When considering the situation in the Middle East, namely the “War on Terror”,
which somehow involves the U.S.A. conquering and occupying countries
with oil and those nearby, it is helpful to take a step back, and apply
some role-reversal.

The U.S.A. invades and occupies Middle Eastern countries for the oil,
but I assume that, theoretically, if Muslims were invading and occupying
other countries, it would be for the purpose of carrying out their jihad
against the infidels, enslaving and/or killing Christians and Jews.

Of course, it could very well be for the purpose of acquiring food and
other resources that they don’t have a lot of, but this is less likely,
since often, the heads of terrorist groups who organize jihad, live well,
even though those under them are in poverty.

For the sake of argument, instead of discussing what would happen if
a Muslim nation invaded and occupied the United States, let us consider
what the opinion of the U.S. populace would be if a Muslim state invaded
Canada, England, or some other country that we are friendly with, and
whose people are mostly white and mostly Christian or Jewish.

If occupied by Middle Eastern Muslims, and unable to repel their invaders
through conventional military methods, their desperate citizens became
suicide bombers, would the U.S.A. condemn them as terrorists, or would
we sympathize with them as freedom fighters?

Would it make a difference, in terms of morality, if instead of blowing
themselves up to kill the enemy in their own country, they took the fight
to the home country of their invaders/occupiers?

Would they distinguish between suicide attacks on government and
military installations VS civilians?

Would we support them even if they didn’t?

If we did, would it be because the people being blown up are of a
different race and religion than most of our country?

The reason that I pose these questions is this:

For decades, more developed countries have abused the Middle East. The
U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. used them in pawns in their Cold War, leaving
them full of land mines that injure and kill men, women, and children.

The funding, arming, and training of these countries, for example,
Afghanistan, and then leaving them without a purpose, after they died
for one side or the other, created an environment primed for terrorism,
much as Germany, when left destroyed after World War I, was open to
the fanaticism of Adolph Hitler, and struck back at the world with WWII.

Later, in the 1990s, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, endangering the flow of
oil to the U.S., the U.S. invaded Iraq, to “free the people of Kuwait”.
The U.S. promised to help remove Saddam Hussein, and then, after
some of the people of Iraq rose up against Saddam, the U.S. backed
out, and left them helpless. Some of them might have become terrorists,
but most were probably tortured in dungeons and killed and dropped
in mass graves, which happened to many under Hussein’s rule. This
meddling without really helping was just another insult and injury by
the U.S. against the people of the region.

For the next decade, the U.S. routinely flew air missions over Iraq,
and although many of them were just for the purpose of observing
to keep an eye on the regime in power and prevent more incursions
into neighboring nations, many others were bombing raids, some of
which killed innocent civilians. Yet another nail in the coffin of U.S.-
Mid East relations.

On 9/11/2001, members of a jihadist network flew two planes into the
World Trade Center, which was full of people, primarily, who deal with
the transfer of money and goods and services between (mostly) developed
countries, and who are thus seen as “evil western devils” by many Muslim
extremists, who see our lifestyles, which are luxurious and entertaining
in comparison to their own, as tempting and sinful.

I am not a psychic, nor am I an expert at Middle Eastern culture, or a
student of the Koran (Quoran), but I think that this was most likely done
for several reasons:

1. to pressure other countries to stop meddling in the Middle East, by
creating a scenario where these governments are putting their own
civilians at risk due to their imperialist aggression

2. to inspire citizens of “civilized” countries to rise up and influence
their countries foreign policies, through protesting and/or voting, to
stop imperialist aggression by their governments

3. to terrorize (scare) civilians, thereby making their luxurious and
entertaining lifestyles less than enjoyable, which not only punishes
them for sinning by giving into temptations, but also, I think, to be
honest, out of jealousy for their freedoms and standard of living

I feel that, if instead of the World Trade Center, the 9/11 hijackers
had attacked the White House and the U.S. Capitol, that would have
been more honorable, although still not a perfect solution, since some
innocents would be harmed, including staff, visitors, and politicians
who don’t support the policies that the extremists are fighting against.

(I know that there was supposedly also an attack on the Pentagon, but
I choose not to acknowledge that accusation, since the few seconds
of supposed footage available show something that looks more the
size of a missile flying a few feet above the ground, and struck an
unoccupied portion of the building that was under construction.)

At least they would have at least been attacking the people who were
more directly responsible for the policies that are hurting them.

From statements in the media by Middle Eastern leaders and Jihadists,
and by the terrorist attacks on American and European civilians, it seems
that the extremists, for the most part, feel that the citizens of these
countries are as guilty of aggression against them as the governments.

