BBD – Life Burglarizes Art, Art Replicants Life

{Author’s Note: A fluffy piece follows the fold. More of a curio than anything groundbreaking or particularly informative. It’s wander-y and ponder-y. It also kinda sorta follows up to this post over at the fiction writing blog.}

Continue reading

New Shortstory


What is the New COINTELPRO?


{Author’s preemptive note: If a human rights or news organization were not once in a while infiltrated and even subverted from its mission, I would be compelled to consider that that organization possibly poses no threat to corrupt practices and those who practice them.}

First, using the term COINTELPRO implies we’re talking about the FBI and mostly only the FBI. This is likely not true. Having said that, the practices I am referring to are strictly illegal and FBI, whether directly involved or not {it likely is in one way or another}, is the primary investigative body of the Department of Justice and therefore knows the answer. Even the slightest form of harassment, when it comes from an organization, falls completely under the law Title 18 USC Section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights. Additionally, one of FBI’s favorite charges to bring against anyone even tangentially involved in investigations in which it engages is accessory after the fact. No matter who is involved, the FBI and the Department of Justice are accessories after the fact.

Title 18 USC Section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights:

Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.


If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;…

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

And yet, for some reason, those who carry these things out don’t seem concerned about being prosecuted.


There are lots of things to point out here. First there’s the Senate and various little fiefdoms. We can see this was the case in the Cold War as well, when the Senate pretended to investigate the intelligence community but was just as much investigating itself:

While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities on their own and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.

Church/Tower, Book II: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, page 5.

Of course those people they reported to likely also knew something was going on. They just didn’t want to know officially. See our Legislative Branch again here regarding CIA’s assassination weapons which they seemed so surprised about, how some of their members, Customs and the FBI had all seen them:

MR. SENSENEY: And I might add that many of your own members here, not on this panel, but many Members of Congress also observed these [weapons].

SEN. HOWARD H. BAKER JR.: Well, you are very generous. None of us saw them; is that right?

Church/Tower, Vol. 1.

They know but don’t admit that they know.

Next, the still as far as we know standing agreement between the Department of Justice and the CIA:

Incredibly, when the subject of possible federal prosecutions of CIA officials for capital crimes and felonies, such as murder and drug trafficking, came up in their discussion, [CIA General Counsel Lawrence] Houston informed [President Ford’s Chief of Staff, Donald] Rumsfeld and [Rumsfeld’s chief assistant, Richard B. “Dick”] Cheney that there was little cause for concern.

Explained the Agency’s General Counsel, since early 1954, following the death of Army biochemist Frank Olson, a secret agreement between the CIA and the U.S. Department of Justice had been put in place whereby the violation of “criminal statutes” by CIA personnel would not result in Department of Justice prosecutions, if “highly classified and complex covert operations” were threatened with exposure. The agreement had been struck between Houston and Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers in February 1954, not long after Frank Olson’s death, and still remained solidly in place.

Jeffrey Kaye and HP Albarelli, “Cries From the Past: Torture’s Ugly Echoes,” Truthout, 23 May 2010:

Now let’s take a look at more recent developments.


Though there are, according to folks who follow it, some good things to come out of the changes to the FOIA system, the Intelligence committee put some things in there to prevent, even if the things are 25 years old or older, being exposed to the public who paid for them.

However, the bill also includes carve-outs for the intelligence committee, added at the last minute by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that would protect so-called “sources and methods” information from any of the new provisions.

“The changes to the House FOIA bill, added as a result of a last-minute demand of HPSCI, is a pattern that is becoming all too familiar and objectionable” Patrice McDermott, executive director of, said in a statement. “The efforts to exempt the Intelligence Community are not acceptable. They are particularly offensive in this bill intended to promote openness across the federal government.”

CJ Ciaramella, “FOIA Rundown: House passes FOIA reform bill, dolphin necropsies, and more,” CJCiaramella FOIA Rundown Newsletter, 15 January 2016:

While the House bill is a good step in the right direction, last-minute carve-outs for the frequently FOIA-ed 17 agencies that make up the Intelligence Community from the bill’s improvements are troubling.1 Added at the insistence of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HSPCI), the carve-outs exempt the Intelligence Community (IC) from certain provisions, including “language that states that currently-protected information relating to ‘sources and methods’ would not be subject to disclosure under any of the amendments in the bill”. The bill exempts the IC from necessary reforms to the consultation process; a big mistake as intelligence agencies are the biggest consultation abusers. The bill also contains a provision requiring agencies to publish “a list” of of all denied material unless the disclosure is prohibited by law. This is another tremendously beneficial provision of the bill, but it will be watered-down if the IC is exempted.

