Mr. Sheeple sent without comment:
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam - The Washington Times
Nation-Politics - June 25, 2004
Sheeple Analyst:
I had never expected that
Clinton would be one of your ideological buddies! Surprise! Surprise! Personally, I think he is an Illuminati
agent like Richard Clarke and Tweedledee to the current Tweedledum. Lies
make strange bedfellows.
Mr. Sheeple:Only in your own mind.
Sheeple Analyst:
You
clearly have no problem using Bill to support your ideology since he
shares your view about
Iraq and al-.Qaeda. How then do you rationalize away the mutual
ideological position? I can understand your intention to maintain some
distance from the stench of the Wench and Bill, but you jump right in with
both feet to use his ideological position to support your own. It might
not be a bed for bedfellows, but it is
the same slimy pit of lies and propaganda
Mr. Sheeple: Only in your mind, and that of Micheal Moore,
whose movie you are probably promoting on your website.
What "ideology"? The leadup to 9-11 began in
ernest in '93 and the first WTC tower bombing that disappointed the al
Qaida terrorists because it failed to topple one tower into another like
falling trees, as they thought. Following that were embassy bombings,
flight 800, Murrah building, the U.S. Cole. Because
Clinton
failed to decisively deal with all the attacks, the terrorists were
emboldened. It would be a stretch for yourself or anyone else to link Bush
to the first WTC bombing and subsequent activities.
Sheeple Analyst:
"Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam" is not a statement in my
mind. This is what you sent to me as a support to your assertion that
Dubya was not the only one to latch onto the "terrorism" threat of
al-Qaeda. This is a position you have asserted in past emails. This
position is a part of your adopted ideology of "fanatical Muslim
terrorists" who threaten Western Christian civilization, assertions that
you have also made in past emails. Not in my mind, dick, in your own
words. "What ideology?" Don't be pathetic. Raising the question does not
erase your own words.
As for
Michael Moore, I have hardly mentioned Michael Moore's
Fahrenheit 9/11 on my website,
in part because I realized that it feeds more disinformation from the
New World
Order that "fanatical Muslim terrorists" threaten Western Christian
civilization. Apparently you have only been reading the diatribes of the
neocon propagandists at WND, Weekly Standard, Frontpagemag, Townhall and
Newsmax who serve the New World Order. You don't even have an objective grasp of what is in
his movie. Michael Moore might also be serving the
New World
Order from the leftist/progressive side by placing so much emphasis on the
"hijackers" and
Saudi Arabia's role and by feeding the "anyone by Bush" frenzy of
electoral politics. Many leftist/progressives such as Democracy Now, Noam
Chomsky, Norman Solomon, David Corn, Michael Ruppert, and Jared Israel
have also served in this role of setting people against each other in
useless political mud-slinging matches to keep them occupied and
distracted as the
New World
Order crocodile inches ever closer.
Since you
have difficulty actually researching anything, especially from my website,
I will provide it here for you:
June 25, 2004
The part of the 9-11 story Michael Moore missed!
June16, 2004
Republican dirty tricksters join the Motion Picture Association of America
to stop Americans from seeing Michael Moore's new movie, "Fahrenheit
9/11."
Twice this
month on Page One of The Seventh Fire News and not once as a cheerleader
or advocate, even showing some of its warts! You speculate when the
information is readily available. Opinion unsubstantiated by real facts,
principles and/or logic is quite satisfactory for you, as usual.
The lead-up
to 9-11 began even before '93 when Project Northwoods was submitted to
Kennedy by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You have studiously avoided the
court records from the '93 WTC bombing in which the complicity of the FBI
was reported. Sticking al-Qaeda into the mix, as you would like to do,
makes
US Government an official accomplice of al-Qaeda and proves my
point that al Qaeda is a US/CIA-secret asset, an asset of the Illuminati
by way of the Mossad.
Seymour Hersh has reported on Zionist-supported terrorism at
June 24, 2004
How Israel
created the myth of Al-Qaeda
in which he reports that:
hundreds of Mossad foreign fighters have
been in Iraq for a long time. Their specialty: car bombs, sexual torture, beheadings.
These Israeli citizens came into
Iraq disguised as Arab or Kurdish civilians, businessmen. Maybe
"contractors"? Under contract with the Pentagon's neocon office? Your tax
dollars at work?
How much of their work is blamed on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? How much of
Israel's terrorism is blamed on "Al-Qaeda"?
I have investigated the development of the "Mujahideen" and here is my
conclusion:
In the 80's,
Israel supervised the recruitment of Arab Afghan
"Mujahideen" supposedly to fight against
Russia. They became cannon fodder and refugees before
they ended up in
Guantanamo.
THEIR REAL PURPOSE WAS TO HELP
ISRAEL CREATE A USEFUL MYTH: AL-QAEDA. The Arab
Mujahideen were rather harmless as recent revelations from
Guantanamo have shown.
Israeli and Jewish-American intelligence specialists were trusted by the
CIA--Israelis being "allies" and experts on the Middle East--to recruit
the Arab "Mujahideen" to be used by the US against Russia. Israelis
disguised as Arab or Pakistani missionaries (tablighis) even ran the
recruitment centers.
Israelis playing Muslim missionaries (tablighis) were caught in India and
Israel rushed to retrieve them.
The Arab "Mujahideen" themselves were inefficient and almost useless. I
have heard from the relatives of many who died in vain in clumsy incidents
in Afghanistan.
All the Zionists wanted was a story, a myth that would enable them to
create another myth: "Al-Qaeda." The Zionists needed this myth as an
excuse for their long-term plans for the "war on terror," a war to
destabilize the
Middle East
and pit the world against Muslims.
Neither Bin Laden nor the Arab refugees he took care of were of any
military significance. The Afghans themselves were the real efficient
Mujahideen because they knew the territory and the tribal structure. The
Afghans actually saw the Arabs as nuisance.
Arabs say "nothing comes out of a pot except what's in it." When the
neocon liars speak about Arab/Islamic terrorism and Al-Qaeda, they are in
fact talking about what they themselves are doing. They are talking about
Israeli covert activities.
No Arabs are involved. Israeli commandos move around using forged or
stolen Arab ID's and--if necessary--they wear masks to hide their real
identities, such as in beheading videos.
