Dear Thom and Louise;

I appreciate your views on the need for insurance, registration and licencing of firearms.

I believe that insurance is the real key, and if you think about it a bit, having to have insurance on a bushmaster military rifle would be prohibitively expensive, compared to owning a 30.06 hunting rifle.

We would likely not even need a law to ban, because the insurance companies (perhaps aside LLOyds of London) would never even write a policy for that model, or any others with high capacity to kill lots of people!

Keep up the great work!

Sincerely;

Timothy F Sharp

Missoula MT

Hi Thom,

Ronald Reagan was surrounded by armed men and still got shot. Were there not enough guns surrounding him to protect him from one lone attacker?

The President is grand standing again on an issue he has very little control over. The real power for changing the gun laws lies with Congress. The NRA owns the Republicans in the House of Representatives. There is little to no hope of getting these people to ban weapons they believe are covered under the 2nd. Amendment. Even if they believed they would be doing the right thing by endorsing the Presidents requests, they would not go up against their own party and the Corporations that make billions on gun sales. They know that the RNA, Tea Party and others on the right would run a new Republican against them in their next primary to teach all the other Republicans who actually runs the Republican Party. Banning clips that hold more than 10 rounds is ineffective when trying to curb the amount of ammo that a gun can disburse at one time. Anyone who has had military training can fire off the whole clip and reload within seconds. And those without military training can learn and practice to reload their weapon within seconds. Mental health checks for buyers and insurance that would cover people who were assaulted with these weapons is a good idea, but that will not stop anyone from purchasing insurance at the time of purchase from simply not paying future payments. As we have seen in California, not having insurance while driving after the initial coverage runs out has not stopped those who would drive without coverage. Having police at the schools is a good idea, but there are always ways around this, for example; by entering the school as a person delivering goods, than pulling out his AR-15 and spraying anyone he sees. My daughter is a school teacher who hates guns and will not allow her husband to have a weapon in their house, ( which I think is a silly choice) thinks it is a good idea to have some people who are authorized to carry a weapon bring them on campus, such as teachers and administration personnel. She works in a high crime district and they have lock downs when someone is being pursued by the police near the school. Problem with that solution is what if the police are not notified about a threat in the area which means no lock-down, they are a reactionary stop gap that only arrives after the crime is committed. I think every school should have armed personal on campus and fences and monitored access points to get into the school. We have 3,000,000 weapons in the control of civilians all across the U.S. At this point only the most radical laws to take away weapons from citizens across the nation might have an impact on these horrific crimes. Turning in the people who make threats against others indicating they will use a weapon to get even or whatever, sounds good, but where is the money coming from for the extra personnel needed to check out these claims or reports. I am well versed in firearms and it takes only seconds to reload any weapon whether it is a revolver, semi-automatic hand gun or semi-automatic assault weapon. A high powered rifle with a scope and a magazine with limited capacity can be used by someone who is familiar with hunting, can do as much damage as a Ar-15 if you have the advantage of being on the high ground. Stopping the wide spread sale of graphic and violent computer games might be helpful, but there is not enough evidence that there is any correlation between these games and going out and killing people. We can pass all the laws we think will prevent mass murders from happening, but you cannot stop a person from committing these crimes if they are intent on killing as many people as possible, As far as protecting ourselves from a tyranical government by owning assault weaponsis a red herring. No well-armed country can stand up against our military power, how would a band of civilians across the U.S. stop the U.S. Military? If a person is willing to give up his or her life for what he or she perceives is the right thing to do, you cannot stop them. If they cannot find firearms to carry out their crime, they will just make car bombs as the American terrorist Timothy Mcvaey(spelling is wrong!) did in Oklahoma against a Federal building years ago! We need to realize this is something we will have to live with and be more cautious and aware of the people around us at all times. A sad scenario for any country in this time in history...If we can pass the laws to outlaw these weapons that wouid be a great thing to due and a step in the right direction. But it will not stop those who are determined to wreak havoc in America. The days of being free of fear from someone committing this type of crime is sadly long gone.

I agree, to an extent, that a bunch of civilians with weapons could not stand up to the might of the government forces..but they have done so successfully in other countries...Vietnam (eventually kicked our butts out where it didn't belong in the first place). Iran and Afghanistan (are outlasting us as they have every other time a foreign invader and occupier thought they'd bully their way into these countries). I do hope that we will never have to resort to violence here in America. I most whole-brainedly prefer peace over violence. But the very potential would be enough to prevent it in the first place.

