Canada and it’s flag….does anybody else see the upside down bunny?

Canada is a myth. At least if you tilt your head and squint it would appear that way. If you trudge through the miles of political and legal mumbo jumbo you might come out the other side with a belief that the country that has gifted the world with such wonders as William Shatner, Joe Shuster, Martin Short, James Doohan, the geek-god Nathan Fillion, the delicious Tim Hortons restaurant chain and has been the butt of many jokes made by Americans may not be what it seems. Or you might end up forgetting why you were sorting through all that stuff and instead find yourself contemplating why Canada produces so many people associate with the world of geek but that is a conspiracy theory for another time.

According to one person “Canada is neither a federation nor does its government operate with legitimate authority”, this makes all of its politicians and its entire Bar Association criminals for knowing but not saying or doing anything about it. Canada has been inhabited for millennia by aboriginal peoples. In the late 15^th century British and French expeditions explored and eventually settled the regions Atlantic coast. In 1763 France ceded almost all of its colonies in North America to Britain. In 1867 Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces after the union of three British North American colonies through confederation and the British Parliament passed the British North America Act which became the core of the Canadian Constitution. It is at this point that things begin to get hairy.  In 1931 the Statute of Westminster was passed and established legislative equality for the self-governing dominions of the British Empire with the United Kingdom. This applied to Canada but excluded the British North America Acts, the then-current written elements of the Canadian Constitution. Then in 1982 Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister and worked to “patriate” the Canadian Constitution. But the provincial premiers could not reach an agreement on certain provisions within the proposal until nine of the premiers agreed on a compromise bill in late-night negotiations that excluded Quebec’s premier. And apparently Quebec has yet to sign the Canadian Constitution.

Canada’s history is a tangled mess that is hard to unravel but at its core may be hiding the fact that Canada is not what they want us to believe it is.

Petraeus testifying in 2010 for a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing.

The former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) announced his resignation stating that he had an extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell, his biographer. Since the announcement and his resignation this affair has begun a wave of media obsession. Since the resignation, multiple broadcasters have followed and reported the “steamy and “tawdry” sex scandal.

Conservative media members have begun to speculate that these allegations of a sex scandal for Petraeus and his eventual resignation are directly connected to the CIA related incident in Benghazi. Charles Karuthammer, from Fox News Tuesday night, indicated that the Petraeus Broadwell affair “was being held over [Petraeus'] head” when the September 13th testimonies were presented in regards to Benghazi, potentially forcing him to have no choice but to resign.

Conservative radio personality, Rush Limbaugh, stated that he feels that the administration still has something to hold over Petraus’ head. He goes further to say that “if they want him to tell the story about the video, that’s what he’s gonna tell” while holding the hearing in regards to Benghazi set for later this week.

Conservative Pundit, Glenn Beck, feels that the entire sex scandal is nothing more than an elaborate set up. During his show he asked his viewers to think on the key issues of this announcement. “This whole scandal is doing what? How is your opinion of the military? Discredit the last standing honorable American institution we have – the military. This makes no sense, unless your goal is to distract and discredit the military and blame all of the problems on somebody else or distract the media.” He goes further to question why now and what the purpose is of these announcements.

It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20^th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.

To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.

The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.

How Much Did I Accomplish?

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little.  No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness.  In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues.  Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.

All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer.  A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going.  One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and  corporate elite.  And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues.   As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.

The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.

The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”

Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.

I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits.  If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell.  Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.

Authoritarianism vs. Liberty

If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty.  There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.

During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible.  Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.

I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.

Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth.  In our early history we were very much aware of this.  But in the early part of the 20^th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax.  The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.

They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.

Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved  for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.

But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady.  It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.

The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected.  As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.

The Age of Redistribution

This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone.  That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.

The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market.  It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.

The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail.  We have ended up with a system that doesn’t produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.

If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time.  Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.

We Need an Intellectual Awakening

Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law.  A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.

If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties.  Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.

This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled.  Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy.  Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely—that is until it too fails.  There’s a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option.  The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be pretty.

The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism.  And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future.  The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.

If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored.  By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.

Everyone claims support for freedom.  But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others.  Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited.  These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.

No More ‘isms’

The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.”  The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less.  Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.

Just this recognition—especially if we move in this direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial.  The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.

But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.

Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the  one that we have  had for the  last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers.  We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.

It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself.  Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer.  The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.

After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders.  In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed.  Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome.  The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.

Dependency on Government Largesse

Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need.  Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:

• Undeclared wars are commonplace.

• Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.

• The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.

• Debt is growing exponentially.

• The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4^th Amendment rights.

• Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.

• The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.

• It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.

• Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.

• Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”

• Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.

• Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.

• Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.

Questions

Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:

• Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?

• Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?

• Why can’t Americans manufacture rope and other products from hemp?

• Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?

• Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York?  Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?

• Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?

• Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?

• Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?

• Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?

• Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?

• Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?

• Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?

• Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world -the one between Mexico and the US?

• Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?

• Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?

• Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?

• Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?

• Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?

• Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?

• Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?

• Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.

• Why is it is claimed that if people won’t  or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?

• Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?

• Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?

• Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?

• Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?

• Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?

• Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world’s great religions.

• Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and  foreign policy?

• Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?

• Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?

Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration?   Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes.  The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems.  Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.

Trust Yourself, Not the Government

Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves.  Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades.  The blame is shared by both political parties.  Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop.  Without this first step, solutions are impossible.

Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity.  The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.

We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.

Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced.  Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats.  This replaces the confidence in a free society.  Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they,   armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production.  This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty.  It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.

It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.

Economic Ignorance

Economic ignorance is commonplace.  Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals.  Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber.

Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty.  This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge.  But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.  Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions.  The results are always negative.

The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems.  Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world.  Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal.  The good results sought never materialize.  The new problems created require even more government force as a solution.  The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.

This is the same fundamental reason our government  uses force  for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order.  Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.

No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence

Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society.  Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream.  We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000.  Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.

Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.

We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.

The Proliferation of Federal Crimes

The Constitution established four federal crimes.  Today the experts can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they number into the thousands.  No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system—especially the tax code.  Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China.  I don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws.  Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems.

The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year.  When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.

Achieving Liberty

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force.  If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed.  To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

Two choices are available.

1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective.  The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.  Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations.  Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer.  This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages.  Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible.  It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously.  Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that:  “power corrupts.”

Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government.  Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression.  There’s no in-between.  Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.

Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.

The results are not good.  As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed.  The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system.  It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.

The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis

Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis.  It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power.  Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.

Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2.  There is no other choice.  Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.”  It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise.  What we see today is a result of that type of thinking.  And the results speak for themselves.

A Culture of Violence

American now suffers from a culture of violence.  It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will.

Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate.  Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt.  It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.”  They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.”  The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority.  Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.

This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,” as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified.  This is similar to what we were once told that:  “destroying a village to save a village” was justified.  It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it” to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people.  And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.

Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms.  The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.

First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence, then we give the authority to government.   Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority.  If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.

When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority.  It’s then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs.  As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase—as are already occurring— violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs.  They will not wait for a government rescue program.

When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer   just can’t be helped.

When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs.  All moral standards become relative.  Whether it’s bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth.  Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.

Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is all about.

Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government.  It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.

To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected.  Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.

Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed.  The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people.  The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.

Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government.  The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty.  The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt.  The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.

If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.

If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.

It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time.  This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due.  This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.

But that illusion is now ending.  Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.

Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.

The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.

Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.

I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.

Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek.  Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.

If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents.

Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of  personal achievement.

Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions.  The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior.  Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.

Conclusion                                                                                                                                                    

What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.               

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.                                                         

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.                                        

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.                                               

 5. World government taking over  local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking,  a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.

Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.                                                     

What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression.  The retort to such a suggestion is always:  it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.

The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.

What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20^th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions.  It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior.  Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny.  This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried.  The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war.  The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time.  It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.

Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.

What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.

The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people.  Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them.  Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.

Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”  John Adams concurred:  “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.

A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society.  All great religions endorse the Golden Rule.  The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials.  They cannot be exempt.

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.

The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow.  This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society.  If we can achieve this, then the government will change.

It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.

Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.

The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome.  Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare.  Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies.  These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism.  Both views ought to be rejected.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.”  The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.

Some thoughts from Internet users about the petition and the White House’s petition system:

Unnecessarily long lines for Florida voters.

U.S. law permits international observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in only a few states. They have access to polls in states that include South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, District of Columbia, and New Mexico. U.S. Governors, in a few states, decide if they will allow international observers. Churov says that some states that must allow them to observe their polling stations can barr them. He says that this lack of transparency could lead to a corrupt voting system.

