Enough already

I am sick of all TV political ads, in particular those from Romney and Huckabee. I find them offensive. They are playing to only one segment of the U.S. population and say only what their “people” want to hear.

Like all Republicans, they are not interested in serving or representing “we the people,” but only want to stay in power so they can support the wealthy and the religious right and tell us all how to live our lives. They are against abortion, but supported a war that [has] killed 3,900 of our troops and countless innocent Iraqi citizens. They are the ones who put Bush in office and kept him there and supported his criminal and immoral activities, which led to the worst disgrace in U.S. history.

With all the recent mass killings by guns, they are also guilty of kowtowing to the NRA and keeping gun-control laws from being passed. Any thinking person would vote Democratic in the next election. I support Hillary, but will vote for any Democratic nominee.

It is time to end the disaster of the past eight years.

— Lloyd George Kay

About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

86 thoughts on “Enough already

  1. ingarageland

    Yes oh yes tell it lloyd. Those bastards are so dirty they smell. I too will vote for any dem also, although I support edwards.

  2. Dionysis

    Given the mess left after more than seven years of Republicon ‘rule’, with record budget deficits, the largest increase in government ever, continual drain on the treasury to maintain a designer war based upon lies and deception, the imperial disdain for the Constitution and rule of law, the polticization of the organs of government, particularly the Justice Department, the adoption of torture (and the lies about its use), the evisceration of environmental laws, the pushing of Big Brother surveillance of citizens, the tarnishing of this country’s previously good international reputation and on and on and on, it would be interesting to see a right-winger make a factual case why the so-called ‘Grand Old Party’ deserves anything but condemnation.

  3. Dionysis

    “google ron paul.”

    I’ve been familiar with Ron Paul for quite a while now. I’ve always admired the way he has bucked the party and stood up on the floor of the House and spoke his mind. I also identify with many of his views (as, evidently, do many other people these days). However, Ron Paul is toast. If he can’t do better in the strongly Libertarian state of New Hampshire than the 8% he received, he has no chance of winning the nomination. None. Also, regrettably, he has some well-documented racist views which he will have a hard time explaining.
    Ron Paul is not, nor will he be, a viable candidate in this election.

  4. Rob Close


    he said some interesting things. however, i think his smear campaign to categorize him as a racist is ignorant. half of the citations are from a newsletter that he a) didn’t write and b) immediately apologized for. the other half comes from a speech after the rodney king riots, which WERE RACE RIOTS. acknowledging racism after race riots is mature; and although some spots of that speech seemed over the top, there was a theme there that is hardly ever spoken about by liberal white america – that it is a shame we’re still in a society where not only do we see race, we still act as though it matters, even glorifying our differences.

    Pride is a sin. Being proud of your nationality is thus a sin. Thus, St. Patricks day, glorifying the Irish, is reinforcing division amongst our citizens. That’s the sort of racism Ron Paul is against; that and another. And this is where i’m going to get very personal…

    As a white young man, when i’m walking down, oh let’s say chicken alley – any bum will scare me. race does not matter so much as appearance and attitude. in fact, i’ve been assaulted by 3 blacks, two whites, and a latino; and as a reasoning citizen, i’d have to say that two of those incidents were race-related. In other words, I believe that if my skin were not white, I would not have suffered through two of those events. So when I pass by a gang of blacks, I have multiple experiences of KNOWING that there is a CHANCE that THEY are racist, and I’ll have to defend against that.

    Acknowledging that Racism exists, and it can be aimed against you is fine if you’re a minority. However, if you’re a majority and worried about being attacked by a minority, you’re deemed racist and not-progressive. The problem here is that no matter HOW progressive I want to become, in the back of my mind I know that I have to be extra careful around people not of my kind, because there’s a chance that they care. I have to consider race because racists still exist.

    So there are two racisms. There is attitude, and there is action. I won’t act racist. I have black friends whom I trust as much as any white friend, and there is no fear or race issues at all there between us. But put Ron Paul’s comments into the perspective of someone who WANTS to be progressive, but sees race tearing this country apart. And more importantly, is SAD about this; sad that my generation of whites still has to watch our ass when we go down an alley, because Race Riots in America were then proven real.

    If you think that ignoring racism makes you progressive, and not talking about it will make it go away, you’re nuts. If you think that celebrating our diversity brings us closer, I’d say that there is some truth there (it’s helpful for us to learn about other’s cultures, to relate to them), but focusing on the differences also reinforces them, and breeds that pride in being a different ‘race’ or ethnicity, when we’re all freakin’ human.

    from ron paul “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.”

    I agree with him. And I don’t think he’s the dangerous sort of bigoted racist he’s portrayed to be. And I do think 3rd place in NH was stolen from him by Diebold, and that nobody will have the guts to demand a hand-recount – which thus far, statistically, show corruption. it’d be nice, in the name of preserving democracy, to double-check this – hopefully there’s nothing wrong. and if there is, we had no democracy until we checked.

  5. Dionysis

    “half of the citations are from a newsletter that he a) didn’t write and b) immediately apologized for.”

    Perhaps he should have thought before he let it go out under his name, then.

    “in the back of my mind I know that I have to be extra careful around people not of my kind…”

    Do you suppose blacks and other minorities could identify with this sentence?

    “Pride is a sin. Being proud of your nationality is thus a sin. Thus, St. Patricks day, glorifying the Irish, is reinforcing division amongst our citizens. That’s the sort of racism Ron Paul is against; that and another.”

    Not everyone buys this. The notion that pride is a sin is biblical in nature. It is not an immutable, empirical fact. If someone is proud that their child graduated from college with honors, to suggest that is a ‘sin’ is, IMO, ridiculous. And the interpretation that this is in reality the type of racism Ron Paul is against will be hard to support with the information out there today.

    “So there are two racisms. There is attitude, and there is action.”

    I beg to differ. Racism is an attitude, a “way of viewing the world.” The action is simply a physical manifestation of that attitude. If a person is physically attracted to members of the same sex, but never consumates that attraction, are they gay?

    ” I do think 3rd place in NH was stolen from him by Diebold”

    We all have our opinions. Can you offer anything else to support this opinion? And why in the world would an effort be made to illegally suppress the numbers of votes of such a relatively minor, fringe candidate? Was Diebold responsible for his showing in Iowa? How about future races?

    Lastly, this all goes way beyond the original point, which really dealt with Republicons and Wimpocrats.

    Personally, I have no problem with Ron Paul, and I personally do not know one way or another if he is racist or not. My main point remains: he is toast, and will not be anything more than an interesting but minor player in this election.

  6. Rob Close

    Yeah, Ron Paul is toast. But he’s also getting screwed by the entire spectrum. Watching my favorite liberal blogs rip him to bits without any consideration of any other point of view has just been getting on my nerves.

    Minorities definitely know the ‘back of their mind’ feeling. That’s a two-way street.

    I’ve seen the #’s on the hand-counting from a bunch of sources on the internet in the last 24 hours. But the internet is sketchy, no doubt. But here’s some conspiracy from the NYTimes.


