The Wisconsin Shooting, Etc.

A lot of facts are coming out about the Wisconsin shooting. The murderer killed peaceful Sikh worshippers. Sikhs are not Muslims, but they are believe in ethics and they worship one God. The shooter worked in psychological operations while he was in the U.S. Army. This is similar to the theater shooter James Holmes (who recieved treatment or therapy from a psychitarist named Dr. Lynne Fenton. She was a former U.S. Air Force doctor). He served from April 1992 to October 1998. Wade won numerous medals and was never deployed. He worked in many bases like Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Fort Bliss in Texas, and in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The murderer Wade Michael Page was 40 years when he was killed by the police. The vast majority of well known mass shooting cases over the last 20 years were carried out by people who were prescribed SSRI drugs by psychitarists (many of them are connected to the U.S. military industrial complex). Holmes was given psychiatric drugs like Ritalin Paxil, Zoloft, and Prozac (which have been proven to induce violent tendencies among some individuals). Another domestic terrorist named Timothy McVeigh was involved in clandestine Army operations. He was visited by psychitarists connected to the U.S. Army. Many reports are coming about the possibility of the existence of multiple shooters (from one eyewitness and by other victims. These victims told family members that multiple shooters were involved. The Chairman of the Sikh Temple said that a few suspicious men were seen on the Temple premises). Time will well if these reports are accurate or not in Wisconsin. What is true is that Page was domestic terrorist. Like many of these terrorists, Page support white supremacist ideologies. He worked with a hate band and his ex-girlfriend once allied with him. Page is a murderer, but the story is deep too. Many of these hate groups are infiltrated by the intelligence community. For example, one supposed leader of the National Alliance (llike Green Beret David Kellerman) said that he worked for the FBI. He said that he worked with the FBI in order to infiltrate the neo-Nazi National Alliance group in 2000. His job was to relay intelligence. The founder of the group is believed to have inspired the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing according to the Miami Herald. In 2005, court papers revealed that the supposed anti-racist organization ran an “informant” (informant and agent provocateur are often interchangeable) at Elohim City prior to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in 1995. “The potentially explosive contents of the teletype, among other things, exposed for the first time an informant operation being conducted by nationally known civil rights lawyer Morris Dees through his organization the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC),” J. D. Cash wrote for the McCurtain Daily Gazette in October of 2005. So, the FBI knew that the SPLC worked undercover to monitor subjects for the FBI. These subjects were linked to the bomber Timothy McVeigh and the Elohim City compound. The mysterious German national Andreas Carl Strassmeier was the German Intelligence officer. The leader of the Aryan Republican Army in Elohim City named Robert Miller worked with the FBI closely. Even Hal Turner has been found to have worked for the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. His code name was “Valhalla” and “he received thousands of dollars from the FBI to report on such groups as the Aryan Nations and the white supremacist National Alliance, and even a member of the Blue Eyed Devils skinhead punk band,” according to The Record. The FBI infiltrated the Klan and other reactionary groups in the 1960's as well. The fundamental point of all of this is that the murderer Wade is a coward. He murdered innocent human beings and he was killed. Peaceful co-existence is what is needed without death and violence.




The federal court upheld the herding of demonstrators into free speech zones. People have the right to express greivances in American society. The freedom of assembly and the freedom to protest are engrained not only in American society, but in world society too. This right is expressively found in the Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment was approved and came into effect on December 15, 1791. Now, a federal appealls court upheld the creation of no demonstration zones. These zones prohibit free speech in certain public areas. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on this decision this week in early August of 2012. The 3 judges that supported the deicision had 2 who were Republican judges appointed by George H. W. Bush. The case is about the arrest of Michael Marcavage in 2004. He is in the Repent America organization and Steve Lefemine (of Columbia Christians for Life) was arrested too. They protested the Republican National Convention since the speakers included pro-abortion Republicans like Rudy Guiliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The convention was held in Madison Square Garden in NYC. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with both men's politics, these men have the basic right of expressing peaceful dissent publicly. According to court records, the two were standing on the public sidewalk holding signs when they were approached by police. The police officer informed the men that they could not stand in their particular location because it had been marked by officials as being a “no demonstration” zone. The 2 men (being Marcvage and Lefeimine) tried to walk to the zone, but they were arrested anyway for not walking fast enough to the location. This is silly, because their arrest was unwarranted. They were treated like cattle like the other protesters of the Republican convention. The free speech zone is wrong, because to relegate human protests to cages is the very antithesis of free speech. The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act now allows national and local authorities to declare any venue they so choose as an “event of national significance,” at which point anyone who is found to be demonstrating in those areas can be charged under Federal criminal statutes. This means that prosecutors can charge anyone who enters a bulding without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense is the Secret Service is on the scene. The term disrupt can be ambigious to define to say that least. This policy doesn't exclude folks who accidently disrupt an event attended by a person protected by the Secret Service either. This can end even peaceful protests outside of a candidate's concession speech without permission as being a felony. So, peaceful protesters' rights are heavily resticted. This anti-free speech agenda is found in the Internet and throughout all of society too.


