."

Translation: I am the source of the nation’s mental strength, and I will graciously make everyone smarter and more knowledgeable.

"In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row.

"These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation – a revolution of conscience, in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Government has played a role. Wise policies, such as welfare reform and drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country. And everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record."

Translation: Politicians of both major parties deserve credit for the moral character of the country – at least when it’s positive.

"A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members – new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench"

Translation: I will continue to nominate judges who can be expected to toe the Republican line and allow the executive branch to get away with whatever it wants.

"A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency – and stays at it until they're back on their feet. So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. We're removing debris and repairing highways and rebuilding stronger levees. We're providing business loans and housing assistance. Yet as we meet these immediate needs, we must also address deeper challenges that existed before the storm arrived.

"In New Orleans and in other places, many of our fellow citizens have felt excluded from the promise of our country. The answer is not only temporary relief, but schools that teach every child, and job skills that bring upward mobility, and more opportunities to own a home and start a business. As we recover from a disaster, let us also work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope, and rich in opportunity."

Translation: The answer to a big problem isn't just to throw a bunch of tax dollars at it. The answer is a whole new revolutionary spending program along the lines of the New Deal.

"Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?"

Translation: Do you believe in slavery? Racial oppression? Totalitarianism? If not, you must support my war and my powers.

"Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage. Like Americans before us, we will show that courage and we will finish well. We will lead freedom's advance. We will compete and excel in the global economy. We will renew the defining moral commitments of this land. And so we move forward – optimistic about our country, faithful to its cause, and confident of the victories to come."

Translation: On behalf of the United States, I pledge to continue dominating the world for the better. Expect more war.

"May God bless America."

Translation: The government I lead has God on its side.

Alito joins the left...

"Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., one day after joining the Court, cast his first significant vote on Wednesday evening, and in the process split with the Court's other conservatives: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."



Story

I'm completely shocked. Samuel Alito voted: to increase the power of the federal government, against the 9th and 10th amendments, and against the idea that the People of Florida are smart enough to figure out if lethal injection is cruel and unusual.

Good thing Sam Alito is there to keep us dummies down here in Florida from having to govern ourselves...