Skip to main content

Full text of "Wake up from your nightmare . . . and other sociopolitical essays - American activist political theory for the 21st century - A. J. MacDonald, Jr. (3/12/2011)"

See other formats

Wake up from your 
nightmare . . . 

and other sociopolitical essays. 

- American activist political 
theory for the 21 st century - 

A.J. MacDonald Jr. 


<( To~ fk^ wWo- tfseJo Lcrvtsj \>uuAsj 

Wake-up from your nightmare . . . and other 
sociopolitical essays - American activist political 
theory for the 21 st century - © 2011 A., J. MacDonald, 
Jr. All rights reserved. Cover photo: © 2011 A. J. 
MacDonald, Jr. - Abortion clinic 16 th and L Street NW, 
Washington, DC; back cover photo: © 2011 A. J. 
MacDonald, Jr. Photo on page 108 credit: © 2002 
AP/Nasser Nasser. 



Introduction [ 5 ] 

Wake up from your Nightmare [ 7 ] 

Propaganda and the People [16] 

9/11 - America's Open Wound [29] 

The Roman Lawyers against the Washington 
Politicians [ 32 ] 

The Public Safety Exception [36] 

Shame and 9/11 Truth [39] 

Postmodern Economics [41] 

On Political Violence in America [ 45 ] 

How I Became a Liberal Communist Tree-Hugger 

Foucault and the Folly of the Narcissistic 
Self [52] 

Love Implementing the Demands of Justice 


Mexico's Cult(ure) of Death [ 62] 

The Wrong Answer to the Arizona Question 



How the Feds Plan to Stop Homegrown 
Terrorism [ 71 ] 

The Demise of Anglo-American Colonialism 

Security and Terrorism: Reducio ad Absurdum 

The Enemy of Freedom [79] 

The Future of America Depends upon Justice 
for the Unborn [82] 

Choose Life: March for Life - 2011 [91] 

A World Without Nukes: Dream? or Nightmare? 

Is it Okay to be Gay? [95] 

Political Observations 2011: US Government 
Illegitimate [100] 

Rachael Maddow's Faulty Gun-Control Argument 

The Day I was DONE with Israel and the US 
Government - 3/30/2002 [108] 

Why I am SO DONE with Alex Jones - Egypt, 
Libya, Israel, and Charlie Sheen [113] 

The End of the Nation-State? [118] 



The Days of Rage, which are now (early 2011) taking 
place throughout the Middle East, are, I believe, 
new, profound, and long awaited favorable (political) 
winds. Freedom is in the air. I wish these brave 
peoples the best, for they have fought hard and many 
have died struggling for political freedom. 

Finally, it appears as though people throughout the 
Middle East are awakening from their thirty-plus year 
nightmare: corrupt, old regimes are being overthrown. 

We have our own corrupt, old thirty-year regime to 
overthrow .... nonviolently, of course. 

Democrats and Republicans, our government in 
Washington (as well as many state and local 
governments) are nothing more than criminal 
organizations, which need to be turned out - just 
like Mubarak, Qaddafi, et al. 

How many US senators and representatives have been 
in Washington for the past thirty years or longer? 
They need to be arrested , because they are guilty of 
committing and covering up crimes against the 
American people. 

Wake up from your nightmare my fellow Americans; 
we've many battles yet to wage in the coming days. 

Would that this summer would be the summer of rage 
2011; not that I don't prefer nonviolence, but 
governments rarely, if ever, loosen their grip on 
power without a fight. I'm not advocating starting a 
fight either, but I am advocating finishing the fight 
the government will likely start, IF we ever find the 
courage to face down the corrupt, thirty plus-year 
regime that now rules over us so poorly. 

This book is a compilation of many of my essays- 
summer 2010 to spring 2011— that concern politics, 
society, law, and religion. Some of what I have 
written may sound familiar and some of it may not. I 
am not easy to pigeon-hole, politically. Concerning 
some issues I am very liberal, because the issue 
probably concerns the individual's right to do pretty 
much whatever she wants to do, so long as she's not 
bothering anyone (e.g., alcohol/drug use, sexual 
preferences) , and to be left alone (to go unmolested) 
by neighbors, police, and government. But on some 


issues I'm very conservative, because the issue 
probably concerns the individual's right to do pretty 
much whatever she wants to do, so long as she's not 
bothering anyone (e.g., property rights, gun 
ownership) . In short, I am someone who is reasonably 
intelligent who has observed, studied, and meditated 
upon the American political experience for many, many 
years: from 1 9 68-present . There were Days of Rage in 
1968 too. 

During that time, as you might imagine, I've seen 
quite a bit of political change in America, and 
throughout the world. 1968 was an eventful year, as I 
recall: the Tet Offensive began in South Vietnam, 
protests erupted on campuses throughout America (and 
the world) and many cities were plagued by rioting, 
especially after Dr. King was murdered in Memphis, 
Tennessee. Bobby Kennedy, who had pledged to end the 
long, unwinnable war in South Vietnam, was also 
murdered that year, just a month after Dr. King was 
felled by an assassin's bullet . 

Many hopes were dashed in those days with the 
deaths— murders— of three, very important, visionary 
leaders: John F. Kennedy (Senator and US President), 
Martin Luther King, Jr. (social and religious 
leader), and Robert F. Kennedy (US Attorney General 
Senator and 1968 Democratic candidate for US 
President) . 

It's my hope that something I say will trigger 
something inside the minds of the American people, 
like the detonator of a bomb triggers an explosion. 
It's up to the People of America to run their own 
af fairs— i . e . , to run our own country— which is a 
responsibility many Americans have abandoned long 
ago; over thirty years ago. 

The corrupt thirty-plus-year regime in Washington 
needs to go, now. A plethora of corruption and 
criminal charges exist against the political 
"leadership" of this nation, which include but are 
not limited to: Afghanistan (1979), al Qaeda, Iran- 
Contra, continuity of government, cocaine smuggling, 
WTC bombing (1993), OKC bombing (1995), 9/11/2001 , 
Afghanistan Iraq , War on Terror , USA PATRIOT ACT , ATF 
gun running to Mexico (2011) . 


Wake -Up From Your Nightmare . . . 

I had a really bad dream last night. I saw 
someone die a sudden, brutal, and violent 
death. And I've seen enough of that in real 
life; I certainly don't need to see it in my 
dreams, too. Unfortunately, many people will die 
sudden, brutal, and violent deaths today. It bothers 
me that so many of these deaths are preventable 
(e.g., accidents), but what really bothers me— no, 
angers me— is that so many of these people will die at 
the hands of people whose sole intention is to kill 

I guess this is a personal issue with me, because 
many people don't seem to be bothered by this at all. 
Perhaps I'm too sensitive? 

The town I'm presently living in has a large Army 
supply depot located just outside the town's limits, 
and a lot of people who live in this town work there. 
In fact, the depot is (I think) the largest employer 
in town. And it's been very busy lately . . . ever 
since the wars began. Before then it was almost 
(literally) closed down. I imagine that if the wars 
ever ended virtually everyone who works there would 
be out of work. And there's not that many places in 
this town for someone to find work, other than the 
depot, especially these days . 

I suppose this is the real issue we face in trying 
to end these wars: too many American's currently 
depend on them for their livelihood . I imagine that 
if I were ever to protest, locally, the wars, and 
this (local) depot's involvement in them, I would 
quickly become the most reviled person in town. I 
don't protest the wars locally, or the depot's 
involvement in them, (because my immediate family 
fears retaliation if I do, and I believe that I 
should respect their desire not to be involved) and 
so life, here, goes merrily on, just as the locals 
here would have it to go on: with most of the 
townsfolk busily involved in the task of supplying 
and resupplying our service men and women who (as the 


locals put it) are "bravely and heroically fighting 
for our freedom, over there". 

Personally, I could never be involved with any 
aspect of the military-industrial complex, which 
former president Eisenhower warned us about. But many 
people seem to be quite okay with it. When I was 
younger I did serve in the military, but I certainly 
want no parts of it today. 

Because I have spoken out against the wars, 
locally, in writing, I've been accused (by some of 
the locals) of being un-American, and, since I'm also 
a veteran, I've even been told that I am now "a 
disgrace to the uniform". 

There's a guy, here in town, who has a pick-up 
truck with "America: Love It or Leave It!" painted on 
his truck's tailgate. (I suppose every town in 
America has a guy with a truck like this though, 
right?) I first heard the expression "America: Love 
It or Leave It!" a very long time ago, during 
America's long war in Vietnam. I was too young to go 
to Vietnam; the war was over by the time that I had 
enlisted (1976), on my seventeenth birthday. I've had 
many friends and acquaintances who served in Vietnam, 
some of whom enjoyed their time over there (some a 
bit too much), many who did not enjoy their time over 
there, and many who were simply glad that the war had 
finally ended and that they had managed to make it 
back home, alive. 

One of my friends, who served in the Marine Corps, 
had come back from Vietnam with a heroin addiction, 
which he was still dealing with (via Methadone) some 
thirty years after the war was over. He also had a 
serious drinking problem. He told me, once, that he'd 
been okay, mentally, until he had been ordered to 
shell a Vietnamese village which (he and everyone 
else knew) housed only innocent civilians. He (they) 
did, and he was still suffering the consequences of 
it some thirty years after the war had ended. 

At least the dead are at peace. 


I've been fortunate in that I have never been 
responsible for anyone's death. And for that I thank 
God, for his grace and for his mercy. As I said, I've 
seen many people die a sudden, brutal, and violent 
death. Only one occurred while I was in the military; 
all of the others I saw on the highways of America. I 
drove a truck for twenty years and, as you can 
imagine, you see a lot of death and a lot of 
destruction when you travel the highways for many, 
many years. I actually had to quit driving, because I 
just couldn't take it anymore. I was living in Little 
Rock, Arkansas at the time and there was one 
particular mile-long stretch of Interstate 30, during 
a period of one week, on which five people died 
(suddenly, brutally and violently), including a woman 
and her young child, who ended up beneath a tractor- 
trailer after hitting it head-on. I'll tell you what 
. after all that I'd already seen during all of 
those years of driving (especially, by this time, 
this woman and her young child, underneath that 
truck), it wasn't long after that one particularly 
gruesome week in Little Rock that I decided to give 
up driving (every day, and for a living) for good. 

I simply couldn't take it any longer. 

It always seems like a sacred moment to me, 
whenever I see someone die an especially sudden, 
brutal, and violent death . . . like a sacred moment 
in time. Whatever it was that had led to these deaths 
(in my case, these were all accidental deaths) seemed 
very incidental to me. The deadly moment seemed, to 
me, very mysterious; holy, somehow. What chain of 
events had led to this particular and deadly moment 
for this person? What could someone have possibly 
done in order to have avoided this deadly moment? 
Anything? Was it, in some mysterious way, beyond 
anyone's control? To me, it certainly seemed so. Or 
was there something (anything) that someone could 
have done in order to have prevented the tragedy? I 
know that I've prayed many prayers— hundreds— for the 
loved ones that I knew would soon hear those terrible 
words: that their daughter, their son, their wife, 
their husband, their mother, or their father had 
died . 


I leave those mysteries, regarding the moments and 
incidences of people's deaths, to God; who certainly 
knows much better than do I why they occurred when 
they occurred. Accidents are one thing, but the 
intentional brutal and violent destruction of a human 
life is something altogether different. Intentional 
acts of this sort enter the realm of moral evil. Not 
that I'm a pacifist, because I'm not. I believe we 
have the right— the obligation— to defend ourselves and 
innocents from evildoers who seek to do us (and them) 
bodily harm. But war, for instance, must be justified 
along these same lines: as a defense against those 
who would do us harm. War is the worst of evils, and 
the very last of resorts. The current wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, however, do not meet this (just war) 
criteria. The US is in fact the invader— the evildoer— 
in both of these instances. 

I can' t imagine being responsible— whether directly 
or indirectly— for the brutal and violent destruction 
of someone's wife, husband, daughter, son, mother, or 
father. Yet how many of the people who are returning 
(or will return) from Iraq and Afghanistan, and how 
many of those people who work at supplying and 
resupplying our troops, will have the inescapable 
feeling that they have innocent blood on their hands 
which, except for the forgiveness that comes only 
through Christ, can never be removed? How many 
people, thirty years from now, will lament and brood 
over the day they followed an "order" to shred, into 
bloody pieces, innocent peoples in the name of 
"freedom"? How will they pay their debt to the dead? 

I shudder to think about it. 

I hope the VA has a good program for PTSD and 
substance abuse , because they're going to need it; 
for many years to come. 

But why is it that things are so out-of-wack in 
America anyway? Why is that that people in the US 
military, ever since Vietnam, have been "ordered" to 
kill innocent people in the name of "freedom"? What's 


wrong with America? What's wrong with the American 
people and our government? 

Well, there's a very easy— yet a very disturbing- 
answer to these questions. And the answer lies in the 
distant, although not too distant, past. In fact, it 
lies somewhere within the very first memories that I 
have as a human person: the assassination, in 
November 19 63, of then US President John F. Kennedy. 

Anyone who is old enough to remember 9/11, and the 
impact the events of that day had upon their memory, 
can certainly imagine the impact the event of 
President Kennedy' s assassination must have had upon 
those who can remember it— the event is indelibly 
etched upon the minds of those people who lived 
through that experience. 

I was very young (almost four years old) when 
President Kennedy was assassinated, but I do remember 
it; like it was yesterday. 

My first memory of that event is both powerful and 
unusual. I remember being on my dad's shoulders, at 
night, waiting and watching for something; although I 
didn't know what. In the midst of a small group, of 
perhaps twenty people, we stood beside a high fence, 
in the darkness and in silence, and we watched as a 
Navy (i.e., Marine Corps) helicopter was landing, and 
it seemed, to me, in the darkness, that fire was 
somehow coming from its engines. A battleship grey, 
US Navy Cadillac ambulance was waiting nearby the 
helicopter landing pad (at the Bethesda Naval 
Hospital) and, from my perch, high upon my dad's 
shoulders, I watched as men silently rolled a 
hospital gurney (upon which lay a body, with a white 
sheet covering it) from the helicopter toward the 
open rear door of the ambulance. I remember people 
crying, sobbing, but I didn't know why. Someone, 
probably my dad, told me that it was President 
Kennedy . 

Until now (and I am now fifty years old) I never 
really understood the full meaning of that day, and 
of that event. 


I have other, also very clear, memories of 
Kennedy's assassination as well: being in Washington 
(on my dad's shoulders again) amidst a sea of people, 
hoping to view President Kennedy' s body, which was 
lying in state in the rotunda of the Capitol 
building; the (very somber) funeral, with its rider- 
less horse and the "rider's" empty boots placed 
backward in the stirrups, which was televised to the 
nation (in those days, on black and white TV) and 
which interrupted (to my four year old bewilderment) 
my regularly scheduled cartoons; visiting Arlington 
Cemetery and seeing the eternal flame at Kennedy' s 
gravesite, surrounded by four hats, each hat 
representing one branch of the four armed services. 

Looking back on that event today— almost fifty years 
later— I think: "Yeah, that's very ironic, isn't it? 
The four branches of the armed services? Why not 
include hats representing the various branches of 
America's secret intelligence agencies too? But I 
suppose they don't have hats, do they?" Ironic, too, 
how militaristic the slain president's state funeral 
was . 

It seems that Kennedy, much to the consternation of 
the leaders of the armed services (namely, the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, at the time) was far too much of a 
peacemaker (or, a peace seeker) for the hawks in the 
military and the secret intelligence services, 
especially since this was, at the time, the very 
height of the Cold War (e.g., after the Bay of Pigs 
and the Cuban Missile Crisis) . The militaristic hawks 
thought that Kennedy should have chosen to dominate 
the (Soviet) enemy with overwhelming force (called 
today: Full Spectrum Dominance), via nuclear weapons. 
And for choosing not to do so (thereby saving the 
world, as we know it), and for choosing instead to 
pursue a course of peace , life, and humanity, 
President Kennedy was murdered, in Dallas— as a 
traitor— by the hawks within the US military and the 
US secret intelligence agencies. 

The assassination of another peacemaker— the 
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.— I have much 
clearer memories of, because I was, by then, much 
older (I was eight years old) . I remember well King's 


funeral, and the contrast between Kennedy's rider- 
less horse (which I remembered, clearly) and King' s 
simple pine coffin, which was carried by a mule-drawn 
cart. Apparently, the same sorts of people (the 
militarist hawks) were involved with King's murder 
too; as they were with the murder of Kennedy's 
brother, Robert, another peace seeker, who was shot 
to death in Los Angeles, only a month after Dr. King 
had been gunned-down while standing on the balcony of 
the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee in April 
1968 . 

It would seem that the militaristic hawks have a 
thing for guns, doesn't it? As well as for gunning- 
down those leaders— true leaders— who dare to cross 
them; and who attempt to foil their bloody, 
warmongering agenda. 

Well I, for one, have no respect for these 
militaristic hawks— whose legacies remain in power 
today. Nor will I ever be afraid to stick my neck out 
(or my head) in order to thwart their ungodly, 
murderous agenda and to take a stand for life, peace, 
and humanity. As I said before, I'm not a pacifist— I 
believe in self defense— but there has never been a 
good reason (i.e., a just reason) for Americans to 
have gone to war at anytime during the past fifty 
years; including (especially) the events of 9/11 , 
which is the reason (excuse) that's always given for 
the on-going carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now 
Pakistan . 

Question: Who do you think had the most to gain 
from the events of 9/11? The American people, 
perhaps? Or maybe the enlisted members of the US 
armed services? Or perhaps it was the Iraqi, Afghani, 
and Pakistani peoples? Perhaps— in reality— it was the 
militaristic hawks, at it again, beginning a new (21 st 
century) era of fear and warmongering; those who 
occupy high-level positions within the US military 
and the various US secret intelligence agencies? (Not 
to mention certain civilian "leaders", like former 
(chicken-hawk) Vice President Richard Cheney.) 
Perhaps they felt the need, as these militarist hawks 
so often do, to dominate "the enemy"; as opposed to 


pursuing a course of peace? Granted, it's much 
easier, I suppose, to see "the enemy"— especially when 
your desire is to kill him— as an inanimate object, as 
opposed to seeing him as a fellow human being. But 
this militaristic approach doesn't— in reality— remove 
from "the enemy" his humanity, does it? 

Could it be? Could it be that all of those people, 
in the town that I now live in— all of those people 
who work at that Army depot— are actually supporting 
the same, insidious, murderous military-industrial 
militaristic hawk-complex that's truly responsible 
for assassinating President John F. Kennedy, the Rev. 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy? 
The same military-industrial militarist hawk-complex 
that' s responsible for killing thousands of people in 
Vietnam, thousands of people on 9/11, thousands of 
people in Afghanistan, thousands of people in Iraq, 
and who, today, are intent on killing millions more, 
via nuclear weapons, in a foolhardy attempt to 
initiate, in the Middle East, (in league with Israel 
against "our enemies" Iran and its allies: Russia and 
China) a new and third World War? And all the while, 
the best thing that the majority of the American 
people seem to be able to say is: "America: Love It 
or Leave It!"? 

Please, say it ain't so . . . 

But I suppose these people do need their jobs; 
right? I know they have bills to pay, kids to feed, 
and (many) trips to Wal-Mart to make. I know they 
need to work; who doesn't? But is being involved with 
killing people— people who have done us no harm 
whatsoever— the only (or even the best) job that we 
can do? Do we not have a conscience? A human 
conscience, which tells us when we are doing 
something wrong? Are we so brainwashed— yes : 
brainwashed— that we believe, unthinkingly, all of the 
lies that our government has told us concerning these 
wars and the events of 9/11? 

For the love of God people 

please, wake up! 


I'm on my knees, begging you. Seek life, seek 
peace, and seek humanity. 

You're breaking my heart . . . and I really don't 
have much of a heart left to break. 


Propaganda and the People 

One of the most important books I've ever read is 
Jacques Ellul's Propaganda: The Formation of Men's 
Attitudes. Ellul was a French Resistance fighter 
during World War II and his study of propaganda 
concentrates on the Nazi's methods of propaganda. 
Although the book is somewhat dated (it was published 
in 1973), the methods of propaganda he examines 
haven't really changed at all, because they still 
work, and governments continue to use these same 
methods, which the Nazi's used so many years ago. 

Ellul is one of the greatest thinkers of our time; 
therefore he was very well able to analyze 
propaganda— unlike most people, who are so easily 
taken in by propaganda. 

