America is lost, and we Americans lost it

What does it take to have someone state the obvious, namely that America is lost. On this august occasion I hereby propose and nominate my recently departed kitty, "Commodore Fluffy" to the position of Head of State, inasmuch as in death she could do at least as well as the Smirking Chimp does, allegedly in life.

I AM sorry. I know you don't want to hear this; but it is true nonetheless. Gonzo's departure is in hopes of preventing more outrageous exposures, probably the least of which is the firing of I believe nine U.S. attorneys, all of whom have distinguished records, all of whom were doing the unthinkable and unforgivable---doing their job. This is the very same Gonzales who told congress that he couldn't remember anything relevant to his job, previous discussions, etc. etc. ad nausiam, and who declared, to a stunned Senators Lahey and Congressman Waxman and a naive America that Habeus Corpus is not fundamental to the Constitution of the United States of America. This insight is staggering both in its breath of defiance of history and logic, and in its depth of moral depravity.

The Washington Post, demonstrating once again that no ignominy is excessive, brushed off Gonzo's critics and described his "lackluster performance" or the like, adjuring that there was nothing noteworthy in the firing, and moreover--get this—that Clinton fired ninety some-odd attorneys, thereby--I suppose--trumping Chimp's record. (Sorry, but the combination of his name and "The President of the United States" sticks in my craw.) Clinton was the President and he never fired ninety federal attorneys; Gonzo is a political hack.

Not a month goes by but someone else flees the sinking ship, following in the tiny footsteps of their predecessors, the shipside rodents. The less-than-charismatic dancer, Carl Rove, also departed, not with a bang but with a whimper, hopefully to head off inquiry into his role in the Valerie Plame affair, together with his part in a host of other atrocities.

Up is Down, Left is Right, or in the understanding of Winston, slavery is freedom, lies are truth, and we all love Big Brother. We have the sadly comical sight of an ex-premier, Allawi, chipping in to improve the PR of the current puppet leader al Maliki. We have "The Surge," another spectacular and dazzling strategy that would leave George Patton speechless with wonder, proposed by that Denizen of Defence Strategy, a man with less than no military experience (draft-doging and quitting)--you guessed it--the Commander-in-Chef--of the backyard Texas Bar-B-Q, the Smirking Chimp, while at the same time Peter Pumpkin Eater, head of the Joint Chiefs, opining that perhaps we need to back off from Iraq (not leave, of course, just a teensy-weensy "reduction" in our commitment, giving as the excuse, that we just might need to bury their bodies in yet some other country. "Surge v. Reduction in force," sounds like a divorce case before an Administrative Law Judge. Perhaps we need a surge-protector. (I know, I know; but I just couldn't resist.)

The Vice (P)resident has developed a remarkable new branch of what used to be the solitary executive: the Office of Official Secrets, which is, according to him, impervious to any congressional inquiry.

All of which brings us to the real, true, and insufferable culprits--the Congress of the United States.

Human nature has been rightfully criticized when no one will go to the aid of a mugging victim, the passers-by gaping in silence and in inaction. How much more outrageous is the Congress, possessing all the power and (gasp!) responsibility, the very mandate which not only empowers but requires it to protect the Constitution by using its power of impeachment to rescue the country from precisely the situation that now exists. Its lowest point was the Speaker, Nancy Pellosi, having a clear mandate from the people, announcing that Impeachment was "off the table." Not one single representative has brought articles of impeachment to the floor. Not one.

What in God's name does it take? This state of affairs is the very prototype and poster child of impeachable offenses--high crimes and misdemeanors. If these leaders aren't culpable, who in Blazes would ever culpable?

The worst part of this all is that we have only ourselves to blame, and I don't mean this as a mantra, a theory. When Pat Tillman is murdered because he was to file for Conscientious Objector status, when parents do not object to their children participating in a war that anyone with the courage and capacity for original thought could see is totally unjustified, a sham, based upon a demonstrable lie--then sadly, tragically, they are to blame even more directly than the others whom I criticized above.

