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!

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.

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:

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... ... :-(

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?"

Thought Crime Bill: HR1955 passed

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!!!

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!