Letter to the Editor
Fourty years ago President Kennedy was assassinated. He was shot in the head from the front from the grassy knowl and not by Oswald in the Schoolbook Depository. Fourty years later we still don't know who killed Kennedy, but whoever it was, they got away with it - so far. I find that disturbing - especially with the government we have today.
It's been 801 days since 9-11. Bin Laden is still free - are you?
Why the Church of Reality
Several people have asked me the question since I started the Church of Reality about why does Reality need a religion? What is the diffeerence between the Church of Reality and science? I'm also filling out my IRS 501c3 forms and having to answer that to the IRS. So ....
Here's why Reality should be a Religion.
Don't forget to donate.
Terror futures market back in business
Web site says trading will open in March 2004, free of U.S. government influence.
November 17, 2003: 4:26 PM EST
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A U.S. government plan to create a market allowing traders to bet on the likelihood of terror attacks and other events in the Middle East has been revived by the private firm that helped develop it.
The market, called the Policy Analysis Market (PAM), will allow traders to buy and sell contracts on political and economic events in the Middle East, including assassinations, the overthrow of regimes and terrorist attacks. The market is scheduled to start trading next spring.
It originally was developed and funded with the assistance of the Defense Department, where officials cited the uncanny ability of other futures markets to predict election results, weather patterns and other complex events.
This should be interesting. Let's see = if I bet that the US Economy is going to collapse, can I get paid in some other currency than dollars?
Or - maybe we should privatize Social Security and bet the money on the terror futures market?
This kind of policy even makes Republicans miss Clinton!
Heated public criticism forced the Pentagon to end its association with the project, but its Web site, which was idle for several months, now has an announcement saying it will be open for business in March 2004.
The Pentagon's partners in the venture would have been San Diego-based market technology firm Net Exchange and the Economist Intelligence Unit, publisher of the Economist magazine. The Economist is no longer involved, and Net Exchange is pursuing the venture alone, according to its president, Charles Polk.
In response to the highly charged criticisms that ended the Pentagon's association with the project, Polk noted the market is designed mainly as a research tool, not unlike the Iowa Electronics Markets, which have done a pretty good job of predicting the outcomes of presidential elections.
"It is potentially an interesting alternative to Gallup polls or to specialists reporting from the region," Polk said. "It's a way of going directly to individuals in the region or outside who have knowledge or interest in the political and economic events in the area."
Polk said Net Exchange would initially limit the amount of money traders could invest in the market, so that people won't be profiting from violence or upheaval in the region.
What's more, the futures contracts would be based on general questions, such as the likelihood that the King of Jordan will be overthrown at some point during the second quarter of 2004, for example, rather than on specific acts or events, which could lend themselves to manipulation by terrorists.
"There are no financial incentives for nefarious activities," Polk said.
These were the kinds of concerns that drove much of the criticism of the project this summer. Democrats expressed moral outrage at the prospect of a "betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism," in the words of Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, while Republicans -- including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz -- acknowledged the project subjected the Bush administration to charges of callousness.
But after the project was shelved, some observers expressed disappointment, saying the market could be useful and citing the accuracy of the Iowa futures markets, TradeSports' Saddam Hussein futures market and others. Net Exchange said "many individuals" encouraged it to start the project up again.
Former Admiral John Poindexter, who was forced to leave the Pentagon in part because of his association with the project, will not be involved in the market, Polk said.
Just released for television - Terminator 4 - Inauguration Day begins tomorrow. The series is a made for television movie that will be shown in clips on the local news.
The plot - the future is altered by a political coup at the begining of the 21st century. An actor siezed control of the California governorship that leads to the eventual takeover by the machines. To honor the causal event the machines build thenselves in the actor's image. The movie will be directed by Dick Cheney and produced by Kenneth Lay.
The star of the movie - Arnold Schwarzenegger - plays the part of the governor and the machines made in his image. When asked about the making of the movie Arnold replied, "I don't understand why this movie is going to take three years to make." Arnold also commented that it was highly unusual to show the movie on television while it was being filmed. The director told Arnold not to worry about it and handed him his script for tomorrow's series premier.
I have the most advanced spam filtering system on the planet. I feel like I've actually beaten the spam problem. More details can be found on Computer Tyme Hosting.
