Even Satan hates developers and McMansion dwellers

Greased palms keep the gears of capitalism turning and all of us know that. To think otherwise, that big political donations don’t have a positive effect for the givers of such contributions, is foolish, deceitful and naive. Does big business give money away to politicians as though they were charity, just to be nice? No, they do not. Do they do it simply because they “like” someone’s political stance? No, they do not. They do it to buy favor even if favors are not explicitly promised since such a promise would make the contribution a bribe and illegal.

We rarely get to see this process exposed to the light of day. Even with campaign laws written so that we can search for political contributions, sometimes online, we rarely look to see who is giving money to whom. I fall into that category as well, and when I have searched I mostly do not recognize the names of the contributors. Occasionally our media will expose some of this and we are left to consider the ramifications. Today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a story that lays out how a major developer is greasing the palms of DeKalb county officials to get what they want.

I cannot say these county officials have taken bribes by the developer, but I can say that this smells fishy and the appearance of improper conditions for campaign contributions are the first thing I think of. Can they really maintain integrity and an unbiased view when they vote for this thing? I can’t say that the developer has given them bribes, but I will say that it certainly smells fishy to me that a Florida based developer, who is facing a major downturn in the Florida real estate market, would donate thousands upon thousands of dollars to county officials in DeKalb County, Georgia; who just happen to hold the yes or no vote on a project that will make millions for them and contribute nothing positive to the quality of life in the area they wish to redevelop. It will in fact turn an already busy and thriving area, which suffers from horrible traffic gridlock, into an even larger traffic nightmare and it will destroy and transform yet another former suburban district into the new Mecca for the greedy and tasteless of Atlanta.

The North Druid Hills corridor that they wish to redevelop is an area I am highly familiar with, in fact I will be moving back to Decatur in a few weeks, away from the worst mistake I ever made which was moving to Sandy Springs in 2002. I will in fact be living on North Druid Hills Road, and their project will indeed effect me. I am intimately familiar with the area targeted for redevelopment and I already have a major experience dealing with a similar development to which is planned by the Sembler Co.

I live a little more than a mile from the Perimeter Place development in Dunwoody and that development has totally fucked the area in terms of traffic and quality of life. Before that development was begun, driving through the connector roads that slice across the northern side of Perimeter was the perfect means of getting around the plug of traffic associated with the mall and the many office towers that are clustered in the area. Now the area is hopelessly plugged with traffic, the task of running errands is useless, as the development has created a third bottleneck for the flow of traffic. The other bottlenecks are the location and heavy traffic of Perimeter Mall and the layout of the cross connecting roads themselves as they were designed in an “S” shape for their entire length and not as straight thoroughfares.

The Perimeter Place development will be nothing when compared to the monstrosity that is planned for the area between I-85 and Briarcliff on North Druid Hills Road. The Sembler development will destroy affordable housing in the form of apartments on Briarcliff. Affordably priced apartments within a few mile radius of the development will suddenly become “fashionable” and the average working man and woman will have to move to yet another affordable apartment complex. The neighborhoods of the area, which have been shattered by the trashy infill buyers and developers will finally be ruined as the last of the greedy with no tastes will want to scoop up the remaining ranch house properties to make them McMansion hell.

Sembler will in effect, destroy the final vestiges of a neighborhood and a district all for their profit. The average citizen is being chased away by greedy and tasteless fucks who have a shitload of money and absolutely no common sense, human decency or good taste. Sembler is not interested in the common good for the citizens of DeKalb County, it is not interested in the community itself and it is not interested in the long-term quality of life for the residents of DeKalb County. Sembler is only concerned with one fucking thing, making a bigger pile of cash and fuck anyone who stands in their way.

Sembler has no interest in the fair and honest workings of the local government, they do not give a shit who takes their money all they want is for those who accept their money to vote in their favor. Sembler is the epitome of what is fucking wrong in this country as whole, the greedy want more and the average citizen who is in their way gets trampled over and to ease their way through the system they give fucking cold hard cash to politicians as their means of exercising their first amendment rights.

If DeKalb County officials allow this travesty to happen, we can say without doubt that mere trinkets and baubles distracted them into selling the rest of us out; and the price was just a few grand. I wonder how easy it is for the Sembler execs to blow through the same amount of money that they have already donated to the Dekalb officials. Their monthly greens fees are probably cost more than what they slid into the pockets of these officials.

Fat cat mating call -- "Shut up and give me your money."

I’m looking at a news report that Earthlink is slashing its workforce in half. Over 900 jobs are about to be shed and the concerns that yet another ISP could go by the wayside. Ten years ago you had a choice between using a local mom and pop style ISP, a larger regional ISP or one of the major national/international ISPs. Those days have been gone for quite some time. However, as a person who moved away from the horrible mess that ATT created when they slurped BellSouth into their clutches, I will be pretty much at the mercy of the mega-corporations if Earthlink sells out or is forced to close it’s doors.

This is another of those bad signs of what this nation has become. If Earthlink goes away, one way or the other, my choices are slim. I can go with Comcast, AOL or ATT. That’s about it. I have no other choice than to use Comcast for cable, unless I want to stick one of those stupid dishes on my balcony. I refuse to go back to AOLhell or give ATT a penny more than I have to because they will stick it up my ass with a complete disregard for my privacy.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why a “business friendly” government is bad for its citizens. This is why big business is NOT a good neighbor under any circumstance and this my friends is why the corporate lackeys in Washington, Republican and Democrat, need to be chased back into the private sector, post haste. They have allowed the large corporations to play ball in any way they choose and we, the consumer, are left with fewer choices, higher rates, sloppier service and a complete disregard for what is best for the consumer. The market does not weed out the weak; the market is a bloodbath where only the deepest coffers and least civility survive.

It’s not just the TelCos where this is found. It is the same in the financial sector, the health care sector, manufacturing, it is the same across the board and from what was once a wide variety of choices we are left with whatever they decide to throw at us. 10 years ago I had many choices for even the act of grocery shopping. From the corporate stores I could choose from Publix, Kroger, A&P, Harris Teeter, Winn Dixie, Sav-A-Lot, Cub Foods or Ingals. These stores were all located within 15 minutes of my apartment in Atlanta. Now that same 15-minute radius gives me Publix, Kroger and Wal-Mart.

Those are my only choices for typical grocery stores within that radius and even a small locally owned and operated store is no where to be seen. I shop for most of my groceries at one of the 2 farmer’s markets that I live between. Both are 20 to 25 minutes drives but they are well worth the trip even if it is out of my to get to either store. I would be spending approximately $100 to $150 per month in the corporate stores if I did all my shopping there, but instead I spend between $75 and $100 per month for the same food in those farmer’s markets. The money is much better spent there and it is one of my ways of saying no to big business.

