I discovered the following story, in the New York Observer.

There are a few faults that I find with it. First, the article plays into the official government story that there were actual human hijackers on the aircraft on September 11th. I do not believe this to be the case. The government has admitted on its on websites to having remote-controlled aircraft capability. Further, this article mentions NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), which is a joint venture of the Canadian government and the U.S. Department of Defense. NORAD is charged with the task of intercepting aerial attacks upon the nation. This article talks about the "failures" of NORAD, but what it doesn't address, is the little-known fact that NORAD also is the division of the U.S. government which has performed the research into developing and testing remote-controlled aircraft, or UAVs (Unmanned Air Vehicles), as they call them.

So here you have a case where a division of the United States defense, has "failed" to perform the task with which it was charged. That "failure" results in an attack, involving the very technology that the same entity has been assigned to research, develop, and test.

Is this a coincidence? Or is this too much smoke, for there not to be a fire? As we have seen with the September 11th terrorist attacks, and the official government responses to them, the number of coincidences far outweigh an informed person's ability to believe.

The following article makes it sound as if the government is stonewalling an investigation, based upon its embarassment or neglect to act appropriately to ward off the terrorist attacks of September 11th. And that is a dangerous position to take, as the solution to this problem has been given to us by the same government spooks who orchestrated the attack — the Office of Homeland Security. It is the agency that will spy into the private lives of every American, in an attempt to find the next bogeyman, hiding within the masses of the innocent population.

The truth of the matter is that the government isn't embarassed by their "failures." Their "failures" were intentional. The traitors in our government are fearful that the victims families, and the citizens of the united States of America, will discover the truth. And the truth is that the elite, who control their own government, planned and orchestrated the terrorist attacks against their own citizenry. And they did so to to condition the minds of the masses to the idea that a police-state is needed. A new day has dawned, where privacy and individual liberties must take a back-seat in order for their government to be able to protect them.

Further evidence that the attacks of September 11th were planned long in advance of the twin-tower collapse, are given in the words of Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State. At a Builderberg conference in Evians, France in 1991, he said:

“Today, Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true, if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond – whether real or promulgated – that threatened our very existence. It is then that all the peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing that every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished with the guarantee of their well-being, granted to them by their world government.”

September 11th was not the work of 19 Arabs with boxcutters. It was the work of our own government, in collaboration with like-minded globalists in other governments and the United Nations. I make that statement dogmatically and without fear of contradiction. Because the evidence is overwhelming to its accuracy.

Too many things would have had to go wrong, for the terrorist attacks to have been merely a "failure" of intelligence, or an oversight by intelligence and defense agencies.

And if there was neglect, it could only amount to that of criminal neglect, to intercept the hijacked flights — whether electronicly or humanly hijacked — persuant to a treasonous plan to murder Americans. And I assert that this plan was developed by those in the highest levels of power, including but not limited to the President and Vice-President of the United States, the director of the CIA, et al.

With all of that as background, I share with you the following article, because it does pose some interesting questions. Many of which I have touched upon in previous entries in this web space.

Four 9/11 moms battle Bush

by Gail Sheehy
August 25, 2003


In mid-June, F.B.I. director Robert Mueller III and several senior agents in the bureau received a group of about 20 visitors in a briefing room of the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, D.C. The director himself narrated a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the numbers of agents and leads and evidence he and his people had collected in the 18-month course of their ongoing investigation of Penttbom, the clever neologism the bureau had invented to reduce the sites of devastation on 9/11 to one word: Pent for Pentagon, Pen for Pennsylvania, tt for the Twin Towers and bom for the four planes that the government had been forewarned could be used as weapons—even bombs—but chose to ignore.

After the formal meeting, senior agents in the room faced a grilling by Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow whose cohorts are three other widowed moms from New Jersey.

"I don’t understand, with all the warnings about the possibilities of Al Qaeda using planes as weapons, and the Phoenix Memo from one of your own agents warning that Osama bin Laden was sending operatives to this country for flight-school training, why didn’t you check out flight schools before Sept. 11?"

"Do you know how many flight schools there are in the U.S.? Thousands," a senior agent protested. "We couldn’t have investigated them all and found these few guys."

"Wait, you just told me there were too many flight schools and that prohibited you from investigating them before 9/11," Kristen persisted. "How is it that a few hours after the attacks, the nation is brought to its knees, and miraculously F.B.I. agents showed up at Embry-Riddle flight school in Florida where some of the terrorists trained?"

"We got lucky," was the reply.

Kristen then asked the agent how the F.B.I. had known exactly which A.T.M. in Portland, Me., would yield a videotape of Mohammed Atta, the leader of the attacks. The agent got some facts confused, then changed his story. When Kristen wouldn’t be pacified by evasive answers, the senior agent parried, "What are you getting at?"

"I think you had open investigations before Sept. 11 on some of the people responsible for the terrorist attacks," she said.

"We did not," the agent said unequivocally.

A month later, on the morning of July 24, before the scathing Congressional report on intelligence failures was released, Kristen and the three other moms from New Jersey with whom she’d been in league sat impassively at a briefing by staff director Eleanor Hill: In fact, they learned, the F.B.I. had open investigations on 14 individuals who had contact with the hijackers while they were in the United States. The flush of pride in their own research passed quickly. This was just another confirmation that the federal government continued to obscure the facts about its handling of suspected terrorists leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

So afraid is the Bush administration of what could be revealed by inquiries into its failures to protect Americans from terrorist attack, it is unabashedly using Kremlin tactics to muzzle members of Congress and thwart the current federal commission investigating the failures of Sept. 11. But there is at least one force that the administration cannot scare off or shut up. They call themselves "Just Four Moms from New Jersey," or simply "the girls."

Kristen and the three other housewives who also lost their husbands in the attack on the World Trade Center started out knowing virtually nothing about how their government worked. For the last 20 months they have clipped and Googled, rallied and lobbied, charmed and intimidated top officials all the way to the White House. In the process, they have made themselves arguably the most effective force in dancing around the obstacle course by which the administration continues to block a transparent investigation of what went wrong with the country’s defenses on Sept. 11 and what we should be doing about it. They have no political clout, no money, no powerful husbands—no husbands at all since Sept. 11—and they are up against a White House, an Attorney General, a Defense Secretary, a National Security Advisor and an F.B.I. director who have worked out an ingenious bait-and-switch game to thwart their efforts and those of any investigative body.

