Monday, March 13, 2006

When Is It Time To Panic?

Someone recently told me that it’s not quite time to panic, that things in this country may be bad, but we haven’t yet reached the point of no return. So I’d just like to toss out the question. When is it time to panic? When does mere concern turn urgent, and will we all recognize the signs in time?

Is it time to panic when the press is used as the propaganda arm of the administration, when reporters take money from the government to promote their agenda? Apparently not considering that Armstrong Williams and Jeff Gannon were exposed as paid propagandists and the General Accounting Office found that the Bush administration’s distribution of “news” stories in support of their policies violated the law, yet they continue to use them.

Is it time to panic when they use their influence with a separate branch of government to quash any investigation into crimes they may have committed? We are still waiting for phase II of the Congressional investigation into pre-war intelligence that was clearly cherry picked, manipulated and in some cases down right manufactured. The Democrats in the Senate made headlines last year when they forced a closed session in an attempt to draw attention to the stalled investigation. Bill Frist came on television and blasted Democrats for pulling this “stunt” and promised that the investigation would go forward, that they had intended all along to do so. The closed session was called on November 1, 2005 and ended with the promise that Phase II would be completed. Five months later and still nothing has been done.

Is it time to panic when the Bush administration can violate the law and possibly the Constitutional rights of American citizens without repercussion? I guess not, considering that last week, Republicans in the formerly separate branch of government known as the Senate, refused to open an investigation into possible violations of law by the Bush administration in its secretive NSA warrantless surveillance program. Even with the presence of whistleblowers from within the NSA who are willing to testify under oath to the Senate, the truth continues to be buried by partisans on the hill. So much for checks and balances and the people’s right to know.

Is it time to panic when this administration starts attacking sovereign nations without provocation? We have already done so in Iraq and the propaganda machine is in overdrive selling the next pre-emptive strike on Iran. Support for tactical strikes (possibly using nuclear weapons) are being sold to the people via the same means and methods employed before invading Iraq. There is no reason to think that the con job won’t work just as well the second time around. It’s not as if being proven wrong on weapons of mass destruction will carry any penalties.

Is it time to panic when the Bush administration ignores treaties and violates international law? We’ve seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, read the reports on Gitmo and heard the tales of rendition. Instead of owning up to abuse and torture, the Bush administration has twisted the law and declared the Geneva Conventions “quaint”. We may be disgusted by what is being done in our name, but there has been no price to pay for those who formulate the policy. Only those who implemented the policy at the bottom of the chain of command have paid any price at all.

Is it time to panic when our votes are counted in secret? Like Stalin said, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” We are allowing our votes to be tabulated by machines that run on proprietary software, that are easily manipulated and in most cases unverifiable. Whether or not elections have already been rigged is not as important as whether or not they could be. If there is no integrity to our voting process, there is no integrity in the outcome.

Is it time to panic when the rubber stamp Congress tries to criminalize reporting? Instead of investigating the warrantless surveillance being conducted by the NSA, Congress has decided to pass new legislation that will simply make the illegal program legal. In doing so, they may also be making it a crime for reporters to report on the program at all. According to the Washington Post, “The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who ‘intentionally discloses information identifying or describing’ the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law.” Senator DeWine, R-Ohio, assures us that it is not the intention of the bill to silence reporters and that if need be, they will patch the problem language. I don’t know about you, but Senator DeWine’s words give me little comfort.

Or is it time to panic when, as Patricia Goldsmith beautifully details today, there is no opposition left? It has long been the case that our two party system is nothing more than political theater. We have two political parties feeding from the same corporate troughs and serving the same corporate interests. If we continue to buy into the lies of either side and continue to separate from one another reducing public discourse to screaming at one another from opposite sides of the wedges driven between us, we give the only power we have left away to leaders who will only abuse it. If we willfully divide ourselves, we will be easily conquered.

I don’t want to panic before it is warranted, but I sometimes wonder if we will recognize the last straw. Don’t we remember that in Germany, the Nazis took control of government, not in a violent coup, but by passing laws that gave them increasing power and control over the people and the news they received? We keep hearing that it’s not time to panic just yet, but if history has a lesson for us right now, it’s that panicking too late won’t do a damn bit of good. Do we really, as a country, want to sit idly by watching evil become a way of life? Most of us judge the German people not as victims, but rather as willing accomplices. Will we judge ourselves the same?

I have been wary of using the Nazi comparison, but since Sandra Day O’Connor, the voice of reason on our high court for decades, feels comfortable warning of a dictatorship, I guess I feel justified. We are being fed propaganda, our government is becoming increasingly secretive, dissenting voices are routinely being silenced and this administration appears to be accountable to no one. If it isn’t quite yet time to panic, I fear the time is fast approaching.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm still holding out hope for the Midterm elections this November. If we see the political course correction that we should reasonably expect based on what has been going on with the corruption in Congress (not to mention the laundry list of problems with the Administration)then I think we can hold off a little longer on hitting the panic button. On the flip side, if we don't see changes this fall we're in worse trouble than we are now and I think we could justify raising the threat alert level to orange or orange plus.

11:52 AM  
Blogger Yellow Dog said...

Great post LGND. I understand your reluctance toy use the word Nazi. People tend to stop taking you seriously whe you start throwing that word around. The problem is, if it's warranted, when do you start to point it out. I'd say you couldn't have responsibly waited any longer.

12:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


As usual, a great post! Agreeing with yellow dog I would have to say that the time for the alarm bells to be rung and the distress flag hung is here. So much that has transpired in recent years (unfortunately, even predating the current (mal)administration) should have long ago raised our hackles but, alas, we slumbered.

It is not difficult, unfortunately, to see the Nazi comparisons, however. Last evening there was a news item about an Iraqi woman who was here pleading for peace in her country (I'm in one of the reddest areas of a red state). The news reporter then got some reaction of several of those attending the meeting and several were incensed that "this woman should even be allowed to speak. I have friends over there getting killed for her freedom!" Shades of the 'good Germans' back home bitterly complaining of the deaths of loved ones 'over there' in the Soviet Union where they had gone 'to liberate the oppressed people.'

1:10 PM  
Blogger Roberta Kelly said...

Mollie ~

I saw a film yesterday, "From Freedom to Fascisim" and I'm sharing the link with everyone.

The film has the formula which can be the only way to stop this government.

Bob Schultz and his "We The People" organization have sued the Federal Government and the IRS.

But Bob Schultz said, should the Supreme Court decide we are no longer a republic ~

Well then our Constitution of the United States of American has been destroyed for certain, by Bush, et al ~ which are the "Global Elite."

Bob said the lawsuit is on the way to the Supreme Court, through the grist mill.

It will be time to panic when we find out whether or not our Constitution is the rule, or is it fascism ~ follow this lawsuit because it's our compass without a shadow of a doubt.

-Voltaire "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Watch the trailer and then get in touch with aaron russo the film's producer @ to have the film show in a cinema in Seattle.

Also, connect with Bob Schultz at

Bob was the speaker at the cinema in Portland on Sunday 03/12/06, and I am thankful to find him because I was honestly getting ready to give up and head for the hills.

The Executive Orders which have been signed by Bush, that take away more of our rights than I could even begin to believe, are definitely a police state dictatorship. Sandra Day O'Connor KNOWS of these Executive Orders and many are LAW, by 2008!

The orders are all shown in the film.

Pass this on to every man, woman and child you can think of who can pass it on to everyone they know, as well.

2:10 PM  
Blogger jae said...

Lady, the time to panic has come and gone already!
With the Media controlled by the govt, the average (and embarassingly stoopid) american will be spoon-fed whatever is appropriate for continued control. The election system is now well and truly 'fixed' so any kook that the neocons want in office will undoubtedly be elected.

It is unfortunate, but I believe it is already too late to do anything except, as Ms. Kelly puts it 'Head for the Hills'.....

4:02 PM  
Blogger The (liberal)Girl Next Door said...

diddythegeek--You are far more optimistic than I. I'm tellin ya, don't hold your breath.

yellow dog--A Nazi by any other name is a Nazi all the same...or something like that.

Cossack--I believe I've heard the term good American bandied about quite a bit already.

Roberta--I'm afraid to know what Sandra Day O'Connor knows but I'm even more afraid of not knowing.

jae--I fear every day that you are right and all that's left is the ugly reveal. I was just hoping that posing the question would illustrate just how much we have compromised each step along the way.

4:52 PM  
Blogger Roberta Kelly said...

LGND ~ There is still hope. The greed of the Global Elite is what we're fighting, not just here in America, but all over the GD world! This is the greatest battle we have ever dreamt of confronting let alone actually faced head on. We have not been prepared to deal with the creatures who own the off shore central bank which is where the Global Elite deposit and transact their financial affairs.

The Bush Crime Family are nothing more than hired guns by the twits who have so much money that they believe they're playing Earth monopoly. Obviously, the BCF are heavily invested in the Carlyle Group and everyone knows this organization is the Saudi Royal Family, UAE, UK Elite, et al.

It is extremely difficult to wrap our brains around the notion that we're trying to communicate with people who are not Americans and shall never be Americans and furthermore, they believe Americans are too spoiled.

Thus, the clamping down (ID Cards, 2008 and computer chips shortly thereafter), are signed in the Executive Orders and we don't have the power to stop it except by withholding the money this government uses to finance its military.

Bob Schultz "We The People" have sued the Federal Government on the First Amendment. It is the most fascinating piece of law I have ever witnessed and there is hope, but it could come in the form of a revolution and I mean a real one too!

Unfortunately, it's not the official impeachment of GWB, but at least it is a large group of people who have had the guts to sue this government for its blatant destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I can't think of a more just and potentially successful cause to get behind. It can be the answer to our "housing bubble." This is not my primary focus with respect to this lawsuit, but it is one of my important goals. America is a real estate economy. We must pay attention to how to keep our properties and an Executive Order has been signed wherein farms, agriculture and other "property" can be seized just because Bush says so.

6:12 PM  
Blogger Rory Shock said...

powerful post and it leaves me with a sad and sick feeling ... makes me want to head out into nature and stay there ... but fuck that ... I'm with you ... ain't gonna panic ... just gonna hang in ... not time to panic, but definitely time for regime change ...

7:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm going to post this in sections...

LGND, it boggles my mind when I hear liberals (I use that in a non-pejorative way, merely to identify the conservative opposition) cry that the press is a propaganda arm of the current republican administration. Yes, it was discovered that Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallager I believe, were both promoting republican programs and taking funds for their promotion. I don’t know about Gannon, I understood that he was a reporter of a conservative bent. I’m unaware that he was on the Bush payroll. There’s 2, possibly 3 members of the press that appear to be “in the tank” for Bush, or at the very least willing to be paid to push programs promoted by the Bush administration. I do not support what they did. And then you have the FoxNews Network. Decidedly pro-Bush.