I can’t really do that with Internet access, phone service, banking, health needs or when I need clothing. In the big war being waged against us by the big conglomerates we eventually loose the war but the consumer can win the small battles against their unethical practices.

The Oral Majority

I wonder if I am limiting my sexual enjoyment by only having sex with free spirited liberal leaning women? It seems that tough talking manly men in the Republican party are pretty adept at giving head based on current events. Should I stop chasing the wild east Atlanta bohemian women and start focusing on the guys wearing Brooks Brothers suits who haunt the state capitol?

Florida State House Rep. Bob Allen got busted last month for soliciting oral sex from “a pretty stocky black guy” in a public park restroom late one evening in July, for $20. The “stocky black guy” turned out to be an undercover cop and wham-o, Allen got hauled off to the pokey (no pun intended) for a little Q&A at the Broward County jail. Hmmm…even as a straight man I’ve always heard about these so-called cruising spots. Allen must have thought he was at Hartsfield-Jackson.

For Allen’s defense he says he was in no way at the park looking to give a quick, public BJ to settle his lustful little right wing heart. No, he says he was all askeered of the big scary black man and offered to give this man $20 to suck his hoo haa just to keep himself from being a “statistic”. You know, I’ve felt very nervous and unsafe in certain locations and times around Atlanta over the years. Defusing the situation by paying to give a dangerous looking man a wet sloppy hummer was the last thing I thought of doing.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-allentape0307aug03,0,1892734.story?coll=orl_tab01_layout

If that weren’t enough, the National Federation Chair of the Young Republicans, Glenn Murphy, has resigned his position after police reports have surfaced that accuse him of giving an unwelcome blow job to a young man while he slept. Ya know, I’ve woken up to the wonderful sensation of oral pleasure being performed on me while I was asleep on many occasions. Of course, it was being done by a Birkenstock wearing hippie chick who was being extra nice to this paranoid bugger with her reckless sexual abandon.

http://www.takingdownwords.com/taking_down_words/files/glennmurphy.pdf

What is it with these uptight, gay bashing, family values sort of Republicans giving BJs away like they are candy? Hell, they are even paying to give oral pleasure. No woman even gave me so much as a nickel if I let her go down. Maybe these moral high road fellas are onto something very progressive and forward thinking? Do Republican women act this way too?

Good Lord, have I been making a mistake for all these years by sharing my bed only with wild liberal women? Are the Republican women little sexual hell cats, who’s wiles are so great that they can drive 100% hetero dudes into paying strangers to give juicy oral action in public men’s rooms and on unsuspecting Young Republicans while they doze away? What sort of sexual pixie dust are these people sprinkling?

Low rumbles on the horizon

I’m trying to stay away from the purely political posts for at least a few days. The recent Libby commutation of sentence still has my blood boiling. I still need to spend some time digesting the CIA “Family Jewels” release and I haven’t even made the time to do that yet. So let’s go off in a different direction today.

Courtesy of Kent Steadman’s website we have some interesting information that has come to light regarding the Roswell incident. For those who have followed the players in the case, the name of Col. Walter Haut will ring a bell. Col. Haut’s “deathbed confession” has been released. He wrote an affidavit before he passed away which explains the things he saw and did surrounding the infamous incident.

The British media are reporting the details of this affidavit in surprising depth. The American media are, as par for the course, ignoring it. It’s quite interesting to read the Col.’s comments and it’s even more interesting to consider whether his affidavit is a real confession, disinfo or a prank.

The timing of this release is extremely curious considering some of the related and non-related events of the past two weeks. We first had the botched automobile-as-a-Molotov-cocktail “attacks” in the UK, followed by the detainment of a number of conspirators that include physicians and this was book ended by a new al-Quaeda video being released; an abnormally long video at that. The American political scene has given us the insulting Libby commutation, a potential physical threat on the life of Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama and a meeting in Kennebunkport between the Bush clan and Vladimir Putin. The UFOlogy field has also had two new stories to follow with the sudden emergence (and quiet follow-up) of the “Drones” photos and sightings which were accompanied by a release of documents purportedly by a former “insider”.

It’s quite obvious that some of these stories are plants and distractions. Which story is the real McCoy is a question up for debate. We are being distracted, intentionally, for a reason. The Libby story surprises me not in the least bit, but it still infuriates me. The hypocrisy of those in power knows no bounds and the overt in your face attitude is stunning. The Obama story, which I first learned of last night, troubles me the most.

I have feared since the VaTech massacre that we will soon be seeing a return to the days of assassins, where the leaders who appeal to the populace and those with a certain charismatic appeal to the masses, will be gunned down. The threats to all of us are lined up like rings, each one a barrier to keep us in line and under control. Assassination of our own leaders in America is a tactic we have not seen in a generation. Enough time has passed and it is of great concern to me.

Has VP Cheney been caught with his pants down?

To be taken with as many grains of salt as possible, Wayne Madsen has been reporting of late that Vice President Dick Cheney is among those who frequented DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s escort service when he was the CEO of Haliburton. Madsen, for those who are not familiar, runs an interesting political news website that sometimes has reported both rumor and conjecture as fact and often confuses commentary with reporting. But I still find his website to be valuable and an excellent resource for information because of the questions his reports often leave with me. Madsen’s site is an excellent alternate point of view clearinghouse.

Let me begin this posting by saying that it makes no difference to me what sexual preferences any person has. As long as the partner doesn’t walk on hooves or paws and no one is getting hurt and it’s between consenting adults, go for it folks. I don’t necessarily agree with the whole prostitution angle but if that is where you need to go for sexual fulfillment, by all means, do your thing. Where I do have a problem is when people in positions of power frequent or experiment in alternative sexual means. This isn’t a question of ethics or morality, it’s a purely pragmatic stance I have.

When the CEO of a large, international corporation or a powerful politician, who has a family and reputation to maintain, indulges in sexual promiscuity they open themselves up to the possibility of being blackmailed. If the Vice President is dipping his wick somewhere other than Mrs. Cheney, he is opening himself up to being a victim of blackmail from other politicians, business leaders or the Intelligence Community of other nations. In other words, his sexual desires and tastes can damage his ability to maintain his loyalty to the oath of office. This also opens him up to a potentially embarrassing internationally known scandal.

All men and women in positions of power, political and business, cannot underestimate the lengths that other people, people with agendas of their own, will go to in order to get what they want. The more powerful a position in society that a person holds the greater the need for that person to maintain control of their own desires. This is not only applicable to sexual desires but also true for money and notoriety. When a person in power makes a conscious effort to continue their exploration of sexuality by using more discreet means its simply a sign that even they recognize the necessity of their activities being kept secret. In effect, their actions validate the idea that great risk to themselves and their position is at stake.

