Part 15
(04/01/03)

"Clearly Green"

In 1968, Paul Erlich's book, "The Population Bomb," pretty much sealed posterity's fate by pronouncing:

[THEORY 1] "The world is critically overburdened with people right now."

[THEORY 2] "This crush of humanity is destroying the environment and detracting from everybody's quality of life. It is absolutely essential that we slow or halt population growth by making contraception and abortion available to all of the world's women...If we do not put the brakes on our runaway population, the use of coercion will be necessary in order to save the planet."

But after all, hadn't the Beatles insisted that God was dead?  Or was it Nitzsche....

Our nation was experiencing PTSD.  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. But that new pseudonym for shell shock hadn't even been penned yet--older veterans called it battle fatigue.  Viet Nam veterans had it easy the older veterans protested--no real trauma had been inflicted on them mattel toy-soldier hippie-type panty-waists.  But we were ordinary citizens, not soldiers; we hadn't been to battle.  What else could account for the T in our PTSD?

Well, there were race riots in my own home state of North Carolina. On February 1, 1960, four Black students in Greensboro sat in at our Woolworth's lunch counter and launched what would become known as the sit-in movement.  Our hometown soon found itself under Martial Law for months.  We all had to be in our houses with the doors locked by 6pm every night.  The National Guard monitored our streets with rifles.  Sometimes in the dark we could see crosses burning on other people's front lawns.  Once I saw a huge cross burned in front of the P. Lorillard Cigarette factory near the edge of town.

By 1965 here were "race riots" all over the country and anti-Viet Nam demonstrations as well.

Then there were those race riots in L.A.'s Watts community in1965....and Martin Luther King's assassination in 1968.

In 1970, there were children shot where they stood on the knoll, at Kent State.

I guess by Rev. King's death, though, we were all predisposed to buy Erlich's argument that we would cause our own demise.   We hadn't been able to do too much to stop the trouble so far.

Rachel Carson's literary war against DDT, "Silent Spring," also released during that turbulent decade, had further exacerbated our fear that all wasn't so well.  But her contention that humans have the power to destroy the earth only came off to some like the flip side of an arrogant humanist coin, which, on one side proffers that left unchecked, humans will ultimately destroy what they have been given, and on the other hand claims that those same destructive humans have the power to simply change their natures/minds and save themselves.

I guess if we could have truly done that all along, maybe Jesus could have just saved Himself the trouble and stayed in Heaven.

It's only a small stretch theoretically from proposing that humans can truly change their own natures and save instead of destroying--to proposing that we can even bring harmony and perfection to it--make heaven ourselves right here on earth--if we all just put our minds and hearts and hands together.   The creatures change their inherent natures (raw survival) in order to create (voluntary self-sacrifice) Utopia.

Well, no wonder we got mad at God--His book said we cannot possibly achieve this ourselves because we're too selfish.  It's what sin was all about, you know, not being able to control our selfish impulses.   His book says if we have but one sin, too, the proverbial chain is no greater than its weakest link.

I guess we didn't suffer that notion of ourselves too gladly and on some level argued, "Oh, yeah? I don't need to hear this!"

Co-operation on a global scale. H-m-m-m-m.  What a novel notion.  Never mind the reality that we can't even get members within our own families to agree on much, but--oh--we can get the whole planet to change its nature.

Yes, and the troublesome caveat would forever prove to be, "if people would just co-operate with one another."  Sacrificing individual impulses and needs for a greater whole.  Peace and love.

What would the proponents of such a plan do, however, if some people disageed or refused to go along with the program?

Dissatisfied with God's notion of the order of things since the Garden, humans have eternally sought to prove we could get along just fine without His interference.

In some cases we even sought to prove that we could even do what God alleged to have done--create. But for all our attempts, we've been able to make nothing in a vacuum, in a void.

God, however, claims He did, in Genesis chapter 1.

But most of us don't have time to read the Bible or any other pertinent data, unless so doing offers us a chance to glorify ourselves.

I think that's why humans rejected God in the first place--heck, if we creatures could be just like the Creator ("You can be as God..."; Genesis chapter 2),
if we could do everything He did--knowing the difference between good and evil and all, making the right choices together, and controlling destiny, too--then tell me what on earth would we need God for?

