Randi Rhodes Reality Check

I guess it's the sign of a good attorney to take a case where all the facts and all of the finer points of the law are against you, and making an emotive, compelling case of it. Normally I'm one of Randy Rhodes biggest fans, and so often she gives words to the emotions all the rest of us are feeling. But not this time. Now she's defending Obama when clearly she shouldn't be and calling those liberals who are detractors of Obama's latest wholesale retreats to the center- - she's calling them "whiners". That's a term I'd expect Wally George to use! Let's take the Iraq as issue numero uno on the agenda. Do you remember when Donald Rumsfeld or somebody saying about the Iraq invasion of March of 2003 that "The conflict might last six days, perhaps six weeks. I doubt it will last six months". Suppose someone back then were to say "We're shooting for a year and a half but if the generals tell us it will take longer who are we to argue". Earlier in this campaign season Obama stated boldly that as President he is Commander & chief and that the generals take their orders from him and that he "sets the mission". Truman drove this point home hard when he fired General McArthur in the early 'fifties, in a move I personally would not have made, but he did it to prove the point that no General walks over the President of the United States. As such Obama should not be ASKING them, he should be TELLING them. He is the one who sets the Mission- - and not they. Certainly George Bush knows this basic fact. He goes so far as to intimidate everybody who would dare to give a report about Iraq that aren't to his liking. Bush knows who "The Boss" is. Apparently Obama doesn't. Personally I don't see why we can't get all out people out of there in six months. Do you remember a scene in "The Candidate" where Robert Redford was going to some disaster area in the state to promote some legeslation he wanted passed. Just then there is a roar of a hilocopter and opponet Crocker Jarmen lands and all the reporters flock to him leaving Redford in the dust, and Jarmen proposes the very legeslation the liberal had wanted. What is to stop President Bush from an October surprise of announcing that he's withdrawing all the troops in six months, and that he can do this because of the great success of the Iraq campaign. The lesson here is if you're going to fight for something then FIGHT for it. Randi Rhodes is right in calling this War an obscenity. People like Jesus Christ (on KFI) are horrified and shocked by the idea of sex between a man and a woman, but will give thumbs up to the greatest horrors of war as "Necessary". I have never lived through wiping my own blood off my face, or lifting the bloodied bodies of a comrad, or seeing decapitated and dismembered bodies and rotting corpses and all those other horrors Randi Rhodes mentioned. Why any one would want that to go on for ONE DAY longer than necessary excapes me. As we have said- - I now believe the entire war from the git go was a lie and a fraud and that President Bush has the blood of four thousand on his hands in pre meditated murder. I see no room for compromize here. I'm not going to go groveling to some "General" asking permission to end this Hell in a year and a half's time. If the situation is as rosy in Iraq as they now claim, I see no problem in getting troops out in six months. To argue for a strong position and fail is noble. To argue for a weak, watered down position, only to be talked out of even that by a "General" to me denotes the most extreme of weakness.

And now let's talk about the FISA bill. This may come as news to Randi Rhodes but there is ALREADY A FISA LAW ON THE BOOKS. It was passed in 1978 and the President is ignoring it, as he has many other laws. But as I just wrote to an associate what this FISA bill does is open up the flood gates to unlimited and unfettered government snooping on private citizens using the "Tel-Com" corporations. In a word, it's a giant step twords Communist China where the corporations work hand in glove with the government. Does Randi really want that sort of situation here? I don't think so. The biggest bullwark we have had against a Big Brother state happening is corporation's fears about being sued by anybody whose rights they happen to step on. Removing this inhibition would be like passing out vodka in an alcoholic ward. You would have chaos. Some would say "If you have nothing to hide, let the government snoop". But as I said, "This isn't the melinial age- - - yet. We aren't all angels, and Big Brother does things for less than pure and holy motives. Providing cradel to grave surveilance on the activities of the Public is not a mandate of the Constitution. For Randi to suggest that this is an "expendible" plank in the platform I do not accept. Dylan once wrote a song lyric, "I aint gona trust nobody- not even a Scientist". I suppose some would re-work that to say "I ain't going to Trust Nobody- - not even a Civil Libertarian". I raise this point to point out that some simple minded people can be manipulated with words. "Why, by not trusting people like Ralph Nader you are actually showing how Strong and Independant you are. You WANT to be strong and independent, don't you?" (To Rush Limbaugh: If you think too hard on this your brain will short out)

Some other things that are unacceptable is the idea that George Bush will never be prosecuted. Or the idea that Dick Chaney has the right to secretly run the country or that all these corporations like Blackwater have rights superior to enlisted G I's. This is not a government OF, BY and FOR giant corporations. And yet I haven't heard Obama talk about the relation between Bush and Chaney and these giant corporations. Which leads me to believe if he won't talk about these things, I'll give my support to someone who will. Some have even mentioned that there is some "Continuity of Government" rule that was instituted after 9 - 11. Once again is there is any kind of secret law like this just waiting to be invoked when the situation necessitates, I say it's best to go down swinging, like Sampson did. Sampson didn't get his place in the Bible by being a retiring coward! I think there are certain planks in one's "Platform" that are non negotiable, and Randi Rhodes should know this.

We talked about upright crosses verses diagonal crosses or X's. The upright cross in Federation terms should rightly stand for Dardanian Resistance, or D R in semaphore letters. I don't think "Dardanians" is a Wickipedia entry, but I can explain the historicity of the term... but just not right now in this post. The X figure is used in a lot of coat of arms and is big in Scottland. It seems St. Andrew's song is "I've been everywhere". He's been to Greece, and Rumania, and the Ukrane, and Scottland- - . OK and I know the X cross is used in a lot of Sado-masochistic pleasure pallaces. That should warm the cockles of St. Andrew's heart. That all this St. Andrew crap is non historical can be demonstrated is when you move from link to link, the new entry quotes the same paultry lines of "text" (probably from Eusubius) as the previous ones. The X is the letter "Chi". The initials for Jesus Christ are actually I X. So "turn me on, Jesus" (backwards) In terms of the skull and crossbones, the black symbolizes submission to God. The fact that the bones are crossed is kind of a negation factor. Death is crossed out and "these bones are gona rise" to quote the Song. And we're talking about John the Baptist and not Jesus.