The CIA is not involved, either, because they might tell. Only Israelis
and pro-Israel Jews can be trusted to stay silent forever.
Leaks and exposure would destroy the myth that Arabs themselves are
a threat and that the
US needs to invade them.
Israelis continue to fake whatever it takes to prove that the "war on
terror," i.e. the war on Arabs has to continue.
Listen to them more carefully, folks. The Zionists in our midst have been
telling us the truth all along. Just replace "Arab" with "Israeli,"
replace "Al-Qaeda" with "Mossad," etc.
Use your imagination. They do.
I don't NEED
to try to link Dubya to '93. His hands are already bloody with September
11, 2001. What makes you think there is no connection between Bush I,
Clinton, and Bush II? Just the illusion of politics of left and right that
you haven't been able to see through yet. It was Zbigniew Brzezinski who
brought the Arab Mujahideen to Afghanistan, Reagan and Bush who nurtured
them, ensured that they were trained in the Wahabbi sect of Saudi Arabia,
equipped by Israel and Pakistan, brought into international terrorism as a
false flag operation by Clinton, and utilized by Bush II's neocons for
"Pearl Harbor" 9-11 as promulgated by PNAC in 1997-2000.
Besides,
Dubya doesn't have the intelligence to organize the slick false flag
operations that these terrorist events required.
The evidence
is already available for anyone with the cajones to go look and the brain
to sort it out. Opinion is much easier to handle for sheeple. You choose
which way for you.
Your vote or
opinion doesn't really count anyway: the votes are manipulated by media
(including Michael Moore), by funding, skewed disinformation in
educational institutions, touch screen computers which can be accessed
externally as well as by "proprietary" source code to change votes,
scrubbing legal voters from lists illegally, and manufactured fears and
threats.
Mr. Sheeple sent without comment:
Generating more heat than light
Sheeple Analyst: Your action speaks volumes. You
hate Michael Moore. You hate the things people have said he says about
Bush. You haven't seen the movie yourself so you only know what Michael
Moore says by the opinion of others. You have a personal stake in
finding opinions that support your ideology.
There is
little doubt that Mark Davis shed much more heat than light and his
"review" was hardly the picture of calm, rational, intellectually honest
thought and several errors were splashed into the salsa for seasoning
with his own "qualifiers
"It will enlighten you on the subject of how pathetic one hateful man
can be as he seeks to berate people with whom he disagrees,"
he says as he hatefully berates Michael Moore with whom he disagrees.
"So let's examine Michael Moore as analyst. Continuing from the above
list of defeated assertions, let's go to the eye-popping lie that Iraq had
not attacked, killed or threatened any American."
Yes, let's look at Mark Davis as an analyst:
"Did Americans die in the Persian Gulf War?" Yes, they did, but
Saddam had not attacked THEM. Conveniently forgetting that Saddam had
told the US Representative April Glaspie what he intended to do in
Kuwait and she replied,
We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as
your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has
directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the
1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam
smiles)
US soldiers were sent into Iraq and Kuwait to attack Iraqi
troops who were trying desperately to respond to Bush's treachery by
getting out of Kuwait.
"Do Americans visit Israel, where Saddam Hussein proudly financed
suicide bombers?"
Much evidence shows that Israel's Likud finances suicide
bombers. See
Zionist-Israeli
Roots of Hamas
"Were Americans at the controls of the jets fired on for years over
Iraq's no-fly zones?"
Provocations against a country under siege by sanctions are
likely to elicit the desired response.
Did Saddam not try to murder a former U.S. president?
No he did not. This, too, was a false flag operation planned
by the Mossad. Their covert action was compromised when former Mossad
operative, Victor Ostrovsky, learned from a source in Mossad that a team
had set three Palestinians in place to be blamed for assassinating
George Bush Sr. Their association with Iraq, Syria, and Abu Nidal could
be used to strike at Israel's enemies by deception and eliminate a world
figure who had the temerity to try to force Israel to the peace table.
See
To derail the peace process Mossad supports
Moslem fundamentalists and nearly assassinated Bush Sr.
Well, that's about enough of the Fort Worth garbage
collector. I, too, think Michael Moore is off base in several assertions
and especially his focus on the Saudis. But the ugly, spiteful polemic
of Mark Davis is only palatable to foaming-at-the-mouth neocon traitors
and their flock.
Mr. Sheeple@f....... wrote: Another story about Howard Dean proclaiming a religious faith, or
"religious shit" as you referred to it regarding Bush!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jaybryant/jb20031230.shtml
Sheeple Analyst: I can see that Howard Dean is keeping you entertained! It bores me.
Like reading the fan mail of the garbage collector. I told you that
information about Howard Dean I consider spam. So keep your Dean emails to
home. I've written him off months ago.
Mr. Sheeple@f......... wrote: No, he does not keep me "entertained". You can keep your spiteful
anti-Bush emails at home, as well.
Sheeple Analyst: Since when is telling the truth spiteful? You keep dipping into the
"anti-"cue as programmed. Your belief in party and leaders is
anti-democratic, anti-American, and anti-quated.
Mr. Sheeple:
When Castro's revolution overthrew Batista in '59, I remember you
rejoicing over that. Interesting that it apparently angered you that I
refered to Castro as your "Buddy". You seem to forget that you have
implied that very concept to me as if I was a strong supporter of Bush. In
reality, he was the lesser of two evils in the 2000 election because Gore
would have been just as bad as Clinton, if not worse in the Democrat's
socialist liberal tendencies and anti-miltary stance.
Sheeple Analyst: Well, now. You've been nurturing THAT
grudge for a few years. I was 18 years old, 44 years ago. That's pretty
funny. What does an 18 year old know? It certainly doesn't give you
permission to assert that I am a buddy of Fidel in 2003. It didn't make me
angry, just incredulous! I don't recall our conversation covering very
much about Castro except as you chose to throw in my face your legend
about me. To all of a sudden being a buddy of Fidel just because you say
so is a bit of a surprise, but then you can come to some pretty surprising
conclusions on farcical facts.
You identified yourself as a strong admirer of George W. Bush, second only
to your admiration for Uncle Ronnie. (That's what the Monarch "chosen
ones" were supposed to call Reagan) You admired his intelligence, his
business acumen, his MBA from Harvard. There was nothing about him that
you didn't seem to like. I explored all of those facets two years ago. I
am surprised now to hear that you are NOT a loyal fan of George. You
defended him as though you were family.