“American voting machines have not been designed to provide any documentary evidence of citizen participation in the electoral process,” said Curov. “Moreover, operators [of the machinery] are technically capable of adding or dropping votes in favor of one candidate or another, leaving behind no evidence of violations.”

Another critical problem that the committe found was the fact that the electronic voting machines do not provide a receipt to the voter. Therefore, this can lead to easy manipulation of the vote. Many are concerned that these voting machines could be hacked and election results could be vulnerable.

Studies have shown that voting machines can be tampered with for less than $20 and by persons with a limited grade school education. A hacker can change the vote and leave no evidence that he was there.

“Voting machines used by as many as a quarter of American voters heading to the polls in 2012 can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an eighth grade science education, according to computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois,” reported Salon.

The popular belief that the our president will be chosen by every American citizen is untrue. He will be elected by the electoral college which is actually 280 electors. Churov believes that a vulnerable electoral system will not guarantee a democracy.

Husted is deliberately disenfranchising people’s right to vote.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) recently issued a directive that could nullify legal provisional ballots. Ohio is well known as the most discerning state for both of the presidential campaigns since many polls are showing that the race is extremely close, this could definitely effect the results of the entire presidential election.

Husted’s directive was just issued on Friday, and it states the mandatory requirements in order to file a provisional ballot. One mandatory requirement is the completion of a special form with specific identification instructions that needs to be filled out correctly by the voter in order for their ballot to count. A lawsuit that was filed by advocates for voter’s rights states that this directive is a direct contradiction to a court’s decision on provisional voting ballots, and that it contradicts various statements made by Mr. Husted’s attorney at a court hearing that took place on October 24th.

Based on an excerpt from the lawsuit, the directive also contradicts Ohio’s laws:

Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.181(B)(6) provides that, once a voter casting a provisional ballot proffers identification, “the appropriate local election official shall record the type of identification provided, the social security number information, the fact that the affirmation was executed, or the fact that the individual declined to execute such an affirmation and include that information with the transmission of the ballot…”

The law states that any issues with a voter’s identification will be dealt with immediately on site, in order to ensure that the voter’s ballot is validated and counted in the election. The directive shifts the responsibility of providing accurate and proper identification to the voter, which in turn increases the possibility that their ballots will not be considered. This shift in responsibility can greatly affect the outcome of this year’s election, and with the two candidates running such a close race, every valid ballot should be accounted for.

Mr. Husted has until Monday to file a response to the lawsuit, and the dispute is expected to be resolved before November 17, the date when the provisional ballots are counted. Additionally, Mr. Husted has recently reduced early voting hours, limiting the voting options for Ohio residents.

email: timothychilman@yahoo.com

U.S. government documents tell of a planned invasion of Canada. Such a thing has been attempted before.

Quebecois defend against American attack in 1775

The first major military effort of the American Revolutionary War was an invasion of Canada led by Benedict Arnold prior to his turning traitor. In the course of Mr. Madison’s War (1812-1815), several invasions were attempted. It was in 1839 that Americans in Maine challenged Canadians over a border squabble known formally as the Aroostock War and informally as the Pork ‘n Beans War. No shots were fired, but an American cow, a Canuck pig, and a few American militiamen were injured. In 1866, 1870, and 1871, around 800 Americans of Irish extraction sought to deliver a blow in the name of Irish liberty by invading Canada. In the 1866 episode, they traversed the Niagara River and moved to Ontario, bested some Canadian militiamen, and then fled in the face of British soldiers.

The premiere Confederate warship, the CSS Alabama, was built in the United Kingdom

During the War of Northern Aggression (1861-65), the United Kingdom came close to war with the Union. Confederate sympathizers sheltered in Canada, from which they launched raids. One of the ships the United Kingdom built for the Confederates was the CSS Alabama, which destroyed or captured 65 ships. British diplomat Lord Lyons wrote to his superior: “There can, unhappily, be no doubt that three-quarters of the American people are eagerly longing for a safe opportunity of making war with England.” The United Kingdom’s sympathies for the Confederates were the prime reason for the emancipation of slaves by Abe Lincoln – the United Kingdom opposed slavery so British support for Johnny Reb would be undermined. In 1895, President Cleveland threatened the Untied Kingdom with war over a border dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana (present-day Guyana).

In October 1970, in response to Québécois separatist activity, U.S. troops and armor moved to the Canadian border and prepared to occupy Montreal and Ottawa, according to an interview the Royal Canadian Mounted Police director of counter-intelligence gave to the Toronto Star in 1973. The story was confirmed by a nameless Canadian army officer. It is rumored that U.S. armed forces were put on alert at the time of the sovereignty referendum in Quebec in 1980.

The poster for "Canadian Bacon"

The idea of invading Canada has manifested itself in American popular culture. The 1995 film, Canadian Bacon, had American president Alan Alda decide to stimulate the economy through initiating conflict with Diet America. His call to arms was: “Surrender pronto, or we’ll level Toronto.” The 1999 film, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, saw the United States declare war on Canada. 2002 saw the right-wing magazine, the National Review, featured an essay entitled “Bomb Canada: the Case for War,” which suggested the the United States mount a lightning raid on Canada, where something would be blown up, possibly a vacant hockey stadium. Canada would then stop wasting money on the frippery of universal healthcare and instead lavish cash on its underdeveloped military. Author Jonah Goldberg said that this would transmogrify “Canada’s neurotic anti-Americanism” into “manly resolve.”

The website, invadecanada.us, lists many sound reasons for invading Canada, although it says it doesn’t want the permafrost bit. Alaska would be joined to the rest of the United States, for starters – so many Alaskans perpetually complain of being separate from the “continental 48 states.” An invasion could be justified, as so often, by humanitarian reasons: the magnetic north pole is in Canada, and Santa Claus must be protected.

The military hero of the United States is General Douglas MacArthur. That of Canada is Dudley Do-Right. They don't really compare, do they?

Success, the website says, would be guaranteed. The military hero of the United States is General Douglas MacArthur, while that of Canada is Dudley Do-Right. Due to Canada’s French streak, the white flags would be out before U.S. forces even left home.

War Plan Red was a plan to defeat the British Empire. The Empire was Red, while Canada was Crimson. The plan was approved in May, 1930, by the Secretaries of War and the Navy. Its objective was: “ULTIMATELY, TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL OF CRIMSON.”

In a joint Army/Navy mission, troops would travel the 370 miles from Boston to St. Margaret’s Bay and seize the port of Halifax early in the war. This would isolate Canadian forces from their British allies: Halifax is the only ice-free port on the east coast, and it was where the transatlantic cable came ashore.

Among the other targets were Montreal, then Canada’s largest city, Quebec, the railroad hub of Winnipeg, and the nickel mines of Ontario. The Navy would take the Great Lakes and blockade Canada’s essential Pacific and Atlantic ports. Power plants near the Niagara Falls would be captured so that, as Peter Carlson put it in the Washington Post, the people of Canada would “freeze in the dark.”

Winnipeg is 60 miles from the U.S. border. Seizure of Quebec and Winnipeg would, the plan said, cripple those Canadian industries which depended on steam power. The plan said that Winnipeg was “the nerve center of the transcontinental railroad,” control of which would effectively separate the eastern and western halves of Canada, and prevent transportation of men, oil, grain, coal, and meat to eastern Canada. British Caribbean possessions would be conquered to prevent a British attack from the south. Carlson added that the plan would “bring these Molson-swigging, maple-mongering Zamboni drivers to their knees!”

War Plan Red assumed the British would capture Hawai’i, the Philippines, the Panama Canal, and Guam.

In 1934, the plan for the U.S. invasion of Canada was changed to include chemical weapons.

An amendment to the plan was made in 1934 in a memo to the Joint Board from Colonel W. Krueger and Commander A.S. Carpender. The U.S. Army was directed to prepare for the use of chemical weapons against Canada. This would, needless to say, be a humanitarian move, as abbreviating the war would save American lives.

The plan anticipated a long conflict as “the RED race” was “phlegmatic” and well-known for its talent for fighting to the bitter end. The British Empire would be greatly assisted by its generous supply of darkies from around the Empire: “Some of the colored races however come of good fighting stock, and, under white leadership, can be made into very efficient troops.”

Invasion of Canada by the United States was enough of a risk that the Canadian military formulated countermeasures. The solution was to attack first, and divert U.S. attention for long enough for British reinforcements to arrive. Defense Scheme No. 1 was drawn up by First World War hero, James Sutherland “Buster” Brown, who loathed Americans. His total annual budget was $1,200, and he entered the United States in plain clothes to take pictures and obtain free maps from gas stations.

