Featured Post for 04/17-04/23: When sports fans are asked to come out and “root for the home team”, there is an unspoken benefit for those who have an economic stake in the team’s existence. We recognize this benefit but regard it as their “fair share”, our share being the vicarious enjoyment of “our” team. Our enthusiastic participation in this rooting example is a local form of jingoism.
At the national level, when we are asked to “support our troops” in war, there is an unspoken benefit for those sectors of society that stand to profit from the state’s material “gains”. Unlike the case with a sports team, this benefit is all too often not recognized, or under-recognized, and for good reason. Great care is taken to conceal or underplay material benefit because it would not be regarded by the public as “fair share”.
It’s a simple premise. The more entrenched you are in the establishment, the more your individual fate is linked to the fate of the nation. What is good for the nation (the so-called “national interest”) is necessarily good for the ruling elite, but incidental for the working stiff.
The Department of Defense performs a greater service for America’s billionaires than it does for its paupers, who have nothing to lose and only their lives to defend. It figures that the sectors of society that have the most to lose will have the greatest interest in being “defended”. This may be a good time to recall that the War Department was the precursor (DOD’s own word) to the euphemistically named Department of Defense.
Going to war is an economic decision, unless in legitimate self-defense. It would be foolish (from the state’s point of view) to start a war without conceivable material gain, and states do not act foolishly. Neither do they act morally.
States are inherently amoral yet can only obtain needed, popular war support by appealing to their people with a moral argument for war. No contradiction here. It’s the smart play, the only one a government has when rousing its population to lay down in blood and fear. It certainly wouldn’t do to talk in the cold terms of oil and gas, raw materials, minerals, markets, and such. That’s not the poetry of death.
The awarded medal, as a form of “decoration”, is proof that the government knows how to play this game. Reward those that participate, punish those that oppose. A truckload of adornments cannot hide the taking of a single, innocent life. If the government truly “regretted” the unintended taking of innocent lives (as it claims), it would cease doing it.
Pretty, invented stories to a trusting public lead the way into war. Stories are interactions. A teller, a listener. And for the story to be effective, a believer. It is this extra belief (I call it extra) and extra trust (I call it extra) that the leadership relies on when making its case for war. So far, so good, again from the state’s point of view.
Left to question is whether a war-bound government can ever marshal support without resorting to exploitation of its people, and whether people will ever become sufficiently enlightened to protect themselves from such exploitation. A step toward the latter would be a mental emancipation from authority so people did not depend on it for proof of their own existence.
61 comments ↓
I think the sports analogy is quite appropriate. The way the media and the politicians present war, with their charts, their flashy titles and graphics, the analysts, it’s like watching the NFL.
pretty sad.
Great point about those on TV asking us to “support the troops”! Whatever happened to our good sense – in questioning why? Or, who benefits?
Absolutely right, James! And the time to end the war – both in Iraq and Afghanistan – is now. Not next year or next month. now.
Cute idea, very apt. It is truly that lives are lost directly in war. But James, in what other major economic activity that breed billionaires and suppor the ruling class are lives not lost? The factories? The genetically altered foods that have ravaged mankind?
We got to keep up the crusade, else, many will soon be asking: Where were reasonable men when all these issues were being thrown up?
alas, if ‘ change ‘ can ever occur, it will be when the overwhelming majority of the public walk out into the thoroughfares and say ‘ Enough is enough ‘ . when hundreds in each little town or urban district show up at the office of their congressperson and demand an ‘ end to …… whatever ‘ then that issue will be given the attention it needs.
in our town ( 5ok pop. at the time ) the city put a barricade up on a street to keep large trucks from delivering down it to a few small businesses there. the locals on that street wanted it done so as to keep all vehicles off it, so the kids could play in the street. great idea, yes? what happened is that the few small businesses were starved for customers, as it was difficult to visit them by car ( the other way ‘ in ‘ the street was hazardous).
we organized about 15 folks to show up at city hall at the next city council meeting, and we all took turns speaking to get the barricade down….. and guess what? they took it down. 15 folks angered over a single issue raising voices and the city council …. shook!
if we had 1,000 folks in my town joining us each week on the street corner protesting the occupations of iraq and afghanistan…… the media would cover it and….. the congressperson here would take notice!
I say, “Support the Troops!… Bring them home, out of unnecessary harm’s way.”
There are quotes from Washington and Jefferson on foreign relations, here:
http://freemanexaminer.org/090312fmx2115.shtml
I’m sick of the lies and mass deception! Spain was prepared to hold our war criminals accountable and President Obama pressured them to drop the case for justice. This news arrived by way of the Indict Bush campaign. Obama lied when he said “no one is above the law and we don’t torture,” in spite of overwhelmin evidence to the contrary. He views the call for justice as “retribution” while escalating “his” war in Afghanistan.
The fisherman in Somalia are turning pirate to protect their livelihoods from toxic waste dumping off their coast and international poachers. And our US CoastGuard feels compelled to defend corporate interests, by polluting their country further inland, by shooting the pirates. I guess the Navy feels left out of the looting, even though the treasury was bankrupted a long time ago by war profiteers and the federal reserve private banking system.
