Lake Tahoe Blog

Welcome to a view from Lake Tahoe. Whether due to the abundant fresh air, or the high altitude, sometimes things seem much simpler in the laid back mountain life I have come to love. I am often perplexed by how complicated life can become, and I know this is but a taste of things to come.

Perhaps it is just my mid-life crisis, but, I know I am not alone when I state that many of the major events and policies I encounter, simply do not make sense. Some friends tell me that trying to understand how the world works will drive me crazy. I agree. But unlike some of my friends, I cannot simply watch and ignore. Hence my blog.

I touch on a variety of subjects in this blog, ranging from current events, to not so current events, diatribe when needed, and on life here in the mountains. Dates posted of are those of the original post, editing occurs as necessary.

(04/22/2008): While it has been many years since I watched any of the programming at ABC, the recent Democratic debate sponsored by ABC wholly justified my never returning to this network channel for any type of reasonable news reporting. The first hour of debate epitomized exactly what is wrong with our great country, it is run by folks that only seem to have but one tool in their toolbox, that of politics.

Not that all politics is bad, but the fundamental premise of politicians is not to speak the truth, but to speak in ways that they guess will move you the voter into a certain course of action. It does not matter that a politician's words often contradict earlier spoken words, or that the words are spoken in Rovian style, that is to say, I deny that I use the Rovian playbook, but watch as I use every play contained within. And I have watched as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party has squandered her lead and continues to deny that she has lost. She has gone from a debate point of encouraging her opponents to not pile on, for fear of giving the Republicans ammunition, to giving the Republicans everything in the kitchen sink to use against her own party. Shame on you Hillary.

Rather than pontificate on and on for millions of words, Hillary's first excuse for her story about sniper fire, and never mind that no one could actually speak a million words in one day, I prefer to leave you with Baracky, The Movie, which states in a few short minutes what this election is all about.

(02/14/2008): In a disgraceful action today, republicans in the House of Representatives walked off the floor in an unbelievable attempt to make fascism the rule of the land. The temper tantrum began when the house considered contempt of congress citations for previous individuals of our current administration (Josh Bolten & Harriet Miers) rather than bringing up the Senate passed FISA bill that grants immunity to the telecom companies. Falling in line with the continued fear mongering of our president yesterday, the republicans continued to issue propaganda about why giving telecom companies immunity from judicial challenges to wide spread wiretapping of all Americans, for actions that they claim were not illegal, are critical to protect us in the never ending war on terror.

Lie after lie. The need to monitor all the communications of all Americans is claimed to be the radar of the future by Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, an invaluable tool to combat terrorism. To hell with our fourth amendment! Yet we are told that wide spread monitoring of our private communications are not occurring, despite clear evidence that such activity is occurring and has been occurring since before 9/11.

Let us be clear, our government has always had and continues to have the legal authority to spy on the bad guys. What they don't have and want, is the ability to spy on all Americans. They say that all Americans must be considered guilty in the light of the war on terror and that all Americans can never be absolved of this guilt. We must be continually monitored to prove our allegiance.

Every argument I have heard to date for the need for telecom immunity is a blatant lie. Our president and the republicans would raise up the white flag and surrender centuries of freedoms that are the rule of the land and enumerated in our Constitution. All in an effort to hide and conceal illegal activities instigated by our administration that believes that a country at war cannot and must not remain true to our most sacred freedoms. That the president must remain above the law and accountable to no one in our so called time of war, a war that is scheduled to last for the remainder of this century.

The purpose of immunity is clear. It is an attempt to prevent the proper functioning of our judicial system. If there has been no wrong doing, then you would expect our administration and the republicans to welcome the judicial oversight. If you have done no wrong, then what is there to fear?

But the fear does exist. And it is clear that the truth about what has happened to our country will be devastating to all politicians that can be shown to have known what was going on and failed to act to defend our constitution. Acts of treason, each and everyone of them.

So instead, we see an attempt to pass the buck on fear, to blame the fear on the terrorists. I know I am not alone when I say that I do not fear the terrorists. What I fear is the deliberate tearing down of our sacred rights granted to all Americans, the destruction that those whom believe we are really in a war never before faced would bestow on America, and claim that the surrender of our freedoms is required.

The real enemy is not abroad in a far way land on the opposite side of the world, the real enemy is contained right here at home, within our borders. To see their faces, you only need to listen to their rhetoric of lies. They are the ones claiming that we need to be afraid.

Take Action: House Must Stop Unconstitutional Senate FISA Bill


	Call your representative: No warrantless spying, no telecom immunity.

The Senate has capitulated to President Bush by passing a dangerous and unconstitutional FISA bill that allows warrantless government eavesdropping on Americans and grants immunity to giant phone companies that handed consumer data over to the government without a warrant.

"Though many questions still remain unanswered about years of domestic spying, the Senate has effectively sealed the vault by handing over immunity to the phone companies,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the Washington Legislative Office. “The over forty legitimate lawsuits currently pending against them may end before they’ve begun. It’s a fact that Americans had their rights violated and now, by closing the courtroom door, they may be left with no recourse.”

Stopping the awful Senate bill -- which the House can do -- is vital to protecting your constitutional right to make a phone call, send an email or search the Internet without the government monitoring your activity.

Your representatives in the House need to hear from you. Whether you have called already or this is your first time, a quick phone call today will send a clear message that Americans don’t want the House to send an unconstitutional bill with telecom immunity to the President.

>> Take action: Call your representative: No warrantless spying, no telecom immunity.

(02/05/2008): For the last several days Republicans in the Senate have been delaying any action of revisions to the fascist Protect American Act (FISA) because they want to grant immunity to the telecom companies. Telecom companies that we are told over and over again, have done nothing wrong in their efforts to wiretap all communications of all American citizens.

Since the instigation of wide drag net style wiretapping of all phone conversations, email, and other Internet communications, not a single case nor a single terrorist has been arrested, or captured, nor has a single terrorist plot been uncovered. After 7 years!

There are those that believe the war footing strategy of preemptive monitoring of US citizens is absolutely required, as they hope, and it is clear that is all it is, that they can prevent a future attack on our country and that it is necessary to violate our Constitutional rights in order to protect us.

