August 15, 2004
Axis of Logic:
Bush Friendly Fire At America’s Seniors
The Bush Prescription Drug Plan is a plan to annihilate the elderly in America. George Bush doesn't allow American seniors to get drugs in Canada that are up to 80% cheaper. His stem cell research decision has back fired, missing its intended target and is nothing else but friendly fire.
What happens is this; without trading drugs internationally (which in itself is against what the American flag stands for with free trade) and without stem cell research, America’s future is going to be like the many American mothers who hang yellow ribbons as they wait in vain for their brave sons and daughters to come home but never does. America’s future is going to be very lonely, expensive, cold and insecure for the seniors if Bush wins this election. In the end, with no imports or domestic research, Bush is raining down friendly fire aimed at America’s seniors. John Kerry has the right weapon and knows how to use it correctly.
Kerry will take the responsibility and carry the heavy burden for America’s elderly, protect them from distraction, and appeal to the best in every elderly citizen in the United States of America. He will be visible to the American troops and will fight the war to cut the costs of prescription drugs that have been rising 17% a year. Kerry will carry on fighting for those who need it most, because he is a brave American little soldier that is bold and strong and must carry on. His aim is strait and clear and he has claimed this battlefield.
Sincerely,
Markus Fors
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
I would like to thank your website for running the fine article "From Dreamtime to Nightmare: John Howard's Olympian Deception",
on Aug 11, 2004, 12:53, by Mary Dagmar Davies, founder of the website Jannah the SIEV X Memorial
The substance of her article is, sadly, accurate. Regarding my own role: I referred the subject of the boat I named SIEV X to an Australian Senate Committee that was investigating other border protection matters in February 2002. I was hoping to find legitimate answers that would bring to light some accidental act of individual negligence or culpability somewhere in the Australian government's border security system, that had helped cause these 353 drownings of innocent people Over the next year, to my growing horror, I came gradually to realise that what was at issue here was a whole-of-government pattern of systemic and deliberate cover-up of a possible crime of state: the real story was far worse than I had ever imagined at the beginning of my exploration.
And it has international ramifications, because now that Marg Hutton of www.sievx.com and I have exposed so much of the evidence for this tragic event in international waters to the north of Australia that were being monitored and patrolled by Australian defence forces, I have seen the probability of similar covert acts of lethal voyage disruption to deter boat people journeys across the Mediterranean into Europe, or across the Caribbean into the USA.
My book " A Certain Maritime Incident - the sinking of SIEV X " (Scribe Publications, Australia, August 2004) sets out the story of how the evidence of Australian police disruption and safety-at-sea official negligence came to light. It does so scrupulously and accurately. It is at the same time an exciting book to read, of how a cover-up was successfully challenged, despite official dishonesty and intimidation. It carries a warm commendation by Noam Chomsky. It may be purchased by readers outside Australia through printing off the book ordering form from my publisher's website www.scribepub.com, and mailing or faxing that completed form to my publisher. The publisher's site does not allow for on-line purchasing. Eventually the book may be available through Amazon, but it is now only available by the method noted here, or by ordering from an on-line distributor, Jack H Smit at Project Safecom Inc., on
(This URL also contains recent commentaries about my book in the Australian press)
Dear Axis of Logic,
It would be very nice to be able to read your well researched, informative and timely articles but your text size in just too damn small. In order to actually read your site one must place one's eyeballs no more than a foot and a half from the screen. Not good. I use ViewSonic PS775. 1024 X 768 . IE6 What could be more common than that?
Sincerely
Howard Hodal
August 12, 2004
Axis of Logic:
OPEN OR CLOSED?
We all know the expression, "OPEN AND HONEST." If our President won’t meet with the press, refuses to let people who are not committed to him hear his campaign speeches and runs the most ‘closed’ administration possibly in history what conclusion should one draw?
CLOSED AND HONEST?....HONESTLY!!!!
craig johnson s. orleans ma
Sincerely,
craig johnson
box 368
s.orleans, ma 02662
Editor:
I live in Clearwater, Florida, in a county where last month, in spite of widespread citizen protest and with out a popular vote or even a fair opportunity to present the issues, the board of county commissioners decided it would be ok to start dumping some of Florida's most toxic of phospate-mining by-products into the public water supply.
The toxic waste product is hydrofluorosilicic acid (note: also spelled hydrofluorsilicic) and is known to contain trace elements including: arsenic, lead and mercury and sometimes radioactive elements such as barium.
