Senators Peters and Stabenow and Representative Walberg Refuse to Oversee the Executive Agencies

For four years, I have requested the assistance of my representatives in the national government in holding the CIA and FBI, or the responsible parties and agencies, accountable for having set my former fiance on me to spy in domestic matters, which is illegal. These senators and representatives can easily establish 1. that our government does do this sort of thing, 2. that the agencies are involved in education in the United States in the way that I suggest, 3. That proximity is entirely likely in my case, and to some extent certain, 4. That my circumstances include some very strange coincidences that indicate that what I suggest is likely, and 5. That my former professor ceased to speak to me immediately following the defense of my dissertation for no manifest reason, and will not give a reason to anyone. This is in complete contrast with the recommendations in my file, so that when they say I cannot spell or am a “gnostic” or somehow a harmful thinker, it is contradicted by the recommendations. The recommendations are public and they can be sued over them, but not responding when universities inquire for applications, this one cannot be sued over.  Such things, 6) would be a blacklisting if he were employed or influenced those or was influenced by those employed by these agencies. I could continue to list reasons that Congress ought ask the questions 1. Was that woman set on me, and 2. Why did that professor cease to speak to me. A third question is whether these two are connected, as a woman seems to have been set on me earlier while I was a student at the University of Dallas. So now I want them to tell absolutely everything they ever did to me throughout the course of my education. My other professor said that the excommunication from my professor was indeed very strange, and should not have occurred, and certainly not for something stupid like pot, or without my having some inkling of a reason. Some persons there were either told something slanderous by government or did not like me, perhaps because I did not apply for certain agency jobs to which I was invited to apply, (and can prove it). Congress should have asked me a few questions related to the persons involved, such as one couple of professors and what extracurricular positions these might have held. Having taken scholarship money in a tuition grant, it was perhaps expected that I would have no choice but to apply to repay the borrowed living expense money- a debt which has ruined my financial life, to go along with my friendship and romantic life. I will have no career and no family, although my failure as a writer might of course have many causes other than blacklisting. My Lear book has sold over 100 copies, but the price is kept so high that no one will buy the e-book, as though it were intentional to sell zero copies. And my search engine access is blocked, so that all my traffic is word of mouth, resulting in the failure of my self published e-book, a seven year project. I applied for full time teaching jobs, though, for ten years without ever gaining a single interview, and there is nothing wrong with my grades or work, except that it is perhaps too philosophical for the contemporary American University.

It is also strange that my academic files have disappeared from the University of Dallas, and that persons connected with the University are angry with me for having my representative ask for an account of the matter, and that the university is anything but forthcoming. An account was given after a year or more of persistent questioning, and after having Representative Walberg ask them directly, about 3 years ago. It is said that the files disappeared along with 19 others when they were sent to be put on microfilm and the originals thrown away, and this story we have in writing, though a FOIA request was ignored. Representative Walberg saw this occur, but as soon as it became clear that there were indeed federal agencies involved, he ceased to be of any assistance, his office referring me instead to try to find a lawyer (there are none accessible to the poor for federal matters) or go yet again to the agencies themselves, who think such practices are just fine and who cannot oversee themselves due to the chain of command. Whomever I speak to, in whatever agency including the Justice department, I am asking that they investigate their superiors.

It is very unseemly to discuss such things in public, but that is why 1. Congress should respond to complaints of this sort immediately to settle the matters, 2. We ought think twice about covert government involvement in education, and 3. We ought think twice too about setting women on people without warrant. You see, if a professor irrationally excommunicates a student and thereby destroys his career, that is part of education, and professors can do that, though their bosses might want an account of the matter. But if these professors are acting as government agents, the Constitution of the United States that they are sworn to uphold is seriously violated. I believe that it is extremely important that the citizens do something about this when it occurs, even if it is difficult to do so in a responsible manner. But one certainly does not want a circumstance like that of Mr. Snowden, where he tried every way imaginable to get Congress to do their job, and finally went to the Guardian newspaper and ended up in Moscow! Such irresponsible stonewalling by Congress and government is indeed a threat to national security, if we would remain a free people. The alternative is to have agencies without oversight, incompatible with a free people, the contradiction of liberty, which is in fact what we have now, due especially to the failure of Congress persons to do their jobs. It is in absolute frustration with government, as well as the assurance that such things ought not be done and cannot continue, that I appeal to the people through the press, again that fourth branch of the U. S. government that sometimes kicks in when the other three fail.

There is a no way to communicate this circumstance to anyone who does not care, at least enough to hear the points of the explanation. But what it means is that a terrible error was made and there is no way to correct it: The citizen must simply be destroyed because congress and the Senate Intelligence Committee cannot ask a few simple and direct questions and the agencies be bound or ordered by the President, if necessary, to tell the truth.

One cannot imagine what it means to fall in love with someone who was set upon you as a spy. Nor can one imagine the psychic confusion and romantic torture that results from their apparent M.O., which is to set these women between two friends. Police at all levels of government use women to spy on male targets, from small operations and “Confidential Informants” to prostitutes paid or rewarded to inform and spy, to serious foreign policy matters. Every Senator should know this. As the Sixty Minutes special on Confidential Informants demonstrates, there is great need for the oversight of the police in the use of civilians who have no lawyers. That show focused on two deaths that were caused when, for example, a petty weed dealing sophomore woman was sent to wear a wire to spy on heroin dealers, buying guns and heroin. To capture the love of a person and to cause friends to accuse one another would be a very effective method of spying, and this is in fact what seems to have occurred. If I were correct, it is clear that nothing at all would be done in the current illiberal system where there is no oversight. The CIA is free to suspect a student, set women on them, receive slanderous accounts drawn from misinterpreted phone taps by State or local police, in effect blacklist a PhD, effect something like rape, in a bizzare violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments so unique it has no name, and that is just fine with government: Nothing can or will be done about this, again because it is the job of congress and they will not do their jobs. I want the President to order the agencies to tell at least my representatives the truth about these matters, since it has been demonstrated that the agencies will lie to Congress. I want government to hold the bad actors accountable and set the damages straight before worse consequences result, as I will continue to press this issue in every political way, including publicizing enough of the matter to get something done about it. Or do you think one in my circumstance should allow what again is like rape for the purposes of spying, and like blacklisting to destroy a career?

