I Thessalonians 5:20, 21

Do not despise expounding of scripture, but scrutinize all things. Hold fast that which is right.

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

- I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.


See also Kerux Replies at Wordpress.com where all future missives will also be posted.

However, because Wordpress charges an outrageous $59.95 a year for a video upload upgrade, videos will only be linked, not embedded.

Friday, September 17, 2004

Learning From Our Enemies - Part 2

It seems that Osama bin Laden knows more about the reality of world governments, and American government in particular, than most Americans. He is not the first nor is bin Laden the only well known person to be aware of and make public the reality that the world’s governments are controlled by unseen entities hidden from public view.

Benjamin Disraeli, the first Jewish Prime Minister of England, in his 1844 novel Coningsby wrote, “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” This statement was not made by the ruler of a third world back water country where we might expect behind the curtain shenanigans from the ruling politicians, but by a prime minister of England, which at that time - the mid 1800s - had a world-wide empire.

Coming across the Atlantic and some 60 years later, we see that behind the government scenes, things hadn’t changed much. Another leader of a great and powerful country, the United States, declared the existence of a “government within a government.” No less a statesman than a president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, remarked in 1906, “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”

Even though the U.S. Constitution plainly states that “we the people” are the rulers of our once great country, there exists, according to Roosevelt, within the United States a corrupt “invisible government” intertwined with “corrupt business” that is not beholden to the people. Roosevelt goes on to declare what must be done about this corrupt fusion of government and business: “To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.”

As we can see by events and existing conditions of American politics in 2004, whatever American statesmen there have been during the last 100 years who have attempted to accomplish Roosevelt’s ‘first task,’ and I dare say there have been very few, have failed, miserably.

If what these leaders and many others assert is true, and I believe it is, it should be clear to any thinking objective concerned individual that there does indeed exist within the United States a ‘government within the government” and that this unseen government sits securely enthroned and has been for quite some time. It should be clear to any open minded individual that the United States is ruled by corrupt entities that possess no loyalty to the American people nor are they being held accountable for their self-serving actions.

Our ‘enemies” see America’s blind spots. It’s time “we the people” did too. It’s time we the people followed Theodore Roosevelt’s advice, and because there are no statesmen today, and because those that we have elected to govern us have been corrupted by corrupt business interests for their own gain, that we ourselves set about to “destroy this invisible government.”

The first step is for a majority of Americans to recognize that such a “government within a government” within our country does indeed exist. The first step is to get Americans out of denial. In the words of playwright Arthur Miller, “Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that The State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied.”

Too many Americans simply cannot face reality. They want reality to be what their visible government tells them it is: that their enemy is who their government tells them it is: somewhere else, faraway; speaks a foreign language, hates our freedom, our way of life - hates America and all Americans.

Given the vast propaganda machine in the hands of this powerful enthroned invisible government to obfuscate the otherwise obvious, to befuddle the foolish, and to defraud the voters, getting Americans out of denial will not be an easy task.

Next, Learning From Our Enemies, Part Three


Saturday, September 11, 2004

Learning From Our Enemies - Part 1

Learning From Our Enemies

Part One

“A wise man will learn more from his enemies than a fool from his friends.”

Baltasar Gracian (1601-1658)

Although, curiously, very little mention is made of Osama bin Laden by the Bush Administration or its propaganda machine now, bin Laden was put forth as the scapegoat for what happened on September 11, 2001. “All the trademarks of Al Qaeda,” “He did it!” Bush Administration plutocrats proclaimed with their fingers pointed directly at Osama bin Laden. The major media outlets, most notably FoxNews, then did what they do best - sell a story - and convinced many unthinking Americans that they knew who the culprits were – bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Since September 11, 2001, the United States military has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, killing thousands of Afghani and Iraqi people, both military and civilians, and as of this writing, including 1005 confirmed dead and over 7000 wounded of America’s young men and women. Justification for these invasions of sovereign countries and the resulting death and destruction was the allegation that America was now fighting, (preemptively - supposedly for the very first time in American history – before we saw “mushroom clouds over our cities”) a “war on terrorism.”