I'm sorry, but the truth hurts. During the Viet Nam War I was drafted to be a doctor in the military, presumably relatively out of harm's way; yet I knew that this atrocity of a war was to be a tragedy and a blight on our record as a super power and so I refused to serve, bearing the judicial wrath of the Fed. That was preferable to trying to explain to my children why I was part of that atrocity. And to those who are ready to pounce, forget it: I fought my way INto the military years later and served with distinction, receiving a Humanitarian Medal and a Naval Letter of Commendation from a Line Captain for my part in a rescue operation off the territorial waters of Viet Nam--with which country we have diplomatic relations, for no reason that I can see, but what do I know?

Wars typically have goals and circumstances that propel them to the forefront. What justification is there to this war? More to the point, what was the goal, the endpoint?

You say, "you can't pick your conflicts." To those who say this, I say, you're damn right you do; and you take the consequences. It's called "a code of morality." It is held by each individual, and he cannot offer up and sacrifice his responsibility for making this choice by some innane pretense to patriotism. That's what was said in Nazi Germany.

The purpose of the actions of these Unholy Minions of Satan was to destroy America. This is not poetry. We keep rationalizing away our leaders' actions as "ill chosen...poorly thought-out...reckless," etc. etc. It is nonesuch. It is exactly what it appears to be. Our leaders are most definitely not American citizens. They are Corporate Globalists, and all of their actions spring from that identification, and nothing they have done contradicts it.

The goal? To enslave the world population. In the warped minds of these elitists, this is the last challenge left. As any other addicts, these life forms, addicted to power, have nothing left, nothing to accomplish. Our greatest weakness, even greater than our unwillingness to think and to act, is our naïveté in thinking that no human could stoop to this level. And not unlike other addicts I have treated, they will do anything to get their fix.

It's just that simple.

All we have left is whatever residual self-esteem we can dreg up to use to fight to the bitter end, no matter what the cost, no matter what, live free or die. After all, we haven't accomplished a thing so far. This is a commitment--a sacrifice we owe to our children.

I'll tell you what is my greatest fear: the fear of dying before I have done this much.

"Your people are my people"

(Originally written in Janury 2007:) Not twenty-four hours ago Hran Dink, the editor of the only Armenian newspaper in Turkey was assassinated on the street as he existed his office. Immediately thereafter large crowds of enraged citizens--presumably including numbers of Armenians--crowded downtown Istanbul. Dink had long been a visible crusader for acknowledgment of what has been known as the Armenian Holocaust. Despite numerous threats to his life, Dink courageously continued to write and to speak out.

This business of speaking out is risky business--again. We know this notion as an abstraction; but do we realize it as an institutionalized polemic in current society? Do we dare? Do we dare? (Shades of T.S. Elliot.)

I remember those glorious and stirring yet touching black and white films of the 40's,depicting the drama of WWII and of the fear and the consequences of speaking out against the irrepressible Wehrmacht. We winced when we saw the scenes depicting those courageous freedom-fighters who fought back, often publicly, risking and inevitably losing their lives. Even so, we hastily reassured ourselves that this would not happen again--or if it did, it wouldn't happen to us.

Apparently reality has not been subservient to art, for we have been treated to the identical spectre, both in Iraq and here in the United States. In Israel, for those interested parties, a mirror image parody of events occuring here has been occuring there, with events here possibly lagging somewhat behind, like the tape loop of a live interview.

How does it happen that people speak out and act out, at great risk to themselves, and on the basis of a moral principle, an abstraction, in contrast to more mundane and practical considerations? The Patriarchs initially did not rise to the occasion, but responded with reluctance--even incredulity--to The Call. Moses wore the Almighty's patience to a frazzle as he would not be convinced by one after another of miraculous demonstrations of the Almighty's power. Saul--later to be the Apostle Paul--did even worse to his brethren, until the scales dropped from his eyes. The Apostles were cruicified, without resistance, for their commitment. Rabbi Akiva in the first century, and at the age of 93 years, had his flesh flailed from his body, and in the process, gave an impassioned lecture on commitment to G-d, much to the incredulity of Jews and Romans alike. Joan of Arc responded to the alternative of giving up her commitment, "Light your fires!"

These--all--are the extreme examples of commitments which most likely had their roots and growth long before the event or events that defined them historically.

