The Existentialist Cowboy

Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Than Many Top U.S. Corporations

2012-02-20T06:18:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

If 'corporations' are people, then why are they NOT paying their fair shaire of taxes? Some pay very little! Some pay no taxes at all! The tax burden has, in fact, fallen upon REAL people and that --in itself --proves the LIE to the SCOTUS decision known, simply, as "Citizens United" in which five robed liars decreed that 'corporations' were 'people'.

Citizens United was not a 'decision'; it was a BALD-FACED lie!

If it had been the truth 'Corporations' ---being 'real' people ---would be paying their fair share of taxes just like hard working and often hard pressed American REAL 'real people' are doing and have been doing since this nation's founding.

According to the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (itepnet.org), undocumented workers paid billions in state and local taxes last year. GE, remember, paid NOTHING. Though conservatives will likely put ITEP alongside FactCheck and PolitiFact as liberal propaganda machines, ITEP is, as the NY Daily News reports, “a prestigious, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that works on federal, state and local tax policy issues.”

--Illegal Immigrants Pay More Taxes Than Many Top U.S. Corporations

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has put out “A Guide to Corporate Freeloaders.”

Exxon Mobil’s 2009 profits totaled $19 billion, yet according to its SEC filings, the company received a $156 million rebate from the IRS plus it didn’t pay any federal taxes.
Bank of America made $4.4 billion in profits last year. This was after it received a $1 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, and a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS.
General Electric has made $26 billion in profits in the United States over the past five years. It’s also received a $4.1 billion tax refund from the IRS. GE has cut a fifth of its American jobs in the past nine years, and is boosting jobs overseas – where tax rates are lower. And where it can continue evading U.S. taxes.
Chevron’s IRS refund last year totaled $19 million but it’s 2009 profits came to a whopping $10 billion.
Boeing received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers. It also received a $124 million refund from the IRS.
Valero Energy made $68 billion in sales and received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS. Over the past three years, it has received a $134 million tax break thanks to the oil and gas manufacturing tax reduction
Goldman Sachs paid 1.1% of its 2009 income in taxes. Yet it made a profit of $2.3 billion. And guess how much it received from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department? $800 billion.
Citigroup profits last year totaled more than $4 billion. But it paid zero dollars in federal income tax, and received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
ConocoPhillips profits from 2007 through 2009 totaled $16 billion. But it was still awarded $461 million in tax arrears because of the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
Carnival Cruise Lines is apparently getting pretty good business. Its profits over the past five years totaled more than $1.1 billion. It’s federal income tax rate, however, came to just 1.1%.

Experience had led me to believe that most of the so-called 'illegal immigrants' who live and work in the U.S. are honest, hard-working folk. They work, raise children, shop, spend money! In fact, they represent a far greater infusion of 'monies' into the economy than do corporate leeches.

These so-called 'illegal aliens' are, in fact, paying their fair share and more! Corporate crooks often pay NOTHING whatsoever even as they export jobs, possibly your job! They leave it to real 'real' people to take up the slack!

Unlike corporate leeches upon the economy, so-called 'illegal aliens' do not export jobs. Jobs stay right here in the U.S. That is in stark contrast to GOP policies in general which have always resulted in the decline of U.S. jobs, in effect, a net export to those nation's with whom we have a negative trade balance --significantly: China. [See: CIA World Fact Book, Current Account Balance]

It has been asked: when did America, a country whose narrative and history was built on the sweat of immigrants, turn against immigration and immigrants? That's easy! That result came about with the rise of the GOP --a party of lies, scapegoats and excuses!

It has been said that there has always been a strong anti-immigration element in America! But I believe that that was not always the case. In fact, the Native Americans were here thousands of years before Europeans showed up and, in many if not most or all cases, Native Americans welcomed the new arrivals. They paid dearly for it. There are myriads of stories of genocide and atrocities. I refer the interested reader to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, specifically, his description of the fate of the Arawaks.

In the meantime, all Americans of every ancestry and origin must begin to think clearly about transperant, bald-faced lies that are invariably told and sold by the U.S. GOP --not a political party but an evil kooky cult.

I suspect that if all immigration --legal or ill --were stopped overnight, the nation would be plunged into a recession/depression. Few economies are so large that they can simply kiss off an overnight withdrawal of some several billion dollars! Banks would fall like dominoes.

To be fair, it is not only Hispanics that the GOP begrudges health-care! It's Americans of any origin or political persuasion! Their motto was best articulated by one Ebenezer Scrooge whom Dickens "quoted" thus: "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons? Then let them die and decrease the surplus population!"

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

The Ominous Implications of Corporate-Personhood for 'Libertarians'

2012-02-13T07:41:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I do not and cannot support the Libertarian party. Primarily --if the libertarian position re: taxation had been the rule, FDR could NEVER have spent the U.S. out of the GREAT DEPRESSION. Think of how fortunate we were to have had a great President in office! Think of how disastrous our fate had a 'libertarian' been occupying the White House!

As I understand their platform, the 'Libertarian party', would have opposed Roosevelt's 'New Deal' and, most certainly, Social Security. Secondly, Libertarians may have embraced the 14th Amendment to rationalize 'corporate personhood', in effect, granting them 'Freedom of Speech'. I do not believe that Exxon (for example) may enjoy 'free speech'. Exxon is not a person. If EXXON were never allowed to spew their lies and propaganda on REAL people, it would not keep me awake nights. I have freedom of speech. A 'legal abstraction' does not! I don't care what myths, lies and voodoo are subsribed to by ilk like Scalia.

But this issue is of considerable interest to anyone considering whether or not to support Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a strong supporter of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which SCOTUS has recently applied to 'legal abstractions', i.e, corporations. Has Paul considered the implications? Paul should stand up and outline in reasonable detail his position vis a vis 'corporate personhood'! Is he for it or 'agin it'?

IF corporations are people, then nothing can be done to prevent them becoming monopolies, enslaving 'real people' in various ways. IF corporations are people, to restrain them violates the 14TH amendment. Is Ron Paul's vocal support of the 14th a cloak that hides his less publicized support of 'corporate personhood'?

If I were opposing Paul in a run for a nomination, I would demand he answer this question: are you for or against corporate personhood? Are you for or against the 14th? If you are for the 14th but against corporate personhood, how would you propose to avoid a nation in which 'corporate-persons', in fact, legal monstrosities would exploit that unique status in ways that are yet still unknown?

If corporations were allowed 'personhood' today, nothing would prevent that 'concentration of wealth' in very, very few corporate-elite hands! Ergo: corporate personhood is a recipe for a NEW GREAT DEPRESSION and the LIBERTARIAN policies of Ron Paul would make it so by extending the 'libertarian' concept of freedom to 'newly created' real people, i.e, corporations. It would be the immediate onset of BIG BRO.

If corporations were allowed 'personhood' today, nothing would prevent that 'concentration of wealth' in very, very few corporate-elite hands! Ergo: corporate personhood is a recipe for a NEW GREAT DEPRESSION.

Libertarians cannot have it both ways. If 'people' are to have this brand of freedom AND if corporations are people, then what 'power' would restrain them, the government being reduced in power and status?

Rather --corporations should be restrained by a government responsible only to REAL, real people. Pin Ron Paul down on this point! It should be made clear --beyond any shades of gray or doubt --that CORPORATIONS are NOT people! It should be made clear that corporations exist at the pleasure of a government that was describe by our founders --a government of REAL people, BY real people, and FOR real people!

I suspect that just such an outcome is precisely what 5 ideologues on SCOTUS had in mind. SCOTUS, certainly, does not care about R. Paul's problems. SCOTUS, kissing up to corporate 'sponsors' re-created the Frankstein monster but on paper! It's a monstrous problem for anyone but more so for anyone claiming to be a 'libertarian'.

The 'Cowboy' on Facebook
Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

FREE JULLIAN ASSANGE! OCCUPY THE WORLD!

2012-02-13T03:38:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Julian Assange has been in 'custody' illegally! His right of 'habeas corpus' has been denied him though not formally. He is simply detained, denied his freedom of movement and, presumably, his access to the international press! In fact, no charges have ever been filed against him. No judge has demanded of his captors that they produce 'probable cause' that he has --in fact --committed any crime of any sort! He is a political prisoner in every sense of the word. He may be the picture of a fascist future when 'authority' or 'force of arms' may simply decree one to be an enemy of the state.

Assange is locked up though the burden of proof in almost every western nation has rested upon those making accusations. Officially, he is not accused of a specific crime. He is --simply --a political prisoner, a 'captive' of a crooked state(s).

TYRANNY

The arrest warrant for Julian Assange should not stand and breaches "a matter of fundamental legal principle", the supreme court has heard .

Dinah Rose QC, defending the WikiLeaks founder in his final appeal againstextradition to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes, told the panel of seven senior judges that to consider the Swedish public prosecutor as a judicial authority was "contrary to a basic, fundamental principle of law".

Reaching back as far into European legal history as the Codex Iustinianus, dated 376AD, Rose said the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause", which Rose said was one of the pillars of natural justice.

--Julian Assange extradition breaches legal principle, lawyer claims

This is an outrage! If Julian Assange can be imprisioned though no charges have ever been lodged against him, NO ONE IS FREE!

When the U.S. Bill of Rights had not yet been trashed, subverted by the likes of George W. Bush, the crooked court made crooked by the likes of Thomas, Scalia et al, the Bill of Rights had GUARANTEED every American DUE PROCESS LAW. The principle, it was hoped, would have been universal among 'western nations'. In fact, no one should be denied the right of Habeas Corpus.

Latin for "that you have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful. In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court.

--See, e.g. Knowles v. Mirzayance 556 U.S.___(2009), Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996) and McCleskey v. Zant 499 US 467 (1991).

Simply, if charges cannot be found and filed upon PROBABLE CAUSE, the person targeted should be, must be released! Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, embraced by the American founding fathers, and made law in the Bill of Rights! It is, likewise, guaranteed in many nations.

Make the Right of Habeas Corpus a Principle of International Law

It is an essential safeguard against tyranny, arbitrary state action, 'official vendettas! ORGANIZE to demand that Julian Assange be 'arraigned' and the charges against him heard together with the probable cause that he violated any laws whatsoever. If the 'authorities' cannot produce the 'probable cause' to file a formal complaint with a judge, then ASSANGE MUST BE RELEASED!

Assange: Railroaded!

The 'Cowboy' on Facebook
Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Jean-Paul Sartre vs the Pod People

2012-02-09T03:42:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

'Mormanism' is a cult which believes Joseph Smith is a prophet! But believing Joseph Smith a prohet is no 'kookier' than any number of unquestioned shibbboleths and ideology that define the GOP just as many articles of 'faith' and/or superstitions define most if not all the world's religions. And the world's kooky cults!

By any definition, Christianity is, likewise, a cult just as it was considered to be by 'free Romans' during the long Roman Empire. Rome, especially during the post-Republican period was full of cults to include, prominently, various flavors of Mithraism. The Christians were just one of possibly hundreds of kooky cults of various persuasions, convictions and delusions.

Today it is not only Mitt Romney who is a cultist!

The GOP has seemingly deified Ronald Reagan! The GOP rank and file still worship Reagan's economic legacy, though it is, in fact, a sorry tail of inequities, slow growth, the 'export' of American industries, and recession/depression. In practice, the GOP clearly loathes any education which insists upon rigorous, skeptical science, objective inquiry, logic and/or empirical observation. All of those things threaten both cults --Christianity as well as the cult of Republicans.

Not all groups that could in one way or another be defined sociologically as cults are necessarily destructive. For instance, not every group requires its members to cut off normal contact with friends and family.

To be fair, cults are not always evil, kooky or destructive! But I am hard-pressed to name an entirely benevolent 'cult' offhand. In fact, I defend a persons right to be a 'cult-member' for so long as he/she does not harm others, commit or try to justify crimes in the name of the name of the cult, or, in any other way, deny the right of others to believe as they choose. I am tempted to write that most cults, however, are intolerant of dissent and, if not intolerant, may 'persuade' but in ugly, overly aggressive manners.

That said, I am of the opinion that cultism of any sort is 'anti-freedom'. A cult seems to me to be the ulitmate Faustian bargain in which an individual surrenders or concedes his/her individualty (soul?) to the larger social group. Just as a member of any 'armed force' or military surrenders his/her autonomy, a cult-member may no longer act autonomously.

“Existence Precedes Essence”: How May One be Free Today?

It was Jean-Paul Sartre's slogan—“existence precedes essence”—which defined 'existentialism'. With this phrase, Sartre made the point that it may be impossible to define or describe precisely what it means to be 'human'. It was, rather, a matter that is defined in the act of living itself. The human being may be alone in this respect, the inanimate world being the result of universal 'laws of physics' or 'evolution' in which 'essential properties' seem to be fixed from without, by forces exterior to the individual. Hence, Satre's famous declaration: "A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself".

