Election Fraud and Christianity

Name:
Location: Germantown, Maryland, United States

Artist, have done many pastels and oil paintings of gymnasts and dancers in the past. Currently focusing on special effects of photos taken from downloaded gymnastics videos and importing frames, sometimes to show the sequences of dance and acrobatic movements.

Sunday, January 15, 2006


Nelli Kim


Stop Alito...STOP THE BUSH REGIME and Imperial Presidency

Al Gore Will Be Giving A Speech This Week on Our Constitutional Crises

Published on Thursday, October 6, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

American Democracy in Trouble: It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse Keynote Speech by Al Gore

We Media Conference in New York, NY October 5, 2005 I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.

How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it's almost as if America has entered "an alternate universe"?

I thought maybe it was an aberration when three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001. But more than four years later, between a third and a half still believe Saddam was personally responsible for planning and supporting the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, non-stop coverage of the O.J. trial was just an unfortunate excess that marked an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. But now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time.

Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? And does it feel right to have no ongoing discussion of whether or not this abhorrent, medieval behavior is being carried out in the name of the American people?

If the gap between rich and poor is widening steadily and economic stress is mounting for
low-income families, why do we seem increasingly apathetic and lethargic in our role as citizens?
On the eve of the nation's decision to invade Iraq, our longest serving senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor asked: "Why is this chamber empty? Why are these halls silent?"


The decision that was then being considered by the Senate with virtually no meaningful debate turned out to be a fateful one. A few days ago, the former head of the National Security Agency, Retired Lt. General William Odom, said, "The invasion of Iraq, I believe, will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."


But whether you agree with his assessment or not, Senator Byrd's question is like the others that I have just posed here: he was saying, in effect, this is strange, isn't it? Aren't we supposed to have full and vigorous debates about questions as important as the choice between war and peace?

Those of us who have served in the Senate and watched it change over time, could volunteer an answer to Senator Byrd's two questions: the Senate was silent on the eve of war because Senators don't feel that what they say on the floor of the Senate really matters that much any more. And the chamber was empty because the Senators were somewhere else: they were in fundraisers collecting money from special interests in order to buy 30-second TVcommercials for their next re-election campaign.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was - at least for a short time - a quality of vividness and clarity of focus in our public discourse that reminded some Americans - including some journalists - that vividness and clarity used to be more common in the way we talk with one another about the problems and choices that we face. But then, like a passing summer storm, the moment faded.

In fact there was a time when America's public discourse was consistently much more vivid, focused and clear. Our Founders, probably the most literate generation in all of history, used words with astonishing precision and believed in the Rule of Reason. Their faith in the viability of Representative Democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry. But they placed particular emphasis on insuring that the public could be well- informed. And they took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas in order to ensure the free-flow of knowledge.

The values that Americans had brought from Europe to the New World had grown out of the sudden explosion of literacy and knowledge after Gutenberg's disruptive invention broke up the stagnant medieval information monopoly and triggered the Reformation, Humanism, and the Enlightenment and enshrined a new sovereign: the "Rule of Reason." Indeed, the self-governing republic they had the audacity to establish was later named by the historian Henry Steele Commager as "the Empire of Reason."

Our founders knew all about the Roman Forum and the Agora in ancient Athens. They also understood quite well that in America, our public forum would be an ongoing conversation about democracy in which individual citizens would participate not only by speaking directly in the presence of others -- but more commonly by communicating with their fellow citizens over great distances by means of the printed word. Thus they not only protected Freedom of Assembly as a basic right, they made a special point - in the First Amendment - of protecting the freedom of the printing press.

Their world was dominated by the printed word. Just as the proverbial fish doesn't know it lives in water, the United States in its first half century knew nothing but the world of print: the Bible, Thomas Paine's fiery call to revolution, the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution , our laws, the Congressional Record, newspapers and books. Though they feared that a government might try to censor the printing press - as King George had done - they could not imagine that
America's public discourse would ever consist mainly of something other than words in print.
And yet, as we meet here this morning, more than 40 years have passed since the majority of Americans received their news and information from the printed word. Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers and, for the most part, resisting the temptation to inflate their circulation numbers. Reading itself is in sharp decline, not only in our country but in most of the world. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by television.

Radio, the internet, movies, telephones, and other media all now vie for our attention - but it is television that still completely dominates the flow of information in modern America. In fact, according to an authoritative global study, Americans now watch television an average of four hours and 28 minutes every day -- 90 minutes more than the world average. When you assume eight hours of work a day, six to eight hours of sleep and a couple of hours to bathe, dress, eat and commute, that is almost three-quarters of all the discretionary time that the average American has. And for younger Americans, the average is even higher.

The internet is a formidable new medium of communication, but it is important to note that it still doesn't hold a candle to television. Indeed, studies show that the majority of Internet users are actually simultaneously watching television while they are online. There is an important reason why television maintains such a hold on its viewers in a way that the internet does not, but I'll get to that in a few minutes. Television first overtook newsprint to become the dominant source of information in America in 1963. But for the next two decades, the television networks mimicked the nation's leading newspapers by faithfully following the standards of the journalism profession.
Indeed, men like Edward R. Murrow led the profession in raising the bar.

But all the while, television's share of the total audience for news and information continued to grow -- and its lead over newsprint continued to expand. And then one day, a smart young political consultant turned to an older elected official and succinctly described a new reality in America's public discourse: "If it's not on television, it doesn't exist."

But some extremely important elements of American Democracy have been pushed to the sidelines . And the most prominent casualty has been the "marketplace of ideas" that was so beloved and so carefully protected by our Founders. It effectively no longer exists. It is not that we no longer share ideas with one another about public matters; of course we do. But the "Public Forum" in which our Founders searched for general agreement and applied the Rule of Reason has been grossly distorted and "restructured" beyond all recognition.

And here is my point: it is the destruction of that marketplace of ideas that accounts for the "strangeness" that now continually haunts our efforts to reason together about the choices we must make as a nation. Whether it is called a Public Forum, or a "Public Sphere" , or a marketplace of ideas, the reality of open and free public discussion and debate was considered central to the operation of our democracy in America's earliest decades. In fact, our first self-expression as a nation - "We the People" - made it clear where the ultimate source of authority lay. It was
universally understood that the ultimate check and balance for American government was its accountability to the people. And the public forum was the place where the people held the government accountable. That is why it was so important that the marketplace of ideas operated independent from and beyond the authority of government.

The three most important characteristics of this marketplace of ideas were:

1) It was open to every individual, with no barriers to entry, save the necessity of literacy. This access, it is crucial to add, applied not only to the receipt of information but also to the ability to contribute information directly into the flow of ideas that was available to all;

2) The fate of ideas contributed by individuals depended, for the most part, on an emergent Meritocracy of Ideas. Those judged by the market to be good rose to the top, regardless of the wealth or class of the individual responsible for them;

3) The accepted rules of discourse presumed that the participants were all governed by an unspoken duty to search for general agreement. That is what a "Conversation of Democracy" is all about.