Mr. Sheeple@f......... wrote: Oh, so you do not believe that
Howard Dean is into that "religious shit", as you called it in a previous
email. RHB
Sheeple Analyst: Howard Dean is interesting to YOU not
to me. "Religious shit" was your wording. And I don't believe ANYTHING
Howard Dean says. I never said I did. Another legend in your own mind.
You're making quite a spectacle of yourself. Get a grip.
Mr. Sheeple@f........... wrote
Why are you so vehemently against Bush and the Republican
administration, but never bring up the negative aspects of the Democrats.
Notably Hillary and Bill Clinton? How about Hillary's aborted efforts to
create a socialist style national healtchcare system in '93? How about
Clinton fooling around with Lewinsky off the oval office while taking
calls from foreignt dignitaries. When I brought that up in a previous
email, you defended his actions by saying that he could f.... anyone he
wants to!
You proclaim yourself niether a Democrat or Republican, but you were
curiously upset and claimed that Gore lost the 2000 election because the
supreme court allegedly "gave it to Bush"! How about all the lies and
absurd claims by Howard Dean, the presidential "wannabe" of the "Dummycrat"
party. I do not have any examples offhand, but can sure find them with a
little research. How about the pro-socialist concept of the infamous
"Great Society" of the Johnsonera? Didn't Karl Marx and others envisioned
a "Great society" based on government demanding and consuming 100percent
of the GNP then provide for the people via social government spending
programs? Didn't the infamous "Great Society" of the former USSR collapse
economically in '89-'98 rather than create the world wide economic utopia?
You have never said anything adverse regarding Clinton's anti-military
stance, decimating the military as "budget and spending cuts" to the point
career officers and enlisted personnel quit in droves, the airforce had to
cannibalize aircraft to keep some semblence of an airforce for defense
purposes, Naval training exercises were curtailed due to lack of funds for
fuel. That was the extent of Clinton-Gores "balanced budget" effort. You
never said anything about the fact that the last recession began in '99
when the infamous "information age" collapsed because it was based on
academic idealism rather than sound fiscal terms. A recession attrributed
to the Bush administration that was not elected until November of 2000 and
thus inherited the recession that began under your buddy Clinton's watch!
If you are neither Republican or Democrat, for whom will you vote in 2004?
Or, what do you propose be done if neither the Republican or Democrat
candidates are acceptable?
Sheeple Analyst: Well, let's do a little scouting back into
our history of conversation. I brought up the sex abuse of young boys
covered up by the FBI during the Clinton Administration. At that time you
came to Bill's defense assuring me that since he had not been present that
he was somehow exculpated from the National Security designation that
permitted the cover-up. Apparently, you've forgotten that.
For some strange reason you can't remember back one week when I included
Bill, Hillary, Robert Byrd and others in the child sex abuse allegations
of an adult, Cathy O'Brien who lived through horribly trauma as a sex
slave in Project Monarch. I gave you links to check out the story. Bet you
didn't. Hillary was included there, too.
I told you about the Clinton's responsibility for criminal attacks on
Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, the illegal intervention in Haiti, Somalia, the
support of the sanctions on Iraq that singled out children by preventing
the repair parts for water treatment, the passage of NAFTA, the
participation in the orchestrating the massacres in Rwanda, the use of
"depleted" uranium in Kosovo and Serbia, and the illegal drug business
through the airport at Mena. YOU FORGOT ALL OF THAT? Perhaps you could
print out this email and post it somewhere near your computer so you can
remember a few of my criticisms of the Clinton's.
I've told you for a long time that I know that the Democrats are also
complicit in the New World Order. Republicans happen to be running things
now so it is not appropriate to blame the Democrats except for their
remarkable ineptitude to mount an opposition to the Bush New World Order
agenda. Of course, that's because it's the Democrats' agenda, too. I've
traversed history pointing to the complicity of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, and Carter in the New World Order and
treason.
As far as Clinton and Lewinsky, IF she was a consenting adult and not a
Monarch sex-slave, then it's none of our business. But now, the
information I have received suggests to me that she was NOT necessarily a
consenting adult but probably under a mind control program based on trauma
and/or NASA high-tech mind control.
You probably haven't seen the now famous "Wink" that suggests Johnson's
complicity in the assassination of JFK. It's on my website.
I've repeated to you many times my concern about the stealing of the 2000
election but you characterize it as my support of Gore. You never respond
to my comments about the illegal scrubbing of the electoral rolls to
remove over 100,000 eligible voters most likely to vote Democratic. You
only support the legality of a questionable Supreme Court ruling in which
the "Justices" stipulate that their decision cannot be used as a precedent
and you quote false information from the media cover-up.
WHAT MORE DO YOU EXPECT? Get a grip. Not only have I mentioned this in
emails to you, it's all over my website, which you never bother to check
out. So you don't bother to get the facts when the facts are abundant and
available and you forget or don't read what I send you personally. What am
I supposed to do? You still haven't addressed the evidence I presented
about "peace through strength" and yet you wish for me to be pro-military
by proclamation instead of rational discussion. You're jumping into
another controversy without resolving the previous dilemma. This jumping
about is obviously a way to avoid honest intellectual debate. If "popcorn"
analysis is what you're used to, you've got a bulldog on your leg and he
ain't lettin' go. He doesn't appreciate you pissing on your shoes, though.
Mr. Sheeple@f........... wrote:
If Republicans are so bad, do you then support Democrats that are
arguing and bickering like a bunch of kids in a sandlot ballgame? Or, do
you plan on not voting then c omplain about the way the nation is going?
You have a hatred for Bush and the Republicans, and if the Democrats are
just as bad and worse, you have a wild choice on your hands in the next
election. RHB
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/30/101050.shtml
Sheeple Analyst: You really get into the sandlot/playground
mentality, don't you? I'm not very interested in the political debates and
squabbles, but you seem to get a kick out of it. Strange. You also seem to
think that the only way to have any participation in the way this country
chooses to be in the world, is to vote. But if voting is skewed by
eligible voters scrubbed from the election rolls, voting machines in use
that have been demonstrated to be unreliable, and designed, manufactured,
and distributed by corporations whose leadership have announced their
intention to help ultra-conservatives win, and the Democratic Party little
different in performance than the Republican Party, what is to be gained
from voting? I have choices every day and I don't have to put all my eggs
in the voting basket. Certainly have given you a list of alternatives a
few days back but you probably didn't read it or you skimmed it with
little intention of taking note of what I really said and really do, or
you've forgotten all about it. If you wish to know you can go back and
read it. Or not.
