Democracy Now!: radio and TV news

It just occurred to me that I haven't blogged one of my favorite sites. I visit here (almost) every day to catch the 'War and Peace Report', which airs weekdays. I just finished listening to their last two shows of the week, which I downloaded last night.

You can download their hour-long show, or listen/watch online if you like. You can even check to see if they're broadcasting on a radio station near you. They start with a regular news report, then give interesting interviews for the rest of the show.

Man I can't believe I've neither blogged, nor put a link for them in my sidebar (which I'll do 'today'). I could go on and on about them, but the bottom line is that if you're at all interested in the types of articles my posts link to, I'm sure you'll like their shows. Go now!!

George Bush Sr. - Unauthorized Biography

George Bush Sr. - The Unauthorized Biography
by Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin

"The thesis of this book is simple: if George Bush were to be re- elected in November 1992 for a second term as the president of the United States, this country and the rest of the world would face a catastrophe of gigantic proportions."

"The necessity of writing this book became overwhelming in the minds of the authors in the wake of the ghastly slaughter of the Iraq war of January-February 1991. That war was an act of savage and premeditated genocide on the part of Bush, undertaken in connivance with a clique in London which has, in its historical continuity, represented both the worst enemy of the long-term interests of the American people, and the most implacable adversary of the progress of the human species."

"The authors observed George Bush very carefully as the Gulf crisis and the war unfolded, and had no doubt that his enraged public outbursts constituted real psychotic episodes, indicative of a deranged mental state that was full of ominous
portent for humanity. The authors were also horrified by the degree to which their
fellow citizens willfully ignored the shocking reality of these public fits. A majority of the American people proved more than willing to lend its support to a despicable enterprise of killing."

Damn, those are strong words, but that's just how some people felt about the current Presidents' father, during his own campaign against Iraq. The first Gulf War could easily be argued as war to liberate Kuwait from Saddams' invasion. What created the conditions for his invasion of a fellow Gulf State, was directly tied to our relationship with Saddam. Remember, we had supported him in his invasion and war with Iran, after Iran kicked out their U.S. installed, and backed, dictator. After that war ended in stalemate, Saddam set his sites on Kuwait, with whom he had a territorial dispute with for some time. He gave every indication of invading, and considering that he'd already tried invading the much larger country of Iran (with our blessings), there was no reason to think he wouldn't. In fact, there wasn't even any reason for him to think we would really object. Dispite what was said in public, he wasn't told by us, in no uncertain terms, that we would not tolerate an invasion of Kuwait. There was plenty of time for us to do so, but didn't. He received the same lip-service that we gave (publicly) just prior to, and during the war with Iran. He expected to rule the whole gulf region, with our support. He was setup, then, as he was setup later with Bush Jr in command.

That's the context in which this bio was written. I only brought that up because you should be aware of the reason for the strong degree of bias exhibited by the authors. Then, as now, there were grave concerns about the true nature of our activities in the middle east, and our Presidents' motivations at that time. But that shouldn't turn you off reading about our current Presidents' roots. Unless of course you're a die-hard Bush fanatic.

One more thing, the reason for this book was to expose his past in the hopes it would help prevent his re-election. As it turned out, he lost, but only because he refused to campaign for a second term. He claimed he was too busy and couldn't be bothered. I've wondered since, what the world would be like by now if he had just campaigned a little. Clinton wouldn't have beaten him in '92, and Junior may have followed his dad in the '96 election. Hmm, I wonder.....

Recollections from the Church Committee's Investigation of NSA

At this time in which we're hearing arguments as to the legality of the NSAs' spying, I'll take you all back to a time when this came up before. First, the webpage that this post links to in the title, tells the story of one of the members of the Church Committee staff, investigating the NSA back in 1975.

Second, the webpage linked further down, is to the actual Senate hearings. The hearings themselves are extensive and time consuming to read, but if you're interested in current events, it's at least worth skimming through.

