Fear This

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt said; “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”... he lied. Roosevelt told America the lie we wanted to hear. He told Americans that everything was OK.

But America wasn't OK. It was the Great Depression. Many people were going hungry (including my grandparents). American style capitalism had failed us. American style representative democracy had failed us. And God had not come to rescue us. In fact, just the opposite; the Dust Bowl showed America that the environment could fail us too.

The consequences of years of corruption in government before the Great Depression were quite painful – especially for those who hadn't been corrupt.

For many, it felt like it was time for a change.

FDR tried many things to get America out of the Great Depression. But America's rich oligarchy weren't all that enthusiastic about helping their fellow man. Some of the changes FDR tried were very unpopular with the rich. (Those on top fear change – they might not stay on top.)

One of the things FDR tried was Keynesian economics. He figured he could stimulate America's economy back to life with government spending. FDR hired scores of the poor in huge jobs programs with Federal money. America's infrastructure was significantly improved because of these projects. And as one might expect, this was very popular among the poor (who had been going hungry). But nonetheless, many among the rich hated FDR. They weren't going hungry. And they would have been perfectly happy with a two tier society – with them on top and our tax money only being spent on them. (Here's a sign; it helps to be greedy to get rich. So, expect many among the rich to be greedy.)

As one might expect, America's rich oligarchy still had plenty of power in Washington. And those who didn't like FDR “wasting” their tax dollars on the poor still had plenty of influence with their (financially well off) appointed judges in the “Supreme” Court. True to their station in society, the “Supreme” Court struck down a number of FDR's jobs programs.

The irony of all this is that it was huge government spending for military programs in World War II that later pulled America out of the Great Depression. Keynesian economics worked. (And the “Supreme” Court didn't fight this jobs program because rich people were making big money selling weapons.) However, there were consequences. Simply put; you can't eat weapons. All one can do with weapons is stockpile them, or use them – neither option productive. The “Supreme” Court had curtailed all of our Keynesian jobs programs other than military spending. And once America was used to the stimulus, the economy would suffer if the government stopped providing it.

What WWII spending led to is the biggest (under the table) Keynesian jobs program in the history of the world. (This isn't some new concept. I remember back when I used to work for the military/industrial complex; when we used to jokingly refer to our paychecks as “Fedicare.”)

U.S. military spending has provided the stimulus to keep America's economy going “strong” for the past 60 years – sort of. Unfortunately, there were consequences to excessive military spending. Our economy didn't grow in the right direction. America has slowly slipped towards militarism. More important domestic issues have been neglected. Our government has been corrupted. But worst of all, all of that continual “stimulus” was like speed to a junkie's body – and eventually our economy and environment have been pushed to exhaustion.

Multi-trillion dollar deficit military spending has provided the temporary stimulus for America to ignore all of the lessons of the Great Depression for six decades. But the reality bill has come due again. And this time, with interest, it is huge.

We don't have a Dust Bowl this time. But we do have extreme drought in Texas and many parts of the West. And record tornadoes. And record snowfall in the East. And record flooding. And forecasts are for a big hurricane season this year. And if we have a dry summer again this year locally, we will likely see mega-fires... And the polar ice caps are the smallest they've been in history. And the world's mountain top glaciers are the smallest they've been in tens of thousands of years. And the oceans are the warmest they've been in thousands and most acidic they have been in millions of years.

By now, you might think all this is a sign. You should. In fact, you should have 30 years ago. We're way past the signs. (Of course, those who are raking in billions off of making things worse don't think so. But what would you expect them to think.)

The evidence keeps blowing in. Extreme climate change brought on by man-made global warming is already here. The “Eaarth” that Bill McKibben speaks of – the new climate that we all will just have to suffer with, may now just be the new norm. (...Oooh shhhit!!!)

Why am I afraid? Need I remind you that every economy from every civilization that has ever existed stands or collapses upon the shoulders of the environment. It is that important.

