Moveon's Ad Really Twisted Some Political Panties.

I was shocked today when I turned on the local infotainment channel and realized I was watching a debate about MoveOn.org's ad in the paper about Petraeus. Unbeknownst to me our government actually wasted time voting on an amendment to condemn the ad. All this blither blather about attacking the General's character and hurting the General's feelings swirled around in my head fro a few moments and I really thought I was going to be sick.

I say, call it like you see it. Its an ad, in a paper. Thats freedom of speech my friend deal with it. The government just can't handle it though. Truth be told the democrats fell over themselves pretty much to make everyone else happy about this too. Clinton didn't, and I commend her for that. Obama said what I was thinking - that his lack of vote was in protest over this ridiculous witch hunt.

Now the debate is whether or not MoveOn.org made a mistake in attacking a General, and not the President. I say they hit the nail on the head. Bush certainly deserves the insults he gets, but so too, does Petraeus. He is a full grown man able to make his own decisions about what is going on - and he chose to tow the party line, rather than to speak in honesty.

That is a betrayal. It betrays the citizens of the United States, it betrays the military, the men and women dieing for this President's war, it betrays the Gold Star families out there.

Petraeus had a choice, and he made it. MoveOn.org had an ad that let him and everyone else know in no uncertain terms that we were watching carefully and that we would judge him for his report. And judge we did. This is not an issue however, that should be used to waste the government's time and our resources.

Its just another smokescreen, just another wagging of the dog. And of course, yet another attack on freedom of speech.

The End of Democracy as We Know It.

The whole "Bin Laden" issue is surrounded by mystery and conspiracy theory. It should be addressed however, because I think that some thought about the role(s) of our government, terrorists and everyone in between affects us locally, nationally and globally. Lets take a little trip on a hypothetical logic train, shall we?

Lets say, just for poo and giggles, that America has wanted to expand or exert control over most of the world, or at the very least the world's most influential countries for monetary gain, political propriety and paramountcy. Lets also say, for example, that some of the more influential countries or areas that need to be dominated by our country include south America and the Middle East, for the natural resources which are so valuable to modern day society. Because areas like South America had little in the way of development and financial stability, gaining political alliances and control was as simple as offering them the modern world on a platter. The Middle East however, is a slightly tougher customer. Generally speaking, most of the areas in the Middle East have their own money. If they wanted to develop into an ultra modern world, they would. So the promise of a better land through large loans with high interest rates that aren't likely to be paid back isn't really a great offer. Tact and foreign relations are the way to go. Manipulation of foreign governance and support of less than desirable leaders help maintain political alliances, and eventually (hopefully) the ascertainment of political control of said region. As noted by and discussed by Informed Comment.


When all else fails, war is the result. But We the People don't buy into a war without just cause. (OK, to be fair, most of us don't buy into a war sans justification). Therefore, justifications must be made. Enter the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Engineered by the fundamentalist group in Jihad, al-Qaida and leader Osama Bin Laden. Everyone was terrified (also grieving, broken and any number of other earnest and normal emotions). But terror was the word of the day. Terror was the motivator. We were so terrified in fact, that we began giving up our rights almost immediately. So let's say, hypothetically of course, that our government had ties with Bin Laden and his terrorist cells. Connections with the CIA perhaps. Lets just say that for a shot in the dark, our great president appoint - I mean elect - needed a reason to invade the oil rich regions of the Middle East. His guys know this little group, they've worked with them before and use him for propagandist material whenever it suits them. Like the new tape set to be released soon. Convenient timing? Perhaps, but it always seems so convenient, doesn't it?

Back to reality our hypothetical situation, Lets say, again just for fun, that our President was called upon to continue the legacy of hard work to gain political and economical control over the world. The globalization, or New World Order was left in his capable hands, a legacy of his father to be finished by the son*. Bush Jr, AKA "Dubya" being the dolt that he is, was unable to maintain control over anything, much less over foreign governments. What more could be expected of a man who has bankrupted every company he's touched? A key part in taking over the world, as it were, is maintaining political manipulation to gain, keep and control the support of the people. Popular opinion must be held in the highest of regards, a failure in public relations equals political devastation for all entities. Bush Jr. had a rocky start as president. Between questions as to the validity of his election, and rumors about him brushing off presidential duties in lieu of lavish vacations, his popular support started dwindling just about the time as his inauguration.