"In January 1975, I was offered a position as counsel on the staff of the Church Committee. I was 30, and Senator Sam Ervin, for whom I had worked since 1971, had retired and returned to North Carolina. While I had participated in Senator Ervin's inquiry into the domestic activities of Army intelligence elements during the Vietnam era, the foreign intelligence apparatus of the United States, which I now confronted, was, quite literally, foreign to me, as it was to many of those joining the Church Committee staff."

"To make matters worse, I was given the task (along with a staff colleague, Peter Fenn of trying to crack what was perceived to be the most secretive of US intelligence agencies, the National Security Agency (NSA). Unlike the CIA and FBI, which were the agencies principally in the Committee's sights--thanks to a number of sensational press accounts--there had been no press exposés about NSA."

"What ensued was something of an odyssey that lasted over the better part of a year. It began with a series of fruitless, sometimes comical, efforts to penetrate NSA's defenses."

SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY
GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY AND FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

OCTOBER 29, 1975

The CHAIRMAN. "The hearing will please come to order."

"This morning, the committee begins public hearings on the National Security Agency or, as it is more commonly known, the NSA. Actually, the Agency name is unknown to most Americans, either by its acronym or its full name. In contrast to the CIA, one has to search far and wide to find someone who has ever heard of the NSA. This is peculiar, because the National Security Agency is an immense installation. In its task of collecting intelligence by intercepting foreign communications, the NSA employs thousands of people and operates with an enormous budget. Its expansive computer facilities comprise some of the most complex and sophisticated electronic machinery in the world."

The Seven Sisters - The Great Oil Companies and the World They Made

The Seven Sisters (from a phrase first popularised by Italian oil tycoon Enrico Mattei): Exxon (Esso), Shell, BP, Gulf, Texaco, Mobil, Socal (Chevron) -- plus an eighth, the Compagnie Francaise Des Pétroles (CFP-Total).

This page give access to the online text of a book published in 1975. Unfortunately it's missing the first 7 chapters, and the last, but those that are available will give you a good glimps into how and why we became so "addicted to oil".

Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps

"A Halliburton subsidiary has just received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities."

"The contract -- announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR -- calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when."

"To date, some newspapers have worried that open-ended provisions in the contract could lead to cost overruns, such as have occurred with KBR in Iraq. A Homeland Security spokesperson has responded that this is a "contingency contract" and that conceivably no centers might be built. But almost no paper so far has discussed the possibility that detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law."

Don't you wish you had stock in Halliburton? They're doing great with this administration.

The idea behind this article proposes that these "camps" may well be intended for us, should we decide to rebel against the direction we're taking. I don't think they'll be needed for that, since the propaganda specialists are doing such a good job of pacifying us.

kindergarteners Could Be Terrorists Too

"While Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez assures the U.S. Senate that the Bush Administration’s domestic eavesdropping program is a vital "early warning system" for terrorists, another homeland security measure strikes at a local elementary school."

"The kindergarten class at Lakewood’s Taft Elementary was planning a field trip to NASA Glenn Research Center. It’s a popular trip because it’s free, because the NASA staff already has age-appropriate tours that fit well with school curriculum, and, well, it’s outer space, for pete’s sake. They’ve got rocket ships."

Well guess what, they couldn't go. A regulation is in place barring anyone who isn't a U.S. citizen from visiting the center. The trip was cancelled because two kids weren't citizens.

I keep saying our government can't protect us from anything, much less determind terrorists, because bureaucracies just aren't designed for efficiency and competence. The bureaucracy in question is Homeland Security, which is inefficient, incompetent, and will be ineffective in protecting us from any of the hundreds of new terrorist we create every month. The fact that they will bar a 6 year old child from a normally publicly accessable tour, shows that it doesn't have the ability to think on its' feet, something you would think vital for people tasked with your safety. Bureaucrats look at a well-intentioned book of rules and guidlines, and follow them to the letter. Unfortunately, the people who make up the rules cannot be psychic, and predict every scenario to allow and disallow, which leads the bureaucrat to take the ass-covering route by choosing not to think, but just follow orders.