Meanwhile Obama feels compelled to support the Wall Street gamblers and predatory lenders while tax payers lose their jobs, their homes and can’t afford healthcare. Yes Bush started it, but Obama isn’t delivering the “Change we can believe in.” It seems to me, we should consider impeaching Obama for Obstruction of Justice and protecting corporate criminals. His financial advisors are the same architects of deregulating the financial industry under the Clinton administration.
It’s a sad commentary on Americans when our dirty laundry is left to the Spaniards to clean up after our dysfunctional government. It seems all this government cares about is phony appearances by “reframing” an argument in their preferred terms. I pray Spain has more integrity in their judicial system. It’s hard to hold our collective head high, when all we leave behind us is a trail of death and destruction everywhere we stick our nose in the sovereignty affairs of other nations. Bribery, intimidation, mass murder and corruption is redefining us as a criminal syndicate.
The coyotes on both sides of the aisle are complicit in these acts. Worse yet, they’re influencing other governments that take better care of their citizenry to adopt our rotten policies.
In Short, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joeseph Goebbels
29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945
“Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same for any country.”
Herman Goering to Gustave Gilbert at Nuremberg, 18 April, 1946
I read last night that the Obamanation says that the torturers cannot be tried for their crimes because they were “just following orders.”
Those who ordered the torture cannot be tried as they only ordered it. They did not physically participate in the torture.
Furthermore, the government will bear the expense of the defense of anybody actually indicted by a court! (In other words, our tax money will be used to defend those who make a mockery of the rule of law and contravene recognized human behavior if they are tried by We the People!)
It took sixty-four years, but Hitler finally won!
“Only People can End War” Which people? Certainly not the people who profit from war.
The only way war can be ended is to end the system of economics that promotes war for profit. The capitalist economy must be transitioned to a socialist economy that produces essential goods and services to fill the economic needs of the people. Capitalist economics promotes only the maximization of profit to corporations.
Obama, the Democratic Party, the mass media, and even the labor movement, are all owned or controlled by corporate capitalist interests.
What we have now is a run-amok gangster U.S. and global capitalism that has now collapsed. Even with this the Obama gang is rewarding the crooks who created the collapse. Obama is pushing for more war. (expansion of war into Afghanistan , Pakistan, etc.) despite the increasing impoverishment of millions of people in the U.S.
The unending wars, financial and political corruption has resulted in the destruction of essential public education, public health, etc.
To blame “the government” in the abstract is really false. Who controls and owns the government? In whose interest is the government treasury controlled and looted? Why is public education being destroyed (funds needed for war, looted by wall street perhaps?)?
Why hasn’t the Obama administration supported single-payer health insurance? (Corporate health interests control Obama?) Keep digging every crisis to find WHO is running the government? FOLLOW THE MONEY! Forever the ruling class is a capitalist ruling class.
For a critical examination of current affairs from an international, critical and socialist perspective, try reading the World Socialist Web Site. http://www.wsws.org
With over 700 foreign bases and 500,000 troops stationed overseas the U.S. taxpayer is funding the greatest criminal organization in the history of mankind. The American government. Vietnam, Panama ,Serbia, Coatia , Iraq and Afganistan, who’s next?This nation invents threats, scares the people into silence, and attacks. We are long over due for a armed overthrow of the federal government.
James, we sure are overdue for a new form of government, but I propose peaceful solutions. Nonviolent resistance, non-participation, nullification on the state level and the like. I do believe that this can be turned back. It’ll have to be, or the house of cards will tumble down anyway…..it’s a dangerous place…
It doesn’t require armed revolution (the government has most of the arms, anyway, and is not reticent to use them against its citizens), and standing on the streetcorner with protest signs won’t do it.
But we DO have the power through non-cooperation. Stop paying federal taxes and the entire house of cards collapses. It’s also a powerful way to declare sovereignty over the fruits of your labor and the sweat of your brow. Stand firm. Free yourselves from serfdom. Deny the warmongers the umbilical cord to our pocketbooks.
You make many valid points all in support of the Government being able to manipulate key facts and the Media is the tool they use to export their intention(s). The trouble I see today is that this same all powerful Government, also has the means to “arrange” certain events without arousing suspicion, providing the necessary catylist, such as 911, to create enough fear in order to facilitate their agenda. We now have the groundwork and the most fearful enemy, (?) going hand in hand to keep the people uneasy about their safety. Because of FEAR, we have been coopted into every half-baked, hair-brained scheme they can come up with. Since WAR is now becoming too drawn out and people are wising up to the truth, the NEW and far EASIER way to continue this charade, is to exploit this Recession?, Depression?, whatever is in vogue, to expropriate, (extort) Trillions, without firing a shot, or spilling any blood. Who woulda thought???? Transparancy my Butt! There’s absolutely NO oversite, a term that means NOTHING to the big shots. Just words to obfuscate their true intentions, to raid the Treasury every chance they get. All without raising Taxes which would NEVER have made it to the light of day, all with the help of their Media friends.
i am reading all the fine comments by some really ‘ patriotic folks.
i can suggest something that is worth 100 % more than just ‘ singing to the choir ‘ . all of you need to get out on the street corners of your towns ( as we have been doing here for over 4 years straight ) not just every so often, but once a week at minimum . hold signs that the ‘ unwashed ‘ neighbors of yours can comprehend to get them to……think!
Philip,
Sorry to disabuse you of your enthusiasm. But standing on a streetcorner with a sign is not DOING SOMETHING other than making you feel better. Doing something is acting in such a way that the desired outcome will come about.
