Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Trillions of Dollars Are Invested in "Socially Responsible Investing" . . . Why Not Invest in Freedom, Justice, 9/11 Truth, and Other Key Battles?
There are many good people spreading a lot of good messages of liberty and justice.
But trillions of dollars of investment capital is working against us and powering efforts to undermine freedom and justice. Specifically, trillions are invested into defense companies who push for new wars, and companies that torture on behalf of the U.S., and companies that spy on us, and companies that drive up food prices, destroy food safety, kill bees, and otherwise mess with our food supply.
In other words, all of the talk in the world won't turn things around if all of the money is working against what we're demanding.
Millions of us raised our voices and demanded that the U.S. not launch the Iraq war. Millions of us wrote to Congress and demanded that Bush and Cheney be impeached. But Congress listened to the large defense contractors and other well-financed companies (and flush lobbying groups, such as AIPAC), not to the American people. Actions speak louder than words, and money is
The Good News
The good news is that not all of the people investing the trillions of dollars are bad people. In fact, as of 2003, $2.16 trillion dollars - or 1 out of 9 dollars invested - was invested with the intent to be "socially responsible". That is 240% more than in 1997, when attempts at socially responsible investing totaled $529 billion dollars. The numbers are still increasing.
There are now numerous large mutual funds and other investment vehicles focusing on socially responsible investing (many of them get returns comparable to mainstream investments).
Some of the trillions invested through "socially responsible investing" (SRI) programs focus on big-picture issues like not investing in defense industry (others focus on things like tobacco, or wages). The motto of socially responsible investing is "doing well by doing good".
Indeed, the father of modern capitalism - Adam Smith - "argued that the benefits of the free market should accrue not just to individuals but to society as a whole."
There are also some banks that hold themselves out as "socially responsible banks".
And many companies are starting to understand that they will be more profitable if they "place social responsibility at the core of their business strategy". As one social investment manager notes:
"Thanks in part to the work of concerned investors, thousands of companies worldwide are publishing corporate social responsibility reports that lay out their codes of conduct, describe their progress on various issues and reveal where their products originate and who makes them. "So there is a lot of money and a lot of interest flowing into investments which will do no harm, and maybe some good.
The Bad News
A lot of the social responsibility movement is a scam. A 2004 study found that the SRI industry has no standards or definitions, is unregulated and too often invests in the same companies as non-SRI mutual funds. Indeed, the study concludes that:
"The screening methodologies and exceptions employed by most SRI mutual funds allow practically any publicly-held company to be considered as an SRI portfolio company."For example, one SRI mutual fund invests in "hiqh-quality growth stocks with no investments in the tobacco, alcohol, gambling, or pharmaceutical companies". That doesn't necessarily mean they don't invest in Halliburton. Another may stay away from defense companies, but that doesn't mean that they don't invest in companies that spy on Americans.
"As of December 30, 2003, 23 SRI funds are invested in Haliburton . . . weapons manufacturer Raytheon was held by 12 funds; ExxonMobil was held by 40 SRI funds; and Monsanto, maker of genetically modified seeds and Round Up weed killer, was held by 19 SRI funds."As entrepreneur and activist Paul Hawken notes, 'The term socially responsible investing is so broad it is meaningless. If a fund doesn't own companies involved with gambling and pornography, it can be called socially responsible."
(You can research what criteria or "screens" self-proclaimed SRI companies use here.)
And as for corporate social responsibility reporting by corporations, this is obviously largely motivated by acting like the company is doing good so as to attract customers and employees.
Harnessing Investments for Good
The important thing to note is the trend for people to want to do the right thing, and the trillions of dollars which investors are willing to put towards that goal. In other words, the fact that most of the social responsibility professionals are scammers (although there are some good ones) does not mean that the desire among investors to do good isn't there. It only means that unscrupulous people are trying to take advantage of the gullible (surprise surprise).
If we can harness the desire among trillion dollar investors to do good, it could go a long way towards supporting our struggle for liberty and justice. Specifically, if financial experts within the 9/11 truth, anti-war, impeachment, anti-torture and other patriotic movements set up socially responsible investment companies which can get reasonable returns for investors investing in things which promote our causes, then things could dramatically change for the better . . . since huge amounts of money would be working for our causes, instead of against them.
Don't tell me why this won't work. I can myself punch holes in the idea of harnessing huge investment sums to effect deep systemic change.
Instead, we need experts, visionaries and passionate activists to figure out how it can work and to make it happen.
My initial thoughts (I'm not an expert in any relevant area) are that we need a focused and coordinated effort to get this off the ground, including:
- Seasoned investment advisors, mutual fund managers, stock screeners and like experts starting new socially responsible investment companies which focus on the real and important issues, like liberty and justice. Or else taking over established companies to get them back on the straight and narrow, and focusing them on the most important issues of liberty, justice and truth. (There should also be a requirement that some leading activists in the relevant fields be on the board of directors, so that the money people don't get off track)
- Those who can get the word out (owners of popular websites, widely-read writers, etc.) spreading the word about the power of socially responsible investing to put wind in the sails of activist efforts
- Those who have squirreled away some savings should invest a little bit of our money in these programs (they'll hopefully pay a good return; even if they don't, we can take a little of the money we were going to invest in gold or other allegedly safe investments to promote liberty, justice and truth)
- Activists for freedom, justice and truth should be supported. For example, if a 9/11 activist can make enough money with his website, video, or books to quit his day job and focus on activism full-time, more power to him. Anyone who criticizes an activist for being able to support herself in that role is either a disinfo shill (it is usually apologists for the tyrants who raise such criticism) or out of touch with reality. Personally, I have a day job, and I don't get paid a dime for my activism. But I support people who do.
The White House suspended the Constitution and implemented Continuity of Government Plans on 9/11, based upon a declared state of national emergency. Bush has continually renewed the declared state of emergency up to and including today. See this.
The White House has done everything it could to scare people and convince them that America is under attack, as a way to justify the yearly renewal of the declared state of emergency and the continuing unconstitutional seizure of power by the executive branch.