Now I don't blame the Center for this, not even Homeland Security (damn I hate that name, reminds me of "The Fatherland", and "The Motherland", both used extensively by now deceased dictatorships). No, I blame the rule makers in Congress for rushing through new (and often unnecessary) laws and regulations without ever giving 5 minutes to think about how best to implement them, or if they can even be implemented effectively. So many new rules created, while at the same time making sure they can't be contested. Murderers, rapists, and child molesters get appeals, but not law-abiding victims of the war on terror.

Instead of doing any homework, they (Congress) just listen to those who are insisting on greater authority, and give'em whatever they want as long as they invoke some magic key-words relating to "security", or "terrorism". Those seeking more authority don't care whether they ensnare the innocent, they're drunk with power. Many in the Legislature seem to feel (or perhaps are being threatened), that if the public finds out they refused, or took too long in granting more police powers "to make you safe", they'll be accused of being soft on terrorism, and lose support for a re-election.

Meanwhile, the bureaucrats continue to treat everyone, even children, like enemies of the State.

Russian Ultranationalist Leader Expects U.S. to Attack Iran in Late March

"A senior Russian parliamentary official and leader of the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Vladimir Zhirinovsky believes that a U.S. attack on Iran is inevitable, he has told Ekho Moskvy radio station."

"The war is inevitable because the Americans want this war," he said. "Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position. The date for the strike is already known — it is the election day in Israel (March 28). It is also known how much that war will cost," Zhirinovsky said."

"He went on to add that the publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons in the European press was a planned action by the U.S. whose aim is "to provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world". "It will all end with European countries thanking the United States and paying, and giving soldiers," he said. Russia should "choose a position of non-interference and express minimal solidarity with the Islamic world", Zhirinovsky added."

Very interesting take on the current Muslim unrest caused by those cartoons, in that last statement. I hadn't thought of that, but the timing does seem more than coincidental, and very convenient. Given what evidence exists about all the lies and plans within plans that have come out of this government in the last 5 years, does an intentional incitement of the Islamic world seem all that far fetched? Even if the publishing of those cartoons were not malicious or intended to achieve the current results, or instigated by us, it's very hard to believe that anyone thought that they wouldn't cause the turmoil that they have. Salman Rushdies' The Satanic Verses, was not so long ago that no one remembers how dangerous it is to insult the Islamic religion in the eyes of some of its' followers. It was either intentional, or just plain stupid. All I'm saying, is that the timing is perfect for certain peoples' agendas.

As for an imminent attack on Iran, I see it too. All the signs of preparation are taking place, from military planning, to propaganda aimed at the American people, to get us stirred up and fearful of the "Islamic Bomb" so we'll accept another invasion. Only this time I can't see even Bush so deluded into thinking it can be done solely by conventional means. Considering the personality of our Fearless Leader, it's not hard to imagine that he wouldn't hesitate becoming only the second President to ever launch a nuclear attack. We just don't have the manpower to do anything else, unless we re-establish the draft.

Rumors of Wars:

Ex-U.N. inspector: Iran's next

"The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran."

Beware The Ides Of March

"If Julius - regarded as one of the greatest Caesars - couldn’t take note, the leader of the current superpower should. This March, his actions may spark off a conflict from which the world might never recover."

"There is no superstition needed for the coming month, as too many converging forces are spiraling out of hand to tip the world into a precipice burning in peak oil."

Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails

"It is the option of last resort with consequences too hideous to contemplate. And yet, with diplomacy nearly exhausted, the use of military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme is being actively considered by those grappling with one of the world’s most pressing security problems."

Poll: Growing Number of People Fear Iran

"Americans' fears about Iran have grown sharply over the last few months as efforts by the United States and Europe to slow Tehran's nuclear program have been firmly rejected, a poll found."

