Stand with Congressman Conyers

"I am taking steps against the Bush Administration’s handling of the Iraq War and its warrantless wiretapping. I am going to need you to stand with me in fighting for accountability."

"I have sought answers from the administration to questions arising from the Downing Street Minutes, the Valerie Plame leak, and scores of other abominable abuses of power that pervade the activities of this White House. 121 Members of Congress and many citizens like you have joined me in asking these questions of the President."

"I recently completed a thorough review of this administration’s misconduct and have produced a 250-page report that provides evidence suggesting further steps to be taken. [A copy of the report may be found at Raw Story.com and also at CensureBush.org where additional action items may be found.]"

"It is time to take bolder measures in our pursuit of justice. This White House has responded to questions about its conduct with misleading statements, obfuscation, and vicious attacks against their critics. We must take the next step towards restoring accountability in our federal government."

This is the website of the Congressman who created the Iraq Report that I've thrown in your face several times. You can get the report at his site.

Though he's doing what he can, which is a hell of a lot more than others, being a Democrat means he's got no power to push this to the point where action is actually taken, because the ruling Republicans are still protecting their Fearless Leader and his cohorts.

Along with the people at....

ImpeachPAC

"ImpeachPAC supports Democratic candidates for Congress who support the immediate and simultaneous impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney for their Iraq War lies."

....Conyers and others are still placing their hopes in getting the Democrats back in power before they can do anything. I suppose they think waiting it out is a good strategy, by I don't. They're hoping that voters are tired of the corruption and lies coming from the Republicans, and so, will vote Democrat. But unless they start capitalizing "publically" on the misdeeds of the other party. I don't see them having much of a chance come election time. Congressional elections are this year, yet what is their strategy? They should be campaigning right now, by pointing out every reason not to vote Republican, and exactly what they can do to set things right again. If they don't start making some real noise and rattling cages right now, they can forget it.

As for those of us who know better than to vote a straight party ticket, we have to demand, from whoever currently represents us, Dem or Rep, they'll loss their jobs if they don't start taking action against the administration now, not after elections. Screw waiting. The people have to get to those already in office, because there's no guarantee there'll be a shift in power later this year.

Interview With Former Labour MP Tony Benn

"We have an extended conversation with Tony Benn, one of Britain’s most distinguished politicians and the longest serving MP in the history of the Labour party. Benn discusses the new revelations the British government helped Israel build the atom bomb. Benn also speaks about U.S. and U.K. relations, extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay, torture, religion, and the state of the media."

This is from the last of a series of broadcasts from Britain by Democracy Now. This transcript (and of course the audio and video) covers a lot of ground, as the above quote suggests. The main topic, Britians' assistance to Israel, is new, and goes to show just how selective the "good guys" are when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The rest of the interview covers old ground for regular readers here, but still, these messages need to get out and spread, because you won't hear these perspectives being promoted in the main media. And who knows how long blogs and websites will be able to push the truth, now that we're monitored so intensely.

The New World Order Story

Normally I post a quote from articles first, then proceed to speak my piece, but this is one exception. I figured that when you read the title of this article, you might run for cover without bothering to read further. I wouldn't blame you. Though I've always suspected something just wasn't right about the official version of the events surrounding 9/11, most of what I was running into in the realm of "conspiracy theories", just didn't seem to be supported by any facts that could stand the light of day. Most just seemed to be based on a few discrepancies in the official account, followed by theories that seemed just as wild as alien abductions, the Hollow Earth theory, and faked moon landings.

But I must admit to not spending much time on it, as I'd mainly focused my attention on the aftermath, that has resulted in our increased aggression abroad, and deterioration of civil liberties at home. I'd always intended to look deeper into the alleged "plot" that is supposed to involve our own government in the events of 9/11. I've been spending some time recently doing just that, and have discovered that in addition to unanswered questions, there appears to have been at least a conspiracy by our government to hide certain facts. Little by little I've been seeing that almost all of the official story can be refuted, not by wild theories, but by facts that came out, and are still coming out, since that fateful day.

