Fourth Estate
In hot pursuit
of the truth...

AWARD WINNER 1997-2003

CLICK ON AWARD TO ENLARGE

FREE WEBSITE THROUGHOUT 
Welcome to Desert Journal Online, established in May 2001 in New Mexico. Our website offers our true crime book, Satan's Den Exposed - The David Parker Ray Story, and poetry and photo collections, Bombshell Liberation and Interference, and provides free access to our featured columns, photos and news archives.











Directory Page
Site Map
best of DJO videos
best of 1000You2b0001 videos
PersecutedEditor videos
BossyAlien videos
LeoDaileyPoet videos

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ THESE! 

Satan's Den Exposed
The David Parker Ray Story

True crime book about a criminal sexual sadist and cohorts busted in kidnap, rape and sexual torture cases in New Mexico
By the Desert Journal's award winning investigative reporting team of Bill Johnson, Fred Mramor & David Pierre

SPECIAL OFFERS EXTENDED

CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS!

2012 began in 1999
by Peter Appleseed
of the Kyyboa Tribe
Book about true revolution, civilogy and creating positive alternatives.

BOMBSHELL LIBERATION
&
INTERFERENCE

Poetry & Photo Collections
By Leo Dailey
NEW RELEASES OCTOBER 2006!!!
Electronic Books - $2.95 each ($2 off)
For details, click HERE!

SEE OUR NEW WEB PAGE ANTI-WAR SONGS!!!

VISIT LEO DAILEY'S NEW WEBSITE - www.LeoDailey.com

FOR FREE CLASSIFIED ADS, CLICK HERE!

Desert Journal Online
Contact Information

Bill Johnson
Editor, Publisher & Webmaster
Vic Arvizu
Honorary Web Guru

Electronic mail

desertjournal@hotmail.com

desertjournalonline@yahoo.com

poet@leodailey.com

 

Location

We are an electronic submissions only website located in Albuquerque, NM, and have no physical business address.

 

Copyright © 2001-2008 Desert Journal Online
 

Last modified: October 17, 2008

Columns & Reviews Continued

The Mess in Iraq

By Leon Hadar

Confronted with the images from Iraq of anti-American insurgency and mistreatment of civilians by U.S. troops, some supporters of the Iraq war explain that most of the problems we face now could have been avoided through more responsive military leadership and effective bureaucratic management.

The strategic goals of the war were feasible, they say, if only this assistant deputy secretary or that military commander hadn't screwed up.  But even if we had avoided the mistakes by the Bush administration, the prospects for achieving a stable, friendly government in Iraq would still be bleak.

The mission, in fact, wouldn't really have worked even if the Abu Gharib prison had been managed by Amnesty International; if former Baath members had been included in the Iraqi overturning authority; if Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani had been consulted more often; or if 200,000 U.S. troops had been dispatched to Iraq.

In fact, the elements that form many of these and other "what if?" scenarios run contrary to the grand goals of the Iraq war as put down by the Bush administration and to the accompanying rosy scenarios drawn by its neo-conservative ideologues.

Indeed, why would the United States even need to deploy so many troops if Americans would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people?  If the Baath Party was the equivalent of the German Nazi Party and Saddam Hussein was the clone of Adolph Hitler, how could we even conceive of employing military officers associated with those characters in the New Iraq?

Why would we have to negotiate on the nature of political freedom in Iraq with the Ayatollahs who, at a minimum, demand that Islam be the source of legitimacy and law in that country, if all Iraqis hunger for political freedom and equality for religious minorities?

And if the mission had been accomplished a year ago and the transition of power from the American military occupation to Iraqi sovereignty would have been as smooth as we have been promised, why would we still be fighting a fierce insurgency and jailing and interrogating so many Iraqi civilians?

