It is becoming increasingly clear that the fraudulent recall election
that brought Herr Schwarzenegger to power was just one aspect of a well-coordinated,
'bipartisan' effort to fundamentally transform the state of California.
In the name of curing all the manufactured ills of the Golden State, a
prescription has apparently been written, and Ahhnuld may just be the man
to fill it.
That prescription was unveiled in a 'historic' television event
that aired on KCET
's "California Connected" program on February
19, 2004. Assembled to reveal and lend legitimacy to the agenda was a
'distinguished' group of former California governors: Jerry Brown, George
Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis (Ronald Reagan was conspicuously
Although two of the four are known as staunchly conservative 'Republicans,'
and the other two are widely regarded as bleeding-heart liberal 'Democrats,'
the Fab Four presented a remarkably united front while spelling out the
plan for resolving California's woes. It was almost as if - though only
a conspiracy theorist would suggest such a thing - they had all been studying
the same script.
[Speaking of 'conspiracy theorists,' I need to pause here to note
that White House liar Scott McClellan, desperate to dodge persistent questions
during a recent press conference (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_08.html#002555
trotted out that pejorative term in a pathetic attempt to dismiss the line
of questioning. That got me wondering what McClellan would call someone
who promotes a half-baked theory that holds that Lyndon Johnson was JFK's
killer ... but then I remembered what he calls him: "Dad."
The members of the Former Governors Club unanimously agreed that
the single greatest impediment to 'reforming' state government was the
Legislature. No one on the panel had anything remotely positive to say
about the state's lawmakers. In fact, as it turns out, it wasn't really
Gray Davis' fault that the state is in crisis; it is actually the fault
of the Legislature.
Deukmejian, no friend of 'Democrats,' praised the man he addressed
as "my friend, Gray Davis," for attempting to govern "from the center."
The problem, according to Duke, was that the Legislature just "kept pressuring
him, and pressuring him, and pressuring him to spend more money," until
Davis finally capitulated. Pete Wilson readily agreed, explaining that
the real problem was not Gray Davis, but that "Gray had maybe the most
irresponsible Legislature within memory."
The Pete Wilson who said that, by the way, looked very much like the
Pete Wilson who just months ago played a prominent role in the recall effort
as a key Team Ahhnuld operative.
One of the biggest problems with the Legislature, according to the
Fab Four, is that lawmakers have managed to gerrymander their districts
to create 'safe seats' for themselves, thereby insuring their continued
incumbency. According to Deukmejian, "all the incumbents got together"
and worked out this devious plan to permanently entrench themselves. As
a result, according to Wilson, "the 'ins' stay in, and the 'outs' stay
out." And since the 'ins' all feel safe now, they are very difficult to
work with. All they seem to want to do is spend money the state doesn't
have and pass laws the state doesn't need.
On that issue, the four members of the Former Governors Barbershop
Quartet harmonized perfectly -- probably because all four are reprehensible
liars. The truth of the matter is that California has very strict term limits
that were enacted by the people of California through a ballot initiative.
State assemblymen get exactly six years on the job and they're out the door,
regardless of which district they represent. There is no such thing as
a 'safe' seat in California. Districts can be gerrymandered to create seats
for one party or the other, but there are no entrenched incumbents in the
California Legislature. Not a one.
And that, from the point of view of those who matter, is the real
'problem' facing California. Simply put, the lack of entrenched and thoroughly
corrupted incumbents has resulted in a Legislature that is entirely too
independent. If you pay close attention as Deukmejian explains how to
'fix' the Legislature, you may detect a very convoluted, and quite revealing,
Virtually all [incumbents] are in safe districts, so we don't
have real competition for those seats any longer. And in my opinion, there's
two things we can do, structurally, to help to improve this situation.
One is, we have term limits in California, and while I agree that term
limits has a good purpose, especially for those who overstay their welcome,
I think the terms are too short. And so I think we could have an initiative
that would combine increasing the term limits to twelve years - have that
as the maximum, rather than six years as it is now for the assembly, or
eight years for the senate - but also, as a part of that, let's have an
independent commission - independent from the Legislature - draw those
district boundary lines ... [then] Legislators would get longer terms and,
at the same time, there would be more competition for those positions.