The 'Cowboy' on Facebook
Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

It Takes Courage to Leave the GOP Cult

2012-02-05T03:22:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The GOP is not a political party. It is a crime syndicate, to be sure, but also evinces characterisitcs of a kooky cult. I say that based upon my experience as a young man who got an education from 'inside the GOP'. I consulted them but stopped for reasons of conscience. I can relate to comments by John P. Judis, who chose to leave the cult.

"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery." U.S. Fascism Will Have TX Origins
--John P. Judis, quote found at Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis

The GOP --sponsored as it is by exceedingly huge corporations which now presume to be persons --is an existential threat to American Democracy. The recent decision re: corporate personhood will prove to have been the piece de resistance! Either the GOP is in the pocket of the huge corporations or it is the other way around. The distinctions are as blurred as is the term 'corporate moraltiy' --an oxymoron.

The fact is corporations are mere 'legal abstractions'; they are NOT people. The definition of 'people' may be found in biology and/or psychology textbooks; I deny that politicians, old men, liars in robes can redefine with a mere decree some several million years of evolution over which they had no control or input. Robed judges are not 'God'! They cannot --with a mere decree --change the laws of evolution and/or physics. That some on the 'court' think so is evidence of insane and myopic arrogance!

I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them. And, in truth, I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of outsourcing, union busting and "shareholder value," the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one.

--John P. Judis, quote found at Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis

That the GOP has gone too far may be good news! GOP extremes, crimes, lie and absuridties have, at last, awakened some Democrats to the danger. At the same time, some Republicans have grown uncomfortable playing Faust to to the GOP's Mephistopheles, i.e, Satan. To them --I say: too late! You may have already sold your soul! And --as they say in Hollywood: what else you got?

Eat the Rich!

The 'Cowboy' on Facebook
Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

How U.S. Elections May Violate the 14th Amendment

2012-01-27T08:36:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The ideal of 'one man, one vote' has never been achieved. If your vote does not carry the same weight as does the vote of someone else, then your rights under the 14th have been violated! For example, it is possible that a Presidential candidate could get a greater number of popular votes but, by losing a few large states, get fewer 'electoral college votes and, thus, lose the White House.

That's only one example and a more obvious one. On any given election, votes are not equal. Someone else's vote may be 'worth' more than yours or yours may be worth more than another person's. Votes are not equal. And, in some cases, some votes --perhaps your vote --may not even count.

In a democratic election between two candidates, the winner is the person with the majority of the votes. But when three or more candidates run, things are seldom so simple. The winner often amasses only a plurality, not a majority, of the votes. (Bill Clinton, for example, won the presidency with 43 percent of the vote; Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship with 37 percent.) The plurality winner could be everybody else's least favorite candidate and could even lose to each of the other candidates in a head-to-head battle. As Saari puts it: "The plurality vote is the only procedure that will elect someone who's despised by almost two thirds of the voters."

--Discover Magazine, May the Best Man Lose, November 1, 2000

The 14th says that "...no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

--U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment

The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise that "all men are created equal". But not only minorites but every person has a stake in his/her vote being counted but --even more imporantly --counting for as much as every other vote cast by every other person in the nation.

The most promising proposals include the 'System of Single Transferable Vote' (STV) proposed by Thomas Hare in England and Carl George Andrae in Denmark in the l850s. Adopted throughout the world, STV has been adopted to elect public officials, prominently in Australia, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland as well as in local school board elections in New York City.

But other systems, likewise, have their advocates. They include 'preference voting', the Borda Count, range voting et al. All have in common that they are far superior to any method now used in the United States in terms of how accurately any given election reflects the will of the people. My own 'preference', however, is the Borda count in which...

...each voter ranks all of the candidates from top to bottom. If there are, say, five candidates, then a voter's top-ranked candidate gets 5 points, his second-ranked candidate gets 4, and so on. Finally, the points from all the voters are added up to determine the winner.

--Discover Magazine, May the Best Man Lose, November 1, 2000

It is hard to see how anything could be simpler and just as hard to see how a nation which tolerates the unequal nature of elections can --with a straight-faced --claim to be democratic or fair. It is hard to see how any government formed as a result of unfair or inaccurate voting systems can claim to be legitimate.

The 'Cowboy' on Facebook
Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

AA Exposes Bush's 'Big Lie': Flight 11 DID NOT FLY on 911!

2012-01-25T03:17:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

American Airlines is the source for information that AA Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) did not fly on 911. If neither flew on 911, the Bush 'theory' is a lie. If the Bush 'theory' is a lie, there remains only one explanation and that is: 911 was an inside job given a green-light by Bush himself.

These flights are critical to the the government's crumbling cover up! Conan Doyle, the brilliant creator of the character Sherlock Holmes, said: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!" Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911 is not only impossible, it's absurd and insulting to intelligent people!

The Bush Conspiracy Theory is impossible! And it's a Lie

There is, then, probable cause to indict Bush and his co-conspirators for the crimes of mass murder and high treason. See: U. S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441. That includes every statement made by Bush.

WikiScanner discovered that it was American Airlines itself which changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on 9/11. The original entry was as follows:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

New entry [as of the date of this article] is as follows and includes the bolded text below:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.

--Wikipedia

To make the point: the source for these changes is American Airlines by making changes to Wikipedia. The 'story' is not about Wiki. The story is about a fact that is consistent with the observed fact that 1) no wreckage traceable to any airliner was ever recovered at the Pentagon. That the flight was not scheduled AND 2) that no wreckage traceable to the flight was ever found nor revealed by Bushco.

Instead, Bushco ordered the felony destruction of evidence i.e, wreckage that most certainly would have been verified and traced to a U.S. Global Hawk!

The ONLY rotor that was documented despite Bush's crime of felony destruction of evidence is evidence in itself that it was NOT an airliner that struck the Pentagon.

The story is about how 'corrections' to the official story originated with and from inside AA.

The story is about the fact that the evidence that Flights 11 and 77 were not flying on 911 comes from American Airlines itself. Just as no wreckage traceable to any 757 was ever recovered from the Pentagon, there is, likewise, no indisputable or official record that the flight --mothballed for some six months --was ever put back into service. And, if it had been, the burden of proof is upon Bushco and his league of liars to SHOW ME THE WRECKAGE!!!!

According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).

However, a discovered searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:

AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA 09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination) 22:04 (wheels-off time)

UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination) 13:44 (wheels-off time)

UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination) 23:15 (wheels-off time)
--911 Blogger, UPDATE: U.S. BTS FOIA Records For 9/11 Planes Differ From BTS Online Database [The records were obtained by Adrian Monaghan]

The question is raised: how do we know who made the changes to Wiki? Everyone logged on to the internet does so from an IP address. In this case, the IP is that of American Airlines. It's traceable.

My own WHOIS lookup as well as my Google search of the IP address proves conclusively that the change originated from American Airlines itself. That is consistent with the fact that no wreckage traceable to any 757 was ever recovered. If it had been, you can bet that the Bush administration would have put every scrap on parade. They didn't!

Therefore, the Bush theory of 911 is a deliberate lie.

My look up returned the following:

WHOIS - 144.9.8.21

Location: United States [City: Ft. Worth, Texas]

OrgName:    American Airlines Incorporated
OrgID:      AMERIC-112
Address:    P.O.Box 619616
Address:    MD 5308
City:       DFW Airport
StateProv:  TX
PostalCode: 75261
Country:    US

NetRange:   144.9.0.0 - 144.9.255.255
CIDR:       144.9.0.0/16
NetName:    AANET
NetHandle:  NET-144-9-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-144-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: DNS-P1.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P2.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P3.SABRE.COM
NameServer: DNS-P4.SABRE.COM
Comment:
RegDate:    1990-10-31
Updated:    2002-06-27

RTechHandle: OG60-ARIN
RTechName:   Gelbrich, Orf
RTechPhone:  +1-817-931-3145
RTechEmail:  ************@aa.com

OrgTechHandle: ZW72-ARIN
OrgTechName:   WARIS, ZISHAN
OrgTechPhone:  +1-817-967-1242
OrgTechEmail:  ************@aa.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-06-29 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

In previous articles, I pointed out the fact that mere scraps that were found lying around on the Pentagon lawn where quickly gathered by white shirted geeks. It was the only wreckage of any kind that was found on the Pentagon lawn. It included ONE engine compressor rotor! It was about one-third the diameter of two much larger compressor rotors that would have been left behind had a 757, indeed, ANY airliner crashed the Pentagon.

Last time I checked, the GOP had not managed to repeal the laws of physics, in this case, the law of the conservation of matter and energy. Simply, the wreckage found at the Pentagon when gathered would have weighed several tons; in other words, it would have weighed as much as a 757 minus passengers and fuel. Instead --the only wreckage gathered was carted off on the shoulders of four or five white-shirted, skinny geeks! Several tons? I don't think so.

Bottom line: NO WRECKAGE TRACEABLE TO A 757 was EVER found at the Pentagon. I do not believe that the laws of the conservation of matter and energy [See: conservation of matter and energy, M.I.T.] were repealed by Bush however much he might have wanted to do so.

SHOW ME THE WRECKAGE and TRACE IT TO A 757!!

We can expect a gang of crooks and liars to cover up their own misdeeds but to cover-up the work of an 'alleged' gang of terrorists only makes them look guilty. It makes them look guilty because the only remaining alternative is that Bushco is motivated to destroy evidence. Only those who are guilty of crimes are thus motivated. In this case, only Bushco is motivated to 1) lie about 911 2) order the destruction of evidence as he, in fact, did with respect to the Pentagon and the towers in New York; 3) try to intimidate those questioning the official lie by branding them traitors and/or subversives.

One of Many Fatal Holes in the Bush Official Conspiracy Theory

The many lies (many referenced in previous EC articles; see links below) are probable cause to begin a Federal Grand Jury investigation of George W. Bush's role in 911. Bush should be compelled by subpoena and Federal Marshals to testify under oath before an independent Federal Grand Jury. The AA revelations demand it!

911 did not happen as we have been told.

Bushco's 'official conspiracies theory' of 911 is full of holes. Flights 11 and 77 are essential ingredients in the 'official conspiracy theory' of 911. That AA claims that neither 11 nor 77 were in the air that day sinks Bush's theory. Clearly --the official theory is a lie, an intentional cover-up. Cover-ups imply guilt! Otherwise --what is there to cover up? The official 'lie' goes like this:

At 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its transponder signal, and veered northward and departed dramatically from the westward heading of its planned route. The controllers concluded that the plane had probably been hijacked. 4 5 At 8:24, the following transmission was reportedly received from Flight 11: We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay .. we are returning to the airport.
..Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet. Nobody move please we are going back to the airport .. don't try to make any stupid moves. 6
Neither of the pilots pressed the distress call button. At 8:28 controllers reportedly watched the plane make a 100-degree turn toward the south. 7 Presumably, Flight 11 continued south along the Hudson River until it reached the World Trade Center, though documentation of this is sparse given the lack of public information.
According to NORAD's September 18 timeline, the FAA did not notify NORAD of the signs that Flight 11 was hijacked until 8:40, 25 minutes after the first signs of trouble. 8
--Flight 11, The First Jet Commandeered on September 11th, 911 Research

Simply: if AA Flight 11 was not in the air, it could not have struck the towers; ergo: the Bush theory is false!

The house of cards collapses.

Assertions that Flight 11 struck the North Tower that are utterly baseless, if not a deliberate and criminal lie! If neither Flight 11 mor 77 was in the air that day, the Bush administration's version of events must be utterly discarded.

If flights 11 or 77 did not fly on 911, officialdom must come up with another explanation to explain the the events of 911.

No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever found at the Pentagon.

One would not expect to find wreckage of a flight never flown. What is significant with respect to the changes to Wiki, with respect to BTS/NTSB records is that the burden of proof is now placed upon Bushco to prove its theory. Bush et al should be compelled to prove the official theory --or face charges resulting from the probable cause that Bush himself and high ranking members of his administration participated in the crimes of mass murder and high treason!

Photos of an engine rotor appear to depict an engine used in the Global Hawk, a payload carrying missile that was, according to Britain's International Television News, flown from the US to Australia completely by remote control. "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

Britain's ITN continued:

"The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state... It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."

ITN quoted Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith: "The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."

'The Missile that Struck this Building' --Don Rumsfeld

The Global Hawk is a much better candidate for what Rumsfeld called '...the missile that struck this building' than a 757. Here's what you need to know about the Pentagon.

Only minutes after the strike, [see pic above] there is no sign of an airliner at all!!
No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever recovered.
Only ONE engine rotor (seen in photos) was recovered! This rotor is about one third the diameter of a 757 rotor, i.e about the size of a U.S. Global Hawk rotor.
A 757 has two rotors, each of which are nearly three times the size of the SINGLE rotor located at the Pentagon. Again --only one rotor was found in Pentagon debris.
Engine rotors are made of a Steel/Titanium alloy to withstand high temps inside jet engines and would have been found had they been there.
Flight 77 could not and did not crash into the Pentagon. That may be because Flt 77 had been mothballed and had not flown for some 6 months and that's according to airline records.

