SOMETHING OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS IS HAPPENING by Tim Wood

[Raven]

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNsomethinghistoriccomment.html


SOMETHING OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS IS HAPPENING
by Tim Wood
2008 December 1

I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied history all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two years. We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money, yours and mine. And that is three times the 700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not, they now control us.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why? We have intentionally dumb down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents of why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, and school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over proposition 8 that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing un-elected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about) the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten.

And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so. And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, religion and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course the media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change. Why? I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning to a world social government.

I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the messiah was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department-by-department, person-by-person, bureaucracy-by-bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the indigent, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media; did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and ‘CHANGE’. And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think that I am exaggerating.) Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years, a shorter time span than just two terms of a U. S. presidency, it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors, all with the best of intentions of course. The road to Hell is always paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another drink, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe and why I believe it. I pray I am wrong. Pray with me for the truth, because the truth will set us free.


.

[Magickman]

I too am somewhat afraid of the "change," as apart of me thinks perhaps the change talked about is not the change we all want and need. for instance, what if Obama decides to go ahead with the NAFTA Highway, and integrates the US with Canada and Mexico, with full open borders? What if he decides it would be a good idea to ban guns for Americans? Or use the many concentration camps being built at taxpayer expense for people like us, in this forum? What if Obama thinks the US would be better if it were a police state? So many "ifs" one cannot count them all. Yes, I am afraid for my children, and everyone should do the same.  We do not know what will happen.

[Raven]

http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=4462.msg9844#msg9844



http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/ss_military0790_12_15.asp


Monday, December 15, 2008

Doomsday: U.S. report warns of 'strategic shock' leading to massive unrest
WASHINGTON
— The United States could be sleep-walking into its next crisis, a military report said.

The report by the U.S. Army
War College's Strategic Institute, said that a defense community paralyzed by conventional thinking could be unprepared to help the United States cope with a series of unexpected crises that would rival the Al Qaida strikes in 2001, termed a "strategic shock."

The report cited the prospect of the collapse of a nuclear state leading to massive unrest in the United States.

"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, said.
         
"Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock."

Titled "Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development," the report warned that the U.S. military and intelligence community remain mired in the past as well as the need to accommodate government policy. Freier, a former Pentagon official, said that despite the Al Qaida surprise in 2001 U.S. defense strategy and planning remain trapped by "excessive convention."

"The current administration confronted a game-changing 'strategic shock' inside its first eight months in office," the report said. "The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense]."

The report cited the collapse of what Freier termed "a large capable state that results in a nuclear civil war." Such a prospect could lead to uncontrolled weapons of mass destruction proliferation as well as a nuclear war.

The report cited the prospect of a breakdown of order in the United States. Freier said the Pentagon could be suddenly forced to recall troops from abroad to fight domestic unrest.

"An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home," the report said.

The report said the United States could also come under pressure from a hostile state with control over insurgency groups. The hostile state could force American decision-makers into a desperate response.

"The United States might also consider the prospect that hostile state and/or nonstate actors might individually or in concert combine hybrid methods effectively to resist U.S. influence in a nonmilitary manner," the report said. "This is clearly an emerging trend."

"The aforementioned are admittedly extreme," the report said. "They are not, however, implausible or fantastical."

[indoubleyousee]

Authorship of this article is misidentified on many other websites: http://sbuschollian.blogspot.com/2009/03/historian-deals-with-online-identity.html