The Mom Cell

The four moms—Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie van Auken—use tactics more like those of a leaderless cell. They have learned how to deposit their assorted seven children with select grandmothers before dawn and rocket down the Garden State Parkway to Washington. They have become experts at changing out of pedal-pushers and into proper pantsuits while their S.U.V. is stopped in traffic, so they can hit the Capitol rotunda running. They have talked strategy with Senator John McCain and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. They once caught Congressman Porter Goss hiding behind his office door to avoid them. And they maintain an open line of communication with the White House.

But after the razzle-dazzle of their every trip to D.C., the four moms dissolve on the hot seats of Kristen’s S.U.V., balance take-out food containers on their laps and grow quiet. Each then retreats into a private chamber of longing for the men whose lifeless images they wear on tags around their necks. After their first big rally, Patty’s soft voice floated a wish that might have been in the minds of all four moms:

"O.K., we did the rally, now can our husbands come home?"

Last September, Kristen was singled out by the families of 9/11 to testify in the first televised public hearing before the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) in Washington. She drew high praise from the leadership, made up of members from both the House and Senate. But the JICI, as the moms called it, was mandated to go out of business at the end of 2003, and their questions for the intelligence agencies were consistently blocked: The Justice Department has forbidden intelligence officials to be interviewed without "minders" among their bosses being present, a tactic clearly meant to intimidate witnesses. When the White House and the intelligence agencies held up the Congressional report month after month by demanding that much of it remain classified, the moms’ rallying cry became "Free the JICI!"

They believed the only hope for getting at the truth would be with an independent federal commission with a mandate to build on the findings of the Congressional inquiry and broaden it to include testimony from all the other relevant agencies. Their fight finally overcame the directive by Vice President Dick Cheney to Congressman Goss to "keep negotiating" and, in January 2003, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States—known as the 9/11 Commission—met for the first time. It is not only for their peace of mind that the four moms continue to fight to reveal the truth, but because they firmly believe that, nearly two years after the attacks, the country is no safer now than it was on Sept. 11.

"O.K., there’s the House and the Senate—which one has the most members?"

Lorie laughed at herself. It was April 2002, seven months after she had lost her husband, Kenneth. "I must have slept through that civics class." Her friend Mindy couldn’t help her; Mindy hadn’t read The New York Times since she stopped commuting to Manhattan, where she’d worked as a C.P.A. until her husband, Alan, took over the family support. Both women’s husbands had worked as securities traders for Cantor Fitzgerald until they were incinerated in the World Trade Center.

Mindy and Lorie had thought themselves exempt from politics, by virtue of the constant emergency of motherhood. Before Sept. 11, Mindy could have been described as a stand-in for Samantha on Sex and the City. But these days she felt more like one of the Golden Girls. Lorie, who was 46 and beautiful when her husband, Kenneth van Auken, was murdered, has acquired a fierceness in her demeanor. The two mothers were driving home to East Brunswick after attending a support group for widows of 9/11. They had been fired up by a veteran survivor of a previous terrorist attack against Americans, Bob Monetti, president of Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie. "You can’t sit back and let the government treat you like shit," he had challenged them. That very night they called up Patty Casazza, another Cantor Fitzgerald widow, in Colt’s Neck. "We have to have a rally in Washington."

Patty, a sensitive woman who was struggling to find the right balance of prescriptions to fight off anxiety attacks, groaned, "Oh God, this is huge, and it’s going to be painful." Patty said she would only go along if Kristen was up for it.

Kristen Breitweiser was only 30 years old when her husband, Ron, a vice president at Fiduciary Trust, called her one morning to say he was fine, not to worry. He had seen a huge fireball out his window, but it wasn’t his building. She tuned into the Today show just in time to see the South Tower explode right where she knew he was sitting—on the 94th floor. For months thereafter, finding it impossible to sleep, Kristen went back to the nightly ritual of her married life: She took out her husband’s toothbrush and slowly, lovingly squeezed the toothpaste onto it. Then she would sit down on the toilet and wait for him to come home.

The Investigation

Kristen was somewhat better-informed than the others. The tall, blond former surfer girl had graduated from Seton Hall law school, practiced all of three days, hated it and elected to be a full-time mom. Her first line of defense against despair at the shattering of her life dreams was to revert to thinking like a lawyer.

Lorie was the network’s designated researcher, since she had in her basement what looked like a NASA command module; her husband had been an amateur designer. Kristen had told her to focus on the timeline: Who knew what, when did they know it, and what did they do about it?

Once Lorie began surfing the Web, she couldn’t stop. She found a video of President Bush’s reaction on the morning of Sept. 11. According to the official timeline provided by his press secretary, the President arrived at an elementary school in Sarasota, Fla., at 9 a.m. and was told in the hallway of the school that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. This was 14 minutes after the first attack. The President went into a private room and spoke by phone with his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, and glanced at a TV in the room. "That’s some bad pilot," the President said. Bush then proceeded to a classroom, where he drew up a little stool to listen to second graders read. At 9:04 a.m., his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered in his ear that a second plane had struck the towers. "We are under attack," Mr. Card informed the President.

"Bush’s sunny countenance went grim," said the White House account. "After Card’s whisper, Bush looked distracted and somber but continued to listen to the second graders read and soon was smiling again. He joked that they read so well, they must be sixth graders."

Lorie checked the Web site of the Federal Aviation Authority. The F.A.A. and the Secret Service, which had an open phone connection, both knew at 8:20 a.m. that two planes had been hijacked in the New York area and had their transponders turned off. How could they have thought it was an accident when the first plane slammed into the first tower 26 minutes later? How could the President have dismissed this as merely an accident by a "bad pilot"? And how, after he had been specifically told by his chief of staff that "We are under attack," could the Commander in Chief continue sitting with second graders and make a joke? Lorie ran the video over and over.

"I couldn’t stop watching the President sitting there, listening to second graders, while my husband was burning in a building," she said.

