It amazes me how US politicians seem to conveniently forget to mention certain bits of US history when beating their war drums. They talk about wanting to see a democratic government in Iran. Well, THEY HAD ONE. But, THE US HELPED TO DESTROY IT. The US is just pissed that the Islamic Revolution in Iran overthrew the Shah that we installed after we helped to overthrow the democratic government that was there. It's a shame that the most important parts of history that I learned were learned OUTSIDE of school.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
Bush Urges Unity Against Iran - New York Times
Bush Urges Unity Against Iran - New York Times
Ok, seriously... WTF? It was completely obvious to everybody that last week's "confrontation" with Iranian speedboats was completely not as the US said. Now, Bush is skipping all of the small shit and going straight to "rally against Iran before it's too late". When will he get it into his head that the american people do not want another illegal and unjust war? He is the boy that cried wolf too many times. His credibility is in the shitter.
Will somebody impeach this motherfucker already? Threatening another sovereign nation without being attacked is against US law and international law as well! Both him and Cheney are guilty of that and is one more item on the long list of impeachable offenses. What makes Bush so fucking special that he can't be held accountable for his crimes? As I've said before, Clinton was under impeachment for lying about a blow-job!
Lying about a blow-job!!!!!!!
Did anybody die from that blow-job? NO! Was the US put into the biggest deficit in US history because of that blow-job? NO!
Granted, Clinton did some things with the military and laws here that I don't agree with at all, but he did them WITHIN THE LAW. So, I'm not playing favorites here. I don't think lying about a blow-job constituted high-crimes and misdemeanors though. I think he should've faced some penalty for purjury, but damn, the people impeaching him were cheating on their wives too at that very time! They admitted it since then!
So, tell me then how all of this does not warrant impeachment as a minimum? He has trampled on the constitution which makes him a domestic enemy. Members of Congress swear to defend the constitution against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC and to execute all of their duties as written in the constitution. Therefore, it is their DUTY to impeach Bush and Cheney. Any Congressmen that does not work to bring impeachment charges is guilty of violation their oath of office, which means they should be impeached themselves. I hate to tell Pelosi, but the Constitution says that there is not taking impeachment "off the table." That is a violation of oath of office and she should be impeached herself.
This is just fucking ridiculous! If congress does not impeach before a new president takes office, it will set the most dangerous precedent in the nation's history. We will not be swearing in a president, we will be crowning a king!
Ok, seriously... WTF? It was completely obvious to everybody that last week's "confrontation" with Iranian speedboats was completely not as the US said. Now, Bush is skipping all of the small shit and going straight to "rally against Iran before it's too late". When will he get it into his head that the american people do not want another illegal and unjust war? He is the boy that cried wolf too many times. His credibility is in the shitter.
Will somebody impeach this motherfucker already? Threatening another sovereign nation without being attacked is against US law and international law as well! Both him and Cheney are guilty of that and is one more item on the long list of impeachable offenses. What makes Bush so fucking special that he can't be held accountable for his crimes? As I've said before, Clinton was under impeachment for lying about a blow-job!
Lying about a blow-job!!!!!!!
Did anybody die from that blow-job? NO! Was the US put into the biggest deficit in US history because of that blow-job? NO!
Granted, Clinton did some things with the military and laws here that I don't agree with at all, but he did them WITHIN THE LAW. So, I'm not playing favorites here. I don't think lying about a blow-job constituted high-crimes and misdemeanors though. I think he should've faced some penalty for purjury, but damn, the people impeaching him were cheating on their wives too at that very time! They admitted it since then!
So, tell me then how all of this does not warrant impeachment as a minimum? He has trampled on the constitution which makes him a domestic enemy. Members of Congress swear to defend the constitution against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC and to execute all of their duties as written in the constitution. Therefore, it is their DUTY to impeach Bush and Cheney. Any Congressmen that does not work to bring impeachment charges is guilty of violation their oath of office, which means they should be impeached themselves. I hate to tell Pelosi, but the Constitution says that there is not taking impeachment "off the table." That is a violation of oath of office and she should be impeached herself.