Let’s look on the other side, however. Since Bush was elected in 2000 there has been a concerted effort on the part of the press to negate, vilify and demonize anything and everything coming out of the White House in print, on the internet or on network television. Any possible factoid or issue, no matter how idiotic or inconsequential (for example, much guffawing was made through the media of the turkey Bush held on a platter when he visited troops in Iraq one Thanksgiving) is put out by the press as if it is the most important, ground-breaking news of the hour, or day. My God, there are too many to itemize.

During the election of 2004, there was an analysis of news stories to determine if the press was being anti-Bush in its reporting of the election.

“U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.
Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004.”

The news coverage of the Iraq War has also been very slanted and biased, with an emphasis on the violence in the region almost to the exclusion of any good news reporting.

The Media Research Center conducted an analysis of news reporting of the Iraq War and found,

“ With the exception of those January elections, ABC, CBS and NBC have stuck with their “Iraq is a quagmire” theme all year. A new MRC study of every broadcast evening newscast from January 1 to September 30 computed the extent of the networks’ doom and gloom coverage:

■ TV’s Iraq coverage has been extremely pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as discussed a positive development (just 211 stories, or 15%).

■ TV’s gloom is growing. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent, while bad news stories swelled to 73 percent, a ten-to-one disparity.

■ Terrorist attacks were the centerpiece of TV's war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks, more than any other topic.

■ Few stories focused on the heroism or generosity of American soldiers. Just eight stories recounted episodes of heroism by U.S. troops, while nine told about American soldiers helping individual Iraqis. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

Visiting Iraq last August, NBC’s Matt Lauer was startled when a group of soldiers told him troop morale was high. “Don't get me wrong here,” Lauer told the soldiers. “I think you are probably telling me the truth, but a lot of people at home [are] wondering how that could be possible?” Army Captain Sherman Powell zinged the pessimistic press corps, telling Lauer: “Sir, if I got my news from the newspapers also, I'd be pretty depressed as well.”

I want to know the truth about what is going on in Iraq, which means I want to know the progress and the positive changes as well as the IEDs and car bombings. I assume everyone does.

And these are just a few examples to demonstrate what I find to be a puzzling conclusion, that the Press is the propaganda arm of the Bush administration.


(SAHMmy, the poster formerly known as Anon)

11:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your post stated, “Is it time to panic when the Bush administration can violate the law and possibly the Constitutional rights of American citizens without repercussion?”, when you had just opened the post with a GAO investigation that determined the Bush administration broke rules by paying Williams and Gallager for the promotion of their programs! Either they are escaping investigation or they aren’t. Clearly they aren’t.

You say, “We are still waiting for phase II of the Congressional investigation into pre-war intelligence that was clearly cherry picked, manipulated and in some cases down right manufactured”, well LGND, I understand that YOU and others who believe as you do are convinced that the pre-war intelligence was “cherry picked, manipulated and manufactured”, but I’m here to tell you that to many, many Americans, that is an assumption of facts not in evidence. Your seemingly statement of “fact” is highly debatable. I have read the Downing Street Memo, and I have researched the facts that are available to me pertaining to what was and what wasn’t known in the pre-war intelligence and I simply am not convinced that the pre-war intelligence was “cherry picked, manipulated and manufactured”. I’m sure there are many other of your assumptions that I reject, because I see no convincing evidence that “Bush lied”. If I had I never would have voted for him a second time, I don’t care who he was running against.

I’m not entirely sure I understand your opposition to the NSA program, notwithstanding the opinion piece you linked to in the Daily News.

In December of last year, this survey from Rasmussen Reports:

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.

The Rasmussen Reports survey found hat just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news.

Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

John Hindraker wrote last December:

“The Clinton administration engaged in warrantless wiretapping. Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick wrote that the President "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." That is an accurate summary of the holding of every federal court decision that has addressed the issue.

On May 23, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that said, "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

The Clinton-era "Echelon" electronic surveillance program went far beyond anything now under discussion, and became controversial precisely because of its extraordinary scope. But the basic concept that the President could order warrantless searches for national security purposes wasn't controversial during the Carter administration or the Clinton administration. Why is it suddenly controversial now?”

And don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying,”Yeah maybe it is illegal but Carter and Clinton did it too!”, I’m saying, “It was legal then and it is now for the same reasons.”

And quite honestly, with all the leaks coming out of Congress, if I was President and my most paramount goal was keeping my country safe, I’d be hard pressed to go out of my way, legally, to offer up future leaks to members of Congress.

Congress WAS informed and to this day not a single democrat is urging the shutdown of this program.



11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not agree your characterization of the War in Iraq as an “attack on a sovereign nation without provocation.” And where is this propaganda machine that is supposedly selling me a pre-emptive strike on Iran? I see no such information coming from the White House. How are tactical strikes (including nuclear weapons) being sold to me? I’m as big a news junkie and political hound as the next guy, but I don’t see that anywhere, quite honestly.

Abu Ghraib was dealt with. But yet the press,(as the propaganda arm of the current administration?), continues to flash the same pictures (with 3 or 4 new ones) on the TV, in newspapers years later. To what end? I’ve seen no evidence that this administration holds a unique view about torture during armed conflict. The military hierarchy, structure and make-up don’t switch out after each new Presidential election, afterall. Bush has not enacted any new procedures on torture. Bush generally lets the Army do what it does and has done for decades. I’m just asking, where is the evidence that the Bush administration practices anything unique?

