. We refer here, of course, to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney – their immediate removal from office being of the UTMOST urgency. They SHOULD have been impeached as soon as their complicity in the attacks of 9/11 became apparent. How can such committed, psychopathic enemies of the American People be permitted to remain at the helm of this formerly great nation – which yet remains nuked-up to the eyeballs – whilst they contrive ever more odious mayhem against blameless innocents at home and abroad? We simply cannot stand idly by and watch them pointedly and repeatedly provoke Russia (with potentially deadly consequences for us all) over that two-bit, Jew-infested pseudo-entity in the Middle East, “Israel” – for that is ultimately what this gunboat diplomacy off the Black Sea coast is all about.
Bush and Cheney have contrived one pointless, futile and costly conflict after another since getting their treasonous butts ensconced in the White House 8 years ago. The damage they have done abroad and at home has been incalculable, and brought the American people NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER. Everything is being orchestrated by and for the benefit of the parasite ‘state’ of Israel – our ‘special ally’ in the region. Some “ally” this is, which has over many decades bent over backwards to drag America into any and every strategic conflict that might benefit them (the Jews) and their business interests which are heavily invested in armaments and munitions and need a constant supply of cannon fodder American youth to generate a lucrative return for those evil entities who profit from the squandered blood of others.
It’s high time our military personnel AT ALL LEVELS educated themselves about foreign policy and exactly what drives it. It’s high time these soldiers from the lowest ranks to the highest, made a serious effort to do some research for themselves to establish the TRUTH about this unending slaughter and how they, the best of our young people, are exploited with callous, utter ruthlessness for the sake of mollifying the insatiable hunger for power and money that these vile parasites can evidently never get enough of. Bush and Cheney MANUFACTURE conflicts wherever and whenever they please for their own personal gain and the enrichment of their Jewish cronies – and our soldiers have to pay for this endless greed with their very blood. Isn’t it time the armed services woke up to the manner in which they’re being duped into believing they’re fulfilling some ‘patriotic duty’ – and have been ever since the Jews slimed their way into the US government?
Phaedrus appeals to everyone and anyone who may come across this item in whatever form it may be found after this initial publication, to do everything in their power to ensure that this message and others like it get read by the brave young men and women under arms who have NO IDEA that they are being ruthlessly exploited by FOREIGN agents with FOREIGN interests who have NO thought whatsoever for the suffering they are causing to innocent people both at home and abroad. Israel is NOT our ally – it is and always has been our WORST ENEMY OF ALL TIME. The Jews have practiced their deceit against the American people now for generations and all we have to show for it is hundreds of thousands of graves and a bankrupt economy where criminal immigrants enjoy more rights and freedoms under the law than the rest of us put together.
The time is fast approaching when elements of the armed forces of the US are going to have to decide where their loyalties truly lie: with their OWN people and the Constitution they have sworn to defend (against enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC) – or else the Jewish/Internationalist cabal currently fronted by a sicko president and his unaccountably taciturn side-kick. So come on, guys and girls in uniform; privates, sergeants, colonels and generals: where does YOUR loyalty lie and when you have made up your minds, WHEN are you going to ACT to remove these grubby, sordid TRAITORS from their long-enjoyed positions of disastrously-misplaced public trust??
Celebrations were widespread and general in the wake of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s resignation — but they were cut short by a bomb and a bombshell.
The joy which made the Pakistanis dance — the thrill of finally seeing the back of a former military dictator — was not confined, as the AP would slyly have us believe, to Islamist militants, or even Islamic fundamentalists.
As you can see in these photos (courtesy of Reuters), opposition to Musharraf ran much deeper and broader than that.
Crucially, the pro-democracy (read: anti-Musharraf) movement in Pakistan has been led by the country’s lawyers (the men in black suits in these photos), strongly supported by the Pakistani journalists. (Those looking to “compare and contrast” Pakistan and the USA could find worse places to start.)
McGovern provides excellent and relevant context pertaining to the threat of impeachment leveled against against Richard Nixon in 1974, the collapse and rapid resignation which followed, and the surge of support enjoyed by the Democratic party in the wake of that resignation — all this in an article which fairly begs the Democrats in Congress to get some impeachment proceedings happening here and now.
But he’s shouting into a black hole, I fear. Congress has no illusions about what would happen in America if impeachment proceedings were initiated against the most despicable human being ever to defile the Oval Office, and that’s exactly why Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers and all the others are sitting on their hands.
They’ve enabled this long torturous march to bankruptcy and tyranny. Do we now expect them to turn against the success they’ve labored so long and hard to achieve? We might expect it, but it’s not going to happen. So why do we have these expectations?
It’s like watching a schoolyard bully beat up one little kid after another, then turning to the guy holding the bully’s coat and saying, “Hey, aren’t you gonna do something about this?”
No one but a fool would be astonished if the guy holding the coat replied, “I’m doin’ it right now, sucka!”
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I see that, and I see it a lot.
You can’t appeal to their conscience because they have none.
You can’t appeal to their better judgment because it’s not a mistake; it’s a deliberate policy. We’ve seen it over and over and over; the only difference is that they’re getting a little bit more subtle about it.
And you can never hope to deal with the problem until and unless you see it clearly and spell it out in short words, so:
The Democrats aren’t just holding the coat; they’re planning to wear it next.
Meanwhile, back in Pakistan:
The celebration was short-lived for some; more than 20 people were killed and at least another 30 were injured in an alleged suicide bombing of a hospital.
The bombing was reported in the big American media in the same context-free style that was so prominently displayed in the “coverage” of Musharraf’s resignation.
In an attack claimed by the Taliban within the tribal region on Tuesday, a suicide bomber ripped into the emergency room of the district hospital in Dera Ismail Khan, a town near Waziristan, killing 25 people and injuring 30, said the inspector general of the police in the North-West Frontier Province, Malik Naveed Khan. He said there was some evidence that the suicide bomber was linked to Waziristan, the base of the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud.
Pay close attention to this report, if you please. Your eyes will want to glance over it quickly, and understandably so. You’ve seen this report before, many times. It’s the standard, boilerplate, terrorist attack report, in which only the names and dates are changed.