    And Bernard Carman just sent me a list SUPPOSEDLY from Politico.com (i can’t find it on there though) that shows the skewing in #’s…here’s a link that shows what BC was telling me…


    The first story makes me believe the second. And I define belief as “willingness to act as though it were POTENTIALLY true”, not “believing it as absolute truth”. That’s the difference I think I was trying to make in that Attitude vs Action statement, but maybe there is no difference. Maybe attitude & action are the same; knowledge and action are different though. Your gay example was a good one.

    And for the record, I don’t believe in Sin, it philosophically doesn’t add up for me. However, Pride REALLY annoys me. Especially when it manifests as Patriotism. Being a proud parent…Well, that depends how it manifests. There’s supporting your child and being happy for their success, and then there’s being proud of their success as part of a belief that your child is better than other children. Having seen parents with both attitudes, I can say that one is healthy and the other isn’t. The unhealthy attitude I label as ‘pride’ because I’m surrounded by a Christian culture that perhaps can relate to that. But oddly enough, most Christians I know are the most proud and patriotic of people without realizing the irony inherent.

  7. Dionysis

    You raise some points that I essentially agree with, among them the notion that rigging of the election has become all too likely (speaking of…did you see where top executives of Diebold optical scanning div. are being charged with major drug dealing?). I also see your distinction between sin and pride, and tend to agree as well.

    While it will, of course, never happen, I would LOVE to see a race between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Wouldn’t that shake things up? What fun!

  8. Johnny

    Much of what Ron Paul is about has a certain appeal, but his stance against legalized abortion has none for me. He’s anti Planned Parenthood, in favor of the states deciding their own rules on abortion, against funding international organizations that include abortion in their programs, etc. Sorry, not much of a “libertarian” there, if you ask me.

    Same thing with stem cells, he’s voted against funding stem cell research.

  9. Dionysis

    “Much of what Ron Paul is about has a certain appeal, but his stance against legalized abortion has none for me. He’s anti Planned Parenthood, in favor of the states deciding their own rules on abortion, against funding international organizations that include abortion in their programs, etc. Sorry, not much of a “libertarian” there, if you ask me.

    Same thing with stem cells, he’s voted against funding stem cell research.”

    I agree totally. That is probably my biggest objection to him (that, and the whole libertarian economic ‘philosophy’). Still, I’m kind of enjoying his involvement in the Republicon primaries, and I absolutely agree with his view on our obligation to the Constitution. He’s not really going anywhere (does anyone think the establishment will allow a president who wants to abolish the IRS?), but he’s serving a purpose in this race.

  10. Nam Vet

    Ron Paul believes in the constitution, which gives most of the power to the states. As it should be. The last thing we need in this country is a neo-socialist like Hillary Clinton who wants to tell us how to live our lives…on a detailed level. God bless Ron Paul and his courage to take a stand. Go ahead and vote for anyone who is “democrat”. But anyone who votes knee-jerk on party line without considering the issues, is a very shallow voter. Here’s hoping we get a president, from any party, who ran for office because they are for this country and have respect for the constitution and individual rights. The American people are still smart enough to see through a Hillary Clinton, an obvious politician in the sense that she is most interested in her own power. GOOGLE RON PAUL!

  11. Dionysis

    “Ron Paul believes in the constitution”

    Yes he does, which is the most compelling single reason that I respect the guy. The others should hold the Constitution in equal regard.

    ” The last thing we need in this country is a neo-socialist like Hillary Clinton who wants to tell us how to live our lives”

    Perhaps, but a pretty compelling case can be easily made that the last thing this country needs is another day of ‘rule’ by authoritarian-minded neo con wingnuts who have NO regard for the Constitution, and in fact have supported this administration’s assaults on it.

    “anyone who votes knee-jerk on party line without considering the issues, is a very shallow voter.”


    “The American people are still smart enough to see through a Hillary Clinton, an obvious politician in the sense that she is most interested in her own power.”

    Yes, most are. But, there are many who may see this but will support her anyway based upon her gender (as many over-40 New Hamphire women did).

    Ron Paul is serving an important role in this election, and says things that need to be said. However, the notion that people will be able to vote for him is a pipe dream. He will continue to be a colorful but marginal figure in this race.

  12. Another Vet

    Nam Vet,

    Is there a chance that your views of Hillary Clinton are the by-product of years of political smear-campaigns by those currently in power who are most certainly far more corrupt and entrenched in the Washington game than any Clinton could ever dream to be? I find it a bit suspect when Hillary can receive such critique while the current goons in power receive no such vitriol. Whether or not she deserves it.
    Do you ever question your own programming? Or is your Hillary-Hating just part of another knee-jerk by-the-party mindset?

  13. Nam Vet

    Another Vet, I do not consider myself “programed”. And I would hope you aren’t either. I get my news from many different sources. I do not “hate” Hillary Clinton just as I don’t “hate” George Bush. I have disagreements with them both, as a matter of fact. I belong to no party, I am independent-libertarian. I do think Hillary is driven by personal ambition. I do think she would not be good for the country. She has already said she will run through socialized medicine and will raise my taxes. I don’t want either of those things to happen. I will most likely have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils come November. But I can promise you this, if she is the standard bearer for the democrats I will vote AGAINST her.

  14. Hopefully

    You think Hillary is driven by personal ambition?! And what are the other pols driven by, duty? I thought you were just anti-social, not totally deluded. Why is ambition displayed by a women unattractive to you? Would you vote for ann coulter for president?

  15. Dionysis

    There are no politicians, absolutely none, regardless of gender, ethnicity or any other attribute that is not, to some degree or another, driven by personal ambition. That is no crime, and is an essential quality to weather the rigors of an election.

  16. Nam Vet

    Dionysis, that is true. BUT it is the DEGREE of personal ambition and the willingness to do most anything to get elected that is the point here. Look carefully at Hillary Clinton’s past. Misuse of the FBI. Ruining the lives of the White House Travel Office employees. Illegal stock trading. Whitewater. The Rose Law Firm’s “missing” records. Vince Foster. She also is a person who thinks she knows what’s best for the rest of us. To a detailed degree. She will tax us into the poorhouse. She will bring in socialized medicine and prescriptions. More and bigger government bureaucracy. Tell us what to eat. How much exercise to get. How to put our pants on in the morning. Hillary is an anal retentive socialist and would be a disaster for America. GO OBAMA!

    “I will take things away from you for the common good.” – Hillary Clinton

  17. Dionysis

    “Dionysis, that is true. BUT it is the DEGREE of personal ambition and the willingness to do most anything to get elected that is the point here.”

    No disagreement from me. It has been demonstrably clear for a long time that Hillary is extremely ambitious, and in fact comes across as more self-aggrandizing that any of the other aspiring candidates. That continues to be how she is perceived, and in my opinion, rightly so. I have not, nor am I currently, a supporter of Hillary Clinton. I would have no problem voting for a female for president, but I do have a problem with this particular female. I also have no problem voting for an African-American for president, but whether or not I could support Obama is not known at this point; I need to know a lot more about his views.
    In spite of the above qualifiers, there is NO WAY on earth that I would vote for a Republicon again, at least until the party purges itself of the neo cons who have hijacked it, and the party returns to traditional conservative values. No more ‘fascists lite’.

