Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
Photo of Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Watch & Listen The Blog Archive Transcripts Buy DVDs

« Moyers on Murdoch | Main | Story Updates: Libby, Eagles, Trade and more »

Where's the Party?

In his interview with Bill Moyers, Victor Gold explains his frustration about the direction of the Republican party and its base. Now hear from other Republicans on this issue.

In 2004 Bill Moyers talked with a number of GOP members about their views on the future and core ideology of their party. Click the pictures below to watch these interviews in entirety and give us your take below.

We certainly need to fight against any effort by any corporation or any industry to ask for special deals from the government. And that's why the conservative movement has always been so separate from the business community. I know the left keep thinking they're the same thing. I assure you, the business community is very aware that they're not the same thing.
--Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform

Most conservatives believe today as they did in the past that the primary reason for their involvement in politics is to make certain that government keeps its hands off them, keeps its hands out of their pockets. The problem that we have is that with the Republican Party in control of the Congress and in the White House, that there's a tendency to do the same thing that the Democrats did when they were in power." --David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union

The flaw in the movement was the perception that the church had become an appendage to the Republican Party and one more special interest group to be pampered. If one examines the results of the Moral Majority's agenda, little was accomplished in the political arena and much was lost in the spiritual realm, as many came to believe that to be a Christian meant you also must be "converted" to the Republican Party and adopt the GOP agenda and its tactics.--Cal Thomas, conservative commentator

You have to remember there's two different things: There's the Republican Party, and then there's the conservative movement...at the time we hadn't nominated anybody for President. We did that with Goldwater in '64. Then we hadn't elected a conservative to office. And we did that in 1980. Now, our next challenge is to nominate, elect and govern as conservatives. And we've not had a President who governed as a conservative
--Richard A. Viguerie, conservative grassroots activist


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/246

Comments

Bribe-Addicted Legislatures

"If a baseball player slides into home plate and, right before the umpire rules if he is safe or out, the player says to the umpire - 'Here is $1,000.' What would we call that? We would call that a bribe. If a lawyer was arguing a case before a judge and said, 'Your honor before you decide on the guilt or innocence of my client, here is $1,000.' What would we call that? We would call that a bribe.

"But if an industry lobbyist walks into the office of a key legislator and hands her or him a check for $1,000, we call that a campaign contribution. We should call it a bribe." : Janice Fine - Dollars and Sense magazine

An Order To Servant Peloci
Urgent Impeachment Warranted
An absolutely convincing argument as to why it should be started now and not a second later.

By: Dr.MurrayM. Morgan

"A slave is he who cannot speak his thoughts.": Euripides
=
"Search for the truth is the noblest occupation of man; its publication is a duty." : Anne Louise Germaine de Stael - (1766-1817) French author
===
Dangers of a Cornered George Bush
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18081.htm

By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity & Dr. Justin Frank

07/27/07 "ICH " -- -- The “new” strategy of surging troops in Baghdad has …
===
Propaganda Tool and CIA
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/07/27/1/a-conversation-about-the-cia
Tim Weiner
A conversation about the CIA
with Tim Weiner about ... The History of the CIA".
===
The Order to Speaker Peloci:

According to the Constitution of the USA, government should be servant of people to execute the will of people. According to the self-rule right, the Speaker Of The House of a government-of-people by-people for-people is supposed to be our servant to execute our will. Accordingly pursuant to the expressed will/wish of people (reflected in polls), I, Murray M. Morgan, hereby, order Speaker Peloci to, without regard to not-having the required votes (for conviction), after listening to the July 13, 07 Moyers’ program on impeachment (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/watch.html), reading of this and my other postings with Bill Moyers’ Blog (on PBS web-page), without any second of delay start Impeachment process against Servant Bush and Servant Chesney.

So is ordered in the presence of God on this July 28th, 2007 and so shall be executed by the Servant Peloci.


Israel-i Lobby Hijacking US Foreign Policy

By: Dr. Murray M. Morgan

Read this and conclude for yourself, with a conscientious frame of mind, as to the veracity of the above title.

Please, spread this far and wide to overcome the self-censorship of Press-titudes and media towards awakening sleeping public of our government being highjacked by parasitic corporative military-industrial-complex profiteers (at the back of almost the whole public. Here is the link to be clicked to read the whole article:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0707/glick072707.php3
Israel has experienced some achievements [of her own]regarding Iran over the past year. The UN Security Council did pass two sanctions resolutions against Iran. With the active lobbying of opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu, many US public employee pension funds are moving to divest from companies that do business with Iran. And this week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that like his predecessor Tony Blair, he will not rule out the option of using military force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I haven't read all of this yet - I will but I have to say my only comment is - Can any of the parties/persons involved in all of this, actually say they have read the Quran. More importantly have they read the Christian Bible (Old & New Testaments) and above all if they have - do they understand any of it??? I don't think so!!!

To be The Presidents of ISrael

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070726/pl_nm/usa_politics_iran_dc_1
""Allowing Iran, a radical theocracy that supports terrorism and openly threatens its neighbors, to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take," Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said in a letter to the Israel Project, a pro-Israel group that educates the public about Israel and advocates an end to investment in Iran. Obama's tough line on Iran was largely echoed in other letters from seven other candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, both Democrats. Two Republican candidates -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas -- stressed, as Bush has done, that the military option must remain on the table.""

The Nonsense about Jihad

@ Constantinopole
Do you know that God exist? Can you look at yourself in the mirror when you attempt to distort Islam?

Islam is a religion of peace. Jihad is advocated as a mean to defend oneself against aggression and to repel injustice and humiliation that has reached to an intolerable level.

I found the nonsense as a comment (by somebody with the User-Name of Constantinople) to the article titled Parasitic Imperialism (by Ismael Hossein-zadeh). Somebody knowledgeable should respond to the distorting attempt (distorting Islam and the Prophet) of this tail-wagging/West’s-ass-kissing individual. Click the link (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17980.htm) and then click the "Comment" to find it among the other comments that are posted to the Hossein-zadeh’s article.

Here is that West’s-ass-kissing comment by "Constantinople" (read the Constantinopole's comment). I have heard that the "Hadis"ses that that Constantinople has cited in his comment (to draw conclusion from them)are the most controversial/ditorted/inaccurate(ask a conscienable Iranian moslem [not a West's-ass-kissing-pro-shah one] sayings [Ahadis=racconts])of the "Ahadis"ses that are, purportedly, attributed to the Prophet of Islam.
Dr. Murray
Murray | 07.26.07 - 10:29 pm | #

Bush Speechwriter Calls for Attack on Syria

By Gary Leupp

Neocon officials in the Defense Department call them "low-hanging fruit"--- as though countries were produce ripe for picking and eating. The term refers to nations targeted for regime change that might be achieved with minimal strain, at least when compared with the effort needed to topple the regime in Iran.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18069.htm

===

US lawmakers unite to demonize Iran:
The "threat of Iran" and the need to confront the regime has become a mainstream view in the US legislature, attracting support from Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG25Ak01.html
===

No Wonder!
Bush's Grandfather Advocating Fascism/Hitlerism

A must listen to document.

By: Dr. Murray M. Morgan

BBC Audio Documentary
Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by right-wing American

Servant Bush
An Order to the President of the USA

By: Dr. Murray M. Morgan


According to the Constitution of the USA, government should be servant of people to execute the will of people.

According to the self-rule right, the President of a government-of-people by-people for-people is supposed to be our servant to execute our will.

Accordingly, I, Murray M. Morgan, hereby, order President Bush to, immediately and without any second of delay:
1. put stop to interference in the internal affairs of Iran (including their peaceful nuclear program),

2. put stop to bullying/coercive/humiliating treatment of Iranians (which also includes their rough government that, is up to the people of Iran only to, in the absence of feeling of any sort of threat rise against and re-establish their self-rule in there)

3. remove all of our [pirating\ naval forces from the Persian Gulf and vicinity (in the Indian Ocean)

4. evacuate all our military/clandestine-military bases abroad (specially the ones located in the Middle East and Central Asian countries) and bring all the personnel therein home

5. put stop to all his infringements on Citizens liberties (nowadays known to everybody) and put stop to indirect/coercive censorships.

6. It is the equal-and-with-respect treatment of others that assures peace and constant flow of oil to Europe and our country. It also pours water on all the inflamed sentiments that as a result puts end to "terrorism" which is, sinfully, abused so much these days by corporative military industrial complex that Late President Eisenhower warned us against their undue and detrimental influence -- that has created a sort of Parasitic Imerialism. Therefore, it, also, hereby President Bush is ordered to put stop to Parasitic Imperialism that should be carried out with co-operation of the conscionable members of the Congress and Senate which, for sure, does NOT include the war-mongring Senator Joseph Lieberman.

The era of imperialism is over. It is era of co-existance in peace that would, only, be possible through with-respect and equal-regrding of others.

So is ordered in the presence of God on this July 23rd 2007 and so would be executed by the Servant Bush.
Murray

Parasitic Imperialism

I found this must-read article. It is superb.

Sincerely,
Dr. Murray M. Morgan
*********************
Parasitic Imperialism

By Ismael Hossein-zadeh

How recent U.S. wars of choice, driven largely by war profiteering, are plundering not only defenseless peoples and their resources abroad, but also the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens and their resources at home.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17980.htm
Parasitic Imperialism
How recent U.S. wars of choice, driven largely by war profiteering, are plundering not only defenseless peoples and their resources abroad, but also the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens and their resources at home.
By Ismael Hossein-zadeh
07/07/07 "ICH" -- -- Although immoral, external military operations of past empires often proved profitable, and therefore justifiable on economic grounds. Military actions abroad usually brought economic benefits not only to the imperial ruling classes, but also (through “trickle-down” effects) to their citizens. Thus, for example, imperialism paid significant dividends to Britain, France, the Dutch, and other European powers of the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. As the imperial economic gains helped develop their economies, they also helped improve the living conditions of their working people and elevate the standards of living of their citizens.
This pattern of economic gains flowing from imperial military operations, however, seems to have somewhat changed in the context of the recent U.S. imperial wars of choice, especially in the post-Cold War period. Moralities aside, U.S. military expeditions and operations of late are not justifiable even on economic grounds. Indeed, escalating U.S. military expansions and aggressions have become ever more wasteful, cost-inefficient, and burdensome to the overwhelming majority of its citizens.
Therefore, recent imperial policies of the United States can be called parasitic imperialism because such policies of aggression are often prompted not so much by a desire to expand the empire’s wealth beyond the existing levels, as did the imperial powers of the past, but by a desire to appropriate the lion’s share of the existing wealth and treasure for the military establishment, especially for the war-profiteering Pentagon contractors. It can also be called dual imperialism because not only does it exploit the conquered and the occupied abroad but also the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens and their resources at home.
Since imperial policies abroad are widely discussed by others, I will focus here on parasitic military imperialism at home, that is, on what might be called domestic or internal imperialism. Specifically, I will argue that parasitic imperialism (1) redistributes national income or resources in favor of the wealthy; (2) undermines the formation of public capital (both physical and human); (3) weakens national defenses against natural disasters; (4) accumulates national debt and threatens economic/financial stability; (5) spoils external or foreign markets for non-military U.S. transnational capital; (6) undermines civil liberties and democratic values; and (7) fosters a dependence on or addiction to military spending and, therefore, leads to an spiraling vicious circle of war and militarism. (The terms domestic imperialism, internal imperialism, parasitic imperialism, and military imperialism are used synonymously or interchangeably in this article.)
1. Parasitic Imperialism Redistributes National Income from the Bottom to the Top
Even without the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are fast surpassing half a trillion dollars, U.S. military spending is now the largest item in the Federal budget. President Bush’s proposed increase of 10% for next year will raise the Pentagon budget to over half a trillion dollars for fiscal year 2008. A proposed supplemental appropriation to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq “brings proposed military spending for FY 2008 to $647.2 billion, the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II—higher than Vietnam, higher than Korea, higher than the peak of the Reagan buildup.”[1]
The skyrocketing Pentagon budget has been a boon for its contractors. This is clearly reflected in the continuing rise of the value of the contractors’ shares in the stock market: “Shares of U.S. defense companies, which have nearly trebled since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, show no signs of slowing down. . . . The feeling that makers of ships, planes and weapons are just getting into their stride has driven shares of leading Pentagon contractors Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp., and General Dynamics Corp. to all-time highs.”[2]
But while the Pentagon contractors and other beneficiaries of war dividends are showered with public money, low- and middle-income Americans are squeezed out of economic or subsistence resources in order to make up for the resulting budgetary shortfalls. For example, as the official Pentagon budget for 2008 fiscal year is projected to rise by more than 10 percent, or nearly $50 billion, “a total of 141 government programs will be eliminated or sharply reduced” to pay for the increase. These would include cuts in housing assistance for low-income seniors by 25 percent, home heating/energy assistance to low-income people by 18 percent, funding for community development grants by 12.7 percent, and grants for education and employment training by 8 percent.[3]
Combined with redistributive militarism and generous tax cuts for the wealthy, these cuts have further exacerbated the ominously growing income inequality that started under President Reagan. Ever since Reagan arrived in the White House in 1980, opponents of non-military public spending have been using an insidious strategy to cut social spending, to reverse the New Deal and other social safety net programs, and to redistribute national/public resources in favor of the wealthy. That cynical strategy consists of a combination of drastic increases in military spending coupled with equally drastic tax cuts for the wealthy. As this combination creates large budget deficits, it then forces cuts in non-military public spending (along with borrowing) to fill the gaps thus created.
For example, at the same time that President Bush is planning to raise military spending by $50 billion for the next fiscal year, he is also proposing to make his affluent-targeted tax cuts permanent at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years, or an average yearly cut of $160 billion. Simultaneously, “funding for domestic discretionary programs would be cut a total of $114 billion” in order to pay for these handouts to the rich. The projected cuts include over 140 programs that provide support for the basic needs of low- and middle-income families such as elementary and secondary education, job training, environmental protection, veterans’ health care, medical research, Meals on Wheels, child care and HeadStart, low-income home energy assistance, and many more.[4]
According to the Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, "if the President's tax cuts are made permanent, households in the top 1 percent of the population (currently those with incomes over $400,000) will receive tax cuts averaging $67,000 a year by 2012. . . . The tax cuts for those with incomes of over $1 million a year would average $162,000 a year by 2012.”[5]
Official macroeconomic figures show that, over the past five decades or so, government spending (at the federal, state and local levels) as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) has remained fairly steady—at about 20 percent. Given this nearly constant share of the public sector of national output/income, it is not surprising that increases in military spending have almost always been accompanied or followed by compensating decreases in non-military public spending, and vice versa.
For example, when by virtue of FDR’s New Deal reforms and LBJ’s metaphorical War on Poverty, the share of non-military government spending rose significantly the share of military spending declined accordingly. From the mid 1950s to the mid 1970s, the share of non-military government spending of GNP rose from 9.2 to 14.3 percent, an increase of 5.1 percent. During that time period, the share of military spending of GNP declined from 10.1 to 5.8 percent, a decline of 4.3 percent.[6]
That trend was reversed when President Reagan took office in 1980. In the early 1980s, as President Reagan drastically increased military spending, he also just as drastically lowered tax rates on higher incomes. The resulting large budget deficits were then paid for by more than a decade of steady cuts on non-military spending.
Likewise, the administration of President George W. Bush has been pursuing a similarly sinister fiscal policy of cutting non-military public spending in order to pay for the skyrocketing military spending and the generous tax cuts for the affluent.
Interestingly (though not surprisingly), changes in income inequality have mirrored changes in government spending priorities, as reflected in the fiscal policies of different administrations. Thus, for example, when from the mid 1950 to the mid 1970s the share of non-military public spending rose relative to that of military spending, income inequality declined accordingly.
But as President Reagan reversed that fiscal policy by raising the share of military spending relative to non-military public spending and cutting taxes for the wealthy, income inequality also rose considerably. As Reagan’s twin policies of drastic increases in military spending and equally sweeping tax cuts for the rich were somewhat tempered in the 1990s, growth in income inequality slowed down accordingly. In the 2000s, however, the ominous trends that were left off by President Reagan have been picked up by President George W. Bush: increasing military spending, decreasing taxes for the rich, and (thereby) exacerbating income inequality.
The following are some specific statistics of how redistributive militarism and supply-side fiscal policies have exacerbated income inequality since the late 1970s and early 1980s—making after-tax income gaps wider than pre-tax ones. According to recently released data by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), since 1979 income gains among high-income households have dwarfed those of middle- and low-income households. Specifically:
• The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000—for a total increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures are adjusted by CBO for inflation.)
• By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose a relatively modest 21 percent, or $8,500, reaching $48,400 in 2004.
• The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose just 6 percent, or $800, during this period, reaching $14,700 in 2004.[7]

