Home War/ Terror Striking Iran and Syria:  Plus ça change  

Striking Iran and Syria:  Plus ça change  


by Mary Maxwell, LLB, current candidate for the US Senate from Alabama

Editor’s note: In 2006 Mary Maxwell sought an injunction against the bombing of Iran and Syria, on constitutional (separation of powers) grounds. This is her reply to a motion to dismiss.. She has added some bolding for Gumshoe readers.  The matter is newly relevant today.

United states district court FOR the district of New Hampshire MARY MAXWELL, Plaintiff  V  PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH, et al, Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO.  F-1-0-6-CV-348PB Memorandum in response to the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 

Defendants [President Bush et al] have submitted a motion to dismiss this case as nonjusticiable.  Their grounds for applying the doctrines of ripeness, standing, the political question, and prudential concerns are incorrect.  As shall be argued below, this case is justiciable.


We concede that the prayer for relief as stated fails to present a claim on which relief can be granted, because it was poorly worded.  It said that the Court should order the president to refrain from attacking Iran and should order Congress to conduct hearings.  The defendants correctly point out that no such order to the president may be permissible because the president is free to use military force in various ways short of war.  Also, no such order to Congress may be allowed because only Congress can set its rules.  Thus the plaintiff now seeks leave from the court (on an accompanying letter) to amend those two items which were listed as “(b)” and “(c)” on the original Complaint with the following words:

  • Order that Defendants President George Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney obtain clear Congressional approval before making war;
  • Order the Defendants to obtain Congressional approval for the new policy of pre-emptive strike and the policy of the tactical use of nuclear weapons.


Executive overreach is the most important issue in our nation today.  President Bush (like President Nixon) has openly said that he is above the law and that he can violate the law and not be held accountable.  As it happens this is a problem that does not often reach the judicial branch.  Five reasons for that are:

  1. The mainstream media are in favor of an all-powerful executive and they rarely tell the people what a terrible assault on the Constitution is taking place. Indeed, the media ridicule persons who say this is so.
  2. Congress won’t assert its prerogatives. This is partly a mechanical problem; directors of Congress have established a committee system and a two-party division that thwart Congress’ role as representative of the people.
  3. Criminal wrongdoing by high government officials does not result in prosecution; this is because the positions of Attorney General and federal prosecutor are political appointments within the president’s administration. The public, not knowing this technical problem, absorbs the idea that ‘presidents can get away with anything because that’s the way it is.’
  4. Law journals, law schools, and organizations of the legal profession no longer wax idealistic about defending the Constitution. The culture within the profession today is one of working for promotion in a large firm, expressing ‘patriotism,’ and demonstrating one’s Machiavellian ability to win a case via strategy, not principle.
  5. Human nature reigns: People would rather let the problem slide for another week or so.  People want to look up to their leader.  People want to believe that all pieces eventually fall into place.  People do not have traditional means in America, for gathering together to proclaim righteousness, since they grew accustomed to having the good journalist or the good law advocate be there spokesperson during national crisis.

Where is the third branch?  Why has no modern war-power case reached the Supreme Court?  An early challenge to the ‘war on terror’ and presidential overreach arouse from three American citizens labeled enemy noncombatants:’ John Walker Lindh, Yaser Hamdi, and Jose Padilla.  The Bush administration was able to deprive Lindh and Hamdi of their day in the sunshine of the court by offering a plea bargain.  In regard to Padilla, the defendant’s attorney, The American Civil Liberties Union, unwisely placed him into the same case as that of foreigners – ‘Muslims’ caught on the ‘battlefield’ for whom there would be no American groundswell of support.

