These people, I guess are associated with these people.

That particular dream came to a 22-year-old activist named Brian Kim last September. He remembers seeing thousands of people gathered at the Supreme Court with inscribed tape over their mouths, a symbolic representation, he later decided, of the unheard voices of unborn babies. He has no doubt it was a message from God, though he admits to choosing the color later on. “I dream in black and white,” Kim says.

So far so good. It’s coherent enough, and goes right alongside all the biblical stories of God’s Nighttime messages to various prophets and Actors. But then things get a little loopy here:

Another member of the group recently dreamed that Grover Cleveland came to President George W. Bush and said, “There is some- thing about my administration that you need to know about.” In their regular morning meeting, the group was baffled. “Who the heck is Grover Cleveland?” Kim asked. “So one of our guys did some research.” It turned out that the 24th president is the only one to have fathered a child in the White House, a daughter named Esther. God was telling them, they decided, to live like the Bible’s Esther, a Jewish beauty whose courage helped save her people from certain genocide in Persia.

Grover Cleveland? Who the heck dreams about Grover Cleveland? It’s like when Lisa Simpson was saying in her dream “No, George Washington. I won’t let you down.” and Bart Simpson said, “Even in your dreams you’re a dork.” But at least that’s George Washington.

Beyond which… they want Sam Brownback to be the next president of the United States. Keep them in your prayers, I guess.

In the election year of 1976, Jimmy Carter ran a successful campaign for presidency which was based on his image as an “outside-the-beltway” peanut farming, ex governor of the state of Georgia. Yet, since the fall of 1973, Carter had been associated with David Rockefellar and otehr members of an international power elite through his association with the Trilateral Commission, an alliance of several hundred top political and economic leaders from North America, Japan, and Western Europe. Their aim is to explore common problems facing the three areas and to advise political leaders of possible solutions.

According to the Italian publication Europa, as cited in the Review of the News, Rocefellar and Zbigniew Brzenzinski, a founding director of the Trilateral Commission, had agreed on Carter’s potential as our next president as far back as 1970. Supportive of Carter’s close relationship with this little-known power elite is the fact that many members of his administration were drawn from the membership rolls of the TLC. Carter’s personal choice for vice president, Walter Mondale, was also a member of the TLC.
……..
Project Censored, 20 Years of Censored News, page 34.
……….

Um. Okay. What was Jimmy Carter’s purpose then? Sacrificial lamb? Was Carter thrown in power for the good of Zbigniew Brzenzinski? Toward an era of supply-side economics and bloated military budgets — to quell the post-Watergate thirst for “Democracy” and cynical-less “Decency” infused politics through observed ineptness?

Or, I guess… Carter wasn’t quite their man. (See 1980 New York Times Letter to the Editor).

Actually, Carter and Eisenhower are the two greatest presidents post-WWII, a very academic exercise to decipher and one that misses the point of our slighty-out-of sight system of government. “Out of sight system of government” is a glib way of waying “I dunno” and I’ll decipher the meanings of each administration through altogether different means than normal historians. Eisenhower made the “Military Industrial Complex” speech. Carter made the “We need to Conserve Energy” speech. Eisenhower was perhaps a coward — reportedly he was going to call it the “Military Industrial Congressional Complex” (today, since meanings of WWII analogies have faded to the point where today’s administration can feel free to cite WWII as parallel to his adventure into Iraq, the word “axis” might be used instead of “complex”), but he didn’t want to embarrass his friends in Congress.

Horray for Pat Robertson for saying what the majority of Americans wouldn’t say about any trouble-maker or terrorist. He’s one of the few Americans, besides Michael Savage, who is not afraid to speak out and state exactly what needs to be done in the world. Reminds me of that great actor Charles Bronson: He knew exactly what needed to be done in the movie “Death Wish,” and he took care of the problem.

BARRY SELTZER Aloha

At the pro-Bush rally several miles away, there were some heated moments when two members of Protest Warrior, a group that frequently holds counter protests to anti-war rallies, walked in with a sign that read “Say No to War Unless a Democrat is President.”