Let’s just say in defense of Obama even though he doesn’t need it, what is being blogged here is total ignorance of one’s own beliefs. Why put the soldier who committed the torture in prison when there are bigger fish to fry. Bush and Cheney need to be made accountable for their illegal ordering of torture. Whoever made the torture legal out of the Justice Department should be hung out to dry. It is government at it’s highest point closest to communism. Then there is the spin committed to destroy all that the constitution provides us. Let’s face it… A global economy has opened the doors to the filthy rich in controlling the world as we know it. If you don’t believe it just look at the monopolies being set up in our own country. It will be one billionaires corporation versus another with no borders. And if you don’t see it you lived it. Big oil raped Americans. With the win of Obama and the Senate threatening taxing big oil, prices crashed. So if you hate the Democrats now in office, you must be a Neocon, work for a Republican, be rich, or involved in military spending in some way. The majority of Americans are just the taxable suckers. But you know what??? At least the Black Man in the White House is trying to fix some of it. Sure we’ll all pay. But it’s better than getting nothing with the rich getting it all.
And Riversong if holding a sign up while standing on a street corner accomplishes the desired change, by all means do it. However, I have to agree that the sign scenario by itself probably won’t do it.
I have suggested something to do and it appears to have no more effect than standing on the corner holding up the sign.
What can I do to get people to shun the Republican Party out of existence? This is an action that would have an immense effect on how Parties and the Government would act.
Cassjr and Cliff suffer from the illusion that one party is significantly different from the other. Noam Chomsky, America’s most esteemed critic, says “sure there’s minor differences, but basically there’s one party – the Business Party.”
Obama and his “democrats” throw you a few bones while turning over the nation’s treasure to the Banksters at a far greater rate than Bush was willing to do, and you obsequiously thank them for their generosity?
Riversong. Whether the Democrats or Republicans are better than one another has absolutely nothing to do with it. What I want to do is knock off one of the parties. The Democrats are the majority party now so the weakest party is the Republicans. That’s the sole reason to pick the Republicans,
If as you say neither is better than the other, what would be your objection to knocking one of them off? And if there is no difference what is wrong with choosing the Republican Party to knock off?
As long as people fuss over which Party to knock over, I will assure you that neither is going to be knocked over.
I guess I must never make myself clear because 95% of the people who object to knocking off the Republicans say that the Democrats are no better.
See I don’t really give a hoot with is the best Party, I want to knock over one of the main two parties. If you don’t think the Republicans are more vulnerable please tell me why.
If you are a Republican Party sympathizer just say so, then I will know at least that I’m not being misunderstood.
I am a Populist and I think both The GOP and Dem parties are bad and I would like to get rid of both of them, but somehow I think I’m intelligent enough to know that we could never manage more than one at a time, I certainly would like to start against the weakest.
Is there some reason that this might not be a good idea, or are we going to go down fussing about which is the worst and leave both in because we can’t join together to get rid of one?
Cliff thinks that populism means One Party Rule – which is what he’d get if he could “knock off” the Republican Party (though it would look little different from what we have today).
If you want a revolution, remove your support for the empire. Don’t play politics – that’s their game.
Riversong. Why don’t you just ask me if I believe that Populism means one party rule? Why are you so adamant about keeping the Republican Party around?
Populism to mean means a freedom of life and minimum Government. I’m not playing politics. I want to get rid of one of the two major parties - why don’t you?
Cliff is right. Getting rid of one party does not mean favoring or starting one party rule. It should open us up to forming another party, or two, or three. It also would serve notice on the survivor that if it doesn’t represent We the People, we can get rid of it, too. (An excellent idea, by the way.) There are some decent parties out there who get no shrift from the establishment as it is too busy pushing the gangsters that represent them on both parties.
I’d like to see the Populist Party as one of the front runners, but would have no objection to any of the others. Hell, many governments are run by coalition governments fromed of a number of parties that band together to work for change. Granted, compromises must be made for that to work, but at least the compromises are made by smaller groups with more grass-roots input and influence.
Just look at the news (if you can find any) and see if the Obamanation is living up to its mandate for change. It is not any different than being Bushwhacked. About the only difference is that Obama throws us peanuts to keep us quiet, where the Bushwhackers just bombarded us with Bullshit and horse apples.
For Cliff. I think you may have populism confused with libertarianism. According to Oxford’s dictionary, ” populist: a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.• a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people.• ( Populist) a member of the Populist Party, a U.S. political party formed in 1891 that advocated the interests of labor and farmers, free coinage of silver, a graduatedincome tax, and government control of monopolies.
Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or abolish the state.[3]
Read the aims of the Populist Party who has this blog. That is the sort of party I am talking about. To me, the Libertarians, though they have some good ideas, lose me because they are a party of greed. To them, the only function of government should be to keep anybody from interfering with my maximum profit, whatever I must do to get it.
The other side of the coin seems to be, everyone has the same chances I have. If you fail, you should starve. If you can’t afford medical care, then die; there are lots more where you come from. Can’t afford an education? Then join the ranks of the ditch diggers and garbage haulers.
