As exciting as it is to see Obama as the Democratic nominee, and to hope that the White House can be occupied by a Democrat for the next 4 years, I am also worried about one thing before we make it to January. I don't know anyone who would want any more of George W. Bush, except George W. Bush.
With the Presidential directive released on May 9th, 2007, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency”, the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.
My concern is that in all this excitement, the elephant in the room is and has always been the fear of assassination attempts on Barack Obama. As horrible as that thought is, what is even more disconcerting is the idea that if an attempt were even taken on Obama, it would be serious enough to enact the Presidential Directive. If there was an attempt, there would be outrage among the black community all around the country, perhaps the world. The fear of riots, destruction, violence, and chaos would be too much to chance. It's extremely likely that Martial Law would be initiated, and George Bush would the one in charge. There would be no election. It would be postponed. The isolated act of an attempt on Obama is not the key—perhaps the catalyst—but the activity that would ensue is the real spark. The anger, outrage, and disgust that black americans would feel on the heels of such a great moment in history would be elevated to a level that would create a nationwide scene of fear, and uncertainty as to the state of race relations in this country. This would be the Rodney King verdict times ten.
So it's so very important that the security detail for Obama be more vigilant and detailed than ever before. This is not just about protecting the black guy, this is about protecting all our freedoms, and bidding farewell to George W. Bush come January.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A Black President
This topic was addressed briefly the other day by Tom Leykis. I didn't hear the whole thing but heard enough to want to write this.
It's a sign of progress that we have a woman and an African American running for President. It's a true sign that the times are changing. They may be changing slowly, but they're changing.
If Obama—who currently is looking strong from the numbers—becomes the next President of the United States, do you think his safety is going to become a bigger task than the Secret Service has had to deal with before?
IF Barack Obama wins the presidency, it will be a first for African Americans. It's a BIG deal—as it would be if Hillary Clinton won. But I guess my question is, do you think that Barack Obama as president would require a significant increase in security? It's no secret that there are a plethora of folks in this country who would just feel sick knowing a black man is leading the country. Could this be enough to create a pool of 'sleeper' assasins, that would go for broke to kill the first black president? There are people who travel in those circles where actions like that would be lauded.
Do you think that in addition to the safety of the president that also white supremacist groups would in turn also increase their violent activity and start targeting blacks in general as a rebellious gesture? I can only imagine that incidences of random attacks would increase. Ku Klux Klan rallys would increase and Skinheads would become more vocal and belligerent.
You tell me, how legitimate of a concern do you think this is?
It's a sign of progress that we have a woman and an African American running for President. It's a true sign that the times are changing. They may be changing slowly, but they're changing.
If Obama—who currently is looking strong from the numbers—becomes the next President of the United States, do you think his safety is going to become a bigger task than the Secret Service has had to deal with before?
IF Barack Obama wins the presidency, it will be a first for African Americans. It's a BIG deal—as it would be if Hillary Clinton won. But I guess my question is, do you think that Barack Obama as president would require a significant increase in security? It's no secret that there are a plethora of folks in this country who would just feel sick knowing a black man is leading the country. Could this be enough to create a pool of 'sleeper' assasins, that would go for broke to kill the first black president? There are people who travel in those circles where actions like that would be lauded.
Do you think that in addition to the safety of the president that also white supremacist groups would in turn also increase their violent activity and start targeting blacks in general as a rebellious gesture? I can only imagine that incidences of random attacks would increase. Ku Klux Klan rallys would increase and Skinheads would become more vocal and belligerent.
You tell me, how legitimate of a concern do you think this is?
Friday, July 20, 2007
On A Good Day
So I decided to finally tackle the Hollywood Sign hike, and snap a pic or two while I was up there. Or actually it was more like I wanted to snap some photos from above the sign and the hike up was just part of the deal. Ahhhh, at 34, and as lazy as I have been lately, I can't just do that stuff so easily anymore. BIG contrast to 13 years ago when I was out here for college and my roomate and I hiked from the Oakwoods all the way up the face of the mountain, and made it over to the sign. That hike took us a couple hours and was pretty tough. But we were both in decent shape.