What resulted from this shared democratic enterprise was a startling new development in human history: for the first time, knowledge regularly mediated between wealth and power. The liberating force of this new American reality was thrilling to all humankind. Thomas Jefferson declared, "I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." It ennobled the individual and unleashed the creativity of the human spirit. It inspired people everywhere to dream of what they could yet become. And it emboldened Americans to bravely explore the farther frontiers of freedom - for African Americans, for women, and eventually, we still dream, for all.

And just as knowledge now mediated between wealth and power, self- government was understood to be the instrument with which the people embodied their reasoned judgments into law. The Rule of Reason under- girded and strengthened the rule of law. But to an extent seldom appreciated, all of this - including especially the ability of the American people to exercise the reasoned collective judgments presumed in our Founders' design -- depended on the particular characteristics of the marketplace of ideas as it operated during the Age of Print.

Consider the rules by which our present "public forum" now operates, and how different they are from the forum our Founders knew. Instead of the easy and free access individuals had to participate in the national conversation by means of the printed word, the world of television makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation today.
Inexpensive metal printing presses were almost everywhere in America. They were easily accessible and operated by printers eager to typeset essays, pamphlets, books or flyers.

Television stations and networks, by contrast, are almost completely inaccessible to individual citizens and almost always uninterested in ideas contributed by individual citizens. Ironically, television programming is actually more accessible to more people than any source of information has ever been in all of history. But here is the crucial distinction: it is accessible in only one direction; there is no true interactivity, and certainly no conversation.

The number of cables connecting to homes is limited in each community and usually forms a natural monopoly. The broadcast and satellite spectrum is likewise a scarce and limited resource controlled by a few. The production of programming has been centralized and has usually required a massive capital investment. So for these and other reasons, an ever-smaller number of large corporations control virtually all of the television programming in America. Soon after television established its dominance over print, young people who realized they were being shut out of the dialogue of democracy came up with a new form of expression in an effort to join the national conversation: the "demonstration." This new form of expression, which began in the 1960s, was essentially a poor quality theatrical production designed to capture the attention of the television cameras long enough to hold up a sign with a few printed words to convey, however plaintively, a message to the American people.

Even this outlet is now rarely an avenue for expression on national television.

So, unlike the marketplace of ideas that emerged in the wake of the printing press, there is virtually no exchange of ideas at all in television's domain. My partner Joel Hyatt and I are trying to change that - at least where Current TV is concerned. Perhaps not coincidentally, we are the only independently owned news and information network in all of American television. It is important to note that the absence of a two-way conversation in American television also means that there is no "meritocracy of ideas" on television. To the extent that there is a "marketplace" of any kind for ideas on television, it is a rigged market, an oligopoly, with imposing barriers to entry that exclude the average citizen.

The German philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, describes what has happened as "the refeudalization of the public sphere." That may sound like gobbledygook, but it's a phrase that packs a lot of meaning. The feudal system which thrived before the printing press democratized knowledge and made the idea of America thinkable, was a system in which wealth and power were intimately
intertwined, and where knowledge played no mediating role whatsoever. The great mass of the people were ignorant. And their powerlessness was born of their ignorance.

It did not come as a surprise that the concentration of control over this powerful one-way medium carries with it the potential for damaging the operations of our democracy. As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, "no nation can be free." As a result of these fears, safeguards were enacted in the U.S. -- including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine - though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.

And radio is not the only place where big changes have taken place. Television news has undergone a series of dramatic changes. The movie "Network," which won the Best Picture Oscar in 1976, was presented as a farce but was actually a prophecy. The journalism profession morphed into the news business, which became the media industry and is now completely owned by conglomerates.
The news divisions - which used to be seen as serving a public interest and were subsidized by the rest of the network - are now seen as profit centers designed to generate revenue and, more importantly, to advance the larger agenda of the corporation of which they are a small part. They have fewer reporters, fewer stories, smaller budgets, less travel, fewer bureaus, less independent judgment, more vulnerability to influence by management, and more dependence on government sources and canned public relations hand-outs. This tragedy is compounded by the ironic fact that this generation of journalists is the best trained and most highly skilled in the history of their profession. But they are usually not allowed to do the job they have been trained to do.

The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter - and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments. They paid actors to make make phony video press releases and paid cash to some reporters who were willing to take it in return for positive stories. And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1006-28.htm

Monday, January 02, 2006


The Fruits or evil deeds of the Bush Crime Family. Jesus said by their fruits shall you know them. Satan is the father of lies Who does bush, junior serve?


Very courageous British Diplomat Craig Murray exposing horrific torture in hopes of ending it.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

UK Torture Memos - Second Document

Second Document - summary of legal opinion from Michael Wood arguing that it is legal to use
information extracted under torture:

From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor
Date: 13 March 2003
CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD
Linda Duffield

UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said that his
understanding was that it was also an offence under the UN Convention on Torture to receive or
possess information under torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case,but undertook
to re-read the Convention.

2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect. The nearest thing is article 15
which provides:

"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which isestablished to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made."

3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law any statement established
to have been made as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence.
[signed]
M C WoodLegal Adviser

=Comment #1: 12/29/05
They have no shame nor fear of retribution because with Bush in power, they're just following
orders! Hmmm, didn't we hear that someplace before...at the Nuremberg Trial? Fascism has a new
face,complete with big ears (besides George's, the NSA's).

=I also want to wish a Merry Christmas to Congressman Conyers and his family and to all of the
faithful posters on this blog.

Sadly, it's hard to have much Christmas joy when people who are struggling for peace and justice
in a world gone certifiably insane can no longer look to America for peace, justice, or even hope.
Many people lost that struggle this past year, and died alone and afraid in Iraq and Darfur and New
Orleans and countless other forlorn lands. We will never know their names or be able to honor
them as they deserve, but they have found love, peace, and justice in a better and brighter world
than this one.

====Pentagon propaganda program orders soldiers to promote Iraq war

From Capitol Hill Blue
CHB Investigates. . .Pentagon propaganda program orders soldiers to promoteIraq war while home on leaveBy DOUG THOMPSONPublisher, Capitol Hill BlueDec 29, 2005, 05:44
Good soldiers follow orders and hundreds of Americanmilitary men and women returned to the United Stateson holiday leave this month with orders to sell theIraq war to a skeptical public.
The program, coordinated through a Pentagon operationdubbed “Operation Homefront,” ordered militarypersonnel to give interviews to their hometownnewspapers, television stations and other mediaoutlets and praise the American war effort in Iraq.

Initial reports back to the Pentagon deem theoperation a success with dozens of front page storiesin daily and weekly newspapers around the countryalong with upbeat reports on local televisionstations.

“We've learned as a military how to do this better,”Captain David Diaz, a military reservist, told hishometown paper, The Roanoke (VA) Times. “My worry isthat we have the right military strategy and politicalstrategies now but the patience of the American publicis wearing thin.”
When pressed by the paper on whether or not hiscommanding officers told him to talk to the press,Diaz admitted he was “encouraged” to do so. Soreporter Duncan Adams asked:
“Did Diaz return to the U.S. on emergency leave withan agenda -- to offer a positive spin that could helpcounter growing concerns among Americans about theU.S. exit strategy? How do we know that's not hisstrategy, especially after he discloses that superiorofficers encouraged him to talk about his experiencesin Iraq?”

