Home » Blog » The Illogicality of Perpetual Wars
Blog for America
The Illogicality of Perpetual Wars
Throughout human history, humankind has been fond of waging perpetual wars, the meaning of which being a war waged upon an enemy that can never be definitively defeated. We likely do this because we are rather illogical creatures, creatures whose passions and prejudices can easily trump logic. In modern times, one place in the world where this illogicality of perpetual war has fully taken root is the United States of America. Given, all countries behave illogically to some extent (as they are all governed by fallible human beings), but America is the one that I know the most about. This illogicality is illustrated perfectly by two “wars”, one military and one not, that America currently is waging: the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.
Firstly, the War on Terror. We have carried on a “War on Terror” in this country ever since George W. Bush declared it to be so after the 2001 Terrorist attack. It is, as John Edwards stated, a bumper sticker slogan. The nature of humankind is such that there have been acts of terrorism for the entire length of our existence, and there will be acts of terror for the remainder of the time that humankind resides on the earth. I doubt that this element of our nature will be eradicated simply because a President of the United States has declared “war” on it. It is as Noam Chomsky said, “Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.” Terrorism will never disappear unless people discontinue participating in it, and they never will. We are fighting a foe that will exist perpetually, so, indeed, if we declare it to be so, then we are trying to defeat what can never truly be defeated: a part of our Selves. But, of course, now I see the logic in George W. Bush wanting to start up a World War III. Blasting the human race off the face of the earth with nukes is the only way that we can win the War on Terror.
(Click Read More for the rest of this post)That seems to be extraordinarily illogical on our part. Why would we have hundreds of thousands of human beings die and spend trillions of dollars over this, to try to change human nature? More likely millions have died as a direct result of our declaration of a “War on Terror”, and, ironically, I doubt that many of them were actually terrorists. Nearly a million innocent Iraqis have died as a result of America’s invasion of their country (although Iraq really had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or 9/11, we did attack them as a result of George W. Bush’s “War on Terror”).
Wouldn’t it be better if we just improved our intelligence services and intervened in planned terrorist attacks which our improved intelligence system would have detected? That would be the ideal (and the most effective) solution, I think, because, with our current policy of fighting wars all over the world, we are actually incurring more hatred and inspiring more terrorism. We are creating more terrorists than we are killing with our flawed policies. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that these kinds of ridiculous policies just don’t work. And, in addition to an improved intelligence system, we need to fundamentally alter our approach to foreign policy.
What we need to do is to stop engaging in threats and imperialism. We need to stop policing the world. We need to stop invading other countries preemptively and illegally. We need to stop bombing other countries unnecesarily and secretly; if the politicians don’t want the public to know that they are doing something, then we probably should not be doing it. We need to treat all of the other countries of the world as equals, be less arrogant, stop bullying them, and treat them with respect. That way, we will incur less hatred around the world and be less vulnerable to terrorism as a result. Terrorism towards the United States feeds off of and lives off of hatred towards the United States. We make our own enemies, and we need to stop continuing these policies that inspire hate towards us. The main reason that Osama bin Laden attacked us on September 11th was because we intervened militarily in the Middle East, killed many Middle Easterners, and incurred hatred there in pre-9/11 policy. That’s called blowback. Bin Laden attacked us as a direct result of our foreign policy of destruction. And, now, we’re intervening even more in the Middle East, and killing even more Middle-Easterners, and incurring even more hatred there. Is that supposed to solve the problem? If something doesn’t work, try it again? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” said Albert Einstein, in his accurate definition of insanity. Evidently, our leaders meet the criteria and are officially insane.
Here, on a related but unrelated note, I would like to say that it is ironic that the government (the Bush Administration and the Congress) claims to be fighting terrorism abroad, while at that same time, they are instilling terror in their own people as a method of maintaining power. James Madison predicted this development, “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” Why have we not listened to and heeded the message of our Founding Fathers that liberty requires eternal vigilance to maintain? It’s not too late to heed their warning across the centuries.
Now, of course, the second illogical, perpetual war that I am planning to be espousing my views on: the War on Drugs. We have carried on this War on Drugs for decades, particularly ever since Richard Nixon declared an official “War on Drugs” in the 1970s. This policy is utterly ineffective, and we are spending billions of dollars on it each year, taking precious funds away from more deserving outlets, such as Education or Healthcare. It is a policy reminiscent of Prohibition during the 1920s and 1930s, which we all know from history actually caused more crime and conflict and didn’t stop people from drinking alcohol anyway. FDR had the good sense to end this policy as soon as he got into office in 1933. And the next President of the United States, Democrat or Republican, should sensibly end the War on Drugs.