Legislation enacted since 2001 has provided taxpayers with about $1 trillion in tax cuts over the past six years. These large tax reductions have made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal by further concentrating income at the top of the income range. According to the Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, as a result of the tax cuts enacted since 2001, in 2006 households in the bottom fifth of the income spectrum received tax cuts averaging only $20; households in the middle fifth of the income range received tax cuts averaging $740; households in the top one percent received tax cuts averaging $44,200; and households with incomes exceeding $1 million received an average tax cut of $118,000.[8]
2. Parasitic Imperialism Undermines Public Capital—both Physical and Human
Beyond the issue of class and inequality, allocation of a disproportionately large share of public resources to the beneficiaries of war and militarism is also steadily undermining the critical national objective of building and/or maintaining public capital. This includes both physical capital or infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, mass transit, dams, levees, and the like) and human capital such as health, education, nutrition, and so on. If not reversed or rectified, this ominous trend is bound to stint long term productivity growth and socio-economic development. A top heavy military establishment will be unviable in the long run as it tends to undermine the economic base it is supposed to nurture.
In March 2001, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issued a “Report Card for America's Infrastructure,” grading 12 infrastructure categories at a disappointing D+ overall, and estimating the need for a $1.3 trillion investment to bring conditions to acceptable levels. In September 2003, ASCE released a Progress Report that examined trends and assessed the progress and decline of the nation’s infrastructure. The Progress Report, prepared by a panel of 20 eminent civil engineers with expertise in a range of practice specialties, examined 12 major categories of infrastructure. The report concluded: “The condition of our nation's roads, bridges, drinking water systems and other public works have shown little improvement since they were graded an overall D+ in 2001, with some areas sliding toward failing grade.”[9]
Neoliberal proponents of laissez faire economics tend to view government spending on public capital as a burden on the economy. Instead of viewing public-sector spending on infrastructure as a long-term investment that will help sustain and promote economic vitality, they view it as an overhead. By focusing on the short-term balance sheets, they seem to lose sight of the indirect, long-term returns to the tax dollars invested in the public capital stock. Yet, evidence shows that neglect of public capital formation can undermine long-term health of an economy in terms of productivity enhancement and sustained growth.
Continued increase in military spending at the expense of non-military public spending has undermined more than physical infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, it has also undercut public investment in human capital or social infrastructure such as health care, education, nutrition, housing, and the like—investment that would help improve quality of life, human creativity and labor productivity, thereby also helping to bring about long-term socioeconomic vitality. Investment in human capital—anything that improves human capacity and/or labor productivity—is a major source of social health and economic vitality over time.
Sadly, however, public investment in such vitally important areas has been gradually curtailed ever since the arrival of Ronald Reagan in the White House in 1980 in favor of steadily rising military spending. Evidence of this regrettable trend is overwhelming. To cite merely a few examples: “The war priorities have depleted medical and education staffs. . . . Shortages of housing have caused a swelling of the homeless population in every major city. State and city governments across the country have become trained to bend to the needs of the military—giving automatic approvals to its spending without limit. The same officials cannot find money for affordable housing.”[10]
The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert recently reported that some 5.5 million young Americans, age 16 to 24, were undereducated, disconnected from society's mainstream, jobless, restless, unhappy, frustrated, angry and sad. Commenting on this report, Professor Seymour Melman of Columbia University wrote: “This population, 5.5 million and growing, is the product of America's national politics that has stripped away as too costly the very things that might rescue this abandoned generation and train it for productive work. But that sort of thing is now treated as too costly. So this abandoned generation is now left to perform as fodder for well-budgeted police SWAT teams.”[11]
3. Parasitic Imperialism Undermines National Defense Capabilities against Natural Disasters—the Case of Hurricane Katrina
Neglect of public physical capital, or infrastructure, can prove very costly in terms of vulnerability in the face of natural disasters. This was tragically demonstrated, among many other instances, by the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. In light of the steady cuts in the infrastructural funding for the city of New Orleans, catastrophic consequences of a hurricane of the magnitude of Katrina were both predictable and, indeed, predicted.
Engineering and meteorological experts had frequently warned of impending disasters such as Katrina. Government policy makers in charge of maintaining public infrastructure, however, remained indifferent to those warnings. They seem to have had other priorities and responsibilities: cutting funds from public works projects and social spending and giving them away to the wealthy supporters who had paid for their elections. It is not surprising, then, that many observers and experts have argued that Katrina was as much a policy disaster as it was a natural disaster.
The New Orleans project manager for the Army Corps of Engineers, Alfred Naomi, had warned for years of the need to shore up the levees, but corporate representatives in the White House and the Congress kept cutting back on the funding. Naomi wasn’t the only one who had warned of the impending disaster.
In 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “ranked the potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing the country,” wrote Eric Berger in a prescient article in the Houston Chronicle of December 1, 2001. In that piece, Berger warned: “The city’s less-than-adequate evacuation routes would strand 250,000 people or more, and probably kill one of ten left behind as the city drowned under twenty feet of water. Thousands of refugees could land in Houston.”[12]
In June 2003, Civil Engineering Magazine ran a long story by Greg Brouwer entitled “The Creeping Storm.” It noted that the levees “were designed to withstand only forces associated with a fast-moving” Category 3 hurricane. “If a lingering Category 3 storm—or a stronger storm, say, Category 4 or 5—were to hit the city, much of New Orleans could find itself under more than twenty feet of water.”[13]
On October 11, 2004, The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a story by Paul Nussbaum, entitled “Direct Hurricane Hit Could Drown City of New Orleans, Experts Say.” It warned that “more than 25,000 people could die, emergency officials predict. That would make it the deadliest disaster in U.S. history.” The story quoted Terry C. Tuller, city director of emergency preparedness: “It’s only a matter of time. The thing that keeps me awake at night is the 100,000 people who couldn’t leave.”
But government representatives of big business in the White House and the Congress were not moved by these alarm bells; the warnings did not deter them from further cutting non-military public spending in order to pay for the escalating military spending and the generous tax cuts for the wealthy.
Some disasters cannot be prevented from occurring. But, with proper defenses, they can be contained and their disastrous consequences minimized. Katrina was not; it was not “because of a laissez-faire government that failed to bother to take warnings seriously,” and because of a skewed government fiscal policy “that is stingy when it comes to spending on public goods but lavish on armaments and war.”[14]
4. Parasitic Militarism Costs External Markets to Non-military Transnational Capital
U.S. military buildup and its unilateral transgressions abroad have increasingly become economic burdens not only because they devour a disproportionately large share of national resources, but also because such adventurous operations tend to create instability in international markets, subvert long-term global investment, and increase energy or fuel costs. Furthermore, the resentment and hostilities that unprovoked aggressions generate in foreign lands are bound to create backlash at the consumer level.
For example, A Business Week report pointed out in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that in the Muslim world, Europe, and elsewhere “there have been calls for boycotts of American brands as well as demonstrations at symbols of U.S. business, such as McDonald’s corporation” (Business Week, 14 April 2003, p. 32).
A leading Middle East business journal, AME Info, reported in its April 8, 2004 issue that “In 2002, a cluster of Arab organizations asked Muslims to shun goods from America, seen as an enemy of Islam and a supporter of Israel. In Bahrain, the Al-Montazah supermarket chain, for example, boosted sales by pulling about 1,000 US products off its shelves, and other grocers followed suit.” The report further pointed out that “Coca-Cola and Pepsi, sometimes considered unflattering shorthand for the United States, took the brunt of the blow. Coca-Cola admitted that the boycott trimmed some $40 million off profits in the [Persian] Gulf in 2002.”[15]
The report also indicated that in recent years a number of “Muslim colas” have appeared in the Middle Eastern/Muslim markets. “Don't Drink Stupid, Drink Committed, read the labels of Mecca Cola, from France. . . . Iran's Zam Zam Cola, originally concocted for Arab markets, has spread to countries including France and the United States.” In addition, the report noted that “US exports to the Middle East dropped $31 billion from 1998-2002. Branded, value-added goods—all the stuff easily recognized as American—were hit the hardest.” Quoting Grant Smith, director of IRmep, a leading Washington-based think tank on Middle Eastern affairs, the report concluded: “Our piece of the pie is shrinking, and it's because of our degraded image.”[16]
Evidence shows that foreign policy-induced losses of the U.S. market share in global markets goes beyond the Middle East and/or the Muslim world. According to a December 2004 survey of 8,000 international consumers carried out by Global Market Insite (GMI) Inc., one-third of all consumers in Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom “said that U.S. foreign policy, particularly the ‘war on terror’ and the occupation of Iraq, constituted their strongest impression of the United States. Brands closely identified with the U.S., such as Marlboro cigarettes, America Online (AOL), McDonald's, American Airlines, and Exxon-Mobil, are particularly at risk.” Twenty percent of respondents in Europe and Canada “said they consciously avoided buying U.S. products as a protest against those policies.” Commenting on the results of the survey, Dr. Mitchell Eggers, GMI's chief operating officer and chief pollster, pointed out, "Unfortunately, current American foreign policy is viewed by international consumers as a significant negative, when it used to be a positive."[17]
Kevin Roberts, chief executive of advertising giant Saatchi & Saatchi, likewise expressed concern about global consumer backlash against militaristic U.S. foreign policy when he told the Financial Times that he believed consumers in Europe and Asia are becoming increasingly resistant to having "brand America rammed down their throats." Similarly, Simon Anholt, author of Brand America, told the British trade magazine Marketing Week that “four more years of Bush's foreign policy could have grave consequences for U.S. companies' international market share.”[18]
Writing in the October 27, 2003 issue of the Star Tribune, Ron Bosrock of the Global Institute of St. John’s University likewise expressed anxiety over negative economic consequences that might follow from the Bush administration’s policies of unilateral military operations and economic sanctions.
Concerns of this nature have prompted a broad spectrum of non-military business interests to form coalitions of trade associations that are designed to lobby foreign policy makers against unilateral U.S. military aggressions abroad. One such anti-militarist alliance of American businesses is USA*ENGAGE. It is a coalition of nearly 700 small and large businesses, agriculture groups and trade associations working to seek alternatives to the proliferation of unilateral U.S. foreign policy actions and to promote the benefits of U.S. engagement abroad. The coalition’s statement of principles points out, “American values are best advanced by engagement of American business and agriculture in the world, not by ceding markets to foreign competition” through unilateral foreign policies and military aggressions ( http://www.usaengage.org/about_us/index.html ).
Non-military business interests’ anxiety over the Bush administration’s unilateral foreign policy measures is, of course, rooted in their negatively-affected financial balance sheets by those actions: “Hundreds of companies blame the Iraq war for poor financial results in 2003, many warning that continued U.S. military involvement there could harm this year's performance,” pointed out James Cox of USA Today.
In a relatively comprehensive survey of the economic impact of the war, published in the July 14, 2004 issue of the paper, Cox further wrote: “In recent regulatory filings at the Securities and Exchange Commission, airlines, home builders, broadcasters, mortgage providers, mutual funds and others say the war was directly to blame for lower revenue and profits last year.” Many businesses blamed the war and international political turbulence as a ‘risk factor’ that threatened their sales: “The war led to sharp decreases in business and leisure travel, say air carriers, travel services, casino operators, restaurant chains and hotel owners.” The survey covered a number of airlines including Delta Airlines, JetBlue, Northwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines, all of which blamed the war for a drop in air travel. Related industries such as travel agencies, hotels, restaurants, and resort and casino operations all suffered losses accordingly.[19]
Even technology giants such as Cisco, PeopleSoft and Hewlett-Packard that tend to benefit from military spending expressed concerns that “hostilities in Iraq hurt results or could harm performance.” For example, managers at Hewlett-Packard complained that "potential for future attacks, the national and international responses to attacks or perceived threats to national security, and other actual or potential conflicts or wars, including the ongoing military operations in Iraq, have created many economic and political uncertainties that could adversely affect our business, results of operations and stock price in ways that we cannot presently predict." Other companies that were specifically mentioned in the survey as having complained about the “whiplash from the Iraq conflict” included home builders Hovnanian and Cavalier homes, casino company Mandalay Resort Group, retailer Restoration Hardware, cosmetics giant Estée Lauder, eyewear retailer Cole, Longs Drug Stores, golf club maker Callaway, and H&Q Life Sciences Investors.[20]
5. Parasitic Imperialism Accumulates National Debt, Weakens National Currency, and Undermines Long-Term National Financial/Economic Health
A major source of the financing of the out-of-control military spending has been borrowing—the other source has been cutting non-military public spending. This represents a cynically clever strategy on the part of the powerful interests that benefit from war and militarism: instead of financing their wars of choice by paying taxes proportionate to their income, they give themselves tax cuts, finance their wars through borrowing, and then turn around and lend money (unpaid taxes) to the government and earn interest.
Viewed in this light, the staggering national debt of nearly $9 trillion, which is more than two thirds of gross nation product (GNP), represents a subtle redistribution of national resources from the bottom to the top: it represents unpaid taxes by the wealthy, which has to be financed by cutting non-military public spending—both now and in the future. This means that the wealthy has successfully converted their tax obligations to credit claims, that is, lending instead of paying taxes—which is in essence a disguised form of theft or robbery.
This cynical policy of increasing military spending, cutting taxes for the wealthy and, thereby, accumulating national debt cannot continue for ever, as it might eventually lead to national or Federal insolvency, collapse of the dollar, and paralysis of financial markets—not only in the United States but perhaps also in broader global markets.
Prospects of such developments has led a number of observers to argue that the profit-driven military expansion might prove to be the nemesis of U.S. imperialism: the escalating and out-of-control militarization tends to gradually drive the once-prosperous U.S. superpower in the direction of a mismanaged and destructive military imperial force whose capricious and often purely existential military adventures will eventually become costly both politically and economically. While the top-heavy imperial military colossus tends to undermine its economic base, it is also bound to create many enemies abroad and a lot of discontentment and hostility to the established order at home. Unchecked, a combination of these adverse developments, especially a drained economy and an empty or bankrupt treasury, might eventually lead to the demise of the empire, just as happened to the post-Rubicon, Old Roman Empire.[21]
6. Parasitic Imperialism Undermines Democratic Control and Corrupts the System of Checks and Balances
As noted earlier, powerful beneficiaries of war dividends (the military-industrial complex and affiliated businesses of war) have successfully used war and military spending as a roundabout way to reallocate national resources in their own favor. Appropriation of public finance by these war profiteers has reached a point where more than half of the discretionary Federal budget, or more than one-third of the entire Federal budget, is now earmarked for “national security.”
This perverse allocation of national resources in the name of national security has meant that while the increasing escalation of war and militarism have hollowed out national treasury (and brought unnecessary death, destruction, and disaster to millions), it has also brought tremendous riches and resources to war profiteers. Concealment of this subtle robbery of national treasury from the American people requires restriction of information, obstruction of transparency, and obfuscation or misrepresentation of national priorities—that is, curtailment of democracy.
Curtailment of democracy, however, is best achieved under conditions of war, which in turn, requires invention of enemies or manufacturing of threats to national security. Therefore, it is not fortuitous that, in the post-Cold War world, U.S. architects of wars of choice have become very resourceful in invoking all kinds of bogeymen (rogue states, global terrorism, axis of evil, radical Islam, and more) that are allegedly threatening “our national interests” in order to justify their plans of increased militarization of U.S. foreign policy. (Under the bipolar world of the Cold War era, “threat of communism” served the purpose of continued increases of the Pentagon budget.)
This means that U.S. wars of choice abroad are prompted largely by metaphorical domestic wars over allocation of public resources, or tax dollars. From the standpoint of war profiteers, instigation or engineering of capricious wars for profits help achieve two closely-linked purposes: on the one hand, they will help justify escalation of military spending, which means escalation of their share of U.S treasury, on the other, they will help camouflage such a cynical robbery of public money by restricting information under the cover of war-time circumstances.
For example, only under conditions of war the Bush the administration could display an attitude of cavalier contempt for lawful norms, undermine constitutional balances, corrupt national institutions with nefarious special interests, smear dissent as unpatriotic, suspend traditional legal rights for certain citizens, obstruct the free flow of information, sanction domestic spying without legal warrant, institute military tribunals, and promote torture in defiance of American and international law.
Likewise, only under conditions of war (and the self-fulfilling threats of imminent “terrorist attacks” on the U.S.) could the administration establish and manage a prison system outside the rule of law where torture can be used. With this system of prison camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba (Guantánamo), and a number of other undisclosed overseas places, where detainees are abused and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, the United States now has its own gulags. President Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA "black site" prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have often been seized off the street.[22]
From the vantage point of war profiteering militarists, such prison camps are an essential ingredient for the justification of war: they are portrayed as evidence of the existence of terrorists, of the “enemies of the people,” or of “enemy combatant” without, at the same time, having to show what the alleged evidence really is, or who the alleged “enemy combatants” really are—as would be required in an open court of law. Combined with warrantless wiretapping, electronic surveillance, and various types of illegal searches, this prison system serves yet another objective of the beneficiaries of war dividends: inspiration of fear and cultivation of silence and obedience among citizens, which means subversion of democracy and promotion of authoritarianism.
James Madison warned against such an ominous symbiosis of war and authoritarianism long time ago: “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.” The Congress of the United States of America had earlier (1784) issued a similar warning against authoritarian consequences of maintaining a large military establishment during times of peace: “standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.”[23]
But perhaps the strongest and most well-known warning against the baleful consequences of a large peace-time military establishment came from President Dwight Eisenhower: “The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a huge arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, and even spiritual—is felt in every city, every state house, and every office of the federal government. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” (Farewell Address, January 17, 1961).
Eisenhower’s warning that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex is more relevant today than when it was issued nearly half a century ago. The steadily rising—and now perhaps monopolizing and overwhelming—power and influence of the Complex over both domestic and foreign policies of the United States is testament to the unfortunate realization of Eisenhower’s nightmare. As Howard Swint, Democratic candidate for Congress in West Virginia, put it: “The seat of power for formulating foreign policy and defense strategy is not in the White House but rather in the Pentagon. While a civilian Commander-in-Chief may tweak policy in four-year increments, it’s obvious that military careerists together with major defense contractors effectively control the Congressional budget process and drive defense appropriations.”[24]
7. Parasitic Imperialism Leads to Dependence on, or Addiction to, War and Militarism
The fact that the Pentagon appropriates and controls more than one-third of the entire Federal budget has allowed it to forge the largest constituency and/or dependents nationwide. Tens of thousands of businesses, millions of jobs, and thousands of cities and communities have become dependent on military spending. While a handful of major contractors take the lion’s share of military spending, millions more have become dependent on it as the source of their livelihood.
It is not surprising then that not many people are willing to oppose the continuing rise in the Pentagon budget—even if they might philosophically be opposed to militarism and large military spending. Because of the widespread presence of military installations and production sites nationwide, few politicians can afford not to support a continued rise in military spending lest that should hurt their communities or constituencies economically.
This helps explain the vicious and spiraling circle of war, international political convulsions, and military spending: Major Pentagon contractors and other powerful beneficiaries of war dividends are dependent on continued war and militarism in order to maintain and expand hefty profits. This dependence has, in turn, created a secondary (or derived) dependence; it is the dependence of millions of Americans on military spending as the source of their livelihood, which then plays into the hands of war profiteers in their perennial quest for ever newer enemies, newer wars, and bigger appropriations for the Pentagon—hence the addiction to and the vicious circle of war profiteering, international political tension, war, and military spending.
Concluding Remarks—Parasitic Imperialism: A Most Dangerous Type of Imperialism
Dependence on, or addiction to, war and militarism for profitability makes U.S military imperialism (that is, imperialism driven by military capital, or arms conglomerates, vis-à-vis non-military transnational capital) a most dangerous kind of imperialism. Under the rule of the past imperial powers, the conquered and subjugated peoples or nations could live in peace—imposed peace, to be sure—if they respected the interests and the needs of those imperial powers and simply resigned to their political and economic ambitions.
Not so in the case of the U.S. military-industrial empire: the interests of this empire are nurtured through “war dividends.” Peace, imposed or otherwise, is viewed by the beneficiaries of war dividends inimical to their interests as it would make justification of continued increases of their share of national resources (in the form of Pentagon appropriations) difficult.
Of course, tendencies to build bureaucratic empires have always existed in the ranks of military hierarchies. By itself, this is not what makes the U.S. military-industrial complex more dangerous than the military powers of the past. What makes it more dangerous is the “industrial,” or business, part of the Complex. In contrast to the United States' military or war industries, arms industries of past empires were not subject to capitalist market imperatives. Furthermore, those industries were often owned and operated by imperial governments, not by market-driven giant corporations. Consequently, as a rule, arms production was dictated by war requirements, not by market or profit imperatives, which is the case with today’s U.S. armaments industry.
Ismael Hossein-zadeh is an economics professor at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. This article draws upon his recently published book, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan Publishers)
References
[1] William D. Hartung, “Bush Military Budget Highest Since WW II,” Common Dreams (10 February 2007), http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0210-26.htm >.
[2] Bill Rigby, “Defense stocks may jump higher with big profits,” Reuter (12 April 2006), http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/12/defense_stocks_may_jump_higher_with_big_profits/ >.
[3] Shakir F. et al., Center for American Progress Action Fund, “The Progress Report” (6 February 2007), http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/02/deep_hock.html
[4] Robert Greenstein, “Despite the Rhetoric, Budget Would Make Nation’s Fiscal Problems Worse and Further Widen Inequality,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (6 February 2007), http://www.cbpp.org/2-5-07bud.htm >.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Richard Du Boff, “What Military Spending Really Costs,” Challenge 32 (September/October 1989), pp. 4–10.
[7] Congressional Budget Office, Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004, as reported by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-07inc.htm >.
[8] Tax Policy Center, Table T06-0279, online: http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/TMDB/TMTemplate.cfm?Docid=1361 ; and Table T06-0273, online: http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/TMDB/TMTemplate.cfm?Docid=1355
[9] American Society of Civil Engineers, “What can happen if America fails to invest in its infrastructure? Anything,” news release (4 September 2003), http://www.asce.org/reportcard/index.cfm?reaction=news&page=5
[10] Seymour Melman, “They Are All Implicated: In the Grip of Permanent War Economy,” Counterpunch.com (15 March2003), http://www.counterpunch.org/melman03152003.html
[11] Ibid.
[12] M. Rothschild, “Katrina Compounded,” The Progressive (1 September 2005), http://progressive.org/?q=node/2377 >.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] AME Info, “Coke and Pepsi battle it out,” (8 April 2004), http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/37492.html
[16] Ibid.
[17] Jim Lobe, “Poll: War Bad for Business,” antiwar.com (30 December 2004), http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=4235
[18] Ibid.
[19] James Cox, “Financially ailing companies point to Iraq war,” USA Today (14 July 2004): http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-06-14-iraq_x.htm?POE=click-refer >.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York, NY: Vintage Books 1989); Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (New York, NY: Metropolitan Books 2004); Ismael Hossein-zadeh, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan2006).
[22] Naomi Wolf, “Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps,” AlterNet.org (28 April 2007), http://www.alternet.org/story/51150/
[23] Sidney Lens, The Military-Industrial Complex (Kansas City, Missouri: Pilgrim Press & the National Catholic Reporter 1979).
[24] Swint, Howard, “The Pentagon Ruled by Special Interests,” http://www.swintforcongress.us/Pentagon%20Waste%20Op%20Ed.htm