But have you noticed; the mass media “news” doesn't report on global warming any more. They're more or less silent about it. Even with all these environmental disasters, climate change rarely gets mentioned (and usually not without some fossil fuel industry funded “expert” to cast doubt about it.) ...This too, is a sign. Every one of the mass media news reporters is afraid. That's right; every one of them, afraid. They are afraid to tell truth to power, because they know that if they did, they would never be promoted again – if they're lucky. Though you may not remember, they remember what happened to Dan Rather when he exposed Bush Jr. as skating past his draft and deserting the National Guard. [Dan Rather was once the most powerful reporter on television news. I saw that 60 minutes episode on Bush's questionable history. Dan Rather should have received an award. Bush Jr. should have been investigated. But like a pack of angry attack dogs, the mass media press turned on Dan Rather. Not one of the other reporters in all of mass media I watched ever even mentioned one of the many points made in that report... But those gutless reporters did however report the Swift Boat Veterans' lies about (Bush Jr.'s opponent) John Kerry quite extensively.] Every mass media reporter knows that Dan Rather was essentially banned from television news for telling truth to power. And they know that their reporter comrades will lie about them to save their own skins. They are all afraid.

The reporters' bosses are even more afraid. They are dependent upon advertisers dollars to stay in business. Let's face it, the for-profit news companies do what they're told. In fact, they're so subservient, they don't even have to be told. Even the best of them promote by agenda. And the agenda is to make money – even if their reporters have to lie by omission (or worse).

Hey, wait a minute. We didn't elect these people to be our public information systems. And in the most gut-wrenching of dirty tricks, we certainly didn't spend our money in good faith expecting these corrupt “advertisers” to manipulate our news.

The money advertisers use to pay the mass media is our money. These advertisers wouldn't have a dime of it if we hadn't given it to them. They are using our own money to sucker us in – to take even more of our money. We don't have to put up with that.

And we don't have to put up with failed-state politics either. Pure representative democracy has failed us – again. Corruption is rampant. Waste is rampant. Destruction of the commons (our environment) is rampant. And our economy is faltering. Why would we want to put up with politicians making all the (wrong) decisions when we-the-people have the capacity to hold yearly elections on long-term policy decisions? I strongly believe that if we were more honestly informed, we-the-people couldn't possibly do any worse (for everyone) than this hopelessly corrupt system we are stuck with now.

Our politicians have been forced to legislate by the “free market.” Bribes are required – in the form of campaign contributions. Laws are being written, and subsidies being given to those who can afford to buy them. This is no way to run a country. This is how to run a country into the ground.

The massive bank bailouts didn't actually fix anything, they just allowed the big banks to take more from us.

The massive military spending America has been doing hasn't made us safer, it just prepared us to get into more unnecessary wars.

And the massive social cuts we are experiencing now aren't going to make our lives any better or our country any more solvent, they're just going to allow the banks and the military/industrial complex to get more.

“Defense” has become more important than common sense. Profits have become more important than happiness. “Truthiness” has become more important than the truth. And America has been turned from a democratic republic into merely a flag – a flag that supposedly represents freedom. (But what kind of freedom? Freedom to oppress? The recently renewed Patriot Act doesn't give us freedom. In the past 30 years we've only lost personal freedoms. The only new “freedoms” we have seen, in the guise of “free” trade, look far more like corporate anarchy. Just look around. Every industry in America has been monopolized. In the real world, you don't have the freedom to start a small business of your own any more.)

I expect to be labeled unpatriotic for bringing up these points. We've been trained since birth that our American political/economic system is as good as it gets. Somehow, in spite of all our system's flaws (and our nation's teetering on the edge of collapse in 2008); we have been convinced that America is the epitome of human development. Essentially, we've been led to believe that we can't even consider the possibility... of considering our possibilities.

All I ask is that we fix things.

All I suggest is that we first make America more of a democracy.

And all I insist on is that we don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (the Environment.)

But don't expect our present government to actually fix anything on their own. We have a few champions. But not enough. And they won't achieve a thing without our help. Those in power don't like change – surprisingly, even if it's change that may save everyone's lives in the long run.