Despite its attempt at deception (or maybe even because of it), I appreciate that someone sent this essay to me for the simple reason that it troubled me and got me to thinking and researching.
The first sign of trouble is the way the article starts, "I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life." No sound professional will start a serious essay in this manner. There is no indication of who this person really is. I tried to find out what these 15 books might be. Amazon offers about that many history books written by Tim Wood, most of which are aimed at an audience age 9 to 12 and average 48 pages each. Given that even the most brilliant historian of all time might choose to remain relatively undiscovered by writing for an audience of pre-teens, I still am not impressed by the essayist's credentials.
Another occurrence at duping readers is, "I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about." This rhetoric screams, "I don't know what I'm talking about!" My translation of this sentence is something like, "Because I am unwilling and/or unable to establish my credentials, I'm going to demand that you respect me blindly." First, professors do not necessarily know what they are talking about just because they teach college. Considered within context, " . . . our education system is worse than a joke," we really need to know where this professor teaches. No college professor worth a salary is going to judge the entire education system based on one college, especially when, for all we know this is a professor who teaches remedial history at a community college in Whoknowswhere, USA.
In any case, back to the essay. If that's not enough for this self-proclaimed prophet, he promotes his message "as a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions." How does he qualify his "objective" view? "I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it." Okay . . . who can argue with that? Sorry, but that’s not rational, much less practical.
Essays like this and the people who get roused by them illustrate the harm that a little bit of education and a whole lot of arrogance can do to a population. The author conveniently omits one of the greatest elements of the Third Reich that allowed its successful rise: nationalism. Nazis successfully drew upon German nationalism and fear to motivate the masses after WWI. Fear itself can be a dangerous thing when it leads us to similar reactions to threats.
Finally, this author provides no solution to the problem he fabricates. This vacancy is unforgivable. His cry of warning is the equivalent of a driver yelling, "You're going to get hit by a car!” just before he runs over you. He intentionally evokes fear, but does nothing to help you. Okay, I will concede that he encourages us to “Look it up if you think I am exaggerating” and to “Read your history books.” However, it still comes across as arrogant, translated as, “No need to look it up because I’ve already done all the work for you, and I’m here to tell you what you should be thinking about it!”
To say the least, the essay reeks of amateur application of historical perspectives and ethics. The fact that so many people with good intentions are quick to lap up his sophomoric rhetoric is far more disturbing to me than his message. If readers are already prone to agree with a writer like this, they are only encouraged to justify their fear, rather than actually challenged to think for themselves. For me, I can’t hear what this writer is so desperately trying to say because I have no reason to trust him in the first place. He tries so hard to convince me that he is right that his message remains out of focus. As a result, all I get out of it is that another radical extremist is trying to warn us of another political conspiracy.

[Raven]

The problem with your reply to this is the fact that it is SLAM full of assumptions and your personal opinion. You not only ASSume that the writer was masquerading as someone else, you follow up on that ASSumption with condemnation of not just the writer but the article. You also go to lengths to back up your opinion and imply that anyone who could possibly agree with this work is ignorant or given to following radical extremists.
That sir in my book makes YOU a propagandist and a deceiver by claiming YOUR scholarly credentials qualify you to tell the rest of us what to think.
I have NO reason to trust you either and if you cannot get your head out of your letters long enough to look at what's going on around you, then I leave you to your delusions.
I choose to give air to what is an accurate description of the troubles we face and a call to pay attention to what is happening in this country and the world. The analogy to Germany was fitting and if you take issue with his omission of nationalism you are simply myopic in your view as there were MANY parties at play during that time. It was the overall political and financial atmosphere in which Hitler flourished that he brings up in his comparisons to Obama.
THAT, I believe is your BIGGEST problem with this piece. I do not like being told what to think by supposedly "learned" people like you. It was your damn "learned" ilk that got us into this damn mess to begin with. Maybe its time for the amateurs to have their say and clear out most of you smooth talking condescending BLOWHARDS.

[WAR ON YOU]

I do not like being told what to think by supposedly "learned" people like you. It was your damn "learned" ilk that got us into this damn mess to begin with. Maybe its time for the amateurs to have their say and clear out most of you smooth talking condescending BLOWHARDS.

Make room for the amateurs. 

[Raven]

I got 14,400,000 hits on that name. How the hell do you narrow it down to one? I don't have any way of verifying who this is and why should it matter? His message is on target. That's more important than his pedigree. Millions of people write under pseudonyms and have an average education. Why would I attack his? To discredit him and thereby the article? No.

[indoubleyousee]

Wow! You really jump to a lot of conclusions. I never claimed to know who wrote this article. I'm sure there are a lot of people named Tim Wood out there. I simply pointed out that some sites are crediting a certain Tim Wood that is a history professor at a certain college and that that professor has addressed that confusion on his blog. Did you even read that blog? In order for me to be a propagandist, I ASSume I must be spreading propaganda. Correct? However, I'm not sure I know what propaganda you think I am trying to spread, other than in your words, "scholarly credentials" that qualify me to tell you what to think. May I ask what "scholarly credential" you ASSume I have? Because I ASSure I have none. I'm a regular guy who drives a truck for a living my entire adult career, and hopefully will for the rest of my career if I am fortunate to have a job in the years to come. You, on the other hand, have proven yourself to be a very rude, abusive person with a chip on his/her shoulder, who enjoys attacking every sucker who comes along. If you are trying to shame me for voicing my opinion, then what does that make you? You call this intellectual discourse? All I hear you saying to me is that what I think doesn't matter because I'm a "smooth-talking, condescending blowhard." I made no attempt whatsoever to tell you or anyone else what to think. Just think, instead of soaking everything that comes out and claims to be written by an educated person with a position of authority, especially when that person is a poor writer in the first place. I admit that I don't know enough to argue the finer points of comparing Hitler to Obama, but this article is a very weak attempt to draw comparisons. I think I can do that myself without doing any research and without providing any substantial support for my argument, which is exactly what I see this essayist doing. I will fully respect your opinion that draws comparison between Obama and Hitler if you can do so logically, rationally, and with sound support; but if your only "sound support" is that you get paid to be a historian so everything you say about history is true, then I think we all should question you. Don't you think so? In stead of you telling me what is my "BIGGEST problem with this piece," let me try to state it for myself one more time: 1) It's poorly written. 2) It uses sensational rhetoric. 3) It makes historical generalizations without specific examples to back the argument. 4) It promotes no solution, which leads me to believe 5) that it simply is an effort to incite fear. So, I'm sure you and others are likely to refute my statements, which is wonderful and I am happy to entertain thoughtful insights. However, if all you want to do is bash me for being a "people like you" who "got us into this damn mess to begin with," then this is no forum for free thought and opinion.

