|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
50 Reasons why Bush has to go! | from moon beam - Wednesday, October 27, 2004
accessed 2752 times By Ryan Parry WITH the race to the White House reaching its climax next Tuesday, the campaign to oust President Bush has reached fever pitch.
Former president Bill Clinton has blasted Dubya over Iraq and his anti-terror policies.
A string of Hollywood stars are wearing John Kerry badges, while anti-war activists Bono and Bruce Springsteen have performed for the Democrat candidate.
And rapper Eminem has now got in on the act, launching yet another foul-mouthed tirade at the President in new track Mosh.
But why has George Bush failed to capture so many Americans' hearts and minds?
US writer Judd Legum, of the American Progress Action Fund, has compiled 50 reasons why the Bush administration should no longer be in control of the US...
1 PRESIDENT Bush has spent more than $140billion (Ł87.5bn) on a highly controversial and unpopular war in Iraq.
2 HE was committed to capturing Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" then reversed his stance and said: "I truly am not that concerned about him."
3 WHEN asked at an April 2004 press conference to name a mistake he'd made during his presidency, Bush couldn't think of a single one.
4 HE ignored estimates from General Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure Iraq.
5 SINCE he took office, five million Americans have lost their health insurance cover.
6 BUSH'S top legal adviser wrote a memo to the President advising him that he can legally authorise torture.
7 VICE President Dick Cheney (below) said Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault, most especially on 9/11". The 9/11 Commission found Iraq had no involvement in the attacks and no links with al-Qaeda.
8 IN May 2003, Bush landed on an aircraft carrier proclaiming "mission accomplished" and announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he regretted the stunt, he said he'd do it all over again.
9 IMAGES of firefighters carrying flag-draped coffins through the rubble of the World Trade Center were used to score political points in a Bush campaign advert.
10 MORE than 1,300 Allied troops and 19,000 Iraqis have lost their lives in Iraq.
11 AFTER weapons inspector Charles Duelfer said there was "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al-Qaeda", Bush insisted: "There was a real risk Saddam would pass weapons, materials or information to terrorist networks."
12 BUSH sent troops into battle without adequate body armour or armoured vehicles.
13 FIVE times as many US agents have been assigned to investigate Cuban embargo violations as have tracked bin Laden's and Saddam's millions.
14 THE Bush administration let disgraced Enron boss Ken Lay - a close friend of Dubya's - help write its energy policy.
15 BUSH officials instructed the FBI to question people planning to protest at political conventions.
16 CHENEY told voters that unless they elect Bush, "we'll get hit again" by terrorists.
17 BUSH did nothing to prevent the US minimum wage from falling to an inflation-adjusted 50-year low.
18 DESPITE an al-Qaeda training manual suggesting terrorists come to the US to buy assault weapons, Bush has not acted on it.
19 DICK Cheney said Americans "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.
20 BUSH granted the 9/11 Commission just $3million (Ł1.8m) to probe the attacks, while the commission that investigated the Columbia shuttle crash got $50million (Ł31m).
21 MORE than three years after 9/11, just five per cent of all cargo - including cargo transported on passenger planes - is screened.
22 BUSH blocked efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate cheaper prescription drug prices for pensioners.
23 SINCE 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft has detained 5,000 foreign nationals in anti-terrorism sweeps - none have been convicted of a terrorist crime.
24 BUSH has openly opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, undermining nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
25 HE awarded a multi-billion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton - a firm that still pays Cheney huge sums in deferred compensation (Cheney is a Halliburton shareholder).
26 BUSH officials told Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before telling Secretary of State Colin Powell.
27 RECORDS show that Bush performed no National Guard duty in a six-month period in 1972 and a three-month period in 1973, despite trumpeting his role.
28 BUSH relentlessly pushed an energy bill containing $23.5billion (Ł14.6bn) in corporate tax breaks - much would have benefited campaign contributors.
29 SECRETARY of Homeland Security Tom Ridge awarded contracts to several firms in which he is an investor - including Microsoft, GE, Sprite and Pfizer.
30 BUSH created a massive tax loophole for sports utility vehicles - allowing, for example, the write-off of the entire cost of a new Hummer off-roader.
31 BUSH said gay marriage was a state issue... before supporting a constitutional amendment banning it.
32 HIS top economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, said the outsourcing of American jobs abroad was "a plus for the economy in the long run".
33 AT the behest of the french-fry industry, Bush changed the definition of fresh vegetables to include frozen french fries.
34 BUSH slashed funding for the largest US public housing program, putting two million families in danger of losing their homes.
35 BUSH refuses to release 27 pages of a Congressional report said to detail the Saudi Arabian government's connections to the 9/11 hijackers.
36 TOP Bush officials accepted $127,600 (Ł79,750) in gifts from the Saudi royals in 2003, including jewellery for first lady Laura Bush valued at $95,500 (Ł59,687).
37 AFTER receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack America", Bush continued his month-long holiday.
38 BUSH has proposed cutting the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $600million (Ł325m) next year.
39 DURING the Bush presidency, North Korea has quadrupled its suspected nuclear arsenal.
40 THE Bush administration went to court to block lawsuits by patients injured by defective prescription drugs and medical devices.
41 A DAY after Bush bragged about his efforts to help pensioners afford healthcare, the government announced the largest increase of Medicare premiums in history.
42 AT the behest of the tobacco industry, Bush tried to water down a global treaty that aimed to help curb smoking.
43 BUSH is the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs - around 800,000 - over a four-year term.
44 BUSH gave security firm Accenture a huge border control contract, despite the firm moving operations to Bermuda for alleged tax reasons.
45 IN 2000, Bush said: "The vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." Yet the top 20 per cent of earners received 68 per cent of the benefits.
46 IN 2000, Bush promised to cut the national debt to a historically low level. On September 30, it stood at $7,379,052,696, 330.32 (Ł4.6trillion), a record high.
47 BUSH turned a $236billion (Ł147.5bn) economic surplus into a $422billion (Ł263bn)deficit.
48 HE ignored Red Cross pleas to stop the abuse of prisoners in US custody.
49 BUSH broke his pledge to place limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
50 BUSH once said: "You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror", before admitting Saddam had no role in 9/11.
Awaken in the Dream
Spiritually informed political activist Paul Levy has a website that informs us of the collective unconscious that is creating the Bush reality.
THE WAR ON CONSCIOUSNESS
by Paul Levy
We are truly in a war. It is not the war we imagine we are in, which is the way our true adversaries want it. It is not a foreign war against a foreign enemy. It is a war on consciousness, a war on our own minds. The global war on terror that is being fought around the world is an embodied reflection in the material world of a deeper, more fundamental war that is going on in the realm of consciousness itself.
We have the most criminal regime in all of our history wreaking unspeakable horror on the entire planet, while simultaneously waging war on the consciousness of its own citizens - US. If we aren’t aware of this, we are unwittingly playing into, supporting and complicit in the evil that is being perpetrated in our name.
A government’s war on the consciousness of its own citizens is by no means unique to the Bush administration. Abusing power over others so as to limit their freedom is an archetypal process that has been endlessly re-enacted by governments throughout history in various forms. With the Bush administration, however, the pathological aspect of this process has become so exaggerated and amped up to such a degree that it is just about impossible not to notice its staggering malignancy. With the Bush administration, the underlying evil that has played out in our government over many years is becoming overwhelmingly obvious for all to see. With the Bush administration, the underlying evil that informs systems of government that are based on “power over” instead of “liberty for” is coming out from hiding in the shadows. Instead of being acted out underground, our government is acting out this evil above ground, in plain sight for all who are courageous enough to look.
