by Sara DeHart
Ive just finished writing a long essay for a book, "Bush Lies About Public Health Policy," and my mood is dark and gloomy as I contemplate America s future. I knowI know I should be focusing on Peace and Goodwill, but I think the Reptilians have taken over the American mind, so hope is in short supply this year.
For beginners not only did Americans meet a few people on the Road to Jericho , they widened the road and increased the traffic. War on two fronts does that. I dont know why Afghani and Iraqi children insist on playing outside to become targets of our latest bombing raids. We are only targeting terrorists! Why are parents upset? Havent they heard of collateral damage?
Then theres that nasty little business about insurgency. Why cant Afghanis and Iraqis be nice? We beat them fair and square with Shock and Awe bombing. Do they have any idea how much it cost to bomb their countries into submission?
There is an old joke, If you are going to be raped, relax and enjoy it, but Moslems do not seem to understand American humor.
The Afghan and Iraqi families object to having their doors kicked open at night and men herded off with bagged heads, so they join the resistance. How uncivil of them! Then there is that little matter of soldiers confiscating money and jewelry during the raids. This is called pillage, an accepted form of thievery among some conquering armies. Dont they recognize the rights and benefits of liberation?
A little closer to home disabled veterans now have to travel further afield to get medical care from the VA. Since medical costs are rising with increasing numbers of wounded and sick veterans, the administration must keep a close watch on the bottom line. Hence, closing a number of VA hospitals is the only prudent solution. At the rate that disabled veterans are accumulating, we need to keep them out of sight and out of mind. We wouldnt want fresh recruits to see how our government treats them if they need post-war medical care.
And for the old and poor on the new road to Jericho , watch your crutches because Medicare has just been improved to provide a boondoggle for insurance and drug companies. God! They must have stayed up nights to pull that off. The hardest part though is that Seniors who find themselves in the relax and enjoy it scenario will find that Medicare has been bankrupted. If you are old and sick, tough luck! You should have done something so this would not have happened to you. Only the morally lax find themselves in a fix when they develop a serious illness after retiring. Congress has taken care of its own with the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, why didnt you take care of this with your employer?
Peace and Goodwill to all ~~ It is going to be a tough new century as we return to the Medieval feudal system of lords and serfs. --posted 12.20.03
Editor's Note: Sara wrote this essay before word of Bush's vision of an Ownership Society was announced.
Depleted Uranium:
Smallpox, Propaganda and Fear
Democracy Is Dead:
''Who speaks for Americans?''
By Sara DeHart
On July 22, 2002, the New York Times ran Patrick Tyler's article, "Europeans Split with U.S. Over Need for Iraq Attack" in the International section. What will it take before the Times and other news sources speak beyond a whisper about Bush's impending attack on Iraq?
Mr. Tyler's premise, that it is "American talk of overthrowing Saddam Hussein by military force that is raising alarms in European governments," is only partially correct. It is true that European governments are alarmed, but let there be no mistake about who is talking about overthrowing Saddam Hussein - it is not the American people, it is George W. Bush and the hawkish members of his administration. These people, also known as Chicken Hawks because they managed to excuse themselves from active duty in the Vietnam War, do not speak for the American people.
Retired Army General Fred Woemer asks the question: "Are we involved in a preliminary psychological dimension of causing Iraq to do something to justify an attack?" And of course we know the answer. Mr. Bush and his band of Chicken Hawks are obsessed about Iraq and falling opinion polls. Mr. Bush wants war just as his father did when his poll numbers dropped.
And how did Bush the First seduce Saddam into an act that led to Desert Storm? George Herbert Walker Bush sent a special message to Saddam prior to his march into Kuwait. April Glaspie, then ambassador to Iraq, delivered a message from the President of the United States. According to the Iraqi transcript from the meeting, her exact words were "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The U.S. government questions the accuracy of the Iraqi transcript, but it refuses to release Glaspie's own transcript of that meeting.
Within eight days Saddam crossed over the border into Kuwait only to have Bush the First say "This will not stand." And with those words Bush began amassing troops for Desert Storm.
Will the American people and the world be led into another war by the Bush family? According to French sources reported by Pat Buchanan (TownHall.com, 7/22/02) Saddam has decided to let the U.S. land the first blow. Since Bush the Second has authorized not only occupation of the country but also Saddam's assassination, Iraq may use all the weapons in Baghdad's arsenal.
During the 2000 election campaign, Al Gore warned the country about the dangers of "oil men setting national policy." We are learning what that prophetic statement means.
The Bush the Second administration is following policies established by the Third Reich. Every time things get a little too warm for them they take a page from Hermann Goering's book on mass manipulation. As Goering stated during his trial before the Nuremburg judges:
Why, of course the people don't want war...but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. Whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
The media are not raising the alarm. We are being told that another Iraq war is on the horizon, but the media remain quiescent. How many body bags will have to be filled before someone exposes these very dirty tricks? Remember, it will not be the sons and daughters of the Chicken Hawks who will fight this war. It will be, as it always is, the sons and daughters of middle and lower income families, those whom this administration and the media have denied a voice and a vote. --August 30, 2002
Sara DeHart, a freelance writer and democracy activist, lives in the Seattle, Washington area of the United States.
Also posted at http://www.YellowTimes.org.
When History Teachers Become Tools Of The State
The views expressed are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bush Watch.
The American Legacy
by
Sara S. DeHart, MSN, Ph.D. and
Louis Farshee, MA
March 15, 2003
Depleted Uranium (DU) is a by-product of nuclear power plant generation. Because there are more than one billion pounds stockpiled in the US and it is in such abundance, the US Department of Energy (DOE) provides it free of charge to munitions suppliers who manufacture it into military projectiles. DU projectiles have emerged as a preferred weapon because of its ability to penetrate tank armor and other fortified targets. It is also used in non-military products such as cement, fertilizers and certain paints.
All uranium, whether natural, depleted or enriched, is a toxic radiological element. Each differs from the other in atomic structure by less than one percent. DU emits three types of ionizing radiation: alpha and beta particles and photons. Alpha particles are blocked by objects as light as a sheet of paper and humans exposed to them are naturally protected by their skin. Beta particles (high speed electrons) can penetrate human skin to a depth of one centimeter while photons (x-rays and gamma rays) are more penetrating and can pass completely through a human body. Many factors determine the potentially harmful effects of DU including the source of radiation which may be external, that is, originating from outside a human body or internal which occurs when particles enter a human body by way of food, water, inhalation or a wound. (National Radiological Protection Board, June 2002).
Statements and findings on dangers related to DU might be generalized under two broad headings, US government departments and non-US governmental groups. Although there are disagreements between these two broad groups, one fact is not disputed. If DU oxides are inhaled, there is a high probability that residual alpha particles will be distributed throughout the organs of the body and are potential sources of radiation emission. This fact was not thoroughly researched prior to the 1991 Gulf War and not until 1994 was an explosion/burn test conducted (Rostker, 2000).
Findings of the 1994 test, cited in the DOD's Environmental Exposure Report, are based on one tank explosion that produced a flume of aerosolized radioactive uranium oxide that burned for five hours. Analyses of this poisonous aerosol revealed that approximately 33 percent of the residual oxides were capable of entering the lungs in unprotected breathing (Rostker, 2000). The single-case report was not extrapolated to determine the effects of multiple explosions that occurred during the 1991 Gulf War.
U.S. government and military assertions continue to minimize or deny the environmental and health dangers of DU but their statements are inconsistent with certain of their own reports. For example, at the same time dangers are being minimized a contradicting report reads: "If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical complications. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological...Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposure" (U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute Report, 1995).
Other Pentagon statements concerning the safety of DU are inconsistent with findings of non-government funded research which document that aerosolized particles are dangerous if inhaled. Once inside the lungs these particles pass through the lung-blood barrier and circulate freely throughout the body. At this point they act as a heavy-metal poison as well as cause "low-level" cell irradiation in the bone marrow, brain, kidneys, and reproductive organs. The more immediate heavy-metal oxide damage, i.e. kidney failure, brain damage, is well documented in the scientific literature and the potential for radioactive damage leading to carcinogenic disease is ever present (Durakovic, et al 2002).
Given the concerns for hazardous waste used during wartime or for civilian use, one might expect clear and unambiguous research following the 1991 Gulf War. This did not occur until US Congressional hearings in 1996 directed the Veterans Administration (VA) to fund studies to determine the incidence and cause of the serious illnesses reported by Gulf War Veterans (GWV). In spite of this congressional directive, much of the research remains fragmented and largely based on survey (questionnaire) data rather than more rigorous clinical assessment/biological assay methodology.
Other VA and DOD statements about the safety of DU have relied on secondary interpretation of non-military related data extrapolated to the GWV sample. In this instance, the much-cited Institute of Medicine Report based its conclusions on uranium worker studies conducted at DOD's Oak Ridge facility rather than the more pertinent GWV cohort (a statistical term for a group that shares certain common characteristics). It is noteworthy that data from the Oak Ridge project was a report on the incidence of cancer in workers who had handled uranium under highly controlled conditions. But under uncontrolled battle conditions DU's pyrophoric qualities allow it to blaze like a foundry furnace, spewing flumes of aerosolized, microscopic radioactive uranium oxide into the atmosphere. These were the empirical field conditions faced in the Gulf War that had not been present in the Oak Ridge case.
The GWV cohort that is more appropriate to study to determine the effects of inhaled uranium oxide are the 697,000 American military personnel deployed in 1991 to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. According to the official Gulf War Veterans Briefing, the total causality count for the 100-hour war was 760: 294 dead and approximately 400 wounded or ill. In the decade following the war 30,000 Gulf War Veterans are dead and 221,000 are receiving medical disability benefits for war related causes (May 2002 GWV Report). Neither the VA nor DOD has provided clear research needed to answer the basic question: what part did depleted uranium play in causing death and illness among more than 30% of Gulf War veterans? Basic epidemiological studies such as identifying cause of death as recorded on death certificates have not been reported in the literature.
The DOD asserts that:
Nonetheless, a review of the available research literature funded by the DOD and VA reveals clear gaps in defining the long-term effects of DU once it is introduced into the human body. The Pentagon's view that there is no need for concern because "uranium is all around us" is counter to what is slowly emerging from independent laboratory studies.
1. There is no scientific evidence of any increased health risks from exposure to Depleted Uranium, including cancer and leukemia.
2. Depleted Uranium was not a problem in the Persian Gulf War and is not a potential hazard in the Balkans, except under very limited circumstances.
The clearest research-based literature is currently coming from the non-government affiliated Uranium Medical Research Center in Canada. One of the chief researchers, Asaf Durakovic, a former professor of Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University and former head of the U.S. Army's Veterans' Affairs facility in Delaware, Maryland, reported his assay results on Gulf and Balkan War Veterans at the European Associates of Nuclear Medicine. His findings reveal high DU levels in urine and bone samples in GWV ten years after the war. He further postulates that a significant portion of the ill-defined Gulf War Syndrome is related to DU radiation and/or toxicity. Dr. Durakovic is critical of the DOD and British Ministry of Defense because they have consistently refused to test Gulf War Veterans for DU. There are many medical clues that appear to be "untouchable" for DOD and VA funded research. Further, all research that is not under the direct control of DOD and VA is labeled "unreliable".
This blanket rejection includes all clinical research conducted by Iraqi scientists. At a 1998 Baghdad Conference, M. M. Al-Jebouri reported his findings after analyzing cancer data for two separate time periods in Iraq: August 1989 to March 1990 and August 1997 to March 1998. The data from this study showed a 3-fold increase in the incidence of cancer in 1998 when compared to 1990. Other studies reported similar findings, yet there is no comparable study in the literature provided by DOD or VA funded research.
Doug Rokke, Ph.D, is a trained forensic scientist and professor of Environmental Science. A military man for over 35 years, Major Rokke advocates an international ban against DU based upon what has happened to many GWV as well as those assigned to clean-up highly selected DU contaminated areas after the Gulf War. He reports on the incidence of throat and lung cancer among members of his own team. Some are dead and many others are seriously ill. Rokke himself has airway disease, neurological damage and cataracts. This, of course, might be viewed as anecdotal evidence but the number of deaths by cancer recorded on various GWV Internet sites leads one reviewing the literature to question the official position of the DOD. The allegation that DU is a "safe" weapon or that the cancer and other serious illness rates among the GWV cohort are not statistically different from military personal stationed in Iowa during the Gulf War is an unsustainable hypothesis.
Throughout recorded history, Scorched Earth has been used in numerous conflicts. In the Second Century B.C., following its defeat of the Carthaginian general, Hannibal, Rome was shocked that Carthage rapidly recovered and hence sought a pretext to start the Third Punic War. The pretext was found and a devastating attack on Carthage was launched. After burning and pillaging Carthage and selling the survivors into slavery, the Roman Empire sowed the lands of Carthage with salt so it could not sustain agricultural crops. There was no need for a peace treaty; Carthage, along with its people, was destroyed.
During the 1991 Gulf War another form of Scorched Earth was used with a deadlier and longer-lasting legacy. U.S. and coalition forces fired in excess of 315 tons of DU projectiles at targets in Iraq and Kuwait. Described as a "clean surgical strike" by General Schwarzkopf and other Pentagon spokespersons, Desert Storm left a legacy of sickness and death that has yet to be fully recognized or measured. But if and when an accurate record of this war is written, the Roman legacy of salting Carthaginian lands will pale in comparison. The 1991 Gulf War was, in fact, a toxic war with predictable medical consequences that manifest themselves daily.
The use of uranium-based weaponry is growing. Its use in Iraq and the Balkans is documented. Independent investigators maintain it was also used in Afghanistan. The DOD will neither confirm nor deny using DU in "bunker-busters" dropped on Afghanistan and has consistently refused to identify the composition of dense-metal warheads used to penetrate reinforced structures buried in Afghanistan's caves. Some researchers contend that only uranium -- in one form or another -- possesses the density to achieve penetration of those reinforced structures. Afghanistan's water system collected in ancient cisterns in caves is now polluted with DU; the civilian population is at risk from both heavy metal poisoning and low-level internal irradiation.
The American legacy in Afghanistan and Iraq is uranium-based weaponry that alters the ecological system, and condemns Afghanis, Iraqis, and U.S. military personnel as well as future generations to long-lasting suffering. This, by definition is wanton and reckless use of weapons-of-mass-destruction.
Sara Dehart is a freelance writer from the Northwestern area of the Unites States. Sara can be contacted at dehart.ss@verizon.net.
Louis Farshee is a freelance writer and business man from the Northwestern area of the United States. Louis can be contacted at lfarshee@easystreet.com.
Endnote: Consultant, Guy L. Letourneau, P.E.
Selected References; (additional references available on request)
Al-Jebouri, M.M., Al-Am, et al. (1998). The effect of the war of the American and Affiliated forces against Iraq on the distribution and elevation of cancer diseases in Mosul. Baghdad Conference on Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium by U.S. and British forces in the 1991 Gulf War. Baghdad, Iraq December 2-3, 1998.
Durakovic A., Dietz L., Horan P., Zimmerman I.; Depleted uranium concentration in the lungs of Allied Forces Gulf War veterans at the time of exposure; Fourth International Congress of the Croatian Society of Nuclear Medicine; Opatija, Croatia; May 12th - 15th, 2002.
Durakovic A., Dietz L., Horan P.; Urinary excretion of uranium isotopes in British, Canadian and United States Gulf War veterans; European Association of Nuclear Medicine; Paris, France; September 2nd - 6th, 2000.
Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium in the U.S. Army (1995). U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute.
May 2002 Gulf War Veterans Information System Briefing For: National Gulf War Resource Center. Veteran Benefits Administration Office of Performance Analysis and Integrity Data and Information Services (September 10, 2002).
http://www.ngwrc.org/pdf/GWVIS reportSeptember 2002.pdf
National Radiological Protection Board (June 2000). When is depleted uranium harmful?
Rostker, B. (December 13, 2000). Environmental Exposure Report. Office of the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses.
by Sara S. DeHart, MSN, Ph.D.
February 17, 2003
In recent months considerable debate has centered on the ostensible need for and safety of vaccinating US civilian and military personnel as protection against a smallpox epidemic. As in any debate, there are numerous voices expressing diverse perspectives: academics, lobbyists, governmental spokespersons, and communicable disease experts. Also, as in any broad debate, it is sometimes difficult to separate facts from illusion. In the current vaccination debate, politics and special interests are dictating medical and public health policy. This results in poor public health policy and bad medicine.
Because leaders in the Bush Administration took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," one might conclude that the government would never risk the physical or mental health of its military personnel or the civilian public-at-large for political reasons. After all, one of the stated purposes of government is to maintain public health and safety.
Given that caveat, is it reasonable for Mr. Bush to select a disease and order the dispensing of a vaccine that carries a high risk for serious complications to both the recipient and those with whom they have contact without evidence that the disease is present? The Institute of Medicine has gone on record to urge caution about the high risk of the smallpox vaccine and the vaccination program. Because of the significant number of side effects military and other "volunteers" have experienced in the current round of vaccinations this warning should be taken seriously,
Nonetheless, there is a growing body of evidence that the Bush Administration's ongoing campaign to convince the American public that there is a need for mass inoculation against biological warfare continues unabated. According to Administration officials, a smallpox threat emanates from Iraq and/or the Al Qaeda organization. One might view this campaign as part of the Administration's goal to manipulate public perception and establish a "just cause" foundation for a preemptive war against Iraq. Implied in the call for mass inoculation against smallpox is the assumption that Saddam Hussein has the intention and ability to wage biological warfare against America, the delivery system to get deadly biological agents to American shores and that smallpox is his weapon of choice.
As a political tool, smallpox has everything a propagandist needs to engage in hyperbole and instill fear in an uninformed public. Smallpox is, in fact, a deadly disease that according to the World Health Organization (WHO) was eradicated in 1977. In 1980 WHO recommended that all countries cease vaccinations because of the high risk from the vaccine itself and the low risk of the disease re-emerging spontaneously. The World Health Organization further recommended that all laboratories, except for two designated in the United States and Russia, destroy their stocks of variolla virus. Rumors persist, however, that other sources of the variolla virus exist in unsanctioned laboratories.
This fear has been expanded by the overwhelming volume of smallpox-threat "news" emanating from the corporate media. The timing of this "news" coincides with the Bush administration's campaign to convince the American public that preemptive war against Iraq is a "just cause". The timeline between Mr. Bush's announcement of his preemptive war doctrine in June 2002 and his directive in September for mass inoculations against an external bioterrorism smallpox attack has all the sound and fury of an egregiously orchestrated propaganda blitzkrieg.
Beginning in August 2002, the number of articles published by mainline newspapers increased exponentially. Major news sources in virtually every region of the country published numerous articles on smallpox, its causes, and deadly effects. Importantly, many are now aware of the 30% death-rate that results for those who develop the infection. An ill-informed public, the majority of whom cannot identify their congressional representative, has been inculcated about the danger of biological warfare, in general, and smallpox as a biological weapon, in particular.
If Bush and the neo-conservatives can convince the American people that the threat of biological terrorism is real and that the source of the threat is Iraq, the people will demand to be inoculated and enthusiastically call for Bush to dispatch US armed forces to Iraq. They will ignore the fact that a preemptive war is likely to increase the probability of a guerilla-like, terrorist attack on the U.S.
But before lining up for inoculations, Americans need to be aware of certain facts about the vaccine. First, the serious complications from the smallpox vaccination are not insignificant. The most frequent, serious complication from the smallpox vaccination is encephalitis that is fatal in 25% of the cases and causes neurological damage in 23% of those who develop this brain inflammation. Vaccinia necrosum is a progressive destruction of the skin and other tissues that spreads throughout the body. Eczema vaccinatum is a significant risk if one has ever had eczema or other chronic skin disorders. More rarely, the vaccination results in fatal vaccinia. The risk to persons who are immune-suppressed or have ever had eczema, and who come in contact with a newly vaccinated person, such as a nurse, is life threatening.
Second, consider the curious amendment to the Homeland Security Act enacted by Congress in December 2002. Included in this prototypically fascist legislation was a rider denying legal recourse to anyone who might have a negative side effect from the vaccine. Even though Congress has recently rescinded that provision, supporters of the legislation promise that this issue will be addressed in future amendments to protect the vaccine manufacturers.
Justification for this special-interest protection came from Senate Majority Leader Frist who asserted that protection against possible lawsuits was necessary because the pharmaceutical corporations, Ely Lilly and Wyeth, would not otherwise manufacture vaccines. Senator Frist, one might recall, is a medical doctor by education and, therefore, presented to the public as an objective authority on all matters pertaining to public and private health.
In reality it seems that Senator-Doctor Frist is, in fact, not concerned about the physical health and welfare of the American public as much as he is about the financial health and welfare of the pharmaceutical industry. Consider the millions of dollars that the pharmaceutical industry will make if 200 million Americans line up to be inoculated with a vaccine that is largely untested and has only recently gone into mass production. Wyeth stockpiles comprise the older vaccine inventories and are made from a scarified calf flank that invariably produces microbial contamination. Presumably, these are the vaccines to be used in the current round of vaccinating public health, medical and emergency workers.
It is not surprising that health care professionals designated as part of the "first response" teams are showing great reluctance to accept "voluntary" smallpox vaccinations. The Bush administration sent the first batches of smallpox vaccine to the states on January 21, 2003 to immunize some 500,000 medical volunteers. These teams are to be inoculated so in the event of a biological terrorist attack, they would be protected when they encounter patients infected by smallpox. In itself, this is not a bad plan except for the uneasy feeling among many health care professionals that this action is politically based to further the cause of preemptive war against Iraq.
The prestigious Institute of Medicine issued a cautionary report published in the January 18, 2003 San Francisco Chronicle: "Given this profile of high vaccination risk and possibility of very low to zero benefit, the administration's policy to offer vaccination to public health, medical and emergency workers must be implemented in a most prudent and cautious manner." Not to be distracted by the Institute's report, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a press briefing stating, in part, that homeland security and national defense concerns dictate that the voluntary vaccination program proceed quickly. She said, "We are, in fact, living in a dangerous world, where a smallpox attack is possible. We need to do what we need to do to get this show on the road". She further said, "We are not going to delay this program because of concerns about compensation."
Even though Dr. Gerberding chooses to ignore the issue of compensation for potentially damaging side effects, the American Nurses Association sent a letter to Mr. Bush expressing grave concerns about who will provide coverage for vaccinated nurses and their families if there are secondary infections or other serious complications. The senate version of the Homeland Security Act specifically mandates that anyone suffering a complication from smallpox vaccination cannot sue the pharmaceutical company, the hospital, or the provider. If anyone is going to sue, they must sue the government directly which is very difficult to do and economically prohibitive for most American citizens.
Dr Gerberding, like Mr. Bush, seems unconcerned about the potentially serious side effects of the smallpox vaccine. Nor has either addressed the larger question of what will be done if a different microorganism emerges as a biological weapon. The smallpox vaccine is not going to protect the US public against any other microorganism, and there are several deadly ones to choose from.
Not since Napoleon Bonaparte ordered the vaccination of his troops in 1805 and French civilians in 1806 has such a comprehensive vaccination program been instituted. A noteworthy difference between Napoleon's program and Bush's executive order is that in Napoleon's time, there was a real threat of a smallpox epidemic. By contrast, Mr. Bush's proclamation is founded on fear that his administration has invented, exploited and perpetuated.
[Dr. DeHart is Associate Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota and Affiliate Associate Professor of Nursing, University of Washington. She can be contacted at dehart.ss@verizon.net.]
Requiescat in Pace, R.I.P.
by Sara DeHart
December 19, 2002
January 1, 2001 I began to publicly wear a tombstone button depicting the demise of democracy in America: Requiescat in pace, Rest in Peace. It stated: Born July 4, 1776, Died December 12, 2000, Lynched by: Rehnquist, O'Conner, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. It named the five Supreme Court Justices who stopped the vote count in Florida; thereby awarding the 43rd presidency of the United States to George W. Bush.
This betrayal of America undermined the constitution. As a country we will never be the same. Vincent Bugliosi wrote that "none dare call it treason." But treason it was, and it was treason, unpunished (Bugliosi, 2001).
The button attracted attention. Some asked where to buy one and I handed them a button and silently moved on. There were others though who were troubled by the message and sneeringly negated it. A third group asked, "Who are Rehnquist, O'Conner, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas?" That was when I fully realized that the tombstone button was a symbol for an era that had ended. The America that I knew, like Tara, was Gone with the Wind.
How could any American adult not know the names of the five Supreme Court justices who stopped the vote count in Florida in a close presidential race? How could Americans not understand the significance of that decision?
We were bombarded by selective information through television, talk radio, newspapers and news magazines about the Florida vote recount and chads. For Americans not to know about this most relevant political event by January 2001 should have alerted even those living in underground bunkers that something was amiss.
Marc Ash reported: "America who had long preached to the world of its vaunted free elections had rolled over without a fight. A small group of ruthless industrialists had rigged the White House and handed the nation a clumsy lie. American democracy was gone, and we were the only ones who refused to see it. (Truthout, 7 July, 2002).
At the urging of the media, the majority of Americans decided to "get over it and move on." Our system was broken, and the corporate-owned, bought-and-paid-for media was only a symptom of the problem. They selectively reported the news, but we allowed them to get away with it. We did not stand up and demand a free and unfettered press. By January 1, 2001 our system of government, founded as a constitutional, democratic republic was well on its way to oblivion. The most recent election on November 5, 2002 confirmed what has appeared on the Internet for the past two years. Democracy is dead and we have now given it a silent burial.
About the time that George Washington gave his farewell to the Republic, a British professor, Alexander Fraser Tyler, wrote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."
And what was the price paid for American democracy? A $300 tax "rebate" that turned out to be a tax "advance". Whether it is $300 or much larger sums awarded to the upper income 1.5% of the population, it all translates into 30 pieces of silver. American democracy was sold for a paltry sum, and once the crown jewels of our republic were auctioned and dismantled, we can never retrieve them.
What is really sad is that the Constitutional Republic of the United States fell with nary a whimper from the American media. The theme for the day was "get over it," and without examining the cost, Americans accepted it. Before the American public knew what happened we had "First Amendment holding pens" and peaceful protest was decried as divisiveness.
Presidential edicts rolled off Mr. Bush's tongue as fast as the speech writers could invent them: Proposed regulations for arsenic levels in our drinking water were rolled back, the Kyoto Agreement went unsigned, and the National parks were opened to the timber and mining industries. It happened so fast that no one could keep track, let alone mobilize protests. The media took brief notice of these happenings and then moved on to note the newest edict.
Voices of dissent were raised, but the media paid scant attention. Then 9/11 occurred and the media went to war for the Bush administration. Note that it did not go to war for America; it went to war to proclaim the righteousness of Mr. Bush's holy crusade against "terrorism" and the "axis of evil". The fact that one can not wage a war against an abstract concept was ignored. Wars are waged against nation states, police actions target murders and thieves. Wars against abstract concepts (war on drugs, war on poverty, etc.) are doomed to failure. The enemy must be identified and defined. The media missed this point in each of the 'concept wars'. They marginalized those who dared speak out and dissent became truly hazardous duty.
The voices of Americans were stilled by a propagandized media. Those who did not comply, or who raised objections, were labeled "unpatriotic, fringe, kooks, and conspiracy theorists." Noncompliant writers, editors and TV hosts were fired. "Watch what you say" became reality.
The death of dissent in George Bush's America has been little noticed in the mainstream media. One of the few voices to be raised was that of Walter Cronkite, who in an address that received no attention from major news sources said:
"They (the Germans) applauded as Hitler closed down the independent newspaper and (broadcasting) stations and only gave them his propaganda. When they did not rise up and say, 'Give us a free press,' they became just as guilty." (Ferrell, Common Dreams October 28, 2002).
We, too, stand guilty because we have accepted the voices of CNN and Fox news without protest. We have allowed the FCC to remove every regulation in place that guarded the independence of the media. Now we have a consolidated corporate media that speak only for corporate self-interests.
On November 5, 2002, we, as a nation, faced the reality of a pre-emptive war against Iraq that could lead to WWIII, and 120 million Americans did not bother to vote. Blame for the outcome of that election that gave one political party control over all three branches of our government, with no oversight, rests with two groups: The media that have chosen to use their 30 pieces of silver to sell out American democracy and 120 million Americans who essentially felt disconnected from the system, and have chosen not to become informed voters. The United States of America can not recover from the legacy of these two groups. The transition has been made, from democracy to totalitarianism in two short years. We, as a people, stand guilty. We did not rise up and say to the Supreme Court Justices, "you can not steal an election of the people;" we did not say to the media "give us a free press." We accepted the edict of the Supreme Court without protest; we accepted the media's "get over it" bromide. We refused to acknowledge that a bloodless coup d'etat had taken place. At that point, the battle for democracy was lost. For those, who in 2001 said, "It can't happen here" and refused to acknowledge that it, indeed, had happened here, let it be known that the funeral has now taken place.
How will history view this period of America? The period that will be known as the "Fall of the American Republic" as surely as Rome's demise is recorded as the "Fall of Rome." The dream is dead. Historians will record the evolution from the Supreme Court decision that took the vote from the American people and gave the 43rd presidency to George Walker Bush as a signal marker. Historians will also note that the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon was perverted into a political tactic as cynical as the one Hitler used when the Reichstag burned in February, 1933. Hitler viewed the burning of the Parliament building as "an act of God" and used that event to set the political agenda for the next decade. Mr. Bush said "he hit the trifecta" after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. He took the stance of Caesar and, in America's name, began the conquest of the world.
Historians will note the ramifications of the secrecy and the hiding of documents by key administrative figures in the Bush Administration. They will puzzle over the lack of an independent investigation of the events leading to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. One day, historians will note the loss of civil liberties such as the right to dissent and privacy. They will look at domestic spying by the Office of Total Information Awareness and the return of political assassins to key positions in the current administration as they ponder how and why a once great and free nation marched into the abyss of totalitarianism. Will they also note that this happened, not with a bang on 911, but through a slowly eroding process that was little noted by the Fourth Estate? Freedom of the press, the Constitutional Right, so gallantly fought for by John Peter Zenger in 1731 was surrendered without a murmur.
What we witnessed on November 5, 2002 was democracy's funeral. The fact that 60.4% of eligible voters didn't bother to show up gives some idea of how dead democracy truly is in 2002.
A brave and noble experiment of government, by and for the people, lies dead and buried. Neither the requiem nor the events leading to its demise were even recorded as newsworthy by the mainstream media.
Let the obituary read: Democracy is dead-RIP-Born July 4, 1776-Died December 12, 2000-Funeral November 5, 2002. Mourners may pay their respects by standing in First Amendment containment zones. They may not carry banners nor signal their protest or presence in any way, lest they offend members of the Bush administration.
Sara DeHart encourages your comments: dehart.ss@verizon.net
by Sara DeHart
June 24, 2002
For a curious person, my first airport experience since 911 can best be described as "interesting." But interesting is one of those words covering a whole lot of territory. The new security checks seemed more window dressing than effective, but that is to be expected. What I didn't expect was my seat partner on the flight from Seattle to San Francisco.
Jeff was an amiable, sleepy youth and a recent graduate of a prestigious private university. He majored in Political Science and currently is a history teacher at a very expensive private school in the Seattle area. In response to his question about how I earn my livelihood, I said, " I am a writer."
That is a first for me…to actually identify myself as a writer. I've written articles and research grants as part of my professional academic career, but never before have I identified myself as a writer. Jeff, of course, being well trained in the art of conversation, asked me what I wrote about.
Ah, and with that question he heard much more than he ever wanted to know.
I mentioned that I was an investigative writer and currently was evaluating the aftermath of the December 12, 2000 SCOTUS decision on American democracy. And therein, lay one of the most unusual conversations I've ever had with any individual regardless of age or political bent.
Since Jeff is currently teaching History and was a Political Science major with a degree from a prestigious university that charges $30,000 for tuition per year, I practically salivated at the thought of picking the brains of a young, 20 something American male. And what an education it was!
Jeff asked, "What happened on December 12, 2000? What did SCOTUS do that should be looked at?"
I responded, "The SCOTUS stopped the vote in Florida by stopping the clock so that legal votes could not be counted; thereby, giving the election to George W. Bush. The SCOTUS selected the president of the United States of America.
Jeff squared his shoulders, looked me firmly in the eye and said, "But Bush won in Florida. That's what TV news reported."
I gently replied, "Jeff, that is not accurate, and if you read the recount reports you know that Al Gore had a majority of votes in Florida. But, let us not quibble about who won or did not win in Florida; lets look at what the SCOTUS did to the Constitution of the U.S. by that particular action."
Jeff retorted, "You are an Al Gore supporter, aren't you?"
"Jeff, that is not the issue. The issue is that five Supreme Court Justices decided the outcome of an American election." These five justices had taken a solemn vow to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. and to make decisions of interpretation about the constitutionality of legal rulings. This decision clearly violated their justice vows, as well as violating sovereign states rights. When the Florida Supreme Court decided to allow the voting to continue, the SCOTUS overruled that decision and stopped the clock on the count. This allowed Katherine Harris to say that she would not accept any further vote results even though various counties had completed their recount. If the SCOTUS had made the same partisan ruling for Al Gore, I would be taking the same position. This ruling is an act of treason by five Supreme Court Justices and there are a number of legal scholars who agree with me. This ruling could be the death blow to American Democracy."
"But, let's not focus on that issue for the moment, lets look at what has and is happening to our country since a president devoted to public policy based on corporate interests has taken over."
"I don't want to talk about politics."
I agreed that politics was a truly uncomfortable topic for many people-even those who majored in Political Science. I suggested that we change the subject and discuss world history.
"You teach World History. What do you know about Germany in 1933-1935? What do you teach your students about Hitler's transformation of a democratic republic to a dictatorship in less than 4 years? Did you know that 1934 was the last free election held in Germany until after World War II?"
I continued, "What event did Hitler use to grab total power in Germany?" "Are you aware of the significance of the Reichstag Fire?"
Again, Jeff squared his shoulders, looked me in the eye and answered firmly, "The Communists burned the Reichstag and the German people were incensed that a terrorist could attack their country."
"Ah yes, and who helped a man who was clearly mentally ill (and probably a paranoid schizophrenic) start multiple fires using the underground tunnels underneath the Reichstag? And why were there no police or other security people guarding the Reichstag that night?"
Not waiting for an answer, I continued, "Many historians believe that Hitler's own SA troops helped him start the fire. Then within hours of the Reichstag's burning, he was found, tried before Germany's Superior Court, declared guilty and executed. There was no real investigation of what happened. Hitler referred to the Reichstag fire as "a beacon from heaven." Most historians agree that he used the Reichstag fire for political purposes. The day following the fire, civil liberties were suspended and Hitler, along with the Gestapo, was in total control of Germany's destiny. And that destiny turned out to be World War II."
"You are not inferring that what happened in Germany could happen here, are you? You are not inferring that Bush is another Hitler. He has not identified a group to prosecute. This is America. This will not happen here."
"Are you sure, Jeff? Where do you get your news? TV? Newspapers? What do you read?"
"I don't watch TV news. I don't read newspapers."
"Then you've not read anything from European news sources about Bush's 'war on terrorism' or any of the accounts of warnings that the FBI, CIA and Department of Justice had prior to 9-11?"
"Oh, you're talking about the Democrats trying to turn 9-11 into political advantage?' All those warnings that we were supposed to have gotten were just 'chatter.' How many warnings do you think that we get every day? What could President Bush have done…shut down the airlines?"
"They got many alerts and some are so reliable that Bush directed members of his cabinet to stop using commercial airplanes in July. Attorney General Ashcroft, for example, traveled exclusively by private jet following the July 5 meeting held by the government's top counter terrorism official, Richard C. Clarke. In that meeting with high-level leaders from the FAA, Coast Guard, FBI, Secret Service and Immigration Clarke stated: "Something big is going to happen and it will happen soon. And it will happen on U.S. territory. It will involve the airlines" (Washington Post). Now, did Bush alert the airlines to increase security so that the cabin doors could not be breached? No! Did he do anything other than alert members of his cabinet not to fly on commercial planes? No! Did he quietly order a resumption of the U.S. Air Marshal system? No! Now why is that?
"And while you are thinking about that aspect of pre-9-11, why do you think that Secretary of Defense threatened the Senate with a presidential veto if they diverted $600 million from the ABM (Starwars) project to antiterrorism?" The alert was out in high levels of the government, a select group had been briefed…yet no additional resources were devoted to antiterrorism. Don't you think this is curious?"
Jeff squirmed a bit and said, "I don't have the information at hand to refute what you are saying." Somewhat more belligerently he added, "Since you are a writer I would like to read one of your articles." I handed him "Now and Then," the preface article that David Jenkins and I wrote that leads into the series on parallels between Germany 1933-35 and the U.S. 2000-2002.
He read it and blanched. He asked where it would be published. I told him that the entire series would appear on
Bushwatch.com and suggested that he look at that site because of the number of national and international news articles that appear there on a daily basis. He had never heard of
Bushwatch,
Buzzflash,
OnlineJournal or
AmericaHeldHostile.
The idea of getting a broad perspective of the news via the Internet was a foreign concept to him.
Do I think he will do this? No! Do I think I've changed his mind about the SCOTUS December 12 2000 decision? No! Do I feel confident that a high school history teacher in a highly touted private school is able to discuss either Nazi Germany or current events for his own country with adolescents? No!
Does the electorate of the future rest on this weak and shaky base? An uncurious and ill informed teacher is helping to shape the minds of the next generation of voters. Does he speak for the majority? I hope not! But God help us if Jeff is the prototype! We are lost as a democracy if this is where the strength of America rests. Have the Far Reich propagandists won their war for the minds of American youth? Have Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers lost their gamble on their noble experiment in democracy? Will it die in the 21st Century? Along with Jeff, will apathetic American citizens allow it to die at the hands of George W. Bush's Far Reich administration?
I hope not! But if knowledgeable Americans do not begin speaking out about the current threats to American democracy, we will be just as guilty as Jeff. Thomas Jefferson deserves more from us. Let us use our voices while there is still time.