And now we have learned that the republicans in the house have passed retroactive immunity for president Bush for possible felony war crimes as defined by the Geneva Convention for any and all actions they have taken since 9/11.

The notion that our constitution is not a death wish or that an actual ticking time bomb scenario actually exists is fantasy and will never justify stripping our freedoms away. The delusion that the executive branch of government has the right to deny the functioning of both the legislature and the judicially branches signals a clear victory for the terrorists. This preemptive doctrine needs to be silenced, permanently.

Until and unless we get a declaration of war from our congress, the Republicans should just shut the hell up, less follow the war monger McCain down to defeat in the upcoming elections.

Senator McCain believes we can just win this war, if only the American people would let us win. McCain should go talk to the players of the New York Giants and ask them if they won the Super Bowl because the Patriots let them win. In fact, I know of no contest that was fought and won, because someone let them win. Perhaps this is why McCain lost 4 fighter jets in Vietnam, perhaps he thought the enemy was just going to let him bomb his targets uncontested.

If we are truly at war, with the greatest threat we have ever faced, then lets act like it. Declare war, mobilize this country, initiate the draft, raise taxes, and send a few million boots over there along with a few navy battle groups. Get the job over with and done. Victory is not measured by the side with the fewest casualties, as proponents of the success of 'the surge' would have us believe, our greatest victories have come with the heaviest casualties, just read the history books.

Until then, don't pretend to tell the American public that we are at war and that all we have to do to win is let our government restrict our constitutional rights and tell us all to just go shopping.

(02/04/2008): I would have gone to Reno and placed a huge bet on the NY Giants. When Bush was elected I would have sold everything I own and purchased oil stocks. I would have never moved in with that woman. If all us knew yesterday what we all know today, we would all be very wealthy. The fact that we all cannot see the future is why we all are still alive.

It should be obvious that this defense that Hillary and her supporters keep using to try to defend her war votes is basically an admission that no one can see the future. Rather than admit that the vote was a mistake, either because she is a woman who needs to look strong or because of the fear of political fallout, Hillary has refused to admit the truth. Hillary has further compounded the issue with her explanation on her vote on the Levin Amendment, again, failing to relate the truth with yet another revisionist view of history. The amendment did not propose that our country hand over decisions of our national security to the United Nations as she claimed during the last debate.

Does this woman have no shame? Or is she just continuing the Clinton tradition of saying what ever she believes will get her elected? From my perspective, she is just another Bush dressed up in woman's clothing, unable to tell the truth because she believes we will not know the difference or perhaps, the most likely, she cannot handle the truth about herself and her candidacy.

These are the traits of our leaders that have many wanting change. This is America, and yes, we can handle the truth. Hopefully this nation of sheep will blindly follow no more and boldly reach for a new version of politics.

(01/22/2008): Last night's Democratic debate was indeed interesting. I often wonder and worry about Hillary's neck, her head bobs up and down constantly while she is supposedly listening and along with her air brushed head shot used in most media clips, she makes a perfect rendition for a perpetual motion bobble head doll. And she has practiced her eye exercises so often, to combat the natural aging process around her eyes, that I am sure she does not realize she can no longer control the tendency of her eyes to appear to bug out of their sockets.

The most disappointing, and most predictable part of the debate came early as the Clinton dirty political strategies, right from the Carl Rove playbook, were displayed in full force. Yes, as soon as the race got close the infamous Clinton political attack machine was kicked into high gear. The primary attack strategy, made famous during the Bush administration, is to take your most serious weakness and accuse your opponents of it.

Yes, I had listened to some of the quotes from Obama, and then listened to the Clinton's attacks. How Hillary and her husband come up with the re-fabrication of Obama's comments is sheer outright shame. Never in a million years would I have confused Obama's comments about the Reagan administration with even a tacit endorsement of Reagan's policies, yet there she was, claiming with a smirk on her face that her democratic rival had actually endorsed the Republican agenda.

And the notion that Hillary had trouble debating Obama, because somehow she felt that Obama always had some sort of excuse for why his actions did not follow his statements, claiming that Obama's record was important, pointing out that Obama had voted for appropriations for the Iraq war after he initially voiced strong objections to the war, completely dismisses that Hillary also voted for those appropriations. The difference was, Hillary supported the war effort. She has quickly forgotten how in a nation in shock was easily coaxed into the war, hell, even I initially supported the effort in Iraq even though I did not believe a word about the connection to 9/11 or WMD.

Hillary has also seemed to have forgotten, that it was only a few short debates ago, that she was demanding that her opponents not attack her for fear of giving the Republicans ammunition for the general election.

Obama is to be congratulated, for taking on the tired and false accusations of Hillary and her husband. Bill has been waving his finger around in the air so often as of late, that the infamous finger waiving incident where Bill explained that he did not have sexual relations with that woman re-appeared in my head and I was once again reminded of why I did not trust the Clinton administration.

Hillary just does not get it. The Republicans do not have a prayer of hanging on to the White House, her expertise at waging political war with the Republicans is simply not necessary. And it makes her look exactly like Bush, even though she waves a flag with different colors. The end result of waging Clinton's war will be to anger what's left of the Republican party, strongly increasing the chances of more dead-lock and increasing the odds that we will again, be unable to solve our problems.

Only in politics can the pot call the kettle black and not take notice. And indeed, Hillary started her morning today claiming that Barrack's criticism during the debate was rehearsed.

After engaging in an illegal, secret surveillance program, President Bush is in no position to make demands of anyone. Americans expect you to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law. That means:

1. Rejecting telecom immunity: President Bush is demanding immunity for companies that broke the law when they handed over phone data and emails to the NSA without a warrant. He wants Congress to bury the truth by stopping lawsuits against the phone companies. When the phone companies are off the hook, Bush is off the hook, and there would be no incentive for companies to follow the law in the future.

2. Individual warrants for Americans: Surveillance tactics that allow the government to gather huge amounts of phone and email data on Americans without a warrant are unconstitutional and violate our American principles.

Americans expect you, the most powerful member of the Senate, to lead on this issue, not cave in to President Bush and his allies in Congress. Please don’t let us down.