This is just fucking ridiculous! If congress does not impeach before a new president takes office, it will set the most dangerous precedent in the nation's history. We will not be swearing in a president, we will be crowning a king!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Without Impeachment, The 2008 Election Will Crown A King, Not A President
Without Impeachment, The 2008 Election Will Crown A King, Not A President
This article says it all. NONE of the presidential candidates are addressing certain MAJOR issues that affect us RIGHT NOW. It's a great article.
This article says it all. NONE of the presidential candidates are addressing certain MAJOR issues that affect us RIGHT NOW. It's a great article.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Hermann Goering insight into war
If anybody knew how to control the masses of people, it was the Nazi's. What is truly scary is that these words from one of the highest level Nazi's apply to our current situation so precisely.
This is from snopes.com:
What this means for us is that 9/11 was our Reichstag fire; the thing that started it all. I believe there is sufficient evidence that the US government executed 9/11. Therefore, they used that to make people afraid and feel they are being attacked and under constant threat of attack. Then they denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger when we illegally invaded Afghanistan and started an illegal undeclared war in Iraq. Now they are doing the same thing with Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. The government denounces the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. So, what has this brought us? Well, for starters the Constitution has been shredded, the Bill of Rights taken away, and an almost Orwellian police state instituted. If the Thought-Crime bill passes in the Senate, there is no doubt that Bush will sign it into law which will make this officially an Orwellian police state envisioned in the book 1984. What's scary to me is that this quote by Goering was read on the Senate floor as an opposition to Bush wanting to go to war... and the gave him authority anyway. That's sounds like how Hitler came to power in... oh... ... :-(
This is from snopes.com:
Psychologist Gustave Gilbert had extraordinary access to the Nuremberg defendants during their trial.The passage below is from Gilbert's classic Nuremberg Diary (1947). It refers to a conversation the two had in Goering's cell on 18 April 1946 during a three-day Easter break in the trial. Goering committed suicide the following October 15.
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
_______________________________________What this means for us is that 9/11 was our Reichstag fire; the thing that started it all. I believe there is sufficient evidence that the US government executed 9/11. Therefore, they used that to make people afraid and feel they are being attacked and under constant threat of attack. Then they denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger when we illegally invaded Afghanistan and started an illegal undeclared war in Iraq. Now they are doing the same thing with Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. The government denounces the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. So, what has this brought us? Well, for starters the Constitution has been shredded, the Bill of Rights taken away, and an almost Orwellian police state instituted. If the Thought-Crime bill passes in the Senate, there is no doubt that Bush will sign it into law which will make this officially an Orwellian police state envisioned in the book 1984. What's scary to me is that this quote by Goering was read on the Senate floor as an opposition to Bush wanting to go to war... and the gave him authority anyway. That's sounds like how Hitler came to power in... oh... ... :-(
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Wisdom on Iraq in 2002
This is from a speech given by Ron Paul back in 2002 standing up for the Constitution, saying why we shouldn't attack Iraq. The full speech is in the title link.
Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us - he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).
Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report:
In September 1988, however - a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended - the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds...throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies - Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation - according to the U.S. State Department - gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.
Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with, there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds - in Turkey where they had gone for asylum - failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee...
It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.
Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action.
Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.
Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds - who are our allies - and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries - including Iran and the United States - are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Of the other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.
Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: ' Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem...'
Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?"
Monday, January 7, 2008
Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication | polidics.com
Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication | polidics.com
The title says it all on this one. 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!
The title says it all on this one. 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!
Should No Child Left Behind Act be reauthorized? - NO / We need a new definition of accountability
Should No Child Left Behind Act be reauthorized?
Let me think... um.... NO!!!
Talk to some teachers and see if they don't tell you that the kids they teach are any better off. They can't teach anything of use in their lives because they have to teach shit for the standardized tests.
But, who is to really blame if kids don't learn?
