Hijab: The Politics and History behind the Veil

Let us agree first that prior to 9/11 the west hardly bothered with Islam or Muslims. But that changed drastically after the terrorist attacks on New York.

People were told that the perpetrators of the planes operation on September, 11, 2001 were all Muslim fundamentalists with lethal anti-west sentiments. History couldn’t have picked a more inappropriate time to introduce Muslims to the world than 9/11 which has in a way stigmatized Islam as the creed of hate and intolerance.

People in America and Europe grew more sensitive to Muslims and their religious practices. For the first time in history nearly 25% of the world population were being judged according to the alleged wrong doing of 19 hijackers. After 9/11 new Arabic words began to find their way into the European and American vocabulary reflecting how much the west has been acquainted with Islam.

People began to be familiar with words like Quran, Sharia law, jihad and of course HIJAB which of all the Muslim teachings and manifestations people in Europe and America felt inclined to make an issue with.

No one was obliged to read or follow neither the Quran nor Sharia, they represented no big deal to most people but that was not the same with HIJAB. Women wearing Hijab were everywhere, you run into them on the streets, in malls and schools. Women dressed up in what seemed more like clerical garb and covering their hair with head scarves and sometimes covering their faces and bodies all together — Niqab — seemed to represent a visual distraction and may be an optical shock — if you want — to modern citizens of the west.

Hijab: why Muslim women wear it

When this phenomenon first began to appear in the last two decades people, and specially women in the west, asked one question: “Why would any woman want to hide her hair and face like that?”

Why would any woman want to forsake the modern outfit of today and delve into the close to-medieval wardrobe instead?

Hijab: The Politics And History Behind The Veil

Muslim scholars argue that HIJAB is required to wear by all Muslim women according to Quran verses. But first we have to bear in mind that Quran — holy book of Muslims — was revealed piecemeal throughout a period of about 23 years. According to narration, The Prophet Mohamed received the first revelation in 610CE and newer revelations kept on being sent like small messages whenever the circumstances of the newly born Muslim society in the Arab peninsula needed divine guidance. This understanding of the historical aspect of the book is an indispensable prerequisite to discerning the true meaning that lied behind every verse in Quran.

Hijab in scripture and history

Scholars agree that the following verses are mainly the two credible references to the requirement of Hijab in Quran.

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimar over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to […] (Qur’an 24:31)

Those who harass believing men and believing women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a grievous sin. O Prophet! Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad) That is most convenient, that they may be distinguished and not be harassed. […] (Qur’an 33:58–59)

What most scholars do is interpret those verses literally and neglect the causes of the events behind them and thereby reaching the conclusion that Muslim woman should cover up in Hijab. Muslim clerics and scholars usually miss out on the crucial point that the Quran — like the Bible — is primarily a book of history. You strip away the holy and you will be confronted with a textbook of historical events worthy of our discernment and analysis.

Muslim scholars simply miss out on the fact that sometimes the causes of events are even more interesting than the events themselves. History tells us that back in time when Mohamed called upon Arabs to believe in his divine message, Muslims were a tiny minority ridiculed and persecuted by the elite of the Arab peninsula who thought of Muslims as a bunch of heretic slaves — as slavery was booming at the time.

Mohamed kept thinking of ways to differentiate and distinguish his followers from the nonbelievers. At that time it was customary for women to wear Khimaar-shawl- over their heads but would wear it tied behind so their neck and upper chest were visible.

So the khimar verse came out — telling Muslim women to let it cover the neck and chest instead — to differentiate Muslim women from the non-Muslim majority at that time, something that was understood and justified for a minority — that needed differentiation — in conflict with the rest of society.

The historical cause behind the second verses is completely different and rather amusing. The Arabian society, back then, was comprised of masters and slaves and they all lived in houses that had no built-in toilets, so going to the toilet meant literally going outside of the house. Slaves were often harassed while on their way to the open air-toilet and since most Muslims were practically slaves at the time, Mohamed cunningly thought it would be safer for Muslim women to dress up in tall draping garments like the free masters of Arabia did so that nobody would harm them. So, thus came the verses that say Muslim women should cast their outer garments over their persons when they are out in the open for that specific purpose.

Hijab: The Politics And History Behind The Veil

It is obvious now that the previous cited verses were taken out their historical context. Only in this historical context could we come to understand that wearing veils and long garments are not required by Muslim women in our modern times unlike what most narrow minded Muslim scholars call for.