Impeaching Bush and Co. ultimately won’t change anything unless we deal with the corrupt powers which control and direct them. George Bush is just a finger-puppet of the hidden hand which animates him. Bush only has apparent power, as he himself is a minion of far more powerful predator-like forces whose nefarious interests he serves. Whether we call it the illuminati, the global elite, a shadow government, or a secret cabal, there is no doubt that there are darker, self-serving forces that have insinuated themselves into and taken over our government. The terrorists that we should be worried about are domestic terrorists who are actually implementing their agendas from deep within our very system of government itself.
The United States Government itself has become a “front” for the underlying military-industrial-financial crime syndicate that animates it. This is not to say that there aren’t many good, well-meaning people in our government – they are simply prohibited by the very nature of the corrupt system they are in from reforming it. Our system of government is rigged in such a way so that there is no way to transform the system within the system itself.
The underlying core of our government has become rotten such that the entire operation simply feeds into and is an expression of the same underlying corruption. All of the scandals continually coming out are like the superficial skin rash of a much deeper systemic disease, like a cancer that is infecting the greater body politic. Citizens who are not aware of our government’s insidious intrusions into our lives are unwittingly feeding the corruption they are looking away from in their very act of looking away.
The “powers” that have taken over our government have become concentrated and centralized in just a few elite hands, proving how easy it is for the few to control the many. They almost control all the levers of power: financial, political and judicial. In this war on consciousness, these powers-that-be are using the most advanced mind-control technology that our world has ever known to make its takeover complete. The essence of mind-control is information control, which is one thing our overly secretive current administration is very good at.
MIND-CONTROL
The private interests that control our government have an incredible mind-control/propaganda machine at their disposal in the form of the mainstream media, which if not quite fully owned and controlled, is certainly under their “influence” enough to serve their underlying self-serving agenda. George Orwell once said that omission is the greatest form of lie – this perfectly describes the corporate owned media of today which is nothing other than the propaganda organ of the state. The corporate world and our government are becoming indistinguishable, which is one of the hallmarks of fascism, or more accurately – corporatism.
In addition to information, our government is adept at putting out dis-information, whose intention is to create distractions and confusion so as to cover its tracks and hide its true intentions. It will purposely leak stories that are not true simply to cover-up what it is really doing. By putting out misleading information, the government hides behind its self-generated smokescreen like an octopus squirting ink.
Quite often, right at the moment when people’s focus is moving towards some area of criminality in the White House, the administration will even create a diversionary event for the public to put their attention on. Memories of those color-coded terror alerts that always seemed to happen right when something bad was starting to happen for the Bush administration come to mind. In creating distractions, our government is able to steer our collective attention in directions that allow it to successfully accomplish its malevolent goal of grabbing all the power it can get.
In a diabolical ploy, the administration will even feed stories to a compliant press, and then reference these stories as justification for enacting its pre-planned agenda. One glaring example is when the administration fed Judith Miller of the New York Times stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Once this propaganda appeared on the front page of the Times, the administration was only too happy to use it as evidence for why we should go to war.
WMD could easily stand for “Weapons of Mind Deception”, as our own government is continually trying to “Deceive” our “Minds”, which is the battlefield in which the war on consciousness is being fought. We are all on the front lines in the war on consciousness, whether we know it or not. Instead of shooting us, our government is using cutting-edge mind-control technology to psychically emasculate us. In order to be able to deal with the evil that the Bush regime is perpetrating, we first have to become acquainted with that very same potential evil in ourselves so as to be able to recognize it in the outside world. The way to vanquish our adversary is to be found hidden within the very nature of our own awareness, which contains the key to its own freedom.
The corporate-mainstream media “captivates” our attention, capturing a part of our self-reflective, discriminative awareness, thereby restricting the range of our conscious awareness, which is what hypnotism is all about. Once the attention of the masses becomes entranced, the corporate/government media can then “play with” our mind. This unholy trinity of corporate/government/media can create an obsessive fixation on certain superficial events that “seize” the collective psyche. For example, it feeds the masses sensationalized stories such as Anna Nicole Smith ad nauseam so as to divert our attention from the evil that is being done behind the scenes in our name.
Ex-CIA director Allen Dulles used to say that the most effective way to disguise a secret is to pretend to openly share information. The Bush administration isn’t interested in solving problems as much as creating good PR (Public Relations) for itself. With one hand the Bush administration will try to appear like it is openly sharing information and being transparent, while with its other hand it will be actively obstructing the very process it is seemingly supporting. A vivid example is the government’s 9/11 commission, whose aim was allegedly to shed light on what happened on 9/11, while covertly – behind the scenes – the Bush administration was doing everything it could to hinder the commission’s inquiries (see, for example, 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, by David Ray Griffin). All one has to do is investigate the numerous ties to the core cabal of the neocon Bush administration that the members of the 9/11 commission have and the degree to which it was a deliberate operation to obscure the truth becomes apparent. It was as if the White House was investigating itself; the foxes truly guarding the henhouse. The 9/11 commission and its report, just like the Warren Commission and its report on the Kennedy assassination, was a façade, a show, a display in which it appeared like our government was giving us what we wanted, while actually being part of a deceptive game of smoke-and-mirrors. It is like a magician has hypnotized us, and is stealing what’s in our pockets while they have us under their trance in which we believe they are serving us.
As if by a perverse Jedi mind-trick, the Bush administration has bewitched us into believing that it controls the national dialogue, when in a democracy the opposite is actually true. One of many examples – when confronted with overwhelming evidence that we have been torturing our adversaries, Bush responds by saying he “rejects” that claim, and the conversation stops right there and moves on to other, more superficial topics. Our government is supposed to represent us, which is to say that they are our employees. Bush has turned this around and put himself in the role of the dictator with us as his subjects. And somehow we have allowed him to get away with this. There is no escaping our individual and collective complicity in this sad state of affairs.
One difference between what is happening in our country and the state-controlled media of the old Soviet Union, is that in the Soviet Union, most people were quite aware that what was being presented to them by their corrupt government as news was nothing but mind-warping propaganda. Many Americans have fallen so under the spell of the Bush regime’s criminal lies that they don’t even know they are being lied to. It is like we are living in a land of state-controlled zombies who think they are free citizens of a free country.
It is as if millions of our fellow citizens have fallen asleep, as if they have become hypnotized and brainwashed by the powers-that-be‘s incessant “managing” and “massaging” of reality. These powers simply manipulate an already gullible and highly suggestible public into a game of “divide and conquer.” They get rich off of other’s blood - they incite conflict, and covertly support both sides, as they themselves reap the benefit of the conflict.
The corporate war machine, which is co-dependently entangled with our government, profits wildly from our invading other sovereign countries. The government-military-industrial complex’s solution to the very problem that they created by instigating wars – more war! It’s completely sick and totally insane. And we, in our dulled denial – like hypnotized sheep - simply go along and allow the whole parasitic enterprise to be fed by offering our sons and daughters as fodder. To the extent that we are not shedding light on the utter criminality and insanity of what the Bush administration is doing and saying “No,” we are all complicit in feeding our own genocide.