[oiram]

I too am somewhat afraid of the "change," as apart of me thinks perhaps the change talked about is not the change we all want and need. for instance, what if Obama decides to go ahead with the NAFTA Highway, and integrates the US with Canada and Mexico, with full open borders? What if he decides it would be a good idea to ban guns for Americans? Or use the many concentration camps being built at taxpayer expense for people like us, in this forum? What if Obama thinks the US would be better if it were a police state? So many "ifs" one cannot count them all. Yes, I am afraid for my children, and everyone should do the same.  We do not know what will happen.

• We do not know what will happen.   = Bull! ..... I do but no one will listen because they all know better then any messenger.
  9/11 was the clear signal Afghanistan & Iraq was the clear declaration.
  The created Economical Crises is the finalization of the 9/11 Perl Harbor.
  
  Smart ass talking & Ignorance is what will brake all the faulty American pride.
  
  
  

[brandon dean]

Wow! You really jump to a lot of conclusions. I never claimed to know who wrote this article. I'm sure there are a lot of people named Tim Wood out there. I simply pointed out that some sites are crediting a certain Tim Wood that is a history professor at a certain college and that that professor has addressed that confusion on his blog. Did you even read that blog? In order for me to be a propagandist, I ASSume I must be spreading propaganda. Correct? However, I'm not sure I know what propaganda you think I am trying to spread, other than in your words, "scholarly credentials" that qualify me to tell you what to think. May I ask what "scholarly credential" you ASSume I have? Because I ASSure I have none. I'm a regular guy who drives a truck for a living my entire adult career, and hopefully will for the rest of my career if I am fortunate to have a job in the years to come. You, on the other hand, have proven yourself to be a very rude, abusive person with a chip on his/her shoulder, who enjoys attacking every sucker who comes along. If you are trying to shame me for voicing my opinion, then what does that make you? You call this intellectual discourse? All I hear you saying to me is that what I think doesn't matter because I'm a "smooth-talking, condescending blowhard." I made no attempt whatsoever to tell you or anyone else what to think. Just think, instead of soaking everything that comes out and claims to be written by an educated person with a position of authority, especially when that person is a poor writer in the first place. I admit that I don't know enough to argue the finer points of comparing Hitler to Obama, but this article is a very weak attempt to draw comparisons. I think I can do that myself without doing any research and without providing any substantial support for my argument, which is exactly what I see this essayist doing. I will fully respect your opinion that draws comparison between Obama and Hitler if you can do so logically, rationally, and with sound support; but if your only "sound support" is that you get paid to be a historian so everything you say about history is true, then I think we all should question you. Don't you think so? In stead of you telling me what is my "BIGGEST problem with this piece," let me try to state it for myself one more time: 1) It's poorly written. 2) It uses sensational rhetoric. 3) It makes historical generalizations without specific examples to back the argument. 4) It promotes no solution, which leads me to believe 5) that it simply is an effort to incite fear. So, I'm sure you and others are likely to refute my statements, which is wonderful and I am happy to entertain thoughtful insights. However, if all you want to do is bash me for being a "people like you" who "got us into this damn mess to begin with," then this is no forum for free thought and opinion.

wow, you sure seem to have alot of time on your hands.  your reasoning is completely specious, and not worth even trying to address.  have a nice day.  this has been a recording.

[Raven]

You are wrong on all counts and you DID come of as being very condescending in your "analysis" of this article. What in particular attracted you to this piece when there are countless that go way beyond this writer's statements? Do you take issue with the fact that he didn't list sources? Can you not see what's going on? Do you need someone to spell it out for you?

