What is an American?

Here is an only slightly less critical conservative viewpoint on the recent vote in San Francisco to ban military recruiters from public schools and colleges, than the brain-damaged Bill O'Reillys'.

"They passed by a 60% margin something called Measure I, dubbed "College Not Combat". It opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since THAT would put schools at risk of losing federal funding. Take the money; avoid the responsibility. It takes the pusillanimous approach of encouraging school authorities and outside weirdoes - eager to participate - to harass, insult and generally make life difficult for the people who make it possible for San Francisco to be such a pleasant place where bizarre people can congregate with impunity."

"to harass, insult and generally make life difficult", seems to be what this article is about, only towards the other side. It's ok to harrass and insult those that actively participate in opposing what they see as detrimental to their country, and as the title suggests, the author is doing no less than reviving the "UnAmerican" chant that has been so popular among the conservatives. I'm sorry but actively opposing what they consider as a bad government is very much "American". It's 'blind obedience' to authority that is truely 'UnAmerican'. This author, and those in agreement with him, would've been called 'Loyalists' in days gone by, and would have advocated British rule. Saying 'NO' to government is at the very heart of what it means to be an American.

Notice that even in light of that fact that most of the country dislikes the direction the administration has taken, the true-believers are still blaming Liberals for any desent. What about the original base that helped put Bush and Co. onto the throne? They are the ones that are finally seeing things for what they are, and taken approval ratings so low. I guess they're assumed to simply be duped by those unAmerican Liberals, and the Loyalists still hold out hope that they will fall back into line, so it's best not to offend them too, just yet.

And as far as keeping recruiters at city campuses for fear of losing federal funds, those funds belonged to them in the first place, and it just highlights one of the ways the government blackmails cities and states into compliance, when they aren't specifically mandated by law to follow orders.

"There is a place for dissent in America. But we have to dissent from the dissenters. What kind of mind set produces a measure like that? I am sure these guys hate the president. They oppose the war in Iraq. They probably dislike military culture and almost certainly got a hard time in gym class back in high school from guys with short haircuts."

Isn't that an, "Aww, you're just a bunch of sissys", insult? Such hypocracy runs all the way through this article. If you consider yourself living on the moral highground, is it right for you to practice what you accuse your opponants of doing? But then, that's current government policy these days, isn't it? Fight fire with fire (or even better, naplam), while still claiming moral superiority.

Every single war this Union has ever fought since it's founding, has included vocal and active desent. Why should this one be any different.

Torture claims 'forced US to cut terror charges'

"The Bush administration decided not to charge Jose Padilla with planning to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a United States city because the evidence against him was extracted using torture on members of al-Qaeda, it was claimed on Thursday."

"Padilla, a US citizen who had been held for more than three years as an "enemy combatant" in a military prison in North Carolina, was indicted on Tuesday on the lesser charges of supporting terrorism abroad. After his arrest in 2002 the Brooklyn-born Muslim convert was also accused by the administration of planning to blow up apartment blocks in New York using natural gas."

"Thursday's New York Times, quoting unnamed current and former government officials, said the main evidence of Padilla's involvement in the plots against US cities had come from two captured al-Qaeda leaders, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, a leading al-Qaeda recruiter. But the officials told the newspaper Padilla could not be charged with the bomb plots because neither of the al-Qaeda leaders could be used as witnesses as they had been subjected to harsh questioning and could open up charges from defence lawyers that their earlier statements resulted from torture."

Hmm, if those unnamed sources can be trusted, then this just might be one of the reasons why the administration feels it so necessary to be able to hold people without charges or counsel, indefinately. They know torture evidence is not legitimate and won't stand up in the light of day. This is why they pushed so hard for military tribunals for non-citizen 'suspects'. Those tribunals would be nothing more than secret kangaroo courts (remember that term?) where the outcome would be pre-determind, as guilty, of course.

