from DEFCON (The Campaign to Defend the Constitution) at http://www.defconblog.org/
This Memorial Day, the religious right will launch one of the most outrageous campaigns to date in their war on science: the $27 million “Creation Museum” in Petersburg, Kentucky.
The “Museum,” which was built by the religious right organization Answers in Genesis (AiG), is dedicated to the falsehood that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, claims that humans and dinosaurs coexisted a few thousand years ago, and has but one goal: to institutionalize the lie that science supports these fairytales.
While AiG has the right to spend $27 million promoting a lie, it is imperative that as concerned citizens we let America know the true dangers of their nefarious campaign.
------ and now for my .02
You know, 27 MILLION is a LOT of Money but one good thing about this project is that's 27 million they won't be spending on fighting Hate Crime legislation or other lobbying efforts to gain control of the government! My suggestion is that we all visit the "museum" and have a good laugh at their expense. I mean it's gotta have some REALLY amusing exhibits as they try to put the square peg of Biblical myth into the round hole of scientific fact.
-Devon
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Who are they going to Hate Now?
Now that Falwell has passed the mantle... or rather it's being ripped from his cold, dead hands... the question remains: Where do they go from here? One "candidate" is Frank Page of the Southern Baptist Convention who is trying to "play nice" by putting on his best "sheep's clothing" and appear "moderate" but he's got a problem with the term "moderate". It's, well, "too moderate".
Frank S. Page, 54, is president of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest evangelical "organization". He has explained his election as "a mandate for change". Of course, for those not on the inside, we're wondering what sort of change to expect.
Says Page, "I would not use the word 'moderate,' because in our milieu that often means liberal. But it's a shift toward a more centrist, kinder, less harsh style of leadership. In the past, Baptists were very well known for what we're against. . . . Instead of the caricature of an angry, narrow-minded, Bible-beating preacher, we wanted someone who could speak to normal people."
So, of course, Mr. Page has appointed himself the one to "speak to normal people". That begs the question, who is considered "normal" when compared to the membership of the Southern Baptist Convention? Obviously, they are catching on that they are not the best standard for what is "normal". It only been in recent years that they have dropped their stands against black membership and racial integration (and you thought the Mormons were alone in this?) and their stand against dancing, movies, and other sins of "the Devil".
With members of an older generation of evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Billy Graham, the Rev. Pat Robertson, psychologist James C. Dobson and the Rev. D. James Kennedy, ailing or nearing retirement, Page is one of many pastors and political activists tugging conservative Christians in various directions.
Others include the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. William Hybels, megachurch pastors who are championing the fight against AIDS in Africa. David Barton, head of a Texas-based group called WallBuilders, stumps the nation decrying the "myth" that the Constitution requires separation of church and state. The Rev. Joel Hunter of Orlando urges evangelicals to see climate change as a serious religious issue, because "our first order in the Garden was to take care of the Earth."
"The evangelical movement as a political force is in a serious state of transition," Page said. "With the passing of Jerry Falwell, evangelicals are struggling to try to find the kind of cohesion he represented. That was going on even before he died."
When Falwell dissolved the Moral Majority in 1989, the leadership torch was picked up by Robertson at the Christian Coalition. After that group ran into financial and management problems in the late 1990s, leadership passed to Dobson's radio ministry, Focus on the Family.
The absence of a national evangelical political leader was masked in recent years by the presence of President Bush, who served as a rallying point. But the Rev. Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the only candidates in 2008 with wide appeal to evangelicals are ones, such as former governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), who do not appear able to win.
Polls suggest that evangelicals under 30 are just as staunchly opposed to abortion, and almost as concerned about "moral standards" in general, as their elders. But a February Pew survey found that younger evangelicals are more likely than their parents to worry about environmental issues; 59 percent of those under 30 said the United States was "losing ground" on pollution, compared with 37 percent of those over 30.
Acceptance of homosexuality is also greater among young evangelicals. One in three under 30 favors same-sex marriage, compared with one in 10 of their elders.
Redeem the Vote, a group formed in 2004 to register young evangelicals to vote, is campaigning with black churches in Alabama for capping the interest charges on short-term "payday" loans, which can hit 400 percent a year. The group's founder, physician Randy Brinson, said he finds that young evangelicals are intensely interested in practical ways to help their communities and are little swayed by issues such as same-sex marriage.
"These kids have gone to school with people who happen to be gay, and they don't see them as a direct threat. They may think that lifestyle is wrong, but they don't see it as something that really affects their daily lives," Brinson said. "The groups that focus only on a narrow agenda, especially gay marriage and abortion, are going to decline."
So, what's in the future? The political arm of the religious right will eventually evolve (I love the irony!) into more socially responsive lobby groups focusing more and more on the real problems in their congregations and less on issues that don't directly effect them. They'll turn from being ChristoNazi's who yelp and bark at pro-Choicers, Gun Control Advocates, and Gays hiding in the trees and focus on the more tangible issues such as jobs and economic security (for their congregants and not just for their own self-serving needs). And this will happen very quickly over the next five years. Why? Mostly because the great icons of the ChistoNazi Movement are falling by the wayside and a new generation is coming into power. Falwell is dead and Pat Robertson may as well be dead. Ralph Reed the others like him discredited themselves in scandals. The rest? Well, the religion of Hate turns people off and eventually devours those who venture too close for too long.
Just be patient...
Frank S. Page, 54, is president of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest evangelical "organization". He has explained his election as "a mandate for change". Of course, for those not on the inside, we're wondering what sort of change to expect.
Says Page, "I would not use the word 'moderate,' because in our milieu that often means liberal. But it's a shift toward a more centrist, kinder, less harsh style of leadership. In the past, Baptists were very well known for what we're against. . . . Instead of the caricature of an angry, narrow-minded, Bible-beating preacher, we wanted someone who could speak to normal people."
So, of course, Mr. Page has appointed himself the one to "speak to normal people". That begs the question, who is considered "normal" when compared to the membership of the Southern Baptist Convention? Obviously, they are catching on that they are not the best standard for what is "normal". It only been in recent years that they have dropped their stands against black membership and racial integration (and you thought the Mormons were alone in this?) and their stand against dancing, movies, and other sins of "the Devil".
With members of an older generation of evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Billy Graham, the Rev. Pat Robertson, psychologist James C. Dobson and the Rev. D. James Kennedy, ailing or nearing retirement, Page is one of many pastors and political activists tugging conservative Christians in various directions.
Others include the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. William Hybels, megachurch pastors who are championing the fight against AIDS in Africa. David Barton, head of a Texas-based group called WallBuilders, stumps the nation decrying the "myth" that the Constitution requires separation of church and state. The Rev. Joel Hunter of Orlando urges evangelicals to see climate change as a serious religious issue, because "our first order in the Garden was to take care of the Earth."
"The evangelical movement as a political force is in a serious state of transition," Page said. "With the passing of Jerry Falwell, evangelicals are struggling to try to find the kind of cohesion he represented. That was going on even before he died."
When Falwell dissolved the Moral Majority in 1989, the leadership torch was picked up by Robertson at the Christian Coalition. After that group ran into financial and management problems in the late 1990s, leadership passed to Dobson's radio ministry, Focus on the Family.
The absence of a national evangelical political leader was masked in recent years by the presence of President Bush, who served as a rallying point. But the Rev. Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the only candidates in 2008 with wide appeal to evangelicals are ones, such as former governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), who do not appear able to win.
Polls suggest that evangelicals under 30 are just as staunchly opposed to abortion, and almost as concerned about "moral standards" in general, as their elders. But a February Pew survey found that younger evangelicals are more likely than their parents to worry about environmental issues; 59 percent of those under 30 said the United States was "losing ground" on pollution, compared with 37 percent of those over 30.
Acceptance of homosexuality is also greater among young evangelicals. One in three under 30 favors same-sex marriage, compared with one in 10 of their elders.
Redeem the Vote, a group formed in 2004 to register young evangelicals to vote, is campaigning with black churches in Alabama for capping the interest charges on short-term "payday" loans, which can hit 400 percent a year. The group's founder, physician Randy Brinson, said he finds that young evangelicals are intensely interested in practical ways to help their communities and are little swayed by issues such as same-sex marriage.
"These kids have gone to school with people who happen to be gay, and they don't see them as a direct threat. They may think that lifestyle is wrong, but they don't see it as something that really affects their daily lives," Brinson said. "The groups that focus only on a narrow agenda, especially gay marriage and abortion, are going to decline."
So, what's in the future? The political arm of the religious right will eventually evolve (I love the irony!) into more socially responsive lobby groups focusing more and more on the real problems in their congregations and less on issues that don't directly effect them. They'll turn from being ChristoNazi's who yelp and bark at pro-Choicers, Gun Control Advocates, and Gays hiding in the trees and focus on the more tangible issues such as jobs and economic security (for their congregants and not just for their own self-serving needs). And this will happen very quickly over the next five years. Why? Mostly because the great icons of the ChistoNazi Movement are falling by the wayside and a new generation is coming into power. Falwell is dead and Pat Robertson may as well be dead. Ralph Reed the others like him discredited themselves in scandals. The rest? Well, the religion of Hate turns people off and eventually devours those who venture too close for too long.
Just be patient...
Monday, May 21, 2007
PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 51: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO BECOME DICTATORSHIP
Bush has issued Presidential Directive 51, which, in the occasion of any event that effects any manner of population, economy, or city, will give President Bush Power over EVERY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT!!!!
Read for yourself:
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
White House News
NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Subject: National Continuity Policy
Purpose
(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.
Definitions
(2) In this directive:
(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;
(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;
(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;
(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;
(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;
(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and
(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.
Policy
(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.
Implementation Actions
(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.
(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of
the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:
(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.
(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.
(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and
responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall
continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.
(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.
(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of
the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.
(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.
(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:
(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;
(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;
(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;
(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;
(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between
and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;
(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and
(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.
(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing
on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and
assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.
(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:
(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;
(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and
(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.
(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:
(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;
(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and
(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.
(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:
(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and
(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.
(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;
(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;
(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;
(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an
official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;
(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and
(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.
(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.
(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.
(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:
(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;
(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;
(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;
(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and
(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities
General Provisions
(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate
support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.
(21) This directive:
(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;
(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and
(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its
agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.
(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
GEORGE W. BUSH
-Matt
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Moore's New Movie: SiCKO, Finished!
Awesome news, straight from the Moore's mouth. :-)
"Sicko" Is Completed and We're Off to Cannes!
May 17, 2007
Friends,
It's a wrap! My new film, "Sicko," is all done and will have its world premiere this Saturday night at the Cannes Film Festival. As with "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," we are honored to have been chosen by this prestigious festival to screen our work there.
My intention was to keep "Sicko" under wraps and show it to virtually no one before its premiere in Cannes. That is what I have done and, as you may have noticed if you are a recipient of my infrequent Internet letters, I have been very silent about what I've been up to. In part, that's because I was working very hard to complete the film. But my silence was also because I knew that the health care industry -- an industry which makes up more than 15 percent of our GDP -- was not going to like much of what they were going to see in this movie and I thought it best not to upset them any sooner than need be.
Well, going quietly to Cannes, I guess, was not to be. For some strange reason, on May 2nd the Bush administration initiated an action against me over how I obtained some of the content they believe is in my film. As none of them have actually seen the film (or so I hope!), they decided, unlike with "Fahrenheit 9/11," not to wait until the film was out of the gate and too far down the road to begin their attack.
Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, launched an investigation of a trip I took to Cuba to film scenes for the movie. These scenes involve a group of 9/11 rescue workers who are suffering from illnesses obtained from working down at Ground Zero. They have received little or no help with their health care from the government. I do not want to give away what actually happens in the movie because I don't want to spoil it for you (although I'm sure you'll hear much about it after it unspools Saturday). Plus, our lawyers have advised me to say little at this point, as the film goes somewhere far scarier than "Cuba." Rest assured of one thing: no laws were broken. All I've done is violate the modern-day rule of journalism that says, "ask no questions of those in power or your luncheon privileges will be revoked."
This preemptive action taken by the Bush administration on the eve of the "Sicko" premiere in Cannes led our attorneys to fear for the safety of our film, noting that Secretary Paulson may try to claim that the content of the movie was obtained through a violation of the trade embargo that our country has against Cuba and the travel laws that prohibit average citizens of our free country from traveling to Cuba. (The law does not prohibit anyone from exercising their first amendment right of a free press and documentaries are protected works of journalism.)
I was floored when our lawyers told me this. "Are you saying they might actually confiscate our movie?" "Yes," was the answer. "These days, anything is possible. Even if there is just a 20 percent chance the government would seize our movie before Cannes, does anyone want to take that risk?"
Certainly not. So there we were last week, spiriting a duplicate master negative out of the country just so no one from the government would take it from us. (Seriously, I can't believe I just typed those words! Did I mention that I'm an American, and this is America and NO ONE should ever have to say they had to do such a thing?)
I mean, folks, I have just about had it. Investigating ME because I'm trying to help some 9/11 rescue workers our government has abandoned? Once again, up is down and black is white. There are only two people in need of an investigation and a trial, and the desire for this across America is so widespread you don't even need to see the one's smirk or hear the other's sneer to know who I am talking about.
But no, I'm the one who now has to hire lawyers and sneak my documentary out of the country just so people can see a friggin' movie. I mean, it's just a movie! What on earth could I have placed on celluloid that would require such a nonsensical action against me?
Ok. Scratch that.
Well, I'm on my way to Cannes right now, a copy of the movie in my bag. Don't feel too bad for me, I'll be in the south of France for a week! But then it's back to the U.S. for a number of premieres and benefits and then, finally, a chance for all of you to see this film that I have made. Circle June 29th on your calendar because that's when it opens in theaters everywhere across the country and Canada (for the rest of the world, it opens in the fall).
I can't wait for you to see it.
Yours,
Michael Moore
P.S. I will write more about what happens from Cannes. Stay tuned on my website, MichaelMoore.com
-Matt
Wolfowitz Resigns
And another one bites the dust:
From CNN: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz will leave office June 30 amid a controversy over his handling of a pay package for his girlfriend, a bank employee, the institution's board of directors announced Thursday.
President Bush on Thursday sounded as if he was resigned to the fact that Wolfowitz's tenure was coming to an end.
Senior World Bank officials told CNN earlier Thursday that they expected Wolfowitz to announce his resignation "soon."
On Wednesday bank directors held talks with Wolfowitz and White House officials amid reports they were close to reaching an agreement.
The agreement they were discussing would allow Wolfowitz to leave voluntarily in return for the bank's admission of some culpability in the handling of his girlfriend Shaha Riza's transfer to a State Department job and hefty pay raise, senior administration officials told CNN.
Wolfowitz had served as undersecretary for defense and had helped plan the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Bush had nominated him to serve as the World Bank's president.
"I admire Paul Wolfowitz, I admire his heart and I particularly admired his focus on helping the poor," Bush told reporters. "There's a board meeting going on as we speak. All I can tell you is I know that Paul Wolfowitz has an interest in what's best for the bank."
Bush applauded Wolfowitz for having made sure the bank "focused on things that matter -- human suffering, the human condition." He added, "I respect him a lot and, as I say, I regret that it's come to this right now."
The White House has concluded that he cannot serve anymore, administration sources familiar with the discussions told CNN on Wednesday.
"We want it over, one way or the other," said a senior administration official, who added that the White House was merely reacting to the "reality" of Wolfowitz's shriveling support on the bank board. "If you can't win, you can't win."The ongoing talks center on the wording of a statement, which the board needs to come up with in the next few days or risk losing credibility with the staff, a senior bank official told CNN.
"The staff is very agitated over this," the senior bank official said. "The board knows it risks becoming the target of the staff's wrath in this."
Wolfowitz attorney Bob Bennett had left the door open for departure if Wolfowitz isn't found the be the only one responsible.
"He will not resign under this cloud and that remains his position," Bennett said. "We have presented an overpowering case to the full board. If we win that case to the full board, then things may work out."
One holdup in the talks was U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who continued to support Wolfowitz.
The board rejected an earlier U.S. plan under which the U.S. would discuss Wolfowitz's resignation only if the board of ethics violations exonerated him, a member of the bank board told CNN.
The board had enough votes to fire Wolfowitz but was trying to avoid a full vote, which would leave the United States isolated in its support for Wolfowitz, the official said.
"They want to give Wolfowitz and the U.S. a way out," the source said. "They are telling [U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson if needed, they will vote him out, but they don't want to break up the board. They want the United States to be part of the consensus in finding a solution."
The United States has "already lost a great deal of prestige on the board," the official added. Wolfowitz's expected resignation would likely lead to an "open discussion about whether the U.S. should be able to pick his successor."
Should the Ethics Committee admit some culpability, staff firings are not expected, because most of the committee members who dealt with Wolfowitz on the matter have since left the bank, the official said.
Wolfowitz was supposed to travel to Slovenia Wednesday night on World Bank business but a World Bank official told CNN that the trip is on hold."
----End of CNN quote
Well, to quote Walter Cronkite,
"And that's the way it was."
Man, this is one bitchin' week!
-Matt
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
War Czar?
WASHINGTON - President Bush has chosen Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the Pentagon's director of operations, to oversee the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as a "war czar" after a long search for new leadership, administration officials said Tuesday.
Now if he could just find a "Presidential Czar" so he could step down and that person run things. I have a suggestion, Georgie! How about Hillary?
-Devon
Now if he could just find a "Presidential Czar" so he could step down and that person run things. I have a suggestion, Georgie! How about Hillary?
-Devon
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Jerry Falwell Dies.
The Reverand Jerry Falwell has Died at Liberty Univ. less than an hour ago. He was 73.
To quote CNN:
Earlier today, Ron Godwin, the executive vice president of Falwell's Liberty University, had said Falwell was found unresponsive around 10:45 a.m. and taken to Lynchburg General Hospital. Godwin said he was not sure what caused the collapse, but said Falwell had "a history of heart challenges."
You know, I hope in his last seconds on Earth, were as fear filled and revealing how wrong he's been all these years.
I hope now that he's entered the eternal abyss of nothingness, he has enough conceousness, or had, before his existance was erased, to notice how the pearly gates are not there. That the shining kingdom of his 'Hevan" is non-existant, and that even the smell of brimstone and the sounds of screams can not comfort him.
His worthless existance has been extinguished. May the non-existance of his pathetic beliefs be enough torture for him, and if not, and there is in fact a hell, may he be forced to suck Satan's greasy cock for all eternity.
Not a pretty picture, eh?
Well, he was never a pretty picture.
"And I say unto ye, let praise and rejoice ring through the world. And let the masses sing out, in the name of normal sanity, "Ding, Dong, The Witch is Dead. Which ol' Witch? The Falwell Bitch. Ding, Dong, the Falwell Bitch is dead!
And it was good."
-Matt
Monday, May 14, 2007
Another One Bites The Dust- MCNULTY Resigns
Watch the dominos fall!
From CNN.com
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The No. 2 official at the Justice Department, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, submitted his resignation to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Justice Department announced Monday.
McNulty cited personal reasons for his resignation.
"The financial realities of college-age children and two decades of public service lead me to a long overdue transition in my career," he wrote in his resignation letter.
A source close to McNulty told CNN that the deputy attorney general had planned to resign from the $165,000-a-year job about a month ago, but decided to announce the move at a conference of U.S. attorneys in Texas.
McNulty's resignation comes amid the controversy over the department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year.
He was one of the key figures in meetings and discussions about the shakeup, and investigators from the House and Senate Judiciary committees grilled him for more than eight hours in April.
McNulty, a former U.S. attorney himself, told the Senate Judiciary Committee in February that the firings were performance-related. That provoked an outcry from the ex-officials, some of whom raised allegations that some of the firings were politically motivated.
McNulty later told the committee that he was not briefed properly before that hearing -- and blamed his testimony on former aide Monica Goodling, who invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than discuss the matter with Congress. A federal judge Friday approved a House Judiciary Committee request that she be granted immunity from prosecution, allowing it to compel her testimony.
Goodling and another aide, Kyle Sampson, have resigned in connection with the controversy.
"Another resignation won't make the unanswered questions about the fired U.S. attorneys disappear," Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Monday.
"For months, Democrats have been seeking straight answers about the prosecutor purge," Emanuel said. "Democrats will continue our aggressive investigation into this serious matter. Resignations are no substitute for the truth."
Gonzales has admitted the firings were poorly handled, but has defended his leadership and resisted calls to resign.
"It seems ironic that Paul McNulty, who at least tried to level with the committee, goes while Gonzales, who stonewalled the committee, is still in charge," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said in a written statement Monday evening. "This administration owes us a lot better."
In a statement announcing McNulty's resignation, Gonzales praised him as "an effective manager of day-to-day operations" since he took office in November 2005.
"Paul is an outstanding public servant and a fine attorney who has been valued here at the department, by me and so many others, as both a colleague and a friend," Gonzales said. "He will be missed. On behalf of the department, I wish him well in his future endeavors."
McNulty served as U.S. attorney in Alexandria, Virginia, before becoming deputy attorney general on an acting basis in November 2005. He was officially sworn in the following March.
He also led the Justice Department's Office of Policy and Communications from 1990 to 1993, during the first Bush administration.
His resignation will take effect at an unspecified date in late summer."
-end of quote
Well, that's the end of Nutty McNulty. Now, let's see Bush's Tejano Gonzo "resign". He's long past his experation date.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Heros & Zeros of the Texas Legislature:
(from prochoiceaction.org)
HERO: Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) led the charge in support
of women's health for yet another Session, filing numerous
proactive pro-choice bills. As one of only two pro-choice
members (and the only woman!) on the House State Affairs
Committee, she has been instrumental in highlighting misguided
and extreme anti-choice bills.
ZERO: Sen. Patrick (R-Houston) tops this list for his zealous
assaults on women's health in Texas. Not only did he file a
dangerous and extreme bill to create a near-total ban on
abortion in Texas (SB 186), he also proposed two other shocking
bills: one that would require a doctor to tell a woman seeking
an abortion that the state will pay $500 to choose adoption
instead (SB 1567); and another to force women to view ultrasound
images regardless of their consent (SB 920)!
Click here to read about more Heroes & Zeros of the Texas
Legislature, more
HERO: Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) led the charge in support
of women's health for yet another Session, filing numerous
proactive pro-choice bills. As one of only two pro-choice
members (and the only woman!) on the House State Affairs
Committee, she has been instrumental in highlighting misguided
and extreme anti-choice bills.
ZERO: Sen. Patrick (R-Houston) tops this list for his zealous
assaults on women's health in Texas. Not only did he file a
dangerous and extreme bill to create a near-total ban on
abortion in Texas (SB 186), he also proposed two other shocking
bills: one that would require a doctor to tell a woman seeking
an abortion that the state will pay $500 to choose adoption
instead (SB 1567); and another to force women to view ultrasound
images regardless of their consent (SB 920)!