They must not realize or care that American and European civilians often
don’t have much more power over their governments than they do over
those in their own countries.

I would guess that a lot of them think that the majority of our country
wants to invade and conquer them, and not just the very vocal “moral”
(HA!) majority of conservatives.

I am sure that many people, including intelligence operatives, will think
and say such thinking and speaking (well, typing) makes me a threat.
This isn’t true. Let me clarify: I am not saying that I want or hope for
suicide bombers or anyone else to attack the US government and/or
military; I am just saying that by attacking them, since they are the
aggressors against the people who blow themselves up, would be
preferable, and more logical, honorable, and effective, than exploding
innocent civilians who may of may not support the USA’s foreign policies.

I, and many others, perhaps even a majority of Americans, are very
angry and frustrated with our government and our political process.

What the people of the Middle East need to understand is this: The
U.S.A. has perhaps the world’s largest, strongest, and most invasive
authoritative force when you take into consideration our government,
military, and law enforcement agencies combined. It would be nearly,
if not completely impossible, for the liberal progressives among us to
act against our laws and take our government by the methods of
revolution that many smaller and less developed nations have had
success with.

Just as their totalitarian dictators keep them in poverty while they
live in oppulence, all the while telling them that America is the great
evil that is the cause of their problems and which they must destroy
to please Allah, our bureaucratic representatives attempt to distract
us from their corruption and our own deteriorating situation with
sensationalistic language and one sided stories of the vicious madmen
who would see us all die, pretending as if the actions of terrorists are
always unprovoked, when in reality they are often reactions to prior
attacks.

In this future, the U.S.A., Europe, and perhaps even Russia and China
and other developed nations, will stop fighting over oil and natural gas
reserves and stop polluting and destroying the planet with the emissions
from those and other dirty energy sources like coal and nuclear, and
instead power the world with clean, safe, renewable, sustainable methods
such as solar, wind, hydrodynamic, geothermal, biomass, and biofuels.

And perhaps, some day, more individuals will even be free, legally, and
capable, financially, to generate 100% of their own energy needs with
clean, renewable sources, as the technologies for harnessing them become
increasingly widespread and affordable.

Maybe, in the future, we will even be able to help the Middle East to
solve their own problems, rather than trying to make them what we need
them to be to suit our needs.

TEA BAGGERS are SWALLOWING WHOLE the Fox News STAFF's SCHTICK

MSNBC’s David Schuster: If You’re Planning Tea Bagging Across The Country, ‘You’re Going To Need A Dick Armey’

This is pretty damned funny! He uses most, if not all, of the innuendo I’ve already heard floating around…

I took the liberty of transcribing it:

“For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15th will be Tax Day, but in our fourth story tonight it’s going to be TEA-BAGGING day for the right wing and they are going NUTS for it! Thousands of the WHIPPED OUT the festivities early this weekend and though the parties are officially TOOTHLESS, the protesters are FULL-THROATED about their goals. They wanna give President Obama strong TONGUE-LASHING and LICK government spending. Spending they did not oppose when they were under Presidents Bush and Reagan. They oppose Mr. Obama’s tax rates which will be lower for most of them, and they oppose the tax increases Mr. Obama is imposing on the rich, whose taxes will skyrocket to a rate that’s about 10% less than it was under Reagan. That’s TEA-BAGGING, in a NUTSHELL. Taking it’s inspiration from the Boston Tea Party when colonists tossed British tea into the sea because the tax on it had not been voted on by their duly elected representatives. That’s exactly the opposite, of course, of todays’ taxes, which is known in some quarters as ‘Taxation With Representation’. But as New York Times coumnist Paul Crudeman points out today, this time the TEA-BAGGING is not a SPONTANEOUS UPRISING, the people who came up with it are a familiar circle of Republicans, including former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, and former house majority leader Dick Armey, both of whom have FIRM support from right wing financiers and lobbyists, as well as Washington prostitute patron, Senator David Vitter who has issued statements in support of TEA-BAGGING, but is publicly type-left. Then, there was the media, specifically the Fox ‘News’ Channel, including Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Both are looking forward to an UP CLOSE and PERSONAL TASTE of TEA-BAGGING, themselves at events this Wednesday. But most amusing of all is Neil Cavuto, a member of the network’s executive committee. Neil’s online bio says he joined the network in July 1996, three months before the Fox News channel went on the air. Cavuto, defending his network’s promotion of TEA-BAGGING, said, quote ‘We are going to be right in the middle of these [TEA-BAGGERS], because at Fox we do not pick and choose these rallies and protests. We were there for the Million Man March.’ Can we roll that footage, the footage of Fox News at the Million Man March, back in October of ‘95? Of course the Million Man March occurred, as NewsHounds.org points out, almost a year before Fox News was on the air. We can only speculate why widespread TEA-BAGGING made Cavuto think of the Million Man March… Unless, he got them confused with DICK ARM[E]Y. And in Cavuto’s defense, if you are planning SIMULTANEOUS TEA-BAGGING around the country, you’re going to need a DICK ARMY!”

