Click here to view larger image

 

The Racetrack: by Albert Ryder

"From before the unearthly, tragic world of the unconscious,
the unconscious of us all, of all time,
everywhere, of the underworld Aeneas visited, Ryder,
who in the solitude of a New York tenement had found that world
and come to live in it, draws back the curtain."
-Rockwell Kent

KC & Associates

Radio and T.V. Interviews

Public Lectures

Hulet has been described as one who sees outside of the box
that most live in.
His interviews on radio talk shows and Television programs
attest to his understanding of issues that few
guests outside of NPR bring to their listeners. As Rita Rich, Jim Bohannon's
producer, stated, "Hulet belongs on those
morning T.V. Talk Shows, except he isn't as boring."
Hulet attributes his understanding
of world events, international relations and both domestic
and international political machinations to a
simple formulae:
"I understand Power. Everything else,
politics, republicans and democrats, the left and right,
free enterprise and socialism, these are
the emanations, the fictions and semantics of power.
The future is about power. And that power which concentrates
into ever larger, yet seemingly smaller geographic areas, smaller
quantum, narrower groups and sectors,
that power will rule."

Hulet draws back the curtain on power.

The text above was written during 2000 before Bush was elected!


Latest shows:

Doug McDowell 07.06.17

Carl Nelson 06.08.17

Doug McDowell 06.01.17

Coast To Coast 05.22.17

Doug McDowell 05.01.17

Carl Nelson 04.27.17

Carl Nelson 03.30.17

Doug McDowell 03.30.17

Carl Nelson 02.23.17

Carl Nelson 01.26.17

Coast To Coast 01.06.17

Carl Nelson 12.29.16

Carl Nelson 11.17.16

Carl Nelson 10.25.16

Carl Nelson 09.26.16

Mills Crenshaw 09.19.16

Carl Nelson 08.30.16

Steve Kates 08.20.16

Carl Nelson 08.01.16

Carl Nelson 06.30.16

Mills Crenshaw 05.27.16

Carl Nelson 05.26.16

Coast To Coast 05.03.16

Carl Nelson 04.21.16

Voices of Dissent 03.27.16

Carl Nelson 03.22.16

Doug McDowell 03.10.16

Steve Kates 03.05.16

Coast To Coast 03.03.16

Mills Crenshaw 02.24.16

Carl Nelson 02.23.16

Kate Dalley 02.03.16

Doug McDowell 02.01.16

Coast To Coast 01.28.16

Carl Nelson 01.26.16

Coast To Coast 01.12.16

Mills Crenshaw 01.12.16

Carl Nelson 12.21.15

Voices of Dissent 12.13.15

Steve Kates 12.12.15

Coast To Coast 12.03.15

Doug McDowell 11.30.15

Coast To Coast 11.24.15

Kate Dalley 11.22.15

Mills Crenshaw 11.19.15

Carl Nelson 11.19.15

Coast To Coast 11.14.15

Kate Dalley 11.06.15

George Noory 11.04.15

Doug McDowell 10.19.15

Steve Kates 10.17.15

Carl Nelson 10.08.15

George Noory 10.07.15

Eric Bombeck 09.02.15

Mills Crenshaw 08.27.15

George Noory 08.26.15

Carl Nelson 08.25.15

George Noory 07.21.15

Mills Crenshaw 07.16.15

Carl Nelson 07.16.15

Mills Crenshaw 06.16.15

Doug McDowell 05.27.15

Carl Nelson 05.26.15

Carl Nelson 04.30.15

Doug McDowell 04.27.15

George Noory 04.17.15

Mills Crenshaw 04.03.15

Doug McDowell 04.01.15

Carl Nelson 03.20.15

Carl Nelson 02.16.15

George Noory 01.22.15

Carl Nelson 01.15.15

Doug McDowell 01.15.15



The Long Hot Summer may be Hotter than you think

Craig B Hulet?

June 26, 2004

There is a constant flow of seemingly contradictory phenomena in nature all the time, the weather alone for instance: where I live, in an ancient old growth rain forest in the furthest reaches of the Pacific Northwest of the continental United States, one gets hail in July and a drought through September. The storms are the best: I like it a lot when trees are blown down to the accompaniment of thunder and pelting hail and rain, electricity out for a week and no traffic can move on the roads. A glass of single malt, a roaring fire and a cat on my lap. But I am an anarchistic Nietzschean hell-bent to remove Mr. Bush from office, so what can one expect?

In the political/socio/economic realm the same holds true but I haven’t a clue how much is predetermined oscillation of a natural sort or is it human nature disturbing everything that natural nature might well take care of had we kept our grubby alien-like fingers out of the global pie? I just don’t know, and I have reflected on this for half a century.