Many Bush supporters only saw the top of the sign and believed the men were war protesters, so they began shouting and chasing the pair out. One man tore up their signs. When Will Marean of Minneapolis kept repeating that he was on the Bush side and tried to explain Protest Warrior’s mission, one Bush supporter shook his hand and apologized.

But… that sign does not align with…

“This lady and the groups that have been demonstrating in front of the president’s ranch in Crawford and following him around are the very same people that were the dropout, turn-on, anti-war peace activists back [in the Vietnam War era],” Pat Boone said.

what with the chants of “LBJ LBJ How many Kids/Boys/etc Did You Kill Today?” and all.

Beyond which, this is a double edged sword that cuts the other way a bit sharper than it does this way.

We fight for Allah!
…………………

I. February 8, 2004, Meet the Press
Tim Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?
PRES. BUSH: They’re not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I am very aware of this basic law they’re writing. They’re not going to develop that, because right here in the Oval Office, I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi(*) and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

II. March 12, 2004 PRESIDENT BUSH: I want to thank my friend, Dr. Raja Khuzai, who’s with us today. This is the third time we have met. The first time we met, she walked into the Oval Office — let’s see, was it the first time? It was the first time. The door opened up. She said, “My liberator,” and burst out in tears — (laughter) — and so did I. (Applause.)
Dr. Khuzai also was there to have Thanksgiving dinner with our troops. And it turned out to be me, as well. Of course, I didn’t tell her I was coming. (Laughter.) But I appreciate that, and now she’s here again. I want to thank you, Doctor, for your hard work on the writing of the basic law for your people. You have stood fast, you have stood strong. Like me, you’ve got liberty etched in your heart, and you’re not going to yield. And you are doing a great job and we’re proud to have you back. Thanks for coming. (Applause.)

III. August 24, 2005 “This is the future of the new Iraqi government – it will be in the hands of the clerics,” said Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite member of the Assembly. “I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around.”
“I am not going to stay here,” said Dr. Kuzai, an obstetrician and women’s leader who met President Bush in the White House in November 2003.

(note: 2 and 3 lifted from here

IV. 25 August 2005
“Does the administration’s goal — I’ll ask you about the Iraqi constitution. You said you’re confident that it will honor the rights of women.”

“Yes.”

“If it’s rooted in Islam, as it seems it will be — is there still the possibility of honoring the rights of women?”

“I’ve talked to Condi, and there is not — as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about, you know, not ‘the religion,’ but ‘a religion.’ Twenty-five percent of the assembly is going to be women, which is a — is embedded in the constitution. OK. It’s been a pleasure.”

“What else are you going to do? Are you going to bike today?”

…………………………..

There’s time yet. The Kurds get some measure of autonomy ; The Shiites get an Islamic state and the oil they’re sitting on; The Sunnis get bitter resentment with which to stew in. Everybody wins!

(But Iran wins biggest.)

(*) Yes. Chalabi told him so. That’s how Bush knows. This is self parody.

IA. Donald Rumsfeld: April 24, 2003 “If you’re suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn’t going to happen.”

(*)A:, Ahmad Chalabi, Abdul Aziz Hakim, and Adnan Pachachi: WHERE ARE THEY NOW?:
August 27, 2005 “The negotiation is finished, and we have a deal,” said Ahmad Chalabi, the deputy prime minister and a member of the Shiite leadership. “No one has any more time. It cannot drag on any longer. Most of the Sunnis are satisfied. Everybody made sacrifices. It is an excellent document.” […]
The decision to move forward was a heavy blow for the Bush administration, which had expended enormous energy and political capital to forge a constitution that included the Sunnis. On Thursday, in a last-ditch effort to get a deal, President Bush telephoned Abdul Aziz Hakim, a cleric and the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to press him to offer a more palatable compromise to the Sunnis.[…]

Mr. Pachachi, one of the Americans’ closest friends in Iraq, said he was growing increasingly worried about the overweening power of the cleric-dominated Shiite political leadership, which maintains extensive ties to the Iranian Islamic government next door.