Is it the teachers? Well, sometimes. I had some teachers growing up that spoke ebonics and couldn't speak understandable English. I had some teachers that their grammar was worse than mine... AND THEY WERE MY TEACHERS! I had some teachers that didn't know their subjects very well. I had some that knew the subjects but simply had no talent for teaching. I think teacher testing and interviews should weed out most of that.
Is it the parents? Well, if you wonder why children can't speak properly, it is usually the parents. If the kids can't think for themselves, it is usually the parents. Lazy parents just keep the kid alive until they go to school and then expect the school to do the rest and don't follow through with homework or anything at home. So, it's partially the parents.
Is it the kids? I would say a good part of the problem is the kids. Did the people who came up with this law even take into consideration that maybe, just maybe, that some kids just don't give a shit? I mean, when I was a kid I didn't give a shit. I really didn't. I hated school. All I wanted to achieve was to get to the next grade, no matter how close of a call it was. So, do you think any amount of testing would make me do better in school? Fuck no! It made me hate school worse. It was bad enough when I was in grade school in the 80's. I can't imagine it now. Those poor kids. They aren't being taught anything but the standardized tests, then they have to take the tests which turns them off even more, then people expect them to be well educated and have the ability to think? What the fuck are those lawmakers thinking? They haven't been in grade school since the fucking 60's and they think they can know how to make school laws without even studying what parents and children think!
Repeal the NCLB Act and stop all that unnecessary standardized testing and let the fucking teachers do their jobs! We're raising a generation of kids that don't know how to think!
Let me think... um.... NO!!!
Talk to some teachers and see if they don't tell you that the kids they teach are any better off. They can't teach anything of use in their lives because they have to teach shit for the standardized tests.
But, who is to really blame if kids don't learn?
Is it the teachers? Well, sometimes. I had some teachers growing up that spoke ebonics and couldn't speak understandable English. I had some teachers that their grammar was worse than mine... AND THEY WERE MY TEACHERS! I had some teachers that didn't know their subjects very well. I had some that knew the subjects but simply had no talent for teaching. I think teacher testing and interviews should weed out most of that.
Is it the parents? Well, if you wonder why children can't speak properly, it is usually the parents. If the kids can't think for themselves, it is usually the parents. Lazy parents just keep the kid alive until they go to school and then expect the school to do the rest and don't follow through with homework or anything at home. So, it's partially the parents.
Is it the kids? I would say a good part of the problem is the kids. Did the people who came up with this law even take into consideration that maybe, just maybe, that some kids just don't give a shit? I mean, when I was a kid I didn't give a shit. I really didn't. I hated school. All I wanted to achieve was to get to the next grade, no matter how close of a call it was. So, do you think any amount of testing would make me do better in school? Fuck no! It made me hate school worse. It was bad enough when I was in grade school in the 80's. I can't imagine it now. Those poor kids. They aren't being taught anything but the standardized tests, then they have to take the tests which turns them off even more, then people expect them to be well educated and have the ability to think? What the fuck are those lawmakers thinking? They haven't been in grade school since the fucking 60's and they think they can know how to make school laws without even studying what parents and children think!
Repeal the NCLB Act and stop all that unnecessary standardized testing and let the fucking teachers do their jobs! We're raising a generation of kids that don't know how to think!
The Republicans and terror | Salon News
The Republicans and terror | Salon News
I call this the snowball-lie. A single lie turns into this giant mess.
First on the lie list was 9/11. A couple of hours after the attacks the gov said that Bin-laden did it. Anybody who has lived here for more than a day knows that the government does not work that fast... EVER. They had no time to analyze anything or collect evidence of any kind in that short amount of time. So, beyond all of the other evidence that our government created 9/11, Bin-laden didn't do it. That brings us to...
Bin-laden has worked for the CIA for YEARS. He has been paid by the CIA since the 80's to start trouble where they want and be their whipping-boy. That's not a hypothesis. It is fact. There are many news stories from reputable news agencies that have showed that he was paid by the CIA more than once.
Now, having established that, what does that have to do with the repubs and scaring people?
