Evolution of Freedom of Speech

Evolution of Freedom of Speech
the key to peace is free speech

Sunday, June 26, 2016

WHY DO YOUR MASTERS TAKE YOU TO WAR?

I was manipulated into cooperating with plans to assassinate Fidel Castro (see my books ME & LEE and DAVID FERRIE: MAFIA PILOT) . I was influenced by great, highly respected doctors in the field of cancer research who were willing to create a weaponized form of cancer -- the excuse being that the death of one man was preferable to the deaths of millions.  I now stand as a voice against war and biological weapons of all kinds.  Peace is rare in our world.  However, forcing everyone to join a 'one world' where peace is enforced by (corruptible) leaders is not the answer for the future.  We need to understand why war can be, how to avoid war, and how to rein in leaders whose religious values, desire for glory or power, and ability to use force have created unbelievable sufferings and horrors that display us as a predatory race.
  
It's time we matured, as the only hope for life itself on this planet now rests in the hands of a primate whose outstanding acts of evil, in the past, have distinguished it from all other forms of sentient life, for we are aware of what we do.

What we need to understand is how to forge processes of peace that promote the well-being and the full development of humanity, with the ancient medical vow and concept of "DO NO HARM" as our ultimate guide.

Recommended Reading: 

(free) The Reasons for Wars – an Updated Survey
Matthew O. Jackson and Massimo Morelli (2009)


http://web.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/war-overview.pdf

Why wars happen: Analysing the causes of conflicts

 http://www.economist.com/node/12758508




THERE have been nine wars and almost 130 violent conflicts across the world this year, according to an annual report released on Monday December 15th by the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, a think-tank. The study classifies conflict broadly to include peaceful disputes over politics or borders (low intensity), as well as those involving sporadic or constant violence (medium or high intensity). In 2008 previously non-violent conflicts escalated into violence in countries such as Kenya and Yemen. Ideological change is both the most common cause of conflict and the root of most wars, but there is rarely only one cause of dispute http://www.economist.com/node/12758508

HERE IS THE CLASSIC WORK ON THE SUBJECT:

The Law of War and Peace (1625)