The stock market’s recent cyclical flux and dramatic oscillations of the recent weeks has frightened even the hardiest time-worn investors of late, they have asked me what I think is the contributing factors, what is this stock market “discounting,” what is it “anticipating?” Others have raised the question of the massive shift in recent Federal Reserve bank policy where billions of dollars in federal reserve notes (cash in laymen’s terms) are being shifted to member bank all throughout the 12 Fed districts.

There are dramatic FCC and Supreme Court rulings seemingly targeted to that part of the population most active in protesting the Bush regime’s imperial war-making and its attendant hubris, arrogance and anti-democratic authoritarianism; all the while espousing sovereignty for Iraq on June 30th, 2004. This, foolishly having been proposed without the consideration of well-thought-out consequences of doing this during our Declaration of Independence day’s celebration the same weekend! That should have been a no-brainer.

Then there is the Supreme Court ruling that gives law enforcement the right to arrest anyone who simply refuses to give a law officer his name, though he is not suspected of a crime and there exists no probable cause for such an arrest.

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday June 28, 2004 that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court. The 6-3 ruling sided with the administration on an important legal point raised in the war on terrorism.

 

At the same time, it left unanswered other hard questions raised by the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who has been detained more than two years and who was only recently allowed to see a lawyer. The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit. “We have no reason to doubt that courts, faced with these sensitive matters, will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the court. O’Connor said that Hamdi “unquestionably has the right to access to counsel.” The court threw out a lower court ruling that supported the government’s position fully, and Hamdi’s case now returns to a lower court. (Source: WASHINGTON AP - Bush Can Hold Citizens Without Charges -- Jun 28, 2004 By ANNE GEARAN )

The Bush administration contends that as “enemy combatants,” the men are not entitled to the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants are also outside the constitutional protections for ordinary criminal suspects, the government has claimed. (Ibid.) The administration argued that the president alone has authority to order their detention, and that courts have no business second-guessing that decision.

The FEC has been asked to rule on the nefarious proposition that nobody should be allowed to run ads for anything that might address a federal candidate for office by name 30 days before the nation’s primary elections and 60 days before the general election. We can thank McCain of Arizona for kissing-up to the administration trying to reign in that rascal Michael Moore’s ad campaign for his Bush bashing documentary Fahrenheit 9/11!

 

Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) [today] accepts the legal advice of its general counsel. At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moore’s film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law. In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC’s agenda for today’s meeting, the agency’s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. (Source: The Hill, ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ ban? Ads for Moore’s movie could be stopped on July 30, Alexander Bolton)

This “opinion” (don’t you just love legalese?) is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election. And boy-oh-boy is this proscripti on broadly defined. Section 100.29 of the federal election regulations defines restricted corporate-funded ads as those that “identify a candidate by his ‘name, nickname, photograph or drawing’ or make it ‘otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference.’” Should the six members of the FEC vote to approve the counsel’s “opinion,” The Hill argues, “it could put a serious crimp on Moore’s promotion efforts.”

The Boston Globe in its review called the film “[the] case against George W. Bush, a fat compendium of previously reported crimes, errors, sins, and grievances delivered in the director’s patented tone of vaudevillian social outrage.”

Since the FEC considers the Republican presidential convention scheduled to begin Aug. 30 a national political primary in which Bush is a candidate, Moore and other politically oriented filmmakers could not air any ad mentioning Bush after July 30.

This is hardly the act of nature but it does tell us the federal government (whatever that now means under empire) acts in ways to protect itself from those that threa ten it. I have written often that Homeland Security (the brain child of Al Gore under re-inventing government) is designed to protect the government from the homeland, you and I, not the other way ‘round. So when this next item hit the press on the heals of these several former questionable actions I received a number of requests for an explanation. This was the final nail in the public coffin as it were:

 

The Justice Department is dispatching teams of federal agents to 15 cities struggling with violent crime problems despite a dropping U.S. crime rate, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday. Ashcroft told reporters that the effort would be targeted at ‘the hottest zones of criminal activity’ in cities where high murder and violence rates persist despite a violent crime rate that is at a 30-year low nationwide, based on federal victimization statistics. ... The initiative also is aimed at reducing the traditional summer increase in murder and violent crime, he said. Firearms offenses are the main focus because they are often more readily proven in court than other crimes. ‘We hope this will be successful early -- that this summer will be a different kind of summer,’ Ashcroft said. (Source; U.S. tackling violent crime in 15 cities Justice Department dispatching 'Impact Teams' Thursday, June 24, 2004 WASHINGTON Associated Press, my emphais)

My source at ATF&E explained to me that these are politically popular acts, but in his view, as far as their effectiveness in combating street crime, well? He put it this way:

 