Lauren Harper, “Overall Good FOIA Reform Bill Passes House With Troubling IC Carve-Outs,” National Security Archive Blog, 14 January 2016:

Note that ‘sources and methods’ is another way of saying ‘highly classified and complex’ as noted regarding the DoJ/CIA agreement in the quote above.

They have something to hide.


Intelligence Activity Exemption

The proposal includes exemptions for intelligence surveillance activities. Since the intelligence communities have long histories of using creative interpretations of the law and regulations, we believe that any exemption should be subjected to heightened review. As we write:

[The policy] offers practically no limitation to an intelligence community with a history of expansively interpreting limited exemptions. There should be a discussion, a representative list, or at a minimum a modifier added here to give future courts or administrative law judges some sort of applicable standards to apply if a dispute arises.

Dave Maass, “More Needs to Be Done to Strengthen Protection of Human Subjects in Scientific Experiments,” EFF, 7 January 2016:

Much of this is about privacy of medical records, but the above is the focus here. There’s also the massive manipulation of online discourse though, by the US Department of Defense’s MINERVA, which like the UK’s GCHQ/JTRIG department whose slides made it clear they are targeting everyone, not just terrorists, is using social sciences online.


However, things can get very muddied easily as to what they are. What is a covert operation? What is interrogation? What is torture? What is research? What is a medical treatment?

By leaving these kinds of things vague and ambiguous, intelligence agencies, the military, and their private partners can deny doing any one of them by quickly reclassifying anything they do as falling under one of the other categories.

This is not new by any means. The CIA being investigated as part of the assassination program–which may have arose out of ARTICHOKE–when they retained deadly fish toxin was a good example of this. When the White House ordered the destruction of all chemical weapons as a good faith move toward easing tensions with the USSR, the CIA considered the fish toxin a biological weapon because it came from a fish. When the subsequent order then came to destroy all biological weapons for the same reason, they switched back to considering it an inorganic material. Finally, when questioned by the Senate on the subject, they simultaneously claimed that it was being kept for medical research {the amount retained was orders of magnitude higher than all of the medical schools in the US combined could use} and that they simply lost track of one of the most deadly substances known to man.

Switch the subject now to rectal feeding. Is it a medical treatment for people on hunger strike? Or is it punishment or torture? Or is it part of a “brainwashing” program, to break down the personality in order to paint whatever the Agency desires upon the tapestry of a human’s psyche?

See also how Chelsea Manning was treated while at the prison at Quantico. Was it really a medical issue, the process just short of suicide watch, or was it an attempt to force a plea deal in order to limit exposure of the information possessed by Wikileaks?

There are multiple barriers to getting at the truth and these barriers are not accidental. They are the intentional subversion of accountability. But that is not to say that both Legislators and Executive branch officials are unaware that it is happening; merely that they do not acknowledge it.


Here’s where we move from the mostly historical and current events presented by news and those who watch the watchers as best they can to my experiences and interactions with others and how I think that they fit this big picture. Note, much of this is carefully considered after six years of attempting to diagnose what precisely is wrong and how such blatantly illegal actions could take place regardless of whom I or others contact about it.

The first most obvious thing, which only became clear after I was targeted myself, is that some of what occurs is field training. As I’ve noted many times, I witnessed sudden bizarre changes in two women who worked at a theater in 1989 and 1990. I also met a woman who was having similar problems and who had worked there in 1988. There were also lots of small things that, in retrospect, kind of resemble the sort of ploys you might see on the old Mission: Impossible TV show.

Divisions were created. Some of the events were so strange and seemingly defied explanation that I, for a time, became religious. The idea that we were being used by the government as training dummies for something like COINTELPRO just never occurred to me, or if something similar did, seemed so alien to what the news and media teach us about how the world works that it was easier to chalk it up to the supernatural than try to make sense of some bizarre conspiracy concocted by people we are told every single day exist only to protect us and our families from harm.