  18. Hopefully

    Misuse of the FBI. Ruining the lives of the White House Travel Office employees. Illegal stock trading. Whitewater. The Rose Law Firms “missing” records. Vince Foster. Unsubstantiated horse manure with a little innuendo and half truth thrown in for good measure. This is taken directly from the republican dirty tricks playbook.
    Nam vet, why don’t you want anyone else to have health care, you’re already sucking on the government teat or have you renounced your veterans health care benefits?

  19. Nam Vet

    Dionysis, granted what you just said. And I don’t like what has become of the republican party either. Wish it would return to more libertarian-Reagan roots. It is clear either Obama or Hillary will be the democrat candidate. Between the two, I’ll go for Obama because he appears to have character and strikes me as someone who wants to serve the country, not himself. On the republican side, I don’t like any of them either. I could live with John McCain if he wasn’t such a hawk on Iraq. So we will see how it plays out. What I would really like is for the democrat convention to draft Al Gore. A Gore/Obama ticket would be a shoo-in.

  20. Dionysis

    Nam Vet, it’s interesting that you describe yourself as an independent, leaning libertarian. I consider myself an independent (actually, ‘unaffiliated’) but leaning Green (strongly leaning Green). Yet we share basically the same view. I was hoping against hope that a Gore/Obama ticket would emerge, as it would, in your words, be “a shoo-in.” Since that does not appear to be a realistic scenario, I am really wanting to find out more specificity about where Obama stands on issues I care about, especially environmental protection, among others.
    In any event, a couple of positive developments this year are the increasing number of people, particularly young people, that are energized to participate, and the fact that, baring some huge change in the months ahead (such as a false flag ‘terrorist attack), Republicons will continue to reap the fruits of their disasterous run over the past 7 years and will live in ignominy for quite some time. As they should.

  21. May Hemm

    I find your posts interesting. I think regardless of where you might find yourself in the political spectrum, we can all agree that the Constitution has been plundered. Therefore, we probably can agree we are in danger of losing our sovereignty. I’m sure you’ve heard of the NAU or North American Union (designed to go into effect without Congerssional approval) about the NAFTA superhighway, the attack on the commons (the internet) and about the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and about HR-1955. If not, GOOGLE these things. While you’re at it Google ‘Codex Alimentarius’, then last but not least, Google the CFR.
    In Conclusion, you’ll find it’s not just the Neo-Con face of the Establishment we should be worried about. Bush isn’t doing these things. That’s giving him way too much credit. He’s a scapegoat. It’s the whole establishment – under the CFR. ‘right’ and ‘left’ – all are members of -and puppets of the CFR. Clinton’s MANDATORY health plan is a clever one – and we’d all do well to beware of it. In fact ALL of our choices for candidacy are dangerous ones – even the choice of Ron Paul – simply because he is the only one who dares to attempt to restore our Constitution, and do away with the illegal FED & IRS and our unconstitutional involvement with the UN. This constitutionally illegal tax has been feeding the ill-intentioned world bank, and therefore big corporate evil for decades – and now our dollar is worthless. If our COnstitution could be restored, the power of the federal government limited to it’s original purpose, then all of our other disagreements are allowed, protected, encouraged, debated and resolved, state by state. Without it, we are in grave grave danger – and every death of every soldier who ever swore an oath to protect and defend this most sacred document will have been for nothing. Absolutely nothing.

    Vote for RON PAUL – like your freedom depended on it.

  22. May Hemm

    Also, just so you know:

    Gore = CFR
    Obama = CFR
    The Clintons = CFR
    Huckabee = CFR
    Bush = CFR
    Cheney = CFR
    Thompson = CFR
    McCain = CFR
    Romney =- CFR
    Giuliani = CFR
    Rupert Murdoch (Fox Network) = CFR
    CNN = CFR
    Washington Post = CFR
    All major newspapers = CFR
    All major networks = CFR
    David Rockefeller (and the rest of his family) = CFR

    You get the picture.
    All of them.
    Seriously google it. And read the book:
    Shadows of Power:
    The Council on Foreign Relations and the decline of America

    (Don’t forget to turn off your TV.)

  23. Dionysis

    May, you are absolutely correct in identifying these politicians as being members of the CFR, a private organization that has long been involved in setting (or influencing) American foreign policy. They also have a long history of connection (real or imagined) with various conspiratorial notions. Of course, there are many others beyond politicians who are members, including most of the prominent names in the media and many from academia.

    As far as your admonishment to ‘vote for Ron Paul…’, unless you are directing that to people who are still to vote in Republicon primaries with Paul on the ballot, you are just whistling Dixie. Ron Paul will never be the Republicon nominee for president, at least not in the 2008 election. So, he will not be an option for people to cast a vote for in 2008.

  24. May Hemm

    I don’t believe at all that I am whistling dixie. He is still a contender.
    Let’s just take a stroll down memory lane, since many don’t know how these globalists have meddled in the affairs of our Government, and how over time they have laid siege this country – it’s people and its soveriegnty:
    The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), created shortly after WWI – Members of which brought us the FED, The IRS, The Crash of ’29, put Stalin in power by aiding and enabling the Bolsheviks. The same organization put Hitler in power by funding IG Farber after WWII. It was called the Dawes Plan, and involved several US corporate/government elite names you’d know. They are responsible for letting Pearl Harbor happen, the creation of the UN, NATO, WHO, AIPAC, CIA, NAFTA, SEATO, etc.

    They rafted the Vietnam involvement by staging the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin, set the rules of engagement so that the US could not win – and even, (paid for with US tax money) sent supplies to the Soviets to be used against the troops in war. You name it. McCarthy was right after all – we were, in fact, up to our eyeballs in communists. They encouraged and nurtured the Soviet’s power and allowed them to terrorize Eastern Europe. They encouraged (and funded) their overthrow of democratic Chinese Nationalists – and the Cuban president Batista (and replaced him with Castro). They have repeatedly used ‘foreign aid’ and ‘government contracts’ to milk US taxpayers and line the pokets of big corporations. Of course they still do. It’s worse now that they have nearly succeeded in their mission: to end US Sovereignty, form the NAU and then to do away with our Constitution in favor of the UN Constitution. Look how the European people are struggling against the rising tide of Islamic extremism and violence – and how the authorities there are letting it happen. Look at our open and unprotected borders. The surge of illegal immigrants. The NAFTA Superhighway. The insane Iraq war. The decline of US industry. The incredibly FED-inflated, worthless dollar. The embarassing US literacy rate. The corporate attacks on our health with FDA approved products that are proven to be dangerous. The attacks on Bill of Rights and the Constitution. 911 & The incredible Warren Comission farce. The New Orleans fiasco. The high cost and poor quality of health care. Billionaires who pay NO taxes. Our nation has been bankrupted by crazy people. And they want more money to invade Iran!