Replied Diaz:

“You don't. I can tell you that the direction we'vegotten from on high is that there is a concern aboutpublic opinion out there and they want to set therecord straight.”

Diaz, an intelligence officer, knows how to avoid adirect answer. Other military personnel, however, tellCapitol Hill Blue privately that the pressure to “sellthe war” back home is enormous.
“I’ve been promised an early release if I do a good job promoting the war,” says one reservist who asked not to be identified.

In interviews with a number of reservists home for theholidays, a pattern emerges on the Pentagon’spropaganda effort. Soldiers are encouraged to contacttheir local news media outlets to offer interviewsabout the war. A detailed set of talking pointsencourages them to:

--Admit initial doubts about the war but claimconversion to a belief in the American mission;
--Praise military leadership in Iraq and throw in afew words of support for the Bush administration;
--Claim the mission to turn security of the countryover to the Iraqis is working;
--Reiterate that America must not abandon its missionand must stay until the “job is finished.”
--Talk about how “things are better” now in Iraq.

“My worry is that we have the right military strategyand political strategies now but the patience of theAmerican public is wearing thin,” Diaz told TheRoanoke Times.

“It’s way better now (in Iraq). People are friendlier.They seem more relaxed, and they say, ’Thank you,mister,’” Sgt. Christopher Desierto told his hometownpaper, The Maui News.

But soldiers who are home and don’t have to return toIraq tell a different story.

“I've just been focused on trying to get the rest ofthese guys home,” says Sgt. Major Floyd Dubose ofJackson, MS, who returned home after 11 months in Iraqwith the Mississippi Army National Guard's 155thCombat Brigade.

And the Army is cracking down on soldiers who go on the record opposing the war.
Specialist Leonard Clark, a National Guardsman, wasdemoted to private and fined $1,640 for postinganti-war statements on an Internet blog. Clark wroteentries describing the company's commander as a "gloryseeker" and the battalion sergeant major an "inhuman monster". His last entry before the blog was shut downtold how his fellow soldiers were becomingincreasingly opposed to the US operation in Iraq.

“The message is clear,” says one reservist who is homefor the holidays but has to return and asked not to beidentified. “If you want to get out of this man’s Armywith an honorable (discharge) and full benefits youbetter not tell the truth about what is happeningin-country.”

But Sgt. Johnathan Wilson, a reservist, got hishonorable discharge after he returned home earlierthis month and he’s not afraid to talk on the record.

“Iraq is a classic FUBAR,” he says. “The country isout of control and we can’t stop it. Anybody who triesto sell a good news story about the war is blowing itout his ass. We don’t win and eventually we will leavethe country in a worse shape than it was when we invaded.”

© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7918.shtml
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/revote2004/message/4087

New Year's Resolution: Impeach Bush & Cheney!! Here's how........... From: Democrats.com News <news@democrats.com>To: dem-activist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:59:58 -0400Subject: New Year's Resolution: Impeach Bush and Cheney
Let's Make our 2006 New Year's Resolution: To Impeach Bush and Cheney!

http://democrats.com/2006-resolution http://www.WorldCantWait.org "

DRIVE THE BUSH
REGIME OUT!
"http://www.ImpeachBush.org
"Clinton ruined a dress, BUSH RUINED A NATION!"

On December 15th, the New York Times revealed George Bush secretly ordered the National
Security Agency to spy on American citizens without warrants.

Bush's actions deliberately violated the strict FISA law and subverted the Constitution - both of
which are IMPEACHABLE offenses.Yet on December 17, Bush used his weekly radio address to brag that he broke the law repeatedly

- "more than 30 times."Shortly afterwards, Richard Nixon's White House Counsel John Dean (of Watergate fame) was on a radio show with Senator Barbara Boxer. Dean pointed out that George Bush was the first president in history to confess to an impeachable crime.So why is a confessed criminal still in the White House - and not in jail???

Because George Bush believes he is above the law. He believes he is a dictator - even a king or an
emperor.

Bush claims his dictatorial powers derive from 9-11. But where was Bush after August 6, 2001
when he read the CIA memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"?
He was on vacation - the longest presidential vacation in history.And where was Bush on 9-11 itself after four commercial airliners were hijacked? He sat in a Florida classroom reading "My Pet Goat" - even after learning that two of the planes turned the Twin Towers into towering infernos. Then he flew west to get as far from Washington as possible.When American really needed a President to stop a heinous terrorist attack, George Bush went AWOL - just as he did to the National Guard in 1972.

George Bush should have resigned on 9-11 for his gross failures of leadership before and during
the terrorist attack. Instead, he used 9-11 to claim a mandate for dictatorship - first to shred the
Constitution, and then to launch an illegal and disastrous war in Iraq.It is time to revoke Bush's self-proclaimed mandate for dictatorship. It is time for a change.

My New Year's Resolution for 2006 is simple: to do everything in my power to impeach George
Bush and Dick Cheney.I have shared my Resolution with my Representative and Senators. Will you join me?
http://democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/17

I believe impeachment is possible - perhaps even inevitable - if we all resolve to do our part.Even before the NSA wiretapping scandal broke, a Zogby poll found 53% of Americans thought Bush should be impeached if he lied about Iraq - and 57% believe Bush lied. After the wiretapping scandal, even libertarians and conservatives started suggesting impeachment. The list includes former Reagan official Bruce Fein, Norm Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, law professors Jonathan Turley and Geoffrey Stone, and even the editor of Barron's, Thomas
Donlan. When Americans across the ideological spectrum support impeachment, all we need is a
few Members of Congress to lead the way.

Recently, prominent Democrats like Senator Barbara Boxer, Rep. John Lewis, and Rep. John
Conyers began talking seriously about impeachment. Conyers compiled Bush's impeachable
offenses in a must-read book, "The Constitution in Crisis." He introduced two bills (H.Res.636 and
H.Res.637) to censure Bush and Cheney for withholding evidence from Congress. And Conyers
wrote a third bill - H.Res.635 - to create a select committee to investigate the Administration's
intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence,
encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make
recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

Impeachment is becoming a campaign issue as well. With your support, ImpeachPAC.org has
raised $46,261.70 to support pro-impeachment candidates. Our first endorsed candidate, Tony
Trupiano of Michigan, is proudly campaigning on his support for impeachment, despite repeated
attacks by the Washington Establishment. We hope to endorse many more pro-impeachment candidates - both incumbents and challengers, in the weeks to come. You can help
by sending Democratic Congressional candidates here:

http://impeachpac.org/candidates

We are also forming a powerful Citizens Impeachment Commission of prominent Americans who
are willing to lead the fight in the year ahead. Our commission already includes activists Medea
Benjamin, Gene Bruskin, Tim Carpenter, David Cline, Steve Cobble, Karen Dolan, Jodie Evans,
Mike Ferner, Bob Fertik, Kim Gandy, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Tom Hayden, Doug Kreeger,
Bill Mitchell, Bill Moyer, Michael Rectenwald, Cindy Sheehan, David Swanson, Jonathan Tasini,
and Kevin Zeese; former government officials Elizabeth de la Vega, Larry Johnson, and Ann
Wright, Historians and Legal Scholars John Bonifaz, Marcus Raskin, Lawrence R. Velvel, and
Howard Zinn, and Talk Show Hosts/Editors/Bloggers/Pundits/Authors David Allen, Dave Allsopp,
The Bulldog Manifesto, Tom Engelhardt, Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders, Justin A. Frank, MD,
Doug Ireland, Rob Kall, Susie Madrak, Mark Crispin Miller, Brad Newsham, Liza Sabater, and
Jeff Tiedrich. And we're just getting started! Please encourage prominent citizens you know to sign
up here:http://impeachpac.org/citizens