That brings me to this article. It'll take a while to read and soak in, but regular readers of this blog will recognize many of the points made in it, as points I've made in the past. This piece does not simply begin and end on that one day, it puts a sociological and historical perspective to the "story" that makes it easy to understand the motivations that would lead the power structure to conceive and implement such an atrocity as intentionally sacrificing thousands of it's own citizens in the pursuit of wealth, power, and glory. It puts the events of that day in a much wider perspective. The author also sprinkles the article with plenty of source material, giving names, books, articles, and websites, to show his thought process.

What I liked most about this, was that the author doesn't claim to have any definitive "proof" or "smoking gun", but rather points you in the direction of the discrepancies, and shows you why the official account is strongly lacking in explanations of the governments own so-called "facts", that just don't fit the evidence. The author doesn't waste time on nonsense, but sticks with known facts that raise questions that must be answered, understood, and corrected, before the flame of this Democratic Republic goes out for good. This is a "here's what I have, you make the call" type of essay, and I stongly suggest reading this, regardless of whether or not you have doubts about what is supposed to have happened on 9/11, or events surrounding it.

"As we struggle to put the events of and following 9-11-2001 into the most complete perspective, we’re hampered by having to find a way through the minefields of "conspiracy theory" accusations. There are so many parts to consider, it’s almost impossible to argue from any one event. If we argue that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks of 9-11 — that they intentionally murdered 3,000 Americans in order to further their imperialistic agenda abroad and their transformation of America into a command-and-control plutocracy here at home — a hundred others will pick holes in individual pieces of the 9-11 conspiracy theory, and derail the argument rather than clarifying or advancing it. It’s like trying to pick up Jell-O without the bowl."

"Nor can this ever be a merely intellectual game. Suggesting that our own leaders orchestrated the murders of 9-11 — while proposing Arab Muslims as perhaps no more than the fictional enemy toward which they hope to direct American scorn and fury — this idea evokes deep and powerful resentment and resistance, whether it is true or not."

I'll also take this opportunity to present another website that I'd planned on posting in the future. In the above article, the author goes into questions involving the collapse of the Trade Center Towers, and the website I'm presenting below gives explicit details pointing to those towers being intentionally demolished, and not collapsing due to fire, as claimed by the official account. The information there isn't given by "conspiracy enthusiasts", but rather by scientists and others knowledgible enough to question and dispute the governments' claims. I highly recommend this site as well:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

"Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T) is a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11."

"The members of S9/11T are encouraged to take an active role by devoting themselves to reporting the results of research on 9/11 to the nation and the world by means of lectures, articles, and other venues."

"S9/11T members are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C."

"These experts contend that books and articles by members and other associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."

Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act?

"Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts." Thus ran the headline of a front-page news story whose repercussions have roiled American politics ever since its publication last December 16 in the New York Times. The article, signed by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, was adapted from Risen’s then-forthcoming book, State of War.1 In it, the Times reported that shortly after September 11, 2001, President Bush had "authorized the National Security Agency [NSA] to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States . . . without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying."

So far, so good, but everything after that, becomes an argument in favor of the prosecution of the Times for letting the cat out of the bag. The author tries to make a case for it by citing the Espionage Act of 1917, as well as similar cases in history. He also points to alleged successes resulting from the spying. The whole trouble with his argument, is that it's based on the Presidents' authorisation of the NSAs' spying operation, being legal. If the President did not have the legal authority to initiate the spying, then it's no crime to reveal a crime. The President has said that his authorisation from Congress to go to war in Afganistan, is what gave him the right, but nothing in it gave him the right to bypass existing law (ie; FISA) to spy at home. He says he'll use every tool at his disposal to fight the terrorists, but if the "tools" are illegal, and not his tools to use, then he's authorized the commission of a crime.

The author points out that certain members of Congress were briefed and continually updated throughout the operation, and thus argues that if it were illegal, they would've put a stop to it. I say that's bullshit, because no one has yet pointed to any specific statute that would make it legal. And even with certain members of Congress knowing about it, and not stopping it, it still does not automatically mean that it's legal. It's no mystery that the President cannot act alone. The Executive branch cannot run this country on its' own, and everything Bush has managed to do so far, has been with the complicity of his fellow party members, and weak-willed Democrates. Their "going along" with his actions, in no way magically transforms everything he does into becoming legal. The government has to operate within the bounderies of law, and if there's no legal authority for it to take a certain action, then it's committing an illegal act. It makes no difference whether the action was successful or not.