How do I do it? What is the magig? Well - there is no magic. I'm using a combination of the Exim MTA and Spamassassing with a bunch of my own custom rules and tricks.
Two Spam Piles
Spamassassin is very good by itself - but not good enough. one thing that the Spamassassin folks haven't quite grasped is sorting Spam into 2 piles - high scoring spam and low scoring spam.
The high spam is almost surely spam. The low spam is probably spam - but if there is a false positive - it will be low scoring. Thus the false positive is easy to find. By using this system the high spam can be ignored or trashed without losing anything. I get about 300-400 spams a day. Most all are caught as high spam.
Direct IMAP folder delivery
Once the spam is tagged - if the user is using IMAP and has folders named spam-high and spam-low - the Exim MTA delivers the spam directly into those folders rather than the Inbox. In this way the inbox is spam free and can be downloaded without downloading spam that is left on the server side. This makes downloading much quicker.
The spam folders are still accessable - so you can look at the spam you are missing. You can check the spam-low for false positives. And - IMAP allows you to create more server side folders for other important information. With a Squirrelmail interface, you can access your email from any browser.
Making the Spam Filter Smarter
Spamassassin uses a Bayesian filter that allows it to learn from spam and nonspam and get sparter. Very high scoring spam (+15 points) and very low scoring spam (-2 points) are autolearned. But - I provide two other imap folders to train the filter on missed spam. Just drag spam-low and missed spam into the spam-missed folder and - every 15 minutes - the learn bot comes along and learns it. Next time that spam comes in it is caught.
Exim Rules for Blacklisting
One of the major advances I made over Spamassassin is adding blacklisting lists to Exim. These lists - just text files - add headers if there is a match. One of the things I list are things that spam links to. Spam wants you to do something and often that means click on a link. I have a list of about 400 sites that if spam links to it - I flag it. I add spamassassin rules to score there extra headers. This trich proves to be extremely effective.
I have other lists too. I blacklist based on received strings so that sending hosts are blocked. I have a list of misspelled words like p0rn that spammers user to get around spam filters. I have a blacklist of dead email targets that no one is really mailing to. If the spam CCs and of these nonexistent people - it gets flagged.
I also have whitelists that whitelist various hosts, newsgroups, words, etc. Whitelisting creates a negative score bringing the spam score below 0. This creates a good stream for non-spam for the autolearning system so that it knows what spam and nonspam look like.
Taking out the Trash
The spam does not accululate on the server forever. Once a week the trash bot come along and empties out old messages from the spam and trash folders. Anything over 15 days is gone. So - you don't have to even delete your spam. Just leave it on the server and the trash bot will cleran it up for you.
Summary of Enhancements:
When I started spam filtering I though that 75% would be real good and that 80% was a theoretical maximum. I am now running about 99% accurate, so of the 300-400 spams I get every day - only 3 or 4 get through. This saves me a hell of a lot of time. If not for this spam filtering - I wouldn't be able to get nearly as much done. I don't have a lot of hours to devote to deleting spam. This save me a ton of time.
Where can I get this?
Well - I do email hosting as well as web hosting. So - if you have a domain and you want this - I can fix you up. If I like your cause - I might even host it for free.
Letter to the Editor
We are hearing in the news that we are in an economic recovery and that we have strong economic growth. Is this true? I really doubt it. I think that the Bush controlled media is trying to pull yet another illusion and create a recovery where there is none.
First - the Christmas season is not a recovery. Stores hire more people temporarilly for Christmas.
Second - the spending of another 87 billion dollars on Iraq is not a recovery. That borrowed money that is being wasted. Spending money on Iraq is the economic equivelent of buying Crack Cocaine with a Credit Card. It does not add to the economy.
What is the real test for recovery? We have nearly a 1/2 trillion dollar deficit and the deficit has almost doubled since last year. The economy has lot 3 million jobs since Bush took office. Get past that and we'll talk about economic recovery.
Here's a greal link to President Bush Library. I've been sitting on this link for years and finally found a way to put it to use. I hope to make it a library of all kinds of Bush corruptions.
Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr.
Fairly recently, Time pulled the essay off of their site. It used to be at this link, which now gives a 404 error. If you go to the table of contents for the issue in which the essay appeared (2 March 1998), "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" is conspicuously absent.