The debate will continue as to their effectiveness! Many argue that they tend to push the crime to another area. Others will tell you that if a few key people are taken off the street that the crime rate will be significantly reduced. I can tell you that the truth involves a little of both. The best thing about these projects is they tend to reduce the number of firearms that street cops encounter. I know that in previous years, once we hammered a few offenders on the gun issue, word got out and many of the drug dealers quit carrying out of fear of doing federal time over the gun issue. The effect tends to wear off after a short time. (ATF&E intelligence special agent 6/25/04 by e-mail)

The broader question is this -- are there any sympathetic relationships between these news stories? Are the several questions, disparate though they seem, have a thread connecting them one might not ever see? Is the one regarding Michael Moore’s movie, (clearly a personal attack directive if ever there was one) something that comes with the dispatch of federal agents in Impact Teams? That is to say, is this something that is coming out of the same mouth as it were. Not a “plan” per se, not a spooky X File conspiracy, but an ideologically based set of formulations at the higher levels of governance, seeping and leaking legal acts to defend the regime from disruption, challenge, or let us say ... they (whoever ‘they’ are), are anticipating a revolutionary “long hot summer.” The ‘We’ as Ashcroft said, “... hope this will be successful early -- that this summer will be a different kind of summer.”

That being a summer of war in Afghanistan, Columbia, and Iraq; a phony sovereignty agenda for the latter; an arrogant President boasting of successes never materialized in reality; presidential election conventions marred by war protests, military draft protests, and not just one film by Michael Moore, but many such critical films opposed to the Bush regime:

The FEC ruling may also affect promotion of a slew of other upcoming political documentaries and films, such as “Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War,” which opens in August, “The Corporation,” about democratic institutions being subsumed by the corporate agenda, or “Silver City,” a recently finished film by John Sayles that criticizes the Bush administration....Another film, “The Hunting of the President,” which investigates whether Bill Clinton was the victim of a vast conspiracy, could be subject to regulations if it mentions Bush or members of Congress in its ads. (Ibid., Bolton, The Hill)

 

Teams of agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; FBI; and Drug Enforcement Administration will be assigned to each of the 15 cities for six months. A Justice Department prosecutor will handle cases of those charged. Investigators will focus on prosecuting people for firearms violations, which often accompany gang activity, illegal drug organizations and organized crime groups. The 15 Violent Crime Impact Teams will use high-tech surveillance and other techniques to identify the worst offenders. (Ibid, AP)

This conception of Impact Teams did not originate with Homeland Security, this is no new program to “just” lower violent crime in our cities. This concept was generated in law during 1993, specifically on the (quote) “legislative day, April 19th, 1993. S. 995 introduced in the 103D Congress 1st Session, ‘To improve the ability of the Federal Government to prepare for and respond to major disasters, and for other purposes.’” (end quote from the bill’s face). It is the “other purposes” that is of interest.

 

SEC. 2 DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to --

(1) improve Government preparedness for and responses to catastrophic disasters;
(2) shift the emphasis of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from
nuclear attack-related activities to an all hazards approach;
Under the next section we find this:


SEC. 3 DEFINITIONS.
Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 5122) is amended --
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following new paragraph (2):
(11) All Hazards. -- The term ‘all hazards’ means emergencies and disasters
resulting from natural accidental or man-caused events, including, without
limitation, civil disturbances and attack-related disasters. (Source S. 995,
April 19, pages 1-3 , 103D Congress 1st Session)

Some of you may recognize the date that former Senator, Mr. John Kerry, Ms Diane Feinstein, Ms Boxer and six other Senators introduced this bill. It was the anniversary of the Oklahoma City, Murrah P. Federal building bombed in remembrance of the Waco, TX incident; Timothy McVeigh’s début as a lone nut bomber.

The intent is spelled out. FEMA is directed to create and oversee new non-nuclear related emergency task forces to enter into high risk areas where there is a substantial threat of “civil disturbances” in an effort to protect the government from the homeland. One might do well to pose this offering to the candidate of choice on the left, Mr. John Kerry, as he saw it into law -- Kerry not Bush.

While the press is fed Justice Department (where Homeland Security resides) PR to explain these newly deployed teams, the press calls it the only way it can, quoting their sources: “The ATF is leading the effort because of its expertise in gun crime investigations and ballistics, said ATF Director Carl Truscott. Concentrating on gun crimes allows prosecutors to ‘focus on the thugs who are plaguing these neighborhoods’ and are likely responsible for a long list of other offenses, said Deputy Attorney General James Comey.” (Ibid., AP)

But Ashcroft said the initiative also will bring “other federal charges where evidence warrants and assist state and local authorities in their criminal cases against the same offenders.” (Ibid., AP) What are the other federal charges? We already mentioned the Supreme Court ruling whereby anyone simply not identifying himself can be arrested without probable cause, fingerprinted and jailed. And S. 995 spells it out: “The Director (of FEMA) shall restructure FEMA to- (2) utilize resources dedicated to defense -related programs .... to respond to major disasters .... all hazards .... and locate the regional offices in areas the Director identifies as high risk. (P. 31) Resources dedicated to defense related programs means the U.S. Army.