However, Dubya had the support of the people just shortly after the Twin Towers fell. Not just from our own country, but sympathies from around the world came rolling in like thunder on a hot summer day. There's nothing like a "[...]common enemy to unite us." As brilliantly pointed out by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. It didn't take long however, for his popularity to slide down the proverbial drain once again. More questions came about his vacation habit when he should have been looking at National Security alerts and international threats by terrorists. Even more questions came about the event itself, the man Osama Bin Laden, and how the president handled the tragedy. The probe into Iraq as both a hotbed of al-Qaida activity and Saddam having weapons of mass destruction were thinly veiled attempts at a justification for war.

What would the logical, hypothetical reaction be to such a public relations nightmare? The Patriot Act, of course! Let's monitor our citizens, find out what they're really saying. It was passed in 2001, granting our law enforcement the right to tap phone lines and monitor internet usage. The next great thought from the Bush administration was to slip the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2007 in 2006, section 1042. That is, the use of martial law, at Bush's discretion. Martial law is a frightening thing, and has been limited in its use by Congress for that very reason. This new law, passed in 2006 overturns the 1878 law Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the use of regular military inside US borders. The Intellegence Daily has a wonderful article about this law.

With these new laws in place the hypothetical scenario of a New World Order is looking like its back under control of the government. But wait! The people of the United States have really begun to wake up to the lies in record numbers, and is screaming for impeachment at best - and to have the president and vice president charged with war crimes at worst. Well, our government can't have that, now can it? Five years after the start of the war, on or around the anniversary of that tragic day, September 11th, 2001, surfaces our old friend, Osama Bin Laden.

The usual means of popular opinion control have thus far failed our incompetent president, so terror and confusion is all they have left to use against the citizens of the United States, in a last ditch attempt to keep us in line. The reasons for going into Iraq, and now Iran have become so convoluted over the years that no one really knows why we went in the first place. Was it to stop terrorism and bring Bin Laden to justice? Was it to stop a dictator bent on using [imaginary] weapons of mass destruction? Was it to bring al-Qaida, the all encompassing evil group from taking over the Middle East? Some say yes to one, but not the others. Some say yes to all, and some maintain that we are still there fighting al-Qaida who are still somehow keeping a large stronghold over the Middle East. This last bit of theory is widely debated. A.J. Rossmillier has some thoughts about that on AMERICAblog. As does Andrew Tilghman as posted at Washington Monthly Back to the theory of world domination, what purpose would this new tape and new threats serve? Control. Bin Laden, whether alive, dead or comatose doesn't really matter to our government, and never really has. His face, and its connection to terror and tragedy serves up the much needed fear entree to solidify our reasons to maintain a war. The threat of a "special gift" is enough to rattle the boots of the most staunch Pro-Superior-Fire-Power-American. Of course, another purpose for an attack would be to enact the martial law already put into place.

Our rights are being restricted in this administration faster than the last century of congressional overrides. Martial law would be the nail in the coffin for Americans. But at least the Bush and Cronie critics would be silenced and prevented from using their rights of redress and even to overthrow a corrupt government if need be. The government that has total control over the military with no regard for laws and Constitutional rights, wins. Or so they think. History has proven otherwise in that regard.

Lets get on this logic train and ride it like its stolen, a recap. American government is corrupt and desires control of the world. It uses money, power and military force to get most of what it needs to attain power. Bush administration loses control of domestic and foreign manipulations, works with known terrorist to create a State of fear and panic, also justifies the invasion of stubborn country. The government again loses control of popular opinion domestically and globally, creates Patriot Act and overturns Posse Comitatus law. The government again creates a video of terror and possible new threat to US citizens from terrorists which will allow for the actual use of martial law, to control citizens. Dos that about sum it up?

Remember, this is all just hypothetical folks. If I were to speak to the president however I would ask him one question. "To what ends Mr. President, to what ends?

*Although the climb to global power and corporotacracy started long before Bush Sr. was president, This fact should be noted.

"Leading up to the first Gulf War, on September 11, 1990, President Bush addressing a joint session of Congress stated: "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a New World Order — can emerge: a new era"[15]

With these words President Bush gave the order to start the military action which would later be known as the Gulf War."

The fact that the attack on the Twin Towers happened exactly 11 years to the day of the initial attack on the Middle East by our Government does not go unnoticed. In fact, the bombings of Iraq had never really stopped from the Gulf War to the Iraq War.

And so it begins...