Think about it. You know that every time you're filling up your gas tank, and you smell a whiff of gas, your chances of getting cancer just went up a little. You know this. You know that air pollution in the cities sickens and prematurely kills tens of thousands of Americans. You know that pollution is dangerous. A recent study has concluded that 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by pollution! You know that multinational fossil fuel companies have taken control of our government and our economy (and with that power, they have utilized multi-billion dollar subsidies to themselves to suppress cleaner, safer, and more reliable alternatives for 50 years). And you know that if they're drilling miles into the ocean, that the planet is running out of economically available oil.

Moreover, what the petro/agro industry has promoted as the “green revolution” has been the most Orwellian opposite. Our food production systems (factory farms) are now the most petrochemically dependent they have ever been. Just the act of growing our food now alters our climate to make future food production even more difficult. And of course, even as dangerous as using all those chemicals is;we have become heavily dependent upon a resource that has already reached its peak in world “production.”

The time for a change was back in the 1930's. Do we have to wait a hundred years to be convinced? Does it all have to collapse before we are willing to start anew?

We're all frustrated and angry right now. Some might even be tempted to let America collapse and start over. But we don't want that. We don't want to lose the Bill of Rights. We don't want to lose what elections we do have. The American people actually do have some power in this country. We don't want to lose that. But if we don't do anything about it, it's very likely we will lose it all – very soon.

We are a nation motivated by fear. But we fear not having a paycheck or losing our profits even more than we fear not having a viable future.

Our economy has been running on borrowed time since WWII.

Our government has been running on borrowed time since the growth of big business.

Our mental health has been running on borrowed time since the invention of money.

And our culture has been running on borrowed time since the acceptance of “leaders” making all our decisions for us.

Our time has run out.

The world needs to make substantial changes.

We need to make fundamental changes in how we think.

But this is not all that complicated. Think of it like this:

When you are crossing a stream, and the rock you've stepped on starts to sink into the mud, take the next step.

It's time for us to take the next step.

And if it means amending our constitution, let's get started. NOW!

.........................................................

1. We need to fully financially support independent public broadcasting again – including some Internet broadcasters.

2. We need to require mass media news to tell the whole truth. And it is a misinterpretation by the courts that freedom of the press permits them to lie. (All it takes is a little common sense to figure that one out.)

3. We need to get big money out of politics – especially big money from multinational corporations and foreign entities (they don't care about America).

4. We need more direct democracy. Our representatives have failed us. The American people wouldn't vote for half the boondoggles we are now forced to pay for. American representative democracy has become a tool to subvert actual democracy. Individual representatives can be corrupted, threatened, blackmailed, or fooled. Individual “representatives” are the weak link in our democracy. Our representatives should not be our kings while in office. They should be carrying out our demands. And if our demands aren't clear enough now, we need policy elections to let them know exactly what we want – and rule of law to enforce true democracy. I have real hope for a system like this. It would be far more difficult to corrupt. In fact, I believe that we-the-people would be responsible enough to vote for long-term policies which our (big money manipulated) representative democracy should have implemented 70 years ago.

5. We need a popular vote option to amend the U.S. Constitution. When the “Supreme” Court does a lousy job of interpreting the Constitution, and Congress won't do anything about it; the people of America need a method to fix things. Obviously, changing the U.S. Constitution shouldn't be an easy thing to do. But if say, two thirds of the eligible American voting public want to change the Constitution, and come out to vote for it, we should be able to change the Constitution.

   For example; America's military/industrial complex has slowly digressed into a flag waving proto-fascist arms dealer to the world that presses our nation to go to war for the slightest of offenses. If the American people could have voted to change the Constitution to allow public works programs to continue back during the Great Depression, the American economy might have grown into something extraordinary by now. I am convinced we can still do it. But we can't expect the plutocracy to do this for us. We have no choice but to reduce their illicit power back to one citizen/one vote. That's what a true democracy looks like.

If you have a suggestion, please leave a comment. Thank you.

Bad News

I was sitting at my computer this morning when I got this audio voice saying; “Threat Detected.” I looked down in the right corner of my screen and my (up to date) virus protection software reads; “Trojan Horse.” … To make a long story short; my computer has been attacked.