So before they start trying to shot the messenger, they'd better first show they have a legal leg to stand on.

Crackdown on Civil Liberties in the UK

"I don't destroy civil liberties, I protect them" - that's the title of an article by British Prime Minister Tony Blair published last month in the Observer newspaper. In it, Blair suggests that critics of recently-passed anti-terror measures do not understand the nature of crimes in the modern world. Blair writes "The question is not one of individual liberty versus the state but of which approach best guarantees most liberty for the largest number of people."

Thus begins another segment of yesterdays' Democracy Now broadcast. They're broadcasting from Britain this week, and this show gets into civil liberties issues going on there, and this is the transcript.

It's an interesting interview, as it covers the same types of issues we in America are facing, in regards to a steady loss of rights and privacy, that don't really have much to do with catching any terrorists. They, like ourselves, have been experiencing a steady progression towards tighter social controls by the government, that began long before the current terrorist threats gave them the excuse to make sweeping changes in governmental powers.

Both the U.S. and U.K. seem to be on an accelerated course to liberate those governments from the constraints of democracy. While they both continue to make claims of defending democracy and freedom, their actions betray their true intent. They despise democracy, yet they wish to maintain it's facade to placate the people, and give them the illusion of freedom. The "freedom" they actually speak of, is their own freedom to take whatever actions they please to enrich themselves with wealth and power, while treating the rest of us like serfs and peasant.

If the people allow this trend to continue, it won't be long before it'll be too late to restore our democracies, and have our governments work for us, instead of the other way around. Time's running out.

Iraqi Novelist Speaks Out

"Today we are going to look at the targeting of one group that has received little attention -- hundreds of Iraqi academics and scientists have been assassinated since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. The exact figure of deaths is unknown; estimates range from about 300 to more than 1,000. Iraqi novelist Haifa Zangana wrote in the Guardian last month that Baghdad universities alone have lost 80 members of their staffs. These figures do not include those who have survived assassination attempts."

"Zangana writes there is a systematic campaign to assassinate Iraqis who speak out against the occupation."

This is a transcript of an interview from yesterdays' Democracy Now broadcast. You can stream the show if you want. In it, they discuss something I hadn't heard happening before; assasinations of intellectuals. I find it interesting that not only did these assasinations begin to occur at the start of the occupation, they first involved scientists. There's an implication that these scientists may have been those who had at one time been working on Saddams' WMD. While that's yet to be determined, it could mean that many of them could have had something to say about WMDs that someone didn't want revealed. According to the author, there's been no investigations into those killings by either the Iraq government or occupation forces. Now it's escalated to include other intellectuals. There's a mystery here that needs to be solved. At this point it's not known whether these assasinations are taking place because they know something about past projects, or that they could become involved in the future. With no formal inquiries, it's anyones' guess as to the motive, other than it appears to be unrelated to the "normal" situation involving kidnappings and murders.

The author disputes the widely reported "sectarian violence", saying that the labeling of individuals and groups as Sunni or Shia, is a recently manufactured phenomenon brought about as a result of the occupation. She claims that before the invasion, nobody cared what faction someone belonged to. She says that they've never had civil war before, and the idea that they will have one now, based along sectarian lines, is invalid. She believes that the widespread violence is based on individual animosity towards other individuals, and has nothing to do with what group a person belongs to.

I don't know how true any of that is, it's only the opinion of one person no longer living in Iraq. She implies that the assasinations of academics and the propagation of the notion of "sectarian" violence, is by the occupation forces' design. If true, it doesn't take much imagination to see that it would be to our advantage to make them academically weak, so as to make them technically dependant on "assistance" for the foreseeable future. It would also be worthwhile to create a constant state of mistrust between Iraqis so they will become, and remain, devided. Remember the saying; "united we stand, divided we fall"? If we keep them divided, it's much easier to manipulate them for our geopolitical and corporate designs.