Until recently, the idea of impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney was a distant dream. But
now Democrats are taking the first steps towards making impeachment a reality. And if we devote
our efforts to this cause in 2006, I believe we will ultimately succeed.So please join me in resolving to make 2006 the Year of Impeachment - and sharing this New Year's Resolution with our Representatives:
http://democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/17
Let's have a VERY Happy New Year!Bob FertikBob Fertik, PresidentDemocrats.combob@democrats.com718-424-7772

===UK Torture Memos JUST RELEASED - PLEASE Distribute Widely
http://www.johnconyers.com/ SIGN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY LETTER HERE
http://www.conyersblog.us/

"It's not the big decisions that are hard. You can decide to invadeRussia over dinner, pick Waterloo for battle on a whim, it's easy todecide to risk a million lives. What's hard is to see how yourdecision affects one life, and if you can't do that, you'll lose yourhumanity." Ike, before Normandy, according to my recollection.

Applying that to this situation, the importance of judicial reviewextends beyond the protection of the individuals' rights in the faceof State power. The decisions being made by the Administration are(at this point, still) being made in representation of us. Thedecisions are being explained in vague and general terms, and thefacts behind the explanations are as vague and general, as are the consequences.

We are supposed to accept this on 'trust'. 'Trust' is much easier tocultivate, much easier to counterfeit, when the facts need not beexamined, and the consequences need not be faced (until later). Theimportance of judicial review extends as far as allowing us to seehow our decisions affect one life, each life, any life, your life,and mine. It is when we see this that we discover if 'we' are wrong.And correct ourselves.

That's why there are Courts, that's why the Administration doesn'twant to go there. Goerge wants to deprive us of the ability to seewhat we are doing, the ability to decide that it's wrong, the abilityto stop f**king up. Goerge wants to deprive us of the ability to seehow 'our' decisions affect our humanity and to defend that humanity,from him.

Hey, how about this one:
DailyKos, joining the efforts of UK Bloggers, has published a copy ofthe UK Torture Memo that Downing Street is trying to keep suppressed.
Here's the link: UK Torture Memos
Anyone not at risk for prosecution - print a copy to PDF, and spreadit widely. Perhaps the folks we help in the UK will help us get the
rest of the records we're seeking published in a similar way.

Problem......Links busted (already). Got another source?

Yes, thank you . The link worked when I went there. At any rate,those memos will be all over the Internets by tonight.
http://www.dailykos.com/special/Torture_memosUK Torture Memos
Source.

The first document contains the text of several telegrams that CraigMurray sent back to London from 2002 to 2004, warning that theinformation being passed on by the Uzbek security services was torture-tainted, and challenging MI6 claims that the information was nonetheless "useful".
The second document is the text of a legal opinion from the ForeignOffice's Michael Wood, arguing that the use by intelligenceservices of information extracted through torture does not constitutea violation of the UN Convention Against Torture.

Craig Murray says:

In March 2003 I was summoned back to London from Tashkentspecifically for a meeting at which I was told to stop protesting. Iwas told specifically that it was perfectly legal for us to obtainand to use intelligence from the Uzbek torture chambers.

After this meeting Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign and CommonwealthOffice's legal adviser, wrote to confirm this position. This minutefrom Michael Wood is perhaps the most important document that hasbecome public about extraordinary rendition. It is irrefutableevidence of the government's use of torture material, and that I wasattempting to stop it. It is no wonder that the government is tryingto suppress this.

First document: Confidential letters from Uzbekistan
Letter #1 Confidential FM Tashkent TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID,MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council Posts
16 September 02

SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting TerrorismSUMMARY
US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerouspolicy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promoteIslamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynicalpolicy.

DETAIL
The Economist of 7 September states: "Uzbekistan, in particular, hasjailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way ofconverting their families and friends to extremism." The Economistalso spoke of "the growing despotism of Mr Karimov" and judgedthat "the past year has seen a further deterioration of an alreadygrim human rights record". I agree.

Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners arecurrently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with norepresentation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currentlyconsidering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water.

Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were twoweeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are beingdrugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition politicalparties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave thepretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise ofcounter-terrorism. Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan was improving in both human rights anddemocracy, thus fulfilling a constitutional requirement and allowingthe continuing disbursement of $140 million of US aid to Uzbekistanthis year.

Human Rights Watch immediately published a commendably sober andbalanced rebuttal of the State Department claim. Again we are back inthe area of the US accepting sham reform [a reference to my previoustelegram on the economy]. In August media censorship was abolished,and theoretically there are independent media outlets, but inpractice there is absolutely no criticism of President Karimov or thecentral government in any Uzbek media. State Department call thisself-censorship: I am not sure that is a fair way to describe anunwillingness to experience the brutal methods of the security services.

Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, ahuman rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance,but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to coverany of their activities or carry any of their statements.The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of aprisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is animprovement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does notappear to presage a general change of policy. On the latest cases oftorture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims diedin a fight between prisoners.

But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers anda fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale ofdetentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimovhas admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groupsbelieve there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remainbanned (the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictlycontrolled. All Internet providers must go through a singlegovernment server and access is barred to many sites including alldissident and opposition sites and much international media(including, ironically, waronterrorism.com). This is in essence stilla totalitarian state:

there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, inMugabe's Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicialindependence would be impossible here.

Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political noreconomic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development ofhis country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchicsupporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academictold me privately, there is more repression here now than inBrezhnev's time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economicallyand to justify this support they need to claim that a process ofeconomic and political reform is underway. That they do so claim iseither cynicism or self-delusion.

This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the policy ofincreasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious Muslims,combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to ensurecontinuing support for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They havecertainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, andKarimov's repression may keep the lid on for years – but pressure isbuilding and could ultimately explode.

I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases andwhy they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term itwill promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never beright to lower our standards on human rights. There is a complexsituation in Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only througha prism picked up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to bethe philosophy underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: thatSeptember 11 divided the World into two camps in the "War againstTerrorism" and that Karimov is on "our" side.

If Karimov is on "our" side, then this war cannot be simply betweenthe forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things,like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. Isilently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The rightwords on New York have all been said. But last week was also anotheranniversary – the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende inChile. The subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather morepeople than died on September 11. Should we not remember thenalso, and learn from that too? I fear that we are heading down thesame path of US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is perhaps the most unreformed of the World's oldcommunist leaders.

We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to place Uzbekistan in the "too difficult" tray and let the US run withit, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We shouldtell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one ofengagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makessense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mutecollaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctiveposition on democracy and human rights, and press for a realisticview to be taken in the IMF. We should continue to resist pressuresto start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channellednon-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constantlobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We shouldstep up our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values,including more resources from the British Council. We should increasesupport to human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups.

Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people,suffering from poverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new Great Game.
MURRAY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #2ConfidentialFm TashkentTo FCO18 March 2003
SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICYSUMMARY

1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracyor freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistanthe US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship.We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.

DETAIL
2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan,about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hailKarimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seventhousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one party state withoutfreedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom ofmovement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion.It practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands.Most of the population live in conditions precisely analogous withmedieval serfdom.

3. Uzbekistan's geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half thepopulation of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all theother states in a region which is important to future Western oil andgas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the USis here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases areextending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five years.

4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to thecontrary, in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid thisyear will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduceany meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid –more than US aid to all of West Africa – is related to comparativedevelopmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. Whilethe US makes token and low-level references to human rights toappease domestic opinion, they view Karimov's vicious regime as abastion against fundamentalism. He – and they – are in fact creatingfundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to aregime that tortures people to death for having a beard or prayingfive times a day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hate theWest?

5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdrawa motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling atthe UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy tofind that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements inhuman rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship andInternet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see theseare quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again Iunderstand at American urging).
6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US areactivated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsoreddictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy underprevious US Republican administrations.

I watched George Bush talktoday of Iraq and "dismantling the apparatus of terror… removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms". Yet when it comes to theKarimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated aspeccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed ininternational fora. Double standards? Yes.

7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain tothe US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy inUzbekistan.MURRAY
----------------------------------------------------------------------Letter #3
CONFIDENTIALFM TASHKENTTO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELNO 63OF 220939 JULY 04
INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRDLONDON, UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK
SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
SUMMARY

1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbekintelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is badinformation anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up toconfessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK tobelieve, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.
2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered thequestion and decided to continue to receive the material. This ismorally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocriticalour post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moralstanding. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stoptorture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up theresults.
3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Servicesthey are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SISpresence here, but not as in a friendly state.

DETAIL
4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several timesthe issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security serviceswhich was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. Iqueried the legality, efficacy and morality of the practice.

5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. MichaelWood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain andto use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legallimitation on its use was that it could not be used in legalproceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.

6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said thatthey found some of the material very useful indeed with a directbearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had beenasked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected andunderstood.

7. Sir Michael Jay's circular of 26 May stated that there was areporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I havebeen instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of thewar on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and Ibelieve heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. Ihad in the light of this decided to return to this question and tohighlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated asmuch to the Head of Eastern Department.

8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informingme of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of themeeting, a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads ofDepartment and above, precisely to consider the question of thereceipt of Uzbek intelligence material obtained under torture. As theoffice knew, I was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I still have only gleaned that it happened.

9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain theUzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argumentdeployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precisesource, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individualwho is tortured. Indeed this is true – the material is marked with aeuphemism such as "From detainee debriefing." The argument runs thatif the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.

10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry,nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues wouldresort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds ofindividual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan,and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UNconvention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the questionwith the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledgedtorture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not thinkthere is any doubt as to the fact

11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly bemore widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonablegrounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. Thereis helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention; "The competentauthorities shall take into account all relevant considerationsincluding, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned ofa consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of humanrights." While this article forbids extradition or deportation toUzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.

12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant.Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or athreat of war, internal political instability or any other publicemergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless – we areselling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It isdesigned to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU andits links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that theUzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keepthe assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that theyshould mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.

14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable.Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area ofintelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that theycan get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, butthat they have a particular yen for highly coloured material whichexaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them.Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me andcertainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.

15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family's links with Bin Laden. Tears were streamingdown his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with BinLaden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.

16. I have been considering Michael Wood's legal view, which hekindly gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentratedonly on Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use ofmaterial obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but itdoes not state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.

17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks ofcomplicity in torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to beat least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in adifferent country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend ProfFrancois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on theConvention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit ofthe Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should begrateful to hear Michael's views on this.

18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt,but being at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There areother factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Conventionfor the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but ithas been done. That seems plainly complicit.

19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire andincreasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning youngpeople here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thuscreating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimovstrengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presencehere, but not as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheerbrutality puts them beyond the pale.

MURRAY

Second Document - summary of legal opinion from Michael Wood arguingthat it is legal to use information extracted under torture:
From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor
Date: 13 March 2003
CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD
Linda Duffield

UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said that his understanding was that it was also an offenceunder the UN Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case,but undertook to re-read the Convention.

2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect.The nearest thing is article 15 which provides:

"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which isestablished to have been made as a result of torture shall not beinvoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a personaccused of torture as evidence that the statement was made."

3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK lawany statement established to have been made as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence.
[signed]
M C WoodLegal Adviser

=Comment #1: 12/29/05
They have no shame nor fear of retribution because with Bush in power, they're just following orders! Hmmm, didn't we hear that someplace before...at the Nuremberg Trial? Fascism has a new face, complete with big ears (besides George's, the NSA's).


The continuation of the Prescott Bush financed Third Reich - neverending war for the oil profiteers

Slouching Toward

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/20/12819/467

Slouching Toward Kristallnacht

by Maryscott OConnor Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 10:08:19 AM PDT
crossposted from My Left Wing

A fascinating and terrifying excerpt of Milton Mayer's They Thought They Were Free: The
Germans 1933 - 1945Mayer, an American journalist of German/Jewish descent, says of his work:
"How could it -- the Holocaust -- have happened in a modern, industrialized, educated nation ?
The genesis of my interest in the Third Reich lies in my search for an answer to that enigmatic
question."

I know few people who haven't asked themselves the same thing. The first, most likely hypothesis
is that most people didn't know what was happening to the Jews. I may be wrong, but I believe
that's been shot down pretty decisively by now.

The following excerpt from Mayer's They Thought They Were Free... provides some pretty
plausible clues (the emphases are mine)...

Maryscott OConnor's diary :: ::

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening
gap, after 1933,between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to
begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know it doesn't make people close
to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be
enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing
one is governing.

What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by
surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believe that the situation was so
complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of
national security.

The crises and reforms (real reforms too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow
motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
To live in the process is absolutely not to notice it -- please try to believe me -- unless one has a
much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us ever had occasion to develop.
Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that,
unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what
the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could
resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his
field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared
about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the
universe was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and,
above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that
were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was "expected to" participate
that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it
consumed all one's energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see
how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."
"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. "One had no time to think. There was so
much going on.""

"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of
its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who
did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your "little men", your baker and so on; I speak
of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about
fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful,
fundamental things to think about - we were decent people - and kept us so busy with continuous
changes and "crises" and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the "national
enemies", without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were
growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to
think?"

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I
do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered
that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice - "Resist the beginnings" and
"consider the end." But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings.
One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or
even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did;
they didn't, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"Your "little men," your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like
me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to
say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemoller spoke for the thousands and thousands of
men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the
Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing:
and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist,
and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always
uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman,
and he did something - but then it was too late."
"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me,
this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for
the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when
such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even to
talk, alone; you don't want to "go out of your way to make trouble." Why not? - Well, you are not
in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also
genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows.
Outside, in the streets, in the general community, everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and
certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government
painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this.
In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues,
some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, "It's not so bad" or
"You're seeing things" or "You're an alarmist."