Despite a dissent from Justice Scalia that rang of high constitutional principle, habeas corpus was not granted to Padilla; the case was remanded to the lower court.  All of this took years and finally Padilla’s case was ready to be heard on its own by the Supreme Court.  The Department of Justice’s mission had already been accomplished – the lingering of an American citizen in prison with no right of habeas corpus was precedent setting.  Then came the day that Padilla’s case made its way up, alone, to a second chance at the Supreme Court.  George Mason would have considered this the most important moment in the United States.  It was he who insisted, pre the 1789 Bill of Rights, that the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 not sign the Constitution until at least one right – the Great Writ of habeas corpus – was included.   Tellingly, the president changed Padilla’s status from enemy non-combatant to ordinary criminal a few days before the case was to be heard.  The Court could have opted to hear it despite its being moot.  (In 1973 they heard the abortion case Roe v Wade well after Mrs. Roe’s baby was born.)  However, the assent of four justices are required for the acceptance of a case and only three accepted it.


As for the many war-power cases, such as the present one, the court chooses not to let them get to the merits and thus never lets the American people know what their judgment would be, as to the constitutionality of war-making without Congressional assent.  Citizens, soldiers, and several Congresspersons have sought help in regard to the 1970s wars in Vietnam and Cambodia, the 1980’s invasions of Panama and Grenada, the 1990’s ‘humanitarian’ war in Kosovo and Desert Storm in Iraq, and in the 2000’s, the threatened invasion of Iraq, which has now become the wholesale destruction of that nation, on the basis of no justification whatsoever.  All of these cases were dismissed or denied as nonjudiciable and the few that were appealed were affirmed.  None made it to the Supreme Court.  Yet in a sense those cases have been ‘decided’ – in favor of the executive.  Professor Harold Koh, in his 1990 book The National Security Constitution, makes the following tragic observation:

The late Bob Cover recognized that judging is a quintessential act of violence, with violence flowing as much from a refusal to judge as from the act of judging itself.  “The jurisdictional principals of deference are problematic,” he declared, “precisely because, as currently articulated by the Supreme Court, they align the interpretive act of judges with the acts and interests of those who control the means of violence.”*  Thus, the role of judges is to define the rule of law by drawing the line between illegitimate exercise of power and legitimate exercises or legal authority.  The Supreme Court drew precisely such a line in Youngstown.  In my judgment, however, the federal judiciary failed to perform a similar task during the Vietnam War, in no small part because Congress had largely failed to make its own intentioned clear.  *R. Cover, Justice Accused pp226-38 (1975)


Other than by bald assertion (by the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, etc.) the office of the president of the United States possesses no unlimited powers.  The entire thrust of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was to come up with a federal government strong enough to protect society, both internally and in the face of hostile foreign nations, and yet avoid absolute monarchy like Britain under King George III.  As every schoolchild knows, when handing out the legal powers of government, the Framers handed most to ‘the people.’ That meant handing them to Congress, as no one predicted that a body of representatives facing election by their constituents every 24 months, could become something other than representative of the people’s wishes and welfare.

The right to make war was thus deliberately withheld from the president as it was clearly seen that such a thing expands presidential power.  It has been remarked in recent times that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made war in the Falklands, in 1981, in order to promote her own strength in Parliament and in order to assist the passing of unpopular domestic laws.  We can assume, as did the Framers, that all such opportunities of that kind arise regularly, and that this is why it is essential to legally deprive the American president of the war making power.  Alexander Hamilton, writing to the People of New York in 1788, explained as follows:

The President is to be the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States….” In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: — The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article [proposed Article I, section 8], therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor.  Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.  – Alexander Hamilton


In 1953, President Truman attempted to seize the steel mills in the face of a threatened labor strike, claiming that the nation needed steel for its forces in Korea.  The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company sued.  It said that since Congress had not declared war, the president could not utilize war powers to commandeer property.  Justice Robert Jackson, in an opinion concurring with the majority, articulated the principle of separation of powers in memorable words:

The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not, and cannot, conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses, or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government….

It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress. We may well begin by a somewhat over-simplified grouping of practical situations in which a President may doubt, or others may challenge, his powers, and by distinguishing roughly the legal consequences of this factor of relativity.

Jackson then envisions three categories:

  1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. [n2] In these circumstances, [p636] and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty….
  2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law. [n3]
  3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb… Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.


