Russian Missiles In Mexico As Mexico Joins SATO

Chris Sullivan
Mendax News Service

Mexico has been accepted as the newest member of SATO – South American Treaty Organization – after years of wrangling by South American countries over allowing a non-South American country
into the alliance.

Mexico was finally allowed into the alliance after agreeing to station Russian missile batteries in Matamoros, Nogales and Tijuana for defense against attacks from Venezuela, Suriname, Pottsylvania and Nicaragua.

U. S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinkered sounded the alarm against SATO moving right up to the US border and allowing Russian missiles on its soil. Russian spokesman Boris Badenov gave assurances that the missiles were for defense only and would not be used to menace the United States.

Blinkered reminded SATO members that when the alliance was formed it was only to include South American countries and would not move one inch (25.3 milometers) toward the United States.

Mexican President Jacobo Arbenz suggested that Cuba could be an alternative basing location if it joins SATO and stressed that it is a defensive organization. Basing missiles in Cuba would move them farther away from the US border and perhaps make it easier to thwart any threat from Pottsylvania.

Pottsylvanian spokeswoman Natasha Fatale claims that Pottsylvania has no hostile intent toward Cuba or any SATO members and that manufacturing an imaginary threat was a way for Russia to threaten the US.

Badenov assured Blinkered that the missiles would not be nuclear armed and that it would take several hours to convert them to nukes and probably be too much of a hassle. Arbenz and Badenov stated emphatically that Mexico is a sovereign country and can form whatever alliances it sees as advantageous and deploy any weapons it wishes on its own territory.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Asstin has contended that Russia is going to use its bases in Mexico to funnel captured US weapons to Aztlan separatist groups in the southwest. Badenov denied any plans to do that, but pointed out that if the US were not sending Javelin missiles, Stingers, mortars and various other weapons to Ukraine, Russia would not have them to send.

Asstin and Blinkered have both expressed fears that Russia wants to initiate and support an insurgency in the US to cause havoc and weaken it. Badenov laughed off the idea, but said flippantly “We wheel brink zeese weepons backs to zyou, hah hah, zjust keeding.” Blinkered responded that the US would consider any arming of indigenous militant or separatist groups or people an act of war.

President Arbenz has suggested that SATO might send its mediators Salvador Allende, Rafael Trujillo and Manuel Noriega to negotiate a settlement.

Planet Of The Slaves

Mendax News Service

I must be one of the very few people who has never seen any of the Planet of the Apes movies, but around the same time of the first one there was a commercial failure made called Planet of the Slaves.

If I remember correctly it was produced by Milton Mayer, with a screenplay by Lysander Spooner and starred a B-grade actor named Robert Nozick who plays the protagonist W. L “Bill” Garrison.

Garrison and his band land on a planet that is governed by a kakistocracy of omnicompetent – or so they think – men. The people seem happy and brag to the visitors about their freedom and how they have all kinds of rights that are protected and enumerated by their foundational charter. The visitors discover that the people of the planet are known as the Snacirema and that they are hospitable to strangers, but easily herded into a sort of unanimity of thought. There are a few independent thinkers, but they are derided as “Nockites” or “Remnantists.”

After a few days of intermingling, Garrison becomes convinced that all the supposed rights and freedoms the Snacirema brag about are illusory, in fact he becomes convinced that they are slaves.

His first inkling is when Ollie Holmes, one of the people he has befriended mentions that he has to send the government part of his wages or he will be jailed or have his property seized. Garrison is incredulous, but Holmes explains that it's only one percent and that it is the price of civilization. Garrison tries to explain that it isn't the amount that makes him a slave, it's the fact that the government has a superior claim to the fruits of his labor. Holmes is unconvinced.

A few days later, Garrison discovers that the people are compelled to send their children to school and that the government operates a huge network of schools that teach many things that the parents find repugnant. There are some people who teach their children at home and there are a few private schools, but they aren't free like the government schools.

The Snacirema maintain an enormous military with land, sea and air forces in which boys are required to register for service in if called. The chances of actually being called are very small since the whole apparatus is for defense, not aggression, and they haven't been attacked in over seventy years. Still, Garrison doesn't see how compulsory service is compatible with the freedom he keeps hearing about.

One day, as Holmes is taking Garrison to see the Thomas W. Wilson Memorial, they are stopped by a Compliance Officer – sort of like police – for not paying alimony and not having insurance. Garrison asks the officer how he knew that Holmes hadn't paid alimony and the officer explains that there are tag reading cameras everywhere that alert the officer if someone is “out of compliance.” After they are on their way again Garrison tells Holmes that he doesn't see how mass surveillance is compatible with freedom. Holmes explains that it's no big deal if you have nothing to hide and that he'll get matter resolved.

The next day Garrison finds that there is a meeting of Nockites at the Horatio Bunce Auditorium that night. He decides to go and see what their opinions are, but he can't persuade Holmes to accompany him since they are viewed as kooks, so he has to go alone.

When he gets there he sees that it's a very small group and they all seem to know each other and suspect he's some kind of spy or agent provocateur. He explains that he is from another planet and is only studying their beliefs and customs. A man named Fishel Chodorovic introduces himself as one of the group's founders and launches into a litany of objections to the way the planet is run and explains that the people are slaves without chains.

Garrison doesn't contradict Chodorovic, but asks him why he thinks as he does since most of the people seem to be perfectly happy or at least accepting of the situation.

Chodorovic responds that the people are bound with mental chains almost from birth and that they are firmly fastened by the compulsory school system which those in charge style “education.”

Garrison: Why don't the people just refuse to send their children to be indoctrinated?

Chodorovic: Most of the people not only don't object, they think it's a good idea to have compulsory schooling and if the parents don't send the children the children will be taken away and become wards of the state. The people are inured to control by everything they see and hear. Is something harmful? Outlaw it, or license it. There is a license for everything. Do you want to get married? You need a license. Do you want to braid hair? You need a license. Do you want to grow tobacco or peanuts? You need a license. You need a license to do everything: sell real estate, carry a gun, practice medicine, operate a motor vehicle, fly a plane, operate a business, practice law, sell used cars, cash checks, put up a sign, hold a garage sale, hunt or fish, dance in a strip club, sell alcohol, operate a boiler, sell firearms, sell insurance, ad infinitum. Then there are permits which are licenses by another name, building permits, electrical permits, plumbing permits, tree-cutting permits, etc. There are also requirements that you do as you're told: wear your seat belt, buy insurance on your car, buy medical insurance, keep your grass cut below a designated height, tag your car and your dog. The people have accepted control over everything.

The control is so complete that politicians seeking office promise to cut income taxes or “reform” the code, but never to eliminate and forbid income taxation. It is taken for granted that government has first claim on all income and can raise or lower its share at will.

There are prohibitions against having certain plants because somebody thinks you might do something harmful with them. Imagine that, outlawing plants! There are also certain drugs and treatments you aren't allowed to use because they are “unapproved.” The great god government has decreed that you can't use them, so needless to say they aren't covered under your mandatory insurance.