I made the discovery that this same "witches' brew" was going into 2/3's of America's water supplies - for it is marketed to municipalities as the "cheapest source" of fluoride. Incredibly, it has never been approved by any government agency such as the FDA for human ingestion - only for topical application. When put in toothpaste the FDA requires a written drug warning on the package - "Not to swallow" and not to allow young children to use it unsupervised.
Fluoridation seems to be something that Axis of Logic's visitors ought to become informed about. www.fluoridealert.org is supervised by a chemistry professor in New York and is a good source for current data. The more you know the more outrageous this is.
You may want to consider re-publishing articles written by Sally Stride such as the current one at: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/11749/109856 (and others which are linked from the box on that page.) They are well-researched and current.
When anything appears to defy logic - a rational explanation is called for. When there is no rational explanation possible, then it is likely that a corruption based on deceit exists. Forced medication is something right out of the "1984". And, it is so clearly unConstitutional as long as Roe v Wade stands, wherein the Supreme Court decreed that government had no right to be so intrusive, that we have a right to be left alone from government dictating with regard to the private decisions we can make for our individual bodies.
But, logic, so far, has had very little impact in the case of flouridation of public water supplies. So, follow the money.
Tom Nocera
August 10, 2004
Axis of Logic:
JFK gave Barbara Pierce a lesson in life in the summer of 1944 (making her a "Cape Cod heiress"), and to her eventual husband, JFK gave a personal motive for revenge. Perhaps if George and Barb had announced their earlier engagement or even if George had given Barb a diamond instead of a cheap dinner ring, JFK would have backed off, but her presidential legacy drew Jack Kennedy to her. The end of the affair devastated Barb, forced her withdrawal from Smith College, allowed her quick marraige to GHWB and sent the young couple into the exile of a Texas oblivion.
George Bush, Senior, speaks fluent Spanish. He needed the language to manage and participate in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. You see, George Bush came up through the ranks of the Central Intelligence Agency and it was George Bush, president of Zapata offshore oil company in Houston, who planned and oversaw the operation on the Zapata penninsula of Cuba known as "the Bay of Pigs." E. Howard Hunt and other plumbers and Cubans were on the team of assassins, which George Bush, Senior, our future president, recruited in south Florida in 1960 and 61. Bush was a CIA associate of the people managing Oswald's movements before November 22, and his name, address, telephone number and nickname "Poppy" were found in one's address book. According to FBI records, "George Bush of the CIA" was given a classified FBI briefing (page 108 of the Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board), but CIA disavowed knowing him, of course. Two more men named "George Bush" were offered as the person briefed by Hoover's man, but a reporter found both of them and neither was briefed or had been qualified for such a briefing. "George Bush of the CIA" was also identified by a US government witness who claimed to have delivered converted Navy ships to him in Guatemala just prior to the Bay of Pigs "Operation Zapata" invasion. One of the ships involved, converted Navy ships sailed to Guatemala and delivered to George Bush of the CIA, was named "Houston" another was named "Barbara". Former president Bush's murder of JFK provides a rationale for the Texas republican party to run George Bush for U.S. Senate before he had run for or won any local office in Texas. Remember, Texas was chock full of thousands of loyal, rich, handsome, native Texas local republicans some of whom had actually won elections to various offices, but Bush, a young upstart yankee, was jumped over all of them. Senator Yarborough called Bush "the darling of the John Birch Society" and with good reason. When the voters of Texas refused to elect him to the US Senate, the republicans ran him to win the only republican US House seat they could possibly win and poured on the cash spigot. His republican competitors for the nomination, all more qualified, dropped out. After his stunning victory in Texas' only safe republican district, he was deemed by many to be vice-presidential material, and Nixon actually seriously considered him for his running mate in 1968, but instead gave him big important posts, Ambassador to the UN, and director of the CIA (the youngest CIA director in history). Plodding and unimaginative, barely educated in Yale's hurryup vet course after the war, Bush failed to distinguish himself repeatedly. Yet, for doing nothing republican high officials, especially Nixon--who was also in Dallas in 1963, could not do enough for him. No reason given. Al Haig was in charge of giving the Cuban returnees from Castro's prison choice jobs and scholarships here in America. Haig was the dummy who "lost" the JFK autopsy photographs. Haig also put himself in charge of JFK's funeral arrangements working almost alone in the Pentagon late into the night and coming in early the next morning, even though he worked in Army Intelligence. (Army Intelligence, the same folks who "lost" most of Oswald's service record.) Haig was no medical man, nor was he a funeral director. And of course it was Haig who presented higher-ups with the mysterious proven bogus report framing Oswald for trips to Mexico and Cuba taken by look-alikes working for CIA and Army Intelligence and posing as Oswald. The dolt put all that in his autobiography. Haig also did nothing to deserve his high jobs in the US Government, or his military decorations, which he freely admits. According to the White House Nixon tapes, E. Howard Hunt got his hush money from Nixon in Watergate instead of being disavowed because he had a safe with incriminating evidence in it. On the Watergate tapes, when Nixon refers to "the Texans and the Cubans" or "that Bay of Pigs thing" when it is clear from context that he is talking about the JFK assassination, he is not talking in code. Indeed, Nixon brags in his book, Six Crises, that he was the administration's pointman on the Bay of Pigs fiasco, thus having direct contact with Bush at that time. Clearly, George Bush Senior should be interviewed by the FBI as a suspect in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. A case should be made, an investigation opened, a trial conducted, a if a conviction is obtained, a sentence of death for high treason carried out by our legal authorities.