I am in agreement about the counting of votes. How do you suggest the votes should be counted? Paper ballots are decried because some people are unable to actually read them and properly cast their votes, I remember. Since you are suspicious of the Diebold machines, what’s your solution? I believe that in every, single, solitary election votes have not been counted for a variety of reasons, and for far more reasons than assumed fraud. There are spoiled votes in EVERY election. That is nothing new. It’s only when democrats keep losing election after election do we hear about the problems with voting. I would love to hear ideas on how we can do it better.

It’s quite possible, at least as possible as the illegality of the NSA program, that those reporters and individuals who leaked the NSA program to the New York Times did indeed commit a crime.

Federal Law (18 U.S.C. § 798) prohibits the disclosure of several narrowly defined categories of information, specifically including classified information regarding communications intelligence:
a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government...
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The following subsection (b) makes clear the applicability of the act to the informants and information related to the Times story:

The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
The term "unauthorized person" means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

I read the Patricia Goldsmith article, but again, I think that she assumes facts not in evidence, while I do not dispute hers and others genuine belief in them.

But here I agree with you wholeheartedly:

“It has long been the case that our two party system is nothing more than political theater. We have two political parties feeding from the same corporate troughs and serving the same corporate interests. If we continue to buy into the lies of either side and continue to separate from one another reducing public discourse to screaming at one another from opposite sides of the wedges driven between us, we give the only power we have left away to leaders who will only abuse it. If we willfully divide ourselves, we will be easily conquered.”

Where are the people whose civil rights have been denied via the NSA Program? By the current administration? Are they dead? What on earth could keep them from going to the press to tell their story? Where are they?

And what dissenting voices are being silenced? I hear a lot of people who label themselves as dissenters but I HEAR them. They are surely NOT being silenced. But they are whining about it. I find that odd.

(SAHMmy) I hope I kept the snark out of my posts, I did try to.

11:20 AM  
Blogger The (liberal)Girl Next Door said...

SAHMmy—Perhaps much of the coverage of Bush has been negative (a view I don’t subscribe to myself) because he is arguably the worst President ever and has bungled just about everything he has attempted to do. And as far as Iraq, that has been a disaster from the start and has progressively gotten worse, so no surprise there either. While I agree that there are far more negative stories in general than positive ones, that has to do with the culture of fear that media has determined is good for business (so many products to sell to a country who fears everything) and that the Bush administration has fostered. They tell us every chance they get that we should be afraid, very afraid.

As far as the poll numbers on NSA spying, if the question is asked that way of course most people agree! I think that NSA should be able to listen in on the phone calls of terrorists too! But that is not what the program is! NSA insiders have been trying to give testimony to Congress that it is a data mining program aimed at possibly millions of American citizens without a warrant or probably cause to do so! That, my friend, is against the law and a blatant violation of our Constitutional rights! There are not millions of Americans having casual conversations with members of Al Qaeda. If the program doesn’t violate the law, great! But without an investigation (which Republicans in the Congress shut down), we will never know who among us is being spied upon or why.

And yes, you successfully kept the snark out. I hope I did as well.

2:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SAHmy, thy name is 'disingenuousness'!

While we all await what is sure to be a devastating
train of counterarguments from Mollie, I submit
the following for your consideration:

I apply the word disingenuous to your take on the
Administration's rationale for the War with Iraq.
I suggest to you that the target was placed on
Iraq by the out of power Neocons, including
Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz among others.
The 'Regime Change' that they argued for was in
fact 'ratified' as national policy by Clinton in '98.
Numerous reports confirm that both
Rumsfeld and Bush were looking for connections
between 911 and Iraq. We have the Downing
Street Memo's reference to 'fixing the
intelligence' around the decision to go to war.

You'll also recall the rationale changed from WMD to
'seeding freedom and democracy' in fairly short order.
Did you really think we were going to war for the latter
rather than the former? Really think we weren't 'misled'?

As for the press 'slant' against Bush may I simply suggest
that it was the same or worse against the Clinton Admin.
It's the press's job!
No less so in the coverage of war to emphasize the
bloody conflict rather than the 'winning of hearts and minds'.
Your arguments against the negative coverage are
indistinguishable from the ones made against the press
during the Vietnam War. My take? the more badly a
war is going the more likely the coverage reflects that

You're correct, albeit guilty of straw man construction, in
observing that no Dems are arguing for suspension
of the NSA program. Oversight is what
I believe they're arguing for.
This President has screwed up too badly too often to merit
a 'trust me' response from our elected Representatives
let alone any thinking citizen.
The reaction from his own Party in the Dubai ports
controversy is proof of that.


2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dale, I am being straightforward, candid and sincere. So your "disingenuous" tag doesn't stick.

I don't buy the whole Neocons salivating for a target. Why go to war? Oil profits? Explain to me why those neocons wanted to go to war again.

I've read about the Downing Memo, which amounts to "he said that he heard him say this." It is not very convincing to me. There is no proof. But if you already hate Bush, and/or republicans, all this stuff goes down much easier, I think.

The last two years of the Clinton presidency, I would've believed just about anything. I'm just being honest.

I know the press was not easy on Clinton, but the point that LGND was making is that the press is "in the tank" for Bush, and that is just nonsensical to me.