"More people in this country now rate Iran as the biggest threat to the U.S., 27 percent, than say that about any other country, including North Korea, China and Iraq, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press."

Partners in War: The Hillary and George Show

"There aren't many elected officials in Washington who want to throw the gantlet down on Iran more than Hillary Clinton. The New York Senator believes the president has been too soft on the militant Islamic country, claiming that Bush has played down the threat of a nuclear-armed Tehran."

Juggernaut Gathering Momentum, Headed for Iran

"What President George W. Bush, FOX news, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."

As you can see, the propaganda war is in full steam. The fearmongers are hard at work scaring us into welcoming the coming war.

And just in case part of your "fear" involves statements made by Iranian leaders, just be aware, as our leaders are, that a lot of things said by leaders are for domestic consumption. Many leaders talk tough, especially towards the U.S. because it makes them look good at home. Remember all the tough talk from Saddam? All bluff. But what else could anyone expect? Neither Iraq then, nor Iran now, is any threat to us. We were, and are, threatening them. How else should they respond, like wimps and lose support among their own people? What we're doing is imagining possible future threats, then using it as an excuse to dictate what others better do, or else. How would you respond to the demands of a bully?

So far, the plans created by the neo conservatives are proceeding nicely.

Liberty vs. democracy

"Many mistakenly believe democracy means liberty, but a quick review of world democracies show that is not true. Almost all democracies restrict economic liberties more than necessary. Many have corrupt court and civil service systems, inhibit women's rights, constrain press freedom and do not protect minority rights and views. Iran, though a very restrictive theocracy, calls itself a democracy and holds elections.
The American Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, so they set up a Republic to protect individual liberties from the passions of the majority at the moment. They worried about the excesses of democracy."

The premiss of this article is that we should be promoting liberty in the world, without so much emphesis on democracy. I think the author is working on the false idea that our government is interested in promoting freedom of choice for the worlds' population. He assumes that we care about the individuals and their relationship with their respective states. He also implies that non-democracies may be better at protecting civil liberties, and experience less corruption in government, than democracies. If you choose to read the article, this is what you find at the very begining:

Would you prefer to live in a country that has:
(1) The rule of law with an honest civil service, strong protection of private property and minority rights, free trade, free markets, very low taxes, and full freedom of the speech, press and religion, but not a democracy?
(2) Democracy and a corrupt court and civil service, many restrictions on economic freedom, including very high taxes, with limited rights for minority religions, peoples and speech?

You almost get the impression that the author would like to see our own democracy changed to something like choice number (1), though he's talking about our "nation building" in Iraq. The problem is that he doesn't give any good current examples of this non-democratic mythical paradise, aside from Hong Kong, which certainly isn't an autonomous state, but merely a city within a very restrictive communist dictatorship that allows its' freedoms only for the sake of the cash it generates. Using Hong Kong as an example is ridiculous.

As far as his idea that we're mistakenly pushing democracy in Iraq and the world, to promote liberty for individuals, is denying the fact that we don't really care if a country has a democracy or not, as long as its' government caters to our every whim. Saudi Arabia, one of our big allies in that region is by no means a democracy, and we only provide occassional lip-service for them to establish liberty-inducing reforms. As long as they behave politically by supporting our agenda, we don't care how they treat their own people. Other examples are in abundence to prove we don't care about individual liberty today, only our own corporate empire.

He gives as examples, our influence on post-war Germany and Japan, as what we should be doing today, but fails to mention that both those societies, had previously established a culture of strict obedience to the state, and suppressed any form of dissent to the point that after conquest, they dutifully obeyed their conquerors. They had already abolished the idea of individual liberty by weeding out dissenters, so imposing a new government was relatively easy. German culture was already similar to ours, and so was Japan, who had for decades before the war, modeled much of itself after the European powers. We also didn't have to worry about those countries having diverse ethnic and/or religious regions within those countries that had only been held together by brute force, such as the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq.