Mindy pieced together the actions of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He had been in his Washington office engaged in his "usual intelligence briefing." After being informed of the two attacks on the World Trade Center, he proceeded with his briefing until the third hijacked plane struck the Pentagon. Mindy relayed the information to Kristen:

"Can you believe this? Two planes hitting the Twin Towers in New York City did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld’s leaving his office and going to the war room to check out just what the hell went wrong." Mindy sounded scared. "This is my President. This is my Secretary of Defense. You mean to tell me Rumsfeld had to get up from his desk and look out his window at the burning Pentagon before he knew anything was wrong? How can that be?"

"It can’t be," said Kristen ominously. Their network being a continuous loop, Kristen immediately passed on the news to Lorie, who became even more agitated.

Lorie checked out the North American Aerospace Defense Command, whose specific mission includes a response to any form of an air attack on America. It was created to provide a defense of critical command-and-control targets. At 8:40 a.m. on 9/11, the F.A.A. notified NORAD that Flight No. 11 had been hijacked. Three minutes later, the F.A.A. notified NORAD that Flight No. 175 was also hijacked. By 9:02 a.m., both planes had crashed into the World Trade Center, but there had been no action by NORAD. Both agencies also knew there were two other hijacked planes in the air that had been violently diverted from their flight pattern. All other air traffic had been ordered grounded. NORAD operates out of Andrews Air Force Base, which is within sight of the Pentagon. Why didn’t NORAD scramble planes in time to intercept the two other hijacked jetliners headed for command-and-control centers in Washington? Lorie wanted to know. Where was the leadership?

"I can’t look at these timelines anymore," Lorie confessed to Kristen. "When you pull it apart, it just doesn’t reconcile with the official storyline." She hunched down in her husband’s swivel chair and began to tremble, thinking, There’s no way this could be. Somebody is not telling us the whole story.

The Commission

The 9/11 Commission wouldn’t have happened without the four moms. At the end of its first open hearing, held last spring at the U.S. Customs House close to the construction pit of Ground Zero, former Democratic Congressman Tim Roemer said as much and praised them and other activist 9/11 families.

"At a time when many Americans don’t even take the opportunity to cast a ballot, you folks went out and made the legislative system work," he said.

Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General of the United States, said at the same hearing, "I’m enormously impressed that laypeople with no powers of subpoena, with no access to insider information of any sort, could put together a very powerful set of questions and set of facts that are a road map for this commission. It is really quite striking. Now, what’s your secret?"

Mindy, who had given a blistering testimony at that day’s hearing, tossed her long corkscrew curls and replied in a voice more Tallulah than termagant, "Eighteen months of doing nothing but grieving and connecting the dots."

Eleanor Hill, the universally respected staff director of the JICI investigation, shares the moms’ point of view.

"One of our biggest concerns is our finding that there were people in this country assisting these hijackers," she said later in an interview with this writer. "Since the F.B.I. was in fact investigating all these people as part of their counterterroism effort, and they knew some of them had ties to Al Qaeda, then how good was their investigation if they didn’t come across the hijackers?"

President Bush, who was notified in the President’s daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, that "a group of [Osama] bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives," insisted after the Congressional report was made public: "My administration has transformed our government to pursue terrorists and prevent terrorist attacks."

Kristen, Mindy, Patty and Lorie are not impressed.

"We were told that, prior to 9/11, the F.B.I. was only responsible for going in after the fact to solve a crime and prepare a criminal case," Kristen said. "Here we are, 22 months after the fact, the F.B.I. has received some 500,000 leads, they have thousands of people in custody, they’re seeking the death penalty for one terrorist, [Zacarias] Moussaoui, but they still haven’t solved the crime and they don’t have any of the other people who supported the hijackers." Ms. Hill echoes their frustration. "Is this support network for Al Qaeda still in the United States? Are they still operating, planning the next attack?"

Civil Defense

The hopes of the four moms that the current 9/11 Commission could broaden the inquiry beyond the intelligence agencies are beginning to fade. As they see it, the administration is using a streamlined version of the tactics they successfully employed to stall and suppress much of the startling information in the JICI report. The gaping hole of 28 pages concerning the Saudi royal family’s financial support for the terrorists of 9/11 was only the tip of the 900-page iceberg.

"We can’t get any information about the Port Authority’s evacuation procedures or the response of the City of New York," complains Kristen. "We’re always told we can’t get answers or documents because the F.B.I. is holding them back as part of an ongoing investigation. But when Director Mueller invited us back for a follow-up meeting—on the very morning before that damning report was released—we were told the F.B.I. isn’t pursuing any investigations based on the information we are blocked from getting. The only thing they are looking at is the hijackers. And they’re all dead."

It’s more than a clever Catch-22. Members of the 9/11 Commission are being denied access even to some of the testimony given to the JICI—on which at least two of its members sat!

This is a stonewalling job of far greater importance than Watergate. This concerns the refusal of the country’s leadership to be held accountable for the failure to execute its most fundamental responsibility: to protect its citizens against foreign attack.

Critical information about two of the hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, lay dormant within the intelligence community for as long as 18 months, at the very time when plans for the Sept. 11 attacks were being hatched. The JICI confirmed that these same two hijackers had numerous contacts with a longtime F.B.I. counterterrorism informant in California. As the four moms pointed out a year ago, their names were in the San Diego phone book.

What’s more, the F.B.I.’s Minneapolis field office had in custody in August 2001 one Zacarias Moussaoui, a French national who had enrolled in flight training in Minnesota and who F.B.I. agents suspected was involved in a hijacking plot. But nobody at the F.B.I. apparently connected the Moussaoui investigation with intelligence information on the immediacy of the threat level in the spring and summer of 2001, or the illegal entry of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi into the United States.

How have these lapses been corrected 24 months later? The F.B.I. is seeking the death penalty for Mr. Moussaoui, and uses the need to protect their case against him as the rationale for refusing to share any of the information they have obtained from him. In fact, when Director Mueller tried to use the same excuse to duck out of testifying before the Joint Committee, the federal judge in the Moussaoui trial dismissed his argument, and he and his agents were compelled to testify.

"At some point, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis," says Kristen. "Which is more important—one fried terrorist, or the safety of the nation?" Patty was even more blunt in their second meeting with the F.B.I. brass. "I don’t give a rat’s ass about Moussaoui," she said. "Why don’t you throw him into Guantánamo and squeeze him for all he’s worth, and get on with finding his cohorts?"