No Arabs Were on Board 77

If no Arabs were on board Flight 77, Bush's theory must be trashed! There is not only no evidence to support the theory that Arab terrorists hijacked 77, there is every reason to believe that none of ever got on board. There are no Arabs on the only Pentagon 'evidence' that is admissible in court: the 'Official Autopsy Report' of Pentagon victims.

The autopsy report was released to Dr. Olmsted in response to his FOIA request. In a 'neat' cover-up, a 911 memorial lists all victims of whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon. At the same time, 77 victims were said to have been buried at Arlington National Cemetery. All are Pentagon employees! Where, then, are the passengers buried? I would be very surprised to learn that there were passengers on a flight that cannot be proven to have existed.

Whatever crashed into the Pentagon was described by a witnesses as looking like a 'hump-backed whale'. Rumsfeld himself called it a missile: Below: a US Global Hawk painted to look like an AA airliner. It is both a 'missile' and it also has a hump back! It 'fills the bill'.

The photo below does not purport to be the craft that would ultimately crash into the Pentagon. It merely demonstrates how easily such a 'paint job' could dupe those who are 1) not experts on aircraft 2) saw it only for a second or less as it scooted across the Pentagon lawn as NO 757 could possibly have done 3) were, in any case, caught off guard.

Recognizing lies for what they are is a part of the process of growing up! America, it is time to grow up! It is time to confront this heinous pack of lies! It is time to insist that the Obama administration begin a REAL investigation of 911.

It is time to insist that a Federal Grand Jury investigate every count of high treason, mass murder and domestic terrorism that was perpetrated upon the people of the U.S. by the Bush administration, his collaborators in the Pentagon, K-Street, the Congress and the leadership of the Republican party, Marvin Bush's 'Securacom', Larry Silverstein who ordered WTC 7 be 'pulled', General Myers, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and, of course, George W. Bush who was, at the time, the 'Commander-in-Chief' and ultimately responsible for the orders given the US military to 'stand down'.

By Donald Rumsfeld's own admission, he was unaware of any threats to the Pentagon -- the building where he was located during the September 11th attacks -- until an aircraft crashed into the side of it, and he ran out "into the smoke" to see if it might be a "A bomb? I had no idea." (ABC News This Week, Interview 9/16/01).
Well, that's a pretty tall tale by any standard. The New York Times reported that by 8:13am, the FAA was aware of the first hijacking out of Boston. The Pentagon explosion, which Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "no idea," did not occur until approximately 9:37am, nearly an hour and a half later, this after two of the tallest buildings in the world were devastated. Note that a plane hijacked out of Boston can reach Washington D.C. as easily as it can reach New York City.
It was widely reported that Pentagon personnel were indeed aware of the threats to their security, and they took security measures on that morning. But not the "Secretary of Defense." Why should the man charged with defending the United States of America concern himself with hijacked aircraft?
There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings. In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document called: "CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A"

The video asks: "Was 911 a Conspiracy?" That is not the question. Even Bushco claims that it was a conspiracy --a conspiracy of 19 Arab Hijackers who could not possibly have pulled it off. It's a stupid theory; without the shock and awe campaign, no one would have believed it.

The questions, rather, are which conspiracy and who were the conspirators? It was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes who said that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable MUST be the truth!

ADDENDUM:

There has been a spate of fallacious comments of the form: "...uh...what happened the passengers, dude?". A few points:

the 'question' is, in fact, an implied statement and ASSUMES there were flights! It assumes there were passengers! If there were --in fact --passengers one would have expected to have found their names on the official autopsy report. One would have expected to find in the public records the time and location of their burials.
But --alas --there are NO Arab names whatsoever on the ONLY official/admissible scrap of evidence to have survived the Bush cover-up of 911! That would be the official autopsy report! There is simply no evidence of any passengers, no evidence that any flight alleged by Bush to have crashed in either NY or the Pentagon flew at all on that fateful day! In a court, it would be said that any statement with respect to 'passengers' that 'it assumes facts NOT in evidence'!
absence of evidence is not evidence in support of anything, let alone Bush's idiotic, fallacious and pernicious lie! ! The 'absence of bodies' is not evidence of a crash of any sort; only the presence of bodies traceable to the alleged flights would have been evidence in support of Bush. Alas --there were none! Ergo: Bush lied! This 'theory' is bunk and bullshit!

The only available evidence, moreover, disproves the Bushco conspiracy theory of 911. There is no evidence whatsoever that there were --at any time --any Arabs of any sort (terrorist or otherwise) on board Flight 77, a flight for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Even the Washington Post is on record having reported that Hani Hanjour could not have been on board; he did NOT have a ticket. Skinny Hanjour is said to have been very slight, perhaps less than a hundred pounds. Are we to believe he over-powered people at the gate? In any case, there is simply no evidence of that, nor was it reported, nor is it credible.

Also --among the flight information released to an professional pilots association NTSB data that proves that the cockpit door was NEVER opened during the flight. Are we to believe that Hanjour managed to walk through a closed door into the cockpit? Was he sooo skinny he was able to slide under a close cockpit door. Really! The Bush theory is not merely impossible, it's increasingly absurd, stupid and amateurish. Anyone 'duped' by this B_______ should be ashamed of themselves.

The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were "passengers" on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell "victims" bodies from "hijacker" bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.
Now, being the trusting sort, I figured that the government would want to quickly dispel any rumors so we could get on with the chore of kicking Osama/Sadaam's butt (weren't these originally two different people?). It seemed simple to me. . .produce the names of all the bodies identified by the AFIP and compare it with the publicized list of passengers. So, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the AFIP and asked for an expedited response, because we were getting ready to send our boys to war on the pretext that Osama/Saddam had done the deed. Fourteen months later, a few US soldiers dead, many Iraqi civilians pushing up daisies, and I finally get the list. Believe me that they weren't a bit happy to give it up, and I really have no idea why they choose now to release it.
foia-10003.jpg
No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airlines sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did American the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified. The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together.
--Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D., Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

Worth repeating and in summary:

the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks.

I don't wish to belabor the point but it must be made clear that unaccounted for passengers is among the biggest holes in Bush's cover story, Bush's big, treasonous lie.

If Bush cannot explain the absence of airliner wreckage or the alleged 'missing passengers', then his official theory must be discounted as a pack of malicious, treasonous lies. It was Conan Doyle's character, Sherlock Holmes, who said: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however implausible, must be the truth!" But, of course, finding, learning, revealing the truth was never on the Bushco agenda. Seizing unjustifiable war powers was!

The burden of proof is upon anyone believing and/or asserting that the alleged flights existed. A mass movement of Americans to include members of Congress should have insisted insisted that a Federal Prosecutor put Bush on the witness stand in front of a federal grand jury where the following question would be put to him: 'what was the fate of the passengers on flights 77 and 11?'

It would be very interesting to learn how he might escape the experience without being indicted for:

PERJURY
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
MASS MURDER

Concerning possible charges of 'high treason' against Bush: was it not Bush who declared that we were at war? Was it not Bush and his shills who insisted that the US attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq was in response to an 'attack' upon the US? Have not Bush partisans insisted, from the 'gitgo' that the U.S. attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq was part and parcel of the US 'war on terrorism'? That being the case, Bush's complicity in the events of 911 are most certainly acts of betrayal against a sovereign in a time of war and, therefore, high treason.

Among a growing number of links back to this article is this excellent expose of the Flight 77 fraud:

According to the official story, AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. bound for Los Angeles, with between 50 and 58 passengers. It flew west for about 45 minutes, making a curious detour to the north, west and south, before turning around and flying for another 45 minutes back to Washington. Why hijackers would allow a jet which they planned to crash into a target in Washington to fly for 45 minutes away from its target is not explained. Why did they not commandeer the plane ten minutes after takeoff when the plane was only ten minutes flying time from its intended target? The official story ignores this question, as it does all other questions.

As reported by the New York Times (International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-17, p.8), as AA 77 approached the Pentagon it executed a 270-degree 7,000-foot descent over Washington while flying at 500 mph. It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory so low that it clipped the power lines across the street then (so the story goes) it smashed into an outer wall of the Pentagon.

We were told (and, of course, expected to believe without question) that this maneuver was executed by an Arab pilot, Hani Hanjour, who in August 2001 was judged by the chief flight instructor at Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport as not having the piloting skills required to fly a Cessna 172 solo. (Is there something fishy here?)

In contrast to the attention given to the collapse of the Twin Towers, the attack on the Pentagon received little attention until in February 2002 a French website (by Thierry Meyssan) appeared which reproduced images obtained from U.S. Army websites: Hunt the Boeing! These images cast doubt upon the official story that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 jetliner. For example, here is a picture of the Pentagon crash site taken about two hours after the impact, with the fire still burning. Can you see any remains of the approximately 100 tons of metal (including engines, wings, and tail section) which makes up a Boeing 757? ...

--Pentagon Official Story Hoax

The FBI doesn't believe the 'official conspiracy theory' of 911. Why should you?

The FBI has admitted, officially, that it cannot find any 'evidence' or documentation to support popular myths that some four airliners were hijacked by terrorists and used as weapons on 911. Moreover, the FBI itself admits that "... no records would have been generated responsive to plaintiffs request for documents."

In other words, even the FBI concedes that there is no admissible, no official evidence to support Bush's lies about 911. Their investigation, says the FBI, was based upon the never questioned assumption that the said flights had been hijacked. The key word in the FBI statement is: ASSUMPTION. The FBI is overly polite. 'Assumption' by Bushco is unacceptable! But a better description of Bush and company is 'bald-faced lie' purpose of which was two-fold: 1) obstruct justice 2) protect the guilty and prevent their prosecution for the crimes of high treason and mass murder!

The Co-chairs of the 911 Commission don't believe the official theory; why should you?

Following is a reader's playlist. I recommend it.

September Clues
Or --How to Fake a Terrorist Attack with an off-the-shelf video editing suite, a sound effects library, some audio samples and an utter lack of conscience or humanity!

911: Inside Job!

Additional resources:

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Deceptive, Dubious and Dishonest Origins of Corporate Personhood

2012-01-21T07:16:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The origins of 'corporate personhood' are dubious, suspicious, crooked! 'Corporate personhood' derived from an informal note from a CLERK:

"The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There are many things wrong with this statement. For a start, the 14th states clearly that its intention is to forbid a state "...to deny to any person ...equal protection of the law." To apply this to coporations assumes that corporations are people to begin with. Logicians call this a circulus en probando fallacy i.e, a circular argument! Lawyers would say that it 'assumes facts not in evidence'! Specifically , it 'assumes' that corporations are people under the 14th and does so in order to prove that 'corporations are people'. Thus an assumption becomes the premise that 'proves' the assumption; in this case an 'assumption' that 'corporations are people'! In fact, corporations are NOT entitled to the protections of the 14th because they are not, in fact, people!

A political agenda was at work! It is in the interests of the 'corporate party' [GOP] that corporations, their benefactors, be considered people. It is in the interests of this corporate party that corporations be granted privileges which, as mere legal abstractions, they would not, do not in any way deserve or warrant! In this way, I can prove almost anything, however fallacious, however stupid, however backward.

The GOP has learned to hide their 'assumptions' among the panoply of crap that is believed by the GOP rank and file in order to feel good about themselves. In fact, this fallacy would not survive a first semester logic course at university; this fallacy would not survive a sophomore high school debate coach.

Again --the right wing is severely, endemically confused about cause and effect, about premises and conclusions. A conclusion cannot be a rationale for a premise! A conclusion may not precede a premise. "One" precedes "two" and 'causes' ---without fail --always precede their effects.

'Corporate personhood' was a desired result! One senses desperation at work. Failing authoritative sources --say --the U.S. Constitution or previous decisions of the high court, the five desperadoes, otherwise disguised as 'justices' seized upon whatever sounded good. Scalia is expert at this. His rationale for Bush v Gore, for example, was just as fallacious --a circulus en probando fallacy.

"...to count first and rule upon legality afterwards is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires."
--Antonin Scalia, CNN Transcripts, December 11, 2000, Supreme Court Bush v. Gore

The effect was simply this: the re-count was halted while Bush was still ahead! If this fallacy, which in fact works backward from a foregone conclusion, is the basis for SCOTUS's 'corporate personhood' decree then we must conclude that valid opinions of and by real jurists and past courts, several hundred years of jurisprudential traditions dating back to MAGNA CARTA mean nothing to Scalia! In better times, Scalia would have been called out, challenged, tarred, perhaps feathered, made to squawk while flapping his flabby arms.

Five republicans on SCOTUS have nothing but contempt for the concept of 'equal protection under the law' guaranteed to all citizens via the 14th Amendment'. They are contemptuous of the Bill of Rights in general.

‎"Of the cases in this court in which the 14th Amendment was applied during its first fifty years after its adoption, less than one half of one percent invoked it in protection of the Negro race, and more than fifty percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations"

---Justice Hugo Black 1938*

The Fourteenth Amendment was one of three amendments to the Constitution adopted after the Civil War to guarantee black rights. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, the Fourteenth granted citizenship to people once enslaved, and the Fifteenth guaranteed black men the right to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed by Congress in June 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868. The Radical Republicans had been battling with Andrew Johnson for control of Reconstruction. Johnson was in favor of leaving the future of black people in the hands of white Southerners.