Click here to read about more Heroes & Zeros of the Texas
Legislature, more
Guns, God, and Gays won't do it anymore...
In the 2000 election and a little bit of the 2004 election, the Repugnicans could simply push their "hot button" issues of God, Guns, and Gays to motivate their voters. But that old trick has become passe' now and just doesn't have the impact it did a decade ago.
In 2000, we were still enjoying some of the good life of the Clinton administration. People were working, jobs weren't being sent overseas, all the wars (more acurately, skirmishes) we participated in were over before they started. We enjoyed a good reputation on the world stage due to our foreign policy. And, most importantly, we had a surplus in the Treasury! Things were so good that we were the perfect victims for the Fear Mongers.
The GOP spent eight years trying to pin some crime on President Clinton and, failing that, attempted the same with his wife, When they failed at impeachment for the flimsiest of charges, they had little left except fear. So they created the fear that Liberals, Progressives, and the Democratic Party were trying to take their God away in any way they could imagine... and they were VERY imaginative! Then, for those that didn't fear "god" being taken away, they pointed accusing fingers at those trying to control guns and crime as "trying to take our guns away"! Finally, for those who might still have some sense of security in place, they trotted out a Gay person and claimed they were trying to advance an agenda that included them "recuiting our kids to their sinful ways"!
We watched as the Fear Fector did it's worst in 2000 and 2004. In 2006, they realized the price to be paid for Fear-based Voting. The Fear-based voter got what it voted for and that was nothing but more fear. They were in no better place after three national elections. God's not any better off. Guns are still available; even assualt rifles are legal now! And Gay people are no better or worse off than they were in 1999. The net of the three "hot button" issues? Zero!
It appears however, that the GOP still hasn't gotten the message. The "debates" in North Carolina offered some insight into the formation of the GOP platform and, surprise, it's no different than it was in 2000! It's still God, Guns and Gays and that just won't do it anymore when there's an 800 gorilla called Iraq in the middle of the room.
(You know, W, if you're looking for a War Czar to act as the Commander-in-Chief, you should consider Bill Clinton. He had two wars while in office and an uncooperative, adversarial Congress yet managed to rise above that with hardly any losses and no lasting entanglement.)
In 2000, we were still enjoying some of the good life of the Clinton administration. People were working, jobs weren't being sent overseas, all the wars (more acurately, skirmishes) we participated in were over before they started. We enjoyed a good reputation on the world stage due to our foreign policy. And, most importantly, we had a surplus in the Treasury! Things were so good that we were the perfect victims for the Fear Mongers.
The GOP spent eight years trying to pin some crime on President Clinton and, failing that, attempted the same with his wife, When they failed at impeachment for the flimsiest of charges, they had little left except fear. So they created the fear that Liberals, Progressives, and the Democratic Party were trying to take their God away in any way they could imagine... and they were VERY imaginative! Then, for those that didn't fear "god" being taken away, they pointed accusing fingers at those trying to control guns and crime as "trying to take our guns away"! Finally, for those who might still have some sense of security in place, they trotted out a Gay person and claimed they were trying to advance an agenda that included them "recuiting our kids to their sinful ways"!
We watched as the Fear Fector did it's worst in 2000 and 2004. In 2006, they realized the price to be paid for Fear-based Voting. The Fear-based voter got what it voted for and that was nothing but more fear. They were in no better place after three national elections. God's not any better off. Guns are still available; even assualt rifles are legal now! And Gay people are no better or worse off than they were in 1999. The net of the three "hot button" issues? Zero!
It appears however, that the GOP still hasn't gotten the message. The "debates" in North Carolina offered some insight into the formation of the GOP platform and, surprise, it's no different than it was in 2000! It's still God, Guns and Gays and that just won't do it anymore when there's an 800 gorilla called Iraq in the middle of the room.
(You know, W, if you're looking for a War Czar to act as the Commander-in-Chief, you should consider Bill Clinton. He had two wars while in office and an uncooperative, adversarial Congress yet managed to rise above that with hardly any losses and no lasting entanglement.)
Pat Robertson's Black Hole...
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s commencement speech at Pat Robertson’s Regent University was widely covered as a test of whether the former governor’s Mormonism can appeal to an audience that regards the religion as a cult.
(From Right Wing Watch)
It could have been just one of the routine commencements held across the nation Saturday - but this was a Mormon addressing students of a school that labels itself "America's pre-eminent Christian university," a scene pundits could predict would be tense given the evangelical community's concerns with followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In that sense, Romney’s visit was a success. Oft-quoted political scientist Larry Sabato said that “Being at Pat Robertson University is the message he needs.” The parent of one Regent grad told a reporter, “It wasn't until he was about halfway through his speech that I remembered he was Mormon." You can’t buy press like that.
(From the Salt Lake Tribune)
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/05/romneys_pilgrim.html?tr=y&auid=2670816
It's frightening when the extreme right wing must appeal to other segments of the extreme right wing in order to find acceptance but there is silver lining in that dark cloud!
This is yet another example of the right wing's continued implosion and I'm not surprised. I'm an avid historian and predicted much of this back in the 1970's when I looked carefully at what was then the "Jesus Movement". While I saw many who were honestly coming to an epiphany of religious insight, I saw a group who were standing on the fringe waiting to exploit that group of new believers.
In the 1980's they carefully worked at building a huge network of friends; both political and financial. Their zenith was in the Reagan adminsitration when they discovered that political power was much more satisfying and profitable than "faith". They set about building satillite communications and educational facilities. They got elected officials into office at state and local levels. These officals later influenced and even corrupted federal elections which gave them a "born again" President; TWICE!
In both Bush administrations they found fetile ground to place their graduates in influential government positions where they could influence not only legislation but now they could control the execution of those laws. All the while they attacked the remaining "check and balance" of the Judicial Branch of government by removing "activist judges" and getting their sympathizers into those positions. With a neutered judiciary, a controlled executive and a "hands-off" legislative branch, they wrecked havok for the last five years which came to a high-water mark when they got us involved in Iraq in what is believed to be an insane attempt to hurry along their saviour's return to earth and their own "rapture".
One of the most successful of these religious charlatans is Pat Robertson who has proven himself as the Axis Mundi of Evil. Those wishing to drink from his well of money and influence, must come pay him homage. Mit Romney, being a member of what many religious fundamentalists consider a cult and a non-Christian at that, must appeal to this group for their acceptance. Obviously, it will have some effect, but the core of the "faithful" are skeptical and probably won't support him when it comes to voting. He barely gets 10 percent of the poll numbers.
Pat isn't just looking at the 2008 electio, he's looking at an alliance with the Mormon church to extend his influence and power. He knows 2008 won't be a Republican victory. He's got bigger fish to fry and Mit is just a single course in an elaborate buffet. But with all that "food", they will still not be satisfied and will continue to hunger for more.
As I said, this is an implosion. That is, the Right Wing, Religious Fundamentalists won't explode as they pass into oblivion. Historically, that's never happened. Rather, they will impode. In other words, they draw those around them into their ring of influence and suck the life out of them. They feed on the energy, power and influence of the smaller groups to enpower themselves in their self-destructive efforts. Mit Romney, has placed himself inside the "danger zone" by getting too close to Pat Robertson. Like a Black Hole, Pat will draw him in and Mit will never know what happened until it's over. There won't even be any bones. It happens to those who come near him; ask James Bakker and Jerry Falwell. And, you know, I'm glad because the more powerful they becomes, the closer they get to their personal and political Armageddon. The 2006 Election was the beginning of the end and 2008 will be the high-water mark for Justice and Truth in the USA.
-Devon
(From Right Wing Watch)
It could have been just one of the routine commencements held across the nation Saturday - but this was a Mormon addressing students of a school that labels itself "America's pre-eminent Christian university," a scene pundits could predict would be tense given the evangelical community's concerns with followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In that sense, Romney’s visit was a success. Oft-quoted political scientist Larry Sabato said that “Being at Pat Robertson University is the message he needs.” The parent of one Regent grad told a reporter, “It wasn't until he was about halfway through his speech that I remembered he was Mormon." You can’t buy press like that.
(From the Salt Lake Tribune)
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/05/romneys_pilgrim.html?tr=y&auid=2670816
It's frightening when the extreme right wing must appeal to other segments of the extreme right wing in order to find acceptance but there is silver lining in that dark cloud!
This is yet another example of the right wing's continued implosion and I'm not surprised. I'm an avid historian and predicted much of this back in the 1970's when I looked carefully at what was then the "Jesus Movement". While I saw many who were honestly coming to an epiphany of religious insight, I saw a group who were standing on the fringe waiting to exploit that group of new believers.
In the 1980's they carefully worked at building a huge network of friends; both political and financial. Their zenith was in the Reagan adminsitration when they discovered that political power was much more satisfying and profitable than "faith". They set about building satillite communications and educational facilities. They got elected officials into office at state and local levels. These officals later influenced and even corrupted federal elections which gave them a "born again" President; TWICE!
In both Bush administrations they found fetile ground to place their graduates in influential government positions where they could influence not only legislation but now they could control the execution of those laws. All the while they attacked the remaining "check and balance" of the Judicial Branch of government by removing "activist judges" and getting their sympathizers into those positions. With a neutered judiciary, a controlled executive and a "hands-off" legislative branch, they wrecked havok for the last five years which came to a high-water mark when they got us involved in Iraq in what is believed to be an insane attempt to hurry along their saviour's return to earth and their own "rapture".
One of the most successful of these religious charlatans is Pat Robertson who has proven himself as the Axis Mundi of Evil. Those wishing to drink from his well of money and influence, must come pay him homage. Mit Romney, being a member of what many religious fundamentalists consider a cult and a non-Christian at that, must appeal to this group for their acceptance. Obviously, it will have some effect, but the core of the "faithful" are skeptical and probably won't support him when it comes to voting. He barely gets 10 percent of the poll numbers.
Pat isn't just looking at the 2008 electio, he's looking at an alliance with the Mormon church to extend his influence and power. He knows 2008 won't be a Republican victory. He's got bigger fish to fry and Mit is just a single course in an elaborate buffet. But with all that "food", they will still not be satisfied and will continue to hunger for more.
As I said, this is an implosion. That is, the Right Wing, Religious Fundamentalists won't explode as they pass into oblivion. Historically, that's never happened. Rather, they will impode. In other words, they draw those around them into their ring of influence and suck the life out of them. They feed on the energy, power and influence of the smaller groups to enpower themselves in their self-destructive efforts. Mit Romney, has placed himself inside the "danger zone" by getting too close to Pat Robertson. Like a Black Hole, Pat will draw him in and Mit will never know what happened until it's over. There won't even be any bones. It happens to those who come near him; ask James Bakker and Jerry Falwell. And, you know, I'm glad because the more powerful they becomes, the closer they get to their personal and political Armageddon. The 2006 Election was the beginning of the end and 2008 will be the high-water mark for Justice and Truth in the USA.
-Devon
Thursday, May 10, 2007
When Does A Fake Victory Become A True Defeat?
How often have we heard the Right Wing zealots say "We HAVE to win this war! Defeat is not an option! We can't surrender!" Do these talking points hold any water? Let's explore this:
Back in 2003 when we embarked on this "great adventure", remember how patriotic people started acting? Remember how we started adopting that ol' Vietnam phrase "Support our Troops" and whatnot? And how the mindless masses didn't just think, but know we would just mince into Baghdad, sprinkling freedom, joy, and rainbow gumdrop happiness all over those smiling brown faces? Remember that? How it was the pinnacle battle of Good and Evil, how Iraq was such a huge threat to us and that ol' meanie Saddam was hunched over a giant map of the world plotting his "eeeevil" takeover of the world? How the kids drew little pictures of Jesus standing next to Bush, kicking Saddams butt while huge crudly drawn American flags flttered in the backround? How all those happy Iraqis were going to cheer as "Our Boys" marched through their streets handing out candy bars and little American flags? Remember all that?