by Hugo Grotius

BOOK 2, CHAPTER 22
On Unjust Causes Of Wars
I.     The distinction between justifiable and persuasive causes is explained.
1.   We said above, when we set out to treat the causes of wars that some were justifiable, others persuasive. Polybius, who was the first to observe this distinction, calls the former ‘pretexts,’ because they are wont to be openly alleged (Livy sometimes employs the term ‘claim ‘), and the latter by the name of the class, ’causes.’
2.   Thus in the war of Alexander against Darius the ‘pretext’ was the avenging of the injuries which the Persians had inflicted upon the Greeks, while the ’cause’ was the desire for renown, empire, and riches, to which was added a great expectation of an easy victory arising from the expeditions of Xenophon and Agesilaus. The ‘pretext’ of the Second Punic War was the dispute over Saguntum, but the cause was the anger of the Carthaginians at the agreements which the Romans had extorted from them in times of adversity, and the encouragement which they derived from their successes in Spain, as was observed by Polybius. Likewise Thucydides thinks that the true cause of the Peloponnesian War was the power of Athens, which was on the increase and was regarded with suspicion by the Lacedaemonians, but that the pretext was the dispute over Corcyra, that over Potidaea, and other points of difference; in this, however, he confuses the terms ’cause’ and ‘pretext.”
The same distinction appears in the speech of the Campanians to the Romans, when they said that they fought against the Samnites nominally on behalf of the Sidicini, but in reality for themselves; because they saw that when the Sidicini had been consumed the conflagration would spread to them. Livy records also that Antiochus made war upon the Romans alleging as his reasons the execution of Barcillas and some other occurrences, but really because he had conceived great hopes of success from the decline in Roman discipline. In like manner Plutarch observes that Cicero incorrectly taunted Antony with being the cause of the civil war, since Caesar, having already decided upon war, merely found in Antony his pretext.’
II.     Wars which lack causes of either sort are wars of savages.
There are some who rush into war without a cause of either sort, led, as Tacitus says, by the desire of incurring danger for its own sake. But the offence of these men is more than human; Aristotle calls it ‘the savagery of wild beasts.’ Concerning such persons Seneca wrote: ‘I can say that this is not cruelty, but ferocity,’ which delights in savagery. We can call it madness; for there are various sorts of madness, and none is more unmistakable than that which turns to the slaughter and butchery of men.’
Altogether similar to this expression of opinion is that of Aristotle, in the last book of the Nicomachean Ethics: ‘For anyone would seem to be absolutely murderous if he should make enemies of his friends in order that there might be fighting and bloodshed.’ Said Dio of Prusa: ‘To wage war and to fight without a pretext, what else is this than utter madness and a craving for evils arising therefrom?’ The same idea is expressed by Seneca in his fourth Letter: ‘No one proceeds to shed human blood for its own sake, or at any rate only few do so.’
III.     Wars which have persuasive but not justifying causes are wars of robbers.
1.   In most cases those who go to war have persuasive causes, either with or without justifiable causes. There are some indeed who clearly ignore justifiable causes. To these we may apply the dictum uttered by the Roman jurists, that the man is a robber who, when asked the origin of his possession, adduces none other than the fact of possession.’
With regard to those who advocate war Aristotle says: ‘Do they oftentimes give no thought to the injustice of enslaving neighbors and those who have done no wrong? ‘
2.   Such a one was Brennus, who was wont to say that all things belonged to the stronger. Such, in the view of Silius Italicus, was Hannibal, for whom
      The sword
      The place of treaties and of justice took.
Such was Attila, and such were those whose lips are made to say:
      The issue of the war and not its cause
      We seek;
again
      Guilt will be his who in this battle fails;
and
      When fortune’s at its height, strength is the same as right.
To these you may fitly apply the saying of Augustine: ‘To make war upon our neighbors, and thence to advance against others, and from the mere lust of ruling to crush peoples who have not troubled us, what must we call this but wholesale robbery?’ Of wars of this type Velleius says: ‘They are wars entered upon for no good reasons, but for the gain they bring.’ In the first book of Cicero, On Duties, we read: ‘That exaltation of spirit seen in times of danger and toil, if it is devoid of justice, not only has in it no quality of virtue, but rather is a manifestation of a brutality that is hardened to all human feeling.’ Andronicus of Rhodes declared: ‘Those who, for the sake of great gains, take things whence they should not, are called wicked, impious and unjust. In this class are tyrants,’ and those who lay waste cities.’
IV.     There are certain causes which present a false appearance of justice.
Others allege causes which they claim to be justifiable, but which, when examined in the light of right reason, are found to be unjust. In such cases, as Livy says, it is clear that a decision based not on right but on violence is sought. Very many kings, says Plutarch, make use of the two terms, peace and war, as if they were coins, to obtain not what is right but what is advantageous.
Now causes which are unjust may, up to a certain point, be recognized from the foregoing discussion of just causes. What is straight is in fact a guide to what is crooked. For the sake of clearness, however, we proceed to mention the principal kinds of unjust causes.
V.     Such a cause is the fear of something uncertain.
1.   We have said above that fear with respect to a neighboring power is not a sufficient cause. For in order that a self-defense may be lawful it must be necessary; and it is not necessary unless we are certain, not only regarding the power of our neighbor, but also regarding his intention; the degree of certainty required is that which is accepted in morals.
2.   Wherefore we can in no wise approve the view of those who declare that it is a just cause of war when a neighbor who is restrained by no agreement builds a fortress on his own soil, or some other fortification which may some day cause us harm. Against the fears which arise from such actions we must resort to counter-fortifications on our own land and other similar remedies, but not to force of arms. The wars of the Romans against Philip of Macedon, and of Lysimachus against Demetrius, were, therefore, unjust, unless there was some other cause for them.
I am greatly pleased with what Tacitus says of the Chauci: ‘The noblest people of the Germans, who choose to defend their greatness by justice alone, without greed, without lawlessness. They are peaceful and retiring. They provoke no wars; they do not ravage with plunderings and brigandage. This is the outstanding evidence of their worth and power, that their position of superiority has not been attained by wrongful means. Yet all have arms in readiness, and, if the situation demands, they provide an army. They have great numbers of men and horses, and their reputation remains the same even though they are at peace.’
VI.     Another such cause is advantage apart from necessity.
Advantage does not confer the same right as necessity.
VII.     A cause of war presenting the appearance of justice is the refusal of marriage, when there is a great abundance of marriageable women.
So, when there is abundant opportunity for marriage, a refusal of marriage cannot furnish a cause for war; although in former times Hercules seized upon such a cause against Eurytus, and Darius’ against the Scythians.
VIII.     Such a cause, again, is the desire for richer land.
The desire to change abode, in order that by abandoning swamps and wildernesses a more fruitful soil may be acquired, does not afford a just cause for war. Tacitus says that this was a cause of warfare among the ancient Germans.
IX. Such a cause is also the discovery of things previously taken over by others.
Equally shameless is it to claim for oneself by right of discovery what is held by another, even though the occupant may be ‘wicked, may hold wrong views about God, or may be dull of wit. For discovery applies to those things which belong to no one.
X. What course is to be followed if the previous occupants are insane.
1.   For the exercise of ownership neither moral nor religious virtue, nor intellectual excellence, is a requirement; except that the view seems defensible that, if there exist any peoples wholly deprived of the use of reason, these cannot have ownership, but merely for charity’s sake there is due to them what is necessary to maintain life. What we have said elsewhere regarding the maintenance of ownership, which universal common law guarantees on behalf of minors and insane persons, applies to those peoples with whom there exists an interchange of agreements; but such are not peoples absolutely deprived of reason, if any of this sort are to be found, which I very much doubt.
2.   The Greeks were, therefore, wrong in saying that the barbarians were their enemies as it were by nature, because of their differences in customs, perhaps also because the barbarians seemed to be inferior to them in intellect. However, to what extent ownership may be taken away because of vicious crimes, which offend against both nature and human society, is another question, which we just now discussed when dealing with the right of punishments.
XI.     On unjust cause of war is the desire for freedom among a subject people.
Liberty, whether of individuals or of states, that is ‘autonomy,’ cannot give the right to war, just as if by nature and at all times liberty was adapted to all persons.’ For when liberty is said to be an attribute by nature of men and of peoples this must be understood of the law of nature which precedes all human conditions, and of liberty ‘by exemption,’ not of that which is ‘by opposition'; that is to say, that by nature no one is a slave, but not that man has the right never to enter slavery, for in that sense no one is free.
Here applies the saying of Albutius: ‘No one is born free, no one a slave; it is after birth that fortune has imposed these distinctions upon individuals.’ Also that of Aristotle: ‘By law, one man is a slave and another free.’ Wherefore those who from a lawful cause have come into personal or political slavery ought to be satisfied with their state, as Paul the Apostle teaches in the words: ‘Hast thou been called to be a slave? Be not concerned thereat.’
XII.     An unjust cause of war also is the desire to rule others against their will on the pretext that it is for their good.
Not less iniquitous is it to desire by arms to subdue other men, as if they deserved to be enslaved, and were such as the philosophers at times call slaves by nature. For even if something is advantageous for any one, the right is not forthwith conferred upon me to impose this upon him by force. For those who have the use of their reason ought to have the free choice of what is advantageous or not advantageous, unless another has acquired a certain right over them.
With infants the case is clearly different; for since they do not have the right of exercising ‘independence of action’ and of directing their own movements, nature confers the control over them upon persons who undertake it and are fitted therefor.
XIII.     An unjust cause of war is the title to universal empire which some give to the Emperor, and which is shown to be inapplicable.
1.   I should hardly trouble to add that the title which certain persons give to the Roman Emperor is absurd, as if he had the right of ruling over even the most distant and hitherto unknown peoples, were it not that Bartolus, long considered first among jurists, had dared to pronounce him a heretic who denies to the Emperor this title. His ground, forsooth, is that the Emperor at times calls himself lord of the world, and that in the sacred writings that empire, which later writers call Romania,’ is designated as ‘the inhabited world.” Of like character is this expression:
      Now the whole earth the victorious Roman held,
as are many similar expressions used in a broad sense, or in hyperbole, or in high praise; as when, in the same Holy Writ, Judaea alone often appears under the designation of’ the inhabited world.’ It is in this sense that we are to take the ancient saying of the Jews that the city of Jerusalem is situate in the center of the earth, that is in the center of Judaea,’ just as Delphi, in the middle of Greece, is likewise called the navel of the world.
Nor should any one be influenced by the arguments of Dante, by which he strives to prove that such a right belongs to the Emperor because that is advantageous for the human race. The advantages which it brings are in fact offset by its disadvantages. For as a ship may attain to such a size that it cannot be steered, so also the number of inhabitants and the distance between places may be so great as not to tolerate a single government.
2.   Again, even if we should grant that the ascription of such a right to the Emperor is advantageous, the right to rule by no means follows, since this cannot come into existence except by consent or by punishment. The Roman Emperor at present does not have this right even over all the former possessions of the Roman people; for as many of these were acquired by war, so by war they have been lost; while others by treaties, others still by abandonment, have passed under the authority of other nations or kings.’ Some states, too, that were once completely subject, later began to be subject only in part, or merely federated on unequal terms. For all these ways either of losing or of modifying a right are not less valid against the Roman Emperor than against others.
XIV.     An unjust cause of war is the title to universal empire which others give to the Church, and which also is shown to be inapplicable.
1.   There have also been some who claimed for the Church a right over the peoples even of the hitherto unknown parts of the earth, although the Apostle Paul himself clearly stated that he did not have the right to judge those who are outside the bounds of Christendom, saying: ‘For what have I to do with judging them that are without?’ (1Corinthians 5:12).
Yet the right of judging possessed by the Apostles, even although it extended in its own way to earthly things, was of a heavenly nature, so to say, and not of earthly quality; it was to be exercised indeed not by the sword and scourge but by the word of God enunciated in general terms and applied to particular conditions, through the revelation or denial of the signs of divine grace, according as each might deserve; in last resort even by a punishment not according to nature but from a higher source than nature, therefore emanating from God. A punishment of this kind appeared in the cases of Ananias, Elymas, Hymenaeus, and others.
2.   Christ Himself, the source of all ecclesiastical power, whose life is set as an example to the Church, in so far as it is His Church, declared that His kingdom was not of this world, that is, of the same character as other kingdoms; adding that otherwise He might make use of soldiers in the manner of other kings. As it was, if He had wished to call for legions, He would have called for legions not of men but of Angels (Matthew 26:53). Whatever He did by right of authority vested in Himself, He did not by human but by divine power, even when He cast the money-changers out of the Temple. For on that occasion also the scourge was a sign, not an instrument, of divine anger; as at other times the spittle and oil were a symbol of healing,’ not a remedy.
Augustine thus comments on the passage of John referred to:
Hear then, ye Jews and Gentiles; hear, O circumcision; hear, O uncircumcision; hear, all ye kingdoms of the earth! I do not interfere with your rule in this world ‘ My kingdom is not of this world.’ Fear ye not with the utterly empty fear with which the elder Herod trembled when the birth of Christ was announced, and slew so many children in order that death might reach that child; for he was rendered more cruel by his fear than by his anger.
‘My kingdom,’ He said, ‘is not of this world.’ What more do ye seek? Come to the kingdom that is not of this world; come believing, and rage not through fear.
3.   Among other things Paul forbids the bishop to use force (2Timothy 3:2). Chrysostom said that ‘to rule by compulsion,’ the compulsion, of course, which is derived from human power, ‘is the right of kings, not of bishops.’ Elsewhere he declares: ‘Power has not been given to us to restrain men from crimes by the authority of our sentences,’ sentences, that is, which involve the right of execution by royal or military power, or the deprivation of any human right whatsoever.’ He says also that the bishop should perform his office ‘not by compulsion but by persuasion.’ From this it is abundantly clear that bishops, as such, have no right to rule over men in the manner of this world. In comparing the king and the bishop, Jerome declares that ‘the former is set over unwilling, the latter over willing subjects.’
4.   The question whether even kings may use armed force as a means of punishment against those who reject the Christian religion we have previously discussed, so far as is necessary for our purpose, in the chapter ‘On Punishments.’
XV.     An unjust cause of war is also the desire to fulfil prophecies, without the command of God.Not without reason shall I give this warning, that the hope derived from an interpretation of divine prophecies does not furnish a just cause of war. For from a comparison of modern with ancient events I foresee the danger of great evil from this source, unless we guard against it. Apart from the fact that without prophetic inspiration it is hardly possible to interpret with certainty prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled, even the times set for the coming of things that are certain may be hidden from us. Finally a prediction, unless it is a definite command of God, confers no right, since the things which God foretells He often permits to be accomplished through the agency of wicked men or base deeds.
XVI.     An unjust cause of war is also the desire to obtain something that is owed by an obligation not strictly legal but arising from some other source.
This principle, too, must be recognized. If a person owes a debt that is not an obligation from the point of view of strict justice, but arises from some other virtue, such as generosity, gratitude, pity or charity, this debt cannot be collected by armed force any more than in a court of law. For either procedure it is not enough that the demand which is made ought to be met for a moral reason, but in addition we must possess some right to enforce it.
This right is at times conferred by divine and human laws even in the case of obligations that arise from other virtues; and when this happens there arises a new cause of indebtedness, which relates to justice. When this is lacking, a war undertaken on such grounds is unjust, such as the Roman war against the King of Cyprus on the charge of ingratitude. He who confers a kindness has no right to demand gratitude; otherwise there would be an agreement, not an act of kindness.
XVII.     The difference between a war the cause of which is unjust and a war in which there is a wrong of another kind; and the different effects of each.
1.   It is to be observed that this often happens, that a just cause for a war may in fact exist, but that in making war a wrong may arise from the intent of the party who engages in hostilities. This may come about either because some other thing, not in itself unlawful, in a greater degree and more effectively influences his purpose than the right itself, as, for example, an eager desire for honor,’ or some advantage, whether private or public, which is expected from the war considered apart from its justifiable cause. Or there may be present a manifestly unlawful desire, such as the delight of him who has pleasure in another’s ill, without regard to what is good. From this point of view Aristides in his oration On the Alliance says that the Phocians perished in accordance with their deserts, but that Philip did not act rightly when he overthrew them, seeing that he did not act out of zeal for religion, as he pretended, but in order to extend his empire.
2.   ‘The sole cause of warfare, and that an ancient one,’ says Sallust, ‘is a deeply rooted desire for power and riches.’ ‘Gold and wealth, the chief causes of wars,’ we find in Tacitus. In a tragedy we read:
      Impious lust of gain and wrath impetuous
      Have broken the alliance.
With these quotations you may rightly associate the passage of Augustine: ‘The eager desire to injure, the cruelty of vengeance, the unappeased and unappeasable mind, the savagery of rebellion, the lust of ruling, and whatever else there is akin, these are the things which are justly censured in warfare.’
3.   However, when a justifiable cause is not wanting, while these things do indeed convict of wrong the party that makes war, yet they do not render the war itself, properly speaking, unlawful. Hence no restitution is due as a result of a war undertaken under such conditions.


