Thursday, 18 December 2008

The Bushes, Clintons & Kennedys: Down the Rabbit Hole of Modern American History

"If the truth be known"....

Where to go on this blog, possibly to round off this year with. Some hot button items to consider. The autism issue, & in relation to a new administration taking over in the US, allowing for the possibility of 'change we can believe in'. The bailout and the Constitution; a serious matter, that, whereby the country is flirting dangerously with 'the rule of men' - relative law; 'pragmatic law', not constitutional law. And we will rue the day - some decades ago, in particular - that we started down that road. But the subject that has my attention at the moment has been occasioned by a recent blog at Capitol Hill Blue, entitled 'Memo to Clinton Fanatics: Leave Caroline Alone'. It has to do with Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg expressing interest in running for the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary, and some Clintonistas trying to disparage the very idea. They see (a fair assumption) a competition issue there. But I see a deeper one; and a very intriguing one, at that.

It's a matter of America having unfinished business from the past; having to do with the Bush and Clinton 'clan' on the one hand, and the Kennedys on the other. And I think I'll go for comment on this matter, to see the year out with. Because America's reconciliation with its past may well take place in this coming year; and this issue - of the battle between these clans - is a key part of that picture.

Where to begin. Well, because the 'matter' between Hillary and Caroline started this line of thinking, I'll start there - with Hillary, and her background.

First, a few, somewhat random pieces to the picture; adding up, hopefully, to a whole picture at the end.

* The suspicious death of former Hillary lover Vincent Foster. 'Suspicious': His body was found deep in some woods near the White House, but the soles of his shoes were perfectly clean. A gun was found near or in his right hand, but - a blow to this carefully orchestrated scenario - he was left handed. A witness, who was in the area at the time, said the reality of the various cars in the parking lot was different from the official story. And what was a Hillary aide looking for in Foster's WH office before the FBI could seal it as a site under investigation?
This 'background' aspect brings up Hillary's time at

* The Rose Law Firm back in Arkansas, where various suspicious activities were taking place during her time there. (Google Arkancide.) And who arranged for her to make a killing on the Chicago Futures Market exchange, and what was the quid pro quo?
This - in general, regarding the Clintons' time in Arkansas - brings up the subject of, in a word:

* Mena. In a couple more words: the Mena, Arkansas airport. Where Bill and Papa Bush were partners - or at least associates - in a drug-running enterprise, drugs coming in to the airport in exchange for guns being smuggled to the Contras in Nicaragua. (Google Barry Seal/Arkancide.)

So the Clintons were involved in criminal activities with the Bushes. At least with Papa Bush. Who was involved in the assassination of JFK. (Google Zapata Petroleum Bush crime family JFK assassination.) And there is some evidence that son George W. was involved, with his dad, in the assassination of John Jr. Whose last flight, and its search aftermath, is the subject of an in-depth video investigative report on the internet, among other interesting allied items (Google John F Kennedy Jr assassination plane crash).

There's more. But this should be enough to consider a case for the accusation: that the Bushes and the Clintons have been involved in criminal activities in the United States, separately and jointly. And need to be brought to justice for their crimes.

To be continued. And to include Hillary's 'business' relationship - alleged - with Michelle Obama. Which connection interfaces with - of all things - 9/11.

As this story gets curiouser and curiouser, the further down the rabbit hole of modern American history one goes, in search of the truth.

That past is not - must not be allowed to be - a closed book; even though some people would prefer it to be.

Who are those people? A hint, from Bill's Inaugural Address, when he paid conspicuous (for those who had eyes to see, and ears to hear) homage to his self-avowed mentor, history professor Carroll Quigley, who wrote, among other books, one called 'Tragedy and Hope', wherein he acknowledged the history-making work of a highly-placed circle - cabal, really - of movers and shakers. And thus did Clinton signal to this crowd - over the heads of most of his listeners - his obeisance to them and their New World Order. Made somewhat notorious in a speech by - you will recall - 'Poppy' Bush.

What goes around, comes around.

Including, ultimately, justice.

And Caroline Kennedy may just be the karmic handmaiden to administer that.

Sunday, 9 November 2008

Questions About Obama

"If the truth be known"...

Here's how I feel about the US elections.

First of all, I want to acknowledge Obama's impressive campaign and oratorical skills. He was, truly, the man of the hour. He deserved the win; and so did America; and so did the world. It was a defining moment in American history, and it helped immensely to put the US on a different path than the toxic one that it was on, in the hands of the neocons and their acolytes in power.


I think the best thing I can do at this point on this blog is to quote (slightly edited) the comment I made, on Nov 7th, on a Comments thread to a blog by Michael Tomasky of the Guardian entitled 'The Transition Has Begun':

"Now that the hoopla of the election is over, and the beginning of the fairytale has moved into the stage of practicalities, I'd like to address one inconvenient question. It has to do with Obama's birth certificate.

"Michael, you said in your op-ed column in the Guardian's Nov 3 edition, regarding 'the swift-boating of Obama' not working, that one example was the charge 'that he's not really a citizen of the US (disproved over the weekend by birth registrars in the state of Hawaii)...'. Since when did you, especially as a journalist, and all your other MSM fraternity mates, decide to buy a pig in a poke? All that I can find on the internet is that the spokeswoman said there was a 'valid' copy of his birth certificate on file. But a 'valid' copy of what, precisely? It has been pointed out on the internet that - at least in Hawaii - there is a difference between a Certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth, and that the document released by the Obama camp website is a document that the state of Hawaii also produces for children who were not actually born there.

"Not to put too fine a point on this; let me just summarize the case for the prosecution: that he was actually born in Kenya - as attested to by his paternal grandmother - when his mother wasn't allowed to travel by air back to Hawaii because of her advanced state of pregnancy; and that they returned as soon as they could, so that she could register his birth there, under the circumstances that obtained in Hawaii, in order for him to have US citizenship. (Question at this point: the Guardian, in reporting on reactions around the world to Obama's election, interviewed 'Mama Sarah' - his step-grandmother. Why didn't they, or anybody in the media, interview his paternal grandmother herself?)

"How could this matter not have been uncovered before this? Surely the Repub camp would have investigated the rumours? Well, the report is that they did send investigators to Kenya. Then...two possible outcomes:

(1) They found no proof of his birth there, and let the matter go; and

(2) They found proof of it, and let the matter go.