Just a bit to add: It is also fine with Congress and the agencies if one receive death threats to prevent holding some powerful persons accountable, or for government bad actors to use such measures to cover up their crimes and errors. They might carry out or subcontract the carrying out of such threats, and Congress must admit that there is nothing our government is set up to do about it. They might also simply leave a person exposed or expose them, without doing another thing, allowing others to carry out such a threat for them. They are not stupid. And like the fellow killed lately by the Russians in London, they are sure to make it look like a natural death or accident. That nothing would be done about such a thing, characteristic of Russian tyranny but not free government, is agreed by all and just fine, apparently, with Congress and the President. That is a result of these sorts of matters, and is again why Congress needs to do its job from the beginning, or why we cannot have a tyranny of the unelected executive agencies justified by our terror or by the nuclear age. We must remain free regardless of these perils, and in truth, contrary to what most think, it is the only safe course, as tyranny would expose us to disaster far sooner than liberty.

Congress also does not seem to understand its own powers if it denies itself the right and duty to oversee and hold accountable these agencies. Every cent of American money spent, and that means every single thing the American government does, requires in principle an account to Congress.

I have of course taken the stigma of madness for trying to do something about these things. I will add the inconveniences of this, the social effect of saying something no one wants to hear or can believe, to my list of damages for which I would charge them, about 57 million dollars minimum, should there ever be oversight, accountability and meaningful recourse in such matters. Everyone agrees that if these things did occur much as I say they sure seem to have, absolutely nothing would be done about it, so that all things are just as if I were seeing quite clearly. But, needing the help of fellow citizens and friends, absolutely no one has offered to help, but it has been suggested of course that I “get help.” As I have told my father, I do indeed need help, but not that kind! I rather need the help of fellow free citizens, to insist that Congress do their job an inquire when there is so much reason to do so, and see to it that these things do not continue to occur. What if they did that to your son or daughter? Tim Walberg, when asked that, would not answer. I could get their psychodope even without saying such things, and I know the system would just love to drug me for saying things no one can think let alone believe, except for those who have for themselves seen these things done, and know well that I tell the truth about this sort of thing having become rather routine. But among the things no one can explain to me are why the simplest questions cannot be asked and honest answers required when I have already presented plenty of reason to raise the questions, and to present more reason will be harmful. It is objectively obvious that something strange did indeed occur, and the silence is more evidence that there is indeed a problem here.

One final point: Machiavelli indeed seems to us to teach the folly of the use of love and women in spying, since he has that wonderful teaching about how a tyrant can do anything to the liberty of men so long as he does not touch their patrimony. For this reason it does seem to me that Machiavellians would understand that if one prostitutes or rapes or tortures wrongly in the mistaken service of national security, the truth will come out. Machiavelli probably does not mention love, unless it is in the Mandragola, I’ll have to check. Or perhaps it is with his true teaching, in The Art of War. But Machiavelli also has that nice teaching about how many can see what one appears to be, but none can touch what you are, from The Prince. Once Machiavellianism enters American politics, the genuine or Socratic philosophers are called to counter its effects. For this, we must somehow “speak to the mariners,” as the boatswain says in The Tempest, “or we run ourselves aground.We must show the people to stand upright, and these forces- even the seven dark powers or a “seven nation army” of Russia, ISIS, the mob, the Colombian type cartels, the Nazis and the Klan- can be beaten, along with the prescription drug and other huge transnational money interests. The Internet billionairs, who are decent and very powerful indeed, might be persuaded to help, while they are looking for philanthropic causes in their retirement. We, the American people, are like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, and Machiavelli is wrong in general, if he does have a point about how difficult it is to make these covert matters evident. No one will listen, and no one will believe you. Indeed, swept along by appearance and self-interest, no one will even ask the simplest questions.

Libertarianism and Peaceful Protest

Martin Luther King Jr saved our nation with the idea of peaceful protest. In the face of blatant injustice, as a Christian minister, he saw from Gandhi and Socrates that unarmed civil disobedience was the only way to win a victory worth having. The movement was concerned primarily with equality, but also secondarily with liberty. What I am suggesting is the conjunction of the idea of peaceful protest and the primary concern with our vanishing American liberty.

   The recognition of equality has now become so well established in popular opinion that its excesses are ignored. The idea that keeps recurring is to join the quest for the re-establishment of liberty with the methods and the idea of Martin Luther King and peaceful protest.

   As a student at a conservative Catholic school. we studied the American founders in an exciting spirit of the recovery of our political tradition. Yet we did not study even Thomas Jefferson very much. The Bill of Rights was generally neglected, and we did not even begin to learn about Martin Luther King.

   King found what may be the only way for Christians to participate in politics rather than withdraw from the world’s injustice to the peace and safety of the monastery. As it turns out, they were a government school, and St. Martin was still considered as J Edgar saw him, as a something closer to a communist than an American, despite King’s constant appeal to the Declaration and the Constitution, and to justice.

   Whether the reader can realize it or not, our nation is facing some changes, and is headed for some serious internal dangers. Armed protest has broken out occasionally, with the blacks in Baltimore and the Whites in Oregon most recently. Violence at political speeches surrounding the presidential campaigns is becoming routine. The reason is that the Americans are missing something, and what appears is then drawn toward the emerging opposites or extremes. Meanwhile, in the face of blatant injustice, our politicians will do nothing, at least until complaints are converted into money and power. We could scream bloody murder, about the most obvious abuses, and its like the whole nation is on Oxy, or has been so dumbed down that it goes in one ear and out the other, like we were speaking to a box of rocks.

   But violent protest strikes those who are innocent, like the officers of the peace who daily risk their lives to protect the citizens, and are thrown into the front lines as in the protest in Baltimore. There is no addressing the hidden powers responsible for the problems, we can only scratch and claw at one another.

   It always amused me, studying politics at that Southern Catholic Conservative School, that they did not appreciate the peaceful protest of St. Martin. They were into this idea like the problem with the Christians is that they are too meek and contemplative, and did appreciate the masculine idea of violence or fighting. Christianity turned mankind away from the body, and what we need to do in modernity here is to recover the concern with the things of the body, with wealth and power, and war in defense of liberty. They of course were thinking of our foreign enemies and the suppression of crime, and there is some truth to these Machiavellian thoughts, if it does not quite come out the way the Machiavellians would have it.

   But it remained an enigma, why they were against St. Martin, or why they did not seem to notice what a blessing the idea of peaceful protest is, especially in domestic but also, when possible, in foreign matters.

   Our Declaration of Independence states that it is our right and duty to rebel against our government when a tyranny is established, or when government fails “to secure these rights.” This idea is behind the advocates of the second Amendment, who see the government seizure of arms, or gun control, as the first step toward tyranny. But armed rebellion in our age will fail, and again, would harm innocents. The officers who work a peaceable assembly, where citizens exercise their constitutional right to petition their government for the redress of grievances, have nothing to do with the billionairs who devised the heroin-oxy scandal or the corrupt politicians who cannot even hold office anymore without “campaign contributions,” which are indistinguishable from legal bribery. We cannot get at the invisible internet billionaires who work to stifle free speech even as I write. Nor can we approach the drug companies that persuaded the doctors to set aside medicine for the practice of legal drug dealing. And as has been said regarding the armed opposition to federal property seizures, they do not have a George Washington to lead a rebellion, and the far right in armed rebellion is in fact the straightest road to tyranny.