The common features are always common: in particular, there’s always a suspect; but there’s never a motive.
If you care to dig a bit, you can find evidence of a motive behind this particular attack; but you won’t find such evidence in the formerly so-called paper of record (because according to the official story told to Americans, terrorists don’t have motives) .
So you’ll have to go to a more reliable source, such as the Pakistani daily, Dawn, which first reported (courtesy of Reuters):
A bomb went off in the compound of a hospital in northwest Pakistan’s Dera Ismail Khan town Tuesday killing 20 people, a senior government official said.
“We don’t know whether it was a suicide attack but the bomb went off in the compound. I have initial reports of 20 dead,” said Syed Mohsin Shah, a senior city government official.
Supporters of a Shi’ite Muslim leader were protesting outside the hospital when the bomb went off.
The leader was shot dead earlier Tuesday and his body taken to the hospital.
… and later (courtesy of AFP) added a few more details:
A suicide bomber blew himself up Tuesday at a hospital in the northwestern Dera Ismail Khan town, killing at least 23 people, police said.
The explosion happened as people gathered to protest over the death of a man in a suspected sectarian attack in the town, said provincial police chief Malik Naveed Khan.
“There are 23 confirmed dead and up to 20 wounded. We have found the legs of the suspected suicide bomber,” Khan told a private television channel.
Provincial police spokesman Riaz Ahmed said the dead included civilians from the crowd of protesters and policemen who went to the hospital to provide security.
Is the New York Times unable to find out such details? I didn’t have any trouble doing it, and the NYT has a large professional staff. So it can’t be any harder for them than it was for me. But they don’t want these details, because these details don’t fit into the story the NYT is telling. And changing the story would be a lot more difficult than omitting a few details.
But if there’s a story they want to tell, no stretch is too big.
So Jane Perlez can tell us that a policeman said
… there was some evidence that the suicide bomber was linked to Waziristan, the base of the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud …
In this case, as usual, the connection to the preferred suspect is tenuous at best. It’s not as if Waziristan were a hotel, and Baitullah Mehsud owned it. Waziristan is a huge area; how “some evidence” could link a crime to such a large region, and therefore to a single man, is puzzling at best.
If I also remind you that analysts predict increased American pressure against Pakistan now that their main ally in the region is gone, you might put two and two together and wonder whether the pressure has already been stepped up. KA-BOOM! HaHaHA!
The post-resignation joy was short-lived in another, very different way: the governing coalition has suddenly run aground on the rocky coast of irreconcilable differences.
The show-stopping rift between the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), led by Asif Ali Zardari, and the PML-N, Nawaz Sharif’s faction of the Pakistan Muslim League, concerns the status of the Supreme Court in the wake of Musharraf’s November declaration of emergency.
The reason for Musharraf’s declaration — and the reason for all the other unconstitutional and anti-democratic moves which followed it — was obvious: the country had been gripped by a popular pro-democracy movement, and the Supreme Court, led by the indomitable Chief Justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was about to rule Musharraf’s October “re-election” illegal.
So Musharraf declared a national emergency, clamped down on the media, arrested hundreds of political opposition leaders, and sacked all the federal justices — including those on the Supreme Court — who didn’t support him in this transparently illicit attempt to retain power.
Musharraf eventually lifted the state of emergency but he didn’t reinstate the court. The chief justice remained under house arrest. And elections were scheduled under these conditions.
So the PML-N campaigned — and did quite well — on a pledge to reinstate the judges who were sacked by Musharraf.
But the PPP — which ran on deception and public sympathy and promised nothing, but gained even more seats in the parliament — won’t support them on this point.
It’s a no-brainer — or at least it would be if the PPP wanted to establish anything resembling legitimate democracy. But that’s not what the PPP is about — not anymore!
Down Memory Lane, Quickly
Readers with functional long-term memories may recall that former PPP leader Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan last fall after spending nearly a decade in ritzy foreign hotels as a fugitive from justice (which the Western media complicitly called “self-imposed exile”).
Her return was made possible by an American-brokered “reconciliation” deal which removed any possibility that she might be held accountable for two terms of epic corruption as Prime Minister. In return for this immunity, she promised to support Musharraf’s continued illegal tenure as president.
Shortly after Benzair Bhutto returned to Pakistan, she was assassinated, as most of us remember. But most of us don’t know that high-level American officials didn’t expect her to live long there, as John F. Burns reported in the New York Times:
[B]efore the Western world passes judgment, many Pakistanis would say, it might well look at its own manipulations, including the role the United States played in placing Ms. Bhutto on the path that led to that last rally in Rawalpindi.
For months, Washington had brokered contacts between General Musharraf and Ms. Bhutto that aimed at having her return, win an election, and lend a democratic facade to a government that would remain, in important ways, under military control. The plan matched American imperatives in the struggle against Al Qaeda, and American officials who pushed for it saw little problem in encouraging General Musharraf to grant an amnesty for Ms. Bhutto against corruption charges stemming from her time as prime minister.
But the Americans knew that she went home at enormous risk. When she spoke in Aspen at a lunch of prominent American political, business and media leaders only weeks before her death, talk at one table turned to the chances of an assassination. “I’d say she’s a dead woman walking,” this reporter, long an acquaintance of Ms. Bhutto, said after talking to her about the hazards of going home. “Yes,” a powerful Washington insider with close links to the administration replied. “We think so, too.”
But that was the plan … and this was the result: Shortly after her death there was a long and fractious meeting of the PPP leadership. At that meeting, Bhutto’s widow, Asif Ali Zardari, produced what’s been called a “surprise will” — a document supposedly written by [or on behalf of] Benazir Bhutto, recommending turning leadership of the party over to a teenager — Bhutto’s and Zardari’s son, Bilawal Zardari.
Indeed, much of the history of Pakistan since partition can be seen as a struggle between democracy and militarism, waged between the Bhutto family and their followers on one side, and the Pakistani Army and its supporters (later joined by the notorious Inter-Service Intelligence Agency, or ISI) on the other.
But through the joint miracles of political assassination and gluttonous corruption, the PPP had been transformed from a pro-democratic, anti-militaristic political force (led by Benazir’s predecessors) to a pro-militaristic, anti-democratic parasite (led by Benazir herself).