"Why the latter possibility? Suggestion: because their own man's birth is questionable in terms of the Constitutional requirements, and this issue would open up a whole can of worms. (Why is it questionable? He was born of US citizens - but on a military base in another country. It was not US soil; it was leased land from another sovereign. Even some in the Repub camp have said it could be a legitimately debatable point.)
[N.B. Later edit: There is evidence that he wasn't even born on the base, but in the town hospital. Which makes his case even weaker.]
"I bring this up because the issue has not been resolved sufficiently. There are even a number of lawsuits currently wending their way through the judicial process in the States, on this very point: that Obama has yet to produce his 'vault' copy of his birth certificate (which would contain such info as the doctor in attendance, the hospital at which he was born, etc).


"Isn't that a legitimate investigative-journalist question? And if so, why has it not been followed up on properly by the MSM? Because it might produce An Inconvenient Truth??"


This issue is not going to go away. Nor should it. Why; if he has been such an overwhelming favourite in the race, and it feels so good to have him there, and isn't it just a mere technicality anyway?

Because of one main reason, with a secondary reason to it. Second things first: because he was not all that "overwhelming" a favourite. He won the popular vote by ab. 52-47%. Not 51-49, granted; but close. It APPEARED from the MSM that he was the "overwhelming favorite". But a lot of people voted against him, even though McCain wasn't that solid an opponent - even though McCain/Palin wasn't that solid a ticket. (Some of that was obviously racial. But some of that was also due to legitimate concerns about what he meant precisely by 'change'.)

But the main reason is because of the main concern about Bush that had developed during his tenure: that he was beginning to evidence the danger of the rule of men over the rule of law. That if the law is cut down and tossed out, there is nothing to stand in the way of a tyrant ruling the land.

It is at least as recent a warning as that portrayed in the play, and then film, of A Man for All Seasons, with Thomas More standing up to the King of England; and at least as old a warning as that given by Cicero, during the rise of Caesar, and the collapse of the Roman Republic. And of other examples in history. Including that of Adolf "I am the law" Hitler. And Stalin, who remarked that it doesn't matter who votes, but who counts the votes.

And I especially point this out because of a couple of factors in particular regarding Obama.

(1) During his campaign he spoke of the desirability of a having a "civilian national security force just as powerful as the military". (For 'Homeland Security'. But I took note of this call in the light of a video on YouTube showing some young black men, in a uniform of sorts, swearing fealty to Obama. Not America. Obama.)

(2) In the last days of the campaign a recording surfaced of a radio interview with Obama back in 2001, when he was a State senator. He was talking about the limitations of the Constitution; that it contained "negative liberties" - what the state couldn't do to the citizenry, such as take away their freedom of speech, etc - but never spoke of "what the federal government must do on your behalf".

What the federal government must do on your behalf...Presumably meaning things like universal health care. And. And...that is, a Marxist/socialist perspective.*

He also spoke in it of the value of the law being a respecter of persons, ie, rulings for the 'downtrodden' simply because they are the minority, or a liberally-minded protected category; and that "empathy" and "heart" would be "the criteria by which I would select my judges" - if he ever got the chance.

Fancy that. Here we are.

I am saying that there are some authoritarian tendencies here, that need to be watched carefully; in order that America doesn't get moved away from authoritarianism - and possible outright fascism - on the right, only to succumb to authoritarianism - and possible outright socialism - on the left. By people who believe that 'the law' is a malleable thing. Personified by "just a goddamn piece of paper".

Do I think Obama would do such a thing?

I don't know. He seems a reasonable, realistic, pragmatic person. But - don't we know - power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And we've had enough of that sort of thing to last us a few lifetimes.

* The Guardian, some days into 'the Transition' period, quoted a young woman exclaiming excitedly that she wouldn't "have to pay my mortgage now! Obama will do it for me!"
Well; the wiseacres who put us in this mess - to make their quotas, and fees, and bonuses, from bosses who put them up to it - have certainly made it look as though someone else will carry the can regarding (toxic) mortgages...

Wednesday, 22 October 2008

Erosion of Civil Liberties

"If the truth be known..."

I find myself wanting to comment here on something that I have just come across recently which I find disturbing, as part of a general trend towards authoritarianism in the UK - indeed, now approaching outright police-state status, with the Home Secretary within the past week outlining "a plan to monitor all our electronic communication and retain the records on a government database" (letter to The (Glasgow) Herald by Dr Geraint Bevan, of NO2ID Scotland, published 17 October last).

I feel I can best start addressing the specific matter by inserting here a copy of a letter which I have just sent to Shami Chakrabarti, Director, Liberty:


22 October 2008

Subject: free speech and the UK anti-racism laws

Dear Ms Chakrabarti,

First of all, just to say how good it was to see the House of Lords reject the Government's 42-day pre-charge detention proposal, and to see the ad in the Guardian letting Liberty's position on that matter be prominently known. A good fight. Well done.

But I am concerned abut another example of the erosion of our civil liberties in this country. This has to do, apparently, with either provisions in our 'anti-racism laws' or the Government's interpretation thereof, on a matter of free speech.

In The (Glasgow) Herald of 18 October it was reported that one Dr Fredrick Toben, an Australian historian, was arrested at Heathrow Airport whilst transiting from the US to Dubai, because of "an EU warrant" issued by a court in Germany, for running afoul of that country's draconian 'Holocaust denial' laws because of posting "information" online that allegedly "denied, approved of or played down the mass murder of six million Jews by the Nazis".

From his point of view, according to the person representing him in court - a Mr Ben Watson - his work is "to establish the precise facts around the Holocaust and other academic events that are taboo"; and further, according to the article, "Mr Watson questioned the validity of the EU warrant, telling the court that Mr Toben should only be extradited if he committed the offence while 'standing in Cologne market place or had posted the claims on a German website'".

Which sounds reasonable enough. However, "Melanie Cumberland, prosecuting, said that although the offence of Holocaust denial was not specifically against the law in the UK, offenders would still be prosecuted under anti-racism laws".

Excuse me? This country, having basic, fundamental, and under excruciating and unprecedented threat, liberal attitudes towards civil liberties and so forth, and not having such an impactful feeling on and connection to this particular matter as the German nation obviously has, nevertheless is arguing that it can bang up a transiting person on its soil for such a 'crime', even though such a 'crime' has not explicitly been accepted by its parliament and judiciary?

Would you ask the government to 'please explain'? And delve into this matter?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Stan Stanfield
[etc, including my Liberty membership no.]

