Ahh, the budget shortfalls. We have 'em too here in Soggy Cah-Lee FAWN- yah, as the Governator would say it.

But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand why. Anybody who can do simple arithmetic can get it. We spend more money than we take in. And why is that? Because either we waste money of worthless "government programs" or we don't tax enough.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of "government programs that benefit only some special group that lobbied (bribed someone) for it. But, for the most part, food stamps, emergency relief, wage supplements, health clinics, libraries, schools...

These are the things I am willing to pay for because they are all a part of the Society I am proud to live in.

I hate seeing homeless people living in the alleys.

I don't feel good when I see them. I makes me feel like we have major flaws in our society if homelessness can be permitted.

A lot of rich people don't like to pay taxes. Well, it's their money, isn't it? They made it with their own hard work, right?

Wrong. Even if you are a lumberjack, and you cut all your trees by yourself, the roads you will use to cart it away, the economic system you will sell them into, the money and banking system you will use to transform your work into food, clothing, and fuel for the winter -- these were provided to you by the America that was built by our forefathers. Call it the infrastructure. And we need to keep it going for the future Americans.

Besides, my favorite punching bag, Michael Eisner, is not a lumberjack al all. He makes his 600 million a year by not being very good at sharing the profits of his successful company with the workers who actually did do the "lumberjacking." Simple as that. I wonder if he shared his toys when he was a child. Probably not. Most things we need to know in life we learned in Kindergarten. I think someone wrote a book by that title.

So we need more taxes. The rich say, "but it's my money. I made it." The poor are already working three sh*tty jobs, both the mother and the father. They don't say anything --they're too tired. They tuck the kids in, and collapse.

This is the 21st Century folks. We can do better.

We must do better.

I bought some Disney stock in 1971, ( long before Eisner ), sold it in 2003. And, yes, I did have some capital gains. Owning almost any company's stock for 32 years ought to produce some gain. I did learn a few things about Disney.

The one thing I found out after Michael Eisner became C. E. O. was that he never worried much about about the stock holder's money.

Big bonuses for the directors. That was a good thing.

Hire someone, found out you really didn't like him. Fire him with a huge payoff of stock holder's money. That was a good thing.

All sorts of favorable stock options for the inner circle. Another good thing.

We are talking really big bucks here.

I can't say the company was not a successful enterprise, but it paid miserable dividends. I kept it because for a long time it was a good growth company.

How about the following for being share holder friendly?

When you called the office in California for share holder service, there was always a fairly long wait ( like many companies ) to get to a live person.

What was bad about that --- they would not put in an 800 number.

Call at your own expense.

How many companies the size of Disney do that?


A.B.

Just wanted to let you know that I started a new thread this morning.

Franklin D. Roosevelt Vs. George Bush

Hope you can stop by when you have a moment.

A.B.

Now there is an idea whose time has come, folks!

And yes, Mr. A.B., I would be glad to stop by there!

I myself have been "following the money" for quite some time now, as that is a part of my profession, or what my profession was, anyway, and as a direct consequence of that activity on my part, I became aware, independently, at the time of 9-11, that federal and state enforcement leaders were facing a mountain of documentation that up to $6 trillion had been fraudulently skimmed out of pension funds and retail stock holdings through insider trading and other forms of corporate and banking financial fraud and securities law violations.

In fact myself, and several other "old timers" were tracking the progress of these investigations, including Enron, when BANG!

The World Trade Center is now gone!

And with it, all that evidence!

THEN .......

Then the "powers that be", and here I remember a kind of joint thing, but my recollection is the New York State Attorney General took the lead, after 9-11, of basically just abandoning all those investigations, on some kind of specious, or what sounded specious grounds to me of a shift in resources in the interests of national security, and besides, we are all on the same side now, so, it would not look good to be prosecuting American business at a time when we were allegedly threatened from abroad!

No prosecution in the interests of national security!

And so, that alleged theft was in essence condoned, and blessed by OUR own government, and those who allegedly pulled it off got away with it!

Here's how I recall the press conference on that subject of dropping the investigation after 9-11:

GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON: Okay, okay, right, right, yeah, look, okay, we did tell you that we were conducting an investigation into up to $6 trillion that had been fraudulently skimmed out of pension funds and retail stock holdings through insider trading and other forms of corporate and banking financial fraud and securities law violations, and yes, at the time, that was true, and yes, we were facing a mountain of evidence, but you have to understand, that after 9-11 there has been a paradigm shift, and now, because of threats from abroad taking precedence, we have had to shift our assets away from corporate theft and fraud and over to national security, and so, while we view this corporate fraud as serious, you must understand that these new threats from abroad take precedence, and so, we have had to shift our assets away from corporate fraud, which is not to say that we feel corporate fraud is any less important than it was yesterday, but in the post-9/11 environment, you must understand that we have had to shift our assets over to national security ....... yada, yada, yada!

end quotes

EXCEPT .....

No, sorry, I don't understand!

Looks like a cover-up to me!

Big time!

Stinks to high heaven, in fact!

And here I am just coming back from Mr. A.B.'s newest thread, comparing Franklin Delano Roosevelt to George Walker Bush!

It is over in original essays.

To get there, click on my screen name, or Mr. A.B.'s, which, of course, is abu beacon, and then click on member's posts, and scroll down until you find that thread topic, and then click on post number, and there you will be.

And if you have opinions on FDR, or George W. Bush now comparing himself to FDR, which I personally think is high farce, then leave a comment behind.

Or maybe you will see George W. Bush as the greater man, which is certainly your privilege, here in OUR America, and so, you should state that, to balance the record, if it needs balancing!

We are all in here to learn and grow, after all, and what better way to grow as citizens but with good and sound information on which to form our political judgments, here in OUR America!

And it is not really so much the budget shortfall, as it is the incompetence and lack of integrity of the executive in letting this state of affairs come to pass!

It is a question of what we tolerate in our executives, and a question of why we should keep an incompetent like George Pataki on!

We need a right to recall, and vote of no confidence up here in the corrupt Empire State as tools of OUR democracy!

And here is an update on that Choicepoint story that we have been following in here:

Spam, Scams & Viruses

"ChoicePoint theft prompts Senate probe - Hearings to look at broader issue of data brokers"

At a Capitol Hill news conference Thursday, Sen. Charles Schumer points to posters displaying personal information on Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston obtained from another data broker, Westlaw's Internet-based "People-Find."

The Associated Press
Updated: 4:22 p.m. ET Feb. 24, 2005

WASHINGTON - A Senate committee will hold hearings on identity theft and information brokers following the revelation that a databank with information on millions of people was accessed by criminals, the committee chairman said Thursday.

Democrats, including Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York, have been calling for a Judiciary Committee inquiry into whether more regulation of companies such as ChoicePoint Inc. that buy and sell personal data is needed.

"I got a letter from Senator Leahy yesterday on identity theft issue and I immediately said we can hold a hearing," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Specter did not give a schedule for the hearings.

Formed in 1997 as a spinoff of credit reporting agency Equifax Inc., ChoicePoint has 19 billion public records in its database at its suburban Atlanta headquarters, including motor vehicle registrations, license and deed transfers, military records, names, addresses and Social Security numbers.

It revealed last week that thieves apparently used previously stolen identities to open ChoicePoint accounts and received volumes of data on consumers, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers and credit reports.

Choicepoint says 144,778 people may have been affected by the breach, while California authorities estimate up to 500,000.

The ring operated for more than a year before it was detected and used the information to defraud at least 750 people, investigators said.

Feinstein says the ChoicePoint thefts prove that there needs to be federal regulation of information brokers, and that Americans need to have more control over their personal data.

"The ChoicePoint situation is perhaps the biggest indication of the vulnerability and lack of protection of individuals' personal data," she said.

She has introduced a bill that would expand nationwide a California consumer protection law that requires companies to tell people if there is a breach in their data systems.

She also wants information brokers to be forced to ask permission from people to sell their most sensitive personal information.

Schumer, too, plans legislation that would create federal rules setting conditions under which companies can provide or sell access to private information.

And while you have that admirable sentiment, jeffmoskin, by the looks of things, we are becoming a third-world nation, here in OUR America, except for George W. Bush and his, of course:

"Report says care will get costlier - More workers expected to lose health coverage as spending spirals"

By TONY PUGH, Knight-Ridder
First published: Thursday, February 24, 2005

WASHINGTON -- U.S. health care spending will outpace overall inflation and wage growth over the next 10 years, making medical care harder for the government, employers, workers and uninsured Americans to afford.

The increases apply to federal spending and to private spending on health insurance premiums, the latter of which will grow faster than disposable income in each year through 2014, according to new projections released Wednesday by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Although the long-term national health spending growth rate will slow a bit compared with recent years, more low-income workers are likely to forgo job-based health care because it's too expensive, several analysts said.

The new figures show the government picking up nearly half of total health care spending by 2014.

(The federal share has been rising for decades, according to The Associated Press. In 1965, the government was covering roughly 25 percent of health costs and private parties 75 percent, according to the report. Last year the government paid 45.6 percent of an estimated $1.8 trillion in medical bills.)

The new figures also suggest that Medicare and Medicaid are far more immediate cost concerns for federal policymakers than Social Security.

"It is absolutely clear that as costs increase, more low-wage people will become uninsured," said David Cutler, an economics professor at Harvard University and an expert on health care finance.

"This is going to lead to continued erosion of health insurance coverage," said economist Paul Ginsburg, president of The Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan health care research group in Washington.

Rather than pay rising insurance premiums, he said, "low-income workers would just as soon have the money because they can't afford to spend so much of their income on health care."

The annual Medicare-Medicaid report found that public and private spending for health care will total $3.6 trillion by 2014 -- about $11,045 per person -- and eat up a record 19 percent of gross domestic product.

That's up from a projected $1.9 trillion in 2005 that will likely account for 15.4 percent of annual GDP and average $6,423 per person.

The government will fund 49 percent of all health spending in the United States by 2014 -- a record share -- due largely to the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Such a situation, barring enormous tax increases, would crowd out virtually all other spending except for the military and interest on the national debt, federal officials said.

The pinch of rising health care costs, along with recent federal tax cuts and the growing national budget deficit, shows up indirectly in President Bush's proposed 2006 domestic spending cuts for transportation, education, community development and natural resources.

The number of uninsured Americans jumped by 5 million to 45 million during Bush's first term, due mainly to a sour economy and cuts in the Medicaid program.

Bush hopes to offset growth in the uninsured population by expanding Medicaid coverage, said Health and Human Services Department spokesman Bill Pierce.

That can be done at no extra cost if states are given the flexibility to change or offer less-generous Medicaid benefits without federal approval, Pierce said.

Congress has yet to give Bush that authority.

Bush also would provide poor families with annual tax credits of $1,000 to help purchase private health care.

That falls so far short from the actual cost of family coverage -- about $10,000 a year -- that few poor families are likely to take Bush up on it, said Ginsburg.

Enrollment in employer-sponsored health plans also declined by nearly 1 percent in 2001, 2002 and 2003, the most current data available.

That reflects health care costs that have outpaced wage growth.

While employer-sponsored plans are projected to cover more people in the next decade, the percentage of Americans covered under those plans will continue to fall, said Stephen Heffler, the study's lead author and director of the National Health Statistics Group at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Other key findings:

Medicare spending will jump from $332 billion in 2005 to $425 billion in 2006 when the new prescription-drug benefit begins.

Discounts negotiated by insurers are expected to average about 15 percent in the first year and to peak at 25 percent in 2011.

Total prescription drug spending will grow 11.6 percent in 2006 to $249 billion.

Medicaid spending in 2004 -- which hasn't yet been calculated -- is projected to increase to $290 billion from $269 billion in 2003.

By 2014, Medicaid spending is expected to hit $618 billion.

But don't financial institutions maintain "backup records" at another site in case their primary is wiped out? I would think that the information is NOT LOST. Maybe nobody wants to talk about it, and Eliot Spitzer seems to be on a "Crusade" of his own these days, so maybe he's too busy to trifle with a measily 6 trillion dollars.