Sincerely,
Ross Nicholson
Tampa, Florida 33629
Dear Axis of Logic,
I continue to find your articles very informative and your satire fresh and pertinent. But, I saw something satirized via punchline that I read here first. Thought you might be able to use it.
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s9i6147
Keep up the good work.
Dex
Hi, Les,
Noted your little blurb about growing up dispensationalist. Thought you might like to know that there is a group of us who have established a new webpage dedicated to critiquing Christian Zionism. Articles, conferences, news, etc - all aimed at debunking this nonsense. You can access it at: www.christianzionism.org. Any help you can give publicizing its presence on the web is most welcome as our aim is to get out the other side of the story - to help keep people from falling for these distortions.
Thanks!
John Hubers, Webmaster
www.christianzionism.org
Dear Axis of Logic,
Re Beth Henry's article dated August 9, I was under the impression that "Homeland Security" was responsible for the overkill of police and fascist acting police and keeping protesters blocks from any action? I was also under the impression that the "free speech zones" are learned behavior from Bush actions in Texas when he was Governor in keeping protesters away from the capitol there. The secret service dictates to local authorities what locations protesters will not be allowed.
So not sure it was the Democrats who turned Boston into an ugly police state except by their silence in the whole smelly process.
Judy Thibodeau
Dear Axis of Logic,
I take exception to Beth Henry's article, "The DEMOCRATS Did This to
You?" and the suggestion that the efforts made to protect the Convention from attacks reflected a "fascist state" and that the Democrats represent same.
There are real concerns about public safety, obviously as a result of 9/11, and as we've begun to understand the nature of this challenge called "The War on Terrorism." There is always the chance that there will be an over-reaction, over-the-top response to a new, and perceived threat, but it is important to remember that there were thousands of people in FleetCenter at an event with national, international implications. This was the first national political convention to be held after 9/11, under very new circumstances. Civil liberties should always be a concern, but I think the article was itself an unfair over-reaction that did not take into account the perceived problem (and magnitude- that the Boston police --and to what extent I don't know (and neither I suspect does Beth Henry) the Democrats--responded to. We had 19 young men with box cutters take down the World Trade Center, a portion of the Pentagon, and almost either the White House and the Capitol, killing thousands of people and causing both social and economic trauma of no small proportion.
As we begin to understand the nature of the challenge we face, I hope, we may be better able to balance the needs for public protection and protection of civil rights. In the meantime, I think fairness and seasoned perspective should be applied.
B.G. Bandler
Jalisco, Mexico
Dear Axis of Logic,
W was either AWOL or not—it does not really matter, because with him the heinous crime is less serious than his covering-up his sordid past. Some of Bush's military documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act state he was suspended from flying August 1972 and did not have his Annual Officer Effectiveness Report which was scheduled for May 2nd 1973. Junior was "Not Observed" from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973. The White House Press corps dumped some documents and missing were his flight log, records from the Flight Inquiry Board, any paperwork at all from Alabama and any DD-24 forms to the local draft board certifying active status in 1972 or 1973.
Bush's suspension from flying has been chronicled everywhere including and was released to USA Today, which printed it for its readers.
The question is why did someone feel a need to black out the name of Major James R. Bath in the White House Press corps second release of documents? By the way in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 Moore shows an old copy he obtained in 2000 with Bath’s name intact.
