A man without a country; The price of Truth.

[babylonsister]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jay_esbe_070526_a_man_without_a_coun.htm

A man without a country; The price of Truth.

by Jay Esbe Page 1 of 4 page(s)

snip//

In 2006, I voted a straight Democratic ticket in faint hope that they’d gain a majority, and reverse direction before country met cliff. I was neither deceived in this hope. One does not hope for what they believe will happen. I believed they’d do absolutely nothing. No matter what the polls were.

Now, here we are, almost 6 months into the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, and we are exactly –“hope” aside”- where I knew in my heart we would be; a rogue, criminal President still running amuck, his endless high crimes still un-prosecuted, our men and women still being sent to their deaths, his supreme international war crime in Iraq continuing as the rape of the nation continues, now with the tacit written approval of the so-called “opposition party”. Get this through your thick skulls people: There is no opposition party, there never was, and there hasn’t been for 40 years.

9/11 was the beginning of the end of both the United States as we thought we knew it, and of any sense of loyalty I would feel in the end. Take note of the word “thought”, for over time, I have learned that everything I knew, or thought I knew about my country, was simply wrong; a lie.

The idea that George W. Bush’s crimes are unique, must end. Only exterior factors render them unique; The sheer clumsiness of the man behind the curtain in the presence of a fully –for the moment- democratic and free exchange of information via the internet, has cast a far brighter light on the obscenities of the United State’s conduct in the world, than existed in 1968. There is nothing actually new here, save for the increased level of awareness of SOME of the people, the –apparent- idiocy/insanity of Bush, and that some of the people have made a great noise at exposure to the light. But what –really- is the truth about this country?

America was taken over, and has remained under the total control of the same unelected forces in operation today, since the day the CIA succeeded in assassinating J.F.K.. The coup did not begin in 2000; 2000 was only another operational phase; one which would achieve a long desired ambition of the people behind everything; to execute the final destruction from within; the destruction of the faith of the American people, and to then use it.

I wrote a prediction all the way back in 2003, 2 weeks before the war, and it’s most salient predictions seem to have been sadly, accurately fulfilled. I first published the following at the original forum at ariannaonline.com on March 9th, 2003 . You can decide for yourself whether I had a crystal ball, or simply knew where to look for the truth:

more...

[CJCRANE]

1. The Counter-Revolution Was Televised

on 9/11.

Doesn't matter if the hijackers (and the anthrax mailer) were working for Osama or Cheney - the result was the same -
an attack on the economy, military and democracy of America that the Neo-Republicans have exploited and continued to this day.

[dave_p]

2. What a loon

Hysterical! Bush 41 babbling to the UN about "the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance" as proof of the international-government aspirations of a son who's spat in the UN's face throughout his "Presidency" and done more than anyone to undermine its authority?

No, sorry, this is paranoid fantasist "poor little Amrerica" junk, the kind of delusion that inspires far-right inbreeds to arm themselves against the blue-helmeted invaders. The only threat of world government emanates from neocon schemes for US global overlordship, and the rest of the world isn't about to let that happen after seeing the results in Iraq.

[CJCRANE]

3. Yes, the UN is toothless...

blue-helmet forces seem to stay out of the way of the line of fire as much as possible.

America is more under threat from Blackwater or over-eager freepers.

[dave_p]

4. So do I

"blue-helmet forces seem to stay out of the way of the line of fire as much as possible"

Not so. The UN sends forces into some of the world's worst troublespots at the behest of the Security Council. It can't act without their authorization. But BushCo's done nothing to strengthen its mission.

As for staying out of the line of fire, I think i'd do the same. It isn't the UN's job to fight other people's wars, but trying to keep the peace cost UN forces 124 dead in 2005.

Don't knock the peacekeepers.

[dave_p]

5. ... but you're right about Blackwater

The threat to national independence isn't the UN, it's the growing stranglehold of monopoly over public life. And the greater part of that menace comes from within America, rather than outside.

[bemildred]

6. Not bad, close even.

1.) The existing two-party duopoly came into being after the Civil War, and had been seriously challenged twice, during the great depression and during the VietNam War period. There have been many other less effective challenges, Perot and George Wallace for example, the endless list of third parties, easily turned aside.

2.) The one thing the two-party oligarchy fears is true grass-roots politics (Dean, Perot) since we the people still retain the power to throw them out of office, to take their power away. It is always about power, and power struggles are consequently the one thing that is never publicly discussed in the USA.

3.) I think Joe Lieberman's purpose in 2000 was to make sure Al Gore lost, and he failed in that, so the USSC had to step in.

4.) I too thought Kerry was a witting or unwitting stooge, and I voted for him anyway because to do so would thwart the oligarchy's plans.

5.) Presidents come in two categories: stooges of the duopoly that are supported no-matter what, and outside independents that are attacked no matter what. You decide which post-Kennedy candidates go in which category. It is really easy once you understand it is not about good-governance at all, it is about who has power.

6.) Grass roots political movements are defused by coopting with a stooge leader who attempts to suck up as much grass roots money and energy as possible and ground it in a crashing defeat. Hence Kerry's next morning surrender. The job is not merely to run to lose, but to lose with vigor and enthusiasm, to kick the grass-roots in the nuts as effectively as possible.

7.) Movements that cannot be coopted are marginalized and discredited, this is Mr Dean.

8.) Sometimes the two strategies are combined, you get a stooge, run-to-lose copycat while the independent leader pushing the same agenda is marginalized. This is the Dean-Kerry story. I don't know what Mr Kerry's or Mr Dean's personal feelings were about these things, and I do not presume to judge them, but I expected Mr Dean to be attacked and marginalized, and I expected Kerry to lose just the way he did as soon as he jumped in the ring, because of who they were politically, because of the political roles they were playing. It is not new.

9.) There are two effective tools that "we the people" still have: 1.) we can take control of the Democratic Party, one-half of the duopoly, because it is democratically run at the grass roots level, a great reform from the VietNam period that needs to be better used; and 2.) we can "throw the bums out", fight against the re-election, both in primaries and main elections, of incumbents of either party who have not been obedient to the public will. Fight for your vote and fight to throw the bums out. It is better to defeat them in primaries, so that one may vote Democratic in main elections, pursuant to seizure of control of that party as in #1.

10.) It is absolutely essential to pay no attention whatever to anything that is said in the mainstream broadcast and print media. Just watch what occurs and who does what without any of the fancy dialog, and consider that US politicians are much the same as all other politicians have been all through human history, and it all becomes much clearer.