Indeed, it is impossible to imagine that Congress and the majority of Americans would have given a green light to President Bush to invade Iraq and oust Saddam if they had been told in advance that such an effort would require a long and costly military occupation, that Americans would be facing a hostile and violent reception by the Iraqis, and that the fate of the New Iraq would be determined by the kind of religious figures who are in control of Iran today -- people whose values violate basic American values of religious freedom and women's rights.

They would have been more shocked to learn that, one year after the fall of Saddam's government, the U.S. military would be consulting with former generals of Hussein's Republican Guard.

Similarly, the current congressional and public pre-occupation with the horrors committed in Abu Gharib miss the point.  Most Iraqis regard the Americans not as liberators but, at best, as foreign occupiers who should leave the country as soon as possible - and, at worst, as infidels who should be attacked.

Continuing the U.S. occupation of Iraq, even under the façade of limited "Iraqi sovereignty," will result in a kind of vicious circle of Iraqi violence and American retaliation, similar to that which the Israelis have experienced in the West Bank and Gaza.

So while we should punish those responsible for the misconduct in Abu Gharib, Americans should recognize that even the most enlightened military occupation is based on the threat of violence and humiliation.

Indeed, the war and subsequent occupation of Iraq have brought out the best in some people, in the form of courage and acts of decency.  It has enabled the American public to gain a new appreciation for the professionalism and skill of the vast majority of men and women in the armed forces.

And it has also helped to empower the small group of losers and miscreants who are part of any military.  That is the nature of war and is one of the costs that we pay when we send our brave men and women to fight in foreign lands.

And those costs become even more obvious and unacceptable when that war is seen by more and more Americans as unnecessary.

About the author - Leon Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute (www.cato.org).

<<<   >>>

(posted 5-22-04)  

The Big One in the 2004 Election

By William G. Shipman

Much of this election year's rhetoric has been about Iraq, terrorism, and the economy.

Understandably, Americans may think that the importance of their vote stops at the water's edge of these issues.  They would be wrong.  The stakes are much higher.

This election is also about choosing between two overarching philosophies: Should individuals be free to choose and be responsible for their own actions, or should these liberties be the role of government?  This is a big one.  The stakes are high.  One side will lose.

Government power and authority increase during times of conflict and economic pain.  And when the conflict ends, government power does not recede to its original position.

As a result, the role of government advances with each new conflict.  The Great Depression is illustrative.  During this period unemployment reached 22 percent, the stock market virtually imploded and GDP fell by about 25 percent.  America was on her economic knees.

In response, President Roosevelt ushered in the New Deal and its flagship program, Social Security.  Although at that time large government programs were anathema to the frontier spirit of our young nation, Roosevelt, in his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1933, asked for authority "... as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."

From Social Security's beginning in 1935 until now the system has grown to be the largest government program in the world, paying 47 million beneficiaries each month and covering about 156 million workers.

Yet, over its 69-year life its depression-era financing has not fundamentally changed - benefits are still provided by taxing workers' payroll.

Because of increasing life expectancy and falling birth rates, the number of workers per beneficiary has declined from 16 to 1 in 1950 to just about 3 to 1 today, a downward trend that is expected to continue at least through the middle of this century.

Our government's response to these demographics has been to raise the maximum payroll tax from $90 in 1950 to $10,900 today.  And now, for about 75 percent of working couples, their payroll tax is greater than their income tax.

Under current law the payroll tax is scheduled to increase each year; tax increases are on auto-pilot.

Even though the payroll tax has ballooned in the post-war period, future taxes are expected to be less than future benefits by about $4.4 trillion, or $43,000 per family.  That's how much each family would have to give the government today, along with mandated rising payroll taxes, to afford scheduled benefits.

Benefits received from paying the tax have also increased -- but by less.  And given that one normally receives benefits because of paying taxes, a link can be made between the two.

From this perspective, one could earn significantly higher benefits by investing the same tax dollars in the growth of our economy through participating in our capital markets, just as is routinely done in employer- and union-sponsored defined benefit plans as well as 401(k) plans and IRAs.