Monday, January 7, 2013

RUBY RIDGE Sheriff Deploys LRAD at City Meeting


LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT: AN LRAD IS NOT A PUBLIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, IT'S MORE EXPOENSIVE THAN ANYTHING
NEEDED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE PUBLIC WITH, BUT ONE THING, FOR SURE, IT CAN DO:

1) BLOW OUT YOUR EARDRUMS
2) CAUSE PAIN AND POTENTIAL PERMANENT HEARING DAMAGE
3) DO HARM TO NOT ONLY DEMONSTRATORS BUT TO REPORTERS AND INNOCENT BYSTANDERS
4)MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION TO TAKE PLACE IF IT'S UNWANTED.

AN LRAD IS A POLICE STATE WEAPON:



AS THE BILL OF RIGHTS GETS ERODED AND IT BECOMES MORE AND MORE DANGEROUS TO PROTEST BY ANY MEANS, ANYWHERE, AGAINST THE ABUSES OF GOVERNMENT, I CAN ONLY WEEP AS I SEE MY GREAT COUNTRY TURNED INTO A POLICE STATE.  I NEVER THOUGHT I'D EVER WRITE SUCH WORDS.

WHEN I WAS A LITTLE GIRL, I WROTE THAT COMMUNISM WOULD FAIL BECAUSE, AS BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN HAD SAID, COMMUNISM WAS TRYING TO LIFT THE WEIGHT OF THE WHOLE WORLD ON ITS SHOULDERS, AND THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE.




THE SAME APPLIES TODAY.

"FREE THESE PEOPLE!" SHEEN CRIED OUT.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012


I have the sad displeasure to know a very good person who believes,

with all his heart, that government is evil and should be done away with, that we should have no

 social security, no health care programs, only have government for military defense. He believes 

people should pay to go to high school, let alone college. He was raised in that great American

 West where, if you are weak in any way, too bad, you lose. He also believes that it's ok to 

torture somebody to death to get vital information when we are at war. I attempted, without 

success, to explain to him that governments are supposed to be OF the people, BY the people 

and FOR the people and that, just as we cannot, alone, build a car, we need each other not just

 for security, but to advance our civilization and to create a world where learning, freedom of 

choice, and opportunities to use one's talents are valued. I asked him to explain why, since i 

have worked so hard all my life, and am supposed to be intelligent, gifted in many areas,

 happen to be poverty-stricken and disabled (because i was harmed after speaking out, lost my

 teaching career)--and at my present age now, nobody will hire me, nor am I allowed to become

 a doctor, despite my knowledge. He sees this as a consequence of my having spoken out, and 

respects me for it, but believes it is still okay for me to starve to death for having made such a

 poor tactical decision, knowing the consequences. 