Brown proposed the rapid deployment of flying columns to occupy Seattle, Minneapolis, Great Falls, and Albany. Fancy a Republic of New England? Surprise, he said, was more important than preparation. The American military recognized that a number of American beaches such as Ocean City and Rehoboth would be “excellent” locations for British landings.

Defense Scheme No. 1 was withdrawn in 1928, two years before War Plan Red was authorized, but it could have been dusted off. The United States was undeterred. A military expert, Captain H.L. George, testified to Congress that Canada’s thousands of lakes could serve as bases for seaplanes, from which aircraft could take off and bomb Baltimore and Boston. A secret reconnaissance team was sent to Labrador and Hudson Bay to identify concealed Canadian seaplane facilities. George made those wily Canucks sound really scary. He began: “They know now what they are going to bomb. They know where every railroad crosses every river. They know where every refinery lies. They know where every power plant is located. They know all about our water supply systems… Now they are dispersed widely out over this area. Their location is most difficult for us to learn, for our own air force to learn. We have to hunt them up.”

There is a sizable Canadian fifth column within the United States

Canada has always maintained a sizable fifth column within the United States. These days, it is spearheaded by the likes of Mike Myers and Celine Dion. The news departments of the major television networks are riven with Canucks, and in the event of hostilities, the United States could expect to lose the information war, just as it did in Vietnam. These potential insurgents have thoroughly penetrated U.S. society, and you might be sitting next to one right now! As the plan put it, “it would be necessary to deal internally” with these undesirable elements, plus domestic “pacifists” and other professional complainants. We’re talking internment camps.

The weather would be an obstacle to a U.S. invasion of Canada, so all that “Red” forces need do would be to delay the advance by “Blue,” destroying bridges and railroad tracks and the like. War Plan Red conceded that operations between November 1st and April 15th would be “difficult, if not impossible.”

While any army should prepare for every possible eventuality, War Plan Red went beyond the drawing board. Concrete measures were undertaken to facilitate the invasion of Canada. In 1931, the U.S. government dispatched record-breaking flying hero (and Nazi sympathizer) Charles Lindbergh to Hudson Bay to determine the prospects for using sea planes in warfare.

In February 1935, $57 million was allocated to construct three air bases close to the Canadian Border, to allow for pre-emptive attacks on Canadian airfields. They would be given the appearance of civilian airports. This can be seen on p61 of the February 11-13, 1935 Hearings of the House of Representatives Committee on Military Affairs. The testimony was supposed to be secret, but it was published mistakenly and ended up on page one of the New York Times on May 1. The Canadian government protested, but President Franklin Roosevelt gave reassurances that the United States was not considering war.

Prior to his election to President, Theodore Roosevelt said war between the United States and the United Kingdom was "the greatest boon I could confer upon this nation."

Half-a-dozen years before himself being elected president, President Roosevelt’s fifth cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, penned a letter to General James Harrison Wilson on November 5, 1895 which was quoted in The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. It said that “the greatest boon I could confer upon this nation” was a prompt war with the United Kingdom to take Canada. He said, “I will do my very best to bring about the day.” So of course, we believe the other Roosevelt’s protestations.

In August 1935, the United States held what was then its largest ever peacetime mobilization of forces when 36,000 troops converged south of Ottawa and 15,000 were held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The scenario was a vehicle-borne invasion of Canada. It was well-documented by the Souvenir of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History.

In 1939, as the Second World War began, the U.S. Army War College and Naval War College planned an “Overseas Expeditionary Force to Capture Halifax from Red-Crimson Coalition.” War Plan Red received much more attention than War Plan Black, the plan for war with Germany, with whom the United States actually went to war.

When questioned about War Plan Red, the director of the Canada Institute in Washington said, “I’ve never heard of it.” The spokesman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington said, “I remember sort of hearing about this.” The mayor of Sudbury, Ontario, where nickel mines were prime targets of the plan, said, “It’s the first I’ve heard of it.” A Pentagon spokesman said that he was unaware of War Plan Red, but conceded that he would not admit to it even if he were not. The mayor of Winnipeg, another major target, said that weather would cause a U.S. invasion of Canada to end up like Napoleon’s venture into Russia: “I’m quite convinced that you’ll meet your Waterloo on the banks of the Assiniboine River.”

Any invasion of Canada by the United States is likely to begin at Fort Drum, half an hour from the Canadian border. In 1984, Fort Drum accommodated only an engineering battalion, but it was later expanded in the largest Army construction project ever by the Corps of Enginqueers, although there was already a surplus of military bases. Now, Fort Drum is home to a rapid assault light division and a reserve armored division of 30,000 troops.

Perhaps the Canadian Airborne Regiment could have halted a U.S. invasion of Canada, if only it had not been disbanded in 1995.

It would be simplicity itself to seize the Canadian military communications center at Kingston, Ontario and cut Canadian forces off. Taking Highway 2 and Highway 401 would prevent reinforcements from reaching Toronto and the capital of Ottawa. “Surrender pronto, or we’ll level Toronto.” Perhaps the Canadian Airborne Regiment could have stopped it, if only it had not been disbanded in 1995.

Unlike paratroopers or Marines, the 10th Mountain Division is not designed to attack defended borders. It specializes in surprise attack, and is trained and equipped for house-to-house combat and winter warfare. There is a center for urban warfare at Fort Drum. Fort Drum’s troops are not well-disposed to rapid deployment to overseas troublespots because of the area’s chronic bad weather: snowfall is 10 feet on average, and a nearby village boasts the New York State record of 40 feet. The site is actually used for Arctic weather training, and the Corps of Enginqueers found that Fort Drum had the worst weather in all the eastern United States.

The light vehicles and helicopters of the 10th Mountain Division would be considerably better suited to an attack on Ontario or Southern Quebec. Invasion was also planned in 1888, 1893, 1896, 1909, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1916, and 1921. In 1896, the Secretary of the Navy instructed Commodore “Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!” Gridly to evaluate Canadian defenses and plan an invasion. Gridly recommended the attack originate below Ogdensburg, close to present-day Fort Drum. It would have been a surprise attack not preceded by a declaration of war, just like Pearl Harbor. War games in 1910 produced the headline “Canadian Army Crushed” in New York.

The official spokesman for Fort Drum said, “We most certainly are not preparing to invade Canada” and that the idea was difficult to believe. Many Canadian soldiers were training there, he said: “I bumped into a Canadian officer in the bathroom the other day.”

If the United States wished to conduct war against Canada, an excuse could be manufactured, such as the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana in 1898.

It will not be long afore the oil runs out, unrestrained commercialism has left U.S. aquifers too poisonous to supply drinking water, and global warming has turned the U.S. heartland into desert. Then, the United States will gaze north, covetously. A crisis will be manufactured, along the lines of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction or the USS Maine, and then the United States will invade. It could so easily be flavored as some kind of Christian crusade. The American public can be deceived into allowing its soldiers to be sent anywhere on the flimsiest of pretexts.

War Plan Red acknowledged that the Royal Navy could not

Obesity in the U.S. military has doubled since 2003.

be defeated, and even now it is down to about three ships and NO AIRCRAFT CARRIER, the famed British ingenuity could perhaps pull off a naval blockade to starve the United States of oil. Hey, the United States is rather large and its terrain passable. Mayhaps Mexico could be persuaded to undertake a little irridentism, and bring the Texicans back into the fold. Fuck you, Major General Paul Vallely. U.S. cities are densely populated, and would be highly susceptible to the merest hint of cold steel. Obesity in the U.S. military has doubled since 2003.

The hostile intentions of the United States toward Canada are plain to see, and should they become so evident as to guarantee public support, the United Kingdom would be well-advised to get its retaliation in first, just like with Defense Scheme No. 1. It would be time to send in the lads, and the British Empire would rise again.

Bibliography

“A 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada.” Glasnost – Archiv. 1 February 1995. 23 September 2011. <http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html.>
“War Plan Crimson.” Globalsecurity.org. n.d. 23 September 2011. <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-red-crimson.htm.>
“War Plan Red.” Globalsecurity.org. n.d. 23 September 2011. <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-red.htm.>
“Why invade Canada?” InvadeCanada.US. n.d. 23 September 2011.
Carlson, Peter. “Raiding the Icebox.” Washington Post. 30 December 2005. 23 September 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412.html.>
Gerrie, David. “War on the ‘Red Empire’: How America planned for an attack on BRITAIN in 1930 with bombing raids and chemical weapons.” Daily Mail. 21 September 2011. 23 September 2011. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039453/How-America-planned-destroy-BRITAIN-1930-bombing-raids-chemical-weapons.html.>
Rudmin, Floyd. “Bordering on Aggression.” Peace Magazine. n.d. 23 September 2011. <http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v09n2p20.htm.>
Rudmin, Floyd. “Secret War Plans and the Malady of American Militarism.” Counterpunch. 18 February 2006. 23 September 2011. <http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/02/17/secret-war-plans-and-the-malady-of-american-militarism/.>
Soniak, Matt. “America’s Plan to Invade Everyone.” Mental Floss. 21 January 2008. 23 September 2011. <http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/11388.>

email: timothychilman@yahoo.com

But he seems like such a nice guy! Photo: IvanWalsh.com

Al Gore seems like a nice guy. He ought to have been president in 2000, he won the Nobel Peace Prize, he was a major stoner back in the 70s,” and he struggles valiantly against climate change. He is, however, also said to be a “crazed sex poodle.”