“They want to inject religion into everything, which is not right,” Mr. Pachachi said of the Iraqi Shiite leaders. “I cannot imagine that we might have a theocratic regime in Iraq like the one in Iran. That would be a disaster.”

Indeed, under the constitution now completed, Islam will reign as the official state religion and as a main source of Iraqi law. Clerics will in all likelihood have seats on the Supreme Court, where they will be empowered to examine legislation to make sure it does not conflict with Islam. They will be given an opportunity to apply Islamic law in family disputes over matters like divorce and inheritance.

…………………

POLITICS FROM THE TWILIGHT ZONE Radical candidates hijack Illinois’ Democratic primary; Richard Stengel. Reported by Lee Griggs/Chicago
Time 03-31-1986

Their campaigns cost a grand total of $200. They made few
speeches, avoided appearing on television, and distributed only a
smattering of pamphlets. They kept quiet about their platform, which
proposes mandatory testing of all Americans for AIDS and ”Nuremberg
tribunals” for those suspected of treason. Although the ballot in
the Illinois state primary listed them as Democrats, that designation
cloaked their true affiliation.
The two candidates who won the Illinois Democratic state primary
nominations for Lieutenant Governor and secretary of state in
shocking upsets are actually followers of reclusive,
ultra-right-wing, perennial Presidential Candidate Lyndon LaRouche.
Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart, two travelers from the Twilight Zone
of politics, narrowly defeated the handpicked nominees of Adlai
Stevenson III. Stevenson won the Democratic primary for Governor with
an overwhelming 88% of the vote.
The returns jolted everyone in Illinois politics. ”This is
insane,” said an incredulous Republican Governor James Thompson. ”A
disaster,” exclaimed Democratic Chairman Calvin Sutker. Stevenson
was both angry and adamant. ”I am exploring every legal remedy to
purge these extremists from the Democratic ticket,” said he. ”But
one thing I want to make absolutely clear. I will never serve on a
ticket with candidates who espouse the hate-filled folly of Lyndon
LaRouche and the U.S. Labor Party.”
The victory of the LaRouche candidates left the Democratic Party
in agitated disarray and may torpedo Stevenson’s chances. Though
candidates for statewide offices in Illinois are chosen individually,
the Governor and Lieutenant Governor must run in tandem in November.
Stevenson is considering forming a third party, a complicated
maneuver that would require renouncing his Democratic nomination and
organizing a slate of candidates for nine offices. But many
Illinois Democrats, including U.S. Senator Alan Dixon, regard that as
imprudent. Dixon urged Stevenson to run as a Democrat and promise to
eliminate the Lieutenant Governor’s office if elected.
After his victory, Fairchild, 28, an earnest-looking electrical
engineer who won the Lieutenant Governor’s spot, attributed the upset
to ”anger on the part of the public at the regular Democratic
slate.” For his part, Fairchild said, he would like to reach some
kind of agreement with Stevenson. Hart, 31, the new Democratic
nominee for secretary of state, was less gracious. A dark, alarmingly
intense woman who has been a LaRouche disciple since she was 17, she
spoke at her victory press conference in the flat tones of a military
commander: ”We will roll our tanks down State Street, and make sure
every citizen is armed, with reason and beauty. We will hang traitors
and hang people who are responsible for feeding our children drugs .
. .” There was more: ”He (LaRouche) will put the fear of God in
people like Henry Kissinger and the State Department, the biggest
hotbed of treason in this nation since Aaron Burr killed Alexander
Hamilton.”
The bizarre outcome was skewed, in part, by the Chicago races,
where Mayor Harold Washington campaigned against the regular
Democratic ticket (see box). In the statewide contests, regular
Democrats were too cocky; Stevenson did not bother to campaign for
his running mates, assuming, like everyone else, that they would be
ushered in on his coattails.
Apparently many voters around the state, unfamiliar with the
candidates, cast ballots for Fairchild and Hart because their names
sounded more ) comfortable to them than those of their regular
Democrat opponents, George Sangmeister and Aurelia Pucinski. The fact
