(July 2, 2007)
[If you want your letters to be published, you must include your first and last names and your city and state of residence. Also, please, enter in the subject line of your e-mail "letter to the editor," and specify the article or the subject on which you are commenting.] US Constitution and Executive Branch Members To the Editor: We elected two human beings to be president and vice president in 2004. Now, in 2007, one, the vice president, claims he is a member of the Legislative Branch. Executive orders, unbeknownst to the People, say neither the president nor the vice president is in the Executive Branch. The Constitution disagrees, regardless of their opinions, orders, and asking the Attorney General. The attorney general has been sitting on his answer all year. Remember that no system can measure itself. The section below on the Executive Branch puts the two squarely within "all the Civil Officers of the United States." "Section 4. The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (US Constitution, Findlaw) Only We, the People, are sovereign. How could the heads of the Executive Branch be above us as they are in one of the three equal branches of government below the Constitution? They encroach on our turf. The Attorney General can't tell the truth lest he unloose their unconstitutional nonsense. Their alternative means dictatorship is around the corner, People, if the two have their way. It would not be America anymore. It may have gone too far already for we have lost precious freedoms with the concurrence of the Congress. Carol Christen Yamhill, Oregon, USA - June 26, 2007 [Ed. This letter was initially sent to The Oregonian in Portland, OR, which declined to print it.] ********** A Republican Chips in: Gilles d'Aymery's A Rudderless, Co-opted Antiwar "Movement" To the Editor: I just read Gilles d'Aymery' essay, "A Rudderless, Co-opted Antiwar 'Movement'" and I was very impressed. This comes from a long time Republican. I am really upset with the war but I have to admit that I was one who supported it...though not firmly. I am a veteran of the Gulf War and hoped with all my heart that something good would come of it. It didn't. You have shown great courage in showing how this is an American war not a partisan war, and how we need to work in a non-partisan way to get out. I have become a strong supporter of Ron Paul and I am furious with my party and the pro-war Democrats. My new saying is "A person owes no loyalty to political parties or politicians, only to principles." Thank you. Joel Horn Weaverville, California, USA - June 18, 2007 ********** Post-Esoterism and Leftism: Gilles d'Aymery's A Rudderless, Co-opted Antiwar "Movement" Hey Monsieur d'Aymery, Are you falling into esoterism nowadays? I doubt most of your readers understood your allusion to the Congress for Cultural Freedom (based in Paris, France...not Texas), Encounter, and Melvin Lasky. Don't you think you should have elaborated? You could have let your readers know that Encounter was founded in 1953 in England (I was not born yet, but you were), fully financed by Allen Dulles's CIA as were its predecessors, Der Monat in Germany, Preuves in France, and Tempo Presente in Italy -- all launched and funded by the CIA to combat the communist threat in the early days of the Cold War. The first editor was Irving Kristol of Commentary fame (the world is a small place...look at his sonny...reds turned brown...), and Melvin Lasky was a bona fide CIA agent -- though it can't be fully proven yet, but you can't be sued either for making the charge: The man bit the paquerettes in 2004. Oh well, what do I know? Being a compassionate person, I'll pardon you for your rather dispiriting rants against the antiwar movement that has so evidently been neutered by the daddies of this world; but don't stop there. Take a look at the environmental movement and the stage of moribundity of the "Left" (and the "Greens") in the U.S. and in Europe. It has a smell of pestiferous disease. Is the plague coming back to haunt humanity or is the pestilence of the well-to-do taking over the world? (Seems to me as the same...) Just know that whatever you do, and write, and rant, and love, and suffer, and enjoy, no one cares. Even your family has disavowed you! The world could not care less. It moves on. Allez, bon vent. Give 'em hell. Alouette Arouet Paris, France - June 21, 2007
********** Short and to the Point: Gilles d'Aymery's A Rudderless, Co-opted Antiwar "Movement" To the Editor: This antiwar movement could be somewhat less...rudderless, for I am absolutely with you! Orlando de Rudder (French author and novelist) Rousies, France - June 18, 2007 ********** Don't Forget the Indian Nations: Gilles d'Aymery's A Rudderless, Co-opted Antiwar "Movement" To the Editor: I really enjoyed the article on the antiwar movement. There should be many more like it, but as you know, being honest and kind these days isn't really going to get you much "ink," so to speak. I do take exception with his analysis of Cindy Sheehan, however, and it is based on personal experience both with her and her best friend, Amy Branham. When things began to "sag" for Cindy and Camp Crawford, the Thanksgiving feast attended by Iraqi women went totally bust. The LAKOTA showed up to support her. I personally could not attend as I am persona non grata in the U.S., although I descended by not one but two lines of pre-Republic families. I am a victim of the war on drugs. A truly innocent victim with a story to tell. My exile was imposed by none other than Paul Wellstone in 1994. I posted faithfully to IMPEACH sites and posted an article on OpED supporting Cindy. This was "commissioned" by Rob Kall himself and was widely circulated in the blogosphere at the time. However, my insistence that Paul Wellstone was no saint got me "moderated" off the impeach sites (and still does). The article had been spotted by Amy Branham on David Swanson's URL and we corresponded