What David Schuster failed to include in his brilliant report, and what makes me fear for my country, much as Glenn Beck does (or pretends to), is that many of the NUT-JOBS that host and attend these NUT-FESTS to express their opinions in a (hopefully) peaceful manner, and to have a BALL (or two) with some good friends or like-minded strangers are the same people that believe, as many TEA-PARTY websites and flyer’s propose, in a “revolution”, and the same people who are buying conservative t-shirts that say “vote from the rooftops” (with pictures of sniper rifles), inferring that they wish to assassinate President Obama. I saw one conservative t-shirt for sale online that said “R.I.P. The American Dream, 1776-2008″. I thought a black man becoming the president was a pretty clear indicator that the American dream is alive and well. Perhaps these revolutionary TEA-BAGGERS who believe in “voting from the rooftops” (with sniper rifles) are racially motivated? I guess their American dream doesn’t include people who aren’t white. Or maybe it’s just jealousy? They are openly into TEA-BAGGING, so perhaps they are jealous, as black men are popularly known for having larger TEA-SPOUTS than they do…

I’m afraid that many of the TEA-BAGGERS attending the TEA-PARTIES today are lost souls, searching for a new direction, possibly a violent one. As Anderson Cooper said on CNN when describing why it’ been HARD for the Republicans to find their voice after the election, “it’s hard to talk when you’re TEA-BAGGING“

I’ve got to say, whoever created and has promoted this movement really made quite a snafu by not researching the social connotations of their terminology, but, I guess there’s no such thing as bad press. I just hope for the Republicans sake that they don’t, as I saw one guy comment on Glenn Beck’s 9-12 Project website “make up places to protest flag burning and call the Old GLORY HOLES“.

Keith Olbermann also did a funny segment about TEA-BAGGING, including some more good innuendo, including:

“SPILLING into the streets, CHOKING off traffic … pushed their own vision of TEA-BAGGING DOWN THE THROATS of the TEA-BAGGERS … SEMINAL moment … ONE LUMP OR TWO?”

And, for the enjoyment of those who are just becoming familiar with the sexual slang used for decades, and for the enlightenment of those who still don’t get it, I’ve included the following links to some definitions on Urban Dictionary:

TEA-BAGGER TEA-BAG TEA-BAGGING TEA PARTY

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7i-5oRPCT0]

This film was disappointing. I am definitely more of a liberal than a conservative, but was looking forward to seeing what I thought was going to be an insightful parody of Michael Moore, whose films I enjoy, but whom I admit has a definite slant and probably leaves out details damaging to his arguments. What I saw instead was a rude, immature slap-in-the-face to liberals and independents, and a blind-faith ass-kissing of the United States government.

The movie does make a good point about the damage caused to our country caused by a lack of morale and a lot of self-hating. However, instead of wisely acknowledging that we should try and remember how important it is to stand up for freedom and to protect ourselves from aggressors, even if out patriotism is lacking while the present administration and other forces in our government are lying, cheating, stealing, and killing to further their own wealth, power, and political agendas, An American Carol white-washes the entire situation to make it seem as if those who are discontent are angry about nothing, and that everything is just fine, and that we should quit thinking and questioning and instead just shut up and blindly pledge our allegiance to whatever war that those in power are currently profiting from.

An American Carol tries to include humor in it’s message, but relies, primarily, on making fun of Michael Moore’s weight by suggesting that he is constantly pigging out, making fun of his smell, saying that he needs a bath, and having characters slap him. This makes me think that the film was made with the intention of pleasing hateful conservatives, but not concerned with changing the minds of their opposition. It’s kind of like a loud, rude parent who tries to “slap sense” into their children; not much teaching happens, as the one who is supposed to learn a lesson instead just learns resentment. There is a lack of clever dialogue; most of the conversations are just predictable insults towards liberals, and little kids using “vulgar” words. To be fair, many favorite lampoons by liberals and for liberals can be a little juvenile in their parodies of conservative symbols like George W Bush, making fun of his reading difficulties, speach impediments, memory problems, and choking on pretzels. However, these are well known aspects of the man’s public character and help to make any depiction of him believable, whereas, in Michael Moore’s public appearances, be they interviews or on in his films, we don’t see him snacking incessantly, farting, being slapped, or being asked to bathe, so I don’t feel that these behaviors were necessary to establish that it was Moore who was being made fun of in this film.