Mr. Sheeple@f........... wrote:
Your buddy Fidel Castro seen in a different light.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36379
Sheeple Analyst:
I don't ever remember referring to Castro as my buddy. I've never
met him, never wrote to you about him, never wrote about him anywhere,
anytime, ever. So how did you come to this amazing epiphany? Another
legend in your own mind?
And why do you now accept information from the London Guardian. You
called them "Leftist Garbage" a week ago. Or is it because it was reported
through WND that it became OK?
Mr. Sheeple@f............ wrote:
In a previous email, you got in a snit about Bush exerciseing his
first amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religous beliefs when
you referred to his "Religious shit". Now Howard Dean is pandering to the
religious voters by claiming a belief in Jesus Christ. Now, as an atheist
in a snit over religion, that is gonna put you in a bind. RHB
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20031229.shtml
Sheeple Analyst wrote:
There was only a snit in your own mind. I had referred to
demonstrators along parade routes being deprived of their rights and YOU
got in a snit about the pResident's right of free speech. My reference to
Pat Buchanan only referred to your snit about not reading his views
because he was a "loose cannon." Then you made reference to Christian
foundations of our country and Brennan's article and I commented on the
hypocrisy of the "Christian" politicians and demagogues, and the demonic
behavior of nominal "Christians" throughout American history.
You get into such a tangle sometimes, thinking you really got me now
whereas it is all just a "legend in your own mind." (Every time I see that
phrase, I recognize your projection of that concept onto me. I recognize
what it is and where it comes from.) You're frequently, if not constantly,
making up stories that become your reality. I never used the term that you
put in quotes, "Religious shit." I went back and checked. I did mention
that Howard Dean is no better than George W. Bush, but that somehow
doesn't seem to sink in. I know that I told you that I delete the Howard
Dean emails as spam. The "dumb as a post comparison" comes to mind at
times like this but I try to let it go.
Then there is a the strange reference to an atheist. Who are you referring
to? If referring to me, you have made up still another legend in your own
mind. Not only have I never so declared myself, my voluminous writing on
The Seventh Fire would be clear testimony to such a lie. I hope the
Machiavellian lies of WND, Newsmax, The Weekly Standard and the
neo-conservatives aren't rubbing off on you. I like to think of my
relatives as truthful and honorable and I'd like to keep it that way (but
I won't lie to myself about the truth). So the only bind is one you have
created. Hope you can find your way out of the morass.
You're always expecting to put me into a bind, but you don't
understand anything I've told you about me so you keep falling on your
face because of your erroneous thinking. Get a grip.
Cal Thomas has already proven his capacity for propaganda and
demagoguery so I'll pass on anything he has to say, thanks.
Mr. Sheeple@f.......... wrote:
alright, so much for that which has happened in the past, and
dwelling on that! Now, how the hell do you propose to rectrify that which
happened in the past? Dwelling on that which happened in the past does
nothing to deal with the problems of today. Your concept is analogous to
blaming traffic congestion of today on the early automakers, especially
Henry Ford whose mass production concept resulted in more affordable autos
by lowering the labor costs. Ok, shenanigans of the past has led up to
perceived problems of today. How do you propose therefore alleviating the
problems rather than wailing and whining about them?
What do you propose be done about government leadership, regarding the
upcoming 2004 elections, if neither President Bush and his policies or
those the Democrat candidates (all in disarray and backbiting) with Howard
Dean as the front runner leaning so damned far left in his rhetoric? Do
you propose no structure of government, as the founders of this nation as
a Representative system called a Constitutional Republic envisioned and
created, and let chaos reign? The founders of this nation who fought the
British for independence were patriots. To condemn and criticize
government is anarchy.
Sheeple Analyst: Remember, you are the one who brought the past into the discussion
to support your claims for your "peace through strength" thesis, but the
facts were in error and did not identify the First Cause. Without the true
First Cause every other part of the rationale is contaminated and cobbled,
incapable of leading to sound decision-making. All of our decision-making
is based on past performance, more often regarding the recent past, but
some patterns are only discernible by going back a bit farther.
Only a fool imagines trying to rectify the past. And only a fool continues
to incessantly bring it up when the answer has been given repeatedly. The
purpose studying and understanding the history of our experience as a
people is understanding the rules by which this Earth game is being
played. You constantly use this tool yourself, although without adequate
information or willingness to dig for the true facts. Superficial slogans
have sufficed. But I am not satisfied with slogans nor the history lessons
taught as slogans. I'm just holding a torch to these inept, useless
fragments to determine their lack of value and then turn to deeper
analysis. The wailing and whining I've been hearing is of no use to a
carefully considered discussion.
What we do is learn and teach, study and speak, discover and propose. I
now have a website that reaches over 1,000 people each day, over 30,000
each month. In one year I have reached well over 250,000 people who in
turn reach out to dozens or hundreds more, friends, relatives. Through the
Seventh Fire I am teaching more people in one day than I once taught in
four years.
In addition, I am providing people action plans to take back their power
from the financial system and the government. People are considered to be
wards of the State unless they have filed their UCC-1 Financial Statement
and Security Agreement. Using the collateral that the US Government has
taken without our permission, our own lives and our energy, these people
are reducing the National Debt by learning how to properly use their worth
and collateral. People are learning how to stand before a judge or an IRS
agent and stop the fraud and corruption. People are learning how to
dismiss a judge who has failed to supply his bond and oath of office for
the year. People are learning how to attach the judge's bond if he fails
to uphold his oath of office. People are learning how to stop the IRS cold
in their tracks by asking for their signed Certificate of Authority. Even
children can stop the Principal of their school from forcing them to take
mandatory medications that are deleterious to their health.
We are forming groups, networks of aware citizens, who share information.
We intend to take back our political system peacefully by demanding more
of the politicians who stand before us and demanding that the electoral
system not be abused by illegally removing legitimate and eligible voters
from the electoral rolls as happened in Florida in 2000. We are insisting
on methods of voting that cannot be bastardized by hidden source code and
which have a paper trail to provide for a backup to hold a recount of
questioned election results.