   What I am suggesting is that this idea be joined not with armed rebellion, but with peaceful protest. As Martin addressed injustice by taking blows like Jesus, without even striking back, so libertarian protest can proceed, and may only be able to proceed, by following Dr. King in non-violent protest.

   The true revolution is within, within ourselves and in the soul, not the body of our nation. We are sliding toward tyranny, but bloodshed will only make things worse. The way to address this slide is within: we just say no to the profiteering doctors, the corrupt internet companies and the corrupt politicians, beginning with us, the people, or from within. We will simply stand upright. Then we will simply sit down, and not participate, like Rosa Parks and the Birmingham bus boycott. We will step aside from the corrupt world, and only live in the just world. We will leave aside the internet, the cell phones now useless because they are so marketed and hacked, and perhaps, for women, even the public restrooms. Much of modern technology has become useless, because without integrity these things do more harm than good. Then, perhaps the voters get off their opium couch and elect some representatives who are capable of more than selling used cars and lining their own pockets to the great applause of the many, when they look up between their serious pursuits of porn, drugs and video games. We will simply not participate, and we will say why, and keep saying why, whether or our speech is blocked and anyone ever listens, or not.

The Centrist Libertarian Constitutionalist Party

Lets let the Republican party divide, rather than follow a tyrant based upon some vague party allegiance. The CLC is a new political party, right in the center, between the Left and Right of both parties. The common good has often been the mean between the two positions, and our political system is a way of hashing out this balance. There is a mean in many political questions, just as in the ethical questions, so let us go straight to this, and save some time and money.

The CLC upholds Liberty as our nation has upheld equality. Common opinion has made great progress regarding equality, though the excesses occur when we sacrifice liberty to common opinion, and this is called “political correctness.”

The CLC insists upon the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution- all ten amendments, and not only the Second Amendment.

Hence, the CLC has opposed property seizures, which have occurred by setting aside the Fifth Amendment, seizing property contrary to the Fifth Amendment, without due process of law. The judicial decision allowing this because “property is guilty” is a corrupt decision.

The CLC opposes the surveillance state, which has occurred by setting aside the Fourth Amendment. In order to amend our Constitution, we require a super-majority of 2/3 to propose and 3/4 to ratify. This is what would be necessary to end the Fourth Amendment. But we have ended the limitations on search and seizure not by a super-majority, but by the excesses of the executive agencies and the corruption of Congress. This is illegal.

The CLC opposes the rigged game economy, where billionaires and millionaires make even more money by controlling Congress with the power their wealth can give them. The rules are then set according to their self interest, destroying the middle class, as the value of enterprise is devoured by these. We uphold true free enterprise against the tyranny of money, which is not free enterprise at all. Innovation and the spirit of invention can be crushed if the poor cannot advance because the rich have set the rules to take the value of their products.

The CLC has an answer to reform campaign finance. We will take goods used for our campaigns, and no money. The voters must require that legalized bribery end. We must do this voluntarily, because of the First Amendment. John Adams said this constitution is meant for a people of virtue, and will work for no other. Hence, we will end laminated junk mail and T.V. attack adds that insult the intelligence of the American voter. We will speak to the people directly, through the internet, and let the media follow if they want news.

The CLC will enact tax reform and simplify the tax process, saving billions for the GNP. We preach tax honesty, but must insist that government make tax honesty possible and not foolish. We spend too much of the GNP on filing taxes and filling out forms, and this is not necessary.

The CLC will insist upon the integrity of the large internet companies, both toward one another and toward their customers. Examples are that we insist upon true searches, upon not making a commodity of our liberty, privacy and security, nor forcing us to go shopping when they want. Where these have prevailed upon congress to allow their interests to become law, we will expose the corruption. The marketing of information must stop, for security reasons.

The CLC will end the abuse of health care by the prescription drug industry, the corruption of doctors in prescribing drugs for profit and the milking of the national health care system by insurance companies, doctors and organized crime that makes this project difficult if not impossible. The Oxy-heroin scam is the best example. And we will check to see whether antidepressants are the cause of the epidemic of public shootings, and end the corruption of psychiatry by the profits made by drugging people.

We will not raise taxes, but end welfare fraud in order to pay for infrastructure investment and reasonable social programs. The food stamp fraud rate is about fifty percent.

We must apologize to organized crime, but insist that both blue and white collar gangsters get jobs that produce real value.

We support prison and justice reform, the prosecution of the abuse of power in judicial and executive offices, and insist upon the immediate end to police shooting civilians without warrant or reason. We ask, “What is the difference between policing a free people and policing in a tyranny?” Those who cannot answer cannot hold police power over us. We remind these too that under our constitution, punishments are determined by the legislative and judicial branches: the executive has no power to determine punishment, and commits a crime by violating the constitution when it punishes.

We favor responsive government, rather than at present, where the citizens cry out and nothing is done until the issue enters the media.

We support a liberal arts based curriculum of genuine education, not only the current system of trade schools promoting only jobs, technology and popular opinion. We invite you to fill out this questionnaire: The goal of education is_____________.

We support the legalization of Marijuana, as the law forbidding it is unconstitutional. We insist upon the legislative regulation of commerce, but for the common good rather than for special interests.

Find another candidate with more substantive policy in a single page! We are in error to hire businessmen to run government: witness the Flint water crisis. I am Mark A. McDonald, a life long student of politics, former teacher of American government, and student of the human sciences, attempting to run for Congress in the Seventh House District of Michigan (until I find a better candidate), and am the founder of the CLC. I am running because my current representative would not support John McCain regarding torture, nor question the executive agencies in his position of supposed oversight, nor insist upon internet integrity.

Who Investigates the FBI and DHS?

For years, ever since Herbert Hoover, the FBI has been a sovereign unelected agency without oversight, whom no one has the power to investigate. The same will be true of the CIA and what we call the ETC., the departments few or none even know about. If one submits an inquiry then regarding FBI files, they can say there is nothing, while these are actually in the ETC. Congress has done little or nothing to oversee these agencies since the Church Committee investigations of the Seventies, and the members get all touchy, as though national security depended upon rogue agents being able to torture and do absolutely anything at whim, because you know one just cannot be too sure.