Molly Hagerty alleges that Gore made sexual advances upon her on October 24, 2006, in the upmarket Hotel Lucia, when Gore visited Portland to deliver a speech on climate change. Hagerty canceled appointments with detectives on December 21 and 26 of that year. Her attorney, sexual misconduct specialist Randall Vogt, canceled another that was scheduled for January 4, 2007, saying that the matter would be dealt with civilly and that his client did not desire publicity. Hagerty’s refusal to be interviewed by detectives dictated that an investigation could not proceed. The police report said, “This case is exceptionally cleared as refuses to co-operate with the investigation or even report a crime.”

On January 8, 2009, Hagerty contacted police again and gave a lengthy, written statement to Detective Molly Daul, who questioned her for more than two hours. Gore had addressed a crowd of close to full capacity at the Rose Garden’s Theater of the Clouds, telling them that human-induced climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our time. Hagerty had been surprised to be told by the hotel’s front desk that she had an appointment with him. He had booked in as “Mr. Stone.” The appointment was for 10:30p.m., but she was told Gore would not be free until 11p.m. When the time came, she knocked on the door of his room, and found herself facing Al Gore. He gave her an embrace which “went on a bit long.” She noted that he had clearly been drinking. She asked what she should call him, and received the reply: “Call me Al.” Hagerty says that Gore strongly recommended that she drink cognac, although she had said that she didn’t drink alcohol.

Al Gore received a massage. Photo: JisikMassage

The massage was divided into sessions of 90 and 75 minutes. Gore, wearing nowt but a sheet, requested abdominal work. He began to moan and “demanded” that his masseuse go lower. “I was shocked, and I did not massage beyond what is considered a safe, nonsexual area of the abdomen… He further insisted and acted angry, becoming verbally sharp and loud… <he> grabbed my hand, shoved it down under the sheet to his pubic hair area, my fingers brushing against his penis and firmly planted my hand on his pubic crest region and said to me ‘There!’ in a very sharp, loud, angry-sounding tone… I went into much deeper shock as I realized it appeared he was demanding sexual favors or sexual behaviors.”

Gore, Hegarty said, asked “for release of his second chakra there” – a hand job. In such circumstances, Hagerty did not wish to merely leave. Her client was “Teflon-coated in terms of his credibility and celebrity status.” She was concerned that if she ran away screaming, she might be shot or Tasered by Gore’s security staff. She did not think anyone would believe she was the injured party, but she did think a word from Gore could ruin her reputation.

So she used acupressure in an attempt to relax Gore to the point of sleeping. Afterward, she went to the bathroom to wash and emerged to pack.

Hagerty said that Gore, now wearing a robe, “pleaded, groped me, grabbed me, engulfed me in embrace, tongue kissed me, massaged me, grabbed my breasts.” She says he engulfed her in an “inescapable embrace.” She called him a “crazed sex poodle” and attempted to distract him with a box of Moonstruck chocolates. He took some, and offered them to her. Hagerty says he cornered her, got his hands on the goods once again, inserted his tongue to her mouth and tried to pull her camisole down.

Hagerty said, “I was distressed, shocked and terrified.” She was, she said, intimidated by the “rotund” figure Gore cut and his “violent temper, dictatorial, commanding attitude.” She said it was in marked contrast to his “Mr. Smiley global warming concern persona.” Hagerty claims Gore attempted to lure her to the bed to listen to the song Dear Mr. President by Pink, which he played on his iPod and to which he sang along. There was further hand-holding, kissing, and crotch-grabbing. She claims she injured her left leg and knee, which subsequently required months of medical care.

Hagerty described Gore as a "crazed sex poodle." Photo: Rafael Amado Deras

Hagerty claims that Gore threw her onto the bed and lay atop her, trapping her. She says she shouted: “Get off me, you big lummox!” before breaking free and exiting under the cover of “humor and a sense of verbal gentle playfulness.”

“I did not immediately call the police as I feared being made into a public spectacle and my reputation being destroyed… I was not sure what to tell them and was concerned my story would not be believed since there was no DNA evidence from a completed act of rape. I did not even know what to call what had happened to me.”

After the encounter, she took a very long shower and brushed her teeth “to get out the GrandMarnier and Al Gore’s tongue and germs out of my mouth.”

Days after the alleged episode, Hagerty communicated telephonically with a close friend, Donna Burleigh. She said that in the course of her work, she had been sexually assaulted by “someone in the higher ups” whom she feared. She fretted that “things are going to come to a head” and that there would be “all kinds of media coverage.” She did not name the guilty party.

Hagerty said separately that to begin with, liberal friends she labeled “the Birkenstock Tribe” dissuaded her from contacting police. One in particular “was basically asking me to just suck it up, otherwise the world’s going to be destroyed by global warming.” She also feared she would not be believed. She finally came forward six weeks after the event to protect other women who might have suffered similar trauma. She said, “He should not get a free pass merely because of his position. People in power are not to be given a license to behave in ways that the rest of us are not.” She added, “This is like people going nuts on the MAX and you want to get off before they beat you up,”

At first, police said that procedural irregularities warranted reopening of the case, although extensive public criticism of the department’s handling of the affair may also have forced the move. A 73-page Confidential Special Report was drawn up, but it was later decided that there was not enough evidence to substantiate the allegations. On June 3, 2010, Hagerty asked for a copy of her statement, which she intended to present to the media.

She said that the incident worsened her pre-existing health problems. Her sleep was disrupted, her work was “more stressful and frightening since the incident,” and she contacted the Portland Women’s Crisis Line, who recommended she speak to police. Burleigh said, “When she got violated, she has not been the same since… She was talking about how she wanted to go to the hospital because she was having panic attacks, then it started getting worse.” She “freaked out” when Gore returned to Portland years later. As Burleigh put it: “She said her predator was back and coming to town.”

The front page of the Enquirer on 29 June 2020. Photo: Anwardotcom2

Burleigh was aware that her friend had solicited a lawyer in order to pursue a civil case, but was rather surprised to see a headline of “AL GORE SEX ATTACK!!!” on the front page of the National Enquirer on June 22, 2010. The week after, the headline was “‘AL GORE IS A PERVERT & SEXUAL PREDATOR.’” Burleigh said, “She’s not out for freakin’ money. This lady, all she wants is this man accountable for his actions.”

Hagerty said, “I did not want to be labeled a gold digger like the women in this situation are often labeled.” Although she was not out for freakin’ money, the Washington Post reported that she received a million dollars from the Enquirer. That esteemed publication routinely pays sources for information, but editor-in-chief Tony Frost said that no payment was made, although a million dollars had been requested. Hagerty refused to reveal whether she had obtained freakin’ money. The Enquirer claimed to have the $540 bill for massage, which included a 20 percent gratuity. The price seems rather high for an appointment with no sexual high jinx. Frost said the Enquirer had got wind of the story from a tip. He added that the Enquirer had performed “a great deal of work” to ascertain the veracity of the story, although Portland police confirmed that this did not include actually speaking to them.

Hagerty owned an african gray parrot.

Burleigh runs S&D Exotic Bird Rescure from her home, and met Hagerty when she brought a Macaw called Toto, which she wanted to find a good home. The bird had been too loud for her apartment. She joined the organization’s board of directors, and helps to place birds through Craigslist. Burleigh said that Hagerty is “a big-hearted person” who kept birds, including African Gray and Quaker parrots.

Pepe Moscoso, a photographer and artist who resides in the same apartment complex in Southeast Portland, said that Hagerty was “very spiritual,” and that they would discuss astrology. She always talked to him and his wife when they walked outside with their daughters.

Neighbor Rusty Pranger said Hagerty was sufficiently friendly that she would stop to say “hi” on the sidewalk. She attempted to speak basic Russian to some immigrant neighbors.