The four moms are demanding that the independent commission hold a completely transparent investigation, with open hearings and cross-examination. What it looks like they’ll get is an incomplete and sanitized report, if it’s released in time for the commission’s deadline next May. Or perhaps another fight over declassification of the most potent revelations, which will serve to hold up the report until after the 2004 Presidential election. Some believe that this is the administration’s end game.

Kristen sees the handwriting on the wall: "If we have an executive branch that holds sole discretion over what information is released to the public and what is hidden, the public will never get the full story of why there was an utter failure to protect them that day, and who should be held accountable."

The people will never get the full story, anyway. And, assuming these four mothers aren't apart of the elite's controlled opposition, I would caution them to tread lightly. History is repleat with people who were determined to investigate and expose government lies and corruption. You'll find many of these people in the same ash heap as the 9/11 victims.

audblog audio post — Reaction to an interview on National Public Radio, yesterday, about the difficult economy, raising the minimum wage to become a "living wage" and what it really will mean for the working class.

By Darren Weeks

Today, I began a life-changing adventure. I made a promise to be faithful, and loyal. In the worst of times, as well as in the best, my promise was to stay the course, to be steadfast in my commitment.

In exchange for my promise, the vow was returned. And I received the most precious gift a man could ever be given in this world. My wife, Michelle, was given to me by her father.

It was today, that is, 10 years ago.

It has been a decade of ups and downs. There have been many obstacles along the way. There have been many seasons of change. There have been times of hardship, and times of ease. There have been moments of sorrow, and moments where "I'm sorry" were the words that had to be spoken. And there have been many more moments of joy and laughter.

As my mind's gaze falls back upon the past decade, I honestly cannot think of a single person with which I'd rather have spent the time. And even though we are different, I believe we were brought together by God. And it has been a true blessing for this man.

Along the way, we've twice shared the joy and trials of childbirth. The diapers, the late-night, and early morning feedings. The sleep deprivation. And later, the dreaded potty training.

As we watched our two miracles grow, so too, we grew. We grew together; our love grew stronger.

We felt the stress of my losing my job, and the relief when that era ended. We've tasted the American dream together, as we built our home, and our family.

There have been many milestones that we can remember. And now we share a milestone of great significance. A full decade of marriage. It has been 10 years, since we stood in the church and sang to each other — and promised each other that our love and commitment were forever. And looking back, knowing what I know now, I would do it all over again.

Michelle, you have enriched my life without measure. You have blessed me with stability, and encouraged me when needed. The days that I have shared with you on this earth, have been ones that have been the most fulfilling of my entire life.

It is my prayer, that I have enriched your life as much as you have mine.

And even though every bed of roses has its share of thorns, so too do all marriages bear their set of challenges and tests. Yet, we've been able to overcome them, with our hearts filled with love, and our minds with determination.

And as we live the short moments of this life, I couldn't imagine living it without you. You make my life complete. I thank God for you.

Someday, we will leave this planet. We'll pass from this earth into the next life, the next great adventure, the next realm that our Heavenly Father has planned for us.

But until then, I look forward to spending the next 10 years and beyond with you, my dear love. Happy Anniversary.

By Darren Weeks

Here is another example of how we've lost our minds in this country.

From the Jackson (Michigan) Citizen Patriot, Wednesday, August 7, 2003:

A 7-year-old McCulloch Elementary School student has been suspended after he was seen pointing what turned out to be a toy gun at passing motorists this morning.

About 7:15 a.m., Jackson police Sgt. Scott Rogers spotted the boy with the toy gun at a bus stop near Patience-Montgomery Funeral Home on First and W. Wesley streets. The gun was missing the orange cap on the barrel, which would have denoted it was not real.

The boy didn't point the play gun at an officer, who questioned the child and his mother. The mother didn't understand the seriousness of the matter, police said.

The seriousness of the matter? What matter? It was a toy gun! It was harmless! What's serious about pointing a toy gun at someone? I did it all of the time when I was a child.

"It had the potential for a very bad outcome," Deputy Chief Matt Heins said. "It looked like a very realistic gun."

Explain to me then, Mr. Deputy, how this could have had a "very bad outcome?" I mean, other than potentially causing an accident by distracting a motorist, how could anything bad have come from this? It was a toy gun!

Police took the boy to McCulloch School, where he received a 10-day suspension, Heins said.

A 10-day suspension for playing with a toy gun! What, in the name of all that is good and decent, is the matter with these people? This child is 7 years old. He doesn't know anything about killing, or real guns, other than maybe what he sees on television. And these morons — including the nitwits at the Jackson County Sheriff Department — think that playing with a toy gun is a serious offense.

Folks, I got to tell you, I like the Jackson County Sheriff Department. My experiences with them have been excellent up to this point. Whenever I've had to file a police report, or similar business, they have always been excellent. They don't generally hassle you. State cops are another story. My experience with them has been poor. I have always attributed this to the fact that state cops are not elected and the county Sheriff is.

But there are obviously a few people at the Jackson County Sheriff Department with some brains cells that need to be tightened, because this is an absolute outrage! And for the school to suspend this boy, for merely playing with a toy gun, indicates that sanity doesn't have much of a home there, either!

A report will also be sent to the prosecutor's office, Heins said.

So, now we're going to bring this 7-year-old child up on criminal charges? So, now he's a terrorist? Right? And even if we don't bring charges against him, we'll have to have a file on him, which will be sent to the state office of Homeland Security, so that he can be watched for the duration of his life. And when he someday attempts to obtain a permit for a gun, it will be denied because of the act of terrorism he committed when he was just 7 years old with a toy gun.

Welcome to America, the land of the frantically fearful, and the home of the stupid.

The boy will not be subject to an expulsion hearing, which is mandatory for students in the sixth grade and above, when weapons violations are involved, a Jackson Public Schools spokewoman said.

Uh, excuse me, but what weapons violation? The child didn't possess a weapon. He possessed a toy that looked like a weapon. The difference is like comparing the Atlantic Ocean with a mud puddle.