Iran: The Next War

"Has Tony Blair, our minuscule Caesar, finally crossed his Rubicon? Having subverted the laws of the civilized world and brought carnage to a defenseless people and bloodshed to his own, having lied and lied and used the death of a hundredth British soldier in Iraq to indulge his profane self-pity, is he about to collude in one more crime before he goes?"

Listen to Blair in the House of Commons: "It's important we send a signal of strength" against a regime that has "forsaken diplomacy" and is "exporting terrorism" and "flouting its international obligations." Coming from one who has exported terrorism to Iran's neighbor, scandalously reneged on Britain's most sacred international obligations and forsaken diplomacy for brute force, these are Alice-through-the-looking-glass words."

Sent to me by one of my readers, this article is another reminder that we will be going into another war, this time against Iran. It points out again how Iran has yet to be found in violation of anything, despite claims to the contrary.

It also points out the hypocracy of our acceptance of India, Pakistan, and Israels' nuclear programs, that were all conceived in violation of internation law. But those were our friends, so it was ok. There's also a paragraph recalling that the U.S. and U.K. subverted the democratic process in Iran back in '53, which is what directly contributed to the Iranian revolution in '79, that in turn, led to the government there today. That's what's called "blowback", when actions come back and blow up in your face. There's no denying that the current government there now, is all our doing. Our installation and support of the Shah created such intolerable conditions that that Iranians had to overthow their own government. It must have been a sad day in the lives of the neocons when they realize that President Carter wasn't going to lift a finger to reinstate our puppet.

Well now's the time to put things the way certain people feel they should be; an entire region of governments that are completely compliant to our energy needs, and loving neighbors of Irael. The trouble is, it's going to cost hundreds of thousands of lives (at minimum) before that task is complete. It's going to create countless war crimes and atrocities, committed by the good guys. It's going to create more terrorism, which will serve as an excuse to eliminate all the freedoms the so-called free world has enjoyed for so long, to insure that the puppet masters and their corporate sponsors stay in power, unopposed.

Nothing about what's being said of Iran should be taken at face value. Too many did that prior to our invasion of Iraq, and it's since been proven that everything they said then was a lie, and so far, they've gotten away with it. Anyone that's read even a little of this Iraq Report knows, the intelligence the Bush administration got about Iraq, was all true. The truth was that Iraq didn't have WMD, was no threat to anyone, and had absolutely nothing to do with "the terrorists". That was what all the worlds intelligence agencies, as well as our own, said before, and after 9/11, but that wasn't what Bush wanted to hear. His plan long before 9/11 was to invade Iraq, and 9/11 provided the excuse, as that report states. It also makes very clear that those Downing Street Memos prove beyond doubt that both Bush and Blair knew there were no legitimate reasons to go into Iraq, so they had to manufactured some; WMD and terrorism. That report points out that it was Bush and Cheney that insisted the intel community go back an come up with evidence that Iraq had WMD, and was involved with 9/11, AFTER being told the exact opposite. Bush conspired with Blair, and Blair had his intel "readjusted" properly, back in Britain. Later, Bush would make a half-assed appology about being responsible for going into Iraq because he relied on faulty intelligence. That was lie. He forced them to intentionally give him information that they knew was bad, and the administration knew was bad, but it would be good enough to convince people of an imminent threat, that didn't exist.

Well, that's the truth of the current war, and now those same characters are playing the same song in order to get at Irans' oil fields. And if you're concerned at all about the tough talk coming out of Iran these days, just remind yourself of all the tough talk that came out of Iraq before the invasion. We know now that Saddam was all bluff, and both the U.S. and U.K. governments knew it at the time. So did France, Germany, Russia, and others, who never participated or supported the invasion.

It was learned years ago that those neocons have felt the need to take control, by force, of middle eastern countries for their oil, and to eliminate any threats to Israel. Iraq was to be delt with first, then Iran, Syria, and any other country whose government stands in their way. What I find amazing is that they're using the exact same methods to go after Iran, except this time they've been preparing us for the possible use of nuclear weapons to deal with Iran. That makes sense when you remember just how bad off our military is, with their desperate recuiting tactics. Our military is overstreched, and can't invade a country like Iran without using nukes.

