Blind Obedience Part I

Its been said of the previous generation, that everyone will always remember where they were when JFK was assassinated. There's no question that the most defining moment of American history for our generation is 9/11... and especially in this day of multi-media, I'm sure everyone can remember where they were and what they were doing on 9/11. It was surreal to me, and I'm sure to others, definately a moment we won't soon forget. But did the world change after 9/11? Its a phrase, a slogan of sorts, that has permeated American culture, but doesn't seem to garnish the same response in Europe and throughout the rest of the world.

9/11 was the first time American faced an attack on its soil since Pearl Harbor (1941). It was the first on our "mainland" since the civil war. We, as Americans, are not truly aware of the specter of war. Compare that to Europe, which, even in only the last 100 years, has experienced two World Wars fought mainly on their lands. About 25,000,000 people died during World War 2. Those in the military. Not even counting civilian casualties. Now, I believe every life is precious, and I in no way mean to take away from those who died (less than 4,000) on September 11th, but in no way can that day compare to millions upon millions... UPON MILLIONS... who died during that half a decade in the early 1940's. But we as Americans, are use to seeing war overseas, on tv... on the internet... in film, and when experienced up close... it was like a boxer who's not use to being punched. We panicked.

Add these factors to an incoming administration (Spring 2001) who already held a unique view of the role of the Executive branch of US government, and the role of the US in relation to the world, and you begin to see the wheels set in motion for a period of what CAN be described as fascism.

I know there are several different views on fascism. I'm defining pseudo-fascism as a lack of dissent. Not necessarily totalitarian or explicitly authoritative, but a climate or environment that does not tolerate opposing views or opinions. One nationalist party of sorts. That seeks to form and influence the people into a singular view, rather than a democracy that welcomes multiple forms of thought.

One way this administration seeks to control the people is by controlling the information. There have been Presidential press conferences longer than I have been alive. But they are no longer really conferences, more staged and scripted exchanges. This President does not allow live/random questions. The entire press conference has been pre-planned. People raise their hands, but this is only for show to the people. The truth is, George Bush has a list of names of reporters in the White House corp he will call on. They are aware. At the end of this, I will have a link to a video showing Bush admit this in the middle of press conference.

This brings me to Jeff Gannon. A former "reporter" from Talon news. In the first term of this administration, Gannon was a regular in the press room asking "softball" questions to Bush promoting the Republican agenda. What the majority of the people did NOT know now... Jeff Gannon was a fake name by a man who was not a reporter at all.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/02/10/gannon_affair/

One must ask how such a fellow was able to get in to these briefings. Noone had ever heard of Talon news... how did they get access small news outlets all over seek? This wasn't open to the public, there are levels of security. Screening and whatnot. Yet, this fake guy, with the fake name, and the fake job... with conservative views... who happened to be from middle America, and happened to ask questions the Bush administration liked... he somehow SNUCK into the White House? Why was this story not bigger in the (so called) liberal media? Fake reporter planted by the Bush administration to influence the people's perception of whats going on during these press conferences.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27730-2005Feb15.html

And when he was outed as ANOTHER hypocritical gay republican. A male escort no less... I... I... just dont know what to say. A gay male escort. A gay male escort. We're talking about a guy wrote negatively about gay issues, criticizing liberal Democrats to his middle American audience. And then it turns out that James Dale Guckert (his real name) was... a gay male escort. Am I the only one laughing at this? The irony of a socially conservative fake reporter being a gay male escort. A gay male escort had direct conversations with the president of the United States. How does the Christian Right feel about that?

Not only were there fake reporters, but fake REPORTS! Philip Cooney was a Senior White House Official who worked extensively on issues regarding environmental quality. When a White House report on global warming (gotta keep big business happy, right?) was found to have been purposely distorted by Cooney himself... people began to research his background. Philip Cooney, who worked in government on environmental issues...

(long pause)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8137646

...was a former Oil Lobbyist! Im going to let that marinate for a moment. Ha ha ha ha ha haa... you kidding me? The Bush administration is so bold... I almost begrudgingly admire it. But in all seriousness, what that means... of all the people that the Bush administration could have found... ON THE PLANET... the best person they could find to protect our planet... was as former Oil Lobbyist? Yeeeeeeesh! Trees beware. The grinch is coming for you. And after his former job became public knowledge... where do you think Mr. Cooney went for his next job? He helped decieve the people ("global warming needs more study"?) for as long as he could, and went back to lobbying for those who are directly opposed to business regulations to protect the environment. These people really know how to control the information.

Monica Goodling... come on down! You're the next contestant on the goober is right! Who is Monica Goodling, you may ask? She was the number 3 person in the justice department. Worked as a liason to the White House. She very recently resigned in the midst of the attorney firings scandal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901964.html

Now, I'll get back to the firings themselves, in a moment. But... lets focus on her for a second. How does someone 33 years old get the third highest office in the entire Department of Justice? With no law background, no less? One must assume that her collegiate background must be off the charts, right? Oh, its off the charts. She went to Messiah College. Yes... Messiah College. Are they even accredited? And after that.. she went to Regent Law School. A school founded by...

(pause)

...Pat Roberston. Oh... my... God... are you kidding? Televangelists can start colleges? Pat Robertson has a law school. Pat Robertson has a law school. PAT ROBERTSON HAS A LAW SCHOOL!!! This lady is, 33, has never worked as a lawyer, and graduated from "Fundy U." Its like I keep pinching myself but I'm still sleep. Like Im trapped in the Matrix ;)

"This is not happening, this is not happening... this is not happening." (Mo-Pheus)

Well, at the age of 33, with no job experience in law, being one of the highest ranking officials in the Justice Department, high enough to give input on firing US Attorneys, at least Pat Robertson's school is highly regarded? Right? Right?

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_tier4_brief.php

Its a tier4 grad school. The lowest ranking they give. And how many Regent Law School... and I use the term "school" very loosely... how many "Fundy U" alum work in the Justice Department? 4? 5? Oh, please... dont let it be more than 13. Correct answer: 150+. Uuuugh...

Restoring honor and integrity to the White House. Thats hysterical! What amazes me, all of these cases garner little to no attention in what is always accused of being a liberal mainstream media.

What about the Military Act of 2006? Does anyone even know what habeas corpus is? I guess it doesn't matter anymore since its been taken away by "George the Fascist."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03gitmo.html

Habeas corpus is the right to appeal or question your confinement. Its a fundamental pillar of democracy that predates the United States. It was TEMPORARILY suspended during the civil war, but now.... who knows? And who does this apply to? Anyone. Anyone that Bush labels an enemy combatant. They talk of foreign terrorists, but Jose Padilla was an American citizen. An American citizen was taken to Guantanamo Bay (aka "camp liberation") and was held indefiantely without charges for over 3 years. They didn't want to prosecute him. They didn't (and dont) feel they need to PROVE anything to anyone. If you're suspected of being a terrorist, you can just disappear. And since this isn't a definable war, we will be fighting terrorism indefinately. For all the goobers who believe we're fighting terrorism, when does that war end? When do we go.... "whew... finally got them all. Its all over now. We have killed the final terrorist." We might as well have a war on jealousy. "We want to stop envy throughout the freeworld!" I'm thinking about starting a war versus hate. Or maybe a war versus sadness. We can go around spreading smiles. So, we have an indefinate war, against an undefinable enemy, and habeas corpus will be gone during the interim.

And noone cares. I thought the terrorist hated freedom? I thought we were spreading freedom? It appears that our new plan is to get the terrorist to leave us alone by being as against freedom as possible.

(to be continued)