Dear Mr Moyer,
I was reading this article

http://www.counterpunch.org/pace07182007.html

and regret that Senator Lieberman is blindly leading/pushing us to another war.

I further read this on his own site.

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=278247&&

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/releases.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=278727&&

thank you

Sinical Media Silence

Dr_Murray M. Morgan

Phony pretexts repeated often enough become real reasons. Things that...are not true become true in the public mind simply through endless repetition.– Lenny Bloom

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18041.htm
No Evidence of Iran’s role in violence and instability in Iraq – confirms British Foreign Minister
By Mehrnaz Shahabi

07/19/07 "ICH" -- -- David Milliband, British foreign secretary, confirmed in an interview (1) with the Financial times, 8th July, that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in instability in Iraq or attacks on British troops:
Asked by the FT, “What do you think of Iran’s complicity in attacks on British soldiers in Basra”?, Miliband’s first response was, “Well, I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored. I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not fomenting discord, never mind death. And as I said at the beginning, Iran has a complete right, and we support the idea that Iran should be a wealthy and respected part of the future. But it does not have the right to be a force of instability”. However, prompted more closely, “Just to be clear, there is evidence?”, he replied, “Well no, I chose my words carefully…”.
This confession came in the context of an implied accusation or a not so subtle suggestion of Iranian role in the instability in Iraq which seem to have stimulated the question “There is evidence?”, to which the reply “Well no …”; a possible disappointment, was nonetheless crystal clear: There is no evidence.
Contextually, this important admission by the British Foreign Minister of absence of any evidence linking Iran to the violence and instability in Iraq was preceded by the discussion about Iran’s nuclear programme and Britain’s readiness to impose another set of punishing sanctions on Iranian people, for Iran’s non-compliance with the security council’s resolutions which have no basis in international law, imposed based on supposed suspicions for which again, there is no evidence .
Confirmation of the absence of evidence was then followed by yet another confirmation that Britain is leaving the military option “on the table”, on pretexts for which, there is no evidence, either of Iran’s breach of non proliferation rules or its threat to international peace and security. This confirms that despite a change of faces and make up, Britain continues to tow the American foreign policy and is in danger of being dragged into another illegal and immoral war, contrary to the will of the British people, and contrary to the evidence of its own finding. Jack Straw rejected as madness, any idea of military attack on Iran. Yet, Miliband refused to remove the military option off the table.
Keeping open, submissively, the possibility of British participation in a US/Israeli war or to give at least political backing to such an adventure, supports the assumption that the transition from Blair to Brown is significant, not from the point of view of any fundamental difference between Blair and Brown and their respective cabinets, but because of popular opposition to Blair’s open warmongering and servitude to American foreign policy.
The transition to the new government is a victory for the popular opposition to war and will remain a victory only if, under popular pressure and demand, the Brown government categorically rejects and opposes the military option against Iran; that it rejects the sanction resolutions which cause Iranian people immense suffering, and as with Iraq, are used as a pretext for war; and demand that the British government uses any influence it might have on the US administration in support of the pursuit of bilateral dialogue between the US and Iran without precondition.
Silence of the Media
The financial Times itself did not linger on the admission by Miliband of absence of evidence. Relevantly so, two days previously the FT published a story alleging Iranian government’s cooperation with Al-Qaeda using Iranian territory for launching anti-coalition operations in Iraq, without any evidence. Across the mainstream media the response has been uniform silence. This revelation should have been greeted with relief and welcomed by those in Britain and the US who are genuinely concerned about the tragedy that this illegal invasion and occupation has brought upon the people of Iraq, the security and moral implications for the people of the US and the UK, the welfare and safety of the coalition troops and the establishment of peace and security in Iraq and the Middle East. Considering the orchestrated chorus of the war media finding shadows of Iranian culprits at every corner, from Palestine to Afghanistan to Iraq and beyond, sabotaging the ‘noble efforts at establishing peace, security and democracy in this dangerous region’, these warriors of the clash of civilisations have not found the absence of evidence of Iranian complicity in the violence in Iraq newsworthy!
Neither has the 8th July Associated Press story (3) of the released audio tape from Abu Omar al Baghdadi, the leader of an al-Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq, has elicited any response from the US government, or particular interest and analysis in the media. In this audio tape, Baghdadi, allegedly, threatens to wage war against Iran unless Iran stops supporting the Shiia government in Iraq, and declaring that “his Sunni fighters have been preparing for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran”. This absence of interest in the media, in the wake of the recent flood of propaganda accusing Iran of complicity with Al-Qaeda (2) (4) is remarkable in its degree of cynicism, not just towards Iran but towards genuine desire for peace and security internationally.
The US, with its army briefing of 2nd July by Bregadier General, Kevin Bergner, who made wild and serious accusations about Iranian complicity in Anti-Us insurgency and its collusion in killing the US servicemen, has understandably remained silent!
Because of course, both the confirmation of Iranian non-involvement in the violence in Iraq, and the Al-Qaeda’s alleged intention to wage a war against Iran should Iran continue to support the Iraqi government, debunks the myth of Iranian involvement and investment in the continuing instability in Iraq and exposes the alliance of interests between the US and Al-Qaeda around their deep hostility towards Iran.
For those with a genuine desire for peace, this clear confirmation of the absence of Iranian involvement in the violence and instability in Iraq would have signaled a better prospect for establishing security in Iraq, and a better prospect for a successful withdrawal of troops. This would have also indicated the possibility, at least as far as Iran’s willingness is concerned, for a fruitful outcome for the bilateral dialogue between Iran and the US, the consequences of which are far reaching in terms of prosperity and security for the people in the region and for peace and security internationally.
1. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b9b5b078-2d57-11dc-939b-0000779fd2ac.html
2. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9cc4d5f4-2be3-11dc-b498-000b5df10621.html
3. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_qaida_1
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2085192,00.html
****************
High on Hate?
By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich & Nader Bagherzadeh

Left without a pretext for a military assault on Iran, the Bush administration finds itself in a position where it needs to prepare the world opinion for mass genocide with a compelling reason. With its control over the media, it is accomplishing this by denouncing Iran as the killer of American troops while causing civil unrest in Iraq.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17877.htm (at the end of these …)

Thanks to Moyers for the interview with Bruce Fein. We need more of this type of in-depth commentary!

Impeachment is Timely, Wse, and Appropriate
How Similar Hitler and Bush/Chesney are

Does "Marg bar Amrica" really measns "Death to America"?
Which one do we have? Democracy or "Dameé-Cos-Raazi"!?
"Persian Gulf" or "the Gulf"
"Khazary" Jews

July 18,2007
By: Dr. Murray M. Morgan

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervour - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always, there has been some terrible evil at home, or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.": General Douglas MacArthur - (1880-1964) WWII Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific, Supreme United Nations Commander 1957

The Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690:
"That the aggressor, who puts himself into the state of war with another, and unjustly invades another man's right, can, by such an unjust war, never come to have a right over the conquered, will be easily agreed by all men, who will not think that robbers and pirates have a right of empire over whomsoever they have force enough to master, or that men are bound by promises which unlawful force extorts from them.

Should a robber break into my house, and, with a dagger at my throat, make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title? Just such a title by his sword has an unjust conqueror who forces me into submission. The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown or some petty villain.

The title of the offender and the number of his followers make no difference in the offence, unless it be to aggravate it. The only difference is, great robbers punish little ones to keep them in their obedience; but the great ones are rewarded with laurels and triumphs, because they are too big for the weak hands of justice in this world, and have the power in their own possession which should punish offenders." John Locke - 1632-1704 - http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm
===

Does "Marg bar Amrica" really measns "Death to America"?

Please do not fall for propaganda of those who want to stoke resentment/division to conquer/harvest/exploit-other/steal others' resources by purposeful dishonest translations; such as the translation for "Marg Bar Aamrikaa"/"Marg Bar America" slogan.

The word "Marg" in Persian/Farsi has these three meanings:
1. Marg = Death like the death time of the guy is arrived/He/she is going to die
2. Death = stagnation like stagnation of stagnant/nonmoving water
3. Marg = stoppage/stop

It is the third meaning for the word "Marg" that people in Iran/Persia and Farsi-speaking countries use when they use it in the slogan "Marg Bar America" (out of anger for the exploiting, interfering meddling of America in the internal affaire of their country); meaning: "stoppage/stagnation on such above-mentioned abusing policies of America (USA)". They do not mean/wish that America dies in the sense of the meaning # 1. for the word MARG. sometimes, one family member tells other family member: "Marg bar X or Y baad" for something awful that he/she/they have done. He/she/they do not wish death for that family member. Israel tries to stoke anger in us (Americans) by distorted translations; such as the distorted translation of what Ahmadinejad (whom I am not a fan of)has said regarding Israel.

Please, do not fall for the trick of England. Please, avoid calling "Persian Gulf" "the Gulf". Use its true/proper internationally known name which is/has-been "Persian Gulf" for thousands of years the name for this body of water of the Earth. Please notice that, if you search the history, the name of the "the Gulf " is " Persian Gulf ". In fact, before Arabs fall into the manipulative trap of English colonialists, their respective countries used to produce maps with "Persian Gulf" as the name for the same body of water that, nowadays, call it with the ridiculous name of "the Gulf".

President Nasser of Egypt fell for the trick of "divide and conquer" of English colonialists. Taping on the Arab nationalistic pride, England thought that if the Arab countries of the region fall for calling the "Persian Gulf" "Arabic Gulf" (a manipulative way of FABRICATING/stoking/fomenting resentment and division[that did not existed at all]between Persia/Iran and Arab countries) then , in the absence of Unity and friendship between them (due to the as such created/fabricated resentment/division between) they would be able to exploit their resources more easily.

Because of the lawsuits, nowadays lots of news agencies, journals, and newspapers in order to continue receiving money (from Arab countries of the Persian Gulf) they call it just/only "the Gulf" instead of addressing it with its proper historically registered name (with UN) which is "Persian Gulf".

I tell you this because when one starts writing one should uphold truth and fairness; avoiding politics and being manipulated.
I decided to point out this point --regarding the distorted translation of "Marg Bar America" as "Death to America" (read above) because, I felt I had to make you aware of the unknown manipulations because you have started to write. I am aware that what I wrote above is out of the subject of this forum/topic (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18005.htm U.S. Soldier Tell Of Rape and Suicide of 15 Year Old Iraqi Girl)-- the horrible atrocities that for the underlying background/reason of its occurrence you can read my postings in the above postings (sense of us feeling being the "SUPERIOR"/"CIVILIZED" one and the rest of the world being considered as subhuman/barbares [Aristotle/Hegel "phylosophy" teaching at school/universities that West is Civilized and the rest of the world being emotional/irrational/noncivilized] that "whatever we do to them is [unconsciously/implicitly] justified" that as the result of such racist attitude/atrocities we should not feel guilt-feeling and shame).

I am an American but I believe on being just. because "Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere: Martin Luther King, Jr. : 1929-1968 "

That one sentence you asked for:
We need to stop teaching at schools and Universities that West culture is superior (read Les Grecs et les Barbares book series)because idiots like this disgusting one justify their atrocities by considering himself as being superior to the one he considers subhumans.

"that until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; that until there is no longer any first-class and second-class citizens of any nation; that until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to race -- until that day, the dreams of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained: Speech by H.I.M. HAILE SELASSIE I - California 28th February 1968 - ".
===
Damé-Cos-Raazi:
Otherwise, as it almost is, we would be having (what Iranians call it) "Damé-Cos-Raazi":
which sounds almost like the word Democracy if you read it fast. Now let us see what "Dame-Cos-Raazy" means.
In order to get the concept in it, I have to break the word and tell what each component means in Persian/Farsi language:
The phrase "Dameé-Cos-Raazi" is comprized of three parts:
1. Dameé = at he edge of/at he shore of
2. Cos = Vulva -- female genitalia which if you are artist and know gross anatomy of it, it looks like a fissure/slot if you like a narrow lake which has shores
3. Razzy means being happy and content

Now read all the three componets together, "Dameé-Cos-Raazi" (which sounds something similar to when you read the word "Democracy") is what we have here and in Europe which the inhabitants of which are , if you will, happy with sex. Imagine the "Dameé-Cos-Raazi" which means "being happy at the shore of the vulva.
We do NOT have a government of people (made by people and for people). Now laugh by saying we have "Dameé-Cos-Raazi"

Now draw a lake in the shape of vulva with two shores on each side with smiling people resting under paraplui/umberllas on each shore of the lake with some pimps around with having their hat high/obliquly. That's it. That's what our DEMOCRACY means. Cùest tout. Voilà

===

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___US207&q=Carrot+and+Stick+Dr%5fMurray+Morgan

"Khazary" Jews
Carrot and Stick an insultive policy

According to a real Jew, Israel is established by the Thirteenth Tribe!!-- By Khazaries who several centuries ago were not Jewish at all who used to live by the shores of northern Caspian Sea (aka: Daryaa-yeh Khazar). According to history, Khazaries had been accustomed to a PARASITIC WAY OF LIFE --invading into surrounding countries and southward, in Iran, to steal goods and take slaves; more or less resembling these days’ behavior of Israel. Isn't it as such? An apartheid State?

That real Jew says the Bani-Israel was comprised of 12 tribes and to mock the Khazary-"Jew"s (the founders of Israel), he calls them/categorizes them as the "Thirteenth Tribe" which did not exist at all.

For the Israel, it is a matter of utmost importance to be recognized as a legitimate STATE/COUNTRY by Iran/Persia; more important and satisfying than their recognition by us (the USA). The reason being that it was the King Cyrus the Great of Iran/Persia who gave shelter to the OPPRESSED Jews close to 2600 years ago. It is, therefore, very painful for Israel as being viewed by Iranians as OPPRESSORS and denied recognition as a legitimate STATE/COUNTRY by them.

President Truman immediately before he announces that he/USA recognizes Israel, reportedly has said that "by this recognition I might be remembered to the same degree that the Great Iranian/Persian King, Cyrus The Great, is revered/remembered by Jewish people for his having had given their ancestors shelter in Iran"; not knowing that it is Khazaries "Jew"s who(in accordance with their habitual parasitic way of life) on false pretences are establishing a troublesome country out of invasion and occupation of others' people land. President Truman would, probably, had not recognized Israel if he knew who the Khazary-"Jew"s were.

The highly respected Secretary of State, George Marshall, advised President Truman against recognition of Israel and we see how right he had been.
I am sure that if Cyrus the Great was alive, he would abhor what has-been/is going on in that part of his Kingdom; the Palestine.

Boycotting and withdrawing recognition of Israel:
It would be very responsible to:
1. all the real Jewish people in Israel who were not living in there before 1940 return to where they used to live because, if they are a believer in God and the JUSTICE God would uphold on the Judgment Day, they would find it very stupid to exchange ones conscience, dignity and inflict pain and sense of injustice on others just to amass/accumulate power and things (beyond our need) that no one would be able to take with into the other world. And

2. All the countries of the world to boycott Israel and withdraw their recognition of Israel as a legitimate State. The reason is that Israel was found on false pretences and on exploitation of the sense of guilt due to the horrible Holocaust.