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These
are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do
you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the
Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even
neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought
as you have.

"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in
their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups
become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves
wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves,
that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and
serves as a further deterrent to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything,
you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and
you wait.

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you,
never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come
immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently
shocked if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in "43" had come immediately after the "German
Firm" stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in "33". But of course this isn't the way it
happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of
them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and,
if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you.
The burden of self deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little
boy, hardly more than a baby, saying "Jew swine," collapses it all at once, and you see that
everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live
in, your nation, your people is not the world you were in at all.

The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession
of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on
your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new
morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a
year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more
accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do
nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one
had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring
this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

"What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or "adjust" your principles. Many tried,
and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your
shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many
Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to
know."

I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

"I can tell you," my colleague went on, "of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except
nominally, but he certainly wasn't an anti-Nazi. He was just a judge. In "42" or "43", early "43", I
think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an
"Aryan" woman. This was "race injury", something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In
the case a bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a "nonracial" offense and
send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party "processing"
which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the
man was innocent of the "nonracial" charge, in the judge's opinion, and so, as an honorable judge,
he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom.
"And the judge?"

"Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience; a case, mind you, in which he had
acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and
more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances.
(That's how I heard about it.) After the "44" Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don't know."
I said nothing.

"Once the war began," my colleague continued, "resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried
with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure
to show it in public, was "defeatism." You assumed that there were lists of those who would be
"dealt with" later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised
a "victory orgy" to "take care of" those who thought that their "treasonable attitude" had escaped
notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all
uncertainty.

"Once the war began, the government could do anything "necessary" to win it; so it was with the
"final solution" of the Jewish problem, which the Nazis always talked about but never dared
undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its "necessities" gave them the knowledge that they
could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the
Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of
complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany's losing the war. It was a long bet.
Not many made it."

It won't come in the same form. It never does. But it's coming. The lure of fascism is too powerful
for men like the ones currently pissing all over our Constitution.

Probably won't be the Jews. Maybe Arabs. Maybe gays. Maybe "libruls." Who the fuck knows? It
almost certainly won't be recognisable to most people until it's far too late.

If we let it happen.

With thanks to omblog.net for leading me to ThirdReich.net
Tags: fascism, parallels, nazis, i need attention (all tags)
View Comments 484 comments


http://www.TheHungerSite.com click every day to give free food

Please Help Pakistan Earthquake Victims if You Can

International relief groups estimate over 40,000 people died in Pakistan as a result of the
earthquake. Without adequate food, water, and shelter many of the people who survived the initial
destruction will succumb to the elements. Please donate now to help critical relief efforts.
https://ssl.charityweb.net/mercycorps/giftbasket/donation.htm?pDonorIntent=PakistanEarthquake&Custom15=23015

5 million Pakistani Quake Victims Need Immediate Help From: "Jenny M., Care2 Human Rights Alerts" humanrights@care2.com

Dear Friend,

International relief groups estimate over 40,000 people died in Pakistan as a result of the
earthquake. Without adequate food, water, and shelter many of the people who survived the initial
destruction will succumb to the elements. Please donate now to help critical relief efforts.
Reuters/Danish Ismail. Courtesy of alertnet.org How would you feel if a massive earthquake hit and your family was separated from you without a means to communicate?


That is exactly what happened last Friday in Pakistan when a 7.7 magnitude earthquake devastated the region. Only there, in the remote villages of the Hindu Kush without modern construction or
stringent building codes, buildings simply collapsed and buried thousands beneath the rubble.
And now the survivors need your help!

Can you help provide food, water, and shelter to the people of Pakistan who have lost everything?
The earthquake that ripped through the ancient villages of Pakistan's Hindu Kush mountains left
people completely exposed to the elements. Rain and hail are coming as winter approaches, and
emergency help is needed so badly. Help Mercy Corps save as many people as possible by donating here:
http://go.care2.com/e/hbY/B3/FqhB

Care2 is working to support the efforts of Mercy Corps relief workers in Pakistan right now. These
workers are preparing the first shipments of lifesaving medical supplies for distribution. Mercy
Corps has assembled mobile medical teams made up of doctors, nurses and surgeons to provide
critical trauma care to those in need.

"It's horrific," says Dr. Arif Noor, a Pakistan-based doctor with Mercy Corps. According to Dr.
Noor, many small settlements in the mountain valleys have been completely washed away. Some
people are fleeing their leveled villages carrying the dead and wounded with them. Many others are
staying behind, unsure of whether missing family members are dead or alive. People are intensely
fearful of aftershocks, staying outside in open areas through the winter nights that bring torrential
rains and hailstorms.

Care2 partnered with Mercy Corps to provide desperately needed relief to tsunami victims last
winter, as well as to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and are proud to be working together once
again to bring relief to people in need. Please donate today to support these critical relief efforts.
Mercy Corps is coordinating relief efforts with the United Nations and other relief organizations
that are a part of this critical lifesaving response. "This disaster is beyond the scope of one
government, or many governments," says Dr. Arif Noor.

"Now is the time for the world to join hands and come together with this terrible tragedy." Please
help us today by making an immediate donation.

Jenny McKinleyCare2 & ThePetitionSite Team

Thank you for signing up to receive Human Rights Alerts via ThePetitionSite or Care2 website!
Your email address has not been bought from other sources. If you learned something interesting
from this newsletter, please forward it to your friends, family and colleagues.

Bushco Creating Division - false paradigm of left vs right

http://www.StopTheLie.com/ about PNAC, DINOs and NeoCons instead of Democrats and real Republicans.

the division has been intentially created this administration thinks that it can create the reality, with a little help with their corporate media friends. There are some people who will always be in denial, but there are many people that are starting to question the media and the administration. Like a snowball rolling downhill, once enough corruption is exposed, there is no way to go except downhill for this administration.

Yes, some people are lazy boob tube watchers and only get glimpses of news, but there are many who like collecting information, and even some Republicans know their party has been highjacked.

They cannot maintain the facade forever. I still have hope--like Studs Terkel, I still believe in the
American people. Most are not cruel, but some are selfish and apathetic. The more the majority of
Americans lose their economic comfort zone, the more they will wake up. Losing your healthcare,
your pensions--seeing your children jobless or in minimum wage or yourself with a minimum wage job, seeing your children die after being lied to, will soon cause an effect. It's just a matter of time.

However, if there are that many clueless, I'm more than willing to see a few states secede
peacefully. ;-)

Wednesday, October 26, 2005


Gitmo - Only one photo from the Denver Post on the Concentration Camps that Katrina Survivors are being held prisoner in to prevent their holding onto their property from Bushco vultures and to test experiment if other American will care if US citizens are in Concentration Camps on the Mainland USA.


Bush Kills Soldiers. How many more lives of US young people and Iraqis and now Iranians and Syrians must die for the Bush Regime's Insanity?


Praying for Fitzgerald to bring down this criminal cabal soon.

Capt. Ian Fishback is a highly decorated soldier - a culture in the high ranks that allowed the abuse to occur.

Daily life at Abu Ghraib: Filthy conditions, sexual misbehavior, bug-infested food, prisoner beatings and humiliations

Gen. Karpinski demoted in prison scandal

Abu Ghraib disciplinary actions set

~Army captain calls prisoner abuse ‘systemic’
Soldier says he reported abuses but was ignored by chain of command

• Culture of acceptance behind abuse?

Sept. 28: An Army captain says it is not just rogue low-level soldiers behind the abuse of detainees in Iraq, but a culture in the high ranks that allowed the abuse to occur.

NBC’s Lisa Myers reports. Nightly News

FORT BRAGG, N.C. - The Pentagon has been actively prosecuting every soldier involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. But in an exclusive interview an active duty U.S. Army captain says it's not just rogue, low-level soldiers behind the abuse of detainees in Iraq. He says there's a culture in the high ranks of the military that allowed the abuse to occur.

Capt. Ian Fishback is a highly decorated soldier — a West Point graduate, with two Bronze Stars and training for special forces. He has never talked on camera until now.

"Stripping detainees is unacceptable," explains Fishback. "Leaving detainees outside overnight is unacceptable."


Shame of America - What Amnesty International called Bush's Gulag of illegal torture prisons around the world. Cheney negotiated with Halliburton Brown and Root to build Gitmo and a hundred other torture prisons in 2000, BEFORE the atrocities on 911 - PNAC's New Pearl Harbor.

General Karpinski - torture IS STILL GOING ON

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/abu_ghraib_karpinski_torture_still_going_on.htm

~~She also stated that even though innocent detainees had been deemed of no further Intel use and were recommended to be released by their interrogators, the higher uppers read the riot act and started a pattern whereby no one was to be released and innocent people were kept locked up without trial or charges.

The General went on to speak about the direct links to leading members of the Bush Administration:

~The General also agreed that private contractors were brought in to over see the interrogations. The orders to use torture techniques can be traced back to the criminals in Government.

"The orders came right from the top, filtered down from the secretary of defence, with the endorsement of the President, the Vice President, whatever advisors are surrounding them, filtered down through the Commanders in the field, these practices were not only endorsed, but were in use at Guantanamo bay and in locations in Afghanistan. And when General Miller visited Iraq he brought those techniques with him. And then he sent contract interrogators who had 'performed well' at Guantanamo Bay to Iraq as well."

The General agreed that in effect torture seminars were taking place as Miller would teach how to make techniques of torture more effective.

Karpinski also went on to explain how it came about that photographs and video of the torture were taken and how despite Congress having seen thousands of them, few of the persons responsible for authorizing the raping of women, the beating to death of innocent people, and the torture of minors have been brought to justice.

~~General Karpinski was not even informed of charges against her until the investigation was under way and she received a late night e-mail from the Commander of the Criminal Investigation Commission. His agent on site at Abu Ghraib was the one who received the disc of pictures from the MP. So the Commanding officer of all the reopened prisons in Iraq was not informed about an ongoing criminal investigation into occurrences at the prisons.

You see how it works, you play the game, you go along with whatever is being spun by the Neo-Cons or by the Pentagon and you get promoted. But the people who have the strength and the moral courage to stand up and say This is wrong, this is a lie, they are removed from their positions, they take their security clearance away and then they're out on the street."

General Karpinski went on to say that the reason talk of banning torture has come to the forefront, even though there should be no need for discussion on the topic is because it IS STILL GOING ON.

"There is overwhelming proof that torture is going on, that it has been directed and is likely continuing, even to this day. I don't want to believe it is but the statements from the people just returning from the theater give every indication that in fact it is, they still don't know where to draw the line." The General said.

On the topic of why the torture is so extreme and degrading, the General suggested that the interrogators are getting a bizarre pleasure out of it. She gave the example of using naked menstruating women to break Muslim Iraqi men.

"Who studied the Arab culture to come up with such a n idea, this is insulting to anybody." She said. "And the fact that they are using female soldiers to conduct this demonstrates what they think the likely;y role of women in the army is."

If you wrote a horror movie where the army was doing this it would be too unbelievable, yet this is happening in reality and the media has just accepted it as the norm now

~It seems clear and the General agrees that we are seeing the formation of a cold blooded torture core with Iraq as the beta test. Iraq is often referred to as a "laboratory". The test is to see how the prisoners, the soldiers and the public react to this.

"They are looking for the kind of people with this mind set, who can live with themselves whilst they are going forth with this global war on terrorism and trying to make a difference."

Fitzgerald Watch in Suspense

REUTERS: Indictments Mon or Tues
Mon Oct 24th 2005, 10:23 AM ET

It's a big story from the MSM BUT they do minimize the potential...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be laying the groundwork for indictments this week over the outing of a covert CIA operative, including possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers involved in case said on Sunday.

Top administration officials are expected to learn from Fitzgerald as early as Monday whether they will face charges as the prosecutor winds up his nearly two-year investigation, the lawyers said.

Fitzgerald could convene the grand jury as early as Tuesday to lay out a final summary of the case and ask for approval of possible indictments, legal sources said. The grand jury hearing the CIA leak case normally meets on Wednesdays and is scheduled to expire on Friday unless Fitzgerald extends it.

While Fitzgerald could still charge administration officials with knowingly revealing Plame's identity, the lawyers said he appeared more likely to seek charges for easier-to-prove crimes such as making false statements, obstruction of justice and disclosing classified information.

more...

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=pol...


~~~MORE POSITIVE spin at firedog lake http://www.firedoglake.blogspot.com/

she is also a attorney.

Of course the MM is gonna spin it as no big deal

~nonetheless - it opens the "gate" to the bigger questions
-- why did we invade Iraq in the first place?

-- how much of the Iraq-rational is true and how much was "sexed up"?

-- what didn't bush* know, when didn't he know it and why didn't he know it?

-- how much of what we are hearing out of the White House regarding Syria and Iran is true and how much is spin?

~Expect the unexpected. Fitzgerald is going to do what he believes is right. I think that the conspiracy and espionage issues will be included in the indictments

~It may be that Patrick Fitzgerald has been concentrating on the perjury charges, because he already has what he needs on the still more serious charges.

Also, there seems to have been so much serious crime the neocons have been involved in, much, if not all of it interconnected, I will not be at all surprised if, pursuant to the broad mandate given to him by the Attorney General, he extends his term, as Special Prosecutor.

After all, their m.o. in everything has not been to pussyfoot on the margins, but to dive in head first, making for the bulls-eye (usually a pot of gold), with all the long-term foresight (NOT) of their very own Big Business.

~~~What lawyers? While Fitzgerald could still charge administration officials with knowingly revealing Plame's identity, the lawyers said he appeared more likely to seek charges for easier-to-prove crimes such as making false statements, obstruction of justice and disclosing classified information."

I am not struck with that notion that Mr. Fitzgerald will take the easiest road, for some reason.

