Huckaboom?

A friend of mine worked at a relatively local Rockwell Corp. resort. Rockwell had myriad government contracts, and their claim to fame was that they had a factory in nearly every congressional district in the country.

Needless to say, when they needed a vote in Con gress, they could get one. But just to be sure, they ran a few of these "resorts" around the country to wine and dine the recalcitrant few. And reward the faithful many.

My friend Mike's job was, when the Con gress critters wanted to go hunting, to give them a successful outing. Even if they had only a half hour or so.

They did this by taking the politician to a pre-arranged blind, and then Mike and his crew would release captive birds from trenches until the "skilled" critter managed to bag one.

Huckaboom??

P.S. And what about Cheney's "hunting" accident?

NewSpeak 2007: Hillary's Health Care

Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed an overhaul of the nation's health care system Monday that would require Americans to buy insurance ... --Clinton unveils details of her health care plan, Richard Wolf, USATODAY

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.

"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. ...

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination " ... --AP Interview: Clinton on health care, BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer, Tue Sep 18, 12:59 PM ET

So let's see, Hillary's system "would require Americans to buy insurance," "a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance" is necessary, and soon you would have to "show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," (or like when a cop pulls you over while you're "driving.") BUT, says Hillary, "we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed" AND "she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system."

NewSpeak or not NewSpeak, that is the question.

P.S.

"We" will almost certainly get "universal health care" or "single payer" or "socialized medicine" -- pick your label -- because corporations like WAL*MART, General Motors, etc. ALL favor it too.

That alone should warn you. Why would giant corporations want "national health care?"

Let me rephrase that: "Why would giant corporations want you to 'show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview'?"

And one more time: "Why would giant corporations want you to be forced to pay for your own health insurance?"

On the other hand, why would YOU want the government to?

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah): "We've held hearings in the Joint Economic Committee about medical costs, and there is a perverse and countner-intuitive circumstance going on and that the more technology we bring into health care, the more it costs. And this is exactly different from the way things work in other parts of the economy, the more technology you apply, the lower the cost becomes. And as we've tried to pursue why we have the opposite trend in health care, ah, it's because you keep people alive longer. If you were aimed at cost control only, you would let them die and thereby save the cost of their medical care in their later years." --to Senate Banking Committee, July 16, 2003, 10:43:52

There's an answer that doesn't involve mandatory anything. What?

Check out Ron Paul's plan.

REAL Enemies

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --President George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

In Section 2 of the Act of March 9. 1933 [1] (Exhibit 17), we find the following:

"Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 [The 1917 "Trading With The Enemy Act" -lrw] (40 Stat. L. 411), ...is hereby amended to read as follows;" "During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earnarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

What just happened? As far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, the people of the United States were no longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had lost that crucial distinction. [Also] Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly within the United States has been removed from the amended version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced with "by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." All monetary transactions, whether domestic or international in scope, were now placed at the whim of the President of the United States through the authority given to him by the Trading with the Enemy Act. --WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS, RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN BY: Gene Schroder Aivin Jenkins Jerry Russell Ed Petrowsky Russell Grieder Darrell Schroder Walter Marston Lynn Bitner Billy Schroder Van Stafford Fred Peters Tinker Spain Paul Bailey AMERICAN AGRICULTURE MOVEMENT, Box 130 Campo, Colo 81029 [ADDRESS NO LONGER VALID]

This "State of Emergency" has been repeatedly re-declared, and is in effect to this day, May 7, 2007.

"The United States is at war with America. And we have been for 60 years." President George W. Bush, "Tonight" with Jay Leno, June 29, 2006

Notes: [1] This law was passed by Congress in an extraordinary noon session, especially called by FDR on March 9, 1933, a scant five days after his inauguration. At that session, Roosevelt submitted an already written bill (but written by who in that scant five days), calling on the "rule of necessity" -- essentially a legal excuse saying circumstances are so dire, it's necessary to break the law, in this case, the U.S. Constitution -- to deal with those circumstances. And what were these dire circumstances? Essentially, the insolvency of about 50% of the nations banks from excess printing of bills by the Federal Reserve, which claimed, right on their face, to be "REDEEMABLE IN GOLD ON DEMAND," but for which redemption, there simply wasn't enough gold. --lrw return

Who shattered the MSM barrier?

As you may know, U.S. MSM (Main Stream Media) "works" for what President Dwight David Eisenhower called "the military-industrial-congressional complex." And seminal linguist Noam Chomsky pretty much nailed the results:

The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - 'indoctrination,' we might say - exercised through the mass media.