Also, the left side of Left/Right Paradigm have made errors. For example, leaders in the civil rights movement not only criticized reactionaries. Some of their harshest criticism were against the moderates and some in the liberal establishment back in the 1960's. The reason was that some in the liberal establishment back then wanted to use a gradual approach in order to give equality to black people. Dr. Martin Luther King blatantly disagreed with this sick, piece meal approach in promoting freedom especially via his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" letter. Dr. King want freedom immediately given since gradualism only prolonged oppression (it didn't end it). Even JFK, some moderate clergymen, and President Johnson had their feet placed to the fire for some of their moderate stances on the policies of civil rights (until they executed more progressive policies). Even President Franklin Roosevelt (probably the most liberal President in history) supported the internment of Japanese Americans and omitted African Americans from the key programs of the New Deal (which placated the Democratic Southern segregationists in his own party). Some programs in the New Deals restricted African Americans since the southern segregationists wanted domestic workers and agricultural laborers to be exempted from the program. Likewise, underwriting criteria in the FHA loan program guaranteed that almost none of the housing being underwritten by preferential government loans would go to black homeowners. The New Deal was a part of American evolution in that it legitimately grew the social safety net. So, both sides of the political spectrum capitulated to racism within American history. Yet, some conservatives have been racists too. A view of egalitarianism can effectively fight against racism. The heart of racism is the belief that a certain people group is superior to another people group biologically, intellectually, socially, and culturally. Of course, I strongly disagree with that evil notion philosophically, spiritually, socially, and intellectually. Now, it's a fact that we should address the racial disparities in America that came as a result of injustice and a white supremacist system. It's fine to advocate equality, to oppose militarism, and to advance a progressive economic system. Still, black people shouldn't be ashamed of talking the way we talk, acting the way we act, expressing our soul, showing our musical gifts, express our intellectually capacities firmly, and publicly acknowledging the legacy in our lives from the civil rights movement (including from slave rebellions and from our glorious history from time immemorial). Also, some mainstream liberals in the mid 1990's assaulted the poor over the welfare reform debate without discussing the blatantly racist part of some of the anti-welfare hysteria in the nation. For some on the left use class reductionism or the view that racism is a secondary issue to the class system. Yet, racism affects the lives of people color apart form the class system. For example, people of color (regardless if they are poor, middle class, or rich) still suffer discrimination in the housing market, health, the police, or in other areas of their lives. Therefore, race, class, and gender must be discussed thoroughly in order for some solutions to transpire. In foreign policy I am fair dealing. I don't agree with injustices against people in mostly Muslim nations. Numerous Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia ought to end their anti-religious freedom, theocratic policies. Although, I do believe that Israel needs to cleans up its act too and stop the discrimination against Africans in that country and make a progressive approach to the Palestinian peoples. There also end to be continued opposition to imperialism, militarism, and ecological degregation in the world too. This doesn't mean that those on the Right Paradigm should be omitted of their errors. Some mainstream conservatives dismiss the notion that the West should really apology to Africa or they refuse to discuss the issue of reparations. Far too often, Western society wants people to be forced to accept what their version of mainstream middle class values instead of allowing people to be unique. It is also important to not restrict voices. Men women and folks from across backgrounds and political ideologies should have the freedom to express their views. They have the right to let their voice to be heard, so the people can have access to a myriad of information and viewpoints. Especially, people of color should let their opinions shine forth in the world. Also, many establishment liberals (not just establishment conservatives) support wars and empire. Both major parties are funded by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and many transnational bankers.