My guess is as good as any, but I hope it is not wishful thinking.

~~~it's gotta end... my stomache can't take it anymore~~~Even if he goes with lesser charges right now...

...there is nothing to say that more serious charges can't be brought later on (as long as the evidence is there). A lot has been happening in the case lately. He might just want to put something on the table as a strategic manuever. Throwing down the gauntlet may be what it takes to make a breakthrough in another
direction.

~~ Read to the end of the article. Why are people just posting this...first part, in which the reporter is being very cautious? Later, he gives evidence of an expanded probe, and concludes with how bad this could be for the Bush regime.

2. Nobody's talking. And he has to rely on unidentified "lawyers" involved in the case, and outside lawyer pundits. My feeling about it was: a cauldron about to boil over (with the reporter a bit worried about getting scalded?--by lying defense lawyers? rumors? 'friendly fire'?) But that may just be me.

~Oh I think it will be more serious crimes of Espionage thats for some people!!!

~go read firedoglake and enjoy come back and tell me IF ya don't smile

~~Yep. Espionage.

~~Reuters is consistently fair and decent
I wouldn't lump them with the rest of the korporate media.

~Subject line is misleading, the article doesn't state indictments Mon/Tues It only suggests that the subjects in question may learn whether they will face possible charges

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5144936

~its a tuff crowd to play to how about CAEM Corporat And Entertainment MediaI only watch the weather channel and ooops they have manmade hurricaines now ..scalar haarp
so I only watch ..waht do I watch..??

This is a war an info war. battle for your heart and mind

Pray for the innocents..

~Is it Fitzmas Eve yet? I want to open my presents

It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas
Everywhere you go.
Who's gonna do five-or-ten?
We're thinking once again
Of handcuffs and of orange jumpsuits aglow.
It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas
Indictments on every score
But the prettiest sight to see
Is the scowl on Darth Cheney
At the slammer's front door.

A warrant or writ, a subpoena that fits
Is the wish of Barney and Ben;
The thought of Turdblossom hung up like a possum
Is the hope of Janice and Jen;
And Mom and Dad can hardly wait for court to start again.

It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas
Everywhere you go.
There's an defendant who doesn't want to tell;
One in the White House as well --
The felony kind that doesn't mind the law!
It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas
Soon the bells will start
And the thing that will make them ring
Is the indictment that we sing,
Right within our hearts!

~~Anyone else thinks they will raise a terror alert on the same day?

Saturday, October 15, 2005


AFTER 300 BILLION DOLLARS, WHY DON'T OUR TROOPS HAVE ARMOR??

http://www.billyjack.com/index.php?menuID=Page&pid=60
Chapter 8

How the Republicans and pro-war advocates are failing, even betraying, our Troops and Veterans

The Laughlin 16-point Program to Aggressively support our Troops and Veterans… and the 16 ways our troops are being betrayed

What do the words ‘support our troops’ really mean?

Does it mean only to cheer as we send them off to die and be maimed, or does it mean that we do everything possible to let them know we care about them there – but even far more important we do everything we can to bring them home safely and
as soon as possible? (See pages 9 & 34)

What is the best possible way we can help the over 100,000 Reservist families who are in serious financial trouble and the over 1 million children of the troops seriously suffering because their parents are gone?

Though it may have been necessary for our troops to win the war in Iraq, there is no possible justification to keep them there now that the war has ended --NATO and a dozen other coalitions, including Arab states, can administer to Iraq even more successfully – and by leaving we instantly reduce the sacred rage of 300 million Arabs in the region who see the US as conquerors with an occupation army, putting our troops in constant danger for as long as they’re there....

BillyJack.com How to REALLY Support the Troops and their families

http://www.billyjack.com/index.php?menuID=Page&pid=60

~16 ways to really Support our Troops
16 Tests to see if you really support our troops

Would you save one million suffering American children of our troops from more pain, fear and harm, much of it irreparable, if you could? If you really support our troops, you can save their children immediately.

Americans may disagree on supporting the leadership in the White House, but we cannot agree more on the need to support our American brothers and sisters that risked their lives, especially those who lost them or were permanently crippled, serving with distinction and honor for a cause they believed in.

Shockingly, those who truly love our troops, wave the flag, and wear the yellow ribbons are unaware of the severe damage being done to the troops and their families by Bush and the Pentagon. Here’s 16 things you can do immediately to truly help these magnificent heroes and their equally heroic families who are suffering so terribly.

At this time when over 100,000 families of Reservists are still under extreme stress because of the severe financial hardships the calling up of their spouses created, virtually wiping them out financially with many losing their homes because of the inability to pay the mortgage or the rent, having their cars repossessed, having difficulty putting food on the table, paying their electric and water bills, getting the medical care they or their children need, having their education disrupted, etc., and at this time when almost 1 million children of all ...

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Last week the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly (90-9) to stand solidly against torture

cageprisoners.com



Stand with the Senate and Oppose Torture

The Senate has spoken, but the President may veto the anti-torture bill. Your voice is needed.

Over the past year and a half you have spoken out powerfully after the Abu Gharib and Guantanamo prison scandals. Washington and the world listened.

Last week the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly (90-9) to stand solidly against torture. The amendment, introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), calls for prisoners and detainees to be treated according to guidelines established by the Army Field Manual. In short, it outlaws degrading and inhumane treatment of anyone in U.S. military custody.

This is no small statement. The amendment was introduced to the massive defense appropriations bill. Passage of the $440 billion
defense budget depends upon the adoption of this vital amendment.

Now, President Bush has threatened to veto the appropriations bill because of the anti-torture amendment.

The Senate did the right thing. Let us come together again to stand with them so that the world and the President know that the
American people demand humane treatment of detainees and prisoners of war.

Note: Yes, nine Senators voted against the measure (including both from Oklahoma). If they are YOUR Senators, you may wish to
tastefully alter your letter in a way most appropriate for both of your Senators. We will leave that to you, of course, but here are those who voted against the anti-torture amendment:

Sessions (R) Alabama
Stevens (R) Alaska
Allard (R) Colorado
Roberts (R) Kansas
Cochran (R) Mississippi
Bond (R) Missouri
Coburn (R) Oklahoma
Inhofe (R) Oklahoma
Cornyn (R) Texas

Use the link below to send a letter to your Senators on this issue. A copy will be sent to the President of the United States in a show of solidarity. By letting your Senators know you support their position, you will be sending a powerful message to the White House and to the world that Americans of faith will not support torture.

There is no question but that your voice and the concerns of so many other faithful people in the U.S. have helped encourage the
Senate to take this action. Does your faith matter in vital issues such as this? You bet it does! Is your voice heard? No question!

Send a letter of support to your Senators on this issue

http://www.faithfulamerica.org/index.php

www.faithfulamerica.org

~~help is on the way!

May God send bountiful strength, peace and resource to people affected by Hurricane Katrina. May each need be met and each life
strengthened spiritually and thereafter go forth and become a source of help and blessing to others. May our country grow closer to God and each other through this tragedy....In the name of the Christ.
Amen

iphill

~~HEAVENLY Father, I ask for your love and support to all people affected by this act of nature. I focus on those people of faith
who may be in doubt, that they are loved and encouraged, so that their old faith is made new, and for those without faith will look at them as shining beacons of the love you have for all you people, through all things.

Help people to remind each other to put the full armor on to protect themselves from the enemy who will run crazy in situations like this, when people are doubting.

I ask this in your sons name, Amen