            Youngstown has not been superseded.  It is the precedent in the case at hand.  The most recent treatment of the subject matter is found in Doe v BushThere, the plaintiff opposed the legality of President Bush’s plan to invade Iraq in 2003, on the grounds that Congress had illegally delegated its war-declaring power to the president.  After acknowledging that Supreme Court decisions that dealt with relatively minor war powers would not be germane (such as Curtiss-Wright, 1936 and Loving, 1996) the Court said:

The minor forms of power at issue in those cases cannot be analogized to the infinitely more consequential war-initiating power.  Both the enormity of the war-initiating power and uncontested reality of the Framer’s intent to locate it in Congress alone argue strongly against the permissibility of Congressional delegation of that power to the president.

In the present case, Plaintiff claims that this time Congress has gone further than it did in the Iraq case (where, by passing the October Resolution, it left some of the decision making to the executive).  In regard to Iran she points to the failure of Representative Peter DeFazio’s Resolution.  By that failure, Congress has made known its abdication of its exclusive power to declare war.  DeFazio had asked his colleagues, in that resolution, to enunciate a protest of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s claim for sole executive authority in determining whether to attack Iran.

Doe v Bush was ruled nonjusticiable on grounds of ripeness, nevertheless its three-judge-panel spoke strongly against tampering with the Constitution’s separation of powers.  They quoted Justice Breyer’s dissent in Clinton v City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).  He identified two principal functions of the separation of powers doctrine.  “First, the doctrine ensures encroachment, i.e., against Congress giving away its own power in the form of a delegation… without sufficient check…. Secondly, the doctrine assures against aggrandizement of the branch to which Congressional power is delegated.”  The judges in Doe v Bush said:

Entrusting such decision making power to the president in the context of the present case – where the president is asserting determination to use that power in an unprecedented fashion, for offensive war of an extraordinary kind – would profoundly alter the constitutional structure.  The disastrous consequences cannot be overstated.  Liberty is always at stake when one or more of the branches seek to transgress the separation of powers. (Clinton, supra, Kennedy, J., concurring, at 450) Never could liberty be more threatened than when the president, or Congress, or both together would alter the separation governing the most momentous and dangerous of the Constitutional powers.

JUSTICIABILITY:  Ripeness, Standing, the Political Question Doctrine, AND PRUDENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Youngstown, in 1953, was the last war-powers case to be decided in favor of a challenger to presidential authority.  The many cases of the subsequent 40 years were found to be nonjusticiable.  Of these, the only binding precedent is Doe v Bush.  As mentioned above, it did not doubt Congress’s responsibility to man its war powers, yet the case was dismissed as unripe and was never adjudicated on the merits.    Ironically, the judges invoked unripeness on March 13th and President Bush invaded Iraq on March 18th.  They said:

Plaintiffs’ claim that Congress and the President have transgressed the boundaries of their shared war powers, as demarcated by the Constitution, is presently insufficient to present a justiciable issue.  [Our assessment is that] before courts adjudicate a case involving the war powers… they must be presented with a case or controversy that clearly raises the specter of undermining the constitutional structure.

In the present case, Defendant’s’ motion to dismiss on grounds of nonjusticiability shoots with four barrels: standing, ripeness, political questions doctrine, and prudential considerations, as follows:

  1. Standing: “Plaintiff lacks standing both because she has not alleged any particularized injury and because the injury she does allege is neither actual nor imminent.”

That is correct only in regard to the requirement that the injury be particularized.  Since any human being is at risk of cancer from radioactive fallout this Plaintiff has no special vulnerability.  The statement about imminence is incorrect.  The use of nuclear weapons against Iran by the United States or the use of conventional weapons that may hit a nuclear power plant in Iran causing fallout should be considered imminent at this point.  Not guaranteed to happen, but still likely to happen in the very near future.  It should be noted that while President Bush is not specifically saying he will go to war against Iran, Vice President Cheney has said that we will support Israel if Israel is at war with Iran.  The Israeli leadership, as of late November 2006, is speaking openly of such a conflict.  The Supreme Court said in Vermont Agency v US (2000) that a plaintiff must “establish causation – a ‘fairly… traceable’ connection between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the defendant…” It is never possible to show that a particular cancer was caused by a particular environmental factor.  Here, however, no injury has occurred.  The whole point is to say that because Plaintiff and others would be at risk of cancer caused by Defendants weapons the use of those weapons should be avoided unless Congress authorizes it.