    The common denominator, folks, is the CFR. Educate yourselves about the history and mission of this influential group of people, and it will ALL make sense.

    This year we are fortunate enough to have three non-CFR members running for the Presidency: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel. My choice is Ron Paul.

    PLEASE – DO NOT vote for CFR candidates.

  25. Chuck Zimmerman


    I learned many years ago that it requires the approval of up to 7 different govt boards in order to sell a bushel of grain to a foreign country. Grain was used primarily by Democrats as a carrot. By republicans, a stick. It was considered a weapon. The Soviet Union fell because ‘rayguns withheld promised grain supplies while encouraging the locals to revolt. Hungry people revolt. Many people have died because WE chose not to feed them, even though WE could.
    As to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was primarily written by Elenor Roosevelt using OUR Founding Principles. bush removed OUR recognotion & adherence to it. Conservatives hate it. Defenders of liberty should promote it. Look it up for yourself.

  26. Dionysis

    You did a pretty good job in summarizing the history of the CFR, although some may not see such corrupt characters as Batista in Cuba being ousted as a terrible thing (the Cuban people certainly didn’t rise to his defense in general).

    Now, as far as this goes:

    “This year we are fortunate enough to have three non-CFR members running for the Presidency: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel. My choice is Ron Paul.

    PLEASE – DO NOT vote for CFR candidates.”

    No, we have these people running to try and secure their party nomination as the party nominee. Unless this happens, they will not appear on a ballot (other than as write-ins). While one does not have to be the nominee of the Wimpocrats or Republicons to run for president theoretically, the financial resources required is prohibitive to all but the most well-healed (like Michael Bloomberg, for example).

    The fact is that it is almost certain that the nominees that the public will have to choose from will all be CFR members. Not voting for one means either (1) not voting at all or (2) writing in a candidate.

  27. Nam Vet

    Chuck,the USSR fell primarily for two reasons. 1)modern technology brought TV to the USSR and the people there finally realized how low their standard of living was compared to the free West. 2) President Ronald W Reagan pushed the Missle Defense Shield, which bankrupted the Russian communists when they tried to equal us. If the communist party commissars had not spent so much of the “wealth” of that totalitarian socialist country on weapons systems, there would’ve been plenty of money to feed the people. But NO! in a supposedly equalitarian society the people were not regarded. The State was supreme and the “elite” in government wanted conquest and weapons. Thank God President Reagan stood up to them and said “Mr Gorbachov tear down this wall!”. The Berlin wall soon fell. It happened and a big experiment in far leftwing politics ended as a big disaster, for the afore mentioned reasons.

  28. Rob Close

    here’s the biggest problem with getting Ron Paul elected: people believing that it is impossible.

    if everyone who wanted a real leader was willing to act, we could have one. belief is willingness to act; clearly many of us don’t believe it’s even possible. pessimism has been screwing us over long enough. let’s create the future instead of letting it happen.

  29. Hopefully

    Hey, lets not forget about the Trilateral Commission, ZOG, The Turner Diaries and all the rest of the bogiemen you want to blame for your plight. And by the way, heres a partial list of real leaders who were willing to act! Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, bush, Kim Jong-il,King Abdullah, etc.
    Lunatic Fringe – in the twilight’s last gleaming

    This is open season but you won’t get too far

    ‘Cause ya gotta blame someone for your own confusion

    We’re all on guard this time against your final solution.

  30. May Hemm

    light and hope: (ironic name btw.), My plight is insignificant. Truth is, I’d love to have the gov’t. pay for my health care, and think I might be taken care of should I lose my job. Problem is, we can’t have freedom and corporate socialism at the same time.
    It’s the plight of the constitution I’m worried about obviously – and all the other people who I share life with (fellow americans). It sounds as if you might be suffering from cognitive dissonance (and a strange fetish for reciting lyrics when you can’t construct a good argument. Conspiracy isn’t a theory… it’s out in the open, where you’d never think to look – ACTUAL firsthand accounts, public records, credible books citing respectable sources… in short you’d have to actually READ to find them …and furthermore, your post makes no sense, considering what I’ve said. Reread my post. And please lay off the vodka.

    To Chuck Z: Do you know what you’re even talking about? You say WE as if you had a say in it. Stop accepting guilt for the wrongs these people do. They didn’t ask our permission. You’re a decent human being. Do something now. Truth is: more people have died because our elected officials, and the policies of the Council on Foreign Relations A) put dictators in power B) help those dictators kill other people by sending them arms C) made beaucoups billions by selling goods to the US Government to, in turn, send to the dictators as goodwill aid from the Americans – as well as beaucoups billions from selling nuclear technology to them. D) ignore or help to squash people’s popular uprisings (in China, Hungary, etc.) against those dictators they put there – in our name. They put them there.

    And… defrenders of liberty should protect and defend our own Constitution. It’s the one in trouble. The UN declaration has no protection, nor enforcement from the body which created it, otherwise things would look much different in the world, wouldn’t it?

    More on the subject of the end of the cold war to come. You’re all mistaken.

  31. travelah

    Another crucial piece to add to the two you mention is the impact Ronald Reagan brought to bear on world oil markets by negotiating with the Saudis to significantly increase oil output. The USSR was totally dependent on oil revenues to subsidize it’s military during the 1980s and with oil prices declining, so did their fortunes.

    It is ironic today that the same commodity that significantly helped bring them down is fueling their current rebuilding effort.

  32. Hopefully

    Good point traveler, let us re-write history…and down came the wall and we lived happily ever after! Or, while reagon and his pals were syphoning off our tax dollars and giving it to the military industrial complex, his counterparts in the USSR were doing the same thing, which caused a collapse of the government in the USSR. Then, without an enemy to fight, the republican criminals floundered about for years until 2001, when following the catalyst of 911, the warmongers seized power again and drove us to even greater levels of governmental corruption, economic deficits, and loss of civil rights. The lesson: “Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine 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. 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 to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
    Hermann Goering quote

  33. Chuck Zimmerman

    Nam Vet;

    Your points are very true, but, you as well as most people do not realize that ‘rayguns used food as a weapon. He withheld grain from the Soviets while promissing the locals if they responded his way they’d get fed. The locals were starving. They had two or three years in a row of failed harvests which the Soviets had lied about. The Soviets were feeding the East Germans as well. As A Farmer I was well aware of this.

  34. May Hemm

    Light & Hope;
    About Reagan’s spending – you are correct. He spent more than any other president before him.
    He talked about how evil the Trilateral Commission was during Carter’s presidency, but then supported it with his policies as president. His foreign policies were the same as any other CFR member.

    We like to create and worship heroes, and demonize the opposition is this country, owing successes or failures (public perceived) to the parties to which they belong. All I’m saying is that it’s a lie. They’re all the same party. They all are on the same team. Socialism vs. Marxism, in other words.

    We will not have peace until we eliminate the CFR. It’s that simple.

