YourFreeLand

YourFreeLand 2008-08-21T23:10:10Z http://yourfreeland.com/atom.aspx Quick Blog Coming: THE PAUSE IS NOT RESIGNATION - IT IS THE BEGINNING OF AN ANSWER TO "WHERE DO WE TO GO?" tag:yourfreeland.com,2007-10-16:14fe9359-b1a6-4c15-be36-98e1c84db69b Stuart Shaw 2007-10-16T20:09:49Z 2007-10-16T20:05:00Z ]]>

...

WHAT THE DEMOCRATS' BIG LIE IS HIDING - THAT "IT'S THE DEMOCRATS' WAR NOW AND THEY WANT IT" tag:yourfreeland.com,2007-10-09:de5f514d-181b-4e35-aa78-80930b1f6cbd Stuart Shaw 2007-10-16T20:40:41Z 2007-10-09T18:48:00Z The Democrats now have complete responsibility for continuing the Iraq War. In
May 2007, the Iraq War had to be refunded by Congress or the war had to stop.
The place where the funding bill starts out in the House of Representatives is
the House Appropriations Committee. As the Republicans proved repeatedly for
seven years, if the Chairman of the House Appropiations Committee doesn't want
a bill to pass, he simply doesn't let the bill out of his committee. Then the bill can
not be voted on by the House. Thus, if there is a Iraq War funding bill and the Chairman
keeps the funding bill in committee, then there is no Iraq War funding.

Mr. Dave Obey was and is the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Dave Obey was and is a Democrat. According to Wikipedia, Mr. Obey is a very
"liberal" democrat. Mr. Obey would not make the decision to release or not release
the funding bill on his own. He would consult with the Democratic Party leadership.
In both May and October of 2007, the Democratic leadership had Mr. Obey release
that funding bill.

But because American voters felt that they had elected the Democrats into power
to STOP the war; because the polls show that the American people are very much against
the Iraq War; and because demonstrators were in the streets and even in Congress's
offices against the war, the Democrats did not want to take responsibility for continuing
the Iraq war SO IN MAY AND OCTOBER 2007, THE DEMOCRATS
TOLD A BIG LIE.

The Democrats said they couldn't stop the Iraq War without the votes of Republicans in order
to overcome a veto or survive fillibustering.

The Democrat leadership leaked this lie to the media and several
prominent democrats such as Senators Schumer, Reid and Leiberman among
others made statements (New YorkTimes 9-20-07) about the helplessness of
the Democrats without enough Republicans. They even had a pitiful one night
fillibuster in the Senate before giving up. And they had some full House and Senate
votes to show how helpless they were.

How could the Democratic leadership expect to get away with such an
obvious lie? Wouldn't the media be all over them? The media according to Global
Justice 8 Plus is the United States's number one problem. The Russian citizens during
the cold war, knew that their media was lying to them about most of the key things and
blacking out the rest. But the Russian citizens had a big advantage over the USA citizens.
The Russians knew their media was lying to them. The average USA citizen believes in his

daily newspaper and his choice of TV talking heads or generals. If he does find a lie, he

attributes it to misunderstanding, shading, or poor staff work by the reporters. The USA
citizen does not know that he is one of the most ignorant citizens in the world. The world
award winning journalists John Pilger and Robert Fiske are not even published here. Media
expert Robert W. McChesney, "The Problem of the Media." explains why in his book.

So the USA media instead of revealing the lie, spread it everywhere. The New York
Times repeated it. (9-18,20-07). It was in AP releases. It was on CNN (5-25-07),
ABC NEWSONLINE (9-18-07),and The PBS News Hour on (5-25-07).
Thus, the Democrats escaped responsiblity for continuing funding the Iraq War
BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T GET ENOUGH REPUBLICANS
TO JOIN THEM IN THE VOTING. BUT THAT WAS A LIE AND THE TRUTH
IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS OWN THIS WAR SINCE MAY OF 2007.

In case the Democrats' result might be considered incompetence or a mix-up
instead of the result they schemed for, consider the handling of the hearings by
Democratic Chairman Ike Skelton. With all the witnesses that could have been
called about the progress of the war, the Democrats decided to call two spokesmen
for the Bush administration, unsworn, and and to call no other witnesses. A member
of the audience was promptly arrested for suggesting General Patraeus be sworn.