Thanks to propaganda, poor communications, political tribalism and actual tribalism, the PPP has retained popular support despite the fact that it’s been under corrupt “new management” for most of the past 20 years. How slowly we learn!
At 19 years of age, Bilawal Zardari was hardly fit to lead any political party, let alone the PPP. But one after another, the obstacles were lifted: POOF! He got a new name, and now he’s Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. Then POOF! His father offered to “lead” the party while Bilawal continued his education. And now Asif Ali Zardari is the American sock-puppet in Islamabad. But nobody knows it, unless they read between the lines.
The lines have been clear for a long time, though. Nawaz Sharif and the PML-N have been pushing for reinstatement of the judiciary, especially Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, while the usurper Zardari and the PPP have been pretending that they might move in that direction at some future time under some future conditions, when there’s no danger of a backlash from Musharraf … but not now … never now … always later, always maybe, but never now.
No Excuses Remain For The Criminal Zardari
With Musharraf gone, there’s no chance of a backlash, and Zardari has no plausible reason to resist a return to pre-emergency judiciary … but he still won’t do it.
Nawaz Sharif, the leader of […] the Pakistan Muslim League-N, walked out of a meeting [in Islamabad] and headed back to his home in Lahore, a four-hour drive away.
Party members said Mr. Sharif had delivered an ultimatum to the senior coalition party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, led by Asif Ali Zardari, to consent to the return of the chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, within 72 hours, or […] Mr. Sharif’s party would leave the government. Mr. Chaudhry was among some 60 judges suspended by Mr. Musharraf last year.
Even by the standards of Pakistan’s hard-boiled and volatile political scene, the public discord between the political leaders was surprising, politicians said, a sign that opposition to Mr. Musharraf may have been the strongest thread tying them together.
Notice the spin technique. Far from being the glue that held PPP and PML-N together, Musharraf had been providing an excuse for Zardari. But now the excuse is exposed as hollow, and Sharif isn’t waiting around to see any more of that movie.
Why won’t Zardari support the restoration of an independent judiciary?
Jane Perlez reports that Musharraf made a second “reconciliation” agreement to let Zardari into the country after his wife was slain:
The basis of Mr. Zardari’s opposition to Mr. Chaudhry rests with a fear that he might undo an amnesty agreement that absolved Mr. Zardari of corruption charges, lawyers said. The amnesty, which applies to bureaucrats and politicians who faced corruption charges, was part of a package arranged by Mr. Musharraf when Mr. Zardari returned to Pakistan after his wife, the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated late last year.
So Zardari is thoroughly compromised — just like the Democrats!
Same As It Ever Was
Which leaves us where? More or less where we were last week — or last month — or last year — but a bit poorer and a bit dirtier, lacking sleep and food and vision, as always, but a bit more so now than ever. In other words, it could be worse and it probably will be, soon. But not in the way you think.
Musharraf is gone but the vaunted threat of Pakistani nuclear weapons getting into the hands of Pakistani terrorists is still as slim as it ever was … for at least two reasons.
One of those reasons is public knowledge: Musharraf wasn’t in control of the weapons in the first place. According to the AP (via Dawn), Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are guarded by a committee, and Musharraf wasn’t on the committee.
“Pakistan’s nuclear assets are not one man’s property,” said Maria Sultan, a defense analyst and director at the London-based South Asian Strategic Stability Institute.
“Any (political) transition in Pakistan will have no effect on Pakistan’s nuclear assets because it has a very strong custodial control.”
The committee, known as the National Command and Control Authority [NCCA], is served by a military-dominated organization with thousands of security forces and intelligence agents whose personnel are closely screened.
The nuclear facilities are tightly guarded. …
“Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is in the hands of the army and the army is not changing hands, so whatever the situation was before is largely what it will continue to be,” said Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Left out of this report but sometimes mentioned elsewhere is the fact that the NCCA is very pro-western (which means, pro-USA). We don’t worry too much about them, in other words, because they’re “our guys”.
The second reason is not publicly acknowledged, but it’s becoming increasingly clear: the terrorists are “our guys”, too.
It’s time to draw another long post to an overdue conclusion. So let’s review some of the things I would have mentioned, had I thought of them earlier.
The struggle in Pakistan has typically been falsely portrayed as one pitting against extremists against moderates. In this scenario, the moderates are Musharraf and Bush and their friends in the so-called “Global War On Terror”. And the extremists are al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Islamic fundamentalism in general, plus anyone who wanted to get rid of Musharraf.
In fact the struggle is between moderates and extremists, but the extremists are Musharraf and Bush and their allegedly “former” friends in al Qaeda and the Taliban, plus a very tiny (and shrinking) minority which supports radical Islamic extremism.
Meanwhile, the moderates include those who support the PML-N, plus those who support the PPP for historical reasons, plus many other Pakistanis who support other moderate parties, plus a great many other Pakistanis who don’t support any political party. And that’s just Pakistan. There are millions of moderates and a handful of extremists in every country, of course.
The bottom line: the PPP are still in control in Pakistan — though perhaps not by much. The PPP are pro-American, which means (among other things) that they don’t support the rule of law, but they do support the military. This was Musharraf’s position, this was Benazir Bhutto’s position, and it comes as no surprise that it’s also Asif Ali Zardari’s position.
As for American policy towards Pakistan, it’s quite simple, and it’s very similar to American policy towards Iraq.
All the Bush administration wants to see in Pakistan is a legitimate, democratically elected government that’s fully supportive of American interests.
It’s impossible, of course. There’s no way any government fully supportive of “American interests” could be legitimately elected in Pakistan, or anywhere else in Asia, or anywhere else in Europe … or anywhere at all, actually.
So let’s consider the alternatives, from a policy-maker’s point of view. The options are stark! And the choice is a no-brainer.
The American policy elite has always preferred governments “supportive of American interests” rather than “legitimate, democratically elected” governments … but at the same time we’re talking about two deliberate lies here.
