Sarah Palin Fans Can't Articulate Support

Long Lines At The Mall

At a recent booksigning, Sarah Palin fans, who were lined up outside of the bookstore, were selected at random to be interviewed by a young journalist for online news journal, The Public Record. Curiously, as one watches the video it becomes clear that her most ardent fans are unable to articulate why they support her. This video captures the essence of the mental and verbal deficit of her diehard devotees at a mall where the ex-Alaskan Governor happened to be signing her book. Such mental vacancy points to a need to establish a quick quiz to be given at the polls, which each voter must take and pass with flying colors before they are allowed to actually vote.

"Freedom, Liberty, Free Speech!" was all one woman was able to come up with when asked why she supported Sarah Palin. In reality, Palin has never said that she stands for such things. That is all imputed to her persona as it would be to any politician.

A brief survey of Palin's political career and dubious credentials invokes less than confidence in reasonable people. Some would even question her abilities as the leader of a sparcely populated outpost of civilization, let alone the president of a vast and complex nation: an unsuccessful mayorship wherein she fled the place before being driven out, but not before she saddled the small community of Wasila, Alaska, with millions in debt. That fiasco set the stage for her run at the Governorship. She won, but then quit the four year term just halfway through. An unstable personality is not her only flaw; there is also her religous fundy extremism. Based on this unsavory history, she was chosen by John McCain to save his bacon as a Presidential candidate. He was counting on her youth and physical appeal to balance out the fact that he was too old.

The interesting thing is that she is smart enough to attempt to pull off this duplicitous lifestyle and make it pay. Hence, the title of her book, Going Rogue. Even the title fits with her wink wink style of pitbull with lipstick soccer mom persona. Her admirers find her foibles amusing and attractive.

They think it a sign that she's plucky.

And who would disagree on that point? The issue is--- does any of this qualify her for the presidency? Instability and an inflexible mindset regarding outmoded mythology suggest hypocricy at best, and mental fragility as an underlying modus operandus.

Unspoken, was the idea that in the minds of her many fans, President Obama is against such things. Utterly forgotten, was the recent history which demonstrated that George Bush, whom the very same people also supported, not once, but twice, had aggressively moved to destroy those values of Freedom, Liberty and a hot lunch for orphans.

"The Constitution," Bush said, "is just a piece of paper." You can see and hear him say those words on Youtube. Look it up!

So if they can't give a good reason for why they support her for president, what might be the real reason? My own theory is that she whips them up into a sexual frenzy. They will deny it of course, but I have seen on TV, how, at her rallies, she whips them into hatred, anger, and subverted sexual tension. Not just the men, but the women as well. Of course they don't want to own up to that sort of thing, so they come up with bogus reasons such as Freedom, Liberty, and so forth. The Big giveaway, however, as to her true nature, is that the McCain staff went from adoring her to resenting her, till, finally, nobody on the team could stand her. So she seems to appeal only to the same sort of person that worshiped George W. Bush. That kind of authoritarian submissive was best encapsulated by the woman who when speaking of her president, exclaimed,

"I just love that man so much. I love him so much that if I saw him put a gun to my little boy's head and pull the trigger, I would still love that man."

♦

---

Here is what a dead Elephant looks like. Oops! I meant a dead Republican elephant which has been shot full of holes. Of course, in reality, the elephant shot itself full of holes.

Sarah Palin, for example, recently has been talking about how she really wonders if Obama is actually a citizen, as she has never seen his birth certificate. Really, Sarah, that is so cynical and transparent. And if your followers go along with that kind of disingenuousness, this nation is in worse trouble than I thought.♦





This is, by the way, the same GOP logo which displays three inverted pentacles. If you go to my first post on this blog, back in September of 2009, you will see that the 3 inverted pentacles have a very particular dark, occult meaning. A meaning in the practice of black magic or Satanic worship. You will also find that this logo was re-designed in the year 2000 just when George Bush came into the Oval Office the first time. A modicum of research on Youtube.com will show that the Republicans who attend the Bohemian Grove meetings and events are known to participate or at least witness Satanic Ritual events there. If you delve even deeper into the goings on of the international banksters, you keep coming across the idea that many are indeed involved in Satanic worship, with Philip de Rothschild frequently mentioned as a high priest of Satan. I don't like to think that grown men and women take such things seriously, when you keep coming across it over and over again, you begin to say, there might be something to it. ♦

The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation

American History's Bitter Pill...

