Almost one year ago I wrote my beliefs about the 9-11-01 Attack on America, it is now 4-20-03 as I write this and I believe a complete picture exists of how and why the attacks happened. I wrote as to the beginning cause on 1-20-3 in a letter to my Aunt: the root of the problem began back with President Nixon; Democrats were right in seeing him resign; The Republican's feelings were hurt in having their party disgraced by those actions. So, they retaliated the first chance they got to get back in the good graces of the People, they portrayed the Democratic Party as weak in the Carter-Reagon Presidential Election by playing up the Iran-Hostage Crisis. Reagan won the election overwhelmingly and made the U.S. strong and proud again by escalating the cold War with the Soviet Union which ultimately forced them to change their system of government and the U.S. into economic crisis; The Democrat's fought back the Iran-Contra Affair, but the Republican's were smarter and had fire-breaks in their command structure so it wouldn't topple the President; The Republican's retaliated with the Bush-Dukakis Election portraying the Democrat's as soft on crime; Republican's kept up the heat by attacking President Clinton, who was strong on economy and brought the U.S. back to economic power, by impeaching him. 

Now, the 9-11-01 Attack started to take shape around April of 2001when it was apparent that "Enron," a business giant that could be linked to the bush Campaign and Administration, began to crumble. This could be another "Nixon-Watergate" because "Enron" retaliated against California for Bush not winning the sate during the election. So, the need for a cover-up began with the political ties to Enron as their corporate officers began to bail out; The need for a national crises/war for the Republican's was paramount. It's the only thing that could stop the Democrat's from fighting back and bringing down the Republican Party, by galvanizing the nation behind a war effort that would keep the Democrat's from fighting back and bringing down the Republican Party, by galvanizing the nation behind a war effort that would keep the Democrat's from exposing the Enron connection; So this is where my story begins: 

On May 26, 2002 I wrote my thoughts as I watched News shows play out information about "Whom knew what-and when?" I will type up those thoughts into this paper and interject comments in (parentheses). 

"As I write this on Sunday, May 26, 2002, while an NBC Nightly News report--on an FBI Agent Rowley requesting a search warrant on a Moussaoui, that was undermined by a superior that was later promoted--passed by, these thoughts come too fast to write as fluidly as they come. 

The Vice President's Meet the Press interview now fits in a larger puzzle. He reported that more terrorist attacks are not a question of if, but when. This paralyzes the public opinion, and, the media glosses over the issue of presidential knowledge turning the culpability on whomever didn't turn over the material. Rowley's report is used to bolster this theory instead of as more evidence that the material is needed to be kept under wraps so the attack on Al-Queda can go forward." (Rowley's Superiors could be seen as having orders to thwart any hard evidence from reaching the president's "Daily Briefing" as a Fire-Break from orders that come from the President much as Oliver North was in Iran-Contra. The superior blocked Rowley from getting a search warrant on Moussaoui.) 

"However, I see, there is now evidence of what I wrote on the 19^th" (I can't find the paper I wrote on 5-19-02, but it was about Vice President Cheney's "Meet the Press" interview where the Democrat's intimating that the President knew or could have prevented the 9-11-01 Attacks. Cheney silenced the Democrats by saying "That such questions are unbecoming of National Leaders in a Time of War." Which goes to "galvanizing the nation behind a war effort that would keep," not only "exposing the Enron connection," but the fact that they then let the attacks happen to cover up their possible involvement in the Enron fax and phone records. The general call goes out (however that function works) for the President's Briefing on possible terrorist threats. Key people could have been contacted prior to, after, or calls could have been made (by conscientious holders of hard evidence of eminent terrorist attacks) to the origin of inquiry, after the general call went for the threat assessment for the President." (The reason will become more clear) "Dates of calls or fax's being relevant and near to material request deadline on the terrorist assessment. Such subject matter of any calls could be to sit on the evidence while a more extensive material base is gathered, so only generalizations are to be sent for the President's Briefing--to appear on the record. People that follow orders like "Rowley's search warrant being undermined," are often promoted, as Oliver North, they take full responsibility as he did for whatever his reasons were. 