It was commonly known in Washington during the summer that Bush's PR people were
working on the Patraeus' speech. The star witness of the Democrats was General Patraeus.
Medals such as he was wearing haven't been seen since Goring or such lies heard since
Goebbels. First, the Democrats defended the General. The two houses of Congress took
the time to pass a resolution condeming the web organization "Move On" for advertising the slogan
"Patraeus Betray Us?" Senator Kerry was one of the first to disassociate himself from
Move On's slogan.Then the Congress glorified the General.

In a court of law, the witness's reputation is not usually attacked unless it is put forward

as evidence of his assertions. Since Petraeus was glorified by the Democrats, what do we

know of him? But first what do we know about Generals. If they have medals, intelligence and
education, could they be other than honorable? Could they betray their citizens?

Move On was correct. Ike Skelton's remarks were as fatuous as they were incorrect.
Generals have been betraying their citizens since before Julius Caesar. Look at General
Lemnitzer and the unanimous general staff that recommended to President Kennedy
that he murder large groups of US citizens, large groups of servicemen and the astronaut John
Glenn and blame it on the Cubans. Plenty of medals, intelligence and education in that
group of generals.(See The Northwoods Operation).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_northwoods

Look at General Westmorland testifying to the wonderful results in Viet Nam. (Same kind of
charts that Patraeus used) Look at Colin Powell lying to the US and the UN with his charts.
Look at Patraeus reading the words written by the Bush PR people in Washington as if the
words were his own.

And what is Patraeus's performance record? He married the boss's daughter (the father of
the bride was the Superintendent of West Point). Patraeus had a career that included a number
of positions of aide to generals. When he was teaching US recruits, one of the trainees had a
loaded rifle in such a position that he tripped on it and shot the general in the chest. When the
general was in training he broke his pelvis in parachute training. Because of the general's good
record in training, he was picked for the key job of training the Iraqi army. This was the
outstanding failure of our Iraq occupation. But in true Bush fashiion, Patraeus was promoted.

Patracus has been described by Wikipedia as "ambition on legs." What would an ambitious
general do if he reported to a boss that would only allow "toadies" around him? You guessed
it - be a toady. People are dying because of this toady's ambition. (889 SERVICE
PERSONNEL HAVE DIED AND 2400 maimed since May) Is he betraying us? You bet.

Why are the Democrats so sensitive when their cover story general
is accused of betraying the citizens? BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES ARE ENGAGED
IN BETRAYING THE US CITIZENS. AND LYING
TO HIDE IT

]]>

<div>The Democrats now have complete responsibility for continuing the Iraq War. In May 2007, the Iraq War had to be refunded by Congress or the war had to stop. The place where the funding bill starts out in the House of Representatives is  the House Appropriations Committee. As the Republicans proved repeatedly for seven years, if the Chairman of the House Appropiations Committee doesn't want a bill to pass, he simply doesn't let the bill out of his committee. Then the bill can not be voted on by the House. Thus, if there is a Iraq War funding bill and the Chairman  keeps the funding bill in ...</div>

Defining "The End of the War," "THE SEVEN ZEROS" tag:yourfreeland.com,2007-10-08:5ad7c8e5-b932-483f-af60-698621028085 Stuart Shaw 2007-10-09T23:21:07Z 2007-10-08T15:49:00Z

WHY do we have to spell out exactly what "End the War" means? Because our
senators and representatives in Congress of both parties, our presidential candidates of
both parties, and the media ARE ALL VAGUE ABOUT WHAT "ENDING THE
WAR" MEANS.

Candidates of both parties have had to be dragged to take a position on the war. Those
candidates now on record as opposing the war, are very vague about what "ending the
war" means. Hilary said that she would bring the troops home except for those needed
to fight Al Qaeda and protect our property. Obama was asked directly recently during
the debate about his position on bringing the troops home. He spoke eloquently and
charismatically, but never answered the question. Yet, he was very precise in his promise
to wage preemptive war on Pakistan. No-one has talked about what will happen to the
mercenary troops who almost equal the number of regular troops (160 thousand).
No-one is talking about the oil that the Iraqis supposedly owe us for invading them.
No-one is talking about what is going to happen to the huge bases called "temporary
bases" or "embassies."