First, the considerations collectively referred to as “American interests” are, for the most part, arrangements established and maintained by stealth or coercion or overt mass murder; arrangements which grant multi-national corporations virtually unimpeded “rights” to exploit the natural and human resources of the “host” countries … as many “host” countries as possible. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “American interests”, but if they call it what it really is, will we go to war on their behalf?
Second, the American policy elite has no interest in fostering “legitimate, democratically elected” governments anywhere in the world; they just say that because they know we like to hear it — and some of us like to hear it so much that we go marching off to war whenever they say it. But it’s only a slogan.
In fact, there’s nothing the American policy elite fears more than “legitimate, democratically elected” governments.
That’s why all their “attempts” to “export democracy” to other parts of the world have “failed”.
That’s why democratically elected governments all over the world find themselves looking down the barrel of an American gun as soon as they take office.
And that’s why we don’t have a democracy here, either.
Those were the words spoken by Bill O’Reilly on July 30, 2008. I happened to catch the segment while in my hotel room. According to Bill O’Reilly, “normal people” don’t want President Bush impeached. Perhaps one must define ‘normal’ in Bill’s world? (Didn’t we do that with the other Bill and the definition what is is?) I guess O’Reilly considers phone sex with a subordinate employee normal since it appears he got caught on tape. In a 2004 column, Jonna Spilbor, wrote on FindLaw: “Mackris’s complaint details O’Reilly’s alleged soliloquies – complete with “ums” and pauses. It seems likely, for this reason, that Mackris must have somehow recorded O’Reilly’s ramblings.” Spilbor then says Mackris (plaintiff) could have put a stop to it by just hanging up the phone. True, but, in the end, it is O’Reilly who made the phone calls full of very explicit sex talk. Had it truly been an extortion attempt, would O’Reilly pay in the $6 million dollar range out of his own pocket (plus big, fat attorney’s fees) to settle or was he terrified the tapes would be played in court if it went to trial? As O’Reilly advises: fair and balanced, you decide.
I would venture to say that most Americans don’t want a president impeached, but the Founding Fathers had good reason to make it part of the U.S. Constitution. Bush should have been impeached years ago, but the Democrats who care so much about the lives of our active military, have turned a blind eye since taking power. Not only have they allowed this liar and deceiver to stay in office, they have continued to fund his unconstitutional, immoral invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq for political leverage. The cowardly Republicans gave him free reign until they lost power in 2006. Of course, considering how many members of Congress are making big bux off this unlawful invasion, it isn’t surprising they did nothing to hold Bush accountable for his lies and the deaths of 4,140 American soldiers to date.
According to Bill O’Reilly, the millions of average Americans who want Bush impeached are abnormal. Americans who are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, all races, religions and professions – all abnormal because we have looked at the hard evidence and find Bush guilty. Impeachment would only be step one (political). As I wrote in a recent column, Bush, Cheney and Rice should be indicted and charged with murder (criminal). Vincent Bugliosi has laid out the case and jurisdiction in his book (see link below) and in many interviews over the past few months.
Has O’Reilly read the articles of impeachment submitted by Dennis Kucinich? I highly doubt it; even Pelosi has admitted she hasn’t read them. I am by no means a fan of Kucinich, but investigating a president for possible impeachment based on a mountain of provbable lies is the job of every member of Congress regardless of party. Has O’Reilly read The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi or watched any of his interviews? I’m betting the answer is no, O’Reilly is too busy guzzling his famous Kool-Aid. Mr. Moral High Road would rather belittle millions of Americans who would rather not see an impeachment, but who believe in what’s right and even if it’s painful, doing the right thing.
O’Reilly isn’t alone dishing out inane remarks. On August 13, 2008, during a segment on the John Edwards affair fiasco, shallow Sean Hannity opened the big hole in his face and made a fool of himself, again. The equally fact challenged, Alan Colmes, attempted to bring up Juan McCain’s adulterous affair with his current wife while still married to his former wife. Hannity came to McCain’s defense by saying “it was 30 years ago.” And, “McCain spent 5 1/2 years as a POW.” Well, that excuses his immoral behavior. And, “McCain wasn’t the same person when he came back, there were extenuating circumstances.”
Extenuating circumstances? Now, why didn’t John Edwards think of ‘extenuating circumstances’ for his confession session with Woodruff last week? See link 3 below to read a factual account of just how rotten McCain treated his former wife. Character counts. McCain didn’t have just one affair, he has admitted to many extra marital affairs. While there was a recent flap over the New York Times piece implying McCain had an ‘inappropriate’ relationship with lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, since there was no serious journalism done, it was easy to dismiss. Knowing his lying, immoral past, I’m inclined to believe it. Perhaps the tabloid rag that printed the Edwards “lies” that turned out to be true, will get around to McCain – after they finish with Obama.
Millions of “abnormal” Americans demanded Bill Clinton be impeached. The fix was in and instead of impeaching him for treason, the foolish Republicans went after him on a sex charge. We the people would rather not have to go through these difficult proceedings, but the destroyers continue to shove these immoral people down our throats with their rigged elections. No president is above the law and when a president steps outside the law, he must be held accountable. As Bugliosi writes:
“How has George Bush reacted to the hell he created in Iraq, to the thousands of lives that have been lost in the war, and to the enormous and endless suffering that the survivors of the victims — their loved ones — have had to endure? I have a very distinct impression that with the exception of a vagrant tear that may have fallen if he was swept up, in the moment, at an emotional public ceremony for American soldiers who have died in the war, George Bush hasn’t suffered at all over the monumental suffering, death, and horror he has caused by plunging this nation into the darkness of the Iraq war, probably never losing a wink of sleep over it…
“Not only because the words he has uttered could never have escaped from his lips if he were suffering, but because no matter how many American soldiers have died on a given day in Iraq (averaging well over two every day), he is always seen with a big smile on his face that same day or the next, and is in good spirits. How would that be possible if he was suffering? For example, the November 3, 2003, morning New York Times front-page headline story was that the previous day in Fallouja, Iraq, insurgents “shot down an American helicopter just outside the city in a bold assault that killed 16 soldiers and wounded 20 others. It was the deadliest attack on American troops since the United States invaded Iraq in March.” Yet later in that same day when Bush arrived for a fund-raiser in Birmingham, Alabama, he was smiling broadly, and Mike Allen of the Washington Post wrote that “the President appeared to be in a fabulous mood.” This is merely one of hundreds of such observations made about Bush while the brutal war continued in Iraq.”