  1. Ripeness: “Her claim is not ripe.  Both because it is based on contingent future events and because there is no constitutional impasse for this court to address.”

It is true that there is no constitutional impasse here, rather the opposite.  The fate of DeFazio’s Resolution stands for acquiescence by Congress in an unconstitutional transfer of power to the president.  Therefore, this case has been ripe ever since Congress declined to reply to Secretary Rice’s statement.

  1. The Political Question Doctrine: “[H]er claim is barred by the political question doctrine because it seeks to have the judiciary determine the foreign and military policies that are vested in the elected branches.”

Defendants have incorrectly defined the political question doctrine.  It does not mean that the judiciary is barred from handling political issues; they handle political issues all the time.  The present case does not involve the political question doctrine.  In Baker v Carr (1962), a case involving reapportionment in Tennessee, Justice Brennan, in his majority opinion, wrote

“we conclude that the complainant’s allegation of denial of equal protection present a justiciable constitutional cause of action upon which appellants are entitled to a trial and decision.”

Justice Clark, concurring, said that unless the federal courts provided relief there could be no remedy for what he believed was a patent violation of the constitution. Justice Douglas, in Massachusetts v Laird (1971),

“we have never ruled, I believe, that when the federal government takes a person by the neck and submits him to punishment… the complaining person may not be heard in court.  The rationale in cases such as the present is that government cannot take life, liberty, or property of the individual and escape adjudication by the courts of the legality of its action… Today we deny a hearing to a state which attempts to determine whether it is constitutional to require its citizens to fight in a foreign war absent a congressional declaration of war….  The question of constitutional war is neither academic nor political… it should be settled here and now.”

  1. Prudential Considerations: “Adjudicating plaintiff’s claim seeking to prevent the President and Vice President from ‘attacking Iran and or Syria absent a Congressional declaration of war’ would likewise thrust this court into the midst of the political branches’ decision making… and would require this Court to determine the likelihood and appropriateness of military action in Iran or Syria… they are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither the aptitude, facilities nor responsibility…

That is totally incorrect.  The court will not need to make any decisions about war, only about the Constitution.

Besides these four, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss says “Additionally, Plaintiff is simply speculating that actions that the United States may or may not take against Iran are more likely to lead to nuclear war and or harm the health of Americans than the foreign policy that Plaintiff favors – to publicly foreswear any military options reducing the leverage of the United States and perhaps permitting Iran’s nuclear program to move forward unimpeded.”

That is incorrect. Plaintiff has not indicated any policy that she favors and does not ask the president to foreswear any military option but only to seek Congress’s approval first. 


Mary Maxwell, PRO SE

179 Loudon Road, Apt 10 Concord, NH 03301

E-mail address:  mary.maxwell@student.adelaide.edu.au

Note: the above memorandum did not stimulate a reply from the lawyers for Bush et al.  US District Judge Paul Barbadoro simply marked my case “Dismissed.” He thus affirmed the OK-ness, as it were, of the presidential power grab.

–Mary Maxwell is presently trying a side door. See www.MaxwellForSenate.com




    • A million man and woman and child march in Australia didnt stop The war criminal John Winston Howard and his warmonger mates from their illegal immoral invasion of Iraq based on lies, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children, who were never a threat to anyone.

      Im not surprised you couldnt get any traction back then Mary, even with the benefit of hindsight today, the truth about Syria and the Lies we are told the news has turned to Hollywood farce, and the propaganda mills churn non stop.

      Looking back, I cant find a time where I now think it wasnt always so. Unfortunately, theres still enough people that gobble this stuff up that they think its worthwhile to continue, and as John Howard is still a free man, its obviously working.