Sounds great! Maybe we can get Tom DeLay to put together that 'independent'
commission for us, if he isn't too busy. And maybe if the longer terms
work out, we can just do away with the term limits entirely. That ought
to fix the problem.
In case that type of 'reform' doesn't create a sufficiently corrupt
Legislature, Gray Davis chimed in with another suggestion: "Let me give
you another possible reform. Jess Unruh instituted a lot of reforms in
this state. One of them that I think we ought to reexamine is the full
time Legislature ... I really believe that we ought to limit the amount of
time that people spend legislating." Deukmejian, Brown and Wilson, meanwhile,
advocated bypassing the Legislature entirely through the use of ballot
While weakening the Legislature is obviously a major goal, it is also
important that we not forget to, at the same time, expand the power of
the chief executive of the state. Jerry Brown twice tackled that subject,
with Pete Wilson both times providing the 'bipartisan' consensus:
Brown: California can be governed, but the executive has
to take responsibility ... like Governor Schwarzenegger is doing now.
Wilson: I agree with Jerry -- I think that you need a strong executive.
Brown: I think that's the imbalance -- a weakened chief executive.
Wilson: What [Schwarzenegger] is gonna have to do is what Jerry
Brown just said a governor should do: he should be an aggressive chief
Pete Wilson also tossed out another suggestion for reforming the state:
do away with the silly practice of actually electing various state officials.
Sneaky Pete had a better idea: "I think that the governor ought to appoint
most of the other constitutional - what are now constitutional - officers."
So there you have it, folks -- the prescription for 'reforming' California's
political system. Let's quickly review, shall we? We need to: (1) expand
the power of the governor's office, creating a "strong executive"; (2) bestow
upon that strong executive the power to appoint most, or all, other state
officials; and (3) weaken, corrupt, or, when all else fails, bypass the
I hate to rain on this parade, but that almost sounds like a formula
for the creation of a dictatorship. But I guess we shouldn't expect anything
less from the Former Governors Club. As Deukmejian candidly acknowledged,
"the real truth is that every one of us would have preferred to be benevolent
dictators in the office." Without a Legislature to hold them back,
according to Sir Duke, "we could have really made tremendous improvements
in California -- if we'd had all the power, you know."
Yeah, I do know, George. But I guess as long as we're talking about
a "benevolent" dictatorship, then it won't be so bad. And Schwarzenegger
seems like a benevolent kind of guy, so we probably have nothing to worry
about. In case you missed it, by the way, Ahhnuld revealed on Meet the
that he is in favor of Senator Orrin Hatch's proposal to scrap
the constitutional requirement that U.S. presidents be native born. So
I guess the Plastic Man is hoping to take his 'benevolent dictator' act
to Washington. Who would have guessed?
* * * * * * * * *
* * * *
I almost forgot to mention that the Former Governors Club had another
idea: open all of California to legalized gambling, with the state receiving,
according to Deukmejian, a "good, sizable amount of the revenue."
Another great idea from George Deukmejian! Why raise taxes when you
can entice the economically desperate to just give
the state money?
Jerry Brown, who helms a city with some of the most impoverished "inner
city" neighborhoods in the state, loved the idea. Oakland, he said, could
sure use some casinos: "Give me a few billboards on scenic highways and
a few gambling casinos, and we'll have no more fiscal challenges."
It's good to see that "Governor Moonbeam" is still thinking 'outside
* * * * * * *
* * * * * *
Before continuing, I really need to address the issue of
spam. Actually, what I would like to do is make an open appeal to the
spammers of the world. But first, let me say that I am doing everything
that I can to work with you guys. I really am. For example, I have learned
to live with your constant insinuations that I am neither adequately equipped
nor functional. I have also learned to live with the constant solicitations
for Vicodin, Vioxx and Oxycontin. In fact, I now put those to good use:
instead of just deleting them, which would be such a waste, I forward
them all to Rush Limbaugh. So as you can see, I am doing everything possible
to drum up business for you. And in return, I ask only one small favor:
could we please leave my colon out of this?
* * * * * * * *
* * *
Has anyone heard anything about Saddam
Hussein lately? I'm just curious, since he seemed to be the talk
of the town just a couple of months ago, and now he seems to have dropped
completely out of sight.