Ruth, in the book of her name, when asked by Boaz to be his wife and to leave all that she knew and loved behind, responds,

"Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God." (KJV)

it would appear that a deep and profound and intimate love, existing on a level and in a plane beyond words, allows--no, impells--those so stricken to offer their lives gladly, even joyously.

All of which brings us back to Hran Dink, who risked and then gave his life for his commitment to the Armenian people. Surely he was moved by a similar love for his people.

It seems we can have security at the sacrifice of principles, or principles without security. How would we respond to The Call? Will we respond with trembling out of fear, or out anticipation borne from commitment?

More to the point, do we really want to know?

Iraq? What you don't understand

I see Olmert and the Israeli government as the absolute mirror image of Bush and the Neocons, particularly as they are working together. The major obstacles on the horizon are 1) peak oil, and 2) uncontrolled Islam.

What does trouble me is two things: What the Neocons plan or will accept and what unintended consequences might result.

It's clear to a blind man that the unintended consequences could be disastrous, as the Muslim nations become more and more emboldened. Obviously this could take all forms; and anyone who honestly believes they know the subtlety and sense of all of the Islamic combinations and permutations politically has got to be smoking confiscated herbs.

What troubles me more are the potential intended consequences--including that which many people regard as inconceivable purposefully; and I refer specifically to the destruction of Israel.

It would please the vast majority of powers if Israel were eradicated. This would please the Muslim world no end, and Saudi Arabia in particular, who could most benefit from such an occurrence, particularly as it would not only deflect attention from her but might even be envisioned as a way of allowing the Sunni world to gain predominance, and to do it quickly, before Iran actually is able to build a nuclear weapon. What most people don't realize is that a nuclear Iran is almost as much a threat to Saudi Arabia as it would be to Israel and others. The other problem concerning the Saudis is the Central Republics possibly re-aligning with Russia, or worse yet, with the evolving Central American countries.

Such a plan is also urged by the rapid advancement of China and the chilling possibility of rapprochement with Russia or at least her re-entry into the international arena.

In this scenario, Olmert and his ilk are doing this very work now and have been working on a parallel path in Israel as is Bush in the USA. The net result would be a free-flow of oil, with the Saudis and joint domination of Iraq by the Saudis and the Americans.

By "Americans" of course I mean the Neocon empire, which will be the North American Union, compromised of Mexico, USA and Canada, substituting the Amero for the dollar and therefore ditching the problem associated with the Federal Reserve generated worthless-backs.

The potential armed forces have largely been depleted and the continent will be controlled by Gulf State police. With Israel descimated, the remaining Jewish population will be easily manageable in the Diaspora as always been the case in the past. The potential existence of Israel as a moral, military and spiritual force will then gone, this time with no protector to resurrect the Jewish people.

Did I miss anything?

Let's hear it for the lemmings!

Please, somebody--anybody--tell me what I'm missing here!

After today's portentious announcement that more troops were going to be sent to Iraq, we are treated to quotes from the troops themselves, ranging from cautious agreement, depending upon how the troops are used, to weary contempt, stating that the folks at home just don't know what is actually going on over there.

Okay. Enlighten us. I admit: I am totally nonplussed. I'm stymied. I don't have a clue; and I don't like to admit that out loud.

I cannot figure out for the life of me just what in hell the President of the United States is doing. "Surge?" Who writes his material? Is he a military person? Does he have divine insight to which the rest of us are not privy? He mulled this over for a week and then exited his sanctuary, not unlike the oracle at Delphi, and rendered his pronouncement to the enthralled multitude?

He fires the Generals (after all, only military commanders, not politicians,) who don't like the idea, and appoints some who--at least initially--won't object. Isn't he supposed to consult with military leaders so that he can make an informed decision--about policy, not about whose head is to roll?

If the mission is accomplished, then why are the pesky details so difficult to manage? What was our goal (or should be our goal) if the mission was subsequently misplaced?

Recent history shows us that leaders make decisions based upon one or more of the following considerations: 1) obvious motives, moral or otherwise, but clearly comprehensible, 2) devious motives, not obvious to most people but insiders 3) serious alterations in a leader's psyche, characteristic or unknown.