If the Vice President has patronized the services of this or any other escort service, he should resign his position. Not because his actions are immoral or unethical, but because his actions have made him a risk to the security of our nation and it’s people.

We are all casualties in the War on Drugs

One of the most simple and effective ways of controlling the thoughts and actions of the American public is, and always has been, the War on Drugs. Through this “War”, those who hold true power in this country can redirect the anger, dissatisfaction and sense of justice that the citizens become self-aware of as a collective entity every few years. This allows those in power to shape the common ideal of who is desirable and undesirable as Americans and who can be scapegoat for punishment. The most vulnerable of our society, those with little or no money and those with no political or economic leverage are the ones who are targeted for punishment.

We allow this to happen because we are conditioned to accept the jingoism of the propaganda created by our political and business leaders. The payoff we receive for unquestionably following the conditioning is the promise that someone, who is always stereotyped as less worthy and productive as the rest of us, will be ostracized from our society and incarcerated. We will be given a self-fulfilling sense of pleasure that “good” is being done for our society at large and that our self-righteousness will lead to greater safety in our own homes and for our loved ones. The beneficiaries of this propaganda are not the average citizens; the beneficiary is in fact the ones who maintain economic, political and theocratic control over America.

Poverty and lack of education are often cited as the two main causes of drug addiction. My belief is that while drug addiction is indeed a socio-economic problem, the actual root cause is hopelessness and pain. Poverty may increase the chances a person will become an addict but a lack of good paying jobs, fear of what tomorrow may bring and an ultimate sense of “giving in” to the futility of being a “tilting windmill” is what causes the impoverished to turn to drugs. The emotional pain that comes with this act of giving in is no different than what is felt by the victims of tragedy or abuse. The latter, tragedy and abuse are aspects of drug abuse that know no socio-economic boundaries.

No one aspires to be a drug addict when they are young. Addicts turn to this vice in response to what they believe about the outside world or to numb internal pain. Feeling good or better than your outlook on life is alluring, deadening pain is critical when all you feel is pain. These are traits that are shared with not only the addict but also the casual drug users who often get caught in the net of the War on Drugs. Their fate of the recreational user is the same as the addict if they do not have economic or political ties that may shield them from the full brunt on the American legislative and judicial branches.

The closed loop system of drug abuse, drug addiction, drug trafficking, drug legislation, enforcement of drug laws, state mandated drug treatment and incarceration is self-sustaining and needs little outside stimulus to maintain itself. The War on Drugs and a variety of legislative practices do not limit or reduce this system but instead cause growth of the system, which in turn increases the size and power of government as an end result. Society does not benefit from drug addiction and the War on Drugs does not benefit society either. This “War” merely marginalizes citizens and dehumanizes the victims of addiction as well as the one-off cases of individuals who self medicate for the treatment of any professionally diagnosed medical condition that decreases the quality of life of the patient.

The central method the government uses in delivering anti-drug propaganda is to demonize all drug users as deviant, dangerous and crazed. They are portrayed as immoral and outsiders of accepted society. This removes any and all sympathy the average citizen may have for the victims of drug addiction. Punishment of drug offenders satisfies the sadistic and vengeful impulses of the citizenry.

If 10 meth labs were raided in a single day, in a single state, and only 1 person was arrested for possession of the drug, the law enforcement agencies would use the single arrest of a user as justification for increasing their funds and power. The labs would be verification that their policies and laws are valid, the single drug addict would be the sign that even more needs to be done.

Law enforcement, judicial and penal systems do not grow when crime rates are down. All three of those systems need a constant rise or growth of crime to not only maintain their funding but in reality they need an increase of crime to justify what they always demand, more money. What those systems gain from the War on Drugs is far more than just public funding. What they gain is greater control of the public at large and in the end they gain a person’s money, property and life.

When a person is arrested for possession of drugs, depending on the type of drug and the amount of the drug they are arrested for, the following things occur:

1) The accused is now added to the state and local drug crime statistics.

2) The accused may try to make bail or bond out of jail, which adds money to the local bail bonding industry. If the accused does not show up for their hearings, trial dates or sentencing date the bail or bond is forfeited to the state or local coffers.

3) The accused must seek legal representation, which they may or may not be able to afford. If they can afford the legal expenses they are adding money to the local legal community. If they cannot afford representation they must petition the court, which places an added burden on the government budget.

4) If the accused is found guilty they will be paying fines, which adds to the government income. They may spend time in jail, prison or on probation and in all three cases a burden is placed on the government’s budget.

5) The guilty may have to forfeit all property they own to the government depending on the law they violated. This also adds to the government coffers when the property is auctioned to the public.

6) If the guilty receives a prison sentence there is a strong likelihood that they will be forced to provide cheap labor while incarcerated, which also adds to the government’s coffers.

7) The government will use that person’s arrest and conviction in its statistical reports for its budgets. With an increase of crime, especially targeted crime there is a corresponding demand from law enforcement to gain funding to combat that crime.

8) Once the guilty is released from prison they now have a criminal record that will adversely affect their ability to gain honest and good paying employment. This reduces the taxable income that the government can access and it can add to a burden to other government programs such as welfare if the guilty has to support a family.

9) If the guilty is desperate enough they may turn to a full time life of crime that adds to this cycle.

This doesn’t include the ancillary charges that can be brought up against most addicts and dealers. Possession of illegal weapons, tax fraud, possession of stolen goods and many other ancillary crimes are committed by both the addicts and the dealers who live in the world of drug addiction. With the rise in meth labs being raided what we also see is a number of child endangerment cases as well and homeowners and apartment managers who rent to a person who runs a meth lab on their premises are also looking at massive bills to cleanup what are now being defined by the EPA as contaminated sites.

The War on Drugs as it has been waged does not address the root causes or the prevention of drug addiction. It targets users and sellers of illicit drugs to fund it’s own goals, expand the reach of government over it’s citizens and centralize the people who benefit from the spoils of this war. Its sole purpose is to consolidate power, perpetuate itself and ignore the root causes of the war.

A person can provide and contribute more to the overall health of society by being a tax paying, law abiding and conscientious citizen. All people in a community share in the wealth that comes from keeping people happy and employed as the citizens will pay taxes, work to improve their standing in society, help their fellow citizens and reduce the burden of the cost of government by being model citizens. Why is the War on Drugs focused on finding the addicts, drug suppliers and drug manufacturers and “eliminating” them instead of eliminating the factors that lead it’s citizens to create and fuel the demand for drugs?

If a society were to reverse the flow of funds from the legislative, judicial, law enforcement and penal systems that drain resources and talent for this War on Drugs and direct those funds to repairing the problems that cause drug addiction what would be the end result? What would need to be addressed?