In other words, the ongoing state of emergency is both the result of fearmongering and the justification for tyranny.
But Congress has the power to revoke the state of emergency.
Specifically, the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. Sections 1601-1651 (passed in 1976), gives Congress the power to countermand a presidential declaration of national emergency. Indeed, in 1976, Congress rescinded all of the declarations of national emergency made since World War II, as many of them had been on the books for years and were giving the executive unrestricted powers which were undermining the Constitution.
So in addition to impeachment, contempt for ignoring subpoenas, and a host of other powers, Congress can countermand Bush's declarations of national emergency since 2001.
With the declared state of emergency over, Continuity of Government Plans cannot remain in effect, and Congress is suddenly in a much stronger position to reign in Bush and Cheney.
Moreover, in 2007, the Bush Administration tried to ignore the National Emergencies Act by issuing National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51. But that dog won't hunt. The Constitution does not allow the president to unilaterally cut Congress out of the picture.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Top Advisor to U.S. Military Confirms The War on Terror Is a Hoax: "There is No Battlefield Solution to Terrorism"
A leading advisor to the U.S. military, the Rand Corporation, just released a new study called "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida".
The report confirms what we have been saying for years: the war on terror is a hoax which is actually weakening national security (see this, this and this).
As today's press release about the study states:
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."Can we drop the "war on terror" charade now?
The murder of liberal unitarian churchgoers by a right-wing nut is truly horrible. The killer - Jim Adkisson - apparently was influenced by such right-wing talking heads as Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity.
But let's put this in perspective . . .
- The Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, was liberal. He killed people because he thought they were harming the environment. He was a left-wing nut.
- Both liberal and conservative administrations have engaged in false flag attacks
Instead of cheering the destruction of the Constitution and the rule of law like Savage, O'Reilly and Hannity do, true conservatives like Ron Paul are working with liberals in order to save our constitution (just like many true conservatives endorse Dennis Kucinich's battle to impeach Bush and Cheney).
I'm frankly sick of all this right-wing versus left-wing talk. The labels "right-wing" and "left-wing" are largely outdated. Neoconservatives are not conservative, and neoliberals are not liberal. Some of the biggest war hawks call themselves "liberal", and some of the biggest hypocrites and liars call themselves "conservative".
Frankly, I don't care what you call yourself. America is in real trouble, and the hour is much too late to focus on peripheral issues. The only thing I care about is whether you are working for liberty, justice, truth, peace and sustainable prosperity or against them.
Even if you hate the people on the other side of the political divide, can't you put off that debate for a little while? You can't even play the game if you don't have a playing field to play on.
The people who are turning the world against America, weakening our national defenses, bankrupting our country, and trampling on our liberties are not "right-wing" or "left-wing", but simply unAmerican.
Until the rule of law and a stable economy are restored to America, why don't we focus our passion on getting the traitors and economy-wreckers out of power and into jail, where they belong. Let's unite - at least for now - to protect America itself.
Monday, July 28, 2008
According to the New York Times, Financial Times, and others, hedge funds and other investors are buying up farms, farmland, fertilizer, grain elevators, shipping equipment and other necessities for producing food.
Given the meltdown in the housing and financial sectors and the weakness in the U.S. economy, large investors figure that everyone has to eat, and so investing in food production is a sure thing.
That means that speculators will drive up food prices.
As Jim Hightower puts it:
"By 'owning structure,' they mean centralizing control of food in the hands of financial manipulators who have only one crop in mind: fat profits.
Price? Aha! That’s what consolidation of farms and storage facilities is all about. If you can lock down production and stockpile the supply – you can control price. If corn prices are lower than what investors want them to be, simply store the corn and force prices up. Or, if corn prices are down in the U.S., ship it to Japan or wherever else might be more profitable. And if these distortments cause a food crash? Hey, the speculators will already have sucked out billions in profits, and they will just move to the next hot investment.
Hedge funds bring nothing but greed and grief to the farm economy and our food supply, and they should be banned from 'owning structure.'"
Hightower may be right: we should demand that Congress prevent speculators from buying up one of the main necessities.Moreover, this just strengthens my conviction that we should guarantee our access to inexpensive and healthy food. See this and this.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
You can cut out the middle man and get food for less. You can also eat healthier, while saving the bees.
Well, for one thing, regulation of the U.S. food supply has become worthless, with hundreds of cases of mad cow and salmonella poisoning a year. Growing your own food ensures your safety, and may even save money in the long run by preventing expensive medical bills. But there's a lot more to it than that . . .
Buy for Less
Here are some tips for buying cheaper, healthier food:
- Join a buying club for food (start here or here to see if there is an established one near you; if not, find a food coop here or here, and then ask them where you can find a buying club). As one website puts it:
"A buying club is a great way to get the organic food you want on the cheap. In a buying club, you may be able to get 30 percent to 40 percent off the retail price. Buying-club members purchase food and other organic products in bulk and then split the stash.
"These buying clubs are the best-kept secrets in America" . . .Ask a co-op near you about starting a buying club with your friends and neighbors. Some co-op grocers will let you order right from their store. Ask a local natural food store where they get their stuff and then contact the distributor directly.
"Some distributors deliver to individuals or groups of individuals who have a minimum amount of an order," says Katherine DiMatteo, a senior adviser with the Organic Trade Association.
- You can do the same thing with meat. Find a ranch here (you can type in the kind of meat you're looking for - "beef", for example - under "Name/Description/Product" and your zip code under "Where"?). Then form a buying club to buy the meat at a discount
- Buy a share in a community-supported agricultural program. That buys you weekly boxes of fresh produce delivered to your door. To locate a program near you, see this, this and this
- If there is a farmer's market near you, go there right before closing . . . the vendors will likely give you a discount. Also, ask about produce that doesn't look perfect, but still tastes good
- Buy a large freezer. That way, when you find a good deal on meat or produce, you can buy in bulk (food keeps almost all of its nutritional value even when frozen). If you find a good deal on beef or pork, for example, buy a huge chunk of the animal
- Buy produce in-season. It is usually cheaper
- See below for information on canned foods and discount stores
You can also grow some of your own food. But what do you if you live in a city, or far from land or water sources? Here are some tips:
- A gardening table like this one allows you to grow over 22 pounds of tomatoes, 55 pounds of lettuce and 33 pounds of cucumber per season in just one square meter of space
- You can grow vegetable gardens vertically
- You can grow food hydroponically even if you're short on space and sunlight
- Even easier, you can grow food "aeroponically"
- Mushrooms will grow just about anywhere, and you can buy kits to make growing easy (see this, this, this and this)
- Potatoes will grow like mad
If you have a little land, you can grow food on a larger scale.