I don't claim that the CIA, Mossad, or some private spy company has done it. It could very well have been just a random virus attack. These things happen all the time.

Yes, stranger things have happened and been nothing. But, then again, there is that slight possibility that I've struck a nerve.

Just in case; if you like my writing, would you please keep a copy for yourself.

Thank you,

Rick Spilsbury

Noriega = Hussein = Bin Laden?

What do Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden all have in common?

They all used to work with, or even for the United States.

And for some reason, they all had a falling out with U.S. (o)operatives.

Is there a pattern here?

Let's see.

Manuel Noriega:

The official story is that Manuel Noriega was some kind of narco-terrorist, or at least a brutally corrupt Central American strong man; guilty of taking bribes from narco-trafficers. Like that's a rarity in Central America. (Remember the Contras - the illegally U.S. backed Honduran forces that make Noriega look like a Boy Scout?) If this were actually an effort to clean up Central American politics, it was the lamest effort I've ever seen. No, somehow Manuel Noriega wasn't doing what he was told.

(I've also heard that Manuel Noriega was ousted because he had turned over U.S. secrets to the Soviet Union... But of course, the Soviet Union had collapsed years before. So, why bother?)

“According to Larry Burns, director of the Washington based Council on Hemispheric Affairs,... Noriega told Burns … he had had a spat with Vice President Dan Quayle when he refused to commit Panama to a more confrontational role in fighting against Washington's Central American Enemies.”

(Translation: Noriega wasn't being violent enough.)

Could it be that Manuel Noriega, who was apparently placed into power by U.S. (o)operatives to violently keep control of the Panama Canal, was removed by U.S. forces for not being oppressive enough?

Saddam Hussein:

The official story is that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator/terrorist supporter who had weapons of mass destruction, and he might someday carry out a nuclear attack on America. Well... first, and almost never mentioned; is that America has had thousands of weapons of mass destruction. And if we ever really wanted to, we could wipe Iraq clear off the map – literally. It would be silly stupid to attack the U.S. with one nuclear weapon. Second, those weapons of mass destruction likely came from the U.S. – when Saddam Hussein was our “friend” (before Kuwait).

Of course, there was that oil thing. Iraq had it. The rest of the world wanted it. America took it... at least for a while. But I have heard that Saddam Hussein, at the last minute before the second invasion of Iraq, was willing to deal on the oil fields. He may have even been willing to go into exile. Which begs the question, why bother invading Iraq when we already could get most everything we wanted?

Which leaves only one thing left to suspect. The Iraqis had done something so heinously offending to the U.S. that total control of the country was deemed necessary. What could that possibly be? Was it that Iraq was rebuilding its military arsenal? United Nations inspectors didn't believe so – and they turned out to be right. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

So think about it. What was the one thing that Iraq could do that would get the powerful in America so up in arms? Which begs the question; who are the most powerful people in America? The people? Not a chance. (At least not yet.)

Who really runs America? That's easy. Who gets the most benefits? We found out in 2008, when America's biggest banks were bailed out for gambling with our money – all along knowing that eventually the American people would lose – and have to pay for it - and the bankers bonuses. The big banks are the biggest of America's oligarchs. And any threat to them would be a threat treated with the highest priority.

Senator Ron Paul said; “In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar...”

Apparently, some very powerful bankers in the U.S. wanted to be very sure that no other Iraqi ever has Saddam Hussein's arrogance.

Osama Bin Laden:

So, here's a wealthy pious Saudi who helps the Afghan Mujahiddin defeat the Soviet Army (with hi-tech American weapons). For a while, this guy was our man. You may have even cheered him on (if only as a member of the Afghan resistance).

But this was not our man. He was his own man. And sooner or later there would be differences.

Did Osama Bin Laden support terrorists? America didn't seem to think so back when he was supporting the Afghan Mujahiddin. It was only later that the American mass media fell in line with the revised (terrorist) perception of Osama Bin Laden. Let's face it, Osama Bin Laden hadn't changed, he had just beaten his primary enemies and was now working on his secondary enemies... I'm not reading a madman here. I sense a man with convictions who never trusted (or was to be trusted by) the U.S. – even when we were his allies.