      I do feel though, slowly but surely, more and more are wising up. Many more people are asking questions when our politicians tell us we need to sacrifice more of our hard earned freedoms in order to keep us safe, and many more people are outraged at the sensless death and destruction carried out in our names on the back of baseless lies.

      You may have felt alone back then Mary, but you were not, and you most certainly are, more than ever, not now.

      The world needs more of you. Thankyou.

      • Well said, Fair Dinkum. The world does need more people like Mary and Dee! Certainly Australia does, I wonder if we Gumshoe followers will ever be able to vote for a senate candidate here. What say, Dee?
        Just don’t forget rescind your Yarpie standing first, we don’t want another Section 4 resignation!

      • I’d give you a thumbs up if I had that option. (I hope it means the same thing in Australia that it does in the U.S.)

      • Hang on a minute! If you can’t get your head around the fact that John Howard is a good deal less culpable than those who executed his bidding your dead meat.

          • Well as far as I know there were no teenage executives re Vietnam.

            Even so, “owning” previous decisions, irrespective of ANY circumstantial factor, is pivotal to mastering one’s own existence:This anthem seems to be more about “poor hapless victim me” than “thank God I had a wake-call”

  1. I have read many comments on Gumshoe, most of them often displaying great insight, certainly giving food for thought.

    I hope someone can answer a question for me, why are our Australian servicemen and women at war in the Middle East, is it to defend Israel?

    If so, why, and from whom? Israel has proven itself time and again, well capable of defence against enemies.

    • Johno, you know that Kevin Rudd was Shadow Foreign Minister before he was PM and Julie is (still?) Foreign Minister of Australia. Here is my best (dead honest ) answer to your question Why are Oz servicepersons in the Middle East:

    • It seems Israel doesn’t necessarily want to do its own dirty work on the world stage. There is something in their background that makes those in charge, at least, believe they should have others doing their dirty work for them — a sense of entitlement you might say.

      • The Maxwell Hypothesis:

        1. When people se Bibi or the AIPAC lobby pressuring Congress, they think it must mean that Israel runs America.

        2. When people see Clapper and Comey visiting Australia they think it must mean that the US runs Australia.

        3. Maxwell says neither is correct. Both Bibi and the US team (such as Clapper — what a name!) are under the thumb of someone higher. And it ain’t a country or an identifiable religious group.

        4. To avoid the foregoing hypothesis is to guarantee that we will never choose the right action. We are forever in the trap of thinking the enemy has got to be a known group (Jews and Americans being the choices du jour.)

        It is ridiculous to think that a group “interested in God’s message” would be so involved in: torture, genocide, pedophilia, destruction of governments. MAKES NO SENSE, FOLKS. Think about it.

        Do you seriously think Rupert Murdoch has his mind on helping Israel, Zionism, Greater Israel, or any such thing? Then you don’t know Rupe. He would be INCAPABLE of loyalty to a cause.

        Wake up, everybody. Blaming Jews (as Jews) is a TRAP.

        • In response to the Maxwell Hypothesis, etc.:

          1. The AIPAC lobby doesn’t just pressure Congress — it directs Congress. This can be seen by the fact that AIPAC legislation is never in the best interests of the U.S., but somehow almost always seems to pass anyway. Why is that? Since when is it acceptable to have foreign governments writing legislation for other countries?
          2. Seems like a way to say that some people are stupid and make silly assumptions based on flimsy evidence, which many people do.
          3. True, it doesn’t have much to do with countries or religious groups. I used to think so, but I’m not sure these people are “under the thumb” of anyone although they do support certain ideologies in a particular fashion. I suppose some are under the thumb of others, but those in the upper “echelons” are very much in agreement with the overall agenda. And there are certain members of the “U.S. government” who seem to work tirelessly, enthusiastically, and malevolently on behalf of the agenda and against the people of the world. I have no idea what religion these people claim or whether they have any particular religion. And yet, it’s obvious that they’re strongly on board with the agenda doing dirty work.
          4. I have no such illusions. What we need is to be able to identify and understand the agenda, which takes a great deal of effort and study.