A few years ago, when we were not so paranoid- scared into believing that national security depends upon the suspension of the Fourth Amendment- our political science textbook had some interesting things to say about the Department of Justice and the FBI. The text is Cummings and Wise, Democracy Under Pressure, 2005. Here are some samples:

Senate and House investigations of the FBI during the seventies, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, revealed that for years- while the FBI enjoyed a highly favorable public image- the bureau had systematically engaged in illegal activities that violated the constitutional rights of American citizens. FBI agents, for example, engaged in hundreds of burglaries of individuals and groups to plant microphones or to photograph documents. From 1956-1971, the bureau, through its counterintelligence program (COINTELPRO), harassed American citizens and disrupted their organizations through a wide variety of clandestine techniques, some of which broke up marriages or endangered lives.

Moreover, it was disclosed that since the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the FBI had gathered intelligence on domestic groups and individuals with only the shakiest legal authority to do so. It had files on entertainers…even on justices of the U. S. Supreme Court. For years the bureau compiled various indexes or lists of people it considered politically unreliable who were to be rounded up in an emergency. And as the congressional investigations also disclosed, the FBI opened first class mail in violation of the law.

Even presidents respected Hoover’s power, and under his reign the FBI, although an arm of the Justice Department, became largely independent of the attorney general…

…other Americans worried about the concentration of power in the hands of the FBI, and they feared that its wiretaps and dossiers might be used for political ends, or to enhance the power of the director. Because Hoover’s political views were generally conservative, liberals feared that the FBI was more concerned about pursuing domestic radicals than organized crime…

…in prosecuting anti-war protesters, the government sometimes relied on informers who encouraged or committed the same acts for which their associates were later tried. During the same period, federal grand juries were used to gather intelligence against the peace movement and to suppress political dissent. And as mentioned earlier, through COINTELPRO, its domestic counterintelligence program, the FBI secretly harassed American citizens and in some cases even endangered lives…

Clearly the role and power of a secretive police agency raises disturbing problems in a democracy …

…or indeed in any free nation, especially a representative democracy.

Now, do you think, without any significant oversight from Congress, and with the President himself dependent upon the agencies for intelligence, things have become better in these respects, or worse? And do you seriously believe the door busting agents perspective that such things are necessary for national security? For God’s sake, Congress, grow some Kahunas and some subtlety of intellect to secure American liberty before it is simply too late! National security requires, in fact that these agencies not, for example, harbor KKK members or Nazis, and that the good cops be able to enforce the law to clear out the bad cops, who will do anything, without being told why they are doing it. Do mobsters peddle oxy and Heroin for the Russians, or vice versa, without asking what political scheme their little capitalist project is a part? And having softened up America for them, it will be too late by the time they realize their new obligation to bow toward Moscow or Mecca. Typical capitalists, forgetful of the political context of money-making. Machiavellianism assured of itself as the possessor of the philosophic truth about national security is again one of those tragic ironies, and will destroy security in a big and decisive way while appearing to preserve national security in some small way. Was John Lennon good or bad for America? And who was ever held accountable for what was done to Martin Luther King? And what are they doing now to the very citizens on whom American liberty depends, because they are not selected especially for their being able to tell the difference?

Get a Warrant!

Magnavox Too, and Roku, Have Been Watching And Listening Along With Microsoft

This new tech age is a bit hard to adjust to, and by the time one does, the damage is done. I have just learned a bit more, after suspecting, that the T.V., along with the Microsoft / Toshiba / Kaspersky computer system, have been spying on me for some time. I do not own, and have not set up this media, and more than the friend who visited lately and discussed being molested at age eight, but I do hope they make some good marketing use of his information. Thank You. I cannot express my gratitude to the U. S. Congress, the Obama Administration, and the Free market system, oh, and the Republicans in Congress who want to free the free market from all those cumbersome regulation, and the Democrats in Congress who use regulations not for the common good, but to reward their “campaign contributors.” Thank You all deeply for whoring the American people, and allowing others to whore us. Any moron among the multitude who need an argument presented as to just why this stuff is wrong and dangerous, I am tempted to wait until you are burying some family members, or for some other time when you will be able to receive such an account, since, you know as well as the FBI that anyone with such concerns must be, as they told our local librarian, “Schitzo-phrenic.” Don’t listen to that guy! And if you don’t believe us, we will use our new anti-terrorism powers to order you not to talk to him, or even exercise the common courtesy of returning calls.

It was once the case that those who thought their own government or the T.V. in their home were spying on them were indeed in some difficulty. Now it is a matter of common sense, thanks to the free market and Congress.

This, then, is why I have invented the CLC, the Centrist Libertarian Constitutionalist Party, and another reason that I am running for Congress in the 7th District their neighbor gets to drive to the store under a death threat. Any citizens awake enough to be tired of being prostituted, or wish to act on these issues before they are burying their children, or care if their neighbor is driving to the store under a possible death threat while the T.V. and computer broadcast his itinerary are welcome to come support us. And for the Republicans, we invite you to compare our to do list with the accomplishments of our current representative.

Representative Tim Walberg Visits Salem

Our representative held a coffee hour this week at our local township hall. This is a very nice custom, and allows the citizens to speak directly to one who will be on the floor in Washington, one of the 536 or so people in Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court, who hold direct governing authority in the United States.

Representative Walberg, a Republican, has done a decent job in a number of ways, although he is the one who I am collecting signatures to run against in the 7th district of Michigan. I decided to do this when he would not support the speech of John McCain on torture, delivered recently in the U. S. Senate. I had been frustrated before, of course, by his failure to criticize the un-elected agencies on the oversight committee and his failure to support the liberal arts from his place on the education committee. But he is a decent representative, a basically honest man, we think, and strong on foreign policy in certain ways. With just a couple exceptions, no one else in Congress seems capable of these important functions either. When he lists his accomplishments, they are generally mundane. He co-sponsored a bill with Rand Paul to limit federal property seizures, and stated the hope that our state legislatures would follow the example, reforming an obviously corrupt and very frustrating system of legalized thievery that was near to provoking armed rebellion. His strengths are on cutting budget excesses, IRS reform, and very partisan issues. He supports Ben Carson-like corrections to restore individual responsibility to health care (though as we say, if it were up to the Republicans, there would be no health care at all, and many would simply die, many in whom we have invested and would then have to pay to bury). For these reasons, we suggested him as a possible Vice Presidential candidate if Ben Carson had won the Republican nomination. The Republicans have, to say the least, proven strangely incapable of producing a candidate remotely capable of the U. S. presidency.