Yes, those foreign populations took a big hit...tragic...for sure. But he who leaves first is really the loser. The American taxpayer and those who lost loved ones and those in the other country who lost loved ones were all the losers. The ones who aspire to impose tyranny on the world got rich off of the backs of the taxpayers...I guess you could say..."they" won. What did the MIC really accomplish except a lot of death and mayhem...even to their own.

As in Vietnam..and now in the Middle East...soldiers are not as gung-ho. The propaganda and lies they get drilled into their heads in training eventually subsides, when they actually experience the horrors, making way for the cruel and mental anguish of the reality of war. More veterans are committing suicide to stop the pain. 346 last year. More of our soldiers died by suicide than on the battlefield against the enemy.

So, how would an armed forces last if they were turned against their own people? Killing the so-called "subhumans" that they were propagandized and trained to kill abroad would have been much easier than killing your own people...perhaps relatives. Even that tank in Tiananmen Square in China, a country known for it's human right abuses, wouldn't run over that protestor standing in the way. Of course, Israel doesn't seem to have that "problem".

I believe that just "having" all of these weapons that "could" be used in our defense is enough of a deterrent to a potential tyrannical government that they would not risk sending their troops out against the people. Sure, they will send them out against small, isolated, groups. But, if there were a lot of well armed groups all over the place...our military would be overwhelmed. The troops would be disheartened and, as in Vietnam, "fragging" would commence at a rapid pace.

If all of those protesters at that Chicago National Convention were all armed...I think those National Guard that shot those unarmed protesters would have been searching for their balls in the street that day and crying for their mommies.

There is the concept of mutually ensured destruction that kept us from turning the world into an incinerator. When one power gets to be too strong...they can't help but push the limits of their exploitation and oppression. With a well armed citizenry we would have that mutually ensured destruction. The ruling elite, and their toady government officials, sure wouldn't want to confront a massively armed defense. And just like our forefathers, and the rag tag bands in countries we've invaded and occupied, fighting guerrilla wars in the streets are the worst the military has to fight.

I've heard people use examples of David Koresh and others who were small groups of well armed people going up against the government...but those were just small groups. If all American citizens were well armed...that's a very large mass of people that a potentially tyrannical government would have to worry about. And the tactic of being holed up in any one isolated place is like just asking to be wiped out.

And just where would our government come up with all the money it would take to squash millions of people with guns? And all our military does is waste $Trillions on murdering people but never really wins hearts and minds or the conflict. Today's police forces can't even handle the crime that is taking place in American streets...if all American citizens were well armed we really wouldn't need all those crooked and dirty cops that like to shoot 20-30 rounds into some crazy man or woman's body. They never get there in time to save people from getting shot or raped anyway...mostly always after the person is dead. And the criminals know it...they know that they are more likely to succeed in getting away without being killed because they know that most people don't carry their own guns. But they sure have them. We need to have the means to protect ourselves...not rely on the police.

Thank you for calling them (R) insane.

What? President Obama dares to exercise his constitutionally-mandated powers as president? That's outrageous. (Of course, it's only outrageous when a black democrat does it; when a white republican does it, it's just fine.)

Here's a review I posted about John Mackey's book, "Conscious Capitalism":

John Mackey is a hypocrite.

On the back cover of his book you will see that it is recommended by 5 people, all of whom are billionaires or multi-millionaires. All dedicated members of the 1%. Mackey's brand of "conscious capitalism" is conscious, alright, so in that sense he's telling the truth. But look at his actual business practices and you'll see what kind of consciousness he promotes.

His book says, "You tell the truth to the people you love." Ok, if he's telling the truth about that, he doesn't love his customers and he doesn't want his employees to love customers, either. Let's look at how Mackey's conscious capitalism works out in his actual business practices:

1. A whole Foods butcher told me, "Grass fed beef means that the cattle are fed soy, corn, and other grasses."

I said, "Soy and corn are not grasses, they are grains,"

He said, "Oh no, soy and corn are grasses, all of our meat is grass fed. We don't sell any grain-fed meats."

2. The Whole Foods store in Seattle's University district had a hockey puck-shaped odor control product in the men's room urinals. Specifically, paradichlorobenzene- a cancer-causing brain and nervous system poison. Being chemically sensitive, I got a one-week headache every time I used the bathroom. And toxicologically speaking, the people who are most vulnerable to toxins like paradichlorobenzene are infants, young children, pregnant women, sick people and people with compromised immune systems, and old people. I emailed John Mackey the Conscious Capitalist, and it's been about five years, and he hasn't consciously replied to me. A week after I emailed Mackey, I talked with to the manager of the store, proving everything I said. He said, "Ok, I'll have to look into that." A month later he had not done anything and hadn't contacted me. So I called him again. He didn't call back. I talked with a department manager, who said she would look into it and get back to me. She didn't. I talked with another department manager who said he would get back to me. He didn't. After a year and a half, I told a Whole Foods employee about the situation and told him I was thinking about suing Whole Foods. He said, "I think you should, because if you don't sue them, they won't do anything."