You know, a lot has been said about our using torture, but nothing's been said about the torturers. The more torturing we do, the more torturers we'll have. These are American citizens. These are people from our society, who at some point, will return to it, and bring their experiences back with them. We all hear about how hard it is for some returning vets to reintegrate into society after going through the hell of war, killing those who are shooting at them. How hard will it be for those whose job it is to inflict pain and suffering on those who no longer have the ability to fight? While I'm sure a lot of sadistic personalities will rise to the position, the more universal the practice, the more of them will be needed, but many will not naturally possess that sadistic quality. They may, in the fever of the 'crusade', believe they're doing a just service for their country, but in time, it will have a detrimental affect on their psyche, and they'll bring it home with them. Will they, as well as the ones naturally inclined to sadism, be able to 'turn it off' after they return and try to lead normal lives again?

....But then, I wonder, just how many tortures do we already have?

United States v. Deborah Davis

"Meet Deborah Davis. She's a 50 year-old mother of four who lives and works in Denver, Colorado. Her kids are all grown-up: her middle son is a soldier fighting in Iraq. She leads an ordinary, middle class life. You probably never would have heard of Deb Davis if it weren't for her belief in the U.S. Constitution."

"One morning in late September 2005, Deb was riding the public bus to work. She was minding her own business, reading a book and planning for work, when a security guard got on this public bus and demanded that every passenger show their ID. Deb, having done nothing wrong, declined. The guard called in federal cops, and she was arrested and charged with federal criminal misdemeanors after refusing to show ID on demand."

"On the 9th of December 2005, Deborah Davis will be arraigned in U.S. District Court in a case that will determine whether Deb and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "papers" whenever a cop demands them. "

I really hope she wins that case. Before I continue, you should also know that......

"The bus she rides crosses the property of the Denver Federal Center, a collection of government offices such as the Veterans Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and part of the National Archives. The Denver Federal Center is not a high security area: it's not Area 51 or NORAD."

Note that the 'public' bus she rides only 'crosses the property' of the Federal Center. She doesn't work there, nor was she visiting. She had no intention of going to the Center itself. It just happened to be along the normal bus route.

Now, you may say to yourself, "but these are dangerous times, with terrorists and all". You may also say, "If she had nothing to hide, why would she object?". I would say, "because she's not obligated to, in an allegedly 'free society'.", and I'd also say that to harrass 50 year old white women, when we're supposed to be at war with younger, male, Middle-Eastern, Islamic radicals, shows the same type of bureaucratic incompetence that we see everyday at airports, when obviously non-terrorists are forced to take off their shoes. Now I'm not advocating profilling, but plain common sense should exclude a great majority of citizens from unnecessary searches.

The real reason for these types of intrusions has nothing to do with protecting anyone against anything. It's purpose is simply power and control. They didn't say they wanted to check her ID because they thought she could be a threat to anyone. They didn't check her name against any list. They were not looking for anyone specific. They were doing it just because they wanted to, to get us used to complying unquestioningly to authority.

The main thing for all of us to know and understand, is that no government authority can 'make/keep you safe' no matter what they say, no matter how many freedoms they remove in the name of State Security. All they can actually do is exert power and control over your lives.

If they were serious about protection against terrorists, they'd look after more vulnerable areas, but they don't. There's no need to smuggle 'WMD' into the country when we have so many unguarded facilities that contain dangerous materials that could kill thousands. Nuclear facilities located at colleges across the country, for one. A TV news magazine sent people to such facilities to see if they could gain access. Most of the time they were successful, and they did so without force. But as their hidden cameras showed, while these people gained access through simply asking to see the nuclear material (incredible !), terrorists would have had no trouble at all simply shooting the few people they would have met along the way.

Another area of concern is the railway system. Not the passenger trains, but the cargo trains, the ones that routinely transport hazardous material, toxic, and nuclear waste, through many cities. These trains are completely unguarded. They say that by not labeling the cars as carrying dangerous material, it makes it harder for terrorists to find. But they started that practice long before 9/11 because people were complaining about having such material transported through their cities and towns. If they don't know, they don't complain. But even if the facilities that ship and receive those materials are guarded, the shipments aren't, so all a terrorist would need to do is monitor those places from the outside and collect information on shipments arriving and leaving. They wouldn't even need to rob the trains of the material or highjack them, simply derail them, or use some explosives on the tracks at the right time. When so many people live literally only feet away from the tracks, you can imagine the damage caused by nuclear waste filled boxcars.