To most people, the word propaganda has negative 
connotations, because we think of how lies have been 
perpetrated via propaganda, but the word propaganda 
simply describes a certain type of speech: 
propagandistic speech; the word itself has neither 
negative nor positive connotations. Propaganda is 
certainly persuasive speech, but then all speech is 
persuasive to some degree; if it weren't, we wouldn't 
bother speaking (or writing) at all. 

What I find most interesting about propaganda is 
how blatantly— shamelessly— persuasive it is. During 
World War II, the United States shamelessly portrayed 
our enemy, the Japanese people, as sub-human, rodent- 
like creatures. Why? So that our soldiers could find 
it easier to kill (i.e., exterminate) them and so 
that the citizens of the U. S. could support such 
killing . 

Does anyone in the U. S. today still believe that 
the Japanese people are sub-human, rodent-like 
creatures? Yet the overwhelming majority of Americans 
during World War II did think of the Japanese people 
this way. 


What's changed? The war eventually ended; the war- 
fever eventually subsided; and the American people 
eventually came back to their senses. 

Now apply this same scenario— the use of wartime 
propaganda— to ourselves and our situation today. 
Today we are at war with the terrorists, and ever 
since September 11, 2001, the American people (and 
the entire world) have been given, by their 
government in Washington, a very simple choice: 
"Either you are with us or you are with the 
terrorists . " 

Obviously no one wants to be "with the terrorists," 
do they? So we default to an unthinking, flag waving 
support of our nation, during its time of war: the 
"War on Terror". 

Ever since September 11, 2001 we have been 
subjected to propagandistic imagery, which no 
American thinks of as being "bad", even though it's 
obviously propagandistic, which represents our 
"standing with America" against our enemies: "the 
terrorists". We've also been deluged by pro-war 
rhetoric from our politicians (of both political 
parties) as well as from our media— especially our 
television news media. 

I'm saying all of this in order to make one, simple 
point and to ask you one, simple question: "Have you 
been so taken in by this propaganda that you have 
suspended your critical thinking?" 

In order to help you to figure this out, I'll ask 
you a few, simple questions: 

Do you still believe— nine years after 9/11— that 
supporting the (unending) "War on Terror" is the 
right thing for American citizens to be doing? 

Do you still believe— nine years after 9/11— that the 
"War on Terror" makes America a safer place? 

Do you still believe— nine years after 9/11— that 
detaining (indefinitely) and torturing people who are 
suspected of being or supporting terrorists— including 


people who are U. S. citizens— is the right thing for 
our government to be doing? 

Do you still believe— nine years after 9/11— that the 
U. S. military is in Afghanistan in order to hunt- 
down Osama bin Laden and take-out al Qaeda? 

Do you still believe— nine 
government was telling the 
about Iraq's having weapons 

years after 9/11— that our 
American people the truth 
of mass destruction? 

Do you still believe— nine years after 9/11— that the 
USA PATRIOT ACT was (and still is) a good thing for 
the American people? 

Do you still believe— nine years after 9/11— that the 
U. S. has a right to invade any nation it deems to be 
a threat, even if the people of that nation have 
never harmed us in any way? 

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, 
you have been taken-in (i.e., duped) by the 
Washington government's propaganda. 

Being take-in or duped by someone is okay, we've 
all been fooled by someone at one time or another in 
our lives, it's part and parcel of being human; but 
once our eyes have been opened, and once we realize 
that we've been deceived, we shouldn't allow 
ourselves to be so easily fooled again. 

The most important lesson I came away with from 
Jacques Ellul's fascinating book on propaganda was 
this: When a government wishes to accomplish 
something that's on its agenda, but the government 
doesn't have the popular, public support it needs in 
order to implement this "something", the government 
creates "a crisis" for which this "something" is then 
set then forth as being "the solution" to "the 

Did you get that? The government's "solution"— 
meaning some part of the government's unpopular 
agenda— comes first; then the government's assertion 
that a "crisis" exists comes afterwards. This is the 


means to the ends that the government wishes— with 
popular, public support— to attain. 

Governments— including our government in Washington- 
will often use the media, especially the television 
news media, to communicate to us the existence of a 
manufactured "crisis" in order to gain popular, 
public support for a particular aspect of the 
government's agenda. 

One, recent example of this is the "crisis" in 
health care. I'm fifty years old and I can assure you 
that— throughout my lifetime— health care has always 
been expensive, because health care is a very highly 
skilled kind of care that is very labor intensive. 
Has the cost of health care gone up? Of course it 
has. But so has the cost of everything else, yet you 
never hear about a "crisis" in, let's say, the cost 
of postage stamps, do you? When I was a child, a 
postage stamp cost five cents, but today a postage 
stamp costs forty-four cents. The price of a 
Hershey' s chocolate bar was also five cents when I 
was a child, yet today you'll pay upwards of one 
dollar for a Hershey' s chocolate bar. 

If there's a crisis in anything in America today 
it's the crisis of the Washington government's fiscal 
irresponsibility: inflationary deficit spending, 
which (inevitably) causes the prices of everything we 
buy (e.g., health care, postage stamps, candy bars) 
to rise— slowly, but ever so surely. But we never hear 
about that, do we? The Washington government wants us 
to believe that inflation is always under control; 
that it's never in crisis. The real crises are hidden 
from the public, whereas the manufactured crises are 
foisted— via the government/media propaganda machine— 
upon the public. 

Has our attitude been formed— shaped— by the 
Washington government's propaganda? Is it being 
shaped by it, even now? 

If we are unaware of the insidious influence that 
propaganda has on our— or any— society, Jacques Ellul 
tells us that we will certainly be influenced by it; 


most often without our even realizing that we are 
being influenced by it. 

It's time for the American people to wake up to 
this fact. 

When it comes to the threat— or the perceived 
threat— of terrorism, the United States has perceived 
a growing threat of terrorism for many years now. In 
short, for those of us who are old enough to 
remember, and for those of us who have been paying 
attention, the threat of Islamic— or Middle East- 
terrorism is really nothing new. 

Through the late 1960's and the 1970' s, I can 
remember many incidences of Middle Eastern (i.e., 
Arab/Palestinian) terrorism making the news, 
repeatedly. But it wasn't until 1979— when the Islamic 
Revolution occurred in Iran— that the U. S. government 
became extremely concerned with a new threat: Islamic 
terrorism. By 1980, the U. S. had allied itself with 
Iran's enemy, the secular Saddam Hussein's (Sunni) 
Iraq, in hope that war between these two countries 
would result in the defeat of the Islamic 
Revolutionaries in Iran. War did occur, and the war 
was brutal, including the use of poison gases by 
Iraq, which were supplied by the U. S., lasting from 
1980-1988 and resulting in a stalemate, with Iran 
having suffered the worst of the casualties. 

Throughout the 1980' s, Washington grew ever more 
concerned with the new— Islamic— terror threat. Iran 
had supported the (Shia) Islamic terrorist group 
Hezbollah, which was formed in Lebanon in 1982, in 
its attacks against its enemy: Israel. In 1983, the 
U. S. had sent troops into Lebanon (siding with 
Israel) in an attempt at peacekeeping (Israel had 
invaded Lebanon in 1982) and Hezbollah responded to 
this U. S. involvement in Lebanon by launching 
suicide truck bomb attacks against the U. S. embassy 
and the U. S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, which 
resulted in the loss of 241 American lives. There 
were also multiple Islamic terror related kidnappings 
of many Americans living and working in the Middle 
East during the 1980' s, as well as the infamous 1988 


bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, 
Scotland, which took the lives of 270 people. 

During this same time period (the 1980' s) the 
Soviet Union had, in 1979, invaded Afghanistan and 
continued to occupy it until finally leaving that 
country in 1989. The U. S. supported the Afghan 
rebels--or freedom fighters, as they were called in 
those days— against our enemy the Soviet Union. The 
war in Afghanistan was, in reality, a proxy war 
between the U. S. and the U. S. S. R., much like 
Vietnam War had had been years earlier, with the 
Soviets backing the North Vietnamese against the U. 
S. When the war in Afghanistan ended in 1989, the U. 
S., having achieved the results it wanted— a Soviet 
defeat— immediately cut its ties with Afghanistan 
leaving the people of that country to pick up the 
pieces of their broken lives without the help of 
their former ally: the U. S. 

If we want to truly understand the terror attacks 
of September 11, 2001 and the War on Terror which 
followed, we need to understand Afghanistan after 
1989. In the later years of the Afghan war, the 
Mujahideen, or Afghan freedom fighters, were being 
fully funded and supported by the U. S. through its 
intelligence agencies, and by the time that the U. S. 
finally pulled its funding and support out of 
Afghanistan in 1989 the U. S. had helped to fund, 
support and create an insurgent Islamic army of 
jihadists that no longer had a Soviet enemy to fight; 
thereby creating a phenomenon that scholar Chalmers 
Johnson has referred to as blowback . 

The Soviet Union had come to an end by 1991 and the 
United States government was soon declaring itself to 
be the new, lone superpower. But although the Soviet 
Union had collapsed, the threat of Islamic terrorism, 
thanks to the war in Afghanistan, had now become a 
much greater threat. 

In relation to thinking about how propaganda 
functions, and about how the War on Terror has been 
sold to us as a response to the terror attacks of 
9/11, let's look at what the Washington government 


knew about the newest Islamist terrorist group to 
arise during the early 1990' s, which came out of the 
Afghan Mujahieen and was led by an man named Osama 
bin Laden, which was called: al Qaeda; meaning: The 
Base . 

The official excuse which the Washington government 
has given us for its inability to prevent the deaths 
of nearly 3,ooo American citizens on September 11, 
2001 is: "We never saw this coming." But from 1981 
until 2006, according to five-time Emmy Award-winning 
investigative journalist Peter Lance, who has written 
three books on the subject of 9/11, what follows is 
only a partial list of what the Washington government 
did in fact know about the al Qaeda Islamic terrorist 
threat and the danger that it posed to U. S. 
citizens— long before 9/11: 

• They knew Ali Mohamed, a member of al Qaeda 
and a Foreign Counter Intelligence agent, who 
was working with the U. S. government, was 
training al Qaeda terrorists in New York in 
1992 . 

• They knew about, infiltrated, and assisted 
the al Qaeda cell that planned and executed 
the first attack on the World Trade Center 
(i.e., the bombing of the WTC in 19 93) before 
it happened. 

• They knew that Ali Mohamed traveled to 
Nairobi, Kenya in order to do surveillance on 
the U. S. embassy located there in 
preparation for a future al Qaeda terrorist 
attack (the bombing of which actually 
occurred in 1998, killing 213 people) . 


They knew Ali Mohamed traveled to Khartoum, 
Sudan, in 1993, in order to arrange a terror 
summit between (Sunni) al Qaeda and (Shiite) 
Hezbollah leaders, including Osama bin Laden, 
which led to the Khobar Towers bombing (Saudi 
Arabia) in 1996, and facilitated the future 
Sunni-Shiite insurgency alliance in Iraq 
(2003) . 

They knew, in 1993, that Ali Mohamed was 
training al-Qaeda terrorists how to hijack 
commercial airliners. 

They knew, in 1995, that terror mastermind 
Ramzi Yousef, and his uncle, Khalid Sheikh 
Mohamed, were planning to use airliners as 
missiles; plotting to hijack and then crash 
commercial airliners into buildings (e.g., 
the Transamerica building, the Sears Tower, 
the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center 
towers) in the U. S. 

They knew, in 1995, that terror mastermind 
Ramzi Yousef, and his uncle, Khalid Sheikh 
Mohamed, were planning to blow up a dozen 
airliners over the Pacific by using small, 
easily concealed, liquid-based, time- 
activated bombs, which were to be placed near 
the center fuel tanks of Boeing 747' s, 
causing the airliners' fuel (and the airliner 
itself) to explode. 

They knew, in 1995, that Ali Mohamed had 
gotten Ayman al-Zawahiri (al Qaeda' s number- 
two man) into the U. S. for an al Qaeda 
fundraising tour; the purpose of which was to 
raise funds for the bombing of the Egyptian 
embassy in Pakistan. 


They knew that Oklahoma City bomber Terry 
Nichols had been in contact with al Qaeda 
members in the Philippines before the bombing 
of the Murrah federal building on April 19, 

They knew al Qaeda was planning to blow up a 
U. S. airliner, via a small, liquid-based, 
time-activated bomb, which was to be placed 
near the center fuel tank of a Boeing 747 (in 
order to cause a mistrial) during terror 
mastermind Ramzi Yousef's federal trial in 
New York City, during July 1996. (This event 
actually did occur, when TWA flight 800 blew 
up in mid-air just after taking off (bound 
for Paris, France) from JFK International 
airport (Long Island, New York) on July 17, 
1996, killing all 230 people on-board; 
including an entire high school French Club, 
from Pennsylvania, who were on their way to 
Paris; killing sixteen students and five 
adults) . 

They knew of, and were monitoring, the al 
Qaeda cell (in Africa) that was plotting to 
bomb, simultaneously, the U. S. embassies in 
Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 
1998 (killing 224 people and injuring 
thousands) before it happened. 

They knew, during late 1999-early 2000, that 
al Qaeda held a meeting (in the Philippines) 
to plan the execution of terror mastermind 
Ramzi Yousef's (9/11 style) airliners-as- 
missiles plot. 

[2 5 ] 

• They knew, in 2000, that two of the 9/11 
hijackers had entered the U. S. and that they 
were living in a room they had rented from an 
FBI informant in San Diego, California. 

• They knew of, and were monitoring, in 2000, 
at least four of the 9/11 hijackers who were 
then living in the U. S., including lead 
hijacker Mohamed Atta, whose picture was also 
included in a link chart, which was produced 
by Defense Intelligence Agency analysts (the 
results of a vast data-mining project which 
they had developed) . 

Do you still believe— even after reading this 
partial list— that the Washington government "never 
saw this coming"? 

As for the War on Terror, which followed the 9/11 
attacks, let's look beyond the propaganda and ask: 
What are the lies and what are the truths concerning 
it, and what do you now— nine years since 9/11— still 
believe about it? Have you bought-into the 
propaganda? Do you want to know the truth beyond the 

Lie: "The War on Terror is keeping Americans safe 
by protecting us from al Qaeda terrorist attacks." 

Truth: "The odds that we might be killed in a 
terrorist attack in America are truly astronomical; 
something like winning the power ball twice in a row. 
Even 'if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of 
America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your 
chances of being there at the wrong time would be 
about one in one million or more . . . [even] if 
terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 
18,000 commercial flights per week . . . your chance 
of being on the crashed plane would be one in 
135, 000.'" Reason Magazine August 11, 2006 (See the 
full article here) . 


The fact is that we are in virtually no danger of 
being killed in an al Qaeda terrorist attack. And 
this is not because the War on Terror is keeping us 
safe, it's simply because the odds of our being 
killed in a terrorist attack (of any kind) are just 
so astronomically high. And the price that we pay- 
sacrificing our individual freedoms and liberties— for 
this supposed 'safety' is far too high. 

Because of the current "Hot War" that America has 
begun in the Middle East and Afghanistan, it is in 
fact far more likely that the American homeland is 
now at greater risk of nuclear attack by our enemies: 
China and Russia, who are allied with Iran, than it 
ever was during the "Cold War". 

Lie: "We can succeed in Afghanistan." 

Truth: "History tells us that Afghanistan has 
always repelled outside invaders; and we are simply 
fools to believe that we can succeed were all other 
have failed. A fundamental rule of warfare is: don't 
stretch your supply lines too thin, yet this is 
exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

"'I would like to push closer to the border, but I 
can only go as far as I can support,' said Lt . Col. 
Michael Martin, commanding officer of 4th Marine 
Division, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion 
Like Napoleon, you don't want to overextend 
your capabilities, or you will get your butt handed 
to you, ' said Martin , whose troops are spread out 
among a handful of patrol bases along the Helmand 
River, marking the coalition's most southern presence 
in the province." 

A fiscally bankrupt nation/empire (like America), 
which has its military spread out across the globe in 
a futile attempt to control the resources of foreign 
nations (like Iraq and Afghanistan), is a 
nation/empire that is destined to collapse. 

Propaganda is a very powerful tool in the hands of 
a very powerful government and we should not be so 
dubious as to believe everything that our government 


in Washington tells us to believe. It has an agenda, 
and we are fools if we think that it doesn't. And we 
are fools if we think our government will not use 
whatever means it thinks are necessary in order to 
move that agenda forward by influencing, through 
propaganda, U. S. public opinion. 

In 2000, an out-of-power group of pseudo- 
intellectual chickenhawks devised a strategy in which 
they envisioned a new, hegemonic American empire that 
would sit astride the world; something like a new 
Roman Empire. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, 
the threat of Islamic terrorism, the rise of China, 
and the chance to (finally) make a grab for the 
Middle East oil fields, which the Soviet Union had 
long feared the U. S. would make, this neo- 
conservative, think-tank cabal, the Project for a New 
American Century— most of the members of which having 
held positions of power in previous administrations 
(e.g., Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz)— 
outlined their plan for a new, American hegemonic 
dominance of the world and its resources through 
brute (brutal) military strength: Rebuilding 
America' s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources 
for a New Century. 

The document outlined their plan to take advantage 
of superior U. S. military strength in order to 
dominate and intimidate the world and to control it 
resources. To the members of this power-hungry cabal, 
there was only one, small problem with this agenda: 
the American people would never support it, nor would 
any of our allies. But they knew exactly what they 
needed to do in order to get public opinion to 
endorse their new plan for America: create "a crisis" 
for which their plan was to be "the solution". 

In their own words, from the document outlining 
their plan, which was mentioned above: 

"A transformation strategy that solely pursued 
capabilities for projecting force from the United 
States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing 
and presence, would be at odds with larger American 
policy goals and would trouble American allies. 
Further, the process of transformation, even if it 


brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long 
one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- 
like a new Pearl Harbor." Rebuilding America' s 
Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New 
Century , 2000, p. 51. 

The "terrorist" attacks of September 11, 2001 were 
the realization of this "catastrophic and catalyzing 
event", "a new Pearl Harbor", and it was an event 
that was carefully overseen and orchestrated every 
step of the way by those who sought to assert U. S. 
military dominance around the globe, especially in 
the Middle East: those corrupt political, 
intelligence, and military of ficials— drunk with 
power— who have burrowed their way into what has 
become the ungodly, criminal corporate, military, 
government, symbiotic entity that now poses as our 
legitimate government in Washington D. C. 

Wake up America, see through the propaganda, and 
begin taking back your government from these 
criminals— for the People— now! 


9/11 - America's Open Wound 

I was accused, recently, in a letter to the 
editor of the Public Opinion, which was titled: 
Essayist's points make no sense (September 13, 
2010), of making nonsensical points in an essay 
that I had written, which had been published 
previously in the Public Opinion (September 3, 2010) . 
The point, which I made in the essay and which this 
letter-writer took issue with, was this: That I 
believe elements of our own government were 
responsible for the terror attacks of September 11, 
2001 . 

I realize this is not something one hears on the 
nightly news, but it's hardly nonsensical. Consider 
the following news story, which concerns a recent 
press conference held by the group Architects and 
Engineers for 9/11 Truth, that took place at the 
National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the ninth 
anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks: 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 / PRNewswire-USNewswire / 

On Thursday September 9, 2010 

1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of 
Explosive Demolition at World Trade Center on 9/11 

Former US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) and Richard 
Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 
Truth Discuss Scientific Findings - National Press 
Club, Washington DC, 2:00 pm, Thursday, September 9, 

"Gravel and Gage will host a central press conference 
at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, 
presenting hard evidence that all three WTC 
skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, in NYC were 
destroyed by explosive controlled demolition. 


Senator Gravel notes, "Critically important evidence 
has come forward after the original government 
building reports were completed." 

Have you heard about this? I don't think Gravel and 
Gage are talking nonsense. Do you? After all, 
architects and engineers are usually some of the most 
scientifically-minded and fact-based people that one 
would ever want to meet. They're hardly the type of 
people given to making nonsensical statements, 
especially in public ... at the National Press Club 
no less. 

I think the real question we need to ask ourselves 
is: Why did they feel the need to do so in the first 
place? Because there's a media blackout concerning 
the many questions surrounding the horrific events of 
9/11 that still remain unanswered? 