These were mostly subtle things, like noises or electrical effects that seemed to coincide with something someone said. We were also largely sleep deprived, getting up in the morning for class, working all day, putting on a show, and then prepping the stage for the next performance. We were easy targets.

More recently I have had opportunity to interact with many people who claim to be subject to some form of harassment. What I started noting was a small number who had history of mental illness before the harassment began. How was I to reconcile this?

Though they sometimes made many claims that I do not believe, often lodged in the middle of this were a few things that matched the experiences of people who had no history of mental illness. How was that possible?

It became obvious. Just as a bunch of interns at a Summer theater were used as targets, so are sometimes those afflicted with mental illness. It is the perfect cover, because they will never be believed. Their history alone makes them unreliable witnesses as far as most people are concerned. This provides several benefits to the psychological operations specialists and their command structure:

1} The targets will not be believed {note again EFF’s concern about medical records};

2} Because the claims are similar to those who do not suffer from mental illness, it will tend to make those who are not mentally ill might actually be because their claims are similar to those who are;

3} It proves to the command structure that the field specialist has no empathy for a helpless target, much as a sniper would be required to prove;

4} There’s a financial side-benefit for Wall Street, cheap labor advocates, and greedy sociopaths in general that is not unlike what happens when poor neighborhoods are flooded with drugs. That is it creates the impression that the mentally ill are a burden on society and excuses the public from caring about them and therefore becomes an impediment to any sort of single payer options for those who cannot care for themselves.

These two groups, those with a history of mental illness and those without, represent the first two levels of training. Beyond this, it becomes targeting high profile or influential individuals, whistleblowers, sometimes journalists, activist attorneys, and sometimes just to create a phony narrative.

But even this last category has the potential to fall under both national security and human research just as the examples above might when it is an organization practices in deceit making those decisions. Utilizing some new method, which would be ‘highly classified’ and therefore not subject to FOIA nor prosecution by the DoJ, and at the same time have some operational goal. If anything related to the operation became noticed by outsiders, it could be categorized as whichever was most beneficial to retaining the secrecy involved.


Many times I had thought I knew the answer to this over the years and as many times I have found that my “list” is too short. Of course the real answer is pretty much everyone indirectly, but in this section I mean directly.

There’s a woman who simply lived too close to some kind of EMP weapon test. She suffered a brain injury and was harassed, driven crazy so that the existence of the weapon would remain secret and so there would be no chance of her being able to file a civil suit against whichever aerospace corporation owned the weapon.

There’s a woman who simply prevented a mass workplace shooting by alerting authorities before it was carried out. Whether this was from some kind of shortselling that was foiled, or an op simply designed to eliminate someone’s competition is not clear. What is clear is that she was a successful nurse for 20 years before this happened and she was ostracized from her profession due to a patient claiming she groped him. This is classic for covert operations where the target is accused of something distasteful and that removes any chance of support from friends and family who, like the juries in the Making a Murderer cases, cannot fathom a reason why officials would lie about someone and frame them up.

Then, as noted before, there’s people like Myron May. May was a successful African-American attorney for many years. His entire life crumbled rapidly and he decided to try to raise awareness and go out via similar to “suicide by police.” While there could be additional motives for doing this to someone like May, it is obviously in part about “justifying” the bigotry that many people feel by creating phony narratives, anecdotal “evidence,” which if you spend much time on the Internet you know means a lot more to most people than percentages and other statistics. Again, this would serve to remove public empathy for the poor via guilt-by-association-via-skin color.


They are intentionally keeping us at each others’ throats. This is basic, ancient governance at work. Keep the rabble going after some other group you don’t like and they aren’t as likely to show up on your doorstep with pitchforks and torches saying “Pass single payer now,” “Raise the minimum wage,” “End the wars you are getting richer and richer off of,” etc.

It is also viewed as expanding the markets for NATSEC. If you can show that people of a particular skin color, religion, background, sexual preference, etc. are more prone to violence they you open up the possibility of new and expanded contracts for the intelligence community which is reportedly 70% private. That’s right, for every dollar spent, 70 cents goes into the public sector. It is a business. These people are in part drumming up business behind a veil of lies, covert operations, and ‘highly classified’ methods that cannot be scrutinized.