Now, we can either progress and become

 more human and humane,with a government FOR the people, or we can continue our

 downward spiral into feudalism where robber barons take over everything and reduce 

us to people who do not 'deserve' a government FOR the people. It is not getting a HANDOUT

 to have paid into a retirement plan (social security) which was supposed to protect us in old

 age. It is not getting a HANDOUT to get a free high school education, and in Sweden and other

Scandinavian countries, small as they are, college is FREE to their students, and their universities

 are excellent. Now, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was born with a silver spoon in his
\
 mouth and a disdain that comes from being taught, all his life, that "people get what they 

deserve." 








Let us pray that humanity will advance, not decline again into the Dark Ages where the elite

 ruled with iron fists, and where the poor paid rent to their lords and masters just to survive,

 with beggars on every corner, with life ignorant, brutish, and short. 





Shall we return to the times of Jane Austin, with


 the mansions, dances, marriage plots to get a man with his 'thousands'? They lived off the labor

 and toil of their tenants. That's the future for all who live in apartments, do not own a home, 

and who find themselves moving from job to job across the country,burdened with debt

, ignorant, exhausted as parents, not knowing their next-door neighbors, thus cut off from 

rebellion--happy to watch a football game,to drink and drug themselves into oblivion or to stop

 the pain--- and thus forget their servitude...it's coming to your channel soon.....

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

FROM THIS ILLUSTRIOUS LIST, NAME THE WAR HEROES

Al Tavers 11:07am Feb 22 FROM HIS POST AT HIS GROUP, "JFK ASSASSINATION":

Let's play a little game... From this illustrious list, name the war heroes:

Obama
GW Bush
Clinton
GHW Bush
Reagan
Carter
Ford
Nixon
Johnson
JFK


------------------
ANSWER: (SCROLL DOWN)












JOHN F.KENNEDY ON PT 109








FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW
Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John F.Kennedy. But FOUR future Presidents after Kennedy WERE IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963, the day Kennedy was shot:





Lyndon Johnson (took over the office when JFK died)
Richard Nixon (resigned from office due to corruption)
Gerald Ford (not elected --took over the office due to Nixon's VP's corruption))
George H.W. Bush (served one term)

ALL FOUR OF THESE PRESIDENTS SUPPORTED WAR.
IN ADDITION, THE SON OF GEORGE H.W.BUSH--GEORGE W. BUSH--WAS ELECTED TO A 2ND TERM ONLY BY DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT -- AND BEGAN TWO WARS OF HIS OWN.

Monday, February 14, 2011


I WAS SHOCKED WHEN I TOLD A REMOTE FAMILY MEMBER LIVING IN TEXAS TO PLEASE CHECK OUT HOW SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES HANDLE PROBLEMS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE, POLLUTION, HOUSING, .FREE COLLEGE, AND THE FACT THAT T
HERE IS PRACTICALLY NO SUCH THING AS A HOMELESS PERSON, PLUS MUCH LESS VIOLENCE -- AND HE SAID NO COUNTRY WAS BETTER THAN AMERICA, AND THAT I WAS LYING.
THE LADY FEATURED IN MY BLOG TODAY KNOWS WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT....

What a 'Liberal Media' Might

Look Like

By Lisa Pease
February 9, 2011

Editor’s Note: For decades now, the American Right has pushed the myth that the national U.S. news media is “liberal,” even though the owners are mostly wealthy corporations run by rich executives who generally favor Republicans over Democrats. And that was true even in the days before Fox News and right-wing-dominated talk radio.

Even the limited inroads of liberalism in media have been under pressure in recent days with MSNBC’s ouster of liberal icon Keith Olbermann and AOL’s purchase of HuffingtonPost (raising new questions about Arianna Huffington’s ideological sojourns). However, in this essay, Lisa Pease contrasts what today’s media is versus what a “liberal media” might look like:

I’m surprised that otherwise intelligent people continue to believe the myth that the media is “liberal.” I think it’s worth discussing what a liberal media would look like if we had one, so we can better understand thttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45128000/gif/_45128350_rich_poor_226.gifhat we don’t have one.

Let’s imagine a fictional cable network called LNN – the Liberal News Network. What might the morning news on such a channel be?

The show might lead with pictures of starving children all over the world, so that while you sat down to breakfast, you’d be reminded of just how lucky you were to have been born in the U.S., and how others are still very much in need.

Viewers would be encouraged to send in at least some of their morning latte money to feed a baby for a week. Each morning, the number of children who had been moved out of poverty would also be shown. If there were truly a liberal media, that number would be growing, daily, by leaps and bounds.

You would see pictures of the war – really horrible, tragic pictures, showing not just death, but the maiming, the suffering, the devastation to innocents we currently think of solely as “collateral damage.” Each day, the grievances of both sides would be fully aired.

We’d hear not only from our own soldiers but from soldiers we were fighting, so we could start to understand why they are fighting back. If we are truly the good guys, there’d be no reason for anyone to oppose us.

A truly liberal media would allow us to hear the other side so we could better understand how our actions are affecting others, and what we could do to improve relations with the ultimate goal of ending all wars.

Truly, fostering better communication skills, deploring greed, and promoting fairness would be keystones of this network.

The commentators would be drawn from not merely all nationalities, but all walks of life. Instead of recycling the same news and intelligence and government figures, commentators would be sought among farm workers and blue-collar workers as well as low-level white-collar workers. The view from the socio-economic top would be balanced by the view from the bottom.

On LNN, union issues would be a regular discussion. Are workers getting a fair shake? Are unions really helping their membership or are they getting too close to management? When do unions go too far?

The ecological “state of the planet” would also be a regular discussion. Audiences would learn the science behind pollution, so that they’d make the link between the chemical elements in the products they buy and the environmental damage caused at every point in the production chain.

Corporations that were finding a way to offset their environmental damage would be recognized as heroes, while those whose policies amounted to a hit-and-run on the environment would be publicly castigated at ever turn.

Truly educational information about child rearing would be offered. Are those soft drinks making your children obese? No amount of advertiser action would stop LNN from exposing such a connection.

Can yelling at your child be a form of abuse? A liberal media would talk about things many people would rather not think about.

A liberal media would not make us feel good all the time, but would poke at us and challenge us to be better parents, better neighbors, better people.

A liberal news channel would have a regular report about working conditions around the world. Would you still buy that piece of clothing if you knew it was sown under essentially slave-labor conditions, sometimes by children working 12 hours a day?

Would you admire China’s economy if you realized its coal-powered growth made it one of the most polluted places in the world? Would you travel to Thailand if you understood how much of the tourist economy depends on sex-slave trafficking dollars?

Or might you spend that money instead on a country that plowed the money received from tourism into a public fund from which all citizens who shared that country could benefit? Would you enjoy flowers sent to you on Valentine’s Day if you found those flowers had been picked by forced labor on farms where women routinely faced sexual harassment?

If we had a liberal media, we’d be hearing about other economic models around the world. When does capitalism work best? Would the answer be like what we hear from CNBC anchors who say capitalism should be unregulated – or “self-regulating” – allowing monopolies to take over, which then can raise prices and strangle our options?

A rising tide won’t lift all boats if it’s only happening in a private pool.