So, in terms of entertainment and realism, this movie is a failure.

However, the film is educational, in that it is an excellent summary of the current beliefs and attitudes of most conservative thinkers. It makes use of the same fallacies of logic that conservatives love to use when attempting to argue with liberals. Conservatives try to imply that if you don’t agree with your president, your government, or them, that you are not patriotic about your country. This is very convenient, as it allows the ass-kissing, brainwashed fools among us to quickly and easily convert the easily brainwashable to their side, and this is, after all, their target demographic, as individuals who are possessed of free thought or the ability to question authority end up being liberal in their philosophies. For example, in the film, Michael Malone is explaining key issues like the need for healthcare to General Patton, and Patton blows him off, suggesting that by making a fuss about such things, he is actually helping terrorists! This is absurd, and hearkens back to the conservative notion of ”America: love it, or leave it!”, which doesn’t allow for the popular position of loving what it should be and trying to fix it.

It is frustrating to me to think of all the conservatives out there, who, after watching this very immature, though perhaps well intentioned movie, are sitting around, smiling, laughing, patting each other on their backs, and agreeing that their point has been made. If only they could realize that their point can only be made to themselves, and never to those they are disagreeing with. Sadly, our points can’t be made to them either.

And thus, the American Civil War, which began when this land was colonized by poor peasants and rich merchants, and reached it’s height in the late 1800s with battles between the north and south, continues onward into a fifth century.

This is a great group of articles outlining ways that America can quit being a bullying empire our to grab resources at the expense of people and instead become a responsible and respected member of a global community. I have been blogging about some of these same ideas, but in less detail.

I will now provide a little clarification regarding The United States,
for curious foreigners and oblivious citizens.

America is controlled by corporations. They fund the Republicans and
Democrats, who sold out and now play their game. They don’t fund third
parties and independents, especially those who speak against them, like
Ralph Nader. That’s why he is not in the debates, or many “mainstream”
interviews and commercials. He simply can’t afford it, for the most part,
and where he can, there is resistance to airing someone on your media
outlet when he is declaring war against the powerful industries whose
advertising revenue keeps you on the air.

The Republicans and Democrats appeal, mostly, to the most extreme of
Americans, the “blue liberal left”, and the “red conservative right”.

The “blue liberal left” want more and better jobs, more and better wages,
more and better benefits, and health care, and equal civil rights for women,
racial minorities, poor people, disabled people, etc., as well as improvements
to infrastructure. In general, this group wants peace, love, and happiness
for their tax money.

The “red conservative right”, is more of a combination of two groups: the
leadership right, and the conservative base.

The leadership right are rich, and own the corporations, who want less
jobs for Americans, more people doing the work of multiple people, more
jobs shipped to desperate third world countries willing to work for less
money, and ultimately, more computers and robots to machinate more
processes to get rid of jobs and pesky workers, who need wages and
benefits and sick-time and vacations and days off and time to sleep.
The leadership of the right also want more war, in places with resources
like oil, or cheap workers, or new markets for their mass-produced crap,
so they can occupy and restructure the world into new factories and
shopping malls.

To control the conservative base, they downplay all of this, and convince
them that they are not building financial empires, but rather policing the
world to protect us from terrorism and liberate the oppressed, forming
capitalist democracies, in the name of Jesus.

The conservative base, which is mostly rural, less educated, and more
fanatical than the rest of the country, which they call “fake” or “anti”
American, believes what their leadership tells them, regardless of any
evidence to the contrary, and believes that regardless of how many
of their jobs, benefits, wages, privacies, rights, or soldier’s lives are
stolen from them to create more wealth and power for their leaders,
that this is all done in the name of American patriotism and good
Christian values.

The corporate masters, Republicans, & Democrats are happy with the
way things are, sharing power and money, functioning as one big family,
keeping out pesky outsiders like third parties, and acting like it’s two
parties fighting each other, to distract America from the ugly truth of
their freedom being stolen while their country is sold out from under
them, piece by piece.

Those in power benefit from dividing us against ourselves, creating this
cold war kind of civil war, so we don’t get together and vote them out
of power. It’s a very subtle and effective conspiracy.

Those who created and control The United States of America like for
citizens and foreigners to believe that it is the defender of liberty and
justice for all. However, it started out, and is to this day, nothing more
than a militant money making venture.