Saving and investing part of the payroll tax in our markets is what is commonly called privatization of Social Security.

President Bush, as a candidate in 2000, suggested that each American should have this opportunity.  No forcing, just the freedom to make a choice.

Individuals would have significantly more control over their retirement planning and decisions and, importantly, be responsible for their own actions.  Government's role would recede.

Senator Kerry apparently sees it differently.  During the Democratic presidential primary debate in Iowa on Jan. 4, 2004, Kerry said: "I will never privatize Social Security."

Compared to the Bush proposal, the senator's statement suggests that Americans would have fewer choices, less control over their retirement planning, and less freedom of choice.  The government would provide, and be responsible for, much of your retirement income, and shelter you from the risk of making your own decisions.  Government's role would advance.

What is it about a political philosophy that argues that individual behavior, choice, and freedom should be the role of government?  Is it because government is wiser than the individual?  Is it because the individual must be protected from himself?  Is it because if one were empowered to make decisions for himself and his loved ones, then the government would play a lesser role?  What is it?

As you listen to both presidential candidates express their vision for the country, consider these questions.  Philosophical opponents need a playing field on which to marshal their forces and compete.

The fundamental policy differences concerning the role of government versus the individual in a free society will likely be played out this election year on the Social Security reform field.  The stakes, indeed, are very high.  One side will lose.

About the author - William G. Shipman is chairman of CarriageOaks Partners LLC and co-chairman of the Cato Project on Social Security Choice, www.cato.org.

<<<   >>>

(posted 5-22-04)  

Big Government and the Billion Dollar Campaign

By Patrick Basham

The news that this year will see the first billion-dollar presidential election campaign may produce new campaign finance regulation to cure our addiction to political money.

Such a reaction confuses the symptom with the disease and reflects the conventional lack of wisdom on campaign spending.

Higher campaign spending isn't a morality play filled with people wearing white and black hats.

Spending on campaigns has risen for observable reasons.  Increases in campaign spending should be seen in the light of seven "mores": inflation has made everything more costly; more elections are held now; more wealth is available for politics; more voters take part; more advertising must be bought; and more campaign finance regulations must be honored.

Nevertheless, the most important factor driving campaign finance upward is "more government."  Simply stated, the growth of government spending fosters the growth in campaign spending.

Taxes and regulations on society have increased the ambit of government at all levels.  Increasing government activity leads to more efforts to influence political decisions, including spending on campaigns, a relationship confirmed by scholarly studies.

As government does and spends more, individuals try to influence government, both to advance their causes and to protect themselves from abuse.

Government has grown enormously.  In 2000, the federal government taxed Americans to the tune of $2.03 trillion, a 250 percent real increase since 1970.

On the expenditure side, federal government spending reached $1.79 trillion in 2000, a 915 percent nominal increase over the previous 30 years.

Government has assumed the additional power to regulate all kinds of private conduct, especially regarding economic life.  Economist Thomas Hopkins estimates that the cost of complying with these federal regulations exceeds $700 billion.

The desire to gain benefits or avoid costs from regulation also pushes campaign contributions upward.  These levels of taxation and regulation indicate that government has vast power over many aspects of American life -- from wealth redistribution, to the nature of housing, agriculture, education, and health care, to trade, energy, and telecommunications, to gun ownership, to the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.

Almost 70,000 government bodies are authorized to impose taxes on Americans.  Is it any wonder, then, that several billion dollars are spent lobbying politicians during each election cycle?

Is it a surprise that a Brigham Young University study found interest group spending on 2000's most competitive congressional races totaled more than $360 million?

There's solid empirical evidence that expanding government results in increases in campaign spending.  For example, research by economist John Lott Jr. found that 87 percent of the rise in federal campaign spending between 1976 and 1994 was attributable to the $1,101 per capita rise (in real terms) in federal government spending.