My impression of Libertarians is that there is no empathy. They seem to feel that any government help to its citizens is a waste. It should just go to protect their greed.
to riversong and those who ‘ disparage ‘ standing on street corners with signs of dissent:
you quoted noam chomsky. well, read chomsky and see that he believes wholeheartedly in mass peaceful street protests and demonstrations…. he just agrees with me that it must be consistent ( not a once or twice a year ‘ event ‘ ) , and it must be followed up by other actions….. like , as you and others state: shunning and rejecting both parties. i agree, and that is why i am with the Green Party. Please take time to read the columns of mine that michael is nice enough to have posted. i cover many subjects that most of you would agree with….. but street protest is key before any change can occur.
philip a farruggio
Steve. You certainly said what I think, better than I can. We have to have Government. It needs to have certain powers. Our founding Fathers enumerated those powers, written down so that the meaning shouldn’t be lost. We must understand that Parties are not our Government. We must understand that we are our Government.
What has happened from my view, is that Parties, our two largest for sure, have decided to become our defacto Government and have found that they can score big by serving Special Interest instead of the needs and wishes of the people.
We have allowed them to become entrenched in their criminal behavior and we need to show them that we are still the group that matters. We need to demonstrate to all Parties that it is, We the People, who are this Government and that we are perfectly willing to oust them to history’s dust bin if they don’t function as we decree. We need to show them that we don’t need this Party but they do need us.
Our two main Parties whom I have referred to as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum over the last several years have lost their morality and fidelity with their electorate. They have become so powerful that they now feel themselves above the laws set for our Nation by our Founding Fathers.
They have the right to exist but we have an equal right to reject their policies and practicies and them. We can do better in selecting our representatives.
Our failure was to become Party First voters. Their failure was to assume dominion over us, the electorate.
We can show Political Parties that there is a consequence for breaking laws and becoming Special Interest. That consequence is punishment. That punishment is turning our back on them. Without our votes they become nothing and that is the worse thing that can happen to an aspiring Political Party.
Wise surviving Political Parties will take heed. Unwise Parties will join those in History’s dustbin who have refused to work for the good of the people.
The most powerful group is composed of you and me. If we don’t forget that, and if we join ranks to assert our power, we will prosper. If we do forget it and refuse to take control, then we become the passive herd, afraid to do anything that upsets our masters. If a rose is still a rose by any name, then so is a pile of s..t sill just a pile of s..t no matter what Political Party it is.
There is a lot of inference in the old phrase - United we stand , divided we fall. I think of We the People when I hear it.
The Republican Party in the last eight years turned their backs on our Nation so that they could best serve special interest and in doing so, enrich themselves. I am speaking of the Party – not the people of the party. Any of the average taxpayers who truly think that this country prospered under them the last eight years need to get their head out of their orofice. And for you that don’t listen properly, that does not mean that I am endorsing the “other” Party. The choice is ours.
Gabbyn – what better represents the interests of ordinary people? We here at PopulistAmerica.com believe that the best way to be “for the people” – the best way to represent their interests – is to ensure their freedom.
Michael, I agree we need full use of our civil liberties. I consider myself a populist since I can no longer stomach the democrats or republicans. To me, with a handful of exceptions, they’re all paid puppets of Big Business and the military industrial complex. They’ve abandoned the common good and equal justice for all. Nearly everything they do, they do in opposition to what ordinary people want. 80% of the people were against the bailout and they knew it, but it didn’t stop them!
The bankster bailout was the last straw. Deregulation teaches us a lot about what’s necessary, since self regulation is magical thinking. It may work with spiritually sound people, but not the corrupt and self serving examples we’re seeing in our capitalist system today. We can’t function properly without rules, regulators and enforcers of the public good. This is why I brought up the differences between a Libertarian and a Populist. Both expect their civil liberties to be respected and I agree with them. But the Libertarians want fewer rules to do as they please and self regulate, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else. So it boils down to defining what’s hurtful to others?
Some people are far more self aware with a deep understanding of what is hurtful or disrespectful. Then there are those insensitive types who simply don’t recognize when another person is injured by their actions.
What I’d like to see is people wake up and pay attention to bad policy and the perpetrators who author it. I’d like to see everyone spend their vote on the candidate that best represents their personal value system, instead of the “lesser of two evils.” If we all did this, the two primary parties would be out on their ear–where they belong. Party Politics encourages the gang/[ster] mentality.
The democrats whined they couldn’t pass more favorable legislation because they lacked a majority. So November 2006 the voters gave them what they could since not everyone comes up for re-election at the same time. They continued whining they didn’t have a 60% majority to pass filibuster proof legislation the people wanted. So we gave them that too, but it didn’t change anything significant.
We’re still at war. We’re still kidnapping and torturing. We’re still lying, intimidating, bribing and killing others and overturning democratically elected leaders for no good reason. And worst of all, no one in the justice department is willing to investigate and prosecute the politically connected for outrageous criminal behavior and crimes against humanity.
I remain hopeful, none-the-less. When enough people lose their homes or have to share their space with others–then–we’ll see more people paying attention–in self defense. Our own cultural values of individualism is our greatest strength and weakness. Getting the majority of individualists to jump on the same page, at the same time, is no easy task. That said, however, the bankster bailout did us a tremendous favor and is a blessing in disguise, since we all work for a living. That’s the common bond between all peoples everywhere.