And many people who go to Iraq to see for themselves the situation, almost to a person come back reporting tremendous relief. It's not at all as horrific as the press portrays. The press, btw, who are reporting from their hotel rooms in Baghdad, which should tell you something.

How is what Bush did with the NSA different than the powers claimed by both Clinton and Carter?

Congress was consulted. They just weren't given an opportunity to maul the program for their particular partisan needs.

2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oops, that was me, SAHMmy.

2:39 PM  
Blogger Roberta Kelly said...

Let me shine a light on SAHMmy ~ When I confronted her on the stupid things she thinks, says and now I can say she DOES ~ she sent my husband Larry a Valentine card with a little note about how much she enjoyed the lunches they spend together and furthermore, she said she always thought of him when she felt the gold chain dangling between her breasts.

Now, I wouldn't have figured it out so quickly, but she didn't know my husband's last name so the card was just addressed to Larry and the return address was missing except the fool put SAHMmy.

I'm very open about who we are as a family of artists and our website for the art gallery, as well as our website for our mortgage company is transparent.

Funny sometimes how serendipitous life is ~ I was taken aback and puzzled by the card and needless to say my husband was perplexed.

I love LGND's website so I got on the internet and decided to read at Mollie's blog since she can get me to snap out of things with her brilliant, humorous and thought provoking writing.

Well, there was the name and there was the card with the name.

This woman, SAHMmy, wouldn't know the truth if it was from God.

Bush, et al are now planning to revive the space star wars program. They will stop at nothing until they destroy every man, woman and child on this planet and all life.

Depleted Uranium is the subject we should all be discussing, every blogger, writer, progressive website and mainstream media and yet we act as though it's politics as usual.

Stopping the money stops the madness. Go and see the trailer of

Should we not stop the money flow then we can all kiss our sorry asses goodbye because Bush is insane.

3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"I don't buy the whole Neocons salivating for a target. Why go to war? Oil profits? Explain to me why those neocons wanted to go to war again."(See below/DH)

"I've read about the Downing Memo, which amounts to "he said that he heard him say this." It is not very convincing to me. There is no proof. But if you already hate Bush, and/or republicans, all this stuff goes down much easier, I think."

(If you support Bush and/or Republicans all these counter arguments and evidence go down very hard indeed, I think! DH)

The last two years of the Clinton presidency, I would've believed just about anything. I'm just being honest.

(Willing to believe the worst about those you oppose and the best about those you support, rather than apply the same degree of skepticism to each? DH)

First Iraq, now Iran
In the months after 9/11, rather than relying on the CIA, State Department or the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency for intelligence about Iraq’s ties to international terrorists and its development of weapons of mass destruction, neoconservatives in the Pentagon set up a special intelligence shop called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). The founders, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Feith, are fervent advocates of a regional restructuring in the Middle East that includes regime change in Iran, Syria and, ultimately, Saudi Arabia.

Not having its own intelligence-gathering infrastructure, Feith’s office relied on fabricated information supplied by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate who led the Iraqi National Congress (INC). In 1998, Chalabi’s group was funded by the Iraq Liberation Act, a congressional initiative that was backed by neoconservative institutions such as AIPAC, CSP, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

At the same time that Chalabi and other INC militants were visiting Feith’s office, so were Israeli officials, including generals, according to Lt. Col Karen Kwiakowski, who formerly worked in the Near East and South Asia office under Feith’s supervision. Like the neoconservatives in the United States, Israeli hardliners believe that Israel’s long-term security can best be ensured by a radical makeover of Middle East politics enforced by the superior military power of the United States and Israel.

It now appears that Feith’s Office of Policy, which was creating dubious intelligence rationales for the Iraq war, was also establishing a covert national security strategy for regime change in Iran—most likely through a combination of preemptive military strikes (either by the United States or Israel) and support for a coalition of Iranian dissidents.

Here is a list of the jounalists KIA. The WIA like Bob Woodruff, as in any war, greatly outnumber the KIA.

I challenged you in an earlier blog on your likely lack of militarty service. Your cavalier generalization
RE journalists in hotel rooms confirms my opinion that those who do not serve are not only the most truculent....with the lives of other peoples kids, husbands, wives, sisters, brothers....but also most dismissive of reporting that doesn't square with what we ALL hope to be true.

By the way, how goes your 'research' on the Republican's Southern Strategy?!

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

roberta, you're spooky. Unless you can prove I did such a thing you really ought to stop making accusations, disgusting ones at that.

I would never even want to encounter you or any of your family on the street, let alone send anything to your husband. Don't make me hurl.

I thought your weird, meandering, rambling posts were just that. I mean you're an artist, I guess. Artists are supposedly different, I hear. But now you are just freaky and weird. And unless you can prove what you say about me, then you really ought to zip it.

Wait, your "normal" political posts are FULL of weird accusations against various persons, backed up and evidenced with.....nothing. Guess I won't hold my breath.

Sorry LGND, but she's totally trippy and full of crap, and I couldn't let her insane post go without comment. Well the part about me, anyway.


4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I’m going to post my reply in sections.

Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher were simply the first two caught taking money from the Bush Administration to pitch his programs. Michael McManus was also caught with his hand in the till. So we know of those three at least. How do we know how many more journalists are out there living with this dark secret? When Armstrong Williams was first identified Bush said “Yeah, but he was the only one”. Then we found out about Gallagher, and then a short time latter we found out about McManus.