(01/09/2008): Since this summer Clinton's lead in the polls consisted of large double digit leads which prompted their campaign to run on the idea of the inevitable president. Out of this effort we heard time and time again that Clinton was a woman of experience, a woman ready to lead from day one. After her gaff over driver's licenses for illegal immigrants her lead began to diminish, as it became clear to more Americans that Clinton really had no solid beliefs other than those brought to her by the pollsters and those of her faith in her husband's presidency, which she clings to despite his betrayal.

During the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses, her campaign rolled the dice time and time again trying to define a message that would stick and halt the bleeding. Alas, it did not work and she lost the vote in Iowa. Afterwards, Clinton showed no shame in decreeing that she really never was the clear and favorite front runner. And we saw this line of political shame continue on to New Hampshire, epitomized by Dee Dee Myers who insisted that Clinton never was, nor ever had been the clear front runner.

Before the polls closed yesterday in New Hampshire, the pollsters were certain that Clinton was trailing by as much a double digits, prompting her campaign to leak that they were considering not running in South Carolina, considering firing much of the campaign leadership, and trying to find ways to redefine itself to right the sinking ship. Hillary herself, even cried at the prospect of not becoming president.

In the big picture, the fact that polling data suggested that Clinton's lead had diminished from last summer was expected by everyone who watches political theater. What is troubling is that after 7 years of lie after lie coming from the Bush administration, that Hillary and her team cannot be straight forward and honest about the polling data. Why they feel it is in our countries' best interest to continue the fabrics of lies to the American public is extremely troubling. In this regard, Hillary is no different than Bush.

The pollsters were wrong it is claimed, few stopping to ask if the data had been correctly reported, their data tainted by the bump by the loss in Iowa. Clinton's tearful scene was credited for bringing out the less educated, over 40s vote of New Hampshire women who felt that the media had played Clinton just a little to hard.

Despite the ideological differences between the Bush and Clinton families, there is one thing they share, the ability to use politics as a means to an end, regardless of the 'truthiness' of their lies. They will follow the lies to the White House if they can.

Are we really a nation of sheep? Will the public succumb to being lead by the pollsters in which the Clinton campaign obviously believes is gospel? Time will tell.

A Surge of More Lies
by Congressman Robert Wexler

A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight. According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security. The Surge had a clear and defined objective - to create stability and security - enabling the Iraqi government to enact lasting political solutions and foster genuine reconciliation and cooperation between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.

This has not happened.

There has been negligible political progress in Iraq, and we are no closer to solving the complex problems - including a power sharing government, oil revenue agreement and new constitution - than we were before the Administration upped the ante and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq.

Too many Democrats in Congress are again surrendering to General Petraeus and have failed to challenge the Bush Administration's claims that the surge has been successful. In fact -- it is just the opposite.

The reduction in violence in Iraq has exposed the continuing failure of Iraqi officials to solve their substantial political rifts. By President Bush's own stated goal of political progress, the Surge has failed.

Of course raising troop levels has increased security - a strategy the Bush administration ignored when presented by General Shinseki before the war in Iraq began - but the fundamental internal Iraqi problems remain and the factors that were accelerating the civil war in 2007 have simply been put on hold.

The military progress is a testament to the patience and dedication of our brave troops - even in the face of 15 month-long deployments followed by insufficient Veteran's health services when they return home. They have performed brilliantly - despite the insult of having President Bush recently veto a military spending bill that enhanced funding and benefits, and increased care.

Despite the efforts of American soldiers, the surge alone cannot bring about the political solutions needed to end centuries of sectarian divide.

As it stands, little on the ground supports the assertion that Iraqis are ready to stand up and govern themselves. Too few Iraqi troops are trained, equipped and combat ready, and they cannot yet provide adequate security. Loyalty is also an issue in the Iraqi army as Al Queda and Sunni insurgents infliltrate their defense forces. The consequences turned deadly just recently when an Iraqi soldier purposely killed two U.S. troops.

On the streets of Baghdad and Mosul, the Sunni and Shia factions have paused their fighting, awaiting guarantees and protections that have not yet been delivered. As Iraqi refugees return, there is no mechanism to help them rebuild their lives, nor recover their now-occupied homes. Neighborhoods once mixed are now segregated.

In Northern Iraq, Kurdish terrorists conducting nefarious operations across the border into Turkey have compelled our NATO ally to strike at bases, inflaming tensions between Baghdad and Ankara.

The surge is working? We suffered more U.S. casualties in 2007 than in any other year of the war. We can't afford any more of this type of success.

How can we create the situation that is most likely to deliver political progress in Iraq? Not by continuing the surge and occupation. Our best chance (there is no guarantee) is by putting real pressure on the Iraqi government to force action. Telling the national and local Iraqi leaders that we are withdrawing our troops can help accomplish this goal. Today, the majority Iraqi Shia government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little incentive to act when American troops remain in the country to provide security and stability.

Based on the Administration's plan, John McCain's proposal of a 100-year US occupation could be a reality!

The Democratic Congress must act aggressively to first cut off funding for the surge and then the entire war. Many of my colleagues avoided a showdown with the administration because they mistakenly believed such a fight would endanger the safety of the troops.

In fact, we must accept that every soldier killed or injured in the coming months should have already been home. Every billion dollars of war-appropriations we spend from here on should have been spent on genuine priorities here at home such as children's heath care.

Enough is enough: While the Administration over-commits American forces in Iraq, we see Al Qaeda-regrouping and Osama Bin Laden still at large. We remain seriously bogged down in Afghanistan, and are witnessing a crisis in Pakistan that has left a nuclear country on the brink of a meltdown. America's resources and attention are desperately needed elsewhere and our soldiers must no longer be needlessly sacrificed as we wait for Iraqis to stand up.

The Surge has failed. If my colleagues gullibly accept the moving rationale for the Surge, just as so many have for the war itself, we will have failed as well.

(01/08/2008): With the New Hampshire primaries upon us, yesterday was filled with news not fit to air. In particular, the episode where Senator Clinton started crying. It was not so much that she cried, it is why she cried and what she said during those teary eyed moments.

Clinton says she sees what is happening in this country and in that matter she seems years behind the general population whom not only see, but live daily, with what is happening. Her sadness and tears, she says, are due to the fact that 'I (she) have so many opportunities for our country', and only she has the proper vision to reverse what is happening. She feels that she has the unique knowledge to tell each and everyone of us how we should live our lives, which is the only fairy tale I see in this primary. While her nostalgia for her husband's presidency is touching, it is clear that this country is not eager to go back, to reverse course, what we want is an entirely new course.