These things having been said, let us address what we consider to be the Walberg shortcomings. We want him to talk to the FBI like he talks to the IRS, but he does not have the Kahunas. He does not seem to understand the responsibility of Congress to make up for the illegal suspension of the Fourth Amendment with increased oversight when these new unlimited powers are abused, as they have been and surely will be, especially without oversight. Presently, anyone calling government spying into question can be blacklisted, even murdered, and no one will be willing or able to question the FBI, who can do anything to keep their own wrongdoing from coming to light. We assume that they would not do this, but no one was ever held accountable for what they did to Martin Luther King Jr, which included suggesting that he kill himself, that is, attempted murder, if not allowing his actual murder, or even contracting this themselves: if they did, we would not know of it, and this is not all right. Now the agencies have unlimited power, and control even the information of the president. Walberg allows the rigged game economy, participating in the crime of Congress to prostitute the America people by allowing unregulated big businesses to profit not from the value they produce, but from their power to set the rules of the game. This is currently quickly destroying the middle class. He does not have a clue about the need for internet integrity, and again simply allows the internet billionaires to spy on us, extort from us, control search engine access to our websites, even risking the use of Facebook for human trafficking and such nefarious purposes, rather than just say no when these companies wanted to buy our Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for campaign contributions. He cares more than many about prescription drug abuse, but his solutions lack imagination and a grasp of the depth of the corruption at the root of the problem. He would probably see our call to set up working rehab centers tomorrow as an example of fiscal irresponsibility, whereas we see this as precisely the right kind of investment that is the purpose of appropriations, and would save both money and lives in the short and long run. He will not stop Monsanto from controlling seeds and spraying everyone with roundup, destroying the public good for their own private profit, again probably because of campaign contributions and Walberg’s alliance with the Koch and Scamway brothers. Again, we support business and a free market, yeah, one where companies make money by producing value, not by destroying the common wealth for their own advantage or using their wealth as power to rig the rules of the game. Beginning with college debt, we cannot even produce or sell books or e-books to pay off the debts, because everywhere we turn, publishers, e-books, and internet access, the game is rigged, and indeed, we do not play (foe example, I would not pay extortion fees even if I were able). So the people will eat my scool loans, and pay to bury me as well, but at least we did not have to say no to Googlw, Microsoft and Facebook!

Tim Walberg does not support John McCain on torture, and this stance could lose us a war. Our position is, again, when we capture you, war is over. We expect that one half of the ISIS fighters are unwilling participants compelled to serve and yet afraid to surrender to a man like Richard Cheney. I would be. We suspected that he, Mr. Walberg, was waiting to see which way the wind would blow on the Trump question. But something he said or the way he said it in Salem Thursday gave me renewed hope in his integrity. I thought I could see that Tim Walberg knows, perhaps from his Biblical background, that there is something very wrong and slavish about any Republican supporting Donald Trump, especially for electoral or monetary advantage, for these are the men who do not stand up when their nation is in danger, and who just might sell us out to the enemy for electoral or monetary advantage, as Trump himself would on the basis of his market-based political theory. (They call this “success,” though Plato has addressed it in his Republic, they have not read the book, and do not plan to read.) If Walberg supports Trump, I will endorse his opponent, Gretchen Driskell, if I fail to gain the 3000 signatures or mount a significant write-in campaign. I may do that anyway because of his lack of support for John McCain on torture. Driskell too is not able to question the executive agencies, leaving them free to murder us if they like. As Mr Walberg left the Township hall, I asked him, about a very simple and highly significant matter of oversight, if he would, as my representative, speak to John McCain. I want them to ask the FBI about the extent of their spying on me throughout my education, and my failed career following. Disturbingly, though, he answered, “I do not speak to John McCain.” Hence, I may conclude that a vote for Walberg is a vote for a failure of U.S. integrity that just might lose us a war, and I will keep running until I find a better candidate. He is richer and more handsome (though he does remind me a bit of the Grinch of Dr. Seuss), and probably better at representing than I am. He has more experience, and can probably even spell quite well. But all this is of little use if our representatives do not represent, are not responsive, rig the game against us (even from ignorance rather than malice) and carry to Washington policies that will lose us a war. Nor has he said whether he believes the Hillsdale Imprimis article of Andrew McCarthy, based on an error unworthy of a B.S., let alone a PhD in politics. My credentials are superior, and he is not doing his job (or barely doing one half- the partisan half- of his job). Hence, I will continue running, for the U. S. House of Representatives from the 7th district, an independent candidate of the CLC, the Centrist Libertarian Constitutionalist Party.

No De-tox Centers Yet II: Guest Blog of Myia Blackwood

In this single example one will find a better adviser to Congress than anyone currently on the payroll, if our Republicans are interested in balancing the budget. One will also see how spending a small amount wisely and without the customary corruption kickbacks will not only increase the common wealth, but avert a national security danger, as our enemies work to soften us up by destroying 20% of the American youth. Here is the guest blog of my niece Myia Blackwood, whom I asked to write about the difficulty of rescuing these literally dying people from a scam that the weakness and corruption of our government and the acquiescence of the American people has allowed to occur:

 

Detox Center Availability

I have been a heroin addict for the past 7 years and I have tried every possible “solution” to detox. Getting clean is not something that is possible to do without help,considering heroin and opiate drugs are so readily available. I tried the emergency room, they sent me home after 2 hours with anti-nausea medication. I tried the emergency room for suicide (seeing as psychiatric hospitals are willing to detox their patients with drugs such as methadone, suboxone or subutex) but the doctor at the E.R. told me I was lying and they only had room for actual suicidal patients, no room for junkies who couldn’t afford their dope that day. Little did they know, I was suicidal every day. Living as a heroin addict is no life to live, and death became a not-so-scary option after a while. But, seeing as I lived my life on constant numbing agents and opiate drugs, I was too numb to be able to express my feelings to anyone at all, let alone a doctor who judged me for who I was the minute I walked through the door.
There is a detox center I went to about 8 times during my addiction in Ann Arbor, MI called Spera, it was free, the waiting list averaged out to being about 5 days, which isn’t as long as most places but still not soon enough. The problem with Spera though is that it is an anti-medication based detox center, and as long as your vitals are checking out you’re forced to attend groups and meetings daily as you’re running back and forth to the bathroom puking your guts out. While we weren’t throwing up, most of us ended up on the back patio-area chain smoking and discussing our past drug use and glorifying all the great times we had higher than hell, chasing our constant addiction. They don’t have the means to keep their patients busy enough to keep the idea of using out of their head. Medication is needed to detox for most people, in my experience, but any medication-based treatment centers I have found are too expensive for any heroin addict to ever be able to afford unless they happen to have some long lost rich relative who they haven’t got around to tainting the relationship enough to be disowned.
When I was 17 years old, when I caught my first legal charge, the state paid for me to go to a 30 day treatment program. While, considering the average addict goes to rehab 7 times before they get clean and stay clean, I relapsed not long after my first stint in treatment and every single time I called my local community mental health trying to get funding, it was impossible. I remember calling multiple times begging from the bottom of my heart for treatment or even just detox to get through withdrawal with help because I knew I couldn’t do it on my own, and I got denied every single time. I would beg the people on the phone, inform them that without help I will most definitely end up dead (like all of my friends who are less fortunate) but was denied since the state already funded me once, two, three, four years earlier.
Jail was never an option because there was no treatment involved, and all jail does is lower your tolerance to the point where when you end up getting out and eventually using again, you will most likely overdose. Every time I was thrown in jail as a “solution” to my addiction according to the court, I relapsed as soon as I was back on the streets.
There needs to be medicated detox centers available to EVERYONE. It’s heartbreaking that there’s not. Money shouldn’t be someones chance of a life. People who can afford treatment are not the only ones who deserve to survive. I’m sick of going to funerals. I’m sick of listening to my friends call me and beg me for a solution, because I honestly don’t have one. I got clean because I contracted endocarditis and destroyed my heart valve to the point where a two month hospital stay and open heart surgery was needed, and considering how sick I was, the hospital slowly detoxed me during my stay, which obviously isn’t an option for other addicts. I got lucky by getting sick, contracting sepsis, MRSA, endocarditis and almost dying multiple times because it got me clean. I read the N.A. book during my hospital stay and I convinced myself that I was finally ready to stay sober. Some people don’t have that chance. Most people die before they are ever ready. And the fact that most people look at us like we’re just dirty junkies and don’t bother to even try to care enough to help, is killing off our youth. I am somebody’s daughter, sister, friend, niece, and I am a human being who deserved help 7 years ago and was only lucky enough to survive. Help is needed, and it is not available. We have a generation of zombie-like adults, and people who are on the streets killing themselves more and more every day, praying to God for an answer, and never finding one. Something needs to be done. This isn’t fair.