It is very well known to Iranians that if they recognize Israel, all these manufactured-crisis (looming-danger from "irrational" atomic-Iran) would subside very fast.

My Advice:
Iranians tend to rally around their hated government when they perceive an outside threat against their country. So if we really want people of Iran to rise against their government, we should not threaten Iran in any shape or manner. In fact we have to lift our entire pirating blockade and all the unlawful slapped sanctions against Iran. It is the absence of any sort of outside threat, that would permit people of Iran to, once again, rise against their hated government to change and replace it with a government that would hopefully be a by-people and for-people government; a government that would abolish Velayat-e-Faghih, respects the responsible-freedom (that according to Koran is inherent right of people) and returns the right of self-governance back to the people of Iran; out of that already available initial post-revolution Constitution that, per the first President of Iran -- President Bani-Sadr -- did not contain the hated Velayat-e-Faghih in it. It was a Constitution in which all the Human Rights were recognized that would establish a for-people-government which, if adapted by people, would returns the freedom and the right of self-governance back to the people of Iran.

The point is that people of Iran will rise again and demand their government to return self-rule back to themselves ONLY when they do not feel/perceive ANY sort of outside pressure/danger (including bombardment and trade/movement-of-goods sanctions) against their country.

So, if we really are for freedom/democracy/self-rule-for-people-of-Iran, let us release all their blocked-assets, lift all the unlawful UNSC-imposed sanctions, and stop any sort of silly hostile posture against them by removing all our naval forces from Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf (located at Bahrain and elsewhere there).
Murray M. Morgan

**************

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/06/wheres_the_party_1.html#comment-19195

Carrot and Stick Policy
Seepage from Retarded Savage Mind
Dog-Minded Mental Procesing

Being in Iranian’s shoes, would we tolerate such an insult?


If we were faced with such humiliating bullying attitude, we would, for certain, be telling the bully to shove both of them; that is both the carrot and the stick.

It baffles me hearing such stupid tactic as a foreign policy mean to persuade Iran to give in into our rights-denying demand. United Nation Security Council (UNSC) has, politically slapped two rounds of rights-denying restricting sanction measures against Iran.

These unlawful acts against the most civilized and peaceful country in the world (read Les Grecs et les Barbares) has happened while IAEA, after several years of rigorous intruding inspections (we would not have had tolerated a second of it), has said times and time again that Iran's nuclear program has been within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and it (IAEA) has not been able to say that Iran's nuclear program has deviated from the NPT into a weaponized program. Of course, when something does not exist, you can not find something that can prove it exists.


Let us stop teaching our children, at schools and Universities, the nonsense racist stuff/philosophy of Aristotle (repeated by Hegel, and Montesquieu several centuries later) who has made up his nonsense/racist story/"philosophy" saying that the East is wild/emotional/savage and West is "civilized" -- "soul started from emotional, irrational, wild East and during its voyage towards West it gradually developed/matured until it arrived in West [its final destination/home] completely "Civilized".

According to a letter from Alexander the Great [sauvage vous voulez dire]-- read the Les Grecs ET les Barbares series books -- Alexander says,
"Leave this kiss-ass friend of mine (Aristotle he means) to me. Oh, how manipulating and viciously smart he is. He writes these things to me as a mean to justify my invasions and exploitations".

Hegel, several centuries later, repeats the same nonsense and by saying the followings justifies the Europeans/West's treatment of American Indians, Blacks, Africans, and Asians; no matter how barbarically ruining exploiting it is. No wonder nobody in here and Europe raised his/her voice against the last summer barbaric invasion of Israel into Lebanon; because the Lebanese were considered NOT civilized.


Hegel says:
“” We the "civilized" Westerners have to treat ourselves equally with equal treatment of each other, and respect each others' rights and boundaries. But when it comes to the non-Europeans, we do not have to do the same because "whatever we do to them is better than the situation they are in."”

You see, we FIRST dehumanize (by Press-titude/propagandist West media and Press) the ones we want to infringe on their rights to, when we do it, nobody dares to raise objection against our treatment of the victim.


The author of the “Les Grecs ET les Barbares”, by quoting from what the biased (in favor of Greeks/Romans) ancient Greek/Roman “Philosopher”s/”Historians” have written, demonstrates to the reader how they (compared with their own way of life) had been impressed by the more advanced culture and way of life of Iranians (see its evidence in the British Museum). He (the author) concludes that, if looked more profoundly and without prejudice, one would notice/find out about the enormous influence and life-improving impression/impact of Iranians’ way of life (culture,) onto the Greeks/Romans culture.

One famous Western literary giant has wished as such:” World would have been in a better shape if Persians/Iranians had been the rulers of Rome because they always had been kind and just wherever they had gone".


Do you know that pants is an Iranian invention? It is Siaah-Jaamegaan of Khorasan (Abu Moslem e Khoraa-ssaani)who for the ease of riding on horse, invented pants that later on was adapted by Europeans as an alternative to skirts.
********************
Are We Civilized?
By: Dr. Murray M. Morgan
Dear Speaker Peloci,


Hallmark of being (civilized)a member of CIVILIZED WORLD is JUST/EQUAL/with-respect TREATMENT of others. I would like to see people who dare to talk to power, to hear/demand truth from their government, and see that the President , Congress, Judiciary system and Press/Media are FRANK (with us to ADVANCE our WILL on our behalf), and held accountable for their actions.

I am puzzled by nobody daring to tell President Bush that:
"1. Hallmark of being (civilized) a member of CIVILIZED WORLD is JUST/EQUAL/with-respect TREATMENT of others.

2. You were picked (by George Shultz et al) to run for Presidency (to execute Wolfowitz et al hegemonic doctrine) because you were:
A. in need of impressing your parents and siblings (who had, always, looked down at you), and
B. that your urge/motive to punish Saddam was so strong that you were willing to do whatever you were/are asked to render realization to it. You were so, uncontrollably, OBSSESSED to RETALIATE against the audacity/daring of Saddam who: 1) had put a HUGE image of your father (for the purpose of humiliation) in the WALKWAY of one of the buildings in Baghdad (CBS showed it), and 2) had attempted to assassinate your father.

It was shown on TV screens (as then candidate) Bush, after having had seen the image of his father in the walkway, saying that, I quote it (from my memory):

"I would FINISH what my father did not do (failed to do) during the 1991 operation in Iraq ". I remind you of what Richard Clark said on TV. He said that President Bush in numerous occasions had told him to find something against Saddam even before the 9/11 manufactured incidence (like Pearl Harbor – that was used for our country to join the World War II).

Please tell President Bush: "YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN AT ALL. YOU ARE SOMEBODY WITH HATE. A CHRISTIAN IS TAUGHT TO FORGIVE. "

Tell him:
1. To forget the BS of Aristotle (repeated by Hegel and Montesquieu) that WEST is CIVILIZED and Easterners, American Indians and Black are savages (Alexander The Great [Savage] in a letter has written… Aristotle this Kiss Ass friend of mine tells me these entire BS so that I [without any mercy] commit every atrocity imaginable to control the places that I have conquered). Here is the advice of Aristotle repeated by Hegel and Montesquieu:“…that the soul started in the wild emotional East and it developed and became CIVILIZED during its path to West WHEREIN it found its HOME and therefore we the CIVILIZED West should treat ourselves as EQUALS with Respect and law but we CAN do whatever we want to do on the emotional-wild-Easterners because whatever we do is better than the situation they are in AND that Iran had shown the potential to become CICILIZED like us but they failed during the process because wherever they went they treated people with mercy and respect.

Tell President Bush that Iran is the MOST CIVILIZED nation in the world. It had given us the pioneers in Medicine (whose Books were our textbook until 18th century), basic science (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy), philosophy, arts & sciences, literature (who were the mentors of our famous literary giants such as Goethe, … one of whom had wished as such: ” World would have been in a better shape if Persians/Iranians had been the rulers of Rome because they always had been kind and just wherever they had gone.

By the way shame on the producer of movie 300-Spartans; Xerecsus was had been a fair King. In the movie, portraying Iranians/Persians as savages, it says that Persians are COWARDS because they THROW ARROWS from afar over the 300 !!!Spartan fighters. This reminded me of us having had been truly the COWARDS of all times because we launch cruise missiles from thousands of miles and kill people using unmanned aero planes/fighters/helicopters and explode chemical weapons on the people we unfairly engage and impose war on them to accept what we ask them to do.


A fair mind (like that of mine) finds the ULTIMATE outrageousness in the immediately below-pasted quote from the mesmerized by power-Nicholas Burns, our under secretary of state for political affairs:
“Iran is a country that for the United States has been one of abiding concern for the better part of 30 years”. Who the hell we think we are to ...[click the link] The first thing that brings about peace is JUST/EQUAL and with respect treatment of others.

We claim to be a CIVILIZED nation. JUST/EQUAL and with respect treatment of others is the hallmarks of a "civilized nation". Hegemonic attitude of ours ...[click the link] called CIVILIZED world.


Iran does NOT intend to build atomic bomb. Please stop. Treat others as EQUALS then all the security of flow of oil to the West that we want would be assured. The COLONIALISM era is over.

Uncontrollable greedy ...[click the link ]. Stop the hegemony of military Industrial Complex then you will notice that terrorism stops.(Listen to President Eisenhower:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8...h? v=8y06NSBBRtY).
Let us get ourselves out of the stupid inferiority/superiority complex. We are NOT the boss/landlord/owner of the world.


Declaration of Human Right becomes meaningless/sounds hollow when we and the other four countries have the VETO power and Permanent seat in the Security Counsel.


To: Media (from Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, ... to the ALMOST-loud-speaker-of-government-PBS) and the Press-titude(s):
You are supposed to be eye and ears of public to protect the Constitution. How come is it ...[click link] Stop from being the loudspeaker for the government. Have the BALL to write/report the truthful pieces of important news. Journalists are supposed to take risks and be ready to loose their job for the cause of INFORMING people. Please do your job honorably. Do not lecture them. Tell them the truth. Not reporting the truth is the worst type of lying through omission [of facts]. Be the FOURT PILLAR of for-people-govenment. Be the eyes and ears of people.
=
Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere: Martin Luther King, Jr. : 1929-1968
=
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself: Thomas Paine
=
Brahmanism: This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.: Mahabharata 5:1517
Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.: Matthew 7:12
Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother what which he desires for himself. Sunnah
Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.: Udana Varga 5:18
Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.: Talmud, Shabbat 31:a
Confucianism: Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.: Analects 15:23
Taoism: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.: T’ai Shag Kan Ying P’ien
Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good: for itself. : Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
=
"I'm often amazed at the way politicians, who spend hours poring over opinion poll results in a desperate attempt to discover what the public thinks, are certain they know precisely what God's views are on everything.": Simon Hoggart
=
"One of the world's greatest problems is the impossibilty of any person searching for the truth on any subject when they believe they already have it." --Dave Wilbur
=
"The possession of unlimited power will make a despot of almost any
man. There is a possible Nero in the gentlest human creature that walks." Thomas Bailey Aldrich (1836-1907) Source: Ponkapog Papers, 1903
=
"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.": - Oliver Cromwell (1599-165 British Lord General of the Army, Lord Protector of the Realm Source: Address, First Protectorate Parliament, 1654
=
"Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang": Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan, 14 March 1785 (B 11:16-7)
=
I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts: Abraham Lincoln
=
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.": - Franklin D. Roosevelt - (1882-1945), 32nd US President November 21, 1933 - Source: in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House
=
"Freedom is never an achieved state; like electricity, we've got to keep generating it or the lights go out." -- Wayne LaPierre
=
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it: Milton Mayer - Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955 http:// www.informationclearingho...rticle11845.htm
=
“Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand” : Bodie Thoene
The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread to the law courts. And then to the army, and finally the Republic was subjected to the rule of emperors: Plutarch - Historian of the Roman Republic
The "reason" you asked of:
=
During the last few years, politics has worked perversely: taxes on the wealthy have been cut, and so have programs directed at the poor. The reason isn't difficult to explain. Many Americans-- especially those who have been losing ground have given up on politics. As their incomes have shrunk, they've lost confidence that the "system" will work in their interest. That cynicism has generated a self-fulfilling prophesy. Politicians stop paying attention to people who don't vote, who don't work the phone banks or walk the precincts, who have opted out. And the political inattention seems to justify the cynicism. Meanwhile, the top tier has experienced precisely the opposite--a virtuous cycle in which campaign contributions have attracted the rapt attention of politicians, the attention has elicited even more money, which in turn has given the top tier even greater influence.: Robert Reich - Former Secretary of Labor.
Murray M. Morgan
Posted by: Dr. Murray M. Morgan | July 16, 2007 03:49 AM
=
Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe. Frederick Douglass
===
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/06/wheres_the_party_1.html
Impeachment is Timely, Wse, and Appropriate
How Similar Hitler and Bush/Chesney are
By: Dr. Murray M. Morgan

Today we heard the war drum again with Condy walking at a distant behind Chesney and the "President" trying the Good Cop/Bad Cop and Carrot & Stick Policy.

I have writen on the stupidity of this policy which can seep only from retarded savage dog-minded bullying mentalities (read my posting on July 4,2007 below or click the link below).

Here is a quote from Hitler which we have heard it from Bush and Chesney. Read it and be the judge. But first read this:
Thomas Jefferson:
"If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
=
Here is that quote from Hitler:
"An evil exists that threatens every man,woman, and child of this great country. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland" - Adolf Hitler (1933). How similar it is to what President Bush repeats. Just like Bush, Hitler also has claimed that by the will of God, he had been leading his nation [into war].

I think, as its appropriateness was, very elequantly, demonstrated on Friday, the July 13,2007, I believe it is absolutely the time and necessary for Nancy Peloci to start the Impeachment hearing on both of them (Bush and Chesney) because, otherwise, the dangerous precedents (infringement on human rights and his assaults on the Constitution)that Bush has set could be invoked by future Presidents.

Democracy is like generating electricity that there would be NO electricity if is NOT produced constanly, there would be no sign of people-rule/democracy if Press-titudes], Media, and people stop being on the stage to support/protect it all the time; protecting it, even if it comes to it, by mass protesting demonstrations against the unlawful laws and infringements on rights and against the secretive behind-the-doors dealings. Just like bone-marrow and spleen that generates fresh blood, people need to generate fresh rigor for people-rule/peopleracy by staying active and being watchdog on government.
Murray

The reason that there is no difference between the two major political parties is that they are vetted by AIPAC. Candidates are bribed with campaign funds if they first swear their allegience to the support of Israel. To me, providing finacial aid to Israel is no different than giving taxpayer funds to the vatican, which I believe that most non-catholic Americans would oppose.

GW Bush and Hitler

Today we heard the war drum again with Condy walking at a distant behind Chesney and the "President" trying the Good Cop/Bad Cop and Carrot & Stick Policy.

I have writen on the stupidity of this policy which can seep only from retarded savage dog-minded bullying mentalities (read my posting on July 4,2007 below or click the link below).

Here is a quote from Hitler which we have heard it from Bush and Chesney. Read it and be the judge. But first read this:

Thomas Jefferson:
"If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
=
Here is that quote from Hitler:
"An evil exists that threatens every man,woman, and child of this great country. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland" - Adolf Hitler (1933)

I think, as its appropriateness was, very elequantly, demonstrated on Friday, the July 13,2007, I believe it is absolutely the time and necessary for Nancy Peloci to start the Impeachment hearing on both of them because, otherwise, the dangerous precedents (infringement on human rights and his assaults on the Constitution)that Bush has set could be invoked by future Presidents.

Democracy is like generating electricity that there would be NO electricity if is NOT produced constanly, there would be no sign of people-rule/democracy if Press-titudes], Media, and people stop being on the stage to support/protect it all the time; protecting it, even if it comes to it, by mass protesting demonstrations against the unlawful laws and infringements on rights and against the secretive behind-the-doors dealings. Just like bone-marrow and spleen that generates fresh blood, people need to generate fresh rigor for people-rule/peopleracy by staying active and being watchdog on government.

Otherwise, as it almost is, we would be having (what Iranians call it) "Damé-Cos-Raazi":
which sounds almost like the word Democracy if you read it fast. Now let us see what "Dame-Cos-Raazy" means.

In order to get the concept in it, I have to break the word and tell what each component means in Persian/Farsi language:

"Dameé-Cos-Raazi" is comprized of three parts:

1. Dameé = at he edge of/at he shore of

2. Cos = Vulva -- female genitalia which if you are artist and know gross anatomy of it, it looks like a fissure/slot if you like a narrow lake which has shores

3. Razzy means being happy and content

Now all the three componets together, "Dameé-Cos-Raazi" (which sounds something similar to when you read the word "Democracy") is what we have here and in Europe which the inhabitants of which are , if you will, happy with sex. Imagine the "Dameé-Cos-Raazi" which means "being happy at the shore of the vulva.

We do NOT have a government of people (made by people and for people). Now laugh by saying we have "Dameé-Cos-Raazi"

Noow draw a lake in the shape of vulva with two shores on each side with smiling people resting under paraplui/umberllas on each shore of the lake with some pimps around with having their hat high/obliquly. That's it. That's what our DEMOCRACY means. Cùest tout. Voilà

===
Carrot and Stick an insultive policy

According to a real Jew, Israel is established by the Thirteenth Tribe!!-- By Khazaries who several centuries ago were not Jewish at all who used to live by the shores of northern Caspian Sea (aka: Daryaa-yeh Khazar). According to history, Khazaries had been accustomed to a PARASITIC WAY OF LIFE --invading into surrounding countries and southward, in Iran, to steal goods and take slaves; more or less resembling these days’ behavior of Israel. Isn't it as such? An apartheid State?

That real Jew says the Bani-Israel was comprised of 12 tribes and to mock the Khazary-"Jew"s (the founders of Israel), he calls them/categorizes them as the "Thirteenth Tribe" which did not exist at all.

For the Israel, it is a matter of utmost importance to be recognized as a legitimate STATE/COUNTRY by Iran/Persia; more important and satisfying than their recognition by us (the USA). The reason being that it was the King Cyrus the Great of Iran/Persia who gave shelter to the OPPRESSED Jews close to 2600 years ago. It is, therefore, very painful for Israel as being viewed by Iranians as OPPRESSORS and denied recognition as a legitimate STATE/COUNTRY by them.