As I mentioned earlier, it is my belief that drug addiction begins in the local community. When there is little or no hope for the citizens of a local community or if there is no advocacy of people who suffer emotional trauma, those people will turn to substance abuse to deaden their sense of pain. This means that local communities must maintain a strong local economy and provide medical treatment for those people who have suffered deep emotional trauma if they wish to reduce the drug problem in their community.

Local communities are severely limited by how much money they can generate from their citizenry. Property and sales taxes, possibly a small income tax, are all they can draw from. Too much taxation and they stifle the economic viability of their community. They have necessary services that they must provide such as law enforcement, maintaining roads and utility services. This leaves little for reinvesting into the promotion of the local economy. Providing basic medical care for its citizens is out of the question under these conditions.

Under these conditions a local community would need funding from the state and federal government to provide greater economic investment opportunities and medical care for its citizens. States have a much greater reservoir of taxable resources than local governments. They can tax not only income and property but they can also tax the sales of fuels, targeted business and industrial sectors, as well as taxing the use of its road systems via tolls. The state also has the same budgetary issues of providing necessary services but its pool of taxable resources is much greater and the state can also provide basic medical care for its citizens.

To address economic growth and medical care for its citizens the state is in a much better financial position to address those needs than a local government but they still do not have the massive resources that the federal government has. Not only can the federal government collect income and property tax from its citizens it can also tax imported goods from other nations, negotiate the interest rates it must pay for loans, it can also generate funds by charging for a much wider range of services that it oversees. Telecommunications services, postal and other communication channels and medical coverage are prime examples of federal government generating income outside taxation.

Let’s suppose for a moment that the funnel of funding and disbursal of funds were aimed at state and local governments instead of keeping the pool of money at the federal level and spending it on federal programs. State and local governments could share the burden of economic growth by sharing the funds directed at them. State governments could address general and physical health concerns and the local community could be funded to address the mental health of its citizens by creating local community hospitals, hiring mental health professionals and providing both long-term and short-term assistance to its citizens. Victims of assault, natural disasters and poor upbringing could be offered high quality mental health care from professionals who live and are a part of their local community. The driving interest of improving your community and empowering your fellow citizens is a powerful lure to many and this quality can be found in teachers as well.

The local government would benefit from this by having a larger group of healthy, happy and optimistic citizens. This base of workers would in turn be appealing to private business not only because of the capability to maintain quality in the production of its goods and services, but also for the lower overhead that would arise because they would no longer need to provide or assist in the payment of health care services for its employees.

The state government would benefit because a large pool of happy, healthy and optimistic citizens contribute to the overall quality of economic selling points it can make to businesses who are considering a move to their state. The more businesses you have in your state and the more they produce, the greater the amount of money that can be generated by a state government in the form of taxes. Healthier, happier and more optimistic citizens and companies will steadily raise their incomes over their lifetime, which leads to more money generated by taxation.

The federal government benefits off this scenario by lower overall costs for medical care, a lower cost for providing social services, a lower cost in the enforcement of its laws since there would be a decrease in crime and it sees a greater tax base from which to draw from.

Addressing the root causes of addiction reduces the overall problem of drugs by taking away the demand for drugs. There would, of course, be a group of people that cannot be helped or aided no matter how much money is spent trying to help them. We as people have free will and we have to accept that some people simply would not accept help or want to change their lives. This is a fact of human nature that cannot be avoided but it should not be used as an excuse to not address the root problem. The key to this aspect of the War on Drugs is to recognize that the numbers of people who are beyond reach is small in comparison to the sheer volume of people that are swept into the net under our current policies. They, like career criminals, are a portion of society who will not change their behavior and they are a much smaller segment than we are currently dealing with.

This scenario as I described will never be addressed seriously. It may be hinted at or even discussed in a general sense, but it will not be addressed seriously at the higher levels of power in this nation. The reason is simple. The way we currently address the drug problem narrows the group of people who actually benefit short and long-term in the War on Drugs. These people bring true and pure power to the problem and sharing the benefits and wealth of the War on Drugs is not what they want. Who, then, benefits from the status quo in this war?

On the first level of the war, law enforcement gains funds and power. Law enforcement is the foot soldier and pawn of those in power. Law enforcement allegiance is bought and sold by those who wield true and pure power. In some instances the US Military is used in the same way as law enforcement in the war on drugs. They also act as a kind of canary in a coal mine when those at the top of the chain of power want something. If the ends they wish are new laws that restrict the freedoms of Americans, the means of that goal would be to make the law enforcement officials demand new laws to be enacted that they claim will make Americans safer. Use the statistics gathered from arrests to validate the point and people will fall into line when this propaganda is used.

The second level of this war is comprised of the individuals and companies who make a profit off this war. This level includes the obvious people and groups such as lawyers and corrections departments but there is an entire multi-billion dollar industry that drives this second level. That industry comprises companies such as Wackenhut and Aramark who provide outsourced services to the correctional facility industry by providing administrative, maintenance and food services to jails and prisons. Also in this level are the companies who make millions of dollars each year in the construction of new jails and prisons. This is the middle area where cash can be split, transferred and washed by those at the bottom and the top.

The third level of this war is the legislative and judicial branches of government, who provide the legal precedents, legal representation and oversee the funding for this war. These people guide the direction of the war to enhance and expand their power. They have even carried this power to the point where every citizen is considered a criminal regardless of what they actually do with their lives. All one has to do is look at the current missions of the US Intelligence Community and what it is doing in the NSA spying scandal as well as the process that the Intelligence Community uses when it accesses the private databases of companies such as ChoicePoint, to see that we all are being actively monitored in an attempt to not only catch us in the act of committing crimes but to predict when and/or if we will commit crimes.

The War on Drugs is a facet of a much larger operation of consolidating true power into a small group of individuals. Its sole purpose is to create instability in our communities, breed paranoia and suspicion about our fellow citizens and marginalize and target a select group of our own citizens. The very select few gain in this while the vast majority of Americans pay the price. The true price is our freedom and rights.

Even if you and I take no drug stronger than aspirin, we are still a part of the War on Drugs. We pay the price with a weaker community, a weaker economy and a more powerful government. We pay the price because we are under constant surveillance by our government and its representatives. The price we pay is our freedom.

News - Verizon tells court they were exercising 1st amendment rights in NSA spying scandal.

This will make your head spin. Verizon is claiming that the lawsuit filed against the company for helping the government spy on it's citizens, should be dropped because they were merely exercising their first amendment rights.

The gravamen of plaintiffs records claims is that defendants allegedly communicated information about them to the government namely, that a call was
placed from a certain telephone number to another number. Communicating such
factual information to the government would be speech that is fully protected by the First Amendment.