Individuality is our greatest strength since we pride ourselves on being different and there’s no predicting with any accuracy, what anyone might do next. We’re a surprising bunch of innovators and not that easy to subdue or control using conventional means.
We’re not particularly prone to seeking advice and/or sharing our ideas with others, and tend to do our own thing. In this scenario, what good is all the spy equipment, tracking devices and eavesdropping?
Americans are raised on Action Heroes–let the games begin.
Remarkable how bad war is and how we missed used it. Just think Japan, Britain,France, Belgium, Poland, Italy,Austria,Netherlands,South Kora and Iraq would not existor be free peoples.
Just think we did not make those areas addition States of America and also we did not even start those wars.
gabbyn. You speak well and with conviction. I see you also agree that we need to replace the criminals. I’m all for that also. I have done something no one else has. I have offered a plan to initiate change that means something.
I have faced two strong resisting forces. 1) The die hard Republicans who think that it would be OK to throw out one of the Parties as long as it is the Democrats, therefore they won’t leave their Party. They refuse to see this as enabling a criminal Party because they want to blame the Democrats for the Nations ills. They refuse to examine the damage done by their heroes and continue to cling to hope that the majority of Independents, who by the way are the largest segment of the voting public; their hope is that they can somehow shift the blame to the Democrats so they won’t have to suffer their earned shame.
2) The other resistance comes from those who think that if you are going to throw out one, why not both because they are equally guilty. A secondary portion of the number 2’s want to throw out the Democrats instead of the Republicans.
Nothing I seem to be able to write will sway either group. And I would say that the first group – the Republican enablers – are resisting because they want to keep what they have, the second group seems to be afraid of what they might get in return.
So if you agree to both groups argument there will be no change.
That is why I keep insisting that the best way to force change is to attack the weakest party first. That would require a new Party be brought up to oppose the Democrats.
Gabbyn, we did not provide filibuster proof majorities. The Dems were going against two entities plus one strong factor, The Republicans were in the White House and had Filibuster numbers in the Senate. The strong factor is that the Republicans were riding high on fear and protection. The tanking economy doomed the Republicans.
What does that say of the American public?
My plan to shun the Republican Party into irrevalence is do-able, it is legal, and the only thing any concerned party could do to stem the tide is to begin to represent the people. What a novel idea.
The only thing the people can do to stop the plan is refuse to take a chance on change. They have to choose between continued despotic Governance or decide to elect an unknow in the hopes that it might be better.
As gabbyn said we shouldn’t choose the lesser of two evils. I say it differently, choosing the lesser of two evils guarantees that you will get evil. Choosing the unknown gives you the chance to get a Government that is not evil. A chance yes, but the other option is -no chance.
Uh George, we didn’t start the Iraqi war? Please explain how Iraq started either of the Gulf Wars, I’ll see if I can help you remember.
And while you’re at it, can you also explain why Iraq is a free state today? And tell me what they are free from?
Here we have a beautifully written revelation of what it means to be truly free, truly emancipated. Kudos
it saddens me that so few of you reading this nice concept by michael even responded to my suggestion of street protests ( peaceful and consistent ) .
with all due respect to all of you reading this……. you all have fine and cogent points and ideals ( of which i agree ) .
yet, to merely sit at a computer keyboard and debate is not enough! reminds me of the ‘ intellectuals ‘ in berlin in the mid and late 20s who sat in coffeehouses ‘ debating ‘ the nazi movement, while the true patriots were out in the streets confronting them. food for thought, and once again, i implore you all to find a street corner in your town, make a sign expressing an issue you are passionate about….. and do it, one hour a week…..every week.
Hi Philip,
Working on that even as we speak.
Phil and Steve. I agree totally
To Cliff, We did not start the war. Hussein had attacked Kuwait trying to control oil supplies. The Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia supported this action against Hussein. The end of the war established certain conditions which were not complied with. Such as inspections for weapons of Mass destruction and biologicals which Iraq had used on it’s own people. Also the UN had passed 17 resolutions condeming Hussein and asking for compliance. This along with not allowing inspecters in certain areas and expelling them from further inspections indicated that Hussein had something to hide. Plus world opion from intelligence that the threat of WMD’s in Hussein’s possession supported the attack.
By the way the Iraq people have had free elections and in some cases under the threat of death more people took part than in some US elections. The people were free of Hussein and his sons. 25 million people are now out from under their control (The Husseins). Would you have liked living in Iraq under Hussein?
Are you speaking of the million enjoying the freedom of the grave, or the several million homeless free to wander and starve, or go into camps, or perhaps the huge number who are free to have children with huge DU induced birth defects?
Hussein was a pretty ruthless asshole. That is why the CIA put him in charge, and if he hadn’t played games with OPEC and pricing, he’d still probably be our boy. He was ruthless in putting down any protest or criticism, but I don’t think he would have bombed and strafed his citizenry wholesale. Iraqi’s questioned over the past few years have said life was much better under Hussein. IF you kept your mouth shut, you could live a pretty normal life. There was electricity, decent water and waste management. There was an excellent school and university system, literacy was very high. Excellent hospital care was available. Local food was available, homes were not full of holes, and until the UN embargo, they had medical care and a decent foreign trade.
We spent several years trying to starve Hussein out and it cost about a half million children dying of malnutrition and disease. “A small price to pay, but well worth it,” according to, I believe, Madeline Albright.
Give me a break!