As a result, all I get out of it is that another radical extremist is trying to warn us of another political conspiracy.

That's exactly my beef with you. Radical extremist? For pointing out what is obvious to us here on this forum? Are you serious? Of course not. This is an alternative site where we post and explore ALL manner of work. But for you to say that tells me you haven't even looked at what else is posted here, or have you? This article is NOTHING compared to most here. In fact it's quite mild in its assertions. But you take issue with non issues as far as I'm concerned.

1) It's poorly written.

So what I am not judging this piece on its academic merits. Many are.

2) It uses sensational rhetoric.

I disagree. Its realistic considering the times.

3) It makes historical generalizations without specific examples to back the argument.

So what again? Some people can put two and two together. You must be new at this.

4) It promotes no solution, which leads me to believe 5) that it simply is an effort to incite fear.

Buddy, if you're not scared or at the very least seriously concerned about the mess we're in and where we are headed, then this is completely lost on you.

Not every one has solutions. Many are more adept at raising awareness or exposing the problems. Some are not. But you dissect this as if it was a term paper written to get a grade. Apparently the fact that it has had thousands of hits and thousands of posts across the net with excellent comments to it tells me that many people do "get it". Even if you don't.

[Raven]

I too am somewhat afraid of the "change," as apart of me thinks perhaps the change talked about is not the change we all want and need. for instance, what if Obama decides to go ahead with the NAFTA Highway, and integrates the US with Canada and Mexico, with full open borders? What if he decides it would be a good idea to ban guns for Americans? Or use the many concentration camps being built at taxpayer expense for people like us, in this forum? What if Obama thinks the US would be better if it were a police state? So many "ifs" one cannot count them all. Yes, I am afraid for my children, and everyone should do the same.  We do not know what will happen.

• We do not know what will happen.   = Bull! ..... I do but no one will listen because they all know better then any messenger.
  9/11 was the clear signal Afghanistan & Iraq was the clear declaration.
  The created Economical Crises is the finalization of the 9/11 Perl Harbor.
  
  Smart ass talking & Ignorance is what will brake all the faulty American pride.
  
  
  

No you do not. No one knows for sure about any of this. Magickman is right in that. American pride? Really Oiram? That is not what holds the nuclear button my friend. You know who does. The pride here is for country and fellowman. Same as it is in Canada, the UK France etc. Don't take issue with just American pride. Its called patriotism. But you already know who the TRUE patriots are. 

[oiram]

Authorship of this article is misidentified on many other websites: http://sbuschollian.blogspot.com/2009/03/historian-deals-with-online-identity.html

Despite its attempt at deception (or maybe even because of it), I appreciate that someone sent this essay to me for the simple reason that it troubled me and got me to thinking and researching.
The first sign of trouble is the way the article starts, "I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life." No sound professional will start a serious essay in this manner. There is no indication of who this person really is. I tried to find out what these 15 books might be. Amazon offers about that many history books written by Tim Wood, most of which are aimed at an audience age 9 to 12 and average 48 pages each. Given that even the most brilliant historian of all time might choose to remain relatively undiscovered by writing for an audience of pre-teens, I still am not impressed by the essayist's credentials.

• So what do credentials have  to do with what has been written?
  
  In my case I never give a shit if even a dumb dog has written anything. If it makes logical sense then I will absorb it.
  Even from a child you can learn something!
  
  I don't know what the obsession is about  credentials, status or fame.
  
  The biggest misleading lying assholes I ever meet are so called Professionals & this was so even before 9/11.
  
  There is one strange thing you don't sound like a truck driver to me or is this you're second profession?
  
  By the way you can say just about everything you like on this forum just look at all the topics.
  
  By the way I found the article to be right on the mark!
  

.

[Raven]

Look what I found, a truck driver with  masters and  bachelors degrees. But then again, it might not be him:

http://www.myspace.com/indoubleyousee

[oiram]

• Still it's so strange & obvious to me!
  This person has 2 posts on this Forum & hits on a article which in my view is written very well & gets to the point!
  
  I think this is the point.

[WAR ON YOU]

Degree: Master's Degree
Major: English
Minor: Professional Writing
Clubs: Society for Technical Communication

Degree: Bachelor's Degree
Major: English
Minor: Religion

Might explain the grammar stance. Like a English teacher that's always correcting you. If that's the case he must love Oirams writing.

[Raven]

 

[Raven]

I don't think it's that guy. Thats a well known market man. Not the same style of writing. I've read his site before when the market first began to fall.