P.S. I am reminded, in this regard, of a) the continued publication of proposals by the Home Office to track everyone, everywhere - including 'New powers for state snoopers on the net' (Guardian, October 16, National, p 13), etc etc - and b) the column by Timothy Garton Ash in the same edition of the Guardian (p 27), headed 'The freedom of historical debate is under attack by the memory police'. Apparently in this country, too.

It's time, obviously, for a counterattack.


Two things. First, to say that this is not the first time that I have heard of Dr Toben, and his interests. Some ten years ago I was for awhile, whilst living in Australia, a board member of a free speech group called (I think) the Free Speech Committee, which monitored such matters in that country, made submissions to various parliamentary bodies from a free speech perspective, etc. At one of our board meetings, while we were discussing other such issues, various pieces of correspondence to the FSC were being passed around by our chairman for our perusal & information. One of those pieces was a letter from this gentleman - who was, as I recall, at that time an active member of the faculty at some university or other in South Australia, I believe it was - explaining briefly that he was going to be appearing before some federal governmental body under new 'hate speech' laws, and wanted to know if the FSC would help him to some extent with his expenses accrued thereby, and perhaps to support him in some other way. It wasn't an agenda item at our meeting - was kind of peripheral to our specific business (we were based in Sydney, with a New South Wales main, though not exclusive, focus of our activity) - and so we never dealt with it; but I must have made a mental note of his name, because I remember following up by looking at his website, to see what this was all about.

What it was about was what this current bit of news is all about. Dr Toben, from whatever influences, had begun an academic's investigation into the historical subject of The Holocaust, and had become concerned about the accuracy of the accepted story on it. This had even led him to visit some of the concentration camp sites involved, and check out various aspects of the story. Long story short: he felt there was something wrong with that story, and published his findings on his website. This was what caused him to run afoul of the (fairly newly minted) Australian law. When I dug further into his story - specifically, reading transcripts of the various hearings he had been subjected to - I found that the government refused to let him argue his case on the basis of fact and truth: at one point the woman holding the hearing said words to the effect: 'Truth is not an issue here; it's the law that counts.'

I kid you not.

So that got my dander up, and I went to some other websites, looking into this matter further. What I found was points of information like:

(1) Even some Jews reject the story as it has been given us to believe (on pain now of incarceration if we don't, would you believe); and

(2) The figure 'six million Jews' had actually been used years prior to WWII, when the Zionists were trying to stir up political support for a homeland in the historical motherland for the Diaspora Jews, and were making a case for approximately how many people they were talking about, for reasons - to make a judgment call here - of sentiment. (On one of these sites I saw a copy of a newspaper printed in 1918 or thereabouts to this effect.)

I won't go into all this in any more detail here; this is just to give some background as to this issue, and why someone like Dr Fredrick Toben is being given a raw deal. In short: there are 'Holocaust deniers' and then there are 'Holocaust deniers', and they shouldn't all be lumped together. Well; there shouldn't be laws denying people the right of self expression on such a matter in the first place - especially if they are sincerely looking for the truth of matters. But then, as Colin Powell said recently about criticisms of Barack Obama that he was 'a Muslim': No he wasn't; and, so what if he were?

Point two. The article by Timothy Garton Ash was/is an excellent one. (The Guardian, Comment & Debate, October 16, p 27; Hallelujah for the French: they are pioneering a movement, under the name Liberty for History (, to strike down so-called 'memory laws'. As Ash - who is a member of the group - says, first in quoting a public statement they made as published in Le Monde:

"(W)e maintain that in a free country 'it is not the business of any political authority to define historical truth and to restrict the liberty of the historian by penal sanctions'." And later he remarks:

"It's this process of historical research and debate that requires complete freedom - subject only to tightly drawn laws of libel and slander, designed to protect living persons but not governments, states or national pride (as in the notorious article 301 of the Turkish penal code). The historian's equivalent of a natural scientist's experiment is to test the evidence against all possible hypotheses, however extreme, and then submit what seems to him or her the most convincing interpretation for criticism by professional colleagues and for public debate. This is how we get as near as one ever can to truth about the past."

Hear, hear. Literally.

It's time for the nanny state to butt out of such a matter. And especially in the current climate; when Big Nanny is making way, step by incremental step, for her Big Brother.

Monday, 13 October 2008

The Elections, Politics & Christianity

Lately I've been asked by members of my community over here in Scotland how I feel about the elections going on in my home country of America. It feels appropriate to expand on that subject a little, beyond a brief comment I made on the presidential campaign (regarding the Republican vice presidential candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin) in an earlier Commentary.

I think I can best address the subject at the outset by quoting a contribution I made to this subject on the Comments thread of a blog on a political-oriented site (called Capitol Hill Blue):

"To all those women who are still unhappy with Obama primarily because he beat their standard bearer, let me just say, in an attempt at reconciliation:

"I realize that you feel that Obama shouldn't be let off so - too - easily. But in the grand scheme of things...there he is.

"And shall we work for a post-2-party system as they are currently constituted and led? Or are you merely going to continue to be a Holdout for Hillary, with all her (and Bill's) baggage, that could well have made her unelectable?

"I realize further that you may be remembering how you felt when, during their debates, you felt that Obama was being condescending to her. I wasn't impressed with that 'You're likeable enough, Hillary' unscripted comment either. But at some point, we all need to move on from slights, and get to substance. And the substance of this matter, now, is that the Obama/Biden ticket is far more substantial than the McCain/Palin one. At least - as old curmudgeon (I think it is, on this site) is wont to say - in my humble opinion.

"Hold your noses, ladies, if you must. It is as it is. And let's all move on.

"And with gratitude. For let's fully realize that there's a potentially major defining moment to be faced, here (which couldn't be in the Founders's day of this blessed Republic). If 'a black man' can become president of the US, then a lot of barriers can be perceived as being overcomeable. The Israelis and the Palestinians can move beyond their limiting barriers. The Catholics and the Protestants can work together in Northern Ireland. The Sunnis and the Shi'ites can recognize an opportunity to rise to a national consciousness in Iraq. And so forth. It is - can be - part and parcel of a new zeitgeist; of a potentially healing and reconciling moment, not just in America. Here's a chance to make that happen. Can we clear that hurdle? I think so. But human nature is as human nature does...Maybe - just maybe - we can look back, with Red Skelton's Mean Widdle Kid, and say, 'I dood it!'