Garrison: That does sound like government is more intrusive than I had heard, but how does it keep track of who's doing what?

Chodorovic: Everybody is required to send in a tax return with their address and an identifying number unless they didn't have any “taxable income.” To claim dependents, each one also has to have a number.
To open a bank account you need a number and the banks have to report any “suspicious activity.”
It's considered suspicious if you structure you banking transactions to avoid being reported.
There are tag readers that record your location and time. All of your mail is photographed front and back. All of your electronic communications are intercepted and stored. It's not known if it's being done, but you could be tracked and recorded continuously by having a phone on you.

Garrison: Do you think it's possible to reverse this?

Chodorovic: It's an uphill battle, but if I could do one thing with the wave of a magic wand it would be to forbid government involvement of any kind in schooling. No compulsion, no certification, no textbook advice, no grants of money or property, no teacher licensing, no tax credits, no nothing. And if I had a second wave of the wand I would utterly forbid any taxation of income from whatever source derived. Without funding there can be no tyranny.

Garrison: Well, I've got to be leaving for home tomorrow, but if I ever get back to Earth I'm going to see how you're progressing – or regressing – with your program of deconstruction.

Chodorovic: It's at least a fifty-year project.

Iran - A Rogue State

Mendax News Service

Washington DC is all abuzz over an Iranian drone strike on a dissident in McClean Virginia yesterday. The target was an Iranian by the name of Shapour Bakhtiar who the Iranians classify as a “terrorist.”

Mr. Bakhtiar was attending a wedding when a missile exploded, killing him and several other guests. The total number of those injured is not yet known, but several people were blinded and at least three paralyzed by the blast that seemed to come out of nowhere. One of those killed was Bakhtiar's 16 year-old son who had no involvement in terrorism.

The Obama Administration has called it an act of war and has demanded an immediate meeting of the UN Security Council to condemn the attack as a breach of international law and an act of pure barbarism.

Iranian spokesman Mohammed Mosaddegh told Mendax correspondent M. R. Pahlavi that the attack was completely justified and within the accepted practice of the United States. Tehran sources tell Mendax that Bakhtiar was wanted for making false and inflammatory statements against the legitimate government of Iran and aiding terrorists.

A State Department press release called the murder of Bakhtiar “The act of a criminal, lawless, rogue state that does not recognize national borders nor limits on its authority.” Iran has tried to justify its villainy by claiming a moral equivalence with U.S. attacks on genuine terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, Egypt and perhaps other places undisclosed.

Defense Department and CIA personnel were taken by surprise that Iran had the capability to build drones until it was learned that Russian and Chinese engineers have been working with the Iranians to build a fleet of drones similar to the Lockheed RQ-170 that they captured on December 4, 2011.

Tehran has claimed that all those killed and injured were terrorists or were providing aid to terrorists. United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power issued a statement saying, "My government emphasizes that this blatant and unprovoked air violation by the Iranian government is tantamount to an act of hostility against the United States in clear contravention of international law, in particular, the basic tenets of the United Nations Charter."

Tehran has responded that Iran had issued warrants against Bakhtiar, but that the United States was harboring him and refused requests to return him to Iran. The Justice Department acknowledged that Tehran had made an extradition request, but the U.S. has no extradition agreement with Iran.

White House sources said that President Obama, a former community organizer, was disappointed that Iran had resorted to unacceptable behavior and that it bore the earmarks of a KGB operation, thus casting suspicion on Vladimir Putin, a former KGB Colonel. Veteran State Department officers expressed apprehension – confidentially – about a community organizer trying to match wits with a KGB Colonel.

Iran expressed regret over the collateral damage, but has remained defiant and threatened more drone strikes on Iranian dissidents in New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago. Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied any connection to the Iranian policy and has called for a moratorium on the use of drones. Washington has rejected any cessation of drone usage, but said that rogue states must not be allowed to have them.

Bureau Of Privacy

Mendax News Service

Mendax News Service has learned that the Department of Homeland Security has set up a department within itself to be known as The Bureau of Privacy. The new subsidiary department will be in charge of monitoring the actions and associations of the populace to root out terrorism before it happens.

The impetus for the new Bureau is believed to be the plot – thwarted, thankfully – by a German terrorist, Friedrich Wöhler to dump calcium carbide in the toilets of public restrooms and provide some kind of delayed ignition source.

Mendax contacted the spokesman for the new bureau, P. Tom Coventry about plans to install cameras and listening devices in all public restrooms.

Mendax: Mr. Coventry, It seems that putting cameras in the stalls of public restrooms is a violation of privacy by any standard. How do you justify this?

Coventry: We don't see the right to privacy as absolute. After the underwear bomber tried to blow up a plane with a bomb concealed in his underwear, pornoscanners were installed in many airports with very little complaint from the flying public. This is a reasonable extension of our mission to protect the public while respecting people's privacy.

Mendax: This doesn't seem like you are respecting people's privacy, it seems like you are violating it.

Coventry: We would never violate anyone's privacy. This isn't a violation, it is a monitored privacy, which enhances both privacy and security. After all, privacy is no use without security. In order to mean anything, privacy must be regulated. We don't have a right to unbridled privacy.

Mendax: Can you cite any precedents for your opinion?

Coventry: Certainly, the scanners at the airports I already mentioned and random road blocks, searches of buses, luggage, domestic drones that are being contemplated and so on.

Mendax: These things take place in public places, not restrooms.

Coventry: We are not going to monitor bathrooms in detatched single-family, privately owned residences, only public buildings and buildings that the public has access to, such as hotels, office buildings, stadiums, schools, public housing or housing that receives funding from the public such as Section Eight housing. We're not talking about Big Brother here.

Mendax: What if people object to this new form of surveillance?

Coventry: There will always be a fringe element that sees a privacy violation behind every government initiative, but our mission is to ensure the safety of the public. We can't do that without real time observation of any potential threat. If we want to preserve our freedom, we've got to have enhanced privacy.

Mendax: What you are talking about doing doesn't sound like it will enhance privacy.

Coventry: Of course it will. What good is privacy if you're dead? The Bureau of Privacy is going to do its utmost to protect the public's privacy while still providing security.

Mendax: Where is any of this new surveillance authorized? Doesn't it at the very least violate the Fourth Amendment?

Coventry: No, it doesn't. The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. We are not searching or seizing anything, but merely observing.

Mendax: It seems to violate the intent, if not the letter of the amendment, and even common sense.

Coventry: We can't let common sense prejudice our interpretation of the law. There are various penumbras and emanations that allow for surveillance. Besides that, the Constitution is a living document, so we can never tell what it really meant or what it will mean in the future.

Mendax: Thank you for your time Mr. Coventry. I'm sure there will be some lawsuits over this.

Coventry: Since nobody is required to use any of these facilities, we don't anticipate any legal roadblocks to our plans. Everyone uses these facilities voluntarily.

