Featured weekly editorial WORLD NEWSSTAND.

Homepage For Sophisticated People

EDITORIAL
week of June 13, 1999

"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them."
Isaac Asimov


cartoon by Pritchett

THE DOG IS WAGGED
---FOR NOW
By Doug Fiedor


Last week was a very interesting week, politically. We were a lot closer to a third world war than the American media ever let on to the people. Worse, some of our allies were looking for an excuse, any excuse, to bail out of the attack on Serbia. However, the Cox report was released and the powers behind the political/ media scenes were able to handle it with their now well experienced propaganda machine, so Clinton no longer needs that "Wag the Dog" scenario.

This was a war by politicians, none of whom have had anything resembling military training. It got so bad, in fact, that the politicians were actually planning to insert troops into Serbia in September and October for the start of a ground war. Apparently, not one of them has studied history or understands the weather and topographical problems there. Either that, or they are just plain stupid.

Enter (finally) some generals who study such things, and for the first time politicians started listening. Our troops would be bogged down in the mud and snow within weeks and become little more than sitting targets for Serbian snipers for the duration of the winter, the politicians were told. Serbs know that area because it is their home. We would be sending troops into a hostile area nearly blind. Not good!

Meanwhile, Clinton and Congress joined together to say that most of those very same troops would be but second class citizens back here. Those under 21 years old can kill and be killed in a foreign war, but they are not to be trusted to purchase a weapon with which to protect their home and families here.

So, now that war will probably end -- as long as no one pushes the China treachery too much right now, that is. As we reported a couple weeks ago, Kosovo is to become a UN protectorate, with NATO watching. As The National Review reported on June 4: "The composition of the peacekeeping force, as well as its rules of engagement, will be determined by the UN Security Council, where the Russians and Chinese will veto a NATO-controlled force." And, hundreds of Serbian "personnel" will be allowed in Kosovo to perform certain tasks, including border control.

In other words. Clinton gave up about 90% of our demands simply because he does not personally need that war anymore. But, unlike the movie "Wag the Dog," people died in this one. A lot of people.

NATO's "collateral damage" killed many times more Albanians than Serbia's police and military ever thought of harming. Our bombing forced most of the Albanians to leave Kosovo and we are soon to have the Kosovo Liberation Army, the terrorists, against us, too. Because, part of the agreement is for NATO to disarm the KLA -- which ain't likely to happen easily while they're hiding in Northern Albania with the rest of the crooks and drug runners.

"We are not prepared to even discuss the future status of our army until all the Serb forces have left Kosovo," said Ilir Rama, a KLA official in the Albanian capital, Tirana. "And we won't be discussing disarmament anyway."

American workers should know two things from Clinton's "Wag the Dog" scenario: First, their Social Security tax went to pay the $10 to $20-billion cost of the war. Second, Congress plans to allocate another $30-billion in aide to rebuild the damage NATO has done to Yugoslavia. Which, to our union friends, means that is enough money to pay 1,112,000 workers a $45,000 package for a year. Or, that is enough money to give every American taxpayer a tax rebate of about $440.00 next year.

There are so many red herrings in this Chinese spy mess it smells like an enclosed fish market on a hot summer afternoon, without air-conditioning. And, ultimately, Clinton's malicious "Wag the Dog" excursion in Serbia may not be the most expensive part of it for us.

China has 23 huge nukes pointed at our cities. They are also testing submarine-launched nuclear missiles with a range of 5,000 miles, which means that they could easily take out any place in this country. The communist Chinese place no value on life. And, thanks to Clinton & the Democrats, we are sitting ducks for those belligerents.

Last week, the Clinton apologists totally lost it in public. Their White House line was to actually defend the administration's negligent actions of providing China the technology to bomb us by saying that "China only has 23 and we have thousands."

Truly, that is scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments. It sounds like the White House excuse factory is on strike. Because they are saying, in effect, that it is OK to give up a few American cities (and a couple million American families) when we know we would ultimately win the war.

On this end, that puts those Democrats nearly on par with the communist butchers running China. The most important function of government is the protection of the people. They obviously think government is to help their buddies make money, and to hell with the people. Else, how can they ever justify providing arms to the enemy?

They did it for the money.