Peter Lance, a five-time Emmy award-winning 
journalist, answers this question for us, in great 
detail, in his book: Cover-Up : What the Government Is 
Still Hiding About the War on Terror (New York: 
Harper, 2005) . Cover-Up is Lance's second of three 
books that he has written on the subject of the 9/11 
cover-up. Is he just writing nonsense too? Lance 
doesn't go so far as to say that 9/11 was an inside 
job, although I think it obvious, Lance simply wants 
a new (real) investigation into the events of 9/11, 
allowing the chips to fall wherever they may, as do 
I . 

I'm of the opinion that citizenship requires 
involvement and taking responsibility for government, 
not a blind obedience to government regardless of how 
corrupt that government has now become. 

Is any of this making sense to you? Is it 
nonsensical? I think it's not only sensible to 
believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I think the 
inside job argument makes the most sense out of the 
plethora of information that we now have available to 
us about the terror attacks that occurred on 
September 11, 2001. After all, our government has 
been known to have done this sort of thing before— 


staging "incidents" in order to gain public support 
for its latest military venture (e.g., the USS Maine, 
the RMS Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Operation 
Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin) . 

9/11 is America's open wound. The only way this 
wound can heal is for the truth to come out, no 
matter how ugly the truth about 9/11 turns out to be. 

I'm not the only person in Chambersburg, 
Pennsylvania, the US, or the world who believes this 
either . . . far from it. 

There are numerous 9/11 Truth groups that can be 
found throughout all fifty states, and many, many 
more that can be found in nations throughout the 
world . 


Rather, the American people are beginning to wake up 
from their government controlled, mass media induced 
slumber . 


The Roman Lawyers Against the 
Washington Politicians 

I've mentioned the concept of natural law many 
times previously; most notably: natural law as the 
basis of the civil rights movement led by the Rev. 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Rand Paul's apparent 
ignorance of natural law; and Joe Biden's contempt 
for natural law regarding the threat it poses to Roe 
v. Wade. 

America has gotten away from its natural law 
foundations, which had been the foundation of western 
civilization and jurisprudence for well over 2,000 
years . 

America's natural law foundations are most evident 
in its Declaration of Independence: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all 
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among 
these are life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness . " 

Legal theorists in America today reject natural 
law, as do the Washington politicians; preferring to 
assert the authority of positive law alone. But 
positive law, which is simply the legal decisions of 
a legislature or court, must, according to natural 
law theory, live up to natural law. Positive law 
cannot function properly in isolation from the 
context of natural law. 

As Dr. King pointed out, many years ago, quoting 
St. Augustine: "an unjust law is no law at all." In 
short, a positive law that violates the natural law 
and the moral laws of the universe is a "law" that is 
null and void. Positive law— the laws passed by 
legislatures and decided by court decisions— must 
uphold natural law in order to be valid. 


America, especially Washington D. C, intentionally 
resembles— politically, governmentally, judicially, 
and even architecturally— the ancient Roman Empire, 
because Roman political theory, which was based upon 
natural law, was deemed the best political model upon 
which to base the young nation of the New World. 

" [N] one of the [Roman] lawyers doubted that there 
is a higher law than the enactments of any particular 
state. Like Cicero, they conceived of the law as 
ultimately rational, universal, unchangeable, and 
divine, at least in respect to the main principles of 
right and justice. The Roman Law, like the English 
common law, was only in small part a product of 
legislation. Hence the presumption was never made 
that law expresses nothing but the will of a 
competent legislative body, which is an idea of quite 
recent origin. It was assumed that 'nature' sets 
certain norms which the positive law must live up to 
as best it can and that, as Cicero had believed, an 
'unlawful' statute simply is not law. Throughout the 
whole of the Middle Ages and well down into modern 
times the existence and the validity of such a higher 
law were taken for granted." (George H. Sabine: A 
History of Political Theory , pp. 169-170) 

Law is not— or should not be— simply the bare 
expression of the will of any legislative or judicial 
body . 

There are two— and only two— legal and philosophical 
theories available today: the will to power (positive 
law alone) and the universally accepted moral law 
(positive law that does its best to live up to the 
natural law) . 

As Dr. King said, "A just law is a man-made code 
that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An 
unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the 
moral law . " 

The Roman conception of natural law paralleled the 
rise of Christianity but it was not dependent upon 
it. And the American conception of natural law 


entails neither the acceptance nor the endorsement of 
Christianity . 

"It should be noted that these [natural law-based] 
reforms in the Roman Law, though they were completed 
after the beginning of the Christian era, were not 
due to Christianity." (ibid, p. 171) 

In these postmodern times it might seem 
unfathomable, intellectually, to argue for America's 
return to its natural law foundations. But the only 
alternative we have to natural law is, as I said 
above: the will to power. The will to power is 
America's current legal and philosophical foundation, 
which is why America's legal and political system is 
currently broken. 

There's an old and true saying: "If it ain't broke, 
don't fix it." Likewise, it stands to reason that "If 
it is broke, fix it." 

America is broken because it has abandoned its 
natural law foundation. 

Dr. King's civil rights movement would be rejected 
today on the grounds that he had no right to assert 
his personal belief in natural law as an eternal, 
inviolable, and transcendent standard to which all 
positive legislation must do its best to live up to 
and to which all Americans must be held. Dr. King 
would be accused of asserting his personal will and 
interpretation over against the wills and 
interpretation of other Americans who disagreed with 
him . 

His movement, today, would degenerate into a battle 
of wills and a battle of powers. 

But the will to power is a dead end street. 

Although it's often said that "we can't turn back 
the clock" we can, if we're trying to get somewhere- 
like toward a more just society— get America back on 
the right track if we've gotten ourselves on a wrong 
track . 


The will to power is a wrong track for America to 
be on. And the will to power is nothing new either. 
It's not some new, postmodern philosophical 
development; it's simply the same old personal, 
Sophistic interpretation of justice that Socrates— and 
the Roman lawyers— re j ected centuries ago. 

Although the will to power might be a valid, even 
if wrong, philosophical position to take, it simply 
does not work in the day to day dealings of peoples 
who are living in a society that seeks to promote the 
common good of all. The will to power is, in fact, 
contrary to social harmony. 

Is it any wonder then that America is adrift today? 
By casting off the legal anchor of natural law 
America has crashed upon the shoals of the will to 
power; and American is nigh unto being totally 
destroyed if we fail to return our great nation to 
the natural law foundation upon which it was built. 


The Public Safety Exception 

We're hearing a lot of talk lately about the so- 
called public safety exception. And it should come as 
no surprise to us that, once again, the federal 
government wants to interpret (i.e., distort the 
meaning of) the law in its favor. 

In the name of the (unending) Global War on Terror, 
of course. 

It seems that the Obama administration now wants to 
be able to arrest and detain U. S. citizens suspected 
in acts of terrorism without first reading them their 
Miranda rights and without producing them in court, 
promptly, for arraignment. 

Once again, our rights are disappearing. But I 
suppose that most Americans look at it this way: 
"Hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, then you 
don't have anything to worry about do you? . . . Can 
you please stop bothering me? I'm trying to watch the 
game . . . " 

The so-called public exception clause to Miranda v. 
Arizona, the case which gave us the protection of 
being informed of our rights upon our being arrested, 
comes from the U. S. Supreme Court case of New York 
v. Quarles), in which the court stated that, in 
certain circumstances, in which public safety is a 
concern, evidence that is obtained by police officers 
before the suspect is read his Miranda rights can be 
allowed as evidence at the suspect's trial. In 
particular, the evidence that was obtained, in this 
case, was a gun; a suspect with an empty shoulder 
holster having been asked by police "Where is the 
gun?" This is somewhat reasonable, because the police 
officer was concerned with his own safety at that 
moment. Once the suspect told police where the gun 
was, he was arrested and read his Miranda rights. The 
gun was allowed as evidence in court. 

Perhaps, technically, the gun should not have been 
allowed as evidence. But then people who commit 


crimes should know not to tell the police anything, 
especially the location of the evidence of their 
crimes . 

This public safety exception to Miranda allows only 
for a very small window of time before the suspect is 
read his rights, and not the indefinite window of 
time the Obama administration is now seeking. 

Once again, the federal government is seeking new 
ways to rid us of our rights. No doubt the public 
exception will now be expanded, in the name of the 
(unending) Global War on Terror, to include an 
indefinite amount of time between the time of a 
suspect's arrest and their arraignment before a judge 
in order to allow sufficient time for interrogation 
and interrogation methods. 

But this was precisely what Miranda v. Arizona is 
supposed to prevent: a suspect being interrogated 
without being told first that they have the right to 
remain silent, that anything they say can and will be 
used against them in court, that they have the right 
to an attorney to be present before questioning, and 
that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be 
appointed for them. 

In short, the federal government now wants to get 
rid of these rights. 

But hey, the Obama administration has already 
decided that it can assassinate U. S. citizens 
anyway. So who cares, right? 

"Please be quiet . . . I'm trying to watch the 
game . . . " 

Perhaps you don't fear being arrested, or what may 
happen to you if you are. But you should. 

It's not always "the bad guys" who get arrested you 
know. Sometimes innocent people get arrested too. 

These days, the bad guys are being defined rather 
nebulously as "terror suspects". But what do those 
words mean anyway? Terror? Suspects? 


In America, suspects have rights. And terror can, 
eventually, be defined-down to fit practically anyone 
(e.g., political activists, dissidents, agitators, 
reporters, journalists, sympathizers, printers, 
bloggers) . 

Perhaps even a fourteen year old autistic kid who 
draws a picture of a gun. 

Governments always begin by first removing these 
rights from those of whom we might not approve (Jews, 
communists, criminals, terrorists), but we will, 
eventually, find that everyone has lost their rights. 
Which is why we should be concerned about terror 
suspects losing theirs. If they do, then we've really 
lost ours. 


Shame and 9/11 Truth 

I was protesting the wars at the Pentagon a 
couple of weeks ago and, strangely enough, I 
felt ashamed; because I had chosen to hold a 
sign that read: "9/11: An Inside Job to Lead 
Us into War". But why did I feel shame for this? It's 
the truth. I think that what I was feeling was 
embarrassment, because it seemed as though virtually 
everyone who passed by me (and read the sign) was 
(probably) thinking I was a kook. And that's 
embarrassing. Or perhaps it was because I was ashamed 
at having to be there, at the Pentagon, to begin with 
that I need to protest my own government, 
because of its crimes . . . like I was ashamed to be 
an American. 

But I think, too, that my feeling had something to 
do with being at the Pentagon itself, because 
virtually everyone who passed by me (us) seemed to be 
against me (us) . Perhaps there was some element of 
fear as well? But I'm not afraid of the authorities 
or of going to jail for a sociopolitical cause, which 
I've done before; although our government does do its 
best to keep us living in fear. It just seemed so 
surreal; sort of like protesting the Dark Side's 
unholy ambitions on Darth Vader' s Death Star. 

Not too unlike protesting in front of an abortion 
clinic though . . . 

When it comes to 9/11, I'm not the one who needs to 
be ashamed. I didn't kill anyone on 9/11, but someone 
did. Some group (conspiracy) of people did. And I 
don't think it was a group of Islamic fundamentalists 
that brought down WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 . I 
think it was elements of our own (federal) government 
(i.e., the military-intelligence complex). 

But does this make me a kook? 

The feeling of shame, or embarrassment, is a 
uniquely human emotion. Dr. Leon Kass, in his book 
Toward a More Natural Science , points out the fact 


that animals do not feel shame; shame is a uniquely 
human emotion. In short, we are not animals. 

The true criminals behind the terror attacks of 
9/11 have yet to be brought to justice . Instead, they 
continue supporting the doctrine of endless wars, 
torture, and unlawful detentions they began nine 
years ago. Who is running America? The military- 
intelligence complex? 

It's hardly embarrassing for one to believe that 
the terror attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated by rogue 
elements within our own government, or that the WTC 
buildings (1, 2, and 7) were brought down in some 
manner that didn't simply cause their collapse but 
caused them to disintegrate. Many intelligent people 
believe the government is covering up the truth about 
9/11, and I don't think they should feel any shame 
for believing this. (See Peter Lance's (.pdf) 9/11 
Timeline 1981-2006) I think it's more shameful for 
one to accept, at face value, the official government 
explanation of 9/11, because such acceptance reveals 
how little thought one has chosen to invest in this 
most important of subjects. 

America needs citizens who are willing to think. 

Please, examine the evidence for yourself ... as 
so many intelligent people are doing. . . 

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth 

Scholars for 9/11 Truth 

Pilots for 9/11 Truth 

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth 

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth 

9/11 Truth 


Postmodern Economics 

As a libertarian, I realize that money, in order 
to have any real value, needs to have intrinsic 
worth— like gold or silver. As a medium of 
exchange (i.e., money), gold and silver have 
intrinsic worth, because we can use it for purposes 
other than as a medium of exchange. For example, we 
can make jewelry out of it, which adds artistic value 
to the intrinsic value of the metal itself. Sound 
money provides a sound basis for an economy. But the 
US economy is not sound, because it's been off the 
gold standard for many years. The question we need to 
ask is: "Why has the US economy gone off the gold 
standard?" Other important questions we need to 
answer are: "Was it reasonable for the US to go off 
the gold standard?" "Is it reasonable for the US to 
return to the gold standard?" and if it's not 
reasonable, "What, then, are we to do?" 

During the Civil War, the federal government issued 
$450 million dollars worth of paper money that was 
not backed by (i.e., redeemable for) gold. 
Economically speaking, this was a very unsound 
policy, because paper money lacks the intrinsic worth 
of gold, but the federal government needed a way to 
finance its (Union) army without exhausting its gold 
reserves . 

The 1890' s saw the rise of the Populist movement, 
consisting mostly of farmers and others who were in 
debt, mostly of the working class. The movement 
sought a way to free themselves from their economic 
servitude to the wealthy class, those who had lent 
them money: the big Wall Street bankers. The Populist 
wanted cheap (non gold-backed) money— paper 
(greenbacks) and free (or much cheaper than gold) 
silver— in order for them to be able to pay back their 
debts more easily. 

Wall Street balked at this because, being in the 
money business, the bankers knew that the issuance of 
such cheap money would allow their debtors to pay 


back their loans with money that was worth much less 
than the money they had been lent by the banks. 

The same situation is occurring today. The Federal 
Reserve treats paper money (fiat currency) as if it 
were backed by gold, even though it's not, meaning 
that the Fed keeps a tight rein on the money supply 
in order to benefit Wall Street bankers and 
investors. If a movement similar to the Populist's 
rose up today— debtors seeking an easier way to repay 
their creditors with money that was worth less than 
the money they had borrowed— we would see this 
movement clamoring for the Fed to monetize the debt 
(i.e., create money) and print more paper money. This 
would infuriate Wall Street, just as the Populist's 
demand for greenbacks and free silver did, because 
the Wall Street bankers and investors would lose 
money while their debtors gained it. 

In my opinion, one important reason for the 
Populist clamor for greenbacks and free silver was 
the increase in US population and the westward 
expansion thereof. In short, the gold standard 
economy only works well when a nation has: 1) a large 
reserve of gold, and 2) a low-to-moderate sized 
population. Gold is valuable because it is scarce, 
and the Federal Reserve, acting as though paper money 
were gold, attempts to keep paper money scarce in 
order to maintain its value as a medium of exchange. 
Monetizing the debt and printing more money leads to 
inflation, which is a lowering of the money's value, 
and the Fed and its Wall Street partners try to avoid 
this situation at all costs. Doing so would deprive 
Wall Street and its investors of the value of the 
money it has lent, but it would allow those who find 
themselves in debt to repay their debts more easily 
by repaying those debts with inflated currency, 
meaning the money they repay their loans with is 
worth much less that than the money which they had 
actually borrowed. 

Wall Street would hate this, but people who are in 
debt would love it. 


Population is, I think, an important— but often 
neglected— factor in economics. Consider the gold 
standard. There is, after all, a very limited supply 
of gold; it is scarce (a total (mined) of $4.5 
trillion) , hence its worth (besides its intrinsic 
value) . The Fed, acting as though its tight control 
of the money supply duplicates the scarcity of gold, 
has not allowed the money supply to keep up with the 
dramatic increase in US population; thereby 
benefitting Wall Street and its investors but not the 
working-class (many of whom are out of work thanks 
the Fed, Wall Street, the Washington politicians, and 
their corporate friends, who have conspired together 
to outsource their jobs) . 

In 1787, when the US adopted the Constitution and 
was on the gold standard, the US population was 
somewhere around 3 million persons. By the 1890' s, 
when the Populists began clamoring for the government 
to free-up the money supply via free silver and 
greenbacks, the population had risen to around 70 
million persons. Today, the US population is over 300 
million persons. Due to this dramatic rise in 
population, I don't think it's reasonable to assume 
that the US could ever return to the gold standard, 
nor do I think it's reasonable for the Fed to act as 
through it's still on the gold standard by keeping a 
tight rein on the money supply, which only benefits 
Wall Street lenders and its investors at the expense 
of the borrowers. 

It would seem that postmodern (Keynesian) 
economics, which is the economic theory behind the 
modern government practice of creating fiat currency, 
borrowing on credit, and engaging in deficit 
spending, is unable to keep up with the times. It's 
beginning to look a lot like the old gold standard 
did by in the 1890' s: there's just not enough money 
to go around. 

In my opinion, the US government should make the 
Fed loosen the money supply, implement strong tariff 
protections for our nation's economy (in order to rid 
our nation of the flood of cheap goods from overseas 
(China) , begin encouraging US corporations to rebuild 


their presence here in the US and start hiring US 
workers again, and put a freeze on immigration. This 
would at least be a good start, but I doubt that we 
will see anything like this. Most likely, the Fed 
will keep a tight hold on the money supply, deflating 
the currency as well as the value of what few assets 
the American people have (like homes) , and encourage 
the Washington government to raise taxes and cut 
benefits; therefore we can expect to see more jobs 
lost and more businesses go under, with unemployment 
figures rising ever higher. 

But the Wall Street bankers, their investors, the 
big corporate executives, and the Washington 
politicians will be happy, because they aren't 
feeling the impact of the economic crunch, like so 
many of the common people are. We're feeling the 
crunch . 


On Political Violence in America 

In light of the recent political violence, which 
has been occasioned by passage of the Democrat's 
heath care reform bill, I would like to repeat 
here something that I said back in October 2009: 

"Have things gotten so bad in the U. S. that our 
collective political frustrations could actually lead 
some people to commit acts of political violence? 
Could some people's words actually incite some people 
to commit acts of political violence? These are 
questions many Americans seem to be asking themselves 
these days. The U.S. has a very long history of civil 
unrest and political violence, so it should come as 
no surprise to us, especially during politically 
frustrating times, that politically violent acts (of 
various types) will likely be committed by some 
people. Well-chosen words can incite powerful 
emotions, and well-chosen words concerning genuine 
political issues and the frustrations which accompany 
them, can certainly incite some people to act 
violently. To think that words can have no effect 
upon people whatsoever— either toward their pursuing 
good actions or for ill— is simply ridiculous. Words 
are very powerful; 'more powerful', it is said, 'than 
the sword'." (See my Political Musings, of October 
2009. ) 

I hope that you followed the link, which I provided 
above, concerning America's long history of political 
violence. It's a very long list of political 
violence. Over the past few days, I've heard people 
(e.g., politicians, talking heads) saying that 
political violence is "not the American way" of doing 
things. On the contrary, until recently, political 
violence WAS the American way of doing things. 

These same people are also complaining, again, about 
the conservative radio, television, and internet talk 
show hosts whose inflammatory rhetoric (i.e., words) 
can/does/will incite their listeners to commit acts 


of political violence. What they want, of course, is 
for these conservative talk show hosts to shut their 
mouths and for people to behave, and start acting 
like the good little children that we're supposed to 

I've long said the next book I write will be about 
politics: American Politics. And the most important 
thing anyone really needs to know about American 
politics, which allows us to see through to the 
bottom of virtually every political issue, is that 
governments only have two schools of thought 
concerning how a government should govern its 
peoples: treat them as children who are dependent 
upon you, or treat them as adults who not dependent 
upon you . 

America has always been a very conservative nation 
politically. It's that sense of liberty, 
independence, and freedom America has always held 
forth as its ideal which has drawn so many people to 
it. America, by nature is very individualistic, 
libertarian, and conservative. People basically want 
the right to be left alone by their government. This 
is why liberal politics has never been able to gain 
much ground here in the U. S. (as it has in Europe) . 