LNN would talk about the difference between labor-based income and non-labor-based income (passive income), and discuss how the upper class has kept the latter from the masses to preserve the power of the rich, and how we need to change that.

There are other models, even within our own country, such as the Alaska Permanent Fund, a fund that allows all citizens of Alaska to receive royalties on the oil recovered from their state.

All products come ultimately from some finite earth resource. Imagine if we all had a share of income generated from the products taken from the ground in our respective countries.

LNN would never shade the truth to further an agenda. The facts would be selective, necessarily, but extraordinary effort would be used to ensure all sides of an issue were fairly presented.

Note that, however, that does not mean all sides would be proportionally presented by certain measures. Although 20 percent of the people control 93 percent of the wealth, it does not follow that they should be allowed to control 93 percent of the media. The other 80 percent deserve a much larger say than they have.

Our fictional liberal network would be absolutely fearless in taking on corruption within our own government. A liberal media would relentlessly ferret out secrets, exposing them unless doing so would genuinely damage more people than would be helped.

Even “taboo” topics with strong factual support, such as the Kennedy assassination and the October Surprise case, would receive a fair hearing, on our mythical LNN.

A liberal media would talk seriously about the very real danger that the use of computers in our elections may be compromising our votes. Without a transparent system, without a way to genuinely audit, by hand and in public, election results, what’s to stop a computer voting manufacturer from building in hidden switches that allow the reprogramming of elections in undetectable ways?

Nothing, as this network would point out to us regularly until people filled the streets in protest, insisting on a change.

==Note by JVB: What good is a "paper ballot" if the ballots are read by electronic devices? People can count -- and recount, if necessary. NEVER trust electronic voting machines. And don't listen to polls: many polls are now skewed to better reflect the desired response. Polls have become propaganda tools.===

A liberal media would even dare to explore all the money in the sporting world and ask, is anyone really worth that many millions? Should there be a cap – or at least a significantly higher marginal tax rate – beyond which some of the money goes back into the communities that have to put up with the traffic, pollution, noise and drunken damage that accompanies such events?

Sure, keep your first $50 million. You worked hard, you risked your life, you earned it. But how much more than that does one ballplayer or owner need? If that cap allowed whole communities to be employed, would that be a worthy trade? A truly liberal media would open such discussions.

A liberal media would ask hard questions of corporations. If the product you create comes from a violence-torn region, where the violence comes over the fight for the minerals you need to make your product, what responsibility should the corporation have for that violence? What should the corporation give back to those areas to end the violence?

A liberal media would be inspiring. Every day, people who fought for justice and won would be highlighted. Legislators who took brave stands that helped the many, rather than the privileged few, would be lauded.

Shareholders who overthrew bad regimes within corporations, ushering in management that was more socially responsible would be featured. Class-action suits won against corporate polluters would be praised.

The values of fairness, equality, freedom of movement and opportunity and – perhaps especially – the freedom to imagine a better, more equitable future – would be the cornerstone of this liberal media network.

A liberal network would not treat opinions as news, nor facts as opinions. Viewers would be educated to quickly recognize the difference. And historical context would be brought into play.

Events from the past would be use to better inform our understanding of present events, because after all, everything is connected. Every event transpires based on what has led up to that point. There is no “spontaneous evolution” at play in world events.

LNN doesn’t exist, of course, and it’s no surprise why. Media depends on advertisers for sustenance. Major media outlets depend on major corporations. Major corporations don’t want you to hear the kind of stories mentioned above because then you might press them to change their ways, cutting into their profits. And that would be bad for business, even if it might be great for the planet.

Now, this doesn’t mean you can’t find good news on television. CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox, once in a while, produce useful and valuable stories. But not one of them shows you the spectrum of coverage demonstrated here.

There are a lot of points of view you never hear, a lot of stories never attempted. There are many places they dare not go, in their coverage.

There is no liberal network out there. There is no “fair and balanced” network out there, either. They are all unbalanced in favor of the corporate landscape from which their revenues grow.



THIS ARTICLE CAME FROM

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/020911a.html

Lisa Pease is a historian and writer who specializes in the mysteries of the John F. Kennedy era.

Friday, January 14, 2011

WHO KILLED OUR PEOPLE IN 2001? WHO ARE WE KILLING TODAY? WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?


OUR LEADERS IN 2001.

THEY TOLD US THEY HAD TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ.

HERE'S WHY,ACCORDING TO OUR LEADERS:

"Saddam had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional weapons."
- Cheney in October 2003.

Cheney has repeatedly asserted that the U.S. needed to go to war with Iraq because, he said, U.S. intelligence knew that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda. As he said on Meet the Press, "We know that [Saddam] has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." However, in June, the U.N. formally investigated the claim and found absolutely no evidence.

As reported by the NY Times, "The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein" [6/27/03]. Similarly, even the 9/11 commission report undercuts claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.

According to national security officials, "In the 14 weeks since the fall of Baghdad, coalition forces have not brought to light any significant evidence demonstrating the bond between Iraq and Al Qaeda…Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, the two highest-ranking Qaeda operatives in custody, have told investigators that Mr. bin Laden shunned cooperation with Saddam Hussein" [NY Times, 7/20/03]

Despite all this Cheney repeated the assertion in 2004, stating that Saddam "had long established ties with Al Qaeda."
- June 14, 2004

REF: "WHAT ELSE WAS CHENEY DOING WRONG?"http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/010807Cheney.htm

SO WHAT DID WE DO?
WE MADE A PREEMPTIVE ATTACK ON IRAQ, AND KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT IRAQI CITIZENS, MAKING MUSLIM ENEMIES BY THE MILLIONS IN THE PROCESS.

WE AMERICANS WENT ALONG WITH IT BECAUSE OF NINE-ELEVEN. WE WERE FRIGHTENED. WE WERE EASILY LED TO GIVE UP MANY LIBERTIES, TURNING OUR COUNTRY INTO A POLICE STATE. TODAY, OUR CHILDREN GET GROPED BY AIRPORT AUTHORITIES, SPYING ON ORDINARY AMERICANS IS THE RULE, AND WE HAVE GOOD, HARD-WORKING PEOPLE OUT OF WORK AND HOMELESS ON THE STREETS.

Foreclosure Record: Banks Seize 1.05 Million Homes In 2010
13 Jan 2011 ... 2.9 million US home foreclosure filings in 2010, new record .... S
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../foreclosure-record-2010_n_808398.html - Cached

WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? ME? YOU? INSTEAD OF RESCUING OUR PEOPLE, OUR LEADERS RESCUED THE BANKS, WHO CONTINUED TO FORECLOSE ON HOMES ANYWAY. HAD THAT BAILOUT MONEY GONE TO AMERICAN TAXPAYERS INSTEAD OF TO BANKERS, MANY OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CATCH UP ON OVERDUE PAYMENTS, STAY IN THEIR HOMES, AND HOLD ONTO THEIR JOBS. IMAGINE BEING HOMELESS AND TRYING TO FIND A JOB, WHEN YOU HAVE TO SLEEP IN YOUR CLOTHES!

WHO CAUSED THE CRISIS?
WAS IT YOU?
WAS IT ME?

WHO WAS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR NINE-ELEVEN? HERE'S A HINT:

PLEASE COMPARE THE LIVE TV SHOT OF 9-11,2ND PLANE CRASH, WITH THE REPLAY ON THE EVENING NEWS LATER...