---

eitgeist is a stunning presentation of the realities of history. The real events, with warts and all, not the pretty gloss that give an entirely different outlook on key events that your high school history teacher would not ever have allowed discussed in his or her classroom. By using actual footage throughout much of the film, the ring of authenticity pervades. There are good chunks of real footage to illustrate the truth of the hideous fiasco of Lyndon Johnson's Bay of Tonkin attack, for example. This is hitherto highly classified film footage. The attack, we discover, was staged by the American president who had made a backroom deal with Israel. His intention was to sink an American warship and all the men aboard using Israeli fighter airplanes to sink her. The event was deemed necessary to outrage Americans enough to daze and confuse them so as to easily steer them into invading Vietnam. A pschological tactic which has proved enormously useful to big government, as can be witnessed in the dreadful attack on the World Trade Center on the 11th of September, 2001. And in the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were once again dazed and confused and were all too easily led into an illegitimate war with Iraq. Naomi Klein has named the technique, The Shock Doctrine, in her book of the same name, which details the mechanics of the tactic.

In response to the bald faced lies which poured forth from both Federal and local government, there arose in the mid to late 60's, a grass roots anti-war revolution such as had never been seen in America. And out of that came the hippies. Only a few hippies were genuine in their eschewing of the lies and corruption of modern life. The rest came over to Manhattan on weekends from Jersey and Great Neck, all decked out like flower children: Trendy bourgeois poseurs who then went back home to their dentist daddies and soccer moms. But for some reason nobody can quite pin point, great rock and folk music flourished even among the anti-war protest songs.




It turns out that during WWII, the Rockefellers were silent partners with I.G. Farben, the German producer of Hitler's weaponry. There were actually two treasonous sources of American money funding the German army. The other was the Bush family's progenitor, Prescott Bush, George W. Bush's grandfather, who was president of the Union Bank. Finally the Union Bank was seized for treason against the United States. But Bush was never brought to justice for his crimes.

Isn't that odd?

Nobody in the Bush family has ever been brought to justice for their remarkably terrible crimes: war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is a family so rapacious in their greed, sociopathological bloodthirst, they make Ghengis Khan, Stalin and Mao look like quiet, peaceful guys who wouldn't hurt a flea. But these are just a few of the highlights of the two hour video. The documentary shows the horrors of contemporary history in order to make the case for peace, for harmony in one world, all the stronger.♣

If you have seen the previous versions of Zeitgeist, the movie, don't make the mistake of saying, "Oh, I've seen this before. This final version makes a definite roar of a statement. And if you watch it and merely shrug and forget it, then you deserve all the bad stuff coming down the pike. If you want to understand where the Zeitgeist movement is coming from, watch this:

---

♦

The New Jesus of the Christian Right

Jimmy Jack Jesus

§

oor old Jesus! This cartoon catches exactly the way the new portrait of Jesus is emerging from the Evangelical Right. We have known for a long time that they do not qualify as real Christians. But now they have solved that problem. They simply re-made him in their image. They've hijacked Jesus. And the new Jesus is so much better than the old Jesus: It even hints at the White-Aryan-Jail-Bird-Jesus! You know that Jesus--- That's the Jesus who gets likkered up and beats on the wife and kids like clockwork every Saturday night.

Oh, yeah, that's the same Jesus who stalks her and the kids, if they try to get away. And then, of course, that would be the very Jesus who shoots his own brains out after he's murdered his own family. His last words are no longer, in the words of Christ, "Into thy hands I commend my spirit."
No. Now the New Jesus's last words are, "Now lookit what you made me do!"





Originally, Christianity was all about how close one could grow and be in the image of Christ. There was the spiritual exercise by Saint Thomas A Kempis, called, "The Imitation of Christ".

But forget that crap!

Now, it seems that the Evangelical Right is only interested in how they can make Jesus look like them.

Let us hope these people can see the enormity of their misperception. Otherwise, their narcissistic narrowness will bring this country down.






♦

The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder: The Movie

Why Has This Issue Been Dropped?

---

hen Vince Bugliosi gave his testimony in Congress, in the House, actually, some nobody of a Republican objected strenuously to what he was saying. "It's just his opinion," the lone Republican said. He spoke quietly, but urgently, to the chair of the proceedings who had voiced his skepticism at the beginning of the hearing. It was as if it had been already agreed that nothing would be done about the criminal, George Bush, his unlawful administration, nor their crimes against humanity: Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney for their lies.