Bush and our Congressional leaders are mouthpieces for the advertising campaign of distortion and falsehood that is being “bomb-arded” into our psyches on a daily basis. Our “leaders” repetitive slogans and incantations brand and imprint themselves deep into our unconscious, where many who do not have enough psychic resistance fall under the spell. (please see Chapter 8 – “Breaking Bush’s Spell”, in my book The Madness of George W. Bush: A Reflection of our Collective Psychosis). People’s ability to discern truth from fiction has been rendered inoperative by our own government’s pattern of routinely taking liberty with the truth. Government propaganda has inverted the perception of what is actually happening, as lies are presented as truths, and up is portrayed as down in a truly Orwellian universe of confounding doublespeak. Through the “Big Lie” – which is based on that the bigger the lie, the harder it is for people to see the truth - the government has transformed myth into seeming fact, and has achieved its goal of muddling our minds so as to dis-empower us.
Many of us haven’t developed the psychic immunity to be able to fully ward off the toxic effects of our government’s covert, fear-based psychological warfare. An expression of the success of our government’s psy-ops against US is the fact that there’s so little awareness about the government’s assault on our minds that it’s hardly even a part of our national dialog. The insidiousness of the government’s covert manipulation of our minds is even found in the very term “Global War on Terror”. “The Global War on Terror” is a crazy-making, self-contradictory statement, as we can never stop terror with a war – on the contrary, wars induce terror! This term carries with it a false and self-negating premise that if we accept we’ve already given away our power. If we leave this underlying assumption unquestioned, we unwittingly allow them to frame the agenda on their terms. We have then already fallen under their spell without knowing it, as our capacity to think and respond creatively is undermined. Our inability to creatively respond to the war on our consciousness is an expression of being immobilized in fear as if frozen in trauma. The war on terror is really a war on our psyche. The war on terror is ultimately about control – control of our minds.
What Bush and our Congressional leaders are doing is so morally outrageous that it is literally off the charts of accepted, “normal”, ethical, sane human behavior. In the words of French poet Andre Chenier, Bush and Co. are committing “crimes that make the laws tremble,” as they are covertly undermining our very legal and political system itself. The corruption that has infected our body politic is like a virus that is exploiting weaknesses in our political immune system so as to feed and spread its pathology.
Those of us who are somewhat sane can easily lack the imagination for the depth of depravity that the Bush administration regularly acts out in the world. Our lack of imagination works to the government’s advantage, as it allows them to continue to act out the darkness in a manner which is incomprehensible to us. This is why the great doctor of the soul C. G. Jung counseled us to develop an “imagination for evil,” as being able to imagine the scope of evil that human beings can fall prey to and act out empowers us to see it clearly and thereby deal with it more effectively.
Our government’s lying and criminality is so pervasive that we have become desensitized to their corruption. Their evil has become so “normalized,” that just like someone watching TV becomes numb and anesthetized to the violence, we have become desensitized to the horror of what Bush and his cronies are doing right in front of our very eyes day after day. We’ve learned – or, shall I say, become programmed - to accept the fact that the Bush administration is almost always lying, for, as we are told “All governments lie”.
DEFRAUDING US OF THE TRUTH
Bush and Co., with the help of the US Supreme Court and the approval of Congress, rigged the 2000 and 2004 elections (see, for example, Fooled Again by Mark Crispin Miller). Then, with the help of the corporate media which is dependent on the good graces of military and government budgets and operations, Bush and Co. put out mind-numbing propaganda that no such hostile takeover had even taken place, to the point where after a little while most people forgot that anything out of the ordinary had occurred. The government’s propaganda machine plays with our minds, putting us in a somnambulistic state so that we eventually begin to accept the version of reality (in our example, that Bush has been “elected” to be our president) that serves its underlying agenda.
Once the office of “perception management” convinces a critical mass of people of a particular viewpoint, there is a “consensus” or “agreement” that is reached among the masses as to what is objectively true. The agreed upon version of reality takes on a “weight” and becomes the established dogma of what is collectively imagined to be really happening. Like a “religious” truth, it is irrationally believed like an act of faith by its card-carrying members, even if overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. Anyone who doesn’t buy into the arbitrarily established story is marginalized and demonized, and either called crazy, a conspiracy theorist, or even a terrorist (“You’re either with us or you’re with the enemy”).
If only one person believed the propaganda-created consensus version of reality, they’d be thought of as crazy. If a small group of people believed it, they’d be thought of as a cult. When a certain critical mass of people irrationally believe this fictionalized version of reality (in our case, that Bush has been “elected” by the people) to be objectively true, however, they are considered normal.
Mass psychology then becomes the order of the day, as our species, animated and inspired by fear – which Bush and his regime are only too happy to cultivate - reverts to the primitive psychology of the herd. A collective amnesia ensues, continually fed by a self-generating web of endless denial, as the manufactured consent is recreated anew every moment. A field of force which literally resists conscious reflection becomes conjured up around those who have fallen under the seductive spell of the agreed upon and artificially constructed consensus reality. Anyone reflecting back their unconscious condition is considered to be the enemy. Dissociating from their own darkness, they fight with it outside of themselves as it is projected into and reflected back by the world. Believing the agreed-upon fantasy, they collectively fall into their unconscious together and reinforce each other’s delusions in a self-perpetuating feedback loop, which is another way of saying that they have fallen into a collective psychosis.
Bush was not elected by the people. The military-industrial-financial crime syndicate’s minions and operatives had already insinuated themselves into key positions of power so as to accomplish their long-planned for covert takeover of the government. Some of their cronies had already infiltrated the Supreme Court, where they literally derailed the democratic process and decided, with no basis in law, to unconstitutionally invest themselves with the authority of bestowing the election upon Bush. Bush’s seeming “election by the people” was in fact a strategically implemented political coup d’etat. Very few even noticed this act of violence because of the criminal syndicate’s control of the mainstream media. Their propaganda machine succeeded in managing our perceptions just the way they wanted, which is a polite way of saying they successfully pulled the wool over most of our eyes, or pulled the rug out from under us without too many of us even noticing.
In a diabolical feedback loop, the underlying crime syndicate, by putting out propaganda (that Bush has been elected president) creates the very situation (Bush becoming president) which confirms the truth of their propaganda, like in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Being in a position of power, they are tapping into how they can shape the world in their own image, which they are imposing on the world through forceful means. They have in some perverse way begun to access how they can seemingly manipulate and create “reality”.
Because of their position of power, these sick few can control the masses by manipulating events in the world, as well as playing with our perceptions. They are tapping into how in managing our perceptions, they can literally create events, and in creating events, they can manage our perceptions. This is a divine secret, but in tapping into it with an impure heart, where power is prioritized over love, it is always destined for failure. In the end, these black magicians will ultimately self-destruct, there is no question about this whatsoever. It is simply a question of mitigating the disaster as they create their own ruin.
Another example of our government’s attack on our consciousness: After the 9/11 attacks, there is only one thing certain – the official story put out by our government, itself a conspiracy theory, is not true. There is no question about this to any thinking person who has even minimally studied the evidence. (see, for example, 911truth.org). The fact that our own government is not telling the truth to us about what happened on 9/11, as well as actively obstructing any investigation into what actually did happen, is a huge red flag – why would our own government be lying, and covering up their lie? Who knows (maybe the shadow?) at this point whether 9/11 was a false flag operation, covertly perpetrated by our own government against us, or whether they knew about it beforehand but simply allowed it to happen so as to gain political advantage? Something’s very fishy about the whole thing. The fact that our country, except on the margins, is not even having an open discussion about what really happened on 9/11 – the official version put out by the government is blindly accepted by millions of people as the objective truth - is another expression of our government shaping our dialogue, both nationally and within our own minds. The government’s distorted story about what happened on 9/11 is itself an expression of the deeper and more general underlying conspiracy of our government to defraud us of the truth.