Bush can be indicted the day after he leaves office. While millions of us may be abnormal in Bill O’Reilly’s egomaniacal world, Bush’s crimes are so heinous, he must be punished to the fullest extent under the law. You would hope there is one decent American left out there in a prosecutor’s office in the 50 states who is getting a case ready against Bush, Cheney and Rice to present to a grand jury. I have no doubt Bush and his coconspirators would be indicted. If enough families of soldiers who have died in Iraq demand a grand jury in their state, it will happen. This is an election year and no District Attorney up for reelection wants pictures of families in anguish splashed on the front page of the local newspaper. America must have justice for their crimes.
Vincent Bugliosi did a very good job at the recent congressional hearing on impeaching Bush but perhaps we should take a closer look at him. His new book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” is selling well and presents a compelling case against Bush that goes beyond mere impeachment. Bugliosi also wrote “Reclaiming History” which is a re-telling of the Oswald “lone nut” scam of the JFK assasination and he backed up the criminal conspiracy of the Warren Commission.
Before we praise this man as a champion of truth, we may want to discuss his possible role as a “controlled opposition” spokesman for the very system he now speaks against.
Most of what we see in politics, especially if it is televised, publicized or if a lot of money is to made from it is just not what it seems.
Bugliosi is most likely not what he seems.
What You Should Know About Vincent Bugliosi
“‘Reclaiming History’ is as much a piece of propaganda as the Warren Commission findings that it supports.”
Since Vincent Bugliosi was recently featured on Democracy Now and also has been gaining “credibility” for doing impeachment work with Kucinich, I wanted to post this for those who are unaware. Bugliosi may want impeachment, but his deeper agenda, it appears, is to protect the intelligence mafia.
His 2007 book was, ‘Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy’, and his 2008 book is, ‘The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.’ He sides with the Warren Commission.
As one person posting about this issue said:
“A blind monkey could tell you Bush is a murderer. I don’t need Bugliosi for that. He seems to be sniffing the winds and cashing in on some obvious crimes that only the lunatic neo-con right would argue against. Good. However — he’s also boosting his own credibility, and thus his previous works. His bullshit Kennedy cover up is indefensible. We must ask why he wrote it. Anyone with three brain cells knows the CIA was behind Kennedy’s assassination. This isn’t even controversial, except on corporate media.”
Unfortunately, this is another case where anyone who utters the phrase “prosecute Bush” is given a free pass. Being on Democracy Now then opens the door to every single left media and blogger to accept him unquestioningly. But as Michael Green states in his review essay of Bugliosi’s book:
“The purpose of Bugliosi’s ‘Reclaiming History’ is to defend the integrity of the USG National Security State by grossly distorting its nature and function.”
Could such distortions, and the taking down of the JFK truths one year earlier, have been a necessary ingredient of becoming a central figure in the supposed prosecution of Bush?
The essay below is detailed but thorough and well done.
“According to Bugliosi, only the lunatic can seriously entertain that Kennedy was murdered because he pursued détente with the USSR, championed nuclear disarmament, decided not to back the invasion of the Bay of Pigs with US military might, made a peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Joint Chiefs wanted invasion and war, and decided to withdraw US troops from Vietnam rather than pursue by brute force an imperial venture in Southeast Asia. According to Bugliosi, Oswald is not just the murderer of Kennedy, he is the only one involved, and he is nothing but “a first class ‘nut.’” (945) Thus, Kennedy’s murder is deprived of any political significance whatsoever, assassinating him yet again.”
. . . .
“Bugliosi tells the story of charming his audience of six hundred lawyers – mostly skeptics of the Warren Commission – by asking for a show of hands from those who doubt the official story. Many hands go up. He then commands assent to the truth that a rational person must hear both sides of a dispute to have an informed opinion, then he asks for another show of hands from those who have read the Warren Report and “just a few” go up, and Bugliosi hadn’t even asked how many had read both the Report and the accompanying volumes. This audience of potent opinion makers has been converted; they must defer to one who knows both sides of the argument. (xxiv-xxv) Having thus cloaked himself in authority, Vince “Mr. JFK History” is going to tell us the truth, and he even thumps his chest to that effect, “My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others.” (xxxix)”
Oswald Did It Alone, Says Prosecutor Highly detailed JFK book won’t mention Mossad link to Kennedy assassination
By Michael Collins Piper
.Although former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi’s new book on the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History, is a grand total of 2,740 pages—1,612 pages in book form, supplemented with an enclosed compact disc containing 958 pages of endnotes (detailed ones at that) and 170 pages of source notes—Bugliosi never once makes the slightest attempt to refute my allegation of Mossad involvement in the JFK assassination, a thesis that now rings true with many who had been researching the JFK assassination for decades. In case you hadn’t heard all the buzz in the media, Bugliosi has declared all JFK assassination conspiracies to be out of bounds. Lee Harvey Oswald, he says, was a lone nut assassin. But while Bugliosi’s book has some value, in that he demonstrates how rumors, misstatements, misunderstandings and misinformation have done a lot to muddy the waters of JFK research— all of which plays into the hands of those like Bugliosi who want to perpetuate the lone nut assassin myth—his book is a masterpiece in obfuscation in many ways, but particularly in the way he deals (or rather, does not deal) with the thesis of Final Judgment. Bugliosi spends a lot of time addressing a variety of patently false (and often bizarre) tales relating to the JFK assassination—stories which no serious people believe and which Bugliosi repeatedly says do not even deserve being mentioned at all, a point that doesn’t stop him from sometimes spending several pages repudiating such easily refutable allegations.