An interesting question, jeffmoskin.

First though, the "information" that was lost was not the records of the companies, it was the records, the "evidence" to support indictments of these corporations, or corporate people, that the investigators themselves had amassed, in the World Trade Center, that were lost.

The Office of the New York State Attorney General conducting the investigation was in the World trade Center, and that office, along with all of its records, allegedly, anyway, was destroyed.

Now, this immediately raised the issue of back-up records, and that is where the hemming and hawing began!

The Attorney General could have re-created those records, BUT APPARENTLY DID NOT BOTHER!

And because of 9-11, no one gave it any more thought, just like with EnRon!

As far as I have been able to determine, and I have been hunting, thanks to 9-11, the perps got away scot-free!

GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON: Okay, okay, look, yes, we were facing a mountain of evidence of corporate fraud here, and yes, we were about to seek a number of indictments against all of these American corporate executives, BUT, YOU SEE, some very nasty foreign terrorists came along, and they, through their terrorist actions, well, they just destroyed all of this evidence, and so, that cannot be blamed on the corporations accused of fraud, of course, that we no longer have any evidence on which to indict them, and so, in the interests of national security, and for the sake of national unity and harmony and solidarity, we should all be working together here in America to combat and defeat this foreign terrorist menace, and so, in a pledge of solidarity with our American corporate brothers ....... yada, yada, yada, yada!"

Now, cui bono?

And here, you are right, jeffmoskin!

Eliot Spitzer is on a "Crusade" of his own, to line his pockets with as much of the bounty of the tri-partite god "GEETUS, MOOLAH, and MAMMON", as he can, so that he can be Governor of the corrupt Empire State of New York, and really be tapped into the graft.

Talk about a hypocrite, our Eliot is one.

And he is raking in the big bucks, at last counting!

Which brings me to this next story, which is right along these same lines, of "law enforcement" types, specifically District Attorneys and Attorney Generals, and how they "balance" their "bid-ness interests", while in office.

"Former prosecutor sues DeAngelis, aide - Lawyer claims she raised ethics issues in DA's office and then was fired"

By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Friday, February 25, 2005

TROY -- A former county prosecutor is suing Rensselaer County District Attorney Patricia DeAngelis and her chief assistant, Joel Abelove, claiming she was summarily fired in November and then blacklisted in the legal community when she repeatedly pointed out unethical office practices and procedures.

Jennifer Sober, 33, of Albany, says she was let go without cause on Nov. 22 and then forcibly escorted from the Rensselaer County Courthouse.

She is suing for loss of income and damage to her reputation in the notice of claim filed Friday in state Supreme Court in Troy.

Her legal practice currently is limited to part-time assigned counsel cases.

Other claims in her suit include breach of contract, wrongful discharge, slander and defamation of character.

Sober and DeAngelis, 36, were once friends and workmates in the Albany County district attorney's office.

DeAngelis left the Albany office first and, after becoming Rensselaer County district attorney in 2003, offered Sober a job as DWI Unit bureau chief midway into the next year.

The county bureau chief at the time was let go to make room for Sober, a number of former assistants in DeAngelis' office confirmed.

Neither DeAngelis nor Rensselaer County Attorney Bob Smith would comment for this story.

Sober was unfairly targeted and summarily booted with no regard for county employment practices, her attorney, Cheryl Coleman, said.

"Because of Jen's expertise and friendship with the DA, she was brought in and asked to be a confidante and adviser," Coleman said.

"However, when part of that advice involved requesting the DA to re-examine the ethics of certain prosecutions and certain employee situations, she was cast out."

Coleman said one situation, involving an employee who is not a lawyer, "transcended ethics, was just plain illegal, and possibly criminal."

Coleman would not comment on any specifics in the complaint.

But she said she also spoke with a number of DeAngelis' former assistants who had been fired by DeAngelis and heard similar stories of office abuses from all of them.

"A lot of people out there are congratulating Jen for having the courage to come forward," Coleman said.

"The answer to the question, 'Are there ethical questions in Rensselaer County?' is, 'Does a bear go in the woods?'"

Sober was well-respected in Albany County, Coleman added:

"How is it possible that someone can work in one DA's office for years without incident and all of a sudden she goes over there and can't last five months?"

DeAngelis, a nine-year prosecutor, has been in the news lately after the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court overturned several of her cases for prosecutorial misconduct.

In one instance, justices declared that DeAngelis "repeatedly strayed beyond the bounds of permissible conduct," in her prosecution.

She had one victory, however, last week, where a county judge upheld the conviction of convicted sex offender Jack Carroll.

Abelove, as well, was slapped by justices in recent weeks for an improper cross-examination of a defendant in a rape case in 2002.

A new trial for Troy resident Christopher Allen, now 20, is pending.

DeAngelis has been criticized for a too-tough approach, including in the case of Jon Romano, 17, a youth with emotional issues who received 20 years in state prison after a Columbia High School shooting last year.

She has been criticized for her emotional courtroom behavior that some say crosses the line of professionalism.

She and Abelove also drew fire in their controversial 2003 co-prosecution of Christine Wilhelm, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic from Hoosick Falls who drowned one son and tried to drown the other in 2002.

An appeal in that case is about to be filed, claiming testimony from social services case workers was not only manufactured, but wrongly admitted at trial.

The Hoosick Falls woman is serving 48 years to life in state prison after she was convicted.

DeAngelis rose to power in 2003 when the $85,000 position of deputy district attorney was created for her as a way, some said, of bypassing First Assistant Mark Loughran should the top spot come open.

Less than two months later, then-District Attorney Ken Bruno abruptly stepped down to take a lobbying post, saying he wanted to "expand his horizons."

The timing of the move raised questions.

Loughran, an Army reservist who was on military leave at the time, is also suing the county.

If the "source" information still exists, all the "evidence" can be re-created. Methinks what was lost was the desire to do so.

And methinks you are right dead on the money, here, jeffmoskin, with your analysis!

And it stinks to high heaven!

GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON: Okay, okay, right, right, right, look, yes, we did have a mountain of evidence against these corporate boys, yes, we did, but you have to understand, that evidence is now gone, and it was not our fault, and it was surely not the fault of these corporate boys, NO, it was the fault of the foreign terrorists, who are trying to take our way of life away from us, and you have to understand, that while we would like to continue this prosecution of these corporate boys for alleged fraud, and looting, you have to understand that this terrorist attack on American soil has shifted the paradigm, so that investigating domestic corporate corruption, regardless of the sums involved, is now less important than protecting our American way of life against these foreign terrorists, and with our American way of life under attack by these foreign terrorists, it is important to show them, and the world who is against us too, that we are all unified in this great nation of ours, and therefore, to prosecute these corporate boys for a host of alleged crimes against the American people would be bad for that image of unity and solidarity that we want to project to these foreign terrorists and the world and so .....yada, yada, yada, yada!"

end quotes

SO?

Who ended up with the money?

Cui bono?

Cui bono?

Who benefits?

Well, not us!

And not OUR troops over there in Iraq, either, from the sounds of things, anyway:

International News

U.S. soldiers inspect vehicles Friday at a checkpoint on the road linking Mosul, Iraq, and Syria. Troops launched a large scale operation in Mosul after two soldiers were killed by insurgents.

"3 U.S. soldiers killed, 9 hurt in Iraq blast - Iraq says forces capture top aide to Zarqawi"

Te Associated Press
Updated: 3:04 p.m. ET Feb. 25, 2005

TARMIYAH, Iraq - A roadside bomb killed three U.S. soldiers and wounded nine north of Baghdad on Friday, the U.S. military said, while the Iraqi government announced the capture of three figures associated with Iraq’s bloody insurgency.

In political developments, United Iraqi Alliance candidate Ibrahim al-Jaafari said Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has endorsed his nomination for prime minister.

The attack, which occurred around midday in Tarmiyah, about 20 miles north of the capital, raised the U.S. military death toll in Iraq to at least 1,489, according to an Associated Press count since the war began in March 2003.

On Thursday, the military said three U.S. soldiers were killed in separate attacks.

“There was a group of American soldiers walking in the road while around five Humvees were parking behind them,” said Waleed Nahed, who lives in the area.

“I heard a very loud explosion and I saw bodies flying.”

The road was immediately blocked off by the U.S. military and Iraqi security forces, and helicopters took the injured away, according to Nahed and Alaa Nagy, who works at a nearby factory.

Both said they heard gunfire after the incident.

Suspected insurgents held

In Baghdad, the government said one of the three men arrested was Talib Mikhlif Arsan Walman al-Dulaymi, also known as Abu Qutaybah, a key aide to Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi leads an insurgency affiliated with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network.

Abu Qutaybah, who was captured during a Feb. 20 raid in Anah, about 160 miles northwest of Baghdad, “was responsible for determining who, when and how terrorist network leaders would meet with al-Zarqawi,” the government said.

He “filled the role of key lieutenant for the Zarqawi network, arranging safe houses and transportation as well as passing packages and funds to al-Zarqawi,” the government said.

“His extensive contacts and operational ability throughout western Iraq made him a critical figure in the Zarqawi network.”

Al-Zarqawi has a $25 million U.S. bounty on his head and is believed to have orchestrated a wave of car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and beheadings across the country.

Violence on Thursday in Iraq left 30 people dead, including three American soldiers.

During the same raid, Iraqi forces also captured another al-Zarqawi aide who “occasionally acted as his driver,” the government said.

The man was identified as Ahmad Khalid Marad Ismail al-Rawi, who also helped arrange meetings for al-Zarqawi.

Their names belong to well-known Sunni tribes in and around the town of Ramadi, a hotbed of the insurgency in Anbar province west of Baghdad.

The government also said it apprehended the leader of an al-Qaida-affiliated cell allegedly responsible for carrying out a string of beheadings.

Mohamed Najam Ibrahim was arrested in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, the government said Thursday, but it gave no date for the arrest.

Officials said Ibrahim’s operation was linked to al-Zarqawi.

Ibrahim carried out beheadings with his brother, the government said, adding that he was being interrogated by authorities.

Maneuvering for positions

In a significant political development, the endorsement of al-Jaafari came after members of the Shiite clergy-backed United Iraqi Alliance openly questioned its decision Tuesday to nominate the 58-year-old leader of the conservative Islamic Dawa Party as its candidate for prime minister following the nation’s landmark Jan. 30 elections.

“Ayatollah al-Sistani blessed the decision taken by the alliance about the prime minister post."

"He respects and supports what the alliance have decided,” al-Jaafari said after meeting with al-Sistani for more than two hours in the southern Shiite holy city of Najaf.

Politicians are negotiating behind the scenes to forge the alliances needed to win enough backing in the 275-seat National Assembly for the post of prime minister.

Politicians of all stripes sought out representatives of Iraq’s Sunni minority, whose support they need to isolate the insurgency.

Many insurgents are believed to be loyalists of Saddam’s outlawed Sunni-dominated Baath Party.

The United Iraqi Alliance claimed Thursday it won the support of eight members of three tiny parties, boosting its parliamentary strength to 148 seats.

Alliance member Salama Khafaji said the groups were the Iraqi Turkoman Front, the National Independent Elites and the Islamic Labor Movement in Iraq.

But a splinter group believed to represent about 30 seats in the alliance, and which once supported one-time Bush administration favorite Ahmad Chalabi, renewed threats to withdraw its support.

Although they issued no demands, it was unclear what Chalabi — who withdrew from the race — had promised them for their support.

Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the secular Shiite who has about 40 seats, tried to take advantage of the rift by trying to open talks with the Shiite splinter group just one day after announcing he would form a broad coalition to try to keep his post.

To make any headway, Allawi must also win support from a Kurdish coalition controlling 75 of the assembly’s 275 seats.

The Kurds have indicated they will support al-Jaafari and the alliance if they meet key demands, including giving the presidency to one of their leaders — Jalal Talabani.