I put a sign on the bathroom door that said, "Danger: Paradichlorobenzene in use. Cancer-causing brain toxin." A Whole Foods security guy came up to me a few minutes later and said, "Did you put that sign on the bathroom door?"

I said, "That depends. Do you use paradichlorobenzene in that bathroom?"

He said, "No, we do not."

I said, "Then I did not put the sign on the door."

He said, "Someone saw you put the sign on the door. I am going to ask you again: did you put that sign on the door?"

I said, "And I am going to ask you again: do you use paradichlorobenzene in that bathroom?"

He said, "No, we do not."

I said, "Then I did not put that sign on the door."

He said, "We do not want you putting signs in our store."

I said, "We do not want you exposing us to that highly toxic chemical."

He said, "You could be arrested for putting that sign on the door."

I said, "That would be an interesting court case: man arrested for informing customers that they are being poisoned."

He said, "We're going to let you go this time, but don't put any more sign on that door."

I said, "I'm going to let you go this time, but quit using that chemical."

A month later, they were still using the chemical.

So I notified Whole Foods of my intention to sue them, and said I would also take the case to the court of public opinion. Within a week they stopped using paradichlorobenzene in their bathrooms.

3. About five months ago I was getting a plastic bag off the roll in the produce department at a Whole Foods store, and realized that all of their plastic bags had a toxic solvent in them. The smell was unmistakeable. I asked an employee, who looked uncomfortable and said, "I don't know anything about that." I asked the store manager, who also looked uncomfortable and said, "Oh yes, we've known about that for over a month."

I said, "Then why are you still letting your customers use those toxic bags?"

He said, "Well, we have to use our remaining stock of bags, and then we'll see if we can get bags from another supplier."

I said, "Why don't you remove those bags right now, and let your customers use paper bags?"

He said, "I don't have the authority to do that."

I said, "So you're telling me that the Whole Foods corporation won't let you stop exposing your customers to that toxic chemical?"

He said, "Yes, that's what I am saying."

4. I have asked three Whole Foods employees if Whole Foods sells grass fed butter. All three of them handed me a butter whose label says, "Summer Butter." The label does not say "Grass Fed," it just says, "Summer Butter." When I pointed out this obvious fact, they all insisted that the butter was grass fed. I said, "If it's grass fed, why doesn't the label say grass fed?" One of them kept insisting that the butter is grass fed.

5. I pointed out to a Whole Foods employee that the grape juice under the "Organic Grape Juice" sign, was not organic. He said, "Sure it is, see the sign?"

I handed him a bottle of the juice and said, "This bottle that was under that sign, does not say organic."

He said, "But it is organic, the sign says it's organic."

I asked him to get a manager. The manager took me around the corner from the "Organic Grape Juice" sign, and showed me the organic grape juice. I said, "Why do you have the 'Organic' sign over the non-organic grape juice?"

She said, "The sign is right by the organic grape juice."

I said, "The organic sign is around the corner from the organic grape juice. The sign is right above the non-organic grape juice. That is deceptive advertising."

She said she would move the sign. An hour later, she had still not moved the sign. I borrowed a magic marker from an employee, and wrote on the sign, "This grape juice is NOT organic. Look at the bottles."

Within two minutes, the sign was taken down.

6. I asked a Whole Foods employee if the food in their salad bar and hot bar was organic. He said, "Yes, it is."

I said, "Why isn't there a sign saying organic?"

He said, "The thing is, if you even touch organic food with a spoon that touched non-organic food, you can't call it organic."

I said, "So, you're telling me that all of the food in these food bars is organic food that has been maybe touched with a spoon that touched non-organic food?"

He said, "Yes, mostly. I mean, there's some food that isn't organic, but almost all of it is."

I said, "Would you tell me which of these foods are organic?"

He said, "Most of it is organic."

I said, "Please be specific. I want to eat organic food. Which of these foods are organic?"

He said, "Almost all of them,"

Looking him very carefully right in the eyes, I very loudly said, "Read my lips! I want you to tell me which of these foods ARE organic."

He said, "Well, most of it's organic. No one knows exactly which ones, but you can eat any of this food, it's mostly organic."