Muslim scholars and clerics with dogmatic thinking managed to terrify the Muslim woman into accepting that her hair is — awrah — something like her intimate organs needs to be hidden and covered up.

Muslim women do not need this differentiation any more. It was required of them back then when Islam started, but now all they are required to do is to observe modesty in the way they clothe and behave.

The politics behind the Hijab

Twenty or 30 years ago, few women wore hijab in the Arabic world. It was not a common practice especially amongst young girls and women. Now the majority of women are wearing Hijab, and if you accidentally ran into someone on the street who was not, then you’d be sure she was a Christian or one of the few Muslim women left with liberal ideas and critical thinking.

It is quite perplexing if you think about it. Why would a society that has been modernized for over a century now — like the Egyptian or the Syrian — relinquish its modern values and adhere once again to the dogmatic values of the past?

Some argue that the Hijab is the traditional outfit of Muslims, but that’s not true. Every country in the Arab world has its own folklore and unique traditional clothing. Besides, nobody gets irritated whenever observing people wearing their traditional outfit like the Japanese, the Indian, or the Arabic for that matter — but even they are mostly welcomed to dress up like the modern woman and modern man of today.

There are socio-political factors at play here behind the extremism and Hijab phenomenon in the Arabic world — mainly the incompetence of the educational system which relied primarily on indoctrination and dogmatic thinking, the utter failure of successive corrupt political regimes to improve the living conditions of people and the emergence of a racist Jewish state amidst the Arab Muslim world by means of deception and coercion which helped the sprouting of fundamentalism in Islam

All of those factors caused the revival of an Islamic movement to flourish and sweep across the Arab world with a clear and serious message that heralds the demise of liberalism and the arrival of Islamists to power in the Arab world.

A grave future awaits the myopic who think that Hijab or Niqab or even Burqa is all about obeying God’s orders. Hijab is not about covering up the hair; rather it’s about drawing the veil on our minds. Hijab is merely a socio-political sign that tells us that theocracy in Arabic and Muslim countries is just around the corner.

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat is a medical doctor who writes articles about ancient Egyptian history, ancient Near Eastern history, comparative religion, and politics, especially the Arab- Israeli conflict. He can be contacted at: amenhotep.55@gmail.com. Read other articles by Ashraf, or visit Ashraf's website.

27 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on October 30th, 2010 at 9:27am #

    Only a much-owned people wld be forced to hide their faces from people. It makes no diff whether in mecca or paris and at any time.
    The value of any human cannot be determined buy what s/he wears nor on basis on any other factor let alone an halucination by a single human.
    I know, delusional or hallucinating wizzards, shamans have been receiving ‘revelations’
    Being human self, and of equal value as hosea, herzl, MLK, pope, mohamed, dayan, i, too, receive ‘revelations’!

    Remember that u were born and equipped with everything u need– there r no extras to be had after that.
    So, if u evaluate that mohamed, jeremiah,marx, jefferson, received addional extras after leaving diapers behind, i got a young, buttiful, butiful girl to give away to u as a slave! TNX

  2. Rehmat said on October 30th, 2010 at 10:14am #

    Only a much-owned people would be forced to show their nude bodies for the pleasure of others.

    “For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her.It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere……. In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.,” Henry Makow PhD, Canadian Jew academic.

    Lauren Booth told British daily The Mail on Sunday that she now wears a hijab whenever she leaves her home and had not ruled out adopting the burqa. She said she prays five times a day, visits her local mosque “when I can”, and has given up pork and alcohol.


  3. bozh said on October 30th, 2010 at 10:35am #

    Readers please note that i did not say that women in US or anywhere else r not [ab]used.

    But is not their bodies that cause harm nor the clothes they wear; it is solely what they do or don’t do that offends me.
    It is the ruling class in US that teaches women to behave they way they do. I do not condemn such victims.
    Rehmat does that; thus, he owns it and not me. tnx

  4. bozh said on October 30th, 2010 at 10:43am #

    Ok! I see now, i have contradicted self. I shld have said that whatever women think-do is not offensive to me–what is offensive to me is what their masters force them to think-do.
    Such masters of women as rehmat, offends all honest people. tnx

  5. Kim Petersen said on October 30th, 2010 at 10:46am #

    At question here is compulsion. Are women being forced to cover up (or uncover)?

