|
Five Clear Indicators That All Is Not Well In America: by Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., March 19, 2006
Title: "Sandra
Day O'Connor Warns Of 'Beginnings' Of Dictatorship" Synopsis: NPR's
Nina Totenberg aired an amazing story on 3-10-06 about a speech
that just-resigned Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave
at Georgetown University. The first woman to serve on the High
Court wouldn't allow her actual words to be broadcast, and that's
a shame, because -- based on Totenberg's report -- every American
needs to hear what she said. The Reagan appointee who became a
judicial moderate and an American icon -- "Bush v. Gore" notwithstanding
-- all but named names in thinly-veiled attacks on former House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay and US Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), and
ended with a stunning warning. O'Connor told her Georgetown audience
that judges can make presidents, Congress, and governors "really,
really mad," and that if judges don't make people angry, they
aren't doing their job. But she said judicial effectiveness is
"premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation
for our judicial acts." While hailing the American system of rights
and privileges, she noted that these don't protect the judiciary,
but that "people do." Thus, she admonished that we, the people,
should speak up to prevent an American dictatorship in its beginning
stages, rather than after the iron grip of despotism has
been established.
Also see: Jack
Shafer's Slate essay, "O'Connor Forecasts Dictatorship: Why Didn't
The American Press Chase the Story?": http://www.slate.com/id/2137961/
________________________________________________________________
2. Even
The Republican Lemmings Say They're Sick Of Marching Over Cliffs
For Their Arrogant "We'll-Go-Anywhere-And-Do-Anything-For-Oil" Leader, Dubya!
Title: "Republicans
Say Bush's Arrogance Is His Downfall" Synopsis: Sit down with a Republican member of Congress, party leader, or political strategist and you hear a recurring theme: George W. Bush has gotten too big for his britches, and needs to be taken down a notch or two. But they'll never do it - they're merely distancing themselves from his downward spiral before the mid-term election! Also see: Bernard
Weiner's "Conservatives Are Jumping Ship: Bush Is Going Down":
________________________________________________________________
Title: "U.S.
War Spending To Rise 44% To $9.8 Billion A Month, Report Says" Synopsis: The
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service's latest report gives
us some sobering statistical insights into the federal budget
deficit and this spendthrift regime's runaway spending on war
and anything the Pentagon can dream up. Recall their bait-and-switch
tactic: Bush's unnecessary petro-war would cost $0 per month because "Iraq's oil revenues will pay for it!", proclaimed DoD Undersecretary
Paul Wolfowitz. But it was initially $3 billion per month, then
$5 bln, then $6.8 bln, and now it's $9.8 bln per month (hey, those
Halliburton executives have to eat)!
Also see: Robert
Higg's Independent Institute essay, "Bush's New Defense Budget" [Reveals that: (a) the USA's military budget is, in actual point
of fact, two times larger than is stated in any given year; (b)
the USA's stated military budget for FY 2006 is supposedly $419
billion, but it's really $840 billion; and (c) the USA's military
budget for FY 2007 is at least one-third of the federal government's
total budget of $2.57 trillion!]:
________________________________________________________________ 4. Neocon "National Security" Doublespeak Has Been Translated Into English: "Now Hear This, Peasants! The USA Will Be Occupying Iraq Until The Oil Runs Out, And We've Concocted A Pretext For Invading Iran (You Get To Pay For It, We Get To Keep The War Profits)!" Title: "White
House Reaffirms 'First Strike' Doctrine" Synopsis: When
the Bush administration's latest National Security Strategy ("NSS")
is translated from the neocons' Orwellian doublespeak into plain
English, it clearly states that they're planning to: (a) permanently
occupy Iraq (at least until the oil runs out); and (b) stir up
jingoistic hysteria about Iran's non-existent "WMD threat" so
as to provide a "pre-emptive" pretext for invading Iran as soon
as possible. Are the American people so fearful, and so intellectually
feeble, that even the second time around, they still can't see
through the neocons' trumped-up war propaganda? Consider "Wag
The Dog" and the motive of distraction: while we're preoccupied
with their bloody wars abroad, they're busy looting the US taxpayers'
treasury and trashing our civil liberties at home.
Also see: Evan
Augustine Peterson III's OS essay, "Permanent Bases Point To Permanent
War: Is The Neocon Nightmare Winding Down, Or Just Getting Started?":
_______________________________________________________________ 5. A Respected European Thinktank Predicts That A Major Global Crisis Will Begin In The Week Of March 20-26, 2006 (Or Thereabouts): USA Vs. Iran. Title: "Europe
2020 Alarm: Global Systemic Rupture On March 20-26, 2006: Iran/USA
- Release Of Global Economic Crisis"
Synopsis: Researchers at a
respected European think-tank predict an 80% probability that
a major world crisis, involving Iran and the USA, and devolving
from 7 convergent sectors, will erupt during the week of March
20 -26, 2006. Furthermore, it will be a "monetary, financial and
economic tsunami." However, if the USA invades Iran in March,
the probability of a major world crisis will be 100%, and it will
also be a military tsunami. At minimum, the impact on the West
will be comparable financially to the 1929 Stock Market Crash
on the USA, and politically to the 1989 Iron Curtain Collapse
on Russia. The 7 covergent sectors are: (1) Crisis of confidence
in the Dollar; (2) Crisis of US financial imbalances; (3) Oil
crisis; (4) Crisis of the American leadership; (5) Crisis of the
Arabo-Muslim world; (6) Global governance crisis; and (7) European
governance crisis.
Please note that NONE of their 7 convergent sectors has anything
to do with nuclear weapons!
Also see: Mike
Whitney's CC essay, "Iran: Where Do We Go From Here?" [The Bush
administration knew from the beginning that the UN Security Council
would not support economic sanctions or military action against
Iran. Their intention was simply to increase suspicion about Iran's
civilian nuclear energy program, and thus mobilize public support
for an illegal "preventive" war. They're hugely miscalculating
by unnecessarily moving us toward a war with Iran that can only
alienate the Islamic world and lead to massive negative consequences.]:
________________________________________________________________
NOTE TO READERS:
Please forward this
mini-essay to your friends, relatives, and colleagues!
_________________________________________________________________
|