I bring all this up to show that while the government likes to make a big show of their anti-terror precautions, those precautions are mainly for show. They do this just to make you feel safe, and make them look like they're doing whatever it takes. Most all of what needs to be done, would be transparent to the average person, and have very little if any affect on our civil liberties. But you wouldn't feel safe that way. You need to 'see' security checkpoints. You need to 'see' guards. You need to 'see' people searched, to feel safe, and they know it, and feed on it.

Some time ago, the President kept saying that the terrorists hated us for our freedoms (sounded stupid to me), yet he, with your complacency, have done nothing but eliminate freedom after freedom. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, 'Freedom does NOT mean being free to do whatever you want, as long as it's in compliance with authority'. That type of 'freedom' is always in abundance in dictatorships. Freedom means being free to do what you want, without any governance or regulation, as long as you're not comitting a crime. If you can only do what is specifically allowed by law, you are not free.

The Sexual Rewards of Jihads' Martyrs

Reformist Saudi Author: Religious Cassettes Advocate Jihad by Emphasizing Martyr's Sexual Rewards

"In a November 15, 2005 article in the Saudi daily Al-Iqtisadiyya, Sa'ad Al-Sowayan, a reformist Saudi researcher and columnist argued that religious cassettes, which are widely available in Saudi Arabia, advocate Jihad by emphasizing the sexual reward awaiting the martyr in Paradise. This is aimed at tempting teenagers who can find no sexual release in conservative Arab society. An English translation of the article was published in the Saudi Gazette on November 17."

The following are excerpts from the translation:

"These cassettes mostly urge people to carry out Jihad through taking up arms, without specifying the zero hour or the Jihad battlefield. As such they advocate Jihad for Jihad's sake. It's a mobilization campaign in which Jihad becomes a state of mind, a mode of living. They want you to give up this foul and mean earthly life, renounce worldly pleasures, devote your life to Jihad, and seek to die in the Jihad battlefield so as to win martyrdom."

"Listen carefully to what these religious cassettes convey and you will find that the mythical supersedes the religious intent. They have converted this world to a filthy and mythical place and the Hereafter into a fabled utopia… They first divide the world into two parts: one belonging to God, which you are for, and the other to Satan, which you are against. The next step is to step up the value of the myth and draw the recipient into a world of mythical thinking in which rational thinking stops and the mind becomes receptive to suggestions and irrationalism."

We've all by now heard of those virgins martyrs are supposed to get by blowing themselves up for the cause, and many in the non-Muslim world find it as irrational as it actually is. But just how irrational is it, to teens raised in a highly religious society?

It's really a shame that religion always ends up being subverted to destruction. I've been noticing many non-Muslims lately, who have taken passages out of the Qur'an, and held them up, along with the actions of some followers, to prove that Islam is a dangerous religion and should be crushed and wipped out.

However, very little if anything has been said about what can be found in the Bible, and in some of it's followers. Just as they make the case against Islam, I could make the same for Christendom. How many Christians do you know of that quote passages from the Old Testament to justify their actions, as opposed to the New Testament? When you hear preachers encouraging warfare, promoting hostile acts, or even assasinations of leaders of foreign governments, do you ask yourself how could alleged Christians promote and condone such acts against other humans? Let's not forget, if you are a Christian, are you not supposed to endevour to lead the life of Christ? If you look at what the Bible says about the way He lead his life, in a very brutal world, a world ruled by the iron grip of the Roman Empire, you see no comparison between Him, and the Christian-hawks.