Colonial merchants wanted more money and power, and decided to break
away from England so they wouldn’t have to share profits with the King.
This fairly traditional war was called the Revolutionary War (1775–1783).
They had Paul Revere and others like him to ride out and rally the poor
to fight and die for them. Little did the poor know that by gaining their
so-called “independence” from the British monarchy, that they were
just getting new rich masters who lived closer by. By the way, the rich
still rally the poor to fight wars for them. Now they go into the midwest,
America’s “heartland”, and tell farmers and cowboys that the brown
Muslims are going to come and get them, so they better get them first.
It works amazingly well, since most of these people have an irrational
fear and hatred of anyone of a different color, culture, or religion.

After becoming independent from England, whose empire had crumbled,
The USA became the new empire.

The colonials turned on the Native Americans, who helped them learn to
survive here. They murdered them and took their land. They turned tribe
against tribe. They hearded them around like cattle for the slaughter,
telling them each time that they could have this land forever, and then
coming along and telling them they had to go elsewhere, usually killing
those who complained and thus making less to herd to the next place.
They gave them gifts of malaria filled blankets. They basically committed
an almost completge genocide against them.

Meanwhile, they brought African slaves, some abducted, some bought
from warring tribes, to build up the country for them. (Note: despite
what some racist whites like to think, I don’t think buying a slave is any
more ethical than kidnapping one, regardless of whether the seller was
the same color as the slave or not.)

Those who came here to find their fortune or freedom on their own were
not treated much better. In the west, the whites lowered visiting workers
and settlers from China and other Asian nations over cliffs in buckets to
set dynamite to make train tracks, and didn’t feel too bad when “Chinamen”
(a blanket term for any “Oriental” looking Asian in the Old West) got
blown up. In the east, later immigrants didn’t find any more tolerance
for heritage or religion or culture than they had left in the Old World
of Europe and Asia. A good example are the gang wars in New York
between the Irish and Italians.

Once America was built up strong enough on racially intolerant genocide,
slavery, and gang warfare, we became seperatist xenophobes who wanted
to be seperate from the world that we had left (been cast out from?)
and had abused to establish ourselves. During our period of relative
exlusion from the world, we had a Civil War (1861 – 1865), where the
rich of the North wanted to take over the plantation culture of the South
to build factories, and the rich of the South wanted to keep their slaves.
Both sides were organized and controlled by rich people who wanted to
dominate and use the poor as a resource in the building of more wealth
and power; the only difference being that the North wanted whites,
blacks, etc, to all work as slaves in their factories and live in their slums,
while the South wanted the poor whites to stay in their shacks and the
poor blacks to stay in the slave houses. What a noble war, huh?

(The North, the industrial culture, after winning the official part of the
Civil War, continued to fight the south for years to restructure it like
the North. The civil rights movement of the 1960s shows that the Civil
War never ended, As does the presidential campaigns of 2008, where
it once again made apparent by the South that they are still racist
and consider the North, and the East & West coasts, to be “fake/anti”
Americans.)

Once the nation was finally unified enough to act as country, the powers
that be wanted us to be an empire. Their first major, obvious step in this
plan was to get involved in World War I.

World War I (1914-1918) began when a political assasination in Austria
due to a disagreement about the heir to the throne caused Europe to
divide into two factions, each choosing a side, because war is always so
much fun, giving the rich an opportunity to get more land, resources,
and markets for their products, and for the poor to die.

The USA joined the “Entente Powers”, in 1917 (better late than never,
right?) becoming an ally to England, France, Russia, and Italy, and
therefore an enemy to Germany, whom they were fighting. This gave
money-lenders and weapons makers in the USA an excellent opportunity
for profit, and helped to kill off some of our less affluent men by
sending them to die in trenches.

Do to the overwhelming popularity of World War Episode I, their was
really no option but to have a sequel, World War Episode II: The
Germans Strikes Back (1937-1945). It was bigger, badder, and the
special effects were AWESOME!

The USA, having seen how profitable war in the modern, industrialized
era could be, just had to be a part of the fun. We had established allies
to loan money to, sell weapons to, and to sell necessity products to as
they used up their own meager resources. We also had an established
enemy. The best part was, for rich Americans like banker Prescott Bush,
and many other bankers and weapons makers, a war has two sides; you
can make money off of both! It’s like betting on both teams in a game
or both horses in a race; if you do it right, you’re sure to win.

The American people were not terribly excited about WWII, so they
needed to be motivated. Japan decided to help Germany take over the
world, so the US let Japan bomb Pearl Harbor, making no effort to
stop them despite advanced warning, to piss off Americans and get
them to back the war effort the government and industries wanted.