When I first heard about this story, it was on our broadcast news, as a tease. And I thought that some red-faced police officer was embarassed by the fact that he had stopped this child, who was playing with a toy gun. I figured he had taken some ribbing from his fellow deputies for mistaking a toy gun for the real thing. And that the boy had not seen any repercussions, other than a verbal reprimand that we must not point a toy gun at traffic, because someone might get distracted, thinking it's a real gun and wreck.

I never dreamed that they had suspended the child from school, and were sending a report to the prosecutor's office.

Welcome to post-Columbine America, where everyone is so nuts with a feeding frenzy of fear, that no one can think rationally anymore. Actually, they can't think at all.

And you worry about terrorists? Americans don't need any terrorists to defeat them. They're doing a pretty good job of defeating themselves.

By Darren Weeks

As I sat tonight, in a parking lot, watching the traffic pass on the highway, I wondered about the people who were passing. What were their stories? Where were they going? And why?

There was the usual assortment of truck drivers. I had a pretty good idea why they were traveling. But I wondered how many of them had families back at home, waiting for them. Missing them.

Then, there were a few RVs that passed, probably containing happy families. The parents, who had worked all year for this moment, were now rewarded with a chance to get away from the daily grind. It was a chance to sit around a campfire and roast marshmallows and tell ghost stories. A smile decorates my face, as I am blessed to be able to share their moment of bliss.

Speaking of bliss, for some this expedition was the beginning of a new chapter in their stories. It was for the purpose of matrimony. An adventure involving another life and, perhaps, the beginning of new lives.

For others, this chapter in their story was a migration of sorrow, as the end of the journey would find them saying goodbye to loved ones they would never again see in this life.

I would likely never meet any of these people. Indeed, the closest that we would come to having our lives intertwine would be on this night. At this highway, with them being unaware of my presence and inquisitiveness.

Yet, each life has been created by God. A unique individual, with a unique story to tell.

For some, it may be a story of prosperity, possessing fortunes untold, and even fame.

Others, however, likely found it a struggle to make this trip. For them, it was a strain to even buy the necessary supplies to sustain them, while on the road. They may have been praying, as they passed me, that their balding tires and other aging parts of their jalopy, last the duration of their pilgrimage.

But whoever these people are, whether poor or wealthy, whether prominent or unremarkable, each possess the same uniqueness. Regardless of their ethnicity or gender, each entered the world naked, unlearned, and equal in God's eyes.

And the experiences of their lives, the ups and the downs, the choices that each have made until now, have shaped who they are, and who they will eventually become. And the trek they are now taking, may yet serve as one more step in that destiny.

And I have been enriched at having shared in a tiny part of their voyage.

By Darren Weeks

A recent article in Wired News, tells the story of 18 year old Brian Robertson.

Robertson was just short of graduating from high school when he encounted a not-so-minor setback. He was arrested.

His crime? Writing a short essay called, Evacuation Orders (pdf), which details a plan to shoot the school principal and plant explosives around the campus of his school.

To be sure, the subject matter should never have been typed onto the school's computer. And without argument, it should have never been written in the first place.

But after a search of Robertson's car, and his parents' house, rendered nothing in the way of explosives or any other type of artillery, the prosecutor decided to drop the case, having given the now shaken Robertson a stern warning — right?

Wrong! Robertson now finds himself facing felonious criminal charges that potentially carry a 10-year prison sentence!

Prosecutors decided to charge Robertson under an Oklahoma state statute, which makes it a felony to "plan, attempt, conspire or endeavor to perform an act of violence involving or intended to involve serious bodily harm or death of another person." Fine.

But what if that person wasn't actually planning or conspiring to perform the act of violence? What if he was merely writing about it? Is that an adequate reason to toss him into prison for 10 years, and his future into the toilet forever?

There has been no crime committed in this case. No act of aggression has been committed. No weaponry has been found. No other indication that any plan of terror was about to be committed, except for an ominous two-page note on the school's computer.

Yet the authorities in Oklahoma are prosecuting this young man as if he had been planning a mass murder.

The greatest point of contention is not whether or not the writing actually proves that Robertson was conspiring to commit an act of violence, but whether or not the law requires the proof, in order to sustain a guilty verdict.

The article states that he had discovered the first few lines on a computer at school, transferred the file to a different computer, and commenced adding his own ideas to the piece. Quoting from Wired:

Robertson was in a Web design class at Moore High School in February 2002 when he says he found a Notepad file containing a paragraph titled "Evacuation Plans," which consisted of various instructions for taking shelter.

"It was pretty cool, I thought, so I just added on to it," Robertson said.

Robertson says the style of the writing set the tone for what he penned next. "The first paragraph was written in a militaristic style, so I got my mind set in a militaristic style and I just went from there," he said.

The text he wrote described using C-4 explosives to blow up the school and addressed what to do when police arrived. C-4 explosives were used in the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen three years ago and tore a 40-by-40-foot hole into the side of the destroyer.

About five weeks later, two students found the file on a computer and showed it to their teacher. Robertson was suspended from school for a year and prevented from graduating with his high school class. In order to complete the credits he needed to get his diploma, he took correspondence courses through the local university. Since his arrest he has had difficulty holding a job.

"I didn't know I could be charged with a felony for writing a story," he said.

Robertson's mother, Kathy, says Brian has produced dark writing in the past. "But he's not the only student who does this," she said. When she read the story in question she knew it was just "a figment of his imagination."

"Many students who are violent, you can see a pattern; they're constantly in trouble with school or withdrawn. But Brian is very gregarious. He's a fun-loving person and is very open. He's not the type who takes retribution," she said. Nonetheless, she supported his school suspension.

A former teacher herself, she said, "I know that in the day and time in which we live things are very scary." But she says the criminal charge went too far. "A felony will be with him for the rest of his life. That is so unfair."

Robertson says he lost friends as a result of the charges. Reporters later interviewed students at Moore who said they were frightened by news of his short story.

After his booking photo, which Robertson's mother describes as "not the most attractive photo," was flashed on the local news, Robertson's employer of two and a half years asked him to stop coming in.

"It was a really bad time for me," said Robertson.

And it is still a bad time for Robertson. His trial is currently underway.

In the transcripts of the trial, can be found some very interesting quotes. Quotes that serve to illustrate just how far we've come as a society toward institutionalizing George Orwell's 1984 "Thought Police."