Where in the Bible does it even remotely suggest that He condoned warefare, brutality, torture, assasination? Where does it state that He supported Roman repression whenever someone attacked the Empire, or even opposed it's rule? Where does it say he took up arms, and encouraged his followers to do the same, in defense of his homeland?

Just as some would try to show that historically, Islam has been a brutal religion bent on world domination, the exact same thing can be said of the Christian religion after it's acceptance within the Roman Empire. As soon as it became powerful, it became subverted, in some cases, extremely so.

Now, understand, I'm not taking sides as far as religion goes, as I'm not religious, but I'm very much affected by the actions of those that are, and am not blinded by any religious fervor to 'believe' my side is the most rightious. I'm just sick and tired of those who seek power of any kind, who use religion, any religion, as a tool to power. I can't help but think that if any of them are right about their God/Gods/Allah, then they'll never even come close to reaping their ultimate rewards. Instead, they'll get their just deserts.

U.N. Faces New Political Threats From U.S.

"John Bolton, the abrasive U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who has been dubbed by one New York newspaper as "a human wrecking ball", is living up to every critic's gloomy expectations."

"Last week, he threatened U.N. member states, specifically the 132 developing nations, that if they don't play ball with the United States, Washington may look elsewhere to settle international problems."

"It is obvious," Jim Paul of the New York-based Global Policy Forum told IPS, "that Washington has once again threatened the United Nations with its usual warning: 'Do what we say, or we will send you into oblivion"'. He said Bolton's message is clear, "If you don't, we will wreck you."

Not that I care that much for the U.N., but I can't help wonder just how long it's going to take to repair all the damage to our standing in the world, after this administration finally leaves office. Whether Republican or Democrat, the next administration is going to have a lot of work to do.

It's as if these people running things now have absolutely no sense of history, otherwise they'd realize that no country/kingdom/empire has ever lasted forever, and when they began to fall, they all paid a high price for pissing everyone off, in their rise to conquest.

Iraq on the Record

"Prepared at the direction of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Iraq on the Record is a searchable collection of 237 specific misleading statements made by Bush Administration officials about the threat posed by Iraq. It contains statements that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made. It does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, it was excluded even if it now appears erroneous."

This site should clear up any questions about the fact that the administration purposely misled the world about Iraq.

And just to add to the current debate; notice how they are trying to say that Democrats and others received the same intelligence they did? That's an outright lie, because Presidents always get the latest intelligence everyday. It's only after that, that the President then informs others outside the Whitehouse, if he so choses. This means that anyone outside the Cabinet is totally reliant on what the Whitehouse tells them. The lie is that Bush chose to disseminate the intel he received minus all the misgivings from his, as well as many foreign intelligence services, as to the quality and accuracy of the information received from their sources. When the administration presented it's case against Iraq, using phrases like; "We know for a fact...", we now know that they did not "know for a fact", but that is how they presented the case to all those they now accuse of trying to "re-write history".

If you lie to a few people to get them to go along with you, and they, trusting your word, repeat the lie to everyone else, once the lie is exposed, only you are to blame. And, as his low approval ratings show, only his most diehard, fanatical, true believers, still believe.

EPA to Allow Experiments on Children

ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

"Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, misleadingly titled "Protections for Subjects in Human Research," puts industry profits ahead of children's welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments...."

WTF?? OK now we're to start experimenting on the young and helpless, who are unable to say no??

Let's see, the promotion of perpetual war, the spreading of the fear of enemies from within and without, the rapid erosion of civil liberties, the adoption of torture and concentration camps as a matter of State policy, indefinate detentions of anyone labeled as an enemy of the State, the requirement of blind faith in the Leader, consistant lingering suspicion regarding the ascension of the Leader, all opposition to the Leader and/or the State labeled as being from unpatriotic to treasonous, soliciting recruitment for military service of not only college and high school students, but also middle and elementary school students as well, a disregard of any international conventions or treaties that conflict with new State policies, an overwhelming, almost paranoid need for secrecy, etc, etc,.....

.....and now medical experimentation of mentally handicapped and orphaned newborn U.S. citizens, along with unrestricted experimentation of non-citizens.