World War II cost the USA a lot of money and lives, and established
us a world power. We even spent $14 billion to rebuild our enemies
Germany and Japan, adding them to our list of allies who owed us.
What a surprising plot twist!

Russia also spent a lot of money and lives fighting Germany, and just
like the USA, in the post-WWII world, wanted to spread out and dominate
the world. And so we got World War Episode III: The Cold War (1945-
1991).

The Cold War was fought in many chapters such as the Berlin Blockade
(1948–49), the Korean War (1950–53), the Berlin Crisis (1961), the
Vietnam War (1959–1975), the Soviet-Afghan War (1979–89), and
the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). In each chapter, countries sided against
one another, or split down the middle, with the Soviet Union supporting
one side as communists and the US supporting the other as capitalists.

It was during the Cold War that the US announced World War 4: The
Drug War (1971 – the end of time). This war has little to do with drugs.
It has more to do with the government importing drugs, selling them via
secret channels to poor and minorities, and then jailing these undesirable
types. The other up-sides to this war are that it provides a socially
accepted excuse to invade small countries that make drugs, to set up
dictatorships under US control, and to shift more of our populace
from self-dianosing and using natural, herbal pain relievers and
recreational drugs to getting expensive prescriptions for expensive
pharmaceuticals and thus supporting the American Medical Association
and the drug companies, which are both powerful lobbyist groups
from which politicans profit. The reality is, if all the nation’s non-violent
drug “offenders” got together and could pay politicians as much as
or more than the “legitimate” doctors writing prescriptions and
pharmaceutical corporations can, the drug war would be a non issue.
The USA is not really concerned with winning this war. It is far more
profitable to continue it indefinitely, both in terms of black-market
drug sales from imports by intelligence agencies and military forces,
and also as a platform issue to gain points with America’s conservative
moral majority.

The Soviet Union collapsed under economic problems in the early 1990s,
leaving the USA as the world’s only superpower, and ending the Cold War.

Since the USA is not really “fighting” the drug war (World War 4), it
suddenly had lots of resources available and no Cold War, so it invented
World War 5: The War on Terror (AKA The War on Brown People).
This war primarily consists of the Republican party “protecting” us
from nations that we used against Russia and then abandoned and
who have since turned against us. The US government has tried to
connect the wars on terror and drugs together, with commercials
telling smokers of marijuana that they are supporting terrorists,
even though almost no marijuana comes from the countries in
question. Ironically, since the US occupation of Afghanistan, the
country, which produces 90% of the world’s opium used for heroin,
production has quadrupled when compared to what it was when the
Taliban controlled the region. The amount of opium coming into the
USA has also increased. This not would seem to indicate that forces
within the US government and/or military are involved in drug
production, distribution, and sales, but also makes the claim in
the media that pot-smokers are aiding terrorist seem like the very
black government pot calling the gray citizen kettle black.

I think that’s enough history, for now, to demonstrate why I feel
that the government and corporations of the USA, which almost
always act as a unified force, are set on world financial domination
through whatever means possible, no matter how hypocritical, violent,
and damaging to it’s people and the world.

Don’t worry, world. It will fail, as the other empires in history have;
from ignoring it’s problems at home in it’s quest for domination
until it’s people have no option left to them but to reform it, by
whatever means necessary.

If you’d like to see more about America’s history of never-ending
war, see Wikipedia.

I found this list in someones comment’s against some racist redneck on his YouTube page.

I doubt it’s complete, but it should give the average American some indication as to why the world hates us:

Bombed/Occupied or disgraced by USA!
1945 Japan
1950 Korea
1950 China
1954 Guatemala
1958 Indonesia
1960 Guatemala
1964 Kongo
1965 Peru
1964 Laos
1961 Vietnam
1967 Guatemala
1969 Cambodia
1983 Granada
1984 Lebanon
1984 Lebanon
1986 Libya
1980 El Salvador
1980s Nicaragua
1989 Panama
1991-1992 Iraq
1998 Sudan
1998 Afghanistan
1999 Yugoslavia
2001 Afghanistan
2003-2008 Iraq
Who is next?

Let’s vote the Imperialists out of office and take care of our problems at home before our empire crumbles like those of Egypt, Rome, Britain, and all the other powers in history whose over-confidence and inability to address issues at home was their undoing.

Sarah Palin and FoxNews and other Republicans have proposed
that those who don’t support them are not “Real” or “Pro” America.

I am most definitely, by Republican criteria, a “Fake”, “Anti” American.