Yes, this was going to be such a wonderful campaign of freedom, how could anyone be against it... Those "Damn Liberals" and seemed to be the only ones opposed to this "great" and "wonderful" liberation of a country, where *sniff* Freedom and *sniff* Liberty could flourish in a country in the middle east. It would be just like a little tiny America with all the happy people living in happy houses in a happy city and a happy freedom-y country. Ahhh yes, what a glorious image it was....
And for a while, those big doe eyed Iraqi children smiling at the troops seemed like some surreal reality to those who supported Operation Iraqi Liberation....er...I mean Freedom... Yes, even Bush took part in spreading the big bunny-fluff sunlight happiness when he landed on that Carrier off of San Diego, and declared, like the apperant "Victor" he was, that the U.S. had won, Mission Accomplished! Yayyyy!!!!!
Then what happened? All of a sudden, those "silly" little brown people we were going to liberate, started actually firing back at us! Those little American flags we handed out found their way on the business end of a butane lighter, those little Doe-eyed children started having those "eyes" along with their arms, legs, and brains, blown off! We weren't being greeted as liberators! We were being greeted as invadors! The Army would go into a city, only to leave as chunks on hamburger.
Then those Al-Queda people started popping up, one after another! And the kids started firing at us, then the people who we were sure to greet us as liberators, started pointing their guns at us, what was going on!!!!
And even then, our "Noble" soldiers were doing what they could to make those "silly brown people" that we were just trying to make them free! Surly they just didn't understand. Surly they just had to see what we were truly about, and then they'd stop shooting at us, right? I mean, come on. We're AMERICA! We can't be viewed as evil! We're like, the ultimate Good Guy!.....right?
And even later on, we had to stay the course, because we were still spreading freedom, even though nearly 40% of all Americans started to question why we should be there. We had to stay the course. The little brown people needed their Freedom from good ol' U.S. of A.
And now..., it seems "Those Damn Liberals" are succeeding in somehow convincing the people that this was for some reason, a "wrong move", that what was supposed to be Freedomville, is called a "Quagmire", and almost 4,000 soldiers died, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been sacrificed, haven't been for freedom, but in fact have been in vain? For oil?
No! No! That can't be true! There were supposed to be happy Iraqis! There were supposed to be Democracy! There was supposed to be Bunnies and Rainbows and little Gumdrop fairys sprinkling freedom around!
But....
What happens when this grossly nieve outlook on the War in Iraq gets exposed for the lie it was. What happens when this war was never for "Freedom", "Liberty", and bringing "Democracy" to Iraq? What happens when the blood of every Man, Woman and Child starts oozing down the walls, chunks of their flesh slowly forming around the words "LIE"?
There's a harsh reality about this war that the people who insists on Victory are missing. The world they live in is the world I expressed upon above. The words I used, are practically the sugar coating the Right used, and continue to use, to explain away what's going on. They wouldn't even think about the mistakes they made, their government made, and their president made.
I'll skip the buttering up to say this as painfully blunt as I can.
The war in Iraq, has been the most illegal, pointless, lawless, undignified, geonocidal, racist, misleading, and purley unneccicary CAMPAIGN OF MUSLIM EXTERMINATION AND ATTRITION in the history of the country. People call for "Victory". There can be no Victory. Do you understand? There can be no Victory. We've lost. We, being America. We Lost this thing the second the first Tomahawk was fired. Bush was a FOOL to say that Iraq can have a Democracy. Democracy doesn't work for all countries. Bush and his followers were FOOLS to think that we would be greeted as liberators. Bush was CONTEMPTABLE to say that those who don't support the war, are Unamerican and Unpatriotic. And all of those NeoCons who still support the war are worse than fools. They are beyond reprieve. Bush is beyond reprieve. The true heroes are those who condemn this Campaign of Muslim Extermination. The true heroes are the soldiers who don't referr to the Iraqia as "Hagis, Ragheads, Camel Jockeys and Towelheads" And most importantly, the ture heroes are the ones working now to end this damnable fraud on the American public, which continues to rape the public of it's money, it's resources, and most importantly, it's lives.
How could anyone in their right minds support ANYTHING that involves blowing innocent men women and children into red mist? You see people who are "Pro-War". What sane person is possibly "Pro-War"?!
America has lost this "War". Iraq will never be a Democracy. It can't. We need to end this now. We have got to bite the perverbial bullet, and just get out. Let the chaos ensue. Give the civilians an opprotunity to escape, and then just get out.
Then, anarchy will result. But it's ALREADY anarchy! We need to get our soldiers out now, and just let the insurgants kill themselves. It is pointless to stay. I'm sorry, it just is.
Any "Victory" declared will be a false Victory. If I can realize it, than any person with a brain should. There's no further point to this conflict. Let's count our losses, and go home. And then bring Bush up on War Crimes charges.
You heard me. War Crimes.
-Matt
Sticks and Stones...
From Ron Paul's website, concerning the Hate Crimes bill that would include sexual orientation and violent acts...
"Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”"
So, killing a person with a knife or gun while you scream "Faggot!" is an exercise of the First Amendment!? Then, as if that wasn't enough, Ron climbs further up Mount Stupid, and says the Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting civil rights! Then he stands on the summit and proclaims for all those looking up at this feat of idiocy, that "violent acts" are part of one's Freedom of Religion!
Jesus, Ron, what are you mixing in with your morning cereal? What "religion", besides cannibalism, encourages violence against people and can still call itself a "religion". Sorry, dude, that's not anything most people worry about on Sunday morning. I can imagine your ride to church... "Well, children, today's lesson will be how to kill and maim Gay people. Won't that be fun? We'll learn from the sermon how Jesus called His believers to slay anyone they think might be committing something that looks like love but is really a sin. Won't that be informative?"
Ron, baby, read the law... you said it yourself... "The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." It's not a matter of Religious expression or Freedom of Speech or State's Rights. It's a matter of Civil Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. It's not saying you have to be gay or disabled or Catholic or Mexican. It's just saying you can't perpetrate a violent crime upon someone who is, for that reason. If you do, it's a Hate Crime. You can still Hate just as much as you like and you can even encourage your children to Hate as much as you like. BUT, you can't act on that Hate and hurt someone in self-righteous justification thereof! Ok? (And the people of Texas continue to vote for you?! It's hard to imagine how they look at themselves in the mirror without gagging.)
-Devon
"Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”"
So, killing a person with a knife or gun while you scream "Faggot!" is an exercise of the First Amendment!? Then, as if that wasn't enough, Ron climbs further up Mount Stupid, and says the Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting civil rights! Then he stands on the summit and proclaims for all those looking up at this feat of idiocy, that "violent acts" are part of one's Freedom of Religion!
Jesus, Ron, what are you mixing in with your morning cereal? What "religion", besides cannibalism, encourages violence against people and can still call itself a "religion". Sorry, dude, that's not anything most people worry about on Sunday morning. I can imagine your ride to church... "Well, children, today's lesson will be how to kill and maim Gay people. Won't that be fun? We'll learn from the sermon how Jesus called His believers to slay anyone they think might be committing something that looks like love but is really a sin. Won't that be informative?"
Ron, baby, read the law... you said it yourself... "The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." It's not a matter of Religious expression or Freedom of Speech or State's Rights. It's a matter of Civil Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. It's not saying you have to be gay or disabled or Catholic or Mexican. It's just saying you can't perpetrate a violent crime upon someone who is, for that reason. If you do, it's a Hate Crime. You can still Hate just as much as you like and you can even encourage your children to Hate as much as you like. BUT, you can't act on that Hate and hurt someone in self-righteous justification thereof! Ok? (And the people of Texas continue to vote for you?! It's hard to imagine how they look at themselves in the mirror without gagging.)
-Devon
Bad Texas Analogies
"The list of accusations has mushroomed, but the evidence of wrongdoing has not," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the committee's senior GOP member. "If there are no fish in this lake, we should reel in our lines of questions, dock our empty boat and turn to more pressing issues."
Once again, Texas' "fine representation" comes up with some country expression to dismiss a serious question of wrongdoing!
Lamar, hon, lemme put it in terms you might understand... ya'll just sit back a bit and chew on this... this ain't a matter of two adults having consentual sex in the Oval Office. For that, you spent two and a half YEARS and $50 Million (plus) dollars in long, plodding hearings in the US House and Senate. These are hearings to question the operation of an entire division of the Executive Branch of government which is supposed to operate in accordance with the LAWS of the United States of America. Ya see, we suspect that the Justice Department hasn't been acting in accordance to the law. This is just the tip of an iceberg of concerns about the operation of the entire Justice Department under the mismanagement of the President and the Attorney General. So, ya'll just be patient for a while. This could take some time and careful investigation. I know it might be sorta boring for you 'cause it don't have nothin' excitin' like oral sex or stained dresses and it sure don't have them big haired ladies that you like, but this is real government work. No, it's not fun like fishin' but you have to work now. It ain't time for fishin' no more. You spent five, almost six, years fishin' while you were supposed to be workin' and it's time to put in an honest day's work for an honest dollar. Ok?
Now I understand why you want to get outa this lake as quick as you can. You're just trying to protect the great Pretender and his Attorney General. Well, that's all real nice and good but this here's Honest to goodness, Government Work. Here's an old time expression for ya... If you can't stand the heat, get outa the kitchen! Soon it'll be "Soup's on!" and you can enjoy the meal. Bring a bib!
Once again, Texas' "fine representation" comes up with some country expression to dismiss a serious question of wrongdoing!
Lamar, hon, lemme put it in terms you might understand... ya'll just sit back a bit and chew on this... this ain't a matter of two adults having consentual sex in the Oval Office. For that, you spent two and a half YEARS and $50 Million (plus) dollars in long, plodding hearings in the US House and Senate. These are hearings to question the operation of an entire division of the Executive Branch of government which is supposed to operate in accordance with the LAWS of the United States of America. Ya see, we suspect that the Justice Department hasn't been acting in accordance to the law. This is just the tip of an iceberg of concerns about the operation of the entire Justice Department under the mismanagement of the President and the Attorney General. So, ya'll just be patient for a while. This could take some time and careful investigation. I know it might be sorta boring for you 'cause it don't have nothin' excitin' like oral sex or stained dresses and it sure don't have them big haired ladies that you like, but this is real government work. No, it's not fun like fishin' but you have to work now. It ain't time for fishin' no more. You spent five, almost six, years fishin' while you were supposed to be workin' and it's time to put in an honest day's work for an honest dollar. Ok?
Now I understand why you want to get outa this lake as quick as you can. You're just trying to protect the great Pretender and his Attorney General. Well, that's all real nice and good but this here's Honest to goodness, Government Work. Here's an old time expression for ya... If you can't stand the heat, get outa the kitchen! Soon it'll be "Soup's on!" and you can enjoy the meal. Bring a bib!
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Cheney to Iraq: "Give me your babies...I'm Hungry..."
Is it just me, or has Cheney used up his use as a Vice President to a lame-duck administration, and is now just being shipped off around the world to go threatan other governments? With his "un-announced" trip to Iraq, (which is further proof how incompitent those Al-queda people really are, being unable to off the Vice President IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY) Cheney was reported as "Playing the Bad Cop" to the Iraqis. What do you suppose this means? I can just see some of the quotes now..."