But the lone azzhole Repuke, sitting next to the chairman, had some sort of unearned, undeserved clout. As a member of the minority party he should not have even been there at the hearing. And, indeed, the Repuke was the only one in attendance. Why, pray, is it that he had only to say, "You told me that this sort of thing would not be allowed"? And immediately the Chair silenced Mister Bugliosi.

That was really mysterious.

When the Repukes were in power they would not have tolerated a single word from a Dem. In any way and at any time. And yet here is this mysterious visitor from the enemy camp and they all but genuflect when he speaks. Something foul is going on.

Especially, you know something foul is going on when nobody is allowed to speak the truth about George Bush and his war crimes. We need to get rid of The Heritage Foundation and torch the Cato Institute. Symbolically, of course.

But, we need to literally send George Bush to jail along with Cheney; and wouldn't it be swell to see Condi in a striped outfit and chains.

Bugliosi says all he needs is one juried trial in one little town in America. But the Repukes would bus their Teabagger sheeple-people in to disrupt as much as they could. Glenn Beck would tell his sheeple-people to bring their guns. Then he would cry real tears and tell everyone how frightened he was.

If Bugliosi were able to get past the imported sheeple and have his trial anyway, someone would kill him. In fact, his life is in danger, right now. These folks don't hesitate to murder you if you get in their way. They have already murdered people in their airplanes; John F. Kennedy Jr., for one, and on the night before they were to give testimony in court. George Bush's computer guru, for another example. They killed him the night before he was to give testimony in court. And guess what? The Corporate Media barely seemed to notice and no reporters investigated what seemed to me to be absolute murder and done so as to leave no doubt as to who did it.

---

I ripped this article from The Public Record, Intrepid New Journalism. If you'd prefer to read it in its original incarnation Click Here but be assured I changed not even an adverb, nor did I leave anything out:

---

One of the best features of a visit to Los Angeles is the opportunity to hang out with the guy who put Charles Manson in prison, the most successful criminal prosecutor we’re ever likely to see, Vince Bugliosi (105 convictions in 106 felony jury trials, 21 convictions in 21 murder trials).

I spoke with him on Tuesday about his forthcoming documentary film, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, based on his bestselling book http://www.indiegogo.com/bush).

I consider Vince a friend, an ally, and a hero, but we don’t see eye to eye on everything. I oppose the death penalty and all manifestations of revenge. I’m an atheist. I think the United States had a pretty darn horrible government before George W. Bush even came on the scene and that war lies have been a proud tradition of ours for centuries.

I see strategic advantage in pushing for accountability from underlings and for less than the most severe charges. Vince disagrees to various degrees on each of these points.

I don’t object to Vince’s choice to focus exclusively on one thing, because what he is focused on is one of the most important things anyone could. He is seeking to prosecute George W. Bush for the murder of the U.S. soldiers he sent into war on false pretenses.




Vince has written three New York Times #1 bestselling books, so he expected the one on prosecuting Bush to do well. It has, in fact, sold nearly 100,000 copies. But that is a shocking disappointment to its author.

The difference with this book was that the corporate media completely whited it out. There has not been a single review in a major newspaper (although the New York Times published an article about the lack of coverage).

And Bugliosi has not been put on national television to talk about this book, as he was with his other books. So, his publisher has been thrilled with the sales that have been generated through the independent media.

Vince told me he thought a blackout like the one of his book would not happen in any other country except perhaps Russia.

His topic, an illegal war on Iraq based on lies and the need to hold a former President accountable, is not discussed in the corporate media or even much by independent sources any more. It was a hot topic in 2005 and 2006, but the Democrats in Congress dropped it in 2007 when they obtained the power to do something about it. Vince has been flabbergasted by this every time I’ve talked to him for years now:

“How is it possible for George W. Bush to take this nation to war on false pretenses with the cataclysmic results that there have been, and America does absolutely nothing about it – How is that possible?”

I asked Vince if there was anything people could compel Congress to do that would help in any way. He said that a congressional committee had made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice which was now investigating whether baseball pitcher Roger Clemens had committed perjury when he testified that he hadn’t used steroids.

Bugliosi suggests, rather reasonably, that an apparent case of lying the nation into war should be similarly referred for prosecution. He made this same suggestion in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last July.

Why does this not happen? In Vince’s analysis, “the Democratic Party is much too civilized. They’re not fighters like the shrill and strident Republicans.”