As I said, my next book is going to be about 
politics, so, while doing research for this book, I'm 
reading an old textbook on political theory: A 
History of Political Theory, Third Edition, by George 
H. Sabine (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, Inc., 1937, 1950, 
1961), and the author, in discussing the different 
philosophical schools of thought concerning rulers 
and their subjects found in Plato's Statesman and in 
Aristotle's Politics, says that: 

"The question, of course, is whether subjects shall 
be assumed to be dependent upon rulers, as children 
must be dependent upon their parents, or whether they 
shall be assumed to be responsible and self- 
governing" (pp. 72-73). 


In America, it should be obvious to us which of our 
political parties assumes we are children and which 
does not. The liberal Democrats assume the people are 
like dependent children, and the conservative 
Republicans assume the people are responsible and 
self-governing. Not much has changed in the past 
2,000 years. 

That having been said, neither political party today 
is working for the people. Both parties are criminal; 
both parties are corrupt; and this government 
is broken beyond all normal means of repair: the 
next— or any future— election will solve nothing; more 
elections-as-usual will simply perpetuate the broken 
and corrupt status quo. 

It's time to get serious folks. Let's stop acting 
like the good little children that the politicians in 
Washington want us to be. We've put up with their 
bullshit for long enough now, let's take our nation 
back: NOW! 


How I Became a Liberal Communist Tree- 

ctually, I haven't "become" anything but I've 
/\ been called all of the above. I suppose that 
/ \ what those words actually mean is a matter of 

interpretation . . . isn't it? Perhaps the 
best way to analyze these words is to consider them 
as utterances, in the Bakhtinian sense, as words or 
phrases, written or spoken, that have originated 
within a particular social context. In this case, a 
sociopolitical context, or, as Bakhtin would call it: 
a sociopolitical speech genre. These are powerful, 
socially and politically created words (and 
situations!) that we've inherited from those who've 
preceded us; words that are intended to be 
persuasive. (Political speech, especially when it's a 
combination of words and images, is always 
propagandistic . ) 

Sociopolitical speech is almost, by definition, 
polarized. There are two sides to every debate and 
every story . . . polar extremes are to be expected. 
Even violent ones. 

War is violent, by definition. 

The warmongering and the f ear-mongering continue, 
unabated, in America . . . the Muslim fanatics are 
(supposedly) out to get us, you know. 

I was accused of having been brainwashed recently, 
which is odd . . . considering that I haven't watched 
television news in many years. If I were to sit in 
front of the television set every night and watch, 
oh, say, Fox News perhaps, then one might say, 
accurately, that I may be allowing myself to become 
influenced by the media, or brainwashed, by Fox News. 
But considering that I never watch television, how 
can one say I'm being brainwashed? I do watch Alex 
Jones occasionally, but Alex has been around for 
years . . . and so have I . 


I'm quite capable of discerning truth from error 
concerning Alex Jones. I would say that Jones is 98% 
correct, and it's encouraging just to know that he's 
out there . . . even if his broadcast is only three 
hours a day, five days a week, and two hours on 
Sunday. Compared to Fox News' 24/7/365 influence, 
Jones is a piker when it comes to being able to 
influence anyone; let alone brainwash someone. 
Brainwashing would require that someone have 24/7/365 
access to every home in America . . . sort of like 
Fox News has . . . 

Hmmm . . . 

I'm hardly a Liberal; and as anyone who has ever 
taken the time to read my writings knows I'm a 
Libertarian with Christian moral convictions. And 
there's a BIG difference. 

I'm also a Constitutionalist, with a strict 
interpretation; meaning that I believe the US federal 
government should be restricted to doing only that 
which is specifically outlined for it to do in the US 
Constitution, which is, after all, the whole point of 
the US Constitution to begin with; including, 
especially, the US Congress alone having the 
authority to wage war. 

Hmmm . . . 

And I'M brainwashed? 

I'm no fan of the federal government, I can assure 
you. And I think a Liberal is, by definition, a fan 
of the feds. I am not a fan of the feds at all. 

I've had my run-ins with the feds over the years, 
and I don't think they're a big fan of me either. I 
can't imagine they think of me as a Liberal. Heck, if 
you count my last run-in with the feds in DC, I've 
been arrested and locked up by them a grand total of 
six times now: three times by the US military, twice 
by the FBI, and once by the US Park Police. 


Crazy . . . can you imagine, too, how many times 
I've been stopped and asked by the police to show my 
ID, so they could run me for warrants . . . I've lost 
count . . . 

And I'm not a bad guy either, that's the thing. I 
just have that bad guy mystique . . . 

Anyways, a Constitutionalist Christian Libertarian 
like me is far from being a Liberal or a Communist . 

and although I do love trees, I'm not a tree 
hugger. I used to work for a very large paper company 
and we had a saying: paper is a renewable resource. 
But I am against cutting old growth trees .... I 
think it's criminal for someone to do that. 

When it comes to economics, I'm more a fan of Adam 
Smith than I am of Karl Marx, so I certainly can't be 
a Communist. I'm for Ending the Fed too, which is not 
exactly the political stance on the Federal Reserve 
that a good commie would take. Is it? 

But I suppose that, since I am against the war(s), 
the Global War on Terror, the rise of the US police 
state, the failed War on Drugs, and suspect that 
rogue elements of our own government (and others) 
were behind the terror attacks of 9/11, this DOES 
make me a Liberal Communist, in the Glennbeckian 
sense of these terms. 

On the other hand, there are good reasons for Beck 
and others considering me to be a Liberal and a 
Communist. I believe that being a Christian is a 
communal activity, not a personal affair. So yes, I 
believe in social justice, relieving the plight of 
the poor, having compassion on those who are less 
fortunate, working to build a more just society for 
all people, including those not-yet-born. I recently 
spent a week at the DC Catholic Worker House and God 
knows the Catholic Workers are considered Communist, 
even through the founder of the Catholic Worker 
Movement, Dorothy Day, had the same sociopolitical 
ideology that I have: social justice is the work of 
God's people, the Church, and not of the government. 


All of which makes me an odd bird, politically 
speaking, I know. I mean, just what political 
category do I fit into anyway? The Liberals are 
mostly pro-aborts and the Conservatives are mostly 
war-hawks (some of them chicken-hawks), so where does 
that leave me? I'm pro-life and I'm anti-war; two 
issues which need to become related in the minds of 
many people. I mean, have a heart people! 

As I've said before, I don't know about you, but 
I've seen carnage— meaning : the bodies of human beings 
that have been torn into chunks of flesh, or meat, 
and it's always broken my heart to see this. Not 
right away, of course, but afterward. A person that 
someone loved torn into to bloody pieces of meat. 
Killing someone requires justification; like self- 
defense. Preemptive killing is murder, and is 
considered such by the states and the federal 
government except, it seems, when it comes to our 
military adventures (in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 
Pakistan) and abortion. For us Americans, it's okay 
for us to tear people to shreds anytime we feel the 
need to do so, isn't it? 

I mean, what is justice? And who really cares about 
that anyway . . . ? 

Do you ? 


Foucault and the Folly of the 
Narcissistic Self 

We're now studying the French philosopher Michel 
Foucault in our Literary and Cultural theory 
class and I'm finding it difficult, if not 
impossible, to read his book: Introduction the 
History of Sexuality. In fact, I'm not reading it; 
because it's crap. 

When it comes to philosophy and being a 
philosopher, Foucault is a tawdry imitation of the 
real thing. He has nothing to tell me. The word 
philosophy means: the love of wisdom (Greek: philos, 
meaning: love; and sophia, meaning: wisdom) and there 
is no wisdom to be found in Foucault' s writings. His 
writings are certainly pretentious, verbose, and 
academic, so that he might appear to have been a 
philosopher, but I can assure you that he wasn't. 

Although I am not a professional philosopher, I can 
honestly say that there is more wisdom in my one book 
than in all of Foucault' s books put together. And for 
one, simple reason: I believe that love and 
compassion for others is the only real purpose in 
life, whereas Foucault believes that the only real 
purpose in life is the domination and exploitation of 
others for one's own purposes and pleasures. 

There's no love of wisdom to be found in his 
writings; quite the opposite. Philosophy is an art, 
and the philosopher is an artist who seeks goodness, 
beauty, and truth. Like someone who urinates on stage 
or affixes a urinal to a museum wall and calls it 
art, Foucault' s impure "philosophy" can be likened to 
excrement. And one does not consider excrement art. 
If anything, his is an anti-philosophy, or a love of 
foolishness . 

As the late Professor of Literature at Boston 
University Roger Shattuck has pointed out, in his 
book Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to 
Pornography, Foucault embraced the moral nihilism of 


the Marquis de Sade; from whom we get the terms: 
sadistic and sadism . 

What, then, is Foucault's great and lasting 
philosophical accomplishment? To tell us that abusing 
others physically and sexually— and then killing them— 
is to live the authentic philosophical life. 

Shattuck tells us that "Michel Foucault presents as 
fundamental for the emergence of the modern era out 
of seventeenth century classicism the fact that Sade 
revealed to us the truth about man's relation to 
nature. Foucault plants his declarations at crucial 
junctures in his two major works of 1961 and 1966. 
These four passages reveal the usually obscured 
center of his ethos: 

'Sadism . . is a massive cultural fact that 

appeared precisely at the end of the eighteenth 
century and that constitutes one of the greatest 
conversions of the occidental imagination 
madness of desire, the insane delight of love and 
death in the limitless presumptions of appetite.' 
{Madness and Civilization, 210) 

'Through Sade and Goya, the Western world received 
the possibility of transcending its reason in 
violence . . .' {Madness and Civilization, 285) 

'After Sade, violence, life and death, desire, and 
sexuality will extend, below the level of 
representation, an immense expanse of darkness, which 
we are now attempting to recover ... in our 
discourse, in our freedom, in our thought.' ( The 
Order of Things , 211) 

'Among the mutations that have affected the 
knowledge of things . . . only one, which began a 
century and a half ago . . . has allowed the figure 
of man to appear.' {The Order of Things, 386) 

The last quotation from the final page of The Order 
of Things does not allude to Sade by name. But, in 
association with the other passages and in context, 
there can be little doubt that the great cultural 


'mutation' welcomed by Foucault refers directly to 
Sade's moral philosophy and to its practice in actual 
life." {Forbidden Knowledge, 246-247) 

Why the admiration of Sade's morally nihilistic- 
sadistic— philosophy? Foucault' s thinking, here, is 
hardly original. Philosophically, he borrowed the 
moral nihilism of a previous philosopher, Frederick 
Nietzsche, who at least had the intellectual honesty 
to lay bare his hatred for God and morality in plain 
language; unlike Foucault, whose philosophical 
jargon, rhetorical flourishes, and pretentious 
historical investigations knowingly obscured— rather 
than reveled— the truth of what he believed. Foucault, 
in fact, is the exact opposite of what a philosopher 
is supposed to be. Nietzsche— as wrong as his morally 
nihilistic philosophy is— at least had the decency to 
be honest and plain spoken about what it was that he 
believed . 

This moral nihilism, however, was not original to 
Nietzsche's thought; Nietzsche simply borrowed and 
re-packaged (as Foucault did with Nietzsche) the 
morally nihilistic philosophy of certain previous 
philosophers: the ancient philosophers of India, 
whose morally nihilistic philosophy can be found in 
the Rig Veda, the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita, 
which tells us that people who are enlightened are 
able (and entitled) to transcend (i.e., go beyond ) 
the unenlightened (and therefore illusory) categories 
of "good" and "evil" (Nietzsche's concept of cyclical 
time was also taken from ancient Hindu philosophy) . 

I had read and understood many of these ancient 
Hindu writings by the time I was eighteen years old 
and I also considered myself (at that time) to have 
been enlightened by doing so. And I'll tell you why. 
As an example, let's examine the message of the 
Bhagavad Gita, which is the most sacred of written 
works to those of the Hindu religion, because it 
presents an excellent, word-picture example of the 
enlightened, morally nihilistic Hindu philosophy 
about which I am speaking. 


The Bhagavad Gita is a story, and in this story the 
main character, Arunja, faces— what appears, to him, 
to be— a moral dilemma: he faces, in battle, some of 
his own relatives and he is hesitant to kill them. 
Krishna, who is an incarnation of Vishnu, tells 
Arunja that he simply doesn't understand the true 
nature of things. Arunja' s dilemma does not really 
exist, because people do not actually die; they only 
appear— to the unenlightened— to die. People, like 
everything else, are Brahman— a sort of monistic Life- 
Force— that cannot die, and everything that appears to 
dies actually goes on living forever, only to return 
again and again (reincarnation) . Death, like the 
world itself, is merely an illusion (maya) : 

"That which is can never cease to be; that which is 
not will not exist. To see this truth of both is 
theirs who part essence from accident, substance from 
shadow. Indestructible, learn thou! The Life is, 
spreading life through all; it cannot anywhere, by 
any means, be anywise diminished, stayed, or changed. 
But for these fleeting frames which it informs with 
spirit deathless, endless, infinite, they perish. Let 
them perish, Prince! and fight! He who shall say, 
x Lo! I have slain a man!' He who shall think, x Lo! I 
am slain!' those both know naught! Life cannot slay. 
Life is not slain!" (Bhagavad Gita, Chapter Two) 

The act of killing someone, whether in battle or 
anywhere else, is simply an illusion, which the 
unenlightened are deceived by. This is Nietzsche's 
concept of going beyond good and evil. The 
enlightened are not bound to illusory "realities", 
such as the moral categories of "good" and "evil", 
because they know the truth: all is one and one is 
all (what we call monism or pantheism) . 

I once explained this concept, in an occult 
bookstore, to a young lady who had told me that she 
had rejected the God of Christianity because she had 
been raped, because she didn't believe that a good 
and loving God would have allowed such a thing to 
happen to her. And she had now adopted the Life-Force 
"god" of pantheism and reincarnation in its stead. I 
told her that, in Christianity, God holds the man who 


raped her responsible for his evil act, whereas in 
pantheism "god" is everything and everything is "god" 
and her thinking that "she" had been "raped" by this 
"man" was an illusion of the unenlightened. At best, 
we could probably say only that "god" had "raped" 
"god". This, I told her, was why I was no longer a 
pantheist, because the Christian concept of God 
allows for justice, for the man to be punished for 
what he did— eternally, if he does not truly repent— 
whereas the pantheistic concept of "god" does not, 
because all is one and one is all— the incarnate 
appearances of people and things just keep recycling 
around and around eternally. 

She wasn't too crazy about pantheism after hearing 
it laid bare in such a way. 

This is why I don't like Foucault, and his 
fascination the Marquis de Sade: he thinks that he 
and the Marquis are enlightened to the point where 
they can do whatever they damn well please, and what 
they wish to do is to do exactly the opposite of what 
Christ himself told us to do, which is to "do unto 
others as you would have them to do unto you". 
Foucault, like Nietzsche before him, believes that 
religion and society, influenced by Christian 
morality, have hindered men from living truly 
authentic philosophical lives; he believes that he 
(we) must throw off all of the weak-minded and weak- 
willed hindrances of unenlightened religious and 
societal oppression (i.e., Christian morality) and 
do, like Sade, the exact opposite of what society and 
religion demands of us: "do unto others that which 
you would never wish to have done to yourselves" 
(e.g., incest, torture, rape, murder, necrophilia). 

All Michel Foucault has done, philosophically, is 
to stand the Golden Rule upon its head; he's simply 
taken the three philosophical ideals of Goodness, 
Beauty, and Truth and turned them the other way 
around, making his philosophy the pursuit of Evil, 
Ugliness, and Lies. It doesn't take great mind to 
give us this sort of "wisdom"; what it takes the 
waste of a great mind and a mind (like Foucault' s) is 
a terrible thing to waste. Sadly, Foucault' s great 


accomplishment in life was to have wasted his mind 
and, in the end, to have laid waste to his body as 
well. In short, his was a wasted life. 

Is it any wonder that people, today, seem to have 
very little, if any, sympathy for those innocents 
around the world who are suffering, and who have 
been, for years, suffering at the hands of U. S. 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? But since the U. S. 
wishes to attack, kill, and torture the peoples of 
these nations we at least have the pseudo- 
philosophical "will to power" notions of Nietzsche 
and Foucault to endorse— even praise— such behavior. 
Perhaps both the U. S. and Nazi Germany are not only 
to be excused but praised for their sadomasochistic 
tortures of the many prisoners they've held captive 
in their many prisons and concentration camps. And if 
the Marquis de Sade is to become our guiding literary 
and philosophical light of truth, then we must also 
praise, rather than scorn and imprison, the 
individual man who wishes to sexually torture, rape, 
and murder his innocent young daughter as well. 

Foucault scorned biblical notions of morality, 
believing that they hindered his ability to realize 
and actualize his identity, which he accomplished at 
bath houses in San Francisco, contracting AIDS in the 
process, but what he failed to realize is that the 
Bible had already identified him and his kind (i.e., 
pseudo-intellectuals who hate God) long ago: 
"Claiming to be wise, they became fools 
therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their 
hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their 
bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the 
truth about God for a lie ..." (Romans 1:22-25) . 

If Kierkegaard's existentialism opened the door to 

deciding for ourselves what is right and what is 
wrong, then Nietzsche and Foucault walked right 

through it: the enlightened individual's will to 

power over others is beyond the judgments that can be 

passed upon the enlightened individual by an 
unenlightened society. 


It should be no surprise to us that, when we choose 
to reject the natural, innate, God-given standard of 
morality found in the human heart and the human 
conscience, we will inevitably begin— callously and 
cold-heartedly-- abusing others and even ourselves in 
the unending, unsatisfying, and misguided pursuit of 
narcissistic pleasure. This is the legacy of Michel 
Foucault: the self, unhinged from its natural, 
innate, and God-given moral obligation (i.e., to be 
concerned for the well-being of the other peoples 
with whom we share our world) now lives in pursuit of 
folly, running amok in a morally bankrupt and 
murderously orgiastic plethora of narcissistic 
delights as it exerts raw power over others in order 
to dominate, use, and abuse them for its own selfish, 
corrupt, and depraved pleasures. 

(Thanks Michel. As if the world weren't already a 
bad enough place to be when you were here, you've now 
helped to make it an even worse place. A mind, 
especially a mind as great as yours, truly is a 
terrible thing to waste and I'm truly sorry that you 
somehow managed to waste the great mind that God had 
given you . 


Love Implementing the Demands of 

Two theories exist that we, as a society, can 
choose to become the legal and philosophical 
basis for our society: natural law or the will 
to power . 

These are the only two choices that exist for us. 

I've intentionally set forth the natural law basis 
of the Declaration of Independence and the civil 
rights movement of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr. as exemplars of America's natural law foundation. 
And I've done so for two reasons: 1) because most 
people are simply unaware of the natural law basis of 
both the Declaration of Independence and Dr. King's 
civil rights movement; and 2) because anyone who 
chooses to reject either the Declaration of 
Independence or Dr. King's civil rights movement is 
simply committing social, political, and intellectual 
suicide (think Rand Paul here) . 

The ancient philosopher Socrates was unpopular with 
many people for one reason: he took people's 
philosophical positions to their logical (and often 
absurd) conclusions, which most people simply didn't 
enjoy facing. In his dialogue with Gorgias (recounted 
for us by Plato ) , Socrates took Gorgias' theory of 
justice to its logical and absurd conclusion: that 
might makes right. Against Gorgias, Socrates believed 
that justice transcended humankind, because it was 
eternal and divine. 

In short, these two ancient understandings of 
justice are the same two theories of justice that we, 
today, have to build our society upon: natural law 
(i.e., justice is eternal and divine) and the will to 
power (i.e., might makes right) . 

As I've pointed out elsewhere America was founded 
upon natural law because it was thought to be the 
surest foundation upon which to build a society. 


Might makes right and the will to power might be 
interesting (Sophistic) philosophical positions to 
debate, but these understandings of justice— as 
something that is personally interpreted and power- 
based— simply do not work in a society that is 
attempting to build a just and harmonious society. In 
fact, they are contrary to it. 

I've also pointed out (elsewhere) the logical and 
absurd conclusions of the will to power as 
demonstrated by the tawdry "philosophy" of Michel 
Foucault, based as it was upon Frederick Nietzsche's 
"enlightened" concept of the transcendence of such 
"weak-minded" categories as "good" and "evil" and its 
concomitant will to power "ethic". 