"Do I look funny to you?"
"You look at me like that again, I will consume your soul..."
"You got kids? You want to keep them?"
"Where's the store? I'm short on Baby Blood..."
Seems the Vice Prince of Darkness just got bored. That's what happens. Cheney gets bored, he goes off the threatan countries.
I can hear his "Vader" breathing getting closer.....
-Matt
Iiiiiiit's Photo-op Season!
Yes, with Tornados wreaking hell and havoc around the country, you can always coun't on ol' King George to walk around his subjects, pretending to sympathise while posing for the camera. With a war going south, Bush seems not not be able to get "it" up. (It being his poll numbers.) So what does ol' Bush do? He goes from one red state to another, pretending to sympathise with the victims, all at the same time waiting for the press to get a hold of how "kind" and "sympathetic" he is.
If Man-or-Monkey hasn't made you sick yet, just follow his little "Look how super I am!" tour around the victims of the tornados.
Oh, and the pic I included... It's just good to find pictures of Bush doing what he does best. Sucking peoples brains out of their skulls.
-Matt
Republicans Eating Their Own and Who's left Holding the Bag?
Eleven congresspeople met in the private quarters of the White House today to ask Bush to finally be "honest" and to have "candor" in his discussions of the Iraq Occupation. So, after 5+ years of lying and secrecy, they want the leopard to change its spots. What's in it for them? They're worried about their CONTINUANCE, not their CONSTITUENTS! Now they can go back to their voters and claim, "I TRIED to get Bush to stop lying!" or "I TRIED to get the W to be truthful!" Then, of course, they'll ask for their vote to continue their "fine work representing their districts" in the Nation's Capital.
They thought they could have it both ways. For the last six years, they've stood behind the Chief Liar and his gang while they looted the US Treasury and destoyed our reputation on a global basis --- a sort of "Global Coldshoulder" is about all we can expect from our former allies. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush/Cheney as the Imperial Pretender and his Surrogate Daddy ripped large sections from the US Constitution and undermined our time-honored military restraint. They didn't question the lack of WMDs or why we attacked Iraq because Osama, a Saudi being protected by Afganistan, attacked New York City. They didn't ask why we left Afganistan to be re-occupied by Al Qaida and the Taliban while we were spending our time protecting the Mobil/Exxon's profits by occupying Iraq. For all their time in Congress, they never asked a question. They were the Silent Majority, in fact. Now they want to pretend they can make effect a change in the Bush Regime.
Personally, I appreciate their effort but I think it'll take something akin to what we did to Saddam to get George the Second to give up his throne. Besides the fact that I think Bush being "honest" is like asking Al Quaida to be "friendly", it appears that those Repugnicans who've been so staunch in their support of Bush Regime's failed policy in Iraq are beginning to turn inward to feed on themselves.
Going to the Presidential bedroom and having a private "nite-nite" chat with the Drunken Frat Boy leaves behind those like our senators Cornyn and Hutchinson to wonder how they're going to "deal with this". Of course, they'll continue to "support the party" and their little buddy in the White House because they don't know what else to do. No where in their flash through the Senatorial sky have they ever had to come up their own talking points; they've always had the Karl Rove to tell them what to do. They simply stod behind the product they sold in 2000 and 2004 even though they knew it was killing thousands of our children and hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afganistan. Now they're all alone, left holding the bag. But, John and Kay, don't fret, we --- the US Public --- are left holding an even bigger bag!
-Devon
They thought they could have it both ways. For the last six years, they've stood behind the Chief Liar and his gang while they looted the US Treasury and destoyed our reputation on a global basis --- a sort of "Global Coldshoulder" is about all we can expect from our former allies. They stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush/Cheney as the Imperial Pretender and his Surrogate Daddy ripped large sections from the US Constitution and undermined our time-honored military restraint. They didn't question the lack of WMDs or why we attacked Iraq because Osama, a Saudi being protected by Afganistan, attacked New York City. They didn't ask why we left Afganistan to be re-occupied by Al Qaida and the Taliban while we were spending our time protecting the Mobil/Exxon's profits by occupying Iraq. For all their time in Congress, they never asked a question. They were the Silent Majority, in fact. Now they want to pretend they can make effect a change in the Bush Regime.
Personally, I appreciate their effort but I think it'll take something akin to what we did to Saddam to get George the Second to give up his throne. Besides the fact that I think Bush being "honest" is like asking Al Quaida to be "friendly", it appears that those Repugnicans who've been so staunch in their support of Bush Regime's failed policy in Iraq are beginning to turn inward to feed on themselves.
Going to the Presidential bedroom and having a private "nite-nite" chat with the Drunken Frat Boy leaves behind those like our senators Cornyn and Hutchinson to wonder how they're going to "deal with this". Of course, they'll continue to "support the party" and their little buddy in the White House because they don't know what else to do. No where in their flash through the Senatorial sky have they ever had to come up their own talking points; they've always had the Karl Rove to tell them what to do. They simply stod behind the product they sold in 2000 and 2004 even though they knew it was killing thousands of our children and hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afganistan. Now they're all alone, left holding the bag. But, John and Kay, don't fret, we --- the US Public --- are left holding an even bigger bag!
-Devon
Kenny Marchant's Recent House Votes
Here is a report of some recent legistlation and how he voted. So far, Kenny is continuing a track record of very poor performance on issues important to Progressive Liberals in his North Texas neighborhood. He continues to vote against the issues that really matter to us. We will continue to update you so that next time he's up for election, you'll be better informed of his MISrepresentation in Congress. (Devon)
Veto Override, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations - Vote Failed (222-203, 1 Present, 7 Not Voting)
The House fell over 60 votes short of overturning President Bush's veto of a $124 billion spending bill that would have set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Rep. Kenny Marchant voted NO......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (237-180, 16 Not Voting)
The House passed this bill that expands the definition of a "hate crime" to include sexual orientation.
Rep. Kenny Marchant voted NO......
Veto Override, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations - Vote Failed (222-203, 1 Present, 7 Not Voting)
The House fell over 60 votes short of overturning President Bush's veto of a $124 billion spending bill that would have set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Rep. Kenny Marchant voted NO......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (237-180, 16 Not Voting)
The House passed this bill that expands the definition of a "hate crime" to include sexual orientation.
Rep. Kenny Marchant voted NO......
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Repubs get Illegal money from Illegal Immigrant
From Think Progress:
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who backs stricter controls on illegal immigration, was to raise money Monday in Miami at the home of a Peruvian woman who pleaded guilty a decade ago to passport fraud and is fighting for the right to stay in the country.
The fundraiser for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which Ensign chairs, comes at a time when undocumented immigrants across the country live in fear of what they say are stepped-up orders to deport those here illegally."
Last time I checked, were't the Republicans supposed to be ANTI-Immigration? Are they so desperate for funding in this age of Democratic leadership that they would stoop so low as to take it from the bain of their existance?
Yet another reason why the RDS (Republican Double Standard) continues to just ruin today's political climate.
Pathetic.
-Matt
A Sad View of Insanity
With the 2008 elections coming up faster than a rabid wolf on steroids, it's kinda wierd seeing the Republicans the way they are.
Ever since the war took a turn from the worse, to the abominable, Republicans seemed to act somewhat "off" from their normal "I've got mine, I want yours" mantra. Everyone knows that the Republicans of old were the scum of humanity, such as Reagan, Nixon, Bush I, and Bush II, but it seems that since things have started looking down for the Repubs, they've started morphing their personas, from Evil, to just plain insane. Just watching them speak, or in a debate, where some of them didn't even believe in evolution, so seing the bios of the Republican candidates, how they act, what they say, what they think and what they feel, it's as if they've just completely and totally lost it! I mean, how sad of a day is it that we see the the high ranking officials of the Republican party just lose it, with more scandals and freak shows I can count, but the fact that so many people still support these fascists. I'm reminded of the final days of Hitler, as he sat in his bunker while his officers told him how the Allies were marching towards berlin, as Adolf was ordering the generals to move armies of troops that didn't exist. In that period of time, Hitler truly had lost all touch with reality, and now it seems, with the troops of Democracy marching fast of the Conservative Reichstag, and it is Bush, who is the sad Fuhrer, yelling at his generals for not moving troops that don't exsist. And the people who still support his war effort, blindly smiling on as one by one, the soldiers they have abandoned and abused continued to die. There is only one difference between Hitler's war effort and today's war. Which is our soldiers are NOT the Waffen SS, the SA, or any Storm Trooper. (Though history may eventually beg to differ.) Those soldiers are OUR soldiers. While we must offer them our support, we can't afford to allow the people who still support this campaign of muslim extermination to continue.
The Republicans have lost it. All of them. I don't care who they are. McCain is self destructing, Guiliani is going insane, Romney was crazy to think he could even get the nomination. It's a sad sad day, to know that such a major political party, even one as Nazi-esque as the Republicans, are falling apart at the seems, while failing this country so horribly.
-Matt
Even in the Face of Royalty, Bush Falls On His Arse
The first time I even knew that Queen Elizabeth was in America when I saw her face poking throught the crowd at the Kentucky Derby. Now, I learn that she visited Premier Bush, and it seemed that all hell broke loose, inside Bush's brain.
I'll quote CNN.com:
"....On the other hand, there was the president suggesting Queen Elizabeth was over 230 years old.The president's slip of the tongue during welcoming speeches was inadvertent, of course, and quickly smoothed over with humor.But it wasn't exactly the flawless effort Bush had hoped would erase memories of the "talking hat" episode during the queen's last U.S. visit.(In 1991, during Bush's father's administration, a too-short lectern left the audience able to see only the queen's hat behind microphones.)The queen, a sprightly 81, gave an embarrassed Bush a gracious nod after he suggested she had celebrated the United States' founding in 1776.He meant to say she had attended 1976 bicentennial festivities.She gave me a look that only a mother could give a child," the president quipped, earning a reserved chuckle from his guest.Later, Laura Bush made her own minor calendar mistake. She flubbed the year that she and her husband attended the state dinner hosted by President Bush in honor of the queen, saying it was in 1993.The president and the queen took markedly different approaches to their formal remarks. Bush focused on the partnership between the United States and Britain in Iraq and against terrorism.
"Your majesty, I appreciate your leadership during these times of danger and decision," he said.
By contrast, the queen said her fifth journey to the United States was an occasion to "step back from our current preoccupations."
In just four minutes, he mentioned "freedom" and "liberty" seven times."
I just wanted to give Bush his gameboy and shunn him off to the next room. Is our president so clueless, so arrogantly stupid that he doesn't even know how to act around TRUE royalty?! (granted, he considers himself royalty) This was such a "Bush" moment I don't know how to even wrap my brain around it. I mean, what more worse could Bush had done? Maybe dress up in a Red Coat uniform and speak in a horrible british accent. Or maybe he could have invited the Sons of the Revolution. Either way, I hope someone from the White House or perhaps a member of the Democratic party got a chance to pull the Queen aside, and say "Sorry, your Majesty, we kinda forgot to keep Bush locked in his playhouse before you arrived. I hope he didn't embarass you too much..."
-Matt
Monday, May 7, 2007
Christians and Hate Crimes
From DEFConAmerica.org
Last week, "...the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that promises to extend protection from violent or discriminatory acts of hate to gay and lesbian Americans.
In a shocking turn of events, even for this administration, President Bush has threatened to veto this anti-hate bill. With the overwhelming congressional and public support for this legislation, many are asking who the President could possibly be serving with such a commitment; the answer unfortunately is the religious right.