          I think you’re wrong about Rupert. It’s not religion or patriotism that he’s allied with, of course, but he’s very much on board with the agenda. Greedy people aren’t necessarily acting solely on their own behalf. And I wasn’t blaming anyone for anything. I just thought Johno had a very valid question.

          • I was saying that although Rupert be Jewish that does nothing to solidify the claim that “Zionism” as such is his love. I agree with you that he is on board and did not mean to say he operates alone.

            We all have someone we look up to — I don’t know whom he looks up to.

            Spec, you say “And there are certain members of the “U.S. government” who seem to work tirelessly, enthusiastically, and malevolently on behalf of the agenda and against the people of the world.” — that’s exactly what I am saying too. Thank God for Gumshoe where Ned never misses a chance to say how many people we kill every year, as this is really not part of people’s consciousness.

            Yes I agree with your #1. But it’s also true that interest groups regularly write the legislation, such as Big Pharma.

          • It seems different to me that AIPAC is blatantly acting on behalf of a foreign government, although I think Big Pharma and all of it interconnects. I don’t know of any other organization legally authorized in the U.S. to advocate for and provide fully written legislation on behalf of another foreign government. Do you?

            Regarding the Rupert question, I think when you’re at a fairly high level in any sort of organization (using the term loosely), you don’t so much look up to others as you do work in concert with others on your level to fulfill your role. Everyone has a job and a role, but it may not be like working for a “boss” as we might think. Strategies are probably discussed and debated and then put into action. They could be handed down “from above,” but I don’t think that would necessarily be the case for those at a certain level. When you’re very familiar and completely on board with the agenda and the goals of it, you would, it seems to me, just do your best within your sphere to bring it all to fruition.

        • Mary, yes, blaming Jews can be a trap, one that many jump into gleefully. They’ve got one heck of a PR group to spruik for them!

          My question is directed at the Zionists, a status that can embrace Christians, Jews, Islamic peoples, and those with no religion save the absolute control of the greater area.

          Why are Aussies participants in this mass slaughter, who are we to be the stormtroopers for the (mostly) faceless elite? Are we their slaves, their chattel? We contribute to the sheer immiseration of the inhabitants, and so the cycle continues without end.

  2. The legal jargon now to complicated for not just the masses but for many whom attempt to wade through language as such, give up and leave what ever to what ever, general summaries such as millions of innocent die? can be understood, nevertheless how or why is of a baffling concern, many feel if this could happen on such a wide scale of violence, no one is free from either becoming a victim to this insanity or forced and manipulated by those whom are generally unknown as to the instigators and dynamics of mass violence. forced to contribute by way of so called legalized and institutional regulations to participate in what if correctly understood establishment criminal normalized procedure.
    The corridors of acquired power now in existence is no longer understandable to the masses whom are unconvinced by political expertise as to the truth of analysis because those whom having to explain to the general public realities of violence, have a job requiring restraint as to a understood protocol not suggested within the contract of job performance to obey requirements in such a way as to sustain the perks of employment and to come to the party? to understand, not be relegated to become a uncertain casualty, a loss of identity the anonymity and obscurity within the delegation and framework of a fate known as a casualty statistic of human waste, a disposal of human flesh befitting the abattoir refuse dump.

    • Whew, Don. May I paraphrase?

      1. There are a lot of couch potatoes.

      2. Couch potato-ism is an understandable response to occupying a place from which your options consist of:

      A. Play along with the rules and hence be able to take home a paycheck, however meagre it be (In Bama, $7.25 ph)
      or B. Actually come to believe that the human race is really “like that” and therefore give up thinking in a more positive way about humanity.

      Am I in the ballpark, Don?
      I would replace your insight: “The corridors of acquired power now in existence is no longer understandable to the masses”

      with “The corridors of acquired power now in existence is no longer understandable to the people in the corridors of power.”