I don’t share small town values like racism and war profiteering.

I do support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
and the concept of America as a multi-racial, multi-cultural melting pot,
as the founders of our country intended.

I suppose that means that the framers of the Declaration of Independence,
the Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights were, like me, “Fake”, “Anti” Americans.

Apparently I’m not the only one pissed off about the new Red Scare started by RepuliNazis:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_2ypr18NE]

thanks to Sandra for passing me this link…

(A Scary But Possible Vision of the Future, based on the Past)
- by Mark Baland

Feel free to forward this to everyone you know.
I don’t care if the whole world reads it.
It’s what I think, and however unpopular it might make me,
I think its stuff that needs to be said.
After all, we still have freedom of speech, for now…
___________________________________________________________

I realize that some of you might have money invested in some
of the institutions that are asking to be bailed out. Your
government, if they truly represent you and not just control
you, should offer your money back to you to keep or to reinvest
as you see fit; not put it back in the hands of the ineffectual
and/or corrupt companies who have mismanaged it.

We should not bail out rich, corrupt, lying, cheating, embezzlers
while we are paying record prices, suffering massive unemployment,
losing our homes and cars, and paying for a war to make rich lying
mass-murderers and their oil-baron buddies and Nazi-funding families
and their alumnus defense contract company richer.

And, if they do screw us again and force us to do this bailout, which
I’m pretty certain they will, since they have the power and we seem
unable to exert a modicum of control over them, we should require a
matching contribution for any taxpayer funds from the personal funds
of the bank executives responsible for the failures. I am fairly certain
that some, if not most or all of them, have enough embezzled into secret
foreign accounts. This of course, won’t happen either…

And, we should get stock investments and decision making power in the
supposedly reforming financial institutions. If we buy something, it should
be ours, right?

I hate to be extremely frank to the point of insulting, but I feel that
anyone who disagrees with this is comforting themselves with wishful
delusions, ignorant of the facts, blind to the evidence in the media and
in daily life, stupid, insane, in bed with the corrupt, or some combination…

The politicians lie to get into office, contradicting themselves and telling
everybody what they want to hear. Their campaigns are paid for by the
wealthy, and that is who owns them. The masses are tired and beat-down.
We feel powerless, so we don’t group together to fight the rich. The rich
work together to keep themselves rich and keep the poor poor. We don’t
have the money to pay “our” representatives, so they vote the way the rich
people who can pay them tell them to. Otherwise, they’d have to actually
work real jobs like us. The rich can afford to educate their young in law
and finance, so they can pass more laws to keep themselves rich, and make
more companies and banks and schemes to rip off the poor. The poor
can’t even usually afford to take time off work, which we won’t get paid
for, being the lower class, to vote for candidates who say they represent
us, but never do.

Are you starting to get the picture?

Here is what I am starting to fear is the plan of the powerful for the
common person in America in the future:

The ruling, wealthy class is so rich and powerful that the only way
for them to gain more wealth and power is to force the middle
class into poverty. In fact, I’m pretty certain that if you got in
the heads of most ultra-rich folks, you’d realize that money no
longer gets them off. Let’s say they started off getting their fix
from money, and say that’s coffee. After awhile, coffee doesn’t
give them a rush, so they need power, which is more like cocaine.
Gone are the days of “an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.”

It keeps getting more difficult to afford food, gas, cars, and houses
(or even rent). Most people have little ore no benefits, and little or no
job security. With big companies lobbying the government to let them
send our jobs overseas, there are fewer and fewer jobs. Despite
what the government tells you, illegal immigrants are pretty much
taking jobs that Americans don’t want, while the government lets
the jobs we do want be exported to save the companies money,
since they can pay next to nothing for poor foreign slaves.

If the government represented the people, and not the corporations,
they would not allow more jobs to be exported, require some or all
jobs to be brought back, and then make it prohibitively expensive to
companies to export labor by taxing them for doing so to the point
where it is cheaper to hire domestically. The same people who say
that this would not be capitalistic or a free-market system are
the same who support socialism/welfare for the rich companies
by subsidising them, bailing them out, and giving them tax cuts
that they’d never give to an individual or small business. Is that
free-market capitalism?

As times goes on, we work harder and longer for less money
and benefits. More people lose their homes. More people move
into apartments and live in groups to survive, and most fail to
prosper, or save for retirement.

As we grow weary of our plight and strike out, mugging our rich
masters, car-jacking them, trying to sell drugs to them, robbing
their banks, burglarizing their gated-community mansions, just to
buy food for our children or keep our electricity on, their will be
ever more need for law enforcement.