President Truman immediately before he announces that he/USA recognizes Israel, reportedly has said that "by this recognition I might be remembered to the same degree that the Great Iranian/Persian King, Cyrus The Great, is revered/remembered by Jewish people for his having had given their ancestors shelter in Iran"; not knowing that it is Khazaries "Jew"s who(in accordance with their habitual parasitic way of life) on false pretences are establishing a troublesome country out of invasion and occupation of others' people land. President Truman would, probably, had not recognized Israel if he knew who the Khazary-"Jew"s were.

The highly respected Secretary of State, George Marshall, advised President Truman against recognition of Israel and we see how right he had been.

I am sure that if Cyrus the Great was alive, he would abhor what has-been/is going on in that part of his Kingdom; the Palestine.

Boycotting and withdrawing recognition of Israel:
It would be very responsible to:
1. all the real Jewish people in Israel who were not living in there before 1940 return to where they used to live because, if they are a believer in God and the JUSTICE God would uphold on the Judgment Day, they would find it very stupid to exchange ones conscience, dignity and inflict pain and sense of injustice on others just to amass/accumulate power and things (beyond our need) that no one would be able to take with into the other world. And

2. All the countries of the world to boycott Israel and withdraw their recognition of Israel as a legitimate State. The reason is that Israel was found on false pretences and on exploitation of the sense of guilt due to the horrible Holocaust.

It is very well known to Iranians that if they recognize Israel, all these manufactured-crisis (looming-danger from "irrational" atomic-Iran) would subside very fast.

Iranians tend to rally around their hated government when they perceive an outside threat against their country. So if we really want people of Iran to rise against their government, we should not threaten Iran in any shape or manner. In fact we have to lift our entire pirating blockade and all the unlawful slapped sanctions against Iran. It is the absence of any sort of outside threat, that would permit people of Iran to, once again, rise against their hated government to change and replace it with a government that would hopefully be a by-people and for-people government; a government that would abolish Velayat-e-Faghih, respects the responsible-freedom (that according to Koran is inherent right of people) and returns the right of self-governance back to the people of Iran; out of that already available initial post-revolution Constitution that, per the first President of Iran -- President Bani-Sadr -- did not contain the hated Velayat-e-Faghih in it. It was a Constitution in which all the Human Rights were recognized that would establish a for-people-government which, if adapted by people, would returns the freedom and the right of self-governance back to the people of Iran.
Murray M. Morgan

**************
Dr_Murray Morgan
Weimar, CA

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/06/wheres_the_party_1.html#comment-19195
Carrot and Stick
Being in Iranian’s shoes, would we tolerate such an insult?
If we were faced with such humiliating bullying attitude, we would, for certain, be telling the bully to shove both of them; that is both the carrot and the stick.
It baffles me hearing such stupid tactic as a foreign policy mean to ... (click the link above)

===
Are We Civilized?
By: Dr. Murray M. Morgan
Dear Speaker Peloci,
Hallmark of being (civilized)a member of CIVILIZED WORLD is JUST/EQUAL/with-respect TREATMENT of others. I would like to see people who dare to talk to power, to hear/demand truth from their government,[click link] held accountable for their actions.
I am puzzled by nobody daring to tell President Bush that:
"1. Hallmark [click link]...(CBS showed it), and 2) had I quote it (from my memory):
"I would FINISH what my father did not ". I remind you of what Richard Clark ... even before the 9/11 manufactured incidence (like Pearl Harbor – that was used for our country to join the World War II).
Please tell President Bush: "YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN AT ALL. YOU ARE SOMEBODY WITH HATE. A CHRISTIAN IS TAUGHT TO FORGIVE. "
Tell him:
1. To forget the BS of Aristotle (repeated by [click the link] with mercy and respect.
Tell President Bush that Iran is the MOST CIVILIZED nation in the world. It had given us the pioneers in Medicine (whose Books were our textbook until 18th century), basic science (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy), philosophy, arts & sciences, literature (who were the mentors of our famous literary giants such as Goethe,…[click the link]wherever they had gone.

By the way shame on the producer of movie 300-Spartans; Xerecsus was had been a fair King. In the movie, portraying Iranians/Persians as savages, it says that Persians are COWARDS because they THROW ARROWS from afar over the 300 !!!Spartan fighters. This reminded me of us having had been truly the COWARDS of all times because we launch cruise missiles from thousands of miles and kill people using unmanned aero planes/fighters/helicopters and explode chemical weapons on the people we unfairly engage and impose war on them to accept what we ask them to do.
A fair mind (like that of mine) finds the ULTIMATE outrageousness in the immediately below-pasted quote from the mesmerized by power-Nicholas Burns, our under secretary of state for political affairs:
“Iran is a country that for the United States has been one of abiding concern for the better part of 30 years”. Who the hell we think we are to ...[click the link] The first thing that brings about peace is JUST/EQUAL and with respect treatment of others.
We claim to be a CIVILIZED nation. JUST/EQUAL and with respect treatment of others is the hallmarks of a "civilized nation". Hegemonic attitude of ours ...[click the link] called CIVILIZED world.
Iran does NOT intend to build atomic bomb. Please stop. Treat others as EQUALS then all the security of flow of oil to the West that we want would be assured. The COLONIALISM era is over.
Uncontrollable greedy ...[click the link ]. Stop the hegemony of military Industrial Complex then you will notice that terrorism stops.(Listen to President Eisenhower:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8...h? v=8y06NSBBRtY).
Let us get ourselves out of the stupid inferiority/superiority complex. We are NOT the boss/landlord/owner of the world.
Declaration of Human Right becomes meaningless/sounds hollow when we and the other four countries have the VETO power and Permanent seat in the Security Counsel.
To the Media and Press: You are supposed to be eye and ears of public to protect the Constitution. How come is it ...[click link] Stop from being the loudspeaker for the government. Have the BALL to write/report the truthful pieces of important news. Journalists are supposed to take risks and be ready to loose their job for the cause of INFORMING people. Please do your job honorably. Do not lecture them. Tell them the truth. Not reporting the truth is the worst type of lying through omission [of facts].
===

Please do not fall for propaganda of those who want to stoke resentment/division to conquer/harvest/exploit-other/still others' resources by purposeful dishonest translations; such as the translation for "Marg Bar Aamrikaa"/"Marg Bar America".

The word "Marg" in Persian/Farsi has these three meanings:
1. Marg = Death like the death time of the guy is arrived/He/she is going to die

2. Death = stagnation like stagnation of stagnant/nonmoving water

3. Marg = stoppage/stop

It is the third meaning for the word "Marg" that people in Iran/Persia and Farsi-speaking countries use when they use it in the slogan "Marg Bar America" (out of anger for the exploiting, interfering meddling of America in the internal affaire of their country); meaning: "stoppage/stagnation on such above-mentioned abusing policies of America (USA)". They do not mean/wish that America dies in the sense of the meaning # 1. for the word MARG. sometimes, one family member tells other family member: Marg bar X or Y baad for something awful that he/she/they have done. He/she/they do not wish death for that family member. Israel tries to stoke anger in us (Americans) by distorted translations; such as the distortive translation of what Ahmadinejad has said regarding Israel Ahmadinejad (whom I am not a fan of).

Please use the international known for thousands of years for the bodies of waters of Earth.

Please notice that, if you serch the history, the name of the " Gulf " is " Persian Gulf ".

President Nasser of Egypt fall for the trick of "divide and conquer" of English colonialists. England thought that if the Arab countries of the region fall for calling the "Persian Gulf" "Arabic Gulf" (a manipulative way of FABRICATING/ stoking resentment and non-existant division (that was not thought of/did not existed); then , as the result of the fabricated resentment and the created/fabricated division between the countries of this body of water with Iran/Persia, they can, more easily (in the absence of Unity and friendship) affect the price of oil by calling the historic "Persian Gulf" "Arabic Gulf" taping on the Arab nationalistic pride.

Because of the lawsuits, nowadays lots of news a, journals, and newspapers in order to continue receiving money (from Arab countries of the Persian Gulf) they call it just/only "Gulf" instead of addressing it with its historical registered name (with UN)which is "Persian Gulf".

I tell you this because when one starts writing should uphold truth and fairness; avoiding politics and being manipulated.

I decided to point out this point --regarding the distorted translation of "Marg Bar America" as "Death to America" (read above) because, I felt I had to make you aware of the unknown manipulations because you have started to write. I am aware that what I wrote above is out of the subject of this forum/topic (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18005.htm
U.S. Soldier Tell Of Rape and Suicide of 15 Year Old Iraqi Girl
)-- the horrible atrocities that for the underlying background/reason of its occurrence you can read my postings in the above postings (sense of us feeling being the "CIVILIZED" one and the rest of the world being considered as subhuman/barbares [Aristotle/Hegel "phylosophy" teaching at school/universities that West is Civilized and the rest of the world being emotional/irrational/noncivilized] that whatever we do to them is unconscientiously/implicitly justified that as the result of such racist attitude we should not feel guilt-feeling and shame).

I am an American but I believe on being just. because "Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere: Martin Luther King, Jr. : 1929-1968 "

That one sentence is this:
We need to stop teaching at schools and Universities that West culture is superior (read Les Grecs et les Barbares book series)because idiots like this disgusting one justify their atrocities by considering himself as being superior to the one he considers subhumans.

"that until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; that until there is no longer any first-class and second-class citizens of any nation; that until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to race -- until that day, the dreams of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained: Speech by H.I.M. HAILE SELASSIE I - California 28th February 1968 - ".

Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere: Martin Luther King, Jr. : 1929-1968

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself: Thomas Paine

Brahmanism: This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.: Mahabharata 5:1517
Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.: Matthew 7:12
Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother what which he desires for himself. Sunnah
Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.: Udana Varga 5:18
Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.: Talmud, Shabbat 31:a
Confucianism: Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.: Analects 15:23
Taoism: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.: T’ai Shag Kan Ying P’ien
Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good: for itself. : Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5

"I'm often amazed at the way politicians, who spend hours poring over opinion poll results in a desperate attempt to discover what the public thinks, are certain they know precisely what God's views are on everything.": Simon Hoggart

"One of the world's greatest problems is the impossibilty of any person searching for the truth on any subject when they believe they already have it." --Dave Wilbur

"The possession of unlimited power will make a despot of almost any
man. There is a possible Nero in the gentlest human creature that walks."
-- Thomas Bailey Aldrich (1836-1907) Source: Ponkapog Papers, 1903

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.": - Oliver Cromwell (1599-165 British Lord General of the Army, Lord Protector of the Realm Source: Address, First Protectorate Parliament, 1654

"Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between
neighbor citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and a nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang": Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan, 14 March 1785 (B 11:16-7)

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring
them the real facts: Abraham Lincoln

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.": - Franklin D. Roosevelt - (1882-1945), 32nd US President November 21, 1933 - Source: in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House

"Freedom is never an achieved state; like electricity, we've got to keep generating it or the lights go out." -- Wayne LaPierre

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervour - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always, there has been some terrible evil at home, or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.": General Douglas MacArthur - (1880-1964) WWII Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific, Supreme United Nations Commander 1957

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it: Milton Mayer - Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955 http:// www.informationclearingho...rticle11845.htm

“Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand” : Bodie Thoene

The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread to the law courts. And then to the army, and finally the Republic was subjected to the rule of emperors: Plutarch - Historian of the Roman Republic

The "reason" you asked of:
During the last few years, politics has worked perversely: taxes on the wealthy have been cut, and so have programs directed at the poor. The reason isn't difficult to explain. Many Americans-- especially those who have been losing ground have given up on politics. As their incomes have shrunk, they've lost confidence that the "system" will work in their interest. That cynicism has generated a self-fulfilling prophesy. Politicians stop paying attention to people who don't vote, who don't work the phone banks or walk the precincts, who have opted out. And the political inattention seems to justify the cynicism. Meanwhile, the top tier has experienced precisely the opposite--a virtuous cycle in which campaign contributions have attracted the rapt attention of politicians, the attention has elicited even more money, which in turn has given the top tier even greater influence.: Robert Reich - Former Secretary of Labor.

Murray M. Morgan

UNTIL I SAW THIS PROGRAM, I THOUGHT OF IMPEACHMENT AS DISGRACING/PUNISHING AN ERRANT,ARROGANT PRESIDENT.
NOW I REALIZE THAT IT ISTHE ULTIMATE MEDICINE TO CURE THE CANCER IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT IS RAPIDLY DESTROYING OUR "DEMOCRATIC" WAY OF LIFE. WHAT IS THE MEDICINE THAT WILL WAKE US UP FROM OUR MONEY CENTERED, /EGOMANIACAL STUPOR?
PERHAPS AN EXCELLENT FIRST STEP IS TO WATCH BILL MOYERS ENTIRE 45 MINUTES, think about it, and alert everybody

Until the lobbyists can be outlawed totally, this country will continue down a path of destruction of the democracy our country was founded on by our founding fathers. After reading Grover Norquist's little interview and detecting his 'conservative compassion', I can see more than ever that republicans need to be in the extreme minority in congress and the white house for at a good while.
My god, what is this horrible strategy of everyone owning stock for their money? When the economy fails do you think your stocks will still provide for you. Being the stock market as of now is really based on a war economy, does that mean we have to be perpetuallly at war. It is just too damn obvious that is what w's idea of our 'strong' economy is all about because somehow the price of gas/oil and food aren't considered in the inflation tables. Just another shiny lure to get caught on so the good ole boys(rich) can sell first and rake in the dough.

I am a Christian who has never voted Republican. About Victor Gold's assessment that the religious right and the "neo-cons" have ruined the Party that Goldwater envisioned....

Here's my problem with that assessment. A biblical proverb says "the love of money is the root of all evil" and Jesus said you would recognize the nature of the individual by his "fruits" (by what he produces).

The Grand Old Party's foundation was built upon the ideal for "small government" meaning that Government should stay out of the board room. Sure, to accomplish that goal they would also have to offer something to those who weren't in the board rooms of capitalistic pursuits. So "small government" was something that all could agree on in that, originally, its intent was to keep the gov't out of our personal business (sex life, abortion, etc...). However, the foundation laid by Goldwater was to keep the gov't out of the board rooms, thereby allowing capitalism to run amok. Unfortunately, to the dismay of Goldwater Republicans, the love of that money to be made in the board rooms without any gov't oversight is still the foundation that produced the dire consequences our nation now experiences.

"You will know them by their fruit." I think all this talk about Goldwater's vision, along with Goldwater's granddaughter's film about him, is an attempt to redeem Goldwater and his vision. But the evidence is in....The dream gov't envisioned by Goldwater was vile from its beginning (love of money via no gov't oversight of big business). "Reap what you sow!" The neo-cons have also run with Goldwater's ideal towards keeping the gov't from regulating corporations. Thus, "the one unfaithful in what is least will be unfaithful in much." That's another biblical principle which underscores the reason the GOP has sunk so deeply into the pit of darkness. Indeed, its outcome was predestined to failure because of its immoral foundation which was rooted in the love of money. God's Word does not lie.

"Do not put your trust in nobels nor in the son of earthling man because his spirit goes out, he goes back to the ground and in that day his thoughts do perish."

Sign IMpeachment petitions at www.ImpeachBush.org and at www.democrats.com. On September 15, there will be a march on Washington DC to protest the war and call for impeachment resolutions. Mr. Moyers, thank you for opening my eyes and ears.

Rep Dennis Kucinich has filed impeachment papers against Cheney but no mention was made of this on last night's program.

Thank you for your program on impeachment tonight--we hope that some statesperson emerges to lead us out of this constituional crisis.

Grover Norquist IS at the core of the republican party and has helped establish the ideology of their party. He ain't no outsider!

The statement by Grover Norquist is truly startling, considering his seminal role in advancing the fortunes of Jack Abramoff and his corporate clients, Ralph Reed and his careerist ambitions, and the religious right. Norquist is a "consultant" outside of the government but has his finger on the pulse--the jugular really--of politicians on behalf of his own corporate clients. How could his interview have gone uncommented?

"The reason the Republicans are no longer like Goldwater is that the neo-cons are Liberals, not paleoconservatives"

That's so not true. Liberals care about Everybody. Neo-cons care only about the obscenely rich.

The reason the Republicans are no longer like Goldwater is that the neo-cons are Liberals, not paleoconservatives

Wild Bill Moyers: Its not about capitalism/socialism conservative/liberal but the difference between right and wrong behavior. Because the above didn't / docent know the difference between right and wrong behavior they have send us on a quest for a new society beyond left and right. Bill Moyers is getting there. Ignore the old dinosaurs and look to the future through the youthful heart and mind of Grace Lee Boogs of the twentieth first century. Another world is possible, but not as it has been. Larry Sparks

Dear Bill,
Kelly misinterpreted my Reagan quote for Reagan support. No! J.Miller said it right. Kelly was right too. My point was that republicans are in disarray because democrat & labor leaders pander to elites and extremists now also. The scales of our two party-system are tipped. Extremism in defense of liberty may not be a vice, but both parties accept now that extreme honesty in pursuit of votes loses elections. Who will provide us honesty? More Fourth Estate interviews like Bill Moyers Journal, and less Rupert Murdoch hegemony, may help.

Wild Bill Moyers: Its not about capitalism/socialism convevative/liberal but the difference between right and wrong behavior. Because the above didn't / docent know the difference between right and wrong behavior they have send us on a quest for a new society beyond left and right. Bill Moyers is getting there. Ignore the old dinosaurs and look to the future through the youthful heart and mind of Grace Lee Boogs of the twentieth first century. Another world is possible, but not as it has been. Larry Sparks

"I sincerely don't understand how a Rupert Murdox can happen."

It's called the stock market. That's how it happened. The grandiose delusion that all that money actually exists. The world is controlled by the love of money which the Bible says is "the root of all evil". The big time players know all that money isn't real so they are setting the world up in a manner that lets them control IT without money. Before everyone finds out the numbers are an illusion, they are grabbing as much of what's real as they can. That is why the little investors always lose their money while the big ones (who don't really have it either) are stealing what is real from us. As long as you don't have any money, you can't ever find out the money doesn't exist.

Yeah, I know you'll think I'm crazy, but time will eventually tell all. Until then, I choose to call myself a cynic.

I might add that the Democrats wouldn't need the money of lobbyists if Republicans hadn't eroded the middle class.