"Sorry to slip into a time before the time of most of you, but some here will know whereof the reference. Radio, and the Golden Age thereof. Ask your parents (or even grandparents; m'gawd!). Amos'n Andy, and so forth. Another place, another time, another era. In many ways.

"But now I'm getting into a Joe Biden moment...Well; current time, at least :-)

"P.S. And if one wants to look for 'the hand of God' in human affairs, I think this would qualify as a potentially more salient example than an oil pipeline in Alaska..."


A couple of comments to this comment.

(1) I refer to the idea of moving beyond 'the two-party system as currently constituted and led' because I feel, with others, that the Demo and the Repub parties have become false antagonists, to a certain extent - controlled by the same shadowy people at the top - and so are not true representatives of choice in the American system of government. Both Bill Clinton and Bush Sr. were two peas in the same criminal pod of dealing with drugs through the Mena, Arkansas airport, e.g.; both parties were involved in the setting up of the financial system's current meltdown, in order to provide Crisis for the Opportunity to move America beyond its federal republican form of government and its Constitution, to merge it into a region - called by the perps the North American Union - as part of a New World Order of corporate/elite control over the people of the world; and so forth and so on, in all manner of areas. The people have been misled by their leaders, and new governing forms need to emerge to represent their various interests, as free as possible from the control of the current Controllers, who can't be trusted with such power as they have assumed - clearly; and growing more clear by the day. Given that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (There's that human nature contributing factor again...)

My response to this situation has been to be for neither of the current major parties, but for a third party candidate, to represent my unwillingness to support 'business as usual'. Not that there aren't differences between the Dems and the Repubs, Obama and McCain; but they're not fundamentally enough different. A look at the advisers of both camps gives that away. (My choice would have been to support Ron Paul, to get the country back on track to the rule of law, not of men; but my state of record didn't allow me that choice, either on the ballot or for write-in. So rather than spoil my ballot in symbolic protest, I voted for the Libertarian Party candidate, who at least wants to get politics in the US back in line with the Constitution.)

(2) I think we now need to face, clearly and decisively, the question of Christianity, and its proponents's belief system. This 'moment of truth' has come to a head because of the possibility of a candidate, in our particularly dangerous time and place, who is a fervent fundamentalist believer, being a 73-year-old 'heartbeat away from the presidency' - whom I have described elsewhere as someone, because of her staunch beliefs, who could well look at an Armageddon-like event "as a Good Thing", and let that belief system control her decision to 'push the button', as it were.

A little of my background, to understand where I'm coming from on this issue.

I was born in the Christian religion, in a particular denomination of it called 'the Mormons', or, to give it its designated name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There's a long story here, that I won't go into at this time. Suffice it to say, for this current purpose, that during my university days I had what I call a 'spiritual experience', and left school to go out into the world in a search for Truth - in many areas, and in the ultimate meaning of the word. So off I went(from the west coast of America) to 'the largest library in the western world', which I took to be the public library in New York City; and, for the better part of a year, immersed myself in my search. All of the holy books of all of the world's religions; commentaries thereon; spiritual philosophy of all sorts; mysticism, extrasensory perception; the roots of civilization; and so forth. (Including serious questions about western medicine; but that's for another time.) My conclusion: this was an ongoing process; but as to the specifics of the Christian religion, I had read enough to develop serious doubts about the story that 'we' had been given regarding it.

This involved in particular the research of a number of Europeans - mostly German scholars - who had discovered that the origins of Christianity were shrouded in some deep curiosities and mysteries, especially regarding beliefs current at the time, in various cultures, of what were called 'fertility gods' and such, associated with the return of life in the spring. The myths included stories of the god of note being born of a virgin (well, after all, he was a god, and had to be different from mere mortals in SOME way); of being buried alive and resurrected in three days; of oblique references to zodiacal ages; etc etc. Also, to the role of what were called presbyters, or 'teaching elders' - men who traveled from village to village and made a living by telling 'strange and wondrous' stories; stories that are beyond all reason to our ears, but must have been highly entertaining then, and in any event, of the currency of the time. Anyway, there I was, in my current time, having been set adrift from all belief, and bobbing away on the sea of reality; keeping an eye on various intriguing ports of call, and weighing everything as to its merits and potential value. That is to say: keeping an open mind.

Time has passed; and in our time (welcome, fellow pilgrim, on the journey) I have been impressed, in this matter of Christianity, in particular by the research of an Aussie named Tony Bushby, who has researched the matter far beyond what I had come across lo, those many years ago now. (I highly recommend his books to fellow seekers of the truth: (1) The Bible Fraud; (2) The Secret in the Bible; and (3) The Crucifixion of Truth. And let me clarify: He's not anti-spiritual per se; as attested to by another of his books, titled Glimpses of Life Beyond Death.)

The relevant point here for this discussion is that the section called Revelations in The Bible was basically from an earlier era than the Christian one, and is not a literal rendition of matters that have become pertinent to Christians. I am saying that actions taken on faith from a belief in the literalcy of that book would be misguided at best, and horrendous in result at worst. This is a matter not 'of God' but of error. And we would be foolish indeed to put the fate of the nations in such hands as a person who takes their eschatological belief literally.

And at another time, I will be glad to take Richard Dawkins on, regarding HIS beliefs. But first things first.

In my humble opinion.

Friday, 26 September 2008

Vaccines, Their Side Effects, & The State

'If the truth be known'....

I'd like to deal today with vaccines.

The subject is 'up' for me because of (a) recent reports out of both the US and the UK that the authorities, spooked by more parents starting to refuse vaccinations for their children, are mooting making the vax schedule mandatory; and (b) two letters I have written this week to two different papers, regarding articles they ran on this subject - ie, articles that interface with this subject, unbeknownst to the journalists involved.

More on that subject area later. First, the letters:

[This to the (Scotland) Sunday Times on the occasion of an article of theirs on a study linking paracetamol to asthma and other allergies]

21 September 2008

Dear Editor,

I must take exception to Lois Rogers' statement that "there remains no glimmer of an explanation of the origins of (allergies)" (Comment, September 21).

Studies have shown that with the increase in the vaccination schedule there was an increase in levels of allergies/asthma and full-blown anaphylaxis. Other studies have uncovered the connection: ingredients in vaccines - whose job it is to elicit an inflammatory response, thus triggering the body's antibodies - when administered with a food protein, result in long-term sensitization to that food antigen.