The GAO came out with a report in February about the government propaganda issue. It was the fourth investigation that the GAO has done on this topic since Bush took office. In the latest report they say that Bush has spent 1.6 Billion dollars just since 2003 on “illegal covert propaganda”. That is not Bush’s money – that is our tax dollars being used to deceive us. In response to the latest report the White House told its agencies to ignore the GAO report and keep on breaking the law. Much of that money when into ready to broadcast fake news items produced by the government that they sent to TV stations across the nation. And many of these were clearly intended to appear to be genuine reporting by real journalists.

Gannon was a different animal altogether. He was a plant by someone, Karl Rove?, in the White House to throw softball questions up to Scottie McClellan when things got hectic.

My Yahoo search did not reveal the entire Project for Excellence in Journalism study of the 2004 election. But I did read the article and the summary of the 2004 election study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism. For some reason the article does not agree with the summary of the very report. In the summary is says that there were two negative stories for Bush for every one negative stories for Kerry. I can not explain why.

In your discussion you left out a couple of items that I think are germane to the issue. One is that the results of their analysis of the Gore/Bush campaign in 2000 mirrored the results from the Bush/Kerry campaign. Meaning that Bush had twice as many positive stories than Gore did in 2000. The second thing you left out was this sentence “This year the President was battered in the coverage particularly for his performance in the first two debates”. This makes it sound to me that the majority of the bad press Bush got in 2004 was due to his poor performance in the debates. Do you interpret it differently?
Here is an interesting little tidbit. One of assertions you make is that the Iraq war coverage is biased against Bush. This is refuted in the very article ( that you cite to suggest that the media was harder on Bush than Kerry in the run up to the election. Here is the sentence: “Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.”
You cite information from the Media Research Center to back up your assertions that the media is slanted and biased against Bush when reporting on the Iraq war. When I do a Yahoo search this is what comes up under the first item listed to describe the site “Conservative media watchdog group dedicated to bringing political balance to the news and entertainment media.” Do you genuinely think that the readers of a liberal blog are going to place any weight on anything this outfit has to say? That would be like citing from Media Matters for America on As long as you brought it up though. Media Matters has done a whole series practically about how biased Media Research Center is.

7:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your second post starts of with your incredulous expose of the hypocracy of LGND. You cite the GAO report as proof that Bush is being held accountable. Where you aware that the GAO has no enforcement power? All they do is study and report. How is that being held accountable? Particularly when Bush, in response to the GAO report, tells his agencies to ignore the report.
You also insist that “many, many Americans” don’t think that Bush lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq. The most recent poll I could find was Nov. 2005. In that poll 57% of respondents said they believed Bush lied about the war. I’ll bet you a doughnut it is higher than that now. You say you have researched the whole lying angle from every possible direction and can’t bring yourself to believe that Bush lied about the war. Listen, nothing I can say will enable you to see the light. The facts are there. In fact they were there before the war. The false aluminum tubes yarn, the false yellow cake myth, the false tale of ties to the terrorists, the false fairy tales of ties to 9/11, the reports from the weapons inspectors and the IAEA inspectors were all known to us to before the war. My sister, the Republican, said to me in late February 2003: I sure hope we are doing the right thing and that there are WMD there”. I said to her “there aren’t any WMD there”. It was in the news before the war.
There isn’t anybody I know who does not want us to listen in when terrorists talk to someone in the US. What we object to is Bush breaking the law and acting in direct contravention of the 4th amendment of the Constitution. The FISA law was passed in 1978 because of the abuse of power Nixon is famous for. One of the things Nixon authorized was wiretapping of his domestic political enemies. What in Bush’s character or history tells any sentient being that Bush would not eavesdrop on his domestic political enemies? I think I found that poll you cite about 64% believing that it is ok for Bush to spy on Americans. It is a Rasmussen poll. Rasmussen is of course a partisan right wing poll taker. However, the reputable polls I have seen say that just over have of the country says that Bush should be impeached if he spied on Americans without a warrant. And that is exactly what Bush is doing.
It was two months ago when the right wing smear campaigns against Carter and Clinton were debunked. If you, as I did then, read the ENTIRE executive order you would see that neither one allowed anything other than what was already legal under the 1978 FISA law.
You claim Clinton used Eshelon to spy domestically. After reading this you might think otherwise:
CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:
I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.
You are are correct when you say: It was illegal then and it is illegal now.