So, did Osama Bin Laden support violent terrorist attacks against unarmed Americans? That's what we've been told. And it may very well be true. I doubt he held the U.S. in much higher esteem than the U.S.S.R. I definitely wouldn't be surprised if he were to support an Afghan style resistance to what he saw as American imperialism – just as he had with the U.S.S.R. But there hasn't been any resistance of that type happening since Afghanistan. Sure, there have been some terrorist attacks – but nothing like an armed Afghan resistance. Yet. That's right. The key word is “yet.” As long as Osama Bin Laden lived, there still survived the threat of another Afghan like resistance somewhere. Where? Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi. It only makes sense to look there first.

Osama Bin Laden was adamantly against U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Could he have drummed up an Afghan style resistance in Saudi Arabia? Well... Americans did pull their troops out of Saudi Arabia.

This wasn't just a coincidence. Osama Bin Laden spoke out against military bases in Saudi Arabia, and American troops moved out. Osama Bin Laden got real, significant results standing up to the United States of America.

That must have been a wake up call. When was the last time the American military/industrial complex closed up shop in a country – just because somebody spoke out against it? …Yes. There were the 9/11 attacks. And most of the reported attackers were Saudi. If the official 9/11 stories are true, Bush Jr.'s pulling out of Saudi Arabia was much like Reagan's pulling out of Lebanon after the “terrorist” attacks on U.S. barracks (troops). However, if the official 9/11 stories are not true, just the threat of another Lebanon type of attack was enough to pull out of Saudi.

To some, it must have been a sign that we are weak – or at least that America's power has realizable limits.

Some very influential Americans must certainly have felt that this weaker image of America was inexcusable – and that Osama Bin Laden had to be dealt with... brutally. So; why not hunt him down as a terrorist mastermind? He could have been. But I don't think we understand the man's stature. All he had to do was wish for it. All he had to do was preach to the willing. That kind of influence makes one surprisingly powerful – and not very accountable. The only realistic option to crush this man may have been to pin a false accusation on him.

Was Osama Bin Laden the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks? I doubt it. How could Bin Laden have gotten U.S. air defenses to be too busy with “exercises” to intercept four planes? How could Bin Laden have gotten both the Pentagon and the flight 93 crash debris (and bodies) to just vaporize? How could Bin Laden get those lame pilots to fly so good? And how could Bin Laden get those Federal investigations into those suspicious student pilots derailed? That would have taken one hell of a terrorist mastermind – or at least one very powerful insider.

Which brings me to my point:

The histories of Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden appear to form a loose pattern.

Though the stories of these three men are far different, there is a common thread; U.S. money, U.S. weapons, U.S. oligarch interests, and cover stories that just don't add up.

Were these three people framed? To some point, I would have to say yes, absolutely. But then again, that's just what American mass media does – frame the story. We're the good guys... they're the bad guys – always.

I don't want to sound like Noriega, Hussein, and Bin Laden were innocent victims.

At the very least, Manuel Noriega was totally corrupt – not someone I would ever want for a “leader.” And if you looked up “evil dictator” on Wikipedia, you would probably find a picture of Saddam Hussein (and no, I haven't looked.) But Osama Bin Laden was different. I don't think he was corrupt. And Osama Bin Laden was popular. He had a following - who showed him respect.

Osama Bin Laden may have had a conscience – a sense of right and wrong, however twisted we see it... Was he crazy? Only as crazy as any man's culture can make him. His perspective was different than ours. Natives of any conquered nation will understand. Might does not necessarily make right. In fact, it pretty much guarantees wrongs. But don't expect to read about it in the papers. Might decides who's “wrong.” And any resistance will brand you a “savage,” a “subversive,” or a “terrorist.”

If world politics teaches us anything, it is that right and wrong are not that simple.

But then the question begs; who's mind is twisted? His or yours? Or both? The twisters don't want you to ask that question of yourself. You might grow.

And you might ask some tough questions.

