Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
The Truth Behind The Lies

The unsettled mind is at times an ally,Leaving the senses to fend for them selves,
The senses collect undeniable data,About beta carotine and theta waves,

The unsettled mind is at times an ally,Leaving the senses to fend for them selves,Then, the senses wonder the sky.



All rise,Eyes burn,Time feels like a midnight ride Finality waits outside,Weeping in perplexitys' arms Caressing our smiles inside.
It really is a shame what the world is coming to these days. When a person cant even afford to put food on their table they turn to the system that they support and fight for only to be denied any assistance. What i dont understand is why there are people out there living off of welfare and unemployment with no future goals set they aimlessly wander thru life with no objectives, In the end only to die and be forgotten. A meaningless existance, and for what? I myself am one of the people that used to support the government and my country. But tell me this why should i support a system that opresses me? I find it ironic that the government spends large sums of money to pay people that do nothing but sit around waiting for their government cheese and foodstamps. They spend their money on alcohol and drugs only to be in the same position they were in teh day before. Making no progress in life but yet milking teh countrys money. Now i understand that there are some exceptions. Not all people on welfare live like this . As a matter of fact welfare recipiants are some of teh hardest working and goal oriented people living in this country. It's the ones who dont try to make something of themselves, better themselves, or even try and put back into the earth what they have draind.The way i see it is teh government is providing free paychecks to those who dont really even care about anything but themselves. When there are people who are trying. People who need a car to get to work or need money for food to put in their familys mouth. There are starving people in this country and there are people milking that money so that they can get a cheap high. What does the government do about it? The answer is simple. They take areas populated by minorities and they build liquor stores gun stores strip clubs and casinos. By exposing minorities to these things it causes high crime areas. By causing an area with minorities to be over run with crime it allows for teh property value to drop, and what about the blacks mexicans and other foreign people who lived there its simple by putting in the liquor and gun stores and flaunting certain lyfestyles on MTV such as that of a gangster rapper showing the community's children that its ok to kill someone because they spilt your drink and its ok to traffic billions of dollars worth of drugs into the counrty because those on tv got away with it. You know what happens to the unwanted people of these ares they kill themselves off fighting each other over simple materialistic items that dont matter.Well ill stop my rambeling for now continue to read the pharagraphs below and decide for yourself is this the kind of government you want to support?
(Important notice to all who think they know what our political situation is like.)
Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy in New York and Peter Beaumont Sunday March 2, 2003 The Observer The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer. The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input. The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq. The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia. The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that the agency is 'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'. Dated 31 January 2003, the memo was circulated four days after the UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix produced his interim report on Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441. It was sent by Frank Koza, chief of staff in the 'Regional Targets' section of the NSA, which spies on countries that are viewed as strategically important for United States interests. Koza specifies that the information will be used for the US's 'QRC' - Quick Response Capability - 'against' the key delegations. Suggesting the levels of surveillance of both the office and home phones of UN delegation members, Koza also asks regional managers to make sure that their staff also 'pay attention to existing non-UN Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms [office and home telephones] for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations'. Koza also addresses himself to the foreign agency, saying: 'We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar more indirect access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines [ie, intelligence sources].' Koza makes clear it is an informal request at this juncture, but adds: 'I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels.' Disclosure of the US operation comes in the week that Blix will make what many expect to be his final report to the Security Council. It also comes amid increasingly threatening noises from the US towards undecided countries on the Security Council who have been warned of the unpleasant economic consequences of standing up to the US. Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery. The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations. The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation. The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'. On protesting that the assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an erroneous extension, and hung up. While many diplomats at the UN assume they are being bugged, the memo reveals for the first time the scope and scale of US communications intercepts targeted against the New York-based missions. The disclosure comes at a time when diplomats from the countries have been complaining about the outright 'hostility' of US tactics in recent days to persuade then to fall in line, including threats to economic and aid packages. The operation appears to have been spotted by rival organisations in Europe. 'The Americans are being very purposeful about this,' said a source at a European intelligence agency when asked about the US surveillance efforts.
Kind of tricky if oyu ask me.