Over the last few months the religious right has waged a deceptive campaign opposing this pro-equality legislation. They have employed a range of excuses; Chuck Colson compared the law to something out of George Orwell's famous novel 19841, Tony Perkins has stated that the legislation is “contrary to our heritage and our values,”2 and just this week James Dobson told listeners of Focus on the Family Radio, “there’s a vote coming up on some insidious legislation in the United States Congress that could silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs. That means that as a Christian – if you read the Bible a certain way with regard to morality – you may be guilty of committing a ‘thought crime.”3
Such sentiments beg the question: does the religious right truly believe that hate speech is an integral component of their faith?"
Here is my problem with this whole issue... It would seem flatly inconsistent with the "Sermon on the Mount" and the "Two Greatest Commandments" (Love God and Love your neighbor) for any Christian to be fearful of committing a Hate Crime by simply exercising their Christian beliefs. I don't recall any case in the Bible of Christ saying you need to Hate people or should attack those that would be doing something sinful. In fact, one of the major crimes he was accused of by the Pharisees (the ancient equivalent of Focus on the Family) was that he hung around with sinners!
I wonder where these people get this crap. It really disgusts me to see the Life of the most Peaceful man of all time reduced to being a lash used to whip people. It is so denigrating to the Story of the Christ to see Him used in this way; to justify committing a Hate Crime! If your "religion" or "faith" causes you to commit a Hate Crime, then you need to go back to the Bible and figure out where you went wrong. It shouldn't take very long. Start with Matthew 22:34
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
It makes sense that protecting people against crimes of Hate is very consist with how Christ saw the Law. If that is too complicated for you, I don't know what can done to convince you that as a Christian, it's your duty to support the passing of a national Hate Crime Bill that would protect gay people. Christians should stand up AGAINST Hate Crimes, not stand up FOR Hate!
-Devon
Last week, "...the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that promises to extend protection from violent or discriminatory acts of hate to gay and lesbian Americans.
In a shocking turn of events, even for this administration, President Bush has threatened to veto this anti-hate bill. With the overwhelming congressional and public support for this legislation, many are asking who the President could possibly be serving with such a commitment; the answer unfortunately is the religious right.
Over the last few months the religious right has waged a deceptive campaign opposing this pro-equality legislation. They have employed a range of excuses; Chuck Colson compared the law to something out of George Orwell's famous novel 19841, Tony Perkins has stated that the legislation is “contrary to our heritage and our values,”2 and just this week James Dobson told listeners of Focus on the Family Radio, “there’s a vote coming up on some insidious legislation in the United States Congress that could silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs. That means that as a Christian – if you read the Bible a certain way with regard to morality – you may be guilty of committing a ‘thought crime.”3
Such sentiments beg the question: does the religious right truly believe that hate speech is an integral component of their faith?"
Here is my problem with this whole issue... It would seem flatly inconsistent with the "Sermon on the Mount" and the "Two Greatest Commandments" (Love God and Love your neighbor) for any Christian to be fearful of committing a Hate Crime by simply exercising their Christian beliefs. I don't recall any case in the Bible of Christ saying you need to Hate people or should attack those that would be doing something sinful. In fact, one of the major crimes he was accused of by the Pharisees (the ancient equivalent of Focus on the Family) was that he hung around with sinners!
I wonder where these people get this crap. It really disgusts me to see the Life of the most Peaceful man of all time reduced to being a lash used to whip people. It is so denigrating to the Story of the Christ to see Him used in this way; to justify committing a Hate Crime! If your "religion" or "faith" causes you to commit a Hate Crime, then you need to go back to the Bible and figure out where you went wrong. It shouldn't take very long. Start with Matthew 22:34
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
It makes sense that protecting people against crimes of Hate is very consist with how Christ saw the Law. If that is too complicated for you, I don't know what can done to convince you that as a Christian, it's your duty to support the passing of a national Hate Crime Bill that would protect gay people. Christians should stand up AGAINST Hate Crimes, not stand up FOR Hate!
-Devon
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Rudy sez: Dems will cause more Terror in the U.S.
Is anyone else as tired of Former New York Rudy Guiliani as I am?
Ever since the Republican Debates (a.k.a. Right-Wing Panicfest 2007), Rudy has been dribbling the ball Bush bounced off the backboard after the 2006 Midterm election. That "The Democrats are weak on terror and if they enter power, the Terrorists will attack! (OMGWTFBBQ!!!!) Of course, in '06, the second Bush found out that his ass got handed to him, he quickly abandoned that old chestnut for the short lived "Bipartisonship" fascade. But it seems that wasn't enough of the pack of red rats, that are know trying to scratch their way into the Presidency in 2008. Sure enough, Rude Rudy is now trying to continue the myth that Democrats and Terrorists go hand in hand. He said that "If a Democrat wins in 2008, the terrorists will attack the US on the scale of 9/11." This just sounds so damn firmillar. He seems to forget, as well as every of the remaining loyalist Repubs that 9/11 happened UNDER BUSH! But then again, it ended up being Clintons fault in the eyes of the Flying Monkeys, as was everything else that has gone wrong in the Bush Catastrophe.
Here's my memo to Rudy:
That boulderdash about us being an "encourager of terrorism" didn't work before, and it won't work again. Why don't you actually try running a campaign (which you will lose anyway) instead of trying to scare everyone into voting for you. You want an encourager of terrorism? I've got 16 letters for you. G-E-O-R-G-E, W-A-L-K-E-R, B-U-S-H. He's the one who invaded Iraq and turned it into a safehaven for Terrorists. You want to blame the Democrats for anything, blame them for being too weak kneed to knee you in your groin for saying such proposterous things.
-Matt
Ever since the Republican Debates (a.k.a. Right-Wing Panicfest 2007), Rudy has been dribbling the ball Bush bounced off the backboard after the 2006 Midterm election. That "The Democrats are weak on terror and if they enter power, the Terrorists will attack! (OMGWTFBBQ!!!!) Of course, in '06, the second Bush found out that his ass got handed to him, he quickly abandoned that old chestnut for the short lived "Bipartisonship" fascade. But it seems that wasn't enough of the pack of red rats, that are know trying to scratch their way into the Presidency in 2008. Sure enough, Rude Rudy is now trying to continue the myth that Democrats and Terrorists go hand in hand. He said that "If a Democrat wins in 2008, the terrorists will attack the US on the scale of 9/11." This just sounds so damn firmillar. He seems to forget, as well as every of the remaining loyalist Repubs that 9/11 happened UNDER BUSH! But then again, it ended up being Clintons fault in the eyes of the Flying Monkeys, as was everything else that has gone wrong in the Bush Catastrophe.
Here's my memo to Rudy:
That boulderdash about us being an "encourager of terrorism" didn't work before, and it won't work again. Why don't you actually try running a campaign (which you will lose anyway) instead of trying to scare everyone into voting for you. You want an encourager of terrorism? I've got 16 letters for you. G-E-O-R-G-E, W-A-L-K-E-R, B-U-S-H. He's the one who invaded Iraq and turned it into a safehaven for Terrorists. You want to blame the Democrats for anything, blame them for being too weak kneed to knee you in your groin for saying such proposterous things.
-Matt
Conservatives want Newt?
While lurking through "conservativeheavan.com", a sesspool of moronosies galore, I came across an old post of theirs.
I'll spare the copy/paste to say that because of what they say is the "Disease of Liberalism in America" (Yes, Quinn can be happy now) the heavy election season means only one of the Cons is a viable candidate. Not Goofy Guiliani. Not McCrazy McCain. Not even Rumed-up Romney. They're asking for Newt Gingrich.
Anybody with the sense God gave a slightly rubbed rubarb branch knows what sort of person Newt is. Slimy (as), Corruption filled, and not exactly the champion of Family values.
Is it just me, or ever since the '06 elections, Conservatives have just gone totally bonkers?
-Matt
I'll spare the copy/paste to say that because of what they say is the "Disease of Liberalism in America" (Yes, Quinn can be happy now) the heavy election season means only one of the Cons is a viable candidate. Not Goofy Guiliani. Not McCrazy McCain. Not even Rumed-up Romney. They're asking for Newt Gingrich.
Anybody with the sense God gave a slightly rubbed rubarb branch knows what sort of person Newt is. Slimy (as), Corruption filled, and not exactly the champion of Family values.
Is it just me, or ever since the '06 elections, Conservatives have just gone totally bonkers?
-Matt
One less country for Conservatives to Hate.
So much for Freedom Fries...
"Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy was elected Sunday to a five-year term as France's president and quickly signaled that France will be a U.S. ally. Sarkozy told his "American friends that they can rely on our friendship ... France will always be next to them when they need us." But he added that "friends can think differently" and called on the United States to lead the fight against global warming.-CNN"
-Matt
"Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy was elected Sunday to a five-year term as France's president and quickly signaled that France will be a U.S. ally. Sarkozy told his "American friends that they can rely on our friendship ... France will always be next to them when they need us." But he added that "friends can think differently" and called on the United States to lead the fight against global warming.-CNN"
-Matt
American Politiks in Today's World
Well, now. Regarding Obama's seeking secret service protection, I'm not surprised.
However, I'd have loved to hear the way Limbaugh spinned it.
Conservatives in today's political climate are confusing to me. They seem to be in such a civil war the very fabric of their beliefs are just festering and seperating at the seems. They're splitting now into 3 factions: NeoCons, Libertarians, and Born-Again Democrats. (Conservative Democrats, mind). The NeoCons are the ones who've drunk so much Kool-aid, that in light of recent events, have radicalized even FURTHER. The Libertarian Front is the haven for the Ex-Cons, or Ex-Neocons who still have an unabiding hatred for liberals, but can't stand Bush, or the Republicans, so have defected to a Third Party who are, in my opinion, almost as bad as the Conservatives. (Think Neal Boortz) And then there's the B-A Dems. Those are the Conservatives who have figured that they've been continually lied to, and have had enough. One example would be Ed Shultz, who, in my opinion still seems to be a Democratic Apologist, but in any case, they've done a total 360 on their beliefs, and have decided to be actual Human beings for a change.
As for why I support Edwards, to be honest, as this election season will be the first I ever vote in, I'd surly vote for whoever got the nomination, but I like Edwards, namely because he's the most electable. My main problem with the mainstream Democratic sentiment is that we're far too focused on the "gimmick" of the politician we want in. It's like the DNC are saying "Hey! Lookie here! We not only have the Super Liberal guy,, but we also have a Latino candidate! And if that isn't good enough, we have a really a SOUTHERN guy, an African American candidate, and to top it off, a woman candidate!" That's all good and well, in fact it's nice to see, seeing as the Republicans wouldn't be caught DEAD ponying up any of those types of people, but I feel that us Democrats should be focusing on one thing: Electability in their candidates. To me, electable is Edwards. He's a little bit country, and he's a little bit Rock and Roll.
Many of the other candidates, I feel, are unelectable, for pretty stupid reasons, really, but these stupid reasons are enough to be a bullet-in-the-head for the people wanting to run, since the features of said candidate will loose alot of what are called "Group" votes. I'll give some examples:
Barack Obama: I love the guy. I think he's great. Smart, and he should be president already. But, I feel he will lose practically EVERY southern vote. Partly, because his name has "Hussein" in it, which yes is stupid that that would lose voters, but it would. And also, he loses white supremacist votes, or people of the older generation who still harbor racism against blacks, or people nowadays, or as said in the deep south "I ain't gone done votin' for a negro!" Is this really the world we live in? Sadly, it is. Yes, he might get the Black vote, but if 50% of all whites don't vote for you, a Mormon stands a better chance of winning than he does.