So when a high profile celebrity with a top-rated show "speaks truth to power" in MSM, shattering that "ideological control" -- AND the audience applauds, you know a sea change is in the forecast.

Rosie shatters the main-stream-media barrier

The View

Cause and effect?

Gambling Subpoenas on Wall St . By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN and STEPHANIE SAUL, New York Times, Published: January 22, 2007



Outcry as US targets City firms over online gambling, UK bankers issued with Subpoenas, Rhys Blakely, The London Times, January 22, 2007



Threat to New York as centre of finance, By By David Wighton in New York, FT.com, MSNBC



Beijing to diversify investment strategies, By Richard McGregor in Beijing, FT.com (Financial Times), Published: January 21 2007 19:35 | Last updated: January 22 2007 03:21

Will we use nukes?

According to The Sunday Times, Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran. The article suggests that "the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack."



Will America be cajoled?



It seems "we" already have been:

Former UNSCOM Chief Weapons Inspector SCOTT RITTER: Look, we're already overflying Iran with unmanned aerial vehicles, pilotless drones. On the ground, the CIA is recruiting Mojahedin-e-Khalq, recruiting Kurds, recruiting Azeris, who are operating inside Iran on behalf of the United States of America. And there is reason to believe that we've actually put uniformed members of the United States Armed Forces and American citizens operating as CIA paramilitaries inside Iranian territory to gather intelligence.



Now, when you violate the borders and the airspace of a sovereign nation with paramilitary and military forces, that's an act of war. That's an act of war. So, when Americans say, "Ah, there's not going to be a war in Iran," there's already a war in Iran. We're at war with Iran. We're just not in the declared conventional stage of the war. The Bush administration has a policy of regime change. They're going to use the military, and the military is being used. --Democracy Now! interview, Oct. 16, 2006



SCOTT RITTER: The bottom line is, within two days of our decision to initiate an attack on Iran, every single one of you is going to be feeling the consequences of that in your pocketbook. And it's only going to get worse. This is not something that only I recognize. Ask Dick Lugar what information he's getting from big business, who are saying, "We can't afford to go to war with Iran."



SEYMOUR HERSH: Final question: given all this, are we going to do it?



SCOTT RITTER: Yes, we're going to do it. --at the ethical culture society oct 2006

P.S. The inaccuracy of headlines: According to MSNBC, Israel denies it’s planning Iran nuclear attack, however, nowhere in that article does an official Israeli spokesperson specifically deny the Times story. This is fairly obviously another well orchastrated Israelie government "psyops," probably designed to "put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action and/or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

Is This Appropriate for a Free People #00003

NEW YORK --
A city plan to ban restaurants from selling meals containing an unhealthy artificial fat could open a new front in a national fight over the safety of America's food supply ... Experts said New York City would take the boldest step yet ... to ban restaurants from preparing foods containing more than trace amounts of artificial trans fatty acids. ...the ban on trans fats would bar chefs at thousands of restaurants from using partially hydrogenated vegetable oil ...   -NYC trans fat ban is latest volley in fight over food safety, By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer, October 2, 2006, 1:48 AM EDT

This may make more sense than a ban on smoking -- but neither is appropriate for a free people.  As the quip goes, "The result of protecting fools from their folly is to fill the world with fools."  Governments have ceratinly made major contributions to that enterprise. 

The result is sleeping sheeple who think they're being taken care of -- and thus believe they don't have to take care of themselves -- and thus a lax market place that tolerates what may be poisons -- lots of them -- in the food supply and elsewhere.   

Proof?  Here's the punchline from the above article: "public health law experts said they were stunned that New York would ban a substance the Food and Drug Administration only began listing on food labels this year."

So, the FDA is NOT protecting you from trans-fatty acids -- heck they didn't even tell they're in your food -- you are NOT demanding food that doesn't contain them -- and neither are other customers, who see no point in being informed  because there's no hope of bucking 'the system'.  Thus the normal market forces that would have caused restaurants to stop using these substances long ago have been silenced and we still have hydrogenated oils widely used. 

See, governments, just like most other ogranizations, end up working for those who have money and influence.  So the FDA, USDA, FAA, FCC and even CIA don't work for "we the people," they work for GM, Chrysler, ADM, etc.  -- and the other organizations that can afford one of the ~27,000 registered and paid lobbyists in Washington D.C. -- and they maintain the status quo.  No matter what it is.

Is this appropriate for a free people?