The Drug War has been ineffective and will be ineffective, and perpetual, because drugs are substances that can never be eradicated; more of them can always be grown and made. Human nature, of course, plays a part in this one too. As long as people want to use drugs and as long as people want to make profits off of selling drugs, drugs-dealers and drug-users will exist, and the Drug War will go on. This Drug War which is ravaging our cities and putting thousands, if not hundred of thousands, of our citizens in jails. We currently have 2.3 million people total in jail in the United States, which is the most out of all of the countries in the world. We are #1 in the number of people that we have in prison, now that’s an accomplishment.
Throwing drug addicts in jail doesn’t solve their addiction problem. The fact of the matter is that drugs (particularly marijuana) should be a public health problem, not a criminal problem, and certainly not a “war”. We need to legalize marijuana, and make it so that the harder drugs will be provided by doctors. I said before that as long as people want to and can sell drugs for a profit, the drug war will go on. Well, making it so that certified doctors can provide the drugs will get rid of the drug market, and people will no longer have to go to drug dealers on the streets to buy drugs. This will greatly lessen crime, which is certainly desirable. And, of course, once drugs are made legal and are provided by a doctor, people may be able to muster up the ability to get off of the drugs. Increased stability in their supplies of drugs can help people to stop worrying about where they are going to get their next fix, and once that uncertainty disappears, they can begin to collect their thoughts and develop a will to get off of the drugs.
These two “wars”, the “War on Terror” and the “War on Drugs”, are just plain foolish. Can’t we deal with our problems any more effectively than by declaring a “war” on them? If we’re going to do this kind of thing, why don’t we declare a war on backseat drivers, or pittbulls, or dust, as well? Why do we fight these illogical Wars of Perpetuity? Of course, you know, I have an answer. But even if you don’t have an answer, you should still ask the questions. Oftentimes, the questions are insurmountably more important than the answers anyway. But, it is my belief that our country fights these so-called “wars” because the people who can wage them, the people in power, benefit. That is why the United States has many of the policies that it does; politicians set policies according to their own self-interest first, ascertaining what option would be the one most likely to maintain their power. We could fight these problems more effectively than with a “war”, but, no, our leaders refuse to do so. These perpetual wars, they’re just politics. They’s just another way to frighten and pacify the masses, and they’re just another way to please the special interests. Politics as Usual.
I’ll specifically address how the people in power benefit from both the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. Firstly, the War on Terror. Of course, the first benefit of this is that it serves as the political tool of manipulation of the American people. The politicians use the issue of terrorism to scare people into accepting policies and decisions that they absolutely would not accept if they were not under the influence of Fear. Fear has the power to cause all of our powers of logic and reasoning to be drowned out by a consuming panic which overwhelms the senses. Such policies that the people would not accept unless they were under the influence of fear are things like the Iraq War invasion, the Patriot Act, and the destruction of our civil liberties. We will willingly lay down all of our rights when under the influence of Fear, believing the compromise of these rights essential to preserve our safety, with the panicked hope that we may yet remain safe. In this situation, we are undeserving of either liberty or safety, as Benjamin Franklin so accutely observed, “Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither and lose both.” Exploiting the people’s fears have led to the creation of a veritable monarchy of an Executive branch within the United States government, because it has allowed the Branch to take so many of our rights from us.
These perpetual wars are not only designed to scare the population into accepting policies that they would not accept otherwise: also, the fear created as a result of these wars can manipulate people in order to make them vote for one political party or the other. It is not only a political tool, it is a partisan tool. It can be used to either enact change (usually negative), or to preserve the status quo, it depends on how it is utilized.
Additionally, it seems to me that the “War on Terror” serves an even more sinister purpose than the ones that I have above described, if that is possible. Having a perpetual war against an indestructible entity means that the military-industrial complex and its corporate beneficiaries (who are an enormous influence in our government, country, politics, and culture) will continue to benefit financially, as long as we are always fighting or always preparing to fight the “terrorists”. I believe that the long arm of the military-industrial complex has played a part in starting every single military venture (large and small) that we have been engaged in ever since the 1950s, when Dwight D. Eisenhow first warned of “the acquisition of unwarranted influence” by the military-industrial complex. It is no coincidence that the beneficiaries of the military-industrial complex contribute greatly to the political campaigns of the politicians who get us into military conflicts like this. The “War on Terror” is a creative and perpetual way for politicians to please the special interests related to the military-industrial complex. Our “War on Terror”, if continued, would ensure that the defense industry has steady profits for years to come. You might be in disbelief that politicians would actually sacrifice innocent lives in order to please the special interests and maintain power. But, let me tell you, political calculations and the desire to maintain one’s power often trumps morality. The desire for power can be dehumanizing.