The last thing this criminal enterprise wants is for us to see what it is doing. These criminal war lords want us to believe that we live in a democracy. For example, in a diabolical sleight of hand, we are given the illusory stage-show of free elections, while there is overwhelming evidence that the elections were rigged. Even to be in a position to run for president you have to be able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars – this itself is the entrance fee to the game. In addition, the only people who would be allowed by these robber barons to be in a position of power such as “Commander-in-Chief” is someone they control. Barack or Hillary? It’s an illusion of choice, a stage-managed distraction from what’s really going on. We are left with the appearance, and a misguided belief, that we live in a government run “by the people and for the people.” In a very real sense, the Democrats and Republicans are simply various factions who are fighting for the right to represent the underlying military-industrial-financial crime syndicate that owns and operates our government. Those who control “our” government want to keep their operations covert, beneath our conscious awareness. For if enough of us become conscious of the evil and depravity that they are perpetrating in our name on the entire planet, their gig is up.
HOW TO ACHIEVE VICTORY IN THE WAR ON CONSCIOUSNESS
The powers that have taken over our country will do anything in their sorcerer’s bag of tricks to distract us and keep up the illusion that they are protecting us so as to maintain power. These banking and corporate pirates are willing and more than ready to intimidate, buy off, or destroy any and all critics. It is important for us to realize the depth of evil we are dealing with here – they are willing to kill as many people as needed to accomplish their aims. It is shocking to realize that the very entity that is supposed to be protecting us – our government – is the very thing from which we need protection. It is shattering to realize that our leaders are genuine psychopathic criminals who are trying to take over our planet, impose full-spectrum dominance, enact a new world order and centralize power and control. Instead of this being a conspiracy theory, the evidence is all around us, as it is everywhere we look if we have the eyes to see beyond the carefully crafted and disseminated spell that is being perpetually woven all around us.
What is happening in our world has more the “feeling” of an invasion from a parallel universe than a physical coup d’etat. This is because the intrusion is taking place on the plane of mind, and only secondarily on the physical plane. If we could stop this covert incursion into our minds it would be much easier to mitigate the outer wars that plague our world.
These criminals clearly have way more power than we do in terms of guns, tanks, media and technology, but they are no match for us if we activate the inherent brilliance of our consciousness – a force with unlimited potential. Part of the spell they are casting is that there’s nothing we can do, that we are powerless to stop them from doing whatever they want, like when Cheney mentioned it doesn’t make a difference what Congress or the American people want, this administration is not going to be stopped from sending more troops to Iraq.
The Bush regime’s worst nightmare is for us to wake up to how we’ve been manipulated, hoodwinked and played by them like fools. The last thing they want is for us to access the natural intelligence inherent in being consciously aware, and connect with each other through the open-heart of lucidity. The powers-that-be’s greatest fear is for us individually, as well as collectively, to connect with our intrinsic God-given power to create.
Once we clearly see what is being perpetrated in our name, we can come together and “conspire to co-inspire” so as to awaken – and mobilize – our collective genius, which is a power greater than any weapon of mass destruction. In actuality, our connecting in shared lucidity is the antidote to all WMD’s – it is what I call a WMC – a “Weapon of Mass Consciousness”. It is what becomes activated when enough of us come together and see (C – i.e., become conscious of) what is happening.
Connecting with each other is crucially important, as the more of us that consciously associate with each other - as if re-membering (putting our “members” back together to form a unified body) - the stronger the field of unified force that we are able to generate. Once enough of us sync up, we become more able to collectively invoke and channel through our expanded awareness a power that is able to dis-arm any WMD: the power of consciousness infused with wisdom and compassion. Genuine compassion can be very fierce, however, as it both demands and empowers us to come together and say “No” to the evil being done in our name. We can step out of the fear-based reality in which we appear to exist separately from each other in any moment and consciously connect with each other through the open-heart of lucidity. When we are truly serving what is best for the whole – for everyone – a world-changing power becomes available to us.
The solution to winning the war on consciousness is for us to RECOGNIZE the nature of the war we are in, which can only happen through the agency of our consciousness. Realizing that the true war we are in is an assault on our own minds is the expansion of consciousness which is itself simultaneously the solution. From a deeper, more expansive perspective, the war on consciousness is itself the very catalyst and instrument for consciousness to awaken to itself.
It is our turn to come together so as to render powerless these sick criminals who have been terrorizing us. We can help each other to access our intrinsic heart-centered power and collectively turn the light of truth upon them so that they have no where to hide from their lies and corruption. For “truth”, to quote the infamous Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph M. Goebbels, is “the greatest enemy of the state.” Bush and the private interests who keep him in power and profit richly from his actions are absolutely terrified of one thing - the truth. As the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.” Like pouring water on the Wicked Witch of the West in “The Wizard of Oz”, when the true light of awareness is shed on what Bush and the real powers behind him are doing, their illegitimate power over us is dis-spelled as the illusion it always was.
Paul Levy is an artist and a spiritually-informed political activist. A pioneer in the field of spiritual awakening, he is a healer in private practice, assisting others who are also awakening to the dream-like nature of reality. He is the author of “The Madness of George Bush: A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis,” which is available at his website http://www.awakeninthedream.com Please feel free to pass this article along to a friend if you feel so inspired. You can contact Paul at paul@awakeninthedream.com; he looks forward to your reflections.
© 2007 Paul Levy
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Lance
Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 17:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
There is no race to "oust" president Bush. He is already on his way out. Please, please recognize this. He only has two terms okay...tsk...tsk....tsk...
(reply to this comment)
| from Lance
Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 17:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
There is no race to "oust" president Bush. He is already on his way out. Please, please recognize this. He only has two terms okay...tsk...tsk....tsk...
(reply to this comment)
| from ..........
Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 12:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
This site has some great videos
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=119389495
(reply to this comment)
| from ..........
Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 12:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
This site has some great videos
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=119389495
(reply to this comment)
| from smashingrrl
Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 23:11
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Now that I've finished drinking away my misery, I have one question. When did liberal become a bad word or an insult. Liberals abolished slavery. Liberals got us through World War II. Liberals gave women the right to vote. Liberals believe that if one is dying, in pain; the rest of us have no bloddy business telling them what they can't smoke to give them one moment's solace. Liberals gave us social security. Liberals established social security so that our elderly would not die destitute.
I always wonder why the "Moral Majority" is so busy defending the Ten Commandments. I never see them screaming to have the beatitudes posted on public property or fighting for the rights of the poor and downtrodden. These are my values. But then, I'm all for gays marrying. Okay, I confess, I really do want to end "traditional marriage". Traditional marriage ended in the enlightened world long ago. We don't sell our women when they're twelve to the highest bidder. We don't consider women to be the property of men. We don't believe in polygamy. You're goddam right I'm against traditional marriage. I just don't think I should be excluded from the 1100 Federal benefits afforded my straight counterparts in a supposed free nation.
(reply to this comment)
|  From Ne Oublie
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 03:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are right, the concept marriage has largely been lost in this modern world, although not for the reasons you cite. Marriage is the foundation of the family unit - the core of which is to raise children as the next generation to continue the family line. A gay union - which I am in no way opposed to - does not IMO meet this criteria, in that it is physically incapable of producing joint offspring, thus negating the justification for marriage. That said, I agree with your earlier post in which you pointed to the increasing numbers of 'frivolous' heterosexual marriages - all of which I don't consider to be worthy of the term marriage either! Just because people love each other, live together and have sex together (even if exclusively) doesn't qualify them for marriage. Marriage is about the starting of a family unit, one which will be continued through the next generation of jointly-conceived children.