  35. Nam Vet

    Chuck, it was not the responsibility of the United States government to feed Russians. That responsibility rested with the communist government that was supposed to supply all of life’s needs to their citizens. Instead, the imperialist leftwing commissars spent their nation’s wealth on military armament. By the same token it was not our responsibility to worry about Castro not continuing to be propped up with the millions in “aid” from the USSR once President Reagan had knock down that house of commie cards. The USSR was an “evil empire” just as President Reagan said. Any suffering the citizens of the USSR suffered was the fault of those in charge over there, not President Reagan or anyone else in the West.

  36. May Hemm

    You’re right about responsibility. And no, its not correct action to use food as political coercion. People suffer, not the ones who are in control.

    In response to the Afghan invasion, President Carter Embargoed grain to the USSR. But then President Reagan approved the sale of our wheat to Moscow again – heavily subsidized. On Dec. 27, 1986, he warned that Soviet leaders ‘must understand… that they will continue to pay a higher and higher price until they accept the necessity for a political solution involving the prompt withdrawal of their forces in Afghanistan and self-determination for the Afghani people.’
    (The US (CIA) had been funding and arming the Afghani rebels – remember the Mujahideen? – they were in a horrible way, bravely fighting off the Soviets’ and their puppet Kabul regime.)

    The next day after Reagan’s statement, the administration announced they would be ending controls on the export of oil and gas equipment and technology to the USSR. They had made a deal with Moscow- that the US (CIA) would cut off arms and aid to the Afghani rebels, and to allow the USSR to continue to send arms and supplies to the Kabul regime. (Although as part of the deal, the Soviets themselves would ‘withdraw’.) It was called the ‘Day One Deal’.

    A CIA source was quoted ‘we’d like to see some groups fed to another’.

    This event, as well as the horrible tragedies in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia etc. show that the US govt. working with the USSR govt. on many levels. They shared common goals all along – to quite obviously rid the world of smaller nationalist groups. We see this in Central America, Africa, Asia… they have (from day one) been working together toward a common goal. ‘The tearing down of the wall’ was fairly significant, in that it meant they did not need to wield that sort of control on their own – public solidarity (glastnost) with other countries was just politically a stronger stance. It’s just a chess game.

  37. Hopefully

    The modern media version of the air brush is being applied to the years of the Reagan administration. (led by fox news) The social misery in the United States caused by Reagan’s policies; the tens of thousands of lives lost in Central America at the hands of fascist death squads funded illegally by his government; the rampant criminality in an administration that was the most corrupt in twentieth century America—all this and other similarly smelly details are being more or less ignored. One reads nothing of his defense of apartheid in South Africa, his funding of countless right-wing dictatorships, or even of his tribute to SS soldiers buried in a cemetery in Bitburg, Germany. The media strives not only to suppress any objective appraisal of Reagan’s life and political career, but even to censor reference to the more unsavory elements of his administration’s policies.
    Too many working people still remember the impact of “Reaganomics” on their lives, which was entirely for the worse. Indeed, among broad sections of the working class he was the most hated president since Herbert Hoover. Even taking into account the support for Reaganism among significant sections of the middle class and more affluent layers of workers, the overwhelming popularity attributed to Reagan was largely of a synthetic character, a myth concocted by the media to endow the policies of his administration with an aura of public approval that they lacked in reality.

  38. Hopefully

    If the success of Reagan’s domestic program was largely the product of the betrayals of the trade union bureaucracy, what is hailed by the media as the crowning achievement of his international anti-communist program—the precipitous collapse of the USSR—had little to do with the policies of his administration. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, three years after Reagan left office, was the tragic culmination of decades of political betrayal by the Stalinist bureaucracies that ruled in the USSR and its client states in Eastern Europe.
    As subsequent analyses of CIA intelligence reports have convincingly demonstrated, the Reagan administration had no inkling whatever of the depth of the political crisis in the Soviet Union. The infamous “Evil Empire” speech delivered by Reagan in 1983 was based on a grotesque exaggeration of Soviet strength, not to mention a malicious and ridiculous misrepresentation of its global ambitions.

  39. Hopefully

    Having made these points, it is not my intention to suggest that Reagan achieved nothing as president, that he left no legacy…That is not at all the case. Though Reagan has departed this world, the accomplishments of his administration live on and are observable everywhere: in the staggering growth of social inequality in the United States, in the grotesque concentration of wealth in the hands of a small segment of American society, in the shocking decline of literacy and the general level of culture, in the utter putrefaction of the institutions of American democracy, and, finally, in the murderous eruption of American militarism.

    That is the legacy of Reaganism. Live with it travelah, namvet and all you re-writers of history.

  40. May Hemm

    So, in the spirit of finding at least some agreement – and because I like to argue just a little (and so do you)…and since you were the one who blasted me about ‘conspiracy’ – who exactly is the wealth going to, those few people you mention. Who are they? Do you think they might have devised a clever plan to pick our pockets (meaning we, the middle class)? What sorts of maneuvers might that plan entail? Sounds like it might be a well-orchestrated thing involving our elected officials getting some sort of benefit for creating policy which makes it happen. Just a thought. But isn’t that a conspiracy?

    Although I tend to agree with you regarding where we’ve ended up – and that Reagan was elected to the Crony hall of fame and that uninformed idiots worship the ground he walked on… you have to understand that the Reagan administration is just one piece of it. He was cast in a role created for him (after the Carter admin., which was pretty bad too) Remember the ‘Ronbo’ & the ‘Where’s the little girl’s room?’T-shirts? (the latter referring to the US bombing of the French Embassy in Libya where I believe there was a child killed… maybe the daughter of the ambassador I could be wrong, but I think I remember that… The French would not permit the US bomber to refuel in France, so we took out their embassy… He pulled that off, as well as the things you mentioned. His public persona (the ‘gipper’ thing) was really kind of ‘awww shucks’. Untarnishable. That’s why none of the dirt stuck.

    Each administration has added fuel to the fire of the last administration. Not one of them has ever tried to ‘undo’ the problems created by the last – just made things worse for us (but better for someone else). Furthermore, each new president’s cabinet is chosen from the same mill as the last – often they are the same people.

    And btw, we never had a ‘democracy’. Ours is a constitutional republic. True democracy would be even more difficult to keep safe from corruption. It would be like two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. I realize we use that word a lot, but we should probably be clear it’s not.

  41. Nam Vet

    You know May, in the interest of the love of arguing, the French have been irrelevant since the early 40s when they let the Germans invade and conquer them. And then many of them aided the Germans as members of the occupied government. So bringing up France does not help your argument. You know, the next time Germany invades France, I say let it be. The German blood will improve the wuzzy gene pool in that arrogant, whining country. :)

    And right you are. This country is a REPUBLIC. And I celebrate the fact that the USA is usually the good guy in the world, homegrown detractors notwithstanding. God bless the USA. And our greatest president of the 20th Century. President Ronald W Reagan.

  42. Hopefully

    Tear down that wall of ignorance namvet, Are you too french to address me by name.