At the root of it all, however, is the American people. It's their fault for giving the neo-cons the power; for being so ignorant that they believe Fox News is fair and balanced; for being convinced that we as a people are going to hell in a handbasket. My mom used to listen to Bill O'Reilly all the time, and she fell for that last one because he speaks so loudly about it. Then I told her to look up and down her street and at the people in the mall or the grocery store and ask herself is that really what she sees. She now looks and sees the truth and no longer allows anyone else to tell her how she should view the world.

Anyone who has a single source for their news can be manipulated towards a certain cause, but they haven't been persuaded because, in reality, they've been controlled.

Not sure how old you are, but Ronald Reagan didn't care about the average American either. He only said he did and the masses believed him, including my father who lost his job as an electrician for a steelmill just 6months before his 20th anniversary. He had to live apart from my mother, in different states, to earn enough money to retire. My younger sister barely saw her father during her teenage years. He didn't have his own place either. He had to live with my sister's family. Pitiful for any man who worked hard to provide for his family and even served in the U.S. Air Force.

I don't defend the Democrats. You're dead on, but don't try to make it out like Reagan or the Republican Party was somehow a better choice just because the people believed their lies. It was the neo-cons who, and Reagan was the start of them, who made "family values" a misplaced priority in American politics. Anyone who does that is simply touting the same note we've heard for the last 12 years by Republicans.

If there ever was a time for a third party, this might well be it. But who? Without a Congress that cares about the people at large, a third party president would be a lame duck.

The republican party mutated because the democratic party no longer cares about the working american. It is driven by funds from wealthy contributors with extreme agendas. Well-paid labor leaders, congressmen or their staffs don't know the price of a quart of milk, a pound of hamburger or a car repair today. They have lost that connection to the voters who need them to do more than oppose or support abortion or evolution taught in school. One can't blame republicans for showing their tiger stripes. We should blame democrats for losing their souls. Reagan said, "I didn't leave the democratic party; they left me." Now, they've left the rest of us.

I sincerely don't understand how a Rupert Murdox can happen.
Weren't there checks and balances to prevent this type of thing?
Have we become so infatuated with those that accumulate stuff that we don't care what it is they accumulate,even if it's our freedom of press?

The bottom line with respect to the way we are treated here in Canada and the USA , is pretty much handled by Public Relation Staff, the "governing parties propaganda machine" .

Who better to help this corrupt bureaucracy than a media, who has the been well schooled in cover-up tactics , after all , Public Relations is well staffed with media sheep.

The media play a very major part in picking and maintaining which political party gets its turn at picking “YOUR” pocket , they are the political tool , which the business community use to make sure either party, hold onto the reigns of power.

"YOUR” vote and “MY” vote are needed, not for any other reason , except to say that “WE” help justified the process and we have no other choice ,but to wait until the next election, in the meantime , they get to raid our wallets.

But "WE" do have a choice, we can refuse to support this corrupt political system,by NOT Voting. These parties by the way are all loaded up with some pretty big lawyers, look for yourself and then ask why all the corruption?

One question I have yet to get answered, why are citizens forced to pay taxes to finance private business????

Is it possible, that our taxation system is being abused to extort money out of the citizens ..for all the wrong reasons???

I always thought taxes were used for "public services" .

Wayne Coady
Cole Harbour Nova Scotia Canada


webmaster@presstv.ir, newsroom@presstv.com

Spread far and wide and publish it if have the ball

July 3rd, 2007

Carrot and Stick Policy
Seepage from savage uncivilized retarded dog-mentalities
Let us not project our dog-mentality onto others.
Being in Iranian and North Korean’s shoes, would we tolerate such an insult?

By: Dr. Murray M. Morgan, (530) 753-9715 call screening


If we were faced with such humiliating bullying attitude, we would, for certain, be telling the bully to shove both of them; that is both the carrot and the stick. Is this equal treatment of others? Anybody and any country, with the least amount of pride and independence would reject such outrageous rights-denying (self-determination right) attitude.

It baffles me hearing such stupid tactic as a foreign policy mean to persuade Iran to give in into our unfair, rights-denying, and unlawful bullying demand. And we wonder why Iran, so rightfully, resist giving in into our unlawful and rights-denying demand.

United Nation Security Council (UNSC) has, politically and unlawfully by meddling into the internal affairs of Iran, has slapped two rounds of unlawful coercing rights-denying restricting sanction measures against Iran. These unlawful acts by the UNSC against the most civilized and peaceful country in the world (read the history and the Les Grecs et les Barbares series books) has happened while IAEA, after several years of rigorous intruding inspections (we would not have had tolerated a second of it), has said times and time again that Iran's nuclear program has been within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and it (IAEA) has not been able to say that Iran's nuclear program has deviated from the NPT into a weaponized program. Of course, when something does not exist, you can not find something that can prove it exists.

Iranians, rightfully, say that "civilized" West wants to deny East advance and scientific progress.

Let us stop teaching our children, at schools and Universities, the nonsense racist stuff/philosophy of Aristotle (repeated by Hegel, and Montesquieu several centuries later) who has made up his nonsense/racist story / philosophy saying that the East is wild/emotional/savage and West is "civilized" -- "soul started from emotional, irrational, wild East and during its voyage towards West it gradually developed/matured until it arrived in West [its final destination/home] completely "Civilized". According to a letter from Alexander the Great [sauvage vous voulez dire] -- read the Les Grecs ET les Barbares series books -- Alexander says,

"Leave this kiss-ass friend of mine (Aristotle he means) to me. Oh, how manipulating and viciously smart he is. He writes these things to me as a mean to justify my invasions and exploitations"

The author of the “Les Grecs ET les Barbares”, quoting from what the biased ancient Greek/Roman “Philosopher”s/”Historians” have written, demonstrates to the reader how they ( compared with their own way of life) had been impressed by the more advanced culture and way of life of Iranians (see its evidence in the British Museum). He concludes that, if looked more profoundly and without prejudice, one would find that, improving impression of Iranians’ way of life (culture, …) onto Greeks/Romans culture had, undeniably, been enormous. One famous Western literary giant has wished as such:” World would have been in a better shape if Persians/Iranians had been the rulers of Rome because they always had been kind and just wherever they had gone.”

Hegel, several centuries later, repeats the same thing and by saying the followings justifies the Europeans/West's treatment of American Indians, Blacks, Africans, Asians; no matter how barbarically ruining exploiting it is. No wonder nobody in here and Europe raised his/her voice against the last summer barbaric invasion of Israel into Lebanon; because the Lebanese were considered NOT civilized. Hegel says:

We the "civilized" Westerners have to treat ourselves equally with equal treatment of each other, and respect each others' rights and boundaries. But when it comes to the non-Europeans, we do not have to do the same because "whatever we do to them is better than the situation they are in"

You see, we FIRST dehumanize (by propagandist West media and Press) the ones we want to infringe on their rights to, when we do it, nobody dares to raise objection against our treatment of the victim.

It is up to Iranians to decide whether or not their nuclear program is cost effective and ultimately beneficial to them. This is their internal affairs and their own decisions. Specially, when we renew our nuclear bombs stock-pile, we have no business to deny them their peaceful nuclear program.

Let us be frank with ourselves, we did not have any problem with nuclear Iran during Shah's time. Now that Iran aspires independence, we have problem with it!

We keep saying that Iran has lost its right to have her own peaceful nuclear fuel cycle program/facility because they kept their program hidden from IAEA for more than 20 years. First, Iranians deny this false charge. They say that they have complied with the required rules and that they had reported to IAEA at the same level and manner that other countries had been reporting of such similar facilities in their countries to IAEA. Second, where does this rule come from? Third, have we been telling IAEA of every detail of our programs and of renewal/upgrading of our deadly nuclear warhead stock-piles which; all of them being illegal if the IAEA rules and safeguards where to be applied equally to us as well. I guess because we consider ourselves "civilized' blue-blooded one, the rules does not apply to us. Fourth, Let us assume for a moment that this propagandized charge [that Iranians kept their program secret for more than 20 years] is true, would we had allowed Iran to advance this far in their peaceful nuclear program if they had let IAEA know of their program beyond the level that is required/spelled out in the IAEA rules? We would be the guilty number one because we had been doing all sorts illegal things in secret such as renewing/upgrading our atomic bombs (that we have promised to get rid of) to more deadly weapons without giving a damn hoopla to IAEA rules.

It would be barbaric to slap another round of illegal/rights-denying restricting sanctions on Iran. Any proud individual/nation would not give in to pressure (Carrot and Stick) tactic. If we consider our mentality is that of a dog mentality, let us not project it onto others.

***************************************************************************


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06292007/watch2.html 6/29/07 Bill Moyers talks with Victor Gold

Bill Moyer: I went on to serve in the Kennedy administration and then in the White House as LBJ's assistant in 1964 during the presidential campaign against the conservative Barry Goldwater.

There across the political divide from me in that campaign was Vic Gold, who had become a speech writer and advisor to Goldwater.

Now, however, this long-time Republican insider has written a book with a title that almost all of us who started in politics no matter our party affiliation wish we had claimed first. Because sooner or later, most of us think the party of our youth has fallen into the wrong hands. Look at that title: Invasion of the Party Snatchers. In Vic Gold's case, the subtitle says it all: How the Holy Rollers and the Neocons Destroyed the GOP. Vic Gold, it's good to meet you after all these years.

VICTOR GOLD: Good to see you.

BILL MOYERS: Do you remember what Pete Hamill said about Barry Goldwater? The very liberal journalist from New York who had been quite critical of him?

VICTOR GOLD: I would like to say that this is the first time I've said this publicly. It was really Pete Hamill that inspired this book.

BILL MOYERS: Let me read you exactly what you quote Pete Hamill as saying in your book: "No democracy can survive if it is wormy with lies and evasions. That is why we must cherish those people who have the guts to speak the truth: mavericks, whistleblowers, disturbers of the public peace. And it's why in spite of my own continuing, though chastened, liberal faith, I miss Barry Goldwater more than ever."

VICTOR GOLD: I don't know Pete Hamill. I have never met Pete Hamill. But what was going on in the Republican Party and what was going on in American politics was getting to me. And when I read that in the LA Times, the quote that Pete Hamill said, 'God, I wish we had a Barry Goldwater around now', and I said, "By God, he's right." And I worked for this guy. I am going to write something about why have we left this type of principle.

***********************

June 29, 2007 Bill Moyers talks with Victor Gold
BILL MOYERS: The gentleman you're about to meet is someone I'm also meeting for the first time, although we started in national politics in the same year long ago. And therein lies a story. Back in 1960 Vic Gold and I were both young idealists, and we both voted for John F. Kennedy for president.

Except for our awe of the Alabama football legend Bear Bryant, that's probably the last time we ever agreed on anything until now. What we have in common now is the belief that politics ain't what it used to be. I went on to serve in the Kennedy administration and then in the White House as LBJ's assistant in 1964 during the presidential campaign against the conservative Barry Goldwater.

There across the political divide from me in that campaign was Vic Gold, who had become a speech writer and advisor to Goldwater. Goldwater won the nomination and lost the election. But the end of his campaign was the beginning of the modern conservative movement which came to power with Ronald Reagan and was consumated with George W. Bush. Vic Gold has never forgiven me for the television ads we ran against his candidate. That was 1964. I left the White House three years later to atone for my sins, as Vic Gold might put it, and have been in journalism ever since.

Vic Gold went into public relations and to soldier other Republican campaigns. He worked with Richard Nixon's vice-president, Spiro Agnew, in 1970 when Agnew took after journalists. He called us " nattering nabobs of negativism." I didn't take it personally, Vic. Along the way, Vic Gold became a confidante of the first George Bush, helping in his campaigns and in the writing of the soon-to-be president's autobiography Looking Forward in 1987. He even wrote a political satire with his old friend Lynn Cheney, the vice-president's wife, called The Body Politic.

Now, however, this long-time Republican insider has written a book with a title that almost all of us who started in politics no matter our party affiliation wish we had claimed first. Because sooner or later, most of us think the party of our youth has fallen into the wrong hands. Look at that title: Invasion of the Party Snatchers. In Vic Gold's case, the subtitle says it all: How the Holy Rollers and the Neocons Destroyed the GOP. Vic Gold, it's good to meet you after all these years.

VICTOR GOLD: Good to see you.

BILL MOYERS: Do you remember what Pete Hamill said about Barry Goldwater? The very liberal journalist from New York who had been quite critical of him?

VICTOR GOLD: I would like to say that this is the first time I've said this publicly. It was really Pete Hamill that inspired this book.

BILL MOYERS: Let me read you exactly what you quote Pete Hamill as saying in your book. "No democracy can survive if it is wormy with lies and evasions. That is why we must cherish those people who have the guts to speak the truth: mavericks, whistleblowers, disturbers of the public peace. And it's why in spite of my own continuing, though chastened, liberal faith, I miss Barry Goldwater more than ever."

VICTOR GOLD: I don't know Pete Hamill. I have never met Pete Hamill. But what was going on in the Republican Party and what was going on in American politics was getting to me. And when I read that in the LA Times, the quote that Pete Hamill said, 'God, I wish we had a Barry Goldwater around now', and I said, "By God, he's right." And I worked for this guy. I am going to write something about why have we left this type of principle.

BILL MOYERS: I never met Barry Goldwater. Back in 1964 he was just the guy on the other side to beat. I mean, we did see him as shooting from the hip, as mobilizing the fringe, even mobilizing the old Confederacy, in being what we thought was on the wrong side of the civil rights movement. But I came, in the years to follow, to admire his candor. Who's speaking like Barry Goldwater today?

VIC GOLD: I don't know if a Barry Goldwater could exist in today's political--

BILL MOYERS: Why?

VICTOR GOLD: Because the impact of the sound bite mentality, the appealing to the base, which you find in both parties. The reason is there's been a debasing, no pun intended, of because if you listen to-- if you look these-- I call them the Stepford candidates on both sides in these debates. Isn't it interesting? The only two candidates that speak clearly, you see, are the ones they call the kooks. On the Democratic side they ask Mike Gravel a question and he goes, "Do you think Ameri-- English should be the official language?" He said, "Yes." And the rest of them say, "No, not the official language, the national language." I said, "Well, what the devil is the national lang"-- I mean, why don't you just say "no"? And on the Republican side you have Ron Paul, who was the only candidate who is antiwar and pro-civil liberties. That is he opposes what this administration is doing in terms of civil liberties. And they call him a kook. That's the closest thing you can get. So you can imagine Senator Goldwater, if he were-- he'd probably throw up his hands at the whole process and not run. Which-

BILL MOYERS: Why is it people running for office can't speak their mind today?

VIC GOLD: It's the system that we have reduces -- when you go out-- if you have to win Iowa, that means you have to come out for ethanol. And if you come out and say, "I don't believe in it," that finishes you. And so if you want to be a candidate, you compromise there. Then you've got to go over to New Hampshire and you've got to sign a pledge: No taxes. If you didn't-- if you don't say "no taxes," you're going to lose New Hampshire. You get killed there. And then you will not make the cover of Time and Newsweek and that'll ruin. So that's what does it.

BILL MOYERS: You said you wrote this book because you were angry. Why? Why were you angry?

VIC GOLD: Goldwater did seem to be a clarion voice, a clear voice. What did Goldwater and the conservative movement at that time stand for? They stood for limited government. Now, when I say "limited government," I mean limited power of government. What Arthur Schlesinger ultimately came up and discovered was the imperial presidency under Nixon. What Nixon did I didn't like was he picked up what Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy had done in terms of the imperial-- what I consider the imperialization of the presidency and continued and expanded it. I thought that the Republican Party of Goldwater that believed in it and believed, if I may say, in terms of our foreign policy of-- to use a discredited phrase, not America first in terms of 1939 but America in terms of its national interests and the fact that we would not be policemen for the world. And we this-- the neocons and the religious right have taken the party from that phrase.

BILL MOYERS: Why do you feel so threatened by what you call the holy rollers and the neocons?

VIC Gold: I am a non-conformist. I have always been a non-conformist. When I was with Goldwater, I was a non-conformist. And maybe some people might not have thought that, but we always-- we thought the conformists were on the other side. The fact is that what the religious right demands is conformity. They would like to establish, or I may say, they-- a theocracy, purely and simply, a theocracy. That bothers me because this is the old fight that we've had that goes back centuries between religion, church, and state. And up till now we've had a separation of that and I think our founding fathers have had a separation of that. But these people want to merge it. The paradox is that the neocons, they are not religious.

VICTOR GOLD: Oh, but they have a mission. A benevolent hegemony. They think we have a moral mission in the world. The United States is the leading nation in the world, it's the superpower in the world, has a moral mission. The French have the mission to civilize. We have the mission to democratize. And if we don't, we-- our mission in Iraq or in Iran is to bring freedom to these people. So you're-- you're right to. And by the way, you check a lot of these neocons, they're also theocons. You check the Weekly Standard in terms of its position on the theo-- on the theocon of the religious right issue.

BILL MOYERS: Well, they've used each other, right?

VICTOR GOLD: They've used each other but they take the same position. But the fact is these people establish a benevolent hegem-- a benevolent hegemony is the word that's used in terms of how we're going to assert, we're going to democratize. We're going to teach these people the ways all over the world the way it should be.

BILL MOYERS: I still have in my files the article that Barry Goldwater wrote in 1994 where he said: "The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. The radical right," said Barry Goldwater, "has nearly ruined our party." That was 1994, 13 years ago. What's your explanation for how this happened?

VICTOR GOLD: The interesting thing was if you go back to the Goldwater campaign and see its speeches, the word "spiritual," the spiritual side of man is very much in every speech. At that time there was argument against a material, the idea of which he accused President Johnson and the Johnson administration being materialistic. The spiritual-- he spoke of the whole man. So he used the word "spiritual" and he used the word "God." But what happened was when it came to the line of injecting a religious belief of putting-- what we're talking about, it's-- keeping government out of the boardroom every Republican conservative understands. What they don't seem to understand is keeping politics-- keeping government out of the bedroom and private lives. Goldwater understood that. If you had told me and if you had told Barry Goldwater that we would one day have an office in the White House called the Office of Faith-based Initiative, what kind of Orwellian language is that? Faith-based initiative? That's the Office of Religion. The Office of Religious Outreach. What-- how do you put that in the White House? It's not simply a separation of church and state. I'm talking about a separation of church and politics.