7. I know an organic farmer. Well, he used to be an organic farmer before Whole Foods corporation drove him out of business. Here's what happened: Whole Foods and this farmer signed a contract that the farmer would plant almost his entire farm in pumpkins, and promised to buy all of the pumpkins. Then, a few weeks before harvest time, Whole Foods told him, "We found some cheaper pumpkins, we're not going to buy yours."

The farmer told them, "You signed a legally-binding contract to buy my pumpkins."

Whole Foods said, "Well, you can sue us if you want to, but we will drag the case out for years. It will be very expensive."

Because he could not afford to sue Whole Foods, the farmer's pumpkins rotted in the fields, he could not make his mortgage payments, and he lost his farm.

These are the instances of Mackey's conscious capitalism that I can personally verify. Many other people around the country have other, equally-damning evidence that John Mackey has consciously told his employees to harm customers and lie to customers so that John Mackey can make more hundreds of millions of dollars.

All of the feel-good words in Mackey's book are sound bytes from a guy who is just another lying, destructive republican hypocrite. Oh, excuse me, I should have said that John Mackey is a VEGETARIAN lying, destructive republican hypocrite. Which makes it strange, because usually vegetarians are MORE ethical, not less.

Great message, Thom. I will use it as I go around the halls of Congress tomorrow to lobby for the issues you care about. I especially like the "repeal the Reagan tax cuts", the root of all our evils today. (I'd even go back to Eisenhower tax rates, but I'll cool it for now -- we don't want "Les Miz" in the streets of Washington, D.C.)

Hmmm, So now the whack job Republicans want to impeach Obama for passing laws that he is legally entitled, and morally compelled to do? Yeah that sounds about right for the current crop of Right-Wing extremists that passes itself off as a political party. So let me get this straight:When we ELECT a Democrat as prez, we can expect the Republicans to attempt to impeach him on whatever flimsy pretexts they can dream up. So if he has a littl dalliance, thay'll impeach him. If he tries to pass laws, they'll impeach him. If he blows his nose or farts they'll impeach him.

The Republicans spend so much time trying to BLOCK the government from governing, they should be deemed a terrorist organisation and outlawed.

Palindromedary - You may or may not have served in Vietnam or the Nam' as we called it. Your statement that they kicked our butt shows you have not studied or are aware of how that war was ended. We bombed Hanoi into the stone ages with our B'52's or Big Buffs as that was what most Air Force personell called them. Along with our F-4 Phantoms and F-5's Thunder Chiefs and various other aircraft literally had the Hanoi begging for peace at the at the Paris peace negotiations with Kissinger. The North was completely supplied by the Red Chinese and the Red Russians. At first we did not bomb the harbors where these two countries unloaded the weapons the North used against our Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines. Everything from fuel, tanks and SAM’s (Soviet Land to Air Missiles) were unloaded in Haiphong harbor. As the War progressed we bombed anything that moved on the ground or in the harbors in the North, starving the North Vietnamese of crucial war goods. After the Christmas bombings of 1973 they asked us to restart the piece negotiations. By 1973 the American Army and Marines owned South Vietnam and the Air Force and Naval pilots owned the skies, even with the cowardly South Vietnamese soldiers deserting their posts on a daily basis. We destroyed the insurgents known as the V.C, and literally dismantled the North Vietnamese troops that entered from the North. The people from the United States that marched on Washington and those cowards that refused to serve and ran off to Canada to hide were the second front of enemies we had to deal with during the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese violated the truce that was signed in Paris and attacked the South after the U.S. Military had left South Vietnam. In 1975 you civilians watched as the North Vietnamese over ran the South after we had removed all our combat troops in the Nam. You probably only remember the U.S. Embassy being overrun with Russian tanks. Sir, to say the North whipped our Butts is a statement of your ignorance when it comes to a War that took 58,000+ American lives who served their country with bravery and honor and 2,000,000 North Vietnamese lives were lost. I would love to continue in depth of how the South Vietnamese lost their civil war because of cowardly politicians in Washington cut off all funding for the South in early 1975, while the North continued to receive war goods from Red China and Russia. The Russians and Red Chinese had thousands of advisors on the ground and Russian and Chinese pilots manned manner of the aircraft that battled U.S. Airmen over the North. Only a civilian who did not serve in our War would make a disrespectful statement like you have made. It was not the rebellious people in the North that fought in the South; it was highly trained North Vietnamese soldiers that fought against us in the South. And with all due respect for those soldiers, they were one hell of a well-trained and disciplined army, not a bunch of civilians from the North with AK-47's as you have wrongly noted. Get your facts straight, especially when you are making statements with someone who has served and studied the War in Vietnam. This war was fought in the air,rivers and on the ground by our brave troops of the United States Military.