-Myia Blackwood

The Limitations of Andrew C. McCarthy on Islam, Part II

The Imprimis essay, which I answered in the first Andrew McCarthy blog just a few days ago, requires a more detailed response, and so I have written a six page essay available on the politics page of this website. I am just beginning the study of the Quran, and in a rare critique of President Obama, when he called for scholars to address the issue, we have indicated the failure of both our president and our governor to provide oil for the lamp of the liberal arts, on which, as Milton too said, the safety of my nation now depends, or “for want whereof this nation perishes.”

I have just now completed the second draft, over there on the politics page. Go to the menu at the top of the website, where the picture of the apple tree and the shed await. Then under politics, go to the sub-pages in the politics section, and the essay, From the Depths of Darkness He Will Lead Them Into Light, will be found, as well as an essay on what is needed for peace.

Well, people had trouble finding or accessing the sub-page of the politics page, so I have thought to press this as a six page blog:

From the Depths of Darkness, He Will Lead them Into Light

The following is the continuation of the discussion with Andrew C. McCarthy on the distinction between Islam and radical Jihadist terrorist “Islam.” It is based on only the beginning of a reading of the Quran, though we are sure all who can read will see immediately that to merely scratch the surface is enough to refute the arguments of Abdul Rahman and Andrew C. McCarthy if these are held to pertain not just to the doctrines of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, but also to the true teachings of Islam.

While Mr. McCarthy, like the average Muslim, does not wish to  argue Muslim theology with a “doctor of Islamic jurisprudence” whose area of expertise is Sharia law, we, of course, are not frightened off by such a challenge, here on this day we call Holy Saturday, the celebration of the time between the crucifixion and the resurrection, during which Jesus is held to have addressed the souls that had died previous to his advent.

The main question is the truth of the teaching of Rahman that “Allah enjoined all Muslims to wage jihad until Islamic law was established throughout the world.” Without quoting the Quran, McCarthy writes: “The scriptures backed him up.” And “when he said Islam directed Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as their friends, the scriptures backed him up.” I am reminded of the strange teaching in the Twelfth Book of Plato’s Laws, that seems to say: “Everyone is to consider the same person a friend or enemy as the city does, and if someone should make peace or war with certain parties in private, apart from the community, the penalty is to be death in this case too” (955b-c). But there are many teachings in Plato’s Laws that are a bit strange, perhaps, to Jeffersonian modernity. But let this be as it is. A related question is whether the adherents of Islam are willing to allow the Jews and Christians, if not even the faithless, to continue to exist. For, as we think, even these and worse might one day live long enough to become faithful. If Islam will allow the Christians and the Jews to exist and admit the Jews as neighbors, Islam may be admitted to a free society, and some Islamic nations might be admitted to the free society of nations. If not: If Islam follows the teaching of Rahman about its own character or nature; if it insists upon subjecting and forbidding all others, Islam may of course not be admitted into the free society. Peace will be impossible if the leaders- as for example the elected Hamas leadership of the Palestinians- insist upon and choose war. Apparently, one cannot always choose peace, because another may choose war, and one then has apparently no alternative but to beat them in the contest. At present, the preaching of New Testament Christianity is forbidden in nations governed by any version of Islamic law, so that one suspects that persecution and martyrdom will follow any Islamic conquest.

But Let us begin a reading of the Quran, as is still possible, if occasionally risky, here in the free West. We have just begun the study, and so have just the first few chapters in any context. Still, we can assume that the rest must cohere, as blatant contradiction is not usually allowed in a holy text. We treat the text itself as well as the physical book and the translation with the respect due to a holy scripture, again at least out of respect and gratitude for the folks who provided this free, authoritative translation.

Mohammed himself would not blame us if we reject the teaching of Mr. Rahman. At 2.256, the text reads:

Let there be no force (compulsion) in religion: Sturdy truth stands clear from error; Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has held the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks.

From a brief reading of the first and second chapters of the Quran, it soon becomes clear that there is a bit of irony in the saying that “there is no God but Allah.” “Allah” is the God of Abraham, the very same as the God of Israel, the God of the Jews and Christians. 2.139 reads :

He is our Lord, and your Lord: That we are responsible for our doings, and you for yours.