It's not that I didn't know it was going to be steep—but rather that I am not used to hiking up trails like that. Footing was really unstable, my gear was weighing me down, and I was most certainly experiencing a build up of lactic acid in my legs. I had my camera gear, and my tripod to carry. The whole time I was climbing up I was thinking how much of a bitch it would be to get down. Ascending may be tough, but it's generally slow, methodical, and controlled. Descending, should be slow, methodical, and controlled too. But on trails like this one, with loose dirt, narrow trails, and nothing to hold on to, is recipe for good slip and slide. Though I currently have health coverage, and won't be in SICKO II explaining how I sold my car to pay hospital bills, I didn't want to be injured in the hills unable to get help. The sun was starting to set. So at a certain point, I knew that hiking down was not really an option. Since I wasn't sure exactly how I was getting down at that point, I was somewhat concerned that I had gone up so late.
When I was just about at the 20' tall D I heard a chopper approaching—my first thought was that I tripped some alarm, which alerts security that someone is trespassing. The chopper slowly passed by and headed over the mountain towards Burbank. I realized it was one of those chopper tours. I wiped the sweat from by brow—not from fear but but because it was fairly warm and that level of exertion for me now, is rather intense. I don't still got it.
Before even heading up there, I had it in my mind that I would try a few different shots. A panorama, a time lapse, some different stuff. But as I passed underneath the H, I realized that doing a time lapse was probably not a great idea for a couple of reasons. First, a good time lapse shows movement of some sort, and since the sign and skyline weren't going anywhere, the only thing was the setting of the sun. But a sun setting time lapse should start when the sun is still beaming—and I had made it up too late for that. Second, the time it would take to do a proper time lapse would be at least two hours. I knew that was not going to happen. I was limited to a panorama shot from behind the sign.
Now if you've lived in LA for a while you know that visibility here quite frankly sucks. The phrase "on a good day..." is heard often, but that good day seems to come less and less. Now generally the best time to catch those good days are in the spring and fall. But occasionally you'll get a clear one this time of year. On a good day—you can see the San Bernardino mountains—now that's a clear day. This wasn't one of those days. But it was good enough to bother hiking up there.
I perched myself at the highest point I could. Right next to the fence separating the access road from the hill. Now I didn't see any guards or anything like that. But I did see cameras. Now mind you, there clearly were trails, and recent foot prints from other hikers, so I know that people hike this all the time, but nonetheless I was concerned that I was too close. It's kinda like, when the cops come to break up a party because of noise, they might smell pot, but unless some idot sparks up a joint in plain sight, they're gonna let people disperse and then leave. Well I was worried that I was THAT guy. I had hiked up and now I was hovering around in plain sight, and was asking to be spoken to. Well after I had gotten my panorama—11 shots to later be stiched— I was taking it all in when I hear "sir...can you please stay away from the fence" or something like that. I said something like "yes, I was just leaving." I packed up my stuff and hugged the fence hoping there would be some opening so I could follow the paved road down the mountain. But I didn't see an opening. So I climbed the fence, but didn't feel comfortable throwing my $150 tripod over, so I held on to it. I used my forearm to steady myself over have a mark to show for it. I made it over the fence, and started the long hike down. Not five minutes into my descent, I pass a family walking up the road, admiring the view of Forrest Lawn Memorial Park & Mortuary. I say hello, and the man says, "how are you?" and I respond with "tired." At this point we had passed each other and instead of ending there, he turns around and says "Jesus still loves you even when you're tired..." Huh? Ok, thanks for that. The road was very windy and I knew was going to take me a while to get back to my car, but it sure was better than hiking down in the dark. Maybe next time "on a good day" I'll go back again.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Right Before Our Eyes: Losing Control of Our Freedoms
You really have to watch this short video.
How many realize that at this point, any of us can be arrested, searched, imprisoned, tortured, and detained indefinitely under the guise of "terrorist threat"? no questions, no proof, no evidence—nothing. Wrong place, wrong time is all it takes. The Patriot Act made this possible. The events of 9/11 allowed the Patriot Act to actually be initiated and enforced.
Many people find it so incredibly hard to wrap their heads around this ideology of unified power, and world dominance. But when you start to examine closely some of the legal, social, and military policies our government has implicated over the past 5 years, it shouldn't be that difficult to surmise.