How much longer are people going to continue to chant; "It can't happen here!"?

Bush Lowers Temperature of Iraq War Debate

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President
Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

"The president also praised Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible."

Wow! What a turn-around. Or should I used one of his own catch phrases from his campaign trail; "Flip-Flop". After spending the entire war disparaging anyone who dared speak out aganst it, or his policies, he's now chaged his mind? Obviously a political move based on his low approval ratings, as well as perhaps finally understanding just what the Democrats were asking for in regards to Iraq. No one suggested literally bringing the troops home this afternoon, but the initial backlash from the loyalists went way overboard, to the point of pure nastyness that I think the Whitehouse realized was going to do more damage than good. And he can't afford any mone damage.

His current policy of just "staying the course", is reminiscent of the reason we stayed so long in Vietnam. The South just wasn't strong enough to turn things over to them completely, was the excuse then, and has been the excuse for Iraq. "Vietnamisation" came to late for Vietnam, so let's not make the same mistake by letting the Iraqi government get too comfortable with our continued level of involvement. They need to realize we're not going to be there for them indefinately, hearing that we'll be there "as long as it takes", "it wouldn't be prudent" to leave just yet, "a thousand points of light".....no, wait, sorry, I was having a flashback to another Bush administration there for a second.

Well, enough of that (for now), on to the rest of the article.....

"Bush ran into stiff resistance from the Chinese to his call for expanding religious freedom and human rights."

Does Bush really think he can tell the international community to go screw itself, whenever they disagree with his policies, throughout his entire term, then expect to get cooperation from them? Just as his trip to South America went unproductive, it looks like this one will too. You simply cannot go around adopting Fascist policies (and attitudes) at home and abroad, not to mention war profiteering, and expect anyone to listen when you talk to them about free trade, democracy, human rights, etc. It looks to them, just like it looks to me; blatantly hypocritical.

Granted, China isn't exactly a friendly ally, but still, can you imagine what they must be saying to themselves about Bush pushing them on human rights, when he himself is actively condoning U.S. torture of suspects (not people proven to be guilty of anything, but just "suspected"), kidnapping people and shipping them off to be totured by others, declaring for himself the right to detain indefinately (and torture) anyone in the world including American citizens he choses to label "enemy combatants", with no accountability? They should listen to him??

If it all wasn't so serious, it would be funny.

Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

The theocratic right seeks to establish dominion, or control over society in the name of God. D. James Kennedy, Pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, calls on his followers to exercise "godly domininion ... over every aspect ... of human society." At a "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in February, 2005, Kennedy said:

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

Twenty-five years ago dominionists targeted the Republican Party as the vehicle through which they could advance their agenda. At the same time, a small group of Republican strategists targeted fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches to expand the base of the Republican Party. This web site is not about traditional Republicans or conservative Christians. It is about the manipulation of people of a certain faith for political power. It is about the rise of dominionists in the U.S. federal government.

This site documents just how seriously the relationship between the Religious Right and politics has become. It shows why the country is so bitterly divided, not just between political parties, but the country as a whole. The symbiotic relationship between certain segments of religion and politics, was created for the specific purpose of creating a Church State, one in which all elements of American society are governed by the dictates of those who consider themselves to be doing Gods' work.

According to acclaimed journalist and television host Bill Moyers,

"True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals ... it's the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on."

I have no problem with people exercising their faith, but when they impose, by law, their ideology upon the rest, that's when it becomes dangerous. That's when this country loses it's foundation of freedom of choice, and freedom of speech. It creates a society where there is no tolerance for views and practises considered outside Gods' Law. Such a society, if at all, allows only an illusion of democracy, since the only choices available to the public, would be the degree to which one practices the state religion.

These True Believers, while continuing to espouse American freedoms, are actively working hard to eliminate them. Unless these people are countered with the same degree of enthusiasm and political activism as they have, a theocracy is inevitable. And theocracies by nature, are intolerant. Is that the kind of society you wish to live in?