This explains why babies and toddlers react on their first exposure to the peanut or other antigen: the babies have been sensitized by their vaccines to the proteins through breast milk or formula ingested at the time of vaccination. This also explains why children are anaphylactic to a variety of proteins, such as different treenuts, peanuts, egg, legumes, milk, seeds, etc, depending on what proteins the mother ate at the time of vaccination; and also on the molecular-weight similarity to ingredients in the vaccines themselves; and also to the latex stoppers in the vials.

Why isn't this link being recognised? I think it's obvious: the health authorities don't want anything jeopardizing their vaunted medical modality of vaccinations. Not even the truth about the full extent of their side effects. Not very scientific.

We need a major debate on this issue, especially because we're not just talking about allergies as adverse events to various vaccines. We're talking about a whole host of autoimmune and neurological-development conditions associated with them. That debate is long overdue - and is not helped by newspaper articles that continue to promote ignorance about these matters.

As for the calpol link: It is given when babies have fever. Many babies run a temperature from their jabs. To look solely at paracetamol as the potential culprit is to be myopic - or deliberately obfuscatory.

Yours etc; including a

P.S. An excellent website for info in this regard is


[And this, to The (Glasgow) Herald, on a feature article on dyspraxia]

25 September 2008

Dear Editor,

"According to experts, there are references to dyspraxia in medical literature dating from the 1950s and 60s, yet still little is known about it today" (Hands-on experience essential, Focus, September 25). That is because the medical authorities don't want to know, and would prefer to leave such conditions to therapy, including drug therapy.

Anybody who has studied this matter, of the likes of ADD and ADHD and dyslexia and dyspraxia and ASD and PDD-NOS and a whole host of such neurological-development acronyms, knows that they date in large from the beginning of the rollout of the mass vaccination programmes at that time.

Much of this could have been avoided if the authorities had instituted long-term studies of this new medical modality. Alas, they chose to believe that the benefits of various vaccines 'far outweighed' their risks - whatever all those risks proved to be - and so they have stonewalled any legitimate consideration of debate on the matter.

With studies finding "up to 8.5% of UK children [suffering] from dyspraxia" ('Harrowing delays' in dyspraxia diagnoses, report finds; same edition) and comparable figures for the other, similar conditions, this assumption - of the benefits-vs-risks of vaccines - is far from a settled matter.

Fortunately, attention is being paid to this issue wit the rise of ASD. But it's all way past time. In the meantime, parents should start doing their own research on these matters. And with the principle of informed consent to a medical procedure still in force in western countries, they have not only a right to, but a responsibility to.

It's a shame we can't trust our authorities in this area. But it's obvious that it's the same in all areas of society. Sad; but true.

Yours, etc


[As for this matter of neurological-development conditions being dated back to the 1950s time period, I think it relevant to quote an email I sent over a year ago (February 28, 2007) to Dan Olmsted, former UPI journalist and one of the founders of a website dealing with autism called Age Of Autism]

Wed. 28/2

Dear Dan,

I have just read the NAA's mailing of today, containing your article on the early days of the autism story. VERY good work in bringing all this to light.

[ Ed. note: Dan had done a study of the first few case histories of autism reported on in child psychiatrist Dr Leo Kanner's research, first reported in 1943 - a time when vaccination against whooping cough was becoming increasingly popular and widespread. But I'm getting ahead of myself...Dan's article highlighted the families's connections with mercury, esp. - at that time - in fungicides.]

There is another side to the story of Kanner's noting that many of the parents were "intelligent...well-educated...". This side was gone into in Harris L Coulter's important book 'Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain' (1990). If you can't get hold of a copy of it (though I encourage you to move heaven and earth, and old/used-book sites to do so), or don't have it handy, this is the relevant portion.

It's from his Chapter 1, section entitled A Puzzling Feature (pp 51-3):

"An unexplained feature of autism on its initial apearance [sic] was its curious frequency in well-educated families - especially professionals such as physicians, lawyers, professors, and accountants.

"Of Kanner's first 100 cases, 96 of the fathers were high-school graduates, 87 had attended college, 74 had graduated from college, and 38 had done graduate work. Of the mothers, 92 were high-school graduates, 40 had graduated from college and eleven had done graduate work. This was an astonishingly high level of educational attainment, especially for women and especially for the 1930s. Also unexpected was the finding that 70 of the women had taken jobs, while many had continued working even after marriage! 'To this day,' Kanner observed in 1954, 'we have not encountered any one autistic child who came of unintelligent parents.'

[Ed. Note: This factor, of the educational attainment of the first families, is undoubtedly what led Dr Bruno Bettelheim to his psychoanalytical concept of autism being due to a 'refrigerator mom'.]

"In 1964 Rimland concluded that 'the parents of autistic children form a unique and highly homogeneous group in terms of intellect and personality.'

"In 1967 a systematic study was done proving that Kanner's observations were correct. A 1970 study made a similar finding - that 47 percent of the parents of autistic children had completed college, while a number had done advanced study for the M.A. or Ph.D. This contrasted sharply with the parents of other categories of mentally disturbed children, where as few as nineteen percent of the parents were college graduates.

"Attempts have been made, but without success, to link this skewed distribution of cases to genetic factors in the middle-class or upper-class population of parents.

"One point insufficiently stressed in the early surveys was the high incidence of parents working in medicine or connected with it. Kanner's first 100 cases included eleven physicians (five psychiatrists), three Ph.D.'s in the sciences, one psychologist, and one dentist; of the mothers one was a physician, three were nurses, two were psychologists, one a physiotherapist, and one a laboratory technician.

"But there were other medical connections which did not necessarily appear in the statistical breakdown...[etc.]

"Kanner noted: 'Many of the fathers and most of the mothers are perfectionists...The mothers felt duty-bound to carry out to the letter the rules and regulations which they were given by their obstetricians and pediatricians.'

[Ed. note: What a remarkable observation. Too bad more wasn't made of it earlier on!]

"But these early data showing a proponderance of educated parents have now been superseded; since the 1970s the skewed distribution no longer obtains. In the United States autism is now evenly distributed, with no social class or ethnic group being particularly favored.

"Hence the conclusion is now reached that the earlier data were mistaken, 'based on outdated research...No social or pschological characteristics of parents or families have proven to be associated with autism.' But is this correct? Was the earlier research done badly, or did the source population for autistic children change between 1940-1950 and the1970s? This latter possibility has not been investigated.