Fear worked before, and apparently it's working again, as the article of this previous post shows: In U.S. Public's Eyes, Iran Biggest Foreign Menace. Once they're confident they've built up enough lies and fear, they'll strike. There's talk that Israel may make the first move, by launching an air strike at a "suspected" nuclear facility, just as they did with Iraq years ago. If that happens, then, it won't matter whether Iran tries to retaliate or not, because we'll step in and insist Isreal's in immediate danger, and we'll be "forced" to act fast and come to it's aide. It won't matter if Israel strikes first, we'd defend their air strike stronger than we did the last time. That scenario may not be necessary as long as enough fear is generated in the U.S., and in it's faithful side-kick the U.K.

Some guess that whatever is going to happen, will happen near the end of this month. If they're correct, it's going to be another bloody springtime.

Video - Hollywood's dirty little secret

[embedded video]

"Well, we've known the rules. We've known them since Errol Flynn liberated Burma without any help from British, Australian or New Zealand forces. Churchill and a few Diggers may have been upset, but the fact is when it comes to Hollywood only the good guys win and, since we're playing with their toys, those good guys must inevitably be Americans. Never let the absurdities of history get in the way of a box-office blockbuster."

This is a little story that I would think unnecessary. I've taken this for granted, since it isn't really so much a secret, as it's simply underreported, and downplayed. I've heard of this for years, but nobody's ever made a big issue of it.

While it's no news to me, I often get the impression that many actually believe that "Based on a True Story" movies are historically accurate, and don't really know that war movies that get military help, must comply with military script review.

Even though this Real Video deals mainly with movies, TV programs should also be recognized as doing the same. Whenever you see in the credits that there was a military "adviser" to the production, then you can know that the movie or TV series was first approved by the military. It also applies to police shows that get "advice" from local police departments.

The point of this piece is simply to remind people that movies are just that; movies, entertainment. They should never be viewed as accurate, but rather carefully scripted to make lots of money, and whenever shows use outside help, you can rest assured that your mind is being molded to make authority the good guys, no matter the cost to the actual truth.

Twilight's Last Gleaming - Who will speak up for America?

"Who are these people? These people who line their pockets with the lives of our loved ones? These gray men who lurk in shadows and kill the sunshine of democracy? These people who wear morality like a cheap suit pilfered from the collection plate of decency? Who are these people who have turned America into their own personal ATM machine? These are the people of the lie - Republicans."

"Who are these people? These people who sit in spineless silence unable to speak in defense of America? These people who mime the words of our founders, afraid to act with independence? Who utter the words "We concede," instead of "We the People?" These are the people who lie down - Democrats.

"Newspapers no longer serve the public, only their corporate masters. They have wedged themselves firmly between the cheeks of power, a tissue to sanitize the bullshit. The media has finally achieved the ultimate self-delusion; broadcasting sitcom politics, and talking points of the throne, it has become the court jester with tinkling bells and curly pointed shoes: useless, untrustworthy, and fused in falsehoods and facades."

"This is twilight's last gleaming. Attention must be paid. Democracy is dying."

That's right, attention must be paid. It must be paid by us, all of us. As the author stated, and I've spoken my piece about several times, neither party is going to set things right again. And the media, owned by just a few of the largest corporations in the world, see no reason to expose the very people who are in a position to create, alter, or eliminate legislation in a way that's very profitable to corporations, and detrimental to the people.

Our leaders, and our watch dogs, have abandoned us in favor of untold wealth and power. Everything they've done in the past 30 years, with both legal and economic decisions, has led up to the conditions we live in today with our losses in liberties, and no economic security whatsoever. 9/11 isn't to blame, it only served as a convienient smokescreen to eccelerate a process begun several years before.

At this point, we're on our own. The articles' author asks the question "Who will speak up for America?", well, it must be Americans. It must be us, pressuring the government, and not just wait for things to get better, because they won't, not without our insistence. Strong insistence.