Look at the history of nations and countries where mankind has gotten full of himself and led whole civilizations to destruction.  No, wait--most people would rather read the funnies, or read fiction, or see a movie, or drink a six-pack and watch the game--than read the Bible, a history book, a dictionary, an encyclopedia, or the US Constitution.  They're boring.   We need to be stimulated, to be stirred.   Not simply to pour over data.  And as a result, fiction has often been more lovingly embraced and even appeared more believable, than mundane reality.

And we, like some co-dependent children of an impersonal, indifferent, unnurturing, unbelievable, megalomaniacal Creator (How could a LOVING God let bad things happen to GOOD people?), sought to assuage our doubt and disillusionment, I think, by flip-flopping our allegiance over to those things which were created.

And didn't we (as a formerly Christian nation) soon find great value if not validity in those concepts which either diminished God's existence, or altered His timeworn way, softening His hard line via acceptance of diverse alternative explanations for how & why we are all here--philosophy, psychology, science, math--without completely divesting ourselves of our impulse to worship, a trait by the way which He claims in His book, to have given each of us (see Romans chapter 1).  We just traded the old hard line for a more preferable one, one which gives us a bigger role--not only in creation, but in the outcome of the entire future!

Whew!!!  Now why didn't He think of that.  He needed us--He really, REALLY needed us to secure the planet's future.  And we certainly embraced almost all of those alternative theories and theologoies which alleged that we could be as God, or that we could just simply be, and be without Him (via eastern philosophies, naturalism, humanism, pantheism,  atheism et al).  Didn't we.

Well, bless our hearts.

Perhaps when we realized our world--as well our parents, and other authority figures and institutions--couldn't truly conceal their desperate flaws, we desired to try to "fix" what appeared to be broken by taking on an inordinate sense of responsibility for things.  Perhaps because we felt abandoned by our government and an impersonal Father God, we sought to regain some sense of control and purpose by serving Mother Earth instead, nurturing the planet, saving the whales, preserving the rain forests, re-pleting the ozone layer, and rescuing certain other species from extinction.

Or maybe it's just kind of like children wanting to hold a puppy or a kitten after a tragedy or abuse--its benfecial to have something warm, fuzzy, and safe to care for.

"I won't let anything bad happen to you," we reassure the new object of our affection.

Having survived rape as a child, and domestic abuse as a young adult, as a former victim of PTSD, I can sympathize. It often helped me as a child, post tragedy,  to hold a fluffy rabbit, or feed and brush my uncle's horses, or help my mother plant a garden and tend it with her.

And I can still remember my initial fear at first hearing the news concerning the prospect that the number of people on this planet might grow too fast for our food supply to keep up with....

I was in fourth grade at Curry Elementary School in Greensboro, North Carolina, 1960.  It was Sadie Hawkins day near the end of school--the girls could finally ask the boys to squaredance--when our teacher interrupted our regular lesson to inform us about a new important issue called the Population Explosion.  We would have to take more responsiblitity for our country's growth rate.

On the very same day she would also talk to us about a growing crisis in a small country in southeast Asia near China, called Viet Nam. Communists were going to take control of the citizens, she said, and unless our country came to Viet Nam's aid, she told us as she pointed to a map of Asia she had placed in front of the colorful chart displaying rapid US population growth, Viet Nam was going to be taken over by Communism.

We would have to fight.  The communists were evil.

I remember being more afraid I would be shot if I stepped outside after "curfew."

I remember picturing images of starving children in my mind at dinner when I was tempted to discard leftovers.

I remember hearing, "waste no; want not."

I remember the Golden Rule.

I remember my brother got drafted into the Army and I wondered if we would ever see him again.

And as I grew older I began to hear lots of discussions about a so-called birth control pill.  It was supposed to help people (women) with the issue of our Population Explosion.  I remember a lot of Catholics were against it because the Pope was.  And I remember that despite much heated debate on TV and in our own neighborhood, The Pill eventually became part of the (promiscuous) 60's generation.  Those of us who would be taking the pill were doing our part to help our country by keeping the Population Explosion under control.   But as my family took its monthly drive into the blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia to Aunt Lena's, I saw wide rolling, barren hills, valleys, plains and pastureland, for miles and miles and miles and miles with no humans in sight.

Getting out of the city regularly would ultimately prove key to my realizing the myth of any Population Explosion.