7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You state that not a single Democrat has stood up and said that the NSA program should be halted. That is likely to be true. I don’t want it stopped. I want it to be done in accordance with the Constitution and with existing statute. There is no reason that we can’t spy on our enemies within the existing law.
You say that Bush is not trying to sell us a new war with Iran. The drum beats of war that I am hearing and reading about seem eerily similar to the one’s we heard at the start of the campaign to attack Iraq. For example: Iran is sneaking weapons to the insurgents in Iraq, Iran is going to have a nuclear bomb any day now (even though the IAEA says 10 years), Bush attempting to have the IAEA report Iran to the UN Security Council, etc, etc. We all should know this tune by now.
As far as using nuclear weapons against Iran it was reported as far back as August that Cheney told the Dept. of Defense to prepare a war plan that included using nuclear weapons against Iran.
The torture thing is the one thing that really makes me embarrassed for and ashamed of my country. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram air base, secret prisons in East Europe, extraordinary rendition. Bush adding a signing statement to the McCain anti torture amendment to the Defense authorization bill. This problem has NOT been dealt with. Only a few low level pawns have been found guilty of a crime that comes directly to the top of the civilian command of the military. If you can’t see that you are willfully blind to it and no amount of discussion could make you see.
There is a viable, less expensive, alternative to electronic voting. It has been reported on the web. Right now I can’t seem to find it but it is a type of paper ballot with a guide that meets all of the requirements of the Help America Vote Act, costs less money to buy and maintain, and it has a permanent record of the vote for recounts.
You are likely right about the whistle blowers and whether or not they will face trial. They might be saved by the whistle blower law. But I wouldn’t count on it. That doesn’t make what they did wrong and in fact shows how noble and courageous these people are. These people witnessed our government breaking the law and violating the Constitution and found a way to get this information out to the public. The people of this nation owe a debt of gratitude to these folks.
The vast majority of the people who have been swept up in the domestic spying scandal don’t even know about it. But there are a few cases that are starting to crop up. Most involve people who are being tried in court for terrorism charges. It is entirely within reason to believe that some of the people previously convicted, or on trial now, will have their cases dropped or have their cases overturned because it will be determined that the Bush administration broke the law in gathering some of the evidence via the domestic spying program. Good job George.
You don’t know of anyone being silenced? How about Sibel Edmonds? Surely you have heard of her. She sometimes can’t even have her own attorneys in the court room when she goes for a hearing. This lady know some shit about the Bush administration. One of these days a grand piano is going to fall out of the clear blue sky and silence her forever. What about Russel Tice? You’ve heard of him right?

7:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


RE: Roberta

Methinks thou doest protest too much.

8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Comprehensive, powerful rejoinders to SAHmy's
inadequately researched/argued
points. Nice job!

RE Roberta/SAHmy....I don't
know what the f**k is going on with that!!

9:06 PM  
Blogger News from Mad Plato said...


9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why, thank you Dale. It is very kind of you to say so. Actually, I was almost embarrassed to post it after reading your response.

Yeah, I got goose bumps when I read Roberta’s post. I’m not sure if we’re dealing with SAHMmy or Son of SAHMmy.

9:52 PM  
Blogger The (liberal)Girl Next Door said...

Dale & Jonathan--Wow!! When you start your own blogs, let me know, I'll be your first fan!

news from mad Plato--I guess I was crying so hard I forgot to panic then. Better late then never right?

12:51 AM  
Blogger The (liberal)Girl Next Door said...

Roberta--I'll be keeping my eyes peeled for the movie up here. I'm scared to see it, but looking for it nonetheless. Re: SAHMmy, I was wondering why you were so sure she was a she!

1:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You said:

“(If you support Bush and/or Republicans all these counter arguments and evidence go down very hard indeed, I think! DH)”

I reply, no, if you support Bush and/or Republicans the particular counter arguments used by liberals don’t go down hard, they are just unconvincing.

Then you said:

“(Willing to believe the worst about those you oppose and the best about those you support, rather than apply the same degree of skepticism to each? DH)”

I reply, are you actually trying to say that you view anything negative purported about Bush or republicans with ANY degree of skepticism? Sorry but I don’t believe that.

“First Iraq, now Iran…”

I don’t dispute the existence of the OSP. I don’t dispute who was in it. I wouldn't even offer that the decisions and methods, the secret meetings, etc. are wholly un-flawed. But that there are secretly formed groups, and that there are secret meetings conducted by officials of the government equates to a concerted effort to lie and mislead the public, only when the government is republican led? You assume that, I believe, because you didn’t vote for Bush, you don’t support republican policies and you don’t trust the administration.

Well, I don’t necessarily trust the administration either. My trust, in general is very limited. I merely trust the liberals somewhat less than the conservatives.

I hope you aren’t trying to say that secret government groups formed and secret meetings took place only after Jan 2001. I’m sure you’re aware that these things have taken place throughout U.S. history. I understand why you must assume evil, dangerous intent on the part of the Bush administration. If you don’t nothing else makes sense. I understand that.
And I hope you don’t think because of your “superior” research and understanding that you actually think you KNOW what went on and what is going on, because I promise you, the plebs don’t and you’re a pleb just like me.

About Journalists in Iraq……I’m aware of the journalists that have been killed while covering the war in Iraq. That they primarily report from their hotel rooms doesn’t negate that. It’s merely a fact.

The reporting doesn’t square with what is reported by other folks ON THE GROUND, not what my hopes are. You don’t even KNOW what my hopes are.

I apologise for my late response to your vehement fascination with the Southern Strategy. Am I supposed to be shocked that conservatives used cultural issues as wedges to win over white middle-class voters? Sorry, but I’m not. They are POLITICIANS! They are no different than today’s race peddlers who are using race as a wedge to win African Americans and keep them on the democrat plantation. Guess what, both political parties attempt to use cultural issues as wedges to win over voters. Wake up.

I very much appreciate you clarifying the Drudge report errors. I did not get my information directly from Drudge, a website I rarely visit, but I obviously got it from another source that used Drudge as his source. Bleh.

However, your source is in error as well. About Clinton’s EO 12949, you state

“That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.”

Now I know you stated it in your post, but it definitely originated someplace else because it’s all over liberal blogsites across the internet, so I don’t blame you for anything but repeating it (like I inadvertently repeated a Drudge story-bleh) I’d like you to clarify that statement. Do you really think that our laws protect not only U.S. citizens but “anyone inside the United States.” Seriously? Just any ‘ole person who has stepped across our border?