The will to power theory of "justice" leads, 
inexorably, to the domination of the weak by the 
strong, the oppression of the weak by the strong, and 
the Sadistic sexual torture of the weak by the strong 
(simply for the evil enjoyment of the strong) . 

Sound like anyone (or any nation) you know? 

Concerning the dramatic contrast between the 
ethical theories of Dr. King and Frederick Nietzsche, 
the late Boston University professor Roger Shattuck 
has said, 

"A succinct and unflinching answer to Nietzsche 
arose out of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s resolve to 
protect the civil rights struggle from the forces of 
radical black violence. In ^Where Do We Go from 
Here?'— his 1967 Presidential address to the Southern 
Christian Leadership Conference— King picks out as one 
of the great errors in history the interpretation of 
power and love as polar opposites and the association 
of power with violence. King cut to the core of the 
matter with a no-nonsense simplification: 

'It was this misinterpretation that caused 
Nietzsche , who was a philosopher of the will to 
power, to reject the Christian concept of love. It 
was this same misinterpretation which induced 
Christian theologians to reject Nietzschean 


philosophy of the will to power in the name of the 
Christian idea of love. Now, we've got to get this 
thing right. What is needed is a realization that 
power without love is reckless and abusive, and love 
without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its 
best is love implementing the demands of justice.' {A 
Testament of Hope, p. 247) 

King was not just playing games with the words love 
and power. He was reaching back to a series of his 
own earlier readings (above all, in Paul Tillich) and 
writings and to his experience as intellectual and 
tactical leader of the civil rights movement. x To get 
this thing right' meant to King an appeal to a long- 
mediated and carefully defined philosophic position: 
the philosophy of non-violence . . . These two 
prophets, Nietzsche and King, confront us with a 
continuing struggle between power and justice that no 
thinking person can responsibly turn away from" 
(Roger Shattuck, Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus 
to Pornography ; p. 303) . 

No thinking American citizen can responsibly turn 
away from our civic and moral obligation— our duty— to 
put our nation upon a proper course of justice. 

Considering the current situation, in which anyone 
who dissents, politically, against the militaristic 
power-state that America has now become, since 9/11, 
there is little hope that any non-violent revolution 
of love— by means of protests involving both active 
and passive resistance — would be successful. Most 
Americans seem not to care, or worse: seem to 
actually support the militaristic power-state that 
America has now become. Protesters are easily 
discouraged by the government's ability to declare 
arbitrary free speech zones as well as its ability to 
fine and imprison dissenters, virtually at will. The 
individual protester must decide whether it's worth 
losing everything simply to take a stand for love and 
for what's right. 


Mexico's Cult(ure) of Death 

Mexico has a long and bloody history, as well as 
a murderous and bloody present. 

The ancient Aztecs once offered bloody human 
sacrifices to the war god Huitzilopochtli; the 
Spanish conquistadors once slaughtered thousands of 
Aztecs; Mexicans once fought a bloody war to gain 
independence from Spain; Mexicans once fought a 
bloody revolution to gain a constitutional republic; 
and the Mexican drug cartels are now wreaking bloody 
havoc upon the Mexican people and authorities, 
plunging some cities into a murderous anarchy, thanks 
to the (failed) "War on Drugs". 

It's no wonder that many Mexican people have now 
developed a devotion to the new (and unofficial) 
patron saint of the murderous narco-traf f ickers : 
Santa Muerte (Saint Death) . 

Another phenomenon of Mexican narco-culture has 
been the rise of a new music genre: narcocoorridos , 
or drug ballads. Mexico's narco-culture of murder and 
violence has also given birth to a new genre of film: 
narco cinema. 

In short, the murderous Mexican drug cartels have 
virtually taken over Mexico; even to the point of 
influencing the Mexican culture's religion, music, 
and film. 

Cuidad Juarez , especially, has become a murderous 
free-for-all . 

A large Mexican city, which borders the US, Juarez 
is just across the Rio Grande from its sister city: 
El Paso, Texas. From the air, the two cities are 
indistinguishable and appear to be one, large city 
(with a combined population of 2.4 million people) . 

I realize that, to most people, Juarez, Mexico is a 
very far-off place; but it's really not— it's right on 
the US - Mexico border. 


Being a border city, Juarez has always been a 
violent place because of all the thugs who tend to 
congregate in border cities. But recently, due to the 
narco-traf f ickers , the violence has gotten out of 
control . 

I used to live in El Paso, and I've been to Juarez; 
most recently back in 2002. Even then, Juarez was 
known as the city of disappearing women, so it 
probably wasn't the best idea for me and my 
girlfriend (at the time) to visit Juarez, but we did 
and we also had a wonderful time there. My 
girlfriend, with her long blond hair, stood out like 
a sore thumb. Thankfully no one snatched her off the 
street— pushing her into a car, never to be seen or 
heard from again— as so often happens to many of the 
women (and men) who live in Juarez. Today Juarez is 
so violent and out of control that the people who 
live there are living in a constant state of fear. 

Human life is very cheap in Mexico these days, 
thanks to the narco-traf f ickers . 

I believe human life is precious, and it breaks my 
heart to know that the people of Mexico are suffering 
under the murderous oppression of the violent drug 
cartels. I think we need to help the Mexican people 
take control of their country in order to gain their 
own safety and security. There's no excuse for us 
allowing what continues to go on there, and things 
are only getting worse. 

Let' s help the Mexican people build the culture of 
life they deserve. 

The drug-related violence in Mexico is directly 
related to the US market demand for illegal drugs, 
and the best— and only— way to end the murderous 
violence in Mexico is for the US to decriminalize 
these drugs. One drug in particular, marijuana, which 
is simply a plant, should be completely legalized. 
Because the Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations 
(DTOs) use the money they make smuggling marijuana 
into the US to fund their narcotics trafficking, 
weapons purchases, and bribery money, the elimination 


of the venture capital cash flow from their marijuana 
sales would effectively put them out of business. 
Cut-off the DTO' s venture capital by legalizing 
marijuana and these violent businesses will fold up. 

According to FBI testimony before the US Congress, 
May 5, 2010: 

"Mexico is the number one foreign supplier of 
marijuana abused in the United States. In fact, 
according to a 2008 inter-agency report, marijuana is 
the top revenue generator for Mexican DTOs— a cash 
crop that finances corruption and the carnage of 
violence year after year. The profits derived from 
marijuana trafficking— an industry with minimal 
overhead costs, controlled entirely by the 
traffickers— are used not only to finance other drug 
enterprises by Mexico's poly-drug cartels, but also 
to pay recurring "business" expenses, purchase 
weapons, and bribe corrupt officials." 

The US needs to co-opt this cash crop. Take this 
money out of the hands of the Mexican DTOs and put it 
into the hands of the American tax-payers. The US 
economy could really use that money right now and the 
Mexican people could really benefit from the 
defunding of the murderous Mexican drug cartels, 
which have made their lives a living hell. 

If you disagree with me, if you don't believe that 
marijuana should be legalized, then I'm sorry, but 
you're not thinking about this issue you're just 
reacting to it. Marijuana use is nowhere near as bad 
for people, health-wise, as is the use of alcohol. 
Yet alcohol is legal. Nor does marijuana use impair 
people to the extent that alcohol use does. Yet 
alcohol is legal. But alcohol used to be illegal in 
the US, during prohibition. 

Despite its prohibition, alcohol continued to 
manufactured and delivered by organized crime 
syndicates and it continued to be consumed by the 
American people. The organized crime syndicates that 
manufactured and distributed alcohol made huge 
profits from their illegal trade, controlled their 


trade through violence and murder, and used their 
profits to fund other illegal ventures and to corrupt 
police and elected officials. In short, the same 
thing is happening with marijuana prohibition today 
that once happened with alcohol prohibition. So it 
doesn't take an Einstein to figure this one out: 
legalize marijuana. 

The good people of Juarez, who are suffering, are 
begging us to. 


The Wrong ANSWER to the Arizona 

From an email, which I received from ANSWER, 
regarding its (recent) protest of Arizona 
Governor Jan Brewer at the National Governor's 
Association Meeting in Boston, today: 

"At the rally opening, Jennifer Zaldana, 
representing the ANSWER Coalition, said ^Today, our 
message will be heard: Legal Rights for Immigrant 
Workers! And this is not only a message to Arizona 
Gov. Jan Brewer, but to all of the state governors. 
We will not let the racist Arizona law SB 1070— or any 
racist bills being considered across the country— go 
unchallenged. ' " 

Okay, well, I've written on this subject before . . 
. . and I suppose I'll have to keep writing about it, 
because so many people are just plain getting it 

Please consider what Jennifer Zaldana, representing 
the ANSWER Coalition, said: "Legal Rights for 
Immigrant Workers ! " 

Okay . . . who, I ask, has a problem with that? 
That being what she said. 

America is a nation made up of immigrants. We're 
all immigrants. So who, in their right mind, would 
oppose immigrants! 

Perhaps it's the workers aspect of what she said 
that some people oppose? No, we know it's not that. 

We know what she means, and what she supports, yet 
what she also refused, honestly, to say: "Legal 
Rights for Illegal Immigrant Workers!" 

But this doesn't sound quite right, does it? It 
doesn't quite ring true. 


Anyone who knows me knows that I love Mexico, the 
Mexican people, and their culture; that I've been to 
Mexico many times; and that my heart is broken over 
the violence in Mexico, which is caused by America's 
failed war on drugs. Heck, I even have a large image 
of La Virgen de Guadalupe on the back of my pick-up 
truck's rear window! 

But I am not in favor of open borders. Immigrants 
ought to immigrate legally, not illegally, and I 
cannot support illegal immigration . . . from 
anywhere, not just Mexico and Central America. 

I am not a racist. And for anyone to say that I am 
a racist, simply because I believe that people ought 
to immigrate to this— or any other— country legally, 
would be wrong ... or worse: it would be a lie. 

Please people: get over yourselves. 

Consider this: a nation is like a home. And who 
among you would allow anyone and everyone who wished 
to do so to enter and live in your home? 

Right: none of you. 

For those of you who are unaware, the drug related 
violence in Mexico has led to anarchy; meaning a 
total breakdown in law and order. For example, a 
person who is angry with someone and wishes to kill 
her— for any reason— can now do so, with impunity, in 
Cuidad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico. Why? Because the 
victim is just another one of the many bodies dumped 
in Juarez everyday; and the police cannot— and will 
not, for fear of their lives— investigate the many 
murders that occur there. 

In Mexico, the authorities are murdered, routinely, 
by paramilitary groups, especially Los Zetas, and 
this murderous intimidation of authority has now 
spread to, you guessed it: Arizona. 

This, my friends, I can assure you, is no laughing 
matter. Neither is this a matter for ANSWER to get 
bent out of shape (and lie) about in order to further 


their overall agenda, most of which, besides this 
illegal immigration issue, I agree with. 

Maybe I should start a group called TRUTH? 

Let's be realistic . . . and honest. America is our 
home, and like any home there is only room (and jobs) 
enough for a certain amount of people. In short, 
immigration must always be controlled: no nation can 
allow open borders. 

According to The Week magazine (September 18, 2009) 
the US lost 223, 000 jobs during the ten year period 
extending from 1999-2009 and, during the same time 
period, the US population increased by 33.5 million 
people . 

Yeah ... do the math on that. 

Where, pray tell, are these 33.5 million immigrants 
(legal or illegal) supposed to work? And where are 
all of the people who were already here to begin 
with, being natural born and long-time taxpaying 
citizens, supposed to work? 

The US government, for the past twenty years, in 
the name of free trade and the global economy, has 
systematically dismantled America's industrial base; 
thereby dismantling its economy as well. We were 
told, for eight years, by then president Bill 
Clinton, that we would have a service economy, which 
means: no real economy whatsoever. 

And now, according to some people (ANSWER and many 
others) we're supposed to have open borders as well? 

Yeah, I don't think so. 

THINK about this people. Please. 

(Maybe I should start a group called THINK, because 
there's (apparently) not much thinking going on these 
days . ) 


I lived in Arizona, southern Arizona 
recently . How many people who protest the new Arizona 
law have even been to Arizona? Let alone know what 
actually goes on there? As I do; from personal 
experience . 

I support Humane Borders, which is a group that 
provides warnings and water stations for those 
illegal immigrants who manage to get past the US- 
Mexico border and could die of thirst without these 
water stations. But I also support the US Border 
Patrol sending them back to wherever they came from 
if there' re caught here illegally. 

I myself have thought about immigrating to Mexico, 
but the cost of doing so legally is prohibitive to 
me. I've even tried to immigrate there illegally, but 
was turned back at an inside-the-country customs 
check-point. Had I bypassed the checkpoint, as I had 
considered doing, I could have— and should have been— 
arrested for immigrating illegally . Not because the 
Mexican peoples are racist, although I was obviously 
stopped at the checkpoint because I was white, but 
because I was breaking the Mexican immigration law. 

See my point? 

I've spent a lot of time— years— in the US-Mexico 
border region; and I love it. I have also seen, over 
the past twenty years, an improvement in US border 
security. But I can assure you, the US-Mexico border 
region is a vast ocean of desert which is simply hard 
to control, due to its vastness. 

I've been in the area, in southern Arizona, that is 
a vast corridor for regular marijuana trafficking. 
It's simply hard to control, because the area is so 
vast. And I wrote on this while I was there. I think 
most people are simply oblivious to the implications 
of the situation. For example, I was living in El 
Paso, Texas when the authorities discovered the 
bodies of eighteen people, illegal aliens all, in 
nearby Sierra Blanca, Texas, who had been trapped, by 
their human smugglers (coyotes), in a railroad boxcar 
in 120 (plus) degree heat. The police found that the 


people had, with their bare hands, managed to dig, in 
desperation, through the (very) thick wooden flooring 
of the boxcar, a (very) small hole through which some 
of them could get air. 

This is, as I said, no laughing matter folks. 
Nor is it a matter of racism . . . ANSWER. 

THINK about this issue people. 

Do I have the right to grope a woman anytime I 
please? Does a woman not have the right to her 
private personal space that NO ONE, without her 
permission, is allowed to enter? 

Sure she does. Just like you, your home, and your 
nation has a right to protection of your personal 
space, which requires your permission for someone to 
enter it. 

"Legal Rights for Illegal Immigrant Workers!"? 
Nope . 

Sorry . 


How the Feds Plan to Stop Homegrown 

The Obama administration is planning to crack 
down on homegrown terrorism. As I've recently 
pointed out, terrorism is a tactic not an 
entity; therefore the only way to "stop" 
homegrown terrorism is to implement total police 
state tactics. If the Feds are concerned about car 
bombs (Times Square) and shooters (Fort Hood), then 
the only way to end these sorts of threats is to 
suspect (and search) everyone who might drive a car 
or have a gun. 

The Feds will begin implementing more stringent 
police state tactics to combat this threat, but there 
are, of course, more traditional ways of dealing with 
homegrown terror threats. As they've done for many 
years, the FBI will infiltrate terrorist groups and 
will even encourage and assist radicalized 
individuals to engage in acts of terrorism. 

Consider the first World Trade Center bombing in 
1993. The FBI had an informant on the inside of the 
terrorist cell that was subsequently found 
responsible for the bombing. But what many people 
fail to realize is that, while the informant had been 
led to believe that the FBI would provide inert 
material for the bomb as a substitute for live 
material, as part of a supposed sting operation, the 
FBI itself provided the live bomb material and 
allowed the bombing to go forward rather than 
"stinging" the terrorists as the informant had been 
led to believe. 

Likewise, the Feds were also well aware of (and 
likely assisted in) the homegrown terrorist bombing 
of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in 
1995. In that case, the ATF had its paid informant, 
Carol Howe, who kept them apprised of the bombers 
plans . 


One of the more bizarre plot twists in the run up 
to the terror attacks of 9/11 is that two of the 
alleged hijackers were actually living with a paid 
FBI informant in San Diego, California; a fact 
alluded, but not admitted to (in a footnote), within 
the official government report of the 9/11 
commission. What many people fail to realize is that 
the Fed' s plan to foil homegrown terrorism is simply 
a plan to control (from the inside) homegrown 
terrorism . 

The Feds do this by infiltrating terrorist groups 
as well as by encouraging and assisting individuals 
to engage in acts of terrorism as part of a sting 
operation. Once the plot goes forward, these 
individuals— and not the FBI agents— are arrested and 
the FBI is credited with having foiled a terrorist 
plot. The FBI was involved in this type of agent 
provocateurs activity recently in both Springfield, 
Illinois and Dallas, Texas. 

The notion that government agents will provoke 
civilians to commit acts of terrorism is nothing new 
and should not surprise us. Anyone familiar with 
Joseph Conrad's novel The Secret Agent or the 
Wackowski brother's film V for Vendetta, with its 
mention of Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Treason and 
Plot, will be familiar with how governments use agent 
provocateurs to set-up civilians to take the fall for 
terrorist attacks, which the governments themselves 
have instigated, designed to grant more police, 
military, and propaganda powers to the governments, 
which use alleged threats of dangerous terrorists 
living among us, in order to instill a culture of 
fear within the (trusting and unsuspecting) civilian 
population. As I've said, the government's use of 
agent provocateurs should come as no surprise to us. 
Anyone who has ever seen the television show Cops 
will certainly be familiar with how local 
governments, via the local police, will use agent 
provocateurs to set-up civilians to engage in 
criminal activity so that they might arrest these 
citizens for engaging in criminal activity, which the 
police agent provocateurs have, themselves, 


For example, local police, in order to crack down 
on prostitution, will have a female police officer 
act as a prostitute by convincing unsuspecting men, 
via solicitation, that they are providing sex for 
money. When these unsuspecting men hand over the 
money they are then arrested by waiting, watching, 
police officers. Likewise, local police officers will 
act as drug dealers by exchanging drugs for money 
with unsuspecting citizens. When the unsuspecting 
citizens hand over the money they are then arrested 
by waiting, watching, police officers. 

One of the problems with a government's use of 
agent provocateurs is that the government's own 
agents must engage in illegal activities in order to 
secure an arrest. Not only is it illegal to pay a 
woman for sex; it's also illegal to sell sex for 
money, which is exactly what the government' s agent 
does. Not only is it illegal to buy drugs; it's also 
illegal to sell drugs, which is exactly what the 
government's agent does. Not only is it illegal to 
blow up a building; it's also illegal to encourage, 
and conspire with, others to do so, which is exactly 
what the government's agent does. 

As far as the terrorist threat from al Qaeda goes, 
five-time Emmy Award winning investigative journalist 
Peter Lance has uncovered evidence that the FBI has 
been aware of— and even assisted in— every terrorist 
plot that al Qaeda has ever pulled off; including, 
especially, 9/11. 

The Obama administration, in order to combat the 
threat of homegrown terrorism will, as I've said, 
continue to use police state tactics to avert the 
supposed terrorist "threat". But the administration 
will also continue its time honored— yet quite 
dishonorable— tradition of using agent provocateurs in 
order to set-up civilians as participants in 
government sponsored terror attacks, as it's done 
(repeatedly) in the past and as it's (most likely and 
most recently) done with the so-called Times Square 
bomber . 


The Demise of Anglo-American 

I wish more people had a better understanding of 
world history. All of the problems we face 
today have historical beginnings and if one is 
ignorant of these beginnings one has no way of 
understanding what's really going on. Consider, for 
instance, the on-going crisis (wars) in the Middle 
East and our on-going and problematic relationships 
with Russia and China. 

What we, today, are witnessing is the death of the 
Anglo-British-American Empire. Colonialism and 
imperialism are dead yet Great Britain and America 
refuse to surrender their colonialist and imperialist 
ideology. Rather than admit the error of our ways, 
repent of the evil we've done and continue to do and 
start minding our own business, we continue the 
unwinnable strategy of telling other peoples in other 
lands (whom we deem inferior) what to do and 
punishing them for not minding us— their superiors. 

When I was in the U. S. Army, a long time ago, the 
insignia belonging to the first unit that I was 
assigned to (the 14 th Infantry) was distinguished by a 
golden dragon in front of a red wall, because— during 
the Boxer Rebellion, in China— this unit had once 
scaled the wall of Peking in order to capture the 
city . 

Over the years, both England and America have 
attempted to control the Chinese— England with its 
shameless Opium Wars and America with its Yangtze 
River gunboat patrols— yet the Chinese people have 
now, finally, freed themselves from the arrogant, 
wrong-headed, imperialist Anglo-Americans; although 
they still need to free themselves from their own 
dead, Marxist/Communist, totalitarian ideology— at 
least they are free of Anglo-American imperialism. 