When the country is engaged in an armed conflict with foreign enemies, that right applies to communicating information that may be useful in defending the country from expected attacks. Based on plaintiffs own allegations, defendants right to communicate such information to the government is fully protected by the Free Speech and Petition Clauses of the First Amendment, and is a privilege and immunity that arises directly under the federal Constitution.

We've seen far too many examples of ideas and words being redefined to suit the wants and needs of the powers that be over the last 6 years but this one is an award winner. I honestly don't know where to begin. This is a prime example of why I absolutely despise the mega-corporations in this country. It's just mind boggling to think that this defense could work for them.

If this doesn't work in the court, the President is ready to push a bill in which there is a section that would grant all telecommunications companies retroactive immunity from any and all legal action by the American public in relation to their efforts to assist the government in spying on us.

It's always the girlfriend that breaks the camel's back.

WASHINGTON: Paul Wolfowitz came under renewed pressure to resign as World Bank president on Monday as a bank committee formally transmitted its findings that he was guilty of a conflict of interest in arranging for a pay raise and promotion in 2005 to Shaha Ali Riza, his companion.

Read the rest of the article at the International Herald Tribue website.

Just as an aside, you'd think that with the $193k per year salary that Wolfowitz's girlfriend is making, thanks to him, that she would use her woman's intuition to "clean up" her boyfriend and bought him some socks. Isn't that one of things women love to do, make a project out of the guy they are dating?

Is the CIA behind the "DC Madam" scandal?

Last week I posted that the VaTech shooter's use of a prostitute was a similar behavioral pattern shared with other possible mind control subjects. This has made me think a bit more seriously about the still simmering "DC Madam" scandal. Is it possible that some of the remaining veteran spooks at Langley are using the oldest trick in the book (no pun intended) to get back at the neocon hypocrites?

For those unfamiliar with the DC Madam story the short explanation is that a woman by the name of Deborah Jeane Palfrey was recently arrested for running an escort service in the DC area. Her clientele is rumored to consist of high level government officials. Among the first to be stung for their dalliances is Deputy of Secretary of State Randall Tobias. Tobias, the Presidential appointed "AIDS Czar", who was quoted as saying that being "faithful" is a way to prevent AIDS, seems to not know the meaning of the word hypocrite.

On Thursday of last week, Tobias admitted he did use the escort service run by Palfrey and would call up "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage." He claimed there was "no sex" in these massage encounters. Yeah...right...Ted Haggard already tried that one when the gay prostitute and crystal meth story first broke last year. It didn't work too well for him either.

Palfrey was pretty smart, apparently she maintained detailed lists of her clients. I don't know if this will be the equivalent of a "Get out of jail free" card but at the least she can have the pleasure of bringing down the hypocrites with her if she gets the heat over this. ABC news has possession of a copy of her list. Why they do no not provide a true service to this country by naming names I can only guess.

So, is this an example of Operation Midnight Climax being carried out in 2007? So far nothing leads me to believe that it is an agency job. The curious thing is that the rank and file career minded spooks are among the walking wounded from the Christian Coalition drones and Neocon lovers of the Bush administration. Would it be beneath them to pull out the oldest trick in their little black book of dirty tricks? Of course not. Whether the agency set this in motion or it just happened as so many criminal enterprises eventually lead to is possibly a side story in what could be the best Washington sex scandal in many years.

At least this one isn't as dark and disturbing as some others. Even the Minnesota Monitor is pondering the possibility that the emerging scandal is being smokescreened to take away its attention by giving us some al-Qaeda capture stories.

Paging Upton Sinclair.

Keep your eyes open for the name of author Upton Sinclair to come up in an article or two as the year progresses. The recent food safety issues that have cropped up in the US and the release of director PT Anderson’s film “There Will Be Blood” should be enough to bring Sinclair’s work back into the national consciousness, even if it’s a fleeting mention. Have we really changed at all since his day and time?

Sinclair was the type of person we are sorely lacking in today’s political and social scene. An intellectual who’s interest seemed to lay far more with the common working man and the impoverished than with the academic, political and economic elitists of his time. He was a pure leftist, who brought his populist ideas to his work and even ran in several gubernatorial races in California, and is still a decisive figure to the far right-wing nearly 40 years after his death.

While the full scope of Sinclair’s novel “The Jungle” doesn’t seem to be on the radar of the country one facet of the story, our food safety, is beginning to gain attention once again. It seems we have a weekly food recall. E-Coli, salmonella or some other bacterial contamination of our food keeps rising to our attention. Now we have the melamine controversy where it appears that the government is spending more time keeping the full extent of the problem out of sight than they are keeping us informed of what they are doing and what we need to be aware of. Has the government, or any health agency for that matter, told us what could be the symptoms and risks of melamine to the human body? I haven't seen a mention from the feds on the effects or symptoms from day 1.

The main problem with the melamine story is this. The CDC, USDA and FDA have said over and over that they can find no indications that there has been a risk to the health of the public from this event. They have also released statement after statement that the risk has been minimal and “no problems have been detected to date.” The problem with those statements is that very little is actually known about the effects of melamine on the human body. The subject is understudied and what we do know is that the permissible level of melamine in human food that is mandated by the government is zero. None.

So how can the government, in good consciousness, tell us to not worry when they themselves know very little about how this triazine compound effects us? We are getting a much more clear picture from China, where this originated, that the profit eager and safety absent industrialists of that country are spiking their foods with high levels of melamine. Perhaps this is all a larger, global version of the Tuskegee Experiment? I’m also sure that the US Intelligence Community will be as eager to see what the long-term effects are just as they were interested in US cancer rates during and after the period of atmospheric nuclear tests.

Commentary - Think it's hard following national politics?

Even Eugene Talmadge would shake his head at this mess.

If you think it's hard following National politics try following local politics, especially in Georgia. Earlier this year the state Democratic Party brought forward a complaint to the State Ethics Committee against the Speaker of the State House regarding what has been described as an "improper" and "personal" relationship between the Speaker of the House and a lobbyist for the Atlanta Gas Light Company (AGL). At the time of the relationship, the Speaker co-sponsored a bill that was to have financed a $300 million dollar pipeline for the company. I may be a paranoid "Joe Six Pack" but even I know this is wrong and there is no amount of rationalization in the world to make it right.