Politicians are saying that even had they had the evidence it probably would have had little affect on the 9-11 tragedy. I beg to differ--that report reaches the President's desk, is acted upon, even a general warning to law enforcement, FAA, Foreign Agencies, etc., the person that wrote (or someone that read) of the possibility of explosive laden plan/suicide bombers screams of it: (That's the reason the President would only want general information rather than hard evidence.) "Flights are grounded; terrorists are hunted for, held and investigated, or expelled from the country with an apology of national Security; Alerts, over the news, to the general public for Arabs, with no long standing tires to the community suddenly appearing in towns frequently; A lot could have been done in the time from the 7-10-01 Phoenix Report and 9-11-01, a massive law enforcement effort probably would have made the terrorist flee for the borders. 

Please don't let them gloss over this: As more snippets of info are released to bolster the "Lack of Communication Angle," more leads to solid or substantial evidence will be revealed. (The lack of communication angle was between investigative agencies and the excuse for the Presidents inaction.) "If the media won't investigate, then I was hoping printed flyers, containing this possibility, could be placed under windshield wipers at Malls, with Scandal in big black letters; I don't know why I have this compelling force inside me to expose these bastards for the bastards evidence will show they are, but I do, and I won't stop until I'm dead and cold." (The reason I wanted this exposed so bad is I knew the politicians would throw us into a questionable war.) 

Please look at the facts that are our lives: What if our government let their People get killed to support a war plan that would gain them influence to stabilize another region and maintain a presence--would that not be, then evil? I mean come on people, we must look at ourselves. These other nations people are calling us evil--why would a smaller nation with nowhere near our military capability attack us? What if these terrorist nations (or just a region of a race of people) just have citizens that operate outside their authority, granted, the nations do nothing to stop these actions, and in our eyes condone it? Maybe their government's figure, "better you than us," I don't know. Maybe they don't intend the acts they do for the reasons as I am about to say them (because they haven't declared them as such), but what if it is a metaphoric sock to the nation's chin? A "wish you people would just leave us alone," message? Bush claims to be a man that wants to lead the world by example of what "American" values are. Well, stepping into their shoes, as a human being in the world, "We have a country with our own moral beliefs and values. We didn't elect you to inflict them on us. We have our own politicians to do that." 

What is our government is telling our people one foreign policy and enforcing another. Look at the facts, for our best interest, the government enforces its will on the world, with comradery, cajolery, negotiation, sanctions, embargoes, and in the end, war. Yes, Israel and they seem to have this religious feud eternally on. And yes, as a people we don't want to see the little guy get picked on by it's bigger neighbors, so, we ally ourselves with them to make sure that does not happen. But in order to lead the world as a nation, you don't pick sides in a fight, you step between the two and stay there until the animosity dies down. Then, as a friend of both, you lay down the law, check this out--I don't give a rat's ass whose right or whose wrong--killing is unacceptable. A friend brokers a peace in the world that if two nations war, then the world steps in, as one, between them--no matter which two. 

Maybe this has greater religious significance than any of us will admit: America, a predominantly Christian nation, but with religious freedoms so that another's aren't squelched. Yet, we want the highest lifestyles we can maintain for ourselves, but is it coming out of the pockets, off the backs, or out of the mouths of people, and, most importantly children somewhere else in the world? Metaphorically, isn't this all like when Moses destroyed the "Golden Calf," and all the evil it represented? Except that it's festered even unto today, so that if we look close enough, we can measure the growth of evil since that time and see where we stand in the fight between "good and evil." Solid evil, not those that would unknowingly be led down evil's path to the lure of wealth and power by giving people a taste, to chase down more and more. But the evil that gives you just enough to control you and make sure you'll do it's bidding before you get more on your own evil means. 