Clinton is fond of touting her experience that she claims is filled with the good fight, the fight against the oil companies, the fight against the insurance companies, the fight against the health care industry, and the fight against Republicans.

The price of oil has reached $100/barrel and the cost of a gallon of unleaded regular here in Tahoe is now more than $3.50. Meanwhile the oil companies are raking in billions in profits and subsidies also totaling billions are still on the books.

And then there is her universal heath care program that would require everyone without insurance to buy insurance. I can hardly wait for her to send me a check for $10,000 to cover my insurance. How does mandatory insurance reduce health care costs or allow free markets to reduce the ever rising cost of health care? You'll remember that her plan back during the Clinton years was one of those deals composed in secrecy and in the back rooms.

Clinton's rhetoric was also filled with the notion that we are 'hiring' a a new president. In that light, she continues to lay claim to accomplishments that were the work of many and she continues to presume to speak for the entire democratic party. This was particularly noticeable with her attempts to quiet criticism of her during the debates. And she constantly lays claim to leading although she is only one senator of a hundred. She points to the claim that she was one of the first to warn president Bush not to go to war with Iran back in February of last year, but it was Senator Biden at the end of the first Foreign Relations committe meeting last January, who laid down this policy.

During her tearful statements she stated that running for president was a hard job, that in part, her tears were the result of the many attacks she has endured. And within seconds, she laid down more attacks on her opponents, the tears still in her eyes.

Is this woman crying because America will be lost unless she is elected as she claims? Or are her tears the result of a continuous fabrication of accomplishments, the bloated resume she is using to get hired, that the public has seen through with the result that she lost Iowa, claiming afterwards that she was never the front runner, and the fact that she may not win in New Hampshire?

And then there are those priceless condescending moments, like yesterday with Chris Matthews, where she says "Now Christopher!" as if she were talking to a child. This is particularly troubling, since it was Chris that suggested Hillary use the "heat in the kitchen" response to explain her predicament that was caused when she couldn't articulate her position on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Prior to Chris' advise she offered up several explanations.

Clinton has accomplished in less than 1 year what it took Bush over 4 years to accomplish. She now garners the honor of my fast forward button, my mute button, and my change channel button on my remote whenever she appears on my screen.

(01/02/2008): With the Iowa caucuses but a day away, tonight Senator Clinton will be running a 2 minute ad that will be shown on every TV network in that state. Part of this ad has been shown on several political shows this afternoon and it was really tough to believe your eyes. Clinton has so much makeup on that she appears to look about 30 years old! Gone are the scars from fighting with Republicans, gone are the wrinkles of experience that come with age. How is one to believe, that a 30 year old woman has the makeup of our chief executive? That she, seems more concerned over appearance than substance.

Of course, this is par for the Clinton campaign, virtually everything she says or does has been made up. She made up the fact that she was against the war, she made up the fact that she has 35 years of experience, she made up her listening tours where she tells all of us what she thinks, she made up her statement about getting us out of Iraq - failing to commit to ending our troop presence there by the end of her first term. She made up the idea that she was the inevitable democratic candidate, she made up the statement that she knew former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for 12 years when actually they only met once or twice. I don't doubt that anything she ever has said was made up from one thing or another.

Clinton thinks change means switching a Democrat for a Republican. I hope she clings to this dogmatic view, we want change yes, but to us it means much more. So if you want a president that believes it is more important to look 30, than go ahead, vote for her. For me, a sixty year old woman that feels the need to look 30 is a disaster in the making.

(12/18/2007): Yesterday the Senate brought up a new FISA bill for consideration. The proposed bill was the result of the work of the Intelligence committee, a committee that has knowingly allowed the truth to be hidden from the American public as testified to previously on the Senate floor. This bill included amnesty for the telecom companies, which differed from the bill produced by the Judiciary committee and the bill passed by the House of Representatives, which do not include amnesty.

It was refreshing to hear Senator Dodd present testimony that AT&T had installed fiber optic splitters in their San Francisco office that allowed the NSA to listen in and analyze all domestic communication traffic of US citizens without a court warrant and that further more, that the San Francisco office is not located near any telecom hub serving international telecommunications. It is clear, that the operation was not capable of monitoring our enemies, unless you consider American citizens as the enemies.

I was highly disappointed in Republican Senators (Bond, Kyl, Cornyn, Hatch, Sessions) who all stood on the floor of the Senate and declared, in essence, that it was unpatriotic to oppose the wiretapping of American citizens. Senator Bond had previously spent his entire 5-10 minute opening remarks in an Intelligence committee meeting on the topic, lecturing everyone about the importance of government secrets and national security. I grow suspect of anyone who feels the repeated need to remind me what day of the week it is. The last time I heard a diatribe like that, there was indeed, something rotten that needed to be hidden.

Senator Hatch even went so far as to declare opposition to granting telecom immunity to various conspiracy theories, from both extremes, as responsible for distorting the truth about the now infamous terrorist surveillance program and declared that somehow that American citizens were determined to undermine our government by breeding mistrust. He further went on to claim that we should trust the men running these programs, inferring that we are a nation of men rather than a nation of laws. That Americans mistrust their government because of the lack of candor and honesty never seemed to have crossed his mind.

The notion that corporations should be allowed to break the law and violate the rights granted to all American citizens is a notion bred of the rule of secrecy and fascism, not of the rule of law and democracy. If the telecom companies can be proven to have violated our constitutional rights, then they should pay the price. The several dozens law suits currently in our courts must be allowed to continue, to learn the truth. The continued erosion of our liberties, based on the threat and fear of another terrorist attack, is truly a victory for the terrorists.

I sincerely want to thank Senator Dodd, and Senator Boxer who voted against cloture, for standing up for our constitution. Their actions forced Senate majority leader Reid to withdraw the bill. They have proven beyond any doubt their true patriotism, unlike Senator Clinton, who constantly claims that she has spent the last 35 years fighting for the people, who could not be bothered to help defend our 4th amendment, instead remained in Iowa to promote her egotistical drive to become our first queen, ah, er, woman president.