No one is proposing that your guns will be taken away. That will not happen. Even if you own one of those huge killing machines. They want you to register, to know how to use a gun, and to keep you from passing it on to someone else, without registration--that sort of thing.

I get so tired of hearing -- -they're taking away our guns! Maybe you should read the proposals.

And you might listen to that guy, Thom Hartmann is his name, who has been explaining how the wording of the second amendment got into the constitution and its specific intent. You aren't going to take over the government or stop the government from taking you over. Government weapons outgun you at every step.

Don't let fear of whatever it is you're afraid you lead you around by the nose. Nobody thinks straight when they are afraid. There are other options if you don't like things as they are. We still have a democracy. Use it--but think first and know what you want changed.

What kind of world do you want?

1

1

Many learn with age and maturity a special discernment reveals the overt journalism propagating from Fox News. To me it is shown openly plainly or readily apparent their talking points are not conservative at all. Rather a secret or hidden agenda, very Wahhabi, that is loaded with prejudice teaming in opinions, flash innuendos that constantly refer to President Obama as not being a leader.

That’s funny, with one war over in Iraq, and another winding down in Afghanistan America’s automatic weapons industry is blunted. Or, those who really know, and I say this just in speculation, how much of America’s military weapons have been lost or unaccounted for. No report but the media knows. As a Vietnam vet I know there where a lot of lost stuff.

Another can be said, from particular authors that investigated stories of the Carlyle Group, One of those Canary Island deals, a private investment firm of “Bush One” as a prominent member of the board of directors did sell weapons on the open market. Yikes, with partnerships with the Bin Laden Family. This was written in Gerald Posners Book “Secrets of the Kingdom” 2005 what a gig; the Son makes war the old man sell weapons. Profiteering and treason are the mix that the media is trying to hold the lid on a political pressure crook pot that is busting at the seams.

It is my opinion it is crazy for the average American to run around with a basic training military weapon such as an M16, or even the M14 which I think is tougher. Somebody is selling this stuff in the market place. The concept of a military weapon is just that you can be part of that weapon only if you join the military. That’s the idea to defend the country in the regular army with any advance weapons. This thing about dealerships is not looked at deep enough. Sort of like who let the dogs out. Or this is a WTF moment the military is way too loose to just stand by a watch military grade weapons used in basic training flaunted in the media, and over the counter sales is a total breach of American military security.

Lastly insurance for fire arms is central to the solution. Actually one the NRA will certainly back away from fast.

Oh Palindromedary, that's hilarious! I hope you just chugged a couple for Fourtie's when you saw that urinal. LOL

DAnneMarc: Don't drink alcohol, or smoke, or take drugs but I thought about, at the time, loading up on lots of tea. "Y'all take a listen, you'll hear the deep sound comin' down from Bobby Peru." --Wild At Heart.

When I read that impeachment is being discussed because of the President's actions promting gun law reforms, first I shook my head, then I laughed out loud, and then I began to feel scared. Now I'm feeling sort of dissociated in my mind (not my feelings) trying to figure out how it is possible for funtional, rational people to see things so totally differently. Now I'm remembering about the power of money, and I'm going back to feeling cynical. That leads me to feeling scared again. Well, this could go on all nite, so I'll sign off.

Thanks, Palindromedary. And your Bush-in-the-urinal story is hilarious; if I were in such a bathroom I can assure you that I would take careful aim. Why, I might even put it on YouTube...

I do the environmental stuff partly because I have to. I am chemically sensitive but I still have to shop, and I love going to bookstores, and so when no one else does anything about the chemicals in those places, I have to, or the price I pay is a splitting headache that lasts for between one and three weeks. And in all fairness, not all Whole Foods stores use paradichlorobenzene, though all of them are infected by Mackey's concupissant capitalism. (Spelling error/pun intended.)

Republican Congress members detest President Obama because he is doing his job. We are blessed to have such a wise and wonderful man as President of the United States. I image that president Mitt Romney would have ordered all school teachers to join the NRA and take target practice for the guns he would send to their classrooms. We are lucky to have a sensable and ethical leader in the White House, not some nut case such as Romney would believes that 47% of us are moochers. We dodged a terrible outcome when Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans (I know a few) voted for Barack Obama to serve a second term. If Romney had been elected the Affordable Care Act would be at the least defunded. If Romney had been elected who knows how the Supreme Court would look in four years. Yes, we have a grand leader, lets support him better than we did the first term . . . let's protect his back from these crazed REpublicans in Congress. I believe the anger and outrageous language is caused by a deep seated racism. I think these Republicans cannot stand to see a black man do good work.