What if it's creations purpose that we grow into one planet of people for the good of all people. So that once we're on the good path and all people can learn everything there is that they're capable of knowing, then, the Creator could say, "Now there are all my Angels?" And if we get out into space as a people of a planet (that live and work for the same goal and enjoy a stress free standard of life), then, can we go with a measure and saga of what it took for us, and, how long, so as we explore, we can compare it to others we might find? Who knows, all those UFO sightings, maybe they're waiting to see how long it takes us, and, if we make the right choice: Do we go out with a system bent on manipulation that would grow into a special community to exploit those we might find, because, we've grown big enough and made enough allies too? Or do we go out and grow, living by ideals needed to answer the next mysteries that is our life--and grow from there? 

How can all this be true about our politicians? We have a 1^st Amendment "Free Press?" Rich people have power because their contributions buy their lobby position, so the government helps make them more money to contribute, to keep them in power. Rich people own the media, the media only reports the news in a manner that will make it more money in the long run. Reporters? Well, reporters are paid to write reports, released to the public from an agenda, not from the truth. If they deviate from the agenda, then, they are black listed I imagine. There in lies that taste of wealth and power to chase down. I'm not a priest, nor prophet, nor saint--I'm guilty of wanting to be rich right now. Because, even with those harsh words, of, what I see as truth, I don't believe the world will change itself. And I am yet one man, who am I to say my beliefs and values should govern all? 

Maybe I'm crating a big joke, that everyone in the universe goes through and after, is in on the next poor bastards joke: So they can all say, "What a stinking know-it-all?" But I don't know if once we take the right path, as an entire world, that the Creator will be there and reveal to the people "the Being: Or, maybe, the Creator spent the last energy for the universe, and all to live and grow, to answer as many or all the questions we ever had--in whatever amount of time that takes? Then, in that way, we meet the Creator in our death only, and only by faith? 

It's no wonder that people turn to drugs or alcohol--It's the only way for people to ignore the "rat race," to think about everything near and dear to them, the problems of the world as they understand them in their heart, or whatever people would think about. But sadly, kids also turn to drugs and alcohol to get away from the "rate race." These are the things my friend and I talked about, maybe not to these depths as we were young and only had ourselves to shape our free thinking without the demands of the world we felt. Kids can't just be kids anymore, they're facing the demands of the world from age five--open your eyes people, an entire town made the news because it had to schedule a night off to be a family, what kind of freedom is that? At least til I was thirteen I was free to do what I wanted. My parents didn't chauffeur me around to my activities, I peddled there myself unless it would have taken hours to get there. 

It's time to take a long hard look at ourselves in the mirror as a people and try to see what the world sees when it looks us in the eye. It's a pretty harsh thing for a human being to call another evil without solid proof. And if it's as this "Rowley" woman in this "memo" and not as I suspect, then, if the FBI failed to act because they were afraid it would cost them a promotion or your political aspirations--I ope in the least those needless deaths cost you just that, because that terrorized you into inaction. Taste some more of that Power--worse than any drug I see. 

That's where I ended off until one week later when I saw the "Time Magazine" evidence and wrote about ti. But ask yourselves--if any read this as I hope--what of the investigations of the 9-11-01 the president promised the victims, on whose failure it was to disseminate information. What I wrote on 6-2-02 shows the President knew, or should have known, and failed to act, from what I believe now, to cover up a link to the "Enron Scandal" that could have allowed the Democrat's to impeach and remove him from office. 

What comes to light is exactly who know what and when before the 9-11 Attacks: 

In a "Time" Magazine, May 27, 2002 issue, that I have just read on 6-2-02, a time-line appears. To me, I believe, it reveals Treason in that responsible high level officials aided terrorists in succeeding in the 9-11 attacks, by wanting and letting such attacks culminate--receiving only reports it wanted and dissuading any reports that (ultimately in hindsight) could have prevented the attacks. Murder in that every resulting death becomes a separate count of premeditated murder is treason if proven. And, obstruction in that high level officials are lying to the American Public, and the world, in an effort to escape prosecution and cover-up each others involvement. I believe the "Time" magazine report indicates a flurry of investigation and plenty of communication between agencies caught and uncovered more terrorist actions--the government knew only what it wanted to know and acted upon only what it wanted acted upon. (As I reread and rewrite this plain and simple: The President's excuse that it is the investigative agency's fault for not sharing key information, is an out and out lie.) 