This is what they do. This is why they do it. What’s troubling me is not actually the nature of their game, but how few of us seem capable of connecting the dots within it. It’s greed. Is that hard to understand?


See also, regarding the bad portrayal of mental illness in film {which, to its credit, Hollywood spent some time in 2015 trying to repair somewhat}, that mass media teaches even when its stated function is entertainment and profits.

It might be tempting to write off these depictions of mentally ill people as merely harmless Hollywood distortions, but as advertising executives thoroughly understand, media images insidiously work their way into the collective unconscious of society and influence the way we all regard the world around us. Although none of the images described can be said to have arisen de novo, the question of whether society’s perceptions of the stereotypical representations came first cannot be resolved without empirical research. Regardless of which came first, it is important to recognize the effect that cumulative viewing of such images may exert.

Steven H. Hyler, “Stigma Continues in Hollywood,” Psychiatric Times, 1 June 2003:

And why that power comes with responsibility that should also mean accountability:

As I said, this hypocrisy isn’t interesting because it’s so utterly undeniable. However, what is interesting—and profoundly telling—is King’s explanation for his behavior. He says simply that “it makes no sense to talk about other [read: non-Muslim] types of extremism.”

The remark, of course, typifies a broader sentiment in America and raises the most important “why” question: Why do so many like King see extremist acts by non-Muslims as mere isolated incidents that “make no sense to talk about,” yet see extremist acts by Muslims as a systemic problem worthy of military invasions and now congressional witch hunts?

David Sirota, “The ’80s Origins of Today’s Anti-Muslim Bigotry,” Truthdig, 10 March 2011:

And note again how books published by the same country marketed to different places were published around the same time in, you guessed it, the 80s. See bottom portion.


Manufacturing a Myth

Actually been several days since I finally finished watching Making a Murderer. If you have not watched it, you might want to hold off on reading beyond the fold. There are a few spoilers and much McCoyote-style commentary.
Continue reading

BBD – Still More Car Trouble

During my trek west last month, stopped off at a restaurant in Texas. When I came out, the window on my dad’s truck, which I was driving, was rolled down {not automatic}. There was a man by his vehicle next to the truck with his hood open. I doubt he had anything to do with it, but you never know. Typically I’ve found when there’s covert action happening, there’s an obvious  distraction, misdirection to draw you away from noticing anyone who might be watching from a distance.

Anyway, laptop right there in the passenger seat, not stolen.

About thirty miles later, it broke down. Transmission fluid all leaked out.


Despite the window {Did I leave it down? Seems very unlikely} , I might still have chalked that up to naturally occurring wear and tear. But the tow truck guy noticed it was also leaking coolant. It never overheated, didn’t have the chance. The window, like the broken lock on the Brooklyn apartment years before was a message, “We were here.”

So I start the New Year off with no job and the expectation of paying off a new vehicle. Ain’t life under spy and drone happy, war-on-whistleblowers Obama grand? Who wants to go for a ride?


They Really Are Crusades

Going to assume folks can recall the really long straw scene as well to get some idea about why this happens earlier in There Will Be Blood.

It’s as old as humanity, no doubt. The really tough guy probably acted like the only bull in the pasture. That is until the really smart guy had to explain that the really tough guy died because he displeased the deities when it was in fact something he ate. “In fact,” he would realize as he played it up, “all of you displeased the gods, so they say bring all the virgins to me.” Then he’d giggle to himself that all that testing of plants on the rodents who live around his remote hut really paid off big time. He’d need a new warrior, but this time he would be the one calling the shots. The prehistoric merger between superstition and commerce was a win-win for SmartGuy.

All of that leading up to recommending the War Nerd podcast episode 14. Some great info. I had even studied a few of those topics years ago and there’s a lot I didn’t know. Might have heard that shakers died off, but never told quite so amusingly. Also never realized that the US could have become a Mormon country.

Which in turn takes me to a place that is not the intended destination in the podcast.

Whose job is it to rein in religious zealots in the military and intelligence community? Mine? If so, I think I’m missing more than a few paychecks.