The Radical Republicans disagreed, and they won. The amendment was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States and prohibiting states from denying or abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S., depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ("No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") With the exception of Tennessee, the Southern states refused to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. The Republicans then passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which set the conditions the Southern states had to accept before they could be readmitted to the union, including ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Since Reconstruction, the Fourteenth Amendment -- especially the equal protection clause -- has been applied to a number of cases. It emerged in the famous Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka when the United States Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment as one of its rationales for declaring school segregation unconstitutional.

--Why the progress made by blacks during Reconstruction was seen as a threat by whites, Richard Wormser

In 1971, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Reed v. Reed. Sally Reed had sued when Idaho law presumed that her estranged husband should be automatically selected as executor of the estate of their son, who had died without naming an executor. The Idaho law stated that "males must be preferred to females" in choosing estate administrators.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did prohibit such unequal treatment on the basis of sex -- the first US Supreme Court decision to apply the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause to gender or sexual distinctions. Later cases have refined the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to sex discrimination, but it was more than 100 years after passage of the Fourteenth Amendment before it was applied to women's rights.
--Jone Johnson Lewis, Women's Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment - Finally Applied, Reed v. Reed and Roe v. Wade, Findlaw

The 'Cowboy' on Facebook

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Support the Proposed Amendment that Would ABOLISH 'Corporate Personhood'

2012-01-14T03:33:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I fully support a movement to enact a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that rejects and will undo the recent SCOTUS decision 'creating people' of mere 'legal abstractions'. The idea that corporations ---mere legal abstractions --are people is insidious and endangers American Democracy. While 'real people' are held to the letter of the law and often imprisoned for wrong doing, the very purpose of 'corporate personhood' has had the effect, in practice, of placing 'corporations' above-the-law.

A proposed amendment would reverse the decision of the high court with respect to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-to-4 vote, SCOTUS 'created' real people of mere corporations declaring that corporations have, among every Constitutional right, a right of 'free speech' under the First Amendment. It was declared that the government may not 'impose restrictions' on the political speech that corporations may indulge. As a result, corporations and other special interest groups are now given license to spend "unlimited amounts of money on elections." It was a green light to corporations: buy and/or support any candidate with as much money as you want to spend! The decision could not have been a bigger afront to Democracy, i.e, government of the people. Free speech is a right of people as affirmed by our founders. That corporations may now claim that right is simply fascism. Pure and simple!

The ORIGIN of 'corporate personhood' is found in an informal note from a CLERK: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Prior to this mere clerk's mere note, NO ONE had believed that the 14th amendment applied to anyone but real people. Nor does it now! Scalia's court blew it again! If Scalia had a last remaining vestige of conscience, he would confess that he 1) blew it; 2) admit that he is a bought and paid for tool; 3) RESIGN!

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

The New Age of 'Elites', 'Robber Barons' and 'Social Darwinists'

2012-01-04T02:33:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Darwinism is correct. Social Darwinism is utter bunkum. Not surprisingly, the American right-wing despises Darwinism but, inexplicably, embraces Social Darwinism with messianic ferver.

Social Darwinism is at the very root of an impending economic collapse but it won't be the best or brightest who emerge unscathed on the other side! Social Darwinism is the survival of the most ruthless. Real Darwinism is reviled because it disproves the lies the rich tell themselves to help them sleep at night.

The right wing benefits when issues are obscured and when enough dust is kicked up by "intelligent design" to obscure the real issues and various strawmen to boot.

Simply, Social Darwinism does not follow from "Darwinism" and, worse, it attributes to Darwin positions he never took. The term "survival of the fittest" was never used by Darwin. It has been variously attributed, but Hofstadter traces the phrase to 19th Century American robber barons, rail road men making fortunes connecting one coast with another.

Railroad executive Chauncy Depew asserted that the guests of the great dinners and public banquets of New York City represented the survival of the fittest of all who came in search of fortune. They were the ones with superior abilities. Likewise railroad magnate James J. Hill defended the railroad companies by saying their fortunes were determined according to the law of survival of the fittest.
—Hofstadter, Richard; 1959; Social Darwinism in American Thought, Braziller; New York.

These were most certainly the 'robber barons' who wished to be photographed wearing laurel wreaths, pretending to be emperors.

Elsewhere, the term is attributed to Herbert Spencer who inspired a generation of radicalized, latter-day robber barons. Few of them evinced the "...quality of mercy" so immortalized with but a few words by Shakespeare --'The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven". By contrast ...

[Herbert] Spencer said that diseases "are among the penalties Nature has attached to ignorance and imbecility, and should not, therefore, be tampered with." He even faulted private organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because they encouraged legislation.
—Social Darwinism and American Laissez-faire Capitalism

A fallacious corollary to "Social Darwinism" is often phrased this way: the rich are rich because they are better, work harder and are more intelligent. George W. Bush put it more crudely: “The poor are poor because they are lazy!” So --why was Bush Jr not poor?

In the same vein, the conservative economist Joseph A. Schumpeter likened recessions to a "cold douche". One wonders: who is "douched" and how? More importantly: who decides who gets 'douched'? Who decided that New Orleans would be left to its fate and the goons of Blackwater?

Currently, the nation faces economic calamity. However fallaciously, you can be sure that the right wing will not only benefit from the misfortunes of millions, they will try to figure out a way to blame them. It's the right wing way. But it's wrong!

Spencer believed that because society was evolving, government intervention ought to be minimal in social and political life. It didn't matter to Spencer that government is but a function, indeed, a creation of society and responsible to it. Seen in that light, efforts by privilege to blame the poor for their own rapacious and often dishonest or incompetent behaviors are absurd. Nevertheless, American capitalism remains greatly influenced by Spencer. The 'model' is still found in textbooks for Economics 101. It describes an ideal of American capitalism --“rational man” making rational decisions in a free and --presumably --rational market. But, in practice, economic decisions may or may not be rational and the free market exists only hypothetically. The market has been anything but rational.

Because the 'theories' of Spencer and, earlier, Adam Smith, often stress the 'practical', it is forgotten that Spencer and Smith were, themselves, 'theorists'. Every model we make of the world of sense experience is 'theoretical' by definition. The word "theory" is either misunderstood by the right wing or deliberately perverted for the propaganda value.

The word 'theory' is wrongly used as a pejorative. The right wing is inconsistent. 'Theories' from Spencer and, more recently, Milton Friedman or Arthur Laffer are are conveniently ignored or praised while 'theories' from everyone else are 'mere theory'. Last time I checked, 'right wing theories' were still 'theories' though most often and in reality they are simply frauds, lies, scams and 'white collar heists'.

Having waged war on the word "theory", the right wing likes to couple it with another word similarly victimized by right wing propaganda. That word is "conspiracy" --a perfectly good word, in fact, a legal term about which there is a venerable body of case law, thousands of SCOTUS decisions and some 400 years of common law. See: Findlaw or Cornell University Law Library online. Given techniques perfected by Herr Goebbels for Adolph Hitler, the combination of "conspiracy" and "theory" is lethal. The loss of these words to an adult vocabulary cripples the thought process itself, indeed, intellectual endeavor of any sort.

It must be noted that every great scientist was or is a theorist. Einstein was a "theorist" and so was Newton, so too Darwin. So, too, Watson and Crick. Too much is made of 'right' and 'wrong'. It is a mistake to conclude, for example, that Einstein 'replaced' Newton. In fact, Einstein rests upon Newton's shoulders. Einstein is Newton from another angle. Einstein may be thought of as the hypothesis that Newton himself refused to make. [See: The Man Who Changed the Universe] Einstein does not refute Newton, he enlarges upon both Newton and Galileo. Galileo's equations describing the acceleration of falling bodies describes the very curvature of space-time.

Einstein has been confirmed no more times than Darwin; Newton is close enough for mundane applications or "government work" and Einstein will one day help us navigate the galaxy. Significantly, neither "theory" has been challenged in court —though both theories may very well be replaced one day by a "theory of everything", a TOE.

Only theories not liked by the right wing wind up in court, an absurd place to settle questions of science in any case. Law courts are inadequate to decide questions better resolved by observation and experiment, not rhetoric or case law. See: Darrow, Darwin & Dayton, the video at the end of this article.

There is a political agenda and a constituency behind the campaign of attacks on Darwinism. This constituency supports Intelligent Design for the same reasons the great rail road robber barons found support in the work of Herbert Spencer. The continued economic superiority of an entire class depends upon the widespread public acceptance of religious and/or ideological views which justify the existence of 'superior status'. Hitler, likewise, found in pseudo-science and mythology much justification for his anti-semitic crusades, his campaign of genocides, his wars of naked aggression.

Theories are often never of a final form —nor should they be! Unlike ideology, real science is self-correcting as new facts emerge from research. Darwin's theories were not only confirmed by Mendel, they accommodated Mendel which, in turn, strengthened Darwin. The science of genetics and the discovery of "mutations" confirm Darwin beyond any reasonable doubt. Every cowboy knows the truth of Darwin if he's never heard of him: "Never kill a slow roach; you just improve the breed!" As succinct a description of natural selection as I've ever heard. Likewise, every farmer who has bred for specific traits knows the truth of Darwin.

Future discoveries, like those of Mendel, may modify our views of Darwin, but will not discount them. Our view of Einstein is already modified but he is confirmed in many ways, notably at Alamogordo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Light, indeed, bends around stars and other 'gravity lenses', time slows at near light speeds, space-time is a four dimensional continuum. More to the point, no one has ever sued because Einstein's theories were odds with a particular dogma or a political agenda. The right wing's disingenuous position is analogous to that of the Pope who forced Galileo to recant. I was critical of Ron Paul because his economic thinking was stuck in the 19th Century. The right wing generally, however, is stuck in the 17th.

It is certain that no future discovery will confirm "intelligent design", meaningless word play beyond any confirmation of any kind! Theories explain "facts" but facts can often confirm good theories as "fact”, just as facts have tended to confirm both Darwin and Einstein. By definition, doggerel is beyond confirmation of any kind. A.J. Ayer defined 'meaning' itself as that property of a 'sentence' that makes it subject to empirical confirmation. The theoretical core of ID is not meaningful and most certainly not of a type that would have been recognized by the philosophers upon whom Western Civilization is based.

Intelligent design is of a religious nature and people have a right to believe it. Treating Intelligent design as science is dishonest. As science, ID raises more questions than it explains. Most obviously: who designed the designer? ID assumes a designer to 'explain' creation but cites 'creation' to prove the existence of a designer. This is the classic circulus en probando fallacy.

People are free to believe fallacies, but they must not be free to impose them upon other people —especially at tax payer expense! A fact, for example, is the equation describing the acceleration of falling objects; examples of theory are both the Newtonian and the Einsteinian view of "gravitation" —seen differently by both. The entire science of genetics confirms Darwin who, interestingly, did not have the benefit of Mendel's research when he wrote Origin of the Species and the The Descent of Man. It was Mendel's research that described the very mechanism by which Darwin’s “traits” are passed on to succeeding generations. Accurate predictions are, in themselves, evidence in support of theories. [See: Evolution in Action, Julian Huxley]

Critics of Darwin have said that no one has yet produced an entirely new specie by selection. But they have indeed done just that! Consider wheat! Wheat does not grow in the wild. Related to ancient grasses, wheat is clearly the result of an ancient application of "artificial selection." Had wheat evolved naturally, it would be found growing wild like prairie grass. But it didn't and isn't.

Social Darwinism has harmed mankind. It rationalizes and justifies the perpetual and deliberate impoverishment of large segments of our society. The GOP will support this as a matter of policy so long as someone like Ronald Reagan can, nevertheless, make them "feel good about themselves". It is bad enough that this callous disregard for human life is fallaciously and insidiously associated with Darwin. That it is also a bald-face lie, a misstatement of Darwin, is unconscionable. We have thus reduced the philosophical basis for the American right wing to a single line from one of the world's great writers, Charles Dickens, whose character, Scrooge, epitomizes the American right wing

"Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons...then let them die and decrease the surplus population."
—Scrooge, A Christmas Carol

Darwin, Darrow and Dayton

Frankenstein

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Why the U.S. is No Longer a Productive Nation

2011-12-20T05:32:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The decline of the U.S. as a net exporting nation is the inevitable result of the growing, yawning gulf between rich and poor. A nation cannot be productive if it has failed to invest its wealth in the creation of jobs.

It is, at last, 'labor' which creates wealth to begin with. Since Adam Smith wrote 'The Wealth of Nations', every major economist --right or left --has espoused a 'labor theory of value', i.e, 'value' (wealth) is created by labor and is the result of labor. A nation in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a ruling elite of just 1 percent cannot be productive or efficient. Today --the U.S. is literally owned by China which occupies the No 1 position on the CIA's World Fact Book with the world's largest POSITIVE Current Acct Balance. The U.S. is on the very bottom of that list with the World's largest NEGATIVE Current Account Balance, formerly called the Balance of Trade Deficit.