But, now, of course, I’ll dedicate a little time to how the politicians benefit from the perpetual war of the War on Drugs. Throughout our history as a nation and throughout the history of humankind, leaders have inspired fears and prejudices of those who are just different. Leaders use this inspiration of fears (fear of drug addicts, for example) in order to control and manipulate the masses of the People. It is exactly as Noam Chomsky said, “The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people.” The War on Drugs helps the people in power to manipulate us all by way of fear (as, of course, is also the case with the “War on Terror”), and that is certainly desirable to them. It is deplorable that We the People are so ignorant as to be so easily manipulated. I don’t understand why we can’t see through the shroud.
It seemed apparent to me that both of these “wars” cause all of our powers of logical thought and critical analysis to be completely obscured by one devouring passion: fear. These perpetual wars, just like the current airport security system, are designed to scare the population into submission. This fear causes us to accept the illogical perpetual wars and other policies. It is a sad cycle that these perpetual wars cause fear in the population, and so we cannot stop them for that very reason, and so they go on.
Perhaps perpetual wars are not really so illogical after all, from the perspective of those in power. In fact, from their point of view, it seems to me that perpetual wars would be extraordinarily logical and desirable. Maybe if I ever get into office, I’ll start up a War on Raisins. I don’t like those very much.
But in the end, honestly, all I can do is agree with Bertrand Russell: “It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.” We are not behaving rationally. We are being herded around like a flock of sheep by our “handlers”, the politicians. We allow them to control and manipulate us using, among other things, the tool of perpetual war. We do not control the politicians, as we believe that we do; rather, the politicians control us. We fail to realize that fact. And you can’t fix a problem without being aware of it first.
Show: Expand All Reply
Howard Dean used to be first here.
Now, we find out that rationality, logic is not what people live by.
It was Howard who brought passion to rationally opposing bush and his illogical war.
In that regard Howard is still first.
The Illogicality of Perpetual Wars
Good reasoning, Elizabeth!
Thanks, Elizabeth, for also speaking out on the utter failure of the War on Drugs.
Hi sunlight - thanks for coming to get us on the other thread.
You too, Steve in Nebraska
Progressive, please provide a link directly to where BO said that. Your links take me to pages filled with all sorts of things.
1127pmcst
Elizabeth, that was a NEAT post.
To me, it's a question of degrees: The kid who sets off a stink bomb in the school hallway is a s++t disturber in a much lesser way than a suicidal airplane hijacker, and will most likely be ok i society.
Likewise the happy couple sharing a bongload of Jamaican Evergreen are stoners, but in a minor way compared to an oxycontin chomping talk radio hatemonger, but they should be functional neighbors.
Sea were the links I provided to you helpful on the last thread?
Sea, how can PA provide a link to something just heard on the radio a short while ago?
I doubt a transcript it up yet but PA did provide a link to the radio station. You can check back for a transcript, or write to them to get one, if you wish.
Rejected Kerry Amdt. No. 4442; To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.
Question: On the Amendment (Kerry Amdt. No. 4442 )
Vote Number: 181 Vote Date: June 22, 2006, 11:07 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766
Statement of Purpose: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.
Vote Counts: YEAs 13
NAYs 86
Not Voting 1
YEAs ---13
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---86
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY) Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA
Agreed to H.R. 3199 Conference Report; USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005
Vote Summary
Question: On the Conference Report (H.R. 3199 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 29 Vote Date: March 2, 2006, 03:01 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 3199
Measure Title: A bill to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 89
NAYs 10
Not Voting 1
YEAs ---89
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT) Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---10
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
10:08 PT
Nothing of interest posted in the last half hour
Night all
Anti-Defamation League has put together a video that shows who and how the hate is being spread on TV against immigrants. It is truly upsetting.
Video showing code words used on TV to instill fear and hate toward immigrants. Shocking.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1809
The PFAW website has much more with pictures of the minutemen harassing immigrants.
Will LindaNM ever get it how UNCOOL it is to post LOOOOOOONG cut and pastes when a paragragh and link would serve her purpose better?
Probably not since she hasn't figured it out by now.
I'm going to make my frivolous guess about the outcome tomorrow.....
Obama wins 60% of the states, votes, and delegates. Hillary cries for real.
(Hey....it isn't my job to manage expectations.)