Vince has spoken to large crowds around the country about his book. The forthcoming documentary, making the same case as the book, is built largely around a speech Bugliosi made at UCLA Law School.

Also included in the film is footage of my friends Carlos and Melida Arredondo who lost their son Alex in the Iraq War.

Another survivor shown in the film is Jane Bright who lost her son and expresses the guilt she feels for not having been there to stop a rocket from hitting him. She holds no ill will toward the Iraqi who shot the rocket who, she says, was just doing his job: “George Bush murdered my son.”

The film is still a work in progress, but a rough cut was shown to a group in Los Angeles last week, not a group of peace activists, but not necessarily a strictly representative sample of the country either. For what it’s worth, over 90 percent of the viewers said they would definitely urge their friends to see it, and the rest said they probably would.

Just as torture photos move Americans much more powerfully than written evidence of torture, the passion of the film may have an impact that reaches much further than the book. Footage of bloodshed in Iraq is juxtaposed with footage of Bush joking about WMDs, intended to show Bush’s lack of interest in honesty, as well as footage of Bush enjoying himself, intended to encourage the hatred that Bugliosi feels.

I asked Vince, as I always do, to explain his targeting of Bush for killing American soldiers who participated, but not innocent Iraqis who did not. Vince said that Bush was clearly guilty of the deaths of Iraqis (he STILL uses the outrageously low figure of 100,000 dead Iraqis in order to not overstate it).

However, Vince explains, he was not able to establish jurisdiction in America for trying Bush for those murders.

I asked why it is that the highest laws of our land cannot be enforced. The Constitution makes treaties, like the UN Charter, the supreme law of the land, but unless there’s a corresponding statute in the U.S. Code there’s nothing a prosecutor can do. Vince’s explanation was that, sadly, that’s just the way it is.

So I asked whether he would approve of the International Criminal Court developing the jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of aggressive war, and/or approve of Congress legislating criminal penalties for the same crime.

In the case of Congress, Bugliosi expressed concern that the creation of such a new law (which could not be used against Bush’s past crimes due to the Constitution’s ban on ex-post-facto laws) might be used to argue that heretofore the activity has been legal.

Bugliosi explained that the biggest obstacle he’s faced with his book has been the assumption by all sorts of people (he mentions Jerry Brown, once and perhaps future governor of California, as an example) that it’s simply not possible to prosecute a President for a war. But, Vince says, every single person who has argued that has admitted that they have not yet read his book.

I asked Bugliosi whether Jay Bybee’s Oct. 23, 2002, memo purporting to legalize aggressive wars, could make him complicit in murder. The question, Bugliosi said, would be one of proving that Bybee knew what he was writing to be false.

There are a million things I know I could never do, but I think I could persuade a jury on this one with no sleep, no breakfast, and a ban on using words with the letter ‘E’ in them. I have no doubt that Bugliosi could do it in a brief afternoon.

I asked Bugliosi what he would think if the Department of Justice were to indict Bush for the felonies of misleading Congress and making false statements to Congress. Bugliosi’s response was what it has been before: “That’s such small potatoes.”

Vince would be glad to include those charges as one count of an indictment, but only if another count was murder. The punishment for lying to Congress is far too low, he thinks, and — says Bugliosi — presidents lie to Congress all the time. (He acknowledged that while I think they do this about wars all the time, he thinks they do it only about other topics.)

We also talked about Pakistan and what we are doing there, in particular with drones. Bugliosi said the killing there could certainly be murder, regardless of whether it’s a war or what we call it.

And we talked about the just-opened investigation of Iraq war lies in England.

“I’m impressed with England,” said Bugliosi. ”Their nation is not in the decline that America is. I salute them for what they’re doing. If there’s a prosecution of George W. Bush in the United States, and if I’m involved, several of those witnesses would be asked to testify, including Manning and Dearlove.”

What about Blair? Has Tony Blair committed murder? We discussed this for a while.

Vince stressed that his focus has been on Bush. The question of whether Blair is guilty, Vince said, comes down to whether he lied to the British people in taking them to war. We discussed areas where it looked like Blair had lied.

Bugliosi pointed to the Downing Street Minutes in which the attorney general of the UK (Goldsmith) tells Blair that his planned war has no legal basis. The minutes state: “The Attorney General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.”

Bugliosi decided that the more he talked about it the more he would find Blair deserving of prosecution, but that Blair’s responsibility did not compare to Bush’s.
David Swanson is the author of the new book Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when the tour will be in your town:

• http://davidswanson.org/book.

---