"When a legislature decides to steal some of our rights and plans to use police force to accomplish it, what's the real difference between them and the thief? Darn little! They hide behind the excuse that they're legislating democratically. The fact they do it by a majority vote has no moral significance whatsoever. Numerical might does not constitute right, no more than a lynch mob can justify its act because a majority participated." ~ H.L. Richardson
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states, in part, 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .' If Congress didn't do it, who did?
Someone must have made a law that is 'abridging the freedom of the press,' otherwise, surely, there would be open debate in the US media regarding the 'special' relationship between the best Congress money can buy and the Jewish state of Israel. If there is not such a law, why is it that this vitally important topic is off limits in public debate, and you have a better chance of finding an honest politician than you do finding this topic openly and honestly discussed in the media?
The politicians know that Israel is chosen by Congress and the White House to be above all nations upon the face of the earth, even above America, in fact being America's sacred cow, and that only a politician who's looking for early retirement will openly violate this pseudo-religious political reality.
John Kerry made this disgusting fact perfectly clear in his speech at Temple University, when he said, 'Our alliance with Israel--the survival and security of Israel--are non-negotiable.' What kind of 'democracy' is it that has any topic beyond the reach of reason and discussion??? Why is the US catering to the Jewish state non-negotiable?
During the comic, yet boring, debate with Alfred E. Bush, Kerry again showed his submission, and his willingness to continue America's submission, to Israel and its powerful lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. During the debate, while giving his reason for wanting to have American soldiers and Marines stay in harm's way in Iraq, he gave as his first reason, Israel. He said, 'because it's important to Israel,' followed with it being important to America and the world that his plan for Iraq replace Bush's plan.
Israel comes first to the career US politicians. This fact seems like it would be a great investigative report for a journalist, but, to date, none of them have stepped forward to accept this important assignment. Perhaps it is true that journalists today are nothing but stenographers for the politicians and the powers that be.
It doesn't seem like Kerry can catch Bush in their embarrassing race to win favor with AIPAC. Kerry can only promise to do what George has already done, that is to start a war and send American military personnel to fight and die in it, for Israel. During the debate, while stating the benefits the war in Iraq will bring about, Bush said, 'A free Iraq will help secure Israel.'
That is the driving force for the war. It wasn't any of the lies Bush and the government told prior to the war, such as WMD, a connection to the 9/11 attacks, etc. To understand the government and politicians you have to learn how to read between the lies. When you do this regarding the unnecessary war in Iraq, it becomes painfully evident the reason for over 1,000 dead Americans is a pathetic rich kid wants to be reelected president. To do that, he must please one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, special interest groups in America--AIPAC. If we had journalists and a free press in this country, these dealings would be all over the front pages and lead stories on the evening news. But because journalists are very much like the politicians, their careers come before everything else, even the truth, you have to search far and wide and in vain for articles that delve into this inviting material for real journalists. But the truth doesn't go away, even when it's ignored by cowards and careerists!