Mechanics Lobby

Mendax News Service

The governing board of The American Mechanics Association proposed at its annual meeting to push for legislation to require prescriptions for certain automotive supplies. The AMA has long recognized that the average consumer lacks the competence to decide what services and remedies should be applied to his motorized vehicle.

In the present situation, anybody can buy oil, filters, anti-freeze, transmission fluid, drive belts, windshield washer cleaner and myriad other items with no authorization required. Most items such as tires, wiper blades, water, compressed air, car wax, fuses, trim items and, of course,  gasoline would remain over-the-counter items under the proposal.

It has long been a concern of many mechanics that consumers use the wrong oil or improperly dispose of anti-freeze or dump used filters in the garbage, causing untold environmental damage. The AMA stressed that this is a very real and immediate crisis and that its proposal has nothing to do with money, as some of its detractors are already alleging.

The advocates of the status quo are already dreaming up nightmare scenarios where consumers would be charged exorbitant prices for office visits to obtain a prescription for something that they knew from reading a dipstick was needed without a mechanic having to prescribe it.

The AMA counters that it can sympathize with that argument and that some people are competent to determine their own needs, but not all and that the prescription system will make the roads a safer and happier place for everybody. The AMA also argues that since every car needs oil, all cars will be periodically seen by a competent mechanic and can be removed from service if found to be unsafe.

A coalition of auto parts suppliers has agreed to support the proposal as long as the mechanic writing the prescription cannot sell the product prescribed. The coalition sees the potential for unnecessary prescriptions if the mechanic is able to circumvent the auto parts supplier.

Mendax News has been unable to discover a consensus among the oil companies, but it is thought by some that they will have no objection as long as the law does not decrease sales revenue. Others say that the whole scheme is a "conspiracy" by the AMA to force motorists to patronize mechanics, thus ensuring steady repeat business.

The AMA has countered that any intimation of a conspiracy borders on calumny, that its interest is strictly safety and proper maintenance coupled with concern for the environment. An AMA spokesman complained that some people see a pecuniary motive for everything, even when the true motivation is concern for others.

If the proposal becomes law it will ensure a battle over prohibiting online purchases from foreign suppliers and local black markets in auto supplies.

Who's Doing the Spying?

Mendax News Service

John Bull lives in an upscale gated community. A week or so ago, his neighbor Tommy Atkins who is also head of the Home Owners Association told him of a proposal by some members of the HOA to attach GPS tracking devices to the vehicles of the residents of the community.

Mr. Atkins said that they also thought it would be a good idea to put cameras on everybody's car so they could see everywhere the car went. It was also suggested by some of the board members that everybody in the association have his phone tapped, email intercepted and browser history monitored.

Mr Bull was not receptive to the idea and even expressed opposition to it, threatening to stir up opinion against it. Atkins tried to reason with Bull by explaining that it was all for the good of the members and if he had nothing to hide, he should have no objection. Atkins also pointed out that there were already cameras everywhere he went and that the government was probably reading and storing his electronic communications anyway, so it was no big deal. Bull was not mollified and pointed out that it was different when the government did it because they had a good reason and the HOA was just being a bunch of busybodies. Atkins asked how it was "different" when the government did it, but Bull said he didn't know, it was just different.

Atkins pointed out that there would be safeguards on the information collected so that it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands and that the HOA had no power to jail him or confiscate his property. Bull remained his bull-headed self, arguing that it would be an invasion of privacy even though he didn't have anything to hide and that it was none of the HOA's business where he went, who he talked to or what sites he visited.

Atkins could see that he was getting nowhere, so he tried to reason with Bull by pointing out that if his wife broke down at night in the middle of nowhere the GPS would be a lifesaver (maybe literally) in locating her whereabouts. "And just think how it might benefit your children if a sharp-eyed board member notices that they're fraternizing online with murderers and child molesters" Atkins said.

Bull was getting madder by the minute, so Atkins tried to calm him down by telling him that the proposal was going to be voluntary anyway and all a member had to do to opt out was fill out a few forms and pay a nominal  fee of twelve-hundred pounds a month over and above the usual HOA dues. If a resident wanted to opt out of having pole mounted cameras facing his house there would be an additional charge for that.

Bull starting ranting and raving about "invasions of privacy," "peeping Toms" and a "police-state atmosphere" to the point that Atkins could see that he was paranoid. He was about to go home and let Bull cool down when Bull asked, "Why do you want this information?" Atkins explained that it would make the community more secure and provide a sense of well-being, solidarity and help in the fight against terrorism.

Atkins also took pains to point out to the thick-headed Mr. Bull that the HOA couldn't charge him with a crime although they could report him for criminal or suspicious activity, but that would never happen. He reminded Bull that, "This isn't Spain, this is England!" and that there was nothing to worry about.

Atkins' condescending attitude only succeeded in inflaming Bull's temper. Bull accused Atkins of being a busybody, a spy and a voyeur and shouting that where he went, who he talked to or what websites he visited were "none of his damn business." Atkins saw that Bull was clearly crazy, but he had never seen this before because they had always talked about sports, the weather, or maybe the war against foreign terrorists. In the past, Bull had even expressed approval of illegal wiretaps, illegal and quasi-legal activities to catch criminals, traitors and terrorists, so his reaction was doubly surprising.

Bull, now that his privacy was being compromised, had suddenly become some kind of civil libertarian. Atkins decided to go back home and talk to Bull in a day or two after he had come to his senses and to ponder why Bull objected to his neighbors spying, but not the government.

Unfit Parents?

Mendax News Service

Reports have surfaced that the Department of Child Protection is looking into the details of a couple that lost their pre-teen son for three days without reporting it. The boy attended some kind of religious festival with his parents and relatives when he somehow got separated from them. It wasn't discovered that he was missing until the group had already been traveling home for a full day.

Mendax has not been able to get the full details, as they are sketchy, but the boy was found safe and sound after three days. It is thought that Child Protection officials are gathering details of the incident and will act to remove the child from his parents and place him in foster care.

How he got separated from the group and why his parents did not notify authorities have not been determined. It has been rumored that the parents thought that he was with friends or relatives in the group and did not check on his whereabouts for a full day.

The festival had something to do with Old Testament religious beliefs and apparently the entire group adheres to Mosaic and Levitical Law. Child Protective officials generally look with disfavor on religious groups that separate themselves from mainstream society.

Some witnesses who know the boy say that he seems extremely smart, respectful and polite, but attends a non-public school with no accreditation that has no electricity or central heating and air conditioning. If it is found that the parents were negligent, they could be sentenced to jail or ordered to perform community service.

Officials are being tight-lipped about details, but it is believed that they found out about the incident from a letter written to someone named Theophilus by a physician named Luke, last name unknown. The letter became public, thus disclosing the incident.

The mother of the boy is a housewife and the father - foster father, actually - is believed to be a carpenter or blacksmith. Shortly after the boy was born the parents fled the country, believing that somebody was out to kill him. The father claimed that he had a dream in which he was told it was safe to return.