Now Mr. Sheeple, you know that politicians are only feeding when they are
backbiting and only an incumbent has the luxury of running for his party's
nomination unopposed. And you're not going to accomplish very much by
damning and cussing the political fray. Toss the stupid sloganeering and
get down to understanding the rules of the game. There might not be a
leader among the lot of them and I would not offer my time, money and
energy to any unless I was reasonably certain that they could actually
turn the country back from the dictatorship planned for it, even under the
likes of Johnson, Carter and Clinton as well as Nixon, Ford, Bush I,
Reagan, and Bush II. And much farther back than them...traitors. There was
no one better than the next and we have all been flim-flammed for over a
century. But there are many things to do at the grassroots instead of
focusing on the "leadership."
You have never heard me say that I condemn government. I have only
condemned those of our employees who now think they are the elite, above
the law, and beyond suspicion. You have never heard me propose anarchy, I
have only opposed oligarchy, autocracy, and plutocracy. I can't help it if
you don't know the difference. That's your job. I've tried to do what I
can, but the responsibility is not mine. If you had ever taken the time to
read what I have written you wouldn't ask such strange questions about
what I think. In fearing the unknown, you support the security of a
plutocracy. In thirsting for security you opt for a continued loss of
freedom and the derogation of the principles upon which this nation was
born. Condemning the leaders of the government is NOT the same as
condemning the government our forefathers created. In fact, losing sight
of WHO is the government is part of the problem. I am the government, I am
the Sovereign. You are the government. You are the Sovereign. We the
People are the government, the Sovereign. Our DUTY is to condemn and
correct those of our employees who mistreat our Constitution and Bill of
Rights. The President IS NOT the government. That is the thinking of the
Royalists who disagreed with the Rebels. These rebels are the Patriots who
found t Sovereignty in themselves as a god-given right, a natural
law.
All of us must come of age finally and if we do not the Constitutional
Republic will falter and disappear. The plans are already laid for its
demise. It has been attacked for many years and we have accepted these
attacks uncritically. The cards are stacked against us, but only failing
to stand up like a man who values freedom and independence will ensure the
death of the freedom we thought we had won for eternity. That freedom is
not assured. We have been lied to by the left and the right. The illusion
of contending factions has deluded us into attacking each other from a
basis of lies and half-truths. You wish for me to take sides and I can
only take the side of freedom and independence of right action and clear
mind. Nothing else "matters."
This is also our spiritual contract: to see past the illusions, to take
responsibility for ourselves to learn and choose right action. Caught up
in the "what" of illusory battles, it is easy to lose sight of WHO we
truly are. A balance of involvement and detachment is a precarious perch
from which to walk in beauty and harmony.
Mr. Sheeple@f............ wrote:
I used "Kumbaya" only in the sense that anti-war peaceniks stand around
holding hands protesting war and conflict. They seem to have the naive
idea that the U.S. should disarm and potential adversaries would do
likewise and then peace will prevail. But such actions do not address the
heart of the problem which is animosity. Germany and Japan harbored
animosity toward the complacent United States that led to the outbreak of
WW II, but a weak U.S. military did not cause them to back down but
instead encouraged them. Therein lies my point that a weak military
defensive potential will only encourage others to attack. Therefore, peace
can be attained through military strength.
I supposed you will be working overtime to find a way to rationalize the
above paragraph in a manner that will twist it around to suit your
objectives. I am getting a bit tired of the semantics. RHB
Sheeple Analyst: It's your semantic
charade that we are dealing with here. Your impertinent "kumbaya" comment
got us safely off the examination of the real issues into emotional,
hysterical regions more comfortable to you. You still have not addressed
the analysis I presented as a counter to your simplistic thesis of
military strength equates to peace. Ignoring the facts of history will
only lead to more ignorance today and ensure a cobbled future.
Again, you fail to go to the heart of the problem even as you announce
that you are there. Your announcement does not coincide with reality. You
point toward animosity as the First Cause, but fail to look behind
animosity to see what created it. I've already pointed toward the source
of animosity as the First Cause for war and showed you where you can find
supporting evidence. The source of animosity was the manipulation of
events by the Illuminati and their agents in bringing about a civil war in
Germany in the midst of an international war. Americans like to think that
it was our entry into WW I that was the primary factor in bringing the
Kaiser to his knees, when, in fact, it was the 5th column embedded in the
German military and the Zionist traitors, like Rosa Luxemburg and Karl
Liebknecht who dissolved Germany's capacity to fight. This at a time of
America's entry combined to collapse the German war-making power.
Then, to rub salt in the wounds, the International Bankers at the
Versailles Peace Conference exacted horrendous penalties to flog Germans
and plunged the nation into a deep depression of unemployment, hunger, and
homelessness. The frustration and despair could then be much more readily
manipulated and honed to develop the animosity of the German people, not
only toward those nations claiming victory, but toward the Jewish citizens
who now became suspect of treason. The tinder was prepared for the
conflagration that would follow.
The animosity was created and developed by the Illuminati and their
agents. The First Cause of WW II can be found in the ashes of World War I.
Before military weakness of a nation can invite aggression, an enemy must
be manufactured and delivered to take advantage of that weakness. Military
strength is a secondary factor. However, military strength becomes
increasingly necessary if a government is using its might to develop
animosity through constant aggression and oppression. Israel is the model
of Peace through Strength.....that doesn't work. Many Jews who came to
Israel to participate in nation building are leaving because there is no
peace or security. Living in the midst of Orwellian aggression and
oppression cannot obtain serenity and tranquility.
FDR's Foreign Policy treated Japan as a second-class world citizen and
directly threatened Japan's economic development. You can read about this
in an excerpt from my web page.
FDR and the "infamy" behind Pearl Harbor
Jeremy R.