BILL MOYERS: The Terry Schiavo case seems to have been a turning point in all of this. Don't you-- that seems to be a moment at which people like you really began to be aroused that-- that the religious right would bring that issue so powerfully into the White House.

VICTOR GOLD: Well, think of what it was aside from the emotional aside. Think of what it meant constitutionally and in terms of conservative principles. One of the things-- and the hypocrisy of the Tom Delays and the people who brought that-- the cry has always been activist judges. We don't want these activist judges interfering. All right. What they wanted to do and also the principle of federal government over state. Here you had state courts that ruled on the thing. Congress under the quote, Republicans, unquote, passes a law which takes a case out of state jurisdiction and turns it over to the federal court. The president, who didn't have time to fly-- to come to New Orleans at the time of Katrina right quickly, flew back from Crawford, Texas, to sign this bill. They sign a bill which assign-- takes the case out of state hands and puts it into federal hands. Now, they turn it over to a federal court that says, "We don't want this case. We don't want this case." And the pitiful thing was they take this personal family tragedy and elevate it a national case.

BILL MOYERS: I'm intrigued by the fact that as Goldwater began to unfold his views over the years and I had left politics and he was saying things like he was supporting the rights of gay men and women. He was voting consistently for Roe versus Wade. He was talking about the separation of church and state, which he respected. He was concerned, as many of us were, about the religious right. I began to say, "Who's the conservative here and who's the liberal?" So my question is, "What happened to those Goldwater Republicans?" Did they leave him?

VICTOR GOLD: No, they didn't leave him. They now feel we can't win an election unless we have the theoconservatives, the religious right with us. We can't win an election unless we have-- these are our round troops. These are our storm-- but when you take them in, when you take them in, it changes the character of the party. You win but do you win-- do you win on any principle that you stood for?

BILL MOYERS: Well, they won twice, 2000, 2004.

VICTOR GOLD: They won. You said, "They won." That's I think a lot of conservatives like me have discovered. I voted for George Bush in the year 2000. And a lot-- in 2006 you found out a lot of defection. Like, I opened the book by saying I was actually rooting, and I wasn't the only one, there were a lot of people like me, conservative Republicans like me, wanted to lose and who want-- feel we have to go back--it's best to lose and go back and reform-- reform what we believe in.

BILL MOYERS: Back in 2001, you wrote the profile of the new vice-president for the official inauguration program. You wrote, quote, speaking of Cheney, "a man of gravitas with a quick and easy wit, a conservative who will see a road less traveled, a political realist who sees his country and the world around him not in terms of leaden problems but golden opportunities."

VICTOR GOLD: That's the person I knew. I mean, I wasn't writing bull. I mean, that wasn't just putting on .

BILL MOYERS: So what do you think happened?

VICTOR GOLD: That is one of the great mysteries. I quote Madam Destaile in the thing. Men do not change; they unmask themselves. As you know, power can change people. I mean, you know, this-- when I was in the Army I remember when I got my sergeant stripes they say, "Now we're going to find out what kind of person you are." Are you going to be a, you know, lord it over people or whether you're going to change. Man becomes vice-president of the United States. Maybe all this-- it's been a very good masquerade he's been putting on because this is not the Dick Cheney any of us knew. If you recall, when George was elected everybody said, "Well, George may be inexperienced but we have good-- we have a good stable person in Dick Cheney." And now what we have-- he's bombs away. I mean, that-- I-- I don't under-- we don't understand it in terms of everything, the intransient position that Dick Cheney takes on every issue, you find that reflected in the White House.

BILL MOYERS: You're very angry in here about the war.

VICTOR GOLD: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

VICTOR GOLD: Because I can say it, even though the people in politics can't use the word. I feel for those kids, and they are kids, over there. They are getting killed every day, and their life-- this is a-- their lives are being wasted. Now, when politicians use-- they say, "Oh, no." I didn't-- they're heroes. But their lives are wasted. This is a to-- and they're going to keep getting killed as long-- and while they get killed, we have a white tie dinners at the White House. This is not the president says this is a total war. Where is the sacrifice? I know what a total war is like. You know what a total war is like. I feel for the families of the kids who are over there and the people who are getting killed in a war and the-- every day that passes, every day that passes there are more of them going to be killed to no end.

BILL MOYERS: Well, this haunts me, of course, from the Johnson years, the war in Vietnam, the year we escalated the war so intensely in 1965. I remember dinners at the Smithsonian, dances at the Smithsonian. You know, there was a disconnect. And I remember a piece you wrote some years ago about how presidents get isolated. And you said they have to burst the bubble of celebrity and sycophancy. Remember that?

VICTOR GOLD: Oh, yes.

BILL MOYERS: How do they-- George W. Bush has disappeared into the presidency, hasn't he?

VICTOR GOLD: He's acting a role. "I'm president of the United States." I'm-- do they really-- has their feet touched the ground? This is the thing that I wonder. We have people-- when I say "have their feet touched the ground," do they really-- is this really a real life thing to them? Clinton-- one of the things I fault this president for is the same thing as Clinton. How much time did he spend in the White House? My God, I remember when presidents spent time in the White-- all you have to do is drop a manifest on-- an Air Force One manifest and they're off and flying to, as President Bush said recently when he went out to Kansas to hug people, he said-- it's his job as president to comfort people. That was not-- and by the way, I don't-- that was not Lyndon Johnson's-- I was no great admirer of Johnson. But he understood there were greater responsibilities. But I felt that's what I held against Clinton, too. This idea of what gets into them? It becomes a celebrity thing to them. And they get taken away from-- carried away by it.

BILL MOYERS: You're also angry in here about the Justice Department under Gonzalez and boys, why?

VIC GOLD: I think it's a corrupted justice department. When I say "corrupted," I don't mean dollars and cents. I mean corrupted in terms of the values of our con-- our constitutional values. And I think you've heard some of the prosecuting attorneys who were fired speak out and the-- some of the investigation-- the investigations bringing out exactly what's going on up there. And when you corrupt the justice system, the Justice Department, that's the most important department of government in terms of protecting our constitutional values. One of the reasons I wanted the Democrats to win was because I knew the yo-yo Republicans on the Hill were not going to investigate even those they-- we-- we claim we are the constitutionalists. We are the ones concerned about the Constitution. We want strict constructionist judges. We don't want to over-- over-- overreaching-- overreaching federal government. The fact is the-- I knew there would be investigations. And I-- I-- I want these investigations to go on 'cause they weren't going on when the Republicans were in control of Congress.

BILL MOYERS: Didn't I hear you say you wanted the Democrats to win last November?

VICTOR GOLD: I'd say open up the book. I say open up the book. I wasn't the only one. We-- we-- when-- when I-- I thought it was marvelous in 2006 because I figured if these people have gone this far under the 2004 mandates, the things with the war and everything going on the way it is, if this White House wins, can you-- my god, we'll be at war with Iran in two weeks.

BILL MOYERS: Today what we have are two parties that are really captive of big wealthy interest, don't we?

VICTOR GOLD: You're talking about the wealth-- you're talking about the people who put up the money for their campaign. Absolutely. But they're captive because their only interest is, "How do we get reelected?" And that's where you see what-- what do they want to do when they get reelected? Well, they want to make money. Now, you don't make money inside Congress anymore, as I point out in the book. We've got K Street . They-

BILL MOYERS: They become lobbyists.

VICTOR GOLD: The U.S.-- we have an attorney general for the first time in my lifetime, I've known of-- of attorney generals becoming lawyers, we've got an Attorney General Ashcroft goes establish-- he establishes his own lobbying firm.

BILL MOYERS: Do you sometimes feel like a dinosaur standing in a lake that's drying up around your ankles?

VICTOR GOLD: Well, I'll put it to you this way. I more and more read histories of the 1940s and '50s and listen to Frank Sinatra music and Bobby Darren-- try to-

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, so, what do we do? I mean, we don't want to just be old curmudgeons here at the end, do we?

VICTOR GOLD: I don't want to be an old curmudgeon. But, I'll wait-- look, I'm waiting for-- put it this way. You remember the old play-- oh, that play Waiting for Lefty. Well, I'm waiting for righty. And for a rebirth of Goldwater. I don't see him around.

BILL MOYERS: The book is Invasion of the Partysnatchers: How the Holy Rollers and the Neocons Destroyed the GOP. Vic Gold It's been a pleasure to be with you.

VICTOR GOLD: Thank you for having me on the show.
*********************
Are We Civilized?
Dear Speaker Peloci,

Hallmark of being (civilized)a member of CIVILIZED WORLD is JUST/EQUAL/with-respect TREATMENT of others. I would like to see people who dare to talk to power, to hear/demand truth from their government, and see that the President , Congress, Judiciary system and Press/Media are FRANK (with us to ADVANCE our WILL on our behalf), and held accountable for their actions.

I am puzzled by nobody daring to tell President Bush that:
"1. Hallmark of being (civilized) a member of CIVILIZED WORLD is JUST/EQUAL/with-respect TREATMENT of others.

2. You were picked (by George Shultz et al) to run for Presidency (to execute Wolfowitz et al hegemonic doctrine) because you were:
A. in need of impressing your parents and siblings (who had, always, looked down at you), and
B. that your urge/motive to punish Saddam was so strong that you were willing to do whatever you were/are asked to render realization to it. You were so, uncontrollably, OBSSESSED to RETALIATE against the audacity/daring of Saddam who: 1) had put a HUGE image of your father (for the purpose of humiliation) in the WALKWAY of one of the buildings in Baghdad (CBS showed it), and 2) had attempted to assassinate your father.

It was shown on TV screens (as then candidate) Bush, after having had seen the image of his father in the walkway, saying that, I quote it (from my memory):

"I would FINISH what my father did not do (failed to do) during the 1991 operation in Iraq ". I remind you of what Richard Clark said on TV. He said that President Bush in numerous occasions had told him to find something against Saddam even before the 9/11 manufactured incidence (like Pearl Harbor – that was used for our country to join the World War II).

Please tell President Bush: "YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN AT ALL. YOU ARE SOMEBODY WITH HATE. A CHRISTIAN IS TAUGHT TO FORGIVE. "

Tell him:
1. To forget the BS of Aristotle (repeated by Hegel and Montesquieu) that WEST is CIVILIZED and Easterners, American Indians and Black are savages (Alexander The Great [Savage] in a letter has written… Aristotle this Kiss Ass friend of mine tells me these entire BS so that I [without any mercy] commit every atrocity imaginable to control the places that I have conquered). Here is the advice of Aristotle repeated by Hegel and Montesquieu:“…that the soul started in the wild emotional East and it developed and became CIVILIZED during its path to West WHEREIN it found its HOME and therefore we the CIVILIZED West should treat ourselves as EQUALS with Respect and law but we CAN do whatever we want to do on the emotional-wild-Easterners because whatever we do is better than the situation they are in AND that Iran had shown the potential to become CICILIZED like us but they failed during the process because wherever they went they treated people with mercy and respect.

Tell President Bush that Iran is the MOST CIVILIZED nation in the world. It had given us the pioneers in Medicine (whose Books were our textbook until 18th century), basic science (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy), philosophy, arts & sciences, literature (who were the mentors of our famous literary giants such as Goethe, … one of whom had wished as such: ” World would have been in a better shape if Persians/Iranians had been the rulers of Rome because they always had been kind and just wherever they had gone.

By the way shame on the producer of movie 300-Spartans; Xerecsus was had been a fair King. In the movie, portraying Iranians/Persians as savages, it says that Persians are COWARDS because they THROW ARROWS from afar over the 300 !!!Spartan fighters. This reminded me of us having had been truly the COWARDS of all times because we launch cruise missiles from thousands of miles and kill people using unmanned aero planes/fighters/helicopters and explode chemical weapons on the people we unfairly engage and impose war on them to accept what we ask them to do.

A fair mind (like that of mine) finds the ULTIMATE outrageousness in the immediately below-pasted quote from the mesmerized by power-Nicholas Burns, our under secretary of state for political affairs:
“Iran is a country that for the United States has been one of abiding concern for the better part of 30 years”. Who the hell we think we are to bring other nations into submission? That is coercing them to submit to unjust hegemonic bullying demands of ours? Such attitude towards others foments/provokes anger and instability. Then we complain against so called terrorism?

People are demanding JUST treatment of Iran and others. The first thing that brings about peace is JUST/EQUAL and with respect treatment of others.

We claim to be a CIVILIZED nation. JUST/EQUAL and with respect treatment of others is the hallmarks of a "civilized nation". Hegemonic attitude of ours has made us the Third HATED nation in the world; Israel having had won the First rank and our propaganda machine/censored/ biased PRESS and MEDIA have fabricated/caused an unjust view of Iran in the mind of so called CIVILIZED world.

Iran does NOT intend to build atomic bomb. Please stop pressuring Iran. Please stop bullying Iran. Please stop abusing Security Counsel. Please stop stoking unrest in Iran. Spend the fund to advance honorable causes. Stop interfering in the INTERNAL affairs of Iran. Let them, themselves, sort out the problems that they have with their rough government. Put yourself in their shoes to find out if we, for even a second, would accept such humiliating attitudes towards us? Treat others as EQUALS then all the security of flow of oil to the West that we want would be assured. The COLONIALISM era is over.

Uncontrollable greedy corporative profit-making should be brought under control. These stupid cruel bottom-line-looking greedy individuals/corporations know that they will not be able to take what they make so unfairly to grave. Fighting with greed is the real fight with terrorism. Leave people alone. Leave their waters and the vicinity of international waters. Evacuate all the bullying military bases around them and around the world. Stop the hegemony of military Industrial Complex then you will notice that terrorism stops. (Listen to President Eisenhower:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY ).

Let us get ourselves out of the stupid inferiority/superiority complex. We are NOT the boss/landlord/owner of the world.

Declaration of Human Right becomes meaningless/sounds hollow when we and the other four countries have the VETO power and Permanent seat in the Security Counsel.

To the Media and Press: You are supposed to be eye and ears of public to protect the Constitution. How come is it that you do not report the real important news pieces such as this one: the during the visit of President Khatami (former President of Iran) with Pope Benedict VI, Pope has said that Iran has had been a peaceful country and that it has the full right to its peaceful nuclear program (that we are trying to deprive them of)? Do your job for God sake; be eye and ears of people. Stop from being the loudspeaker for the government. Have the BALL to write/report the truthful pieces of important news. Journalists are supposed to take risks and be ready to loose their job for the cause of INFORMING people. Please do your job honorably. Do not lecture them. Tell them the truth. Not reporting the truth is the worst type of lying through omission [of facts].

Two nice quotes:
"If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
=
"Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide." -- Buddha [Gautama Siddharta] (563 - 483 BC),

Sincerely,
Murray M. Morgan(530) 753-9715 call screening

I'm very pleased that Bill Moyers is back on the air, unfortunately I'm afraid most of the people who view his programs or participate in blogs are pretty much of like mind.
I was stunned that Norquist could actually make the statements he did about the republicans and corporate america. When one considers the bills passed by the republican congress, the various executive orders effected by Bush it amazes me and I hope others that they can try to pretend that they are supporters of small government.
This current administration has consistently sided with the very wealthy and corporate giants against the people of this once great nation.
The late republican congress passed laws which were most likely written by the various lobbists for the powerful and wealthy in this country to the near destruction of the middle class and further degradation of the working poor.
I think if our government continus on this path we should change the preamble to read " agovernment of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations!!!
Unfortunately I do not think the democrats are doing much better.I think many of the problems with our goverment can be understood if you think about what it does to our system of goverment when it costs 100's of million of dollars to compete in any major political race. This outrageous cost makes any candidate beholding to the ones who provided the cash to get them into office. I do not believe many of our politicans have the personal integrity to stand up to this egregiuos situation

Mr Moyers -

I love your show and thank you for your efforts.

However, it would be helpful for you to challenge some of your guests a little more. For example, I was surprised that your guest on the trade issue was making such broad, one-sided statements about how the negative effects of free trade. It was appalling.

First off, let me point out that she was a journalist, obviously not an economist. She (and you) pointed to the lost manufacturing jobs and presumed they were all substituted for service jobs. While there's certainly quite a bit of that, and the human element of it needs reporting, you fail to even challenge your guest and even mention that by doing so a) millions of americans benefitted from cheaper goods and b) many americans were given training opportunities to upgrade their skills so that they can be better off.

Economics 101 shows that all parties are better off with free trade, and this has been true for most Americans. The transitions can be painful and help should be offered, the stories should be reported.

However, your story fed the populist feeling that free trade is bad. I argue that closing, or even regulating free trade hurts the very people you (and I) want to help.

Please keep reporting both sides. Please keep pressing your stories on Iraq - the injustices there are still under-reported.

Thank you

The founders believed that
only a limited government
could be trusted and controlled. When conservatives speak against
the growth of government
they are exactly in sync with the founders. Liberals
believe (why, I do not know)
that government is the solution...conservatives know that government is not the solution to the problem, but government IS the problem. Therefore, the best government is limited government and that government is charged with
national defense and public order not social engineering
and building a socialist utopia.

I am so glad you are back on the air.Yesterday's commutation of the Libby sentence got me thinking about some comments from G.Norquist-his hoping for governments to fail, his desire to shrink the government to the size where it could be "drowned in a bathtub," and similar comments. His and I believe Rove and Cheney's contempt for government leads me to the cynical view that at this point any actions they take to inflame further the public's opinion of the government is simply playing into their desire to erode the concept of government of the people. Of course people are outraged! The elitism! The special favors! And so we are further distracted from the real machinations of this administration. As long as we remain disenfranchised, as long as the government is perceived as "them" and not "we the people", they win.The "mis-speakings" of Bush as he refers to "his government" are telling. Bush is so far removed from any frame of accountability that it seems indeed this is "his" government - and the behavior of the democratic-controlled congress is not inspiring any hope for significalnt change.As long as the stranglehold of special interests and expensive (free) speech rulings continue-I feel our precious constitution is in grave peril.

OK, here's a Scooter Libby
post...The Heartland of America stands and cheers
for the president's commutation of Libby's sent-
ence! Most Americans outside the beltway despise
tactics of most Independent
Counsels as they parse words
to entrap people for a career-boosting conviction.
Libby was convicted on a process crime,not anything having to do with outting
Plame. Richard Armitage admitted and Robert Novak
confirmed that Armitage leaked Plame's identity. That is a fact. Is the IC
going after Armitage? What
about Sandy Berger? Now there's a federal crime
you or I would go to federal prison over! The
thing that makes the heartland laugh about is the
selectivity liberals use in
upholding "the rule of law"
when it suits their liberal
agenda. Libby's commutation
is a great gift on America's
231st birthday. The $250000
fine stands so I guess that's a fair penalty.