And so, both of the Bush Co. "picks of the week" for "PUPPET RULER" of the client state of Iraq are now scrambling, and Allawi, especially, since right now, he is the big man around town, with all kinds of power, and especially "protection", and soon, he just might be a man on the street, with nothing but the shirt on his back, and no more United States Marine Divisions for him to hide behind, as he punishes and eliminates his political opposition over there in Iraq, which George W. Bush likes to "brag on" as being a democracy in HIS mold of what a democracy should really look like down here on the face of OUR earth.

And then the Allawi PUPPET is really going to have to scramble, because his enemies will come out of the woodwork, where he has them holed up now with his use of OUR military as his own private mercenary army with which to punish his political enemies, who will come for the Allawi PUPPET the minute OUR military is no longer there to do his bidding!

SO!

The Allawi PUPPET has a lot to lose here, and as he gets more desperate, yet still retains operational control over OUR military forces, it will be interesting to see just what kind of "crack-downs" the Allawi PUPPET unleashes on his political enemies, which now just may well include the Kurds!

In any event, things are certainly far from over, over there in what George W. Bush likes to tell all the candid world is the "World's newest democracy", thanks to him, and so, we shall be continuing to keep a close eye on things, as they continue to develop in George W. Bush's client state of Iraq!

And speaking of George W. Bush's violent client state of Iraq, it looks like the Iraqis may just be taking some lessons from George W. Bush as to how to deal with your political enemies:

Top Stories - Knight Ridder Newspapers

"Revenge killings of members of Saddam's former regime rise"

1 hour, 42 minutes ago

By Hannah Allam, Knight Ridder Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shiite Muslim assassins are killing former members of Saddam Hussein's mostly Sunni Muslim regime at will and with impunity in a parallel conflict that some observers fear could snowball into civil war.

The war between Shiite vigilantes and former Baath Party members is seldom investigated and largely overshadowed by the mostly Sunni insurgency.

The U.S. military is preoccupied with hunting down suicide bombers and foreign terrorists, and Iraq's new Shiite leaders have little interest in prosecuting those who kill their former oppressors or their enemies in the insurgency.

The killings have intensified since January's Shiite electoral victory, and U.S. and Iraqi officials worry that they could imperil progress toward a unified, democratic Iraq.

"It's the beginning, and we could go down the slippery slope very quickly," said Sabah Kadhim, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry.

"We've been so concerned with removing terrorists and Islamists that this other situation has reared its ugly head."

"Both sides are sharpening their knives."

Since the Jan. 30 elections, Shiite militants have stepped up their campaign to exact street justice from men who were part of the regime that oppressed and massacred members of their sect for decades.

While Shiite politicians turn a blind eye, assassins are working their way through a hit list of Saddam's former security and intelligence personnel, according to Iraqi authorities, Sunni politicians and interviews with the families of those who've been targeted.

Former Baathists have responded in kind, this month killing several Shiites allied with major political factions.

Cases under investigation include the killings of two Shiite militiamen outside a popular restaurant in Baghdad a week ago and the deaths of three Shiite militiamen who were in police custody.

In a tactic borrowed from Sunni insurgents, Shiite militants have begun distributing printed death threats.

One leaflet that lists several former Baathists targeted for assassination says:

"We have given you the chance to repent for your crimes against the people of this country, but we have noticed during surveillance that you are instead trying to restore the glory of the atheist, corrupt Baath Party."

Among those killed in recent weeks:

- Taha Hussein Amiri, a prominent judge who handed down death sentences during Saddam's regime.

Two gunmen on motorcycles shot and killed him Feb. 12 as he was being driven to work in the southern Shiite port city of Basra.

- Haider Kadhim, a former intelligence worker.

He was shot in the back of the head Feb. 17 after six gunmen disguised as Iraqi security forces talked their way into his home in the Baghdad district of Saidiyah.

The attack occurred at 7 a.m. - Kadhim was still in his pajamas, and his mother, wife and daughter were home.

- At least two other former Baathists were killed in Saidiyah in the past month, including Abdulrazak Karim al Douri, who was a major in Saddam's intelligence service and most recently worked at the Interior Ministry.

He and a co-worker were killed when gunmen surrounded their car and pumped more than 50 bullets into their bodies, according to death certificates and an autopsy report.

Especially besieged are Shiite Baathists who live in predominantly Shiite or mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods, where targets are more accessible than in homogenous Sunni strongholds.

Militiamen have demanded that former Baathists fly white flags to atone for their party membership and let their neighbors know they've renounced their pasts.

Those who refuse often end up dead.

"They're doing it in Shiite neighborhoods because it's easier," said Mishan Jubouri, a prominent former Baathist who was one of the few Sunni Arabs elected to the new Parliament.

"I know a lot of Shiite Baath Party members who have had to escape to Ramadi or Mosul or Tikrit," mostly Sunni territories.

There's been little or no investigation into any of the assassinations, the slain men's relatives said.

Not that they need an investigation to place blame: The families staunchly believe that Shiite militias are behind the killings.

The assassination squads are widely believed to be from the Badr Brigade, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the country's most influential Shiite political party and the biggest winner in the elections.

"I believe they were Badr forces."

"They're assassinating all the well-known men," said Walid Rasheed, whose brother, a former Baathist named Falah Rasheed, was gunned down Monday outside his shop in Baghdad.

"They just want to provoke strife among Iraqis."

Officially, the Iran-backed Badr militia is now the Badr Organization, a political party whose leaders say it's disarmed.

In reality, Badr fighters were so emboldened by their sect's victory at the polls that they're again roaming southern Shiite territories with weapons displayed, according to witnesses and Iraqi authorities.

An intelligence memo distributed Feb. 15 to the U.S. military and private security contractors in Iraq said the renewed militia presence in southern Shiite cities "may be a defensive measure by one of the successful political parties following the release of the election results, and may explain the reason for the link to the Badr corps."

Hadi al Ameri, the leader of the Badr Organization, was among the powerful Shiites elected to Parliament last month and is said to be a top contender for defense or interior minister.

In an interview Friday at his heavily guarded home, al Ameri denied that Badr fighters are behind the assassinations and said his men abided by the calls for restraint from Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, Iraq's highest-ranking Shiite cleric.

"The head of Iraqi intelligence accused us of these assassinations and I told him, `If you have proof against us, give me the intelligence.'"

"I offered to form a committee and hand over any guilty men," al Ameri said.

"We don't want revenge from anyone."

"We've been oppressed and we shouldn't oppress others."

The guerrilla-turned-politician conceded that some Shiites were attacking former Baathists of their own accord.

If al Sistani hadn't asked militiamen to use the courts - not guns - for revenge, he said, the situation would be much worse.

"The Baathists should pray day and night for Sistani," al Ameri said with a chuckle.

Knight Ridder tried to contact several former Baathists whose names appeared on a hit list; only one agreed to speak about the threat.

The man, a Shiite in his 50s who was a security official under Saddam, received a note at his home last month that read:

"You are a Baathist and we are watching you."

He'd refused to fly a white flag in his neighborhood, he said, so he wasn't surprised to find his name among those marked for death.

Abu Muqdad - he asked that his full name be withheld for protection - said that since the elections, the targeting of former Baathists was "like a plague spreading through a town with no doctor."

He accused political parties of quietly funneling names and addresses to their militias or hiring criminal gangs to carry out the killings.

"Go to the morgue and you'll find all our old (Baathist) luminaries," Abu Muqdad said.

"Why were they killed, and who killed them?"

"For revenge, by the Iranian-trained militias inside Iraq."

"They can do whatever they like now."

"Let's hope God grants us all restraint."

end quotes

And if not God, then perhaps George W. Bush!

It is his mess, after all, not God's!

Over in another thread started by abu beacon, or Mr. A.B., as I call him, there is discussion on whether or not George W. Bush is "sincere as a Christian", and my answer was no, he is not!

He is not sincere, period, as I see it and this next story serves to underscore why I think that is so, in my way of seeing things, here in OUR America.

Deceit!

Everything with this guy is deceit!

Creepy!

White House - AP Cabinet & State

"Panelists in FDA Drug Vote Tied to Makers"

1 hour, 51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Ten members of the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel who voted that a group of powerful pain killers should continue to be sold had ties to the drug makers, an advocacy group says.

A study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest indicates that 10 of the 32 panel members had ties to either Pfizer Inc. or Merck & Co., ranging from consulting fees and speaking honoraria to research support.

The FDA issued a statement saying it screened members of the panel for conflicts of interest.

"This transparent process requires the agency to carefully weigh any potential financial interest with the need for essential scientific expertise in order to protect and advance the public health," the agency said.

After three days of hearings on the drugs, known as Cox-2 inhibitors, the panel voted 31-1 to keep Pfizer's Celebrex on the market, 17-13 with 2 abstentions in favor of Pfizer's Bextra and 17-15 that Merck's Vioxx should be allowed back on sale.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market Sept. 30 after heart problems were reported in some users.

Similar questions were later raised about the other two drugs, prompting the FDA to call the advisory panel to look into the matter.

Since drug companies fund many studies it is not unusual for researchers to have ties to manufacturers, though some have questioned the practice.

The transcript, including the votes by the individual members of the panel, has not yet been posted by the FDA.

However, a copy obtained by The Associated Press indicated that the 10 panel members in question voted 10-0 in favor of keeping Celebrex and Bextra available and 9-1 in favor of allowing Vioxx to be brought back onto the market.

Without those ballots the vote would have been 13-7 in favor of withdrawing Bextra and 14-8 to keep Vioxx off sale.

The industry ties of the panel members were first reported Friday by The New York Times.
___

On the Net:

Center for Science in the Public Interest, http://www.cspinet.org/

Hey, guess what? If the Shi'ites and the Sunnis kill each other off, all we'll have left will be the oil.

And of course the is all about oil. I posted this little ditty ages ago. I think I am being proven correct with every passing day:

It is not about BUYING all the oil we need. We get that from the Saudis and Venezuelans.

It is about:

1. CONTROL of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.

2. Having that resource as backing for the US Dollar, which otherwise would become worthless since our manufacturing might has migrated to China.

3. In concert with (2), making sure that the Euro does not gain any more acceptance as payment for oil with other OPEC countries.

Methinks Livyjr is "off line."

And yes, I was, but now, I am back!

Good.

Your absense was definitely noted.

Sometimes, jeffmoskin, life just intrudes!

And that sort of brings me back to where I was always heading, I guess, which is a running dialogue on life, here in OUR America, at least as I see it through my own eyes, here in that part of America where I presently am located.

I have been out there in the forum lately, wandering around, following Mr. A.B., mainly, and so, I have been posting thoughts and commentary on other threads, on specific matters that Mr. A.B. has brought up, chiefly, a comparison in one thread between George W. Bush and FDR, and in the other, commentary on whether George W. Bush might or might not be influenced by some god or other to wage aggressive war in the world, as he is doing these days, to OUR detriment, or mine, anyway, as I benefit in no way whatsoever from these various wars of his, and on the other hand, I suffer grieviously, because of them, because of the killing and the destruction caused by them, which brings me right back to the killing fields of Viet Nam, where I just do not want to be, but am, in technicolor spades!

Now, I suppose that is not P.C., nor is it probably "manly" for me to admit this, but so what?

At least to me, anyway!

NOW ....

If I "feel" this way, sick to my soul because of all the killing George W. Bush has unleashed in the world, for profit, I might add; SHOULD I DENY IT, for the sake of the appearance of "NATIONAL UNITY" in the face of this "FOREIGN TAY-RIST THREAT" that George W. Bush and that ilk who hangs with him tell us is coming over here to kill us all and steal OUR way of life from us, as if that could even be done?

If George W. Bush says to me, "Livyjr, if you don't cleave to my standard, you are the enemy", what exactly should I do?

Should I quake and cower, and say, "oh, Mr. Bush, I am so sorry; I didn't mean to doubt you; and yes, do not punish me, for I am your liege man"?

AM I ENTITLED TO MY BELIEFS IN AN ALLEGED TIME OF WAR, or must my thoughts be subsumed into some "whole" that George W. Bush is the exclusive arbiter, possessor and controller of, as if America were Jonestown, only on a larger scale, and George W. Bush were the "MAIN MAN" in charge with the Kool-Aid?