...Are these three just people who didn't fit into our New World Order?

Was Manuel Noriega just unwilling to order acts of violence (war) against the emerging pro-democracy movements in South America?


Was Saddam Hussein just unwilling to continue to allow big U.S. banks to skim Iraqi oil profits?

Was Osama Bin Laden just unwilling to allow U.S. military dominance in Saudi Arabia?

If so:

Is this the real America – constantly scheming for world dominance with no real sense of principle?

Was the “freedom” we constantly heard about in the War on Terror actually the freedom to oppress?

Just what are patriotic Americans fighting and dying for over there in Far-off-istan?

And most importantly; why don't the people get to decide what the New World Order should be?

One More Thing About Osama Bin Laden

Remember the anthrax scare right after 9/11?

Remember the anthrax letters that said; “Death to America...Allah is great”.

Remember how we all suspected Osama Bin Laden, until we found out it was American made military grade anthrax?

How ironic. We were so afraid of Osama bin Laden and/or Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, while our own weapon of mass destruction was being used against us – by one or more Americans.

The implications of a conspiracy by insiders to commit a multi-pronged attack against Americans in the Fall of 2001 are worthy of consideration.

First, there's the 9/11 attack on Washington D.C... with so many peculiar twists millions suspect a false flag operation. And then there's the anthrax attack on Washington D.C... from questionable origins... within America. The first attack gets blamed on crazy fundamentalist Muslims. And the second attack gets blamed on a mad scientist (much like the lone gunman theories of the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations).

For years now, the official explanations of the 9/11 and the anthrax attacks haven't been complete, or even credible. (See the recent Wired article; “The Strain... could the Feds have gotten the wrong man?”) Many Americans, maybe even most of us, don't feel like we've been told the whole truth about 9/11 or the anthrax attacks.

(For example: On 9/11, we saw the second tower hit by a jet liner on the right side of the building. We saw a huge plume of fire, from the jet fuel. And we're supposed to believe that the building fell straight down from partial melting of the multiple giant steel beams from the burning of what was left of the jet fuel? I don't think so.)

Personally, I feel like we've been given cover stories. Our relevant questions are ignored. Those who publicly speak out are mercilessly ridiculed and exiled from the mass media. And to top it all off, we are fed dozens of diversionary “conspiracy theories” by the mass media. This is exactly what one would expect a massive cover up to look like.

Maybe I just have too high of expectations for the thoroughness of the investigators. Often the truth is just what we would have expected. Most of the time, there are no surprises. The jealous lover did it. Or the guy just got drunk and drove off the road. But sometimes, the stories are just too full of holes to ignore.

Could the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks have been planned together? We were pretty sure of it when we suspected Osama bin Laden. And then we were immediately convinced (by the mass media pundits) that it wasn't possible. Why?

…Let's go into speculation mode:

What if some inside group was trying to kill off the members of Congress and the Supreme Court? What if the killing of others was just part of a cover story to make it look like terrorists?

We don't know where that fourth plane was headed for on 9/11. It could have been headed for the White House, but we all know President Bush was out of town. Maybe flight 93 wasn't headed for the White House. What if it had hit the Supreme Court building? If so; the balance of power in America could have changed drastically. (The Bush administration would have been able to pick all of the new Supreme Court Justices.)

And in the case of the anthrax attacks; we do know that one anthrax attack was aimed at Senator Tom Daschle.

If these attacks sound related, maybe they are. When we mentally separated these attacks (as soon as we could no longer blame Osama bin Laden for both) we may have overlooked a significant motive – a government takeover – a coup d' etat.

The question we really need to ask ourselves is; what if these attacks had succeeded? What if the Supreme Court was gone and most of Congress was dead?

As you may recall, this was before Homeland Security.

With only the President and the Vice President left alive, what would our government have looked like? It would have looked like the President and the Vice President. In fact, it would have very much looked like a takeover – a coup d' etat of the U.S. balance of power.