We can rule out "obvious motives." This leaves numbers two and three.

"Devious motives" seems a sure bet. Only question is--how many and what are they? Interestingly, "serious alterations" is unclear, as Bush may very well be operating under the direct instruction of Higher Powers, which, at least in part, seems inescapable.

There's another possibility. Call it "2a." It is a collective aberation of leaders, together with a nefarious motive. In the current situation I can conceive of a plan to hand a tidy profit to the military corporations, coupled with a desire to position us close to Russia's southwestern border, as well as proximate to Iran, coupled with a petulant contempt for the Moslem world, possibly even extending to the awareness that chaos looms and that those very leaders are ready to bail out and leave the field to whomever. Could they actually do that?

You betcha.

How to Control Americans—thought control mind control, disinformation and other naughty things-concl

"The science of mind control has achieved the scale of a criminal subculture, and left a wide path of chaos and confusion that crosses all international boundaries. The carnage takes place under the noses of the public, obscured by cover stories and dead witnesses and the incredible naïveté of most news reporters." (Alex Constantine, Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A., 1995, Portland, OR, Feral House p.xl)

“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which HaShem G-d had made.” (Genesis 3:1)

I had referred to the outlines of what happens in a controlled world in a previous article.

In my first article on this subject, I gave an overview and some of the salient documents on this subject. The available proof is vast. The problem lies in the conventional understanding of what constitutes “proof.”

Typically, those who wish to denigrate and to humiliate those who claim proof is available of extensive mind control activity in the US and in other areas of the world, attack the notion of “proof;” and because most of us have only a vague idea of what proof consists, I want to discuss some basic notions so that you will be better equipped to think about the subject in general and those detractors in particular. For those of you who are familiar with formal and material logic, I apologize in advance for simplifying.

A “proof” or an “evidence” of the truth of a statement is a specific instance of the thing being alleged. Thus the proof, for example, could be eyewitness testimony to some event. This is a good example, for even eyewitness testimony can be mistaken. So the more evidence for the existence or the claim of something, the stronger the case can be made for that claim. Generally speaking, the more witnesses that corroborate an event in its essentials, the more sure the proof is considered to be.

Please note, however, that human beings are not infallible, so the fact that people can make mistakes is not prima facie evidence that they have made a mistake. Besides, who trusts someone who has never made mistakes?

The most common examples we have of proof and of degrees of confidence can be seen in the different standards for “proof” in a court of law: For lesser offenses, “the preponderance of the evidence” may suffice. At the other extreme, as in capital cases, a conclusion “proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a certainty” is required. Seen from this perspective, “proof” can be seen to be like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. The more pieces, correctly placed, the clearer and therefore the more convincing is the picture.

Life, however, does not accord us the luxury of such certainty, nor is it even necessary—in fact, such a demand can be downright ridiculous. Supposed you expected your son or daughter to be home by a certain time, and they do not appear. Do you shrug off your concerns because, strictly speaking, you don’t have “proof” of trouble? We intuitively know these things; but what is it actually that we know?

We know that something could happen, something dreadful; and that is sufficient enough a reason for us to be alarmed and then to act upon that alarm. But wait a moment. Aren’t we “assuming the worst?” And haven’t we all been admonished about making assumptions, or aren’t we jumping to conclusions? Indeed we are; and we had better jump. Were we were to walk, it may prove to be too late by the time we arrive at our conclusion so as to confirm or reject it.

The difference lies in the concept of purpose.. When we are dealing with matters of urgency and of survival, we do not have the luxury of such proof. If our purpose is our survival or that of our loved ones, we are obligated to make whatever assumptions we may know that might threaten our survival, and then proceed to search for proof to back these assumptions. If we do not find the proof, all well and good; however, it has hardly been a waste of time to do so.

If you cannot locate your toddler child, and you have a pool on your property, where is the first place you are going to rush to look? If it is inordinately quiet in the children’s room, don’t you dash in to reassure yourself everything is okay?