To make this clear --China makes its living by manufacturing and selling that product to the United States. The U.S., by contrast, is on bottom because U.S. manufacturing of cars, appliances, electronics et al no longer competes. Entire industries have ceased to exist in America. Detroit is a specimen to be studied.

An aside: the right wing recently tried to blame 'Muslims' for the fall of Detroit. Total BS! Muslims had no more to do with the fall of Detroit than did Christians the fall of Rome. The fall of Detroit is the result of stupid/incompetent policies put into effect by Ronald Reagan and his idiot disciple ---George H.W. Bush. It was under Reagan, that the long and depressing decline of America began.

The vast gulf between rich and poor in America is a fairly recent development, a product of the 'robber baron' era. Even so --FDR reversed those trends and the official stats prove it. The Great Depression had been both the result and the symptom of absurd inequities associated with and caused by the era of Robber Barons. It was preceded by three very conservative, very Republican administrations --Coolidge, Harding and Hoover.

An expanding economy, that is, an economy that creates wealth and jobs requires a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. Otherwise --to whom will manufacturers sell? A prosperous middle class is absolutely essential to 1) GDP growth 2) retail sales. An impoverished population will buy increasingly fewer luxury items; an impoverished population will struggle to maintain the very basics --food and shelter.

A nation in which just 1 percent owns more than the remaining 99 percent is an economy on the very brink of collapse. It has happened many times in the past. The best example is Rome. Like the U.S. today, Rome was a teeming city of the very, very poor. Many were refugees from nations that had been conquered by Rome. Like the U.S. today, the currency of Rome --the sesterces --was essentially worthless, a mere 'token' that would admit you to the Gladiator 'games' in the Coliseum.

By impoverishing the U.S. middle class, the GOP capitulated to China which found --in GOP America --a market for its cheap crap. The PRICE of that 'crap' is not found on the label or the check out counter. It is found in the GOP destruction of the American labor movement, American productivity, the American 'standard of living', and, of course, our very futures.

The GOP is NOT a political party. It is a coven of kooky cultists who sold us ALL out to China and the Military-Industrial Complex which orchestrates our LAST REMAINING EXPORTS ---death and destruction.

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

U.S. to Prosecute a Man for Daring to Advocate the Defense of His Own Country!

2011-12-14T04:00:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The United States presumes to prosecute an Iraqi citizen for 'terrorism' when, in fact, all the young man had said pertained to the defense of his country by a foreign power --US!

I maintain that everyone has a right to defend their country against any and every invasion of that soverign nation by a foreign invader. That applies to invasions that are themselves violations of international law, invasions that are themselves more correctly described as:

INTERNATIONAL STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM!

This is the law that the U.S. --George W. Bush primarily --violated when it invaded Iraq though Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 911.

§ 2441. WAR CRIMES

Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

That a nation may not invade another unless attacked is an established principle of international law. If principle is not recognized in the United States it ought to be. In fact, to the extent that the U.S. flouts its own committments, its own laws and, indeed, every International commitment or principle that the United States has --historically --insisted upon, it is a hypocrite.

This is what the young man said and this is why the U.S. is lying about him and calling him a 'terrorist':

"...if an enemy comes inside your country...everyone has to stand up and fight, there should not be anyone left out.."

There is NOTHING seditious in that! The U.S. has NO RIGHT to prosecute this man as a 'terrorist' for advocating the DEFENSE of his country. William Pitt said the same thing much, much earlier in the Houses of Parliament:

"You cannot, I venture to say it, you CANNOT conquer America...As to conquest, therefore, my Lords, I repeat, it is impossible. You may swell every expense, and every effort, still more extravagantly; pile and accumulate every assistance you can buy or borrow; traffic and barter with every little pitiful German Prince, that sells and sends his subjects to the shambles of a foreign country; your efforts are for ever vain and impotent—doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely; for it irritates, to an incurable resentment, the minds of your enemies—to overrun them with the sordid sons of rapine and plunder; devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty! If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms, never! never! never!"

--William Pitt, Speech in the House of Lords

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

A Revolutionary Agenda

2011-11-29T04:38:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Why has the right wing apparently succeeded in stacking SCOTUS with 5 justices who have in common their disdain for the work of our founders? They succeeded for several reasons:

the media, concentrated in very few corporate hands, demands 'free speech' but only for themselves;
the corporate community is interested in their privileges but disdain YOUR rights;
education is neglected and most notably in those states 'occupied' by the GOP.

Texas is a case in point. Prior to the arrival of the Bush crime family, one could get a good education in Texas. I would like to think that I am but one of millions who are the living proof of it. Bush/Perry, however, were more interested in the profits that 'private education' might make if declining test scores in the public systems were ignored. The 'private schools' are profitable but serve the ruling elite. Everyone else is expected to resort to crime and thus fill the gulag of corporate-owned prisons.

Recently, Karl Rove 'demanded' to know who gave us the right to occupy our country! Rove has apparently never heard of the Bill of Rights. I will be happy to educate Rove. In fact the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution does not 'give' or 'grant' those rights; it merely affirms the rights that all of us enjoy by common law.

I suggest Karl Rove read John Locke for a start. By 'common law' we have the right to speak, dissent, protest, criticize and, in every other non-violent manner, hold every politician --from elected dog catcher to President --accountable to US!!

Though he was not a 'founder' in that he was not among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Thomas Jefferson wrote of the right of people to abolish tyrannies, the right to abolish those governments failing to uphold their end of a 'social contract', a 'convenent' between government and people. Governments failing those responsibilities are in 'breach of contract', the 'social contract' which is, in fact, its only source of legitimacy.

Every philosopher who is connected in any way with what is called the 'englightenment' has held that when the 'government' i.e, the 'hired hands' who run it from day-to-day violate the terms of this 'social contract', it is the right of the people to 'abolish it. To wit:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

--The Declaration of Independence [authored by Thomas Jefferson; bolding mine, LH]

The nimrods in Washington D.C. to include all of K-street, the gang of lobbyists as well as paid liars like Karl Rove and numerous 'elected' representatives should go back to school. I suggest that their first course be entitled: HUMILITY with various lessons to include:

public service
the sovereignty of the people
the enumerated responsibilities of government to its sovereign

The people are the final jurors. We, the people, are tasked with deciding whether a particular government shall remain or be replaced. Jefferson and the founders as well believed that that was our right! I have, at this point, given up on a corrupt establishment, controlled as it is by the ruling elite of just 1 percent of the population. I have given up on the 'community' of 'legal abstractions' called 'corporations'! Enough! It is time that the people be heard! A new broom sweeps clean. All things must pass!

The time is near, perhaps arrived, when the people must re-establish as matters of law that:

the people are sovereign;
that whenever any 'government' has failed its duties and responsibilities to the people it is the RIGHT of the people to abolish it;
that any new government inherits, therefore, a legal and ironclad responsibility not to tolerate the rights of the people but to preserve, protect and defend them actively against all subversive attempts at home or abroad.

Our so-called 'government' --at least since Ronald Reagan --has failed the people. The Constitution is paid lip service. The Bill of Rights is reviled. The needs of the people are ignored. The environment is considered the preserve of corporations. Corporations are given 'rights' though they are not and never will be people. The coming revolution has a long list of wrongs to be undone and crimes to be punished.

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

The GOP is Not a Political Party; It's a Crime Syndicate and Kooky Cult

2011-11-16T03:49:00.000-08:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The International Cultic Studies Association lists the defining characteristics of a 'cult'. I fully agree with the 'list' and also the assertion that the GOP meets most of several atttributes, perhaps all characteristics that define the word 'cult'.

Here is the list as 'published':

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, [torture,] lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

It has always been my belief --stated often on this blog, FB, 'The Opinion', NPR, and various other forums on the internet --that the GOP is not a political party. Rather, it has characteristics of kooky cults and an organized crime syndicates.

Someone posted recently that the two parties (Dems and Gops) are indistinguisable from one another. That's just not true and, if the media had done its job, that pernicious meme might not have taken root as it most certainly has! Clearly --it was the GOP which planted it and only the GOP has benefited from it.

The occupation movement has targeted the 'ruling elite' of just one percent! That they are a 'ruling elite' and that they amount to no more than one percent of the total population is the obvious result of GOP policies favoring their base and their base is, in fact, the increasingly tiny but powerful ruling elite.

I have many issues with the Democratic party but being GOP-lite is not one of them. For all their faults, 'being as bad as the GOP' is NOT among them. I can cite three essential and defining characteristics that distinguish Democrats from the cult of GOPism:

EVERY Dem has presided over greater GDP and JOB GROWTH than has ANY Republican Prez since 1900;
EVERY GOP 'tax cut' has been followed by a recession/depression.
EVERY GOP TAX CUT has resulted in the transfer of wealth UPWARD to a 'ruling elite' which is now just ONE PERCENT of the total population.

Those fact are at the core of the Occupation Movement! A corollary is this: EVERY recession/depression since 1900 has occurred during a GOP administration and as a result of GOP policy.

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Rick Perry's Latest 'Enrich the rich' Plan!

2011-11-02T10:46:00.000-07:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Texas Gov. Rick Perry unveiled his 'tax and spend' plan, officially called his “cut, balance and grow” plan. It is more properly the CUT TAXES for the ruling elite; balance if you can walk a tight rope between poverty on one side and rabid republican reptillians on the other; grow tough and smart or die!"

Rich Perry's 'plan' is just another GOP give-away to the ruling elite which has already CREATED the ruling elite of just 1 percent of the total population --a situtation not unlike that of the U.S. just prior to the crash of '29 and the resulting Great Depression!

The GOP has gotten away with this fraud only because the American educational system has failed to educate people. A flat tax may sound fair but is not! Anyone NOT a member of the ruling elite spends a a much, much larger proportion of their incomes just maintaining a roof over a family and the food to feed them. The poorer they are the larger that percentage.

The ruling elites, by contrast, spend less and less as a percentage of either total wealth or total income on the basic necessities --food, shelter, commuting, et al. In many cases, elites may choose to make of a necessity a luxury.

The best example of this is education where, in Texas, the rich have chosen to marginalize public education. Last time I checked, Texas --under Bush-Perry --had fallen to dead last in high school graduations, beating out the likes of Mississippi or evolution-deniers like Kansas et al.

The elites, for example, need not spend substantially more on mere subsistence which is but a very, very tiny percentage of their total income and wealth! It's a curve! Therefore, any flat tax is unfair to anyone who is not very, very, very rich! A flat tax for the poor means that he/she pays much, much more as a percentage of his after tax income for essentials (housing, food) as do the very, very, very rich who pay the same 'flat percentage' but exponentially decreasing percentages of income for many of the same items purchased by everyone else.

A Flat Tax, therefore, is not really flat because it represents a huge increase in the burden placed upon anyone not a member of the ruling elite!

Rick Perry is either a crook or a moron or both! But he differs very little from every other GOP to have ever hatched from a pod!

Perry is making it all up as he goes. It was not so long ago that Perry attacked Social Security. Now --he claims to have a 'plan' (unfortunately, he has announced no imminent plan to just STFU) Now, Perry not only promises to repeal Obama’s health care plan, he says his plan will stop the “raiding” of the Social Security Trust Fund and allow younger generations to set up personal retirement accounts. He has flip-flopped on Social Security.

In a word, Perry reads the polls and makes the 'necessary' adjustments. He is completely unprincipled and utterly clueless.

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

CIA Criminal Revolving Door

2011-11-01T13:41:00.000-07:00

by Kevin Fenton

CIA Criminal Revolving Door: CIA Criminal Revolving Door: CIA Officer "Albert" Involved in False Intelligence Linking Al-Qaeda to Iran, Iraq

Reprimanded for Torture, Retired, then Back to CIA as a Contractor. A recent book by former FBI agent Ali Soufan shows that the same CIA officer was involved in generating intelligence that falsely linked al-Qaeda to first Iran and then Iraq. The officer was also involved in a notorious torture episode and was reprimanded by the Agency's inspector general.

The officer, who Soufan refers to as "Fred," but whose real first name is "Albert" according to a February 2011 Associated Press article, served at the CIA station in Jordan in 1999. During that time, al-Qaeda, aided by a collection of freelance terrorists headed by Abu Zubaidah, attempted to commit a series of attacks in the country, known as the Millennium Plot. However, the attacks were foiled by the local Jordanian intelligence service, working with the CIA and FBI.

During the investigations of the plotters, Albert drafted a series of official cables that were later withdrawn. Although the withdrawing of the cables was first mentioned in a July 2006 article by Lawrence Wright for the New Yorker, Wright did not mention what was in the cables or by whom they were drafted. The content of one of them and the drafter were first revealed upon the publication of Soufan's book in mid-September 2011.

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Is an Elite Feudal Society Preordained?

2011-11-01T13:33:00.000-07:00

Is an Elite Feudal Society Preordained?: Monday, October 31, 2011by Staff Report, TheDailyBell.com

From source article:

And in fact, there are a handful of banking families, including the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who have come to dominate economic and political affairs in the Western world. Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile -- it flows to where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China.