Dennis Kusinich: Again, Dennis is the Morality of the Democratic Party, save for Al Gore, but sadly, he will lose almost EVERY moderate, moderate conservative, conservative and neoconservative votes. Undicideds who don't know him will sooner trust the more conservative candidates, because in todays world, as we know, Liberal has become just short of slander. I'd vote for him, but I doubt Jesusland America, or most of it would.
Hillary Clinton: I'm less keen on her, but I would still vote for her. But I think that Hillary has lost all votes she can possibly lose, and the election hasnt even started. She's abroadly known as "The Vixen" and "The succubus of the Democratic Party". She's probably the most hated woman in the country, seeing as even Democrats hate her, and the fact she's woman does NOT help her. Some men really do tend to have a "thing", regardless of politics, about electing a woman into a position higher than EVERY other human being on Earth. The almighty testacle would take a huge blow from this. And, as I said before, she's really known as a stiff, overbearing, domineering, bitch. (And I think I'm actually quoting Druggy Rush Limbaugh here) And she barely has any Democratic votes.
Bill Richardson, while from what I heard, is a really good and smart guy, really failed at the debate, and seemed to be about as interesting as a moldy potato. And in today's world of insufferable intolerance against Latinos, especially in today's severely anti-immigrant world, where latino(a)s are generalized, really don't stand a great chance in such a racist country. Same goes really for Obama.
I guess my point is, the Democrats really need to play it safe here. The last 2 elections, while stolen, really could have been won easier if better decisions were made, especially in the 2004 election. By play it safe, basically, they need to stick with a presidential formula that recent defectors of Republicans need to feel good with. It worked for the Democrats with Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and so-on. And right now, our modern JFK, Jimmy, or Bill, is John Edwards, which is why he's my safest bet to win. Yes, many of my Democratic friends think Hillary or Obama has a chanse, maybe they do. But I just don't see it.
Plus, Edwards is the only ONLY candidate with a good Healthcare plan.
However, I'd have loved to hear the way Limbaugh spinned it.
Conservatives in today's political climate are confusing to me. They seem to be in such a civil war the very fabric of their beliefs are just festering and seperating at the seems. They're splitting now into 3 factions: NeoCons, Libertarians, and Born-Again Democrats. (Conservative Democrats, mind). The NeoCons are the ones who've drunk so much Kool-aid, that in light of recent events, have radicalized even FURTHER. The Libertarian Front is the haven for the Ex-Cons, or Ex-Neocons who still have an unabiding hatred for liberals, but can't stand Bush, or the Republicans, so have defected to a Third Party who are, in my opinion, almost as bad as the Conservatives. (Think Neal Boortz) And then there's the B-A Dems. Those are the Conservatives who have figured that they've been continually lied to, and have had enough. One example would be Ed Shultz, who, in my opinion still seems to be a Democratic Apologist, but in any case, they've done a total 360 on their beliefs, and have decided to be actual Human beings for a change.
As for why I support Edwards, to be honest, as this election season will be the first I ever vote in, I'd surly vote for whoever got the nomination, but I like Edwards, namely because he's the most electable. My main problem with the mainstream Democratic sentiment is that we're far too focused on the "gimmick" of the politician we want in. It's like the DNC are saying "Hey! Lookie here! We not only have the Super Liberal guy,, but we also have a Latino candidate! And if that isn't good enough, we have a really a SOUTHERN guy, an African American candidate, and to top it off, a woman candidate!" That's all good and well, in fact it's nice to see, seeing as the Republicans wouldn't be caught DEAD ponying up any of those types of people, but I feel that us Democrats should be focusing on one thing: Electability in their candidates. To me, electable is Edwards. He's a little bit country, and he's a little bit Rock and Roll.
Many of the other candidates, I feel, are unelectable, for pretty stupid reasons, really, but these stupid reasons are enough to be a bullet-in-the-head for the people wanting to run, since the features of said candidate will loose alot of what are called "Group" votes. I'll give some examples:
Barack Obama: I love the guy. I think he's great. Smart, and he should be president already. But, I feel he will lose practically EVERY southern vote. Partly, because his name has "Hussein" in it, which yes is stupid that that would lose voters, but it would. And also, he loses white supremacist votes, or people of the older generation who still harbor racism against blacks, or people nowadays, or as said in the deep south "I ain't gone done votin' for a negro!" Is this really the world we live in? Sadly, it is. Yes, he might get the Black vote, but if 50% of all whites don't vote for you, a Mormon stands a better chance of winning than he does.
Dennis Kusinich: Again, Dennis is the Morality of the Democratic Party, save for Al Gore, but sadly, he will lose almost EVERY moderate, moderate conservative, conservative and neoconservative votes. Undicideds who don't know him will sooner trust the more conservative candidates, because in todays world, as we know, Liberal has become just short of slander. I'd vote for him, but I doubt Jesusland America, or most of it would.
Hillary Clinton: I'm less keen on her, but I would still vote for her. But I think that Hillary has lost all votes she can possibly lose, and the election hasnt even started. She's abroadly known as "The Vixen" and "The succubus of the Democratic Party". She's probably the most hated woman in the country, seeing as even Democrats hate her, and the fact she's woman does NOT help her. Some men really do tend to have a "thing", regardless of politics, about electing a woman into a position higher than EVERY other human being on Earth. The almighty testacle would take a huge blow from this. And, as I said before, she's really known as a stiff, overbearing, domineering, bitch. (And I think I'm actually quoting Druggy Rush Limbaugh here) And she barely has any Democratic votes.
Bill Richardson, while from what I heard, is a really good and smart guy, really failed at the debate, and seemed to be about as interesting as a moldy potato. And in today's world of insufferable intolerance against Latinos, especially in today's severely anti-immigrant world, where latino(a)s are generalized, really don't stand a great chance in such a racist country. Same goes really for Obama.
I guess my point is, the Democrats really need to play it safe here. The last 2 elections, while stolen, really could have been won easier if better decisions were made, especially in the 2004 election. By play it safe, basically, they need to stick with a presidential formula that recent defectors of Republicans need to feel good with. It worked for the Democrats with Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and so-on. And right now, our modern JFK, Jimmy, or Bill, is John Edwards, which is why he's my safest bet to win. Yes, many of my Democratic friends think Hillary or Obama has a chanse, maybe they do. But I just don't see it.
Plus, Edwards is the only ONLY candidate with a good Healthcare plan.
Who's gona win in 2008?
Hot off the press... MSNBC... reporting on a recent poll... "Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat: besting Giuliani 50 to 43 percent, among registered voters; beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, and defeating Romney 58 percent to 29 percent"
You'll enjoy this moment, Matt. We're talking in the break room at work, me and a "conservative". The news about Obama getting Secret Service protection sparked a conversation about his candidancy versus Clinton. Another Liberal and I agree that it's refreshing to have these two for consideration. The "conservative" chimes in that he would support Obama over Clinton... an "anybody but Clinton" sort of mentality but interesting nonetheless. He also said that the Repubs haven't got a chance in this next election so it's going to be important what Democrat gets the nomination.
Now I know you support Edwards and I'd be gald to hear your points again... this time for the public, please. I am still making up my mind. I lean towards both Clinton and Obama at the monent, and in that order.
I'd like to see a woman President. It's about time. For over 30 years I've been supporting the idea of more female represenation in Congress. After all, 51 percent of the population is Female (making them hardly a minority statistically) but they are represented by only three or four (can't recall the specifics) women in the Senate. So less than 5 percent of the highest deliberative, legislative body represents 51 percent of the population? That's nonsense! Women need to get out and support their candidates. If they do, then Clinton is a total "slam dunk" (I almost hesitate to use that word in light of recent Tenet testimony).
Obama, on the other hand, brings to the election, the Presidential "attitude" that Bush displayed in the 2000 election... that confident, full speed ahead, attitude that makes Americans wanna salute the flag. That's probably what gets the support of the "conservatives" like my office friend. They like the BigDaddy, "I'm gonna protect you and kick the butt of anyone who means to harm you" sort. Obama pushes right up to the edge of that without going into the Bush-bravado, swagger, flightsuit thing W did on Mission Accomplished Day.
So, it's interesting to note two things. One, A Democrat will win the election and it will probably be either a woman or a black if it's between Clinton and Obama. I predict a Clinton-Obama ticket and, therefore, BOTH will win. The question now is which order, Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton?
(Note: I use the term "conservative" to describe those who claim to be conservative because nowadays, they are not really conservative in the politically, historical sense of the word. Matt, you have a great way of defining this and I'll leave it to you to make your point. anyway, today's "conservatives" are not really conservative in the Goldwater sense of the word. Back then, they truely wanted less federal government and more local and state control. They wanted decisions made at a local level based on the "majority rule". The problem is, that doesn't work any more. Our problems today are global and international. Trying to solve them one state at a time isn't going to work anymore. More about this later... Today's conservative movement is really a mixture of fiscal tightwads, sometime libertarians, social/sexual repressives, ignorant, poorly educated or informed, well meaning social protectionists, lead by power and money hungry self promoters. There's little that really conservative in the movement that was there in 1980. The only thing conservative about the movement today is their use of the label "conservative". Matt you have some really excellent thoughts on this. Please share them!)
You'll enjoy this moment, Matt. We're talking in the break room at work, me and a "conservative". The news about Obama getting Secret Service protection sparked a conversation about his candidancy versus Clinton. Another Liberal and I agree that it's refreshing to have these two for consideration. The "conservative" chimes in that he would support Obama over Clinton... an "anybody but Clinton" sort of mentality but interesting nonetheless. He also said that the Repubs haven't got a chance in this next election so it's going to be important what Democrat gets the nomination.
Now I know you support Edwards and I'd be gald to hear your points again... this time for the public, please. I am still making up my mind. I lean towards both Clinton and Obama at the monent, and in that order.
I'd like to see a woman President. It's about time. For over 30 years I've been supporting the idea of more female represenation in Congress. After all, 51 percent of the population is Female (making them hardly a minority statistically) but they are represented by only three or four (can't recall the specifics) women in the Senate. So less than 5 percent of the highest deliberative, legislative body represents 51 percent of the population? That's nonsense! Women need to get out and support their candidates. If they do, then Clinton is a total "slam dunk" (I almost hesitate to use that word in light of recent Tenet testimony).
Obama, on the other hand, brings to the election, the Presidential "attitude" that Bush displayed in the 2000 election... that confident, full speed ahead, attitude that makes Americans wanna salute the flag. That's probably what gets the support of the "conservatives" like my office friend. They like the BigDaddy, "I'm gonna protect you and kick the butt of anyone who means to harm you" sort. Obama pushes right up to the edge of that without going into the Bush-bravado, swagger, flightsuit thing W did on Mission Accomplished Day.
So, it's interesting to note two things. One, A Democrat will win the election and it will probably be either a woman or a black if it's between Clinton and Obama. I predict a Clinton-Obama ticket and, therefore, BOTH will win. The question now is which order, Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton?
(Note: I use the term "conservative" to describe those who claim to be conservative because nowadays, they are not really conservative in the politically, historical sense of the word. Matt, you have a great way of defining this and I'll leave it to you to make your point. anyway, today's "conservatives" are not really conservative in the Goldwater sense of the word. Back then, they truely wanted less federal government and more local and state control. They wanted decisions made at a local level based on the "majority rule". The problem is, that doesn't work any more. Our problems today are global and international. Trying to solve them one state at a time isn't going to work anymore. More about this later... Today's conservative movement is really a mixture of fiscal tightwads, sometime libertarians, social/sexual repressives, ignorant, poorly educated or informed, well meaning social protectionists, lead by power and money hungry self promoters. There's little that really conservative in the movement that was there in 1980. The only thing conservative about the movement today is their use of the label "conservative". Matt you have some really excellent thoughts on this. Please share them!)