The idea that 9/11 would have been prevented had all these "polices" been in place before the tragic events of 2001, is crazy. Even without the Patriot Act and the government agencies sharing information we still were able to forcast and intercept information that I think would have prevented something like 9/11 from happening. Or certainly not allowing nearly as much death and destruction to happen.
If you have been issued a passport in the past year and a half, you probably have a radio frequency identification (RFID) Chip embedded. The chip makes it possible for the government to track your whereabouts and keep meticulous records stored on computer for quick access. This is already in place. So do you really think that putting chips in people is that far fetched?
Even if SOME of these policies and procedures are helpful in certain ways, and used for good—most if not all of them are really meant to be used for more surreptitious purposes.
Requiring passports to travel through out Mexico and Canada is a perfect way to force people to obtain a passport, which will have an embedded RFID chip. The database of people carrying this passport will be immense. And after sometime people will get used to the idea that they are trackable via their passport—or at some point, a unified government ID—and will make it easy to implement other voyeuristic, and big brother-like policies.
There have been many reports from journalists and citizens that people were told not to fly on September 11, and others were told of an event or to stay away from NYC on that day. Yet, so many people still think that the government had no prior knowledge of the attacks. Very few people that morning could have thought that perhaps the reason why George W. Bush didn't panic and immediately leave the classroom to be whisked off to safety while preparing for the worst, was because he wasn't surprised. It's not because he's an idiot. He wouldn't have scared the kids in the classroom if stood up—thanked the kids—and excused himself on an emergency. Why some people still think that we just were not able to have ANY prior knowledge to even the possibility of something like this, is beyond me. There is way too much publicly available proof, that WE DID know about the very strong possibility of an attack using commercial jets. In fact NORAD had conducted drills the very morning of Sept 11 that play out part of the events of that day.
How many realize that at this point, any of us can be arrested, searched, imprisoned, tortured, and detained indefinitely under the guise of "terrorist threat"? no questions, no proof, no evidence—nothing. Wrong place, wrong time is all it takes. The Patriot Act made this possible. The events of 9/11 allowed the Patriot Act to actually be initiated and enforced.
Many people find it so incredibly hard to wrap their heads around this ideology of unified power, and world dominance. But when you start to examine closely some of the legal, social, and military policies our government has implicated over the past 5 years, it shouldn't be that difficult to surmise.
The idea that 9/11 would have been prevented had all these "polices" been in place before the tragic events of 2001, is crazy. Even without the Patriot Act and the government agencies sharing information we still were able to forcast and intercept information that I think would have prevented something like 9/11 from happening. Or certainly not allowing nearly as much death and destruction to happen.
If you have been issued a passport in the past year and a half, you probably have a radio frequency identification (RFID) Chip embedded. The chip makes it possible for the government to track your whereabouts and keep meticulous records stored on computer for quick access. This is already in place. So do you really think that putting chips in people is that far fetched?
Even if SOME of these policies and procedures are helpful in certain ways, and used for good—most if not all of them are really meant to be used for more surreptitious purposes.
Requiring passports to travel through out Mexico and Canada is a perfect way to force people to obtain a passport, which will have an embedded RFID chip. The database of people carrying this passport will be immense. And after sometime people will get used to the idea that they are trackable via their passport—or at some point, a unified government ID—and will make it easy to implement other voyeuristic, and big brother-like policies.
There have been many reports from journalists and citizens that people were told not to fly on September 11, and others were told of an event or to stay away from NYC on that day. Yet, so many people still think that the government had no prior knowledge of the attacks. Very few people that morning could have thought that perhaps the reason why George W. Bush didn't panic and immediately leave the classroom to be whisked off to safety while preparing for the worst, was because he wasn't surprised. It's not because he's an idiot. He wouldn't have scared the kids in the classroom if stood up—thanked the kids—and excused himself on an emergency. Why some people still think that we just were not able to have ANY prior knowledge to even the possibility of something like this, is beyond me. There is way too much publicly available proof, that WE DID know about the very strong possibility of an attack using commercial jets. In fact NORAD had conducted drills the very morning of Sept 11 that play out part of the events of that day.
Monday, September 11, 2006
9/11 Things still don't add up...