Hammond writes, "In the year before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant
Commander Arthur McCollum, of the Office of Naval Intelligence, drafted a
document commonly known as the "McCollum
Memo." The memo proposed 8 steps
by which to force Japan to strike at the U.S. and was endorsed by two of
President Roosevelt's closest military advisors. Roosevelt eventually
implemented all 8 steps of the plan, one of which was to 'embargo all U.S.
trade with Japan' ". Stimson had planted the seeds; Roosevelt followed
through by restricting the sale of iron and steel manufactures, iron ore,
pig iron, and ferrous alloys. Now he slapped an embargo on copper, brass,
bronze, zinc, nickel, potash, and numerous manufactured products. Little
by little Japan was being squeezed ever tighter. Roosevelt's plan was to
box Japan into an intolerable situation by demanding that it pull out of
China while simultaneously cutting off its war supplies.
The McCollum Memo is not the only document that attests to the
government's recognition that the desire to go to war was "constrained by
US neutrality"--namely by the desire to maintain that "neutrality" by the
majority of Americans--and that entry into war would require some sort of
pretext, a "solid reason to fight". In a memo to Roosevelt in June of
1941, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes wrote, "There might develop
from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not
only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we
should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we
had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia." To this end, an embargo was
also suggested to Roosevelt by others, as well, such as Admiral Richmond
Turner, who wrote that "shutting off the American supply of petroleum"
would force Japan to take "military action" and would thus "immediately
involve us in a Pacific war."
Roosevelt's Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, wrote in a journal entry
from November of 1941:
"The question
was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot
without too much danger to ourselves. In spite of the risk involved,
however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in
order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to
make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should
remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."
By January
1941, Roosevelt's personal agent, Harry Hopkins, was confiding to
Churchill that if America came into the war, the "incident" would be with
Japan. Meanwhile, the brilliant cryptologist, William Friedman, had broken
the Japanese Purple code with a system christened MAGIC. Thereafter, all
Japanese diplomatic messages were known in Washington. Not only was a
MAGIC machine never sent to Hawaii, but Roosevelt ordered that none of the
intelligence be passed along to the commanders at Pearl Harbor, Admiral
Kimmel and General Short.
(You can read the rest of the story by clicking on the
title above. That is, IF you really wish to know. I am beginning to
suspect that you feel more comfortable in your concocted little world of
propaganda and programming. You could prove me wrong any time you like,
though. My attitude about your capacity for an honest, intellectual
discussion is malleable.)
So when you tire of playing the silly semantic games you've invented to
avoid an honest, intellectual discussion, you can dig into the substance
of history to understand what really happened so you have a sound
construct from which to develop your worldview. I've provided a lot of
food for thought if you can digest it. I can sense that I have pushed you
up against your own intgernal rigidity and your programming is struggling
mightily to fend off the "terrorist attack" with still more histrionics,
more epithets, and once again running from the fray to the nurturance of
time-worn adages and half-truths. I don't have to work overtime or get
emotionally overwrought. I don't need to rationalize because finding root
causes leads inexorably to understanding and thence to solutions. Truth is
not an objective that requires any twisting, just a lot of untwisting.
It's probably the untwisting that is causing you so much pain. But life
with a free mind is far better than life on a twisted cross.
Mr. Sheeple@f.......... wrote:
Again, you misconstrued my comments. I did not say that Germany
attacked the U.S. due to weakness, but weakenss in U.S. military strength
no doubt encouraged the long-range plans to take over the U.S. along with
Japan as per that map I mentioned that gave the timetable to 1950 when the
conquest would be complete.
I used military weakness as something that encourages one nation to attack
and invade another, so military strength will create peace by preventing
an attack. In the case of Germany, Japan and WW II I merely stated that
the United States effectively disarmed after the "war to end all wars" and
was caught militarily unprepared when war clouds developed in Europe but
came to fruition when Japan, as an ally of Germany, prematurely attacked
at Pearl Harbor and forced Germany to declare war, as well.
There is little doubt that the military weakness shown by a lack of
assertive action on the part of Clinton, who had "balanced the budget" by
cutting military strength (Remember "peace through strength" by Reagan
that brought down the Berlin Wall? Or, is that an element of history you
would like to ignore because it does not fit in your beliefs), resulting
in military training/strength curtailed due to funding cuts. Thousands of
officers and enlisted men got out, underpaid soldiers on food stamps and
welfare, military units were dismantled, the navy had problems with
sufficient fuel and munitions to train the military, the airforce was
cannibalizing aircraft to try and keep an effective airforce going?
Failure to react to terrorist activities in an assertive manner, and a
weakened military, no doubt encouraged the rise of terrorism on the
assumption the United States weakened militarily would not respond
Sheeple Analyst: What did I misconstrue? I didn't say that "Germany
attacked the US due to weakness" either. Please check the emails below and
locate the point at which you could quote me saying anything of the sort.
It was YOUR assertion that Germany could make such plans. South Dakota
could make plans to attack Canada but that doesn't mean that they will or
can. Just supposition, hypotheses, non-substantive argumentation.
Your declaration that weakness begged aggressive response has already been
responded to in previous emails and you have shown no interest in
discussing that. I will not repeat myself.
So you go off on another binge of hocus-pocus history without substance.
Did Gorbachev admit that Reagan had driven the Soviet Union to collapse? I
don't remember seeing the evidence of that. Please provide evidence for
assertions. And it was the Clinton whitehouse providing the warning that
there might be "terrorist attacks" on American soil and the "attacks"
happened well into the Bush Administration. But again, this argument leans
heavily upon the evidence of foreign attacks which remains doubtful for
the many reasons argued before. You have shown little interest in
discussing the lack of evidence and the anomalies in the argumentation
such as the belated response of the USAF on 9/11 which is not easily
accomplished by a foreign terrorist. The possibility of a domestic
terrorist group within the government is much stronger because the
protocols for FAA/USAF interception are automatic and can only be ordered
from the highest levels.
So until you can prove the terrorist argument, it is inadmissible in a
discussion about military preparedness and security. Do your homework
first.
Mr. Sheeple@f........ wrote: Again, you fail to get the
context of what I write! All I said that had you, as an anti-war pacifist,
been an adult when WW II erupted, you and others of the same ilk would
have been standing around holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" as the
Japanese and Germans carried out their invasion plans as recorded in
history. MY COMMENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ME SINGING "kUMBAYA"!
Sheeple Analyst wrote: "Or that the best laid plans gang aft
aglae? Once upon a time I created best laid plans but I've learned that
they do not always become reality." --There was my response. Your comment
DID refer to Kumbaya, a bit sarcastic, of course, so I replied in kind.
Can't take it coming back at ya? Then don't be so cheeky in the first
instance. I understood exactly what you were saying and responded to it,
albeit with tongue in cheek. Just a wee bit of levity and quid pro quo
(or tit for tat as it were), Mr. Sheeple. Sure wish that you could respond
to the substantive issues raised instead of reeling about, flailing at the
return reference to singing Kumbaya and you ignore anything that would
require knowing anything and go into emotional histrionics. Get a grip!
Mr. Sheeple@f............ wrote:
Sure. But how were they to know that the organization would go bad and
turn on the United States that created it? Same with arms to Iraq in the
early years to help fight off the Soviets etc. but how were they to know
Saddam would pocket or stash billions in aid, build himself lavish palaces
while the people suffereed then massacre thousands who dared to voice an
opinion contrary to what Saddam wanted? It is doubtful that the purpose
was to create an anti-U.S. force.RHB
Sheeple Analyst wrote: How do you "know that the organization
would go bad and turn on the United States..."? Someone told you that and
you believed them, right? Another useful investigative tool, used in
police work all the time, is to ask the question "who benefits?" The
Motive provides a vital clue to whodunit. If you know that
- the War in Afghanistan had already been war-gamed in 1997,
- that two US aircraft carrier task forces were underway to the
Gulf before September 11,
- the British had assembled the largest armada since the Falklands
and was steaming for Oman before September 11,
- that 23,000 British troops were on maneuvers in Oman prior to
September 11,
that Operation Bright Star with 23,000 US troops were on exercise with
NATO forces in Egyptian desert,
- that 12,000 more NATO troops had just arrived in Turkey prior to
September 11(exercises that had been planned two years prior),
- and that in a four day meeting in mid-July 2001 with the Taliban
and Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani representatives US diplomats warned
that if the Taliban would not accede to their demands for the oil
pipeline, they would have not alternative but overt action against
Afghanistan commencing mid October 2001,
- reasonable analysis would point toward September 11, 2001 being a
pretext or trigger to justify the planned invasion and conquest of a
Sovereign country.
- Furthermore, in late September and early October, leaders of two
Islamic parties negotiated Osama's extradition to Pakistan for trial. An
American official said that "casting our objectives too narrowly risked
a premature collapse of the international effort if by some luck chance
Mr. bin Laden was captured." In fact, the Bush Administration refused to
sign the treaty for an international court to try war criminals, the one
place where bin Laden might be put on trial.
General Tommy Franks, head of Central Command, in his first press
briefing after the invasion began stated:"We have not stated that Osama
bin Laden is a target of this effort."
see also
Afghanistan Attack Planned Far in Advance
and
Framing bin Laden
As for Iraq, I've already outlined the trickery involved there over time
and you've ignored it. I've already answered that question for you many
times and you never follow up on it by either discussion or by your own
study.
see also
Iraq, Afghanistan: Illegal Wars,
Lies about Iraq, Iran
Gassed Kurds, Not Iraq and
How PR Sold the Gulf War
As a matter of fact, the purpose IS to cause anti-US sentiment, but then
you said you understood all about the Illuminati. Until you do......
Mr. Sheeple.......... wrote: There is nothing
contradictory in my comment at all, the contradiction being in your mind
and a play on words. A weak military lacks manpower and armament for
defense, and the military was largely dismantled in arms and manpower
strength after WWI. But when WW II broke out, the weak military in
manpower and arms put the U.S. at risk by indicating a possible soft
defense easy to overcome. Rebuilding and training a strong military for a
response to the threat had to take place using fake rifles, tanks,
machineguns etc. UNTIL THE MANUFACTURING MIGHT THAT CONCERNED YAMAMOTO
COULD GEAR UP TO PRODUCE THE REAL THING AND BRING UP THAT ACTUAL STRENGTH
REQUIRED TO MEET THE CHALLENGE!
I guess my logical views are too great for someone who breaks toy guns off
toy soldiers, and incurs a felony to lose a teaching license, is too
difficult for your anti-military mind to follow.
Sheeple Analyst wrote: I see, I didn't put the
qualifier "militarily" in front of "US" since "military" was the context
which we were discussing. You just took my words out of context and horsed
around with the semantics as a distraction from the content. Now I see
your attempted rhetorical gimmickry. The facts remained the same, the
argument remained, you just took us off on a little butterfly expedition
about words. Now saying the same thing over in green and with bold and
underlining you think you have responded to my argument. Unfortunately,
you have only re-iterated your own argument without coming to terms with
First Cause, contenting yourself with self-assured secondary effects.
Logic that stems from secondary effects rather than first causes is a
pointless drifting about without an anchor in reality. Incorrectly
assuming you have discovered the first cause of the Second World War, you
draw logical but incorrect conclusions. Just because something is
"logical" it doesn't follow that it is correct. Similarly, your
assumptions about what brought about the dumbing down of America did not
derive from first cause but from secondary and tertiary effect. Such logic
is not only erroneous but dangerous. I follow your logic, but don't accept
your basic premise about the cause. I can see that you have not followed
the course of events back far enough, nor have you included other factors
that came into play before Germany attacked anybody, even before the
National Socialists came into power.
Then, to further bolster your argumentation, you attempt to humiliate me
for a symbolic act of mine that is far beyond your antique facts and
"reasoning." I'm hardly humiliated by that act except that I lost the
courage to see it through when I learned that a felony conviction would
jeopardize my teaching career. I wasn't quite ready to let go of the
security of that. Eventually, I was forced to resign under pressure from
the Principal who originally brought me into the Hopkins School District
because of my exceptional ideas and experiences. Unfortunately, you don't
seem to understand how your use of that reflects on your capacity of
gather information and analyze it. Schoolyard slanders and bullying
epithets do not make a very convincing case but for one's own maturity and
personality.
And using "military" and "mind" in the same phrase seems to be an oxymoron
since the military seeks to reprogram the mind to follow orders rather
than think objectively. I'd rather that your side of the conversation
could be more open to exploration than driven to subjective and
ill-founded argumentation. My ground is mind. I don't need to be
anti-anything. Military mind, however, must by necessity be anti-mind.
That's why recruits must go through Basic Training to program them to kill
and to follow orders without question. Guess you learned to do that. It
can also be understood as devolution.
Mr. Sheeple@f............ wrote: Had you been an adult when
WWII broke out, you would have been holding hands with others and singing
"Kumbaya" as the Japanese invaded the West coast and the Germans invaded
the East by 1950, coast in accord with their timetable to meet at the
Mississippi river. A timetable printed on a map of the United States that
Uncle Amer Morrill clipped from the LA Times during WW II and included in
scrap books consisting of wallpaper catalogs. Mom had custody of them for
a time in the '50s, and I personally saw that map as I read accounts of WW
II!
The United States could not mount a decent response until the military was
rebuilt with manpower provided by the draft and the factories could be
geared up to produce war material' needed to meet the challenge. As I
noted, military manpower and armaments were vastly diminished in the
interval between WW I and WW II to the extent it was inferior to that
built up by Japan and Germany. RHB
Sheeple Analyst: And thus you prove what? That you can sing
kumbaya? Or that the best laid plans gae aft aglae? Once upon a time I
created best laid plans but I've learned that they do not always become
reality.
You've clearly walled off all that I sent you in this regard. You have not
come to grips with first causes, just the effects. Germany did not become
strong and war-like because of our "weakness" or "complacency." They had
the support of powerful financial people such as Brown Brothers, Harriman
who, through the Union Bank, under the management of Prescott Bush,
grandfather of George W. Bush and with the help of great grandfather
George Herbert Walker, to secretly rebuild the German war machine and
install Adolf Hitler as the leader of the Third Reich. Only by their
traitorous support could there even be a Third Reich.
Furthermore, the Germans had been set up in the First World War and its
aftermath to respond with righteous and furious aggression at a world that
had wronged them. First their internal civil war lead by the Zionist
Communists and then by the harsh and unjust terms of the treaty of "peace"
that was intended to infuriate an entire people. This laid the foundation
of the aggression not the complacency or weakness of the US. That only
contributed to a late entry into the war and was not its cause.
The documentation is available but you haven't gotten that far yet.
The Hitler Project and
Pawns in the Game: Events Leading to World War II.
Mr. Sheeple@f....... wrote: Nope! You got it wrong
because you tend to read in context of what you want to believe. I did not
say the U.S. was "weak"! Complacent, maybe, but not weak. I merely stated
that the military was dismantled on the naive assumption that "the war to
end all wars" meant there would no longer be a need for a strong military.
In fact, the United States had to wage a "holding action" militarily after
Pearl Harbor in order to build up its military stength to meet the
challenge, and managed to turn the tide at the battle of Midway Island and
was then on the offensive. Since you are into history, it should not take
much research to learn that following Pearl Harbor and Hitler's
declaration of war on the United States, that the U.S. was training
soldiers using broomsticks due to a lack of obsolete Springfield rifles of
WW I vintage! They had wooden machineguns for training infantry. Wooden
weapons had to do until American manufacturing could be retooled to
produce weapons again, such as the Garand M1 .30 caliber semi-automatic
rifle used extensively for years, a rifle that would fire repeatedly
though full of mud and other crud. (prior to the start of WW II following
Pearl Harbor, and had to be built up with manpower via the draft and
weapons via changover from consumer goods to defense equipment for war.
That is why no new cars were made from '41-'46)"
Common sense tells you that a foreign power with conquest ambitions is
certainly not going to militarily invade and take over a nation that is
militarily much stronger. Instead, they will find a nation with a weaker
military that cannot defend against invaders. America was strong
economically and in the manufacturing sense because Yamamoto, following
the attack on Pearl harbor, was afraid they had "awakened a sleeping
giant" because he was once a college student in the U.S. and was aware of
the U.S. manufacturing potential. Virtually over night, war production got
underway to produce armament in such abundance that the virtually endless
supply overwhelmed the Axis forces to emerge victorious.
Wish I had made a note of a comment I read in a column a couple of weeks
ago. The columnist quoted George Washington as once saying that
(paraphrasing) "peace can exist only with a strong military", or something
to that effect. And, he was correct. President Reagan was correct when he
noted that "peace through strength" was the stance the nation should have.
It goes back to the analogy of dealing with a neighborhood bully who will
terrorize others until the neighbors band together and beat the shit out
of him so he does not bother them anymore and therefore attain "peace
through strength". RHB
Sheeple Analyst wrote: You said, "A militarily strong
nation is the only way to keep others with dominating and conquering
tendencies from trying to take over the United States. The U.S. made the
mistake of disarming after WW I......." Opposite of "strong"
is....."weak." A statement about militarily strong is followed by a
characterization that the US made a mistake....seems it was a statement
about weakness. Or perhaps you would prefer "unstrongness?" I have no need
to read your words in any preconceived context. Just read "strong" then
read "made the mistake" ..... Then you followed THAT with "...the US
military was in a weakened condition... If I got it wrong, you lead me
there. Nevertheless, the sad sack word game is just a distraction from the
real issues anyway.
I knew about the wooden rifles. So what does that have to do with
anything. My reply had NOTHING to do with "military strength" or
"complacency" or "weakened condition." Your whizbang facts have nothing to
do with my reply. Your commentary trots a far mile around the cause of
WWII as I've summarized it to show you that it was NOT about military
weakness. It was not even initiated by the Germans or Japanese. In fact,
the economic sanctions and restrictions placed on Japan by the Roosevelt
Administration would come quite close to being an act of war today. It
certainly took a lot less for GWBush to declare his preemptive little
illegal war on Iraq.
Your mention of Yamamoto and American industrial strength demolished your
own argument about wooden rifles and machineguns, you realize. Your
delight at the facts got in your way of a persuasive argument that a
military had to be fully ready at all times. It is actually the industrial
and economic strength of the nation that is vital.
The Washington quote is "To be prepared for war is one of the most
effectual means of preserving peace." You've already identified one of the
most effective ways to be strong: economically and in industrial capacity.
I've already identified what brought about WWII: the economic and
industrial support of Germany from the late 20's through the early 30's
from the International Bankers including Brown Brothers, Harriman, their
Union Bank, and its managing director, Prescott Bush. Thanks for providing
support for my thesis. So you see, strength is not military strength
alone, but incorporates moral, political, social, economic, industrial,
and spiritual strength.
Sloganeering can get you into a morass of fiction and fable.
Queen
Victoria