Is there a solution to increased campaign spending?  Within the current policy environment, it's impossible to reduce campaign spending.  We'll only reduce the amount of money flowing within the tributaries of our political system by reducing the incentive for private interests to directly and indirectly support candidates and parties.

Therefore, the only plausible solution is to limit the size of government.  Anything else merely treats the symptoms without addressing the underlying disease of the body politic.

Lower government spending will lead to lower levels of campaign contributions; in turn, that will result in lower levels of campaign spending.

Efforts to limit campaign spending will be futile.  Our legislators' demonstrated lack of commitment to limited government ensures that the upward momentum of campaign spending will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.

About the author - Patrick Basham is senior fellow in the Center for Representative Democracy at the Cato Institute (www.cato.org), and the author of "It's the Spending, Stupid! Understanding Campaign Finance in the Big-Government Era."

<<<   >>>

(posted 5-22-04)  

National Day of Hypocrisy

By George H. Russell, Bishop

Ethician News Network

http://www.salvationnetwork.org

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, Saying, "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers.  Therefore you will receive greater condemnation." - Matthew 23:1/14

The idea of a National Day of Prayer is excellent, for every day should be a day of prayer, not only for our nation but for all nations and for all Creation.

As practiced however, The National Day of Prayer appears closer akin to The National Day of Hypocrisy.

Many of our great nation's leaders have issued proclamations endorsing the event, yet many of these actors are the very people, who by their actions and inactions are destroying our forests, our wildlife, our rivers and streams, our water quality, the very air we breathe, and along with the demise of "America the Beautiful," the future of freedom, democracy, and The United States of America as a viable nation itself.

It appears that The National Day of Prayer is largely a right-wing, almost tribal event, where a superior American God of money, power, greed and hate, is asked to defend saber rattling, revenge, exploitation and destruction of Creation, over-consumption, materialism, and world dominance and superiority at the expense of God's other children who are suffering on the dying remnants of Planet Eden.

"Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear.  Your hands are full of blood.

"Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from Before My eyes. Cease to do evil.

“Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the oppressor, Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.”  - Isaiah I 1:15-17

Indeed, those leaders who thump on Bibles loudly and publicly declare their love of God, and then through their actions prove only their love of power and personal glory, are in desperate need of prayer and personal reformation of character and a spiritual infusion of love, honesty, integrity, respect and concern for all of God's gift of life to all creatures great and small.

Yes, please pray each and every day for our President, his Cabinet, our Governors, and Representatives; that their hearts and eyes may be opened to the great harm many of them are doing to our children, our freedoms, our democracy, our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, God's wonderful Creation, and the future of America the Beautiful.

But please, please do not allow The National Day of Prayer to turn into The National Day of Hypocrisy by turning it into a frenzy of alleged God-backed support for sucking America dry, bombing innocent peasants in far away lands, State sanctioned killings under the death penalty, and the incarceration of our children in windowless schools and prisons.

Using God and prayer to justify evil deeds is the most pernicious form of hypocrisy, and America needs to become the compassionate leader of the world, rather than the world's bully.

"He shall judge between the nations, And shall rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into Plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore.

“O house of Jacob, come and let us Walk In the light of the Lord.” - Isaiah I 2:4-5

And finally please do not defy Jesus by making a circus of hypocrisy out of The National Day of Prayer.  Heed His words!!!

"And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.  For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men.  Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.

"But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. - Matthew 6:5-6

About the author - George H. Russell, an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, is a resident of Huntsville, Texas, known worldwide as "The City of Death."  He is founder of The Patriot Network, and author of its 35+ websites located at www.patriotnetwork.org - as well as founder of The Universal Ethician Church, an interfaith ministry with a worldwide following via the church's 275+ websites located at www.salvationnetwork.org.  Russell, 58, is an educational video producer, environmental activist, historic preservation specialist, photographer, art and antique collector, philanthropist, American patriot and ethician.  Additional biographical information may be found in Who's Who in America, through Internet searches, and in other publications.