Here are three points with supporting FACTS you should check yourself about 9/11 that don't add up to the "official" report of events:
1] Jet Fuel Fires Weakened the Structure
Misconception: "It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning." The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."
FACT: Melting point of structural steel - Approx. 2700°F
FACT: Maximum burning temperature of jet fuel - Approx. 1500°F
FACT: No steel structure has ever collapsed from fire (Search Windsor Building, Madrid, Feb 2005)
The fires didn't burn long enough to melt the steel to the point of collapse. The majority of jet fuel from the crash of the second plane ignited into that HUGE fireball we all saw on the OUTSIDE of the building. YET that tower collapsed first, even though the fire had burned for a SHORTER period of time.
2] Pancake Theory of Twin Towers ( Floors fell on top of each other one by one )
Misconception: One floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor.
FACT: Gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2 or 9.81 m/sec2
FACT: North Tower 1368 feet
FACT: brick dropped from 1368 feet hits the ground in 9.22 seconds (in a vacuum, longer with air resistance)
FACT: Collapse of Tower 1 - 10sec
FACT: Collapse of Tower 2 - 8sec
Assume that the top floor stays intact as a solid block weight, Block-A. Start the collapse timer when the 109th floor fails. At that instant, assume floor 108 miraculously turns to dust and disappears. So, Block-A can drop at free-fall speed until it reaches the 108th floor. After Block-A travels one floor, it now has momentum. If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving. If Block-A stops moving, after triggering the next sequence, the mass of Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum to the next "pancaking" between Block-B and Block-C. In other words, the momentum will not be increased as the "collapse" progresses. - (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html)
So you drop a brick from 1368 ft in a vacuum, and it hits the ground in 9.2 seconds. But 100 floors fall on top of each other and they hit the ground in 9 second as well? Sure if explosives pulverize the floors and supports beneath to create a vacuum and free fall.
3] WTC Building 7 Collapse (Perhaps the key to it all)
Misconception: WTC Building 7 Collapsed from Fire Damage
FACT: WTC 7 was not hit by a plane
FACT: Fire damage was nowhere near as severe as Twin Towers
FACT: Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. Silversten, who made a down payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. He also covered the complex against "terrorist attacks".
FACT:It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell.
FACT: Projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion
FACT: WTC 7 housed thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history including Enron and WorldCom. Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two—in Silverstein' s view—separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion.
FACT: Building 7 owner Larry Silverstein admits to controlled demolition of WTC 7 in 2002 PBS Documentary, AMERICA REBUILDS
"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." - Larry silverstein
Video excerpt from AMERICA REBUILDS:
If WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, then isn't it plausible that the North and South Towers were brought down ultimately by explosives? Firefighters, police, reporters, and others present heard and saw explosions.
There are many things that don't add up. The 9/11 Commission Report is a horrible waste of money and time that omitted and overlooked so many obvious points. Do your own research, look into the 3 areas I pointed out above to start.
VIDEO TO WATCH: LOOSE CHANGE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+change&hl=en
BOOK TO READ:
The New Pearl Harbor—Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
by David Ray Griffin:
(Video below - David Ray Griffin lecture outlining points from his book)
WEB LINKS:
http://www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.infowars.com
http://www.911pressfortruth.com
http://www.911truth.org
1] Jet Fuel Fires Weakened the Structure
Misconception: "It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning." The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."
FACT: Melting point of structural steel - Approx. 2700°F
FACT: Maximum burning temperature of jet fuel - Approx. 1500°F
FACT: No steel structure has ever collapsed from fire (Search Windsor Building, Madrid, Feb 2005)
The fires didn't burn long enough to melt the steel to the point of collapse. The majority of jet fuel from the crash of the second plane ignited into that HUGE fireball we all saw on the OUTSIDE of the building. YET that tower collapsed first, even though the fire had burned for a SHORTER period of time.
2] Pancake Theory of Twin Towers ( Floors fell on top of each other one by one )
Misconception: One floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor.