9/11 was used to scare the US citizens to gain public support for Bush invading Iraq. Bush had been planning to invade Iraq from his first month in office - January 2001... eight months before 9/11. That was told by more than one of his former officials. In order to keep people afraid enough to support the war and giving up our freedoms, we have been put under this bombardment of fear for seven years.
Now, all of these repubs running for president are playing the terror card to scare you into voting for them.
Terrorism is defined to be acts that aim to cause change in government or people's lives by using fear. If that's the case, the "terrorists" have won. Our government has reacted to the attacks in a manner that terrorists would want. They have made the nation afraid. They have altered our daily lives beyond recognition. They have taken away our freedoms. They have ruined our economy. But remember the point above: this was done to us by our own government in the first place.
So what does that lead us to? THERE IS NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF. There is no boogy-man out there trying to get us. To put this statistically, you have a better chance of dying in your car than dying in a "terrorist" attack. Your chance of dying in a terrorist attack is still statistically ZERO. More people die in car wrecks EACH YEAR than all people in all "terrorist" attacks in history combined! Now, if you want to stop massive amounts of people dying, WORK ON AUTOMOBILE SAFETY. There is no way to be safe from other people. We can't be safe from our own government. I personally think there is sufficient evidence to prove that all terrorist attacks on US soil were carried out or were made to happen by our own government. The sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, the first WTC bombing in the early 90's, Oklahoma City bombing, and 9/11(all being the major ones) were all caused by our own government. I think that the evidence available to people is sufficient to say that.
So, am I afraid of some dusty muslims running around in caves and the deserts of the middle east that the repubs are telling us are out to get us? Nope. I'm not sure that such a big threat even exists. A few people have said Bin-laden has been dead since 2002. There is also a hypothesis that Al-Qaeda is simply a made up organization that the governments use to blame shit on. That would make sense and explain many things.
I call this the snowball-lie. A single lie turns into this giant mess.
First on the lie list was 9/11. A couple of hours after the attacks the gov said that Bin-laden did it. Anybody who has lived here for more than a day knows that the government does not work that fast... EVER. They had no time to analyze anything or collect evidence of any kind in that short amount of time. So, beyond all of the other evidence that our government created 9/11, Bin-laden didn't do it. That brings us to...
Bin-laden has worked for the CIA for YEARS. He has been paid by the CIA since the 80's to start trouble where they want and be their whipping-boy. That's not a hypothesis. It is fact. There are many news stories from reputable news agencies that have showed that he was paid by the CIA more than once.
Now, having established that, what does that have to do with the repubs and scaring people?
9/11 was used to scare the US citizens to gain public support for Bush invading Iraq. Bush had been planning to invade Iraq from his first month in office - January 2001... eight months before 9/11. That was told by more than one of his former officials. In order to keep people afraid enough to support the war and giving up our freedoms, we have been put under this bombardment of fear for seven years.
Now, all of these repubs running for president are playing the terror card to scare you into voting for them.
Terrorism is defined to be acts that aim to cause change in government or people's lives by using fear. If that's the case, the "terrorists" have won. Our government has reacted to the attacks in a manner that terrorists would want. They have made the nation afraid. They have altered our daily lives beyond recognition. They have taken away our freedoms. They have ruined our economy. But remember the point above: this was done to us by our own government in the first place.
So what does that lead us to? THERE IS NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF. There is no boogy-man out there trying to get us. To put this statistically, you have a better chance of dying in your car than dying in a "terrorist" attack. Your chance of dying in a terrorist attack is still statistically ZERO. More people die in car wrecks EACH YEAR than all people in all "terrorist" attacks in history combined! Now, if you want to stop massive amounts of people dying, WORK ON AUTOMOBILE SAFETY. There is no way to be safe from other people. We can't be safe from our own government. I personally think there is sufficient evidence to prove that all terrorist attacks on US soil were carried out or were made to happen by our own government. The sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, the first WTC bombing in the early 90's, Oklahoma City bombing, and 9/11(all being the major ones) were all caused by our own government. I think that the evidence available to people is sufficient to say that.