Having allowed three years to elapse since Gore’s supposed indiscretion, Hagerty was considered to face a “tremendous” challenge by investigators and prosecutors. In the words of Sergeant Adam Hofstein, supervisor of the special victims unit of Broward County Sheriff’s Department, “Your forensic evidence is waning, the time weighs on people’s recollections and their credibility.” But he said that all steps would still be taken: “You are still within the statute of limitations. You still have a felony.” The allegations were classed as third-degree sexual abuse, for which the statute of limitations is four years, plus another three if the accused does not reside in the state.

Harry O’Reilly headed a special victims unit in New York prior to his retirement. He now teaches sex crime investigative methods to law enforcement. He says that police might consider message therapy to be a “dubious profession,” that the elapsed time is problematic, and that the accusations do not amount to rape.

Hagerty had been a licensed massage therapist for 12 years. She has a professional diploma from the Oregon School of Massage, has completed training at the Northwest Acupressure Institute, studied preliminary Chinese medicine studies at the Oregon College of Oriental Medicine, and has a bachelor of science degree in liberal studies from Portland State University.

Hagerty did not follow the usual standard procedure for massage therapists. Massage therapists will tell you that in-room massage can be delicate, as they can never be sure what are the client’s expectations and the location is the client’s territory. If the client behaves inappropriately, the therapist should explain that the massage is therapeutic, and if undesirable behavior persists, the session is terminated. Usually, this will put paid to unwanted advances. Massage schools often spend an afternoon teaching how to respond to such a situation.

Hagerty spoke of a client whose desire for sexual contact was apparent from the beginning: he dimmed the lights, asked for “adductor” (inner thigh) work, moaned, and told her to go lower. Instead of ending the appointment, she said, “Show me what you want to do.” A massage therapist can obviously inform authorities of a client’s behavior, but informing the Enquirer is deeply unethical.

Hagerty’s own behavior after her terrifying ordeal is highly suspect. Days later, she sent the hotel a letter saying: ‘I provide at length additional late-hours’ professional services for your VIP guest per his personal in-person request, with, of course, the utmost of discretion, and did so with only a few hours’ notice… I am more than confident that the guest was completely happy with the professional services I delivered, and will be more than fine with cleaning up the balance due.’

The red-headed Hagerty acknowledges that after the massage, she called Gore and told him to “‘dream of red-haired women.” Hagerty did not act as if she were terrified of Gore.

Gore announced that he was splitting from his wife, Tipper, less than a month before the scandal erupted.

Gore’s attorneys wrote to the Portland Tribune in 2007 to state that Hagerty’s tale was “completely false.” A friend of Gore said that he confirmed a massage had occurred on the night in question, and probably by Hagerty. Gore announced that he was splitting from his wife, Tipper, on June 1, shortly before the scandal erupted, although according to a spokeswoman, the scandal was not the reason for the split, and Tipper believed him to be innocent. The spokeswoman said that Tipper knew that massage had been a key element of Gore’s fitness regimen for “many, many, many years.”

The Portland Tribune reported that Hagerty had a history of falsely accusing people of maltreating her. She failed a polygraph test. The damage to her reputation she feared seems to have been done: a minivan in the parking lot of her apartment complex which neighbors said belonged to her was egged and smeared with white goo. Nor is it the first time she has had man trouble: in 1998, she was refused a restraining order against a former boyfriend.

No civil suit has been forthcoming. It would seem that this particular conspiracy theory does not hold water, and just as well. As one person to comment put it, a sex scandal involving Al Gore is like one involving Lieutenant Commander Data from Star Trek: the Next Generation: technically possible, but unbelievable in the absence of videotape and DNA evidence.

Bibliography

“Al Gore accused of ‘sexually harassing’ massage therapist.” Telegraph. 24 June 2010. 15 September 2011. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/7850976/Al-Gore-accused-of-sexually-harassing-massage-therapist.html.>
Bernstein, Maxine. “Portland massage therapist who accused Al Gore of groping confided in a friend shortly after the 2006 incident.” The Oregonian. 24 June 2010. 15 September 2011. <http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/close_friend_says_portland_mas.html.>
Weiner, Juli. “Majority of Internet Resists Convenient Al Gore–Massage Therapist Puns.” Vanity Fair. 24 June 2010. 15 September 2011. <http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/06/majority-of-internet-resists-convenient-al-goremassage-therapist-puns.>
Wachtel, Katya. “Two More Massage Therapists Accuse Al Gore of Sexual Assault.” Business Insider. 21 July 2010. 15 Septemeber 2011. <http://www.businessinsider.com/two-more-women-accuse-al-gore-of-assault-2010-7.>
“An Inconvenient Rumor: Al Gore Accused of Sexual Assault on Massage Therapist.” The Hollywood Gossip. 23 June 2010. 15 September 2011. <http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2010/06/an-inconvenient-rumor-al-gore-accused-of-sexual-assault-on-massa/.>
Pilkington, Ed. “Al Gore sex assault claim: US police reopen massage therapist’s case.” Guardian. 1 July 2010. 15 September 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/01/al-gore-sex-assault-claim-massage-therapist.>
Shahid, Aliyah. “Former Vice President Al Gore not charged after masseuse’s sexual harassment claim at Oregon hotel.” N.Y. Daily News. 24 June 2010. 15 September 2011. <http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-06-24/news/27068088_1_massage-therapist-claim-unwanted-sexual-contact.>
“Al Gore Recalls a Pleasant, Uneventful Massage.” N.Y. Mag. 25 June 2010. 15 September 2011. <http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/06/al_gore_recalls_a_pleasant_une.html.>
Brown, Anitra. “Thoughts On The Al Gore Massage Scandal.” About.com – Spas. 30 June 2010 15 September 2011. <http://spas.about.com/b/2010/06/30/al-gore-masssage-scandal.htm.>
Taylor, Sophie. “Police reopen Al Gore massage sex assault case.” The First Post. 1 July 2010. 15 September 2011. <http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/65269,people,news,police-reopen-al-gore-massage-sex-assault-case.>
“Al Gore investigated by police after massage therapist accuses him of sexual abuse.” Daily Mail. 1 July 2010. 15 September 2011. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289014/Al-Gore-accused-massage-therapist-Molly-Hagerty-sexual-abuse-police-reopen-probe.html.>
“Gore ‘Unequivocally’ Denies Allegations That He Groped a Massage Therapist.” Fox News. 1 July 2010. 15 September 2011. <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/portland-police-reopen-sexual-misconduct-case-gore/.>
McGee, Tiffany. “Al Gore Accused of Sexual Assault.” People. 24 June 2010. 15 September 2011.<http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20396495,00.html.>

email: timothychilman@yahoo.com

Mexican soldiers manning a random checkpoint

Mexico is in a bit of a pickle. In December, 2006, President Felipe Calderon kicked-off a crackdown upon the seven drug cartels which earn $13bn every year from transporting drugs to the United States. The government says that 34,612 people have been killed since then, including drug gang members, security force personnel, and innocent civilians. The death toll of 15,237 last year was the steepest yet. Violence has increased as previously allied drug cartels fight amongst themselves, with most of the action being between the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas, who were formerly its enforcers, and between the Juárez and Sinaloa cartels. Internecine squabbling by the cartels has resulted in higher prices and lower purity of drugs.

Offshoots of the main cartels have emerged, many in the last year: Mano con ojos, (Hands with Eyes); Mata Zetas (Zeta Killers); Caballeros Templarios (Knights Templar); Cartel de Pacifico Sur (the South Pacific Cartel); Cartel del Centro; and Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion. These groups are exceedingly violent as they compete for a slice of turf. Established cartels see them as an enemy, and provide intelligence concerning them to governmental agencies.

Mexican soldiers looking busy

50,000 soldiers and police have been pitted against the cartels. Records amounts of drugs have been seized, and high-ranking cartel leaders imprisoned or killed. Concern has been expressed over the army’s lack of accountability. The Mexican Human Rights Commission received 3,430 complaints about the military from citizens, alleging rape, torture, arbitrary detention, and theft. Corruption is rife within the police, and the army has sometimes been used in its place: the army replaced police in 22 cities in the middle of June. Reforming the police is expected to take years.

Mass graves have been discovered, the handiwork of cartels, sometimes housing almost 200 bodies. There have been beheadings, faces cut off and sewn to footballs, and bodies hung from bridges. In March, 2010, gunmen suspected of being associated with drug traffickers killed a pregnant U.S. consulate worker and her husband in the violence-riven town of Ciudad Juárez, not far south of El Paso. Gunmen also murdered the husband of another consulate employee and wounded his two young children. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, Jaime Zapata, was killed on a Mexican highway. Suspects in his killing were apprehended thanks to U.S. drones. Government sources in Arizona said that Zetas dressed as SWAT officers were responsible for the murder of a man in Phoenix. In the past, Americans were avoided as their deaths cause excessive fuss.