These are some of the thoughts that I am having right now, today, in here, because right now, today, these are the thoughts that I am having, OUT HERE, in reality land, as opposed to this virtual world, the blog-o-sphere, that we all inhabit, in here.

What exactly are "OUR LIVES", anyway, and who exactly determines that, here in OUR America?

Are we really individuals created equally, endowed by OUR Creator with certain unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence hints at, anyway, or are we just cattle, or chattle; property to be disposed of by OUR "Masters", as they see fit?

And is it just an idle question, or is it one that is pertinent to OUR times, right now, today, as those "times" exist for all of us, here in OUR America?

For an answer, of course, you will have to not only stay tuned, but likely, you will have to think on it a little bit, and so .....

Stay tuned!

Updates as they happen!

Live!

Late-breaking!

Life!

Here, in OUR America!

And for anyone just stopping by here, and wondering, as many people do, what this thread is really all about, it is actually a "MONTAGE", I guess you would call it, of life in OUR America, where a "montage" is defined as "a composite picture made by combining several separate pictures"; or a "literary composite of juxtaposed more or less heterogeneous elements"; or even "the production of a rapid succession of images in a motion picture to illustrate an association of ideas", which is an interesting comparison, as in many ways, this forum does remind me much more of a "motion picture" unfolding, than it does of a book being read!

When you think on it, the use of this "medium" as a tool of communication entails learning a whole new set of thought processess, at least for me, an older American!

I actually "see" in thought pictures in here, and I am able to do that because this medium, and its search engine feature allow me to "go back in time" as it were, and bring forward "pictures" from days, weeks and months, or even years ago, to "juxtapose" them and thereby make this "montage", which is what real life does look like here in OUR America, despite what we ourselves as individuals might have it be, or despite what we would like it to be, or even want it to be, if we all had our own "druthers" about it, which we may or may not have, at any given time in our continuing evolution in here, as users of this forum, or as posters.

One thing that I personally am glad to see in here is a "maturing" in the types of dialogue that are going on in threads other than this one!

People are coming together more, it seems, to explore issues in a different spirit than was apparent right after the November 2004 presidential elections, and I don't know about anyone else, but for me, that is something I am glad to see.

Endless arguing back and forth is just tedious, in the end, unless you like to argue, and who really does?

Not me, anyway!

I don't really have that much time to waste on such an unproductive activity, to be truthful, and that is the beauty of this thread, to me, at least!

Everybody to whom this thread does not appeal are in no way, shape, or manner bound to stay here, and listen to me rambling on, nor are they bound to come back!

And how very democratic that is!

In fact, it is the purest form of democracy, or "natural liberty in motion", that I can think of, and to me, an older American, this is all just an amazing thing!

A "TOOL" of democracy unsurpassed by anything I have experienced in my lifetime before this!

If only we can learn to use it intelligently!

The task for tomarrow, and all the days of our lives, after that!

Democracy, true democracy, 24/7!

SO!

How about that?

And speaking of "democracy", and just what it might be, or what it might actually look like, we have this following to consider:

Politics - washingtonpost.com

"In Russian Media, Free Speech for a Select Few"

Fri Feb 25, 8:27 AM ET

By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer

If President Bush thought he would receive support from Russian reporters when he raised the cause of free speech, he did not know much about the Kremlin press pool.

"What is this lack of freedom all about?" one Russian reporter challenged Bush during his joint news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday.

"Our regional and national media often criticize government institutions."

Bush seemed surprised.

"Obviously, if you're a member of the Russian press, you feel like the press is free," he replied.

"You feel that way?"

"That's good."

Bush added, "That is a pretty interesting observation for those of us who don't live in Russia to listen to."

The exchange illustrated more about the state of freedom in Russia than met the eye.

While Putin travels around with a contingent of reporters just as Bush does, the Kremlin press pool is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin's rules of the game.

Helpful questions are often planted.

Unwelcome questions are not allowed.

And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool.

The Kremlin press pool is like so many institutions in Russia that have the trappings of a Western-style pluralistic society but operate under a different set of understandings, part of what analyst Lilia Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center calls "the illusion of democracy."

Television channels air newscasts with fancy graphics but follow scripts approved by the Kremlin.

Elections are held, but candidates out of favor with the Kremlin are often knocked off the ballot.

Courts conduct trials, but the state almost never loses.

Parliament meets but only to rubber-stamp Kremlin legislation.

Putin offered an example of that at the news conference when defending his decision last fall to abolish elections of regional governors.

"The leaders of the regions of the Russian Federation will not be appointed by the president," he said.

They will be approved by "regional parliaments, which are directly chosen by secret ballot."

Putin compared this to the Electoral College, which selects U.S. presidents.

"It is not considered undemocratic, is it?"

In fact, under the new system, Putin will appoint governors.

His selections have to be ratified by regional legislatures, but if such a legislature rejects his choice twice, it will be dissolved.

As for secret ballots, Russian regional leaders have proved adept at generating the outcomes they wish.

Although some print media in Russia remain lively and critical of the government, coming to Putin's defense at yesterday's news conference in Slovakia were two reporters who belong to the Kremlin press pool.

The first was Andrei Kolesnikov, a correspondent for Kommersant, a business newspaper owned by Putin critic Boris Berezovsky.

But Kolesnikov just released two books about his time covering Putin that the Kremlin likes.

Kolesnikov challenged Bush, asserting that "it's impossible to call Russia or the U.S. fully democratic" and questioned Bush about the "enormous powers of the security services" in the United States that had resulted in "the private lives of citizens falling under the control of the government."

The second reporter, who questioned Bush's assertion that Russian media are not free, works for Interfax, a news service that often closely hews the state line.

He asked Bush "about violations of the rights of journalists in the United States, about the fact that some journalists have been fired."

While he did not specify what he meant, Russian media several years ago highlighted the cases of a couple U.S. journalists at obscure news organs who lost jobs after criticizing Bush's post-Sept. 11 legislation.

Bush noted that whenever reporters are fired in the United States, it is not by the government.

In Russia, on the other hand, Putin's Kremlin used a state-controlled company to take over the only independent television network, NTV.

When the ousted NTV journalists took over a different channel, TV-6, the state shut it down.

When they tried again with a network called TVS, Putin's press minister yanked it off the air and replaced it with a sports channel.

The general manager installed at NTV after the Kremlin takeover was later fired when his coverage of the Moscow theater siege in 2002 angered Putin.

Then NTV's most independent remaining hosts, Leonid Parfyonov and Savik Shuster, were taken off the air after the government bristled at their talk shows.

Shuster's show was called "Freedom of Speech."

Kolesnikov's predecessor at Kommersant, Yelena Tregubova, was kicked out of the Kremlin press pool because, she said, she would not follow official instructions.

She later wrote a tell-all book that peeved the Kremlin.

When Parfyonov interviewed her for NTV, the segment was yanked after it had already aired in eastern time zones.

When a small bomb exploded outside her apartment door last year, Tregubova fled the country.

If Bush does not trust the Russian press to get the story of yesterday's news conference right, he can at least go to the Kremlin's own Web site.

On it was posted a transcript of the joint news conference.

Only all of Bush's statements and answers were deleted.

end quotes

And at the risk of not being P.C., when you look at the "juxtaposition" here, I don't see that many differences between there and here, to be truthful.

In fact, it is the similarities which trouble me so, and that is in large part what this thread and its "montage" are all about!

Life, here in OUR America, today, as opposed to yesterday, or the day before that, and just where it might be going, despite OUR intentions to have it be and remain a democracy!

Well, I am enjoying myself in here these days, that is for sure, and what a delight it is to be in here.

And at this point, I want to take a moment to congratulate Mr. A.B., who just may be the oldest member in here, for the threads that he has started up, especially the one in "Religion and Politics", which has some interesting discussion going on over there, these days, that is certainly relevant to these, the times that we are in, here in OUR America.

As for me, I do not believe that there is a scalpel sharp enough to separate religion FROM politics, and so, I tend to be an observer, rather than one who tries to take a direct role in that area, as both religion and politics are so personal an endeavor to each of us, that I am not going to be critical of where someone else is on the path at any given time in their own spiritual quest, even if that quest is to deny the existence spirituality totally and completely; and that is the way it should be in a secular democratic Republic, such as is OURS!

And here, as is my "wont" to do, I would like to bring in some defintions of what "politics" is really all about, here in OUR America, AS ALL POLITICS IN THE WORLD ARE NOT EQUAL, and it is foolish, and shortsighted to believe that they are.

OUR politics, here in OUR America, has evolved from a certain tradition, or system, and so, OUR politics are unique to us, AS A NATION!

And OUR politics HAS EVOLVED, and is still evolving, because politics is part of who people are, and is a function of how their lives are going, and since life is dynamic, politics must be too, wishes of the "conservatives", notwithstanding.

POLITIC: skillful, ingenious, shrewd; crafty, sly, cunning; wise, prudent or expedient, as in conception or execution; judicious.

POLITICAL: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the science, organization, or activities of government; pertaining to or having an organized system of government.

POLITICAL SCIENCE: the science of the form and principles of civil government, and the extent and manner of its intervention in public and private affairs; politics.

POLITICIAN: one who is engaged in politics, especially professionally; one who engages in politics for personal or partisan aims rather than for reasons of principle; a political opportunist; one who is skilled in the science of government or politics; a statesman.

POLITICS: the science or art of government or of the administration and management of public or state affairs; the affairs or activities of those who are engaged in controlling or seeking to control a government or its offices or departments; also the life, profession or area of activity of such persons; the principles, aims or policies of a government or of the parties, or groups within a government; the acts or practices of those who seek any position of power, authority or advantage; political sentiments or opinions.

POLITICAL LIBERTY: Liberty of the citizen to participate in the operations of government, and particularly in the making and administration of the laws.

SO!

A POLITICIAN, BY OUR American tradition, can be one who engages in politics for personal or partisan aims rather than for reasons of principle, or a "political opportunist", while POLITICS, in OUR tradition, includes the affairs or activities of those who are engaged in controlling or seeking to control a government or its offices or departments, and also the lives of such persons, as well as the principles, aims or policies of a government or of the parties, or groups within a government; and the acts or practices of those who seek any position of power, authority or advantage in OUR government, and POLITICAL LIBERTY, in OUR tradition, is the LIBERTY OF THE CITIZEN to participate in the operations of government, and particularly in the making and administration of the laws!

There, in a nutshell, folks, is what this particular thread is all about, and probably, if truth be told, a good part of this forum is as well, if not all of it, in varying aspects, because as can be seen from the above definitions, "AMERICAN POLITICS" is a multi-hued and many-splendored thing, indeed!

And why do I bother to say AMERICAN POLITICS, instead of just politics?

Well, that answer is simple!

Because we are in America, and so, this is the only place where we can really act to affect change in the world!

OUR politics is ours!

It is unique to us, as a "body politic", and we should not lose sight of that, although this thread exists because I for one think we have, elsewise, we would not now be out there in the world trying to jam OUR politics down the throats of other peoples on the earth, with their own political traditions, at the point of a bayonet, or cruise missle, or weapon of mass destruction!

If we cannot all get together in this country and agree on something, such as what common sense might be, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN WE HOPE TO INFLUENCE ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE IN THE WORLD TO CLEAVE TO OUR STANDARD?

How?

Other than by buying them off, I suppose, temporarily, which in the end, in and of itself, is a form of "politics", including, but not limited to American politics, as jeffmoskin has made clear in here in other posts back in Volume I of this thread.

Think about it for a while, folks, because in the end, without logic and the light of reason, long-term "good relations" with other peoples of this earth of ours just cannot be accomplished, or I don't think so, anyway!

If your thoughts are scattered, why would I want to follow you?

If my thoughts are scattered, why would you want to listen to me?

It just would not make any sense at all, for either of us, in the end, to go running off "half-cocked", as it were, and yet, in my estimation, that is exactly what America is now doing these days, TO ALL OF OUR DETRIMENT, in the end, except perhaps, for those in the world who make their money off of turmoil, and from my own study of history, in the end, those kinds of people are often the first to fall, which is a lesson from history that I tend to heed, 24/7!