What became of the investigation? Dismissed by the Ethics Committee, half of whom were appointed by the Speaker. Nice catch, Richardson, and a tip of the hat to the 12 members of the "Ethics Committee" who let this get swept aside. You folks are really representing your constituents well and you sure are making an effort to "earn" your keep. All sarcasm aside, we need to send a truckload of hand baskets from Atlanta to Helen, because that's where this state is going.

insideradvantagegeorgia.com, a political clearinghouse for Georgia political stories ran a poll regarding the Speaker's ethics problem and the results are pretty sad. 71% of the poll respondents didn't know or were not aware that there was even an ethics complaint against their own Speaker. Our mainstream news sources here in Georgia are no different than the Big 5 of the nation who blabber away about nothing, real stories that have an impact are pushed aside for fluff and distractions while the real news, the events that effect all of us get a fraction of the time spent discussing whether or not Mr. Mexico gets high at the dog fights or not.

In light of this I have to say that it's a shame that Ralph Reed didn't win the Lt. Governor seat. A Bible waving crook with no moral compass always knows his way around the gold dome. He would have been a better fit for the Georgia legislature.

News - Rep. Kucinich tosses the impeachment log onto the fire

This one is going to be one to watch. If the Kucinich resolution gets just a little momentum in the public consciousness we could be in for a bumpy ride. Anyone want to start a pool for how long it will take for the Iran bogeyman to start screaming again if this does get rolling?

News - Is the Attorney General afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease?

I'm following the AG testimony at thebluestate.com live blog:

http://www.thebluestate.com/2007/04/live_blogging_t.html

Can Gonzales remember anything that isn't selective? Does he have Alzheimer's Disease? Does he suffer from a form of dementia that effects his short-term memory? Shouldn't the number 1 law enforcement agent in America be able to remember details of important meetings that happened only a few short months ago?

According to reporters, Gonzales has said the words "I can't recall" nearly 55 times.

Commentary - The militarization of America - Part 2

Part 1 of this commentary can be found here:

http://theconspiratorsnest.blogspot.com/2007/04/commentary-militarization-of-america.html

Rumors about the toy box

Coinciding with the late 80's-early 90's escalation of combat operations and shining publicity was a curious sideshow involving secret desert bases, exotic advanced weapons and technology and a faint hint of otherworldly connections. Starting around 1987 the subject America's stealth fighter technology and experiments came to light. It began in technical and trade journals as well as the sub-culture of aviation enthusiasts. The existence of the B-2 bomber and the F-117 Stealth fighter had been verified by time of the Panama invasion. The invasion was the "test bed" for the capabilities of both weapons delivery systems, the first Persian Gulf war was the coming out party.

Bubbling under these two developments were rumors of other, far more exotic toys being played with in the toy box of the high desert of Nevada; Area 51. American interest had been piqued by the story sub-plots found in TV shows and movies like "The X-Files", "Men in Black" and "Independence Day" which hinted at or directly covered the existence of advanced military weapons systems that were kept in the secret Area 51 air base. These rumors and plot devices satiated the American appetite for superiority in all things related to the military and gave popular culture a new outlet for conspiracy theories and urban legend. Instead of public fear and outrage at these stories, Americans were strangely seduced and pleased by these stories. Why?


Look around you

The military, its suppliers and its second cousins are all around us. Turn on the TV if you have cable and there is literally a 24-hour a day presence of the military on your TV. The Military History Channel is one of the many channels which fall under the broadcast umbrella of General Electric and it's A&E Television Networks. In the early and mid-90's another basic cable staple, The Discovery Channel, was a science and history centric source of programming. It's shows featured stories about ancient societies, space exploration and world history. The only military themed shows were the 1 hour-long documentaries about military action from history. This aspect of the programming can be prominently seen in early episodes of HBO's The Sopranos, as lead character and mob boss Tony Soprano, is an enthusiast of these shows and their historical figures. In Gus Van Sandt's film "Elephant", a fictionalized account of the Columbine Massacre, the killers are seen skipping school with a Discovery Channel styled documentary playing in the scene where an automatic rifle is being delivered to them.

The Discovery Channel and General Elctric's web of cable stations all use the modern military, it's weapons and tactics as a central subject of much of their programming on top of the 24 hour coverage featured on The Military History Channel. The quantity and tone of this type of programming is quite unsettling when you begin to look closely at the subject material. Is this glut of military themed programming a result of public demand, or is it a carefully orchestrated plan to desensitize the American public to the mission of the military (wage war and cause death and destruction) and/or to desensitize them and give sympathy to the suppliers of military weapons? General Electric stands much to gain by their own form of self promotion.

I have not seen a single example of criticism of the fraud, corruption or fleecing of the American public by the makers of the American weapons industry on these channels. It is only wall-to-wall praise and glory for the purported capabilities of these weapons, weapon delivery systems and their designers. No mention of the checkered history of the Osprey aircraft platform. No mention of the massive cost overruns, abject failure to produce viable products in accordance with contractual obligations and flawed production of the LCS and Deepwater Programs. No mention of the sham and money pit that was the A-12 Avenger program. Chest thumping and sexy base reactions from the masses, yes. Honesty and critical thinking, no!

Switch channels to over-the-air broadcast TV and you'll see even more propaganda. The Armed Forces have spent a ton of money to sponsor cars in the NASCAR Nextel Cup racing series. At any sporting event worthy of national attention there is the obligatory honor guard and flyover of high tech aircraft. You can't sit down and simply watch a football game on a lazy Sunday afternoon without being assaulted with images of spit and polished servicemen, a close-up of a formation of F-18 Hornets, and now the on-screen box score even features the logos of and website address of the military. GoArmy.com indeed. Especially if my team can go 5-2 after this game.

The military's advertising has even morphed into a variation on themes. One commercial features the POV of a middle aged parent, with their child informing them of the news that they have or are considering joining the military. The POV parent, of course, is silent for the length of the commercial as your youngster rattles off the promises of the recruiter. Another commercial approach shows the military as a video game. No comment necessary.


In conclusion

This militarization of the American masses is so ingrained in our culture that it's virtually a useless exercise to reverse the trend. Spend some of your time with your eyes open and your mind aware of the military symbolism all around you. What does your local police force look like? Here in Atlanta where I live and in the rest of the state of Georgia, out police officers rarely act or dress in the traditional way of law enforcement agents. Many wear all black uniforms, with their pants combat dressed into their boots.

All we need is for the Commander in Chief to dress in the uniform while in office and all is complete. Wait a minute, that already happened.

Image from Reuters

Commentary - The militarization of America - Part 1

One of the constant sources of propaganda that Americans are subjected to is the militarization of our thought process. The content of our entertainment, the way the fourth estate reports the news and how law and order is maintained on our streets are all effected by this propaganda. This has been a subtle and constant force since the end of WWII but its subtle nature has evolved into an overt force since the first Persian Gulf War.