But Osama states he was not involved in 9/11, nor did he have knowledge of the attacks.

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks....The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." OBL

This statement by bin Laden was made during an interview appeared in the Karachi daily Ummat, believed to have close connections to Islamic groups in Afghanistan. The newspaper says it submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies. (Story filed: 16:42 Friday 28th September 2001 on Ananova. http://www.ananova.com/)

We can learn several thngs from the bin Laden quote:

1. He was not involved nor had knowledge of the attacks of September 11.

2. There exists a government within the government of the United States.

3. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of the attacks of September 11 within itself.

4. The same perpetrators want to make the present century into a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity.

5. This secret government, “the government within the government,” must be asked as to who carried out the attacks

6. The American system is totally in control of the Jews whose

7. First priority is Israel, and not the United States.

Let’s take bin Laden’s statements one at a time:

In the first sentence Bin Laden claims he was not involved in the WTC / Pentagon attacks. Nor did he have knowledge of such attacks. Given these facts, we can safely assume neither was Al Qaeda involved. If the leader had no knowledge, how could the followers be planning and organizing such an undertaking, much less carry it out w/o his knowledge. Taken at face value, that is in complete contradiction from what propaganda we were bombarded with immediately after the attacks and for several months following until the US invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Now we hear very little about OBL except he is in hiding somewhere on the Afghani – Pakistani mountainous border and that the US may provide him “captured” as a pre-election offering to the party faithful and outside unbelievers to support Bush’s contention that he is the “War President.”

We know now neither bin Laden nor Al Qaeda were connected with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Now, we don’t hear too much about bin Laden, and we certainly don’t see this quote of his repeated. Not even once anywhere in the US papers that I am aware of since this interview. Neither do we see any evidence presented that ties Osama and Al Qaeda to the WTC Demolition. Nothing.

Am I the only one thinking that, given all the billions the three letter plutocratic departments get to ‘gather intelligence” we should have some evidence by now? I mean, really, it’s been three years. Possible evidence provided by government plutocrats that qualify under the Rules of Evidence to be admitted into a court of law that criminally links Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda to 9/11?

You say the government isn’t going to reveal any evidence it may have linking a criminal to 911 before a trial. Granted. But has any other ‘evidence’ presented survived the scrutiny of the 9/11 Investigative Community, i.e. “we the people?” Methinks not. The case made by the US government for Al Qaeda / OBL being responsible for September 11 is unconvincing to say the least, and thought to be by many an outright fraud / hoax. Several web sites in existence since immediately following 9/11 show that most convincingly, as does the newest 9/11 investigative video released to date: 9/11 The Plane Site. http://www.policestate21.com/

Michael Ruppert, a trained police officer / detective turned investigative reporter, accused Dick Cheney of being the “Big One” behind the 9/11 attacks and claimed in a public speech before the prestigious Commonwealth Club in San Francisco to have “overwhelming evidence” he would “confidently and proudly” put before a district attorney or jury for use in an indictment.

New Yorkers at least think something is amiss. A recent Zogby poll reveals that 50% of those closest to ‘Ground Zero’ - New Yorkers - think “leaders in the US Government” were somehow complicit in the attacks or “had prior knowledge of the attacks and consciously failed to take action.” 66% of New Yorkers want renewed private investigations into 911 to “examine the still unanswered questions.” http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Number of 9/11 suspects brought to trial, convicted and serving time in prison since 9/11? Not a one. Why not? Could it be because there is no evidence against Al Qaeda or bin Laden?

Could it possibly be that Osama bin Laden is telling the truth - he had nothing to do with 9/11?

Learning From Our Enemies, part two, “Government within the government.”


Friday, September 03, 2004

Why Men Lose in Divorce

Three main reasons exist why men lose in a divorce: – first and foremost, they are not women; second, the feminist movement in America and third; the bias, the outright discrimination in the American legal system against men.

Men lose in a divorce because they are men, pure and simple. That reality was put to me this way by a prominent attorney who specialized in family law, “Woman begins with W. W stands for win. Women win: Men have a penis; P stands for pay. Women Win, Men Pay."

