Today's Note From a Madman

Monday, June 20, 2005



We Know Where He Is


"When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play. We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways."
-Porter Goss, CIA Director and former Congressman

Wow! Either this is the most glib statement ever or the dumbest. Glib to think that you can say something like this to the American people without acting on it; or dumb for saying it if you don't have all the facts. Or maybe its just a lie.

Wasn't it the Right who said "Bill Clinton knew where Osama bin-Laden was and could have had him killed at any time."? Why yes, I think it was.

So now we hear that the head of the CIA knows where public Enemy Number One is and he won't do a thing about it because he fears that he might be treading into a foreign country's sovereign boundaries? Whatever happened to "We'll hunt them down where ever they are." That's what John Kerry said he would do if elected president in 2004. President Bush echoed those thoughts, never once saying he would cow-tow to an enemy's borders.

Let's play the process-of-elimination game. First we eliminate all the countries outside of the middle east. We can be pretty certain that Osama bin-Laden isn't there. Could you imagine if France or Germany were not letting the US come in and get him? We know he's not in Israel. If he were in Pakistan, Mushareef surely wouldn't risk the wrath of "G"lobal "W"arming Bush by not turning him over. Iraq nor Afghanistan have him because their sovereign boundaries belong to GW.

So who could have him? Well, Porter Goss says he knows, but he isn't telling. After all, if he tells, then Osama bin-Laden might move. Of course, if he does move, then we could get him on the run. If Porter Goss doesn't tell, however, he looks smart and he doesn't have to back anything up.

Ah grasshopper (Goss), you learn from the Masters well (Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc).

Let's assume that the sovereign borders that we would never cross are not harboring bin-Laden. Russia, China, all of Europe, Australia (our buddies from down under) surely wouldn't give safe haven to the worst enemy of the United States.

Then who's hiding him? I've narrowed it down to 2 countries. It either has to be Iran of Saudi Arabia.
1-Iran could hide him and we just don't have the manpower to go in there and do anything about it. Let's face it, the Bush administration has left our military so thin in battles we needn't have fought he is making it difficult to fight the battles we must fight.
2-Saudi Arabia would be the perfect place to hide Osama bin-Laden. For all the royal family's saber-rattling, they have done little, if anything to curb terrorism worldwide. In fact, Saudi Arabia holds telethons for terrorist homicide bombers' families who kill babies in Israel! Osama bin-Laden's family lives and prospers in Saudi Arabia, their home country. And let's not forget that the bin-Ladens and the Bushes are friends from way back. George Bush (41) and Osama's brother even served on the board of the Carlisle Group together. On September 11, 2001, the Carlisle Group was having a meeting in Washington, DC. In attendance were Former President George H.W. Bush and members of the bin-Laden family, who, at that time, were major investors in the defense contractor. We couldn't very well invade Saudi Arabia. They might ask for their 3 trillion dollars back.

These are the only 2 countries with "sovereign borders" that come to mind which might harbor Osama bin-Laden that "G"lobal "W"arming Bush might not wander into. The former we can't invade and the latter, we won't invade.

-Noah Greenberg

Message from the front, wherever that is. . .

Enraged, (some) officers watch American reserve and national guard units and individuals dumped into the melee of Iraq. First off, they know there are wives and kids at home, whose family finances have been dumped on them. Second, they know that the guys are out of shape, not adequately trained and ill equipped. Third, they know that these guys did not sign up for the likes of Iraq. Training once a month or once every six months on American soil is more fun than the honey-dos, and what is more, Uncle Sam pays you to do it.

Almost none of these enraged officers know why everybody with a dusty uniform is jerked out of real life and sent to Iraq.

One who does, wrote. . . (this will be particularly disturbing to those who have lost loved ones there) Iraq, is the new training ground and the Bush administration has no intention of shutting the op down till every single member of all armed forces have been cycled through.

You may have noticed bases closing across America? You may have noticed that all troops stationed in Germany will be, over the next ten years, pulling out of there permanently?

There are two training objectives in Iraq. One is to desensitize troops to control of an armed, hostile, civilian population. Breaking into homes, patrolling civilian streets, orders to kill only some of the persons they will encounter, named terrorists/insurgents none of whom actually wear uniforms.

The other is to break the loyalties of each military person, with family ties whether those are familial or spousal. One year is considered by psyops to be the minimum amount of time embedded in current military ops in Iraq, to accomplish this. More is better.

The target population if Iraqis wear out, (and they show no sign of doing so) is Syria, where instability is already brewing due to a high unemployment rate and recent rejection of many of them, out of Lebanon.

As more and more men and women (although the military still does not really want the women around) cycle through, the percentage of loyalties to American families goes down, and this is the objective of Bush's so called 'war' in Iraq.