A cartel operative claims that busloads of people were intercepted, with the elderly killed, young women raped, and able-bodied men told to fight each other to the death with sticks, machetes, and hammers. Survivors were recruited. Such an episode was recounted by Borderland Beat, a blog which concentrates on drug cartels. Peter Hann, a retired FBI agent who worked against the drug cartels, said that killing in this manner is time-consuming, inefficient, and a poor way to recruit people, and seems to have been intended for no more than amusement.

Scores of tunnels have been found, with ventilation, lighting, rails, and pulleys. The most sophisticated was between San Diego and Tijuana, the principal entry point for drugs into California. More than 70 have been found since 2008, more than were discovered in the previous six years. California is a popular location, as its clay-like soil is easily dug. San Diego’s Otay Mesa region is particularly popular due to the number of warehouses on both sides of the border.

The cartels have access to military-grade weapons: a minimum of 12 M4 carbines with grenade launchers have been seized.

Phil Jordan, an ex-CIA operative with contacts in the U.S. intelligence community, said that El Zetas are smuggling military-grade weapons into Mexico. Shipments are made from Alliance Airport in Forth Worth to El Paso and Columbus, after which they are sent south. The DEA’s Aviation Operations Center is at Alliance. Tosh Plumlee, whom we shall encounter again later, said that military-grade weapons were discovered in 2009 in a warehouse. The cartels, Plumlee said, are in possession of handguns, assault rifles, anti-aircraft weapons, grenade launchers, body armor, and night-vision goggles. Jesús Rejón Aguilar, third in line to the Zetas’ throne, said that weapons were purchased in the United States. The weapons have not been found at routine crime scenes, which Plumlee said was because they are being stored until the 2012 Mexican general election.

It has been reported that more than a hundred trucks have been discovered which had been fitted with air conditioning, holes for firing through, and inch-thick armor capable of deflecting machine gun fire,. They provide a psychological advantage over police, intimidate civilians, and have been labeled “narco tanks” by the popular press.

The narco submarine seized in Ecuador

In February 2011, a submarine capable of carrying eight tons of drugs was seized by Colombian troops. Colonel Manuel Hurtado, chief of staff of the Colombian Pacific Command, said it would have taken between six and eight months and around $2 million to build. The previous July, another was seized in neighboring Ecuador.

Los Zetas was established by men who had deserted from Mexican special forces, the Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales. Former members of Guatemalan special forces have also been recruited, many of whom were trained in counter-insurgency by American military advisers during the civil war in Guatemala. A Congressional report in 2008 stated that the cartels are increasingly forging links with established U.S. drug gangs.

Major General Paul E. Vallely (ret.)

The bloodshed in Mexico led Major General Paul E. Vallely (ret.) to suggest that the United States invade Mexico “to protect and secure the American people.” He believes this eventuality would be covered by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1848, and that no laws would be violated. Things are, he says, just like it was in 1846. Vallely is a military analyst for Fox News, and also regularly rails against Islam. Republican presidential frontrunner, Rick Perry, has also suggested that it would be worthwhile to send U.S. troops to Mexico.

Vallely is highly representative of the news-gathering capabilities of Fox. He says that drug-related violence is spilling over from Mexico to the United States, but Juárez was dubbed “the world’s murder capital” by the British Guardian newspaper, while nearby El Paso is the second safest city in the United States. Mexico is a pretty big place, and crime is not exceptionally high in many areas. Its murder rate overall is lower than a number of other countries in the region. In Mexico, it is 18.4 per 100,000 people, while in Brazil it is 25, in Colombia, 37, and in El Salvador, 61.

Vallely said that Mexican drug cartels represented a “clear and present danger” to the United States, and one can imagine the U.S. president saying the exact same thing. And just like in the film, Clear and Present Danger, U.S. Army special forces have been sent to deal with it.

A U.S. Army special forces soldier

There is firm evidence that a U.S. Army special operations task force has been deployed to Mexico to train the Mexican Army in counter-insurgency. This includes training for “wet jobs” – operations where blood is spilled. The allegations were made by a one-time CIA asset with extensive experience, William Robert “Tosh” Plumlee. He flew missions where he carried munitions in one direction and drugs in the other as part of the Iran/Contra operations of the 1980s.

Plumlee has contacts deep in the world of U.S. intelligence. He has in the past attempted to expose CIA involvement with the drug trade. He sent a letter to Sen. Gary Hart in 1991 and testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1990. One of the many to attest to his credibility is ex-DEA undercover operative Mike Levine, who hosts the Expert Witness radio show on Pacifica Radio. He said that government agents respected Plumlee. He has been quoted by the Washington Times and UPI.

Marcos Arturo Beltran Leyva, who was killed by Mexican naval special forces

This special forces unit, Task Force 7, was originally deployed early in 2009, and uncovered a warehouse in Juárez which was owned by drug traffickers and crammed with U.S. weapons and ammunition. It provided crucial intelligence which resulted in a raid on a sweatshop in Juárez which manufactured fake Mexican Army uniforms. It worked with the Mexican Army to uncover a mass grave near Palomas. Thanks to Wikileaks, we know it worked alongside the Mexican Navy in pursuing a major drug trafficker, Arturo Beltran Leyva, who met his maker at the hands of Mexican Naval special forces in December of last year in Cuernavaca.

The Washington Post reported that the United States has deployed special force to 75 countries for training and joint operations, an increase of 15 on the previous year. The Post said the soldiers were sent to Central Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, but The Nation magazine said they had also been sent to Mexico and Colombia. Plumlee says that troops are present, too, in Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru. The New York Times reported that CIA operatives and U.S. civilian military employees had been posted to a Mexican military base. The Mexican publication El Universal said that U.S. and Mexican special forces engaged in exercises together in Colorado at the start of 2011.

One senior officer said that the Obama administration permitted “things that the previous administration did not.” Another officer said that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue had been “asking for ideas and plans… calling us in and saying, ‘Tell me what you can do. Tell me how you do these things.” An unnamed ex-U.S. government functionary with experience of covert operations said, “Black operations have been going on forever,” adding that if Task Force 7 took part in wet jobs, “It wouldn’t be the first time.” The budget for Special Operations in 2011 was $6.3bn, a rise of 5.7 percent. The Mexican military is already known to receive much funding from the U.S. government.

Evidence of the campaign to free Colombian politican, Ingrid Betancour, who was held be the Colombian FARC guerilla group, which funds itself through drugs. Photo: OliBac

The Economic Development Council for Okaloosa County is a group of Floridan businessmen, including a number of defense contractors. It released a document purporting to be a Defense Department briefing made in May 2009 in Washington, D.C. This said that U.S. special forces were present in 18 Latin American nations including Mexico in 2009. This has never been officially confirmed. The document said that what it calls the 7th Special Forces Group was involved in the rescue from FARC guerillas of three Defense Department contractors and prominent Colombian politician, Ingrid Betancourt, in July 2008. This was reported on the internet but not in the lamestream media.

The document was marked “For Official Use Only,” meaning that it was not intended to be released publicly. It said it was for the benefit of Rep. Jeff Miller, a way-out-there right-wing Republican sympathetic to the Tea Party. His chief of staff, Dan McFaul, said that Miller did not attend a briefing on that day. An article at the website, Narco News, which said that U.S. special operations troops were in Mexico, provoked a heated denial by the Mexican embassy.

In 2008, Dubya put his name to the Merida Initiative, $400 million to fund

A diagram released at the time of the signing of the Merida initiative, showing the areas of influence of the various cartels

Mexico in its War on Drugs. One day after he scrawled his signature, a video emerged of U.S. security contractors training Mexican police in torture. One unfortunate is seen to be hauled through his own vomit, while water is forced up the nose of another, and then his head shoved into a hole containing excrement. This is against Mexican law, just as was Abu Ghraib.

Admiral Eric T. Olson, head of the Tampa-based Special Operations Command, said in a speech that “In some places, in deference to host-country sensitivities, we are lower in profile.” The activities of Task Force 7 are not coordinated with the government of Mexico, which has led to acute political upset between the State Department and the Calderon government. The Justice and State departments pressured Task Force 7 to tone down its reports “so we do not upset Mexico any more than they are already upset.”

U.S. motivations could well be less than wholesome. There is certainly no sign of Harrison Ford. When bumpkin farmers rebelled in Chiapas, Mexico’s poorest state, back in 1994, the United States quickly assisted the government of Mexico in suppressing the uprising. At the time of the Cold War, the United States also trained escuadrones de la muertes – death squads – which dealt with people who supported land distribution. Leaked information said that the U.S. military funded a band of geographers who charted the San Luis Potosi and Oaxaca regions in southern Mexico. Indigenous communities in these regions have for years asserted autonomy. Lt. Col. Geoffrey B. Demarest, the project leader, said that informal, unregulated land ownership is associated with illicit use, including violence. Privatization is obviously the order of the day.