Roots

At the conclusion of WWII the decision was made to maintain the nations war footing. The introduction of the atomic bomb and the latest boogeyman in the closet, the Soviet Union, gave Washington power brokers and the boardrooms of arms makers a bright new world as they looked to the future. The Military-Industrial Complex came into being as the war profiteers created an environment to keep the money rolling in through the development and manufacture of massive weapons systems which interconnected to America's ability to wage war in a nuclear age. Washington politicos trudged back to their districts with money in their fists to distribute to the weapons factories and stories of horror for their constituents that we faced an enemy with no conscious and no God. The enemy was devoted to making our nation bow down before them. Better dead than red, we said.

As children, we boys could not escape the beating drums of warfare and hints at what our futures may bring. The toy department shelves of Woolworth's stocked toy guns, helmets and GI Joe. If plastic model making interested us we could choose between fast cars, warplanes or warships. Even our comic books featured ads where we could buy plastic soldiers, tanks and planes for little more than one week's allowance. Our extracurricular activities even included uniforms complete with their own medals and ribbons for austerity as we played Little League baseball and earned merit badges in the Cub Scouts and later the Boy Scouts. We were, and our sons still are, being primed to wage war and yearn for the decorations of glory that come with military service.

We do need a military; a strong, well equipped, well trained force capable of carrying out any mission given to them. We do not live in a utopian world and I doubt that we ever will, so we need an armed force to protect our shores and if needed, our interests as a nation. I'm not a pacifist but I am not a hawk either and I provided 8 years of service to our nation in the Navy. I sacrificed the formative years of my early adult life for that honor. I received many good things in return from that experience but I also saw death, hypocrisy and an insight into the true inner workings of how the military and its connection to the Military-Industrial Complex really works. To say my feelings toward the masters of war and their suppliers/enablers is ambivalent is an understatement. The pawns of the masters of war, the enlisted men and women, I have complete sympathy and empathy for.


Vietnam and the post-Vietnam hangover

Hasbro, the makers of GI Joe, were forced to reimagine their toy as an adventurer and rough and tumble man of the world when sales plummeted during the Vietnam War and in the years that followed as the nation continually lost it's stomach for the reality of war. The military itself battled major problems within the ranks as the 70's turned into the 80's with drug addicts among its ranks. One high profile military disaster brought unwanted attention to the problems. During the investigation into a flight deck crash aboard the USS Nimitz in 1981 it was learned that several of the crew had THC in their bloodstream at the time of the tragedy. Fourteen crewmen were dead, 45 injured and another black eye was given to the military as President Reagan was attempting to rejuvenate the military, it's budgets and America's taste for foreign blood and oil.

The military began finding itself the sympathetic (intentional or not) subject of films, books, television and popular culture as a whole. Traditional war films like Hamburger Hill were released. Reconciliation with the effects of the Vietnam War began with films such as "Platoon" and books such as Gustav Hansford's "Dispatches". The military even became a humorous backdrop for films and TV shows with "Stripes", "Private Benjamin" and "Major Dad." The military as a glorious organization once again joined the fray and "Top Gun" became a massive blockbuster and made stars out of actors Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer.

The squeamish factor of the military itself and its role became soft and downplayed in the media. Even the recruitment advertisements for the services began to change. "It's not just a job, it's an adventure." was how the Navy promoted itself in the 80's. Earning money for college became the number one selling point for all the services. Asx a side note, it's too bad that they didn't tell us how little our GI Bill program would really help us once we left the service. VEAP helpful, but it was vastly inferior to the preceding GI educational benefits allocated for the Vietnam Era vets and the program that came afterward, the Montgomery GI Bill.

But the point is that under Reagan the image and PR surrounding the military was losing the tarnish that had built up for more than a decade. What it needed was action. Action that Reagan and his successors were able to provide with all the gloss of a Hollywood production, wrapped in the slick presentation of a Madison Avenue ad firm, nurtured by PR firms stocked with mountains of research data and all for the low, low price of free over-the-air network TV.


Get your war face on

Beginning in 1983, President Reagan and his foreign policies gave the US military its first chance for combat operations and high profile operations since the failed Operation Eagle Claw mission in 1980. In 1983 alone the Navy played a serious game of tag with Soviet ships in the Sea of Japan following the shootdown of KAL flight 007, an incident where it appears that the US Air Force and US Intelligence agencies may have had a role. The battleship New Jersey bombarded positions in Lebanon and Syria and the Marine Corps were sitting ducks in Beirut, 241 service members, 220 of which were Marines, died when their barracks were car bombed. And in October of that pivotal year, the US invaded the Caribbean Island nation of Grenada.

Excluding the US actions directly connected with Iraq (Persian Gulf War I, The policy of containment and Persian Gulf War II), US forces have seen action as follows: Gulf of Sidra and the bombing of Libya, anti-terrorist operations worldwide, the Panama Invasion. The Kuwaiti tanker reflagging mission, Somalia and Haiti. Bosnia, the war on drugs and Central American advisory missions. In each case the reporting of action by American mass media outlets, particularly television news, did not featured the same bloody footage that was commonplace in reporting the Vietnam war. The US Government effectively cleansed the brutality of war and combat operations from the fourth estate's methods and the media fell lockstep with the idea.

The first Persian Gulf War was the cherry topping for the Military and it's suppliers. The Humvee, smart bombs, Raytheon's Patriot missile batteries, "Warthogs", stealth bombers, Tomahawk cruise missiles and body armor became a part of the American vernacular. Watching bombs freefall from a warhead camera from thousands of feet and into a ventilation shaft of some building became our own "shock and awe". Of course, the military cherry picked which footage to show but that is beside the point. The point was get the message out that military domination was ours. Rest easy tonight safe in the knowledge that the boy next door, with a joystick in hand, would protect us with all manner of sexy weaponry.

In part 2 I will address the depth that this propaganda extends, focusing mainly on cable television and it's programming. I will also address how Hollywood has also gotten in on the act. Part 2 will be posted within the next few days.

To be President..forever

I'm going to make a wild and outlandish statement.

In 2009, President Bush will not step down as President of the United States. He will stay in office and his departure will only occur once he has chosen his own replacement.

Too wild to think of, isn't it? A "fringe" statement to make? Probably. Things like the Constitution, the Congress, the Supreme Court and the opinion and outrage of the citizens of the United States of America would prevent this from happening, right? Think again. It's possible and I believe we have already seen the signs of this administration testing the waters to see if they can pull it off. This isn't a prediction, just a hypothesis of how it could happen. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the powers vested to the Presidency from The Patriot Act and Patriot Act II have given the President the power to do this.