Here's what Time doesn't want you to know.
George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)
The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.
We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.
As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.
The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
What's significant here is two things. One is the idea that Time Magazine is going back and retroactively taking out articles from past published magazines. Time is trying to pretend this article never happened. I have a problem with the idea of rewriting history retroactively.
The second problem is specifically why they pulled this article. Obviously Time is covering up for Bush Jr. - but - what is the process behind the sceens that caused this to occur? Whatever it is - it's clear that Bush controls Time - and that causes me to question whether or not anything in Time is worth reading.
It also makes me wonder what other articles that Time has pulled and what articles other publications pull in order to alter the past.
This article is printed in full. I cliam a fair use right to it because I'm writing about a coverup and this is the jubject of what I'm writing about - so - if Time doesn't like it - then see you in court.
BUSH-NAZI DEALINGS CONTINUED UNTIL 1951 - FEDERAL DOCUMENTS
By John Buchanan and Stacey Michael
Exclusive to The New Hampshire Gazette, Vol. 248, No. 3, November 7, 2003
(Note - the author email this directly to me for posting)
Founded in 1756, The New Hampshire Gazette is The Nation's Oldest Newspaper
After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.
Furthermore, the records show that Bush and his colleagues routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.
Bush's partners in the secret web of Thyssen-controlled ventures included former New York Governor W. Averell Harriman and his younger brother, E. Roland Harriman. Their quarter-century of Nazi financial transactions, from 1924-1951, were conducted by the New York private banking firm, Brown Brothers Harriman.
The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Although the additional seizures under the Trading with the Enemy Act did not take place until after the war, documents from The National Archives and Library of Congress confirm that Bush and his partners continued their Nazi dealings unabated. These activities included a financial relationship with the German city of Hanover and several industrial concerns. They went undetected by investigators until after World War Two.
At the same time Bush and the Harrimans were profiting from their Nazi partnerships, W. Averell Harriman was serving as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's personal emissary to the United Kingdom during the toughest years of the war. On October 28, 1942, the same day two key Bush-Harriman-run businesses were being seized by the U.S. government, Harriman was meeting in London with South African Field Marshall Smuts to discuss the war effort.
Denial and Deceit
While Harriman was concealing his Nazi relationships from his government colleagues, Cornelius Livense, the top executive of the interlocking German concerns held under the corporate umbrella of Union Banking Corporation (UBC), repeatedly tried to mislead investigators, and was sometimes supported in his subterfuge by Brown Brothers Harriman.
All of the assets of UBC and its related businesses belonged to Thyssen-controlled enterprises, including his Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart in Rotterdam, the documents state.
Nevertheless, Livense, president of UBC, claimed to have no knowledge of such a relationship. "Strangely enough, (Livense) claims he does not know the actual ownership of the company," states a government report.
H.D Pennington, manager of Brown Brothers Harriman and a director of UBC "for many years," also lied to investigators about the secret and well-concealed relationship with Thyssen's Dutch bank, according to the documents.
Investigators later reported that the company was "wholly owned" by Thyssen's Dutch bank.
Despite such ongoing subterfuge, U.S. investigators were able to show that "a careful examination of UBC's general ledger, cash books and journals from 1919 until the present date clearly establish that the principal and practically only source of funds has been Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart."
In yet another attempt to mislead investigators, Livense said that $240,000 in banknotes in a safe deposit box at Underwriters Trust Co. in New York had been given to him by another UBC-Thyssen associate, H.J. Kouwenhoven, managing director of Thyssen's Dutch bank and a director of the August Thyssen Bank in Berlin. August Thyssen was Fritz's father.
The government report shows that Livense first neglected to report the $240,000, then claimed that it had been given to him as a gift by Kouwenhoven. However, by the time Livense filed a financial disclosure with U.S. officials, he changed his story again and reported the sum as a debt rather than a cash holding.
In yet another attempt to deceive the governments of both the U.S. and Canada, Livense and his partners misreported the facts about the sale of a Canadian Nazi front enterprise, La Cooperative Catholique des Consommateurs de Combustible, which imported German coal into Canada via the web of Thyssen-controlled U.S. businesses.