As for the legal/tax benefits, I would say that inasmuch as I would even support their need for existence in the first place, that there is no reason to prevent them being afforded to a gay couple, as to any comparable straight couple.(reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 13:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
The criteria for marriage is to raise joint offspring? What about adoption and egg, sperm doners and as Banshee said, couples who do not or cannot have children?
IMO, a same sex couple can give as much Love, security and support to a child than an heterosexual one.
It sounds like you have one set idea on the marriage contract and it seems too limited to be workable and, quite unfair. *If you can produce children you can marry, else you can't be married!* Shouldn't we broaden the idea of marriage to include the differant variations? Or the same Laws that govern the institution of marriage should at least be available for those that don't fall under that limited criteria but face the same obsticals and challanges ? Why create such a distinction!
Do you include step-children when you say "jointly concieved"?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Banshee
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 11:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wha...? It seems that you, sir, are the one who has lost the concept of marriage. The "core" of the "foundation" of marriage is not to "raise children" to "continue the family line." That is just beyond absurd. I did not marry my husband so that I could raise children with him. That was a bonus. We married out of love and the desire to live the rest of our lives together, committed to each other. That, and that alone, is the "criteria" of marriage. In which case gays unequivocally meet this "criteria." Your ridiculous argument of marriage only being to start a family through "jointly-conceived children"--I'm not even going to start on the stupidity of that clause--is so messed up, I have begun to wonder if you even live in this century. So, according to you, even a man and a woman who decide not to, um, "produce joint offspring," don't fall into your qualifications as being married? Or what about the ones who physically CAN NOT have children, and decide to adopt. Are they not married either? And if they are, then what makes them different from a same-sex couple also adopting to "continue the family line?"
Not even sure why I bothered with this one.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from clark
Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 18:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
As heatbreaking as the outcome of this election was, I am relieved for Kerry. I wouldn't wish this disaster on anyone. Bush made the mess, let him try to clean it up. There is no way to fix what America has done and Kerry would of been blamed for Bush's mistakes had he been elected.
(reply to this comment)
| from Ne Oublie
Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 14:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
When are you liberals going to get it through your heads that democracy means that we have the right to CHOOSE our moral, legal and political issues - we do not have to accept them as they are handed down to us from you on behalf of 'liberal rights'. Just because you feel strongly about something doesn't make it right! Therefore, when the MAJORITY of a population decides to support a candidate and his policies that is EXACTLY what democracy is all about! The American people proved by their votes that they support Bush and the Republican party, and that they aren't going to be swayed by any indoctrination by Michael Moore, Hollywood or the 527 Groups!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, November 04, 2004, 05:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you think a democracy is all about "winner take all" and noone else's opinion matters except the majority, you should come here and live in a state like Idaho, Wyoming, Texas, or some other middle America state where the collective IQ barely beats that of a potato!
Republicans won because they employed the same old tactics they've played for the last several decades! Start a war, funnel money away from social services and towards big corporations but noone will object because hey, we're at war! Then put up some smoke screen issue that inspires hate and dissension! And the stupid blind people of middle America will fall hook line and sinker! But hey, all's well in the world because two gay guy's can't get married! Yes, I feel so much safer now!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, November 04, 2004, 15:31
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Democracy is about important decisions - such as who will be president, and the policies that should be prioritised - being made by a majority. This is exactly what has happened.
For someone who claims to believe in equality, you are awfully prejudiced against anyone who disagrees with you, or who you consider to be less intelligent. As if their opinions are somehow worth less than your 'educated elite'. Funny, it was the same kind of thinking that caused chauvanists to deny women the vote until under a century ago.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 03:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
And rightly so! Countries should elect leadership that they consider will be best for their own country - not for the rest of the world. I would expect nothing less of any country!
And as for your assurance of a 'good job', I thank you but assure you in turn that I am capable of earning my own way under whatever circumstances, and so do not require your charity. Thank you for the thought, though.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ruthie
Thursday, November 04, 2004, 18:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ne Oublie, a republican. Gee, who'd have guessed it?
In case you didn't notice (or never took an American Government course), the United States does not have a pure democracy. It's actually a republic.
Secondly, did you pay attention to the last election? Bush didn't exactly have an overwhelming "majority" as you say.
Thirdly, I don't know why you would want to live in a place that is governed by the whims of the majority. A look into our own history has shown us this: The MAJORITY of Americans used to support racial discrimination, and before that, slavery. The MAJORITY of Americans (yes, even many women) used to believe that women shouldn't have the same rights as men. So sorry if I just don't trust the MAJORITY, especially the MORAL MAJORITY.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 03:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can assure you that I am fully aware of the distinction between a Republic and a Democracy, as well as the misnomer of refering to the US, or most Western nations for that matter, as a Democracy. Anyone who has read my previous posts will know that I have discussed it repeatedly in past postings.
Although our nations are Republics, the process of electing governmental officials - in this case the US president - is democratic, hence my comments.
As for the majority vote, Bush had the largest popular vote majority in history (according the the BBC), it was only in the Electoral College that his victory was slim.
Obviously, his first term was a different story, in which although he lost the popular vote to Al Gore, even Al Gore only had a plurality. It may also interest you to note that Bill Clinton didn't enjoy a majority popular vote in either of his elections, settling both times for a pluarality.(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 09:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
He did have the largest popular vote in history but he did not win a record majority by a long shot. A 2% lead is not hard to beat when you look at previous elections. The fact is that voter turnout increased which, for the first time in history, aided an incumbent but Kerry also had a huge number of people who voted for him. The voter turnout is what caused the record vote not the lead by which Bush won. The fact remains that half the country can't stand Bush and only someone as stupid as him could think that winning by slightly more than 50% gives him some sort of mandate! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 03:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
It would appear then that the 'something' that's apparently whispering in your ear is wrong on more than just the one count! I for one am not bothered by your jumping to prejudiced and uninformed conclusions in order to support a cheap shot at my character - as I've said before, why not just stick with what I HAVE said, rather than these suppositions?
As for your definition of 'democracy', I believe the term you were looking for is 'responsible democracy' (or your local equivalent), which more accurately describes the concept you were attempting to outline.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 12:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're right, my political views are in favour of personal independence as opposed to reliance on a governmental nanny state. As for being sexist - that is both insulting and untrue! And while naieve is not how anyone who knows me would describe me, I respect that you are entitled to your own opinion.
You, on the other hand have admitted that to be called elitist is 'the opposite of an insult'. So if calling me naieve boosts your elitist ego, then, please be my guest!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 16:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I posted below, elitism is not achieving wealth or success, rather it is the belief that a group of people is somehow superior by merit of whatever criteria happens to suit you. Therefore, while I will eventually achieve a financially privileged status, elite will still not be an accurate description.
Whatever you consider my chances to be on my own - I will take them any day before I choose to leave my fortunes in the hands of a government, regardless how benevolent they may be!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, November 07, 2004, 16:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Elitism is defined as:
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Therefore, fmr, and other's comments denigrating those Americans who voted for Bush are clearly elitist views! The criteria you choose to discriminate on has nothing to do with the elitism of your views, therefore an 'educated elite' is no better (or worse) than a racial, gender, religious, or any other elite.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Nick
Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 09:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
How about we change this title to "3.7 million reasons why Bush is back in power!"