On page 13 of one of the documents, the judge, presiding over the trial, described a possible scenario and posed a question to the Assistant District Attorney.

The Court: Now, if I am driving down the freeway, and I have a gun in my trunk with ammunition, and I think to myself, I will take the next exit, stop at a service station, get the gun out of the truck and trunk, and go in and rob this station, and shoot whoever is there. Okay, I am thinking that to myself as I drive down the road. I come to the next exit. I drive on past. I never exit the highway. I never get the gun out of the trunk. Did I commit a crime under this statute?

Mr. Sitzman: Assuming for the moment that big brother somehow or another is able to retrieve your thoughts and put it in some form that it could be utilized as evidence in Court, under this statute, I believe you have. I believe this statute as it is written on its face, unless, there is a very strict construction read into it, this statute criminalizes civil thought.

We freedom-loving patriots have been howling for years about thought police, only to be ignored by the mainstream. Or even worse, to be stereotyped as a bunch of paranoid, cuckoo nutcases.

But here you have an example straight from the horse's mouth (or maybe we should say straight from the ass' mouth), that leaves no doubt that our concerns are well founded.

Here is another:

The Court: Let me ask you, Mr. Sitzman, and I know the Assistant District Attorney, you are, it's your role to be an advocate for the State's side on this, and I don't want to ask you an unfair question. But it sounds like or I detect that you are not real enthusiastic about trying to defend this statute.
Mr. Sitzman: That is not an unfair question, Your Honor, and I have not been reserved. I've tried to be very candid about my feelings in this particular case from the very beginning. When this case came in from the Moore Police Department, there was no question that this — that the District Attorney's Office in this County was going to apply what we believed was then existing legitimate law in the State of Oklahoma, and it was our belief that the facts alleged in this particular case came under the color of that statute, and so there was no question that we were going to file or not file these charges. We do not see that it is our office's position to second-guess the Legislature. It is our job to enforce the law as the Legislature has drafted it, and as we believe they intended that it be enforced, and that's what we have done.

In other words, when it comes to enforcing the letter of the law, no matter how insane the law is, there will be no wiggle room. We are going to completely divorce our minds from any hint of common sense, in favor of prosecuting a high school student for authoring a fictitious work.

And you wonder why I say that government and common sense are like water and oil? Ne'er the twain shall mingle?

The assistant district attorney continues with his answer — a candid analysis of the Oklahoma law:

On the other hand, candidly, when I first read this statute, the very first time I read it, I was struck by a couple of different things. The first thing that struck me was every single verb in that section of the statute, attempt, conspire, or endeavor, is already the law in Oklahoma. And so the first thing that jumped out at me was why did they write this law when the conspiracy statute and the attempt statute would fully and adequately cover what this statute appeared to try and criminalize?

The second thing that jumped out at me was the use of the word "plan," and it stuck out like a sore thumb, and I had hoped that I would not be the prosecutor that would be asked, and I don't know if I am the first or not, but I haven't seen any case law. I wish I had. I wish I hadn't been the first to file a charge under this statute. But when we did, I anticipated there were going to be challenges to its constitutionality. It has cause [sic] me problems, analytically, from the day I first read it.

Then, why prosecute it? A prosecutor has descretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute a particular person. This prosecutor — knowing the law is ethically and morally wrong — continues to forge ahead with a prosecution that he knows is unjust, because he doesn't wish to "second guess" the state legislature. He's willing to ruin the life of a young man — perhaps a future screenwriter, or perhaps a future novelist — so that protocol can be followed. To HELL with justice! To HELL with the integrity of the system which was established to protect people from unfair prosecution.

Continuing with the assistant district attorney (again, this is the guy that is prosecuting Robertson's case):

"There is, in fact, perhaps a good argument to be made concerning a chilling effect on an individual's First Amendment rights to freedom of expression, and I admit freely that I am concerned by that as much as anything, perhaps more than any other factor in this particular case. I am concerned and I was concerned when I read this statute by the fact that the legislature used the verbal form of "plan" and not the noun form of "plan"; and although Mr. Presson didn't verbalize it today, I think it's inherent in his brief that verbal use of the word plan would not be limited, therefore, to actual writings or verbal expressions by an individual.

And although in this day and age we still, I hope, don't have the ability to do so, I am concerned by the old book we probably all read in high school, 1984, about the thought police. And the thing that I am concerned about this statute the most is the way it's written, perhaps outlaws thought. The way it's being enforced — I don't think is being enforced unconstitutionally — but it does concern me that the language that they decided to use a verb instead of a noun."

If Mr. Sitzman admits that a "good argument" could be made that the law violates an "individual's First Amendment right to freedom of expression", then why doesn't he refuse to enforce it on the grounds of its unconstitutionally?

The year of 1984 has arrived in full force.

Steven Spielberg beware! As you contemplate your next novel, Big Brother could be contemplating for you a sentence.

Related sites:

• Save Brian
  
• Orwell Today

By Darren Weeks

audblog audio post — I heard National Public Radio's version of the following story on the radio this afternoon, as I was driving.

Here's the story:

A new class being offered at the University of Michigan is creating quite a stir. The class is English 3-17, entitled, "How To Be Gay — Male Homosexuality and Initiation."

The Professor teaching the class says it examines the gay male identity. But some at the University are criticizing the class, saying it will promote homosexual behavior.

First of all, that is exactly what the class is designed to do. It is designed to be a recruiting hub for homosexual evangelism. This, of course, is proof that homosexuals are lying when they say that they need special rights and protections under civil rights laws, because they were "born this way." If they were "born this way," as they suggest, then they wouldn't need to teach a course on "how to be gay." Nor would they need to have instructions for "initiation."

Initiation into what? If you're born into a homosexual life, then why would you need to be initiated into it? Ever heard of a course taught on the subject of How to be straight?

Secondly, I would suggest to you that any criticism, coming from official University spokespeople is nothing more than window-dressing. If they had any real objections to that perverse, ill professor, teaching his diabolical doctrines on campus, they could immediately fire him. I believe any noise coming from U of M about their distaste for the subject of the class is merely rhetoric, designed to distance the institution from its employee, thus deflecting criticism from the univeristy itself. It is also an attempt at at least partially neutralizing public opposition to the plan.