    It is undeniable that many Muslim women are forced to cover up. If women freely choose to cover up, few people would have a problem with that. But going to the ocean and being prevented from swimming in the water because of long, loose garments seems … sad.

    At the beach, no one would argue that a non-Muslim woman is forced to wear a bikini (acknowledging that some Muslim women do wear bikinis also). And no one would argue that American women are forced to enter a beauty contest. Even Makow does not deny the choice of the American beauty queen.

    Yes, it is true that in much of the West, women are treated as sex objects, and success in certain jobs is dependent upon a compelled exposure. This is wrong, and it should be opposed. But arguing tu quoque is intellectually effete. One wrong does not negate the other wrong.

    Rehmat evades the subject of compulsion and he does not debate the meaning in context from the Koran applied to female modesty that Ashraf explains.

  6. Ray said on October 30th, 2010 at 2:31pm #

    Thank you Kim, Well put!

  7. Rehmat said on October 30th, 2010 at 3:10pm #

    A recent study, titled The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, conducted by professors Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (University of Pennsylvania) for the Social Science Reserch Network (SSRN) – concludes that though American women are better off economically since 1970s – socially they feel more miserable than before….. The women who have been to a women shelter (there are 300 of those in Canada as compared to none for the men) – will tell you how callously they are treated by the hags employed there. Distressed women are pressured to end their marriages and are offered help and resources to do so. Feminists are not interested in the welfare of women. They rely on domestic violence for their cushy jobs and to emasculate men – by portrying them as abusers….”


  8. Dr. Ashraf Ezzat said on October 30th, 2010 at 3:25pm #

    I have to agree here with Kim, compulsion is the real issue with Hijab.
    I can tell you – from a first hand experience- that enforcing Hijab as a requirement dictated by God has turned the veil into a uniform for all Muslim women. What really amazes me that most women wear it without second thoughts. The herd mentality is in control. You get to see a 4 years old girl in Hijab – what a 4 years old girl has to hide except her innocence.
    On the other hand you get to watch hookers, theives and drug dealers in Hijab.
    One more thing, the Muhajabbat- women in Hijab- cover their hair but at the same time wear tight jeans, shirts and full make up.
    So, what is the idea here. Nature always has a way. You can`t prevent a 17 years old girl from celebrating her body even if she wore a Hijab.
    Modesty is in the kind of manners – not clothes- people display.

  9. catguy00 said on October 30th, 2010 at 8:28pm #

    “Only a much-owned people would be forced to show their nude bodies for the pleasure of others.”

    What countries do that?

    P.S -Henry Makow is a misogynist.

  10. shabnam said on October 30th, 2010 at 9:28pm #

    Let us agree first that prior to 9/11 the west hardly bothered with Islam or Muslims. But that changed drastically after the terrorist attacks on New York.}

    This is not an accurate statement. The west is medaling in the affairs of the Islamic countries at least, for the past few centuries. It was British Empire that started the process of destabilization and balkanization using its agents in the Ottoman Empire, mainly, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) to overthrow Abdulhamid who refused to sell lands in Palestine to Jews. The British and French started the destabilization and partition project and divided the land into many microscopic ‘countries’ to prevent unity among its habitants. Later, the West allowed Khazari Jews, a Turkic tribe, to enter Palestine and steal the land of Palestinians, to introduce pressure on Muslim population and silence them with the threat of war and destruction with active support of the Western governments and their populations to colonize the region.

    Today, every person on earth is a witness to massacre of Muslims in many countries all over the world. The west is committing crimes against humanity to push the world towards “new world order”, which is nothing but an IRON CAGE where people must resist that.
    Therefore, the West has been using any excuse to undermine and destroy Islam. The elite of Islamic countries including Pakistan, a fifth column, are the ally of the West against the rest of the population.

    {Twenty or 30 years ago, few women wore hijab in the Arabic world. It was not a common practice especially amongst young girls and women. Now the majority of women are wearing Hijab, ..}

    The secularization of Turkey started during the last years of Ottoman Empire and it was the most prominent feature of Atatürk’s reforms. Under his, the religious education was restricted and for a time prohibited. The reform movement began with enacting the new Constitution of 1924, and the adaptation of European laws and jurisprudence.