America, only some two hundred plus years old, very young in terms of cultures, has always protected the woman. Taking care of, providing for and protecting the female in his life, has been, for the most part, the married American male’s purpose, especially if he has a family. No doubt you have heard the sayings, “Ladies first?” “In the lifeboats, women and children first?” The same is true in the courtroom, women first.

When a divorcing male finds himself in front of a male judge, as is often the case, the judge - although perhaps, in some cases, unconsciously - has a natural instinct to provide for and protect the woman regardless of the fact that she might not be the most-fit custodial parent: And, in spite of the fact that, in theory at least, the male has equal rights and may be the better parent. This provision of course comes at the expense of the male. Penis Pays. The fact that his children quite often pay for this bias against the father in the American family law system is somehow overlooked or is it actually deliberate?

Consequently, when a divorcing dad finds himself in front of a judge, regardless of that judges’ gender, the chances of his getting a fair hearing, one that is equally protective of his rights and the rights of his children to equal unhindered access to both parents, and of his getting a judge that is truly determined to do what is in the “best interest of the child,” is rare indeed.

Should the divorcing dad find himself in front of a female judge, even is she is not a feminist, (a specie more rare than an honest politician) the female judge is still going to be protective of the female for the same reasons as the male judge. The male can take care of himself, can’t he? (He probably could, and his children too, if he wasn’t being discriminated against and beatdead by the system).

After you let that sink in, consider the currently cultural situation American men find themselves in today. Feminism in America has caused the pendulum to swing to the extreme, with few exceptions, away from men’s rights over to women’s rights. It has yet to begin it’s swing back to the center. It may have arguably paused at the end of its arc, but it has not yet swung back to any noticeable degree..

When a divorcing male finds himself in front of a female judge, there is a good chance she is a feminist and/or greatly influenced by feminism, and her leaning, if not the outright bias, is going to be in favor of the woman. This is the chance the feminist judge has been waiting for, to make up for all those past patriarchal inequities against women.

Feminist want men involved with the children when they are married - sharing the responsibilities of parenthood, cooking, caring for the children, spending “quality time” with them, (usually so they can go shopping), and doing housework. But as soon as the divorce rolls around, two thirds of which are initiated by women, marvelous mom now tries to make her ex-husband into an ex-father too, and she has plenty of government bureaucrats and government policy assisting her in her goal.

One of the first things she fights for, after the money, are the kids, who become the means to an annuity payment from the father to the mother until the children reach 18 years of age. If she gets the kids, she gets the goods. That is why she fights to prevent the dad from seeing the children as much as she possibly can. In many cases, she doesn’t want the kids - she wants the money the children represent. All the feminist talk about equality for men and women is thrown out the window along with the promise of sticking together 'through thick or thin and 'till death do us part' during a divorce. The man now is nothing more than a potential source of revenue for the woman.

Feminism has influenced family law in all fifty states and the Federal government for the benefit of women. So the American legal machine swings into action for her, under the euphemism of what is in the “best interest of the children.”

The third major reason men lose in a divorce is the American legal system. It is nothing more than an exclusive Club with access to the Club limited to those who pass the bar exam. Once in the Club, attorneys have all the privileges Club membership represents. A limited supply of other attorneys, and thereby increased income; laws passed by legislatures - the majority of whom are attorneys - for the benefit of attorneys; a mystic surrounding the courtroom and “the law” that is continually cultivated to exclude non-attorneys; and nomenclature and procedures that must be learned and followed.

Consequently, at the beginning of your divorce, when you are most vulnerable, and under tremendous stress, the first thing you are conditioned all your life to do, is “get an attorney.” “Only a fool has himself for a client” right? And although you have heard many of your friends complain, “My attorney didn’t do me any good,” “I could have done what he did,” “My attorney wasn’t even prepared,” “It didn’t matter what my attorney said,” or the recounting of countless other similar experiences, you feel intimidated by the system. So you plunk down your hard-earned money in the form of a retainer, without which the attorney will be too busy to take your case. Once he has your money, the web is intricately spun. You feel trapped. $200 dollars for a letter? $250 to sit in the court hallway and wait for the case to be postponed? $50 for a ten-minute phone call to my X’s attorney? I have to pay her attorney fees too? What the hell is going on?