[And now here it comes:]

"A real shift in the socio-economic distribution pattern of autism can readily be explained in terms of childhood vaccination. When the pertussis vaccine was first introduced, being offered by the occasional forward-looking pediatrician to parents anxious to do 'everything possible' for their children and avid for the latest wonders off the medical assembly-line, who were the first takers? Not the blue-collar workers, who could not afford these frills and are, in any case, often suspicious of doctors. Free vaccination at public health clinics (where today the vast bulk of lower-class children get their shots) was still for the future. Only the prosperous - who could afford private physicians - were in a position to request this vaccine. And these same prosperous and educated parents, especially educated and ambitious mothers with some exposure to medicine, would have insisted on it.

"This explains the skewed distribution of autistics in the early decades. Kanner, who was such an acute observer in all other respects, was no less so in this one.

"As vaccination programs expanded and became obligatory in nearly every state, rich and poor alike could seek the benefits of the DPT shot. The incidence of autism evened out, and researchers assume that the earlier statistics were incorrect!"

In this book, and in his earlier one (1985) co-authored with Barbara Loe Fisher titled 'DPT: A Shot in the Dark', he is particularly suspicious of the damage done by the pertussis element in that particular vaccine. But it would be a helpful investigation to look at the thimerosal element as well, in the vaccines of the period. [Ed. note: At least one of the DPT shots in current time still has thimerosal in it. And at least two have aluminum as well; both neurotoxic.] Indeed - as you state in your article - vaccines themselves are not the only factor; and therein lies the environmental role of such as mercury. But Coulter's book is an excellent source for looking into the roots of autism (and other Minimal Brain Damage conditions, like ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc etc - which all took off in the 1950s period; precisely when the mass vaccination programs took off).

Keep up the excellent work, Dan (etc.)


I rest my case. Except to point out that from these tell-tale beginnings, we have gone on to discover vaccine linkages as well with the following side effects:

Arthritis/arthralgia. Convulsions/seizures/epilepsy. CFS/ME. Type 1 diabetes. Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Lupus. Multiple sclerosis. OCD. And. And. And...

How much?

Not easy to find out. (Although the Classens have identified the Hib vax, with its connection to type 1 diabetes, as clearly of greater risk than the benefits. And Rita Hoffman of has pointed out its introduction, and later, enhanced versions, being connected to the increase in food anaphylaxis in children.)

Why not?

It's obvious. The authorities don't want to go there. They're cutting the incidences of the childhood diseases, and that's good enough for them.

Not good enough for a growing number of parents, who are mad as hell, and are not going to take it any longer.

And good for them, for bringing this matter to our attention.

This matter, in general, of the growing authoritarianism over our lives.

As Ayn Rand said:

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

Thanks; no thanks.

Thursday, 18 September 2008

COMMENTARIES ON OUR TIMES - Current events & the US Constitution

Current events - the presidential election campaigns - the Republicans and Sarah Palin:

Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have a fundamentalist religion believer - whose belief system posits that an Armageddon-type scenario is a Good Thing - a heartbeat away from the US presidency. In fact, I don’t think it’s a good idea at all, never mind my personal feelings on the subject.

But this brings up another issue...


‘If the truth be known...’

America is in trouble. She needs to be helped out of her troubles, and back on the higher road to her spiritual destiny (as opposed to her collapse in ignominy). But to do that, we need to understand some basics about the ‘mid-course correction’ she needs. And that brings up the subject of her history.

Re: the state of the US Republic in our day and age; my kid’s eye looking at the matter:

‘Hang on a minute. These Bill of Rights enumerated items are examples of a limitation on the Federal Government by the States, as generally summarized, in confirmation, by the 9th and 10th Amendments. How did the Bill of Rights ever get turned on its head, to apply as limitations from the Federal Government to the States?’ The States had their own constitutions, which regulated their legal life (and in point of fact, were guaranteed, by the Constitution, “a Republican Form of Government”, to do that very sort of thing in their state legislatures); so - what happened along the way to our place in time?

This question came to me fairly early on in my life, after I had left university (pre-Med) abruptly - the day of my 21st birthday, in unintentional point of fact - and started on a search for ‘Truth’, in general and specifically, as to ‘the meaning of life’. One of my areas of interest was ‘America’, and her role in the world, spiritual and secular. I knew that there had been a question about something called ‘States’ rights’ in the late ‘40s and early ‘50s, when ‘the South’ objected to various pronouncements from the Federal Government regarding racial issues (‘Jim Crowism’, whatever that was precisely); but I didn’t know the ins and outs of that argument, except that - as came around again during JFK’s tenure in the early ‘60s - it had something to do with ‘the commerce clause’ of the Constitution.

In trying to research this development, I went first to my local library, and then to the Law School Library at UCLA (whilst living in Southern California at the time), where I looked at various laws which came up in the 1930s - that watershed era in American politics - and were either affirmed or rejected by the Supreme Court. I found that for quite some time in that decade - and to the chagrin of FDR, who felt constrained by the court of his day (and thus tried to ‘pack the court’, a maneuver that didn’t get through the screen of public opinion; but not for lack of trying) - the court was, still, ‘conservative’ in its outlook - ie (as far as I am concerned regarding that term), under the mental sway of what has come to be known in our time as ‘strict constructionism’ (as opposed to...what. Liberals? Non-strict- constructionists? Believers in a ‘living document’? Anyway, you get the drift) - and it struck down some cases that were an attempt to widen the scope of the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution and give the federal government more power over that area than it had had theretofore. So, that constitutional attitude was still holding sway at that time. And then - as I subsequently discovered by reading some literature developed by the John Birch Society (firm believers in ‘less government, more responsibility, and, with God’s help, a better world’) - the changeover apparently started in the very early ‘40s, when there was a law passed by Congress regarding the treatment of the US flag, which apparently overruled the state-vs-federal norm to that point in time. And the deus ex machina, as it were, seemed to involve the 14th Amendment.

A later reading of one of the (excellent) books by Judge Robert Bork gave me my substantive picture of the matter. In it he talked about a juridical ‘principle’ developed (apparently by some liberal law professors) given the name ‘incorporation’. The 14th Amendment - which in the aftermath of the Civil War sought to redress some racial grievances - stated, in part: “...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law [ie, it can’t be arbitrary in its decisions, must adhere to the law]; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The ‘original intent’ of this legislation seemed to be to strike down state laws that differentiated between the races, ie, having one set of laws referring to blacks and one set referring to whites. (This is what is called ‘de jure’ discrimination, ie ‘according to law’, as opposed to ‘de facto’ discrimination, which is not in place due to any legal determination but simply due to ’existing in fact’.)* So the 14th Amendment started a constitutionally legal policy that said, in effect, that ‘the law’ needed to be color blind; that it could not distinguish between the races.