When you watch Columbo you learn that crimes always involve passion or greed. No one has ever accused Junior of anything other than being a failure who sucks money out of Saudi Arabian criminals. Is Bath involved in that? Yes indeed he was, and because of that Junior had to blot out Bath’s name because the tiny portion of the US media which isn’t corrupt could not help but fall over it.
There are loads of sources which deal with the Bath, Junior and bin laden link. I have two that are interesting.
In his last column, prior to his tragic death on July 18th 2001 death, “Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?” by James Hatfield, he spelled out clearly how “Bath originally "made his fortune by investing money for [Sheikh Kalid bin] Mahfouz and another BCCI-connected Saudi, Sheikh bin Laden," reportedly the brother of none other than Osama bin Laden, the man accused by the U.S. government of masterminding the August 1998 terrorist bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed more than 250 people.”
The questions, who was Bath working for when he was investing for bin laden, and where did Junior originally meet Bath, are answered by this quote “In June 1977, Dubya formed his own drilling company, Arbusto Energy ("arbusto" means "bush" in Spanish), in Midland, Texas.
Like his father before him, Dubya founded his oil business with the financial backing of investors, including James R. Bath, a Houston businessman whom Dubya apparently first met when they were in the same Texas Air National Guard unit. (Interestingly, both Dubya and Bath were both suspended from flying in August and September 1972, respectively, for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination.")
My take on this is that Junior’s team could never let it be known that Bath and Junior were linked. That caused them to blot Bath’s name off of the same record that Junior was on in the White House Press corps second release of documents.
Hatfield’s take was better “So, folks, the Middle Eastern oil money used to underwrite the first business venture of our future president of the United States, may have been derived at least in part from the family fortune of Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden, who is now being accused of masterminding his assassination.”
If only bin laden’s attempt at the assassination of Junior had succeeded in intimidating Junior could the 9/11 tragedy have been averted? We can dream that the threat made Junior, for once, do the right thing. Suppose, unlike how he has continued with the cover-up of his dereliction of duty in the National Guard, the fear of assassination made him admit that he was unjustly handed the presidency by his Poppy’s US Supreme Court. We know Junior, and even though his true motivation was solely survival, we’d be magnanimous. Suppose that he pretended to be valiant, and gave up the presidency to the rightful winner, the Democrats and Gore. Now if that had happened, the odds are very high that 9/11 would have been avoided!
If someone who was willing to pay attention to either Tenet or Clarke had the job, then 9/11 may have been averted. Anyone could have done better than Junior who dozed through his summer vacation after receiving 40 PDBs stating that bin laden was an imminent threat to the US, including the one "Bin laden Determined To Strike in US".
“If wishes were horses then beggars would ride”.
In addition to Hatfield, the second document carries the full gravity of the highest legislative body in the US. “The BCCI Affair A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations” by Senator John Kerry and Senator Hank Brown, was generated in December of 1992, the 102nd Congress 2nd Session Senate. It also details the Bath, Junior and bin laden link.
Kerry must have some nuanced reason for not bringing this up. Democrats have had minor affiliations with criminal Saudi Arabians, but nothing near the vile magnitude of Junior.
Kerry must be rational. Look at how the Rove controlled GOP propaganda machine, another name for the US media, has attacked Kerry regarding his laudatory Vietnam War achievements. What would FOX, the Clear Channel Radio stations, and all of the GOP print media do if Junior’s past was brought to light of truth. They would assassinate the messenger, remember what they did to McCain and Max Cleland. The GOP had the vicious spirit to attack these two good men, but their propaganda organ helped spread the lies! Bush’s GOP cronies who participated in the 9/11 Report minimized their criticism of Junior’s pathetic response to all of the warnings he received from Tenet, whose “hair was on fire” and said the “system was blinking red”, and Clarke, and all of the media helped push the hypocrisy on the unsuspecting masses.
“Fair and balanced” should be understood to mean, whatever Rove says, we shove on anyone stupid enough to watch us.
Can you tell me one source in the US media that has said one word about the vile thug who is currently the US puppet in Iraq?
On Saturday, July 17, 2004 the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) article “Allawi Shot Inmates in Cold Blood, Say Witnesses” by Paul McGeough states “Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings.”
When Powell and Schwarzkopf wrote books about the first Iraq War they said that Iraq would tumble into a breeding ground for terrorism, sending the entire region into anarchy, if they didn’t have a brute, such as Hussein to keep the warring clans in line.