And what is that plan, you ask? To further rip apart the traditional morality that has defined American culture for over 200 years. The founding fathers of the united States of America often spoke about the importance of virtue, in relation to the preservation of individual liberty. They understood that when a people have virtue, they will take a stand and fight for a cause. They would even die for it, if necessary.

But when a people become corrupt and perverse, they will often become lethargic when it comes to taking a stand concerning other vital principles of everyday life in a free society. It is almost as if they become intoxicated by the liquor of desecration.

Edmond Burke said it best, when he asked, "What is liberty without...virtue? It is...madness, without restraint."

How much greater madness do we get on a college campus that teaches a course on how to be a homosexual? I mean, even if someone does want to be a homosexual, do they really need a course to teach them how to be that way?

The class has even prompted one state representative to draw up a bill that will allow for legislative oversight of publicly-funded universities.

I have a better idea. Why don't we just pull all of the public funding from these secular universities. It isn't the government's job to extort money from us to fund the universities. Let's allow these bubble-headed, Marxist professors to find their own funding. As a taxpayer, I shouldn't have to pay for a university that I don't use. And even more so, if they're teaching a morality that is not only foreign to mine, but blatantly contradictory, malicious and hostile.

Actually, we could let the Rockefellers support them. They have enough cash. One way or the other, if there's Marxism taught on campus, they'll find a way to sustain themselves. You can bank on that!

And you parents, who read this, you didn't know that when you send your high-school graduate to college campuses like the University of Michigan, that you are helping to support this type of trash, did you?

I will again be a guest on Sweet Liberty with Jackie Patru tonight, to discuss the dangers of computerized voting.

The program airs at 10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, or 0200 U.T.C. on WWCR shortwave at 3.210 MHz.

You can also listen live online at www.sweetliberty.org/audio/

Find the link that says, "LISTEN LIVE"

Since this site is primarily devoted to my thoughts on various issues, I don't normally republish pieces of other individuals, except quotes for the purpose of analysis.

However, I read this "obituary" and it fits right in with everything that I have been saying in on these pages.

I do not know who the author of this "obit" is. If anyone has information regarding this, please forward it to me.

Here it is:

Today, we mourn the passing of an old friend, by the name of Common Sense. Common Sense lived a long life but died recently in the United States. No one really knows how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He selflessly devoted his life to service in schools, hospitals, homes, factories helping folks get jobs done without fanfare and foolishness. For decades, petty rules, silly laws, and frivolous lawsuits held no power over Common Sense. He was credited with cultivating such valued lessons as to know when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, and that life isn't always fair.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adults are in charge, not the kids), and it's okay to come in second. A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the Technological Revolution, Common Sense survived cultural and educational trends including body piercing, whole language, and "new math." But his health declined when he became infected with the "If-it-only-helps-one-person-it's-worth-it" virus.

In recent decades his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of well intentioned but overbearing regulations. He watched in pain as good people became ruled by self-seeking lawyers. His health rapidly deteriorated when schools endlessly implemented zero-tolerance policies.

Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, a teen suspended for taking a swig of mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student only worsened his condition. It declined even further when schools had to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student but could not inform the parent when a female student was pregnant or wanted an abortion.

Finally, Common Sense lost his will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses, criminals received better treatment than victims, and federal judges stuck their noses in everything from the Boy Scouts to professional sports. Finally, when people, too stupid to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, were awarded a huge settlement, Common Sense threw in the towel.

As the end neared, Common Sense drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of developments regarding questionable regulations such as those for low flow toilets, rocking chairs, and stepladders.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by two stepbrothers: My Rights, and Ima Whiner.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

And I would add, if they did realize he was gone, would they have even cared?

Since the size and scope of government is directly antithetical to the degree that common sense is allowed to flourish, it isn't surprising to learn of it's dissolution. R.I.P.

By Darren Weeks

Earlier in this space, I spoke about the United Nations program for sustainable development. I told you that this was a communist plan to put the land off limits to you, the American citizen.

I want to share with you the result of a meeting of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which took place on June 3-14, 1992.

This carefully worded declaration, and the principles contained therein, are right out of the Karl Marx playbook. I shall present these principles to you, and translate them into plain English, and in accordance with the real intent. Think of this exercise as a "B.S. to truth" translation of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. I will first present you with the actual principle. Then, subsequent to that, you'll read my translation and interpretation of it.

Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.

Human beings are the greatest threat to life on planet earth, by virtue of the fact that they breathe, like to build and own nice things such as cars, houses, and businesses. The latter, of course, is to selfishly enrich themselves at the expense of the poorer, less fortunate personage. We must ensure that this threat is neutralized at any cost. We will pay lip-service here to an entitlement of a healthy and productive lifestyle, even though the key words are "in harmony with nature."

By "healthy and productive," we mean that as long as these humans are able to contribute something to the good of the whole of society, we will permit them to continue living. However, when a person becomes old, and no longer useful to the system, we must be certain that the necessary elements needed to sustain that person's life are removed, and reallocated to a younger, more productive individual.

We at the U.N. recognize that the only true way to be in harmony with nature, is to remove these dangerous human beings off of the their private property and relocate them to the crowded cities. We will accomplish this measure by various means. We will lobby lawmakers in every state to progressively increase property taxes, the end result of which will be that eventually private land ownership will be unaffordable and impracticle. We will exploit endangered species legislation to terrorize existing land owners and effectively render the land they own useless to them. Further, we will have our minions start fires in various places in order to remove existing structures. We will pay landowners to relocate to higher population hubs, following "natural" disasters such as earth quakes, floods, etc.

After the population is all gathered together in nice close quarters (read: cramped), it is only then that they all can be happy little workerbees on our global plantation. So let's all join hands, and visualize peace.

States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and
the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

We will recognize a state's right to use whatever resources — natural or human — to put our environmental plan of control into effect. The policies will be passed by the governments of each state, so the laws will be theirs, but the overall agenda will still be ours.

It is the responsibility of the states to place whatever restrictions that are necessary upon businesses and the private sector to ensure that development of businesses and activities, having the potential to pollute the environment are kept at a very strict minimal. And we will define what the parameters are, and impose penalties for states and individuals who violate said parameters.

The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.