George. Google April Glaspie Saddam Hussein Kuwait. Choose some of the many links that should be available. I am giving you one link that discusses the meeting between Glaspie and Hussein.
When I and many millions of others read this one link, I think we to a person say that the United States instigated Gulf War I.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11376.htm
There are a myriad of others to choose from. If you will read several you will come to the proper conclusion. Be sure to select some that note that the big gripe was slant drilling by American Oil companies operating in Kuwait for which Kuwait was receiving a royalty.
Now back to your statement that the U S didn’t invade Iraq. The least you could have said was that we did invade them , but we did it because…… To say we didn’t invade Iraq flies into the face of reality.
And if the U S is guilty of double dealing with Iraq and told Iraq that the United States would stay out of the Kuwait dispute if Iraq invaded Kuwait, which is something the United States did tell Saddam, then wouldn’t it follow that any reason arising from Gulf War I would be moot if it was truly instigated by the U S subterfuge?
And George, Saddam Hussein agreed to go into exile before the invasion, so we didn’t need to “free” the Iraqi people by invasion.
Finally George, over 70% of Iraqi’s have said they would have been better off under Saddam. I personally know Iraqis who were there before Saddam, before Gulf War I, visited during the 10 years of daily bombing by the U S between GWI and the Invasion, and visited again after the invasion and after fallujah.
Those people tell me that Iraq is currently an occupied country.
That Iraq is destroyed. That the Iraqi people are not free. That there is no infrastructure, and that cancer and leukemia has tripled because of the contamination of the Depleted Uranium.
Do you have any idea why these Iraqis are all wrong about the events over the last 19 years, but you are not wrong?
Since when is a free nation under occupation?
Cliff & Steve
Thanks for the link to the Glaspie meeting with Saddam. Do you really believe that he ( with 30,000 troops) on the border of Kuwait would have withdrawn his troops if Glaspie had said the U.S. would not look with favor on the invasion of Kuwait?
The U.S. was not alone in the freeing of Kuwait. And the backing of the troops of other nations and the financing of GWI by near by Arab states and some European Nations denies the concept that the U.S. instigated the war and indicates the threat that Hussein was to the area. In essence Saddam set the conditions with blackmail. If this then this will happen.
Iraq was not destroyed in GWI because BushI kept his word about not destroying Iraq in GWI.
Your info on direct comments about Iraqis and the conditions in the country seem to be either early conceptions and persons belonging the the class of persons enjoying the favors of Hussein. This does not conpute with the elections. Also as occupiers why does the rulers want the U.S. to stay and will not agree for the U.S. to leave unless they agree.
Your comments and attitude seems to me to want to place the U.S. in the negative state as an aggressor nation. Since you have not addressed the points that I put forward.
I take a nice, clear stance on this. The United States government is an aggressor. It is the most vast and powerful imperial power in the history of the world.
Here at populistamerica.com we take a strong stance in opposition to the use of aggressive force to solve “problems” both at home and abroad.
The war in Iraq is not only immoral and a national disgrace, it’s entirely unconstitutional.
George. You seem like a nice guy so I won’t keep bothering you after this response.
Those Iraqis were very anti-Saddam. They fought against his Baath Party coming to power and lost a few family members in the struggle. That is why they left Iraq – and it was under duress. The United States helped Saddam in his overthrow of the Iraqi Government. They wanted a puppet like the one they had in Iran (remember the SHAH?) to keep the Oil handy.
I’m curious, the Link I sent was about the Glaspie Saddam discussion before the war ( and was documented) but some of the other sites around there would take you to the fact that Hussein was discussing the Kuwaiti problem for two years before the invasion. He had given them an ultimatum to stop slant drilling into Iraq’s Ramallah Oil field or pay Iraq the Royalties. When they refused to do either he consulted with Glaspie and asked if he invaded Kuwait after an ultimatum, what would be the U S position ( remember he had been the the U S puppet until he became an upstart ).
During the 10 year daily bombing of Iraq I mentioned ( where you said Iraq was not destroyed ) more of those Iraqi’s family were killed than was killed fighting Hussein.
During this time Saddam had invited these Iraqis back to Iraq to have a reconciliation ( Some of these people were well known in Iraq and it would be a news event ). Two went back to see if they could get back their property that Saddam had confiscated. I had spoken to them before they went and advised them that I wouldn’t go if I were them. But they went anyway and while there Saddam offered to give back their property when they got their family back over there. They told him they would go back and get the family. Something they had no intention of doing but were smart enough to agree with him while they were in Baghdad. They came back safely and thanked their lucky stars that they had returned safely.
Before the invasion one of them died from a heart attack. After the invasion and the overthrow of Hussein the remaining of the two went back to Baghdad to try to get the rest of the family out. She had no luck. A couple of years later she tried once again
to retrieve what family was left over there. No luck again.
I had long conversations with this family over the years and find them good Americans. However they lost several members of their family to the Bush Neo-Cons.
They loved America before all the trouble. But they will tell you in a New York minute that what was done to their people was a crime. If you’re not familiar with DU it will go on killing for over a billion years. There are spots in Iraq where the radioactive count reaches 300 times the safe daily dose and none of those areas are marked.
This is getting too long , but what I’m stating is that there was no need to invade Iraq. Bush and the Neo-Cons wanted the war for the profits it would generate. And it profitied the Bush bunch and friends immensely. More than $3 Trillion has been spent on this war that didn’t have to happen. And the deaths reach over the million mark. All to fatten the bank accounts of the few.
Bush and bunch are War Criminals by definition.
So I guessed correctly, definitely an anti-American blog. Thanks for admitting to this. Disregard for true history is evident. Nit picked statements. Avoided addressing the points I stated. It has been an experience and enlightening on my first excursion into a blog. Thanks for the experience.
Absolving the United States of blame is not necessarily the American way. Truth should be the American ideal.
Sorry I didn’t please you with my answers, I tried to be civil, but I can see that you didn’t read anything I referenced.
The Iraqis speak for themselves and they point a finger at the United States. I know they were telling the truth. And no one has profited from this war except those who wanted it. That did not include the Iraqis. And it did not include the vast majority of Americans.
This war was immoral and illegal.
Yes there are those in America who still claim it was just. I believe that number is basically the same as those who want to save Bush and his minions from War Crimes charges. They are definitely guilty.
George your mind was made up. You assigned the Iraqis the blame without judging the evidence. But it is what it is.
H. George, I believe you are what other blogs call a troll. Please, return to your place under the bridge, or rock, or whatever.
You’ve made your point, such as it is, you’ve shown no interest in educating yourself. You have a closed mind, so park it somewhere else.
Thank you.
No doubt a troll. I find it odd that there’s still some hangers-on who support the idea of murdering people for political ends. Terrorism, isn’t that?
Hi Michael. I was posting on another blog and the idea occurred to me. We used to be involved in wars of conquest of some sort. There was a perceived end to it somewhere down the line even if we weren’t going to take over the country of the enemy, such as defeating the Axis, as soon as possible.
Now, we engage in war with no concept of victory, but simply because war generates enormous profits for certain people or groups and the longer the war, the greater the profit. So the philosophy is just keep the war going and rake in the cash. If we defeat them, the war (and the profits) are over, so just keep stirring it up!
Steve. There have been 52 military excursions since WWII. None of them was a declared war. Every one of them had basically the same run up: They are human rights violators, they are a danger to the United States, they want to enslave America, they are Godless, and the beat goes on.
Everyone of them found the United States the aggressor for one reason or another, usually “to protect America”.
I have stated that there is a group extremely influencial in America that foments friction and wars to prepare a market for “Protection”. A few rich and powerful make obscene amounts of money from these endeavors. Usually the taxpayers pay for those excursions in life and liberty, not to mention being stuck with the cost.
I call these criminals the “Blood Profits” people. There product from which they profit is your blood and fortune.
Cliff, I am curious. What is a troll? I hope it is not a disease.
Comment: Why did the Iraqis you quote not want to return to Iraq to get their property? Also you gve no reason why the relatives left in Iraq do not want to come tto America. Certainly they know that the country still sees them as a threat. I see that as a contradiction. Recognise that they were opposed to Saddam and so had to leave before being victims and they did not want to die.There relatives were kept as bait for them to come back for them.
If you believe that Bush was a criminal then you would have to include those Congressmen that voted in Oct. 2002 to give permission to use force. They voted twice. Anyway it look like you will get your wish to have Bush and Cheney tried as criminals. You will also see that in the next two decades that this country will bw a third world nation and in similar condition as Iraq was. There will be no one out there to come to our aid. Fortunately I am old enough that I will not live to see it.
If Bush and Cheney were getting so rich from the war then I am sure that the present administration will examine their IRS filings and prosecute them for dodging taxes.
My sister forwarded your blog to me and that is the reason I knew about the blog and felt compelled to make comments. Thanks for the opportunity to add to your blog.
George. A troll is a monster, especially as used in J R R Tolkein’s set “Lord of the Rings”. They didn’t understand right from wrong, their only duty was to serve the master and kill on command. I do not think of you as a troll.
Those people didn’t want to return to Iraq because they knew once there Saddam would have them executed. The relatives left there did want to come, but couldn’t.
Which Country would see them as a threat? Iraq or the U S?
Read some of what I write and you will find that I do include those congress people who voted for the war as criminals. They knew that Saddam didn’t have WMD. Hell I knew that and I wasn’t privy to the Government data. I know that they couldn’t have gone undetected. And so should anyone who has researched this subject.
I don’t think we will be a third world nation and I don’t think Iraq did anything to the United States to suffer an invasion. By the way did you read the Glaspie transcript and any of the links around it? If you did, why do you think we interjected ourselves into that Gulf War I? Do you think Kuwait did anything wrong? And George, what do you know about Kuwait pre GWI?
George, if we are ever weak enough to need any country to come to our aid, we may be in deep stuff. Probably no one will. They hate us. And there is a reason. I say its because of our war mongering. Why do you think they hate us?
If you write back here and say you will read it, I will link you to the money that Bush and minions made off this war. It is in the Trillions.
George, although I disagree with your concept of Bush, you do have the right to express your thoughts to me or the world and I offer you a welcome to chastise or agree with anything I write. Thats how I learn. If I have to defend my statements, I have to research, and if someone shows me where I was wrong, then I am man enough to admit it.
Right now I say that Bush and his bunch are war criminals.