Great Britain has, over the years, tried— and 
failed— to control Afghanistan (to use as a buffer 


between the British India colonies and Russia) just 
like America is trying— and failing— to do today. 

Opium— the same opium the British once foisted upon 
the Chinese people— is Afghanistan's largest and most 
profitable export. And I assume that it always will 
be. Opium, as Martin Booth has said, has a long 
history and is an integral part of the global 
economy . 

The old and collapsing British Empire is 
responsible the current crisis, which America (since 
World War II) has now inherited, in the Middle East. 
For example, even a cursory study of World War I will 
show that Palestine, which is what that land was then 
called, was stolen from the Palestinians by the 
British in order that it might be given to the 
Zionist colonizers. 

To this very day we are simply reaping the 
consequences of these arrogant, imperialist actions. 

When will Anglo-Americans wake up, learn their 
history, admit the error of their ways, truly allow 
the peoples of other lands to determine their own 
destinies, butt-out of everyone's business, leave 
people in foreign lands alone, apologize for what 
we've done, humbly admit that our "empires" have 
collapsed, and start focusing on the problems that we 
have right here at home? Probably not until our 
"empires" are defeated— militarily— by our enemies; 
because, even though we're already financially 
bankrupt, we'll no doubt continue to hang on until 
the very bitterest of ends. 


Security and Terrorism: Reductio ad 

Ever since 9/11, the US federal government has 
been working overtime trying to keep Americans 
afraid of terrorists, namely al Qaeda (who are 
said to be responsible for the attacks of that 
day) . Since that time Americans have been subjected 
to a draconian infringement of their rights as 
citizens, namely through the infamous USA PATRIOT 
ACT, so that Americans, we are told, might be safe 
and secure . 

This government terror/fear mongering now extends 
itself at the slightest provocation. Incidents such 
as the underwear bomber and the Times Square fizzle 
bomber come to mind here. Other incidents, such as 
the Fort Hood shooter, have been declared both the 
act of a lone deranged gunman and the terrorist 
actions of a man who had been in contact, via email, 
with an al Qaeda cleric (who happens to be a US 
citizen and is now on President Obama's US citizen 
hit list ) . 

The ancient philosopher Socrates used a line of 
questioning, the so-called Socratic method, in order 
to get-at the truth of a matter by taking the premise 
of a person's argument to its logical conclusion; 
thereby showing the (eventual) absurdity of the 
person's premise. This type of argument, called 
reduction ad absurdum, can be helpful in critiquing 
the US government's arguments concerning terrorism 
and homeland security. 

Terrorism is a tactic, it's not an entity. If 
terrorism is a real threat to Americans, then nothing 
short of a total police state can possibly be a 
solution . 

And this is exactly where America is now headed. 

Consider this: a terrorist can be a lone gunman, 
the driver of a car, or someone with a backpack. How- 
short of policing everyone, everywhere, all of the 


time— does anyone suppose that the US government can 
keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism? 

This is the whole point of terrorism: it can't be 
stopped by police tactics. Terrorism will only end 
when oppressive governments, who are the targets of 
the attacks, decide to address the political 
grievances of the terrorists. 

If we want to keep the American homeland safe from 
terrorist threats, then the US government needs to 
address the political grievances the terrorists have 
against it. For example, al Qaeda never struck first 
at America; al Qaeda reacted to the US government's 
decision to attack Iraq (killing thousands of 
innocent civilians) and to put US troops in Saudi 
Arabia in 1991 (which blasphemed the two holiest 
sites of Islam) . 

If government fear/terror mongering continues, then 
the US will, inevitably, become a total police state. 

Just as with DUI checkpoints, in which everyone who 
is driving a car is suspected to be drunk, anyone who 
drives a car can now be considered a terror suspect; 
as is anyone who is carrying a backpack; or anyone 
who carries their lunch to work. 

If you don't believe me, then just think about it. 
If the Times Square fizzle bomb was a real threat, 
then how could it have been stopped? By searching 
every car that goes through a checkpoint before it 
can get to Times Square; right? Just like airport and 
sporting event screenings, access to all areas will, 
eventually, require screening. 

So don't be surprised if, when you're driving 
somewhere, you're stopped at a checkpoint by the 
police, who look like soldiers, and asked to prove 
that you don't have a bomb in your car. And don't be 
surprised if, when you're walking to class one day, 
you're stopped by the police, who look like soldiers, 
and asked to prove that you're not carrying a bomb in 
your backpack. 


The Enemy of Freedom 

With all of the hoopla surrounding Arizona's new 
anti-immigration law one would think that the 
American people would have already realized 
that their constitutional rights, found 
especially in the Bill of Rights, had been 
eviscerated long ago. 

Because of Arizona's new law, many people are now 
concerned that their Fourth Amendment right "to be 
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects 
against unreasonable searches and seizures" is now- 
suddenly-being put in jeopardy. But under the USA 
PATRIOT ACT, anyone suspected of terrorism can have 
their homes invaded, listening devises placed within 
their homes, their phones tapped, and their papers 
seized (or copied) . 

But the American people are okay with this, because 
the Feds only do this to suspected terrorists. But 
the truth is that the USA PATRIOT ACT simply allowed 
the Feds to expand their already unconstitutional 
intelligence gathering methods, which they had been 
using against suspected criminals (i.e., suspected 
organized crime figures) who, for many years now, 
have also had their homes invaded, listening devises 
placed within their homes, their phones tapped, and 
their papers seized (or copied) . 

And the American people were okay with this as 
well. Why? Because organized crime figures are 
criminals. The constitutional issue, however, is the 
oft neglected fact that these suspected criminals 
happen to be U. S. citizens who are thereby 
(supposedly) entitled to the protections that are 
(supposedly) provided for all citizens by the U. S. 
Constitution and its Bill of Rights. 

But when it comes to the Feds taking away our 
constitutional rights, the American people have a 
very bad habit of saying something like: "Well, if 


you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't have 
anything to worry about." 

But that's not really the point, is it? 

The point of having constitutional rights is this: 
it is that when you are suspected of wrongdoing you 
have protection from the government, which is trying 
to find evidence against you in order to prosecute 
and convict you of that suspected wrongdoing. 

Consider this too: the Feds (and the states) have 
been seizing (forfeiting) the property of suspected 
drug smugglers for years now; a direct violation of 
the protections afforded to all U. S, citizens by the 
Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall 
be: ". . . deprived of life, liberty, or property 
without due process of law; nor shall private 
property be taken for public use without just 
compensation." But this is exactly what the 
authorities have been doing: seizing the property of 
suspected drug smugglers, before trial, and then 
using or selling that property for public use. 

But this is okay with the American people, because 
these guys are (suspected) drug smugglers. I mean, 
"If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't 
have anything to worry about" . . . right? 

I got in trouble with the Feds about eight years 
ago, concerning an anti-abortion incident I was 
involved in, and I was surprised when the state that 
I was living in at the time decided to prosecute me 
for the same offense. I thought, "Isn't such double 
prosecution a violation of my Fifth Amendment right 
to protection from the government putting me on trial 
twice for the same offense?" 

The Fifth Amendment says: ". . .nor shall any 
person be subjected for the same offense to be twice 
put in jeopardy . . ."I could see if I had committed 
two, distinctly different offenses, but the 
prosecution, in both my federal and state trials, 
accused me— in court— of having done one, specific 
thing— the same thing. This, to me, was exactly what 


the Fifth Amendment was supposed to protect me from: 
being put on trial twice for the same offense . 

Imagine my surprise when, in doing legal research 
for my (state) case, I came across a U. S. Supreme 
Court case from 1959 (Bartkus v. Illinois) in which 
the court had decided— before I was born— that is was 
okay for someone to be put on trial twice for the 
same offense in America ... as long as the 
government used to different courts in which to do 
so: a federal court and a state court (a legal 
fiction since known as dual sovereignty) . 

In Bartkcus v. Illinois, Mr. Bartkus had been tried 
and found not guilty (i.e., acquitted) of the charge 
of bank robbery in U. S. federal court; he was then 
prosecuted by the state of Illinois in state court 
for the same offense (i.e., the (alleged) robbery of 
the same bank) . Unfortunately for Mr. Bartkus, he was 
found guilty this time, and he was subsequently 
sentenced to serve twenty years in prison. He took 
his case to the U. S. Supreme Court and the court 
upheld the verdict, claiming dual sovereignty (i.e., 
that each sovereign {federal and state had the right 
to prosecute him for the same offense: bank robbery) . 

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black dissented in 
the case, and he also wrote one of most scathing 
dissenting opinions in the history of the court, 
which I think you should read (by following the link 
above) . 

In Black's opinion, the court had overturned the U. 
S. citizen's right to be protected from double 
prosecution— a right that has existed throughout the 
legal history of western civilization since ancient 
times. As Justice Black put it, "The court apparently 
takes the position that a second trial for the same 
act is somehow less offensive if one of the trials is 
conducted by the Federal Government and the other by 
a State. Looked at from the standpoint of the 
individual who is being prosecuted, this notion is 
too subtle for me to grasp. If double punishment is 
what is feared, it hurts no less for two "Sovereigns" 
to inflict it than for one." 


I can attest to the truth of this opinion: it was 
no less offensive to me. Having to prepare for two 
trials, and having to prepare to go to prison twice, 
for the same offense was certainly offensive to me. 

I'm saying all of this to point up the fact that we 
Americans have lost, long ago, many of the 
constitutional rights that are supposed to guarantee 
us protection from our government, which most of us 
(somehow) still assume that we have. 

We don't have them, and many of them we haven't had 
for a long, long time. 

Is all of the hoopla surrounding the new Arizona 
law justified? I think that it is, because— ideally— 
law enforcement should not be allowed to ask people 
in America to "show their papers". However, 
considering the many rights that we have already 
lost, only a few of which I've enumerated above, does 
anyone actually believe they are still afforded the 
legal protections from government that we were once 
afforded us by the Bill of Rights, but which are now 
virtually null and void? 

My real concern is that America needs to be 
restored to its ideals. The American people require 
the restoration of their rights and their protections 
from government, which were (long ago) outlined for 
us in the Bill of Rights. 

Until we— the People— decide get off our apathy, 
we're all in danger; not just the Hispanics. In fact, 
the Hispanics are in endangered now simply because 
we— the People— have let this issue (and the federal 
government) get so out-of-hand. The sad truth is that 
the U. S. federal government has now become the real 
enemy of our freedom, and I think it's high time the 
American people wake up and begin taking 
responsibility for their government in order to 
regain their rights and their protections from the 
government by taking the federal government back into 
the hands of the People. Perhaps this Arizona 
controversy will help us to do just that. 


The Future of America Depends Upon 
Justice for the Unborn 

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King once said: 

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice 

everywhere." Dr. Seuss once said: "A person's 
a person, no matter how small." 

I agree. 

Last month I was working with a fine young 
Christian man— the kind of young Christian person who 
inspires hope for the future and can be found across 
this great nation— who said something that really 
surprised me. He said something to the effect of, "I 
think abortion is okay as long as it' s right after 
conception (like via "the morning after pill") or 
still very young/small." 

I think I said something like, "So all that matters 
is that we kill them when they' re small 
preferably by chemicals, as opposed to scalpels. But 
the point here is that one has to have a justifiable 
reason to take a human life and to have an abortion 
is to intentionally destroy a human life. Simply not 
wanting a little someone around is not just cause for 
taking a human life, no matter how small/young it 
is . " 

I also told him two stories from my own life- 
experience. The first was that, when we were young 
teenagers, my best friend got his girlfriend pregnant 
and, because they didn't want her parents to find out 
they were having sex, they aborted the child. My 
friend and his girlfriend later married and had three 
kids. I think her parents figured out that they were 
having sex. This couple, especially the woman, always 
regretted having aborted their first, who would have 
been their oldest, child. 

The second story is that of my ex-wife. She got 
pregnant at 16 (not by me) and hid it from her mom 
until it was too late to get an abortion, which is 
what her mom (not my ex-wife) wanted to do. She had 


the child, a boy, and she gave him up for adoption. 
He contacted her when he turned 18 and they have been 
corresponding ever since. He's very happy to be 
alive, knowing he could have been aborted, he's very 
happy with his life, and he's also a very successful 
businessman . 

And that's a lot better than ending up in the 
toilet, or in the garbage can, isn't it? 

Life is unique; especially human life. 

I once watched Bill Moyers interview Dr. Leon Kass, 
MD on PBS. Dr. Kass is one of the brightest thinkers 
in America, and he's also a distinguished bioethicist 
(whose books I've read) . The following is an excerpt 
from this interview, 

BILL MOYERS: You mean down when we were mere cells? 
LEON KASS: When we were — 
BILL MOYERS: Or a cell? 

LEON KASS: We were a very special kind of cell, Bill. 
BILL MOYERS: Potentially. 

LEON KASS: No, no. We were-- when you-- look, when-- 
R.G. Edwards created the first test tube baby, Louise 
Brown, 1978, he said, and he sort of stumbled over 
the truth. He said, "She was beautiful then and she 
is beautiful now." And by "then" he meant when she 
was a zygote, when she was a fertilized egg which he 
had fertilized. 

What really struck me was just how little Bill 
Moyers thinks of human life in its earliest stages. 

Just like the young man I worked with. 


Dr. Kass is a wise man who is in awe of life, 
especially human life, and he realizes the 
continuity, over time, of our being. We were all 
zygotes once. I, the person who I am now, this body, 
was once as small as the period at the end of this 
sentence . 

"We were a very special kind of cell, Bill." 

I suppose "the morning after pill" is a conscience 
relieving solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted 
pregnancy? Simply swallow a pill and your pregnancy 
is over! 

Sounds like the modern, scientific, and merciful 
way to kill your unborn child. If they're really 
small they won't feel anything . . . 

Mercy is one of the reasons the guy that I used to 
work with gave me for using "the morning after pill" 
or getting an abortion early: they don't feel any 
pain . 

But who are they? 

They are the same kind as us: people. 

"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am 
involved in mankind and therefore never send to ask 
for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee." ~ John 

By saying this Donne is telling us much the same 
thing as Dr. King was telling us when he said: 
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice 
everywhere." What Donne is saying is that we're a 
small part of a much larger human family and that 
we're all mortal. When the bell tolls the death of 
anyone, it may as well be my own death, because 
sooner or later I will die. The death of anyone is a 
loss to the human family of a unique individual. In 
the case of abortion, the death of each human being 
via abortion is, in a sense, the death of us all, 
because the single, unwanted human zygote, embryo, or 
fetus is a microcosm of humanity. The unjust, 


intentional putting to death of a single, small, 
growing human being through abortion is the death of 
us all, because we turn our head and ignore, for the 
most part, the deathly matter. 

Are YOU going to be the one to kill it? Whatever 
size it is? I'm not. 

Not if it's human. Sorry. 

And HUMAN it is; it being: the small person 
(people or them) . 

I realize that pseudo intellectuals like Peter 
Singer would have us (i.e., our society) allow for 
abortion and infanticide (i.e., the murder of infants 
up to two years of age) but I think Dr. King would 
really have issues with such inhumane and murderously 
brutal injustices as abortion and infanticide. 

Wouldn't he? 

Abortion and infanticide are based, 

philosophically, upon a genocidal instinct that 
transcends ordinary classifications of hated, which 
becomes an existential hatred for the bodily 
existence of another person (however small) . This 
(small) person's nationality, religion, gender, and 
race are irrelevant; the intention of abortion and 
infanticide being to destroy a human life simply 
because it exists. 

Notice how, in the dialogue above, Moyer' s use of 
potential life is summarily dismissed by Dr. Kass. 

You weren't a potential human life, or person, 
when you were a zygote Bill; you were you: a living, 
growing, human person . . . the same— although much 
more mature— unique human person that you are right 
now (e.g., same blood type, same unique DNA) . 

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the World 
Trade Center in New York City, "The medical 
examiner's office received a total of 19,916 human 
remains, which included fewer than 300 intact bodies 


or torsos. It identified 10,190 body parts, some as 
small as a finger tip, primarily through DNA testing. 
About 9,726 remains remain unidentified." 

Although we don't like to think about it, the 

finger tip of an unborn child who has been legally 

killed by an abortionist would also be identified as 
being "human remains." 

In short, this is indisputable scientific evidence 
that the unborn child is a human being. But we 
already knew that, didn't we? 

Isn't that the point, after all, of killing it to 
begin with? Because it— a living, growing, human 
being— is; it exists here-and-now and we don't want it 

So we desire a humane way of being rid of this . . 
. . human . 

Better than carving it up into little pieces— not 
as ugly, or as brutal, in appearance. 

Suffice it to say that, in this case— concerning 
Kass and Moyers— Dr. Kass comes across as much wiser 
than the average person which, in this case, is 
represented by Moyers. 

Size (or age), in this case, doesn't matter. 

Injustice anywhere— like the unjust taking of a 
human life through abortion— is a threat to justice 
everywhere . 

Ask not whom the abortionist kills, he's killing 
you . . . he's killing us all; in microcosm . . . the 
purest form of genocide (or specicide) . 

Believe it or not, the biggest obstacle to 
political reformation, now, is the abortion issue. 
Why? Because the Left, which is supposed to stand for 
human rights supports, for the most part, a woman's 
right to choose to hire an abortionist, usually a 


man, and pay him to kill her child (unless of course 
she's using the "more humane" morning after pill) . 

The Right, which has no history of supporting the 
oppressed, like the Left does, has picked up the 
human rights banner which the Left dropped (i.e., the 
banner of the smallest amongst us, the not-yet-born) 
and managed to gather most of the pro-lifers into its 
party. The Left, which perceives the abortion issue 
as irrevocably tied to the women's rights issue could 
easily become the party of life and justice, thus 
transferring most of the pro-lifers from the Right 
into its own party, if the Left would simply 
acknowledge the truth: abortion is the intentional, 
violent destruction of an innocent human person. 

Women have rights in our society. They have equal 
rights with men. But neither a man nor a woman has 
any right to kill an unborn person. Some jealous, 
angry husbands will always seek out their cheating 
spouse's lover in order to kill him. But this doesn't 
mean that the state (i.e., the government) should 
legalize such killings. Likewise, women (and men) 
will always seek to be rid of their unborn children. 
But that doesn't mean that the state (meaning: the 
government) should legalize such killings. 

What would Dr. King say . . . ? Can you imagine? 
And why is no one else, of any popular significance, 
saying it? 

What's happened to justice? Human rights cannot be 
in subjection to women's rights, or to men's rights. 
These rights are innate; inviolate, God-given. 

And that was Dr. King's whole point, wasn't it? 
Equal rights for all people via Natural Law ... as 
outlined for us in the Declaration of Independence? 

I had a rather unique perspective of Glenn Beck' s 
recent rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, 
D. C. I walked from Dupont Circle to the rally that 
morning and, as I was walking down 16th street, only 
a few blocks from the White House, I passed by the 
Planned Parenthood at 16 th and L and, as you can 


imagine (or maybe you can't) it was very busy, being 
a Saturday, which, apparently, is a good (i.e., 
popular, or common) day for the unborn to die. 

Tens of thousands of pro-lifers at were at the 
Beck rally . . . but not at the clinic, in order to 
protest 1 . Hundreds of people were at the anti-Beck 
rally, not far from the Lincoln Memorial, attempting 
to make Dr. King's dream of a more just society a 
reality. But they weren't at the clinic either. Worse 
yet, most of them support the operation of such 
(small people) killing centers. 

"A person's a person, no matter how small . . ." 

It's time for America, meaning the American 
people, to reconcile human rights to the abortion 
issue ... to seek justice. If the Democrats would 
rethink the abortion issue through the lens of Dr. 
King's Natural Law paradigm the Republicans would go 
back to being their old rich, fat cat, country club 
selves . 

Support Life! 

Consistently ! 

End war, end abortion, end poverty, end racism, 
end capital punishment . . . and seek instead to 
build a culture of life! 

And Justice! 

1 There was a very small group of Catholics there. 


Choose Life - March for Life 2011 

It's time again for the annual March for Life, 
which is a peaceful pro-life (anti-abortion) 
march (protest) . The March for Life commemorates, 
in memoriam, the 1973 US Supreme Court decision 
(in Roe v. Wade) which legalized abortion on demand 
throughout all fifty states. This year marks its 
thirty-eighth year and I wonder how much longer it 
will take for America to become a nation that loves 
and promotes life rather than one that loves and 
promotes death. 