The time-line shows that a hard investigation began "June 26, 2002" with a CIA report. Espionage sources report there is a spike in intelligence traffic about possible strikes on July 4 W.H. Informed. "July 1, 2001" Senator Feinstein says to CNN, "Intelligence staff tell me that there is a major probability of a terrorist incident within the next three months." She argues that both the White House and Congress need to put more money and resources into intelligence and counter-terrorism measures. A July 2, 2001, FBI report: The FBI warns law-enforcement agencies of possible Al-Queda attacks overseas. Says domestic strikes can't be ruled out. W.H. Informed. A July 5, 2001, CIA reported, "Despite a safe July 5, the CIA tells Bush that attacks during the summer are still possible W.H. Informed. Also July 5, 2001 and July 6, 2001 by the White House, July 5, Bush asks Condoleeza Rice to find out what agencies are doing with Al Queda threat intelligence, and July 6, a National Security Counsel group led by Richard Clarke meets to discuss int3elligence and potential attacks overseas. Nonessential travel by counter-terror staff is suspended. 

Now, what this information represents, as I believe it, so far: Based on "Hot" information. The White House was informed of, within 9 days the White House (Bush) acted upon information calling for an Official Assessment by Ms. Rice "July 5, 2001." This denotes the responsibility lies with the White House of disseminating information to coordinate investigative efforts, "The Buck Stops Here!" Common sense tells me that the White House disseminates the information gathered by CIA, to all other appropriate agencies for investigations to achieve a focused action, for an end result action, based upon such an investigation--this protects the field agents, gathering such information, from being exposed to the enemy. Yet it appears that the information could have been "disinformation," in that July 4, 2001 concerns of attacks were not fulfilled. The terrorists are either passing disinformation or has insight (spies) into surveillance agencies reports, and fall-back plans of attack were moved to as needed--leading to 9-11. 

But it's clear throughout the "Time" magazine time-line, that allowable information was shared, and the "Lack of Communication" angel between agencies is subterfuge and I believe is an outright lie: The growing threat is communicated to the White House "June 26, July 2, and July 5. "July 5, the President orders a the assessment." Mid-July, CIA warns the White House about a possible Al-Queda attack on Bush at G-8 Summit in Genoa, July 20-22. 

One threat relayed by the Egyptian government to U.S. intelligence is of Muslim terrorists crashing a plane into a building. W.H. Informed. And that is where the "July 10, August 27, and early September" FBI information on the time-line comes into play and that the White House gave possible "quiet orders" to withhold any hard information from reaching the White House about planes crashing into a building. Or the Early September FBI report that "a Minnesota FBI agent writes an analytical memo on Moussaoui's case, theorizing the suspect could fly a plane into the World Trade Center. HQ and W.H. not informed, because in the "Time" magazine time-line the White House line, "Mid-July Bush is warned by the CIA about a possible Al-Queda attack at the G-8 summit." Conveniently leaves out the "planes crashing into a building" part, and doesn't mention the "July 18, 2001" report, "The FBI warns domestic law-enforcement of threats connected to convictions in the millennium bombing case. 

W.H. Informed, all of which could have caused the July 10, "Phoenix Field Report" to be held inter/intra FBI (The most damning report of Arab-Nationals learning to fly planes), as it was passed only to other field offices, and the Moussaoui investigation, which all tied together gives, or would have given, the White House sufficient information to shut down air travel and start a massive law enforcement sweep to search for known terrorists, but that foils pending CIA Al-Queda attack plan that reached the President's desk on day short of the attack on 9-11; (That's the most damning piece of evidence that the President knew, or even believed an attack was eminent and let it happen, to have a war plan on your desk which could only be implemented if the U.S. suffered a terrorist attack.) 