  43. May Hemm

    Irrelevant is a bad choice of words… And you’d say Reagan was a good president for what reason? I suppose you actually said he was the best of the 20th century. Your opinion. To that I say whatever. Worship your little Hollywood hero. He was merely a CFR puppet. He was no worse or no better than any of the others – just in the right place at the right time for the ones who are really responsible to make use of him. You just feel sentimental about an old senile guy ‘taking Libya (and the ‘arrogant Frog bastards’) by the balls because you’re told to feel that way.

    No big deal. You jump on that bandwagon.
    Ah, but then you have to go off about improving gene pools with German blood. I have to wonder if you know how that reads? Especially given the fascination with Eugenics that was/is prevalent among elites. Hitler was only following suit in this with his ‘racial purity’ trip. The idea didn’t originate with him. You are probably unaware that our own government sponsored a eugenics program here in the US – in many states – from the early 1910’s to as late as the 50’s. Many were forcibly sterilized. You see, this has actually touched my family. My own grandmother (who later adopted), in fact was sterilized in the early 30’s. She was a beautiful, simple, childlike woman – who didn’t have any hate.

    Regardless…it’s not likely Germany will ever be a threat. That made me laugh. That you’d even say that in jest so makes me wonder how you came to think as you do. You really sound like (insert any Faux News personality here).

    No, it’s much more likely that radical Islam will be the problem Europe, actually.

    ‘German blood’ improving a gene pool… That’s just in poor taste. I have nothing more to say to you.

  44. lurkymclurkstien

    Nam Vet,

    “She will tax us into the poorhouse.”

    Really, even thought under her husband, our nation had the first budget surplus in well over a decade? And even though the current, supposed ‘Fiscally Conservative’ admin. has raised our national debt to record highs, even after starting off with a Clinton-induced surplus? I agree with the other Vet in this stream; don’t you think you have just been programmed to be scared of a powerful, ambitious woman? I’m more afraid of a President who integrates fear and religion into Totalitarianism with code-words while stripping the wealth from our nation and placing it in the hands of our Chinese creditors. And his buddies at Haliburton. But that’s just my programming, I suppose.

  45. lurkymclurkstien

    May Hem:

    Ron Paul has as much of a chance of winning the Presidential election as Senator Wellstone had in landing that plane.

  46. lurkymclurkstien

    Oh, I finally get it now. Nam Vet is a tongue-in-cheek character created by an anon poster. I can’t believe I hadn’t figured it out earlier. It’s kind of like Stephen Colbert’s character, only less nuanced and intelligent.

  47. May Hemm

    Yes, Lurky.

    Nam Vet (TM) is merely a functional algorhythmic program which was created in one of those Kurzweil AI nanotech labs for use in promulgating the myth American rightness or ‘The Righteous American Agenda’ (TM). His name changes slightly, but his message remains the same throughout the integrative bio-technological sphere of interactive propaganda.

    Also, where do you source your information about Mr. Clinton and his fiscal accomplishments? Have you studied the numbers in an objective way or do you source from Clinton propaganda? (that is an invitation to dig into it and find out more.)

    Also you might want to look into who would truly benefit from Ms. Clinton’s proposed policies (as if they were her own.) Specifically, who would benefit from her mandatory health care proposal. Hint: It ain’t you or me.

    Big Pharma
    Big Agribusiness
    & Big Brother

    And these people would love your uninformed support.

  48. Hopefully

    “functional algorhythmic program” Now I get it, that explains everything!

  49. May Hemm

    Lurky – I do hope you looked into it. Here is some help regarding the the Clinton budget surplus propaganda.
    It’s as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website –

    – where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government’s fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton’s budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994) you can start there. You will see that there has never been a surplus.


  50. Nam Vet

    My my May. You only advertise your own ignorance and deep seated angst toward your own country. President Reagan was the best president of the 20th century. He rescued us from the double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and 15% mortgage loan rates of the Carter years. He grew treasury receipts exponentially while cutting taxes significantly. Every one who had the gumption to work in the 1980s did well. Because of the tax cuts, primarily. He got our hostages back from Iran immediately upon taking office, something Carter was unable to do. Reagan brought back pride in this country after Carter drug us into a “national malaise”(Carter’s words). Reagan defeated the USSR by employing the Missle Defense Shield, and standing firm and tall in negotiations with them. The Russian communists were not able to keep up and went bankrupt. Also,cable TV signals picked up in the USSR showed the people how low their standard of living was compared to the free West. Reagan got the Berlin Wall torn down, and the two Germanys reunited. But what sticks the most in liberal democrat craws about Reagan is this: he proved once and for all the liberal big government-high taxation-high regulation is a BANKRUPT philosophy. The democrats have been trying to recover ever since. The other day Obama said he was like a “new Reagan”. Stick that in your whining pipe and smoke it. :)

  51. Hopefully

    Functional algorithmic troll program. That about sums it up for you nam. If anyone wanted to hear that stuff, they would just watch fox news. Everything you have said is either untrue or distorted information. You are unable to change when new information is made available to you. Yes, raygun inherited Carters problems, who inherited Fords, who inherited Nixon’s problems. (you are old enough to remember that crook Nixon right) Yes, I read that the country was reeling from a massive republicon scandal called “Watergate”. And just think, rayguns was more corrupt than Nixon! And what does Obama have to do with our discussion? He’s just another person trying to cash in on the myth of raygun. (if he indeed said that) And by the way, I’ve noticed your bud travelah has been strangely silent about this issue. Are we all trolls to be ignored on this issue dr. professor travelah?

  52. Nam Vet

    May, CFR is responsible for every ill? I am always leery of conspiracy theory enthusiasts, as you appear to be. Honey, life has it’s ups and downs no matter who is in power. Of course some governments are better than others. Ours is much better than say the government of Fidel Castro’s Cuba. At least here we can speak our minds without being thrown in jail. But the idea of finding one black and white reason for all the ill in the world is just plain “off”. The idea that so many people from varied backgrounds unite in one conspiracy, “CFR”, is just plain “nuts”. Sorry to break this news to you. Go deeper and examine the actual different components and details of issues and points of view.

  53. travelah

    L&H;, your comments interest me when they are entertaining and when you begin to discuss political topics that are far outside your scope of knowledge, it’s entertaining.

  54. Nam Vet

    LOL, Travelah she has said she is a 2nd year student at Duke University. So we should assume she posts from Durham? I seriously doubt her assertion, and I find most of her posts just plain trolling. That is why I don’t address her comments. If she ever drops the trolling, perhaps I will dialogue with her. But I doubt that will happen.