But in March, 1970, away from the probing eyes of the public, Congress and the National Security Council created The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 176 pp.), which completed its work in March 1972. [1]

The tasks assigned the Commission are described in the Preface of the Commission's final report:

"The Commission was asked to examine the probable extent of population growth and internal migration in the United States between now and the end of this century, to assess the impact that population change will have upon government services, our economy,  and our resources and environment, and to make  recommendations on how the nation can best cope with that impact." http://www.population-security.org/journal-spes.htm

On April 24, 1974, with the nation's attention now divided and the continuing saga of Patty Hearst still ringing in our ears, in a forthright effort to contend with this impending [population] crisis, Richard Nixon, in a private National Security Study Memorandum, directed that a comprehensive study be undertaken to determine the "Implications of World Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." [1]  And whammo! NSSM 200  was authored, issued in December1974 --a joint effort by Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State acting on Nixon's behalf, and his deputy General Brent Scowcroft -- a memorandum which provided the "hit list" of 13 developing countries for which the National Security Council  posited a "special US political and strategic interest" in population reduction or limitation--Limited Development Countries, or LDC as they were called in the memo--included India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia.  Demographic growth in these and other third world nations was to be halted and if possible reversed for the brutal reason that population growth represented increased strategic, and military power for the countries in question.

Special attention was given India where NSSM 200  observed, "...there have been some controversial, but remarkably successful, experiments in India in which financial incentives, along with other motivational devices, were used to get large numbers of men to accept vasectomies."

When observing the lack of co-operation from the named countries' governments (re: population reduction), NSSM 200  goes on to ask, "would food be considered an instrument of national power?"

Additionally, NSSM 200  states specifically that population growth in the developing sector is a national security threat to the United States, and must be curtailed as a matter of America's foreign policy. [2]

The National Security Council's position, however, had not been promulgated in a vacuum. [3]

In 1798, the Rev. Thomas Malthus, published his landmark work, "An Essay on the Principle of Population" claiming, "There exists, at this very moment, a tremendous battle of minds over the vexing problem of world population vs. world food supply."

In 1947, reports Brendan Nicholson in the March 10, 2002 edition of Australia's The Age,  world-famous microbiologist Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet recommended in a secret report--his "Note on War from a Biological Angle," for the Australian Defense Department--that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases: "Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would  be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical, but not under Australian, conditions." [4]

By 1981, the US Office of Population, per Thomas Ferguson,  issued the following statements, reprinted in a later edition of Executive Intelligence Review:

"Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. The professionals are not interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons… In El Salvador, there is no place for these people -- period. No place.

"Look at Vietnam. We studied the thing. That area was also overpopulated and a problem. We thought that the war would lower rates, and we were wrong. To really reduce population quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females. You know, as long as you have a large number of fertile females, you will have a problem…

"In El Salvador, you are killing a small number of males and not enough females to do the job on the population. The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease, like the Black Death.

"What might happen in El Salvador is that the war might disrupt the distribution of food: The population could weaken itself, you could have disease and starvation. Then you can successfully create a tendency for population rates to decline rapidly… but otherwise, people breed like animals."

"The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 "to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population." --from, "Kissinger's 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide,"by Joseph Brewda, EIR, Dec. 8, 1995.       http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/kiss_nssm_jb_1995.html

According to Chaitkin and Tarpley, Bush Sr.'s work for population control goes back to the 1960s, when he was the first congressman to introduce national population-control legislation. Bush Sr. was also a conspicuous activist for population reduction when he was U.S.ambassador to the United Nations from 1971 to 1972. In 1972, prodded by Bush and others, the U. S. Agency for International Development (called AID, named specifically in NSSM 200) began funding the Sterilization League of America, aka, Birthright, aka, the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception, to sterilize non-whites and poor, here and abroad.

The whole sad reality is that the data which was proffered in NSSM 200  and subsequent supportive philosophies, was either false or largely biased in favor of the proponents' personal policies, to begin with.

But then why didn't our media even look into this?

"The idea of Population Explosion was so absurd it could be disproved in five minutes at any public library. Caught up in the hysteria, however, the nation's news media never questioned why groups were warning of a 'population bomb'
in the midst of plummeting birth rates."
(--by Mike Perry, in "THE HISTORY OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD", copyright 1990, American Life League)

Coincidentally, in 1992, The United Nations picked up the population control ball and ran with it, issuing the fallacious UN Biodiversity (Convention's) Treaty.
The 1044-page report judges all human activities on the basis of two world views, Judeo-Christian (BAD GUYS) and pantheistic (GOOD GUYS), and offers the model for the future--

"The western world view is characteristic of large-scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes of nature...[which] became firmly established about 2000 years [ago] with the Judeo-Christian- Islamic religious traditions....

