INDEX
Prophecy 'Blog' : Friday February 11th, 2005
The following story on the American sponsored election in Vietnam has been making the rounds on various blogs, and I thought I would post it here as well.
The New York Times dated September 4, 1967.
"U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror"
United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the military candidates, Lieut. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, who was running for president, and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, the candidate for vice president.
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.
The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Diem was overthrown by a military junta."
It is interesting to note that the Iraqis just held an election where there was no real campaigning, and no one knew the names of the candidates until the day of the elections. For the most part they voted for 'lists', with the Islamic Shia list doing the best in the voting results. This vote was forced upon the Americans as the price of keeping powerful Shia clerics from endorsing the insurgency in Iraq. After information about the returns began coming out this was then followed by demands that the Americans respond to the election results by laying down a definte time table for pulling out of Iraq. At the same time the United States military is currently setting up permanent military bases in Iraq, with corporations such as Haliburton and Betchel in the planning stages of constructing even more of these permanent occupation force bases in Iraq. According to public opinion canvassing, there was a wide spread belief among voters that voting was the way to end the occupation of Iraq by foreign forces, but given the fact that Iraq has trillions of dollars worth of O-I-L we can expect the Americans to leave Iraq voluntarily when pigs fly.
Speaking of O-I-L, one of the prominent politicians on the winning list stated that Iraq's O-I-L would be up for sale to America's exclusive Have Mores, the political base of George Bush, including ownership of the O-I-L while it is still under the ground. It is a violation of international law for an occupying force to change any of the laws of the land of the country being occupied, which has not stopped the Bush administration, since there is contempt for law in high places in America, and so they already 'neo-liberalized' Iraq, opening the place up for exploitation by American capitalists, leaving only the O-I-L to be symbolically handed over by Iraq's so called 'government', without, of course, having a democratic vote on that O-I-L give away issue, because that would ruin everything.
I received an email from a member of what I would call the religious right, insisting on the infallibility of the Bible, and asking me why I do not join with the millions who protest the millions of abortions, which are cruel murders of small innocent babies.
Now first of all, abortion does not get me riled up and worked into a lather, because I remain unconvinced that this is THE REALLY BIG MORAL ISSUE for churches to tackle. A fetus during the first trimester has no brain. The question becomes then whether or not you can be a person when you have no functioning brain. Certainly you can feel no pain and experience no terror, despite those propaganda diatribes about the so called ‘silent scream' of an aborted fetus with no brain. It also quite certain that an embryo cannot ‘scream' and that is also true of a collection of cells. Some religious person could then argue that while a fetus or a glob of cells has no brain, and therefore no consciousness and no personality, it does nevertheless have something called ‘a soul', but this is merely a religious belief, an ancient attempt to explain such things as personality and consciousness and there is no real evidence that something called ‘a soul' actually exists. The evidence we do have strongly suggests that ‘the soul' is actually the product of physical brain chemistry, with the whole then becoming greater than the sum of its parts. We do know that when a certain part of the brain has been injured an otherwise peaceful, friendly person can become a violent tempered and quite evil person, and there are all sorts of other personality changes that are documented and known to be related to this injury or that injury localized in a certain area of a physical brain, something no embryo or fetus possesses.
However what really causes me to have no interest in the great big moral crusade over abortion is the rank hypocrisy of this so called issue of ‘moral values'. You see, it turns out that ‘innocent babies and helpless children' have what is called ‘the right to life' just as long as they are inside a womb somewhere, either in the form of a glob of cells or in the fetal stage. There is however no right to life once you are out of the womb since this would cost money. Preserving the so called ‘right to life' of some glob of cells is free. It does not cost money. And because it is free, and does not threaten ‘private property', which is the highest of all the ‘moral values' in Babylon, even the government and politicians of Babylon can join with all those ministers and preachers in being real moral about protecting the ‘right to life' of some split celled egg, because it won't require challenging the gross inequality of Babylonian society. However in doing so this does expose the rotted out hypocrisy of Babylonian ‘moral values', and given how many churches and their ministers are sunk right up to their nostrils in Babylonian culture and Babylonian values, it also clearly exposes the rotten hypocrisy of what passes for ‘Christianity' in Babylon.
It is for this reason that while the whipped up hysteria over ‘abortion' just never comes to an end in Babylon, you never hear so much as a single solitary words about the ‘right to life' of some egg once it has successfully exited the womb with a brain that can actually experience life and feel such things as hunger, malnourishment, and starvation. While those Babylonians continue their pursuit of ‘private property' and other such things as the O-I-L wells of Iraq and Venezuela, or the natural gas of Bolivia, spending more on that short war already than it would take to fund world hunger programs for five years, you don't hear a word from pulpits about ‘the right to life' in this case, since the baby has been born and now, unlike the abortion issue, the so called ‘right to life' is going to cost money instead of being just one more of those so called ‘moral issues' that don't cost a dime (such as bashing fags and harping about marriage, another freebie that doesn't money, since bashing fags is cost free while feeding starved babies costs money).
INDEX
HOME