FACT: Gravity = 32.2 ft/sec2 or 9.81 m/sec2
FACT: North Tower 1368 feet
FACT: brick dropped from 1368 feet hits the ground in 9.22 seconds (in a vacuum, longer with air resistance)
FACT: Collapse of Tower 1 - 10sec
FACT: Collapse of Tower 2 - 8sec
Assume that the top floor stays intact as a solid block weight, Block-A. Start the collapse timer when the 109th floor fails. At that instant, assume floor 108 miraculously turns to dust and disappears. So, Block-A can drop at free-fall speed until it reaches the 108th floor. After Block-A travels one floor, it now has momentum. If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving. If Block-A stops moving, after triggering the next sequence, the mass of Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum to the next "pancaking" between Block-B and Block-C. In other words, the momentum will not be increased as the "collapse" progresses. - (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html)
So you drop a brick from 1368 ft in a vacuum, and it hits the ground in 9.2 seconds. But 100 floors fall on top of each other and they hit the ground in 9 second as well? Sure if explosives pulverize the floors and supports beneath to create a vacuum and free fall.
3] WTC Building 7 Collapse (Perhaps the key to it all)
Misconception: WTC Building 7 Collapsed from Fire Damage
FACT: WTC 7 was not hit by a plane
FACT: Fire damage was nowhere near as severe as Twin Towers
FACT: Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. Silversten, who made a down payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. He also covered the complex against "terrorist attacks".
FACT:It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell.
FACT: Projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion
FACT: WTC 7 housed thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history including Enron and WorldCom. Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two—in Silverstein' s view—separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion.
FACT: Building 7 owner Larry Silverstein admits to controlled demolition of WTC 7 in 2002 PBS Documentary, AMERICA REBUILDS
"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." - Larry silverstein
Video excerpt from AMERICA REBUILDS:
If WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, then isn't it plausible that the North and South Towers were brought down ultimately by explosives? Firefighters, police, reporters, and others present heard and saw explosions.
There are many things that don't add up. The 9/11 Commission Report is a horrible waste of money and time that omitted and overlooked so many obvious points. Do your own research, look into the 3 areas I pointed out above to start.
VIDEO TO WATCH: LOOSE CHANGE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+change&hl=en
BOOK TO READ:
The New Pearl Harbor—Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
by David Ray Griffin:
(Video below - David Ray Griffin lecture outlining points from his book)
WEB LINKS:
http://www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.infowars.com
http://www.911pressfortruth.com
http://www.911truth.org
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
STOP TRYING TO SCARE US
BUSH REMINDS AMERICANS U.S. IS AT WAR
'WASHINGTON - President Bush used terrorists' own words Tuesday to battle complacency among Americans about the threat of future attack, defending his record as the fall campaign season kicks into high gear.' – MERRILL HARTSON, Associated Press Writer
-------
OK...hold up....if history repeats itself which it usually does, we can expect to see over the next year, several more "threats" or possible incidents either facilitated by or secretly supported by the administration. I think at this point it's clear that the amount of profit and the amount of people that stand to gain financially from the US being at war is far too great for us not invade, say Iran, or create another situation in which we need to "defend" or invade or KILL more people.
It's certainly debateable that the country is safer now than it was when Bush took office. 9/11 changed everything. It allowed the government to tighten the rope on our liberties, and in my opinion, they keep looking for ways to pull even tighter. The amount of surveillance, checkpoints, security, and violations of civil rights, are increasing with the constant threats and terrorist plots.
I'm actually surprised that we don't have the same amount of surveillance as London. They have a cluster of four or five cameras at every corner. You can move through the streets without being tracked by cameras with powerful face recognition software.
The threat of another attack, or attack itself means that the steps toward a inforcing "Police State" will move forward. During the Republican National Convention, there were more Police and Armed Guard personnel than ever before for such an event. Now granted the beefed up security is to be ready in the event of some terrorist acitivity, right? But it also fits in with the plan of Police State. We lose control, and are told what to do, when to do it, and must comply or we will be arrested. Demonstrators, most of then peaceful, were arrested and locked in an unsafe abandoned warhouse, containing asbestos. Their rights were taken away, and they were treated like prisoners of war.
Just be aware, when we hear news stories about folied terrorist attempts, or close calls, we only know what's being reported, we don't know what's being embellished and what actually happened. War, oil, troops, deployment, weapons, ammunition...It's BIG MONEY...and many people are putting there kids and grand kids through college on that money. You think that's gonna just go away?
