Evolution of Dispossession

Evolution of Dispossession
How to Steal a Country?

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

So what changed? We know it wasn't 9-11 ...

Dick Cheney being truthful!


We now know 9-11 had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq. Cheney's prescient comments suggest that this admin knew all along how problematic invading Iraq would be.

So what changed since 1994? Well for one thing neocon groups started suggesting regime change Iraq from 1996-1998 (for the sake of Israeli security and business interests they were allied with), and the Euro came online even later, and Saddam was the first to transact Iraqi oil in Euros and not dollars.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Paul Craig Roberts On American Presidents Standing up to Israel

Paul Craig Roberts could have said more about AIPAC's insidious influence over our elected "leaders", like the Larry Franklin incident.

A worthwhile read.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

What A Joke!

Let's see, Gonzales is Bush's puppet, and now as head of the Justice Department a ruling by the Justice Department is issued which protects the Bush admin from producing documents which would, hmmmmmm, implicate the Justice Department.

If conflict of interests needs a new definition, here it is boys and girls.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

How Low Can They Go?

It's time for a change ....

Is Congress Necessary?

The question sounds preposterous of course, but let's take up this query in a serious manner. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators, and these 535 elected officials have the stated duty to speak on behalf of over 300,000,000 Americans. What a farcical notion! One person representing the views of 560,000 Americans, on average ! It is folly to think this system is a good system.

After the successful defeat of British tyranny, the Constitution was written as a contract between the governed and the government. If one were to take the time to re-read the Constitution today, one would be awestruck with how prescient the framers were when they set up the provisions of the Constitution . It was clearly designed to keep the government in check, and out of the daily affairs of the citizens.

In the late 1700's the many rural communities could not very well voice their concerns to the government directly. It took weeks for a single piece of mail to arrive at its destination. Of course, electing someone to represent the whole of the community in the nation's capital was the proper way to provide a practical voice to "we the people". But let's consider the notion of this system of representation today. Do Americans in the year 2007 need a middle man? Are we still constrained by the lack of technological means to make our voice heard by our government? Does our cyclical system of pulling levers entitle us to call ourselves a democracy when our Congress and our Executive branch give little weight to what the people actually want between the elections?

The USA is not a democracy. The USA is a representative republic, and it seems to me that the system of representation has become corrupted by the myriad of special interests. There are 67,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC, which is about 125 per elected member of Congress. These lobbyists try to push their various agendas, and the obvious question is our the constituents being served? Every day we Americans hear of a new scandal, ever-debauching corruptive influences. Whether its Jack Abramoff, whose links to Tom DeLay effectively ended his political career (and others as well), or William Jefferson's $90,000 popsicle, or Duke Cunningham's "menu" of services for sale, our Congress has been hijacked from "we the people" and diligently serves the plethora of special interest groups like AIPAC, Big Pharma, Big Banking, Big Oil, and the list goes on and on and on.

Another question Americans should consider : why do we Americans have but 2 choice when it comes to selecting a President? Why must we allow ourselves to be herded into one of two political parties, when Canada, France, and many other functioning democracies can select from a number of candidates from political parties with very diverse views?

There was a poll last spring in which President Bush received an approval rating of 31%. The same poll indicated that Congress had an approval rating of 18%. That's incredible! To think that less than one in five Americans approve of our Congress is mind-boggling.

Largely I would say that Americans are now discontent more than ever with their government. Most Americans feel deceived about the Iraq War. A CBS poll concluded that some 53% doubted the findings of the 9-11 Commission Report, while 28% rejected the findings outright. This is not a fringe group but a significant cohort of Americans. Americans clearly do not trust the official report of the 9-11 attacks, nor the government which commissioned the investigation. If Americans knew more about the fraudulent Federal Reserve System and how this group of international bankers has bankrupted this country and destroyed our once-strong gold-backed currency, there would be another revolution.

So what can we do?