  55. May Hemm

    I could say the same of you and Namvet, travelah.
    What I sense is that you can only quote from historical references of the ‘authorized biography’ or NY Times bestseller type (with words that aren’t too big for you) and authors who happily kowtow to the establishmentarian perspective of the publishers of those sort of ‘books’… like the good little sheep that you are. You are afraid of the truth, because it would make you feel helpless – against the loss of your freedoms, as well as the diabolical agendas made blatant. You, o haters of knowledge, logic, reason, and most of all – freedom, you and most other Americans – prefer your Walt Disney, Hannah Montana, available at Walmart, made-for-television versions of reality, despite such overwhelming evidence to the contrary – evidence that is provided by people who were there – who stick their necks out, who run the risk of being disparaged, humiliated – and worse – so that people in this country will wake up in time to save it…

    I never said the CFR, in and of itself was responsible for everything, Nam Vet. You prove the extent of *your* own ignorance, simple-mindedness, and your blind sentimentality (for something which no longer exists) by classifying my comments that way – and calling me an America hater. I love my country enough to look at the dark side, and bring it into the light. I am enraged by the actions of a few – to effectively destroy this country, and enslave its citizens for a profit.
    Who is the real America-hater? I’d say the brain-dead, status-quo are the America-haters, not me.

  56. May Hemm

    “At least here we can speak our minds without being thrown in jail. ”
    Well, that depends. I know a number of folks who have been thrown in jail for doing just that. I guess it depends on what it is that’s on your mind, Mr. Disney.

    Let’s see. Kids in Maryland are being vaccinated at gunpoint, the WHO is trying (through smaller agencies) to make the US (FDA) compliant with the Codex Alimentarius – whose aim is to make natural vitamin supplements (unless manufactured by their big pharma sponsors – bayer, eli lilly, johnson & johnson, etc. – who already have FDA carte blanche to poison us however they’d like) illegal – as well as strip the rights of organic producers to tell consumers their products are organic. Also Codex/FDA have approved cloned livestock products for human consumption as well as GMO’s… Big corporations are trying desperately to get control of the internet, get laws passed which will require us to be rfid chipped, (money as well as many products are already chipped – so they already know everytime you spend money and what you spend it on), they are making incredible gains in the effort to disarm US citizens… should I go on?

  57. May Hemm

    What are the historical origins of Al Qaeda? Who is Osama bin Laden?

    The alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war, “ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders”.(Hugh Davies, “`Informers’ point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers.” The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998).

    In 1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in Afghanistan:

    “With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.” (Ahmed Rashid, “The Taliban: Exporting Extremism”, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999).

    This project of the US intelligence apparatus was conducted with the active support of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which was entrusted in channelling covert military aid to the Islamic brigades and financing, in liason with the CIA, the madrassahs and Mujahideen training camps.

    U.S. government support to the Mujahideen was presented to world public opinion as a “necessary response” to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.

    The CIA’s military-intelligence operation in Afghanistan, which consisted in creating the “Islamic brigades”, was launched prior rather than in response to the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. In fact, Washington’s intent was to deliberately trigger a civil war, which has lasted for more than 25 years.

    The CIA’s role in laying the foundations of Al Qaeda is confirmed in an 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter:

    Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

    Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

    Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

    Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

    Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

    Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

    Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? ( “The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser”, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, published in English, Centre for Research on Globalisation, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html, 5 October 2001, italics added.)

    Consistent with Brzezinski’s account, a “Militant Islamic Network” was created by the CIA.

    The “Islamic Jihad” (or holy war against the Soviets) became an integral part of the CIA’s intelligence ploy. It was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

    “In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166 [which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies — a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987 as well as a “ceaseless stream” of CIA and Pentagon specialists who travelled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There, the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.”(Steve Coll, The Washington Post, July 19, 1992.)

  58. May Hemm

    The Central Intelligence Agency using Pakistan’s ISI as a go-between played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. The madrasahs were set up by Wahabi fundamentalists financed out of Saudi Arabia: “[I]t was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools, from which the germs of the Taliban emerged.”(Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), “RAWA Statement on the Terrorist Attacks in the U.S.”, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG),
    http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RAW109A.html , 16 September 2001)

    Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow. (Dilip Hiro, Fallout from the Afghan Jihad, Inter Press Services, 21 November 1995.)

    Pakistan’s ISI Used as a “Go-Between”

    CIA covert support to the “Islamic Jihad” operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI — i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. For these covert operations to be “successful”, Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the “Jihad”, which consisted not only in destabilising the secular (pro-Soviet) government in Afghanistan, but also destroying the Soviet Union.

    In the words of the CIA’s Milton Beardman, “We didn’t train Arabs.” Yet, according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the “Afghan Arabs” had been imparted “with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA”. (National Public Radio, Weekend Sunday (NPR) with Eric Weiner and Ted Clark, 16 August 1998).

    The CIA’s Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. According to bin Laden (as quoted by Beardman): “Neither I, nor my brothers, saw evidence of American help.” (National Public Radio, Weekend Sunday (NPR) with Eric Weiner and Ted Clark, transcript, 16 August 1998).

    Motivated by nationalism and religious fervour, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in the war theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.

    With CIA backing and the funnelling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a “parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government”. (Dipankar Banerjee, “Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry”, India Abroad, 2 December 1994). The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. (Ibid).

    Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

    “Relations between the CIA and the ISI had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia’s ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime. During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.

    The CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis. Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement, while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course.” (Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. See also the review of Cordovez and Harrison in International Press Services, 22 August 1995).

    The CIA sponsored Narcotics Trade

    The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA’s covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA’s Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997).

    Researcher Alfred McCoy’s study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, “the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world’s top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand.” (Ibid)

    “CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests. (Ibid)

    Afghanistan is a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on China’s Western frontier and on the former Soviet Union. While it constitutes a land bridge for the oil and gas pipeline corridors linking the Caspian sea basin to the Arabian sea, it is also strategic for its opium production, which today, according to UN sources, supplies more than 90 % of the World’s heroin market, representing multi-billion dollar revenues for business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism, Global Research, 2005, Chapter XVI)

    Protected by the CIA, a new surge in opium production unfolded in the post cold War era. Since the October 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan, opium production has increased 33 fold since the US led invasion. The annual proceeds of the Golden Crescent drug trade are estimated between 120 and 194 billion dollars (2006), representing more than one third of the worldwide annual turnover of the narcotics trade. (Michel Chossudovsky, Heroin is good for Your Health, Occupation Forces Support Afghan Drug Trade, Global Research, April 2007. see also Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4, 1998),

  59. May Hemm

    … and Nam Vet, how exactly did Reagan, himself – do all of those things you mentioned? I’d like for you to cite specific references to his policies, giving dates etc. I’d like to especially know how Ronald Reagan ‘reduced inflation’? The Fed is an agency with no oversight. It sets interest rates and lends money to the government. Our government can only indirectly inflate the dollar (by borrowing and therefore increasing the money supply)… but how is inflation reduced? By the Fed reducing interest rates, etc.

    Stop being a sheeple.

    Here is an article by the Fed (if you’ll read it, you’ll notice it’s bent – toward the cheap foreign labor globalism ideology of course)… but read the very last paragraph – they manage the money supply. Presidents do not.)