So far, so good, in making all citizens equal in the sight of the law. But the amendment was used by some central-government ideological types who wanted it to go further, and act as a foot in the door for greater federal control over the people. (Ie, one size to fit all; and thus save having to try to change the law on some social issue in all the states individually.) The gimmick they used to overturn the original, lawful emphasis of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights - ie, that it was primarily a brake on the power of the federal government - was to argue that ‘the due process clause’ in the 14th Amendment (“...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law”) meant, in effect, that the terms in the Bill of Rights referring generally to ‘life’ and ‘liberty’, eg, now applied wholesale FROM the federal government TO the states (were all ‘incorporated’ into the 14th Amendment’s intention). That the federal government was now the guarantor of our rights - and its judicial branch could determine the definition OF those rights (through a Supreme Court made up in its majority - hopefully, to the liberals behind this usurpation-by-stealth - of persons ‘constitutionally’ inclined to substitute their personal socio-political proclivities for the law, and thus bending ‘the law’ - the Constitution - to their whim).**

The old shell game. Follow the switched-around pea, if you can.

Sweet. And corrupt.

Now I grant that this tension, between the states and the federal level of government, was/is a bit of a block to the development of the American nation to its fullest potential, in unifying a continent and creating a national citizenry. But that conundrum was pretty well dealt with in the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Within that change, there was still a tension between the levels of government; but it became more of a healthy ‘checks and balances’ than a stumbling block - part of the overall genius of the American system, in setting the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government in check of each other. However, this ‘incorporation’ funny business fundamentally altered the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government, and put the US on a path that has led near-inevitably to this day and age, where the executive has assumed powers far beyond its constitutionally-allotted basis, and is getting away with it primarily because of this switch in emphasis, from a devolved system to a unitary, centrally-controlled system. It was never meant to be that way. But here we are.

On this point, a point about the Bill of Rights. Madison (the historically accepted ‘Father of the Constitution’) was initially against such a thing - a bill of rights - because it would potentially lend credence to the idea that the proposed federal government had such powers granted to it by the proposed constitution in the first place that it needed to be hedged around against such exercises of power. (The federal government as proposed had only those powers delegated to it; was a government of limited and delegated powers. Paraphrased quote from Madison, in The Federalist Papers: “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined [my emphasis].”) How prescient is that?

Let me clarify. If the people of the American republic want(ed) an amendment to their Constitution saying something like: ‘The powers previously reserved to the States or to the people shall now reside in the federal government’, the Constitution allows for such amending. The way that ‘amending’ was done, however, was pure sleight of hand. And unfortunately, in particular because of the caliber of the teaching of UnIted States History & Government in the public schools of the country (at least in my day), but also largely due to the failure of the country’s ‘free press’ to do its job (and especially in a democracy, where self-government can only work with a literate and knowledgeable populace, or it will deteriorate into mobocracy; as the Founders well knew from their reading of history), the vast majority of the American citizenry, I would wager, don’t have a clue how this fundamental changing of their system of government took place - or even that it DID take place. I would make that wager, because even someone as curious and interested in these sorts of things as I, didn’t understand what had happened - or even that it HAD happened - until I took the trouble to do a search for it; reading the Bill of Rights through the eyes of the little boy who called the emperor on his new clothes, and wondering, ‘Now how did these clear statements of limitation of power TO Congress and the federal government get turned around and applied FROM the federal government to the states?’

Anyway. Not good enough. And time for a change. Either back to the Constitution as it truly is - to get away from the spirit of ‘I am the law’, ie, the rule of men, back to the rule of law - or for a change in the contract duly authorized by the terms of the Constitution.

Or do you REALLY want to live in a country where the president can get away with saying, about your Constitution, that “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper”?

As to the de jure vs de facto contretemps in America. I am not a supporter of manipulating the law to try to accomplish ‘good’ ends. Every tyrant down through the ages has ruled by the ‘principle’ that the ends justify the means. Any means. Including torture, and assassination,*** and so forth.

I will have none of that.

Nor should America.

End of lesson for today.


- O -

P.S. In reading through what I have written here, I realize that I feel a need to emphasize my main point a little more, and not let the major thread get lost in some of the more extraneous details.

My main point is: So what does all of this have to do with our day and age? Well, for one: We’re in danger of a ‘unitary executive’ taking over the whole country in one fell swoop - quite similar to how Hitler and the Nazis took over the German federal republic. It can’t happen here? But it has. Not ‘but it could’. IT HAS. All the pieces are now cleverly in place for a declaration of martial law, and boom - the US has been purloined. Not a noble outcome.

So the example of Hitler should be instructive, for those who would learn from history: The electorate needs to dismantle the surveillance state, not build on it; needs to elect representatives to Congress who will roll back the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act, and so forth - all the pieces of the oppression just waiting to be fastened on the populace, in claiming the pre-eminence of safety over liberty.

The call to political arms is clear. We must heed it, before it’s too late, and the jackboot descends from on human high.


In sum. The individual states in the American federal republic are healthy entities, for two main reasons:

(1) They can be laboratories for experiments on various ways of dealing with life issues, such as health care and welfare provisions; and

(2) They are a stumbling block to a unitary executive.

As to this latter point: During the 21st century Bush administrations, the Powers That Be have ingeniously managed to override individual state governors and take over their states’ National Guards at King George’s call - and we have bought it, hook, line and sinker.

So much for being awake, as opposed to ‘letting George do it’.

Got it? ‘It’: the Founding Fathers were no dummies. And had had enough of the King George of their day.

Madison said that 'If men were angels, we would not need constitutions'.+ And another wise observation is apt here; this by a quintessential Englishman, Lord Acton: Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It’s time to take our country back, from those PTB who would take it away in furtherance of their own ends. Which is primarily to establish a New World Order, along fascist lines, ie, a nexus between government and the corporate world; where cronyism reigns, and The People are reduced to serfdom, to keep them quiet, docile, and safely consuming - safely, for their overseers.