    The hijab (veil) for women, was strongly discouraged; and women were encouraged to wear western clothing and enter the country’s workforce.
    All these policies implement to push the country toward ‘modernization’ and open a market in the interest of the West.
    Yet, Modern Turkish Women are fighting for Their Rights according to Freedom of Religious Beliefs to wear the headscarf in universities and working places in public institutions. Why does the west interfere with dress code in the Islamic countries?

    In Tajikistan, more than 300 mosques have been closed by authorities in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe. These follow a government ban on Islamic head scarves — hejab — in schools. Do you think Tajikistan President Rahmon himself is forcing these measures or is directed to take these measures against the wish of the population for economic reason where is under control of the WEST?


  11. shabnam said on October 30th, 2010 at 10:04pm #

    The Iranian ruler Reza Shah banned all variations of the headscarf in 1935. He ordered the police to arrest women who wore the hijab and to remove their headscarves by force. This policy outraged pious Muslim women, so they gathered at the Goharshad Mosque in Mashhad wearing headscarves to protest against the hijab ban on January 6, 1936.

    Ban on headscarf directed by the West which was part of the ‘modernization’ policy therefore was politically motivated.
    The reasons behind wearing Hijab are many. According to Islamic Republic of Iran, women should wear headscarf which is not a good policy and many women who wear Hijab on their own decision want Hijab to be voluntary not compulsory which I agree. But, at the same time, I don’t think, the headscarf is the cause for poverty and illiteracy. The propaganda against Muslim is using hijab to divert attention from the crimes committed by the West. In this campaign many ‘feminists’ who are in the business of killing children by drone in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere are used.

    Iran with 85% literacy rate, enforces headscarf, but Pakistan with 30% literacy rate does not.
    I have seen many Egyptian Journalist who were secular and never wore Hijab decided to wear Hijab. Why? Do you think these women are backward? No one forced them to wear headscarf.

    The West and their fifth column elite in Islamic countries must open their mind and see the facts on the ground. The Islamic countries are humiliated, subjugated, and colonized by the West with the support of the population. The elite of Pakistan are CORRUPT and complicit in US war crimes against the population of Pakistan. The ‘moderate Arab head of State’ are doing the same.

    One reason behind wearing headscarf is to be united with anti imperialist and Zionist forces. At the time of the Iranian revolution many women were secular and wore no headscarf, but as the opposition against the Shah and US imperialism grew, then many women were united with others against US imperialism to be force American ‘advisors’ out and close the US military base in Iran.

    During militant struggles for independence, such as that against the French in Algeria or the British in Egypt, some women purposely kept the veil in defiance of western styles. It meant they also could take part in veiled and silent demonstrations, or could hide weapons under long robes.
    There were other reasons behind wearing hijab. One was the growing reaffirmation of nation identity and rejection of values and styles seen as western. In response to Egypt’s catastrophic loss to Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and the seeming failure of secularism, there also was a push to return to Islamic laws which had been abandoned.

    As long as the West is implementing an aggressive policy against Muslims and is trying to colonize and undermine Islamic countries’ progress, more women are willing to be united with each Islamic country to fight back the hegemonic West with ‘headscarf’.
    Women of Heidi, the poorest country in the world, a colony of the WEST, do not wear headscarf, however, Iranian women do.
    In a picket line, the Iranian women’s priority is employment, education, improvement of laws related to marriage and custody of the children not hijab.
    Muslims are fed up with biased policy against Muslim countries including Palestine, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries.


    For women wishing to pursue professional and public social lives, wearing hijab allows freer movement outside the confines of the home. In leaving their homes, this upwardly mobile group is actually defining new roles for themselves, not defending traditional ones.
    The students who take up hijab are able to move into areas that were once closed to them, such as attending classes, discussion groups and religious activities. Wearing conservative clothing protects them from sexual harassment and objectification.

    {Hijab is not about covering up the hair; rather it’s about drawing the veil on our minds.}

    This is not a good statement. It is YOU that should remove the veil of ignorance to see the reasons behind Hijab is not one. We should remove obstacle that encourages hijab if we are serious to remove it as an option.