The time-line wholly refutes any "Lack of Communication" between agencies, a CIA report "July 28, Djamel Beghal is arrested by local authorities in Dubai. He reveals information about a planned bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Paris." One would have to assume Beghal's arrest is based upon the July 2, sharing of information by the FBI. Late August, a CIA report. "The CIA asks the INS to put Khalid al-Midhar on a watch list because of ties to the Cole attack. After the FBI tells CIA about Moussaoui, the Agency asks foreign intelligence agencies for info about him." Connected, "August 23, 2001 INS tells CIA that al-Midhar had entered the U.S. on July 4." Also connected, "the CIA promptly informs the FBI, in an FBI report. August 23, 2001 the CIA asks FBI to find Kalid al-Midhar who has slipped into the country." 

This all goes to what I believe in my prior thoughts before I read of this information. Two requests went out: One, on "July 5, 2001," reported by the White House. "Bush asks Condoleeza Rice to find out what agencies are doing with Al-Queda threat intelligence." And, one split quiet request to keep it generalized information for the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing and a subsequent, fulfilled on "September 10, 2001," as reported by CIA. CIA plan to attack Al-Queda in Afghanistan--with heavy support for the Northern Alliance--is put on Bush's desk for when he returns from Florida. The time-line confirms that hard evidence was out there, the "July 10, 2001," FBI Phoenix Report not passed on to the White House, but was passed on to "analytical shops within the units." And was also passed on to at least two Field Offices. "Copies go to the New York field office and an unnamed field office." I believe that the unnamed field office could be the Minneapolis field office that arrested Moussaoui on August 16, 2001--according to the "'Time' FBI time-line." (Now if you factor in the "Enron Scandal" being known that it was going to be exposed: Analysts could project when all that would blow up in the media at around November or December 2001--which is when it did--the President's Administration needed to be at war before then to cover-up their possible involvement in the scandal. I didn't put this together until CBS aired a movie "The Crooked E.") 

What this means is that there is sufficient probable cause to warrant an investigation on President Busy, Condoleeza Rice, and Vice President Cheney for possible treason, murder, and obstruction charges in relation to their actions pre-and-post 9-11. 

Dick Cheney has clearly obstructed the scope of any investigation by the Senate or Congressional evaluation, by his public comments of "Seek Political Advantage" and "Is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war." I believe these comments as, wholly and humanly, gross if it in turn is proven that American's were led to be slaughtered so that our government could have that "time of war." (They seek "political advantage," was his accusation of the Democrat's trying to say that the President could have prevented the attack. But in light of the Enron Scandal it shows they had a guilty conscience that they would be exposed for that and the Democrat's would have sought political advantage of the presidents involvement in that, had it not been covered up in a war effort blocking that exposure.) 

"To further this, again, the Vice President's words to panic the public with the possibility of the terrorist attacks as a question of "no if, but when." As an American I ask how could this be? How are they going to get into this country now? How would they get the bomb material needed? The attempted "Shoe Bomber" was caught by a vigilant flight attendant, not by the government? The fourth airliner was brought down by vigilant/brave Americans who, again, were their and responded to the treat, not the government--that would still not be able to stop them from entering the borders, or haven't identified those that would exist in this country now, if such attacks were truly imminent." (They play and will play on fears to keep their dirty little secret from being exposed.) 

The last paper I've recently written was on a television program that sheds some light on the inner workings of our government and politics that I think is relevant to what they think, or, how much they really care for the American people. 

I think more people should watch "Mr. Sterling" closely. The season finale was about a filibuster for a Prison Education Bill providing college for inmates. If you have never watched Mr. Sterling, it's about the son of an ex-governor that is appointed to the Senate, except that Sterling is an Independent that unintentionally changes the balance of power in the Senate. He learns the ropes from political staffers of the democratic Senator that passed away, and by trial and error in which he soon sees the political in-fighting and power-struggles that keep what's right from getting done. He sets out to clean up the system so the fighting turns particularly nasty; But the reason I believe "Mr. Sterling" should be watched more closely is, that if the workings of the law are accurate as portrayed, then it demonstrate show just one person could bankrupt or change the system bringing it to a screeching halt. 

The reason this is important is that the storyline revealed just what politicians more than likely are doing. The show put forth that one person/one Senator could bring the Federal Government to its knees with a filibuster past a vote deadline that would in essence raise the National Debt Ceiling or banks could foreclose on loans on loans keeping the government afloat. But the politicians in real life know enough not to flirt with the "Debt Ceiling" and crash their own system. I'm just a convicted felon that was arrested when I was 17, over 18 years ago and I'm only educatedly guessing what raising the debt ceiling means--if they're really doing so, as I believe I learned in a college class, before funding was cut, does happen. But what the banks do is freeze the loan for the "debt" and adjust interest and the government agrees to pay higher rates, and only pay on the interest, out of your tax dollars while borrowing more money from other banks (inflating the federal deficit) and doing the same thing with them. Pardon me, if I offend you people, but all the while the National Debt keeps rising you people are being separated from your money by the government quicker than any burglar, thief, or robber. It's a siphon that politicians pour into "Big Businesses" pockets as a reward from their being elected into office. I understand stuff like this because I come from a moderately Republican family where I was smart enough at the age of 14 to manage my family's small businesses until my drug abuse caught up with me at age 17. 

I mean, think about it--sure, if you hit financial troubles, a bank the average person has a loan from may work with them for a limited period of time and modify your payments, but eventual they will demand their money. Except why is it that banks don't foreclose on the government--They won't hesitate to take the average persons home and put you and your family in the street--because it's free money in the hundreds of millions year after year and the banks don't care if the budget's ever balanced. 

So, there is a huge chunk of your change being taken from you by tax because of gross-mismanagement of the people's money, which they refuse to pass a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to fix. Why should they fix it? "Big Business" gets huge amounts of money from the interest paid for the Debt Ceiling, then, the president/Republican's (in reality) gives that same Bid Business a large tax cut so the National Debt grows larger and more interest is required, for which big business is able to make larger donations to Political Campaigns to keep the system stacked against the majority--average, hardworking, good, and decent people. Why are the people paying taxes in amounts that they are not obligated to pay because the politicians refuse to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment which would pay off the National Debt by a certain time and then lower the taxes in the long run for all that interest. 

What they showed on the Season Finale of Mr. Sterling is purely fictional, but a certain amount of reality, to the inner-workings of our government in action. I imagine, remains for credibility of the show. The storyline was set as Senator Sterling fighting for a Prison Education Package in the budget that was taken away and given to a Movie Star's Children's Art Program. Sterling filibustered the Budget vote, which in essence was futile until it was found out he could filibuster past the vote deadline of raising the debt ceiling which would shut down the federal government for all but National Security functions (I would hope), until the bankruptcy was concluded in court. The storyline showed that Sterling was scheduled to appear at a parole hearing of a California inmate that had benefitted form the program that was cut for lack of funding, (hey kinda like me) which he was fighting to get in the budget package the politicians used Party pressure to take away the rescheduling of the Hearing he made a deal to get. The politicians did an end run to send the House of Representatives home so no matter what he wouldn't be able to get extra money allocated for the Prison Package even if he filibustered till doomsday. When the "Senator" still refused to give up the filibuster, and not allow the vote to raise the debt ceiling, the politicians historically agreed to a last minute amendment of the Bill to take the money for the Movie Star's program and give it back to his program, but the twist was that he had recently started dating the movie star and she helped him gain support while he was filibustering and could end up ruining the relationship. 

Back to the real world, that television show I believe, reflected accurately how the politicians would be scared to death that the Debt Ceiling wouldn't be raised and the government would fold exposing the truth of what has really been going on and how the taxpayers are being robbed by politicians. What it is, defined by violation of criminal law, is "Racketeering," but politicians won't prosecute their friends. And I've tried to file U.S. Grand Jury Complaints, but the clerk's illegally open that mail and direct it to the Judge's that the Complaint is on j(for obstruction of justice and abuse of power), and they order that citizens don't have the right to press criminal charges against government officials. U.S. Attorney's or District Attorney's won't prosecute their political allies, so I have no recourse to present my hard evidence against them. Maybe free citizen's can get the "Racketeering" charges prosecuted for themselves, but because I have failed on my issues it would be futile for me to try for you. 