"The Canadian authorities, however, were not taken in by this maneuver," a U.S. government report states. The coal company was later seized by Canadian authorities.
After the war, a total of 18 additional Brown Brothers Harriman and UBC-related client assets were seized under The Trading with the Enemy Act, including several that showed the continuation of a relationship with the Thyssen family after the initial 1942 seizures.
The records also show that Bush and the Harrimans conducted business after the war with related concerns doing business in or moving assets into Switzerland, Panama, Argentina and Brazil - all critical outposts for the flight of Nazi capital after Germany's surrender in 1945. Fritz Thyssen died in Argentina in 1951.
One of the final seizures, in October 1950, concerned the U.S. assets of a Nazi baroness named Theresia Maria Ida Beneditka Huberta Stanislava Martina von Schwarzenberg, who also used two shorter aliases. Brown Brothers Harriman, where Prescott Bush and the Harrimans were partners, attempted to convince government investigators that the baroness had been a victim of Nazi persecution and therefore should be allowed to maintain her assets.
"It appears, rather, that the subject was a member of the Nazi party," government investigators concluded.
At the same time the last Brown Brothers Harriman client assets were seized, Prescott Bush announced his Senate campaign that led to his election in 1952.
Investigation Investigated?
In 1943, six months after the seizure of UBC and its related companies, a government investigator noted in a Treasury Department memo dated April 8, 1943 that the FBI had inquired about the status of any investigation into Bush and the Harrimans.
"I gave (a fellow investigator) a memorandum which did not say anything about the American officers of subject," the investigator wrote. "(The other investigator) wanted to know whether any specific action had been taken by us with respect to them."
No further action beyond the initial seizures was ever taken, and the newly-confirmed records went unseen by the American people for six decades.
What Does It All Mean? So why are the documents relevant today?
"The story of Prescott Bush and Brown Brothers Harriman is an introduction to the real history of our country," says L.A. art publisher and historian Edward Boswell. "It exposes the money-making motives behind our foreign policies, dating back a full century. The ability of Prescott Bush and the Harrimans to bury their checkered pasts also reveals a collusion between Wall Street and the media that exists to this day."
Sheldon Drobny, a Chicago entrepreneur and philanthropist who will soon launch a liberal talk radio network, says the importance of the new documents is that they prove a long pattern of Bush family war profiteering that continues today via George H.W. Bush's intimate relationship with the Saudi royal family and the bin Ladens, conducted via the super-secret Carlyle Group, whose senior advisers include former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III.
In the post-9/11 world, Drobny finds the Bush-Saudi connection deeply troubling. "Trading with the enemy is trading with the enemy," he says. "That's the relevance of the documents and what they show."
Lawrence Lader, an abortion rights activist and the author of more than 40 books, says "the relevance lies with the fact that the sitting President of the United States would lead the nation to war based on lies and against the wishes of the rest of the world." Lader and others draw comparisons between President Bush's invasion of Iraq and Hitler's occupation of Poland in 1939 - the event that sparked World War Two.
However, others see an even larger significance.
"The discovery of the Bush-Nazi documents raises new questions about the role of Prescott Bush and his influential business partners in the secret emigration of Nazi war criminals, which allowed them to escape justice in Germany," says Bob Fertik, co-founder of Democrats.com. "It also raises questions about the importance of Nazi recruits to the CIA in its early years, in what was called Operation Paperclip, and Prescott Bush's role in that dark operation."
Fertik and others, including former Justice Department Nazi war crimes prosecutor John Loftus, a Constitutional attorney in Miami, and a former Veterans Administration official, believe Prescott Bush and the Harrimans should have been tried for treason.
What Next?
Now, say Fertik and Loftus, there should be a Congressional investigation into the Bush family's Nazi past and its concealment from the American people for 60 years.
"The American people have a right to know, in detail, about this hidden chapter of our history," says Loftus, author of The Secret War Against the Jews. "That's the only way we can understand it and deal with it."
For his part, Fertik is pessimistic that even a Congressional investigation can thwart the war profiteering of the present Bush White House. "It's impossible to stop it," he says, "when the worst war profiteers are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who operate in secrecy behind the vast powers of the White House."