The article states that Allawi is just as vile as his former boss and pal, Hussein ”Given Dr Allawi's role as the leader of the US experiment in planting a model democracy in the Middle East, allegations of a return to the cold-blooded tactics of his predecessor are likely to stir a simmering debate on how well Washington knows its man in Baghdad, and precisely what he envisages for the new Iraq……
A former CIA officer, Vincent Cannisatraro, recently told The New Yorker: "If you're asking me if Allawi has blood on his hands from his days in London, the answer is yes, he does. He was a paid Mukhabarat [intelligence] agent for the Iraqis, and he was involved in dirty stuff."
Junior’s GOP media does not want the only audience that Junior hopes to keep wallowing in its apathetic daze, the red staters, from understanding just how poorly the Iraq tragedy is unfolding. Unfortunately for the world it should not be hard. Junior has expended a minimal amount of energy to fleece these fools of their livelihood, he has happily stolen the lives of their children, and these stupid sheep are none the wiser.
For Rove’s insipid pupil Junior, it is always about the next election. The world hates the US because of the truly diabolic concept of preemption, Junior’s proudest accomplishment as the “wartime president”, yet the red staters are still complacently torn between the fool who has sold their future away, and a typical populist Democrat, who would help the majority.
Alfred e. newman
To the Editor of Axis of Logic:
The following article (also attached) reflects on some of the findings of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention in Australia. It may be of interest to your readers.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Mann
NEVER A LAST RESORT FOR CHILDREN IN DETENTION
It's no wonder that the Howard Government kept silent on the issue or covered up as much as possible - there is now overwhelming evidence that mandatory detention has breached the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
According to Dr Sev Osdowski, Human Rights Commissioner, the findings of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention - A Last Resort? - are clear.
Immigration detention centres expose children to enormous mental distress - which confirms the need to ensure that children should only be locked up in this environment as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.
From 346 submissions, including contributions by lawyers, health professionals, education and social workers, as well as case studies, emerged one of the most tragic stories in Australian's refugee history. Altogether the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) report found 53 breaches of the CRC with regard to the different categories examined.
These categories were the overall effect of Australia's detention policy on children; children's rights regarding the refugee status determination; provision of safety; protection of mental health; enjoyment of physical health; special provision for children with disabilities and for unaccompanied children; rights regarding access to education and recreation; rights regarding religion, culture and language; and rights when children are released on temporary protection visas. All categories, except for that of religion, culture and language, involved breaches of at least three articles of the CRC. The findings regarding mental health demonstrated a breach of eight articles of the CRC including article 37 (a) which stated that 'no child shall be subjected to torture or other, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. In all, 17 articles of the CRC were breached.
The Inquiry found that for some families, being kept in detention in one of the housing projects offered some improvement but still fell far short of release or alternative detention in the community. Although given visiting rights for these families, fathers had to remain in the detention centre. The Minister for Immigration had made it clear that for families it was never the government's intention to release children into the community. It was in the best interests of the family that they remain together in the detention centre or in the detention area of the housing project (although the latter did involve separation of fathers from their families). More importantly though for the Howard government, was the perceived sign of weakness if children, and of course families, were released into the community. It would send a signal to prospective people smugglers that Australia was softening its policy on mandatory detention. Also, if families and unaccompanied minors were released then this would add to the distress of those single men and women having to remain in a detention centre. There would be more pressure on the government for their release. The chink in the mandatory armour would become a formidable crack and the deterrent value of the Howard Government's detention regime would be lost.
For children arriving in Australia between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2003 and seeking asylum the report highlights the differences between those who arrived in Australia without a valid visa (2,184) and those with a valid visa (3,125). The startling disparity is that only 25% of the children arriving with a valid visa were found to be refugees - these children were not held in detention. This compares to 92% of children receiving refugee status when they had come without a valid visa - these children were held in detention (boat children accounting for approximately three-quarters of children in detention).
The government's focus was always on the boat people who had 'jumped the queue'. In fact, the air people who had a valid visa and sought asylum as soon as they had landed in Australia were the real queue jumpers. They had deceived the Australian government concerning their true purpose in coming to Australia. They were privileged with regard to status, connections, money or whatever to obtain a visa. They weren't fleeing for their lives and they were less deserving of refugee status.