BEWARE HUBRIS; the gods are watching!

Hence this thread!

One who would guide a leader of men in the uses of life

Will warn him (or her) against the use of arms for conquest!

Weapons often turn upon the wielder!

An army's harvest is a waste of thorns!

Conscription of a multitude of men

Drains the next year dry!

A good general, daring to march, also dares to halt!

Will never press his triumph beyond need!

What he must do, he does; but not for glory!

What he must do, he does; but not for show!

What he must do, he does, but not for self!

He has done it, because it had to be done,

And not from a hot head!

Let life ripen, and then fall,

Force is not the way at all!

Deny the way of life, and you are dead!

- Lao Tze

And while I am looking for information on Mr. Patrick Henry and what was known as the "Parson's Cause", in the run-up to OUR American Revolution, I just came across this item below, and thought it should be included in here, for the record that is developing in here, for the "balance" to that record this following article provides:

Top Stories - Reuters

"Al Qaeda Mocks Reports of Zarqawi Aides' Arrests"

1 hour, 31 minutes ago

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's wing in Iraq dismissed Sunday reports that top aides of its leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been arrested, saying U.S.-led forces were trying to boost low morale, according to an Internet statement.

"And who knows which aide was arrested and what lies they made up."

"This is a hopeless attempt on their part to raise morale," said the statement by Al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq, posted on Islamist Web sites.

"We give our brothers the good news that our leaders are absolutely fine, thank God, and leading the ranks of the faithful in battle," it said.

Iraq's government said Friday it had captured Abu Qutaybah, a key lieutenant of Zarqawi -- the Jordanian militant who is al Qaeda's leader in Iraq and has been behind some of the country's worst attacks.

Baghdad says it has captured a number of Zarqawi's aides and associates in recent weeks, with several arrested in the run-up to the Jan. 30 election.

It is impossible to verify what role the detainees played in Zarqawi's network.

Zarqawi is the U.S. military's most wanted man in Iraq, with a $25 million bounty offered for information leading to his death or capture.

Psy-ops!

That is what this is called, psy ops!

There is an excellent book floating around out there by a former American "Green Beret" named Donald Duncan entitled "The New Legions".

In that book, which dates from 1967, a year in which the Viet Nam conflict was really starting to heat up, Mr. Duncan talks about insurgencies, and the importance of winning the psy ops side of a counter-insurgency action against the insurgents themselves, lest their power grow, and yours diminish as a result.

Mr. Duncan was a highly trained American soldier who was actually in Viet Nam, and his writing on this subject is very clear and understandable, to a layperson, which is who the book is directed at!

At that time, of course, the "tools of communications" available to an insurgent group, such as the Viet Cong were alleged to be by OUR American government, were very limited, as compared to today, where an insurgency on a very limited budget can have instantaneous access to communications on a mass scale; communications assets including world-wide TV coverage equal to what an alleged superpower like the United States of America under George W. Bush has available to it, for its own propaganda campaign, such as al Quaida is seen to be waging here, over the internet!

Because he was actually in Viet Nam, and saw through the folly of what "Big Bob" McNamara was trying to do over there, and then spoke out about that folly, Donald Duncan was more or less written off by the "military establishment" for "speaking out of school" about the folly of what America was doing in Viet Nam at the time of that book, which was only serving to make the Viet Cong a stronger enemy of America among the very people we were trying to convince that we could beat the Viet Cong!

You would think these alleged "smart" types such as this Wolfowitz down there in the Pentagon could see their own folly in Iraq, as evidenced by this above news item, but you know what?

They can't!

Their arrogance blocks their view!

Their perfection hinders their perception!

Their greatness blinds their eyes!

And where will that take us as a nation to have "leaders" such as these, who are so arrogant and blind?

That is what we are waiting with bated breath in here to find out, so, stay tuned!

Developments as they happen!

Live, here, in OUR America!

Over in "Religion and Politics", Abu Beacon, or Mr. A.B., as he is known in here, has a thread going on the "religious" aspects of the George W. Bush presidency, and in a recent post of mine over there, on that subject, I called this the "secular" side of that thread, which in many ways, this thread is, where we look at history and legal precedent, as opposed to religiosity, as is the case in Mr. A.B.'s thread, which does look at the religiosity side of this very same equation!

NOW ......

I have said above that OUR America has its own "political" traditions, and when you actually study American politics, you find, at least as I propose, that OUR American politics is inextricably linked to the question of RELIGION in OUR colonial politics, and that is why, once we had the Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of England, separation of church and state became a basis of OUR political tradition, BECAUSE of the role of religion in OUR colonial government and the problems that it caused, BEFORE the Revolution!

And the best example of that that I can find, right now, is the "PARSON'S CAUSE", which I would say is related directly to the issues before us Americans today in connection with the administration of George W. Bush, and its insistence on bringing religion back in to OUR American politics, to the detriment of those of us in OUR America who are not members of these churches that George W. Bush favors as his own!

Discrimination, and big time; by the President of OUR America, against us in America who are not members of his personal religion!

"THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE “PARSON’S CAUSE”

http://www.dinsdoc.com/scott-1.htm

OF the various important trials and lawsuits during the colonial period, few have attracted more attention from the general historian than the cases growing out of the Virginia Two-Penny Act of 1758.

Particularly since the appearance of the Life of Patrick Henry, by Wirt, Henry’s speech in the “Parson’s Cause” has been commonly regarded as a prophecy of the Revolution, “the first intimation of the approaching conflict.”

It is thus linked with James Otis’s argument in the Writs of Assistance case, when, as John Adams would have it, American independence was born.

A somewhat uncritical acceptance of the enthusiastic estimates of Wirt and Adams later resulted in an exaggerated idea of the importance attached to these speeches at the time.

Wirt himself shows clearly that when Henry went to Williamsburg the next year “no one knew anything of him.”

A wider study of contemporary material has resulted in a better appreciation of the real legal, constitutional and social issues involved in the whole Two-Penny-Act controversy, a controversy in which Henry’s speech in Parson Maury’s case was but a single incident, and not the most important one.

Eckenrode, for instance, has brought out the connection of this agitation with the whole movement against the established church, culminating in the Revolutionary separation of church and state.

L. G. Tyler, in an excellent article in which he comments particularly on the determination of the Virginia Assembly to exercise complete control over local taxation, has shown that the underlying question was “the Virginia Constitution under the British Sovereign.”

Some important aspects of the case, however, have been generally ignored.

Even when the technical points of law involved have been correctly stated, they have not been sufficiently emphasized.

The far-reaching constitutional questions involved have thus been obscured, or at best have been stated without further elaboration.

The outstanding facts in the controversy are too familiar to call for more than a brief restatement.

By an Act of Assembly of 1748, confirmed by the King in 1751, the salary of the Virginia clergy was fixed at 16,000 pounds of tobacco a year.

By an Act of 1753, however, two counties were ordered to pay £100 in Virginia currency instead.

In June 1755 the assembly permitted two counties to pay tobacco levies in money, at a rate to be fixed by the justices of the peace.

Later in the same year a threatened shortage in the tobacco crop led to the enactment of a law, to expire at the end of ten months, allowing the payment in money of all tobacco debts at the rate of two pence a pound.

Some of the clergy protested vigorously at the time, even appealing to the Bishop of London, but, as it turned out, two pence was not far from the market value, and the matter was not pressed.

In 1758, however, another threatened crop-failure led to a popular demand for relief.

The assembly responded on October 12th by providing that all debts, public and private, contracted on a tobacco basis, might if the debtor so desired be paid in currency at the rate of two pence a pound.

The act was limited in operation to a year.

Since the market price of tobacco rose to about six pence, debts were naturally paid for the most part in currency.

The merits or demerits of this act as a piece of legislation are not relevant to the present discussion.

It has been extensively denounced; but a very plausible argument can be made out for its justice and expediency as an emergency measure.

The important point is that the clergy, rightly or wrongly, felt particularly defrauded; for, while the act was general in terms, they were the greatest proportional losers.

As a body they sent Rev. John Camm to lay their grievances before the King in Council.

The Bishop of London supported their cause, and on the recommendation of the Lords of Trade, the King on August 10, 1759, disallowed not only the act of 1758 but those of 1753 and 1755 also.

The disallowance was not, however, officially published in Virginia until June 27, 1760, eight months after the law of 1758 had expired by limitation.

Meanwhile many of the clergy had refused the tender of currency as the equivalent of their full salaries, and several ministers now proceeded to sue the tax collectors of their parishes to recover the full market value of the tobacco due under the act of 1748.

The collectors set up the law of 1758 as their sufficient justification for having refused to pay in tobacco, and the issue was squarely joined.

The crucial question was perfectly clear: In May of 1759, when salaries for 1757-8 were due, was the enactment of October 12, 1758 a valid law of Virginia, as the legislature had obviously intended it should be?

The litigation dragged on for six or seven years, accompanied by an acrimonious war of pamphlets and public letters in which the issue was threshed-out from every angle.

The clergy were uniformly unsuccessful in the courts, and naturally they felt aggrieved.

Following the lead of Wirt, later writers have almost unanimously agreed that the clergy had the law all on their side, and that they were defeated only by an appeal to prejudice.

The refusal of judges and juries to decide in their favor has been interpreted as a bold act of defiance on the part of the colonists, foreshadowing Revolution.

This view assumes as a matter of course that the disallowance of a law might be, and in this case was, retroactive, thus invalidating all action taken in accordance with that law’s provisions.

Such an assumption is entirely unwarranted.

Ever since the Crown began the practice of reviewing colonial legislation, in the later 17th century, it had been absolutely clear that disallowance took effect only from the moment when it was announced officially in the colony.

All action taken under a law before the proclamation of disallowance was valid.

In other words, a disallowance was the exact equivalent of a repeal, and the two words were used interchangeably.

Since the machinery of disallowance was slow moving, an objectionable law might have several years of life before it could be annulled.

To prevent this, royal governors were instructed to refuse assent to certain general types of laws unless a clause was inserted suspending their operation until they could be reviewed in England.

Inasmuch as the law of 1758 had expired before Virginia was notified of its disallowance, unbroken precedent seemed to demand that the Virginia judges should regard it as having been in full force and effect in the spring of 1759.

Prima facie, the clergy had no case whatever.

Nothing daunted, they boldly attempted to differentiate this case from an ordinary disallowance, arguing that the act of 1758, although it had the form of a law, had never been binding at all.

The original validity of the Two-Penny Act was questioned on two general grounds.

It was pointed out in the first place that the king’s instructions to the governor specifically restrained him from assenting to any amendment to existing legislation unless the amending act contained a suspending clause.

Since the act of 1758 contained no such clause, it was urged that the governor’s commission and instructions did not sufficiently authorize and impower the Governor, with the Consent of the Council and General Assembly to make the said Act . . . but the said Act, as it tended to suspend the Force and Effect of the Act of Assembly . . . [of 1748] . . . which had received his Majesty’s Approbation, was contrary to his Majesty’s Instructions to his Governor, and was therefore null and void from the making thereof, and so declared by the late King by his Order in-Council.

In the second place, the act was said to be “void in itself, being contrary to the principles of justice.”

The issue thus brought before the courts was entirely new.

Numerous instances had occurred in which royal governors in Virginia and other colonies had assented to laws in direct violation of their instructions.

Occasionally such laws had been confirmed by the king, but usually they had been disallowed, particularly when they amended existing laws which had received formal ratification.

The king had signified his “high displeasure” to the governors, and had threatened recall in case instructions were not better obeyed.

But never before had the question been raised of the validity of such laws up to the time of their disallowance.

When laws, as was sometimes the case, were disallowed after they had expired by limitation, it was simply by way of expressing emphatic disapproval, with a view to preventing similar action in the future.

There seems to have been no expectation that action already taken under these laws would be invalidated by their disallowance.

On the contrary, the fact that such laws were in full force, no matter how clearly the governors had violated instructions in signing them, was regarded as a grave danger.

No remedy however seems to have suggested itself except to reiterate threats and orders to the governors, and occasionally through them to the assemblies.