The government has begun its quiet and sneaky campaign of removing our rights, right from under our noses. With the addition of the two Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito via Dubya our rights as individuals and citizens are now giving way to the rights of corporations and government. The backsliding began with the addition of these two in 2005 and 2006 respectively, swinging the votes away from individual's constitutional rights towards corporate rights. Issues such as the fourth amendment, first amendment and women's rights have come to the table only to be hacked away at by King George's Supreme Court Goons.

Now, the city of Washington DC has begun fining anti war groups for signs they put up about the rally on Sept. 15th. The card being played is "destruction of property". The facts being ignored is that many people and businesses, including political campaigning hopefuls, put up posters and fliers in the same spots without repercussion. Also being ignored is that the so called "damage" and "costly labor" that removing these signs are supposed to cost DC is bogus. The posters were put up with water soluble glue, in accordance to the law. These posters were also put up within the constraints of the law, which were printed out and given to the people distributing the signs.

The point that I'm making here, is that whether or not you support the war, whether or not you plan on attending the march in September, you should NOT support a government that is willing to persue legal means of hush ups and cover ups of its own constituants. The government may not want to hear what we have to say - we all know the truth hurts, and criticisms sting - but thats just too damn bad.

If you would like to see the story of what this is all about, please go to these links:

Click for a short ABC news video about this unprecedented attack on free speech rights.

Click to listen to the WBAI interview with ANSWER's Sarah Sloan about the fines.

To write a letter or call in protest please go to:

Director of Department of Public Works, William O. Howland, Jr. at 202-673-6833, and the Mayor of DC, Adrian Fenty, at 202-724-8876. You can also send a letter or fax by clicking this link.

The article in the Washington Post is:

Anti-War Group Refuses To Back Down on Signs

By Jenna Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 16, 2007

D.C. and Park Service officials are protesting signs, such as this one put up by Eugene Puryear, advertising a march. (By Marvin Joseph -- The Washington Post)

An anti-war coalition yesterday defied the D.C. government and the National Park Service by refusing to take down dozens of signs advertising an upcoming march.

The D.C. Department of Public Works accused the ANSWER Coalition of breaking city rules by putting signs on utility boxes and using a glue that the agency said will make the posters difficult to remove. The Park Service said the signs are defacing federal property.

Coalition members said the adhesive won't create problems and accused the government of a "politically motivated" bid to silence their efforts against the war in Iraq.

The city and Park Service notified the coalition on Monday that it must remove the signs. The city gave ANSWER a 72-hour deadline and warned the group that it faces nearly $10,000 in fines -- $150 for each of the 65 posters. The Park Service set no deadline but told the group that it would have to pay for the cleanup if it did not comply.

ANSWER, which has sponsored numerous protests in Washington, kept the signs in place on utility boxes, lampposts and other objects across the city, including along the Mall and near the White House.

The signs promote an anti-war march set for Sept. 15, the date that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is to provide a much-anticipated progress report to President Bush and Congress. Organizers are hoping that tens of thousands of people join the march, which is scheduled to begin at the White House and end at the Capitol.

D.C. officials said they identified other problems with the posters, such as more than three signs put up on one side of a single block, signs that did not state the date they were posted, and signs stuck on utility boxes. In addition, D.C. officials said, no one filed copies of the posters with the mayor's office as required, along with the name, address and phone number of the creator of the signs.

ANSWER organizers said they use legal, water-soluble paste to hang the signs and provide all sign-hangers with a copy of D.C. regulations. They argue that no one should have to notify the government of his or her political opinions.

"We don't consider these fines to have any legal basis," said Sarah Sloan, ANSWER's national staff coordinator. "So there is no need to remove the signs or pay the fines."

The group plans to appeal if fines are imposed and is considering legal action against the city, Sloan said.

The Department of Public Works decided to crack down two weeks ago when employees reported seeing large signs glued in improper places that would take 20 to 30 minutes each to remove, said spokeswoman Vera Jackson. The department often fines individuals or organizations that violate city regulations, she said, adding that this was aimed at keeping the city clean and had nothing to do with politics.

"The District hosts marches and protests all the time," Jackson said. "And the DPW never weighs in on the issues."

ANSWER'S attorney, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice, said such a government crackdown on political posters was unprecedented. If officials truly wanted to make the city clean, she said, they would fine politicians.

"During election season, there are thousands and thousands of posters hanging off every single inch of the city," she said.

---

---