The world view of traditional societies tends to be strikingly different from the modern world view. They tend to view themselves as members of a community that not only includes other humans, but also plants and animals as well as rocks, springs and pools. People are then members of a community of beings --living and non-living. Thus rivers may be viewed as mothers. Animals may be treated as kin.... The many restraints [by traditional societies] on the use of natural resources, [including the] protection...of sacred sites,...may have evolved culturally in response to the need to ensure more sustainable use of biological populations and conservation of biological diversity." (Italics, emphasis added)

In 1994 when it reached the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this Treaty favored implementation of at least a 25% population reduction among participating countries (and those thirteen LCD countries cited in NSSM200). But due to overwhelming evidence offered against the proffered data, signing the Treaty was halted (http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/biotreatystop.htm), Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson had the treaty shelved and ratification stopped, until further notice.

But ever yet this Treaty's life force pumps within the hearts of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  In April 2002, it was re-energized.

Our current 2003 world population is estimated at 6 billion people.  The Biodiversity Treaty (qoted above) expresses an ideal for survival at1 billion people.  H-m-m-m-mmm.  This translates to an astonishing conclusion -- in order for our planet and the people on it to have enough food, water, and air to survive, we would need to reduce the earth's current population by 80%.

How on earth could we achieve that?

Popaganda is always key to any master plan.  And those who have the resources to create and proffer such propaganda, would.  Data to support such a notion can be purchased for the right do-re-mi-$$$$$$$$$$.   International Public relations firms are in the business of creating images to sell ideas condusive to clients' bottom lies.  Even on a global scale.  But key, or essential, to the success of any propaganda plan is the timely delivery of such propaganda within a public framework of anxiety or fear, because as such, propaganda becomes most effective when humans are fearful, anxious, desparate for solutions to perceived problems.

(See Hegelian Dialectic--thesis, antithesis, synthesis--or more clearly--problem, reaction, solution.)

Now all you have to do is create an imagined problem, a threat (to a nation or humanity itself), offer limited and controlled solutions to the afflicted, and they will pick their solution from within the context you have given them.   Key to recouping one's investment (in generating propaganda) is controlling the choices so the public selects from your choice of solutions.

People 'think' they are not being controlled because propaganda does not alter our ability to think, it only controls the result.

In the last Gulf War, the international public relations firm of Hill and Knowlton, Inc., was hired for between $10.7 million dollars and $11.6 million, to generate false stories about Saddam Hussein's army killing 312 Kuwaiti babies in incubators in order to generate a groundswell of American outrage toward Iraq and thus justify war. http://www.cjr.org/year/92/5/war.asp

For their $10.7+ million dollar fee, Hill and Knowlton also generated other blatantly false stories for the cause, told knowingly and repeatedly by George Bush Sr., regarding intelligence reports of satellite images of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Republican Guard troops ammassed on the border of Saudi Arabia, making it seem necessary that we intervene immediately, inflaming American emotions, further insuring a groundswell of American support for Operation Desert Storm, later the Gulf War.

And even though our American press soon found out about the absolute errancy of such reports courtesy of the St. Petersburg Times, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK13Ak01.html, the job was done, and by summer of 1990 public sentiment had been swayed; in the minds of Americans everywhere Hussein had become the next Hitler and must be eliminated, both he and his baby-slaughtering army.

And, the press made no real mention of the reality that the very man running Hill & Knowlton's Washington propaganda central was none other than Craig Fuller, one of Bush's closest friends and inside political advisors.  The news media never bothered to examine Fuller's role at all, until after the war had ended.  But if American's editors had just read the PR trade press, they might have noticed this announcement, published in O'Dwyer's PR Services before the fighting began:

"Craig L.Fuller, chief of staff to Bush when he was vice-president, has been on the Kuwaiti account at Hill & Knowlton since the first day."-- http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Yep-just take your $$$$$$$$$$'s; declare a problem to your bought-and-paid-for-media: "Population Overgrowth".
Create a Reaction:  Fear.
Define the logical solutions: Birth Control, abortion, war....
Sit back and wait.

Perhaps you have been hearing/reading/watching/exposed to only one side of the issue.  Perhaps that is what was intended.  Perhaps that is what your children are learning in school every day, AS FACT.