All of them: AT&T, Hughes, Loral, Motorola, the computer companies, Clinton, a dozen senators, a few representatives and the Democratic National Committee. They sold out the safety of the American people for money. Now, China is making noises like it wants to use that military equipment on us.

The 25% of the American electorate who voted for this trash should be hanging their heads in shame.

WE ARE THE CENTRISTS
For some reason, very liberal newscasters like to refer to liberal politicians as "moderate" or "centrists." That's the media's way, evidently, of softening the blow of their discussions of unconstitutional proposals to come. It is also usually an obvious lie.

For instance, during his first presidential campaign, the media informed America that Bill Clinton was a moderate Democrat. Even after the Clinton administration tried to socialize the whole of the American medical delivery system, the media still referred to him as a moderate, rather than the socialist he is.

My unanswered question to a media honcho was simple: "Moderate as to who, Nikita Khrushchev or Mikhail Gorbachev maybe? What is the criteria for defining a person as a moderate?" The reply was but a blank stare. They had no idea; it was just a tag they liked to use. Perpetual propaganda from a meddlesome media.

Moderate is defined as "being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme." If our Constitution is our standard of government -- the political center -- "moderate" certainly does not define anyone in the Clinton administration. They are extreme left to the max. Control freaks, too.

Centrist is defined as "one who takes a position in the political center; a moderate." So we see, moderate and centrist are synonyms and can be used interchangeably.

In the center of our political spectrum we find our standard: The Constitution as defined by the Founding Fathers. Anyone not adhering to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, therefore, should not be called a "moderate" or a "centrist." Rather, they would be either on the right or left of the political spectrum -- which is where we find 99.9% of today's federal politicians and bureaucrats.

Those on the left of the political spectrum, all of the Democrats and many Republicans, tend to support big government controlled socialism. That is, they sponsor programs to redistribute the wealth, legislate equality even when it is physically impossible, attempt to regulate everything in life through federal law and regulations, and attempt to control the population through a quagmire of very restrictive taxes, social programs and mandates.

Those on the right tend to believe that government should control the morality of the nation and that strict laws are necessary to make people behave as ordered.

There are position overlaps between the far right and far left, of course. Actually, sometimes it seems as though the political spectrum is like a circle, analogous to a clock. And, if twelve o'clock is designated as our center starting point -- the original intent of the Founding Fathers -- some in Congress are so far afield to the right or the left that they are bumping into each other down around 6 o'clock. Consequently, lately they often join together and propose some of the most Constitutionally repugnant bills this country has ever seen.

The avalanche of obnoxious gun bills come immediately to mind. So do the tobacco and campaign finance bills. Even worse yet is FEMA's scheming to take over the country in any type of real or contrived emergency and Congress readying to authorize martial law because the federal government's workers were too stupid to plan ahead enough to keep their computers running past Y2K.

Some people have started using the term "Republicrat" as a tag for those legislators who demonstrate this phenomena and totally disregard the Constitution. But, while there may be a lot of truth to that, it does not quite fit the bill, so to speak. We need a term that accurately defines these Members of Congress who propose bills that drastically violate our Constitution and steal our rights.

What shall we call those who so blatantly disobey our Constitution with nearly every piece of legislation or regulation they propose -- and, at the same time, tag those of us who call for a Constitutional form of government right-wing reactionaries? What's the direct opposite of a centrist?

I leave that for the readers to discuss. However, a descriptive tag is necessary. And, like "centrist" and "moderate," it should be simple and easy to remember.

A SCENARIO TOM CLANCY WOULD LOVE
Here's a story even the great yarn-spinner Tom Clancy would love. It includes long term scheming, nurturing, lust, deceit, spymasters, and foreign intrigue mixed with an attempt to destabilize the world. Below is an abbreviated outline:

Our story opens in a poor state in the 1950s. Enter a cocky little boy from a single parent family surrounded by gangsters, gamblers, con men, alcoholics, and a host of other unsavory characters, any of whom would fit right in an Elmore Leonard novel. Because of his ability to believably twist the truth, the cast of characters all feel the boy shows great promise as either a successful used car salesman or an effective con man.

Enter a couple Southern Democratic "good old boy" politicians. "This boy catches on fast," the politicians agree, "and he has talents that could make him go far in politics. How's about we take him under our wing and get him schooled properly?" And so it happened that Willie Slicker was offered a proper political education, complete with law school. Proper, that is, if your aim is to be a socialist leader.