I have to confess here that I was a little baffled
by the capture. There is usually a certain logic to almost everything
that Team Bush does, once one accepts the ugly reality of the world
that we live in. But the capture of Saddam made no sense at all,
since the primary accomplishment, beyond all the media spin, was depriving
Washington of the last fraudulent justification for a continued American
military presence in Iraq.
The 'weapons of mass destruction' thing obviously hasn't
worked out. And the 'Al Qaeda connection' never really panned out
either. The only thing we had left was our noble goal of freeing the Iraqi
people from the tyranny of Saddam's cruel regime. So now that the King
of the Evildoers has been captured, and both his sons have been killed,
and all but ten of his 'Most Wanted' henchmen have been captured or killed
(according to the Bush propaganda mill), isn't it about time for G.I. George
to suit up, shove a sock down his pants, and unfurl that "Mission Accomplished"
banner once again? Isn't our work done?
Several claims made repeatedly by the Bush administration were
exposed by the capture as lies. We had been told, for example, that
Saddam was leading the resistance movement. But the suggestion that
an organized resistance movement was directed from a crude hole in the
ground seems as preposterous as the notion that the September 11 attacks
were planned in a cave in Afghanistan.
We had been frequently reassured that Saddam could lead us
to those elusive 'weapons of mass destruction.' But in a strange
turn of events, the weapons inspection teams were pulled just after
Hussein's capture, after not only failing in their mission to find
actual 'weapons of mass destruction,' but after failing to even find
any facilities capable of producing 'weapons of mass destruction.'
We had also been told that many in Iraq were not yet willing
to work with America in effecting 'regime change' because they feared
that America was not going to 'finish the job,' and that Saddam would
one day return. But it was immediately clear that the capture did nothing
to lessen the resistance to the U.S. occupation.
Saddam was obviously of far more propaganda value when he
was still at large. And that is why I, and I'm sure many others, were
left scratching our heads over the unexpected turn of events ...
until, that is, I discovered that it was actually Kurds who had captured
Saddam. And they had, obviously without running the idea past the
White House, loudly trumpeted that fact to the international media,
before any announcements were forthcoming from the Pentagon or the
So Washington, as it turns out, really had no choice
but to announce the capture of the not-so-elusive Hussein. Making
the best of an unwelcome situation, the capture was spun as such
a huge victory for Sir George that it all but insured him a second term
in office. Saddam was then quickly shuffled out of the media spotlight.
I did hear something recently about Hussein having cancer,
but then that story seemed to quickly disappear as well. Wouldn't that
be something if Hussein were to die of natural causes before being held
accountable for his alleged war crimes? It's kind of a shame, when
you think about it, that our intelligence people didn't pick up on the
cancer before the war, because then they would have known that 'regime change'
was coming even without the military assault. But I guess they blew that
one, just like they blew the call on 'Weapons of Mass Destruction.'
Oh, didn't you hear? It was all the CIA's fault. None
of the fine and noble public servants in the Bush administration lied.
They just drew erroneous conclusions based on the faulty intelligence
they got from those chronic bumblers over there at Langley. Those guys
are always screwing something up. In fact, this isn't the first time
they have blown a call on Bush's watch. You may recall that we already
played the Blame the CIA Game after that little 9-11 incident. You may also
recall that it is kind of a win-win game for Washington. The White House
wins by shifting blame elsewhere, exonerating all key members of Team Bush.
But then in a strange twist, Langley wins as well, since no one is fired,
or even reprimanded, and the agency is showered with billions of dollars
in additional funding and granted expanded powers, ostensibly so that we
don't have these types of screw-ups in the future.
I'm feeling generous today, so I am going to offer to save
a lot of time and taxpayer money by solving the great mystery of the Iraq
intelligence failure: they lied. They lied repeatedly. And when I say "they,"
I don't mean just a few Team Bush players. I mean that the White House lied,
the State Department lied, the Pentagon lied, the intelligence community lied,
countless think tank 'analysts' lied, Representatives and Senators lied,
'Republicans' and 'Democrats' lied, and last but surely not least, the entire
U.S. media establishment lied. And it was painfully obvious that they all
were lying because they weren't even telling good lies, but rather recycled
lies that had already been thoroughly discredited.