-- Richard K. Moore/New Dawn Magazine/Global Research

Dominant Social Theme: The elites are a bunch of corporations and greedy capitalists. What banking families? They're never mentioned in the mainstream media, are they? So how can they exist?

Free-Market Analysis: This is an excellent article in our view, perhaps because we agree with most of it -- though at the end of this analysis we will present some important ways in which we DISAGREE.

Nonetheless, it's "our" paradigm in some ways, presented eloquently by Richard K Moore, "an expatriate from Silicon Valley, [who] retired and moved to Ireland in 1994 to begin his 'real work' -- trying to understand how the world works, and how we can make it better."

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

How the Ruling Elite of ONE Percent Enslaved Americans

2011-10-29T09:23:00.000-07:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Despite right wing lies and distortions, it was Adam Smith --a 'conservative' --who espoused a LABOR THEORY of VALUE not unlike that of KARL MARX who is a favorite target of wingnuts and morons. We should not be surprised that a 'class' that supported Ronald Reagan et al would revere Smith while demonizing Marx. Not surprisingly, the GOP have completely misunderstood Smith. Smith and Marx both subscribed to a 'Labor Theory of Value'.

Here's what the conserative's 'darling' (Smith) had to say asbout the Labor Theory of Value:

"The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people.

--Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V

In other words, what would it cost a person who wished to have a ditch if he were required to dig it himself? What would it cost a person who wished to furnish his home with chairs, a sofa, et al if he were required to make them himself? What is the value of any commodity but the cost that would be incurred should it be necessary to hire the labor to do it?

Being Forced to Work for Someone for Free is Called 'Slavery'

But having to work for a 'ruling elite' which conspires to suppress the value of labor is, at the very least, a form of slavery itself. When an elite controls the means of production and distribution and --at the same time and in various ways --depresses wages and worker rights, the effect is indistinguishable from slavery.

Adam Smith clearly states that the value of a 'thing' produced is equal to the 'toil and trouble' that, say, a capitalist might have expended himself had he not hired someone to do it for him. Or --had he not enslaved someone to do it! Or --had he not depressed wages to do it! Ergo: those who enrich themselves, claiming for themselves all profits as well as special and/or unfair taxation or --worse--NO taxation whatsoever for themselves are, in effect, demanding that others work for them for free.

Plantation owners were expert at this scam. Cotton was, what we would call today, 'labor intensive'. It most certainly would never have been profitable had plantation owners been required to pay laborers their true worth. Were it not for slavery, the antebellum south could not have made a living. Cotton was a source of great riches but only if it could be picked, ginned, and sent to market. It was slave labor that made possible a class called: Southern Aristocracy.

In a modern, industrial society the only way to address the PRIVILEGES that 'capital' now claims for itself is by TAXING them fairly. After all, there is NO production without labor of any sort. A society in which just 1 percent alone has benefited form the labors of millions is a one-legged man and will fall! We are witnessing that fall right now.

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Why the GOP is a Problem, NOT a Solution!

2011-10-16T05:41:00.000-07:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The occupation of Wall Street is driven and inspired by a single over-arching fact: just ONE percent of the nation owns more than the rest of us combined and, secondly, that outcome is the result of GOP tax cuts, most prominently those of R. Reagan's cut of 1982 benefiting only the upper classes, specifically, the 'ruling elite' of just 1 percent!

The GOP owns this outcome and should accept responsibility for it. Instead, the GOP can be depended upon to press for more tax cuts, more preferential treatment and bogus economic 'theories' like supply-side economics better know by the derisive description: trickle-down theory.

Now --the above is the context in which every other outcome must be considered: every Democratic regime since 1900 has presided over greater JOB and GDP growth than has ANY GOP regime. This is especially apparent in the post-Reagan era where it is easy to find the official stats that rank post-WWII Presidents in terms of job creation and GDP growth.

Progressives Should 'infiltrate' the Democratic Party!

The GOP are economically incompetent. Now --if they should wish to change their stripes and eschew, repudiate the crime syndicate of which they have been a part --FINE! Let them confess their sins against a vast majority of Americans, that segment of the population which labors and by doing so produces wealth, wealth that has in fact 'trickled up' during the GOP regimes of R. Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr.

If you don't like the Democratic party --infiltrate it and urge everyone you know to infiltrate it. That's called 'grassroots' organizing. We don't have a lot of time and the Democrats already have an infrastructure in place. There is no time to create a viable separate party. Eventually, when it is successful, the 'occupation movement' will be absorbed and, hopefully, it's ideals will be affirmed by an established mainstream party and, eventually, made official policy. At that point, we will have won!

ORGANIZE!

Read SAUL ALINSKY, a 'left leaning, liberal' and organizer who scared the pants off the GOP! They were so frightened of him that they adopted his policies and used them against us! Now --who is to blame for that but the 'sunshine liberal' who decides to just sit on his ass and gripe because the world does not measure up to his unrealistic expectations?

Alinsky urged that REAL activists organize block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state!

FIRST -- take back the Democratic party by taking back the neighborhoods

SECONDLY --organize the neighborhoods to take back the party machines for progressives and/or liberals

THIRD --having taken back the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, you organize at the state level to get out the fucking vote.

Now --if liberals/progressives are not willing to read Alinsky (the GOP has) or if liberals/progressives are not willing to work to reform the only party that has a realistic chance given the odds against them, given the unfair 'statistical weighting' that results from endless, boring primaries and other roadblocks, hurdles and obstructions, then there is really nothing more that I can say!

The GOP are either CROOKED or INCOMPETENT!

The GOP is a top down party of psychopathic authoritarians dividing themselves into 'fuhrers' and followers of 'der fuhrer'! The rank and file believe what they believe because it assuages their feelings of fear and guilt. Stanford University conducted and published clinical studies of the fact that the GOP inclined have more nightmares, night-terrors than do normal people.

The transfer of wealth upward is deliberate. It’s how the ‘pay-offs’ are laundered. Clinton reversed the trend but briefly. That he dared get a blow job was much more important than saving a nation from a disastrous fate. In fact, it was all the GOP could pin on him, though he was under a sweeping investigation seemingly from the get go. An investigation in search of real crimes and, finding none, invented the ‘felony blow job’.

Someone said that Satan’s biggest ‘trick’ was convincing the world that he did not exist. The GOP’s biggest trick is convincing the American people that they are not a kooky cult of crooks, liars and elitists but a real 'political party'. The GOP has had such success with this ploy, I am surprised the MOB didn't try it! But the GOP is not a real political party; it has characteristics of kooky cults and other traits more closely identified with crime syndicates and/or gangs.

It is entirely understandable that the GOP rank and file would have nightmares and night-terrors! It's because the GOP rank and file are insecure, frightened, terrified. They want you to be as well. Nightmares are but dream manifestations of fears and anxieties. Normal people deal with their fears and anxieties. But --the GOP has outdone them all. They have built-up an entire party around fears, anxieties, phobias, prejudices, hate of various kinds, prejudice, bigotry and ordinary garden-variety crookedness and dishonesty.

The WALL ST occupation is a big tent but should NEVER be big enough to tolerate the watering-down of its message: A SOCIETY that has created, tolerated or --worse --ENCOURAGED a ruling 1 percent is a sick society. Now --we would call a doctor a QUACK should he tell you to just keep on doing whatever it is that's making you sick.

Cops Resort to Form on Wall St; They Represent 'da man!'!

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

How the Ruling Elite of 1 percent Became the 'Ruling' Elite and What to do About it!

2011-10-13T05:39:00.000-07:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The Obama admin should re-read Keynes! The GOP has practiced a policy that is 180 degrees out of phase with Keynes and, as a result, an increasingly tiny elite of just 1 percent owns it all! Millionaires, BILLIONAIRES who invest their 'tax cut windfalls' have never, ever stimulated the economy; NO GOP tax cut has ever created a single job let alone stimulated an economy.

The fact is: in every instance, every GOP tax cut has been followed by a recession/depression and higher unemployment accompanied, most often, by negative job growth and negative GDP growth. In numerous previous articles, I have posted the official stats, the government's own stats that prove that! The Keynesian solution is NOT the GOP solution. And the GOP 'solution' is NOT a solution but may be a calculated lie!

The Keynesian solution would put monies into the hands of those will will use it, spend in ways that stimulate the economy. That this outcome has never followed a GOP tax cut tells me that the ruling 1 percent --which alone benefit from GOP tax cuts --are not investing in the U.S. Rather, they are squirreling away their riches in offshore bank accounts, tax dodges, i.e, 'instruments' which do not and have never created jobs in the U.S. In fact, the opposite has occurred.

An individual who repeats a failed strategy is correctly called a moron! What is to be said of an entire nation which is repeatedly duped by the GOP again and again and again? The GOP record is both a fraud and a tragedy and the American people have paid dearly for it.

The Occupy Wall Street protests are shining a national spotlight on the most powerful, dangerous, and secretive economic and political force in America.

If this country is to break out of the horrendous recession and create the millions of jobs we desperately need, if we are going to create a modicum of financial stability for the future, there is no question but that the American people are going to have to take a very hard look at Wall Street and demand fundamental reforms. I hope these protests are the beginning of that process.

Let us never forget that as a result of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country was plunged into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, and life savings as the middle class underwent an unprecedented collapse. Sadly, despite all the suffering caused by Wall Street, there is no reason to believe that the major financial institutions have changed their ways, or that future financial disasters and bailouts will not happen again.
--Senator Bernie Sanders: Six Proposals for Helping the 99%, Buzzflash

I tire of the line that reads: 'there are no differences' between the parties'! That's simply not true. The GOP would love for you to fall for it! There are many differences but the economic differences are most easily identified and graphed. Whatever your differences with the Democratic party, not voting is simply not an option given the rapacious and destructive policies of the GOP. Not voting concedes the nation to right wing ideologues, i.,e the ruling elite of just 1 percent of the total population.

NOT VOTING --is what 'they' want you to do!

NOT VOTING ensures that the ever powerful and well-heeled GOP machine will finish the job of making the United States a Fascist nation.

NOT VOTING is surrendering!

NOT VOTING is 'giving up' or bending over!

NOT VOTING is the GOP's best friend! If they ever gain absolute power, they may decide to do away with VOTING entirely thus you will have been robbed of one of the few options you have left. Welcome to the Brave New World! Now --what can one do?

GET INVOLVED IN PARTY POLITICS!

If you don't like the Democratic party --INFILTRATE IT and urge everyone you know to infiltrate it. We don't have a lot of time and the Democrats already have an infrastructure in place. Eventually, when it is successful, the 'occupation movement' will be absorbed and, hopefully, it's ideals will be affirmed by an established mainstream party and, eventually, made the policy of the nation. At that point, we will have won!

ORGANIZE!

Read SAUL ALINSKY, a 'left leaning, liberal' and organizer who scared the pants off the GOP! They were so frightened of him that they adopted his policies and used them against us! Now --who is to blame for that but the 'sunshine liberal' who decides to just sit on his ass and gripe because the world does not measure up to his unrealistic expectations?

Alinsky urged that REAL activists organize block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state!

FIRST --you take back the Democratic party by taking back the neighborhoods

SECONDLY --you organize the neighborhoods to take back the party machines for progressives and/or liberals

THIRD --having taken back the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, you organize at the state level to get out the fucking vote.

Now --if liberals/progressives are not willing to read Alinsky (the GOP has) or if liberals/progressives are not willing to work to reform the ONLY FUCKING PARTY you're gonna get given the corrupt system we have inherited, then there is really nothing else I can tell them; there is really little else as I can advise save: LEARN TO LOVE getting it up the ass because from here on out the GOP is going to stick it to you but prefers you bend over first!

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

How the GOP Will Bring About the End of Capitalism

2011-09-27T07:07:00.000-07:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The GOP gets away with a big lie! The GOP has convinced millions that the GOP is the party of smaller government coupled with smaller debts and deficits. The fact is: EVERY Democratic regime at least since World War II has presided over smaller debts and deficits than any GOP regime and --at the same time --has created more jobs and greater growth in GDP.

These are facts that can be confirmed at the U.S. Commerce Department B.E.A. and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to name just two. There is a table [Wikipedia] that lists the gross U.S. federal debt as a percentage of GDP by Presidential term since World War II. As the detailed version of the graphic above, it PROVES my point with detailed and verified numbers.

Now if you happen to believe that creating fewer jobs and --worse --exporting them to China is a good thing, then, by all means, vote GOP! Like clockwork, jobs will migrate and GDP will, naturally as a result, take a dive. And, by voting GOP, you will have helped bring about that outcome. Live with yourself! The GOP, in the meantime, will routinely lie to you about this issue if they cannot avoid it. I often wonder why it seems never to come up in debates.

At present, the gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (83.4% at the end of 2009) is higher than it has ever been since the late 1940s. This is the Bush Jr legacy. By way of background, the debt briefly reached over 100% of GDP in the aftermath of World War II.