As we all know, because of the timing; the probable attack on Washington by flight 93 would have failed because our legislators and Supreme Court Justices were forewarned by the attacks on the World Trade Center. Maybe the timing of the 9/11 attacks went wrong. Maybe flight 93 was supposed to hit first. Maybe the flight 93 “plane” went down in Pennsylvania because it had no mission left to accomplish.

And the anthrax attack? Any scientist worth his microbiology degree would likely have known that this type of anthrax attack wouldn't have worked effectively to kill more than a handful of people... and that it would have been traced. So... what if it wasn't a mad scientist who did it?

What if there was a coordinated effort by American insiders to kill most of America's political leaders in the Fall of 2001? What if they just screwed up?

Over 3,000 people died in the attacks of 9/11. Many more could have died from an anthrax epidemic. If there was an insider conspiracy, they don't care much about human life – and now they've been convinced that surgical attacks aren't effective enough.

What if they try again?

What if next time they just decide to nuke Washington?

If there are insiders who got away with the 9/11 attacks – and have access to highly protected anthrax spores, they may have access to a nuclear weapon.

Is the concept of a nuclear coup d' etat realistic? It would seem so. In fact, if one were not on the short list of next in line for the presidency, killing off all of the leaders might just seem like a practical way of eliminating all the competition.

...Even if all of this speculation about 9/11 and the anthrax attacks is wrong, one thing is still for sure. We need to be seriously concerned about protecting our leaders from a nuclear coup d' etat. Our elected leaders in Washington are at serious risk – because Washington D.C. can be obliterated in an instant.

I'm convinced that the best way to insure against this vulnerability is for there to be more democracy.

If the American people make long-term policy decisions – by vote; there would be far less incentive (for terrorists or insiders) to nuke Washington.

If our leadership were more distributed, there would be no way to cut off our head.

So, Osama Bin Laden Is Dead?

I guess we're supposed to be rejoicing now?

But I can't rejoice with a clear conscience yet. There are just too many unanswered questions. And maybe – just maybe, Osama bin Laden could have answered some of those questions.

The truth seems farther away than ever now...

I don't have doubts about the death of Osama bin Laden. Yes, the assassination story sounds a little fishy, and so does the burial at sea. The burial at sea left no remains to check, but also no place for mourners to congregate. And most likely, just as officials have said, no country would take him. The unarmed guy the Navy Seals shot in the face was most likely Osama bin Laden. And if it wasn't, Osama bin Laden has probably been dead for years now anyway.

No. My unanswered questions are not about Osama bin Laden's death, but about his life. My doubts remain on the “Osama bin Laden – 9/11” story. Was the story the press told us real or fabricated? Did Osama bin Laden really mastermind the 9/11 attacks? Was he even a terrorist? Or was he just a boogey man for us to blame?

I remember reading that Osama bin Laden never took claim for masterminding the attacks of 9/11. I remember videos of someone claiming to be Osama bin Laden – but the guy didn't look a thing like him. I remember a Congressional hearing that concluded that U.S. forces, in the initial invasion of Afghanistan, had total domination of an area around Tora Bora, and apparently just let him escape. And I remember Bush Jr. talking tough on the television about how he was going to “smoke him out.”

I got the feeling that the Bush administration really liked having Osama bin Laden around. He was great for their ratings in the polls. And you may remember that all Bush Jr. had to do was mention the name of Osama bin Laden – and he would instantly get his way.

...But now; here we are – almost a decade later, and Osama doesn't get us all worked up anymore. Slowly, the scales have tipped; and the public relations machine may have realized that Osama was worth more dead than alive. Or maybe his name just sounded too much like Obama to let him stay at large. Or then again, maybe it was just a coincidence that they killed him now.

The timing of this event should put to rest some possible speculations.

We're not near an election; so I don't think it's a stunt to make President Obama look good.

It's been over two years since President Obama became President. So it doesn't make President Bush look bad.

But we needed some good news. Americans have tired of these “wars” that look more like occupations. We don't really have anything against these Muslims. We don't want to pay billions and billions in taxes to be there. And it really saddens us to think that people are still dying – over what? Over what? Our nation's prestige? Personally, I'd like to see our nation have some legitimate prestige. No one really admires our willingness to fight forever to win, even if we're wrong. All these “wars” do is show America's tenacity to oppress. I don't call that prestige.