Diebold and Corrupt Elections

"Two weeks ago, an obscure, unelected, Republican-appointed official in California decided the future of the world. That future -- at least for the next several years -- will be an accelerating nightmare of war, corruption, repression, atrocity and terror. That's because the loyal apparatchik has, with the stroke of a pen, guaranteed the perpetuation of the Bush faction in power in 2008 and beyond."

Thus begins an article from the Moscow Times, that explains how Califonia, a crucial state in national elections, is now subject to the will of whoever controls those completely insecure Diebold voting machines. The people controlling them are the Republicans, who've been pushing their use throughout the country, even though they've never proved to be anything less than a tool for anyone to falsify elections. It means no votes counted on these machines can ever be trusted.

"After Diebold's machines failed miserably in a battery of tests last year, McPherson vowed to put their certification on hold until his own hand-picked panel of experts had fine-combed the system to a fare-thee-well, blogger Brad Friedman reports. The panel delivered their conclusions last month -- and the results were staggering, far beyond the worst fears of the most hard-core "conspiracy theorist." The panel found that Diebold's machines were riddled with curious built-in glitches that effectively "ceded complete control of the system" to hackers who could "change vote totals, modify reports, change the names of candidates and change the races being voted on."

"What's more, "hackers wouldn't need to know passwords or cryptographic keys, or have access to any other part of the system to do their dirty work," the Los Angeles Times notes. "Voters, candidates and election monitors wouldn't necessarily know they'd been rooked." A more perfect vehicle for fixing an election can hardly be imagined. And it would require nothing more than a handful of high-tech zealots, not a vast conspiracy."

The damnedest thing is that this isn't new information. We've known since they first appeared that those machines were hackable, yet they've still been pushed into use. It looks to me like our election system is now nothing more than an illusion that will continue to exist, only as a pretext to legitimacy. With these machines, it will no longer matter who gets the majority of votes, since those already in power will just rig the machines to give pre-defined results.

Terrorist growth overtakes U.S. efforts

"Thirty new terrorist organizations have emerged since the September 11, 2001, attacks, outpacing U.S. efforts to crush the threat, said Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism."
"We are not killing them faster than they are being created," Gen. Caslen told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson Center yesterday, warning that the war could take decades to resolve."

Anybody recognize the absurd part in that statement? Not that it could take years, but the implication that it could ever be won. As long as we use a sledgehammer, we're going to create more hostility than we can ever hope to succeed against. Killing, indefinately detaining, and torturing innocent people, will only cause more resentment that grows to hostility, then to violent actions.

It's no mystery why terrorist have multiplied. The question is whether we continue on the same failing course, or work to regain our former standing and trust with the people of the world. Just concentrating on support of friendly governments, or twisting the arms of those who aren't, leaves the people of the world, caught in the middle, suffering.

To be sure, we've captured some terrorists, but the majority of detainees don't appear to be any more than people caught up in roundups. People just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even those actively fighting our forces are not "the terrorist", but people doing exactly what we'd be doing under foreign occupation.

We've captured countless people, and even with torture, haven't lowered the number of combatants in the slightest. We just don't seem to be catching the "right" people, if they're still recruiting numbers we can't deal with.

Another quote from the article....

"The ideology is not popular among most, even Muslims," he said. "We need to undermine support by amplifying the moderate forces and undermining the enemy's repressive and corrupt behavior."

...says exactly what we need to do, but first we need to stop our own "repressive and corrupt behavior", otherwise we'll accomplish nothing but more terrorism. We can't "amplify" moderates, while cause them to be "collateral damage" at the same time.

Pentagon recruiting sharks

"Now it emerges the Pentagon is funding research with the ultimate hope of turning real sharks into "stealth spies" capable of gliding undetected through the ocean. It involves placing neural implants in the fish, to transmit their controllers' bidding."

"The research, to be reported in the UK's New Scientist this week, builds on experimental work to control animals by implanting tiny electrodes in their brain, which are stimulated to induce a behavioural response."

"The Pentagon hopes to exploit sharks' natural ability to glide quietly through the water, sense delicate electrical gradients and follow chemical trails," says the report. "By remotely guiding the sharks' movements they hope to transform them into stealth spies, perhaps capable of following vessels without being spotted."