Debt of any type increases when money is borrowed. The Federal debt, likewise, increases whenever the government borrows money, whenever the Treasury or other agencies issue 'securities', very literally a 'promissory note'.

The public debt increases or decreases as a result of annual unified budget deficit or surplus. The federal government budget deficit or surplus is defined as the the cash difference between government receipts and government spending; it ignores intra-governmental transfers.

Some recent history

That outcome is clearly by design and by definition it is not Marxism. Nor ---as the 'brown suit' says --is wealth created by so-called 'free market capitalism'. Rather --it is unrestrained, free market capitalism that has, in fact, created every depression since the Great Depression which began with the stock market crash of 1929.

At the same time, the GDP, i.e, the annual gross domestic product, to the end of June 2011 was $15.003 trillion. That means that the 'gross debt' is about 98% of GDP; debt held by the public is about 67% of GDP.Elsewhere, one can expect the 'libertarian' CATO institute to shill for the upper, upper classes, i.e, the ruling elite of just 1 percent of the population.

The disaster Bush left Obama

The facts are clear enough and available to anyone who will bother to access the U.S. Commerce Department-B.E.A., the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and non-partisan think tanks. That rules out Brookings! In the video below, the CATO spokesman ignores the lessons of history and the stats I've posted above. The right wing would rather not mention these numbers. The right wing would rather you had never read or accessed them; the right wing would rather you remain uninformed, in the dark, ignorant! The right wing cannot sell its bullshit to informed and intelligent people.

With respect to the following video specifically, the 'battle ground' is imprecisely chosen. Progressives must take the higher ground while forcing the enemy into a boxed canyon. Liberals err by giving liars the benefit of doubt and letting spin doctors and their liar clients 'off the hook'. The GOP, rather, should be reminded of how wrong they are every day if not every hour. Perhaps --eventually --in the face of mountains of verifiable data, they will surrender or be buried.

With respect to the video, someone should include among their talking points that the transfer of wealth upward to just 1 percent is just as destructive to the economy as would be the utter destruction of all that wealth in a nuke, just as destructive as loading up dollars and assets on a ocean liner and shipping it abroad. It matters not where. That's true because the very, very wealthy invest their moneys offshore. The do not put the money back into a local economy as the Building and Loan had done in the classic film with Jimmy Stewart: "It's a Wonderful Life".

Wealth transferred to the elite --by way of unfair GOP tax cuts benefiting only the upper 1 percent --is, in effect, a transfer of wealth outside the economy. In other words, it is, by definition, a contraction of the economy.

The transfer of wealth occurs in numerous ways. Offshore bank accounts are typical and most often exploited by the elites. It is unfortunate that is is CAPITAL ---not labor --which controls U.S. wealth though it is labor that creates it. Every economist knows the truth of that. It's called the 'labor theory of value'.

That capital has acquired a de facto ownership of the 'state' does not support any defense of 'capital', NOR does it disprove Marx whose views with regard to the 'labor theory of value' are mainstream despite the radical reputation that right wing morons have ascribed to Marx. The empirical evidence, meanwhile, proves that Marx was absolutely correct and is repeatedly confirmed --ironically --by GOP regimes.

The End of Capitalism? [video h/t Vera Narishkin]

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Of Method and Madness

2011-09-18T05:51:00.001-07:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

So what difference does it make if Republicans –as a class –espouse a pack of malicious lies? So what?

The sane and insane alike act upon what they believe to be true and those actions invariably affect us all. What good can come of actions premised upon lies? Arguably, this is history's greatest lesson: that mankind's greatest atrocities, crimes, and inhumanities invariably followed from ignorance, bigotry, and superstition i.e., the irrational belief in lies.

Some people are merely ignorant and act upon beliefs that can easily be shown to be misinformed, misunderstood, or just plain wrong. More disturbing, however, are those people who simply refuse to confront evidence contrary to their beliefs and prejudices and even worse-- continue to act upon them though they know them to be false. What, for example, is to be said of Southern bigots who gleefully hanged, burned, and "barbecued" innocent black people throughout the South?

Charitably, there are, perhaps, some poor ignorant folk just don't know any better, But this cannot be said of all them. Many know better and many more are in a position to educate themselves. There are few increasingly fewer excuses for ignorance. It is important to keep in mind that this did not happen deep in the Teutoborg Forest of the Sixth Century A.D. –but in the American South in the 20th.

Crimes of similar magnitude and effect have taken place even more recently. What is to be said of Jaspar, Texas bigots who dragged a black man at high speeds over back country roads until very nearly nothing was left of his body? What is to be said of Saudi terrorists who think that Allah will reward them with virgins for killing Americans?

Polonius, in Shakespeare's Hamlet, said: "Though this be madness, yet there is method in it." There is an inexorable logic in madness, murder, and malice; would-be killers justify their crimes transparently after the fact: black people, it will be said, are inferior; homosexuals, it will be maintained, are an 'abomination to God'. Perhaps every crime is similarly justified after the fact. This is the "brave new world" of our own absurd making.

Though she is a somewhat more sympathetic figure than ignorant, malicious bigots, fanatics, and fundamentalists –both Islamic and Christian –Andrea Yates' delusion came to no good. Five innocent children are dead because Andrea believed a lie! Perhaps Andrea is not responsible or perhaps she is –but what is to be said of the jury, which found her guilty, based upon a belief that insanity means not knowing right from wrong. That, of course, is the "legal" standard in Texas. Like Dickens' Mr. McCawber of David Copperfield, I submit to you that if that is the law, then, "...the law is a [sic] ass!" The standard should be whether the offender is responsible not whether the offender knows right from wrong. If history is any guide, then NO one knows right from wrong. Certainly not the churches of any religion who have committed innumerable crimes against humanity in the name of God, Allah, and ÆÖwëmathúooh! Certainly not nations, states, or governments that have kept apace of the various churches and religions in the number and magnitude of their crimes and sins. Are entire nations and entire religions to be judged "insane" by the Texas legal standard?

I make a distinction between a purposeful Hitler and those who merely make mistakes. Unless he was incredibly stupid, Adolph Hitler must have known that the racial myth upon which he justified the genocide of some six or seven million Jews in Europe was a lie –a black-hearted lie. Yet, he acted upon it. Ronald Reagan, a dimwit by any reckoning, may not have known that "supply side economics" was a bogus rationalization that would throw millions of people out of work, but his clever scheming cabinet and Machiavellian manipulators certainly did. If I should hear another disingenuous Republican swoon about how "Reagan made us feel good about ourselves," I may puke. Some people ought not to feel good about themselves. Some people ought to lose sleep at night. Some people ought to have bad dreams and night terrors –a phenomenon that recent studies have shown is commonplace among Republicans.

In medieval times, the European Continent was an unlikely birth place for an enlightenment that would not come for another 1,000 years. A trial, for example, was based less upon evidence or witnesses than upon the outcome of an ordeal in which it was believed God would assert his powers. Disputes were resolved by combat; it was believed that God would favor whoever was in the right. Suspected witches were often subject to trial by water in which those found innocent were no better off than those judged guilty. Those who survived did so because the "pure" water had rejected them. Found guilty, they were later burned; those who sank and drown were, thus, found innocent but eventually just as dead.

The purpose of the trial may have served but one purpose: that of assuaging an inquisitors' guilt and that of a delusional community. It doubtless made them feel better about themselves! Shared guilt seems to be better tolerated. The insane logic behind this may be forgiven a primitive culture, but can the same perverted logic be forgiven modern demagogues who smear innocents with the incredibly insane and medieval assertions that no evidence is, in fact, evidence of guilt? Perhaps Republican malice and ill-will might have been satisfied if Gary Condit and Bill Clinton had been subjected to trial by fire, water, or joust where only by death is innocence proved!

The standard defense will be: but Democrats do it, too! By that logic I should kill a Jew! Nazis did so! I should drag a black man to his death because Jaspar rednecks did; I should hijack an airliner and use it as a weapon because a fundamentalist Saudi did so; I should disrupt elections because Bush minions did so in Florida. I could justify a panoply of crimes and horrors.

Perhaps, if I believed that tax cuts for wealthy people would not aggravate the growing disparity between rich and poor which, in fact, began under Reagan and has continued, might sell out, compromise the last vestige of integrity and then get in line for my share. Perhaps, if I believed that people could depend on Enron-like retirement plans and the stock market, I would support raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for a Star Wars defense shield rendered moot by the events of 9/11.

The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were significant for several reasons. They affirmed a standard of personal responsibility –not knowledge of right and wrong; the trials discredited the defense: but we were only following orders. Shared guilt is still guilt.

Secondly, it was a study of the very face of evil. Dr. Gustav Gilbert, the psychologist assigned the thankless job of counseling the rogues' gallery of Nazi criminals, thugs, and perverts, said that as a result of his interviews, he arrived at what he thought was the very source of evil: a complete and utter lack of empathy. I can only add that it is only empathy that prevents us acting upon our worst motives and impulses, and upon the lies we cite to make us feel better about ourselves when we have done so.

War Crimes Debate

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Bushco's Official Conspiracy Theory of 911 is a Lie!

2011-09-11T10:25:00.000-07:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It was Conan Doyle who said: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!" We might have thus arrived at the truth about 11 but --alas --the problem is the mainstream media still lying about 911 and never investigating it.

The fact is this: the official theory is utterly impossible. Doyle would have eliminated it long ago! What remains is simply this: the Bush administration --alone --had 1) method 2) motive, and 3) opportunity! 911 was an inside job.

We might have have been spared this divisive ordeal had the Mainstream Media done its job! Or had it been professional, intelligent or diligent. Alas --investigative journalism in America is DEAD! America media is sick and, dying and not even on life-support.

There is not a shred of admissible evidence to support Bushco's 'official' conspiracy theory of 911.

My friend Dr. David Ray Griffin's peer-reviewed paper proves beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911 is utterly impossible; there is not a shred of admissible or verifiable evidence of any sort to support ANY aspect of it.

There is, rather, an enormous body of established, proven physics that proves that the official conspiracy theory of 911 is utterly impossible; ergo: it did not happen, in fact, could not have happened as we were told. Yet --we are expected to believe and obey. Believe and obey! Believe and obey! The 911 Truth Movement is called 'Truthers'. That's fine with me. By labeling 'us', the opposition has positioned themselves: LIARS!

Here is the truth about 911:

None of the alleged flights would have penetrated the dense steel outer cladding of any tower in NY;
WTC 7 was not even struck by an airliner of any type yet fell at FASTER than free-fall. That is not possible even if the fires had resulted in collapse. Freefall or faster is the fingerprint that gives the game away. Only controlled demolitions evince this mathematically verifiable characteristic!
No wreckage traceable to a 757 of any type, let alone Ft 77, was found at the Pentagon;
The OFFICIAL, certified autopsy report of Pentagon victims was released via an FOIA request to Dr. Olmstead. There were NO Arabs on the list; ergo --no Arabs were on the flight. Had there been Arabs, they would have have showed up on the official autopsy report.
Earlier the Washington Post had reported that Hani Hanjour was not on the flight because he did not have a ticket. Are we to believe he crashed the gate? If so, how? And why is there no record of that event? In any case, the assertion assumes facts '...not in evidence'; it violates Occam's Razor.
False reports to the contrary, NO airliner wreckage of any sort was ever recovered at the PA site. The ditch where the airliner --we are told --managed to bury itself underground, had most certainly been dug using the large BACKHOE that is seen in every published photograph of the PA site. Not 93, but the backhoe dug the ditch. This is called 'common sense'. Another clue: not even large meteorites striking the ground from greater altitudes (outer space) and at much, much greater speeds have ever managed to 'bury' themselves under ground upon impact with Earth! Nor did a mere soft-bodied, aluminum, essentially hollow aircraft that was never designed to be a bunker buster nor a gopher!
No bodies were ever said to have been recovered from PA and, indeed, there were none.

As a veteran reporter/network correspondent/television-radio anchor, I have covered numerous crashes of airliners and fighter jets in varying conditions. In every case, the 'conservation of matter and energy' has applied and was evident. There is always identifiable wreckage and in every case the wreckage identified the type of aircraft and most often the flight itself.

I daresay that no crash in history has been without wreckage! Every crash of fighter jets, airliners and private craft that I have covered personally ---there was wreckage traceable to the flight in question! It takes an inside job like 911 to motivate the destruction of evidence on an industrial scale! It takes an inside job like 911 to inspire a public official to order a cover-up to include the destruction of physical evidence.

In every case but 911, bodies were recovered and identified. The Pentagon is unusual: not only were there no Arabs on the official autopsy report, there were no passengers on it. The only victims of the Pentagon to have been autopsied were employees of the Pentagon. They are now laid to rest at Arlington. The official autopsy report, by the way, is the only admissible scrap of evidence to have survived the Bush cover up and destruction of evidence. The official autopsy report shoots down Bush's official conspiracy theory.

What was Bush trying to hide by ordering this obstruction of justice? In the case of the Pentagon, a single compressor rotor (about 1/3 the size of two such rotors in a 757) would have proven conclusively that it was NOT an airliner but a missile --possibly the U.S. Global Hawk --that crashed into the Pentagon.