Palindromedary - Just remember it was not the demonstrators in the street. It was the cost of the war in dollars that ended the War! The demonstrators were no different than the Wall St. marchers, they were laughed at by Wall St. and Washington laughed at the peace marchers, especially Nixon. They simply used the police to derail both movements. The troops in Vietnam had nothing to do with the political decision to slowly withdraw our troops and turn the war over to the South, it was the cost. Military personnel follow orders from the Commander in Chief in the White House they do not give orders to Washington. We did not try to win the hearts and minds of the people after 68 and the Tet offensive, which resulted in the destruction of the V.C. and the North military presence in the South. Where did you get your information, from old movies of left wingers who wanted to sell movies or Oliver Stone movies! Kill them all and let god sort them out, came from a movie about Vietnam and was used to excite the movie audience. Everything you have quoted came from a movie or a left wing documentary; try something with some actual history and evidence to back up your words. The idea that we lost the war is incorrect, when we actually removed 99.9% of our troops (before the Russian tanks rolled up to the gates of our embassy) and turned the war over to the South Vietnamese military. Just like we did in Iraq and no one has said we lost the war in Iraq. The commanders in charge actually waited until all Americans were airlifted from the Embassy, then their tanks rolled in. They did not want the U.S. to use air power from the aircraft carriers just outside of the boundaries of Vietnam’s sovereignty. The only time the Americans left Vietnam in a hurry was when the South Vietnamese soldiers gave up in masses. The war would have been over in 6 months if we would have bombed the ports that were full of Russian and Chinese weapons. Johnson was afraid to bomb the ports in case we were to hit Russians and Chinese personnel, but that ended in 72-73 and we saw the drop off of missiles, tanks and other tools of war. Also the use of drugs by the soldiers was a reflection of the times when the majority of young men and women were experimenting with drugs, not because they could not cope with the war. I know firsthand about why the troops used pot during their tour. And when 73 came around the last thing America was concerned about was winning the hearts of the people because we had already destroyed the V.C. which were civilians fighting for the North while being from the South of Vietnam. It is always the bleeding heart liberals that incorrectly claim we lost the war. What the politicians refer to not wanting another Vietnam, they mean we do not want to leave as victors only to have the country defeated after we leave.

Nixon may have started out 'laughing at the demonstrators' but he didn't laugh very long...especially after Kent State shooting and after the Pentagon Papers came out telling us how all the Presidents from Hoover...especially Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon....all lied...lying to us about the Domino Theory (under Johnson), lying to us about Soviet capabilities, Cuba....getting us involved in Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos.

The "Domino Theory" was just a way of scaring people out of their freedoms..and most of all...out of their money and understanding of what truth really is. And their modus operandi is to create a false flag operation to scare people even more..to trigger the commitment to military actions...such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The current wars in the Middle East are no different than the ones that preceded them...they used a false flag operation on 9/11 to trigger fear and confusion, and jingoist patriotism, xenophobic hatreds.. that led to the ever strengthening police state that we currently live under.

Now, they are working on Africa. Look out!! Al Qaida are everywhere! And be especially fearful of one-eyed jihadi leaders! What event, or events, will they engineer, or take advantage of, this time to scare people into supporting them in invading African nations? The US has deserved all of the blowback that they have ever gotten from people they have wronged.

And before 9/11, you have to look back at all the things that piss other people off...like trying to steal or control their oil...or try to force a country to put in an oil pipeline. It was US officials that threatened the Taliban in Afghanistan that if they didn't "accept the carpet of gold being offered them" that "they could expect a carpet of bombs". The US declared war on them not the other way around. Just another example of how the US has tried to push it's weight around to force other people to knuckle under and be unfairly exploited.

And right now, we may be seeing some more of that blow back in Africa...the Embassy attack in Libya and now in Algeria...after all...the US did murder many of their families. Of course this all plays into the hands of those MIC who are just loving it because they can use it as an excuse to steal more of our money.

The US won't invade countries who have atomic weapons...talk about cowards...they only invade countries too weak to defend themselves. But the wars we conduct now are against the people in those countries..the few people who actually do the fighting are called insurgents or Al Qaida or whatever scary name works in the American press to depict sinister forces. And those wars last a long time...over 10 years...costing taxpayers $trillions. We never really win those wars but we sure do lose a lot of money to the MIC over them. It also gives criminals an ability to outright defraud the American people out of more $trillions by claiming the money has just gone missing...they don't know what happened to it. Yeah, right!