But there were problems with the boy early on. Willie lied to everyone about nearly everything. Some of the unsavory characters in his life even got him into the hippie, anti-war, anti-establishment drug culture, which required his handlers to slap him down periodically. Then, while at law school, he gets mixed up with a mousy looking Marxist-leaning hippie girl who has a very bad temper and a strong dislike for the United States Constitution. Later, he even married the wench.

About then, a wide mix of unsavory underground agents got their claws into him (probably with the approval of his handlers) and he was allowed to go overseas for a very important style of political indoctrination into a world form of governance. While there, the unsavory agents even sponsored a tour for him to communist countries, all the better to learn effective political control of the population.

When all the training was accomplished, they sent him home again, where, even though he was married, he went right back to his old ways of loose women and drugs. But, this time, he used his then polished skills as a con man and propagandist for political gain and eventually was elected as governor of his poor state. The state didn't do too bad under his reign. It certainly did not prosper, but at least it did not go backwards, either. The problem was, he used political control to aid his friends and campaign contributors, rather than the people of the state.

Meanwhile, his handlers took notice and started getting their people in place. The time was near when they would propel their charge to national prominence and they knew that, because of his many distasteful proclivities, that might require a great deal of behind the scenes effort.

Willie Slicker's controllers had hundreds of secret agents stationed throughout the national media, so the campaign to nationally portray Willie as a young, successful, "moderate, New Democrat" politician was easy. That was accomplished in just one year. However, there were still many problems with Willie Slicker, so even though there came an opportunity when a very popular American President had to step down, the handlers could not "clean up" their candidate enough for a successful campaign. They were still having a hard time keeping him away from the nose-candy and stray women.

Four years later, all stops were removed. Being experts in the fine art of propaganda, the handlers quashed most of the derogatory stories concerning Willie Slicker's past escapades and insured basically favorable press for their candidate. Thereafter, scores of useful idiots were commissioned to form public opinion. They used their foreign and domestic contacts to raise the necessary money, and they got their boy elected president. Most people in Washington didn't even guess that the whole of the election was controlled and staged by an out of control element of deep-cover government factions. Not until it was too late they didn't, anyway.

Now it was pay back time. Willie's handlers wanted something from their charge. In fact, they wanted a lot from their boy in the White House. Cooperation in world governance was at the top of their list, but that must be developed in stages.

First, it was necessary to get complete control of the indoctrination of the nation's children. A major reorganization of the schools would be necessary so that the children could be taught to be part of the big picture of the world. Nationalism must be rejected. All children must be trained for job skills necessary to the era -- the collective need. No more may people be allowed to, willy- nilly, pick an occupation simply because it "interests" them.

Second, the American people must be disarmed. The United States is an armed encampment of nationalistic civilians. This is a major danger to world governance and a deterrent to proper political control of the people. Nationalism is simply not compatible with the goals of the multinational organizations that will soon be controlling all aspects of banking and commerce on the planet.

Third, the United States must not be the world's only super power. Therefore, Willie Slicker was instructed to "share" America's technological might with other countries so there will again be a bilateral, and maybe trilateral, balance of power. To speed up the transition towards a worldwide equal balance of power, a war was recommended that would cause the proper alliances to be formed.

Our story ends near the end of Willie Slicker's second term as president, with his handlers very pleased, indeed. The handlers were able to use Willie's ever- present sexual scandals as a cover for the hundreds of oppressive laws and nearly 30,000 new federal regulations, all of which are aimed at instituting a program of world governance and strict control of the American people.

Overwhelming the American people with a constant diet of inconsequential trivia in the form of scandals, their agents in the national media also performed even better than expected, and very few American citizens guessed what was really happening. Under the administration of Willie Slicker, the strong hand of federal political control was firmly set in place.

The endpage shows Willie's handlers, and their controllers, musing over whether they shall promote Willie Slicker to chairman of the recently formed Third Way New World Governance Committee or drop him in favor of someone who actually has something resembling ethics.

The author, Doug Fiedor, requests that readers send comments to him directly at fiedor19@eos.net


Click here to visit the WNS Editorial Library
Copyright© 2000, 2007 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
page image by Windy



Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.


Copyright© 2003, 2010
All Rights Reserved

H O M E