Unfortunately, many have fallen for the propaganda: ozone depletion, disappearance of the rain forests, global warming et al.

Perhaps we should hear more than the loudest voice.

Perhaps we should peer behind more than the obvious curtains:

In 1992 former President Richard M. Nixon once again reasserted his long-held belief that overpopulation gravely threatens world peace and stability.
In his book, "Seize the Moment"  (Simon & Schuster,1992), he ranks assistance in population growth control as the most important effort the United States can undertake to promote peace and stability - and, thus, protect U.S. security.

In an overwhelming demonstration of how a "creatures before humans" mentality prevails in even so-called Creator-centric theological institutions, on January 23, 1996, a mailing done by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America provides insight into the "education and action" sponsored by the NRPE.  (http://www.webofcreation.org/worship/resources/baker.html) The letter, signed by Kristin D. Sundell, Advocacy Associate for Environmental Concerns, accompanies a bulletin insert and an action alert about the Endangered Species Act. The letter says, "This Noah's Ark is under attack by persons in the current Congress....The efforts of the religious community are key to its survival." The action alert in the package claims that "Many scientists estimate that one quarter of the world's species could be lost within the next 50 years."

Such claims as were made by the ELCA are grossly exaggerated, according to Julian L. Simon and Aaron Wildavsky, in an article published by the National Wilderness Institute. The best scientific studies reveal that the extinction rate between 1600 and 1900 is one species every four years. Since 1900 until the present, the best studies estimate that about one species per year has become extinct.

There is virtually no scientific evidence to support the claims made in the action alert. [8]

Even as I type this, aren't we as concerned community citizens becoming more and more acclimated to the UN concepts of "sustainability,""sustainable development." See UN AGENDA 21.  See ZERO POPULATION GROWTH (called the Population Connection since 2002).  See the web site on OVERPOPULATION. And yes, Virginia, we still believe....

Some interesting, well researched articles on the fallacy of such philosphies/fears may be found at:

In addition to our theological institutions, earth-first environmentalism/pantheism supercedes all other scientific theories and is taught as FACT in our public school (and some private school) systems, negating good science altogether. The National Science Foundation funded the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which was influential in returning evolution to high school biology textbooks. In the 1960's, the theory of evolution again began to be widely taught, as fact, in our public schools.

The few hurdles that Kissinger's NSSM 200 population control memo had to overcome, however, way back in 1974--if one could get past the false data proffered within it--were:

(1) the reality that it would be difficult to promote birth control on a global scope, unless the recipients could be persuaded that it was intended for their benefit.

Data therefore, had to support the authors' conclusions; time was of the essence--hence, careful wording of such a population control plan would slant it toward U.S. strategic, economic, and military interests at the expense of developing countries since population growth in relatively disadvantaged countries would jeopardize our national security as well as economic investments.

Not so implicit to NSSM 200, was validation of the use of force or coercion, in order to accomplish our goals, i.e., mandatory population control may be appropriate.

And apparently , the plan is working.

It's funny where life has taken me...in 1982, the President of the Viet Nam Veterans' of America made a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, where I lived and worked in my twenties.  I had sought him out afterwards, to ask questions concerning my (now deceased) veteran brother. Instead, he began to talk to me in explicit detail about Pol Pot's genocidal regime in Cambodia (the year after NSSM's execution) where 32% of Cambodia's population,  two million men women and children, had been brutally exterminated by the Khmer Rouge--and how national genocide on such a scale had barely caused a wrinkle on the brow of American journalism.  I wondered at the time what that had to do with my brother's illness.

Available documents now demonstrate that during 1975, the Chinese communists, Henry Kissinger, Chairman Mao Zedong (Tse-tung), and George Bush Sr. as Kissinger's head of the US liaison office/ambassador to China, concerted efforts to create a true demonstration model of the NSSM 200's depopulation policy: the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. [9]  [10] , (" The Kissinger Transcripts: The Top Secret Talks with Beijing and Moscow-- A National Security Archive Documents Reader," William Burr, editor).

GWB Jr. has apparently carried on the tradition. On Friday January 11th, 2002, President Bush signed the 2002 U. S. foreign aid bill into law, after the bill was passed in Congress. In addition to foreign governments, the latest foreign aid bill includes funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). This has added fuel to the fire of controversy surrounding foreign aid, and other topics such as abortion. The reason has to do primarily with involvement of the UNFPA in population control.