Public backing for President Calderon’s campaign is waning, and many have called for a rethink. He says that he opposes the legalization of drugs, the only sane measure, but would be open to debate on the subject.

Bibliography

“Mexican Drug Trafficking.” New York Times. 3 August 2011. 9 September 2011. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/mexico/drug_trafficking/index.html.>
“Mexican Drug Wars Update: Targeting the Most Violent Cartels.” Stratfor. 21 July 2011. 9 September 2011. <http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/199326/analysis/20110720-mexican-drug-wars-update-targeting-most-violent-cartels.>
“‘Most Sophisticated’ Drug Tunnel Found On US-Mex Border.” Fox News. 30 November 2011. 2 December 2011.
“Police seize marijuana as Mexico-US drug tunnel found.” BBC. 4 November 2010. 9 September 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11690556.>
“Q&A: Mexico’s drug-related violence.” BBC. 26 August 2011. 9 September 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10681249.>
“U.S. Special Ops Troops Deployed in Mexico, Leaked Briefing Confirms.” The Narcosphere. 5 June 2011. 9 September 2011. <http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/06/us-special-ops-troops-deployed-mexico-leaked-briefing-confirms.>
“US Special Forces are Operating in Mexico.” Salem News. 26 September 2010. 9 September 2011. <http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september262010/mexico-us-forces.php.>
“US-Trained Assassin Teams Now Deployed in Drug War.” Salem News. 28 August 2011. 9 September 2011. <http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august282011/us—drug-war-bc.php.>
Conroy, Bill. “U.S. Military has Special Ops “Boots on the Ground” in Mexico.” People of Color Organize. n.d. 9 September 2011. <http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/news/military-special-ops-boots-ground-mexico/.>
De Young, Karen and Jaffe, Greg. “U.S. ‘secret war’ expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role.” Washington Post. 4 June 2010. 9 September 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304965.html.>
Lajeunesse, William. “America’s Third War: The U.S. Cut a Deal With the Sinaloa Cartel, Say Court Documents.” Fox News. 5 August 2011. 9 September 2011. <http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/05/americas-third-wardid-us-cut-deal-with-sinaloa-cartel/.>
Llana, Sara Miller. “Mexican drug traffickers’ latest weapon: ‘monster’ narco-tanks.” Christian Science Monitor. 7 June 2011. 9 September 2011. <http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2011/0607/Mexican-drug-traffickers-latest-weapon-monster-narco-tanks.>
Plumlee, Robert. “Salem-News Photojournalist with Army Task Force 7 in Mexico threatened with arrest.” Veterans Today. n.d. 9 September 2011 <http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/23/salem-news-photojournalist-with-army-task-force-7-in-mexico-threatened-with-arrest/.>
Schiller, Dane. “Mexican crook: Gangsters arrange fights to death for entertainment.” Houston Chronicle. 11 June 2011. 9 September 2011. <http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Mexican-crook-Gangsters-arrange-fights-to-death-1692716.php.>
Valdez, Diana. “Zetas may be smuggling weapons.” El Paso Times. 13 July 2011. 9 September 2011. <http://www.elpasotimes.com/communities/ci_18465182.>
Vallely, Major General Paul. “Chessboard VII: War on the Southern Border.” Family Security Matters. 19 February 2011. 9 September 2011. <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8774/pub_detail.asp.>

email: timothychilman@yahoo.com

Michele Bachmann. Photo: Gage Skidmore

The Federalist newsletter, which bills itself as “the most widely read conservative grassroots publication on the Internet,” said that “Obama’s adoring Leftmedia sycophants are promoting the GOP candidates they believe Obama can most readily defeat.” That explains Michele Bachmann.

At first, things were looking good for Bachmann, the thinking man’s Sarah Palin. At the Republican debate in June where she launched her bid for the presidency, she received several bouts of applause for her attacks on President Barack Obama. She managed to mention her accomplishment of fostering 23 children three times. She was the most-sought guest for the next day’s breakfast television shows.

Bachmann has been eclipsed by Mitt Romney (pictured) and Rick Perry. Photo: nmfbihop.

By September, she was fading, and was nigh-on forgotten in debate as Rick Perry and Mitt Romney bickered. While Perry had 32 percent of support and Romney 21 percent, Bachmann’s seven percent put her down there with the also-rans: Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum, whose name is now best-known (according to Google) as a term for the frothy mixture of lube and feces which sometimes results from anal sex. Bachmann’s staff in New Hampshire have just all quit, with one going to work for Perry. Bachmann is down, and there can be no better time to kick her.

Bachmann said that her husband was off-limits: “I am running for the presidency of the United States. My husband is not running for the presidency.” But when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, Bachmann said Michelle Obama was “anti-American” because she had said she had only become proud of her country recently. She also criticized the First Lady’s initiative to promote breast feeding – and not on the wholly reasonable grounds that it messes ladies’ tits up. To a radio show, she said, “Can you imagine if Laura Bush was doing that, out trying to pass her legislation? I think the media would have been after her.” So Bachmann’s husband is fair game.

Bachmann’s husband is “Doctor” Marcus Bachmann. The biography shown on the website of his practice, Bachmann & Associates, lists a master’s degree from Regent University, the Virginian institution established by Pat Roberston, and a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the Union Institute in Ohio, a correspondence-based school in Cincinnati. He punctuated it as “PhD,” while the American style is “Ph.D.” Obviously a man who know what he’s talking about. I’m just popping out for a can of Coke, a Twinkie, and a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the Union Institute.

The Union Institute: a pieceashit university

“Doctor” Bachmann acquired his Ph.D. in 1988. The Reauthorization Report on the Union Institute’s Ph.D. program by the Ohio Board of Regents which was released in 2002, said that, at the program, “expectations for student’s scholarship at the doctoral level were not as rigorous as is common for doctoral work.” The program was restructured. In 2004, the Department of Education declared in a letter to the Institute that its Ph.D. in psychology would not be recognized.

Marcus Bachmann is not licensed by the Minnesota Board of Psychology or the Board of Marriage and Family Therapy, although he chose his state well: Minnesota is one of the very few states where it is possible to practice therapy sans license.

In a an interview with the radio show, Point of View, in 2010, “Doctor” Bachmann said, “We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature.”

Marcus countered that he had been speaking of children and the recording was doctored, although that does not explain his earlier comment regarding “the understanding of God’s word on homosexuality”. He said that the comments do not reflect his belief system. There is, however, considerable evidence to the contrary.

Marcus Bachmann's clinic tells gentlemen such as these that, if only they pray hard enough, they can be cured of the abomination that is homosexuality. Photo: Boss Tweed

Andrew Ramirez was 17 years-old when he sought help from Bachmann & Associates over his sexual orientation. He was advised “to read the Bible, pray to God that I would no longer be gay.” He was told that God would forgive him if he were straight.

Ramirez’s alleged dealings with Marcus Bachmann’s clinic were first publicized by The Nation, and were supported by a video taken undercover by the gay rights advocacy group, Truth Wins Out. In the video, a gay man was counseled that with prayer and effort, he could learn to be attracted to wimmen. A counselor was heard to say, “’God designed our eyes to be attracted to the woman’s body, to be attracted to everything, to be attracted to her breasts” and “In terms of how God created us, we’re all heterosexual.”

In November 2005, both Bachmanns delivered presentations to the Minnesota Pastors’ Summit. Mrs. Bachmann’s spoke of the constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage which she is trying to impose upon Minnesota. “Doctor” Bachmann’s presentation was entitled The Truth About the Homosexual Agenda. One gay activist in attendance said the presentation concluded with the testimony of three people who claimed that they were once gay but had been “cured.” Another attendee remarked that “there was so much bile.”

When asked in an interview with a local newspaper whether his clinic attempted to “pray away the gay,” “Doctor” Bachmann said, “That’s a false statement.” The fact that he is a proven liar should color all his protestations.

The practice of seeking to change an individual’s sexual orientation was comprehensively discredited by the American Psychological Association in 2009. The Association had spent two years looking into the matter, reviewing 83 studies going back to 1960. This approach to therapy was labeled ineffective and possibly harmful. Clinton Anderson, head of the Association’s Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender concerns, said to ABC news that his organization had thoroughly examined the matter and discovered no evidence that efforts to convert a person from gay to straight could succeed. Anderson also said, “The harm is that when people are already in distress, and feeling conflict about their religion and their sexuality, to tell them they can change if they work hard enough… just makes their distress and their shame… even worse.”

