Dirty Tricks 101
Hillary Clinton

Dirty Tricks

Hillary and Bill Clinton have long been accused of using vicious, under-handed dirty tricks against critics, opponents and anyone who could pose a threat to their plan of a "democratic monarchy" - an empire much like the Kennedy and Bush families before them. One of those was cut short by bullets, the second by incompetency and an over-riding greed for global power.

There is evidence that both McCain and Hillary Clinton are managing, condoning or associating with "dirty tricks" against their opponents. It is important to look at the election a lot like CSI: Miami looks at a crime scene. I cannot say the pun is unintended. You'll see the similarities as this investigation proceeds.

You are now becoming not just a voter, but a sleuth - a political detective. You have to learn as much about your suspects as you can and, as you do, get inside their minds.

These are the kinds of questions we need to ask - and answer.

For example, there are many agencies, corporations, industries, political groups, etc. with their own agendas and goals. How, for example, are the CIA or Pentagon interests at play here? Who would they be inclined to favor or oppose - and why? How far might they be willing to go to engineer the results to meet those agendas?

We live in a high-tech world and this thing we call "democracy/republic" cannot exist in a vacuum. It is directly affected by the sophistication of tools and technologies, who uses them and how they are used.

Our job is to collect and organize and present documented evidence. This is not a one-sided probe with me doing all the work. This is your country, and your future, as much as it mine, so do your duty. You are invited, even encouraged, to make your own contributions, but:

all submitted evidence must have a documented reference, preferably the name of the publication/newscast, date, page number (if applicable), and author (if applicable).

Remember, this is like interviewing crime witnesses. There will be conflicting accounts. Some accounts will be more credible than others. Some witnesses will have hidden agendas themselves. Some will be outright lying. As unit leader, based on my own experience, I will sometimes make my own observations, based on hunches or instinct. Hopefully, they will clearly be labeled as such.

There are also different interpretations to consider. For example, what constitutes a "dirty trick" vs. legitimate hard-hitting political exchange? Often, simple dictionary definitions are not enough to set up the boundaries of acceptable behavior, so there will always be those gray areas in which ethics, law, morality and passion all come into play.

For example, sometimes nice people do "not-nice" things, not out of greed but out of belief or principle, or sometimes out of simple expediency. We will try to take all these things into consideration, within the limits of our own human vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

Let's take an example, in this case, Barack Obama (I know, this is the Clinton section, but you'll see what I mean).

Barack Obama has been accused of being unpatriotic because he did not place his hand over his heart at a Hawaiian gathering of candidates when the national anthem was played. The photographic evidence is clear. Some have said that, well, the photograph could have been taken just before the national anthem, or just after. Perhaps the photo does not tell the whole story (they seldom do). But a video of the same incident is more telling. He held his hands folded at his waist for at least a good part of the anthem, so it wasn't just a badly-timed photo.

Judging from the singer's voice, I'm surprised they didn't ALL have their fingers in their ears!

OK, what about other circumstances. The same photo and video show all of the candidates turning their backs on the flag, facing the crowd, not the flag, as protocol would indicate is "correct."

A second factor is that a good part of the population, according to published reports, does not follow that protocol either, any more than businesses and individuals follow protocol pertaining to the display of the flag. (You don't fly it in rain, you don't let it lie on the ground or in the mud, etc., etc.)

The third - and most important - is that this was the national anthem, NOT the pledge of allegiance. The protocols at issue here apply to the pledge of allegience, not the national anthem.

So we are left to ask, was Obama singled out? Are all of those candidates equally unpatriotic because they "turned their backs" on the flag? And if Obama was singled out, as he appears to be, why - and by whom? Who would benefit from an accusation blown out of charge? And how does that charge fit into other, similar charges that would paint Obama as a Muslim terrorist, hell-bent on destroying the United States?