<<<   >>>

(posted 5-6-04)  

Can The President Imprison Anyone, Forever?

By Gene Healy

Does the president have the power to order the military to seize an American citizen on American soil, declare him an outlaw to the Constitution, and lock him up for the duration of the war on terror - in other words, forever?

That's the stark question the Supreme Court will be examining on April 28 when it hears oral arguments in Padilla v. Rumsfeld.

Padilla, an American born in Chicago, was arrested by federal agents at O'Hare International Airport in May 2002, and held on a material witness warrant.

Two days before a hearing in federal court on the validity of that warrant, the president declared Padilla an "enemy combatant" plotting a "dirty bomb" attack in the United States, and ordered him transferred to a naval brig in South Carolina, 700 miles away from his lawyer.

Padilla has been held there for nearly two years without charges or meaningful access to counsel.

There's little in Padilla's background to suggest he's an innocent man wrongly accused - he's a violent ex-con with apparent ties to Al Qaeda.  But "the innocent have nothing to fear" is cold comfort and poor constitutional argument.  The very principle that imprisons the guilty can be used to seize the innocent.

And the principle the government is advancing is broad indeed.  It amounts to the assertion that the executive branch can serve as judge, jury, and jailer in cases involving terrorist suspects.

Of all the powers claimed by the president since Sept. 11, that power is the one most to be feared - not least because, due to the nature of the war on terrorism, it's a power unlikely ever to be relinquished.

Moreover, it's a power that cannot be found in the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights does not come with an asterisk reading "unenforceable during time of war."

As the Supreme Court declared in Ex Parte Milligan (1866), rejecting the military trial of a civilian during the Civil War, "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times."

Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus under very narrow circumstances "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

But Congress has made no such attempt here - instead the president has unilaterally stripped Padilla of his rights, holding him without even a semblance of due process.

The government justifies its confinement of Padilla by citing a five-and-a-half-page "Declaration" by Michael Mobbs, an obscure Pentagon bureaucrat who has never been cross-examined by Padilla's attorneys.

A look at the Mobbs Declaration reveals just how far down the rabbit hole we've traveled.  Of the confidential informants who fingered Padilla, the declaration notes: "Some information provided by the sources remains uncorroborated and may be part of an effort to mislead or confuse U.S. officials...  In addition, at the time of being interviewed by U.S. officials, one of the sources was being treated with various types of drugs to treat medical conditions."

Again, that's not to suggest that Padilla is innocent.  It's to highlight the starkly extra-constitutional nature of these proceedings - in which Padilla is not permitted to test the government's evidence in open court.

The government's brief relies heavily on the president's constitutional powers as "Commander-in-Chief" of the U.S. military.

But as Justice Jackson put it in a 1952 case delineating the president's wartime authority, "[T]he Constitution did not contemplate that the title Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander-in-Chief of the country, its industries and its inhabitants."

The Bush administration has repudiated that theory of limited executive power in favor of one that is essentially limitless.

Thus far, President Bush has wielded this vast power sparingly.  But he will not be the last president to wield it.

The proponents of this sweeping claim of executive power have no answer to that, save to urge us to elect good men.  Our entire constitutional structure is based on a repudiation of that fond notion.

Arguing before the Supreme Court in the Milligan case, James Garfield, who would later serve as 20^th president of the United States, declared that a decision to uphold the constitutional limits on executive power would show the world "that a republic can wield the vast enginery of war without breaking down the safeguards of liberty."

A decision that denies Padilla his day in court will have the opposite effect.  It will declare that the articles in the Bill of Rights are mere peace provisions in an era of permanent war.  That's a terrifying concept indeed.

About the author - Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute, www.cato.org.

<<<   >>>

(posted 4-26-04)  

Click HERE to return to start of Columns & Review Page or click HERE to return to Home Page.

	Web www.desertjournalonline.com