I was hoping to read what other people were saying about Scooter Libby's pardon. I am both outraged and sickened as though the storm troopers are just down the street loading up my neighbors into covered trucks, I can hear the dogs barking and the children crying. I will get to see the camps that Haliburton built will there be ovens or gas chambers. Will I be tortured or have to watch my grandchildren being tortured in front of me. Criminals use the past to perfect their crimes and the victims just stand and wait.

America's heartland is revived and refreshed by the immigration debate, fairness doctrine, Jihadist appeasement policies of the left, etc. We are rested,
revived, fit and ready to
lead. The heartlanders still love America, still believe in God, still are willing to die for freedom rather than submit to tyranny. Happy Birthday, America and welcome back
heartlanders!

Mr. Moyers,

Thanks again for your brutally honest journalism, at once inspirationally insightful, perfectly timed and targeted at the crucial issues of the day, and depressingly comprehensive in depicting the ignominious morass that our federal government has become. If only you could find a happy ending to ease the helplessness we average citizens feel as you lay this great tragedy before us, week after week.

I was in the post library today with my young son and daughter thumbing through a children’s book about President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. I reread the speech of our history’s most celebrated President-poet and digested his trumpeted motivational closing, “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” After viewing your show online, Lincoln’s flourish hit home.

The power of the people is at ebb.

The people want to end an unjust and interminable war, but inexplicably cannot.

The people wanted immigration reform with a fair path to citizenship for illegals whose only crime was being born in a land bereft of opportunity. Alas, our Congressmen turned in self-interest to hear only the unmolested, bigoted, fear-mongering few, crushing the hopes of freedom for 12 million and entrenching the burdens of their illegal status upon the communities in which they continue to work and live.

The people want equal opportunity for all, but in its first full session, the new “constructionist” Supreme Court gutted Title VII, placing the burden on employees to identify pay disparity within the first six months of discrimination while the employer is under no burden to share the very data with the employee that would indicate such discrimination. They further turned the landmark decision “Brown vs the Board of Education” against itself, establishing the legal means to ensure the passive segregation of schools along socioeconomic lines which we all know still run congruently along racial lines. Finally, they ensured freedom of speech for everyone who can afford it. When an Alaskan teenager tested what was his unalienable right, the court found his banner’s nonsensical “Bong hits for Jesus” message too great a public risk, but they sided with rich special interests who now stand ready to slaughter their political opponents in the final weeks of their campaign with a death barrage of a thousand untruthful and unanswerable “Swift Boat” adds.

The people want Congress to check an out-of-control, empirical executive branch, but find the leadership meek in action, bold only in pursuit of meaningless hearings and headlines.

Most of all, the people, this person wants a choice. The discussion Mr. Moyers undertook with Mr. Gold, two veterans of political conflicts past, makes clear the deep desire of this nation’s vast center, for a choice whose ideals are not within or driven by those who lie outside the population’s standard deviation. The two party system has failed us, making ripe fruit for a new party, as Lincoln’s was in his day, ready for the picking. But the overwhelming influence of money, the oblique gerrymandered dissection of legislative districts along party lines, the exclusivity of the ballot-making system, and the blissful, well-conditioned ignorance and apathy of our citizens all conspire against a third choice or any genuine choice within the two. Our derogation of the Iranian system of government becomes painfully ironic when one realizes that while citizens of both nations may be allowed to vote, citizens of both nations may also only choose from among those candidates the ayatollahs have first given approval. What’s worse, the motives of our ayatollahs, Murdoch chief among them, are perhaps more nefarious and self-serving than Iran’s. What are we to do?

While it is fanciful to think we could discover and draft a Truman-Goldwater Republicrat to carry our hopes to the Whitehouse, the reality of the political battlespace prevents a competitive third party run in ‘08, even by one as well known, respected, and resourced as Mayor Bloomberg. To effect change we must alter the playing field. In this we must follow the wisdom of Thomas O'Neill, Sr. (Tip’s father) as recalled by his famous son in his autobiography, “This was the only race I ever lost in my life, but in the process, I learned two extremely valuable lessons. During the campaign, my father had left me to my own devices, but when it was over, he pointed out that I had taken my own neighborhood for granted. He was right: I had received a tremendous vote in the other sections of the city, but I hadn't worked hard enough in my own backyard. 'Let me tell you something I learned years ago,' he said. 'All politics is local.'" This is the accountability mechanism we have lost, need, and must bring back.

When your state and federal representatives come home this summer, doggedly pursue an audience with them. If that fails, call and write them. Organize into like-minded groups and petition your office holders together for action. If they fail to meet your concerns with either action or other reasonable solution, share with them your disappointment and clearly communicate the withdrawal of your support. If you seek an alternative and can’t find one; recruit one, inside our outside the parties.

Here are three specific remedial actions I am pursuing; I hope you will join me:
1) End the wasteful war – quickest way; make continuing the war (funding) contingent upon the reinstatement of a draft and large tax increases upon the rich. Make all those “war on terror” zealots put their money and their kids where their mouth is.
2) Public campaign financing – maximum contribution is $250 per person or organization; government matches each donation with $2,500 (x10). Oddly enough, this will save us billions.
3) Bring back the debate – any paid advertisement, in any media, by any group, that attacks or even mentions a candidate or a position so attributed, must be followed with equal time/space immediately following it that is allotted to the attacked candidate/cause to be used as they see fit...You can promote your cause/candidate freely, but if you attack or ascribe, you must provide equal time to respond or counter. No hindrance of free speech there, eh Justice Alito?

The Constitution, bred of ideals set forth by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence, is once again being tested by greed and lust of power. I implore all who would read this to reflect on the sad state of affairs as you celebrate the 231st year of our nation, and move yourself from passive disgust to make a new resolution for action. You already have, Mr. Moyers, and God bless you for it.

Gee, I thought of myself as a liberal Republican most of my adult life. What a frustrating mode of life is was!

One of my brother notes an entry in my late father’s journal from around 1988, when the loony fundies took control of the Republican Party in Georgia. He had argued for open mindedness on abortion and other issues. He commented that he did not make much of a positive impression on the Christian right.

I registered as a Republican from March 19, 1961 (when I became 18) until late January 2001. The poverty of argument in the Supreme Court ruling that made George W. Bush president offended me. Enough was enough.

Excellent program. TheGold/Goldwater piece was entertaining and authentic. I most appreciated your commentary on Murdoch. What a piece of work. He typifies the current environs in U.S. Thank heavens for Bill Moyers

Love the show.

Couple picky suggestions on your web site. I'd appreciate seeing a "more entries" link at the bottom of the blog's home page. I see the archives link in the sidebar, a previous pagefull of blog entries is sort of a convention folks expect.

Also a language thing, one doesn't really need to "sign up" for feeds or podcasts.

Bill,

I just wanted to thank you for returning to broadcasting. I missed your thoughtful stories when you left "Now," and I am happy that you are back with inspiring guests and commentaries that are meaningful to our lives.

Thanks for returning to PBS!

I saw your interview with Bruce Bawer and read his book. It was an eye opener of something I was completely unaware of. If there has been national or local news coverage of this issue, I have not seen it. I will discuss the issues with friends, my UCC pastor, local newspapers, and my Muslin friends to find out how much info others have on this subject. Thanks again for enlightening me and your wonderful program Dan, a 77 year old senior who is still thinking

Although I was in High School at the time, I remember Mr. Goldwater. He seemed to have an imperialist bent and I was seriously concerned he was not able to navigate the politics to avoid a nuclear exchange with the soviets.

When was the last time we had a Republican government that wasn't crazy as hell. In my view, most of the serious problems of the US are associated with policies and activities associated with McCarthy, Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, Delay, Fritz, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt, Rove, and of course, Greenspan.

Cheney, Rumsfeldt and Bush are repeats from the Reagan era. I know that Republicans are proud of Ron, but having lived through his budget busting tax cuts and real estate bubble (sound familiar) I thought he was off his rocker.

I think that the last four years suggest that that the government doesn't do so well when one party controls all branches. The insanity of the neo-conservative, plutocratic theocracy we have been living through suggests to me that we need a re-boot.

Please continue the journal. Yours is a voice that must be heard.

Ron Paul is the only man who can save the republican party, and defeat hitlery clinton is the 08 election. Please help the Texas Congressman in his 08 bid for president.

Wow...Republicans in disarray! The last time it was this bad was 1976-1980
and we all know what happened next...Ronald Reagan and the rebirth of
a national conservative movement! Finally after
the collapse of the illegal
aliens amnesty bill pushed
by the country club republicans who are not
conservatives, we have exposed them and they will be voted out and conservatives voted in nationwide starting in 2008.
This is a great time for reclaiming leadership in the leadership vacuum known as the democrat congress.

As one who remembers the good old days which you, Mr. Gold and I you grew up in... I wish to thank you for having Mr. Gold on your show... It brought back fond memories of a true semblance of freedom... However, I do take issue with Mr. Gold in regards to his comment that there is no candidate that can carry the Goldwater banner... Please consider the following:

I use to have compassion for individuals who were "brainwashed" by

the likes of "Rudi McRomney" and cousin "Freddie" Plus Dem

Relatives "Obama" and "Hillary" (all of them CFR's)?... However,

now I can only feel sorry for them..

Leadership is Action Through *Example Not Position...

(It is not a position of power nor being in the right place at the

right time, neither define leadership).

It is defined by setting the example through taking action on such

Leadership Traits as Truthfulness! Honesty! Fidelity!

Ron Paul Has Acted Admirably On All These Leadership Traits:

“Truthfulness” first and foremost… Then: Principle, Integrity,

Honesty,* Fidelity (to their oaths), Honor, Virtue, Compassion,

Courage, Vision, Wisdom and Faith.

http://leadership2008.bravehost.com

Cynicism and defeatism are NOT options to be entertained.
"We are in the eleventh hour of losing this Nation..."

Despite the ultimate failure of Conservative monetary policies throughout the history of this country, there's a reason for our obcession with Conservatism every thirty years or so. I think it was best described by the late John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006), a renown economist who served with honor in governmental and academic positions for many years. In the 2004 PBS American Experience production of "The Crash of 1929", Mr. Galbraith put the recurring aspects of a dark period of our history in perspective.

"One of the things you must understand about 1929 and the antecedent years, as about any speculative episode, is the danger... in attributing intelligence to the simple fact that people are associated with large sums of money or large financial operations. We don't ask whether they're intelligent. We say, they're associated with all this money, so they must be intelligent. We attribute intelligence to association with financial operations. And only afterwards do we discover that error and that the people involved can be extremely successful in gulling themselves. That they can be in effect, and I use the word advisedly, marvelously stupid.

I used to be quite an optimist... I thought that by keeping the memory of the 1929 crash alive we would have a warning against the kind of feckless, fatuous optimism which caused people to get in and shove up the markets and shove it up more and get carried away by the illusion of ever-increasing wealth. I've given up on that hope because we've had it happen too often since. Every 20 to 30 years, a new crop of suckers come along to take the bait!"

I too was very impressed with Mr. Gold's interview and stand, and think it might be wise thing for both Democrats and Republicans to buy and read his book! Like many folks, even though a card-carrying Democrat now, I come from a relatively staunch Republican family. My father and grandfather both stumped for Goldwater in 1964 in the Pittsburgh area, and were none too welcome with it. They remained true "Goldwater Republicans" in their ideology long after the election though.

What was most important and refreshing though about this (and all interviews by Mr. Moyers), is that Mr. Gold was asked pointed questions and quality follow-up questions. Other than this show, when do we get to see or hear that? Here were 2 guys whose careers have been at polar opposites, yet both talked without being interrupted or told that he was a crackpot or a liar. Thanks to both men for their civility, intelligence, and manners!

Thanks again, Bill for bringing us open honest discussion on these important topics; the obvious thing which was not mentioned in your interview on the mortgage meltdown is that the people who are the pawns in this (another)corporate raid on the underprivileged is that those who can least afford to pay high interest rates and fees are being stuck with them - is it any wonder there are defaults - if the rate for mortgages were the same for all it would be easier for those who are struggling to make the payments.
It is strange that those who make the least have to pay the most ?!?

I have to agree with Arnold Heiber about conservatism and finance.

I read in AP U.S. history class of Regan and his influence on our economy and it wasn't a good one.

I think our finance should just be decided by people who have studied it their whole lives and not by people who want to change it to their political or philosophical belief.

Now there is one thing I have been critical of almost every president since McKinley and that is the continued over funding of our defense department, which is a double speak since most of our militaristic activity has been offensive.

Under Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. (and I believe Clinton too, but I haven't checked) defense spending was taking so much money from more important and well needed funding (like education, charity, and even PBS). Yes I am a believer in the Military-Industrial complex and I have yet to see a republican president who would stick to his promises of smaller government.

With a smaller government, we wouldn't have such an over-funded defense department and a country where the rich reign power over our government.

Yet another old-school conservative who is fed up with Bush-Cheney and understands that Ron Paul is the only one that shares the conservative principals of Goldwater and Reagan.

I agree: Goldwater was the last Republican politician I ever trusted. Unfortunately, his enemies used his own statements from his book to kill him. Is "honest politician" a contradiction in terms, or should we believe Mayor Richard J. Daley's definition of an honest politician: one who, when he has been bought, stays bought.

I know that thinking is expecting too much, but anyone should be able to read Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative." He did recommend a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union. Everyone, including the communists, knew that their system was failing, with the exception of the U.S. conservatives, who kept on predicting great successes for their threat to take over the world.

Look in the Journal of Finance, The Journal of Portfolio Management and, even, The Stock Trader's Almanac. Studies ranging from 65 years to over 100 years record a nearly unbroken record of the financial failure of conservative ideas. And, to top it off, Republican presidencies are, by the numbers, more anti-capitalistic than communism, while the Democrats have produced a long-term record of vigorously capitalistic numbers. Now, there is a record to run on! You see, Communism doesn't work (you don't have to kill it) and neither does Conservatism; they both self-destruct.

I have only one question: please, Mr. Moyers, would you run or president? And how about Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky for VP?

:o)

Yes, pity about the GOP. Damn pity about the many Hamiltonian Democrats, too.

Only public election financing (with no opt-out clauses) can possibly save us now.

What happened to the idea that the Democratic Party was a party of and for the working, middle class, middle income and middle of the road people?
What happened to the common sense idea that you could agree to disagree and try to work on a common middle that was in the best interest of the country and not just a few.

Mr. Moyers, Mr. Gold - Barry Goldwater is the only Republican I ever supported - I liked his honesty and forthrightness, traits that are difficult to find in today's politicians. Thank you for this discourse tonight.

The person who wrote in "Sean Jennings" was probably never a Republican. Has Sean ever heard of Thompson or Guiliani? Guiliani turned NY around by reducing crime 75%! and a great leader. One of the reasons Nixon resigned was because of Fred Thompson! Admit it Sean, your a democrate pretending to be a republican Sgt 1st Class US Army

I voted for Goldwater and used to be a card carrying Republican, but no more; the Bush/Cheney administration has turned me into a card carrying cynic. I will never vote for a Republican candidate again until another Goldwater comes along. As Victor Gold pointed out, I don't see a "Goldwater" out there anywhere on the horizon.
I predict our country is headed for a train wreck and because things are so out of whack, we may never be able to get the train back on the track!

The Republican party NOT wedded to Corporate America?!! That's a joke right? Did he ever hear about K Street? The Drug Industry that wrote the Republican Drug (rip-off)Bill! The Party, that voted and fought tooth and nail to stop any raise in the mini-wage!

Yea, they believe in tax cuts, for billionaires, and oit companies!

I don't know what party he was talking about but it sure isn't the Republican party!

Bravo, Mr. Moyers & Mr. Gold! Yes, I am disgusted with the current political status-quo, and it is due, in large part, to public ignorance, which is due to the failure of socialized education.

I grew up in a Republican family and am solidly Pro-Life. I consider myself conservative and God-fearing religious, but not a neo/theo-con so eloquently described in your program. I support Dr. Ron Paul because he is the only true Goldwater/Jeffersonian Conservative choice, and the only candidate Constitutionally qualified for the Presidency. Barry Goldwater, Jr. has formally endorsed him, yet the establishment rejects and ridicules him. This just evidences that the those with power have undermined America, deliberately or not. Those who yearn for true liberty, true security, and true prosperity now have a voice in Dr. Paul, and America is starting to listen.

To Mr. James, we are finding our way again because we are an important part of our Republic. Say the pledge and tell me what form of government was established by the Constitution.

victor golds book...what i its name

Both parties are racing to embrace the lowest common denominator in their "base." That translates to thugs and bullies on both sides intimidating any dissent or debate. Meanwhile the elite at the top of the 'right' and 'left' divide play kissy face.

Right now, Mr. Gold. I am a little too young to remember Barry Goldwater's run for President but I remember the time when a statement meant something, and things today are wrong. Too much (so-called) faith and too little honesty. But as the new right led the way, the centrist left ran to support the conditions we see today. Who speaks for the American people or simply the truth?

Excellent, electric conversation with Mr. Gold. Thank you. Glad to see you back on PBS.

I am a liberal democrat, and I do admit that I feel sorry for the true republicans out there, who (I feel) have had their party hijacked by crusading idealogues like George Bush, and the religous right. All Republicans deserve true men, like Ronald Reagan, who represent their values, not the values of God fearing demagogueish special interest groups. I hope they can find their way again, because they are an important part of our democracy.

Post a comment

THE MOYERS BLOG is our forum for viewers' comments intended for discussing and debating ideas and issues raised on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL. THE MOYERS BLOG invites you to share your thoughts. We are committed to keeping an open discussion; in order to preserve a civil, respectful dialogue, our editors reserve the right to remove or alter any comments that we find unacceptable, for any reason. For more information, please click here.

THE MOYERS BLOG
A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal

Your Comments

Podcasts

THE JOURNAL offers a free podcast and vodcast of all weekly episodes. (help)

Click to subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe with another reader

Get the vodcast (help)

For Educators    About the Series    Bill Moyers on PBS   

© Public Affairs Television 2008    Privacy Policy    DVD/VHS    Terms of Use    FAQ