The contention by the clergy that the king’s Order in Council had specifically declared the law of 1758 null and void from the first is disingenuous.

It assumes the whole point at issue, and the acceptance of the clergy’s statement at its face value has been responsible for much later confusion.

Camm, indeed, had definitely urged the Privy Council to declare the act “absolutely null and void in [its] creation,” having “no force or Authority at the time of making or otherwise.”

Nothing, he pointed out, would better please the assembly than a disallowance in the usual form, for this would permit them to pass yearly acts, which would expire before their disallowance could be proclaimed, being valid in the meantime.

The Privy Council, as well as the Board of Trade, appreciated this, and “their Lordships would have declared the Act void ab initio, if they could have found a Precedent for it.”

Lacking a precedent, disallowance had to be signified in substantially the usual formula, and the governor proclaimed it in Virginia exactly like any other disallowance.

The clergy protested vigorously against his use of the word “repeal,” which they said had been “studiously” avoided by the Council.

It is true that the Order in Council of August 10th read “the said Acts are hereby disallowed, declared void, and of none effect.”

Comparison with other orders of disallowance, however, shows that while the word repeal was generally used, it was sometimes omitted, without any indication that the omission meant anything.

The fact therefore that its omission in this instance may have been intentional would not serve to distinguish it from an ordinary disallowance.

Of somewhat more significance is Camm’s assertion, on the strength of conversations between his lawyer and individual members of the Council, that, it was the opinion of the most Honourable the Privy Council that the Act was orginally null in itself by reason of its manifest injustice, setting aside all disputes about authority, that it could not be deemed a law by any court of judicature whatever, and that if it had been then before them in a proper course of law they should have adjudged it to be no law.

It is obvious, however, that this informal and third-hand announcement of the private views of certain members of the Privy Council could not be accepted as legally binding on the Virginia courts.

Essentially, then, the clergy were demanding that the local judges should assume the responsibility for refusing to take cognizance of a seemingly valid act of the legislature.

The law was to be regarded as void from its inception primarily because it was beyond the competence of the assembly to pass it, and of the governor to sign it.

The argument that it was void because contrary to natural justice was secondary.

In defense of the law it was urged that “by the well known and long established Constitution of the Colony of Virginia, and more especially by virtue of the . . . Commission of the Governor,” the governor and assembly together were fully authorized to pass any law not repugnant to the laws of England.

The clergy’s appeal to the courts was based upon a denial of this contention.

In modern phraseology, then, the courts were asked to declare the act of 1758 unconstitutional, as violating a higher law.

In the face of such an unprecedented issue, courts and juries hesitated and disagreed.

In no instance did a clergyman recover the balance of salary for which he was suing; but the five recorded suits, with their various appeals, show striking differences.

The first case to come to actual trial was that of the Reverend Alexander White, before the King William County Court, in August, 1762.

At the request of the Parish Collectors, Governor Fauquier sent the original copy of the disallowance order of August, 1759, together with former disallowances for purposes of comparison.

It was a matter of common knowledge that the Governor regarded the order respecting the Two Penny Act as an ordinary disallowance.

“The court took the hint,” and instructed the jury that in their opinion the Act of 1758 had been valid, since word of its repeal had come only after it had expired.

The court left the final decision of this question of law to the jury.

Counsel for White urged the distinction between the repeal of a law under which no action had in fact been taken, and the disallowance of an act which had already had its full effect.

The omission of the word “repeal” in the Council’s order was emphasized; and the inherent injustice of the measure was pointed out, but all to no effect.

The jury found for the Parish Collectors, and White could only appeal to the General Court.

The Reverend Thomas Warrington had brought suit even before White, but the case came up before the York County Court somewhat later.

This time, the jury awarded substantial damages against the Collectors.

The justices, however, held that the law of 1758 had been valid, and refused to allow the judgment to be entered up.

Warrington also appealed to the General Court.

A third suit was that started April 1, 1762, by the Reverend James Maury, in the Hanover County Court.

Counsel for the Collectors set up the act of 1758 in bar.

The plaintiff demurred, insisting that this law had never been binding, and on November 5, 1763, the court sustained the demurrer.

This was the first and only time that the Two-Penny Act was judicially declared invalid, because outside the competence of the legislature.

It was before a special jury at the December court, called to fix the amount of the damages, that Patrick Henry made his incendiary speech, and secured a verdict of one penny against his clients.

It is quite true, as is frequently pointed out, that technically Henry had no business to argue the law in the case.

The court had ruled on the law, and the only question before the jury was the amount due Mr. Maury.

The further conclusion that Henry had no law on his side is an entirely different matter.

While his attack on the established clergy was entirely gratuitous and irrelevant, his argument that “the act of 1758 had every characteristic of a good law” was perfectly sound.

As to his contention that “a King by disallowing Acts of this salutary nature, from being the father of his people degenerated into a Tyrant, and forfeits all right to his subjects’ obedience,” it seems probable that the reference was not to ordinary disallowances at all.

The real issue was the alleged right of the king to declare a law void from its inception, a right hitherto never heard of in Virginia.

However inflammatory Henry’s language may have been, the position which he was defending was essentially the conservative one.

Again the disappointed parson could only appeal.

In 1764, the Reverend Patrick Henry, the orator’s uncle, started suit in Hanover County.

This continued until the General Court had passed on the fundamental issues involved, and was then dismissed.

In all the litigation, however, the crucial case was the one instituted in behalf of the Reverend John Camm.

Since his parish was in Williamsburg, suit was brought originally in the General Court, October 10, 1759.

The court, it would seem deliberately delayed a decision, and the proceedings dragged along until April 10, 1764, when by a vote of five to four the Act of 1758 was upheld, and judgment was given against Camm.

Two members of the court refused to vote, on the ground that they were Camm’s parishioners.

The Governor, who needed to vote only in case of a tie, publicly expressed his approval of the decision.

Camm appealed to the Privy Council.

In this of course he was fighting the cause of all the ministers.

The assembly, in turn, realizing the extent to which their legislative independence would be curtailed by an adverse decision, undertook the expense of defending the Collectors.

The case was referred to a Committee of the Privy Council, and there argued at length.

In accordance with the Committee report, the Council dismissed Camm’s appeal.

The decision was not at all on the merits of the case, but on the technical ground that the original suit should have been brought as an action of debt instead of trespass upon the case.

It was generally understood that this was a mere pretext for evading the issue.

Presumably it was regarded as highly inexpedient to risk offending colonial opinion, already dangerously excited over the Stamp Act controversy.

The General Court of Virginia calmly accepted this technical victory as a complete vindication of their position, and dismissed the pending appeals of White, Warrington and Maury.

Naturally enough, the clergy were bitterly disappointed, and talked for several years of renewing the contest in the courts, but nothing definite was done, and the whole matter was lost sight of in the excitement of new issues.

In every one of the court decisions against them, the clergy naturally felt that public opinion, prejudice against the established church, official pressure, personal animosities, and selfish interests were arrayed against them.

Furthermore, in yielding to political considerations, and refusing a decision on the merits of the case, it was felt that the Privy Council had been guilty of a breach of faith.[/b]

The present doctrine of the power of courts to declare a law unconstitutional, rests on three assumptions:

First, that there is a distinction between ordinary and fundamental law.

The power of the legislature is not absolute, but is limited by the fundamental law.

Second, when the legislature transcends the limits set to its powers by the fundamental law, its action is null and void, and no one is bound thereby.

Third, whenever in the ordinary course of administering justice, the courts encounter an apparent conflict between an ordinary act of the legislature and the fundamental law, they not only may but must consider and decide whether the ordinary law can be reconciled with the fundamental law.

If they believe that no reconciliation is possible, it is their right and their duty to disregard the ordinary law entirely, deciding the case before them in all respects as if it had never existed.

In essence these three principles are clearly discernible in the Two-Penny Cases.

As to the first, it was asserted that the legislative power of the Virginia assembly was limited by the king’s instructions and by the laws of natural justice.

Second, it was argued in so many words that the pretended law of 1758 was from the moment of passage null, void and no law at all, because in passing it the legislature violated both royal instructions and natural equity.

Therefore no citizen was bound to obey it, nor could any official plead it in justification of any of his acts.

Third, the courts were asked to recognize and act on both of these principles.

It was insisted that they should take notice of the conflict between the act of 1758 and fundamental law, as expressed in the instructions and natural equity.

And they were urged to decide cases as if the law of 1758 had never existed.

The most significant sentence in Otis’s speech on the Writs of Assistance was the declaration that “An act against the Constitution is void; an act against natural equity is void.”

These were substantially the points raised in the Virginia cases also.

In both instances, the judges ignored the natural justice plea; but the fact that it was advanced is another indication of the current belief that men had natural rights which the legislature might not lawfully violate.

The mere fact, too, that good lawyers seriously urged the courts to disregard an act of assembly is interesting.

It is significant that one jury, one bench of justices, and four of the ablest judges of the general court actually decided that the Act of 1758 had never been law.

Of course the idea that courts might, and should, disregard a law as unconstitutional was not present in men’s minds with anything like the clearness which it assumed a generation later.

But in spite of that, these cases deserve to be considered along with Winthrop v. Lechmere, and the Writs of Assistance Case as helping to illustrate the long and gradual process by which the American doctrine of judicial review took shape.

The Two-Penny Cases further find a place in the history of the long struggle for a greater degree of colonial legislative independence.

For years American assemblies had been asserting rights analogous to those of Parliament.

Just as the king could make laws for England only with the consent of Parliament, so it was felt he could legislate for the colonies only with the consent of the local assemblies.

Any limitation on the freedom of action of the representatives of the people was resented and resisted.

The Virginia assembly was not alone in refusing to recognize the king’s right to bind them directly by instructions to his governors.

The issue came up at various times in other colonies, and the legislative bodies regularly refused to yield the point.

The controversy over the act of 1758 thus deserves a place in the study of the pre-revolutionary period, but not primarily because it illustrated the presence of a seditious and rebellious spirit.

Its real significance lies in the fact that for six critical years it helped to bring the people of Virginia face to face with fundamental questions.

The legislative freedom of their assembly was imperiled.

This made necessary a clear statement and a closely reasoned defense of the American view of the constitutional place of the colonies in the Empire; and in that work Patrick Henry’s speech was far less significant than the widely read pamphlets of Carter and Bland.

On a small scale, the whole episode illustrates the clash of political theories which lay back of the American Revolution.

The arguments by which the colonists defended the law of 1758 were exactly the same as those on which they based their resistance to king, ministry and Parliament.

The principles on which they relied were the ones on which they founded their whole political system.

The entire controversy, like so many other incidents in colonial history, has been too exclusively regarded as a sign of growing irritation on the part of the colonists.

Its importance as an incident in the attempted working-out of a new imperial system has been too largely overlooked.

ARTHUR P. SCOTT.

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.

SO!

1758!

Eckenrode, in a Report of the Virginia State Library, 1909-10 (Separation of Church and State. Special Report of Dept. of Archives and History), brought out the connection of this agitation with the whole movement against the established church, culminating in the Revolutionary separation of church and state.

And what is that now, some 249 years ago, this year, that this controversy involving the clergy in America being paid by direct taxation of the American people was raised, and thus began the transformation of OUR American politics which is at issue today where the president of OUR America, Mr. George W. Bush, once again appears bent on using public funds, or tax monies, to compensate certain churches for the use of their programs by his government, for its own partisan political purposes, in conjunction with those of the clergy of these established churches, in defiance of OUR political traditions and history, and OUR Constitution, which derives from that history and traditions!

At one time in OUR America, of course, before the Declaration of Independence, the colonists here were taxed directly for the maintenance of the established churches, and as can be seen above, the clergy in Virginia were apparently handsomely compensated with 16,000 pounds of tobacco a year to be "paid" to each of them by the people of Virginia, regardless of whether they had any of the fruits of their labor left to themselves afterwards.

Now, think on that for a moment!

16,000 pounds of tobacco a year!