      • Mary you are unbelievable to respond so fast to comments, you are the pin ball wizard, able to mix with the all powerful and contribute so much to Gumshoe.
        I could not even work out what a couch potato was although know it is a common axiom, yes I am disconnected and suffer too much from TV, I am all part of the redundant human waste, if I knew of a more positive road to embark upon I would try to make it.
        You Mary remind me of those who having taken a course in positive thought having not had your soul blighted, from a point of view of psycho analysis when my mind was impacted with a disease given to me by courtesy of MK ultra, 1967, not that this having been the only formative contribution to my condition,with a dose of Sai Baba, the paedophile incidentally wanted by the CIA, for same to powerful to get out of India, your buddy Ram Duss and a sundry of others such as Krishnamurti and so on all of whom I have met in the flesh, some are surprised to know I having attended Goenka meditation and so on, owing to a perverse background of mine I suggest all mentioned and many more are somewhere between perverts and at best dishonest.
        Is it a surprise to you Mary I now having the distinction of the honor of being a couch potato?
        I appreciate your use of language and the lesson of your last syllable on use of word and meaning, I struggle with every word, and am envious of your ease of use and meaning of language.

        • Don, until today i had never heard the name Duss. Until I saw the movie abut Anne Hamilton Byrne I did not know of any connection between yoga and MK-Ultra.

          In my review of the movie “The Family” I did not give sufficient emphasis to Sarah Moore’s discussion. She said Anne frequently took the kids to England and that she, Sarah, was amazed and uplifted by the kindness of the guru.


          • Don, you don’t qualify as a couch potato. Nor doth anyone who was so badly treated that they are exhausted.

            Couch potato-ism is a voluntary occupation.

            I apologize on behalf of the species for your soul-blighting.

          • You Mary Maxwell having not heard of Baba Ram Das? alias Richard Alpert? of ex Harvard University, along with Timothy Leary? you do not know this spiritual history of America? or reminder of Be Here Now? all foreign to you? no doubt you had better things to do than get into the 1970s 80s spiritual agenda? how lucky you are, its just that the Hippies had no idea who they were up against, that is Western democracy so called elites whom are the criminals, the Hippies were naive, attacked and infiltrated by MKUltra, MI5/6 and so on, the realization of the Hippy doctrine had no idea they were to be targeted by the elite and the maturity of this group is still undergoing transformation, they had no leaders but the establishment had no choice in enslaving most of the masses by economics and propaganda, and if necessary as required violence.
            Those who do not get it often take it on themselves such as sex changes, body mutilation, suicide and so on.
            As you know terrorism is central to the Imperialist powers, terrorism by the Western press as the terrorist is required by the Imperialist powers for a number of reasons such as curtailing of individual liberty, amalgamation of a dysfunctional society, to maintain power, and so on.
            The main job of the elites is to return the masses back to slumber.

  3. This is for Speculator below.
    Spec, do you think this guy is telling the truth? It sounds reasonable to me.
    If you don’t want to listen to the machine reading a translation there are other versions in which Ronald speaks Dutch with English subtitles.

    • Yes, I have watched this before. In fact, I think I posted it on Gumshoe when I first heard of it. He does seem credible and sincere to me. I don’t work in high finance, but his claims seem very reasonable

      The last 15 minutes I think are exactly right. Divide and conquer is their truth, etc.

  4. This is for Don’s 12.25pm comment below. Don, I plead complete ignorance re any spiritual business other than the one I was taught (Catholico), and maybe a little of what Diane DeVere is trying to drum into my head [mah ha-id] about the Aboriginal capacity to tie into the universe.

    Still, I do know about Aldous Huxley’s manipulation of the Hippie movement (do I mean Aldous Huxley’s creation of the Hippie movement? See John Coleman’s Committee of 300)

    Please spend just one minute for the beginning of the audio of Mae Brussell — made in 1971 no less. She was the Berry of her day, stunning insight.

    (But Mae would say she got it from 24/7 research.)

  5. John Howard is mentioned regularly on this topic of illegal wars. However Robert Menzies, and all Australian prime ministers, since Howard are also war criminals. Don’t forget that!

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion