Ralph Nader is on the ballot in Florida. Again.
What's that smell? Why, it's a Bay of Pigs
When I point out to conservatives the list of crimes perpetrated by the Bush family and/or members of the Rove administration, I have noticed a tendency to dismiss the crimes with a flippant “sounds like the Kennedys”. Why are they so intent on smearing a great man like Kennedy?
1961 - The Bay of Pigs invasion fails. Right-wingers blame Kennedy for failure to provide air cover. CIA loses 15 men, another 1100 are imprisoned.
Bush was living in Houston in 1961 during the planning of the invasion. Bush’s wife’s name is, of course, Barbara.
When I point out to conservatives the list of crimes perpetrated by the Bush family and/or members of the Rove administration, I have noticed a tendency to dismiss the crimes with a flippant “sounds like the Kennedys”. Why are they so intent on smearing a great man like Kennedy?
1961 - The Bay of Pigs invasion fails. Right-wingers blame Kennedy for failure to provide air cover. CIA loses 15 men, another 1100 are imprisoned.
Due to persistent problems with the CIA and their continual involvement in matters which were not their concern, Kennedy declared that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. Kennedy was apparently going to leave their destruction until after the next election but did start withdrawing troops from Vietnam, much to the dislike of the CIA.Here is a copy of the ship registry of ships involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Two ships were “Houston” and “Barbara”.
Bush was living in Houston in 1961 during the planning of the invasion. Bush’s wife’s name is, of course, Barbara.
The CIA presents three alternative invasion scenarios to the Working Group of the Joint Staff who review the plans and choose the alternative recommended by the Working Group - the Zapata Plan, which involves a landing at the Bay of Pigs.Before dead bodies become skeletons in the closet, they really stink a lot.
Bush bought subsidiary Zapata Off-Shore from his partners and went into business on his own in 1954. By 1958, the new company was drilling on the Cay Sal Bank in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. These islands had been leased to Nixon supporter and CIA contractor Howard Hughes the previous year and were later used as a base for CIA raids on Cuba. The CIA was using companies like Zapata to stage and supply secret missions attacking Fidel Castro’s Cuban government in advance of the Bay of Pigs invasion. In 1981, all Securities and Exchange Commission filings for Zapata Off-Shore between 1960 and 1966 were destroyed. In other words, the year Bush became vice president, important records detailing his years at his drilling company disappeared.
Hey Dude, Don't Use That Doormat!
"A strong America must...value the institution of marriage," Bush said. "I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization." Enduring? Maybe. But coming from an anthropological standpoint, that's debatable. However, the sanctity of marriage that he is so intent on preserving has actually been in question for quite some time now.
I was curious to see why President Bush believes that gay couples are a threat to such an institution. As I searched the leading causes of the unsanctimonious disintegration of marriage, I found sites (many of them religiously based) that offered a variety of explanations. Curiously, gay marriage was not one of those reasons...
Oddly enough, I did find the following statistics: America is hovering at around a 50% divorce rate. Now I'm no Harvard MBA, but that seems pretty substantial! Could divorce actually be the proverbial wolf in gay couple's clothing? Oh, and last time I checked, "God hates divorce" (Mal.2:16). So now we're onto something.
"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from changing forever, we must enact a constitutional amendment in America," Bush said. I feel ya bro! So I'm gonna suggest the following. Propose an amendment to outlaw divorce! That'll protect the sanctity of marriage! Wow, it really is that simple.
Seriously though, this issue is call for alarm. Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, said: "Constitutional amendments have historically served to expand liberty and equality. This amendment would be the first to reinstate discrimination in our Constitution." It's also very disturbing that the President is using the Constitution as a doormat for his campaign headquarters. It's time to make a stand, it's time to be angry about the course of our country.
I leave you with the following:
This is our cue folks, it's time to be concerned.
"A strong America must...value the institution of marriage," Bush said. "I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization." Enduring? Maybe. But coming from an anthropological standpoint, that's debatable. However, the sanctity of marriage that he is so intent on preserving has actually been in question for quite some time now.
I was curious to see why President Bush believes that gay couples are a threat to such an institution. As I searched the leading causes of the unsanctimonious disintegration of marriage, I found sites (many of them religiously based) that offered a variety of explanations. Curiously, gay marriage was not one of those reasons...
Oddly enough, I did find the following statistics: America is hovering at around a 50% divorce rate. Now I'm no Harvard MBA, but that seems pretty substantial! Could divorce actually be the proverbial wolf in gay couple's clothing? Oh, and last time I checked, "God hates divorce" (Mal.2:16). So now we're onto something.
"If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from changing forever, we must enact a constitutional amendment in America," Bush said. I feel ya bro! So I'm gonna suggest the following. Propose an amendment to outlaw divorce! That'll protect the sanctity of marriage! Wow, it really is that simple.
Seriously though, this issue is call for alarm. Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, said: "Constitutional amendments have historically served to expand liberty and equality. This amendment would be the first to reinstate discrimination in our Constitution." It's also very disturbing that the President is using the Constitution as a doormat for his campaign headquarters. It's time to make a stand, it's time to be angry about the course of our country.
I leave you with the following:
"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church - and there was nobody left to be concerned."
--Pastor Martin Niemoller
This is our cue folks, it's time to be concerned.
Republican Family Values - Bush Style
How Would YOU Like to be Thomas Alexander Andrews?
Neil Bush (you remember him from the $1,300,000,000 Silverado Savings and Loan scandal) is being sued for divorce by his wife Sharon.
Neil is now engaged to Maria, who is the mother of Thomas. Maria's ex-husband, Robert, is suing Sharon for spreading a rumor that Neil is actually Thomas' father, not Robert.
Dale Jefferson is the lawyer representing Robert, while David Berg is representing Sharon. So, anyway, Dale sent David a letter offering to settle the whole matter out of court with a DNA test. Winner gets $850,000.
Who writes this stuff?
How Would YOU Like to be Thomas Alexander Andrews?
Neil Bush (you remember him from the $1,300,000,000 Silverado Savings and Loan scandal) is being sued for divorce by his wife Sharon.
Neil is now engaged to Maria, who is the mother of Thomas. Maria's ex-husband, Robert, is suing Sharon for spreading a rumor that Neil is actually Thomas' father, not Robert.
Dale Jefferson is the lawyer representing Robert, while David Berg is representing Sharon. So, anyway, Dale sent David a letter offering to settle the whole matter out of court with a DNA test. Winner gets $850,000.
Who writes this stuff?
AMERICAN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION
from sfgate.com
from sfgate.com
Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a "terrorist organization" Monday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National Education Association early in the presidential election year.
The education secretary's words were "pathetic and they are not a laughing matter," said Weaver, whose union has said it plans to sue the Bush administration over lack of funding for demands included in the "No Child Left Behind" schools law.
Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was "a bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words." President Bush was not present at the time he made the remark.
Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said Paige's words were, "The NEA is a terrorist organization."
Weaver responded, "We are the teachers, there is no distinction."
Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: "Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry I said it, yeah."
Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it in stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting "to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's children to terrorists."
Those Hilarious Conservatives
Conservatives are so funny! They can say the most outlandish, ridiculous things and not get the laughs they deserve. I think its about time that changed. Americans need to give these people credit for their rich satire and sophisticated humor. Its just one of their humble gifts to our beloved republic.
On Friday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said that Americans "have been tolerant of homosexuality for years, but now it's being stuffed down their throats and they don't like it. They know it will undermine the very foundation of this society, will undermine our understanding of what families are."
"Tolerant of homosexuality for years"?! I had no idea that DeLay lived in San Francisco. And "stuffed down their throats"? Wow, that paints a pretty graphic picture, doesn't it?
In case you don't know who DeLay is, he's the former pest control magnate from Houston whose made his career by being the funniest man in Congress. He's also the guy that called Homeland Security when Texas Democrats went to Oklahoma to block Republican redistricting. What a prankster! That he became a leader in the GOP, let alone an elected official, is a tribute to the infinite wisdom of Republican voters and their party.
Last week, President Bush's chief economic adviser N. Gregory Mankiw wondered aloud whether jobs at McDonald's should be reclassified as manufacturing jobs. "When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" What a great idea! Doing so could really help Bush's hysterical record on jobs, too.
A few weeks ago, evangelist and one-time Republican Presidential candidate Pat Robertson said, "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I'm hearing from the Lord that it's going to be a blowout." Can you see God talking to Pat Robertson? Now that's funny. I could almost wet my pants!
Bruce Miller has edited a new book titled, "Take Them At Their Words: Shocking, Amusing and Baffling Quotations from the G.O.P. and Their Friends, 1994-2004." Here is a humorous comment made by Barbara Bush on Good Morning America:
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many... It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
Stop it, please, you're killing me!
Conservatives are so funny! They can say the most outlandish, ridiculous things and not get the laughs they deserve. I think its about time that changed. Americans need to give these people credit for their rich satire and sophisticated humor. Its just one of their humble gifts to our beloved republic.
On Friday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said that Americans "have been tolerant of homosexuality for years, but now it's being stuffed down their throats and they don't like it. They know it will undermine the very foundation of this society, will undermine our understanding of what families are."
"Tolerant of homosexuality for years"?! I had no idea that DeLay lived in San Francisco. And "stuffed down their throats"? Wow, that paints a pretty graphic picture, doesn't it?
In case you don't know who DeLay is, he's the former pest control magnate from Houston whose made his career by being the funniest man in Congress. He's also the guy that called Homeland Security when Texas Democrats went to Oklahoma to block Republican redistricting. What a prankster! That he became a leader in the GOP, let alone an elected official, is a tribute to the infinite wisdom of Republican voters and their party.
Last week, President Bush's chief economic adviser N. Gregory Mankiw wondered aloud whether jobs at McDonald's should be reclassified as manufacturing jobs. "When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" What a great idea! Doing so could really help Bush's hysterical record on jobs, too.
A few weeks ago, evangelist and one-time Republican Presidential candidate Pat Robertson said, "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I'm hearing from the Lord that it's going to be a blowout." Can you see God talking to Pat Robertson? Now that's funny. I could almost wet my pants!
Bruce Miller has edited a new book titled, "Take Them At Their Words: Shocking, Amusing and Baffling Quotations from the G.O.P. and Their Friends, 1994-2004." Here is a humorous comment made by Barbara Bush on Good Morning America:
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many... It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
Stop it, please, you're killing me!
Neo - DON'T Follow the White Rabbit
The rumors about Texas Govnernor Rick Perry's homosexual affair and/or marital troubles are a distraction. DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!!
Perry is a Rove protege. The story is meant to serve as the banana peel to the real story that has been gaining traction. Bush's AWOL year and his lies.
Stay the course! Don't give in to the distraction. Prove to Karl Rove that we are smarter than he is.
The rumors about Texas Govnernor Rick Perry's homosexual affair and/or marital troubles are a distraction. DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!!
Perry is a Rove protege. The story is meant to serve as the banana peel to the real story that has been gaining traction. Bush's AWOL year and his lies.
Stay the course! Don't give in to the distraction. Prove to Karl Rove that we are smarter than he is.
Indigenous Style Democracy
The Economist believes that Democracy is a function of the state, not of its people. They recently published a very good article about indigenous people in Latin America. They titled it, “A Political Awakening”. However, the way they deal with the issue of indigenous movements is exactly in that fashion; simply a movement that is either too militant or merely a call for collective rights. They go on to posit that collective rights pose a potential conflict to Democracy. They never seriously entertain the notion that these collective rights may indeed be Democracy in action.
Indigenous people in Bolivia constitute 71% of the total population. 66% of Guatemalans, 38% of Ecuadorians, and 47% of Peruvians are indigenous people. Yet The Economist, like most American foreign policy experts, believes that when these people stand for their rights, their actions should be classified as nationalist, separatist, or militant movements. They call this empowerment “dangerous” and “extremist”.
In their opinion, rights should be ceded to these groups by the state. In Latin America, this state is usually maintained and dominated by a small class of European-descended elites. From them flows this concept of Democracy. They don’t see their function as the administrators of the popular voice, but as the distributors of favoritism and purveyors of corruption. In a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1877, Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” Welcome to Latin American Democracy.
How does one define a movement in which the vast majority of people in a given state participate? Democracy? Sure, there is the problem of tyranny of the majority. However, that’s a problem that we, the harbingers and inventors of the modern-day-style Democracy, are still dealing with. Take for example Lani Guinier's articles in the Boston Review where she argued that "…in a racially [and I will add sexually] divided society, majority rule is not a reliable instrument of democracy” (Boston Review, 9-10/92). One need not be an American history scholar to see the affects of our policies. Need I mention antidemocratic outcomes such as Negro Slavery, Japanese Internment Camps, white-male dominated government, and Native American Reservations?
What does The Economist suggest? “A mix of decentralization plus pragmatic recognition of traditional customs and authorities can go a long way to satisfy Indian demands without undermining the authority of the state.” Once again, they fail to realize that the people constitute the state, and thereby regulate its direction. They seem to be saying that the problem of indigenous movements can be neutralized by concessions. But that idea is slowly drawing to a close. Indigenous people want their lands back, and they’ll throw their tea in the harbor to get it.
The Economist believes that Democracy is a function of the state, not of its people. They recently published a very good article about indigenous people in Latin America. They titled it, “A Political Awakening”. However, the way they deal with the issue of indigenous movements is exactly in that fashion; simply a movement that is either too militant or merely a call for collective rights. They go on to posit that collective rights pose a potential conflict to Democracy. They never seriously entertain the notion that these collective rights may indeed be Democracy in action.
Indigenous people in Bolivia constitute 71% of the total population. 66% of Guatemalans, 38% of Ecuadorians, and 47% of Peruvians are indigenous people. Yet The Economist, like most American foreign policy experts, believes that when these people stand for their rights, their actions should be classified as nationalist, separatist, or militant movements. They call this empowerment “dangerous” and “extremist”.
In their opinion, rights should be ceded to these groups by the state. In Latin America, this state is usually maintained and dominated by a small class of European-descended elites. From them flows this concept of Democracy. They don’t see their function as the administrators of the popular voice, but as the distributors of favoritism and purveyors of corruption. In a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1877, Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” Welcome to Latin American Democracy.
How does one define a movement in which the vast majority of people in a given state participate? Democracy? Sure, there is the problem of tyranny of the majority. However, that’s a problem that we, the harbingers and inventors of the modern-day-style Democracy, are still dealing with. Take for example Lani Guinier's articles in the Boston Review where she argued that "…in a racially [and I will add sexually] divided society, majority rule is not a reliable instrument of democracy” (Boston Review, 9-10/92). One need not be an American history scholar to see the affects of our policies. Need I mention antidemocratic outcomes such as Negro Slavery, Japanese Internment Camps, white-male dominated government, and Native American Reservations?
What does The Economist suggest? “A mix of decentralization plus pragmatic recognition of traditional customs and authorities can go a long way to satisfy Indian demands without undermining the authority of the state.” Once again, they fail to realize that the people constitute the state, and thereby regulate its direction. They seem to be saying that the problem of indigenous movements can be neutralized by concessions. But that idea is slowly drawing to a close. Indigenous people want their lands back, and they’ll throw their tea in the harbor to get it.
America's Authoritarian Democracy
Reuters recently reported that the Iranian people are poised to democratically elect a conservative party, much to the chagrin of the State Department. "Candidates have been barred from participating in the elections in an attempt to limit the choice of the Iranian people," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters. I've heard that argument before, except last time it was my father lamenting third party participation in America.
Further, "These actions do not represent free and fair elections and are not consistent with international norms." What would be consistent with international norms, Mr. Ereli? Do you mean the international norms which prevailed in Turkey when a majority protested America's military presence? Or is it statements like, "Russia and China stand for a multipolar, just and democratic world order based on the commonly recognized principles of international law"? This statement was presented by Presidents Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao in a joint statement targeting the United States for not seeking U.N. approval, and thus neglecting the democratic sentiments of the international community? Wait a minute, weren't these countries recently our enemies for not speaking for their people?