The rising cost of Medicaid, to which Marcus Bachmann contributed.

As a side note, the Bachmann & Associates clinic has been the principal source of income of the Bachmanns since Michele left her law practice to enter politics. Although she has criticized Medicaid for “swelling welfare rolls,” the clinic accepted more than $150,000 of Medicaid money. The Bachmanns part-own a farm which received $260,000 of federal money between 1995 and 2008, and farm subsidies are welfare for white people.

“Doctor” Bachmann evidently has a “thing” about homosexuality. What could that thing be? Could it be that the gentleman doth protest too much, methinks? Well, he is a large blip on the gaydar of many people.

Jerry Seinfeld mocked the homosexuality of Marcus Bachmann relentlessly. Photo: qiaoqiao2

On The Daily Show, hosts Jerry Seinfeld and Jon Stewart laid into the “Doctor.” Seinfeld said, “He’s so gay Richard Simmons tells him to ‘tone it down.’” Stewart said “Doctor” Bachmann was “so gay he calls Top Gun ‘that volleyball movie’” and he is “an Izod shirt away from being the gay character on Modern Family.”

The pair mocked a video of “Doctor” Bachmann dancing with his spouse at a Des Moines Tea Party meeting. Stewart said the good “Doctor” “dances and sounds not only gay, but center-square gay.” That latter was a reference to Paul Lynde, who sat in the center square of the game show, Hollywood Squares, from 1968 to 1981. He never came out and the media never pressed the issue, but a 1976 People magazine article about him featured Stan Finesmith, his “chauffeur-bodyguard.” In 1978, he was arrested outside a gay bar in Salt Lake City, which cost him his guest-starring rôle in The Donny and Marie Show.

When the video concluded, Stewart said, “That’s the man supposed to be teaching people not to be gay?” It has been said that “Doctor” Bachmann has “a drag queen’s strut.”

Seinfeld and Stewart also made mirth of “Doctor” Bachmann’s voice. The voice is some way short of baritone. As well having a high-pitched voice, “Doctor” Bachmann has a very slight lithp and slurs his words slightly.

Columnist Dan Savage said that Marcus Bachmann had "tiptoed down" the road of homosexuality. Photo: Oregon State University

Dan Savage, who writes the highly popular Savage Love problem page, said in a podcast that the “mincing” “Doctor” Bachmann sounds awfully like an ass bandit. Savage says “Doctor” Bachmann appears to have “tiptoed down” the road of homosexuality, “just a couple of inches… maybe six, maybe seven.”

Cher told her 250,000-plus Twitter followers that “My Gay-Dar is GOING OFF !!!” When she appeared on Current’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, comedian Janeane Garofalo said, “He seems to be quite gay to me.” Another comedian and New York Times best-selling author and LGBT rights advocate, Kathy Griffin, talked on the Late Late Show about her breasts and then Marcus Bachmann. She said, “Okay, he’s very anti-gay and LGBT rights, and it’s odd, because if you look at him on YouTube, it’s almost as if he himself… or, it’s as if…” Pundit Andrew Sullivan called Bachmann a “ssuper-sserial hunter of gays.” Daily Show co-creator, Lizz Winstead, tweeted that “Doctor” Bachmann was “the white Al Reynolds.” Al Reynolds is the ex-husband of the former host of the View, Star Jones. He spends much time insisting that he is absolutely, certainly, definitely not homosexual.

James Urbaniak, one of The Venture Brothers, said, “It’s pretty much a given that the most vociferously homophobic men are usually repressing something. But, oh Mary, Michele Bachmann’s husband Marcus takes the ever-loving cake.” Television actor Dave Foley tweeted: “How can Michele Bachman be opposed to gay marriage when she is married to gay man.”

Marcus Bachmann sets off people’s gaydar left, right, and center. Can gaydar be trusted? Science says “yes.”

In a series of studies published two years ago in Scientific American, college students were asked whether men in pictures they were shown were gay. In one experiment, the students were shown pictures of 81 men taken from online personal ads. Gaydar was significantly better than mere chance. Research at the University of Toronto said wimmen in particular have the best gaydar, particularly when they are at their most fertile. It is something of an evolutionary necessity that fertile wimmen can eliminate gay men from consideration for fucking.

Michele Bachmann is pretty. Her husband is not. Can you imagine this pair getting it together?

Michele Bachmann is pretty, while Marcus is pudgy and somewhat effeminate, which would accord with theirs being a marriage of convenience. There is likely to be little action between their sheets, however thanks to some ill-advised poses that were captured photographically, we have an idea of what Bachmann sex might look like. For fellatio, there is the photograph of Michele inserting a 12 inch corn dog to her mouth (she had it with mustard) and for sodomy

If Michele Bachmann sucked cock, it would look like this. Photo: wunderingmania

(no way would intercourse be vaginal) there is the photograph of Michele leaning forward with her ass close to the nether regions of Marcus, who stands erect.

The truth is so very clear: Marcus Bachmann took the road to Sodom. If he walked into the average bar in Texas, he would be lynched

Bibliography

“Kathy Griffin Hints Marcus Bachmann Is Gay On The Late Late Show.” Huffington Post. 2 September 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/kathy-griffin-hints-marcus-bachmann-gay_n_946297.html.>
“Marcus Bachmann’s Big Gay Mess.” Gawker. n.d. 21 October 2011. <http://gawker.com/5820437/marcus-bachmanns-big-gay-mess.>
“PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF: Michelle Bachmann’s Husband Runs ‘Gay Cure’ Clinic With Taxpayer Funds.” Phawker. 10 July 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://www.phawker.com/2011/07/10/physician-heal-thyself-michelle-bachmanns-husband-runs-gay-cure-clinic-with-taxpayer-funds/.>
Apple, Lauri. “All Kinds of People Weighing in on Marcus ‘Mr. Michele’ Bachmann’s Sexuality.” Gawker. 3 July 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://gawker.com/5817774/all-kinds-of-people-weighing-in-on-marcus-mr-michele-bachmanns-sexuality.>
Broadwater, Luke. “Jerry Seinfeld, Jon Stewart joke that Bachmann’s husband is secretly gay.” Baltimore Sun. 14 July 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-07-14/entertainment/bal-jerry-seinfeld-jon-stewart-joke-that-bachmanns-husband-is-secretly-gay-20110714_1_marcus-bachmann-michele-bachmann-daily-show-full-episodes.>
Ellicot, Claire. “Women really do have a ‘gaydar’ and can tell a man’s sexuality just by looking at them.” Daily Mail. 24 June 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2007337/Gaydar-Women-really-tell-sexuality-just-looking-man.html.>
Gaynor, Gerren Keith. “Hypocrisy? Bachmann’s Husband, Closeted Gay?” Newsone. 18 July 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://newsone.com/nation/ggaynor/marcus-bachmann-gay-marriage/.>
Hilton, Perez. “Michele Bachmann Says Her Husband Is Off Limits.” Perez Hilton. 28 July 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://perezhilton.com/2011-07-28-michelle-bachmann-says-husband-marcus-bachmann-is-off-limits-in-campaign#.TqRLg9RzeEN.>
Lederman, Josh and Strauss, Daniel. “Report: Bachmann’s New Hampshire staff resigns en masse.” The Hill. 21 October 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/189057-bachmanns-new-hampshire-staff-quits.>
Nededog, Jethro. “Janeane Garofalo Believes Michele Bachmann’s Husband Is Battling His Own Gay Demons.” Hollywood Reporter. 15 July 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/janeane-garofalo-believes-michelle-bachmanns-212092 .>
Ross, Brian, Schwartz, Rhonda, Mosk, Matthew, and Chuchmach, Megan. “Michele Bachmann Clinic: Where You Can Pray Away the Gay?” ABC News. 11 July 2011. 21 October 2011. < http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-exclusive-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691.>
Saletan, William. “Read my Lisp.” Slate. 15 July 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/07/read_my_lisp.single.html.>
Spillius, Alex. “Michele Bachmann steals limelight at Republican debate.” Daily Telegraph. 14 June 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8575667/Michele-Bachmann-steals-limelight-at-Republican-debate.html.>
Tree, Oliver. “Jon Stewart (with help from Jerry Seinfeld) mocks Marcus Bachmann’s gay therapy… as he ‘seems so gay.’” Daily Mail. 14 July 2011. 21 October 2011. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014755/Jon-Stewart-help-Jerry-Seinfeld-mocks-Marcus-Bachmanns-gay-therapy—Marcus-gay.html.>