However, Bugliosi has gone to such prevaricating lengths to ignore my thesis (or distort it) that one might get the idea that he simply doesn’t want people to ever consider the possibility that Israel may have even had a motive to work to remove John F. Kennedy from the presidency. So, in the end, the undeniable fact that Bugliosi totally refuses to address what Final Judgment does say is very telling indeed. Despite being a clever lawyer, skilled in courtroom legerdemain, and having spent years crafting his writing skills, Bugliosi’s rather transparent scheme in Reclaiming History (at least as far as my work is concerned) was to make passing reference to Final Judgment (and he even quotes from it) simply so that he can say, when questioned, “I didn’t ignore Piper’s book. I mentioned it in mine.” Bugliosi—who received a copy of my book from me years ago—mentions my name and/or Final Judgment three times. But a careful review of Bugliosi’s references is revealing indeed, for it demonstrates that Bugliosi is pulling a fast one on his readers. In one instance, Bugliosi quotes a line from Final Judgment critical of another JFK writer (whom Bugliosi is also critiquing). However, the line in question had nothing to do with my thesis; rather, it dealt with a tertiary matter and gave no hint as to what Final Judgment does say, in substance, about who killed JFK and why. In short, Bugliosi actually used my research to discredit another writer who, in fact, deserved to be discredited. But Bugliosi was careful not to mention that my book (which he was citing) was devoted to the notion that Israel’s intelligence service played a role in the JFK assassination because of JFK’s opposition to Israel’s determined drive to build nuclear weapons of mass destruction, a cornerstone of Israel’s national security policy going back to that nation’s founding in 1948. The second reference to Final Judgment (although not by name) appears in an appendix in Bugliosi’s book where—in a long list of what Bugliosi calls “groups and countries” that have been accused of involvement in the JFK assassination—Bugliosi refers to “Mossad (Israeli intelligence agency)” and provides a footnote. Perhaps we should give him credit for that much. However, to access the source of the footnote, to learn precisely who (or what book, in this case, Final Judgment) makes the allegation of Mossad involvement, a reader must take out the enclosed compact disc (sealed in a plastic envelope on the inside back cover of the book), put it in a computer and turn to the footnotes where the name of the book and the author are listed. To drive home the point that, in his view, the idea of Mossad involvement is really far out, Bugliosi notes that “sources for the accusation are given only for the most obscure and far-out groups” and, in fact, there are only 15 source notes (including the one for Final Judgment) in that section which lists 44 different groups. Although countries such as “Poland” and “Germany” are listed among the suspects, along with the “Illuminati” and the “Ku Klux Klan,” Bugliosi did not feel it necessary to footnote the sources for the claims that these groups or countries were involved since, in Bugliosi’s apparent judgment, those suspects—even including the Illuminati—are apparently not quite as “far out” as the idea that Israel would have wanted to participate in the JFK assassination in order to ensure the survival of its nuclear weapons program. The third reference to my name is not even a reference to Final Judgment at all. Nor, again, of course, is it even a reference to the foundation of my thesis. Instead, in an endnote, buried in the aforementioned CD—not even in the text of the published book itself— Bugliosi uses a classic maneuver of the most deceptive type to ignore my allegations of Mossad involvement. In addressing allegations that New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw—prosecuted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for involvement in the JFK conspiracy— had ties to the CIA, Bugliosi describes the controversy surrounding Shaw’s involvement in a mysterious holding company known as Permindex. For years—prior to the release of Final Judgment— many JFK researchers believed that Permindex was a CIA front and pointed toward this as one of Shaw’s CIA connections. Bugliosi seeks to dismiss the idea that Permindex was a CIA front and implicitly suggests that I also viewed Permindex as such. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Final Judgment I make it abundantly clear that— as I have said time and again, in writing, on the radio— that “Permindex was more Mossad than CIA” and that the Shaw-Permindex link was a definitive Israeli connection to the JFK assassination. There’s an entire chapter in Final Judgment exploring this in detail. So rather than citing what I do address in Final Judgment, Bugliosi bamboozles his readers and points to an article published in the old Spotlight newspaper in which I made a passing reference to Permindex and claims that I offer “no shred of evidence” that a number of other CIA intriguers linked to the JFK conspiracy and to Shaw had any connection to Permindex. In fact, The Spotlight article in question was actually only a transcription of a radio interview with me— hardly as detailed as the material appearing in the pages of Final Judgment. And since Bugliosi had a copy of Final Judgment to refer to the detailed specifics, he knew full well that The Spotlight article hardly reflected my in-depth research on the topic. And that move by Bugliosi was additionally deceptive because Bugliosi—as a writer with extensive experience in radio interviews—knows that a writer, in the course of a giving a radio interview about his work, cannot spend the same amount of time discussing a matter as he can do in his own book. So, in this instance, Bugliosi pawned off on his readers the idea that I was suggesting that the aforementioned Permindex associates were simply “CIA” operatives. No, Permindex was a key Mossad link to the JFK conspiracy. But Bugliosi didn’t want even a whiff of that allegation to reach his readers. Bugliosi spends a lot of his time denying that Lee Harvey Oswald was a “hit man for the CIA” or a “hit man for the Mafia” but no serious JFK researcher— even those who dispute my allegation of Mossad involvement—believe that Oswald was a “hit man” for anybody. They believe he was a patsy. So the very foundation of Bugliosi’s book—that Oswald was a lone nut assassin—fails from the get-go.
The dramatic hearing on presidential crimes and abuses of power held on Friday by the House Judiciary Committee was both a staged farce, and at the same time, a powerful demonstration of the power of a grassroots movement in defense of the Constitution. It was at once both testimony to the cowardice and self-inflicted impotence of Congress and of the Democratic Party that technically controls that body, and to the enormity of the damage that has been wrought to the nation’s democracy by two aspiring tyrants in the White House.
As Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the committee, made clear more than once during the six-hour session, this was “not an impeachment hearing, however much many in the audience might wish it to be” He might well have added that he himself was not the fierce defender of the Constitution and of the authority of Congress that he once was before gaining control of the Judiciary Committee, however much his constituents, his wife, and Americans across the country might wish him to be.
At the same time, while the hearing was strictly limited to the most superficial airing of Bush administration crimes and misdemeanors, the fact that the session—technically an argument in defense of 26 articles of impeachment filed in the House over the past several months by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)–was nonetheless a major victory for the impeachment movement. It happened because earlier in the month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has sworn since taking control of the House in November 2006, that impeachment would be “off the table” during the 110th Congress, called a hasty meeting with Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Conyers, and Rep. Kucinich, and called for such a limited hearing.