WHAT do we do with the "Seven Zeros?" Use it as a tool to force the
presidential candidates and your Congressional representatives to state their real
position on ending the war. Send each of the candidates a copy and publicize their
answers and non-answers. The answer or non-answer to the questions is a news item
especially if you form a group. The material is also well fitted to letters to the editor.
The material can be sent to your favorite TV and radio stations, demanding that these
key questions be answered in interviews with presidential candidates, incumbent congress
people and party leaders. Actions can be brought against advertisers to get the media'
attention to these requests. You can educate your friends.

ENDING THE WAR - "THE SEVEN ZEROS"

Whereas, the United States invaded Iraq, illegally, immorally, in contravention of
United States Law, United States Treaty Law, International Law, the Christian
religion, the Jewish religion, the Islamic religion, and most of the World's religions.

Whereas, the United States has done horrendous damage to the Iraqi people,
their children and descendants by murdering over 650,000 Iraqi people, more
than half of them women and children, maiming thousands more and sentencing
children for generations to birth defects from depleted uranium.

Whereas, the United States has destroyed a whole society, "The cradle of civilization.,"
its land, its buildings, its whole infrastructure including water, electricity, sewerage,
agriculture, employment, education, telephone and historical artifacts, creating millions
of refugees within and outside of Iraq.

Whereas, this destructive Iraq invasion was not the lumbering miscalculation of a
caring United States giant that got caught in a quagmire , but rather a calculated act
of the United States government which continues a pattern for at least fifty two years
of the United States undermining the governments of over 67 nations to produce years
of murder and torture under dictatorships. In thirty four of those cases by the United
States attacking by force.* U.S. "Embassies" and locations have become centers
for subversion by the US of the country they are in.

Whereas, the first real purpose of this destructive Iraq invasion was to steal Iraq oil
by making agreement to this theft a part of the Iraq Constitution, one of the "brownie"
points that the present puppet government will be graded on by the United States.

Whereas, the second purpose of this destructive Iraq invasion is to establish bases
in the area to supervise other countries, these huge bases made with poured
concrete and having their own air strips and swimming pools being called
"Temporary Bases" and "Embassies,"

Whereas, the number of United States mercenary soldiers, euphemistically called
"Contractors""Security" etc., under commercial control of companies like
Blackwater in Iraq, is almost equal to the number of soldiers under United
States government control in Iraq;

We, the Citizens and Voters of the United States, resolve to demand from our
elected officials, the following "Seven Zeros" program:

1. Zero United States government troops remaining in Iraq after three months

2. Zero mercenary troops, called "Contractors," "Security" etc, remaining
in Iraq after 3 months

3. Zero number of temporary or permanent United States bases, embassies
or buildings of all sizes in Iraq after 3 months. Diplomatic relations will be conducted
through a third country.

4. Zero claim to any asset or any portion of an asset of the Iraqi people or any
claim to structuring of Iraqi law regarding assets or other matters.

5. Zero number of United States private buildings of any and all sizes in Iraq
after 3 months. Any investment in privately owned buildings whether owned directly
or owned by a surrogate will be lost and the value held to be equal to zero.

6. Zero delay in announcing and starting the immediate beginning and three month completion of both United States government and mercenary troop removal; in
removal of United States government and private owned United States buildings
of any and all sizes, and beginning and ending the issues in all the clauses above.

7. Zero excuses and exculpatory reasons why the United States invaded Iraq.

Stuart Shaw Shaw1@verizon.net

* "Rogue State, "William Blum, 2000, Common courage Press, Box 702, Monroe, ME 04951, p126-167
or search Internet under: Philippines 45-53, Korea 49-53, Lebanon 56-58, Haiti 1959, Peru 65,
Dominican Republic 63-65, Honduras 1980, Grenada 1983,Panama 1989, El Salvador 80-92
Somalia1 1993, 2007, Laos 57-73, Libya 81-84, Thailand 65-83, Afghanistan 2002, Indonesia 65, ETC.

]]>

<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> WHY do we have to spell out exactly what "End the War" means?  Because our senators and representatives in Congress of both parties, our presidential candidates of both parties, and the media ARE ALL VAGUE ABOUT WHAT "ENDING  THE WAR" MEANS.  Candidates of both parties  have had to be dragged to take a position on the war. Those candidates now on record as opposing the war, are very vague about what "ending the war"  means. Hilary said that she would bring the troops home except for those needed ...</blockquote>