Well the people of the United States have spoken and they have spoken with a very definitive voice. Not only does he win the electoral vote, which was expected, but just like his father in 1988 he goes and wins the popular vote by a 3.7 million advantage. I also want to add that percentage wise there were less straight ticket voters than in the last 6 elections (24 years) just proving the point that people were not “blindly” voting for bush because they liked him as a person but they voted on the issues!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From pharmaboy
Thursday, November 04, 2004, 00:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would say insulting the lack of intelligence..and rightly so!
You guys who choose Bush remind me of those kind of women who are addicted to abusive guys. They don't care if he's rough, hairy, stupid and beats them when he's drunk, just as long as he's assertive they are happy because they themselves lack a complete personality and like someone who makes decisions for them.
So what Kerry didn't have a set gameplan? Any wise person realizes that the world situation is not a black and white scenario, with American heroes on one side and foreign villains on the other, there is no quick strong-man solution to the world's problems.
On the other hand, I'm glad Bush won, for us Europeans it will be like a comedy of errors reality TV show, we'll watch those redneck hill-billy apes go at each other. It'll be like a re-run of medieval times: religious fanaticism, and no civil liberties. LOL, we've gotten over that in the 1700s already. I'm almost not surprised that half of Americans can't point out the Pacific on the map, and over one third still believe that the earth was created in 7 days!
When you apes finally run your economy into the ground and go from medieval stupidity to neolithic poverty we'll declare the midwest a national reservation, and organize guided tours for tourists. Think of it, a theme park of prehistoric times!
"look dad they've just invented the wheel!"
"and look over there, that one is branding his wives some others will know who they belong too."
Long live stupidity and certainty!(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Saturday, May 05, 2007, 11:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Who the hell gave this moron a thumbs up? What a sexist comment. He obviously know little about women in general, and nothing about abused women who are unable to to get out of an abusive relationship. A woman who is abused eventually looses her sense of self worth. She lives in constant fear of what will set her abuser off. How dare he speak of women as if they somehow choose this life style, as if they are on some sort of mind altering drug. Vote it to the trailer park people.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From cheeks
Saturday, May 05, 2007, 16:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Damn Fig I don't want to argue this with you. But now I have to. I am going to start by asking how exactly you know what you are talking about so I can know what I am supposed to yell about. Are there women who go back to abusive men. Yes, everyday and a portion of them end up dead. There are so many reasons why they do. To say a woman is addicted to an abusive relationship and she goes out and looks for one is asinine. I am going to leave it at that for right now.
So Fig how do you know what you are talking about? What in you journey through life has led you to believe that a woman can be addicted to being in an abusive relationship.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From moon beam
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 10:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's a sad day!
What they voted on were their *religous morals*. So much for separation between church and state!
Whats it like escaping from one religous cult to another? Where even now you have to follow the party line else your a sinner and won't get into heaven?
Repuplicans= Church law= unequality; anti-gay, anti-blacks, anti-muslem, ant-abortion, anti-free choice, death penalty, anti-stem cell research.
We all know too well how people will live in less then desirable circumstances because of a religious afiliation and complete surrender to their leaders ideologies.
Boy, those evangelicals must have been witnessing day and night!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 13:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just like most of the comments you post, (Like fighting big bears with pepper spray) your show a total lack of knowledge on the subjects you speak on.
For a start the religious aspect carried very little if any weight on whether or not people voted for Bush. The exit polls show that the main reason people voted for Bush was the war in Iraq. They felt that Bush would better handle it. His conservative religious beliefs probably hurt him in some circles.
Also as I stated in another one of my posts this election had one of the highest percentages of none straight ticket voters which means that even though they voted for Bush as president they did not nessasearly agree or vote for a lot of the other policies on his ticket. Like Stem cell research, anti Gay marriage etc.
Also for you to say that Republicans are Racist just shows again your total ignorance. Even Bush’s on Chief of Staff is Black.
This election showed what I have been saying about the US and I dare say the UK also. That all that noise and public outcry on many topics like the war etc comes from a minority group that just seems to have a big mouth. I dare say a good amount of unemployed with a lot of extra time on their hands. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Banshee
Friday, November 05, 2004, 15:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
You said: "...the religious aspect carried very little if any weight on whether or not people voted for Bush."
Reuters begs to differ with you.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Christian conservative leaders say their top priority in President Bush's second term is the appointment of conservative judges to the Supreme Court and throughout the judicial system.
"We have high hopes of changing the judiciary. Every judicial appointment that President Bush makes will make the courts less radical and more in tune with the voters who turned out in Tuesday's election," said Gary Bauer, a prominent Christian conservative leader and president of American Values, a conservative pressure group.
Unprecedented turnout by evangelical Christians was a KEY FACTOR in ensuring Bush's narrow victory over Democrat John Kerry in the election. Many were motivated by their opposition to same sex marriage and abortion.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Shaka
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 20:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yessiree, Cleveland, Ohio is just waaaaay out there in the boonies. Also Nevada, which probably has some of the most liberal inhabitants for obvious reasons, voted in Bush's favor. I even saw a political map of California that showed that the vast majority of California's counties voted for Bush. Only several coastline counties holding LA, San Francisco and other cities which have the greatest concentration of liberals in the US voted Kerry. Sadly, those few were densely populated enough to carry the state for Kerry. Not that it did any good for them. Not to mention Bush's carrying the state of Florida which Kerry was fighting hard for.
Try research before commenting. Ask Joe, he can direct you to witty and amusing websites to get material for intelligent sounding comments that will make you look really cool.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 14:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I am an American and now that I've finally managed to pull my self up and stop puking all I have to say is that, unfortunately, Americans voted out of fear and ignorance. The Right-Wing snow-job has once again led people to vote against what is in their best interests! Its a sad, sad day! November 2, 2004 will always be remembered as the day when noone won except Bush and his corporate buddies.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, November 04, 2004, 06:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Bush didn't need Haliburton to poison the water! That's well on the way to happening seeing as how he effectively bankrupted the EPA which paralyzes any sort of enforcement of environmental laws. Further, he extended the deadline for the coal industries (which have most of their factories near water sources) to stop their mercury pollution by nearly two decades! Halliburton is too busy counting the billions they are making off the war to worry about poisoning the water! That's being taken care of by others!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From sarafina
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 12:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well I didn't vote based on religious morals, I have no religion.I find your comment "What's it like escaping from one religious cult to another? " quite offensive and rude. So anyone who doesn't doesn't think like you has joined a religious cult? That's a pretty arrogant statement. I can accept that you have your reasons for not liking Bush but to make generalizations such as to imply that just because one disagrees with you they must be brainwashed is just a cheap shot.
In addition, not all republicans are as you say. Our Governor is a republican but is For stem cell research and pro choice. As for Bush not being Pro-choice I don't believe that his opinion on that matters all that much the supreme court ruling would have to change before abortions would ever become illegal and I don't see that happening and again people would be able to vote on that if it ever was in question. So as you can see that issue was not a major determining factor in my voting decisions. My decisions were based more on Taxes, Healthcare, the War and leadership qualities None of which I agreed with Kerry on. Many of the above issues you mentioned can be worked out in the individual states , so if you don't like your states decisions move to another one that suits you better.
Lastly, I don't know why your so gun ho about this election you don't even live here. So please go worry about your own country or find something better to do with your time then insulting the millions of Americans who disagree with you. Good Day.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From smashingrrl
Thursday, November 04, 2004, 23:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
"As for Bush not being Pro-choice I don't believe that his opinion on that matters all that much the supreme court ruling would have to change before abortions would ever become illegal and I don't see that happening and again people would be able to vote on that if it ever was in question."