Child advocates demand that the boy be taken away from his parents because of their negligence, but some people argue that losing track of a child can happen to the best of parents and that the state has no authority to intervene in the affair even if proven true.

If the boy is taken away from his parents, it has been suggested that he could be placed with his cousin Elizabeth and her husband Zachary who live in a nearby town and have a son about the same age named John.

Officials don't have any vehicle description or tag number as the couple doesn't have a car, but they have notified town authorities in Nazareth to be on the lookout for the parents. The mother's name is Mary and the father's name is Joseph Ben Heli

Walking Into Tyranny

Mendax News Service

Lawmakers in West Dakota are floating a trial balloon to license travel by foot. Senator Joseph Ambulabis (D 84) came up with the idea after a constituent complained to him about having to obtain a driver's license to operate a vehicle on the public roads.  Ambulabis said he was unaware that anyone could drive a car without a license in most states until the 1940's.

The idea came to him almost as an inspiration he told Mendax News Service. If the states could turn what had theretofore been a right into a privilege, why not license walking also? One would not need a license to walk on his own property or any privately owned property (such as shopping centers) as long as they had the owner's consent. Ambulabis has received an avalanche of outraged calls about his proposal, but he has also garnered substantial support.

Briefly his proposal is this:

1. All people, regardless of age would have to obtain a license to walk or operate a wheel chair on any publicly owned property.

2. A minimal fee would be charged for the license ($10.00 proposed) which would be good for five years.

3. All money from the licenses would go toward installing sidewalks where there are none and maintaining those that currently exist.

4. Any surplus funds from the licenses would be allocated to hiring more police and street sweepers.

5. In order to obtain the license, applicants would provide their name, social security number,

date of birth, height, weight etc. and fingerprint or retina scan (to prevent fraud) and submit to

a drug test.

6. Anyone caught walking without a license would be subject to fine and/or imprisonment and have their walking privileges revoked for 6 months on first offense, five years on the second offense.

7. The license would be a waiver of rights as regards search, sobriety and drug testing.

Police officials hailed the idea as a way to catch criminals and terrorists. Police could set up license check points and catch public drunks and drug-crazed criminals much the same as they do at driver's license check points. 

"We've needed a law like this for a long time," said Keith David of the Elkhead Coalition. Mr. David has lobbied hard to get speed breakers and stop signs installed throughout the Elkhead area and says he's delighted that someone has finally realized that neighborhoods need a revenue source to maintain their sidewalks and streets. "Non-drivers have been given a free ride as far as infrastructure maintenance, this makes them pay their fair share, it only makes sense," said David.

Civil libertarians have protested the proposal as a police state idea, and sarcastically called it a "your papers please" proposal. Ambulabis is not deterred however, and believes that if his bill doesn't pass this session, it will in the next one or the one after that. He says many of his constituents are tired of not having sidewalks and having to roll their children's strollers in the street, creating a hazard for them and motorists. He also argues that it would give police a way of identifying people who walk their dogs and let them tear up other people's property. As the situation now stands, there is no way to identify the offenders since they can refuse to give their names and claim that they have no driver's license or none with them.

Ambulabis is encouraged that the governor and many mayors back his proposal. He sees it as a way to protect a free society while maintaining order. Ambulabis says his proposal is an idea whose time has come.

Representative Arnold Benedict (R 42) of the Conservative Republicans Against Paternalism has proposed a compromise. His bill would require a license only for those walking more than one mile from home. "Most of my constituents don't travel by foot for more than a mile anyway so they won't be affected," Benedict told critics of his bill. Benedict told cheering supporters at the capitol that the Republican party would continue to be "the most vigilant of watchdogs against government encroachment of liberty."

Meanwhile, George Mason of the Libertarian party, a perennial candidate for office has denounced Benedict's proposal as an abandonment of principle. "Once you admit the principle that pedestrians can be licensed by the state you have given up your right to walk" thundered Mason to a handful of supporters at a downtown motel. Benedict, when questioned about Mason's opposition told Mendax News that he "didn't want to get bogged down in an argument over principle. We have been elected to make government work for the people; that's what I'm trying to do; we've got to work out some kind of reasonable compromise" said Benedict.

Critics say that once a right has been turned into a privilege the state can raise the price of exercising the privilege so high as to be unaffordable. Ambulabis counters by pointing out that no one would be forced to obtain a license as long as they stayed off of public property and asks how his proposal differs from licensing drivers.

Whatever the outcome, this promises to liven up this legislative session.

The Coming Tree Explosion

  Mendax News Service

Are there too many trees? That is a question that is causing great concern among many scientists worldwide. The problem of exponential increase in the tree population is one that few people outside the discipline of dendrology (the study of trees) are aware of. In order to explain the magnitude of the problem we consulted many noted experts in the field for this report.

One of the explanations for the rapid increase in the tree population was attributed to climatic changes. Dr. F. X. Molesky, world renowned climatologist has advanced the theory that underwater volcanic eruptions have caused a worldwide temperature and humidity increase. Molesky says that the eruptions have caused a water temperature increase of .02 degrees Kelvin at the polar regions causing changes in temperature and water salination conditions. This in turn has caused increased rainfall facilitating more rapid tree growth.

Other causes are more easily understood by the ordinary non-specialist.

Dr. Harmod Wysong of the Longleaf Institute of Dendrology had explanations that attributed the ominous trend more to economic causes. " The problem", he said, "has been increasing ever since Detroit stopped making wood-sided cars and trucks, ships quit using wood in their construction and people went to gas and electric heat sources."

This is not the only reason, however. The powerful tree lobby has been gobbling up land for years to plant its rapid-growth trees and the petroleum producers have been trying to get people to use plastic instead of paper bags at the supermarket, thereby reducing demand for pulpwood at the very time its supply is increasing geometrically.

Political efforts to help save resources and endangered species such as the spotted owl and the stump-jumper have only exacerbated the problem. As forest land is placed off-limits to timber companies, the price of lumber goes up because of the supposedly diminishing supply. This in turn causes more tree planting by the greedy lumber producers to reap the potentially greater profits.

Not surprisingly, governments have been a major cause of the tree over-population problem. In many areas, every new building has to have a certain number of trees planted on its property after completion and if a tree is chopped down, even on private property, a new tree has to be planted. Even an unwanted tree cannot be summarily killed, just because it happens to be in the wrong place.

It is estimated that there are five times as many trees in the Americas than there were when Columbus came here. If the tree lobby is not exposed and stopped, pretty soon there will be no place for houses, farms, stores or offices. Experts estimate that at the present rate of increase, there will be no place for people to live by the year 2015.

What are some of the remedies suggested by the experts? Dr. Molesky suggests that you purchase only wooden furniture and buy no products containing recycled paper; insist on virgin paper. Heat your house with a wood stove or fireplace. Stop extinguishing forest fires; let them burn out of control. Outlaw the use of steel or any artificial materials in home construction.