The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

This amendment prevents President Bush from staying in office past January 20th, 2009. If a bill to repeal this amendment is passed in both houses of the legislature by a 2/3 majority in each, and is ratified by 3/4 of the states, Bush can run for office once again. However, there is another back door method of amending the Constitution, known as an "Informal Amendment." In essence what it means is that the meaning or interpretation of the Constitution has changed. From such a change in the meaning of the Constitution a case can be brought to the Judicial Branch to redefine the meaning of a specific amendment. Can the 22nd Amendment be re-interpreted? As a lay person with no experience in the study of law my opinion is that I don't believe the meaning of this amendment can be changed.

So the trick with this amendment would be to repeal it outright or append. With a hostile Congress and an approval rate of less than 40%, repeal of the amendment is a laughable idea. How about appending the amendment to provide an "in case of fire.." option for Bush to exploit? Why go to that trouble of either of these choices when a more simple path has recently been cleared?


Just suspend Habeas Corpus

In Moyer v. Peabody the Supreme Court ruled, "When it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process.''

Could this ruling be one example of a point of argument that the administration could use to remain in power? In signing The Military Commissions Act of 2006, President Bush was given an entirely new and wide range of powers that has gone unchallenged and opens the interpretation of who can be defined as an enemy combatant. It allows for US Citizens to be declared enemy combatants and lose all rights as citizens that had been protected by the Constitution. In effect, it is the President's arrest warrant for any person whom he decides is a threat to the nation.

What set of events could lead the President to suspend Habeas Corpus and declare martial law and leave the Constitution open for his or the Supreme Court's interpretation? The idea of a false flag operation against the United States has been the subject of many long running Internet hoaxes. This is a shaky option but I believe that a more scripted process would make the suspension of Habeas Corpus a last ditch effort or possibly a moot point. I'm going to propose a 6 point strategy that would make repealing the 22nd Amendment or appending the 22nd Amendment a possibility even with our current attitude toward the president.


A 6 point strategy

1) Float the idea of repealing the 22nd Amendment - This has already been done on a small scale this year. Numerous websites reported that Vice President Cheney suggested that Bush was seeking to challenge the 22nd amendment. The quote offered in these April Fools Day jokes was, "Mr. Cheney again cited the war in Iraq as a key component in the effort to combat terrorism, saying "The war in Iraq is such a crucial part of the greater war on terror that we currently have our legal advisers looking into the possibility that the 22nd Amendment may not apply in 2008."

So the idea is already out there in a small segment of our population, even if it was intended as a "joke". All that is left is to float the idea more seriously is get the mainstream press to pick it up and discuss it on cable television.

2) Get an outsider in on the idea - Take someone who is respected and considered and "outsider" from the daily grind of Washington politics and who seems to be above it, with nothing to lose, and have them speak in serious tones for the idea. An author, a retired politician, a business leader, etc..

3) Get traction to steer the idea - If the idea stays in the public arena after the "outsider" gets on board, the idea has traction, even if the public is not favorable to the idea. As long as it's being discussed seriously it has traction. If it isn't getting traction, get snow chains.

4) Prove the idea has merit - It's been approximately 2 years since the last escalation of the terror threat level. Just enough time to make us relax and feel smarter than the DHS and White House scare merchants. That's long enough for a sudden escalation to scare the bejesus out of us. With growing violence in Iraq becoming a daily reinforcement in the news, a streak of particularly heavy violence would gain our attention. Couple that with a sudden threat level rise over an unspecified threat and we would react. If the idea of repealing the 22nd amendment didn't have traction before, this would get the traction. If it had traction, this would steer it in the direction the White House wants. Approval for such a thing would increase.

5) Reinforce the idea - This is tricky to call. A terrorist attack would reinforce the idea, so would a news story involving a high value target, such as immanent capture of Bin Laden, an escalation of threats with Iran, or an attack on the US fleet in the Persian Gulf. Whatever the event it would have to coincide with proving the idea has merit or come soon enough after the fact so that Americans would associate the two.

6) Make the idea a reality - Push the idea into Congress as a bill, if it dies it makes no difference. It can be used as part of the excuse to suspend Habeas Corpus and declare martial law.


Declarations of war

This President has made no haste in declaring himself a war president, even though Congress has not declared war. His powers to use the military in Afghanistan and Iraq are the result of Congressional acts, not declarations of war. However, the acts have given him a massive amount of leeway and power. The Constitution has been weakened and limits of Congressional power is now at the forefront of the current battle between Congress and the President. This is something that too many people have overlooked. It is not Congress that is trying to reel in the powers of the President, it is actually a Congress that is testing to see what powers they have lost.

Should a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment be shot down, all the President would have to do is declare a national emergency based on the events of the day, use the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as his legal authority, declare that his power allows him historical precedence to suspend Habeas Corpus and protect the safety of the nation and with nothing more than a blink, Bush's Presidency is open ended.


Would he do this?

Most of this posted article is a supposition to begin with. Trying to determine what the President is planning to do or say what goes through his thought process is a fruitless exercise. But it should be noted that the tools have been given to him to do this. The precedence has been laid down. The theoretical capabilities to do this are factual. What we need to do is watch very closely to see if the administration leans in this direction in the next 21 months.

Ask yourself this question. Do you think for one second that this level of power is something the Republican Party would ever dream of giving to a Democratic President? And yet if these powers are maintained through the next election cycle it is very much a possibility that a Democrat will take the White House, possibly Sen. Clinton, and then a Democrat will have all the power that President Bush currently has, unabated. The Republicans fear and loathe Sen. Clinton more than any other Democratic candidate. Can any Democrat say that they want to see a Democratic President wield this kind of power, let alone how a Republican would view this, especially Ms. Clinton? I can only say no to the last question.

So why would they take a chance that someone like Ms. Clinton could hold this type of power? Especially for a party that Karl Rove has tooled to be the only political party in a "One party America". They do not plan on relinquishing this power and they didn't plan on losing the White House, ever, when the plans were being drawn up to gain this power. It's the only conclusion I can come to.

I hope I am the most paranoid person in the world and this will never happen.

News - Stovepiped intelligence

Truthout.org is reporting on the cooked intelligence that led the US into war in Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040607A.shtml

The Defense Department's Inspector General has issued a report on this which backs information that many of us have known for a long time. Officials placed within the Pentagon intentionally provided the White House with false intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. Congress may have seen the same intelligence that the White House saw but that intelligence was blatantly false.

The war on terror will be a major CT subject for many years to come.

News - Former US Attorney fired because she knew too much

Madcow Morning News postulates that fired US Attorney in San Diego, Carol Lam, lost her job because she "knew too much" regarding corruption linked to disgraced Sen. Duke Cunningham:

"One plausible explanation why San Diego US Atty. Carol Lam was fired might
be that, in a rapidly spreading scandal which could quickly grow too large
to contain, she already knows too much."

Read more at the MadcowNews website:

http://www.madcowprod.com/03082007.html