(12/04/2007): During last week's Republican Presidential debate, CNN choose to allow a YouTube video to air which in essence, accused Congressman Ron Paul of being a quack with an ideology based on conspiracy theories. To Ron Paul's credit he correctly pointed out that yes, organizations do exist that believe that the world would be better served if all the nations of the world were governed from a global viewpoint or ruling body. In such a world, our sovereignty would end and our constitution would no longer be the supreme rule of law. The world government would have complete authority to ignore our basic human rights granted to each and every citizen of this country. And further more, that this government would not be elected by the people or act in the interests for the people.

Then Senator John McCain displayed his neo-con colors, conveniently attempting to rewrite history for all of us whom have never studied history and declared that Ron Paul was an isolationist, that it was an isolationist movement here in the United States that led to World War II! McCain's absurd claim of why we lost in Vietnam will go unmentioned here. Where and when have we heard that claim, recently repeated by Karl Rove, that somehow the world can be neatly painted into black and white, that we are either an isolationist country or we are not? I think not. This is right out of the neo-con playbook that believes that anyone that does not support our efforts at building a new world empire are traitors.

Thankfully, some in the audience booed. And rightfully so, if only for the reason that this is exactly the playbook used by the republicans for the last mid-term elections, started by the now rich neo-con patsy Donald Rumsfeld. And it did not work because it ain' t true. And thankfully, Ron Paul pointed out that McCain did not understand the term "isolationist", and that is a fact.

Have you ever wondered why our president appears to be lying all the time? Can it really be true that some of our elected officials really are incompetent? Then how, pray tell, did they win two elections? No, these folks are not incompetent, they are just following a different playbook and they are doing their best to hide this fact from the American public.

As Ron Paul points out, there are a small group of people that hold a very different world view than that presented to us by our constitution. One group in particular consists of approximately 130 of the richest people in the world. They are called the Bilderberg Group, a name coined from the name of the hotel in which they held their first meeting back in 1954. They meet once a year in total secrecy, ostensibly to play pinnacle, but they really do meet with world leaders and politicians to discuss the future of our world civilization. I have read reports that Senator Hillary Clinton was vetted by this group. In fact, vetting by the Bilderberg group is a prerequisite for most of our presidential candidates. Why else would Senator Clinton proclaim that she could not guarantee to end the war in Iraq, because she could not be sure of what she might find when she arrived in office? Think about it.

While the Bilderberg Group's intentions back in 1954 were deemed honorable, their methods over the years have digressed and today some consider them the force behind many world events, the so called shadow government that views our constitution as a road block to progress and truly does seek a one world government. This is a world whereby any means is justified by the end, there is no concept of Greek philosophy of 'justice, justice'.

And their biggest weapon is the consistent claim, that anyone who is cleared eyed about the world around them, is nothing but a conspiracy theory lunatic. These are the folks that believe we must shut down the Internet, for our own good, to prevent the public from being deceived by all the lies. These are the folks that tell us we must borrow 2 billion dollars per week to safeguard the American public from being killed by a terrorist, an event that has a probability of happening right up there with being stuck by lightning.

So, just for a moment, assume that our president is telling the truth, that financial interests do hold the trump card in world affairs. From what viewpoint do his statements ring true? Are our borders unsecured because we face an imminent threat from a terrorist attack, or are they open because it is helpful to establish the North American Union? Is the surge really working, or was the necessity of the surge a result of the animosity created when Paul Bremer went there to privatize the natural resources of Iraq and the Iraqis rebelled? Is our president's fear of a terrorist under every bed reality, or do the deliberate violations of our constitutional rights serve to help a new world order better control the population? The so called prison planet. If you spent some time time listening to our military leaders testify before congress, you can't help but hear one theme repeated over and over again, we need to control the Iraqi population.

Is the so called 'War on Terror' real, or is it just a smoke screen to tear down our constitution to level the playing field, make it easier to create the new world order? The elites know, that if their true agenda were made public, the resulting outrage would prevent their dreams from coming true. This is why Senator Fienstein believes that our country would be hurt from the vetting of truths about wiretapping our citizens and torturing our enemies, so she believes she must act to protect and obscure the truth about such events, to protect our country. To insist that our new AG Mukasey testify that water boarding is torture, would open the door to impeachment proceedings for our president.

And now we learn that our beloved president's warnings of World War III, delivered with a smirk on his face, concerning Iran and their so called program to develop a nuclear bomb was nothing more than more shock treatment as the recently released NIE report tells us that Iran halted it's efforts to build a nuclear bomb back in 2003. And I have known for a long time, that it is not the knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb that is the hard part, in fact this knowledge is largely public domain, it is actually acquiring the material and manufacturing abilities to build and test a nuclear bomb that is the hard part.

So, when you hear someone shout "conspiracy theory" heed the warning, investigate the facts, and learn that there is only one conspiracy theory, that is the one that is meant to pull the wool over your eyes and deprive you of everything you hold dear, for the sake of the new world order, a one world government.

(11/08/2007): Yesterday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a three hour hearing with Yahoo! chiefs Michael Callahan and Jerry Yang. Yahoo! has been under criticism for bowing to demands from the Chinese equivalent of the old Soviet KGB by passing on information regarding the surfing habits of Chinese journalists. As a result, a journalist named Shi Taoa was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison in April for having published “state secrets”. CEO Yang and his general counsel Callahan had previous stated that they had no idea that the Chinese government would use the information to aid in the arrest of journalists for the crime of free speech; although it is generally well known that the Chinese government has long denied it's citizens the rights of free speech.

In further testimony, CEO Yang was asked (paraphrased), "If the Chinese government made it a condition of business that Yahoo! had to turn over the surfing records of Americans, would they?" Remarkably, Yang, a reported billionaire, could not give a straight up answer, he instead chose to hem and haw legalese doublespeak. Imagine, the CEO of Yahoo! unable to quickly stand up for for the privacy of American citizens when weighed against a request from the Chinese KGB about activities of American citizens.

This outrage, amongst others, prompted Committee Chairman Tom Lantos to exclaim "While technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies". While Lantos later apologized for the remark, I doubt that many American citizens sympathize with the apology.