All in all, I don't think the author can support his notion that our intention is to establish individual freedoms in other countries, or that non-democracies are inherently better.

But that's just my opinion.

PBS Frontline: Sex Slaves

"An undercover journey deep into the world of sex trafficking, following one man determined to rescue his wife -- kidnapped and sold into the global sex trade."

I just watched this PBS program, and it pisses me off that women still get treated this way. PBS has done a number of other programs that have highlighted this bullshit that stays on the very bottom of the priority list for every government in the world. Sometimes I can't even watch a complete show about this and other forms of brutality that happen to so many women in the world, even here in the U.S.. Often, when there's a movie scene where a woman is brutalized, I can't watch it.

Now, I've been no angel in my life. I seen and participated in a lot of violence in my life, but I could never hurt a woman. This just makes me sick. I wasn't raised around any violence against women. Quite the opposite, I was raised to love and respect them. In my younger days, with the group I used to hang with, if we heard that someone mistreated their wife or girlfriend, we'd go teach'em a lesson. The only thing that struck me as odd, was that sometimes the woman would try to defend the bastard that was beating on them. I learned later why they would defend those bastards, the damage was so much deeper than a bruise.

I've never used a prostitute, but I've known some, and every one was damaged. Their souls were damaged. The ones I knew weren't forced into it like the women in the PBS program, but every one got into it because of how they were treated and made to feel about themselves and their lives, by the men they'd known. They'd all been abused sexually, at a very young age, by either their own fathers, step-fathers, or other male relatives or 'family friends'. Nobody helped them. Some tried to tell their mothers, or police, and were further abused by being accused of "asking for it". Yeah, even by their own mothers, who blamed them, then looked the other way and did nothing to protect their child.

pisses me off

Overkill: The Latest Trend in Policing

"On Jan. 24, a SWAT team in Fairfax shot and killed Salvatore J. Culosi Jr., an optometrist who was under investigation for gambling. According to a Jan. 26 front-page story in The Post, Culosi had emerged from his home to meet an undercover officer when a police tactical unit swarmed around him. An officer's gun discharged, killing the suspect. Culosi, police said, was unarmed and had displayed no threatening behavior."

"It's unlikely that the officer who shot Culosi did so intentionally. But it's also unlikely that the investigation into this shooting will address why police sent a military-style unit to arrest an optometrist under investigation for a nonviolent crime and why the officers had their guns drawn when approaching a man with no history of violence."

Here's something that hasn't been getting enough coverage; the militarization of our police. To be sure, it's nothing new. The article states that..

"During the past 15 years, The Post and other media outlets have reported on the unsettling "militarization" of police departments across the country. Armed with free surplus military gear from the Pentagon, SWAT teams have multiplied at a furious pace. Tactics once reserved for rare, volatile situations such as hostage takings, bank robberies and terrorist incidents increasingly are being used for routine police work."

Well as one who's lived a little longer than 15 years, I know for a fact that this all began at least 3 decades ago, when they began getting tons of army surplus, when it was no longer needed after we left Vietnam. So if they waited till about 15 years had past to even start looking into it, that may be a clue as to why it was allowed to get so bad in the last 15. I used to wonder why nobody (in the media) seemed to notice that the military-style police units were being used when they were clearly unnecessary. When it started, back in the 70s, it was always a big deal in the media because it made for good film footage for the nightly news, but they didn't question the growing use of the SWAT teams. The media applauded their use, because it went hand-in-hand with the way they were (and still are) scaring everyone to death about criminals lurking around every corner. They had (have) everyone so afraid of potential crime, nobody questions police tactics, even when there's a rise in shootings of the unarmed and/or innocent.