And a socialist form of fascism - ie, rule by workers’ collectives - is no better a form of government, either. The Mob (literally and figuratively) can be just as dictatorial as the Boss. We would be better custodians of our magnificent legacy if we steered a course between the Scylla of the Right and the Charybdis of the Left. And went neither right nor left but up, to a level engaging our higher selves in our daily lives.

But that’s a subject for another time. And only so to speak.

- O -


* This distinction, incidentally, would sorely be tested later on - in the aftermath of the 1954 Brown vs. (some) Board of Education decision outlawing ‘separate but equal’ schools in the South - with the move to bus school children to schools to effect ‘racial balancing’, which caused a severe rent in the social fabric of America, between ‘strict constructionists’/’conservatives’ and ‘liberals’, and between the races; which is still playing out in our day and age, with such ‘principles’ as ‘affirmative action’, aka to ‘conservatives’ as reverse discrimination (and de jure discrimination rather than merely de facto at that). More on all this aspect of this business below.

** Shades of Alice in Wonderland, with Humpty Dumpty declaring, “Words mean what I say they mean, neither more nor less.” Or of Hitler’s declaration: “I am the law.”

*** Assassination can also be of a political nature. Example: what happened to New York State governor Eliot Spitzer.
The story given to the public was merely that he was caught with his pants down, in a prostitute encounter. The suspicion among some was that he was caught in a honey trap sting. Why? Who would want to eliminate him from the picture politically? One lead: His Op-Ed in the Washington Post of a few weeks before, wherein he accused the Bush administration of supporting banks in a predatory mortgage lending scam, and was leading a challenge to the poorly regulated policy by several states’ attorneys general.
Why would the Bush administration want to do all that, ie, cover for the banks in the first place, and have the motive to ‘rub out’ a crusading governor over the matter in the second place?
Anybody noticed what has happened recently? Where the financial system has been put in ‘play’ by just such a toxic financial factor?
Why would ‘they’ want to do that?
Ever hear of the ploy of crisis - opportunity? Of action - reaction?
The claim that I propose here: The Bush administration, in cahoots with the PTB, has been putting into place the means to cause a crisis in America, the better to take her over - to jettison the Constitution once and for all, and, under the cover of a declaration of martial law, complete the takeover of power. On the way to melding the United States into a North American Union, of the former US with Canada and Mexico. On the way to creating a region, among other regions, of their vaunted - and telegraphed - New World Order.
But more on that, anon.

+ And Jefferson warned us, about the Supremes and their judicial subordinates: “Bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” Otherwise, the American people might see what we have in fact seen in our day and age. With ’penumbras’ and other exotic rationales employed to make words mean what the Supremes say they mean. Nothing more. And nothing less.

Brief bibliography:

American Government and Politics. Potter, A.; Fotheringham, P.; Kellas, J.
Faber Pb, 1981

Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain. Monbiot, George. Pan Books, 2000

End of the Nation State, The. Ohmae, Kenichi. HarperCollins, 1995

Founding Brothers. Ellis, Joseph J. Vintage Books, 2002

Global Trap, The: Globalization and the Assault on Prosperity and Democracy.
Martin, H-P and Schumann, H. Zed Boks Ltd, 1997

Occult Conspiracy, The. Howard, Michael. Destiny Books, 1989

Private Planet: Corporate Plunder and the Fight Back. Cromwell, David. Jon
Carpenter Publ, 2001

When Corporations Rule the World. David C. Korten. Earthscan Publ Ltd,

Thursday, 11 September 2008

Initial Post

As carryover from About Me, and my reference to the emperor's new clothes:

'Shaddup, kid, you're drawing attention to us.'  Well; we need to have the attention drawn to us.  For if not us, who?  If not now, when?

Come with me in a little exploration of Things In Our Time.  And let me clarify from the start: I'm open to feedback on this journey together.  Because I'm serious in my basic premise: I'm  interested in the truth of things.  And nothing less.

Yes, 'the truth of things' can have different perspectives.  But let's try for an underlying/overarching meeting  place.  I'm going to call it 'the place where Louie dwells', after the line in  a drinking song from Yale University (The Whiffenpoof Song).  Or may we just agree to disagree; and keep it reasonably civil... 

Hold onto your hats.  And here we go.

P.S.  I will be talking mostly to the American people in this blog, but not exclusively so.  The themes affect us all.


Some of my basic premises:

* We have not been told the full story of the downside of vaccines.  That downside includes a whole range of autoimmune diseases and neurological disorders, the latter including autism spectrum disorder (ASD).   We need a major review of this subject area, and a reconfiguration of its governmental oversight structures, esp. in splitting off the double-hatted oversight responsibility of the US's Centers for Disease Control (CDC), for both the vaccine schedule and for their safety, and placing the latter responsibility in the hands of a new body, independent of both medical and drug industry control.

     A corollary of this theme is the need to get away from the near-monopoly of allopathic medicine in the western world, and come to a better place for health care, which emphasizes prevention over treatment.  (Costs alone are dictating this necessary change in emphasis.)  That can be called Complementary medicine, or Integrated medicine; which also includes the energetic modalities coming to the fore in our day and age.

* America has gotten off track from its founding principles, and needs to get back on track, to fulfill its role and spiritual destiny in the world, of being 'a light unto the nations'.  It needs to go, in short, neither right nor left but up.
     As currently constituted, neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party is in a position to accomplish this goal.  A major recalibration of politics in America is necessary.  (And I don't mean just the Ron Paul (r)evolution; but he's on the right track, at least;  ie, wanting to steer the American ship of state in a course-corrected direction, in a sort of Back to the Future maneuver.)  

     A corollary of this theme is the need to investigate 9/11 more closely, and bring the real perpetrators to justice.  And that may well refer not just to the Bush administration, and the neocon desire for US-led world hegemony, but to another group of conspirators, who have a different 'take' on a New World Order.  We need to be wary, in short, of both the right and the left.  (Pres. Eisenhower - he of the military-industrial complex warning - had it only half right.)

* 'Global warming' is a larger story than has been largely accepted for now.  It includes solar system warming in general; it also includes the need -  and desirability - of moving to alternative energy sources, including what is called free energy devices.  Which is a vital part of the consciousness-raising influences going on in our day and age.  

I think I'll let it go at that for now.  That's enough for a start...

Am I talking about a New American Revolution? 

Indeed.  The corrupters of the dream have taken over.  It's time to put things back in kilter,  and on a higher level than heretofore.

We have only just begun....

...or, as the playwright said: "Affairs are now soul size."