As for Saddam, his fate remains unclear. We all know that
we won't likely see him surface in a public trial. The only thing we can
be sure of is that America has lost a great bogeyman -- a great personification
of the 'War on Terror' and a great justification for both waging it
and expanding it. Luckily, we still have Osama bin Laden.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * *
The Los Angeles Times
, like the rest of the
U.S. media establishment, missed the story about the extraordinarily
violent police repression of the demonstrations in Miami outside the 'Free
Trade Area of the Americas' meeting. If I remember correctly, some surgically
altered member of the Jackson family was causing some kind of commotion
at the time, and every reporter in the free world was on top of that monumentally
Perhaps feeling guilty for the lack of initial coverage, the Times
rectified the situation on December 21, 2003 -- by burying a story
on page A36 in the "In Brief" section. The article, headlined "Police
a 'Disgrace' at Protests, Judge Says," is reproduced here in its entirety:
Police conduct was a "disgrace for the community" during demonstrations
in Miami at the Free Trade Area of the Americas meeting, according to a judge
presiding over several protesters' cases. In a court transcript, Circuit
Judge Richard Margolius also said he saw at least 20 felonies committed by
police. "Pretty disgraceful what I saw with my own eyes. And I have always
supported the police during my entire career," Margolius said. "This
was a real eye-opener. A disgrace for the community."
Judge Margolius' observations are indeed "a real eye-opener."
Such was the level of open criminality by the Miami Police Department
that a presumably casual observer of just a portion of the mayhem "saw
at least 20 felonies committed by police." That would be, lest there be
any misunderstanding, at least 20 felonies committed against peaceful,
unarmed, lawfully assembled citizens, including a good number of senior
citizens. At least 20 felonies committed by officers outfitted as faceless,
anonymous, futuristic soldiers.
But we don't live in a police state, so don't go thinking otherwise.
If we did, the Los Angeles Times
would surely be the first to let
* * * * * * * *
* * * * *
Speaking of underreported stories in the Times
another one turned up on February 29, 2004, in the "In Brief" section on page
A4. The article, concerning the airplane crash that killed Macedonian President
Boris Trajkovski on February 26, is reproduced here. Pay particular attention
to the first sentence:
Weather, human error or technical failure may have caused
Thursday's air crash that killed Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski in
Bosnia, but foul play can be ruled out, Macedonian deputy public prosecutor
Roksanda Krstevska said. Officials said they would wait for investigators
to finish their work before setting a date for elections to choose a successor.
The government set up a panel to work on meeting a requirement that the vote
be held in 40 days. Parliament Speaker Ljubco Jordanovski has been named interim
So here is the scenario: investigators are claiming to have no idea yet
what caused the plane crash. It could have been a problem with the pilot.
It could have been a problem with the aircraft. It could have been a problem
with the flying conditions. The door is wide open -- to any sort of accidental
cause. And yet "foul play" can already be definitively ruled out. Investigators
do not yet know whether the aircraft experienced any technical failures,
but they do know that no one deliberately caused the plane to experience
any technical failures. They don't know if the pilot committed any fatal
errors, but they do know that no one took any actions to cause the pilot
to commit any fatal errors.
As a general rule of thumb, whenever "foul play" is categorically ruled out
before any sort of real investigation has even begun, it is a fairly safe
bet that there was "foul play" involved. But that sort of thing, of course,
only happens in places like Macedonia -- never here in the good old U.S.
of A. ... right? I mean, unless you want to be a nitpicker and bring up Wellstone.
Or Carnahan. Or Boggs. Or Begich. Or ...
* * * * * * * *
* * * * *
The wife (who demanded that she be fully credited)
happened to stumble across a legal "Motion to Suppress" filed by attorneys
Owen Walker and Elizabeth L. Prevett in the case United States of America
v. Richard Colvin Reid, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts
(Criminal Case #02-10013-WGY).
I did not follow the 'Shoebomber' case when it was being flogged mercilessly
by the media, so I don't know if the information contained in the defense
motion received much circulation. If this comes as old news to you, then
I offer my apologies for the belated reporting.