I've alluded many times before to the fact that growing old can be a curse when it comes to being a news consumer. Look at the title of this story; "..The Latest Trend..". I'd like to bitch-slap the child who came up with that. That title is meant to convey the impression that this is new, and growing only in the last 15 years. I've already said it's been happening for 30 years. The general population can be excused, in my opinion, for having a short memory, but not the media. They are the ones that have the documentation, the film footage, the research notes, and in many cases at least a few employees old enough to remember events first-hand. If the person who titled this story actually believes this is a new trend, he doesn't deserve his job. Sorry, I didn't mean to get off on a rant about the media here, but it just bugs me when I know they should know better.

(..deep breath!..)

Anyway, where was I. Oh yeah, the SWAT teams that are being used excessively for two reasons; 1) to intimidate the general population, especially the media-viewing public, that it's futile to disobey the authority of the state, and 2) as an excuse to raise or divert funding into law enforcement agencies, for the purpose of implementing reason 1. You'll note that I say it's to intimidate the viewers, and not the criminals. That's because criminals don't care. Criminals don't care about SWAT teams, anti-gun laws, surveillance cameras, and a host of other ways you're being told "keep you safe". It's all meant to keep you in line. They know that there will always be a segment of the community that turns to crime no matter what, but their general intimidation practices are intended to instill in the whole population that they are to be obeyed, period, without question. In my city, it's been years since any arrest has not included a SWAT team of heavily armed pseudo-soldiers, unless it was for a traffic violation. I don't really care if anyone believes what I say about their reasons, unless someone can come up with a better one for needing SWAT units to participate in arresting criminals they know are unarmed and non-violent. Oh sure, there's the self-defence excuse, but just how many BINGO game players have ever tried to shoot their way out of a raid? Once upon a time, when they were after someone, they'd hide and wait for the person to come out into the open and catch them by surprise. Now they prefer to corner the person in a house or building, so they can pose for the media outside, but the actual confrontation is out of sight of the public and cameras.

This article emphasizes gambling raides, but from what I see in my own city, most of the arrests are not in groups, but are single persons who could easily be arrested without SWAT, if they wanted. But those don't get the exciting media coverage.

Just like this article, I'm not talking about violent criminals. It's not enough to excuse this by saying that the police never know what to expect during an arrest. Many times they're arresting repeat offenders whose non-violent histories are known, as well as white-collar criminals who never try to "shoot it out". Way too many times, unarmed people are being shot to death, but nobody cares because they committed some crime (we're told). Usually a crime that didn't warrant a death penalty. But they were criminals (we're told), so who cares, right? Well some are innocent, some were startled and made a wrong move, some are reaching for ID they're told to produce, but with half a dozen or more cops surrounding them, all screaming orders at the top of their lungs, one decides the person isn't going for ID, but a gun, and fires. Then others fire. Then there's a dead, unarmed "suspect" who may or may not be the person they were looking for. The cops are temporarily suspended, with pay, then always cleared of using excessive force, and put back on the street, by which time, the public's forgotten, and cares little whether the person was ever guilty of anything. Who cares? Where there's smoke there's fire, right?
If they were innocent they wouldn't have been there, right? They wouldn't have been stopped if they weren't guilty of something, right? If you agreed with any of that, then let's just hope you don't end up an "accident" that nobody cares about.

The Pentagon Channel

The Pentagon Channel broadcasts military news and information for the 2.6 million members of the U.S. Armed Forces through programming including:

• Department of Defense news briefings
• Military news
• Interviews with top Defense officials
• Short stories about the work of our military

In addition to enhancing Department of Defense communications with the 1.4 million active duty service, the Pentagon Channel will provide the 1.2 million members of the National Guard and Reserve and the 650,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense more timely access to military information and news.

The Pentagon Channel television service is distributed 24/7 and is available to all stateside cable and satellite providers; via American Forces Radio and Television Service, overseas; and via webcast worldwide right here at pentagonchannel.mil.

If you like your info straight from the horses' mouth (or, if you prefer, horses' ass), you'll find this site useful.

Robertson again calls for Chavez's assassination

"During the February 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Christian Coalition founder and 700 Club host Pat Robertson reiterated his call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez."

"When co-host Alan Colmes asked Robertson, "[I]f he [Chavez] were assassinated, the world would be a safer place?" Robertson answered, "I think South America would." When Colmes later pressed Robertson, asking, "Do you want him [Chavez] taken out?" Robertson retorted, "Not now, but one day, one day, one day." Earlier, Colmes had asked, "Should Chavez be assassinated?" Robertson explained that "one day," Chavez woulwill "be aiming nuclear weapons; and what's coming across the Gulf [of Mexico] isn't going to be [Hurricane] Katrina, it's going to be his nukes." Co-host Sean Hannity agreed that "the world would be better off without him where he [Chavez] is, because he is a danger to the United States."

Yes, I thought his apology for his original statement was fake, didn't you? As you can see, he's nothing more than an American version of a radical Imam who corrupts the teachings of his religion. Robertsons' version of Christianity is an afront to Christ and is just as dangerous as "the terrorists" with their warped ideology.

As for Chavez, just how does he threaten us? What is he doing that causes someone to talk of such drastic measures as assasination? Robertson claims that "one day" he'll be aiming nukes at us, but why? Why is Robertson making such a fuss over someone who in no way threatens our safety? Is it for the same reason our administration does? Chavez refuses to be a puppet for our corporate government, and simply because of that, he should be killed because of what he might do some distance in the future?

Robertson would have us believe that Chavez is organizing a Marxist Bloc that will launch nukes at us first chance he gets. He's attempting to stir up our old Cold War fears of the Soviets. Not living down there myself, I can't say I know his intentions or what exactly he's doing in his country, but I do know what he says he wants to do. He wants to relieve his country and the region from U.S. dictates, and corporate exploitation. That's exactly what every revolutionary in the region throughout the 20th century has wanted. The media calls him Leftist, Robertson calls him Marxist (which he isn't), but neither definition automatically makes him a threat to us.

During the Cold War, most countries in the world had to take sides. A choice between two evils. If they sided with us, that meant that they allowed our military bases, and especially our economic exploitation. That exploitation led to civil unrest by the poor. The poor would ask for our help, but we'd help their rulers suppress them instead. If they revolted, and succeeded, they naturally wouldn't choose to adopt a capitalist system that had abused them. Even if they didn't originally want anything to do with the Soviets, the Soviets were the only ones strong enough to give them another option. If they didn't go with the Soviets, we would just move back in and appoint another dictator. If they did choose the Soviets, they eventually found out they were no better off. At least we could tell ourselves that if they remained a Soviet satellite, they would soon be nuclear armed, and aiming at us. And they would. But today is not yesterday. Without a comparable nuclear powered superpower to protect them, no one on the planet could possibly hope to beat us in a nuclear war. As little sense as starting a war with us made even to the Soviets, it makes even less sense to any one else today. Just as the Iranians would be foolish to send nukes to a nuclear armed Isreal, or us, they'd have to know in the end, they'd cease to exist. North Koreans know they can't hope to survive a nuclear war with anyone, especially us, either. So too the countries south of the border. The only thing they could use them for, is protection from invasion. And just who is it that seems most likely to invade anyone today? hmm? If we don't screw with them, they won't screw with us. They'd lose anyway and they know it.

So, let's stop listening to any type of leader here who starts warmongering just because someone doesn't like being pushed around by our corporations, or political system. Our government has it's own agenda, but we don't have to follow along behind like a flock of sheep. Their geopolitical plans will have no benefits for us. Their globalization plans will only make us poorer (as is happening right now), and perpetually open to terrorist attack from the disenfranchised.

But wait, why would Robertson care if anyone nuked us? According to his mental illness, it would only be Divine retribution for people who reject God and Intelligent Design. The rest should have nothing to worry about.


Why do I even bother. If our leaders compare Chavez to Hitler (I think someone has already), and scare us enough by saying he harbors "terrorist"(wait for it...), we'll go along. We usually do.