A separate bill H.R. 1544, titled Domestic Insurgency Act of 1995. was designed “To prohibit the formation of private paramilitary organizations.” (H.R.1544 104th Congress 1st Session). The vagueness of what constitutes “insurgents” is there to see; armed with weapons of any kind or explosives is clear. But the combination of laws passed over the past decade is clear in its intent: it is civil “civilian” unrest, civil disobedience is targeted by name. Hazard a guess, the citizenry are always and everywhere throughout history, “all hazards” to the powers that be.

Of course that is not all. Given the very real probability that Bin Laden’s al-Qaida will hit America here at home is amply argued by many counter terrorist experts including the new book out by Anonymous “Imperial Hubris.” The author argues from 22 years on active duty still, in the counter terrorism section of a major intelligence agency.

In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, “Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.

 

In his book, titled ‘Imperial Hubris,’ he calls the Iraq invasion ‘an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,” arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by President Bush as justification for the Iraq war. (By Andrea Mitchell, Correspondent NBC News, June 24, 2004)

The author makes my two year old argument in my book that Bush had been drawn into the conflict that the guerrillas that represent bin Laden and so many other groups needed Bush to do. Anonymous says of bin Laden, “we haven’t laid a glove on him,” and that he suspects he is “quite comfortable,” the way things are going and not at all “hiding from cave to cave” as Bush likes to say. He adds this ominous note which I stated in interviews a hundred times: Bin Laden (and others) will hit America hard again, maybe worse, and specifically before the presidential election. Bin Laden knows this will get Bush reelected hands down.

Bin Laden needs Bush in office not Kerry. American war protestors and the more agitated Democrats need Bush out. The Federal Government will protect itself from the homeland and Bin Laden. The cash being moved to Federal Reserve member banks is for that day of reckoning, whichever day that is, in whichever Federal Reserve district it occurs. The stock market jitters and gyrations are the results of investor angst about precisely these oscillations in the non-natural environment.

The game may begin during the Fourth of July celebrations here in America as we celebrate our independence while Iraqis during the same weekend face the American occupation forces’ pretend gift of sovereignty. Their 30th of June is not our 4th of July!

One hopes all this activity remains but the angst of investors and protestors remain civil in their disobedience. Because I assure you this regime in power, especially this present crew in the White House, are fully prepared to go to war with whomever crosses their line. I just don’t any longer know where the line is, ... it keeps moving.

End

Copyright © 2004, Craig B Hulet? & The Artful Nuance


Nationwide Peace Protest scheduled for February 15th 2003, has Mr. Bush contriving mythical Iraqi Agents as responsible!

Craig B Hulet?

When it was announced in an coordinated fashion by a number of protest groups that there would be a massive peace rally in Washington DC and throughout the nation, on Saturday, February 15th, Mr. Bush responded “with resolve” as he might put it.

In an outrageously unprecedented coincidence Mr. Bush’s newly formed Homeland Security released or leaked a highly classified “Top Secret” document from a highly placed source which tells us there are Iraqi agents of Saddam Hussein, sneaking snake-like across our porous Canadian border, infiltrating the United States of America in an effort to seduce unwary peaceniks! Yes, these crafty clever spooks will convince foreigners and students of all stripes to orchestrate the protests against the war with Iraq. Iraqi agents are going to infiltrate student groups and presumably the aged 60’s tie-dyed hippies blithely sipping a Latte-java in the nearby Starbucks, convincing them to rally ‘round old glory and stop yet another war.

Helen Thomas recently denounced Mr. Bush as the “worst president in our history.” Now she might add “the most obvious President.” It is this obviousness that insults even the dullest razor in the pack. Please, Mr. Bush, are you seriously suggesting that the only way Americans could possibly disagree with you is if they are duped by the minions of deceit, the masters of manipulation, the fox of fable, Saddam the dissembler? Only through subtle subterfuge could “real Americans” believe anything other than the scrupulous sincerity of our beloved leader, our father, our punctilious President.

No Mr. Bush, right along with your own Joint Chiefs of Staff, millions world-wide and foreign leaders by the dozens, I too reject your weapons of mass destruction thesis as your reason for war. Your corporate cronies and oil-bathed oligarchs want to secure the region so as to satiate the gas-guzzling gluttony of Americans, the energy expending excess of industry and the centralized offense-industry. And that is awfully offensive.


KC & Associates P.O. Box 710, Amanda Park, WA 98526 (360) 288-2652


Copyright 2000-2014 KC & Associates Send site questions or comments to Katie711a@kcandassociates.org