In fact, shortly after the Taoa incident I banned the Chinese Yahoo!'s search engine from all my web sites. I did not ask them to honor my requests (via robots.txt), but enforced outright denial of access (403 error) for any and all requests from their search robots. Why a chinese search engine would want to archive and index sites written in English is a bit mystifying. Sure, translation is at their fingertips. Coupled with the rampant Chinese counterfeiting known to exist, allowing the robots to work their magic, seems to be a policy where no economic benefit will accrue; that I would not see nary a penny for my work.

The moral pygmies of doublespeak were also highlighted during the last democratic presidential debate when Senator Clinton could not answer a simple question on whether illegal immigrants should be granted the privilege of a drivers license. Her opponents, who all happened to be male, pounced, and to my utter delight made a mockery of Senator Clinton's doublespeak.

Senator Clinton responded over the next 5 days with more doublespeak, as her campaign accused moderator Tim Russert of being unfair, went on to accuse her opponents of piling on ... because she was a woman, and so on and so forth ad nauseam. Her husband even chimed in accusing her opponents of "swift boating"!

Why is it so difficult for Senator Clinton to say, that even though the United States welcomes 2 million legal immigrants per year, more than all the rest of the world combined, that yes we should do more. But no, America honors the rule of law and if an "undocumented worker" is in our country illegally, they should respect our rule of law and go back home, to the back of the line, and wait their legal turn. Issueing driver's licenses to these "undocumented workers" is wrong.

Instead we get more doublespeak. In particular, the good Senator blamed the problem on President Bush for failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform and blamed, to a smaller extent, our congress. I am not sure where she was when the last amnesty bill failed, or where she was when the Dream Act was defeated, or where she was when Senator Feinstein dropped her attempts with the Ag Jobs program. From my vantage point all these measures failed, not because of President Bush, but because 'We the People' found them outrageous, an attempt to erode our sovereignty and diminish what being an American citizen is all about. We the People defeated those proposals.

The claim that the most diverse society in the world is afraid of brown people doesn't work, it is doublespeak. The claim that illegal immigrants need a driver's license to go to work at an illegal job doesn't work, it is doublespeak. The claim that illegal immigrants do not need to honor our laws doesn't work, it is doublespeak.

It is doublespeak because each of these claims assumes that the rights of illegal immigrants are more important than the rights of American Citizens. For example, my right to send my children to public school without having their education delayed because they are forced to attend class with other children that do not speak English, or forced to attend class with children whose parents believe that girls should not be smarter than boys. Or my right to converse and conduct business in English.

Why am I forced to learn another language so that others may live in and work in my neighborhood? That illegal(s) cannot learn English because they are too busy working must mean that I am not too busy working to learn Spanish. What about my right to learn the foreign language of my choice?

The ultimate Clinton doublespeak is that she is running against President Bush. Funny, I did not realize he was in the race, and funny, the goal is weak, running against a president with dismal approval ratings, is that the loftiest goal Clinton has?

The doublespeak on the other side of the aisle is just as offensive. In particular, the 9/11 candidate Rudy 9/11 Giuliani who was recently asked on the campaign trail in Iowa, "Can you name one thing that happened on 9/12?" Doublespeak to the rescue! Giuliani: Why of course, it was the day after 9/11!

9/11 is perhaps one of the least understood events in recent history, and sure, before you exclaim, the terrorists did it, the terrorists did it, please, spend a week or two seriously reviewing that event. If you do, I am sure you will be forced to conclude the obvious, the public has not been told, nor do we know what really happened that day.

My Epiphany, my doubts, my cynicism all began when someone mentioned that the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings designed to resist the impact of a large jet plane and the resulting fires, did collapse, and the collapses that day, looked just a bit odd. While I had been a bit too busy, too shocked to notice, I did notice, finally. The doublespeak is: the planes, the fuel, and the fires (with the help of allah) brought down the buildings. That is the doublespeak of Rudy 9/11 Giuliani.

Bring it on Rudy, I welcome the chance to revisit 9/11. Please Rudy, do tell, how the basic laws of physics were suspended that day.

Can we really afford another decade or two of pygmies style morality and goals defined in doublespeak?

There are rays of hope. I want to thank Senator Lindsey Graham, who during the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting voting on the recommendation of Mukasey for AG, reminded us that standing up for the virtues of our Constitution was not a weakness, but a strength that allows us to transcend our enemies, an unquestionable trait of the victorious, of good over evil.

(10/18/2007): The Internet is a marvelous invention. It will undoubtedly mark the halls of history as the single invention that allowed all the world to see the world as it really is, rather than through a confined view of world events that we had been presented through the limited 1/2 hour newscast that network TV had provided us since the 60s. While cable TV and the advent of 24 hours news channels helped to broaden our viewpoints, this channel of information has once again become clogged with the views of a few conglomerates that now control most of the content.

It should not be a surprise then, that with a new wealth of information, many of us can see the inner workings of a world that had been hidden from sight and with this new knowledge we are better able to judge reality for what it really is, independent of those whom wish us to remain and cower in fear and obedience of what we do not know. Over the last several years I have come to know the world in broader terms, to the great dismay of those seeking to control me and others, not for my betterment, but for their betterment, e.g. the new world order. So with the inspiration of a web site I ran across named "Things that piss me off', I offer my own version, more euphemistically titled "Things I have grown weary of".

(10/10/2007): The House Judiciary Committee has successfully reported a revision to the Protect America Act today. I wish to congratulate Chairman Conyers and the democrats serving on the committee for finally moving to restore our citizen's constitutional rights, rights that have been stripped from us by waiving a flag of fear and terror.

You don't hear much about the source of the anthrax attacks, attacks on our congress that coincided with the passage of the Patriot Act, legislation written by Secretary Chertoff. Legislation that went largely unread and un-reviewed, but passed while our congress was under attack, by still unknown forces.

And we continue to see attempts at limiting our freedom coincidental with so called elevated threats of terror. The Protect America Act was passed with great haste when our administration reported that it was likely that our congress was under eminent threat of attack, again, from unknown sources. It comes as no surprise that threats of attack were once again raised up the flag pole in the week that congress was scheduled to revisit the Protect America Act which is due to sunset early next year.