So, am I afraid of some dusty muslims running around in caves and the deserts of the middle east that the repubs are telling us are out to get us? Nope. I'm not sure that such a big threat even exists. A few people have said Bin-laden has been dead since 2002. There is also a hypothesis that Al-Qaeda is simply a made up organization that the governments use to blame shit on. That would make sense and explain many things.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Comics and Editorial Cartoons: Ted Rall on Yahoo! News
Comics and Editorial Cartoons: Ted Rall on Yahoo! News
What if Huckabee were Hindu?
What if Huckabee were Hindu?
Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Home
Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In
Well, I'll be damned! It appears to be that THE PEOPLE have a voice again! Now, I would much prefer Kucinich, but Obama has been my second choice. Since it appears that Kucinich isn't going to make a dent this year either, I will definitely vote for Obama. I still agree with him on about 80% of things, so that's close enough. One thing I do admire about him is his message of hope that he brings to people. He wants the people to have a voice again. He wants this to be a government OF, BY, and FOR the people again. I listened to his victory speech from Iowa and I thought it was simply wonderful. He brings a fresh image to the presidential race. He is a younger(read not middle aged) black candidate with a muslim name. I never thought that would happen. What makes me so comfortable with the idea of him as president is that he reminds me of those very rare bosses people have that project the image of "I don't consider myself your BOSS, I consider my position one where I work for you" which is WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE. Like I said, he is younger than the other candidates, but he still seems wise in his positions on issues. He wants to restore the USA's image to where it once was: one of hope, unity, prosperity, and opportunity. He sees the evils that the Bush administration has done and how americans have lost all sense of trust in their government. Usually, in my very humble opinion, the best speakers win the election. Have you heard this guy speak? He's wonderful! His speech last night was one of hope. It was a very empowering speech. He wants to make this country better for the people and not the corporations. His speech was not "I will do this, that, and the other. Me me me me me me me." It was "I have heard what you want. Elect me and I will give you hope of a better country that is YOUR country. You have the power to change, I'll just be the instrument." That's the basics of what I got out of it, I guess. It's early in the morning so I might have not made sense there. Go to youtube and watch his speech. It's fan-fucking-tastic!
Well, I'll be damned! It appears to be that THE PEOPLE have a voice again! Now, I would much prefer Kucinich, but Obama has been my second choice. Since it appears that Kucinich isn't going to make a dent this year either, I will definitely vote for Obama. I still agree with him on about 80% of things, so that's close enough. One thing I do admire about him is his message of hope that he brings to people. He wants the people to have a voice again. He wants this to be a government OF, BY, and FOR the people again. I listened to his victory speech from Iowa and I thought it was simply wonderful. He brings a fresh image to the presidential race. He is a younger(read not middle aged) black candidate with a muslim name. I never thought that would happen. What makes me so comfortable with the idea of him as president is that he reminds me of those very rare bosses people have that project the image of "I don't consider myself your BOSS, I consider my position one where I work for you" which is WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE. Like I said, he is younger than the other candidates, but he still seems wise in his positions on issues. He wants to restore the USA's image to where it once was: one of hope, unity, prosperity, and opportunity. He sees the evils that the Bush administration has done and how americans have lost all sense of trust in their government. Usually, in my very humble opinion, the best speakers win the election. Have you heard this guy speak? He's wonderful! His speech last night was one of hope. It was a very empowering speech. He wants to make this country better for the people and not the corporations. His speech was not "I will do this, that, and the other. Me me me me me me me." It was "I have heard what you want. Elect me and I will give you hope of a better country that is YOUR country. You have the power to change, I'll just be the instrument." That's the basics of what I got out of it, I guess. It's early in the morning so I might have not made sense there. Go to youtube and watch his speech. It's fan-fucking-tastic!
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Smut for Smut | Atheist Agenda
Smut for Smut | Atheist Agenda
This is just too damn cool. It's pretty sad that porno mags are more useful than the biggest selling book of all time.
This is just too damn cool. It's pretty sad that porno mags are more useful than the biggest selling book of all time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Abstinence education [comic]](http://www.bigfatwhale.com/view_image.shtml?/archives/bfw_245_big.gif){kind=link}