The Virtue of the Referendum

Back in 2002 California was drowning in debt and we didn't see any out of it. Then along came Arnold, the Governator, who ran and won in a recall election. Today California is riding the tide of prosperity and has attracted many businesses to the state instead of driving them away. The moral of the story is sometimes the "no confidance" vote, or "changing horses in mid stream" actually works. Some person recently asked Tony Snow a question. "Why don't we put it to the vote of the Iraqi people whether they want us in their country or not". The idea has logic, but you know how Bush reacts when confronted with logic. The reporter got a lecture about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War and how in 1864 the Copper Heads wanted the Civil War over with. This is true. But rather than a negotiated settlement or "cutting some deal" the President believed there was more honor in absolute victory. The only thing wrong with this is that a "deal" eventually was cut, but it wasn't done in 1864 but in 1877. The previous year the United States had one of the most dubious elections it's ever had. That year Ruthaford B Hayse, nicknamed "Ruthafraud" was elected president even though his opponet, Samuel Tilden won the popular vote. Sound fermiliar? Yes, a deal was worked out with congress and the electoral college to withdraw all the troops that were keeping the south in line and insuring that the Black man got his Civil Rights. Contrary to what Larry Elder will tell you, it seems the intrests of the Black man wern't all that important after all. Rather than let the popular vote winner pervail, the rights and intrests of Blacks were sacrificed in the name of expediancy. Getting back to Iraq, the logical person for "referrendum input" is President Meliki. After all he's the winner of a popularly held election in Iraq. If we're really as in favor of democracy as we claim, shouldn't Meliki's oppinion be heavily listened to. Thom Hartman has stated that it's a congressman's job to represent the people rather than tout his own beliefs. However in this case there is no real conflict since the majority of the Iraqi people is Shiite and Meliki is also Shiite, so that you'd think there'd be no problem. If in this country people like Larry Elder and Richard Nixon say that the will of the "Majority" should pervail, then shouldn't the will of the majority of Shiite Iraqi's be the one to be represented? I don't see anything wrong - and it sure would settle the war, for the President to say to Meliki, "You were elected to do a job, to get rid of the Suni bathists and Al Qaida. We would like to assist you in this goal. That's why we went to war. We'll turn a blind eye to the Shiite death squads in the intrest of peace. Because one of our own, Rush Limbaugh said that wars are fought untill one side is the undisputed winner, and then peace comes. We know the Suni should have "rights" of a sort, but they should be kept a minority such as they will not be tempted to keep fighting. There has been enough fighting. In this way your country will have peace with Iran and peace with Syria, so that these countries won't feel threatened by us. After all, Iran helped us in Afghanistan. I guess there are some people who say democracy is immoral. Well, a pacifist would say that the Civil War was immoral and as such they would have to say the democratic election of 1864 was immoral also, and that democracy itself is immoral. Well, this "majority" was a minority for a long time under Saddam Hussein. Now that they have their man in power, shouldn't they have the chance to crow a little. If we have banished half and over half of our enemies and that's a sure thing isn't that better than not being sure whether we'll ever have a victory over ANY of our enemies. Isn't, in other words, half better than none, especially when that "half" represents the will of the majority of countrymen? As I see it that's our only out. What do you think?

They say Bush is going to invade Iran soon before Tony Blair leaves office because Blair's successor in Brittain will be against the war and we have to act in Iran while we still have the support of the Brittish. Others have said that the Brittish only allied with us for some one time oil deal and now that that's done they have no interest in sticking with us. These democrats in this country are trying to pass all these prohibitions against escalation but I doubt whether the President will pay attention to any of them. It seems the people in Iraq are already "voting with their feet" and the nation is spontaniously "ethnically clenzing" itself, as Suni and Shiite make their way into separate camps. Certainly partition is another option we can pursue. How is it that Peace seems to be the one option President Bush doesn't want to pursue? As Randy Rhodes says, you negotiate with your enemies and not with your friends. Certainly having some sort of conversational intercourse ("interraction" for you people in Rio Linda) can have fruitful results as we assess just what it is each side wants and how everybody can best get most of what they want. Both sides I imagine would welcome peace about now.

Back when I was a teenager my Mom had these psychology books and they talked about the "Identification Patient". I was led to believe that this - - Person - - was the one who did all of the complaining and was the most dissatisfied with the current situation. I found out later, like a couple of years ago on the Dr. Phil show that this Identification Patient was instead the person who was CAUSING all the PROBLEMS. But I wonder- - I wonder who someone like Rush sees as the greater enemy - Al Qaida or the liberal democrats. This isn't such a silly question. Remember when Bush was asked about Bin Laden and he said "I don't know- - and I don't really care- - I'm not concerned about him" or some such thing. It's like we've forgotten about both Afghanistan, where we have a democratic investment, and also Bin Laden, the root cause of all this trouble. Or so we thought. But it seems that the root cause with Woodward's and other's books, is traced not to Bin Laden but to George Bush's lust for oil. Indeed the letters Opperation Iraq Liberation stand for O I L. What a coincidence? Now we are actually pulling troops OUT of Afghanistan and into the bottomless pit of war known as Iraq. As George Harrison said in a song "How did things get so inverted and perverted? No one alerted you". It was stated that Eisenhaur ran on a platform of Peace in Korea in 1952 and the American people went for it. Peace was a big seller then. But Bush, like his mentor Nixon, seems to have as his primary goal the desire to devide America into pro and anti war camps, and villify everyone who disagrees with him. So the "Identification Patient" in truth isn't Al Qaida or Bin Laden, but instead the democratic liberal left of this country who want to safeguard our civil liberties. In this capacity our side one a major victory by the Bush Adminestration saying they would no longer engage in surveilance of American citizens without authorization from some Court.