Very simply, Americans need to ask some tough questions. If our Congressional system is an irreparable failure, why keep it? If our Congress has shown its tendency to be corrupted by the dark forces at work, perhaps it's just a commentary that the system itself was flawed from the beginning. If the original notion of Congressional representation was designed to give the commonfolk a voice, then let's ressurect that original vision by instituting the national referendum.

A national referendum allows citizens to vote on every issue. There would be no more political parties. No more polarized squabbles. No more corruptive influences over our Congressional body. AIPAC could whine for more military aid for Israel. If the American people want to foot the bill for that, then it should be their choice. If Americans want to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, then we could. If the American people want to use tax dollars to fund a national healthcare system, instead of funding an illegal and propaganda-riddled campaign in distant Iraq, then we could. If Americans want to declassify the documents pertaining to the Kennedy assassinations or 9-11, then we could. If Americans wanted to dissolve the CIA, then we could.

Imagine ....

Of course Winston Churchill said the best argument against a national referendum is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. A referendum would be a huge responsibility for the US citizen. Americans would have to get off their derrieres and learn about crucial issues in order to make informed choices. Americans would need to read more and watch reality TV shows less. Americans would need to shed their skin of general apathy when it comes to their political leanings.

But if the US calls itself a democracy, then let's scrap our notions that Congress works for "we the people". I do not think Congressional representation is effective at serving the interests of the country. 535 human beings cannot speak on behalf of 300,000,000 and Americans should unite to make the national referendum a reality. Of course, those entrenched in power will never readily cede that power, which is the best justification for the national referendum.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Ripping Off the Gov, or Us?

I am glad this company was caught, but makes one wonder how many other scams like this one are out there undetected.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Yet Another Reason to Shun Giuliani

How sold out can a person be? For a person to try to convert a national tragedy into his personal political currency, for his response to the Firefighters of NY and their pleas to not "scoop and dump" the dead bodies (still in the rubble) of their fallen comrades on 9-11, for his labeling himself a Republican when his views on hot-button issues are very far from conservativism, the core base of the Republican party, to this!

I wonder how many speeches Giuliani has given to AIPAC. I wonder how this stance will help him garner the Jewish vote, even though a plurality of Israelis want a 2-state solution. It's amazing how Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of Israel, can address US Congress following the election of Hamas and imply that the measure being considered before US Congress with regard to Hamas's victory is too punitive for the Palestinian people (the Palestinian anti-terror act or whatever its ludicrous name) and yet the Congress voted in line with the hardcore Likud stance.

Is there an upper limit to how dedicated our elected officials, but certainly not leaders, past and present and perhaps future, can be to special interests, and interests that are arguably not in the US national interest!

Go Ron Paul !

Thursday, August 09, 2007

What a Bunch of Bullshit !

If the guy sells it, yes I understand that the proceeds are taxable. If he does not sell the thing and keeps it as a souvenir, to say that it is taxable because it has some instrinsic value is garbage. By this rationale, the putter which is sitting next to my computer, which is a $200 putter is taxable, even though I have already been taxed from my salary and bought the putter with the remaining funds.

Internal Revenue Service or Internal Rectal Service !

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Where Did the Money Go?

One of the things that Norman Finkelstein has been attacked for is his claim that the money collected on behalf of the Holocaust survivors has been re-routed to various Jewish organizations, and have not made it to the actual survivors of the Holocaust. Finkelstein's book "The Holocaust Industry" discussed this in great detail. The linked article is from Haaretz, and it's a shame that the memory of the Holocaust is exploited for political purposes today, while the actual survivors have received but an offensive pittance of the reparations.

YAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The daughter of my my stepfather works for the UN and the EU on issues that pertain to Palestine, like overseeing elections, and when my stepfather visited her in Jerusalem last summer, they traveled to Hebron. He told me how these squatters would throw feces and trash on Palestinians who came outside in the streets in the market mentioned in the linked article. There were some 4,000 IDF soldiers there to protect some 400-500 squatters. There is a huge net that overhangs the street meant to protect the peope below.

All I can say is that this is what must be done on the Israeli side, and I am pleased that the Israelis are doing this. But for it not to be considered tokenism, they need to do it more in the West Bank.