I love it when people display their ignorance. Renquist has cancer and both O'Connor and Ginsberg have expressed intent to retire from the bench. Bush will appoint at least one, likely more of the next US Supreme Court justices. Are you truly asking us to believe that he'll appoint moderates? Scalia will likely look like a moderate in comparison to who he'll nominate.
You agree with Bush on healthcare? Do you not realize that we are the only industrialized nation without a national healthcare program?
Never mind. You voted for him, enjoy.
I, personally am staying in the elitest, liberal states of New England where people somehow realize that men kissing is not what caused the towers to fall.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Jules
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 13:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am sure you are aware of this, since you studied the issues before voting, but Bush is almost certainly poised to appoint new supreme court judges. Chief Justice Rehnquist is 80 years old and was hospitalized with cancer last month. John Paul Stevens is 84. Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have both battled cancer.
Historically many landmark decisions have been 5-4 in favour of civil rights, but Bush's appointees will almost certainly change all that. Rather than the current balance of conservative and liberal judges, the people Bush favours are quite frightening and would change this court for decades. If he can get them through they will quite likely waste no time in fundamentally changing the principles and values of your country.
Many of Bush's candidates have very strong and unambiguous records opposing legalized abortion. For example, some of his appeals court nominees have called abortion "a sin" and "an abomination" and the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing the procedure immoral and "the Court's most awful ruling."
Bush has clearly stated that he favors judicial candidates with the beliefs of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Both are strong conservatives, and both do not recognize abortion as a fundamental right.
For more information: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/18/opinion/18mon3.html(reply to this comment) |
| | From sarafina
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 15:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes I am well aware of that. I never said I was not concerned about it, in fact I'm very concerned. I find many of Bush's views on gay marriage, religion and abortions appalling to even read.
I myself had an abortion at a early age and don't know what I would have done at that time had I not had the option available. I had just left the family and could barley take care of myself muchless another person. Not to mention I had no desire to care for or raise a child and I'm sure had I not had that option it would have been the child who would end up suffering the most. So this issue greatly concerns me.
I do fight for women's rights and choice but I was not basing my vote solely on what would be best for me as a women I was looking at everything for the country as a whole. Hopefully we have safeguards in our court system such as the federal judges to help prevent one man from solely deciding such an important issue. I can only hope we can make it through these next four years without to much damage and hopefully we will have better options to choose from next election. Like moonbeam said in (la la land) It would be nice if we had candidates that stood for all the right things and it is to bad that we have to make choices like this.
To be honest right now I wish Arnold was running for president. Although he's republican he also cares very much about the country and individuals and seems to lean democratic in all the right places. Right now in CA he has our state by almost $70% favor (from both republicans and democrats). He seems to be one person who has been able to get the two parties to work together and come to some compromise. To Bad their aren't more like him available for election.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Banshee
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 15:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
These issues are some of the very ones that I feel many people did not consider or were uninformed about before they made their choices. I just wonder how much the fact that Bush no longer has to worry about re-election will affect his actions. Personally I am concerned about what decisions he might make now, since he no longer has to worry as much about popular opinon. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From moon beam
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 13:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do agree Bush had the better speach writers and delivery and that cheesy catch phraze "Come stand by me" And people do tend to vote for the more charismatic person, no matter what they're policies.
Any way I have already said that what I think is my view point and I don't mean for you to take it personaly.;)
Don't you think it would have been better (in lala land)if you could have had voted for the policies that you did but with a candadite that didn't have the backing of god and numourous offshoots of religous organisations? Because if you had I believe he wouldn't have got in. I am sorry if my point was not clear! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Banshee
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 15:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Although I would concede that Bush has a bit more "personality" than Kerry--Kerry can be very mono-tone and mono-face--I don't know if I would characterize Bush as charismatic. I just can't stand his lack of ability to speak with any comprehension or intelligence at all. I know that many Bush supporters have argued that how articulate someone is should not be a deciding factor, and while I agree to some extent, I also think that as a supposed leader of the free world, we should be able to present ourselves intelligently and articulately to the rest of the world. Honestly, some Heads of State can show Bush up in the English language! And, yes, I really do think that this type of impression affects our relations with other countries--perhaps not drastically, but certainly to an extent. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From The Pedantic Prick
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 21:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm sorry, Shaka, I misunderstood you. Not your words -- those I understood fine, but I thought you would realize that a record number of votes doesn't really prove anything other than population growth combined with high voter turn around. So I argued with the point that you seemed to be making in the paragraph that contained Cheney's statement about the record number of votes -- that Bush had won by some stunningly vast majority of votes. Don't get me wrong, I know that 51% is both a majority and a plurality.
High voter turnout is great, but 49% of the voters DIDN'T vote for Bush. That's a pretty large chunk of the population. We need to realize that the nation is very divided right now. Bush realizes this, and I hope that he will do a good job to put the country on the right track, and clean up the mess in Iraq. Otherwise, you Republicans will be out of there in four years (provided the Democrats can field a better candidate than they did this time)!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From moon beam
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 12:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
The whole world has an interest in who america has chosen, and yes war leaders are often succsesful esp if they are considered to be in the middle of a war, so it's of no surprise. The reason for this interest is that Bush's policies are dangerous to the stability and safty of millions.
I do think america has lost in the long run as they will now reap more of what they have sowed. What the world was looking for was a change in direction and disscussion about serious issues that they seem happy to ignore and workable foreign poicies, not a head in the sand, for us or against us, Jesus loves me response. A democracy is about 2 opposing sides who talk to make a compromise, now if one side is domonent and refuses to compromise (which religion teaches) then that is a dictatorship.
I just hope that next time more democrats and republican get pissed off enough to say "no" to these concrete morals that were writen for people 2,ooo yrs ago, and which for today, are more then unworkable, they're often barbaric and abusive.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from Shaka
Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 08:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
To my beloved peaceniks.
In spite of all you loyal Kerry fans and all you've done, good ol' Dubya has done it again, this time winning by 3.7 mil in the popular vote and smashing Kerry in the electoral. I was going to say something profound and noteworthy but decided to settle with this....
NYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! BWWAHHAAA HAAAA HAAAAAA!!!
Liberals, I'm apologizing in advance because I'm going to be a total prick about this in the near future. I look forward to the interesting political discussions we shall have. It's fun being on the winning side and I intend to exploit it. Funny, that even all the rabid campaigning by the Dems and Bush bashing that America still thinks that he's the right man for the job. Hmmmmmmm....GUESS HE IS!!!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From The Pedantic Prick
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 21:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
"am I mistaken that you said that if Bush got elected you would leave the US?" I don't recall promising to do anything based on the election results, but for what it's worth, I've wanted to move out of this country since long before Bush was elected the first time. I mainly stay because my family is here and the salaries are good. If Bush doesn't fix the economy, that could change (the salaries thing). Oh and there is the whole pesky citizenship issue. I may consider myself a citizen of the world, but all the world's countries seem to feel differently. Oh darn.
But before we pick on me, weren't you living in Canada until you shacked up with some girl in California? What was that about? Dodging the draft? Taking advantage of their liberal public health care system? Enjoying the wide variety of cuisine provided by the massive immigrant population?
"Find true democracy in Mexico or some other shithole." This kind of attitude towards the rest of the world is one reason why its inhabitants dislike Americans so much. Many countries have perfectly-functioning democracies, where the president is directly elected, and a fiasco like Florida 2000 would be virtually unheard of. And speaking of Mexico, everyone there has a voter registration card with a barcode and a photo, similar to a drivers license. All my friends there were dumbfounded at our backwardness when I described punch-cards and mail-in ballots, not to mention the electoral college.