Halliburton, busy with construction crews who build permanent American facilities in Iraq,
(download Keyhole at Google and have a look for yourself) maintains hundreds of prostitutes for officers who are or can pass for American. They are free with a fill-up at any Halliburton run fuel depot. This is part of the op, as well as:
with US tax dollars, Turkish prostitutes, (and a growing number of Iraqi mixed) are supplied for regular troops. Predatory behavior toward GI Jane's by GI Joe's is not only overlooked but encouraged in ground units.

Fostered attitude? Who needs a wife somewhere in the US when there are whores for free down the street. How many months of separation does it take for the male mind to disengage from loyalty to a girlfriend, fiancÚ or wife? How many seamen of ancient days, trapped on ships for months at a time, envisioned seals as mermaids? How long would it take for a snake to look good enough, for most men, with encouragement?

The death toll of fighting in Iraq, counts only those who actually die on the ground. Death after evac numbers are withheld from the press. The true number is over 6500. Friendly fire is decimating those who will not give up, those who will not allow loyalties, to wives, to friends, to families in the US, to be broken.

Bush/Rumsfeld/Rice, the newly identified axis of evil, (there are military [in]subordinates plotting exactly how they would like to kill Rice in particular, and e-mail each other about it for fun between raids) meanwhile only have three years to get Bush's replacement into office, who will continue the grand plan.

Dare I tell the reason for this change of training techniques and the reason for the shroud of secrecy?

As everyone who reads any real news or listens to anything but country-western music, knows, the WTO continues to try to force open trade worldwide. They incite actual street rioting everywhere they go, but they continue to press on. Select worldwide leaders meet in secret places, and plan how global financial structures will be manipulated to accomplish the ultimate NWO that will shelve the Constitution of the United States and sovereignty.
Constitutional rights will not exist in the NWO. Heard of the G8? They plan to plan your life, and mine and hers and his.

Upper echelon military personnel have already accepted globalization as a fact of life. Not the commercial globalization we hear about, the free trade agreements, but the world divided into regions, each with it's own set of dictators. There is one exception. Israel. Rice continues to destabilize the position of Israel with demands and threats for the resettlement plans of Gaza and the West Bank, while our tax dollars fill the coffers of the Palestinians.
(Make no mistake. Islam is as much the enemy of liberty as the global elitists) Israeli leadership will make deals, will compromise, but will not capitulate. Ever.

Canada, the US and Mexico are to be the North American Region, although what fool in the NWO thought Mexicans and non-Hispanic whites would ever get along for very long about anything is anybody's guess. It was bad planning. The G8 is rife with bad planning as was evidenced by the vote of France and Brussels recently, killing the Euro Constitution, not to be confused with the US Constitution.

When the announcement is made, by the elitists who are trying to establish the NWO, it will be our newly trained military, desensitized to control of a hostile, armed population, where loyalties have been sundered by training in Iraq (or Syria, depending on how long this op goes on) that will maintain order in the US, when Americans begin to insist on Constitutional Rights. Closed military bases are being redone, into holding camps where dissenters will be repatriotized with whatever methods are necessary. Torture-lite anyone?
Techniques are being developed in all the notorious places and are a part of this training op.

Currently it is estimated by Command, that of the military personnel who have not been to Iraq for their special training, only 30% will obey orders that require military action on US citizens. Of those who have received their special desensitizing training, where loyalties to US populations are abridged, including families and wives, 80% is the estimate of those who can be counted upon to execute orders. Against anyone. Including US citizens. Including former families and wives.

This is real. This is in progress. This is in part classified information, retold in civilian terminology.

The impeachment of the Bush administration would not stop it cold, but it would send an important message (like the recent voting record of the people of France, and the people of Brussels-viva la both) and will delay them significantly. The Minutemen in their efforts to stop the flow of illegals over the Mexican border have sent a significant message. Elitists fear unity among the people of America, against them. We are armed, and can be hostile, but further, we are educated, despite federal intervention for 50 years in the public school systems. And, our tax dollars fund their overthrow of independent nations, which will include ours, at their convenience, if we the people, do not act to rid ourselves of their intended destiny for our lives.

One more point especially for Christians. The Constitution of the US is the only body of law that has ever in recorded history protected religion from law. When the Constitution fails, so does that protection. Those Christians out there who are supporting the Bush administration, support a literal regime that intends to wipe your Christianity from the world as well as your rights to worship.



In response to "Cinco de Mayo Madman" on the subject of pro-life, but pro-ALL-life, Eddie Konczal writes (a little late, I might add):

Sorry for the long delay (no pun intended) in responding to your below question (I have been thinking about it for a while). As a Catholic liberal and a pro-life progressive, the abortion issue has been a constant source of anxiety to me. In the past, it prevented me from getting heavily involved in Democratic politics and liberal causes. The breaking point came in 2004, when I felt I would be violating my conscience NOT to support John Kerry, despite his adamant pro-choice views and Bush's allegedly pro-life stance. I supported Kerry for many reasons, none of which related to abortion, but most of which related to the future of the country and Bush's incompetence.