In EO12333, this is addressed in Part 3, Section 3.4 (i) Definitions:

(i) United States person means a United States citizen, an alien known by the intelligence agency concerned to be a permanent resident alien, an unincorporated association substantially composed of United States citizens or permanent resident aliens, or a corporation incorporated in the United States, except for a corporation directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

Under Part 2, Conduct of Intelligence Activities we find:

“2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.”

I believe, and wonder if you do as well, that if American citizens or persons residing in the United States are communicating with known terrorists overseas, they become de facto agents of the foreign entity.

I never intended to say that what Bush did with his NSA program is EXACTLY what Clinton and Carter before him did. If I did I apologise. What I intended to say is that two Presidents prior to Bush signed Executive Orders allowing warrantless surveillance.

From a Duke Law Journal article written by Lawrence Sloan…

“The overall result of the interaction between the Fourth Amendment, FISA, Executive Order 12,333, and the agency guidelines is that the procedures to be followed when conducting electronic surveillance vary depending upon the identity of the target and his geographic location. All electronic surveillance that takes place in the [*pg 1501] United States must be conducted in accordance with FISA, whose primary requirement is prior judicial authorization from FISC. However, when the surveillance occurs outside of the United States, FISA is not applicable, and there is no requirement of prior judicial authorization. In these cases, Executive Order 12,333 is the primary source of regulation. Executive Order 12,333 specifies different procedures to be followed depending on whether the subject is a United States person or not. If the subject is a United States person, as that term is defined in Executive Order 12,333, then the Attorney General, upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, has the power to authorize the collection.173 If, however, the surveillance is to occur outside of the United States, and there are no United States persons implicated, then no prior approval from FISC or the Attorney General is necessary. In these situations, Executive Order 12,333 requires only that the surveillance be conducted in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned.”

I may be wrong, but I understand that the main concern is about surveillence taking place within the United States.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the correction of the error that Drudge made.

“The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that. “

And on to Carter…

“What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.”

However a “U.S. Person” and “an agent of a foreign power” can obviously be a person who is both. I mean, that’s who we’re after in addition to the non-citizens working for terrorist groups.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Act, (50 U.S.C. 1801 (b)(2)(A), (C)….it states, “ANY person who…..

(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;


9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm afraid it's not possible for me to locate a fair and balanced liberal source to report on the biased media.

It's lunacy to even try.

9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


“I'm afraid it's not possible for me to locate a fair and balanced liberal source to report on the biased media.

It's lunacy to even try.”

Right. Which is one of the points I was trying to make. And if you replace liberal with conservative in the first sentence it is just as true. One thing to keep in mind though, is that the person who founded Media Matters for America (David Brock) was a registered Republican, likely still is.

10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


In your response to Dale there is some initial talk about secret meetings. I’ve no doubt that secret meetings take place and have taken place for, perhaps, the history of our nation. I would like to point out however that there are many knowledgeable people who are of the opinion that this is the most secretive administration in our history. And I’m afraid that this did not start with 9/11. It started from January 20th, 2001. On Bush’s first day in office he signed an executive order stopping the release of any Presidential Papers. All of Reagan’s papers were to be released basically immediately upon Bush being inaugurated (the 12 year rule). Why did he do that? Did any of the papers implicate his father in Iran/Contra? The other glaring example of their secrecy is the Cheney energy task force meetings. Also before 9/11. Why, prey tell, would something so important to the nation be kept so secret? They tried to even keep the names of the people involved secret. Why?

The reason the journalist report from their hotel rooms and from the Green Zone is because they are afraid for their lives. More journalists have been killed in this conflict already than died in Vietnam. The reports from people on the ground that I read don’t agree with what you suggest - that things aren’t so bad. I read that it is hell on earth. Iraqi citizens, at least one British official, and some soldiers are saying that. The exceptions are generally people associated with the Bush administration, some soldiers, and a hand full of folks who were chaperoned on visits to Iraq like Congressmen and such.

You wrote a considerable amount about the domestic spying issue. I’m not an attorney but when I read through all that information very carefully I come to the conclusion that it basically backs up the point that Dale and I have been trying to make. That Clinton and Carter issued executive orders that were within the bounds of the 1978 FISA law and the 4th amendment and that Bush’s orders are in violation of the 1978 FISA and the 4th amendment. The Clinton and Carter executive orders clearly do not allow for warrantless wiretapping of US citizens. They do allow for warrantless wiretapping of non US citizens who are not physically located on US soil.

You have asked Dale to respond to this query. “Do you really think that our laws protect not only U.S. citizens but “anyone inside the United States.” Seriously? Just any ‘ole person who has stepped across our border?” Not to step on Dale’s toes but I think that is the way most civilized nations operate across the globe. If you’re here, or in Italy, or in Australia you live by their rules. Conversely, when you are in their country you live under the protection of their laws. Can there be special laws about aliens in any of these countries? Sure, in Mexico you can’t buy property if you are not a citizen. But, by and large, the laws that protect you and I protect the German exchange student as well. Now if they “stepped across the border” and didn’t enter legally than that is a violation of our law.

12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about replacing "Germans" with Jews. The Rhineland of Israel.
Else, any anaylsis won't mean jackshit, and will be seen as an attack on the majority of people residing in the American nation mearly for being born what they are; instead a bunch of elite jews and their Christian vasals. Now, You can not call me an antisemite for telling the plain truth, without being part of the problem.

12:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home