You'll need water to do it. If you don't have ready access to water, consider collecting rainwater. This brochure from the University of Idaho tells you how (look here for more info).
Also consider using some "dried distillers grain" in the soil, which can dramatically reduce insect damage and increase the health of your plants (without pesticides).
You can raise cows, sheep, or other large animals.
For further information, see this resource for raising animals and this one for growing plants.
It turns out that wild game animals have much higher levels of essential Omega 3 fatty acids than domesticated animals. Indeed, leading nutritionalists say that humans evolved to consume alot of Omega 3 fatty acids in the wild game and fish which they ate (more), and that a low Omega 3 diet is a very new trend within the last 100 years or so (my wife, who is an expert on Omega 3's, believes that some of the short attention span, stupidity, violence and other cognitive problems we're seeing in the general population is due to a low Omega 3 diet. the brain is mainly made up of fat, and having too little good Omega 3 fats can cause all sorts of problems in thinking straight. Is that one reason why the American public has been so complacent about its loss of liberty?).
If you have access to wild game which you can hunt, it is actually healthier for you. (Wild plants, seeds and nuts can also be very high in nutrients.) If you don't, you can buy grass-fed beef, wild salmon, or other high Omega 3 sources.
So if you live near wild food sources, your meals can be both free and healthy (Don't eat your own lead buckshot or shoot yourself in the foot - get trained in the firearm safety before hunting. And don't poison yourself - check a local field guide first for plants. )
How is Doing this Going to Save the Bees?
But how is doing this going to save the bees?
Well, many people argue that genetically modified crops or pesticides are causing the collapse of the bee colonies.
In addition, large-scale agriculture uses bees in a crazy fashion:
- While being trucked around, bees are fed a diet of high-fructose corn syrup (and soy protein), not real pollen (see also this).
- According to reports from beekeepers who don't truck their bees around or feed them high-fructose junk food, their bees stay much healthier those used in commercial agriculture. And see this essay.
In addition, a new "study finds a healthier diet and a return to traditional farming can help reduce energy consumption in US food system by 50 percent". In other words, staying away from mega-agriculture will result in less use of oil, which will lessen energy costs (less demand equals lower costs), and will help take the wind out of the tyrants' sails.
You can buy canned foods in bulk at wholesale prices, and there are often good deals to be had at discount stores like Costco and Sam's Club. However, because these sources do not stress local food sources or sustainable agricultural practices, buying their won't necessary help the bees or your own health. In other words, the only thing that is certain is that you can buy for good prices.
A note on organic foods. If you desire to reduce your exposure to pesticides, antibiotics and hormones, but can't afford to buy everything organically, then buy conventional foods in general, but make the following foods organic: apples, bell peppers, celery, cherries, spinach, strawberries, imported grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, potatoes, raspberries, meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products.
Because these foods tend to have the highest pesticide levels (or - in the case of meat, poultry, eggs and dairy - hormones and antibiotics).
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The top experts agree that torture doesn't produce any useful information.
And the experts on national security agree that torture turns people against us, creates actual terrorists who want to kill us, and makes us less safe. Torture also makes it almost certain that our troops will be tortured by others.
But the U.S. has embarked on a coordinated policy of torture since 9/11. The U.S. has rounded up scores of innocent farmers and other civilians -- including children -- in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere and tortured them until they died, went crazy, or were disabled.
If torture doesn't do anything useful, and instead does alot of harmful things like dramatically weakening our national security and putting our troops in harms way, why are we doing it?
Well, listen to the testimony to Congress by a representative of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
"Governments that use torture intend to intimidate their citizens in order to maintain control; those who are tortured become examples of the consequences of dissent."Indeed, this is a well-known tactic for brutal regimes. Take Zimbabwe, for example:
"Victims and eyewitnesses told Human Rights Watch that [Zimbabwe’s brutal regime] has set up detention centers . . . to round up and instill fear in suspected political opponents."Torture is a form of terrorism, plain and simple. As the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services director told Congress:
"... torture is the deliberate mental and physical damage caused by governments to individuals to ... terrorize society."The U.S. government is carrying out acts of terrorism on innocent victims - including children - in order to scare people into being compliant, into being too scared to demand their rights to liberty and justice guaranteed by the rule of law, into not challenging the powers-that-be.
Those who created, implemented or covered up the U.S. torture policy are not only war criminals, they are also terrorists.
Note: The torture in foreign countries is intended to intimidate not only people in those countries, but also Americans living in the U.S. Simply put, torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and elsewhere is intended to send the message that everyone -- within the U.S. and abroad -- better do what the American government tells them to do.
We often think of psychological warfare as meaning disinformation. See, for example, this.
But psychological operations also include efforts to induce and spread fear, because fear immobilizes people more than any other emotion. Make people afraid, and they won't take any action to challenge those in power.
We all know that false flag terror is a form of psyops to intimidate people. Likewise, the real reason that our government tortures innocent people is to spread fear.
I've increasingly recently run across a form of fearmongering psyops on the web. Specifically, whenever anyone posts a hopeful idea or a promising strategy for fighting tyranny, someone will post a fear-inducing comment like:
"If you sign the impeachment petition, the government will put you in its terrorist database"Or
"If you show up to the anti-war rally, you'll be tasered"You've seen this, right?
These kind of statements can do no possible good. They are not intended to convey any useful information. They are merely meant to discourage people from taking any action.
Given that the Bush administration tortures innocent people, tramples on the Constitution, and spies on everyone, many people are already cowed and intimidated. What we need more of is courage and hope. Those are the qualities which will enable us to save our country.
Anyone sewing unreasonable seeds of fear is either a psyops agent or a coward who is trying to justify their own cowardice by infecting others with the virus of fear. Either way, their fearmongering should be countered with comments about the importance of courage in saving our country and with reasons to have hope that we can change things if we are committed to creating a saner world. Fear may be contagious, but so is courage and hope.
Because those trying to save our country outweigh the psyops agents by millions-to-one, we will win the battle if we take a stand for courage and against fear.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
John Conyers is now taking the position that no one at Friday's impeachment hearing can accuse Bush or Cheney of any crime, or any impeachable offense, or dishonorable conduct, or even lying.
Moreover, Conyers is now saying that he will shut the hearing down if anyone does accuse the boys of crimes, impeachable offenses, or otherwise being naughty.
As David Swanson summarizes it:
"Apparently the rules of Congress are designed to allow impeachable offenses to be discussed only in impeachment hearings. Apparently this didn't occur to Chairman Conyers when he decided to hold a non-impeachment impeachment hearing. As a result, his hearing may be quickly shut down, and he will have a choice of holding a real impeachment hearing, resigning, or dropping the pretense that he intends to resist Cheney and Bush in any way whatsoever."Please watch this must-see 10 minute video.
And read this.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
There's a secret history regarding alcohol that you won't hear on the six o'clock news:
- Cars and everything else running on internal combustion engines can run on alcohol at least as well as they can run on gasoline. Indeed, engines were built back in 1870 that could run using either alcohol or gasoline
"Autoists Discuss Alcohol As Fuel; Great Future Ahead For Use In Commercial Wagons, Says Prof. Lucke. Tests With Motor Truck E.R. Hewitt Tells Engineers Of His Results With Gasoline And Alcohol In Same Engine"
- Henry Ford said that alcohol was "a cleaner, nicer, better fuel for automobiles than gasoline" (James Brough, The Ford Dynasty: An American Story, p. 118, and cited in "Ford - The Men and the Machine", p. 365). The Model T Ford had a knob right on the dashboard to adjust the fuel-air mixture for either alcohol or gas
- Alcohol does not corrode or shorten the lifespan of modern cars, and an inexpensive adjustment to regular cars will make them run smoothly and inexpensively on alcohol
Well, John D. Rockefeller, under the ruse of Christian temperance, gave 4 million dollars to a group of old ladies and told them to fight for Prohibition (they successfully used the money to buy off Congress). Why? Rockefeller owned Standard Oil, the main company pushing gas as an alternative fuel to alcohol. By getting Congress to pass Prohibition laws, Rockefeller eliminated his competition. And see this.
Moreover, those in the know actually are using alcohol as a fuel today. For example, there are many millions of cars being driven in Brazil that run on alcohol.
And many government and car fleets are actually required to be able to run on either alcohol or gas. The car companies simply forgot to tell the American consumer that these kind of cars are available. See this and this.
But Food Costs are Already Too High Because of the @#$_%! Ethanol Subsidies, Right?
My first reaction when I heard that cars and other machines could run on alcohol was that this was a really bad idea. Specifically, as everyone knows, all of the ethanol subsidies have caused many acres of farmland which used to grow a variety of food crops to all be put into corn for use in ethanol. Food has already become astronomically expensive because of the darn ethanol subsidies, and so I would be totally opposed to anything which sraises food prices further.
But the leading proponents of alcohol as fuel are not talking about corn. Corn is a lousy crop for making alcohol, and there are many other crops that are much more efficient. Indeed, the leaders in this field promote growing a wide variety of crops (appropriate for whatever specific climate you live in) , and many of the crops they suggest are also valuable food crops.
And you don't even need to use plants . . . you can make alcohol fuel out of donuts.
Whole books have been written on this, but the bottom line is that using alcohol as an alternative to oil would actually drive down food prices, help enrich the soil, and have a lot of other benefits. (Again, ethanol subsidies are contributing to high food prices and destroying our economy because they are corrupt, too big, and done totally wrong, but not because of any inherent problems in using alcohol as fuel. Indeed, stopping all of the ethanol subsidies might be smart. I think we should stop any subsidies which raise food prices. While you're at it, stop the multi-trillion dollar military expenditures in the Middle East, which are oil subsidies).
But How Does Alcohol Fight Fascism?
Fascism is the centralization of power (the word fascism comes from the "fascia", a bundle of sticks wrapped around an axe, with the sticks representing the people all held together by the axe -- the leader). Decentralization is the opposite of fascism. See this.
There would be no invasions of other countries to steal their booze. Since alcohol is so low-tech and easy to make, everyone can make their own fuel.
And anyone who doesn't want to go to the time to make their own can just buy it from a local alcohol fuel farm or cooperative. When enough people learn that alcohol can run cars and other machinery cheaper and better than gas, alcohol production will spread everywhere, the price will drop even further, and it will be easy to buy in your own hometown.
See this book and this website for more information on using alcohol as fuel.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Last week, for the first time, the average American woke up to the fact that our economy is in trouble.
Despite Bernanke and Paulson's pep talks, despite the happy talk by the talking heads, despite the cooked earnings reports desperately being put out by the banks and others, last week people still got - on a gut level - that the economy is in mortal danger.
The failure of IndyMac and the fact that Freddie and Fannie are on the ropes are what finally woke people up. The cracks in our financial system have become so big that the crew trying to maintain the facade simply can't paint over them any more.
Everyone I talk with - from the construction manager, to the baker, to the lawyer, to the doctor - are now all are in a holding pattern . . . They're all just waiting to see what happens with the economy.
None of them are making big purchases, or starting new ventures, or jumping into new investments. All of them know that there are big problems with the U.S. economy, but are hoping that it turns around.
So what? Who cares what the people I'm talking to are doing?
Because the same thing is happening all over the U.S. That means that the economy is quickly freezing up. And that means a depress . . . er, a very severe recession.
And everyone you're talking with is saying the same thing, right? (That's probably why you're reading this . . . you already know its true from your own experience).
As Reuters puts it:
"The nightmare scenario for U.S. economic authorities is here: confidence in their ability to rescue the country from a housing-led financial panic is now at its lowest level since the crisis began.Last week was a huge turning point, when the average American could no longer be tricked by the fast-talking ponzi scheme salesmen. Last week was the week that America woke up to the economic crisis we've been facing for a long time.
This means losses for investors, already totaling nearly half a trillion dollars, could mount even further over the next few months, with implications for business investment and the overall health of the economy.
***Saturated with bad news, investors appear to have thrown in the towel. As they do this, the risks that both consumers and businesses will face further retrenchment at the same time is growing."
On a positive note, everyone I speak with now finally understands that the war in Iraq is a large part of why our economy is sinking like a stone. And see this. Once they get that, the pressure to get us out of Iraq will become very strong. Hopefully, the economic crash will help wake people up in other areas as well.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.Moreover, Pelosi was secretly tipped off about warrantless spying on Americans. As constitutional expert Jonathan Turley said:
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"there is an obvious level of collusion here. We now know that Democratic leadership knew about the illegal surveillance program almost from its inception. Even when they were campaigning about fighting for civil liberties, they were aware of an unlawful surveillance program as well as a torture program. And ever since that came out, the Democrats have been silently trying to kill any effort to hold anyone accountable because that list could very well include some of their own members."Pelosi also hid from the 9/11 Commission and the American people the fact that the interrogations of 9/11 suspects were videotaped, and that the alleged "confessions" of those held at Gitmo were wholly unreliable. She could have stopped the whole farce cold -- but chose to go along with it.
Even covering up a crime committed by someone else is itself a crime:
"Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment."Without question, Pelosi has covered up crimes committed by Bush, Cheney and the White House gang.
Moreover, Pelosi is guilty of criminal conspiracy. She conspired with the Neocons to implement torture, spying and the use of tainted and unreliable evidence regarding 9/11.
She is also guilty of violating the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, which makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment. The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who order it, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty. See this.
It is time for Pelosi to make her choice. Accept responsibility and show remorse, and she may be sentenced to community service. Otherwise, she will be tried along with Bush, Cheney and crew as a criminal.
Specifically, unless Pelosi immediately green-lights the impeachment, removal and criminal prosecution of Bush and Cheney, she must herself be indicted as a war criminal and criminal co-conspirator.
Nancy Pelosi, how do you plead?
Unfortunately, Pelosi is not alone. Harman, Rockefeller and others in Congress are also war criminals, accessories after the fact, and co-conspirators.
History shows that people usually don't know when we are about to win. We are lousy at knowing whether we have a chance at victory.
When people struggling for liberty and justice face seemingly overwhelming power and impossible odds, they can suddenly breakthrough and win when things seem most hopeless and they least expect victory.
Why We Underestimate Our Chances
Well, for one thing, it is impossible to know what's going on in the other camp. The oppressors might seem invincible, but there are often schisms and rifts which are tearing the enemy apart from within. The bad guys might be extremely vulnerable because they are busy fighting with each other. They might be merely putting a false public image of unity . . . one which is dropped the minute the cameras stop rolling.
In addition - as I learned as a kid in karate class - even the toughest opponent has vulnerabilities. No matter how big the lug you're fighting is, hit him in one of his vulnerable spots, and he's going down. In struggles for freedom and justice as well, if you identify and focus on the bad guy's vulnerabilities, you can win no matter how poorly the fight seems to have been going.
Moreover, the opponent might be affected by what we do a lot more than we realize. You've seen it in horror and martial arts movies. The good guy has given his best shot at the monster. But the monster doesn't seem to be fazed in the least . . . he glowers and starts walking threateningly towards the good guy, who is flat on his back. It seems like the good guy is finished.
But at the last minute, the monster falls over and dies, and we see for the first time that the good guy had earlier mortally wounded the monster in some way.
There is often a lag time between what we do and our ability to see the effect on our opponents. It may be that our activism is having a tremendous effect and is pummeling the forces of tyranny, but that the weakened and wounded tyrants are simply bluffing and putting on a strong front to keep us intimidated. Don't stop fighting just because the effects of our actions haven't yet become visible.
In addition, it is often difficult at any given time to see which historical trend will end up being the most important one. In other words, there are always competing trends and forces, and something which doesn't seem very important at the time can end up winning the battle in the long-run.
As just one example, the Soviet Union collapsed partly because Russians watched images of prosperity on American tv, and decided they weren't going to put up with what they had. The communist leaders didn't think that letting in American tv programs would have such a huge influence on their population's willingness to put up with communist repression. But it did.
There are historical trends which we are not even currently aware of which might end up ensuring our victory.
(Finally, while the enemy might appear to have overwhelming force, they may be "paper tigers", with much weaker resources than it seems. More on this in a later essay.)
Don't Quit Now
Bottom line . . . don't quit now.
It is possible that we are mere days away from starting to hold the tyrants responsible for their war crimes, false flag terror, illegal spying, and other unlawful acts. The Red Cross finding Bush guilty of war crimes is significant (while it is not a U.S. institution, it is an important one).
The House Judiciary's non-impeachment impeachment hearing is clearly an attempt to bury real impeachment actions. But it may end up leading to real action.
Personally, when I've given up, I've often learned that I could have won had I just hung in there a little longer. I've regretted not persisting. I've learned to keep my head down and to keep on pushing.
We don't know how close to victory we are. Now is not the time to quit . . . it is time to redouble our efforts.
See this and this.
Of course, I understand how serious things are, and how dire our situation is. I am not trying to minimize those threats.
However, I think the main problem is that people are not taking any action because they have given up all hope.
We don't know what the future holds. In that very uncertainty, there lies the possibility that we can make things better.
Hope frees us to take action . . . and action can turn things around. Hope is therefore vital.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
What do economists say about war?
To find out, I met with a PhD professor of economics, with a background in international conflict.
I told him that conventional wisdom holds that war is good for the economy; but that the war in Iraq seems to have destroyed America's economy.
He explained this seeming paradox:
"War always causes recession. Well, if it is a very short war, then it may stimulate the economy in the short-run. But if there is not a quick victory and it drags on, then wars always put the nation waging war into a recession and hurt its economy."This contradicts all of the "war is good for the economy" propaganda we've all heard.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Was it all talk?
The message of change
Just a crock?
Its a crying shame
America's in flames
You're more of the same
A new face ... same game
Will you even provide us a comma?
In the serial campaigns to bomb a
Region that has what we want?
Guess he was bought
With the nomination locked ...
The peace act's been dropped
(Brzezinski told him to stop?)
Bait and switch
By the very rich
They get everything on their wish-list
Guess who pays for it?
While liberty is dying
And the Founding Fathers sighing
You're okay with spying?!
Then your act ain't worth buying
You promised to fight for justice
But as usual, I guess its "just us"
No matter who's sworn into office
Only the people can defend the U.S.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
If you opened your credit card statement and it said that you owe $455,000, you would be quite concerned, right?
If you got a letter from the IRS saying you owe $455,000, you'd be upset, right?
Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but you really do owe $455,000.
According to the Government Accounting Office, each American household owes $455,000. This is your share of the $53 trillion in long-term liabilities held by the U.S.
You may have heard that "deficits don't matter" or that these huge liabilities will be paid off during future boom economic times.
But listen to the words of non-partisan government experts on these issues:
- The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank posted a paper entitled "Is The United States Bankrupt?". The paper provides the following answer: "The United States is going broke"
- "People seem to think the government has money," said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "The government doesn't have any money"
- The United States Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget published a report stating that the U.S. cannot grow our way out of the government's liabilities, that the liabilities are quickly growing, and that failing to take drastic and immediate action would lead to very bad consequences (the report was written in 2006)
- The International Monetary Fund - which oversees third-world economies - are so concerned about the solvency of the U.S. economy that they are conducting a complete audit of the whole US financial system
The U.S. owes $53,000,000,000, and our rich lenders - China, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, etc. - are getting very tired of bailing us out. As Merrill Lynch recently pointed out, our "rich uncles" are seriously considering turning off the spigot on the U.S., to stop throwing good money after bad. The U.S. is already insolvent, but our government is hiding that fact from the average American. If our "rich uncles" cut us off and call in the debt, the U.S. may be forced to take drastic measures - like selling our physical assets to the lenders at fire-sale prices - just like debtors in bankruptcy court are forced to do every day.
Even if we can convince our creditors to keep lending us more money, the $455,000 each household owes will keep skyrocketing higher and higher. And as our government prints more and more greenbacks to try to bail out the big firms on Wall Street, we will all become serfs and wage slaves toiling away to pay off these debts and to buy the ever-increasing costs for necessities caused by run-away inflation.
You can thank both parties for this fine mess we're in. Presidents and Congress people from both parties have been selfish and ignorant about economics, and have been lulled into a "don't rock the boat" mentality by the snake oil salesmen representing the wealthiest.
There's Hope . . . If We Wake Up
There is hope. But it won't come from tinkering with the current financial system.
We need a new, transparent government and financial system which lives within its means. As people like Congressman Ron Paul have repeatedly pointed out, governments which use "fiat currencies" always spend more than they have and get in trouble.
This decades-long charade must end, and we must get back to sound economic policy. If America is to survive, we must wake up and start practicing true economics once again.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
One of the world's leading experts on trend forecasting says that producing our own energy for our homes and cars (called "micro generation") will become a huge trend in the next couple of decades.What's he talking about?
Well, energy and food prices will keep going up. Every dollar we don't have to pay to the energy utility or food producers is a dollar we get to keep. And the technology for producing it ourselves is getting better and better.
So increasingly over the next couple of decades, we will generate our own energy and food.
Indeed, if the economy really crashes, we may not be able to rely on centralized energy producers and utilities or large-scale agriculture and transportation. So getting a head-start in thinking about micro energy and food production will not only save us money, it will give us confidence in uncertain times.
Due to high oil prices, major breakthroughs in energy production are happening every day.
- A scientist has figured out how to make and store energy by splitting water with sunlight. He says: "You've made your house into a fuel station [and we can get] rid of all the ... grids"
- A new generation of highly-efficient wind turbines (and see this) is being introduced which can produce much more energy
- And new approaches to solar energy (see this and this) are making residential solar very cost-competitive
- It has been discovered that alcohol made from donuts, grass and other abundant materials can run cars and all other engines
Moreover, if we get together with some of our neighbors and pool our energy, so we can distribute it where and when it is needed, we will save even more money. I'm not talking about hugging trees, holding hands and singing Kumbaya (although if you want to do that, that's okay). I'm talking solely about economics. If you start talking to your neighbors about this now, you'll be ready when the energy storage technology becomes cheap.
If you have any spare cash lying around and don't know where to invest it, look into micro generation. See this , this and this.
You don't need a huge backyard to grow a sizable portion of your own food. There are ways to grow food even in small spaces.
- You can grow vegetable gardens vertically (it doesn't look that great, but it works)
- You can get chickens and buy or build a chicken coop for eggs and chicken meat (my wife got 4 chicks a couple of weeks ago; I thought at first she was nuts, but they are actually easy to keep)
- You can grow a lot of certain types of vegetables - like potatoes - in small spaces.
You can also join or start a farming cooperative in your area, so that you have access to food in return for a contribution of money or labor (see this, although the farms mentioned don't seem very economical). Community gardens are an option (see this and this).
Ranching cooperatives are also popping up. I predict there will be more and more of them.
See this detailed discussion on food.
My wife says that the economic crash we're experiencing will bring Americans closer together as neighbors, and will remind us of what's really important. I hope she's right . . . But this article is not about getting back to the land and singing Kumbaya. I'm simply focusing on how to stay afloat financially in a very unstable economy.
Moreover, wars are being fought in our name over oil. Tyranny is being implemented to stifle dissent to imperial wars.
Huge energy companies -- some with earnings bigger than many countries -- are calling the shots. As long as we rely on them to provide our power to us, we are buying into the imperial wars, injustice and destruction of our liberties.
If we install solar, wind, or whatever other micro equipment we can in our homes and offices, then we could decentralize power-generation -- and thus -- decentralize power away from the energy giants and their imperial political allies.
Indeed, it is arguably patriotic to participate in micro generation and micro farming. The Founding Fathers sung the virtues of "citizen farmers". Don't quit your day job . . . but if we become citizen energy-and-food farmers in our spare time, the self-sufficiency and sense of responsibility might help in some small way we to restore true American values.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
A recent poll showed that 44% of Americans support torture on "terrorist suspects".
Why so many?
A key architect of America's torture program, Doug Feith, testified under oath to Congress today that torture is necessary because - otherwise - we couldn't get any information out of the "bad guys". Several Congress people agreed.
Why do any Congress people support this argument?
Because many people mistakenly assume that torture works, and is thus a necessary evil.
Let's put aside questions of morality, humanity, and legality . . . Let's just focus on one question: does torture work?
In fact, the professional FBI, CIA and army interrogators all say no.
They say that people will say anything to stop the pain . . . specifically, they'll say what they think the torturer wants to hear. Moreover, they say that the way to actually get useful information about of prisoners -- including information helpful to stopping future terrorist attacks -- is to build trust and rapport with them, or to outsmart them in ongoing conversations.
See for yourself:
- Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:
"Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."
- A declassified FBI e-mail dated May 10, 2004, regarding interrogation at Guantanamo states "[we] explained to [the Department of Defense], FBI has been successful for many years obtaining confessions via non-confrontational interviewing techniques." (see also this)
- Brigadier General David R. Irvine, retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School, says torture doesn't work
- A former FBI interrogator -- who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects -- says categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence. On the other hand he says that torture actually turns people into terrorists
- A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks, says:
“The administration’s claims of having ‘saved thousands of Americans’ can be dismissed out of hand because credible evidence has never been offered — not even an authoritative leak of any major terrorist operation interdicted based on information gathered from these interrogations in the past seven years. … It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.
This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn’t work — it doesn’t — but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.”
- The FBI interrogators who actually interviewed some of the 9/11 suspects say torture didn't work
- A former US Air Force interrogator said that information obtained from torture is unreliable, and that torture just creates more terrorists
- The number 2 terrorism expert for the State Department says torture doesn't work, and just creates more terrorists
- The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously found that torture doesn't work.
- Former high-level CIA official Bob Baer said "And torture -- I just don't think it really works ... you don't get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you."
- Rear Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General for the Navy, said "Another objection is that torture doesn't work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners."
- Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, said "I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear."
- Dan Coleman, one of the FBI agents assigned to the 9/11 suspects held at Guantanamo said "Brutalization doesn't work. We know that. "
Indeed, top American World War 2 interrogators got more information without torture than those who use torture are getting today. And the head of Britian's wartime interrogation center in London
“Violence is taboo. Not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information.”Indeed, a high-level Special Ops interrogator said that torture by Americans of innocent Iraqis is the main reason that foreign fighters started fighting against Americans in Iraq in the first place.
Torture is certainly immoral, inhumane, and an illegal war crime. However, until people realize that it doesn't work, it will not stop, and those responsible will not be held accountable.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Pakistani General Who Wired $100,000 to Mohammad Atta Met with a "Senior Representative from the Joint Chiefs of Staff" Right Before 9/11In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request submitted by Kevin Ryan, Mick Harrison and Paul Smith, the government has disclosed documents confirming that Pakistani ISI General Ahmed - the guy who wired $100,000 to lead hijacker Atta -- met with a "Senior Representative from the Joint Chiefs of Staff", Centcom Commander General Tommy Franks, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Wolfowitz, Feith, other PNAC members, and probably Intelligence Committee members Graham and Goss, and others in the week before 9/11.
All credit goes to Kevin, Mick and Paul. I'm just reporting on their efforts.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Former deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats, a 23-year senior CIA analyst, who "drafted or was involved in many of the government's most senior assessments of the threats facing our country [and who] devoted years to understanding and combating the jihadist threat", writes today in the Washington Post that the neocons have whipped us into an irrational fear of the terrorism. In reality, "Osama bin Laden and his disciples are small men and secondary threats whose shadows are made large by our fears" and our leaders.
This is no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. The BBC produced a documentary called The Power of Nightmares in 2005 that showed that politicians were greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat for political ends. FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, Time Magazine, K eith Olbermann (and here), The Washington Post, Rolling Stone and many others have all documented the intentional fearmongering tactics which the neocons have used to drum up support for their wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran.
Because so many Americans got their panties in a wad about the boogeyman, we have allowed our basic rights and liberties to be taken away, allowed the executive branch to seize dictatorial powers and ignore Congress and the courts, allowed an illegal war be launched which has destroyed our economy (why do you think the fed has printed trillions of new dollars, which is leading to hyperinflation?), and has actually crippled our real national security (torture and imperial wars create real terrorists and push away our allies).
Before Bush was sworn in, the U.S. had a huge budget surplus and was the world's sole superpower. But the U.S. is now weak, insolvent, and hated.
How did this happen?
Because Americans have been peeing their pants with fear . . .
We were so scared of the graphic destruction of the Twin Towers - and we were so traumatized by the anthrax attacks on the press and Congress - that Americans allowed our "leaders" to act contrary to the nation's interest.
Have you ever seen a dog repeatedly bite his own tail? He gets whipped into such a frenzy by the "intruder" that he ignores the pain and keeps on biting. That's what the American people have been doing to ourselves for the last 7 years . . . chasing phantom enemies and biting ourselves repeatedly in the tail.
Worse, we have let ourselves become so irrationally afraid that we've nearly bitten our tail off, and we're bleeding out. And yet we keep on biting . . . (allowing new assaults on the Constitution, further consolidation of power in the executive branch, new socialist measures to support the financial elites, new imperial wars).
It is not an exaggeration to say that our fear is guaranteeing our destruction.
Get a grip, America.
Note: If you need a little shot of courage, read this.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Congressman Kucinich - who is leading the charge for impeachment - says that the American people must pressure Congress every day to get to find out about continuity of government (COG). If you don't know what COG is, read this.
Kucinich said Congress has tried to find out whether COG plans implemented on 9/11 are still in effect, and what those plans are, but the White House has stonewalled. He suggests that Americans demand that congress issue subpoenas to determine whether COG plans are currently in effect, and to find out what's in the documents. This is the only way we'll find out.
John Conyers has been issuing subpoenas on other issues, which may be important. However, what could be more important for Congress than determining whether or not the Constitution is still the controlling document for our country? What could be more important for Congress than determining whether COG planning documents strip Congress of its power, and give sole power to the executive branch?
Demand that congress issue subpoenas and -- more importantly -- hold everyone subpoenaed person -- including Buch, Cheney, Mukasey, Chertoff, etc. -- in contempt (and throw them in jail!) if they don't respond.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Liberals like to say they are in the "reality-based" community, and not living in a "faith-based" or Neocon delusion.
But many liberals form their belief about what happened on 9/11 based on faith . . .
- Faith that Bush isn't smart enough to have pulled off so large an act of treason
- Faith that our government wouldn't murder thousands of its own citizens for political gain
- Faith that they have the basic information about what really happened that day
- Faith that scientists and military experts verify the official explanation for 9/11
- The government willfully lied about the need for war against Iraq and about the air quality at ground zero, and those lies have resulted in the deaths of many more people than died on 9/11
- The truth about 9/11 has been methodically suppressed -- not only by the mainstream media, but also by an army of internet users hired by the Pentagon
Note: This essay applies to conservatives as well as liberals. Leading conservatives also question 9/11.
In addition, this essay is not meant to criticize people of faith, many of whom question 9/11. Prominent Christian theologians state that 9/11 was an inside job. Moreover, many people of Jewish faith question 9/11. Indeed, prominent Jewish scholars and rabbis say that uncovering the truth of 9/11 has the power to bring positive, lasting change to our nation and to our world. As do many Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
The point is simply that liberal atheists who assume that those who question 9/11 truth are not in the reality-based community are wrong.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
You may have heard that the Energy Task Force chaired by Dick Cheney prior to 9/11 collected maps of Iraqi oil, Saudi and United Arab Emerates fields and potential suitors for that oil. And you might have heard that the oil bigs attended the Task Force meetings.
But you probably haven't heard that - according to the New Yorker - a secret document written by the National Security Council (NSC) on February 3, 2001 directed NSC staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the “melding” of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy:
"The review of operational policies towards rogue states,” such as Iraq, and “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields”.It is difficult to brush off Cheney's Energy Task Force's examination of arab oil maps as a harmless comparison of American energy policy with known oil reserves because the NSC explicitly linked the Task Force, oil, and regime change.
But don't believe me...
The above-linked New Yorker article quotes a former senior director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the NSC said:
If this little group was discussing geostrategic plans for oil, it puts the issue of war in the context of the captains of the oil industry sitting down with Cheney and laying grand, global plans.See also this essay.
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. If true, oil might explain why.
5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld allegedly said "my interest is to hit Saddam". Maybe now we know why.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Demand Local Law Enforcement Uphold Their Oath to Defend the Constitution . . . and Prosecute Bush and Cheney for Murder
I spoke with one of the leading constitutional scholars in the United States (he teaches at one of top law schools, and has literally "written the book" on constitutional law).
I asked him if there was any way the American people can force Congress to perform their constitutional duties to impeach Bush and Cheney.
He said no.
I persisted, by arguing that the founding fathers could never have envisioned Congress being so complicit with a rogue White House that they refuse to impeach, and instead cover up their crimes. I said there's got to be a way to force them to follow their duties, or to impeach or remove the congress people who are obstructing the rule of law.
He responded no. His last words to me were: "That's the way the constitutional cookie crumbles".
I was very disappointed, to say the least.
Is All Lost?
Renowned prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi says that local district attorneys, state attorney generals and the United States attorney general each have the power and jurisdiction to prosecute Bush and Cheney for murder:
"You’ve got to realize, there’s no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. So this could very well happen. At this stage of my life, I cannot engage in fanciful reveries. This is a very real thing that we’re talking about here. I’ve established jurisdiction on a federal and state level for the prosecution of Bush for two crimes: conspiracy to commit murder and murder. On a federal level, we’re really only talking about the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., operating through his Department of Justice. But on a state level, I’ve established jurisdiction for the attorney general in each of the fifty states, plus the hundreds of district attorneys in counties within those states, to prosecute George Bush for the murder of any soldier or soldiers from their state or county who died fighting his war in Iraq . . ."Bush and Cheney have also committed war crimes, for which they have no immunity.
They have also considered murdering U.S. citizens. And their intentional or - at the very least - reckless indifference to human life in failing to stop the planes from plowing into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11 -- certainly constitutes homicide.
So What Does It All Mean?
Unless another constitutional expert explains some way we can force the congress critters to perform their constitutional duties and remove Bush and Cheney from power, or unless Kucinich's impeachment efforts or other efforts miraculously bear fruit, we'll have to try something else.
Specifically, we should focus our energy on getting factual evidence of acts of murder by Bush and Cheney into the hands of the local police, district attorneys, and state attorney generals, and then politely demanding that they follow their sworn oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
The best approach would be for people who have friends inside the police departments, district attorneys offices, and attorney general offices to educate them. But a broader grassroots effort would also be helpful.
In order to put our strongest foot forward, I strongly recommend providing a copy of Bugliosi's book - The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder - to the police officer, district attorney, or attorney general. Bugliosi thoroughly documents the basis for their power and jurisdiction to arrest and prosecute Bush and Cheney, so it is the foundation for this entire strategy. You can have Amazon ship it directly to them.
Heck, you might even be able to perform a citizen's arrest of Bush or Cheney yourself.