And since this was a commodity, as opposed to specie, someone had to labor to produce this actual amount of tobacco, which means that people, and many of them would be slaves, were working for the church and its maintenance, whether they believed in the tenets of that particular church, or not; which is becoming an issue all over again, here in OUR America, with George W. Bush's unilateral insistence that as president, he has this power to void out laws set forth by OUR Congress, through the specious device of regulations enacted by him, for the purpose of by-passing the laws enacted by OUR Congress, for OUR benefit, IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE TENETS, PRECEPTS, AND PROVISIONS OF OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!

And whether or not they actually provided any kind of service to the populace, the clergy of these established churchs in essence had a free ride, because they were favorites of a foreign king over there in England!

And that brings us to today, where once again, we have clergy who are the favorites of George W. Bush, who has set himself up as a version of a tyrannical foreign despot over us; those in OUR America who do not cleave to his particular religious standard, which I personally find repugnant to my own belief system here in OUR America, and thus, I would say that by his actions of promoting a state-sponsored religion here in OUR America, that George W. Bush is acting in direct and wilfull violation of my Constitutional liberty, which is not his right to do as president of OUR America!

Over in his thread in "Religion and Politics", of course, Mr. A.B. has made a similar argument, although along different lines, but it still comes down to the issue of LIBERTY, here in OUR America, as I see it anyway, regardless of which viewpoint you come at it from!

Hence this discussion in here; and hence this thread; so as to be able to continue to explore this question of LIBERTY, and whether or not OUR political traditions and history should now be discarded, and disregarded, in what George W. Bush is calling the "Post 9-11" environment, here in OUR America, which he says has changed the entire paradigm under which OUR government is now to operate into the future, until God alone knows when!

And it is very pervasive. I was at a symphony concert last week, and the conductor was giving a pre-concert talk about the music we were about to hear. He had written one of the works himself, called "Insomnia", in 2002. He went on to say, matter-of-factly, that "After 9/11, everything changed. The world changed."

And I thought to myself,

"No, on 9/11, a truly heinous act was committed by a small group of Saudi dissidents. We were still America on 9/12. We had been hurt, but not destroyed.

"George W Bush is busy destroying America. He is destroying our Bill of Rights; he is destroying our currency; he is destroying our Social Security System; he is destroying our image in the rest of the world; he is on a personal Crusade against all of us who don't believe the way he and his ilk believe."

And this destruction is coming from within not without. And we must resist it.

As Americans, we have no choice.

And I guess that is really the issue, is it not, jeffmoskin, whether or not we do have choices, and duties and responsibilities, and exactly what those just might be, for while this "reign" has been predicted, in fact, it is without precedent, here in OUR America, as I see it, unless you go back to the days of George III, and Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine, and tyranny and despotism, BEFORE the Revolution!

SO?

Have we in fact circled right back to before the days of OUR own beginnings as a nation on this earth?

Stay tuned!

Even the finest arms are an instrument of evil,

A spread of plague,

And the way for a vital man to go, is not the way of a soldier!

But in time of war, men civilized in peace

Turn from their higher to their lower nature!

Arms are an instrument of evil,

No measure for thoughtful men

Until there fail, all other choice

But sad acceptance of it!

Triumph is not beautiful.

He who thinks triumph beautiful

Is one with a will to kill!

And one with a will to kill

Shall never prevail upon the world.

It is a good sign when man's higher nature comes forward,

A bad sign when his lower nature comes forward

When retainers take charge

And the master stays back

As in the conduct of a funeral.

The death of a multitude is cause for mourning;

Conduct your triumph as a funeral!

- Lao Tze

I've posted many times before that the Bush Agenda was to CONTROL Iraq's oil - not to pump it. Just follow the money:

a) Halliburton only makes money when oil sells for more than drilling costs. They have more work than they can handle in "stripper" wells in Texas and Oklahoma.

B) our GOOD and LOYAL friends, the Saudis (Bush's "family"), make more money to finance their totally corrupt society, and to fund the Wahabbi Madrassas in other Arab countries that will provide tomorrow's terrorists.

c) Putin is happy. He's selling as much oil as the Saudis. Don't forget, he's got 60 years of mismanagement to make up for. They need bucks in a big way.

d) perhaps, after making the good college try for democracy in Iraq, Bush will give it up as hopeless, but leave a small armed force to guard the oil wells from Iraqi terrorists (ha ha ha ). In other words, yes it's all about oil, but not about pumping it. It's about keeping it from being pumped.

In 1944, the "gnomes of Zurich" met at Bretton Woods to figure out world how currencies would be exchanged after WW II. They settled on the current gold standard which was $35.00 per troy ounce. This lasted until 1971 when, with Europe finally on her feet again and Charles deGaulle knocking on our window at Fort Knox to exchange his dollars for gold (the unofficial world price had risen to about $43.00 an ounce), Nixon went off the gold standard.

For a few years, this meant chaos. All currencies would seek their market value level. The dollar kept falling due to inflation fueled by the Viet Nam war.

Then, in 1975, Kissinger convinced our GOOD FRIENDS the SAUDIS to accept ONLY US DOLLARS as payment for oil.

Wow!!!

What a deal. It used to be that you wanted to own dollars to buy American products. Now, you had to have US dollars to buy oil from OPEC.

So those dollars were now backed by OIL, not gold.

OIL REALLY IS THE GOLD STANDARD.

Hell, you can't run your car on gold now, can you?

During the 90s, under Clinton, American products were outsourced to China. Now the only reason to hold dollars was for the oil.

In September 2000, Saddam Hussein told Europe he would gladly accept the EURO as payment for his oil.

Can't permit this to happen. Since America doesn't make products anymore, the dollar would become toilet paper, like Turkish Lira or Mexican Pesos.

I truly believe that this is the very moment that BushCorp decided that George W Bush HAD TO BE INSTALLED IN THE WHITE HOUSE BY HOOK OR BY CROOK.

And that is why they stole Florida.

And that is why they invaded and occupied Iraq.

We may not be able to pump it. But we OWN IT.

We have to. It is all that is propping up our otherwise worthless dollar.

Good morning, jeffmoskin, nice to see you back after a hiatus!

And here I am just coming into the "cold world" of reality here, after a quick visit to "A.B.'s Corner" and the cozy stove over there, where I had my morning chuckle at your musings on the Oscars, which I don't really pay any attention to ....

OOOOPS!

Was that un-American to say?

Non P.C.?

Perhaps I'd better beat a hasty retreat and make an retraction, and then lie, and say the Oscars were something I have been waiting all year for, except they are not, and so .......

Over in "A.B.'s Corner", I was saying that a young friend from San Francisco had finally decided to try living life without a car, which can be done quite well out there in S.F., and my remark back to him was that life in S.F. without a car is like swimming without a boat anchor tied around your leg.

And let the "big-bottom" boys have to worry about finding some other sucker to buy the gas and oil that he will no longer be buying, to keep up their "bottom line"!

BOYCOT THE BIG-BOTTOM BOYS!

Let them get jobs like the rest of America has to do!

And here, I must wonder, jeffmoskin, at how many people even know, or have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, as it is, or seems, anyway, so esoteric, and I believe that it is probably intended to be that way, so that we would not have any ideas as to what was really going on out there, vis-a-vis this currency exchange rate business.

People reading your posts on that subject would probably think you were coming in from Mars, or something, with your words, or maybe they would think that you were "Chicken Little", talking about U.S. currency becoming worthless, BUT ....

I personally think you are right dead on the money, as I, independent of you, have been researching this same matter, and have arrived where you are, coming in from a different direction.

Since you brought up the Oscars, this is like being in one of those scenes in an "action thriller", I think the genre is properly called out there in George W. Bush's Hollywood, where a maniac has taken over a bus, and it is swerving all over the L.A. Freeway, and we are all stuck in the back, unable to do anything but "hang on tight"!

Keep posting, jeffmoskin, keep posting, and the only thing I would say by way of critique is don't assume too much intelligence on our part as your readers!

It is an esoteric, and sometimes complex subject, and so, do as the lawyers say they do for most judges these days, dumb it way, way down!

See Dick run,

See Jane run after him,

See the bucket full of worthless American dollars that Dick and Jane hold between them .......

And here I really do wonder how many people in America even know they are on a "bus", let alone where it might be taking them, besides over a cliff!

"Stop the world, I want to get off!"

That is one of those "sayings" that you used to hear, here in OUR America, back around the Viet Nam times, as I recall, and it was a way of saying that life, even then, had already become so complex, that people just could not stand it, and now, it seems that it is even more so, at least to me!

For example, WW II!

A pretty big war, and yet, it did not solve a thing!

Then Korea!

Nothing solved!

Viet Nam!

Nothing really solved, other than that the United States, as big as it thinks it might be, can get its a** kicked pretty good by a bunch of rag-tags with a budget of about $3.57 per week in American money, just as mighty England got its own a** kicked real good by a bunch of rag-tag Americans on a budget of about $3.57 in pounds sterling back in 1777!

Nothing solved, and nothing learned, especially by George W. Bush and his NEW CON crowd, who have simply erased the history of Viet Nam, as if it had never happened, for that is what we do today with "history"; we re-write it to say what we want people to believe, so that they will then do as we tell them to do, because of course, those who can re-write history must know something, musn't they, eslewise, how could they dare to change the past?

And so, as a consequence, the truth of my youth has been erased as well, it seems, and life in OUR America now seems to be nothing but one big lie, from morning to night, with no interruptions in between, and when it gets to be that way, usually nation-states are not much longer for the world, or at least that is what history would intimate, anyway!

"The end of the world is coming!"

RUN!

RUN!

RUN!

Except you can't!

And how many times, now, has the "world" ended?

Once?

Three times?

Countless times?

And yet, people always remain!

And that is the way it is!

If you are playing "musical chairs" and the music ends, and you are still standing, IS YOUR LIFE OVER?

Of course not!

You're just out of the game, and there, my friends, is the point!

It is all a game, a great big game, called the "GREAT GAME OF HOUSES", and it has been going on now for years and years and years!

In fact, you would hard pressed trying to find a time or place in the history of the world where the game was not going on, and the players today have not invented anything new; to the contrary, they have just inherited the game from those who came before, and they have simply continued it onwards, like me taking over for jeffmoskin in a game of Monopoly, except, I might be more or less "cut-throat" than he, and actually, Monopoly is a good metaphor for all of this which is going on out there around us in the cold, cruel world, as you sometimes hear it called.

In the game of Monopoly, owning "Park Place" is equivalent to having money in the bank, although the "money" itself might not actually be; and it is the "equivalence", rather than the "actuality" that counts, because with "Park Place", you can get money, even if you have none of your own, at the time, and that is the case with this Iraqi oil!

WE NOW DO OWN IT, or more properly George W. Bush and his crowd do, since that oil will not really benefit any of us serfs and commoners here in OUR America, except for "trickle-down", which generally occurs in the form of the bills for the "big-bottom boys" having those lush, big-bottoms coming down to us to have to pay; and so, we, or more properly, George W. Bush and his crowd, now control the flow of money that the oil represents!

AND THAT IS POWER, in and of itself!

And there is the point!

This thing called power!

The aphrodisiac!

The "HEAD TRIP"!

The ultimate corruption!

Is it the "human condition", then?

Is it unescapable?

Someone will always have "power", and so, someone else must always be "subjugated", or victimized?

Seems that way, don't it?

And so, the saying, "stop the world, I want to get off!"

Except you can't!

Or can you?

Questions for OUR times, here, in OUR America!

Stay tuned!

Live, late-breaking!

Updates as they happen!

Of course. Thank you for correcting me.

WE don't own the oil. WE own the debt required to take it!

The oil will fill the bottom lines of the International Mega-Coroporations for years to come. It is possible that Iraq has even bigger reserves than Saudi Arabia. There is not enough data to know for sure, but the possibility has been raised.

Oh, hell, we are only talking about a difference of a few tens of billions of barrels. And we have yet to pump our ten billionth barrel out of Alaska, after 20 years on line, just to put it in perspective.

Occidental Petroleum pumps oil out of Colombia. OUR tax dollars provide the troops to keep the FARC (rebels, guerillas, evildoers in Bushspeak) from blowing up the pipelines. Debt. That's what WE get out of it.