"The project is being funded by the Pentagon's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, which pioneered the internet as a platform for robust communications."

I remember reading somewhere (and I think 60 Minutes did a report as well) on a program they had back around the Vietnam era, where they were training dolphins to kill. This, on the other hand, has much greater potential. If they succeed in controlling creatures with brain implants, there's no reason they won't do the same with humans.

Imagine if they could implant soldiers with implants that limit fear, or stimulate or supress other natural responses, what that would mean in the battlefield. There are countless possibilities that come to mind that would be too good to pass up. The more science learns about brain functions, the more potential to control animals and humans, to do things against their will. Intelligence agencies would consider it a dream come true. No more having to convince or forceful persuade people in other countries to commit treason for our purposes. No more having to tolerate "incorrigibles" here at home. A simple implant, slipped in during a normal operation without the patient being aware, could produce an army of "moles" in hostile organisations and nations where infiltration by agents is extremely difficult. Think of the potential if we could implant world leaders or their subordinates, to cause confidence or fear, during times of critical decisions, all to our advantage.

Fantasy? Perhaps, but the potential benefits will certainly move current research in that direction. Whether such a future is possible, is only limited to our current understanding of brain functions, and that knowledge grows daily.

I've Been "Engaged" (I feel so special)

Ha Ha Ha, boy they sure work fast. It didn't take long at all for them to find me, though I'm sure by now I'm on quite a few "special lists". It made my day to wake up and find my "engagement" letter waiting for me. I couldn't stop laughing.

By my visitor stats, they came by 2 hrs after my CENTCOM post, and spent about 5 min, then immediately sent off their letter. They simply Googled their name to find me. I saw their hit last night, and used their own search string to find myself and others. I visited a few of the other results, and could see they aren't simply sending out identical form letters.

Ha Ha, the least they could've done was to say a little bit more about what they thought of my blog, I mean, I did put a little time into giving them some free advertisement in that post. Does this mean they didn't find any "inaccuracies"? No "errors", or "incomplete" information in my post? I guess not.

I don't exactly see myself as the ultimate truthsayer on anything I post about, which is only my humble(?) opinion anyway, but I do try to be accurate, and at least as fair as my allergic reaction to bullshit allows. Anyway, here's what they had to say:

Hi, Jack:

You didn't state in your post if you had visited our website yourself (http://www.centcom.mil), but if not, it's got news, photos, audio and video from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Hopefully, as you said, it'll prove to be a helpful resource as you and your readers are doing research about the Global War on Terrorism.

You're welcome to use any materials you find on our site, and if you'd like to be signed up for the weekly electronic newsletter and monthly Coalition Bulletin, just ask. If you could add a link to CENTCOM, it'd be appreciated (I'm trying to spread the word about our site).

Thanks.

SPC C. Flowers
CENTCOM Public Affairs

Though my letter isn't exactly the same as others, here's one that's close, from the Psycotic Patriot (visit his homepage to see a couple other posts about it), and another from Culture of Life Breaking News.

Check out the other search results, you might find some other blogs you'd like to read.

I agree with the Psychotic Patriot when he says that he'll post a link to them on his page, if they link to him on their site. Unlike him though, I did leave their link in their letter to me above, but they need not expect to me to include it in my sidebar. I wouldn't think they're that hard to find anyway, and my main purpose here has come to be mainly pointing out "inaccuracies" and outright lies in theirs, and others' public statements. The mainstream media already serves as their main cheering section, not to mention all the pro government blogs, websites, rightwing radio talkshow hosts and commentators, and let's not forget all those hateful war mongering Pat Robertson-type not-so-Christian leaders.

So, the real purpose is to pull in the last of the holdouts, the freethinkers, and those that just refuse to blindly play follow the leader, and get us to get with the program and stop influencing others to think for themselves, shedding light in all those dark little corners, parasites like to hang out in.

Anyway, like I said before, go visit the CENTCOM site, as well as all other government and corporate websites to get their official side of things, but then go out and find the truth, it's out there, and dying to be heard.