Dr. Wysong suggests that ships be made out of wood unless they are for military use. Fire all boilers with wood instead of coal or oil. Require railroads to retire their diesel-electric locomotives and return to wood-fired steam locomotives. Return to wood for bridge construction and use more wooden airplanes. The wooden airplane is an idea whose time has surely come. In the event of an airplane crash, the wreckage would completely deteriorate within a few years thus not causing permanent harm to the environment.

During the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, many roads were made out of logs laid perpendicular to the line of travel. These were referred to as corduroy roads. They were ecologically sound and prevented drivers from falling asleep at the wheel. They should be brought back.

Professor James Parks of the Smyrna chapter of Treat Responsibly the Environment and Ecology (TREE) agreed that the tree problem is very real, but he denounced as "alarmist" the idea that trees will be a problem as early as 2015. Parks says that he doesn't see the over-population of trees as causing serious problems for 'humans and non-silvicolous animals for at least thirty years.

He did agree, however, that the trend of rapid forestation is disturbing. "The time to seek solutions is now, not when we have been finally walled in by trees", he said.

The Lesser Evil

Mendax News Service

Suppose it were possible for anybody who ever lived to be president of the United States.

At every election, we're always told that if we don't vote for Tweedle Dum, Tweedle Dumber will be elected and the Supreme Court will be filled with activist judges or some terrible UN treaty will be pushed through or what's left of our rights will be further eroded. That's probably true in either case, but may be worse in the case of Tweedle Dumber. But what if there is a third or fourth or any number of other candidates who have no chance of winning, but are decent people with a zeal to protect individual rights - sort of a Clark Kent of politics. Should you stick to principle and vote for them or "hold your nose and vote for Tweedle Dum"?

Since this is all theoretical, lets say that Lucifer has the nomination wrapped up for the Evil Party and is polling something like 46% of the vote against any nominee of the Stupid Party.

The Stupid Party has a hard-fought three way race with Hitler, Stalin and Lincoln eviscerating each other in a political gladiatorial game. As the votes are counted at the convention, the great state of Erehwon casts the winning votes for Stalin and the crowd is jubilant. Ten thousand balloons are released as fourteen tons of confetti are dropped on the delirious crowd. All the delegates agree that Stalin is the electable candidate even though some are less than convinced he can defeat Lucifer since Stalin only polls 40% in a match up against Lucifer.

Stalin is the clear favorite among religious people since he is clearly not as bad as Lucifer and has pledged not to appoint any mass murderers or child molesters to the Supreme Court.

Things start looking better for Uncle Joe after focus groups find that emphasizing his WW II alliance with the U.S. against Hitler plays well and old pictures are brought out showing him kissing babies. Stalin, after reinventing himself and hiring the best public relations consultants has now closed the gap to 42 - 47% against Lucifer.

Just as Stalin starts to look like he might have a chance to catch Lucifer, disaster strikes. The Truth Party, a small splinter group of what most people would classify as extremists nominates Jesus Christ as its candidate.To make matters worse for Stalin, the Truth Party is on the ballot in 42 states, in some of which he has his greatest strength.

The Stupid Party establishment tries to persuade the officers of the Truth Party to withdraw Jesus' nomination and throw their support to Stalin, but the Truth Party people won't hear of it. The Stupids launch an advertising campaign through a political front group advising people not to waste their vote on Jesus. Bumper stickers are printed with the slogan, "A Vote For Jesus Is A Vote For Lucifer."

The anti-Jesus campaign back-fires and causes his numbers to go up and Stalin's to go down. Now the situation appears desperate, so the Stupids promise to balance the ticket and put Jesus on as Vice President.The Truth Party extremists remain intransigent and will not take the deal.

Just as the nimbus clouds appear to be gathering over the Stalin campaign, Pastor Jack Agee gives it a boost by reminding his followers that Uncle Joe set up Birobidzhan as a Jewish autonomous region in the Soviet Union and has pledged increased support for Israel. Pastor Agee seems miffed that he can't get any assurance that Jesus will support Israel; in fact, he's been unable to find out Jesus' position on anything.

Jesus seems uninterested in  winning the campaign and has not made any speeches or gone to any political rallies. When located by a reporter for Mendax News Service and asked about his program, he says something about his kingdom not being of this world and also something about bearing witness to the truth; nothing very good for a soundbite.

As the campaign is in the closing days, Stalin and Lucifer are polling within the margin of error with each other and with Jesus as a spoiler. Should good people vote for the good or for the lesser evil?

Vatican Sold

Mendax News Service

Word has leaked out recently from confidential sources that a deal is being finalized on the sale of the Vatican and all its buildings, artworks, real estate, vehicles, office equipment and all other real property.

The deal is expected to bring in several billion euros with which the Church can help the poor for several years and still have money to build a modest facility in the Australian Outback.

Wild rumors have circulated that the buyer is Gates, Buffet, Slim, Trump, or even a member of the Saudi royal family. It has been learned from informed sources that a prominent architectural firm has been hired to explore the feasibility of converting St. Peter's Basilica into a mosque or synagogue: hence the Saudi connection.

Supposedly,  the plan is to keep all the property intact, but turn it into a private theme park that would generate billions of euros per year on admission to the various museums, libraries and former churches. The various cemeteries in the catechombs would remain as would those in the churches, but St. Peter's tomb would probably be moved to the new headquarters in the Outback.

There is fear that if the sale is to a Muslim that he will destroy all the artworks in a recrudescence of iconoclasm, but if to a Jew; all the Christian themes will be destroyed or sold. Once the deal is consummated, it is believed that any prior restrictions will be unenforceable, so it is being urged that the property be kept in Christian hands.

Vatican spokesmen have denied any impending sale, but a long-time Vatican watcher at Radio Roma tells Mendax that the Church has finally decided to heed the advice of those who have said for years that the church should sell off Her property and help the poor. Civic officials in Rome worry that tourism will suffer if visitors to the Vatican have to pay to visit all the historic sites. Insurance companies are licking their chops because the Church has never insured any of the artwork for more than one euro, whereas they are sure that a private collector will want to insure the works for full value and charge accordingly.

Critics are complaining that the Church is thinking only of money and should keep and maintain all the artworks for the enjoyment of everybody without charge. It is feared that if the sale goes through, only the wealthy will be able to afford to see more than a small fraction of the "collection" as it is being now called.

Charles Hitcher, a constant critic of the Church and religion in general has said the deal shows that the church "maintains a meretricious relationship with the wealthy and cares nothing for the poor." When reminded that most of the money from the sale would go to help the poor he countered that, "the poor you will always have with you." Hitcher claims that the money from the sale will soon be spent and the fantastic artworks and buildings will be in private hands and will be sold off piecemeal. Others have said that the property is not the Church's to sell, but the common patrimony of all mankind that it is the Church's responsibility to maintain and make available to all without charge.