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Myspace=Myconservativespace?
As many may not know, Rupert Murdoch, the Propaganda Minister of the Bush Admin. Is now attempting to buy the Dow Jones, therin buying the Wall-Street Journal, as well as some other media related. But did you know that everyone's favorite site "Myspace" is actually owned by the Media Mogul of FOX news fame? Yes, Myspace is owned by Rupert "Fair and Balanced" Murdoch. Makes me raise an eyebrow at all the Democratic candidates so clamoring to nab one for their campaign. Now, they may not know, but I wonder what they'd do if they did know.
So, Myspace is probably another name for some sort of MyFOX? Hmmm.
Conservatives truly are conquering the world.
Scared yet?
So, Myspace is probably another name for some sort of MyFOX? Hmmm.
Conservatives truly are conquering the world.
Scared yet?
Conservative Memory
I had been talking about Conservative memory prior to the formation of this blog, so to save insult to any mentally deprived critters, I'll avoid comparison, but I have to note, how incredibly bad Republican or Neocon memory is.
Take the Gonzo Testimony, all the way back to the Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon Testimony, and all inquiry based appearences in between. They all have one thing in common: No, it's not that they have the looks of an acid burn victim, it's that their memory is comprised of 3 words: I don't recall.
"Mr Gonzales, why did you fire the Attorneys?"
AG "I don't recall"
"....okay. um, Mr. Gonzales, who's idea was it to terminate the Attorneys employment?"
AG "Mr chairman, I don't really recall"
"...can you tell us what you had for breakfast today?"
AG "Well Mr. Chairman...I seem to have forgot... I cant recall."
Now, Reagan had an excuse. He was ACTUALLY losing his mind when he said "I don't recall" so many times, but it seems a common trait of being able to magically forget everything and anything pretaining to any relevant information. (They COULDN'T have been lying, nawww, they're under oath! Naww they couldn't have! (not).
So what's going on here? Have the Men In Black lent these poor fools Neuralyzers to flash away all their memories? Are they like a computer, and someone pushed a magic button that made all those nasty incriminating memories go away? Hmmmm.
And I wonder how many times they could squeeze "I don't recall" out of King George, is they manage to plop his sappy ass on the whitness stand. Boy would THAT be a bad day for poor Bush. Remember when at a press confrence, Bush said "I always win"? This trait of disgusting "I always get my way", while tripping a little nowadays, is still strong. (Look at his "MYAHH! I'Muh Goins ta VETO THAT THAR BILL!"
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We need to cut these lying bastards down to size. If it means a futile impeachment hearing, so be it. I don't care anymore. These people need a dose of the REAL WORLD.
-Matt
Take the Gonzo Testimony, all the way back to the Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon Testimony, and all inquiry based appearences in between. They all have one thing in common: No, it's not that they have the looks of an acid burn victim, it's that their memory is comprised of 3 words: I don't recall.
"Mr Gonzales, why did you fire the Attorneys?"
AG "I don't recall"
"....okay. um, Mr. Gonzales, who's idea was it to terminate the Attorneys employment?"
AG "Mr chairman, I don't really recall"
"...can you tell us what you had for breakfast today?"
AG "Well Mr. Chairman...I seem to have forgot... I cant recall."
Now, Reagan had an excuse. He was ACTUALLY losing his mind when he said "I don't recall" so many times, but it seems a common trait of being able to magically forget everything and anything pretaining to any relevant information. (They COULDN'T have been lying, nawww, they're under oath! Naww they couldn't have! (not).
So what's going on here? Have the Men In Black lent these poor fools Neuralyzers to flash away all their memories? Are they like a computer, and someone pushed a magic button that made all those nasty incriminating memories go away? Hmmmm.
And I wonder how many times they could squeeze "I don't recall" out of King George, is they manage to plop his sappy ass on the whitness stand. Boy would THAT be a bad day for poor Bush. Remember when at a press confrence, Bush said "I always win"? This trait of disgusting "I always get my way", while tripping a little nowadays, is still strong. (Look at his "MYAHH! I'Muh Goins ta VETO THAT THAR BILL!"
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We need to cut these lying bastards down to size. If it means a futile impeachment hearing, so be it. I don't care anymore. These people need a dose of the REAL WORLD.
-Matt
Friday, May 4, 2007
The "Other" of the Two Liberals
Well, needless to say i've got some stuff to add here. Namely my general position on stuff, people, and things.
First off, I suppose I can classify myself as the kind of Liberal that Conservatives love to hate. (Which kind do they don't?)
I'm young (compared to most others in my political genre), but I take the time to understand people's points.
My friend Devon and I, seeing as we agree on almost everything regarding today's political climate, thank god this isn't going to be some sad "Hannity & Colmes" situation where a Right Wing Nut Job goes against a Psuedo Liberal. We're both very Liberal, we're both intelligent, we both probably should write a book, or get a radio show on Nova M or Air America, and, probably other stuff I'm forgetting to mention.
Alot of people who consider themselves Liberal are more passive against what I consider the scourge of Neo Conservatism. And I've recieved some critisizm from fellow Liberals (not Devon, thankfully) that I'm too "spiteful" and "hard" on NeoCons, or "Neeks" as I call them. Well, there are alot of things the Neeks do that piss me off, just like some things Democrats occasionally do that makes my eyes twitch, but there's one thing that I will always hold agains the Neeks of this country. It is, that they, ALL of them, be it Man-conservative, Woman-conservative, or even Youth-conservative, destroyed my countrie's values, morals, ethics, standing in the world, and most of all, they've destroyed nearly 4,000 people in said country, by supporting/starting a campaign of extermination of all things Muslim. When it comes to politics, while I find abundance in Intelligence and Rationality on our, the Liberals part, personally speaking, I'm happily lacking in the Mercy and Compassion for the Religious Right, that many other of my Liberal bretherin hold.
Anyway, on this Blog, I will post thoughts, ideas, compliments and critisizms, and I hope that this blog can catch on as time goes on.
And to the lovely fellows at the NSA who are reading this blog now, I'll give you five guesses which finger I hold up to your Neo-Nazi ways. ;)
-Matt
First off, I suppose I can classify myself as the kind of Liberal that Conservatives love to hate. (Which kind do they don't?)
I'm young (compared to most others in my political genre), but I take the time to understand people's points.
My friend Devon and I, seeing as we agree on almost everything regarding today's political climate, thank god this isn't going to be some sad "Hannity & Colmes" situation where a Right Wing Nut Job goes against a Psuedo Liberal. We're both very Liberal, we're both intelligent, we both probably should write a book, or get a radio show on Nova M or Air America, and, probably other stuff I'm forgetting to mention.
Alot of people who consider themselves Liberal are more passive against what I consider the scourge of Neo Conservatism. And I've recieved some critisizm from fellow Liberals (not Devon, thankfully) that I'm too "spiteful" and "hard" on NeoCons, or "Neeks" as I call them. Well, there are alot of things the Neeks do that piss me off, just like some things Democrats occasionally do that makes my eyes twitch, but there's one thing that I will always hold agains the Neeks of this country. It is, that they, ALL of them, be it Man-conservative, Woman-conservative, or even Youth-conservative, destroyed my countrie's values, morals, ethics, standing in the world, and most of all, they've destroyed nearly 4,000 people in said country, by supporting/starting a campaign of extermination of all things Muslim. When it comes to politics, while I find abundance in Intelligence and Rationality on our, the Liberals part, personally speaking, I'm happily lacking in the Mercy and Compassion for the Religious Right, that many other of my Liberal bretherin hold.
Anyway, on this Blog, I will post thoughts, ideas, compliments and critisizms, and I hope that this blog can catch on as time goes on.
And to the lovely fellows at the NSA who are reading this blog now, I'll give you five guesses which finger I hold up to your Neo-Nazi ways. ;)
-Matt
In the beginning...
So here's how it started... me and my bud, Matt were emailling back and forth about the travails of being a Liberal in a Conservative State. You see, we're pretty bright fellows and tend to think too much which is a trait we share with many of our fellow Liberals and in contrary to those who claim to be "conservative". In fact, here's a posting from our more recent rants about the lack of logic in the conservative arguments about most everything...
"I love being in the South in general but there's something in the drinking water here, I believe, that makes some people really illogical. They claim to be "conservatives" which would imply a gov't "hands off" orientation but then they expect the gov't to create and enforce laws restricting private, consentual behavior between adults, to sponsor bigorty and prejudice against minorities, to invoke long prison sentences for the most minor offenses, to subsidize their private, religious schools, to suspend habeus corpus as needed, to disallow tort case awards to hapless victims of big business' greed and incompetence and , and then they expect the gov't to not spend any money doing this! But, then, if they are the victims of circumstance, they want that same gov't to protect them. If there's a tornado or flood or hurricane or crop failure, they immediate dial, 1-800-big-govt and want money and help sent without hesitation! If someone wants them to secure their guns from children and "accidents", they fall over themselves to get the courts to protect their "rights". If their wife or daughter is raped, they suddenly think the "morning-after-pill" is okay and abortion is a vaiable option. If their child is molested, it's suddenly okay for the gov't to establish and pay for programs to monitor predators. In sum, most "conservatives" are situational. As long as they think they are in the majority and nothing happens to them to shake their foundation, they can remain that way. But as as soon as the bottom drops out on them, they find a clear path to the "other side". Just like "fox holes" cure atheism, calamity cures Conservatism!"
So we decided to start this blog and to make our thoughts public. Now I realize that's a freedom we enjoy in the USA but, trust me, there's a Conservative out there who would gladly take this right away in they could... another contradiction in logic. It's all just a part of living in Texas, being a part of a very exciting state with some very peculiar political "concepts". I hope you enjoy the thread...
"I love being in the South in general but there's something in the drinking water here, I believe, that makes some people really illogical. They claim to be "conservatives" which would imply a gov't "hands off" orientation but then they expect the gov't to create and enforce laws restricting private, consentual behavior between adults, to sponsor bigorty and prejudice against minorities, to invoke long prison sentences for the most minor offenses, to subsidize their private, religious schools, to suspend habeus corpus as needed, to disallow tort case awards to hapless victims of big business' greed and incompetence and , and then they expect the gov't to not spend any money doing this! But, then, if they are the victims of circumstance, they want that same gov't to protect them. If there's a tornado or flood or hurricane or crop failure, they immediate dial, 1-800-big-govt and want money and help sent without hesitation! If someone wants them to secure their guns from children and "accidents", they fall over themselves to get the courts to protect their "rights". If their wife or daughter is raped, they suddenly think the "morning-after-pill" is okay and abortion is a vaiable option. If their child is molested, it's suddenly okay for the gov't to establish and pay for programs to monitor predators. In sum, most "conservatives" are situational. As long as they think they are in the majority and nothing happens to them to shake their foundation, they can remain that way. But as as soon as the bottom drops out on them, they find a clear path to the "other side". Just like "fox holes" cure atheism, calamity cures Conservatism!"
So we decided to start this blog and to make our thoughts public. Now I realize that's a freedom we enjoy in the USA but, trust me, there's a Conservative out there who would gladly take this right away in they could... another contradiction in logic. It's all just a part of living in Texas, being a part of a very exciting state with some very peculiar political "concepts". I hope you enjoy the thread...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)