"And the laughing was pure euphoria at my side coming out on top." You're welcome to it. Can't say I'd behave any better had Bush lost.
"your great intelligence that is far superior to us peons" You're too kind. It's nice to see there are some truths that are obvious even to you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Shaka
Thursday, November 04, 2004, 09:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, I was in Canada for 9 months before coming to California. No, not dodging the draft as I'm signing up now as you are fully aware of. I did get a health card as I am a dual citizen but never had to use it as I rarely get sick and when I do I cure it with several days in bed watching TV. Works just fine. And the fine cuisine provided by said immigrants did not make it any better that the country is infested with illegal aliens. And as for that "some girl" in California, I thought she was your friend before all this started. Sad that you would let petty differences of opinion and your insanely huge ego come between you and a friend. That shows that even you has a streak of stupidity. Oh well, it's your loss. I assure you it's not hers.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Cult Surfer
Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 08:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
War is money, and when you can get into a counrty and pass out no-bid contracts to your subordinates, you make money! There's no end to war, only repitition and we've created a machine that needs more and more money to operate. A machine that has its fingers in every corner of our economy and political structure - especially the republican oil boys. Iraq was none of our business, there's no escuse to what we've done to that country. The death rate has gone up by 100,000 over the past year which "might be" because of a stupid war. I'm surprised by how the general public just doesn't get it, doesn't get Bush's motives, scare tactics and behind closed door deals that got him in power.
Getting rid of bin Laden would hurt w's pocket book too much, it's time to get rid of W.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, November 02, 2004, 05:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
My apologies for the lack of context in my comment - I had been commenting in a number of forums, and tired of the tautology between them. The 'fact' I was refering to is that in the statistics I had seen the survey had been based on interviews of 988 households, from which somewhere in the range of 140 deaths were reported, and 89 death certificates were shown. This is the same process which is described in the article you linked to (in as much as I glanced through it now), my 'fact' still remains - it was just lacking proper connotation.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Ne Oublie
Friday, October 29, 2004 - 14:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
... and the most important reason of all: Osama bin Laden doesn't like him either!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, October 30, 2004, 11:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
fmr, the reason I gave is that Osama didn't like Bush - not that Bush had been entirely effective in tracking and apprehending Mr bin Laden. And if you want to talk about 'divertig global attention' - where were your complaints during the FULL 8 YEARS that Clinton was President and global attention was by-&-large diverted from the Iraqi people suffering - and dying by the thousands - under the UN Sanctions (which have still killed far more Iraqi civilians than even the worst estimates of the Gulf wars)? Were you happy to let the Iraqi people keep on suffering and dying just as long as no Americans were there as well? Or was it that as long as there was no 'active' military intervention that you could somehow rationalise and compartmentalise the whole thing, convincing yourself that it wasn't your problem? G W Bush did not start the war in Iraq - although some apparently have difficulty differentiating between him and his father, but what is even more significant is that the war continued on for Clinton's full term as president. And he didn't just keep the Sanctions in place, either, he ordered regular bombing raids on both military and civilian targets - often on a daily or weekly basis.
The war in Iraq is NOT something new - it has been going on since 1991 - long before 9/11, Osama bin Laden and the rest!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, October 31, 2004, 06:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have got to say that I agree with you that it WAS inapporopriate timing - Saddam should have been removed from power a decade ago! If the Democrats had been willing to make the tough decisions who knows if 9/11 could have even been prevented? Instead, they hid behind their 'nice guy' image all the while they were slowly starving and bombing the Iraqis into the stone age. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, October 31, 2004, 09:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Incidentally my government was, alongside the US, the one most active in the removal of Saddam. But we all know that the discrepancy between the military (and even economic) strengths of our nations makes the US just about the only country in the world with sufficient clout to initiate and carry through such action. As I said in a recent post, the US Marine Corps alone is larger than the whole British Army - I would say that comparitively the UK has carried it's own weight in the Gulf.
I'm so glad that you've agreed that bin Laden and Al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks - seeing as it is 'so typical of Democrats' to try and pin the blame on the Republicans. I guess since we both agree on who is to blame now, we can move on to taking appropriate action (action being the key word).
While I don't dispute that the West supported Saddam during his war with Iran (take your pick... Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeni). In retrospect that may not have been the best of strategies, but just because one has been forced to ally with the lesser of two evils, doesn't preclude them from later addressing that evil.
What is laughable is your suggestion that Saddam was 'installed' by the Republicans. The government which preceeded Saddam's (ok, by one step, by taking into account that Saddam turned around and overthrew his own co-conspirators) was, and would have continued to be, far more favourable to Western interests than Saddam ever was! Why not try reading up on Middle Eastern history before making such outlandish claims!(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Sunday, October 31, 2004, 10:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
So because we are a stronger nation that makes it the burden of the American taxpayers to pay for the liberation of the entire world? This is the very attitude that infuriates me! Everyone wants to use America's big guns when they need them but feel free to villify us when it's convenient to do so.
If this war was all about human rights why doesn't the rest of the world put their money where their mouth is and fork over some help? For that matter why didn't they do this ages ago? The fact that Sadaam remained in power is the fault of the governments who backed his power grab in the first place as well as the hypocritical governments who continued to do business with him while he tortured and murdered his own people. Those same governments now oppose the war on "human rights" issues. Hypocrites!
Tony Blair is nothing more than America's little bitch who will kiss the ass of any American President regardless of political orientation. Maybe when you Brits can elect a leader with some balls you can once again become the strong country you once were. Until then, don't try to tell me that it's my responsibility as an American taxpayer to foot the bill for everything!
And excuse me for not grovelling at the feet of you Brits for all your "help". Seeing as how the sum total of all the money put in by you and the rest of the "coalition" is less than 10%, it doesn't really mean much to me as an American taxpayer who is footing 90% of the financial cost. All this at the expense of many domestic issues that desperately need funding but have come up short since Bush saw fit to start a war and dramatically cut taxes for the most wealthy at the same time.
Iraq, while I'm saddened for the suffering of the people, was not a direct threat to me. Bin Laden was and is. I would prefer we deal with the most pressing of threats before going on an absurd expensive military rampage around the world. Sadaam should have been removed but it is the responsibility of the entire world, not just the US. Just because some illegitimate President comes along and reminds the world "Remember, this is the guy who tried to kill my Dad" doesn't make it OK to lie to a country and decieve the world to further his personal political and financial agendas. If Bush really has the high moral standards he claims to why didn't he just tell the world the truth, that he wants to undertake a long and expensive war to benefit and free the Iraqi people even though we as a nation had just been hit like never before by a completely different enemy? Wouldn't that be the most responsible thing for such a self proclaimed "born again Christian" man to do in the first place? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, October 31, 2004, 14:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
I, like you, would have liked to see the costs of this war (both military and economic) more evenly spread around, but considering that it is the US - followed by the UK - who have borne these costs, I have no guilt whatsoever in the rewards of this investment being enjoyed predominantly by the nations that invested. The annual UK economy is around 16% of the US - so for us to be footing 10% of the bill is proportionately not too far from fair.
You're right that 'the world' is happy to use America when it suits them, but it's exactly the same the other way around - that's the basics of what happens in International relations. As an independent country there is no requirement to endorse every single action taken by another similarly independent country in order to retain the ability to cooperate when it serves mutual interests.
Come to grips with it, we're not going to support every decision you make, but so far the UK has pulled its weight when it comes to shared interests and efforts. So why don't you find yourself a more suitable target for your pented frustrations.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]