A recent news story confirmed something that I wrote 
not long ago: the dirty little secret about abortion 
and the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is that legalizing 
abortion simply allowed the back-alley butchers to 
move onto Main Street (or, in this case, Lancaster 
Avenue) . Perhaps the Philly House of Horrors will be 
a wake-up call for many? For many people, however, 
such as myself, the house of horrors in Philly was no 
surprise, because we've been awake to this issue for 
quite some time. An abortionist is usually a lousy 
doctor— much better at killing people than at healing 
them— often having graduated at-or-near the bottom of 
their medical school class, who makes a living 
killing babies. 

On Monday January 24, 2011, tens of thousands of 
Americans will march in Washington, DC to demonstrate 
their support of a culture of life, one in which the 
intentional, violent destruction of a human being of 
any age is not permitted by law. Choose life, and 
justice for the unborn. 

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 


A World Without Nukes : Dream? or 

"A world without nukes would be the ultimate 
nightmare. We voluntarily disarm while the world's 
rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret." 
Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post, 11/26/2010) 

world without nukes would be the ultimate 
/\ nightmare." That's a very strong statement, 
J. ^which most people, I think, would strongly 
disagree with. I think most people hope, 
someday, to live in a nuclear weapon-free world. So 
what, exactly, is Krauthammer's reason for making 
such a statement? Krauthammer's a writer, and I'm a 
writer too. Writers write sentence by sentence, it 
doesn't matter whether it's a newspaper column or a 
book, so why does Krauthammer say that "A world 
without nukes would be an ultimate nightmare"? 

Writers are also careful with the words they use. 
The words "world", "nukes", "ultimate", "nightmare" 
are packed with meaning and Krauthammer intends to 
pack a punch with them ... to persuade his readers 
to follow his point of view, which is the 
establishment's point of view. Writer's, especially 
those, like Krauthammer, who are well paid to engage 
in social/political polemics on a regular basis, are 
likewise prone to misuse words in order to persuade 
those who disagree with their views. Their writings 
should always be read very carefully, with suspicion. 
For example, Krauthammer, here, equates a nuclear 
weapon-free world (many people's hope/dream) with a 
nightmare. Worse yet: an "ultimate nightmare". 

The late (murdered) president John F. Kennedy once 
said : 

"What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana 
enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not 
the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. 
I am talking about genuine peace - - the kind of 
peace that makes life on earth worth living -- the 
kind that enables man and nations to grow and to hope 


and to build a better life for their children - - not 
merely peace for Americans by peace for all men and 
women - - not merely peace in our time but peace for 
all time. 

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. 
Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers 
can maintain large and relatively invulnerable 
nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort 
to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a 
single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the 
explosive force delivered by all of the allied air 
forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in 
an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear 
exchange would be carried by the wind and water and 
soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to 
generations unborn." John F. Kennedy, Commencement 
Speech at American University (06/10/1963) 

I agree with Kennedy. And I find Krauthammer's 
misuse of words regarding this subject repugnant. 
Krauthammer want's to persuade his readers into 
believing that a Pax Americana enforced on the world 
by American (nuclear) weapons of war is our only 
hope/dream and tries to convince them, by a subtle 
equivocation of terms, that we are in mortal peril if 
we don't have this Pax Americana. For Krauthammer, "a 
world without nukes" = "a world in which rogues and 
psychopaths develop nukes in secret". But these two 
things, "a world without nukes" and "a world in which 
rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret are 
not the same, or equivalent. 

Like Kennedy, I think it's foolish— and very 
dangerous— for nations to arm for total nuclear war 
"in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains 
almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all 
of the allied air forces in the Second World War". 
What does this— an end to the nuclear arms race and 
disarmament— have to do with "rogues and psychopaths 
developing nukes in secret"? Surely Krauthammer knows 
there will always be rogues and psychopaths— or 
sociopaths— amongst us why does he tell us we 

invite disaster— an "ultimate nightmare scenario"— if 
we choose to scale back or even lay down our national 
nuclear offensive/defensive capabilities? Kennedy's 


dream of a nuclear-free world wasn't/isn't a 
nightmare, Krauthammer's dream of a world with nukes, 
with the US enforcing a new Pax Americana, taking out 
rogue nations and psychopathic dictators, is the real 
nightmare . 

If we're looking for rogues and psychopaths 
(better: sociopaths) the world, especially since 
9/11, has indeed been threatened by them. Two names, 
in particular, come to mind here: Donald Rumsfeld and 
Richard Cheney. 

I, for one, hope for and dream of a nuclear-free 
future, one in which generations unborn can be free 
from the threat of nuclear annihilation. Krauthammer, 
apparently, does not. 

And I'm not the only one either . . . far from it, 
there's a global resistance of nuclear weapons. 


Is it Okay to be Gay? 

If, when posing the question "is it okay to be 
gay?", we mean "are gays, lesbians, and 
bisexuals second-class citizens?", then the 
answer to the question "is it okay to be gay" 
(in America) is clearly: "yes, being gay is okay- 
being gay does not make anyone a second-class 
citizen." But if when posing the question "is it okay 
to be gay?" we mean "is being gay the same as, equal 
to, or j ust-as-good-as being straight?", then I think 
the answer to the question "is it okay to be gay?" is 
clearly "no, being gay is not okay— being gay is not 
the same as or j ust-as-good-as being straight." 

This is a subject to which I have devoted much 
thought , both because it is a hot-button issue these 
days and because I have had— and I do have— many 
friends who were— and who are— gay, lesbian, and 
bisexual . 

As an American and as a libertarian, I don't care 
who is having sex with whom, as long as it's 
consensual sex and as long as no one is being harmed 
or abused against their will. It's none of my 
business. I think gays, lesbians, and bisexuals 
should be allowed equal protection under the law. 
They should be allowed to work any job for which they 
are qualified, be allowed to serve in the military, 
be allowed to join in civil unions (the marriage 
issue is, I think, a religious matter; which is up to 
one's church), and they should be allowed to parent 
children . 

As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is a sin. 
And I also believe that heterosexual adultery and 
promiscuity is a sin. I'm of the opinion that God, in 
his mercy, warns us against giving-in to our sinful 
desires because he knows what's best for us. He knows 
that engaging in homosexual sex, heterosexual 
adultery, and promiscuity is not what's best for us. 
In fact, engaging in sinful behavior can make us 
quite miserable. 


Sinful desires are quite natural for us to have, as 
is our desire to give-in to them, which is why our 
Creator warns us not to give-in to them. But I don't 
see our Creator as a stern judge, chomping at the bit 
to throw sinners into hell. I believe our Creator 
loves us, wants what's best for us, and wants us to 
be happy. Our Creator knows that when we give-in to 
our sinful desires, we won't be as happy; not as 
happy as we could be. In fact, we're often miserable 
because of such giving-in. 

My belief is that promiscuous and adulterous 
heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals and bisexuals 
(even if they're not being promiscuous and 
unfaithful) are simply not as happy as they could be; 
and not as happy as they should be (i.e., not as 
happy as our Creator desires for them to be) . 

In short, these sexual lifestyles are not ideal, or 
what's best for us. 

The ideal sexual relationship is one in which a 
woman and a man love one another, complement one 
another, treat each other equally, are faithful to 
one another sexually, and are forgiving and kind to 
one another when they (inevitably) fall short of 
these ideals. 

Heterosexual relationships are by no means easy, 
but they are worth the effort; especially if we 
desire to live-up to our full potential, as human 
persons . 

I think the practice of homosexuality is a refusal 
to accept (or a denial of) the many challenges of 
growth and development that are associated with 
developing the healthy, fulfilling, and ideal 
emotional and sexual relationship that one can only 
form with a member of the opposite sex. 

This refusal or denial makes the practice of 
homosexuality "incest-like", because intra-gender 
emotional and sexual relationships take place "within 
the family" of one's own gender. Healthy growth and 
development cannot occur when one locks oneself 


emotionally and sexually into one family (a 
biological family, a gender family, or both) . In 
order to grow and develop healthy relationships one 
must leave the safety, security, and familiarity of 
the family, however difficult this may be for one to 
do . 

The word genus comes from the Latin word genre-, 
genus; meaning: birth, race, or kind. The word gender 
has the same meaning. Also related to this same 
(Latin) word is the word generate, which means: 
descent, birth (see also: kin) . The word: geneology, 
from the Greek word: genea, genos, meaning: race, 
family . 

This is why I say that homosexuality is "incest- 
like", because gender is like family. Sexual activity 
within one's own gender ( intra-gender ) is sexual 
activity within one's own gender-family. 

The word family comes from the Latin word: familia, 
meaning: household, and is related to the word: race. 
And in biological classification (taxonomy), the 
family is just above the genus. 

The relationship between the two words gender and 
family is readily apparent. 

Although there's been a lot of deliberate confusion 
today regarding the word gender, which I've dealt 
with elsewhere, the word gender is equivalent to the 
word sex, meaning: male and female kinds. 

What concerns me is that our society is sending 
people the message that "being gay is okay"— meaning : 
"being gay is just-as-good-as being straight"— when, 
in reality, being gay is not just-as-good-as being 
straight . 

What concerns me even more is when some Christians, 
and some Christian churches, send the message that 
"being gay is just-as-good-as being straight"; 
because it's not. 


(I'm especially concerned that some organizations 
are telling children that "being gay is okay— or just- 
as-good-as being straight".) 

Sending this false message does people (especially 
young people) a great disservice. We should be 
telling people the truth, that "being gay is not as 
good as being straight"— being homosexual will never 
allow one to be as happy as one could be, and as one 
should be, by being heterosexual. As difficult as it 
may be (at times) to tell people the truth, telling 
people the truth about a serious issue is not an 
option, especially for Christians and Christian 
churches . 

It's especially disappointing knowing that my 
Christian friend has bought— and is selling— the lie: 
that "being gay is just as good as being straight". 

Telling the truth is hard, but it's the right thing 
to do, especially if you really care about people and 
if you really desire for them to reach their best 
potential . 

One of the most important theological points, which 
I made above, is that people have been created by God 
in the image of God, and that the image of God is 
both male and female together . 

People image God as both male and female together; 
not as male and male together or as female and female 
together. God is neither female nor male but has 
aspects of both, and is best imaged by female and 
male together as one. Genesis 1:27 tells us, "So God 
created man [i.e., humankind] in his own image, in 
the image of God he created him; male and female he 
created them." Men and woman are very different, and 
both men and women need one another in order to 
complement one another. 

This is the theological reason for why it's not 
ideal for a child to have same-sex parents. In order 
to image God, in the family, one must have both a 
female and a male (both a mother and a father) and 
not a female and a female (a mother and a mother) or 


a male and a male (a father and a father) . The best 

way to image God to a child is for the child to have 

both a mother and a father; both of whom love one 

another, respect one another, and, most importantly, 
complement one another. 

Should same sex families be allowed in America? 
Sure. But these same-sex families are not "just as 
good as" opposite-sex families. And we're fooling 
ourselves if we think they are. 

This is not easy for me to say but I've never 
hesitated to express my concerns about these 
important issues, especially to my gay, lesbian, and 
bisexual friends; some of whom have same-sex 
families. I'm very tolerant, but I also love people 
and I want what's best for them. And this means 
telling them the truth: homosexuality, very simply, 
is not "the same as, or just as good as, 
heterosexuality" . 


As I was working on this post, I received an update 
regarding a new blog post, concerning homosexuality 
and the church, written by a friend of mine who is in 
seminary. Sadly, my friend is telling people 
(although not as plainly) that "being gay is just as 
good as being straight". In response to his post, I 
wrote the following, which is rather technical and 
may not be of interest to the general reader. It 
deals with male homosexuality and the definitions of 
the New Testament Greek words relating to it: 

As Christian theologians, we accept the concept of 
progressive revelation. The NT is a better (more 
clear) revelation than is the OT, but the revelation 
of God in the NT is not radically different from the 
revelation of God in the OT . 

Unless we wish to be like Marcion and dispose of 
the OT altogether. 

As for the definitions of the Greek words 
arsenokoites and malakos, I think you know as well as 


I do that--when it comes to writing books and papers 
dealing with the definitions of NT Greek words--we 
should agree to accept the standard scholarly 
reference work of our day: A Greek-English Lexicon of 
the New Testament (Univ. of Chicago Press); also 
known as the Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich lexicon (or BAG) . 

You say there is no consensus of scholarship 
regarding the words arsenokoites and malakos, but the 
BAG lexicon is a scholarly consensus. In fact it's 
the only lexicon that's universally accepted by NT 
scholars . 

If we wish to be intellectually honest, and if we 
expect other scholars to give credence to our work, 
we should be willing to settle debates over NT Greek 
word definitions by the BAG lexicon. 

According to the BAG lexicon, the word 
arsenokoites means: "a male who practices 

homosexuality, pederast, sodomite." 

I know this isn't popular these days, but it's what 
the word means; at least according to the standard, 
scholarly reference work of our day. 

According to the BAG lexicon, the word malakos 
means: "men and boys who allow themselves to be 
misused homosexually . " 

You can easily look up these two words in the BAG 
lexicon for yourself, as I just did, because I'm sure 
you guys must have one in your library. 

And please don't get me wrong here. 

I understand the issue of homosexuality and the 
church very well. I've had, and do have, many friends 
who were, and are, homosexual. But I don't think 
homosexuality is an ideal lifestyle that is 
equivalent with heterosexuality . I think engaging in 
homosexuality in preference to heterosexuality is 
immature in that it hinders our growth as persons 
made in the image of God. People image God as both 
male and female together; not as male and male 
together or as female and female together. 


God is neither female nor male but has aspects of 
both, and is best imaged by female and male 
together as one. Genesis 1:27 tells us, 

"So God created man [i.e., humankind] in his own 
image, in the image of God he created him; male and 
female he created them." 

I try very hard not to allow myself to twist the 
meanings of words in order to make myself or others 
feel better about our behavior choices. And I accept 
the BAG lexicon regarding NT Greek word definitions, 
letting the chips fall where they may. I think we're 
on very thin ice when we find ourselves arguing 
against it. 

You may also find this article, concerning the 
etymologies of the words arsenkoites and malakos, to 
be of interest as well. 


Political Observations 2011 
US Government Illegitimate 

The US federal government has no legitimacy and 
many people are beginning to realize it. For 
many people my age, 9/11 was only the most 
recent, not the first, deadly federal terror 
attack upon the innocent American peoples. I remember 
incidents like Ruby Ridge, the World Trade Center 
bombing, Waco, and the Oklahoma City bombing. 

Many people my age remember these events, and how the 
feds had become so murderously heavy-handed. Younger 
people, who have no memory of these events, should 
take notice of them. 

At the time of the Oklahoma City bombing, many people 
suspected that explosives had been planted in the 
Murrah federal building long before the bombing 
occurred on April 19, 1995, because the damage to the 
building was so much greater than that which could 
have been caused by Timothy McVeigh's (and others' 
unknown) ANFO truck bomb and General Partin said as 
much at the time. 

The Murrah federal building, it appeared to many, had 
been prewired with explosives. And, just as it was at 
Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, all evidence from the 
Oklahoma City bombing crime scene was appropriated by 
the feds and the crime scene itself destroyed. (The 
demolition of the Murrah building was entrusted to 
the establishment connected firm: Controlled 
Demolition; the same firm hired by the feds to clean 
up the WTC crime scene immediately after 9/11.) In 
short, the Oklahoma City bombing was an inside job. 

The growing awareness that WTC building 7 was 
intentionally brought down by controlled demolition 
is causing many to conclude that if one building was 
brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11, WTC 
building 7, then WTC buildings 1 and 2 must also have 


been brought down by controlled demolition. 9/11, 
too, was an inside job . 

Thus the US federal government has, in the minds of 
many peoples, no legitimacy. 

I, for one, have had it with the feds. I'm far beyond 
the belated anger of the TEA partiers . . . reform, 
in my thinking, is impossible. If reform means 
wasting valuable time and energy with the corrupted 
election system. The worst thing that ever happened 
to the TEA Party is that it went from being a good 
protest movement to being part of the Republican 
establishment . 

Those who have lost loved ones in Oklahoma City and 
New York must deal with the fact that those 
responsible for murders of their loved ones are 
beyond the reach of law. Some parents in America live 
with this fact on a daily basis. As in Mexico, so it 
is in America: corrupt, rich, and powerful 
politicians get away with murder. Justice and the 
rule of law has given way to the will to power. 

It's up to us, the American People, to take our 
nation back from these thugs. To regain legitimacy 
for our national government as a government that 
governs by consent of its People. I think those who 
have lost loved ones in this struggle are leading the 
way. And it's time for us to follow their lead and to 
seek justice. 


Rachael Maddow' s Faulty Gun-Control 

n a recent broadcast, Rachael Maddow said that 

it's extremist for one to believe that an armed 
citizenry prevents government tyranny. 

I believe that an armed citizenry prevents 
tyranny, which is exactly why the Founders gave 
us the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. 
I suppose the British and their supporters in the 
colonies thought the Founders were extremists too? 

Rachael' s argument that, if the above interpretation 
of the Second Amendment is correct, then citizens 
must (should) be allowed to buy any and all types of 
weaponry, is, I think, a good one (my personal 
favorite: the reductio ad absurdum ) but she starts 
off with a faulty premise: that US citizens would 
need to be able to defeat (she says "destroy"), on 
the battlefield, the US military. This premise is 
faulty because US citizens don't need to defeat (or 
destroy) the US military; all we need to do is to 
make life miserable for the US military, which is 
what the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, and the Afghanis 
have done. 

(Ever heard the terms "asymmetric warfare" and 
"insurgency" Rachael? I remember when the US invaded 
Iraq and a $12,000,000 Apache helicopter was shot 
down by an Iraqi insurgent using a $300 AK-47 and 20 
cent bullets ! ) 

And, in case Rachael has forgotten, the US did fight 
a Civil War. The Battle of Gettysburg was fought only 
15 miles from where I live, and the town that I live 
in has the distinction of being the only Union town 
to have been burned by the Confederates (in this 
case, in retaliation for the Union's earlier 
decimation of Virginia's Shenandoah Valley) . 

Thousands of men have already fought and died 
resisting federal tyranny Rachael, in case you've 
forgotten. If federal tyranny ever does need to be 
resisted again it will be resisted by men with arms 
that have been legally obtained and possessed. We 
will not need nukes, rocket launchers, and tanks to 


defeat the US military, because we don't need to 
defeat it, we only need to harass it continually 
until they (us?) eventually quit and switch sides. 

Perhaps Rachael ' s real concern should be with those 
who are in the US military and those who are in our 
many local, state, and federal police departments? 

Many of these people take the US Constitution and 

the oath they've sworn to defend it very seriously. 

And why shouldn't they? After all, these folks are US 
citizens too. Just like Robert E. Lee was. 

Several Quotes taken from the (extremist) Founders 
concerning an armed citizenry 

Thomas Jefferson 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 
The strongest reason for the people to retain the 
right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to 
protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- 
Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, 
June 1776. Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, 
Ed., 1950) 

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only 
those who are neither inclined nor determined to 
commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the 
assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve 
rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an 
unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence 
than an armed man." --Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th 
century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes 
and Punishment", 1764 

When the government fears the people, there is 
liberty. When the people fear the government, there 
is tyranny --Thomas Jefferson 

"And what country can preserve it's liberties, if the 
rulers are not warned from time to time that this 
people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them 
take up arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed 


from time to time with the blood of patriots and 
tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. 
Smith, 1787 

"The Constitution of most of our states, and the 
United States, assert that all power is inherent in 
the people; that they may exercise it by themselves: 
that it is their right and duty to be at all times 
armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, 
freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom 
of the press." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia 
Constitution, 1776 

Samuel Adams 

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: 
first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly 
to property; together with the right to defend them 
in the best manner they can." --Samuel Adams 

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent 
the people of the United States who are peaceable 
citizens from keeping their own arms." --Samuel 
Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution 
ratification convention, 1788 

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the 
tranquillity of servitude better than the animating 
contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask 
not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the 
hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly 
upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our 
countrymen." -- Samuel Adams, 1776 

Benjamin Franklin 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to 
purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither 
Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), 
reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, 
November 11, 1755 <<later, motto of the Historical 
Society of Pennsylvania, c. 1759>> 


Noah Webster 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be 
disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 
Europe, the supreme power in America cannot enforce 
unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of 
the people are armed, and constitute a force superior 
to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any 
pretense, raised in the United States." --Noah 
Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles 
of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to 
the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 
1888) . 