What was Bush trying to hide by ordering the immediate destruction of steel and other wreckage from New York? That's obvious: Bush had hoped to hide the physical evidence that thermite/thermate had been used to help melt the steel to the point of collapse. Kerosene fires will not melt steel; otherwise, titanium-steel could not be used inside the engines of jet aircraft of any type.

In every case in which there were fatalities, there were bodies. Would you like to know what the charred bodies left behind by crashed jet fighters look like? It's not pretty and I will spare you. I will say this: no one has ever been raptured while in flight just prior to a crash or at any other time.

There are hundreds of other fatal flaws in the official theory, any one of which sink, shoot down, destroy the official conspiracy theory.

Several facts demolish the Bush theory with respect to the Pentagon:

The Washington Post that reported that Flight 77 was not in the air, had not been scheduled to fly on 911.
None of the wreckage recovered at the Pentagon was ever traced to Flight 77. And contrary to lies, the total weight of recovered wreckage could not possible have equalled that of a 757. Certainly, there is no damage to the Pentagon where 757 wings would have struck. It would have been in those areas that TWO large, TITANIUM/STEEL alloy compressor rotors would have been found. No --they were not vaporized as naive persons have suggested. Titanium/Steel allow is chosen precisely because it will survive the intense, kerosene fire heat inside the airliner jet engines themselves. Bottom line: if a 757 had crashed the Pentagon TWO large engine rotors the diameters of which are about 12 feet (or more) in diameter. Those rotors would have been found.
Only ONE engine rotor was, in fact, recovered. It is about 1/3 the size of each of two much, much larger rotors that would have been recovered had a 757 struck the Pentagon. They were not recoverd because they were never there!

Other anomolies suggest to intelligent people that Bush's official cover story be re-assessed, re-investigated by real investigators and charges brought against those who had:

METHOD (that would be the Bush admin to include Bush, Cheney et al)
MOTIVE (that would be the Bush admin who seized upon 911 to wage a war that had ALREADY been planned. See the MAP of Iraq on which Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force had already carved up Iraq; Also see: Bush's Energy Plan Bares Industry Clout
OPPORTUNITY Clearly --with the assumption of the office of Pres by one GWB, the NEOCON authors of the so-called PNAC document [Rebuilding America's Defenses: A Report of The Project for the New American Century [PDF]] would find the 'catalyzing event' that they had openly pined for.

It was Arthur Conan Doyle who said: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!" It's time to cut to the chase: the official theory is utterly impossible and, for that reason, did not happen unless the laws of physics were conveniently repealed that day. They were not! Bush lied! Americans died in NY, DC, Afghanistan and Iraq et al. By Doyle's reckoning --'what remains' is this: Bush pulled off an inside job! It's the only 'theory' which explains the verifiable facts on the ground at the Pentagon and in rubble left behind by 'free-falling' skyscrapers in New York.

The victims, those now deceased Americans, I am convinced, were victims of the very worst, the most evil regime in U.S. history. It is time to bring this rogue regime to justice even if it should mean the noose for the lot of them! As they might have said out west: HANG 'EM HIGH!

Architects and Engineers Expose Bushco's FRAUD!

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

The United States is NOT a Christian Nation!

2011-08-29T09:01:00.000-07:00

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Whenever any court of any type restricts, bans or opposes religious intrusions into governmental affairs, an army of fundies --like cockroaches -- are sure to crawl out of the woodwork. Just as predictably, an army of politcians will ooze out --like sweet stuff --upon a public stage to court them.

Predictably, this circle of jerks --consisting as it does of the deluded on the one hand and the gaggle of oportunists/politcians on the other hand --will denounce the decision(s) and declare that it is against the 'wishes and intents' of the nation's "founding fathers".

The most obvious examples have to do with separation of church and state which should be a settled issue on the side of 'separation'. Propagandists throughout the right wing would have it otherwise. They try to re-write history everyday. If we are not vigilant, one day, they will succeed in creating and imposing upon us a theocracy when, in fact, the founders had decried 'theocracy' and deliberately created a secular state.

An alarming, perhaps a growing, number throughout the right wing will tell you with a straight face that the United States was founded upon the 'Christian' religion and that the founders were themselves 'Christians'. Neither statement is true. The U.S. is not a Christian nation nor was it intended to be. The founders themselves were not Christian, some where 'deists', others espoused no religion whatsoever. To sum up: our founders were not Christians and certainly did not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free execise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment, U.S. Constitution [emphasis above is mine, EC]

One wonders what it is about 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' that is not understood by the American 'right wing'.

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

--John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli

The organized, concerted right wing effort to tear down the 'wall of separation' between church and state is a repugnant revision of our history that must not be tolerated.

Thomas Jefferson is not, by definition, a 'founder'; nevertheless, he drafted the Declaration of Independence and shared with those who later made up the Constitutional Convention, the view that the United States was --in no way --'founded upon the Christian religion'.

The United States is NOT a 'Christian' nation.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [bolding is mine, LH]

--Thomas Jefferson, Danbury Letter

We will never be free to relax with respect to this issue. The American right wing, extremists and religious fanatics have a subversive agenda. Unless they are constantly opposed or stopped, they will stop at nothing to effect their agenda. They have already proven that they are willing to change the meaning and legal significance of 'precedent' upon which is based the legal and philsophical underpinnings of Western Civilization.

Clarence Thomas is articulating the view that precedent doesn't count... I think that if Bush were to appoint people who believe that precedent doesn't count, you would really see a carnage of the laws passed by the New Deal courts.... I think that this...new Court is perfectly capable of reaching back and substantially reversing and eroding the decisions of the Supreme Court in the late 1930s. And that, to me, is a great danger.

--Martin Garbus

It is not claimed in the preamble to the Constitution that God ordained our Constitution! No external lawgiver is cited! Nor is the Constitution based --as Gary Bauer had said --on the Ten Commandments. The Constitution never mentions the Ten Commandments. The Constitution is not based on the Talmud, nor the Upanishads, nor the Bhagavad-Gita, nor the Koran!

Fundamentalists of any religious persuasion should read the Constitution from the first letter to the last period. They should be required to count the number of times the word "God" is used!

NOT ONCE!

Count the number of times the word "Christian" is used!

NOT ONCE!

Count the number of times that the name of any religion is named or even referenced!

NOT ONCE!

That is the case because the Constitution is a secular document creating a secular, humanist nation --A FREE REPUBLIC --and until it is overthrown by GOP/wing nuts/Religious fanatics in a coup d'etat, it will remain so!

Five ideologues have proven themselves contemptuous of both the rule of law and a basic principle underlying our founding: the separation of church and state! The constitutional subversives are Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito and Sandra Day O'Connor. None of them can be trusted to be faithful stewards of our heritage, our Constitution, indeed, our very freedoms as they are guaranteed to us in that document. Some examples:

In 1993, William Osburne was convicted of kidnapping, assaulting and raping a woman in Anchorage, Alaska. He spent the next 14 years of his life behind bars. Osburne insists that he is innocent, the State of Alaska has in its possession DNA evidence which will once and for all prove his guilt or innocence, and Osburne has offered to pay for DNA testing out of his own pocket. Allowing Osburne to prove—or disprove–his claim of innocence will cost Alaska literally nothing.
--Ian Millhiser, Think Progress, In 5-4 Decision, Conservative Supreme Court Denies DNA Evidence To Potentially Innocent Man

Yet another example among scores:

Today, a Supreme Court majority ruled against women by siding with the country's largest employment discriminator, saying Wal-Mart, essentially, is too big to sue. The brave women, led by Betty Dukes, who stood up to Wal-Mart at great personal sacrifice, are told simply they're on their own.

"With this decision, the Supreme Court has assisted Wal-Mart in its efforts to systematically dole out promotions and pay raises on the basis of sex. The law calls that illegal discrimination, but this Court has turned its back on the more than million women who only sought simple justice," said NOW President Terry O'Neill. "The women of Wal-Mart deserve respect and fair treatment, and we will continue to stand up for their rights."

In 2002, NOW declared Wal-Mart a "Merchant of Shame" as part of its Women-Friendly Workplace Campaign. NOW chapters have led countless community demonstrations at Wal-Mart stores around the country to educate shoppers about Wal-Mart's exploitation of its women employees.

Today, NOW demands an immediate legislative response to help the women of Wal-Mart. We call on Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would provide more effective remedies to victims of sex-based wage discrimination. This bill passed in the House in January 2009, but ultimately was defeated in the Senate.

"The gap between women's and men's pay is still sizeable, which is why it's so important to get this legislation passed," stated O'Neill. "We will continue supporting the efforts of Senators Mikulski, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Stabenow and others to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and hold accountable those who stand in the way of this sensible remedial bill."

A legislative remedy is only part of the solution, however. NOW also calls on Wal-Mart to end its unconscionable resistance to employees' efforts to form unions and bargain collectively over pay, benefits and other conditions of employment. Research demonstrates that unionized women workers earn better wages and have better benefits than their non-union counterparts. In fact, women in unions earn 11.2 percent more or $2.00 more per hour than non-union women workers. And the gender wage gap is smaller in unionized workplaces.
--Political Affairs, In 5-4 decision, conservative Supreme Court justices dismiss Wal-Mart lawsuit

These 'justices' and the American right wing which supports them wish to undo the work of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and every founder whose signature is to be found at the bottom of what has been called the most magnificant document to have issued from the mind of humankind: the U.S. Constitution.

George Carlin: '(God)...loves you and he NEEDS MONEY!'

Carlin describes Rush Limbaugh

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Romney is Wrong! Corporations are NOT People

2011-08-24T09:23:00.000-07:00

By Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Mitt Romney has claimed that corporations are people, real people! He even got upset with his audience for daring to challenge his absurd assertions. Now --when corporations are held responsible for their crimes in the same way that individuals, that real people, are held responsible for their crimes, then and only then can I even begin to take seriously the utter BS re: 'corporate personhood' that has been put forward by the GOP, by the extremists on the right wing SCOTUS or by the legion of powerful, wealthy lobbies on K-Street!

The fact is corporations are mere 'legal abstractions'; they are NOT people. The definition of 'people' may be found in biology textbooks; I deny that old men or liars in robes can redefine with a mere decree some several million years of evolution over which they have had no control or input. Robed judges are not 'God' nor can they --with a decree --change the laws of evolution and/or physics.

I deny that SCOTUS may decree that gravity will not work, that Earth will not orbit the sun or the moon, the earth! Say what it will, SCOTUS may not redefine a person; nor may it decree that words on paper may live, breate and procreate biologically as do real people. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction on this point. Rather, some several million years of biological precedent should humble the likes of Scalia.

Nor can I imagine how 'fundamentalists' reconcile their fundamentalist religious beliefs with the ludicrous idea that by squeezing a 'corporate seal' one may CREATE a person, and a REAL person at that! That SCOTUS may be taken seriously could be understandable in a state like Texas, victimized by the GOP assault on education. Texas ranks dead last in high school graduations, thanks to the GOP incompetence of Bush/Perry. However, it is not only Texas under Bush/Perry that has fallen off the radar with respect to education. Education, logic, intellect are always targeted by a party that has made of itself an enemy of erudition, science, logic and, most importantly, good will.

Real people are interchangeable in a corporation --an abstraction. Moreover, anyone can form a corporation for very little money and they can do it by mail order. The corporation is nothing more than 'data' recorded with a Secretary of State (somewhere, probably Delaware), a corporate seal, and a Certificate of Incorporation:

From Cornell University Law School:

"A corporation is a legal entity [emphasis, EC] created through the laws of its state of incorporation. Individual states have the power to promulgate laws relating to the creation, organization and dissolution of corporations. Many states follow the Model Business Corporation Act. (See Minnesota's adoption.) State corporation laws require articles of incorporation to document the corporation's creation and to provide provisions regarding the management of internal affairs. Most state corporation statutes also operate under the assumption that each corporation will adopt bylaws to define the rights and obligations of officers, persons and groups within its structure."

--Cornell University Law School

ERGO: people are INTER-CHANGEABLE in a corporation. A real person doing business as a 'sole proprietorship' does not have that luxury. To create this Orwellian interchangeability, SCOTUS seeks to bestow upon corporations 'privileges', privileges that real people are denied in the same decision.

The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" only in so far as it can sue and be sued. That is not to be confused with either legal or biological personhood. And the reason that it MAY NOT be so confused is that 'suing and being sued' DOES NOT DEFINE a person. If corporations were people, then DuPONT et al should have been put to death for the deaths it caused at Bhopal.

When has ANY corporation --at any time in history --been held to account for the many crimes to include mass murder and other atrocities in the same way that REAL PEOPLE are held to account?

NEVER!

Moreover, the legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholder liability for corporate debts; ERGO, corporations are NOT people. Real people have NO such exemptions, no such luxuries. Corporations are NOT people; SCOTUS, MITT and the GOP are dead wrong. I will be happy to set them straight.

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google