One visitor leaving the Sistine Chapel was asked his thoughts on the possible sale of the Vatican. He told Mendax that it isn't right for the Church to sell any of its property because people didn't donate it just so it could be sold later. "I'm like, thinking that it's really sad that the Church is so mercenary. Why can't they keep this stuff and make it available for everybody? Why is it that they always think only of money? I think they should be like, prohibited from selling any of this stuff." he said. Another visitor leaving St. Peter's said she thought "it's typical of organized religion that all they think about is money. All the money they get from the sale will be used up very quickly and we won't get to see any of this stuff without paying; it's just not right. The Catholic church is so greedy."

Hobgoblins Wanted

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H.(enry) L.(ouis) Mencken, 1880 - 1956

The U.S. Department of Fear and Emotional Engineering is seeking video presentations from parties interested in serving as the new national or international bogeyman. After the supposed recent death of the last bogeyman, Mr. bin Ladin, it was decided that a fresh face was needed to prevent the public from falling back into complacency.

Video submissions should be no more than three minutes long and provide their own translations if recorded in a foreign language.

A Muslim bogeyman is the preferred model, but all entrants will be considered. Perhaps you might have a gift for presenting yourself as a "Mad Russian",  "Sneaky Jap", "Ruthless Hun" or "Savage Redskin."
Video submissions should avoid the use of obscene or vulgar language since it is desirable that the videos can be broadcast on national news for greatest effect.

If you are an inexperienced bogeyman, it is best to make threats that you can later claim for yourself. An experienced candidate would not make a statement such as, "We're going to blow up the Eiffel Tower." since it would cause a loss of credibility when it didn't happen. It is much better to say something like your organization is going to derail a train, cause a plane to crash, set wildfires, or cause some unspecified bridge to collapse. These things occur all the time, and subsequent to the event you can claim responsibility for your group, thereby gaining valuable credibility.

Be sure to make demands that you know will not be met, such as the U.S. pulling out of Saudi Arabia, Japan or South Korea.

Be certain to have a good costume. If you want to be a Japanese bogeyman, consider dressing as a ninja. An East Indian might consider a turban and a kukri knife as suitable props, whereas a Russian might want to wear a Joe Stalin jacket and speak with a heavy Russian accent. German candidates might consider a Sam Browne belt and jackboots, but the Nazi/Fascist theme should not be overdone since it has been over used as a template for villainy

If you want to use a nickname such as "Carlos the Jackal", it's best to use a name that inspires fear: "Muhammad the Cobra". is better than "Isoroku the Rabbit." A general rule - not ironclad - is that reptiles are better than birds or mammals; "Elmer the Duck" isn't a good selection

Be serious in your presentation. Smiling is reason for disqualification as is an obvious disguise such as nose-glasses. Fake beards are acceptable as long as they look real.

Candidates need not worry about having actual experience. If you are selected, the next oil well disaster, high rise building fire, political assassination, train derailment, boiler explosion, ship sinking, Somali pirate incident, or some such eventuality will be credited to you.

To enter, send your video to Department of Fear and Emotional Engineering C/O conlysullivan@yahoo.com

Confessions Of An Inept Murderer

I was hired recently by a criminal organization to kill a man that has been a nuisance to it for many years.
It was widely believed that my target had been dead for quite a few years since he was known to be in poor health and in need of dialysis treatment Nevertheless, I took the job since I needed the money and the guy had supposedly been located in a hideaway he had constructed.

In order to make good my claim that I had in fact killed the designated victim, I rigged up a video transmitting arrangement so that my client could see in real time that I had accomplished the mission. Everything was going along swimmingly as I approached the target, but dang it, wouldn't you know that just as I closed in for the kill, something went wrong with the video and they didn't get to see the hit.

I went in and found the target unarmed and shot him in the head. While I was there I loaded up several van loads of booty - computers, videos, memory sticks, records of all sorts - which took me several minutes to accomplish. I also loaded up the body, took a few pictures and hightailed it out of there.

As I was fleeing the scene, it occurred to me that the decedent was a strict Albigensian and I needed to bury him in accordance with Albigensian practices so I flew out over the ocean and dumped his body in the sea, but not before harvesting some DNA as proof that I had actually pulled off the hit.

When I went to collect my money, the customer wanted proof that I had actually succeeded in locating and killing the victim. I told them that I had DNA that matched his sister, but they claimed that I could have gotten the DNA from him without killing him or that he might have been dead for a long time and been in cold storage - they wanted proof, not evidence, that I had a claim on the money.

I told them that I had pictures of the dead man, but that they were too gruesome to show them and that I was not going to spike the football. They asked why I didn't bring them the body since I had removed it from the crime scene, but I explained my commitment to honoring the victim's religion. They told me that one of his hands or his head would have been sufficient, but I would not have lowered myself to such depths.

Happily, a few days later a message posted by the decedent's organization appeared on a website confirming his death and threatening revenge for the killing. I thought that surely they would see this as conclusive proof of my success and pay me what I was owed. I went back to the client in triumph and pointed out the web posting confirming the death, but they still refused; claiming that I could have concocted the thing myself.

I pointed out that three U.S. Senators said they had seen the pictures and the guy was dead. Being the obstinate people that they are, they said that the pictures turned out to be fakes and that I might have posted them through a "leak" to see if the fraud could be detected before releasing "my" pictures. This was such a preposterous charge that I wouldn't even dignify it with a response. I sensed that they were just trying to get me to show them the "real" pictures and I'm not going to stoop to that. What if they got posted on the internet? The risk was just too great.

I fear I'm going to have to sue to get my money because they keep nit-picking about my not having the body.
It seems that nobody wants to do business honestly anymore.

New TSA Screening Procedure

by Chris Sullivan
Mendax News Service

The TSA announced today that it is implementing a new screening procedure to replace the so-called X-Ray backscatter machines because of concerns about the cumulative effects of radiation on frequent travelers.
The new procedure will be simpler, safer and quicker, a TSA spokesman told Mendax News Service.
In order to maintain a sense of modesty and propriety, the new system will have two lines designated "Rams" and "Ewes" in which passengers will remove their clothing and put it on a conveyor for scanning by a TSA professional. The use of animal terms for male and female indicates which sex is appropriate for each line without specifying or mandating compliance, thus avoiding an anticipated challenge to the procedure based on sex discrimination.
Before having clothing returned, the passengers will pass through a small glassed-in portal that will be fitted with cameras where their images will be transmitted to an off-site TSA professional who will look at the passengers and note that they are not carrying any weapons.
"The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events." said TSA spokesman, Shepherd Ovis.
Ovis stressed that the employees viewing the pictures are not within view of the actual passengers, and are not allowed to store any of the images. TSA is also considering a prohibition against the public bringing cameras within range of the disrobing area.
Some extremist groups have objected to the system, claiming that it is "demeaning" and fret that it will lead to invasions of privacy and erosion of civil liberties. TSA has assured the public that the fears are unfounded.
Several passengers interviewed said that they felt a little strange taking off their clothes in the airport, but that it was worth it to be safe.

November 5, 2010

Chris Sullivan [send him mail] owns a welding shop in Atlanta, Georgia and is currently working on design of exercise equipment.