Indeed, as we have said, Mohammed brought the belief in one God to the Arabs, who prior to this were “pagan.” Ancient polytheism was often conjoined with human sacrifice and many strange and pointless sexual practices. It is for us a relique of a more ancient people, and spread even to America, though the wheel did not- and so we can guess that it is much older than 3000 B.C., or 5000 years ago. Plato’s Socrates, in the dialogue called Euthyphro, refutes the Greek poetic polytheism, as piety cannot be what is dear to the gods nor obedience to the will of the gods if there are many gods and these disagree, especially about fundamental matters. What is dear to or what is intended for us by Zeus may well be different from what is dear to or is intended by Hera. When Abraham “came forth from Ur of the Chaldees,” he may well have emigrated because he had seen through the Sumerian polytheism. At any rate, it is likely that Abraham and not Ikhnaton was the world’s first monotheist, though we would have to work on these dates, beginning from Manetho and attempting the cross chronology between the Egyptian, the Sumerian and the Abrahamic. It is possible that Abraham picked up the belief in one God from Egypt during his sojourn there, or even, especially, from Melchizadek, King of Salem, who did the sacrament of bread and wine at Jerusalem before there were either Jews, Muslims or Christians, honoring “God Most High,” right there near Mount Moriah. He may have been a Shemmite, and the teaching brought through the flood by Noah, who also taught that the reason for the law against murder is “…for God created man in his own image.” Hence the reason against worshiping statues, who are in fact lesser beings than the men who produced the artifacts, or even against many Gods, as the image of God in man is a single thing, male and female (Genesis 1:26). The Creation is not a begetting in the Bible. There is, however, a mystery of the bridal chamber, and the scripture New Testament scripture ends with the divine wedding. The begetting of the sons of God though the only begotten son is in the New Testament a begetting and not a creating (John 1, 3). Hence, we say that nous, called intellect, the eye of the soul, the light in the eyes or spark of the divine is distinct from the created faculty of reason, especially when this reason is an instrument serving the ends of the body. Monotheism, then, is Shemmetic, and Socrates too, discovering that nous is begotten (Republic 490) and looking to the image of God in man in legislation (Republic 501b), has an overwhelming tendency to speak of “the God” in the singular (Plato, Apology  ), whenever he thinks he can get away with it. We do not make images, then, because man or that in man is the image, the gateway to access to the contemplation of the Most High.

“Islam” means simply “surrender to God and find peace,” though Mr. McCarthy did not get around to mentioning this in the confines of a brief Imprimis essay. Mr. McCarthy rather uses his one citation of the Quran in order to demonstrate that Islam is not a religion of peace. He writes:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah,” and fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.” These are not peaceful injunctions, no matter how one contextualizes when he writes this.

Mr McCarthy depends upon the obvious misreading that “pagans” refers also to Jews and Christians. Again, the Abrahamic legislators are indeed quite violent in their opposition to both paganism and atheism, nor do we understand Moses in this regard. Any person characterized by any one of these epithets might, at some time in the future, be one who finds the truth or is to find the true God. And so again we incline to the vow of Jefferson and the recognition that “it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket…” An old professor, though, has suggested or indicated that the purpose of Moses and indeed of the Book of Genesis, (whoever wrote this, or composed it orally) is to oppose, and then for Moses to wipe out, idolatry. Ancient idolatry is again a thing involving the worship of statues and graven images, as an outside observer might even attribute to the Roman and Greek Christians when they house and even pray before statues of Jesus, Mary and the saints, though it is clear as day to us that no one is ever worshiping the statue. Perhaps it might appear this way to outsiders who do not follow the especially Greek and Biblical distinction between image and object. Ancient Idolatry involved the abomination of human sacrifice. Where the ancient men were who first devised this disadvantageous and superstitious practice is indeed a mystery, lost in the mists of time. But like the wheel, it is not something mankind is likely to have thought of twice, and so one can reason, for example, that the Aztecs and this practice came to the new world from Asia, quite some time before 3000 B.C. Modern paganism too is different, as this involves the explicit rejection of Christianity and the Biblical teaching, and so is tinged with the revenge of a defeated cult that is quite foreign to the innocent Homeric paganism simply followed by mortals lacking the genius of an Abraham or Socrates, required to think these things through and follow what is then revealed.

The difference, as Islam presents itself, is not in the identity of the Deity, but in the adherence to the God of Abraham as distinct from certain additions made by the Jews and especially the Christians, rather than additions made by Jesus. Abraham, it is said, “joined not Gods with Allah.” Hence, the appearance to Abraham as three men cannot be a prefiguration of the trinity of God as Father, God as Spirit, and the Son. The presence of the three in the first chapter of Genesis will also be difficult, as will be any description of the difference between God himself, whose presence we would not survive, and the Holy Spirit, whose presence may revive. The trinity is very difficult, and we object to any obligation to believe a particular formulation, as did Jefferson. But the trinity is for Muslims, as for Jahova’s Witnesses, a central reason for their objection to contemporary Christendom. They read the begetting of Jesus as though we were saying something that might pertain to Zeus and Hera when they were getting along, and so we say “by all means do not believe this!” And we say the same to the Jews regarding Jesus, if you think of it as the worship of a human being, “by all means, do not accept this!” But neither of these is even what is being said by the Christians.

Abraham was, of course, neither a Jew, an Israelite nor a Christian. Nor, we must add, was he an Ismaelite nor a Muslim in the sense of a follower of the Quran and accept-er of Mohammed as the prophet of the Most High God. The beginning of the Quran presents Islam as pure Abraham, without certain later additions. But we too hold that Abraham and Moses are “saved,” though to account for this is a bit of a mystery, given certain other teachings. Melchizadek too, the King of Salem, who did the sacrament of bread and wine with Abraham near Mount Moriah, (if not on the very spot) may not have had the eucharist, if he did not somehow receive baptism (as through the flood, when as Peter says, “eight persons were saved through water.”) This, then, is a second argument for the equation of Melchizadek and Shem. That these are saved may mean indeed that “He laid down his life from the beginning of the creation,” and not only in about 0 B.C. / A.D. The way through death is always there for man in every age, though it would be a bit less manifest, more rare and more difficult to find for those like Abraham, Socrates, Melchizadek, Shem and Noah and Enoch, and perhaps Joseph, Job, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and so forth, Hosea, Zechariah. It would then be Jesus as eternal word that is the only mediator to the Father. But this is invisible, and so one would not be able to tell from the appearances in the world who even is a “Christian.”

It can surely be said, though, that according to the primary meaning of “Muslim,” Jews and Christians are Muslims, or “followers of the faith.” 2.143 reads that it is “righteousness:”

To believe in Allah, and the last day, and the Book, and the messengers; to spend from your own wealth in spite of your love for it, for your kin, for orphans, for the weak, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves, to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity, to fulfill contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and through periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, those who fear Allah.

But it is in the belief or emphasis upon the Last Day that the Christians are especially to be considered to be followers of the faith, in contrast with the secular world and the atheistic political movements. One wonders how Islam could even consider Christians as such to be fundamental opponents, except that Mohammed rejects our subtle teaching regarding the divinity of Jesus. But the Quran even teaches that he will return, and in a way not usual for any other man. And so one might beg pardon for our difficulty in stating this paradoxical divinity in order to account for these trans-human characteristics of the messiah, not to mention that he is worshiped by the apostles in the scripture, and this too is not fitting for any other man, Moses or Mohammed or anyone. Notoriously, Moses was denied entry into the promised land because of an error regarding giving to God the credit for the water flowing out of the rock. Apparently, this error occurred in a moment when the lightening was not permanently on for him, as Maimonides says, but must have flashed just a bit. 2.62 reads:

Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who are Jews, and the Christians and the Sabeans- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and with righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; On them there shall be no fear, and they shall not grieve-

And again, at 3.52, it is clear that Mohammed himself considers Christians, namely the Apostles themselves, to be Muslims:

When Isa (jesus) found disbelief on their part, he said: “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” The disciples said, “We are Allah’s helpers: we believe in Allah, and do you bear witness that we are Muslims.