THE FILM WAS ALTERED.

A PLANE APPEARS THAT IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL...

WHO ARE AMERICA'S ENEMIES?

WHY DID WE GO TO IRAQ? WHY ARE WE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN?

HOWEVER,RETURNING TROOPS HOME WILL ADD TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT BURDEN.

AMERICAN COMPANIES MAKING INSTRUMENTS OF WAR WILL LOSE CONTRACTS AND PEOPLE WILL LOSE JOBS.

THE AMERICAN WAR MACHINE MUST KEEP GRINDING UP PEOPLE-- BOTH AMERICANS AND THEIR 'ENEMIES' TO KEEP PROFITS ROLLING IN. WHO CARES IF AMERICA IS DESTROYED?

THE BANKER'S DON'T CARE.

OUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CARE. WE TRIED TO MAKE IT CHANGE. OBAMA, HOWEVER, IS HELPLESS.

TO HELP OUR NATION AND TO OBTAIN A LASTING PEACE, BEFORE THE ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD TURNS AGAINST US, WE MUST FIRST LOOK AT THE ROOTS OF OUR PROBLEMS FOR THE KEY TO THE ANSWERS.

THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS INNOCENT AND THAT JOHN F.KENNEDY'S DEATH MEANT OUR COUNTRY WAS TAKEN OVER FROM THE INSIDE, THEN YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE POWER BEHIND THE SMILING PRESIDENT AND THE PAID-OFF MEDIA.

THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK KENNEDY FROM US ARE STILL POWERFUL -- AND THEY HAVE INSTALLED THEIR OWN PUPPETS AND PUPPET MASTERS, WHO DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU OR AMERICA.

THEY ARE STILL DESTROYING OUR PEOPLE'S JOBS, HOMES AND LIVES. THEY BEGAN WITH VIETNAM AND ARE STILL STILL SENDING OUR KIDS INTO SENSELESS WARS AND DESTROYING OUR WILL TO FIGHT THE EVIL THEY PERPETRATE IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.

OUR KIDS HAVE TO SELL THEIR SOULS TO PAY FOR THEIR COLLEGE EDUCATIONS.

OUR FOOD TASTES BAD AND IS UNSAFE.

THE WATER IS FULL OF CHEMICALS.

OUR SKIES ARE FILLED WITH CHEMTRAILS THAT THE GOVERNMENT PRETENDS DO NOT EXIST.

OUR VACCINES ARE UNSAFE, AND OUR HOSPITALS AND DOCTORS AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES BANKRUPT US SO WE HAVE NOTHING FOR OUR CHILDREN TO INHERIT.

OUR JOBS HAVE GONE OVERSEAS. PEOPLE GET ARRESTED BY POLICE WHO ARE NOT PROTECTORS OF THE PEOPLE,BUT OF THE STATE. JUST TRY TO HAVE A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION -- PAID TROUBLEMAKERS WILL CREATE MISCHIEF AND MAKE SURE LOS OF PEOPLE GET ARRESTED.

DRUGS AND ALCOHOL OVERWHELM THE POOR. SCHOOLS CONTINUE TO DECLINE IN QUALITY.

MEANWHILE, OUR LEADERS --FAT CATS WHO KEEP ON SPENDING US TO BANKRUPTCY --GIVE THEMSELVES RAISES AND GREAT HEALTH CARE. WHEN THEY RETIRE, THEY GET PAID FOR LIFE, WHILE WE ARE TOLD WE MUST WORK MORE YEARS THAN EVER, AND SHOULD NOT RELY ON SOCIAL SECURITY. ABOVE ALL, WE MUST BE AT WAR WITH MUSLIMS SO WE CAN HAVE NO CHANCE FOR WORLD PEACE!

BUT WAR WILL MAKE PLENTY OF MONEY FOR THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.


WHAT CAN YOU DO?

FIRST --BUY THE FIVE BOOKS THAT WILL GIVE YOU THE TRUE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, AND WHY AND WHEN IT CHANGED.

ME & LEE. DR.MARY'S MONKEY. JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. CROSSFIRE. LBJ, THE MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION.

GET THESE BOOKS INTO OUR SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES.
TELL PEOPLE ABOUT THEM.

LEARN TO RECOGNIZE WHO THE REAL ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE ARE.

Vice President Cheney answers a question from the Tony Snow Show via telephone, from the White House:



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html

Q: I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.



WE ARE STILL A GOOD PEOPLE.
WE ARE STILL A BRAVE PEOPLE.
WE CAN STILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS MESS.




ALSO:

REFUSE TO BUY ANYTHING MADE IN CHINA. PASS THAT WORD AROUND.

TRY TO PURCHASE ONLY ITEMS MADE IN AMERICA.

BUY AMERICAN CARS! REFUSE TO BUY A FOREIGN CAR.

TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO START WITH BOYCOTTING CHINESE PRODUCTS.
GET THE VITAL BOOKS TO THE PEOPLE, SO THEY WILL UNDERSTAND HOW THEY HAVE BEEN DUPED.
BUY AMERICAN.
PASS THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYONE YOU CARE ABOUT.

JVB

Friday, January 7, 2011

THE ART OF WAR: LESSONS WE CAN’T IGNORE FROM THE CHINESE CLASSIC



James Douglass, author of “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters,” says John F. Kennedy’s Commencement Address at American University in Washington on June 10, 1963 is his greatest speech ever. You can listen to Kennedy’s speech here.

THE ART OF WAR: LESSONS WE CAN’T IGNORE FROM THE CHINESE CLASSIC
By Judyth Vary Baker


In 2009, the American people were asked to wait until December, 2010, to evaluate the progress of U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, as reported by CNN on December 9, 2009:

“Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command [said]….Turmoil within the Afghan government over the 18 months of the troop increase is also expected as corruption is rooted out... That, combined with an expected backlash in the spring and summer, Petraeus cautioned, means officials and the public should wait until December 2010 to evaluate the progress of the U.S. military strategy.”
General Stanley McChrystal told us at about the same time that isolating the people from the influence of the Taliban would lead to success in Afghanistan:
"At the end of the day, the insurgency needs access to the population to be effective," McChrystal said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "They need to be able to coerce the population, to tax the population, to recruit from the population, and to prevent the government from extending its governance into those areas…If Taliban fighters are forced to keep their distance from the Afghan population, then "over time, they become irrelevant, and they, in fact, are defeated," McChrystal said.
The acknowledged classic master of war, Sun Tzu, wrote his own opinion about that well over two thousand years ago in what we now call The Art of War. General McChrystal’s stated strategy was keep the Taliban from reaching the people so the people could not be taxed, recruited, coerced, or governed by the Taliban. Over a great length of time, the Taliban then would become “irrelevant” and would be, in fact, “defeated.”

Isolating the people from the Taliban until the Taliban are no longer ‘relevant’ means isolation efforts that continue for a long, long time, since fundamental religious beliefs are involved, and the occupying forces are of not only foreigners, but most of them represent a different religion. In other words, the Taliban are locals and the occupying Americans and their allies are infidel foreigners.
Should our forces simply hunker down and keep the people isolated from the Taliban, for years?
If we are simply an occupying force, committed to staying in Afghanistan (no matter what the cost) indefinitely, that’s one thing. But if we are there to win a war, here’s what The Art of War has to say about failure to change strategy:

“Victory in war adapts its form endlessly.”
“ Do not repeat former strategies to gain victory.”
“Tethered horses and buried wheels (to make a stationery battle line) are not sufficiently reliable.”
In June, 2010, General McChrystal was fired for speaking unkindly about President Obama’s leadership in the war and General David Petraeus was put in charge. Petraeus stated that he would continue the same strategy as McChrystal.
Ref: BBC News, “Afghan strategy 'not changing' after McChrystal fired.”