Copyright © 2010 Mendax News Service

This first appeared on LewRockwell.com

Pro Choice

Mendax News Service

East Virginia today became the latest state to legalize the production, sale, advertising, transportation and ingestion of all drugs. As she signed the bill into law, Governor Pecunia DeNero said that she is personally opposed to recreational use of drugs, but didn't want to force her beliefs on others if they think it's right.  At the signing ceremony, the Governor said that she thought the use of drugs should be "safe, legal and rare," but is pro-choice on the matter.

Anthony Comstock, the chief opponent of the bill, predicted that it will lead to widespread use of drugs and profiteering by drug companies along with increased crime and mental health problems. The bill's supporters said that they thought it would make safe drugs legally available and eliminate the unlicensed, back alley drug dealers. Supporters cited deaths from botched drug refining and violence brought on by turf wars over drug sales, claiming that these plagues will be eliminated or reduced by legalization. One supporter, Representative Tim Leery said, "Make no mistake, as long as people want drug use there will be drug use, but this gives the state control over it."

The state Department of Education is planning on introducing Drug Education courses, starting in kindergarten to make students aware of the dangers of using alcohol and addictive drugs. Opponents fret that telling children about drugs and their effects will only cause them to experiment with them. Educators dismiss these concerns as having no precedent or merit. Funding for the courses will not come from the state budget, but will come from grants provided by the drug companies and liquor distilleries. Some tobacco companies have suggested a similar program of tobacco education to warn of the dangers of smoking and chewing.

The federal government has warned that it does not recognize the state's power to legalize drugs and will prosecute residents under federal statutes. Representative Peggy Hames, the bill's author, says that her bill recognizes a person's right to control his or her own body, but federal Justice Department officials claim that no such right exists. Hames counters that the Constitution delegates no power to the federal government to regulate intrastate drugs. Justice Department Spokesman Louie Carroll stated that the Constitution "means just what we choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

Whatever the outcome with the feds, there are sure to be many more battles at the state level. Already there are proposals to require a parent's permission before anyone under 18 can purchase hallucinogenic drugs, with opponents arguing that, if enacted, the bill will force children to buy drugs on the black market. Supporters say that parents should be aware of what drugs their children are using, what kind and how often.
Many teaching professionals feel that it's best if parents are not included in a child's decision to experiment with drugs since many parents are fettered to old paradigms and outmoded ideas about health, morality, prudence and acceptability.

There are already rumblings about providing free drugs to children who will stay in school. It's an example of thinking outside the box, but educators say that if it keeps kids in school and out of trouble, it's worth considering.

Air Tax

January 23, 2011

Mendax News Service

The recent congressional backlash about Obamacare has emboldened the Republicans to pass a repeal of the act in the House, but it is expected to fail in the Senate. One of the biggest complaints is funding the program in a time of austerity for most of the country.

Senator Justin Morrill (R- VT) has proposed funding the program by imposing a tax on air. Morrill says that his proposal is a common sense approach to funding the program and will yield health benefits as well. All the details have not been hammered out, but the initial proposal is to weigh everybody in the country and determine their probable lung capacity. After determining how much air each person is using a tax would be calculated based on usage with an additional fee for the carbon dioxide exhaled. Morrill claims that it only makes sense for people to pay a carbon tax on all the carbon dioxide they exhale, thus contributing to climate change.

Several of Morrill's allies argue that everyone should pay his fair share for the air he uses and the carbon dioxide he dumps into the environment. As presently envisioned, the tax would be based on how much air - measured in standard cubic feet at one atmosphere - each person actually uses, not a one-size-fits-all approach. Athletes would obviously have to pay more than a sedentary person since they use more air.

One trial balloon being floated - real balloons would be exempt since most are filled with helium, not air - is a proposal that every child would have to present a doctor's certificate at the beginning of each school year, estimating the air usage by said child for a year. Adults would fall under a similar requirement for work. Those who don't work would have to present a tax certificate to obtain any benefits. Another proposal being explored is requiring everyone to show a tax stamp every time a purchase of drugs, groceries, gasoline or medical services is made. Supporters of the idea admit that there will be some who slip through the cracks, such as people living under bridges that live off the land, transients and other potential tax-cheats.

Opponents of the idea fret that once enacted, the tax will be increased and therefore seek guarantees that the tax can not be increased for five years. Congressman Neville Milquetoast, chairman of the group Conservative Republicans Against Paternalism, says that the plan is unworkable and won't raise enough revenue to justify the costs of implementation. Supporters counter that too many people have gotten a free ride for too long, using up the country's air and not contributing anything.

Some have raised what many are calling a "Naderite" objection - that being that the tax should be lower in places having poor air quality - but people are highly mobile and it just makes sense for the tax to be uniform, but also variable based on use. Others have tried to claim that it is similar to a capitation tax, forbidden by the constitution, but supporters have pointed out that it is a tax on the air used by the person; not the person himself and have not allowed themselves to be drawn into a debate over constitutional trivia.

Some, on what might be called the "Lunatic Fringe" dismiss the whole idea as unconstitutional, not recognizing the new paradigm we operate under nor that the constitution is a living document with no fixed meaning.

Scottish Jihad

What if the United States imposed a blockade on Scotland, occupied Edinburgh; bombed Glasgow and sold England weapons with which to fight the Scots and take their land?  In addition to this; what if the U.S. set up a military base in Geneva, Switzerland and quartered troops in John Calvin's house?

If, after a few years of this routine the U.S. starting experiencing terrorist attacks perpetrated by Presbyterians, would it be reasonable to conclude that all Presbyterians or Calvinists hated us because we are good, or hate us for our freedom? If someone were to inquire as to why we suddenly had lots of fanatical Presbyterians bent on jihad, would it be sensible to conclude that they were trying to justify the attacks?

A reasonable person might think it had something to do with our policy - not religion. An apologist for continuing the policy might argue that the Scots have always been a belligerent bunch and that this was just further evidence of their savagery and militancy and that Presbyterians have always been an intolerant lot. The naysayer might counter that all the militant Presbyterians seem to be from Scotland and the occupied territories; not Appalachia or other Scottish strongholds. Someone applying Occam's Razor to the problem might point out that the Presbyterian Problem started after we occupied Scotland and Geneva, particularly after Ian Paisley came out and said that was the reason for the attacks. Why would it be necessary to concoct all sorts of unlikely motives when the simplest one suffices?

Fortunately, we don't have any problems with Presbyterians perpetrating terrorist attacks against us, but there are some lessons that might be learned from the above hypothesis.