If we get attacked, we get attacked. Hopefully that can be prevented. But "warnings" from the Bush administration, only make me think that it's the beginning of getting the american people ready for the next step in losing more freedom. Bush says "the terrorists hate us for our freedom", well we certainly are not gaining anymore freedom, thanks to the current administration. We couldn't even take bottled water on a plane for crying out loud.
I can't help but think of that one expression from George Bush that says it all. It's when he sat there at the Emma T. Booker Elementary School on September 11. When Andrew Card tells the President that the second plane has hit the south tower, the President produced the all too well known guilty look on his face. What I saw specifically in the video, was right after Card whispers the news, the president contorts his mouth and bites the inside, which is typical of either being very confused, or guilty. We have all done that. It's like when the kid put the whoopie cushion under the teacher's chair. When the teacher demands to know who did it, the guilty kid sits in silence, trying to hide any emotion from the teacher as well as the class—and the lips always move—either they pucker slightly, or tighten. That's the behavior and expression I saw from the president. I guess he felt extremely safe at an elementary school, the location of which was public knowledge. Otherwise don't you think he would have left?
'WASHINGTON - President Bush used terrorists' own words Tuesday to battle complacency among Americans about the threat of future attack, defending his record as the fall campaign season kicks into high gear.' – MERRILL HARTSON, Associated Press Writer
-------
OK...hold up....if history repeats itself which it usually does, we can expect to see over the next year, several more "threats" or possible incidents either facilitated by or secretly supported by the administration. I think at this point it's clear that the amount of profit and the amount of people that stand to gain financially from the US being at war is far too great for us not invade, say Iran, or create another situation in which we need to "defend" or invade or KILL more people.
It's certainly debateable that the country is safer now than it was when Bush took office. 9/11 changed everything. It allowed the government to tighten the rope on our liberties, and in my opinion, they keep looking for ways to pull even tighter. The amount of surveillance, checkpoints, security, and violations of civil rights, are increasing with the constant threats and terrorist plots.
I'm actually surprised that we don't have the same amount of surveillance as London. They have a cluster of four or five cameras at every corner. You can move through the streets without being tracked by cameras with powerful face recognition software.
The threat of another attack, or attack itself means that the steps toward a inforcing "Police State" will move forward. During the Republican National Convention, there were more Police and Armed Guard personnel than ever before for such an event. Now granted the beefed up security is to be ready in the event of some terrorist acitivity, right? But it also fits in with the plan of Police State. We lose control, and are told what to do, when to do it, and must comply or we will be arrested. Demonstrators, most of then peaceful, were arrested and locked in an unsafe abandoned warhouse, containing asbestos. Their rights were taken away, and they were treated like prisoners of war.
Just be aware, when we hear news stories about folied terrorist attempts, or close calls, we only know what's being reported, we don't know what's being embellished and what actually happened. War, oil, troops, deployment, weapons, ammunition...It's BIG MONEY...and many people are putting there kids and grand kids through college on that money. You think that's gonna just go away?
If we get attacked, we get attacked. Hopefully that can be prevented. But "warnings" from the Bush administration, only make me think that it's the beginning of getting the american people ready for the next step in losing more freedom. Bush says "the terrorists hate us for our freedom", well we certainly are not gaining anymore freedom, thanks to the current administration. We couldn't even take bottled water on a plane for crying out loud.
I can't help but think of that one expression from George Bush that says it all. It's when he sat there at the Emma T. Booker Elementary School on September 11. When Andrew Card tells the President that the second plane has hit the south tower, the President produced the all too well known guilty look on his face. What I saw specifically in the video, was right after Card whispers the news, the president contorts his mouth and bites the inside, which is typical of either being very confused, or guilty. We have all done that. It's like when the kid put the whoopie cushion under the teacher's chair. When the teacher demands to know who did it, the guilty kid sits in silence, trying to hide any emotion from the teacher as well as the class—and the lips always move—either they pucker slightly, or tighten. That's the behavior and expression I saw from the president. I guess he felt extremely safe at an elementary school, the location of which was public knowledge. Otherwise don't you think he would have left?
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