The walls are tumbling down about the lie of social Darwinism and unregulated capitalism. Still, there is a new social Darwinism. Once, these bigots believed in the biological superiority and inferiority of races. Now, today, these reactionaries claim that differences in social classes among ethnic groups signify inferior or superior cultural designations in these groups. In other words, they believe that a poor person (especially a poor person of color) is culturally and somehow genetically inferior to a rich person inheritely. So, this new social Darwinianism substituted culture for genes. These reactionaries blame poverty and inequalities on culture not on oppression or socioeconomic factors. They ignore the fact of the pervasiveness of institutional racism, bad housing, school segregation, an unjust legal system, and under funded resources as primary factors to our current economic recession. Now, people use President Barack Obama as an excuse to promote race neutral blacks at the expense of exposing a corrupt, corporate system harming the masses. In fact, certain segments of white society are more confortable with a so-called steretotypical "non-offensive, presentable, and respectable" type of black person instead of respecting the total diversity of black people (from the poor black person onward. Just because a black person isn't white collar or wears a suit or tie, doesn't mean that this black person is unrefined). We must not be respectful to the interests of Western exceptionalism or being in some colorblind fantasy land. We must not blame black people from the ghetto as victims of their own culture. We should blame the 1 percent for these issues and promote a radical change in our society. We should promote people of color's right to battle against discrimination and disadvantages. African American culture should be praised and not slandered as the cause for social ills. Now, the President agrees with Newt and Bill in that we should eliminate welfare to those that don't work (mean we have tons of homless citizens that can't work for whatever reason and they need some compassion too). Either we follow the approach of revolutionaries or the approach of accomodation. I reject the latter. Even the liberal establishment refuses to criticize the racist Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. They can talk about oppression by Muslim radicals (which I don't have a problem with since these terrorist individuals lynched my people over in Libya. They are an enemy), but to discriminate against Africans in Israel is wrong period. Decent Israelis and decent Palestianians live in the region, so I want to make that perfectly clear. The President refuses to expose white supremacy since he wants to plander to the (lets keep it real here) to the white vote primarily in battleground states. It's like a political calculation, yet Dr. King opposed the war in Vietnam irrespective of a poll or politics. The President says that he is not the President of black America, but where Mr. President (with all due respect), is it in the Constitution that forbids you from talking about black people's interests explicitly? Mr. President, you are the President of black America, white America, Hispanic America, and all segments of the American population. Ironically enough, the President has talked about other groups and their interests rather transparently. This brother needs to get out of the quicksand of neoliberal, post-racial, and pro-American exceptionalist thinking. It's bigger than the President though. It's about a system that constantly promotes materialism, imperialism, and a mainstream religious opiate for the masses (instead of true spirituality).



The war on the poor is apparent. The same ones lecturing folks on welfare support corporate welfare and subidies. Unfortunately, some of the poor vote against their economic interests and love the Tea Party all over America. The reality is that the mega-trillion dollar bankster bailouts, mega million dollar bonuses for financial crooks, and unimaginable compensation packages for corpoate CEOs (when some of them moved the middle class out of America) are proofs that the GOP is pro-rich mostly. So, the GOP has convinced even some of the poor to support record tax breaks for the wealthy. So, the GOP used social issues as a means to get some of the poor to agree with them. The reality is that both parties have expressed their form of dirt. Another person from You tube talked about the Rhodes Scholar and corporate Democrat Clinton omitting the fact that such scandals (which Clinton experienced) predate his administraiton. Also, most Americans by polls want the social safety net to be strongly perserved. Standing up for America doesn't mean we should support bankster bailouts or standing up for the military/security complex's mult-trilion dollar wars. I don't agree with the President on every issues. Although, I will never accept the reactionary lies that the President is a Muslim, he's a Marxist, he's some Manchurian candidate, etc. The reality is that the current President is killing Muslims in seven countries at least and has a similar foreign policy to George W. Bush. The President isn't a peacenik here. On foreign policy, he's as neo-conservative as his critics are. Also, the 750 billion dollar TARP banker bailout (a small part of the ongoing bailout) can cover many holes in our budgets. Yet, that money is utilized to reward the people who caused the financial crisis in the first place, which threw millions of Americans out of their homes. Also, some of the brainwashed Americans who oppose Obama's health care law forget the fact that Mitt Romney had his Masschusetts state version of the ACA when he was governor of the liberal Democratic state of Massachusettes. The modern ACA law was created by private insurance companies. It's like a strong policy in favor of private insurance companies. Romney supports military action in Syria and even against Iran if necessary. He's an ally of the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have passed laws that violated constitutional laws. Regularly, the executive branch passes rules sometimes even without now consultation from the legislative branch. Americans elected President Barack Obama because they felt that he would restore the rule of law. Now, we realize that the current President codified much of the Bush regime's policies (from the Patriot Act to Gitmo) and made some new ones. Now, the President supports a policy (I can't believe I'm typing this) of having lists of potentially American citizens to be murdered without evidence or due process of law. That is blatantly immoral and wrong. Both parties pander to the rich elites. The 1 percent control a lot of this country. The private oligarchy uses the government as a tool to get our resources and place them into the hands of Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and to the Western allies. Even the EPA is influenced by oil, mining, timber, and agribusiness companies. The EPA and the Forestry Service regulate small individuals, but they allow fracking, mountaintop removal mining, and other acts to go about. Pollution of air, water, and soil under covert means is just as wrong as overt pollution.





By Timothy