And we continue to see the notion that honoring and protecting that "god damn piece of paper", our constitution, prevents our government from providing our great nation with the protection we need from a renegade band of terrorists living in caves in Pakistan. Many a republican stood in front of the american public and declared that our country is under the greatest threat ever endured or imagined in our history, a vision that has yet to be proven even at a basic level.

I am old enough to remember that once upon a time many were constructing bomb shelters, largely due to the fear of thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at our country by the now defunct Soviet Union. Did the Soviet Union fall because we engaged in wiretapping our citizens? Did the Soviet Union fall because we rescinded the rights granted to our citizens by our constitution? I think not.

It is truly a pathetic site, listening to chicken hawks, those, mostly republican, that did not serve in our military and whose sons and daughters do not serve in our military, stand up and proclaim that we should indeed be afraid, that it is our constitution that stands in the way of our safety.

Thank you Chairman Conyers for finally putting a stake in the ground that says we will not let the fear of terror render our constitution into just a "god damn piece of paper".

(10/02/2007): Once upon a time the public education system tried to teach me some history. Included in this attempt were lessons of the difference between democracy and fascism. Of course, the great example of democracy was the United States. The great example of fascism was Germany prior to World War II. Far removed from fascism, the lessons taught many decades ago were easily forgotten, for I was convinced that the very fabric of life here in the United States was forever void of any hint of the fascism that millions of Americans had fought against victoriously during the last century. Fascism could never take root here, ahem, in the homeland.

The homeland? I cringe every time I hear someone speak of our great county as the homeland. So it is with interest, that I brush up on my history, and heed the warning of some, when they state that when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross (Sinclair Lewis).

What is fascism? If you search my blog you will find this word used more than once. For me, history is coming alive as I live in a country where the seeds of fascism are taking root and I feel like I have been thrust back in time, to that period in Germany where fascism once grew strong.

Sensitive to the political incorrectness of mentioning our country and the word fascism in any one sentence, I would like to enumerate the hallmarks of fascism, just for the record, as presented by Naomi Wolf:

These are the lessons from history and I would encourage anyone capable of critical thinking to review these lessons and keep them in mind whenever you run across any of my references to fascism.

(09/20/2007): Senator Cornyn (R-TX) proposed an amendment to the defense authorization act this morning that condemns the attacks on General Petraeus from the organization moveon.org. While republicans in the house, during last week's testimonials of Iraq from General Petraeus, made every effort to squeeze in derogatory comments about the ads, none of them were so bold as propose legislation condemning free speech.

I would like to thank California Senator Barbara Boxer for her closing floor speech regarding the amendment, pointing out the slippery slope such legislation enamors. What's next? Declarations of enemy combatant status for all Americans that question the war?

While I can understand the current republican backtracking on the war effort as a political maneuver to placate their base until after next year's primaries, the votes cast by many a democrat demonstrate how little backbone these folks have. It is little wonder why congressional approval ratings have dipped to an all time low of 11%.

If you step back, you might make the observation that our president's goal of spreading democracy around the world is a zero sum game. It seems that Iraq cannot garner more freedom unless all of us in the homeland give up more of our freedoms. I cannot think of a more cynical tribute to the spilt blood of our servicemen, than to declare that to continue the blood letting, we must give up more of our freedoms

The amendment passed, by a vote of 72-25. Long live the empire, the throne of the new world order.

(09/19/2007): My attempts to fall asleep with CSPAN failed last night as the the rebroadcast of yesterday's House Judiciary Committee ran through the night. National Intelligence Director J. Michael McConnell and Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security were the guests of honor and the topic was FISA, or shall I say, the lack of FISA and the notion that we need to make the Protect America Act of 2007 the permanent law of the land.

Never heard of it? Not surprising, the Bush administration rammed this bill through our Congress during the last hours prior to the August recess. And as the norm, the act bears the hypocrisy that we all come to know and love during the current Bush administration. The entire purpose of the bill is to legalize the illegal NSA wiretap program currently run by the administration, that NSA program that former Attorney General Ashcroft declared illegal from a hospital bed, that NSA program that helped prompt the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales' entire staff, and that NSA program that generated several law suits, like CCR v. Bush in the district Federal Court of San Francisco, like the case against AT&T in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, like the unconstitutional verdict rendered by a federal judge in Detroit, and like the $200 Billion class action lawsuit against Verizon, Bell South, and AT&T filed in Manhatten.

Must see video, License to Spy - Bill Moyers talks with former Congressman Mickey Edwards and ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero about revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The bill claims another of those fraudulent political talking points as it name, but those of us that truly understand its content would prefer the name of the bill to reflect its purpose, namely, the Fascist America Act of 2007.

McConnell and Wainstein clearly understood, that they were testifying before a committee that boasted a technical understanding of the issues with that of most grade schools kids. The opening arguments were unchanged, that our telecommunications industry has dramatically changed since the passage of FISA into law some thirty years ago. There was no mention, that the law regarding FISA has been modified several times since then, to upgrade to technological times. There was no mention, that many a legal career in the Justice Department was cut short for those whom were unable to support such a blatant attack on our citizen's constitutional rights.

In fact, McConnell flatly denied that our government now has the right to listen to our phone calls, read our email, and break into our homes in the middle of the night. Apparently, he has yet to actually read the Patriot Act, the Military Commission Act, or has yet to realize that our fourth amendment requires probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion, nor as McConnell seems to want, just reasonable.

As the case against AT&T clearly demonstrated, the NSA program involves a direct link into our telecommunications infrastructure utilizing a splitter. This is akin to borrowing your neighbor's cable TV, by splitting the cable and running it to your own living room. Both acts can be illegal.

All of our communications can be and have been routed directly into the secure living areas of the NSA. All of them.

When asked, McConnell flatly denied that ANY American citizen has had their phones tapped. It is clear that his perspective is in light of the so called minimization techniques claimed to be deployed. If your personal information was minimized, then you obviously haven't been wire tapped. Obviously, tens of millions of Americans have had their phone calls listened to by our government as evidenced by the direct fiber connection the NSA is running from the comfort of the various telecom giants.

And I have long observed, that my friends with any type of security clearances are extremely sensitive to talking about controversial topics over their cell phones. They know, as I know, that NSA software has become very adept at picking out various spoken keyword phrases that might cast suspicion.