for quite some time. Her son died before going to Iraq; mine was serving as a US Marine recruiter, by then deployed as an intelligence officer to Iraq. My family remains devastated by the damage done by this war. My son is now a very outspoken (on mainstream news) advocate for Iraq Afghanistan Veterans of America and crusades to get funding for PTSD sufferers. What transpired after the initial article is that I was soon trashed and reviled by Amy, as my anti-colonial, anti-Democrat stance wasn't shifting. When Cindy came to Canada, I was ignored, although my track record on the peace issue could not have been more clear. Cindy has a genuine knack for selecting just the wrong allies. Don't laugh at me; it's even in her astrology chart and is widely discussed among astrologers. She has the mark of the Aquarian warrioress, but alliance building is her Achilles heel. What disturbed me then and continues to befuddle me was that they would actually write my friends with complaints about ME. I thought when she got out of the U.S. and went to Ireland, perhaps some good ole European socialism might creep into her soul. But now, she remained a true blue Murkan, even after learning all about rendition flights and torture. However this inability to work with OTHER WOMEN, outside their grasp of reality, is severely limited. Your article is insightful and convincing except on one point. That is, the real leadership for peace must come inevitably from the First Nations community. They understand all too well the vast Ariadne threads of colonial thinking and they never, ever give up. They are plugged into doing things for the next seven generations and are amazingly patient in their pursuit of a return to peace and harmony among people. As I stated, the Lakota were those who came out and supported Cindy. When she decided to "give away" Camp Crawford, I suggested boldly on ICH that the land there be given back to its rightful trustees, the tribe that came from there. This was not done, any more than Jeb Bush gave back the skull of Geronimo held as a relic in the skull and bones clubhouse. Dr. Michael Yellow Bird at the University of Kansas issued a call for all native communities to discuss discouraging the native youth from serving in imperialistic wars last year. (Should you care to read it, I'll send you an e-mail. It's on my blog, but not linked.) Here, in Canada, the Mohawk Nation News pumps out article after article on anti-colonialISM. They do not expect to be invited to speak at peace rallies, nor do they seem to feel it necessary to be part of ANY personality cultISM, which is just a symptom of the disease. I sent Dr. Yellow Bird's article off to New Zealand and Australian "colleagues" and this discussion is ongoing amongst what are considered to be "warrior" societies. It was posted and delivered to each and every OZ and NZ parliamentarian. I think this summer will shift much focus onto true native leadership. The kickoff date for activity is 29 June. Stay tuned. Thanks for a great "magazine." Virginia Simson Toronto, Ontario, Canada - June 18, 2007
********** Profits Require Chaos: Gilles d'Aymery's A Rudderless, Co-opted Antiwar "Movement" Dear Swans: I just hit on your Web site by accident, while doing a news search for Ron Paul. Thanks for laying it out -- you understand -- well almost.... You speak of the American government as though it represents the power and will of American gentry -- not so. You speak of the Israeli lobbies, including the Holocaust and settlement industry groups, as though they represent the interests of Israel -- not so. You read British and you may think the British government represents the U.K. -- not so (also). The U.S., U.K., and Israel have a "Vichy" government. We have some heroes, like the UK's Galloway or the US's Ron Paul (and perhaps Kucinich). I don't know if the Israelis have heroes in their government -- many of us might confuse soft Zionists (Uri Avery, Tikkun) with heroes -- they are not and there are none in the Israeli government. The Israeli heroes I'm familiar with are poets and musicians. There were the IDF's Refuseniks. I have corresponded with them -- they appear real -- but they have spoken little in the last couple of years. The news and truth of Israeli sentiment is filtered. I did find one survey regarding Israeli sentiment towards US members of Congress. Israeli sentiment inversely correlated with donations a congressman received from Israeli lobbies. The less a congressman received, the more positive Israeli sentiment. Individuals, like Ron Paul and Kucinich, who publicly condemn Israeli behaviors on the floor of Congress (and accept no money from AIPAC) surprisingly enjoy the highest Israeli sentiment ratings. Our governments are really facilitators for the Arms and Commodity Houses. All one needs to do is look at the $1.2 trillion the globe spent on arms last year -- and the record profits Big Oil reaped. Israel is teetering on the brink of collapse, that despite the 15 million dollars a day the clerks in our arms industries (often confused as our "governments") send there. It would follow that "if" AIPAC was really the all powerful all controlling "lobby," that Israel would be in a better position than it is now: The most hated country and owing several months back pay to public sector employees. Israel is being used as a market marker for war profiteering. Israel is an intentional Jew bait (blame the Jews while the War Bankers rob all of us). Israel provides an impenetrable Holocaust shield to hide a criminal conspiracy behind -- BUT, Israel is not about Jews or a Jewish homeland. Israel is about a "hideout," a diversion, to plan and facilitate global extortion and fraud. Simple. Period. Who would dare suggest peeking under the hymen of a 3-year-old Jewish Girl while they searched for the devil? Allow the suggestion that AIPAC, far from representing Israel, is, in truth, a lobby for the War and Commodity Industries. AIPAC "Israel" advertisement is just a distraction. AIPAC cares about as much for Israel as it does Palestine. Period. And, of course, [all] this [only] works because we get our information from the so-called mainstream media, which, by the way, is also owned by the War and Commodity Houses. BAE says jump, the BBC asks: How high? The U.S. is borrowing $28 million a minute, mostly from China. It has been said that the purpose of war is to kill one's banker. If we put pins in the map where our countries are committing war crimes we could comfortably speculate that it appears as though someone was attempting to cut off China's energy supply. I'm not a strategist -- but I earn a modest living discerning structure from the "ruse" of chaos. There is no such thing as coincidence, only the "appearance" of coincidence. War is profit. The chaos of war adds a risk premium to commodity prices and serves to provide cover to all sorts of other bovine excrement, like ethanol is green energy and will reduce energy dependence. BS. The boss at Virgin has even spotted his self with this delirium. Reality: Ethanol production raises the price of LPG (required to make the fertilizer) and raises the price of food (corn prices are up) while providing profits at zero to no taxes, nice, smiling (happy people) rich guys, like the boss at Virgin! I think the oligarchy is crying all the way to the bank because they are delirious with the ease we allow them to "green" their accounts. Truth is, we have plenty of oil. We're in a glut. We have been since forever. The fair price for a barrel of oil is really around $30 (instead of $70). But beyond the glut reality of existing global capacity, there is enough oil in the ground for the next 200 years (in Alaska) for America. And, the Russians recently drilled down 42,000 ft, have an ocean of oil. No profit in cheap oil. Profit requires chaos. So, as you consider your arguments, ask yourself if the governments of the nations at the center of these war crimes (Israel, the U.K., and the U.S.) are really ships of state, or, are they, instead, just clerks and facilitators for the Straussian owned War and Commodity Houses. Some info on oil: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3870461488930715065&q=non%20energy%20crisis&total=44&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 A fair assessment of our moment: http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb06152007.html An Israeli hero: http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=38&contentid=4321&pa ge=2 But, Swans, our governments are little more than clerks for a "higher," though terrestrial, power! Keep up the good work. I will pass your bookmark along. Regards, Terry Thurber Houston, Texas, USA - June 18, 2007 ********** Rainer Maria Rilke To the Editor: Noticed that you have Rilke's Letter to a Young Poet #4 on your Web site. Do you know about the new novel, Lost Son, based on Rilke's life and work? Cheers, M. Allen Cunningham www.mallencunningham.blogspot.com www.mallencunningham.com/ Portland, Oregon, USA - June 21, 2007 ********** Reader Wants Editorial Privileges Gilles: You should not have published Howard Knight's letter, a gentleman I have crossed swords with on many occasions on issues other than Yugoslavia and who is an ambitious New Labourite. Richard Roper Sheffield, U.K. - June 18, 2007
********** The Great One: Boris Vian's Le Déserteur To the Editor: I have heard as one of my favorite 45 records a live recording of Peter Paul and Mary performing Le Déserteur in French. On the back and on the record itself, B. Vian and H. Berg are listed as the composers. The recording is not dated, nor the location, although the record was released in 1964. Thought your readers would enjoy... Peace, Julie Marcos Ferndale, Michigan, USA - June 19, 2007 ********** Misquotation Again: Gilles d'Aymery's Context And Accuracy: George F. Kennan's Famous "Quotation" (March 2005) I read with interest Gilles d'Aymery's piece on Kennan that says he was "misquoted out of context." I have read the piece through and must say that I cannot find where the author has specifically demonstrated that Kennan was either "misquoted" or taken "out of context." It is true that Chomsky took pieces out of the text and indicated the omissions with ellipses. But reading the whole piece shows me that Kennan's primary concern was with how the U.S. could maintain its control over the resources of the world, and resist the possible challenges to that control by other nations that might want to have some of it for themselves, which as far as I can tell is Chomsky's main point. Kennan's "realism" impressed me when I was a student. It was much preferable to the adventurism of the "rollback" people and the "invade China" adventurism of right wing politics in the 1940s and '50s. For me, the neocon adventurism of invading Iraq other excesses has its intellectual roots in that earlier adventurism, and Kennan's opposition to the war in Iraq is simply a repetition of his earlier position. I would be interested in what Chomsky actually misrepresents about Kennan's position. Maybe Gilles d'Aymery could simply copy and send the parts of his article that state what the misrepresentation is. Best regards, Richard Maguire http://www.unfoldingfutures.net/ Sydney, Australia - June 19, 2007 [ed. Mr. Maguire should read Kennan's text in full. Then, he'll notice Chomsky's shortcut.] **********
Please consider helping us financially. Thank you.
********** We appreciate and welcome your comments. Please, enter in the subject line of your e-mail "letter to the editor," and specify the article or the subject you are commenting on at the beginning of your e-mail. Also, ***PLEASE,*** sign your e-mail with your name ***AND*** add your city, state, country, address, and phone number. If we publish your opinion we will only include your name, city, state, and country. Send your comments to the Editor. (Letters may be shortened and edited.) |