It was no coincidence that shortly before Pelosi’s backdown, peace activist and Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan announced that her campaign had collected well over the 10,000 signatures necessary to qualify for listing on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress against Pelosi in the Speaker’s home district in San Francisco. Sheehan has been an outspoken advocate of impeaching both Bush and Cheney. “Pelosi is trying to throw a bone to her constituents by allowing a hearing on impeachment,” said Sheehan, who came to Washington, DC to attend. “It’s just like her finally stating publicly that Bush’s presidency is a failure—something it has taken her two years to come to, but which we’ve been saying for years.”
So determined were Pelosi, Hoyer and Conyers to limit the scope and intensity of the hearing that they acceded to a call for Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to adhere to Thomas Jefferson’s Rules of the House, which prohibit any derogatory comments about the President, which was interpreted by Chairman Conyers as meaning no one, including witnesses or members of the committee, could suggest that Bush had lied or deceived anyone. Since a number of Rep. Kucinich’s proposed articles of impeachment specifically charge the president with lying to Congress and the American People, this made for some comic moments, with witness Bruce Fein, a former assistant attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan, saying he would have to reference his listing of crimes to the “resident” of the White House, without naming him.
In the end, the ludicrous rule imposing a gag on calling the president a criminal fell by the wayside, with witness Vincent Bugliosi, a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney, accusing Bush of being guilty of the murder of over 4000 American soldiers and of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians because he had “lied” the country into an illegal and unnecessary war, and with committee member Shirley Jackson Lee (D-CA) suggesting that the president may have committed treason in invading Iraq, and that he appeared to be preparing to commit it again with an unprovoked invasion of Iran.
Conyers also acquiesced in a Republican effort to minimize public monitoring and involvement in the hearing, allowing the minority party to fill most of the available seats in the hearing room with office staffers who showed little interest in the proceedings. Only a few dozen of the hundreds of pro-impeachment activists who had come to the Rayburn Office Building at 7 am in order to get seats in the Judiciary Committee hearing room were allowed in, with the rest having to remain in the hall or go to two remote “overflow” rooms to watch the proceedings on a TV hookup. Conyers also went along with a call by Republican members of the committee to have some of those who did make it into the hearing ejected simply for wearing buttons on their shirts calling for impeachment (the Republican members referred to these as “signs”), though such small personal tokens are routinely allowed in congressional hearing rooms.
It was clear that this was to be a tightly controlled and strictly limited hearing.
It was also clear that it was intended to go nowhere.
At one point, after hearing witnesses like Fein, Bugliosi, former representative and Nixon impeachment committee member Elizabeth Holtzman, former Salt Lake City mayor and impeachment activist Rocky Anderson, former House Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr, former Watergate Committee counsel and current senior counsel of the Brennan Center for Justice Frederick A.O. Schwartz, and Elliott Adams, president of the board of Veterans for Peace, lay out the administration’s crimes and abuses of power—which included charges of usurping the legislative powers of Congress, violating international treaties, war crimes, lying to Congress, an illegal war, felony violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment, defying Congressional subpoenas, obstruction of justice and more, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Constitution subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, appeared convinced that the abuses were real and serious.
But Nadler, who for two years has been a major obstacle on the Judiciary Committee to any efforts to move impeachment to a formal hearing, said, “No president has been removed from office through impeachment.” He asked the witnesses, “How would you approach impeachment today so it would be a viable option?”
Former Rep. Holtzman responded, “The real remedy to a president who believes he is above the law is impeachment. There is no running away from that.” She said, “An impeachment inquiry, handled fairly, could work. Maybe I’m a cockeyed optimist, but I believe it could work.”
The basic point, made by Holtzman, by Fein and by many others, including this writer, is that worrying about the political opposition to impeachment, both in the House, and in the Senate, not to mention among the broader public, is completely wrongheaded. Even when impeachment articles were first filed against Nixon, the public and the bulk of the Congress were solidly against the idea (unlike Bush, who has a 19% approval rating, Nixon had just won an epic landslide re-election victory in 1972 against George McGovern). It was during the hearings that the tide turned, as evidence of malfeasance, criminality and abuse of power became evident through hearing testimony. The same would certainly happen in the case of President Bush and/or Vice President Cheney. Most Americans don’t even know that the president made up evidence to justify the war against Iraq out of whole cloth. They don’t know what the Geneva Conventions are with regard to torture. They don’t know why Congress passed the FISA act, which Bush has been feloniously violating to spy on them (it was passed because Nixon was using the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without judicial warrants–exactly what Bush is now doing!). They don’t know that Bush has been refusing to enact laws passed by the Congress. Public hearings by an impeachment panel would make all these high crimes and misdemeanors clear on national TV to all sentient Americans. Moreover, as Holtzman pointed out, the president would not be able to use the claim of “executive privilege” to withhold testimony from aides in an impeachment inquiry, the way he has done when they have been subpoenaed by other House and Senate committees. Impeachment would be about violations of the very executive actions he would be claiming privilege on. As well, an impeachment committee, unlike any other committee of the Congress, is specifically sanctioned and empowered in the Constitution, meaning that even strict “constructionist” Federalists on the bench would have a hard time backing presidential obstruction.
As Holtzman noted, “There is no executive privilege in impeachment, because refusing to testify is itself an impeachable offense.”
Committee Republicans, aided by two law professors they had brought in to testify, Stephen Presser of Northwestern University School of Law and Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason University School of Law, tried to argue that impeachment was only meant for crimes in which the official in question, or the president, was seeking personal gain. This nonsense was knocked down by most of the speakers, who quoted numerous founders who had made it clear that what high crimes referred to were actions—even taken with the noblest of intentions—that undermined the Constitution or abused the powers of the office. As Rep. Nadler said, “Impeachment has nothing to do with intentions or with good faith. Impeachment has to do with abuse of power which weakens the balance of power.”
In the end, the hearing petered out, taking no action of any kind—exactly the result that Pelosi, Hoyer and Conyers cynically intended.