Our troops will keep the Afghanistan pipeline safe for Unocal.

Shocked?

The Unocal deal was signed WITH THE TALIBAN during the Clinton Administration. At the last minute, the Taliban asked for a bigger cut and Unocal told them where to go. While they were both thinking it over, Bush was installed in the While House and all bets were off.

Who's next?

I hear they have oil in Iran. Anybody else hear that?

Perspective!

Or at least that is what I think, anyway, in my simple way of living life, perspective!

If you have some idea as to what the "human condition" really is all about, then you can get through life a bit easier, because you are not "surprised", or "stunned", all the time, by what is going on around you in the world.

Does this "knowledge" make you complacent?

Well, I guess it could, but, no, is what I would say; it makes you simply more "accepting", I suppose, of what you simply cannot change, AT THAT MOMENT!

Such as what this following story talks about, which is this continuing thing of "GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION, here in OUR America:

U.S. National - AP

"Probes Taint L.A. Mayor's Re-Election Bid"

Sun Feb 27, 2:14 PM ET

By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES - Mayor James Hahn's re-election bid has suffered — along with the image of honesty he worked hard to cultivate — amid accusations he let corruption and fraud flourish at City Hall.

County prosecutors have been investigating allegations that Hahn supporters shook down companies that wanted to do business with the city by tying public contracts to political contributions.

Federal prosecutors have opened their own inquiry.

Hahn has not been implicated and denies knowledge of any potential wrongdoing, but the investigations touch whole segments of city government — from members of Hahn's inner circle to Los Angeles International Airport and the water and power department.

No city official has been charged, though several have resigned.

But with prosecutors issuing subpoenas for Hahn's office e-mails and summoning some of his aides before grand juries, the investigations have become a popular topic for his four main challengers in the March 8 primary.

"He's the pinata."

"The question is the whether the pinata will survive," said Bob Stern, president of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies in Santa Monica.

Critics have cast Hahn's administration as the most corrupt since a scandal-plagued mayor was recalled nearly 70 years ago, and some of his supporters have withdrawn their endorsements.

"It's more than a scandal."

"It's crippled his administration," said Councilman Bernard Parks, a former police chief whose ouster was backed by Hahn and who is one of the mayor candidates.

Hahn has been reminding voters of his reputation for personal integrity.

"There's no factual basis for any of these charges," said Hahn's campaign consultant Kam Kuwata.

"It's always rhetoric and hot air."

However, more than a third of respondents to a Los Angeles Times poll said Hahn lacks the honesty and integrity to be mayor.

The poll also found that none of the five candidates appears to have the majority support needed to avoid a May 17 runoff.

The race is nonpartisan, and all five major candidates are Democrats.

The investigations accelerated following an audit by Los Angeles' public watchdog, the city controller, that said shoddy records and meddling by political appointees in screening airport contracts gave the appearance of conflicts of interest and abuse.

Separate audits criticized the secretive process by which the harbor department awarded leases and accused a publicity firm of overcharging the city's water and power agency by millions of dollars.

Local and federal prosecutors largely have refused to comment, though some details have surfaced:

_The federal probe yielded its only indictment last month, against a former executive at a public relations firm that had millions of dollars in contracts with City Hall.

The executive pleaded not guilty to 11 counts of wire fraud in an alleged scheme to overbill the Department of Water and Power by $250,000.

City Controller Laura Chick said Hahn was using the firm's contract with the agency to burnish his own image.

_In December 2003, Chick announced she had given law enforcement agencies evidence of "potential illegal acts" uncovered during an audit of contracts at the airports department.

She singled out the department's practice of letting politically appointed city commissioners review and recommend millions of dollars worth of contracts they later voted on.

Airport Commission President and Hahn fund-raiser Theodore Stein resigned following reports that he suggested an engineering firm might lose future contracts because it wouldn't donate $100,000 to the mayor's 2002 campaign against San Fernando Valley secession.

Stein said the accusations were "unfounded" and "malicious."

_Deputy Mayor Troy Edwards, previously finance chairman for the mayor's 2001 campaign, has resigned.

Hahn said his departure was unrelated to the probes, but Edwards has testified before a county grand jury looking into contracts.

_In cases not connected to the contract probes, a prominent lawyer was charged last May with reimbursing contributors to Hahn's 2001 campaign, and a real estate developer was fined $270,000 by a city ethics panel that found he laundered campaign donations to Hahn and others.

"It does damage the city's reputation," Xandra Kayden, senior fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Public Affairs, said of the charges of corruption.

"This isn't Tammany Hall corruption, but it's a major loss of credibility."

Who are WE to hurl rocks at New York? Youse guys may have been the first, but certainly not the last when it comes to corruption at City Hall.

Iraq oil propping up the U.S. dollar.

I had never thought of it that way

It is a very believable theory and the more I think about it, the more a lot of things come together. That is an excellent and astute supposition, jeffmoskin.

We may be in Iraq with a sizable force for years. ( how about forever )

That may be a reason why the Bush co. is not concerned about the deficit.

As long as we control a huge supply of oil, we remain in the driver's seat.

Wow !


Great post.

A.B.

Yes, indeed, it is, A.B.

jeffmoskin has been on this for quite a while, and my independent research verifies his points.

It is so esoteric to most people, however, that it is largely invisible, even though right out in front of everyone.

And this airborne invasion of the Iraq oil fields that actually did take place here in the earliest days of the Holy War; that was on the table in the late-1970's!

The threat was Russia's retaliation, or pre-emption, with its own airborne takeover, as Russia's logistics favored it over us!

To hide something most effectively, hide it in plain sight, and no one will ever see it!

And it works, especially if you tell them to look the other way, or else the boogie man will have them for sure!

And is there a price to appearing just plain incompetent as a world leader on the world stage?

Are there consequences to that, for us, IF George W. Bush is taken for an incompetent fool of a world leader by others in the world who are not Americans, and may actually harbor a grudge against George W. Bush, but would mistakenly want to carry out that grudge against us, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, as though we were somehow united with George W. Bush in this aggressive war which he is unilaterally waging against the people of Iraq?

Because he is president of America, and the Solar System, as well, as I understand it anyway, from my interpretation of various communiques out of the White House Press Office; IS George W. Bush in fact the "FIRST OF THE FIRST", or is he "just one more guy", out there in the world, where all the candid world watches and waits?

Stay tuned!

Top Stories - Reuters

"Bin Laden Asks Zarqawi to Make U.S. a Target -Source '

10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has fairly recently asked his chief ally in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to consider the territory of United States as a target for terrorist attacks, a U.S. counterterrorism official said on Monday.

"There has been communication between bin Laden and Zarqawi with bin Laden suggesting to Zarqawi the U.S. homeland as a target," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The official said the communication was "a fairly recent development" and contained no specific threat to the United States.

But the official declined to provide details for fear of compromising U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has warned state officials around the country that the government had received nonspecific information about al Qaeda's plans to attack the United States.

Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department had sent out a classified intelligence bulletin to state homeland security advisers over the weekend to give details of "recent credible but nonspecific" threat information.

"This nonspecific information reiterates al Qaeda's desire to potentially target the homeland," Roehrkasse said.

He said the information was still being analyzed by the intelligence community but it was not enough to cause any increase in the terrorism alert level.

"Based on this information, the Department of Homeland Security has no plans to raise the threat level," he said.

Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant, is a leading figure among Islamic insurgents who are waging a deadly campaign against U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

CIA Director Porter Goss warned the Senate intelligence committee this month that the insurgency posed an emerging international terrorism threat and said Zarqawi was trying to establish a safe haven in Iraq from which to operate against Western nations and "apostate" Muslim governments.

"The interesting thing here is bin Laden reaching out to leverage additional resources wherever he can find them to fulfill his goal of striking the homeland," the counterterrorism official said on Monday.

(Additional reporting by Deborah Charles)

And here, I would like to do some suggesting, as to what I would like to see here IF I had my own druthers in this above LA alleged corruption matter!

It would be nice, for instance, if someone started a thread, hard-hitting in nature, called something like "Live in L.A.", and then contact this Councilman Parks, and ask him to do an on-line interview on this international forum!

jeffmoskin, any thoughts, as you are out there, I understand?

I would really like to hear what this Councilman has to say on the subject of public corruption in a large American city, as I too was "ousted" from a law enforcement job for investigating public corruption, although Public Health Law, and not Penal Law, as that man's job would have been!

And I am thinking very strongly that we, all of us in here, regardless of where we live IN THE WORLD, we should all consider adopting this Councilman Parks' campaign as "OUR CAMPAIGN" for integrity in government for 2005!

ADOPT INTEGRITY IN GOVERNMENT, HERE IN OUR AMERICA; ADOPT AND ELECT COUNCILMAN PARKS!

Of course, he would have to acquit himself well to win our further support, but right now, I would like to propose this Councilman Parks as the "CANDIDATE OF THE WEEK", at least, here in this forum!

Thoughts, America?

Just because Mayor Hahn has got his *ss in a sling doesn't mean Parks should get his job. Nice work in exposing him (of course, Parks is COMPLETELY UNBIASED, just doing his civic duty) assuming it is true (and the media NEVER LIES as we all know)

Anyway, there is a field of 10 or 11 candidates running, and since the winner needs 51 percent, there will be a run off. This is really just a primary.

Hahn won four years ago by playing to the (racist) suburban crowd in the San Fernando Valley while simultaneously cashing in on his good name (his FATHER's good name, really) in the black community. Was this pulling a rabbit out of the hat or what???

This time, the blacks are smarter. They are backing Antonio Villaregosa and Parks.

As a GREAT American once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Mostly, the cold war paradigm kept us from trying anything on Iraq, which was, at the time, a Soviet Client State. Then, after Iran fell to the Ayatola, the US was able to "acquire" Iraq as a client to sell weapons to fight Iran. Very lucrative since we supplied aircraft parts to Iran for money to arm the Contras.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US had no nuclear constraints to hold it in check. That is why the Neo Con Men started their movement to take this opportunity to take over the world's oil supply.

Meanwhile, Putinsky has taken over Yukos and Gazprom, so his empire will be well financed.

I gotta believe that BushCorp and Putinsky have worked all this out so that BushCorp can do its thing without risking any retaliation from him. After all, he benefits more than anyone from high oil prices.

SO!

We have, in this GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON'S words, this Mr. Roehrkasse, who alleges to be speaking FOR US, apparently; "NONSPECIFIC" information of a "DESIRE" on the part of al Qaida, to "POTENTIALLY" target OUR America!

And how about that, then?

Potentially target!

How serious sounding!

Oh so very serious, indeed!

Non-specific information, too!

And isn't that the most serious kind?

Of course, that is kind of like "endeavor to persevere"!

If you are going to persevere, you just do it, you don't endeavor to do it, which is not, in and of itself, doing anything at all!

Al Qaida "desires" to "potentially" target OUR America?

That's crap!

A great big load of crap, and why?

Why are we being fed this swill?

Does this Roehrkasse think WE ARE ALL STUPID, here in OUR America?

And what about the news services that print this stuff as though it were serious discussion of national security, here in OUR America?

Do they think we are unable to look at this combination of words, a "DESIRE TO POTENTIALLY DO SOMETHING", and see that it is nothing but incoherent jibberish intended to keep us off balance here in OUR America, while this crowd continues to loot out OUR national treasury, like a bunch of rats in the woodwork of OUR America, like a bunch of weevils in OUR grain?

Or are we actually so stupid that we will actually fall for this jibberish?

Al Qaida re-iterates a desire to potentially do something, which of course, is proof of nothing at all, except some guy down in Washington, D.C. is spinning yarns as though to children, here in OUR America, for the apparent purpose of scaring them so bad that they will give him lots of money to protect them, which is extortion, is it not, what this guy is doing?

Extortion?

Inducing someone to pay you off, out of fear of being harmed?

Psychological manipulation for the purpose of obtaining money!

A con!

A great big con game, and it is being played on us, as though we were just a bunch of rubes, or suckers!

Sounds it to me, anyway!