No. It’s the President, his cabinet, the inspectors general, Congress, and if need be the Department of Justice {which is of course one of the places filled with zealots}. Not one of these people are doing the job they are supposed to be. Not one. When religious zealots target other religions, non-whites, and LGBTetc for harassment and smearing, you can see just how shitty a job of protecting anything except his own ass Barack Obama is doing. It’s like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are already secret POTUS. It’s like the Tea Party runs Homeland Security.

Once wrote that last part in an email to a reporter. That was exactly what it was like. Obama is everything except liberal, except progressive, except Left.

Someone once asked me why I should care if radical Christians and radical Muslims kill each other off. While I don’t subscribe to the view that that is exactly what’s happening, the first, obvious answer is because they dragged me into it.

The goddamn law says not to discriminate. If spies and top brass cannot follow the law, kick them out like pharmacists who refuse to sell condoms. Otherwise, stop trying to shift the blame, Mr. O. You own this, your own private Crusade.

Return of the Ranchers


This is at least in part a rejoinder to the previous post, though I had no idea that the previous post would turn out to be so timely. I am speaking of the “armed protestors,” “ranchers,” “militia,” or whatever it is particular outfits are calling the guys who took over a building in a national forest.

Yes, if they were black they’d probably all be dead. Yes, if they were Muslim they’d be called terrorists and little else…and also be all dead.

With the language of the MSM and the reaction of the government out of the way, can we talk about what else this story is about now?


I am a big believer in peace, reason, checks and balances, oversight, and truth. Despite my personal belief in peace and the typically ridiculous reasons that some people don’t trust the government, I cannot see my way clear to viewing this as a gun problem.

As Carl Nyberg noted on Twitter, guns don’t seem like a likely path to a desirable society, and I agree. But history tells us that guns only in the hands of fascists leads to a fascist government. Checks and balances on Congress’ standing army was the original reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place, though it has perhaps since been mangled.

But I can’t see handing more power, if only relative or perception of power, to the government and the special business interests that it represents at the expense of most people. Because there are many legitimate reasons to distrust the government. Our current President, just like the previous President and barring something that I would label as a miracle, our next President, is not a believer in peace, checks and balances, oversight. Reason, perhaps, but it is fairly useless when it has to rely on near constant lies, mangling of the English language {“collect” at NSA, “enhanced interrogation” at CIA, etc.}, general disinfo to implement it.

We’re talking about a government that not only spies on literally everyone it can but who also has tested, as part of a larger effort, controlling what people see on social media to see if that alters their mood. They report it worked, or at least they reported that after they were forced to admit that they were doing it in the first place.

We’re also talking about a government who knows that torture does not provide truth but does provide whatever the torturer wants to hear. And what the torturer wants to hear is whatever will provide more fuel for endless wars and money spent on intelligence and security in both the government and the private sector. And they lied about torture as well.

We’re also talking about a government who we know, without a doubt, whether the numbers are dropping or not, planned, funded, and in some cases cajoled people into saying that they would perform some acts of terror. We know this. We know some of those people are mentally challenged, some even physically challenged, and some with mental illness. Where I grew up, this would be referred to as bullying…the very same kind of bullying, except with the funding, tools, trained personnel, and approval of the world’s superpower, as that same government made a big deal out of suggesting schools should have a ‘zero tolerance’ for. They are also lying about this. I know because I got a former FBI agent to block me on Twitter this morning. And that before I could call him an asshole.

We’re also talking about a government that is doing nonconsensual human experimentation. I note that there are three more days to comment to HHS before you will be totally ignored in favor of people who keep politicians’ personal and election coffers stuffed with the green.

So, while I do not own and will not buy a gun, I can see some very legitimate reasons for not trusting the government any more that I would trust any number of other answerable to no one at all organizations.

And yet there is some kind of disconnect, at least to an extent, on the Left about this. It’s as though we still think laws somehow matter when they are only applied in certain circumstances, only when directed at certain people, and when, despite one idjit being caught, there is an affluenza epidemic and the latest deal between Obama and Koch involves giving out free affluenza booster shots.


Mentioned this before but it’s been a while. On at least six occasions, people have suggested or offered for me to go visit militias. The first three occurred after my first visit with FBI in Minneapolis. In one of those instances, it was someone who knew absolutely nothing about my situation and was just really making small talk.