Non-Western countries are finally starting to come around. Increasingly, their taking into account the views of historically disenfranchised people. And its not looking good for us.
We ourselves don't practice a flawless democratic process, no matter what Mr. Ereli wants to believe about our country. There are constant allegations of corruption and exclusionary practices in our election system. However, we seem to overlook those problems. We believe, deep down in our apple pie eatin', flag wavin' souls, that those are minor details, irrelevant to our greater calling; that of spreading democratic joy throughout the world. Our foreign policy reflects that. We even go to war on that premise.
However, the small problems in our own process preclude any flawless working model that we might want to impose on newly developing democracies. At the end of the day, we're faced with the realization that Democracy is dynamic, and it's not always pretty.
As far as our involvement in the democratic affairs of other nations, I'd like to speak in a language which everyone here can easily understand, "Take the log out of your eye before you take the splinter out of their eye" (Matt 7:5).
I'm not sure what it is that America really fears. Is it rogue nations practicing Democracy? Or is it Democracy itself?
Reuters recently reported that the Iranian people are poised to democratically elect a conservative party, much to the chagrin of the State Department. "Candidates have been barred from participating in the elections in an attempt to limit the choice of the Iranian people," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters. I've heard that argument before, except last time it was my father lamenting third party participation in America.
Further, "These actions do not represent free and fair elections and are not consistent with international norms." What would be consistent with international norms, Mr. Ereli? Do you mean the international norms which prevailed in Turkey when a majority protested America's military presence? Or is it statements like, "Russia and China stand for a multipolar, just and democratic world order based on the commonly recognized principles of international law"? This statement was presented by Presidents Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao in a joint statement targeting the United States for not seeking U.N. approval, and thus neglecting the democratic sentiments of the international community? Wait a minute, weren't these countries recently our enemies for not speaking for their people?
Non-Western countries are finally starting to come around. Increasingly, their taking into account the views of historically disenfranchised people. And its not looking good for us.
We ourselves don't practice a flawless democratic process, no matter what Mr. Ereli wants to believe about our country. There are constant allegations of corruption and exclusionary practices in our election system. However, we seem to overlook those problems. We believe, deep down in our apple pie eatin', flag wavin' souls, that those are minor details, irrelevant to our greater calling; that of spreading democratic joy throughout the world. Our foreign policy reflects that. We even go to war on that premise.
However, the small problems in our own process preclude any flawless working model that we might want to impose on newly developing democracies. At the end of the day, we're faced with the realization that Democracy is dynamic, and it's not always pretty.
As far as our involvement in the democratic affairs of other nations, I'd like to speak in a language which everyone here can easily understand, "Take the log out of your eye before you take the splinter out of their eye" (Matt 7:5).
I'm not sure what it is that America really fears. Is it rogue nations practicing Democracy? Or is it Democracy itself?
America's Secret Establishment: An Intro to the Order of Skull & Bones
Extracted from this site.
More complete information (probably more than anyone would care to read) about the Skull and Bones is available here.
Did Bill Clinton really study law at Yale???
Extracted from this site.
In order to bring in this new world order "a planned order with heavily restricted individual freedom, without Constitutional protection, without national boundaries or cultural distinction," had to be devised. With the concentration on controlling society as a whole, they had to implement 12 areas of concern:
1) Education - dictating how the population of the future will behave
2) Money - controlling wealth and exchange of goods
3) Law - enforcing the will of the state, a world law and a world court
4) Politics - directing each state
5) Economy - creating additional wealth
6) History - making the people believe what you want them to think
7) Psychology - controlling how people think
8) Philanthropy - so people think well of the controllers
9) Medicine - power over health, life and death
10) Religion - the people's beliefs, which is the spur to action for many
11) Media - power over what people know and learn of current events, and
12) Continuity - appointing follower's to ensure the longevity over generations.
More complete information (probably more than anyone would care to read) about the Skull and Bones is available here.
Did Bill Clinton really study law at Yale???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)