Now, what makes it difficult to change that for you average and good people, is that if you vote them out of office their Parties insure the elected continue business as usual. If a group of People get together and elect your own it's virtually impossible to elect one of your own because Big Business backs the party Politicians and the 50% that does register to vote votes that party line. So, if real change is going to happen, then good people need to find suitable candidates, get the people that don't register to vote registered to vote, get their signatures to place the People's Candidate on the Ballot, and then to vote for those candidates. All after explaining first, to the disenfranchised, what's caused this action and that the candidates will take care of things that need to get done, i.e. Balanced Budget Amendment, clean up Social Security funds, produce a National Health Care Plan, and a real Education package for all kids. It's sick that all the tax dollars that have been wasted over the years on National Debt interest, could have been used for Cancer or other civilized research for the good of humanity. It might be desirable to have them vote on absentee ballots as modern life affords little time to get away from making the polling place. What is sad is that even if this miracle would take place it probably will be necessary to enlist the help of professors and other government scholars to guide the People's Candidate's at the tasks at hand because all the aids and personnel have strong political ties and wouldn't work for unknowns. 

People must be fed up with the system, more than half don't even vote in major elections for at least the past 20 years. Those are the people that are tired of nothing important for humanity getting done and know the Politicians voted in are not better than the out-going. When are people going to at least try and change the system? 

Last thoughts: I may be a convicted felon (though I maintain the circumstances justified my actions and that I committed no crime, as I believe I will be vindicated one day), but my heart is for and with the troops in battle no matter what the reason whether I agree with the President or not--they're fighting for my dumb-ass too. As long as General's have complete control of deployed objectives People are free to debate the policies of the country without adverse effect to the safety of the fighting women and men wherever they may be. 

With that said, just look how politicians treat the troops in war. They all had those "Friendly Fire" travesties from the "Gulf War" and 12 years to prevent those needless deaths for the future, but you can see they had in recent events the troops on one side of town and on the other, and apparently Commanders can't read pins in a map to let the surrounding soldiers know to concentrate fire dead center--friendlies both sides. I mean, come on, with our technology you'd think field soldiers would have wrist transponders letting all friendlies know exact positions--all tied into "smart weapons" that won't fire on friendly transponder coordinates. Or even a light-weight field shield that can be rammed two feet into the ground with two foot above ground cover with bullet/shrapnel-proof material bonded to the shield. There are other observations, but you get the point, why do politicians allow 100 solders to die when they could save 50 or 75 soldiers lives? Oh, that's right, pawns are expendable! 

Finally, it's easy to criticize the politicians that might have no solutions to the Federal Deficit and other problems, but I've shown that they don't seem to want a solution. President Clinton--though a major part of the problem--had lowered the deficit significantly, but not erased it. To erase it, a simple restructuring of assets: The National Grain, Food, Oil reserves should be tallied at high market value, and if equal to or greater than, then transfer what's necessary paying off the National Debt with the understanding it can only be sold within the U.S. or optioned back to the federal government within a balanced budget over five years or so. Then American owned businesses retail pricing to American consumers only a 50% mark up on food, housing, and clothing--half of production guaranteed to U.S. markets. 

Any American businesses overseas where minimum wage is less than U.S., businesses will pay foreign workers at least one-U.S. dollar below U.S. Minimum wage for unskilled labor and at least one-dollar above for skilled labor and only 50% mark up on those goods sold to American consumers, or those businesses goods will not be allowed in American markets and the businesses will be taxed 75%--half of that given to the work for those businesses overseas. The price gouging of the American Citizen's would cease because every American business assets at home and abroad placing their lives on the line. The American people have shouldered the burden of the National Debt too long in wasted tax dollars. 
 

Joel Brown, D-35361 
A-4-248 
P.O. Box 5002 
Calipatria, CA 92233-5002