I have yet to hear a logical argument for the claim that NSA deploys minimization techniques to a phone call from a known terrorist into the homeland. If the minimization techniques are sound, we would have no way of knowing whom our enemies are talking to, a overlooked fact that seems to contradict the entire purpose the program, to prevent our enemies from doing us harm.

And in fact, McConnell's testimony reveals that anyone with the appropriate security clearance, can "undo" the minimization, a clear violation of our 4th amendment.

Also key to the hidden understanding of illegality of the NSA program is the desire to retroactively declare that the telecom giants be granted immunity from any and all liability. It is argued that it would be a devastating financial burden for these companies, a goal that far surpasses the value of liberty and freedom granted to every American by our constitution.

And of course, not one of the questions, nor not one of the documents previously requested by John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler, and Robert Scott were evident at the hearing. While McConnell remained open to the committee's desire to amend the Protect America Act, to specifically prohibit actions that infringe on our constitutional rights, it was with caution, arguing that doing so may introduce unforeseen detrimental consequences. Of course, no mention was made of the unforeseen detrimental consequences that may occur with too broad of a wording.

The implication, that our constitution is in the way, a determent to our security, is a notion I'll never be able to wrap my head around.

I am sure we all have heard that our enemies hate us because of our freedoms. But to date, not a single terrorist has stripped any of us of a single freedom, except for the one time that our government failed to protect us from terrorists, you remember, 9/11. It is our government that is trading away our freedoms for the promise of security, a notion that must have our founding fathers turning in their graves.

Are we safer? Please get involved. Tell your congressional representatives to just say no to the dismantling of FISA and our constitutional rights so that we can maintain some semblance of privacy from the government, in each and all of our affairs. If Congress fails to reign in more executive power, the courts may be forced to agree and then it will be our Goverment joining the ranks of our all powerful, the hand of God, in our hearts and in our minds.

(09/13/2007): Well, the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker is in. In the softball session in the House, it was clear that very few representatives were in the mood to ask the tough questions, and the one or two tough questions that were politely presented were totally ignored in response. It is safe to say, if you missed the testimony, you missed nothing.

The senate testimony was a bit more thrilling, more to the point, with Republican Senator John Warner asking if our Iraq engagement was making our country safer. An answer that our honorable general did not have until after he conferred with the White House to correct his independent testimony.

And it appears that we are obligated to view the success of the surge from the view of Anbar Province, a place where sunni Muslims have rejected sharia law and where sunni tribal leaders have asked and received our help in the elimination of the very few Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Let's be clear, this development occurred well before the surge, surging troops were not stationed in Anbar, and is an event that General Petraeus referenced months ago and now states that it was an unpredictable event.

In fact, we hear much of that crystal ball, the crystal ball that is missing when focused on the end game in Iraq, but seems to work very well for predicting all the horror that will come our way if we contemplate actually implementing a force reduction in Iraq.

From an independent viewpoint Anbar teaches us but one lesson. That if we leave Iraq, the Iraqi population will not accept sharia law under Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but they will reject it and drive it from their country. This simple fact on the battlefield makes a mockery of Lil' Bush's claim, that if we leave, we leave behind a safe haven for Al-qaeda.

(08/17/2007): Several weeks ago our president mounted the bully pulpit to declare that the American people were suffering from "war fatigue". His message was clear, if only the American people would submit to his visions of democracy in the middle east, we could go on to win the war in Iraq and the world would be a much safer place in which to live.

Of course, to remind us all that this is true, his subsequent speeches carried a heavy dose of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11,..., as if it were really true that Iraq was involved in the terror event and if Iraq were truly the central battlefront on the so called "war on terror".

Even Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina, has questioned the notion of the central battlefront. I did have the pleasure of hearing one republican representative give the only logical explanation for the claim. He put up a map of the middle east and said, see, Iraq is in the center of the middle east and therefore it is easy to see why our president believes Iraq is the central battlefront in the war on terror.

And the child like reasoning doesn't end there as many of the right wing water carriers like Tony Snowjob and Melanie Morgan have resorted to name calling following their questionable claims, Mr Snowjob trying to hit the ceiling with his claims of political theater, odd from an administration where everything is political, and the fascist like Melanie Morgan who follows her lies with claims that her adversaries would look good wearing a berka. Others are blaming our troubles on the democrats with continued claims of treason, as if somehow a discussion in a democracy over war policy is in anyway shape or form, responsible for aiding and abetting the enemy. Of course, the anger over the perceived treasonous debate is laced with more childish name calling.

Fatigue? I'll say, fatigue derived from a complete lack of intellectual honesty. Fatigue derived from years of hearing how afraid we should be and not once has our administration rallied our people to a greater cause, a positive cause, in a country that has until recently, lead the world with a can do attitude.

I must admit, that it is getting harder and harder to write about our current state of affairs. As I review my previous posts, I might as well just change the dates to make them current. And then again, I have found a much more enjoyable source of euphemism about the Bush administration, that found on Comedy Central in a cartoon animation called Lil' Bush.

(06/30/2007): This week Christopher Hitchens and Alfred Charles Sharpton, Jr. were featured on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss Hitchens' new book "God is not Great", a book in which Hitchen advocates for the maturation of fundamental religion into a less dogmatic, less self defeating state of affairs. The good Reverend obviously took offense, believing the new book insulted his belief and faith in God.

Huh? LOL! Apparently, this fact must be listed somewhere in that text book that describes intelligent design. Which is precisely why intelligent design has no place in a science classroom.

For those of you that didn't fall asleep during high school physics class and realize that gravity is something that God had very little choice about, let's assume that the Reverend is right, God did create gravity. Since we know that gravity is a constant in our universe, meaning it exists everywhere, here on earth, on our moon, on Pluto, and on objects far, far, away, God must have created gravity everywhere. Since we know that some objects in our universe are very, very old, on the order of 10s of billions of years, God is indeed a very old fellow. God created gravity over 10 billion years ago. And that is to be expected of God, that is, his age. God is eternal.

Which brings me to a paradox in the Reverend's faith, namely our all powerful, all knowing creator, required nearly 10 billion years to figure out how to make man in his own image.