If we are not in Afghanistan to win a war, we must ask why the people are being told that we are there to “win.”

In mid-December, 2010, President Obama said US gains in the war in Afghanistan “are “fragile and reversible”… in a statement to the press yesterday regarding his administration’s Afghanistan-Pakistan review.
Mr Obama promised the review a year ago, when he decided to send another 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan. …Mr Obama – and secretary of defence Robert Gates and secretary of state Hillary Clinton who spoke after him – gave the impression of flailing about in their attempt to be both positive and truthful.

“This continues to be a very difficult endeavour,” Mr Obama said, adding that “we are on track to achieve our goals”. The goals he listed have not changed – “disrupting, dismantling and defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan”. In December 2009, Mr Obama made a commitment to begin reduce the 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan next summer. Almost immediately, his cabinet members downplayed that promise.
The decision on how many soldiers will depart has been postponed until the spring, but it is now clear that it will be a small, symbolic number. The recent NATO summit in Lisbon said combat operations in Afghanistan would be completed by the end of 2014. This almost surreptitious, four-year extension of the war was very much in evidence yesterday, when Mr Obama and Mr Gates emphasised the later date.”
Ref: Irish Times, ”Gains in Afghan war 'fragile and reversible', US says”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1217/1224285736090.html

One comment on the Internet in June, 2010 after McChrystal was replaced with Petraeus encapsulated the feelings of many Americans who view American presence in Afghanistan as expensive, wasteful of lives, and ineffective:

“…How can we possibly win in Afghanistan. Even if your definition of winning is the most rudimentary version …you would be completely unable to come up with a situation where we win. How can we fight a war against the people of a country that is thousands of miles away from the homeland? How can we convince the illiterate people of a country …that has been used to violence at the hands of warlords for centuries to take up our rather whimsical version of democracy? Do you think they will take up democracy? Our prolonged occupation is all about saving face. McChrystal has shown the same type of intransigence that cost America 60 thousand lives in Vietnam.”
Afghanistan is presently occupied by a vast number of foreign troops (mostly Americans) with troop movements and their projected dates of withdrawal made known to all, including to the Taliban, as Vice President Joe Biden’s statement to Meet the Press, published Dec. 19, 2010 by The Washington Post makes clear:
"We're making progress on all fronts, more on some areas than in others." He contended that the July 2011 troop reductions will be "more than token," adding, "We are starting it in July 2011 and we are going to be totally out of there, come hell or high water, by 2014."
The sages of The Art of War advise: “ If the truth leaks out, your strategy will be foiled.”

Our blundering interference and destruction of Iraq, and our long-going, ongoing comedy of errors presently being orchestrated in Afghanistan, where we have propped up a puppet government and announced all our plans to the enemy, does not resemble anything recommended as a war-winning strategy in the revered 6th-century Chinese classic The Art of War, written by Sun Tzu. The Art of War is considered the definitive authority on military tactics. Napoleon read it – and so did the victorious Vietnamese General Nguyen Giap,
“…the military mastermind behind victories over French and the American forces in Vietnam, [who] was an avid student and practitioner of Sun Tzu’s ideas. America's defeat here, more than any other event, brought Sun Tzu to the attention of American military thought leaders…The Art of War is listed on the Marine Corps Professional Reading Program …it is recommended reading for all United States Military Intelligence personnel and is required reading for all CIA officers.”

Ref: Military Applications of the Art of War
http://history.cultural-china.com/en/37H8481H13125.html

In The Art of War, we learn the following information about guerilla warfare: “Tire them by flight…When they come out, you go home…when they go home, you come out…This way, your strength will remain intact, while they will be worn out.”

We can see this pattern being used by the Taliban: in a PBS interview of Elisabeth Bumiller, a Pentagon correspondent for The New York Times, Bumiller said,

“…Commanders were saying that last week in the eastern part of Afghanistan, that they go right across the border. They plant homemade bombs. They attack American forces, and then they go right back across to Pakistan for rest…[We’re] killing Taliban or capturing Taliban on the border, in the border region… the strategy right now is -- it's not perfect -- is that -- to continue doing this…”

Ref: “Intel Agencies offer Gloomy View of Afghan War” Dec. 15, 2010
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec10/afghan_12-15.html

In The Art of War, regarding tactics such as those used by the Taliban, Master Sun Tzu commented:

“Appear where they cannot go, head for where they least expect you, To travel hundreds of miles with no fatigue, go over land where there are no people.”

It seems the Taliban have already figured that out.
We have told the Afghan people, the Taliban and the world that we intend to leave by 2014. We have been in Afghanistan a long time—in fact, longer than the Russians:
US Now in Afghanistan Longer Than Soviets Dec. 28, 2010
Ref: Patrick Cockburn, Counterpunch, http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick12082010.html

“US forces have now stayed longer in Afghanistan than the Soviet army during Moscow’s ill-fated intervention. The US military late last month exceeded the nine years and 50 days that Soviet troops were stationed in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989… General Nur-al-Haq Ulumi, a powerful leader under the Communist regime, who was military commander for the whole of southern Afghanistan,[admitted that] “when the Americans arrived in 2001, everybody supported them and nobody wanted to fight them.”
The popularity of the Americans and their foreign allies has not lasted. They are increasingly blamed by Afghans for the continued violence and as sponsors and protectors of a deeply unpopular government. As US, Britain and almost 50 other states enter their tenth year of military action in Afghanistan, the dilemmas facing them resemble the problems that the Soviet army wrestled with a quarter of a century ago.”

The Art of War offers advice that was apparently ignored by both the Soviet Union and the US. Concerning how much good a prolonged war will accomplish for anybody:

“Do not stay in barren or isolated territory.”
“Even if you prevail over others in battle, if you go on too long there will be no profit…”
“A large-scale operation involves enormous expense, which not only breaks you down in the field, but also exhausts you at home. Therefore a wise government does not keep its army in the field.”
“Transport [military] supplies to a distant place, and your own people will become impoverished...the common people become poorer day by day.”
“Do not repeat former strategies to obtain victory.”

Oops! It seems nobody who supposedly studied The Art of War in military schools has decided to heed the wisdom of the ages. Then again, generals are trained to conduct war, not to negotiate for peace. It does not matter to a general if a war is endless, since war is the general’s source of glory. The Art of War tells us that “The general is an officer of death.”

How long should we stay in Afghanistan? Master Sun of The Art of War says:

“I have heard of military operations that were clumsy and swift, but I have never seen one that was skillful that lasted a long time. It is never beneficial to have a military operation continue for a long time.”