We have to place significant restrictions on industrial development, and private property rights have to be abated. These restrictions will enable future generations to live on this planet and work for the greater good of the whole of society, rather than working to enrich themselves or their posterity.

In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

We will place so many environmental rules, regulations, and government red tape in the path of businesses, that it will be impossible for any of them to jump through all of the necessary hoops. This is, of course, with the exception of the very most wealthy of businesses, which are owned or otherwise controlled by us. It is by this means, that we will achieve and maintain control of all of the private sector.

All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.

By "eradicating poverty," we actually mean that the United States of America has for too long been allowed to be a wealthy superpower. The people of America have been spoiled too much. They have it too good, and it is time for America to be brought to her knees. It is time that the American people tasted the bitter cup of poverty, with which the rest of the world is all too familiar. The playing field must be leveled.

Eradicating poverty won't mean that there will be widespread abundance, but as our hero Karl Marx said, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." We will be the global Robin Hood, and steal money from the wealthiest nations and give it to the poorist. The sole exception to this rule will be Israel.

The people of America will lose their land, all of their possessions, and will scarcely be able to eat. It is then that we shall consider the playing field leveled, and the world will be fair.

The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of environment and
development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.

In our efforts at implementing Principle 5, we shall maintain strict regulatory standards in the U.S.A., while we relax bureaucratic red tape in various countries. This will encourage a mass exodus of industries from America to foreign soils, and ensure a lower standard of living for the spoiled brats, we otherwise refer to as Americans.

States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the
global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.

Developed countries pollute the atmosphere more than undeveloped countries. This would make sense, due to the fact that undeveloped countries don't have the industry to do the polluting. We'll ignore this fact, along with the fact that the developed counties feed the world. Instead, we'll push the Koyoto protocol, which will regulatorily force industries in developed countries out of business, due to the fact that they cannot meet environmental pollution standards. This will further aide in our effort at accomplishing Principle 5.

To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.

In true Marxist fashion, we must act for the well-being of everyone. This means that individuality shall be a thing of the past. Despite the fact that we have repeatedly failed to deliver on our promise of a higher standard of living in every state which has been foolish enough to believe us, we shall courageously forge ahead. We will continue to promise a chicken in every pot, while delivering empty bellies, and aching hearts.

We will have large areas of land which we shall render off limits to human habitation. These areas shall continually expand like large black holes, until land ownership will be a thing of the past.

States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies.

You know how important it is to share! There will be no more hogging of technology. From now on, science and technology will be shared on a global scale. After all, everything has to be fair. You know how important fairness is to us.

Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings,
including redress and remedy, shall be provided.

Key to this principle, is the words, "at the relevant level." An objection to the environmental agenda, based upon the fact that it is too oppressive and hinders the individual's ability produce wealth for himself, for example, would be considered irrelevant.

Public authorities shall hold and distribute environmental propaganda, and make it widely available.

Citizens will be given a chance to make their voices heard on a particular issue, thereby being given the impression that they have participated in the decision-making process. However, at all of these meetings, the Delphi Technique shall be employed to manipulate and silence any opposition or objections.

We will allow everyone to sue any businesses which pollute — that is, assuming there are any businesses left at this point.

States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.

Cumbersome laws, and bureaucratic red-tape for rich, developed countries, and lieniency for poor, undeveloped countries. This, again, is in the spirit of Principle 5, and that of our great role-model, Karl Marx.

States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.

Our purpose is to have global governance. Therefore, trade should be wide-open as should every state's borders. In fact, there should really be no borders save for the purposes of defining one part of the world from the other. All problems should be solved by the world community as a whole. No nation-state should do anything without having first obtained permission from us.

- more to come -

I have been asked to appear as a guest on Jackie Patru's Sweet Liberty radio broadcast tonight at 10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time.

The broadcast airs on shortwave at 3.210 MHz.

Audio is also available online at www.sweetliberty.org/audio/

Just click on the link - LISTEN LIVE.

Sweet Liberty with Jackie Patru is an international shortwave broadcast. The topic that we will be discussing is the dangers of Computerized Voting.

audblog audio post — The paid program for an infomercial that I ran, begins with a disclaimer that is big enough to choke a horse! Rather than get full-blown Carpel-Tunnel Syndrome from typing it, I thought it would be quicker to read it to you.

The disclaimer is a prime example of how we're over lawyered in America!

Incidentally, I once considered becoming a lawyer myself. When I checked the website of Cooley Law School for more information, I found a page which told all about the career. Under the heading of "Job Outlook," it said:

Individuals interested in pursuing careers as lawyers should encounter stiff competition through the year 2008. The number of law school graduates is expected to continue to strain the economy's capacity to absorb them.

In other words, they admit that there are just too many lawyers!

So McDonald's can be sued for coffee burns, despite the fact that coffee has always been known to be a hot beverage. And never mind the fact that they already have the words, "CAUTION: HOT" on their cups.

They can be sued again because their food is so delicious that Aunt Matilda can't fit her hips through the door anymore.

And heaven help the golden arches if they happen to have any asbestos in their stores!

The present culture of prevalent plaintiffs, serves to illustrate the rate to which society has decayed. Once upon a time, if neighbors had a problem with each other, they'd settle it over the backyard fence with a friendly chat. Or they'd discuss it over a nice cup of java at the dining room table.

Now the answer is litigation without hesitation.

I'm not saying that there are not times when lawsuits are necessary. It just seems to me that clogging the courts with Joe Camel and Ronald McDonald, when we know that cigarettes and fast food aren't healthy, removes the element of personal responsibility. It's always someone else's fault.

If I'm not wealthy, someone else is to blame. If I'm not healthy, someone else is to blame. If I'm not happy, it's someone else's fault. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I am a big fat slob, who never had any initiative to accomplish or learn anything, so now I am an unemployed, uninsured, uneducated, and unsuccessful loser who never amounted to anything. And none of it's my fault. And, by the way, where is my government check?

Lawyers could be a big help if they would just practice Constitutional law and quit chasing ambulances and the almighty dollar. Perhaps that is an unrealistic expectation. But until it happens, it is the law profession itself, which is proving to be the greatest liability to society.

Gee, do you think we could sue for reparations?

Related websites:

• overlawyered.com