One of the reasons we do not or cannot make assumptions is that we do not have any prior experiences to forewarn us. It is for this reason we must educate ourselves to history and its lessons. It may seem far-fetched to us that history can be so vital to our survival today; but a good understanding of history will prove to us exactly the opposite.

One—if not the greatest—tragedy of today’s “educational system” is that young people have no sense of history. And as George Santayana so poignantly put it, “those who do not learn the lessons of history will have the misfortune of reliving them.” In the context of control of populations and of the deceptions used to accomplish this end, the best article to define this issue that I have seen to date is: Fake Terror—the Road to War and Dictatorship

To complicate matters further, much of what is happening to us, to our country, is kept hidden from us, so that it is difficult to garner suspicion, and it is easy for the Powers That Be to dismiss our concerns. Without knowledge of the technology that is actually in existence today in the Intelligence community and the military it is very difficult to conceive of what is actually happening.

I can tell you for an absolute fact that the technology exists today to scan your thoughts and actually to introduce, by the use of specific frequencies, certain ideas and emotions without the recipients being aware. Please do not take my word for this but do a search for “mind control” and comparable technologies, and you will not believe your eyes.

This has been formalized in a very chillingly objective fashion by the NSA, which has routine procedures for implanting such ideas—even without the exotic mind control technology that I mentioned earlier. NSA’s Subliminal Posthypnotic Scripts outlines exactly how this is done.

Here’s a chilling verbatim quote from the NSA training manual:

“7.Stage 3 (Extreme Process): _1.This method is very severe and usually results in a two to five year program._Because of the severity of the suffering, the subject is usually permanently_impaired for integration into normal mainstream life and is essentially_institutionalized” (”The NSA and Mind Control—Part 3.”

There are numerous technologies available. Two of the most intrusive are: HRIC and EDOM:

HRIC stands for “Hypnotic Radio Intra-cerebral Control” and accomplishes just that. You can find a detailed description of the technology in: Project Open Mind Part 2.

The Psychologist, Martin Cannon, wrote a seminal work on the subject of governmental mind control passed off as “alien abductions,” and presents a very plausible hypothesis for explaining them without reference to aliens, in The Controllers—a New Hypothesis of Alien Abductions.

If you need a hard-nosed investigative reporter to show you the depth and magnitude of governmental activity over many years, I recommend Sherman Skolnick’s page: Sherman Skolnick Reports. This man single-handedly brought down the corrupt Illinois judicial system. Tragically, Sherman passed away in May of last year.

Finally, the field of scalar physics gives us another vista of a Soviet threat, not hitherto imagined. Here is video that is guaranteed to alleviate any residual tranquility you may possess regarding the future.

In summary, with history showing the precedents, and with a glimpse of current technology, it is incumbent upon us all to “assume” the worst and to seek out the evidence or it so that we can—and our children can—do something about our future and that of generations—hopefully—to follow.
-------------------------------
“Ha-shem” literally “The Name” in Hebrew. Observant Jews regard even the word “G-d” to be so sacred that it cannot be uttered; and the word “Ha Shem” is used in its place.

I can think of no better place to start to learn than H.W.B. Joseph’s “Introduction to Logic,” published by Oxford University Press originally.
The power of these technologies, taken together, is beyond reasonable doubt.
The Nazification of America

Reflections on the Death Penalty

Most recently, California has placed a moratorium on the death penalty. A recent execution in California by legal injection took almost thirty minutes to be completed. Claims that this method causes excruciating pain and the inability to cry out have been quite well refuted from a medical point of view by the high court which turned down a recent appeal by a death row prisoner.

There were documented large areas on each forearm of the condemned where the intravenous fluids had infiltrated under the skin. Little notice and less comment resulted from this observation, which was pregnant with meaning: It was clear evidence that both IV sites had infiltrated, thus causing considerable pain and dramatic alteration of the expected effects on consciousness. The fact that the second IV site was also infiltrated has a serious implication: that the extravasation was obvious with the first IV, and as a consequence the second was started. It is reasonable to assume that the second site was also observed to be infiltrated, but that it was decided that nothing was to be done.