Again, a Muslim is what? A follower of the faith, and Mohammed had not yet been born when the disciples were Muslims.

And so indeed it can be said that Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Rahman are simply in error to collapse the distinction between the terrorist’s radical Islam, Islamic jihad and such, on one hand, and traditional Islam on the other. The teaching of Mohammed is (2.190):

Fight in Allah’s causes, but do not transgress the limits: Allah does not love those who exceed the rightful limits.

Islamic jihad or holy war as we now have it is simply contrary to Islam, and forbidden as a form of murder. This is so, we dare to say, despite anything Mr. Dr. Rahman might say to the contrary. Islam in fact does mean “surrender to God and find peace,” as we hope will be the case for those influenced by these false teachings to strike the Christians and the Jews as though they were pagans and infidels, or those who believe there is no God. Any Muslim in true submission and following the way of Islam, then, will join decent persons everywhere is stopping and dissolving the strange new form of Western totalitarianism that has usurped true Islam, and as George Bush even said, “hijacked the faith.”

Ok, Microsoft, Who Set Up This Account?

Microsoft has, of their beneficence, set me up a separate user account on this computer. I had gone to do so a couple times, only to be met by the wall of “simply deposit your information with our honorable company here.” Eventually, Microsoft apparently set up a separate user account for me, complete with my e-mail address, probably by scanning everything I have ever done and determining that there were two users on this machine. The trouble now is that, since I did not set up the account, I do not have the password. Any attempt to contact Microsoft or access the community forum is met again with “simply deposit your information with this honorable company here.” I think I do want to know who made this account for me in my name before I give them any information, which will assuredly be used or sold.

One might want to know who set up this account before depositing one’s information, but, as with the attempt to remove the auto zoom from the cursor touchpad system or get the machine to stop moving the page beneath, me while I write, these things are just not options we are offered. Nor does a handy phone number appear, at least for we who cannot pay fees or will not pay extortion.

Once again, this whole system regarding the internet must be corrected, as it is exactly backwards. Companies once competed by serving their customers, not to mention producing value. If pressed, the companies will tell of how these things are really for our ur own good, or for the good of society, for security and such. But we think it quite clear whose interests they have in mind.

This system came to be because the United States Congress has refused to regulate commerce in exchange for kickbacks and campaign funds. Elsewhere, we have argued that the impact on the GNP is astronomical, as in employee time lost trying to erase pop up advertising. (My cursor just moved by itself again, so that half the sentence is inserted where it does not belong and cannot be moved to the correct place). Congress has also been lobbied by those paid astronomical amounts to make the weaker argument appear the stronger, probably arguing against unpaid citizens and advocates of the public interest. The same has occurred regarding the mining and marketing of information, so that now human traffickers may and can go shopping for our children, and with their internet or gang-earned billions hire kidnappers to go after particular persons.

Congress, then, has ceased to do its job, just when the new world of the internet was emerging. The world our children inherit will be a tyranny of one sort or another. We have only remaining to watch the last gasps of “history” fight it out to see which form of tyranny will win out, much like watching Google and Microsoft fight for control of my computer by disabling first Yahoo and then one another.

Hey Hayden II: The Abuse of the National Security Excuse

Mr. Hayden has spoke in threatening tones about anyone who uses the word torture and CIA in the same sentence. The CIA does not like criticism, and the agents are, let us say, not exactly selected for moderation regarding anger nor understanding of the Bill of Rights. In fact, their education may cultivate a disregard for the Bill of Rights, which is still a part of the U.S. Constitution. They are sworn to uphold the Constitution, but they also,  like the Catholic philosophy professors, are not selected for truth telling or the honoring of oaths, just the swearing of them. Mr. Hayden has made it clear that they will abuse the extraordinary powers given them for national security in order to silence critics, which may be part of why they have so few critics. When an institution grows for forty years without critics, there are bound to be, let us say, a few excesses. They will not like it if we, perhaps exaggerating with language, as humans are wont to do, say that they do not mind using psychological, romantic and economic torture in domestic matters. These abuses of the powers given them for national security occur, as it were, within fifteen minutes, and without their really thinking about how what they are doing violates law and their oath nor how this effects national security in the broad sense and in the long term. Since there is no independent intelligence, say, based in a committee of the representatives of the people in the Senate, the president must believe what they tell him- what else is he to do? Have his White House staff investigate them? Or the press? Or perhaps the FBI?  Now that these are joined, by president Bush, into one agency, they ought have an easy time of this oversight, being right down the hall.

The effects of having a CIA and FBI despotism are manifold, extraordinary and tragic. They, again as they are selected, believe that their own will and interests are synonymous with national security, and this with the public good. But these problems are why these unelected agencies are supposed to be the instruments, not the rulers, of the president. We believe that Salwyn Raab has a few things to point out, too, about what occurs when they abuse the powers given them for national security in order to govern or even select their boss. Mr. Oswald, though he may (?) have been a Castro communist and a traitor, was a CIA trained marksman (or is it spelled Marx man?) who just happened to have a job at the book depository where the presidential motorcade was to pass- go figure. Two weeks before the assassination, Mr. Hoffa, from our own neighborhood up here, is noted to have asked Mr. Trafficante and/or Mr. Marciano (?) “Can’t something be done about these Kennedys?” And, marvel of marvels, Mr. Ruby happened to own a bar where mobsters hung out, and was in debt to them. It is a classic mob hit to kill the hitmen, so, hitmen beware. To kill the one who ordered the hit to begin with, though, may be an innovation. Did the mob, then, use the CIA to kill the President and perhaps the Attorney General who decided that America had had enough of Mob tyranny?

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal [hostility] toward every form of tyranny over the minds of men-

                                                                       Thomas Jefferson

Balls, though, is one thing for which the CIA is selected.

As we have commented on a website regarding the reaction of a five-year-old to the assassinations of Lincoln, John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr: One cannot get a whole lot done this side of the fear of death.

And for the famed, there are many more who go down in obscurity, as in the U2 song ” In the Name of Love.” “One man come on a barbed wire fence.” Do you see the soldier from WWII dead in the barbed wire fence? Eternal hostility. Every form.

This is what happens when powers given for national security are routinely abused.