that Hart and Fairchild were listed first, alphabetically, gave them
an edge with uninformed voters. A shoe salesman in Taylorville told
the Chicago Tribune he voted for the two LaRouchians ”because they
had smooth-sounding names. I didn’t know anything about any of those
candidates.” Chicago newspapers later sent reporters out to survey
scores of voters; none of them found a single avowed LaRouchian.
That is not surprising, even though LaRouche has run for President
in the past three national elections (garnering nearly 80,000 votes
in 1984) and his followers court attention at airports by displaying
posters such as NUKE JANE FONDA as a come-on for their often virulent
pamphlets. LaRouche, 63, a former Marxist, is now the leader of a
cultlike, worldwide organization that blames international
conspiracies of bankers, Communists and Zionists for the world’s
ills–including those of the farmers, which may have attracted some
votes in struggling rural Illinois. In 1984, LaRouche claimed on a
paid political broadcast that ”Walter Mondale is an agent of
influence of the Soviet secret intelligence services.”
Despite the crackbrained ideas, a former official of the National
Security Council maintains that LaRouche has ”one of the best
private intelligence services in the world.” His lieutenants have
had meetings with U.S. intelligence officials. His international
operation, run from a well-guarded estate in Leesburg, Va., provides
him with daily reports, while his printing company churns out books,
magazines and newspapers that produce both converts and income. With
perhaps 2,000 disciples, LaRouche ran hundreds of candidates for
office in 1984. Nearly 1,000 are expected to run this year. Though
few, if any, are expected to do well. Democrats in Newport Beach,
Calif., last week discovered that a LaRouche follower was the lone
Democrat to meet the filing deadline to contest a Republican
congressional seat.
Whatever the Illinois victories mean for LaRouche’s fanatical
movement, they exposed a dangerous weakness in the state’s electoral
politics. Even Governor Thompson, whose re-election bid for a fourth
term will benefit from the situation, was troubled. ”The bottom
line of all this,” he said, ”is that every politician in the state
of Illinois better sit himself down and say, ‘I’m never going to take
the voters for granted.’ ”
BOX: Destroying the Dinosaur
Ever since he became Chicago’s first black mayor, in 1983, by
successfully challenging the city’s once dominant Democratic machine,
Harold Washington has struggled to gain practical political control
of a sharply divided government. He has been blocked from doing so by
Alderman Edward R. Vrdolyak, chairman of Cook County’s Democratic
organization, whose followers have held a 29-to-21 edge over the
mayor’s loyalists on Chicago’s unwieldy 50-member city council. A
special election in seven aldermanic districts last week gave
Washington a rare chance to break the deadlock.
The election was ordered by a federal judge, who ruled last
December that the seven districts had been illegally gerrymandered to
reduce minority representation on the council. That very week
Washington, who had been steadily picking up popular support in
polls, was stung by a scandal over bribes allegedly offered to at
least one city official to influence the awarding of contracts for
collecting unpaid parking tickets. Washington was not accused of any
personal wrongdoing, but his image as a reformist mayor fighting a
corrupt machine was tarnished.
Nevertheless, by election week Washington was campaigning with
typical bombast, terming his own candidates ”the magnificent seven”
and Vrdolyak supporters ”crooks and lowlifes who climb out from
under rocks.” In the voting, the mayor’s candidates won in two
districts, and a third seemed certain to be elected in a runoff.
Vrdolyak’s men captured three districts. The pivotal seventh race, in
Chicago’s 26th ward, was a snarl of legal disputes and charges of
fraud, but Washington’s candidate was ahead by a hair. If the mayor’s
man eventually wins, the council would be evenly split, 25 to 25, and
Washington’s own vote could break any impasse.
”We have destroyed the dinosaur,” the mayor declared
triumphantly after the election. Not just yet. Washington may gain a
narrow majority on the council, but Vrdolyak and his followers long
ago passed a resolution requiring that any change in the powerful
committee chairmanships be approved by a two- thirds vote.