The gruesome and inescapable conclusions are, therefore, that the first site infiltration provoked a decision to start the second. Subsequently, the second botched IV was simply allowed to continue, with the intent that the condemned would eventually die--hopfully--without further embarrassment to the medical and custodial staff.

It is a common practice in execution by firing squad for one shooter to have a blank rather than a live round. The intention is never denied--so that each shooter can entertain the hope that he did not fire the fatal shot.

This latter practice speaks volumes: We show hommage to capital punishment by volunteering to be an assassin--as long as it is accompanied by the statistical self-delusion that we really may not have been one, in effect.

Why don't we insist that all shooters have bullets, so that there is no question that justice was done, and that each and every man with a gun is committed to the role of implimenting justice? Why didn't the medical team jump on the opportunity to re-start the IV to ensure that the law was either to be carried out, to the letter--or not at all?

There is impassioned demonstration by a gathered crowd at each execution held by those who oppose capital punishment; yet you rarely see comparable demonstrations routinely by those who favor it. Virtually no one feels comfortable with the notion of capital punishment.

Even so, we have a sense of justice, however uneasy we may feel. Moreover, we feel we owe it to the families of the deceased, particularly when we hear them tell us that the execution has brought them some measure of closure, some deference to the notion of a society that shows its caring for the innocent by the execution of those who would take a life.

We watch eagerly and feel better for a moment when we see testimonies by aggrieved relatives that they are a little or a lot more a peace. We rarely see quoted statements by the families that the death by execution accomplishes nothing whatever, or more rarely, that they are opposed to it.

At the same time, we pale when we receive word that, not only are there dozens of men on death row who have be exonerated once DNA evidence had been made available, but also that numerous men and women have been executed for crimes, it later is shown, they simply did not commit.

It was a courageous Governor Ryan of Illinois who on January 31, 2000 paroled 156 men on death row when several of such cases came to light. It therefore came as no surprise when In 2001, amidst growing charges of favoritism and in particular granting, he resigned. Over the previous year, facts came to light regarding influence-peddling, etc., resulting in an indictment and conviction on 18 counts.

Whatever culpability Ryan had, he was one among the ranks of comparable criminals in Illinois government who did exactly the same and worse. In view of the known politics of Illinois, together with the demonstrable lack of financial gain to Gov. Ryan, and the courage to take a profoundly moral stand, It is a reasonable inference that he paid the price for his integrity.

However conflicted we personally may be--or should be--about the death penalty, there are far more powerful and dark forces that have no intention to see it end.

Ryan literally saved 156 men and was punished. Saddam Hussein was executed for allegedly ordering the death of 145 people. Bush is directly responsible for the death of 3003, so far.

There's an irony here. I'm not sure what it is exactly.

The Sea-tac Airport Flap

This past week, there was considerable editorial comment here and in Israel on the outpouring of virulent and anti-Semitic hate mail pouring into newspapers as a result of the "Christmas Tree Incident" at the airport. What is clear from the comments is that as a result of some complaint, presumably from representative members of the Jewish community, the Christmas Tree was taken down. An Israeli editorial mentions that there was no specific request for this to be done, but rather a request that a Hannukah menorah be placed side-by-side with the tree. Curiously, it neglects to mention that the Christmas Tree was removed.

In his editorial in a Seattle paper, Robert Jacobs, the regional direcor of the ADL does say the following:

"The Port of Seattle commissioners who agreed to pull the trees from the airport were misguided. The darker elements in our community who blamed this action on "the Jews" were more than misguided"

To whose influence, pray tell, is the community supposedly expected to direct its condemnation? The Buddists?

I quite agree that unbridled anti-Semitism is not a measured response; and the Commissioners decision was another example of odious Political Correctness, which, characteristically, is democratic and even-handed in antagonizing everybody. And there are many Jews--me among them--that would have been quite content to see a Christmas Tree at the airport.

In these troubled times, the unqualified love and good-will that is clearly reflected in the idea of Christmas and of the Christmas tree in particular is so poignantly clear and is so desperately needed that it is nothing less than unkind bordering on cruel and insensitive to oppose it.

There are enough cases of legitimate anti-Semitism to preoccupy these do-gooder organizations. The Jewish community does not have to compete in the Good-Will department