Tench Coxe 

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their 
swords, and every other terrible implement of the 
soldier, are the birthright of an American... The 
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of 
either the federal or state government, but, where I 
trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the 
people" --Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 
duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, as the 
military forces which must be occasionally raised to 
defend our country, might pervert their power to the 
injury of their fellow citizens, the people are 
confirmed by the article in their right to keep and 
bear their private arms." Tench Coxe, in "Remarks on 
the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal 
Constitution." Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 

John Adams 

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the 
individual discretion, in private self-defense." John 
Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government 
of the United States of America, 1787-88 


Alexander Hamilton 

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at 
large is that they be properly armed." Alexander 
Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8 

Richard Henry Lee 

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the 
people themselves and include all men capable of 
bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential 
that the whole body of people always possess arms and 
be taught alike, especially when young, how to use 
them." Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the 
Declaration of Independence, and member of the first 
Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. Additional 
Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788 

Patrick Henry 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. 
Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. 
Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright 
force. Whenever you give up that force, you are 
ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. 
Every man who is able may have a gun." --Patrick 
Henry, During Virginia's ratification convention, 

James Madison 

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being 
armed which Americans possess over the people of 
almost every other nation where the governments are 
afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, 
The Federalist No. 46 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall 
not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed 
of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best 
and most natural defense of a free country." --James 
Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789) 


George Mason 

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole 
people. To disarm the people is the best and most 
effectual way to enslave them." --George Mason, 
during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788 

Thomas Paine 

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer 
in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as 
property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law- 
abiding deprived the use of them." --Thomas Paine, 
Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775 

George Washington 

"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, 
all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand 
next to importance to the Constitution itself. They 
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone 
under independence." --George Washington, Boston 
Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790 

"To ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle 
and pistol are equally indispensable. The very 
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil 
interference - they deserve a place of honor with all 
that is good." --George Washington, The Federalist 
No. 53 


The Day I was 
DONE with Israel 
and the US 
Government - 
March 30, 2002 

I was DONE with 
Israel on March 30, 
2002, which was Holy 
Saturday that year, 
when the Israeli 
military (IDF) was 
shooting Palestinian 
fighters who had taken 
refuge in the Church 
of the Nativity. On 
March 29, 2002, which 
was Good Friday that 
year, the IDF began Operation "Defensive Wall" (or 
Defensive Shield) in the West Bank by arresting 
Palestinian leaders, imprisoning PNA Chairman Yassar 
Arafat in the "Mukata" compound in Ramallah, and 
besieging militants in the Church of the Nativity in 

The photograph I chose for this article is not 
random. In fact, it holds much meaning for me. The 
photo was taken March 29, 2002 in Palestine, just 
outside Yassar Arafat's compound in Ramallah. The men 
in the photo are two of Arafat's security guards, one 
of whom has just been mortally wounded by an IDF 
sniper. The photo appeared in the newspaper (where I 
lived) the following day, March 30, 2002, and it was 
obvious to me that the man in the photo had been 
mortally wounded at the instant the photo was taken, 
because I could see that he had let go of his rifle, 
which he would never have done unless he were already 
dead. When I looked at that photo that morning; and 
saw that Palestinian fighter, who was not a young 
man; I put myself in his place, fighting many years 
for the freedom of my homeland; freedom from the 
invaders and the oppressors: Israel. 


Along with the photo came the story, of how the IDF 
were besieging Palestinian fighters in the Church of 
the Nativity, in Bethlehem, and were doing their best 
to kill Arafat in his compound, in Ramallah. As this 
occurred not long after 9/11, war-fever was in the 
air. The US had invaded Afghanistan in order to go 
after al Qaeda ( Operation "ENDURING FREEDOM" ) , and 
Israel was using the toxic atmosphere to go after 
their enemies: Arafat and the Palestinians. 

Killing people who were fighting for their freedom, 
holed up in the Church of the Nativity, on Holy 
Saturday? I was DONE with Israel. 

I had been very suspicious about who was behind the 
events of 9/11 since the day they occurred, because I 
had seen no evidence that what the US government said 
concerning American Airlines flight 77 having crashed 
into the Pentagon was true. I had seen no evidence 
that a large jet aircraft had hit the Pentagon, and I 
still haven't seen any evidence of such to this day. 

For me, the notion that rogue elements of the US 
government might, in fact, be responsible for the 
terror attacks of 9/11 was not off-the-wall, nor was 
it of f -the-table as a possible, even probable, 
explanation for who was actually responsible for the 
murder of over 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. 
The Oklahoma City bombing had occurred April 19, 
1995, almost seven years prior to March 30, 2002, and 
I was well aware of the fact that the ATF had had 
advance knowledge of the bombing, which was to occur 
that day, and had allowed it to go forward (killing 
168 people, including 19 children, and injuring 680) . 
I was also aware of the fact that the 1993 plot to 
bomb the World Trade Center in New York City had been 
monitored by the FBI and allowed to go forward as 
well (killing six people and injuring thousands 
more) . 

DONE with the US government? I was DONE! 

And that was many years ago. How DONE do you think 
I am NOW? 

9/11 is, in fact, a thirty-year conspiracy, which 
was carried out by rogue elements of our own 
government (with the assistance of rogue elements 


within the government of their ally: Israel) . Do you 
doubt this? Former Senator Bob Kerrey, who was also a 
member of the 9/11 Commission, has said, on video, 
that 9/11 was a thirty-year conspiracy (watch video 
here) . Excuse me? The conspiracy to commit the terror 
attacks of September 11, 2001 goes back thirty years? 
I want Kerrey subpoenaed. I want to know what he 
knows. I will gladly grant him immunity if his 
testimony will put Rumsfeld and Cheney, who I suspect 
to be the guilty masterminds of the terrorist 
operation, in the dock. Peter Lance, an investigative 
journalist, has documented the thirty-year timeline 
of events that surround the terror attacks of 9/11. 
What happened thirty years ago that could lend 
credibility to claims of a there having been a 
thirty-year conspiracy behind 9/11? Hmm . . . let me 
think . . . oh, I know: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick 
Cheney came into power with the Regan Administration ! 
Iran-Contra, continuity of government, al Qaeda, 
Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, the Mujahideen, CIA 
cocaine smuggling, Governor Clinton, Mena, Arkansas? 
Sure, I remember all of that. 

Did I say was DONE with the US government?! I am SO 

When we march against the wars on March 19, 2011, 
you can be sure that I am protesting a lot more than 
the wars ... I am protesting my corrupt and 
murderous government, which has no legitimacy 
whatsoever, with the hope that one day Americans will 
wake up, get motivated, and take this country back 
from these criminals for the People. 

Photo credit: © 2002 AP/Nasser Nasser "A Palestinian gunman [above] 
lets go of his rifle the moment he is fatally shot by an Israeli 
sniper during fighting in the West Bank city of Ramallah Friday, 
March 29, 2002. Sporadic gunfire and tank shell fire was heard as 
Israeli forces entered Ramallah Friday. Israeli forces surrounded 
Yasser Arafat's compound and occupied some buildings within" 
[source link ] . " 



For those of you who are Christians, as I am, I 
have some very important questions for you: 

1) Have you ever read the Bible? 

2) Do you understand what you're reading? 

3) Do you understand that, according to Jesus 
himself, God rejected Israel over 2,000 years ago, 
because Israel, as a nation, rejected God's only 
begotten Son, Jesus? 

4) Do you know where, in the Bible, this rejection 
of Israel by Christ (and God, the Father) can be 

5) Do you believe in (and act upon) what Jesus said 
(and did) ? 

*** ANSWERS *** 

Christ proclaimed Israel's rejection by God for 
Israel's rejection of himself as God's Messiah in the 
Gospel of St. Matthew, see: MT 23:38. 

"0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the 
prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How 
often would I have gathered your children together as 
a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you 
would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. 
For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you 
say, ^Blessed is he who comes in the name of the 
Lord.'" (Matthew 23:37-39, ESV) 

Jesus — and God, his Father — was DONE with Israel 
more than 2,000 years ago, according to Jesus and the 
Bible, so when will YOU decide to start believing in 
(and acting upon) what JESUS said, and STOP 

Jesus on Israel - Bible Study: Matthew 23:38 

The context for Matthew 23:37-39 - Matthew Chapter 
23: Christ's "Seven Woes" to the Jewish Scribes and 
Pharisees : 


http : / /esv . scripturetext . com/ma tthew/ 2 3 . htm 
English text of Matthew 23:38 

http :/ /esv . scripturetext . com/ma tthew/ 2 3-38 . htm 

Original Greek text of Matthew 23:38 
http : / /biblos . com/ ma tthew/ 2 3-38 . htm 

Greek-English Interlinear text of Matthew 23:38 
http: / / interlinearbible . org/matthew/ 2 3-38 . htm 

The Greek word: "aphiemi", "desolate" or 
"abandoned", found in original Greek text of Matthew 

http : / / strongsnumbers . com/ greek/863. htm 


Why I am SO DONE with Alex Jones - Egypt, Libya, 
Israel, and Charlie Sheen (An open letter to Mr. 

More so than anyone else, Alex Jones appears to be 
seeking the truth behind government cover-ups, 
especially 9/11, which is very appealing to those 
of us who believe that the current and corrupt 
regime that has reigned in Washington for over 
thirty-years (Democrat and Republican) needs to go. 
And I'm not talking about throwing the bums out in 
the next election, I'm talking about the American 
people marching on Washington in order to run those 
murderous, lying, thieving, criminal, snakes out of 
their House and Senate office buildings in 
Washington, D. C. (non-violently, of course), just 
like the people are trying to do in Egypt and Libya 
to those who have ruled over them so poorly for the 
past thirty-to-forty years. 

I think we all know that if the American people were 
ever to get serious about this, and actually do it, 
our "leaders" in Washington would gun us down too. 
You know they would, just as the corrupt regimes in 
Egypt and Libya and Bahrain have done. And if that 
were to happen, all bets would be off as far as non- 
violence goes. I would be doing my best to rally the 
30,000,000 good-ole boys who live throughout rural 
America (with their pick-ups and their rifles) to 
head to D. C. for the fight. I would also expect the 
police and the military to switch sides in order to 
defend the American people against our corrupt 
thirty-year old regime, just as they have in Libya. 
If that were ever to happen, I can assure you that 
Alex Jones would be in his studio in Austin, Texas, 
at his microphone, calling us all dupes of the New 
World Order .... blah, blah, blah .... 

Do you realize why Obama and Clinton were so hesitant 
to back the people of Egypt when the Egyptian people 
had had enough of Mubarak' s corruption and murderous 
ways? Because they knew the same exact thing could 
happen here, which is very unsettling to those in 


power. Like Obama and Clinton, Alex Jones, rather 
backing the Egyptian people right away, as I did, 
chose to label the Egyptian people's revolution a New 
World Order (NWO) conspiracy, and he considers the 
Egyptian and Libyan peoples to be dupes of the NWO. 
Excuse me Mr. Jones? People in Egypt and Libya are 
willingly risking their lives and losing their lives 
striving to be free of the tyranny that oppresses 
them; everything you say you support. 

What a hypocrite. Alex Jones is great until things 
get serious; then he wants to take you off on a 
rabbit trail that leads to nowhere and will 
accomplish nothing. The supposed New World Order is 
far too nebulous a "thing" for the People to fight; 
it's more like boxing the air than it is throwing out 
the current regime, literally. What is Alex Jones' 
plan for the future? What will he do to help free us 
from tyranny? Call for a march on Washington to run 
those crooks out of town? NO. His plan, I suppose, is 
to bullhorn the Bilderburg Group for the next thirty 
years. What a waste of energy. The people who listen 
to Jones everyday would gladly march on Washington if 
he would call for it, but he never will. NEVER. What 
a lying hypocrite Mr. Jones is. 

Think about this, if YOU had the opportunity Mr. 
Jones does to be on-air with such a large audience, 
would you not be broadcasting live from in front of 
the White House calling for non-violent regime 
change? Or would you be 1,500 miles away ensconced in 
your studio, which you're enlarging, talking about 
the NWO ad nauseam ? 

I am so DONE with Alex Jones ... he didn't support 
the people of Egypt, he will not support the people 
of Libya, he supports the Zionist "two-state" 
solution, and he USED Charlie Sheen and his current 
manic state to further his own pathetic career. What 
a hypocrite. (Him and his "V" campaign . . . people 
are flashing the "V" sign ALL OVER Egypt and Libya 
and do you think he shows ONE video of it? No.) 


Now is the time to strike, while the iron is hot. Now 
is the time to push, push, and keep on pushing. 
Anyone who has thought about this, and is sincerely 
seeking the truth, freedom, and justice, knows this 
and would be pushing too. But not Alex Jones 
he will only push so far, and no farther. The biggest 
political problem we have in America is that Israel 
owns our Washington politicians lock, stock and 
barrel, and our politicians are using us and our 
children to fight Israel's battles for them. Yet Alex 
Jones SUPPORTS Israel and the Zionist two-state 
solution (?!) . I wonder what Alex would do if the 
Mexicans took over a large area of south Texas by 
force? Call for a two-state solution? 

And Alex Jones is supposedly going somewhere is his 
quest to uncover government corruption and cover-ups? 
Right . 

The first time I learned about the Rockefellers, the 
Rothchilds, the Bilderburg Group, the Trilateral 
Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc . 
. was, oh, let me think . . . THIRTY YEARS AGO!! 

Is there some truth to all of that NWO conspiracy 
stuff? Of course there is, and I'm glad that Alex 
Jones is waking people up to what's really going on, 
because (Lord knows) the American people need to 
wake-the-hell-up . Alex Jones himself says that his 
calling is to wake people up. In other words, he is 
not the one who will lead people to act. All of which 
is fine, yet, on the other hand, Mr. Jones is 
undermining those of of us whose calling IS to act 
and who ARE acting (i.e., the Egyptian and Libyan 
peoples, at the present time) . And we (they) don't 
need that. If you're not going to help Alex, then at 
least shut up and stop saying the Egyptian and Libyan 
peoples who are fighting for liberty and freedom are 
dupes of the NWO. You and your tired, going nowhere, 
NWO rabbit-trail, which does nothing but dissipate 
Patriot energies . . . are you just screwed up? Or 
are you doing this intentionally? Why not start 
backing the People instead of the corrupt, murderous, 
established orders Mr. Jones? Do you have a problem 


with that? You say you believe in liberty and 
freedom, but you sure as hell don't act like it. 

As for the Charlie Sheen fiasco, Mr. Jones, who says 
he's Charlie's friend, allowed Mr. Sheen to destroy 
his career live on the Alex Jones Show; much to 
Jones' delight. Charlie's friend? Are you kidding me? 
I was listening to Alex's broadcast that day, and I 
knew five minutes into the show that Mr. Sheen did 
NOT belong on air. Had Alex truly been Charlie's 
friend, he would have known, immediately, as I did, 
that Charlie was in no mental condition to be talking 
on air, and he would have ended the interview at that 
point : 

"Ok everyone, we're going to a break now . . . stay 
tuned ..." [off air] "Charlie, you're out there 
man. . . you can't go on air and talk like that . . . 
I know, I'm manic-depressive too, I've been there, 
you're flying! [laughing] . . . we'll do this in a 
few months when you come down dude, and please don't 
go on any more radio shows, okay? Go to the beach, 
for a month or two . . . just chill and take a break 
man, you'll love it, forget all about this crap for a 
while, life is too short ... if I let you keep 
talking on air like you are you'll ruin ruin 
yourself, you'll never work in Hollywood again man, 
you don't want that, or need that . . . and you're 
sure as hell not going to ruin your career on my show 
buddy! [laughing] I love you too much! Hey, tell me 
what island you decide to visit and I will TOTALLY be 
there to visit for a week or so. I need to forget 
about my own crap and chill for a while!" [on air] 
"We've lost Charlie's connection, and can't seem to 
get it back . . . so, I'm thinking we'll make todays 
broadcast like an open-line Friday and take listeners 
calls for the rest of the show. Last we spoke, 
Charlie's headed for some well-deserved rest and 
relaxation somewhere in the Caribbean and we wish him 
well . . . Okay, Robert from Oklahoma, what's on your 
mind today?" 

But did Alex say this to Charlie? Or something like 
this? No. What he said and did was just the opposite. 


Charlie's friend? Bullshit. More like he knowingly 
took advantage of Charlie's current manic state in 
order to further his own career. I wish I lived in 
Austin, or had the money to fly to Austin, I'd punch 
Alex Jones right in the mouth for what he did to 
Charlie. DONE with Alex Jones?! I was DONE when he 
didn't back the Egyptian people. Taking advantage of 
and USING Charlie Sheen and his current mental state 
in order to further his own pathetic career? A fist 
in his big f-ing mouth is what Alex Jones needs. Big 
blowhard. And if Charlie's still alive (and doesn't 
kill himself) six months from now and doesn't punch 
him in the mouth himself, I will gladly do it for 
him . 


The End of the Nation-State? 

Although you hardly ever hear anyone talk about it, 
the most promising hope for our political future, as 
human beings living on planet earth (an oasis of life 
in the middle of lots and lots (and lots more 
lots) of space), is the coming demise of the (already 
out-dated ) concept of the nation-state . 

This may sound drastic, or unbelievable, because we 
are so accustomed to the concept of the nation-state, 
but the nation-state is, historically speaking, a 
rather recent political phenomenon. And time is 
telling as to whether or not this particular concept 
is progressive (as opposed to regressive) or even 
practical. So far, I think, the verdict is that the 
nation-state is the bloodiest concept yet devised by 
the mind of man, which doesn't bode well for its 
future, as a concept. The nation-state is like tribal 
warfare but on a much grander scale. Not very 
progressive, but f righteningly more efficient, 
especially at propagandizing and killing (even 
genocide) . 

If you are interested in why I am thinking along 
these lines, or wonder whatever gave me the idea that 
nations, as we know them, now, could, someday, 
soon, exist no more, simply read, study, and 
contemplate (as I have) the (over 2,000 year) history 
of political theory, which can be found in George H. 
Sabine's (nearly 1,000 page): 

A History of Political Theory 

As far as what's next, politically speaking, who 
knows. The continuation of the nation-state, for the 
foreseeable future? Balkanization? Global government? 
Hemispherical Unions? I tend toward favoring 
localized government, which is similar 

to balkanization— but with cooperation rather than 
hostility— existing between people-groups. For the 
Americas, I actually prefer a hemispherical (North, 
South, Central American) union, on some level, so 


long as localized governments throughout the Americas 
are re-empowered to a much greater extent too. State 
governments throughout the Americas should have much 
more power and there should be much less federal 
power throughout the Americas. Federal power should 
always be kept to a minimum, focusing mainly upon 
international, I mean, cross-cultural exchange (i.e., 
trade, or commerce) . The Americas could be much more 
efficient (as well as self-sufficient) , economically, 
as well as being more locally controlled when it 
comes to just about everything other than cross- 
border commerce. (This same economic factor: cross- 
border commerce, was the driving force behind the 
adoption of the US Constitution over the states' 
old Articles of Confederation.) 

No more standing armies either, or international, 
overseas, conflicts (wars) . The US DOD could stand 
(close) down. And we could use their (our tax) money 
for housing, health care, and education. Right? 

Something else to consider too: redrawing the state 
lines on a map of the US. Drastic, but necessary, 
eventually, I think. Funny how most people think we 
can't do things like that, but people can do such 
things; in time. The US is still very young, as a 
nation-state, and time will tell what becomes of it, 
and what it is to become. Imagine the possibilities. 


"Wake up from your nightmare . . . and other 
sociopolitical essays - American activist 
political theory for the 21 st century - is 
thought provoking reading, and may well inspire 
some people to act upon their most closely held 
beliefs; especially so once they realize the 
danger they're in." 

Resources : 

Borderland Beat, Jews Against Zionism, 9/11 Truth, 
Time for a US Revolution - 15 Reasons, Truth-out,, Revolution News, Find Law, Internet 
Archive, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, G. H. 
Sabine: History of Political Theory,, 
Glenn Greenwald, MLK online, Building What?, 
Politico, Peter Lance: 9/11 timeline, History 
Commons: 9/11 Research , Scibd , PCHR , Why We Fight 

A.J. MacDonald, Jr. 
American writer, thinker, social critic 

(1959 - ) 

theworldperceived. blogspot . com