---
John Buchanan is a journalist and magazine writer based in Miami Beach. He can be reached by e-mail at jtwg@bellsouth.net.
Stacey Michael is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of Religious Conceit. His most recent book is Weapons of Mass Dysfunction: The Art of "Faith-Based" Politics, due in early 2004. He can be reached by email at staceymichael@religiousconceit.com.
If there was any dounbt that the right wing controls the media - their influence at CBS is an example that tends to prove it. Without ever seeing the film it was pulled under pressure. Free speech in America is deal - save for the Internet.
So - the right wing has so much control of the media that you can't even talk about the Reagans. Now - for those who think this may be about content - well - it's not. You see - thos was blocked before it was even finished - and no one who opposed it saw what it was about. But they suspected what it might be about (the truth) and made sure it never got shown.
The right wing government again playing the Holocaust card as a defense to any criticism of the government as anti-semitism. But the reality is - the government of Israel really is one of the top threats to international peace. In my opinion, just behind the Bush administration who continues to masquerade as America ever since they stole the presidency in a judicial coup.
Here's what people don't get. There is a difference between the right wing Israeli government and Jews. Not the same thing. And - there is a difference between legitimate criticism and anti-semitism. If a Jew does something bad - and you call it bad - that's not anti-semitism. The government of Isreal is and evil bunch of mother fuckers and should be removed. When people like that are in power and work against peace - then you will find that eventually people figure it out.
Israel has been described as the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran, by an unpublished European Commission poll of 7,500 Europeans, sparking an international row.
The survey, conducted in October, of 500 people from each of the EU's member nations included a list of 15 countries with the question, 'tell me if in your opinion it presents or not a threat to peace in the world'. Israel was reportedly picked by 59 per cent of those interviewed.
The leaking of the results of the poll to El Pais and the International Herald Tribune has sparked a bitter row, with a major Jewish human rights and lobbying group, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, demanding that the EU be excluded from the Israel-Palestinian peace process and accusing Europe of suffering the worst outbreak of 'anti-semitism' since World War Two.
The results appear to be a mark of the widespread disapproval in Europe of the tactics employed by the government of Ariel Sharon during the present intifada.
Israeli Ministers and spokesman have also been at pains recently to insist that a definition of modern 'anti-semitism' should include criticism of the way the state of Israel chooses to protect itself, defining that criticism as an overt attack on Israel's survival.
President George W. Bush stood before a cheering crowd at a Dallas Christian youth centre last week, and told them about being 'born again' as a Christian.
'If you change their heart, then they change their behaviour. I know,' he said, referring to his own conversion, which led to him giving up drinking.
Behind Bush were two banners. 'King of Kings', proclaimed one. 'Lord of Lords', said the other. The symbolism of how fervent Christianity has become deeply entwined with the most powerful man on the planet could not have been stronger.
Few US Presidents have been as openly religious as Bush. Now a new book has lifted the lid on how deep those Christian convictions run. It will stir up controversy at a time when the administration is keen to portray its 'war on terror' as non-religious.
The book, which depicts a President who prays each day and believes he is on a direct mission from God, will give ammunition to critics who claim Bush's administration is heavily influenced by extremist Christians.
-- snip --
The book also shows that in the lead-up to announcing his candidacy for the presidency, Bush told a Texan evangelist that he had had a premonition of some form of national disaster happening.
Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
-- snip --
Amazingly - when Bush became president - I and millions of other people also had a preminition of a national disaster happening. What an amazing coincidence!!
Did God want Bush to be president? hmmmmmm .... If he did - then this isn't a democracy and we don't really have free choice because God is working behind the seens to fix elections. I'm begining to wonder if God wrote the software for electronic voting machines because in places where the republican backed companies have installed their machines - miracles have happened where Republican's have unexpectedly won elections. And - as we know - only God can create miracles.
So - if God picked Bush then is God responsible for the results? Is God going to pay Bush's national debt? Is God going to create jobs?
The problem with God is that God just isn't very good with money. That's why God is always having to panhandle. Similarly, God picks people who are fiscally irresponsible. God doesn't do well picking presidents - if Bush's claim is true. Now God has us mired down in a religious war with Iraq leving us stuck with the results.
I say that if God wants to pick the president - then he should be required to at least register to vote.
Amen!