Now it is up to the public and the impeachment movement to call the Democratic leadership’s bluff and take impeachment to the next level. Noting that even Rep. Conyers ended the hearing by saying, “We are not done yet, and we do not intend to go away until we achieve the accountability that Congress is entitled to and that the American people deserve,” Rep. Kucinich and five other co-sponsors of his articles of impeachment (Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, Keith Ellison, Maurice Hinchey, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and Hank Johnson) are calling on all Americans to contact their representatives (202-224-3121) and urge them to join in co-sponsoring those articles and in calling for a formal impeachment hearing.
They are also calling on everyone to contact their local and national media, nearly all of whom have blacked out news of impeachment. Incredibly, the New York Times, for example, has not even reported on Friday’s hearing, even as a news “brief.” Those news organizations, like the Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirer, that did report on the hearings did so only in short, inside articles. Though the hearing was aired in full on C-Span (and is still available for download), many Americans don’t even know it happened.
Time is short, but even at this late date, it would be a simple matter to impeach the president on some issues. As several of Friday’s witnesses pointed out, President Bush has essentially dared Congress to act, admitting that he openly violated the FISA law—a felony, and openly admitting that he has refused to enact laws passed by the Congress, claiming a power—unitary executive authority—not even mentioned in the Constitution. He has openly admitted to having known about, and approved, “enhanced interrogation techniques” devised by his subordinates—techniques like waterboarding which clearly violate the Geneva Conventions and US law. No hearings would be required to establish these high crimes and misdemeanors. They could simply be voted on by an Impeachment Committee and sent to the full House for a vote.
Even if there were no time for a Senate trial, the simple act of impeaching the president for one or more abuses of power would serve notice on future presidents that future such abuses would not be tolerated. Failure to do so, and allowing this administration to leave office unimpeached, would send the opposite message: that Congress is no longer a co-equal branch of government, but is merely a consultative body, at best, and that a president is in effect a dictator.
That Pelosi buckled and permitted a hearing on impeachable crimes by the Bush/Cheney administration is a major victory for the impeachment movement, but it must not be the end of the line. Impeachment activists need to now redouble their efforts to make Congress do its Constitutional duty, and initiate a formal impeachment proceeding.
As former Republican representative Bob Barr, now the Libertarian candidate for president, told Friday’s hearing, “We had a nuclear clock during the Cold War. In the ‘90s we had a debt clock. Now we have a Constitution Clock.”
That clock is getting close to midnight, and it is ticking.
Last Friday one of two things indisputably happened. Either a dozen senior Congress members and several well-known expert witnesses went certifiably and collectively insane, or charges of the most extreme executive abuses of power ever heard in the history of this nation were backed up by overwhelming evidence during a six-hour hearing of the House Judiciary Committee focused on the possible need to impeach the President and the Vice President. Either way, a nation with a public communications system worthy of a democracy would have learned the news.
What we actually have in this country is a news media conglomerate that functions as a part of the executive branch of the federal government. Call it the United States Department of Media. But “branch” is not the right word, since the executive branch is all that remains of our government (aside from whatever Dick Cheney is). The legislative and judicial branches have been eliminated. Or, rather, they are constantly and effectively being shut out of the government, in no small part by the Media Department. But “department,” too, is not the right word if one imagines any degree of independent decision making. None of the so-called departments and agencies in the executive government are any longer empowered to make significant decisions independent of the president (and whatever Dick Cheney is). And the Media Department is no exception.
One project of the U.S. Department of Media is the Cover Nothing Network (CNN) on which associate deputy undersecretaries of Media Campbell Brown and Erica Hill reported on Friday that there is not enough time for impeachment and that if the Democrats led the way to impeachment voters would punish them, and that therefore the hearing was a waste of money that could have been better spent publicizing the president kissing babies. I’m not making any of this up. Here’s video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bzx6ttmbTbs
Now, you’d think the Democrats would get credit for successfully violating the laws of physics by impeaching Bush and Cheney after CNN reported that there was not sufficient time to do so. Instead, CNN preemptively reports that instead of a Nobel prize in physics, Democrats would receive opposition from voters if they were to impeach Bush or Cheney, quite regardless of the supposed fact that there is not time to do so. Presumably it is part of CNN’s passion for saving money that allows it to employ public officials too stupid to even realize they’ve done no research whatsoever that might provide them with the slightest clue as to whether or not what they are saying is complete horseshit.
Yet, most of the other state broadcast and cable and print outlets did even better at avoiding the news by reporting nothing at all. That fine performance didn’t cost us a dime, and was worth every penny. But what did we miss?
Well, we missed the fact that the president now violates numerous laws and announces his intention to do so with “signing statements.” This is absolutely unprecedented and indisputably a major violation of the basic outline of the U.S. Constitution. We missed that the current president has violated numerous requests, subpoenas, and contempt citations, effectively shutting down the Congress as a body with any right to control our government or even to know what our government is doing. We missed that this is completely unprecedented and a major violation of the basic system established by the Constitution, and that when Richard Nixon moved in the direction that this president has gone so far in, the Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Nixon. We missed that the current president has openly confessed to violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and that in this and numerous other cases impeachments of Bush and Cheney could be accomplished in under an hour, all the necessary information already being in the public domain.
That is to say, either we missed THAT and much more, or we missed witnessing the mass hypnosis of John Conyers, Hank Johnson, Bruce Fein, Tammy Baldwin, Vincent Bugliosi, Maurice Hinchey, Dennis Kucinich, Robert Wexler, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Liz Holtzman, Rocky Anderson, Elliott Adams, Bob Barr, Bobby Scott, Zoe Lofgren, Jerrold Nadler, and several other individuals, together with dozens of members of the public in the same room and hundreds more outside. Don’t we have a right to know what happened? Who hypnotized them and why? How was it done? Who funded it? And is it possible that what actually occurred on Friday was a long-standing hypnosis wearing off momentarily? How will we ever know? And if we ourselves look at the White House website and appear to see numerous signing statements declaring the right to violate laws, and numerous public refusals to comply with subpoenas, are we going insane too? Are we falling into some sort of delusion? Are we secretly exploding with repressed anger and hatred for bibles, guns, and flags? And why do we hate our country so much?