We only invade countries we can bomb.. killing lots of civilians that the world won't pay much attention to...because they are poor, Muslim, or Black. Hell, our Ivy-League educated, silver-spooned Frat boys turned politician or corporate exec have to get their feelings of manhood and entitlements somehow? All that excess testosterone has to show everyone back home how brave and manly their men are. How would they do that without lots of civilians to murder?

Ken, it may be a semantics thing. I didn't mean that the vets had something wrong with them. I meant they had something right with them, because for most people it is a perfectly healthy response to be harmed by war. There are not many people who can serve on the front lines in a place like Nam and not pay a price for it to one extent or another. I'm not saying they can't function when they get back stateside, because many of them can. But there are effects.

I know a woman who is a 4th degree black belt in Oom Yung Doe Korean karate, a high-ranking tai chi and qigong master, a former world-class weightlifter, and one of the two or three most mentally tough people I have met in my 62 years. When she was sparring with her teacher, who is a full foot taller than her, he broke her knee. She said, "He didn't mean to do it; these things happen." And as soon as her knee was more or less healed, she was back sparring with him, no problem. So, not a coward. But she told me that when she saw a dead man at her apartment complex it scared the hell out of her and she had nightmares. It had an effect on her.

I was in a car with that woman's martial arts teacher when a guy tried to pick a fight with him. The teacher kept saying, "Sorry, sir," until the guy went away. This is teacher who can pick up a struggling 195-pound man by the neck with one hand and hold him at arm's length for five seconds. And he fa-jinged me without touching me. Another time, he roundhouse kicked, front kicked, and side kicked me with the same leg in less than half a second, without moving his hips. In China he engaged in full-contact fights with full-grown men when he was 15 years old. So, the guy can fight and he's not a coward. But he wouldn't fight with someone who just wanted to pick a fight.

A rooming house I lived in had a Vietnam vet resident who would wake everyone in the building at night with his blood-curdling screams as he relived his front-line experiences. It's difficult for me to remember that man's screams and know that that war was based on a bald-faced lie, and then try to excuse our being over there by saying, "Well, we were ordered to go there." If no one obeyed illegal orders, we would have no wars. I agree with you that if another country attacked us, we would have to fight. I would fight. But to fight for a lie? To fight just to further enrich traitors who already had more money than they could ever spend? I do not obey orders from such men or their lackeys.

It takes courage to fight. But it can also take courage to refuse to fight when the fight is not justified, particularly for war protesters whose protestations alienated them from their families, and for conscientious objectors who went to prison rather than going to vietnam- it seems to me they showed a lot of courage.

I have been in situations where it would have been so easy to fight and I really wanted to. When I think back on the few fights I have been in, the only one I am proud of is the one where suddenly I realized that I was not willing to hurt the guy, so I let him hit me and then I walked away. The guy who was watching the fight probably thought I was a coward, but I wish I had always shown that kind of courage.

I have met people who are not physical warriors by nature, but who in other very important ways might have far more courage than you and I put together. Non-warriors have contributed to America in ways that are vital to her survival- in ways that fighters could not possibly have contributed. If fighters want respect, they should give respect.

Mr. Abbot, I salute you as a man of great wisdom. I love reading your blog entries. Keep 'em rolling. - Alice I.W.

David, please. And thank you.

Carroll is one of my favorite authors because this place sure looks like wonderland to me...

There certainly is a lot of passion here about Vietnam. I never went to Vietnam. I was 10 years old when the war ended. However, that was a war that was broadcast in detail on television. I do believe I suffered trauma from what I saw. A typical evening would include on location shots of dead soldiers bodies lying on the side of the road, missing limbs, covered in what must have been blood (we had a BW TV back then), and covered with hungry flies. Their were images of civilian's and children's mutilated bodies scattered around as well. I remember seeing interviews of wounded soldiers missing arms and legs but still conscious and lying in stretchers. All the while my father, a WWII veteran, would calmly reassure me that this was the future I could look forward to as a good patriotic American.

I also remember watching the Demonstrations and Protests against the war on TV. The violence dished out by the well armed Police against the unarmed Protesters was reprehensible. There were images of Police repeatedly striking young men over the head with wooden bats until they were covered with their own blood and unconscious. Tear gas and other chemical weapons being used against trapped crowds of Demonstrating students. Despite the opposition the young crowds of determined citizens refused to disband and in spite of the horrific display of violent intimidation only grew in numbers.

I remember vowing to have nothing to do with the struggle in Vietnam; but, longing to take my place besides the crowds on our own street. I would beg my father to take me to the Demonstrations with our own billy clubs and motorcycle helmets and help defend these young brave souls from the wanton tyranny they faced. He laughed and assured me my mother would kill him if he did. In retrospect, he was probably right.