In the face of this need, the police will become increasingly more
invasive, controlling, and unfeeling to the plight of the poor, seeing
them as more and more of a lawless, violent, desperate nuisance
and drain on their man power.

In addition, this will frustrate the municipal politicians, who, if ticket
prices and the testimony of many cops and ex-cops are any indicator,
see the police as a money-making team which ideally should just be
used to write traffic tickets to generate income for politicians,
and not to actually combat crime.

The law enforcement industry, which is already becoming corporate,
as evidenced by privately run prisons, security forces for neighborhoods,
and mercenary companies being used in foreign military situations to
augment and/or replace the military, will become more so as the
government can’t meet demand.

Wealthy people who want the poor controlled to protect their own
wealth will increasingly promote, create, fund, and sing the praises
of law enforcement businesses. And increasingly prohibitive laws
will be passed, with stiffer and stiffer penalties, to “legally” imprison
the poor in greater numbers. After all, problems are “out of sight,
out of mind”.

Eventually, private police forces for cities, like in Robo-Cop, and also,
perhaps, more domestic use of the military to police the less affluent
and disgruntled citizens, will not be uncommon.

A too-little-too-late, disorganized rebellion, when the poor will be
struggling to survive on the crumbs of those who forced them into
poverty, will be marketed by the conservative media to the world as a
guerrilla war run by fanatical savages. Most of the world won’t believe
them, but they will control the oil due to their insurgencies, so no one
will disagree.

To stop us from stealing back from the rich what was legally stolen
from us, we will be to pile us into centralized ghetto apartments, like
the Nazis put the Jews in, so we can easily be monitored and controlled
with no privacy, and keep our non-designer label clothes and old, ugly,
poorly running cars out of there glittering gated communities.

Perhaps as a final solution, they’ll decide just to round us all up one
night and put us in “work” camps.

But some of us are too young, or small, or sick, or weak, or old to work.
Some of us have mental and physical disabilities that keep us from being
efficient slaves. So why keep us around?

If you are thinking, “this sounds like Nazi Germany”, then you are right.
If you are thinking, “America doesn’t kill innocents”, then you are wrong.

George W Bush is president of the United States of America. His dad’s
dad, Prescott Bush, financed the US and the Nazis in WWII. He had
his assets ceased several times, but was never jailed. This is the legacy
that already has control of America. So what will stop a Nazi future?
We already have a government that would rather send us to die bombing
foreigners in schemes to make themselves money than spend the money
they take from us on our health and financial security, so is it so hard
to believe that we are ultimately nothing more than an expendable
resource?

“Oh, no, America would never do that, not my America!”… Oh, really?

Maybe you would agree that one of these Americas do such things:

The America that stole this land from natives, herded them like cattle,
slaughtered them in mass executions, made and broke treaties with them,
and gave them blankets infected with Malaria?

The America that abducted Africans to use as slave labor with no rights?

The America where the railroad companies lowered the Chinese over cliffs
in buckets to dynamite?

The America that tore itself in half, and brother killed brother, half so
they could keep abusing Africans as slaves, and the other half so they
could move the lower half from their plantations into ghettos to slave
in factories?

The America that let Pearl Harbor be bombed so it’s people would support
World War II?

The America that dumped Jews in Israel on top of Muslims, starting an
endless double-genocide war so it could have a puppet in the region to
help secure it’s oil interests?

The America that, according to many accounts and evidence either
allowed the WTC to be bombed on 9/11/2001 or took part in the bombing
itself to get it’s people to support a war?

The America that made war against Iraq for (at least) 6 years, to
catch a terrorist who is hiding in Afghanistan?

The America where the only two political parties that the corporate
masters allow to be in debates both plan on attacking Iran, which will
probably lead to a war with Russia over oil control, rather than making
some short term financial sacrifices to invest in alternative energy,
which would save the environment and make it easier for the poor
to afford to survive?

Of course that America could never lie, cheat, steal, and kill innocents
among it’s own and in the world at large.

Of course not.
Right?

$->$->$->$->$->$->$->$->$->$->$->$->$->$->

The following examples have been emailed to me by friends in response:

Sinking of the Battleship Main:
used for propaganda for the Spanish-American war.
There was never any evidence linking the Spanish to
the explosion that caused the ship to sink.
Some believe the US set off the explosion.

Operation Ajax:
1950’s Iran had a democratic style government until
the US conducted operation Ajax causing Mosaddeq,
elected Premier of the Iranian parliament to be overthrown.

Gulf of Tonkin Incident:
the US faked “incident” that allowed LBJ
to escalate US involvement in Vietnam.