What is going on is this: the attorneys are taking your money.

When will it all end? It will end when you don’t have any more money to give to the attorney, or you are debt to him for the next several months if not years. He is an attorney and the laws are written to make sure he gets his money, you can count on that. Both attorneys, your X’s and yours, do not want your case to end, they both benefit when it gets prolonged. Prolongation is the name of the game. “The wheels of injustice grind slowly.”

Consider further, the attorneys don’t want the divorce laws changed. They make too much money with the laws as they are. Family law attorneys in America collectively make more income than all the other attorneys in all the other legal fields combined. Family law attorneys have a good thing going. And with the American divorce rate greater than 50 percent, they have a very good thing going indeed. Do you really think they want it changed? Believe what you see, not what you think. And what you see is the attorneys taking your money.

Those who make the laws, the legislators, are mostly attorneys, members of the Club. When they return to civilian life, they usually return to practice law and to the rest of their buddies in the Club. You don’t really think they are going to change the laws that they and all their golf and drinking buddies make so much money from, do you?

Additionally, traditionally, women organize, men don’t. Men are not, for the most part, complainers. They just put their head down and take it. They are, after all, men. Men are not as good at playing the victim role, as women are. Men are too busy working to pay child support, ex-wife support, and fending off the beating the are getting to organize. (Remember the Promise Keepers?). Therefore, the legislators are more afraid of losing the vote of the organized feminists, The National Organization of Women, (NOW) then they are of the unorganized-Joe-twelve-packers of America. That is why men can petition legislators, write letters, email them, talk to them, try to influence and educate them until they are blue in the face, and the laws are not going to be changed.

What does government do best? It promises to take money from one group and give it to another group in exchange for votes. In this case the group with the money is the men and the organized group with the votes is the women and the attorneys who represent them. If a takes a beating to get the money, give a beating. Women and their attorneys win, divorcing men lose.

Take a look at the local scene. Your attorney has to deal with the local judges, the local District Attorneys, the guardium ad litems, and all the others involved with family law on a daily basis, week after week. He is going to be very reluctant do any thing to upset the status quo. He is not going to antagonize the very people who he may need to call on tomorrow for his next paying client, by going to battle for you as you would for yourself. The only personage in the courtroom who can get angry without recrimination is the judge. Your attorney doesn't want to get the judge angry at him, so he treads the middle ground, never really going for the jugular, never going all out to win, for he may win one battle for you, but he will latter lose many more battles if he does. Judges are not blind and not above getting revenge against attorneys who question their authority. Appeals in a divorce case are almost undeard of. That would be occupational suicide for an attorney who wanted to continue practicing before that judge.

As blunt as this may seem, you are only another source of income for your attorney. You are helping your attorney send his kids to college. You are here today and gone tomorrow. Oh, your attorney is probably a nice guy (or gal), has a couple of kids himself, tells you what you want to hear, and may really even have empathy for you. But the bottom line is, he or she is going to look out for his or her best interests first and foremost, and your best interests come a distant second. Can you blame them? Only you can represent your best interest best. After all, they are your interests.

Divorce in America is all about money, your money. When you give up your money, you lose. If you don’t give them your money at least you won’t lose that.

That is why I believe the only way to change the divorce game in America is for men to represent themselves in the courtroom. Complaining over a beer with your buddies, joining men’s rights organizations, petitioning attorney legislators, trying to change the laws, is a waste of your time and money.

Educating yourself, representing yourself, standing in your two square feet on the courtroom floor and doing battle for yourself is not only a great experience, like an extreme sport experience, it is the best way to make a change in America for divorcing beatdead dads. Flood the courtrooms with prepared dedicated dads determined to do battle for their rights and the rights of their children. No one else will or should do battle for your rights and the rights of your children. They are your children aren't they?

You will not only keep your self-respect, you will keep your money. And if you don’t give them your money, they lose. You may not win - no one wins in a divorce - except attorneys and the legal system when they get your money, but they lose if you don’t give them your money.

Don’t give them your money.