Don't get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for anyone who served--my father for instance! It's just that at the time, the struggle I was most motivated to participate in was on our own streets. I assure you that is the completely unbiased opinion of a very young and precocious child. I also assure you that being forced to helplessly watch the entire tragedy of Vietnam on TV did a great deal of psychological damage to me. The contemplation of suicide was a daily obstacle.

In college, I met a vet who I became very good friends with. I believe he was in the Navy during Vietnam. He enlisted instead of being drafted. He was quite intelligent as was trained and used to install and maintain communication equipment at various ports along Southeast Asia. He never saw combat. He told me stories of shore leave in the various port cities and the lectures his command would give them prior to leave. He said they were instructed in how to avoid venereal disease as well in how to purchase clean heroin and use needles. I assure you he was not a person prone to lying either. I still to this day however, find his story hard to believe. But then, what do I know?

All I know is this, war is hell; and, is a symptom of failed and corrupt leadership. Perpetual war is a sign of the decline of an empire. I will never have anything to do with war.

PS Ken and Palindromedary--your current Avatars look like they are on a collision course. Is that intentional?

Yes, it's fine training for chlldren as they begin learning just how irrational many adults are.

I owe an apology to Mr. Hartmann for poor blog etiquette. Got carried away on yesterday's poll and wrote a bunch of entries diverging way too much from the subject at hand. Don't reckon I'll be doing that again.

THERE now... I feel so much better!

Humbly, your loyal fan... - Aliceinwonderland

I hate to sound sexist but your reply is based primarily on you feel good female hormones and bitch response mechanism. The troops that served under the Commander in Chief were sent there not to protect America, but to stop further aggression from the Communist in China. You actually have no understanding of history. Are you so naive to believe the N. Koreans chose to live under a dictator? If you think the threat of nuclear war was all hype, you really have a limited knowledge of HISTORY. We came to the point of nuclear war when Russia moved ballistic missiles into Cuba in Oct. of 1962.With missiles in Cuba they had a strategic advantage concerning the time it took to launch and strike American cities. The reason they felt compelled to try this is that we had nukes in Europe and we could strike them with nukes and the retaliation time was limited with their nukes on Russian soil. The Nation and the Military were on full alert, but you would have to have an interest of what happened during that time. The Russians believed we would launch a full scale attack against the Mother Land in Russia, since we were the only country to use nukes against the Japanese in 1945. I cannot believe someone with you attitude actually survived the 60's, I really consider the source when I hear your rants. My point was the Military over the decades has kept this country free of foreign invasion, not that our involvement in Vietnam was crucial to our national defense. But, at the time as I have stated the President and his advisors felt losing Vietnam to the Communist could start a domino effect where they might invade other South East Asian countries if Vietnam fell and they had a chance to spread their religion of Communism. Only someone with limited knowledge of the history and of the military and our history as a nation would vent the crap you have spewed on this blog. The men and women who served in the Second World War kept this nation free from dictatorship. But the way you talk you think we are under some dictatorship from our own government. The brave men and women who served in Korea and Vietnam did so under the direction of the Commander in Chief, our president, your opinion of the troops who served in these conflicts is valid, but your account of history and the way you present your opinion is laughable. I do not get my gratification from people like you, I know I served my country when it called me to duty and that is all the satisfaction and gratification I or others that served in Vietnam need. (3,000,000 American men and women served in Vietnam over an eleven year period) You sound like an aged "hippy activist" from the 1960's as far as I am concerned. The main reason I even bothered to rebut the opinions of others concerning Vietnam, is that you and Abbot stated incorrect information with a lack of knowledge or purposely lied for attention or what other reason you may have had. If you’re going to make comments about something the least you can do is get the facts straight to validate your opinion.

Abbot: Your statement that black Huey's, UH-1 were the primary helicopter used in Asia, flew over the enemy and were not fired on from the N. Vietnamese. The N. Vietnamese fired on any American style helicopter they saw, even the choppers with red crosses on them indicating they were transporting the wounded. The Vietnamese never signed the Geneva Doctrine of War, prohibiting combat troops from firing on Med. aircraft; neither did the N. Korean's. When the CIA used any type of aircraft in Vietnam they used company’s setup to hide their involvement, like Air America to name one. Black Ops Helicopters that were actually painted black did not come into action until the late 1980's. So the information that these Vets saw black choppers fly over and were not shot at seems more like one of those stories where she said, he said, she said situations where stories change from one person to another, like the kids in grammar school play in their classroom where the teacher is trying to show how stories change from the original info as they are passed from person to another. A little research would prevent you from sounding a little silly!