  60. dickyfauge

    Why don’t you guys admit that you are in love with her! Be nice to her and she will send you a picture. (I got one)

  61. Siladity

    Interesting ideas about Reagan there, Nam Vet. As far as reagan freeing the hostages, it is well documented that Reagan’s people actually arranged for the hostages to continue to be held until after his election, so he could take credit for it. Talk about playing politics with American’s lives. (20 minutes after his inauguration? Wow, that is a very persuasive personality)

    In addition, I find it interesting that Reagan is considered the “Greatest President of the 20th Century” (quite subjective, to say the least) for lowering the debt, when GW Bush has raised it higher than it was under Carter. So does that imply that Bush is a worse President than Carter?

    Just wondering.

    Anyone who thinks there has ever been an honest, truthful American President (From the First George to the Current George, and all in between on either “side” of the so-called political spectrum) must still be reading those History text books from the 1950’s. But I do find your simplistic American Naivete kind of cute in a black and white “Leave it to Beaver” kind of way.

  62. Furthermore, (as you appear to not have even a rudimentary understanding of the Fed), the Fed doesn’t even loan money. It issues a directive for the treasury to basically print money and ‘credit’ the accounts of the ‘borrowers’ – in this case the US Government – with imaginary money. Hence the actual dollars in circulation only represent the amount of Debt that US Citizens ‘owe’ the Fed. There is never enough money in circulation to pay the interest amount to pay it. So we’re always in debt to the Fed – merely because they issue the directive to print imaginary, worthless money. Congress may suggest that we’d like to have the interest rates lowered, but the Fed has no oversight. It doesn’t ‘have’ to reduce interest rates. It is given complete authority over our money.

  63. Siladity – you are absolutely correct about the hostages. An agreement was made that they would not be released until he (Reagan) was elected – read about Brzezinsky’s role.

    Obama is now his protege.

  64. Nam Vet

    Silidity said: “As far as Reagan freeing the hostages, it is well documented that Reagan’s people actually arranged for the hostages to continue to be held until after his election, so he could take credit for it. Talk about playing politics with American’s lives. (20 minutes after his inauguration?”

    Huh? Let’s have your sources. Sounds like the kind of bullhockey the “CFR conspiracy” wingnuts would come up with. :) I am not naive enough to think our politicians are perfect…from either party. President Reagan was not a politician, he was a statesman. And although not perfect, he was heads above most presidents. The long-lasting hatred from the left is testiment to the great job Reagan did while in office. He proved once and for all that liberal democrat big government and high taxes and regulation were bankrupt ideas. He proved that hard work, low taxes, low regulation would grow the US Treasury and bring prosperity to anyone willing to work hard. He proved that if you stand your ground against an “evil empire” you can get a Berlin Wall torn down and bring an end to an oppressive,imperialist, leftwing totalitarian government in the USSR. The democrats haven’t recovered yet.

    President Ronald Wilson Reagan was one of the best of the Greatest Generation (ala Tom Brokaw). And one of the best presidents we have ever had. God bless him. We could use another Reagan right about now. It could be Obama.

  65. travelah

    Dickeyf … yep …. nothing like a good internet pic to confirm one’s true likeness and identity :)

  66. dickyfauge

    I was not trying to confirm her identity, I just wanted to see her naked.

  67. Traveleh

    Namvet, I am in agreement with you most of the time, but sometimes you make me want to throw up.

  68. Nam Vet

    LOL, Travelah what have you been drinking tonight? You are not posting like your normal self. So go ahead and throwup. You’ll feel better I’m sure. :)

    Back on thread, this bears repeating:

    “President Ronald Wilson Reagan was one of the best of the Greatest Generation (ala Tom Brokaw). And one of the best presidents we have ever had. God bless him. We could use another Reagan right about now. It could be Obama.”

  69. travelah

    Nam, lol don’t mind the troll who wishes to be like me … it would like to be like you too next week :)

  70. quotequeen

    In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy.
    ~ David Korten

  71. Nam Vet

    “In the 1980s Ronald Reagan’s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the late 2000s neo-socialism is trying a comeback in the politician named Hillary Rodcrusher Clinton.”

  72. Hopefully

    Dick Cheney: War Profiteer
    by Tom Turnipseed

    Questions persist about Vice-President Cheney’s role in the ongoing investigation and scandal swirling about the White House. His chief of staff and confidante Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Let’s take a look at some personal incentives for Cheney’s selling war to our country.

    Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits.

    As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study recommended that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney’s privatization efforts for our military’s logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year’s work with them before he slipped back through the revolving door of war profiteering to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. “I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it.”

    The Bush administration has dished out lucrative reconstruction contracts in Iraq to favored U.S. based corporations including Halliburton and denied contracts to many Iraqi and foreign based companies. To the conquerors go the spoils was the message on December 11, 2003 when Bush said, “The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, It’s very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.”

    Bush’s statement is a stunning admission of how much corrupt corporations control our foreign policy. Under Cheney’s leadership Halliburton out did Enron in using offshore subsidiaries as tax shelters to hide profits to bilk U.S. taxpayers. Halliburton also utilized off-shore subsidiaries to contract for services and sell banned equipment to rogue states like Iran, Iraq and Libya. This would be illegal if done directly by Halliburton.

    At last count Halliburton had 58 offshore subsidiaries in Caribbean tax havens. With Cheney at the helm Halliburton’s tax payments to the U.S. went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, when they also received a refund of $85 million from the Internal Revenue Service.

    During Cheney’s tenure as CEO from 1995 to 2000, Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. The Halliburton subsidiary does approximately $40 million a year worth of oil field service work for the Iranian government. 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl visited the subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and found that it had no office and no employees. The mailing address was a local bank with which the subsidiary is registered. Stahl was met there by the bank’s manager who informed her that all mail to the subsidiary is forwarded to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. Halliburton had created the subsidiary to allow itself to do illegal business with a rogue state and to skip out on its taxes in the process.

    With Iran’s president vowing to destroy Israel and being accused by the Bush administration of harboring and aiding al-Qaeda operatives, Cheney’s company is doing business with Iran through a subsidiary and dodging its tax obligations to the U.S.

    Halliburton has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Before the Iraq War began, it was 19th on the U.S. Army’s list of top contractors and zoomed to number 1 in 2003. In 2003 Halliburton made $4.2 billion from the U.S. government. Cheney stated he had , “severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest.”

    Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently asserted that Cheney’s stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million– for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004.

    The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a “financial interest” whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest.

    Calling on Cheney to sever his financial ties to Halliburton, Lautenberg points out that the company has already raked in more than $10 billion for work in Iraq, and was handed some of the first Katrina contracts. The company has been criticized by auditors for its handling of no-bid contacts in Iraq, and there have been numerous allegations of over charging for services. Auditors found the firm marked up meal prices for troops and inflated gas prices in a deal with a Kuwaiti supplier. The company also built the American prison at Guantanamo Bay. Lautenberg said, “It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”

    Cheney’s war profiteering requires redress and justice.

  73. quotequeen

    Not Hercules could have knock’d out his brains, for he had none.
    William Shakespeare (1564 – 1616)

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.