One intriguing fact brought to light by the defense motion was that Reid,
after being "restrained by several male passengers and tied up by members
of the flight crew," was "forcibly medicated by an injection into his abdomen
of 10 mg Diazepam (Valium) and 0.4 mg Narcan ... Approximately an hour before
landing, he was forcibly injected with medication a third time, by an injection
into his abdomen of 25 mg of Phenegren."
Pardon me for asking, but is it normal practice for airlines to carry
powerful, injectable drugs on routine flights? And why is there no mention
of exactly who it was that injected Reid? Who on that airplane had the expertise,
the medical supplies, and the authority to forcibly drug someone? And why
is it not a felony offense to repeatedly assault a man of unknown drug tolerances
and allergies with a potentially deadly weapon? And why, if Reid was already
drugged and securely bound, and therefore no longer posing a threat to anyone,
was he drugged again shortly before landing?
The American Airlines flight, bound for Miami, landed instead at Boston's
Logan Airport at 12:55 PM. Reid was promptly taken into custody by Massachusetts
State Police officers. While in a police cruiser awaiting transport to the
State Police station at Logan, he had a brief, but interesting, conversation
with an officer: "Defendant asked several times why no media were present
and there was a short discussion about whether the event was a 'big deal'
or not. At some point, defendant said: 'You'll see, you'll see.'"
How did Reid know that his arrest, apparently considered no "big deal"
by arresting officers, would be inflated by Washington and the media into
a major 'terrorist' event? Did Reid know that he was very soon to be immortalized
as the "Shoe Bomber"?
After Reid had been held at the Logan station for a few hours, FBI agents
summoned emergency medical technicians to access his condition. The two
responding EMTs, who arrived at 4:20 PM, "were told that defendant had
been restrained and forcibly medicated in unknown dosages."
If officers had no idea what dosages had been administered to Reid, why
did they wait three-and-a-half hours to seek medical attention? And how did
they later arrive at the precise dosages listed in the defense motion? And,
again, who administered those drugs, and on whose authority?
After contacting their supervisor, the EMTs "made it clear to the FBI
that defendant should be taken to a hospital for evaluation ... At approximately
4:56 PM, the FBI permitted [the EMTs] to enter defendant's cell and take
his vital signs." Reid's "vital signs were off," and the EMTs again stressed
that Reid needed to be taken to a hospital. "The FBI told the EMT's that
the agents needed to talk to defendant for about 15 minutes before the EMT's
took him to a hospital." Reid was then taken to an interview room where he
was questioned by two FBI Special Agents and a Security Service Agent from
the U.S. State Department.
Reid never made it to the hospital. The EMTs remained at the station
for at least the first three hours of the interrogation. Their requests
to see the defendant and assess his condition were ignored by the FBI.
At around midnight, seven hours after the "15 minute" interrogation of
the heavily drugged, and unrepresented, defendant began, Reid was transported
to a county jail.
It is probably safe to say that the Shoe Bomber case can proudly take
its place alongside the DC Sniper case and the uninvestigated Anthrax attacks
as yet another staged 'terrorist' incident. Let's cut to the chase here,
folks: it's all bullshit. All you have to do is scratch beneath the surface
a little bit to see that the official stories just never seem to add up.
* * * * * *
* * * * * * *
Coming in the next edition: I respond to an angry
letter from Michael Ruppert in which he issues an unusual challenge. Who
knew he even read this stuff? I guess one of his people must have alerted
him that he was being blasphemed by some crackpot on the Internet. On the
same day that Ruppert's e-mail arrived in my in-box, I received a missive
from a prominent critic of his (which I will also respond to). Suddenly my
opinion is so monumentally important that both sides are eager to point out
the errors of my ways. And then, strangely enough, I received requests for
not one, but two, radio interviews! What can I say? A guy gets to feeling
a little cranky, sends out a couple of contrary newsletters, and suddenly
everyone wants to talk. Go figure.
[A final note: with the Columbine bloodbath back in the news, I received
a few inquiries about my past musings on that subject. The postings that
you are searching for are at http://davesweb.cnchost.com/littleton.htm
(scroll down; it is the last topic covered).]