You wonder at times whether God puts things up for a popular vote. The truth is that when the Ten Commandments were given the people gave their concent and said "All these things we will do". Of course it's important to know what IS and IS NOT in the Ten Commandments. For instance Murder is condemned. Anger is not. For those who insist that anger is a sin are playing right into the hands of the enemy. Think about it. If an enemy sees his opponets spending all their time trying NOT to be angry they will soon exaust and exasperate themselves, and the Enemy wins! In like manner bearing false witness is a violation. But all lying is not covered. You can forget about the notion of hiding Jews in Holland because nothing in the ten commandments would prohibit this. On the other hand you have heard it said that the 3rd. commandment doesn't matter because "Everybody lies so don't sware to anything". On the contrary it's a coward will not take an oath and stake his word on something. You have also heard it said "all sex outside of marriage is wrong". You will search in vain in the Old Testament for anyone being condemned for having sex outside marriage, or even going to a prostitute for that matter. Indeed the people in Joshua who visited the prostitute Rahab, who put the red ribbin on the wall to save the people from Divine wrath- - according to Gene Scott and some secret translation he has- - these people who met with Rahab were actually patrons, ie. Johns, and they were not condemned. Judah visited a prostitute and God never condemned him for this- even though she bore two children. She was condemned but HE wasn't. Could it be God knows what it's like to be a man? Lying is not a sin if you're asked what a gift costs and you lie about it. It's the heighth of rudeness to "look a gift horse in the mouth" to begin with and you get exactly the answer you deserve, despite what Act's chapter 5 says. My point is that most people agree that the ten commandments are good. But that doesn't mean you have to pray five times a day or not let your children play vidio games. Indeed it is a specific sin to "Add to the word of God". It says so in Revelation. In Genisis it quotes Adam and Eve as saying "We may not eat of the tree in the midst of the garden - Neither may we Touch it". God didn't say anything about Touching the tree. They added that. Laws are made by governments who are elected by free, enlightened men- - "to promote the general welfare" of society.

Some say it would be wrong for Bush to meet with Iraqi president Meliki to hammer out some sort of cooperative deal. After they point out that the Bible says not to seek fellowship with the wrong people, even though Jesus did it. Well, did you know that God apparently consorts with at least one "wrong" person. It seems God starts off his day in sort of an executive council meeting with Lucifer planning out what woes will befall mankind today. Does Lucifer have some sort of "title" in this capacity? Yes he does, the Son of God, or rather A son of God. That may be why the Federation says that justice can be had by logic and not seeking after some "God" or deity. Indeed many people such as Fred Price believe you don't need a Pastor to tell you how to think. But sometimes people can "get inside your head". When I first became a Christian I was going to Golden West College learning to be a studio sound technician. But somewhere I got the notion that the music these people were listening to was immoral and that I'd best, for the sake of my spiritual walk, get out of the program. This was far from the ONLY reason I left, but it was one of them. I didn't have my radio antenna set to "my higher self" of I'd have seen the folly of my actions. Christians used to believe, and I still do, that people are born with a contience or higher self that they can look to to get a moral bearing. After all, why should Satan be the only person to exercise "Free will" unfettered? Some Christians say that you should not attack or rail against Satan directly because the "rules of engagement" don't allow it. The Federation would like to see every earth dweller wired into that higher sixth dimension of psychic reality. There is a recent example of my own "seeing through a lie" I'd like to tell you about. At Circuit City when me and [Pete Richards] were buying my HDTV, we asked the salesman to take the power antenna out of the box and hook it up to the TV, "just to see if it really works". Well, it didn't work. Just static. The salesman promptly proclaimed that that is because this is a "digital" antenna so naturally doesn't work. That was a lie. The device was a gain amplifyer and the output was measured in decibles. It was not a digital decoder. Whether the signal was digital or analog made absolutely no difference to the device. And yet many pastors will tell you "Oh you need digital and I'm digital and you're analog. Come to Me. I am the way. I have the Jesus-decoder in my brain". When in reality sometimes it's the Pastor himself that is Blocking the Signal you need to tap into God on your own antenna. We all need to tune in - turn on- - and drop out- - drop out of Religion. (Selah)