We have a similar problem with Muslims displaying ill will towards us. This is a really perplexing problem, but it might be noted that most of the perpetrators are not just of the Islamic faith, but mostly come from a certain area. If the primary or exclusively motivating factor is Islam, it would seem that lots of the terrorists would be coming from Indonesia, since it has the largest number of adherents to Islam. India also has a large number of Muslims as does Pakistan. The three countries combined have about one-third of the world's Muslims, but most of the World Trade Center attackers carried passports from Saudi Arabia, which only has two percent of the world's Muslims. Why this should be is a real mystery. Bin Laden says he objects to the U.S. having troops in Saudi Arabia because of the city of Mecca - holy to Muslims - being located there and he doesn't want "infidels" there defiling it. In his appearance immediately after the destruction of the WTC, he claimed that he had nothing to do with it, but that he applauded it and "swore to God" that it was going to keep happening if we kept aiding Israel and occupying holy lands. This is supposedly what he said, but since it was translated into English from Arabic or whatever language he was speaking, I don't know for sure.

If Bin Laden is lying about his reasons, what could be the real cause of hostility to the U.S. from Middle-Eastern Muslims?  He did not mention hating us for our freedom or because we are good or wealthy or anything like that.

Maybe it's the schools there or the water that causes Muslims in a certain geographical area to harbor ill will toward the U.S. It seems that if it's the water, the Israelis would suffer the same affliction, but they don't.

It might be preposterous to suggest that maybe they don't like the way Israel is the neighborhood bully and they perceive her to be supported by our government. It could also be that they think the U.S. government installs oppressive, puppet regimes in the oil producing countries, but what would give them such ideas?

Some might pore over the Koran for clues to the hostility and find calls to kill the infidel or other admonitions to violence, but these don't explain why the zeal to kill is so recently directed toward Americans or why Muslims outside the middle-east don't seem similarly motivated. The Muslim critic might retort that the New Testament is full of violent language such as "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." "I have come to cast fire upon the earth." "The violent bear it away...." "..they will be divided, father against son and son against father..." etc. These could be used to explain our above-mentioned Presbyterian terrorists.

Islam does have a history up until 1683 of proselytizing by conquest, but the purpose of the attacks on the U.S. does not have a religious purpose, but a political purpose. As far as I've read, none of the attackers has made any demands that the U.S. embrace Islam or else; they have repeatedly demanded that we - our government - get out of their countries and stop aiding Israel.

People don't like being ruled by foreigners - English in India or Ireland; Moors in Spain; Spain in Mexico; United States in the Philippines, etc. - and usually prefer their own rule even if it is worse having a home-grown ruler.

Americans might not understand why foreigners don't want them intruding in their countries and forcing our ways on them. It can be explained succinctly by a Confederate soldier that replied when asked by a Union invader why "You rebels are fighting?"; "Because you are down here" was the response.

War On Seawater

Mendax News Service


Officials in Washington, working with the FDA, the CDC and the Agriculture Department have recently discovered that seawater poses a serious threat to human life and safety. In recent studies, seawater has been shown to induce hypernatremia when ingested and has been known to cause suffocation when inhaled in sufficient quantities.

The EPA has, after long study, shown that it causes soil erosion, rust and damage to painted surfaces.
The above-mentioned agencies have collaborated to form the Sea Water Alleviation Team (SWAT).
Sal Aqua, a spokesman for SWAT has assured Mendax News that they fully recognize the crisis and are moving forward expeditiously to forestall disaster. Aqua tells Mendax that SWAT is "Proactively thinking outside the box to address all the issues related to the crisis while meeting the challenge with viable solutions and providing options to enable the scientific community to hit the ground running." One of the solutions considered is to drain the ocean, but this seems unworkable at this time.

Aqua announced that SWAT expects to issue directives shortly that will outlaw the "possession, sale, purchase, importation or transportation" of sea water - the regulations modeled after the War on Drugs - with similar success anticipated.

Critics have expressed doubt about the undertaking, but SWAT spokesmen have countered by pointing out that those who found fault with the idea of President Bush's plan to eliminate evil have been shown to be in error with the reported five percent reduction in evil in Spitsbergen and Antarctica.

Aqua says that he is "Excited about the challenge of interfacing with other team players and in determining how the public will be impacted by measures introduced to shift the paradigm pertaining to how we understand and utilize resources."

Mendax has been unable to figure out exactly what that means, but is working on finding out.

Aqua stressed that this is a Herculean project, but assured Medax that, "With man this is impossible, but with government all things are possible."

Armageddon Or Masada?

November 21, 2010

(Mideast Wire Service) Sources in the Middle East tell MWS that Russia
has been assembling a massive naval presence in the Mediterranean
around the Israeli port of Haifa. Confidential sources inside the
Russian Duma tell MWS that the Israeli government has been told to
divest itself of its nuclear weapons or face attack by air, land and
sea before year's end. Russian spokesman Vladimir Ulyanof told MWS
that Ariel Sharon has been warned he must step down and his government
must comply with all UN resolutions that Israel is currently violating
or Russia will effect Regime Change unilaterally.

British military analyst Clement Winter-Berger tells MWS that Russia
has strategically stationed her submarines at the choke points of Suez
and Gibraltar to prevent U.S. Naval reinforcements, and moved mobile
missile launchers into its former client state of Syria.

It is not certain what has prompted the tension, but it is believed by
analysts that the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the escalation of tensions
between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program has awakened
the Russian Bear. Russia views the U.S. actions in Iraq and
Afghanistan as an intrusion into Russia's sphere of influence.

However, some experts believe that Russia's concern for the enforcing
of UN sanctions against Israel serves as a cover for Russian
aggression. Analyst Avraham Ben Joseph of the Center for Science and
Jewish Culture in New York, tells MWS that Russia sustained a
devastating "brain drain" when the Soviet Union collapsed and
thousands of Russian Jews immigrated to Israel. Ben Joseph believes
that part of the Kremlin's motive is an effort to reinvigorate the
Jewish autonomous region of Birobidjan that was founded by Joseph
Stalin in 1934. After WW II and the founding of the state of Israel,
Birobidjan has lost population steadily, although that has recently
been reversed by the return from Israel of some disillusioned
migrants.

Sources quoted on condition of anonymity say that Echelon listening
posts have intercepted Russian communications referring to "Operation
Israeli Freedom" and "Operation Milk And Honey" which are believed by
analysts to be code names for the present military operations;
although Washington denies any knowledge of the intercepts.

In France, a spokesman denounced Russia's apparent aggression, but
noted that the genie was let out of the bottle by the U.S. invasion of
Iraq. At the UN, several ambassadors expressed fears of an impending
Armageddon.

It is not known whether Russia has retargeted any of her SS 18s (ICBMs
with nuclear warheads) from the U.S. to Israel, but certainly it would
be possible to destroy every square inch of Israel with these weapons.
Sources in Israel have tried to ascertain the range of Israel's
nuclear arsenal from former Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai
Vanunu, but he is prohibited from speaking to foreigners after serving
18 years in prison for divulging Israel's nuclear program.

Winter-Berger says that in England, Downing Street remains mum and is
trying to distance itself from U.S. operations in case hostilities
should erupt between Russia and Israel.

Sources in the U.S. would neither confirm nor deny that a war between
Russia and Israel may be imminent.

Winter-Berger says that if war breaks out, and Russia should decide to
exercise her nuclear option in order to avoid suffering any
casualties, it will be "the shortest and most destructive war
imaginable."