POINTS WEST http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-war-lopez19mar19,1,7926371.story Steve Lopez March 19, 2003 H.L. Mencken should have been here. "For every problem," he said, "there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong." Sums it up nicely, if you ask me. Like you, I have two hopes. That the war in Iraq goes quickly, and that the loss of life is minimal. But that's exactly what brought us to the brink -- the simple-minded notion that against the laws of history and logic, and with minimal sacrifice, we can shape a world that suits our needs by the sheer force of military might, God's will be done. We don't know what it will cost, but we're going to war. We don't know what comes next, but we're going to war. We can't find the money to equip police and fire units with the equipment they'll need to take on terrorists, but we're going to war. We can't liberate millions of American children from failed schools or rescue millions of medically uninsured in this tanking economy, but we're going to war. You have to admire the clarity. But President Bush didn't do it alone. God is on his team, he tells us, which explains why he sleeps easy. He is wrapped in the swaddling embrace of evangelical imperative, and may God keep blessing America, as Bush intoned in his national sermon the other night. The fundamentalists who killed 3,000-plus Americans were operating on a parallel conviction, by the way, so they sleep easy too. Particularly since Saddam Hussein, for reasons that remain a mystery, replaced them as Public Enemy No. 1. Since last June, when I first started writing about the inevitable war of prevention, I've checked in periodically with USC professor Richard Dekmejian. At one point, I asked the author of "Islam in Revolution: Fundamentalism in the Arab World," if there is any way this war can make the world safer. "Miracles can always happen," he said. "It is the holy land, after all.... But I see chaos and a massive increase of international terrorism ....Everything I know about Iraq ... tells me there will be near-term and long-term crisis after Saddam is defeated." That's partly because in our rush to plant the seeds of democracy, we've trampled every international democratic institution in our path. The hypocrisy has alienated friends, which will make this mission all the more complicated, and allowed enemies to say, I told you so. The planet rotates with a wobble because of an imbalance of wealth and power that fuels anti-American sentiment, and we respond with tax breaks for the wealthy and the mother of all bombs. My favorite line in the walk-up to war appeared in a story from Wall Street in which a broker was quoted on the rumored arrest of Osama bin Laden. Remember him? "If they do get him," said the broker, "it's got to be good for a pop in equities and a decent pullback in bonds, say 10 basis points on the two-year yield. That's got the short-term crowd nervous." Who needs David Mamet? I'm short-term nervous and long-term too. Even if there's no chemical or biological disaster and the war goes smoothly, if there is such a thing, the hard part comes in a couple of weeks. That's when some dust-covered commander will be standing in the middle of the world's largest sand trap, looking at 25 million Iraqis and wondering, OK, now what? If anyone in Washington has a good answer, it hasn't been heard. But we're going to war. To make things all the more interesting, our new next-door neighbor will be Iran, which, unlike Iraq, actually has a nuclear program to worry about. But make no mistake, this risk carries certain rewards. The Blair Bush Project, should it succeed, puts guess who? -- America and Britain -- first in line at the oil trough. That's right. A president and vice president with zero combat experience between them have guided us into war that will fatten the industries that made them rich, and turn Iraq into a subsidiary of Halliburton, Enron, or whoever. I've got more combat experience than Bush and Cheney, and I wasn't even enlisted. In brief tours of Iraq and Bosnia, I saw just enough of what war is about to feel compelled to speak up for any alternative. Congressional representatives, on the other hand, with only a handful of sons and daughters in the military, remain virtually mute, having long ago taken a vow of submission. In its collective failure to make a compelling case for combat and draw more allies to the cause, Congress and the president have raised the danger level for troops sent to Iraq. And do not for one minute let them tell you this war was a hard choice. Diplomacy is hard. Peaceful resolution is hard. Leading the world by earning its respect is hard. Raining record numbers of megaton bombs on an absurdly overmatched foe is simple in the most elemental ways, and for this time and place, it is wrong.
If you really think you know whats going on then i suggest that you read this next section.
U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation REGION: USA SOURCE: NY TIMES The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan. Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal. It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security. The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo? We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead. We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto? I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.
I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share. In order to understand where i am coming from without having to analize everything on the site just listen to Prison Song by System Of A Down the lyrics go as follows.
They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, Following the rights movements You clamped on with your iron fists, Drugs became conveniently Available for all the kids, Following the rights movements You clamped on with your iron fists, Drugs became conveniently Available for all the kids, I buy my crack, my smack, my bitch, Right here in Hollywood, Nearly 2 million Americans are incarcerated In the prison system, Prison system of the U.S. They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, (for you and me to live in) Another prison system, Another prison system, Another prison system. (for you and me to live in) Minor drug offenders fill your prisons You don't even flinch All our taxes paying for your wars Against the new non-rich, Minor drug offenders fill your prisons You don't even flinch All our taxes paying for your wars Against the new non-rich, I buy my crack, my smack, my bitch, Right here in Hollywood, The percentage of Americans in the prison system Prison system, has doubled since 1985, They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, (for you and me to live in) Another prison system, Another prison system, Another prison system. (for you and me to live in) For you and I, for you and I , for you and I. They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, For you and me, Oh baby, you and me. All research and successful drug policy show That treatment should be increased, And law enforcement decreased, While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences, All research and successful drug policy show That treatment should be increased, And law enforcement decreased, While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences. Utilizing drugs to pay for secret wars around the world, Drugs are now your global policy, Now you police the globe, I buy my crack, my smack, my bitch, Right here in Hollywood, Drug money is used to rig elections, And train brutal corporate sponsored Dictators around the world. They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, (for you and me to live in) Another prison system, Another prison system, Another prison system. (for you and me to live in) For you and I, for you and I , for you and I. They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, They're trying to build a prison, For you and me, Oh baby, you and me.