Video showing code words used on TV to instill fear and hate toward immigrants. Shocking
That's been going on since there was an America. And fortunately, the nuts who buy into it have always been an ineffective minority -- albeit an obnoxiously loud one.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intpro.jsp
Monitoring Hate and Extremist Activity
The Intelligence Project monitors hate groups and extremist activities throughout the U.S. and publishes the Center's award-winning Intelligence Report.
It also offers training to help law enforcement officials and human rights groups combat organized racism, including an online hate crime training course for law enforcement professionals.
Under the name Klanwatch, the Project began monitoring hate activity in 1981. In 1994, after uncovering links between white supremacist organizations and the emerging antigovernment "Patriot" movement, the Center expanded its monitoring operation to include militias and other extremist groups
The PFAW website has much more with pictures of the minutemen harassing immigrants.
We went out for breakfast last Sat. and a band of "down-with-furahners" had set up on a corner. They looked like such a bunch of home-skooled kooks that they surely did their cause more harm than good. When we came back they were gone -- probably got hungry themselves and went home.
Hate crimes against perceived undocumented immigrants — and Latinos in general — are on the rise. Some of the more horrific crimes of recent years are examined. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
floridagal
thanks for bringing it up, even though I am above you a post, yours started me looking further
<>thanks for posting those pesky facts
You don't have to post a hundred names in column to point out the one or two you want people to know about. It's very inconsiderate and even counterproductive.
I never felt a need to do it when posting those pesky facts about Edwards' voting record.
Tavis Smiley has a look at professional polling tonight.
Thank you, Linda. We need you to keep the record straight. And here's a little something to remind us of the current state of things.
New World Order Quotes
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." --Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli of England, in 1844.
"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England ... (and) ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."-- Professor of History Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University, in his book "Tragedy and Hope".
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson
"[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it's perceptions." -- Henry Kissenger, World Affairs Council Press Conference, Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel , April 19th 1994
"David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and just another day's work... In the world of David Rockefeller it's hard to tell where business ends and politics begins" . Bill Moyers
"We know in the not too distant future, a half dozen corporations are going to control the media. We took this step (merger) to ensure we were one of them"--Time Warner spokesperson.
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." -- Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg ("Angel" to and active in the United World Federalists), son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James' brother Max, banker to the German government - See the Sisson Report
"All of us will ultimately be judged on the effort we have contributed to building a NEW WORLD ORDER."--Robert Kennedy, former U.S. Attorney-General, 1967.
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise their power from behind the scenes."-- Justice Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court.
"I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insideous forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
"For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from it's original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy making arm of the government." -- President Harry Truman
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."-- U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House.
"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation."-- Mayor (1918-1925) John F. Hylan of New York.
"Fundamental Bible-believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year
2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in." --Nebraska State Senator Peter Hoagland, speaking on radio in 1983.
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of freedom to Americans..." "And so alot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the Housing Projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make the people feel safer in their communities"--President Bill Clinton 3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.."-- Bill Clinton USA Today--3-11-93, page 2a
"Gun registration is not enough"--Attorney Generral Janet Reno--12-10-93--Associated Press
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal"--Janet Reno
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, then it will lose it's freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort and security that it values, it will lose that too.Unknown Americans must decide : Are we to be governed by Americans or by an International organization ? I, for one, owe no alliegence to the United Nations nor will I give it any. I obey only the U.S. Constitution. You had better think about this issue, for if the U.N. can violate the Sovereignty of Haiti, Iraq and other countries, it can violate ours...The United States may not be the top dog
15 years from now. U.N. security council resolutions, backed by say chinese soldiers, could be aimed at us."-Charley Reese-Orlando Sentinel
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries"--David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
"From the days of Sparticus, Weishaupt, Karl Marx, Trotski, belacoon, Rosa Luxenberg and Ema Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last, this band of extraordinary personalities from the under- world of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."--Winston Churchill to the London press in 1922.
"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power--Political, Monetary, Intellectual, and Ecclesiastical."--U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater from his 1964 book "No Apologies"
"I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they would not wait for an election....It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States!" --George W. Malone, U.S. Senator (Nevada), speaking before Congress in1957.
"The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Zionism, Socialism. All of these are directed to making the United States a member of a World Government ..." -- AMERICAN MERCURY MAGAZINE, December 1957, pg.
you ought to know
Indeed I should after scrolling past all the lame political infomercials you've cut and pasted.
Oops, that was quite long, but I thought quite interesting. I spose BO belongs to the intellectual elite and HC to the monied elite. Who is gonna speak for us? And as much as I don't like guns, if they're taken away, how do we defend ourselves against our very own "protecters" if necessary?