  12. 3bancan said on October 31st, 2010 at 1:00am #

    shabnam said on October 30th, 2010 at 10:04pm #

    Good points.
    Ashraf Ezzat sounds like a European/American missionary disgusted and appalled by the antiGOD dress code of “the primitive uncivilized dirty nude blacks” in Africa.
    Every society imposes its codes of behaviour/ethics/beliefs/… on its young. Bikini is roughly “normal”, “not compulsory” for some in some places as is nudity (or other types of bathing costumes) for others in other places (eg FKK-goers)…
    And one could argue that there’s a connection between dog/cat/… beauty contests, child beauty contests and beauty queen contests…

  13. kalidas said on October 31st, 2010 at 6:55am #

    Misogynist: A man who dislikes women as much as women dislike each other.

  14. kalidas said on October 31st, 2010 at 8:38am #

    Here’s a little peek..


  15. bozh said on October 31st, 2010 at 9:43am #

    Beg to differ on the ” it being question of compulsion”; i.e., forcing women to think-behave or don on clothes?
    Clearly– or appearing as an extreme reality– women appear owned and thus forced by mostly threats to behave in the way threateners want them to behave or wear clothes that pleases their owners.
    Of course, i am not saying that women do not act as enforcers also!

    “Compulsion’ wld be elucidating only after citing causes for compulsion self and what are the reasons now for, say, women wearing so little and particularly on TV or movies.

    Compulsion, threats [verbal and non-verbal] just don’t happen; they r mindfully invented. Obviously by people who profit from it! tnx

  16. bozh said on October 31st, 2010 at 9:56am #

    No, u aint gonna hear what i said in above post on CNN, or in any school. Actually, as far as i know, no one had said that women r owned; in, each country to a diff degree; tho, seems, not utterly.
    Obviously, if the fact is clothed thusly, every chld wld grasp it quickly; so, why ever say in any way? tnx

  17. catguy00 said on October 31st, 2010 at 11:04am #

    ” Why does the west interfere with dress code in the Islamic countries? ”


  18. Don Hawkins said on October 31st, 2010 at 11:23am #

    catguy00 follow the money just don’t go to far.

  19. shabnam said on October 31st, 2010 at 11:42am #

    If you are slow to get it, then it is not my fault.

    I have given you many examples including the case in Iran and Turkey. Do you think Reza Shah or Atatürk cared about dress code? Reza Shah let to power by the British Empire so Atatürk. They brought their puppet to implement ‘westernization’ in the Islamic countries to expand their market share, culture to undermine Islam.

    Reza Shah was almost an illiterate man and a dictator. Atatürk’s wife wore head scarf. He was a dictator as well. Why should they be concerned about headscarf? Reza Shah was not a liberated man.

    Why Rahmon, Tajikistan president should ban on Islamic head scarves? How many Tajik women are going to wear it?
    It is obvious that the empire is giving instruction to these puppets what should they do in order to expand American ‘exceptionalism’ in the far away colonies.

  20. bozh said on October 31st, 2010 at 12:23pm #

    Oh how satisfying it is to have 999 out of a thousand muslims, christians, talmudniks, american democrats, greens, zionists, republicans, demonize me.
    And as long as they do that and avoid to demonize our solutions, facts and the like, it is just wonderful.
    And us uniting muslims, fascists, and judaics, shld merit a nobel price. For, by uniting them, we r doing harm to our causes.
    When we will ever learn? And join fascists? TNX

  21. catguy00 said on October 31st, 2010 at 1:25pm #

    Reza Shah was certainly a puppet but did he get orders from the US/Britain to ban the hijab? Perhaps he did. I just would need to see exact evidence.
    The US and Britain were more concerned with keeping Iranian oil in private hands.

    The US has bases in Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq. No hijab bans there. In many cases it is the opposite.

  22. Rehmat said on October 31st, 2010 at 2:01pm #

    catguy00 – Henry Makow PhD – is as much a Zionist Jew as can be Abraham Foxman (ADL). Henry made Aliya to Israel during his youth – as did Noam Chomsky PhD. I am sure they would the pleasure of visiting some of the 280 Jewish brothels in Tel Aviv – where Jewish prostitutes are prohibited to wear Hijab which was quite common among the Jewish prostitutes in Europe in the past.

  23. Rehmat said on October 31st, 2010 at 2:05pm #

    Don Hawkins – Rupert Murdoch is an Islamophobe and Jewish-butts licker.