The Nuremberg Principles
Principle I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave-labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
There you have it, short and sweet. A blueprint for living on a humane planet. We had the UN as a forum to mediate disputes and the Nuremberg Principles to clearly delineate what illegal and aggressive behavior was.
Is there anything in the above that our alleged leaders do not or cannot understand? Does might override all international ideas of justice? Are the only people to make the rules henceforth to be the overgrown schoolyard bullies that seem to infest our government, and other of the more powerful governments in the world?
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.”
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
—————————————
I think Jefferson, Franklin and Washingtonwould have approved of the above.
So what happens if they launch a war and no one goes to fight it?
They, who? We’re not likely to be attacked from without. Unfortunately, from within is another matter.
However, your question reminds me of a question that used to be asked during an earlier war.
“What if they gave a war and nobody came?” What a wonderful thing to wish for.
I’m wishing for no one to show up too! They can’t continue to get away with all this murder if people stopped going along with it.
cliff What were those links to bush and minions and the money they made?
mike. First do a little research yourself. Check the stock prices of Halliburton, Lockheed, General Dynamics before the war and a couple of years into it. Check to see how much Blackwater and other Mercenary outfits were paid ( Hint approaches a Trillion ).
The following link will start you out and you can find a thousand more if you really try.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0819-03.htm
Once you do this and report back on this thread, I will furnish you links to what Cheney and others made.
Bush and his minions cost you money unless you are one of the super rich and my guess is you are not. But that’s not surprising that the Republican enablers ignored all kinds of corruption to try to save their hero’s ass. How could a moral, ethical, thinking person support the most corrupt and vile president has ever occupied the White HOuse.
As to the Republican Party, right now as I write this, they are fighting in the House with the Democrats over a bill that I think is an extremely vile bill and a strike at freedom of the people . The Democrats are pushing hard to pass this “Hate Crimes Bill”, something your hero and the rest of the GOP were all for as long as they were in power. And the GOP is still trying to claim their King didn’t torture. Google Torture and get started researching.
Don’t ask me, find something to prove me wrong.
People don’t get this stupid just by moving to washington. They become corrupted just as did the GOP with the first election of Bush and it looks like the Democrats are hell bent on following suit.
Mike what you need to do is forget about your hero and become an American. Join me in trying to return a representative Government to Washington.
I will help you and provide you those links if you prove to me you are really serious about advocating good american constitutional freedoms and principles. Usually what people do when they ask for my links is first they don’t read them, then second they keep on crying for proof they keep on ignoring.
Ah, yes, the Hate Crimes Bill. When I first read it, it sounded like a good idea. Throwing a fire bomb into a synagogue is a hate crime. Lynching someone is a hate crime, but then I thought, “Don’t we already have laws against that?” So I looked a bit further into it. In fact, I think one of my articles was on the subject, but I don’t remember the title.
If you remember your Orwell, the Hate Crimes bill makes “crimethink” official. Any non-PC comment about anybody or anything may be a “hate crime.” Even telling a joke that could be considered ethnic by anyone, could cause you to be arrested, fined and imprisoned for committing a hate crime.
If it passes, any personal opinion critical of anyone or anything must be kept unspoken and unwritten, or it could lead to penalties.
Free speech shall be but a memory. However, think of another side effect. If people are no longer able to vent, if they must keep it bottled up forever, I think “going postal” will seem like a walk in the park. Being unable to scream out the window, “I’m mad as Hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” may lead to a vast increase of people running amok. When they really can’t take it anymore, we shall see mass shootings, people running cars into crowds, sabotage, you name it.
Just think about it for a moment. If you didn’t dare to criticize a neighbor who, say, was trashing the area, you couldn’t put up a sign or a poster, couldn’t put an article in the paper, couldn’t take a petition around the neighborhood, couldn’t file a complaint with the police without running the risk of being charged with a hate crime, how long could you keep your sanity?
Steve you got it. And remember I earlier posted a comment about the lady who was sentenced to Prison for telling her black neighbors to stop acting like Niggers. That was construed as a hate crime and landed her in prison.
And she was sentenced under the old law. The Democrats want to expand the existing law to include those thought crimes against everybody except WASPS. Seems only wasps are able to do “hate crimes”.
Remember when Bush was proposing to identify potential domestic terrorists by examining their comments and what sites they visited? Yes Mike I can give you that link also and if you let me know where you searched I will furnish it to you, if you can’t find it.
We don’t need an enhanced hate crimes bill, we need to get rid of the old one we have. Did anybody read the story about the lady that I linked to? It was a true story actually happened – two years ago.
And we need to get rid of the Republican Party. They are not an American Party. Their plan is to blame Obama – for everything. They are so out of touch that only 231% of the public claims to be a Republican ( poll out today ).
Rush was in full flower today. I think that insane man is getting worse. And probably all 21% of those who admit to being Repubs are ditto heads. I could just envision Rush frothing at the mouth today. He is the defacto head of whats left of the GOP and he is very complicit in its downfall. He is nuts.
I noticed that I stated that 231% of the public says they are Republican. Please let me make a correction: The poll said 21%.
why would we want to end war? So we can kick a bunch of people out of the military? Yeah, that’ll help our unemployment problem. What a bunch of idiots.
John. What??? I’m not sure whether you’re kidding or not. If you’re not kidding, that would mean that you support war as an employment opportunity. Tell me it ain’t so.
Leave a Comment