And the lion's share of Bush's 2002 Foreign Aid Bill appears to be designated to wealthier countries, not the needy ones. http://dte.gn.apc.org/Au24.htm

And friends,  this so-called born-again man who declared Jesus Day here in Texas, now cheerfully presides over the destruction of His Lord's creation (see: Ur of the Chaldees or Birthplace of Civilization), whenever and wherever he deems appropriate.

Twenty years ago in Roanoke, I was busy raising two sons on my own.  A single mother barely making ends meet.  My concerns were not global at the time but constrained to family; not foreign countries, not foreign policy.  History had not been a favorite subject in school, either.  Art, music and English were.  I could barely see beyond my small family's needs.  No church came to see if they could help us.   So, in 1982, I wondered why the President of the Viet Nam Veterans of America thought it more important to discuss some tragic event in some far away land which probably didn't affect me or any other Americans, than discuss what appeared to me to me to be a truly tragic event about to happen right here--the possible loss of my own very ill veteran brother's life.

But as the Lord so often does, He connected all those seemingly random dots of my own life with truly precise and infinite wisdom--I had to hear that genocide discussion then, and certain subsequent ones (to be written about), in order that I appreciate now what I am reading and suggesting that you also read.

Today most Americans are likewise trying to raise their families, put food on their tables, and pay off the loans on their SUV's.   Content that someone else is taking care of cleaning up the flotsam of the world beyond our borders, we are all free to prepare for the big game on Saturday.   That's what freedom means in America today--not freedom of speech ("if you're not with us, you're against us"), not freedom of the press (it's owned by big oil and banks), not religious freedom (go figure).   We sit in our recliners on Saturday (I earned a day off) and wave little plastic American Wal-Mart "made in China" flags, pounding our patriotic breasts, watching some Clear Channel sposored "Rally for America" while we chill the beer between innings on ABC or NBC, blissfully unaware that Clear Channel also owns a majority of our media (http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/21-3/clearchannel.html), so capturing our attention serves the owners of Clear Channel, and sadly, big oil.   But I guess we don't care where our information comes from as long as the beer is cold.

Now go punch out the lights of some war protestor to feel better about yourselves, and don't ask how long this-tinyman-who-would-be-King-of-America was AWOL for approximately 18 months (at least one year)from the only Air National Guard duty he ever saw (also GO HERE and http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm)...
HOW CAN A DESERTER (yes; it occurred during war-time) be permitted to send our young men and women to die, when he himself was too big of a panty-waist to serve--a news item you won't hear on any of his good ole  buddies' Clear Channels, although this information first made international news in a Boston Globe article in 2000.

YOU can read more about this HERE:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html
http://bushwatch.org/bushgate2.htm
http://www.tcstechservice.com/BUSH%20went%20AWOL.pdf
http://www.awolbush.com/
http://www.kings.edu/twsawyer/awol/awol-bush.html

And just because Clear Channel--who also owns Premiere Radio Networks' co-chickenhawk (TRANSLATION: AVOIDED THE DRAFT during Viet Nam) Rush Limbaugh and many other draft-dodgers' radio shows, sees it NOT in their own interest to inform us between innings, that global genocide is currently occuring at our own hands because we were persuaded by our AWOL Commander-in-Chief that Saddam Hussein was Hitler (via the Pentagon's $$$$$ Public Relations generator, Hill & Knowlton, Inc), and because we were willingly fleeced about that Population Explosion thing, too; we won't be held accountable for what has happened on this planet, or what we've done to our children while we were chilling our beer, or for our our ignorance/indifference/inhumane treatment of those who tried to wake us up.

For all we--like God's own perfect metaphor for that kind of collective stupidity--like sheep have--completely and irrevocably but oh so willingly--gone astray, every single one of us.

Come to think of it, the American press never did make much mention, if any, of Kissinger's 1974 land mine, National Security SECRET Memorandum 200, either, when it was made public in 1989.

Finally, a love note from Adolf Hitler, from chapter 10, "Mein Kampf"--

"In all cases where the fulfillment of apparently impossible demands or tasks is involved, the whole attention of a people must be focused and concentrated on this one question, as though life and death actually depended on its solution.  Only in this way will a people be made willing and able to perform great tasks and exertions."

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country"
-- http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm (excerpt from "Nuremberg Diaries", G. M. Gilbert, DeCapo Press, 1995)