Where am I on your chart? Somewhere in the middle, probably a little left of center. I admit that I'm pro-life largely due to my Catholic upbringing. But that stance doesn't translate politically; I cannot enforce my morality on others. I would never dream of supporting legislation that banned "coveting thy neighbor's wife" or "coveting thy neighbor's goods" or "worshiping false gods", for example!

I have retained my views because I view abortion not only as a moral issue, but as one of civil rights. This is perhaps the most difficult of issues because two beings' civil rights are in direct conflict: the rights of the mother (women's rights) and those of the unborn child (right to life). I agree that women's rights are important - but so is the right to life of the fetus. The question is: where do you draw the line?

My personal view is that abortion should only be permitted in the most extreme circumstances: rape, incest, and life of the mother. I feel it is wrong to use abortion as a form of birth control. I am also adamantly opposed to "partial birth" abortions, and I support the ban on them.

Where I go from here is the difficult question. While I oppose the legality of most abortions, I also feel that putting women and doctors and jail is not the answer. I think the system must provide compassion to women in dire circumstances - as you suggest - and must provide resources that make the choice of life economically feasible and viable.

I think the country can move towards a compromise if we begin with common ground. I think most people support allowing certain abortions in dire circumstances, but also oppose abortions of "convenience" or partial-birth abortions. I also feel that most people don't want to treat women who have abortions as hard criminals. Finding common ground was something that began in the early Clinton years, and may have been responsible for the decline of abortions during Clinton's presidency.

So, how do I implement my stance politically? Well, I no longer allow my views to prevent me from getting involved in Democratic politics. I believe I can work alongside pro-choice Democrats; people can disagree on certain issues while working towards common goals. I support groups like Democrats for Life of America and Catholics for Faithful Citizenship - groups that maintain pro-life positions while supporting a majority of other Democratic positions. And while you won't see me at any NARAL rallies, neither will you see me barricading abortion clinics. I feel that extremism on both sides of this issue is harmful, and prevents us as a country from moving toward the common ground we desperately need to achieve.


The Economy Goes "BOOM"

The index of leading indicators fell 0.5% in May exceeding the expectation of a 0.3% decline. This index has fallen four out of the last five months. Components providing downward pressure are higher weekly jobless claims, higher energy prices and "choppy" consumer/business confidence numbers.

This index is designed to predict future economic growth. All signs point toward further deceleration in 3Q. The Federal Reserve board stuck with the "measured" rate hike language indicating future rate increases. Coupled with stagnant/declining wages, there is reason to suspect tough times ahead.

So, where is the booming economy heralded by the White House? Perhaps, they are facing east toward Asia when they talk about the Bush economic boom. Bush's policies have created an economic boom but it is for nations other than our own.

Thank you very little President Bush.

-Robert Scardapane



The draft "becomes something plausible'"
-Tony Blankley, the Washington Times, on the McLaughlin Group, June 19, 2005

In context, the question was something like this: "Do you think there has to be a draft, considering the escalation of the insurgency in Iraq?" After "hemming and hawing" like a Republican president, Blankley finally had to answer the question. Right after the statement, he had this "Even I don't believe me" smile on his face.

"He was wrong on Freedom Fries and he's wrong on this (the removal of Iraqi troops, starting by October 1, 2006)."
-Blankley on McLaughlin


Funny how I don't remember Blankley or anyone else at the Washington Times or the New York Post screaming a yelling how dumb it was to rename "French Fries", "Freedom Fries" back in 2002. I did a Google search and everything! I even did a search in the Washington Times site.

"I wish it had never happened."
-Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) on coining the phrase "Freedom Fries", to the Raleigh News & Observer

"If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong, Congress must be told the truth."

-Rep. Jones

Maybe we could put the "French" back in the "Fries" and put the "Freedom" back into American Society.

-Noah Greenberg

More Quotes

"The mission isn't easy and will not be accomplished overnight"
-"G"lobal "W"arming Bush

What about the "Mission Accomplished" banner, GW?

-Robert Scardapane

Even More Quotes

We're on the "Right track to growth."
-"G"lobal "W"arming Bush, on the economy

Before "growth" we have to finish with "recovery". Before you finish with "recovery", you have to start the "recovery". The only "growth" that the middle class has seen is the "growth" of their share of the tax burden. The only "growth" the country as a whole has experienced is the "growth" in the National Debt and the "growth" of our trade deficits. The only economic "growth" you could speak of, Mr. Bush, is that "growth" the top one percent have received, at our expense, of course. India's economy has "growth"... good for them. China's economy has "growth"... good for them too. When does that "growth" come home to the United States, President Bush?

You want "growth"? I don't know if we can wait that long, GW.

-Noah Greenberg

Send your comments to: or

-Noah Greenberg