    Rubert Murdoch, like every Zionist – is a victim of his self-denial, otherwise, he would not have asserted that “Jews are under attack”. Here is a list of some of the benefits these 12.7 million Jews get in return for their victimization:

    1. Israel has received over US$3 trillion in USAID including US$3 billion military aid annually. Israel has sucked US$93 billion from Germany as “compensation” for Nazi crimes. The Jews also received US$7 billion from Swiss banks for “stealing” kosher bank accounts.

    2. Since the establishment of Zionist entity on an Arab land in 1948 – Every US administration has told the world that an attack on Israel will be considered an attack on United States.

    3. The head of governments in the US, Canada, Spain, France, Germany and Britain are proud to be “friends” of Jews and Israel. Ben Obama, Stephen Harper and David Cameron has the largest numbers of Jewish or pro-Israel cabinet ministers in the history of United State, Canada and Britain. French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s mother was Jewish and so is his wife and he has allegedly worked for Israeli Mossad before enter politics.

    4. Ninety-six percent of world media is owned by six Jewish companies.

    5. With the help of France and the US, Zionist entity built its first batch of nuclear bombs in 1967.

    6. Though Jews in United States make less than 2% – 48% of country’s billionaires are Jewish. Jews represent 11% in the US Congress and 13% in the Senate. On the other hand – Muslims are the largest religious minority in the US (8-11 million), but has no Senator. Former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s affair with Jewish Lenni Bruce, brought Jews into Canadian power, starting with Chief Justic Bora Laskin followed by Herb Gray, Alan Gotlieb and Jack Austin. Trudeau also appointed five Jews to Canada’s Senate. Trueau also dated Hollywood Jewish actress and singer Barbra Streisand and almost ended up marrying her.

    Now, if that’s being “under attack” – then I am sure all other religious and ethnic minorities would pray for being under attack. But, then, if you believe the above or these ones, ADL is going to call you a “Jew hater”.


  24. catguy00 said on October 31st, 2010 at 2:16pm #

    “Former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s affair with Jewish Lenni Bruce, brought Jews into Canadian power,”

    Please site evidence that this particular affair Trudeau had (one of many) had anything to do with future political appointments?

    “starting with Chief Justic Bora Laskin followed by Herb Gray, Alan Gotlieb and Jack Austin. Trudeau also appointed five Jews to Canada’s Senate. Trueau also dated Hollywood Jewish actress and singer Barbra Streisand and almost ended up marrying her.”

    ……..and how did that change Canada?

  25. Don Hawkins said on October 31st, 2010 at 2:42pm #

    Rehmat those are some interesting figures 48% of country’s billionaires are they well I hear the far North is nice and Israel and the whole of the Mid East water because of drought that will only get worst in the coming years. All the money and power in the World will not stop that and maybe if it was used to try and slow this little problem down but so far not the case. Must drive them mad knowing this do they know oh yes they sure do.

  26. Don Hawkins said on October 31st, 2010 at 3:08pm #


    This put’s in stark terms yes we waited to long so now will take some cool smart minds if we wish to survive.

  27. Don Hawkins said on November 1st, 2010 at 4:06am #

    It’s tomorrow and is there still a day after tomorrow in the age where nothing is real any more. Nothing is as it seems and after the thinking yesterday from all of us I think I got it. Who’s in charge of the interlocking systems on planet Earth the Wizard of Oz that’s who.

    Dorothy: [as the Wizard’s balloon goes off without her] Come back! Come back! Don’t go without me! Please come back!
    Wizard of Oz: I can’t come back, I don’t know how it works! Good-bye, folks

    Of course it won’t be just Dorothy the Wizard’s leave behind yes there’s more than one a few it will be the camera man or women the lighting man or women the talking heads the writers and of course all of us better known as we the people pretty much a nobrainer there so all of you at Fox or CNN, NBC, CNBC, PBS, all those think tank’s kiss lot’s of ass and just maybe you can get on the list remember there is only so much room in those balloon’s and maybe you will be one of the lucky one’s who can sail off to the shinning city and or secure location where there will be a big brother trust me on this one. Just a voice no face an unknown and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain just a figment of your imagination and from the look’s of that storm more pioneers of our time on the way not on the list. Oh where’s the money for Haiti wait don’t tell me in a secure location and who’s in charge the wizard of Oz’s.