Progressive, links show nothing. Please show me where BO speaks of what he intends to do about our Constitution. And then, of course, I have to believe him...which is getting harder and harder the more I learn about him.
Twas long I admit. Keep your head in the sand. Gore is prolly the only person who could start reversing this mess of many years.
Obama is gaining on thge Clintons by the minute -- so fast that the polls can't even keep up with it. Yesterday the RCP avg. had Clinton up by 9%. Now it only has her up 2.5% -- and she's actually behind in the invidual polls.
Love him, hate him, or neither, you've got to admit he's about to stand the political world on its head and shake the Clinton Cabal like a stop sign in a hurricane.
Obama has the mo, no doubt. It would be extreme to take a fifty delegate lead. possible for sure.
Obama has the mo, no doubt. It would be extreme to take a fifty delegate lead. possible for sure.
Possible -- and more. Political tsunamis tend to be bigger than any will predict.
If Obama wins the nomination and President, Iowa will be first again. you gotta love it
I will never love political corruption and manipulation even if it turns out for the better on occassion.
Clinton would be rolling to victory in a national primary without early states showing the alternatives.
Clinton would be rolling to victory in a national primary without early states showing the alternatives.
Your guesses and musings have been shown to be wrong on many occassions despite them being pronounced as accomplished fact.
A national primary would mean everyone got the same chance at the same time to have an equal say for the full slate of candidates. Claiming, without certitude, that it would produce a result I wouldn't happen to like is no excuse in my book for continuing a system that lends itself to corruption, manipulation, disenfranchisement, and elimination of choices.
Perhaps you only care about achieving the result you want by any means, but not I.
Sitka
Tue, 02/05/08
Reply to this
I'm going to make my frivolous guess about the outcome tomorrow.....
Obama wins 60% of the states, votes, and delegates. Hillary cries for real.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you would have more money in your pocket if you had taken my superbowl advice sitka
I'll pass on that bet.
you would have more money in your pocket if you had taken my superbowl advice sitka
I too guessed the Giants. I have the sense to know it was just a guess though.
Wisconsin leaves all the candidates on the ballot.
If Feingold and Dodd stand shoulder to shoulder and stop warrantless spying Dodd will get a few votes
Printable version US voters' views: Mary Kozak In the run-up to the most hotly contested US presidential election in years we are asking panels of BBC News website readers to share their opinions and views. Here voters from some of the 24 states involved in Super Tuesday reveal who gets their vote.
Mary Kozak
Ultrasound technologist | Democrat
After watching the Democratic debate on Thursday night, I was still undecided. 
"I liked John Edwards out of all the original democratic candidates, so with him out of the race I am faced with a choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
If Hillary's candidacy didn't also include Bill Clinton as a package it would be a clearer choice.
She certainly has more experience than Obama, but she won't admit making a mistake in voting for the war.
We already have a president who won't admit he made a mistake. We don't need another one.
She certainly managed to regurgitate every soundbite already regurgitated by a hundred pundits.
http://2008central.net/?p=1793
Here are the latest statistics from all of the states in today's primaries and caucuses.
...the hottest contested race in history and OR and and a few other states don't get to have any voice.
I'm not in favor of this system AT ALL. Do we progressives all have to move to IA to have our voices heard? But then, the voters are so manipulated by the CM, does it even matter anymore?
Phil, world-wide carbon emission standards is a far cry IMO from world gov't, ruled by the rich and elite Haaaavard grads. Oh wait. We have that now.
Question: Why even bother to have primaries in the later states? This year is a fluke. Why not just let the CMWs, IA and NH choose for all of us? Seriously, it's all a sham, all of it. When was the last time the dem party chose a true progressive, a populist, a winner?
Good morning, everybody
Sort of slly to have a war on something almost everybody does--take drugs.
Especially when you've got a ruling elite who's just as soon their subjects
not think. LOL
bbl --4:37 AM EST
5:37 AM EST
Bill Clinton wears pant suits ?
Super Tuesday: De Niro endorses Obama as Clinton insists she, not Bill, will 'wear the pant suits' in the White HouseLast updated at 10:20am on 5th February 2008
...
Found this on bluehampshire
http://lessig.org/blog/4obama.mov
It requires Quicktime player and is 19 minutes long
The poster on Bluehampshire has this to say:
Wonks (and Krugman) will be disappointed that Lessig quickly dispenses with policy differences citing the NYT endorsement of HRC:
"On the major issues there is no real gulf separating the two"
-
By audrey.nc on Feb 4, 2008 11:51 PM ESTThe Deans are first.....and,
Howard Dean is my first choice for president in '08,....and
the others don't count.