[oiram]

I don't think it's that guy. Thats a well known market man. Not the same style of writing. I've read his site before when the market first began to fall.

What's about this

Faculty in History and Political Science
Timothy L. Wood, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.


Dr. Wood's training is in United States history with emphasis on the colonial and Revolutionary periods. He holds degrees from Indiana University Southeast at New Albany, Indiana, University of Louisville at Louisville, Kentucky, and Marquette University at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Dr. Wood joined our faculty beginning with the 2004-2005 academic year.

http://www.sbuniv.edu/hipo/faculty/TimothyLWood.htm

Timothy L. Wood holds a PhD from Marquette University, and is assistant professor of history at Southwest Baptist University. He began his teaching career at Alice Lloyd College, where he was an assistant professor of history from 2002-04. He holds a B.A. from Indiana University Southeast, and an M.A. from the University of Louisville. He has published articles in such publications as The New England Quarterly, Rhode Island History, Fides et Historia, Historical Journal of Massachusetts, The Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Methodist History, and the Wesleyan Theological Journal.

http://www.amazon.com/Agents-Wrath-Sowers-Discord-Massachusetts/dp/0415977312
Agents of Wrath, Sowers of Discord: Authority and Dissent in Puritan Massachusetts, 1630-1655
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Agents-of-Wrath-Sowers-of-Discord/Timothy-L-Wood/e/9780415977319/?itm=1
Agents of Wrath, Sowers of Discord: Authority and Dissent in Puritan Massachusetts, 1630-1655 (Studies in American Popular History and Culture)
http://www.abebooks.com/search/isbn/0415977312

[Raven]

No Oiram. This is the man that was mistakenly thought to be the writer to begin with. The first post indoubleyousee made had a link to this:
http://sbuschollian.blogspot.com/2009/03/historian-deals-with-online-identity.html.

Looks like several people made that mistake and he took exception to it. I am not that concerned with it. I got 14 million hits on google for that name. It could be real or not.

[brandon dean]

hahaha what a worthless distraction this debate has been.  who gives a shit who this guy is?  I've written no published books, but does that make my opinion worthless?  I have no vast credentials to back what I say.  I can only rely on facts and common sense.
if your common sense made you reel with suspicion when you read this article, my opinion is that your radar is set to anal retentive.
if your intent was to start a long drawn out argument about essentially nothing, then you've succeeded.  if you say inflammatory things, you can only be naive if you don't expect people to take the defensive or the offensive.  you created the conflict, and then you act offended or surprised when people defend their posts and opinions?  haha 

[Raven]

hahaha what a worthless distraction this debate has been.  who gives a shit who this guy is?  I've written no published books, but does that make my opinion worthless?  I have no vast credentials to back what I say.  I can only rely on facts and common sense.
if your common sense made you reel with suspicion when you read this article, my opinion is that your radar is set to anal retentive.
if your intent was to start a long drawn out argument about essentially nothing, then you've succeeded.  if you say inflammatory things, you can only be naive if you don't expect people to take the defensive or the offensive.  you created the conflict, and then you act offended or surprised when people defend their posts and opinions?  haha 

Ditto...

[RoxieFox]

I received this as an email called "Chilling". I was chilled. But not for the reason that we should be afraid of our newly elected president but that we didn't have that fear with our previous president.  Our previous president revoked what I had believed to be a basic right -- that of legal representation for any suspected of being a terrorist.  He started a war with a previous business partner with the support of many so-called intelligent individuals under the guise of "war on terrorism".  I may be naive, but I have more hope for a better future than I have had in 16 years or the last two administrations.  Although I didn't worry about losing rights under President Clinton only that his moral values could be highly questionable.  President Bush had proven to be a poor business man and look at what he did at the end of his administration. 

[WAR ON YOU]

Clinton put into motion things that Bush finished. Clinton was the one who sign the national ID legislation. The problem with Obama is his policies are similar to Bush except he has the Clinton support. Its a scary situation. When the other branches wont agree he will act on the so called benefit of his supporters. Also criticizing Obama publicly has people pulling the race card like your talking about MLK. The blind faith people are putting in him is scary.

[brandon dean]

clinton was the highest responsible member of government during the Waco raid, he knowingly led us into Bosnia and Somalia, condemning US troops for false reasons, and Clinton passed the worst anti-terrorism legislation up until after 911.  Clinton and his crew are responsible for the Brady Bill, the assault weapon ban, and the death of Vincent Foster, among many others.

clinton was no angel at all---in fact, he was smarter and more diabolical than W., but maybe not his dad...

obama is a robot who knows how to speak.  he does not represent hope for america--he represents hope for israel.