And yet that kind of thing has happened over and over again. Again, it is possible for someone to be used without even realizing that they are being used. Seen it too many times, and I have done it myself without realizing it at the time. Don’t want to get bogged down in how I think this works, merely noting that it does. Seemed like innocent suggestions, were as far as some of the people involved were concerned, but meant something different to me in context as it would someone doing heavy surveillance and associated COINTELPRO mixed w/MKULTRA style harassment.

Then later came a pair of brothers in Michigan. Don’t think that they are identical, but appear so. Anyway, yet another reminder that “There’s always the independent armed paranoiacs to join up with because the US government who fucked you over sure as shit isn’t interested in helping some faggot unless they can figure out how to make big bucks doing so.” Or words to that affect. {These two brothers made a cameo appearance in Inthrallis during Moller’s escape from the hospital even though in fiction it seemed improbable given a certain other pair of twins, who also, were it in a book this would be ridiculous, last name Hammond just like the ranchers in question in Oregon.}


Quickly because I’ve covered it before. Went to the St. Clair County courthouse to help a woman who believed she was being harassed by parties unknown and was facing becoming a ward of the {partially privatized} state. I was to catch a ride at a local restaurant and met up with her and two other men there. I was of course curious to see what her story was and if I could find any truth to it.

{Briefly, it turned out she had prevented a mass shooting years before. The real question wasn’t “Is she crazy?” The real question should have been, “why did someone drive a 20-year career nurse who prevented a workplace shooting crazy and then hand her off to a judge who may have financial reasons for seeing people lose their ability to determine where and how to spend their disability checks?“}.

Anyway, I don’t always use names on the blog because I don’t have the permission of the people involved. In this case I will use his first name, Ken.

Ken was from Texas. Ken ran a successful printing company for over a decade. Ken came to drive us to the courthouse. We ordered breakfast and then Ken told me he had just been at the Bundy Ranch standoff.

Though Ken had stopped trusting Alex Jones/InfoWars/PrisonPlanet some months prior due to Alex’s unwillingness to talk about the new COINTELPRO, he had been a listener for years and said many of the other people at Bundy Ranch were as well.

The reason Ken started listening to Alex Jones in the first place, why he was there, why he went to the Bundy Ranch, etc. was because he started being harassed. His business went under. He got divorced. Is any of that sounding familiar? If not, please re-read the previous post, especially the quote about COINTELPRO by the Church/Tower committee.

Ken also made the same kinds of claims about having had his head messed with via means unknown that African-Americans Aaron Alexis and Myron May made. Note that May also lost his career and his life fell apart just before he went “postal,” though May only wounded some people before being killed.

See also previous post paragraph about Alex Jones, Stratfor, and CIA.


I think we’re missing it. The same people who lauded the Iranian takeover of the Tehran Saudi embassy by protestors are lambasting these people because they don’t like their politics. I think that’s a terrible reason. While, yes, we are talking about guns, not speech, we’re essentially saying, “OK for police and spy agencies who did and do all of these horrible things to have guns, but not individual citizens, especially when they are ignorant, misinformed, disinformed, rightwing, racist, etc.” You trust the government who has sold everyone out to big business, has an enormous budget, known to lie incessantly about it’s own crimes, performs secret legislation and very questionable legislation to legalize what they have typically already been doing {breaking the law} for years, more than a bunch of yahoos. And you fear the yahoos more than people performing human experimentation, torture, mass surveillance, war crimes, etc.? I just don’t get it.

It’s like the Left version of xenophobia. I haven’t sorted out the specific details of who, what and why but I don’t really think I need to. The law doesn’t apply to Monsanto, Koch and the CIA. Since that is so, why in the fuck should I support it when it applies to some angry ranchers or militia?

Further, the Feds have been trying to sell off public lands, have done a miserable job of protecting wildlife from fracking, and the DoD is one of the world’s biggest polluters. Give me a break, this is not about any kind of benevolence.

Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected, but wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way. Look at these three words written larger than the rest, with a special pride never written before, or since, tall words proudly saying, “We the People”. That which you call Ee’d Plebnista, was not written for the chiefs of kings, or the warriors or the rich or the powerful, but for ALL the people! Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution”. These words and the words that follow, were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well! They must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing!

The Captain said it, so it must be true.


  • Calendar

  • Search