We were told that we had a war to win in Afghanistan. But we are not conducting ourselves in a manner that will equate “winning” anything. But perhaps we are there to create a democracy? A young Afghan scholar, Ahmed Shah, who understands his country, offers a brief and eye-opening assessment:

“Until 1973, Afghanistan was peaceful and sovereign, with capable and respected police forces, national army, educational institutions and health facilities, under a constitutional monarchy. In 1973, Dauod Khan, a Soviet sympathizer, overthrew King Zahir Shah and six years later the Soviets invaded.
This set in motion a chain of events whose consequences are still with us. When the last Soviet-backed government fell in 1992 and the U.S. turned its attention elsewhere, Afghanistan descended into chaos and civil war.
Therefore, Afghanistan’s challenge is not to create a “western-style democracy” but to restore what existed not long ago. Grand corruption, which began as a plague on the Afghan government, has spread like a virus throughout society.
According to Transparency International, Afghanistan is now the second most corrupt country on earth. It has become increasingly difficult for any legitimate business to function normally. Honest entrepreneurs face constant demands for bribes from government officials, and in the extreme, risk murder for resisting blackmail, refusing bribes or competing with the economic interests of powerful officials.
That is why a small number of privileged, connected elites have accumulated staggering wealth, while 99 percent of the legitimate, productive business sector struggles merely to survive.”

Ref: ”Afghanistan challenge is not to create “western-style” democracy” by Ahmad Shah
MAR 12, 2010 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/03/12/afghanistan-challenge-is-not-to-create-western-style-democracy/

Russia and the United States have wreaked havoc with Afghanistan, and in the process have drained Russian and American resources, treasures, precious lives and the will of the people to support their governments in such “war” efforts. A remarkable book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, by James Douglass, examines how President John F. Kennedy – a Cold Warrior – changed to a man whose desire for peace led to his assassination not by Lee Harvey Oswald, who we now know was innocent of such a deed, but by forces desiring not peace but war, not democracy but a false fa├žade behind which the rich could continue to accumulate wealth, and not freedom, but the enslavement of the people to assure that wealth and power would remain in the hands of the elite, especially through the use of military action.

Kennedy knew all about the art of war. He, himself was a war hero.
It is time to consider what Kennedy had to say about war, as we consider our actions in Afghanistan.
In his famous speech at American University on June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy said,

“I have…chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.
Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
…Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man...There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.
So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it…Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.
But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because the freedom is incomplete.
It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government--local, State, and National--to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority…this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights--the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation--the right to breathe air as nature provided it--the right of future generations to a healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both… “

Kennedy then said something that shows us, sadly, how much our country has changed since he took office: America’s present willingness for pre-emptive action – starting a war. For Kennedy added,

“The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.”

In Kennedy, we have a War Master’s words concerning “The Art of War” who gives us our own blueprint to follow.
A “Pax Americana” is unacceptable.
We have issues with freedom, justice and the health and safety of our own people that need our attention NOW. We should remove ourselves from the hopeless situation in Afghanistan and start taking care of the needs of our own people.

Convincing American generals --and a president who goes to the War Room to deliberate upon what to do about peace or war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere, will require more will and courage than “we the people” have, for we have been mercilessly overworked, have been stripped of many personal freedoms, have lost our homes and job security, and have been systematically “dumbed down” with poor education, distracted with foolish TV programs, and duped by a sold-out media that reports whatever their corporate owners demand.

America’s shameful travesty of a health-care system, whose food and water supplies keep us sickly, and whose leaders hide the truth about the Kennedy assassination, Nine-Eleven, and the third-world future of a bankrupt nation with a weak dollar, are combining to keep most Americans cowed and feeling helpless. Frankly, those who will try to revolutionize the current system will face threats or actual elimination, while America sleeps itself into a coma.

We can still save our country.

It will take resolve, courage and good sense.

We can change the system from the bottom up, recognizing that our present government is corrupt and not about to listen to the cries of an increasingl desperate people.
We must insist on paper ballots, counted by human beings, not machines, who are monitored by all parties.

Election campaigns should be limited to six months.

A reasonable ceiling on how much money can be spent should be imposed, following the example of more advanced nations.

Concerning Afghanistan, using the lessons taught in The Art of War, we should leave that country and concentrate on helping Pakistan strengthen its border.

If we establish troops along Pakistan’s borders and protect Pakistan’s government so that its nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of radicals, and simply let the warlords and corrupt government of Afghanistan go on with their endless years of in-fighting, we should be able to give Pakistan the strength it needs to protect its nuclear weapons from access by terrorists. If necessary, drones could still move quickly into Afghan territory to control surges.

It is time to turn our attention to our problems at home.

Consider: if employers were not allowed to overwork the decent, honest, hard-working American people by forcing them to work overtime and refusing to give them four to six weeks of paid vacations (which the people of the most prosperous European nations currently enjoy), more people would have to be hired and we would not have such high unemployment rates.

Consider: 4 employees working 60 hour weeks = 6 employees working 40-hour weeks.
Instead of an endemic unemployment problem, every qualified person would be employed.
True enough, employers would have to give more benefits to more people – just as they USED TO DO before greed, cruelty and corruption destroyed a system that had made prosperity, massive achievements and The American Dream reality for many millions before the 1970’s.

If rich Americans –not just the lower and middle classes – paid social security taxes without the present “tax break” cutoff that discriminates only against lower-income Americans who remain burdened with that tax, and if it became illegal to “borrow” from social security, our hard-working American people would not face the hellish fear that they will be homeless and starving after a lifetime of dedicated work.
The prevailing lie is that social security should be considered a mere supplement to retirement funds acquired otherwise, when the sad truth is that those following that rule have found their pension accounts destroyed, while scams in stocks have decimated their portfolios, while small businesses have vanished due to cheap Chinese imports and outsourcing.

All Americans should refuse to buy goods imported from China.

All Americans should refuse to purchase a foreign-made automobile.

“Made in the USA” is a label that is vanishing from the earth. Let’s bring the label back.

The rich are very, very good at avoiding their share of the tax burdens that the vanishing middle class now almost exclusively carry. They got their way again in 2010.

Any solution to this?

Since the rich are receiving such protracted and enormous tax breaks, they should be required to hire only American citizens in order to keep these tax breaks, with penalties assessed for every foreign employee they hire. Why? Every American who is hired pays taxes to the American government, helping to solve not only our deficit problem, but also expanding our consumer numbers, providing Americans with more purchasing power.

Support companies that hire “Americans first, Americans only.”

Solve our lowly rank in the world as pertaining to health care and longevity by getting rid of health insurance companies that simply blow up health care costs, and instead, start patterning our health care systems after the systems used in Scandinavian and other advanced European countries.

Limit lobbies to two per company (fat chance!).

Revoke the limitless contributions by companies which are now allowed to corrupt all legislators.

Limit all Senate and Congressional seat-holders to four terms, with their ‘retirement’ benefits limited to the actual number of years served.

Allow all Americans equal access to the same health care system that Senators, Congressmen, etc. presently enjoy.

We need to protect OUR borders. Bring our troops home and place them across the Mexican border on patrol.

We need to stop antagonizing Muslims by invading Muslim countries and polarizing ordinary people into Muslim-versus-non-Muslim American-haters who can agree to endless, senseless wars while concurrently fueling the flames of terrorism.

A Pax Americana will only create enemies. Education (for both sexes), good communication, population control through free birth control methods, and extensive commerce, rather than pre-emptive acts of war, threats of war, and the long and expensive occupation of distant lands, are the true keys to world peace.

God help us, for it seems we cannot help ourselves.

Judyth Vary Baker