But, of course, there are those in power who believe we have to be the “bully on the block.” And then, of course, there are those military contractors who are getting filthy rich on taxpayer money – and they need “wars” to keep the money coming in.

Was this just a publicity stunt by the military/industrial complex? Have we just been thrown an (Osama) bone to keep us happy about our taxes (and warriors) being wasted?

We may never know.

Maybe it just happened now... because that's just when they found him (again).

Either way; Osama bin Laden is officially dead and Al Queada is more or less eviscerated.

So, what does Osama bin Laden's death really mean? Or does it mean anything?

• I remember reading that Osama bin Laden hadn't been leading (what is left of ) Al Queada for quite a few years now.

• I find it highly unlikely that we will be seeing any troops coming home because of this.

• And there is still this nagging doubt in my mind that Osama bin Laden wasn't responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

What if the skeptics that suspected that 9/11 was an inside job were right?

…

What if Osama bin Laden was just a patsy?

What if the Osama bin Laden story is a cover story for a takeover attempt of the United States?

What if terrorism was the excuse necessary to take away our freedom – with the Patriot Act?

What if terrorism was the excuse necessary to create a shadow government (Homeland Security), ready to take over when the conditions are right?

What if we've been playing to these insiders' democracy hating hand for years?

What if they have been emboldened by these events?

What if they're planning their next strike?

What if President Obama hasn't been told a thing about any of this?

America is vulnerable, in Washington D.C. – 9/11 proved that.

But there won't be another 9/11 attack with hijacked planes. Apparently, we're prepared for that now.

So, what might happen?

I was watching a show on the History Channel about some possible, but not likely disasters animators could report on before they happened. One particularly interesting disaster they mentioned was about the potential for a “terrorist” nuclear attack on Washington D.C.

Now, here's where it gets interesting.

What if Washington D.C. were to be devastated by a nuclear attack. With the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court all dead, who would run our government? The Department of Homeland Security, I guess.

So, let me get this straight. A country that has existed for 235 years would be taken over by a “Department” that hasn't been around for 10? And this “Department” came into existence over what many have claimed to have been a false flag operation... an attack from within our own Country? Now wait a minute...

If the skeptics' worst fears were right – if the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, and there really do exist “Americans” so heartless that they would plan a coordinated attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and possibly the White House (or the House or Senate); then nothing is beneath them.

If there was a 9/11 conspiracy, they got away with it.

If they got away with it, why not try it again?

The insiders' next big false flag operation just might be a nuclear attack on Washington D.C. to destroy the last vestiges of our democracy and take total control of our country. In fact, the killing of Osama bin Laden may be a part of their cover story. Americans are now expecting a revenge attack.

It has been a while since the 9/11 conspiracy theories so negatively effected our collective trust of American leadership. Maybe the insiders now think this has all blown over – and their opportunity for another 9/11 type of false flag attack is coming again. And with the assassination of Osama bin Laden, America is bracing for another “terrorist” attack.

But personally, unless the alleged 9/11 insiders are not members of the American oligarchy, I doubt that Washington D.C. will be nuked. There just isn't a need. Our government appears to be giving in to the plutocracy's wishes now. So why bother?

We've seen this before:

Remember, the Soviet Union never fell until Gorbachev and Glasnost.

Remember, just when things started looking better for the common people in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union collapsed.

As long as the takers are getting away with everything – as long as Washington politicians and bureaucrats are for sale; why bother with another 9/11?

Americans have lost control. Washington has been nuked – with money. And if we succeed at fixing things in Washington, someone just may wipe it off the map – and blame “terrorists.” But we have to try to fix America anyway. And, whatever we do; we better not allow the privatization of Homeland Security – not even TSA.

How do we save Washington? By making it less important. So long as politicians and bureaucrats run our country, Washington will be vulnerable.

If Americans were to hold elections on policy issues, however; Washington would just house administrators.

If we had more real democracy, there would be no point in attacking Washington.