Mandatory detention, as practiced in Australia, was destined for failure. It was incompatible with the application of children's rights under the CRC. The length of detention, being held in limbo, family disruption and the mental distress were always going to be prevailing factors which countered any measures by the Department of Immigration or by the management companies (Australasian Correctional Management and Group 4 Falck) to offset children's rights abuse.
The experience of trauma by children in the detention environment, the anguish experienced by children in family breakdown and the severe mental health problems suffered by children were among the more insidious and damaging effects. 'They will carry the scars of the their detention experience throughout their lives,' Dr Ozdowski said.
An ACM psychologist described one boy's deteriorating mental health at Woomera detention centre in June 2002: He is completely dysfunctional for his age and experiences bouts of depression and uncontrollable rage . the stresses for a young boy to represent the family under these circumstances is pushing him into extreme and dangerous behaviours.
Many other case studies on the mental health of children detailed in the report were equally distressing. For those who worked in a detention centre, like myself as a teacher in the Woomera detention centre, it soon became apparent that mandatory detention as a system was not going to work. Children were the innocent and most vulnerable ones; they provided a sensitive barometer of the system. The capacity of parents to care for their children was compromised the longer they were in detention. This had further repercussions on the mental health of children. A culture of despair predominated. Single adults were no less a part of this culture.
The Inquiry is a damning indictment on the Howard Government and especially the Department of Immigration who were aware of how mandatory detention was affecting children. The report highlighted a fundamental breach of a child's right to be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest period of time. What was needed was not band aid remedies or detention in housing projects but a radical revisal of the detention regime to allow families into the community while their claims are being processed, similar to those who come by air with a visa and then seek asylum. A non-provocative, safe and humane environment would meet the best interests of children with their families.
The Australian practice of mandatory detention is in the business of tearing the lives of children and family members apart. Robert Burns, if he were alive today, could well have altered his couplet to say, 'Man's inhumanity to children makes countless mothers mourn.' The Inquiry findings show that we can't compromise on human rights to the extent we have. We need an alternative to mandatory detention practices for refugees coming to Australia without a valid visa. And we need a constructive deterrent, rather than a destructive one, of dealing with a potential refugee crisis. This could involve Australia taking a more pro-active role in promoting a secure, peaceful and sustainable living environment in countries of instability.
Tom Mann
(ex-Australasian Correctional Management staff and author of Desert Sorrow: asylum seekers at Woomera)
Fellow thinkers at the Axis of Logic,
Owing to what some of us have, that inkling of reverse-hindsight that borders on supraliminal prescience...the "American people" without this gift will never revolt sans a tangible objective to which they must aspire after the revolution is complete. It cannot come from within them, so it must come from an outside trustworthy source.
Who will provide them with this vision? Who will be their source of inspiration? Surely not Kerry! Nor Bush! Probably not Nader *yawn*. So many people realize the corruption in the government yet are still stuck in the program, "who do I vote for?".
Behold, I have the answer.
Unless self-proclaimed dissidents prove that they are truly hardcore as it were, then they will always be seen as sign-waving slogan-chanting posers. Posers want their independance but aren't willing to do what's necessary to acquire it. When their oppressors see this weakness they exploit it and erect cages with barbed wire, employing goon squads and the industrial death machine, knowing full well the posers would accept it however grudgingly, because they lack the mettle to actually fight it.
(Anyone remember the DNC?)
Shall we sit by and allow Big Brother to erect the neo-police-state as clearly called for by the 9-11 commission report? Or shall we notify them ahead of time that we defy their unwarranted authority; that intrusions on our liberty by their institutions are unmitigated acts of war against the citizenry?
Outright motion against the will of the 'fatherland' would be the only message big enough, that "we are serious, you had better start taking us seriously". The numbers need to grow. Passion needs to grow. We might get shot, arrested...so what? What have we to lose? Our freedom? One who thinks himself free is always free, at every moment, no matter how shackled he may be. Our lives? Should we adore our lives in slavery then we must shut up and fight for the slavemaster.
Posers: choose your side. Authority is a two way road, with mutually exclusive paths:
Comply or Defy :: Slavery or Freedom :: Monarchy or Anarchy.
Natural ontology says freedom: therefore defy. Can something be so simple?
It is our state of being, free will is hard wired into us.
There is no institution with the power to usurp the design of nature.
Politicians are counterproductive if our goal is liberty with safety. We will either have one or the other as long as we continue to surrender our sovereignty to those pigs through the ballot. Their claims to power are granting one, always secretly at war with the other. I am tired of being lied to.
Vote for LIBERTY in November. Vote for nobody.
